Ladies and Gentleman, did you know that the "useles Tories" did really badly on Thursday and the only reason people think they did well is because the BBC tells us so? It must be true because Peter Hitchens tells us so in his Mail on Sunday column. Yes, he really does get paid for writing such utter twaddle. In 650 words he gives you the real definition of the word "delusional".
Hitchens, Heffer and Portillo. Not had a good week, have they?
53 comments:
Maybe they are just bitter and twisted and can't face facts. The fact is that Labour are dead from the neck up and the Tories are on the way back in.
You've got to admit, though, that his blog "The Hitch" was funny while it lasted.
I used to have a lot of time for Peter Hitchens who has sensible ideas on crime and policing. However, I now believe he wishes to turn England into a fundamentalist Christian version of Iran. That's not England.
Making a valid point as I see it. The Tories are indulging themselves a wee too much if they think they are simply going to sail back into power. DC himself said as much. Complacency is dangerous. OK the economy may be heading south. But governments can win elections in recessions. Major did it. The key is the opposition's credibility. Kinnock had zip. This time have DC and GO got any? They seem to be mirroring Brown and his cretinous policies. Or proposing loony ones like the non dom shot in the foot taken up by Labour. I think the message of Thursday is the people are - at last - willing to consider voting Tory. But in a general election we will need policies and credibility. Still a lot to do there.
What Rohan said.
I think people are ready to consider voting Tory, but they won't vote for Tony Blair Mark II, which means the Tories need a new leader. A Conservative.
Verity, do give it a rest. 44%, 20% ahead of Labour, 300 gains. Surely even you can see the Tories do not need a new leader? And regardless of David Cameron's merits, do you eriously think the electorate would forgive a party which jettisoned its leader after its best election results for 40 years? Madness.
Perhaps Gordon Brown will suddenly turn round and announce a parliament for England, a referendum on the Lisburn Treaty and lots of other goodies...
I can dream.
Basically, I can't bear David "Sour Little Englanders" "The majority of British people want to stay in the EU" Cameron either.
It would be great to slam the door in his smug face.
The problem these chaps have is the internet. Time was that a pundit could get it totally wrong, but that their views would be so much chip-wrappers the next day and they could write as if the past does not exist. Heffer, Hitchens and Portillo exist in a world where their predictions that David Cameron was destined to fail unless he listened to, well, them are easily accessible to anyone who can type into a search box. So, they can't row back without looking idiotic, and they lack the character to admit they were hopelessly wrong. All that is left are bizarre explanations as to why black is white, hence both Heffer and Hitchens trying to pretend that everyone who didn't vote on May 1st was really a Labour supporter and that they would all come romping back to Brown in the General Election. Both actually have no clue about modern politics and have been joke columnists for years. Try seeing their writing as ironic comedy and it all makes sense.
It's about time we woke up to the fact that the gumment (any) does not rule us. Bureaucrats rule us. Gumments come & go; the bureaucracy remains as firmly attached to its empire as a limpet to a rock.
As a nation, the English are far too forgiving of their home-grown tormentors...we learned happily to ignore the foreign sort many years ago, simply because they were of small import.
The price we have paid...& are still paying...for that which has been imposed on us by the bureaucratic class...'politics' has really little to do with it...is mind-boggling; from swingeing taxation meant to support first-class (?) social services, but in fact further swelling a bloated empire-building (for that, by nature, is its purpose) army of Graundian jobsworths...to having, perforce, to share our country with 'cultures' so alien to our own that Venusians could be considered kissing-cousins.
I'm not troubled by bearded (mostly the men;-)) tofu-chomping knitting (mostly the women;-))sandal-wearers who advocate taking care of our environment...they are absolutely right, even if they are mostly city-dwellers who wouldn't recognise a cow if it sat on them.
No, it's the opportunistic sinecured bureautrots, ever eager to control & impose yet more taxes...'Small men dressed with brief authority.'? Would that it were only so...They are a home-grown army of occupation wielding absolute power over a complacent & complaisant, blinkered people. For them, 'Green' is not a colour; it's a big stick.
I just don't know where Hitchins is coming from or going to these days......... perhaps the programme "Grumpy Old Man" is his real destiny.
I see that ginger weasel Heffer was sticking the boot into Boris on Saturday, when it was him that wrote the infamous Liverpool editorial in Spectator. Boris took the punishment and was carpeted by Howard.
I would love to see Heffer given a good kicking.
He sends a least one child to Oundle and is trying to get in with any clown with with a double-barrelled (usual fake) name. He thinks he's some kind of knight of the shires, when in fact he's a nouveau with a bad attitude.
Arse.
The arguement for lack of policies is silly. Go on YouTube and watch the old PMQ's with John Major. He accused Tony Blair of lacking anything crediable and other Tory ministers mocked new Labour for having 3 different position in 3 days.
The Labour 1997 manifesto was nothing special, Blair just promised not to be John Major.
Some prat in the Telegraph yesterday had a letter about how the Tories had done so well despite having a socialist leader despised by the core vote, and could we imagine how well we'd have done with an electable real conservative leader blah blah blah.
Hague, IDS and Howard prove what rot it all is.
Press on Cameron, press on.
I second Rohan and Verity. And as for Iain's "twaddle" abuse, Hitchens makes a good point about the difference in turnout between local and general elections.
Quite early on after 1997, I was asking friends if they thought Blair was mad. Latterly, I had to turn the sound off whenever I saw him. I have voted Conservative once in my life (and never Labour), when Blair went to the country for the second time, but only as a protest vote - I live in a bomb-proof Labour fiefdom with a London-domiciled absentee landlord of an MP whom I've never seen or heard.
But am I convinced that the Tories have better answers? There's a d--n sight more to do about the situation we're all in, than sit about crowing that it'll be Buggins' turn next.
We face long-term, massive issues re the economy, our system of political representation, our freedom to govern ourselves (how much longer before Westminster is simply irrelevant?), education, physical security, healthcare, family and social breakdown, criminality... I live and work among what used to be the working class, when there was work for them. From here, it looks as bleak and defeated as in the mid Seventies. The disillusionment that has led to the savaging of Labour in these latest polls, is ready to turn on the next administration if it doesn't have some radical proposals and quick successes. In fact, it might almost be worth losing the next General Election, if all one cared about was a long time in power.
I think Hitchens and many others are missing a vital point:
In 1997, the economy had really picked up and many Tory voters (I know, I was out there canvassing every day) felt it was OK to vote for a change because their wallets were full.
Any election now is, I suspect, going to be fought along much the same emotional lines as in 1979 - fear of growing strikes, fear of high taxation, rising inflation, house repossession, etc.
I actually don't understand what he's trying to put accross, I had to stop reading halfway through... Looking at the maths side of things seems a lot simpler. More seats for the Tories = good job. Massive losses for Labour = bad job. Why all the twists and turns? I really don't understand what the problem is!
Iain - I am sorry to have displeased our generous host, but I do not see any hunger for a Cameron administration. Hatred of Gordon Brown and the socialists does not translate into enthusiasm for more ZanuLab policies but administered by a different party and a different face.
I am sorry, Iain, but Cameron does not generate enthusiasm and hope. He has promised to match the socialists' insane spending plans! That is because he is fearful that madcap spending in the public sector is what the electorate wants, which tells us he hasn't actually got the faintest idea of what the electorate want.
He is not bold. You may say he's keeping his powder dry, but as Judith astutely asked the other day, "What if he has no powder"?
Hitchens wrote:
"The Tories are still quite capable of losing the next General Election. Even if they do manage to win it, they will govern almost exactly as Gordon Brown.
Nothing will change except the face and the accent.
...
the Government [after Blair replaced Major] was almost exactly the same – high taxes, slovenly services, hundreds of thousands of people in baseball caps living off the State, feeble police and courts, mass immigration.
...
[the Left] feared that, if it [the Tory Party] collapsed, a proper pro-British Party might rise from the ruins, a possibility they dread."
He is correct.
So the policies we would like to vote for are: a renegotiated relationship with the European Union. No ratification of the Lisbon EU Constitution. We would prefer the Norwegian or Swiss model.
Lower direct and indirect taxes. No we don't accept that lower taxes will reduce the quality of the state education system (difficult to do as that would be) or reduce the quality of service offered by the NHS. A swathe cut through the management, outsourced, PFI and other privatised plunderings of our tax paid-for provision would work wonders for the tax bill though.
No more propagandistic greenery. Yes, we need to take care of our resources and our environment; yes we can conserve our part of the planet in a multispecies respecting, energy efficient, caring fashion. But no more taxes, rather incentives to sustain green objectives.
No more surveillance and withdraw the intrusive authoritarian measures in place. Take the government's nose out of our lives.
Speak up Mr Cameron. We can't hear you.
In 18 years in opposition, Labour only once (in 1995) polled higher than 44% on Projected Vote Share for local elections. Conservatives never got as low as 24%.
Of course the general election isn't won yet but to pretend that these results are anything other than great for Conservatives and absolutely terrible for Labour is ludicrous.
Quote
The Left-wing media were once again deeply involved in . . . an effort to save the Tory Party from collapse. Because they feared that, if it collapsed, a proper pro-British Party might rise from the ruins.
Surely a B-film conspiracy plot. Think 'they' might be Al-Qaeda?
Easy to grumble, but whom would you want instead of Cameron then? Not a hypothetical perfect white knight but a real person
It is fallacious to say that as the local results were 'stunning' and the polls are high therefore all is well with the direction of the party under the leader and his team. Well err no. First, polls change. Gordon Brown could tell you that. So I think they are encouraging but no more. Second, the locals were as Hitchens points out based on a low turn out. Plus they were geographically limited. Thus we have no idea how the Tories might fair in Scotland, where they need to make progress to be a UK force again, or for that matter against the Lib Dems in the South West. The London result is different. London is a different place electorally. Its more presidential and thus there is greater focus on the candidates and their personalities etc. The Assembly is different again. And Labour were not routed there. Although the Conservatives (34% of the vote London wide, a fairly interesting stat. Labour 27%) are the largest party they lack an overall majority. So while it was marvelous to see Brown getting a good kicking last week I think we shouldn't read too much into it. Where I am disappointed is that the opposition front bench seems to think that a slick PR operation is enough to finish Brown. Its not. The jackboots of credible opposition policy are needed in addition to finish the job.
Iain,
Congrats on the recent success and congrats to Boris. I'm sure he will do the sort of job we all expect from him, and I mean that in a nice way.
I think you are a little unfair on Verity with the "give it a rest". Is it not true that the Con lead is a result in the collapse of the Labour vote and a good turn out for the Conservatives. If Labour can get their support out in a general election wouldn't the results look very different?
I would love to want to vote Conservative (and not just want to vote for Boris) but their policies seem little different. Am I expected to take on trust that the Conservatives stand for less Gvnt, more liberty and less of the ghastly European Union superstate?
Bonkers makes a couple of points:
Firstly, the turnout at the local elections was very low (35%) and the results are no guide as to what would happen at a general election.
Secondly, as Gore Vidal once said of America, we have one political party with two right wings.
Bonkers points out that New Labour has followed the same policies as the last Tory administration.
This demonstrates the similarity between the parties.
Bonkers predicts that Cameron will follow the same policies too.
Far from being deluded, Bonkers is quite correct.
And he can spell "useless".
Peter Hitchens used to be a hard left Trotskyite. Whilst one welcomes a repentant sinner, his conversion is slightly suspicious as it's almost too good to be true. It would put St. Paul to shame.
His articles on foreign affairs are always quite interesting, but then he starts trotting out tired old cliches.
Reading his column sometimes feels like you're being ranted at by an irate ex-colonist.
Iain,
Hitchens is obviously doing what Oborne and others do - the bidding of their editor in chief and personal friend of the BROON MAN!
I never read The Mail or Sunday Mail as they, like Brown, have forgotten their roots!
The Telegraph is rediscovering that it is popular to support the Tories now! At least they have a good columinstin that Iain Dale!!!
Heffer is just that an F'er!
BUT dont dance on the Labour Party grave just yet!
Love it when Hitch touches a nerve........and is spot on!
I'm supsised to see that on Wikipedia there is more information written about Hitchens than other notable people like Evelyn Waugh, Max Von Sydow, Bram Stoker, Alec Douglas-Home and four out of six wives of Henry VIII
Now, I'm not accusing Hitchens of being egotistical...
My problem with Hitchens is that his views on tax, Europe, etc once seemed aimed at improving the political life of the UK. But now they all seem to be part of a crusade to create a moral country. Alas, it's one based on Hitchens' morality, the latest update on which includes making it harder for loveless marriages to end and preventing divorce if the man doesn't want it.
One of Hitchens' acolytes posted as a comment on his blog last week that they aren't persecuting people, they don't hate homosexuals, they just want policies which will reduce.
Remember how Tony Benn used to be characterised (not always unfairly) as the guy with mad, swivelling eyes? Watch Hitchens next time he's on Question Time. When he speaks, his eys aren't fixed on his fellow panellists or even the audience. They're fixed on some point above the audience, perhaps drawing inspiration from his heavenly hotline.
Yeah, I've tried countless times arguing with him on his blog about the Tories and its current position but he won't have any of it.
Drop by the marvelous and utterly insane Boatang&Demetriou blog if you fancy seeing what we have to say on politics and stuff.
Long live Boris! And lead on the Tories...2010 and beyond......
http://boatangdemetriou.wordpress.com/
Mr Hitchens has a right to his opinion. Not every tory has to back the new tories.
Not every labour supporter backed New Labour. I think you should accept Hitches has a right to dissagree. He is not a tory MP, or a Tory candidate. So why do you need to get angry at him having a different view. It is not as if he support my party the labour party. He has a right to his sincere view.
I like to see Hitchens on TV. I dissagree iwht him but he has charimsa. :
***One of Hitchens' acolytes posted as a comment on his blog last week that they aren't persecuting people, they don't hate homosexuals, they just want policies which will reduce.***
Sorry, that post should of course have read: "they just want policies which will reduce them."
Well, lots of policies are available. Compulsory euthanasia, criminalisation, lynching, hormone injections by court order. However, I think that such policies have been tried before in history without necessarily producing the perfect moral society.
Zeddy - As on Iain's blog, some of the posters have thoughts and beliefs that he may not agree with. That Mr Hitchens runs a democratic blog and allows views that he finds distasteful to be posted, as does Iain Dale, is to his credit. Why do you call a poster who sent a comment in "an acolyte" of Mr Hitchens?
Zeddy, I don't believe we've seen your name or read your pedestrian, faux indignant posts before. New around here, are you? Where do you normally post? CiF?
Hitchens is thoroughly despicable. I don't know what makes him imagine he's something special and he can go round being an expert on everything. One thinks of his assertion today that:
"There's no such thing as "addiction".
People take drugs, smoke, drink too much and eat until they turn into lard balloons because they want to, more than they want to stop."
Who the hell is he to say that? Who gave him this divine right to swan around judging everyone?
In my own private blog, I'm going to write a post abusing him. But the readership is restricted to 4 people. Though, having said that, they are the elite so it will be more influential than you may think.
permex
" home-grown tormentors...we learned happily to ignore the foreign sort many years ago, simply because they were of small import.
"
Umm, what about the growing political clout of the EU ? Newly reinforced with a self-amending treaty - it now has carte blanche regarding such things.
Well done Boris! Well done the Conservative Party. I am as please as anyone that the Labour party have been given a good kicking but a lot now rests on what Boris and the Conservaties do between no and any general Election in London and elsewhere. I am a little worried by some of Boris' pronouncements which seem to indicate a softly, softly, liberal hnad wringing approach to everything and a desire to be universally loved.
Yes, crime in London and everywhere else needs sorting, but 400 PCSO's on the buses isn't the answer. What is the answer is 400 extra police officers and getting the majority of the other 25K officers penned up in NSY 1 and NSY2 (@ Earls Court) and in buildings, squads and directorates across the capital fiddling crime figures and responding to government targets OUT! In London, Sir Ian Bliar and the rest of his pathetic management board should be given a swift boot up the arse!
The Tories, when they come to power can then tackle the other bits of the equation - prison space (MORE!), Human Rights Act (REPEAL!) and immigration (STOP!) and illegal immigrants (BOOT OUT!). Any talk of an Amnesty for illegals isn't the way forward. Neither is any talk of Paddick as chairman of the MPA.
There ought to be detailed examination of anything and everything petaining to Livingstone and his administration, charges should be brought and the criminal investigation into Lee Jasper et al should now continue, hopefully with that corrupt man doing a spot of time and losing his generaously subsidised accommodation. Where did ALL THE MONEY GO?
What those of us who voted Conservative want is CHANGE. So watch the back slapping, keep Boris in line and GO FOR IT!
Asquith, actually, I agree with Hitchens, almost. I think there is such a thing as addiction, but it is not hard to get over it. I used to smoke 60 cigarettes a day, and an additional pack of 20 (this was America; no mean-spirited cheaty little packs) if I was out in the evening. I loved smoking. If I hadn't smoked my quota during the day, I stayed up to finish it off.
You might say I was addicted to nicotine. I was an Olympic Gold Medallist smoker. Then one day, I thought, "I don't want to do this any more." I bought some packs in reserve, just in case, stayed up until I'd smoked the last opened pack, threw the empty pack in the garbage and woke up the following day a non-smoker. I never went back.
One of those inexplicably famous rock guitarists let the cat out of the bag for all the self-dramatisers, saying giving up drugs isn't really that difficult. You just have to want to.
So I understand why Mr Hitchens wrote as he did.
Verity, your point of view is understandable. I believe people can help themselves and be self-reliant. But if often happens that they need a hand up because they won't wake up one morning and turn themselves around. They need a bit of help, then they can do the rest of the running themselves. But shouting abuse at people and telling them they're weak won't help.
We both know that the socialist "solutions" are not constructive. But I think undue harshness won't work either. I do not believe that the problems people have are insurmountable, but they are problems still.
If someone wants to quit smoking, drugs,alcohol, whatever, they will do so. I also had a friend, at around the same time, who was so addicted to smoking he had a special ashtray designed and made so he could smoke in the shower. He, too, one day, thought, "I don't want to do this any more" and, like me, simply quit. And never went back.
The addiction industry is big business.
***Zeddy, I don't believe we've seen your name or read your pedestrian, faux indignant posts before. New around here, are you? Where do you normally post? CiF?***
Verity, sweetie-pie, just because you have a longer history of being pedestrian than I do doesn't make any thought that crosses your mind (not a long journey) any more important than anyone else's thoughts.
As for where I usually post, it's a place called reality. So I can see why you'd be unfamiliar with it.
Love and kisses
xxx
Verity, I fear you are mistaken in attributing to me the quote "does he (Cameron) have any powder?".
I sincerely believe that Cameron took on a phenomenally difficult job, and that he has done, and is doing, what is needed to make us electable again.
There are policies which, were I to be a benign Dictator, I would love to introduce to the UK -
an exit from the EU, pronto
extremely low flat taxation
controlled immigration
miniscule government
etc, all of which I am sure would find favour with you.
But (forgive the cliche) wake up and smell the coffee. A huge majority of the electorate, and not just the great unwashed, will not/never agree with thee and me.
Cameron is very far from being a fool, but he is very much a pragmatist. The 'heir to Blair' quote related to his perception of the need to change the Tory Party in the same way that Blair had to modernise his Party to get it elected.
And to complain about the low turnout in the local elections is ill-advised - local elections always have a low turnout nowadays.
Finally, it would be suicidal craziness to think about ditching Cameron - six months ago, how many people thought we had a chance of winning London. We are on the way back, and to lament and wail that we aren't immediately in Utopia is counter-productive and rather saddening to all those of us who are actually working at the coal-face.
Love, Judith
Judith, I do apologise for the misattribution. Given what had gone before, the comment "What if he doesn't have any powder" was funny and ascerbic. And it was from a woman. Usually that would be you or Auntie Flo'.
On reflection, I might have read the comment on a Speccie thread. In any event, I apologise for the misattribution.
I read the Hitchens article and was reminded that I have reservations about the Cameron Tories despite the performance at the local elections. Boris and Dave are an unlikely double act and seem as sincere as Tone.
No Hitchens is spot on with this article. Nulabour/Nutories same hymn sheet.
While it is tremendous fun watching Labour implode, and the electorate quite rightly gave them a shoeing, I'm not sure they love DC half as much as they hate GB.
Even though the Tory votes are (IMHO) more anti-Lab than pro-Tory, it IS an achievement of Cameron's to have made them an acceptable choice again, to have 'rehabilitated the brand' as he'll probably put it.
Unfortunately to do this he's had to compromise on some things that Hitch (and I) are uncomfortable about. That's politics, I guess.
Let's get one thing straight - Labour is now a dead duck. The whole Labour identity for the last 11 years has been increasing taxes to pay for 'better' services. Nobody I know (except maybe one who has got rich off of Sure Start) thinks services have improved.
People have had enough, they can't afford their mortgage, to eat the way the used to, go out and socialise and the car has now become a means to get to work and back.
The popoulation is crying out for lower taxes and more self-responsibility. It won't come as the economy is about to implode but, if Labour try to hang on to power now they will NEVER regain power again. The party will implode on the same lines as the economy.
The best thing Labour could do right now is ensure a confidence vote in Parliament, lose and let the Tories take the can.
yak40:
'Umm, what about the growing political clout of the EU ? Newly reinforced with a self-amending treaty - it now has carte blanche regarding such things.'
Oh oh oh...misunderstand me not, please. That is another, although undisparate, can of worms.
The expression "He is his own worst enemy" was lurking in the back of my mind when I penned my last rant...and surely WE are OURS.
The EU did not just happen...we allowed it to happen.
In just the same way we have allowed a self-serving/perpetuating bureaucracy to make the rules by which we live. Remember, neither it (homegrown) nor the EU leeches were elected but given your famous 'carte blanche' by venal politicians ADVISED by those self-same bloodsuckers.
Since you bring up the EU, I ask myself (on the basis that the leopard doesn't change its spots) if it is any coincidence that Il Presidente Barroso & 'Foreign Minister' Xavier Solana are both former Communists...unelected supremos of an unelected bureaucracy called the EU. The USSR may be a thing of the past, thank goodness, but the religion which gave birth to it is alive & well, wearing a camouflage-suit, in Brussels...kid yourselves at your mortal peril.
British bureaucracy is simply Brussels writ smaller...like an Irukanji!!!!!
Gallimaufry writes: "However, I now believe he [Peter Hitchens] wishes to turn England into a fundamentalist Christian version of Iran."
Could you articulate why you "now believe" this? Perhaps with some fundamentalist quotes from Mr Hitchens, for example?
And why Iran? Because it's been in the news? Why not Saudi Arabia? Why not Somalia? Both equally ruthless shariah-lovers. Why, in particular, did you choose Iran?
Also, why do you think that Mr Hitchens is such a political naif that he believes he could "turn England" into anything?
Has it ever occured to you that Cameron's liberalisation might be good not just for "pragmatic" reasons, but because it's good in itself, and the Tory party is more agreeable than it was 5 years ago? Anyone?
As this seems to have turned into the 'Verity' blog I'll address just one of her mistakes:
That Mr Hitchens runs a democratic blog and allows views that he finds distasteful to be posted,
No he doesn't - it's run and moderated by the Mail group and lots of people don't get their comments published - if you got your nose out of Hitchens' backside you might just wake up and smell the coffee.
And in anticipation of your reply -> up yours Verity!
I used to have a lot of time for Hitchins but he lost it long ago - what a shame
Strapworld writes:
I never read The Mail or Sunday Mail as they, like Brown, have forgotten their roots!
The Mail's roots? "Hurrah for the Blackshirts!"
They may pretend to have forgotten, but the rest of us haven't.
Verity always seems to come back to how many fags she used to smoke, how bizarre.
Iain, you are spot on. Htichens is one of the most deluded people I have spoken to or debated with. He has backed himself into such a corner with this Tory collapse business that to back down would mean humiliation.
What makes it worse is, even when pressed, he cannot suggest a replacement party. A right-wing grouping would simply just arrive at the gates and the country would march with it to victory in a strange mix of nationalisation, low taxes and moral dictatorship.
The fact this has been attempted by the Tories previously with horrific results escapes him.
Then of course we have the claim that the Tories are socially democratic lefties, yet all the right-wingers who make that claim do/used to vote for them.
Gallimaufry is spot on.
Post a Comment