tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post3295755833342873518..comments2024-03-04T17:54:32.559+00:00Comments on Iain Dale's Diary: Hitchens, Dale & Vaizey on VideoIain Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-85555823064810464702009-04-25T10:46:00.000+01:002009-04-25T10:46:00.000+01:00Stan,
Even if you're not drunk you should be caref...Stan,<br />Even if you're not drunk you should be careful not to flash your wallet around too much, but rather keep it tucked discreetly away in your pocket.<br /><br />WV: robluTwighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16698620636313191152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-11305823668731080182009-04-24T22:41:00.000+01:002009-04-24T22:41:00.000+01:00"Personally it is my view that if Peter Hitchens w..."Personally it is my view that if Peter Hitchens were passed out in front of me and wearing nothing but a smile it should not make it legally more acceptable (or morally acceptable) for me or anyone else to hurt him in any way or force anything upon him."<br /><br />If you can tell me where Hitchen's says that it is legally or morally acceptable to rape a woman then please point it out - because I can not see that in the article. Nor does he say women shouldn't go out looking "attractive" - just the opposite in fact - what he says is that in a Britain where there are few moral restraints and few deterrents to commit crime then it falls upon each of us to be aware of how our actions can have unintended consequences. I'm sure Hitchens, like me, would prefer a Britain where a drunk woman can pass out comatose in the park and not be molested - just as we'd prefer it if we, as men passed out, we'd wake up with our wallets still in our pocket. Chances are we wouldn't. It's how it used to be, but it's not how the world is today.<br /><br />His argument, as far as I can make it is that the reduction in compensation does not make it more or less "OK" to rape a woman - it just reflects the reality that the woman who is drunk and passed out on the street made less effort to avoid being in that situation than a woman who may wake up in her own bedroom in her own home behind her own locked doors to find an intruder forcing himself upon her.<br /><br />Compensation for being the victim of crime is a contentious issue anyway - who pays for it? We - the taxpayer - do. Just like am insurance company would expect someone to take reasonable steps to ensure their car can not be stolen, it's not unreasonable to suggest that if you leave the car unlocked with the keys in the ignition then maybe you shouldn't get such a big payout.<br /><br />But let me reiterate - nowhere does Hitchens say it is more or less acceptable (morally or legally) to rape a woman just because she is drunk. You're placing an interpretation on his words that doesn't exist.<br /><br />It's such a silly argument too - does anyone really believe that any amount of money can compensate a woman for being raped? I don't. Wouldn't it be better if we had a decent law-abiding society where women could go out and get as drunk as they wanted without worrying about being raped? I think so - and I'm sure Hitchens does too. The question is - what are we going to do about it?<br /><br />The liberal left think that the answer is to make it easier to prosecute rapists, but all that does is deal with the aftermath - and not very effectively - it does nothing to address the moral breakdown of society that has led to the situation arising in the first place. We need to deal with the disease - not the symptoms.<br /><br />The libertarians argue that the rule of law is enough - but the rule of law is only effective as long as their exists a belief that you will be ultimately be punished for your crimes even if you are never caught. In the absence of God from society - who believes that? In the absence of an omnipresent God, the alternative is to create a society where every thing we do, everywhere we go, every action we make is watched, monitored and recorded - the omnipresent state.<br /><br />However much they try, though, the state can not watch every one of us every minute of every day - but that doesn't stop them trying.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15007863347348182876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-53249729409130529272009-04-24T10:36:00.000+01:002009-04-24T10:36:00.000+01:00Stan - if that's what you understood from the Hitc...Stan - if that's what you understood from the Hitchens article then you think that if it gives you comfort. <br /><br />Personally it is my view that if Peter Hitchens were passed out in front of me and wearing nothing but a smile it should not make it legally more acceptable (or morally acceptable) for me or anyone else to hurt him in any way or force anything upon him. And I don't think he should 'take responsibility' for making sure he doesn't wear shorts in public lest someone is inflamed with desire for his body and decides to force their penis into him for their pleasure. <br /><br />I don't think he should make sure he doesn't look too attractive. I think he should be free to live and wear what he pleases within the law, as should we all, and that the law shouldn't bend to accomodate the lack of self-restraint of a rapist or lack of other people taking responsibility for their own actions, such as rape. <br /><br />If someone was dead on the street it would not make it more ok, in my view, for someone to use them for sex. SOME THINGS ARE JUST WRONG! But presumably you and Hitchens wouldn't blame the victim for dying? Or should they have taken more care to have died in a safer envirnoment??<br /><br />The victim doesn't make rapists rape. Only the rapist chooses to do that. And most rapes are carried out by people known and trusted by the victim, not strangers in a park. Rape isn't usually about sexual gratification as much as it is about power. And RAPE should be punished, not the victim.Philipahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440234602399886097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-22425714562004279622009-04-23T23:17:00.000+01:002009-04-23T23:17:00.000+01:00OK - I should have been more specific - women who ...OK - I should have been more specific - women who want to work. Not all of them did, quite a few would rather not have to.<br /><br />With regards to the Hitchens piece - I read that (rather than the article you linked to) and all he seems to be saying is that we all ought to take some responsibility for our actions and the consequences resulting from those actions - something I don't disagree with.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15007863347348182876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-90889920497591238712009-04-23T18:55:00.000+01:002009-04-23T18:55:00.000+01:00Stan - women a narrow section of society? As in ha...Stan - women a narrow section of society? As in half of it? Hmn.<br /><br />Yeah sorry about the link I meant to reference <A HREF="http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2008/08/when-your-brother-is-stupid-fktard.html" REL="nofollow">this one</A> which links to Peter Pompous-pants original article but also offers comment (He doesn't like to be addressed by his personal identifier he says, but by his family name. Which can confuse him with his brother but there you go)Philipahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440234602399886097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-21889666035312903552009-04-23T16:36:00.000+01:002009-04-23T16:36:00.000+01:00By the way, I followed the link but couldn't find ...By the way, I followed the link but couldn't find anything on there linking to Hitchen's views on rape. The article seems to suggesting that there is an assumption (by Hitchen's?) that women who go out skimpily dressed and get blind drunk are asking to be raped - which is not a position I hold and one that I doubt many men of my generation would.<br /><br />But we were brought up in very different times.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15007863347348182876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-53495795064721996702009-04-23T16:26:00.000+01:002009-04-23T16:26:00.000+01:00Appreciate that about equal pay, Philipa - but the...Appreciate that about equal pay, Philipa - but there was already progress being made along those lines long before progressive liberalism came along. That progress was (and is) driven by the basic laws of market economics - supply and demand - more than political doctrine.<br /><br />I'd also argue that actually relates to one particular narrow section of society - women - rather than society as a whole. You could claim the same for a number of other sections of society, but the point still remains that, overall, society has seen a significant decline.<br /><br />It's relatively easy to improve aspects of society for specific sections of that society - the trick is getting the balance so that society benefits as a whole rather than a particular group. Clearly that has not happened.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15007863347348182876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-66921907051390156262009-04-23T10:33:00.000+01:002009-04-23T10:33:00.000+01:00Stan - thanks for your reply but there has been so...Stan - thanks for your reply but there has been societal progress of a most positive kind in the last 50 years - legislation has been passed that states that a woman and a man doing the same job should get the same pay. That it's sometimes ignored is still a problem but there are other good things such as women being able to rent property and get credit (eg. a mortgage) in her own right. We no longer have to sleep with the landlord (ie. husband). But I think PH is correct that many things have been sold to women as progress that weren't and also things that have an unfortunate unforseen consequence, such as the pill. In fact his take on womens issues are so insightful I'm all the more disappointed by his views on <A HREF="http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/08/geez-when-will-women-stop-getting.html" REL="nofollow">rape</A>. <br /><br />The 'Blair babes' made me sick. And the women simpered along with it. You are so right, Stan - politicians should come up with answers to societal problems but all they seek is office, not progress.Philipahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440234602399886097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-62503853865291526222009-04-23T00:08:00.000+01:002009-04-23T00:08:00.000+01:00Fair enough, Philipa - I realised that the comment...Fair enough, Philipa - I realised that the comments were from someone else called Field, but I thought you were generally in agreement with them. Apologies for misconstruing your views.<br /><br />I'm the first to concede that there has indeed been progress in the last fifty years of "social liberalism" - but the progress has been technological and medical - not societal - and that progress would have occured had we remained socially conservative (maybe more so, but who can know). At societal level there has been no progress in the last fifty years and every indication - particularly with education - that we are, in fact, going backwards. Given the huge technological advances of the second half of the 20th century - travel, communications, science - we should have been far in advance of where we currently are.<br /><br />The last fifty years has been one huge progressive experiment whihc has clearly failed - and yet all Iain and the rest of Tory party (and, indeed, all our main parties) can do is advocate more of the same! It's barmy!<br /><br />As far as Hitchens is concerned - I read his blog and generally consider his views on most things to be similar to mine (I don't know what his views are on rape), but he is annoyingly reticent to offer solutions.<br /><br />Then again, when he does he is often accused of being a dinosaur who wants to "turn back the clock" - so I can understand why all he does is offer up usually valid criticisms. After all, it isn't his job to provide the answers - that's what politicians are supposed to be for!<br /><br />Such a shame that none of them have any.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15007863347348182876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-25680533943595477082009-04-22T14:22:00.000+01:002009-04-22T14:22:00.000+01:00Stan -
they weren't my views you cite, they were...Stan - <br /><br />they weren't my views you cite, they were the views of 'Field'. I merely made the point that Hitchens views hadn't changed for many years and this was a comment made in 2005. Also that people who disagree with Hitchens aren't necessarily unfamiliar with his work or 'loyalist Tories', they simply disagree. (Didn't Rousseau make the same mistake - assuming that if people understood his views, his argument, they would agree?) Actually I was trying to consider history, which you ably did. Thank you. I can't disagree with you and so agree with the Young Ogliarch too.<br /><br />My own position is that while I agree with Hitchens observations (as Field says he's good at declaring the emperor has no clothes) I don't altogether agree with Hitchens solutions. For example I don't agree with lifelong marriage as it was in Tudor times. There has to be some get-out clause for bad behaviour such as physical or sexual violence in the family. However the divorce laws today seem divisive and unhelpful. We've gone from the pan to the fire.<br /><br />Peter Hitchens views on rape are disgusting to me. <br /><br />He has the view that you should not cherry-pick religion and contends that marriage is for life. Yet Deuteronomy positively lists cause for casting ones spouse away and taking another. I think Field makes the case that religious observance will never be what it was. It is my view that Islam is encroaching on our society and we should consider that. Field is correct that Hitchens has praised Islam's conservatism and religious consistency.<br /><br />There is much about our yesterday that should be preserved. But there were reasons for our today that should not be ignored. If we turn the clock back to recreate those problems that's not progress either.<br /><br />PS: I too have read the Ab. of Britain. Read his rants in the MoS, read his excellent articles from abroad, watched him in debate and argued with him personally. Arguing with him can be like Barbarella being tortured but it did chafe after a while.Philipahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440234602399886097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-41804994073096599612009-04-22T11:34:00.000+01:002009-04-22T11:34:00.000+01:00Stan
Spot on ! Too many people , even those who c...Stan<br /><br />Spot on ! Too many people , even those who consider themselves on "the right" , have bought into the Leftie fantasy of unparallelled progress from our previous misery and servitude . We are clearly spiritually and morally worse off than 50 years ago . Just about every social problem has got worse and many new ones have been created . <br />We have very little of the freedom we once enjoyed and many live in fear of cultural Marxism in the form of Political Correctness (surely the ultimate oxymoron ?).<br />Peter Hitchens is generally correct in his observations about this . I recently read his book "The Abolition of Britain". His observations about our vanished decency spark memories that "Progressive" social and historical revisionism can't obscure .<br />Anyone who doesn't want to stand up to this can hardly call himself a conservative .The Young Oligarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00043892251035601945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-67254864738130666252009-04-22T09:46:00.000+01:002009-04-22T09:46:00.000+01:00Philippa said ...
"
Whilst it is true that 50 - 60...Philippa said ...<br />"<br />Whilst it is true that 50 - 60 years ago the UK was a much more law abiding society and the streets were much safer, there was much that was wrong about it: grinding poverty for many, hidden sexual abuse, violence towards children, very low levels of educational achievement, unmerited deference."<br /><br />Do you really believe that is true? Do you really believe it is any better today?<br /><br />Grinding levels of poverty - by what measure? By comparison to Victorian times the poor were positively affluent! The point being that real progress on poverty was being made even then - and despite the country having recently gone through a war.<br /><br />Hidden sexual abuse - against whom? Are you talking about domestic violence - which is more prevalent today than it has ever been - or abuse of children by their parents - which is as prevalent today as it has ever been.<br /><br />Violence towards children - how many kids have been stabbed to death this year? How many in 1960?<br /><br />Very low levesl of educational achievement - patently laughable in a nation where half our children leave school barely able to read or write.<br /><br />Unmerited deference - to whom? I suspect what that refers to is the fact Britain used to considerate it rude and impolite to brag to a grandfather that you'd shagged their granddaughter.<br /><br />All those things you cite are as prevalent today as they have always been - and in many instances much much worse. And, as you point out - the streets were safer and the people more law-abiding as well. So, after fifty years of progressive (social) liberalism we've solved none of the problems you claim existed before the experiment started, but we have lawlessness and dangerous streets. Wow - some progress!Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15007863347348182876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-2255372601052887682009-04-22T03:47:00.000+01:002009-04-22T03:47:00.000+01:00Apologies for the Edwin Chadwick bit , Verity . I ...Apologies for the Edwin Chadwick bit , Verity . I mis-read your original post .<br />Your views on restricting the franchise to an even greater extent than in 1832 remain , however , barking . <br />Who will nominate the members for the resultant rotten boroughs where no electors exist ? Will it be the Trade Unions or the Lord Lieutenant of the county ?The Young Oligarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00043892251035601945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-79577707053224232482009-04-21T17:41:00.000+01:002009-04-21T17:41:00.000+01:00Apologies to Iain for sugesting microphone purloin...Apologies to Iain for sugesting microphone purloining! As my guru used to say 'don't judge anything till you know all the facts'.niconoclasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11346612911422614130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-23716963798093252352009-04-21T15:11:00.000+01:002009-04-21T15:11:00.000+01:00As Peter Hitchens made me remember this comedy vid...As Peter Hitchens made me remember <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m0YYy9lqqs&feature=player_embedded" REL="nofollow">this comedy vid</A> then I guess I should post the link on this thread. Watch til the end to get the best laugh.<br /><br />But Iain, if I can refer to another thread are you going to publish your hopes for the Budget before it is revealed?Philipahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440234602399886097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-83230326485726158062009-04-21T14:46:00.000+01:002009-04-21T14:46:00.000+01:00Further to the reform of the charity sector, other...Further to the reform of the charity sector, other than disenfranchising the non-producers, we have to address the way we sustain them. Giving them money for TVs, cigarettes, beer, lottery tickets and other discretional spending is outrageously unjust to people who work for a living and have to think twice before spending money on such products themselves.<br /><br />We should have adopted the American system of food stamps at least a decade ago. I can't remember at this point whether every supermarket accepts food stamps in the US, or just some. Anyway, food stamps can only be used for food. Any supermarket that lets someone through with a bottle of Coke or a bottle of shampoo on food stamps won't be reimbursed for those products by the Government. It's not a parallel currency. It's vouchers. It has worked in the US for 30 years and penalties for both recipients and stores who try to bend the rules are rather severe and involve long prison terms.<br /><br />Although I don't know if such exist, I would also introduce tokens for hygeine products. Bog roll, soap, detergent, etc.<br /><br />End of story. No cash. Non-producers should not have discretionary income, and making life sustainable, but much less pleasant on the dole might perk up some interest in going out to work.Veritynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-49170485685261813052009-04-21T14:36:00.000+01:002009-04-21T14:36:00.000+01:00The Young Oligarch writes that I seem confused. T...The Young Oligarch writes that I seem confused. The confusion is all yours, Oli. You say I don't suggest a way the non-working sustain themselves. Why should I? I didn't suggest any changes in that area. The same way they do now. Through enforced taxpayer charity. <br /><br />My point, as you appear to have missed it, is they should have the vote removed. So they cannot vote themselves ever larger shares of the national wealth in whose creation they played no role.<br /><br />Stan - No taxation without representation was a rallying cry in the United States almost three hundred years ago. In those early days, everyone was self-supporting , and when they struck some ill fortune, they were helped to recover their independence by neighbours and family. We're 300 years further on. We now have career, multi-generational charity freeloaders. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of them. <br /><br />I am in accord with you over the NHS and have so written many times. As the British public seem to love it the same way some women love an abusive husband, I would say, pragmatically, you could not at this stage dismantle it (although that should be the ultimate aim). Instead, taxpayers should be able to nominate the healthcare company that their NI deductions go to. Those who choose the NHS would continue to enjoy its many charms, efficiences, overstaffing and outright malice by directing their NI deductions to it.<br /><br />Those who nominated private companies to receive their NI deductions would be treated privately.Veritynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-24929101043766756222009-04-21T12:27:00.000+01:002009-04-21T12:27:00.000+01:00Peter Hitchens always seems to protest that if peo...Peter Hitchens always seems to protest that if people actually read his work we would see how correct and how wonderful he is (classic narcissist) He assumes that people don't read his work and dismisses them as "loyalist Tories", which some of us who disagree with him are not. As Hitchens argument hasn't changed for years.. and years.. allow me to recall a comment by 'Field' from Boris Johnson's blog in 2005:<br /><br />"<B>Yes, I am familiar with ex-Trot Peter Hitchens.<br /><br />I’m afraid I am not overly impressed with him. It’s true he’s good at pointing out the Emperor has no clothes on but he has been wrong on a lot of things. He failed entirely to see that Islam in the UK represented a threat to our society and used to praise the conservatism of Muslims.<br /><br />I am never quite sure what his “conservatism” consists in except for condemnation of the current Conservative Party! It seems in many ways he wants to “turn the clock back” as he says.<br /><br />Whilst it is true that 50 - 60 years ago the UK was a much more law abiding society and the streets were much safer, there was much that was wrong about it: grinding poverty for many, hidden sexual abuse, violence towards children, very low levels of educational achievement, unmerited deference.<br /><br />Hitchens seems unable to explain how he would keep what I would presume he wants to keep about the advances in society whilst reinstating conservative values.<br /><br />My own view would be that he tries to write the state out of the equation, when it really lies within the power of the state to create an environment that would be more in line with his values e.g. by stamping out crime, reducing drug taking and so on. Or to put it another way, he is living in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks the family and religious observance are capable of being reinstated in their previous form.</B>"Philipahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440234602399886097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-13254482171519754502009-04-21T12:02:00.000+01:002009-04-21T12:02:00.000+01:00Verity you make my very point. In the days when we...Verity you make my very point. In the days when we ran a large commonwealth communications were minimal. Do you think we could get away with it today?<br /><br />And would you still call Tony Blair a leftie after all you sins, which you describe, he has committed?<br /><br />Surely its because of world events i.e. global bank deregulation, which led Brown down the path of disaster. He merely had the choice of following or, like the Switzerland etc, not to follow. He didn't set the agenda and as he has found out cannot set the world agenda.<br /><br />BIG TIME - sorry if that offends you..... well I'm not really!!!Rexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-64074500704768644042009-04-21T11:24:00.000+01:002009-04-21T11:24:00.000+01:00>>IMO Peter Hitchens speaks for the silent m...>>IMO Peter Hitchens speaks for the silent majority.<<<br /><br />There is only one was of testing that assertion, and unfortunately Mr. Hitchens seems to have abandoned his parliamentary ambitions.<br /><br />Shame, that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-31248508179758646882009-04-21T10:41:00.000+01:002009-04-21T10:41:00.000+01:00Slightly off topic and more to address Verity's su...Slightly off topic and more to address Verity's suggestion about taking the vote away from public sector workers - I have to disagree. No taxation without representation was the rallying call for the American War Of Independence and I think that is just as applicable today. However, I agree entirely that people who do not work should lose the vote until they are working.<br /><br />On the subject of NHS workers - why do they have to be public sector? What is so sacrosanct about the NHS? Surely, as long we retain a health service which is "free at the point of access" it shouldn't matter whether it was public or private? Currently, the NHS costs every man woman and child in this country around £1500 per year - regardless of how much or how little you use it. Of course, as many people don't work the actual cost to most of us who do is considerably higher - the irony being that those who pay least towards the NHS tend to be the ones who use it the most.<br /><br />I know people argue that the NHS delivers good value for money compared to our European neighbours - but I expect this isn't the case. We do not include the huge costs of social care in our health budget - it comes out of local government budgets instead - while other countries include that social care in their health budget.<br /><br />As long as the central ethos of health care - that it should be available to all and free at the point of access - is maintained, then why would it matter if the NHS were privatised?<br /><br />Either the point is to deliver the best health care to our people that we can - in which case it wouldn't matter - or the point of the NHS is to provide a socialist tool to ensure that the third largest employer in the world is beholden to the state therefore ensuring a large voter base for socialist parties.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15007863347348182876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-140912235096520482009-04-21T10:10:00.000+01:002009-04-21T10:10:00.000+01:00@Anonymous...
"Having seen Hitchens a couple of t...<I>@Anonymous... <br />"Having seen Hitchens a couple of times on Question Time is quite sufficient engagement for most of us."</I> <br /><br />"most of us" ? are you sure ?<br /><br />IMO Peter Hitchens speaks for the silent majority.Twighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16698620636313191152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-75621574303917941262009-04-21T08:42:00.000+01:002009-04-21T08:42:00.000+01:00>>But don'tall your contributors who cal...>>But don'tall your contributors who call me rude names rather underline my point that loyalist Tories don't wish to engage with my arguments. Those who say they don't know what my alternative to the Tory Party is need only read what I've written...<<<br /><br />Any random nutter with a book to sell might use the same line.<br /><br />Having seen Hitchens a couple of times on Question Time is quite sufficient engagement for most of us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-91024172942893434472009-04-21T08:07:00.000+01:002009-04-21T08:07:00.000+01:00I've always disliked the term "Tory" , although I ...I've always disliked the term "Tory" , although I have always voted for the Conservative and Unionist Party . It drags us back to the days of an un-reformed Parliament , the Corn Laws and the political repressions of the immediate post-1815 years . The party has absorbed so many liberal and patriotic influences since then and become so much more - the TRUE repository of liberalism , I would suggest .<br />Verity , however , seeks to take us back to those dark days by her proposed reforms to the franchise . Indeed , she seeks to impose even greater restrictions than existed before the Reform Act . At least then doctors and other respectable gentlemen could vote if they had paid their scot and lot !<br />She seems confused , though , in her proposed welfare reforms , becoming even more Whiggish than Edwin Chadwick who at least offered the poor the chance to survive in the work-house . Verity does not say how they should sustain themselves without food or shelter , but I'm sure she has a cunning plan .The Young Oligarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00043892251035601945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-50642167059683408612009-04-21T07:58:00.000+01:002009-04-21T07:58:00.000+01:00Peter Hitchens has asked me to post this...
"Limi...Peter Hitchens has asked me to post this...<br /><br />"Limited timeon a remote e-mail. Having difficulties posting a response.But please do say that I'm most happy to confirm that yoou didn't t steal the microphone, of course you didn't, I pushed it away myself because I think loudspeakers destroy spontaneity.<br />But don'tall your contributors who call me rude names rather underline my point that loyalist Tories don't wish to engage with my arguments. Those who say they don't know what my alternative to the Tory Party is need only read what I've written.Of course, they don't have to, and I cannot make them. But if they don't, how can they be so sure I'm wrong and bad?<br /> <br /> <br />Thanks again"Iain Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.com