Friday, 2 November 2012

Shivers run through the Guardian

Guardian columnists have an extraordinarily high estimate of the value of their own opinion that is fortunately not matched by newspaper sales. Why, they aver, should such towering intellects, such national treasures, as Polly Toynbee and Michael White be subject to fickle and misguided market forces when they should be preserved for the State at the taxpayers' expense? The British press, they complain, reflects public opinion and is therefore unbalanced - and they say this with straight faces and without a hint of irony.

Their contempt for democracy and self-righteous puffery is what binds them to the EU - an institution with these characteristics in spades. So predictably both White and Toynbee devote their columns to lecturing Mister Ed on the error of his ways in putting his MPs through the wrong lobby. Polly complains that 80% of UK newspapers are against the EU, and it's therefore Mister Ed's job to restore balance by promoting its value and asserting Labour's unwavering support for the corrupt and anti-democratic Behemoth. White's reasoning is somewhat deeper, but still emerges as counsel that Labour should do what's right rather than what's popular. 

The shivers running through the Guardian are not due to the same prickling of conscience that bothered Margaret Hoxha on Tuesday. They are down to Mister Ed having legitimised Euphobia in a party that should be wholly Euphiliac, and the prospect that he may actually develop policy for electoral advantage rather than the rarefied atmosphere of Guardian policy.

7 comments:

G. Tingey said...

Indeed, I find the signs of careful trimming in the Labour party a very hopeful sign.

I suspect, though that the people you are castigating are wrong for different reasons to the ones you give.
It is simply that they haven't caught up with events & opinions.
Remeber that back in 197x, the only anti-EU parties were the BNP & the communists.
How things have canged - because the EU has changed.

I was very strogly pro-EU, once.
No longer, but I do not think I have changed, much, whereas the EU has changed, grossly & much for the worse.
When circumstances alter, then your reactions to those circumstances must alter, if you are to act realistically.

Anonymous said...

It's a confusing time for Polly but then she's always had things arse about face.
When Mark Steyn was sent down from the Daily Daveview-graph - I'd have thought the guardian would have made immediate advances, indeed t'was a perfect fit...(no giggling at the back please).

This is play acting, either Polly is truly thick [probably] or she is part of the great 'play'.
Miliband, Marxist and Federalist would never endanger 'le grand projet' - never.
What the public needs to 'get' - is that; none of the main political parties are going to offer a way out of the EU, therefore a vote for any of them is and remains a [your] sanction for all of the federalist duplicity and waste that entails membership of the EU.

Wildgoose said...

In this respect I'm similar to Greg. I started out pro-EU - basically, I was taken in by their propaganda.

But I'm not an idiot and so I became more and more dissatisfied at the difference between rhetoric and reality.

So I was pleased when Denmark voted No to Maastricht - and outraged when the reaction of the EU was to tell Denmark to ignore the vote and overrule the democratic decision taken by their people.

What happened of course is that they agreed an opt-out from joining the Euro and then quickly had another referendum - being told that they had to accept Maastricht with the Euro currency opt-out, or if they voted it down it would be assumed they were voting in favour of the Maastricht Treaty they had just rejected. In other words a complete stitch-up.

Eye-opening. I became wholly opposed to the EU in all its forms from that point onwards.

And if anybody questions why it took me so long, I was still in my twenties and had had nothing but pro-EU propaganda since my childhood.

The lesson to take away is to be suspicious of anyone promoting any Utopian ideology. If it sounds too good to be true - it is.

mikebravo said...

Such national treasures, as Polly Toynbee and Michael White should be preserved for the State at the taxpayers' expense in the same way as Lennin. Immediately!

Anonymous said...

GT. Please explain to me, a mere fool, why you were once pro-eu and have now changed your mind. Has the eu changed it's agenda?

En passant said...

Is Margaret in any way related/connected to Enver?

G. Tingey said...

Anon

YES

It has certainly changed its public agenda.
It is now openly interfering in local matters that are none of its' business, imposing un-necessary regulations which are deliberately designed (through corrupt lobbying) to benefit the big producers & cartels, at the expense of the small, independant & even down to private individuals.
This is corporate fascism, as practised in the 1920-30's
It may have been corrupt before, but it is now openly so, especially when no properly audited accounts are available.
It is also costing us increasing sums, for no visible return, which it was not, initially.

Back in 1964-73 the threat of war was still real, and the internal trading boundaries inside what is now the EU were ridiculously high.
Getting rid of, or diminishing those things was an an ureserved good.

Things have changed, and, if you are mature enough to realise that circumstances have changed, then you should change your actions to suit that change.

Clear enough?