Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Monday, 25 March 2013

Monday Round-up

In a frankly silly and ill-analysed piece in the Guardian this morning, Anthony Painter attempts to lump together every anti-establishment party and movement across the world as a 'populist' threat to social democracy. All are seeking, Painter says, to dominate the rights of minorities by imposing the democratic clout of populist majorities. The answer he says is for 'mainstream' parties to revitalise and respond. 

Well, I suppose for a man unable to see the world except through centralist, Statist lenses this may make some sort of sense. Painter seems unable to conceive of a desire for less government, rather than for different government; he seems unable to understand a desire for democratic pluralism and diversity rather than a cloying homogenous centralist political diktat, and he seems unable to distinguish between true liberal democracy and rule by an oligarchical political class. Above all he seems unable to recognise a desire for individuals to have more say over the regulation of their own lives rather than less say. It's not 'populsim' but true liberalism that drives political dissent in the UK. And it's as prevalent on the left as on the right - and on the perpendicular axis that has 'authoritarian' and 'libertarian' as its poles it's precisely away from the 'authoritarian' end that things are moving. 

The fact that the British people are rejecting authoritarian social democracy, with its forced equality of outcome, its manifest unfairness and its distortion of effort, merit and reward is not undemocratic in the least, nor is it 'populist'. It is Liberal, in a way that illiberal pieces such as Painter's can never fathom. 

I've written before that Boris' sexual incontinence will rule him out from higher office, and if his appearance on the Marr show is indicative, it's certainly a painful nerve. A man unable to keep his marital trousers on is less likely to be faithful to manifesto promises, or to devote to affairs of State rather than the other kind the degree of assiduity the public expects. The days when an old goat such as Lloyd-George could get away with it due to a compliant press (Oh how the Common Purpose luvvies must hark back to those days) are long over - even post-Levenson.

After royally screwing up the task of running the UK Border Agency, mandarin Lin Homer's promotion to the top position in HMRC left the Home Affairs select committee 'astounded' that someone of such demonstrable incompetence should be so rewarded. Never mind. Like Moira Wallace she can always find a suitable sinecure amongst the groves of academe as reward for failure.   


Edward Spalton said...

I recall that the aged Lord Palmerston sired a bastard on a servant girl during his later years. Gladstone was asked whether this should be mentioned in the election campaign.

"Don't!" He replied "He would sweep the country!"

That was in the earlier phase of the Victorian era whilst memories of the raffish Regency and William I'V were still fresh.

In our era of the bonk buster, will a sufficiently large sector of public opinion care sufficiently to bar Boris's for his peccadillos? I rather doubt it.

Some thirty years ago, Ithere was a local case of a naughty vicar. He managed to court one lady whilst married to another and eventually ended up marrying the lady of his second choice in a big white wedding in his ownnChurch. He had parson's freehold and, as the bishop was unwilling to spend the money it would have required for the trial and legal process of ejection, nothing was done.

I was rather surprised by one quite elderly lady in the congregation. "GOOD LUCK TO HIM, I SAY!"

So if that indulgence was extended to the clergy the, I hardly think it would be withheld from politicians

DeeDee99 said...

Status Quo "intellectuals" like Painter fail to understand what is really driving UKIP's growth. So they have not a hope of countering it.

It's a rejection of The British Establishment and the Political Elite in this country so his proposed solution - the British Establishment and Political Elite adjusting some policies but basically telling people not to be attracted by "simple solutions" to the complex problems which they've created, isn't going to work.

THEY are the problem.

G. Tingey said...

"... unable to conceive of a desire for less government, rather than for different government..."

Where have I heard something similar ....
I'll tell you.
It is notorious that people switch aliegance from the RC church to the communist church or vice versa.
Trying to get them to abandon religion altogether is much more difficult, even though that is the only sane course of action.

Poisonedchalice said...

Don't you think that these three topics are somewhat related at their root?

Rubbish, inept politicians that we can't get rid of.

Boris the buffoon is part of that establishment.

Lin Homer is part of that establishment.

And so on and so forth...

Coney Island

Weekend Yachtsman said...

"Astounded that someone of such manifest incompetence" etc etc.

After the promotion of "Sir" David Nicholson, nothing of this sort should astound anybody.

They're the political class. It's what they do.

Anonymous said...

Painter, should look to this to see how social democracy 'works' in Britain - ethnic cleansing on an eye popping scale and in London but coming soon to a town where you live.

Then - the rest of this spavined 'creed'.

Equality - women paramedics, fire'men', patrolling police officers, battle troops [?] the front line of war theatres - hasn't anybody told the feminazis [Harman et al] - woman and men will never play on the same pitch [RU?] - FFS they're different sexes.

Then, the ongoing disaster of Energy policy.
The, the ongoing disaster of the EU - ask the Cypriots.

Painter rambles on, calls it a "'populist' threat" - if you call people coming to their senses at long last - a 'populist' threat then so be it.
Is it not time, that, this dystopian social nightmare and deliberate eradication of the indigenous of our nation was stilled and Painter and his ilk are indubitably part of the bloody problem.

After all, we are only talking about a cabal of 2 or 3 hundred thousand in London - the Marxist culture of authoritarian statism and "we know better" - it is they who need cleansing.
Surely as night follows day, the followers of the 'ideology of peace' which they [cultural Marxists]have so fawningly cultivated as 'allies' - they will do for them first an irony probably lost on the likes of Painter.

G. Tingey said...

Ypu ;ost it when you included women in your supposed critique.

I suggest you read "Spitfire Women"
An account of the famale "ahem" delivery pilots in WWII
And how women could not possibly do that man's job - total bollocks, as usual. ame as you are talking.
If you feel that way about women, I suggest you convert to islam?

G. Tingey said...

Horrible typo - not my usual machine ...
Should read:
You lost it when ....

WitteringsfromWitney said...

Have linked to first two paragraphs - nicely put on your part.

Rush-is-Right said...

Would you actually WANT somebody of proven competence at the head of HMRC?

Far better to have an incompetent jobsworth in that position in my estimation.