There has been lots of mood music about cuts with every member of the Alliance singing from the same hymn sheet,but for how long can a choir composed of two unequal partners with apposing tastes in music remain in tune?
But maybe we shouldn't worry because David Cameron assures us a formula has been worked out, the sums have been done and in five years time everything will be alright, but he knows it may not work out the way he says it will because formulas are not just a sum of constants but also variables, and one of those variable is 'making us feel good about being poor',
When a Priest tells you; "IT IS EASIER FOR A CAMEL TO PASS THROUGH THE EYE OF A NEEDLE THAN FOR A RICH MAN TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN", it makes you feel good about about being poor because you know the Priest is probably even poorer than you are.
But when a cabinet of politicians earning ten times more on interest than you would in salary per year, you don't feel good about being poor, in fact you'll probably feel damned angry, especially when they tell you to take a cut in your pay, pension and with higher taxes.
David Cameron doesn't feel bad about being poor because he's not poor and never has been or will be, in fact he's led a very privileged life from the day he was born. Not only that, he doesn't feel bad about earning more in interest on his wealth than the average worker earns in ten years,and there is no one close to advise him otherwise, because all those within his cirlce are members of the same privileged club.
Someone has got to make us feel good about being poor, it can be done. After the second world war when our national debt was worse than today, Clement Atlee made us feel good about being poor by giving us the NHS against hostile opposition from the Tories.
Cameron may say he's passionate about the NHS, but it's a system he certainly would not have given to the poor under similar circumstances the country found itself after the war. David Cameron certainly isn't the man to make us to feel good about being poor, but we're stuck with him for the next two, maybe five years.
"IF YOU WANT TO BE PERFECT,GO SELL YOUR POSSESSIONS AND GIVE TO THE POOR AND YOU WILL HAVE TREASURES IN HEAVEN.THEN COME FOLLOW ME" could be a David Cameron quote if it continued "..BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO SELL MY POSSESSIONS AND GIVE TO THE POOR".
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
page 2 ; IS THE 'NASTY PARTY" THERESA MAY'S NEMESIS?
The Conservatives have probably, at some time, been called ELITIST,SNOBBISH,ARROGANT,and more frequently TORY, but never,to the best of this writer's knowledge,anything that could be construed as grotesquely offensive until Theresa May coined the phrase,"THE NASTY PARTY" in her speech to the 2002 conservative conference.
She could have chosen almost any other word like SELFISH,MEAN,even WICKED, and it would have not stuck so permanently as the NASTY word. Unlike the other words the NASTY word has the added potency of sounding like another word a certain country would rather the world forget.
Is it possible Theresa May had for some years been stoking up deep routed negative feelings about her party,which could have been amplified by her not being chosen as leadership material, and when she got the first opportunity,as party chairwoman, to get it off her chest she did it by smearing her party with the NASTY word,but it's more likely she naively offered her take on the publics' perception of the Conservative Party.
On-the-other-hand, it could have been nothing to do with GETTING SOMETHING OFF HER CHEST or the PUBLICS' PERCEPTION but Theresa May making a purely independent executive decision to shock the party out of it's political complacency by constructing an offense phrase from the dictionary of unpleasant words and firing it at the heart of the TORY'S RIGHT WING.
But it turned out Theresa May was the complacent one as she unwittingly gave the Conservative Party another unfortunate label that would prove as permanent the TORY LABEL.
The Conservatives have now been landed with a label that rolls off the tongue as easy the 'TORY PARTY',i.e. the 'NASTY PARTY', but it didn't have to be this way. If Theresa May had been bold enough to challenge the details of her party's right wing polices,which she may have been privileged to know, then Theresa May could have achieved the desired effect. The party would have been wounded, but that's all, and may even have recovered in a form more in tune with Theresa's concept of conservatism.
The good news is, it's not too late for Theresa May to examine the party's policies,but in a fair and dispassionate way, and if she wont, this writer will.
POLICY ONE; REPEAL OF THE FOX HUNTING LAW
If fox hunting is such a noble equestrian sport why has it not been included in the 2012 OLYMPICS? It can't be to do with the participants,because they are Ladies and Gentlemen, the cream of society, and in some cases the pillars of the establishment, but without their participation and finacial support, the sport would not exist.
The truth is,these figures from the upper echelons of society give a veneer of respectability to a barbaric activity that should have gone with BEAR-BAITING, COCK-FIGHTING, AND FOX-TOSSING.
Condoning such blood sports is out of tune with the aspirations of citizens from the broken parts of society who are desperately hoping for a role model to lead them out of their moral cul-de-sac.
David Cameron is not that role model and never will be while he continues to support blood sports.
She could have chosen almost any other word like SELFISH,MEAN,even WICKED, and it would have not stuck so permanently as the NASTY word. Unlike the other words the NASTY word has the added potency of sounding like another word a certain country would rather the world forget.
Is it possible Theresa May had for some years been stoking up deep routed negative feelings about her party,which could have been amplified by her not being chosen as leadership material, and when she got the first opportunity,as party chairwoman, to get it off her chest she did it by smearing her party with the NASTY word,but it's more likely she naively offered her take on the publics' perception of the Conservative Party.
On-the-other-hand, it could have been nothing to do with GETTING SOMETHING OFF HER CHEST or the PUBLICS' PERCEPTION but Theresa May making a purely independent executive decision to shock the party out of it's political complacency by constructing an offense phrase from the dictionary of unpleasant words and firing it at the heart of the TORY'S RIGHT WING.
But it turned out Theresa May was the complacent one as she unwittingly gave the Conservative Party another unfortunate label that would prove as permanent the TORY LABEL.
The Conservatives have now been landed with a label that rolls off the tongue as easy the 'TORY PARTY',i.e. the 'NASTY PARTY', but it didn't have to be this way. If Theresa May had been bold enough to challenge the details of her party's right wing polices,which she may have been privileged to know, then Theresa May could have achieved the desired effect. The party would have been wounded, but that's all, and may even have recovered in a form more in tune with Theresa's concept of conservatism.
The good news is, it's not too late for Theresa May to examine the party's policies,but in a fair and dispassionate way, and if she wont, this writer will.
POLICY ONE; REPEAL OF THE FOX HUNTING LAW
If fox hunting is such a noble equestrian sport why has it not been included in the 2012 OLYMPICS? It can't be to do with the participants,because they are Ladies and Gentlemen, the cream of society, and in some cases the pillars of the establishment, but without their participation and finacial support, the sport would not exist.
The truth is,these figures from the upper echelons of society give a veneer of respectability to a barbaric activity that should have gone with BEAR-BAITING, COCK-FIGHTING, AND FOX-TOSSING.
Condoning such blood sports is out of tune with the aspirations of citizens from the broken parts of society who are desperately hoping for a role model to lead them out of their moral cul-de-sac.
David Cameron is not that role model and never will be while he continues to support blood sports.
page 3; ADVENTURES OF JOHN TORY
John Tory, the traditional and true spirit of Toryism, resides in the past, and only visits our time when the quiet and dignified arrogance of the upper classes is endangered by troublesome top Tories making off-noises that could draw fire from the lower classes.
Lord Bludanguts,master of the Goreford Hunt and president of the Blood Alliance, was one such troublesome Tory. Unlike other Hunt masters, he was not prepared to accept the woolly ANTI-FOX HUNTING LAWS as an opportunity to continue hunting the fox,be it in covalent ways, and wasn't prepared to wait until the Tory Party returns to power.
Traveling through time to fight the threats to Toryism has led, and will continue to lead, John Tory into the jaws of GREAT ADVENTURES which this writer will relate to you.
The first ADVENTURE this writer invites you to follow is called, 'THE HUNTERS FROM HELL'
Page 5; POLICY ONE, continued. WHAT EXAMPLE DOES FOX HUNTING SET TO OUR CHILDREN?
The history of CHILDREN BRUTALIZING CHILDREN normally starts with them brutalizing animals,which poses a question David Cameron MUST answer;
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN TO A CHILD, IT'S ALRIGHT TO TORMENT AND KILL A WILD ANIMAL FOR FUN, BUT IT'S NOT ALRIGHT FOR A CHILD TO TORMENT AND EVEN KILL A CAT FOR FUN?
There is of course a difference between the two blood activities, one is conducted by DYSFUNCTIONAL CHILDREN WHO KNOW NO BETTER, and the other is conducted by ADULTS WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER.
There is a simple message for both brutalizers, and because David Cameron is bound to parley with semantics, let's put it this way so that even David Cameron can't evade.
YOU DON'T KILL A LIVING CREATURE FOR SPORT,FUN,RECREATION,AMUSEMENT OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON THAT SUGGESTS GIVING PLEASURE
Before David Cameron takes the high ground in condemning cases of CHILDREN BRUTALIZING CHILDREN, whenever they occur. he should first look in the mirror and ask himself what influences mold the children into the monsters they are, and if he is really honest, he'll conclude he's looking at one of those influences.
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN TO A CHILD, IT'S ALRIGHT TO TORMENT AND KILL A WILD ANIMAL FOR FUN, BUT IT'S NOT ALRIGHT FOR A CHILD TO TORMENT AND EVEN KILL A CAT FOR FUN?
There is of course a difference between the two blood activities, one is conducted by DYSFUNCTIONAL CHILDREN WHO KNOW NO BETTER, and the other is conducted by ADULTS WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER.
There is a simple message for both brutalizers, and because David Cameron is bound to parley with semantics, let's put it this way so that even David Cameron can't evade.
YOU DON'T KILL A LIVING CREATURE FOR SPORT,FUN,RECREATION,AMUSEMENT OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON THAT SUGGESTS GIVING PLEASURE
Before David Cameron takes the high ground in condemning cases of CHILDREN BRUTALIZING CHILDREN, whenever they occur. he should first look in the mirror and ask himself what influences mold the children into the monsters they are, and if he is really honest, he'll conclude he's looking at one of those influences.
Page 7;POLICY ONE continued. RED HERRINGS
Debating the justification for the banning of fox hunting on the grounds of economy or degree of cruelty are two red herrings in a bottomless sea of loopholes the Country Alliance love to swim in.
The economic value of fox hunting,although small,is beyond dispute,and will continue in rude health unless it is possible to prove it's activities cause pain to wild animals,and there's the rub.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to measure the degree of pain an animal experiences when it is being hunted to a violent death,and that's why the country alliance have been able to continue the controversy in the fox hunting debate to their advantage.
Hunters could argue their method of dispatching a fox is no more cruel than dispatching cattle in the abattoir,which,by-the-way, practices the most human method of killing.Now let's imagine an abattoir was to introduce a sporting element into the slaughtering process,then that abattoir would be closed down, and that is the point, it's just plain wrong to kill an animal for fun and nothing to do with the degree of pain.
The only way we can judge fox hunting is on PRINCIPLE.A sport can only be principled or unprincipled.It can't be a little bit principled or a little bit unprincipled, which makes the case against fox hunting very simple because, by any measure,it is unprincipled,AND NOTHING IN A COMPASSIONATE SOCIETY WILL MAKE IT ANYTHING ELSE
UNTIL DAVID CAMERON UNDERSTANDS A BLOOD SPORT IS QUITE SIMPLY UNPRINCIPLED THEN HE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PERSUADE THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS THAT HE IS A COMPASSIONATE MAN.
The economic value of fox hunting,although small,is beyond dispute,and will continue in rude health unless it is possible to prove it's activities cause pain to wild animals,and there's the rub.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to measure the degree of pain an animal experiences when it is being hunted to a violent death,and that's why the country alliance have been able to continue the controversy in the fox hunting debate to their advantage.
Hunters could argue their method of dispatching a fox is no more cruel than dispatching cattle in the abattoir,which,by-the-way, practices the most human method of killing.Now let's imagine an abattoir was to introduce a sporting element into the slaughtering process,then that abattoir would be closed down, and that is the point, it's just plain wrong to kill an animal for fun and nothing to do with the degree of pain.
The only way we can judge fox hunting is on PRINCIPLE.A sport can only be principled or unprincipled.It can't be a little bit principled or a little bit unprincipled, which makes the case against fox hunting very simple because, by any measure,it is unprincipled,AND NOTHING IN A COMPASSIONATE SOCIETY WILL MAKE IT ANYTHING ELSE
UNTIL DAVID CAMERON UNDERSTANDS A BLOOD SPORT IS QUITE SIMPLY UNPRINCIPLED THEN HE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PERSUADE THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS THAT HE IS A COMPASSIONATE MAN.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)