As we approach the next election — which could be held as early as 2024 — a note of cynicism has crept into Conservative commentary — a sense that one might as well lie back accept a Labour triumph. This seems disastrously short sighted. Are we really going to accept the ascendance of Kooky Keir?
You had me fooled there a minute! Sooner or later in Britain's world-leading nice-but-dim Uniparty state, things will turn ugly. and the tragedy is. ... they need to.
Tory politicians are still blaming the last Labour government for the abject failures of the past 13 years, so the author now produces a new twist to explain those failures. It's not because we have had a litany of ministers who are second rate, including the current PM, a classic example of the Peter principle, but all the current problems are now the result of the prospect of a future Labour government. The whole argument is utter tosh.
Yep, thought I'd detected a note of sarcasm until I figured out you were in dead earnest. Is the Official Monster Raving Loony Party still around? It might make for a sane alternative...
I think the relevant expression is "taking the piss out of", not "taking a piss on", which is what Tories and Labour both do, together, in unison, on the electorate, much as what the Republicans and Democrats do here in the US. The actuality is that in both countries, we have what is known as "double government". As Prof Michael Glennon puts it, there is a "dignified" government - in the UK, Parliament, in the US, Congress and the Executive Branch, in both cases more of a clown show, a Punch and Judy show, than anything which could be remotely be described as "dignified" (high sarcasm that) - and an "efficient" government, in the US the National Security State, in the UK your equivalent permanent bureaucracy. You can vote as hard and as often as you please, but nothing will change until the "efficient" government is overthrown and driven from power. Here's more from Glennon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKsItbj49K0
I have thought about why western governments have massively increased rates of immigration, despite not campaigning on this issue, or doing it in spite of public opinion. At least in Canada, it came as an outcome from a consulting report from McKinsey. Globalization seems to have reached its limits about 5 years ago, with large countries such as India and China showing resistance to western capitalist integration. So the main way to increase market size has been increased immigration to Western countries. This increases the GDP of these countries, and lowers labor costs. It therefore increases the buying power of the wealthy, who are insulated from the effects of increased crime, and increases their net wealth by increasing the demand for property, but does little to increase GDP per capita, and obviously causes a housing crisis for people who do not already own property. At the same time, the elites of the country are obliged to portray any resistance to mass immigration as racist, to preempt any criticism. They want to avoid any real debate on their intentions, and a serious public debate about the net benefits, and gaslight any opposition into silence. Any appeal to national culture is racist by definition. Wokism has therefore become a very useful ideology in the service of global capitalism, which requires the elimination of national borders.
It's reasonable to assume that anyone who writes for the Spectator is putting forward a serious argument, given how outrageous the magazine is in promoting its anti-woke and anti-lockdown agenda. Clever satire isn't the magazine's strongpoint.
For a moment I was wondering about whether or not I should bother to vote at the next election. But you've certainly scared me straight. Clear blue water (Tory blue, and, no I'm not afraid to say it, BRITISH blue) between the two parties.
You had me fooled there a minute! Sooner or later in Britain's world-leading nice-but-dim Uniparty state, things will turn ugly. and the tragedy is. ... they need to.
What annoys me is that Britain is heading for one party rule under Labour just as Europe begins to turn to the right.
Tory politicians are still blaming the last Labour government for the abject failures of the past 13 years, so the author now produces a new twist to explain those failures. It's not because we have had a litany of ministers who are second rate, including the current PM, a classic example of the Peter principle, but all the current problems are now the result of the prospect of a future Labour government. The whole argument is utter tosh.
Every time I think I'm too unsubtle...
Yep, thought I'd detected a note of sarcasm until I figured out you were in dead earnest. Is the Official Monster Raving Loony Party still around? It might make for a sane alternative...
"Yep, thought I'd detected a note of sarcasm until I figured out you were in dead earnest" <— This is the wrong way around.
Have a go at this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijag7P96NKA - some realyy good and true things said here
I think the relevant expression is "taking the piss out of", not "taking a piss on", which is what Tories and Labour both do, together, in unison, on the electorate, much as what the Republicans and Democrats do here in the US. The actuality is that in both countries, we have what is known as "double government". As Prof Michael Glennon puts it, there is a "dignified" government - in the UK, Parliament, in the US, Congress and the Executive Branch, in both cases more of a clown show, a Punch and Judy show, than anything which could be remotely be described as "dignified" (high sarcasm that) - and an "efficient" government, in the US the National Security State, in the UK your equivalent permanent bureaucracy. You can vote as hard and as often as you please, but nothing will change until the "efficient" government is overthrown and driven from power. Here's more from Glennon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKsItbj49K0
Oh dear. We really are in trouble. I wouldn’t vote for Starmer either, but neither would I vote for any of the chronic failures in parliament.
hilarious!
I have thought about why western governments have massively increased rates of immigration, despite not campaigning on this issue, or doing it in spite of public opinion. At least in Canada, it came as an outcome from a consulting report from McKinsey. Globalization seems to have reached its limits about 5 years ago, with large countries such as India and China showing resistance to western capitalist integration. So the main way to increase market size has been increased immigration to Western countries. This increases the GDP of these countries, and lowers labor costs. It therefore increases the buying power of the wealthy, who are insulated from the effects of increased crime, and increases their net wealth by increasing the demand for property, but does little to increase GDP per capita, and obviously causes a housing crisis for people who do not already own property. At the same time, the elites of the country are obliged to portray any resistance to mass immigration as racist, to preempt any criticism. They want to avoid any real debate on their intentions, and a serious public debate about the net benefits, and gaslight any opposition into silence. Any appeal to national culture is racist by definition. Wokism has therefore become a very useful ideology in the service of global capitalism, which requires the elimination of national borders.
It's reasonable to assume that anyone who writes for the Spectator is putting forward a serious argument, given how outrageous the magazine is in promoting its anti-woke and anti-lockdown agenda. Clever satire isn't the magazine's strongpoint.
I was very worried when I read the title lol
For a moment I was wondering about whether or not I should bother to vote at the next election. But you've certainly scared me straight. Clear blue water (Tory blue, and, no I'm not afraid to say it, BRITISH blue) between the two parties.
The Conservatives deserve to lose. But that doesn't mean that Labour wouldn't be even worse!