We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Michael Howard makes a speech and someone notices A while ago here I speculated that one of the effects of the Internet – blogs especially – will be to focus attention on what major public figures actually say, and not just to harrass them about their various scandals and cock-ups, worthy though that also is.
Well, according to the EU Referendum blog, Michael Howard made quite a good speech the other day about defence, which the media mostly ignored. The two main points were: that Tony Blair is too keen on EU integration and not keen enough on the Atlantic Alliance, and that he does not give Britain’s armed forces the resources to do the many jobs he demands of them.
Gabriel might even be cheered up a bit. Not a lot, but a bit.
Personally I think that Howard’s two points are closely connected. The smaller our forces are, the easier it will be for the EU to swallow them up.
You can read the entire speech here.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Sadly, whatever Michael Howard has to say about our armed forces, he has lost any vestige of support I may have given him because of his attitude to Howard Flight and (in particular) Adrian Hilton.
I have simply had to conclude that the man is an authoritarian, statist, imbecile, without so much as a clue about how a properly radical Tory agenda could appeal to a country finally realising how it is being oppressed by the ruling junta of Jesus freaks and barely reformed Marxists.
I have simply had to conclude that the man is an authoritarian, statist, imbecile
Oddly enough this is what I also think about GCooper.
Nevertheless, Cooper is right about Howard. The man is a dolt. I am of the view that the forthcoming election will result in a Labour majority in the region of 160 once again and that the Tories will still learn nothing. It may well be the case that Howard says the odd thing that is actually sensible but this has no effect on how people vote and how people vote has no effect on the policies that are actually implemented.
Democracy is an utter myth and democratic politicians are mere ciphers for the ideas of intellectuals. Howard is scum, the speeches he makes are irrelevant. Forget the spewings of these imbeciles and concentrate on the intellectual meta-context.
Well, well. I think for the first time since I have been visiting this blog, I find myself in disagreement with G Cooper.
I think Flight’s behaviour after being sacked revealed a lot in public that Howard may have been aware of in private. That he has no sense of loyalty, is one disquieting thing. That he has appalling judgement is another.
The man was obliged to fall on his sword because of his own ill-judged action, yet he has refused to do so, knowing that his behaviour will raise echoes of the Tories as vicious ferrets in a sack. It’s a shame, but he did it to himself. He threw the socialist hierarchy a bone they haven’t stopped gnawing on since.
He implied that the Tories had secret plans to spend more than they promised and were lying to the electorate. Lying to the electorate is Tony Blair territory and musn’t be tolerated in Tories.
Howard acted decisively and coldly. I like that in a leader. Howard Flight is replacable. As is everybody.
Perhaps Blair should refrain from being interventionist. Such actions lead to the armed forces being overstretched and requiring extra resources.
This is an interesting development! I’ve got used to the GCooper-Verity tagteam…
Suffering: yeah weird isn’t it?! I even find myself in agreement with GCooper on this one – the episode reflects badly on Howard’s judgement. But even more than this, my sentiments agree with Paul Coulam’s. At the end of the day, Howard is just another ‘do-anything-for-a-vote’ prostitute.
Firstly, WHAT ill judgement by Howard Flight? We still do not have any proof about what was said at the CWF meeting yet, a number of people attending the event do not even recall his comments regarding “hidden cuts” or post election public spending reduction plans. The Times has prevaricated about allowing either the entire taped conversation or a transcript of it to be published, even their own Times Online staff were refused access to the tapes, instead being palmed off with the same snippets that they released to other agencies and to the Conservatives. Other people I have spoken to are steadfast that Howard Flight mentioned further cuts only in the context of Oliver Letwin’s proposed £35Bn evisceration of the bureaucracy, in which case I would trust that there would have to be further reductions in public spending – of course it takes time to cull 6,000,000 parasites.
All that I can see from this entire affair are the hands of a number of envious and sordid individuals who would rather like to be placed on the PPC list of what is one of the Conservative Party’s most prestigious constituencies. From what I have learned the Arundel and Southdowns Conservative Association was given just 10 names to whittle down to 4 nominations, some of whom would probably have great difficulty in actually pinpointing Arundel on a map, and many of whom just seemed to be Central Office workers.
Rather more important than what Howard Flight did or did not say is the case of Tony Baldry (apologies for posting a Times Online link, I reached this story via the faute de mieux blog). We have yet to hear Michael Howard refer to this and we certainly have not yet heard the foul minions of Phoney and Cher baying for more Tory (oops “Conservative Party”) blood.
Incidentally, I hear that a good April Fool was carried out by the BBC claiming that Labour had shortlisted Jamie Oliver to stand in opposition for Arundel and Southdowns.
Julian Taylor, I appreciated your post, but can anyone tell me why the British, including the subeditors of the major British newspapers, are so illiterate about the distinction between prevaricate and procrastinate? Interviewers on the BBC are equally ignorant. It’s like an infection that runs through the bloodstream of the British media. I’ve never read or heard this ignorant usage in the American media.
The one that really infuriates me is the mistaken use of infer to mean imply as in “his statement inferred that she was not up to the job”. This annoys me so much.
Mike, yes, that’s another one.
I used prevaricate in the sense that The Times has ‘strayed from or is evading the truth’. It is staggering to learn that the current accurate literacy rate is just 2 out every 5 college students in the UK now – by accurate I mean those whose paper shows few spelling errors, rather than they are illiterate. If that’s measured in college students, what is the literacy rate going to be like now for your average 16 year old with 2 GCSE’s in Babycare (Practical) and Know Your Narcotics (Practical)?
Perish the thought that anyone actually base their writings on what actually was said instead of the uber-biased reporting of obviously anti-Flight press./
You mean apart from the tape recording of what he said, I assume?
EG
Julian Taylor – Then I owe you an apology. Sorry I mistook your meaning.
Gosh, Euan Gray made a point in just one sentence!
Forgive me, and it’s meant in fun:
Gosh, Verity posted a comment that didn’t castigate Blair as a mendacious Gramscian conspirator!
EG
You mean apart from the tape recording of what he said, I assume?
Well I was not only there and heard it firs time round but also listened to the tape. He did not say what the papers claimed he said.
If the tape shows that Howard Flight did not say what Labour and the “Times” claimed he said, then his lawyers should simply seek an injunction against the Conservative leadership.
Doesn’t Euan Gray’s link bear out the point that Julian Taylor was making, in that it only allows access to minor segments of the conversation?
Nice link to the story about Baldry by the way.
I think the Howard Flight story is not at an end. It is still to be determinded whether HF will suck it up and live with situation.
I find it hard to trust with Defence a party that within my living memory conducted a defence review so inept that it actually caused a war. I’m afraid the armed forces of our country are pretty much screwed whoever gets in/back in at the election.