On ‘Any Questions’ (BBC Radio 4) this week, whenever David Cameron’s name or policies were mentioned there were hoots of contempt from the audience. This was not a Labour or Liberal Democrat audience as the show was being broadcast from Stamford, one of the most conservative towns in England.
Also the panel treated Mr Cameron with contempt – not just the socialist and the Liberal Democrat (Greg Dyke ex-Director General of the BBC) but the two conservatives – the conservative (not Conservative party) ex-editor of the Sun newspaper and R. Johnson (sister of Boris Johnson).
At least it seems no one is fooled by ‘Dave’ any more.
By the way it was also funny to hear the “culture clash” between the socialist (Tariq Ali the student radical from the 1960’s) and the good people of Stamford.
He wanted to talk about revolution and the Iraq war – and they asked questions about people putting their shoes on train seats and about what was the members of the panel favourite song to sing in the bath.
Mr Ali clearly hates the English – especially when they are being Hobbit-like (perhaps he suspects they are just playing). As a serious future dictator he refused to reply to the silly questions of the Hobbits and got upset and snobbish. I was so upset for Tariq that I laughed and laughed.
I wonder if Mr Ali suspects that at least some of the people in the audience were not unfamiliar with serious things, indeed violent things. After all there are a lot of ex military people in Stamford – and not wildly far from the town are the Fens.
For a little while I actually felt optimistic.
Who are you and what have you done with Paul Marks?
It’s his evil alter ego, complete with maniacal laughter and all.
My scenario of a while back begins to play out.
Unless Gordon calls a snap Autumn election, things can only get worse for Dave.
Hague may reluctantly(for the good of the party you understand!) be back, when the rest of the shower realise what a total lame duck Cameron really is, and they could lose their seats bigtime next time round.
Damn shame the country didn’t catch on to phony Tony as quickly.
Can anyone actually give me a good reason why Brown _wouldn’t_ call an Autumn election?
Given the state of the economy and the state of the Tory party, why would he give either a chance to ruin him?
Can anyone actually give me a good reason why Brown _wouldn’t_ call an Autumn election?
Isn’t the Labour party as near as dammit bankrupt ? I’m sure they could pass a state funding of political parties retrospectively but you only really want to take the piss like that once you’ve won an election..
Because he is, as they say where he comes from, a big feartie. He’d much rather stay on for the three or so years he has left than risk anything for another five.
I may be wrong. No doubt everyone around him is telling him the obvious, but he doesn’t strike me as the kind of bloke who listens to advice. As it is, if he doesn’t call this week it’ll be a November election (by my probably dodgy calculations): not something traditionally regarded as good for turnout.
I don’t want to bring down your day Paul, but did you ever see this
Youth is our future.
Labour’s financial problems are another reason why Brown should call an early election; once the election has been called there are statutory limits on how much parties may spend, thus negating the Conservative’s advantage, and I would guess the prospect of an election would generate extra donations, even without the possibility of a title (and seat in parliament).
The thing that will stop him is cowardice; how often in the past ten years has he been in a position where a strategic resignation would have got him the Prime minister’s job sooner rather than later, yet he held back?
I do not think money will be a terrible problem for the Labour party – after all Mr Brown has just poached the Swedish mega rich person from Mr Cameron, and Lord Supermarket has pledged yet more millions for the Labour party.
Gabriel – no I did not watch the show, and will no do so now (I doubt I could stand it).
Let me case:
Lots of teacher’s pets asking politically questions and making politically correct noses, as they have been taught – and all the time thinking they are “rebels”.
This is nothing new.
Ludwig Von Mises pointed out (back in the 1920’s) that the most slavish followers of the doctrines they were taught at school and university tended to hold themselves to be “rebels”, fearlessly challenging the world.
Of course there is another unfortunate factor.
The “good students”.
An intelligent school pupil or university student will tend to take the doctrines they are taught to their logical conclusions – i.e. become far MORE collectivist than most of their teachers or the text books they have been given.
Sadly it is not true that intelligence and hard study will lead people to pro liberty conclusions.
Hard study will mean hard study of text books (and other such) full of misinformation. And intelligence will lead to lines of thought being taken to their conclusions – and if the lines of thought (the frame of reference) is collectivist then………..
“So what does lead someone to be a libertarian”.
Well if we are talking about a school pupil or a university student (i.e. someone with little or no experience of life) it is normally PERVERSITY.
A strange kink in the mind that leads one to doubt the very basis of the “facts” one is taught.
I am not being rude – I was such a mental pervert myself.
Nailed it, though this was even worse than I expected. I got up to the bit (about 5 mins in) when one audience member started with “History shows…” before launching into some complete drivel about how poverty causes terrorism. The “good” student, Cambridge medic, on the panel was an abomination.
I’m not sure about good students being overwhelmingly lefty. Almost all the clever interesting people I know are punk-Tory types, the others are Marxists. It was the same when I was at school as well. More bog standard lefties clog up the “solid 2:1” part of the spectrum. I’d kind of got the impression that this had been true for the past few decades.
Sorry I mis-read what you wrote. Clever students being Marxists rather than social democrats is exactly what you predicted. However, I would still say that much more of the smart people know are on the Right than the Left. This may just be because I find it hard to see lefties as intelligent when their ideology makes them so immune to both reason and evidence. A chicken and the egg scenario if you will.
A reasonable level of intelligence helps one to see through the inconsistencies of jumbled thought, wishful thinking and prejudice that are the underlying framework of much left-wing thinking.
An average level of intelligence combined with paying attention to what goes on round you plus experience virtually forces it.
The only thing that can really help prevent this, is a well developed – and much practiced – skill at believing at least six impossible things before breakfast.
Gabriel.
First Happy New Year (in case I forget in the next couple of days) – to you and to the other people here who follow the tradition of my grandfather (on the Marks side).
Remember that the “good students” follow the “evidence” that are presented with.
For example, it will be constantly implied (if not fomally stated) that all terrorists are poor. Therefore the reasoning “poverty causes terrorism” does not seem wildly wrong.
Of course terrorists are often NOT poor – but school pupils and university students are unlikely to be told that (so why should they reason from information they did not have in the first place?)
Your point about intelligent pupils and students often being Conservatives or Libertarians is a nice one (as I was a libertarian even in my school days – and I always like to be called “intelligent” even if it is only implied).
However, are we not dealing with two different sorts of mind here?
The “lateral” thinker – the problem solver, who will carry reasoning to its logical conclusions to achieve the set objectives (and remember a lateral thinker may use complex and subtle reasoning to achieve the objective – lateral does not mean crude or even direct).
And the “diverse” thinker – the person who will “go off at a tangent” such as thinking “why is this the objective?”
It is easy to say “I would much rather be a diverse thinker”, but remember a lateral thinker is often of much more use. Including in a business enterprise (or any other practical enterprise).
In a university context it is the lateral thinkers who are going to end up in charge of setting examinations or appointing staff. Even without some dark (Gramsci style) plot.
For example, can you really see men like C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien winning out in an English department?
They might forget a key meeting is taking place (being distracted by something they have just discovered). Or (if they actually remembered to go the meeting), they would still not understand how “to play the game” – as such games have no importance to this sort of person.
On a positive note (and my posting was positive), if there is actually a school, university or other institution that does teach people accurate information and gives them access to noncollectivist ideas then YES the “good students” (the lateral thinkers) will become pro liberty (as both the “facts of the case” and the best logical reasoning is on the side of liberty – so if people are actually shown it all enough when they are young…..).
You will have vast numbers of people who (for example) understand the Austrian School of economics – and yet (wonder of wonders) can also actually engage in such strange practices as organizing committee meetings.
On conversions – I did a bit of that in my youth.
I found Marxists much less difficult to convert than social democrats.
A Marxist (at least of the better sort) seeks to operate from principles – it is just that the principles they use are flat wrong (a Marxist is like a photographic negative – they can sometimes be “developed”).
A social democrat is a mess, a smudge (like a totally out of focus photograph), there is often not much there to work with.