Well, he's against fatherhood despite being the heir to a baronetcy, so it's no surprise that he's against marriage as well.
Or, in general, that he is thick.
Of course, we knew that anyway. He's only there because he's a member of the Bullingdon Club. Which is why Cameron not only will not, but actually cannot, sack him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ok so you are sore you did not get into Oxbridge or go to public school.
ReplyDeleteChrist (for that is my name) get over it you ridiculous man.
I got into Durham without applying to Oxbridge. And if it was full of people like you, then I'm very, very glad.
ReplyDeleteLast year, Eton sent 95 people to Oxbridge. So your Oxbridge degree just makes you the ninety-fifth best Etonian in his year, or that person's equivalent. So what? How good can the ninety-fifth best Etonian in his year possibly be?
Good enough to be Leader of the Conservative Party, unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteNo response from BDJ to the kind invitation to him to contribute to the thread on Solzhenitsyn. Why ever not?
(Jon, I understand, is on his honeymoon.)
David, it was common knowledge at Durham that you'd applied to Oxbridge - you were happy to discuss it. There's no shame at all in applying to Oxbridge and not getting in, but I don't see why you deny it now.
ReplyDeleteWhich brings us neatly back to marriage, I suppose.
ReplyDeleteThat one's honeymoon might get in the way of discussing Solzhenitsyn is the only argument that I have ever heard for Osborne's anti-marriage line.
I'll probably never find out now (although my father didn't marry until he was 54), but that's still better than BDJ, who will, of course, never experience either a honeymoon or the discussion of Solzhenitsyn, being as he is suitably equipped for neither.
Anonymous 17:07, it certainly wasn't, because I didn't. You must be confusing me with someone else, not something that happens very often.
ReplyDeleteI had already left school when I applied to Durham, and to nowhere else.
Yes, but which universities did you apply for first time round, when you were still at school?
ReplyDeleteNow there's a question!
ReplyDeleteLeeds, Glasgow, Aberdeen, there must have been more. Anyway, accepted Leeds, collapsed where grades were concerned (don't propose to discuss it - had my revenge as a governor of the school for several years), mediocre grades didn't seem to bother Durham in those days, 2:1 from a 5* rated department, MA, still a college tutor.
There is, of course, no correlation at all between A-level grades and classes of degree.
But I wouldn't get into Durham now with what I had then. So, assuming that they would still take the 20-yaer-old me as a person, but would now expect that person to get three As, that can only mean one thing about A-levels, can't it?
Anyway, back on topic, please.
"assuming that they would still take the 20-yaer-old me as a person"
ReplyDeleteThat's a very big assumption. It may well be that these days you wouldn't get in, given the competition. We don't know.
As I said, back on topic, please. I'll blog on this whole subject some time.
ReplyDelete"Mr Osborne disagrees. For him, it is not the State's job to tell people how to live their lives. He would prefer to use scarce Treasury resources to support parents, whatever family structure they are in, than to reward a childless millionaire hedge fund manager who happens to be married to a lady who likes to lunch."
ReplyDeleteDavid Linsday defending ladies who lunch...too funny.
David Lindsay defending marriage, I think you'll find.
ReplyDeleteSupport for children already exists. It is called Child Benefit. Those of us without children don't get it. But you don't hear me, or Frank Field, or Ann Widdecombe complaining.
Support for marriage is something else. It is support for marriage as in itself a good in society. Those of us who aren't married wouldn't get it. But you wouldn't hear me, or Frank Field, or Ann Widdecombe complaining.