Tuesday, 1 March 2011
Seriously
To say that the ruin of Gaddafi is the end of the taking of Blair seriously is to suggest that anyone ever did take Blair seriously. Extremely few ever did. But they have now installed his understudy as Prime Minister in his stead. If Blair cannot be taken seriously, as in fact he never could be and almost never was, then nor can Cameron.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Using Gadaffi to launch another article about his fixations, your guru Neil Clark has a pop at the Windsors and the House of Lords (including the remaining hereditary peers):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/75778,news-comment,news-politics,britain-should-not-lecture-libya-on-democracy-gaddafi-john-major
Oh dear, I almost like him!
What a fascinating insight into your own little world, in which both personal friendship and political co-operation are dependent on all thinking exactly the same thing on every topic.
ReplyDelete"Your guru Neil Clark"? He'll laugh himself when he reads that. I am already doing so.
Did Daniel Hughes read as far as the second page of Clark's article?
ReplyDeleteEvidently not. If he had, then he would have read the attack on the tiny and unaccountable financial elite, nor the attack on the Coalition's coup (which any Blairite must support it and many of them openly do), nor this:
ReplyDelete"According to the Economist Intelligence Unit's democracy index, the four most democratic nations in the world are all in Scandinavia. (Britain is in 19th place, below the US, Spain and Malta).
It's no coincidence that the top four - Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Sweden - are also among the most egalitarian countries in the world, showing a direct correlation between high levels of economic equality and democracy."
What do three of those four have in common?
Monarchy embodies the principle of sheer good fortune, of Divine Providence conferring responsibilities upon the more fortunate towards the less fortunate.
It therefore provides an excellent basis for social democracy, as has proved the case in the United Kingdom, in the Old Commonwealth, in Scandinavia and in the Benelux countries.
The Australian, The Times and The Guardian all refuse to publish Clark because of his frauds. So he is your guru.
ReplyDeleteI fear Neil considers Norway, Sweden and Denmark to be admirable countries in spite of their constitutional monarchy, not because of them.
ReplyDeleteStill:
"Divine Providence conferring responsibilities ... towards the less fortunate ... provides an excellent basis for social democracy, as has proved the case in the United Kingdom..."
And that will be enough to disprove the atheists, I hope.
On topic please (oops)!
ASD, no apology necessary, although I expect that you are wrong at the start. Right at the end, though.
ReplyDeleteLD, no, they do not, indeed the Guardian publishes him rather frequently. But your own cult leader, under his own name and various others, pursues him across the Internet, turning up every time that he is published in order to screech that he is never published. But then, trapped behind Murdoch's paywall (if he still there - who knows, or cares?), he has nothing else to do.
What he means, what they all mean, is that he is never published these days and never was all that much even in his pomp. Boo hoo! A deathly silence from that corner as Blair's mates fall like ninepins in Italy, Egypt and Libya. Where will the Dear Leader holiday now? Will he have to pay for it himself? How is his work as Middle East peace envoy progressing? Did he get that job as President of Europe?
ReplyDeleteThat President of the EU business recalled the British tabloid stories that used to claim that the Queen was going to become "Queen of Europe", with her head on the proposed single currency; Alf Garnett also once expressed it. Oliver Kamm, the Alf Garnett of Blairism.
ReplyDeleteExcept that there was never going to be a Queen of Europe. There was going to be, and there now is, a President of the EU. As I say in this post, almost nobody has ever taken Blair remotely seriously. That was made manifest, not for the first time, by his abject, entirely predictable and widely predicted failure to get anywhere near the Presidency of the EU.
"[I]ndeed the Guardian publishes him rather frequently..." Really?
ReplyDeleteThe last year and a bit:
February 2, 2011 "Margaret Thatcher's extremism has already been outdone by this coalition"
January 21, 2011 "The modern left has much to learn from Austria's golden age"
December 21, 2010 "Why we should nationalise our airports"
December 15, 2010 "Kosovo and the myth of liberal intervention"
January 25, 2010 "Only Fools and Horses: a 'triffic' hit in Serbia"
And that's it. Once a month at most. "The First Post" (Felix Dennis, whoever he is) or Richard Desmond's Express rates are higher I believe.
Yes, about once a month. That's not bad going for a freelance. Not bad going at all. Plus, as you say, The First Post. Among others.
ReplyDeleteGood to see you admitting that he is ever published at all. Normally, you go to the comments thread whenever he is published, there to screech that he is never published. It is very funny, but it is also most unedifying.
Now, back on topic, please.