Political prisoner, activist, journalist, hymn-writer, emerging thinktanker, aspiring novelist, "tribal elder", 2019 parliamentary candidate for North West Durham, Shadow Leader of the Opposition, "Speedboat", "The Cockroach", eagerly awaiting the second (or possibly third) attempt to murder me.
Monday, 22 December 2008
Weasel Words
Note how no one responded that the very suggestion was absurd, namely that James Purnell was to charge the interest threatened on Social Fund loans to the very poor. Why would they? This horrific little weasel, quite the most despicable front line British politician since the Thirties at the latest, has built his entire career on kicking the sick, the disabled and the elderly. And remember, he is guaranteed his current job regardless of who wins the next General Election.
What do you mean no one has responded? Was there no one who criticised this proposal, then?
ReplyDeleteYou need to read to the end of the sentence, Jon.
ReplyDeleteBring back grammar schools.
What sentence? You said "Note how no one responded that the very suggestion was absurd, namely that James Purnell was to charge the interest suggested on Social Fund loans to the very poor"
ReplyDeleteAnd I said - did no one respond that this was an absurd idea?
Not on that basis, no. They said that it was a bad idea. But they didn't say that the suggestion of Purnell ever considering it was absurd. Because, of course, it isn't. Very far from it, in fact.
ReplyDeleteDavid, your cleverness is so very great it isn't really cleverness any more.
ReplyDeleteAt least I can read an English sentence and understand it.
ReplyDeleteBring back grammar schools, and rid us of you people.
You're asking for a very specific form of criticism, aren't you? In general, politicians, when attacking a policy as a bad idea, are loathe to point out just how unlikely it is that the person proposing the policy should have had a bad idea. On the contrary, they seem to positively revel in the suggestion that bad ideas are the stock-in-trade of their opponent, and that the electorate should cast their votes accordingly.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, "My opponent's idea was foolish, which is the last thing I would expect from one of his sound judgement and well-informed political acumen" is not the most frequently relied upon attack rhetoric.
Time was, not all that long ago, when the idea that Labour might have been considering this for one moment would have been laughed out at best. No one would even have bothered with explaining why it was a bad idea in itself.
ReplyDeleteBut not now.
Well, of course not.
But he obviously was considering it - because, er, he said it was. So a criticism that said "I can't believe he would consider that" sounds a little silly. What people say - and did say - is "what a stupid idea to do this"
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with that?
"So a criticism that said "I can't believe he would consider that" sounds a little silly."
ReplyDeleteOh, no, it would have had very considerable force, especially when The Weasel had to come on and explain that in fact he really was considering it after all.
And it would once have been automatic in this situation.
But no more.
Until he says "It's my job to consider everything."
ReplyDeleteNo, it isn't.
ReplyDeleteStephen, the voice of New Labour in all its utter lack of principle.
ReplyDelete