This is Petra_g01's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Petra_g01's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Petra_g01
Recent Activity
"Clegg talks about real change, fundamental change." Umm, except exactly the wrong type of 'change'. Much like Obama's change (to socialism) - and most of those who voted for him now deeply regret that act of utter stupidity. Either way, the differences between the three main parties are so minuscule that I'm afraid it may ultimately not matter much who forms the government.
Toggle Commented Apr 24, 2010 on Time for Dave to get real at thetorydiary
1 reply
"It is an anti-capitalist, populist and illiberal party which specialises in tapping into the growing disenchantment among large groups" Indeed. Just like Labour and LibDems (and increasingly even the Tories).
1 reply
Easy - whoever says what the public wants to hear 'wins' a debate. Hence LibDems' populist rhetoric and idiotic promises get rewarded. Unfortunately, the electorate may well be stupid/short-sighted enough to follow the same approach at voting. Most people are not programmed to think of the consequences of their actions (much less longer-term consequences). Which is why ultimately every (democratic) country deserves the government it has.
Toggle Commented Apr 24, 2010 on What does it mean to 'win' a debate? at thetorydiary
1 reply
For any true conservative (not "progressive" big government conservative) Boris and Hannan are certainly far superior to Cameron et al. Note I'm not talking about electability - this country is not ready to renege on statism (and won't be for a long time), so it's only fitting that we don't have a true conservative party either.
Toggle Commented Mar 30, 2010 on Blue on blue at thetorydiary
1 reply
The entirely pointless debate only confirmed what should by now be obvious to everyone - that there are no meaningful differences between the three parties. The only bright spot was Cable saying we can't ring fence the NHS budget (vs Osborne's promise of real term increases each year). Of course Cable's sole sane idea was fast offset by his idiotic 'take from the "rich" to pay for the common good' concept. Trouble is, it's a policy that resonates well with Osborne and Darling, all in the name of "fairness" and not being "blackmailed" by the wealthy. And, as expected, each party will implement some highly elusive efficiency savings, eliminating "wasteful government spending" (show me any part of the public sector that isn't wasteful and inefficient!) - it would be comical if the situation wasn't so tragic. What we should really be worried about is that everyone agreed the goal was to make Britain a more "equal" and "fair" society. A fair society is apparently a central concept to everything the government will do. (Of course we know that by "equality" they mean equality of outcome rather than of opportunity, and "fairness" is simply a justification for redistribution.) The only surprise is that people don't appear to recognize what the options here are - three quasi socialist parties, differing largely in name only. Of course judging by most of the audience's questions, what the country desires is not scaling back but indeed an expansion of our great progressive socialist experiment. And I'm afraid that's what we shall get.
1 reply
I'm afraid the discussion is quite pointless at this stage. Let's not pretend we still have freedom of speech; it's been taken away piece by piece, along with other civil liberties. That's what you get in a quasi-marxist nanny state. Taking offence has turned into a national pastime thanks to indoctrination by political correctness/equality/inclusiveness/etc, and the 'rights' of citizens never to be offended must naturally stand above such monstrous, harmful and unfair ideas as free speech.
1 reply
Quite right. Though nothing much will change unless we somehow manage to reverse the culture of political correctness and 'rights' without responsibilities. And that could only ever be changed by eradicating the self-feeding cancer of bureaucracy and statism... for there is no place for traditional values (self-reliance, responsibility, morality etc) in a nanny state. The same goes for schools (and family) - if we had not reneged on discipline, respect, civility and manners, the society would not have been in the mess it is today. The question is... do people really want a change? It seems to me that too many are more than happy with the present culture of rights, entitlements, everything-goes mentality.
1 reply
Indeed, Cameron has found his big message - more state interventionism and progressive socialism. Just what the electorate wants, so wouldn't surprise me if polls showed an improvement. Who cares what is good for the country's future?
1 reply
"as supporters of the free market we must..." You're missing the point. We are not supporters of free markets (and that includes Cameron and his so called conservatives), what our political elites and the vast majority of the electorate want is a continuation (and further growth) of the state interventionism that has killed free markets a very long time ago.
1 reply
Why should they? They are not by any stretch of imagination a conservative party. The only difference between our three main parties is the extent to which each of them has embraced progressive socialism.
1 reply
Well said, Yorkshireman. The Tories would need many more Hannans to be able to pass for a true conservative party. The problem is, the appeal of statism (and current 'progressive' socialism) is simply too great, to our political elites as well as the majority of the electorate. The cancer of entitlement, welfare dependency, and irresponsibility has engulfed the country long ago, and only a prolonged period of severe pain (which will inevitably come after the next crisis) will eventually get the society back to true values. In the meantime, neither Brown nor Cameron will change anything, for neither of them has the vision and courage, nor is the population ready for the necessary change. Given the options, one can hardly blame anyone for voting according to their conscience and belief (for UKIP), even though it won't achieve anything in reality.
1 reply
You're absolutely right, KRD. But of course in our PC, totalitarian regime there is no place for marriage (or any other socially beneficial, traditional values). Most people have now got so brainwashed by the 'equality & fairness for all' doctrine that they ended up believing the 'everyone/every behaviour is equally good and right' nonsense. Nobody gives a damn about the damage to our children, society and culture (of whatever is left of it).
1 reply
Taking DNA from anyone not convicted of a crime is just a further step toward total eradication of our civil liberties (along with CCTV, phone/email records databases etc etc). Of course destruction of individual freedoms - and socialization of the economy - are Labour's main legacies, so we shouldn't be surprised. (Not that I have much faith in a Tory government reversing any of it.) The excuse of crime solving is laughable in a society where not even violent or serial criminals are punished for their actions anymore. Why bother catching criminals at all?
Toggle Commented Mar 2, 2010 on Soft on rapists? at CentreRight
1 reply
For once I agree with Cameron. But since he won't back it up with any action, it's just another bit of pointless rhetoric.
1 reply
Very well said, JD.
I'm sure you'd also welcome microchips to be implanted into everyone, so the govt can spy on us 24/7. The way things are going, that will undoubtedly come soon.
1 reply
While many may recognize the problem, I'm afraid cutting the bureaucracy may, at this stage, be a hopeless task. We've seen the fast expansion and spread of state bureaucracy for many years now, infiltrating every part of our lives, resulting in a huge waste of resources, ruinously wrong decisions (then 'corrected' with more wrong decisions), severe restrictions of individual freedoms and general corruption of character. Extreme action would be needed to contain it... and I don't see that happening. Hence we'll keep seeing it spread further like the cancer it is, resulting, at some point, in social collapse.
1 reply
Cameron shows once again that he's got his priorities all wrong. UK armed forces have already been underfunded and neglected for years. It's absolute insanity to cut the defence budget yet ring fence the bloated NHS, international aid, waste billions on the EU, quangos, ever growing state bureaucracy, etc.
1 reply
Plus it generates 25% of all of UK's corporation taxes.
1 reply
Why can't one have a normal debate on the NHS without being automatically accused of wanting to destroy it or abolish it? Cameron's pledges of ring-fencing the NHS confirm the worst suspicions of the policies we can expect from him. The NHS is a stellar example of the waste and inefficiency in the public sector. Making it untouchable is a huge mistake. A good proportion of the NHS budget could be saved/cut with a proper reform of the system. Does anyone really believe the NHS couldn't be trimmed down and made more productive, without jeopardizing actual patient care? Much of the enormous increase in its budget in recent years went on crippling bureaucracy and ever growing numbers of 'managers'. Patient care, hospital quality, survival rates are one of the worst in Europe - hardly a testimony to efficient use of the huge resources. The NHS is one of the world's largest employers - appalling when you consider the relatively small size of the UK population. As the budget has been increasing, productivity has gone down steadily - as everywhere in the public sector. What is it with Cameron that he feels the need to match every idiotic Labour policy instead of standing up for the much needed changes and reforms? Oh, and diverting NHS resources to deprived areas? I thought the NHS was supposed to be equally available for all. I see Cameron supports Labour's positive discrimination based on social class too. Getting better by the day!
1 reply
This has little to do with free speech and more with hate speech, of which Mr. Choudary has a long record. Pity that while we have laws against incitement of hatred, they are not being enforced where they should.
1 reply
Why can't one have a normal debate on the NHS without being automatically accused of wanting to destroy it or abolish it? Cameron's pledges of ring-fencing the NHS, frankly, make me furious. The NHS is a stellar example of the waste and inefficiency in the public sector. A good proportion of the NHS budget could be saved/cut with a proper reform of the system. Does anyone really believe the NHS couldn't be trimmed down and made more productive, without jeopardizing actual patient care? Much of the enormous increase in its budget in recent years went on crippling bureaucracy and ever growing numbers of 'managers'. Patient care, hospital quality, survival rates are one of the worst in Europe - hardly a testimony to efficient use of the huge resources. The NHS is one of the world's largest employers - appalling when you consider the relatively small size of the UK population. As the budget has been increasing, productivity has gone down steadily - as everywhere in the public sector. What is it with Cameron that he feels the need to match every idiotic Labour policy instead of standing up for the much needed changes and reforms?
1 reply
Stephan Shakespeare said "The Conservatives cannot talk about spending cuts in the radical terms favoured by Fraser before we have a completely different political culture..." Sorry, I think that's exactly the wrong approach. Treating the electorate like stupid children who can't hear the tough truth is unlikely to be a vote winner. That's why plenty of conservatives are becoming disillusioned and likely to vote for the fringe parties (or not vote at all). Of course it's entirely possible that the voters have, in fact, become little more than stupid children, thanks to the years of nanny state and welfarism. However, I'd guess that most people are ready to hear the painful truth and would appreciate a leader who has the courage and conviction to say it, instead of feeding us more progressive ideas. We've had enough of such 'progress' already. The suggestion that "Cameron is preparing to be radical" seems rather laughable. I must have missed something.
Toggle Commented Jan 3, 2010 on Here's the beef at CentreRight
1 reply
Spot on.
Toggle Commented Jan 3, 2010 on Here's the beef at CentreRight
1 reply