With God on our side?

[Tangled up in Blue]

Why do the left automatically assume that if someone is experiencing hard times that it is the fault of the rich? Some people are poor because of their own lazy and feckless behaviour. I enjoyed this article from Peter Hitchens in the Mail (or the punchline to every unimaginative and unfunny comedian's joke, as it has become), where he asks :

Why is it so bad to draw a line between the deserving and the undeserving poor?

I couldn't agree more with Mr Hitchens' overriding sentiment that the Archbishop should be using Christ as his major source of reference rather than Marx.

Peter Vs Chris (ill give you clue on who wins , his name is Hittchens and his initial starts with a C) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmnVQLOd9Lg

Peter is an arse , a hack and often and roundly defeated by is more intellegent brother.

It was most certainly Peter Hitchens,who was on Question Time last week.As I said, he was rightly called "a hack" to his face, by a member of the audience.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

It was most certainly Peter Hitchens,who was on Question Time last week.As I said, he was rightly called "a hack" to his face, by a member of the audience.

Why do you feel the need to repeat your not so bon mots? It's not really surprising that the hand picked BBC QT audience should disapprove of a conservative political commentator who espouses all the things they hate, namely morality and self-responsibility. It's also little wonder that you and osy should find the ramblings of a godless commie like Christopher Hitchens more worthy. You would be well advised to distinguish your opinion from fact.

 

[osymandus]

It was most certainly Peter Hitchens,who was on Question Time last week.As I said, he was rightly called "a hack" to his face, by a member of the audience.

Yes i saw that bit ;) . I agree completely btw .

@Rusty , as you often fail to do . Christopher is far more globally recognised as an intellect then his brother , He has also modified his views on his own beliefs and discarded that which is no longer relevant or makes sense . Unlike Peter and portions of the "right" who seem to blindly adhere to anything within their belief system even if no longer valid or even practical. People hardly objected to Petes waffle because they hatred it was more it was quite clearly... waffle.

Also had you read anything by C Hittchens you would know he stopped being a "commie" in the 80's and at one stage was often mistaken as a neo-conservative due to some of his views.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Yes i saw that bit ;)@Rusty , as you often fail to do . Christopher is far more globally recognised as an intellect then his brother , He has also modified his views on his own beliefs and discarded that which is no longer relevant or makes sense . Unlike Peter and portions of the "right" who seem to blindly adhere to anything within their belief system even if no longer valid or even practical. People hardly objected to Petes waffle because they hatred it was more it was quite clearly... waffle.

Also had you read anything by C Hittchens you would know he stopped being a "commie" in the 80's and at one stage was often mistaken as a neo-conservative due to some of his views.

As you always fail to do (and I'm not talking about using the Queen's English), you have failed to distinguish your opinion (which just trucks on along with left wing orthodoxy) with hard fact. I'm sure that in the journals that you read (eventually), C Hitchens is more respected than P Hitchens, but in my opinion, and in the opinions of millions like me, the moral and social conservatism of Peter is of far more merit and more interest. Blindly adhering to a belief system? Isn't that a negative spin on being true and consistent to what you think is right?

 

[Uncle Leo]

Great thing about this thread is that it gets me singing the great Dylan song of the same name every time I read it.

Anyhow, I think the Archbishop was right to speak out - like him or not, agree with him or not - he is the spiritual representative of a great many people. I also think Peter Hitchens is a tit, but at least he didn't compare - like Germaine Greer did - kissing one's own daughter goodnight to 'flirting'. That really was ****ing ridiculous.

 

[osymandus]

As you always fail to do (and I'm not talking about using the Queen's English), you have failed to distinguish your opinion (which just trucks on along with left wing orthodoxy) with hard fact. I'm sure that in the journals that you read (eventually), C Hitchens is more respected than P Hitchens, but in my opinion, and in the opinions of millions like me, the moral and social conservatism of Peter is of far more merit and more interest. Blindly adhering to a belief system? Isn't that a negative spin on being true and consistent to what you think is right?

First bold ... my point = Fact
Second bold = Your opinion
Both of these contradict your first post

Hmm no , nothing wrong with following what you believe and think is "right" in your perception. But if you believe your immune to being hit by a car travling at say 25 miles an hour you may well find your belief system doesn't hold up.
All good works are reviewed and edited . Why is it wrong to do so with ones belief system ?

 

[osymandus]

Great thing about this thread is that it gets me singing the great Dylan song of the same name every time I read it.

Anyhow, I think the Archbishop was right to speak out - like him or not, agree with him or not - he is the spiritual representative of a great many people. I also think Peter Hitchens is a tit, but at least he didn't compare - like Germaine Greer did - kissing one's own daughter goodnight to 'flirting'. That really was ****ing ridiculous.

Im in agreement there i think Prof Greer lost it a little bit with that comparison.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Hmm no , nothing wrong with following what you believe and think is "right" in your perception. But if you believe your immune to being hit by a car travling at say 25 miles an hour you may well find your belief system doesn't hold up.
All good works are reviewed and edited . Why is it wrong to do so with ones belief system ?

I think Professor osy lost it a little bit with that comparison.

 

[osymandus]

I think Professor osy lost it a little bit with that comparison.

In your opinion .

 

[Napster]

In your opinion .

Rusty's opinion is that you're a professor. I had you down as a DLitt.

 

[osymandus]

Rusty's opinion is that you're a professor. I had you down as a DLitt.

Seems to prove my point about Rusty . Thanks Naps , to paraphrase Eric Morecambe " "I'm writing all the right letters—but not necessarily in the right order."

 

[Napster]

Seems to prove my point about Rusty . Thanks Naps , to paraphrase Eric Morecambe " "I'm writing all the right letters—but not necessarily in the right order."

To be honest, I wasn't making any point.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

To be honest, I wasn't making any point.

And to be honest, neither was he.

 

[osymandus]

To be honest, I wasn't making any point.

Didn't say your were i , was using it to back up mine.

 

[milhouse]

Quite like Williams the old duffer: thoughtful, non-egotistical (so no politician then) and measured.

Don't agree with him here though.

OK, the coalition have done a couple of things that weren't on the menu when we were going to the polls. The original NHS reforms (pre U-turn) were based on, at best, half a sentence of the manifesto and clearly had no mandate. They obviously did that because they knew that if the proposals were turned over pre-election, they would have been rejected out of hand by the electorate (or at least they would have suffered serious damage). Also, the VAT rise wasn't flagged.

But, those two fairly major exceptions aside, what's happening is broadly what was flagged up in the Con manifesto, and stuff that isn't is accounted for by the fact that they didn't win the election outright. So exactly what is his beef? They stuck austerity and deficit slashing in their manifesto, and that's what's happening.

The two exceptions I mention above: well that's just politicians for you isn't it? They always backtrack on a few things for whatever reason they can make up. I reckon you could say the same about most new governments that always come in - what government ever implements their promises 100% even when they don't have to form a coalition?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Labour will win the next General election.You heard it here first.:thumbsup:

 

[canveyshrimper]

Labour will win the next General election.You heard it here first.:thumbsup:

...and I'll have a pint of what you're drinking. I'll wager Labour will be out of office for at least 2 Parliaments, they've yet to have another fight over the leadership before they even think about winning an election. And as Moribund minor continues to gulp like an ineffectual lizard this I think will come sooner rather than later.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

...and I'll have a pint of what you're drinking. I'll wager Labour will be out of office for at least 2 Parliaments, they've yet to have another fight over the leadership before they even think about winning an election. And as Moribund minor continues to gulp like an ineffectual lizard this I think will come sooner rather than later.

Do you want a pint on it or loser pays a fiver to SZ? :unsure:
While Ed is a problem Labour are doing well in the polls and they should do even better as the cuts(and protests)start to kick in.

 

[Thorpe Groyney]

A lot depends on whether Ed Miliband can put across what he believes in, and expects the Labour Party to believe with him, and how the electorate like it.

Strange as it may seem for Miliband, Thatcher is the template for that. You knew what she believed in, you knew the party would follow her, so you had the choice of whether you believed in hers and their policies or not.

Without such decisiveness, and by meekly following the "middle ground", thus taking Labour more and more to the right, he and the party are sunk. At least if he and the party had a left-of-centre manifesto, the public would have a choice.

He might win, he might lose, but at least that way he'd have a chance. The alternative, sticking by his current mediocre leadership by not having a clear view on issues, would mean Labour having no chance at all.

 

[Neil_F]

Labour are doing well in the polls and they should do even better as the cuts(and protests)start to kick in.

I have a friend from university whose politics are somewhat different to mine. It would be fair to say that I am his only friend that doesn't think the same way he does.

He also thinks that Labour will win the next election because there will be public outrage caused by the economic programme and public service reform. The problem with his analysis is that he is confusing "the public" with people he knows and associates with.

The Conservatives (and to a lesser extent the Lib Dems) clearly sign posted their economic agenda in the general election. The Conservative manifesto included the reforming agendas on school and welfare (worked on by Gove and IDS respectively for three years before the election). None of this was a secret and these are the three major planks of the government's agenda.

If people were so viscerally opposed then how did the Conservativeshave become the largest part in the Commons?

Yes, union members will mobilise hundreds of thousands on the streets, but so what? These people always vote Labour (it is in their financial interest to do so) but they are on the wrong side of the argument. Protesting against sensible pension changes when the public sector already have a pay premium and a pension system vastly out of step with the private sector isn't going to garner any support outside of their narrow interest group.

If the coalition government deliver sustained growth and eliminate the budget deficit by 2015 as well as improving schools (for parents and pupils, not teachers) and reducing welfare dependency then the Conservatives will probably win, especially given boundary changes. This becomes more likely if the Labour leadership continues its vapid strategy of "do, nothing, say nothing."

I suspect that Ed Miliband also thinks that he can win on the strength of the government's unpopularity, but then, like my friend from university, he has only every associated with people that think the same way as he does.