Brogan reports that the class war is about to go live, with Bozza debating PR with Postman Pat next month.
The postman slags off the Conservative Party for being led by blokes who, as kids, got legless and trashed two restaurants. (The postman clearly never experienced student life.) Yawn. And this from a member of the ruling claque of the party which has trashed this country's entire economy and constitution.
So let's see. Who would I rather vote for?
- A party favouring the defence of my liberties under a sound constitution, sound defences, sound money, the rule of law under the British Constitution, and good education for all - a handful of whose leaders got drunk as students and trashed a couple of restaurants and then grew up, or
- A party of knee-jerk professional haters who have never outgrown their adolescent habits of mind; who know fuck all about economics; who have trashed our education system because they want all our children to learn no more than the thickest can cope with; who have trashed the economy; who have trashed the constitution; who have trashed our civil liberties and created a massive state bureaucracy to document the citizen's every move; who have trashed the self-respect and life chances of millions of welfare slaves; who have trashed a civil service which was the envy of the world and replaced them with their party henchmen; who have trashed the nation's sense of identity and its natural cohesion by deliberately and without a mandate importing millions of (they intend) new Labour voters from countries where only members of the ruling elite stand a decent chance of growing up or growing old; who have trashed our historical and religious traditions while outlawing criticism of an imported religion whose more advanced thinkers shout on our streets that they will destroy this country and all its inhabitants who will not conform to the sort of oppressive dark ages laws which our ancestors shed their blood to abolish but which this Labour party is gradually reinstating, piece by piece?
Hm. Tough one.
Seems to me that prospective rulers have two appeals they may make to attract followers.
ReplyDelete1/ They may say that they are the most competent people available. There is considerable variation between claims for competence of course- some claim the best pedigree (not as poor a claim as current fashion assumes), they may claim the the best upbringing (maybe the best school, maybe the right religion), best of all they may point to a trck record of success in running something.
2/ they may say that they're really nice and care lots about ordinary people- often backed up by saying that they have experience of some particular lowly occupation.
Competence is a lot easier to test for than niceness (you never know how nice someone is until they're losing), and it is difficult to see how experience as a miner or a postman equips anyone to run anything.
I notice that it's the left that always emphasises their niceness- from which I infer that they themselves don't believe in their competence.