Entertainment For Lively Minds

Word RSS FeedsWord Magazine on YouTubeWord Magazine on Last FMWord Magazine on Share My PlaylistsWord Spotify PlaylistsWord Magazine on FacebookWord Magazine on Twitter

Oliver Letwin: 'We don't want more people from Sheffield flying away on cheap holidays'

Mr Sparks's picture

Quite rightly, the people of Sheffield are more than a little offended by Mr Letwin's remarks. Perhaps he should be given a two match ban like Rooney?

Anyone else got any views on what seems to be a typically condescending Tory view of the good people of the north?

PS - Couldn't help but chuckle after watching ITV's Calendar News just now. The programme is sponsored by Jet2 advertising cheap flights!

0

Dear God...

does that mean they'll all be holidaying here on the South Coast?

*shudders*

3
Helena Handcart | 4 April 2011 - 10:47pm

I live on the same side of the Downview level crossing as you

NOBODY holidays here Helena

0
davebigpicture | 5 April 2011 - 7:14pm

That's true...

- it's cheaper to go abroad than park in the town centre.

0
Helena Handcart | 5 April 2011 - 8:45pm

The Duke of Wellington

Said when the Great Western Railway was first mooted: ‘It will only encourage the lower classes to move about.’ Letwin seems to be about two centuries out of date with his elitist attitude.

0
Mr Sparks | 4 April 2011 - 10:56pm

Harrumphhhh!

Dear boy, surely to goodness it's clear that the old Duke was actually 2 centuries ahead of the times.

1
Mark JF | 5 April 2011 - 8:17am

Or -

That nothing ever changes

1
FakeGeordie | 5 April 2011 - 8:34am

Harrumphhh again!

I think you'll find that should be, plus ca change.

/ gets cape and top hat, exits...

1
Mark JF | 5 April 2011 - 8:46am

Kudos

for your neat italics work there

0
FakeGeordie | 5 April 2011 - 9:56pm

Ahem...

plus ça change, surely?

1
Helena Handcart | 5 April 2011 - 10:32pm

Whatever happened to Wakes weeks

Surely a week or two at the same B&B in a seaside resort every year for the next 30 years is good enough for a Northerner.

0
Uncle Wheaty | 4 April 2011 - 11:00pm

Scum

No surprise coming from such an odious oxygen stealer (TMFTL) as Letwin. This being the man who robbed you & I of several thousand pounds to improve the drainage of his private tennis court.

A fortnight in Eastbourne would be suitable punishment for Olly.

3
torrential1 | 4 April 2011 - 11:11pm

No wonder I'm so f**ked up

I lived in Eastbourne for 18 years.

0
Fazackerly | 6 April 2011 - 5:16pm

Feckin' Fecker

2
Beany | 5 April 2011 - 12:23am

Tories

I take my hat off to Cameron, he did a remarkable job in hiding the Tory party's true colours in the run up to the election. But I'm still astonished by how quickly they have reverted to type.

15
Johan | 5 April 2011 - 4:28am

Calm down, calm down...

...Letwin is obviously a prize tosser. But I sure as hell don't buy Boris as a champion of the working man. And on the central issue - do we or don't we need more airports - I'm inclined to come down on the side of no, we don't. It's just possible that this isn't about oppressing the working man - although Letwin certainly knows how to score when his own goal is yawning in front of him - but doing just a little bit to save the planet. The entire social spectrum in this country, from toffs to residents of Sheffield (some of whom are pretty posh and well-heeled), already has more than enough ways of jetting off to the sun available to them, and the skies are insanely crowded.

7
mikethep | 5 April 2011 - 7:28am

I trust

he's referring to his esteemed colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister.

1
Black Type | 5 April 2011 - 7:55am

Sheffield and Airports

Agreed Letwin is an utter plum but this is hardly a party political matter.He was outed by Boris and currently being shredded in the Tory press.

IIRC Sheffield is the largest city in Europe without a civil airport as its socialist council during the sixties wouldn't grant planning permission for something that would
Help the bosses head off on their holidays.

0
Sebastian Beach | 5 April 2011 - 8:10am

Sheffield and Airports

Sheffield used to have its own airport, built on a brownfield site in some Our Friends in the North-type deal, but it closed in 2002 due to lack of demand. The runway was too short for the type of aircraft used by the likes of Ryanair, BTW...

0
mikethep | 5 April 2011 - 8:20am

All a bit late

True but forty odd years after Manchester,Leeds/Bradford and East Midlands. Council involvement at Tinsley, setting the length of runway shorter than that needed by most commercial aircraft in use, stymied any chance of success.

0
Sebastian Beach | 5 April 2011 - 8:30am

Surely

Doncaster is only just down the road.....no shortage of runway there!

0
el toro calvo grande | 5 April 2011 - 8:46am

Donny Airport

Built to take Vulcan bombers so certainly not short of runway.Unfortunately it's not in Sheffield. For many of us in the region East Midlands remains a better option.

0
Sebastian Beach | 5 April 2011 - 9:55am

Not forgetting that Robin Hood Airport...

...doesn't yet have a decent motorway connection and is less accessible than East Midlands Airport.

0
Mr Sparks | 5 April 2011 - 1:56pm

What?!

No decent motorway connection?! Less accessible than East Midlands airport?! They'd better get their shit together otherwise I'm going to blow it sky high!

5
Joe R | 5 April 2011 - 2:13pm

Just replying...

...to ensure that Joe can't edit his comment, and is thus guaranteed prosecution.

13
Bob | 5 April 2011 - 2:17pm

I once worked for Sheffield Council...

...from 1986-1988 in the Estates Department and distinctly remember the amateurish approach towards the provision of the airport. Everyone in the Estates Department knew it was the wrong location, but it had to be in Sheffield and some of the councillors were merely concerned that the airport would be ready in time for athletes and visiting dignatories to arrive for the World Student Games! (which it wasn't.)

(Don't get me started on that...citizens of Sheffield, want to know why your roads are so potholed and shagged out? It's because the money went on some tinpot games! Also, the £140m spent on the facilities is effectively still on a complicated council equivalent of an interest only mortgage, which will have to be paid off eventually, by which time the buildings will be obsolete.)

Sheffield Airport was aimed at business travel (like London City Airport) and it could only take STOL aircraft and it never had radar! KLM briefly ran flights to Amsterdam and at one time you could fly to Belfast or Oslo, but that was about it. The airport runway has now been shortened even further (only light aircraft can fly out of it now) and the nearby business park is now being extended onto the former runway.

Peel Holdings, who subsequently built Robin Hood Doncaster Sheffield Airport (to give it its catchy full title) also managed to snaffle the freehold of Sheffield Airport for £1, due to an inadequate contract, despite the airport having been subsidised by Sheffield (and, I think, Rotherham ratepayers). What a cock up.

0
Mr Sparks | 5 April 2011 - 11:41pm

Government by and for the very rich

I don't know what people expected. You should read this, it WILL make you very cross, and the Huffington Post is not one of your drooling leftie paranoid websites.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/government-by-the-rich-is...

We've got it here too. They're stealing all our money directly, or indirectly by inflating away the debt the City gave us and destroying our savings - which will take us deeper into debt slavery.

This is why I get cross about being told I have Fascism wrong - Fascism is the merging of the corporate and political state into one. They won't make the mistake of wearing brown shirts this time

5
FakeGeordie | 5 April 2011 - 8:15am

"Fascism is the merging of the corporate and political state..."

Interesting suggestion. Can you point me at a reference for that please?

I've seen Fascism defined in many ways - including the original Mussolinst Sindico-Corporativism doctrine but I've never seen a reliable historical commentator reduce it to such a bald statement as "Fascism is the merging of the corporate and political state into one."

0
stimpy | 5 April 2011 - 2:24pm

Fascism is corporatist.

But then, to a greater or lesser extent so is capitalism, communism, liberalism, social democracy and, erm, almost every other school of political thought I can think of, except maybe anarchism, and even most thinking anarchists are really anarcho-syndicalists (who are corporatist).

I don't really recognise a tremendously corporatist streak in the Coalition, though - certainly no more than Labour.

What do you mean, FG?

1
Bob | 5 April 2011 - 2:29pm

Yep

Sharing certain traits with Fascism is something most political ideologies are "guilty" of to a greater or lesser degree. I'd agree with FG if the Tories were demanding a one-party, totalitarian state, closing parliament and advocating eugenics, but there's little sign of that.

3
Fraser Lewry | 5 April 2011 - 3:06pm

Give 'em time...

they're busy f#ckin' the NHS up at the moment.

3
Doug B | 5 April 2011 - 3:43pm

OK Stimps since you are always so polite to me

Though I probably don't always deserve it - this is off Robert Peston's BBC blog - not from him, from a regular poster on there (which isn't me) - I've been watching aghast while the money moves releantlessly in one direction and I don't actually attach too much weight to the current crop of millionaires in government - Labour were no better and for the same reasons - (and please do also have a look at the Huffington link I posted) - here's the copy/paste

"Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy - Wikipedia"

Superb - now we're waking up to reality.

Have a read through the signs of fascism - and how many have we already 'accepted' as a society...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4113.htm

"Rampant cronyism and corruption.
Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population"

Sound familiar?

0
FakeGeordie | 5 April 2011 - 8:10pm

Facsism

Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy

That's a better definition of capitalism than it is of fascism.

1
Bela Legosis Dad | 5 April 2011 - 8:28pm

To which I would tend to say...

Bingo

1
FakeGeordie | 5 April 2011 - 9:51pm

You're saying they're the same thing?

They're really, really not. Try telling that to anyone living under Franco in Spain. Or in Mussolini's Italy. Or Pinochet's Chile. There's plenty I don't like about capitalism, and about our political parties, but claiming our system equates with Fascism is the precise - and equally erroneous - flipside of the right-wing American argument that having a national health service places us right next to Trotsky.

We live in a multi-party state governed by reasonably centrist parties, and we're thankfully nowhere near what's offered by either the extreme right or left. Nowhere near. If the government starts "disappearing" its opponents I might think differently, but until then corporatism - the centrally-planned competitive market at the heart of economic fascism - will remain a different beast to the non-centrally planned free competitive market that's the mark of capitalism. Or, to put the economics at their most basic: fascist governments nationalise industries while capitalist governments privatise them.

7
Bela Legosis Dad | 5 April 2011 - 11:07pm

I'm sorry

Don't mean to offend or disagree for the sake of it but what you are describing is different points along the same spectrum - the money is moving so remorselessly in one direction at the moment towards vast pan-national corporates with their own agenda that these distinctions seem almost meaningless to me. Corporatism is/was at a national level - it almost seems old fashioned.

There is NO free market - its an illusion. There are a tiny number of vast companies who divvy it up between themselves and the banks. The barriers to entry in nearly every market now are colossal. Watching that old Word Blog perennial Top Gear I have been struck by how often its just the various products of the Volkswagen Group that get discussed - Skoda, Porsche, Lambourghini, Bugatti...

Fascism is NOT automatically totalitarianism - though as a matter of inevitability due to the injustice it causes it is normally imposed and supported by force. My own family had lots of members in the forces in WW2 so (I hope) I am not being glib. Just because people aren't disappearing doesn't mean its not corporate fascism

We are being sent to Carey Street by a very small number of greedy people who own our current government (and probably the previous one too) and will see us all skint then scoop up the wreckage cheap.

0
FakeGeordie | 7 April 2011 - 12:39pm

Crickey, a politician has said something daft.

There's a turn up for the books. After all, representatives of the people should be just like the people they represent: never saying anything remotely controversial or making a joke that backfired or just plain putting a point badly. So, let's write him off forever. Let's condemn him to eternal disgrace and disdain, never allowing him to sully the doors of public office again.

Well, it's one way of cutting down the number of MPs because by these standards we'll be down to about 4 MPs by Xmas.

2
Mark JF | 5 April 2011 - 8:26am

Showing complete distain...

and contempt for a huge section of society because you view them as below you in the natural order of things, is not "saying something daft" and as far as I can see undefensible.
If you choose to live in the spotlight and air these kinds of unpleasant views then you sure as hell should be condemned for them.
It is also important that we get to see the real face of the government which currently skulks in the background behind the thin veneer of the "all in it together" bullshit.

5
Doug B | 5 April 2011 - 12:19pm

Does anyone...

...have the full quote, in context? Seems to me that people are rushing to judgement.

Also, Doug, to paraphrase The West Wing, if you expect politicians to live to a "higher standard" you're just begging to be lied to, IMO.

0
Bob | 5 April 2011 - 12:29pm

The comment was allegedly made in a private conversation.

Mr. Letwin has said: "I do not ever comment on things that are alleged to have been said in private conversations but I would never knowingly ever say anything offensive to anybody... We are passionately devoted to people being able to make the most of their own lives and being able to advance themselves and that is obviously what Nick Clegg is going to be saying today and I am passionately behind it."

0
Mark JF | 5 April 2011 - 12:47pm

allegedly... private...

Seems like one step away from "He never said it really"

0
stimpy | 5 April 2011 - 1:14pm

Well, it certainly was a private conversation

so you can't be entirely sure, although he certainly hasn't sought to deny or correct it.

0
Mark JF | 5 April 2011 - 1:21pm
stimpy | 5 April 2011 - 2:05pm

Same as me...

I never comment on private conversations unless I came up with something remarkably witty.
When I've made a complete twat of myself I keep quiet.

4
Doug B | 5 April 2011 - 3:46pm

No,Bob...

I don't expect them to live to a higher standard, but they should be judged for their actions as they are public employees.
And let's be honest if BoJo thinks you're an unpleasant snob then You really have to be bad.

1
Doug B | 5 April 2011 - 1:25pm

But...

...you're not judging him on his actions. You're judging him on his (alleged) opinion aired in a (private) conversation.

Just to be clear, I think Letwin's a dick. But jumping on stuff like this as if it were genuinely important is one of those things that makes our politics so dispiriting. We get the politicians we deserve, and because we all get a tremendous scandal-boner every time the papers report a "gaffe" or a "PR disaster", they just publish more of them, and the politicians just lie and dissemble and fake more in a desperate attempt to never come across as real people.

End result: the people we elect to represent us can't express a real opinion. What we get instead is this bland, pious orthodoxy about what people are allowed to say.

It's not actually the people like Letwin who really boil my piss: it's the whips and the PR merchants who create - in response to our demand - a political culture in which everyone sounds the same. So Cameron and Miliband end up sounding not that different, for fear of PR reprisals, and absolutely everyone loses.

In a culture where politicians were allowed to honestly speak their minds, it's highly unlikely that a creature like Letwin would ever have got elected. It's only because his party's spin machine knows how to cloak him in blandness that stuff like this comes as any surprise.

4
Bob | 5 April 2011 - 1:39pm

Tremendous Scandal Boner

TMFTL

2
Leedsboy | 5 April 2011 - 2:30pm

Fuck...

...it.

Overlong, windy post. Suffice it to say that I don't think this is worth getting upset about.

0
Bob | 5 April 2011 - 9:33am

Overlong, windy post?

That's unlike you, Bob ;)

4
Joe R | 5 April 2011 - 10:02am

Boo.

1
Bob | 5 April 2011 - 10:19am

I think Letwin has said...

...what a lot of the chattering-classes (for want of a better term) or environmentalists actually think. Including those on the Left, Right or Centre, politically.

I work with someone who is an active Green, and he is very anti-flying. But mainly he is anti-flying for short-haul package holidays and weekend breaks for other people. His YEARLY holiday to India and his summer holiday to a posher bit of France or Spain doesn't count.

Now, we do need to reduce short-haul flying, it's true. But it does seem to be those who can't afford to go far or only for a weekend who get to lose out doesn't it?

2
JoLean | 5 April 2011 - 9:37am

Your green colleague

Probably thinks that his trips to India and posh parts of France are worthy and sophisticated, whereas Sharon & Trev's jaunt to Benidorm is an awful waste of the earth's precious resources.

5
Spartacus Mills | 5 April 2011 - 10:23am

It's because he's a Traveller.

The rest are just tourists.

1
Lenny Law | 5 April 2011 - 12:56pm

I'm not sure...

...the Travellers who come into Staines town centre every Sunday have ever been to India. ;-)

0
Bob | 5 April 2011 - 1:06pm

But...

...they may have come from there if they are of Romany stock.

To quote Wikipedia;

"The Romani (also Romany, Romanies, Romanis, Roma or Roms; exonym: Gypsy; Romani: Romane or Rromane, depending on the dialect) are an ethnic group living mostly in Europe, who trace their origins to the Indian Subcontinent".

0
bassclef (not verified) | 6 April 2011 - 6:10am

Worthy & sophisticated

Tea spat on keyboard. Big stupid grin on my face.

superb comment.

Miaow !

0
jackthebiscuit | 7 April 2011 - 11:38pm

Just to play devil's advocate..

10 years ago Phuket was a regular holiday spot for me. Then the cheap flights made it possible for the Burberry baseball cap lads to holiday there, and having your breakfast to the sound of 300bpm techno and a tablefull of morning drinkers singing football songs ruined the magic somewhat. So now I holiday furhter afield. Does that make me a middle-class tosser?

0
bathmat | 5 April 2011 - 12:40pm

No

Sounds like you've encountered some badly-behaved, disrespectful idiots. But I've had meals out ruined by a load of posh rugger boys turning up and being boisterous.

Twattishness is not class-specific.

2
Spartacus Mills | 5 April 2011 - 1:08pm

No-one

in their right mind likes a Tory

4
toiras34 | 5 April 2011 - 1:16pm

I do

I like plenty of Tories, though I don't share their political beliefs.

3
Spartacus Mills | 5 April 2011 - 1:18pm

Me too.

Wouldn't vote Tory in a million years, unless they suddenly had a damascene conversion to centre-left politics, but I know and like plenty of Tory voters, and a couple of activists.

2
Bob | 5 April 2011 - 1:22pm

I married one.

I'm sane and she is a lovely woman who I adore. I sometimes think some people take politics too seriously - should you really only like someone that agrees with you?

13
Leedsboy | 5 April 2011 - 2:35pm
Bob | 5 April 2011 - 2:39pm

Hallujah to that!

It's only party politics... it's not worth getting aerated about. One way and another they're all as bad as each other.

0
stimpy | 5 April 2011 - 2:47pm

And I do agree completely

I also think that at the moment they are all as helpless as each other.

I'm a foaming at the mouth leftie but I don't judge my friends on their politics (all stripes bar the nutters - really the case) - just on how they behave

0
FakeGeordie | 5 April 2011 - 9:54pm

Fair dos

to all of you who've tracked down some nice ones - saves me the bother ;-)

1
toiras34 | 5 April 2011 - 10:21pm

Mine's taken

Find your own. ;o)

1
Leedsboy | 5 April 2011 - 10:24pm

Got my own French model

- even stroppier than I am :-)

0
toiras34 | 5 April 2011 - 10:27pm

Surely not....

M. sarkozy, est que vous ?

0
Doug B | 6 April 2011 - 1:25pm

Brilliant!

but, no :-)

0
toiras34 | 6 April 2011 - 1:52pm

Exactly...

If you only speak to people who agree with you, how on earth do you form an opinion? How do you know you may not think the opposite if you never speak to people who think/believe in different things to you?

I have got completely opposite views to one of my best friends. Both of us love a good political row and adore having a good old ding dong. So we actively like the fact we disagree, 'cos it means me and him get a right good old rant out without offending other people.

4
JoLean | 5 April 2011 - 2:55pm

I double check

by reading the Daily Mail online a few times a week. It always reassures me that I am on the righteous path.

1
toiras34 | 5 April 2011 - 10:23pm

Tories

Toireas - You don't like a single Tory?, None at all?

Serious question - how can you be sure?

0
Sebastian Beach | 5 April 2011 - 3:21pm

Hmmm

OK, I could just about tolerate Ken Clark if I really had to save one from the gallows. Seriously, I don't have any tory friends so I guess through a process of natural selection they have been eliminated from my world. I don't ask everyone I meet to declare their allegiance so one or two may have unwittingly slipped through the net but none that I can think of. It's not for love of another party, I can't particularly stand any of them, it's just that that lot have a long-standing agenda which I despise. I grew up in Yorkshire in the 80s in a mining family so you'd expect me to feel this way.

I honestly don't think I could enjoy the company of someone who thought privatising, free schools, demonising the working class, abolishing the right to appeal to an independent panel for children excluded from school, carving up the NHS to 'any willing provider', bombing Libya, sending student debt sky high, slashing funding for libraries and vital public services, hanging out with Nick Clegg etc were reasonable ideas.

I've got a degree in politics and a well developed interest in arguing about 'issues' but I don't feel I need to define my views in reference to theirs, I'm happier debating with people coming from a similar starting pont but where the nuance differs - I still learn a lot that way and even change my mind sometimes.

I guess I'm just ultra-intolerant (and unrepentantly so) when it comes to that lot.

4
toiras34 | 5 April 2011 - 10:17pm

Isn't it a bit dull

Only having friends with a similar ideology?. If one of your friends confessed he voted Conservative would you disown them?.

I can't be the only one on here who really doesn't care what political opinions my friends hold - there are far more important things in our lives - music, films, food, walking, books etc. that connect us.

3
Sebastian Beach | 5 April 2011 - 11:33pm

I wouldn't have the faintest idea what political opinions

are held by my closest friends - or even my FPO - it's of no consequence to me and doesn't affect how I view them.

0
stimpy | 6 April 2011 - 9:24am

shades of opinion

No offence, but it's a tad disappointing that someone who has a degree in politics could parade such a depressing list of jaded, off-the-peg 'class warrior' cliches.

Did your degree course teach you that 'demonising the working class' (what does that even mean?) or 'slashing funding for vital public services' is part of any traditional right-of-centre political philosophy?

Is it really beyond your comprehension to allow -for instance- that the desire to cut public spending might be informed by something other than penny-pinching misanthropy?

Would you concede that it is possible for a group of people -let's call them Tories- to look at all the available evidence and come to a different conclusion than you about what is best for the country as a whole?

Or are you happy just to trot out the 'all Tories are evil scum' line?

Politics is a battleground of ideas. I find that when people resort to demonising their opponents, it's usually a sign that they know they can't win the arguments. One is tempted to conclude, therefore, that the ideas behind those arguments must be unsound.

To judge intellectual ideas from the perspective of an entirely subjective moral code is a tired old device that is well past its sell-by date. It doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

3
DC Eisenhower | 5 April 2011 - 11:49pm

Well it may have escaped your notice

but I was being a bit deliberately flippant, so the class warrior cliches are entirely in keeping with the overall approach and utterly deliberate, calculated shorthand. I don't really have the energy to type out my personal manifesto in full here, nor do I want to get into slanging matches about the quality of my education which I have no hang ups about at all - comprehensive education, mildly above average degree from an average university, 20 years working for public services and volutary sector, generally offering hands on information, advice and support to those finding themselves on the wrong end of the system be it Labour or Tory run. I didn't think that necessary excluded me from joining in here; I must have missed the entrance exam when I signed up; but I reckon a few others must have too.

I am, on the other hand, busy and somewhat more concerned by looking out for jobs for my partner who has just been made redundant and also thinking about how to best support my team of five at work who've just been put on notice of being at risk of redundancy and how that might impact on their various personal difficulties and so on, so a spot of tory baiting to let off steam on a forum where frankly no-one (rightly) really gives two hoots about who I am or what I think seemed in keeping with what goes on elsewhere on this site.

However, whilst the country's certainly been living on borrowed time and some cutbacks are inevitable and probably necessary the ideologically led approach this lot are taking cannot honestly be described as any more of an objective, fair or rational set of conclusions about what's best for the country than what my solutions might be, were I in their shoes. I do object though to them telling us that these are not ideologically driven decisions, and to them driving things through at haste as if they'd been clearly mandated to do so, when in fact we know they weren't. Yes, in my mind I am right and they are wrong. I'm sure they feel the same about themselves so much more so that they stand for power and ask us to line up behind them.

Also let's face it, they just don't tend to say out loud what they're really thinking, whereas I do (yes, in lazy shorthand cliches here, I agree) but isn't one incidence of that happening and being let slip what the OP was drawing attention to too?

I do look forward to hearing you take others to task for their pontificating bollocks on here at every future occasion...

5
toiras34 | 6 April 2011 - 12:45am

well ...

Apart from your remarks about Ken Clarke, I didn't really discern a particularly flippant tone, so apologies if I've missed that.

I sincerely hope you don't think I was questioning your qualification to 'pontificate bollocks' on this board. You have every right to do that, just as I have every right to name it as 'bollocks' when that is my opinion. I'd expect others to challenge me if they thought that I was talking bollocks. It has happened before and I'm sure it will happen again.

As for the class warrior rhetoric, you are not alone; in fact, you are joining a club that already has quite a few members on this discussion board. Although my post was in direct reply to yours, it could easily have been addressed to a number of other folk.

I think that anyone who has a genuine interest in politics should choose to argue exclusively within the realm of political ideas. 'Ideology' isn't neccessarily a bad word and, if arguing for cuts is ideologically driven, so is arguing for big state spending.

One of the signs that political discourse in this country has been degraded is that so many people are happy to grab an 'off-the-rack' set of views. I respect their right to do that, but I believe that if we concentrated on discussing the origins, key concepts and possible consequences of political ideas, we'd be much better off.

Or then again, maybe I'm just talking bollocks ;)

0
DC Eisenhower | 6 April 2011 - 8:49am

But no-one...

is arguing for big state spending at the moment and all parties agree cuts are necessary. It is merely the speed and location of the cuts that are being questoned.
I really do believe, however that the present government is using the current unfortunate situation to see how many ideologically driven cuts it can impose.
Imposing a radical change (the biggest since it's inception) on the NHS after promising not to, and at a time when public satisfaction with that organisation is at an all time high, can be viewed as nothing less than an attempt to force it into the hands of the "free" market.
Oh, and just because you view someone else's political opinions as "off the rack" it doesn't make it so and just sounds pompous.

1
Doug B | 6 April 2011 - 1:41pm

?

I'm surprised that you haven't picked up on the fact that a lot of folk believe that supporting anything like the status quo is the same as supporting 'big state spending', because that's what it is.

Government and the business of government has expanded dramatically since the 1950s. You might not approve of the word 'dramatic', but the facts of this expansion are incontrovertible.

Some of us think that society as a whole would be better off if the balance between public and private sector activity was adjusted. There are parts of the UK where goverment spending accounts for more than 70% of all economic activity. That, in my view, is close to disastrous.

I'm not sure that your point about 'public satisfaction' with the NHS has any particularly resonance; anyone who has had dealings with the NHS at middle-management level will be aware that there is massive bureaucracy and waste. Unfortunately, the NHS has become a sacred cow and, for many, it is beyond criticism. Arguing for efficiencies, however, is not the same as arguing for abolition.

0
DC Eisenhower | 6 April 2011 - 5:30pm

I agree re the waste and

I agree re the waste and inefficiency. I have had an appointment cancel 3 times often by post and after a reminder 'automated' call has been sent. There does seem to be an 'it'll do attitude' within some elements of the NHS.

0
woodface | 7 April 2011 - 6:42pm

I agree

with most of that but I suppose my concern with the differing ideologies is who they impact upon and it's my view (shorthand alert)that on the whole the ideology of conservatism favours the more privileged minority at the expense of the less privileged majority, which I don't think is right. All the Citizen Smithery before was intended to say that, but clumsily so I admit.

I do acknowledge also that probably the majority of the population adhere more closely to a centre right viewpoint than to my own; though I'm not sure as many of them would have voted Conservative or Lib Dem last May had the current reality of what they're doing been declared in their manifestos.

My crassness about not liking tories is therefore as much an expression of my own frustrations and feelings of powerlessness to change things as it is a visceral and therefore admittedly subjective/indefensible one. Of course I'm also bound by my own experiences (I belong to a 'minority' - you can take your pick which one you want it to be) and therefore my experience of life have been marked for long periods by being subjected to unpleasantness, abuse and hassle which I feel tory policy has legitimised to some degree over my lifetime by creating a more individualisitic, homogeneous, inward looking society which doesn't really welcome or celebrate difference as a genuine strength. I accept that that's changing, as the world as a whole is, though I suspect some of that is down to legislative changes that Labour brought in fostering attitudinal change and that's something I don't believe the tories would have ever done unprompted (believing that the state should stay out of this kind of thing).

Another major quibble I have with the dramatic cuts agenda is that I don't feel they value services that they don't use or need themselves but that genuinely change lives for other people - see for example Zadie Smith's really interesting recent piece of polemic about public libraries that expresses that more eloquently than I do. My life has certainly been marked by the good that public services do - NHS, state schools, local authorities, public libraries, a student grant (yes, I'm that old) and I'm not sure that a cabinet drawn predominantly from the rarified, private sector and elite schools really is in a posiiton to make an objective decision on the value of these state institutions, and so I just don't like 'em :-)

Others have asked would I disown a friend if I found out they were a tory; I imagine not in reality but I also wonder if they would (metaphorically) touch me with a bargepole to begin with anyway! I honestly do think I would struggle with anyone who didn't have a shared sense of what is valuable in the world and what isn't, even if if that does sound a bit cartoonish and 'off the rack'.

3
toiras34 | 6 April 2011 - 2:42pm

and that

really is enough from me on this topic

0
toiras34 | 6 April 2011 - 2:43pm

full stop

Me too. Thanks for taking the time to explain your position. We're not going to agree, but I do hear where you're coming from.

0
DC Eisenhower | 6 April 2011 - 5:06pm

"a bit of tory baiting..."

OK... Now I understand. You're just trolling for a reaction?

I thought we were above that sort of thing here :-(

0
stimpy | 6 April 2011 - 9:45am

Sorry

it wasn't my intention to do that, but I can see that it wasn't the best choice of posting and looks that way. I'll take a deep breath and count to ten first in future.

2
toiras34 | 6 April 2011 - 1:56pm

Thanks for clarifying

I'd hate to see this place descend into the petty trolling and name-calling that seems so common elsewhere on the WWW and USENET.

0
stimpy | 6 April 2011 - 3:40pm

The saddest thing about gaffes like this,

be it by Mr. Letwin now or many others of all stripes before him, is that we pounce on them as proof of our own views and beliefs and prejeudices. Rather than ignoring the gaffe and drilling down to the issue, we guff on about the gaffe.

0
Mark JF | 5 April 2011 - 1:29pm

Why should it be ignored?

Assuming he did say it - it's interesting, revealing and the sort of opinion I'd like to know about if said by an MP.

4
IanP | 5 April 2011 - 3:33pm

Things were so much better

when everyone knew their place.

0
Five-Centres | 5 April 2011 - 1:53pm

Isn't Letwin the same guy...

who said that the tories intended to turn the NHS into a 'funding stream' which effectively handed out money for people to choose private treatment? I think he said that this would happen within 5 years of a Tory government.

Again, I believe this was in a 'private' conversation, or possible an informal meeting or suchlike.

If so, I think I quite like him. He's like an early-warning system for the disasters yet to come. At least he's honest (in private) about his abhorrent beliefs and plans, unlike Cameron, Osborne et al who are still claiming what they're doing is in some way positive.

0
Uncle Monty | 5 April 2011 - 2:31pm

Can I get this straight?

Tory MP has said something both cuntish and snobbish?
Is this correct?
And we are surprised?
Why?

5
ganglesprocket | 5 April 2011 - 2:39pm

I'd revise it to read.

MP has said something both cuntish and snobbish?
Is this correct?
And we are surprised?
Why?

2
stimpy | 5 April 2011 - 2:48pm

Or...

Cuntish and snobbish both, MP something has said is...
Correct is this? Surprised we are?
Why?
Fear is the path to the dark side. Hm...

2
Glenbervie | 6 April 2011 - 8:33am

To be fair...

Tory MPs are perceived by many as being generally snobbish and cuntish. Other parties merely cuntish. But I cheerfully accept the criticism.

3
ganglesprocket | 5 April 2011 - 3:27pm

Snobbism works both ways

It's always seemed to me that the left is often as snobbish as the right - the honest toil of the real working man etc.

1
stimpy | 5 April 2011 - 3:45pm

For those who know London

...the MP for Dulwich (posh, well heeled) lives in Highgate (even more posh and well-heeled). Dulwich isn't posh enough for her.
She's Labour BTW.

0
Richie B | 5 April 2011 - 7:05pm

I live in Highgate!

Does she drink in the Prince Of Wales? I'll corner her and discuss socialism and drive her to the southern badlands...

0
ganglesprocket | 5 April 2011 - 9:06pm

Boris Johnson

Reported these comments at a public meeting, without saying who made them. Mysteriously, the papers worked out it was Letwin - someone must have given them a clue and presumably it wasn't Letwin himself. So Johnson has now established that he doesn't object to private conversations being made public. And it's not exactly the first time he has criticised the government.

This could be interesting in the run up to the London Mayoral election next year. I think it's just possible that Johnson will make indiscreet comments in private during the campaign, and that they might find their way to the press. The government would of course be heart-broken if the ever-ambitious Boris was voted out of public office, but I'm sure David Cameron would mourn this event with the traditional champagne and cigars.

1
Melville | 5 April 2011 - 3:48pm

Had it been Boris who said it ...

"Pfah. Ummm. Indeed. People from Sheffield, flying? Preposterous. Get bicycles, much better, aaahm, yes. Uh, the media will get me for that one. Oh god. Bugger. Wooargh."

And I suspect this thread wouldn't exist in its current form.

1
Glenbervie | 6 April 2011 - 8:40am

Yes. But we know Boris is a knob.

So we tend to ignore him.

I believe that is a direct quote from BoJo you've got there, Glenbervie..

0
Lenny Law | 6 April 2011 - 12:48pm

not a great fan

of these two, but in the circumstances....

2
bargepole | 5 April 2011 - 6:47pm

Speaking as a Yorkshireman

That's pretty funny, actually.

0
illuminatus | 5 April 2011 - 9:52pm

Letwin, bit of a knob but

Letwin, bit of a knob but the electorate voted in his mob including a fair few from Sheffield. Tories acting like tories, who'd have thought it.

0
woodface | 5 April 2011 - 10:11pm

So

a man who is allegedly influential in the public arena says something perceived to be inappropriate and offensive.

Does he get a two-match ban?

0
Black Type | 5 April 2011 - 10:52pm
Privacy Statement    ©  2006 - 2012 Development Hell Ltd