Just want to point out the sterling work that the Spectator Coffee House blog is doing in relation to picking apart the so-called dossier of nonsense that Compass have produced on Boris Johnson. The Evening Standard Diary also commented on this last night. Compass' report esentially argues the to be right wing is to be in league with the devil whilst to be left wing puts you on the side of angels (*cough* Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao)
In the ES Diary column they pointed out how Compass had selectively quoted Boris Johnson's articles and even have a section on how Boris insulted the Dutch. They quote one line and then leave the succeeding three lines out where he says Britain is rubbish and the Dutch are great. It's pretty clear from the straw clutching that Johnson scares them electorally, although of course they'd never admit it. This said, it's amusing that whilst they go after Boris, they completely ignore Livingstone's less than colourful past. For Boris, unlike Ken, has not got cosy, for example with, Sinn Fein-IRA, as Matthew d'Ancona points out.
Livingstone, the man who says he loves London, had no problem being friendly with Sinn Fein-IRA in the height of their bombing campaign on Londoners. Nor does he mind spending Londoner's Council Tax revenue on setting up offices in a dictatorships in South America. And let's not forget how he stood on a platform with a Islamist who thinks homosexual should be strung up and called him a moderate.
People in glass hosues and all that jazz.
7 comments:
dizzy, just as there is only one feffin' Fulham, there are only two 'n's in Lenin.
On your main part I was keen to read this 'picking apart of the so-called dossier'... but the link you provide seems to give almost a total absence of apart picking.
Is there some somewhere, or were you just being sardonic?
Compass' report esentially argues the to be right wing is to be in league with the devil whilst to be left wing puts you on the side of angels
Well, precisely. Since at least the 19th century the Left has wrapped itself in the cloak of moral righteousness. To disagree with their views was to be morally reprobate. Did one Labour PM even go so far as to say, "This party is a moral crusade or it is nothing"?
I've managed to convince myself, if no one else, that this is the key to understanding the success of the Left. After all, who wants to be thought of as a bad person? For that matter, who wants to see one's self as a bad person? Whereas if one simply aligns one's self with the Left, one can wear one's moral rectitude on one's sleeve with pride. In that way, there's actually a psychological benefit to being a Leftie.
I have fat fingers Bob, you know that.
"Almost" a total absence you say? Hmmm.
The Left's success comes in an understanding of a concept they actually abhor.
This is the old 'good verses evil' concept perfected by the Judaeo-Christian theology.
Unlike eastern philosophies, which merge the concepts into balance, the west place onto it that which is 'normal' and that which is 'abnormal.'
Hence, to be 'evil' is simply to be 'abnormal.' But no one wants to be that, do they?
It's a good job there was religion around to give the Left their success.
I agree with Ludingtonian - that's why Livingstone keeps winning. Dim Londoners etc.
Did one Labour PM even go so far as to say, "This party is a moral crusade or it is nothing"?
That PM was Harold Wilson, whom NooLabor seem to have airbrushed out of their past.
It's always worthwhile reminding "the left" that Hitler was a socialist.
Come come now, Dizzy, those Stalin and Mao only had the best of intentions when they killed those millions of innocent people.
If you believe 'true' Communists and wackos on the Left too, Stalin and Mao weren't really Communists - though they still like to hero-worship them all the same.
Post a Comment