They say a weeks a long time in politics, so it is no surprise the utter hypocrisy of Labour of over tuition fees, today Ed Milliband has developed a new policy on education, forgetting that his own party and his colleagues not only introduced them but continued to back student loans until the coalition government, when it naturally became the blunt instrument by which to attack the coalition.
In 1997 "Our preferred solution secures equity, access, quality and accountability," said Mr Blunkett. It would produce a university system that was "fair, good for students, good for parents, good for the universities, good for business and good for Britain". Reference
Back in 1997, Labour could get away with a lot after the crazy years of Thatcher destroying the countries manufacturing base and then the Major years when conservatives chose self destruction, so screwing potential students for a grand a year was nothing.
Interestingly Labour hasn't always had the easy ride it's now experiencing, I found this summation of its problems when having introduced fees they then decided to tripled the charge to students a bit like todays controversy however for Labour time is a great healer as the forget their past to stir up things up a bit.Labour and Ed Milliband must think we are all stupid and we probably are. Labours militants for now are doing well, in manipulating students, who if nothing else, ought at least learn the lessons of history still that would be to much to expect, and just think these will be tomorrows leaders just like Milliband, Cameron and Clegg.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThanks for hiding the truth Tony please have the decency to watch them all first , as you also have a grandchild.
ReplyDelete9 25 you have littered this site with your accusations. I have made this offer to you before attach your name write a clear concise post with checkable facts and I will post.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise please start you own site and go forth and multiply elsewhere.
I cannot be fairer than that and anyone else who might have a theory on the grassy knowl or other stuff please take not even rick
note
ReplyDeleteTony, you would make a good politician cant say fairer than that
ReplyDeleteOur MPs signed this:
ReplyDelete“I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative”
No mention of "but only if we form a Government in our own right" or "but we mean over several Parliaments" etc etc. I voted for a new politics and a bit of honesty from our politicians. It's very simple - if you signed that pledge you cannot in all conscience vote for an increase in tuition fees tomorrow.
If spinning, throwing crap at others to deflect attention from the mire that your own Party is in, and support the active deception of the electorate is the mark of a good politician, then Mr Flaig would be at the head of the merit list.
ReplyDeleteBearing in mind that this increase will hit the rich, they will just pay up rather than let their offsprings take out a loan, where do you stand on this Tony, I can only find your critism of Labour on your posts. What is your opinion then Tony on how this will affect the working classes?
ReplyDeleteMany poorer income families will see their children who attend university better off under the new proposals. Up to two years without fees, maintenance grants of £3,250 pa and university bursaries on top.
ReplyDeleteIt is a shame that we have been forced by our budget deficit, coupled with the need for more funding by the universities, to increase fees but it is false to claim it will hit the poor hardest. It will hit the middle income earners the most and they tend to be the most likely normally to vote Conservative.
Labour are being hypocritical over fees, which they introduced and then trebled, but that is politics. They have spotted it as the Achilles heel of the coalition and fire off their barbed arrows even though they have no alternative policy.
Interestingly, the USA, the land of the free, the American dream and the ultimate democracy, has far more expensive tuition fees than UK. They also have the world's top universities, probably as a result of proper funding.
State run education is a racket, and a misnomer; it's little more than pavlovian dog training. Expensive pavlovian dog training that our students are expected to pay for by taking out an impossible loan.
ReplyDeleteEducation should be about learning to use one's brain, promoting creativity and independent thought. Unfortunately we have been saddled with a system that is nothing more than training a student to fill a slot in the corporate machine in this nihilistic system that is doomed (and intended) to fail. Greed and selfishness are being instilled in our students; perhaps that is why we, as a nation, are unwilling to cough up for their training. Thankfully, many of our youngsters seem to be making up for this shortfall by studying on the web.
If we were allowed to return to proper education, to bring on a new generation of bright sparks to enrich and improve this nation, I'm sure we would be a lot more willing to foot the bill for the smartest and brightest. Our future would depend upon it.
We need to take our country back.
Sources:
Interview with Charlotte Iserbyt about corporate involvement in education (7.5MB):
http://www.mediafire.com/?e0jle5o6glc8h1s
Charlotte's book:
http://www.mediafire.com/?mi2w7z2pafws3qy
Bluenote wrote :
ReplyDelete"They also have the world's top universities, probably as a result of proper funding."
Load of rubbish; there are loads of problems with USA education funding. The UK has a fifth of the top 100 Universities, and we're at number 1. For our size this is excellent, so your argument is rather poor.
Source : http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2010/results
11:53 AM I was talking only of university or higher education funding not education overall where, I would agree, the USA does have problems.
ReplyDeleteOn universities the costs of tuition in the US are far, far higher than here which was my main point. As to the university placing, check out the top ten and see how many are American. Sadly our leading institutions are falling behind the likes of Yale and Harvard. Once again it is you that talks rubbish but who is quick to place the label on others.
By the way, do you not think I had checked out the rankings before I wrote my comment. We ain't all stupid you know.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with my post Tony.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone is concerned about what is happening with the education system please read this book by Charlotte Iserbyt:
http://www.mediafire.com/?mi2w7z2pafws3qy
Another pseudonym for the phantom 'check out this site' poster perhaps?
ReplyDeleteYou can hide but the truth will out.
Everybody accepts that in general graduates earn a lot more than non-graduates. Figures of over £200k in a life time are often quoted. In which case over a working life time graduates pay far more in income tax, NI and VAT than the rest of the population. Even with fees at the current level graduates pay more than a fair share to the economy.
ReplyDeleteAnd now they are being asked to pay even more.
Going to university is a choice, not a right, 1:50PM. When I was young my father paid for me to be articled to a profession in order to get a qualification. My cousin likewise to become a Chartered Accountant.
ReplyDeleteMany people pay for higher education already, particularly mature students or those seeking a career change. Why should school leaver under graduate applicants be any different.
Help the poorer by all means but not everybody else who can well afford it.
Anon 1.57 if you cant work it out why a country needs a highly skilled and educated work force without relying on rich parents then it looks like yours wasted their money. As somebody else has said, graduates already compensate the nation by paying a lot more in taxes.
ReplyDeleteI can work out the need for highly skilled and educated people in our country but fail to see why hard working folk who did not go to university should fund those that can afford to pay.
ReplyDeleteIf you read all my comment before kicking off you would have seen I agree with helping those from poorer backgrounds.
As to my folks wasting their money, you are probably right because I binned my articles and joined the army, though I did return to the same profession later.
I can work it out 1:57 but what I cannot get my head round is why hardworking folk who did not go to university should fund those who can afford to pay.
ReplyDeleteIf you had read all my comment, before kicking off, you would see that I do agree with financial support for those from poorer backgrounds.
As to my folks wasting their money, who knows, but at least their investment has kept me in work for years.
The actual issue of tuition fees, whether they should exist and if so at what level is to some extent secondary to the behaviour of the Liberal Democrats.
ReplyDeleteIn order to win votes at the last General Election, the Liberal Democrats very publicly signed pledges that they would oppose any increase in tuition fees. They did not say this would only apply in certain circumstances. They did not say they might have to rethink if they surprisingly found themselves in Government. It was an absolute commitment.
They lied.
Politicians of all Parties do so, but rarely so clearly and unequivocally. The Liberal Democrats are now the Party of deceipt.
Some of their MPs have today stood by the commitments they gave. The vote has gone against them but they kept to their principles. It will be interesting to see which group - the liars or those with more principle - Mr Flaig supports.
Rather than tackle this sordid development openly, Mr Flaig has sought to throw dirt at the Labour Party. He has printed unsubstantiated allegations that Labour are behind the student protests. Cheap, dirty tactics to try to deflect attention from the mess his Party is in.
His supporters such as Bluenote have said his wild allegations are irrelevant, despite condemning others for similarly wild allegations against freemasons. Inconsistent and hypocritical contributions from Bluenote, who also dislikes Labour, but likes freemasons. So the rules and standards bend depending on the issue. Sad.
At least with the Tories you know what you will get - love 'em or hate 'em. With the Liberal Democrats, it's anybody's guess.
Little wonder they are sinking without trace in the opinion polls.
10:29PM Let us get this straight once and for all. I neither like or dislike freemasons as an institution, for I have met good and bad as with any group. What I do object to is deluded people accrediting them with power and influence they do not have.
ReplyDeleteYes I do detest socialism for I feel that over my lifetime it has ruined my country. That does not mean I dislike all Labour supporters for, with them also, there are good and bad.
The targetting of the Lib/Dems as liars is political in order to try to attract their voters over to Labour. Fair enough, that is politics, but it does not make all Lib Dems bad either.
As to the student demonstrations, rapidily turning into riots, I would like to see politicians of all parties condemn the criminal behaviour even if they support the cause.
Finally, if you are going to keep referring to me in your comments, since I obviously get under your skin, how about a name so I can identify you from the other anonymous posters. Not that I don't know who you are!
The Anonymous poster at 10:29PM accuses Tony of unsubstantiated allegations against Labour over the student demos. I suggest he goes into some of the Labour blogs and reads the virulent comments of some Labour supporters on the issue. Pro the 'smash em mob' and anti-police would seem to fit the majority.
ReplyDeleteLook on Mark Nottingham's blogspot, not that Mark himself is saying anything these days, and try some of his links like Luke's Blog for example to see the opinion of some Labour supporters.
I reckon Tony has got it about right.
Rob Redpath
For those who question the left wing manipulation behind the student riots and the strikes that will inevitably meet the cuts, just check out Len McCluskey's definition of the "alliance of resistance" to bring down the government.
ReplyDeleteHas very similar aims to those of Scargill back in the 80's and where did that get anyone, least of all the dreaded Arthur's own members. Mind you, Mr. Scargill still lives comfortably and draws from the dwindling union funds. He didn't suffer like many folk around East Kent.
10 29 Labour activist can easily accuse me of whatever, I know what I stand for.
ReplyDeleteAll we know of Labour activist is the level of stupidity, as I see it Liberal Democrats are under no obligation, and nor have they been since the election to back free tuition, had they been elected with a majority then of course, what labour says would be true.
The fact is Labour lost the election and any right to abuse Lib Dems
Your constant attempts to survive debate on this issue, Mr Flaig, by putting your hands over your ears and simply resorting to your now boringly customary moans about the Labour Party are wearing perilously thin.
ReplyDeleteYou clearly have no capacity to address the issue and defend the Liberal Democrat position. You can see your Party's moral authority disappearing down the plughole and can offer nothing to stop that.
So Labour have no right to criticise the Liberal Democrats, in your view? Labour lost the Election and the favour and support of the British people. They have clearly not yet climbed back - they are doing less well in the opinion polls than they should be in the circumstances. But they will, just as the Tories (half did - they did not entirely win in May) after their crash in 1997.
But your Party is now in Government, and must answer for itself, and its actions. Behaving in playground fashion and saying "oh but look at others, especially in the Labour Party" is cowardly and pathetic.
Your Party made very specific pledges to get votes. They have now reneged on those pledges. No-one is talking about "free tuition", so where that comes from in your mind I have no idea. Your Party campaigned against INCREASES in fees and have now introduced them.
That is about YOUR Party, not Labour. Deal with that, rather than keep trying to deflect attention by pointing wildly in the air. And if you choose to ignore the points from me, fine, just look at the judgement by the public at large - not just Labour supporters - and your slump in the opinion polls. The majority view is clearly that your Party has gone way too far, and is in an indefensible position.
As for you and your supporters' resort to the usual bitch about anonymous posters - a standard fall-back when you are losing arguments - look at your comments. The majority, supportive or opposing, are anonymous. You would have virtually none if you banned anonymous comments, which would doubtless hurt your vanity. So on this point, either put up or shut up.
Bluenote goes one step further, almost in the style of the "Doctor" Moores brigade, to say that he knows who I am. It is irrelevant. Who he is is irrelevant. But rather than dangle lame comments and "threats", perhaps he should say what he thinks. I would not know him from Adam, so I doubt very much he would know me. But come on Bluenote, say what you mean/think.
Your constant attempts to survive debate on this issue, Mr Flaig, by putting your hands over your ears and simply resorting to your now boringly customary moans about the Labour Party are wearing perilously thin.
ReplyDeleteYou clearly have no capacity to address the issue and defend the Liberal Democrat position. You can see your Party's moral authority disappearing down the plughole and can offer nothing to stop that.
So Labour have no right to criticise the Liberal Democrats, in your view? Labour lost the Election and the favour and support of the British people. They have clearly not yet climbed back - they are doing less well in the opinion polls than they should be in the circumstances. But they will, just as the Tories (half did - they did not entirely win in May) after their crash in 1997.
But your Party is now in Government, and must answer for itself, and its actions. Behaving in playground fashion and saying "oh but look at others, especially in the Labour Party" is cowardly and pathetic.
Your Party made very specific pledges to get votes. They have now reneged on those pledges. No-one is talking about "free tuition", so where that comes from in your mind I have no idea. Your Party campaigned against INCREASES in fees and have now introduced them.
That is about YOUR Party, not Labour. Deal with that, rather than keep trying to deflect attention by pointing wildly in the air. And if you choose to ignore the points from me, fine, just look at the judgement by the public at large - not just Labour supporters - and your slump in the opinion polls. The majority view is clearly that your Party has gone way too far, and is in an indefensible position.
As for you and your supporters' resort to the usual bitch about anonymous posters - a standard fall-back when you are losing arguments - look at your comments. The majority, supportive or opposing, are anonymous. You would have virtually none if you banned anonymous comments, which would doubtless hurt your vanity. So on this point, either put up or shut up.
Bluenote goes one step further, almost in the style of the "Doctor" Moores brigade, to say that he knows who I am. It is irrelevant. Who he is is irrelevant. But rather than dangle lame comments and "threats", perhaps he should say what he thinks. I would not know him from Adam, so I doubt very much he would know me. But come on Bluenote, say what you mean/think.
Your constant attempts to survive debate on this issue, Mr Flaig, by putting your hands over your ears and simply resorting to your now boringly customary moans about the Labour Party are wearing perilously thin.
ReplyDeleteYou clearly have no capacity to address the issue and defend the Liberal Democrat position. You can see your Party's moral authority disappearing down the plughole and can offer nothing to stop that.
So Labour have no right to criticise the Liberal Democrats, in your view? Labour lost the Election and the favour and support of the British people. They have clearly not yet climbed back - they are doing less well in the opinion polls than they should be in the circumstances. But they will, just as the Tories (half did - they did not entirely win in May) after their crash in 1997.
But your Party is now in Government, and must answer for itself, and its actions. Behaving in playground fashion and saying "oh but look at others, especially in the Labour Party" is cowardly and pathetic.
Your Party made very specific pledges to get votes. They have now reneged on those pledges. No-one is talking about "free tuition", so where that comes from in your mind I have no idea. Your Party campaigned against INCREASES in fees and have now introduced them.
That is about YOUR Party, not Labour. Deal with that, rather than keep trying to deflect attention by pointing wildly in the air. And if you choose to ignore the points from me, fine, just look at the judgement by the public at large - not just Labour supporters - and your slump in the opinion polls. The majority view is clearly that your Party has gone way too far, and is in an indefensible position.
As for you and your supporters' resort to the usual bitch about anonymous posters - a standard fall-back when you are losing arguments - look at your comments. The majority, supportive or opposing, are anonymous. You would have virtually none if you banned anonymous comments, which would doubtless hurt your vanity. So on this point, either put up or shut up.
Bluenote goes one step further, almost in the style of the "Doctor" Moores brigade, to say that he knows who I am. It is irrelevant. Who he is is irrelevant. But rather than dangle lame comments and "threats", perhaps he should say what he thinks. I would not know him from Adam, so I doubt very much he would know me. But come on Bluenote, say what you mean/think.
Your constant attempts to survive debate on this issue, Mr Flaig, by putting your hands over your ears and simply resorting to your now boringly customary moans about the Labour Party are wearing perilously thin.
ReplyDeleteYou clearly have no capacity to address the issue and defend the Liberal Democrat position. You can see your Party's moral authority disappearing down the plughole and can offer nothing to stop that.
So Labour have no right to criticise the Liberal Democrats, in your view? Labour lost the Election and the favour and support of the British people. They have clearly not yet climbed back - they are doing less well in the opinion polls than they should be in the circumstances. But they will, just as the Tories (half did - they did not entirely win in May) after their crash in 1997.
But your Party is now in Government, and must answer for itself, and its actions. Behaving in playground fashion and saying "oh but look at others, especially in the Labour Party" is cowardly and pathetic.
Your Party made very specific pledges to get votes. They have now reneged on those pledges. No-one is talking about "free tuition", so where that comes from in your mind I have no idea. Your Party campaigned against INCREASES in fees and have now introduced them.
That is about YOUR Party, not Labour. Deal with that, rather than keep trying to deflect attention by pointing wildly in the air. And if you choose to ignore the points from me, fine, just look at the judgement by the public at large - not just Labour supporters - and your slump in the opinion polls. The majority view is clearly that your Party has gone way too far, and is in an indefensible position.
As for you and your supporters' resort to the usual bitch about anonymous posters - a standard fall-back when you are losing arguments - look at your comments. The majority, supportive or opposing, are anonymous. You would have virtually none if you banned anonymous comments, which would doubtless hurt your vanity. So on this point, either put up or shut up.
ReplyDeleteBluenote goes one step further, almost in the style of the "Doctor" Moores brigade, to say that he knows who I am. It is irrelevant. Who he is is irrelevant. But rather than dangle lame comments and "threats", perhaps he should say what he thinks. I would not know him from Adam, so I doubt very much he would know me. But come on Bluenote, say what you mean/think.
Apologies for that multiple posting. The system said it could not accept the contribution three times - when it clearly had. The wonders of new technology - or those using it!
ReplyDeleteLabour activist 8 55 and 56 and 57 and 59 to me your are clearly bonkers please get professional help or a diversion perhaps go deliver leaflets or have a swim.
ReplyDeleteI try not to respond to you but clearly you are an obsessive idiot get over yourself get your own blog but please get help or another distraction.
8:55AM Once again you name me in your comment and accuse me of not saying what I think. May I draw your attention to my posting at 12:04, in response to an earlier one by you, where I quite clearly set out where I stood on a number of issues. If you cannot read or choose to ignore that then so be it.
ReplyDeleteAnother poster drew your attention to McCluskey's "Alliance of Resistance" but you make no response, presumably because it does not support your purpose.
You accuse Tony and I of attacking Labour but don't you spend much of your time attacking the Liberal Democrats and Tories. Talking of Tories, and not quite winning in May, they still polled more votes than Labour did in 2005 for a lot fewer seats. Try not to be quite so smug or do a better job on your research before you comment.
You are right that it doesn't matter who we are but at least you enjoy the advantage of being able to follow the thread of Tony's and my comments. Something you seek to deny us except your style identifies you as that particular Anonymous.
In conclusion, you really should see your GP for, not for the first time, you seem to have got the old trembling finger when posting your comment resulting in us getting to read it several times. Could be an age thing which would explain the repetitions of argument and the inability to grasp what others are saying. Sad really!
I would have to say I have a certain sympathy for the person Tony labels a Labour activist at 8:55, not a lot, but some. After all, somebody has to speak out for Labour for its leadership seem to have lost their voice.
ReplyDeleteYes, as mentioned elsewhere, there is the McCluskey planned resistance of strikes allied to the SWP stirring the student protests into riots but, that is not the Labour leaders.
The new top chappie seems to get little further than allegations of roll throwing at univesity dinners, and who didn't have a bun fight in their youth, but major speeches and actual policies - none! Certainly not from the same mould as Bevan and dear old Bessie Braddock, who would be tearing into the Coalition if still around.
In fact, the only policy seems to be, what ridiculos names can we think up for the Lib/Dems. Hence, I suppose poor 8:55 feels he has to fight the corner. Shame he does it so badly.
Rob Redpath
Poor old 8:55, for they are all ganging up on you. What's up, no answer or is it you now losing the argument so you scuttle off.
ReplyDeleteInteresting how the traditional local response - from the political right and now it seems the political "centre" - to reasonable, but persistent, challenge is to start bandying around terms like "obsessive", and to suggest mental ill-health on the part of the contributor. It takes me back to the worst days of the "Doctor" Moores blog and his knuckle-dragging cronies.
ReplyDeleteTraditional and, in addition to being personally offensive, rather insulting and unfeeling towards those in the community who DO suffer mental problems.
Bluenote, I completely acknowledge Labour lost the Election and the confidence and the favour of the electorate. If you read what I said rather than what you wanted to see, you would recognise that. The Tories regained some of their lost ground but not as much as one would have expected, given the unpopularity of the Labour Government. That is my point. Even you must see this.
And why not address my question to you. You say "not that I don't know who you are". Well say so, if it is that important to you. I have no idea about your identity, and frankly have no care. But if it is such an issue for you, then "spill the beans" and tell me how you "know".
Mr Flaig, I couldn't care less whether you respond to me or not. Regardless of the issue, you simply post a rant based on your loathing of the last Labour Government. You seem to have missed, or simply not understood, the news over the last 6 months, and the recent disaster for your Party. Fine. I think most can see where the true problem lies. Enjoy your time in the playground, where cheap name-calling is clearly the order of your Liberal Democrat day.
9:54AM If you read my post I had already said it doesn't matter who we are. My point was simply that you are recognisable by your style, not that I know you to be Fred Bloggs of Pentonville Crescent.
ReplyDeleteYou go on to accuse Tony of name calling yet, at this time, Labour policy seems to consist of nothing but calling the Lib/Dems silly names.
I note, yet again, you choose to ignore the McCluskey question. I wonder why?
Bluenote, you know from our past encounters - difficult to be sure, I know because of the anonymous tag - that we hold similar views on a (narrow) range of questions. I agree with you that the playground nature of politics is just what the term suggests - puerile. All the Parties do it from time to time and it would be good if they stopped.
ReplyDeleteNot owning up and saying "it was wrong" (or whatever) is what turns people away from organised politics. But then instead of agreeing that Mr Flaig is wrong to opt for silly name-calling, you turn it round to say "but look what Labour are doing". You, therefore, because it suits you to support Mr Flaig, are doing the same as those puerile politicians.
And so it goes on...
I wonder if a different, better system really exists?
Anon 5:35PM Whilst I would agree that much that passes for politics in this country is stuff of the school yard, I think it is a bit hypocritical of you to accuse me of failing to condemn Tony.
ReplyDeleteYou first accused him of name calling directed at Labour and then of wrongly alleging Labour were behind the student riots.
What I have pointed out is that official Labour policy at the moment seems to consist of little more than silly names like Fib/Dems and generally seeking to discredit the Liberal Democrats of which, as you well know, I am not one.
Unofficial Labour policy seems to be to not condemn the antics of the far left in the form of certain Union leaders and the SWP in turning peaceful demonstrations into violence. Some Labour MPs have even declared their support for the smashing of buildings on a networking site. Very responsible!
On this point, more than one contribution has drawn your attention to Len McCluskey's declared alliance of resistance but you ignore it. I would suggest that it is this which entitles Tony to accuse Labour of being behind the present street violence. Unless you can show evidence to discredit this accusation I suggest we call it a day.
Bluenote, I have heard John Denham and other Labour front-bench spokesmen condemning the violence that has been evidenced in the recent protests. I have heard them pointing out that such violence has no place in lawful and peaceful opposition to Government policy. Spokesmen from the other Parties have said much the same.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the/your evidence that proves the McLuskey - whoever he is - theory? Are you saying that because some lead voices in the student camp have endorsed the violence, and one or two other Trades Union leaders have expressed sympathy, the entire Labour movement and Party is tainted?
That is as daft as the suggestion that as it is the right wing that is benefiting from the apparent discrediting of the student campaign, it is likely to be their supporters behind the violence.
You must try to stop being drawn into the world of conspiracy.
Anon 1:09PM Don't you just love to read into people's comments what you want to fit your argument. When did I ever refer to McCluskey's theory or evidence to prove it.
ReplyDeleteSince you seem rather ill informed, even on your own side of the political map, the left, Len McCluskey is the leader of the Unite union. It is his contention that an alliance of resistance is being built up to the government's programme by students and union members in the form of protests, demonstrations and strikes.
Whilst some more responsible members of the shadow cabinet have spoken out against the excesses of the student riots, more left wing firebrand MPs have been happily 'Twittering' through the internet
encouraging the malicious damage.
I did, in my post, differentiate between official Labour policy and the unofficial actions of the left wing. This, of course, is very convenient as, on the one hand, it draws public attention to apparent disenchanment with government policy whilst allowing the leadership to proclaim innocence of all that is going on.
As to you accusing me of being drawn into conspiracy traps you must seriously be having a laugh. There are no conspiracies because most politicians are not clever enough to dream them up.
Bluenote, I bow to your superior knowledge, so arrogantly and condescendingly expressed and displayed. Must be like the alliance of right-wing politicians, bible-bashers and bigots against those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender, then.
ReplyDeleteA typically bizarre and off topic response from you. Whilst it is quite irrelevant to the subject we were debating I think I should point out that homophobia is not the preserve of those on the right. I think you will find a good number of down to earth, working class types are a bit uncomfortable with those who are not proper blokes as well.
ReplyDeleteBluenote, your reference to "proper blokes" is for me, as an openly gay and entirely "proper" man offensive. I have accepted your right-wing views - you are of course entitled to hold them - your sarcasm and most recently, your intellectual snobbery. But I cannot and will not accept homophobic insult. I suggest you go and snuggle up with the gay-hostile or even homophobic MP for Thanet North, wife-employer Gale. If that is off-topic, tough.
ReplyDeleteI apologise if I gave offence for none was intended. I was simply writing in the speak of the subjects described.
ReplyDeleteIf you followed the trend I was responding to a statement in which Tories, bible bashers and all were lumped together in some homophobic conglomerate. This, I am sure you will appreciate, is stuff and nonsense.
There are gay Tories and Christians as, conversely, there are homophobic socialists and Muslims. No group, political, religous or otherwise, has a monopoly on tolerance or prejudice.