Only an idiot would think the Left has a monopoly on goodness and truth

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/graemearcher/100267548/only-an-idiot-would-think-the-left-has-a-monopoly-on-goodness-and-truth/

I met John McTernan just once, in the Telegraph office, and he was extremely kind to me. Plus, I think he's an excellent writer. Furthermore, he has a stratospherically successful career, advising Labour movements and governments at home and abroad.

So I admire him, and read his advice to Ed Miliband in yesterday's Times with interest, because of that admiration. Mostly his advice is commonsensical: by choosing to define himself as the Not-Tony-Blair Labour leader, Mr Miliband has cut himself off from claiming any of the "credits" of the Blair years.

I'm quite Right-wing, Mr McTernan is of the Left, so it's not surprising that I would struggle to come up with as many Blairite achievements as are listed in the article. But there's one passage in his column which (cliche alert! but it's true) made me gasp out loud:


[Labour] must remind the country that the greatness of Britain has not been achieved by chance but by choice. For one thing, we are an increasingly egalitarian country — one where the son of a Pakistani bus driver can become a millionaire and then a Cabinet minister. This happened because of the Labour Party and despite the Tories — or at least the Conservative Party as they were until forced to change by Labour.

Sajid Javid owes his career to … Labour? Because without Labour, the British Conservatives would have shunned him, prevented, in some way, his political and general success ("despite the Tories")? Did Labour stand aside from the 2010 fight in Bromsgrove, then, the safe Tory seat Mr Javid represents?

I doubt that's what John means; and of course Labour didn't stand aside: they were beaten by Sajid Javid, who is a successful politician, to that extent, despite the Labour party.

I suspect what is meant is that without the progressives, constantly hectoring at Britain's Tory stomach, we (Right-wingers) would all revert to being nasty racist homophobic you-name-it-ists. In this binary view of the world, only the Left is good, while the Right is simply wicked – until it is "forced to change by Labour".

But this, with apologies to Mr McTernan, just isn't true. There is a trajectory to national opinion which may – I admit – be modulated, mildly, by legislative urging. The extent to which good things happen, or kinder ideas take root, however, is not obviously a matter of which political tribe has the ascendancy. (Nor is the definition of "good" so straightforward.)

Which party had the first female prime minister? The first (and so far, only) PM with a Jewish heritage? The first working-class PM from Brixton?

Which party legislated to recognise trade unions in one century, before legislating to democratise them in the next? Which party introduced the Factories Act of 1841? Which party repealed the Corn Laws? Which party introduced possibly the largest transfer of wealth, ever, by allowing millions of people to own their own homes?

Who introduced the 1875 Public Health Act? Who led the fight against Aids a century later?

I could go on. So, of course, could the Left. Much as I'd never vote for them, only a very short-sighted person would pretend that all of truth, and goodness, and reason, resides in the box marked "Conservative", or the one marked "Labour".

I do suspect that more Conservatives are aware of that pluralist truth, however, than are their Left-wing opponents. Sajid Javid will know to whom he owes the good things that have happened in his life. It seems to me at least an error of taste to answer that question for him; to tell him the answer is "Labour".


If I had a tenner for the number of times we have been told by the lefties that they have the monopoly on caring I could pay of the National debt. Not really but you get the point.

Alright said Fred wrote:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/graemearcher/100267548/only-an-idiot-would-think-the-left-has-a-monopoly-on-goodness-and-truth/

I met John McTernan just once, in the Telegraph office, and he was extremely kind to me. Plus, I think he's an excellent writer. Furthermore, he has a stratospherically successful career, advising Labour movements and governments at home and abroad.

So I admire him, and read his advice to Ed Miliband in yesterday's Times with interest, because of that admiration. Mostly his advice is commonsensical: by choosing to define himself as the Not-Tony-Blair Labour leader, Mr Miliband has cut himself off from claiming any of the "credits" of the Blair years.

I'm quite Right-wing, Mr McTernan is of the Left, so it's not surprising that I would struggle to come up with as many Blairite achievements as are listed in the article. But there's one passage in his column which (cliche alert! but it's true) made me gasp out loud:


[Labour] must remind the country that the greatness of Britain has not been achieved by chance but by choice. For one thing, we are an increasingly egalitarian country — one where the son of a Pakistani bus driver can become a millionaire and then a Cabinet minister. This happened because of the Labour Party and despite the Tories — or at least the Conservative Party as they were until forced to change by Labour.

Sajid Javid owes his career to … Labour? Because without Labour, the British Conservatives would have shunned him, prevented, in some way, his political and general success ("despite the Tories")? Did Labour stand aside from the 2010 fight in Bromsgrove, then, the safe Tory seat Mr Javid represents?

I doubt that's what John means; and of course Labour didn't stand aside: they were beaten by Sajid Javid, who is a successful politician, to that extent, despite the Labour party.

I suspect what is meant is that without the progressives, constantly hectoring at Britain's Tory stomach, we (Right-wingers) would all revert to being nasty racist homophobic you-name-it-ists. In this binary view of the world, only the Left is good, while the Right is simply wicked – until it is "forced to change by Labour".

But this, with apologies to Mr McTernan, just isn't true. There is a trajectory to national opinion which may – I admit – be modulated, mildly, by legislative urging. The extent to which good things happen, or kinder ideas take root, however, is not obviously a matter of which political tribe has the ascendancy. (Nor is the definition of "good" so straightforward.)

Which party had the first female prime minister? The first (and so far, only) PM with a Jewish heritage? The first working-class PM from Brixton?

Which party legislated to recognise trade unions in one century, before legislating to democratise them in the next? Which party introduced the Factories Act of 1841? Which party repealed the Corn Laws?  Which party introduced possibly the largest transfer of wealth, ever, by allowing millions of people to own their own homes?

Who introduced the 1875 Public Health Act? Who led the fight against Aids a century later?

I could go on. So, of course, could the Left. Much as I'd never vote for them, only a very short-sighted person would pretend that all of truth, and goodness, and reason, resides in the box marked "Conservative", or the one marked "Labour".

I do suspect that more Conservatives are aware of that pluralist truth, however, than are their Left-wing opponents.  Sajid Javid will know to whom he owes the good things that have happened in his life. It seems to me at least an error of taste to answer that question for him; to tell him the answer is "Labour".


If I had a tenner for the number of times we have been told by the lefties that they have the monopoly on caring I could pay of the National debt. Not really but you get the point.

    

Fred said Drinky is fucking crap!

Meanwhile, outside of Phil's world,
Fred I think you are always going to struggle to put caring and Tory int he same sentence post Thatcher.
She was many things, caring wasnt one of them.

Caring maybe but there are things other than caring that make up goodness and truth.

She was so full of goodness there were street parties and even pop songs in her 'honour'.

Handy Andy wrote:She was so full of goodness there were street parties and even pop songs in her 'honour'.

Still do not get how people can be proud of celebrating a persons death.

Compare the lefts reaction to her death with the rights reaction to Tony Benns death - and then tell me why that is something to be proud of.

Difference is Benn CARED for ALL, thatcher only cared for the rich elite.

Conservatives seem to get so bent out of shape when they're generalized, but then (in general) get bent out of shape when they're criticized for generalizing, for example, "the blacks," "the foreigners," "the Muslims," etc.

Handy Andy wrote:Difference is Benn CARED for ALL,  thatcher only cared for the rich elite.

Wrong.

I agree about Benn certainly in his later years. Maggie stood up for the ones who wanted to work and make something out of themselves. The elite rich are the most idle people in our Country, probably the most left leaning and the least likely to pay any taxes.

Dear me, sorry Ben but some of the left are as guilty as some of the right with guilt by association, here you see Nems associate Thatcher as uncaring because she made tough decisions, negating the fact she was a caring individual in personal life, but because she was able to make hard decisions she is classed as uncaring and if you are a Tory, that means you all are, which is bonkers, stupid and mindless drivel.

People are all individuals, you see daily on here people associate Muslims as all the same based on their religion, you defend against such absurdity as I do, as again many Muslims are individuals. Then most people who associate Muslims this way and are for example UKIP supporters (except Sphinx) get naffed off when a media story represents a UKIP member saying and doing something stupid or worse and thus they get annoyed with all the guilt by association, even though they do the same with Muslims. As I have said I think UKIP is a joke party with no credible policies, but many of its supporters are not stupid, but they have attracted an elements of racists etc from the BNP, again it does not mean all UKIP supporters though are racist. Which leads me to people who claim any RW prson is not caring or comes out with Republican or Tory for example, when again all are individuals and base their views certain view points, which again does not mean they are uncaring, but you and others also make poor generalizations of RW people, thus it is one vicious circle.

Yes mock parties, take the piss out of them, but be critical of policies and individual views, as there are plenty on both left and right that are so guilty of Guilt by association

Oh, I completely agree -- I just think it's funny to see a right-winger who's completely comfortable generalizing about other races or religions but who gets in a twist when the right is generalized. Pretty hypocritical.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Oh, I completely agree -- I just think it's funny to see a right-winger who's completely comfortable generalizing about other races or religions but who gets in a twist when the right is generalized. Pretty hypocritical.

  

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Oh, I completely agree -- I just think it's funny to see a right-winger who's completely comfortable generalizing about other races or religions but who gets in a twist when the right is generalized. Pretty hypocritical.

  

oh look here come the idiots...    

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Didge wrote:


  

oh look here come the idiots...    

He has a point because he like me does not tend to generalize as you do, hence the only numpty is you the majority of the time, I guess you are bored, why not find a ball to chase after, am sure you can have hours of fun

Handy Andy wrote:She was so full of goodness there were street parties and even pop songs in her 'honour'.

To a great deal of the population she was a heroine. To lefties she was the anti Christ. She did care but she didn't care much for sponging whinging lefties that I will agree.

The point about Thatcher she was iconic and she really did care passionately about many things.

Handy Andy wrote:Difference is Benn CARED for ALL,  thatcher only cared for the rich elite.

Benn cared for his politics and rather ignored the outcome of his politics because he cared so much for the ideals of Socialism. I can honestly say I read most of his diaries from his period as Minsiter not many of you will have. It was clear he was thwarted by the unions when trying to deliver his great ideas despite which he stayed onside.

Handy Andy wrote:She was so full of goodness there were street parties and even pop songs in her 'honour'.

When Brown left office I drank so much I was ill for days. Despite a hangover from hell I never felt so happy.

Alright said Fred wrote:

Handy Andy wrote:She was so full of goodness there were street parties and even pop songs in her 'honour'.

When Brown left office I drank so much I was ill for days. Despite a hangover from hell I never felt so happy.

....Whilst watching Santana sports, Drinky?
  

Handy Andy wrote:She was so full of goodness there were street parties and even pop songs in her 'honour'.

which was disgusting. vile is not sufficient to describe those who subscribed to that.
Much as I disliked, indeed hated, her policies and politics I had respect enough for her strength of character and determination..like it or not, she knew what she wanted and went for it..

regardless of any personal hatred for HER the disrespect shown must have been terrible for her family, who had just lost a loved one. It diminished the left in the eyes of the rest of the population, and belittled the cause of those who had, undoubtedly, suffered from her policies.

that behaviour, for so many reasons, was just wrong, and will never be right or justifiable within the context of British politics.
Another successful lowering of standards in the lefts headlong plunge to the bottom line..Once upon a time there was "respect for the dead", which wasnt for the benefit of the dead, but out of decent respect for those who mourned....Now it seems the gates have been opened for anyone who thinks they have cause to "do as they like" regardless of others feelings.... :aspffftas: 

M Lords, Ladies, gentlemen and W. I. members..........

I was during the burgeoning Thatcher years a very proud member ( number six ) of my local Conservative association.pl

I had the great pleasure of living in a working Nottinghamshire pit village...................

I being newby was tasked with door knocking............ fabulous, great fun and learnt so much.

Then came Scargill..................... The Notts pits wanted to work, needed to work and did work. Some of my best friends are either miners or family of..............

Used to run a youth club in a miners welfare......... turn out more than we could cope with each week, but we did.

At the end of the day, local politics should be about local people, who will do more for and who will support. Colour becomes irrelevant. It was to me being blue in a red zone.........

Blue actually became the colour, not because of the leader, not because of the times but because mouth was put and action followed as did the money........

I am still in aw and in touch with the reddist of red politicians............. A great female deserves all the accolades going as she has worked her socks off for the community....... Who BTW has risen to heights one can only dream of.

We speak
sometimes but in the local pub neither would recognise the other..... respect.

Why do we use terms LW and RW that describe an ECONOMIC position to correlate to such a vast list of Non economic preferences?

Because people are Idiots that like to groups things as simply as possible     

how does believing 'the means of production should belong to the state' or 'the means of production should belong to private individuals' affect what you believe about the Environment or Religion or Science.

there are morally fair arguments for both, and there is the same argument against both "humans suck and fuck things up through greed and laziness"

Alright said Fred wrote:

Handy Andy wrote:She was so full of goodness there were street parties and even pop songs in her 'honour'.

When Brown left office I drank so much I was ill for days. Despite a hangover from hell I never felt so happy.

Your wife said Fred!