That is the maxim followed by whoever wrote this article. It prompted this post from Squander Two, who says:
The level of duty on diesel is a fact, not an opinion. It is published every year in the Budget, and the BBC report on it then. All they need do to get the facts of the matter is to check their own archives. But they don’t. Instead, they report the claims, the opinions, of two lobby groups, without then telling us whether those opinions are right or wrong. This isn’t a discussion about the nature of the soul or something. It’s a real, easily discoverable fact, but the BBC seem unable to tell us what it is.
I am taking a break from being enraged with the BBC today. I would like to feed the writer of this article a nut.
Nidra Poller has a rant about the French media’s coverage of Katrina. Seems awfully like the BBC!
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4834
the French, and first and foremost the incorrigible state-owned television channel France 2,* attacked us in our very foundations, set fire to our essence with inflammatory accusations, flailed us with acid-based criticism, smeared us with the muck of hearsay, propaganda, and outright lies, and even that was not enough to satisfy their lust for revenge. France 2’s new newswoman oozed contempt from every strand of her short cropped bleached blond locks. The station’s main man in the field gleefully gloated through every pore of his shiny outer space bald noggin.
Dan quoted the following:
“the French, and first and foremost the incorrigible state-owned television channel France 2,* attacked us in our very foundations, set fire to our essence with inflammatory accusations, flailed us with acid-based criticism, smeared us with the muck of hearsay, propaganda, and outright lies, and even that was not enough to satisfy their lust for revenge. France 2’s new newswoman oozed contempt from every strand of her short cropped bleached blond locks. The station’s main man in the field gleefully gloated through every pore of his shiny outer space bald noggin.”
So that was devastatingly objective critique then 😉
On another couple of notes:
1. I doubt as Verity (I think it was her) has posted, that there are any serious (or even frivolous) socialists who would agree that Blair was Gramscian in any way shape or form. Ifg Antonio himself were alive today I’m sure he’d be appalled at Blair being called Gramscian.
2. I didn’t know you could get the TV news via the interweb. I generally get my news off radio 4 as I selfdom watch TV and I am comforted by the slightly patrician tones that radio 4 news is delivered in – it’s reassuringly English. Indeed you just got me thinking if I don’t watch TV very often (about an hour a month) maybe I should get rid of the telly and save my licence fee!!
I can still post on here with views contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy and be comforted in the knowledge that I don’t even pay the licence fee 🙂
Lurker – Socialists may indeed not think the Blairs are Gramscians, but they most assuredly are, as is Jack Straw and a couple of other deadbeats who wield great power. (I’m betting that most socialists have no clue about Gramscians, anyway.)
The Blair’s are also into magic, which is a bit disconcerting in a prime minister.
Verity
You said “I’m betting that most socialists have no clue about Gramscians, anyway.” Gramsci’s writing are an well known and established part of the theoretical cannon for all socialists. I doubt you would meet many socialist who are members of political parties/groups such as Worker’s Liberty, the Socialist Workers Paerty, The Socialist Party, the Socailist Alliance, The Socailist Equalirty Party and the others (believe me there is a plethora of socialist parties in the UK) who had not at least read Gramsci’s prison writings and didn’t have a an idea of his ideas.
As to the Blair’s being into magic I take it you are refering to Cheries penchant for crystals, rebrithing etc. I’m unsute to what extent this is Tony’s bag. Tho I would say I find the fact that an intelligent woman like Cherie (I know many of you don’t like Cherie but she is clealry no thicko) actually belives in this rubbish. If you’ve got more info on the Blair’s belief in magic please do share it as I would be interested.
Tho to be fair in my view, belief in the healing powers of crystals is as crazy as a belief in God (of and religion) as there is no rational evidence to support God’s existence. Tho as a wussy liberal I am happy for others to have and practice their faith. It’s when faith and state intersect and when faith becomes dogma is where I have a problem.
Sorry I forgot to add that that last post was from me – doh!
Now that A Lurker has concurred that Gramsci is essential reading for the communist/socialist/leftist movement ‘lurking’ in the subterranean passages of western culture, and for those who are still unsure about just what influence Gramsci’s disciples wield in institutions, such as the BBC; the universities, schools, civil service, police and leftist political groups, may I suggest a couple of revealing treatises that go some way towards explaining what has taken place sub rosa over the past 40 or so years:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a4c610569be.htm
and
http://www.policyreview.org/dec00/Fonte.html
It is difficult to know how the damage done to the pillars of our societal infrastructure by the Gramscian gremlins can be repaired. A good analogy would be the task that now faces local and central governments in NOLA. Just replace in your imagination the stench of human detritus and venal corruption with the stench of communism and corruption and you will have some sense of it.
Andrew says: “perhaps even point out to the children watching your coverage the typical outcome of abusing drugs such as cocaine and heroin.”
I am so appalled that I hardly know where to begin. You actually WANT the BBC to progandise things, as long as they are things you approve of – as in the bad effects of drugs? You want them to propagandise children during news reports? This is against everything Biased-BBC stands for.
Lurker – I don’t think Cherie is particularly intelligent. I think she was a swot. She may not be a thick-o, but from what we have seen of her – too much – over the last nine years, she is not much above average – although she is driven by an adolescent urge to change the world.
A new book by Paul Scott seems to indicate that both Blairs are into black magic. We all know about Cherie and these “New Age” (how dated that term is these days!) practitioners swinging a pendulum over Tony Blair’s toenail clippings (barf) and rebirthing ceremony, but here is something bizarre from the book: “Mr Blair always keeps a grey velvet pouch in his breast pocket. It contains a small piece of red ribbon and a piece of rolled-up paper. Even his closest advisers do not know its significance, but he cannot operate without it.”
http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/20/nblair20.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/09/20/ixportal.html
My apologies, the first link above appeared to have been corrupted in transmission for some reason ( perhaps the Gramscian gremlins nobbled it) I’ll try again:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a4c610569be.htm
Here’s hoping!
Hmmn. Not what I typed, but it works anyway. Straaaaange!
Verity
Thanks for the link. Interesting stuff. I especially like the bits about toenail clippings – ugh. Thgo the article did say “Mrs Blair submitted herself to a New Age sexual technique before becoming pregnant with Leo.” I wanna know about that technique cos it sounds pretty effective. Mrs Balir, a not young mother, managed to conceive, not bad.
All good salacious stuff….
Just for the sake of argument, let us assume the magic stuff about the Blair’s is essentially true, how is this any different to someone having a belief in God. A belief that can not be proved rationally or empirically, a belief that relies on blind faith alone. A belief that relies upon the selective interpretation of very old texts – all religions have differing theologies.
So how is the Blair’s alleged belief in magic different to Bush’s belief in God?
A Lurker – I’m not going to be drawn into a discussion about religion. What I will say about the Blairs, though is, they profess to be practising Christians – (it’s one of their big sales points, and some people may believe them). Now it appears that Christianity is one more mantle in which they have cloaked themselves and used to conceal another part of their character.
They can believe anything they like. But this whole administration has been one of obfuscation, smoke, mirrors and tinny wind chimes.
Verity
I asccept your point that the Blair’s much vaunted Christianity is at odds with any of the reports on crystals, nagic etc.
I am puzzled by you refusing to be drawn into a discussion about religion. It might be contentious, controversial and even make some people uncomfortable but that’s never stopped anyone on B-BBC expressing a view.
Mine is an honest and genuine question as to why magic is seen as foolish and irrational but belief in God (including a Muslim God) is generally accepted as ok. My question jsut seeks to gain clarification from you and other B-BBC-ers as to why this is the case and or why you views are as to me there is an anomolly. It jusst seems to me that you are avoiding teh question because it is either too difficult or you you can’t give a “rational” answer.
For the sake of clairty and openess I am a liberal leftie atheist who is happy for others to have a belief in God and for them to practice their religion. So if you answer is something like “I personally have a belief in God and that belief in God could appear irrational but my belief is sustained by faith” then I am happy to accept that. Then I would say if that is the case for you others, such as them darned Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Zorastrians et al are entitled to their own faith.
Cmon give us your views – you are happy to give them on other issues.
Dammit – that last post was me again. I keep forgetting to fill my name in. It used to do it it automatically but summat’s up.
Lurker, I think most of us learned soon after 6th Form that discussions of religion are circular and do not convince anyone of anything no matter how profound and illuminating the insights. You write, hopefully, “It might be contentious, controversial and even make some people uncomfortable…”
No. It’s trite, drab, been done a 20m times before. Who cares? What does this have to do with the institutional bias contemptuously visited upon the British public by the BBC? If you want to generate a discussion on religion, perhaps this is not the forum?
My reasons for raising it are because
– you posrted about the Blairs being into magic
– I aksed for more info and raised the issue of relgion and magic
– you said you weren’t going there
– I asked why as this seemed reasonable to me.
You now say
“Lurker, I think most of us learned soon after 6th Form that discussions of religion are circular and do not convince anyone of anything no matter how profound and illuminating the insights. You write, hopefully, “It might be contentious, controversial and even make some people uncomfortable…”
No. It’s trite, drab, been done a 20m times before. Who cares? What does this have to do with the institutional bias contemptuously visited upon the British public by the BBC? If you want to generate a discussion on religion, perhaps this is not the forum?”
Many people on this forum post about religion. I have seen comments about “Islamo-facists” about the supposed liberal orthodoxy of favoiuring Isalm over Christianity, anti-Semetism and host of other stuff about religion.
Indeed a cursory look through the post on the 13 September entry reveal a whole whost of posts realted to religion. Here is one from Susan
“Yeah, I agree, but that 7/7 memorial mass (why a mass? isn’t that offensive to the oh-so-precious Muslims? will Christian hymns not be sung and prayers not be said in order avoid singing their delicate little ears with infidel expressions of piety?)will be gone and done with, but that freakin’ “memorial” to the Flight 93 victims will stand for a very, very long time, a constantly bleeding raw wound in the psyche of my nation.”
Susan | 13.09.05 – 11:44 pm
And you response
“Gravatar Damn’ straight, Susan!
Verity | 13.09.05 – 11:51 pm
Seems to me like this was a discourse on religion that you were a party to. So I’m puzszled about your comments for the following reasons:
(a) How can religion be “trite and drab” when you have clearly partaken in debate on the issue on the forum?
(b) How can you hold the postion that this forum should only for the discussion of BBC bias when you have partaken in non BBC related discussions?
(c) If you still maintain the forum should be used only for the discussion about the biased Beeb will we all see tell other posters who digress from this that they should not do so?
Speaking personally I feel that you are avoiding the issue for reasons other than you have stated. I will leave it for others to form their own opinion as I feel I’ve laid things out reasonably, clearly and politely.
Maybe others would like to comment upon this apparent contradiction in your position. Or will everything go quiet on the forum becuase someone has dared to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy in a gentle way that is not easily brushed off with a “Socialist” insult?
Of course Im just a thicko but I find all these replies to “Lurker” very confusing, when it should read “A Lurker”
Doesn’t anyone ever comment on the posts anymore?
Although I suppose this one was pretty feeble. I suggest a `Brass Eye` style ITV backdrop to any drug references, with a haggard junkie silhouetted against a run down council estate with the words DRUGS ARE BAD flashing up in big white letters.
Lurker
Do expand on the point:
Then I would say if that is the case for you others, such as them darned Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Zorastrians et al are entitled to their own faith.
Do point out where anyone here has said people aren’t entitled to their own beliefs. Sure, Verity has expressed doubt about the Wicked Witch’s crystals and Blair’s toenails and I’m with her. In fact I think we should all be more aware of it. I’m in favour of anything which opens the voters’ eyes to this mad pair.
I’ll keep my views regarding Islam to myself, lest I be banned from here but we on the conservative side of things aren’t into banning beliefs and book burnings. Read some history, you’ll find it’s you leftists who are fond of that. So do tell, who here has said that religious people aren’t entitled to their beliefs?
On a completely different subject, did anyone catch this morning’s Big Green Story on Today? This morning’s take was that “researchers” had found that you’d have to close down the rest of the economy simply to accommodate the impact of increased air travel. If you listened very carefully – and, boy, you had to be careful, so fleetingly was the source mentioned – you discovered this highly prestigious report came from . . . . . yes, our old friends at East Anglia University. These lofty fen-bound poly lecturers were last spotted on World at One blaming Hurricane Katrina on global warming. Given that really quite comic performance, you’d have thought they’d have been slightly less inclined to receive their report as the Gospel Truth Straight From the Hand of God. Or there again. . .
As you may know, there are many issues about which Biased BBC posters do not agree with each other. So far as I am aware Andrew opposes the legalisation of drugs while I support it.
However one can support the legal right to use drugs and also think that drugs are thoroughly dangerous and harmful. That is my position. (In particular I think that the dangers of “soft” drugs have been greatly underestimated.)
That bad effects on health come from taking drugs is not seriously disputed. Saying so comes under the heading of health education. Health education can be and often is overdone, but a word or two of warning, in the context of a particular story, at 6pm when the kids are watching, would be no bad thing in my book.
Another thought: the BBC has gone on at tedious length about the health consequences of smoking. Having done that it goes into neutral about drugs. Inconsistent.
On Cherie Blair, I don’t for a moment think she’s a black magician or anything like that. She’s more like an upmarket version of those women who believe the horoscopes in the paper while still describing themselves as C of E. She suffers from a common affliction in these times: she thinks incompatible propositions can both be true.
I’m not sure what’s more bizarre, the fact that an otherwise highly successful professional like Cherie Blair can believe in a vast array of mystic b*llocks or the fact that otherwise reasonably rational B-BBC commentors appear to sincerely believe that senior government figures are attempting to bring about Communism by stealth.
natalie solent and legalising drugs
natalie is obviously right.it is nonsense to suggest that the government should be a nanny telling us that drugs are bad for our health.
1 drugs are very bad for your health.
2 it is not for the government to tell us how to conduct our lives.
3 scumbags selling drugs to children should be put away for life.
4 the idea that drugs can be controlled by controlling agriculture in countries like afghanistan is risible.
5 the idea that the police can beat the drug problem is nonsense.there is profit to be made and the authorities cannot control the market-place.
6 tax the stuff and make it legal.people intent on doing themselves harm should be left alone.
7 use the tax money obtained from drugs to educate the public.
8 the prisons will be emptied and the police will have time to catch villains.
7 as with alcohol people driving under the influence should be jailed.
8 police officers and politicians know all this but dare not speak out.
I find the discussion on Gramscian ideas to be valid because the BBC is one of the institutions which has succumbed to Gramscianism (if that’s what it should be called). It is noticeable that all of the great institutions which define us as a nation are either under attack – typically needing to be “modernised” – or have been subsumed into the corpus of Gramscianism. It is evident that the police and the judiciary at the highest levels are now fully PC and that the intent to reduce the number of local police forces from 43 to 9 is not a coincidence. The armed forces are being stealthily subverted with women and gays being used as the means.
Everything may look the same, but it’s not: a bit like the films “The Thing” or “The Bodysnatchers”.
Oh! I forgot to mention the Church.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1787421,00.html
Gramscianism at prayer, perhaps?
Indeed. The BBC has very much bought into the Gramscian agenda. Look at how even straight dramas push the Liberal worldview:
http://dangerouslysubversivedad.blogspot.com/2005/09/when-truth-is-casualty.html
This kind of injection of Liberal propaganda in supposedly apolitical contexts is absolutely classic Gramsicanism – an attempt to manipulate the broader social context so as to create the right psychological climate for the imposition of the Liberal agenda.
Natalie – the BBC’s position on drugs might be lax because a, er, certain percentage of their employees like to imbibe? (allegedly). A friend of mine was once partial to sniffing the white powder and he said BBC parties (that is, parties organised by BBC employees, not by the BBC itself) were legendary. “It’s snowing” was one memorable text message I received, in July.
As for religion, I never discuss it as many, many people far cleverer than I have been arguing about it for thousands of years and got absolutely nowhere, so it would be a bit egotistical of me to think that I’ll make a difference. I should have more self-confidence I suppose.
BBC ‘News’ is an entertainment provider, not a news provider. Once we undertand this it becomes far easier to understand the way they report events. So when a tank is set on fire in Basra, we get sensationalist pictures and wide eyed fear mongering of militias in cooperation with police – not a sober account of a Moqtada Al-Sadr rent a mob attacking British soldiers because they arrested 3 of Al-Sadr’s leaders 4 days ago with bombs in their cars…..or a sober account of why the Iraqi police were 100% right to arrest armed men not in uniform….or why the same junior police, when confronted with militia, were forced at gunpoint to hand them over.
None of that. Just a burning tank, and endless speculation, will entertain the viewers.
The BBC is doomed.
Richard,
I couldn’t agree more. The current system is an abject failure. The only thing stopping people taking drugs is desire. If I wanted to buy crack cocaine, I could get it very, very easily (I live in East London). I choose not to buy it. The law doesn’t really come into it.
Legalise it, tax it and be done with it.
The last post was mine (the one a few above that wasn’t). From now on. I’m going to post as “Grimer”. There are too many Rob’s in here.
OT
I was glad to see the British take action to rescue our men. Its about time we accepted our responsibility and got on with the job.
Many reports today discuss troops lacking protective kit/ tanks/ jeeps etc..this does concern me, because at the end of the day, if the government invested more in their kit it would reduce political fall out when troops die. it would also help our men no end who i’m sure would appreciate the support.
But the government for some bizarre reason wants to cut the infantry when they are so badly needed.? what;s that all about, when you have hundreds of thousands of civil servants sitting in offices, costing a shed load, doing nothing, because their actual jobs are being done by highly paid consultants, who don’t appear on the official headcount?
Any ideas? please let me know?
I was pleased for once that the BBC reported the news well last night at 10pm re: the Iraq Incident. It made a welcome change.
Surely the main question is why are our tanks flammable? Am I the only one who find this to border on the absurd?
I was also wondering about the stupidity of a flamable tank. I’d have thought they should be able to withstand hours of petrol bomb attacks. If that’s all it takes to disable one, the British Army could be in serious trouble.
Thank you Pete_London and Rob (before he changed his name to Grimer.)
Here’s a mystery, and I apologise for what follows being a little cumbersome.
When Lurker was trying to cudgel me into a discussion of religion, s/he trawled back through four or five days of posts to find one where I commented, “Damn straight, Susan!”
Except Lurker added a strange word to my quote. A word I don’t know and would not use. I wonder why. First, here is what I wrote on September 13. Next is what Lurker quoted with the quote manipulated to include a word I did not write. It’s on the record. (I’ve kept in a couple of sentences from Susan’s original post for versimilitude:
that freakin’ “memorial” to the Flight 93 victims will stand for a very, very long time, a constantly bleeding raw wound in the psyche of my nation.
Susan | 13.09.05 – 11:44 pm | #
Damn’ straight, Susan!
Verity | 13.09.05 – 11:51 pm | #
And now Lurker’s version of my quote:
that freakin’ “memorial” to the Flight 93 victims will stand for a very, very long time, a constantly bleeding raw wound in the psyche of my nation.”
Susan | 13.09.05 – 11:44 pm
And you response
“Gravatar Damn’ straight, Susan!
Verity | 13.09.05 – 11:51 pm
Seems to me like this was a discourse on religion that you were a party to.
Perhaps Lurker would like to give an us an explanation for manipulating the post of another commenter. No blogs would get any comments if this were to be tolerated.
Cockney, i find your questioning intreaguing. I am surprised you haven;t noticed the communist undertones sent out by the current government?
Microchips in your bin, to monitor how much waste you dispose? microchips in number plates (soon to be announced) ID cards, etc etc.
the role of the state has become ever more intrusive into peoples lives and our job is to raise these points to people for them to decide.
Communism never died, it just changed its name. When the Berlin wall fell, we in the west particularly in Britain put our guard down, well, we were wrong to do so.
Communism is still prevalent, and the BBC was recently very in favour of it. Constantly when reporting stories having either communist flags in the background of a shot, or interviewing communist party members. Personally i find this outrageous, and the BBC should be held accountable.
My fear is that we in Britain are slowly heading towards a communist state, and say what you like, but not many people know what Communism is these days..that worries me.
Its time to stand up once more for Freedom and Capitalism.
Sorry i should have added,
look at the current Labour government and list all those people who were former communist party members:
i can think of a few:
John Reid
Charles Clarke
both as it happens now responsible for our national security, very worrying.
Clarke was asked by the KGB to spy for them.
I am actively trying to find out all the others. and believe you me, there are more.
Prescott addreses the labour conference as : “hello comrades”.
enough said..
verity is a little abrasive but she is right that religion is best left to our conscience. partisan discussions are superfluous.
rob
i fear nothing will be done.talking about legalising drugs is a high risk strategy for most politicians.
Verity wrote:
>Perhaps Lurker would like to give us an explanation for manipulating the post of another commenter
Verity, Gravatars are a Haloscan icon thingy – nothing to do with someone fricking about with your text – and certainly not something that needs so much obsessive re-quoting to find out about.
You (and one or two others) seem to have adopted Biased BBC’s comment facility as your personal bulletin board, rather than as a place to highlight and respond to the failings of the BBC.
Less twitchiness, less obsessiveness, better focus (on the topic) and greater brevity all round would much improve things!
sybil
if we are to remain on-message at all times then we may also qualify to be “obsessives”
a little light talk is not a problem and a great diversion.
A Lurker,
Of course nobody can give a ‘rational’ reason for belief, that’s the whole point in a nutshell. Faith is an extremely subjective experience like falling in love. It’s real but try to prove it objectively.
As for the difference between ‘Magic’ and ‘Faith’ that’s a simple one. The faithful – of whatever religion – seek to discover and do God’s Will, that is the focus is outside their own egos.
Magic on the other hand is all about bending reality to suit one’s own purposes, it is extremely egocentric and proud to be so.
I hope that clears things up?
Richard, thank you for defending my position. Yes, I become a little abrasive when someone tries to bully me into being rude enough to argue with someone about their faith. Arguing to disprove someone else’s faith is an appalling act of aggression. It is indeed a matter of private conscience.
Ian Barnes, do they still play The Internationale at Labour Party conferences? Weren’t many of the cabinet presidents of the Students’ Union at university? Jack Straw was, I believe, although he morphed Trot to Gramscian as the years went by.
What about Greg Dyke et al at the Beeb? What is their record as students?
I just got a notice from The Adam Smith Institute that tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of the BBC losing its monopoly.
Correction: In Buddhism the aim is to eliminate all desires, not serve the will of God as it has no deity. Still eliminating desire is a long way from empowering them which is the purpose of magic.
Indeed Richard, but there is a difference between enthusiasm for the topic at hand vs. those one or two commenters here who quote and requote stuff at great length to the nth degree to prove some marginal point (usually about how right they are) – i.e., if you’ll permit me a little light-heartedness, the difference between ordinary commenters and the character portrayed by Kathy Bates in Stephen King’s Misery – those those in regular need of such diversions would do better to go to bored.com first! 🙂
Ian,
‘My fear is that we in Britain are slowly heading towards a communist state’????
No offence but I think that you should probably find more realistic things to worry about. Like life sucking aliens from Uranus.
ID cards etc etc is a wholly separate issue.
Sybil – I had no idea what gravatar is and was absolutely baffled about what it meant and why it was suddenly appended to my post. How absolutely bizarre. I was trying to think what language it might be.
Richard is correct when he says “a little light talk is not a problem and a great diversion”.
I quote herewith from The Adam Smith Institute’s Newsletter today re the 50th anniversary of the BBC losing its monopology on broadcasting in Britain: “Television, they say, is a medium — neither rare nor well done. But at least it allows you to be entertained in your living room by people you wouldn’t even let through the front door.” I hope that is apt enough for Sybil and diverting enough for Richard. The Adam Smith is going to post on privatising the Beeb tomorrow –well, maybe not that fast, but they’re blogging on it tomorrow — at this address:
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog
Cockney is acting as a “useful idiot” by disdaining rather than discussing the fears expressed by Ian about communism.
What is the EU if not a prototype communist state? It hasn’t started mass murder (one of the signs of a communist state) yet but it does have a fraudulent bueaucracy who do what they want and refuse to take action to get the accounts cleaned up.
They are implementing the constitution by stealth despite the NO votes and any auditor who questions the accounts is shunned and then sacked.
I remember how the beeb reported the USSR during the cold war as being morally equivalent to the UK and US.
Similarly, they are uncritical of the EU.
are you for real mate? ian, has proposed that there is a danger that the UK will become a communist state in the forseeable future. this is manifestly ridiculous.
historically such extremism has only come out of exceptional events such as extreme misrule and poverty or war. we are a very wealthy democracy trundling happily along with low inflation, low unemployment and a reasonable growth rate.
it has been suggested that there are sinister plots within the labour party to impose communism from within. whilst one can make an argument that public spending is too high and privatisation could be rolled out a bit, in general government policy is clearly broadly market and free trade orientated, indeed they have tried to edge the eu more in this direction. in any case the continued availability of public services hardly equates to forced collectivisation. democratic elections continue….
in my opinion the eu commission has too much time on its hands to piss about with things its shouldn’t and the administration is abysmal, however the eu is a club intended to financially benefit its participants and give more voice to collective interests on the world stage. if we wanted to leave or cease paying our contributions and forfeit the benefits we wouldn’t find eu tanks rolling into trafalgar square enforcing the ‘union’ a la Prague, Budapest etc.
this is without a doubt the most ludicrous argument i’ve ever had on here.