Tag Archives: spin



ONE: Some Tory pillock is ranting on about the party’s image as being “an organisation for the rich”, and indeed, many Labour supporters apparently see things this way.

Which is both hilarious and insane when you consider – just for starters – Blair, Mandelscum, Kinnock and indeed Brown, to whom supposedly intelligent people pay good money to listen to him expound on how to ruin a country. Blair earns a lot more, presumably on speaking about how to spin and lie successfully – invaluable skills for the world’s elite.

So, the Blair, Mandelscum, Brown troika of wealth must be amused to be told that their real spiritual home is the Tories and not the party they led in government for over a decade.

In fact, the Labour Party is of course the principal party for A) the pontificating, rich “pseudo-socialists” like Blair, Brown and Mandelscum, B) for  those on welfare and C) grateful immigrants, and is clearly doing well in the polls as the number of people in the latter two groups have bloated wildly out of control – principally thanks to Labour’s own policies. It is of course no more than clever politics. Were I to launch a party named “Lunatics United”, I would obviously seek to get into the country as many lunatics as I could, and it would also suit me to turn once sane people INTO lunatics – while concurrently impoverishing them beyond belief (except for the leaders of course).

In a sane world, you’d wonder how it is possible that a party recently responsible for the obvious ruination of Britain and still led by the right-hand men of the then leaders and in particular by an evident Hamstead champagne-socialist who has never done a REAL day’s work in his life can have a snowball’s chance in Hades of becoming PM?

But as you know, the world is far from sane.

TWO: But today’s prime news in the form of a quite-brilliant summary of Labour’s core nastiness by Peter Oborne. I copy most of it here just in case you otherwise miss it.

“The book can at last be closed on The Daily Telegraph investigation into the MPs’ expenses scandal. More than 300 Members of Parliament have paid back wrongly claimed expenses. Several of the worst offenders have stood down from Parliament. Now that the former minister Denis MacShane has at last pleaded guilty to fraud, no further prosecutions are planned, and all criminal investigation is reported to have ceased.

But one puzzling question remains. Why is it that only Labour MPs have been found guilty of expenses fraud as a result of the Telegraph revelations? Yesterday’s decision by Mr MacShane ….. brings to six the number of MPs who have been convicted or pleaded guilty. Not a single one is Tory, Lib Dem or from one of the nationalist parties. All six are Labour.

Some people will doubtless argue that the fact that only Labour MPs have been convicted is interesting but meaningless. I don’t think this can be true. Mathematicians tell us that the statistical probability against a coin coming up heads six times in a row is 64-1. In other words there is only one chance in 64 that Labour’s score of 6/6 was a coincidence.

There is an overwhelming likelihood that it is indeed statistically significant that only Labour MPs have been found guilty as a result of the expenses investigation. Labour members of the House of Commons need to face up to the uncomfortable truth. The outcome of the Telegraph investigation strongly suggests they are much more likely to lie, cheat and steal than members of other parties. … It is especially perplexing because the party in general strongly feels itself to be the embodiment of decency and morality. Indeed Labour has always insisted that the Conservatives are the party of venality, greed and selfishness.”

(Ed.: It is NOT “perplexing”. Those with an absolute conviction of their rectitude are usually the first to use immoral ends to justify their self-chosen means.)

“Paradoxically, I believe that it is Labour’s belief in its own higher morality – what Bertrand Russell called the “superior virtue of the oppressed” – that has led to its downfall. Our two major political parties have emerged from rival philosophical traditions. Labour hails from the progressive school, which is fundamentally optimistic about human nature, but believes that our humanity is thwarted and twisted by social institutions. Conservatives are the opposite. They are pessimistic about human nature, and believe that life can only be conducted within the framework of existing institutions and the rule of law. They stress narrow objectives such as telling the truth, caring for one’s neighbour, and good manners. The Conservative tradition is extremely sceptical of ambitious schemes for social transformation.

By contrast, progressives view social conventions and restraints as the crucial impediment to human fulfilment. As far as Karl Marx was concerned, law, morality and religion were simply mechanisms for maintaining bourgeois dominance. Indeed Marx’s followers explicitly licensed falsehood and deceit as instruments of revolutionary change. As J A Schumpeter observed: “The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.” I suggest, therefore, that the readiness of Labour MPs to fabricate their expenses is symbolic of a wider philosophical disposition: a structural tolerance of lying and cheating as a justification for political action.”

(Ed.: BRILLIANTLY EXPRESSED – SHOULD BE IN ALL SCHOOL SYLLABI. Do our kids learn ANYTHING about history, politics, economics and psychology?)

“This was one of the defining characteristics of the 1997-2010 Labour government. Consider the grotesque techniques used by Gordon Brown’s spin doctor Damian McBride, as set out in his recent book. Consider the deliberate deceit of the British public over immigration, Europe and the economy. Above all we should consider the readiness of that government to spread falsehoods about weapons of mass destruction ahead of the disastrous Iraq invasion. This stemmed from what one can only call an intellectual tolerance of fabrication. New Labour brought into government a new kind of epistemology, which was articulated by Tony Blair in his revealing 2004 Labour conference speech: “I only know what I believe.”

I am sure that Mr Blair felt, and still feels, that the falsehoods he uttered ahead of the Iraq invasion were virtuous. In his mind the invasion was vital for world peace, so it was only statesmanlike to dissimulate. The progressive mind will typically sacrifice what it dismisses as an unimportant rule (in this case, truth-telling or observance of due process) in order to achieve a worthwhile objective.

It is always impertinent to speculate about human motive, but there is evidence that the Labour expenses cheats justified their actions in very much the same way. They were underpaid, they needed the extra money for virtuous reasons, they were members of a great reforming government, etc, etc. Denis MacShane insisted, for example, that he made no personal gain from his cheating, and that the stolen money was used to fund research trips to Europe. In short, the fabrication of expenses claims falls into exactly the same category as the fabrication of evidence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

Let’s now turn to the disaster at the Co-operative Bank. A comparable process is at work. The Co-op used to parade its high ethical status and moral standing as an organisation that placed its duty to the community ahead of profit. A Labour-supporting Methodist minister such as Paul Flowers was therefore, by definition, the right man to chair a bank, even if he knew nothing about banking. Since his motives were transparently virtuous, it seemed not to matter that he knew very little about the business.  A generalised impression of virtue mattered more than good conduct, integrity, and attention to detail.”


“Of course there are many wholly honest Labour MPs – and quite a number of Conservatives MPs are repulsive. Two Tory peers (Taylor and Hanningfield) have indeed been found guilty of abusing their expenses in the Lords. Only last week the Tory MP Nadine Dorries was forced to apologise for failing to disclose her expenses while her colleague Nadhim Zahawi was obliged to pay back money he had claimed to warm his stables.

Nevertheless, the Telegraph expenses scandal comes close to proof that Labour MPs are far more likely to countenance lying, cheating and breaking the law. Thomas Sowell, the Conservative philosopher, puts it like this in his masterpiece, A Conflict of Visions: ‘Those who see the potentialities of human nature as extending far beyond what is currently manifested here have a social vision quite different from those who see human beings as tragically limited creatures whose selfish and dangerous impulses can be contained only by social contrivances which themselves produce unhappy side effects.’

Conservatives believe that it is only those social contrivances that save us from our own predatory and evil natures. Progressives believe that human beings are wiser than institutions. Conservatives believe that institutions are wiser than human beings. We are talking here about two radically different views of the world and of human potential. The outcome of the Telegraph expenses investigation suggests that the Conservative vision has at least one very important advantage: it keeps you out of jail.”

(Ed.: Anyone who thinks that Man is not fundamentally flawed and liable to seizure by self-delusions of righteousness and grandeur allied to arrogance and greed only has to look at the present and recent Labour leadership.)

Leave a comment

Posted by on November 21, 2013 in Britain, Morality, Politics


Tags: , , , , ,

Smoke, Mirrors and Bailouts

From “The Independent”:

It (the Irish Government) finally abandoned days of prevarication – characterised by the opposition as a vain pretence – that it had no need of any major aid package

So, the Irish have taken their (sorry “our”) loan after all, despite the days of denial, or indeed self-denial. Spin is an amazing concept. How are we to interpret these repeated denials that Ireland needed and would accept a loan? Were they ….


a clever ploy by the government (is that the right word?) designed A) to soften the humiliation to their own people and B) to spin out the agony in order to soften up the EU and squeeze as good a deal as possible out of them


an example of hysterically-silly vanity and self-delusional unreality.

My money’s on the latter, since that’s what got them into the mess in the first place.

And of course, there is a coin spinning as we speak. One side is the collapse of the euro and with it the delusional dreams (lots of those about) of the EU superstate federalists but the OTHER side is the opposite; the INCREASED power of Brussels over individual states that it hopes to suck one by one into its insatiable maw. Frankly, I haven’t a clue which side this coin will land on. Have you?


Tags: , , ,