Tuesday, February 05, 2013

"This is the last territorial claim I have to make in Europe"



Former life assurance salesman turned Tory A-lister Ivan Massow on the Tory Taliban (© Alan Duncan):



“Those same shire people didn’t agree that a man and a man should live together. They are always one step behind the curve unfortunately. But there aren’t many more reforms for them to tolerate. There’s just nothing left after this. When we can get this last thing through the gate I can’t see anything else, any other slights on their lifestyle or their beliefs that they have to tolerate.” 



Also in today's Telegraph :


"The idea that mothers rather than fathers should take charge of raising children needs to be "shattered", a minister said today."



It'll end in tears before bedtime, mark my words. But it all makes a kind of sense from one perspective. It all depends on whether you think that being a Master Of The Universe, high above a shattered, atomised and poverty-stricken mass of competing and variegated cultures, is better than being a more-than-comfortable member of a civil, ordered, prosperous and relatively homogenous society. You and I may go for the latter option. But that's not necessarily what an elite will want*.


(In other news, "a widow has died after being left to starve for nine days as her care agency was closed and the council forgot about her.")





* Laban - "It's true that in a rational economic world, a high-earning working class might be considered a good thing for a nation - and that therefore it's not in our rulers' interest to take us back a hundred years - but that would also have applied for the several hundred years prior to, say, 1860-1960. The post-1945 settlement is not the natural order of things. Before that it was the plebs and the rest - and the will to power, even constrained by Christianity, was strong. Unconstrained, what limits are there?"

12 comments:

Martin said...

Ah, yes, poor Gloria.

JuliaM said...

Ivan Massow, a man who thinks the slippery slope must have an end somewhere...

Anonymous said...

You will find that the debate in France is much more advanced than ours is. There the opponents of gay marriage know that the next demands will be the legalisation of surrogate motherhood and mass adoption from Third World Countries, and polygamy.

Anonymous said...

Given that I find the idea that the state can "marry" anybody rather laughable, I really couldn't give a damn if gay men feel the need to have some sort of special state sanction of their desire to have anal sex in the toilets of our local park. It is, after all, only a legal contract, dressed up as if it is something more "magical" then signing a Will. I see no reason why state "marriage" should not be permitted between a man and a dog, should you choose to share your income equally with your favoured pet (consummation should be out of the question, but do we adequately police consummation these days? Oh for the time when the bloostained sheets were hung from thew window....)

Gays make up rather less than 1% of the population and most of them are sorry, laughable creatures seemingly inviting open derision from the general public. This has not actually prevented them indulging in acts of reverse constipation so extreme that 10% of them are already HIV+ at considerable expense to the taxpayer. What really annoys me is that this 1% of the population have effectively hijacked the democratic process for weeks on end on a matter of no great significance to anybody, including themselves, whilst matters of much greater import to all of us have been quietly kicked into the long grass.

DJ said...

Indeed.

In less than a decade we've gone from the idea of Civil Partnerships as the camel's nose for gay marriage being something only tin-foil hatted Jesus freaks could believe, to it being something only tin-foil hatted Jesus freaks could oppose.

What's next? Well, I'd guess that in less than ten years Jimmy Saville will be getting the full Alan Turing treatment.

Twenty years from now, social conservatives will be telling each other that at least they tried to stop the Human Sacrifice Act of 2033.

Anonymous said...

"Well, I'd guess that in less than ten years Jimmy Saville will be getting the full Alan Turing treatment."

Unlikely. Of all the "loony" 70s ideas which are now taught in our schools, that one's, probably uniquely, been dropped. Back in the 70s P.I.E leaflets and booklets were in every lefty alternative bookshop, and if you google 'Harman Hewitt PIE' you'll see things like this

http://possil.wordpress.com/tag/patricia-hewitt/

But ... you have to have somebody to hate - this is IMHO true of all societies - I don't think the level of hate changes that much, absent government or religious campaigns. And the number of things that Joe Average can hate has been reduced a great deal over the last 50 years. Hating racists is better than hating nothing, but it doesn't fill the gap left when homosexuals and foreigners became protected species. Not to mention South Africans. So around the time when Kinnock took over, that all got dropped - and AFAIK it's been completely dropped from all left groups ...

Anonymous said...

Animal human "marriage" by 2030.

Anonymous said...

The whole "gay marriage" affair was just an attempt by the Notting Hill tendency to pander to the Guardian/BBC axis, in the forlorn hope that the latter might consider voting for the Conservatives, or at least be less nasty to them.

A simpler way of dealing with that problem would be to abolish the BBC Licence Fee, and to end public sector advertising in the Guardian.

Foxy Brown said...

I fear that the advocates and apologists of ephebophilia will rear their ugly heads.

Moose said...

Paedophile marriage within the next 20-30 years. Mark my words..... it is the last taboo, and must be broken.

Anonymous said...

I think you have to remember that the left has not been able to build a majority from its own natural supporters since the 70s. Support for homosexuals and Muslims simultaneously is not part of some bizarre idealistic policy of natural support of such groups from the left, but merely a necessity. They are bolt-on minorities where the aim is to increase the aggregate level of support.

The Tories, having seen the same erosion in support over the last 15 years have been forced to play the same game as Labour - trying to pull votes from minority groups. Naturally this distances both parties from the majority, oleaving the stage set for a new political force to fill the vacuum. So far not such credible political force is forthcoming, since the newer parties are merely flavours of the old parties and smell of the same rot.

Anonymous said...

The whole "gay marriage" affair was just an attempt by the Notting Hill tendency to pander to the Guardian/BBC axis, in the forlorn hope that the latter might consider voting for the Conservatives, or at least be less nasty to them.

Which only proves them to be deluded.

The usual suspects will say "Thanks for the gay marriage" and go back to voting Labour.

Now if they had made it a campaign promise they might have gained a few votes. Obviously they would alienate tory voters by an order of magnitude. Which they have now done anyway. Lost core supporters and gained no new ones. Political genius I tell ya!

Im left with the feeling yet again that this elite behaviour is not stupid, its deliberate.