A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right”


by Don Paskini    
9:00 am - June 21st 2011

      Share on Tumblr

Matthew Barrett on ConservativeHome wrote an article yesterday about “the hateful Left”.

After a full day’s work, Barrett managed to find nine journalists who are members of this “hateful Left”. We’ve come up with ten members of the “hateful Right” – it took us about ten minutes to compile, and we aren’t even scratching the surface.

If I were a right winger, I would think twice before accusing my political opponents of “spewing poison” or being hateful, particularly if after a day’s work the best haters that I could come up with were Owen Jones, Laurie Penny and a cartoon in the Guardian being mean about Iain Duncan Smith. So here’s a selection of some of the finest right-wing hatred, lies, self-pity and downright ignorance:

1. Ian Cowie, personal finance editor of the Daily Telegraph, calls for the vote to be taken away from poor people:

“Here’s an idea that might really stir up some interest – and improve our nation’s governance.

Why don’t we restrict votes to people who actually pay something into the system? No, I am not suggesting a return to property-based eligibility; although that system worked quite well when Parliament administered not just Britain but most of the world. Today, income would be a much better test.”

2. Jan Moir, Daily Mail columnist:

“Another real sadness about Gately’s death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships. Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael.

Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately’s last night raise troubling questions about what happened.”

3. Roger Helmer MEP:

“Let me make another point which will certainly get me vilified, but which I think is important to make: while in the first case, the blame is squarely on the perpetrator and does not attach to the victim, in the second case the victim [of rape] surely shares a part of the responsibility, if only for establishing reasonable expectations in her boyfriend’s mind.”

4. Richard Littlejohn of the Daily Mail:

Wheelchair-bound Jody Mcintyre has complained that he was beaten and manhandled by police during last week’s student fees protests. But if he’s looking for sympathy, he’s come to the wrong place. A man in a wheelchair is as entitled to demonstrate as anyone else. But he should have kept a safe distance… Jody Mcintyre is like Andy from Little Britain.”

5. Daily Mail and former Spectator columnist Melanie Phillips:

“The fact is that America, Britain and the EU have been not only promoting this bunch of neo-Nazi fanatics and baby murderers. They have also been forcing their putative victim, Israel, to offer them its own throat to be cut, along with that of Jewish babies. And these craven governments in turn are being egged on by the bigots, useful idiots and worse of the British, European and — it has to be said loud and clear — Israeli ‘liberal’ intelligentsia.”

6. James Delingpole in the Spectator:

“To bother arguing with a left-liberal about ‘social justice’ and the ‘deserving poor’ is like arguing with David Icke about the lizard-headed master race called the Babylonian Brotherhood, or with David Irving about the Holocaust. OK, so you might win on points in the end. But in the process of winning the battle you lose the war by conceding that theirs is a topic of debate even worthy of discussion in the first place.”

7. Ed West, of the Daily Telegraph:

“Team Christianity, in the form of the English Defence League, with its heavy use of Crusader iconography, has already come to life in response; indeed one of the reasons why anti-racist veterans don’t understand the EDL is because it is not racist as such but sectarian, a concept English people find hard to understand…

Geert Wilders is not by any means “far-Right”, Fascist or extremist; nor are the Swiss People’s Party, nor the Danish People’s Party. Austria’s Freedom Party is far-Right, and the Front National of Jean-Marie Le Pen senior was, but even that party under his daughter can no longer be labelled as such.”

8. Carole Malone, of the News of the World (We’ll go straight to the retraction for this one):

“On July 26, our columnist Carole Malone claimed illegal immigrants receive “free cars”. We now accept illegal immigrants do not receive such a benefit and apologise for the error.”

9. Douglas Murray, of Standpoint and the Spectator:

“Note how Islam is progressing in the West. It is not gaining the concessions and the victories it is by attracting people to its belief-system. It is gaining concessions from the weak-willed, badly educated and ignorant men and women who currently hold intellectual sway over Europe – people who would rather die than appear politically incorrect, and would rather sacrifice their society than be absolutist in defence of it. At the heart of this problem is the primary disease – the AIDS of the West – the disease which has made the opportunist infection of Islam so deadly. That disease is relativism…

Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition.”

10. Amanda Platell, Daily Mail columnist:

“Only this week a court ruled that an illegal immigrant should not be deported as it would breach his human right to a family because he and his girlfriend now had a cat together. Such cases make a mockery of the British courts.”

[or, indeed, of journalists who don't check their facts]

* * * * * * * *

All this even before we get to the racist cartoons, the front pages stirring up hatred against people who receive benefits, immigrants, gypsies and all the other targets of the hateful Right.

Perhaps rather than spending their working days reading the Guardian website and getting outraged (an example of a non job if ever we saw one), Conservative Home could spend a bit of time looking at their fellow travellers and investigating what it is about so many right wingers which makes them hate, lie and spread this kind of poison?

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Don Paskini is deputy-editor of LC. He also blogs at donpaskini. He is on twitter as @donpaskini
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Conservative Party

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. Ellie Cumbo

That really is an outstanding quotation from Delingpole. Are we absolutely sure he’s real?

2. Stuart Harrison

To be fair to Ian Cowie, although the article outraged me at first, on second reading, it reads like satire, especially the reference to his “modest proposal” – a heavy reference to a pamphlet by Jonathan Swift, which suggested that, to combat their financial woes, the poor in Ireland sell their children as food:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

He should probably be applauded for managing to sneak such a sophisticated satire of the right’s vilification of the poor into the Torygraph.

It comes to something when we’ve managed to have a post like this and not even touched on Peter Hitchens, Liz Jones and Quentin Letts. Or, topically, Philip Davies. Or even Daniel Hannan. Blimey, there’s a whole sequel here and that’s taken me less than two minutes.

Ooh, this thread should be fun.

@1, Delingpole is most certainly for real, and he managed an even better rant which I captured yesterday in this post (penultimate paragraph):

http://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2011/06/del-boy-and-greenpeace-man.html

I would broaden the franchise and include expat Brits like Nile Gardiner. His Telegraph blogs demonstrate a superior kind of rant-fest which should appeal to all connoisseurs of the genre.

“It comes to something when we’ve managed to have a post like this and not even touched on Peter Hitchens, Liz Jones and Quentin Letts. Or, topically, Philip Davies. Or even Daniel Hannan. Blimey, there’s a whole sequel here and that’s taken me less than two minutes.”

The first draft included Rod Liddle, but according to Wikipedia, he considers himself of the Left and is a member of the Labour Party. Then there are the ones who are behind the Sun’s paywall, starting with Jeremy Clarkson and going downhill from there.

To be fair to Ian Cowie, although the article outraged me at first, on second reading, it reads like satire

Jeeze, you think?

Given how utterly hateful he is, and how he clearly doesn’t give a flying fuck about what he writes, it’s a crying shame we can only count Richard Littlejohn the once.

I looked at Cowie’s piece on the ‘thoughtful left’ commentariat and found a list of NuLab reformists rather than any, like, actual leftish thoughts.

His only criteria seems to be:

1. This writer’s audience wants my audience hanged.
2. I agree with this writer about something.
3. Therefore, this writer challenges his audience.

Cowie could do with challenging some of his own assumptions before taking others to task, in my opinion.

Er, not Cowie, Barratt. Oops!

And on the wider point, I’ve mentioned before that an abiding sin of both sides of political debate in this country is to work on the basis that your opponents are not simply misguided but actively evil. More or less every comment thread on LibCon has references to the Tories being fascists, hating the poor, wanting to hurt the disabled etc etc (and not just sally either).

That was (I believe) the angle of the ConHome article – not that leftish people say nasty things, but that they seem genuinely to believe that the Tories are evil, wicked people, who went into politics to hurt people. For a potted example of this, I give you the Guardian 2008 mayoral election special, complete with a month’s worth of Steve Bell’s cartoons where he portrayed Boris Johnson as an SS-uniformed Nazi who wanted to gas Jews and ‘der schwarzes’. You’ll struggle to find anything on ‘the right’ as stupidly offensive as that.

Can’t see what is objectionable about Ed West’s quote at 7- he is making an attempt to classify the organisations and draw distinctions between the traditional racist groups and the modern groups whose principle preoccupation isn’t race but with religion or nationality. You could argue he’s wrong but it’s hardly hateful.

As for Amanda Platell’s quote- is it really hateful to believe that separating a man from his cat is a ridiculous reason to allow him to remain in the UK?

“For a potted example of this, I give you the Guardian 2008 mayoral election special, complete with a month’s worth of Steve Bell’s cartoons where he portrayed Boris Johnson as an SS-uniformed Nazi who wanted to gas Jews and ‘der schwarzes’. You’ll struggle to find anything on ‘the right’ as stupidly offensive as that.”

So your complaint about the Left is that the Guardian publishes cartoons which are rude about Tory politicians.

Whereas our complaint is that people on the Right print racist cartoons, lie about immigrants in order to incite hatred against them, write homophobic articles, say that rape victims share part of the responsibility…

14. So Much For Subtlety

13. Don Paskini – “So your complaint about the Left is that the Guardian publishes cartoons which are rude about Tory politicians.”

Actually given his point was clear, it is a pity that you cannot seem to grasp it.

The Left has long had a fascination with totalitarianism. The mind set that denies the humanity of their opponent is inherently totalitarian. And so many on the Left actively think the Right is evil. It is in Eramus’ words, one short step to violence.

Whereas the Right usually thinks the Left is just stupid.

“Whereas our complaint is that people on the Right print racist cartoons, lie about immigrants in order to incite hatred against them, write homophobic articles, say that rape victims share part of the responsibility…”

No it isn’t because by and large they don’t. On the other hand the Right does not accept money from the KGB – as well regarded journalists on the Left do. Nor does the Right accept free holidays from the East Germans. As at least one well regarded journalist on the Left did. The worst you can say is that Guido went to South Africa once. A much better regime. Nor do papers on the Right give jobs to people from Hizb ut-Tahrir. Nor do papers on the Right give regular columns to Hamas’ spokesman. How many Islamist nut jobs has the Guardian had to sack?

So people who actively endorse Islamism are not on strong grounds when complaining about homophobia, or racism (of the anti-Semitic sort) or even blaming rape victims. At least the Right doesn’t want to stone them.

“As for Amanda Platell’s quote- is it really hateful to believe that separating a man from his cat is a ridiculous reason to allow him to remain in the UK?”

If you click the link, you will see that this wasn’t the reason why he was allowed to remain in the UK. This was a myth which Platell copied from others without checking.

There’s loads more from Platell – one particularly classy piece was about how it is “quite some legacy” from Ivan Cameron’s life that his father was more trusted on the NHS than Gordon Brown.

@13: Congratulations, Don!

You’ve just proved Tim J’s point (see 11).

17. flyingrodent

…they seem genuinely to believe that the Tories are evil, wicked people, who went into politics to hurt people.

Agreed, this doesn’t help at all. I myself struggle to understand the motivations of Toryism in its modern faith-based market-worshipping form.

Some days, I think that the Tories are just hopelessly thick and naive chumps regurgitating Thatcherite babble because all of their equally-dense and insulated friends do. Others, I think they’re a horrifically vicious clan of psychotics intent upon rolling back the 20th century in the deranged belief that this will somehow empower, rather than totally fuck, the populace.

My friends, I beseech you – let’s put aside this divisive name-calling. Surely we can all come together and agree that modern Tories aren’t evil, but are instead a hopelessly thick and vicious clan of naive psychotic chumps regurgitating Thatcherite babble, intent upon rolling back the 20th century to unintentionally fuck the populace by accident?

Maybe I’m a dreamer, but I truly believe that if people could see the big picture and open up their hearts just a little, they’d be able to come together in peace and harmony around this issue.

Re Jan Moir:

How predictable.

Moir is utterly obnoxious, and yet she’s not remotely on the level of preachers who call for homosexuality to be banned or gay people to be killed. There are scores of the latter in this country, most of them have preached at East London Mosque from time to time… and the left, including Liberal Conspiracy, is almost utterly silent about them. LC almost silent about the Gay Free Zone posters case in Tower Hamlets, taking an interest only while it was suggested the posters might be the work of the EDL. So long as it looked like Muslims may have been responsible, LC was not interested. It didn’t matter. Hard to believe they would have ignored ‘Black Free Zone’ or ‘Muslim Free Zone’ poster campaigns in our cities.

And for for using homophobic smears, LC itself went into Daily Mail territory not so long ago with Unity’s article on a gay Tory Councillor whom Unity took fit to smear as a paedophile.

http://hurryupharry.org/2010/11/11/the-homophobic-liberal-conspiracy/

http://hurryupharry.org/2010/11/11/liberal-conspiracy-manufactures-paedophile-slur/

At the time Unity posted mockingly on Harry’s Place, refusing to explain himself. In due course the article was removed from LC, but Unity has never apologised. Even here, a number of posters treated the issue as being that Harry’s Place had got one over on LC and that it was just ‘right-wingers’ feigning outrage, not that the article was bloody awful and was actually offensive to gay people.

I don’t cvare about anyone on the list getting criticism, but do drop the fake outrage about Moir. LC isn’t above engaging in some good old homophobic digs itself, and is clearly not remotely concerned about Islamists who preach the killing of gay people or the driving of them out of where they live. Compared to them, the odious Moir is a very soft target. When you start being serious about the hate preachers, we’ll know what you have to say on Moir and co’s homophobia is motivated by something more than political partisanship.

“On the other hand the Right does not accept money from the KGB – as well regarded journalists on the Left do. Nor does the Right accept free holidays from the East Germans. As at least one well regarded journalist on the Left did. The worst you can say is that Guido went to South Africa once. A much better regime.”

Apartheid South Africa – nice friends you’ve got there.

I see your “free holidays from the East Germans” and raise you “Hurrah for the Blackshirts”.

None of the hate figures invoked on Conservative Home are even remotely of the left.

21. Karl Hungus

In the aftermath of the enquiry into the botched Stockwell shooting, Amanda Platell also suggested that Jean Charles de Menezes’s family were more concerned with compensation money than achieving some degree of accountability for the death of their son. A horrible and offensive judgement to make about people she’d never even met, and one that I can still recall some years after the event.

You could also add the rightwing blogs and their follow-up comments – on any given day pick an example from those listed above or Guido or wherever, even ConHome although that’s more heavily moderated. It’s far, far more vicious than anything you’d find on the left-leaning sites. You almost think that the original piece is a tactical ploy to get the first dig in precisely because the same allegations about the rabid right would have much more truth in them.

So your complaint about the Left is that the Guardian publishes cartoons which are rude about Tory politicians.

If you think that portraying mainstream politicians as genocidal Nazis perpetrating a new holocaust as merely being rude about Tories, I suspect you may be missing the point.

But then you demonstrate quite clearly in your post as a whole that you’ve missed the point I was making. I’m not sure I can make it much clearer, so maybe you could just read it again.

“LC almost silent about the Gay Free Zone posters case in Tower Hamlets, taking an interest only while it was suggested the posters might be the work of the EDL.”

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/06/07/worrying-lessons-from-the-gay-free-zone-conviction/

As for Amanda Platell’s quote- is it really hateful to believe that separating a man from his cat is a ridiculous reason to allow him to remain in the UK?A cat would be a ridiculous reason to allow a man to stay in the UK. But that isn’t why he was allowed to stay. It was but one bit of evidence that the couple were in a long term relationship.

I see the Daily Mail provided a photo of a cat to show its readers what a cat looks like.

Don,

your link just proves my point. LC was only interested in treating the conviction as a possible threat to free speech. It showed no interest in the rather more serious matter of the threat to gay people themselves. The only interest during the case was when it was falsely put about that it was an EDL false flag operation. There was no principled opposition whatsoever to the posters themselves. And you are predictably silent on LC’s own Jan Moir moment. Try again.

Re: 18 Lamia

I think it’s harsh to criticise the left for not picking up on genuinely dreadful stories about Muslims in this way when we are bombarded with so much anti-Muslim propaganda (there is no other word for it) by the right-wing media (including several of the ones listed here).

To put it simply, when Muslims are wrong even when they’ve done nothing wrong, it makes it harder to spot when they actually are wrong. But then of course the eejits in East London no more represent the Islamic community in the UK than the likes of Littlejohn and Hitchens represent everyone with views to the right or Toynbee and Balls represent those on the left. But you knew that, didn’t you?

Julian Glover – both a man of the right and a Guardian leader writer – also complains of the left being “sour” and “angry” towards the Tory-Liberal government he so admires.

Of course, what Glover knows full well is that the cause of this anger is the effects that government policy is having on ordinary people: the removal of social support for the weak, the infirm and the vulnerable, the foisting of enormous debt onto young people trying to get an education, the destructive effect of long-term unemployment, especially on the young. What Glover and his fellow travellers on the political right object to, what they scorn, is anger against social injustice.

Now consider the mindset that this sort of reaction must rely upon; where anger born of compassion for one’s fellow human being can actually be the object of derision. That gives you the measure of these people and their political beliefs.

28. flyingrodent

Given that the issue is overt acts of nastiness, you’d think Lamia would realise that Failing to condemn issue (x) in precisely the terms, tones and timeframes that Lamie considers appropriate proves exactly bugger all. At worst, i could suggest that the right wingers mentioned are lunatics, and that LC has spent insufficient time on issue (x).

I mean, you’d think so, anyway. Nothing says “Harry’s Place denizen” quite so much as a furious denunciation for failing to condemn some Islamic group, somewhere, at some point, in precisely the terms of the commenter’s choosing.

@25 Well being Gay myself I have to admit to a complete lack of outrage about stickers. Especially when various groups within the east London Muslim community rushed to condemn them. Now if some lgbt’s were set about by a gang of thugs, that would be of far greater concern.

30. Stokie Dave

I pointed out in the Daily Mail’s comments section that the Bolivian’s cat, owned jointly with his partner, was just part of the evidence for an enduring relationship under immigration rules. My comment currently has a score of -442 :) Obviously DM readers most of whom haven’t been near these shores in 30 years don’t like their illusions being destroyed. In a subsequent comment piece the Bolivian was described as a criminal. Would be interesting to know what crime he had been convicted of.

Re:28 FlyringRodent

Anyone who has spent any time on the Daily Mail message boards will have seen this line of attack all too often.

E.g. “oh yes, the “PC Brigade” will attack Christians but they don’t do it to Muslims will they?” (usually seen when a van owner bans a driver from sticking huge Neon “I LUV JESUS” signs all over it.

Classic example of creating a straw man which diverts the debating of the actual issues raised and takes it into some sort of surreal sideshow where the creator of the straw men can dictate terms and reject anything their opponents can come up with on the basis that their straw man wasn’t tackled the way they wanted it to be.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d no sooner stick up for the fanatical Islamists who did this than fly in the air, but as I said earlier it’s hardly the fault of LC, or are they now expected to comment at length on EVERY SINGLE story on the news at risk of being pulled up on it at some point in the future?

32. Mike Killingworth

[11] Well, Boris could have sued and he didn’t. Perhaps he took the view that the first side to mention the Nazis…

I have a sense of the Silly Season arrived early. Neither side accuses the other of behaving worse than it did in times past – surely abusive political invective is as old as politics? My own tuppence is that people should only do it if they can do it well – what might be called the Denis Healey standard.

“Nothing says “Harry’s Place denizen” quite so much as a furious denunciation for failing to condemn some Islamic group, somewhere, at some point, in precisely the terms of the commenter’s choosing.”

I liked the bit about how Peter Tatchell was showing no interest in the threat to gay people.

I’d be more interested in an article on the reasonable right as a counterpoint. Even if it takes a bit more time to research. That there are spiteful people everywhere isn’t news, nor is it that people can’t see the beam for the mote, or that people disagree on what counts as spite.

35. Cheesy Monkey

If the Right don’t want to be thought of as evil, irredeemable cunts, then may I make a small constructive suggestion? Sit down, steady yourselves and relax:

Stop sounding and behaving like evil, irredeemable cunts.

There. Ooooh look, a squirrel. And dew glistening on a rich green leaf. Raindrops on posies and whiskers on grandmas. Come on… feel the joy!

@ Chris,

“I think it’s harsh to criticise the left for not picking up on genuinely dreadful stories about Muslims…”

It’s primarily a dreadful story about gay people, not Muslims, Chris. That’s why it should be an issue. Your inability to look at it that way shines through. And no, as a gay person, It’s not ‘harsh’ to criticise the left for invariably putting its concern about innocent Muslims ahead of any concern for innocent gay people. Stuff like the Jan Moir mention is just designed to stroke the ego. And the Unity scase showed LC itself isn’t above resorting to homophobic smearing, with not even a Muslim in sight.

“the eejits in East London no more represent the Islamic community in the UK…”

Quite. In which case, LC and the rest of the left need not and should not have steered around the case as if they WERE representative of the Islamic community in the UK. People wouldn’t steer clear of criticising Opus Dei on the grounds that all Catholics might feel under attack.

“it’s hardly the fault of LC, or are they now expected to comment at length on EVERY SINGLE story on the news at risk of being pulled up on it at some point in the future?”

No, not every single story, just some would do. LC has a lousy record in this area.

“Especially when various groups within the east London Muslim community rushed to condemn them.”

The same ELM which has hosted scores of homophobic hatre preachers over the years. That’s as avaluable as getting Ian Paisley to ‘condemn’ anti-catholic bigotry.

@ Flyring rodent,

“Given that the issue is overt acts of nastiness…”

So you don’t consider the posters to be ‘overt acts of nastiness’. Says it all.

I’d be more interested in an article on the reasonable right as a counterpoint. Even if it takes a bit more time to research.

As a very brief guide, Danny Finkelstein and Matthew Parris from the Times are always good value, and virtually definitionally reasonable. Matt d’Ancona in the Sunday Telegraph (and Standard) is a Cameronista right-winger. From the blogside, Graeme Archer is great.

I would add Godfrey Bloom MEP, not sure where to start really with him

Tim J @ 11

but that they seem genuinely to believe that the Tories are evil, wicked people, who went into politics to hurt people

Come on Tim, we all know this is more or less true. Phillip Davis is not ‘misguided’ in his attacks on the disabled. He has deliberately chosen a group of people who have no voice or advocacy group and has attempted exploit them for his own political ends. He finds the minimum wage objectionable and wishes to bring it down.

Delingpole, Letts and the rest of the Global Warming deniers (including those on here) are not deniers because the have spotted outrageous flaws in the science; they have no interest in the science.

They object to the counter measures required to defeat Global Warming. I know that, you know that, I know that you know that, you know that I know that you know that etc. Yet the silly little canard goes round in circles. Why Tim? I am I supposed to just think ‘hmm, not evil, he is just misguided’.

On what evidence? I am I to assume that people who regularly demonstrate a complete and utter ignorance of the science they are discussing (it snowed in January, Global Warming is not happening, type thing) have all spontaneously went to the local library and/or Watersons and have found the books written by reputable scientists on the subject sold out and the ones written by dingbats are left? Not only that, but this happened to everyone on the Right of the Tory Party and everyone else on the Left, Centre and the few ‘decent’ Tories managed to ignore the Iain Pilmer crap?

You think that is plausible? You are seriously telling me that the entire AGW denier cohort only exists because you all went to buy a book on the same day of the week, the same day of the week that all the decent books were sold out?

No, Tim, I cannot buy that. I cannot buy the fact that you all opened up to this subject with genuinely open minds. Then, as a group, have just happened to misinterpret the science, believe you have spotted the flaw that the entire scientific communities have missed and spontaneously came to a genuinely false conclusion that just happens to fit exactly with your political ideology.

No Tim, I don’t actually think that. I am going out on a limb here, here is what I think. I think you people looked at the proposition and studied the implications, then looked at the prognosis and thought ‘meh, what the fuck’ and declared AGW as false.

Then what? We find these same ‘misguided’ people did the exact same thing on every other subject. Be it the NHS, the unemployed, the disabled, asylum seekers etc. In fact, you people appear to delight in kicking the lungs out of the poor and weak.

When it comes to ‘helping the poor’ it will always be at the expense of the poor. When it comes to taxation your solution will always be to decrease progressive taxation and increase regressive taxation. Your ‘solutions’ are never going to be watertight because you people look through a Right Wing filter. You will always think ‘how can I use this information to hammer those in society I hate’. You will never look at anything objectively, because your Party are bigots. Christ if you cannot get Global Warming Right, what fucking hope haveyou got with anything else?

Phillip Davis a case in point. When he finds out that people with mental health issues struggle to find employers. His instinct, like all good Tories is to use weakness against his enemy and declared that the best way to ‘help’ the poor (in this case the mentally ill) was to further devalue them! Not encourage employers to use them or even say, fuck it, no point in chasing these people down like rabbits or anything like that. No, his instinct was to batter these people on the way down.

Evil Nazi? Yep, here and on this occasion? You got it.

On the other hand the Right does not accept money from the KGB – as well regarded journalists on the Left do.

IIRC the only country that has a KGB is Belarus. I’d be interested to know why the hell the Belarus secret police are bribing leftie journalists.

41. flyingrodent

So you don’t consider the posters to be ‘overt acts of nastiness’. Says it all.

As even the weakest brain would notice, the Islamist gay-haters in question aren’t exactly Commies, what with them being Islamists. Further, your complaint is that this particular website has failed to condemn them in precisely the terms you demand.

Even so, there is no way in which this proves some kind of hateful lefty behaviour, except to you, and as you’ve demonstrated, you’re not the sharpest tool in the box.

Jim: I think you’re bracketing all Tories together. To be an AGW denier, you do have to be ignorant, deluded or actively lying. Ditto to believe that prison is effective.

On the other hand, while the belief that “disabled people have trouble getting jobs at current wages, therefore we should cut wages” is simplistic and problematic, it isn’t *unequivocally wrong* in the same way.

Lists, lists…

How about the whole raft of Express columnists? Leo McKinstry etc?

Or that pudgy buffoon Jon Gaunt in the Sun?

You will always think ‘how can I use this information to hammer those in society I hate’. You will never look at anything objectively, because your Party are bigots.

This is rather what I was talking about.

The problem with believing your opponents to be actively malign is that it makes it very hard to engage with their actual policies. Because if they are evil, then obviously all you need to do to defeat their arguments is just point that out right? Of course Tories want to decouple education from local authority control, because they’re brownshirts amiright?

It’s a fundamentally sterile intellectual position.

“I’d be more interested in an article on the reasonable right as a counterpoint. Even if it takes a bit more time to research.”

Fair point. Let’s try and get a list together of the “Reasonable Right” – off the top in addition to the ones who Tim J mentioned, I like Tim Montgomerie, Iain Martin, Jesse Norman, Rory Stewart, Boris Johnson, Paul Goodman – any others I’ve missed?

On topic of the hateful Right, Ross on twitter has pointed out that I missed out Nadine Dorries, and Godfrey Bloom is another fine suggestion.

46. flyingrodent

Alex Massie always seemed a reasonable sort to me, reliable on liberties and so on. Prone to a bit of snobbery now and then, but we all have flaws.

Re:36 Lamia

“It’s primarily a dreadful story about gay people, not Muslims, Chris. That’s why it should be an issue. Your inability to look at it that way shines through.”

No, the story is ABOUT Muslims. It concerns homosexuals but the thrust of the story was that it was about Muslims, sepcifically the Muslims who did this.

But given you seem intent on picking a fight rather than dealing with the article I don’t see the point of saying this.

“As even the weakest brain would notice, the Islamist gay-haters in question aren’t exactly Commies, what with them being Islamists.”

And? I was under the impression that LC criticises non-leftists who express vile views – see this article for example. So criticising homophobic hate preachers should be as easy as… ooh, criticising Jan Moir. For some reason it’s harder for LC, even there there are plenty of such preachers and they make much more extreme comments. That’s why I call bullshit on LC on Moir. It’s only because she writes for the trashy Mail that they are interested. If she was a preacher at ELM, they would simply stick their heads in the sand. They only care about homophobia incidentally to another issue.

“Further, your complaint is that this particular website has failed to condemn them in precisely the terms you demand:”

Strawman of my complaint. I would appreciate it if LC had condemned them at all as a matter of principle and separate from any other issue. They simply ignored them except to refer to them as part of some other issue – e.g. the EDL or freedom of speech. LC doesn’t take any interest in such cases, as the archive here will show. It’s nothing to do with precise terms, it’s about addressing the subject at all.

49. Cheesy Monkey

@45

For good Rightie journals, I do like a bit of Peter Oborne now and again.

50. Tourquil Mcneil

“Fair point. Let’s try and get a list together of the “Reasonable Right” – off the top in addition to the ones who Tim J mentioned, I like Tim Montgomerie, Iain Martin, Jesse Norman, Rory Stewart, Boris Johnson, Paul Goodman – any others I’ve missed?”

Including the US? I would add Tyler Cowen, Bryan Caplan, Don Boudreaux, Megan Mcardle, Alex Tabbarok.

51. Tourquil Mcneil

And don’t forget Tim W.

“No, the story is ABOUT Muslims. It concerns homosexuals:”

No, the story is about homosexuals being intimidated into leaving Tower Hamlets. They are the important people in this, they are the victims in this crime, and support for them should have been as loud, unprompted and unconditional as support for Muslims or Black people should (and would) have been forthcoming if there had been equivalent poster campaigns against them. You wouldn’t have said such cases weren’t ‘about Black people’ or ‘about Muslims’.

The story is only ‘about’ Muslims for you because you instinctively see them as fundamentally more important than homosexuals, hence your vile hierarchy of the victims as lower than the group from which the perpetrators came .

“Including the US?”

Absolutely and definitely not. The Right in the US are on a completely different planet – let’s keep this discussion of the hateful and reasonable Right somewhat manageable!

“And don’t forget Tim W.”

Surely you mean Tim J? :)

+1 for Alex Massie. Iain Martin was terrific on the WSJ but seems to have been a bit Mailified. BoJo is always good value, but often not terrifically reasonable. Rory Stewart is spot-on on foreign policy – but that’s all I’ve read from him. Tim M is a bit ‘One True Voice’ for me, but to each their own.

I like James Forsyth (old school tie working well there), and Hugo Rifkind is also worth reading. It’s sad that the Times is effectively offline, because most of the best writers were there.

One thing that is noticeable, I think, is how few of the top names in right-wing journalism were even heard of 10 years ago. Compared to the left, where the likes of Toynbee, Ashley, Milne, Hutton, YAB, Freedland and Hoggart seem to have been around forever.

Given that Tim Montgomerie is a frequent and welcome guest on BBC News 24 (as is Iain Dale, by the way), when will this “fair and balanced” poster channel for mainstream news start inviting the editors of Liberal Conspiracy into its parlour?

56. Tourquil Mcneil

Roger Scruton is always fascinating and a brilliant writer.

Re:52 Lamia

“The story is only ‘about’ Muslims for you because you instinctively see them as fundamentally more important than homosexuals, hence your vile hierarchy of the victims as lower than the group from which the perpetrators came .”

Ooh slander, marvellous.

Could you kindly cite proof that I have a “vile hierachy” and that I’m not just seen as being wrong because I happen to disagree with you? To help, it would only be a vile hierachy if I had actually said that it was right. Which I haven’t, and indeed on more than one occassion I’ve said the polar opposite.

But then if you’ve had enough of sensible debate and wish to go down the shrieking outrage road then feel free to call me a homophobe because I dared to say that people other than homosexuals are sometimes victims as well. You’re clearly itching. It will have the drawback (for you) of immediately losing you the arguement but I’m getting the feeling you’re not bothered about that. Clearly by your actions you’re not a fan of LC or people who comment here, so it’s to be expected.

The way you’re going you’re climbing up this list yourself, at the moment I’d say somewhere between West and Dellingpole.

58. Tourquil Mcneil

Thinking of the sorts of things that animate Hateful Righters, has nobody on LC noticed the latest survey that finds Ed Miliband is now more unpopular than small pox, or something?

Thinking of the sorts of things that animate Hateful Righters, has nobody on LC noticed the latest survey that finds Ed Miliband is now more unpopular than small pox, or something?

We’re hoping they don’t notice.

60. Mike Killingworth

[58] No, more denial.

[57] It’s at least arguable that gays and Muslims are both victims in this case: gays obviously, and Muslims because they are only allowed to practice such bits of their religion as don’t offend Western enlightenment values.

Re:60 Mike

“[57] It’s at least arguable that gays and Muslims are both victims in this case: gays obviously, and Muslims because they are only allowed to practice such bits of their religion as don’t offend Western enlightenment values.”

Quite right, which is sort of the point I’ve been trying to make all along (although probably badly). The fanatics who did this are undoubtedly sinister in their motives, but to use it accuse an entire community of being something is just as bad IMHO.

62. Julian St Jude

The Right in this country is full of hate. They hate the unemployed, they hate the disabled on benefits, they hate public sector workers,,, the list is endless.

One only has to read the Rabbid editorials of the Sun or the Daily express, for instance to see them wageing their hate campaigns against disadvantaged and voiceless sections of society.

The Class War is being waged relentlessly and not by “Hateful” Socialists but by hateful Sociopaths and against the poorest and most vulnerable in society.

63. Tourquil Mcneil

” It’s at least arguable that gays and Muslims are both victims in this case: gays obviously, and Muslims because they are only allowed to practice such bits of their religion as don’t offend Western enlightenment values.”

Lamia is a little overheated, but this is daft. You are not a ‘victim’ if you are prevented from persecuting another group or individual, no matter how much you want to do it.

@60

“…..and Muslims because they are only allowed to practice such bits of their religion as don’t offend Western enlightenment values.”

Which parts might those be then? Is your contention that we should allow discrimination against homosexuals/women/unbelievers because people of faith think they have a license to do so because their faith tells them to?

Whats wrong with quotes 7 & 10?
Ed west is basically being pedantic about political labeling, while Amanda Platell believes that illegal immigrants should be deported.
Big fucking deal.

Re:64 Galen10
“Which parts might those be then? Is your contention that we should allow discrimination against homosexuals/women/unbelievers because people of faith think they have a license to do so because their faith tells them to?”

Two questions.

1. So there are no tenets of religion other than that which are frowned upon in the west by anyone?
2. Isn’t this veering a little too close to the wind of “thought crime”?

I should just point out these are genuine questions and I’m not just looking to pick a fight, I’m genuinely puzzled as to how anyone could claim Muslims aren’t in any way victims in western society.

67. Mike Killingworth

[63] According to the OED “Victim (n)… (d) one who suffers some injury, hardship or loss” – I’d say not being able to practise one’s religion fully – because Sharia law is tightly circumscribed in the U.K. as in all Western countries – qualifies.

[64] No, I am not saying that. I think that Samuel Huntington was right when he talked about the “clash of civilizations” (I am open-minded, you see, and will take on board rightists’ ideas on the rare occasions they’re correct ;) ). In the long run (say 50 years or more), Muslims in Europe will either have to adopt a form of “Islam-lite” (as the likes of Tariq Ramadan suggest), re-emigrate to the Islamic world or conquer us, whether by terrorism, differential birth-rates, economic warfare or whatever.

I would ask you this: if, at a future Mayoral election, the voters of Tower Hamlets elect a (Muslim) secessionist candidate, would you not want to allow them to secede under the same terms that we have offered the SNP or Sinn Féin?

68. InternetBusiness

So the rightwingers do a nasty bit of muck-raking and you show how much better you are than them by…

Nevermind.

69. Tourquil Mcneil

“[63] According to the OED “Victim (n)… (d) one who suffers some injury, hardship or loss” – I’d say not being able to practise one’s religion fully – because Sharia law is tightly circumscribed in the U.K. as in all Western countries – qualifies.”

Muslims are entitled to practice every aspect of their religion except when that involves the persecution of others. To say they are therefore victims is absurd. By that definition a wifebeater is as much a victim as his wife if he is prevented from physically expressing his views about the corporal punishment of women.

@55

Montgomerie, and Dale to a lesser extent, both love to put the boot into the BBC, but apparently expect to be asked on to indulge in a little punditry. I do wonder what would happen if they laid into Sky News (“first for breaking wind”) in the same way.

@45

Who mentioned Nadine Dorries? Was it you? Well? Did you mention Nadine Dorries? Right, go and stand at the back.

The real question, though, is whether we can quantify the respective hatefulness. I mean, is there a degree of hate that we can measure on some kind of beingatotaldickter scale? I feel that this is what our country needs at the moment.

Fair point. Let’s try and get a list together of the “Reasonable Right”…

Theodore Dalrymple.

72. Tourquil Mcneil

” I’m genuinely puzzled as to how anyone could claim Muslims aren’t in any way victims in western society.”

First of all the phrasing isn’t terribly good here. ‘Muslims’ do not exist as a homogeneous block. Some Muslims are victimised others aren’t. It isn’t exceptional to notice a degree, possibly rising, of anti-Muslim bigotry in the country, but that is far from saying that any Muslim is a victim if he is prevented from acting in any way he chooses which seems to be Mike K’s position.

this is a strange discussion.

it’s utterly unfair to cite peter’s article as something that avoids the history of homophobic ranters at the east london mosque when that it is exactly the issue he addresses.

i also don’t understand how gayhating preachers at the ELM and the gay free zone campaign in east london somehow let jan moir or any other seething tory homophobe off the hook for their own attacks on gay people.

this isn’t a game of poker. “i’ll see your jan moir and raise you an uthman lateef.”

human rights are universal, and bigotry is bigotry regardless of the source.

“…and Muslims because they are only allowed to practice such bits of their religion as don’t offend Western enlightenment values.”

The world is hardly short on states that practice Sharia law. If they feel so aggrieved by our failure to do so they’re welcome to leave.

@ Mike

It’s at least arguable that gays and Muslims are both victims in this case: gays obviously, and Muslims because they are only allowed to practice such bits of their religion as don’t offend Western enlightenment values.

The problem you have with that statement is that the core teachings of Islam are at variance with Western enlightenment values. There is no need to cite the extremists.

Mainstream Muslim teachings and views on women, marriage, homosexuality, nudity, sex, alcohol etc are all at odds with our prevailing permissive society. I’m not saying such views are necessarily wrong, by the way, but that they are bound to result in friction, at the least.

As I said on another thread here, it must be confusing for the female Muslim student to understand why it is only when she goes to the university Islamic Society that she is obliged to sit at the back of the room and not be allowed to speak.

@73

What he said.

Discrimination by some people of faith in the name of their religion isn’t any more acceptable because they have what they consider supernatural approval for doing it.

No, the story is about homosexuals being intimidated into leaving Tower Hamlets.

No it isn’t. It’s about some daft wee kids who’d like to achieve that, have had absolutely no success and have absolutely no chance of success, and hopefully will grow up at some point. That’s why it’s a Muslim narrative not a queer narrative – because it hasn’t actually had any impact on the queer community, it’s just highlighted the hardly-a-shock fact that there are some idiots in a place.

Roger Scruton is always fascinating and a brilliant writer.

Hahahahahahaha!

Amanda Platell believes that illegal immigrants should be deported.

Amanda Platell lied about the facts of a particular case to help win support for her view that illegal immigrants should be deported. That’s the point.

78. Tourquil Mcneil

“That’s why it’s a Muslim narrative not a queer narrative – because it hasn’t actually had any impact on the queer community,”

Eh? Have you asked anyone in the gay community if it has had any affect? Because they are saying the opposite.

79. TA! DAAAAA!

@43…I love Gaunty, he is one of those ‘I used to be a leftie, but now I have seen the light’ which in actual fact really means, ‘I used to be a leftie, until I found out it paid to be really right wing’ I cant take that man seriously.

80. Mike Killingworth

[72]

Any Muslim is a victim if he is prevented from acting in any way he chooses which seems to be Mike K’s position.

Perhaps you could point me to the post where I said that. There is, at least in the minds of reasonable people, a difference between practising one’s religion and acting in any way you choose.

As I have often said on here – and no doubt will have occasion to say again – Islam is what Muslims do, and by “Muslims” I don’t mean the tiny fraction of them who live in the U.K., but Muslims worldwide. And the bit you’re going to have to get used to, Tourquil, is that most of them don’t like us very much.

By the way, the cold, condescending and sycophantic Colonel in Quatermass and the Pit is performed by a man called Julian Glover. I’m sure it’s coincidence.

82. Mike Killingworth

[75] I think we’re saying pretty much the same thing.

Is there any evidence that the number of (out) gay people living in Tower Hamlets is falling? No, there isn’t. Anecdotally, I’d be bloody amazed from having lived there for several years, up to the end of 2009, if the gay population wasn’t still rising – the main demographic trend there is that older working-class families, both white and Asian, are being replaced by younger professionals.

So while people may or not blether on about the atmosphere, intimidation, etc, the facts confirm that whatever these idiots are trying to do has failed dismally and will continue to fail dismally.

@ Tim J “As a very brief guide, Danny Finkelstein and Matthew Parris from the Times are always good value, and virtually definitionally reasonable”

I’ve always found Parris to be reasonable, except when he turns amateur psychologist. Which only shows that even the most reasonable can get up your nose now and then.

85. Tourquil Mcneil

“Perhaps you could point me to the post where I said that. There is, at least in the minds of reasonable people, a difference between practising one’s religion and acting in any way you choose.”

Well yes, but you seemed to include in ‘practising ones religion’ such things as persecuting women and homosexuals, which isn’t what most reasonable people understand. Your argument was that a Muslim man who was prevented from persecuting homosexuals was himself a victim. Which is bonkers.

“As I have often said on here – and no doubt will have occasion to say again – Islam is what Muslims do”

Don’t be daft. I know plenty of Muslims and what they do as nothing to do with Islam, unless nude photography, gambling, drinking and rock climbing are going to be included. None of them ever go anywhere near an Imam as far as I can tell, although one of the honours Ramadan, in much the same spirit that I do Easter. But I am sure they will be delighted to know that you have conferred upon yourself the right to define ‘Islam’.

“And the bit you’re going to have to get used to, Tourquil, is that most of them don’t like us very much.”

Speak for yourself. You shouldn’t over-generalise from personal experience. Hasn’t it occurred to you that it might just be YOU they don’t like? Stop telling them what ‘Islam’ means and they might be friendlier.

86. Tourquil Mcneil

“So while people may or not blether on about the atmosphere, intimidation, etc, the facts confirm that whatever these idiots are trying to do has failed dismally and will continue to fail dismally.”

It has failed to drive gay people out of the area, but it has nonetheless had the effect of causing distress and dismay. How could it not? The posters were extremely threatening. The EDL has not had its desired effect of driving non-whites from our towns, but it can hardly be said to have had no effect at all.

I’ve always found Parris to be reasonable, except when he turns amateur psychologist.

That’s a fair point.

@79 – actually I’m always amused by the ‘I used to be a leftie, but now I have seen the light’ brigade because, really, it means they’re stupid enough to have been fooled twice.

Which reminds me – Peter Hitchens, yes he’s a seen-the-lighter, but to his great credit he’s not afraid to alienate the MoS peanut gallery on occasion.

The EDL has not had its desired effect of driving non-whites from our towns, but it can hardly be said to have had no effect at all.

It’s had virtually no effect on migrants, which is precisely why the discourse when we talk about the EDL is of its own nuttiness and its relationship to white right-wing movements, rather than about migrants. If someone entered such a discussion on the EDL and said “but what about the way it makes Muslims *feel*?”, then they’d rightly be decried as a concern troll and roundly told to piss off. That’s exactly analogous to this discussion in Tower Hamlets.

91. Tourquil Mcneil

” If someone entered such a discussion on the EDL and said “but what about the way it makes Muslims *feel*?”, then they’d rightly be decried as a concern troll and roundly told to piss off. ”

Don’t be absurd. The EDL is of interest only because of the effect it has on minority communities. I am astonished that you haven’t noticed this. It isn’t just an interesting sociological phenomenon with no real-world affect. That’s why marches have been organised to oppose it. I think if there were a discussion of the EDL where someone claimed that the effect it had on immigrant communities was irrelevant or ‘concern trolling’ it would be very strange indeed.

92. TA! DAAAAA!

That Peter Hitchens is never happy, he is like a right wing david mitchell. He will be angry for the right amount of money. Still Hitchens gets angry about islam, liberals and david cameron, Mitchell gets angry about iphones and dvds, I guess it doesn’t really compare.

93. Mike Killingworth

[85] That’s the second time you’ve twisted what I said, Tourquil so – I am not debating with you any further.

This thread is a perfect example of the whole issue.

Idiots from the right vs idiots from the left, all scoring points in a pedant’s wankfest that only matters to those involved.

Guess that includes me too now.

Re:92 TA! DAAAA!
“Still Hitchens gets angry about islam, liberals and david cameron, Mitchell gets angry about iphones and dvds, I guess it doesn’t really compare.”

It’s a bit disingenuous to compare the two given Hitchens has only ever made a name for himself as a writer and journalist whereas David Mitchells background is in comdery and the performing arts, so its perhaps only natural he goes for targets which he can more redily identify with.

Mitchell is a very clever man, but Hitchens is by far and away the more experienced.

Tim J @ 44

The problem with believing your opponents to be actively malign

Tim, I don’t ‘believe’ the Tories to be actively malign, just plain nasty, nuts or a combination of all three, the evidence is always there. I would like nothing better than to examine policy with Tories, Labour Lib Dem and/or any other group, political or not.

However, every day it appears that the Tory Party announce things that are downright Nasty. I cannot find anything nice to say about Phillip Davis contributions, because I equate that type of language with the type of rhetoric I normally associate with the advocates of eugenics. It is not just that I happen to think he is ‘wrong’ in his analysis, I think he starts of with a pretty nasty premise and therefore his conclusions are equally nasty.

The problem I have with the Tory Party is not that I have fundamental disagreements with their ideology, I would love to have a debate about how to improve society, it is just for some reason, your Party’s ‘solution’ normally involve people having the guts kicked out from them.

I am told that there are decent Tories out there, yet not one single Tory condemns Davis. Is that because they think he is right? Or is that because they think if they speak out, the will be condmned as a trott?

Tell you what, Tim, lets turn it around somewhat? Is it possible that the Tories see ‘Left Wing bias’ everywhere because they cannot accept that their prejudices have no basis in truth and that when faced with reality, they assume that the other side have an agenda?

Two Right wing writers I enjoy? PJ O’Rouke and the late Alan Coren.

I am told that there are decent Tories out there, yet not one single Tory condemns Davis.

The right don’t tend to go in for public vilification. The official conservative response to his comments is:

“These comments do not reflect the views of the Conservative Party and do not reflect government policy”.

I doubt you’ll be satisfied with a disavowal of the comments, but then I doubt you’d be satisfied with anything the Tories do.

former Spectator columnist Melanie Phillips”

Has she been given the boot then? Excellent.

100. Daz Pearce

I’d say this demonstrates more than anything the massive difference between the authoritarian (Conservative) and Libertarian Right,

Many on the Libertarian Right, myself included, find as much of that list unpleasant and laced with prejudice as some of your regulars will.

Moir’s piece about Steve Gately was the most tasteless of that lot IMO

http://outspokenrabbit.blogspot.com/

More or less every comment thread on LibCon has references to the Tories being fascists, hating the poor, wanting to hurt the disabled etc etc

Yes, and?

102. Ultimo Tiger

You’re worrying about a bunch of detached commentators.

I’d worry more about the comments people leave on the articles in question. The one about only giving the vote to income tax payers for example. The worst part was a pair of nutters leaving comments about having the terminally ill euthanised, removing the vote from everyone in the public (I don’t think the armed forces would be too happy) etc.

Of course, you get the same on left wing articles. It’s just a different target.

I think we overestimate how important commentators are. What are the consequences of Jan Moir’s writing? Some people nod. Some people frown. Some projectile vomit. There are exceptions, of course, but by and large “opinion” pages are cheap entertainment.

LOL at this thread.

My attempt at a summary:

Matthew Barrett: The left demonises conservatives;

Don Paskini: Conservatives *really are* demons.

105. TA! DAAAAA!

On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog

I never bother with the offensive comments underneath as the anonymity of the internet allows many people to act in the most offensive way possible, and the more offensive they are the harder it is to judge weather they are being serious or just doing it for lulz. Best just ignore them and move on.

106. Mr S. Pill

Entertaining as this is I join the calls for a sequel of top ten reasonable righties (if only because their arguments are more dangerous because of their reasonability…)

I think all the omissions have been listed by now. Although I’d also include vast swathes of Labour ex- and present- MPs…

107. Mr S. Pill

@103

They add to the general “noise” and make positions like Moir’s more acceptable, is one way that they are harmful.

108. Paul Newman

John B is right in my experience about the non impact of the EDL, they are often active in Brighton and I am not sure aside from being Nationalists, they are right wing. The BNP are certainly not right wing unless you count the PLO and the IRA as right wing on the same Nationalist grounds.

The way I see it is this. The socialist case collapsed in the 20th century as a serious alternative to capitalis , it is all but forgotten that it ever was. It has since claimed to be the sugar on the pill and is conscious of a certain effeminacy since. It is rightly ashamed of openly supporting the USSR into the 70s which is a rather different matters to pragmatic dealings all nations engage in.
What is the solution to this sense of pointlessness then? It has been to pretend that insufficient sensitivity to say, wheel chair users signage , can replace “The cause”
Such absurd posturing has had positively comedic consequences .Ordinary Conservatives like my dear old mum ( who does the tea) is bemused to find herself identified with European revolutionary fascists of the 30s if not Cruella DeVille.
The discussion of slight variations on a fiscal theme elevated to crusades for “good”.

More or less every comment thread on LibCon has references to the Tories being fascists, hating the poor, wanting to hurt the disabled etc etc

Yes, and?

And…

The problem with believing your opponents to be actively malign is that it makes it very hard to engage with their actual policies. Because if they are evil, then obviously all you need to do to defeat their arguments is just point that out right? Of course Tories want to decouple education from local authority control, because they’re brownshirts amiright?

It’s a fundamentally sterile intellectual position.

Keep up Sunny.

The problem with believing your opponents to be actively malign is that it makes it very hard to engage with their actual policies

Not really. In case you seem to have conveniently missed, we also do a lot of policy stuff and fact-checking to show why they’re evil.

110 – It’s a lovely site Sunny, and you’ve done jolly well.

If there is a teeny tiny flaw it is that, by starting with the premise that people who disagree with you on politics do so because they are fundamentally wicked people, you run the risk of preaching only to the converted.

When, in order to keep this premise viable, you manipulate stories to fit your narrative, that risk is magnified. I accept I’m hardly your target audience, but that’s how I see it.

Tim J @ 98

The right don’t tend to go in for public vilification.

Oh, yeah, of course, how could I made such a mistake? All those Littlejohn, Letts, Phillips et al essays? All those Question Time shows? All those headlines in the Daily Hate? Vilification? Never!

I doubt you’ll be satisfied with a disavowal of the comments

Yet can be sure of that because you people rarely condemn foul mouthed Tories. Every comment made by the Left is expected to be raked over and everyone is xpected to comment, but the best the Toriy party can come up with is a shrug and a ‘nothin’ to do with us g’v’nor’? Yes, if that had been Bernie Grant’s ‘the police got a bloody good hiding’ it went on for years and everyone on the Left was expected to condemn it.

Oh, yeah, of course, how could I made such a mistake? All those Littlejohn, Letts, Phillips et al essays? All those Question Time shows? All those headlines in the Daily Hate? Vilification? Never!

I’ll expand: the Conservative Party don’t tend to go in for lengthy condemnations when one of their own says something they don’t agree with. What you tend to get is “not our views, not our policy”. If it’s really serious you might get “not a helpful contribution to debate”. That’s just the way it is I’m afraid.

114. Paul Newman

I am pretty sure I spotted the first signs of Mr. Hundal realising that Ed Milliband was a fatal mistake recently he seems to me to be more aware of a wider poltical world than he once was. Older perhaps ?

“What you tend to get is “not our views, not our policy”. If it’s really serious you might get “not a helpful contribution to debate”.”

“Semi-Detached”?

“Bastards”?

“I’ll expand: the Conservative Party don’t tend to go in for lengthy condemnations when one of their own says something they don’t agree with. What you tend to get is “not our views, not our policy”. If it’s really serious you might get “not a helpful contribution to debate”. That’s just the way it is I’m afraid.”

Well quite – just ask Mrs Thatcher.

@110 Sunny

It would seem that the article on the “hateful Left” is a part of a strategy to de-toxify the Tories as the Nasty Party.
i.e. throw enough insults and counter accusations around – and in time ordinary voters will conclude that both Left and Right are as bad as each other.

Widdecome/Howard?
Ken Clarke? (on Europe, not the rape thing)
David Cameron on compassion?
Zac Goldsmith on Gobal Warming?
Boris Johnston on ethnic cleasing?

Vilified by the Right at some point or another.

Obviously if you say off message you are fair game, but call the disabled second class? Bad show, not our views. Not our view? No, not if they appear bad to you, but shhh, dog whistle away.

Glad to see some Julian Glover hate on this site. That man is one of the most vile specimens Ive ever encountered. Because we all need more toadying, sycophantic, ultrapseud right wing leader writers in the UK press, its great that the Guardian got one too.

The point about Jan Moir and homophobia and the what-aboutery re east end Muslim stickers is surely this: the columnists spout their hate and people read it. And believe it. Or believe that most people believe it. So ‘eedjits’ (not what I’d call them) in the east end think they’ve got carte blanche to hate gays, because the white English hate them too.

115-6 Fair points, though ‘bastards’ was off-mike and ‘semi-detached’ seems pretty mild by modern standards.

Out and out blue on blue attacks are memorable though, because they are rare. Widdecombe on Howard was brutal, but there haven’t been all that many more. It’s one of the reasons Bercow became so unpopular in the party – he was unusually open in his attacks on colleagues.

122. Planeshift

“If there is a teeny tiny flaw it is that, by starting with the premise that people who disagree with you on politics do so because they are fundamentally wicked people”

You could say the same about a number of right wing commentators, which I guess is the point of this thread. No doubt its level of maturity will be enhanced by a round of “you started it”.

122 – I agree – and said so originally:

“And on the wider point, I’ve mentioned before that an abiding sin of both sides of political debate in this country is to work on the basis that your opponents are not simply misguided but actively evil…”

And it’s counterproductive for the reasons I’ve given. Plus the righty commentators that I listed very rarely do this (if ever).

do so because they are fundamentally wicked people, you run the risk of preaching only to the converted.

*sigh* – I’m not here reach out to voters. Our content is actually aimed at left-wingers. I’ve stated that many times in fact. I wouldn’t care less if right-wingers didn’t read LC.

@124 But where would they troll?

The “reasonable right” reading list developed in the comments is also quite amusing.

“Reasonable right” should seemingly be understood as code for “liberal right”, i.e. boring bloody “detoxified” left-wing conservatives. Reasonable people, we all understand, are people who agree with us.

But that’s as ridiculous as going to MacDonalds and ordering salad. Since we’re here, why not have a Big Mac and fries? Surely there are some genuine reactionaries or High Tories who are worth reading.

@56

“Roger Scruton is always fascinating and a brilliant writer”

ROFL!

128. Chaise Guevara

@ Sunny

“*sigh* – I’m not here reach out to voters. Our content is actually aimed at left-wingers. ”

Fair enough, but Tim has a point here even so. If you take the view that the right do what the right does because all right-wingers are bastards, then it’s hard to analyse your opponents without ending up chanting “we must defeat the evil ones” along with George W Bush.

As far as I can see, this site is mainly aimed at allowing the left to debate politics and discuss tactics, as well as providing a forum to help them combine their efforts. The first of those two goals would be helped, not hindered, by an honest appraisal of right-wing motives*.

*And yes, I realise that some individuals really are motivated by bigotry or personal selfishness, but it’s unreasonable to apply these as blanket motivations.

129. Planeshift

“As far as I can see, this site is mainly aimed at allowing the left to debate politics and discuss tactics”

I think there is more to it than that. Some threads are clearly aimed at morale boosting or a bit of partisan fun, of which this is clearly one. Others are about breaking news stories.

130. Paul Newman

I`m not sure that the left are not the most conservative Party of the current period. They are usually to be found defending the status quo. On education, welfare , Europe, and so on and not all those conservative instincts are wrong
Many conservatives would share ground on the BBC`s domination of Broadcasting the current state monopoly on health .Relatively few would on education which is perhaps why that is the only radical shift, still on course .
Most Labour voters would share conservative concern about the pace of immigration and change not to say on crime and social decay brought about by encouragements towards neediness inevitably caused by needs based welfare.
This is why Ed is trying to mix a little blue in with his red. I wonder if Sunny feels as contemptuous about relationship between the evil part of the left and the Progressive minority that liked AV ?
Are they along the evil spectrum ?

Surely there are some genuine reactionaries or High Tories who are worth reading.

Charles Moore is usually good value in a very High Tory way. Peter Hitchens is a barking reactionary, but can be good fun. Fraser Nelson is a very dry right-winger. There aren’t very many High Tories left in journalism.

I take it ‘Paul Newman’ represents the Intellectual Wing of The Right, then?

133. Tourquil Mcneil

““Roger Scruton is always fascinating and a brilliant writer” ROFL!”

This comment seems to be getting a lot of rofling. You can hardly claim Scruton is a bad writer so it must be that you don’t find him fascinating, but that doesn’t seem possible either, although you may not agree with his sort of mystical Christian conservatism. Try On Beauty or I Drink Therefore I Am, and you’ll see what I mean.

134. Chaise Guevara

@ 129 Planeshift

“I think there is more to it than that. Some threads are clearly aimed at morale boosting or a bit of partisan fun, of which this is clearly one. Others are about breaking news stories.”

Well, while I can see how morale-boosting and partisan fun might benefit from misrepresenting the enemy, it’s still a crappy tactic in my book. And if you’re going to cover news stories while lying about one side’s motives you may as well be writing for the Express.

135. Tourquil Mcneil

Yes I agree that Peter Hitchens should be subtracted from the list of haters. He is an extremist, but not (in Chris Dillow’s useful formulation) a fanatic and usually gets hold of the right stick even if the wrong end and does it with some flair.

136. Chaise Guevara

@ 129 Planeshift

Also, some article have been quite clearly aimed at encouraging people to vote a certain way, but Sunny denies that (I’m not sure why, there’s nowt wrong with it).

Jees, left and right is such a theatre.

One thing I *will* say is that the ‘blogging right/libertarians’ swear too much. It’s just tiring, and is half the reason I read so little of their stuff. Also vacuous whining about public sector bureaucrats and lazy workless people puts me off.

If you take the view that the right do what the right does because all right-wingers are bastards, then it’s hard to analyse your opponents

But dude – I wish right-wingers made it harder for us to call them bastards!

The one I do praise, and have done so frequently on this site, is Peter Oborne. So I do try and give credit where its due. But if the right is dominated by bastards, its difficult to avoid pointing that out.

Roger Scruton on drink? He probably got the best ideas from Kingsley Amis anyway.

140. Tourquil Mcneil

No, not at all Amis-ish.I recommend it: A philosopher’s guide to wine.

141. Mr S. Pill

Scruton used to write a fairly decent wine column for New Statesman, IIRC.

Oh those cuddly, chilled-out lefties who only want to make love not war. There is so little hatred in their hearts. It’s just one big happy family embracing Ed and David, Sunny Hundal and Harry’s Place, George Monbiot and Mick Hume, Neil Kinnock and Ted Grant, …

143. Chaise Guevara

@ 142 Scooby

I’m curious. Who, exactly, are you satirising?

Yeah, but Scruton is so very irritating. Kingsley Amis’ book on drink may not be his best, but the Mean Sod’s Guide and the chapter on hangovers are brilliant.

I feel having read the comments as if I’m the only person missing the deep irony here of BOTH this article and the ConHome one ending with a plea to do exactly what Flying Rodent complains of about Harry’s Place, namely to stop talking about what the people they dislike are doing and put their own house in order, to stop doing their own thing and to criticise others instead in the way we demand. In both cases what’s occurring is the making of a monolith out of the Left or the Right in order to identify them with their most hateful practitioners and thus demonise the lot. Both sides are doing, both ought to stop.
An article such as this is all very well, by all means point out the rank hypocrisy of ConHome demonising the Left because the Left demonise them, but can we then please avoid sinking to their level and engaging in such hypocrisy ourselves. Our main concern surely ought to be what is helpful, and while making our opponents out to be evil baby-killing shits might be fun, it doesn’t actually advance our thinking at all, as every comment which implies that “the Right” does something simply draws them closer into formation.
The “reasonable right” suggestion is the best way to go with this.

The reason why you can find so many “hateful right” examples is that right wing newspapers are more plentiful and interesting than the dull, boring and preachy left wing ones.

Most normal people think these “hateful right” articles are a load of rubbish and the authors get taken to task. They may not change the authors minds but the majority of readers don’t agree with them.

This is yet again another LC non-story

Conservatives by nature attack people who they regard as being below them. Whether it is the poor or the disabled or groups they don’t agree with like gays, and brown people.

They spend their whole lives ridiculing these people, and trying to take as much power away from these groups as possible. And then when these people fight back they clutch their pearls and scream …“class war, class war”

I will stop asking for money to be thrown at these peoples problems when the rich stop throwing money at their so called problems. The market as a solution to the nations problems gives the rich millions of votes and the poor very few. That is why the tories push such bullshit. Conservatives are spoiled, greedy, hypocritical , evil people who have a enlarged sense of entitlement, and are lower than dog shit.

“The reason why you can find so many “hateful right” examples is that right wing newspapers are more plentiful and interesting than the dull, boring and preachy left wing ones.”

Oh not that old chestnut again. Like Murdoch who cross subsidizing his loss losing Times and his New York rag that loses about 70 million a year, and which Murdoch said he keeps it going as a tax dodge. Or the Dail, Mail which, had it’s beloved market forces had it’s way in the 1950s would have gone belly up.

Rush Limbargh who was run as a loss for years and years backed by his corporate masters to spew their propaganda. The giant corporate right wing welfare circuit.

149. blackwillow1

OK, firstly Lamia, the gay community spent decades fighting for acceptance and equality, to be treated the same as everyone else, but the tone of your posts suggests that you want them to have special treatment. You ca’nt have equality and special treatment, it’s a contradiction. Tim J and the rest of the right wing crew, only a moron would believe that every conservative is a homophobic, xenophobic, racist, poor-hating, nazi loving fascist bastard. But, the question has to be asked, why do most non-conservatives have that view of them as a whole? Because they do’nt condemn each other when certain figures make statements gauranteed to inflame the left. To say nothing in public, is to give the impression that you agree with the sentiment expressed. If there is such a thing as a ‘liberal tory’ they should declare themselves as such, abandon the coalition and offer up their own brand of conservative thinking. It wo’nt happen, simply because being in a shit, incompetent, unpopular government, is seen as better than being in opposition. What matters most to these liberal minds of the right, standing on your principles, or power, no matter how tainted? As for the writers of the right who are worth reading, none of ‘em! Skilled and erudite, poetic and scintillating many of them may be, but it’s what, not how they write. That’s not to say I do’nt read them, occasionally. Always better to know your enemy, than to be ignorant of their intentions

The late great Auberon got it back in ’75:
“My image of the New Statesman reader was that of a taut, slightly embittered female school-teacher, possibly in Coventry but certainly in one of the less well-favoured areas of the country, struggling valiantly against the inherited and environmental disabilities of her charges to preserve some quasi-theological Hope in the socialist future. She was a convinced atheist and a convinced progressive in sexual matters although her own experiences in that field had seldom been encouraging. In foreign affairs she was endlessly progressive but in home affairs subject to strange disciplinarian urges which might suddenly demand unspeakable punishments not only for racists, rapists and male chauvinists, but also for litter-louts, cigarette-smokers and males generally. She approved of homosexuality and unmarried mothers, disapproved of drink and drugs, approved of education, disapproved of anyone excelling in it, approved, rather nervously, of the working class in most of its manifestations except football hooliganism and represented, in fact, the only surviving bastion of middle class values.”

Paul Foot was one of Auberon’s best friends. Question is, can lefties, with their simple literalism and moralism, grapple with contradiction, paradox, complexity, irony, context, depth, perspective?

No – by definition. If they could they wouldn’t be lefties. And this is why there are fewer lefties over 40 than elow.

“only a moron would believe that every conservative is a homophobic, xenophobic, racist, poor-hating, nazi loving fascist bastard. But, the question has to be asked, why do most non-conservatives have that view of them as a whole?”

Because they’re morons…?

Tim J @ 121

Out and out blue on blue attacks are memorable though, because they are rare.

The point is, why are they so rare? Why is it that Zac Goldsmith/David Cameron never attack he most witless Denier crap that floats out, for example? Why is it that ‘decent’ Tories never seem to attack the homophobia, racism or sexist rants from anywhere along the political spectrum? If someone from the Tory Party announced that we should pull out of NATO and scrap the nuclear deterent, or attempted to defend the aid budget (God forbid), imagine a Tory back bencher suggesting we increase income tax! Blue on Blue? Christ You would never hear the end of it, and you know it. This is nothing to do with Party loyalty and everything to do with defending ideology.

Why are you unwilling to attack extreme views that we normally describe as ‘Right Wing’? Could it be that they are not as ‘extreme’ as you would have us believe?

When the Tories acting in a more decent fashion I will be more than willing to accept that they are decent Tories.

All I want is a reason not to distrust everything they say.

153. Art Vandelay

I’m surprised no-one’s mentioned Toby Young yet. Although fair enough, he’s more annoying than hateful. :)

Vimothy @ 151

“only a moron would believe that every conservative is a homophobic, xenophobic, racist, poor-hating, nazi loving fascist bastard. But, the question has to be asked, why do most non-conservatives have that view of them as a whole?”

Because they’re morons…?

The reason I think that nearly every Tory is a homophobic, xenophobic, racist, poor-hating, nazi loving fascist bastard is because that is what I read, see and hear in the media. I rarely come any other Tory unless he is attacking people in the most vile manner. Why are the decent ones not drowing out the backward, foam mouthers?

Can you explain that?

155. the a&e charge nurse

[150] “No – by definition. If they could they wouldn’t be lefties. And this is why there are fewer lefties over 40 than below” – that’s as maybe, but it still doesn’t excuse professional bile merchants like Littlejohn, does it?

“I’m surprised no-one’s mentioned Toby Young yet.”

I am not, he’s an idiot.

Jim is right to point out the silence of the so called “good German” sorry, good tory. They don’t speak out because they don’t exist. The good German had an excuse, if he spoke out he was taken to the camps.

157. blackwillow1

Julian@150: You seem to be confusing the left with the lentil chewing tree huggers. I am 40 and a realistic socialist, with a clear understanding of all the things you listed. You make a fair point, a lot of people who were confirmed militants in the ’80s are now either New labour disciples, praying for the return of St. Tony, or they just gave up, decided it was’nt worth the fight and forgot they ever had a political opinion. Middle Class leftism is nothing to do with socialism, it’s just another fashion item, popularised by Blair and taken as a good compromise by people who want to be seen as caring and compassionate, but without actually committing to anything. If, as you imply, the left are more popular among the young, then I hope somebody is teaching them the difference between socialism and social climbing.

158. Charlieman

Why were the photographs of the accused so weird in the piece from Matthew Barrett at ConservativeHome? I presume that some are screen grabs from low definition video recordings, given the blurriness. Gary Younge looks like someone caught on (decent, for the standard) CCTV.

If you want photos to accompany a story, there are lots of ways to get them without jumping through hoops:
1. Check if the subject owns a website with some press-use photos.
2. Check if the subject’s agent or employer or publisher has a website with some press-use photos.
3. Use a search engine to find a photo of the subject. If the photo has licence conditions, negotiate them. Don’t steal photos from press agencies or photo journalists or amateurs.
4. Don’t use screen grabs from TV recordings or YouTube. The image is not yours; copyright belongs to the owner of the original recording. Unless there is stronger journalistic need, around public disclosure etc.

In the case of Gary Younge, a quick email to the Guardian would have given ConservativeHome access to a gallery of photos. Act like a grown up and presume that others do likewise.

159. Paul Fisher

Agree with most of this. But where is kelvin Mckenzie?! Also, i tend to luck upon the EDL as deluded porns rather than bonafide racists.

160. Charlieman

Somewhere in this thread (apologies for losing you), somebody remarked, rephrasing, that LC is about yacking about news or contemporary political concerns. In the context of winning contemporary battles, rather than achieving understanding of the event or concern.

There is a lot of truth in saying that LC commenters fight battles rather than try to understand. The criticism applies to all of us.

161. the a&e charge nurse

[159] “where is kelvin Mckenzie” – well he’s not selling newspapers in Liverpool, that’s for sure.
http://dontbuythesun.co.uk/site/category/dont-buy-the-sun/page/2/

Don’t buy the product and the likes of McKenzie soon come grovelling.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/jul/07/pressandpublishing.football2

@’154. Jim,

blackwillow1 @ 149 stated that, 1, only morons think that all conservatives are racist, homophobic, etc, etc, and then, 2, asked why non-conservatives think all conservatives are racist, homophobic, etc, etc.

I was just putting 1 and 2 together and arriving at 3.

@ Chris,

“The fanatics who did this are undoubtedly sinister in their motives, but to use it accuse an entire community of being something is just as bad IMHO.”

Strawman. I haven’t used it to ‘accuse and entire community’. There should be no need to make it about the entire Muslim community. As you have said, and I agree, this is about a vile minority. That is why it shouldn’t have been a problem to speak loudly and unequivocally about this. It is you and others who have defensively taken the criticism as an attack on the whole Muslim community rather than fundamentalist bigots who appear to be assuming this is the norm among Muslims.

“Could you kindly cite proof that I have a “vile hierachy” and that I’m not just seen as being wrong because I happen to disagree with you?”

I have already pointed it out to you: it’s in your insistence that in a matter of a minority being intimidate, the matter is somehow more about other people than about those on the receiving end. that shows contempt for the victims.

@ Mike Killingworth,

“It’s at least arguable that gays and Muslims are both victims in this case: gays obviously, and Muslims because they are only allowed to practice such bits of their religion as don’t offend Western enlightenment values.”

So people aren’t allowed to put up posters declaring streets a ‘Gay Free Zone’ – and this somehow amounts to restricting their religious freedom. Truly extraordinary, the logic of a moral relativist. Presumably stopping the BNP putting up posters declaring a place a Muslim Free Zone would amount to restriciting their freedom to express their ideology? Or would that be different?

@ blackwillow,

“K, firstly Lamia, the gay community spent decades fighting for acceptance and equality, to be treated the same as everyone else, but the tone of your posts suggests that you want them to have special treatment.”

Bull. Nothing I said suggests I want special treatment. I want equal treatment. A poster campaign (in more than one city) for Black Free Zones or Muslim Free Zones would rightly bring loud condemnation. The Gay Free Zones cases have brought indifference and now excuses, as quoted above.

I think we should perhaps bear in mind that there are more right-wing publications than there are left-wing ones, so by the law of averages we’d expect more hate-filled right-wing columnists. Also, there are far more right-wing tabloids than left-wing ones, which tend to deal with more controversial stuff, so you’re not really comparing like with like here. To get a meaningful comparison, you’d have to compare the Guardian and Independent with the Times and the Telegraph, or the Mirror with the Mail, Express and Sun.

165. David Hodd

Tim J @ 11

but that they seem genuinely to believe that the Tories are evil, wicked people, who went into politics to hurt people

- I think Clegg and co for a while believed that the Tories were people of principle they could negotiate with. But Clegg and co saw at the AV referendum just how Nasty Tories can be.

You are desperate for the left to avoid making the Nasty Party association, since you know this resonates with a significant chunk of the
electorate.

The basic premise of the right is to promote self-interest as the means for society to meets its needs – and the marriage of landowners with commerce to assert what is required to maintain the conditions where their own self interest can be maitained. It is inevitable that the right will have more nasty people given this ruthless commitment to the self.

166. John reid

I don’t know why you think melanie philips (|former communst)is hatefilled because she’s pro isrealli, or littlejohn who describes himself as on the right of the labour party as hatefilled, after the IPCC lead police enquiry into Jody mcintyre concluded that mcintyre ws wrong to make out he was hard done by, and he never appealed the police/IPCC enqiries findings.

167. Are you sure

littlejohn who describes himself as on the right of the labour party….

When did he say this? Do you mean he is to the right on everything the Labour Party stands for which I think qualifies him as a Tory.

168. John reid

apparently littlejohn had the chance to stand as labour M.P in 93, he say’s that thing about bieng on the right of labour all the time, this article would be better if it admitted telling us why the tory article is wrong or criticisng the poeple in the tory article on com home.

169. Are you sure

Bizarrely, he was asked to stand as a Labour MP while industrial editor of the London Evening Standard in the early 1980s. “I considered it momentarily, but I’d be having a lot less fun,” he confesses. “I couldn’t avoid being a rebel. I just tend to go after vested interests – which nowadays means the Guardianista bureaucracy, the gay lobby, or the men in wigs.”

Hmmm…well I’ll be dammed.

The relative numbers are irrelevant. The number of commentators does not excuse the level of abuse that these commentators heap onto the most vulnerable people in society. No one is screaming hatred at the disabled, for example on the Left. No one has vilified the unemployed from the Left to the extent that Littlejohn, Phillips et al have done.

We may have hate figures on the Left, but we never attack the weak and defenceless under any circumstances, and the people we DO attack are often the most comfortable and powerful in society. Even those few attacks are pretty much sedate affairs.

You will find plenty of people on the Left who are republicans, but no one needs to rip the Royals to shreds or demonise them to extent that, say, the poor or unemployed get. Ditto the bankers. We do not see anyone demand that bankers lose their basic human rights nor are farmers being portrayed as dirty scroungers, even though the average farmer makes your unemployed six child family look frugal when it comes to State handouts. You never see an ‘investigation’ of the huge handouts of taxpayers money farmers receive and showing the lavish lifestyles they gleam from the rest of our backs, do you?

XXX @ 164

My last comments were aimed at your statement, sorry for the lack of reference.

172. John reid

169,it’s incredible all these right wingers when they were young,melanie Philips janet daley bushell, both the hitchens, kelvin mckenzie, I actually think julie burchill was quite right wing on things when she was young, so I don’t think her view has changed the way the others have, who knows 30 years from now laurie penny could be the new mel philips,

172 – “it’s incredible all these right wingers when they were young”

I’m not so sure it’s incredible at all. Could it be that all those years writing Marxist Criticisms of this, that and the other actually equip one perfectly for the task of churning out right-wing gibberish in later life?

174. Mr S. Pill

The common thread of the young-lefties becoming old-far-righties is that they are all quite posh or from a upper-class background. seems to me they’re just reverting to type, much like the upper-middle coke addict who goes on to become an investment banker/politician (rather than his working class peers who get put in jail to rot).

Well I, for one, have moved further to the Left since turning thirty-five. My views on abortion have turned 180 in something like ten years.

I no longer see things as simple ‘black/white’ issues, and have become less insular and self obsessed and I have definitely become less greedy and far less materialistic. Forming a long-term relationship helps too, I suppose. I can imagine that having a great sex life make you more at peace with the World.

It must be so difficult to remain objective about the sex lives of teenagers, whilst you spend most of your days rhythmically pumping away in front of your PC, when the other half is at her ahem ‘pilates’ class.

Perhaps keeping up the amount of sex you get (as opposed to buy) keeps you Left Wing? You know, when the old chap starts to droop, you replace it with a BMW, Bang and Olfason and trips to Bangkok/Spearmint Rhinos, yet the World still looks a dreary place?

‘They are only doing it for the dole money’, yeah, if you could understand the real reason they are doing it, you would be a Leftie too.

Re @150 it’s delightful to see Mr Glover showing up for this thread and spreading precisely the kind of erudite wisdom we were discussing earlier.

177. John reid

Mr S pill so Laurie penny will defantely be the new Melanie Philips 20 years from now, Isn’t douglas Murray a Ukip supporter rather than a Tory

jim @175 – I’m hurtling toward 40 at an alarming rate, and I guess I’m a prime candidate for the switch to the right. You know, bit grumpy about tax, don’t like the look of the young ‘uns who hang around by the benches…

But you know what? I keep seeing right wingers getting their analysis of stuff I know about – that’s stuff *I’ve seen happen with my own eyes* – completely, utterly, 100% wrong. It kind of puts me off.

@178 Neil

Quite.

I’m closer to 50 and more left-liberal than ever.

Bang goes another smug righty trope. Ho hum.

180. Watchman

Wouldn’t this entire comments thread be more coherent if we could sort out the difference between ‘Tories’, the Conservative Party and right-wing as a whole?

Most right-wing idiots are not members of the Conservative Party (although some are clearly ideological Tories).

Then again, most left-wing idiots are not members of the Labour Party, although the history of left-wing politics and the greater politicalisation of a movement based on mass-participation means that proportianately more of those who make idiotic comments from a left-wing perspective are Labour party members than right-wing idiots are Conservative party members. That is more explicable by history and the normal path of development on the relative ‘wings’ than by anything sinister.

Put bluntly, there are idiots in all positions. Conservative Home pointed out some on the ‘left’; the original post here pointed out some on the ‘right’ – the specific examples given on both lists were indeed distasteful and stupid, but all they prove is that on a spectrum of opinion you get some silly views at both ends.

Watchman @ 180

The problem with that is that every since the early Eighties and the ‘Looney Left’ and up to today’s ‘Political Correctness gone Maaaaaaaad!!!’, every utterance under every circumstance, irrespective if such utterance had any validity or was just the outpourings of some mad Tory’s wet dream or by a nutter on the fringes of anything remotely ‘on the Left’ has been immediately ascribed to everyone on the Left. Not only that but even the BBC are considered ‘Left Wing’ just for reporting what is said.

Just recently, we have seen the TUC demonstration and a couple of Neds got up and did a sit in at Fortman & Masons. Everyone one the Left was asked repeatedly to talk about the people who had done it.

Now, every week or day, some halfwit Tory (or fellow travellers) gets up and stirs a ‘two minutes hate’ speech at the ‘boo figure of the day’ and NOBODY on the Right is expected to comment. A strike? Well yes, that is in Labour’s wheelhouse, but a Tory stands up and espouses eugenic ideology? A Tory MP? Not on the ‘Right’ though is he? Not the Right’s baby that one. The ‘best’ you can expect from the Tory Party is ‘not our view’.

What are we to deduce when the Right continually espouse views that we find repugnant, yet the Tory Party let go unpunished? A Nazi comment? Nothing? Anti science crap? Nothing? Anti poor? Yep, stoic silence. At what point does ‘no comment’ mean that we can deduce tacit support? To be honest with you. If you want to be decent as ‘decent’ why not condemn the nutcases and be seen to distance yourself from them? Just once?

Okjay an open goal. Phil Davis announced plans to treat disabled people with a disability as second class citizen, eugenics by reasonable definition.

‘The Tory Party condemn, without reservation, these disturbing comments and will be taking disciplinary action against, Philip Davis’.

There, get someone to release that from Tory H.Q. and your Party will have gone up in everyone’s estimation.

Not going to happen is it? No, because secretly the vast majority believe him.

182. Watchman

Jim,

I’m with you on the crudity of media representation – although I suspect the fact that the left-wing always claimed to be a movement whilst the right-wing was defined almost in opposition to that means the different perceptions are partially rooted in differentiated understandings of what it is to be right-wing and left-wing. The legacy of history is generally confusion…

But you are missing another key thing here – the Conservative party, and right-wing organisations in general, lack a central organisation like Labour’s NEC or even Liberal Democrat’s Conference. The leader of such organisations has great ideological power to determine direction (and normally can expect to be followed) but has never claimed the right to determine what views can and can’t be held – Conservatives can only be thrown out by their local associations, which can (and have) defy the leadership if they want. It is a difference in organisation and where power is held which causes the different conditions – we are not comparing like with like here.

All of which means it is probably easier to associate left-wing nutters with the Labour Party, but more difficult to dissassociate right-wing nutters from the Conservative Party…

183. John reid

regarding people getting right wing as they get older, (john cruddas ,Tony Benn )excluded,

didn’t tony benn say of some Blairites like the other John reid and David Blunkett, that their transition from Stalinist to fascist was considerably easy.

184. the a&e charge nurse

OK, I know it is the US – but would British lefties entertain bigots like this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/22/michele-bachmann-gay-republicans

Yet I wonder if we would get the same revulsion from the British right?

Believe it or not this women is bidding for the American presidency – and lets not forget that the right have not been slow to vilify the background of the current encumbent.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9cc9bc36-7284-11e0-96bf-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Q1F2iGdi

Littlejohn, McKenzie et al, remain an important conduit in the UK for these kinds of reactionary and unpleasant points of view.

@ 184:

“OK, I know it is the US – but would British lefties entertain bigots like this?”

Well, they’re quite happy to entertain some rather unsavoury characters in the European Parliament (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/05/labours-unsavory-allies-.html), so I’m guessing yes, provided they were left-wing bigots.

186. the a&e charge nurse

[185] isn’t there a difference between developing some sort of working relationship with less than ideal political partners in a forum like the EU, as opposed to members of your own party doing their best to advance the career of a certified wingnut?

Watchman @ 182

There is nothing to stop the Tory leader withdrawing the whip though is there? There is nothing to stop any minister coming out and actually condemning views from any quarter that they find repugnant. There is nothing to stop any Tory blogger or other commentator attacking the most extreme views held by others, is there?

The fact is that Tories never attack anything like Davis’s comments, because they broadly agree with them. That is the top and bottom of it.

People like Tim J who feel that the Left attack the Tories for being ‘evil’ by default, think we are being unfair. However, they miss the point, because those Tories who feel ‘demonised’ don’t want a ‘fair’ hearing, they want us to agree with them that it is perfectly legitimate to explore how we could inject eugenics into the welfare state. They think it perfectly feasible to ignore scientific Conesus, merely because it doesn’t fit with their political group. They feel it okay to drive the unemployed further into poverty. They would like to be able to punish the working poor further by destroying the minimum wage, without being criticised for it. They want to be able to cut services to the poor in order to cut taxes for the rich, without anyone noticing.

Over a hundred and eighty posts on the subject, some agreeing with the proposition, others disagreeing. Some adding to the list others wishing people be removed. A few posts whinging away because the Tories are unjustifiably described as evil, just because they have different views. Well, I am here to tell you that no one thinks the Tories are evil because they want to privatise the Tote. I personally think your Party are supported by people with some of the most repugnant views I have ever heard.

XXX @ 185

Imagine the Tory Party complaining about where MEPs of any British party form a group with. Christ, they sit with some of the most backward morons that most of us are ashamed to share a land mass with.

189. Charlieman

@187. Jim: “I personally think your Party are supported by people with some of the most repugnant views I have ever heard.”

Let’s assume that you are in a UK train carriage with 59 other people when the train gets stuck in a snow drift. 20 of the 60 people will have voted Conservative. Six or seven of those people will hold nasty views, and the other Conservative voters will be moderates or expedients. That’s what averages deliver when you are not en route to a Conservative party conference.

Getting stuck in a snow drift is one of the few occasions when rail travellers engage with one another. How do you deal with it, knowing that six or seven people present hold obnoxious opinions? Do they wear special clothing to identify themselves? Is the person sitting opposite you who generously shared a packet of sandwiches a Monday Club supporter?

We go through life surrounded by people who are hateful. We don’t notice the hidden sentiment of others because we don’t need to or cannot do so. We observe the overt hatred of others and brave people try to do something about it.

In the case of “hateful journalists”, we should challenge hateful arguments and legally pursue incitement of hate crimes. Drawing up lists of “hateful journalists” is useful only as entertainment.

There is no difference between the tory party and the tory media. They are one and the same thing. A giant right wing Wurlitzer that keeps on spewing out propaganda.

Charlieman @ 194

Let’s assume that you are in a UK train carriage with 59 other people when the train gets stuck in a snow drift. 20 of the 60 people will have voted Conservative. Six or seven of those people will hold nasty views, and the other Conservative voters will be moderates or expedients.

Why do we never hear from any of the 14 decent Tories?

Do they wear special clothing to identify themselves? Is the person sitting opposite you who generously shared a packet of sandwiches a Monday Club supporter?

My fiver is on the guy selling his sandwiches to the highest bidder and the other guy kicking seven shades of shit out of the disabled woman, whilst standing on the OAP…

…Oh, and the guy talking as loudly as possible telling everyone that the snow is proof that Global Warming is a Left Wing conspiracy and that the rescue teams are too slow and need privatised is one too, I bet.

Sure there are lots of hateful people about. I have clients, suppliers, work mates, bosses, staff and in laws whose views I find pretty offensive, some are just plain idiotic. I can grin and bear many of them and rub along with others. Hell, there are people I can even have a good working realationship with even though I cannot abide their views. Thats life.

@ 186:

“isn’t there a difference between developing some sort of working relationship with less than ideal political partners in a forum like the EU, as opposed to members of your own party doing their best to advance the career of a certified wingnut?”

Yes, but both could be described as “entertaining” bigots, which is what the original question is. Also, your example refers to America, so I don’t really think you can extrapolate much from that onto the British Conservative Party. Unless you somehow think that all conservatives share responsibility for each others’ actions, and we all know what sort of people tend to hold that sort of opinion…

WTF? Laurie Penny’s comment cited in that piece of rightwing trash is SPOT ON.

@ 187:

“There is nothing to stop the Tory leader withdrawing the whip though is there?”

Perhaps he thinks that it’s for the local constituency association to decide whether or not they want him. You know, democracy? Or perhaps he doesn’t share your habit of consistently putting the most negative possible spin on everything any right-winger ever says, and therefore doesn’t think it a sackable offence.

@ 188:

“Imagine the Tory Party complaining about where MEPs of any British party form a group with. Christ, they sit with some of the most backward morons that most of us are ashamed to share a land mass with.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

@ 196:

“There is no difference between the tory party and the tory media.”

Then why did so much of the “right-wing press” support Tony Blair? (And no, “Tony Blair was really a Tory” won’t cut it, because you were referring to the Tory Party specifically, and Blair most certainly wasn’t a member of that, no matter what you think of his political opinions.)

@ 197:

“My fiver is on the guy selling his sandwiches to the highest bidder and the other guy kicking seven shades of shit out of the disabled woman, whilst standing on the OAP…

…Oh, and the guy talking as loudly as possible telling everyone that the snow is proof that Global Warming is a Left Wing conspiracy and that the rescue teams are too slow and need privatised is one too, I bet.”

So basically you’re hoping that everyone else on the train is a ludicrous straw man. Well, I suppose that *would* make it easy to tell them apart…

One post on Con home was about how the RSPB were neo Marxists; jaw dropping stupidity.

However the real madness is in the views of Tory members, they make General Franco look like a socialist. One recently indicated to me privately, I was doing a job for him, that he thought people with special needs be allowed to die to free up health service space and money. Not a view Cameroon would share I suspect.

@189 Charlieman

One can always meet plenty of people with apparently repugnant views. Often they are simply regurgitating what they have read in the papers, which is exactly the point of the OP.

Whatever you might say about people’s views, there is a degree of difference between hoding a bigoted opinion and forming a party to promote it.

200. John reid

197, Although David Cameron isn’t like by the Tory back benches the so called tory press hate him too, and Gordon Brown got good reviews in the daily amil and the sun for his first year as P.M
194 Mary not sure why yopu think Laourie penny’s comments are good seems to me her calling the polcei yelow coated scabs was a crass stupid comment

I take it Laurie will be attending the police protest about cuts in 2weeks time.

@198: “One recently indicated to me privately, I was doing a job for him, that he thought people with special needs be allowed to die to free up health service space and money.”

On a rigorous cost-benefit analysis, getting rid of pensioners will surely help George Osborne to rein in that budget deficit from savings in state pension payments and NHS healthcare costs.

Of course, the government, with the connivence of some local authorities, can’t roll out a network of local Harold Shipment Centres to do that but closing carehomes for the elderly and this notion of Better Healthcare Closer to Home – meaning “at home” – will work towards getting there. Least anyone thinks I’m exaggerating:

Elderly people who receive care at home are having their basic human rights “overlooked” by being neglected, left alone for long periods and not given adequate help to eat and drink, the Equality and Human Rights Commission said on Monday.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/28977bc0-9b18-11e0-a254-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=crm/email/2011622/nbe/DrugsHealthcare/product#axzz1Q2oY376q

How the elderly get a poor deal from the NHS: Elderly people are the heaviest users of hospitals but they are too often treated as second-class citizens, say leading charities. A number of reports have found they receive inferior service from the NHS and other health and social care providers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8589636/How-the-elderly-get-a-poor-deal-from-the-NHS.html

XXX @ 194

Perhaps he thinks that it’s for the local constituency association to decide whether or not they want him. You know, democracy?

Nothing to do with the local Party whether or not the whip is being withdrawn or not. Cameron has no powers to directly expel Davis. If people want Davis to be their MP that is fair enough, but you cannot escape the fact that we are likely to draw conclusions about the calibre of people who support him.

I have absolutely no doubt that Davis is popular among his local association, but tells us more about the character of ‘people’ who make up his local association than the merit of his argument.

Or perhaps he doesn’t share your habit of consistently putting the most negative possible spin on everything any right-winger ever says,

Negative spin? What negative spin? The man stood up and announced that disabled people should get paid less than the minimum wage. That, by any reasonable definition, is the basis of eugenics. Strip away all the crap and the waffle and he wants the disabled to be treated as second-class citizens. No spin there mate. This is what you people fail to grasp, we do not need to spin anything, you cunts show yourselves up at every turn.

Two weeks ago, you were tearfully imploring us to think of the children in the womb, as soon as the child is out of the womb and into the harsh World with a disability all of a sudden, the sentimentality has gone and the claws are out for the weak. Different story then, different story when you might have your tax taken for a day centre, eh? Every human life is a lot less sacrced this week? What changed your mind?

and therefore doesn’t think it a sackable offence

I bet he doesn’t, after all his party panders to the type people who hold some of the most vile views.

@ 202:

“The man stood up and announced that disabled people should get paid less than the minimum wage. That, by any reasonable definition, is the basis of eugenics.”

If you really think that, Jim, then to be frank I can’t be bothered to debate with you, you nasty, hate-filled little person.

@XXX

No sense of irony when you make that comment?

XXX @ 203

Oh, sorry no offence intended. Didn’t mean to upset the poor little lambs, all those shy retiring Tories, who only do what is best for those members of society that haven’t been dealt the best of hands.

So, how should I have interpreted Davis comments that the disabled be ‘allowed’ to undercut able-bodied people in the minimum wage? I am I expected to ignore the implications of that statement? I am I just to pretend that the outcome of such a law wouldn’t result in disabled people being driven to undercut able-bodied people in the labour market?

I am I just to ignore the fact that treating people as second-class citizens because of a disability is a pretty good working definition of eugenics? No, not eugenics then.

Its funny because the last time we debated human life you were adamant that all life was sacrosanct and that even the unborn foetus in the womb should have the same rights as every corporeal human being on the Earth. Quite unswerving in that contention. Now I find that, actually, some people are actually less than human. It turns out that there are SOME people that do not deserve protection under the law that some people should be ‘allowed’ to exempt themselves from such protection. It turns out the house trained ‘pro lifer’ is not so pro life after all, because the disabled are actually a fucking drag on society. Yes, but why aren’t I surprised in that rather rapid turn of ideology.

I am hate filled? You can bet your last quid I am full of hate, but I reserve my hate, not for the sick, the disabled, the unemployed and the poor, I reserve my hate for the cunts that actually deserve it.

I wouldn’t piss on a car load of Tories if it was on fire.

No sense of irony when you make that comment?

To be fair to XXXX it’s hard to see how you can have a reasonable discussion with someone who thinks that “nearly every Tory is a homophobic, xenophobic, racist, poor-hating, nazi loving fascist bastard”. It’s best just to back away quietly.

What I quite like though, is that Jim also claims that “I no longer see things as simple ‘black/white’ issues”. Which makes you wonder just how prejudiced he used to be.

Tim J @ 206

Tim, I am judging your Party on what actually comes out of their mouths, not some kind of imagined slur or perhaps deliberate misrepresentation of the policies. I am judging you on EXACTLY what you want to be judged on:

Phillip Davis has stated that he thinks disabled people should be ‘allowed’ to undercut able-bodied people in the labour market.

Please tell me that you concede that you recognise that in this context ‘allowed’ is merely a euphemism for ‘forced’? It is simply inconceivable that you could see it any other way, we both know that. Not only that, but we both know that Tories are forced to pretend that they actually believe that such actions would remain ‘voluntary’.

Now tell me that the above policy is not got eugenic overtones?

I am sorry, but I am going out on a limb here, but I describe people who advocate eugenics as Nazis. I am sorry if that offends people, but I cannot get past the fact that the Tory Party are perfectly happy to allow the advocates of statuary eugenics a platform.

You keep telling me that there are decent Tories out there, but I just cannot see them. Maybe there are millions out there, but could you at least point me in the direction of one that does not believe in eugenics as a starting point for the idealogy?

Please tell me that you concede that you recognise that in this context ‘allowed’ is merely a euphemism for ‘forced’?

Of course I don’t. They are two utterly different concepts – indeed utterly opposed concepts. And the argument that in some cases people should be allowed to work for below minimum wage is tantamount to eugenics is simply barking. Absurd. Howling at the moon.

“Here’s an idea that might help disabled people back into work.”
“You’re a Nazi who wants to kill the disabled!”

Loon.

I am sorry, but I am going out on a limb here, but I describe people who advocate eugenics as Nazis.

Really? I call them liberals.

209. Chaise Guevara

@ 208 Tim J

“Really? I call them liberals.”

I don’t want to get entangled in your argument with Jim, or Angry Captain Godwin as he should perhaps be known, but can you back this one up?

Tim J @ 208

Of course I don’t. They are two utterly different concepts – indeed utterly opposed concepts,/b>

You are genuinely telling me that you think that if these measures went through (I doubt they will, but let us assume the worse) that disabled people would not be ‘forced’ to sign up for the new lower than the minimum wage? This ‘allowed’ is just semantics and you know it.

This is why I think your Party are particularly evil. Tories hide behind some kind of semantic debate when you actually know full well the implication of such a policy, but you feel (rightly as it turns out, but that discussion is on another thread) that your political opponents will ignore your true motives, well you may fool New, Blue and useless Labour, but you certainly don’t fool me.

I accept that have no real desire to fool me and duping the Labour drones around here may be a nice diversion, but you stil have to look in a mirror.

I think we need an edit facility.

@209 Well after the second world war quite a few eugenics programmes aimed at the disabled carried on, though I wouldn’t call all the nations that did “liberal”.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization

Check out where Winston Churchill turns up!

I don’t want to get entangled in your argument with Jim, or Angry Captain Godwin as he should perhaps be known, but can you back this one up?

It was supposed to have a fake html tag /cheapshot at the end of it, which vanished into the ether. But if you look at the history of eugenics in this country, the US and Scandinavia it was predominantly the project of the liberal left. Bernard Shaw, Beveridge, Keynes, HG Wells, the Webbs etc etc.

For some absolutely knockdown evidence* how about this: when Winston Churchill was a Liberal, he flirted with eugenicist views. When he was a Tory he disavowed them. Proof positive!

*or not.

Check out where Winston Churchill turns up!

Although, as I said above, check out the year. 1913. WSC was a Liberal back then…

215. Chaise Guevara

@ 212 Cylux

I realise that eugenics was a lot more popular in the 30s than it is now, winning favour with the likes of Churchill. Indeed, I’m guessing that it was association with Nazis that helped it to fall out of favour.

If all Tim means is that many eugenicists would have been described as liberals, then fine (I can understand the urge to wind up Angry Captain Godwin). I just wanted to know if he meant that it was an inherently liberal doctrine.

216. Chaise Guevara

@ 213 Tim

Cool, just wanted to clarify.

Chaise @ 209

Godwin

Why bandy this term about, when you clearly have no clue what it means.

Goodwin’s law is not about the citation of Hitler and/or the Nazis, per se. It is the inappropriate citations that Godwin is concerned with.

Examples:

Hitler enjoyed golf = golfers are Nazis is a Godwinism.
Laws that legalise discrimination against disabled people = Fascism, not Goodwinism.

Hope that helps.

I just wanted to know if he meant that it was an inherently liberal doctrine.

It’s an inherently totalitarian doctrine I think, with its emphasis on ‘society’ as a monolithic bloc, and its total de-emphasis on the individual where they fail to measure up.

It may also be an inherently Fabian doctrine, with its emphasis on theoretical best outcomes and its disregard of the actual impact of the process involved. The founding Fabians, of course were all over it, though I don’t suggest that Sunder would approve. Anyway, some of my best friends are Fabians…

Plus eugenics isn’t gone, it’s called “transhumanism” now, though it focuses more on improving the human condition using technology rather than eliminating the “weak” from the gene-pool.
I, for one, will welcome our new cyborg overlords when they arrive…

No one who long term on here will be surprised to see that Chaise’s natural instinct is to ally himself with a policy aimed as deliberately disadvantage disabled.

OH, BTW I think when most of think about the eugenics programmes circa the twentieth Century, Scandinavia is not the one that immediately comes to mind.

OH, BTW I think when most of think about the eugenics programmes circa the twentieth Century, Scandinavia is not the one that immediately comes to mind.

But it should be – it’s far more interesting that a country like Sweden, that most would consider enlightened, moderate and liberal should have been pursuing a policy based on eugenics (as recently as the mid 1970s!) than it is that the Nazis were.

222. Richard W

220. Jim

” OH, BTW I think when most of think about the eugenics programmes circa the twentieth Century, Scandinavia is not the one that immediately comes to mind. ”

Maybe not, but it is quite a long list of countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization

@214 True, but then he was always an imperialist and racist regardless of which party he belonged to.

Richard @ 222

Anyone of those programmes could be described as based on Nazi ideology. I content that such beliefs are driving the current persecution of the disabled that I see almost every day in the Right Wing press and has been the catalyst for Davis’s proposal regarding ‘allowing’ the disabled to Dutch auction themselves into employment.

I probably have said all I need to have said on the subject in an earlier thread, however, here I am more interested that the Right have couched there (in my opinion) wicked proposals with soft language and that simple task has won them the tacit approval of both the vile end of the Right (Tory and Labour alike) and the more moderate centre, who frankly should know better.

225. Chaise Guevara

@ Jim

“Godwin

Why bandy this term about, when you clearly have no clue what it means.

[...blah blah statement of the obvious blah...]

Hope that helps.”

I’m fully aware of what Godwin’s Law is and what the connetations are. If you’re prepared to say that Nazi-sympathising is a standard part of Tory philosophy, then you must be misappling the concept of “Nazi” to your opponents to do so, hence invoking Godwin.

Hope that helps.

“No one who long term on here will be surprised to see that Chaise’s natural instinct is to ally himself with a policy aimed as deliberately disadvantage disabled.”

Really? OK, which policy am I allying with myself, and what past behaviour of mine would lead you to expect me to do so? Go on, let’s see some examples of me supporting anti-disabled policy. We wouldn’t like to think that you were a lying, stupid little shit, would we?

Never et it be said that Blue Labour are unable to identfy Nazis though. Not, Phillip Davis of course who is merely ‘interesting’, peish the thought that they might spot something untoward in a plan to undercut the disabled. Oh no, they direct their ire to the REAL vilians of the peace.

http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Labour-MP-in-39neofascist39-SNP.6789701.jp

Tank God for stalwarts like Davidson. We can be sure to sleep easier in our beds knowing that our democracy is not under threat from the dark forces of the jackbooted Nazis that want to…

…Er, run Scotland better than New Labour ever did. No, not for Davidson the distractions of forcing the disabled into poverty or the unemployed into forced labour, nor the child into the workhouse. His radar is set up to a higher task of seeking out those who would replace Council tax with a local income tax. The real enemy at the door.

What a bunch of useless morons the Labour Party are. If there are any Labour voters out there,

OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES AT WHAT IS GOING ON IN YOUR NAME.

227. Watchman

Jim,

Something you have failed to answer so far. How is a proposal to get more disabled people into the workplace tantamount to a early-mid twentieth century philosophy which, based on genetics and Darwin, thought we could breed a better population (and which is therefore inherently opposed to any philosophy which believes individuals are more important than the state or the greater good – a situation I suspect is generally regarded as right-wing anyway…).

Because if you do not have an answer for this, we shall have to conclude that you are unduly confused and are confusing attempts to increase employment with mass murder…

“If you’re prepared to say that Nazi-sympathising is a standard part of Tory philosophy, then you must be misappling the concept of “Nazi” to your opponents to do so, hence invoking Godwin.”

Bullshit.

The tories loved the Nazis in the 1930s. The great hero of today, Churchill sat on the back benchers, and warned them what was happening in Germany , and they shouted him down. But that has all been air brushed out of history now.

Why do you think Hess flew to this country and arrived at a Tory Lord’s estate in Scotland? We came perilously close to having a Nazi take over of this country with Tory grandees backing. Halifax as Prime Minister and a Vichy Royal family as head of state in a silent power grab . Why do you think the establishment go to such lengths to tell us over, and over again that the Royals looked the East end in the face. We will never get to the bottom of the real story because a lot of the documents have been handed over to the Royal archive at Windsor, where they will remain forever. There is no 50 or 100 year rule on those papers.

229. Chaise Guevara

@ 228 Sally

“Bullshit.”

Nope, just your blind refusal to take into account 70-odd years of history.

Alan Clark was telling anyone who wanted to listen a few years before he died that he was a fascist, and Britain should have sued for peace with Hitler in 1940.

Not 70 years ago, just a couple of years. And he was a staunch Thatcherite.

Scrape the surface of most tories and you will find a fascist underneath.

Goodwins law does not amount to a row of beans. It is just his theory.

@230: “Scrape the surface of most tories and you will find a fascist underneath.”

I agree about Alan Clark saying we should have done a deal with Nazi Germany in 1940 after Dunkirk. But at that time Churchill learned that the Foreign Office had kept diplomatic channels open with Germany in case and Churchill wasn’t having any of that.

With the full support of Labour ministers in his war cabinet, he ordered the channels closed – see John Lukacs: Five Days in London: May 1940 (Yale UP).

The Battle of Britain ensued, which Von Runstedt – CinC West in the German high command at the end of the war – descrobed as the most important strategic battle of the war. And it was because it kept open the possibility of Germany having to fight on both eastern and western fronts eventually although, at that point, neither Russia nor America had entered the war.

What I don’t understand is the claim that most tories are fascists.

Oswald Mosley, who founded the British Union of Fascists in 1932, had been a cabinet minister in Ramsay MacDonald’s Labour government until Mosley resigned in 1930 saying the Labour government was doing too little to tackle unemployment .

I have serious difficulty believing that most tories would support a public works programme at a time of high unemployment to build motorways, sports stadiums and government offices to bring down unemployment, which is what the Nazis did in Germany once they were in power from January 1933.

As a result, unemployment came down ” . . from 6 million in October 1933 to 4.1 million a year later, 2.8 million in February 1935, 2.5 million in February 1936, and 1.2 million in February 1937.”
Source: CP Kindleberger: The World in Depression 1929-1939 (Allen Lane, 1973) p.240

Watchman @ 227

It is the same philosophy though, that is my point. Once you start to legislate to legalise discrimination of the kind outlined in Davis’s rant into the statute books, you start to draw distinctions between able bodied and disabled people. Not just in people’s minds, but in law as well.

Once you make disabled people exempt from laws designed (rightly or wrongly) to protect the low paid, you are indulging in apartheid of the disabled. Not the gas chamber, but none the less, once you have written the law the segregates the able bodied and the disabled then it is a question of degree not principle.

I have read about the eugenic movements around the mid to late twentieth Century, and it is difficult to condemn people in that period of time from the vantage point of today’s morals, but did they see disabled people as fellow human beings to be given help or little more than a nuisance?

To be sure the ‘Left’ embraced eugenics as a means to end suffering and perhaps release poorer families from the poverty that having a disabled child inevitably imposed onto the parents and siblings. To be blunt, Watchman, those ideas have been somewhat supplanted by the introduction of welfare states. The Left attempt to legislate to include people, to encourage people to become members of society, We attempt to help people overcome disability, not eliminate it. We have moved on considerably from the eugenic movements of the fifties.

Nazi Germany, where interested in creating a master race of supermen, who measured up with a perfect model of the racial stereotype. They wanted to exclude the impure the odd the uneven, the ugly.

Coming back to Davis. What he is attempting to do is take the disabled back to the thirties, to exclude them from mainstream society, to decrease their value in society, to push them outwith the laws of our society.

Watchman, I have been told that ‘we’ (Left and Right) want the same things, we just argue about how to achieve it. Well I am sorry, there is simply no way that I want to introduce legislation that forces (not ‘allows’, that is crap and everyone knows it) some people to exempt themselves from the law of the Country. If Davis wanted to ‘help’ the disabled, he would be introducing laws to include them in our society, not say ‘Well you can play, but only if you forfeit your rights as human beings’, that is a grotesque form of inclusion.

233. Pete Lee

”What I don’t understand is the claim that most tories are fascists”

They aren’t Nazis, but there was clearly a wing of the Tory party that supported Pinochet, and Pinochet was the political son of Franco.

These two are pretty close to being fascists and there is now a far right wing of the Tory party and it is not small.

Franco’s mantra was bread justice and fatherland- I can’t help thinking that ‘ fairness could easily have found it’s way in

234. Pete Lee

231 ”I have serious difficulty believing that most tories would support a public works programme at a time of high unemployment to build motorways, sports stadiums and government offices to bring down unemployment, which is what the Nazis did in Germany once they were in power from January 1933.”

Nazism and fascism are different, neither Franco nor Mussolini wanted to exterminate Jews especially and many overtures were made to Mussolini in the was by the allies.

Pinochet was politically close to Franco, very close indeed. It was Pinochet who started the monetarist experiment, no public works but a very anti poor right wing agenda. Political ideologies move on.

@234: “It was Pinochet who started the monetarist experiment, no public works but a very anti poor right wing agenda. ”

It is certainly arguable that the independent central bank of West Germany, the Bundesbank, adopted a monetarist policy stance of tightly controlling the money supply in 1970 and thereafter and that was more effective in curbing inflation in West Germany than the politically controlled central banks were in the other large economies of western Europe – Britain, France and Italy: J-P Touffut (ed): Central Banks as Economic Institutions (EE, 2008)

I know little about Chile’s economy but try this entry in Wikipedia:

“The economy of Chile is ranked as an high income economy by the World Bank, and is one of South America’s most stable and prosperous nations, leading Latin American nations in human development, competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption. However, it has a high economic inequality, as measured by the Gini index.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Chile

Reverting to Nazi economics, the Nazis in Germany ran a tightly regulated economy with extensive controls over prices, wages, investment, trade and foreign exchange transactions. The Nazis certainly didn’t subscribe to such notions as “free market capitalism”.

I agree about the distinction made between the racist policies of the Nazis and those of the Fascists in Italy. The latter were not initially antisemitic and only became so under pressure from the Nazis with German troops in Italy. As for Fascist economic institutions, try this:

“However it was with the idea of a state planning agency that [Stuart] Holland [Labour MP for Lambeth, Vauxhall 1979-89, political assistant in Downing St to the PM 1967/8, and shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury 1987-9] hoped to show the new possibilities open to a more just economy. He looked to the Italian example of the IRI (the Industrial Reconstruction Institute), set up by Mussolini and used by subsequent Italian governments to develop the economy. This had, of course, already been tried through the IRC (the Industrial Reorganization Corporation) set up as part of the National Plan in 1966, but the IRC had been too small to have much effect on the British economy. A revamped IRC in the form of a National Enterprise Board would, however, have a major effect in stimulating the private sector through an active policy of state intervention and direction.”
Geoffrey Foote: The Labour Party’s Political Thought: A History (Palgrave, 1997) p.311.

@231 Well it is true that the Nazi’s economically positioned themselves as kind of “centrist” in that they decided that both communism and capitalism were Jewish plots of some kind, so choose a middle path between them, so maybe we should be wary of those who describe themselves as being of the centre… ;)

@236: “maybe we should be wary of those who describe themselves as being of the centre…”

Quite so. Martin Clark – an academic historian – writing on the policies of Mussolini’s fascist government: “They seemed to offer ‘a third way’, between capitalism and Bolshevism, which looked attractive in the Depression. …”

Source: Martin Clark: Modern Italy 1871-1995 (Longman, 2nd ed 1996) p.250.

20 do you call Hg Wells a nazi

@238: “20 do you call Hg Wells a nazi?”

Certainly not.

“After being exposed to Darwinism in school, H.G. Wells converted from devout Christian to devout Darwinist and spent the rest of his life proselytizing for Darwin and eugenics. Wells advocated a level of eugenics that was even more extreme than Hitler’s. The weak should be killed by the strong, having ‘no pity and less benevolence’. The diseased, deformed and insane, together with ‘those swarms of blacks, and brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people … will have to go’ in order to create a scientific utopia.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i3/disciple.asp

Besdies, HG Wells was one of the founders of the Fabian Society.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the "hateful Right" http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  2. Hannah M

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right” | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/iDGJAMB via @libcon

  3. Alexander Wallace

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right” | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/7PS9C5H via @libcon

  4. sunny hundal

    A guide to the “hateful Right” in the UK by @donpaskini – http://bit.ly/kIxCa7 in response to @conhome sillyness

  5. Soho Politico

    .@libcon to @Conhome: "what it is about so many right wingers which makes them hate, lie & spread this kind of poison?" http://t.co/NFf3h2f

  6. Justin McKeating

    A guide to the “hateful Right” in the UK by @donpaskini – http://bit.ly/kIxCa7 in response to @conhome sillyness

  7. Political Animal

    A guide to the “hateful Right” in the UK by @donpaskini – http://bit.ly/kIxCa7 in response to @conhome sillyness

  8. Woodo

    RT @sunny_hundal: A guide to the “hateful Right” in the UK by @donpaskini – http://bit.ly/kIxCa7 <- #Dorries must be gutted being left out

  9. salardeen

    A guide to the “hateful Right” in the UK by @donpaskini – http://bit.ly/kIxCa7 in response to @conhome sillyness

  10. Nicolas Redfern

    .@libcon to @Conhome: "what it is about so many right wingers which makes them hate, lie & spread this kind of poison?" http://t.co/NFf3h2f

  11. Neil Hughes

    .@libcon to @Conhome: "what it is about so many right wingers which makes them hate, lie & spread this kind of poison?" http://t.co/NFf3h2f

  12. Jeevan Rai

    @AlexBlencowe http://t.co/3FWNxlI

  13. Mikey Smith

    A guide to the “hateful Right” in the UK by @donpaskini – http://bit.ly/kIxCa7 in response to @conhome sillyness

  14. Paul Wood

    A guide to the “hateful Right” in the UK by @donpaskini – http://bit.ly/kIxCa7 in response to @conhome sillyness

  15. Luisa-Elena Lopez

    A guide to the “hateful Right” in the UK by @donpaskini – http://bit.ly/kIxCa7 in response to @conhome sillyness

  16. Eurospan Politics

    Enjoying the sparring! @ConHome http://t.co/jqDuugb
    v @libcon http://t.co/iSV9j0k on hate and hyperbole in UK politics

  17. Dave M

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the "hateful Right" http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  18. Scott Macdonald

    A guide to the “hateful Right” in the UK by @donpaskini – http://bit.ly/kIxCa7 in response to @conhome sillyness

  19. Jane Phillips

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the "hateful Right" http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  20. James Webley

    A guide to the “hateful Right” in the UK by @donpaskini – http://bit.ly/kIxCa7 in response to @conhome sillyness

  21. Simon Treanor

    A guide to the “hateful Right” in the UK by @donpaskini – http://bit.ly/kIxCa7 in response to @conhome sillyness

  22. Abby Crispin

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the "hateful Right" http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  23. Mabel Horrocks

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right” | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/iDGJAMB via @libcon

  24. Henry Path

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right” | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/iDGJAMB via @libcon

  25. Modi Abdoul

    A guide to the “hateful Right” in the UK by @donpaskini – http://bit.ly/kIxCa7 in response to @conhome sillyness

  26. Paul Kidder

    A guide to the “hateful Right” in the UK by @donpaskini – http://bit.ly/kIxCa7 in response to @conhome sillyness

  27. ross ofcourse

    RT @sunny_hundal: A guide to the “hateful Right” in the UK by @donpaskini – http://bit.ly/kIxCa7 <- #Dorries must be gutted being left out

  28. DarrellGoodliffe

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right” | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/yUYxL25 via @libcon

  29. Dave Weeden

    A guide to the “hateful Right” in the UK by @donpaskini – http://bit.ly/kIxCa7 in response to @conhome sillyness

  30. Broken OfBritain

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the "hateful Right" http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  31. Ian Loveland

    This is brilliant. Read and get angry: http://t.co/lZysz8J

  32. Georgie

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  33. Lee Smith

    Worth a read…http://t.co/E4wiilC

  34. Deborah Segalini

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  35. Elly M

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  36. Sam Kelly

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  37. Mark Deniz

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  38. Carl Poffley

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the "hateful Right" http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  39. Carl Poffley

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the "hateful Right" http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  40. Carl Poffley

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the "hateful Right" http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  41. Andrew Ducker

    Left wing? Want to know who to waste your time hating? Gotcha guide right here… http://bit.ly/ja1d1x

  42. Andy Bold

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right” http://zite.to/kdBl7L

  43. Nora Young

    RT @libcon: A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the "hateful Right" http://t.co/MYx40kw

  44. Shamik Das

    Excellent article frm @DonPaskini on @LibCon: A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right”: http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  45. News Unspun

    Ten hateful right-wing journalists: http://bit.ly/mr4FOh via @libcon

  46. malcolm

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  47. Adam Englebright

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  48. Brintha Gowrishankar

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right” | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/zzMxl9u via @libcon

  49. Phil Wass

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right” | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/WqjqKQB via @libcon

  50. Kevin Davidson

    Left wing? Want to know who to waste your time hating? Gotcha guide right here… http://bit.ly/ja1d1x

  51. steve turner

    Ten hateful right-wing journalists: http://bit.ly/mr4FOh via @libcon

  52. Marie J

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  53. Pucci Dellanno

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the "hateful Right" http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  54. Paul Rooke

    RT @Red_Nick: Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right” Liberal Conspiracy http://bit.ly/jY51L0 http://tweetedtimes.com/#!/PaulRooke10

  55. Robert Frost

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  56. Tara B

    A guide to the “hateful Right” in the UK by @donpaskini – http://bit.ly/kIxCa7 in response to @conhome sillyness

  57. pedro

    RT @libcon: A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the "hateful Right" http://t.co/kLKmxrv

  58. Nick Statham

    A guide to the “hateful Right” in the UK by @donpaskini – http://bit.ly/kIxCa7 in response to @conhome sillyness

  59. Liberal Conspiracy

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right”. Did we miss anyone out? http://t.co/WqjqKQB

  60. Liberal Conspiracy

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right”. Did we miss anyone out? http://t.co/WqjqKQB

  61. Clive Burgess

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right”. Did we miss anyone out? http://t.co/WqjqKQB

  62. Clive Burgess

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right”. Did we miss anyone out? http://t.co/WqjqKQB

  63. RobSimmons

    RT @libcon: A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right”. Did we miss anyone out? http://t.co/WqjqKQB

  64. RobSimmons

    RT @libcon: A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right”. Did we miss anyone out? http://t.co/WqjqKQB

  65. Alex Hogben

    @kimlewtas http://bit.ly/iXBRQB – Just look how many are from the mail.

  66. Alex Hogben

    @kimlewtas http://bit.ly/iXBRQB – Just look how many are from the mail.

  67. Alex Hogben

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right”. Did we miss anyone out? http://t.co/WqjqKQB

  68. Alex Hogben

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right”. Did we miss anyone out? http://t.co/WqjqKQB

  69. Alex Price

    “@libcon: A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right”. http://t.co/cAEMZFb” funny breed these Tories aren't they?

  70. Andrew Godwin

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right”. Did we miss anyone out? http://t.co/WqjqKQB

  71. Andy Bean

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right” | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/gnFiROC via @libcon

  72. Ruth Mobbs

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right” | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/Vdd5MqN via @libcon

  73. Liberal Conspiracy

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right”. did we miss anyone out? http://t.co/iDGJAMB

  74. Nemesis Republic

    RT @libcon: A Liberal Conspiracy guide 2 the “hateful Right”. did we miss anyone out? http://tinyurl.com/5uu68uk

  75. Brian O'Rourke

    RT @libcon: A Liberal Conspiracy guide 2 the “hateful Right”. did we miss anyone out? http://tinyurl.com/5uu68uk

  76. Olly Treen

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right”. did we miss anyone out? http://t.co/iDGJAMB

  77. Peter Bill Timson

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right”. Did we miss anyone out? http://t.co/WqjqKQB

  78. ann morgan

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right” | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/ANEiekH via @libcon

  79. Nick Ryan

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right” | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/DqSodhq via @libcon

  80. Kevin Buchanan

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right”. did we miss anyone out? http://t.co/iDGJAMB

  81. EVAWhd

    NOTW clarifies that illegal immigrants do NOT get free cars: “@libcon: A guide to the “hateful Right” http://t.co/kPAJWf0”

  82. Kim Blake

    NOTW clarifies that illegal immigrants do NOT get free cars: “@libcon: A guide to the “hateful Right” http://t.co/kPAJWf0”

  83. Mebz

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  84. Mark Ottewell

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  85. Prym face

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right”. did we miss anyone out? http://t.co/iDGJAMB

  86. Pucci Dellanno

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right”. did we miss anyone out? http://t.co/iDGJAMB

  87. Andy S

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the “hateful Right”. Did we miss anyone out? http://t.co/WqjqKQB

  88. Sutton Coldfield CLP

    Examples of rightwing bigotry in our press: http://t.co/p5RQmbB. Almost funny but for the fact that it promotes a culture of intolerance.

  89. Manish Puri

    Examples of rightwing bigotry in our press: http://t.co/p5RQmbB. Almost funny but for the fact that it promotes a culture of intolerance.

  90. Vegan Panda

    RT @libcon: A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the "hateful Right" http://t.co/N7NDhui

  91. When it comes to hating, conservatives have nothing on the Left | My Blog

    [...] truly honoured, having been included in Liberal Conspiracy’s guide to the “hateful Right”, which came in response to ConservativeHome’s guide to the “hateful [...]

  92. Dick Puddlecote

    The hateful left http://bit.ly/jJJA9W the hateful right http://bit.ly/mr4FOh no wonder we can't stand any of them http://bit.ly/m3Nqni

  93. Daniel Pitt

    A Liberal Conspiracy guide to the "hateful Right" http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  94. Michael R. Barnard

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  95. Michael R. Barnard

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  96. Michael R. Barnard

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  97. Ted Hope

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  98. Don McVey

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  99. Alfreda

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  100. Jason McKechnie

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  101. Em Madden-Hagen

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  102. Luca Bercovici

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  103. Christopher Downes

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  104. malinna

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  105. Henry Zeniewicz

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7

  106. ANOnn

    Why do we fight against the right wing? Because theirs is a world of homophobia, elitism, lies and hatred of the poor. http://bit.ly/kIxCa7





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.