Wednesday, 24 March 2010

The duplicity of party politicians

I've come to the conclusion that any politician in the mainstream parties are cunts, plain and simple. I'd been prepared to cut Redwood, Hannan and Carswell some slack, but really, they aren't any different. When I once taxed Redwood for endorsing Cameron's lunatic "more of the same" politics, he mumbled something about "sharing the proceeds of growth", which really is nothing other than limp social democracy. I've had a go at Carswell for something similar, and the latest idol to show us his clay feet is Daniel Hannan:

Vote for David Cameron, says murdered Jacobin

He then goes on in his usual educated and erudite way to toss some classic verbiage out. Which is all good and well, but really, Hannan is at one end of a very, very broad church and Cameron is at the opposite end. Hannan's endorsement of policies and an approach to government he clearly doesn't believe in, shows him to be just another professional politician who is quite happy to subsume his principles and beliefs for access to the greasy pole of power.

Cunts, cunts and thrice cunts.


Uncle Marvo said...

Does that lure of power and money get everyone? Is there a point at which anyone can be bought?

I know I can't. My life as I knew it went down the tubes years ago thanks to Mandy BERR and various other changes for the better introduced by this lot of troughsnouting wretched scumbags and I have never been a happier disenfranchised itinerant than I am now. I wouldn't want all that fame and fortune again.

I have a very strong suspicion that Mr Holborn is not buyable. I hope that I am right.

I knew Hannan could. You can tell by the suit. And how they speak - all rehearsed to the point at which it becomes meaningless.

OldSlaughter said...

Possibly harsh (not like you!!).

Hannan embraces the Tory party, he seems to take pride in observing his duties and responsibilities with due concern. He has a duty to the elected leader of his party, he has a duty to his conscience and his electorate.

I think Hannan accepts that there is a balance between party loyalty/procedure and personal beliefs conscience. Although we don't like it, politicians have to tow the line on certain things. I believe it troubles Hannan and he walks the tightrope as well as he can.

Where is the balance, when are you merely selling your soul? He seems to rate Powell, he fell off the tightrope. Was he right or wrong?

Is encouraging people to vote for the leader of your party really the sign of a venal cunt?

Makes me wonder what the final system that 'libertarians' advocated will look like.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

The end game of a truly libertarian society is not a balance between the state and the individual: it is a society where individuals stand and fall by their own actions, where individuals take individual care of the needy and where there are no "safety nets" because no-one is extorting money for these "safety nets" at gunpoint.

OldSlaughter said...

"The end game of a truly libertarian society is not a balance between the state and the individual: it is a society where individuals stand and fall by their own actions, "

That is as I thought.

My problem with this, not that my problems are necessarily of you concern, is that it rings of the ideological.

This is a condition, or an end game, that has never really been seen before. The desire to achieve it could be seen as being 'idealistic' to an extent. Idealism at the expense of pragmatism can cause all sorts of shit. Just ask lefties.

Regardless, Hannan is part of a system, which although I wish to see massive reform of, a system that requires some acceptance of the rules and of self-sacrafice. I want to see a party with differing internal opinions, but I also want a party with people that realise the nature of the 'spirit of the game'. Hannan gets that IMO, it has been lacking in so many modern politicians.

I guess what I am saying is this. Our system to work properly (or as close to as it can) requires a balance between ones own opinion and the buttoning up and taking the whip. If you are suggesting that Hannan is part of the problem simply because he endorses the leader of the party he is a member of then nothing approaching our present system can be endorsed by a libertarian standpoint.

That is fine. But it is a little too ideological and full of unintended consequences for my conservative disposition.

"it is a society where individuals stand and fall by their own actions, ". Well there is the state and there are individuals. There are also other collective activities. Some individuals cannot stand on their own and I don't wish to see them fall. For all the responsibility robbed scroungers, there are several things/people that require some collective effort. I don't have a problem with trying to assist them. If this is done without the state then fine.

Not only do I not think you have really demonstrated any real flaw in the integrity of Daniel Hannan which in your tasteful style you have derided, but I cannot help thinking some of your actual policy is reminiscent of the same ideological masturbation that appeals to leftie intellectuals. Just minus the big state.

As if the only quest is a quest for a system without compromise or contradiction, when as any conservative realises, those circles can never be squared.

"extorting money for these "safety nets" at gunpoint." At gunpoint with a ballot box behind them. Voting for your policies is not illegal.

BTW. I think this is the first time in my life I have found myself as an advocate for more non-military state action than somebody else. I am not experienced at explaining it yet.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

"This is a condition, or an end game, that has never really been seen before."

Actually, it has been seen before.

OldSlaughter said...

I watched it. What dickwad thought a soundtrack of techno is just what a good documentary needs?

I disagree that the crux of the video really qualifies. Civilisation without the state is the basic premise, yet all it shows that the initial stages are possible, it does not show anything post pre-history.

In an effort to avoid the untended, I would need to see an example of the transition to end state.

The pain is always caused in trying to arrive at the utopia, not the utopia itself.

So although I could have phrased it better, I want more than a notion of an anthropologists view of pre-government civilisation and then a utopian's claim that this is an achievable end game.

That condition of pre-property stateless life is as abstract from our present condition as any Marxist ultra state.

If we get there in the end so be it. Having it as the goal scares the hell out of me. I want more responsibility taken from the state and given to the people. I would want to achieve this through a functioning parliament.

I need to adapt parliament to get it back on track and then advocate those issues.

That to me is what Daniel Hannan is doing. You call him a duplicitous cunt.

I think it harsh, and unfair.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Hannan wrote The Plan, which advocates many ways of returning power to the electorate.

Cameron's plan to return power to the electorate started off with, er, creating 19 new quangos. None of Hannan's Plan is in the Tory manifesto, and most of the Tory manifesto is diametrically opposed to anything in The Plan.

Hannan is endorsing Cameron.

I fail to see how he is not a duplicitous, hypocritical, mendacious cunt.

OldSlaughter said...


I thought when I read it the first thing was a great repeal act. Or did I read that somewhere else?

Presumably these nineteen quangos are to replace about 100 others.

Well, like I said, Hannan believes in the history of our Parliament and his party. He believes he can change it from within. I also believe he has some no go areas that so far he has not been fully tested on.
If you really believe somebody is a mendacious cunt for advocating a vote for the leader of his party then I worry if that is not a charge too easily laid.

I have big problems with DC so far. In fact I resolved myself sometime ago to vote Labour, for pretty much the same reasoning as I observed you have made, however Cameron has so far not really done anything massively horrific to Hannan's sensibilities.

To put it another way, if Lisbon had not been ratified and Cameron said no to a referendum then Hannan endorsed him, then cunthood would indeed await. Something I believe to be highly possible, if not probable.

I can't help thinking however that the ideologue charge kinda sticks and such an uncompromising view towards Mr. Hannan over such a small thing seems to confirm it.

I'll still be reading your blog everyday though.

OldSlaughter said...

BTW. I just looked at OH's manifesto.

I don't agree with proportional representation.

I do however agree with much of the rest. I also think there is a chance that a mind or resolve such as OH's might be useful in the commons.

Does the fact that I don't agree with PR mean I will be a mendacious, duplicitous and hypocritical cunt for advising people to vote for him?

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Depends on if you're standing for election for the LibDems.

Really, the issue is plain to see: Redwood, Carswell and Hannan have all espoused great ideas that would really benefit the country if they were Tory policy. Tory policy is diametrically opposed to all of these great ideas. Redwood, Carswell and Hannan are ALL saying "vote for Cameron's Tories, even though their policies are entirely the opposite of the ones we would like to see."

What are they, if not hypocrites?

Tomrat said...


OS has some good points and highlights the potential in a point I bleated/tweeted at you some time ago on the prospect of "libertarian Fabianism" derived from an article in American Thinker (I'll have to find the citation again sorry - pain in the arse to do so on an iPhone at mo); my thoughts were that the best (the only?) way of achieving a freedom from state is to advance the cause of further freedoms as a means to an end in themselves, ratcheting them up when we see how some things can benefit freedom; an immediate example is seen in the figure of Hannan and Carswell who may not be seen in Bory policy but they are certainly felt.

In effect LF is what is happening anyway; it is easier for ideas to spread and the markets to achieve what governments cannot, but when was the last time someone pointed out that effectively <40% of the population was supporting the other 60%? if that isn't proving our point then it is not provable frankly.

OldSlaughter said...

Well that would depend on whether I agree with your 'diametrically opposed' description of their various politics.

I don't. At least not to that simplistic extreme, at least not yet.

"Libertarian Fabianism"

Like it.