Mrs Thatcher & Memory

So Mrs Thatcher has dementia.

I find it hard to refer to her (PBUH) as Lady Thatcher, I prefer the early 70s title of Mrs Thatcher.

Anyway.

I don't read them but cue loads of really funny, tolerant, humane and compassionate jokes on lefty blogs and in lefty papers about dementia & Mrs Thatcher.

Because tolerance is something you don't need to show if the person you're talking of does not, in your view, fit the bill of 'tolerant' themselves. It's a sort of conditional value, I think. It means that if someone is not left-wing it really is good if they die.

I think this is how it goes. After all there was loads of unemployment when Mrs T was PM so when she dies it'll be really good. She'll deserve it. (This is not "simplistic" by the way, but wanting criminals to go to prison most certainly is.)

We saw it when Pope JPII died, so we can reasonably expect it when Mrs T shuffles off: death is funny when your political opponents die.

Just in case you had forgotten:




When our leaders were hard as nails because they had to be: when there were tough decisions to take and a tough world to live in.

By the way in Today's Time I saw a graphic I've never ever seen in 10 years of reading archetypal lefty-histories of postwar GB.

The normal story is this. Mrs Thatcher was a failure because average growth 1979-1990 was 1.9%, no better than the average figure from 1870-1990 (to take a not at all arbitrary date).

QED.

In Today's Times we learn that growth in Team GB (sorry, couldn't resist it) OUTSTRIPPED THE FUTURE EUROZONE BETWEEN 1983 AND 1989.

So clearly it was all a massive fuck up. But I've never read that in any sub-soft left history of the UK: they wouldn't have left it out - would they?

Check out David O Morgan's pseudo-socialistic "The People's [of course-TD] Peace [ geddit - like The King's Peace only a bit more crap - TD]" for a particularly shitty example of this kind of left-selectism.

I say this again: Churchill was wrong. He did not write history: the left write history. Accordingly, as I've said before, our current govt will turn out to be the sorry victim of global turbulence and malificent malefactors, just like Wilson and Callaghan.

And I like Callaghan. Loads.

Clearly.

Come on Jim, your country needs you!!! Sort it from the grave!!!!

An Assumption

Assuming that David Davis' extraordinary resignation and intention to fight a bye-election on the subject of 42 days is motivated solely by his stated disgust at the erosion of liberties in this country - he is a great man! Of course you can never be certain of anyone's motivations, especially in politics, and DD is somewhat to the right of Cameron: but the things he listed in his speech, surveillance, extreme powers given to local councils for minor offences, and the erosion of justice in this country will have found the support of many many people, left and right. He'll have lost some of the left with his mention of hate crime laws, but he keeps mine.

The question is: can he bounce the country into the debate on privacy and liberty that we so desperately need? Or will he just become part of another lot of cynical politics? Will the media -correctly, maybe - paint him as just attempting to undermine Cameron?

For the moment, I'm being naive about this because it's time I was naive about something.

Well done, sir. Good luck.


UPDATE: 1.25pm: Oh well, that didn't take long. It's not that much of a sacrifice if the Lib Dems aren't going to fight it is it? And I guess they'd already stitched up the deal. Hey ho. The debate is still essential.

A Seventeen Point Six Percent Swing

Obviously I'm delighted by the Tories' victory in Crewe and Nantwich, unlike the bizarrely titled "Telegraph Columnist" Mary Riddell, who is already giving herself nightmares about what terrible things may come to pass under a Tory government utterly in hoc to a fundamentalist Christian worldview; such as (cover your ears, or eyes) another vote on abortion. Given that her side won all this week's debates convincingly, and that, accordingly, children are wholly viewed as the playthings of already existing beings in law and morals*, it's hard to escape the view that her fear is based upon the existence of dissent itself; the cognitive dissonance currently being felt by self-righteous lefties with a massive sense of entitlement up and down this benighted isle of ours. It was the debate itself that frightened her, the actual reality of people who don't see life as she does; hence all the God-bothering bogey men lurking just around the next general election. She is right to worry. It will be awful. We'll all have to go to church every week. Pre-marital sex will become a crime, except for Catholic priests, and women who have abortions will be executed. That bad? It'll be worse. For, lurking under Cameron's friendly facade lurks an extremist Etonian who'll actually criminalise poverty and, even worse, might just seek another reduction in the abortion time limit, possibly to as low as 22 weeks. Fucking hell.

Anyway.

Here are some more things TD would like to see a 17.6% swing to:


1) His knob.
2) His bollocks.
3) His brain.
4) Doctor Who.
5) England cricket.
6) His bank balance.
7) The actual size of his knob, in inches.
8) His alcohol intake.
9) Ditto.
10) And again. That makes, er, 52.8% overall in favour of alcohol.


Incidentally, why do NuLabour think that what you eat and drink must be the legitimate subject of public policy but that what you fuck must not be? Have they not heard of STIs or of abortion (er...)? Is it really ok for the likes of Dawn Primarolo to tell us, effectively, that any number of abortions is alright but that people having a few jars must stop, fucking well stop now?

Well, bollocks to that. I'll defy our collapsing autocrats with another tin of crap, cheap lager. And fuck any politician who cares deeply about what I put in my mouth unless it happens to be part of someone else's body (in which case it's a positive choice).


As if that were actually *realistic* anyway. I should stick to being pissed and not really venture into sexuality. Frankly, I would make an asexual plant look like a slut. The fucker would be out in the pub with his mates, knocking back the Stellas, and he'd go "oh look there's TD!!!!" and all his bastard dandelion mates would laugh and raise their glasses. Fucking twats. There's even bloody daisies laughing at me, the fuckwits. While snogging their girlfriends and copping a feel of her tits. I can hear the wanker pansy telling me I am a "fucking virgin, fucking virgin"** and giving his girlfriend a smack on the arse for good measure while I try to sneak up to the bar under my huge collar, almost silently ordering a pint.



*Sooner or later I'll need a liver...

** No conclusion is to be drawn on TTD's sexual experience from this piece of semi-sober whimsy.

PMQ Shock

Well I didn't think that Harriet Harman was all that bad at PMQs today. She had some obviously prepared gags but she gave as good as she got from Hague and he was unable to pin her down. She did try to pin a feminist jibe on the Tories (why was the Shadow Leader of the Opposition not asking the question) and she sounded pretty aggressive. I don't know what the rules for PMQs are now but the PM (or whoever's on facing the house duty that day) never seems to answer any question. Hague asked the same q 3 times on poor families being worse off this weekend but she never answered it, nor attempted to. And the Speaker? Is it his job to enforce answering or questions or not? He certainly stopped Vince Cable from asking a question involving the Queen and, if I remember rightly, did not call him for his second question which confused him somewhat. But Hague, like Cameron, did not press her with enough force, as opposed to rhetoric, of which he had plenty. He could only force a sense of outrage or disgust at the very end of his questions. Why was he not putting the government on the rack from the beginning? He just did not, to me, seem to argue with enough conviction - and I think this is still one of the problems of the modern opposition: they don't have enough conviction and they are holding back for fear of seeming to be "the nasty party" again. They don't want to be seen to be too aggressive. But they will need to be: one of those ideology-turning moments is coming, like 1979 and 1997 (possibly in 2010, more likely 2015) and it will be time for tough arguments and rolling-the-sleeves-up defences of liberty, trust in citizens and the rule of common law against Labour's ideology of written rights and victimhood. There will be hard days ahead and timidity of this sort will be no use.