Wednesday, August 17, 2005

We can but dream. . .

Apparently, Michael Howard (remember him?) thinks we should have a "British Dream".

Which is interesting, because for years I've been dreaming of the time when Michael Howard disappears up his own rectum. Surely that's something we can all collectively hope for, regardless of our race or religion? This is something that could really pull communities together.

For the record, I don't necessarily object to what Michael Howard is proposing. But I DO object to Michael Howard.

16 comments:

Alex Swanson said...

OK, so you're less interested in rational debate than you are in abuse, hatred, and personal attacks?

You wouldn't happen to have left-wing political views by any chance?

PH said...

What has Michael Howard actually done to upset you, that might be way and above the call of duty for the average politician?

Rachie said...

God - Michael Howard. And that article really illustrates that he should NOT try to turn his hand to journalism. I've not read anything so dry and inaccessible for ages.

Michael Howard deserves to be castigated even if it's just for those appalling campaign posters that were splashed all over London during the election - particularly the one about 'what if your daughter were attacked by a man on parole' to illustrate his hard line on criminals. He blatantly pandered to the fear and hatred in the core of the tabloid reading population of this country, and it made me absolutely sick to my stomach.

Rachie said...

Sorry - splashed all over the entire country.

Citizen Sane said...

Alex - you'll find plenty of rational debate on this blog, this was just a throwaway comment. So not really meant to be taken that seriously. Please, relax. As for the left-wing political views, no, I wouldn't say I have particularly. I've just never liked Michael Howard. I've never liked Peter Mandelson either. Does this make me right wing? Please, tell me how it all works.

ph - He's just always struck me as a particularly odious man. About as charming as a viper. No further explanation necessary. If you feel differently, well, good for you!

Citizen Sane said...

Rachie - thanks. I couldn't be bothered to trawl up any examples, but the one you've raised is as good as any.

tafka PP said...

I can't honestly imagine that a single Guardian reader, most of whom likely feel similarly about Mr. Howard to you (and me, as it goes, but without any rectal referencing) would be swayed by his vision, admirable though it may be.

Anonymous said...

It is hard for Howard - ostensibly because he looks like Dracula, and has that ridiculous Welsh accent to boot (that Rory Bremner does so well).

Have to agree, though - much as I don't really like the man's personality, and though I think some of his comments on immigration were simplistic, he would have been shouted down for mentioning it whatever he said. Irritating that we can't discuss something like this in a modern democracy without the word 'racist' coming up (though that is more Enoch Powell's fault than anyone else's). Let's not forget though, that Labour exploitred his Jewish background around election time, then played the innocent. Because "Socialists" can't be racist, can they?

Howard is right in what he's said now. But I agree - it's all about the packaging!

Come on Clarke.

ph said...

Why is it that Liberals have an overwhelming sense of moral superiority - I suppose it is because they do not read tabloids and have possess no fear and hatred. I suppose a centuary back those with the same certaintity of their own morals were pootling of to Africa to evangelise the locals

Citizen Sane said...

Woah! Headed off on a bit of a bizarre tangent there. Not sure I can follow that one.

We clearly have very different understandings of "liberalism" and its connotations but I would say that one of the defining characteristics (and chief criticisms) of liberalism is that it postulates that there are very few moral certainties. It's conservatives (and religious types) who always insist on being the arbiters of morality and decency.

ph said...

Yes it was a bit off beam - sorry, BUT the liberalism as commonly delivered by 'Liberal' commentators is one of preachy, moral smugness. Of the card carrying liberals (not Democrats) that I know, they are second to none in their moral aloofness. If your point of view differs from theirs they do not worry about why that may be so, after all people with non-liberal points of view are either mad or bad.

Citizen Sane said...

after all people with non-liberal points of view are either mad or bad.

Well, all viewpoints are welcome here ph. All in the spirit of dialogue. I may be morally aloof, but I'm still open to other arguments. Speaking of which, not so long ago we extended the invitation of a guest blog to you, so. . . . ??

*drums fingers*

ph said...

Yes I know (consumed with guilt) but I have been away a lot - sorry

Anonymous said...

Our intention is to amuse, provoke, inflame, unite and destroy. In that order.

I find this neither amusing, proviking, inflmaining, uniting or destroying. Do you have a day job?

Citizen Sane said...

Oh, I'm sorry. Please, accept my apologies.

Yes, my day job is working as a spell checker. I suggest you go and find a blog that you DO find "proviking" and "inflmaining" instead.

Good luck.

Rachie said...

Anonymous, why do you continue to read, when you clearly find it such a chore?