I glimpsed a curious headline in the Daily Mail today whilst shopping (I only browse through it for its excellent coverage of the North Lincolnshire Basket Weaving League (Division Three) and gleaned the following from its website:
A Tory wipeout risks one-party socialist state: Conservative MPs warn public not to hand Keir Starmer a 'super-majority'
The story acknowledges that Labour continues to lead in the opinion polls and that Reform is steadily eroding the Conservative vote. It is unusual for Lord Rothermere's personal journal to be so defeatist with three weeks of electioneering to go, but it amuses me to see two massive chunks of true-blue hypocrisy in the one short paragraph.
Hypocrisy 1 - It is totally fine and in keeping with God's eternal plan for Britain, this sceptred isle etc etc for the Conservatives to have a huge majority. Absolutely no risks to anything there, if a load of no-hope extremist candidates should happen to get elected on the back of a massive swing to the Tories, and then put through some stupid policy that fundamentally damages the country (I don't know, say the European "Research" Group forcing a referendum on EU membership or something), then that is good and proper, and we should all applaud. A Conservative majority of say, 100, does not in any way turn Britain into a one-party state.
Let Labour get a decent working majority and instantly the Devil and all his works will be let loose in Whitehall; democracy demands that they must be forced to do deals with other parties so as to dilute their policies or perhaps have them regularly voted down. A Labour majority of say, 100, automatically means a one-party state, the Security Police breaking down the doors of private schools, anyone earning more than £20,000 pa paying 110% income tax, the abolition of the Monarchy and public executions in Trafalgar Square (renamed The Glorious People's Struggle Arena of Hope) of anyone denounced by their neighbours for thought-crimes against freedom, such as being able to choose what time you go to the shops,
Hypocrisy 2 - What exactly is a socialist state anyway? The introduction of the National Health Service was opposed at the time because it was socialist. Now every party defends it and says it is safe in their hands. The idea that income tax should be progressive (meaning lower earners pay little or nothing, high earners pay more) is also widely accepted - indeed Tory chancellors in recent times have often boasted about how many low-earners they have taken out of tax. Yet this too is a broadly socialist idea. Social care, free education up to and including sixth-forms, pensions and income support measures that give older people something reasonable to live on - these are all socialist ideas that grew from the extremes of deprivation witnessed in Victorian times and all are embraced by the Conservative party.
Of course when the Daily Mail uses the word "socialism", they really mean "communism" but these days it is hard to see many of their readers making that connection, let alone the mass of voters.
Anyway, enough of that. I was delighted to learn that Immingham Ferrets had roundly trounced Caistor Stoats by six baskets to three, Mrs Arkwright with two superb late plaits and an assist, and continue their bid to win promotion.
No comments:
Post a Comment