« Her Unspeakable Woes |
| Friday Ephemera »
Posted at 13:57 in Media, Politics, Travel | Permalink
Luckily it's far more likely the Scott trust will run out of cash thus "banning" the left-winger's Daily Wail.
August 07, 2013 at 14:02
I notice the question doesn't say whether those "low-energy" vehicles will be a practical replacement.
August 07, 2013 at 14:05
I notice the question doesn’t say whether those “low-energy” vehicles will be a practical replacement.
Practicality has rarely been a concern for the Kings Place Massive™, as their knack for losing money testifies. Who else would launch a “data-driven” coffee shop that doesn’t have WiFi and which would need to sell around 30,000 coffees a day, every day for the next five years, in order to offset the Guardian’s latest losses? Though it seems unlikely to be with us quite that long.
August 07, 2013 at 14:24
Guardian readers are currently voting 2-to-1 in favour of a ban.
August 07, 2013 at 14:29
Guardian readers are currently voting 2-to-1 in favour of a ban.
Has someone told Auto Trader?
August 07, 2013 at 15:13
So, am I to understand that Guardian readers desire their modes of transportation to be run on faith? And, BTW, are they just going to ignore all the fossil fuels burned to provide electricity for these new eco-wonders? Good luck with that.
August 07, 2013 at 16:40
Well, some of the Graun's readers feel that a return to horse-drawn transportation is reasonable, while scoffing at the idea that city streets were piled high with manure prior to the introduction of the automobile.
Spiny Norman |
August 07, 2013 at 16:47
Norman, I'm reminded of the joke about the difference between city people and country people: With country people, the shit's on the outside of their boots. I'll now modify the joke to be about city people/Guardian Readers v. Country folk.
August 07, 2013 at 17:01
Banning stuff. It's helps you feel you contribute to society, when deep down you know you don't.
August 07, 2013 at 17:11
But banning something – banning it good and hard – is the payoff for all that tutting and fake piety.
August 07, 2013 at 17:22
And these are the guys who formed a coalition with your Conservative party against the Labor boys? Help a Yank out here...I presume the numbers are what drove that, but in general, are LibDems much further to the left of Liberals? Would such an extreme position be tolerated in Labor? And this is the LibDem party itself, not some fringe element, correct? Tried to look this stuff up once but got lost in the UK lingo and political contradictions.
August 07, 2013 at 18:00
'And these are the guys who formed a coalition with your Conservative party against the Labor boys? Help a Yank out here...I presume the numbers are what drove that, but in general, are LibDems much further to the left of Liberals?'
This is a good question. What do the Lib Dems actually stand for?
To give you some context, the party itself was set up 25 years ago as a merger between the old Liberal Party (which had long since been superseded by Labour as the second party in British politics) and the Social Democratic Party, a splinter group from Labour which had broken from that party in 1981 when it looked as though it might be hijacked by the hard left. So you do have an uncomfortable union between 'Orange Book' types who are economic liberals (including Nick Clegg) and those on the political left.
Trying to balance these two strands of thought are quite difficult, so in the pre-2010 period the Lib Dems responded with some good old-fashioned opportunism.
On a national level, prior to 2010 the Lib Dems concluded that they could gain votes by positioning themselves to the left of Labour, and pick up support from people frustrated by New Labour's lack of 'radicalism' (and indeed they got the 'Guardian' and the 'Indie's' support as a result). They also calculated that their 'principled opposition' to the Iraq war would also win them support, not that they actually articulated an alternative strategy for dealing with Saddam other than regime change.
But on a local level when it came to council and by-elections, the Lib Dems adopted positions based on tactical expediency. So when they were contesting Tory Parliamentary or council seats, the Lib Dems would attack incumbents from the right, on issues such as immigration.
In other words, they are basically two-faced bastards who will pick up and abandon causes as they see fit (e.g. student tuition fees, an EU membership referendum), and whose only fundamental purpose is to enjoy the privileges of power. The only consistency I can see in their politics relates to Israel-Palestine, where their attitude to Jews mirrors that of their Russian namesakes (see Jenny Tonge, David Ward etc).
sackcloth and ashes |
August 07, 2013 at 18:51
If you keep reading The Guardian then their articles will start making sense, at which point you will have no option but to open an artery in your wrist.
August 07, 2013 at 18:57
I thought about trying to answer WTP’s question, hesitated, looked out of the window, stared a while, then gave up. There’s only so much fog you can fit in a bag. Plus, the chili was ready.
August 07, 2013 at 19:00
I recommend banning leftists by 2040. No, by 2020. We ought to be able to build the Golgafrincham Space Ark B by then.
August 07, 2013 at 19:19
And if adequate replacements for the petrol-powered cars are not practical and easily available by 2040, let the vote-buying begin. The solution will be to allow "temporary waivers" of the ban to favored constituencies, or perhaps allow only the sale of petrol-powered cars manufactured by certain favored auto companies, all in the interest of further entrenching and enriching the political powers-that-be. That the ban itself would be denounced and repealed as idiocy is, I fear, too much to hope. I don't know any Guardian readers since I'm American, but I'm guessing that raising these issues would elicit only glassy, uncomprehending stares from them.
I will say this: The Guardian does a service of sorts by gathering these people together and encouraging them to broadcast what they think, which must be of some help to rational people determined to prevent at least some of their ideas from being put into action.
August 07, 2013 at 19:21
Thanks, S&A...I guess I understood it better than I thought. Things that don't make sense are hard for me to remember.
In other words, they are basically two-faced bastards who will pick up and abandon causes as they see fit
Ahh, that would explain why they were spoken of so admirably by the proprietor and several commentors on a certain philosophy blog I used to read. That and, per my presumption, the fact that LibDems have never won much of anything and thus never been accountable for running anything.
August 07, 2013 at 20:00
Low-energy vehicles? Lessee…
Dray and draft horse
Skateboard (manual or motorized)
Red Radio Flyer
Roller skates (with or without dog on leash)
Big kid (piggyback)
Anything by RazorUSA
Tennessee Walking Horse
August 07, 2013 at 21:27
you will have no option but to open an artery in your wrist.
Open the carotid: it does the job much, much faster.
August 07, 2013 at 21:35
'Ahh, that would explain why they were spoken of so admirably by the proprietor and several commentors on a certain philosophy blog I used to read. That and, per my presumption, the fact that LibDems have never won much of anything and thus never been accountable for running anything'.
This has been more or less demonstrated by their conduct in the Coalition since May 2010.
The Lib Dems basically thrived from about 1997 onwards as the protest vote party. They were there for anyone from the left who felt disillusioned by Labour's record in office (i.e. those upset that the party didn't adopt the manifesto from 1983) but who couldn't bring themselves to vote Tory. It was perfect for the Lib Dems because it combined sanctimonious posturing with complete cynicism.
The Lib Dems also benefited from the kid-gloves treatment they got from certain sections of the media. So, for example, when the party's decrepit Foreign Affairs spokesman (and later leader) ever appeared on 'Question Time' or 'Newsnight' the BBC journo who had usually torn into a Labour or Conservative politician would then pitch a soft question usually along the lines of 'Ming, what do you think?' The 'Guardian' and the 'Independent' also gave them their allegiance in 2010, because they had opposed the Iraq war, and therefore must be good.
The problem for the Lib Dems was that once they got into office as part of the Coalition they sold out on just about every promise they made, and it got noticed by those of the electorate who had supported them beforehand. As party leader, Nick Clegg also demonstrated how the combination of opportunism, spinelessness and utter idiocy was a toxic one. I still remember him getting slaughtered in the Commons when he piously decried the way in which internships in the City were being offered on the basis of personal connections and elite ties rather than professional competence, at which point Labour MPs gleefully pointed out that the young Clegg had got his first job in a Finnish Bank because of daddy. The end result was that they looked like the most incompetent whores in British political history.
Which is why basically come 2015 they are fucked.
sackcloth and ashes |
August 07, 2013 at 23:15
Just as a reminder, this is actually EU policy as of 2050, so the UK is gold plating again by clipping ten years off.
August 08, 2013 at 03:31
It was perfect for the Lib Dems because it combined sanctimonious posturing with complete cynicism.
A while ago I was chatting with a friend I hadn’t seen in years. The subject turned to politics and I mentioned in passing that a classical liberal now has no party to vote for. She suggested I vote Lib Dem. Or Green.
We haven’t spoken in quite some time.
August 08, 2013 at 07:31
"The only reasons why you can't cycle to work, unless you are disabled, are:
- Distance - this is your fault"
This is true because everyone in the entire world is a coffee-house dwelling ponce who works in media and lives in London. With the very rare exception of the odd builder here and there, but I'm sure they never, ever build anything more than 2 miles from where they live and don't have lots of heavy things to bring to work with them.
"I'm against private car ownership and want a system of self-driving cars that can be summoned quickly from mobile phone, auto-billed, and then as soon as you're delivered it's off to the next job"
Why won't they replace private car ownership with a fleet of self maintaining sentient robot cars that only exist in my head? Why is that?
"Greatly increasing taxes on petrol and diesel would be almost as effective as a ban"
Great idea. This will stick it to the rich while having no perceivable negative impact upon Britain's low paid workers and pensioners.
"THEN ban the use ALL cars and only allow the use of Goods vehicles for local deliveries."
So if you don't live next to a steel mill that's located near an iron mine, then no metal tools for you?
Say what you will about the Guardian's readership, but you can't fault them for practicality.
August 08, 2013 at 08:43
"Say what you will about the Guardian's readership, but you can't fault them for practicality. "
Indeed, they make excellent fuel. They give off lots of heat, not much light but plenty of heat.
I can keep the house warm and have hot water using just one Guardian reader a day. And they are a renewable resource, what's not to like.
August 08, 2013 at 11:51
Now only 60/40 in favour of a ban. Could be lots of non-Guardian readers voting no.
August 08, 2013 at 12:29
Given the ‘link-bait’ nature of the thing, I’d imagine the poll is being polluted by infidels arriving from elsewhere. But I suspect that in some circles there’s an enthusiasm for banning that exists independently of any issue of the day. Which may explain why Guardian polls tend to favour whatever it is being outlawed or punished. It almost doesn’t seem to matter what the practical choices are, beyond a chance to impose on others. One of my favourites was when the Guardian asked its readers, “Should Fireworks be Banned on Environmental Grounds?” This time, a narrow majority was willing to permit the beastliness to continue, while the paper’s Felicity Carus suggested a possible compromise in the form of “green fireworks,” a quieter, less colourful, less explosive alternative made from sawdust and rice chaff.
August 08, 2013 at 12:44
I'm always left with the impression that it's enjoyment by others which is the underlying unspoken thing an AlGrauniad "reader" really wants to ban.
August 08, 2013 at 12:57
Well, there’s an awful lot of this among its writers and readers. Which makes me wonder which comes first – the obnoxious politics or the obnoxious personality?
August 08, 2013 at 13:18
How about banning elected officials (and civil servants) from using cars (including taxis)?
Ted S., Catskill Mtns., NY, USA |
August 08, 2013 at 14:52
I've just figured out my problem -- I don't care enough about Humanity to consign you to a life of subsistence farming in a yurt.
I am a horrible person.
I denounce myself.
August 08, 2013 at 16:49
They give off lots of heat, not much light but plenty of heat.
Yes, but the greasy, sooty residue that their smouldering carcasses give off indelibly coats all surfaces and has a most unpleasant odor.
August 08, 2013 at 16:53
It should be the law that if anyone describes themselves as 'liberal', they must write 1,000 words describing why they think they are. 99/100 will actually turn out to be more like early 1920s Fascists.
Not very liberal, but there you are.
August 08, 2013 at 19:46
The Lib Dems say they're "offering modern, affordable, accessible and reliable means of travelling around Britain". And they're going to do this by dictating how we travel and making it more expensive.
August 08, 2013 at 20:01
'The Lib Dems say they're "offering modern, affordable, accessible and reliable means of travelling around Britain"'.
If a Lib Dem told me that it was raining, the first thing I'd do was look out of the window to check.
I trust them as far as I can throw a Challie II.
sackcloth and ashes |
August 08, 2013 at 21:28
I expect all the Graun faithful and the ranks of the LobotomyDumb party will to want to ban diesel and petrol engines, until they need an ambulance. Then any engine, however ungreen, will do to get them help.
August 08, 2013 at 21:48
Poll is at 59% in favor as of this post.
I'm beginning to understand why the left is always in such agony. It's hard living a life where your intellectual inferiors refuse to give up their ways to live like you.
August 08, 2013 at 23:52
Poll is at 59% in favor as of this post.
I'm beginning to understand why the left is always in such agony. It's hard living a life where your intellectual inferiors refuse to give up their ways to live like you require them to
Posted by: John | August 08, 2013 at 23:52
An American at the end of his patience. |
August 09, 2013 at 05:58
Don't forget this is 27 years in the future.
Imagine someone in 1920 looking at airplanes. The era of biplanes held together with wire. 27 years takes us into the jet and rocket age. This has nothing to do with practical politics. This is the student union voting on measures they have no control on whatsoever, purely so they can say what good people they are.
August 09, 2013 at 08:58
The comments to this entry are closed.