Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Interesting suggestions

Well, now we know the answer to the question Jeff Randall posed just a few days ago. George Osborne was invisible because he was trying to beat Peter Mandelson (now the noble Lord Mandelson) at his own game. Of course, if you are going to do that, you ought to be better at it than Georgy-Porgy is turning out to be. (But then how good is he at being Shadow Chancellor?)

The net result of all this is that Osborne's career is in danger. As I write, Cameron has not yet announced that the Shadow Chancellor's position is unassailable, so there may be hope for Georgy-Porgy.

Both on ToryBoyBlog and on Iain Dale's blog commenters have been free with suggestions of replacements. One name that comes up immediately is that of Ken Clarke, the man of the day before yesterday, a throw-back in most people's minds to John Major's government, not the Tories' most glorious hour.

The rest of this posting has been deleted.


Richard said...

Do his lips move?

Anonymous said...

Among the demands of the Hungarian 1956 revolutionaries included:

"(7) We demand the re-organization of the entire economic life of Hungary, with the assistance of specialists. Our whole economic system based on planned economy should be re-examined with an eve to Hungarian conditions and to the vital interests of the Hungarian people."

Hungarian people? What desires could the "Hungarian People" possibly have that isn't covered by the needs of the working class?

When deconstructed it is clear the demands of the Hungarian revolutionaries was nothing more than racist bourgeois recidivism.

Helen said...

When deconstructed it is clear the demands of the Hungarian revolutionaries was nothing more than racist bourgeois recidivism.


William Gruff said...

'This means that when Mr Redwood assures us that a Conservative government will do such things, all of which happen to be EU competence ... '

All of which happens (or just happens) to be within the competence of the EU ...)

' ... not only we shall know he is lying ... '

... we might reasonably assume not only that he is lying ... '

' ... we shall also be able to assume that he knows he is lying ... '

... we may also suppose that he was aware that he might thereby have been presumed to have been lying ...

I presume the bastards guilty until proven dead by firing squad but English law is as precisely imprecise as the English language is exacting and so I give them the benefit of the doubt, until they are proven guilty by a jury of their peers.

That notwithstanding, what is a 'racist bourgeois recidivism'?

Further: does anyone care?

Anonymous said...

Why do you think John Redwood is lying about the EU? What evidence is there to suggest that he is not really eurosceptic?

Helen said...

I think you are conflating two points, irjmilne. Redwood is a "eurosceptic" in Conservative terms, which means an opposition to whatever is in the offing and acceptance of whatever has been passed. Plus there is a tendency to try to say that the Cons will get a better deal and/or manage to reform the EU, neither of which is true. That is not lying just a basic political numptiness.

Where they do lie and Redwood has not really been any better than the others, despite his oft-quoted experience at Brussels is pretending that they can manage certain issues such as immigration or VAT when these have really become EU competence.

Dangerouslysubversivedad said...

So who deleted the rest of the post pointing out what a lying weasel of a 'Eurosceptic' Redwood is? If his ilk can dictate what is or isn't posted here then it rather proves that the Bruges Group is just another Tory front with all the teeth of an octogenarian Granny, which frankly is what some of us have rather strongly suspected all along.

Helen said...

The explanati is on EUReferendum:

The future of the BrugesGroupBlog is under review. I have always had doubts about clogs (corporate blogs) and they are being justified.