Compassionate Conservatism
Iain Dale: ‘Thank the Lord this will be the last time conference-goers have to endure the hellhole that calls itself Blackpool.’
Matthew Sinclair: ‘An old man stopped me in the street and asked when the conference would be ending. I answered that it would be in the early afternoon the following day. His response, expressed in tones that weren’t quite rude, “Don’t vote to come here again. Nothing but an inconvenience”. He might have been a lonely groucher but I’m not sure. It seems possible to me that Blackpool’s residents actually resent a rare injection of money into local businesses in desperate need of custom. Become sufficiently accustomed to failure and rare moments of success can feel like a disruption.’
David Cornock: ‘The Tories are giving up on Blackpool, long rejected by Labour. Its conference facilities are poor, its accommodation worse, its (visiting) drunks a traffic hazard.’
Fraser Nelson: ‘God willing–this will be the last time I see Blackpool. A colleague is already in bed with food poisoning. I have heard three separate stories about people finding blood stains in their hotel.’
The Croydonian: ‘First time in Blackpool, and it is a bit of a culture shock. Despite not going out of my way to dress up for the occasion, the locals etc can tell I’m not here for a stag night. Maybe it is obvious because I’m not wearing a football shirt.’
Blackpool has a Tory Council. At least they lit the Tower blue for their visiting, slumming it, overlords.
Update: Dizzy Thinks: ‘You can see why they wanted a casino here. That injection of adrenaline into a town akin to an overdosed ketamine junkie would, might, could give it hope of a life greater than numerous shops selling skimpy underwear for 99p.’
What a charming analogy. I bet we don’t see that on many Tory campaign posters on the Fylde Coast.
(Via Kate.)
And: Mike Rouse: ‘Before long I was heading down the motorway with Guido and Caroline Hunt for the 5 or so hour drive back to civilisation. I won’t miss Blackpool and, according to a local landlord, Blackpool won’t miss us Tories.’
UPDATE: I’ve been put right in the comments by Dizzy, that this has nothing to do with compassion or big ‘c’ Conservatism. It’s about small ‘c’ conservatives. Please imagine that the title of this post is now merely ‘conservatives’; that the objectionable concepts have been removed. I thank you.
UPDATE 6/10: It’s not just the Tories. Here’s a prurient take on Blackpool from the Mirror’s Paul Routledge.
Posted on October 4th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
| See also • MILLIONAIRE ACTORS TOLD TO CHEER THE FUCK UP - The Daily Mash • Unedifying • A local paper for local people |
Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe By Email • Print This Post • • • |
|
Filed under Tories |
Nice. Good to know the Tories can appreciate their own policies.
insensitive and nasty yes, but i also got food poisoning in blackpool once
Your point? I got food poisoning in Brighton once.
Mmm quite. I said almost the same, just before you:
http://kateshomeblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/fine-words-dont-butter-no-parsnips.html
Bloody well said, Kate. I take it these whining Tories won’t be wanting Blackpudlian votes at the election.
… Although I will miss some of the local nightlife.
So holier than thou. Yes, Blackpool has had a Tory Council for about4 months. Four months to turn round the neglect of decades. Grow up.
Heh you hit a raw nerve it seems Chick Yog.
I thought you were supposed to be better than this. What is your point? That ordinary, non-Overlord, people would think differently of Blackpool; that we should lie?
Compassion does not entail dishonesty. To pretend that Blackpool has no problems or to refuse to discuss them would be to display a real lack of compassion.
The same problems that will cause the Conservatives to give up on Blackpool will, and largely have, already caused others to do the same. The city’s problems aren’t a secret. How often do you visit Blackpool?
Honesty is more likely to lead to a turnaround than ignoring the situation. What hope the city has depends upon those with a stake in its future realising the scale of the challenge. We might also draw lessons for other areas.
‘Grow up’ is Iain’s answer to almost everything. I suppose I should be grateful he didn’t call me a prick which is his other stock response to his critics.
As for ‘decades of neglect’, Iain, well Blackpool was a solid Tory seat until 1997. Also, the Tories held the council from 1973 to 1991. Good of you to admit that the Tories are complicit in creating the ‘hellhole’ you and your ilk sneer at so colourfuly.
Instead of saying, ‘yes, Blackpool is a hellhole and here’s what the Tories could do about it’, you thought it would be more fun to parade your passive-agressive metropolitan snobbery safe in the knowledge that you never have to go back.
As for ‘holier than thou’, I go to Blackpool several times a year to see my parents. I’m increasingly appalled, disgusted and angry at the way the town in visibly decaying. Then you chinless wonders turn up and have nothing constructive to say other than patrician sneers. Empathy with Blackpool and its citizens seems a bridge too far for you people. I hope you’re not some of faces of this ‘modern’ Conservative party we’re hearing so much about.
I think you’re the one who needs to grow up or have you succumbed to the blogger’s malaise of whining about everything and having a solution for nothing?
I thought you were supposed to be better than this…
I could say the same for you Matthew. That’s why I’m disgusted.
Tories being nasty, no shock there. Although I’ve been to Blackpool a couple of times and it is a bit rough, then again so are most seaside towns these days.
And another thing, Matthew
Compassion does not entail dishonesty
Where’s the compassion in the blog posts I link to? Please tell me.
…or to refuse to discuss…
Don’t insult me by trying to tell me this was a discussion about poor, poor Blackpool. It was a round of sniggering and snobbery about drunks, food poisoning, colourful metaphors about drug addicts and getting back to ‘civilization’.
I hope all the lefties reading this post and tempted to confirm the lazy view that they can avoid our ideas safe in the knowledge that we are all just nasty actually read my post.
What I was expressing wasn’t loathing of Blackpool or its people. Even the paragraph you’ve pulled out ends on an attempt to understand why the old man was saying something so unpleasant and unhelpful to his community.
I was expressing surprise. I’m well aware of the problems of decline outside London - I’ve written about regional inequalities many times before on my blog. There’s been plenty of analysis there of how decline came to pass and where we go next. However, I’d never seen a seaside resort in such a state.
The dominant emotion of my piece this time was surprise. I was reporting on what I’d seen as I thought that others with as little experience of Blackpool as myself a week ago might benefit from what I have learned. That’s why I put in plenty of detail of the problems that will make a revival hard (how it is no longer family-friendly, the problems with the building stock, the poor image it reflects for organisations like the Conservatives relative to alternatives like Birmingham).
If you weren’t so thoroughly hateful you’d have responded to my post with your thoughts on what happened to Blackpool and where it can go from here. Instead you decided to turn this into a phoney issue of class.
I did read Matthew’s post, and to be fair, it does pretty much what he says it does. All the same, it seems to me that his complaint
“If you weren’t so thoroughly hateful you’d [offer] your thoughts on what happened to Blackpool and where it can go from here.”
would be more properly addressed to the likes of Iain and Dizzy.
Well, Matthew, your piece might have been written more in surprise than in the disgust of the others, but it’s still just a richly detailed catalogue of what’s wrong with the town, full of ‘burgers, kebabs and pizza’, strip clubs and Roy Chubby Brown. How’s that for the ‘phoney’ issue of class? You brought class up, not I.
Your solutions are paltry and seem vague at best:
Blackpool needs ‘needs to attract families’.
I take it, while you were up there, you didn’t get as a far as the Pleasure Beach, one of the largest theme parks in Europe, or to the rather fab Doctor Who exhibition, the tower and its circus, the video game arcades, the three piers, Stanley Park, Fairhaven Lake, the Tussauds Waxworks, the Sandcastle waterpark (the largest indoor one in the UK), Blackpool Zoo, Royal Lytham down the road, Then there’s the illuminations which were switched on this year by David Tennant after a pop concert. You said they were cheap looking but I wonder of you got further North and saw the tableaus, some of which are rather groovy. There’s a football team in the Championship and a new shopping mall is going up right next to the Winter Gardens. Blackpool has plenty of family attractions. Or did you have something else in mind?
You rightly point out the cheaper availability of foreign holidays but don’t say how to make Blackpool more financially attractive. Does Blackpool have to get cheaper or Spain more expensive? Do we interfere in the market place to do it?
And ‘80% of Blackpool’s building stock needs almost total renovation or demolition’
What, is that 80% of the whole of Blackpool or just the bits you saw in your week there?
And then you’re off to Birmingham where the Brummies have a better work ethic apparently. Hey ho.
I liked the way I’m ’so thoroughly hateful’, by the way, the way I’m defending the town where I was born and grew up and where my family still live. When I’m saying nasty things about New Labour, you right-wingers queue up to kiss my arse. Just ask Iain Dale.
“I take it these whining Tories won’t be wanting Blackpudlian votes at the election.”
I also take it that they’re aware that any vague credibility they had on the important issue of communities and regeneration is now totally down the pan. What would have been refreshing would have been to see them turn up, say ‘yes, we do think some things about this town are nasty,’ and then tell us what they’d do, if they got into power, to turn things around for places like Blackpool. And it’s not just the odd place here and there - there are a helluva lot of places like Blackpool, not just coastal towns with all the particular issues they carry, but inland too. It’s a massive problem that I’ve been waiting years to hear a peep on from the smug cross-party concensus of the liberal elite.
This may seem a tad off-topic, but isn’t it about time someone did a fresh study of MPs, showing how many of them live in their own constituency (perhaps with a party-by-party % summary at the end)?
Look, if you think I’ve got it wrong on Blackpool - that there’s actually a lot to recommend it as a holiday destination - I’d be very happy to hear it. I’d suggest that you try to tell the rest of the country as well - it might do the town a lot of good. There’s no need to make that argument in a vitriolic manner.
Please stop taking my comments out of context, though. When I said Blackpool needs to attract families it was in this paragraph:
“There is a strip club on the sea-front. While this might be commercially successful it suggests utter desperation for an area that, if it wants to be really successful, needs to attract families.”
When I said that “80% of Blackpool’s building stock needs almost total renovation or demolition” I didn’t pretend that was some kind of definitive analysis:
“There are some beautiful buildings left but I’d say roughly 80% of Blackpool’s building stock needs almost total renovation or demolition.”
It’s just my impression and clearly based on what I saw (the key words here are “I’d say” and “roughly”).
I don’t mind you getting angry at things that I have said. We can disagree and I don’t expect everyone to like everything I have to say. However, here your anger seems to be based more on wilful distortion than an actual disagreement of principle.
Matthew, can you do me a favour and actually point to the hateful vitriol you describe?
It shouldn’t take too long; only 36 of the 360 words in this post are Justin’s.
Perhaps you also could point out the wilful distortion that lurks somewhere beneath Justin’s quoting people and linking to each source.
‘There is a strip club on the sea-front’. But are you making a moral point here? You seem to be implying that the club is putting families off going to Blackpool. I must have been on the Golden Mile with my kids ten times in the last couple of years - both in the day and at night and I honestly couldn’t tell you where that club is. Until conference bloggers brought it up I didn’t even know there was one. I’m not sure what I said about the ‘needs to attract families’ is changed by you quoting the whole paragraph.
I’m sorry if you see this as a wilful distortion, but I do think you seem to be implying in these comments that your post contains more balance than it actually does. I sincerely apologise for any vitriol - your post was certainly a lot less hateful than say Dale’s or Dizzy’s.
And yet Matthew can after the briefest of visits.
(Hang on… is that hateful vitriol or distortion?)
If you quote it alone I’m just making an unsubstantiated claim that Blackpool does nothing to attract families. In context I’m making the rather obvious argument that seediness on the sea front isn’t a good idea for a resort that aims to attract families.
Sorry Matthew, I don’t appear to have made it easy enough for you. Let’s try again on one point and one point alone, and take it from there:
Matthew, can you do me a favour and actually point to the hateful vitriol you describe?
I’ve provided some arrows below to help you with the ‘pointing out’ part. Use as many as you like:
—> —> —> —> —> —>
Matthew…
When I said that “80% of Blackpool’s building stock needs almost total renovation or demolition†I didn’t pretend that was some kind of definitive analysis:
“There are some beautiful buildings left but I’d say roughly 80% of Blackpool’s building stock needs almost total renovation or demolition.â€Â
It’s just my impression and clearly based on what I saw (the key words here are “I’d say†and “roughlyâ€Â).
If the key words are “I’d say” (for which I’d read “in my opinion”) and “roughly” (for which I’d read +/- 10%) then what you meant to say was
“There are some beautiful buildings left but in my opinion 70-90% of Blackpool’s building stock needs almost total renovation or demolition.â€Â
Does that sound any better?
Justin, would you rather I lied than be honest? Can’t win really can I with your sort of goalpost shifting argument can I? I find myself in the position where I can be honest and then “nasty”. Or I can lie, and then most likely be called a liar. Frankly your “point” - if it had any semblance of intellectual clarity other than to say “ooooh look at the nasty right wingers being nasty about somewhere” - is pathetic. But then you do link to Noam Chomsky, so what should I expect? Next time I visit somewhere I think is a pretty horrific place I shall simply lie and say it’s marvelous in order to keep the great cultured poultry bacteria happy.
Can I just quote my bit again:
“You can see why they wanted a casino here. That injection of adrenaline into a town akin to an overdosed ketamine junkie would, might, could give it hope of a life greater than numerous shops selling skimpy underwear for 99p.”
God that’s brilliant!
So, Dizzy, what you’re saying is that if you’re honest about your views people think you’re nasty.
Oh, and if you lie you object to being called a liar.
Perhaps, like Matt, you could spend some time analysing Justin’s comments and point me in the direction of the part where he says you should pretend nothing is wrong. (To my mind, jumping in the car, laughing it off, and putting it out of your mind somewhere between there and ‘cilivization’ is close enough to that as it is.)
Tim,
I didn’t respond initially because I’d be surprised if Justin himself would deny that his initial post and comments are rather angry. Your point seemed facile.
My argument isn’t that Justin’s language is hateful but that the process of distorting my comments (I’ve given plenty of examples of that) in order to make me seem unthinking and unpleasant is.
On this basis he gets vitriolic and calls us uncompassionate, “overlords”, snobbish, whining and pronounces himself disgusted.
Quinn, writing a range doesn’t necessarily imply greater uncertainty. As to your other refinements, that seems a fair understanding of what I said but I don’t think my initial wording really needs replacement.
A good defence, Dizzy. You’ve won me over.
(BTW, I like the non sequitur about Chomsky. It goes well with your lecture about ‘intellectual clarity’.)
If you don’t mind me saying so Matthew, you’ve taken one hell of a leap from ‘angry’ to ‘vitriolic’… and stretched yourself to the point of intimate damage in the process.
But I must apologise; I’ve let you down again.
By offering you a single point to address in the second instance, I’ve drawn you into a position where you address that single ‘facile’ point, but not the crucial follow-up point…
… which kind of undermines your point, if you get my point.
You contend that Justin is being hateful not in actual speech but intention by ‘distorting comments’, but can you perhaps explain how this is the case when he has linked to your entire post so people may take full context into account? It seems to me that bloggers who are trying to use information selectively and/or out of context usually fail to include a link to the source and/or the victim of the sort of nonsense you describe.
(I could point you to some examples if you like, but be warned that they come from a period of unwelcome scrutiny that many Tories dishonestly describe as a hate campaign.)
So, Dizzy, what you’re saying is that if you’re honest about your views people think you’re nasty.
Straw Man I
Oh, and if you lie you object to being called a liar.
Straw Man II
Perhaps, like Matt, you could spend some time analysing Justin’s comments and point me in the direction of the part where he says you should pretend nothing is wrong.
He shoots! He scores! Straw Man hat trick!
To my mind, jumping in the car, laughing it off, and putting it out of your mind somewhere between there and ‘cilivization’[sic] is close enough to that as it is.
Yes, because commenting that I think they needed the casino is really just putting it out of mind and not caring :rolleyes: You should get off your moral highhorse and stop preaching like a supercilious twat.
Let’s just stop for a moment and “analyse” this post by the great Justin McKeating shall we. The title of the post is “Compassionate Conservatism” and it then selectively quotes comments by “Conservatives” that are not very nice about the state of Blackpool. Thereby trying to draw a distinction between the title and the quotes.
The fact is though there is bugger all connection between what someone’s politics are and what impression they are left with of a seaside town. However, this post is deliberately trying to create a “ooooh look at the nasty right wingers being nasty about somewhere, not very compassionate are they even though they say they are, they probably eat babies too!” argument.
It is pathetic, shallow, transparent and frankly outright dishonest. But hey, Justin is on the Left, so that’s why he is doing it. Conversely I am on the Right, and I am going to call him on his bullshit, because that is what it is.
Tory bloggers go to Blackpool and describe the town in graphic, unpleasant terms without offering any solutions. You’re conservatives and (with the possible exception of Matthew Sinclair) you weren’t very compassionate. Where’s the dishonesty?
I’ll let you have ‘pathetic, shallow, transparent’ because I saw you on 18 Doughty Street the other week and I recognise a kindred spirit when I see one.
Actually I do think Justin quoted the wrong bit of Dizzy’s post. My favourite passage was this:
The lack of your importance does change instantly though when you are introduced to someone, especially the young ones, and they learn that as well as you being literally dizzy you’re also the capitalized Dizzy. All of a sudden you have their attention. Is it fear? Is it respect? Or is it just kudos? I don’t know the answer.
I think it might be illuminating to add the next sentence from the post you have quoted:
“Passing a club with Dizzy and another mate, someone shouted out ‘free entry for Tories’. We decided not to take up the offer, as I suspect the prize was going to be a kick in the shin. Hey ho”.
Hmmm. ‘Pathetic, shallow, transparent’ perhaps, Larry?
Illuminating how, Croydonian? That you had an irrational fear of Blackpool’s residents? What fuelled your suspicion? That sentence doesn’t tell us.
1 & 2: Also known as ‘projection’ in certain circumstances. Nice to see you can spot it in others when it’s made obvious enough.
3: OK, so now we’re here… how is pointing out a blatant misleading fallacy on your part a straw man argument? Nowhere does Justin suggest that you should; “next time… simply lie and say it’s marvelous”. He didn’t present it as an only/alternative option; you did.
The rest of your argument is undermined by:
a) Your failure to address the point that Matthew has so far failed to address; Justin links to every source. If this were a sincere attempt to misrepresent any/all parties as you claim it is, surely he would have simply quoted you all without the links, thereby robbing each quote of context. Don’t pretend you’re not aware of bloggers who do this.
b) Your apparent belief that dishonesty is the exclusive domain of the opposition.
(LT: My favourite quote is from Iain Dale, about the difficulties he faces with people who think he’s a ‘legend’ and those who question his parentage… as opposed to, say, his methods, tactics and what have you. Some people can be so hateful.)
Tory bloggers go to Blackpool and describe the town in graphic, unpleasant terms without offering any solutions.
Yes, because essentially noting how the casino going there would have been a really good thing isn’t talking about solutions at all. Oh no!
You’re conservatives and (with the possible exception of Matthew Sinclair) you weren’t very compassionate. Where’s the dishonesty?
Actually I’m an economic and social libertarian. But it’s rather obvious where the dishonesty is, because you have selectively quoted things that you have subjectively decided are uncompassionate and then said that those that said are compassionate Conservatives. I’m not a compassionate Conservative, I’m a libertarian who belives in a conservtive (small c and I’m assuming you understand the difference between a nouns and philosophical principle) approach to change.
I’ll let you have ‘pathetic, shallow, transparent’ because I saw you on 18 Doughty Street the other week and I recognise a kindred spirit when I see one.
Oh aren’t we the clever one this morning.
Hmmm. ‘Pathetic, shallow, transparent’ perhaps, Larry?
God you really are a monetously huge twat aren’t you, Justin? Anyone with half a brain would realise from that post that I was commenting on the shallowness of many awful Tory careerists. Well, anyone with a half a brain who isn’t on their moral high horse (again) making spurious connections between things that simply are not there.
Nowhere does Justin suggest that you should; “next time… simply lie and say it’s marvelousâ€Â.
No where did I suggest that he did.
Your apparent belief that dishonesty is the exclusive domain of the opposition.
How utterly absurd. have you read my post. I was pretty fucking clear in my comments about those dishonest shallow people that go to conference and look over your shoulder for someone more important to talk too. Dishonesty is not the preserve of the opposition, it’s the preserve of dishonest wankers. Sometimes they do it to your face, other times they write blog posts like this one that try to draw inferences when none exist.
Yes, because essentially noting how the casino going there would have been a really good thing isn’t talking about solutions at all. Oh no!
I think, if you’d seen the news over that last year, you’d know that that particular horse bolted a little while back.
Oh aren’t we the clever one this morning.
Again, kindred spirits.
monetously = momentously
Oh, and don’t call me or anyone else a twat on this blog, Dizzy. It demeans your intellectual clarity.
Illuminating in that I was pointing to it being clear that we had been recognised as delegates, rather than my having made an assumption.
Whether my anxiety was rationale or otherwise we will never know.
How was it clear that you were Tory delegates? How were you recognised? Because you weren’t wearing football shirts? That seems to be your point.
I beg to differ:
In this passage you offer Justin what you contend he wants. And your objections are littered with accusations of implication, so I trust most people will excuse the minor assumption involved.
That’s not what you appear to be saying here:
You also appear to have sailed right over a crucial point; Justin links to every source. If this were a sincere attempt to misrepresent any/all parties as you claim it is, surely he would have simply quoted you all without the links, thereby robbing each quote of context.
Justin, I call a spade a spade not a shovel. The use of the vernacular invective towards you does not diminish the clarity or content of the point. That being that you have (a) deliberately drawn flawed inferences by selectively quoting something and contrasting it with your title, and (b) straight forwardly misrepresented at least two people by claiming they are compassionate conservatives when they are nothing of the sort.
How was it clear that you were Tory delegates? How were you recognised? Because you weren’t wearing football shirts? That seems to be your point.
Hahahahahahahaha… one of us was fucking suited and booted on a Saturday in a seaside town whose primary fucking business on the weekend is Hen and Stag parties which these carry “uniform” and were within spitting distance of the Winter Gardens. You don’t have to be genius to “spot a Tory” in Blackpool when the conference is on.
Now obviously your sharp mind will say “ahh but just because you wear a suit you might not be a Tory”. Yes that’s true, but in Blackpool on the weekend of the Tory conference you’ll be hard pushed to find anyone wearing a suit that isn’t.
You also appear to have sailed right over a crucial point; Justin links to every source. If this were a sincere attempt to misrepresent any/all parties as you claim it is, surely he would have simply quoted you all without the links, thereby robbing each quote of context.
Hence Larry’s comment:
I did read Matthew’s post, and to be fair, it does pretty much what he says it does.
People could go and form their own conclusions.
And yet Tories appear to object to this concept*.
(*Watch out, Dizzy… this could be a trap.)
In this passage you offer Justin what you contend he wants. And your objections are littered with accusations of implication, so I trust most people will excuse the minor assumption involved.
That’s called sarcasm on my part and you making an inferred conclusion.
“That’s not what you appear to be saying here”
Tim what I was saying there was what I was saying there, because, guess what, this post falls into that category. It does not therefore follow that because I did not say the opposite that I do not believe the opposite as well, and suggesting that ommission of something conversely implies that you believe the opposite of it is a weak debating point. It’s a bit like saying that because someone doesn’t post and condemn the Burma junta they are thereby supporting it.
You also appear to have sailed right over a crucial point; Justin links to every source. If this were a sincere attempt to misrepresent any/all parties as you claim it is, surely he would have simply quoted you all without the links, thereby robbing each quote of context.
Oh what a load of bollocks. Firstly I havn’t said he took me out of context. I stand by what I wrote, I even requoted it because it was a brilliant piece of writing. I did say he mispresented me because he has, he’s tried to label me as something that I am not, never have been, and never will. I am an econominc and social libertarian. I am not a “Compassionate Conservative”. In fact I have no idea what that term even means, it’s about as philosophically empty as Giddens Third Way.
one of us was fucking suited and booted on a Saturday in a seaside town whose primary fucking business on the weekend is Hen and Stag parties
Thanks for spelling it out. If only Croydonian had been as clear. Blackpool has obviously changed from the days when you couldn’t get into a nightclub without a shirt and tie.
straight forwardly misrepresented at least two people by claiming they are compassionate conservatives when they are nothing of the sort.
Hey, you don’t have to convince me that you’re not compassionate. Serial killers have more warmth. If you’re objecting to the compassionate label then I’ll retract it if you like.
But you were a Conservative as well as conservative when you stood for election in Greenwich, weren’t you, Dizzy? The noun was the trojan horse for your philosophical principle. Is that not the case any more?
The Capitalized Dizzy,
Anyone with half a brain would realise from that post that I was commenting on the shallowness of many awful Tory careerists.
And anyone with maybe 5/8 of a brain might suspect that you were also taking the opportunity to wallow in your own celebrity. As soon as people find out who you are… all of a sudden you command their total attention! How exhilarating! What a buzz! And how very sweet of you to prefer that they “treat you with normality” - as long as they bear in mind your colossal importance at all times, of course.
On the other hand I’m sure the “shallowness of many awful Tory careerists” is something we can all agree on… Is Iain Dale still here?
Blackpool has obviously changed from the days when you couldn’t get into a nightclub without a shirt and tie.
That would be beacuse it is a dying seaside town that has had to change it’s offering with the changing market conditions.
Hey, you don’t have to convince me that you’re not compassionate. Serial killers have more warmth. If you’re objecting to the compassionate label then I’ll retract it if you like.
Jesus wept. You forgot to mention that I rape babies and then eat them afterwards.
But you were a Conservative as well as conservative when you stood for election in Greenwich, weren’t you, Dizzy?
I’m not a Conservative. I’m Tory. When I stood as a Tory I was a libertarian.
Well surely if you make this clear on your website (that Justin links to) you shouldn’t have a problem.
:o)
Exactly. And let’s take another look at what you said there:
Reading that, one might get the impression that you claim Justin is being shallow and deceptive *because* of his political orientation, and that you stand for truth because of yours. You might want to be more careful with your phrasing in future… and in your use of sarcasm.
See? No sarcasm tag. Mistakes could easily be made…
And anyone with maybe 5/8 of a brain might suspect that you were also taking the opportunity to wallow in your own celebrity. As soon as people find out who you are… all of a sudden you command their total attention! How exhilarating! What a buzz!
Well you might suspect that, but you’d be a fucking idiot if you did. It’s actually fucking annoying that someone treats you differently because they think they known you. It’s probably one of the worst aspects of todays culture that celebrity - of even my Z to the power of infinity - is enough to make some people treat you differently the minute they find out.
I’m not a Conservative. I’m Tory.
Good luck with getting that distinction to fly in the public imagination, Dizzy.
I’m not a blogger, I’m on online writer.
We’ve never met, have we Dizzy?
I couldn’t agree more, Dizzy. One of the biggest problems in Britain today is that of people falling over themselves with fear/respect/kudos the moment they meet you. Such a nuisance.
Well surely if you make this clear on your website (that Justin links to) you shouldn’t have a problem.
Are you saying that you won’t respond in kind if I quote and link you and title the post “Raging Trotskyite Nihilist Kiddie Fiddlers”? Bonus!
Reading that, one might get the impression that you claim Justin is being shallow and deceptive *because* of his political orientation, and that you stand for truth because of yours.
Dodgy inference isn’t my fault.
You might want to be more careful with your phrasing in future… and in your use of sarcasm.
Why do I need to be more careful. As I said it’s not fault if people make dodgy inferences. That’s theirs for not being very bright.
See? No sarcasm tag. Mistakes could easily be made…
Go for it.
Good luck with getting that distinction to fly in the public imagination, Dizzy.
I’m not trying to get the distinction to fly in the public imagination, so no luck is required. I’m sure Justin that being the clever man that you are that you’re well versed in history of British political parties.
I couldn’t agree more, Dizzy. One of the biggest problems in Britain today is that of people falling over themselves with fear/respect/kudos the moment they meet you. Such a nuisance.
hahahahahaha.
Are you actually comparing the epithet “Compassionate Conservatives” with “Raging Trotskyite Nihilist Kiddie Fiddlers”?
hahahahahaha.
Indeed.
Or alternatively I might have been suggesting that if I posted something with a title that was an unfair description of Tim Ireland and then linked to him he would have a epiletic seizure, the veins in his forehead would start pulsing, he would write an essay and basically start bouncing off the walls like he always does, and were I to say “well you shouldn’t be bothered because anyone visiting your website knows that is not true about you” he would inist of writing daily about it.
And now, I really must go and do some work.
And with that, bruised and battered, but no less certain of himself, Dizzy retires from the field.
Lol, good flamewar.
I enjoyed it. Not bruised, nor battered. Just working.
Yeah just what I was thinking; Dizzy gets himself in a bit of a tizzy (and reminds me of that other teen Tory Devil’s Kitchen)…now where did I put my deck chair and popcorn?
Dizzy: Just working? Tch. There are days I regret joining the ranks of the shiftless layabout on the left. I miss having something
constructiveconservative to do. Or were simply saving face and not implying anything specific?Leon: You are a naughty boy. DK is a UKIP supporter, and he makes that perfectly clear on his website. Of course, this does not give me carte blanche to declare him to be a ‘raging kiddie fiddler’, even if I do link to him.
LOL! No I meant in the manner they both come across. They remind of Harry Enfield’s teenage character Kevin.
You’re not that far off… I recall at least one ‘Kevin’ sketch where he blows up at his parents over some little thing and climaxes with; “Gah! Why do have to make such a big deal of everything?”
:o)
Look… I don’t want to keep this argument going long after it should have died a natural death but distorting someone’s argument does matter even if you include a link to the full thing. Many readers won’t follow all the links.
The potential of the out of context quote is shown to its full comic extent in Scrappleface’s better postings.
Oh, so *that’s* why certain Tory bloggers are reluctant to provide permalinks to quotes/views/sources they seek to misrepresent or undermine.
So, to clarify, in terms of the claimed misrepresentation, was it the headline you objected to, your view being grouped with other views, or both?
[...] Well, what do you expect when you insult a man’s home town? [...]
So, it’s no longer “bugger Bognor”, it’s “bugger Blackpool”…
(okay, there’s the feed line, now for some punchlines…)
Meanwhile, I really think the Tories should return to Brighton… they’ve got a good line in bombproofed hotels.
ta daaaaaaaaaaa!
Gosh, dizzy commenting on a post about him, calling the writer a twat, while being a twat himself? Who ever would have thought it?
Reading that, one might get the impression that you claim Justin is being shallow and deceptive *because* of his political orientation, and that you stand for truth because of yours. You might want to be more careful with your phrasing in future… and in your use of sarcasm.
Especially since, though Dizzy claims to be a libertarian, he’s also a Tory, so no friend to liberty and no friend to truth.