‘Prime Ministerial’ language is helping to frame the argument

I am appalled that our own British Prime Minister speaks of collaboration with Brussels.

And he said this of someone in his very own austerity driven Conservative and Unionist Party.

He well knows that this is wartime language. It shows him up for the valueless, lying journalist insinuator that he is.

He’d doubtless deny it – but he is using his gutter journalism skills and trying to frame the argument by the use of language.

We’ve been co-operating with Brussels for the last 46 years.

That’s not anyone’s collaboration.

Look at this short piece:

Our current Prime Minister is not worthy of the office.

Comments

  1. Steve -

    It’s spelled “collaborate”.

  2. Peter May -

    Woops.. You are absolutely right!

    Now corrected. Thanks.

  3. John Higson -

    And what about this, approvingly quoted from The Telegraph by Owen Paterson:
    “The Tories will leave the EU…win a general election…destroy Corbyn…facilitate Farage’s retirement…purge the Tory party of its hardcore Remainers and embark on a radical remodelling of Britain’s economy…the alternative is socialist calamity.”

    and, from the same article but not emphasised by OP:

    ‘The Remainers don’t realise that they are dealing with a proper, ruthless and ideologically committed operation, not the weak, dithering, dysfunctional shower of yore. The Hammond-Bercow alliance can’t see that the world has changed abruptly, that they face a professional, dedicated enemy, which controls the machinery of government. There will be no pity and no quarter meted out to the dissidents.’

    1. Peter May -

      This is appalling – the language of absolutism and despotism.
      Who would think that they are supposed to have a majority of just one?

      1. Andrew Dickie -

        Peter, you will doubtless recall posting an image I couldn’t upload here, which referred to the “banking crisis being an opportunity to sweep away the rotten postwar settlement statement of British politics”, effectively declaring war on the Attlee- settlement that ushered in a period of greater wealth, security, happiness and scope for advancement to the 75% plus of the UK who had never had the chance for such an improvement in their lot in the whole of the UK’s recorded history.

        To declare themselves the enemy of such a (relatively, with all its faults) “Golden Age” conclusively demonstrates to me the validity of a belief I have long held, which is that Thatcher’s game-plan – unstated, because she knew it had to be attained by stealth, and that it would take a generation of acculturation and gradual desensitisation to the needs of that 75% – was the re-feudalisation of society, into a new “baronage” of business aristocracy, the 1%, who would have ALL the rights, and NONE of the duties, being largely exempt from taxation (“only for little people”), and a 99% of new serfs, with ALL the duties, and none of the rights (with democracy reduced to a Soviet style charade, if kept at all).

        Camerom realised that the Great Financial Crash allowed him to carry out Thatcherism Phase 2, as it conveniently allowed him to blame Labour for the crash (even though it was global), and implicitly to damn not just Socialism, but even the mildest of Social Democracy à la the Bow Group Tories, and to usher in thr savage divisiveness of “strivers versus scroungers” (I.e. the 1% deserving versus the 99% undeserving), which has seen our society nudged towards hostility, even hatred, of even the disabled, and certainly anyone claiming Benefits, which, under the Influence of BREXIT, has morphed into very active hostility towards “the other” = foreigners, Remainers, whatever, who are now “collaborators”, even “traitors”.

        How long before they become “enemies of the people”? And what is so depressing is the way the 24% of the remainder of the population very largely sided with this demonization of the 75%, not realising, as many of us did, that they were next in the sights of the neo-feudalisers, as is now starkly apparent.

  4. Peter May -

    Agreed, Andrew.

    Used to be a fervent believer in cock up rather than conspiracy. I now come round to the view that Conpiracy is essential to ‘understand’ neoliberal Conservativism. Cock up is just for the rest of us distracted as we are, by bouts of empathy… something Conservatism seems unable to comprehend.

  5. Andrew Dickie -

    John Gray
    would surely look on us with condescending pity, if the following is anything to go by:

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/08/why-liberals-now-believe-conspiracies.

    Incidentally, IMO this article contains a very unfair judgement on Corbyn’s Labour Party, something that is indicative of why I think Gray is wrong, as are others who discount conspiracy as a possible explanation.

    As one of my political friends used to say: “Just because I’m paranoid, it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get me!”

    1. Peter May -

      Thanks for the link, although I don’t agree with the article.
      Who cannot see some sort of collusion – if not an actual conspiracy – between most of the press and the Tories for example? (Even the Guardian seems often influenced to be beningly critical…)
      How otherwise do the Conservatives get away with such feeble or non existant examination?
      Meanwhile the Mont Pelerin Society was really overt conspiracy, in my view.

Comments are closed.