Your comment is awaiting moderation.
This analysis from Lord Ashcroft is excellent Tim. The Focus Group write-ups are also highly entertaining and very informative for slices of the mood music of the mundane the ordinary and Precarious lives of the Left Behind Fly over cannon fodder of Neo-Liberal Elitism.
And a Word on FIllial rivalry from Peter Hitchins.
“The last thing that Peter and I agreed on was the impeachment of President Clinton. But this is not simply a political-party difference. These things rarely are. In England, for instance, Sir Charles Powell is an eminent figure. He first rose to fame as a foreign-policy adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. His younger brother Jonathan Powell is chief of staff to Prime Minister Tony Blair. But many people do not even know that they are related, because they resolutely decline to pronounce the family name in the same way. Sir Charles prefers to say it so as to rhyme with “pole,” the slightly affected form that was also insisted upon by that supreme novelist of the English elite, Anthony Powell. Young Jonathan, perhaps more the man of the people, chooses to do what most readers of the name would do, rhyme it with “towel.” I know for a fact that one political-summit trip meant that the brotherly duo had to board the same official aircraft. This did not mean, however, that they had to exchange a single word with each other.
The Poleists and Towelists have nothing on the Hitchenses.”
A favourite novel of mine is the Scheme for Full Employment, it is Dry Kafkaesque absurdism done at it’s best. There are two Factions, The Work to Rulers and Early Swervers, both factions are engaged in an Enterprise of the circular manufacture and dismantling of UNI Vans. Its an Allegory of some sort I would be interested if anyone else has read it.
How Interesting to compare, Jo Johnstone and his Brother Boris, Piers Corbyn and His Brother Jeremy, Ed Milliband and his brother David, perhaps some Father-Son lineage might also prove informative, Tony Benn, Hilary Ben, Neil Kinnock Stephen Kinnock, George Bush 1 George Bush the Second.
I noticed this morning that Channel 4 will be screening a leaders debate on “Climate” this coming Thursday, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage will apparently not be taking part? I think I will tune in and as a bit of fun, I might pre-write the script and publish before the show goes out to see how accurate I am.
“…Edward describes, it suggests that my late brother’s attitude towards the Soviet experiment was more, er, nuanced than he might later have wished to acknowledge. Of course he was not a Stalinist, the charge which he angrily denied, though I had not made it. He was a Trotskyist, first as a member of a Trotskyist grouplet and later as an admirer (as he states clearly here) of Trotsky himself, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0076zht
(This, by the way, was recorded in August 2006).
But in my experience, quite a lot of Trotskyists (and he was definitely one of those) still defended aspects of the Soviet experiment, as Trotsky did himself. I was keenly aware of this as, even in my most fervent Trotskyist phase, I could never bring myself to see anything good about the USSR, and once got into trouble with my International Socialist comrades for issuing at the University of York (above the IS imprint) a leaflet saying that the Soviet Union was ‘no more socialist than Surrey’.
“A fiction that elevates my soul is dearer to me than a host of base and despicable truths”. Pushkin.
Ignorance is Strength
Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age,
there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and
the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless
different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards
one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society
has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable
1. MONEY AND PLAN. We have attempted to examine the Soviet regime in the cross-section of the state. We can make a similar examination in the cross-section of currency. These two problems, state and money, have a number of traits in common, for they both reduce themselves in the last analysis to the problem of problems: productivity of labor. State compulsion like money compulsion is an inheritance from the class society, which is incapable of defining the relations of man to man except in the form of fetishes, churchly or secular, after appointing to defend them the most alarming of all fetishes, the state, with a great knife between its teeth. In a communist society, the state and money will disappear. Their gradual dying away ought consequently to begin under socialism. We shall be able to speak of the actual triumph of socialism only at that historical moment when the state turns into a semistate, and money begins to lose its magic power. This will mean that socialism, having freed itself from capitalist fetishes, is beginning to create a more lucid, free and worthy relation among men. Such characteristically anarchist demands as the “abolition” of money, “abolition” of wages, or “liquidation” of the state and family, possess interest merely as models of mechanical thinking. Money cannot be arbitrarily “abolished”, nor the state and the old family “liquidated.” They have to exhaust their historic mission, evaporate, and fall away. The deathblow to money