Thursday, November 23, 2006
The World Turned Upside Down
The Telegraph reports here, from none other than Boris Johnson on Polly Toynbee.
For those of you readers unfamiliar with her may I suggest you repair to the Devil's Kitchen, Mr Eugenides, or UK Commentators, and search for the same. You will soon find she is a darling of the left and generally advocates some pretty (IMHO) stupid ideas. So even though it might be in the manner of kicking a cripple, in any mention of Toynbee we'd expect to see some kind of attack on her ideas especially from the Conservative Party.
Once upon a time indeed it would have been so, but in today's world turned upside down Boris Johnson sets about welcoming her into the Tory fold. Naturally he comments on her hypocrisy: "... the usual Labour snarling against fee-paying education, and selective education of all kinds. In reality, of course, she is the beneficiary of a highly selective education and also sent her own offspring to one of the most expensive and competitive public schools in the country, an establishment way beyond the means of most people."
"...her lovely second home in Italy, to which she doubtless repairs on so many cheapo flights that she has personally quilted the earth in a tea-cosy of CO2; to which I say, yes, it probably is wrong of Polly to keep calling for higher taxes when that would put such opportunities – for air travel to second homes – beyond the reach of millions slightly less fortunate than her ..."
Boris tells us no we must look to her fundamental behaviour: "At least she's renting the villa out at pretty keen rates" and "...maximised the opportunities of her own children."
Boris then goes on to praise her concern for those less fortunate (although he conveniently omits that some of these might be lazy, or playing the system), which is of itself a sop to socialism; they've just been unlucky after all, you know denied opportunity. Boris continues: "... And if you believe that there must always be winners and losers – as I do – then you must understand that a healthy society will do its best to look after the losers."
Well Boris that's all well and good, but this is the difference between you and I; maybe society should look after the "losers", but it shouldn't be compulsory. It shouldn't be done by the state, if you want to give 25%, or 50% or 100% of your money to look after the "losers", I won't stop you, but you have no right to say that I or anyone else should give up even a penny for them. I may chose to give privately and that is my choice, it is a personal thing; the state has no right to take what I or anyone else has earned and give it to some so called deserving or undeserving person who has fulfilled the state's criteria. Additionally you seem to think that all the hypocrisy is all right, well it isn't.
For reading your piece, I wonder who is in the wrong party, Toynbee or you?
For those of you readers unfamiliar with her may I suggest you repair to the Devil's Kitchen, Mr Eugenides, or UK Commentators, and search for the same. You will soon find she is a darling of the left and generally advocates some pretty (IMHO) stupid ideas. So even though it might be in the manner of kicking a cripple, in any mention of Toynbee we'd expect to see some kind of attack on her ideas especially from the Conservative Party.
Once upon a time indeed it would have been so, but in today's world turned upside down Boris Johnson sets about welcoming her into the Tory fold. Naturally he comments on her hypocrisy: "... the usual Labour snarling against fee-paying education, and selective education of all kinds. In reality, of course, she is the beneficiary of a highly selective education and also sent her own offspring to one of the most expensive and competitive public schools in the country, an establishment way beyond the means of most people."
"...her lovely second home in Italy, to which she doubtless repairs on so many cheapo flights that she has personally quilted the earth in a tea-cosy of CO2; to which I say, yes, it probably is wrong of Polly to keep calling for higher taxes when that would put such opportunities – for air travel to second homes – beyond the reach of millions slightly less fortunate than her ..."
Boris tells us no we must look to her fundamental behaviour: "At least she's renting the villa out at pretty keen rates" and "...maximised the opportunities of her own children."
Boris then goes on to praise her concern for those less fortunate (although he conveniently omits that some of these might be lazy, or playing the system), which is of itself a sop to socialism; they've just been unlucky after all, you know denied opportunity. Boris continues: "... And if you believe that there must always be winners and losers – as I do – then you must understand that a healthy society will do its best to look after the losers."
Well Boris that's all well and good, but this is the difference between you and I; maybe society should look after the "losers", but it shouldn't be compulsory. It shouldn't be done by the state, if you want to give 25%, or 50% or 100% of your money to look after the "losers", I won't stop you, but you have no right to say that I or anyone else should give up even a penny for them. I may chose to give privately and that is my choice, it is a personal thing; the state has no right to take what I or anyone else has earned and give it to some so called deserving or undeserving person who has fulfilled the state's criteria. Additionally you seem to think that all the hypocrisy is all right, well it isn't.
For reading your piece, I wonder who is in the wrong party, Toynbee or you?
Tags: Boris Johnson, Conservative Party, Socialists in disguise
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: Conservative Party
