Wednesday, 17 July 2019

Theresa May's apologia pro vita sua is her most pedestrian, lifeless speech - but it is her values that repel me

SHARE
I hate it when politicians talk about values. 

Thank God we shall soon not have Theresa May to listen to but at the moment she is everywhere enjoying the last of her fifteen minutes of fame. Here she addresses an audience of people much cleverer than her at Chatham House about values and says, "the values on which all of our successes have been founded cannot be taken for granted". 

She goes on to talk about "our liberal heritage". 

Does she mean abortion, feminism, homosexual marriage, mass immigration, restrictive employment legislation, high public spending and restrictions on free speech?

Yes, of course she does. 

She is worried about "vile abuse" unchecked leading to fascism and nationalism. She is worried that the internationalist world order and the NHS, "an institution that unites our country" (she makes it sound like the monarchy), are threatened.

I take back every word that I said criticising Margaret Thatcher. She seemed and was mostly interested in free market economics, but she truly believed in the small state and freedom and hated social engineering. 

I see no difference between Theresa May and Tony Blair, Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton, except that the two men are eloquent and can make words work.

Mrs May talks in the language of wood like the old Communist leaders did in Eastern Europe. 

And this is important. She cannot sound interesting because her ideas are not interesting, are an uncritical repetition of received ideas. They are cant, in other words, which has been defined as enthusiasm allowed to grow cold.

Restrictions on free speech on the internet, climate change targets, the dreary litany goes on. The only thing I agree with her about is her condemnation of Russia for trying to commit murder in Salisbury. 

In general her time-honoured British values are the nanny state telling us not only how to act but how to think. Egalitarianism, dismantling the class system and police-enforced liberalism. She made no mention of our glorious history except when she mentioned the NHS.


Imagine what Churchill, Salisbury or Dizzy would think. 

Thank God we shall be listening to Boris next week.

If only we had had Boris or Michael Gove in 2016.

15 comments:

  1. `She introduced it as her “personal reflections” on “the state of politics”, but it featured not an ounce of insight, wit or analysis. Instead, all we got was a trundling conveyor belt of torpid platitudes. Prejudice is bad. Teamwork is good. Some people on the internet are rude. The financial crisis left lots of people worse off, and populists took advantage. Many things are better than they were in the distant past, but there are other things that could improve. This, apparently, is what she’s learned, in three years as the most powerful person in Britain.

    'One thing she hasn’t learned, however, is self-awareness, because she seemed utterly oblivious to her own double standards. A Prime Minister defined by her stubbornness, piously preaching the virtues of “compromise”. A Prime Minister who blithely insisted again and again that “No deal is better than a bad deal”, sternly warning the rest of us that “Words have consequences”. A Prime Minister who here confessed that she was “worried about the state of politics”, yet spent precisely none of her speech reflecting on the part she herself had played in bringing this state about.'

    Michael Deacon in tonight's Daily Telegraph is absolutely right.

    ReplyDelete
  2. “The only thing I agree with her about is her condemnation of Russia for trying to commit murder in Salisbury.“

    So she’s wrong about everything yet you believe her about the Skripals.

    Can you refute Craig Murray’s 10 points?

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/03/pure-ten-points-i-just-cant-believe-about-the-official-skripal-narrative/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Craig Murray believed the two Russians accused of attempted murder were (probably homosexual) tourists visiting the cathedral. Do you believe that?

      Delete
    2. I read it. Thank you - very interesting. Without reading it I knew the story we are told by the press is very mysterious and made absolutely no sense.

      Why on earth did Russia want to kill the Skripals, assuming that they did?

      But I do assume it - I do not think Theresa May is playing an elaborate game nor Boris.

      Three weeks ago Putin said,“The average person listens and says ‘who are these Skripals? Treason is the gravest crime possible and traitors must be punished. I am not saying that the Salisbury incident is the way to do it … but traitors must be punished.”

      That sounds like a hint that his people tried to kill them, doesn't it?

      Delete
    3. Oliver Stone: What has happened to Skripal? Where is he?

      Vladimir Putin: I have no idea. He is a spy, after all. He is always in hiding.

      Oliver Stone: They say he was going to come back to Russia. He had some information.

      Vladimir Putin: Yes, I have been told that he wants to make a written request to come back.

      Oliver Stone: He knew still and he wanted to come back. He had information that he could give to the world press here in Russia.

      Vladimir Putin: I doubt it. He has broken the ranks already. What kind of information can he possess?

      Oliver Stone: Who poisoned him? They say English secret services did not want Sergei Skripal to come back to Russia?

      Vladimir Putin: To be honest, I do not quite believe this. I do not believe this is the case.

      Oliver Stone: Makes sense. You do not agree with me?

      Vladimir Putin: If they had wanted to poison him, they would have done so.

      Oliver Stone: Ok, that makes sense. I don’t know. Who did then?

      Vladimir Putin: After all, this is not a hard thing to do in today’s world. In fact, a fraction of a milligram would have been enough to do the job. And if they had him in their hands, there was nothing complicated about it. No, this does not make sense. Maybe they just wanted to provoke a scandal.

      Vladimir Putin answered questions from American film director, screenwriter and producer Oliver Stone. The interview was recorded on June 19, 2019 in the Kremlin.

      http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/61057

      Delete
  3. The problem isn't Theresa May though. All politicians in Britain talk and think like Theresa May. It's the same in Australia.

    Sometimes one comes along who seems like he might break the mould. Someone like Tony Abbott, or Boris Johnson. But once in office they start speaking the same platitudes, and pursuing the same old policies.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes I agree with you. Will Boris be different in substance? Let us hope so. His support for regime change in Syria and an immigration amnesty is not encouraging. He does hate nannying and regulation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will Boris be different in substance? Let us hope so. His support for regime change in Syria and an immigration amnesty is not encouraging. He does hate nannying and regulation.

      With Boris as PM and Brexit going ahead you should prepare yourself for a massive increase in Third World immigration. And don't be taken in by ideas like skills-based immigration - that's a recipe for full-scale population replacement as is happening in Australia.

      Boris might deliver Brexit but I suspect that you can kiss goodbye to what is left of actual Britishness.

      Delete
    2. I agree that mass immigration is a much bigger threat to England, by which I mean the UK, than the EU.

      Delete
  5. Why didn't we make Tony Abbot Prime Minister of England? He is my favourite politician anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why didn't we make Tony Abbot Prime Minister of England? He is my favourite politician anywhere

      On a personal level he's a decent man and a nice guy. As a prime minister he was a political weakling. The problem is that he's one of those conservatives who thinks being a conservative is compatible with being a liberal.

      He failed because he was unwilling to kick heads when heads needed to be kicked. He just didn't have leadership qualities.

      These days even the politicians who give an appearance of toughness turn out to be wimps. Even Putin is basically a wimp.

      I suspect that Boris Johnson as PM will also turn out to have no backbone.

      Delete
    2. What on earth does Putin have to do not to be in your eyes a wimp? Take Estonia?

      Delete
    3. What on earth does Putin have to do not to be in your eyes a wimp? Take Estonia?

      For a great power to have sanctions imposed on it by a rival power and to do nothing about it is unprecedented. Economic sanctions are an act of war. Accepting such treatment makes Russia look like an absurd third-rate power.

      Delete
    4. Sanctions are not an act of war but often intended to avoid war. A blockade is an act of war. How should or could Russia have reacted to sanctions, which were absolutely necessary?

      Delete