« Monty Panesar and market failure | Main | The true face of Toryism »

November 22, 2006

Comments

Gracchi

I think the other thing is how historically illiterate the comparison to Churchill is. Yeah I agree it would be great to hear some thinking about Rawls, Nozick or any other philosopher- personally I'd settle for Duns Scotus, might be a little too advanced though for most poltiicians, but it aint going to happen Chris- at least not till England stand a worthwhile chance of winning the Football World Cup and the Ashes in the same year.

Planeshift

The reason he didn't refer to Rawls instead of Polly is because half his party haven't heard of Rawls, but just might have heard of Polly - if only as straw women Polly.

Its another one of Cameron's tactics to alienate his own party in a bid to be seen as moving towards the centre ground.

AntiCitizenOne

> Its another one of Cameron's tactics to alienate his own party in a bid to be seen as moving towards the centre ground.

Dangerous game with the EUs actions (only reported on the blogosphere) making voting for the UKIP the only way to actually elect a parliament that can make laws for the U.K.

angry economist

What I read from it that the tories ar saying they need a pompous flag bearer for social justice whose arguments are based in state-led solutions for all, and don't trust individual enterprise and motivations.

I see it as a step back to the 1980s and 1990s - aspiring to make policy based on half baked, pompous views on 'society' without having a grasp of the real world?

Alex

Imagery that is more appropriate - ah, that'll be annoying, vacuous flabble then..

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad