Should I Start Looking For A New Job?
Jobs & Education0 min ago
Charming But Pointless (Call Me) Dave
I too, never really understood what he was for does Peter Hitchins have a point?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
More to the point, what is Hitchens for ?
He is a dyspeptic right-wing Journo, and seems to have no purpose other than to moan and complain. He would argue that clouds are green and the water is dry, if he thought someone would pay him to do so.
I am far from being a Cameron supporter ( ! ) but he won two consecutive Elections for the Tories and should be accorded some respect at least.
He is a dyspeptic right-wing Journo, and seems to have no purpose other than to moan and complain. He would argue that clouds are green and the water is dry, if he thought someone would pay him to do so.
I am far from being a Cameron supporter ( ! ) but he won two consecutive Elections for the Tories and should be accorded some respect at least.
" Mr Hitchens is a Labour supporter "
Really ?
https:/
Really ?
https:/
Zacs....from same link :::
"Hitchens mainly comments on political and religious issues, and generally espouses a social conservative viewpoint"
Here is another quote ::
"The left's real interests are moral, cultural, sexual and social. They lead to a powerful state. This is not because they actively set out to achieve one," Hitchens writes.
"It is because the left's ideas – by their nature – undermine conscience, self-restraint, deferred gratification, lifelong marriage and strong, indivisible families headed by authoritative fathers"
To be frank, Hitchens has been all over the shop in his life time. He may not be the Tories best friend, but if this man is a Labour supporter, then I am Queen of the May !
"Hitchens mainly comments on political and religious issues, and generally espouses a social conservative viewpoint"
Here is another quote ::
"The left's real interests are moral, cultural, sexual and social. They lead to a powerful state. This is not because they actively set out to achieve one," Hitchens writes.
"It is because the left's ideas – by their nature – undermine conscience, self-restraint, deferred gratification, lifelong marriage and strong, indivisible families headed by authoritative fathers"
To be frank, Hitchens has been all over the shop in his life time. He may not be the Tories best friend, but if this man is a Labour supporter, then I am Queen of the May !
I can well believe Hitchens disdains the centre; he's one of those people who can only be extreme. (His brother Christopher was too, variously attacking religion and backing the Iraq war.) Paul Johnson was another, former New Statesman editor, going from lefwing firebrand to fightwing firebrand, presumably to give himself new things to rant about. I wouldn't trust any of them.
I will have a go at answering your question Khandro !
After the disastrous choice of Major, Hague, IDS, and Howard, I think that the Tories knew that they had to have somebody who was electable, as yet another failed Leader would have been completely unacceptable.
Cameron won on a popular vote of 67%, so at last the Tories felt that they had indeed made the right choice. He was going to unite the Party, rather than antagonise it and divide it as the previous incumbents had done. He beat the Labour Party not once but twice, the last being less than 18 months ago, and was widely supported here on AB.
I have said this many times before, perhaps it won't matter if I say it again.
I am a committed Labour supporter, but it was obvious that if we were going to be defeated, Cameron stood the best chance of doing just that. He wasn't one of the usual "Nasty Party" lot, and he was, and still is, a basically decent chap, and
I for one am sorry to see him go.
Especially so now as we appear to have the beginning of one of the most rabid and regressive Tory regimes for a long time.
After the disastrous choice of Major, Hague, IDS, and Howard, I think that the Tories knew that they had to have somebody who was electable, as yet another failed Leader would have been completely unacceptable.
Cameron won on a popular vote of 67%, so at last the Tories felt that they had indeed made the right choice. He was going to unite the Party, rather than antagonise it and divide it as the previous incumbents had done. He beat the Labour Party not once but twice, the last being less than 18 months ago, and was widely supported here on AB.
I have said this many times before, perhaps it won't matter if I say it again.
I am a committed Labour supporter, but it was obvious that if we were going to be defeated, Cameron stood the best chance of doing just that. He wasn't one of the usual "Nasty Party" lot, and he was, and still is, a basically decent chap, and
I for one am sorry to see him go.
Especially so now as we appear to have the beginning of one of the most rabid and regressive Tory regimes for a long time.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.