Laura Perrins: People should feel ashamed they voted for Corbyn

Why are you sitting so comfortably? Why are you so calm? Do you not realise what occurred at the last election, where the voting majority of those under 40 thought having Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister would be a great idea? “Labour did not just win a majority of 18 to 21-year-olds. It won a majority of voters in their twenties, thirties and forties.” And yet there you are – sipping your latte as the country slides towards a socialist disaster.

The promise to abolish tuition fees no doubt caught the eye of many a youth voter, but I agree with this ‘young person’ when she tells us that, “Ask young people what propelled them to the polls and they speak of Corbyn’s vision of hope, his honesty and decency; they talk about the evils of austerity and replacing Conservative coldness with Corbyn’s compassion.” 

The most frightening aspect about this is that it is true. The only thing that stopped Britain from falling into the clutches of an anti-Semitic, terrorist-sympathising, sometimes-misogynistic bunch of socialist bullies was the elders. Those who fought in the war, and those born just after, voted Conservative. But these folks will not be around forever and then what are you going to do?

So just what the hell is wrong with the young, aka, under-40s? These people think that socialism is compassionate. They actually believe that state meddling in markets, brutal redistribution and authoritarian social policy are moral.

Even though, we know that socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried, even though we know it destroys families, communities and countries. But there they are, the youth, boasting, actually boasting,  about voting for Jeremy Corbyn. Something really is rotten in the state of Britain.

So how the hell did we get to this point?  Are the British not lovers of free markets and liberty, family and community? Are they not aspirational, taking pride in their work and seeking to serve their neighbour? Or did they just want the State to tell them what to do? I sense it is the latter.

This popularity of socialism should strike the fear of God into all right thinking citizens. In truth, however, I lay much of the blame for this at the door of the parents.

Perhaps in the end they indulged them too much, helicoptering over their work and bulldozing all difficulties out of their way until they got to university. When reality hit, the graduates just could not cope. Instead of turning to Mummy and Daddy for help, it was Jeremy and Diane and all the big state love that attracted them.

In truth however, this vote for socialism is a call for help. It is a call for something greater than themselves. Yes, it is a temper tantrum but it is also a rejection of the hyper-consumer, hyper-sexualised society around them. In an age of zero-hour contracts, people want meaningful, sustainable work; in the age of Tinder they want to get married and have kids; in the age of a massive housing shortage the want a home to call their own.

The error is that they think big government – socialism – can deliver it. It cannot. In the long run it will only make life more miserable.

“The question is how to keep the economy free and dynamic in an age of increasing uncertainty – and how to keep the blessings of material prosperity without reducing human existence to mere materialism.”

Only true conservative values: the power of the free market; the solidarity of family and community; the values of the Judeo-Christian culture can save Britain now. But the party that calls itself conservative is part of the problem, so do not expect them to help. If they can get Brexit done we should count ourselves lucky.

The campaign to save the country must continue. Now is not the time for surrender. In the future people should feel ashamed that they once voted for Jeremy Corbyn.

(Image: themostinept)

Laura Perrins

  • Bik Byro

    I’m prepared to bet that the majority of people who voted for Jeremy Corbyn are actually PROUD to have done so.

    And why not? Who wouldn’t feel proud to have voted for a man who wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons capable of killing millions of innocents?

    Who wouldn’t feel proud to vote for a man who fights for justice for the underdog against evil money-grabbing capitalists who make buildings with cheap cladding to make extra profit and let innocent people get burned alive?

    Who wouldn’t feel proud to vote for a man who favours showing welcoming love to a person in trouble and need?

    Who wouldn’t feel proud to vote for a man who wants to ensure that our sick and our elderly are cared for and don’t have to dig into their savings if they have the misfortune to become ill?

    Well, that’s the narrative. And therein lies the problem. The conservative party has to find a way in which the young, upcoming, vibrant generation can feel proud to vote conservative.

    • Colkitto03

      Very well said.
      We should not fall into the trap either of dismissing these people as ‘stupid’ as the Remainers did to Leavers after the Euro referendum. The reason why people voted for Corbyn are many and complex.
      I personally think that a lot of this is still about punishing the establishment. There is still a long way to go with the populist backlash in the western world. People still feel (rightly in my opinion) that they are being hugely taken for granted.

      • mudlark1

        I agree with you that voting for Corbyn is another side of the populist backlash and a reaction to the status quo which has held sway for so long. The problem is that we have had a fudge for so long, from the demise of Thatcher up until now, that the three parties have morphed into different wings of the same one, with a shared policy of tax and spend and a delusional belief in the big state.
        Despite Labour lurching further left under Corbyn, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are merely paler versions of. The only difference between the Labour and Tory parties is that Corbyn would bankrupt the country more quickly than May. Whichever party is in power, we are still on the same downward trajectory. What is a responsible voter supposed to do?

        • Groan

          Vote Conservative. As one can see from their current plotting they are complete amateurs at political manoeuvrings. Certainly couldn’t mount anything that resembled a dictatorship or one party state. Meanwhile Corbyn and his backers have pretty clearly demonstrated sheer political “will” . Corbyn has faced, and faced down two coups from his Parliamentary Party (in both houses) and now, even having lost the election is in unassailable charge of a Parliamentary party that opposes almost all his policies yet now sycophantically toes the line.
          No, just as democracy is the worst system, apart from all the others. So the Conservatives are the best bet precisely because they are generally so devoid of political savvy. They couldn’t muster the oomph to challenge the biased Gov. funded media so its a sure fire bet that they’re incapable of knocking the skin of a rice pudding as far as dictating anything. However Corbyn’s handlers are made of sterner stuff indeed, they are made of steel and have an ideology so “pure” that any means justifies their ends. Its actually a virtue that the Conservative Party looks like such a bunch of plonkers, because they generally are. And our freedom depends on Politicians being indolent and guileless, and in my life the Conservatives have usually exemplified both.

  • Eric T.

    my new fav thing is all these thinkpieces penned by older folk like yourself who think it’s not at all condescending to tell me what my motivations are for voting the way that I do.

    • Eric T.

      We can agree on one thing: the clock shall continue to turn, one generation will fade while another rises to take its place.
      You know all too well what this means for the political future of your country and the west as a whole, and it scares the hell out of you. For some reason I find comfort in that.

      • Reborn

        You sound rather unpleasant & immature.
        Young persons in Germany did also about 1930
        The Future Belongs to Us etc.
        The only serious attempt on the National Socialist Hitler’s life came from
        the German equivalent of High Tories, not socialists.

      • Sargv

        > and it scares the hell out of you

        They’re scared for the future of their children, silly. For us. They know that kids always want another ice cream, and hate the homework and chores.

        And the “new generation” (I belong to GenY)? Well, we’ll be forced to pay all our dues and cover the bill for Boomers as well. If schadenfreude is all you have by your late twenties, I wouldn’t envy you.

  • Nockian

    They had no option. Between the fascistic economics of globalist cronyism which has been silently stuffing the pockets of the tiny few in the asset owning classes and Corbyn’s offer to equalise the rewards ‘for the many not the few’, there was little choice for the 99.9% who are economically illiterate and have been taught to believe the state is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

    This was always going to be the outcome of the mixed economy democratic rubbish that is foisted on the people as being paradise. It was always going to rip asunder. As the saying goes, it’s two wolves fighting over a sheep. At the top there are the crony capitalists using the state to protect them from competition and hence gain profits they did not rightly earn; at the bottom there are social welfarists who don’t produce but think themselves entitled to that which they also did not earn. It can go one of two ways, but both are equally bad. Either communism or fascism with a dictator Government.

    We brought this on ourselves by wilful and deliberate ignorance and moral relativism. We should not have sent our children to state schools to be educated in the ways of the state and paid for with other people’s money. We should have taken the time to understand how central banks and fiat currency are immoral destroyers of honest money.

    So, I don’t blame anyone for voting Corbyn. This is the price paid for supporting an immoral compromised economic model and refusing to adopt laissez faire capitalism as the standard. Capitalists have failed to show why capitalism is the only moral form of political model because they only think in terms of financial wealth and that isn’t the argument to use, it puts the cart before the horse. Once one begins with an argument from dogma about wealth, then any collectivist will have an equally valid argument about the distribution of wealth. One must first begin by the ‘is’ before the ‘ought’. One must first answer why, before what. There must be no doubts about why capitalism is the only moral system and it must be proven from first principles rather than this current argument which leaves it as a subjective choice.

    • Coniston

      The present vast global businesses, more powerful than most states, have only one aim – to make more and more money for themselves, and are almost totally immoral, regardless of the effects on ordinary people. I do not support them. The trouble is that under socialism/communism there is in effect one super firm having a total monopoly over everything and everyone – and in addition having the power to enforce obedience to itself.

      • Nockian

        Its really two sides of the same coin; either fascist collectivism or communist collectivism. The difference is those in power being crony investors and high level bankers, or a group of politicians heading a revolution. Both are tyrannical.

        Once there is sufficient polarity difference between the two groups -low-middle/middle/student/low skilled/ poor educated/single parent/public sector union/welfare recipients/ethnic minority/disabled vs asset holding/hedge funds/banking elite/corporate investors then a battle will commence for the spoils.

        The polarity difference has been increasing since 1971 when Nixon took the world off the phoney gold standard. The election of Trump and Brexit are signs of a population sick of being told things are getting better and the economy is improving. They can clearly see that it’s improving rapidly for a tiny minority with easy access to zero interest printed money and that their lives and those of their children are getting worse.

        We need to abandon cronyism (corporate welfare) and social welfare, before we discover we are in the USSGB or Orwells book. Looking at the state of the global economy and the crazy antics of our politicians both foreign policy and domestic, it may come far more rapidly than any of us can imagine.

  • Labour_is_bunk

    There’s only so much “free stuff” that can be handed out to appease and con this demographic
    They’ll realise how wrong they were when the mask slips and like other socialist regimes, everyone has to carry ID papers, when the “correction centres” are doing brisk business and when “going to uni” either won’t be an option at all or they’ll be TOLD what to study “for the good of the State”.
    Once we reach that point, it’ll be too late.

    • Bik Byro

      The frightening thing is I don’t think some of them will realise how wrong they were at all, I think they’ll love it.

    • Adam Minister

      Problem with that one Major is that the last person to have a serious go at getting ID cards in was John Major. Part of the reason we don’t know where EU citizens are and for how long is that we haven’t introduced them…like all those other “socialist regimes” in the EU. Not arguing ID cards, just saying your proposition is BS.

    • And just wait until toilet paper is made from unobtainium.

      • Busy Mum

        Oh, it will just be “everybody else’s fault!”

  • Flaketime

    “So how the hell did we get to this point?”

    We got to this point because May was so cringingly awful that she was able to lose a double digit poll lead.

    As for the seniors, she even managed to alienate them with the dementia tax, and the pensions triple lock, plus the winter fuel allowance.

    She had the worst manifesto the Tories have ever run, and she ran one of the worst campaigns ever, describing herself as a ‘red Tory’, she is like Cameron before her, just another Socialist herself.

    In my eyes the Tories are a left of centre party, occupying the place New Labour once stood in. May is a clueless apparatchik, she has proved that she cannot win against Corbyn because she’s not up to the job.
    If she had anything about her she would have easily been able to swat away Labour criticism, but she hasn’t even managed it over Grenfell or most recently the way she responded to the ridiculous hounding of Anne Marie Morris.
    And there’s the rub. Labour is deciding the agenda, and because May is so utterly confused, overwhelmed, and without any kind of steel, she is incapable of stopping them, let alone batting the ball back to them.

    Geoffrey Howe in his treacherous speech on Margaret Thatchers EMU negotiations said “It is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease, only for them to find, as the first balls are being bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain”.

    With Theresa May she has completely disposed of the bats and won’t even allow the batsman onto the field to defend the wicket !

    Alas the Tories yet again do not appear to have any stand out characters with vision, charisma, and passion.

    I cannot blame the young of this country, brainwashed by socialist teachers throughout their education while the clueless Tories sit and do nothing.

    I am not the only one saying that a good dose of Corbyn for five years to make the scales fall from the eyes of the kids would be a good thing, because it would consign Labour to the opposition for years. Alas for the fact that the so called Tories are just another facet of the Labour party these days.

    • Adam Minister

      Good comment. This is exactly my feelings, the Tory party has no USP and has been running a fire sale on their Conservative credentials and their competence for a long time. I really do feel Cameron for all his good and bad points was just papering the cracks. I just don’t know why Tory voters keep propping them up expecting them to change, at the very least vote LibDem as a Corbyn protest to let the Tories regroup under a real Conservative.

      • Flaketime

        “let the Tories regroup under a real Conservative.”

        And who do you see within the present party as being that white knight riding to their rescue?

        • Helen Smith

          JRM

        • Adam Minister

          That is sort of my point, who is the ‘white knight’, as you put it. Rather than spend so much time smearing the left, banging on about trots and commies the conservative right need to fix their own house. There are plenty of good Tory MPs who are up to the job…although I suspect many of them will be hamstrung by their views on the EU, one way or the other. Like New Labour in 1997 the Tories need a king maker on the far right of the party to open the door for someone more moderate, fresh and idealistic.

    • James Chilton

      May called a completely unnecessary election. She had an adequate majority in the House of Commons, but her vanity required a more substantial backing from the electorate. She miscalculated and she’s now reaping what she sowed.

      • Busy Mum

        Or did she want to lose?

        • James Chilton

          No.

          • Busy Mum

            I’m not sure!

        • Groan

          Of course not as any of the Polls or Experts would have told her she was going to win. The truth is that until the famous “exit poll” the key question was how badly Corbyn was going to lose. When she started her “campaign” I don’t think there was anybody in the MSM that had any inkling of the result. The truth is all the “pundits” should be sacked because they’re crap at their job. May’s problem was simply that she believed them. I certainly did.

    • Coniston

      “a good dose of Corbyn for five years to make the scales fall from the eyes of the kids would be a good thing, because it would consign Labour to the opposition for years.”

      Perhaps. But has it occurred to you that Corbyn is little more than a useful puppet, and that the hard-line Marxists behind him may well intend that there will never again be free and fair elections?

      • Fubar2

        Therein lies the risk. Luckily for those of us who are single and in our autumn or winter years with no kids, the impact isnt likely to be as great. If this is what the young choose, then it’ll be their bed. They’ll have an awful long time to lie in it.

    • AngularMerkilled

      Its easy and quite frankly convenient to point the blame at May. But it isn’t entirely fair. She fudged it up beyond comprehension. We’ve let the wets take over. Nobody opposed the post thatcher nosedive to the left.

      Oh and hundreds, if not thousands of tories joined labour explicitly to put Corbyn in the top job. Funny how we stopped hearing from them…

      • Groan

        No according to the exit polls the remainers decided to kick her.

    • The_Pr1soner

      In normal circumstances, we could ill afford a Corbyn premiership. With Brexit on the horizon, it’d be absolutely fatal!

      We’d fail to put in place policies to make the most of our freedom. Taxes would rise, increasing hardship and deterring foreign investment and job growth. The damage to our reputation would be long-lasting.

      At a base level, it appeals to subject the young and foolish to socialism in practice. In reality, it’d cause a great deal of damage to us all, so I’m hoping we never get to find out what Corbyn would do in power.

    • Great Briton

      May has no guiding principals.
      She’s just like Brown, wanted to be PM but didn’t know why.

      Donald Trump is popular for exactly the same reason as Corbyn, he says what he thinks and is not afraid to say it.
      I don’t agree with Corbyn but I admire his consistency.

      We’re all fed up with PR men and May is pretty much just twisting in the wind so she’s already dead in the water. (Talk about mixed metaphors)

    • Groan

      Five years. And you seriously think that “momentum” Labour is remotely interested in being democratic ? Lets be honest here the Fabian Socialists were undermined by Tony’s Iraq war but their rule only came to an end as the result of the biggest recession post WW2. Honestly I sometimes smile in despair at conservatives, so naïve. Of course the Conservatives look like a facet of Labour, that’s because “New Labour” aka Fabian socialism set the “norms” of debate. Momentum is the Cheka in comparison to new labour.

  • Colkitto03

    Occasionally one see the Socialist mask slip a little.
    Yesterday there was a furore about a female Tory MP who used a very inappropriate phrase.
    But what is really telling is not the twitter hate mob and media attacks and demands for her sacking.

    Later in the day Owen Jones tweeted asking what punishment would befall all those who heard her speak and did not object on the spot!

    And that’s what you need to know about the world under hard left rule. Punishment for inaction. Thought crime.

    • Reborn

      She used an unpleasant phrase that was old fashioned 50 years ago.
      Compare it with the naked Jew hating so characteristic of the left today.
      If every active Labour member who expressed Jew Hatred were to be expelled,
      Labour would challenge the Lib Dems in the irrelevancy stakes.

      • Colkitto03

        Agree 100%

      • Adam Minister

        13 up votes for something that is clearly a lie, an outrageous smear in fact. While I am here, this morning a Tory MP called for action against left-wing groups (mainly Momentum) not for what they have said but for what they have not said, not speaking out about hate from supporters on the left…even of those unconnected to any group.

        And that’s what you need to know. Punishment for inaction. Thought crime.

        • Fubar2

          “13 up votes for something that is clearly a lie, an outrageous smear in fact.”

          How is it a smear when Corbyn took £20K from Press TV, same as George Galloway did? How is it a smear when he has even recently been spending time with pro-Assad activists?

          What other possible reason would have had to bribe Shami with a peerage?

          The man is an out and out jew hater and that is that. You can deny it all you like, but the utterances of he and his coterie are plain to see and are out there in the public domain, are on record.

          • Adam Minister

            Well we could argue that if you like. But you have just shifted goal posts, here you said:

            “If every active Labour member who expressed Jew Hatred were to be expelled, Labour would challenge the Lib Dems in the irrelevancy stakes.”

            There are 262 Labour MPs some Jewish, there are almost 1m Labour party members, some Jewish. Your statement is a lie regardless of what you want to think about Corbyn and someone who was expelled from Labour years ago.

    • Adam Minister

      So…it would be punishment for inaction then…not for a thought crime? Also, people on the right called for exactly the same thing with past Labour indiscretions. Guilt by association is a tactic used on both sides of the political divide, not some lefty-conspiracy…even if you assume Owen speaks for a majority on the left, which he doesn’t and wouldn’t claim to.

      • Alan

        He might speak the majority on the left, but he certainly does claim to.

    • Flaketime

      What she said was an old British phrase in common usage no so long ago. Because there is no such thing as ‘racism’ it is easy to twist this this other way around and say that because people are objecting to ethnic British phraseology it is them who are the anti white racists in reality!

      If Morris had used the word about a person then it might indeed have been offensive – but then again why should she be restricted in choice of vocabulary?

      The reaction by Theresa May shows yet again she has no backbone, and is allowing Labour to control the agenda. If she carries on like this – weak and vacillating, it will be Labour who are running the country.

      The only area in which she does show some mettle, is where money is concerned and that is all todays Tory party are about – keeping the already rich rich and sod everyone else.

      • Colkitto03

        Agreed, As Voxday says never apologise to the SJWs

        or as Ronald Regan said “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.”

      • Reborn

        I have to agree with your first 3 paragraphs 100%
        I dislike the N word & have never used it.
        However, it is used humorously in the wonderful Blazing Saddles, sadly in
        old blues songs like Peg Leg Howell’s Skin Game Blues & as an everyday term in
        Huckleberry Finn.
        The term “racism” has been rendered meaningless thanks to over use & misuse.
        Remoaners even use it to describe those of us who want to be self governing again. Conveniently ignoring the fact that the Continentals, certainly those who dish out the orders, belong to the same race as the British.

      • James Chilton

        I believe she accidently used what was a commonplace figure of speech at one time. She did not intend to offend anyone. The bogus outrage resulting in a grovelling apology is ridiculous.

        • Harley Quin

          Yes, Where is little black censored when you need him ?

    • Sargv

      > And that’s what you need to know about the world under hard left rule. Punishment for inaction. Thought crime.

      Right is built on the basis of “natural rule”. It might look ugly at first glance, but at least Right never have to bend the reality, as it merely mirrors it in socio-cultural policies. The Right ideas might not seem “fair”, or “just”, or “equal” – but they are self-evident. The Right ideas are not easy to verbalise, or rationally discuss – but they’re incredibly easy to follow. You don’t teach people how to breathe – everyone knows that from birth.

      Leftist ideas, on the other hand, are not apparent from nature. Their ideas are intellectual constructs; they have to be taught, and they have to be constantly reminded. And as they are un-natural, extra effort must be made to ensure that they are kept coherent all the time. They need to be curated. Hence the group-think and thought-policing (including self-policing) on the Left.

      That’s why traditional societies are okay with mores and common law, while modernist anti-egalitarian Left-style Republics require ever-growing volumes of codified laws and regulations for most common daily interactions (like using correct pronouns).

      • And also why Cicero wrote, “More law, less justice.”

      • James Chilton

        Spot on. A very good summary of the principles and operational differences between Right and Left.

      • Naviro

        Outstanding comment that clearly explains the decption, manipulation and evil of the left.

      • Harley Quin

        Excellent stuff. In my experience and fully aware of the so called naturalistic fallacy etc, broadly speaking the further one gets from what is natural, the more likely there will be some disaster.

  • Adam Minister

    Ha. This, is desperate. Laura is not correct to invoke the implied knowledgeable and experienced of the war generation. I don’t believe any reliable data for that has been published, certainly YouGov shows the over 70s voted mainly Conservative but I would wager that would drop off considerably as you get to those who lived through the war (at least 80+). I would expect them to fall back to regular established voting patterns. You also can’t pen a bit like this without taking a peak at the other side of the coin. The Tories gained a substantial boost from the UKIP collapse (4m votes in 2015?) not exactly an ideal demographic. In the end it isn’t that people think “big government – socialism” can deliver…it is that they know the Tories cannot. The voting public are realistic not idealistic Laura.

    • Snoffle Gronch

      One of the most comical explanations of the young voting for a slack-mouthed liar like corbyn (and nonsense like “Remain”), much loved by baboons like the BBC, is that they are better educated than their elders.

      But of course, they are not better educated – they merely have more (meaningless) qualifications. Nowhere is that more beautifully demonstrated than in a recent CBI survey that shows employers angry and disappointed with the low level of literacy and numeracy among “graduates”.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4680136/Bosses-say-graduates-t-cope-office-life.html

      Graduates, who are neither literate, nor numerate.

      Savour that.

      • Sargv

        > that they are better educated than their elders.

        I tend to replace “education” for “indoctrination” every time I spot the form in press those days. Makes much more sense, and solves the BBC conundrum. The youth IS better “educated”. That’s why they vote for equity.

      • gunnerbear

        During WWII the PM demanded schools be more patriotic and back in the sort of olden days the boss of GEC wrote an article in the Press, ‘I blame the teachers’
        for the shortcomings of manufacturing industry’. (Prof Bassey in “Teachers and Government – a history of intervention in education”.

  • Busy Mum

    Mummy and Daddy are too busy finalising the divorce settlement to help out.

    • Sargv

      With 60% of the children being born out of wedlock, those who are being raised by divorced parents are actually lucky ones.

      • Busy Mum

        Being born out of wedlock doesn’t necessarily mean being brought up by only one parent……. though I think statistics show that it makes it even more likely that the parents will no longer even be co-habiting by the time the child has reached voting age.

        • Sargv

          Yep. Marriage is at least an attempt to commit, even when it ends up in a disaster. Co-habit, especially among lower stratums, is not even that.

        • Harley Quin

          It often means being brought up by mummy and a succession of ‘uncles’, who may not take to the child. Much the way a male lion will destroy the cubs of a defeated male.

          • Busy Mum

            Absolutely agree. I would never justify breeding illegitimately. It is not fair on the child, or on the rest of society.

          • The_Mocking_Turtle

            Adam and Eve are in the doghouse them, posthumously.

          • Busy Mum

            You need to read Genesis chapters 2&3 and then, specifically, chapter 4 v 1.

          • The_Mocking_Turtle

            Without a ceremony and officiants? Sounds more like a Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall kind of fix up arrangement to me. I doubt that our current government would recognise such a joining.

            Got to ask: Are you a creationist, Harley?

          • Busy Mum

            Is it just your opinion that I am Harley?

          • The_Mocking_Turtle

            My apologies.

            Comment on this site is so homogeneous it is difficult to tell one member of the commitariat – a new noun I have just coined to represent people, collectively, who comment on sites online – on this blog one from another.

            I hope I am forgiven.

          • Busy Mum

            ‘Hope’ and ‘forgiven’ – you have the potential to take religion seriously after all!

            Of course.

            But it may be politic to forebear from ‘mocking’ those from whom you hope to receive mercy.

            Homogeneous comment is a downside to blogs/the internet, but birds of a feather flock together; always have and always will…..

          • The_Mocking_Turtle

            Huh? I know many couples with stable relationships who have several children and have chosen not to marry. Very often highly qualified professional people. And I’ve never met any male yet who has entered a relationship with a single parent and devoured her children to make room for his own. My goodness how I love this site!

          • Busy Mum

            Probably because you exclude the lower stratums (ref.Sargv above) from your radar.

          • The_Mocking_Turtle

            Unlike many on this site I only speak about what I know or have personal experience of. And never, ever on behalf of the deity.

            That said this site is wonderful.

          • Busy Mum

            But your response to Harley implies that what you know is actually all there is to know. In other words, you think you are the deity.

          • The_Mocking_Turtle

            No.

            What I mean is that unlike many of the Bible-bashers on this site, who often selectively quote chapter and verse to illustrate what (they think) the deity wants, or to back up or legitimise some point they are trying to make, attempting to invoke the authority of the deity to give weight to their argument, I only write things on this site that are my opinions sometimes appealing to verifiable facts and statistics to back them up.

            I write as an individual not as the representative of some a faith.

            The rest of you should follow my example.

          • Sargv

            > The rest of you should follow my example.

            Wow. Is it a messiah complex I see?

          • Trying to start his own Cult of Personality. Doesn’t seem to be working out too well for him, though.

          • Sargv

            That’s because people around are all wrong. We need camps to fix them, lots of camps.

          • Indeed, lots and lots of camps.

          • Fubar2

            Bwahahaha. Excellent. Now thats funny. 🙂

          • Fubar2

            “Unlike many on this site I only speak about what I know or have personal experience of.”

            Metropolitan dinner party circuits then. Self loathing middle-class liberals of Tory parents who have daddy issues, who eventually turn into their parents anyway.

            Well, at least we cleared that up. Not that we didnt suspect it from the off.

          • Harley Quin

            I’m sure there are plenty of people living in stable relationships who are not married but who are bringing up children well.

            I wonder though why they don’t get married, given especially that it is a public declaration of commitment and so a stronger commitment than the casual one of just living together. This is important for children who need the assurance of commitment.

            But have you noticed that in cases of child abuse, so often the perpetrator or prime instigator is not the father but the mother’s current boyfriend?

          • Sargv

            > I know many couples with stable relationships who have several children and have chosen not to marry.

            You know them for how long?

            > And I’ve never met any male yet who has entered a relationship with a single parent and devoured her children to make room for his own.

            Do not rely on anecdotes from your well-off social circle, check the stats on child abuse – especially for working class.

          • Fubar2

            No doubt metropolitan liberals who subscribed to the Islingtonite Feminist ideology of the early 1990s that men were useless, the old familial model was an outdated patriarchal construct, etc etc etc.

            ” And I’ve never met any male yet who has entered a relationship with a single parent and devoured her children to make room for his own. ”

            Depends on your use of “devoured”. I’ve seen a number where the male has come into the relationship and pushed the single parent mother’s kids out to move his own in closer. Maybe you just need to get out more.

  • The_Mocking_Turtle

    “Those who fought in the war… voted Conservative.”

    This overlooks the fact that the first Labour won a landslide victory in 1945, shortly after the war, elected by the same demographic that Laura Perkins single-handedly claims for the Conservative party today – those that are still alive that is.

    The rest of the article follows suit and is full of the usual hyperbole, twaddle and nonsense.

    People voted for Corbyn as the default option to May.

    It is May who should be ashamed for being so maladroit and fielding unpalatable policies.

    • Snoffle Gronch

      Piffle. Thanks for sharing.

      • The_Mocking_Turtle

        What I love about this site is that facts here really cut no ice! On this site politics becomes as much a matter of faith as much as religion. It really is absolutely fascinating.

        • “What I love about this site is that [false] facts here really cut no ice! ” FIFY

          • The_Mocking_Turtle

            Are you claiming that Labour didn’t win the 1945 election? Honestly?

          • Sure they did, but that was baked in the cake of Churchill’s government. Most view it as a payment for the sacrifices of the war. But I wonder, if a properly conservative government had been in power, would rationing have lasted until 1954? Personally, I doubt it, and I suspect that is why that generation became quite conservative.

          • The_Mocking_Turtle

            As I pointed out above Labour has won EIGHT elections since the war! You people are so dense. I am not trying to pretend that Labour WON elections because they were good but because the Conservatives LOST them by dint of tiredness and inelasticity, unable to abandon and/or update policies that the nation had tired of, carrying on with stale agendas well past their “sell by” date.

            Which is what is happening now.

            Which is why Corbyn is now more popular than May in political polls.

            Labour might well win the next election simply by not being the Tories.

          • Fubar2

            “unable to abandon and/or update policies that the nation had tired of, insisting on trying to carry on indefinitely with stale agendas well past their “sell by” date.”

            Just as well the young have never been exposed to a lot of the stale, tired ideas that Socialism a la Bennite has repeatedly proven not to work or have been past their sell by date in every single country in the world that they have been tried in… like nationalisation of everything in sight. Otherwise you’d have no manifesto to speak of at all, would ya?

            …..or is it only possible for Tories to have stale, inflexible agendas???????

            Jeeez…… Must Try Harder, Turtle. Must, must try harder than that….

        • Fubar2

          What do you expect when you choose your own context free facts?? LOL

    • Sargv

      > This overlooks the fact that the first Labour won a landslide victory in 1945

      And who can blame them? Socialism was fancy in 1940s, and even in 60s (Sputnik & Gagarin). But in 2010s, really? You should’ve a mental capacity of a golden fish to vote for a socialist.

      • The_Mocking_Turtle

        You can’t see the wood for the trees and so let me express myself more plainly.

        Voting intention often has less to do with politics than ennui and alternatives. When trust and support for a political party begins to ebb men and women can be swayed to consider replacements. Corbyn here: Trump in America{ Macron in France. The voting public in western democracies is promiscuous and don’t always vote rationally for what is good for them in the long term. When voters tire of a leader, or a political party, they can switch support catastrophically – in the sense meant in catastrophe theory – to some possible alternative, quite often the opposite of whoever it is in power currently who has wearied them and whom they have become tired of.

        Incidentally we also had EIGHT Labour governments elected since 1945 (1945, 1950, 1964, 1966, 1974, 1997, 2001 and 2005) so a good many of the people who fought in the war of were born soon after it must be goldfish according to you! Which is kind of insulting and kind of amusing too. After so strident and sweeping a comment like that I begin to wonder to myself what phylum you belong to!

        • Sargv

          Yeah-yeah. “F-you dad” middle finger vote from belated teenagers in their late 30s. “Who cares who’s in power, the life will still be prosperous enough not to care so much”. Nope, kids. You CAN mismanage a country into destitution and civil war. It is doable. Even for a country with a white majority.

          > Incidentally we also had EIGHT Labour governments elected since the second world war

          None of them had a promise of Corbyn as potential PM though. Vote for Labour in 1997/2001/2005 was not a vote for socialism. Vote for Labour in 2017 was.

          • The_Mocking_Turtle

            You still don’t get it.

            It isn’t who Corbyn is, or what Corbyn is offering, or what Corbyn does, it is that Corbyn offers an alternative to a government that seems riven and internally at war with itself, led by an astonishingly uncharismatic woman with a track record of U-turns, mistakes and bad decisions behind her, that increasingly large numbers of the population are losing patience with and becoming tired of.

            As inflation and eventually interest rates begin to rise; as the number of jobs being created falls; as the economy worsens as decoupling form the EU become a reality; as Osborne’s cuts, caps and freezes savagely bite the working poor; as the NHS teeters on the brink; as councils cut services; as schools fall into debt and difficulty; as the cost of living outstrips pay… de-da, de-da, de-dah… as more and more people begin to get poorer and the government is seen to be unable to do anything about it, May’s administration will become even less trusted and increasingly more unpopular, inevitably.

            When a political party begins to slide like this it is very difficult to turn things around or change trajectory. Essentially the Conservatives have run out of steam and are becoming stale, lacking eye-catching new ideas and novelty, bereft of a magnetic leader. The effort devoted to Brexit is sapping the government’s strength and with no majority, lost because of May’s hubris, the party is effectively hamstrung. The May government may well end up like the political equivalent of a joint of stinking meat rotting on the bone.

            People do not tend to vote for such governments.

            They tend to vote for someone, anyone, else.

            And the someone, anyone this time could well be Jezza.

          • Sargv

            > They tend to vote for someone, anyone, else.

            Yes. He’s a “F-you May!” choice, which is exactly what I said before. (And I do not care for Tories. They are waaaay to the Left for my personal preferences.)

          • The_Mocking_Turtle

            Then we are in agreement.

            The promise of novelty and renewal coupled with weariness and disappointment bring governments down and allow alternative administrations to usurp them. And with no majority, hobbled agenda, poor leadership, fractious troops, Brexit and a change in the weather economically in the offing the Conservatives will soon be circling the drain. It happens to be Labour waiting to replace them but it could just well have been the Liberal Democrats, or some kind of unholy coalition of parties, standing by to take the throne under other circumstances or if the voting system were different.

            I think five years of Corbyn would be disastrous but, based on history, think that he could be in with a good chance of becoming PM given all that has happened and looks set to continue happening under the Conservatives, especially if Brexit goes wrong and the bad news keeps rolling.

          • Fubar2

            Offers AN alternative.

            Not THE ONLY alternative.

            Theres a big difference.

        • Fubar2

          “Incidentally we also had EIGHT Labour governments elected since the second world war (1945, 1950, 1964, 1966, 1974, 1997, 2001 and 2005)”

          How long did Atlee’s second administration limp on for. Judging by today’s standards being applied by Labour, Corbyn would not have figured that anything other than Churchill being a PM in Waiting in 1950.

          Then look what happened between 1951 and 1964. Oooh look, no Labour. And what happened in 1964? Minority again that limped along? Oooh, look, same again in 1974-1976. And look at what a pigs ear they made of that. Then NOTHING til 1997.

          Blair was the only one who delivered meaningful majorities in Labour’s history, back to back more than once. And the only way he did that was by stealing the tories clothes that Major found were ill-fitting to him. Took until 2010 for Cameron to reverse engineer that particular plan.

          “kind of amusing too (because I rejoice in human daftness, which is why I visit this site).”

          Mmm. More likely because the kids dont come round to visit any more, life is empty and boring and without winding up your perceived political opponents from behind the safety of a keyboard, theres not really an awful lot in life to get the blood going any more, eh? What else is going to fill the time between daytime TV programmes?

    • Harley Quin

      Unfortunately, the facts of life are unpalatable to those who believe in ‘safe spaces’ and are constantly offended by the opinions of others.

      Chiefly though, the fact of actual inequality is unpalatable. There is no equality in nature. People are not equal, ethnicities are not equal, the sexes are not interchangeable, cultures are not equal, religions are not equal.

      To live as if they are is to live a lie. It is only possible under a tyranny. But this is what the young have been taught.

      So if there is actual inequality, this because there is ‘injustice’ which must be rectified by, inter alia, getting hold of other people’s money.

      • Sargv

        > To live as if they are is to live a lie. It is only possible under a tyranny.

        The nursery is not a tyranny. You don’t have to be a slave to a tyrant – you can be a Peter Pan, a perpetual boy. Then, the state will guarantee that some adult will care for you. Huxley, not Orwell.

        The problem is, once the last adult passes away, this island will turn into a very grim reenaction of the “Lord of the Flies”.

  • Sargv

    Youth think that they have nothing to lose, and will only gain from more wealth redistribution.

    Oh, how mistaken they are, and how much of their daily comfort they take for granted!

    Laura, I can get you a Russian visa once you finally get too tired from running a guerilla unit in a nearby National Park.

    • Phil R

      Make it 2 visas…..

      With my family, 15 visas. We will even learn Russian.

      • Busy Mum

        Four please – me plus husband.

        And I’ll let you know later how many children are coming along….

    • A most generous offer, Sargv. I would only add, that if we stay the course, we too will be here, welcoming you all. And we speak English, of a sort, anyway. I’ve often said, America is, above all, a self selecting society of those who dared to win, but also to lose, and try again. But hang in there, Britain is also worth saving.

    • AngularMerkilled

      I’ll take one, but only for the duration of any required personal training, organisation and equipment sourcing. I have no intention of being a cap in hand permamigrant.

  • Phil R

    The problem is not Labour or Conservatice it is secularism.

    Europe is no longer recognisable economcially, culturally or morally to our grandparents. The secular world has within the time span of three generations destroyed the very Europe in which we live. Within 50 years it will no longer exist as we have known it.

    But as Christians we seem to be concerned that the “secular world does not take us seriously” and try and “fit in”.

    Do we really think we should care that the secular world doesn’t take us seriously?

    I was watching a liberal economist/columnist talk about the future of Europe the other day. He mentioned the curious economic malaise of Japan and the long-term (25 years and counting) failure of its economy to respond to traditional economic stimuli. He made reference to something called “secular stagnation” brought on by excessively low birth rates. No new people means no new homes, no new offices, no demand for furnishings, etc, etc. He made the obvious parallel with Europe and then … nothing. He just dropped the subject. There was no discussion of what to do about it other than lots of gov’t spending to artificially encourage demand. Which btw is what Japan has done.

    And I thought “Can he not see the 800 ton elephant in the living room?” No. He just is ideologically incapable of doing anything about it. And that is a good little vignette explaining why the secular world is going to die.

    • Sargv

      > The problem is not Labour or Conservatice it is secularism.

      Secularism is, effectively, a lack of belief in the transcendental source of ultimate power that validates social hierarchy, where each and everyone have a defined place. Secularism reduced religion to a set of standardised personal idiosyncrasies. With no validation for natural higher authority, we must accept the idea of equality. Civic equality at first (French Revolution, the USA, etc.). Economic equality soon after (USSR, Maoist China, etc.). And eventually – biological equality (feminism, transgenderism, anti-racism, womb transplants, etc.).

      “Secularism” was just a tool to flatten out the hierarchy and rebuild the society on the idea of “blank slate” equality – the idea that now had been rejected by science.

      • Coniston

        C.S. Lewis has a good insight into the necessity of civic equality, but thought that both ‘equality’ and ‘democracy’ are a necessary evil in our fallen state – and both can have unintended consequences. See his essays ‘Screwtape Proposes a Toast’ and ‘Membership’.

        • Sargv

          Thank you for the tip, I’ll read the essays.

          To my understanding, unintended consequences of democracy are mediocrity and “bread-and-circuses” welfare state, built on borrowing against the ethics and merit of previous generations – and eventual collapse under pressure from aristocracy-based – or egalitarian, but not yet decayed to the same rotten state – cultures.

          • Harley Quin

            Liberalism in its modern extreme form and Leftism have always seemed to me to be parasite ideologies which feed on a situation created by others whose attitudes and beliefs they despise and which their own weakens and destroys.

          • “Looters and Moochers”. I don’t hold with all that Ayn Rand wrote, but she came up with some very felicitous phrases.

      • James Chilton

        Another book, when you have time, “The Blank Slate” by Steven Pinker. He makes a very powerful case for the existence of innate patterns of thinking and feeling.

    • Harley Quin

      It won’t be a secular Europe in 50 years time. It will be an increasingly Muslim dominated one.

      That this will be so is thanks to those who, not having religious belief themselves cannot imagine the grip it can have on others.

      This is despite the religious fervour a good many of them have for the ideology of ‘Equality’.

  • Tethys

    Not so naive.
    Some are well aware of the contradictions and failings of JC (brexit for one) but given there is no real other show in town whaddya gonna do? vote Tory…???

    • Harley Quin

      Voting for Corbyn is suicide. But the young care only about themselves. Can you see them storming the beaches of Normandy?

      • James Chilton

        Had someone like Corbyn been prime minister in June 1940, Hitler would have been marching up Piccadilly before the end of the month.

      • Tethys

        Not after brexit
        But seriously -choice is limited without wasting a vote.
        Maybe it’s time for a more imaginative electoral system.

  • Sandor Clegane 1886

    I normally agree with Perrins, she’s a very articulate lady, a proper conservative and she also raises some valid points here. However, the blame for commie Corbyn’s frightening and worrying rise has to fall on May and her very unconservative Tories. They are just New Labour resurrected I’m afraid. May ran a truly awful campaign focusing on fox hunting and the so-called dementia tax and is now reneging on her grammar schools policy when national security and dealing with 23,000 Jihadis on a watchlist in the wake of three horrific terrorist attacks in as many months should have been the priority. With the exception of the wonderful and peerless Jacob Rees-Mogg, her party is just another Blairite abomination much like Cameron’s. I do not trust them on Brexit either and I suspect many fellow Leave voters feel the same.

    • Laura Perrins

      I agree with much of this. But I don’t think it explains the full swing to Corbyn.

      • Helen Smith

        That is down to the free stuff he promised. I am extremely skeptical of anyone who claims they didn’t vote for Corbyn just because of his promise to wipe out tens of thousands of pounds worth of their or their children’s debt.

        I also believe that many students voted twice, since they can be registered twice. Why wouldn’t they? A Labour victory would save them a small fortune and they could justify it to themselves because Labour is the ‘kind, generous, and caring party’ and voting for them is morally right.

        Less than 12 months separated the EU ref and the huge surge to register for a vote that took place then and this GE, yet once again we saw a vast number of people applying for a vote, a whopping 255,000 registered in just one day this time round we are told.

        How come? How many youngsters reached 18 in those intervening 11.5 months? Could students have been exploiting the loophole that allows them to be on the register in two places? I reckon so.

  • Alvin Ernest

    Let us abandon the labels of the past and adopt a more pragmatic, pluralistic and fair society… Clearly, at the moment JC is much closer to that ideal, than any other… Moreover, the past and current flavors of capitalism have only ever delivered boom & bust and a failing societal narrative. We need a new capitalism, a “responsible” one; where it is recognized that to benefit from society’s collective consumption is a privilege not just a capitalist opportunity, and perhaps more importantly an opportunity that should only be afforded to the “responsible capitalists” amongst us…

    • AngularMerkilled

      What we need to do is crush people like you, and anyone else who supports socialism under any guise. It should not be lawful. Your ideology killed at least 100,000,000 in a single century. Socialism = genocide

      • The_Mocking_Turtle

        Socialism ≠ Communism

        • AngularMerkilled

          Socialism absolutely is and does equal communism.

        • Sargv

          There were not a single communist state in existence, as it is a utopian society. USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist …), NSDAP (National-Socialist…) Germany and Maoist China were all socialist countries.

          Those are facts, and AngularMerkilled is factually correct. Unless you deny facts when they do not play to your believes?

      • Alvin Ernest

        🙂 Let’s allow the democratic process to define how a “responsible capitalism” should work, it should not be determined by the 1%; indeed everyone, 100% of them, need to participate…

        • AngularMerkilled

          Lets not. Britain could desperately use a period of single party, strong armed leadership to rebuild this sinking ship of a nation.

          • So you’d have been on the dictators’ side then!

          • Fubar2

            You wouldnt know a dictator if one snuck up behind you and bit you right on your a**e. Behave yourself. Bloody idiot.

        • Fubar2

          Er…… No. More fluffy bunny idealistic b*ll*x that fails the first test, as socialism does, of how it functions when real human beings, with all their faults and foibles run it.

          Looks great on paper, but as soon as it is exposed to the cold air of reality, it fails. Because all people, even socialists, in fact especially socialists are not naturally altruistic.

          All that is, is just another softer route into an elite run socialism that claims to be in the interests of the 99%, but in reality only serves to aggrandise and enrich the 1% who deem themselves as “representatives of the people”.

          Its an utter fallacy. And if you think that is going to get any traction on here, you’re a mug.

      • Alvin Ernest
    • Sargv

      > Moreover, the past and current flavors of capitalism have only ever delivered boom & bust and a failing societal narrative.

      Sure. Now, what are the other social models you can compare that mediocre performance with?

      • Alvin Ernest

        Hopefully a more “responsible capitalism” that sets out to avoid “boom and bust” instead of profiting from it…one the puts 100% of people first, not just the 1%! We must find it, all its takes is our collective will and effort to find a better life for all…

        • Flaketime

          You cannot avoid boom & bust, only mitigate against its effects. For instance in the 1990s during the boom years Labour should have been squirreling away money to dampen down the boom and then leaving that pot until the bust phase when it was needed.
          Alas as we all know Labour policy is to squander every last penny up until nothing is left making the situation far worse in both boom & bust cycle.
          We don’t need responsible capitalism, we need responsible government, and so long as there’s a Socialist party that is never going to happen !

          • Alvin Ernest

            Boom and bust is not an inevitability… it simply isn’t. Think of money as the blood in your veins; if it fails to reach your limbs, then they die and must be amputated… the stockpiling of wealth in today’s capitalism is doing exactly that… and that is the fundamental reason for boom and bust… when the 99% have no money to spend (no blood) their economic power dies… the bust allows the money to trickle back, as the 1% are unable to sell their goods, services and other stocks… this is not rocket science, although I know and understand why the 1% would like the 99% to think that it is…

          • You have never lived in a capitalist society, in fact, neither have I. We live in mixed systems with the worst traits of both. Capitalism has exactly the same problem as Christianity, exemplified by GK Chesterton’s comment,

            ‘Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”

          • c50

            Bollocks, they saved the NHS and education system after a decade of Tory destruction.

          • Sargv

            As a foreigner, I must say that NHS and British educational system are a national shame. Those are two things that all of us universally agree to be horrible. And we are from dirt-poor ex-Soviet countries for Christ’s sake!

          • Flaketime

            Saved the NHS? What BLiar and his cronies did was simply to increase the wages of NHS staff while getting less work from them! He increased the salaries of GPs to the highest in the world while allowing a new contract which saw them give up their out of hours duties.
            By allowing mass immigration of people who would never be net contributors, and failing to increase any infrastructure Labour actually helped to make the NHS far worse than it was before !

          • Complete rubbish. Plenty of evidence of improvement in performance and satisfaction 1997 – 2010. Now declining.

          • Fubar2

            Bullsh**t. Mid Staffs, the PFI debt scandal, The Liverpool Care Pathway, MRSA & CDiff outbreaks are “evidence of improvement”???

            Utter bullsh*t.

          • Fubar2

            Saved it??? Behave yourself. We”re constantly being told that these public services are on the verge of collapse.

            And, frankly, if you seriously think that loading the NHS with billions and billions of PFI debt that it has to service is “saving” it, you are either a) lying, b) ignorant, c) have never worked in the public sector or d) all of the above.

            Bloody fool.

        • Sargv

          So, you do not have a proven working model to replace capitalism with and are willing to risk whatever stability we had for some utopian vague … thingie?

          > one the puts 100% of people first, not just the 1%!

          And what exactly “put” that 1% first except for their genes, inheritance and life choices?

          • Alvin Ernest

            Exactly! and now the same things are allowing the 99% to exercise their own life choices… want to deny them that?

          • Sargv

            > want to deny them that?

            They already denied that to themselves.

            You see, I believe in a free will. If you’re at the bottom – you only have yourself to blame (unless the only thing you want is self-pity, and not to actually improve your life).

          • Would these be the ‘Judeo-Christian values’ Laura is so keen on?

          • Sargv

            As a person, who was born in Soviet Union, I’m religiously indifferent.

          • Free will is pretty much a religious concept.

          • Sargv

            Not in my case. For me, it’s a practical matter. Having determinism as a core belief locks you in a constant mental state of a victim of your surroundings. An idea of a free will, on the other hand, makes you fully responsible for your own life.

            The idea might be false, but it doesn’t matter, as for me it’s not a side in ideological debates, but a pragmatic choice of a life attitude.

            This is probably have a lot to do with me being extremely high on conscientiousness ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits ).

          • Your embrace of a false belief for your own psychological purposes has no connection to the reasons others find themselves in difficult circumstances or their ability to overturn them.

          • Sargv

            “Circumstances” are a mere excuse for laziness. Those people have to grow up and take responsibility for their lives.

          • Is that an empirical point – in which case where is your evidence? Or are you contradicting yourself over the nature of free will?

          • Fubar2

            Intriguing, isnt it. Evidence is only ever sought when someone cannot refute a point and never supplied in support of their own thesis or undermining of anyone elses point of view.

          • It’s usually regarded as fair that someone who makes a claim should provide the evidence to back it – but if you want to see what backs my views on this issue you can start here: http://www.futureeconomics.org/2012/10/welfare-myths-and-welfare-facts/

          • Sargv

            The empirical evidence surrounds me. I’m a 30-something Russian living in London interacting with dozens of other 30-something Russians. To get to the UK, Russian nationals have to secure a good-paying job that can’t be filled by locals of EU citizens. We have to out-compete half a billion of best-educated people in the World on merit. Hence the majority of (older) Russians here are world-class professionals, high-achievers close to the zenith of our careers. It is a filter, and the UK gets the cream of Russia.

            On the other hand, all of us were born in working class – the only class there was – families of extremely egalitarian USSR, on the outskirts of the Empire, and were raised in an impoverished, crime-ridden failed state on the brink of a civil war. All of us ploughed through that and built successful careers that allowed us to land in top-5% in the UK. All of us are self-made. All of us bootstrapped ourselves to the top.

            So when I see a whining young Brit, saying that he or she is unable to have a good life because some external forces prevent them from doing so, I can’t help but laugh. They were blessed to be born in one of the wealthiest and safest countries in the World, where life is incredibly easy. And all they have are excuses for not putting effort.

          • Sounds like survivorship bias to me. You did well – be grateful for your good fortune and wish others the same.

          • c50

            Sweden? Germany? Norway? Uruguay?

          • Sargv

            Sweden is essentially owned by 8 families, and Germany is not much different.

            A massive welfare state is not an alternative economic model. It’s just handouts to keep proles quiet.

        • Fubar2

          Oh good grief……. where everything is free and unicorns f*rt rainbows and excrete gold nuggets….

          Dont Do Drugs, kids. It screws you up.

  • Enemy Coast Ahead

    Amazes me that people are trying to big up Theresa May’s poor victory over Corbyn as a success … it was a disaster. She narrowily escaped letting Labour in through the back door.

    For why many under 40’s decided to vote for Corbyn look no further than our education system for the past twenty years – those working within it and those running it – the vast majority of which are dyed in the wool Labour party supporters …. all with access to gullible young minds. A couple of years back I met up with an old friend working in admin at a local college – while waiting in reception there was a large TV screen on in the corner repeating what the College values were and what it expects from its students – one by one a fresh faced student appeared declaring their beliefs … respect for other cultures, embrace mass immigration, support for the EU, combat climate change, stamp out sexism, racism, homophobia, Islamophobia …. it went on and on and on, then repeated itself. This wasn’t education – this was indoctrination – brainwashing young Corbyn-supporting Momentum activists – it was a party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party.

    That socialist blob called the education system has a lot to answer for Corbyns success in garnering young support.

    Keep up the good work Laura – excellent article as usual, completely agree with you.

    • Flaketime

      Wasn’t it this election that 3500 head teachers wrote to parents warning them of the effects of the so called ‘Austerity’ which isn’t Austerity at all?

      • c50

        Yes, because they see reality.

        • Fubar2

          Kinda hard to see reality from the inside of your own alimentary canal. As you are proving. Constantly.

    • c50

      Unbelievable stupidity, staggering. If the education system is biased it is because the elite all go to Public school, and the 7% who go to public school command 50% of the Russell group places; so it is reasonable for that 50 % to be privileged and indoctrinated with Libertarian Hayek economic nonsense and if state kids become ‘lefties’ it is not because they have been exploited or see nepotism at ever turn but because teachers indoctrinate them: utter drivel.In fact, the public school kids think they shouldn’t give a monkeys about the poor because being poor is a function of the market.So it is no surprise that young people from poorer backgrounds think the country is utterly skewed to Laura and her friends.

      • Fubar2

        Tripe. Total and utter and complete fact-free tripe. Give up while you still can.

        • c50

          I think you are scared your reactionary excuses aren’t enough for people realising trickle down capitalism and Mrs Perrins’s alliance with Steve Bannon’s Judeo-Christian millennial nonsense is fearful power might drift towards each individual from their power elites.

      • Harley Quin

        The proportion of the state educated going to Oxbridge dropped dramatically with the abolition of Grammar schools.

        • c50

          Absolute nonsense.

  • AngularMerkilled

    They can have whatever delusions or dreams they want, but there are laws and buffers between us and their worst, most insidious goals.

    If that fails, we outnumber them. Not by a slither. By a massive majority. You think half the useless eaters will still be communists when the reality kicks in?

    No more iPhones, no more coffeeshops, no more nightclubs, no more Westfield or Bluewater, no more media, no more internet…then you will see just how few of them are the actual hardliners…they’ll be itching to crush the socialists more than we do!

    • Harley Quin

      They forget that come the mass inrush of immigrants through the open doors favoured by Corbyn, the standard of public services of all kinds is going to decline dramatically, as it already is thanks to increased demand.

      What’s more, the young are going to find that thanks to competition from these immigrants, their chances of a decent job, or any job are also going to narrow more than somewhat.

      This is in a situation where robotics and computerisation are going to do away with half of all jobs in the next decade or so, according to the Bank of England.

      • c50

        Public services decline because people like Laura don’t use them and proceed to cut them to save the taxes for their chalets in Meribel.

        • Colonel Mustard

          Really? The Revenue Support Grant for 2016-17 was just over £7 billion. The foreign aid budget over the same period was in excess of £13 billion.

          It is about choices not cuts, even before we might consider council CEOs whose salaries are greater than the Prime Minister’s and the funding of which also has an impact on those public services.

        • Fubar2

          Now you’re getting desperate…. and reaching for that desperate, cliche-ridden man-bag stuffed full of class war printouts from your old sixth form days.

          Keep this up and you’ll end up getting metaphorically shredded. This isnt the old circle jerk of the Grauniad’s KommentMachtFrei, you know.

      • Colonel Mustard

        Robotics reduces employment opportunities at the same time as population increases. Not a great combination for the future.

    • Sargv

      > If that fails, we outnumber them. Not by a slither. By a massive majority.

      There’s a problem with that. Left does not rely on numbers once it claims the power. It relies on violence. Violence against civilians does not require massive numbers.

      • AngularMerkilled

        You missed the point, but only a little bit.

        We outnumber them, so we can use their tactic against them. Violence.

        • Sargv

          I can only say that’s not how it worked out in Cambodia, China or Soviet Russia.

          Numbers without the organisation do not matter. Lefties are zealots. They’re better organised.

          • Harley Quin

            They get into power and tyrannise the people.

      • c50

        So the Labour government of the seventies used paramilitaries-no, Thatcher used the police as a paramilitary group to crush the miners et al. This scaremongering is tragic and suggests you need an anti anxiety medication.

        • Sargv

          I am a Russian, and my grand-grand-parents went through Gulag under Stalin. You want me to tell you about scaremongering or economic efficiency of socialism?

          I still have my HepB I’ve got back in 1987 due to lack of single-use syringes in Soviet hospitals. I still remember boiling water once a week to wash back in the 90s (district heating, not hot water for a decade). I still can smell that diesel lamp we used for heating and cooking in our flat on 5th floor of the apartment block (as ugly as everything socialists ever touch). During winter times, it was +13 inside, and electricity was rationed to four hours a day. I saw dead people on the streets, and I saw my teachers fainting from malnutrition – five years shy from new Millenia.

          Of course, you can always ignore all that and say that YOUR version of socialism will be better. Good luck with that.

          • Colonel Mustard

            British socialists disregard that empirical evidence. They romanticise the Soviet Union and display its banners at their rallies and meetings. Quite disgusting really.

        • getahead

          That will be the same miners’ unions, some members of which dropped a breeze block from a footbridge on a “scab” driving to work. Ah yes, I remember well that nice Arthur.

        • Fubar2

          B*ll*x. The miners union set out to use violence to intimidate other miners and to stick one on the police. The police, unlike in your fluffy bunny world, gave them what they wanted and responded to the union violence with equal force.

          You need to take a reality pill c50, and promptly. Your hateful revisionism isnt going to cut the mustard on here.

  • Guardian’s Quitter

    Laura, I still retain absolute confidence that Our Jeremy will destroy the Labour Party.

  • paul

    finding it difficult to find a link between being a christian and Laura perrins. not sure how jesus would have viewed her or this article as he had compassion for the poor and the immigrant sadly lacking in the tory party

    • Labour_is_bunk

      Ah that word again.”Compassion”=”free stuff”.
      Also, have another read at the comments about left-leaning “celebrities” who talk a good game on refugees but don’t back up their words with suitable deeds.

    • Fubar2

      Oh god, not that “Jesus was a socialist” sh1t3 again…

  • SteadyOn

    So, as someone in their early thirties I can assure you that this article will do nothing to change any younger person’s mind. The overbearing tone and lack of qualification are about as useful as those Guardian articles that rage against the stupidity of the old. The nadir for me was ‘so just what the hell is wrong with the young?’. Luckily, I’m a confirmed Tory/libertarian and so this sort of article has little impact on my views.

    Despite all of that, I think there are some good points to Perrin’s thesis. On the whole (see, a qualification!) the younger generation doesn’t seem to have any sense of the abject misery that socialism imposes, the workings of the modern economies or the central importance of democratic constitutional government. Education is partly responsible, the failure of the right is partly responsible, disfunctional parents and identity politics are all partly responsible.

    So a good question might be ‘how the hell did so many of the elderly create a situation in which this could occur’. Perhaps the elderly are not part of the solution, perhaps the solution is for them to stop exacerbating things and to give younger people who do value democracy more of a platform to make their beliefs heard. Rather like Christians in the U.K., those of us who still hold the faith are the most committed and best informed.

    Of course, such an approach would be a bit silly and divisive. The reality is that we need everyone’s help.

    As a final point. Andrew Neil asked a question that stuck with me the other day. He asked his interviewee how on earth young people were supposed to support capitalism when they have no chance of acquiring capital. A very good point, and one that Thatcher, would have grasped instantly.

    • Sargv

      > He asked his interviewee how on earth young people were supposed to support capitalism when they have no chance of acquiring capital.

      And when exactly “acquiring capital” was easier than it is now?

      • SteadyOn

        I think it is fair to say that there is a problem with real estate. The housing market has always been a government fuelled bubble – the recent crash was a result of policies first enacted in the 30’s. If there is to be a politically protected asset class (and there shouldn’t be) then it needs to be open to all. Salary multiples for houses are growing (especially in the south east) and that’s will turn people away from stakeholder capitalism.

      • Harley Quin

        Acquiring Capital is called saving. Anyone with a pension policy or similar has a stake in the stock market.

    • c50

      Please,’abject misery’ that socialism imposes’; we are not aiming for Communist Russia. Ditch the utopian capitalist nonsense of Hayek and the serfdom scaremongering-what about Scandanavia? Germany? We can’t be them because the Laura Perrins of this world aren’t happy to be paid very well for hard work but want to live in an elitist world of luxury so the rest have to put up with poverty. Libertarian economics, and Hayek in particular, is based on nihilsm: the notion that value is not intrinsic but bestowed by an elite in their choice of purchases. Thus, you and the awful Perrins are one and the same ideologically.
      And this article is so lacking in any intellectual rigour it would struggle to get in The Daily Mail.

      • Sargv

        Russia was never a communist country, it was a declared aim that was never achieved. It was a socialist Republic, among other socialist republics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It’s right in the name.

        Scandinavia and Germany do not “pay very well for hard work”. They pay about the same no matter what work you do, and how you do it. Once you landed on the job – you’re set for life. No matter how bad you are, you can’t be fired, and you’ll be paid the same amount as a top performer. Such a setup is only beneficial to free riders, that’s why it’s exactly Germany and Scandinavia that have an onslaught of immigrants from Africa and Middle East.

      • UKCitizen

        I see you are part of the ranks of the useful idiot brigade with a long history of membership in our so called “intelligentsia”

      • SteadyOn

        I’m happy to stand with Hayek on all things and Perrins on most. Hayek, of course, unlike your good self, had first hand experience of the sort of tyranny he was writing about.

      • Fubar2

        “what about Scandanavia?”

        Scandinavia is a mess. Particularly Sweden, which is a progressive disaster zone. Plus, it may have escaped your attention, but this is not Scandinavia. There are, always have been and are likely to continue to be significant differences between here and Scandinavia. You’re not seriously implying that Bennites like Corbyn and McDonnell are more akin to Scandi style “Social Democrats” (ie, left leaning progressive liberals), as opposed to the Stalinists that we know deep down that they are? What is there that is “democratic” about Cuba and Venezuela, whose leaderships they have eulogised many times?

        Dear oh dear….

        • Harley Quin

          I believe that according to a UN report, Sweden is due to become a third world country in 15 years time, below Bulgaria.

          This was a land famed only for being affluent and boring. And very liberal and socially Left.

          Of course, it is its liberalism and welfare statism which is its nemesis, Mass third world immigration is destroying it.

          It now has Muslim no go areas, rioting, and Gothenburg is the rape capital of Europe.

          Over in the USA, the State of a Illinois is bankrupt, to the point that it cannot pay prizes in the State Lottery.

          Same old reasons: massive public spending, an influx of those eager to get their hands on said spending ; mass crime; the flght of the productive taxpayers….

          And Illinois is only the first.

    • Colonel Mustard

      That’s a good argument but the situation we are in was not created by “the elderly” per se but by the policies and decisions of successive governments. mostly short term and without proper consideration of consequences. You can blame the elderly for electing those governments but there is and always has been a huge gulf between what electable parties promise ands what elected governments actually do.

      I too thought Andrew Neil’s question made a very good point.

      • SteadyOn

        Entirely agree. Its no single generation’s fault, and to argue otherwise is silly.

        On the Neil point, we need something like Thatcher’s right to buy scheme. And we need it urgently.

  • getahead

    “they talk about the evils of austerity.”
    That is the public sector wanting to impose more tax on the private sector.

    • Naviro

      I caught about 5-6 mins of question time last thursday. (I generally don’t watch it).

      The hideous caroline lucas said that public sectors workers generate tax revenue for the exchequer. Lucas continued and said that the tax the PubSec generate can be used to fund public services and spend on national infrastructure. Lucas reasoned that because of this, giving the PubSec a payrise was a good idea which she supported.

      I could barely believe my ears and fully expected Jacob Reese Mog to immediately correct lucas and rebuke her spectacular economic ignorance.

      Reese Mog said nothing (shame on him).

      Nobody on the panel corrected her.

      Nobody in the audience corrected her.

      The buffon dimbleby of course did not correct her.

      A great many PubSec workers believe that getting a payrise would make the country richer and result in better funded public services.

      A great many PriSec workers believe that too and are calling for this to happen.

      Now I understand why.

      • It does sound a bit bonkers, put like that – but looking at the real side of what’s going on it’s not quite as mad as it sounds. If public sector workers spend all of their raise on consumption that utilises unused resources, there is no real cost (indeed higher employment has social benefits). Most of the increased money spending can be expected to return to the Treasury eventually as tax via increased income tax and VAT etc. This is before considering welfare improvements for the public sector workers themselves and benefits in NHS performance.

        • Colonel Mustard

          Public sector pay comes from tax collection anyway. Recovery through secondary taxation is partial.

          If I give you five pounds and you give me back two I am still three pounds short. If you then spend that three pounds on things to please yourself the benefit to me is questionable at best.

          Lucas’ argument was risible and I too was surprised that she was not robustly challenged on it.

          • Well you too insisted on converting an argument based on real resources back into one about accounting, so perhaps she was bowing to the reality of public misunderstanding. Public sector pay comes from government money issue, which if not inflationary demonstrates a shortage of demand. Ultimately all such money ends up back in the Treasury coffers – it has nowhere else to go.

        • Naviro

          It is completely as mad as it sounds.

          Tax the PriSec more and increase public spending in order to make us all richer. Really?

          In this case you want the increase in public spending to take the form of increased PubSec wages.

          And you believe that the additional consumer spending that the pubSec worker now engages in since they have more money, will result in making us all richer.

          Wow.

          Well, if the above were a true story, why stop at merely giving existing pubSec workers a payrise?

          Why not increase the tax burden on the PriSec to an even more punitive level so we can also afford to hire 1 million new pubsec workers?

          Just think about it, 1 mil new pubsec workers all spending their wages on meals out, hair cuts, ipads and clothes. All paying income tax, VAT and council tax and making us all filthy rich. But why stop at 1 million new pubSec jobs, why not 2 mil, or 5 mil and so on.

          Why hasn’t anybody else figured out that this is the way to eliminate the deficit and paydown our 4.8ish trillion pound debt.

          You and Lucas are economic geniuses.

      • Cassandra

        It takes a moment to collect ones thoughts on technical matters like that. Still, one would expect a politician to come armed with answers to pretty obvious arguments like Lucas’s.

        Economics are really a lot simpler than economists make out. Adam Smith thought they were not unadjacent to housekeeping, as Margaret Thatcher was criticised for saying.

        Smith was more right than wrong about that,

        • This is true if we are talking about real goods and services. In monetary terms it is very different. Households do not issue their own currency. And money creates perverse incentives to resource idleness.

          • Harley Quin

            Yes householders do not issue their own currency. The situation for states changed radically when the gold standard was abolished and it became possible to print oodles of fiat money.

    • Cassandra

      For those who grew up in post war Britain or earlier, the idea that we are living in a period of austerity is a joke.

      • Reborn

        My thoughts exactly.
        I was middle class, privately educated etc
        All my outer clothes were second hand , as were my toys & bicycles.
        As for the food —–
        I do think teachers, nurses, lower ranking police etc need more pay.
        BUT, we need to focus on real problems in society & save billions
        on improving purchasing policies, getting rid of overpaid pen pushers,
        dumping pointless paper work in schools etc.

        • I agree that such valuable jobs as teacher, nurse, policeman/woman need more pay as I believe do most people. The problem is that most people have been “educated” by state “education” into believing that the free-market cannot adequately price such important jobs. All the jobs mentioned are underpayed because they are priced according to socialism rather than according to what the market would actually be willing to pay for such essential services.

          • I think you’d be hard-pressed to prove that. Why, for example, do private nursing homes pay their staff so poorly? Are security guards earning more than the police?

          • It depends on what you are willing to accept as “proof”! I am also unsure as to which specific assertion I made you feel requires more proof? I can generally state that in an interventionist economy such as ours using statistics to prove that the free-market is the problem is almost impossible. The reason is that Government intervention in one area is like the “butterfly effect” creating economic imbalances in many, many other areas of the economy (perhaps in the examples you provide).

      • BlueDave

        Overspending by one thousand million pounds every week cannot be called ‘austerity’

  • Ozfan

    The Conservative Manifesto really did have the line “we believe our responsibilities to each other are greater than our rights as individuals”. Corbyn should quote this when in future he seizes private houses for “the people”. So agreed that May is a left winger.

    But the issue that is ruining the young’s future, depressing their wages, their chances of home owning, is mass immigration. Here the Conservatives record is truely abysmal – presumably the missed targets were just lies.

    Many, such as Hammond, seem to want mass immigration to continue in order to support “the economy”, or really just those few members of a global offshore-banked elite who own the economy. Ah, enough to make you turn towards the opposition …

    • Colonel Mustard

      Not just immigration but the British government’s laissez-fair approach to foreign “investment” and especially speculative property purchase which has inflated house prices, particularly in London.

  • A vote for Corbyn is a vote for Sharia. A vote for Corbyn is a vote for terrorism. A vote for Corbyn is a vote against Britain.

    • The worst kind of terrorism is the kind perpetrated by a government on its own people aka socialism/communism/fascism.

  • David

    “Something really is rotten in the state of Britain”
    Yes I agree, but why ?

    My own view has long been that the west as a whole will not survive, in any recognisable form, its effective rejection of God – by which I mean the rejection of the Judaeo-Christian worldview as the overarching narrative. Reject that, and what was for the majority, the UK’s particular variant of the protestant worldview, and out goes strong family, many of the bonds of local community, love of ones country and duty to it, the public service ethic and of course the protestant work ethic – that is a belief in the dignity of work for its own sake, as opposed to it being about just necessary money making.

    For most of the many long centuries during which Christianity was the national faith, very, very few were deeply devout, and at most a bare majority believed strongly in it all of its doctrines, but the essential point is that almost all accepted that it was the framework within which life, both private and public was conducted. This gave a shared narrative, experience and range of stand points within which everything else that we need, psychologically and sociologically, could be created. But what have the very vocal critics of the faith given back to a public that they prised away from that anchor, to replace the very necessary courage, stability hope and belief that all individuals and groups need ? Nothing !

    • Cassandra

      Rejection of God means the rejection of absolute standards, which in turn means the disintegration of our Christian Civilisation and of our society.

      It means the dawning of a new Dark Age of rule by barbarians which will continue until belief in absolute standards returns, which means religion which on the basis of present trends means Islam.

      • Who are you to judge God’s standards?

        • Reborn

          Even claiming to know God’s standards (apart from evolution & its concomitants), is at best daft.

          • Harley Quin

            Our Civilisation has been built on the Revelation of Christ as a manifestation of the divine and his moral teaching.

        • Harley Quin

          Faith in Christ is enough to know about God’s standards.

          • Knowing about them is one thing – judging them as good or bad (which are human concepts) surely another?

          • Harley Quin

            By what standard does one say they are good or bad? Without God there are no standards.

            Standards imply meaning, and there is no meaning in a meaningless universe where we are only the result of an accidental conjunction of atoms.

            According to Nietzsche, without Christianity in the West, another morality would be invented.

            We can see that happening with the imposition of Political Correctness.

            But Nietzsche thought that this new system of ethics would also fail. That too is happening. Political Correctness is already beginning to weaken.

            After that, Nietzsche thought the only de facto standard would be power. Power would be ‘worshipped’; there would be an age of dictatorships and tyranny.

            Nietzsche did not count on Islam, however, which does throw a spanner into his predictions.

          • There are many possible standards. ‘God’ as a standard is circular unless you can say something about the nature of God and why he/she/it should count as that standard. Why should ‘God’ count as the only source of meaning? What, after all, is the meaning of God, even assuming existence?

      • I agree but I think that it is inbuilt into humanity to have an objective moral standard. Even those who claim not to hold to objective standards of right and wrong are very quick to criticise the behaviour of others. Deep down humans know that certain actions are objectively wrong. This means that any worldview that cannot justify an objective moral standard (atheism) is contrary to human experience and should be disregarded. Almost as bad as denying an objective moral standard exists is adhering to a false moral code (a false religion).

        • Harley Quin

          i agree with you about moral standards. As Kant said:

          ‘Two things awe me; the starry skies above me and the moral law within me.’

          The Human intuition about morality is what will bring the West back to religion.

          Unfortunately on demographic trends this is likely to mean Islam – at least in the short term.

          • Yeah, it’s a difficult one. Atheists and their progressive offspring have done such a number on undermining Christianity in the West, it is hard to know whether they will be able to replace a Christian worldview with pure atheism. They may be forced to settle with a progressive faith that incorporates elements of “progressive Islam” and “progressive Christianity” but only as trappings, the core faith being based on Darwinism and the denial of the miraculous. What I am sure of is that it will not be good! Any “religion” that is based on humanity being a “cosmic accident” with no “objective value” except what it can offer society is a recipe for serious evil!

        • Religion by definition cannot be the source of ‘an objective moral standard’ since it is based on faith – clearly a subjective phenomenon.

          • You misunderstand the Christian position. The source of morality is God, not religion. The Scriptures are God’s special revelation concerning (among other things) morality. Your definition of “faith” is also the self-serving atheist dichotomy which sees faith as the opposite of reason and is not the Christian definition of faith.

          • Faith doesn’t have to be the opposite of reason to be subjective – which is the point at issue.

          • Ok…but what is the point you are making and where does your point lead?

          • It leads to rejection of your claim that religion provides ‘an objective moral standard’.

          • Ah ok, I see what you’re getting at! My claim was not that religion provides an objective moral standard. My claim was that a theistic universe (as expressed in the Christian Scriptures) provides the necessary grounding for an objective moral standard to exist and an atheistic universe does not. Sure you can make up your own moral code and try to get people to “sign up” to it as an atheist, but the fact remains you made it up and since you did not make this universe but are part of it, your moral system is not binding on this universe.

          • A ‘theistic universe’ can only provide grounding for a moral standard if it is believed to exist and with certain beliefs about the nature of the god or gods. Those beliefs appear to be subjective. My moral system is not binding on anyone, but the facts on which I base it certainly are.

          • I think you and I actually agree on morality under atheism. You say that your moral system “is not binding on anyone” and I agree. The problem is that a moral system that is not binding on anyone is absolutely useless as a moral system and hence why I often blame atheism for the moral decline of our society. Your point about God only providing a moral grounding if people believe in Him mis-understands what is meant by “grounding morality”. In Christianity the nature and character of God is the standard of goodness and thus renders right and wrong objective – i.e. an action is right or wrong based on God’s nature not based on whether you believe the action is right or wrong nor on whether you believe in God or not.

          • Without tautology, what is it about the ‘nature and character of God’ that renders he/she/it ‘the standard of goodness’?

          • It is no tautology to say God is the ultimate good by virtue of being God. It is a fact of philosophy! Morality is a property of a theistic universe. Every other moral being is measured according to the ultimate good and God by definition is that ultimate good. You are hiding bad morality behind the philosophical truth that there cannot be an infinite regress of explanations. God by definition is the start or “first cause” of everything including explanation. You are asking the philosophically absurd and unanswerable question ‘why God’ to hide the moral bankruptcy of atheism. Your attack of Christian morality is akin to a young child asking ‘why, why, why???’ to every explanation a parent gives.

          • Why is it any more absurd for there to be an infinite regress of explanations than for a god to have arisen out of nothing? (Which latter would be an ‘explanation’ that preceded god – explanations are different sorts of things from those that are ’caused’.) And if a god did exist what obliges us to accept that god’s view of what we should do? Why logically need the ‘first cause’ also be the ‘ultimate good’ as opposed to the ‘ultimate evil’ or neither? Can you point to any evidence that individual atheists are less ‘moral’ than individual believers? The child who asks ‘why, why, why’ demonstrates that her philosophical curiosity is greater than her parent’s knowledge – but that is not really a failing on her part!

          • Then your point is by definition invalid. Because it has, does, and will in the future.

          • Harley Quin

            Yet that religious faith is faith in objectivity, That is why religious belief carries an imperative unknown in religionless ethics.

    • Longstone253

      Yes. What is lacking in the parenting and education of children is any discussion of character and classical virtues. We have lost ‘cultural’ Christianity and the values that went with it. As has been much-discussed, these have been replaced with ‘values’ such as consumerism, individualism, celebrity-worship, politics of envy and identity, multi-culturalism, ‘diversity’, ‘hope-not-hate’… Young people are so lost because their aspirations are pointed in directions which cannot make them happy and this is against a backdrop of worsening economic times. They are unhappy but are not sure why, or who is to blame, and nobody is setting them a good example. Under such circumstances, they will grasp at straws and false ‘prophets’.

  • Great Briton

    We have arrived at the point where more people take out of the system than pay in.
    Corbyn says he’ll give more free stuff and the Tories offer austerity.
    Now do you understand?
    The Tories should be blaming Osborne for not getting spending under control

    • Fubar2

      … which goes back to the timidness to do what was necessary. What we’ve had are seven years of Continuity Brown economics. Arguably Darling might have made a better fist of it that Osborne. What we’ve had hasnt been Austerity, not real austerity in the way that either those of the 50’s generation knew it, nor Ireland or Greece in more modern times. Too scared, too timid to stand up to Ed Ball’s “too far, too fast” garbage, to scared to offer real vision, real leadership, constantly terrified of the old “nasty party” toxic image that they think they’ve got. Its bordering on pathetic.

  • UKCitizen

    “even though we know it destroys families, communities and countries”
    News flash. That is what it has been doing to this country for the last 50 odd years and why we now have a bunch of infantalised 40 somethings who never grew up.

  • TmWe

    Before the election I got a text from an associate, declaring their voting intentions. The long and short of it is “them good, me bad”, but their reasons for voting Corbyn were feel based and not fact based.

    Contents read “”

    …….I’m almost certain I wouldn’t change your mind and the things your claiming as accomplishments for the Tories barely whiteout their failings (in my opinion), the NHS, doubling the National Debt, our countries disabled, sick and elderly repeatedly let down with refusal of benefits.
    I know your priorities and my priorities for the country are different, I don’t want privatised healthcare, I don’t want to live in a country that would turn it’s back on pensioners without any assets to sell off to pay for their care. I don’t want corporations to own everything and pay no tax (trickle down economy doesn’t work).

    I actually think this is quite typical of a corbyn voter. Thinking they are morally superior as they vote based on fud spread through social media.

  • Marcus Orr

    To be honest, the conservatives as a party are so totally useless and so very clearly do not represent traditional conservative moral values. Even the Tory breakthough in Scotland was spearheaded by a leader Ruth Davidson and a group of Tory scots who are thoroughly left-wing Lib Dems in all but name.
    At least Jeremy Corbyn, who seems a decent enough man, believes in his admittedly terrible left-wing ideology. He knows exactly what he stands for, and good luck to him. What do the Conservative Party of today truly stand for ? Most of them are scrambling uneasily to criticise the Tory-DUP alliance on the grounds that the DUP are dinosaurs, that for abortion they are pro-life as opposed to being a pro-death party, they have the temerity to be against radical state re-definition of traditional marriage, and that some of them (amazingly) are not fully paid up members of the Global Warmism cult. In that case, how can the Tories count themselves as a conservative party ?
    The Tories have to start believing in and selling true conservative values again instead of trying to be a wee bit to the right of Labour & the LibDems. Otherwise they have no chance and next time up it will (deservedly) be Corbyn’s turn.

    • Isn’t conservatism about preserving tried and tested institutions, rather than outdated and discredited ideas?

      • Marcus Orr

        You would have to explain why on earth you think pro-death policy on abortion, keeping to promotion of traditional 1 man – 1 woman marriage and having doubts on signing Global Climate deals on flimsy evidence which ensure the future dominance of China vs. the US & Europe in World energy supply are outdated & discredited ideas first.

        • No difficulty there.

          • Marcus Orr

            Have a go then, I’m waiting…

          • I suggest you make the start by analysing ‘pro-death’, ‘traditional’ and ‘flimsy’ in your statement above.

          • Marcus Orr

            Ok, a cop-out. I get it. It’s ok to run scared.

          • Only your own reflection and experience can change your mind. I’m sure I can’t do more.

          • Marcus Orr

            Thanks for your interesting criticism of my position without managing to offer a single shred of evidence as to why you think that way.
            That was…illuminating. Nah, only kidding, I’ve seen better argumentation from a 5 year old.

  • Fubar2

    “So just what the hell is wrong with the young, aka, under-40s?”

    They’ve never had to live under socialism in any flavour. Thats why it is a creed that will not die the sad lonely drunken old death that it should. Every generation has to end up learning the hard way that it doesnt work, mainly due to those who proselytise it being sustained either by the public teat or by a liberal left leaning establishment of independent means who have been disconnected from reality outside of their own bubble.

    Hence the old saying of “if you’re not a socialist in your twenties, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you get to your forties, you have no brains”.

    Every generation is doomed to repeat this mistake over and over and over and over again. And this generation will be no different. It’ll be a case of having to endure this for five years to prove to them that their wide eyed idealism is absolutely wrong.

    The difference in this case is that there is clear red water between old school Labour of Atlee, Callaghan, Healey, et al and the Bennites like Corbyn and McDonnell. There is a far greater likelihood of a slide into Zimbabwean/Venezuelan style mire under these two than there would have been under the more “old school’ Labour party. Only thing is that the modern day equivalents of these old school guys, the Frank Field’s and others are too timid to deal with the Bennites. As are the Conservative party, who are more pre-occupied with sliding left into the centrist space vacated by New Labour, when what is really needed is a proper return to real conservative values.

    Should people be ashamed that they voted for Corbyn? Maybe. I would say personally, that the modern Conservative party has more to be ashamed of than Labour in that sense -ashamed that they have abandoned their core values for perceived electability, ashamed that they have abandoned their core values for liberal populism, ashamed of them being ashamed of their own past and achievements; Ashamed for not undoing New Labour aberrations like the tax credits system, mass immigration, Harman’s Equality Act, Europhilia under Cameron, and ashamed for singularly failing to provide the leadership and vision for the nation in the time when it needs it most.

    So…. six and two threes, deep down.