Cameron attacks moral neutrality

July 9th, 2008 at 12:42 pm by David Farrar

The Telegraph reports on a superb speech by attacking moral neutrality:

“We talk about people being ‘at risk of obesity’ instead of talking about people who eat too much and take too little exercise. We talk about people being at risk of poverty, or social exclusion: it’s as if these things – obesity, alcohol abuse, drug addiction – are purely external events like a plague or bad weather.

And the same in NZ.

“Of course, circumstances – where you are born, your neighbourhood, your school, and the choices your parents make – have a huge impact. But social problems are often the consequence of the choices that people make.”

Choices do matter, and that is why you need incentives to encourage the right choices.

Tags:

60 Responses to “Cameron attacks moral neutrality”

  1. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Cameron’s point might also be language. In NZ it is firmly under the control of the Progressives. The so called right seem totally unaware of how easy it is to control the debate when you control the language. The limits the left have put on all kinds of freedom of expression have to be smashed. I believe this is one of the most important tasks the right has to accomplish in the mission to roll back the ascendancy of the socialists.

    For liberty’s sake, it is so essential that we break the chains the left have placed around our words and thoughts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. RRM (9,662 comments) says:

    I see the English Police Minister’s reply (effectively pointing out that talk is cheap when you’re in opposition) was left out of the “executive summary” above:

    Tony McNulty, the Police Minister, said: “David Cameron is trying hard to sound tough today – but this is from the man who says he wants to hug a hoodie.

    “As the Prime Minister said last month, carrying a knife is unacceptable. We have doubled the maximum sentence for carrying a knife, and anyone over 16 caught with a knife should be prosecuted. When they get to court, they are now almost three times as likely to go to prison as 10 years ago. The Tories have consistently voted soft on law and order.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    Great speech. I’d add that a succession of small, short-term, poor decisions tend to compound to a point that longer term options range from bleak to downright atrocious. An initially genuine need for welfare, which degenerates into a debilitating habit, is an example of that progression as work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    It’s naive claptrap of the kind Alf Garnet might have spouted. However, I liked the use of ‘Moral Neutrality’, even if it ignores the fact that the debate has been controlled by those in society who, far from being ‘morally neutral’, are self-appointed moralists who feel they have a duty to redefine the societal landscape.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Scott (1,736 comments) says:

    Great speech by David Cameron!

    The idea “we shouldn’t judge others” comes from the Bible. Jesus said ” judge not least you be judged”. He was warning of the dangers of hypocrisy, particularly of judging others for an offence we are doing ourselves. He was also saying that we should look at our own behaviour before we start trying to correct others.

    However today we take this idea too far. We seem to think that all judgement is wrong. This is taking the words of Jesus beyond what I believe he intended.

    Rather we need to judge right from wrong and as gently as possible provide correction to others where appropriate.

    If we truly love our neighbour then we will do our best to point out when they are at fault or in error. In doing so we will be careful to ensure that we have searched our own hearts and our own faults first.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    Good work Time we told the soft cockers to go Foxtrot Oscar. Time to speak up and tell the truth Look at the case of the pregnant woman who went on a drinking binge Now the soft cockers will find every and any excuse for her even to the point of blaming me and every other law abiding sensible citizen.

    They will never admit IT WAS HER FAULT.

    The soft cockers are last centuries people and have no place on the new age.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. duncan_bayne (53 comments) says:

    Choices do matter, and that is why you need incentives to encourage the right choices.

    Actually you’re wrong. In fact choices do matter, and that is why you need to allow people to experience the consequences – both positive and negative – of those choices.

    There is no need to create artificial incentives when the consequence of a choice provides all the incentive required. The only reason you may have to create artificial incentives (e.g. punitive taxes on cigarettes) is because you’ve chosen to nationalize the negative consequences of the decision to smoke (e.g. compulsorily funded, universally available public health care).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    A great speech from a man not scared or embarrassed to admit that he is a right winger, what a bloody pity our National party are not of the same mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. tim barclay (886 comments) says:

    Choice is not how the left think. Their way is to have no choice and FORCE people to comply with some state run union dominated monopoly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    whereas the right likes a private-monopoly..

    and/or to sell it off to themselves/their ‘mates’..

    (gee..!.i’ll betcha ‘honest-john’ has got a lot of facebook friends in/from the aussie insurance industry..eh..?..

    200 million odd..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. comsumist (59 comments) says:

    It’s a pity we aren’t hearing more of that talk here, especially when the Ministry of ‘Health’ is busy suing companies for running successful marketing campaigns because they encourage “excessive consumption of treat foods”. Somehow parents buying junk food are not to blame for their kids health problems, it’s the big bad corporates. The country is in the grip of PC madness and we desperately need some leadership out of this mess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    While the idea of eradicating this PC madness might sound great can anybody tell me just how one would go about it?

    Remember we have been indoctrinated with this crap for at least the last ten years, you are not going to remove it overnight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “it’s as if these things – obesity, alcohol abuse, drug addiction – are purely external events like a plague or bad weather.”

    The problem is that all neoliberal economies – i.e. US, Chile, 1990s NZ under National and arguably the UK have high levels of relative poverty, high levels of crime and/or incarceration, lower levels of social mobility (the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor) lower wages for most workers and longer working hours . If you let the market reign this is going to happen. In this way “poverty” and its associated social problems, are pre-determined, and unavoidable. There is no escaping these facts for right wingers.

    So while Cameron is right to suggest that people need to be held responsible for their actions, it’s a bit disingenuous for the right to place all the blame on the individual when they set the rules of the game up in a way to ensures a high level of failure. It’s a bit like designing an obstacle course that’s statistically proven to fail 30% of applicants, then force everyone to take on the obstacle course, and put the boot into everyone who fails, because they “didn’t train hard enough” etc. Quite a nasty mentality when you think about it like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. polemic (429 comments) says:

    This moral neutrality is seen in NZ all the time.

    Look at the EFA -”We are not restricting ‘Freedom of Speech’ just restricting what people can freely speak about at Election Time.

    An look at the “Every Human has rights” ad that DPF has now put on the side bar. Article Two etc

    Look at the hate speech that the Labour Party delivered at the EB’s in Parliament just because they had the guts to speak out against their policies.

    “Oh they were buying elections” and the rest of parliament stood limply on the side walk and let it go. Imagine if it was Muslims that openly questioned what the Labour Party were doing.
    Freedom of Speech Bah humbug!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    bruv:

    “Remember we have been indoctrinated with this crap for at least the last ten years, you are not going to remove it overnight.”

    The trend in NZ since the 1890s (the liberal party) has been toward a more humane and progressive society. That trend was broken by a string of unpopular governments in the 1980s and 1990s. The public would have voted for the left if they had they chance, but there was no left-wing choice during the 1980s, and when there was a left wing choice, the irrationality of the FPP system allowed National to govern alone with just 35% of the vote – while the left had over 50% with Labour and the Alliance combined). Then there was 1996, when many people voted for Winston because he promised to get rid of National, and we all know what happened after that.

    A move to the far right is impossible without making NZ far less democratic. This is something I believe National knows, and is the reason for National’s pushing for another referendum re our voting system (i.e. a return to FPP might allow another right-wing revolution).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    big bruv Easy When not If the Revolution comes the PC brigade will be runover and squashed into the dust by the good citizens

    And that days not far off

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    Ohh If the anyone needs a history lesson on the citizens overturning a corrupt administration think French Revolution

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    One would have to find a way to rebuff the argument that people who are ‘anti PC’ (however one happens to define it on the day) are doing nothing but looking to eradicate the ‘wrong’ way of thinking, which seems overly overlord-ish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    “by a string of unpopular governments in the 1980s and 1990s”

    The same “unpopular” governments that were reelected.

    Stop talking shit Nome

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    gd, hard to call an absolute Monarchy “corrupt” when the nature of an absolute monarchy is basically that they do whatever they want.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    A move to the far right is impossible without making NZ far less democratic.

    Of course… Left governments wield the power of state to regulate everything that moves (including the voice of opposition) and they are democratic… while right governments deregulate, embrace competition and transparency yet they are, according to nome, undemocratic.

    What next? a wikipedia link proving that black is white?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “think French Revolution”

    Um, that was a progressive revolution founded on the humanism of enlightenment philosophy – i.e. People were fed up with the concentration of wealth and decadence of the French aristocracy, whilst people starved in the streets. The majority of people won’t vote for their own poverty, just so the rich can be obscenely decadent. That’s why I argue that there won’t be a right-wing revolution without NZ becoming a far less democratic society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “right governments deregulate, embrace competition and transparency”

    You obviously don’t know too much about the bush administration. Also, democracy means the people getting their way. If they vote for regulation, then regulation is democratic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Bruv:

    “The same “unpopular” governments that were reelected.”

    That’s not even an argument. You can do better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. goodgod (1,363 comments) says:

    For those who don’t know, the concept Christ was talking about under the title of “do not judge” is not about hypocrisy or accepting others so everyone is just nice nice nice. It’s about remaining open to seeing things that your logical thought processes automatically rule out.

    The bible is a religious text, not an early socialist handbook.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    “The same “unpopular” governments that were reelected.”

    Under FPP. Hmph.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    goodgod…like God? (sorry, couldn’t resist).

    edit: that was pre- your edit

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    Nome

    The question was/is how do we rid our country of the PC disease.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Defining PC might be a good start, to stop people using it as an excuse to stomp on people who they claim are ‘being PC’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    of course the bible is ‘an early socialist handbook’..

    haven’t you read it..?

    are you a selective-quote to build my case kinda bible fan are you..?

    (ignore the ‘socialist’ bits..!)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “The question was/is how do we rid our country of the PC disease.”

    You need a fascist revolution based on the collapse of the economy bruv. People just aren’t goign to vote for poverty amd anti-humanism. As I’ve said, the trend has been toward an ever-more progressive society for a very long time now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. jafapete (766 comments) says:

    “We talk about people being at risk of poverty, or social exclusion: it’s as if these things – obesity, alcohol abuse, drug addiction – are purely external events like a plague or bad weather. ”

    Ah, so people choose poverty. Nothing new or noteworthy about this tired old Tory crap.

    Interestingly, it’s the point at which right-wing rhetoric, neo-liberal economics and new age beliefs intersect. My delightful but totally flaky new age aunt in the US once said to me, “But Peter, people choooose their parents… for their life experience.” She’d understand Cameron.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    Jafa

    Why is the whole concept of personal responsibility so foreign to you?, nobody forces people to become fat or to become alcoholics or druggies yet the left are more than happy to throw money at these people as if they are victims.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “While the idea of eradicating this PC madness might sound great can anybody tell me just how one would go about it?”

    You must speak out whenever you can, and never be intimidated by the left. I hear you say “Sure, that’s fine, but I’m only one”. Yes that is right, but there always has to be a start. Just speak your mind. Never kow tow to the speech and mind control strategies of the left. Always defend what is right. Sure, you are only one but if you say what you think is right and you stick to your guns, then eventually others will join you. Like ripples spreading from a stone dropped in a pond, eventually the truth will travel, and be dropped in other ponds by other people and so on and so on and that is how we will defeat the left. Through persistence and courage and never backing down or apologizing or surrendering.

    If there’s one thing that unnerves the left its the truth. They are defending a Potemkin village, a toxic and fragile house of cards insulated by the language of progressiveness and moral relativism. We are enduring in this country, an Orwellian nightmare where only certain ideas and thoughts and speech is considered acceptable. It has to change. If you earnestly believe in individual liberty and a free country, you have an obligation to confront the cultural commissioners of the left. You must stand up to the PC stormtroopers or else remain content to live in what is virtually a politically correct gulag.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. goodgod (1,363 comments) says:

    So phil, the socialists own god now do they? Hmm seems to be a teeny weeny historical contradiction in that. Wouldn’t you say? haha

    edit (for stephen):

    Jafa, people don’t choose poverty. It’s just fills the gap they made.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    I’ll be all around in the dark. I’ll be ever’-where – wherever you can look. Wherever there’s a fight so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there. Wherever there’s a cop beatin’ up a guy, I’ll be there. I’ll be in the way guys yell when they’re mad – I’ll be in the way kids laugh when they’re hungry an’ they know supper’s ready. An’ when the people are eatin’ the stuff they raise, and livin’ in the houses they build – I’ll be there, too. – the Grapes of Wrath

    Sorry, it kind of just came ot mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    philu (2155) –2 Says:
    July 9th, 2008 at 3:02 pm

    “of course the bible is ‘an early socialist handbook’..

    haven’t you read it..?

    are you a selective-quote to build my case kinda bible fan are you..?

    (ignore the ’socialist’ bits..!)”

    Like where Saint Paul says “if a man will not work, neither let him eat”, philu?…………

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Dave Mann (1,190 comments) says:

    In my view, when mainstream politicians begin to even raise these questions, as Cameron has, then we are on the right track and this indicates that a swing back to rationality is starting to happen.

    Note that david cameron’s language was very steady, measured and non-confrontational. He seems, by his tone, to be inviting discussion amongst the British electorate rather than simply shouting at them and ranting.

    Take this phrase, for example…. ““Of course, circumstances – where you are born, your neighbourhood, your school, and the choices your parents make – have a huge impact. But social problems are often the consequence of the choices that people make.” How could any rational person argue with the sense in this?

    I think this guy is onto a winner here. After all, liberalism/conservatism/right-wingism etc all share the basic premise that as individuals we are ultimately responsible for the choices we make in life – and this is diametrically opposed to the socialist/communist/tribalist mindset which takes it as given that its somebody else’s ‘responsibility’ to make sure that one is protected, looked after and ultimately told what to do and how to think.

    David Cameron is drawing a line in the sand and good on him. Oh that we had a politician with the same degree of balls here in New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    i dont really care about the edit, i was just saying so it was clear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. goodgod (1,363 comments) says:

    llew, wasn’t Tom Joad killed by a grenade? If not, like other old commies he probably ended his days in Spain fighting for the International brigades.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Oh that we had a politician with the same balls here in New Zealand.”

    Damn right, and that is why it is more necessary to confront the leftists in the National Party than it is to confront those in the Labour party. You cannot fight from a position of strength whilst you’re continually being white anted. Before the left can be really defeated, the National Party has to be purged of Labour party clones. That means most of the party who sat through the eighties and nineties, and did nothing, and surrendered like children, while the left daily attacked their moral authority, and this country slowly but surely collapsed into the leftist abyss.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    Oh, roger nome, have you still not seen the light?

    Incentives MATTER.

    Set up a society on the basis of how to share the wealth, and all you create is poverty. LOTS of poverty, the longer the time, the more the poverty.

    Set up a society on the basis of protecting people from the consequences of their own actions, and all you create is fecklessness. LOTS of fecklessness. The longer the time, the more the fecklessness.

    Set up a society on the basis of making excuses for criminals, and all you create is more criminals. LOTS of criminals. The longer the time, the more the criminals.

    Societies historically seem to veer from one pole to the other for the simple reason that the “liberal”/neo-communist society of YOUR dreams will NEVER work and governments that try to make it work end up with so many social problems that they can no longer blame the past for, that people see through them. What a pity following generations have such short memories, and conservatism is not really an organised political movement and has not worked out that if you lose journalism and teaching, the problems created by the other side will be allowed to recur much sooner. That is “conservatism’s” problem. “Socialism’s” one is what I outlined above.

    A word of wisdom from Sir Bob Jones: (In “Homo Degeneratus” on the NZCPR site – a “must-read”). I quote:

    “………I will not pull my punches. Homo degeneratus is now thriving in New Zealand; slobbering, tattooed, illiterate, pig-ignorant, prolific breeding, drug-infested, alcoholic, welfare dependent, murdering and robbing, barbaric filth and it is all traceable solely to welfare excess and the DPB in particular. I for one have had enough. Disproportionately Maori, their existence is a disgrace, not to Maoridom but to the human race.

    Pampering, soft-soaping and excusing plainly doesn’t work. As a first step we must cut off their life-line, namely the aforementioned welfare excess.

    I sense and personally feel, a widespread sense of hopelessness about the current state of affairs…………

    ………As ever, reform will likely come from a leftish administration even if it was they who led us into this mess. Clinton showed the way in America when he took a firm line with the welfare careerists, which measures have produced good results………..”

    NOTE THAT, roger nome…….reform will likely come from a leftish administration………..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. baxter (893 comments) says:

    The second part regarding choices in New Zealand fails to note that the major influences are Colonial Oppression 170 years ago and the Treaty. Parekura could explain why.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    now back to the original thread:

    DPF, “The Telegraph” is a bit weak in the way they spin the Cameron message.

    Try Melanie Phillips at “The Spectator”:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/824151/a-moral-revival.thtml

    Read Cameron’s entire speech HERE:

    http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=145626&speeches=1

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    Melanie Phillips: (This is too good not to copy and paste, everybody read this……)
    The Spectator
    Tuesday, 8th July 2008
    “David Cameron’s speech about putting morality back into British life was certainly an event. The Tories have avoided the m-word like the plague since the ‘back-to-basics’ debacle under the Major administration. This was a notable decision by Cameron to put his head into the jaws of the alligator. So far he has emerged not only unscathed but with many respectful and admiring noises in reaction.

    Why has he not fallen victim to the ‘back-to-basics’ trap? People say it’s because he has so successfully decontaminated the Tory brand. Because of his touchy-feely-greenery, the Tories can no longer credibly be painted as hatchet-faced bigots who would starve the feckless while kicking them into the gutter. Maybe so; but there are surely other explanations too.

    ‘Back-to-basics’ was a good idea hopelessly sold. Although it was originally supposed to be about education, as I recall, the Tories allowed it to be presented as ‘moralising’ about sexual behaviour. Given the serial sexual shenanigans of the then Tory administration along with its alleged animus against lone parents, the party set itself up for the media auto-da-fe which then ensued.

    Cameron’s speech steered clear of this trap by correctly setting out the broad context for concern. He didn’t just identify the social ills of

    “family breakdown, welfare dependency, debt, drugs, poverty, poor policing, inadequate housing, and failing schools”

    and commit the Tories to the progressive task of remedying them and thus improving society, as opposed to the reactionary left which cements them in place and leaves people to rot in order to control their lives. He also identified the core issue beneath all these ailments as

    “a society that is in danger of losing its sense of personal responsibility, social responsibility, common decency and, yes, even public morality.”

    And then he stepped deliberately into the morality minefield:

    “We as a society have been far too sensitive. In order to avoid injury to people’s feelings, in order to avoid appearing judgemental, we have failed to say what needs to be said. We have seen a decades-long erosion of responsibility, of social virtue, of self-discipline, respect for others, deferring gratification instead of instant gratification.

    Instead we prefer moral neutrality, a refusal to make judgments about what is good and bad behaviour, right and wrong behaviour. Bad. Good. Right. Wrong. These are words that our political system and our public sector scarcely dare use any more… Refusing to use these words — right and wrong — means a denial of personal responsibility and the concept of a moral choice…

    There is a danger of becoming quite literally a de-moralised society, where nobody will tell the truth anymore about what is good and bad, right and wrong. That is why children are growing up without boundaries, thinking they can do as they please, and why no adult will intervene to stop them – including, often, their parents. If we are going to get anywhere near solving some of these problems, that has to stop.”

    Amen to that, comrade! Why, though, this sudden and very deliberate change of approach? Two reasons. First, he is picking up on a change in the public mood – one of widespread utter dismay at the prevailing amorality and nihilism which is now promoted by the Gramscian left. A propos, an interesting article by James MacMillan in the Telegraph identifies this frustrated social conservatism on the part of Catholics in particular in the crucial by-election constituency of Glasgow East as a key factor behind the disillusionment with the Labour government:

    “Any Labour leader from now on will have to tick all the boxes of radical social experiment. The traditional family and education, sexual mores, artistic aspirations, religious belief — all must now be seen as coercive strategies of the powerful and reactionary, designed to enforce conformity and slavish obedience. This is why I lapsed from the cause.

    The recent parliamentary votes that defeated amendments to ban human-animal embryos, the creation of ‘saviour siblings’, and to reduce the abortion time limit did not go down well in places such as Glasgow East. The votes of Labour MPs reflected the party’s one-sided approach to these issues and their hostility towards many in Scotland who are concerned about the dignity of human life, at all stages.”

    Second, Cameron is aware that he needs to show he is not merely a shallow opportunist who is unavoidably benefiting from Labour’s death agony, but stands for Principles and hard-nosed Beliefs.

    As it happens, I have been banging on for the past two decades about our de-moralised society, the way morality has been turned into a dirty word through non-judgmentalism and moral relativism which have inverted right and wrong, good and bad, truth and lies, and the terrible damage to individuals and society which has resulted from the collapse of moral responsibility. The Tories seem at last to be singing my song. So I should be cheering; right?
    Well now.

    Will David Cameron now say it is morally wrong to brand as homophobic anyone who objects to the use of Britain’s public parks for gay sex, or wrong to prevent Christians from serving on adoption panels if they object to gay adoption? Will he say that it is wrong to sack someone when they are provoked into an ironic rejoinder to a racially loaded insult and falsely branded a racist as a result – as happened recently to Boris’s aide James McGrath, to which event Tory HQ is not known to have objected? Will he say that it is wrong to rig rape law and cripple economic life by falsely claiming systematic male victimisation of women?

    Is he really prepared, in other words, to face down the whole totalitarian apparatus of cultural Marxism — aka political correctness — to which he has paid such assiduous lip-service since becoming party leader in order to ‘decontaminate the brand’? Is he now prepared to acknowledge that while ‘decontaminating’ the Tory party these values have contaminated British society? Is he going to come out against what James MacMillan calls the

    “recreational individualism and lifestyle liberalism”

    which currently unites Islington and Notting Hill?

    And will he also say it is morally wrong to demonise America and Israel and to appease Iran? Will he say it is morally wrong to undermine the defence of Britain against the threat of an attack unprecedented in its scale and nature by falsely claiming that ancient British values are at risk from counter-terrorism measures? (The fact that Baroness Manningham-Buller, who so lamentably presided over the abject failure by MI5 to recognise the threat of Islamic terrorism in Britain until it was too late and by all accounts even now fails to understand the full nature of this threat, has today added her voice to the chorus against 42 days, merely confirms the point). Will he say it is morally wrong to destroy national self-government through our continued unreformed membership of an EU committed to do precisely that?

    When he does, I’ll know that we do really have here – to coin a phrase — a change we can believe in.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. radvad (704 comments) says:

    “Choices do matter, and that is why you need incentives to encourage the right choices.”

    Wrong way round DPF. Those incentives are already there, they have only been temporarily removed by Socialists who want to protect us from the consequences of our actions. The result is incentives to make wrong choices at the expense of everyone else.
    Cameron gives some hope that a revolution is on the way and the tired old wishy washy liberal ethos of freedom without responsibility is on the way out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    If not, like other old commies he probably ended his days in Spain fighting for the International brigades.

    I don’t think Steinbeck gave us his ultimate fate, but that’s as likely a scenario as any.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. jafapete (766 comments) says:

    BigBruv, “Jafa, ‘Why is the whole concept of personal responsibility so foreign to you?, nobody forces people to become fat or to become alcoholics or druggies yet the left are more than happy to throw money at these people as if they are victims.’”

    Bruv, First, I didn’t say anything about obesity, alcoholism or drug dependence on this thread. I was talking about the idea of poverty being something that people chose, which is mixed into Cameron’s comments. (Deliberately?)

    But, since you raise the point, I happen to believe in both social and personal responsibility. It’s not either/or, as so many of the kiwiblog right seem to believe. Given the comments above about one early socialist handbook, I’ll just ask, “am I my brother’s keeper?” But then, I think that it’s you who is asking the question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    Roger and other lefties the paralells between the French Revolution and NZ today and the PC nonsense is that in both cases the citizens decided enough was enough and took direct action to change their leadership and government.

    In both cases they had had a gutsful of the rulers treating them with arrogance and contempt ..Talking down to them lectuering hectoring threatening etc etc. the good citizens vented their displeasure in the French Revolution in a way that some would say is appropriate given the actions of the encumbents over the past 9 years.

    For my part I couldnt possibly comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. duncan_bayne (53 comments) says:

    Oh that we had a politician with the same balls here in New Zealand.

    You have several. How about voting for them this around?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Jafapete “am I my brothers keeper?”, this should be a personal choice and not a choice dictated government, this is no choice. We are not our brothers keeper, we have become our brothers servant but of course it’s not PC to point this out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Someone should have told Horomia the truck blockade was last week

    http://stuff.co.nz/4612105a11.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. dave strings (608 comments) says:

    Just so everyone knows,
    I wear glasses, without them I’m blind, not visually challenged
    I also wear hearing aids for deafness – nor for impared hearing
    I carry a few extra pound of FAT, having been horribly thin in my youth
    I looked after a scout group for crippled children for a couple of years
    My son fathered a bastard

    that’s all true, and non of it is PC.
    USing the word that, decades if not centuries ago, was coined to express a particular state is not difficult. Nor is it insulting. WHen you use a spade say you use a spade. When a child refuses to do something say they are disobedient, not challenging authority. When a criminal is caught punish them. These are all easy things to say.

    IF you want to help change the world of ‘neutrality’ then do so with your mouth, use appropriate words, and don’t wait for political ‘permission’, Just Do It.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    PhilBest – and there is my problem. Cameron deliberately stayed high level and vague, and I can agree with his high words. But if his detail looks anything like your friend Melanie’s, then I think he is in trouble. In the litany of things that Melanie finds immoral, bad or wrong, are some things that I think are OK. And as long as there are one or two of them, I wouldn’t vote for that. Her shopping list is so long that I suspect almost everyone would find one or two they disagree with.

    For me, the three I disagree with are:
    – saviour siblings. If I’m going to have a baby anyway, why shouldn’t I be allowed to have one that will also save the life of my other existing child. How is this wrong?
    – the 42 day detention limit. This was bad law, and was rightly defeated. There were other ways to achieve the desire without allowing someone to be locked up for 42 days without being charged (aka without reason)
    – allowing people to serve on adoption panels when they disagree with something that is entirely legal. To my mind, you can serve, but only if you accept the law. If you are going to refuse to select as adoptive parents someone who is gay, then no, you cannot serve on an adoption panel

    There are bits I agree with, but if you create a shopping list like this you will offend more people than agree with you. That is the nature of politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. stayathomemum (140 comments) says:

    This is from assignment guidelines at UNITEC:

    “The use of sexist language is not acceptable. Language transmits values and behavour both implicitly and explicitly. It reflects and reinforces the cultural values of those who use it and it is also the expression of shared assumptions. Therefore, any language which treats either gender as secondary or ignores their presence or contribution is unacceptable in oral or written communication. Suggestions as to how to change language without becoming boring or repetitive are:
    Since English has no singular pronoun to cover both genders, but does have a plural one, use ‘they’ instead of he or she and change the sentence structure to incorporate this.
    Avoid using words or phrases which indicate gender when gender is irrelevant.
    Be cautious about using words or phrases compounded with ‘man’, where it indicates a masculine sense of the word. Usually an alternative word can be found, e.g. ‘manmade’ – artificial, ‘salesman’ – seller, representative.
    Avoid using words which use a diminutive to imply either male or female, e.g. usher – usherette – that is, usher doesn’t imply either gender and is not diminutive.
    Do not treat either gender as invisible. For example, if a statement says ‘every student should attend his lectures’, the writer is assuming that none of the students are women.”

    If the words are part of the English language – why can they not be used! Language changes naturally with time, it does not need to be forcibly changed to suit certain people’s social agenda. Effectively our educational institutions are enforcing language change via threats of course failure.
    Why are such efforts made to preserve the Maori language, yet such efforts made to change the English language?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Shows what UNITEC really is- just an agent for indoctrination. Education comes second. These things are at the root of our declining social structures.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    George Orwell, eat your heart out !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    Well said, Dave Strings at 8.52 AM.

    Another good example of Orwellian “Newspeak” in our day is the fact that there are no “bums” or “tramps” any more, they are all “homeless persons”, just like people who have lost their homes in a natural disaster who once had sole claim to this term….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Philbest, so they *aren’t* homeless persons? It’s wrong NOT to use that term? YOU are doing exactly what dave strings was talking about!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    gd, get a grip, perhaps try reading about the French Revolution?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.