tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post1138959757092696071..comments2024-03-28T08:30:20.260+01:00Comments on The Ugley Vicar: Labour's ironic worship of MammonAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-36528766005442094722010-02-03T19:13:26.945+01:002010-02-03T19:13:26.945+01:00just thought you should check out the
site...livin...just thought you should check out the<br />site...living without money by daniel suelo..he<br />mentions mammmon in his site..its a really good<br />read..jimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-9273751230545749672010-01-24T12:33:28.534+01:002010-01-24T12:33:28.534+01:00Philip, I came here to say what you have just said...Philip, I came here to say what you have just said, and I find you have beaten me to it. Thank you. The quote nowhere says that economic growth is the point of working for equality. Poor, poor reasoning from someone who prides himself on his analytical technique.<br /><br />Frank, Merseyside.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-38466604413707324672010-01-22T17:07:15.929+01:002010-01-22T17:07:15.929+01:00Actually, I seem to remember it was during "T...Actually, I seem to remember it was during "Thatcherism", or at least the 1980s ethos, when education came to be valued purely for the career advantages it might give, and higher education became grant-free. Students were encouraged to "invest" in their future (ie. they were understood to be pursuing a course which would inevitably lead to a high-earning career, like the law, which would give them a return on their investment, and not one like Greek literature studies, which would lead only to the dole queue. Education as a good thing in itself died at that time, and has never recovered (I'm not particularly anti-Thatcher, or a Lefty, I must point out; the 1980s philistinism has been a feature of all governments since, including Nu Lab).John Thomashttp://www.affirmingthefaith.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-33381409330026832472010-01-22T15:03:09.878+01:002010-01-22T15:03:09.878+01:00John, a few days ago you posted a very apposite bl...John, a few days ago you posted a very apposite blog, On the problem of opinions, in which you argued that people comment without reading what has been written and without comprehending the argument. Yet, today you post an item on Harriet Harman which is guilty of exactly the same thing. Harman did not say that the only reason for seeking equality is to serve the economy; she uses the economic argument as part of her wider concern for equality. Read what she says: ‘Equality is important NOT JUST FOR THE INDIVIDUAL but also it’s an economic argument’ in other words not only does equality benefit the individual but it also makes economic sense. This is a necessary argument given the number of people who argue that moves to address inequality, for example the minimum wage, damage the economy. Any sensible advocate of a case marshals all the arguments to support that case and that is what Harman does. <br /><br />Here’s another quote from Harman’s speech to the Labour conference in September ‘09 which shows that her argument on equality is much wider: ‘For us, for Labour, equality is not just a slogan – it’s what we are about. It’s a way of life. It’s about our values and how we do our politics. Equality matters to us because its about people’s lives. Its about the right of a disabled person to work on equal terms. Its about the right of a woman who works part-time not to be excluded from the pension scheme. Its about the right not being written off as too old. Equality matters to us. Because it’s a fundamental human right to be treated fairly. And equality matters to us because it’s the only way you can have a united and peaceful society in which everyone feels included.’ <br /><br />There are three problems with your argument:<br />1. You haven’t accurately read what was said in the quote. This is a selective quote from a substantial speech which you have taken from a paper not known to be sympathetic to Ms Harman.<br />2. You haven’t considered the wider arguments that Harman has consistently put forward on the subject of equality, including in this speech.<br />3. On the back of your interpretation of Harman’s statement you then launch an argument against New Labour. I am not suggesting there aren’t criticisms that can be made regarding New Labour, you could argue that the evidence suggests that they have failed to implement their equality agenda, but trying to extrapolate your argument from Harman’s partial quote just doesn’t stand up.<br /><br />As I commented at the beginning, I thought your previous post was a timely reminder about taking care over commenting, however, this post seems to be a good example of what you were criticising.Philip Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05912352719196616923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-77121758583378506022010-01-22T14:16:08.864+01:002010-01-22T14:16:08.864+01:00Absolutely - the Epsilon Minus reference is partic...Absolutely - the Epsilon Minus reference is particularly pertinent, and to my mind an inherent consequence of the 'meritocracy' that Harman seems to understand as a Utopian ideal. <br /><br />As for the worship of Mammon, I think this is interwoven with the contemporary left's embrace of 'the market' as a means of delivering their social agenda - and this embrace requires a consistent flow of fodder in order to keep it going (and thus uphold the stranglehold of the state). I'm sorry to link, but if you'd be at all interested I've blogged a little on this here - http://wp.me/pJiP0-14Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com