The neoliberal con-trick’s been rumbled (at last) by Peter Hitchens | Tax Research UK
Anyone who has seen Peter Hitchens’ recent BBC Question Time appearances may have wondered whether he was questioning his own right-wing beliefs. Now we appear to have an answer.
I am not sure how to react to this:
“I am so sorry now that I fell for the great Thatcher-Reagan promise. I can’t deny that I did. I believed all that stuff about privatisation and free trade and the unrestrained market. I think I may even have been taken in by the prophecies of a great share-owning democracy.”
It comes from arch right-wing Daily Mail columnist (and one time Trotskyist) Peter Hitchens.
” I never thought I’d yearn for the National Coal Board or British Steel or, good heavens, British Leyland. But I do begin to feel I was fooled into thinking that what was coming next would be any better. At this rate it may soon be much, much worse.”
It’s taken Hitchens a long time to smell the coffee on the economic con trick played on the people of this country at cost to almost all of us. But it looks like he now has, at long last.
Now let’s see the Mail as a whole follow suit, shall we? Many of their readers may well have lost as much as anyone.
Source: Tax Research UK » The neoliberal con-trick’s been rumbled (at last) by Peter Hitchens
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
He’s only 38 years too late.
Jerry, ole Boy, time to have another good Idea moment
“The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of shoes–and ships–and sealing-wax–
Of cabbages–and kings–
And why the sea is boiling hot–
And whether pigs have wings.”
So:
Why is Labour supporting the Fascist EU?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/02/nigel-lawson-on-brexit-i-love-europe-but-eu-has-no-purpose
“To suggest that the European Union is an economic success – well, it clearly isn’t. Look at unemployment rates around the EU, particularly very high youth unemployment rates. So the idea that somehow it’s an economic asset to us to be in the EU is, I think, bizarre.
The EU has never made economic sense”
Nigel Lawson
Deport Refugees to Turkey, a novel EU Death sentence:
And, now you splay Tory Hitchens in my face its all far too much for a recumbent Labour lout:
“con trick played on the people of this country”
Its a two way Street, Blair & Brown were/are Total Conmen and, nobody would deny consider that the majority of Labour MPs in Parliament are mainly more Reich Wing than the average Tory.
So, whom exactly is laughing on which side of their ugly Faces?:
Why do you say the EU is fascist?
And why are you using Nigel Lawson, a dud ex-Chancellor, to suggest that it is bad?
When you say “nobody would deny… that the majority of Labour MPs in Parliament are mainly more Reich Wing than the average Tory”, do you mean YOU wouldn’t deny it?
As for who’s laughing on the side of their face – ugly or not – from the above comment This Writer thinks it’s you.
The First rules of Labour is to Feed,Shelter, Nurture and Educate the people, we are still waiting;
Would it be rude to suggest that the EU has systemic problems that lead it to inevitable conflict with market economics:
The great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises emphasised that, in a market economy, it is the consumer who is sovereign.
But the president of the EU Commission recently pointed out that “there can be no democratic choice against the EU treaties” – in the EU it is not the consumer but the EU treaties that are sovereign.
You may have noticed that the EU is obsessed with appearing to abolish risk – the very commodity from which the City earns its living – and that the euro has managed to survive longer than many expected. The two thoughts are not unconnected because the continuation of the euro requires misallocation of risk, and with it the misallocation of capital.
In this way, membership of the EU systemically undermines the foundations of the City’s ability to facilitate the allocation of risk to those willing to shoulder it.
Do you have another definition for Fascist?
Why should the EU not conflict with market economics that are based on unfair advantage and protectionism, rather than being genuinely free? Your own Mises quote exposes the lie because we all know the consumer is not sovereign in the current system.
Please provide a source link for your quote by the EU Commission president. It is very easy to cherry-pick comments and publish them out of context, to create a false impression, and I want readers of This Blog to be sure of the information they receive. In any case, we already know that the consumer isn’t sovereign and nor is any EU treaty. Multinational business is sovereign at the moment and EU law is more likely to be an attempt to mitigate that power than anything else.
Your comments about risk are subjective, although they show that you seem to support a large amount of instability in any business model. Are we to take it that you look forward to the next big crash, along the same lines as that of 2007-9? Are you looking forward to the final wipeout of your bank account that this would entail?
As for another definition of “fascist”… what’s yours?
It’s such a shame the editor lacked the courage to open the comments under it. I NEVER thought I would ever agree with anything Hitchens had to say.
Hats off to Peter Hitchens, at least he admits that the scales have fallen from his eyes. Better late than never. Many are still clinging on to their deluded belief in Thatcher’s policies, even though the proof of how disastrous they have been, is glaringly obvious.
Hitchens has vindicated virtually everything I have written about this greedy, corrupt and self interested MPs who form this government. the recent reports which include Cameron losing his ” rag” with the media and the panama papers validate Hitchen’s sceptism about the tory party and their intentions.
Quite! absolutely agree. TU.
The Daily Mail will soon be looking for a new columnist. Step forward Tony Blair?
John Gaines’ comments are some of the silliest and most ill-informed commends I’ve ever read. Is he serious? Interesting he should use a pre-surrealist bit of Lewis Carroll as his intro. Carroll makes more sense than Gaines, though.
I have always liked Peter Hitchens; Even while disagreeing with his some of his ideology: Particularly upon the question of “legalising” cannabis. I find Mr Hitchens to be a very honourable Journalist, hence his honesty here in admitting his error.
As for New Labour, well, hopefully it will flush its Blairites down history’ drainpipe and become a true peoples party. But! that said, the (in my view), failed two party system has had its day, and we should retrurn to constituency politics with full recall of political operatives that fail to Re-Present the wishes of those that pay his/her wages and grant mandate.
The EU. if researched looks to be an American intelligence operation (following Paperclip), to facilite the UN’s A21/30. This managed through occupation of Germany (ongoing) legitimised by not ending WW2 (FACT). The UN agenda requires harmonisation of its “Sustainability” agenda, which would require a global oversight bureaucracy, forming of course a defacto world government, with the US TTP/TTIP enforcing a parallell corporate structure to take over from national governments, and to replace the now collapsing PetroDollar. This much seems obvious. The EU was never put in place for economic reasons in the first place. As Cecilia Malmsatrom let slip to the Independent reporter [Quote} “I do not get my mandate from the EU populace”. She never told where she actually does get her mandate, but given Dr Kissingers influence in instating Herman Rumpouy(probably spelled wrong) I would say through the US Dept of State via the CIA. This isn’t bias, but the way things look and the way the USA operates. But? Who does Frau Merkel work for? researching her background through the late Chris Story scribblings is very informative, and shows that these fellows can put in power whomsoever they please. But yes I want to leave the EU, and then take back into public control everything our shady government has sold off on the cheap to its corporate masters.
About halfway through your virtually-impenetrable third paragraph, you write, “This much seems obvious.”
NO IT IS NOT.
It seems like a load of deliberately-obfuscated babble intended to mesmerise the gullible rather than provide any genuine information.
We can see you want to leave the European Union. How about providing a genuine, supportable argument rather than this gibberish?
Call me a cynic but I can’t believe that Hitchens has suddenly seen the light any more than I believe IDS resigned for ethical reasons. They are seeing the Tory party crumbling and getting off the sinking ship.
I don’t buy it, he’s repenting is he, falling for Thatcher’s BS and the old tory three card trick, I doubt it, a leopard, especially a tory leopard doesn’t change its spots!
Perhaps, just perhaps, and call me cynical, but as the tide turns, you would be a fool to make a puzzling ‘U’ turn and alienate readers you once convinced the King was wearing clothes.
Hitchens is a twerp who makes his living as a crossed-dressed Katie Hopkins. He changes his opinion as frequently as he changes his underpants. A person hardly worth listening to. Personally I can do without the approval or support from people like him.
Is Peter Hitchens change of mind due to the weight of public Opinion going against the right wing hate mongering? Or has his soul returned
There’s gonna be a revolution….said the song. Hurry up !