The Problem With Being A Democrat...

is that the need to be tolerant facilitates the dissemination of ever more wildly intolerant views.

Thus, when that hard faced old pike Francis Maude states that the new bosses are even more radical than Thatcher, our conditioned response is to say 'Really, Francis, is that so?', rather than adopting what I believe is actually the more appropriate and democratic posture of elevating our middle digits to Francis Maude, and to all his works, and to all his historic directorships, while at the same time eructating in his direction and also blowing him the kind of Bronx cheer that would grace an Alpine yodelling contest. This kind of behaviour might possibly annoy him, to which one can only say 'Good. To be challenged is good for the soul'.

Thus it is that when John Swinney seeks a fig leaf for slashing the provision of public services, the conditioned response is to say ''Really, John, is that so?' - or given the soi-disant, ersatz 'Scottish Government's appalling self importance, they would probably prefer 'Really, Finance Secretary, is that so?' For what my opinion's worth, the correct response would be to point out to him my opinion that he is a nonentity with no significant record and a very limited political future, of whom the scholars of the future will write 'John who? Was he the bald one who worked for the fat one?'

I sometimes get confused by the difference between what is civil and what is civic. British Radicals of all hues depend on our civility to be able to get what they want, and those of the right are the most radical of all - they know that if an uncivic and intemperate policy is expressed in a temperate and reasonable manner, it must then be discussed temperately and reasonably. To my mind this utter contempt for the people is just rank bad manners.