Comments on: A British ‘Tea Party’ Movement Is The Last Thing British Politics Needs

By: David Skelton (@DJSkelton) (@DJSkelton)

David Skelton (@DJSkelton) (@DJSkelton) — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:40:11 +0000

@ThinkStrat @NikDarlington @PlatformTen Nice piece. I also wrote something abt a ‘British tea party’ last year, here : http://t.co/93MPBVg

By: john mc

john mc — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:18:12 +0000

Michael, what fancy rhetoric are you referring to? Surely you see the benefit of Cameron trying to explain how individual policy ideas fit within a wider theoretical framework? Or do you prefer to stick with simple slogans?

I tend to disagree with your analysis of Cameron’s economic position and likely actions on public finance but I think your question is a very valid one. How he manages to answer it will clearly play an important role in the Conservative’s election chances.

By: Michael McGowan

Michael McGowan — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:33:30 +0000

So John mc, once we have cut through all the fancy rhetoric, how is Cameron going to sort out the UK’s public finances? Short answer: he hasn’t got a clue, although if he gets the chance, I am sure he will attempt to plunder pension funds again. He certainly won’t cut spending because he is as committed as Brown to squeezing the private sector.

By: BS61

BS61 — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 02:09:21 +0000

Jonathon Kay is a fellow at the foundation for the Defense of Democracy and he writes for liberal newspapers, so really not an unbiased report by him. The tea party that was televised with Palin, was not the tea party movement most normal folks are associated with, and I definitely do not support her. The New York times is also left wing reporting! We’ve had protests here in America outside of the news media telling them to tell the truth.

My guess is both reporters have never attended a local tea party where I’m at and see that it’s normal people with jobs who quite frankly have never protested before. It’s the main stream media and the current administrations tactics to demonize us in order to shut us up. Not gonna happen as we don’t want the country to go socialist, and we don’t want the future generations paying for all of this debt.

By: john mc

john mc — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 22:54:29 +0000

I have developed a healthy distrust of people who employ Latin phrases in an argument. It is normally a good predictor that I am engaging with someone trying to hide a lack of knowledge, insight or understanding behind a veneer of intellectualism. The author of the comment above is a great example of this. Their critique of this article and subsequent attack on Cameron is hopelessly flawed.

Let’s start with Skelton’s attacks on the tea party movement. He outlines 3 key objections. Firstly, it may act as a distraction from the upcoming election campaign (it may). Secondly, it does not provide any coherent vision of government and represents a simplistic view of politics (correct). Finally, he suggests the agenda of the movement, which is best characterised by the ramblings of people like Sean Hannity, is also unpleasant since it serves as a rallying point for delusional ideas represented by the likes of birther movement. Skelton’s argument may be one you don’t agree with, but it most certainly does not qualify as an ‘Argumentum ad hominem’. Unless you don’t understand what ‘ad hominem’ actually means…

Interestingly, the poster then misrepresents a Keynes quote to ‘prove’ that Cameron’s pragmatism is not a basis for a coherent ideology. I actually find the idea of a Conservative Party based on the principles of empirical skepticism (Cameron’s pragmatism) a sounder basis for a broad conservative movement than a simplistic anti-government philosophy and much more in line with conservative tradition. As a Conservative, how can you not?

By: Think This

Think This — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:19:11 +0000

Most of your piece focused on what is know as the ‘ad hominem’ fallacy, in which you attack the people behind the movement rather than what the movement argues for itself.

If the Conservative party was more sceptical of the state, was pushing for lower taxes and was more anti-government it would be a more coherent ideology than the sort of mushy middle ground the party currently occupies. Cameron’s Conservatives have no ideology, and so claim to be pragmatists. Pragmatists, as Keynes said are just slaves to the ideas of long forgotten philosophers and economists.

I welcome any coalition which argues for a reduction in government power, economic control and spending. As a Conservative shouldn’t you do the same?