I have blogged, quite often of late, on the bullying abuse of the right wing blogosphere.
Now it’s public. Guido Fawkes — a man who has made more than the odd pop at me in his time — has sought to ‘out’ William Hague.
Now don’t get me wrong — I’ve no reason to support Hague (although I suspect he would be an amusing dinner party guest) but this treatment of him by those who are supposedly among his more natural supporters is telling.
First I suspect it is profoundly homophobic. I despise that.
Second it is straightforwardly nasty. Suppose such an affair had occurred? So what is the question? Would he be the first or last minister to lack such judgment? Of course not.
Third — yes — without doubt there is good question about whether Hague needed a third, inexperienced special adviser — but did the question need to be asked with innuendo attached? No, of course not.
So I don’t dispute questioning on the political issue. But as ever the right wing have gone way beyond that. They are playing the man in quite unseemly fashion.
Don’t tell me this isn’t old fashioned bullying of the lowest order — because that is exactly what it is.
And don’t tell me it isn’t aimed at the whole instrument of government which they so despise — because it is.
The sooner the press appreciate the corrosive impact of these people the better, because they seek to udnermine democracy itself.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Richard, I couldn’t agree more with your comments.
Homophopbic? What a tiny world you must live in. Get a life; and as for seeking to undermine democracy, what democracy? To get any changes in law requires all sorts of lobbyists that the common man will never be able to have a dialogue with as there are no easy routes for access, which is what really allows democracy to be trampled down; the reason you don’t like Guildo is because he has a forum to write his opinions, which under the treaty of Lisbon signed into law by Gordon Brown on the 9th december 2009 gives every person under the umbrella of that act the right to free speech, even if some find that opinion offensive, and being offended is not a right, it is the result of not respecting another point of view.
What’s the difference between this, and you recently calling me ‘autistic’ a couple of weeks ago?
Hague is actually a pretty boring dinner party guest. At the one I attended he was only interested in signing copies of his book on Pitt the Younger, which I confess was well written.
Fawkes’ criticism is not particularly homophobic, but he rightly questions why/how a 25 year old who worked on Hague’s campaign became a tax payer financed SPAd, and whether a certain amount of unwarranted favouritism. [The sexual innuendo in the story first appeared in the Guardian].
There is a hierarchy in all parties with MP’s assistants/researchers at the bottom, party headquarters workers a rung or two higher, and the SPAd’s being comparatively experienced memebers of the fraternity. For a 25 year old without any experience of foreign affairs and a passing acquaintance with the law froma one year law course and no professional experience to be appointed as a third adviser to the Foreign Secretary is unprecedented (his predecessor only had two advisers).
Nice blanket statement there Richard.
Guido doesn’t speak for everyone in the ‘right-wing blogosphere’ and not everyone in the ‘right-wing blogosphere’ agrees with Guido all the time.
http://bloodycontrarian.blogspot.com/2010/09/unbunch-your-knickers-iain.html
Do you see any issue of homophobia in my response to the story? Do you see any criticism of politicians having private lives? All I care about is the same thing you do – can Hague justify having a novice SpAd when there were better candidates?
That so much spite and venom can be exhausted on one decent man is quite nauseating. Instead of wasting their lives these hypocrites should do something positive by channelling their activities towards helping really vulnerable people such as the young and the elderly.
By all means snarl, but snarl at the real iniquities in life which allow vulnerable people to be abused by influential criminals.
Insult the charlatans, swindlers and con artists.
Leave Haig alone.
Oops! Sorry William!
In the indignant haste to post comment the mistake of spelling your name incorrectly was made unintentionally.
Apologies Mr. Hague
Richard, the issue about homosexuality is a complete red herring.
The real question was about whether William Hague was appointing the man to the job NOT based upon his abilities and experience, but based upon their personal (sexual) relationship.
The circumstances seem odd. As Iain Martin of the Wall Street Journal points our: wealthy, hotel rooms are not in short supply and he should have been aware of the potential for misunderstanding.”
Hague has issued a long and detailed statement. In my view that will close the story down — unless further facts emerge to call his statement into question.
Staines was quite right to write about the issue. He has attacked both left and right when there has been a whiff of impropriety.
You seem to delight in pushing for more taxation and government spending. It would be nice if the money were well spent. I, for one, do not want the public payroll to be used as a cash cow to enrich politicians lovers — gay or straight.
Guido Fawkes isn’t homophobic AFAIK but many of the people who leave comments on his blog certainly are. He claims not to censor any comments – I might test that out at some point by posting (say) Trotskyist propaganda and see how much actually makes it onto the site, but if it really is uncensored, fair enough – it’s his blog and he calls the shots.
But why anyone would want to read such homophobic rubbish is beyond me. I certainly don’t – and so I very rarely read the Fawkes blog. And maybe that’s the idea – scare off the left by offending them.
I think sometimes a bit of judicious censorship by a blogmaster works wonders. For example, this blog is a much more enjoyable read – and more popular too – since Richard started pressing delete on the right wing crazies.
Also – on the Spad thing, I used to work at a think-tank with good connections to New Labour and there was a constant stream of people leaving to become special advisers to ministers (and sometimes coming back again if their minister got sacked). Many of them were in their mid-to-late 20s and there seemed to be constant rule-bending to get additional advisers into departments (above the limit of 2 per minister). So the appointment of a third Spad for Hague is nothing unusual whatsoever.
@Howard
My experience of Spads too
And I’ve met a few
We also have a 25 year old MP now and a 26 year old – I’ve met both of them too
Sure they seem very young – but heck, I was once too
And was running companies by the time I was 27
Yes there’s an issue on judgement on sharing a room – no doubt – but I always recall the tales of a friend of mine now aged 93 who was a commercial traveller after the war. As he told me c=such guys shared not just rooms but beds in those days to save costs
I have not a shadow of a doubt he was not gay
Is Hague? I don’t care, candidly
But I do think some people need to do two things:
a) get a life
b) learn empathy
Yes – I have suggested some on the far right are on the autistic spectrum. I did so carefully and thoughtfully. Treating people as objects, showing no sign of empathy, being unable to put themselves in the other person’s shoes, acting without any sign of the impact their actions might have – yes, that appears to me to be on that spectrum
That condition is a difficult burden to carry – again, I know people who have it – but having insight into having it ameliorates it, and that is possible
I see no sign of that on the far right – and the result is corrosive
That corrosion is dangerous
I maintain it is right to say so
Society fundamentally depends on acceptance that we treat each other the way we wish to be treated
The right does not do that (and the far left did not either – and I’d be as critical except they appear to be almost absent these days, thankfully) and that’s the core of my concern
Is it too much to accept that people can act decently, honestly, openly, fairly, and respectfully? Even though none of those virtues have any value attached to them by neoliberal economics – which may be no coincidence?
Richard, that you’re utterly clueless is shown by your complete lack of understanding of “neoliberal” economics. That particular school actually assumes that most people act decently, honestly, openly, and fairly, most of the time. It is statists like yourself who in fact assume the opposite, because that assumption then justifies your desires to remove from them the ability to make individual decisions on matters that are of concern to them.
As for thoughtfully calling people autistic, I think we should just leave that as a wonderful statement that so clearly represents the contempt with which we should regard you.
David Cameron was a special adviser to Norman Lamont at a young age, and had very little real experience. He also (according to certain newspaper articles) spent most of the 1992 election campaign staying at Alan Duncan’s house whilst working long hours. Is there anything to read into this? No. Does it matter? No.
I don’t agree with Hague but I wish him well – Guido Fawkes does nothing but spout vile nonsense of no value and should be ignored.
Hague is a high ranking politician, and seems to be the target of the press in general. Whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant; it goes with the territory. Have to say, Guido is doing no more than he always does – reporting on things political in his own style. I find it hard to believe that you don’t see that trying to supress this kind of stuff would be the more damaging road to take.
@alastair
I’m not seeking to suppress anything bar playing the man, not the issue
And that seems fair to me
I have a strong suspicion in this case that boundary was crossed for unacceptable reasons
@Ed Snack
Quoting Worstall, eh?
It’s a misguided ploy
The reality is that for precisely the reasons I outline there is a whole body of thought called Post Autistic Economics
See http://www.paecon.net/HistoryPAE.htm
And as it shows – the implausible claim Worstall makes and which you quote is more than that – it’s just wrong
PAE shows just exactly why the neoclassical / neoliberal thinking you espouse is just as I describe it i.e autistic
And unsurprisingly some rather significant names buy the idea
So it’s neither absurd to think this – and faintly flattering but just wrong to think I might be alone in doing so
I’ve spent most of my life calling these numbskulls ‘sociopathic’, meaning that they share a mental disorder that precludes them from interacting with society at large. I think it fairer to call the nonsense they spout as belonging within the autistic spectrum.
The fact they don’t know what it is they’re being accused of says it all.
“Yes – I have suggested some on the far right are on the autistic spectrum”.
Who are ‘some’? Anyone other than me, someone you have never met, let alone know whether I am far right or not? I don’t particularly identify as far right.
“I did so carefully and thoughtfully”
Your reference to me as autistic came in an earlier post about getting rich people to pay a wealth tax, in which I suggested the idea of letting the rich pay a large lump sum to meet their lifetime tax obligations. It was just an idea floated for discussion, done so with utmost politeness. Based on that alone (and no other information at your disposal), you apparently felt able to diagnose (quite incorrectly) that I was somehow suffering from a complex and tragic medical condition: autism. Strangely you maintain your diagnosis was carried out ‘carefully and thoughtfully’. If this constitutes ‘careful and thoughtful’ consideration (rather than the first thing that entered your head), I shudder to think how carefully you reach your other conclusions and conduct your work generally. Does your GP wife diagnose autism in patients she has never met?
If anything, it was no more than a slur.
OK, I can live with the insult, I have had worse. But to call a stranger ‘autistic’ does suggest a level of respect you have for real autism sufferers and their carers.
If you want to get into this level of debate, fine, that’s up to you. But I am not sure you have the moral high ground to point fingers at others for bullying.
@ Adrian.
You’re doing it again.
It’s candy from a baby.
You proposed an idea that enables the rich, and therefore privileged, to be able to be treated differently within a tax regime. One that ultimately would favour them. You tossed it out there, and it was rightly rubbished. Yet YOU CANNOT SEE WHY.
Do you understand the umbrella of autistic syndrome?
It doesn’t sound nice, but it is a tool that (maybe heavy-handedly in this case) describes symptomatic lack of empathy.
People with undeserved wealth, or wealth derived from exploitation, should not be given ‘special circumstances’.
That is what happens now.
Arnald
The tax system has lots of exemptions. I am not a tax expert in the UK but did study it in my home country (Australia).
In Oz, there were (still are?) tax exemptions for all kinds of groups. Some of these were advocated by the left of politics (film making and authors come to mind), others from those on the right of politics (gold miners, farmers) whilst some had broad support across both sides (R&D breaks). Nobody was ever accused of ‘lack of empathy’ or ‘autism’. Indeed, both left and right would be guilty of it, if it were indeed a valid accusation. It was no more relevant than accusing them of having a sore thumb!
If I don’t get ‘it’, then neither did 20 million of my compatriots! Maybe all 20 million of us are thick.
In the earlier post we were discussing how to encourage large lump sum payments of tax from wealthy people. I suggested offering an incentive. Maybe it is a silly idea, but the current idea from the left (i.e. a wealth tax without offering incentives) doesn’t seem to be happening any time soon, does it? Hell and ice skating come to mind.
Why not consider some new ideas, which might involve well-placed
incentives? But do it without silly slurs.
@Adrian
and Arnald
It’s curious you should say that.
I discussed this language with someone whose opinion really matters to me last evening — my wife. I explained I used the term ‘autistic’ in the context of the long standing discussion of post autistic economics — which has made me familiar with its use in such debate — but she objected to it.
We beat around the issues. We looked at the economics — neoclassical economics — as separate from the political application of that economics in the form of neoliberalism (yes, sweeping generalisations I know — but broad enough for use in this context http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism ). That helped her, greatly. It let her describe the economics as ‘incompetent’, ‘simply wrong’, false’ and ‘clearly unhelpful’ — all because the assumptions on which it is based are so far removed from the reality that faces humans in the course of their lives. And yes, in the context of that economics she could understand the use of the term autistic — but still took objection to it.
The reason was the inevitable confusion that would arise with neo-liberalism. This she saw as the behavioural consequence of bad theory — and not as theory itself. The risk, she felt, was that the term autistic could be applied to his behaviour. But that would be wrong. Autism is not a choice of course, but neoliberal behaviour is a choice. To use the term in this context would therefore be wrong, was her argument. The behaviour chosen by neo-liberalism is not unfortunate, it is not even regrettably wrong — it is chosen because it is wrong. It is not an amoral choice — although the behaviour it promotes is amoral. It is a bad choice, where bad is deliberately chosen to describe a moral wrong.
This, she argued, gave rise to now appropriate medical analogy. The people making this choice are responsible for it. They are competent moral agents. The choices they make cannot be excused on the basis of a condition from which they suffer. They have to be condemned ethically.
It’s a good argument.
I agree.
I accept to use the term autistic — one I have got used to in an economic context — is wrong when used in that way as it shows insufficient respect. So I withdraw it.
I’ll just condemn the moral wrong instead.
@Arnald