I was amused to note, in the context of many of the comments I've received on this blog and on twitter in the last twenty four hours, this quote that I came across by chance on the web:
You know, if you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything, wouldn't you, at any time? And you would achieve nothing!
I have quite a lot of sympathy with that, even if not much with the person who said it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
You could also have quoted your old mate Jolyon Maugham who tweeted this today, no doubt in reference to you:
“That you can’t change the world without pissing people off doesn’t mean that if you are pissing people off you are changing the world.”
Your problem is, Richard, that you are very good at preaching to the converted and those who want to hear that kind of stuff. In fact in that regard you have no peer.
What you are less good at is persuading those who disagree with you. I cannot believe how any unbiased commentator (and by that I exclude the toadies like Howard Reed, who will always agree with every word you say, and the critics like Worstall, who wll always disagree with every word you say) can come on here and conclude that your debating and engagement style is anything less than appalling.
You even manage to rub people who are inclined to agree with you up the wrong way. The fact that you have already managed to have a blazing Twitter row as personal and unseemly as you have with your opponents on here with Maugham, less than two weeks from praising him as your new tax-crusading QC friend, is proof of that.
I don’t expect you to change your approach in response to this comment. But expect your ability to change other peoples’ to be extremely limited if you don’t.
I pissed Jolyon off, yes. We fundamentally disagree on tax havens
But let’s also be clear, Jolyon added that the reason why I succeed is that my approach is wholly positive – I offer solutions
He also pointed out your problem in challenging me is you don’t do that and have no idea how to tackle the issues I raise so you make me the issue instead because you have nothing else to argue on with me
For a man pissed off with me that was a pretty positive comment
“Toadies like Howard Reed” – LMFAO! Absolutely rolling about on the floor here. 🙂
It is not about being liked………it is about your shocking super sized amount of self belief combined with a total inability to ever admit your are wrong!
You fight to score points…….not convince people of your view as you despise those who disagree with you……they are unworthy because apparently all “decent” people should agree with you from the moment they hear your voice…..
You’d like me to believe don’t like the sort of assurance necessary to create change
Actually you do not like the change I want
And because you actually can’t constructively suggest why you’re resorting to personal abuse
Thankfully I was born with very thick skin
The tone, and the odd grammar, would make a perfect inscription for Anthony Charles Lynton Blair’s headstone.
Although of course, she was certainly liked by many. That can’t be denied.
I saw an appalling, toadying BBC anodyne interview with Osborne some time ago where he disingenuously used these words in relation to himself without crediting them. It came across as ineffectual and insincere. He tried to create an aura of heroic principled political commitment -it was an utterly false and impoverished simulacrum.
Simon, Iain Duncan Smith is even worse in my view.
I do tend to agree with the above comments.
I don’t post very often and, when I do, it is generally because I don’t agree with something you have said. This is driven by a) our differing political views but primarily b) where I do not agree with a technical point which you have made.
I accept that you receive many comments and so entering debate with everyone isn’t possible. Furthermore, some comments are obviously trying to wind you up or just in disagreement with anything you say. However, it would be nice to have a little debate from time to time, rather than your typical response which tends to be inappropriately aggressive and ignores the technical points in question.
I believe that, only by doing the above, will you manage to bring people on your side who may otherwise be sitting on the fence.
Please disagree as often as you like!
I appreciate that and respond readily
Trolling is something very different
you’ve seen the number of trolls this man has to deal with so i’m sure we can forgive him the odd abrupt comment!
I’ve said previously that I wish Richard would reply less frequently. Many of the more silly comments could be quite adequately dealt with without his becoming involved.
Personally, I don’t post on here very often as I have a “real life” of work,home & family & in the exceptional circumstance that they don’t bother me I’d still have other hobbies more interesting than telling libertarians that they’re idiots who might’ve got more out of life if they’d exchanged their ‘dungeons & dragons’ tokens for bus passes & gone out to meet real life.
my thoughts exactly. i’m sure he gets the odd insight from commentators here but i can’t imagine that outweighing the merit in writing the actual blog or books or making media appearances. he could really do with a moderator.
When i do post it tends to be from sheer horror at the realisation of how far society has moved away from me. I grew up in the 1970s. At what point did Jesus’s comment about loving all people cease to have any relevance?
Hi Richard, it reminds me of an article by a disgruntled ex-Green in Brighton called Neil (notesbrokensociety.wordpress.com), who said in an article last year in response to how Eton have no qualms about using power but that power can be a problem for the left, is that Maggie said advisers advise and ministers decide. That is how the left can get things done, not by ‘going native’ (I don’t believe the B&H Greens have done that too much though; they are nearly all doing their best in hard times) and colluding with council officers and civil servants.
While I think he is harsh on the Greens, calling us self-indulgent, individualistic and Thatcherite in political method despite having the right ideas as a whole, I believe there is merit in listening to his point about taking collective and collaborative action against Tories and other real enemies inside and outside of Parliament and town halls.
Finally, long live ethical accountants!!!
Collaboration is much under-used
Thanks
Richard
I am with you there; some of the hard left forget who the real enemy is in terms of allocating resources and fighting battles. We must always remember not to fall into the trap of hating the oppressed and loving the oppressor, and reminding others of the same. We can see what has been happening via the tabloids over the years, culminating in the death of a diabetic ex-soldier because his benefits were stopped for an alleged minor infraction (see change.org for the petition)