Monday, 27 June 2011

Oh to be a brunette bimbo in the Conservative Party.......

As against the, reputedly, archetypal blonde bimbo, a la Nadine - not that I would wish the opportunity to ascertain the truth of that! In respect of the brunette aspect, I am back on the case of Chloe Smith, someone who surely did not gain her selection as a Tory candidate and subsequently the position of MP and Whip purely on her brain power.

I give you: 1; 2; 3 and 4.

1: Presumably, prior to teaching children about money and debt, it would be a good idea if our education system taught them the rudiments of simple arithmetic?

2: In stating that communities should see it as their “duty” to potentially deal with anti-social behaviour on their doorsteps, as part of the government’s Big Society agenda, I have to point out that we pay, in our council tax, a "police precept"? So, if we have to do the job of the police, just what the hell are we paying a "police precept" for?

3 & 4: I am reliably informed by an email correspondent that both schemes closed and were discontinued as a waste of time and resources.

David Cameron may well have discovered a method of grooming future ministers, but one does have to ask why he selected someone from the kindergarten class...............

Just asking David, you understand...............................

Update: Correction: I have subsequently been advised that the items mentioned in 3 & 4 were closed down purely due to "pub closure"  reasons and not as I intimated.


Mark Wadsworth said...

That's a splendid compendium of nonsense from the alleged carpet muncher!

WitteringsfromWitney said...

Sorry MW, probably due this evening to a surfeit of Scotland's most famous export, am not sure whether your comment is praise or a criticism.......

Mark Wadsworth said...

I mean it's a good list you've put together highlighting how daft this woman is.

jkgalbraith said...

So you're suggesting then that we can't offer anyone any sophisticated education until the basics are perfect? really? no university degrees for anyone until we have every 6 year old in every school reaches required minimum reading levels?

And you're also suggesting that individuals have NO responsibility whatsoever towards protecting the communities they live in? Its JUST the polices job i guess?

Doesn't the nuance matter at all?

Lord T said...

Try protecting your community and you find you are the one sitting over the desk from Plod in cuffs.

Joining up thinking by our favourite gov. Any of them.

microdave said...

@ jkgalbraith - How can you teach children about money if they can't count to ten? Would you be happy flying in a 747 with a captain who couldn't manage a Cessna? Would you trust your high tech car maintenance to a guy who can't change an oil filter? Of course a reasonable level of basic knowledge is required before undergoing higher education.

jkgalbraith said...


of course i don't want someone who can't manage a lawnmower flying my 747, but that's not the point I'm trying to illustrate and i think you know it.

What you seem to be suggesting is that no-one at all be able to fly a 747 unless everyone can competently fly a Cessna. Is that really what you think cos I cant believe it is.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

MW: Thanks - you had me worried there and not for the first time! :)

LT: Re your first paragraph: how true! Which shows there is much wrong with our policing and legal system - oh and the use of common sense!

jkg: As md writes, if you can't get the basics right then what hope later in life? Anyway logic (of which you seem in short supply) would dictate that if you can't get the basics right, you sure as hell ain't going to get the advanced stuff right!

If I pay for a service (police precept) then I do not expect to have to do the job myself - why else does one employ and pay for staff? Unless of course you are a public service employer........

You demonstrate the paucity of your reasoning by suggesting that someone who can fly a 747 would not be able to fly a Cessna. Car/Articulated Lorry? Which requires the greater skill and which would logic once again demand you learn first?

Methinks where debate and argument are concerned jkg, it is back to the drawing board for you........?

microdave said...

@ jkgalbraith - I'm well aware that it is now possible to get a commercial pilots rating without ever having sat in a real aircraft. It can all be done in simulators.

My point is that if I happened to be 6 miles up when the high tech goes seriously tits up, I would much rather the guys or gals at the pointy end had some old fashioned basic flying skills. This is not just the opinion of a paying passenger - it is regularly brought up on pilots forums by the people themselves, and has been proven many times in real life emergency situations.

If you can't master the basics you will never be as good at the advanced stuff.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

md: Methinks your comment and mine, probably typed at the same time, demonstrates 'great minds........'

Perhaps jkg has enrolled in night school? :)

jkgalbraith said...

Do you think I'm saying that it doesn't matter if you can't add up, you can still train to be a brain surgeon??

LadyPolitic said...

@jkg I think somehow (and I'm not sure entirely how this is possible) that your point is being missed. No. Scratch that. It's being mangled.

Financial education for young people is crucial, if for no other reason that might appeal to these people, than to help prevent them getting into a cycle of unemployment and benefits and having to rely upon state funds (paid for by that favourite of daily mail words, the TAXPAYER)to lift them out of their quagmire.

Yes, it's better (obviously) if the nation's children are numerate and literate. But just because some aren't, it doesn't mean we shouldn't at least attempt to continue to educate them, and the ones that are, in financial responsibility.

It benefits everyone. And if you can't criticise a politician or policy without resorting to making jibes about gender or sexual orientation, then perhaps you should stick to commenting on the Daily Mail website and leave political discussion for those who have the intellectual capacity to argue without stooping to snide gay jokes.

jkgalbraith said...

And thank you ladypolitic, its a pleasure to see that someone here can understand my point.

Having said that @microdave, i think we can agree "If you can't master the basics you will never be as good at the advanced stuff. "

Its as demonstrably true as it is to say that just because some people are ignorant mouth breathers doesn't mean we should treat everyone as if they are, which seems to me what the original post suggested.

I make no comment on how witterings from witney breathes, microdave is clearly capable of using his nose.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

LP: And where exactly did I make jibes about sexual orientation or gender - an accusation you appear to be making in my direction/

jkg: Oh dear, did you not read my comments about returning to night school where you could learn about reading and the benefits of understanding the written word.....

LadyPolitic said...

Hmmm. Title of your own post. What's that word you've used?? Bimbo?? Call me crazy but aint that a reference to gender??

Don't you make a comment about blonde women MP Nadine Dorries in your first paragraph??

Then doesn't your little friend make a comment about carpet munching? Don't you also pass judgement about how Chloe Smith was selected?

Sorry- did you want more examples?

Perhaps a quick scan of your own material before posting might do well for you. You know, just in case.

jkgalbraith said...

I find highly entertaining that a global warming denier is suggesting that I can't read. Seriously, that's the funniest thing to happen to me all day.

I'm going to go away now smug in the knowledge that not only am I smarter, but also more consistent, and I'd imagine better educated than you.

Also, i'd suggest that your blog reads like the rantings of a man with a small willy. (yes i am VERY childish sometimes)


WitteringsfromWitney said...

LP: I suppose, technically, Bimbo is gender related, so I grant you that. However, being of an age where I have given up trying to understand the modern use of our language, I have no idea what a carpet muncher is, or to what action it refers. Passing judgement on how an MP is selected can hardly be claimed to be sexist - had she been male I would have said exactly the same thing in respect of the selection process and career path.

I do read what I write and can only suggest that if this blog offends you then you desist from visiting.

jkg: Yes you are childish and crudity is and has never been amusing. Just what the hell is the reference to a global warming denier to do with this post? That I am is neither here nor there and if that is the level of your humour then you are indeed easily amused.

On what basis you consider yourself smarter and more consistent I know not and am therefore unable to enter into any discussion.

If you intend visiting again, I would ask that you moderate your language, otherwise you leave me no alternative but to take further action where your comments are concerned.

jkgalbraith said...

Crudity has never been amusing?? NEVER?? Lets add lack of sense of humour to your failings, both intellectual and personal then.

Basically denying global warming in the face of overwhelming expert opinion marks you out as either anti-intellectual, or a conspiracy theorist, and thus worthy of ridicule. See the way this works is that you're judged on the totality of your opinions, and if one of them is frankly more than a little silly, its biases my judgement on all the rest.

I consider myself smarter because I'm able to understand a sensible and salient point when its being made (such as by microdave) whereas you are not. I'd suggest that my ridiculously large IQ is also a factor, but I'd be the first to accept that IQ (and indeed intelligence) isn't a major determinant of anything other than an ability to write pithy responses and score highly on IQ tests.

look at that, not a single rude word in there ;)

LadyPolitic said...

@WW Whether or not you know what it refers to, your original post set the tone for a discussion based upon gender. You make specific reference to the fact that she wasn't selected for her brain power alone. What were you referring to, if not the fact that she's a young female?

Now I'm certianly no feminist, but I do think that if we're going to have a political discussion (and by writing a blog and inviting comments, that is your intention I assume), we can surely do so without resorting to that kind of broad strokes that benefit no one.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

jkg: A remark or joke is funny and does not require crudity or profanity to make it so. Humour is relative and the fact I do not appreciate those two aspects does not make me any less intelligent than you.

Denying global warming is a right, just as much as it is your right to accept it. As far as I am concerned the case for global warming has not been made as too many errors and misrepresentations have been made. If anyone can present a paper in which no errors of fact can be found, I may then change my present stance.

And thank you for the language moderation.

LP: What I was referring to (and had done in previous posts about this MP) is her lack of experience, other than a brief period with Deloitte she has been immersed within the Tory party. The fact that this MP is a woman has nothing whatever to do with my comments in that respect as the same thrust of argument would be made had it been a man. I repeat the gender factor is not one that is important.

I have also queried her ability to represent the majority view of her constituents due to her being a Whip, meaning she has to vote for the govt - again an accusation I have made against other male MPs.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

jkg: Your last comment has not yet appeared on blogger, so will not respond until it does.

microdave said...

"overwhelming expert opinion" - What, the "experts" who make sure their bogus climate "models" are peer reviewed by their own associates, and make damn sure that any alternative views (of which there are plenty) are frozen out of the discussion.

The same experts who get uppity when asked for more details of their work, in case someone finds a fault with it?

The same experts who claim the science is "settled" but are, no doubt, happy to make use of all the latest and improved scientific equipment?

"Experts" like Al Gore who preaches that we are all going to be swallowed up by huge sea level rises, then quietly spends several $millions on a sea front property?

I'm sorry if you thought that I may actually be comparably intelligent to your good self. Unfortunately I'm not, but at least I am capable of looking at both sides of an argument, and not blindly following a crazy and now widely discredited ideology.

By the way, I watched "An inconvenient truth", and was taken in by it. However I subsequently discovered that it was nothing more than a load of propaganda, put out by a multi millionaire, with vested interests.

Oh, and one last thing - I DO actually believe that we are damaging the planet, but any chance of a reasoned debate about a way forward is now impossible thanks to arrogant know-alls like you.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

jkg: Unfortunately it would appear that Blogger has 'lost' your last comment and I think it would be unfair to respond without your words being available.

However in the meantime, what microdave said!

jkgalbraith said...

I believe what I said was that it is your right to disbelieve global warming, much as it's your right to be a flat earther, have faith in homoeopathy or espouse intelligent design, you shouldn't be surprised that it impacts on the seriousness with which I take your other opinions.

Now you can question global warming if you like, but bear in mind science is by its very nature imperfect and incomplete.

For a more thorough understanding of scientific method and peer review (which microdave you clearly don't understand if you think its some cosy men's club where everything gets the nod) I'd point you in the direction of author and MD Ben Goldacre and his fantastic website

Oh and Al Gore ... I dunno on what planet he's an expert in global warming, expertise in science generally requires a doctorate and a decade or so of research experience rather than years as a politician.

Widely discredited by fox news is i assume what you mean, any other sources for that statement?