31 comments on “I wonder who about whom?

  1. If it was Bercow- I met him once about 12 years ago and came to the same conclusion. Except I’d add the word “slippery”.

  2. My daughter met Boris once. “What was he like?” “Drunk.”

    Tim adds: I met Cameron once. Waaaay back, but he was the coming thing even then.

    Wanted to punch the shit out even way back.

  3. You’re all either idiots or trolls.

    Clearly they have met the retired accountant from Wandsworth.

    Who else but Ritchie could match that personae so exactly.

  4. It’s Eamonn Butler on Richard Murphy. I heard the two sparring on a R4 ‘phone-in about 1245 today.

    RM was pompous but also fluent in his idiocy. EB was pretty feeble, sadly.

  5. “It’s Eamonn Butler on Richard Murphy. ”

    My guess too, pretty much my evaluation as well.

    Butler didn’t come tooled up for a rant-a-thon.

  6. Re: the Dr Eoin comment… I particularly enjoyed how all his references were himself. The same blog, no less! No attempt even to reference a journal to which he might have contributed.

    Free lunches for all!

  7. In Richard’s defence (I have met him) he is not pompous. A convictionist yes, but also a man of faith (Quaker) that comes across in how he treats people.

    Warmest regards,
    Éoin

  8. How does one get to comment on Eoin Clarke’s website to point out that income tax under the Tories is less than 100%?
    All comment features seem to be disabled when I try

  9. @Éoin

    In fairness, I met him in a confrontational manner when he was trying to destroy our local economy (Isle of Man), so I wasn’t exactly open to his collectivist viewpoint.

    Equally, from what I have read of both his “Courageous State” and his selective “Country by Country Reporting” arguments, I’ve still found nothing which is either viable from an economic perspective or acceptable from a libertarian perspective.

    Nothing but the rantings of another ill informed, bigoted socialist.

    Your mileage may vary.

  10. Eoin Clarke – “In Richard’s defence (I have met him) he is not pompous. A convictionist yes, but also a man of faith (Quaker) that comes across in how he treats people.”

    In the Kingdom of Penises being a penis is normal.

  11. Eoin Clarke

    I really wish I could agree with you. But it is Richard’s behaviour, more than anything else, that I criticise. He is persistently rude to his critics and silences people who provide reasoned, evidenced arguments opposing his ideas. That’s not my idea of Christian behaviour.

  12. My thoughts went straight to our minister for Lack of Energy except when betraying his wife with a similarly “married” lesbian : Crisis Huhne.

    Is it not amazing how many country orifices rule over us ?

    Alan Douglas

  13. Flatcap and Pat: You’re missing Eoin’s underlying assumption. Apparently, if it doesn’t cost the state anything, then it doesn’t cost anything full stop.

    Now, repeat after me: The State is in all, the State is over all, the State is all, and all is the State.

  14. Eoin

    What is a “convictionist”? And how does one differ from a dogmatist?

    If Richard Murphy is a Quaker, pray let him keep silence.

  15. Dr Clarke (#14), I don’t think Murphy has been a Quaker for a long time; I wonder where you got that from?

    I read an article by him in a theology magazine, nearly 10 years ago, where I think he said that he used to be a Quaker but had switched to the Church of England.

    This isn’t just pedantry. The Quakers have an interesting approach to tax, which looks at the use to which the government puts tax revenues (this is best known in the tradition of some Quakers of not paying the part of their taxes that relate to nuclear weapons, for example).

    In contrast Murphy’s arguments about tax all assume, at least implicitly, that government spending is beneficial. That sort of approach seems more suited to the State Established Church of England rather than the more free-minded Quakers.

  16. Eoin Clarke, I presented some counter-arguments to RM and got insulted and dismissed. I am surprised to hear that is typical of Quakers – are you completely sure about this?

  17. Tracy W, you’re not the only one.

    I have politely pointed out errors in Murphy’s analysis, and received abuse in return – only to later see him adopt my points in his subsequent posts without acknowledging his earlier error.

    And look at his treatment of Prof. Devereux. Devereux produces well-researched evidence that higher corporate taxes harm workers (lower pay, more unemployment). That doesn’t fit with Murphy’s world view. So what does Murphy do? I have seen no sort of robust analysis by Murphy of Devereux’s work, showing where and how it could be wrong. Instead he uses ad hominem attacks, effectively accusing Devereux of being bribed by the big corporations to say it.

  18. “In Richard’s defence (I have met him) he is not pompous. A convictionist yes, but also a man of faith (Quaker) that comes across in how he treats people.”

    So pious, rather than pompous?

  19. I particularly enjoyed how Mr Murphy whacked the risible Eamonn Butler and his laughably cretinous ideas out the park on R4 yesterday.

    Most enjoyable.

    Laters.

  20. I say that every time I go to Murphy’s site.

    I’d like to punch him out for purely professional reasons.

    Then again, when it comes to Murphy, you’d probably have to stand in line for a chance to punch him out.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.