Well, no Sir Jonathan

So let’s not beat around the bush: their justification for getting rid of the SDC (Sustainable Development Commission-Ed) is transparently vacuous, if not downright dishonest. This is an ideological decision – in other words, a decision driven by dogma not by evidence-based, rational analysis.

Ideological decisions are not necessarily either vacuous or dishonest. Nor are the necessarily driven by dogma rather than evidence-based, rational analysis.

Perhaps they just think that your form of \”sustainable development\” is a foetid load of rancid dingoes\’ kidneys? After all, the evidence-based, rational analysis does suggest so.

4 thoughts on “Well, no Sir Jonathan”

  1. “a foetid load of rancid dingoes’ kidneys”

    Wonderful, Tim.

    I shall steal this if I may; a superb addition to the bloggers’ dictionary of invective.

    Tim adds: Go ahead, just don’t credit me. I’ve nicked it from Douglas Adams.

  2. ‘My beliefs about sustainability are evidence-based rational analysis, while theirs are ideology and dogma!’ — Can’t Porritt do better than that? Tsk, tsk.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    If you’re going to be picky there is probably a possessive apostrophe in there somewhere. So it is ‘fetid dingo’s [or possibly dingos’] kidneys’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *