Simon Hughes

Hey, I\’m as ready as the next guy to consider heterodox solutions but this guff from Simon Hughes really won\’t do.

We need to demonstrate ambition to have a responsible society where all people understand and are aware of their obligations to each other. This means we must not cut taxes for the rich or public support for the needy. We should be careful not to rush into knee-jerk solutions, including over-hasty moves to change the social contract and approaches to sentences which may have the reverse effect to that intended.

We must strengthen our communities, both economic and social, so that many more people feel that they have a positive stake in society. Activity, training and employment have to be on offer in every region. To put it bluntly, we need to give many more people and families something to lose.

This must mean a fundamental shift in the politics of the last 30 Conservative and Labour years which have sacrificed people\’s jobs and security in the name of efficiency, and then seen the profits go only to the few at the top.

We must now focus on the redistribution of wealth. But this will not succeed by means of greater hand-outs. Financial benefits must seek to engage people positively. The redistribution of hope and opportunity means the redistribution as well as the creation of work. Co-operative and mutual businesses and social enterprise should be prioritised. The private sector, like the public sector, should not be allowed to get away with obscene pay ratios and bonuses. All employers should be required to consider how they can increase employment and training, by themselves or with others.

Please note, I\’ve not edited this (apparently no one has actually). I\’ve not excised any of his logic, his arguments nor even any of the facts which he uses to support either.

This near random accumulation of right on phrases is what a senior (left wingish) Liberal Democrat offers up as the pathway, the set of guidelines, for our society.

It\’s not that I or anyone else agrees or disagrees with him: there\’s nothing there to agree or disagree with. It\’s the sort of stuff that would get a C- from the adjudicator at the Neasden Young Parliament Club. \”Yes, yes Hughes, that will do for the Stretchford Labour Party meeting if you want to get selected as a candidate for parish councillor. But real political speeches at the national level need a bit more to them.\”

 

\”The redistribution of hope and opportunity means the redistribution as well as the creation of work.\”

 

WTF does this mean? We\’re to take some of that hope in the heart of the bloke who\’s just bought a lottery ticket and post it off to a depressive? We\’ll do this by cutting the 60 hour week of a GP so that the work experience lad puts in a few stitches?

And we pay this bloke £65,000 a year (plus £150k expenses) to do our political thinking for us?

4 thoughts on “Simon Hughes”

  1. we pay this bloke £65,000 a year (plus £150k expenses) to do our political thinking for us?

    No, we pay him to represent the people of Bermondsey and Southwark in Parliament. He tries to do political thinking on his own.

    As his ‘job’ is sometimes used to describe him, he was elected, unopposed as Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Party within the House of Commons. a) no one else wanted the job b) he ain’t my deputy bloody leader and most certainly doesn’t speak for me.

    Well, apart from the vague aspiration that cooperatives are good. Of course they bloody are, that’s why the Govt, the Tory bits, are encouraging them. Scary.

    Still, his constituents like him. A lot, they really really like him.

  2. “It’s the sort of stuff that would get a C- from the adjudicator at the Neasden Young Parliament Club. ”
    Hey, it worked for Barack Obama!

  3. Is Simon Hughes actually illiterate or does he just think it makes him seem in touch with the huddled masses?

    If I could tell what the fuck he was on about I might even disagree with it!

  4. Well, Hughes is a kind of type species of the Anglo-Socialist. Not a communist, a marxist, whatever, but rather an oleaginous, vacuous moralist in the Victorian style. That first adjective in particular. He visibly oozes.

Leave a Reply

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