I wonder who about whom?January 10, 2012 Tim Worstallblogs31 CommentsSomeone I know met someone we all know by reputation today. His verdict was succinct: Yes, pompous little prat. previousAn astonishing and major intervention into politics by a newspaper columnistnextMark Lynas really gets me in The Guardian 31 thoughts on “I wonder who about whom?” The Pedant-General January 10, 2012 at 6:15 pm The Speaker? Nick Luke January 10, 2012 at 6:18 pm Hole in one to TP-G Ross January 10, 2012 at 6:23 pm 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”. dearieme January 10, 2012 at 6:54 pm 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. Frances Coppola January 10, 2012 at 7:25 pm I can think of several people who could be described thus…. John Galt January 10, 2012 at 7:39 pm 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. John Galt January 10, 2012 at 7:40 pm By the way, met him? I nearly fucking punched him! Pompous cunt. Flatcap Army January 10, 2012 at 7:51 pm has to be Ritchie. Who would, I suspect, fully condone this piece of fuckwitted idtiotic bullshit http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.com/2012/01/12-great-socialist-policies-that-do-not.html Apparently forcing companies to provide creches doesn’t cost a penny paul ilc January 10, 2012 at 8:49 pm 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. RichardT January 10, 2012 at 9:37 pm “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. Pat January 10, 2012 at 9:40 pm 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! Pat January 10, 2012 at 9:43 pm Didn’t even notice number 13 – imposing a 35 hour week would ‘not cost a ha’penny’. Christ. SadButMadLad January 10, 2012 at 10:00 pm Eoin Clarke can’t count. Not bad for someone who does a lot of statistics. Eoin Clarke January 10, 2012 at 11:06 pm 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 John77 January 10, 2012 at 11:25 pm 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 Josh January 11, 2012 at 12:03 am Could he be called Dick Murphy? John Galt January 11, 2012 at 12:43 am @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. So Much For Subtlety January 11, 2012 at 1:08 am 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. Frances Coppola January 11, 2012 at 2:15 am 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. Alan Douglas January 11, 2012 at 8:22 am 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 Philip Walker January 11, 2012 at 10:16 am 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. paul ilc January 11, 2012 at 11:03 am Eoin What is a “convictionist”? And how does one differ from a dogmatist? If Richard Murphy is a Quaker, pray let him keep silence. Frances Coppola January 11, 2012 at 12:57 pm Philip Walker Bow down and worship The State Richard January 11, 2012 at 1:38 pm 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. Tracy W January 11, 2012 at 3:49 pm 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? Richard January 11, 2012 at 4:22 pm 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. James January 11, 2012 at 4:22 pm “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? BenM January 11, 2012 at 4:29 pm 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. Dennis the Peasant January 12, 2012 at 1:38 pm 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. Luis Enrique January 12, 2012 at 5:34 pm if he’s not pompous, his personality sharply differs from his writing style Dennis the Peasant January 12, 2012 at 9:07 pm If he’s not cretinous, his intelligence sharply differs from his written word! Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.