In response to a request, here is an occasional feature; Fuckwit of the day. Today’s star is Louise Casey; Respect coordinator. Now, there’s job worth having… I mean, how does one coordinate respect?
Anyway, commenting on the new supernannies planned by the Blair government to cure all our ills – and, be assured that this is not indicative of a nanny state, oh, no, the right dishonourable Blair says it’s not, so it ain’t, so there – Louise, bless her heart, comes out with this wonderful statement:
“I am very comfortable – as is every member of the public, the Mori poll shows – that if you need to force people on to parenting courses to get help, then you should.”
I see. I’m not comfortable with it in the slightest, not one jot, not one wit. And I am not the only one. Therefore, Ms Casey is factually wrong. So, is she arrogant, stupid or going for the double?
You are not alone….
Anyway, yes she’s just another loudmouthed and not very intelligent NuLab bint. “The Mori poll shows – that if you need to force people on to parenting courses to get help, then you should.” Oh, is that what it actually shows? Or is that her particular interpretation of the poll results?
This woman is an unscrupulous moron. That she chooses to lie about what Mori actually says is bad enough, but to then think that no one can see through this total bollocks is, simply, incredibly stupid.
I tend to agree with Blair, I think he was right to argue that Britain is not a ‘nanny’ state. I think Blair didn’t go far enough for my liking – as we all now know, Britain is a ‘Supernanny’ state these days.
As for Louise Casey, I’ve got her down as just a miserable little fuckwit who thinks she knows what’s best for us all.
Glad you think my idea has some merit, Mark.
Louise Casey: miserable fucking bigoted oink who should have her toes cut off. Then work upwards.
Sorry guys, but who is really the fuckwit here? This woman has had a succession of government posts, failed in all of them only to be promoted to earn even more. She is a waste of the not inconsiderable space that she occupies, but she’s still in post; still out-earning most of us, despite her evident incompetence, stupidity and not remotely giving a shit. She’s not the fuckwit. We are, for tolerating this shower of unconscionable cretins for 10 years – and doubly so for every one of us who ever voted for them.
I’m not going to do the ‘told you so’ routine here but actually some of us did not vote for this ghastly ‘government’ or its totally spastic apparatchiks, either. Personally I was horrified when NuLab first got in – and I’m by no means a Conservative or Liberal supporter.
The Blair/Mandelson election machine capitalised entirely on the wave of (partly fomented) public revulsion, and – to be fair – did a brilliant job. But it was also apparent to many that the whole edifice was entirely artificial.
What is clear now is that there are absolutely no trustworthy politicians. So maybe the electorate will be a touch shrewder in its choices this time round. Let’s hope so, eh?
Those choices being?
Therein lies the problem…
Intersting blog. I know you libertarians are against big government and all that, and the very name of this scheme must send shivers down your spines, but I’d like to ask on the face of it, what’s really that bad about this proposal ? The parents on the TV show “supernanny” certainly seem to benefit from expert advice and more importantly, so do the kids.
I’m no socialist, and strongly object to uneccesary government interference in our lives as well, but there is something to be said in support of a scheme that may give kids (and parents) from deprived backgrounds a “better chance”. Presumably you wouldn’t disagree with that, but I wonder why you think this scheme will not acheive it? Or do you not think it’s in the governments remit ? I’d rather they spent my taxes on this that trident quite frankly.
Longrider – my point exactly. But let’s not entirely give up on tactical voting and the lesser of (two? three?) evils, eh?
Steven Wood – Yes but. Is there not a difference between inviting a ‘SuperNanny’ into one’s home – whatever that may entail, and having the State impose its concept of ‘good parenting’ upon us all? Let’s start with real clarity as to what this God Awful bunch of cowboys think ‘good parenting’ actually comprises. Peerhaps there are some amongst them who may care to put themselves forward as model examples.
Then maybe we can decide whether it’s a good thing or not and whether we wish to participate in yet another short term ‘initiative’.
In short, State interference is the taking away of individual responsibilty as well as freedom.
As to Trident, well you’ve got no choice there at all. Gordon has spoken.
Chuck, you got in before me – yes, the key word is “invite” and that is not what the Blair witch wants to do at all. What she proposes is force.
Perhaps the worst of it is that none of the problems are new. Antisocial behaviour, binge drinking et al have been with us for a long time as a perusal at Hogarth’s cartoons will confirm.
Yet this bunch of arrogant bastards believe that depriving us of the freedom to make choices and to take responsibility for ourselves is the “modern” solution. And, worse, they assume that we all agree – or if not, we are a part of the problem.
Steven Wood – Yes but. Is there not a difference between inviting
> a ‘SuperNanny’ into one’s home – whatever that may entail, and having > the State impose its concept of ‘good parenting’ upon us all?
Agreed.
> In short, State interference is the taking away of individual
> responsibilty as well as freedom.
Some peoples definition of what constitutes ‘responsible’ behaviour clearly differs from my own and I’m sure yours. I think a satisfactory definition of irresponsible parenting would need to cover children who are breaking the law. If the parents of repeatedly offending children do not want outside help in encouraging ‘responsible’ behavour in this respect, then is that not in itself ‘irresponsible’ ? Worth considering is the poll which shows the vast majority of people think that bad parenting is to blame. In short – you cannot take away responsibility from people who do not regard themselves as having any. On the face of it, this step is not taking away anyones responsibility rather trying to impress it upon them by means other than punishment. I see nothing wrong with that.
I do agree it would be wrong if the government were foisting an army of condascending “super nannies” on parents who did not feel they or their children would benefit from them, but it’s not at all clear this will happen. The word “offer” features heavily in the Guardian article.
Yeeeeeeeessssss.
The horse’s mouth on the other hand clearly used the word “force”. I heard her say it. I nearly fell off my bike.
I really should stop listening to the radio when I’m riding – I’m sure it’s bad for my health. Maybe there should be a law against it? :devil:
Well I agree with some of the above, but in the case of the more feckless parents/families I’m pretty certain that they believe they are actually behaving responsibly – whereas others (as you say) may strongly disagree. So ultimately this debate about acceptable behaviour comes down to perceptions. It’s also worth noting that parents of Minors do – generally – bear legal responsibilities for their offspring’s actions.
What I object to is the State – or in this case an idiotic Minister – seeking to impose standards of behaviour without even asking what an ‘acceptable’ standard might be. As most will recognise, there’s a vast gap between ‘acceptable’ and ‘illegal’. And I would wish to ensure that this gap remains unfilled. Otherwise we will be in the position where every human activity is proscribed by half-witted, self-seeking political numbskulls – such as Louise Casey. Do we really believe that she is capable of producing the Masterplan for a harmonious society? I think not…