http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/sep/14/peter-mandelson-calls-for-constraints
The speech is a classic example of how to have your cake and eat it and should be used as a set text of how to elevate form over substance in GCSE Propaganda Studies in spotting distinctions without a difference.
It is now reported that Brown will actually use the word at the TUC Conference.
Wow. So this is what political debate has been reduced to: a parlour game of talking about cuts without talking about cuts.
Is that not one of those silly things you are asked to do in JUST A MINUTE?
I am so proud to be British, aren't you? I can now almost understand why some of us might be proud enough to want to join Al Qaeda.
In fact, there is some suggestion that Peter Mandelson has been "radicalised", for he suggested that Labour should fight the next general election as insurgents, not incumbents.
This suggests that he thinks the insurgents are going to be the winners, and the incumbents are going to be the losers.
A Freudian slip, but that was just one soundbite too far. Hoist by one's own petard comes to mind.
"Peter Mandelson calls for constraints but silent on cuts."
Cuts in Public Spending (Us) v Cuts in Public Services (Them)
Cuts in Public Spending v Cuts in Public Spending
The speech is a classic example of how to have your cake and eat it and should be used as a set text of how to elevate form over substance in GCSE Propaganda Studies in spotting distinctions without a difference.
It is now reported that Brown will actually use the word at the TUC Conference.
Wow. So this is what political debate has been reduced to: a parlour game of talking about cuts without talking about cuts.
Is that not one of those silly things you are asked to do in JUST A MINUTE?
I am so proud to be British, aren't you? I can now almost understand why some of us might be proud enough to want to join Al Qaeda.
In fact, there is some suggestion that Peter Mandelson has been "radicalised", for he suggested that Labour should fight the next general election as insurgents, not incumbents.
This suggests that he thinks the insurgents are going to be the winners, and the incumbents are going to be the losers.
A Freudian slip, but that was just one soundbite too far. Hoist by one's own petard comes to mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment