UKC

You've gotta luv Corbyn's mates at the Tory party conference:

£TORY SCUM GET OUT OF BRUM,£

£CULL THE TORIES, NOT THE BADGERS,£

£THE ONLY CUTS WE NEED ARE TORIES ON THE GUILLOTINE,£

£THATCHER NEVER DIED £ THAT EVIL WITCH ONLY WENT AND REGENERATED,£

£Let in every refugee/ Throw the Tories in the sea!£ chanted one group. £Make the bonfire, make the bonfire, put the Tories on the top,£ chanted another. £Put the Blairites in the middle, and we£ll burn the f------ lot!£

£THE NASTY PARTY IS BACK IN TOWN.£

The left: an irony free zone.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Dont suppose you have any evidence a)for those particular people being Corbyns mates and b)the person with the nasty party placard approving of the rest do you?
It really isnt a hard concept but it does seem beyond you. The left like the right consists of lots of different people who can hold rather different views. As with any large group some are cocks and some arent.

In reply to Postmanpat:

You seem to be very attached to your £'s.

In reply to KevinD:


>
Nah, they're probably representatives of the Tristam Hunt appreciation society or maybe undercover Libdems.

In reply to Postmanpat:

This is what I jotted after the protest after last year's tory conference.

Manchester March.

It was a very amiable affair, despite what you may have read in the papers. One hundred thousand people walking through central Manchester, and one arrest for spitting, and three others for drunk and disorderly. Listen: how many arrests for D&D does central Manchester get on a normal Sunday afternoon? More, I'd warrant. Anyway, around 0.002% of people connected with the march were naughty. That means 99.998% were not naughty. And the egg-incident has to be, it must be said, viewed with some dubiety. Quite easy to slur the opposition by staging a scene. The weather was perfect, and the atmosphere electric. I felt very proud of the great variety of my fellow citizens.

In reply to Postmanpat:

As far as I can see politics is like the X factor; whichever side you look there's someone you'd like to slap.

I think Corbyn is a plonker but you can't blame him for every left wing nutter out there, Politics just appears to be the world's biggest tw*t magnet that's all.

In reply to Postmanpat:


yes because those are the only possible choices.
Ah well I guess its something to fall back on after all the predictions of violence at the labour conference didnt happen.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I quite like the Thatcher one.

In reply to Dave the Rave:


Because you want her back really

In reply to Postmanpat:

Obligatory pig reference... Lest we forget. As if.

In reply to Postmanpat:

You would have a point if Corbyn had said any of these things.

But he didn't.

And you don't.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

You would have a point if Corbyn had said any of these things.

Corbyn obviously didn't say those things and I very much doubt that he would condone such behaviour.
However, what's the likelihood, that those people with the placards, etc. voted for Corbyn in the leadership contest?

In reply to Dave the Rave:

I guess its possible that Thatcher had a Horcrux and somebody needs to have a careful look at the back of Theresa May's head just in case.

But if you look at her desire for sparkly shoes and consider that she keeps three flying monkeys she's more likely to be the Wicked Witch of the West.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I guess sadly Corbyn is not a reincarnate of an older version or a great politician time travelling, he still is 1970s Corbyn, always has been, always will be.

In reply to KevinD:
At some point it's reasonable to conclude there really is a fire and it's not all smoke

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/01/good-and-brave-labour...

In reply to summo:

Also as blisteringly stupid as he ever was, with his grand achievement of 2 Es at A level, despite a good grammar school education in a leafy shire, not to mention his degree in "Trade Union Studies" at that noted centre of higher learning, the North London Polytechnic (failed). This stupidity probably explains his inability to come up with a single new idea in 40 years, his complete inability to grasp the fact that other people genuinely do NOT agree with him and his rigid inflexible dogmatism that some mistake for principle. He has also never seen an enemy of Britain and the British people that he did not love, nor a friend or ally that he did not hate.

He is however surrounded by deeply sinister figures that are not as thick as he is, but far more menacing. Like McDonnell, Lansman and above the very privileged, pampered but utterly anti-British, anti-Western Shameless Milne.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



Of course I do although not a very revelatory one:

1)The "left" embraces a significant element of hypocritical nasty thugs.

2) This demonstration was largely made up of corbyinistas, their allies and sympathisers and the usual rentamob.
It nevertheless continues with the usual vile inanities. The "newer gentler politics" is not happening and it's jezzers' supporters that are as guilty as anyone.

In reply to MG:


At some point it is equally reasonable to conclude there is a fire of unknown size but probably quite small but its difficult to tell since some people are running around setting off smoke grenades and yelling "its that mans fault".

In reply to Simon4:

Blimey, are you his evil Uncle or something to know so many personal details and print them here. I'm no fan of Corbyn but your description doesn't seem even vagely right to me. His educational qualifications were poor but I've met many bright people who did similarly badly but were later successful in a function that clearly required hard work and above average IQ. I'll give you a E for you view on Milne as its a bit closer to the truth but in a good rant I'd expect some independant referenced detail on his various nefarious activities.... do you know he has 666 tattoed under his hair?

In reply to Offwidth:

I read it was CCCP.

Here;http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=650768&new=8402889#x8402889

In reply to Simon4:

I wouldn't normally encourage, but have a like for Shameless Milne. Credit where credit's due...

In reply to Postmanpat:

>[...] 1)The "left" embraces a significant element of hypocritical nasty thugs.

[...]

Yes at least significant elements of the "right" aren't hypocritical

In reply to Andy Hardy:



No doubt, but I'm struggling to think of examples of Cameron or May supporters publicly promoting the idea that Milliband or Corbyn should be murdered. Maybe they should get with the "new politics"?

In reply to Postmanpat:

How do you *know* those chanting slogans in your OP were supporters of Corbyn? (as opposed to SWP / Leftunity / Communist etc etc) - they might have as much to do with Labour as EDL / Britain First have to do with the Conservatives.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

The SWP are supporters of Corbyn! They write puff pieces for his rallies and he was chairman of their front organisation FFS! When the aforesaid placard wavers are amongst a sea of corbyn T-shirts, SWP placards, STW placards, Peoples' Assembly (an explicit support group) placards, and various union groups which have pledged support for Corbyn it takes a very special sort of obtuseness to argue that these particular individuals are the non Corbyn supporters in the crowd. Not to mention the pro Corbyn anti moderate speeches.

But I'm sure Jezzer will condemn them, supporters or not.

In reply to Postmanpat:

>[...]When the aforesaid placard wavers are amongst a sea of corbyn T-shirts, [...]

It might have been handy to mention that in the OP

In reply to Postmanpat:

I wonder what the talk is in the pubs of the City of London, the Tory meetings in the Home counties or the golf clubs and yacht clubs of the South East?

Is it all about how thankful they are that the Torys are now led by by more compassionate, caring Conservatives; or are they still ranting about benefits scroungers, what a waste of money the NHS is and how it should be privatised; and, good riddance to Europe, who needed it anyway, apart from somewhere to go skiing?

It may be that it is not just Labour where there is a disconnect between what the leaders say and what some of the grass roots supporters actually believe.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Kinder politics?

Are they in yet?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


>
I can't help you there although given that the City overall voted to remain it seems unlikely.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I find it amusing and somewhat naive that so many people are swallowing the narrative that Momentum is akin to the SWP, Class War, etc. It was a whole different level of type two 'fun' fighting the Met in the late 80s and early 90s. As for the commies - the people I know in the CPB are very gentle pensioners wallowing in alpenglow nostalgia for minor union disputes in 1957 etc - they don't even curse.

In reply to David Alcock:


It is entertaining when people build the SWP into a group of evil masterminds with a massive following and a cunning plan. As opposed to a bunch of feckwits who made a few good decisions including buying some heavy duty printers meaning they can distribute placards.

In reply to David Alcock:

>
It's particularly amusing since Corbyn is and surrounds himself with nostalgic dinosaurs from the heady days of the 1980s. You know very well that it's bog standard leftie stuff to undermine governments though extra-parliamentary action through alliances of the myriad splinter groups. Given that in taking over the constituency parties and pushing for deselection we are already reliving those battles it seems odd to think that the rest of the strategy has been abandoned-especially since the upturn in politicised strike action is already happening.

In reply to summo:


Yes, not much doubt that Corbyn is a Muggle.

Thatcher on the other hand did great things - terrible, yes, - but great.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I thought you were smarter than to attempt to discredit somebody's political views by associating them with a small group of idiots. I can quite easily find you a nasty bunch of sh*ts who vote Tory if you like?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



Poll tax? A system whereby every working adult contributed to local services, rather than the size of a house mattering. I imagine if the UK had a system where the employed paid a percentage of their earnings for local services, there would not be the reductions in health, education, police, fire etc... Ps this is the Swedish system, a much more socialist country than Maggie's Britain? Where you pay tax for local service based on income, not some out dated house banding system. The rich pay more, the poor less. There is no upper threshold.

In reply to Trevers:
>
Good, because I'm not attempting to discredit Corbyn's views, although I regard them as discreditable.

Primarily I'm attacking those with the placards and the chants. But don't you find it odd that a man who clearly thinks that he stands for the moral high ground makes no attempt to disassociate himself from the neanderthal elements, and the organisations they represent, that support him?
Didn't even Farage made some attempt to disassociate himself from his more excessive supportres.

As I said "I'm struggling to think of examples of Cameron or May supporters publicly promoting the idea that Milliband or Corbyn should be murdered" . It sounds like you can help?

In reply to Postmanpat:

You would also never see a 20 something Tory dancing on the streets in some choreographed party because a senior labour mp/pm from the 70/80s had died.

In reply to summo:


The 'terrible, yes, but great' quote is about Voldemort and was just maintaining the Thatcher had a Horcrux joke and it definitely wasn't intended to endorse the Poll Tax.

In reply to summo:

That's because those people have no rhythm.

In reply to summo:


Mostly ex steelworkers and miners here. You'd have had to have been there: old guys with tears of joy rolling down their cheeks.

youtube.com/watch?v=LR8rSc68lVY&

In reply to summo:

It's perhaps 75% the same here as council tax is only 25% of council funding with the rest coming from central government.

In reply to elsewhere:


That's not quite true. The percentages will depend quite significantly from local authority to local authority and business rates are a significant contribution to local government coffers despite the fact that 50% of business rates go to central government. Government have been significantly reducing the grant aid to local government since 2010. Ultimately the current government would like to get to a point where local government is almost entirely funded locally, primarily through council tax and business rates, with local areas retaining all of the business rate income. All pretty regressive in my mind.

In reply to David Alcock:


I had relatives who were pit workers, I grew in a NE pit village with 3 different former pits within roughly a 1 mile walk, thankfully my family were a little more progressive and they welcomed the demise of union power and the chance for factories and industry in general to move into the 20th century.

In reply to elsewhere:


It is somewhat different 31-33% (depending on region) goes from gross wage to the local council, this is also matched by employers. With only approx. £1800 zero tax threshold to keep those on short summer jobs off the books.

Unemployment insurance is separate and if you earn over roughly £50k then you start paying an additional 30%+ which goes to central government.

In reply to The New NickB:

there is a risk that prosperous areas provide great services, which in urn attracts more businesses etc... and the declining areas struggle and keep sinking lower as they don't have the funds to improve infrastructure.

In reply to summo:


That would seem to be the policy of the current government.

In reply to summo:


Another problem is areas which have low population but lots of business buildings tend towards lower overheads.
Whereas those areas down the road which houses all their commuters have far higher costs.

In reply to Postmanpat:



"Brexit" embraces a load of racist pricks. But quite reasonably, those in favour of leaving the EU object strongly to being painted as racist pricks - it doesn't represent them.



We all know about the ranty far-left, their unpleasant tactics, and the fact that they support JC. It's dissonant, that JC speaks of the 'kinder gentler politics' while a chunk of his supporters are all ranty and nasty. But it's the supporters who are the hypocrites, not "the left" or JC.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


>
I think JC's silence on the subject speaks volumes.

In reply to Postmanpat:

You want him to comment on those banners. Honestly?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Of course. He's made the "kinder gentler politics" a keynote of his leadership. It undermines his integrity and his commitment to this that he can ignore this when it comes to the vicious attitudes of some of his high profile supporters. It's not like it's a one off. Like the antisemitism, it's a hallmark of some of his supporters.

It's also dumb. If he wants to win an election he is going to have to appeal some Tory or UKIP voters. Having supporters want to kill said voters is not a brilliant approach.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Not that I'm a fan of JC, but he was quick to criticise those who threw the brick through Angela Eagle's window.

In reply to John2:


Yes. I trust he would do the same had it been a Tory window.

In reply to Postmanpat:
I don't think it's a serious issue I'm afraid. The banners are just a bit silly and immature.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I wonder if you'd be so blase if they were Tory banners

In reply to Postmanpat:

Question: Why are you so interested in this relatively minor sideshow and not in the really nasty, hate-filled, harsher politics that has been foisted on us by our woefully retrogressive and repressive government?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I've discussed that at length with Jon over the years although I don't regard it in the terms you use. It's perfectly possible to be interested in both things.

In reply to Postmanpat:

OK, I suppose that's fair enough.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I would be highly amused if it was Tory banners. Obviously, we expect precisely this tone from the hard left, but if we had hordes of Reece-Mog lookie-likies with banners about killing commies it would add some colour to the dreary proceedings of right wing politics!

In reply to Postmanpat:

As does the right. The story of Orgreave is one of collusion to frame miners, a court case that fell apart, police officers declining to make arrests to avoid signing false statements and cover up.

Actions that are a bit more than waving banners and chanting with no prospect of anybody actually being lynched.

In reply to Postmanpat:

This website is depressing, but useful to see some of the ingrained attitudes we on the left need to persuade. I don't think ukc is a high priority judging from the blue-collar Thatcherites on here. Those ladies are not for turning. Oh, and there's no such thing as society. Was ever a more evil phrase uttered?

In reply to David Alcock:


I think I sit in the middle generally LibDem ish, but would rather a blue collar Thatcherite, than anything labour coloured. Growing up in TBs constituency from birth, before heading up to Sunderland aged 16, showed me that labour have absolutely no interest in improving things for their voters, only for keeping themselves in wealth or power and the voters in need of government support.

In reply to David Alcock:

If you're really interested, take a look at this - https://richarddawkins.net/2013/04/is-richard-dawkins-responsible-for-thatc... . It is claimed that Thatcher derived the phrase 'There is no such thing as society' from conversing with Richard Dawkins at an academic dinner.

In reply to David Alcock:
>
Yes, many.

It's only even "evil" if one chooses to take it completely out of context. This fellow put it nicely,
"First cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. "

But we've done this one a million times before on here.

In reply to Postmanpat:

At least they've finally kicked Jackie Walker out of Dementum, although it looks like they need to deal with this nasty piece of work too:

"Cathy Newman has slapped down an “anti-Semitic rant” directed at her by a Labour activist - by pointing out she’s not even Jewish.

The Channel 4 News anchor was sent a stream of tweets by Labour activist Kevine Walcott, who has now been reported to Labour’s compliance team over the tirade."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/cathy-newman-kevine-walcott-anti-semi...

Corbyn's been up to his neck with this stuff in STWC, didn't sort it out then and no-one is confident he can sort it out now.

In reply to summo:


I find it interesting how many people's political views are shaped by reaction to the other parties, when those same criticisms could be applied elsewhere. You say above that you would rather blue collar thatcherites than "anyone labour coloured", on the basis that Labour are only interested in power. To me, that sounds exactly like the current conservative government - I can't see any desire to make things better for the country, only to keep hold on power. The entire direction of travel on Brexit appears now to be about maintaining party unity and placating the hardliners rather than looking for what is better for the country.

Interesting what a different perspective brings. I would always have said that I preferred a Labour govt who at least funded public services and made some things better over what we have now, a Tory government cutting left right and centre and selling off public assets even when there doesn't appear to be any gain to the country.

In reply to winhill:


I'm not clear whether this is because he is incompetent, or doesn't see it as a significant problem (or even a problem at all), or whether he fears that dealing with it will alienate many of his old allies and core support. Or all of those? Or some other reason?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Proabably

the left is good>these people are on the left>ergo these people are good>therefore there can't be a problem

In reply to John2:


That's absolutely fascinating because it shows more clearly what she meant by the phrase and where the idea originated. Many would argue that it's a very unfortunate misapplication of an already dubious piece of scientific reductionism to our whole social and cultural milieu. It was certainly a very unattractive premise for a desolate new brand of political and social philosophy.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
>
I've now read the relevant para twice and I cannot see anything more than a vague surmise that this conversation influenced her phrasing many years later. Am I missing something?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well, it seems to be more than a vague surmise. It shows that Mrs T the scientist was very au fait with these new ideas in the circle of people she mixed with. It seems to me extremely plausible and has the huge merit of showing more clearly what she meant, and what its provenance was.

In reply to David Alcock:

About on a level with joy because isis have beheaded some christian aid workers.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I would imagine that Mrs.T had many conversations about the concept of society over the years. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that this one reared particularly high in her thinking.

The key line in terms of what was said to her seems to be,"Hamilton (and therefore Dawkins et al) argued that neither the species nor the even the individual animal could be seen as the unit of natural selection. It was the gene that persevered by advantageous selection, and individual animals would thus sacrifice themselves for offspring and some siblings (half their genes) nephew/nieces and cousins in diminishing proportion."
There is no reference to or even obvious connection to this scientific concept in her society comments.

Given that her whole political philosophy derived from her methodist upbringing and it's belief in personal responsibility within the community surely this is much more likely to be the source of her thinking?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I think you may be over analysing this Gordon, and extrapolating the phrase to mean something that you can object to.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

Never said I supported the current tory line up. I'd prefer a libdem coalition again, but the UK isn't ready for coalition politics just yet. It needs to wear out the current two party system a bit more.


But you just keep expanding and funding the public sector without a care in the world to funding it long term you'd finish up like greece. I'd give the new gang a little longer, she has binned some of the welfare / incapacity medicals etc.. so there are some improvements or hope. Hinkley was a done deal because of zero meaningful investment over past 30 years by all parties. It's a fairly measured start, unlike Cameron's or Blair's rash of headlines style leadership, so who knows right now how things will pan out.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think you're missing the fact that according to this article the conversation began thus - "Thatcher, according to this source, was pontificating somewhat and said ‘society is the future’ ".

In reply to summo:

That's a fair point, however it wasn't promising listening to her on Today this morning; she really didn't have any response when Nick Robinson quoted her own words back at her from April about how difficult and dangerous Brexit would be.

In reply to John2:


Yes, but it's unclear what was meant by this or whether the idea of a "selfish gene" was part of a conversation that had moved on from "politics" to "science" without much direct connection.
Is it impossible to believe both in in the "selfish gene" and in the concept of society?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

That's unfair; no one should be made to justify anything they said in the lead up to the referendum because "What did we expect, the truth?" or something.

In reply to summo:

The point of my post wasn't in criticism of you (or to suggest that you support the current tory govt, although I think you are at least more sympathetic to them than I am) - I genuinely found the difference in perspective fascinating.

The charge of being interested in power above principle has been levelled at all three of the major parties, it is a frequent term of abuse for the lib dems (which I don't agree with), I think it probably is a fair criticism of the tories (most notably demonstrated by how they are handling the aftermath of the brexit vote) and you have said the same about Labour (although in their current incarnation, I don't think it would be a fair criticism).

In reply to andyfallsoff:



Corbyn isn't after power, but he isn't willing to give up his leadership to anyone either. I'd be more concerned about his henchmen's motives and desires for power.

The problem is to implement any change you need power, and without coalition politics that has to be absolute power. So UK politics just swings from extreme to extreme. Whoever has the 326+ MP's on their side has their policy pushed forwards and the 324 or less are pi$$ing in the wind, only at the present they aren't even managing to do that very well.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I think that is because the government split and took sides etc.. it would have been far better for MP's or even independent bodies to present the facts and let the population decide, instead of the way it went. So many MP's are no having to just back over the fence in one direction or the other. Although May was always angling for PM, so she did try to sit on the fence and let Boris and Osbourne take sides publically.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


true, I think Osbourne is so quiet because he is still busy eating all those words.

In reply to summo:

Fully agree with your summary of the issues of FPTP - I think any change to the electoral system would help. Sadly I don't see any change likely on the horizon, not least because the current system (particularly with boundary changes) to benefit the incumbent Tories.

Going back to your comment above about May having a "fairly measured start" - do you really think that is true? As far as I can see, she has ploughed ahead into a number of radical moves to dismantle institutions which affect us all - the derogation from the ECHR; signalling that limits on immigration as the main Brexit priority (although I concede this has yet to be finalised) and reforms to the university sector to give executive oversight / control over universities. Each of these is a huge move, or power grab for the executive. They don't strike me as the actions of a cautious, measured PM.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Not impossible, but certainly it supports the idea (when used as a social metaphor, just as the 'meme' was) that the concept of 'society' is not very important, and is largely a ?false human construct.

It reminds me rather strongly of a chilling saying my very right-wing grandfather (on my mother's side) had: 'There's no such thing as human rights.' I have not followed in this right-wing tradition, but my first cousin has, and is now in Theresa May's cabinet.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


No, I'm simply seeing the link. Reminiscent of the ideas of Matt Ridley, close friend of Richard Dawkins. His latest ideas can be gleaned fragmentarily on Twitter @mattwridley

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
>
Well, the concept of selfish gene seems to be quite widely accepted and so is the concept of society. I don't think I've never noticed that people who believe in one find it impossible to believe in the other. And why should they? It's perfectly reasonable to believe that the best way for a gene to enable replication is to cooperate within a society

>
Well it may remind you because it shares five words. That doesn't mean it has anything else in common! Sorry, but I'm with Rob that you are (mis)interpreting her meaning to justify your views on her.

In reply to Postmanpat:

'Is it impossible to believe both in in the "selfish gene" and in the concept of society?'.

No, but assuming that Professor Swingland's recollection of the dinner is correct (and it's only fair to attribute more knowledge of this issue to him than to you or me), then you have to admit that it's something of a Pauline conversion to go from 'society is the future' to 'there's no such thing as society'.

In reply to summo:


Whereas Farage, IDS, Gove and Johnson just spat theirs out and flicked us the Vs.

In reply to John2:



Not really because we don't know the context of the first. We do know that she believed strongly in the concept of private and community charity and that is just as much in "opposition" (or not in opposition) to the selfish gene meme as the concept of society.

In reply to DerwentDiluted:



No, but they will be Jeremy's downfall.

In reply to Postmanpat:

No, I'm simply trying to understand what she meant.

Regarding my grandfather's comment. What it had in common was precisely the same idea that the notion (in that case of human rights, rather than human society) had no naturalistic grounding. Such a view, of course, has a longish philosophical tradition - rather against that of J S Mill, I think (though I'd have to look that up).

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Hmm

>
Well, there's nothing inherently "bad" in believing that. One can believe that and still believe that there should be protection of "human rights".

In reply to Postmanpat:

' We do know that she believed strongly in the concept of private and community charity'

'And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first.'

In reply to John2:


'It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour...'

Her whole point was that the State (which was what she foolishly confused with society) removed the incentive for people and communities to look after themselves and each other. Charity was central to the methodism she grew up with.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well we're almost in agreement on that point. But I'm not sure that she did confuse the State with society - she was surely arguing against the 'Benefits Street' mentality that we just sit back and collect the dole cheques.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yes, I'm not disagreeing with that. In fact she had a v good point re. removing incentive. But she gave it a bit of 'scientific' weight by insisting that the concept of society (I suppose as understood by socialists) was largely a bogus human construct, and certainly of secondary importance to the individuals, or individuals-as-neighbours. It seems that the 'scientific' idea was loosely derived from the Dawkinsian one.

To quote the article again:

'After all, the observation is nothing other than straight English empiricist classical liberalism – the argument that ‘society’ is an abstraction, and attributing characteristics to it a form of intellectual error. … Classical liberals like Hayek always argued that the one ‘real’ social form was the family, grounded in natural connection (or an imitation thereof), an atavistic form of attachment. It is this exception to individualism that forms a basis to the mix of economic liberalism and social conservatism at the heart of the Thatcherite formula.'

The article then goes on to say - if correctly reported - that this fitted with Dawkin’s ‘anti-society’ viewpoint, analogous to his reductionist ‘atomising’ view of nature (put simply, that the primary unit, i.e. of prior importance, of selection is the gene rather than the species or even the individual animal that carries it. )

Have to go away now (well, back to work again).

In reply to John2:


She believed that an over involved State reduced the incentives for people to help themselves and help each other (through independent charity). She could have said that the State thus "squeezed out" "society" but she chose to emphasise that society consisted not of a nebulous monolith but of individuals who had a moral responsibility to themselves and each other.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

'The article then goes on to say - if correctly reported - that this fitted with Dawkin’s ‘anti-society’ viewpoint, analogous to his reductionist ‘atomising’ view of nature (put simply, that the primary unit, i.e. of prior importance, of selection is the gene rather than the species or even the individual animal that carries it. ) '

Crikey when you don't like someone you really don't, do you Gordon!
Dawkins hasn't got an 'anti-society' viewpoint, any more than he has an anti-gravity viewpoint; he is trying to make sense of the natural world, and trying to find areas which can't be accounted for by natural selection. He - like many others - has so far failed.

The idea that natural selection doesn't include survival benefits conferred by social living is a total misunderstanding. It is perfectly reasonable to suspect that whole 'almost human' groups were wiped out because they did not develop the social skills necessary to work together and survive climate change, the appearance predatory megafauna etc. I suspect any evolutionary biologists will argue very strongly that society is a product of natural selection.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


How odd. I was simply quoting what someone else had said - I even qualified it with 'if correctly reported' - on Richard Dawkins' own website! Or rather, The Richard Dawkins Foundation website (the link provided by john2 above). Here it is again:

https://richarddawkins.net/2013/04/is-richard-dawkins-responsible-for-thatc...

BTW, I am not John2 and don't even know him.

In reply to David Riley:


Hmmmm... I'm afraid you've lost me there. Although I am slightly chuckling with bemusement.

Are you trying to say that the bitter joy of people who had their livelihoods and communities wrecked by her policies equate to Isis murdering aid workers? Really?