It is a safe bet that the narrowing of the Conservative Party's lead in the polls – down to 6 or 7 per cent now, and the cages starting to rattle at Central Office – has nothing to do with this alleged work of literary genius. No slogan will win an election. Indeed, it is hard to believe that this one would persuade anyone who is not educationally subnormal to switch his vote to Labour. That such sophisticated minds as Lord Mandelson's and Mr Brown's should imagine anything else is incredible. In designing and agreeing to it they have just gone through the motions; they have done the little expected of them; they know that in an age of such profound disillusion with politicians and politics as this, all that is required to gain advantage is to exceed their opponents in the arts of vilification.
For all its meaninglessness, or, if you prefer, its anodyne quality, fairness is a word that brings with it real danger. It is what Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot sought to impose. It is what Orwell satirised, in the most deadly fashion – as we might now put it, all voters are equal, but some are more equal than others. It was what Ayn Rand, in her anti-collectivist novel , attacked under the name of the Fair Share Law: the means by which those who could not, or would not, succeed by their own efforts wanted the state to allow them, by force, to live off the efforts of others. As such, fairness undermines the capitalism
whose success we need not only if we are to see our economy revive, but if we are to raise the revenues that will pay for the things that politicians promise us, or offer to bribe us with: the NHS, schools, winter heating allowances and so on.
Over It [music video screencaps]. . Wallpaper and background images in the Anneliese Van Der Pol club tagged: van pol der anneliese anneliese van der pol over it music video 2004.
I heard a Labour politician saying before Christmas, in relation to Miss Harman's mad Equality Bill, that fairness had to be taken to new levels. There had to be "work" done on those families in which children do not have parents committed to their welfare and educational progress, who ensure homework is done and even supplement it with the odd book or mind-improving outing. What alarmed me was this: that the idea seemed to be not that all children should have such parents, with greater access to books and to trips to stately homes, museums or zoos, but that those children who had an unfair advantage in this way should in some way be penalised for it – perhaps by not getting into the best local school at 11, or by being pushed down the queue for university entrance at 18.