Which is better for the poor, that the poor should have more, or that the rich should be less better off than the poor?
Even though the answer is obvious, one pole of political debate operates on the opposite premise. We thank the intrepid Bryan D for this blissful memory of keen political debate:
We vainly hope for the day when such obvious truths won't have to be explained and defended.
3 comments:
That was awesome. How is it that British Parliament debates are so entertaining, more intelligent, and have a much more community feel than anything our politicians get out on the floor?
Prime Minister's Question Time is when the stuffy English (restrictive term deliberately chosen) get some catharsis, making Thursdays the most entertaining day of the week in the UK.
If only the exchanges were yet as substantive as in the days of Baroness Thatcher. They will be again if firecracker Daniel Hannan ever finds his way out of Brussels and to a front bench. Alas, no such thing will ever happen under Cameron's New Tory party. When a Conservative with a 12% or better lead in the polls is too afraid to take on a big, money gushing, government owned industry one can imagine that the roads ahead are anything but bright even as the country prepares to tell Labour just what they think of them (oh, and watch the SNP get even bigger in the North, I know not a few protest voters who have been such for long enough that now independence is actually starting to look good to them!).
Post a Comment