It's time that Tories dropped the sheep costumes

I've recently had a go at religion, so on a brief tour of subjects you should never touch upon in the pub or on a blog, I'm moving on to politics.

Before I make a remark some might think is attacking the Conservative party (even though with hand on heart I can say it's not), I ought to say I am a genuine floating voter. I have voted for all three main parties in my voting lifetime. My default inclination is towards the Liberal Democrats (not just because they have a leader called Clegg), but I'm easily swayed.

Now the problem I have with the Tories is this - they are wolves in sheeps clothing, and I think they would be better off dropping the sheep costumes and saying 'there's nothing wrong with being a wolf.' Whenever anything comes up, like the recent suggestion of ex-ministers trying to make money by pretending they had influence, there is much crying from the Conservative benches about how terrible it is, the way some people are in it for what they can get. No, no, no.

Surely this is the central tenet of Conservatism. Or even capitalism for that matter. We should all be in it for what we can get. Once we've got it, yes, we should be generous in letting a good portion of it benefit others, whether through buying their goods and services or through charity. But initially, absolutely, if you are a Conservative you should be in it for what you can get. So stop whingeing, Tories, and get grafting.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog