Sunday, January 10, 2010

Fisking Dr Who

Cranmer does not go in for the derogatory term ‘luvvie’. And he utterly deplores the even more derisory term ‘Labour luvvie’, not least because he has never heard anyone talk of ‘Tory Luvvies’, which is not simply a matter of an alliterative lack but also of the reality that they may be, pace Leslie Crowther and Jim Davidson, an endangered species.

Actors are, by and large, some of the most affable, intelligent, discerning and sentient creatures on the planet. They grapple daily with a myriad of intense human emotions and bare their souls night after night for the whole world to see, and the vast majority do it for a pecuniary pittance or nothing at all: it is their vocation, their raison d’être: their whole purpose in life is to hold a mirror up to nature, to show virtue her feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time its form and pressure.

But David Tennant has ventured into the realm of the political and urged people not to vote Conservative, warning that life under David Cameron would be a ‘terrifying prospect’ for the future of Britain.

It is not his political opinion with which Cranmer takes issue, for an opinion is just an opinion, and in a representative democracy, or the façade of such, everyone is entitled to one.

But when that opinion is communicated in a fashion which purports to enlist the unparalleled genius of William Shakespeare to its narrow and partisan cause, Cranmer feels morally obliged to fervently and ferociously fisk, not least because there is nothing that David Tennant does not know about either Hamlet or King Lear which Cranmer has not tortured his soul in the consideration and contemplation thereof a thousand times, and all while Mr Tennant was in nappies and mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.

In an emotionally charged interview, Tennant said: "Clearly, the Labour Party is not without some issues right now and I do get frustrated. They need to sort some stuff out, but they're still a better bet than the Tories.

Labour have some issues, do they? You mean a crisis of leadership? An irreparably divided Cabinet? A vacuum of ideas? A dearth of initiative? Backbench revolts? Fiscal incontinence? A bloated public sector? Recession? Soaring unemployment? Increasing levels of poverty? A resurgent BNP? An unprecedented national debt of £2,000,000,000,000?

They do indeed need to sort some stuff out, but they have had 14 years to do so. During that time, they have squandered the nation’s wealth, started an illegal war on a false premise, bequeathed a disastrous banking system, widened the gap between the ‘rich’ and the ‘poor’, and they show absolutely no sign at all of being able to ‘sort this stuff out’.

I would rather have Gordon Brown than David Cameron. I would rather have a Prime Minister who is the cleverest person in the room than a Prime Minister who looks good in a suit.

Where is the evidence that Gordon Brown is the cleverest person in the room’? Did he earn a first class degree? Certainly, he has a doctorate, but it was concerned with some obscure person in the history of Socialism which falls under the aegis of modern history. David Cameron has a first class degree in the rather more relevant areas of politics, philosophy and economics. His professor at Brasenose, Vernon Bogdanor, described David Cameron as ‘one of the ablest students I have taught’ in his 30 years at Oxford. Has any scholar spoken of Gordon Brown in such glowing terms?

And as for looking good in a suit, consider the time that the Conservative Party was led by William Hague and Labour by Tony Blair. Who then was the cleverest person in the room? Who then looked good in a suit?

In a televisual age, there is nothing to be derided about looking good in a suit. After all, Mr Tennant, you reportedly spent an age choosing the elements of your Dr Who costume which would define your persona: have you not heard that the costume can create the character? Perhaps you should go back to your Stanislavski.

I think David Cameron is a terrifying prospect. I think he's a regional newsreader who will jump on whatever bandwagon flies past. I get quite panicked that people are buying his rhetoric, because it seems very manipulative.

Where have you been for the past 14 years? Have you even heard of Alastair Campbell? Have you smelled Peter Mandelson? Are you familiar with the concept of ‘spin’? Who popularised it? Who infused it into the British political system?

And as for buying into rhetoric, Oh, Mr Tennant, you are an actor, and one might expect that an actor would understand that in politics the performance is all. Politics without rhetoric is like theatre without words. Mime has its place, but it is hardly the most effective means of human communication.

A regional newsreader? Is this some expression of professional snobbery? Is it because you are now a national television celebrity and playing Shakespeare on the West End that you pour scorn upon the regions? Did you not begin in some regional repertory theatre?

Jumping on whatever bandwagon flies past? You mean like Tony Blair? Like Gordon Brown? Like every politician is compelled to do because politics is about ‘events’? Do Labour politicians not jump on every bandwagon? Did Tony Blair not bend with the strongest wind? Did he not deceive Parliament and the nation of the grounds for the war with Iraq? Has he not admitted doing so?

And if David Cameron is a ‘terrifying prospect’, another four years of Gordon Brown will bring such things – what they are, yet His Grace knows not: but they shall be the terrors of the earth. You think he’ll weep, no, he’ll not weep: He has full cause of weeping; but this heart shall break into a hundred thousand flaws, or ere he’ll weep. O fool, His Grace shall go mad!

It's weird that you can work in the arts - which tends to be about empathy and understanding and, hopefully, feeling some kind of sympathy for your fellow man - and vote Tory. I find that inconceivable.

Your ignorance of Conservative philosophy is alarming. It is a poor thing in an actor to show such narrow perception. Conservatism has always been concerned with the plight of the poor. Disraeli’s ‘One-Nation’ theme expressed an acute concern for the underprivileged which was to have an enduring conservative appeal. And he made great gains in the most impoverished urban areas. He introduced public health bills, factory acts, education reforms and slum clearance initiatives which won praise even from the trade unions (which he legitimised). The tradition was continued under Baldwin, Churchill, Macmillan and Thatcher: the Conservative Party’s concern for the needy and underprivileged is evident for those who have eyes to see.

I still don't get it when you meet actors who buy the Daily Telegraph and talk about this terrible wave of immigrants. You just think, where did that come from? Have you read King Lear? Have you read Hamlet?

O, please. Are you saying that King Lear and Hamlet support Labour’s policy on immigration? They are magisterial works – Lear the finest in the English language – which are concerned with statecraft. They are tales of power and how to keep it; politics and how to play it; love and how to lose it; family and how to nurture it; the social order and how to sustain it. Immigration? Norway invading Denmark? The poor naked wretches, wheresoe'er they are? If you believe these works articulate a Socialist understanding of the state, with enormous respect, you are a fool. If there is anything for 'Labour luvvies' to glean from these plays it is that omnipotent rulers can go mad: they can lose their kingdoms to traitors; those who appear to be friends and allies are not; and that ambition, revenge, pride, arrogance and procrastination destroy people, corrode society and imperil national sovereignty.

And why stop with Lear and Hamlet? Have you read Richard II or Henry IV parts one and two? Have you not considered that they are imbued with the greatest Tory theme of the nature of kingship? They talk of divine right, anointed leadership and of nature's hierarchical social order. Or is it that you simply do not know what Tory philosophy is beyond your mindless parroting of the garbage of The Guardian?

That will do for now. But it is to be observed that David Tennant appeared in a 2005 Labour party political broadcast: his allegiance is known, and he is being wheeled out in a moment of crisis just like they deploy Tony Robinson, Michael Cashman, Stephen Fry, JK Rowling, Bob Geldof... all of whom are not beyond a sentence or two of manipulative rhetoric.

David Tennant is just one Scottish son of the manse supporting another Scottish son of the manse.

But Cranmer has an idea:

If America can have a Terminator as a state governor, why can Britain not have a Time Lord as an MP?

Go on, David, why don’t you stand for Parliament? Let us see how bright you really are.

Or is it that you just look good in a suit?


Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

......Said Cranmer, while non of us have the foggiest notion who he/she/it might be!

I know what you mean, but I know what he means also. EXTERMINATE!

10 January 2010 at 11:31  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

Wow, your Grace!

Full marks for a political hatchet job of the first magnitude.

But I doubt that David Tennant's preferences will butter many parnsips with the electorate....those that can now afford parsnips, of course, under the Rt Hon Brown, G's tutelege.

Actor are entitled to their views, the same as anyone else. It's just that they tend to get given wider airtime when they make them.

Curiously, it's the very same people who tend to object when Mr Windsor, C, makes all manner of comments to the press.

But then they probably don;t agree with His Royal Highness....

10 January 2010 at 11:32  
Blogger OldSlaughter said...

Your Grace,

His outpouring left me too incandescent to muster a coherent thought.

Thank you for doing it for me.

10 January 2010 at 11:39  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Another excellent blog your Grace.

My one misgiving though is this. David Cameron is no doubt a clever man but is he also a brave man because knowing the solution to a problem is one thing but having the B***s to implement it properly, is another.

10 January 2010 at 11:44  
Anonymous len said...

David Tennant as the Dr lives in a fantasy world, much like Gordon.

10 January 2010 at 11:48  
Blogger Old Holborn said...

Come come now, Your Grace.

If the luvvies at the BBC feel a Scottish son of the Manse is more popular than Jesus at Christmas time (using your money to do so, of course), who are you to argue with the Islington Elite?

10 January 2010 at 11:48  
Anonymous graham wood said...

YG Whilst not for one second do I hold a single kind thought about Brown or Newlabour, neither does the record of DC offer much at all for voters in the coming GE.

Take one example alone which must speak volumes. Is it a happy prospect to know that DC has lied, openly, unashamedly, and still is unrepentant, concerning the greatest issue to face a potential PM or the electorate, namely the question 'Who governs Britain?
The referendum DC promised would have given the electorate an opportunity to decide this issue - either our own elected representatives in a free democratic Parliament where we 'make or break' our own laws. OR
via the European Union which is totally unelectable and un accountable to anybody.
DC decided to abandon his "cast iron" promise.
If he cannot be trusted on THIS, how can he ever be trusted again on any of his uttered promises?

Now consider some of the important policy areas in which DC and Brown are in total harmony. Not a fag paper between

Both believe in the fraudulent man-made Global Warming theory and will formulate their unaffordable "greenie" policies accordingly.

Both ignore the British Constitution, and abandon the concept of power belonging to the people.

Both endorse the supremacy of the EU Lisbon Treaty above our own laws, together with the idea of "big" government.

Both ideologically have fully embraced the "gay" agenda.

Both wish to see an imposed educational framework of teaching homosexuality to our schoolchildren.

Both endorse the practice of infanticide (legal abortion of babies)

Both derive their thinking, and their policies from largely atheistic/humanist post modern assumptions, as opposed to what was once the prevailing Christian ethical consensus.

The identity of ideology and policies mean that we are nearer to a one party State than ever before , which is why the electorate feel so frustrated

10 January 2010 at 12:02  
Anonymous Doctor What said...

We just don't like the fickle nature of David Cameron Your Grace. he keeps making promises then changing his mind. All we know about the Tories is their track record, and Dave tells us they have changed, but he changes like the bloody wind. The Conservative party is like the Tardis, it looks like a normal everyday thing on the outside but on the inside it is beyond explanation, which may be great for Time Lords and Tory cronies but the rest of us are stuck in the everyday world of work, tax and wages. Dave has nothing very much different to say about any of these things except that we will be working, paying more tax and enjoying less wages; and for what reasons........the rich can get richer!


10 January 2010 at 12:09  
Anonymous Working Class Tory said...

Your Grace,

Jamie Oliver is a Tory, who says he comes from "a very right-wing family".

10 January 2010 at 12:29  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

A Time-Lord materialising in Parliament might be quite entertaining but a Terminator as Governor of the secessionist North West Province of Europa would enliven the performance considerably.

10 January 2010 at 12:33  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Working Class Tory,

His Grace thanks you, and has corrected. Though it is evident that Mr Oliver has been used mightily by New Labour, and has been content to associate himself with a number of initiatives (not to mention catering for Mr Blair's private functions).

10 January 2010 at 12:39  
Blogger Don't Call Me Dave said...

Who does David Tennant think he is>

10 January 2010 at 12:54  
Anonymous ullage said...

Oh honestly, Your Grace, actors? Empty-headed fribbles, most of them, not a thought in their heads not put there by a script. They mimic emotions, they don't necessarily understand them - why do you think so few can stay faithful, let alone married, for more than five minutes? DT himself is an overrated gurning twit who got a lucky break; in a few years he will resemble Private Frazer from Dad's Army and he won't be able to get himself arrested, never mind on telly.

At the moment most of the people you have mentioned are overexposed and overpaid largely thanks to the Behemoth Broadcasting Corporation. So of course they sympathise with Labour, the party of illusory comradeship, imaginary ideals and fantasy money. Most people will just ignore them. Their advocacy may sway a few weak-minded innocents, but the gullible and the stupid will probably already be living in the Labour heartlands, so not much damage is likely to be done.

10 January 2010 at 12:54  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

I think Tennant is just a funny-looking man, whose only talent is remembering his lines. He just happens to be the flavour of the month. In thespian history he should rapidly sink without trace.

On the other hand, Simon Rattle is a peerless conductor, but why should his opinion about Section 28 have carried any more weight than mine?

These people are entitled to their opinions, no matter how unintelligent or ill-infomed. So am I (with the same qualifications). Our current obsession with celebrity is of a piece with the garbage about 'emotional intelligence'. Somehow, their pronouncements are perceived to carry weight because they've been seen on the telly.

10 January 2010 at 13:36  
Blogger Jack Bauer said...

Of course, the only circumstance in which Prime Minister Davros would be the cleverest person in the room, would be when he's sitting on the bog.

Alone. I might add.

10 January 2010 at 13:58  
Blogger Perdix said...

Graham Wood. Cameron made no promise for a referendum on a ratified Treaty. Get real.

10 January 2010 at 14:10  
Blogger indigomyth said...

I confess to being a big fan of David Tennant, and thought his portrayal of Hamlet was particularly good. However, I am most devastated to learn that he supports the Labour party.

Why could he have not remained silent on these issues of politics, and not poisoned his standing in my mind?

It rather reminds me of Whoopie Goldberg saying that Roman Polanski did not commit "rape rape".

Deeply disappointed in DT.

10 January 2010 at 14:20  
Blogger Malthebof said...

I gave up reading interviews with actors years ago. They are totally solipsistic, what they do is not a job for a grown up, they learn lines written by somebody else. Acting is a smething we do as children then should discard.

10 January 2010 at 14:21  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

A wonderful piece, Your Grace. Cheered me up no end.

10 January 2010 at 14:24  
Blogger indigomyth said...


//what they do is not a job for a grown up, they learn lines written by somebody else. Acting is a smething we do as children then should discard.//

And what would you do with Shakespeare, you utter cretin? Perform it with children? These are plays, designed to be performed. The writers are not performers, they cannot convey emotion in their thought and act.

Do actually believe that performing Shakespeare is child's play? The act of bringing to life the works of the finest writer ever seen on the face of the planet, is immature? If so, you are a complete and total idiot.

10 January 2010 at 14:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'A resurgent BNP?'

Surely, that's a positive?

10 January 2010 at 14:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shakespeare, Doctor Who, someone who was burnt at the stake hundreds of years ago, Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations; someday soon will will have a debate about the here and now, the problems of the 21st century.

Indigo, maybe he does not actually support the Labour Party, maybe it's just Dave that he finds a bit too scary. If Dave could only tell us what it is that he thinks he can do differently then maybe we could at least give it some thought. All we have to go on at the moment is the rantings of a few bloggers like Cranmer, and Dale with his army of pink Tories.

10 January 2010 at 15:03  
Anonymous graham wood said...

Perdix said:

"Cameron made no promise for a referendum on a ratified Treaty. Get real."

I trust you stand corrected?
DC made the "cast iron" promise on (quote)
"whatever treaty emerges from these negotiations"

Of course the issue as to whether the Lisbon Treaty/constitution is ratified or not is completely irrelevant.
But to gauge DC's equivocation we need but remember his words to a Bristol audience in 2009 re the Treaty/constitution:
"We shall just have to learn to live with it".
I trust that is sufficient proof - or would you also like chapter and verse?

10 January 2010 at 17:11  
Blogger John Woolman said...

I was a contemporary of Gordon Brown's at Edinburgh University. He was undoubtedly intellectually very able. He was also driven. By what I don't know.

10 January 2010 at 17:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Graham Wood,

"Take one example alone which must speak volumes. Is it a happy prospect to know that DC has lied, openly, unashamedly, and still is unrepentant, concerning the greatest issue to face a potential PM or the electorate, namely the question 'Who governs Britain?
The referendum DC promised would have given the electorate an opportunity to decide this issue - either our own elected representatives in a free democratic Parliament where we 'make or break' our own laws. OR
via the European Union which is totally unelectable and un accountable to anybody.
DC decided to abandon his "cast iron" promise.
If he cannot be trusted on THIS, how can he ever be trusted again on any of his uttered promises?"

I don't think that that's entirely fair. If you remember, the pledge was made back in 2007, when it looked like Mr. Brown was going to go to the polls and seek a mandate. I honestly believe that, had be become Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron would have held a referendum on the Treaty. As it was, though, our illustrious leader bottled it, and, now that the Treaty has been ratified, there's not a lot David Cameron can do about it. For a politician to recognise that circumstances have changes, and that they can no longer keep a promise they made, if not at all disgraceful.

What is disgraceful, however, is that, having now dropped us in it so deeply, so irrevocably, that there's nothing we can do to get ourselves out, the Prime Minister now has the brazen hypocrisy to try and portray the Leader of the Opposition as the bad guy over this. Let us not forget that it was his party that signed the Treaty, in contravention to their manifesto pledge. I think it a sad day for British politics that so many people seem to be accepting Brown's taunts, rather than pointing them out for the rubbish they are.

I could go into greater detail, but this blog has managed to put the case across far more eloquently than I ever could:

10 January 2010 at 17:23  
Anonymous graham wood said...

Anonymous. I do of course agree that the treachery of the broken promise was evident by NewLab which was, and is, the governing party. It also was given by the LibDems.
I agree too that DC's promise was made in 2007, but why should the elapse of time invalidate the promise? Why need it be withdrawn?
It was after all, given on WHATEVER TREATY EMERGES - that is, an unqualified and unconditional promise made at the time. (He subsequently backtracked for opportunist reasons)

We need to nail the lie that since Lisbon is now "law" in the UK it cannot be subjected to the democratic will of the people in a referendum. It must be asked therefore if Mr Cameron's excuse of Lisbon being "law" is sufficient reason for failing to honour his promise.
Is there any precedent for a national referendum being held AFTER a political decision of such importance has already been taken? Indeed there is, and Greenland's decision to leave the EEC in 1985 in a post accession referendum is just one example.
But there is one nearer home. The history of the UK's accession to the then EEC (European Economic Community, or Common Market) illustrates that such a precedent is well established, for we joined this group of six other nations in January 1973, and from that moment on the rules of the EEC club was law in the UK.
It was two year later, in June 1975, that the long overdue referendum was held, which was to confirm the decision already made by the Heath government earlier to join. That referendum question was whether to REMAIN in membership of the EEC.
There has never been a referendum to join the European Union. We need one now.

10 January 2010 at 18:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with most comments concerning Cameron, and his lot.

The proof of this pudding will be in its eating. Therefore please prepare yourselves for a horrendous bout of painful indigestion.

The signs are about as bad as they can get, and getting worse by the day. Expect IRAN, and or the entire middle east to blow up in every ones faces not long after Cameron gets his feet under the table. At which point, and for some considerable amount of time afterwards, our economic woes will be taking a back seat.

It is clear that Labour have no intention of staying in government, and quite frankly none too many could rationally blame them for that. Everything else maybe.

What should surprise us all is that there still exists people like DT who genuinely believe that Cameron is going to introduce any establishment designed policies that are substantially different from the establishment designed policies of Gordon Brown.

We are not governed by who we are lead to believe we are. America is run by the people who control and set up The CFR. Britain is run by the people who control and set up The RIIA. Who are exactly the same people who control and set up the UN, and the EU etc. National democracy has little or nothing to do with ANYTHING, but a few minor details, and was always only ever going to be a means to a very sticky end. While of course keeping the plebs quiet, radically divided, and confused. Except when the establishment wishes the peasants to be anything but quiet, confused, and radically divided. Like for example when they need us to pointlessly fight a war, or two for them.

What is FAR FAR worse, this situation did not start in 79,90,97,01,05,or any time recently. This situation has been the case since 1913 at least, and some say for at least 2-3 hundred years. IMO this has effectively been the situation, since the Roman invasion almost 2000 years ago.

The world has been under the control of the unseen hand and the all seeing eye since not long after the unseen hand and the all seeing eye first existed. Which it go's without saying was a mighty long time before any of us were born. Which is the main reason why hardly any of us can properly understand what the hell is happening and still less know what in THIS HELL, to do about it.

In the same way, and for the same reason our forefathers could not stop WW1, or 2 from ripping the heart out of Europe.

Evil moves in mysterious ways, but always the most effectively in utter SECRET. In secret and from the last possible place people would suspect it to be coming from.

10 January 2010 at 18:16  
Blogger Hughes. said...

This echoes my own feelings when I read the ex-Time Lord's fatuous, shallow and ignorant partisanship.

His political savvy not extending beyond puerile "Gordon's a good bloke, and everyone knows Tories are evil" style of discourse that would have even Student Union bar dwelling teenage leftites thinking his arguments were immature.

To criticise the shallowness of David Cameron and have no further basis for attack than his physical appearance displays the typical hypocrisy of those in showbiz and the press who will deploy any fallacious rationale they can to justify their unfailing support of a failed Government and a disastrous Prime Minister, come what may.

10 January 2010 at 18:18  
Anonymous Fran said...

A Magisterial piece Your Grace.

Tennant is a twit.

10 January 2010 at 18:28  
Anonymous Brother Jonathan said...

Dr. Who #4, assisted by Leela and K-9, might save Britain. I am sadly not familiar with Dr. Who #?.

10 January 2010 at 18:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What about Bill Hartnell's dr who? He would be a good one!

10 January 2010 at 19:10  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Enjoyable article your grace , surely labour must be in need of time travelling device in regards of polls , no doubt to go back to 97 and make a mefesto pledge that in 12 yrs time the country will be bankrupt .

But an actor, novelist or playright with political opinions is nothing new , particulary post ww2 socialism .

We should perhaps raise a glass to Mr Tennant , he has been famous for acting , what some else has written or thought in the vaccuum of opinion or vote , rather reminds me of someone in real life .

10 January 2010 at 20:47  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

I have never understood why actors, pop singers, footballers, because they happen to get onto television and be in the public eye, all seem to think that this makes them experts in everything: politics, green issues, global warming, nuclear power stations, etc, etc.
And even more, I've never understood why anyone, particularly world leaders, should take any notice of them.

10 January 2010 at 21:32  
Blogger Jess The Dog said...

I suggest, if he doesn't like the prospect of a Cameron government, then he can jump in the Tardis and return to 1997. Or just shut up!

10 January 2010 at 21:35  
Anonymous JC said...

I submit that Your Grace has missed the real point here, along with every other poster.

DT is as entitled to his opinions as any other private citizen. Since he is not a professional politician there is no reason that his political beliefs should be given mass media coverage - other than with the aim of scoring political points. For an openly partisan newspaper such as the Daily Mirror to report them as "news" should not come as a surprise to any of us.

But the BBC News website reported what he said here:

I have accordingly lodged a complaint with them alleging bias and impropriety in reporting the personal political views of a private citizen as news. It is, de facto, political propaganda (and particularly odious with a general election nigh) from a website that we all pay for and which is supposed to be utterly impartial.

I would strongly urge other communicants to do likewise.

10 January 2010 at 22:21  
Blogger Perdix said...

Graham Wood 17.11. I agree with Anonymous 17.23.See also this extract from Hague's speech on policy at the Conservative Conference on 2 October 2007 just before the bottled election (it's on the Tory web site):
"So let everyone be clear: a Conservative Government elected this autumn will hold a referendum on any EU treaty which emerges from the current negotiations."
Note "if elected THIS AUTUMN".Hague's description of policy was more precise than Cameron's but Cameron's piece in The Sun also said that no treaty should be ratified without the consent of the people.
To hold a referendum on a ratified Lisbon ConTreaty would have no effect on the Treaty.

10 January 2010 at 22:51  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Your Grace, I'm saddened to see so many 'ad spiritum' comments here! They're not up to par on literacy, however; and perhaps that's why they perceive only the 'letter of the law.'

As usual many of the 'travelling' commentators appropriate and propagate DEFEATIST PROPAGANDA.

I argue, as ever, that the nasty bit of lisbon parchment is ILLEGAL. How can any agreement be 'legal' when an agent signs it without permission from the parties to the agreement? The arrangement is clearly fraudulent, and the people so misrepresented cannot be bound by the fraud.

By the same token:

So no, we are not bound by what these traitors have done to us. Nor should we continue to bankrupt ourselves further by paying all these foreigners to ... well, "Carry on Bankrupting Britain."

The entire process is, in fact, one of 'spiritual' (non-physical) invasion - and we should fight it off as surely as we previously resisted physical invaders.

So WAKE UP you dozy, brainwashed children. Think for yourselves instead of being snowed by the agents of your enemies - those who have well-nigh cheated you out of your heritage and your livelihood: while you fed on the fantasies they used to subdue you. They've drugged you into submission.

You 'celebrate' people like Tennant who attempt to dazzle you with fame and 'success,' and "modern" Tardis-magic that you pretend is about 'science' and 'technology.' But these shysters are no different from mediaeval alchemists; and they are the only ones who profit (briefly) from their own egos and greed. 'Success' on such principles is also a fraud - AND YOU ARE THE VICTIMS.

So next time you watch Dr. Who - try seeing the present incarnation as a viper in the bosoms of the Time Lords.

11 January 2010 at 00:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Formidably impressive blog - penetratingly insightful and superbly written. Struggling to see why Cranmer's name has been invoked. He's not in any sense an exponent of conservatism - indeed, as an ecclesiastical revolutionary, he's quite the opposite. Surely this should have been

11 January 2010 at 07:05  
Blogger Dave said...

All actors are essentially beggars in nice suits. Over 90% are unemployed at any time and are likely to claim benefits.

Therefore I'm not surprised when one of the more successful actors comes out in favour of the party that will fund the actors workshops and community theatres and all the other publicly funded toss that keeps them alive.

Remember Red Wedge?
Most of those are now millionaires

11 January 2010 at 10:09  
Blogger John M Ward said...

I tend to disagree with the opinion that actors are of particular significance in evaluating the real world, as they spend their time in different unreal worlds — especially those in fantasy series such as "Doctor Who" (which is even less hardcore SF than it was in the old days).

Thus the preponderance of those in the business is to take unrealistic Lefty stances and fail to understand the real world and why it is so (the first step toward dealing with its issues).

There are exceptions, but not many.

Even so, I do appreciate the concept of a Terminator (in the guise of the Governor of California) turning up to a negotiation about Cameron's proposed repatriation of powers from the EU. Such lines as "Eat me!" or (of course) "Hasta la vista, baby!" in that menacing voice, aimed at the unelected EU commissioners, should help Mr Cameron's side considerably in that situation…

11 January 2010 at 11:41  
Blogger John Chilver said...

'And as for looking good in a suit, consider the time that the Conservative Party was led by William Hague and Labour by Tony Blair. Who then was the cleverest person in the room? Who then looked good in a suit?'

Has Your Grace momentarily forgotten that Mr Hague (like Mr Cameron) also gained a first class degree from Oxford, while Mr Blair earned but a second ? And I don't think Mr Hague's severest critics ever commented on his choice of suits ...only headgear.

11 January 2010 at 15:26  
Blogger Gnostic said...

no nonny - well said!

11 January 2010 at 15:39  
Blogger Irene said...



11 January 2010 at 21:22  
Blogger Sam Tarran said...

I laughed so hard when I read his bit about David Cameron being a "terrifying prospect". If Cameron's "terrifying", how bad does that make Brown?

Most actors are socialist because they're pretentious. Just look at it, talking about how much he knows about "the arts" and suchlike. You're famous for being in a kid's TV programme mate!

12 January 2010 at 17:03  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Tennant is perfectly entitled to his views, just as Cranmer is entitled to disagree with them. What is wrong however that his views on anything beyond his area of competence should carry any more weight that anyone else by dint of being a celebrity. Perhaps those that take the political views of celebrities seriously, as Cranmer (and all the Party HQs) obviously does, just encourage the cult of celebrity.

If you want to take throwaway remarks seriously could I recommend the advice of my granny to "Never trust a Tory" - works for me ;)

PS I think you will find that Leslie Crowther has gone beyond being an endangered species!

13 January 2010 at 12:59  
Blogger Gussymum said...

I absolutely disagree with the political comments made by David Tennant. However Sam Tarran is incorrect when he states that Mr Tennant is famous for being in a kids TV programme, (a programme which is also watched by millions of adults!)David Tennant is an exceptional actor who has appeared in many fine TV dramas, and has worked with the RSC for many years. He recently appeared as Hamlet, both in theatre and on screen which received excellent reviews. There are loads of actors who have voiced support for the Tory party!

23 January 2010 at 02:12  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older