Tuesday, 7 May 2013

In defence of Aaron Gilmore

Aaron Gilmore is in good company. The last time we saw a feeding frenzy like this it was about something Paul Henry said, and before that something John Banks said, and before that something Alasdair Thompson said, and before that something Paul Holmes said, and between and before that…

In the economics twitterverse there’s a feeding frenzy going on at the moment about something historian Niall Ferguson said.  In Arizona there’s outrage about a school holding a “Redneck Day.” In Europe there’s outrage that a Turkish airline has banned its trolly dollies from wearing red lipstick.

There’s always oafish comments and behaviour about somewhere, and always a feeding frenzy going on amongst those easily offended by oafishness and too busy minding other people’s business.

“Resign, resign, resign,” say folk with no stake in the argument, nor any standing with which to call for resignation. “Outrageous!” say people who wouldn’t have known about the oafishness if their friends hadn’t emailed them with the invitation to be outraged. “How dare he!” say the virtuously self-anointed wallowing in an orgy of self-righteousness.

Yes, Aaron Gilmore is a dickhead. Yes, he’s an MP. But there are 121 MPs in Parliament, and by my count there are 121 of them who are dickheads.

There are a lot more important things about on which to engage than a backbencher opening his mouth to prove it.


  1. There need to be consequences for stupidity and while most who encounter this will walk away thinking "pratt" without chosing to be offended what we have here is a twit who wants to boss me about at my expense because he thinks he has much to offer. That makes the offence issue of no consequence - I simply don't want this idiot in the political debate. I can add another 100 or so as well but he's a good start because no one will miss him as he goes onto lower paid welfare.

  2. In the case of Niall Ferguson, his comments were nothing compared to hugely damaging philosophy of Maynard Keynes that was the real subject of his speech. Keynes' words have been relied on by everyone from FDR to Paul Krugman in supporting economic policies that have done enormous damage to people throughout the 20th and early 21st Centuries. Was Ferguson wrong in ascribing a personal motivation to Keynes' complete disregard for future generations? Perhaps, but he was right in highlighting the damage Keynesian economics have done.

  3. Agree with all except the 121 dickheads bit. Someone has to govern.

    Sorry PC, but it's usually very unintelligent people who make trite and vacuous remarks like the one you have.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.