HAVING somehow survived for seven decades, much nearer the end than one might prefer, I really ought not to be too concerned about what the future holds for the UK.
As I have repeatedly told myself, not much of it matters when yet another twinge makes getting out of bed ever more painful. Time has moved on, the baton has been passed and, clearly, I would be better occupied planning how my wife and I spend our latter years.
So, other than actually caring, why then do I apparently waste time in writing letters to the Advertiser? Well, while the reasons are many and varied, they mostly centre around a lifelong, nerdy interest in political debate.
Especially when there is offered the chance to participate. Some blokes tinker with cars, play golf, weed the garden or buy a caravan. What I prefer is a cup of tea, a pen and a good argument, particularly one which results in my being insulted by cannon fodder from both ends of the political spectrum. To them I say free your
mind, consider all the angles and try to be sure of the facts before laying out your stall. If you do none of these things then it makes any comeback much easier.
As I can hopefully demonstrate now by correcting inaccuracies and misunderstandings contained in a couple of letters last week from messrs Clive Phillips and Dave Platts. For whatever reason both appear to be confused if
they still believe I entirely support or oppose their views. My advice is that they read again what I have been trying to make clear for ever it seems, that neither of them is always right or always wrong.
What they are is stuck in their ways, never able to admit they might on occasion be wrong. It is why Mr Phillips, for the first time that I can recall, agreed with what I had written, when on the previous week I had been critical of socialism. Rest
assured I could say much worse about his sainted nationalism or his lauding of the greed fuelled, self-rewarding spivery which passes for capitalism these days.
Dave Platts, of course, would have a real problem treating non-believers with respect. Presumably intended to suggest that my opinions can safely be ignored because they don’t sit well with his decades long devotion to the cause, he now refers to me simply as Hoyle or, no doubt to add a touch of whimsy, ‘professor’ Hoyle.
Just how juvenile and pathetic can you get? Grow up for God’s sake and while you’re at it at least get your facts straight before casting aspersions. Like for example. if a Daily Mail has ever crossed my threshold it must have been wrapped around an order of cod and chips. Or, as my wife would testify no-one could pay me enough to watch anything which involves dancing, so if indeed I ever endorsed Ed Balls as a potential leader (please advise when) then it could only have been based on stuff I had read in the press about his emerging popularity, as a result of appearing on the programme.
In addition I have never said I hate Corbyn, I simply regard him as a guaranteed loser and economically illiterate.
Perfectly reasonable charges to make given the 2017 election result and that his monetary ‘solutions’ all date back to a time when the global control of finance had yet to occur. The UK would last about a week before the outflow of funds would begin to take a toll on our banks and services. Give it a month and we would probably be receiving aid from Venezuela.
A joke Dave, a joke. Or are you now so touchy of any criticism you are no longer able to laugh?
Ian Hoyle, Broom Valley Road, Rotherham
PS. By the way, a Trot is a person who follows the teachings of Marx, while a Marxist prefers Trotsky. Or, given they all sound the same to me, is it the other way around?