Well, we had "New Labour", now we have the "New Generation", an utterly meaningless political catch-phrase with all the gravitas of "Persil Washes Whiter". It was repeated ad nauseum by Ed 'Cain' Miliband as he slipped on his coat of many colours for his first speech to the Labour party and then proceeded to be all things to all men, or to be precise, all things to all electors. I am not sure of the efficacy of that slogan because like many of the elderly Labourites in the audience I thought to myself, well, that's me written out of the script, so if you're over 45 you can just fuck off! Mind you, it was, I think, an excellent political speech in that every semi-proposition in one direction was immediately countered and contradicted by another in the opposite direction. Anyone with half a brain, which excludes 99.7% of his audience in the hall, will have recognised that in effect he said nothing at all. Mind you, it was worth sitting through and watching on the 'telly' when he ticked off the Trade Union capos and told them that he would not be supporting any wild industrial action. 'Bruvvers' Simpson and Woodley with their stony faces were a picture and only required a bubble above their heads containing the words "Hmmmn, we'll see about that when we come to decide how big our contribution will be to Labour party election funds - er, comrade!"
I have a sinking feeling that this lad is going to make Tony 'Hey, I'm a pretty straight sort of a guy' Blair look positively upright and principled, so 'Dave' and his dimwits had better look out.
Amusingly, it appears that "Cain" is the able brother. When he was a yoof, he won an Oxford place on merit, they say. His brother had to be wangled in by some sort of marxist old pals stunt organised by his father. In other words, by treating Oxford as if it were bloody Harvard.
Posted by: dearieme | Tuesday, 28 September 2010 at 19:41
"bloody Harvard"! Do I detect the merest hint of Oxbridge superiority? Surely not, DM!
Posted by: David Duff | Tuesday, 28 September 2010 at 20:27
As I understand it, in the US the academics don't decide on undergraduate admissions; university bureaucrats do. Their criteria are much diluted from any notion of mere academic merit - they tend to have "legacy" admissions (e.g. based on your father's having been a Harvard man), bought-for admissions (your father has just donated a few squillions to the institution), race-privileged admissions (black good, yellow not so good), "athletic" admissions, and, doubtless, other creepy-crawly admissions. (Children of the academics and bureaucrats, perhaps?)
I understand that Oxford does iffy "athletic" admissions, but it seems to be restricted to feeble postgraduate diploma courses suitable for a few rowing men. Undergraduate admissions seem to be about as straight as you'll get with vain and imperfect humans doing the work. Remember, he who admits a fool has to teach him.
Posted by: dearieme | Wednesday, 29 September 2010 at 09:39
I can back up what DM said about US Universities. The Kennedy's, especially Teddy, all got into Harvard through family money. But I don't know what percent of students get in this way, and what percent get in on merit. Of course, even "merit" can mean different things. These days, race is considered a "merit" because, so the weasils say, you bring diversity to the campus.
Posted by: Dom | Wednesday, 29 September 2010 at 15:26
Well, if it's diversity they're after I'm amazed they didn't invite me!
Posted by: David Duff | Wednesday, 29 September 2010 at 15:44
Now why didn't you advise us there wa a transcript, and a video?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/8025462/Ed-Miliband-my-vision-to-rebuild-trust.html
However I have to admit, I liked the headline on the site where I found it better.
http://stubbornfacts.us/
Posted by: JK | Wednesday, 29 September 2010 at 21:59
Good grief, JK, nobody in their right mind wants to read, let alone see, the little greaser all over again! I did you a favour.
Posted by: David Duff | Wednesday, 29 September 2010 at 22:27