Useful idiot?

editorial image
Have your say

With reference to “APB’s”, (Star August 29, 2015), “Excuse for a human being” letter.

Whilst suspecting that I may be amongst those ESA recipients in the sights of Iain Duncan Smith, I can therefore appreciate his/her anger. But I would like to remind him/her, if I may, that IDS does not and cannot make such policy alone (can he?).

Hhe must have the backing of the Cabinet and by implication Tory Party supporters and hence is the public face of the wider decision- making process.

This is basically only building on measures put in place by previous governments, including the Blair/Brown varieties of New Labour over the years. Many adherents are still vehemently in evidence and a lot of people vote for them when push comes to shove.

So perhaps they see him as being what Lenin, I think it was, called a useful idiot; who can be relied upon to implement such self-serving draconian policies, but then be abandoned to his doom in the role of scapegoat once the dastardly deeds have been done and the fait accompli accomplished.

But, in the meantime, who will champion the cause of the persecuted, I wonder?

Perhaps the current apparent swing to Jeremy Corbyn within the ranks of the Labour Party holds out a prospect of better things to come for the downtrodden and those in line to be so, due to a wider trend born of a serious questioning of the status quo and a willingness to openly discuss and hence challenge the validity of it.

In which case, perhaps it may prove illuminating to bear in mind the following quotation from a leader article appearing in The Times dated July 1, 1940, which apparently became a favourite text forming the basis for the advocates of a longed-for New World order after the Second World War had been won.


“If we speak of democracy, we do not mean a democracy which maintains the right to vote but forgets the right to work and the right to live. If we speak of freedom, we do not mean a rugged individualism which excludes social organisation and economic planning. If we speak of equality, we do not mean a political equality nullified by social and economic privilege. If we speak of economic reconstruction, we think less of maximum production (though this will be required) than of equitable distribution… The European house cannot be put in order unless we put our own house in order first.

“The new order cannot be based on the preservation of privilege, whether the privilege be that of a country, of a class, or of an individual.”

So pause for thought I wonder?

Michael Parker

Robertshaw Crescent, Deepcar, Sheffield S36