But, as I say, no waterfowl. Instead I offer you an observation on the limitations of political debate, and a feel-good song from the deep south; Alabama this time:
"Those who are strictly of the right tend not to recognise that some are genuinely fearful of not being able to provide for themselves and their families. Those of the left frequently forget that someone else has to pay for all their plans. When commentators of the right talk of rights (not a word they use very much, but the idea is often present) they mean freedoms, the absence of interference by government in private life. When the left speak of rights they mean other people’s money. It isn’t easy to understand each other like that, even if it’s only for the purpose of arguing. There is no common ground.
When David Cameron is asked to be, or acclaimed for being, or accused of being, brave, or responsible, or whatever, because he has approved some measure which will benefit some section of society, what he has done is simply to make a calculation as to the distribution of lost/gained votes that will result from his promising that other people will be forced to spend their money to make it possible.
By all means characterize left-wingers as being either stupid or lazy- which some of them undoubtedly are- and right-wingers as being greedy and uncaring- again, some of them are- but they both have a point, an important point essential to their ideas, which is unrecognized by those who disagree with them. We look at the world and we see different things."