Here is a letter from today’s Evening Standard. See if you can work out which political grouping the author belongs to.
The celebrities-save-Africa bandwagon had surely reached its apogee with Steven Spielberg’s withdrawal from his Beijing Olympics role. Despite his creativity, he seems to have no idea what real progress or democracy means globally.
Spielberg wants China to withdraw desperately needed investment from Sudan, or attach Western-style strings of good governance. As a supporter of intervention in Darfur, her wants Sudan’s elected government undermined by a foreign power rather than by Sudanese people. He is also using the Games as a platform to expose China’s regime, rather than trust that to Chinese dissidents.
Politicians and celebrities should steer clear of using sport to make up for their sorry lack of vision on development and democracy issues. The Beijing Games should be celebrated for its athletic endeavour and we should also be grateful for China’s rapid economic rise bringing millions out of poverty.
China doesn’t need Spielberg in full Indiana Jones mode telling them what to do. Africans certainly don’t need China following the West in screwing up developing countries by constant interfering. “
So, what group does the author belong to. Easy, really. All the clues are there.
I got it from the first paragraph. See how long it takes you.
I’ll post the answer tomorrow.
UPDATE
Of course, as most of you guessed, it was the RCP.
Mick Hume has a comment piece in The Times today, running an identical line. The piece references fellow RCP-er, Brendan O’Neil.
The RCP occasionally make quite reasonable arguments (as well as some utterly outrageous and crap ones, of course). The trouble is, the fact that these arguments are being made by a member of a weird cult has the effect of discrediting those arguments.
I mean, it is kind of embarassing to find yourself agreeing with the RCP about something, isn’t it?