Search results
public support for Tube ticket office closures when the RMT’s commissioned poll showed the opposite, he said: ‘The thing is figures can’t lie, but lies can figure.’64 He also saw humour in the antics of opponents: after being called ‘demented’ by Boris Johnson, he told the Guardian that ‘he was recently interviewed on Channel 4 news and Johnson was on a video link-up – when the mayor was told Crow was in the studio he said it was a set-up, and left. “He walked away with all these wires hanging from him. He looked like Frankenstein! Hahahaha!”’65 Of the Evening Standard
unchanged. The leadership is new. The structures are new. The ideology is new. The ultimate aims are new. The mentality and the methods have a new and amoral ruthlessness. The new IRA is a radically new phenomenon – and it is a sinister one. It is now taking shape as a movement alien to Irish tradition and values. Some of the men who mobilised it in 1970 must now have difficulty in recognising it as the same movement. What they created has become a Frankenstein, out of their control, with which many of them must now be disillusioned, and many of them now may even be
Kinnock was drawing on a historically informed construction of Militant that was well-established. Since 1981, the anti-Militant Labour Solidarity Campaign had argued that ‘Labour is not a revolutionary party and never has been … Labour’s roots are in the free trade union movement.’59 At Labour’s annual conference in 1982, Militant was described by the party’s General Secretary as alien to the Left’s traditions.60 Other speakers were more emphatic in their analysis: We have seen an uncontrollable Frankenstein of programmed robots nibbling away at the foundations of this
mobility and home-ownership, which helped fuel the advance of Thatcherism. As Middlemas notes, rising public expectations and assertiveness made it ever harder for the old political elites to pursue the top-down fine-tuning and balancing of interest groups that had characterised the 1950s and 1960s. This was a concern to some centrist politicians and civil servants of the consensus years, who began to fear ‘they had helped create, not a balanced polity but one dominated by a Frankenstein monster of public ingratitude, wantonness and greed’ (1986: 353–4). In fact, this
When states create an IGO that has autonomy from them, have they, like Dr Frankenstein in Mary Shelley’s gothic horror story, created a monster that they cannot control, or have states created something compliant that they (or maybe the most powerful of them) can utilise to serve their purposes? The relationship between member states and an IGO is a difficult one politically and legally. In legal terms the tension is caused by the fact that states have normally established a legally separate entity which, depending upon its competence and the extent of its
evidence of harm to human consumers from food containing GM ingredients has not inhibited critics of what has been labelled ‘Frankenstein food’. It was and it appears to remain a case of guilt by association; the association of GM science with enterprises that appear to care for little other than market position and profitability. On the other side of battle lines that have been drawn between anti-GM campaigners and GM advocates, a similar logic – based on guilt by association – appears to apply. For example, despite obvious differences between GM protestors and the