Michael Martin is everything that New Labourites of all parties disdain.
Economically left-wing in a totally non-Marxist way - Catholic, AUEW/AEEU/AEU, erstwhile PPS to Denis Healey. Morally and socially conservative. Orthodox Catholic. Working-class.
From the Heartland (the Midlands, the North, the Scottish Lowlands, Wales in general and South Wales in particular) that is now infuriating them even further by returning to economic pre-eminence.
Committed to traditional parliamentary procedures and to the purposes behind them, rather than willing to obey any order bellowed from the New Toffs on the Government front bench or the Old Toffs on the Opposition one.
Undoubtedly very sceptical about European federalism within American hegemony and globalisation on the one hand. And undoubtedly very sceptical about the break-up of the United Kingdom into bits all the more easily handed over to the European superstate, the American hyperpower and global capital, on the other hand; no one is more Unionist that Scots Catholics (or Welsh Catholics, or English Catholics even if they do not yet realise it), who have no more desire to go down the road of who is or is not "really" Scots (or "really" Welsh, or "really" English) than Ulster Protestants have to go down the road of who is or is not "really" Irish.
Now that he is gone, is this the end for everyone who is any one or more of economically left-wing in that totally non-Marxist way, morally and socially conservative, orthodox Catholic, working-class, from the Heartland, committed to traditional parliamentary procedures and to the purposes behind them, and sceptical about European federalism on the one hand and the break-up of the United Kingdom on the other, all of these having become absolute disqualifications from preferment or even first-time selection in any of the parties?
It must not be. The denominational thing is negotiable, although there does have to be something. But none of the others is. The next Speaker must be like that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is interesting that the debate has now changed.
ReplyDeleteYesterday Michael Martin was a tribal dinosaur unfit for high Office.
Today he is a good decent man brought down by Toffs.
A tribal politician certainly but the point is that he is MY tribe. Possibly yours.
Religion DID play a part. The repulsive Hoey (the Farmers daughter from Ballyclare, international Marxist and pro abortionist) was never a fan.
Even the normally likeable Gordon Prentice managed to bring Religion into the debate by trying to exclude it.
Asked jokingly (by James Landale) whether there should be "rejoicing over a reformed sinner" (Martin) he rather unnecessarily said "lets not bring religion into it".
Prentice is of course the Scottish non Catholic divorced husband of Bridget Prentice MP (Scottish and Catholic).
Religion has been a CODED theme. Why should the Speaker not be Scottish or Catholic? Is it alien?
Rather oddly some neo Jacobites (they havent gone away you know) agree.
But CLASS has always been a feature. Today Quentin Letts who orchestrated the Gorbals Mick wolf pack says its not a time to dwell on a decent mans failures. But he calls for a man (or woman) who can command the Commons.......someone from the Officer Class no doubt.
Of course all this anti- Catholic working Class and Scottish stuff would have more impact if Michael Martin had been a good Speaker.
He wasnt.
I think that, being Irish (or Scottish), you might be overplaying the Catholic thing. And so might he. There are plenty of upper-class English Catholics, such as the very striking number of Catholics who write for the Telegraph. But yes, it was there.
ReplyDeleteThe Big Two, though, were Scottishness (or just Not Home Counties-ness) and, of course, class, with everything that they entail in terms of Not New Labour/Not Blue Labour political opinions.
There is now the opportunity to prove this wrong, or at least to improve on it, when it comes to electing the new Speaker.
My response seems to have been lost in the Internet.
ReplyDeleteAs you have stated before Irish Catholicism is totally different from English Catholicism.
Irish and Scottish Catholicism is based on peasant Churches.
The "English" Catholic tradition is based on recusant, quasi Jacobite, aristocracy.
The "English" Catholics in some way think that THEIR Catholicism is superior and definitive.
English Catholics are at best patronising to Irish and Scottish Catholics.....at worst insulting.
"Scottish Catholicism is based on peasant Churches"
ReplyDeleteNews to Michael Ancram, I'm sure.
And have you ever met Catholics from the Highlands and Islands? They have no doubt what "Scottish Catholicism" means. And let's just say that it has nothing to do with Ireland...
Yes indeed I have met many Catholics from the Western Isles. Indeed I spent a very pleasant two weeks in Oban and environs once. ...1996 (250 Anniv Culloden).
ReplyDeletePerhaps Michael Ancram MP for Devizes is rather atypical.
The "tradition" of the English Catholic Church is recusant and aristocratic. Rather embarrassingly for them.....the pews are full of Filipinos and Poles. And worse...Irish.
As you know I have just returned from London where I spent a pleasant three days touring my favourite ex-Embassy London Churches such as Warwick Street (prev Portuguese and Bavarian) and is now the outreach centre to Londons gay Catholics.
As a daily Communicant I also took the opportunity to visit the more traditional Churches. Not my cup of tea of course but nice to know that the worst priestly cases in the Blogosphere are actually REAL people.
We really cant make these people up.
Frank Field?
ReplyDeleteBest name in the frame.
ReplyDelete