Sunday 1 November 2009

Proud To Be A Turnip Talib

I wouldn't vote for anyone who hadn't recanted her former advocacy of the abolition of the monarchy ("youthful indiscretion" doesn't answer the question). I leave that to the party of ageing Eighties Rightists who still hate the Commonwealth; the party that let go, and would not restore, the hereditary peers whose ranks Attlee was proud to join.

I wouldn't vote for anyone who didn't believe that adultery was wrong, whether or not she had ever done it, which is something else entirely. I leave that to the party that entrenched economically the 1960s collapse in moral standards that had been egged on by the man behind first pirate radio and then the Institute of Economic Affairs.

I wouldn't vote for anyone who despised the countryside and its inhabitants. I leave that to the party of the viciously anti-agrarian "free" market, and of the evisceration of rural life since 1979.

And I wouldn't vote for anyone selected from an all-women shortlist.

What does that make me? Old Labour. And proud of it.

26 comments:

  1. Break Dancing Jesus2 November 2009 at 14:53

    More new fascist more like.

    I was looking back on your first entry on this blog. I saw someone was comparing you to Moseley even then.

    A man who describes himself as a socialist but advocates powers to hereditry peers. What a load of fascist, eugenicist piffle.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Still can't spell, eh, BDJ? Not just historically illiterate (look up the first Earl Attlee, or perhaps Mosley's attitude to hereditary peers), but actually illiterate. You used to be overrated. But now you are not rated at all. There are not many things that can make me approve, even a tiny little bit, of all-women shortlists. However, what has become of you as a result of one is certainly among them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. David you do have a tendency to label "other" politicians regardless of how they describe themselves.
    They might describe themselves as Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem but you insist on applying your own label.
    They might even describe themselves as Irish Nationalist/Republican and you will describe them as "pro union".

    To be fair to BDJ (and I dont believe I just said that) he is applying your OWN criteria.
    You describe yourself as pro "Commonwealth", pro "worker", "pro conservation".......pro whatever.

    He labels you fascist.
    Which begs the question (besides the obvious "sauce for gander and goose" is whether we can proclaim our selves to be SOMETHING but the REALITY is how we are seen.

    ReplyDelete
  4. BDJ doesn't know what Fascism is. He hasn't a clue. His ignorant, adolescent use of the word is hilarious at his age. I've known him for years and years, and I am entirely unsurprised. As is everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well I dont know him at all and no real wish to know him. His offensive Scrren-Name says it all.

    But he makes a darned good point.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Which one? I can't see it.

    Mosley wanted to abolish hereditary peers. Attlee ended up one. Which do BDJ and New Labour more closely resemble?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Break Dancing Jesus2 November 2009 at 17:07

    Oh I forgot, fascist, eugencicist drivel spouted by a reactionary, mysoginistic snob.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "eugencicist"?

    You're very lucky that I'm not one...

    Still no seat yet? And can't very well branch out on your own, not in your position. Ho, hum.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh I dont see any resemblance at all between him and Old Labour mainly because I cant see past the offensive name to care.
    My point was that he makes a reasonable point...about you.

    I cant help wondering why you dont (as a prospective candidate representing Old Labour values in an Old Labour stronghold)....circulate your views more widely in the constituency. It cant actually be all that expensive. Just give the local newspaper access to the Blog.
    Bound to add a few votes.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "My point was that he makes a reasonable point...about you"

    Which is?

    Anyone has access to this blog (even BDJ), and my views are already well-known in these parts.

    ReplyDelete
  11. BDJ is the same sort of age as Elizabeth Truss but was never a Trotskyite infiltrator of the Lib Dems.

    ReplyDelete
  12. On his sleeping with married, male Tory MPs, we prefer not to speculate...

    Now, back on-topic, please.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Break Dancing Jesus2 November 2009 at 17:23

    Ok, lets go to turnips. Wurzil Gummidge had more brains than you and his head was made from a turnip!

    I think JJMG is hinting at your reactionary neo-imperialism.

    ReplyDelete
  14. He's far better educated than that. Shame about you.

    Still no seat yet? And can't very well branch out on your own, not in your position. Ho, hum.

    Oh, well, there's always next time. But you'd better start now at turning tricks for married, male Tory MPs. I say "start"...

    Back on-topic, please.

    ReplyDelete
  15. David I have never met a prospective MP who was happy about the coverage he is getting from local media.
    It seems like a golden opportunity to get your already well known views to an even wider audience.
    Its all about brand recognition.
    You need to get these views OUT THERE.

    ReplyDelete
  16. They are. They have been for years.

    Of course, they will be more so soon. As the situation here, shall we say, develops, various local figures are "considering their positions". Not that they will run themselves. But they will do me no end of good. Slowly but surely, it is all coming together...

    ReplyDelete
  17. But surely those "local figures" would be helped to reach a conclusion if they saw your Blog and saw if it was close to the Old Labour position.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I've no idea who BDJ is, and he may not be a very nice man - he doesn't come across well here. But I must say I'm surprised at your decision to present yourself here in such an unpleasant light.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Several of them read it several times per week, and the rest are not really Internet people.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Vine, I don't know what you mean. I believe in the monarchy, not least because I believe in the Commonwealth. I believe that adultery is wrong. I believe in the countryside. And I don't believe in all-women shortlists. Oh, and when I use a word like "Fascist", I know something about its history and meaning. What is "unpleasant" about any of that?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Well of course David this is my very point..that your Blog doesnt reach everyone. Merely the internet savvy and a few interested persons.
    It neess a wider audience.
    More people reached, the more are likely to vote for you. You should have more confidence in your ability to reach Catholics, old Labour and the various factions for whom you wish to speak.
    They will not elect you to speak for them if they dont know you.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Never enough.
    You are your own worst enemy in this.
    Your Blog deserves a wider audience within North West Durham so that potential candidates can view you more accurately.
    I am amazed that a local journalist on the Evening Chronicle in Newcastle (or is the Sunderland Echo more local)has not picked up on your Blog.
    Presumably there is a local journo who covers the NW Durham patch for the local paper. You should start to feed them press releases etc.

    As many points in your manifesto are not unlike my own attitudes (abortion, drugs) and others are not (the Union, Monarchy) I would on balance probaly like to see you elected.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The Chonicle is a Tyneside paper, and you can't the Sunderland Echo this far west. You can in Durham, but that's where it ends.

    There's plenty of time, don't worry.

    ReplyDelete
  24. To be honest the Chronicle site looks a bit chaotic. Would William Green (political editor) or Neil McKay or adam Jupp cover the NW Durham beat.

    ReplyDelete
  25. It's not really the local paper here. It's really about Tyneside.

    This is all in hand.

    ReplyDelete