Membership of the National Trust is at a record high. The National Trust, founded out of the Fabian Society and indicating how much broader, at least in its heyday, it always was in the country at large, rather than being purely the organisational aspect of that metropolitan phenomenon which is usually meant by Fabianism, with its eugenics, its militant secularism, its emphasis on social rather than economic issues, its rose-tinted view of the early Soviet Union, and such like.
So the constituency is clearly still there. For the recognition of the "free" market as destructive of everything that conservatives exist in order to conserve, not least including the countryside. For the organisation of middle-class people based on their realisation that if we believe in the social, cultural and political need for a large and thriving middle class, then we have to support and deliver the very extensive central and local government action without which such a class cannot exist.
For the historically normal gravitation of upper and upper-middle-class people to the various expressions of the Labour Movement precisely because their backgrounds and involvement in the Church of England had made them familiar with the importance of State action against social evils; they used their new party as a platform from which to defend Establishment against Liberal assaults, a role which it may well come to play again.
And for the aristocratic social conscience, the voice of which was removed from the parliamentary process by the removal of the hereditary peers as surely, and as disastrously, as the abolition of trade union barons, with their strong influence over the composition and conduct of Labour members of both Houses, had removed the voice of the organised working class, largely by the same appalling people and entirely on the same appalling grounds.
Ed Miliband, over to you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
God, I wish you would come back. Ed, an occasional reader of yours, understands that he is hampered by his background. He knows that he does not know much about what I suppose you would call Old Labour High Toryism rather than the Marxism of smart London and academia. But he wants to, he is very open to people who know a lot about those movements and how to connect with those sections of the electorate. That is the difference between him and his brother, that is what makes him better than David.
ReplyDeleteA seat could be found for you, you know. Especially considering who some of your friends are and with the Blairites completely dispossessed on any say over anything. There is going to be a clear out with the boundary changes but a lot of people won't go until it's too late for the CLP to select anyone and the NEC would have to do it. We need you in. We need you as a minister after 2015.
David Lindsay a minister, imagine that! He would have been an MP last year if he had got that district council seat in 2003.
ReplyDeleteHe would have nominated the winning candidate for Leader and quite possibly have become PPS: mixed race, but older than Ummana, far more experienced at machine politics and far less caffe latte in more ways than one.
In these Blue Labour times, the aspirant Prime Minister's link man to everything listed in this post and much else besides. All those "economic social democrats" who are also "moral and social conservatives." Everyone with a patriotic attachment to any one or more of "the North of England, the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and Christendom."
A role easily carried over into a shadow ministerial position later today, a ministry after the Election and the Cabinet within a year of it. Probably Deputy Leader when Harriet announces that she will be retiring at the Election after that.
But he never did get that district council seat in 2003. He never even got the nomination. They gave it to some golden boy who had been politically active for five minutes but was employed by the MP. He lost them the seat, lost them another one in the same ward and has since sunk without trace. He no longer holds any public office, not even a parish seat.
That golden boy spitefully engineered David's removal from his school governorships but was too inept to get himself appointed, which was the whole point. No book of his is expected to be published any time soon. Such is the man whose fault it is that none of the story outlined here ever quite happened after all.
We are in danger of straying off topic.
ReplyDeleteI had almost forgotten that beautiful academic way of writing. You are a real treat for those of us who normally have to spend our time as and among hacks. I love the way that you make no allowances, and expect your readers to step up to your level. I do miss it all terribly.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I think both you and David are confusing complexity with sophistication.
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, what a coincidence. A comment about the poor quality of David's writing doesn't get published, but soon after someone pops up to remark on how wonderfully David writes. What are the odds on that?
Quite high, said this blog's daily moderator.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, since that is how you prefer it, you are very kind. And we miss you here, too. See you soon.
I am surprised that the nutters have not been on to claim that you are not an academic. Or have you refused to put up their comments?
ReplyDeleteTell them that, as a member of the "Academic/management staff" as the university directory calls them, you have published a book on theology with a preface by one of the world's greatest theologians and you are about to publish a book on politics with a preface by the associate editor of the Spectator who also has a column on the Sunday Times. How about them?
Chris is right, you would have been in the Shadow Cabinet today if it had not been for a creature who appears on here from time to time to post illiterate comments under a silly pseudonym.
Whoever pulled off the old "steal the identity" trick (yes, I do know how you do it - I've been blogging since you were barely into secondary school), well done for catching me off guard and getting it put up.
ReplyDeleteBut you won't be that lucky twice. That's the first time that anyone has ever managed to pull it on me, and there won't be a second time. Still, I must be getting old. Not that old, though.
Now, on topic, please.
Friday afternoon, David. Their excuse and yours in different ways.
ReplyDeleteBut not a good enough one, in either case.
ReplyDeleteNow, on topic.
How do you do that trick?
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to tell you.
ReplyDeleteOr to put up any more off-topic comments.
It might have been a prank comemnt but its point still stands. I hold my hands up, I should have written ""Academic/management staff" as the university directory calls you, not ""Academic/management staff" as the university directory calls them." So yes the university itself says that you are an academic. Yes, you have in that capacity recently published a book on theology with a preface by a legendary theologian. Yes, you are about to publish a book on politics with a preface by a legendary political commentator. No, none of that can be said of any of your critics.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, the question does therefore pose itself, why do you not sue Damian Thompson for wrongful dismissal, loss of subsequent earnings and defamation of character? He could not even be bothered to consult the university directory or the online university calendar, he just did whatever Kamm or some other Mossad handler told him. He broke the law. He owes you enough to bankrupt him, any amount smaller than that would not be worth the effort.
On topic, please.
ReplyDeleteIs that one still doing the rounds? All they have to do is look you up on the university directory, it says "Academic/management staff". Case closed. You have had much more influence on me and taught me much more than anyone who worked in my department ever did, and I am not the only person who can say that.
ReplyDeleteMissing Durham terribly now that I am stuck in wage slavery. But if you do not already know, Thompson's days are numbered down here. Removed from the Catholic Herald, parked in the editor's chair at Telegraph Blogs until he is also kicked out of that, which he will be soon enough.
Simon Heffer's new venture at the Mail has hit it very hard, especially for the reasons that has been given on here, Tory readers are increasingly paleocon again and Heffer has captured that. See, on topic, pretty much. Thompson thinks Bush is still President, of Britain even if not of America.
Loved the bits of the last book that I could understand, mostly the bits about literature. Greatly looking forward to the next one. Once that is out, you must, must, must do London sometime.