I hear the sound of nominations closing, and with
them the great political adventure on which I first embarked half my lifetime
ago.
Watching the increasingly frenzied build-up to
the local elections, what a thing it is to be retiring. My school
governorships and my District Labour Party Secretaryship are long gone. The DLP
itself is long since abolished, in fact. My Labour Party membership card is a dim and
distant memory. And my last ever Parish Council meeting will be this coming Tuesday.
I am going out on a high, while I still enjoy it
and with my massively increased vote last time as the electorate's last word on
me. I do now have another medical condition to add to the pre-existing one, but
even that is not the main reason. I have had a good run. I have got a lot done.
I have learned an enormous amount. There is a strong field; I should not have
stood down otherwise. I have plenty of other things to be getting on with. It's
time.
In the words of one of those who are seeking to
carry on, "You've half a life left to live yet." Here's to it. And
here's to his, considering that he is the same age as the headline act at
Glastonbury this year.
Good luck with the next phase of your life (anything is more productive than politics these days)-even if you did't want any good wishes from a UKIPer.
ReplyDeleteWhatever gave you that idea? I find UKIP a fascinating phenomenon, even if the EDL endorsement does probably mark the beginning of the end of it.
ReplyDeleteVery many thanks.
I don't think so-Noam Chomsky has been endorsed by Hezbollah, among others. I don't think that reduces him to their level.
ReplyDeletePeople are starting to see through the politics of guilt by association-they care more about our country.
I'm going to be writing about UKIP fairly soon. As I say, it is a fascinating phenomenon. But for now, ask yourself this: just as what did the City spivs find so attractive about New Labour, and what did both they and the latte liberals find so attractive about David Cameron, what does the EDL find so attractive about UKIP?
ReplyDelete"what does the EDL find so attractive about UKIP?"
ReplyDeleteThe fact that we are the only mainstream party to oppose multiculturalism and mass immigration.
They are not very bright, and probably confuse those perfectly reasonable positions with their own rather more extreme views. Sadly, this is a gift to the bohemian leftists who seek to portray these reasonable policy positions as "bigoted".
Just when we had begun to get a dialogue going, and forced Cameron and Miliband to make speeches addressing immigration (after Eastleigh) in terms that neither of their parties has ever used before.
That was nothing to do with you! At least not on the Labour side. Maurice Glasman and others have been saying it all for years.
ReplyDeleteFor ever, in fact. All the way back to the Labour MPs of the 1950s, when Churchill refused to hear a word on the subject, not despite, but because of, his white and English supremicism.
As for "terms that neither of their parties has ever used before," you must have been born a matter of weeks ago if you really believe that.
If there is one thing that this country has never lacked at any point in the last 65 years, then it has been a full and frank debate on immigration.
Maurice Glasman has indeed been saying it for years, which proves my point. The Labour leadership only came out and said it, after their drubbing at Eastleigh.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a coincidence that both he and Cameron made those speeches then.
I should have said, in recent times.
You would still have been wrong.
ReplyDeleteEastleigh meant nothing to Labour. It has never been a Labour seat, not even in 1945. Whereas the Conservatives have never won an overall majority without it.
I would have been right, since Labour opened the floodgates to the biggest wave of mass immigration in history during their 13 years in office, and the Tories allowed plenty in during the 18 years before that.
ReplyDeleteYou have to go back before Enoch Powell poisoned the debate, to find a time when either opposed it.
It is far more complicated than that. Both what happened, and why. Labour did, for example, try and keep out the East African Asians. But that is not really to that party's credit. Ask Peter Hitchens.
ReplyDeleteSure, I agree, it's certainly far more complicated than can be summarised here. David Goodhart gives an excellent summary of the deliberate desecration of our borders, particularly since 1997.
ReplyDeleteAll I was saying was that, in recent times, neither Tory nor Labour (during its 13 open-border years) have ever publicly condemned immigration in the way in which they both are now.
Of course, that doesn't mean either Cameron or Miliband will do anything about it. But they at least see which way the wind is blowing.