Thursday 24 April 2008

A Fair Exchange

A fascinating exchange this evening with a very senior Labour figure whose path and mine crossed a few years ago (my old political associates in this neck of the woods would be very surprised indeed), but from whom I have hardly heard since. I was told to feel free to blog what was said, provided that I in no way identified my interlocutor. So here goes.

The staggering level of abuse to which I am subjected is, I am told, because I appeal to the wrong “tribes” (the word used), beginning with the Political Class’s two archest of archenemies, the white working class and those who have been proved right over Iraq. Other such tribes are rural people, Catholics, Evangelicals, Unionists, and the North and the West Country (whence have come every rebellion against hegemony in English history).

Furthermore, I dare to speak for and to certain tribes – anti-war conservatives, Labour Eurosceptics, Catholic Unionists, (Old) Labour-minded Ulster Protestants, the rural Left, the English-speaking Welsh – which do not officially exist at all, even though they do in fact exist in enormous numbers. Indeed, they positively predominate: most conservatives are anti-war, most Labour supporters have at least grave doubts about the EU, probably half of Catholics in Northern Ireland are in favour of the Union in principle, well over half of Ulster Protestants are Old Labour really, there are rather more farm labourers than squires, and eighty per cent of the Welsh speak English. But you mustn’t say these things. You just mustn’t. Well, I do. And I will.

Over-promoted people read this blog (very often the comments as well as my own material, I have to say) and my posts elsewhere, and they realise that they themselves have never heard of, say, the early Labour activists who saw off anti-monarchism, or those who opposed attempts to abort and contracept the Left’s electoral base out of existence, or Gaitskell’s opposition to European federalism, or the Catholic Labour MPs against abortion and easier divorce, or the Methodist Labour MPs against deregulated drinking and gambling, or the Labour MPs who opposed devolution because it would be ruinous for the North of England, or the Labour activists who opposed devolution because it would be ruinous for the “peripheral” parts of Scotland and Wales. They have to face the fact that these were the people who delivered jobs, education, health care, housing, workers’ rights and so forth, while the sectarian Marxist Left whence they themselves came actually opposed every such measure.

And the one thing that our lords and masters fear most is the re-emergence of a pro-life, pro-family, pro-worker and anti-war party of economically social democratic, morally and socially conservative British and Commonwealth patriots. They can cope with Communists and Trotskyists. They know from personal experience that nobody is ever going to vote for such outfits. But they could not cope with that, for which huge numbers of people would vote, just as they always used to before that option was withdrawn from them without their consent.

Well, so long as you subscribe to that formula – “a pro-life, pro-family, pro-worker and anti-war party of economically social democratic, morally and socially conservative British and Commonwealth patriots” – then you will be welcome in the British People’s Alliance. Nothing else will be required of you ideologically. (Whether we fight the European Elections under that banner, or we get ourselves in and then set it up, remains to be seen, although of course it will have to be decided very soon.)

Whereas the Political Class wants a breakthrough for the BNP. Numerous Westminster Villagers will be speeding that along in the polling booths of London next week, making sure that the BNP gets the GLA list seat for which it was in any case well on course. And they regard with unalloyed glee the prospect of at least eight BNP MEPs next year. It would secure First Past The Post for at least a generation. It would be the excuse for all manner of repressive measures aimed mostly at the white working class, and therefore likely to receive little or no media coverage. It would confirm all their own prejudices, and enable them to denounce “pandering” to actual or potential BNP voters. And they won’t have anybody messing it up.

Yes, a fascinating exchange this evening with a very senior Labour figure.

15 comments:

  1. The challenge to the EMG/HJS lot will make you even more popular with the Political Class I'm sure. Any news on how they have responded?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The political class was divided over Iraq, so I am not wearing that one. The Europhobes and the white working class, yes, I think that those are the two groups that are hated and feared by that political class.

    For the rest, you are never going to create an alliance that involves anti-abortion as one of its main planks. Partly because people accept abortion, but also because many can see where this is coming from.

    "The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England."

    You don't have to go to church - and the church that most of us don't go to is the Anglican one - to have a loathing for Popery.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You "dare to speak for and to certain tribes..."

    When and where do you do this? How many of them do you reach? Do they tell their friends?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Based on my inbox, they certainly do tell their friends. And their enemies...

    As for the Bishop of Rome, what of him? Rowan Williams and John Sentamu are as against abortion a he is. Never mind the Protestant working class in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

    And the early Labour Movement was totally opposed to the Fabian attempts (exactly the sort of upper-middle-class entryism that you would normally detest, Exile) to abort, contracept and sterilise the working class out of existence.

    This has now very largely happened (which is why it is so difficult for the Left to win General Elections - its voters literally are not). But not yet entirely.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh, and Exile, you might have been living abroad for too long,. There have been more Catholic than any other single category of even occasional churchgoers in all parts of the United Kingdom for quite a while now, and far more than Anglican ones. The Church of England now even relies on the influence of the Catholic Church in order to defend church schools.

    Beyond the sort of people whom you most dislike anyway, any seriously anti-Roman constituency here is in any case as pro-life and pro-family as we are, almost as likely to benefit from our economic policies, and generally just as anti-war.

    That last bit isn't so true in America, but it is here. And even in America, the coalition that emerged in response to attacks on life and the family is now also turning its attention to social justice and to peace. Whereas that sort of thing has been quietly going in Britain for two generations between the churches, and for ever within them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm glad someone has noticed these things.

    Birth control was always about getting rid of the working class (and non-whites and Jews) and the Labour pioneers were dead against it. If more people had remembered that then we wouldn't be undoing everything those pioneers achieved by importing a new working class from all over the world.

    And the C of E's official position on abortion is barely different from the Catholic one. That of its two archbishops and numerous other leading bishops (London, Durham Rochester and others) is identical to the Pope's. The Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Durham were also very strong oppponents of invading Iraq. These things are connected.

    The average Anglican, Methodist or URC churchgoer is very anti-abortion, and anti-euthanasia, and anti human-animal hybrids, and so on. They are also much more likely to vote than people generally these days, same as Catholics.

    And the Evangelicals in Britain are anti-war, pro-social justice, pro-fair trade, Jubilee 2000 (founded by the old Pope of course) type people as well as pro-life and pro-family. And also much more likely to vote than people generally these days. Again these things are connected.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "abort, contracept and sterilise the working class out of existence."

    You are a drama queen. There has been no coercion in this. The population - working, middle and upper classes - have availed themselves of the many options open to them with regards to contraception. You may not like condoms, the pill or sex before marriage - but apparently many people, of there own free will, have decided otherwise.

    You seem to be angry at people making a free choice? Weird.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Read my friend Ann Farmer's Prophets and Priests: The Hidden Face of the Birth Control Movement (London: The Saint Austin Press, 2002; ISBN 1 901157 62 8). Don't come back until you have.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Did this "very senior Labour figure" disagree with you about anything?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Was it Tony Blair? I reckon it was Tony Blair. Go on, tell us.

    ReplyDelete
  11. No, Zoe, I wouldn't dream of it. But it wasn't Blair. I wouldn't have taken the call.

    Will, not on this occasion. But in the past, certainly.

    ReplyDelete
  12. That's a great shame, because I have it on very good authority from a very senior Labour figure that Tony Blair would love to talk to you.

    ReplyDelete
  13. When it comes to not taking the calls, I suspect that I am now the very least of his worries...

    No wonder he's so desperate for Cameron to win.

    ReplyDelete
  14. David, you're the very least of anyone's worries.

    ReplyDelete
  15. And there are rather worse things to be than that. Tony Blair, after all, used to be the greatest of rather a lot of people's worries. If I thought that Cameron really might win, Blair would be the greatest of mine.

    ReplyDelete