Hang 'em, flog'em, bring back the cat (Credit: GB News/YouTube)
Some roles in Westminster are not dished out by party leaders or formal elections, but pass by natural succession from generation to generation. One such position is the firebrand Tory “rent-a-quote” — the Honourable Member most relied upon to voice those views that sit just beyond the pale of parliamentary language. They bellow things that would drop jaws at a nice dinner party but barely raise an eyebrow in a small-town pub.
The Tory Tribune of the Plebs is there to talk “common sense”; to say those things which connect with a section of the electorate most politicians would like to ignore. Teddy Taylor was one. An MP first in Glasgow and then Southend, he would use his prominence in parliament to call for the return of the birch. Geoffrey Dickens was another, a former boxer who campaigned to ban teddy bears and suggested homosexuality be criminalised to stop the spread of Aids. Both also, naturally, tried to bring back hanging. Theirs is a blokey, nuance-free politics, whereby villains get what they deserve, the sick filth is banned, and honest people live in peace. Lee Anderson has established himself as their heir.
Anderson is never short of things to say. He calls himself “30p Lee” for his pronouncements on how easy it should be for poorer households to live on a budget. He’s hawkish on crime and immigration, and an advanced fighter in every aspect of the culture war — even boycotting England for “taking the knee”. Perhaps inevitably, an interview emerged last week where he endorsed the death penalty. Since his election in 2019, the MP for Ashfield has established himself as the most well-known of the Red Wall MPs. Across social media, he is loathed by his opponents as well as the more liberal, cosmopolitan wing of the Conservatives. He probably doesn’t care that much, buoyed by the supporters who seem to adore him. Some call him the most controversial man in parliament, others a genuine voice of the people. Either way, he’s made his mark.
Anderson, like Taylor, Dickens and others before him, is pugnacious and uncaring for niceties. Unlike them, however, he has been able to harness social media to boost his profile even further. Whereas the firebrands of the Seventies and Eighties had to wait for a journalist to call them, Anderson has shown he can make himself the party’s main character in just a tweet. Twitter has boosted his profile and advanced his political career — crowned last week by his promotion to Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party. Not bad, for someone who was a Labour councillor until 2018.
There is, of course, a a cynical edge to all this. Once, MPs commanded attention on the streets and in the broadsheets, either as a fighter in their constituency or an intellectual, policy-minded-grandee. Today, however, it’s all in the retweets and social media. The most well-known MPs, certainly beyond the front benches, have a carefully curated online presence. Dehenna Davison TikToks herself into being the “cool” Tory MP. Stella Creasy lip-syncs on Instagram after voting to ban protests around abortion clinics. Anderson’s a social media star in the same vein — curating a larger-than-life version of himself to stand out among his colleagues. It’s not that he doesn’t believe what he says, but he chooses to express it in the most performative way possible.
This does have its uses: Anderson occupies a useful niche, both for himself and the party. Tory MPs generally sit to the Left of their voters on most social issues, including crime. Many of the party’s rank and file support the death penalty. Around a third of voters do too, with that number increasing with more specific questions, such as when it comes to terrorists or murderous paedophiles. It’s a faction the Tories are never actually going to yield to, but that they want to keep inside the political tent. These are older, poorer voters — exactly the demographics the Tories are increasingly reliant on. Figures such as Anderson give them some red meat without really changing anything.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeA very poor smear article on Lee Anderson. Latching on to a few selective phrases without context is the stuff of the poor click-bait journalism that is all-pervasive these days.
I suspect the author has avoided the hard yards of actually listening to Anderson during interviews.
It is certainly naive to suggest that stifling the views held by much of the population will enhance an attempted ‘big-tent” approach.
Anyway who suggests the death penalty might be a solution to anything is not a serious politician in my book. The biggest deterrent to crime, as anyone who comments on this topic should be aware, is being caught. Going on about the death penalty won’t hid the damage done to policing in this country by the massive cuts imposed by Tories. Cuts that they are now desperately trying to undo. Something Anderson fails the mention.
He doesn’t “go on about it”
Maybe ‘your book’ needs an overhaul. To begin with you charge ahead with the assumption that those advocating the death penalty do so on grounds of deterrence. In doing so you overlook the need by a society for a true sense of justice. When Rigby was murdered in cold blood, caught on video, by Islamists Michael Adebowale and Michael Adebolajo every part of me (and of millions of others) feels that justice is not served until these two are killed by the state. I do not care if that would be a deterrent, probably not, but unless it occurs there is a sense that justice has been avoided.
I have tried via gov.co.uk petition site to get Trooper Lee Rigby a posthumous honour. All to no avail. On both occasions the petition wasn’t accepted.
I don’t think that even now ‘Bomber Command’ have received their own campaign medal despite years of protest!
So what chance would the late Trooper Rigby have?
In fact the wretched State is far more interested in prosecuting octogenarian Northern Ireland veterans and killing them with COVID, as in the case of the late Corporal Major Dennis Hutchins of the ‘Life Guards.
HMG is an utter disgrace!
I don’t think that even now ‘Bomber Command’ have received their own campaign medal despite years of protest!
So what chance would the late Trooper Rigby have?
In fact the wretched State is far more interested in prosecuting octogenarian Northern Ireland veterans and killing them with COVID, as in the case of the late Corporal Major Dennis Hutchins of the ‘Life Guards.
HMG is an utter disgrace!
I have tried via gov.co.uk petition site to get Trooper Lee Rigby a posthumous honour. All to no avail. On both occasions the petition wasn’t accepted.
He doesn’t “go on about it”
Maybe ‘your book’ needs an overhaul. To begin with you charge ahead with the assumption that those advocating the death penalty do so on grounds of deterrence. In doing so you overlook the need by a society for a true sense of justice. When Rigby was murdered in cold blood, caught on video, by Islamists Michael Adebowale and Michael Adebolajo every part of me (and of millions of others) feels that justice is not served until these two are killed by the state. I do not care if that would be a deterrent, probably not, but unless it occurs there is a sense that justice has been avoided.
Agreed,
Anyway who suggests the death penalty might be a solution to anything is not a serious politician in my book. The biggest deterrent to crime, as anyone who comments on this topic should be aware, is being caught. Going on about the death penalty won’t hid the damage done to policing in this country by the massive cuts imposed by Tories. Cuts that they are now desperately trying to undo. Something Anderson fails the mention.
Agreed,
A very poor smear article on Lee Anderson. Latching on to a few selective phrases without context is the stuff of the poor click-bait journalism that is all-pervasive these days.
I suspect the author has avoided the hard yards of actually listening to Anderson during interviews.
It is certainly naive to suggest that stifling the views held by much of the population will enhance an attempted ‘big-tent” approach.
“Yet even if the Tories are wiped out,”
If they are, it won’t be Anderson’s fault.
Too right. But I wish more attention was given to the vast silent army of Quiet Provincial Conservatives away from the attention grabbing Red Wall. It does not have a sexy title. But it led the fight against the ghastly Progressive EU London Establishment and is the heartland of moderate pro enterprise national Conservatism. I think this class has now finally worked out that the entire political legal media and admin metro class – including the current Non Tories – is hostile to its core traditional values and interests. Why is no one asking what Provincial England is thinking? And what it can or will do next as it becomes ever more clear we exist in a One Credo State??
Too right. But I wish more attention was given to the vast silent army of Quiet Provincial Conservatives away from the attention grabbing Red Wall. It does not have a sexy title. But it led the fight against the ghastly Progressive EU London Establishment and is the heartland of moderate pro enterprise national Conservatism. I think this class has now finally worked out that the entire political legal media and admin metro class – including the current Non Tories – is hostile to its core traditional values and interests. Why is no one asking what Provincial England is thinking? And what it can or will do next as it becomes ever more clear we exist in a One Credo State??
“Yet even if the Tories are wiped out,”
If they are, it won’t be Anderson’s fault.
Lee Anderson seems like the sort of normal, common sense bloke who means what he says and we need more of (and not less) in Parliament.
Last week we read here about the “Civic Future fellowship”. Frankly, I’d far rather see more Lee Anderson’s than more “fast-tracked” “high flyers”.
Of course, the media pack all despise people like Lee Anderson. Just as they were blind to the Red Wall. Once you’ve deemed a set of views “unacceptable in modern society”, you stop listening. As Gordon Brown proved with Gillian Duffy.
He’s also a better communicator than 95% of the media hacks. As is Nigel Farage. Never discount the professional jealousy of the mediocre – and dare I say it privileged.
I have never supported the death penalty and am unlikely to ever do so. But a lot of people do and deserve representation.
Very reasonable comment and viewpoint. More of the same, from more people, would be good.
I agree, except that in his opening sentence Peter said “less” when he should have said “fewer”.
I agree, except that in his opening sentence Peter said “less” when he should have said “fewer”.
Very reasonable comment and viewpoint. More of the same, from more people, would be good.
Lee Anderson seems like the sort of normal, common sense bloke who means what he says and we need more of (and not less) in Parliament.
Last week we read here about the “Civic Future fellowship”. Frankly, I’d far rather see more Lee Anderson’s than more “fast-tracked” “high flyers”.
Of course, the media pack all despise people like Lee Anderson. Just as they were blind to the Red Wall. Once you’ve deemed a set of views “unacceptable in modern society”, you stop listening. As Gordon Brown proved with Gillian Duffy.
He’s also a better communicator than 95% of the media hacks. As is Nigel Farage. Never discount the professional jealousy of the mediocre – and dare I say it privileged.
I have never supported the death penalty and am unlikely to ever do so. But a lot of people do and deserve representation.
Trying to create equivalence between Anderson and the hard left in the Labour Party is profoundly wrong. Unlike Momentum and the rest of the Tankie left, Anderson has no faction around him trying to infiltrate and dominate his Party. He is simply expressing a point of view shared by many of his constituents (interestingly, the same constituents who almost certainly supported him when he was a Labour councillor). And herein lies the rub; both mainstream parties use figures like Lee as a pressure valve (which Mr. Oxley acknolwedges) while they cling on to their grey, centrist, steady-as-she-goes politics. The sort of politics that won’t get them labelled nasty at dinner parties, or threaten their post-political corporate careers. I can’t wait for Sir Keir’s Labour to come into power – apart from some Kulturkampf posturing it will be more or less exactly the same as the shower of merde we have now.
Trying to create equivalence between Anderson and the hard left in the Labour Party is profoundly wrong. Unlike Momentum and the rest of the Tankie left, Anderson has no faction around him trying to infiltrate and dominate his Party. He is simply expressing a point of view shared by many of his constituents (interestingly, the same constituents who almost certainly supported him when he was a Labour councillor). And herein lies the rub; both mainstream parties use figures like Lee as a pressure valve (which Mr. Oxley acknolwedges) while they cling on to their grey, centrist, steady-as-she-goes politics. The sort of politics that won’t get them labelled nasty at dinner parties, or threaten their post-political corporate careers. I can’t wait for Sir Keir’s Labour to come into power – apart from some Kulturkampf posturing it will be more or less exactly the same as the shower of merde we have now.
I’m afraid, John, that this mean-spirited article reveals a lot more about you than it does about Lee Anderson.
I’m afraid, John, that this mean-spirited article reveals a lot more about you than it does about Lee Anderson.
Really poor article. Well below par.
Really poor article. Well below par.
I come from a neighbouring constituency to Lee Anderson’s. There is nothing ‘imaginary’ about the working class people who support him, or why they do so. These are people who are despised by his former party because they are mourning the deaths of their pits and coal-fired power stations and the end of their status as a proud, high-earning, industrially powerful working class. Labour is only interested in ‘the poor and the vulnerable’ and those with an ‘identity’; white former miners in depressed coalfield towns are not it! There is also a distrust of Nottinghamshire on the Left because it created the UDM and continued working in 1984. It is still known as Scab County in some circles.
Supporting the death penalty is not unusual in working class areas; my stepfather, a retired train driver, used to ask every candidate who came to the door whether they supported it, though he still voted Labour because that’s what you did. That world has gone. The traditional working class is opposed to illegal migration, thinks ‘Transgenderism’ is ridiculous and elected Lee Anderson because of his actions against the travellers that regularly plague the East Midlands and his assertion that benefit claimants should be sent to live in tents and made to pick vegetables. And it is Labour that called him 30p Lee.
Thanks for that, and particularly for the correct attribution of ‘30p Lee’. What a shoddy article that couldn’t even get that right and I assume is written by someone who knows nothing at all about the true working class. From which I guess he must be a Labour supporter!
“someone who knows nothing at all about the true working class. From which I guess he must be a Labour supporter!”
Yup.
“someone who knows nothing at all about the true working class. From which I guess he must be a Labour supporter!”
Yup.
Thanks for that, and particularly for the correct attribution of ‘30p Lee’. What a shoddy article that couldn’t even get that right and I assume is written by someone who knows nothing at all about the true working class. From which I guess he must be a Labour supporter!
I come from a neighbouring constituency to Lee Anderson’s. There is nothing ‘imaginary’ about the working class people who support him, or why they do so. These are people who are despised by his former party because they are mourning the deaths of their pits and coal-fired power stations and the end of their status as a proud, high-earning, industrially powerful working class. Labour is only interested in ‘the poor and the vulnerable’ and those with an ‘identity’; white former miners in depressed coalfield towns are not it! There is also a distrust of Nottinghamshire on the Left because it created the UDM and continued working in 1984. It is still known as Scab County in some circles.
Supporting the death penalty is not unusual in working class areas; my stepfather, a retired train driver, used to ask every candidate who came to the door whether they supported it, though he still voted Labour because that’s what you did. That world has gone. The traditional working class is opposed to illegal migration, thinks ‘Transgenderism’ is ridiculous and elected Lee Anderson because of his actions against the travellers that regularly plague the East Midlands and his assertion that benefit claimants should be sent to live in tents and made to pick vegetables. And it is Labour that called him 30p Lee.
I don’t know this Anderson guy very well – I’m from Canada – but I’m not seeing a lot of substance to the critique here. He supports the death penalty. Meh. I don’t support the death penalty, but lots of people do and that’s their right. It’s certainly not some far right position. If the guy is a loud mouth who doesn’t get anything done, that’s a valid criticism.
Philosophically capital punishment is a much more left wing position. If you care more about about a community’s right to permanently remove dangerous criminals than the bourgeois idea that a criminal has individual rights or that human life is sacred then you’d be more inclined to CP.
The rights of an individual against the community is a liberal individualistic concept. The right of a community to act against individuals who threaten the community is a democratic communitarian concept. Capital Punishment is left wing.
The bloke is a clown. According to him he can cook a nutritious meal for 30p (less than the price of two eggs), he got caught getting his friends to pose as concerned voters when he was filming himself door knocking and finally claimed any nurse who claimed to be struggling to live on £30k was a liar, completely ignoring that rents of £20k-£25k in the capital aren’t uncommon. Even amongst the rest of the charlatans in Westminster he stands out as being particularly useless
Philosophically capital punishment is a much more left wing position. If you care more about about a community’s right to permanently remove dangerous criminals than the bourgeois idea that a criminal has individual rights or that human life is sacred then you’d be more inclined to CP.
The rights of an individual against the community is a liberal individualistic concept. The right of a community to act against individuals who threaten the community is a democratic communitarian concept. Capital Punishment is left wing.
The bloke is a clown. According to him he can cook a nutritious meal for 30p (less than the price of two eggs), he got caught getting his friends to pose as concerned voters when he was filming himself door knocking and finally claimed any nurse who claimed to be struggling to live on £30k was a liar, completely ignoring that rents of £20k-£25k in the capital aren’t uncommon. Even amongst the rest of the charlatans in Westminster he stands out as being particularly useless
I don’t know this Anderson guy very well – I’m from Canada – but I’m not seeing a lot of substance to the critique here. He supports the death penalty. Meh. I don’t support the death penalty, but lots of people do and that’s their right. It’s certainly not some far right position. If the guy is a loud mouth who doesn’t get anything done, that’s a valid criticism.
A typical petit bourgeois view from someone who would not last 5 minutes in an industrial working mens pub…. If he did, he would realise that an overwhelming majority of British working class voters loath the ” racism/ Lbgt/ global warming” national socialist fifth column ” trident, and were the LM C ToileTories to work this out, they could create a landslide victory.
Those of us who have had the enjoyment and honour to work with soldiers, and stable lads, and in our youth on building sites and in factories have a respect for our manual working bretheren that the modern lower middles, themselves often only one generation away, do not, due to the Pooteresque snobbery that this part of our society literally wallows in.
Bit overly nostalgic that NST – ‘…industrial working men’s pubs’? ‘…youth on our building sites’? ‘…manual working bretheren’? You seem stuck in a decade that has long gone.
Majority of the first have long since closed, and the latter two much more likely these days to be immigrants – and proper grafters too.
We even have such pubs in swanky left wing South-West London. Thank you very much.
We still have pubs full of working class tradesmen up North, and no, they aren’t all immigrants. And immigrants are not all grafters either.
the latter two much more likely these days to be immigrants – and proper grafters too.
Yeah believe it or not j Watson not any old immigrant can turn up and be an electrician or carpenter or plumber or builder in the UK. There’s actually a fair bit of skill and knowledge involved in doing these jobs, it’s normally accepted that you’re no good until you’ve done five years around different sites and different jobs. We have to do calculations, tons of regulations, building inspectors, paperwork chain, we have to have multiple insurance policies, we have to have yearly inspections etc etc. We get done for not complying with this stuff, people can die if we do our job wrong. Electricution is no joke. Gas leaks are no joke. Ive never come across a responsible SME in the construction industry that uses unskilled immigrant labour.
You have clearly never been near a building site nor comprehend the construction industry.
I also hate the woke American progressive trident.
the latter two much more likely these days to be immigrants – and proper grafters too.
Yeah believe it or not j Watson not any old immigrant can turn up and be an electrician or carpenter or plumber or builder in the UK. There’s actually a fair bit of skill and knowledge involved in doing these jobs, it’s normally accepted that you’re no good until you’ve done five years around different sites and different jobs. We have to do calculations, tons of regulations, building inspectors, paperwork chain, we have to have multiple insurance policies, we have to have yearly inspections etc etc. We get done for not complying with this stuff, people can die if we do our job wrong. Electricution is no joke. Gas leaks are no joke. Ive never come across a responsible SME in the construction industry that uses unskilled immigrant labour.
You have clearly never been near a building site nor comprehend the construction industry.
I also hate the woke American progressive trident.
We even have such pubs in swanky left wing South-West London. Thank you very much.
We still have pubs full of working class tradesmen up North, and no, they aren’t all immigrants. And immigrants are not all grafters either.
Bit overly nostalgic that NST – ‘…industrial working men’s pubs’? ‘…youth on our building sites’? ‘…manual working bretheren’? You seem stuck in a decade that has long gone.
Majority of the first have long since closed, and the latter two much more likely these days to be immigrants – and proper grafters too.
A typical petit bourgeois view from someone who would not last 5 minutes in an industrial working mens pub…. If he did, he would realise that an overwhelming majority of British working class voters loath the ” racism/ Lbgt/ global warming” national socialist fifth column ” trident, and were the LM C ToileTories to work this out, they could create a landslide victory.
Those of us who have had the enjoyment and honour to work with soldiers, and stable lads, and in our youth on building sites and in factories have a respect for our manual working bretheren that the modern lower middles, themselves often only one generation away, do not, due to the Pooteresque snobbery that this part of our society literally wallows in.
That was a rubbish read. Apart from anything else, the comments on Teddy Taylor are nonsense; he was a highly intelligent nuanced thinker, with a great understanding of the various strands of liberal (old fashioned meaning) Tory philosophy and the practicalities of being a Conservative in a democratic society. Yes, he supported the death penalty in limited circumstances, but that was just one part of his philosophy and not a very important part.
Thank you for posting your comment. The unkind comments about Teddy Taylor stood out for me too. Unfortunately for the writer, some of us who remember the 1980s very well are only just middle-aged, with intact memories, so we can tell when they’re talking nonsense*. Teddy Taylor was a funny, intelligent man whose contributions always made you smile as well as react. He was not a ‘hanger-flogger’. I hope for the sake of his fragility that the writer never comes across videos of Lord Tebbit.
*A propos of nothing i.e. quite o/t, we noticed that when The Crown made it to the 1980s it became unwatchable to us, because we remembered the events that were being so grotesquely misrepresented. At that point, we reflected, it was safer to assume that everything in the drama had been likewise perverted. And stopped watching. But this is what the Left does, isn’t it? It rewrites history as ‘drama’, creating a narrative at odds with reality (see The Miners’ Strike for example) , but one which catches on and thus displaces reality. I suppose the only difference with the current obsession about gender is that the Left used to insist only that it could rewrite historical realities; now it claims to be able to rewrite reality in the present.
Very well put, and quite rightly said. That subtle distortion of the truth of recent history is extremely dangerous. We need a Truth and Reality Commission to comment on all these damaging changes!
Very well put, and quite rightly said. That subtle distortion of the truth of recent history is extremely dangerous. We need a Truth and Reality Commission to comment on all these damaging changes!
Teddy was one of a kind, untouchable. A conservative MP from Cathcart or anywhere in central Scotland for more than 15 years is an impossibility in today’s politics. How I long for politicians with such integrity as he had.
Thank you for posting your comment. The unkind comments about Teddy Taylor stood out for me too. Unfortunately for the writer, some of us who remember the 1980s very well are only just middle-aged, with intact memories, so we can tell when they’re talking nonsense*. Teddy Taylor was a funny, intelligent man whose contributions always made you smile as well as react. He was not a ‘hanger-flogger’. I hope for the sake of his fragility that the writer never comes across videos of Lord Tebbit.
*A propos of nothing i.e. quite o/t, we noticed that when The Crown made it to the 1980s it became unwatchable to us, because we remembered the events that were being so grotesquely misrepresented. At that point, we reflected, it was safer to assume that everything in the drama had been likewise perverted. And stopped watching. But this is what the Left does, isn’t it? It rewrites history as ‘drama’, creating a narrative at odds with reality (see The Miners’ Strike for example) , but one which catches on and thus displaces reality. I suppose the only difference with the current obsession about gender is that the Left used to insist only that it could rewrite historical realities; now it claims to be able to rewrite reality in the present.
Teddy was one of a kind, untouchable. A conservative MP from Cathcart or anywhere in central Scotland for more than 15 years is an impossibility in today’s politics. How I long for politicians with such integrity as he had.
That was a rubbish read. Apart from anything else, the comments on Teddy Taylor are nonsense; he was a highly intelligent nuanced thinker, with a great understanding of the various strands of liberal (old fashioned meaning) Tory philosophy and the practicalities of being a Conservative in a democratic society. Yes, he supported the death penalty in limited circumstances, but that was just one part of his philosophy and not a very important part.
Well that was a few minutes wasted, not a good start to the week.
Well that was a few minutes wasted, not a good start to the week.
The views of Mr Anderson are not mainstream but they are probably closer to the electorate than most MPs. There’s a huge gulf in values between the political classes of all parties and the people they purport to represent. Many people despair at the failure of the police and justice system to protect law abiding citizens and punish wrongdoing. The restoration of capital punishment may be a blind alley but desire to bring in robust deterrents would find a lot of support.
The views of Mr Anderson are not mainstream but they are probably closer to the electorate than most MPs. There’s a huge gulf in values between the political classes of all parties and the people they purport to represent. Many people despair at the failure of the police and justice system to protect law abiding citizens and punish wrongdoing. The restoration of capital punishment may be a blind alley but desire to bring in robust deterrents would find a lot of support.
I laughed at a “street house” for £70k. Does this plonker mean a terraced house?
I laughed at a “street house” for £70k. Does this plonker mean a terraced house?
Good to know our leaders decide our fate at ‘dinner parties’.The author should look at Lee’s old Facebook page. Many comments there wishing he was their MP. He has a strong following in his constituency, I dare say if he were to jump to Reform they’d go with him. As it is he’s a bit too forceful for their dinner partyites. He’d tear them to pieces for only having 7-8% at this time of dissatisfaction with government.
Good to know our leaders decide our fate at ‘dinner parties’.The author should look at Lee’s old Facebook page. Many comments there wishing he was their MP. He has a strong following in his constituency, I dare say if he were to jump to Reform they’d go with him. As it is he’s a bit too forceful for their dinner partyites. He’d tear them to pieces for only having 7-8% at this time of dissatisfaction with government.
What a snobby article or do I miss the point?
It is and you don’t.
It is and you don’t.
What a snobby article or do I miss the point?
Wasn’t it always so, the tribune of the plebs given the power to speak for them alone, yet always in the pocket of the ruling class? To speak of the worst imagined voices and thus the stain the workers as the worst sort of savages. Along with that other witless class the journalists; who do their job of spreading division amongst the ruled even if not intentionally. They are always rewarded for their efforts, like dogs being given a treat for barking at the unknown. Even when they know what they do, the lure of the, very, greasy pole is too great.
It’s an interesting point, but no, it was not always so. The job of the politician is, or should be, to reconcile the different strands of opinion among the populace and produce workable policies and strategies to satisfy the needs and desires of the citizenry, that includes leading debate and trying to change opinion.
And generally, in the UK, that job has been done well; Attlee, MacMillan, Wilson, Thatcher, in particular, but others also.
Same applies to journalists who mostly until 20 years ago did a good job and were true professionals, most of them. Not much now, I agree.
Perhaps, but 80 years out of thousands is not representative. Although I do agree that period you highlight was a golden age of politics for all of the people rather than just a subset. I can see no politicians now who have the gravitas and determination of those you mentioned. I am still in awe at what Attlee achieved against the odds in such a short period.
Perhaps, but 80 years out of thousands is not representative. Although I do agree that period you highlight was a golden age of politics for all of the people rather than just a subset. I can see no politicians now who have the gravitas and determination of those you mentioned. I am still in awe at what Attlee achieved against the odds in such a short period.
It’s an interesting point, but no, it was not always so. The job of the politician is, or should be, to reconcile the different strands of opinion among the populace and produce workable policies and strategies to satisfy the needs and desires of the citizenry, that includes leading debate and trying to change opinion.
And generally, in the UK, that job has been done well; Attlee, MacMillan, Wilson, Thatcher, in particular, but others also.
Same applies to journalists who mostly until 20 years ago did a good job and were true professionals, most of them. Not much now, I agree.
Wasn’t it always so, the tribune of the plebs given the power to speak for them alone, yet always in the pocket of the ruling class? To speak of the worst imagined voices and thus the stain the workers as the worst sort of savages. Along with that other witless class the journalists; who do their job of spreading division amongst the ruled even if not intentionally. They are always rewarded for their efforts, like dogs being given a treat for barking at the unknown. Even when they know what they do, the lure of the, very, greasy pole is too great.
I am neither old nor poor …
I am neither old nor poor …
*Populism (which is what we’re really talking about here) is not synonymous with authoritarianism, as the Left and the squish Right love to characterize it. It is harsh on criminality and cultural decay and refuses to cater to good manners hiding bad actions, but is the opposite of the Progressive all-knowing, all-controlling authoritarian state (of the sort we saw all too clearly during Covid).
*Populism (which is what we’re really talking about here) is not synonymous with authoritarianism, as the Left and the squish Right love to characterize it. It is harsh on criminality and cultural decay and refuses to cater to good manners hiding bad actions, but is the opposite of the Progressive all-knowing, all-controlling authoritarian state (of the sort we saw all too clearly during Covid).
There’s an article worth writing to say that someone like Anderson is a figleaf for the bland mediocrities who run the party, a Tory John Prescott. Suggesting that their views have no resonance among a large portion of the electorate doesn’t make sense. I listened to Anderon being interviewed by Peter Whittle and he came across as down to earth, sensible and in tune with real issues for real voters. The question then for the article worth writing is whether someone like Anderson is genuine, and if so, does he have a place in the modern Tory Party?
There’s an article worth writing to say that someone like Anderson is a figleaf for the bland mediocrities who run the party, a Tory John Prescott. Suggesting that their views have no resonance among a large portion of the electorate doesn’t make sense. I listened to Anderon being interviewed by Peter Whittle and he came across as down to earth, sensible and in tune with real issues for real voters. The question then for the article worth writing is whether someone like Anderson is genuine, and if so, does he have a place in the modern Tory Party?
Lee Anderson is one of those rare politicians who says what everyone else is thinking.
Lee Anderson is one of those rare politicians who says what everyone else is thinking.
Another intellectually bankrupt London denizen masquerading as an expert on the northern working classes. I wonder what qualifications or, more importantly, what authority the author has to opine on the authenticity of a working class MP? Still, knowing nothing never deterred the cognoscenti, did it?
Another intellectually bankrupt London denizen masquerading as an expert on the northern working classes. I wonder what qualifications or, more importantly, what authority the author has to opine on the authenticity of a working class MP? Still, knowing nothing never deterred the cognoscenti, did it?
Geoffrey Dickens also tried to expose political paedophiles. Unfortunately he gave the evidence he had collected to Leon Brittan.
Geoffrey Dickens also tried to expose political paedophiles. Unfortunately he gave the evidence he had collected to Leon Brittan.
Not actually stated, but we can be confident that he has no actual influence in Cabinet or the Conservative Party as a whole; just a noisy facade.
Not actually stated, but we can be confident that he has no actual influence in Cabinet or the Conservative Party as a whole; just a noisy facade.
“He’s … even boycotting England for “taking the knee”.”
Good man!
“He’s … even boycotting England for “taking the knee”.”
Good man!
John Oxley speaks of “murderous paedophiles”. On average, one child is killed around every 10 days in England and Wales alone at the hands of their parent (NSPCC), often in cases of partner infidelity that attract little publicity. By contrast, the murder of a child in a sexual contact, is always huge news but is extremely rare, which is why individual cases stick in the mind and generate outrage. This outrage is well justified but unintentionally selective and prejudicial against minor attracted persons, who generally behave as well as others.
Media commentators should avoid collective libels, which in Oxley’s case looks casual and careless. The YouGov poll he links to in order to support his point actually makes no mention of paedophiles. The relevant question asked in the poll says, “Should the death penalty be reintroduced for the murder of a child?”
DNA testing of children at birth to establish paternity should be routine.
Why? So it can go on the Google-GCHQ-CIA world panopticon database?
What if the mother declines the State’s ‘kind offer’? What shall the penalties be? Jail? Whose child is it? Not flucking HMG’s!
Why? So it can go on the Google-GCHQ-CIA world panopticon database?
What if the mother declines the State’s ‘kind offer’? What shall the penalties be? Jail? Whose child is it? Not flucking HMG’s!
DNA testing of children at birth to establish paternity should be routine.
John Oxley speaks of “murderous paedophiles”. On average, one child is killed around every 10 days in England and Wales alone at the hands of their parent (NSPCC), often in cases of partner infidelity that attract little publicity. By contrast, the murder of a child in a sexual contact, is always huge news but is extremely rare, which is why individual cases stick in the mind and generate outrage. This outrage is well justified but unintentionally selective and prejudicial against minor attracted persons, who generally behave as well as others.
Media commentators should avoid collective libels, which in Oxley’s case looks casual and careless. The YouGov poll he links to in order to support his point actually makes no mention of paedophiles. The relevant question asked in the poll says, “Should the death penalty be reintroduced for the murder of a child?”
“As Labour learnt with Corbyn, giving too much prominence to the outliers alienates far more voters than it brings in — and, after their inevitable electoral failure, they tend to leave chaos in their wake”
Whatever else, Corbyn was, he wasn’t an example of “giving too much prominence to the outliers.” Corbyn won the leadership of his party fair and square. He won among the existing membership and he won among the incoming membership as well as the £3 supporters. The party trebled in size. It’s still a small sliver of the population but it’s a mandate.
Instead of buiding on that (ahem) momentum, the Parliamentary Labour Party resisted him as fiercely as they dared. They ran a leadership election in which Corbyn wiped the floor with them, they briefed against him on all sorts of issues about which the public didn’t give a toss (too republican to accept a post to the Privy Council was especially stupid I thought) and, as is now well known, they actually tried to lose the 2017 election in order to be rid of him. Instead, Corbyn’s manifesto achieved a huge and unforeseen swing towards Labour which rubbed out the Tories’ majority and hamstrung Theresa May. It wasn’t a win, but it wasn’t bad for someone whose own Parliamentary party actively loathed him and his politics.
My point being that, at least, in 2017, Corbyn was far more appealing to voters than he was to his own MPs
It’s true that 2019 was a wipeout but, that was, primarily because a) he was persuaded to come out firmly against Brexit, which was economically correct but politically an elephant trap and b) because the PLP finally found a charge that stuck – anti-Semitism. No matter that the charge has now been largely debunked by the Forde Report, Labour Leaks, Al Jazeera’s reporting etc. The narrative is that “the public won’t accept some beardy old Lefty because they hate leftiness.”
You’re entitled to hold that opinion if it makes you happy. But it isn’t a very good explanation for what actually happened.
Which makes the analogy with the Tories inexact. Whatever, disdain old school parliamentary Tories might have had for fringey ideas like No Deal Brexit, they either nodded along or got purged. That’s how Liz Truss’ fringey brand of dead-eyed lunacy made it into Number 10 and drove the UK headlong into avoidable disaster in a matter of weeks.
The Tories enable and coddle their “loonies” in the hope that they may one day prove to be electoral assets. Labour repudiates theirs in pursuit of “respectability”. And thus, our politics drift ever rightwards.
I wish the UK were ‘drifting rightward’. Thatcher would be far to the right of today’s ‘green’ conservatives, and they are about to get stomped by Labour in the next election.
I wish the UK were ‘drifting rightward’. Thatcher would be far to the right of today’s ‘green’ conservatives, and they are about to get stomped by Labour in the next election.
“As Labour learnt with Corbyn, giving too much prominence to the outliers alienates far more voters than it brings in — and, after their inevitable electoral failure, they tend to leave chaos in their wake”
Whatever else, Corbyn was, he wasn’t an example of “giving too much prominence to the outliers.” Corbyn won the leadership of his party fair and square. He won among the existing membership and he won among the incoming membership as well as the £3 supporters. The party trebled in size. It’s still a small sliver of the population but it’s a mandate.
Instead of buiding on that (ahem) momentum, the Parliamentary Labour Party resisted him as fiercely as they dared. They ran a leadership election in which Corbyn wiped the floor with them, they briefed against him on all sorts of issues about which the public didn’t give a toss (too republican to accept a post to the Privy Council was especially stupid I thought) and, as is now well known, they actually tried to lose the 2017 election in order to be rid of him. Instead, Corbyn’s manifesto achieved a huge and unforeseen swing towards Labour which rubbed out the Tories’ majority and hamstrung Theresa May. It wasn’t a win, but it wasn’t bad for someone whose own Parliamentary party actively loathed him and his politics.
My point being that, at least, in 2017, Corbyn was far more appealing to voters than he was to his own MPs
It’s true that 2019 was a wipeout but, that was, primarily because a) he was persuaded to come out firmly against Brexit, which was economically correct but politically an elephant trap and b) because the PLP finally found a charge that stuck – anti-Semitism. No matter that the charge has now been largely debunked by the Forde Report, Labour Leaks, Al Jazeera’s reporting etc. The narrative is that “the public won’t accept some beardy old Lefty because they hate leftiness.”
You’re entitled to hold that opinion if it makes you happy. But it isn’t a very good explanation for what actually happened.
Which makes the analogy with the Tories inexact. Whatever, disdain old school parliamentary Tories might have had for fringey ideas like No Deal Brexit, they either nodded along or got purged. That’s how Liz Truss’ fringey brand of dead-eyed lunacy made it into Number 10 and drove the UK headlong into avoidable disaster in a matter of weeks.
The Tories enable and coddle their “loonies” in the hope that they may one day prove to be electoral assets. Labour repudiates theirs in pursuit of “respectability”. And thus, our politics drift ever rightwards.