Wednesday 20 January 2010

Liberal Principles

Nick Clegg was right about Cadbury, Kraft, RBS and the taxpayer. But Gordon Brown was right about everything that Clegg's cut-and-shunt party has come to stand for. Alas, that is also everything that Brown's gutted-and-stuffed party has now come to stand for.

Where is the movement that will give a voice to those whose priorities include civil liberties, local communitarian populism, indefatigable pursuit of single issues, the Nonconformist social conscience, the legacy of Keynes and Beveridge, traditional moral and social values, conservation rather than environmentalism, national sovereignty, a realistic foreign policy, the Commonwealth, the peace activism historically exemplified by Sir Herbert Samuel, redress of economic and political grievances in the countryside, and the needs and concerns of areas remote from the centres of power both in the United Kingdom and in each of its constituent parts?

And where is the movement that will give a voice to those who were never hysterically hostile to the unions that exhibited the greatest need for a broad-based and sane opposition to Thatcherism, who never made themselves dependent on a single donor (as the Tories have now done) who was later made a Minister by Blair without the rate for the job, who never betrayed Gaitskellism over Europe, who never betrayed Christian Socialism and a section of High Toryism (and, lest we forget, Gaitskellism) over nuclear weapons, who never adopted the decadent social libertinism of Roy Jenkins, and who never adopted the comprehensive schools mania of Shirley Williams?

The election of even one such MP this year would light the touchpaper. The election of several would set off the explosion. So, who and where are those candidates?

30 comments:

  1. I dunno - I thought you were going to be one of them, but your appear to have chickened out.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I dunno" where you've got that impression.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Really? So you can confirm you'll definitely stand, irrespective of whoever Labour nominate?

    ReplyDelete
  4. That's not the issue. It's medical.

    Anyway, people know about me and this seat. What about every other seat?

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's not about every other seat. It's about you banging on about the need for independents without doing it yourself.

    If you can't stand, will you commit to giving your deposit to a substitute candidate who you explicitly get to stand in for you?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'd be fascinated to hear of any such candidate, who would enjoy my full support if I were unable to stand. Has he or she considered standing anyway, in a neighbouring constituency?

    As I have always made absolutely clear, even if not necessarily in such detail, my next consultation is in March, so I certainly will not contest any Election in March or, because of the timeframe, April. Whether or not I contest any Election in May or June will be strictly conditional on what I am told in March.

    Doing exactly as the doctors tell me is how I have kept myself alive. And doing exactly as the doctors tell me is how I intend to keep myself alive.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Stephen Alexander21 January 2010 at 13:00

    How Lindsay has fallen. First he promised that he'd set up a party that would fight every seat in the UK. The only candidate he ever announced refused to have anything to do with him. Then he said he'd fight Durham. After no press coverage -- zilch, nada -- and gales of laughter for bullying the Northern Cross he's waddling away in terror.

    Frit.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Then he said he'd fight Durham"

    Wrong. You don't know what you are talking about. Probably writing for London.

    As for The Northern Cross, they are about to get the shock of their sweet little lives. They'll not mess with me again...

    ReplyDelete
  9. "As for The Northern Cross, they are about to get the shock of their sweet little lives. They'll not mess with me again..."

    Yawn. Is this another of your predictions like the BPA fighting every seat in the country?

    No wonder they laugh at you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. No wonder The Northern Cross won't be laughing this time next week, let me assure you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The last publication to cross you is very lucky to still be in existence, and there was no Catholic card to play there. If it bothers you again then it will be closed down.

    I hope the same goes for the Northern Cross even though it did nothing more than fail to mention you when you ordered it to do so.

    You are a good old-fashioned machine politician Mr L, not one of these New Labour/Cameron milksops. We need you.

    What, no link to that article?

    ReplyDelete
  12. It has been a while, hasn't it? Here it is - http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/01/03/the-kamm-scam/

    Of course, it is permanently on the blogroll.

    ReplyDelete
  13. From this pathetic stream of threats and insinuations I can only conclude that you are a coward, mad, a delusionist, or some combination of the three

    ReplyDelete
  14. No, Thil, I am what is known as "an old-fashioned machine politician". Whereas as you are what is known as "a New Labour/Cameron milksop".

    For another example, even the archetype, of the latter, see http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/01/03/the-kamm-scam/

    ReplyDelete
  15. Considering the punishment that you can apparently dish out not even from a hospital bed but from an operating table you are not called the Godfather for nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The nickname seems to follow me through life. Some of my freshers are the latest people to have arrived at it independently of anyone else who has ever used it of me. And there have been quite a few, in one context or another.

    Anyway, back on topic, please.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Who wants to bet that this time next week the Northern Cross will still be around? I'll write to the editor to find out whether he's terrified or doubled up in laughter at the name of David Lindsay.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oh, it'll still be around, all right. And rather busy...

    ReplyDelete
  19. I don't know why you still bother with it, it's nothing like the force it once was. Roughing it up is beneath a man who once had a cabinet minister's researcher and would be successor conspire to murder him.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Water under the bridge.

    I am not putting up any more off-topic comments.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'll call the editor next week and ask how busy he is with David Lindsay, creator of a defunct one-man party and the sock puppets Martin Miller and Stephen Alexander. I hope he doesn't die laughing.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'd certainly vote for David if I lived in the relevant constituency.

    But then again, I've made a point of voting for the most amusing candidate on the ballot paper for the last three elections (it momentarily whiles away the tedium of living in a one-party fiefdom), so my motives might be suspect.

    ReplyDelete
  23. If I were you Anonymous 18:51, I'd hope the poor man hadn't literally died, possibly at his own hand. Lindsay is one of the most vicious politicians I have met in 40 years. The God Squad are always the worst, and never worse than when feuding among themselves.

    Ferengaw, this isn't a one party fiefdom. Labour only still runs local government here because of the abolition of the district councils and moving everything to county level. With the anger over the AWS this eat is wide open. Unfortunately, Lindsay understands all of this.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Do I detect just a whiff of hysteria?

    ReplyDelete
  25. We know what you are capable of, perhaps it is our own fault for never using you properly.

    19 and a subagent who got an overall majority of the total vote on a four way split in a Tory ward. 21 and appointed to the governing body of a prestigious primary school.

    22 and got a Durham University education lecturer kicked off the governing body of a prestgious comp and replaced by you, a Durham University student at the time. You hadn't even graduated when the decision was made.

    But no district council nomination in 2003 so you not only cost Labour that seat but took another one down with it to prove your point. Still drank in a red rosette that night, though. Even driven to and from the count by the man whose career you had destroyed.

    Since then you have tried to haul him before the Standards Board and the Parliamenatry Commissioner for Standards for charges right up to allegedly trying to get his brother-in-law to murder you. You detailed it all on here. All for being nominated ahead of you for a seat Labour lost anyway. Maybe you think you would have held it. Maybe you would. Your record suggests so.

    You worked out years ago that there would be an all woman short list here so you got yourself expelled in order to fight the seat. Your local branch has never really accepted that you were expelled and the county councillor who rightly removed you a little early from one of your governing bodies was not only deselected but banned from standing anywhere.

    You held you parish seat with an increased vote after using the old trick that anyone standing for parish and district on the same day is bound to win at parish level even if not district.

    And now Labour has had to suspend its own requirement that AWS candidates be pro-choice for fear of you getting enough votes to give the Liberals this seat.

    Who have they found? A first term Lanchester parish councillor where you are a third term Lanchester parish councillor. An inactive party member most of her life where you were a branch, constituency, district, Fabian and Co-op activist for years and years.

    We should have used you properly, I suppose we have only ourselves to blame. We have turned you from the gregarious, intellectual, religious figure most people still think you are into the bitter, spiteful, vengeful man that you really are now.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Do I detect just a whiff of hysteria?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous (not David Lindsay)22 January 2010 at 22:13

    Do I detect David Lindsay using anonymous sockpuppets again? Surely not ..

    ReplyDelete
  28. Not at all, now or ever. The lowdown on the source of that one can now be read permanently on the blogroll -
    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/01/03/the-kamm-scam/

    Oh, the comments that have had to reject on this post! I feel like Michael Winner: "Calm down, dears".

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Not at all, now or ever."

    Are you prepared to repeat that statement while wired to a lie detector with one hand on a bible and a video camera trained on a gigantic close-up of one of your eyeballs to detect involuntary twitches?

    It would certainly silence your critics, and be a great news story into the bargain.

    ReplyDelete
  30. No it wouldn't, and no it wouldn't be. It doesn't even interest me, and I am the person concerned.

    I don't really believe in lie detectors, anyway. But of that another time, perhaps.

    As to the 'fons et origo' of all this nonsense, see http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/01/03/the-kamm-scam/

    ReplyDelete