Hidden assets

 

 

How politics have changed.

In the year that I was born in 1935 Michael Foot fought his first parliamentary seat. He relished the prospect of a seat in Labour South Wales. It was a bit of a shock to discover that the seat was not in the Socialist Valleys but in the safe Tory seat of Monmouthshire.

Rhodri Morgan mentioned in a speech in Manchester this week.  The Labour link with Monmouth was through Michael Foot who was an active campaigner for 75 years. For all that time he was tormented by the memory of his first public speech in the square in Usk. The place was empty. No-one had turned up. Michael said to his agent 'What do we do now?... Visit a pub? Try another town?...'

Then they heard voices. 'We are here Michael. Make your speech.' The crowd were hiding behind walls and hidden in the corners of the square. Foot made his rousing speech and was greeted by enthusiastic applause from his hidden audience. 

Such was the dominant power of Tory employers in 1935, the crowd were frightened to show their faces. They risked the sack if they were identified as Labour voters. It was many years later in the 1970s that Labour won the seat. 

My hunch is that in the next election Tory Usk and the rest of Monmouthshire will be represented by Labour in the Welsh Assembly and Parliament.

 

Dark Clouds

While the Ryder Cup Golf is going well my day was spent trying to protect Newport jobs.

With Rosemary Butler I met the bosses of a Newport Bakery threatened with closure and the loss of a 114 jobs. The talks were confidential but the company were very open with us on the situation and their future plans. The position is bad but not yet hopeless.

While I am reluctant to act on rumours, I wrote to a Government Minister today about a chorus of rumours about  public sector jobs in Newport. They were rightly protected by the Labour Government but they may now be under a new threat. I have asked the Minister to deny the rumours because of the anxiety they are arousing. The workforce concerned have been loyal, efficient and flexible. Their work should continue in the city of Newport.

 

 

 

Comments

[Kay Tie]

"Pointless."

Not really, because the BBC doesn't bother listening to Rush and his horrible mates. Yet somehow the unpleasant Left gets a lot of air time.

[DG]

You could just as easily write a piece entitled "Rush Limbaugh and the unreasoning hatred of the right." Pointless.

[Kay Tie]

I just found that someone else wrote rather more eloquently than me on this topic:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100024522/michael-moore-and-the-unquestioning-self-righteousness-of-the-left/

[Kay Tie]

"Which side is the nicest then Kay Tie?"

The side that leaves people alone and doesn't seek to coerce them into doing or not doing something, and doesn't despise people for resisting said coercion.

[Ad]

Which side is the nicest then Kay Tie? Seems to me to be a fatuous question though. One could well turn it around and say 'face it, you lot are just not nice people' as you did earlier.

[Kay Tie]

"I don't consider those people to be 'nice'. "

Nor do I.

[Ad]

'What does "reactionary" mean?'

Its a common enough word:

'–adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, esp. extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.'

It is typical of right wingers to takes a hard line on drugs offences, pro-death penalty, harsh on law and order, eager to start wars with Iran, Iraq etc.

I don't consider those people to be 'nice'.

[Kay Tie]

"Just look at all the right wing reactionary nutcases in American politics for example. "

What does "reactionary" mean? In any case, when a certain trait is endemic in a movement it is quite normal to judge that movement. When it's common for lefties to be insulting, threatening and obnoxious we can safely conclude lefties are not nice people. Just look at how Paul descended into the gutter when making baseless accusations of anti-semitism.

[Ad]

'Well that's a tautology'

So it was. The point is, you keeping banging on about how 'the left' are nasty i.e 'some SWP member said they would like to punch someone.' Its fatuous.

'Face it, you lot are just not nice people.'

Just look at all the right wing reactionary nutcases in American politics for example. As Huw said its descending into silliness to look for examples of individuals from the 'left' or the 'right' and pretend you are somehow proving who is the 'nicest'.

[Kay Tie]

"a world where only the wealthy and powerful rule"

Well that's a tautology: anyone ruling is powerful, so of course the powerful rule. It's far better that the power over us is restricted: that's libertarianism or minarchism.

[Patrick]

Had a look at the video Jonny.

It's a shame that Ed fails to connect boarded up high streets with massive rates to finance the Civil Service.

The Government thought that the high street could co-exist with new massive out of town complexes leading to more revenue for higher Civil Servant wages.

Walk around any British high street.
Well we can all see what thought did.

At the same time that businesses have been decimated nationally , top Civil Servants wages have been increased to obscene levels.

So at least there is a silver lining.

Everytime i pass a boarded up shop i am consoled in that a Civil Servant somewhere is on holiday.

[Jonny Roberts]

I'm sorry, I should have listened better in history, I don't know much about the Normans but i'm not sure most people do nor would they care to particularly. The real problems most of Britain is facing http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2010/sep/30/labour-conference-middle-england

[Ad]

You only have to look at the right wing establishment for all the important evils today. In a world where only the wealthy and powerful rule, perpetual wars and an oppressive ruling class are the result.

There is no real public discourse on important subjects. This country and others are a disgrace. Britain merely seves a huge establishment which is running amok.

[Kay Tie]

"point out something you don't like then claim that this invalidates an entire movement."

It does invalidate an entire movement when it is endemic. Socialism is a creed based on coercion, pure and simple. And when you see how socialists actually behave in private, you see the actual emotion: hate. Coupled with coercive powers, this is doomed to failure.

But you don't have to take this from me. Hayek was in the storm of this and gives it a fuller treatment than the few words I use. It's a well established argument and borne out by history: Labour in the 1970s was an abusive party that stood for vested interests and gave them power over us all. Red Ed's new party stands for the same.

Go and watch the 10:10 Campaign video and see the revolting nastiness of lefties like Richard Curtis:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100056586/eco-fascism-jumps-the-shark-massive-epic-fail/

Your "nice, good intentions" are just a veneer. We see this from your nasty insults, we see it in the tribal infighting in Labour, we see it even in the admission from Hazel Blears that the party is malicious:

http://order-order.com/2010/10/01/brillo-makes-blears-eats-her-words/

We see even the threats of violence against people who dare to question your ideology. Face it, you lot are just not nice people. You are bitter, jealous and full of hatred for those who would let people make their own choices in life. Just look at how you react to Mrs. Thatcher: wishing her dead.

[HuwOS]

"Even though it's a non sequitur, I do have to point out that the Saxon peasants had plenty of rights before the Normans came"

Yes KayTie, they did, then the Normans took them away, then quite a long time later they gave some back.

And none of it is non sequitur Kaytie, your classic ploy is to point out something you don't like then claim that this invalidates an entire movement. Usually you do this with things that are not in the slightest bit problematical but even if you were actually truthful and accurate (a rare event I am certain but it must happen sometimes surely)
you could still not justifiably jump from the one to the other.

If you haven't seen a brain engaged KayTie, it is perhaps because your senses are so often offline.
Engage KayTie, engage, the world is very different from the nightmarish visions in your head and unlike Mr Foot in Usk, the voices you hear in the darkness are only in your head.

[Kay Tie]

"Can we attack womens liberation from suffragettes to equal rights on the basis that not all women are pleasant and not all behave in the best ways possible."

Tsk. You want us to account for individual actions now? I thought you were into collective punishment, Huw? You are so keen on it elsewhere (smashing "the bankers" without apparent understanding of what even a banker is). Why, I'd have thought you would agree perfectly with the idea that one is defined by one's group, and one's group is defined by any notable action of that group.

"who the hell did those barons think they were"

Err, you do know what "non sequitur" means, don't you?

"Why Oh Why did the Normans eventually grant rights to those awful saxon peasants who still cause trouble to this very day"

Even though it's a non sequitur, I do have to point out that the Saxon peasants had plenty of rights before the Normans came, and that our Enlightenment views on individual liberty are the cultural inheritance of those rights.

"Hey it's fun to disengage the brain"

What do you mean DISengage? I haven't seen you engage it much in the first place. If you can't see that "good intentions" isn't endemic within the philosophy of the left then you have no reasoning ability whatsoever.

[HuwOS]

Can everyone join in this nonsense.

Can we attack womens liberation from suffragettes to equal rights on the basis that not all women are pleasant and not all behave in the best ways possible.
Let's call it evil and wish it had been left undone and long for the return to how things should be.

As for Magna Carta, who the hell did those barons think they were, and I can assure you they were far from perfect too.
Murderous scumbags the lot of them.
And
Why Oh Why did the Normans eventually grant rights to those awful saxon peasants who still cause trouble to this very day, I suppose KayTie will say there were good intentions but many of their actions were brutish, should we excuse those?

Hey it's fun to disengage the brain, no wonder it's so popular with KayTie and her lot.

[Kay Tie]

David, you mean to say that socialists are not nice people after all? But they have such good intentions. Surely this excuses all brutish acts?

[David Walters]

When Foot eventually reached the "Socialist Valleys" he would no doubt have brimmed with pride to see his "socialist" bretheren employers in local governement bring the same fear to bear on the populace there with the vindictive malice with with they treated other political views.

[Kay Tie]

Here's one person who was afraid to show people where he lived, and suffered threats of violence based in his political views:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100056428/lefties-go-mental-while-watching-my-school-documentary/

Hard lefties are such lovely people, aren't they?

[Kay Tie]

"as I do not believe it would benefit those forced to stand behind walls or in shadows for fear of what their lords and masters would do."

And who today is afraid to show their face?

[Patrick]

"I believe people like you in the Labour party need to concentrate on trying to retrieve the Labour party you joined from the Borglike right wing meld it became under Blair et al."

I agree in principle Huw. The problem with that is you end up with an unelectable party.

Paul knows this so well that despite years of anti-war blogs he then backs the pro war Tony Blair mark 2 David Milliband in the leadership election.

There is no point in three right -wing parties arguing in HOC when they will all ultimately deliver the same.

The parties might as well amalgamate and give the country what it collectively wants
, right wing policies for a right wing nation.

[HuwOS]

Thank you for the reminder why the Labour party was necessary Paul.

It is a pity that I would have no faith that the modern version would be worth voting for, as I do not believe it would benefit those forced to stand behind walls or in shadows for fear of what their lords and masters would do.
The last 13 years suggest it would be more beneficial to the other side.

I think you are being overly optimistic about the chances in the next general election.
I believe people like you in the Labour party need to concentrate on trying to retrieve the Labour party you joined from the Borglike right wing meld it became under Blair et al.