At the Care Images blog we try to steer clear of politics but the Labour leadership issue can’t pass without a mention. I have been following proceedings from a distance and two points stand out clearly.
Firstly, after the election debacle, Labour have to do something to claw back a core vote that saw them retain power for 13 years and then in May that deserted the party. There is certainly an argument that under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, New Labour washed with same whiteness (or with plenty of stains) as the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Given that Ed Miliband is seen as a more traditional union backing Labour leader, his election does at least give the party a clearer identity to move forward with. Whether the electorate will swallow this possible shift leftwards is another matter.
Service not included: How will Labour react to care being compromised?
Secondly, whatever spin the coalition government puts on the scything cuts in public services they are about to make, the fact remains that the incompetent buffoons running our banks, who, to some extent are the cause of the economic mess we are in, have got off lightly. While thousands of public sector workers lose their jobs in the coming weeks and people reliant on public services will find many basic facilities cut, bankers and fund managers will be swigging champagne while stuffing £50 notes into scantily clad lap dancers at London’s most expensive revelling establishments. Vince Cable was spot on describing these masters of the universe as ‘spivs’ but it does beg the question as to why his party has got into bed with the Conservatives, who don’t seem to be too bothered about the banking excesses.
Yes, Ed Miliband needs to walk a tightrope between new and old Labour. But he also needs to use the anger that will come from having services slashed to the advantage of his party, whether new or old Labour.
Where does morality end and news begin? The News of the World’s expose of alleged corruption among the Pakistan international team’s cricketers is an interesting scoop and if the content is found to be accurate then the newspaper has don a service to the sport in finding some serious breaches of conduct.
But what of the recent front page screaming headlines concerning Wayne Rooney?
Is this really such an interesting piece of news that we need to know the sordid details? One thing I have learned is that I do not go to footballers for moral guidance in the same way as I would not pay to watch the so-called moral custodians of our society (whoever they may be) playing football.
Prostitution is not illegal – if the woman in question wants to earn £1200 selling her services to Mr Rooney, as the paper alleges, then that is a private arrangement. But that is not good enough for the social commentator Bea Campbell whose rant in the Guardian shows how much the chattering classes are out of tune with society (a large proportion of the comments made by readers of the article are highly critical of Ms Campbell’s point of view.)
The same thing happened when David Beckham got married – the Guardianistas were out in force criticising the style and tone of the ceremony and party.
Why can’t we leave people alone to do what they want, provided it is within the law? Why do people criticise others’ lifestyles to ram home a point that their lifestyle does not meet some kind of lifestyle? In the case of the News of the World the answer is simple, they sell more papers by publishing this kind of tosh. But in the case of the Guardian?
Could it be that the answer, my friends, is blowing in the winds of jealousy?
Posts