Soubz vs. Dacre? / Cleggles in Town.

Hopefully, this is the last post I’ll be putting up this week about Soubz, but I thought that also after pressing ‘submit’ on Sunday and then, the next day, I dog-sit for my parents in St. Apleford, and do something no un-quasifascistic person should do, and read their tabloid of choice, The Daily Mail.

Don’t worry. I’m not going to start banging on about how awful the Mail is,  while providing revenue-raising traffic to it through links to their fetid site; if you wish to get more insight into any elements of the following, thats your lookout.

It’s no secret that Paul Dacre’s sub-standard bum-roll is, and let’s be unsqueamish here, a tad to the right. It’s no secret that they employ such beacons of integrity as Richard Littlejohn, Samantha Brick and Peter Hitchens (I’m not linking to him. Google him, then just read his brother’s entries. He really could write well, if not entirely sensibly).

So the fact that they have decided to pilliarise Soubz for being a lefty comes as no surprise. They never loved Ken Clarke, possibly for the fact he preferred jazz over Wagner marked him out as a subversive. Hush Puppies? He may as well wear them with red socks embroided with the Cuban flag, as long as Melanie Phillips is concerned.

Mel doesn’t pull her punches. She’s a former socialist who lurches so far right you suspect that she was never ideological, just saw where she could best stake a lucrative claim and went there. Such swings can be explained  in two ways: epiphany or psycopathy. ‘Mad’ Mel, as she’s known elsewhere (and possibly to her family), don’t like our honourable member.

So on Monday, a whole page was given over to how dangerous Soubz is, but not from the basic brief being she’s a Tory MP. No, her faults listed include ‘foul-mouthed’ ‘attention-seeking’ and wearing high-heels. These all were given as the reason why Anna’s opinions were invalid. I’ve been trying to express the same opinion through exposure of her hypocrisy, lack of logic and conflict of interest for a couple of years: apparently I could have saved hours of research by just describing her footwear.

Mad Mel’s attack on the shoes, marital status and vocabulary of Soubz were there to discredit the opinion on assisted suicide Anna has recently expressed. I admitted last post that I supported, on principle, Anna’s opinion. I still do, though with utter openess to a convincing argument otherwise. I’ve recieved a smattering of counter-opinion about this, and it’s been well-written, honest and factually backed-up. I’m still not convinced, but not because I don’t like the counter-opinion, wears Doc Martens and over-uses the term ‘nobhead’.

(Incidentally, I’ve heard Soubz is heavy on the expletives. On at least two occasions she’ described me as the, ahem, C-word. I’d tell you what that word was but a Labour councillor recently gave me a bollocking through it’d use in this blog).

I doubt Phillips, has a focussed vendetta, She reserves vendettas to everyone who isn’t her. People, basically. Yet it’s evident this was a comissoned piece, which means we’re looking at editorial positioning. This isn’t a surprise, a few months ago  I reported on the angst Tory grandees had with the 2010 ‘arriveste’ intake they reported with glee.

This put me in the rather odd position of feeling protective towards Soubz. The Conservatives are teetering towards real red-meat, blue blooded toryism right now, giving power to climate change deniers, homepathy fans, free-market mouth-frothers and unapologetic snobs. Anna might be someone I don’t approve of in many ways, but for a Tory, she’s a moderate in her mentor Clarke’s mode, especially on social issues.

There’s also been an attack from Nadine Dorries, the barking mad back-bencher who hates CallMeDave and the Gidiot for being too left-wing,  a charge she’d probably also level at Mussolini. Dorries was furious at the assisted suicide issue Anna had raised, branding her ‘profoudly ignorant’. Not much sisterhood on the Government benches…

Where was this attack printed? Ah, thats right, The Mail on Sunday.

Anna has an enemy in Paul Dacre, evidentally. Here’s to what should prove to be an interesting few months on the pages of that waste of tree.

_____________________________

I’m meeting Deputy PM Nick Clegg tomorrow as part of a Nottingham Post organised event. Full report to follow. Have a question for the Greek Tragedy that is the Leader of the LibDems? Let me know before 5pm tomorrow.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Soubz vs. Dacre? / Cleggles in Town.

  1. tamar says:

    Sisterhood, MY ARSE. This is 2012, not ’62…

    Other than that – good luck with pasteyface.

  2. Javid says:

    Stop using the “B-word”. It is insulting to mens genitals.

    • tamar says:

      Bollocks is a insult not used against the person, but the action. Sometimes it’s not even an insult at all. Different, see.
      But I see your joke…

  3. Alan Darley says:

    I strongly disagree with Anna Soubry on assisted suicide. It is surprising how she refused to discuss her personal views on this issue before the election, but is now happy to champion a national debate on the matter! Yesterday, was World Suicide Prevention Day, but it seems that in certain cases, Anna wants to encourage it. And that is the problem with any moves to weaken the law. It is saying in effect that some people are ‘right’ to believe that their lives are worthless – namely the terminally ill or chronically disabled, whereas others are not. On what basis can anyone make this judgement? Life is a basic good.

    In the Netherlands where euthanasia is legal the categories of those who are ‘right’ to want to die have been extended beyond those with life-threatening illnesses to include those with dementia and there are even calls from some doctors to include ‘loneliness’ as a category too. Again in the Netherlands voluntary euthanasia has led to a corresponding increase in non-voluntary euthanasia. The elderly and infirm become frightened of their doctors, not knowing if they will cure them or kill them. As of the mid 1990s there were only two hospice programmes in the whole of the Netherlands. And we can see how a cynical government in our own country might see euthanasia as a cheaper option that palliative care.

    An appeal is usually made to a patient’s autonomy, but vulnerable people do not make choices in a vacuum. If you believe that you are a burden on your family or that society at large thinks you are a drain on the national purse you may be tempted to feel that it is your duty to die. And so one person’s ‘right to die’ becomes a ‘duty to die’ and therefore a medic’s ‘duty to kill’ which may become a requirement for keeping their job. This would not be an ‘evolutionary leap’ in ethics but a descent back to medicine before the Hippocratic Oath with its timeless principle: ‘first do no harm’.

  4. David Hughes says:

    Whilst never a conspiracy theorist, the daily mail appears to run on agendas as opposed to news. Dark forces appear to be gathering as another story about Soubo surfaces http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19609786 . Given her apparent fondness for expletives, there must be some relief that she only said “screw up” .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s