And another thing…

Tom

Its a local matter for the people there. We do not know the details but it is not about sex but trust.

Typical Right wing old school Tories. No time for ‘em.

“Stop disenfranchising local activists with your control freakery, Dave, and your la-de-da talk of all-totty shortlists”.

That sounds like a message that would help strengthen real representation rather than the cosmetic kind.I would applaud it.

Just in case that was not the motivation however:

“If they’re genuinely upset that the candidate they adopted barely three days ago has, in the past, had a private life, then they really are the epitome of a village idiots’ convention. And if all the parties involved in the reported affair have moved on, why the hell should complete strangers get so uptight about it?”

Something jars a little here.
Are we now 100% certain that these things are irrelevant today? Is there absolutely no wider relation between integrity and observance of wedding vows?
Are the two sets of oaths unrelated?

I think I think like you on this but I am somehow reluctant to write that point of view off entirely or in such strong terms.

I suppose when you have a government with amongst its big guns, seducers of government staff and those happy to use their office as a bedroom, the standards are set.

Basically, I couldn’t really say this activates my moral outrage glands, it doesn’t. However I can’t quite decide if that is a fault or not.

Rodger, I don’t approve of or excuse adultery, but no-one has a spotless private life. Are we really suggesting that only those with an ideal home life can aspire to being an MP? That would result in a hell of a lot more Commons resignations than has happened so far over expenses.

When I was trying to win the Labour nomination for my seat in 2000, an elderly female supporter accosted me before the vote and said indignantly: “I didn’t know you had been divorced!”

“That’s because it’s none of your business,” I replied. I’m sure I lost her vote, but so be it.

We live our live vicariously through our MPs Tom. You are ours. We shall dictate your morals, personal life and beliefs. You shall not transgress our schoolyard and tabloid morality.

We are the electorate. Resistance is futile!!

You WILL be assimilated.

What gets me on this is that it came as a surprise to the local Association. If they’d performed a google search on the name Liz Truss they would have found reports of her affair online & in the public domain. I think she could be forgiven for assuming that anyone doing the tiniest bit of due diligence on a candidate would already be aware of her indiscretion. I bet she couldn’t believe it when no one asked her about it prior to her selection.

The entire thing is utterly barmy. Liz Truss will be an excellent PPC (and hopefully MP) whereever she stands, and her affair is completely irrelevant. She has an outstanding CV – she was selected from a field of 4 candidates on the first ballot with more than 50% of the vote.

For South-West Norfolk to attempt to deselect her now is utterly crazy. I am baffled as to why an old affair is even an issue, especially when it’s already emerged into the public domain.

To the moralisers out there: Judge not, yest ye be judged.

She made a promise to someone, broke it. Big deal. The fact is that without the ridiculous attachment to mongomy that monotheism has promoted this would be an absolute nothing. To ask sopmeone early in their life to commit to someone for longer than a mortgage is crazy. The person you marry has put on an act during your courtship and engagement and you expect them to be the same once married, but that almost never happens (on both sides) so why shouldn’t you be able to seek succour elsewhere?

Tom,

Nice reply to the constituent. Being content in not pleasing everyone is a a good sign.
I have to ask though. Did you consider the fact that she might have fancied you and was merely castigating you for not announcing your availability? She may well still be recovering from the disappointment poor girl.

Back to the point, I am pretty sure I agree with you. Perhaps there might be something to be said about the fact that she has not yet been returned to Parliament. Asking a sitting MP to resign because of it is different to deciding looking elsewhere at this stage of the cycle. However I for one don’t feel the urge to see her removed.

As for resignations. Could be funny. I would love to hear how the affairs were not in “technical breach of the rules”.

As far as your divorce goes, Tom, anything that is in the public record IS the business of potential voters.

John 8:1-11 (The Bible)

Try referring to an obsolete book, made up by a bunch of liars, about a man who never existed, or follow your moral compass..

It all depends on whether you prefer Jerusalem circa nought AD or Salem Massachusetts, circa 1692.

I am surprised at you Tom i find it very!very! annoying that ’she once had an affair’………………..and it wasn’t with me!

Can only assume there’s more to it than meets the eye. If they point-blank asked her if she’d had an affair or had any embarassing revelations and she lied… well, maybes. Either way, it’s not helping anyone down there. Alan Clark gave a very good description of the folly of some constituency parties in his Diaries.

If she was asked about it and denied it. Then it is all about trust. You need to be open about things. Imagine trying to canvess for the PPC and all you keep being asked why did you select this person when she kept things from you.

People here appear to have no idea about the real world and ordinary people.

She should step down and Cameron should not have jumped in with both feet.

Tom, do you really think that this would have happened if she had been a man? That, to me, is the crux of this. The Tories are just as prejudiced and narrow minded as they always have been, however fluffy and cuddly they try to pretend they are now.

“The Tories are just as prejudiced and narrow minded as they always have been…”

Caron, who exactly are the Tories?

Being that the supposed victim of prejudice is a Tory, the party leadership supporting her is Tory and bloggers like Dale making the case for her are Tory, would it not be fairer to state that the members of the specific association are as you described?

Although the choices of those you allow to be members of your organisation rightfully reflect upon you. Is it really fair in this instance to brand the whole party when it appears few of the party agree with the actions and it is in direct contradiction of the leadership?

This is not to mention that your comment implies that Tom’s assertion that this is a message to DC is false and it was purely a ‘moral’ decision.

I would further add the notion of Tories as sexists never fails to amuse. Longest serving Prime Minister of the last century? A woman and a Tory. Did she need a shortlist? No. That was thirty years ago, seems Labour have some serious catching up to do.

Caron, there’s a very easy was of determining the answer…

[...]

Deselect Mark Field!

I used the word ’succour’ and no-one commented on it

Personal affairs happen, and quite frankly it is not the business of anyone but her spouse and her lover, and possibly (if she has any) her children. Anyone and everyone else can butt out.

The fact the local branch were moronic enough to not even bother Googling her is worrying; it’s a standard tool these days when interviewing for a coffee boy. If you’re selecting a candidate at an election and want to know their public image, it’s a necessity.
More worrying though is why they consider it important she had an affair. I truly hope she continues to be the candidate, purely to show it to these puritan busybodies. Of course, the slight possibility of the other parties using it as ammunition against her is completely gone now; even before it “came out” about it, it was already publicly known, and not really interesting enough to be ammo against her.

Unless it concerns their conduct in office (ie. if it was involving the use of expenses or public funds for the relationship etc.), or she lied about it in caught (thus making it a crime, the “clinton scenario”), I can see no valid reason beyond the tabloid muckspreaders column inches that what an MP does in their bedroom is of any of our business.

@Caron

If she’d been a man? Well, her lover lost his portfolio and his wife, so by those standards Mrs Truss is doing quite well.

Or do you mean that because her ex-lover has escaped execution by firing squad that she is getting it worse than him?

This is another strange affair.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6893765.ece

That has cost many lives thanks to Labour. Do you have any comments on this instead of muck raking.

You aren’t muck raking Tom, and unsurprising that a tory bufton troll suggests you are.

The Tories who adopted Liz Truss can make prats of themselves, and I see no reason why Anyone should desist from comment. It is not a secret, and unsurprising that the Bufton tendancy, who are less than keen on Chameleon take up arms to point to this valse profane.

Thus Sir Iain Dale, listed on Wiki as an official in Dave Davis’ failed Leadership Campaign vs Chameleon has obtained the former leading Tory’s opinion. Funnily enough Derek Conway, who also Used to be listed by WIKI as an official in Davis Leadership campaign has Not been asked to give his opinion, despite having been a Tory Whip in the Major days – Chief Whip I seem to recall. That is a political scandal, and There’s More!

http://quietzapple-musing.blogspot.com/

Sir Iain has not been disposed to reveal his links to Conway & Davis on the thread which makes clear this obscure pot at Chameleon mind . . .

Chameleon/Ashcroft are drawing up some juicy shortlists . . .

As the Late Quentin Hogg qua Lord Hailsham might have said:

“Are there no adulterers on the opposition front benches or the South West Norfolk Conservative Association, and, if there are, should Chameleon insist that they all put their hands up?”

I wonder if this Norfolk seat’s Cons candidacy will be re-advertised?

This is an absolutely unbelievable affair. It certainly wouldn’t happen to a man; no Tory is saying Mark Field should step down.

Just as bad as the sexism is the fact that obviously some Tories on the ground are just as keen on policing everyone else’s private life, and just as eager to cast the first stone, as they always were. Back to Basics obviously never went away.

I think anyone who want to judge someone else in this way for something in their private lives should first expose themselves to a full examination of their own private life. If there’s to be a public sex inquisition, let’s start with those who want to be inquisitors.

Maybe they didn’t bother “Googling” her, because they asked her, in the old fashioned way – to her face, about her past.

I don’t get the sense that this is about adultery; more about trust, judgement and a lack of candour on the part of Liz Truss.

Off Topic Tom
I’ve just submitted my self assessment. Can you tell me if MPs get 6 months overrun in which to submit their expense details to Parliament?

“Can you tell me if MPs get 6 months overrun in which to submit their expense details to Parliament?”

Why would we submit expense details to Parliament? If we make a claim, those claims are published whenever the parliamentary authorities see fit; if we don’t claim them, they don’t get published.

You want me to go over that again?

Oh, and interestingly, in the case of this prospective de-selection, and the failed de-selection of Eleanor Laing, Shadow Justice Minister

http://bit.ly/2nBjzI

despite the pfafff about Open Caucuses & Open Selections & Open Sackings it was the local Tories who decided to let this Cap Gains Tax “avoider” stop on. NOT other local residents who might have taken a less generous view.

After all the screaming about poor Hazel Blears, whose principal sin was the similar but cheaper one might have expected Mr Chameleon to show some leadership and throw bricks . . But no, not this time.

He needs his Cameron Flopsies to balance the ticket – wether they pretend their nanny is a clerk, or fall out with their local tories over their bonking – so she can stay.

Jolly misleading show.

I don’t believe it is about their trust in Liz Truss: it is about wether they are trustworthy themselves, and looks like not.

Unsurprising.

Tom .. I suggest you google NFN !!!

swivel-eyed mysoginist

Why you’ll be meaning our swap-eyed Miss O’Ginnish, the toast of Tipperary.

She was ever putting i for y.

I would further add the notion of Tories as sexists never fails to amuse. Longest serving Prime Minister of the last century? A woman and a Tory. Did she need a shortlist? No. That was thirty years ago, seems Labour have some serious catching up to do.

But Thatcher became Tory leader by default, in the face of the general uselessness of her male contemporaries. If they hadn’t been such a bunch of no-marks she would never have become leader.

When she was in the running for leadership there was a lot of grassroots opposition to her. Despite Ted Heath’s unpopularity, there was a campaign of ‘We want the Grocer, not the Grocer’s Daughter’. Note the reference to both her humble origins and her gender – and not in a good way.

I don’t anyone was more surprised than Thatcher herself when she was catapulted to the top of her party. In 1973 (as Education Secretary) she appeared on a kids’ TV discussion programme (a sort of junior version of Question Time) saying she didn’t believe a woman would ever be prime minister in her lifetime. She wasn’t being disingenous. She meant it.

Airey Neave, the Colditz escapee who engineered her rise to the leadership (due to his dismay at what Ted Heath had done to the country and to Tory credibility) may have thought because she was a woman she would be easier to influence, should he wish to be the power behind the throne. However, he was killed in a terrorist attack a month before she won the election, so we’ll never know the extent to which he would have influenced her. It was him who had given her the Francis of Assisi poem that she read on the steps of Downing Street.

The Tories came round to the idea of having a woman leader, but only by making her into a kind of honorary man. And she seemed quite happy to maintain the male/white status quo to her governments.

Nicky is quite right.

Thatcher wanted Sir Sheath Joseph to stand, which typically showed her appalling judgement. I think that Germaine Greer got la Thatcher abour right myself:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/11/germaine-greer-margaret-thatcher-anniversary

The sexual hypocrisy of the conservatives never more evident than in the Cecil Parkinson case. He was once mooted as a possible PM, and his greatest boast was that he imported lots of accountants into the civil service.

Tom ,bet you wish you name was Tom Watson.

Oh, all right, let me be plain.

It’s not mysoginist. It’s misogynist.

Wish I cared…. however, the first time a politician stands up and tells me how to live my life morally when they are not whiter than white themselves, then I’ll care. Until then, roll on a true liberal (note the small l) democracy.

Hypocrisy is the single biggest political turn off

My message keeps being called spam and won’t be posted. Offensive!

“The Tories came round to the idea of having a woman leader, but only by making her into a kind of honorary man.”

The ‘not a true Scotsman’ fallacy in full effect. Yawn.

Chesterton’s Men Who Think Backward are seemingly everywhere.

Piffle.

Piffling misogyny!

The men who manipulated Margaret Thatcher even hired voice coaches to reduce the pitch of her voice!

But whatever else, please, Oh mock Tory Trolls! do not let the facts get in the way of cherished prejudices!

“The men who manipulated Margaret Thatcher…”

And Tony Blair rolled straight off the production line like that, did he?

Blair studied to become a Barrister, like Michael Howard for example. They have the skills which come with that work.

He has ways with words we may envy, and considerable appeal to people, especially women, which translated seamlessly to TV, which was critical.

By comparison Mrs Thatcher was a cut and shut at the behest of advertising men with the interests of their fellow rich in mind. Mrs T married a millionaire, who followed her career with considerable self interest.

My point was all successful politicians, since the invention of TV at least, have been shaped and manipulated by people behind the scenes.

Alistair Campbell would be outraged at the lack of credit you are giving him. Heck, even Gordon Brown was giving Blair advice on what to say to appease the Old Labour masses at party conferences.

So it needs to be a woman you approve of?

Again, ‘no true Scotsman’.

Man or woman, one term senator or life-long big wig, events will dictate your election more generally than your work.
This is real life. Thatcher really was a Tory, she really was a woman, she really came to power. How many sexists voted for Thatcher? Most of them probably. Who really gives?

So you guys please feel proud about your ‘diversity’ and keep it as an aim within itself, keep striving to demonstrate ‘representation’, keep trying to push your Smiths, Harmans and Flints further than their ability should otherwise allow them. Take all the ‘Blair’s babes’ photos in the world. Feel the warm glow of your apparent and empirically measurable lack of prejudice. Then, out of nowhere, feel the surprise when (and like Thatcher not because of ‘progressive’ intent but because of what you call ‘default’) the Tories will bring us our first BME leader. Like they did the first Jew and the first woman. And it won’t be because he was a Jew, she was a woman or he/she was a BME. “the notion of Tories as sexists never fails to amuse” not because there are not Tory sexists, but because it is all a big barrel of nonsense. It means nothing to us. Just a construct for semi-smart university graduates endlessly squaring circles.
It seems that to you the fact that a woman made it is irrelevant because she didn’t make it BECAUSE she was a women.

As for the maintenance of the white/male status quo!! So again, a woman has to represent the ‘interests of women’. These are separate to men’s? Yawn.
The idea of a male/white status quo is sexist and racist. I am a white male, are you telling me that I could not be represented well by somebody that isn’t? Blacks rule for blacks? Women rule for women? If so what is so special about white men that only they rule for themselves?

Trying to make the Thatcher was a stooge for others, easily manipulated argument is just embarrassing. Call her arrogant, call her wrong, call her unsuccessful, but attempts to attack the authenticity of her beliefs or her passion is frankly stupid.

Not even Derek Hatton would try that, especially not in comparison to the likes of Blair.

Paul:

Alistair Campbell tends to somewhat exaggerate his influence on occasion.

Most famously re the “sexed up” dossier in which he added a few words for Tony Blair’s statement before the Second Iraq war.

If you compare the original with the statement made the changes are minimal, yet people have been deluded into thinking that the Evil Genius Campbell made all the difference. His claims to have “sexed” it “up” are gross.

Don’t believe all the PR a PR man spins you about his PR prowess.

The image of Thatcher as an immovable object is tosh.

Until she fell under the spell of Sir Sheath Joseph she was quite unremarkable idealogoically.

Until the Ad men caught hold of the woman catapulted into the Tory Leadership she never affected the Churchillian mode, or even the serious contralto “Leaderene” as St John Stevas was wont to put it.

The woman who supported section 42 was the same one who voted for Leo Abse’s Homosexual reform Bill.

One day the truth will be told, and Geemaine Greer’s article (link above) is the best shot so far imho.

Tom
You need to read this.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=NOED29%20Oct%202009%2019%3A40%3A14%3A330

Looks like a CCO stitch up to me.

Re Johnny’s link:

I do so love Tory “politics” – all adultery and Euro promises – eh?

What happened to the conservatism of which Quentin Hogg wrote?