And another thing…

FOLLOWING my disgraceful and unacceptably offensive levity in previous posts dealing with Liz Truss’s troubles with the Tories of South West Norfolk, I thought I should expand on my own thoughts as regards adulterous politicians.

I don’t condone it, personally; I just don’t think it should necessarily bar someone from office. I recently came across a letter I wrote to The Herald in October 1998 in defence of Presdient Clinton.

7 October 1998

THE current vendetta against President Clinton is being pursued by the Republican establishment for one reason only – to reverse the election results of 1992 and 1996.

It is becoming clear that Kenneth Starr’s objective in carrying out his initial investigation into the Whitewater land deals was not to discover the truth, but to come up with evidence – any evidence – with which to impeach the President. Having failed to deliver what was expected of him on Whitewater, he resorted to investigating Mr Clinton’s sex life. But did those who voted for Mr Clinton do so on the basis that he was a faithful husband, or on the basis that he was a politician who could deliver more than his opponents? If the latter is the case, the Republicans could yet pay the price for their cynicism at the ballot-box.

Perhaps this whole experience is nothing more than post-cold war trauma on the part of a US body politic that hasn’t yet discovered a role after the collapse of the communist bloc. Congress would never have considered making a laughing-stock of the nation through this kind of damaging, and ultimately irrelevant, self-indulgence while the international audience for such a Capitol Hill farce included an enemy as vigilant and as powerful as the Soviet Union.

A rather good letter, I thought at the time, though Carolyn was not best pleased that I had gone into print in defence of an adulterer less than a month after our own wedding…

UPDATE at 10.20 pm: Calls of “Burn the witch!” and “Get a rope!” at tonight’s meeting of SW Norfolk Conservatives have been ignored and Liz Truss has secured her nomination as candidate. Good for her. Now let’s hope she loses.

Hat-tip to Iain Dale.

A FEW days ago I compared members of the South West Norfolk Conservative Association to “a village idiots’ convention” because of their treatment of their new parliamentary candidate, Liz Truss. I later repeated this description on The Westminster Hour on Sunday evening.

I wish to issue an apology. Village idiots up and down the country do an important and difficult job and they do not deserve to be compared to members of South West Norfolk Conservative Association.

I hope that’s cleared that up.

WHAT the hell is going on over at the South West Norfolk Conservative Association? Are they totally barmy?

They’ve referred their new parliamentary candidate, Liz Truss, to a full meeting of the local association following new* revelations that she once had an affair.

Either the local powers that be are swivel-eyed mysoginist puritans, or they’re using Ms Truss’s former indiscretions as an excuse to send Conservative Party HQ a message: “We’re here, we’re queer…” no, no, not that one – this one: “Stop disenfranchising local activists with your control freakery, Dave, and your la-de-da talk of all-totty shortlists”.

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?

And if they really are sending out a “hands off” message to Dave, he should tread carefully.

* three years old