Thursday, August 11, 2005

Tyler Must Do Better

I post this in the spirit of contrition and humility.

As you may know, when we began this blog, our aims were noble and pure. They were to highlight and disseminate David Davis' unrivalled credentials to lead our party. And definitely not to badmouth his rivals.

Yet, try as I might, I constantly stray from the paths of righteousness. I truly am a miserable sinner, deserving nothing but your contempt.

My latest lapse was to post certain musings about Ken on Political Betting. I'm afraid I rose to the bait of seeing others propose he would be a better choice for leader than Our Man, and I humbly suggested they take a look at Ken's outside interests. As a result, I was "moderated", the blogmaster noting:

'...we saw yesterday on the site how one of the people linked to Bloggers for David Davis was ready to rush in and put the boot into the former Chancellor. In fact some of the language used was possibly defamatory and for the first time in several months I had to moderate a comment.' [For blogging innocents, moderate means censor.]

Let me admit my fault. My choice of words- while involving a light-hearted term of endearment common among younger members of the Tyler household- was, I can now see, open to misinterpretation by more fastidious punters. I apologise.

I apologise too for any implication that Ken should not have paid employment outside Parliament. You see, I have this idiosyncratic belief that MPs should devote all their paid energies to representing us, and moreover that taking outside jobs with companies and lobbyists can under some circumstances lead to conflicts of interest. Although obviously not in Ken's case. Obviously not.

So to make amends, I posted a clarification on PBC this am.

Sheesh. Looks like I may have outstayed my welcome:

'Wat Tyler- It was not just the particular phrase that was inappropriate but the whole piece. If we have learnt one thing it is surely not encourage the image of the Tory party being ferrets in a sack going over Niagara Falls.

I would have thought a rather different style is appropriate. More measured?

Its alright for us plebs to be casual and have a blast at candidates and other parties but as the chief blogger cheerleader for DD ( running a blog called David Davis for leader) I must assume that the style, which is reflected in your blog, is compatible with the candidate you support.

As such you may have just made up my mind for me about who is not suitable as leader.'

Well, hang on a second Blue2Win- certainly trash me, but you should leave Davis out of it. Let me repeat what we've said before. This blog has got nothing whatsoever to do with David Davis- other than, as ordinary party members, we are desperate to see him as leader, and blogging is just about the only means we have to help achieve that.

Fortunately, others seem to understand this distinction. Max says: 'As to what B2W said about Wat I think some of us in the party are probably more concerned about his (DD’s) supporters than the man himself.' Fair enough.

And Jon Gale says '...sites such as David Davis for Leader (by which i mean bile about the corrupt party pinkos like “Chairman Maoude” and traitors, etc) and Derek Conway do not indicate that DD’s supporters have grasped that, although the man himself seems alright.'

Good point, Jon. Although, actually I spelled it Chairman Maode, being what I thought was a rather neat play on the fact that neither Mao nor Maode seems to believe in party democracy (well OK, I know the fat one's passed away, but I've still got his Little Red Book).

And as for the bile about pinko traitors, you're quite right. What can I say? It's not clever, it's not funny,, I'll try to do better.

(PS. Actually, there's another poster on PBC who says:

'Wat is spot on in his assessment of Clarke. If anything, I reckon he’s been overly restrained.
Frankly the man doesn’t deserve to call himself a Conservative after having stabbed leader after leader in the back all these years.
His views are basically those of the liberals (if liberals have ‘views’), however much he tries to hide them.
If our MPs are stupid enough to vote for him (and it looks more and more like it’ll be in their hands) then he’ll rapidly discover he hasn’t got a party left to lead.'

She's called Iron Lady, and I have to admit she sounds like my kinda gal.

Am I allowed to say that?)


Post a Comment

<< Home