A correspondent, who is a sharp observer of the political scene, and who does not live in Reading but has some sound knowledge of what goes on there, writes today as follows, and is spot on:
In today's Guardian, Blunkett says 'Take a constituency like Reading West, where many people live on £20,000 per year. You have to ask yourself what made them vote Conservative - their concerns were not necessarily the concerns of the most active members of the Labour Party and that is the terrible, historic dilemma for the Labour Party. .....for instance, if you turn away from the electorate on issues like crime and terroism , the voters will turn away from you'.
No, the concerns of Reading West constituents were not those of the most active members of the Reading Labour Party, were they? However, what Blunkett refuses to acknowledge is that since 1997, the most active members of the Reading Labour Party were not [thinking about] 'crime/terrorism' etc, but were de-selecting the neighbouring Reading East MP and then turning the Reading Labour Party into a narrow sect based on personality - with candidates selected as weak stooges who would not rock the boat - all the way to the electoral gallows - first in 2005 and then finally in 2010. RIP.
I reckon, hein?
2 comments:
A fairly succint but correct analysis.
Somebody should send it to David Blunkett
Post a Comment