Thursday, May 21, 2009

Joanna Lumley for PM?

Cranmer jests, but (frankly) any celebrity could stand as a candidate in just about any parliamentary constituency at the moment, and they would be likely to be elected with resounding majorities. Esther Rantzen is rumoured to be toying with the idea, just as Martin Bell did and Delia Smith threatened to in 1997; and Rosemary Scallon (Dana) and Michael Cashman did in 1999.

Call it the Reagan, Eastwood or Schwarzenegger effect. Celebrities by definition possess a face and name recognition which the vast majority of politicians fail to attain throughout their entire lives. If, as Enoch Powell observed, all political careers end in failure, it is equally true that all bar a few in each generation end in utter and thankless obscurity. The only real celebrity politician at the moment is Boris. The name recognition is instant.

And let us not be discriminatory or unkindly career-ist in trashing the intellectual capabilities or political acumen of members of the entertainment profession. One is as likely to be able to form a government from the diverse members of Equity as one may find chancellors, ministers and secretaries of state among the myriad of one-legged Asian lesbians we shall doubtless have in the next Parliament by virtue of positive discrimination.

Joanna Lumley MP?

Her campaign for the Gurkhas has been inspirational, and the outcome a euphoric victory. The Home Secretary has announced today that all Gurkha veterans who retired before 1997 with at least four years' service will be allowed to settle in the UK. Joanna Lumley has rectified a manifest injustice and shamed the Government. Politicians on all sides ought to fear the independent and very real threat of potential 'Jury Team' candidates.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

you must be bored this is like your fourth blog today.

anyway, Joanna Lumley as PM?

that would be: 'Absolutely Fabulous'

hope your well

21 May 2009 at 15:14  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

Your Grace,

"Cranmer jests," you say, but perhaps that reservation is itself not meant to be taken wholly in earnest?

21 May 2009 at 15:15  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

You mentioned ‘positive discrimination’ in your article. Could I take this opportunity to present a matter arising in the Government’s Equality Bill?

If the Bill becomes law it will set religious community against religious community.

It will permit, say, a Hindu to request a Muslim architect to draft a design for a temple.

If the Muslim objects on grounds of conscience then he could be sued.

Its provisions are calculated to trigger the Mutually Assured Destruction of religious communities in the civil sphere.

It appears that nothing has been learnt from the troubles in Northern Ireland.

Its provisions on ‘positive discrimination’ (recorded as ‘positive action’ in Hansard) follow EU case law and European Convention on Human Rights case law where in one of the cases (Belgian Linguistics) it was said ‘certain legal inequalities tend only to correct factual inequalities.’ An example would be the common belief that the reason why there aren’t more women in employment is because of sex discrimination – when in fact it may be because women make different career choices.

Your communicants will be able to think through the implications of such a bill.

21 May 2009 at 15:53  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Singh,

That is the very matter to which His Grace shall be turning his attention tomorrow.

21 May 2009 at 15:59  
Blogger Timothy Belmont said...

She'd doubtless do a better job than Brown.

21 May 2009 at 16:26  
Blogger ZZMike said...

We uncultured yobs here in the US have no idea who Ms Lumley is (though from the photo she appears to be a good person of high character). And even though the OBE isn't what it once was, it shows that she hasn't just been sitting around knitting all these years.

Her background explains perfectly her actions in regard to the Gurkhas. Can they give someone a second OBE, or is it like military medals, where you add an oak leaf or some such?

It does not speak well of Government when it takes a private citizen (though a very public one) to do something that should have been granted without question as soon as it came up.

Mr Singh raises an important question. I often wonder, about such bills, whether the intent comes first ("Now then, how can we bring about the Mutually Assured Destruction of religious communities ....") and then the clever way to implement it, or whether it's simple ignorance and naievete ("Wouldn't it be nice if we could all just get along").

21 May 2009 at 17:17  
Blogger Timothy Belmont said...

Your Grace,

I feel strongly that Miss Lumley, already an OBE, should be appointed DBE.
This recognition of her struggle for a British Regiment does credit to the British People, despite a campaign by the Labour Government to deny the Gurkhas their entitlements.


21 May 2009 at 17:24  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

Hear hear.

21 May 2009 at 17:51  
Anonymous not a machine said...

the logic must then follow Trinney or Susanna for speaker !!

21 May 2009 at 17:54  
Anonymous oiznop said...

Your Grace,

You have excelled yourself today. Politics, theology, light entertainment -

Have you finally turned pro?

21 May 2009 at 17:58  
Anonymous Katy said...


You can't have two OBEs, but you can rise up the ladder - Mr Belmont's suggestion is the one which occurred to me when reading His Grace's article. 'Dame Joanna Lumley'; as my professor says 'I like it'.

21 May 2009 at 18:50  
Blogger Timothy Belmont said...

Your Grace,

I have applied to Number 10 this evening for a Petition to appoint Miss Joanna Lumley, OBE, a Dame Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire.

I await their confirmation and acceptance, or otherwise, imminently.
Should my petition be accepted, I sincerely trust that it will be signed and endorsed.


21 May 2009 at 20:37  
Anonymous God Hates Fags said...

Kindle ye not the fires of God Almighty's wrath!

21 May 2009 at 20:56  
Blogger ZZMike said...

Thanks, Katy. I just looked at current DCEs. Julie Andrews, Shirley Bassey, Elizabeth Taylor (I thought she was one of us), among others.

There's no reason Ms Lumley should not join that august body.

22 May 2009 at 01:16  
Anonymous judith said...

How easy it is to garner praise when fronting a warm and cuddly cause - how would any of these celebs cope with the day to day grind of even a backbencher, let alone a senior Minister?

Keep your Party happy or your Whips happy or your constituents happy....or your conscience happy? Not so easy.

Deal with the aftermath of your popular win when you have promised everything to everybody? Much more difficult - see T Blair Esq.

22 May 2009 at 07:26  
Blogger Gnostic said...

It was the energy and determination with which Ms Lumley fought her cause. She never let up and she won.

Those idiots we have languishing around Westminster Palace have the energy and determination of squashed carrots. They also lie better than railway sleepers.

Facta non verba.

22 May 2009 at 08:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

Thank you. If you are interested in the positive discrimination provisions they are located at S.153.

Ms Marriet Harperson is likely to say to you that those provisions bring UK law into line with EU employment law.

But in my view the provisions will have a disastrous affect upon say the education of young black people: ‘I don’t have to try hard at school as I will get a racial discount in the employment market.’

Your Grace we need the help of our American cousins. I think it was in California, recently, that a black mayor repealed positive discrimination measures in education. After a few years black students realised they have to try just as hard as their white peers to get to university.

However, I do not have details of that to hand to supply you with good rhetoric.

22 May 2009 at 09:14  
Anonymous Scamalot said...

Where's Crammie Poos this morning? Come on don't be shy...brass neck it out!

22 May 2009 at 12:23  
Blogger Dave H said...

“I want to thank Parliament for making democracy mean something. I want to pay a special tribute to Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, a brave man who has made today a brave decision on behalf of the bravest of the brave.”

A splendid individual in many respects but an appalling judge of character and motive.

22 May 2009 at 13:03  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Well well you Grace.

4 Blogs in one day but not one mention of the systematic child abuse carried out by priests and covered up for decades by your church, or are you applying the same action as most other catholics at the moment and ignoring it in the hope that it will vanish?

But I suppose Joanna Lumley for PM is a far more important story.

22 May 2009 at 13:06  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

Maybe the church should go on the Offensive and look into claims that children are safer with their natural parents than being put into care where 30% end up on pharmaceutical drugs and are 5 times more likely to end up being abused.

Of course, when you control the Media you can shape the publics mind to exactly the opposite and make the claim that the state shoudl be the parent.

Google Bohemian Grove.

and personally I think the BBC and the Childrens dept's have as much blame for the Baby P case as their 'parents' did.

Western society is being taken down, quite deliberately by our Deranged establishment.

Anti British Psychological Warfare

22 May 2009 at 15:55  
Blogger John Morton said...

Except that the silly woman just endorsed the green party!

I can think of no more dangerous party than the greens, not that the LibLabCon are any better...

29 May 2009 at 15:45  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older