London calling to the faraway towns
Bubble — By Jez Caudle on May 19, 2010 7:00 am
A London party: the Notting Hill Carnival
DURING the General Election campaign, I found myself glued to the radio. I have been trying to find a groove that I can work in now that I run my one-man business from home, and I had been listening to Chill radio with the volume quite low.
It plays ambient music and about every 30 minutes a woman with a breathy voice says: “Just chill”. By day three, I was sure she was saying: “Just kill”. I tried experimenting with Radio 3 but then I tried Radio 4 and before long I was filtering out Andrew Marr on a Monday morning and Jenny Murray for Woman’s Hour and getting loads of work done.
One afternoon, I was moving 35 lines of code when the words “the London Parties” bubbled into my sub-conscience. It was Alex Salmond making a case for voting for the SNP/Plaid Cymru. The intricacies of work were put to one side and the radio had my full and undivided attention, because I couldn’t believe what Alex had just said. As I prepared to put it down to an auditory mistake, he said it again. And, a few words later, again. Now on a roll, he just kept repeating the phrase. And my abiding thought was: London Parties? WTF?
I tried to let it go. I couldn’t vote for the SNP as they weren’t standing a candidate in the West Ham ward. But I couldn’t get “the London Parties” out of my head. Its use it quite clear: it is a derogatory term for Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives and it is used by both the SNP and Plaid Cymru to bolster their support. Sinn Fein used to throw about “Brits” in the same fashion, an irony as they claim that they are Celts – yet another empty phrase devoid of any scientific or anthropological basis – and that Celts are actually the Brits.
So do any of these “London parties” have a power base in London? Certainly not the Lib Dems. Their power base is in the West Country. The Conservatives’ strength lies in the Home Counties, and Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire and the rest are most certainly not London. Labour’s heartland is not London either. It is the North of England, Scotland and Wales.
All the three parties do have headquarters in London. But then so does Sainsbury’s and Lloyds. Ever heard anyone call Sainsburys “that London Supermarket” or Lloyds Bank “that London Bank”? And do “the London Parties” actually represent Londoners? Do we in the Big Smoke get more than everyone else in the country?
Some 7.5 million people live in 607 square miles of tightly packed housing – 4,758 people per square kilometre or 10,569 per square mile. Conversely, Scotland has a population of just over five million and the people are spread out at 66 people per square kilometre or 171 per square mile. Wales has a population of just over 3 million, with 140 people per square kilometre or 361 per square mile.
Not only is there a massively dense population in London, but there are representatives of every nation on earth. We have the richest borough in the country and right next door, the poorest. The idea that any of the main political parties represent the views of the melting pot that is London is laughable. Just like everywhere else in the country, people vote based on the best fit principle.
But what about the huge amounts of money spent in London? We need more money because we have more problems than the rest of the country: more murders, more violent crime, more rapes, more housing problems. The main road off my street has been resurfaced three times in the 12 years that I have lived in Stratford. It has more traffic going up and down it on one day than a rural road in Wales gets in a year. Because of the massive poverty in many London boroughs, health in the capital needs more money. TB? We have it. Diphtheria? We’ve got it! Diseases usually only found in third world countries? We have all of them! The poorest people in London deserve every penny that is spent on them.
Should it be like this? Of course not. But repeating the mantra “London Parties” has nothing to do with making the UK a better place for everyone to live in. It is about narrow sectarian values and it neglects the London poor. And Alex Salmond proposed a “rainbow coalition of progressive parties” that would include the SNP and Plaid Cymru without a hint of irony.
So what are the SNP/Plaid Cymru trying to convey when they use the term “London Parties”? I have lived in many parts of the UK. I lived as a child for eight years in Grimsby and found it odd that it was referred to as the North of England. We used to go on holidays to Scotland and there was a lot of England to travel through before we hit the border. From the ages of 12 to 18 I, lived just outside Newcastle-Upon-Tyne. From 18 to 23, I lived in South Wales, firstly as a student at the now defunct Polytechnic of Wales and then working for Welsh Water and then for a brief time working for Hoover in Merthyr Tydfil. I left Wales just before Christmas 1993 to go back to the North East and moved from there in 1995. Just after Christmas 1996, I moved to London to work for a large Japanese investment house for lots of money. I had this idea of taking the Southern Pound for a year before returning to Newcastle to buy half of the West End.
Apart from becoming quite good at geography, I learned that nearly all of those who have not lived in London are scared of it. Why? Perhaps it’s the thought of moving to a place where there is every shade of skin colour, where English is not the only language you will hear, which over 7.5 million people call home. It is a daunting prospect. Fine. Be happy where you are, you probably have a much better quality of life. But don’t be scared, there is nothing to be sacred of.
Nobody who feels this way has to hate London. All they need do is accept that a busy metropolitan area is not for them. Just be aware that Plaid Cymru/SNP are feeding on your fear. Why? Probably because they have nothing to say. Just like the London parties.
Tags: 2010 General Election, London, Plaid Cymru, SNP
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
44 Comments
Hate and fear are not the only options for those that would like the UK to function on much less centralised lines than it does now.
Actually if a busy metropolitan area is not for me it’s not enough for me just to accept that. I also have to accept that many if not most of the decisions that ultimately affect me will be made there and most of the information criticism and advocacy regarding the matters decided on will originate there also.
I must say I’ve never come across a feeling of fear anywhere in the UK regarding London. There are of course lots of people that wouldn’t want to live there and for many different reasons. If we give fear a broad definition I expect most of the population of London “fear” living on a Scottish island.
Obviously if you want you’re entitled to think that the SNP and Plaid Cymru are as vacuous as the London parties. However when you warn us about them feeding on our fear (preceded with a reference to sectarianism) it should I think be backed up with some relevant examples.
Producing examples might prove illuminating and there’s always the possibility to consider that maybe London has a “fear” of the UK regions as well.
this page is coming up weird on my screen. I have responded on my blog.
I think you’ve missed the point a bit, Jez, they could equally be called the Westminster Parties – and I’m sure that the inhabitants of Westminster are all very nice people too. Its a matter of focus.
Agreed, Huw. They are called London Parties, or Westminster Parties, for two reasons. The first is the one that you point out, that these are parties in a British context, whose maine aim is election to Westminster. The other reason, one which I find myself agreeing with, is that these parties will always focus on London, and the South East of England. Their parties show that they want to protect the bankers – they want to help the favoured few; the rich minority in London who were most responsible for the current crisis. They are the London Parties, or perhaps more appropriately, the parties for London.
–The page displays very oddly to me as well, like a distorted mirror page. Very odd. Another article did this to me too, the Built by druids article.–
Re: Jez Caudle’s
…What Cerith Rhys Jones said.
Your comments re: Celticity are not worth the argument.
Marcus Warner
You say on your blog in reply, “not allowing people of Wales the opportunity to use its own resources and take charge of its own matters. ”
Fine then, what is your budget for a financially independent Wales that raises its own taxes and spends them and does not receive any finance from any other part of the UK.
Plaid Cymru has a branch in London and Welsh speakers played an interesting role in London’s history. Welsh migration to London has a huge history and some of my own family members came the opposite way, ironically from West Ham, to Wales. The idea that Welsh nationalists of all people would be scared because “English is not the only language you will hear” is ridiculous. The term “London based parties” is not a term of abuse at all.
I’m not sure I like the idea that nationalists are somehow parochial. It doesn’t bear out. We want Wales to be even more connected to the rest of the world, not isolated.
As the author writes, London is a city where extreme wealth exists next door to extreme poverty. We do not want UK policy-making to be dominated by the forces that have allowed that injustice to happen.
However this is a good piece in terms of putting across the sheer pace of life in the UK capital. The point about road resurfacing is striking.
Marcus Warner
s Plaid Panteg wrote “[t]he term ‘London Parties’. It is a sentiment, not a literal one (which I am sure Jez himself knows), but a term to help understand the priorities of the Westminster parties. The agenda that still leaves Wales as the poor relation of the UK, that means it is perfectly ok to expect it to pay for the mistakes of the very rich bankers (who actually do reside in London, if not for tax purposes) and that still amazingly treats Wales’ own Assembly election as a minor enough to plant the general election on the same day.
No. This is not right. To argue that saying ‘London Parties’ is a slight on the place and people itself is weak. In fact, it sounds like justification for the current agenda being focused on certain cliques within the Westminster village. In that I include rural England, North East of England and even parts of London”
I myself Love London, the Queen of England, Westminister, Shakesphear…. but Marcus is right on in his comments here.
I echo his comment … “How much longer must the Westminster set think that any native wishing to stand up for its own nation is not doing it out of hate for anyone else, but for love of their own people? I don’t accuse the Westminster Parties of being pro-Londoners, millions of them are left destitute by our Government, I accuse them of hording power and not allowing people of Wales the opportunity to use its own resources and take charge of its own matters. “
Great article, it is a phrase we in Wales hear again and again. The Nationalists like Cerith above arrogantly claim that all non Nationalist MPs are more interested in London than where they are from.
It is simplistic and childish but hey welcome to their world. My favourite nationalist phrase always comes after the election. It works a bit like this, the “Party of Wales” fails to gain the support of the electorate so they then turn on said electorate calling them donkeys.
Please don’t think that the vast majority of Welsh people think like this.
An interesting set of responses to an interesting article. I have very great difficulty in accepting Luke’s claim that “London parties” is not a term of abuse. Of course it is; that is exactly why the nationalist parties use it.
If the aim were to be accurate and factual, the description for Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems as a means of distinguishing them from Plaid and the SNP would be “British Parties”. All operate (as in organise and stand candidates at local, devolved and Parliamentary level) throughout Great Britain. And, as Jez notes, each has parts of Great Britain outside of London where they are historically strong (one of which is Wales). Of course, being factually correct and descriptive is not the aim. The aim is to convey a sense of these parties controlled from and primarily interested in a place far from Wales and with alien values and priorities.
So London is the whipping boy in this, as opposed to the actual target. It is acceptable shorthand for “alien” and “not for us”. The elephant in the room is also that it is acceptable code for “England”.
This raises another aspect of the language Plaid uses, and which is intended to convey the sense that its political opponents are less committed to Wales than it is, and by extension, less Welsh. Not everyone in Plaid thinks this way, nor indeed do all Welsh nationalists (Plaid’s Chair John Dixon wrote an excellent piece for this site rebutting such attitudes a few months ago) but enough do to make it a concern. Personally speaking, I think any sort of national loyalty test belongs with Norman Tebbit and his creed of politics and I think we all need to be grown up enough to at least acknowledge that the term under discussion is a pejorative one intended to imply a lack of national loyalty.
Let me start with a little geography lesson that I should have put in the article. The City of London is not the same as London. The City of London is a square mile that includes The Bank Of England, the Stock Exchange and all the worlds major financial institutions – even those large banks that have huge offices in Docklands have a presence in the City. London includes the City of London but the two terms are not interchangeable.
So when Plaid Panteg says on his blog:
but I try to avoid using the term ‘London Parties’ and use ‘Westminster Parties’ instead. Why? Well because the city of London, particularly it’s poor, I have a kinship with – the poor people of London share the same experiences I did as a poor valleys kid. However, as Jez Caudle either naively or deliberately ignores, the term ‘London Parties’ is not aimed at the city or it’s people, it’s about the powerbases and agenda followed by Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems.
s/he is a little confused on one point but right on the money on another for the wrong reason.
There are very few poor people who live in the City of London – aka “the City”. A few homeless people in fact, but I what know PP means. When s/he talks about the “powerbase and agenda” and uses the phrase “the city” – bullseye!! The main political parties agenda is to allow the City to do what it wishes and bail it out when it all goes wrong.
Unfortunately the way PP actually meant is totally wrong. First of all London makes up 12.25% of the electorate but we only get 8.9% of the total MP’s. Wales has 5.6% of the electorate but 6.15% of the seats in Parliament. The people of London are actually disenfranchised under the current system. And the people of London do not set the agenda – political parties who just happen to have their headquarters in London do. Newspapers do as well. News Corp has it headquarters in Wapping but the agenda is set by an Australian living in America – one Rupert Murdoch. Are any of the national daily newspapers edited or controlled by working class Londoners? I think not but I could be wrong.
Talking about the Westminster Parties is also a non-starter. Sainsbury’s headquarters is in Holborn, does any one say “I’m off to the Holborn supermarket”?
PP gives the game away though by saying:
The fact is that a rather Metropolitan set in certain parts of London own the agenda, the power and the wealth of the UK. The fact that Plaid and the SNP are willing to stand up and complain about that is testament to them.
If you are going to lobby or influence the parliament in London you have to be in London. Same goes the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies – you have to be on the door step. A Welsh political lobbying firm would be soon out of business is it set its self up in Abercynon – despite the cheaper rents. If the UK parliament moved to Birmingham tomorrow then the rest of the circus would move with it. Those with money and wanting influence would set up shop there too. The fact that the circus performers COME to London to do their jobs is neither here nor there. They don’t start eating jellied eels and singing “Roll Out the Barrel” after a week or two. You are confusing the symptom with the disease.
Now remind me – didn’t the SNP take a huge cheque from the owner of Stage Coach and just after cashing it decided not to nationalise the railways in Scotland – run by Stage Coach and in receipt of a hefty government subsidy? They stand up to the rich in the London area, but doff their cap and do the bidding of the rich that are outside of London and PP seems to think that is okay.
The political agenda is set by the rich and powerful – no argument there. So why not call the main parties that? You would have to include the SNP and their wealthy donors. I’m not sure about Plaid and how it is financed so I can’t comment.
But the central point I’m trying to make is still true – there is no other reason for bringing a geographic location into the wording unless it serves a purpose. London, in many peoples minds, is a scary other world type of place – which to some extent it is. Different usually is a little scary. But the way to get over this fear is to get to know it. Not to play on that fear. Which is what the SNP/Plaid do every time they say “London Parties”.
And as the headquarters for Plaid Cymru are in Cardiff then surely it should be called “the Cardiff party”? Not sure how well that would play with the farmers and rural voters but hey!! I don’t make the rules.
And a quick PS:
If you are thinking of taking part in Nottinghill Carnival this year, check out http://www.purelime.co.uk
You get covered in chocolate, drink copious amounts of rum and dance through the streets of London.
Very interesting article and debate. It goes to the heart of my concern with nationalist parties that I less eloquently raised elsewhere. The easiest road to travel is to demonise your opposition. Unfortunately the easiest road isn’t always the right one. It also alienates the very people you want to bring to your party, and shows a lack of confidence in your own cause. Plaid have worked hard to develop a left of centre party and have some very admirable and truly radical elected representatives, but it’s time overdue to move on to something more positive than this hang up from a previous age.
the “London parties” tag also denies the truly radical heritage of the Labour movement born in Wales.
This country and the electorate really do need a strong, confident and forward looking political debate. I’m hoping Labour or at the very least Welsh Labour will come out of the current reshaping as one part of this and Plaid really should strive to be there as well. Now that Lib Dems have effectively given up any serious claim to progessive or radicalism at least for the next few years, it is more impotant than ever.
Reply to Adam Higgitt
“I have very great difficulty in accepting Luke’s claim that “London parties” is not a term of abuse. Of course it is; that is exactly why the nationalist parties use it.”
To be fair of the nationalist parties only the Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties use it.
“If the aim were to be accurate and factual, the description for Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems as a means of distinguishing them from Plaid and the SNP would be “British Parties”. “
Or if the aim were to be wholly accurate and wholly factual these parties would be called “British nationalist parties”. However this does give the Tories Labour and LibDems a bit of an problem seeing that all three have use the terms “nationalist” and the abbreviation “Nats” in a negative, very negative or even dare I say it even as a term of abuse.
Beam in the eye time and applicable to the eyes of a number of posters I think (Mathew 7:3 if it’s too cryptic)
CapM
You are, of course, quite right to suggest that the other parties invent or deploy abusive terms for the nationalist parties, one of which is “nationalist”. Personally, I do not use it as such, not least because those whom I respect within Plaid are content to describe themselves as nationalists, and that’s good enough for me. The word “nationalist” is similar I suppose to “Tory”; it can be and is used as a term of abuse, but is often used as a self-description in a non-abusive way.
That is quite different from “London parties” which is only ever used as a term of abuse.
The use of place names is a universal method of distinguishing/differentiating practically anything.
All three of the main UK parties have their headquarters in London and ultimately everyone in those parties from anywhere in the UK is answerable to those working from those headquarters.
So I don’t think it’s particularly surprising that “London” figures as the word that goes alongside “parties” as used by the SNP and Plaid Cymru. Maybe they could have chosen to use “Westminster” but somehow I can’t see them having a debate to determine which should be used for greater abusive potential.
I think that drawing attention to the fact that the “London” in “London parties” is not the same thing as London is useful and interesting. But introducing the idea that the SNP and Plaid Cymru are playing on peoples fear of London doesn’t appear to fit what I experience at least. Seeking to cultivate an impatience/resentment/dissatisfaction/irritation that decisions about Scotland and Wales are made by “London parties” maybe but that’s not the same thing as fear of London or “London”.
Plaid Cymru and the SNP may become known as the Cardiff and Edinburgh parties in the future. If so it will be up to them to deal with it. Is this a hot issue in London, are there really that many people in London outside politics that are upset by the term “London parties”.
Reply to Adam Higgitt 15
If you don’t use the term “nationalist” in an abusive way then why is it so difficult to accept that there are those that use “London” in a non-abusive way.
The Tory, LibDem and Labour parties do not describe themselves as “London” parties but then they do not describe themselves as “British/UK Nationalist” parties either. Both descriptions are accurate even if the parties concerned don’t want the electorate’s attention drawn to them.
CapM
You argue that “The use of place names is a universal method of distinguishing/differentiating practically anything”. Quite right, which is why you then presumably immediately refer to the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems as the “UK parties”. Why is it (apart from the slightly pedantic point that GB would be better) that the nationalist parties don’t use this term? The answer is surely that they are not looking for the neutral and factual version you were at that point. QED.
Then, having identified the use of place names as a way of distinguishing a party, you suggest that another criteria (ideology, as in “British nationalist”) should be introduced. You are not being terribly consistent.
If this is all about a factual description of the parties in question “British parties”, or perhaps at a push “UK parties” is correct. But to imply something about the values and true loyalties of the parties in question – undoubtedly the real objective in the use of this term – “London parties” is the one to go for.
I really enjoyed reading this article, thank you for something so lively and well presented. Made me proud to have been born in London.
To the argument: my fear is that the people who label “London Parties” don’t truly understand the nature of competition, but they appear to have some understanding of the need to stand out.
In business a proposition requires a unique selling proposition, and whilst the SNP and Plaid could develop strong USPs they might not be widely appealing ones. instead they default to the line of “here for you” as opposed to those “up there in London”. This is a weak proposition that lacks confidence in the vision that ought to be crafted by nationalists. It also fails to attract many who could be attracted to visionary policy rather cheap jibes.
The only ‘scary’ thing about London is its general indifference towards the rest of the UK.
There’s a rationale that supports calling the Tories, LibDems and Labour parties “London parties” and there’s a rationale that supports calling them “UK parties”. If you want to point to a political remoteness from Wales and Scotland choose the former, if you want to point to an all embracing inclusiveness use the later.
The consistency with referring to another criteria is that the Tories LibDems and Labour don’t seem to like being referred to by their ideology of nationalism or by the location of their nerve centres.
“If you want to point to a political remoteness from Wales and Scotland choose ["London Parties"]
My very point all along.
“if you want to point to an all embracing inclusiveness use ["GB/UK Parties"]
Also use if you want to reflect the fact of these parties’ political organisation and representation.
“the Tories, LibDems and Labour don’t seem to like being referred to by their ideology of nationalism or by the location of their nerve centres.”
In other words, the choice of term is influenced by the fact that the subject contests its validity. I offer that as a definition of a term of abuse.
If the subject contests that the nerve centre of their party is in London or that their party supports and wishes to maintain the UK as their choice of nation state. Then the subject is contesting the validity of reality.
Which party was it that “abused” the Tories by calling them the “Posh Party”.
Americans regularly disparage Washington D.C., and whichever party that controls government or Congress, during election cycles. Candidates and parties regularly express anti-Washington, anti-incumbent, and anti-government rhetoric during campaign cycles. Obama won election by being a Washington outsider and promising a change in government. Have you ever listened to American campaign speeches?
There is absolutely no difference in rhetoric with Plaid and the SNP using “London parties” as campaign shorthand for those parties controlling the UK government-or likely to control the government, and are based ‘in’ London. “Westminster parties” is too cumbersome to say.
Because Plaid Cymru and the SNP have never formed a UK government (and I am sure have no desire to either), they perpetually campaign as the anti-government, anti-establishment parties, and thus terms such as “London parties” is fair, legitimate, and expedient shorthand for describing any parties that may form a UK government.
Reading anything more into it then that begs for abusive terms on both sides that are generally agreed neither welcome nor helpful.
“There is absolutely no difference in rhetoric with Plaid and the SNP using “London parties” as campaign shorthand for those parties controlling the UK government”
“Washington” or “the Beltway” is used in the same way as “the Cardiff Bay Bubble” or “the Westminster Village” to imply a self-selecting political/governmental elite whose sophistication has set them apart from ordinary folk. “London parties” is meant to imply control from, attachement to and loyalty towards something foreign.
Adam, anti-Washington rhetoric –is- used in context expressed as “control from, attachment to and loyalty towards something foreign”, especially right now. Listen to the Tea Partiers such as Rand Paul of Kentucky in his primary victory speech. Listen to Sarah Palin and now even John McCain in his reelection bid in Arizona. Watch Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News broadcast from and co-sponsor Tea Party events using anti-Washing rhetoric to describe the Obama administration as a Marxist takeover of America. Glen Beck, my goodness, has a chalkboard and draws lines between Marx and Obama attempting to demonstrate the connection! These are mainstream parties and mainstream news outlets, no less.
I don’t know when Plaid and SNP started to use London parties, but it definitely has parallels in America. It is simply anti-establishment, whatever brand happens to be established at the time.
David
I’m not sure we’re even disagreeing. In all instances, the terms under discussion are terms of abuse/disparagement. The only reason I entered this thread was to challenge the idea that the term “London parties” was in some way a helpful, factual abbreviation. Clearly, nobody is now suggesting that.
The only matter left is whether there is a qualitative difference between the US commentators you cite and Plaid/SNP. I say there is, not least because the former are looking to challenge the dominant ideology of their governors, not secede any territory from their union.
“I’m not sure we’re even disagreeing.”
*nod* point taken.
“The only matter left is whether there is a qualitative difference between the US commentators you cite and Plaid/SNP. I say there is, not least because the former are looking to challenge the dominant ideology of their governors, not secede any territory from their union.”
I think it might depend on whom you speak to in America. Clearly, David Melding believes there are those who may still want to succeed. I’m not sure I mean that in jest or not, lol.
Reply to Adam Higgitt
I find it rather remarkable that anyone would think they need to challenge the idea that the term “London parties” was coined to be helpful to the electorate. Just as no-one need challenge, for example that the terms “The posh party” or “the party of sleaze” were designed to be helpful.
I imagine that very few of the electorate thinks of such terms as helpful.
However I think all are factual to a degree and this is where the discussion lay I thought and not on whether a term is helpful or not. However all the parties that use such terms presumably think that using them is helpful to them.
CapM
Look at Luke’s comment on this thread.
This is Illtyd Luke’s post:
“Plaid Cymru has a branch in London and Welsh speakers played an interesting role in London’s history. Welsh migration to London has a huge history and some of my own family members came the opposite way, ironically from West Ham, to Wales. The idea that Welsh nationalists of all people would be scared because “English is not the only language you will hear” is ridiculous. The term “London based parties” is not a term of abuse at all.
“I’m not sure I like the idea that nationalists are somehow parochial. It doesn’t bear out. We want Wales to be even more connected to the rest of the world, not isolated.
“As the author writes, London is a city where extreme wealth exists next door to extreme poverty. We do not want UK policy-making to be dominated by the forces that have allowed that injustice to happen.
However this is a good piece in terms of putting across the sheer pace of life in the UK capital. The point about road resurfacing is striking.”
What point are you making about it? I cannot see any reference in it to “London parties “ being a helpful term.
Luke said:
The term “London based parties” is not a term of abuse at all
This is getting rather silly.
It seems that you are suggesting that if a term is described as not being abusive it then follows that the term must have been implicitly described as “helpful”. If so it’s pretty faulty logic.
You may think that the term “London parties” as used by the SNP and Plaid Cymru is a term of abuse. I’d say that that borders on being precious.
However I can understand why a supporter of those parties would get upset.
In the same way as I could see why a man who wanted to be known as “Slim” because of his height and leanness would get upset when people call him “Wingnut” because his large ears.
Let’s face it – political parties, whatever their colour, are not going to describe their opponents only in terms that their opponents find complimentary.
CapM
You seem like a reasonably intelligent individual, so I must conclude that the knuckle-gnawing pedantry you are evidencing is deliberate. I hope I’m wrong, about the latter part at least, as it is not an attractive trait.
If someone says “The term “London based parties” is not a term of abuse at all” I’d suggest that it is obvious to most people that the claim being made is that the term is far from being a term of abuse. Yes, of course “helpful” is not a direct antonym of “term of abuse”. It is, however, a reasonable inference given the context.
This claim is clearly not borne out, as you all but concede. You and I will have to differ on whether the term is intended to merely non-complimentary or abusive. It’s perfectly obvious to me that is is intended to be the latter.
One man’s knuckle-gnawing pedantry is another man’s adherence to fact.
One man’s reasonable inference is another man’s supposition.
” Sinn Fein used to throw about “Brits” in the same fashion, an irony as they claim that they are Celts – yet another empty phrase devoid of any scientific or anthropological basis – and that Celts are actually the Brits.”
It appears that you’ve passed the facts through a blender there.
Your isn’t fact, CapM. It’s a nano detour that you appear to believe warrants discussion, but doesn’t change one jot the point I originally came into this thread to dispute. I’ll repeat it again so that you are absolutely clear about what I am saying: the notion that the term under discussion is other than a term of abuse is wrong. It is intended to label the parties in question as controlled by and having primary loyalty to a foreign place with different and incompatible values and priorities. Whether or not you or I think this “factual to a degree” (strange how your binary sense of fact can be graduated when it suits) there is no doubt whatsoever about the intent.
By all means continue dancing on the head of a pin about whether this amounts to being merely non-complimentary. Until you can demonstrate that the intent is to be other than pejorative, my point stands.
“Factual to a degree” seems is an appropriate description of terms such as “London Parties”, “Posh Party”, “Minor parties”.
Such terms are factual but do not tell the whole story.
The Labour party cannot deny that its nerve centre is in London or that for example that it’s in “London” where at least some of the Labour candidates/lists for constituencies in Wales are chosen.
The Tories can’t deny that there is a group of old Etonians leading them.
The SNP and Plaid Cymru cannot deny that in UK terms they are minor parties.
We can be sure that the intent of all parties that use these terms is not to be complimentary to the opposition.
Your point is that you think the term “London parties” is used to abuse your party. And of course you are entitled to hold that opinion. But short of having every political opponent who’s ever used the term swear that they have not used it in an abusive way how could anyone satisfy you that the perception you base your opinion on is wrong.
My guess is that the SNP and Plaid Cymru will use the term as long as they think it is useful to them, probably with the hope that it will be adopted and used by the media and the public. Much like (and probably to their irritation) the term “Minor Parties “has been.
Perhaps as a supporter of a “London party” that is where your fear lies.
Perhaps insisting that the term is abusive might prevent it being adopted and used by the media.
You’re certainly making a lot of fuss about it.
“We can be sure that the intent of all parties that use these terms is not to be complimentary to the opposition.”
No. The intent is to be pejorative. Regardless of how many times you try and turn the argument on a sixpence, that remains the case.
Our opinions differ.
I’ll be interested to see if this “London parties” = a term of abuse, crops up elsewhere/from other sources.
So you think it is not intended as a pejorative term?
Adam – leave it – he’s not worth it!
(Oh, and OF COURSE the term “London parties” is intended as pejorative!)
** NB. THESE ARE DAVID’S COMMENTS. ***
Brought forth from another thread:
Adam: “Finally – and as I did in the thread in question – I did challenge to notion of London-centricity. I suggest you re-read it.”
___________________________________
David: “With respect Adam, the only question of London-centricity that you addressed in the other thread was your agreement with the author and insistence that “London parties” was a pejorative term of abuse, a position that is not universally shared or accepted.
Other aspects of London-centricity that was not addressed, but equally valid as the political aspect discussed, include London (based) media and London (based) corporate entities, both of which have far more control and influence over Welsh affairs then they do over Scottish affairs (as Scotland has a stronger media and corporate establishment then does Wales). In the past, one could have spoken of London based religious orthodoxy until the Church of England was disestablished in Wales.
In any case, I do not think views on London parties were swayed one way or another.”
____________________________________
Re Adam: “I confined myself to whether the parties were best described as “London” or “British”, concluded the latter was most accurate and said why.
Nobody has yet been able to say why the term “British parties” is not more appropriate than ‘London parties’.”
__________________________
I’ll take a stab at it.
“British parties” or “London parties” are interchangeable and synonymous in my opinion. Each highlights the influence that the Westminster “establishment” holds over Welsh and Scottish affairs. From a nationalist perspective, they are anti-establishment rather then something insidiously anti-English or “anti-British”. An influence which is considered by many to be disproportionate, as demonstrated by the events of the Flooding of Capel Celyn, when the entire Welsh political establishment voted against the Liverpool water sheme, yet their votes were overwhelmed by the preponderance of votes stacked against them from their own party no less!
The interests of their party based outside of Wales took precedence over Welsh interests.
“British parties” or “London parties” are interchangeable and synonymous in my opinion.”
I doubt many can agree with that. Most people who identify with Labour, the Conservatives or the Lib Dems would use the former but not the latter, while Plaid and the SNP now only use the latter and never the former.