Absolute Idiots (1): Nigel Griffith.

The White Paper said I would discuss influential and important thinkers/politicians on a weekly basis. I shall. But this fucker needs discussing. In my opinion, he is an on-message, unthinking, lacking-in-leadership, idiotic, career-and-more-importantly-salary-motivated, uninterested, pathetic gimp-cumslave-to-his-post-and-nothing-else, spin-supporting, spin-starting, politician of dizzying height. I apologise profusely to my many Labour friends; I do not like to opney break rank and criticise, but tongiht warrantd such comments. Especally gien my forthcoming (later this wekk, hopefully tomorrow or wednesday) post on political principles. What I will say then requires me to say what I say now.

He spoke to the Young Labour London network tonigh. The topic was "he Queen's Speech - delivering for young London" He spent the overwhelming majority of his speech talking about the pensions. The remainder of his speech was spent denoucning Tories and LibDems, and uurging "US!" "THE LABOUR ACTIVISTS!!!!" to unite and fight against them.

Now, I have noqualms discssingeither or being opposed to the latterly mentoined parties. But, let us return to the debate title. Was he on-message? For the Labour-Party-in0Government? Yes. For the debate topic? NO. Did he say anything of relevance to the debate topic? Yes, if you wish to defend him that much. I'm 22. I think pension reform IS important. I'm willing to discuss it. Just not tonight. That wasn't the point of tonight. Nor was trashing the opposition parties. Especially to a bunch of people who, largely like myself, have extensive Labour Party campaigning experience. It was pointless and contributed nothing to the debate. He was GREEN INKING this evening.

I could citicise him for wonder ful quotes such as, "we've abolished a situation where the minimum employers' pay is ninety nien POUNDS an hour" or "and I [with requisite emphasis added] know that because I [again, emphasis] was a DTI minisiter....once."
But the fact is, he totally missed the point of tonight. Then he left before the audience had the opportunity to verify they had attended the correct event for that evening and grill him on his idiocy.


Like I said, I am reticent in criticising (at least, naming and shaming criticism..I hope those reading this who know me can trust me on this), but he was totally egregious in his comments.


Now, either he intended what he said. In which case I stand by my assertion that said comments were spin-filled egregious statements designed to please no one but himself and. possibly, the upper eschelons of the PLP. Or, he is utterly pathetic when it comes to management and delegation of responsibility, and managed to hire some ape of a bag carrier who failed toread beyond the [hrase "Queen's speech" when it came to the title of tonight's event. Given that the other contributors were all experienced in youth affairs (the NUS president, an MP with plentiful youth work experience and a local authority representative with similar qualities) and the debate title stated the emphasis was on YOUTH affairs, I thought his emphasis on pensions a little strange. As a youth, I have more important things vis a vis my present situation (and that of those following on my heels) than pensions. Its not that they aren't important -it just that they aren't a priority for the youth.


And telling people who have campaigned in various cities (I'm citing here Oxofrd, Liverpool, London, Southampton, Hasting, Tonbridge Wells, though I could probably name more), encouraging activism on that level was hardly an influential thing to say to the upcoming "movers and shakers of British politics" as one Labour MP once said.

Gad, how I hope I'm an acamdeic charged with writing his biography in ten years' time.


Official disclaimer: Please, resheath the daggers until you've read the forthcoming Princiles Post. Also, please, understand that I will post like this irregularly and only when I feel it is of benefit tothe Party to weed out such idiocy. As someone once said, "never allow the idiot to live in your midst, for one day he may rise up against you." okay, I paraphrase, and "idiot" may be a euphemism, but you get the point. As someone else once said "If adults are going to be as stupid as [him], they deserve to be encouraged." I would disagree. Where can we take up the government's local gov. white paper suggestion for partial management of services to get the power to terminate the role of Nigel Griffith and replace him with someone possessing at least one brain cell?

I'm sad to say this, but he is the kind of Labour MP who makes me consder switching sides. In fact, Militant Tendency aside (and the dumb a$$ David Blunkett huggy kissy bull$h!t that accompanied it), he is someone who genuinely manages to make me question my support for the Labour Party.


And yes, I'm prepared to stand behind this. Anyone who wants proof need only ask.