I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

I have been in a sort of blog-conversation with a lady who is a fanatically enthusiastic political activist inside the Labour party.  I have decided to keep her name private so I shall refer to her as 'Sarah'.  I say "a sort of" conversation because whilst I talk to her she rather carefully avoids being drawn out.  Consequently, I have to infer my conclusions from her general writings.  Her story contains both pathos and bathos - and, yes, I wasn't exactly sure of the difference between those two words either so I looked them up, and so can you! Sarah is bright without being intelligent, by which I mean that she can grasp the meaning of a slogan but is incapable of thinking through the pros and cons that might have led to that slogan.  She is hugely energetic in her politics, almost it seems, to the exclusion of all else in her life.  She regularly attends meetings, often organises her own meetings of like-minded comrades, pursues Labour party correspondence, keeps up to date with the very latest pronouncements from on high, goes to every demo she can find time for, runs her own very busy blog, and is, as you can guess, a totally political animal to her finger-tips.  She is also, as you can guess, an absolute, crashing bore - as all totally political animals are from which ever direction they come.

So where-in lies the pathos and bathos, you might ask? Well, 'Sarah' is on the very Left-wing fringe of the party.  I give her the benefit of the doubt by dis-associating her from the fascist Left, although there are dangers for her in that direction which she cannot see - but more of that later.  The point is that from the outside of politics, looking in, it is as plain as the famous pike-staff that the old socialism of Clem Attlee and Aneurin Bevan with its wholesale nationalisations is even deader than they are!  There isn't a snowball in hell chance of any of that old stuff being recycled, the world has moved on.  The vast majority of people realise that it is capitalism that produces the goodies and whilst governments might tinker with it in order to mitigate its worst effects, there is no chance that they will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.  But still this rather nice lady battles on, in obvious despair at times, but never (so far) flagging in her efforts to turn back history as Canute tried to turn back the waves.  It is, in its way, reminiscent of the charge of the Light Brigade, an action aptly summed up by a shrewd French observer as 'magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre', and I might add, without any hope of capturing the guns which the Hussars and Lancers did - even if they were the wrong guns!

'Sarah's' travails remind me of the play "Good" by C. P. Taylor.  I never saw it but I still remember the rave reviews it received when it opened with Alan Howard.  It was recently put forward for consideration in my theatre group's programme and I read the script (which proved to be a huge disappointment!)  It tells the story of how a good man, a German academic, gradually becomes embroiled with the Nazis for the best of reasons, or so it seems at the time.  I thought of this whilst reading 'Sarah's' despair and anguish at having to support a party she disagrees with on almost every important point of policy.  She carefully avoids responding to my warning that for her to think as she thinks and yet to go out and canvas support from an unsuspecting electorate would be like acid on her personal integrity.  Equally, it can only be a matter of time before even she sees the futility of supporting a party which despises her faction when it is not ignoring it, and the temptation to join the fascist Left - for the very best motives, you understand! - might well prove irresistible.

I know, I know, it's only one rather silly and misguided woman, and anyway, my inferences might be well wide of the mark, but what's the point of having an imagination if you don't use it?  I sympathise with her plight, even if it is self-imposed and even if she would be exceedingly grumpy were she ever to be aware of it.

Comments

[N.I.B.]

"I">http://grimmerupnorth.blogspot.com/">I have decided to keep her name private"

Really? Why so coy all of a sudden?

[David Duff]

Because, 'NIB', I was writing something personal concerning a lady which was also highly speculative.

[N.I.B.]

"personal... also highly speculative"

Oh right - calumny, in other words.

So, why on earth did you put it on the internet - where even a juvenile idiot (etc) can find who you're talking about in eight seconds flat - instead of keeping it between yourself and the cat? Just couldn't help yourself, could you?

[N.I.B.]

I *could* get into this game [Oh no you can't because I won't let you! DD]

[David Duff]

You have succeeded where I never thought you would, NIB, that is, in being even more cretinous than usual.

I have not accused the lady concerned of anything remotely criminal, nor indeed, of any bad action. My remarks were personal and unflattering but that is all.

And please don't try being a smart-arse with your silly comments, they won't get past me, and they may provoke me to some unflattering remarks concerning you!

[N.I.B.]

This is fantastic - I didn't even need to swear to get my comment censored this time! Let the casual reader decide what, and so on.

Why not answer *my* question for once - why did you put the post up *at all* if you don't want people to know who you are talking about? Looking for a new Rachel North, but without all the awkward 'answering back', perhaps?

[David Duff]

I wrote it, 'NIB' (not that you really care), because, like everything else I write, it interested and intrigued me and I wanted to express my thoughts in writing.

Oh, and by the way, I have yet to receive any "awkward" answering back on this site. It's virtually all childish, ill-thought out rubbish that anyone could bat back one-handed whilst smoking a fag!

[N.I.B.]

Yeah, apart from the "awkward" answering back that you have to either (a)censor (b)dismiss out of hand as 'childish' or (c)fend off with vague threats, rather than answering properly.

By the way, what dictionary do you get your definition of 'calumny' from? In what way is saying someone is "silly and misguided" enough that they "might well" be tempted by fascism *not* an attempt to damage their reputation? For the sake of your reputation (I'm not laughing, honest) you should take this post down, lest it comes back to bite you.

[David Duff]

'NIB', this is the *last time* I answer your points here because they are both irrelevant and incorrect.

I used the words "silly and misguided" in a different context from the one you tried to link them to.

There is nothing wrong in being tempted into anything - it is what you do about it that matters, and this lady has done nothing.

Now go to bed and take more water with it in future.

[N.I.B.]

Don't come the cornered rat: You said the woman "might well" join the fascist , on account of her politics and personal outlook. That's a damaging accusation, whether you care to admit it or not.

I won't bother trying to spell this out using analogies, as you'll only censor them.

[Todd Hosehorse]

"...whilst I talk to her she rather carefully avoids being drawn out"

Hmmm. Sounds familiar.