I’d rather Jack

There is very little that Richard Littlejohn writes that I agree with. Actually, I cannot recall anything he has written that I supported, but there must be some common ground, somewhere ….

Mr Littlejohn has taken a dislike to, what he describes as, the ‘poverty poster girls of Welfare Britain’. He managed to irritate me with the title of his piece; the article itself did not get any better. He is having a go at a recent party political broadcast by the Labour Party – fair enough, no-one wants a world with no dissent. However, he does get rather personal – something which I will refrain from doing to him.

I do not imagine that Jack Monroe will object too much to being described as a cross between Yvette Cooper and Delia Smith, but why mention the tattoos? I am puzzled as to how this is relevant. I am equally unsure why Jack’s son has to be dragged into the fray either.

Littlejohn’s whole tone is misogynistic. Whatever the story behind her pregnancy (and it is none of my business, let alone Littlejohn’s) it was not an immaculate conception. Littlejohn gives every impression of having Victorian values, with all the hypocrisy that involves. If Jack wanted to be a full-time mum I do not see why that should be the subject of scorn. Littlejohn objects to the state helping out you single mothers; their progeny is our future, and it is sensible for the taxpayer to invest in this, in my opinion. Littlejohn likes to take issue with the salary Jack gave up – how about coming clean about your earnings, Richard?

Of course, Littlejohn dislikes the welfare state and berates parenthood for being a ‘lifestyle choice’. The innocent party here, and one that the likes of Littlejohn would be content to see punished, are the children. They did not choose to be born, and welfare means that they are not made to suffer. Besides, are only the rich allowed to procreate? Littlejohn also belittles the role of motherhood – from what I have seen it is as equally hard as any paid job and in many cases harder. (There is an irony here in that the like of Littlejohn are just as likely to have a go at latch-door kids and largely absent parents.)

Littlejohn insults the poor, believing that pasta, kale, and pesto sauce are alien to them. I won’t be trying out Jack’s recipe because I do not like pesto sauce, but I can assure Littlejohn that as kale is cheap and filling it is often found in the shopping baskets of the poor, ditto pasta. Besides, aren’t cooks and their recipes as much about educating as they are about economising?

Littlejohn then trains his right-wing guns on the others in that broadcast. He objects to Beresford Casey on the ground of their not-very-ordinary name – you what? How on earth is someone’s name a guide to anything? Beresford, apparently, is rich – being rich means, in the mind of Littlejohn, that you cannot either be left-wing nor have a conscience! Evidently Littlejohn has yet to read about Frances Evelyn “Daisy” Greville, Countess of Warwick. He does not like Cait Reilly because she objected working for Poundland to get her benefits. He will not like me either – I object to workfare too.

Littlejohn returns to the subject of Jack’s tattoos. For starters I doubt he knows when she had them done (I do not know either, but I am not trying to make political capital out of them). It is rather like those who object to the unemployed having any of life’s luxuries. What Jack chooses to spend her money on is her choice, and if she economises to do so then what business is it of anyone else’s? Her tattoos do not render her statements about poverty illegitimate. Jack also wears makeup, has her hair cut, and washes – are these sins too for the Littlejohns of this world?


7 Responses to I’d rather Jack

  1. Julian, an interesting article. I agree in that some of Richard Littlejohn’s article was personal which I agree is unwarranted and uncalled for. Where I have an issue with Jack’s involvement in the recent party political broadcast by the Labour Party is that they tried to pass her off as an ordinary member of the public when she is a full paid up member of the Labour Party. Before you ask, yes, I would also have also been critical if my own party tried to pull such a stunt.

  2. rayandsue says:

    I do worry about you from time to time Julian! This LittleJohn instance is a good example,
    The problem with you is that there is an absence of flexibility, Littlejohn is not my cup of tea
    But does sometimes ‘say’ what millions of us ‘think! I can understand your dislike of him and
    Can put this down to your rigid allegiance to Labour , in profile of his proffered politics,

    But, taking your point that babies do not ask to come into the world! I would say, NO! But the Mother does!

    Shouldn’t she be a bit more considerate as to what her newborn may face? How
    Can people who are pregnant not know that they are submitting their newborn baby to
    An haphazard future!? It seems in this instance that a childbirth is dependent on the Mothers ‘needs’ and yearning’s’ to bare a child. Rather than the childs uncertain life In an uncertain world !
    If there were ever a time for restraint. Surely it is now! The Chinese have achieved this albiet with Some reluctance’. But China and its curtailment of child birth. ( one baby per family)
    Seems to be working. It is by far the highest rate of economic growth of any nation!

    Now there’s a thought!!!! I wonder if the numerical growth of a population has any baring
    On its financial performance,! In China’s instance it appears not,

  3. Terry Weldon says:

    I am a ‘fully paid up’ member of the Labour party but until now I didn’t realise I wasn’t also an ordinary member of the public.

  4. So, Tony, in order to be a member of a political party you’re saying we have to give up our status as a member of the public? That’s hardly going to help sliding rates of political engagement.

  5. Somehow, though, this all distracts from the message. Regardless of the circumstances of the participants, is the message valid? This is why personality politics sucks, and is a refuge for those who have no answers for the problems being discussed.

  6. rayandsue says:

    I know precisely what you mean Julian. I for one must be a main contender for your confusion!

    My problem is, I enjoy sending messages all over the place. Some get extremely out of
    Context, And must become infuriating to those who are visited by them,

    I will moderate my enthusiasm. And just reply to ‘ posts ‘ within my scope and understanding,
    Which may mean you will hear less of me, what was that I just heard! It sounded like a ‘ yawn ‘

  7. rayandsue says:

    Having only just read Councillor Julian Ware lane’s post ( above). I can more clearly understand
    Why he felt it was quite a personal article, it certainly was, but this is the ‘ food ‘ that keeps
    Such pundits off the dole queue !
    What did you expect Julian, The man – Littlejohn – thrives on making left wingers angry.
    And he found one in you!

    Fear not. His cosy little comfort will fail to insulate him and his kind from the chill wind of
    Reality in the coming years,

    Perhaps such utterings can be compared to the involuntary death throws of a imminent corps!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: