Dear Derek

I’ve just had a reply from Johann…

Derek

Thanks for responding so quickly. Your paper reveals what I suspected – that you really aren’t very well informed at all and have no idea either what the Labour Party is for or how it operates. Very disappointing. On which point, could you stop referring to Paul as Baldy? It’s cheap and insulting and his appearance has nothing to do with the debate. Name-calling demeans us all.  (J. You referred to AS as Wee Eck at FMQs in April last year – Paul).

Paul is merely too tall for his hair. Just because you’ve got plenty is no reason to attack him.

On my strategy, is it not clear by now that my strategy is not to have one? The whole trick of opposition is to have nothing that can be criticised and not to give away ideas that can be turned against you. See what happened when I said Something for Nothing?  (FFS J. You didn’t say it, remember!)

It came back to bite me. The same with devolving income tax when the London lot rebelled. I’ve learned my lesson. Paul was right. Do nothing. Say nothing. Propose nothing. The three objectives of my leadership are: Attack. Attack. Attack. And when necessary, Deny. The important part is that we are preaching to the Daily Record readers who don’t follow Gerry Hassan because they can’t understand what he’s on about. (Neither does Paul Martin – P)

These folk understand a message if you keep it simple and hammer it home hard enough. Don’t talk to me about nuance or perspective. It doesn’t matter that Tony Blair is godfather to Murdoch’s child or that Labour ennobled Goodwin. The trick is to fabricate a big enough myth – that Salmond is in hock to both – put your fingers in your ears and just keep on hammering away. It’s worked in the past and so long as there is somebody out there with a brain like wee Douglas who sounds intelligent on Sky News then that represents our intellectual edge. Personally I can’t stand the bugger – thinks he’s better than the rest of us.

You don’t seem to understand that politics is for the professionals. Your analysis focuses on people. Well of course it does. But remember people are merely the means to an end. And that end is keeping Labour in power. That’s why I did the anti-feminist thing and attacked Nicola for earning over £100,000 and being married to a guy also earning £100,000. Because that’s what me and Archie are supposed to be on! We are the professionals.

I admit being in Unite is uncomfortable but I think by keeping my head down when the Falkirk story broke I avoided being smeared – again thanks to Paul. Anyway, I’m only in Unite so that they pay money to help my campaigning. They’ll put up the cash for the latest food bank in my constituency under the banner: Unite for a Better Britain.

The truth is that I had to go into an alliance with the other parties because a) I’m really comfortable with them in a way I never will be with the Nats, mostly because they don’t threaten me and my position and b) I really don’t have the drive and adroitness to come up with plans of my own and follow them through. If they wanted that, the members and the unions would have installed a candidate genuinely interested in devolution and the constitution. I’m not. Never have been.

Of course I’m in favour of devolution. Now. That’s because it was set up as a Labour-dominated jobs scheme which does me nicely now that there’s fewer councillors’ jobs worth having. But nobody who knows me would ever say I was anything other than a typical British politician from Scotland who sees separation as an infantile obsession of history junkies.

So you can stick to your quasi intellectual sub-Iain Macwhirter scribblings that the other BBC media luvvies all enjoy. I ignore all that equality and fairness drivel…taking our place in the world and caring about the Havenots. The Havenots I care about are the ones who vote Labour – or used to. That’ll do me. As for nuclear weapons…my A**e!   (No, J. that’s your name for me, remember.?! P)

Good luck with your childrens’ stories…

Johann

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

0 thoughts on “Dear Derek

  1. The scary thing is its probably the truth

  2. Oh, Joanne, if only you were a realist. You and your daily record adviser are hammering the final nails into what was once a party my father, than me, voted for instintively. You will join a long list of self-helping Labour concillors, MSPs’ and MPs’ who saw liberation of the workers as something for themselves only.

  3. Very , very near the truth methinks with this one. Labour is purely a political machine these days (Since T Blair), the people are always an after thought – a means to an end, look at the leadership displayed by Labour (Scottish and UK) over Grangemouth – could never vote for Labour again, not as apart of UK. Would need to be seperate Scottish Party (which it isn’t).

  4. ” you can stick to your quasi intellectual sub-Iain Macwhirter scribbling”
    That’s too clever, I think someone wrote that for her.

  5. Naw! that cannae be Johann, it was too easy to understand although what I don’t understand is how she puts her knickers on in the morning.

  6. Shocks for Labour(Scottish branch) in the final installment of the Wings over Scotland, Panelbase poll!
    How voters are intending to vote in the 2016 election, if there is a No vote next year. Broken down by Parties.
    Obviously tactics aren’t enough to save Labour.

  7. Derek, call me paranoid, but I have a sneaking suspicion this letter isn’t genuine.

    I think it’s the accuracy that gives the game away…

  8. “It doesn’t matter that Tony Blair is godfather to Murdoch’s child or that Labour ennobled Goodwin. The trick is to fabricate a big enough myth – that Salmond is in hock to both – put your fingers in your ears and just keep on hammering away.”

    Or alternatively rely on the BBC to do your dirty work for you. Remember Pacific Quay’s saturation coverage of Salmond being ‘in hock’ to Murdoch in the week before the 2012 council elections, Derek? Remember the vox pop conducted by Pacific Quay in Kelvingrove Park on the day of the elections which ‘found’ that the adverse coverage would conveniently have no effect on voter intention?

  9. I also don’t think that letter is from Johann, too aggressive. She is after all ” wife and mother ” to the nation.

    Ian Davidson on the other hand…..!

  10. Nope, Johann didn’t write this, the sentences are too long.

  11. Nope, Johann didn’t write this, there are sentences.

  12. Roibert a Briuis

    AND it makes sense something Johann never has done in the past…its a forgery no doubt about that.

  13. @SCED3000
    Whit a fleg ye gave me. I thought ye said “Broken down by panties”

  14. Either this letter is faked, or Lamont has found a miracle cure for her dysyntaxia. ( Go on. Google it, then tell me, am I right, or am I right.)

  15. You dont fool me Bateman
    those weren’t Joanne’s words

    How did I know?
    shes an ex teacher
    no way would she have used joined up writing and no spelin mistaks!

  16. sorry handclapping I went straight to comments without reading yours, but hey great minds think alike 🙂

  17. correction to my earlier response to handclapping,
    after reading all the other posts it becomes clear we all think the same thing,
    I truly did not read a single post before I wrote mine,
    this is not good folks,
    because if WE ALL think similarly of the leader of the opposition in the Scottish parliament what does that say about the standard of parliamentarians in Scotland, the SNP are giants among pygmy’s .

  18. Derek, do you have Labour HQ bugged? That’s scarily accurate on Labour strategy. 😀

Leave a Reply