Oct 6, 2011

Nadine Dorries interview in Glamour magazine

Glamour magazine! It's not my thing, really. But no matter. Actually, that's why this little number is here. Glamour magazine isn't for everybody, but everybody who cares about anybody with a uterus will want to read this. Think of it as a neato time capsule of the best Dorries has to support a range of recent arguments.

Click to make bigger and read.




It is quite plain for most party/political/punditry people that Dorries is having us on. Her main campaign revolves a recycled ploy from a similarly cynical campaign by a deeply religious anti-abortionist movement in the United States. When Dorries went to the House with her version of this package, it had already been widely discredited. She was thrown a lifeline by Anne Milton, a minister from her own party trying very hard to help her, but still Dorries persisted, wasting the House's time with highly distorted accounts, entirely unsupported hearsay, plus - most alarming of all - deliberate and darkly cynical emotional devices both in support of her 'argument', and in defence of her many refusals to openly debate it, or even produce evidence to support it.

Nadine Dorries even pretended to be independent of her own damn campaign and activists, because it was the only way for her to avoid discussion of the deeply religious roots of her efforts and those of her supporters. This is something Dorries has repeatedly tried to hide, but she keeps revealing herself in her language and her aims, and her belief in Bible passages that are so strong, it makes her call the Church of England "cowards" when they do not interpret them as literally as she does. There really is no hiding this kind of thing, and yet Dorries persists. I do hope you'll excuse my amazement.

2 comments:

Dave Cross said...

Er... that last question. "You've also campaigned to ban high heels in the workplace".

Thanks not quite the case is it, Dorries actually campaigned against the TUC trying to ban high heels in the workplace (even though that's not what they were trying to do.

Seems strange that she wouldn't correct the interviewer on that. "I don't believe that high heels should be banned, strictly" is rather at odds with her previous, rather more strident, position.

Jules said...

I don't think she wrote the article: look at the vocabulary and grammar for starters... (at least, not by herself)