In defence of Stuart MacLennan
I didn’t ever expect to be writing this. For my 5 years of Edinburgh student politics, Stuart MacLennan was almost always on the other side. Little surpise our other contemporary Harry “Tory Bear” Cole described him as “resonable” on Sky today. Stuart was the top trending topic on Twitter in the UK today. Why? Well, basically because he swore a lot. In public.
Wait, I hear you say: Stuart said some really offensive things! Well, let’s have a look. Three comments keep getting repeated: one about how he called older people “coffin dodgers”, the word “chavs”, and one about how a fairtrade banana didn’t taste any good, and he’d rather have one grown by slaves. On the last, does anyone seriously think he supports slavery? No. Ok, does anyone seriously have a problem with highlighting the existence of the contemporary slave trade through a (admitedly not very funny) joke? No? Ok, then let’s move on.
“Chav” is, I think, an offensive word which perpetuates clasist discrimination. But unfortunately most people my age use it – and I’m willing to bet the Sun journos who wrote the story do too.
That leaves “coffin dodgers”. Right, so, this is a little derogatory too. But it’s hardly a sacking offense. Other than that, he seems pretty much to have called celebrities and politicians various rude words – twat, dick, bastard – and cunt. So was he sacked for saying nasty things about other people? Really? “Labour candidate sacked for dissing Lib Dem leader”? If they did that, most Labour candidates, including several cabinet members, would be gone. Some people find the word ‘cunt’ offensive. Personally, I think the perpetuation of the notion that it is more offensive than words referring to the male genitalia overly sexualises women and so think people should be willing to use it much more. Many feminists I respect disagree, but no one seems to have made the specific complaint about him using the word once or twice, so I really don’t think that’s the point.
So, the objection really seems to be that when he said these various things about people, he used swear words. Well, what the fuck? People – or, rather, papers – always claim that they want politics without the spin. But when they get it, they demand a scalp. They want candidates who are real people, but when they get them, they don’t like what they see. How many Sun journalists don’t swear? How many people in this country don’t swear? How many of us have never said anything stupid that we regret?
If we demand people who run in elections clean up their use of social media, then social media will become sanitised. If we insist that every tweet is carefully considered, then we can consider this the end of politics 3.0. How many candidates have purged old blogs, Facebook posts and tweets today? Soon, twitter will become another channel on which party offices broadcast their message of the day. Then we will all lose out.
Stuart’s tweets make him look like a bit of a tit. But if Labour sacked candidates for that…
“In defence of Stuart MacLennan | Bright Green” was a fantastic
blog post and therefore I personally ended up being very pleased to locate the article.
Thanks for the post-Taren
Check out my site Vickey
Hi Michael, good to hear from you!
To be honest, I find that more offensive than most of the things Stuart said. His comments, though foolish, were clearly toungue in cheek. The Lib Dems comment is just ageist. I know lots of young candidates from lots of parties who wouldn’t make this kind of mistake, and lots of older people, and candidates, who wouldn’t.
Taking the discussion on a slight tangent, I wasn’t very impressed by the official Lib Dem response (courtesy of the Beeb):
“Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal Democrats’ Scottish affairs spokesman, said: “The Labour Party has been forced to sack a candidate who was clearly young and inexperienced.””
Ok, inexperienced might be good grounds, but the idea that being young makes you unsuitable for public office is a little tired.
I’m also a Celtic fan, and as painful as things are following last weekend’s result, I know Stuart and he is no sectarian.
Speaking as a Celtic fan, I took no offence from that tweet whatsoever. Claiming comically over-the-top loathing for the rivals is part of the fun of being a football fan, and being anti-Celtic is not the same as being anti-Catholic.
Ian, the sectarian comments are the issue. An achilles heel for labour.
I don’t think it’s what he wrote so much as the medium he used. I’d lay a fair bet these kind of comments are uttered frequently between politicians in private, and by email, and nobody would think to censure them. Put them on an election leaflet? Instant dismissal and rightly so.
So the first question is, is Twitter in the public domain? Well yes it is, provided you “follow” the perpetrator. If I buy a ticket to see Billy Connolly or Jimmy Carr, I expect to hear words they wouldn’t say on the telly, but then I knew that when I bought the ticket. Likewise those who follow Stuart’s tweets.
That’s not to say he should be allowed to tweet anything – as Gail commented, his tweets give an insight into the kind of person seeking election. Personally, I think if Stuart is unsuitable as an MP for his tweets, I’d lay a fair bet there are hundreds of others out there in a similar position.
I think he’s been subjected to the knee-jerk firefighting reaction of the Labour hierarchy. “Kill the story” is number one priority, and that’s most easily done by killing the perpetrator. Whether rightly or not.
Nick The Scotland Office paid for by Scots out of there budget staffed by public employees. How did the general public benefit for this.
He was sacked due to his sectarian comments about Rangers and Celtic which willalienate one half of the political divide, as well as saying there was no need for an improvement in the roads.
The swearing I could handle. The comments were funny if not insensitive. but the religious bigotry with his mate Macrae and stupefying comments on the roads made him in my view the mental equivalent of an amoeba.
The fine balance in holding Scottish catholics onside to vote for a unionist party would be damaged if this clown who said getting a celtic top made him “vom” was able to continue.
That is the achilles heel, not emphasised by the media, and that is what will lose labour votes if that aspect is emphasised.
CynicalHighlander> last I checked, Twitter was free, so unsure what tour public expense comment means. Or are you suggesting that Sarah Brown is paid to tweet by the hour?
As stated by Gail “He was exposed as having a bad character which makes him utterly unsuitable to be a MP. Why bring him back? We don’t need him in politics, its bad enough as it is, as you have rightly pointed out! I thought our job now was to also clean up politics??” which I also concur.
Can you tell me why the Scottish people were funding the Scotland Office to follow this man on twitter and why was Sarah Brown following him presumably at public exspense.
The leader of the Scottish Labour party and the secretary of Scotland backed him initially yet once he offered his thoughts on resignation they immediateley came out to say that they had sacked him.
A corrupt Labour party leading a corrupt Westminster for the benefit of the Labour party.
I can understand what you are trying to say Adam, just sacking for the actual words is hypocritical, given so many of Labour/Tories/ Lib Dems/SNP will swear and say un-pc things (that’s right David Kerr said Cale wasn’t a proper uni :p), but to be honest I’m astonished at you!
Irrelevant of whether Stuart swore or not he was evidently not suitable to stand in that constituency given the absolute derision he had for its constituents and for being “stranded” there, “joking” or not.
How could he possibly speechify on the wonders of his constituency in the future? And he would, and if he’d been elected he’d also have jumped on a campaign for elderly rights if there was one around, and the importance of the whisky industry, and I bet he’s talked up fairtrade before around edinburgh too. That’s rhetoric and hypocrisy, and politicians are all too full of it. What happened to sincerity, ideals and beliefs?
He wasn’t sacked for swearing, but how utterly he compromised labour, they couldn’t defend someone who “joked” about slave labour and had zero respect for anyone else, insulting all under the sun. Politics isn’t about insulting your opponents. So I entirely disagree with your point: “So was he sacked for saying nasty things about other people? Really? “Labour candidate sacked for dissing Lib Dem leader”? If they did that, most Labour candidates, including several cabinet members, would be gone.”
Why does this justify his behaviour? We don’t need childish name calling and fits of anger at each other.
He was exposed as having a bad character which makes him utterly unsuitable to be a MP. Why bring him back? We don’t need him in politics, its bad enough as it is, as you have rightly pointed out! I thought our job now was to also clean up politics??