There was lots of merriment yesterday when it was revealed that the new LibDem PPC for Gravesham is a director of hard core porn films. Anna Arrowsmith was all over the local news in Kent proclaiming what she can do for the people of Gravesham. All sorts of jokes come to mind at this point, but I'd better resist temptation.
But it seems Ms Arrowsmith is not a LibDem but supports Labour! This is from her personal website.
Anna is liberal and open-minded but politically she supports The Labour Party, for all its sins. Anna lives in Soho, London.
I wonder if before they accepted her as an approved PPC they asked if she really was a LibDem. Perhaps she told them she approves of 'well hung parliaments' and that's what did the trick. Her biography page also contains a number of other gems...
It was at this time that she started her 'Interviews With Men' series in which she asked naked men about their fantasies whilst they masturbated (soon to be released on video).
One wonders whether she is planning a second volume featuring LibDem MPs holding a mass debate. Her biography concludes...
Privately, Anna is into all sorts of things, mainly partying and drinking - and porn, porn, porn!!!
So, just like most MPs then. She'll fit in well. However, I suspect that her views on objectifying the female body will not 'go down' well with her LibDem colleague Jo Swinson. Again, this is from her website...
Anna has been a member of Feminists Against Censorship, a campaigning group who proclaims that to be a woman who strongly believes in equal rights between the sexes does not necessarily mean they must believe the way forward is to restrict and censor the rights of the individual. With the idea that censorship only proves to change direction of the censored thoughts, not eliminate them and that open is better than hidden. She believes that to sexually objectify, that is to fleetingly view a person's sexual attractiveness separately from their personality/person, is a natural human experience NOT just a male one, as traditionally depicted.
If there's a catfight, can we request that she films it?
NOTE: I am sure you will want to be very careful with your double entendres in the comments...
69 comments:
Is she being sponsored by Lembit Opik and Mark Oaten, by any chance?
Come on Mr. Dale. Be fair now. In our youth we are all allowed to sow our wild Oatens.
So who's going to be the first to make a "could she work effectively under Nick Clegg?" joke?
so she wants to be part of a group mass debate?
she hoping for a hung parliament?
Woman walked into a bar and asked for a double entendre.
So the bar man gave her one.
What will the Libdems do if she is caught lying down on the job?
Will she and Nigel Griffiths set up a Liberal consensus on what can be photographed in the commons?
Oh only the Libdems could do something so stupid.....
I didn't think it was 1st April but now I'm beginning to wonder.
Only the Lib-Dems could pull this one off.
I'm sure that she will be welcomed by members in both chambers
Iain, i'm sure if you want double entendres there are plenty who will give you one
MK: 10:43
No, she is hoping for a well-hung parliament
She seems to have blown it.
She also either can't count (qualifies to be a Labour chancellor then :) ) or is lying (qualifies to be a Labour PM).
She lists the 4 A levels she has, and then goes on to say "She has 6 GCSE's, 3 A levels..."
Minekiller - I think the idea is to post new jokes, not just repeat Iain's.
At last, the Lib-Dems have found an in-house professional for the campaign video........Could be a best seller.
She sounds like an unprincipled, two faced, shallow, self-centred, porn addicted liar. Should fit in well with either Lib Dems or Labour then.
So, Iain, why were you inspecting the website of the director of such classic adult films as "Where's the Rent Boys"?
Presumably, looking at her, she's never appeared in one of her own movies. Or at least if she has, then in a gimp mask...
Wonder if Anna could find something for Lynne F to do.
Zelda and the Westminster Zombies?
Lavatar?..set in a public facility somewhere in Westminster.
Without doubt we could be looking at future Speaker material:
“Might I direct the Honourable Members to stand.”
Or how about asking her if she has any plans to introduce a Private Members Bill, such as a modification to the Bishoprics Act? There’s load more revolving around Whips, silk stockings, positions, sessions etc. but blah, blah... I can’t be bothered any more.
BTW could her website actually be a malicious spoof? What’s Draper up to these days? I can’t believe anyone could think a document like that would be to their credit. It’s an adolescent and dreadfully written account of mediocrity.
Her list of ‘publications’ is worth reading, just to find the point where you make the transition between disbelief and laughter (for me it was “Loaded Magazine - June 2003 Review of 'Erotic Home Video' - Book of the month.”)
The whole website reads like a parody. Was she honestly selected by a competitive selection process? The Lib Dems must be in ghastly state to consider her a credible candidate.
She did a documentary a few years ago where they explored how she got into film production of this Genre.
It was interesting that she said in the documentary she might go the otherside of the camara. It will be interesting to know whether she ever did and I think that could shatter here career as a lib dem PPC.
Frankly I think the Lib Dems are so desperate they will take anybody for a seat they have no chance of winning, just a 0.3% according to electoral calcus.
Maybe Anna Span would be better making Nick Clegg the movie:
It could show how Nick Clegg positions himself, emphasising how he intends to ram his point home and any tips he would like to give his PPCs. There must be many up and coming Lib Dems who would like to follow in the furrow he has ploughed. The title of the film could be called climbing the greasy poll in 31 steps.
The alleged Labour party support by Anna Span leaves her wide open to abuse by lib dem members.
I think she is only doing it to raise her profile, politics seems dirty enough at the moment without her intervention. I think it outragious that the Lib Dems should offer politics a barrage of cheap craps and innuendo in this fashion.
Then again they have chris huhne who seems to have many in creases...
Revealed yesterday? Actually, it was revealed a whole day earlier to readers of Heresy Corner. The things you miss.
She isn't the only Labour Party supporter to come over to the LibDems. Denis Healy is standing as LibDem PPC for Hull North.
I wonder if she will discuss Uganda with Lembit? He often takes a keen interest in such discussions.
Illiberal Democrats:
Maybe Anna Span would be better making Nick Clegg the movie:
'The explicit video memoirs of the 30 plus conquests of Nick Clegg'
Perhaps?
I have to say (as generally, but not always) a LibDem supporter, I tend to draw the line at this latest evidence of the Berlusconi-ation of Brit politics.
There seems to be a strange absence of Ms Arrowsmith on the Gravesham and Dartford LibDem website. Can't think why.
She is very out with it and no embarrassment on her twitter feed. Apparently she features on the front page of the Sport today!
I would imagine Nick C will be getting some questions about her in future interviews! Wonder how they will spin it?
So there's more to this than meets they eye?
Why is she allowed to stand as a Lib Dem if she is reall a Labour suporter?
If I could spell double entendre I would use one.
But what this story really tells us is that LDs particularly the activists are basically left wing and socialist. Not in any way 'liberal' in outlook at all.
From my point of view I wish they would go the whole hog and join Labour officially. Voters who are fooled into voting for them because they think they have some free market capitalist - indeed 'liberal' - leanings would then realise their best option is to vote Tory.
Wat Tighler's Return
Indeed, Clegg has been a bit limp on letting this one onto the front pages of the Daily Sport though!
Sounds to me as though a few splits might be exposed by this development!
Indeed not so much Splits but gapping cravasses!
It seems to me as though Clegg has had another cock up! The way Clegg handles his members no wonder they are leaving by the bucket load.
I'm sure she'll make a good fist of it.
Too far?
Many a Lib Dem will be feeling a right tit now.
Somebody should introduce her to Mrs Speaker - they would probably get on very well!
Whilst I don't think she would be any worse than the present denizens of the house and while I do not think that her (entirely legal) profession does or should disqualify her from standing, I have to ask what the fucking fuckity fuck was going through the minds of the people who chose her as their candidate?
I mean, do these idiots not know how to google someone? You have a card-carrying Labourite who lists her major qualification for public service as "I liek booze and nekkid men" and they actually thought this was a good idea?
On the plus side, I suppose we'll now get to hear Harriet Harperson rage against Anna Span's evil sexualisation and objectification of men.....won't we?
Perhaps she'll get into porn parodies?
She could film 'Inside John Lewis's list'.
I wonder if she will sit just behind CLEGGY at PMQ's for the Money Shot.
Some films she will be co-producing for the Libdems.
1 Willie W*nker & the chocolate factory featuring Mr Oaten
2)Rural Internal Affairs featuring Paddy Pantsdown
3)Cum- Dirty Dancing with Vince the cable
4)Lost Boys staring up & coming Nick Alcock PPC Oldem
5)Whips & Creampie Galore with Nick Burstow
6)Hornsey Rode with Lynn Featherstone
7)Lambs to the slaughter with Norm & limpdick o’ prick
8)Batteries not included Sarah featuring her Rabbit, Mush, Teather
9)40 days & 40 nights makes one hole weak Mrs Clegg
10)The Spy who loved me, featuring a guest appearance of old clunker Gordon Brown, the real life spy Jack Jones & his useful idiot Michael 12 Inches Foot
No trevorsden, it tells us that the LibDems have a hard time attracting good quality candidates to no-hope and less-hope seats, something the other parties suffer from too. Look at all those prats who came in unexpectedly in 97 for examples - I could go further back to some of Maggie's election victories for prime turkey meat, but Iain would probably not allow my posting through!
If liberal in outlook, you will end up in labour. (if young and female).
I amk amazed by all the juvenile responses to this posting - which was pretty juvenile in itself anyway.
Take a look at the matter of fact way that the Times, and even the Daily Mail have covered the story and then all go and have a cold shower.
Anon 11.12.
You are of course correct, but it was irresistible. Perhaps she could teach Yvette Cooper-Bollox (provided she is re-elected) what a blow job is. That woman's hair is a mess.
I wonder if she would be able to lay a finger on Ed Balls. If she shared an office with Mark Oaten would David clear up the Amess? Could she make Miss Anne Begg? There must be a joke around Henry Bellingham...., likewise Peter Bone, Peter Bottomley, Sir John Butterfill (maybe concerning a remake of Last Tango in Paris). That's just the As and Bs.
This is so funny. How on earth did she make it through the selection process?
The respect I once had for the LibDems is quickly draining away.
It's not the lidem's fault, tit happens!
Was the selection horizontal?
I vote for her as Shadow Chancellor.After all Gordon has f*****d the economy for years
Dave H said:
"The whole website reads like a parody. Was she honestly selected by a competitive selection process? The Lib Dems must be in ghastly state to consider her a credible candidate."
Maybe that should have read:
"...competitive erection process..."
Are there any depths (or heights) to which our politicians will sink (or rise ha! ha!)
Well, I will vote for her at the next erection. Ooops! Freudian slip I mean election.
SIX YEARS OLD SIX YEARS OLD SIX YEARS OLD SIX YEARS OLD
These comments are SIX YEARS OLD !
Come on Iain, your party has PPC's who were membes of the Labour party more recently than she made these comments.
Tiresome, tiresome, tiresome.
As the election gets nearer your attacks on the Lib Dems become more tiresome and at the same time more predictable.
That page is six years old, Iain. See The Register (which links to you). I'm sure you'll want to update your post.
Surely Lib Dems attracting former Labour supporters over the last six years or so is exactly what a Tory should want. :D
It's alright coming up with scoopse but if you don't check your facts you get egg on your face. The details are 6 years old. Check her stated aged on the page you are showing compared to her current age. Poor research.
This is the same LibDem party that makes it a condition of membership that one support war crimes, genocide &kidnapping children, from Kosovo, to supply western brothels (I was expelled specificly for not supporting atrocities).
It now seems that supporters of the Labour party, as well as of the Nazis, are welcome (I have no real problem with her day job).
So, six years ago, she supported Labour, then she switched to the Lib Dems when she realised that Labour were a Big Brother, Nanny State, Control Freak bunch of Power Grabbers who think that the only way to solve any problem is to pass more useless legislation.
Perhaps we could see some comments from posters about Edward McMillan-Scott who was once the leader of the Conservative MEPs in the European Parliament, who has recently defected to the Lib Dems...?
Oh, but of course, people here are too interested in sniggering like like school boys...
@rockwell66.
I suspect you've got it the wrong way round. She's defected from the Big Brother party of government to the Even Bigger party of juvenile fantasists. It was the LibDems who voted to ban smoking in PRIVATE clubs. Nothing particularly liberal about them.
I quote from the article and have emboldened some choice bits (ooo err missus!) Please make your own jokes..
Party leader Nick Clegg said although her job was not "his cup of tea", she cared passionately about her area.
He told GMTV that she was certainly no "cardboard cut-out Westminster politician", but said it was important that "people like her" who cared about their local areas put themselves forward.
@Moriarty
It seems you can't tell the difference between the Right for someone to decide what they do to their *own* body and their Right not to have non-consensual harm inflicted on them by others.
And as for "Juvenile Fantasists", I suggest you ask George Osborne exactly *how* in his massive experience of financial matters he's going to make things better by imposing swingeing cuts based on political dogma.
All through the economic crisis there's only been one politician who's been speaking sense and he doesn't work for Labour *or* the Tories...
@rockwell666
Oh I'm familiar with the distinction. I'm also familiar with the fact that most people who trot out terms like "right" and "harm" lack the philosophical range of reference to effectively discharge them.
And as for your final remark: I'm going to assume you are referring to the former chief economist to a major oil company. The idea that the sage of Twickenham has a good record on this has been effectively debunked: not least in his Straight Talk interview with Andrew Neil.
And by the way: his "Mr Bean" quip was plagiarised. And you have to be pretty stupid to steal a one liner that was never funny in the first place.
@Moriarty
> I'm also familiar with the fact that most people who trot out terms like "right" and "harm" lack the philosophical range of reference to effectively discharge them etc.
Oh dear, stooping to ad hominem attacks now?
Oh well, looks like we've gone full circle as that's where this whole thing started...
@rockwell666
Just as a matter of interest, was Cable's stolen "joke" an ad hominem attack? If not why not? And if so, do you disparage it?
@Moriarty
Have you *never* watched PMQs??
The sort of attacks we see from the "main party" leaders flying across the Dispatch Boxes is just one of the things that have brought both of their parties and our whole political system into disrepute in the eyes of the public.
And remind me who it was who made the "could she work effectively under Nick Clegg?" reference above...
Take that log out of your eye before you worry about the splinter in mine.
@rockwell
Except it's not me who is complaining about ad hominem attacks is it? The genuine hypocrite is one who disparages the strategy in those with whom he disagrees whilst applauding it in those with whom he doesn't. And that, my friend, is the default position of the "Liberal" "Democrats".
Ad hominem attacks, done with panache, have their place. Especially when the person being attacked is an insufferable prig. Read Craig Brown's pieces on Tony Benn or Paddy Ashdown.
In fact: read anything.
Ignoring the schoolboy humour for a moment, maybe she had centre left leanings (does that count?) and viewed Labour as the party that fitted in with those views.
Unfortunately it appears that Labour and the Conservative parties both now occupy the centre right and the only party that fills the void on the left is the Lib Dems.
You may criticise them for being more socialist than liberal, but they saw a massive hole in the political landscape and sought to fill it. Heck, with everyone else cramming into the increasingly crowded hole on the right why not go for the vacant hole on the left?
Given Labour's recent laws on what is and isn't illegal (cartoons, text describing extreme sex, extreme porn etc. etc.) then she cannot support Labour. And given the Conservatives' hypocritical stance on these issues (Major shouting about family values while sleeping with Edwina Curry) she could not possibly swing to the right.
Not that she's going to be elected, but it does give the Libs a nice couple of news cycles.
March Hare: yes that's why Unite pours tens of millions of pounds into Gordon Brown's party, because they are "centre right".
If you think that Labour, with its construction of a huge client state, its extension of the criminal law into areas that are not rightly its concern, its banning of everything it disapproves of, its bullying about smoking, drinking, gambling,eating, breathing, its belief that every pound you earn is in the first place the property of the state...if you believe all that then quite frankly you're mad as....oh never mind...
@Moriarty
You were the one who started making personal attacks, not me. You were the one who brought up the Mr Bean comment, not me. Now you've even started making personal attacks March Hare implying he's "mad" (and completely missing his point!)
Why don't *you* try reading something, starting with what people *actually* said, not what you'd like them to have said.
(PS oh, and make sure you're up to date, rather than going by a *six year old* comment from someone who has realised that what she believed then is no longer the case)
@rockwell
(1)"Now you've even started making personal attacks March Hare implying he's "mad" (and completely missing his point!)"
Oh really? I thought he was claiming that Labour was a party of the centre right. Admittedly I only thought it because he wrote that the Labour party was of the centre right. If by taking his comment that Labour was a party of the centre right I wrongly inferred him to mean that Labour was a party of the centre right then I apologise.
(2)"Why don't *you* try reading something, starting with what people *actually* said, not what you'd like them to have said."
Yes that's always a good idea. Which made this last quote especially amusing:
(3) "(PS oh, and make sure you're up to date, rather than going by a *six year old* comment from someone who has realised that what she believed then is no longer the case)"
...since nothing I have written implies anything else. What I wrote in the initial comment that caused your fit of the vapours was that she had defected from one party to another. Which she has.
If you're going to try and mix it with the big boys you'll have to do better than that. Perhaps you'd do better on Huffington Post.
Moriarty, what Unite does or does not do with its funds doesn't change the fact that the Libs are far further left than Labour.
That Labour choose to ban things does not make them left or right, it simply makes them totalitarian. And the previous conservative government were quite keen on banning things too if memory serves, things like freedom of speech, freedom to own and use guns, freedom of association, freedom to travel freely if you looked Irish etc. etc.
Labour's bloated state sector is a problem, but it is one born not of left/right ideology but merely a happy (for Labour) combination of events that allowed them to grow the public sector while the economy was growing and then use the size to hire unemployed people when the economy shrank and so hide the real state of both the economy and the unemployment figures.
Besides, I don't see the centre-right Conservatives making substantively different policy claims about the size of the public sector if (when) they get into office. If Labour are not centre-right then neither are the Conservatives.
Moriarty: "...she had defected from one party to another. Which she has."
I would posit that it is the party which has defected from her and not the other way round.
MH
Banning things is effectively an expansion of the state. Left wing governments are generally keener on the expansion of the state than right wing ones. And left wing governemnts are intrinsically more totalitarian than right wing ones.
I agree with you about some of what you say about the previous Tory government. Mellor's attack on gun ownership was illiberal and anti-Tory. But then he has form.
Incidentally I'm Irish and no restrictions were placed on my freedom of movement. But then again I wasn't blowing up little boys in Warrington.
I agree with you about the LD party: they are to the left of Labour.
Moriarty, the problem we have is that people constantly refer to the left and the right in politics whereas in reality it is more like a three dimensional cube rather than a line.
There is economic liberty on one axis, civil liberty on another and individual autonomy on the third. That's as simple as I can make it in a short post.
e.g. In the US the 'right' tend to be for economic liberty but against civil liberty and a weird mix of individual liberty. The 'left' tend to be more for civil liberty but against economic liberty and again a weird mix of individual liberty.
The UK tends to be generally against economic liberty (large state sector), tentatively for civil liberty (relatively progressive laws defending minority groups) and against individual liberty (restrictive laws banning many things, governing what we can and can't do).
PS Moriarty, how can you possibly make that claim (banning things) about the right?
Conservatives, by their nature, have been for banning many things: atheism, polygyny and polygamy, gay marriage, gay anything, pornography, fetish magazines, sex education, minority rights, women's rights, women's reproductive rights, basically anything the Churches tend to be against. That's traditional conservatism with a small c. I get the feeling from you that you are more libertarian than the main parties and can't see how you'd go along with most (any) of the things I just mentioned.
@Moriarty
Talking of interesting quotes:
"I agree with you about the LD party: they are to the left of Labour."
So if the Lib Dems are on the "left", where does that put New Labour (especially as they're the party who have so many times tried to out-Tory the Tories...)?
(BTW Try looking at Political Compass dot Org which adds Libertarian/ Authoritarian to the usual left/ right scale and puts such things in a much clearer context)
Oh and as for "mixing it with the big boys", well I refer you to my comment about PMQs because that is what the "big boys" (company in which you apparently humbly include yourself) seem to think passes for "reasoned debate" and, as such, thank you, but I will definitely pass the invitation to "mix it" with that sort of playground behaviour!
@rockwell
I actually agree to an extent with March Hare: the spatial labels are misleading and conceptually underdescribed. Where I differ is in believing that extending them and making them multidimensional adds clarity. For my part I'm a libertarian/anarchist in the Bob Nozick tradition who nevertheless believes that if you are going to have a minimal state then you need a fully developed separation of powers (hence I defend the House of Lords as a revising chamber with abbreviated powers). In other words my views are miscellaneous but consistent: so I agree that the normal labels are a distorting prism.
Post a Comment