ConservativeHome's ToryDiary: You know the game's up for Labour when... Jarvis Cocker says a Tory victory is "necessary"
You know the game's up for Labour when... Jarvis Cocker says a Tory victory is "necessary"
Whilst I don't expect to be seeing the former Pulp frontman given a speaking slot at a Tory conference any time soon, Jarvis Cocker has declared a Conservative victory at the next general election to be "necessary".
"A Conservative government is necessary... Labour has been in power for a certain amount of time and (apart from the Conservatives) there is no credible alternative, so if you're not going to have Labour you're going to have the Conservatives. You can sense an era passing."
He goes on to conclude that the efforts of Gordon Brown are "all a bit lame".
Since the publication of the magazine, Cocker has released a statement emphasising that he is not giving his personal support to the Conservatives, but rather saying that a Tory victory "seems inevitable".
Even so, it's another nail in the coffin of the Labour Government when its former celebrity cheerleaders offer these kinds of assessments.
Labour voters know full well that they need the Tories in regularly. Where is else is the wealth they squander going to come from?
Perhaps Jarvis has recently had a meeting with his accountant, who told him that he cannot afford to support Labour.
Jarvis Cocker's mother is (or was) a Conservative councillor, so she'll be glad her son has finally seen sense!
I am not sure if she's still a sitting Conservative councillor. She may be an avid reader fo this site!
But what do Madonna, Geldorf and Bono think? We need to know what these cerebral singers think. Bono is certainly that - he knows off by heart the name of every tax haven in the world and can point to Africa on the map. He is himself a country of low tax. Madonna and Bob know where Malawi and Ethiopia are so they are ahead of Bono who only it on a continental scale.
Perhaps he knows there is not much difference between Labour and Tories now -they are both pro mixed economy and the Tories won't even pledge to scrap the 50% tax.Its hard to tell one from t'other.
Considering Monsieur Cameron's aim to rule the common people, very apt indeed!
Jarvis Cocker deserves a knighthood for mooning Michael Jackson at the 1996 Brit Awards alone.
I never subscribed to the Blur v Oasis debate in the 90s; If asked my preference, I would always answer smugly, "Pulp".
I think the game's up for Labour when the slebs start a-sniping.
I had no idea he was still knocking around. Last time I saw him he was hanging from a lamp post on the BT commercial.
Wasn't aware that Jarvis Cocker ever was a cheerleader for Labour? Are you sure you're not confusing him with Noel Gallagher or Damon Albarn?
I still remember both of them making rather crass statements in favour of Tony Blair. I wonder how both of them feel about that now?
Ah you got there before me.
Cleethorpes, how could you? Blur have always been the natural band for the younger Tories - as evidenced by Alex writing for The Spectator. How I whooped when his column began!
That said, I do adore Pulp in equal measure... but surely it's a matter of principle to support Blur in favour of Oasis?
Blur have always been a bunch of smug lefty art students.
Jarvis Cocker can vote for who he likes - and that's the point: he will.
That's why his comments carry a little bit of weight.
Cocker is but a dinosaur. We should be garnering the opinions of such young popstresses as Lily Allen.
Given that her father is both the Sheriff of Nottingham and responsible for Vindaloo (We're Ingerland) I feel sure that she will be voting sensibly. But if I were the fragrant Sally I would not pay too close attention to the lyrics on her latest ditties.
Christine (mother of Jarvis) was a member of the party in Bassetlaw when I was Parliamentaru candidate in 2005. A really nice lady who foisted pie and peas on me at one of the many events I attended.
Tory Boy at 17:21 said: "Who he?"
Apparently he is a pop-chappie. Sings a bit or plays a guitar or something. I wonder if he knows any stirring military anthems?
Well Jarvis is far from being the most important rock star but he is certainly a credible celebrity endorsement. Is it time for Noel or Liam to pontificate? Its a slice of good news. We need a very different type of Pop star to emerge. Bring out the heavy brigade of load protest bands. It will shortly be time for a new wave of Tory backed pop stars. Lets end the mediocrity of modern pop banality. Jarvis could inspire some young men and women to take up their beds. We need a counter-revolutionary to slap some sense into our world. Whats more revolution can inspire a wide range of product. So there is no reason to hold back the world is crying out for bright young things with solutions. What we certainly do not need is a spoiler like Mcclaran to rob another generation of its right to indulge in clever musical forms. Bring on the Passion players.
What next - "Rock Against Socialism"? Bring it on!
Donna, I did prefer Blur- and got a copy of the Great Escape for Christmas. I never really got into Oasis until I was older and saw them live at the 2000 Leeds Festival.
Though I love all three, I think Blur and Pulp both have songs about very mundane aspects of suburban life, form them into a narrative and make them sound interesting, whereas Oasis are more about the "sound", after all, their lyrics make bugger all sense!
As an ex-Labour supporter I find it sad that it has to be the Conservatives that win the election if Labour don't.
I agree with Jarvis though, Labour simply HAS to go. Brown, Harman and Smith have been utterly appalling, I'll never support them again after their reclassification of cannabis and their attempts to turn Britain into a police state. But I'm not to keen on the Tories either because they are so socially illiberal. I still remember when the Conservative Party was persecuting single parents and gays. They were a horrible party of bigots last time they were in power, that's not quite forgotten yet and I'm not sure they have changed.
Why is it that the Lib Dems seem so utterly incapable of rising to the challenge of replacing Labour? Is it simply that the public hate Labour and will vote for whoever has the best chance of beating them? Or is there something so wrong with the Liberals that stops them being able to replace Labour in the big cities? If it's the former and the public are just going to vote for whoever has the best chance of beating Labour because they hate them so much that's really sad. It's like we're not voting for who we like the most, just who we hate the least.
Is "You know the game's up for Labour when..." going to become a regular feature??!!
"It's like we're not voting for who we like the most, just who we hate the least."
That is how we ended up with the current shower of scum in thge first place.
The problem for the rich & famous is that under Labour, they are steadily becoming poorer. Jarvis may well have wanted to "Live like common people" when he was younger, but I'm sure he has long since given up on the idea.
Cocker has said before he's always been a Labour supporter, and I think people seem to be getting the wrong end of the stick here, but he does seem to have been pretty critical of New Labour from the beginning.
"That is how we ended up with the current shower of scum "
The trouble is the public never gets to decide who they want to represent them the parties do that. So if you have a sleazy corrupted local party its hardly surprising that you get seedy no good MPs. I think on average the Labour party has more useless MPs than corrupted one. Some of that is down to the list systems they use, which means that even the local party doesn't get much of a say in who represents them. How we can alter this inconveniently non democratic system has been a subject of debate for decades.