Politics of Potter

Make J.K. Rowling the Rt Hon Joanne K. Rowling, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. IOTL she's donated over 6 million euros to Labour, is personal friends with Gordo and the missus, and has praised their platform many times. POD 1990.
 

hammo1j

Donor
Typical example of NuLabour Luvvie hypocrisy. She has billions in the bank but spends millions supporting a party that steals money from the working poor and then gets them stabbed by a criminal class that has been allowed to flourish.

I think JKR as PM is ASB. I would never vote for her*.


* Unless she gave me 6 million Euros.
 
She writes hidden, subliminal messages into her books.
jaby2.gif
 
She gives them credit for the welfare programs that allowed her to ascend to the literary summit. Of course when the first book came out in 1997, and during the writing, Major was the occupant of No 10. Go figure. :rolleyes:
 
J.K Rowling said:
"I believe that poor and vulnerable families will fare much better under the Labour Party than they would under a Cameron-led Conservative Party. Gordon Brown has consistently prioritised and introduced measures that will save as many children as possible from a life lacking in opportunity or choice. The Labour government has reversed the long-term trend in child poverty, and is one of the leading EU countries in combating child poverty. David Cameron's promise of tax perks for the married, on the other hand, is reminiscent of the Conservative government I experienced as a lone parent. It sends the message that the Conservatives still believe a childless, dual-income, but married couple is more deserving of a financial pat on the head than those struggling, as I once was, to keep their families afloat in difficult times."
She is of course right in that Labour have reduced child poverty, she is also pointed in her critisism of one of the Tories policies with regards to tx perks for married couples. She has also raised tens of millions for anti-poverty and other causes and charities. I fail to see how any of this is hypocritical. Also remember the previous Government that served the nation whose pronouncements on poverty ranged from "If it hurts, it works" to "On yer bike." (Comparitive Child poverty rose from 12% in 1979 to 26% in 1991, it is currently 15.4%.)

As to the "welfare programmes which allowed her to reach the literary summit", twaddle. Given her background as someone who was a single parent who was until Potter hardly rich, and given Majors vision, I can see why she has backed Labour.

As to her becoming PM, I very much doubt it. She is too thin-skinned, media-friendly enough and probably would not want the limelight. You would have to change her entire background, which would not make her the person she is today, and probably not an author.

Edit:

I have just gone on Youtube and listened to a speech by Rowling to Harvard. Have to say, it was very impressive. A three-parter, heres a link to the first part. I would strongly encourage people to listen to it. link.

Maybe if she did become Prime Minister it would not be terrible.......:D
 
Last edited:
If JK Rowling really cared about child poverty she would spend 599 million of her
600 million pound fortune on the deserving and still have 1 million left to live on.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-402027/What-does-JK-Rowling-money.html

The truth is she wants us to assuage her conscience and have the poor or middle incomed pay for the feckless while her fortune accumulates in some swiss bank account.
Yes, because of course it impossible to be rich and have a social conscience.
 

hammo1j

Donor
The million she would have left after giving away the rest, would prove the possibility of her being rich with a social conscience.

Unless you consider a million as the starting point of poverty.
 

Deleted member 5719

Typical example of NuLabour Luvvie hypocrisy. She has billions in the bank but spends millions supporting a party that steals money from the working poor and then gets them stabbed by a criminal class that has been allowed to flourish.

Absolute nonsense. The labour government has done a lot for the working poor, Working Family Tax Credits and the minimum wage spring to mind.

Its great failure has been to believe that this can have an effect without challenging inequality and creating equality of opportunity.

That and not realising an entire country can't live on tick indefinitely and pissing away fortunes on wars that make no fucking sense.
 
The million she would have left after giving away the rest, would prove the possibility of her being rich with a social conscience.

Unless you consider a million as the starting point of poverty.
By the income she currently recieves, her payment in taxation earns millions for the UK Exchequer. As such she more than pays her way.

You seem to be saying that she should not have a social conscience since she is now rich, and as an act of contrition she should get rid of the vast majority of it, and furthermore this is the only way you would listen to her.. Remember, thirteen years ago, she was a single mother on £70 benefits and living in a rundown flat, hardly luvvie material. As I have also pointed out, she has raised over £20 million for charity.

Having read your blog a while ago, and if I remember rightly it was along the line of privatise everything and get rid of that Scottish wanker in number ten, I am not surprised you are hostile to Rowlings political views. However, there is nothing wrong in wanting Government intervention on the issue of poverty and saying so openly. It should not be solely her resposibility to rid the nation of want, and it does not make her a hypocrite for working towards this end in the manner she has.

In point of fact, if 1000 millionaires donated the same amount to charity as Rowling has done over the past decade, there would have been over £20 billion towards poverty. That would have helped end the evil considerably.
 
Last edited:
Absolute nonsense. The labour government has done a lot for the working poor, Working Family Tax Credits and the minimum wage spring to mind.

Its great failure has been to believe that this can have an effect without challenging inequality and creating equality of opportunity.

That and not realising an entire country can't live on tick indefinitely and pissing away fortunes on wars that make no fucking sense.
The big quesion is how to realise equality of oppurtunity in a manner which benefits the nation. I remember Labour meetings of thelate nineties, where equality of oppurtunity was a big soundbite.

Whilst the government has done reasonably well, although not as good as hoped in ending poverty it has been done by targeting the poor directly. One initiative I am excited about is one from Ed Balls, which guarantees education or training for all 16 to 18 year olds.

This will ensure that more children will learn skills and gain a trade. This should help kids in worse off areas as well. The right-wing media, of course, insuinuate it is another aspect of a sinister nanny state.

IMO, the biggest failure of the Blair/Brown Government has been that they have been too timid and by now when more socially positive legislation is being passed, no-one is listening.
 
Hmmm, in that "Very British Divorce" thread you started, I suggested that J.K. Rowling get Knighted (along with David Tennant) in an effort to build up Labour support in Scotland.

Of course, I'm curious at to what Ms. Rowling's opinion of the Iraq War is. (It's the main reason why I like the Lib Dems. (I also like the SNP and Plaid because I'm a proponent of self-determination.)) I'm not sure why David (an alumnus of 7:84) backs New Labour- think he'd be more an Old Labour type.

Then again, I'm a Yank who's never set foot in the UK, and likely knows very little about UK politics. (Though i have to say I know more than most Americans...which isn't much...)
 
Hmmm, in that "Very British Divorce" thread you started, I suggested that J.K. Rowling get Knighted (along with David Tennant) in an effort to build up Labour support in Scotland.

Of course, I'm curious at to what Ms. Rowling's opinion of the Iraq War is. (It's the main reason why I like the Lib Dems. (I also like the SNP and Plaid because I'm a proponent of self-determination.)) I'm not sure why David (an alumnus of 7:84) backs New Labour- think he'd be more an Old Labour type.

Then again, I'm a Yank who's never set foot in the UK, and likely knows very little about UK politics. (Though i have to say I know more than most Americans...which isn't much...)
Tony Blair was in CND, and Dr John Reid was a young Communist. Simply because they hold certain views at one stage of their lives does not mean they will hold these views, or stick to these views in years to come, besides inside the Labour Party there are still many Old Labour types, Old Labour or New Labour they are all Labour after all..
 
Last edited:
Top