DAVID DAVIS - AN UNLIKELY HERO
Saturday’s Morning Star carried an interview with Tory ex-MP DAVID DAVIS. It holds little in the way of surprise - David Davis is a Tory, and has Tory views on most issues. Indeed, even his opposition to extended detention without charge, ID cards and government databases has a firm foundation within the mainstream traditions of British Conservatism - it was after all Winston Churchill who abolished ID cards last time, in his own words to “set the people free”.
When I first heard of Davis’s resignation as an MP I was a little cynical that this was some sort of stunt. But on reflection, this seems unlikely, as it will surely count against him in any potential bid for the Tory leadership, and his non-collegiate approach to this resignation would be sufficient reason for Cameron to keep him off the front bench. It is entirely plausible that he has acted on principle, and he has indeed always been a very effective opponent of the ill-conceived restrictions on civil liberties from New Labour.
For the forthcoming by-election he has already received the support of left Labour MP Bob Marshall Andrews. And while the political commentariat are swift to dismiss Davis’s action, and point out that he is a right wing Tory, he has caught the popular mood of disillusionment with the political establishment. The response to the Irish NO vote in the recent referendum has been telling - the political classes see the views of the people as an obstacle to be overcome, they do not see the electorate as legitimate actors in shaping and deciding public policy.
The political climate of triangulating around swing voters in marginal constituencies has brought political convergence within the Westminster village, that betrays the breadth of real issues, and the diversity of political opinion in the country at large. For many people, David Davis resignation is seen as Quixotic but laudable, because he has acted on principle over an issue that he believes in. The by-election is likely to take on the characteristics of a broader protest against the political establishment: a voters’ revolt. The paradox is that the authoritarian restrictions on civil liberties are actually not particularly unpopular, so by highlighting them and linking them with the generalised disillusionment against New Labour, Davis is pushing public opinion in a more liberal direction.
To misunderstand that mood, and only point to Davis’s record as a conventional Conservative politician is to underestimate the way this resignation fits with the popular mood of disconnection with mainstream politics. We do ourselves no favours by exhibiting world-weary cynicism - if Davis gets a landslide victory then this is not a conventional victory for conservative politics, but an expression of generalised disgust at the moral corruption of mainstream politics.
The interview:
EX-TORY shadow Home Secretary David Davis is appealing to Morning Star readers to support his “freedom” crusade and join his by-election campaigning in Haltemprice.
Only hours before he officially resigned from his parliamentary seat to force a by-election, his very last media interview at the House of Commons was conducted at a breakfast meeting with the Morning Star.
But Davis severely weakens his appeal by holding stubbornly to his right-wing Conservative views on a number of issues.
He refuses to dissociate himself from the sweeping assault on working people unleashed by authoritarian former Tory premier Margaret Thatcher and he refuses to back the restoration of basic trade union rights which she crushed.
During the interview, Davis speaks passionately of his opposition to 42 days detention without charge and his fears of the “database state” and the “snooper society.”
He tells how literally thousands of messages of support are pouring in from people across the political spectrum - Tories, Liberal Democrats, staunch Labour voters and also people “who have never been inspired by politics before.”
However, when it is suggested that he might describe himself on the Haltemprice ballot paper as David Davis for Freedom, the title of his website, he replies: “No, it will be David Davis the Conservative candidate.”
Then he adds as an afterthought: “Actually, that’s a very good point, you know. I hadn’t even thought that far ahead.”
Asked whether he would welcome support from Morning Star readers, he replies: “Yes, absolutely, I’m standing as a Conservative, but this is not an issue that is about me. It’s an issue about freedom in the country at large.”
He reports that one of the most famous Morning Star readers, Tony Benn, visited him in his parliamentary office the day before and that the veteran left campaigner would be joining him in a debate at the Festival Hall a few days before the by-election is held on July 10.
Davis adds that he and Benn are “both massively in favour of a strong parliamentary democracy and massively in favour of protecting the rights of the individual.” Their views “differ but they overlap,” he says.
Pressed to respond to allegations that the whole resignation saga is simply a stunt, Davis flashes back: “Well, it’s a hell of a stunt when you basically finish your career, which is what I’ve done.
“Let’s not kid ourselves. I’m not going to be in a future Tory cabinet and all that sort of stuff. I knew that before I started. I sat down and calculated that a number of things would be painful.
“I sat down and said to myself, first off, what will happen? Will it hurt my party? I didn’t think so. Division tends to hurt parties, but integrity tends to help parties.
‘There’ll be plenty of things in my policy brief that your readers will not agree with - my ideas on immigration and asylum, penal policy and economic policy.’
“The second thing I thought was, well, it’s going to be the end of my shadow cabinet or Cabinet career and I thought well, OK, for this particular cause that price is worth paying. The third point was that it might actually end my parliamentary career if it goes wrong. You know, if Labour put up a good candidate. But they are certainly not going to do that.”
However, Davis blatantly fails to relent when challenged about his admiration for Thatcher, who launched a war on millions of British people while branding them “the enemy within.”
He rambles in reply: “I have to say, this election is not about me, it’s about the issues that I’m deploying. There’ll be plenty of things in my policy brief, ideas that your readers will not agree with - my views on immigration and asylum, my views on penal policy, my views on economic policy.”
He adds: “Under Margaret Thatcher, I was used to hearing her say what I thought at that time was a cliche, which was the phrase ‘liberty under the law.’
“I thought it was a cliche because everybody understood it and everybody sort of accepted it and there was no party in Britain that really didn’t believe in liberty under the law.
“What is stark today is that this is no longer true and we are looking at a circumstance where people will be locked up for six weeks and the raw truth is that half of those people or more will turn out to be innocent.”
Davis reveals his reactionary true-blue Tory views when asked whether he believes unequivocally in the right to strike and whether he supports the restoration of trade union rights taken away by Thatcher.
He responds: “Well, when my Communist grandfather and I used to have rows about these things, one thing we agreed on was that justice demands two views. And so I believe in the right to be a member of a trade union but also the right not to be a member of a trade union. I think those are equal rights, you know.”
Davis agrees that teachers should have the right to strike - a certain improvement on the recent statement by Tory leader David Cameron that “teachers should never go on strike.”
Davis confesses, however: “You almost never find me supporting an individual strike, because almost always I think they are unnecessary, but the right to strike, yes, and the right to work, yes.
“So, for example, on picketing laws, probably many of your readers would not like my views, because I am a believer in protecting both sides’ rights.”
He is evasive when faced with the Morning Star’s suggestion that he might add the Tolpuddle Martyrs and the Chartists to his list of vital events in the struggle for liberty. He makes the astonishing claim that he did not know enough about these events to hold forth.
Turning to the issue of gay rights, Davis attempts to defend himself against recent allegations that he is “a homophobic bigot,” allegations that have arisen from his hard-line parliamentary vote against the repeal of Section 28, his vote against reducing the age of consent for homosexual acts to 16 and his opposition to adoption of children by gay couples.
He declares: “I’ve got a very large number of gay friends,” adding: “As you came into my office today, the young man leaving was a shadow cabinet member, a very close friend of mine, who is gay.”
In his defence, Davis also recalls: “Over 40 years ago, when I was at school, there was a young gay lad viciously treated - put in fear of his life - by 15 young gay-bashing thugs and I defended him.”
And Davis attempts to justify his stubborn opposition to laws outlawing religious hatred and bigotry, laws designed to challenge Islamophobia and anti-semitism. He argues: “What you mustn’t do is create laws that are so prescriptive that they stop all freedom of speech.”
Hurriedly finishing his breakfast in the members’ cafeteria before rushing off to clear his office and prepare for his resignation, Davis returns once again to his appeal for widespread support for his “freedom” campaign.
“I knew I would come under huge attack from members of both parties,” he declares. “When you rock the Establishment, that’s what happens.”
Yes a ghastly turd but as correctly said he is on our side on a fault line issue
By the way it shoudl be mentioned that his views are shared on unions but the bulk of the w/c in this country
Long Live Marxism Leninism Dave Davis Thought
Comment by Socialists for Davis — 24 June, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
Interestingly the Greens might be standing but haven’t heard anything since. If they do stand and on a platform of against 42 days, who do you support? It is hypothetical as it is not certain they will.
Comment by Louise — 24 June, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
Oh you pillock, Newman. Now a tory?
Comment by Jill St Custard — 24 June, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
“David Davis caught the popular mood”
what part of 30% turnout is a “popular” mandate
Comment by john — 24 June, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Andy is broadly right about this. However, there is nothing in this correct analysis that means that we on the left have to support David Davis on this. He is still a Tory, and therefore it would be unprincipled to give him even the most critical support. Tony Benn and Bob Marshall-Andrews are mistaken in the way they are approaching this.
But we cannot either dismiss the groundswell of support for Davis in a sectarian manner. Sometimes the emergence of an abberant bourgeois candidate reflects something that Marxists have to try to tap into in terms of popular mood -without telling lies to the class, which calling for support to a abberant bourgeois candidate amounts to. The problem is faced more frequently in the US, where all the main parties are purely bourgeois, but where sometimes dissident trends within outright bourgeois politics tap into something below that is really the political terrority of Marxists and the working class movement. There are elements of this about Obama’s campaign also, arguably.
The challenge here is both to remain principled and to find ways to tap into what is positive and progressive about the mass sentiments behind such bourgeois figures that deviate from the norm of bourgeois politics. That is not easy - and given the safe Tory seat Davis is standing in I dont see that much point in busting a gut to stand a candidate even if the resources were available. We have to find ways use Davis’ campaign and the issues it raises in propaganda/agitation in wider society.
Comment by ID — 24 June, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
Maybe he’ll campaign to restore the rights taken away by the last Tory government, like the right to remain silent and will call for the abolition of the Criminal Justice Act of Michael Howard with its numerous illiberal provisions. In 42 days he is simply addressing the tip of the iceberg. If you want to see why the rights of those accused of crimes need to be protected, and how it is that these rights continue to be better protected in the US than here (despite the Patriot Act), I would recommend a look at the US Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda(1969), from which Americans derive the phrase “to Miranda”.
Comment by skidmarx — 24 June, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
#2 Louise,
I hope the Left or the Greens will stand. They’ll get my support if they do, not this Tory turd.
Comment by anticapitalista — 24 June, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
#7 anticapitalista
I feel the same way.
Comment by Louise — 24 June, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
The Socialist Equality Party are said to be standing (http://www.wsws.org - for their International On-Line journal, there are links to the UK).
It is interesting that Tony Benn appears to lending a hand to David Davis. I have always though that Benn for all his good qualities has the political judgement of a fruit fly. A nice old fruit fly. A fruit fly with a GCSE in the fruit-fly Constitution and Paliament. But a fruit fly when it comes to judgement all the same.
As for ID call ‘tapping into the popular mood’ by campaigning or at least showing some sympathy for the Tories of Davis’s ilk: hey UKIP claimed to stand for demcoracy against the EU and get a lot of votes in Euro elections. Surely it would be sectarian not to have some good words for them too: against the EU undemocratic bureaucrats that is. Next step link up with them.
Comment by Andrew Coates — 24 June, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
Hat tip to the ULKN: Chris Talbort is the Socialist Equality candidate. The English site for them seems to be down but it’s http://www.socialequality.org.
Now would it be sectarian to back a Tory against a Socialist?
Comment by Andrew Coates — 24 June, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
Andrew I think it would be rash to back anyone in this election. If i lived there and the Grrens stood i would probably vote for them.
But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t appreciate the complexity of the situation, and seek to exploit the opportunities that davis has given of keeping civil liberties in the news.
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 June, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
Andy, I think the complexity of the siutuation lies in the fact that New Labour seems to be disintegrating, a new centre left around Compass only just has a toe-hold, at least in terms of a serious social base, and people are swinging this way and that. if David Davis was serious about civil liberties he would not be a party that has gone that little stage further than Borwn and wants compulsory forced labor for the unemployed and yet more crushing of the poor. Class issues are central to civil liberaties, not this blethering on about the Constutition and ‘freedom’ (what is that Doctor Johnson said about the loudest yelps for liberty came from the slave-holders?).
Still I’m glad you posted stuff about the Council workers’ vote. I am also a T & G/Unite activist and my general branch contains very low paid council manual workers. Unfortunately our lot do not have much power, not being (wage) slave-owners like Davis
Comment by Andrew Coates — 24 June, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
I’m glad you posted stuff about the Council workers’ vote.
you have Louise to thank for that
;o)
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 June, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
So it appears Coates thinks there’s nothing remotely OK about being opposed to 42 days detention. Is this connected to his support for banning the hijab? Is Coates in favour of locking up ‘Islamists’ for 42 days as well? Wouldn’t surprise me.
Comment by ID — 24 June, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
With the Lib Dems and NL out of the way wouldn’t this be a good opportunity for Respect to stand on a no to internment, repeal the tory anti-union laws, imperialism out of the gulf etc ticket. The publicity generated would be tremendous with Galloway on the stump for a Respect candidate. Surely wouldn’t win but good marker for future elections and would expose the true nature of Davies.
Comment by David Ellis — 24 June, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
Oh, and of course, down with Lisbon, Maastricht etc. For a united socialist states of Europe.
Comment by David Ellis — 24 June, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
Someone should stand against him.
Maybe this man’s the ticket!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7470850.stm
What’s his view on 42 days?
Why was 28 days OK?
Comment by shmuel ben avrahom — 24 June, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
#15 Dave, I feel it would be premature for Galloway or any other Respect candidate to stand in this bye-election… I doubt that we’d have enough resources to support a campaign and a low vote could be counter productive.
Even, in a rapidly deteriorating situation with the economic crisis focusing the minds of people everywhere I suspect that a George Galloway campaign would not take off - especially given the demographics of the constituency. It is painful to have to make such an assement of our weakness at this stage.
If ,for example, a local UNISON Activist was prepared to stand under a RESPECT Banner as a way to link up with the forthcoming strike action this might make more sense in terms of laying down a marker for the Future a 5% vote in for civil liberties and against low pay would be a step forward… but a 5% vote for Galloway would be used [by the media] to marginalise even further RESPECT as a viable national project. Also would GG have to resign his seat to stand against Davies? Or alternatively, Dave, why don’t you stand as a RESPECT candidate?
I don’t know and am not sure about this [typical centrist!] and might change my mind after a cup of tea.
Comment by mark anthony france — 24 June, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
Mark,
I don’t think Galloway himself should stand as you say just be there to boost the profile. Your idea of a local trade unionist in a wage battle is good. Given that Davies is nominally standing against the 42 days I don’t think a low vote would damage the struggle for civil liberties. In any case I’m sure in the absence of NL and the LDs, Respect would poll very well. Of course, what you say about mobilisation and cash needs to be considered but I do think Respect should discuss the possibility. The publicity would be substantial and I think the working class would admire such a ballsy approach.
Comment by David Ellis — 24 June, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
had my tea and I get the joke now! DD vs GG!
Comment by mark anthony france — 24 June, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
Dave
sorry you were being serious… yep I understand what you are saying… and it would be worth investigating standing a candidate. Over to the Respect National Council I think.
Comment by mark anthony france — 24 June, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
p.s. it would be a chance to build a united front behind Respect for a change. I’m sure the local labourites will want to oppose Davies not to mention all the other varieties of socialists out there.
Comment by David Ellis — 24 June, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
what about Shami Chakrabati as a Respect candidate maybe Davies would stand down in favour of her!
Comment by mark anthony france — 24 June, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
“When I first heard of Davis’s resignation as an MP I was a little cynical that this was some sort of stunt. But on reflection, this seems unlikely, as it will surely count against him in any potential bid for the Tory leadership . . . “
Come on Andy, don’t be daft! That boat sailed years ago.
If it was ever a possibility that Davis had a decent chance to become the Tory leader in the future, he wouldn’t have considered this stunt for a second.
Davis is no George Lansbury.
Comment by Darren — 24 June, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
why would ‘working class’ voters in hull vote for someone - GG - who thinks it’s okay for the clerics in iran to arrest and lock up trade unionists for as long as they like? If GG was stupid enough to drag his oversized ego up to yorkshire the only result would be humiliation on the same scale he ogists experienced in the recent elections in london!
Comment by leigh — 24 June, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
Don’t be silly Leigh. Galloway supports Iran’s right to self-determination and opposes Western bombing and war. I think you’ll find nearly all of the people of Iran are in favour of the same things. Even the ones in the prisons of the clerics. Would you want someone to bomb your sisters, brothers, children, mother and father just because you were in jail? No, of course not. You need a bit more faith in the Iranian working class and a little less in Western bankers.
As for the other point, they would be voting for Respect.
Comment by David Ellis — 24 June, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
#26 Leigh…. if you’ve been to Goole you would know that there are probably loads of peole desperate to have a chance to vote for someone who authentically voices their frustrations… I just hope that someone up there [ie Goole not heaven] bites the Bullet and puts themselves forward as a Candidate for Respect… I’ve had another bigger cup of tea and think that David Ellis is right…and I agree with him that it is best not to be too silly.
Comment by mark anthony france — 24 June, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
Just to go on a bit. The big danger with this bi-election is that the working class are not going to have the chance to vote against the 42 days because rightly they will never vote tory and so complacency on this issue sets in. Though complacency is bad it is better than voting tory but it would be even better to vote for a working class candidate. Respect will be met with gratitude I believe.
Comment by David Ellis — 24 June, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
I tend to concur… but the seat apart from the fringes of Goole is predominantly rural and blah, blah….. nevertheless… their will be many open to Respects message … it will be a question of resources and essentially wether their are any people on the ground who could do the work necessary to prevent a derisory vote….Hull is near and Bradford not so far …. but does Respect galvanise people into action in these areas…??? realistically who is the candidate… who is going to pay for the leaflets and who is going to canvass…. maybe John Prescott! someone from the old National Union of Seapersons days should give a call!
Comment by mark anthony france — 24 June, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
On far more mundane matters than the prospects of a left candidate in a constituency in which Labour came thrid last time round, news arrives from Tower Hamlets that Oliur Rahman has resigned as national chair of the Left List in a letter sent today to John Rees, err the Left List’s “National Secretary”. Rahman and the other two Left List councillors intend to “cross the floor” to join New Labour at the full council meeting tomorrow night together with another rat fromn Respect Shahed Ali.
The urgency about their departure to New Labour is that Labour requires a full year’s membership before a member can stand for selection as a Labour candidate. Therefore they need to get their membership now if they are to stand a chance of being selected as New Labour candidates for the 2010 local elections.
The hold up on their departure to New Labour has been a lot of disquiet inside the Tower Hamlets Labour Party from members who profoundly dislike these careerist carpetbaggers, who are jumping their previous ship simply to try and preserve their miserable careers. A motion was passed recently, it seems, saying the Labour Party should not take any more of these floor crossers after an absentee Liberal Democrat councillor and part-time clown was booted out of the Lib Dems and applied for Labour membership.
We wait with bated breath how the SWP is going to spin the departure of SWP member Lutfa Begum to New Labour. Once again this exposes the left/right split as the complete bullshit it always was.
Comment by alexander poskrebyshev — 24 June, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
Alexander seems to miss a vital fact in all this talk of Left Listers joining new Labour. Read the words of the great JR post May 1st….
“The Left List must be part of that grouping on the left, which will contain many Labour party members, who think that fighting neo-liberalism is the best chance of reviving the left’s fortunes irrespective of what the Labour leadership say.”
So really what we may be seeeing is just a little entryism from the Left List three in order to get that grouping “on the left, which will contain many Labour party members” off the ground with flying colours.
“The Left List can become part of this growing opposition to New Labour and play an important part in regrouping the left in the debates that are bound to attend the crisis of the New Labour government.”
Indeed, and where better to debate those issues than in the heart of the New Labour beast itself. Alexander Poskrebyshev, you have been exposed as a shameless sectarian - can you not see the mastery and subtle guile behind of the Great Leader’s plans?
Comment by TLC — 24 June, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
“On far more mundane matters” Oh such understatement.
One almighty cluster-fuck would be a better way to describe it. I wonder how the discussion at the Wednesday morning SWP CC will go.
“We’ll comrade Rees any more rabbits out like that one and we’ll going to have to take your hat off you ”
Oh sorry we lost our nerve, here’s you hat back, sorry !
“Does my spine look big in this ?, “no, you hardly notice its even there ”
and so on…
Comment by JFK — 24 June, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
What an absolute load of piffle!
Not only is he a tory, he’s a hard right tory.
On an equal age of consent - he voted against
On reform of the homophobic sexual offenses laws - he voted against
On the Local Government Act to stop homophobic bullying in Schools - he voted against
On both civil registration (2001) and civil partnerships (2004) - he was absent
On LGB adoption rights - he voted against
On the repeal of Section 28 - he voted against
On gender recognition - he was absent
On Goods and services protections for LGB people - he was absent
That’s an awful record.
No way should any socialists support him. What we need is an anti war person against 42 days who also happens not to be a bigot.
Comment by Hanif Leylabi — 24 June, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
Weirdest Yawning Star article since the “Role Model for Muslim Women” gush for Salma Yaqoob. It seems like communism, or even socialism, is lost in the CPB’s rear-view mirror.
Comment by Charles Dexter Ward — 24 June, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
#33 Hanif. As a Left List enthusiast could you give us an early reaction to the defection of your three Tower Hamlets councillors, including the national chair, leader and nominating officer, to New Labour?
Comment by alexander poskrebyshev — 24 June, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
The left list has left the building, will the last one turn off the lights, Mr Rees
This does beg the question,what does Micheal Lavalette do, he’s the sole survivor
Comment by JFK — 24 June, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
I always thought it was a bit greedy to register ‘The Left Party’ as an alternative name for the Left List. And now we’re in a situation where nobody can stand under the name of ‘The Left Party’ unless their papers are signed by… a Labour Party member.
Puts the Renewal split in perspective, doesn’t it?
Comment by Phil — 24 June, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
#30 This farce is the product of the policy adopted by Rees as soon as the Respect councillors were elected of ignoring the councillors and their work when he wasn’t doing his best to create a factional side within the council group. He got his faction but on the bais of turning a blind eye to the right wing politics of most of the four and pretending instead they were the left of a right/left split.
If there is anything good to come out of this it will be the end of Rees as a major political player on the left. But the SWP is an organisation which has taken to defying gravity so we should not hold our breath on that one.
With a bit more luck, these four numpties will cause the Labour Party some of the grief they gave their previous parties. They should remember that few people respect turncoats and there will be plenty of people in Labour who will hate them for the pathetic carpetbaggers they are.
And we can all look forward to them trying desperately to square their consciences as they support more housing privatisation, cuts and, shortly, opposing council workers striking for better pay. After all, the Labour bigwigs who have given the go ahead for them to join won’t be willing to see them selected as New Labour candidates if they display even modest leftist leanings.
Oh, and if the SWP runs the line that they finally gave in to the overwhelming pressure they were put under by the “community”, don’t believe a word of it. These people have no personal political base. The community turned their back on them as the election results demonstrated. They have simply made a calculation as to how best to try and secure their re-election in two years time. Nothing will give me greater pleasure than seeing them either not selected by Labour or better still beaten by Respect in May 2010.
Comment by sergo — 24 June, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
With no Labour vote the SEPtics are in danger of getting a reasonable vote and saving their deposit!
Comment by a very public sociologist — 24 June, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
A very good point vps. I think if Respect stood a local candidate with the help of GGs public persona they would get an excellent vote. I understand that people are worried about `parachuting’ but I think if Respect acknowledged in advance their problem of not having a considerable base in the area and that they simply want to give working people the opportunity to vote for a socialist candidate against 42 days and on other programmatic issues people would understand. Time is running out however so an executive decision would probably have to be made and argued over afterwards. I understand the problem of canvassing etc but this will be a high profile campaign in the media.
Comment by David Ellis — 24 June, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
what have they given as their reason for the defection? is there any info confirming that this has happened or is it speculation at the moment? The loss of Oli Rahman is a serious blow for the LL/SWP
Comment by me — 24 June, 2008 @ 10:59 pm
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/content/towerhamlets/advertiser/news/story.aspx?brand=ELAOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsela&itemid=WeED24%20Jun%202008%2019%3A44%3A39%3A473
Comment by QW — 24 June, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
#41 Their reasons are not hard to fathom. Careerist opportunism - the derisory Left List vote meant that they were doomed to defeat in 2010 unless they joined New Labour. It also seems the three of them were pretty unhappy at having to stand as Left List having been told they were definitely going to get the name Respect. I wonder who told them that.
It will happen tomorrow, it seems, at the full Tower Hamlets council meeting where there will be the pathetic spectacle of the turncoats being welcomed by their new comrades.
As for the statement that “The loss of Oli Rahman is a serious blow for the LL/SWP”, this must be the understatement of the year. He was the national chair, leader and nominating officer of the Left List. He was advertised speaking on a Left List platform only six days ago in Tower Hamlets with none other than Left List mayoral candidate and leading member of the SWP Lindsey German and he was on the LMHR demo with leading SWP members John Rees and Chris Nineham. Well done you.
Comment by alexander poskrebyshev — 24 June, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
…Rees as a major political player on the left.
bleurgh!
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 24 June, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
#44 I’m not sure I know what the english translation of bleurgh is. I am assuming it is French Canadian slang for something pretty awful but, like it or not, Rees has been a major player on the far left. He was erstwhile national secretary of Respect (and probably still claims he really, really is) and now the Left List, what’s left of it. And he is always popping up here, there and everywhere as a founder member of Stop the War. Oh and I almost forgot, he was some sort of leading figure in Organising for Fighting Unions. Now just what has happened to that?
Comment by sergo — 24 June, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
If Rees was a football player, you wouldn’t even let him out to play in a Sunday league based on his record.
If he was a horse, I would be thinking about the glue factory.
Comment by jfk — 24 June, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
If Rees was a football player, you wouldn’t even let him out to play in a Sunday league based on his record.
If he was a horse, I would be thinking about the glue factory.
Comment by jfk — 24 June, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
A record of idiocy and failure is more or less a basic qualification for being on the SWP Central Committee these days.
Comment by alexander poskrebyshev — 24 June, 2008 @ 11:45 pm
OFFU has clearly been wound down. And now the Left List project is finished, I wonder what their next move will be? Possibly the National Shop Stewards Network?
Yes, the statement about losing Oli Rahman is probably the understatement of the year! I can understand the others, but always credited Oli Rahman with better politics. I thought he would possibly go with Renewal, but not New Labour.
So, the left/right split has now been fully exposed for what it always was. The SWP can surely no longer be trusted in positions of influence in any left wing initiative
Comment by me — 24 June, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
The fiasco with LL and RR councillors defecting to New Labour won’t help anyone on the left, so gloating about it ain’t gonna ‘elp.
Back on topic.
Is there going to be a left (or Green) challenge that can pull the votes? The DD character is really a big pile of shi# and the fact that the CP even interviewed him is a sign of desperation on the left it seems to me in my ‘INGERLAND’ LOL (dig/dig).
What a terrible state of affairs.
Comment by anticapitalista — 24 June, 2008 @ 11:52 pm
Considering that you’ve defended the actions of the numpties on the SWP CC over the last few months.
I would expect a modicum of humility when it comes to pronouncing judgement from your high horse in Greece.
Just who you hold responsible for plummeting fortunes of a once proud organisation?
Comment by jfk — 25 June, 2008 @ 12:01 am
The SWP won’t be losing any sleep about the defection of these councillors (as you can already tell from the disingenuous crap from so-called anticapitalista). LL was set up as a short-term spoiler to try to finish off what they started when they split Respect. These councillors have had no support and have been driven deliberately to do what they have done by the SWP. Now they can rid themselves of LL and concentrate on themselves as their march the other day proved they intended all along and gain the maximuum bad publicity for Respect at the same time. I feel sorry for the councillors who now take their place in the ranks of those who have been shafted by the SWP over years and years. I think they should not be ostricised but worked with as much as possible where possible.
Comment by David Ellis — 25 June, 2008 @ 12:08 am
The councillors I mean of course should be worked with where possible.
Comment by David Ellis — 25 June, 2008 @ 12:09 am
Just who you hold responsible for plummeting fortunes of a once proud organisation?
Comment by jfk
LHO
Comment by anticapitalista — 25 June, 2008 @ 12:20 am
David Davis originally thought this would propel him to the top. Just because it hasn’t turned out like that doesn’t mean he always thought there would have no personal gain for him. The fact that he has such poor judgment should have Tories thanking themselves that he never became leader.
And he certainly hasn’t caught the popular mood. People will just support anything they think might humiliate Labour at the moment.
Comment by FG — 25 June, 2008 @ 12:29 am
The Green Party will be standing. Shan Oakes is the democratically selected local candidate. While there have been arguments over whether we should or should not stand, with many senior members of the party seeing both pros and cons, I think the right decision has been made.
More information here: http://shanoakes.blogspot.com/
Comment by Peter Cranie — 25 June, 2008 @ 9:07 am
Shan Oakes! do you have to be a public school toff to be a Green Party candidate?
Comment by martin ohr — 25 June, 2008 @ 9:57 am
Of course this is upsetting news for the whole of the left. Just like when the deputy leader of RR went to the Labour Party. I am surprised at Oli Rahman especially. I can’t understand how they genuinely believe that they can win their politics in the Labour group. If they vote like they have been, they’ll be rebelling constantly.
There’s still a vacuum to the left of labour and it needs to be filled. No one claimes the Left List was the finished article and I hope people don’t believe renewal is either.
and we have a councillor in bolsover as well for the person who said michael lavalette was the only one left.
Comment by Hanif Leylabi — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:06 am
“No one claimes the Left List was the finished article ”
Oh - I think the Left List is finished.
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:12 am
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/25/daviddavis.civilliberties?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews
Worth a read
Comment by Socialist for Davis — 25 June, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/27/daviddavis.haltemprice
Yet more reasons for us to support the lad!
Comment by Socialists for Davis — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:58 am
some reasons for not supporting the lad
Britain: Cameron and David Davis come out in support of strike breaking
http://wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/sun-j27.shtml
Comment by sandy — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:14 pm