Lewisham Deptford: A Safe Labour Seat?
The New Labour minister Joan Ruddock MP sure believes it is for her:
“Comment is free … but facts are sacred”. Unfortunately the Lib Dems in Lewisham aren’t letting the facts of my voting record on Iraq get in the way of their wholly negative campaign.
Contrary to Max Calo’s assertion I did indeed vote on the crucial amendment, which if passed would have prevented the Labour government going to war in Iraq. Once this amendment was lost, nothing could be achieved in the subsequent vote. The Guardian, the Times and the BBC are all on the record as recording me as one of the “Labour rebels” and there was never a doubt about my consistent anti-war stance. As Calo himself admits, I never voted with the government, and it is standard parliamentary practice to abstain when negotiating in private with your own leadership in an attempt to get them to change their minds.
Perhaps Nick Clegg should be told that his Liberal Democrats in Lewisham are up to their old dirty tricks.
Max Calo’s response:
First of all thanks for replying, I’ll try to clarify the point I make and that I think is important and justified.
In the letter you sent to residents you stated:
?I have always acted with integrity and stuck to my principles ? voting against the government going to war in Iraq.?.
And I think we can agree you didn’t actually do this, because voting for a motion to delay action does not mean voting against the government going to war.
For everyone’s reference here’s the text of the proposed amendment you voted for:(this house)
- believes that the case for war against Iraq has not yet been established, especially given the absence of specific United Nations authorisation; but,
- in the event that hostilities do commence, pledges its total support for the British forces engaged in the Middle East, expresses its admiration for their courage, skill and devotion to duty, and hopes that their tasks will be swiftly concluded with minimal casualties on all sides.When the amendment failed a large number of Labour MPs left, but an even larger number stayed and voted against.
I’m sure you agree that the stand taken by those Labour MPs that stayed on and displayed active dissent (including resigning from Government in some cases) was very principled and indeed commanded the admiration of many in the public.
Your public record I’m afraid is not so clear, and that’s why I don’t believe you’re entitled to make the claim you made in your letter. Your voting record on the war shows that you were absent in four out of 6 occasions, when you participated you voted in favour of amendments but never took part in the main vote.
You say that once the amendments failed then there was no hope of the main motion being rejected, still many thought that they needed to stay and register an open dissent on the main motions, and we do admire them for doing so.
It is also the case that a stronger dissent makes a weaker mandate, whether the vote is won or lost.You say that in private you were negotiating in attempt to change the leadership’s mind, well, maybe you could have written that in your letter to Lewisham Central residents instead.
If you’re writing of your public record then you’re best advised to stick to the facts.
What people understand by reading your letter is what you wrote, and that’s what those that stayed on and took an open stand against the war did, not those that are now saying that they were negotiating in private.
Joan Ruddock is my MP. She is a vociferous supporter of ID cards, agreed with 90 days detention without charge, supports trial without a jury and control orders, and voted to ban protest around parliament. I seriously hope she gets beaten by either the Greens or the Lib Dems – this authoritarian nonsense simply has to stop.
You’re Such a Fraud, Gordon!
Gordon Brown wrote this morning for the Guardian. He might as well not have bothered:
I am proud of Labour’s record in reducing poverty, improving public services and limiting inequality – in the last 13 years we have done more than any government to tackle poverty, and raised 500,000 children and 900,000 pensioners out of poverty.
Erm withdrawing the 10p tax band? Allowing the extraordinarily rich to get even more rich, at a much faster rate than anyone has been taken out of poverty? He seems to have forgotten his own raid on pensions early in his reign as Chancellor too. Quite appalling.
As we address climate change, we will see a wave of low-carbon industrialisation in the UK as well as the rise of new professional service-sector jobs.
As you address climate change? Third runway at Heathrow? The Vestas fiasco on the Isle-of-Wight? How is that addressing climate change? Where is the low-carbon industrialisation?
We will rapidly make Britain a leading world power in digital industries, introducing the fastest possible broadband system in every part of the country to benefit every business and household.
And in the same bill Peter Mandelson is trying to enshrine the right of government to block any website it chooses, at any time, in secret and without needing a reason. Is that really taking a lead? It’s despotism.
It is increasingly clear that the Conservatives want to remove the security and protection of guaranteed, strong, universal services on which all can rely and in which each has a stake.
I don’t think he wants to see the City Academies’ track records scrutinised too closely. I don’t think he wants to talk about Foundation Hospitals either. And he clearly doesn’t want to talk about universities, whose budgets he’s about to slash, and whose standards have been dumbed down by his and Blair’s insane belief that setting a target of 50% of all school leavers to attend university would lead to increased social mobility. Why bother having universal services if they’re simply crap? Let’s not talk about PFIs either – we’d rather keep that invisible too.
Brown has got to be joking if he expects to win in May on his record (and notice how civil liberties aren’t even obliquely mentioned). And it would have to be on his record, given the complete absence of new ideas in this piece. Fairness? Tell that to asylum seekers and their children. Tell it to people barred from work when the ISA thinks they’re undesirable to work with ‘vulnerable people’ (which is pretty much anyone if you think about it). Tell it to the working class people who can’t get (or keep) jobs because the neoliberal economic system and EU deregulation is allowing foreign workers to get paid even less than them and take their jobs. No, the Tories won’t be better – David Cameron would be much worse, for all sorts of reasons (some of which I’ll mention in a blog post later today), but this man’s record is a disgrace. Do we really want more of the same?
If It’s Either of Them It Should Be Ed
It’s been clear to me for some time that David Miliband, eager to be liked by all of the people all of the time, hasn’t had the drive needed to become Prime Minister. And as New Labour declines towards its inevitable, ideology-free end in May, it’s also been clear that new thinking and new presentation – a whole new attitude is needed to guide a rump Labour Party to its next incarnation. It should be Ed Miliband, and others are starting to agree:
Miliband Jr has four strengths, goes the thinking. He is a more natural media performer than his brother, as his assured appearances at Copenhagen showed; he connects more easily with the party, which he has been courting assiduously as co-ordinator of Labour’s general election manifesto; and he would find it easier to unite the party, whose left and right wings are warming to him. As a 40-year-old, who has only been an MP for five years, he represents more of a break with the Blair/Brown era.
There is another factor that is being whispered: he may have worked for Brown, but Miliband Jr has not been afraid to stand up to his master. A year ago he irritated the prime minister by wringing out environmental concessions before signing up to the third runway at Heathrow.
“Heathrow was Ed’s coming of age,” one member of the cabinet says. “Ed, who made life quite difficult for Gordon, had a big influence on the decision. But he is collegiate and he has stuck by it.”
He’s by no means perfect. His lofty words about the green economy are rarely matched by deeds (Vestas anyone?), but in my mind he’s the only choice to lead the party away from the utterly discredited Blair/Brown era. Time will tell if it happens, and more importantly if he chooses bring an actual ideological bent to it, the complete absence of which after all is what caused voters to be alienated from it in the first place.
Peter Mandelson… (strike 1)
Hello friends!
Sorry it has been such a while since the last time I forced my opinions upon you – I have had a week of gigs, followed by a week of I’m-sure-it-wasn’t-but-it-could-have-been Swine Flu, followed by a couple of days lethergy. Who would have thought that the person to kick me out of my slightly sorry for myself stupor would Peter Mandelson?!
This post is essentially a quick overview of what I have been wanting to write in more detail over the last few weeks, and hopefully will act as a more structured base to start thinking about the actual things Mr Mandelson is trying to bring in, and whether it is a good or a bad thing.
Essentially my view of filesharing is the following: For – Against – For. Let me explain slightly, hopefully this somehow will connect back to the inital conversation. As a member of an unsigned band looking for a break into the music industry I want EVERYBODY to have copies of my songs. The more the better! We ask that if possible you have a listen to the tunes, stick them on your ipod, tell some of your mates then (and most importantly) all come down and see a gig. Everyone wins – you get some nice music, we get people to gigs, thus creating a buzz.
Once you have your buzz and get signed your then releasing an album or two. 
This is where I am against. The guys in this position (and this is where the Lily Allen / Musicians Alliance stuff comes in) are the ones who have managed to get their job to be music. But all is not as it seems- as we have already discussed these guys essentially get a ‘loan’ from their record label, to be paid back in full, and with interest, before they can make money themselves, and in the end record another album. These guys are against filesharing and I absolutely agree with them.
The idea of a ‘rockstar’ being someone who drives Rolls-Royces into swimming pools and is constantly in hotel rooms with groupies is out dated and just plain wrong. These guys will be earning very simliar amounts to you or me right now (and I earn a pittance…) they are also the future of music. How many times recently have we heard people lamenting the fact that the naughties has had no classic music formed in it? Well in my opinion its not suprising – even Radiohead had to make 3 albums before they really started working on something different and clever, which, if they were starting now, is a luxury they would never have been afforded (not least because their first album didn’t sell – they would have been dropped). These guys need your support and your money to help them to continue down the path they want to make – and surely the goal for everyone on both sides of the argument is to be able to listen to quality, enjoyable, sometimes groundbreaking, always original (to an extent) music?
Then I get a little controversial- when a band hits a certain level of success I think it is in everyones best interest to go back to not being bothered about filesharing. This is because at this level they are (if doing their job properly) making a fortune from endorsements, being on soundtracks to films and games, playing live and merchandise from playing live. Labels get their money through other revenue streams and they are able to start experimenting with their sounds, seeing where they can lead their audience and generally becoming the ‘artists’ that they have always had the potential to have.
So whats this got to do with Mandelson? Well next time I will explore his plans of controlling what we do on the internet, and whether it really will make any difference to anyone at all.
