From that book what I am reading:
There was also a degree of disillusion with the political direction of the Labour Party. To the political left and the radical underground, the progress made by Roy Jenkins enacting liberal laws [*] was outweighed by a subsequent drift to the right in 1969 and early 1970: continuing support for America in Vietnam; Home Secretary James Callaghan’s decision to limit the entry into the country of Asians with UK passports fleeing Kenya in 1968; the introduction of prescription charges; rising unemployment; and cutbacks in social services spending. Manchester’s Grass Eye reflected some of this enmity: “The Labour Party is no alternative … non-involvement in politics is a better option than trying to turn the Labour Party into a left-wing party”
What’s the phrase? Plus ça change, plus ça la même chose…
Support for an unpopular American war? Check
Bringing in progressive liberal laws against pressure from the orthodox establishment? Check
Scapegoating political refugees to appease right-wing fears of foreigners? Check
Terrorist groups blowing stuff up left, right and centre? Check
Widespread apathy – letting the Tories in by default? Lets wait and see.
If those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, lets hope that we as a country have learned something from our history and don’t make the same mistakes. Now, as then, the Labour government has done lots of good things and has also done some deeply unpopular things which are overshadowing them.
Those who are prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater should be reminded that just doing nothing can have some disastrous results. Call-me-Dave and his chums are counting on everyone forgetting Thatcher and Major, let alone Heath. We should be reminding them about all the positive, egalitarian changes in society that have come from Labour governments, and all the devisive onces that have come from the Tories.
* – that would be relaxing censorship of the arts, support for the Sexual Offences act of 1967 which legalised homosexual acts, and support for the acts which made legalised abortions available, the NHS (Family Planning) Act which made birth control centres possible and the relaxing of divorce laws.
What’s the book?
It is called Not Abba – the real story of the 1970s by Dave Haslam. I got it in Worthing for £2.99 from one of those remainder-type shops which seem over-stocked with gardening and cookery books.
The blurb says:
There is disillusion with NuLabor, not Labour, and its apologists and appeasers.
It treatment of old socialists is disgraceful (“Facts correct but comments untrue”, Crawley News, Feb 21) 🙂
I think the only treatment involved has been totally fair and nothing to do with “old” or “new” Labour. Being old does not automatically make you above sticking to rules.
The Labour party makes very few conditions on their members if they want to stand for election as a councillor, maybe about six, and Ben Clay deliberately ignored two of them.
He may have waffled on about travellers for a couple of paragraphs to try and give the impression that he is being victimised for voting against the group at a traveller-related meeting last January, but he avoids actually saying that as he knows it is not true.
The group actually withrew the whip, as everyone knows, because of his refusal to accept a group decision at last year’s annual council meeting.
If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime, as they say!
“His refusal to accept a group decision”…ummm, one reason why an independent voice would be healthy for local democracy 🙂
Are you suggesting that you would have made a better councillor than the one you got?
You might say that but I couldn’t possibly comment… (To quote a recently-deceased and much-missed actor)
You might say that, but I couldn’t possibly comment either 🙂
“The group actually withrew the whip, as everyone knows, because of his refusal to accept a group decision at last year’s annual council meeting.”
so following your principles rather than folowing the crowd is a punishable offence in todays Labour Party? – presumably you think similar action should be taken against all those MP’s who voted against Labour’s war in Iraq?
You might say that, Ash, but they couldn’t possibly comment – the mental gymnastics required is simply beyond the ‘party faithful’…and Clay is an easier target than Blair.
Perhaps if Clay changed his name to Cassius, and Blair changed his name to Eric, we might find a better Labour Party in the future…
Ash, you assume that Ben Clay dissented on a point of principle?
It was over who would get the job of ‘Vice-Chair of Licensing”, which carries a salary of £2162 on top of a standard councillor’s allowance. Ben Clay now holds that post.
Not really about a point of difference over policy, or some moral objection to the consensus, let alone related to the direct wishes of the electorate.
Some ‘socialist’.
Yawn…
Richard, what’s up? Are facts not interesting enough, that you have to deal only in runour and innuendo.
That was the issue which resulted in Ben’d suspension, like it or not.
I’m used to Danivon always beating me to the answer elsewhere online – it was only a matter of time before it started happening here too…
In reply to Ash’s comment (No 9), while its correct that there was not really a matter of principle, unless wanting more allowances is a priciple, I don’t think it is the same as with MPs – although I’m the first to admit I don’t know exactly how they do things in parliament.
If the leadership of the part or group make some sort of executive decision without consultation first and then expect all the members to follow it I don’t have a problem with someone going against – unless the decision was something covered in the manifesto which those members campaigned under.
If the entire group meet and take a decision then that is quite different. It is called collective responsibility and considered part of the deal. As Richard has found it is very difficult to get elected as an independent. In some places you only stand a chance of being elected by being part of a party and there is an implicit contract that the party makes you electable and you follow that party’s line.
When there is a genuine matter of conscience, it is actually very rare to have a whipped vote. And if a member has a problem with a whipped decision they can talk to the whip beforehand and usually get a sympathetic response.
Richard will take this as an argument in favour of independent politicians, but then he takes everything as an argument for independent politicians.
I don’t have a problem with the idea of independence per se, although as a voter I have no idea what many of them stand for on anything beyond a single issue in the majority of cases.
Well, this particular Independent in Ifield will be standing on at least 5 issues in May :
1. EDUCATION AND SCHOOLS – eg Hot School Meals, Playing Field sell-offs, and PFI.
2. HEALTH AND HOSPITALS – eg new NHS Hospital in Pease Pottage.
3. PLANNING AND HOUSING – eg Ifield Golf Course and Village Conservation Area, and Council Housing.
4. TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS – eg ‘Farceway’ and Cycle Paths
5. WAR AND THE BNP
Now I’ve told you all my election secrets – or have I ?
There are two ‘ace cards’ to play, and no-one is going to know until the very last moment – except an Independent.
Brilliant. One out of five is actually relevant to the council you want to be elected to 🙂 (OK. One and a half as CBC has some involvement in cyclepaths)
How about green spaces? rubbish collection? recycling? expansion or diversification of the local economy? community centres? quality of local shopping parades?
If Crawley became a Unitary Council (with City Status), all the Independent issues mentioned would be highly “relevant”.
Roll on “Gatwick City Council” 🙂