The rise and rise of the career politician

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on March 2, 2014 at 13:59

It's funny but I think Labour's biggest critics are people who used to vote for them unquestioningly but now think about it a bit. Why would I bother criticising the Tories? I know exactly who they are and who they're for and there's no way I would ever vote for them. I'll concentrate my ire, as do many Labour Party members, on the Labour Party.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on March 2, 2014 at 15:43

I don't think anyone votes Labour "unquestioningly" any more, if they ever did. What, you think there are sheep all baying "two legs baaad"? Thatcherism converted the nation into "switchers" - she got lots of Labour votes, so how was that possible?

Do you hope that people will rise up and not vote Labour because some Labour activists have corrupted the selection process in St Anns? Or is it wider than that - do you hope people will see the  corruption in St. Anne's ward as evidence of a corrupt party either in Haringey or in the UK?

Hard to square when you and I both know fine people who are also Labour - honourable, principled people worth voting for. Hard to believe that Labour is too corrupt (given that all power corrupts) to govern, isn't it? Or is it that you don't actually believe in politics?

I wonder how many people on this site take every opportunity to spread the feeling that Labour in Haringey is somehow not worthy of a vote, despite the overwhelming numbers of people who have consistently voted Labour here for decades. I think the Lib Dems have decided that this will help their party,so they pounce. It has a damaging effect - people do not think they can affect what happens here, and turn away from the political process. 

That's fair enough, it's a free country but it's such a shame if people slur to advance their views and get away with it - it leads to a general hatred of almost everything - people, particularly when they can hide behind anonymity, seem to delight in being as horrible as possible (right up to death threats) and I think we can do something about that.

When the BNP looked threatening, it was surely exposure to their views (like the appearance on Question Time) that finally made people realise that they deserved to be abolished - they were beyond the pail.  If we take on and expose the Lib Dems trying to dis Haringey and Harringay for political gain, surely that will help - challenge their ideas and views. At least it will serve to raise the level of debate :)

So, what is your aim in criticising the wider Labour movement? 

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on March 2, 2014 at 15:54

My criticism of the "Labour movement" is that they're actually now so close to Tory views on the world (harass the unemployed until they kill themselves or accept crap work for crap pay for instance) that it's hard to vote for them. In Haringey we have a large cadre of "the right" in the Labour Party... how the hell did that happen? This is Tottenham, innit?

I am beginning to think the corruption in St Ann's is confined to neither the Labour Party, nor Haringey such has been the shrugging of shoulders from people on the inside.

Now that they've ditched their financial link with the unions how are they a "Labour movement"?

Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on March 2, 2014 at 16:26

Thanks John - this is worth discussing.

>> they're actually now so close to Tory views on the world (harass the unemployed until they kill themselves or accept crap work for crap pay for instance) that it's hard to vote for them.

>>In Haringey we have a large cadre of "the right" in the Labour Party... how the hell did that happen? This is Tottenham, innit?

>>I am beginning to think the corruption in St Ann's is confined to neither the Labour Party, nor Haringey such has been the shrugging of shoulders from people on the inside.

>>Now that they've ditched their financial link with the unions how are they a "Labour movement"?

The problem I see is that any mass movement is bound to reflect the  diversity of the views of their supporters - in my lifetime, the possibility of embracing these differences whilst maintaining a consensus has been really heartwarming.  

I used to have quite a few gay friends and it was hell for them - one actually had his throat cut on Hampstead Heath by homophobes (he survived). It was so wrong and the whole society was corralled into hating them and they did brilliantly - they changed the world for the better and now I don't know how many of my friends are gay - it's none of my business unless they want it to be. Make no mistake, there is still homophobia, but now it's illegal and socially unacceptable. That is a real advance in a hard-to-change set of public views.

So, all sorts of people are present in the Labour party and many of them have special views that can only come from particular experiences - how do you deal with that?  You advance your arguments, that's how.

If the party does become more right-wing, is that surprising?  Politicians say that all their policies come from the people and the people are more right-wing than ever, aren't they? There are a huge number of people in every ward that could get involved with the community and, if they did, we would all benefit tremendously - why don't they?  They have been convinced by the right wing that it is not in their interests to be in the "big society". The political parties are obliged to accommodate that view whilst attempting to change it.

The idea that Labour, for instance, is the party of nationalisation is ridiculous now - it seemed a really good idea at the time but the people did not want it, so it was dropped.  Every political party is like that - they try to represent and promote "core" opinion but people change and, often for pragmatic political reasons, parties embrace whatever their supporters support.

Isn't it amazing that, to be a Tory, you need to openly support gay marriage?  If I had written that even a few years ago, nobody would have agreed. Labour have always supported gay rights and now everyone else has caught up.  Labour have learned that being too radical loses votes, so, for example, they instituted the idea of continuing the policies of their opponents when they take over from them.

I do not think that Labour is particularly right-wing, I think they reflect the public's right-wingedness. I bet the majority of "right-leaning" Labour voters in Haringey are well off - what would you do if you ran Labour with people like that?

One strength attached to Brits is their pragmatism - be pragmatic John - don't leave a sinking ship.

Join the crew and help right it. Stop the leaning (to the right). Steer it right.

Are you really interested in politics or is it that you are looking for an excuse to succumb to the "couldn't be bothered" feeling that plagues us all?

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on March 2, 2014 at 18:34

I call "rubbish" on your assertion that the British are more right wing than they used to be. Look at how may people want the railways nationalised (yougov link)? I think people might be a bit more nasty and selfish but these are bad things and not justifiable as a political view.

Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on March 2, 2014 at 18:54

>>I call "rubbish" on your assertion that the British are more right wing than they used to be. 

In 2010 the country voted for a more right-wing party than Labour - agreed? So, they're less left-wing then, OK?

Permalink Reply by Liz on March 2, 2014 at 22:26

No, people voted for change and they voted for a lie. That Cameron and his cronies were really centrist politicians hardly different from Blair and Brown. Who can blame them for falling for this? It didn't seem too incredible. The Third Way was the new politics. And the Tories didn't win. No one did. Who would have thought the cuddly Lib Dems could have been so comfortable with the right wing assaults on the welfare state? But those at the top are from the same stable as Cameron and his crew. More in common with each other than the grass roots of their own party I would suggest. It was a con and a stitch up but doesn't prove people lurched to the right.

Re people are more right wing. I go back to my history books to the legislation brought in by Roy Jenkins to de-criminalise homosexuality. If Jenkins had been following the wishes of the majority, that would never have happened. He knew full well that what he was doing was right and just but not supported by most British people that voted Labour. Cameron supported gay marriage even though most of his supporters aren't fans because he recognises the same need for equality. Sometimes the people have to catch up, especially in matters of equality, and the majority do as soon as something becomes the norm in their daily life.

So I don't think that people are more right wing now than they used to be. I think they do believe in fairness and caring but they are being propagandised daily out of that into believing things about disabled people and the poor by a corrupt media and politician class. Fortunately, many British people are seeing through this relentless diet of vitriol and want a Labour Party to defend the vulnerable not join the attack. They want a more vigorous defence of the welfare state, the NHS and state education then are seeing from Labour at the moment. If they are not happy, it's because they want Labour to be the party that rights the wrongs of rampant capitalism not offer feeble excuses for it.

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on March 2, 2014 at 22:23

Chris, over and again you suggest that because John McMullan - and other people - don't agree with your rose-tinted views about the Labour Party that he (and we) must therefore be wholly against the Party.  That any criticism of Haringey Labour is for: "people to realise how evil they are,  so you"  [critics] "get what you want - for people to vote Lib Dem."

Or because critics believe: "that Labour is too corrupt (given that all power corrupts) to govern...." Or because the critics "don't actually believe in politics".

You suggest that criticism is a "slur" on the "fine people who are also Labour - honourable, principled people worth voting for."

You write that:

"... many people on this site take every opportunity to spread the feeling that Labour in Haringey is somehow not worthy of a vote, despite the overwhelming numbers of people who have consistently voted Labour here for decades." And that these people are: "Lib Dems [who] have decided that this will help their party, so they pounce".  "And that this:"has a damaging effect - people do not think they can affect what happens here, and turn away from the political process."

In your all-or-nothing view you see the sole option as: "to join the [Labour] crew and help right it." In other words: "to steer it". And to: "stop the leaning (to the right)."

Here's my personal reply to your criticisms.

One irony is that John McMullan has consistently made a similar argument to you -suggesting that people join the Labour Party and take an active part in it.

I've not seen anyone suggesting that Haringey Labour is "evil".  If they did it would be meaningless and absurd. And yes, I agree that there are "fine people" standing as Labour candidates on 22 May.  Of the three Labour candidates in your Crouch End ward I only know Lourdes Keever personally.  She will make a great councillor. I've never met Jason Arthur and Natan Doron, but if you've spoken with them and rate them highly then of course you will campaign and vote for them.

I agree that some people on this site: "take every opportunity" to attack Labour.  They are Labour's political opponents. Why would they do anything different?

My own often expressed view is that Haringey residents should vote Labour - but only for genuine candidates of the Left, who they should ask to meet and talk to. I've never urged anyone to vote Tory. Not even if they are wearing red or Ed-rosettes. Maybe the fact that there are some of the latter in key positions in Haringey Labour is too painful a possibility for you to face up to?

You ask about rule-breaking and vote-rigging at St Ann's Ward Selection. If some people won't vote Labour because of St Ann's.  Well, we already know this is the case. I don't know whether it'll be a handful of people; or hundreds; or many more.

You ask if some electors will see what happened in Anne's ward as "evidence of a corrupt party either in Haringey or in the UK?   I agree that some now do. Perhaps more will. But if that happens then Labour Party officials , paid and unpaid, both locally and nationally, only have themselves to blame. They and their apologists have continued to pretend that there was a full and proper investigation. And that the selection was "sound". They either know perfectly well this is untrue; or find it more comfortable to convince themselves of a flimsy fiction.

The sad thing is that all the Labour Party needed to do was to rerun the selection process excluding "members" who do not reside at the home address claimed in their application forms. 

The Labour Party's cover-up at local, regional and national level has been cynical and spineless. The continuing silence of other local party members suggests people who see winning elections as a worthwhile prize for abandoning their moral compass.

Chris, if some of these people are now Labour candidates not just in St Ann's and Harringay ward but across the borough people are they "somehow not worthy of a vote", as you put it?  Your vote and my vote?

In my view, anyone who is not prepared to stand up and speak out against vote-rigging and rule-breaking  in their own Party selection of candidates does not deserve anyone's vote in a local election.

(Tottenham Hale ward councillor 1998-2014.  Also former Tottenham Labour Party Constituency Secretary. Former ward branch secretary and branch chair. My wife Zena Brabazon is one of the two deselected councillors in St Ann's ward. The other is Cllr David Browne. Anyone new to the St Ann's scandal , fuller information please on discussion threads. Here and also  here.)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on March 3, 2014 at 23:12

This a penetrating analysis and I thank you for it - I can see that I am wrong in several key respects and will try to change - I realise, reading what you write, that my views come across as what you kindly describe as "rose tinted" and that a fault I exhibit is the TINA one (there is no alternative) that galled when Thatcher started to chant it. I honestly don't mean TINA, I only mean that, if you follow the logic I use, you can reach a single conclusion on which to act - it's not the only one possible if you introduce other factors - guess I tend to leave too many of them out and should hedge everything with caveats, and will try to be less rosy and less dogmatic in future.

One of the many differences between us is that I have never seen any local political corruption before now in a lifetime of being interested in local politics - I expect there to be some proportional to the size of every party (although the smaller ones seem to have more) so I am not surprised to see it occur in what might be seen as a relatively safe ward for Labour and it hurts, but for me it's very, very rare.

These are not excuses for my views but a wise person, having nothing of value to add should shut up, so I will. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on March 4, 2014 at 9:42

Alan I read your post with interest. As you know, I'm standing in the local election (for a competing party). Despite all the work that candidates of most parties are putting in, one thing that should concern them – and anyone interested in politics – is the possibility, even probability, of a low turnout. It could be in the region of 35% – again.

Some conduct promotes cynicism about politics and politicians.

I do think it is something of an indictment of the local Labour Party that, after 15 years of service, a person of your ability was expelled from the Group: and why you lost the whip.

Your earlier, principled stand against one of your erstwhile party colleagues was seen as disloyal and rocking the boat. Where others consciously make "career" moves, yours was hardly a career move. Unless more people like you stand up and be counted, the local body politic will continue to limp along and Haringey residents will suffer sub-optimal service.

Most parties will continue to have members who believe that everything their party does is perforce 100% right, and that the other parties are necessarily 100% wrong. I don't think either of us fit that description, but we will always have with us the Totally Tribal.

BTW, I thank you for your earlier (over-) generous remarks regarding my formal complaint against Cllr. Adje. Most of the groundwork was laid by a senior council officer who commissioned the first of the three Walklate Reports. That was to investigate the development of the Licence to Firoka. It sounds innocent enough, but her action was courageous.

Although I did put a lot of work into the complaint, I did little more than to draw attention, in a systematic way, to the political component and responsibility that was hinted at—but missing from—the first two reports.

The voter-rigging in St Anns has resisted all attempts to lift up the carpet. The local Labour machine for reasons best known to itself appears to have orchestrated the de-selection of two of its best councillors. It is frightening how few people actually make these choices.

In the past, few would notice the sweeping under the carpet of such things. Labour may have made this vote-rigging stick this time, but they are now known for it – and thanks to the persistence of new media like HOL, they will be remembered for it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on March 4, 2014 at 14:13

Clive, about Charles Adje and Firoka: Without your relentless persistence and referral to the Standards Committee I don't believe that anything much would have happened. In particular probing into Charles Adje's dealings with Firoka and the Licence wouldn't have been so thorough. We would not know that it cost Haringey at least £1.5 million. And Cllr Adje would not have been temporarily suspended from both Haringey Council and its Labour Group.

I also think it's a failure of your own Party that they have not set up a strong and effective local team in White Hart Lane ward to draw attention to this, and to offer local residents an alternative to both Charles Adje and Gideon Bull, his fellow ward councillor.

If you're elected we'll have to wait and see whether your own Party tries to gag you. Or whether it supports your efforts and works with you to uncover future scandals.  Especially any scandals involving the LibDems!

About  St Ann's ward selection of Labour candidates you wrote that: "The voter-rigging in St Anns has resisted all attempts to lift up the carpet",  

I find this comment astonishing.  Not only was the carpet lifted, it was heaved out into the sunlight and had a really good hard shaking. That process is still going on. Both Labour Party members and non-members have opened windows and doors to let fresh air into the ward's business; the operation of Labour's Local  Campaign Forum; and London and National Party bodies.

Although what's been resisted so far, are attempts to clean up the mess and make sure it doesn't happen again.

So maybe it's time to remind everyone concerned about the Seven Principles of Public Life drawn up by the Nolan Committee (Committee on Standards in Public Life). In my view, they override Party loyalties. And should apply not just to people elected to public office, but to the staff of political parties; and to volunteers who put themselves forward for posts in their local party wards and constituencies.

1. Selflessness - holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.
2. Integrity - holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.
3. Objectivity - in carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
4. Accountability - holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
5. Openness - holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
6. Honesty - holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
7. Leadership - holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

(Tottenham Hale ward councillor 1998-2014)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on March 4, 2014 at 23:12

relentless persistence

It should not have taken as long as one-and-a-half years from the date of my Complaint to date of the two-day Standards Determination Hearing, that finally saw Cllr. Ajde Found to have brought the Council in disrepute.

The unreasonable delay was unfair to all parties, including to the Subject Member.

He showed no contrition and blamed everyone else. Despite the strong evidence against him (especially the crucial Chair's Briefing Note he failed to share with fellow Trustees) he claimed to investigator Martin Walklate that my Complaint was racially motivated. Anyone in doubt about this Councillor's culpability is invited to read the transcript of the Hearing (728k PDF attached, tidied up, but text is unaltered. Para 934 TM on aggravating factors is worth reading).

As the Complainant and as one of those who attended the whole Hearing, I'm pleased to confirm that the Council's transcript is accurate. I also pay tribute to the resolution of the Council's legal team, especially to Council legal officer Terence Mitchison (now retired), who did has level best to secure a maximum penalty.

The voter-rigging in St Anns has resisted all attempts to lift up the carpet,

OK, I accept that this analogy wasn't well chosen. I certainly don't mean to denigrate the efforts of those who have prised up the carpet and tried to keep it up.

What I meant is that the Labour Party has resisted a proper investigation of the vote rigging in St Ann's Ward and has failed to organise a re-run following official Labour Party rules. The implementation of those rules seems to be on a selective basis.

Disclosure:
am a prospective councillor candidate
Highgate Ward | Liberal Democrat Party

Attachments:

• Determination Hearing —The transcript.pdf, 725 KB

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page