Sunday, February 07, 2010

Operation Black Vote: CLG MP Shadowing Scheme

"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time.

We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.”

President Barack Hussein Obama

Our House?

The need to urgently address the systemic under-representation of Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BME) communities in our local, regional and national democratic institutions is imperative. Of 646 MPs, only 15 are from BME communities. Of those, only 2 are women, and to date, there has not been an Asian woman MP. A closer reflection of society would be nearer 60 MPs of which over half would be women.

Operation Black Vote in partnership with the Communities and Local Government (CLG) are delighted to re-launch the dynamic MP Shadowing Scheme. The aim of the project is to address the deficit of BME individuals in all areas and at levels of political life for the benefit of all communities.

The Programme

The cross-party programme will enable 25 dynamic BME individuals aged 18 years upwards to shadow senior Members of Parliament from constituencies around Britain. Participants will gain an invaluable experience of parliamentary politics at Westminster and in the local constituency. The programme will comprise of approximately 10-12 non-consecutive days over a six-month period and individuals will participate in a mixture of shadowing days and training sessions.

What is the next step?

If you are interested in applying to the programme, act now.

Applications can be obtained via:

Web: www.obv.org.uk

E-mail: mpATobvDOTorgDOTuk

Tel: Francine Fernandes - 0208 983 5426

Application deadline: Monday 15th February 2010 at 12 noon".

(double click picture to bring up detail - hat-tip thingy SERTUC)

45 comments:

Mike Law said...

If you really support this, why are you contesting a seat on the council when the candidacy could have been given to a BME Labour member?

Are we to believe that no credible BME candidates came forward for the ward you'll be contesting? How many Labour candidates are from the BME or female membership?

Anonymous said...

Do you have to be an ethnic minority to apply?

Anonymous said...

John
I am a local Labour Party member. Really I have some mixed feelings on this.
Certainly it is healthy for parliament to reflect as well as to represent the society it serves. One can hardly object to such a 'shadowing scheme' on this basis.
However, the real issue is not the colour of people's skin - though in a society suffused with a degree of racism that colour inevitably carries a significance - but the politics of people. I remember a young BME candidate, who subsequently became an MP, canvassing in our own constituency. She had done all the right things. But she seemed to me entirely without politics. Later she became mired in the expenses scandal.
Obama is a great president, in my opinion, because he is a great president, and the most left-leaning since at least Johnson and probably since FDR. He is not a great president because he is black, though one would hardly deny the enormous significance of his election to African Americans and to people of African heritage across the globe. It is a symbolic significance.
The 'shadowing scheme' appears laudable, but who are these 'dynamic' BME candidates? How are they picked? And what is their politics? It's just no use replacing young careerist white technocratic politicians, out of touch with the needs of ordinary people, with a new cohort of politicians who differ only in terms of ethnicity. The real challenge is to mobilise all the poor, who don't bother to vote - black, white, brown, yellow or whatever, and also to develop a politics that can serve the needs of ordinary people. Something our party is not doing well at the moment.

John Gray said...

Hi Mike
“When the candidacy could have been given to a BME Labour member”? Not sure what you mean by that? Do the Tories give out candidacy based on race? They don’t and if they did they would find themselves in trouble in the courts. I haven’t checked the figures but my impression is that the current make up of Newham Labour councillors reflects our community.

Things can be better but Newham Labour is a beacon of excellence when you compare us to many others councils and the Houses of Parliament. The Tories are particular rubbish at all levels of BME representation. It is a shame that you think that this important subject is suitable for silly political point scoring. But there you go.

Hi Anon 22.06
I can understand concerns but this is I think a genuine non partisan campaign to try and make our Parliament more representative. This is a simply a good news story. Win, win, and win.

Anonymous said...

John

In view of this, do you think the Labour Party made the right decision in Newham in its selection of our mayoral candidate?

Mike Law said...

John,

Understandably, you wouldn’t know what I mean as you were not involved in the selection of candidates for the 2002 local elections – I was, and I took an active part in the selection process. During that round of selecting candidates an edict was passed down from London Region that preference should be given to BME and female members with the proviso that each individual provided evidence that they had spent the last year attending party meetings and, whenever possible, had done some campaigning for the party. Sadly, thinks didn’t quite turn out as planned in Newham, courtesy of our current comedy mayor and his chums.

You state that Newham Labour is a “beacon of excellence” with regard to BME and female representation to elected posts. The current Labour representation on the Council is 44% BME and 35% female; pretty good. In actual numbers there are 8 BME women, 16 BME men and 11 white women. Of those, 2 BME women, 2 white women and 4 BME men are first-time councillors (in this borough) – that’s 16% of the total Labour representation.

However, it is the last percentage figure that is of interest. The greater number of current labour councillors served on the 2002-2006 council. Of those I can say that my experience confirms the doubts expressed by Anon. 22:06. I can think of one example of an issue that should have been taken up by the BME members on the council but instead they took a “head in the sand” approach in the hope that the issue would blow over. Had they made a collective stand (which did not require that they adopt a position that was in opposition to the mayor), a protracted and embarrassing controversy may have been nipped in the bud.

I have no idea what the Conservatives do on this issue, why should I? As for petty political points scoring, well, you’re the expert on that topic. However, my inquiry was genuine (I’m intrigued by the fact that YOU see scope in such an inquiry for someone to make political capital from your response). I have mixed views about it and Anon 22:06 touches on some of my concerns regarding this issue.


Anon. 22:06

As stated, I agree with most of the points you make. To my mind, were each political party truly democratic and representative, it shouldn’t matter one iota what sex, creed or religion an elected representative of a party is as that representative would be an advocate for that organisations collective policy agenda. When I was a Labour Party member I used to bang on ad nauseum about the need to regularly rotate the candidates for council (and parliament). I’m still baffled by the fact that some people refer to politics as a job and a career. It amuses me that, with all the talk of inclusion and equality within the Labour Party, should Wales be re-elected in May, by the end of the 2010 – 2014 term the same white, male individual will have been at the helm of a Labour controlled authority for 19 years! If his policies are LABOUR policies, surely it is not beyond the Party to find a credible woman or BME member to put forward those policies on the council?

My youngest daughter is toying with the idea of applying for the OBV programme; if she is successful, I only hope she’s paired with a decent MP.

On Lyndon Johnson and FDR, I picked up Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascists” a few days ago; it’s a very interesting read.

Mike Law said...

Sorry, the book title is "Liberal Fascism".

John Gray said...

Hi Mike
You self evidently don’t realise how petty and obsessive you can appear from your comments? Still, this one was quite informative even though I think that you have got your figures slightly wrong (I make it 50% BME current make up?)

I also think that while there is nothing wrong with encouraging BME candidates it is illegal to discriminate “in favour” on those grounds alone?

I shall wait and see how many black Tory female candidates there are in May? You know why.
But I do hope your daughter does have a go at the OBV programme. She can also join Newham Young Labour!

Goldberg is a oddball. Nazi's are IMO not social progressives.

Mike Law said...

You’re right, I don’t. Maybe you could explain how my comments are petty and obsessive – that is, in comparison to some of the comments you make. Everything I stated in my previous comment is fact (even down to the number of BME Labour councillors are currently on the council), or are you telling me that London Region didn’t make the request I mentioned and I’m making it up?

It may well be illegal to discriminate in favour of BME candidates, but I don’t see where I mentioned discriminating in such a way. However, how do we justify not having an all BME shortlist when we quite happily have all women shortlists?

You’re wrong, I don’t understand why you’re waiting to see how many black Conservative female candidates there will be in May. Personally, I couldn’t care less.

Thanks for supporting my daughter. You’re barking up the wrong tree with regard to trying to recruit her to the Labour Party. She is strongly of the opinion that the Labour Party in this country is a divisive movement and she thinks it patronises black UK citizens of Caribbean descent.

All I stated was that Goldberg’s book was an interesting read; I don’t feel that I know enough about him to pass judgement on the man, and I’ll reserve judgement on the book until I finish it.

I’m sure Goldberg would think the same of you if he read your blog. Why, in your opinion, were Nazis not progressives?

John Gray said...

Hi Mike
Let others decide who is obsessive or not. I still make it 50%.

There was I believe a change in the law to allow positive discrimination with regard to female candidates. I suspect that unless Parliament increases its number of BME members then the same will have to happen. I doubt the voluntary approach will work.

I would suggest that your daughter goes along to a Newham Young Labour event and see what she thinks? I think they are going “Hope Not Hate” campaigning on Saturday in B&D. I’ll post details later.

There are many. A big one is that Progressives don’t try to exterminate a race.

Mike Law said...

What others? You’re the one who called me obsessive. In any event, I’m happy with being obsessive about issues that concern me; I don’t see being labelled obsessive as having any negative connotation in this instance.

The percentage of BME members on Newham Council is 44.5%

You can suggest what you like, but it’ll get nowhere with that particular daughter. For information: she doesn’t need any prompting regarding anti-racist campaigning (I can now see why she thinks the Labour Party patronising – thanks for the illustration).

On the Nazis as a progressive party: do you not think the Nazis social and economic policies were in line with progressive thinking?

John Gray said...

Hi
Anyone who reads your comments and my replies I suppose. Each to their own but being obsessive about anything isn’t good.

I still make it 50%? Have you included Jewish members?

It was only a suggestion. You’re being obsessive again!

No – apart the horrible dark side they were extremely regressive in everything – economics, social, politics, art, culture...That is their point.

Don’t confuse the vote wining populous policies with their core beliefs.

Anonymous said...

John, Mike
I think your debate highlights more than anything the problems with an uncritical use of a word like 'progressive'. There are other terms like 'neo-liberal' that are bandied about in a similar uncritical way which only hampers debate rather than enlightens.

It is impossible however to avoid the mix of (often contrary) elements that made up, and makes up, what we call fascism. The Nazis were after all, translated, the National Socialist German Workers Party. Their policies were a mix of things that Enlightenment thinking might characterise as 'regressive' and 'progressive'. The true believers, the real radicals (kind of red-green nationalists if you like) were purged, very pragmatically in the Night of the Long Knives, after which the Nazi regime made a pragmatic accommodation with capital.

Fascism is hard to fit into a convenient box. But I think it is vital that we try a deeper analysis of fascism, otherwise we will fail to recognise it when it emerges in other forms. And interestingly Tony Benn in one of his recent volumes spelled out his fears for the potential fascism within 'New Labour'. (And we shouldn't forget that Moseley was a member of Labour's NEC and tipped for the leader either...)

Mike Law said...

So you would say that you’re never obsessive? Even taking into consideration some of your Unison posts? What some would refer to as obsessive in others may well just be passion for an issue. My reading of the way you use the term is that it’s just another part of your arsenal of words you use to label someone who disagrees with you.

I didn’t count Jewish members – it’s a religion, not an ethnicity, as is Islam; my mother doesn’t consider herself as part of the lumped-together BME community, she sees herself as a white, working class, East End woman who happens to have been born into a Jewish family.

“Don’t confuse the vote wining populous policies with their core beliefs” – couldn’t that be said of the current Labour Party?

On the Nazis, I’m starting to warm to Goldberg’s argument that their policy platform was progressive – his evidence is quite compelling, especially when considered in comparison with contemporary regimes.

John Gray said...

Hi Mike (and anon)

Maybe, but I hope I don’t take myself that seriously. Obsessions and obsessive’s is generally a bad thing to my mind. But “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and all that.

Interesting point about whether or not you are Jewish which sparked off a debate in the Goose last night after EC with J&J. I know people who are fervent atheists (and anti-Zionists) but who still consider themselves to be “Jewish”. The "official" State religion of Britain is the Church of England. Does that mean all those who are not that kind of Protestants are not British?

The Labour party has nearly always pursued vote wining populous policies. It is not a debating society or Students union it is in the business of winning elections to govern. Generally when it doesn't have populous policies it loses.

Nazism is a political creed based on racial hatred and the belief that some people are superior to others due to their race. Nothing else about them matters.

For what it is worth Moseley before he left was more old Labour than new.

Mike Law said...

I still haven’t had an explanation from you telling my how, and about what, I was “obsessive” in the comment you referred to.

I never made a point about being “Jewish”(what is it that you actually see when you read the comments on this blog?). I stated that I don’t consider being Jewish (or being a worshiper of any faith) equating to being a member of an ethnic minority. How people label themselves with regard to belief is purely a matter for them, as illustrated by your atheist, anti-Zionist, Jewish acquaintances.

I don’t understand why you brought in your bizarre reference to the Church of England and other Protestant denominations – how does that relate to ethnicity? But, to respond to you odd question, be they C of E, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anabaptist, Congregationalist, Methodist, Baptist, Spiritualist, Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Orthodox Jewish, Haredi Jewish, Modern Orthodox Jewish, Liberal Jewish, Sunni Muslim, Shia Muslim, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Pagan, Jedi Knight, Atheist or of any other belief, if they are British citizens they are British.

That the Labour Party is not, as you put it, a debating society or Students’ Union is something of a great shame. If it mostly follows a programme of populous policies it follows that it can be argued that the party has no core values. Being in the business of winning elections to govern – I wonder what the Nazis would have made of that?

Regardless of the racial hatred, surely you agree that a good number of their policies were progressive?

On Mosley: what is the logic here? Old Labour = fascism; New Labour = enlightened liberalism? Old Labour = bad; New Labour = good?

John Gray said...

Hi Mike
Check your comments (even this one on “making a point” – where did that one come from?). You are “night and day”, “Mike knows best” - about all your views (aka as bees in bonnet). This is Great! (Most of the time)

You did in fact make an interesting point about being “Jewish” or not. You don’t consider yourself to be Jewish - which is fine and dandy. Most Jews I believe would.

My point about religion and ethnicity is admittedly a bit weak but I was trying to address your view that they are different. They may be but in many cases they are not. Most (not all) Greeks are members of the Orthodox Church etc.

I can think of a huge number of ways the Labour Party could improve its internal democracy but the last time it was a debating society was 1979 and 1983. We all know what then happened.

The Nazi never won a majority under a free democratic election.

No, I would not call their policies “progressive” this is a complete abuse of the word. You might as call the Yorkshire Ripper a good husband because he use to wash his own work overalls.

“Baronet” Mosley started off as a Tory, he then crossed the floor to Labour and left them only because they were not "radical" enough (high tariffs and massive increased public expenditure to combat unemployment).

So the New Labour fascist “slur” is actually just daft (sorry Tony)

Anonymous said...

John

The German Nazi Party won the Federal election of 1932 with the largest proportion of the vote (38%) and the largest share of seats, 230 out of 608. (It was a PR system, and perhaps we ought to be aware that PR can have unforseen consequences... it's not a panacea).


I think Tony Benn was absolutely right to warn about fascism from 'New Labour' - though thank goodness it did not go further in this direction. The notion of the 'third way' was something historically associated with fascism I believe - a kind of opportunistic (triangulation) - a rag bag of politics to maintain power. The most serious aspect of New Labour's politics were probably its instinctive authoritarianism, plus its militarism, and at times a nasty whiff of crude nationalism. We ought not think that fascism will always emerge with goosestepping Nazis or Hitlerite parties like the BNP... If we don't have a deeper understanding of fascism we may fail to recognise it.

As for Labour being a 'debating society' in 1979 and 1983 - I think you mean that it was democratic. If I remember correctly more voters actually voted for the 1983 programme than the 2005 one. Blair benefited from a very weak Tory party and a declining turnout.

Under Blair Labour essentially became a party that no longer aimed to represent the interests of ordinary people - the 'working classes' if you like. I do hope that situation may improve - which is why (deluded or not) I remain in the party.

Mike Law said...

I think Anon 18:43 eloquently addressed a good deal of your last comment.

But I’d like to add the following:

“Check your comments (even this one on “making a point” – where did that one come from?). You are “night and day”, “Mike knows best” - about all your views (aka as bees in bonnet). This is Great! (Most of the time).”

I really don’t understand any of this. What are you getting at?

“You did in fact make an interesting point about being “Jewish” or not.”

I expressed my view that being “Jewish” doesn’t necessarily classify an individual as Black or a member of an ethnic minority, which is why I didn’t include Jewish council members in my count of BME Labour councillors. I didn’t make a point about being “Jewish”.

In your comment at 07:26 on the 11th, you stated: “Interesting point about whether or not you are Jewish…”. I worked from the premise that you mistakenly read my explanation as to how my mother views her ethnicity as a comment on whether or not she (and I) happen to be “Jewish”. It wasn’t a point about being Jewish, it was an illustration of how she doesn’t see herself as a member of the BME community. She’s white, she was born in Poplar, her parents were Jewish, she is “Jewish” but she does not observe that faith .

“You don’t consider yourself to be Jewish - which is fine and dandy. Most Jews I believe would.”

I like this one! Can you point out where I stated that I didn’t consider myself “Jewish”? And I particularly like the way that, in any event, you’ve decided that I’m a Jew and point out that most Jews would consider themselves Jewish. Gosh! You love a label, don’t you.

“My point about religion and ethnicity is admittedly a bit weak but I was trying to address your view that they are different. They may be but in many cases they are not. Most (not all) Greeks are members of the Orthodox Church etc.”

What?

“I can think of a huge number of ways the Labour Party could improve its internal democracy but the last time it was a debating society was 1979 and 1983. We all know what then happened. “

This doesn’t really explain why policies shouldn’t be debated, and agreed by the wider party.

[I've had to post this comment over two submissions]

Mike Law said...

[Continued...]

“No, I would not call their policies “progressive” this is a complete abuse of the word. You might as call the Yorkshire Ripper a good husband because he use to wash his own work overalls.”

I’ve lifted these from the NSDAP programme:

We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.
The abolition of incomes unearned by work.
The breaking of the slavery of interest
1n view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.
We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.
The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labour, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.
We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State.


Taking into consideration the period in time this programme was put forward, would you not call them progressive?

I don’t call the Yorkshire Ripper a good husband… I don’t get the point you’re trying to make here.

““Baronet” Mosley started off as a Tory, he then crossed the floor to Labour and left them only because they were not "radical" enough (high tariffs and massive increased public expenditure to combat unemployment). “

Still don’t get this.

So the New Labour fascist “slur” is actually just daft (sorry Tony)

Who made the New Labour fascist “slur”?

I started my comments here by asking why you’re standing as a Labour candidate rather than holding out and pushing for a BME or female member to contest the seat your going for. If the Labour Party, out of electoral necessity, pursues populist policies, surely ANY Labour Party member could promote those policies on the Council?

John Gray said...

Hi Anon 08.37

I think my point is that the Nazi never won a majority in a free election. I am actually a firm supporter of AV. Neither Hitler, Mussolini nor Franco won power by PR.

Labour has always from "get go" stood for a vague incremental reformist “third way” between Revolution and conservatism. Fascism is an extreme form of conservatism not socialism. The concept of Blut und Boden is absolutely crucial in understanding it. Nothing else about them really matters.

1979 and 1983 was a disaster for the Labour Party. I remember canvassing in both elections and it was a simply dreadful, dispiriting experience even in strong Labour areas. We were completely and utterly out of touch.

At the danger of sounding like Neil Lawson I really don’t get this “politics of betrayal“argument.

You can legitimately criticise the policies and actions of the Labour government but anyone who doesn’t think that they do genuinely believe that they are acting in the interests of working people (as they see it) is doomed to spend the rest of their life just barking up the wrong tree.

John Gray said...

Hi Mike 1
I have a view rightly or wrongly that you come over in your posts and comments as being too rigid and too convinced that you are right and anyone who does not agree with you should be taken out and shot (or something like that).

You are more than entitled as is anyone to offer an opinion on your ethnicity. You don’t consider yourself to be BME. Fair enough, however, in my experience other people would. There has been a lot of publicity lately about Jewish Schools who have tried to prevent pupils who do not have a Jewish mother from attending since they have tried to claim they are not Jewish.

I consider myself to be Welsh but I have been told by other (welsh) people that since I have lived in London much longer than I ever lived in Wales I am now in some way English.

Hi Mike 2
This is complete rubbish – you are completely missing the point. Nazism has nothing to do with progressive politics – it is to do with race hatred and dictatorship. Who do you think the comments about death for war profiteers were actually aimed at? Think about it.

So it also appears that you think that white male’s should not be allowed to stand for selection by Party members to be their candidate for Council? Which is surely rather inconsistent and even hypocritical of you don’t you think? Bearing in mind...

Mike Law said...

“I have a view rightly or wrongly that you come over in your posts and comments as being too rigid and too convinced that you are right and anyone who does not agree with you should be taken out and shot (or something like that).”

And there’s the rub, you have a view as stated above. You may well get the impression that I’m “too rigid” and that I’m “too convinced that I am right”, however I comment here putting forward my view on various issues as raised and I approach each with an open mind. If you convince me I'm wrong, or should I change my opinion on an issue, I’ll acknowledge that; if you don’t, I’ll continue to argue my point. For the most part, you tend to start off responding to (and refuting) the points I raise but then, nine times out of ten, you do what you've done here, you make an ad hominem statement and pass it off as a fact (“anyone who does not agree with you should be taken out and shot”).

On your view that I’m too rigid, this is taken from your latest response to Anon: “Labour has always from "get go" stood for a vague incremental reformist “third way” between Revolution and conservatism. Fascism is an extreme form of conservatism not socialism. The concept of Blut und Boden is absolutely crucial in understanding it. Nothing else about them really matters..", indeed, a very flexible point of view.

“You are more than entitled as is anyone to offer an opinion on your ethnicity. You don’t consider yourself to be BME. Fair enough, however, in my experience other people would. There has been a lot of publicity lately about Jewish Schools who have tried to prevent pupils who do not have a Jewish mother from attending since they have tried to claim they are not Jewish.”

Thanks for affording me the entitlement to determine my own ethnicity. For what it’s worth, I know a lot of Jews (some members of my family) who are white and consider themselves white – they’d still say they are Jewish and not all practice the faith. What would you make of George Osborne’s brother, Adam, who converted to Islam so he could marry the woman he loves, is he now BME?

“I consider myself to be Welsh but I have been told by other (welsh) people that since I have lived in London much longer than I ever lived in Wales I am now in some way English. “

Great, you were born in Wales, you consider yourself Welsh – in my book you're Welsh. But this is a reference to your nationality, what has it got to do with your ethnicity? For the record, I’m English.

(cont...)

Mike Law said...

(...cont)

“This is complete rubbish – you are completely missing the point. Nazism has nothing to do with progressive politics – it is to do with race hatred and dictatorship. Who do you think the comments about death for war profiteers were actually aimed at? Think about it.”

I have thought about it, why don’t you? Here’s a quote from Golgberg: “there is no disputing that Nazism was an evil ideology from the first spark of its inception. But that does not mean that every adherent of Nazism was motivated by evil intent. Germans did not collectively decide to be Hollywood villains for all eternity. For millions of Germans the Nazis seemed to offer hope for community and meaning and authenticity, too.” [P 182]

Putting aside the vile nature of Nazism, which of those proposals would not fit in with a progressive agenda?

“So it also appears that you think that white male’s should not be allowed to stand for selection by Party members to be their candidate for Council? Which is surely rather inconsistent and even hypocritical of you don’t you think? Bearing in mind...”

Again, you read into what I write something that isn’t there. I believe anyone has a right to put themselves forward for elected office. I was asking you what you thought about standing down and letting a BME candidate take your place. For my own part, I didn’t want to be a councillor. During the 2002 selections I had a series of run-ins with Wales and his minions over this very issue. I’ve written this before but it is worth repeating.

I made several complaints about the fact that a white, male, newly joined member of the party was accepted on the panel (he hadn’t done any campaigning for Labour and hadn’t even attended a Party meeting) just because Wales wanted him on the Council. The Party at that time was looking for good BME and female candidates and many had been rejected because they hadn’t had the required involvement within the Party. I pulled Wales up on this after an interviewing session, his response was to ask me to stand for Council. I told him I wasn’t interested. “Think of the money” he said. When he saw the look on my face, he quickly changed that to “I need people like you on the Council, people who are not afraid to tell me what they think”. I thought about it, and decided to see if he puts his money where his mouth is… he doesn’t. While I was a Labour councillor, I would have happily stepped down if a decent BME member wanted to contest the seat I represented. If that makes me inconsistent and a hypocrite, so be it.

Anonymous said...

John

Contrary to what you say, the facts about Weimar Germany and the rise of the Nazis speak for themselves. I've already explained that they became the largest party in the election of 1933. Technically they didn't have a 'majority' of the popular vote or the seats but this didn't matter as it turned out.

You can check for yourself whether Hitler came to power on a proportional representation system if you don't believe me - it's really not novel information.

Here is what http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weimar_republic_constitution.htm says - not an academic source but good enough with basic facts:

"Elections were built around universal suffrage and proportional representation. However, the theoretical strength of the constitution was also its Achilles heel. Everybody was allowed to vote including extremists from both sides of the political spectrum - left and right. The system of proportional representation also meant that if any minor party got the necessary votes, they would have party members in the Reichstag. The major parties would continue to dominate the Reichstag, but the minor parties could disrupt proceedings and make the party in power - the Social Democrats - look incapable of maintaining order in its very seat of power. This is exactly what the new Nazi Party did in its early years. It got enough votes to get a few members into the Reichstag (as a result of proportional representation) and those Nazis elected then did what they could to 'prove' to the German people that Ebert and the Social Democrats were incompetent in dealing with such basics as maintaining discipline within the Reichstag.

"The constitution was to play a major part in the years 1930 -1933 when the president, Hindenburg, appointed and sacked chancellors seemingly at will."

So, you are incorrect. Hitler did come to power under a PR system.

You describe fascism as 'an extreme form of conservatism not socialism'. If you were to study the elements that came together to form Mussolini's fascist party you will find that they included socialists, anarchists and syndicalists. Fascism has always included socialist elements in its programme. Please show me an example that has not... Perhaps the most striking example is the Peronist movement in Argentina.

Your understanding of fascism may be in line with much of the liberal centre left thinking, but my view is that this is dangerous. We need to understand our enemy. We also need to understand how decent working class people get drawn into fascism. We need a more subtle understanding. You are in a relatively influential position now which is why I suggest you might wish to look a little deeper into this. In truth I am surprised at the level of your analysis.

As for your final paragraph of your response:
"You can legitimately criticise the policies and actions of the Labour government but anyone who doesn’t think that they do genuinely believe that they are acting in the interests of working people (as they see it) is doomed to spend the rest of their life just barking up the wrong tree." This is merely an assertion of your opinion backed up by nothing, coupled with a little insult. It's not much of a debate is it. But we have to look at the record don't we.
Anti-trade union legislation still on the statute books.
Increasing inequality of income during much of the period and no reversal to pre-1979 levels
Decreased social mobility
And surely the expenses scandal and the money earned from related directorships, lobbying and speechmaking when former ministers (and prime ministers) retire might be enough to suggest that something might have gone just a little bit wrong with our great party?

John Gray said...

Hi Mike 1

Let’s see. If you don’t realise by now how OTT you are most of the time (not to be totally fair all of the time) then there is little hope. I would have thought you would have some self awareness and sensitivity by now. But obviously not.

Anyway back to it. Good that you now seem to recognise that non religious Jews who happen not to agree with you are BME. No, I don’t think that Adam is BME even though he may well suffer discrimination. In the same way that I don’t think that someone who is white and marries an Asian becomes BME?

Like many “English” you just don’t get that most Welsh consider themselves to be ethnically Welsh and not just being people who happen to be born west of an English Offa Dyke.

John Gray said...

Hi Mike 2

This is just missing the point in my view. Just as I don’t think that every member or supporter of the BNP is a Jew and black hating, homophobic fully paid up Nazi there is no real doubt that the BNP party is a National Socialist Political party.

Of course the original German Nazi party adopted poplar and progressive Social democratic ideas to win electoral support.
But for crying out loud don’t you think that this was part and parcel of Nazism.

This is a barmy argument. The BNP support the building of Council Housing but this does not mean for a minute that they are in any way a “progressive movement”. Forget what they put in to sweeten the pill - what was their core policies and beliefs?

Let’s also be clear that originally in this post you clearly stated that a BME member should be “given” a ward candidacy. You might have changed your mind since but considering you bang on about democracy all the time this is a little strange? Never mind that it is unlawful?

Now you seem to suggest that no white candidate can contest a selection contest if there is a “decent” BME candidate? Now all the ward selection panels in Newham had at least one BME candidate? So does this mean that no “white” candidates should have put themselves forward in these selection processes?

Did you never in all your time in the Labour Party stand in an election against a BME member? Or were they all in your mind not “decent” enough for you?

Never mind being” inconstant and hypocrite” do you not realise how patronising you are to say that (long, long after the event) you would have not stood against what you consider to have been a “decent BME”.

As a middle aged white male who gives you the right to decide if any BME member is “decent” or not?

Anonymous said...

John
I don't know if this is significant or not but you have rather worryingly changed colour (to a kind of red - or maybe it's my screen...) in the middle of this thread - and you don't seem to be smiling any more... and your head has shrunk? Has something happened?

John Gray said...

Hi Anon
I think that we are talking a little at cross purposes. My point was that the Nazi never won power with an elected democratic majority. I personally don’t think that HR made that much difference to their rise but either way I don’t think that this is very relevant to modern politics.

This so crucial. Democratic labour activists of all opinions must all stop running the ultra left argument of “betrayal politics”. Yes, the Labour government has done lots of things that I personally think is wrong, but it has also done tons of things that I rejoice in. Things that benefits working class people such as pension credits and minimum wage. It is just stupid to just whine and moan.

We generally all agree that we want social justice and fairness but cannot agree the means to get there. We are all reformists and need to stop the wishful thinking about tomorrow’s impossible socialist utopia and just roll up your selves and just get on with the real job of work.

John Gray said...

Hi anon

Its a new profile pic and I will admit that I am just a little bit red!

Anonymous said...

John

You talk about abandoning the socialist utopia at the very moment that capitalism has been through a meltdown that has imperilled all that we hold dear. The failure of the left (inside or outside the Labour Party) to really come to terms with this is breathtaking.

There are things that the government has done that I support - dramatically increased spending on health, child tax credits, Sure Start, New Deal for Communities. But despite that the overall balance of wealth and power has in no sense shifted towards working people since Blair came in. This is relevant to the arguments on fascism (and I'm waiting for an example of a fascist movement with no socialist element...) since it goes a long way to explaining the alienation of many former loyal 'core' Labour supporters from the party.

The New Labour strategy was one of using economic growth rather than redistribution to put some kind of safety net under a capitalism that they championed ever louder year by year... until the bubble burst. That strategy is broken which is why New Labour is effectively dead. What to replace it with and how to deal with the new situation is the big question. But it's not being addressed sufficiently, in my view.

Mike Law said...

Once again you resort to personal attack as that seems to be the only way you can respond… you’re going to be a cracker of a councillor.

So let’s get down to it. I’m intrigued by your obsession with my ethnicity (or my ethnicity as you wish to label me). I’ve been over the points in previous comments about how I view my ethnicity. I’ve also been over why I do not consider being “Jewish” as adequate in itself to pass someone off as a member of a BME community. If you read what I actually stated, I know white Jews who consider themselves both Jews and white, they don’t see themselves as either black or as part of an ethnic minority as they were born here, in this country and view themselves as white British. Maybe some of them do have Semetic ancestors (as do I) but it could be that they think the same way I do, that that aspect of their self-identity is so remote as to not be worth taking into consideration with regard to ethnicity. I did not recognise (or refuse to recognise) that non religious Jews who happen not to agree with me are BME, as you put it, as I think that it is a matter for each individual as to how they may wish to label themselves; agreeing with me, or not, just doesn’t come into it – I guess that must be in the “between the lines” reading you like to do with my comments.

On the issue of Welsh ethnicity, again that is a matter for the individual. I guess if a black person born in Wales wishes to see him or herself as ethnically Welsh then that should be respected insofar as sharing a distinctive cultural and linguistic heritage establishes being “Welsh” as an ethnicity. However, this can be taken to a degree of absurdity, am I part of an ethnic group because I have shared cultural and linguistic heritage with other cockneys? It may well be so, but I don’t think that, in the context that BME is generally accepted , I could cry that I’m a BME member on that criteria and expect it to be taken seriously. Will you list yourself as a BME member when you are a sitting councillor?

It might be worth pondering (on your part) the irony of the fact that, were we living in Nazi Germany, your desire to label me a Jew would have catastrophic consequences for me should the ruling powers agree with your notion of my ethnicity – it seems that whether or not I consider myself “Jewish” is neither here nor there to your way of thinking, all that matters is if the label fits. That I don’t consider myself as a BME member seems quite sensible to me, I wonder just how seriously I would have been taken (by both the Labour Party and the wider population of Newham) had I announced that I was a BME member when I was sitting on the Council.

Mike Law said...

On the Nazis, I do get your point, and it seems you agree that those policies were progressive. It doesn’t matter what the motivation for adopting them, they are progressive. I think your argument that Labour adopts populist policies to win elections covers the point you are making here.

You are absolutely right. Stating that BME members could have been “given” a candidacy was a poor choice of language; the point I was making is that should organisations such as the Labour Party (or any other organisation) truly want to see more BME and female candidates contesting Council and Parliamentary seats what is to stop white male members standing aside to give such candidates a chance? However, that’s not a policy I would be in favour of because of my respect for democratic processes.

The use of the word “decent” may well have been a bad choice. But I’ll stick by it – don’t try to twist it to something it isn’t. I refer to decent in the same context I would for non –BME members, insofar as they fulfil the criteria, as set out by the Labour Party rules, that would make them eligible to stand for office. I would say that the white male I referred to (who happened to be Wales’ preferred candidate) was not a “decent” choice for an elected representative of the Labour Party.

While I was a Labour Party member I never stood for election against any other member. While I was a Labour councillor I would have stood down if a paid-up, campaigning BME member (who had been a member for the required length of time as set out in the rules) wanted to contest the seat in my place, I didn’t want to be a councillor in the first place… (but you don’t have to believe me if you don’t want to).

On deciding who is decent and who is not… we all do that. I make judgements on all kinds of people all of the time, as do you if this blog is anything to go by.

Anonymous said...

You know comrades...

When the ideas on cultural politics were raised, especially during the 1980s, I thought like most comrades that it was very welcome. Of course women deserve political equality, of course ethnic minorities deserve it too. Of course discrimination against gay and lesbian people is absurd. I welcomed the idea of black sections.

But we have perhaps also seen unwelcome consequences from this movement. Principally the notion of 'culture' has come to eclipse the notion of class. Anyone who doubts the enduring relevance of class need only look at the latest OECD figures in which Britain is shown to be one of the most entrenched in its class system in Europed - in which fathers' incomes determine those of sons more than anywhere in Europe and fathers' educational attainment had the more bearing on children's wages than any other country in Europe, save Portugal (Guardian February 12 2010). 'Class, to be honest, is the most likely explanation' admitted Romain Duval of the OECD.

The spat between Mike and John about BME candidates is both painful and absurd. If Mike has some Jewish ancestry it's something interesting about him as a person but has no bearing whatsoever on his suitability as a representative of the people. John's Welshness is no more or less relevant. Who (apart from a few bigots) gives a damn? I simply want the best people to represent me and I really don't care what colour, gender, or sexual orientation they are.

The other unfortunate result has been that attempting to rig to some degree or other, selection of candidates has placed unparalleled power in the hands of party machines and taken power from local members - all women shortlists have been ruthlessley exploited by the machine in this way.

Let's keep a sense of proportion about this.

Barrack Obama is not a great president because he is an African American. He is a great president (and on balance I think he is) because he is a great man with politics to the left of any president in at least a generation.

Anonymous said...

John

Sorry to press you - I take it you now accept that Hitler's Nazi Party won an election in 1933 (the party with the largest number of seats) on the basis of Weimar Germany's PR system?

Your other assertion was that 'Fascism is an extreme form of conservatism not socialism.' I asked you to point to a fascist movement that had no 'socialist' element in it...?

If only we could tidily dismiss fascism in this way. The truth is much more challenging for those of us on the left. And I believe that we need a very good understanding of fascism.

Mike Law said...

Anon 18:09

In answer to your question to John: Pinochet's military dictatorship might be considered an example.

Anonymous said...

Mike

I take your point. I don't really regard Pinochet as fascist as I don't think the regime had many of the characteristics generally associated with fascism. It was more of a classic and conservative (and very brutal) military coup d'etat as far as I can see - backed by the US of course. But I am prepared to be contradicted if others have more detail on this.

Mike Law said...

Anon.

You're right, it was a weak example.

Truth is, all recognised fascist regimes had progressive policies much like all socialist and communist regimes have (and had) policies that would sit comfortably with a fascist dictatorship.

Anonymous said...

Mike
Whilst there are some apparent similarities between some fascist and communist regimes - fascism's incorporation of socialist elements, and the strong and oppressive state - it's also very important to understand the differences so that we do not lazily conflate the two.

Fascism is in many ways anti-rational (the slap in the face) whereas Marxism and most socialism is inherently rationalist and claiming some descent from Enlightenment thought. Marxism actually claimed to be scientific - a greatly overstated position of course.

My plea is that we do not make easy assumptions and generalisations about fascism - otherwise we risk not recognising it at all, let alone understanding it.

Mike Law said...

Anonymous,

I don’t agree with your view about Marxism and (most) socialism being inherently rational, but I’m open to persuasion if you can evidence your claim.

However, I wholeheartedly agree with your view that it is important not to conflate fascism and communism and I think your plea for keeping a watchful eye against the threat of fascism seeping its way into mainstream politics is sound and extremely relevant in today’s political climate.

John Gray said...

Hi Anon 00.31

Apologies for delay in responding.

I think your point about fascism having progressive policies does miss the point (made since). Just because they may have a policy on say supporting child benefit does not make anyone else who also supports child benefit a bit of a fellow traveller.

The real point would be that a fascist would want to withdraw benefits from blacks or Jews etc.

Hi Mike 00.51

Once again you are throwing your toys out of your pram.

An interesting comment about you having never been in an election for a Labour Party post. I am genuinely amazed. It’s our GC tonight and there will be loads of elections. So far this year alone I have stood for trade union nomination/elections about 12 times. This experience does make you think more about your politics.

I don’t think it should be left to individual candidates to decide whether a BME person was “decent” enough or not. If voluntary schemes such as this shadowing fail to increase the numbers of BME in Parliament then we will have to consider in the Party BME only shortlists.

Hi Anon 14:00
I would agree to a point (and you with John Dedham!) however many BME people in this country do suffer from a double whammy of class and race discrimination. Equality (in all forms) needs to be at the centre of what we do. Which I think you do accept.

Hi anon 18.09
No, I don’t accept that Hitler “won” the election in 1933 on the basis of PR. He was still a minority and it was only a stupid, short sighted and divided opposition that let him take power. See reply above about fascism/progressive politics

Sort of agree with Mike and anon on other stuff

Anonymous said...

John
You said:
'No, I don’t accept that Hitler “won” the election in 1933 on the basis of PR. He was still a minority and it was only a stupid, short sighted and divided opposition that let him take power.'

I don't follow your argument, because it is simply a matter of record. That the Nazis were the largest party in 1933, winning the election, and all under a PR system.

If we (Labour) fail to get a majority of seats in May but are the largest party and form a government - will we not have won the election?

Mike Law said...

John,

“Once again you are throwing your toys out of your pram.” – here we go again, accusing me of being unreasonable without specifying how or why… I guess you work from the premise that, if you throw enough dung around some of it will stick.

Actually, I was wrong; I did stand in an election for CLP secretary for Poplar and Canning Town (I was asked to by a large number of members – there was, until I put my name forward only one candidate and that particular member was renowned for being more than a little “disruptive”). However, I’ve never been interested in taking up a post if someone else wanted to do it (why should I deny another member the opportunity of participating within the Party by taking up an elected post just for the hell of it?). Wow, you’ve stood for how many posts? I don’t think I could have lasted another minute without that information; just out of interest, what the hell has that to do with the fact that I’ve NOT stood for as many posts?. As for making “you think more about your politics”, I’m not sure if you’re referring to you or me; if it’s me, I’m quite happy with my politics thanks.

I think you’ll find that the whole selection process is based on decisionss by individual members to ascertain the suitability of a candidate (White male, female or BME). “Suitable” being a better choice of word than “decent”.

Of course, I know you’ll bleed the fact that I used the word “decent” to death, trying to read into it something I didn’t state… but it seems that is just your way.

John Gray said...

Hi anon

Nope, if we are the largest Party (of course we are going to win a working majority but if..) the opposition Parties could still combine in a coalition and form the government if they have overall control.

If the German non-Nazi’s had not been so selfish and short sighted they could have done the same.

Hi Mike
What are we going to do with you? I don’t think (in my opinion for what’s its worth... and all that) you are cut out for blogging.

Blow on you and you bruise.

We are actually in agreement for once since we both believe that we will let others who read these comments (all 2 of them) make their minds up who is the more ‘orrible of the two of us.

Anyway I think we have now exhausted this subject with now 44 responses over nearly 3 weeks.
So comments closed. No doubt it will be picked up again another time.

Anonymous said...

Pretty cool place you've got here. Thank you for it. I like such topics and anything connected to them. I would like to read a bit more soon.

Hilary Kuree