Arthur Scargill at SLP rally
I.K. Ridley
In article <ElUUIGAC...@club.demon.co.uk>,
Peter West <pe...@duntone.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wednesday 16 October, Arthur Scargill, President of the Socialist
>Labour Party, will be speaking at a London rally organised by the SLP
>entitled 'Socialist Labour says NO!', on the theme of opposition to a
>'free market' future.
I missed Arthur speaking at an Election Rally for the Abbey Ward by-election to
Leicester UA last week.
Abbey Ward is a "safe" Labour ward here in Leicester where you might expect the
SLP to make an impact. In the end they were beaten into 4th place (4.6%).
Labour polled around 60%. The Tories got around a 5% swing which lead the Tory
agent to claim that on that swing they would win back the Leicester West
Constituency from Labour.
This view would seem to be quashed by the 1996 Leicester UA results from
Leicester West which put the Liberal Democrats in second place to Labour. With
no incumbancy effect (Greville Janner is standing down and Labour's PPC is a
Blairite chosen, I believe via the all-women shortlist system, it could be an
interesting constituency come the GE. Even more so if the SLP take a few
thousand off Labour.
I imagine the SLP will put up a candidate in the by-election caused
by the recent death of Terry Pratchett MP.
Ian Ridley
"The principle of liberalism is trust in the people, qualified by prudence.
The principle of conservatism is mistrust of the people, qualified by fear",
- W.E. Gladstone. Views expressed are not neccessarily those of Leicester
University, Leicester University Student Liberal Democrats: http://www.le.ac.
uk/CWIS/SU/SO/LDSOC/ldsoc.html or the Liberal Democrats:
http://www.libdems.org.uk/
David Boothroyd
In article <542aet$m...@hawk.le.ac.uk>, I.K. Ridley writes:
[Abbey Ward, Leicester UA byelection]
> The Tories got around a 5% swing which lead the Tory agent to claim that on
> that swing they would win back the Leicester West Constituency from Labour.
>
> This view would seem to be quashed by the 1996 Leicester UA results from
> Leicester West which put the Liberal Democrats in second place to Labour.
With
> no incumbancy effect (Greville Janner is standing down and Labour's PPC is a
> Blairite chosen, I believe via the all-women shortlist system),
Patricia Hewitt. Not chosen from an all-woman shortlist because they had
been declared illegal. Hewitt is a local candidate.
> .. it could be an interesting constituency come the GE. Even more so if
> the SLP take a few thousand off Labour.
I doubt it. You know how difficult it is to go from local elections to
General elections, and with the Labour Party in improved form nationally,
Patricia Hewitt with a 'local candidate' vote (she kept the swing down in
1983 fighting Leicester East), she should be OK.
> I imagine the SLP will put up a candidate in the by-election caused
> by the recent death of Terry Pratchett MP.
Terry Patchett is the late MP. Terry Pratchett is a living Science Fiction
writer.
--
\/ David Boothroyd-Psephologist, Libertarian socialist.Custodi Civitatem Domine
British Elections and Politics at http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
I wish I was in North Dakota. Next General Election must be before 22nd May '97
The House of Commons now : C 324, Lab 271, L Dem 26, UU 9, PC 4, SDLP 4, SNP 4,
UDUP 3, Ind UU 1, Spkrs 4, Vac 1. Government majority = 2. Telephone Tate 6125.
I.K. Ridley
In article <96101622...@election.demon.co.uk>,
David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <542aet$m...@hawk.le.ac.uk>, I.K. Ridley writes:
>[Abbey Ward, Leicester UA byelection]
>> The Tories got around a 5% swing which lead the Tory agent to claim that on
>> that swing they would win back the Leicester West Constituency from Labour.
>>
>> This view would seem to be quashed by the 1996 Leicester UA results from
>> Leicester West which put the Liberal Democrats in second place to Labour.
>> >With
>> no incumbancy effect (Greville Janner is standing down and Labour's PPC is a
>> Blairite chosen, I believe via the all-women shortlist system),
>Patricia Hewitt. Not chosen from an all-woman shortlist because they had
>been declared illegal. Hewitt is a local candidate.
Was it the original intention of Walworth Road to designate Leicester West as
being an all-women shortlist before it was declared illegal?
I recall now that Robert Wann was trying to get selected as PPC. He lost his
seat on Leicester UA by 6 votes to the Liberal Democrats a few weeks before.
Perhaps this didn't help his case 8)
>> .. it could be an interesting constituency come the GE. Even more so if
>> the SLP take a few thousand off Labour.
>I doubt it. You know how difficult it is to go from local elections to
>General elections, and with the Labour Party in improved form nationally,
>Patricia Hewitt with a 'local candidate' vote (she kept the swing down in
>1983 fighting Leicester East), she should be OK.
It will still be interesting to see if cities like Leicester see a collapse in
the Tory vote at GEs as they have seen such a collapse locally over the past
half-decade.
>> I imagine the SLP will put up a candidate in the by-election caused
>> by the recent death of Terry Pratchett MP.
>Terry Patchett is the late MP. Terry Pratchett is a living Science Fiction
>writer.
Oops. Thought his names was a little *too* familiar.
Ian Ridley
"Intelligence? Intelligence has nothing to do with politics", Ambassador Londo
Mollari, Babylon 5, Channel 4 9/6/96. Views expressed are not neccessarily
those of Leicester University, Leicester University Student Liberal Democrats:
http://www.le.ac.uk/CWIS/SU/SO/LDSOC/ldsoc.html or the Liberal Democrats:
http://www.libdems.org.uk/
Colin Rosenstiel
> Hewitt is a local candidate.
This must be some new meaning of "local" of which I was not previously
aware. She's Australian, or did you mean to say that she has moved her
home there?
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge
The Liberal Democrats - second party of British Local Government
Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.gold.net/users/fu30/libdems.htm
A.Ham...@ed.ac.uk
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
; > Hewitt is a local candidate.
;
; This must be some new meaning of "local" of which I was not previously
; aware. She's Australian, or did you mean to say that she has moved her
; home there?
If she has moved her home there, that makes her local doesn't
it? Or do you have some problem with immigrants?
Martin Lawrie
In article <DzEpH...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, Colin Rosenstiel <rosenstie
l...@cix.compulink.co.uk> writes
>> Hewitt is a local candidate.
>
>This must be some new meaning of "local" of which I was not previously
>aware. She's Australian, or did you mean to say that she has moved her
>home there?
>
>Cambridge
>The Liberal Democrats - second party of British Local Government
>Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.gold.net/users/fu30/libdems.htm
Only David can answer this one (possibly)
How many PPCs live in the constit., Were born in the constit. by party please :)
and for the rest of you which is more important?
--
Martin Lawrie
Turnpike evaluation. For Turnpike information, mailto:in...@turnpike.com
David Boothroyd
In article <DzEpH...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, "Colin Rosenstiel" writes:
> > Hewitt is a local candidate.
>
> This must be some new meaning of "local" of which I was not previously
> aware. She's Australian, or did you mean to say that she has moved her
> home there?
This is what is known in Liberal Democrat circles as the Tatchell excuse.
It doesn't matter if the candidate has lived in the constituency, if
they were born in Australia they are a foreigner and therefore due for
an anti-Aussie diatribe.
I believe Hewitt gives her address as Leicester. She fought Leicester
in 1983.
Colin Rosenstiel
> Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
> ; > Hewitt is a local candidate.
> ;
> ; This must be some new meaning of "local" of which I was not
> ; previously aware. She's Australian, or did you mean to say that she
> ; has moved her home there?
>
> it? Or do you have some problem with immigrants?
Depends on context. I have made my home here and am raising my family
here, but I don't deny I'm from London so can hardly have a problem with
"immigrants".
I've always thought of Patricia Hewitt as part of the metropolitan elite,
since she left Cambridge.
I'm always a bit suspicious of people who claim to be local (mainly after
Peter Tatchell's so patently bogus claims to be local to Bermondsey in
1983).
I.K. Ridley
In article <96101723...@election.demon.co.uk>,
David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I believe Hewitt gives her address as Leicester. She fought Leicester
>in 1983.
Shes' not a local councillor here. Has she ever fought in a local government
election in Leicester? Which CLP is she a member of?
Anyway, I'm not objecting to the fact that she may or may not be a local
candidate. I was drawing attention to opinions expressed that she is on the
Blairite wing of the Labour Party.
Ian Ridley
"It is increasingly falling to a handful of plucky Liberal Democrats to provide
principled opposition from all points left of the Conservative Party", Matthew
Parris, Parliamentary Sketch writer in The Times 7/6/96. Views expressed are
A.Ham...@ed.ac.uk
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
> I have made my home here and am raising my family
> here, but I don't deny I'm from London
So you are not a local candidate then. Do you point this out
on your election addresses?
> I've always thought of Patricia Hewitt as part of the metropolitan elite,
> since she left Cambridge.
Oh, I see, its just (inverted) snobbery. Or is it just an excuse
for bashing a party you oppose.
David Boothroyd
In article <DzFsu...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, "Colin Rosenstiel" writes:
>
> I'm always a bit suspicious of people who claim to be local (mainly after
> Peter Tatchell's so patently bogus claims to be local to Bermondsey in
> 1983).
Peter was local. Arrol House was in Bermondsey constituency. He had moved
there in 1979 and put down a lot of local roots - Chairman of the
Rockingham Estate residents association, as well as Labour Party
activities. He still lives in the same flat.
What was 'patently bogus' was Simon Hughes' claim to be local. Hughes
had only moved into the constituency a few weeks before standing in
the 1981 GLC elections. Liberals also spread rumours that Tatchell had
only come from Australia in 1981. Hughes' repudiation of the smear
campaign came only after the end of the poll.
Martin Lawrie
In article <547v69$g...@hawk.le.ac.uk>, "I.K. Ridley" <ik...@le.ac.uk>
writes
>Ian Ridley
>"It is increasingly falling to a handful of plucky Liberal Democrats to provide
>principled opposition from all points left of the Conservative Party", Matthew
>Parris, Parliamentary Sketch writer in The Times 7/6/96. Views expressed are
>not neccessarily those of Leicester University, Leicester University Student
>Liberal Democrats: http://www.le.ac.uk/CWIS/SU/SO/LDSOC/ldsoc.html or the
>Liberal Democrats: http://www.libdems.org.uk/
So Tories are supporting the LIB Dems? Or this this just another blast at the
real threat to the Tories?
Its OK take comfort where you can
David Boothroyd
In article <hgaJggAm...@wolvs-sw-labour.demon.co.uk>, Martin Lawrie
writes:
>
> Only David can answer this one (possibly)
> How many PPCs live in the constit., Were born in the constit. by party
> please :)
This information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at
disproportionate cost.
David Boothroyd
In article <547v69$g...@hawk.le.ac.uk>, I.K. Ridley writes:
>
> I'm not objecting to the fact that she may or may not be a local
> candidate. I was drawing attention to opinions expressed that she
> is on the Blairite wing of the Labour Party.
She is now. Like a typical moderniser she started off on the left, and if
you were sensible enough to keep a copy of last years' BBC 2 program
"The Wilderness Years", in program 1 you would have seen a clip of her
in 1980 condemning Jim Callaghan from the rostrum at Labour conference.
But those acute observers from the outside left, Richard Heffernan and
Mike Marqusee, wrote of her "A former firebrand of the left, her ardour
for radical socialism had cooled at the same time as Kinnock's". She
was the windbag's press spokesman for many years.
Colin Rosenstiel
> Peter was local. Arrol House was in Bermondsey constituency. He had
> moved there in 1979 and put down a lot of local roots - Chairman of
> the Rockingham Estate residents association, as well as Labour Party
> activities. He still lives in the same flat.
I heard him talking about the Rockingham Estate and it sounded pretty
false to me. IME, self-delusion is a common failing of the politically
ambitious, of all parties.
M J Drew
David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:
: In article <DzEpH...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, "Colin Rosenstiel" writes:
: > > Hewitt is a local candidate.
: >
: > This must be some new meaning of "local" of which I was not previously
: > aware. She's Australian, or did you mean to say that she has moved her
: > home there?
: This is what is known in Liberal Democrat circles as the Tatchell excuse.
: It doesn't matter if the candidate has lived in the constituency, if
: they were born in Australia they are a foreigner and therefore due for
: an anti-Aussie diatribe.
: I believe Hewitt gives her address as Leicester. She fought Leicester
: in 1983.
We have a local Labour Councillor come sometime Parliamentary Candidate
who claims to be local when she lives in:
a) Winterbourne a village in Northavon Constiuency a seat she has fought
twice
b) Held an Avon County Council seat in Bristol claiming to be a local
with a local address (but still seemed to be at a)
C) Holds a South Gloucestershire Seat in Hanham in the a neigbouring
constituency, again claiming to be local (but stills seems to be at a).
She was/is qualified to fight these seats but likes to give a more local
address (I believe her son's).
--
Mike Drew
South Gloucestershire Unitary Council:Lab 31, Lib Dem 30, Con 8, Ind 1
Yate Town Council: Lab 1, Lib Dem 20
Northavon Constituency S. Glos Councillors (Lab 2, Lib Dem 25, Con 4)
Colin Rosenstiel
> In article <547v69$g...@hawk.le.ac.uk>, I.K. Ridley writes:
> >
> > I'm not objecting to the fact that she may or may not be a local
> > candidate. I was drawing attention to opinions expressed that she
> > is on the Blairite wing of the Labour Party.
>
> She is now. Like a typical moderniser she started off on the left,
> and if you were sensible enough to keep a copy of last years' BBC 2
> program "The Wilderness Years", in program 1 you would have seen a
> clip of her in 1980 condemning Jim Callaghan from the rostrum at
> Labour conference.
> But those acute observers from the outside left, Richard Heffernan and
> Mike Marqusee, wrote of her "A former firebrand of the left, her
> ardour for radical socialism had cooled at the same time as
> Kinnock's". She was the windbag's press spokesman for many years.
>
> --
> \/ David Boothroyd-Psephologist, Libertarian socialist
She certainly wasn't left as a student. BTW, I didn't know you were so
critical of your party's ex-leader!
Robert HULL
In article <DzIGv...@cix.compulink.co.uk>
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk "Colin Rosenstiel" writes:
> > Peter was local. Arrol House was in Bermondsey constituency. He had
> > moved there in 1979 and put down a lot of local roots - Chairman of
> > the Rockingham Estate residents association, as well as Labour Party
> > activities. He still lives in the same flat.
>
> I heard him talking about the Rockingham Estate and it sounded pretty
> false to me. IME, self-delusion is a common failing of the politically
> ambitious, of all parties.
>
Innuendo and personal attacks have long been the hallmark of those with
no valid point to make.
Colin usually makes a more positive contribution to this group - I wonder
what went wrong?
--
Robert
My usual .sig just went on holiday so
I'm currently interviewing would-be
.sig's to find a stand-in
David Boothroyd
In article <DzIGv...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, "Colin Rosenstiel" writes:
>
> > Peter was local. Arrol House was in Bermondsey constituency. He had
> > moved there in 1979 and put down a lot of local roots - Chairman of
> > the Rockingham Estate residents association, as well as Labour Party
> > activities. He still lives in the same flat.
>
> I heard him talking about the Rockingham Estate and it sounded pretty
> false to me.
But you don't dispute that Peter has lived there since 1979, was Chair
of the residents association, and therefore knew what was going on in
his local community? Your statement sounds pretty false to me.
> IME, self-delusion is a common failing of the politically
> ambitious, of all parties.
This is the line taken about Peter by Steven Norris in his book. But
it's wrong. (If you had mentioned Peter's attempt to do a cockney accent,
you might be on to something)
--
Martin Lawrie
In article <96101900...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd
<da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>In article <hgaJggAm...@wolvs-sw-labour.demon.co.uk>, Martin Lawrie
>writes:
>>
>> Only David can answer this one (possibly)
>> How many PPCs live in the constit., Were born in the constit. by party
>> please :)
>
>This information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at
>disproportionate cost.
>
>\/ David Boothroyd-Psephologist, Libertarian socialist.Custodi Civitatem Domine
>British Elections and Politics at http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
>I wish I was in North Dakota. Next General Election must be before 22nd May '97
>The House of Commons now : C 324, Lab 271, L Dem 26, UU 9, PC 4, SDLP 4, SNP 4,
>UDUP 3, Ind UU 1, Spkrs 4, Vac 1. Government majority = 2. Telephone Tate 6125.
OK David just checking you were human Im impressed enough already by what you do
tell us!
M J Drew
David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:
: >
: > > Peter was local. Arrol House was in Bermondsey constituency. He had
: > > moved there in 1979 and put down a lot of local roots - Chairman of
: > > the Rockingham Estate residents association, as well as Labour Party
: > > activities. He still lives in the same flat.
: >
: > I heard him talking about the Rockingham Estate and it sounded pretty
: > false to me.
:
: But you don't dispute that Peter has lived there since 1979, was Chair
: of the residents association, and therefore knew what was going on in
: his local community? Your statement sounds pretty false to me.
:
: > IME, self-delusion is a common failing of the politically
: > ambitious, of all parties.
:
: This is the line taken about Peter by Steven Norris in his book. But
: it's wrong. (If you had mentioned Peter's attempt to do a cockney accent,
: you might be on to something)
What I always felt wrong with Tatchell was the use he made of the empty
shell of the Bermondsey Labour Party. He and a few like minded
individuals moved into a moribund Labour Party and tried to use the
traditional Labour vote for ends that most of those voters did not beleive
in. If it had not been a by-election where his views which were exposed to
the voters he would, more than likely, got elected. The "traditional"
Labour voters would have had an MP expousing view on their behalf which
they did not vote for.
What Tatchell should have done was to start his own party which made it
clear what he stood for and then to campaign to convert the people of
Bermondsey to his views.
The Bermondsey Labour Party was allowed to run down by the former MP and
local Labour leaders so that they could do what they liked. Similar things
happened in other safe Labour seats eg Tower Hamlets.
One wonders if the reverse has happened with the Blairites moving in and
taking over local parties. I have had such remarks made by a Labour friend
who is horrified with the Blair line.
:
: --
: \/ David Boothroyd-Psephologist, Libertarian socialist.Custodi Civitatem Domine
: British Elections and Politics at http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
: I wish I was in North Dakota. Next General Election must be before 22nd May '97
: The House of Commons now : C 324, Lab 271, L Dem 26, UU 9, PC 4, SDLP 4, SNP 4,
: UDUP 3, Ind UU 1, Spkrs 4, Vac 1. Government majority = 2. Telephone Tate 6125.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
> > I heard him talking about the Rockingham Estate and it sounded
> > pretty false to me.
>
> But you don't dispute that Peter has lived there since 1979, was Chair
> of the residents association, and therefore knew what was going on in
> his local community? Your statement sounds pretty false to me.
>
> > IME, self-delusion is a common failing of the politically
> > ambitious, of all parties.
>
> This is the line taken about Peter by Steven Norris in his book. But
> it's wrong. (If you had mentioned Peter's attempt to do a cockney
> accent, you might be on to something)
>
> \/ David Boothroyd
Yeah, the accent was part of it I suppose. It's the trying to be "working
class" of various people on the left that makes me sick. Brought on by a
friend of my brother's, a PhD who worked as a hospital porter to prove
how working class he was. He was a Trot, mind you. I've known others in
my Trade Union activities. Tatchell seemed to be afflicted with the same
disease.
It's not Peter Tatchell personally. He's just an example I came into
contact with in 1983. (for Robert Hull's benefit).
I hear on this morning's radio that people perceive Tony Blair (public
school, Oxbridge) as more "working class" than John Major (neither and
brought up in two rooms in Brixton). Just shows how silly these things
get nowadays. Maybe an improvement on the past with its more rigid class
divisions.
David Boothroyd
In article <DzKIu...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, "Colin Rosenstiel" writes:
> > > IME, self-delusion is a common failing of the politically
> > > ambitious, of all parties.
> >
> > This is the line taken about Peter by Steven Norris in his book. But
> > it's wrong. (If you had mentioned Peter's attempt to do a cockney
> > accent, you might be on to something)
>
> Yeah, the accent was part of it I suppose. It's the trying to be "working
> class" of various people on the left that makes me sick.
Peter is, by any reasonable definition, skilled working class. His father
was a lathe operator, and his stepfather a gardener, factory cleaner and
taxi driver. (Peter has stuck with his natural surname; his mother is now
Mrs Mardie Nitzky)
> Brought on by a friend of my brother's, a PhD who worked as a hospital
> porter to prove how working class he was. He was a Trot, mind you.
Bob Clay, Labour MP for Sunderland North 1983-92, went to public school
and on to Cambridge - but left after a year to become a steelworker,
then an SWP organiser, then a bus driver.
> It's not Peter Tatchell personally. He's just an example I came into
> contact with in 1983. (for Robert Hull's benefit).
What sort of contact was this? I may ask Peter about this tonight (we're
going to the opera).
> I hear on this morning's radio that people perceive Tony Blair (public
> school, Oxbridge) as more "working class" than John Major (neither and
> brought up in two rooms in Brixton).
JM's formative years were spent in Worcester Park, a very leafy suburb
near Sutton. The Brixton bit is overplayed by Conservative spindoctors.
Tony Blair's family come from working-class Govan in Glasgow; it was Leo
Blair (Tony's father) who made the social move into the upper middle
class.
David Boothroyd
In article <DzKM1...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>, M J Drew writes:
> What I always felt wrong with Tatchell was the use he made of the empty
> shell of the Bermondsey Labour Party. He and a few like minded
> individuals moved into a moribund Labour Party and tried to use the
> traditional Labour vote for ends that most of those voters did not beleive
> in.
No. First of all, it was the GLC housing computer which was responsible
for Peter moving to Bermondsey - he had been living in Hornsey and had
joined the Labour Party there in 1978, but was made homeless in 1979.
The GLC computer found the empty flat at Arrol House, Rockingham Estate.
Secondly, when the old guard of the Bermondsey Party lost power in the
1980 AGM, it was still able to hold power in Southwark Borough Council.
It was not until the round of new candidate selections that new left
candidates were selected - in 1981, when George Nicholson became GLC
councillor, and in 1982 when left candidates were elected to Southwark
Borough Council.
> If it had not been a by-election where his views which were exposed to
> the voters he would, more than likely, got elected.
Very probably. Peter is certainly not as left wing as Jeremy Corbyn,
who was elected, and he was not a Militant, two of whom were elected.
> The "traditional" Labour voters would have had an MP expousing view on
> their behalf which they did not vote for.
Instead they got an out and not out hypocrite.
> What Tatchell should have done was to start his own party which made it
> clear what he stood for and then to campaign to convert the people of
> Bermondsey to his views.
Rubbish. Peter's views are firmly within the Labour Party. He has never
been a member of any other party, and tried to join as early as 1972
(no reply - right dominated CLP). Read Peter's book with regard to the
political origins of the Bermondsey party - suffice it to say that it
was Robert Mellish who was the first to take the party over.
Ralph Bancroft
> Peter is, by any reasonable definition, skilled working class.
and...
> I may ask Peter about this tonight (we're going to the opera).
Er, I don't think on the Rockingham Estate they would view going to the
opera as a particularly working class activity, David.
:-)
Ralph.
M J Drew
David Toube (D.S....@qmw.ac.uk) wrote:
: David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: :What was 'patently bogus' was Simon Hughes' claim to be local. Hughes
: :had only moved into the constituency a few weeks before standing in
: :the 1981 GLC elections. Liberals also spread rumours that Tatchell had
: :only come from Australia in 1981. Hughes' repudiation of the smear
: :campaign came only after the end of the poll.
: In the same vein, am I right in thinking that Mr Hughes was
: engaged to be married during his election campaign? What happened
: to his fiancee?
:
I think you may be confusing this with the story put out that David
Alton's girlfriend was seen leaving his home late at night/early in
morning during his Liverpool Edgehill by-election in 79. I don't recall
your story about Simon - I work for quite a time at the Bermondsey
by-election.
: ----
: David Toube
: Lecturer in Law
: QMW, University of London
:
: WWW: http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~ugtl027/index.html
: David Boothroyd's British Elections Home Page
: WWW: http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
David Boothroyd
In article <54ffnf$2...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew Huntbach writes:
> David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
[Patricia Hewitt]
> : Like a typical moderniser she started off on the left, and if
> : you were sensible enough to keep a copy of last years' BBC 2 program
> : "The Wilderness Years", in program 1 you would have seen a clip of her
> : in 1980 condemning Jim Callaghan from the rostrum at Labour conference.
>
> Who should one trust more - those whose political opinions started out as
> rather stupid posturing far left, but have gradually moved to the right
> because it seems that's where to be to get power, ..
Your question is biased. The reason why the modernisers moved away from
the left was that they became genuinely convinced that more moderate
policies were better for the country.
> .. or those of us who started out in the centre, have gradually moved to
> the left, not because our politics has changed, but because those of us
> who were to our left have changed, and whose political choice has always
> placed us where any route to power is going to involve long hard work?
Let me answer your question directly: I would far prefer to have politicians
who are prepared to acknowledge realities and change their views, than
have politicians who would never change their views even if circumstances
rendered them inappropriate.
M J Drew
Henry Potts (some...@sable.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
: David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:
:
: : Peter is, by any reasonable definition, skilled working class. His father
: : was a lathe operator, and his stepfather a gardener, factory cleaner and
: : taxi driver. (Peter has stuck with his natural surname; his mother is now
: : Mrs Mardie Nitzky)
: To be very pedantic, this proves Peter's *background* is skilled
: working class, but his socio-economic group is defined by *his*
: profession. (This, of course, makes all MPs SEG 1 (professional)
: having been elected as being an MP defines them so.)
:
: [...]
: : > It's not Peter Tatchell personally. He's just an example I came into
:
: : going to the opera).
:
: Aha! Going to the opera! Must be upper class then! :)
:
: : > I hear on this morning's radio that people perceive Tony Blair (public
: : > brought up in two rooms in Brixton).
:
: : JM's formative years were spent in Worcester Park, a very leafy suburb
: : near Sutton. The Brixton bit is overplayed by Conservative spindoctors.
: : Tony Blair's family come from working-class Govan in Glasgow; it was Leo
: : Blair (Tony's father) who made the social move into the upper middle
: : class.
: What should matter is what job they did before becoming MPs, but I
: don't know what that is for either Blair or Major. Ashdown would have
: been SEG 1 as an Army officer, but possibly 2 as a social worker.
He was also unemployed, a diplomat and did some job (I am not sure what)
in Wesland Helicopters. The widest range of experiance for a party leader
for a very long time.
:
: Henry, SEG 5 (unemployed/student)
M J Drew
David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:
: > What I always felt wrong with Tatchell was the use he made of the empty
: > shell of the Bermondsey Labour Party. He and a few like minded
: > individuals moved into a moribund Labour Party and tried to use the
: > traditional Labour vote for ends that most of those voters did not beleive
: > in.
:
: No. First of all, it was the GLC housing computer which was responsible
: for Peter moving to Bermondsey - he had been living in Hornsey and had
: joined the Labour Party there in 1978, but was made homeless in 1979.
: The GLC computer found the empty flat at Arrol House, Rockingham Estate.
Non sequitar.
: Secondly, when the old guard of the Bermondsey Party lost power in the
: 1980 AGM, it was still able to hold power in Southwark Borough Council.
: It was not until the round of new candidate selections that new left
: candidates were selected - in 1981, when George Nicholson became GLC
: councillor, and in 1982 when left candidates were elected to Southwark
: Borough Council.
:
The new left (who I was probably more in tune with the the Mellish' old
guard) still were using the tradition Labour vote which was as
conservative (note small "c") as can be found, without letting on that
they were quite a different beast.
: > If it had not been a by-election where his views which were exposed to
: > the voters he would, more than likely, got elected.
:
: Very probably. Peter is certainly not as left wing as Jeremy Corbyn,
: who was elected, and he was not a Militant, two of whom were elected.
:
: > The "traditional" Labour voters would have had an MP expousing view on
: > their behalf which they did not vote for.
:
: Instead they got an out and not out hypocrite.
:
That is your view - please give evidence.
: > What Tatchell should have done was to start his own party which made it
: > clear what he stood for and then to campaign to convert the people of
: > Bermondsey to his views.
:
: Rubbish. Peter's views are firmly within the Labour Party. He has never
: been a member of any other party, and tried to join as early as 1972
: (no reply - right dominated CLP). Read Peter's book with regard to the
: political origins of the Bermondsey party - suffice it to say that it
: was Robert Mellish who was the first to take the party over.
But the people of Bermondsey voted for a completely different Labour
Party - nothing like the Labour Party Tatchell espoused. Of course (to
bring matters back to topic) if we had STV then candidate from both Labour
Parties could have stood and the voters could choose between them rather
than let a few people in a selection committee make their choice of MP.
:
: --
David Boothroyd
In article <54fqon$s...@news.ox.ac.uk>, Henry Potts writes:
> David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : Peter is, by any reasonable definition, skilled working class. His father
> : was a lathe operator, and his stepfather a gardener, factory cleaner and
> : taxi driver. (Peter has stuck with his natural surname; his mother is now
> : Mrs Mardie Nitzky)
>
> To be very pedantic, this proves Peter's *background* is skilled
> working class, but his socio-economic group is defined by *his*
> profession.
Peter's jobs:
1) Shop-window designer. Worked all year on preparing the Christmas display
at Melbourne's premier department store.
2) Part-time painter and decorator.
3) Freelance journalist.
4) Part-time worker, North Lambeth Day Centre (for the homeless).
5) Parliamentary candidate.
6) Full-time queer activist, journalist and author.
> : > It's not Peter Tatchell personally. He's just an example I came into
> : > contact with in 1983. (for Robert Hull's benefit).
>
> : What sort of contact was this? I may ask Peter about this tonight (we're
> : going to the opera).
>
> Aha! Going to the opera! Must be upper class then! :)
I don't know if you saw the press release in uk.politics.misc and other
groups, or read the papers this morning. This was a slight hint as to
what was going to happen.
> : > I hear on this morning's radio that people perceive Tony Blair (public
> : > school, Oxbridge) as more "working class" than John Major (neither and
> : > brought up in two rooms in Brixton).
>
> : JM's formative years were spent in Worcester Park, a very leafy suburb
> : near Sutton. The Brixton bit is overplayed by Conservative spindoctors.
> : Tony Blair's family come from working-class Govan in Glasgow; it was Leo
> : Blair (Tony's father) who made the social move into the upper middle
> : class.
>
> What should matter is what job they did before becoming MPs, but I
> don't know what that is for either Blair or Major.
Tony Blair was a Barrister, specialising in employment law.
John Major was a Banker, though he was also doing public relations work.
> Ashdown would have been SEG 1 as an Army officer, but possibly 2 as a
> social worker.
He was a Local Government Officer with Dorset County Council immediately
before election.
David Toube
David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:What was 'patently bogus' was Simon Hughes' claim to be local. Hughes
:had only moved into the constituency a few weeks before standing in
:the 1981 GLC elections. Liberals also spread rumours that Tatchell had
:only come from Australia in 1981. Hughes' repudiation of the smear
:campaign came only after the end of the poll.
In the same vein, am I right in thinking that Mr Hughes was
engaged to be married during his election campaign? What happened
to his fiancee?
----
Matthew Huntbach
David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <547v69$g...@hawk.le.ac.uk>, I.K. Ridley writes:
: >
: > I'm not objecting to the fact that she may or may not be a local
: > candidate. I was drawing attention to opinions expressed that she
: > is on the Blairite wing of the Labour Party.
: She is now. Like a typical moderniser she started off on the left, and if
: you were sensible enough to keep a copy of last years' BBC 2 program
: "The Wilderness Years", in program 1 you would have seen a clip of her
: in 1980 condemning Jim Callaghan from the rostrum at Labour conference.
Who should one trust more - those whose political opinions started out as
rather stupid posturing far left, but have gradually moved to the right
because it seems that's where to be to get power, or those of us who started
out in the centre, have gradually moved to the left, not because our
politics has changed, but because those of us who were to our left have
changed, and whose political choice has always placed us where any route to
power is going to involve long hard work?
Matthew Huntbach
Henry Potts
David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <DzKIu...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, "Colin Rosenstiel" writes:
: > > > IME, self-delusion is a common failing of the politically
: > > > ambitious, of all parties.
: > >
: > > This is the line taken about Peter by Steven Norris in his book. But
: > > it's wrong. (If you had mentioned Peter's attempt to do a cockney
: > > accent, you might be on to something)
: >
: > Yeah, the accent was part of it I suppose. It's the trying to be "working
: > class" of various people on the left that makes me sick.
: Peter is, by any reasonable definition, skilled working class. His father
: was a lathe operator, and his stepfather a gardener, factory cleaner and
: taxi driver. (Peter has stuck with his natural surname; his mother is now
: Mrs Mardie Nitzky)
To be very pedantic, this proves Peter's *background* is skilled
working class, but his socio-economic group is defined by *his*
profession. (This, of course, makes all MPs SEG 1 (professional)
having been elected as being an MP defines them so.)
[...]
: > It's not Peter Tatchell personally. He's just an example I came into
: > contact with in 1983. (for Robert Hull's benefit).
: What sort of contact was this? I may ask Peter about this tonight (we're
: going to the opera).
Aha! Going to the opera! Must be upper class then! :)
: > I hear on this morning's radio that people perceive Tony Blair (public
: > school, Oxbridge) as more "working class" than John Major (neither and
: > brought up in two rooms in Brixton).
: JM's formative years were spent in Worcester Park, a very leafy suburb
: near Sutton. The Brixton bit is overplayed by Conservative spindoctors.
: Tony Blair's family come from working-class Govan in Glasgow; it was Leo
: Blair (Tony's father) who made the social move into the upper middle
: class.
What should matter is what job they did before becoming MPs, but I
don't know what that is for either Blair or Major. Ashdown would have
been SEG 1 as an Army officer, but possibly 2 as a social worker.
Henry, SEG 5 (unemployed/student)
Matthew Huntbach
David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <54ffnf$2...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew Huntbach writes:
: > David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: [Patricia Hewitt]
: > : Like a typical moderniser she started off on the left, and if
: > : you were sensible enough to keep a copy of last years' BBC 2 program
: > : "The Wilderness Years", in program 1 you would have seen a clip of her
: > : in 1980 condemning Jim Callaghan from the rostrum at Labour conference.
: >
: > Who should one trust more - those whose political opinions started out as
: > rather stupid posturing far left, but have gradually moved to the right
: > because it seems that's where to be to get power, ..
: Your question is biased. The reason why the modernisers moved away from
: the left was that they became genuinely convinced that more moderate
: policies were better for the country.
Sure. What about those of us who realised that from the start?
: > .. or those of us who started out in the centre, have gradually moved to
: > the left, not because our politics has changed, but because those of us
: > who were to our left have changed, and whose political choice has always
: > placed us where any route to power is going to involve long hard work?
: Let me answer your question directly: I would far prefer to have politicians
: who are prepared to acknowledge realities and change their views, than
: have politicians who would never change their views even if circumstances
: rendered them inappropriate.
Wouldn't your prefer to have politicians with the intelligence to get it
right in the first place? Or who may have thought out and developed those
moderate policies in more detail than the newcomers who have jumped on the
bandwagon?
Matthew Huntbach
Henry Potts
David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <54fqon$s...@news.ox.ac.uk>, Henry Potts writes:
: > David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > : Peter is, by any reasonable definition, skilled working class. His father
: > : was a lathe operator, and his stepfather a gardener, factory cleaner and
: > : taxi driver. (Peter has stuck with his natural surname; his mother is now
: > : Mrs Mardie Nitzky)
: >
: > To be very pedantic, this proves Peter's *background* is skilled
: > working class, but his socio-economic group is defined by *his*
: > profession.
: Peter's jobs:
: 1) Shop-window designer. Worked all year on preparing the Christmas display
: at Melbourne's premier department store.
SEG 3?
: 2) Part-time painter and decorator.
SEG 3?
: 3) Freelance journalist.
SEG 1/2
: 4) Part-time worker, North Lambeth Day Centre (for the homeless).
Depends quite what he was doing.
: 5) Parliamentary candidate.
Unpaid, so counts as SEG 5? :)
: 6) Full-time queer activist, journalist and author.
SEG 1
Yep, Peter certainly has claims on skilled, working-class origins,
while having moved up since.
: > : > It's not Peter Tatchell personally. He's just an example I came into
: > : > contact with in 1983. (for Robert Hull's benefit).
: >
: > : What sort of contact was this? I may ask Peter about this tonight (we're
: > : going to the opera).
: >
: > Aha! Going to the opera! Must be upper class then! :)
: I don't know if you saw the press release in uk.politics.misc and other
: groups, or read the papers this morning. This was a slight hint as to
: what was going to happen.
Of course - the demo. I should have realised. However, what the
papers failed to explain was why this particualr opera should be
the target...
: > : > I hear on this morning's radio that people perceive Tony Blair (public
: > : > school, Oxbridge) as more "working class" than John Major (neither and
: > : > brought up in two rooms in Brixton).
: >
: > : JM's formative years were spent in Worcester Park, a very leafy suburb
: > : near Sutton. The Brixton bit is overplayed by Conservative spindoctors.
: > : Tony Blair's family come from working-class Govan in Glasgow; it was Leo
: > : Blair (Tony's father) who made the social move into the upper middle
: > : class.
: >
: > What should matter is what job they did before becoming MPs, but I
: > don't know what that is for either Blair or Major.
: Tony Blair was a Barrister, specialising in employment law.
SEG 1
: John Major was a Banker, though he was also doing public relations work.
SEG 2?
: > Ashdown would have been SEG 1 as an Army officer, but possibly 2 as a
: > social worker.
: He was a Local Government Officer with Dorset County Council immediately
: before election.
SEG 1 or 2?
Henry
David Boothroyd
In article <Dzn0v...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, "Ralph Bancroft" writes:
> > Peter is, by any reasonable definition, skilled working class.
>
> and...
>
> > I may ask Peter about this tonight (we're going to the opera).
>
> Er, I don't think on the Rockingham Estate they would view going to the
> opera as a particularly working class activity, David.
Except that we went there to *disrupt* the opera. See the press release
in uk.politics.misc.
Paul Martin
In article <96102217...@election.demon.co.uk>, da...@election.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> Er, I don't think on the Rockingham Estate they would view going to the
>> opera as a particularly working class activity, David.
>
>Except that we went there to *disrupt* the opera. See the press release
>in uk.politics.misc.
I have this niggling doubt that they would view going to *disrupt* an opera as
a particularly working class activity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VISIT LANGUAGE LIVE: http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/martin/languagelive.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Martin, Nuffield College, Oxford, OX1 1NF Telephone: [01865] (2)78965
Email: paul....@nuffield.ox.ac.uk http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jo95017
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert HULL
In article <54imdf$6...@news.ox.ac.uk>
some...@sable.ox.ac.uk "Henry Potts" writes:
> David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> : Peter's jobs:
>
> : 6) Full-time queer
>
> SEG 1
>
Is it therefore your contention that all queers are SEG 1, or that all
SEG 1's are queer? ;-) Or should that be only full-timers?
BTW aren't we straying a little from the charter?
--
Robert
My latest .sig corresponds to rule 4
*_*Julian White*_*
David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:>What sort of contact was this? I may ask Peter about this tonight (we're
:>going to the opera).
I can imagine what for. Hooligan. :)
:>\/ David Boothroyd-Psephologist, Libertarian socialist.Custodi Civitatem Domine
--
Julian White. (u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk) My British politics page is now at:
http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/po/table/brit/brit.htm
David Toube
ral...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Ralph Bancroft") wrote:
:
:> Peter is, by any reasonable definition, skilled working class.
:
:and...
:
:> I may ask Peter about this tonight (we're going to the opera).
:
:Er, I don't think on the Rockingham Estate they would view going to the
:opera as a particularly working class activity, David.
:
::-)
:
Ah - all now becomes clear.
Did you enjoy the opera, David?
David Toube
lw...@mail.bris.ac.uk (M J Drew) wrote:
:David Toube (D.S....@qmw.ac.uk) wrote:
:: David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:: :What was 'patently bogus' was Simon Hughes' claim to be local. Hughes
:: :had only moved into the constituency a few weeks before standing in
:: :the 1981 GLC elections. Liberals also spread rumours that Tatchell had
:: :only come from Australia in 1981. Hughes' repudiation of the smear
:: :campaign came only after the end of the poll.
::
:: In the same vein, am I right in thinking that Mr Hughes was
:: engaged to be married during his election campaign? What happened
:: to his fiancee?
::
:I think you may be confusing this with the story put out that David
:Alton's girlfriend was seen leaving his home late at night/early in
:morning during his Liverpool Edgehill by-election in 79. I don't recall
:your story about Simon - I work for quite a time at the Bermondsey
:by-election.
In that case, I accept that I am wrong. Canards have a way of
doing the rounds. . . .
ton...@vnet.ibm.co.uk
In <Dzn5v...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>, lw...@mail.bris.ac.uk (M J Drew) writes:
>But the people of Bermondsey voted for a completely different Labour
>Party - nothing like the Labour Party Tatchell espoused. Of course (to
>bring matters back to topic) if we had STV then candidate from both Labour
>Parties could have stood and the voters could choose between them rather
>than let a few people in a selection committee make their choice of MP.
>
>--
>Mike Drew
>South Gloucestershire Unitary Council:Lab 31, Lib Dem 30, Con 8, Ind 1
>Yate Town Council: Lab 1, Lib Dem 20
>Northavon Constituency S. Glos Councillors (Lab 2, Lib Dem 25, Con 4)
As I recall, the people of Bermondsey did have two Labour Parties to choose
from and this was one of the reasons Peter Tatchell lost. I think it was a
right-wing Southwark councillor (O'Grady?) who stood and, with the help of
Melhuish (who'd secured his own quango), was responsible for some of the
more vicious mud slinging.
Nowadays, of course, Labour candidates are selected by a ballot of all the
party members in the constituency - does this apply in other parties?
Tony Fry
(not speaking for my employer)
Matthew Huntbach
ton...@vnet.ibm.co.uk wrote:
: As I recall, the people of Bermondsey did have two Labour Parties to choose
: from and this was one of the reasons Peter Tatchell lost. I think it was a
: right-wing Southwark councillor (O'Grady?) who stood and, with the help of
: Melhuish (who'd secured his own quango), was responsible for some of the
: more vicious mud slinging.
Yes, indeed the by-election was flagged by the press as a fight between
the two wings of Labour with all the other candidates also-rans right up
till the last week of the campaign. Many Liberal activists made a good
profit placing bets at a time anyone working in the campaign could see that
Simon Hughes had a good chance, but the bookies were still giving him
also-ran odds.
Liberals saw the fight as much as one against O'Grady as against Tatchell.
Many of us were moved to work in the campaign because we were appalled at the
prospect of O'Grady winning on the back of anti-Tatchell hysteria, when
O'Grady, as former leader of Southwark council, was responsible for much of
the mess the electors lived in. Tatchell was seen as well-intentioned, but
incredibly naive, offering very little behind his penchant for grand gestures -
a view which has surely been confirmed by his subsequent career. A victory
for Simon Hughes would have been a victory for democracy in a way that a
vitory for either of the Labour candidates would not. It would have
demonstrated that the apathetic "why bother, you can't change things" way of
thinking that is endemic in inner cities could be challenged. If the people
of Southwark and Bermondsey could chuck out a political party which had so
taken them for granted for decades, what else could they do if they started
challenging old assumptions?
It is only because O'Grady did so badly in the final vote that he has been
written out of the history books, and much of what his campaign did has been
wrongly attributed to the Simon Hughes campaign.
And once again, I worked for several weeks almost full time on that campaign
and never once saw an "I've been kissed by Peter Tatchell" badge.
Matthew Huntbach
David Boothroyd
In article <Dzn5v...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>, M J Drew writes:
> David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : In article <DzKM1...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>, M J Drew writes:
> : > What I always felt wrong with Tatchell was the use he made of the empty
> : > shell of the Bermondsey Labour Party. He and a few like minded
> : > individuals moved into a moribund Labour Party and tried to use the
> : > traditional Labour vote for ends that most of those voters did not
beleive
> : > in.
> :
> : No. First of all, it was the GLC housing computer which was responsible
> : for Peter moving to Bermondsey - he had been living in Hornsey and had
> : joined the Labour Party there in 1978, but was made homeless in 1979.
> : The GLC computer found the empty flat at Arrol House, Rockingham Estate.
>
> Non sequitar.
Where? What I said was a summary of what happened. It shows that Peter did
not move in to Bermondsey to take over the Labour Party.
> : Secondly, when the old guard of the Bermondsey Party lost power in the
> : 1980 AGM, it was still able to hold power in Southwark Borough Council.
> : It was not until the round of new candidate selections that new left
> : candidates were selected - in 1981, when George Nicholson became GLC
> : councillor, and in 1982 when left candidates were elected to Southwark
> : Borough Council.
>
> The new left (who I was probably more in tune with the the Mellish' old
> guard)
This is just gibberish. Explain please.
> .. still were using the tradition Labour vote which was as conservative
> (note small "c") as can be found, without letting on that they were
> quite a different beast.
You can't "use" the vote. You put up candidates, and if the electorate
vote for them, they get elected. The Southwark Labour Party was putting
up left candidates from 1981, and usually got them elected. They then
carried out a left program. What is your complaint?
> : > What Tatchell should have done was to start his own party which made it
> : > clear what he stood for and then to campaign to convert the people of
> : > Bermondsey to his views.
> :
> : Rubbish. Peter's views are firmly within the Labour Party. He has never
> : been a member of any other party, and tried to join as early as 1972
> : (no reply - right dominated CLP). Read Peter's book with regard to the
> : political origins of the Bermondsey party - suffice it to say that it
> : was Robert Mellish who was the first to take the party over.
>
> But the people of Bermondsey voted for a completely different Labour
> Party - nothing like the Labour Party Tatchell espoused.
On what occasion was this? O'Grady polled very few votes.
--
\/ David Boothroyd-Psephologist, Libertarian socialist.Custodi Civitatem Domine
David Boothroyd
In article <54imdf$6...@news.ox.ac.uk>, Henry Potts writes:
> David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : In article <54fqon$s...@news.ox.ac.uk>, Henry Potts writes:
> : > To be very pedantic, this proves Peter's *background* is skilled
> : > working class, but his socio-economic group is defined by *his*
> : > profession.
>
> : Peter's jobs:
>
> : 1) Shop-window designer. Worked all year on preparing the Christmas display
> : at Melbourne's premier department store.
>
> SEG 3?
I don't think in terms of "SEG". I think in terms of the Advertising
Association's ABC1C2DE scheme. Shop-window designer is C2.
> : 2) Part-time painter and decorator.
>
> SEG 3?
C2.
> : 3) Freelance journalist.
>
> SEG 1/2
C1. Could not really be higher.
> : 4) Part-time worker, North Lambeth Day Centre (for the homeless).
>
> Depends quite what he was doing.
Helping the homeless find homes, I presume. C1.
> : 5) Parliamentary candidate.
>
> Unpaid, so counts as SEG 5? :)
I would say C1.
> : 6) Full-time queer activist, journalist and author.
>
> SEG 1
I was unaware one had to profess an oath to be a full-time queer activist.
Surely not SEG 1 whatever that is. C1 would be my guess. Couldn't be B
because, as one OutRage! member said, "Peter has all the management skills
of a sack of King Edwards".
> : > : I may ask Peter about this tonight (we're going to the opera).
> : >
> : > Aha! Going to the opera! Must be upper class then! :)
>
> : I don't know if you saw the press release in uk.politics.misc and other
> : groups, or read the papers this morning. This was a slight hint as to
> : what was going to happen.
>
> Of course - the demo. I should have realised. However, what the
> papers failed to explain was why this particualr opera should be
> the target...
Some of them did explain it, the Times didn't. It was a protest against
Romania's plan to make gay sex illegal and also to jail anyone who supports
gay rights. The opera was the Romanian National Opera, sponsored by the
Romanian Tourist Ministry and the Romanian Embassy. See the OutRage! press
release on the internet at http://www.outrage.cygnet.co.uk/qintelah.htm.
M J Drew
David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:
: > David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > : > What I always felt wrong with Tatchell was the use he made of the empty
: > : > shell of the Bermondsey Labour Party. He and a few like minded
: > : > individuals moved into a moribund Labour Party and tried to use the
: > : > traditional Labour vote for ends that most of those voters did not
: beleive
: > : > in.
: > :
: > : No. First of all, it was the GLC housing computer which was responsible
: > : for Peter moving to Bermondsey - he had been living in Hornsey and had
: > : joined the Labour Party there in 1978, but was made homeless in 1979.
: > : The GLC computer found the empty flat at Arrol House, Rockingham Estate.
: >
: > Non sequitar.
:
: Where? What I said was a summary of what happened. It shows that Peter did
: not move in to Bermondsey to take over the Labour Party.
It was not answering any point that I was making.
:
: > : Secondly, when the old guard of the Bermondsey Party lost power in the
: > : 1980 AGM, it was still able to hold power in Southwark Borough Council.
: > : It was not until the round of new candidate selections that new left
: > : candidates were selected - in 1981, when George Nicholson became GLC
: > : councillor, and in 1982 when left candidates were elected to Southwark
: > : Borough Council.
: >
: > The new left (who I was probably more in tune with the the Mellish' old
: > guard)
:
: This is just gibberish. Explain please.
:
: > .. still were using the tradition Labour vote which was as conservative
: > (note small "c") as can be found, without letting on that they were
: > quite a different beast.
:
: You can't "use" the vote. You put up candidates, and if the electorate
: vote for them, they get elected. The Southwark Labour Party was putting
: up left candidates from 1981, and usually got them elected. They then
: carried out a left program. What is your complaint?
:
You well know that most people vote for the party that they have always
voted for. So if people who stand for election under the same party name
but actually beleive in completely different policies then they are using
the (in this case) Labour vote.
Simon Hughes, as I have done and many Liberals/Liberal Democrats, had to
get people to change the way they traditionally voted and positively make
a choice to vote for some other party.
: > : > What Tatchell should have done was to start his own party which made it
: > : > clear what he stood for and then to campaign to convert the people of
: > : > Bermondsey to his views.
: > :
: > : Rubbish. Peter's views are firmly within the Labour Party. He has never
: > : been a member of any other party, and tried to join as early as 1972
: > : (no reply - right dominated CLP). Read Peter's book with regard to the
: > : political origins of the Bermondsey party - suffice it to say that it
: > : was Robert Mellish who was the first to take the party over.
: >
: > But the people of Bermondsey voted for a completely different Labour
: > Party - nothing like the Labour Party Tatchell espoused.
:
: On what occasion was this? O'Grady polled very few votes.
While O'Grady was running as "Old" Labour it was clear to the voters that
he was not any longer "real" Labour. If it had not been a by-election, as
you admitted, Tatchell would have received all the votes from the
homophobic, conservative traditional Labour voters when, if they knew
Tatchell's views they would not vote for him.
:
: --
: \/ David Boothroyd-Psephologist, Libertarian socialist.Custodi Civitatem Domine
: British Elections and Politics at http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
: I wish I was in North Dakota. Next General Election must be before 22nd May '97
: The House of Commons now : C 324, Lab 271, L Dem 26, UU 9, PC 4, SDLP 4, SNP 4,
: UDUP 3, Ind UU 1, Spkrs 4, Vac 1. Government majority = 2. Telephone Tate 6125.
--
M J Drew
ton...@vnet.ibm.co.uk wrote:
: In <Dzn5v...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>, lw...@mail.bris.ac.uk (M J Drew) writes:
: >But the people of Bermondsey voted for a completely different Labour
: >bring matters back to topic) if we had STV then candidate from both Labour
: >Parties could have stood and the voters could choose between them rather
: >than let a few people in a selection committee make their choice of MP.
:
: >--
: >South Gloucestershire Unitary Council:Lab 31, Lib Dem 30, Con 8, Ind 1
: >Yate Town Council: Lab 1, Lib Dem 20
: >Northavon Constituency S. Glos Councillors (Lab 2, Lib Dem 25, Con 4)
: from and this was one of the reasons Peter Tatchell lost. I think it was a
: right-wing Southwark councillor (O'Grady?) who stood and, with the help of
: Melhuish (who'd secured his own quango), was responsible for some of the
:
The voters were not able to vote preferentially therefore they split their
vote - however if I recall correctly, in the end, Hughes had an absolute
majority.
: Nowadays, of course, Labour candidates are selected by a ballot of all the
: party members in the constituency - does this apply in other parties?
:
: Tony Fry
: (not speaking for my employer)
The Liberal Democrats have always had ballots of all party members in
constituency as did it forrunners the Liberal Party and the SDP (I think
had all members of the Area party which was often bigger than the
constituency
David Boothroyd
In article <54klaa$p...@zen.hursley.ibm.com>, ton...@vnet.ibm.co.uk writes:
> In <Dzn5v...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>, lw...@mail.bris.ac.uk (M J Drew) writes:
> >If we had STV then candidate from both Labour Parties could have stood
> >and the voters could choose between them rather than let a few people
> >in a selection committee make their choice of MP.
>
> As I recall, the people of Bermondsey did have two Labour Parties to choose
> from and this was one of the reasons Peter Tatchell lost. I think it was a
> right-wing Southwark councillor (O'Grady?) who stood and, with the help of
> Melhuish (who'd secured his own quango), was responsible for some of the
> more vicious mud slinging.
John O'Grady was the Leader of Southwark Council for many years until 1982.
His ward was in the Bermondsey constituency. Before the 1982 elections,
he only fought off an attempt to deselect him with NEC help.
Robert Mellish had been appointed Vice-Chair of the Docklands Urban
Development Corporation in 1981. Normally this post would attract a
considerable salary, and so would be an Office of Profit under the Crown,
but because Mellish wished to remain an MP, a special clause was added
to the Act establishing the body to delay the salary until a point
of Mellish's choosing.
In 1982 the Southwark Labour council candidates were almost all left-wing.
Some of the incumbents had joined the SDP. The former Riverside Ward
councillor Coral Newell had not been reselected, but fought with three
colleagues as Independent Labour. Mellish gave her vocal support and she
won. Supporting candidates in opposition to duly selected Labour
candidates is a disciplinary offence in the Labour Party, and after the
Bermondsey party contacted Lewisham West CLP, moves to expel Mellish
were commenced. Mellish pre-empted them by resigning from the Labour
Party in August 1982. [Coral Newell returned to the Labour Party in the
mid-1980s, but was defeated by the Liberal Democrats]
John O'Grady was still a member of the Bermondsey General Committee in
January 1983, when the selection for the byelection took place. He staged
a walk-out of this meeting.
O'Grady was staunchly supported by Mellish during the byelection. Their
campaign was however a non-starter despite good showings in early polls
(as late as February 16th he was polling 23%, when the Liberals who eventually
won only polled 24%). At the end of the campaign, O'Grady was reduced to
singing a homophobic song from the back of a cart.
> Nowadays, of course, Labour candidates are selected by a ballot of all the
> party members in the constituency - does this apply in other parties?
In the Conservative Party the matter is handled by a "Selection Committee"
which is very broadly based. It has been said to me that, in practice,
"anyone who wants to be" can be a member of a Selection Committee.
The Liberal Democrats select by one member one vote.
David Boothroyd
In article <3271d686...@news.qmw.ac.uk>, David Toube writes:
> ral...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Ralph Bancroft") wrote:
[I write:]
> :
> :> Peter is, by any reasonable definition, skilled working class.
> :
> :and...
> :
> :> I may ask Peter about this tonight (we're going to the opera).
> :
> :Er, I don't think on the Rockingham Estate they would view going to the
> :opera as a particularly working class activity, David.
> :
> ::-)
>
> Ah - all now becomes clear.
>
> Did you enjoy the opera, David?
Didn't get to see much of it. They kind of stopped when we went on stage.
The security staff got very violent very early on - I wasn't injured,
but six others were. One of us didn't get on stage, being trapped by
security in the corridor to auditorium. The security staff were kicking
him and wanted to break his legs.
Obukpe: The Millbank byelection in Westminster will be on 28th November.
The Labour candidate will be selected on 29th October, but there's a
shortlist of one, so if it's not Mair Garside I'll be very surprised.
David Toube
David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:
:In article <3271d686...@news.qmw.ac.uk>, David Toube writes:
:> ral...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Ralph Bancroft") wrote:
:[I write:]
:> :
:> :> Peter is, by any reasonable definition, skilled working class.
:> :
:> :and...
:> :
:> :> I may ask Peter about this tonight (we're going to the opera).
:> :
:> :Er, I don't think on the Rockingham Estate they would view going to the
:> :opera as a particularly working class activity, David.
:> :
:> ::-)
:>
:> Ah - all now becomes clear.
:>
:> Did you enjoy the opera, David?
:
:Didn't get to see much of it. They kind of stopped when we went on stage.
:The security staff got very violent very early on - I wasn't injured,
:but six others were. One of us didn't get on stage, being trapped by
:security in the corridor to auditorium. The security staff were kicking
:him and wanted to break his legs.
:
So you couldn't tell me whether they were singing in romanian
(romance?)
David Boothroyd
In article <54ko6d$f...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew Huntbach writes:
>
> Liberals saw the fight as much as one against O'Grady as against Tatchell.
> Many of us were moved to work in the campaign because we were appalled at the
> prospect of O'Grady winning on the back of anti-Tatchell hysteria, when
> O'Grady, as former leader of Southwark council, was responsible for much of
> the mess the electors lived in. Tatchell was seen as well-intentioned, but
> incredibly naive, offering very little behind his penchant for grand
> gestures - a view which has surely been confirmed by his subsequent career.
This was presumably what inspired the Liberal campaign to declare "Peter
Tatchell is the issue" at the start of the campaign, have as their main
slogan "Simon Hughes - the only one to beat Tatchell" and include comments
like "It will be the end of the road for Southwark and Bermondsey if we
elect a political joke as our MP."
The Liberal campaign also claimed their candidate, who had moved into the
constituency only two months before, was a "local man" and that Peter
Tatchell, who came to Britain in 1971, was always an "Australian". [Peter
has in fact naturalised British citizenship. Liberals do like to play fast
and loose with racism]
> A victory for Simon Hughes would have been a victory for democracy
Ha ha ha. Tell us another.
> It is only because O'Grady did so badly in the final vote that he has been
> written out of the history books.
Once O'Grady realised he couldn't win, he put the word round to vote
Liberal.
> And once again, I worked for several weeks almost full time on that campaign
> and never once saw an "I've been kissed by Peter Tatchell" badge.
That isn't, however, a claim that they were never used. They were. Ask
John Hein, who was also on the Liberal campaign.
Malcolm George
>> Re: Peter Tatchell (was: Patricia Hewitt)
:-)
© MalcolmH 1996
Matthew Huntbach
David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <54ko6d$f...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew Huntbach writes:
: >
: > Liberals saw the fight as much as one against O'Grady as against Tatchell.
: > Many of us were moved to work in the campaign because we were appalled at
: > the prospect of O'Grady winning on the back of anti-Tatchell hysteria, when
: > O'Grady, as former leader of Southwark council, was responsible for much of
: > the mess the electors lived in. Tatchell was seen as well-intentioned, but
: > incredibly naive, offering very little behind his penchant for grand
: > gestures - a view which has surely been confirmed by his subsequent career.
: This was presumably what inspired the Liberal campaign to declare "Peter
: Tatchell is the issue" at the start of the campaign, have as their main
: slogan "Simon Hughes - the only one to beat Tatchell"
It worked, didn't it? As intended, it marginalised O'Grady, who was seen as
a leading contender right up till the week before polling. One of the ways of
attacking a political opponent is to ignore him or her - you Labour Party
people regularly use it against us Liberal Democrats, so you should know all
about it. How many times when Smith is the Tory MP, the Lib Dems are the
main challenger and you are third placed do you run "Vote Labour, the only
way to beat Smith"? campaigns? Most of the time, I'd say.
: and include comments
: like "It will be the end of the road for Southwark and Bermondsey if we
: elect a political joke as our MP."
Sorry, you seem to be a friend of Peter Tatchell, and I am sure he is a nice
bloke, but as I said before, his subsequent career indicates that he would
not have made a good MP. He seems more interested in sily stunts than in
serious work.
: > A victory for Simon Hughes would have been a victory for democracy
: Ha ha ha. Tell us another.
So you think it is healthy for democracy for a constituency never, ever, to
have a change of party representing it, even if it has been badly treated
by that party?
: > It is only because O'Grady did so badly in the final vote that he has been
: > written out of the history books.
: Once O'Grady realised he couldn't win, he put the word round to vote
: Liberal.
So? The SWP tells people (or at least it used to) to vote Labour but fight for
a socialist future. That does not mean the Labour Party can be held responsible
for anything the SWP does.
: > And once again, I worked for several weeks almost full time on that campaign
: > and never once saw an "I've been kissed by Peter Tatchell" badge.
: That isn't, however, a claim that they were never used. They were. Ask
: John Hein, who was also on the Liberal campaign.
I believe it was an in-joke by the Liberal Gay action group. I stand by what
I said - they were never used in serious campaigning.
Matthew Huntbach
David Boothroyd
In article <54j6ik$a...@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>, *_*Julian White*_* writes:
> David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> :>What sort of contact was this? I may ask Peter about this tonight (we're
> :>going to the opera).
>
> I can imagine what for. Hooligan. :)
We only wrecked an Opera for ten minutes - and in a good cause. Your lot
have been wrecking the country for seventeen years, in the cause of
lining their own pockets.
Henry Potts
David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <54imdf$6...@news.ox.ac.uk>, Henry Potts writes:
: > David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > : > To be very pedantic, this proves Peter's *background* is skilled
: > : > working class, but his socio-economic group is defined by *his*
: > : > profession.
: >
: > : Peter's jobs:
: >
: > : 1) Shop-window designer. Worked all year on preparing the Christmas display
: > : at Melbourne's premier department store.
: >
: > SEG 3?
: I don't think in terms of "SEG". I think in terms of the Advertising
: Association's ABC1C2DE scheme. Shop-window designer is C2.
The two schemes are roughly the same (just replace number by letter?).
I should go find the book that standardises all these things.
: > : [...] 3) Freelance journalist.
: >
: > SEG 1/2
: C1. Could not really be higher.
Why not? It depends a lot on exactly what someone is doing
under the broad specturm of "freelance journalist", but I
would have thought it could easily be B.
[...]
: > SEG 1
: I was unaware one had to profess an oath to be a full-time queer activist.
: Surely not SEG 1 whatever that is. C1 would be my guess. Couldn't be B
: because, as one OutRage! member said, "Peter has all the management skills
: of a sack of King Edwards". [...]
I was simply thinking that anyone who's famous gets to be SEG 1
by default! :)
: > : I don't know if you saw the press release in uk.politics.misc and other
: > : groups, or read the papers this morning. This was a slight hint as to
: > : what was going to happen.
: >
: > Of course - the demo. I should have realised. However, what the
: > papers failed to explain was why this particualr opera should be
: > the target...
: Some of them did explain it, the Times didn't. It was a protest against
: Romania's plan to make gay sex illegal and also to jail anyone who supports
: gay rights. The opera was the Romanian National Opera, sponsored by the
: Romanian Tourist Ministry and the Romanian Embassy. See the OutRage! press
: release on the internet at http://www.outrage.cygnet.co.uk/qintelah.htm.
A-ha! - thanks,
Henry
Nigel Ashton
In article <54pvua$o...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew Huntbach
<m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> writes
[snip]
>It worked, didn't it? As intended, it marginalised O'Grady, who was seen as
>a leading contender right up till the week before polling. One of the ways of
>attacking a political opponent is to ignore him or her - you Labour Party
>people regularly use it against us Liberal Democrats, so you should know all
>about it. How many times when Smith is the Tory MP, the Lib Dems are the
>main challenger and you are third placed do you run "Vote Labour, the only
>way to beat Smith"? campaigns? Most of the time, I'd say.
Come on Matthew, this is a tactic not entirely unknown to the Liberal
Democrats, or, to be fair, to the pre-merger Liberals.
--
Nigel Ashton
ni...@ashton.demon.co.uk
The Ashton household web site http://www.ashton.demon.co.uk/
The Liberal Party web site http://www.libparty.demon.co.uk/
Sandy Morton
> Your lot have been wrecking the country for seventeen years,
My lot have been keeping the country, BRITAIN, going for 17 years,
I think that almost everyones standard of living has gone up.
To the best of my personal knowledge the health service is doing a
fantastic job.
And inflation is very nearly static.
Unemployment is falling steadily.
And all without a toothy, smarmy, grin!
My kids go to normal state schools?
Malcolm George
> If people don't pay attention to their candidates' election addresses,
> or to the local press, that's their problem.
I have been silently reading the 'Tatchel wos smeared and robbed - no he
wasn't' debate, but this I won't let pass.
It is not up to the 'people' to present policy, etc. in an acceptable and
pursuasive fashion, it is up to those who seek to persuade the people -
for or against.
And Yes! I know that I have taken the quote out of the context in which
it was made - that's because I do not accept that it is context sensitive
(sic).
And anyway, the original debate has run it's course and is boring.
© MalcolmH 1996
M J Drew
David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:
: > David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > : In article <Dzn5v...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>, M J Drew writes:
: > : > David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > : > : Party there in 1978, but was made homeless in 1979. The GLC computer
: > : > : found the empty flat at Arrol House, Rockingham Estate.
: > : >
: > : > Non sequitar.
: > :
: > : Where? What I said was a summary of what happened. It shows that Peter did
: > : not move in to Bermondsey to take over the Labour Party.
: >
: > It was not answering any point that I was making.
:
: Party". This implies deliberately moving in. It was pure coincedence that
: Peter ended up in Bermondsey.
:
I was referring into joining a moribund local party and taking it over.
: > : You can't "use" the Labour vote. You put up candidates, and if the
: > : electorate vote for them, they get elected. The Southwark Labour Party
: > : was putting up left candidates from 1981, and usually got them elected.
: > : They then carried out a left program. What is your complaint?
: >
: > You well know that most people vote for the party that they have always
: > voted for. So if people who stand for election under the same party name
: > but actually beleive in completely different policies then they are using
: > the (in this case) Labour vote.
:
: If people don't pay attention to their candidates' election addresses,
: or to the local press, that's their problem.
:
However under our election system the Tories and Labour rely to a large
extent on a traditional vote. Just look at the efforts made in safe seat
compared to marginal ones.
: > : > But the people of Bermondsey voted for a completely different Labour
: > : > Party - nothing like the Labour Party Tatchell espoused.
: > :
: > : On what occasion was this? O'Grady polled very few votes.
: >
: > While O'Grady was running as "Old" Labour it was clear to the voters that
: > he was not any longer "real" Labour.
:
: O'Grady's label was "Real Bermondsey Labour".
:
: > If it had not been a by-election, as you admitted, Tatchell would have
: > received all the votes from the homophobic, conservative traditional
: > Labour voters when, if they knew Tatchell's views they would not vote for
: > him.
:
: The homophobia of the Bermondsey dockers was always exaggerated. Peter's
: estimate is that at the most 2,000 votes were lost by his homosexuality
: (see Mervyn Jones' biography of Michael Foot). Mellish had in his turn
: taken over from a left-wing Bermondsey party and you didn't complain that
: he was using the Labour vote. This is just the usual Lib Dem rubbish and
: doesn't address the rank hypocrisy of Simon Hughes in benefiting from a
: homophobic campaign without telling the electors the truth about himself.
:
The homophobia is most likely a product of the conservatism of the local
people. Tatchell would have quite welcomed people voting for him just
because he carried a Labour label. If people are challenged with
alternative views and approaches then they can shake off their
conservatism - Liberals/Liberal Democrats can and have done it.
Please clarify your charge of hypocrisy of Simon Hughes. I assume you
beleive that he is gay and has not come out - on the principle that all
men over a certain age who are not married must be gay. You keep repeating
the charge that Simon Hughes ran a homophobic campaign - please produce
evidence - all you do is repeat the "I have been kissed by Peter Tachell"
badge story - again without evidence.
Robert HULL
In article <n235...@sandymillport.demon.co.uk>
atmo...@sandymillport.demon.co.uk "Sandy Morton" writes:
> > Your lot have been wrecking the country for seventeen years,
>
> My lot have been keeping the country, BRITAIN, going for 17 years,
^
Due to a typing error, you missed a word here: "downhill"
> I think that almost everyones standard of living has gone up.
Do you also think that there are fairies at the bottom of your garden?
It is a point of view with equal validity.
Do you need reminding of the millions of people your policies have cast
out of work, often permanently ? Has their standard of living improved?
Or what of the pensioners? The relative value of a state pension has
halved (as near as damn it) - is it your contention that *their*
standard of living has gone up?
> To the best of my personal knowledge the health service is doing a
> fantastic job.
I don't call it a fantastic job when there is a ten month delay just
to get the initial appointment with a consultant, nor when people are
barred from treatment on the grounds of their age.
Thanks to the Tory Health reforms, operations which are considered to
be a "medical necessity" were suspended recently at a nearby Health
Trust for a period of 17 months - is *that* what you call a fantastic
job ?
>
> And inflation is very nearly static.
Anyone can squash inflation in a period of recession. By the definition
that was used internationally until your party took office, we *are* in
a recession - the economy has not yet regained the level it was at before
your lot engineered the recession.
>
> Unemployment is falling steadily.
And according to government statistics, so is the number of people
in work. How do you justify that ?
Off topic in uk.p.e
xp & fu to uk.p.misc
David Boothroyd
In article <DzxL5...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, "Malcolm George" writes:
[I write but the attribution is deleted:]
> > If people don't pay attention to their candidates' election addresses,
> > or to the local press, that's their problem.
>
> I have been silently reading the 'Tatchell wos smeared and robbed - no he
> wasn't' debate, but this I won't let pass.
It cannot be doubted that Peter was smeared in a quite unprecedented way
during that byelection, but I do not say he was "robbed" of the victory.
It's up to the people of Bermondsey to choose their MP. If they decide
to choose a useless hypocrite, it's their problem.
> It is not up to the 'people' to present policy, etc. in an acceptable and
> pursuasive fashion, it is up to those who seek to persuade the people -
> for or against.
I'm unable to see where this disagrees with what I said. A candidate's
election address should state simply and concisely where the candidate
stands on the issues. The electors then decide which candidate to vote for.
David Boothroyd
In article <DzxLu...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>, M J Drew writes:
> David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : You said "He and a few like minded individuals moved into a moribund Labour
> : Party". This implies deliberately moving in. It was pure coincedence that
> : Peter ended up in Bermondsey.
>
> I was referring into joining a moribund local party and taking it over.
Peter joined a thriving local party, then was forced to transfer to a
moribund party. Like any other activist in the Labour Party he sought to
bring the party round to his point of view - what is wrong with that?
> : The homophobia of the Bermondsey dockers was always exaggerated. Peter's
> : estimate is that at the most 2,000 votes were lost by his homosexuality
> : (see Mervyn Jones' biography of Michael Foot). Mellish had in his turn
> : taken over from a left-wing Bermondsey party and you didn't complain that
> : he was using the Labour vote. This is just the usual Lib Dem rubbish and
> : doesn't address the rank hypocrisy of Simon Hughes in benefiting from a
> : homophobic campaign without telling the electors the truth about himself.
>
> The homophobia is most likely a product of the conservatism of the local
> people.
The people of Bermondsey are not as conservative as you seem to think.
Remember that Simon Hughes spent the campaign loudly insisting that he
was "more radical than Tatchell".
> Tatchell would have quite welcomed people voting for him just
> because he carried a Labour label.
These people are called "loyal Labour voters". They are the people who vote
Labour because they agree with Labour Party policy.
> Please clarify your charge of hypocrisy of Simon Hughes. I assume you
> beleive that he is gay and has not come out - on the principle that all
> men over a certain age who are not married must be gay.
Simon Hughes was the principal participant in writing the Liberal Party's
Gay Rights. The publication had to be delayed when he went off to fight
the byelection. I am aware of reports of people taken in as lodgers by
Simon Hughes. There are other sources which I am not prepared to reveal.
> You keep repeating the charge that Simon Hughes ran a homophobic
> campaign - please produce evidence - all you do is repeat the "I have
> been kissed by Peter Tachell" badge story - again without evidence.
This happened.
In addition, Liberal canvassers on the doorsteps had the audacity to say
that voters should not hold against the Labour candidate the fact that
he was a "draft-dodging Australian homosexual" etc. One Liberal supporter
wrote to Peter Tatchell saying that Simon Hughes "won a hollow victory
given the abuse you were subjected to" and another in Ayr said "our
candidate would never have won if it hadn't been for the dirtiest smear
campaign in political history" (see The Battle for Bermondsey, p. 154).
But it was only after the polls had closed that Simon Hughes noticed
this and said that perhaps it wasn't the cleanest election.
Matthew Huntbach
David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <54pvua$o...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew Huntbach writes:
: > David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > : In article <54ko6d$f...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew Huntbach writes:
: >
: > : This was presumably what inspired the Liberal campaign to declare "Peter
: > : Tatchell is the issue" at the start of the campaign, have as their main
: > : slogan "Simon Hughes - the only one to beat Tatchell"
: >
: > It worked, didn't it?
: Yes - the Liberals did benefit from their smear campaign - to their shame.
I assume you mean "the Liberals benefited from O'Grady's smear campaign".
Yes, they did. If that was such a terrible thing, can you point out to me any
case where a third placed Labour candidate has jumped in to defend a second
placed Liberal or Liberal Democrat candidate who is being smeared by the
Tories? If not, as before, it is nothing you don't do continually yourself
so why raise it as something particularly terrible here?
: > He seems more interested in sily stunts than in serious work.
: Direct action gets results. See the OutRage! website. Ask Bass. Ask
: Steven Watts. No-one in the Church of England gave two monkeys about gay
: rights until OutRage! named ten Bishops - they have declared homophobia wrong
: within months.
Not a good example. The fact that olarge numbers of ordinands are homosexual
was gradually and quietly being accepted by the CofE. OutRage's campaign has
put back all that, and put the homophobes in the driving seat in the CofE.
: > : > And once again, I worked for several weeks almost full time on that
: > : > campaign and never once saw an "I've been kissed by Peter Tatchell"
: > : > badge.
: >
: > : That isn't, however, a claim that they were never used. They were. Ask
: > : John Hein, who was also on the Liberal campaign.
: >
: > I believe it was an in-joke by the Liberal Gay action group. I stand by
: > what I said - they were never used in serious campaigning.
: So when the Lib Dems smear, it's not "serious campaigning" and doesn't count.
: Does this apply when they are racist as well?
What I meant by "not serious campaigning" is that these badges were not
produced in large numbers, were not worn by people while actively campaigning
for Simon Hughes, were not officially endorsed by the Simon Hughes campaign,
quyite likely were not even known about by those running the Simon Hughes
campaign. One or two private individuals made up one or two of these badges as
a joke. That's all. The way people like you write, you'd think they were
issued as a standard to everyone who turned up at the Liberal HQ to offer
help.
Maybe it wasn't a very funny joke, sorry. It wasn't a very funny joke when the
Labour Club at my university a couple of years earlier distributed a spoof
version, full of homophobic jokes, of the leaflet the Liberal Club used to put
out homophobic jokes. Liberals were the butt of homophobic humour from Labour
for many years after the Thorpe affair surfaced. Maybe one or two people did
get in a bit of revenge over Tatchell.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
Nigel Ashton (ni...@ashton.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <54pvua$o...@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew Huntbach
: [snip]
: >It worked, didn't it? As intended, it marginalised O'Grady, who was seen as
: >a leading contender right up till the week before polling. One of the ways of
: >attacking a political opponent is to ignore him or her - you Labour Party
: >people regularly use it against us Liberal Democrats, so you should know all
: >about it. How many times when Smith is the Tory MP, the Lib Dems are the
: >main challenger and you are third placed do you run "Vote Labour, the only
: >way to beat Smith"? campaigns? Most of the time, I'd say.
: Come on Matthew, this is a tactic not entirely unknown to the Liberal
: Democrats, or, to be fair, to the pre-merger Liberals.
I didn't say it wasn't. In fact I was saying it was used by the Liberals in
Bermondsey. All I was saying was that its use there was nothing different
from its use in countless other elections.
Matthew Huntbach
Cheradenine Zakalwe
In article <n235...@sandymillport.demon.co.uk>
atmo...@sandymillport.demon.co.uk "Sandy Morton" writes:
>> Your lot have been wrecking the country for seventeen years,
>
Indeed it is. And in a few years' time, with the help of a bit more
fiddling of statistics, you might even get it back down to what it was
when you came into power.
Except that you won't, your lot won't be in power for much longer.
What a brilliant record the Tories have: unemployment, crime, poverty,
homelessness, all up. Educational standards, wealth relative to other
countries, national influence and power, all down.
(followup set to uk.politics.misc)
--
Zakalwe
** By sending unsolicited commercial spam email to this **
** address, you thereby agree to receive up to 10MB of **
** random core dump information. **
Matthew Huntbach
David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: It cannot be doubted that Peter was smeared in a quite unprecedented way
: during that byelection, but I do not say he was "robbed" of the victory.
: It's up to the people of Bermondsey to choose their MP. If they decide
: to choose a useless hypocrite, it's their problem.
Yes. Fortunately they decided to choose Simon Hughes instead ( :-), sorry,
couldn't resist it).
Matthew Huntbach
M J Drew
David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:
: > David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > : You said "He and a few like minded individuals moved into a moribund Labour
: > : Party". This implies deliberately moving in. It was pure coincedence that
: > : Peter ended up in Bermondsey.
: >
: > I was referring into joining a moribund local party and taking it over.
:
: moribund party. Like any other activist in the Labour Party he sought to
: bring the party round to his point of view - what is wrong with that?
:
: > : estimate is that at the most 2,000 votes were lost by his homosexuality
: > : (see Mervyn Jones' biography of Michael Foot). Mellish had in his turn
: > : taken over from a left-wing Bermondsey party and you didn't complain that
: > : he was using the Labour vote. This is just the usual Lib Dem rubbish and
: > : doesn't address the rank hypocrisy of Simon Hughes in benefiting from a
: > : homophobic campaign without telling the electors the truth about himself.
: >
: > The homophobia is most likely a product of the conservatism of the local
: > people.
: The people of Bermondsey are not as conservative as you seem to think.
: Remember that Simon Hughes spent the campaign loudly insisting that he
: was "more radical than Tatchell".
:
But Simon Hughes hughes was challenging the voters and asking them to be
radical and change their traditional vote. Tatchell was relying on people
voting the way they always vote ie relying on their conservatism.
: > Tatchell would have quite welcomed people voting for him just
: > because he carried a Labour label.
:
: These people are called "loyal Labour voters". They are the people who vote
: Labour because they agree with Labour Party policy.
But their view on what was Labour Policy was vert different to what
Tatchell beleived it was or should be.
:
: > Please clarify your charge of hypocrisy of Simon Hughes. I assume you
: > beleive that he is gay and has not come out - on the principle that all
: > men over a certain age who are not married must be gay.
:
: Simon Hughes was the principal participant in writing the Liberal Party's
: Gay Rights. The publication had to be delayed when he went off to fight
: the byelection. I am aware of reports of people taken in as lodgers by
: Simon Hughes. There are other sources which I am not prepared to reveal.
:
I have no direct knowledge of Simon Hughes sexuality but he has never
expressed anything but liberal/Liberal views on homosexuality. Unlike a
number in the Labour party.
: > You keep repeating the charge that Simon Hughes ran a homophobic
: > campaign - please produce evidence - all you do is repeat the "I have
: > been kissed by Peter Tachell" badge story - again without evidence.
:
: This happened.
:
: In addition, Liberal canvassers on the doorsteps had the audacity to say
: that voters should not hold against the Labour candidate the fact that
: he was a "draft-dodging Australian homosexual" etc. One Liberal supporter
: wrote to Peter Tatchell saying that Simon Hughes "won a hollow victory
: given the abuse you were subjected to" and another in Ayr said "our
: candidate would never have won if it hadn't been for the dirtiest smear
: campaign in political history" (see The Battle for Bermondsey, p. 154).
:
There were a large number of canvassers - probably in excess of a thousand
individuals during the campaign. There may well have been some rogue
canvassers as I no doubt there were a number of rogue Labour canvassers
who said things that were not in line with the Labour Parties campaing
line. There was nothing in the directions to canvassers which would prompt
canvassers to use this tactic.
Again these comments do not lay the blame on the Liberal Campaign.
: But it was only after the polls had closed that Simon Hughes noticed
: this and said that perhaps it wasn't the cleanest election.
: