Bright's Blog

43 comments from readers

eastender
25 March 2008 at 23:02

I looked at the moon.

And I saw a clutch of progressive policies on transport, the environment, equalities and fighting poverty by a Labour London Mayor.

Then I made up my mind who to vote for on May 1st.

I must be some sort of brainwashed Stalinist.

Jonty Stang
25 March 2008 at 23:31

eastender - nah, you're just a moron.

taghioff.info
26 March 2008 at 04:50

Martin

The whole fingers and moon business is an attempt at epistimology. It is actually far more Chinese to avoid dualism, and consider the finger and the moon in relation to one another, and then consider that relation in a wider context.

As for motivations, can you yourself trace the thought process that lead you to do the documentary about Ken? Does it have anything to do with his relationship with Islamic elements you consider undemocratic?

Because if you start to look into that, you might see something about how you are positioned, and also perhaps get some context on where Ken stands.

Because right now this feels a bit like just another scene form the life of Brian, where the Liberation front of Judea is seeking to exterminate the Judean Liberation Front.

Do you really think Ken is unprogressive and anti-democratic? Compared to whom, and on what scale of things?

Martin Bright
26 March 2008 at 11:20

For once you completely miss the point "tagiuoff.info". Of course I can't trace the whole thought process or pinpoint my precise motivations and nor can you or anyone else. My motivation is not the issue. You are, I'm afraid, still looking at the finger.

Do I think Livingstone is unprogressive and undemocratic? Yes I do. He takes some progressive positions, but he is perfectly prepared to shift them when it suits him electorally. In his attitude to Islamism, the City and developers he is not a progressive, he is a reactionary. He is institutionally undemocratic as he has admitted on several occasions since the airing of the Dispatches programme. My favourite quote came when I asked him whether City Hall was happy with the recent report on Islamophobia: "Well there's only one vote that counts and that's mine." Says it all really.

eastender
26 March 2008 at 12:20

I'm more interested in Bright's motivation for using the Evening Standard as a platform for urging Londoners to vote against Labour on the eve of the broadcast of his C4 documentary.

The documentary, one-eyed and shoddy though it was, can be attributed to a journalist doing his job and shinging a light at City Hall.

The ES rant was a the actions of a poliltical campaigner urging an outcome that would favour the Conservative party in a Conservative party supporting newspaper.

Then he ponders why people might just consider the finger as well as the moon.

And you think WE are missing the point.

knave
26 March 2008 at 13:44

Martin

This is a strange argument.

Haven't you and Tory Nick Cohen questioned the motives of Livingstone and Brown.

Also motives of the writer are important because you are making subjective claims not objective ones.

There is also a logical mistake in your article.

If you question my motives you are a stalinist . This is because stalinists questioned motives of writers. Therefore everyone who questions the motives of a journalist is a stalinist.

Strange logic, especially when every journalist including Tory Nick cohen and yourself does exactly the same in questioning motives of politicians.

I think you protest too much.

Also this article does have the ring of self pity.

PlanetStarbucks
26 March 2008 at 15:04

Of course your motivation matters, unless you’re placing yourself into an objective reality that is nothing more than a fundamental lie often used by those who wish to mask their motives behind purported objective truths.

However as the degree to which this matters is the question here your dismissal of it as irrelevant speaks volumes about your underlying motive. You have broken your own objectivity with statements such as “My favourite quote came…”, a comment that immediately breaks your writing back down to the subjective. In other words you find this a personal matter and therefore unless we know why it is such a personal matter nothing you write can be taken as anything else but your opinion. Even facts you present are now coloured by your obvious bias.

knave
26 March 2008 at 16:43

When the finger points at the moon, the Chinese say, the idiot looks at the finger

Not if he/she is a arthritis doctor specialising in finger joints.

Maybe the finger is more interesting than the moon.

BegbiesEvilTwin
26 March 2008 at 18:02

"Peter Tatchell, a former Ken Livingstone ally, finds himself accused of Islamophobia as the mayor continues to defend a Muslim cleric who favours killing gays" http://www.newstatesman.com/200501240019

Can anyone tell me that this sort of thing is acceptable?

I see no benefit in giving one minority group pride of place at the cost of another. In this thread it happens to be muslims because it's a hot topic in our society just now -but that's not the point- it could just as easily be any other minority group.

For chrissakes get some perspective on this.

(Nice comment on the moon, knave).

knave
26 March 2008 at 18:56

Jonty stang

"eastender - nah, you're just a moron".

STALINIST bringing personalities and motives into the argument.

Nah of course not just a Thatcherite bully boy.

eastender
26 March 2008 at 18:58

"For chrissakes get some perspective on this."

Exactly.

Livingstone might have well made some gross errors of judgement. This being one of them.

But overall his record is one that any progressive / leftist minded person could only support.

Unless you were locked in an obsessive battle with him over a single issue. In which case, you'd be driven to tortuous ideological contortions which led you to publicly urge Londoners to oust a Labour administration from City Hall, in the pages of a right wing tabloid.

The rest of us can retain some perspective, look at the bigger picture (for example, Livingstone's outstanding record on lesbian and gay equality) and happily vote for a Labour Mayor on 1st May.

BegbiesEvilTwin
26 March 2008 at 22:00

Did you read the Peter Tatchell article?

eastender
26 March 2008 at 22:25

Yes

BegbiesEvilTwin
26 March 2008 at 22:28

Are you on prescribed medication?

eastender
26 March 2008 at 22:49

Nope.

Livingstone handled the Qaradawi thing all wrong. It was an error.

But, overall, his record as Mayor has been a good one. He has initiated a range of progressive policies that no other politician would've gone near.

Therefore, having "a sense of perspective", I can see that he has been a generally good thing for London.

Those that bang on about him cuddling up to gay bashers like Qaradawi might want to point out the politician in this country that's done anywhere near as much as Livingstone has for gay rights.

BegbiesEvilTwin
26 March 2008 at 22:56

He's been a corporate clone with some deranged fanatics from Socialist Action propping him up.

eastender
26 March 2008 at 23:00

You saw Bright's documentary too, huh?

BegbiesEvilTwin
26 March 2008 at 23:06

Actually no. I knew some of the SA bods from when they helped Labour get into power in '97. Nice enough people but they now see the Labour party as a obstacle in the path to socialism.

Don't get me wrong they're a nice bunch but anyone in the Labour party backing them is akin to turkeys voting for xmas.

BegbiesEvilTwin
26 March 2008 at 23:08

It's like watching Militant trying to f*** over Liverpool in the Kinnock years.

BegbiesEvilTwin
26 March 2008 at 23:23

Anyone got a YouTube link for this scary docu from Martin?

eastender
26 March 2008 at 23:28

Hmmm, that doesn't really tally with what I've seen of them in action.

Livingstone certainly surrounded himself with an exclusive bunch when he came into power. I guess that was the nature of his independent route and his detachment from the party machine.

But since coming to power, they seem to have taken a pretty pragmatic approach. For all their peace receptions at City Hall and deals with Chavez, there's been plenty of humdrum stuff, negotiations with Central Government and so forth, that's led to massive investment in what matters for Londoners; transport, skills, housing, environment. As well as providing funding for a whole mix of equality and inclusion initatives.

This pragmatic line has led some, like Martin Bright, to make out Livingstone's a reactionary, in league with the City and developers. To others (like you it seems) Ken and the SA bunch are a bunch of wild Trots leading London to bankruptcy.

Seems he can be any kind of enemy you want him to be.

But his record stands up. So I'm voting for him.

BegbiesEvilTwin
26 March 2008 at 23:31

So what have you seen of SA?

eastender
26 March 2008 at 23:34

Oh, and the documentary wasn't scarey, a such. Scaremongering perhaps.

The jist:

Livingstone is an unaccountable pisshead, drinkns Scotch all day, surrounded by evil Trots turning London into a bourgeoise social democratic city state or something (sorry, I lost track a bit at this point), traffic in London is a bit slow still and some projects funded by the LDA have gone tits up. But ultimately its not necessarily Ken's fault because the system is to blame but it is Ken's fault really because he called me and my mates some nasty names in an argument about Islamaphobia once.

Oh and apparently the 4th International was based in Moscow.

eastender
26 March 2008 at 23:37

"So what have you seen of SA?"

In my line of work, I've attended meetings with several of Ken's people at City Hall. Some of them are a bit odd in personality terms. But they've all seemed fairly intelligent, sobre in their analysis of London's needs, not a very long way from a New Labour outlook on the economy and aware of the limitations of their office.

BegbiesEvilTwin
26 March 2008 at 23:48

Haven't bothered to read about the 4th international but theres so many of the feckers to keep up to date with all of them.

Listen, I'm not a member or affiliated to any party or movement. I wrote off any hopes for Labour as a result of the Iraq disaster. But I remain unimpressed and unconvinced about Ken. I have read what you have said about his virtues but really all he's doing is making London a safe place for the City to do business in. And SA must be off their trolleys for getting involved with him

BegbiesEvilTwin
26 March 2008 at 23:50

BTW: The SA types I have came across seem very bright and have always been very nice to me. I just think they're making through some counterintuitive ideological decisions to justify what they're up to.

taghioff.info
27 March 2008 at 07:29

@ Martin

Maybe I missed the point, maybe not, I admit fallibility certainly. Please bear with me on this, I am not hunting here, I am curious.

Lets look at the moon first (though are you as distant from Ken as a finger from the moon?)

I did not go and do a Documentary on Ken, you did, so clearly you have access to information that I did not, and sat in India, I have not gone to the trouble of tracking it down on Bit-torrent, so must take your charges on trust.

My point about Ken is, undemocratic and un-progressive relative to whom and in what context.

Firstly Ken is a man in an office and a political structure. Would another person in the same office be more or less corrupt, undemocratic etc...

Also, who do we compare him with, Boris Johnson, Sian Berry, Rudi Gulliani? My feeling is that by focussing on the moon you lose the context, of which you are also a part.

Now to the finger (though I am not sure that is such a nice metaphor for you, are you thus an instrument of a hidden hand?) I can only ask honestly about what your animus with Ken is. I am guessing (and again you know yourself somewhat better than I know you) that the thing that really p*d you off was his brush with Islamism.

You have made principled stands here in the NS about your dislike of such groups (which I agree with in many ways.) Why not set the record straight about your overall feelings about Ken?

I am not trying to deny that there may be problems with the Major's office, nor am I trying to dismiss what you have said based on you having motivations. Both of those are dualistic positions and very simplistic.

Everyone has motivations for how they represent things, that is why objectivity is a flimsy concept. But at the same time this does not mean that there is not content to what people refer to, nor more or less credible of going about things. But ultimately all views are partial, c'est la vie.

My view is that there are problems with the Mayor's office that any successful candidate will have to grapple with, and that Ken is certainly not more corrupt than the current alternatives (Sian Berry is most probably utterly honest, but not likely to become mayor) are likely to be.

Do you remember how the Tories were corrupt for direct personal gain (back in the nasty 80's) in the way that Ken has not been (none of the investigated funds have gone anywhere near enriching Ken personally, have they?)

So I am not trying to deny your point of view Martin, by arguing that your motivations invalidate it, I am asking you to put both your point of view and your motivations into a wider context.

Even the finger and moon exist within a solar system.

redharry
27 March 2008 at 13:58

Martin, how is Livingstone meeting Qaradawi worse than Hitchens having David Irving for tea or Nick Cohen sharing a cocktail with Paul Wolfowitz at Annabel's night club?

BegbiesEvilTwin
27 March 2008 at 16:01

I mentioned Qaradawi on this thread by referring to an article by Peter Tatchell.

Qaradawi advocates killing gays and I was meant it in the context of my earlier remark: "I see no benefit in giving one minority group pride of place at the cost of another. In this thread it happens to be muslims because it's a hot topic in our society just now -but that's not the point- it could just as easily be any other minority group. "

Like Qaradawi, Hitchens and Wolfowitz and Irving are fanatics that should be kept at arms length.

BegbiesEvilTwin
27 March 2008 at 16:06

I have always liked having my swear words changed into asterisks so in the good faith they will be aterisked, I'm calling Qaradawi, Hitchens and Wolfowitz a bunch of fucking fucks of bastarding fuckwits of fuckin no good fucks.

As for Nick Cohen, who the fucking fuck knows what he's fucking on about. I doubt he always fuckin knows him fucking self.

redharry
27 March 2008 at 16:25

Unlike Wolfowitz, Qaradawi for all his faults, hasn't led the invasion of a country leading to genocide.

Was Martin Bright at this event at Annabel's?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/jun/10/uk.comment

It was here that Thatcher's makeover was plotted; here that, when Paul Wolfowitz asked to meet some of Britain's leading journalists, The Observer's Nick Cohen found himself sitting next to John Lloyd and Charles Moore, drinking champagne.

BegbiesEvilTwin
27 March 2008 at 16:36

Who was it who said " Loathe your enemy but respect thier stratgegy"? Or something like that.

In all fairness politicos of every hue and profession actually *need* to go to most of these things every so often. At the very least it can be useful for acquiring intelligence about who is speaking to who and who is "doing" whom. Once you can map the territory you can begin to appreciate the way opinions and information evolves. I mean who would have thought that Diane Abbott got on well with Johnathan Aitken?

redharry
30 March 2008 at 03:37

BegbiesEvilTwin

'politicos of every hue and profession actually *need* to go to most of these things every so often'

no they don't

also Cohen praised Wolfowitz afterwards - so what's your point?

BegbiesEvilTwin
30 March 2008 at 19:58

Don't let me hinder you in festering away.

BegbiesEvilTwin
31 March 2008 at 15:45

So why are you so obsessed about Cohen, Wolfowitz, etc?

redharry
01 April 2008 at 00:58

What makes you think I'm obsessed? Cohen writes for the staggers and praises Wolfowitz, Bright claims that Cohen and Kamm are 'of the left' - I'd like some evidence.

Martin Bright
01 April 2008 at 16:44

No I wasn't at the event at Annabel's

BegbiesEvilTwin
01 April 2008 at 19:19

redharry: #sigh# You have just proven my point, but like all true obsessives it's inevitable you're going to repeat it yet again. And again.

redharry et al: I realise you're merely here to support your great leader in the lead up to the election but would you please make a decent case? This is all very third division.

123andrea
02 April 2008 at 17:58

"The Emptiness of Martin Bright's Argument" (so no change there). So if we don't agree with Ken-bashing we are Stalinists?

Martin, you don't need to be a Stalinist to see that your vendetta against Livingstone is based upon weak arguments that willfully ignore the total evidence.

In the real world, if Livingstone doesn't get in, Johnson will. So who would you rather got elected? If we wake up on 2 May with Boris Johnson running London in his racist, homophobic, George-Bush-loving anti-environmental Thatcherite way, and you have helped him get in by undermining Livingstone's vote, are you seriously saying that you would have done the left a service?

(Fortunately I think that documentary of yours was too feeble to have that sort of impact.)

redharry
02 April 2008 at 18:50

I think Lenny deals best with Nick Cohen's champagne induced love affair with the hard-right warmonger Paul Wolfowitz.and exposes Cohen's inability to check the most basic of facts.

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/09/wolfie-and-citizen-ni...

BegbiesEvilTwin
04 April 2008 at 01:37

Has he ever broken a story?

knave
06 April 2008 at 18:13

What is annabels ?

Also BET I can undestand your defence of Bright but Cohen has and always been a thatcher boy.

salil
16 April 2008 at 22:45

I'm curious about this analogy, of Ken meeting Qaradawi, Hitchens meeting Irving, and Cohen meeting Wolfowitz. It just does not hold up. Ken is a public servant, and has used public resources to invite someone to the City Hall who represents values that this city, prima facie, abhors. Not just views concerning gay rights, but concerning suicide bombing, etc. Hitchens and Cohen are private citizens; they can do what they like. Hitchens also met Irving, a private individual, who has every right to hold his views (as Woody Allen says, everyone has the right to be a schmuck). So Hitchens meeting Irving is not the same as Livingstone meeting Qaradawi. Hitchens is not using your - or my - money, nor is he representing us when he meets Irving. Then again, as journalists, Cohen and Hitchens have an obligation - to their own profession - to meet everyone. Yes, even in social settings. To get insights. And then to write about it. And yes, even to give insights - if that's what John Lloyd, Charles Moore, and Nick Cohen did with Wolfowitz. And finally, I know this will start an unnecessary flame war, but Wolfowitz did not "invade" Iraq. The US Government did; George W Bush ordered the invasion. And there are many, many good things Wolfowitz has done for dissidents in Southeast Asia during his time at State Dept, and his record in upholding human rights in eastern Europe and women's rights in the Middle East is exemplary. Here: http://pnac.info/index.php/2005/the-believer-in-depth-look-a...