Toffs and Foreigners

By-election tactics are backfiring and Marxists are having their names cleared, this week on the blogs

By-Curious

The by-election in Crewe and Nantwich was causing a stir this week, whilst candidates were being slotted into place for the contest in the Henley-on-Thames seat vacated by Boris Johnson. Labour desperately need to hold Gwyneth Dunwoody's former constituency, but some activists vented their anger at the tone and content of the party's literature. Writing on Labour Home, For the Union was enraged by both the class warfare and policy attacks of recent literature, and wrote:

"Regardless of the fact that I oppose ID cards in anyway, shape or form (the mere idea is distinctly alien to Britain) – "making", "foreign nationals" is the language of the [far] right. What has our party come to? Do we not know who we sound like with such inflammatory, nationalist statement. Unless of course - the plan is to TRY and appeal to the BNP - in which case, I may leave the party now."

Supporters of other parties quickly pounced upon this disquiet. Harrow West Tory candidate Rachel Joyce accused Labour of "racist, classist, hate-filled behaviour," while Lib Dem Alex Wilcox despaired:

"No doubt they're terrified they're going to lose and want BNP-inclined voters on side – but in what morally hopeless universe is that an excuse?"

Having scoured the Labour supporting blogosphere, it has proved nigh on impossible to find any defence of the "toffs and foreigners" campaign, but readers are welcome to leave one in the comments.


Agent Brown

Brown this week tried to reinvigorate his administration with a series of legislative proposals for the coming year. As Red Box blog noted "On agency workers, action is again promised as early as next week, but nothing announced today". This pleased Sandwell Councillor Bob Piper, though he feared that opponents may not be so welcoming. He wrote:

"Of course, I very much doubt it will be welcomed by the CBI, the Institute of Directors, nor their stooges in the Conservative Party, and they will all hop up and down twittering that giving people employment rights is a 'burden on business' and that it will create millions of unemployed."

The TUC welcomed the move too, though recruitment blog Jobshout was less impressed, complaining that:

"Gordon thinks that it will endear him to the public. Like me you may disagree and think that it will just be another bureaucratic restriction imposed on business and free movement of labour."


What have we learned this week

This week, Crooked Timber, explored Oliver Kamm's allegations that Thoroughly Modern Miliband's dad, Ralph "thoroughly Marxist" Miliband, was a keen supporter of Cambodian genocidal dictator Pol Pot. He undertakes a robust deconstruction of the alleged slur. Kamm's views on Miliband the elder can be read in full here and here.


Across the Pond

Barack Obama's campaign for the White House received a boost this week when he secured the endorsement of John Edwards. But as the New York Times' The Caucus blog notes, the Edwards household is not united in its support for the Illinois Senator:

"Publicly, Mrs. Edwards has said that she favors Mrs. Clinton's health care plan. Privately, she has told several associates she is unsure if Mr. Obama is the party's best candidate."


Video of the Week

For those who like their political pop a bit more nuanced, I heartily recommend the intelligent stylings of The Indelicates. Check out the video for their recent single, America.


Quote of the Week

"I do think there is a danger that the media community are often not old enough to have lived through a real red-blooded recession, and therefore there does generally seem to be a tad of hysteria surrounding our current position, combined with a lack of wide realisation about the comparative strengths of our economy."

Paul Walter, optimist.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

5 comments from readers

Oliver Kamm
16 May 2008 at 10:25

C'est incroyable. I think it's reasonable, if you're going to dismiss an argument as a "slur", to expect you to describe that argument accurately. I did not say, nor is it my view, that the late Ralph Miliband was "a keen supporter of Cambodian genocidal dictator Pol Pot". What a preposterous straw man.

I cited an essay Miliband had written on intervention, published in the Socialist Register for 1980, in which he criticised the Vietnamese overthrow of Pol Pot. I then noted that this argument, in which Miliband treated the intervention as analogous to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, involved his dismissing the enormity of the crimes of Pol Pot. The blogger Chris Bertram, whom you cite, stated that no fair-minded person reading Miliband's argument either at the time or now would come to such a reading - which was an unfortunate instance of Bertram's having done, in the blogger's prerogative, not a stroke of research into the matter before confidently expostulating on it. I pointed out that Steven Lukes, at the time, and Miliband's own biographer, more recently, had made exactly the same point as I. In the words of Miliband's highly sympathetic but honest biographer: "Without any real expertise on the area, [Miliband] had understated the enormity of the crimes and endorsed a particular interpretation which appeared to minimise the responsibility of the Pol Pot regime itself."

So you've fabricated an argument I haven't made; failed to exhibit the minimal courtesy of linking to the argument I did make, so that readers can check it; claimed that the argument I did make but which you haven't understood or accurately described has been refuted (which I hazard is what you mean by "deconstructed"); and thereby outdone even Chris Bertram of Crooked Timber in making dogmatic assertions about things you haven't read.

Paul Evans
16 May 2008 at 10:57

Hello Oliver, perhaps the levity of my wrap-up has been lost somewhere...I have added links so readers can see both yours and Chris' arguments in full.

swatantra nandanwar
17 May 2008 at 13:56

It'll be interesting to see who Labour select as their candidate for Henley. They'll probably go for a donkey jacket wearing Lefty who apparently appeals to the 'core vote'. They make the same mistake all the time, forgetting that the candidate has to appeal to the undecided electorate out their as well if they are to increase their majority. Of course we shouldn't take our core vote for granted but you are never ever going to win elections purely on your core vote.

Paul Evans
17 May 2008 at 16:35

I suspect Labour will be retaining their general election candidate, Richard McKenzie, who appears to be a broadly normal human being. Neither his parents or children are MPs. Though obviously, the party’s prospects there are beyond hopeless and Labour will be pouring every last penny and drop of effort into Crewe.

On the donkey jacket note, I always thought that Michael Foot got a very cruel treatment over that, it was a perfectly dignified garment.

David Moss
19 May 2008 at 00:56

One of the progressive lines being used by Labour in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election is "British jobs for British workers".

Daniel Finkelstein raised the question in the Times last October what on earth the progressive Gordon Brown was doing quoting this BNP slogan, http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2007/10/on-the-12th-o...

He was perplexed to get the progressive news next day from No.10 that, no, Gordon thought of it first, the BNP had pinched the idea from him, http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2007/10/authorship-of...

So now we know. No.10 are pleased to insist that this comes from the progressive top.

Post your comment

(Your email address will not be published)

Recent Posts

Gay pride and prejudice

03 July 2009 20:25

More corruption, more laws

26 June 2009 16:50

Mesopotamia on the mind

22 June 2009 16:14

Still the mad parliament?

12 June 2009 13:43

Will Sir Alan fire Gordon?

05 June 2009 15:58

Euro-ignorance and opportunism

01 June 2009 11:25

Past Entries

Follow this blog

Blogroll

Vote!

Was the government wrong to sack David Nutt?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker