Return to: Home | Blogs | Bright's Blog

105 comments from readers

stander
26 February 2008 at 16:34

Martin, thank you for writing what I felt when reading the "Unite for Ken" letter. Ken - famous for ignoring consultations and the will of local councils and residents is now being held up as an "ideal of democracy" - hilarious if it wasnt so serious. It is shame that the signatories wish to help Labour keep their sleazy grip on power that they are willing to forget the failings of a despicable man and regime. well done.

Serosch
26 February 2008 at 16:39

Mr Bright, your real gripe with Ken is that he won't signup to the extremist Zionist project, one of the aims of the project is to completely sideline Muslims in the UK.

salil
26 February 2008 at 18:04

I tried posting this on Compass's website, but they would not let me. Wonder why. Thought I'd share it here.

"Please take away Mahatma Gandhi's photograph from your publicity

material. He would never have supported a bigot like Ken Livingstone.

You have not only insulted Londoners' intelligence through your

campaign - we have had enough of an anti-Semite, Chavez-loving,

corrupt administration that mollycoddles Islamofascists - you are

welcome to him, but please stop insulting the memory of the greatest

Indian of all time.

Salil Tripathi

RobertE
26 February 2008 at 18:05

Have you been offered a job at the Evening Standard by any chance Martin?

The so called "investigative journalist" you quote at length - Tom Bower - just happens to be Veronica Wadley - editor of the Standard's husband.

Martin Bright
26 February 2008 at 18:10

... and he was writing in the Daily Mail. Oh no, its a plot!

Tom Knott
26 February 2008 at 19:15

With a name like Kenneth Robert Livingstone clearly he has to be one of the Scottish Mediocracy. Why doesn't he swap jobs with Michael Martin?

Martin Dim
26 February 2008 at 19:44

Where is it you are moving to then? You can't be staying in your current job or my name's Martin ... well you know the rest.

billwright
26 February 2008 at 20:03

Martin makes light of the fact that he relies on Bower, but Tom Bower wrote a hatchet job biography on Geoffrey Robinson, the man who keeps the New Statesman afloat. It seems unlikely in the extreme that Bright does not know this. This blog reads more and more like a self-justification in case Bright does not survive the change in editorship.

Bright illustrates his case against a left candidate in an election who is up against a very right wing candidate by relying on an article by Bower in the Mail. All this does is underline how far gone Martin Bright’s politics are.

Furthermore it was in the Standard that Bright wrote “writing as the political editor of Britain's leading left-leaning magazine, I believe the time has come for the Labour Party to drop him as its candidate.” Bright has consistently used right wing platforms or sources for his attempt to disrupt the Labour campaign in London.

jenny
26 February 2008 at 20:45

Bright is no doubt particularly angry about this impressive list of progressive people backing Livingstone’s re-election because it makes his bizarre proposal for Livingstone to be dropped as the Labour candidate seem even more redundant and flaky.

We can expect supporters of this position to get a lot dirtier in their tactics against Livingstone (although it could not get much dirtier than Bright’s activities such as the Dispatches hatchet job).

Bright says that the signatories should be ashamed of themselves, and that anyone with a progressive bone in their bodies would have run a mile, but these individuals are the ones who can see that Londoners would suffer under a Johnson mayoralty.

Under Ken good policies on the environment and transport will continue. Bright can’t see this. Bright has jumped outside a basically progressive framework altogether.

The New Statesman deserves a political editor who is actually on the left in a meaningful sense.

KingKev
26 February 2008 at 22:21

Thank god for Martin Bright. At last someone part of the 'progressive' left who is willing to not only to poo-poo the radical right (which incidentally I don't think you could call Boris Johnson) as well as the hard-left.

Serosch: "...your real gripe with Ken is that he won't signup to the extremist Zionist project, one of the aims of the project is to completely sideline Muslims in the UK." - Seriously what?! Instead Ken signs up to an extremist Islamic project...much better! Glad to see the left, 'progressive' or otherwise is hell bent on providing such nonsense.

Keep up the level-headed and sensible writing Martin - left or right, doesn't matter, truth will out and thank you for providing a critique which would otherwise be white-washed by the Labour spin machine.

stander
26 February 2008 at 22:54

salili - great comment, completely agree.

jenny - what do you mean by "impressive list", half of them dont even live in london - how do they know whats best for londoners? and since the list includes labour MPs.. why are there not more signatories? why are the other 300+ labour MPs not supporting Ken. ken said he didnrt want this election to be about personalities but about policies, then why has he brought all his friends out to sign a letter? all a bit sad really .....

ps. the whole "progressive" politics is rubbish, london doesnt need progressive anything, we need solutions to real problems and not the geasture politics, divide, lie and spin of ken.

bootcamp
26 February 2008 at 22:56

I tend to agree with KingKev, Personally, I don't much care if Ken's supposedly left wing or not. I want to vote for a progressive, not a reactionary - not someone who embraces (physically!) homophobes, anti-semites or other assorted clerical bigots, No decent Londoner who values our free and diverse capital could vote Ken.

Back Paddick or Berrry.

simon webbe
27 February 2008 at 12:39

http://www.newstatesman.com/200802260003

there is one divide in lodnon at this time and you are remaining one side of it

if you cannot recognise ken as progressive compared to boris- the only other person likely to win as london mayor- then you have travelled so far you must join nick cohen et al-you habve no claim to a progressive agneda

contrast ken with boris on the following issues-write an article on that rather than witch hunting smears, and inuendo, personal attacks and disagreements on international issues - compare and contrast them on green issues, transport,policing defending multicultural London-opposing homophobia, a serious response to 7/7 that united the nations and not in a racist anti-muslim way, engages seriously with business in london to gain big investments that benefit all londoners and partuicularly the poorest-....

...i feel like i have to set a GCSE assignment for you- forget it- 'your'e fired!'

join the evening standard where you belong

i look forward toyour departure from the new statesman

epitomy
27 February 2008 at 12:39

Wonderful to see the back slapping between ex-lefties Cohen and Bright - you are both the unashamed warm-up act for the star attraction ... Boris Johnson! (what a wonderfully entertaining gig that would make!)

the great thing about stating this obvious fact, is that Boris is such a backward and unpalateable prospect, you have no choice but to squirm and justify your position in increasingly pathetic ways: The "Labour should select another candidate" or "Im actually backing Paddick" positions being the most creative contortions which still amount to piling in for the Backward Boris toff bandwagon.

The nail in the coffin for Cohen was the fact that he sat in the evening standard's "influentials" debate with Boris Johnson, where Yasmin Alibhai Brown was told to "f*** off back to Uganda you c***" by a rabid audience member after she agreed with someone making a point about affirmative action. Whatever your views on affirmative action, surely it is the job of a supposed progressive journo, and indeed, any candidate for mayor, to condemn such a racist outburst and make it clear this is unnaceptable? The only person who is making this the point of difference and a sign of things to come under Boris is the New Nation's Michael Eboda.

Cohen of course has not made an issue of the fact that a mayoral candidate who can sit in a meeting with such blatant racism and allow it to continue unchecked has fallen at the first hurdle of demonstrating he will govern a city like london equally. (still grateful for your endorsement from Nick, Martin?)

On the flip side of this, Livingstone has presided over a fall in racist attacks together with a general fall in crime - something no Tory adminstration has done for all their chorus calling on crime, and something which neither Bright or Cohen weigh up as being a critical achievement for the Mayor.

That is why you should both be considered ex-left- you have lost your bearings and are an embarrasment - now away with you.

Bright is infatuated with what city hall worries about - have you tried door-stepping black people, Lesbian and gay people, environmentalists, the peace movement about their views? (For Martin's benefit - these are the constituents that traditionally make up the left. They are also the targets of Boris's backward views in his rather public disdain for these and many other issues that should be considered critical in the next Mayor.) These groups are worried about a victory for backward Boris as they will be the first to feel the loss of Livingstones progressive positions on these issues. You may remember that up until Ken became Mayor, people still spoke of the legacy of the GLC which was destroyed by Thatcher. I dont want to return such lamenting but you seem to have a very short term memory - especially when you consider the role of fleet street in this at the time. The constant attacks on Ken's support for Black, Lesbian and Gay groups and others, is echoed again in the latest round of attacks and has the same aim - to justify his removal - the ultimate scalp for the Tories in the run in to a general election.

However, the more jubiliant your tone on speculating about 'how scared city hall' is, the more you sound like a deluded, isolated voice in the wilderness; one that will no doubt have a cosy, well paid home in the evening standard if the new statesman ever decides to stop wasting the precious time that remains in the run up to this election on your pantomime performance as a serious political editor.

As glibly entertaining as it is to watch you rolling out the red carpet for the Thatcherite Boris and lying prostrate on it, Im more interested in reading about how the left can defend the gain it has made in Livingstone, and play a decisive role in this close election which will either make things better for Londoners under Livingstone, or so much worse under Boris.

Jonty Stang
27 February 2008 at 12:54

We get it "epitomy" (and you certainly are). None of us are allowed to deviate from slavish backing for the man who gives big bear hugs to clerical fascists, homophobes, misogynists, racists. None of us can support other candidates who find it sickening that this man and his gang of reactionary cronies supposedly repsents our city.

ALL GOOD CITIZENS MUST VOTE FOR KEN. NO ALTERNATIVE. WAR IS PEACE; FREEDOM IS SLAVERY; IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. PADDICK AND BERRY ARE NON-CITIZENS. THE WAR ON BORASIA GOES WELL.

Now, since you almost certainly work in City Hall, can you do something useful please? I am paying you after all.

Josh FG
27 February 2008 at 12:54

Reads more like a rant than seriouse political comment leaving the quotes from fawning right wingers below almost more coherant.

Martian you can't have this both ways ether Livingstone is a linked Socialist Action dangerouse lefty or a right winger who supports non doms.

However Mr. Bright rather than insinuations of the pro war centre of which I assume you are a member (hence your objections to his links with the Muslim community), it may be informative to talk about Livingstone’s record such as on social housing (which Johnson doesn't want to bring in a quota for) and public transport. These are sound public policy, should be supported by all progressives and what the people of london would support.

BenS
27 February 2008 at 12:56

Martin, you claim the letter is "emblematic of the muddle-headed "lesser of two evils" argument that has bedevilled the left for so long" - would that be the one that runs:

* It's 9 weeks until an election, which has followed a year long selection trigger process in the Labour Party

* Of the two candidates who can win, one is on the left the other is on the right

* I don't like the left candidate, so I'm going to call for a vote that will assist the right.

I'm proud to be part of the left bedevilled by the fact that I can still differentiate between supporting the left and supporting the right. Unfortunately you seem not to be able to.

One has to wonder whether this post is merely to build evidence for your upcoming removal being as a result of a witch-hunt by Ken supporters (i.e. the owner of the Statesman)

epitomy
27 February 2008 at 13:15

Jonty Stang - There is no time for dithering on this important matter:

The next Mayor will either be Ken Livingstone or Boris Johnson. If you have ever followed an election before you will know this is where the battle line lies. I make it clear why I support Ken. I make it clear why I oppose the Tories.

I am not interested in orchestrating a fake debate - this is the real choice presented for the future character of London government. Berry and Paddick have no chance of winning - their supporters should either first or second pref Ken as he represents more of London they want to see than the heir of Thatcher:

I dont imagine Boris' anti-kyoto position would go down well with the Greens and I doubt that a Gay Man like Paddick would have become a senior ranking police officer if not for a Mayor who promoted a clear community based agenda in the police force. Boris of course, will 'take the pollitical correctness away" from the police.

Serosch
27 February 2008 at 13:19

Bright should go and join his fellow right-wing loony and inciter of religious hatred, Mel Phillips at the Mail.

Jonty Stang
27 February 2008 at 13:25

Of course you're not interested in a debate, or in issues - that's for the weak minds of the kulaks and bourgoise. Paddick's successful career was built before Ken arrived on the scene, trying to claim credit for that is pitiful. I don't like Boris. But I don't like Ken either. I actually think Boris would be less keen to associate with fascists though.

But neither of them have my vote. That's the great thing about DEMOCRACY.

epitomy
27 February 2008 at 14:12

...so Jonty, name me one high ranking Lesbian / Gay / Muslim police officer before 2000 who had the profile of Ali Dizaei or Paddick.

Of course that is not to say that Ken should claim the credit - you are distorting my point - which is that of the two candidates who will be mayor, Johnson or Livingstone, one has created a climate in which such gains were possible, and the other puts those communities noses out of joint with his respective comments comparing Gay marriage to a union between 3 men and a dog, and his glorification of the invasion of iraq. Such views will impact on the approach to policing communities in London that will be disastrous.

you conclude that Johnson is better than Livingstone, finally nailing your colours to the mast. Have a look at Johnson's views on gay people/black people before you reach your conclusions. You may also note that no significant representatives of either community are fighting Johnson's corner. There is a logical reason for this which may be a bit beyond your comprehension, especially if you are unfamiliar with his comments on these communities.

Judging by your contributions, at least Martin Bright will be happy that his mischevious meddling is succeeding in disorientating someone who gravitates towards the new statesman! One for your CV when you apply to the evening standard/ Daily mail/ etc Martin!

Hopefully the new statesman are weighing up the embarrassment that this is causing to the majority of its readers who will find this new found Toff supporting off-putting....

Jonty Stang
27 February 2008 at 14:26

Society has changed - the idea that this has anything at all to do with Ken is barking mad. People like you think that figures of authority "set the tone", that's total rubbish, society doesn't work that way.

I made no such conention, I said he'd be less like to associate with fascists. This is true. And don't make me laugh about self-appointed "community representatives".

Londoners are not going to be bullied - there are more than two choices - look VERY carefully at all the candidates. To say that criticisng someone who hangs around with scum like al-Qaradawi is "embarassing" very clearly nails your colours to the mast: left-nationalist fascist sympathiser.

I intend to vote for progressives: (1) Paddick (2) Berry.

epitomy
27 February 2008 at 14:48

but you still dont get that for all your intentions, you end up with the ultimate booby prize - Johnson.

Such tactics, if repeated by those who are supportive of the centre and the left, will deliver the Tories their first major victory since their last general election victory in the early 90s. Nice one!

Here's hoping that other Lib dem and Green supporters are thinking through their second preferences intelligently.

(ps I notice you still can name a single high ranking Gay or Muslim Police officer that was appointed before Ken's mayoralty started in 2000, or a single high profile black or gay supporter for Boris - here's clue to help you - there are none!)

Jonty Stang
27 February 2008 at 15:18

They're both booby prizes. In fact, they're both tits. Ken isn't part of the left or centre, he's an appeaser of the religous far right.

How many senior gay police officers are there now, under Ken Livinstone? I can only think one - and he's trying to get rid of Ken!!

123andrea
27 February 2008 at 15:27

stander: "london doesn't need progressive anything". Well, that really sums up Livingstone's opponents, doesn't it?

I agree with "epitomy", a voice of reason in this unpleasant swamp.

It's horrible to read the islamophobic rubbish being posted here. Certain so-called left-wingers supported the war, and that requires them to support the racist campaign against Muslims that accompanies it. As Mayor, Livingstone talks to leaders of the Muslim community, like he does to Christian, Jewish and other leaders, who are just as backward on social issues. He does this because it's his job. It's only the Muslims that outrage people

Stop conceding to racism. It's the same old attacks - "Livingstone supporting ethnic minorities shocker!" - only now coming from mavericks who pretend to represent the left.

Martin, if you don't even know whose side you're on, then stop this charade and join the Daily Mail, where you will be greeted with open arms. Your documentary has been widely ridiculed and not one of its claims has stuck. It's too late to try and justify yourself. The left has got your number, just like we've got that of the obnoxious Nick Cohen.

Jonty Stang
27 February 2008 at 15:32

123andrea, just a couple of points.

(1) Point to one "Islamophobic" comment, or shut up.

(2) Bright opposed the war.

(3) If you think that a fascist like al-Qaradawi represent Muslim opinion in London, then you are Islamophobe, and have a very low opinion of the faith.

Josh FG
27 February 2008 at 16:01

Jonty - "I made no such contention; I said he'd be less like to associate with fascists. This is true. And don't make me laugh about self-appointed "community representatives".

if you shout meaningless words like fascist then it becomes worthless. Equating Quaradawi with Fascism (ergo some forms of Islam with it) is inherently islamophobic. It also muddies the waters when current real fascists such as the BNP want to attack there primery target at the moment.

Brights comments are those of someone who backs the Huntingdonesque paradigm by which the war is justified by some on the "left" so the assumption that he also supports it is a reasonable one.

You seem critical of Self appointed community representatives however you will see that the majority of the Muslim community also grants them such a status, however I guess you think that you should be able to appoint such representatives.

.

123andrea
27 February 2008 at 16:37

Bright's article is full of very weak assertions. He clearly feels a need to justify his isolated stance in the face of concerted progressive support for Livingstone as expressed in the open letter.

1) "Allegations of sleaze"? They came from the Evening Standard, not a pillar of quality journalism where Livingstone is concerned. Not long ago the Evening Boris was screaming for Lee Jasper to be sacked. And now? The police won't even investigate because there's no evidence. Bright quotes Tom Bower as writing: "Livingstone has been accused of lying and protecting dishonest cronies". "Has been accused" - yes, by the very same right-wing paper, which Bower writes for! A very credible source, Martin!

2) Livingstone's "anti-Semitic" remark was the very opposite of that. He criticised a Jewish journalist for working for a newspaper that had supported fascism. Offensive, yes - to the journalist. It was meant to be. Anti-Semitic, not remotely.

3) The "tinpot communist dictator" is presumeably the elected leader Hugo Chavez, who has taken his country to the ballot box 12 times in the last 9 years in internationally observed and approved elections. "Dictator" here can only mean anyone disliked by Martin Bright, that distinguished (ahem) maker of highly respected (ahem) documentary films.

And so on, and so on. One distortion after another. It's pathetic. These questions are clarified time and time again and the distortions are repeated regardless. That is a measure of how useless Livingstone's opponents are.

epitomy
27 February 2008 at 17:02

Jonty is clearly the by-product of Bright's meddling - a confused mud slinger whose charges dont add up:

on the one hand he says that I am trying to bolster Ken's credentials by claiming the credit for Ken on getting the police to be representative of communities that are traditionally isolated by the police ie Gay people/Muslims, on the other, Im simultaneously a "fascist" because I dont villfy Ken for his dialogue with scholars of religion such as Qaradawi, and indeed many other leaders of other religions. Interesting that the same attack could be levied against Ken for his dialogue with the Mayor of Moscow, who presided over the violent disruptions of gay pride last year. Ken still meets with him but has made known his disagreement on this issue, consistent in the view that dialogue achieves more change than pulling up the drawbridge.

The Mayor of Moscow of course, is not muslim, and therefore this dialogue is wholly ignored by Cohen/Bright's blind spot which cannot detect homophobes unless they are muslims. (Jonty - for future reference - it is this sort of singling out of the Muslim community as if it is solely responsible for the universal problem of homophobia that earns the charge of Islamophobia from those who recognise the hypocrisy in doing this.)

I cant be both a Gay rights champion and also a fascist complicit with homophobia. But your confused assertions, which are increasingly seeming less progressive and more like an "anyone but Ken, even toff Johnson" position are amusing.

They reflect the confused part of the left/centre that is not even conscious of itself and is easily led by the likes of the standard/mail/cohen/Bright cabal who are nothing if not consistently inconsistent, and are orchestrating a campaign to push such dullards into the loving arms of the Tory camp, because they know that a wasted vote or even better, a vote for Boris from such idiots could help install Johnson. I reiterate my hope that all those who would suffer under Johnson take note of the two people in the race, and, accordingly, Green/Lib Dem supporters will think intelligently about their second preferences.

Jonty Stang
27 February 2008 at 17:03

Josh - "fascist" is shorthand. Strictly, the BNP are something like ultra-paleoconservative ethnonationalists, not fascists. Just as technically, al-Qaradawi is an Islamic scholar. But they practice bigotry and hate - so I think "fascist" is quite a useful term.

123andrea
27 February 2008 at 17:37

And never mind Livingstone's outstanding record opposing racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism and sexism and improving transport and increasing affordable housing and taking bold steps to protect the environment - he has an idiosyncratic approach to high-rise buildings!

How dare the letter-writers not mention that! Burn the fascist!

radius
27 February 2008 at 22:23

"And never mind Livingstone's outstanding record opposing ... homophobia". Unless of course you're a gay Muslim on trial in a country with a sharia constitution.

Mind you, doesn't affect us does it? As long as we have a few minutes off our journey time and a few quid off our rent. Oh, and are able to "oppose" the destruction of Iraq while voting for, er, the party what did it. And a man who was champing at the bit to rejoin it while it bombed crap out of the civilian infrastructure. Still, words speak louder than actions don't they?

stander
27 February 2008 at 22:30

123andrea - i'm really tired of politicians trying to be "progressive", i dont believe in it. in my view the answer is not in a system that tells you the future but one that lets the people choose their own. not boasting, but i'm pretty sure that neither livingstone, johnson or paddick are intellectually my superiors - so please i am not emotional or intellectually impaired, needing a "leader" to save me, instead i wish we could follow the swiss system whereby the politicians are weak and people are free.

stander
27 February 2008 at 22:36

andrea123 - ok, i'm catching up with political left speak - rephrase: there is no social justice if we are all poor, that is the only equality i see being implemented.

harold53
28 February 2008 at 07:29

The most fallacious aspect of Marin Bright is that he has the audacity to claim to be left-wing. There is nothing left wing about Martin Bright.

Londoners have to choose between a progressive policy on the environment, being opposed to racism in all shapes and forms, of ensuring there is a good public transport system. Instead of entering this debate, all we get is the usual mus.

To anyone who has been around, it is oibvious that there has been a smear campaign. Note the phrase quoted: 'well-documented allegations about sleaze' Allegations - none proven, and sorry, mthey are not well documented - they are allegations.

Martin Bright hasn't entered into this frame by accident. - his dispatches programme was nothing to do with policies, just smears.

Mr Bright tries to compare Ken to a 'tinpot dictator' and 'suffering of the population' . Porsche drivers - suffering?

MR Bright may be looking for work elsewhere, I'm sure the Mail will oblige. Wouldn't try the Telegraph - they may be right-wing, but they do have some scruples.

Nick Cohen
28 February 2008 at 08:32

123andrea

Small point but the Standard did not support Nazism. It was edited in the late 30s by Frank Owen, a fervent anti-fascist. In 1940 Owen and the young Michael Foot, also a Standard journalist by the way produced Guilty Men, a brilliant demolition of the appeasers. Incidentally, and at the same time, communists were supporting Hitler because of the Hitler-Stalin pact so Eric Hobsbawm, Raymond Williams and Bertolt Brecht were all saying that Britain was the true enemy.

Full details here

harold53
28 February 2008 at 11:01

Why is Martin Bright accused of a smear campaign? Just consider his one-sided statements without any evidence or omitting crucial facts.

'The mayor who casually utters anti-Semitic jibes and publicly embraces Islamic extremists'

What casually uttered anti-semitic jibes? (note the plural) If we are talking about the ill-judged comment to an Evening Standard reporter, it had everything to do with the fact that the reporter was from the Standard, not that he was Jewish.

About the 'embracing Islamic extremists' this needs to be looked at more carefully. Presuming we are talking about Qaradawi. Qaradawi is a man who came to Britain on many occasions for 25 years under Labour and Tory adminisrations. He was invited to a conference on Islamic rights addressed not only by Qaradawi and a range of Muslim organisations, but also Human Rights Watch, Bishops' Conference of the EU and also the Green Party. Note they all chose to share a platform, too.

Another strange fact: in October 2001 after September 11 , the Sun referred to Qaradawi reported that he had said 'all muslims should unite against those who terrorise innocents' and were pleased that his view would ' carry more weight than Osama bin Laden's call for murder'. and that 'Number 10 also noted that Qaradawi's statement gives ' lie to the idea that Bin Laden speaks for the Muslim world'.

I am honestly unaware of all of Qaradawi's views on social questions, including some suggestions thta he is opposed to socially regressive interpretations of Islam. However, if we were to assume that he is opposed to homosexuality, abortion rights, contraception and supports other teachings of Islam then we should not be surprised - this is no different from all other major world religions. So Martin Bright's allegation of Mr Livingstone's association with Muslim extremism might perhaps be levelled at anyone who visits the Pope? I sincerely hope not.

However, the Sun's 2001 comments about Qaradawi are not unimportant if we take it that he is deemed influential.

Think back to the 80's when a previous Sun headline read of Ken ' the most odious man in Britain. The reference to Ken Livingstone meeting Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein. Well, History is mightier than myself or Martin Bright and the unthinkable dialogue that took place then led to much wider dialogues involving the Irish PM, John Major, the Ulster Unionists. It would be naive to suggest that it was all sorted in one, but given that even Ian Paisley now sits down with Sinn Fein, the guns have been removed from the North of Ireland, it is pretty obvious that dialogue works and Bin Laden is off limits, but it is utter madness not to have dialogue with Islamic groups.

It is also naive to believe that you can move things forward only having discussions with those whose views you entirely endorse.

One more thing Mr Bright: don't pretend you are of the left - have the decency that people such as Peter Hitchens, Woodrow Wyatt and countless others over the years have had when they joined the right. Say you are no longer of the left.

Serosch
28 February 2008 at 11:15

Jonty Stang refers to Al-Qaradawi has scum, well Jonty please explain whether or not Mr Al-Qaradawi has done any of the following:

Ordered the blanket bombing of cities in Iraq;

Ordered an illegal blockade of Iraq stopping baby foods, and basic medicines, this led to the deaths of 600,000 Iraqi infants;

Has he orchestrated a campaign of lies to get an illegal war launched?

Has he ordered the use of cluster bombs to specifically target civilians in Lebanon?

Has he ordered the theft of land in Palestine?

Has he ordered that children should be killed with sniper rifles, has he ordered that rape be included as part of the effort to force Palestinians to leave their lands,

Has he orederd the bulldozing of homes.

What has he actually done that you find offensive, or do you simply believe that certain races do not have a right to freedom, and it offends you when they call for freedom.

Jonty Stang
28 February 2008 at 11:59

No, he hasn't bombed Iraq (what a stupid thing to say). But then, neither has Nick Griffin. He has, however:

Led the European Council for Fatwa and Research – an anti-semitic extremist organisation

Advocated the death penalty for gay people

Supported suicide attacks

Perpetuated a misogynistic world view

So, yeah – morally speaking, somewhat lower that Nick Griffin, and not worth hugging. Or do you believe that certain races are incapable of hate?

redharry
28 February 2008 at 12:20

Jonty shouldn't bellieve everything he reads on the Memri website.

As for Martin Bright getting support from Nick Cohen who supported the war on Iraq, rendition, torture and the fascist coup against Chavez....

Nick Cohen
28 February 2008 at 15:09

Er I certainly supported the second Iraq war but I've never supported torture, rendidition or a coup against Pinochet. Redharry (one of Ken's little helpers from City Hall?) should be better read.

123andrea
28 February 2008 at 17:00

Nick Cohen: "I certainly supported the second Iraq war but I've never supported torture, rendition" etc.

This is ridiculous, Mr Cohen: you support the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people but you're too principled to support torture? What hypocrisy!

By the way, it was the coup against Chavez, not Pinochet (!), that redharry mentioned.

Also Nick Cohen: "Redharry (one of Ken's little helpers from City Hall?) should be better read"

Why must anyone who supports Livingstone be some sort of spy? We are readers of a left-wing magazine. Some are Livingstone supporters. Quelle surprise! Leave the pointless snide remarks and keep to arguments - admittedly your weak point.

radius
28 February 2008 at 17:30

"..this is no different from all other major world religions" - The other major world religions don't agonise over the best method of executing gays, as per al-Qaradawi . The Archbishop, Pope etc aren't exactly progressive, but it's shameful to pretend that there's no difference between them and Ken's huggy-chum. Ken was so pleased when old Yusuf exempted british gay voters from execution. Even the christian nutters who joined al-Qaradawi in saying the tsunami victims deserved God's punishment, isn't a fair comparison. al-Qaradawi also agonised over the best way to kill apostates - though he thought putting them to the fire was probably best. The only way you people can possibly defend this creature is by reassuring yourself that it doesn't affect you. You can give up your religion if you want. No need for solidarity when we have men of the cloth to take care of 'these people'.

Nick Cohen - the sanctions and the 2nd Iraq war constituted mass torture. The country has been devastated - for the sake of replacing a secular dictator with an Islamist one.

123andrea
28 February 2008 at 18:30

radius: "Unless of course you're a gay Muslim on trial in a country with a sharia constitution."

So Livingstone is now responsible for the exercise of sharia law in foreign countries? Yet again the Muslim spectre is raised, as if talking to them invalidates everything Livingstone (civil partnerships register, supporting Pride, helping Stonewall against homophobic bullying, etc) has ever done.

This is Islamophobia in "left" clothing. Of course the left should not condone the injustices of religion - of any religion. Livingstone says that he disagrees with al-Qaradawi on many things. But after 7/7 it would be utterly irresponsible if he, as Mayor, did not enter dialogue with Muslim leaders who might have influence over potential bombers. The pro-war "left" (radius: I'm not putting you in this category, judging by your comments) refuses to understand this. For them, talking to Muslim leaders is the worst of all sins.

radius
28 February 2008 at 18:52

andrea, you betray a certain attitude when you refer to this obnoxious cleric as "them". With other social or ethnic groups you would be able to distinguish between an individual member of that group, and the group in general. With Muslims you don't.

Livingstone is responsible for embracing a man who wants gays and apostates to be murdered. And thought it was ok because it was 'only' Muslim gays and apostates living under a sharia constitution. You call that "the Muslim spectre" as if al-Q is all-things-Muslim....and the gays and apostates aren't. Take me to your leader is an old colonial mentality that dies hard - it ill behoves you to refer to legitimate fear of a religious ideology as if it were some kind of racism. With other self-appointed 'leaders' you would be asking questions - about their economic base, their vested interests, their social and political status. With "Muslim leaders" you don't - they must represent them because they're all the bloody same?

What good is lip-service re Stonewall when you promote a person who wants to collapse stone walls on gay Muslims? It matters. And yes, it undermines everything. Totally.

Miv Tucker
28 February 2008 at 18:52

Last month the Camden New Journal lambasted Mr Bright for his profile of Ken Livingstone: even so, one of the very few things they could find to say in Livingstone's favour was that he had greatly improved London's bus services, which was unhealthily reminiscent of what people used to say of an earlier anti-democrat.

I wrote to the CNJ, but for some reason they declined to publish my letter, so here it is now:

-----------------------------

Praising Ken Livingstone for apparently improving the bus service ("A rant that was blind to Ken's achievements", CNJ 24.1.08) smacks rather unpleasantly of praising Mussolini for making the trains run on time, and it argues much that that was the best you could find to say.

The fact is that Livingstone is a proven thief (he and his Trotskyite chums stole the 1981 GLC election from the moderate Andrew McIntosh), liar (he consistently misrepresented his intentions about running for mayor to the Labour Party), and racist (he made anti-Semitic remarks to Oliver Finegold, the Evening Standard reporter, as well as to the Reuben brothers). He also embraces terrorists of every stripe from the IRA to Yusuf al Qaradawi, the homophobic, misogynistic, anti-Semitic preacher of hate and head of the Muslim Brotherhood, and brutal dictators such as Castro.

And, so far from improving the buses, Livingstone even lied about preserving the Routemaster bus by going on to abolish it.

And then there is the small matter of corruption in the Mayor's office.

In a saner society Livingstone would have been run out town years ago and not allowed within a mile of any conceivable lever of power.

salil
28 February 2008 at 19:00

I used to think that the Left had intelligent folks who were concerned about individuals who were suppressed by some brutal entity. The half-wit rantings I've seen here from various Ken-fans makes me despair about the Left's future, and maybe Nick is right; what is, indeed, left?

Even if one leaves aside Boris Johnson - and it is utterly preposterous to say that he is racist or a homophobe; he is an intelligent man, who puts an act of being a buffoon, and as the good Ian Hislop said it, he genuinely doesn't have a racist bone or a muscle; he has the unfortunate accident of having been born white.... but even if one were to leave him aside, Ken Livingstone is a walking shame for anyone who has ever cared for human rights. His support for Qaradawi; his calling a Standard journalist a concentration camp guard; his hounding of Atma Ram; his childish defense of Lee; his pathetic solidarity with Chavez; these are all examples of a sick leader who has now become a megalomaniac.

The only time Ken said something sensible was on July 7, 2005. http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/mayor_statement_070705.jsp.

The sad part is, that is the exception, a rare blip of common sense from a man who wants to take everyone - his electorate, and their wallets, for granted. For that reason alone, he must go. Yes, Labour could have come up with better candidates; they didn't. Voting for Caddick is not a vote for a winning candidate. Stopping Ken is a priority for everyone in London who cares for individual liberty, and is not a hostage of groupthink of the Left (or Right, for that matter). if it means Boris, I can live with four years of that.

But it is utterly churlish to keep suggesting different career options for Martin or Nick. They're keeping the left's feet to the fire, trying to remind the left of the honesty the left seems to have forgotten.

By the way, Compass, can I please have my Gandhi back?

Salil Tripathi

MJTee
28 February 2008 at 19:18

What I find strange about the criticism of Livingstone from people like Nick Cohen is they drag up as examples of his unfitness for office things like his giving the eulogy at Gerry Healey's funeral...in 1990. And yet they were supporters of his nearly ten years afterwards in 1999, in Nick Cohen's case urging him to stand.

Nick Cohen
28 February 2008 at 19:22

Sorry Andrea, Chavez, my mistake.

Final point. I can't stand the dirty old man, but it's worth noting is how counterproductive a political tactic this round robin and the hysterical abuse of the people on this site is from Livingstone's point of view. Across the blogosphere, posters are reading what you and the party hacks at Compass are writing and vowing not to vote Labour for the first time in their lives. I don't think you realise how you look to outsiders. You would be respected if could just say 'right, we accept that there are serious accuastion of corruption and unaccountable power. As real leftists rather than the pseudo variety we find Livingstone's embrace of the far right revolting, and obviously something has gone badly wrong when Venezuela, a poor country, is subsidising a city as rich as London. However, on balance we consider Livingstone the least worst option.'

But you can't. You just scream like the nutter on the bus everyone wants to avoid. In your own small way you are destroying the very candidate you wish to promote.

Jonty Stang
28 February 2008 at 21:25

Andrea, you just don't get it. Who made al-Qaradawi "there" leaeder? He isn't, he's an embarrassment to most British Muslims, certainly those I know. It's a soft racism to appoint maniacs as spokesman (and they are all men) for a supposedly homogenous Muslim community.

redharry
28 February 2008 at 22:15

Clearly there are two Nick Cohens, the one here who opposes rendition and torture - and the one who wrote,

'We have to deport terrorist suspects - whatever their fate

Nick Cohen, Sunday November 5, 2006, The Observer

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1939959,00....

and 'the clock is ticking; who's to say it's wrong to pin a suspect to the wall and pummel him until he talks? '

Obviously, if there were only one Nick Cohen, that would make him a hypocrite and a liar, and who would think that of him.?

http://indecent-left.blogspot.com/2007/02/whats-left-of-cohe...

http://memory-hole.blog.co.uk/2007/02/20/taking_nick_cohen_s...

epitomy
29 February 2008 at 00:19

Nick Cohen may have failed to notice this but the Blogosphere is Britain is inundated with Tories (Note: thats because the left is out there fending off war, the BNP, privatisation,racism and a whole host of other things that are clearly lower down your priority list than having a good old read at your computer eh?) - if you get your dose of reality from merely reading blogs it certainly explains your complete loss of bearings to the point where you are cheerleading for Boris.

You probably have not noticed it, but a lot of people in the real world are totally put off by your new found support for the Tories. I certainly brace myself for a kicking against the left whenever you put pen to paper these days. You may have also noticed that you are in the woeful minority on the blogs on the new statesman - Martin Bright is getting the blog battering he deserves on all his articles.

But of course, anyone who can make the fantastic mistake of confusing Chavez for Pinochet really does not have any credentials as any sort of commentator. No wonder you think Ken is in league with fascists!

Im just glad that the likes of you and Bright will only ever be bigmouths - heaven forbid if you had to do a serious job with any substance - like governing a city like London. But dont let that stop you, or Bright from sowing your mischief to install your new found friend Boris.

Seeing as you are paid to write articles - have you got round to saying anything at all on the verbal racist abuse against Yasmin Alibhai-Brown at the Evening Standard Question Time and Boris' failure to challenge it? No. didnt think so. your silence both at the event and subsequently is deafening. Your continued support for a Mayoral candidate who cannot even lift a finger to condemn such abusive behaviour in front of his very eyes is shameful. But it gives the rest of us an insight into the kind of mayor that you have chosen to champion and you, my friend, are damned with him by association.

harold53
29 February 2008 at 01:22

Nick Cohen's lost it. Anyone who thinks that good transport in London, a serious policy on the environment, that it's not a bad thing that crime has been reduced to its lowest level for nine years and therefore concludes that Ken Livingstone is the best person to carry those policies forward is 'hysterical abuse'. This is from the man who has used his position as a national journalist to write attack after attack against political opponents as he justifies his right-ward shift. He repeats the gutter politics of the Standard about corruption for which there has been much written, but no evidence provided. he then insults anyone writing a defence of the Mayor's politics as being on the 'inside' as he knows the 'outside' well. (By the way, I've only visited Cty Hall three times till now, which I guess is considerably less than Mr Cohen..

As epitomy has noted, he and his journalists are remarkably quiet when Boris's friends act in an overtly racist way. I suppose that's one to be kept from the 'outside'.

Why don't you just say that you're a Tory and stop finding anyone else to blame for your impending defection. You're not a new phenomenon.

It's not true either about Ken's popularity. Despite all the tirade, what is counter-productive is the avoidance of discussing policies - the result of the Evening Standard's campaign is that Ken has set the political agenda while Boris relied on the crap that you and others churned out. There are other factors involved in the mayoral election, but if you think the postings here (including my own in all modesty) represent what people on buses I travel on, you do live in isolation.

Nick Cohen
29 February 2008 at 08:43

All right, then have it your way. Ken's cruising to victory and Labour haven't picked a clapped out loser. We'll see in May who is right.

epitomy
29 February 2008 at 12:06

Nick Cohen still not able to condemn the racism that was on display at the Evening standard debate. I throw down the gauntlet to you - dare you pick it up?

(for those unfamiliar with the incident see my posting at the beginning of this blog)

For someone who writes so much you have so little to say.

Perhaps your reticence on this is because you know your project is damned either way - if you highlight and condemn the racism at the event that the other journalists on the panel immediately wrote about - (Both Alibhai-Brown and Eboda swiftly highlighted the incident), then that shines the light on Backward Boris - the only person on the panel incapable of condemning blatant racism - a terrible indictement of someone so unfit to be the Mayor of a city where 2/3rds of the people he serves are black - but here is the real hammer blow against you : the more you stay quiet on the issue the further you expose yourself - you are not a "commentator" whatever you salary might tell you - you are a tory cheerleader. The next time you start bandying around the word "fascist" with such varied and casual use, we should all remember that you dont even know what racism is, when it is quite literally staring you right in the face, and you had the chance to challenge it..... now away with you to Henley to plan the next step in your Tory takeover and stop wasting our time.

redharry
29 February 2008 at 13:19

Nick Cohen doesn't pick up gauntlets, his preferred method is to fling mud and run away like the coward he is.

Note that when his denial of his support for torture and rendition was contradicted by an article where he had proposed both - Cohen ignored the evidence of his venality.

Nick Cohen is a particularly nasty piece of work as he adopts pseudo-left positions merely in order to attack the left.

Cohen pretends to support Iraqi trade unionists but when the occupation forces raid their offices, Cohen writes not a single word of protest.

Cohen also poses as a great friend of the Kurds and Kurdistan, but when Turkey invades oppresses its own Kurdish population or invades Iraqi Kurdistan, Cohen is silent.

Nice friend you have there Mr Bright.

knave
29 February 2008 at 14:02

While your here Nick how would you differentiate yours and Martins views from the Policy Exchange unit and a journalists such as Charles Moore and Michael Gove.

123andrea
29 February 2008 at 15:16

Epitomy, redharry, and everyone else on the left - Nick Cohen is busy running off in a cloud of dust. "All right, then have it your way."

Mr Cohen, have you any arguments? Mr Cohen?

Oh, he's gone.

Isolated fake left-wingers like Bright and Cohen are forced into childish abuse ("scream like the nutter on the bus", "half-wit rantings", "sick megalomaniac"!) precisely because their arguments do not bear analysis. If the left do not support Livingstone then it is very likely that Johnson will get in. This is a basic political reality. And Livingstone is a very positive progressive candidate.

It is the pro-war left that is being exposed in these debates, not, as in Mr Cohen's fantasy, Livingstone. Presumeably this is why Martin Bright has not deigned to return to this blog and why Mr Cohen is beating such an ignominious retreat.

knave
29 February 2008 at 16:06

Nick now I now the Evening Standard is a beacon of left wing ideology and not a right wing racist rag. As a brummie I remember Nick's right wing Thatherite rants for the racist Enoch powell supporting, lets kick out the immigrants, Birmingham Mail and Post. Good pedigree Tory Nick.

salil
29 February 2008 at 21:32

... er, what's the difference between Pinochet and Chavez?

harold53
29 February 2008 at 21:59

Mr Cohen is still trapped in the days of Blair's new labour ascendency when any left progressive ideas were trampled on by the SDP claret drining crowd who had hi-jacked the Labour Party. Now that project has come to its end, the Nick Cohens of this world have to find a new home. They haven't the integrity (if that's the right word - maybe chutzpah is more appropriate) to clarify their ideological shift like Peter Hitchens, so he has to conjure up a world where it is implied that we have all embraced the right.

For the record, Mr Cohen: Ken's not cruising it, but you're making it eassier because you and Boris and Martin Bright want to sling mud. Even Ross Lydall who is employed by the Standard admitted that Ken wiped the floor with Boris on the environment. If you and all the other Boris supporters would have prepared him for a serious political debate - (and sorry, I may be an old-fashioned lefty, but I do consider that conservatives can come with good ideas), maybe Boris would fare better. While Ken is the only person to have policies and strtegies rather than gimmicks - sorry the Greens have policies - then people will vote on the basis that for the most part they like London under Ken and like where he's going.

One last point which is important to both Nick Cohen and me - anti-semitism. Do you think an increase in racism, evident at the Standard husting as epitomy pointed out ,when you and Boris chose to say nothing is going to make the lives of you and me any easier? Do you think the BNP cares whether you support Ken or not when they attack Jews? I know who will stand beside me against racism and who will not. You Mr Cohen need to wake up.

radius
29 February 2008 at 22:54

" ... er, what's the difference between Pinochet and Chavez?"

Where to begin, salil - Pinochet came to power via a violent coup, killing the elected President; Chavez won several elections? Pinochet banned all the parties in the coalition that had been elected prior to his military coup, while Chavez has not banned parties which supported a military coup against him? Pinochet had death-squads and disappeared, Chavez doesn't? Pinochet rounded people up into a stadium, Chavez didn't? Pinochet was a monetarist who hated the poor, Chavez is anti-poverty and big on social investment?

I don't know...what is the difference?

salil
01 March 2008 at 00:48

Radius, you expressed opinions. I don't have time for that. I have seen many on this particular thread alone. You have a right to hold them, of course - a right neither Pinochet nor Chavez would respect, if you disagreed with either in either's country.

The facts I do know are that both are men of uniform, who often used unconstitutional means to come to power or remain in power; who abused human rights of their fellow citizens; who rounded up dissidents; who restricted press freedom; and who in a variety of ways have done some extremely brutal things (or permitted brutal things to be done to others) to people not in a position to fight back against them; and who have both, in their own way, done a few decent things for their people, I grant that.

It is a shame Pinochet never faced justice. I do hope Chavez does (as, I hope, does Castro. I'm still marvelling at how exciting the elections in Cuba were, and how the alert, youthful candidate, Raoul Castro, who I had never thought had a chance against his electoral rival, and in fact nobody expected him to do well, emerged out of nowhere, defying opinion polls and the media and stunned election observers to secure a tantalizing victory, taking over from Fidel Castro, who left office after a mere 49 years in power. That Fidel and Raoul are brothers is of course, entirely coincidental.

Anyway, that apart, living in London as I do, I don't want to be subsidized by either Pinochet or Chavez (read Alice O'Keeffe's reports on FARC's de facto commandante in this magazine why) - not because those countries are poor and the money is needed more there, but because both are tainted individuals, and I wouldn't like to be complicit and benefit from their largesse...

knave
01 March 2008 at 08:42

alice O keefe seems to be a mouth piece for the right wing Aribe.

Also martin you mention Tom Bower. is this the same bower who has done hatchet jobs on Brown, the labour party and tells the public that the Daily mail does a good job sticking the boot into immigrants. For a leftie a attack by Bower seems a form of endorsement . I note Bower never investigated Rupert Murdoch or Thatchers links to the Saudis.

flower
01 March 2008 at 11:03

couldn't agree more, Martin . As a life-long Labour voter, I am appalled at this 'there is no alternative to Ken' attitude. Remember what he did to Frank Dobson in 2000? He despises the GLA and brands anyone who dares to criticise his tenure as 'racist' or 'tory' . Pity he didn't just gracefully step aside this year and allow a new candidate to represent the Labour Party.

Therefore, I am considering voting for Paddick and Berry. I have had enough of KL and his arrogant, controlling administration in London.

eastender
01 March 2008 at 16:49

5 questions for Martin Bright.

1. Do you support the London Living Wage?

2. Do you think letting councils like Westminster and Wandsworth dodge their London Plan affordable housing targets helps increase the number of affordable homes in London?

3. Do you think that working class families benefit from free bus travel for their kids going to school?

4. Which was the first elected authority in the UK to establish same sex civil partnerships?

5. Out of Johnson and Livingstone which candidate has the better record of engaging with trade unions?

Come on Martin. How about you address some boring old policy issues like this?

123andrea
02 March 2008 at 18:20

Dear flower,

Livingstone didn't "do" anything to Frank Dobson. KL was the party's favoured candidate but was kept out by an electoral college system designed by the right to block him. It is the Labour Party that exposed Dobson to humiliating defeat when it should have taken the simple democratic course and allowed its members to choose who they wanted.

He "despises the GLA" because it doesn't do its job properly. He accuses his opponents as "racist" only when they in fact are - given that these include the Evening Standard, Gilligan (attack Doreen Lawrence, anyone?) and Boris Johnson, I see no problem with this.

Why should he "step aside gracefully" when he remains the favourite in the London Labour Party and is one of the two front-runners in the polls? Because of a few laughable "allegations" that don't even bear scrutiny?

As "a life-long Labour voter" you should vote for the Labour candidate, not two rivals who are not going to become Mayor and effectively helping elect Johnson - is that what you really want?

epitomy
03 March 2008 at 00:43

oh dear Salil - you were trying to claim the authority of being knowledgeable in world history with the Ghandi intervention but you have fallen on your sword and proved yourself quite ignorant in comparing Chavez to Pinochet im afraid, something even the now defunct and very absent Cohen felt it necessary to apologise for earlier on this thread. If youre going to open your mouth try not to put your foot in it....

I didnt realise the anti-ken were so desperate to attack him that their tatics would include shooting themselves in the foot by making complete igoramuses of themselves.

The general position seems to be something along the lines of "Fascist Ken allies with Fascist foreign fascists to oppress londoners with cheaper bus travel and dialogue with all communities - the fascist!" It is admirable in its unrelenting dogma, even in the face of the facts that point to the contrary. But it does beg the rather obvious question how did the oppressive fascist Ken convince Londoners to vote him in twice? And before you start on the Independent vs Labour line regarding the 2000 election, dont forget that in 2004 he was the labour candidate and was returned with a thumping majority....perhaps, and its a radical thought so brace yourself, neither he (or indeed Chavez who has also faced and won 10 independently verified democractic elections in the last decade) are as oppressive as you would like to suggest? Perhaps, and Im really challenging some preconceptions here, Londoners think he has done a good job? His satisfaction ratings that are now at their highest, would suggest this is the case....but dont let that stop you suggesting he manipulates the polls - no doubt he also stuffed the ballot boxes in 2004! the crooked fascist crook(-fascist)!

Of course, such manipulations only aid the Boris project - eroding Kens lead by getting the confused minority of the left that would not know the difference between Chavez/Pinochet or the impact of a Tory Mayor as against Ken, is the ultimate prize here; in a close race, peeling off any of Ken's vote will aid Boris, hence such a brutal, scurrilious and unrelenting campaign by the Tories and their media minions.

And the perfect getaway car is being prepared for the confused culprits who could deliver for Boris : I voted Paddick and second preferenced Berry.

Heres an idea for a joke T-shirt that you can wear as you leave the Polling booth, proud of your very "progressive" decision: "I went to the polling booth for a Lib Dem/green Mayor and all i got was a backward Tory" . Thats the reality - so pick your choices wisely on May 1st and watch out for the manipulations of the attack dogs in the press and the media that are salivating for a Tory Mayor. To the trained eye, they are not that hard to spot.

Now whilst most of us would be chilled to the bone by the prospect of Boris installed in City hall by such a foolish waste of first or second preferences on the part of so-called "progressive" voters shamefully delivering London to the Tories, expect to see such T-shirts being sold by Cohen or Bright in the next 8 weeks! Probably on the same stalls as the Evening Boris! (Hopefully not to be advertised in the New Statesmen....)

Stiles
03 March 2008 at 12:07

There is a rich vein of stuff to post about Nick Cohen (eg his support for grammar schools) but given his portrayal of critics as nutters how about this one where he begins an e-mail to left journalist Dave Osler, "Oi, Tosser.." See http://www.davidosler.com/2006/04/this_charming_man_an_excha...

Serosch
03 March 2008 at 13:23

Martin Bright, Nick Cohen, the only one missing is the Mad Mel Phillips to complete the axis of evil.

Martin Bright
03 March 2008 at 14:02

Serosch -- you've forgotten Michael Gove and John Ware... oh and Lex Luthor

Serosch
03 March 2008 at 16:39

Mr Bright, it will be a happy day indeed when you are sacked from this publication.

You can then join your chum Ms Phillips at the Daily Mail, a publication that supported German fascism in the 20th century and in the 21st century is supporting Jewish fascism.

knave
03 March 2008 at 17:26

Martin you are a card carrying member of the neo con Reaganite right but at least you have a sense of humour unlike mate Cohen.

Martin Bright
03 March 2008 at 17:53

So why haven't they sent me my card yet? I'm still waiting.

Anyway, must dash... off to the latest meeting of the Zionist conspiracy

eastender
03 March 2008 at 23:18

Bright, why don't you wind in the crap jokes and actually engage in the policy debate?

eastender
03 March 2008 at 23:29

If Ken is such a massive fan of the gay hating Muslim ultra-right can anyone explain why his administration has:

- funded anti-homophobic bullying DVDs for all secondary schools in London, in partnership with Stonewall

- established the first same sex civil partnership register in the UK

- funded Pride for the last 8 years

- battled Westminster and Bromley councils over the right to fly the rainbow flags at gay venues in the West End and the right to hold civil partnership ceremonies at town halls respectively

- banned a homophobic holiday company from advertising on the London Underground

- established a full time liaison officer for LGBT communities in London

Could it actually be that his engagement with Al Qawadari was a piece of (yes, possibly misjudged) realpolitik in regard to specific issues of the time, rather than a wholesale policy shift in support of the latter's position on gay rights?

Could it possibly be that this ridiculous assertion is being made by specific journalists who either (a) support Boris (b) have axes to grind in their never ending blog war with prominent leftists or (c) do both?

I'm thinking that it might be the letter, which is why neither Bright or Cohen will go near the actual policy agenda as they will become badly found out in their support of Boris "write some more hilarious spic jokes please Taki" Johnson.

salil
04 March 2008 at 06:54

epitomy, it is Gandhi, not Ghandi.

Martin Bright
04 March 2008 at 12:10

That all sounds great. But I'm afraid my view is that such policy initiatives should be the bottom-line for a progressive politician. I don't believe I should feel grateful that he is sometimes doing the right thing.

The Qaradawi visit was a disgrace, as Peter Tatchell has consistently argued. But, of course, anyway against Livingstone is branded a traitor or a racist and this just will not do. This strategy becomes particularly sinister when Livingstone starts to use this kind of sectarian discourse against anti-racist campaigners such as Trevor Phillips, or indeed, his own race adviser Atma Singh, who was branded a threat to national security because he refused to sign up to City Hall's policy of appeasement of the Islamic radical right.

eastender
04 March 2008 at 13:09

"But I'm afraid my view is that such policy initiatives should be the bottom-line for a progressive politician.I don't believe I should feel grateful that he is sometimes doing the right thing."

Good to see you admit that Ken is a progressive politician. Do you think that Johnson would be as progressive?

You might think that these should be bottom line policies but they aren't . The GLA has been a leading authority in driving forward the agenda on LGBT equality.

Who's asking you to be grateful? Just think that the New Statesman might consider supporting an administration with such a positive record on LGBT equality.

And its groundbreaking work on the London Living Wage, responsible public procurement and several transport and environmental strategies.

Or, if not supporting, then at least trying to bring some kind of balance to the equation.

Yet you choose to reiterate your standard sentences about Livingstone's attacks on Philips and Singh.

Let's assume you're right and these attacks were completely out of line. On the overall balance of progressive policies vrs nasty attacks on political opponents, do you not think the scorecard is generally favourable for the Labour Mayor of London?

As far as I can tell your entire agenda against Livingstone is down to three things:

i. He can be a nasty political opponent

ii. You disagree with some of his positions on world affairs

iii. The LDA have mismanaged some of their contracts.

Is that really a reason to jump ship to supporting the Tories? Or is this just an inevitable conclusion to your increasing rightward shift?

salil
04 March 2008 at 17:14

and, epitomy, Chavez and Pinochet, both being such appalling examples of political leadership, would have jailed - and worse - a man like Gandhi. That's why, if you care about human rights, you have no choice but to oppose both - Chavez and Pinochet. It isn't rocket science. But it does require opening one's mind a bit.

knave
04 March 2008 at 17:14

Isn'' the real reason why you want Livingstone to be defeated is that it would be a massive fillip for your PEU mates at Tory HQ. I will bet my wages that in the next 23 months you and Nick Cohen will be making nothing but negative and snide remarks towards Brown. Or is he a homophobic lover of the Islamic right.

epitomy
06 March 2008 at 10:16

salil.

You have clearly never been to Venezuela - the majority of the media is anti-Chavez - so much for oppressing freedom of expression! the only station that has had its licence revoked was the one that took part in a cia sponsored coup to over throw the democratically elected government in 2002 - ANY government in the world would put a stop to such meddlesome intervening by a foreign super-power against a sovereign state.

Democracy is alive and well and in some ways more participatory than we have in the west - the recent referendum results in December, which saw a number of government sponsored reforms, including strengthening of lesbian and gay rights, were narrowly defeated, and the government have stuck by the results. Still sounds like Pinochet?

I cant wait for your next flight of fancy on what Chavez would do to Gahdhi - dont let reality temper your creative writing, but perhaps learn a bit about Chavez and concrete things he has done before speculating???

Martin Bright
06 March 2008 at 12:36

All roads lead to Caracas in the end -- via the world Zionist conspiracy of course

salil
06 March 2008 at 20:26

epitomy,

If I don't know Venezuela, you don't know Gandhi. (By the way, that's how it is spelt; this time you've indulged in creative writing, calling him Gahdhi - which, in Hindi, means a female donkey; I hope you did not mean to call Mohandas Gandhi that. You're welcome to; he'd have laughed at it; as would I; but I know if anyone called Chavez anything like that, that person's fate would have been sad - as would have been of anyone on the wrong side of Pinochet's fence. Rather than defending a megalomaniac busily hanging out with ageing Hollywood stars and seeking limelight by seeking release of hostages taken by guerrillas he has supported all along, why don't you let me know your thoughts of something as simple as corruption under Livingstone's regime?

And yes, I have been to Venezuela - but I am certain you still can't spell Gandhi.

knave
06 March 2008 at 20:41

All roads lead to Caracas in the end -- via the world Zionist conspiracy of course

Flippant remark but no substance.

epitomy
06 March 2008 at 20:57

Martin - you have now entered the realm of pure fantasy - you have to write me off as an anti-semite because I have dismantled rabid lies about Venezuela - but if you look through all my comments, you'll find nothing to evidence it. Read before you write Martin - its some good advice for a journalist. you are fast becoming a prime embarrassment to your trade.

Salil - I cant actually work out what you are saying anymore but you have a real bee in your bonnet about my inability to spell. Good to see that you are spending your time dealing with the really important issues in the world! The fact that this of much more interest to you than the truth about Chavez and Venezuela casts you as a bit of a nerd I have to say - just out of interest- what did you read while you were out there? Any of the anti-Chavez press that populates the news-stands on a daily basis? tune into any of the channels that daily pump out lies about Chavez? or did you just bury your head in the nearest dictionary?

Perhaps that explains why you thought you were under a pinochet style dictatorship !

My point is simply this- you have to attack Chavez with lies that fall flat on their faces under scrutiny because that is how you justify your attacks on Ken for allying with Chavez. With friends like these who needs the tories?

salil
07 March 2008 at 17:00

Epitomy,

Maybe we will continue to talk past one another, so let Venezuela rest. The only reason I kept bringing up your spelling of Gandhi is because it clearly shows to me your unfamiliarity with his name and spelling, over successive posts. If you spell it differently each time, all it tells me it is an unfamiliar name to you. It is instructive; since you seem to be so well-informed about chavez. It tells me a little bit about one subset of the kind of people who want Livingstone at all costs. In their universe, Gandhi is a foreign name, in every sense of the term. Not at all surprising.

Martin Bright
07 March 2008 at 20:58

This is all almost unbelieveably depressing. I must however, salute Miv Tucker's letter to the Camden New Journal. I didn't even know about the piece to which she refers.

The facts of my programme speak for themselves. Despite all the hectoring bluster about getting the programme pulled, reporting us to Ofcom or, most laughable of all, suggesting I had slandered the police (I'll always treasure that one) nothing came of a single charge.

Indeed, the Mayor's office has now adopted every single one of the claims in the programme. City Hall is indeed run as Livingstone's personal fiefdom, his inner circle is dominated by the whacko Trotskyists of Socialist Action, the mayor does drink whisky at 10 o'clock in the morning, the mayor's advisers did work in office hours on Livingstone's election campaign in 2004.

These are the established facts, quite apart from the astonishing revelations of Andrew Gilligan and the vicious smearing of the City Hall whistleblowers Atma Singh and Brenda Stern.

Now, if people still want to vote for Livingstone because they feel his achievements outweigh all this, then so be it. But don't pretend none of this matters. It matters deeply because it demeans the office of mayor and it demeans London. The Labour Party should have dropped Livingstone long ago. If it loses the election it has only itself to blame.

knave
07 March 2008 at 22:01

The Labour Party should have dropped Livingstone long ago. If it loses the election it has only itself to blame.

Why are you bothered who the Labour party puts forward. In your enemy terrority you dislike Brown and the Labour party and talk warmly about the Tories. I have the feeling Martin that if Labour put forward Ed Balls you would be slagging off the candidate

redharry
08 March 2008 at 13:31

City Hall is indeed run as Livingstone's personal fiefdom,

That's the whole idea of city Mayors

his inner circle is dominated by the whacko Trotskyists of Socialist Action,

which whacko Trotskyite policies have they implemented?

the mayor does drink whisky at 10 o'clock in the morning,

Which as we know is a crime worse than invading Iraq

the mayor's advisers did work in office hours on Livingstone's election campaign in 2004.

Even Atma Singh admitted they had to leave the building to make phone calls.

By the way, why did Atma Singh spend five years working for Ken (on a big salary), then blow the whistle only after he was sacked? After all he was a member of Socialist Action and knew all about the other members.

I think Dave Osler's point of view is worth reading

http://www.davidosler.com/2008/01/in_defence_of_socialist_ac...

Finally what about the grouplet of former leftists who earn huge sums of money in the capitalist press for attacking their former comrades? I'd guess that Cohen is 'earning' more than any of Ken's advisers for writing articles promoting war, rendition and torture.

S.Walinets
08 March 2008 at 15:18

BRIGHT ON 'ANY ANSWERS' !

I''ve just heard Martin Bright phoning in to the BBC Any Answers programme, about the nasty treatment of soldiers in uniform. Martin's response was quite ok, i.e., he thought such treatment was deplorable. BUT -- then we heard the real Martin! He used his call to slip in yet another dig at Livingstone, quite unwarranted since Livingstone has nothing to do with that particular issue. THEN he said something to the effect that he wouldn't be surprised if those people who'd jeered at our soldiers weren't immigrants!!! NOTHING in the news reports I've heard pointed any fingers at immigrants. So why does little Martin leap in at this slightest possible opportunity to air his personal prejudices in this way?

If Martin Bright (aka Phartin Shite, in my view) continues to be the Statesman's Political Editor, then I shall be looking elsewhere for an honest political magazine, next time my six-year-old subscription becomes due.

S. Walinets, Co Durham

knave
08 March 2008 at 16:19

Thank you Stanleynets but are you surprised.

As ex serviceman who would have to wear uniform sometimes, in the seventies, there were always comments made. Mainly by white youths not immigrants who thought you were going to get off with their girlfriends. Kipling wrote a brilliant poem called "Tommy Atkins" about the problems of servicemen in peacetime.

What a sad world we live in. That the political editor of the once great NS makes comments like that one.

Martin yoiu are a disgrace. What ever respect I had for you has gone now.

knave
08 March 2008 at 17:35

The trouble is the world of generalisations. This is the world of Bright, Cohen and Anthony. Black/brown immigrants are the problem. Powell was right. The problem is that Powell believed that sending the immigrants home was the only solution, hopefully by mutual consent. You have the feeling that the secret agenda of the PEU and their accolytes (Cohen, Bright, Anthony, Browne, Migration watch) is their final solution.

Martin Bright
10 March 2008 at 12:12

Just to clarify matters, S. Walinets of County Durham, the person who regularly calls Any Questions is not me.

Please be more careful next time before ascribing offensive or racist views to me.

knave
10 March 2008 at 19:24

By your comments I assume you were not on Any Questions and making those remarks. If you did then you are a disgrace. If you did not make remarks about the immigrants and then I apologise. I would like to know which it was.

Martin Bright
13 March 2008 at 17:12

How much clearer do I need to be. I have never called Any Answers. The Martin Bright who regularly calls in is not me. So, yes, I accept your apology.

knave
14 March 2008 at 11:55

I do apologize Martin.

S.Walinets
20 March 2008 at 20:52

Having started this controversial blogrespondence on March 8th, I feel I should comment now, especially since Martin took the trouble to email me to correct my assumption that the Any Answers 'Martin Bright' was not him -- which email I appreciated. However, in view of our correspondence since then, I still have doubts. I will outline them now. I hope this necessarily detailed account will not exhaust readers' patience...

March 10th: Martin emailed me. His words were: "The person is a regular caller to Any Answers. But I can assure you it is not me. I shall call the programme to clarify this because several people have mentioned these interventions."

March 12th: I emailed Martin: "Oh! Then sorry, Martin, and thanks for letting me know."

Later, I emailed him again: "In view of this 'other Martin' revelation, I'm thinking I should blog to apologise for my original blog about you ... ... Are you ok about that? Assuming you are, I'd very much like to mention the Beeb's response to your call, if you wouldn't mind telling me."

Later, after I'd emailed asking him, he replied: "So far the programme hasn't returned my call but I'll try again today.... Please do re-post." (i.e., 're-blog')

March 15th: Not having heard from Martin, I emailed the Any Answers producer Lisa Jenkinson, to ask if he had phoned them: and if so, could she tell me what advice he'd been given, re the other 'Martin Bright' who'd phoned the programme? She replied that she'd "check the call sheets" (meaning unclear...)

March 16th: I emailed Martin again: "Martin -- Has the BBC responded yet?"

March 20th, 8-0pm: As I write this, 4 days later, I haven't heard again from Martin following my requests. So I'm left feeling some uncertainty regarding Martin's statements to me:

1) Martin's first email said: "The person is a regular caller to Any Answers...." To know that, implies that Martin listens to Any Answers regularly. Surprising ??

2) He also said: "I shall call the programme to clarify this because several people have mentioned these interventions." This implies people have drawn this other 'Martin' to our Martin's attention. Have they? If so, if I were Martin I'd have asked the Beeb's Any Answers' presenter, Dimbledy, to ask on air, when caller Martin calls, to clarify that he's not the New Statesman writer, just for audience information. Wouldn't you ?

3) Most important -- I remain puzzled at an apparent serious co-incidence, namely, that 'caller Martin' used his call to get in a dig at Ken Livingstone, our Martin's acknowledged bete noir: for Livingstone had in no way been mentioned in the 'off-duty soldiers in uniform' issue which caller Martin's call had been about...

I might just be consumed with unwarranted suspicion. So I'd appreciate it if Martin could answer the doubts I've expressed above.

S. Walinets

Martin Bright
21 March 2008 at 15:13

Oh for heaven's sake, S. Walinets. Please go to the library or the gym or something more useful. If you insist on seeing conspiracies everywhere you will drive yourself to distraction.

I called Any Answers and left a message, they haven't got back to me. I have better things to do than check whether a right-wing caller to Any Answers who uses the same name as me is using a pseudonym. My name is not that uncommon (there is a prominent Cambridge mathematician and bell-ringer called Martin Bright for instance), so it's probably someone with the same name as me.

If you still think the caller is me then I despair. It isn't.

S.Walinets
22 March 2008 at 13:29

Sorry Martin. I didn't mean to upset you, only to invite your clarification of the above puzzling indications.

1). How did you know "the person is a regular caller to Any Answers" unless you listen to A/A regularly? Being the busy man you are, that seems unlikely: which does leave the possibility that you know 'Martin Bright' calls regularly simply because 'Martin Bright' is indeed you...

That's not an unreasonable question to put to you.

2) It's also reasonable to point out that 'Martin Bright' chose to insert in his call a castigation of Livingstone, when the issue he was phoning about had had no connection whatever with Livingstone. Livingstone is, after all, notoriously a target of your's.

If I do "insist on seeing conspiracies everywhere", perhaps I've absorbed the habit from watching your 'objective' Channel 4 Dispatches inquiry, or from reading your inuendo-free pieces in the Evening Standard.

taghioff.info
24 March 2008 at 05:55

Why do we have to be so bitter in this debate? Has it ever occurred to anyone that there might be issues at stake in the fight between the Livingstone camp and the Bright-Cohen camp, and that both sides might have good reasons for the positions they take?

I don't agree with Bright and Cohen it their villification of Ken, but I don' think their position makes them right-wing or the enemy, and I think the left's inability to handle this kind of debate well is a weakness.

Maybe the Major's office needs looking at as an insitution, maybe the Johnson camp is rubbing their hands in glee at Brights documentary, but maybe just maybe Cohen and Bright are idealistically motivated and feel they are defending democratic values, in much the same tradition as Orwell did, from the a left but libertarian leaning point of view. If you travel to a strongly totalitarian country, you will find it very hard to totally dismiss such views.

For me the nub of the question is this - How do you defend and extend democratic values in a globalised world? Is it best done on a national level, with "democratic" nations invading "totalitarian" ones and thus imposing freedom... Surely there is a problem with this position in principle and practice, since democracy cannot really be imposed on a people who are not in a right place to put it into practice.

So is there a better way? Well European expansion is a far more consensual way of extending the remit of the kind of democracy, with substantive social guarantees, that most of us on the left would be proud of. This is one route towards international democracy.

Another route is to establish something like a world parliament, so that democracy became an international norm that actually started to be practiced.

You see, I think Ken and Martin and Nick are punting towards the same things but at different scales of reference. Ken, and most of the anti war movement, oppose the US precisely because they see the US as the biggest opponent of democracy internationally. Martin writes about Gun, the GCHQ whistle-blower in this issue of NS, so surely he empathises with this tradition.

But the big gripe with Ken and the anti-war left is the embrace of un-democratic anti-Americans. I am not sure it is a good idea to hold your nose about your enemies enemies, this is precisely the mistake the US right made with PInochet etc...

But, at the same time, to consider Ken an enemy, just because you don't like his friends stands as a very similar class of mistake.

Is it not possible to see past this and see that the USA is indeed an enemy of meaningful forms of international democracy, and that we should focus on that as a project rather than on our differences?

Martin Bright
25 March 2008 at 11:20

OK S. Walinets. How about this?

Question: What if one of my thousands of enemies, on this world and one of the many extra-terrestrial worlds that keep a close eye on my work decided to impersonate me on Any Answers. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume they would then represent me as a right-wing nutter in order to discredit my otherwise brilliant ideas?

Answer: "no". It would be a mad conspiracy theory.

The miracle is not that I am a regular listener to Any Questions but that I am taking time to disabuse you of your fantasies. But here we go again:

1. I am an irregular listener to Any Questions/Answers, but people have brought it to my attention that there is a caller who shares my name.

2. The caller on the Livingstone programme was not me. I don't need to call radio phone-ins, I have other ways of getting my views across. This is a show to allow members of the public to air their views.

Now, if you want to pursue this matter then please do so with Any Answers. I have already accepted your apology, but you seem to insist on pursuing this daft avenue of discussion. I won't respond again and merely do so here in case anybody else thinks the Any Answers caller is me.

taghioff.info
26 March 2008 at 05:55

@Martin

You do have a point about not seeing the wood for the trees, or the moon for the finger as you put it.

@Mr Walinets, I am not so sure that the Any Answers issue really has very much bearing on the differences between Martin and Ken.

Politics cannot merely be reduced to individuals and there motiviations, there is a relationship with wider events that also needs to be considered.

S.Walinets
26 March 2008 at 15:41

OK Martin, I accept your denials and will cease my questioning.

I do think you could have satisfied my questions sooner, actually, by replying to my email asking 'Has the BBC responded yet?' instead of ignoring it for four days tho' you had indicated you would let me know...

I also think less of your patronising put-downs would have satisfied my doubts sooner.

I haven't been the kind of obsessed nutter you've hinted at -- I've merely been pursuing answers to reasonable questions. A more conscientious journalist would have recognised that.

Little Richardjohn
15 April 2008 at 19:49

""Livingstone has been ACCUSED of lying and protecting dishonest cronies employed by the Greater London Authority. At least £3 million has disappeared from the public purse and there are SUSPICIONS that much more money is unaccountable.

The well-documented ALLEGATIONS about sleaze in Livingstone's headquarters are ignored by the apologists in the Left-wing liberal media. Instead, they describe Livingstone as the personification of 'the ideals of democracy, equality and sustainability'."

Spot the trend in this?

I can't wait for the hard facts to emerge, can you?

After all, there is a mayor to vote for. As opposed to a bumbling idiot who cannot do arithmetic and won't name the chaps who will accompany him into office. I can't wait to see who they might be either. Won't it be FUN! - if London really is insane and elects this explosion in a shredded wheat factory.