Bright's Blog

19 comments from readers

guido
02 May 2008 at 11:06

Thanks for all your help

Jonny Mac
02 May 2008 at 11:26

Martin - you know more than most that Livingstone is corrupt and unfit to hold public office. So how can you justify continuing to be the political editor of a magazine that came out most strongly of all mainsteam magazines for him as London Mayor?

Martin Bright
02 May 2008 at 12:02

I think the Labour Party pretty much did this to themselves, Guido. Livingstone has only himself to blame for letting Boris even get close. He shouldn't have had a hope.

redharry
02 May 2008 at 12:35

I think you're far too modest. You got a whole prime-time TV programme to smear and red-bait Livingstone. No doubt your neo-comrades at the Policy Exchange will be cracking open the champagne in Annabels for you even now.

I notice you still haven't provided any evidence that the Conservative Party has a progressive wing - still providing evidence isn't your strong point.

ps next time you meet up with your pal Nick Cohen, ask him why he attacks the antiwar left f- or failing to provide solidarity with Iraqi trade unionists (which is just another of his many lies) - when he failed to support the striking teachers.

Solidarity like charity begins at home.

Martin Bright
02 May 2008 at 12:56

If my humble programme is all it took then that's a bit sad don't you think.

I think the Conservatives opposing 42 days are pursuing the progreesive argument. But maybe they are just pretending.

I am not answerable for Mr Cohen.

redharry
02 May 2008 at 13:27

Being more progressive than NuLab on detention and ID cards is only being less reactionary - it's revealiong that you can only defend your position with such a pathetic point. Since the leading Tory opponent of ID and 42 days is David Davis, that by your logic would place him on the (non-existent) progressive wing of the party. As Wiki -accurately -has it, 'Davis is perceived to be socially conservative. He expressed support for the restoration of the death penalty as recently as November 2003. He is highly sceptical of the political expansion of the European Union. He voted against the repeal of Section 28 (which banned local government from promoting homosexual relationships in schools). '

So now we have one of your 'progressives' , but then you've always been a fan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/aug/28/conservatives...

Care to add another to the list?

As for your 'so very 'umble' programme - i don't think you should get all the credit. After all Gilligan, Cohen etc in the Standard played their part too. Perhaps you are no longer answerable for Mr Cohen, but I wrote in reply to your claim that he and Oliver Kamm were 'on the left'. As with Ken and Tory 'progressives' - an assertation completely without evidence.

knave
02 May 2008 at 19:01

"Thanks for all your help"

Guido fawkes

Says it all Martin.

I think redharry has got you again Martin about progressive Davis.

think the Labour Party pretty much did this to themselves, Guido. Livingstone has only himself to blame for letting Boris even get close. He shouldn't have had a hope.

Livingstone actually did quite well cpmpared with the rest of the country. My god Labour lost Cardiff.

To be honest Martin Labour has been 10 years in power it is not surprising that the country wants a change. In 10 years of Tory rule the country will want a change in 2020.

the only difference is that Labour has been harried by the press for 10 years because 95% of white journos are right wing racist thugs. For the next 10 years journos like yourself will give this lot an easy ride as you gave Thatcher.

redharry
03 May 2008 at 00:49

From

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/647191/all-down-to-br...

All down to Brown

Fraser Nelson 10:30am

'I’ve just done BBC World Service with Martin Bright, my counterpart at the New Statesman. We’re pitched against each other quite a lot - the theory being that I’m a right-winger, he’s a left-winger and we’ll go at each other. Problem is, we agree on most things...'

Need I say more?

antileft
04 May 2008 at 16:31

"the only difference is that Labour has been harried by the press for 10 years because 95% of white journos are right wing racist thugs."

Haha oh yeah great statistic, knave. It's the press, isnt it? The press that (ahem) generally backed Blair. The press that often supports immigration (murdoch generally does anyway). The press that includes the new statesman.

As for the results- well, what's the difference? It isnt exactly as if new labour is left wing or anything. Theyre still far more right wing and pro globalisation than, say, the french conservatives. Yup, it must suck calling yourself "redharry" in such a completely right wing country. Hey redharry, I recommend growing up.

PeterFallow
04 May 2008 at 20:38

Why the long face, Brighty? Surely, you ought to be cavorting with triumph after adding a couple left punches to those from the right. You wanted Livingstone gone. You didn't bother to scrutinise Johnson's campaign, and did your best to attack Labour's. You should've been up on Millbank drowning in champagne with Maude - god know they owe you big time!

taghioff.info
05 May 2008 at 04:03

@antileft

Yes the UK is a very right-wing country, which I see as no cause for celebration.

@martin

The press has some power, and prime-time TV is the most powerful part of the press, hence the control over it In four years time you might try and do the same documentary about Boris, I am pretty sure there will be corruption issues there. Same office, and a new Mayor with a record of criminality.

The only consolation is that with some Tories in government, we might start remembering why we were left-wing in the first place.

taghioff.info
05 May 2008 at 04:17

As for Brown, looking from afar, he is still tinkering at the edges:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/may/05/localgovernmen...

His scheme for shared equity is an end of pipe solution for a systemic problem: There is not enough housebuilding, and too much speculation by the rich with what should be people's homes.

But because New Labour won't upset rich people, they cannot deal with the root of the issue, thus the unconvincing tinkering with the margins, all very Neo-liberal and not very effective.

Without some sort of clear core agenda, how can the Left give itself a profile?

taghioff.info
05 May 2008 at 04:39

@martin

I went back and looked at your blog posts recently. You seem to be at the point of "Ken is terrible Boris is Terrible, what happened to the left?"

I can only say that the international economy happened to the left. You can read a lot of New Labour and Third-wayism out of the UNDP human development report.

The whole argument that the state is good because it is a cheap way to produce workers in an advanced economy comes from that direction, and this is how New Labour squared the "we can be socialists and not upset the rich circle."

I would say that Amartya Sen is one of the most influential figures in British politics just now, but we won't admit it to ourselves, because it illustrates the extent to which we have lost national sovereignty.

The implication is that the left needs an agenda that does not surrender to globalisation, but that attempts to take charge of it. Be that through regional co-operation with Europe to attempt to discipline international markets, as well as co-operation with Europe to find viable ways forward for social security and public service provision.

But also be that through pushing for reform of international governance. Now is precisely the right moment for a call for the reform of the financial architecture, Ian Mcwhirter writes about this in the NS.

The other obvious issue is global democratisation of some sort, as a movement to bring international markets back under democratic oversight.

Only then will parties that find themselves in power feel they have enough room to move in order to pursue really progressive agendas. If we stay exclusively within the box of national politics, we miss the real lines of force that determine the game, and so we are trapped in a situation of democracy without choice.

So if we are to have a May Day manifesto, it must be based in an internationalist agenda. If you don't believe me, then go and talk to politically engaged young people. The things that get them out on the streets are internationalist issues like poverty and climate change. They are the future for all of us, and we need a politics that can get to grips with that.

Obviously this internationlism needs to connect with the trenchwarfare of national politics, and this is where a manifesto could be useful: Is there a way of aligning the west-minster oriented left-wing politics of the NS with such an international agenda? Are there coherent underlying themes to work with?

Remember, we are already importing our "left-wing" politics from the international sphere by default, so why not build it by choice instead?

Keir H
05 May 2008 at 13:02

It’s ironic on May Day when socialism is celebrated the world over here in the UK the final curtain call approaches for this Labour Government.

Whether Brown is PM or some other dreary career Labour MP is leader it seems the general public is now tired of this Government. The Capitalist party will be returned to power just because they aren’t the other lot.

With astonished amazement at Labour punters voting Tory – I suggest they rewind back to the Thatcher years of misery. Short-term memories abound. In summary it was self-interest that consumed all with a total disregard for the less fortunate.

Business shareholders will insist Cameron generates increased dividends by using slashed public sector investment to decrease corporate taxation even further.

The world economy in reverse hasn’t helped people’s aspirations in the UK, along with perceived waste in the public sector and increases in domestic bills.

Surely with improvements in the NHS & Education, low unemployment, National Minimum Wage and low interest rates and many other improvements on the horizon in the public sector this would encourage people to persist with Labour through these semi turbulent times.

DCarins
06 May 2008 at 09:19

Jonnymac - are you suggesting that Boris Johnson won't also be as corrupt as Ken Livingstone? Get real! The Tories party is still the same old boys network as it has always been.

Jonny Mac
06 May 2008 at 10:24

DCarins - I am suggesting that. I don't accept that the Tory Party is the same old boys' network that it's always been - you just have to look at Boris' campaign staff to see that. And in any event, I don't see an obvious link between a crusty old boys' network and Livingstone-style corruption. Still, not much point in arguing about it - we'll just have to wait and see who's right! Disappointed that Martin Bright hasn't seen fit to answer my question though.

knave
06 May 2008 at 17:30

Haha oh yeah great statistic, knave. It's the press, isnt it? The press that (ahem) generally backed Blair. The press that often supports immigration (murdoch generally does anyway). The press that includes the new statesman.

Immigration is not a right wing or left issue. I know many right wing libertarians who believe in the free distribution of labour.

As for the press most are right wing. Read them hombre.

I know compared to a south american fascist like yourself they may seem liberal.

You are used to reading the the daily Pinochet or attaching electrodes for beginners

knave
06 May 2008 at 21:06

Taghioff your analysis as always is spot on but what concrete solutions do you suggest to empower.

taghioff.info
08 May 2008 at 18:43

@knave

I have only really come up with one proposal which relates to stabilising food supply.

http://taghioff.info/dant/?p=66

I just rewrote it to make it clearer.

What I took out was a call for a global depreciative currency to replace a fiat-based money supply, but this is not really my idea, it is Douthwaite (The Ecology of Money) and Liatier's (The Future of Money.)

I also subscribe to the idea of a global parliament and Global democritisation, as espoused by Monbiot and the NIDL and the UN campaing towards that end, as well as by the UK's Oneworld trust.

All of these are relatively grand schemes, and perhaps, unfortunately not immediately attainable. It seems hard enough for us to organise a sensible response to impending climate disaster, never mind really start taking control of our collective human fate!

At the level of National politics? I am really not sure. I spend my time thinking about climate change and food and water in India.

What I know is that the debate between the internationalists and those with experience at the national level and grassroots needs to be had. I think we need some sort of manifesto that links these issue up. I know that the Green Party (who I like) and the Respect coalition (who I have no time for because of Galloway) have thought about this stuff, but I think the mainstream of left-wing politics needs to get to grips with these issues more.

There have been moves in this direction, with a recent conference on progressive internationalism, but it all feels a bit tame. Where does internationalist radicalism (of a non-violent nature) fit into this? How can such ideas add energy to the debates on globalisation, which often feel so economistic and de-politicised?

I'm sorry Knave, I don't have a good answer to your request, except to say that we need some strategy before we can get towards concrete steps that people might be willing to mobilise around.