The Crewe & Nantwich campaign is disgusting

For the Union Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:09:24 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

The class warfare stuff, although cheap, is bording just about acceptable; but one thing horrified me (on an election leaflet):

"Do you oppose making foreign nationals carry and ID card?"

Regardless of the fact that I oppose ID cards in anyway, shape or form (the mere idea is distinctly alien to Britain) - "making", "foreign nationals" is the language of the [far] right.  

What has our party come to? Do we not know who we sound like with such inflammatory, nationalist statement. Unless of course - the plan is to TRY and appeal to the BNP - in which case, i may leave the party now.

Central should be putting their foot down on this; I would rather the seat be lost - than win on the back of a campaign based on fear. 

"Those who give up their liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

 

 






tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
The Crewe & Nantwich campaign is disgusting | 47 comments (47 topical)

The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#1)

by alexswanson on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:03:57 AM GMT

Whenever I've heard of BNP success, it's always been at the expense of Labour, Oswald Mosley, IIRC was ex-Labour; and of course Hitler ran the National Socialist German Workers Party. Many of Hitler's followers were ex-Communists nicknamed "beefsteaks" because they were "brown outside but red inside".

 

This is not really surprising since both socialism and fascism have the same general appeal: they isolate a small group and then blame society's ills upon them. In the case of socialists it's the upper classes; in the case of fascists it's foreigners. Both are accused of doing down the working classes and stealing what rightfully belongs to them. The target groups differ but the logic and emotion is the same.


Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#2)

by Free Radical on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:17:59 AM GMT

Alex. Lumping together socialists and fascists in this way is crass.

It is true that the Italian fascists partly had their roots in the trade unions syndicalist movements, the anarchists and some socialists, and the German Nazis had some socialist roots (and what would now be called green roots too), but it is crass to simply conflate socialism and fascism in this way. One could equally say that because Hitler worked with capitalism, that capitalism and fascism are the same - which is equally stupid of course.

Socialism is basically founded on theory, and an appeal to the rational, while fascism presents an appeal to the emotional and the "spiritual." It is dangerous indeed (and insulting) to ignorantly lump everything together and say it is all the same.

But to come back to "For the Union's" posting - if this is true it is very regrettable and will do our cause no good at all. Ironically the Tories have recognised the Zeitgeist of an increasing rejection of authoritarianism and increasing fears about the erosion of our civil liberties. The Labour leadership needs to recognise this quickly. People do not want an authoritarian and patronising government (and the same goes for todays astounding alleged government proposals to not allow children to be educated until they have had an MMR vaccination - if indeed this is actually true...).


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#3)

by alexhilton on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:48:21 AM GMT

Alex,

That's downright offensive. Hitler was no more a member of the Labour Party than you are.

There's are very simple reason why the BNP hits Labour disproportionately. If you're a Labour voter who's a racist, your Labour politicians will only in very rare examples say anything that allows you to justify your racism - so when that becomes the main issue on which you vote, you have to find an alternative to Labour.

On the other hand, there is a constant acceptance and even encouragement of racism in the Tory Party - for example the fact that Ann Winterton is a Tory MP - not to mention the "are you thinking..." posters.

So a Tory voter who's a racist, gets a constant justification of their bigotry from the Tory Party and so never is pushed to vote for another party.

An interesting test of this analysis will be the London Elections. When they publish the second preferences, how many of Boris Johnson's 140k majority will come from the BNP's 130k first preferences?


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#4)

by jkitleft on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:20:45 AM GMT

While Alex S' comments, were downright offensive, I disagree with yours Alex H.

The BNP's vote will continue to rise, unless we recognise that not all it's voters are racists. A poll recently found that around a fifth of the population would describe themselves as racially prejudiced. The Tories, and Labour, and the Lib Dems all have their fair share of racist supporters.

Of course the BNP's support is disproportionatly from racists. There is a racist core vote. But that wouldn't explain why there support is continuing to rise. We must confront people's fears about immigration, and we must confront the BNP.

1) Scrap the Religious and Racial hatred act. This act forces Nick Griffin and Richard Barnbrook etc. to moderate their comments. It legitamises them. Let them say what they want, let the public hear of Griffin's holocaust denial, and other senior members praising Mein Kampf as their Bible.

2) Confront lies about housing, public servics and wages, but address concerns. So, no, asylum-seekers aren't making a killing off benefits, they get a measly £44 a week. No, the ACPO says they do not commit a disproportionate amount of crime. No, only 5% of housing is given to recent arrivals.

3) Admit that Labour has let the waiting-lists sky rocket, and that mass building of council housing is long overdue. As I've said numerous times, allow capital raised on council houses sold, to be diverted into building more housing.

4) Say that yes, immigration is good, but that British people aren't benefiting from it in an equal way to the Exchequer. We need a Workplace Democracy act, to allow immigrants and British workers, in industries where wages haven't moved by much in the last ten years, such as cleaning, building, and of the waitresses, to be able to fight for their rights.

5) We must fight institutionalised segregation. Multiculturalism is not necessarily a good thing. I can imagine it pisses people off, if they see a community centre for those of a minority ethnicity or religion, but are told that a white community centre could be seen as 'racist'. The fact is that while aspects of cultures are great, many cultures are incompatible with Liberal democracy. We need to re-affirm commitments to a secular, liberal country, by ending state funding for faith schools.

It does offend me to see some women locked into a religion that claims that they are inferior, that refuses to condemn choice in marriage, and even encourages this, and wife-beating, while calling for the murder of gays and Jews. My views are universal. So I think gay marriage should be legalised, but it offends me more to see persecution of gays in Jamaica, and the hanging of gays in Iran. I believe that women deserve better pensions, but it offends me more to see institutionalised subjugation of women in Saudi Arabia.

So no, I can't stand multiculturalism, there are aspects of many cultures, and all religions (I'm an agnostic anti-theist), that I find repugnant. This is not to say that people can't have their John Stuart Mill moments. By encouraging liberalism, and freedom for all, not a glib defence of other cultures (as Azar Nafisi puts it "It's like saying the culture of Massachusetts is burning witches"), we can break down segregation, and break down the BNP, while confronting people's fears about immigration, and yet not undermining the positive impact it can have.


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#5)

by Lorin on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:49:35 AM GMT

Couldn't have put it better myself


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#7)

by alexswanson on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:04:06 PM GMT

You think my remarks were offensive? I regard the killing of tens of millions of innocent people as offensive, carried out by fascists and socialists. Innocent people are still dying in this country because of socialism. As I have pointed out before, the firearms laws in this country do not work: but Labour regards them as the core strategy against gun crime simply out of blind anti-freedom ideology. And let's not forget the paperwork hobbling NHS workers and policemen. How many people are quietly dying because people who could be saving them are filling in forms?

 

Remember, I am neither fascist nor socialist: my opinions of both creeds are based on experience and evidence. You may disagree but even so you would do well to try to understand why I hold them.


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#8)

by alexswanson on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:10:15 PM GMT

 PS

 

"So a Tory voter who's a racist, gets a constant justification of their bigotry from the Tory Party and so never is pushed to vote for another party"

 

(1) I am not a member of the Conservative Party and I am not here to represent them. The discussion is about socialism. 

(2) Continually attacking the Tory Party for racism impresses nobody but your own core who would vote for you anyway. Conservatives are not racist and continually trying to misrepresent quotes proves nothing. Don't forget that the protests against unrestricted immigration were in the past continually attacked by Labour as racist - until they realised that there were genuine concerns and changed policy. Current Labour policy is now at least as tough - if not tougher - than Michael Howard's ever was; but in the meantime, I suspect that you've lost a lot of support.


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#14)

by jkitleft on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:21:38 PM GMT

Actually Labour was a party that normally attacked uncontrolled immigration. I agree there is a fair share of racists within Labour, as well as the Tories. It was the unionised dockers marching to defend Enoch Powell.

But equating socialism with Naziism is disgusting. Socialism promises to provide equality for all (however utopian it may be). Fascism adheres to the Animal Farm diatribe of 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others'. The Old left abhorred all forms of tyranny. However much people want to mock Michael Foot, he was disgusted with the left of the '40's for defending Stalin. He supported the Falklands war, as he wanted to confront fascism. He denounced the Tories for not confronting Naziism. He supported intervention in Kosovo and Bosnia. He is a defender of our most basic forms of liberty, notable when he dfended Salman Rushdie.

I can name many others who adhere to denouncing all forms of totalitarianism, from people on the left. Paul Berman, George Orwell, Christopher Hitchens etc. etc.


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#25)

by alexswanson on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:40:54 AM GMT

"equating socialism with Naziism is disgusting."

I call it as I see it, being neither a socialist nor a fascist. 

 

"Socialism promises to provide equality for all (however utopian it may be). Fascism adheres to the Animal Farm diatribe of 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others'."

But Animal Farm was, precisely, a satire not on fascism but on socialism! Incidentally, you do not actually believe in equality: Labour at this by-election is effectively saying that rich people are less suitable for elected office.

 

"The Old left abhorred all forms of tyranny. However much people want to mock Michael Foot, he was disgusted with the left of the '40's for defending Stalin."

Sorry, but this just isn't true. There was a lot of  sympathy for the Soviets during the Cold War, and the main logical thrust of CND's campaign for unilateral nuclear disarmament - of which Foot, since you name him, was a prominent supporter - was that the Soviets were more trustworthy than the US.

 

" He denounced the Tories for not confronting Naziism."

It is a myth that the Left opposed Naziism during the 1930's. You need to read up history: the left at the time was pacifist and opposed both early intervention (when it would have been easy and painless) and rearmament until it was almost too late. 


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#42)

by jkitleft on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:27:42 PM GMT

Whether Animal Farm is a satire on COMMUNISM is irrelevant. It isn't on socialism, because if you knew anything about Orwell, it is that he was a Democratic Socialist. The point is fascism is socialism, BUT for an elite. This negates everything about mainstream socialism. I could equate Osama Bin Laden and Irshad Manji according to your theory, merely because they both believe in opposite ends of the spectrum of Islam. But apparently to you, ideologies are conglomerates, with no shades of grey. Gaddafi, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Milosevic, Kim Jong-Il don't appear on what I consider an acceptable spectrum of socialism.

Again, I have said I think the leaflet is disgraceful. I have said it previously. You no doubt, require hypocrasy, as I am not sure what is worse about your arguments: the syllogisms or the straw men. And you can provide no evidence to say I don't believe in equality.

"Men have had their freedom taken from them and worse by Stalin......We have a conception of political liberty which our friends in Russia have unhappily not been blessed with." Michael Foot speaking in parliament.

So, I'm not sorry, because it is true.

Here are some more from old Footy:

“Some are still gulled by the monstrous delusion that the
Russians are the friends, not the enemies, of democratic Socialism… If they prefer the world view of the Communist Party, let them clear out and no longer seek cover in our ranks.”

When other leftists criticised him, he said:

“We are glad to offer him a facility for criticising the policy of the government–a facility which is denied to Socialists in all the countries of Eastern Europe.”

I believe in disarmament but am an interventionist who abhors any kind of totalitarianism. Again, your theory of ideologies being conglomerates appears to negate itself. You could deride my beliefs by saying that Hitler and Stalin have briefly called themselves socialists, even though their actions, as well as any totalitarianists are anything but. Read his articles from the Tribune in the '40's. The CND has never put this message across. I know of many people, public figures, or personal friends, who support disarmament, but would never equate America with the Soviet Union. I'm sure you could scrape for ages and find a quote from a far-left flunky who once got into the lower end of the CND hierarchy. The point is, whoever the supporters may be, it is the official doctrine that is important. Yes many senior members have been communists. You name a communist (like Kate Hudson), I can name a democrat (Joan Ruddock, EP Thompson, Michael Foot). What does that prove? Totalitarianism is not supported as a policy by the CND.

Again, SOME people were opposed to intervention, and you again talk as if all adherents to an ideology have a collective opinion. Here's a famous left-wing cause to refute your claims about pacifism. Spain. Many honourable left-wing democrats were fighting hard for social democracy. Admittedly, as Auden and Orwell suggested, some were Stalinist. But many leftists were prepared to fight against fascism, and the majority of social democrats and democratic socialists supported the republicans.

How about the fact that Labour were echoing the calls of Churchill? How about Attlee, Foot, Orwell, Ernest Bevin etc. The anti-fascist movement was associated with the left in the '30's, for all the rhetoric from some pacifists.


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#15)

by Free Radical on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:23:51 PM GMT

Alex Swanson.

I had wondered whether to dignify your risory postings with a further response. But, here goes. Your remarks equating socialism and fascism are offensive, but, more importantly they are ignorant and crass.

It was the Beaverbrook Press that cheered on the Blackshirts in the 1930s and many in the British establishment (including some Tories) thought that the Nazis were a useful check on Bolshevism. Almost half the cabinet wanted to make peace with Germany in the run up to the second world war. There were of course many honorable Conservatives, most notably Winston Churchill - and if you feel a need to fill in some of your gaps in history I would recommend reading Churchill - and people like Edward Heath who had seen enough of Hitler to understand the danger to democracy. But it would be as crass to equate conservativism with fascism per se as your own ludicrous equation of socialism and fascism.


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#17)

by Free Radical on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:36:37 PM GMT

Alex S

A correction - I meant to say that your postings were "risible" of course.


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#26)

by alexswanson on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:43:31 AM GMT

 

 

"if you feel a need to fill in some of your gaps in history I would recommend reading Churchill"

I have done. I especially recall the parts where Labour people called him a "warmonger" for warning of the Nazi threat.

 

And as I've already said, I am NOT here to defend the Conservative Party. 


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#33)

by fluffymike on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:45:31 PM GMT

No - you're being asked to justify your very ignorant statement about fascism and socialism - which is, tbh, so ridiculous that I haven't the time or effort to bother explaining it as everyone else here will already know exactly why they are diametrically opposed to each other.




[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#38)

by ChrisPaul on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:53:21 PM GMT

Your position on firearms shows you up as a class warrior (and an idiot) yourself Swanson.

In the UK we have around 100 deaths a year caused by firearms. In the USA with five times the population you'd expect less than 500 if you were right that liberalising guns was the answer. In fact they have 11,000 which is 22 times what it would be if their liberal approach was the equal of our control.

 


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#12)

by alexhilton on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:31:03 PM GMT

I half disagree with you.

Yes - confronting the BNP lies is necessary - but the lies they perpetuate are only excuses people use to justify their racism. Apart from a few bonkers people, every single person who votes BNP just doesn't like brown people. Or eastern europeans.

The answer is not for Labour politicians to go around apologising for driving people into the arms of fascists. We need an education system that lifts children away from the small-minded bigotry of their parents, we need to deliver services and jobs and opportunity where they are needed, and we need to make sure that everyone knows that if they put an X next to BNP, they are inviting hatred and violence into their community.

If there is any truth at all that people vote for the BNP as some sort of protest (other than against foreigners) then that is only an argument for Proportional Representation for the Commons and for Local Government, which would probably result in the Labour Party splitting into two or three parties (likewise with the Tories) giving people far more choice over voting options and giving the Labour movement a far clearer message from the public of what people actually want.


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#13)

by jkitleft on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:14:23 PM GMT

My point is that if they were all racist, then the BNP vote would pretty much stay the same. Instead it's rapidly increasing. It isn't just down to turnout. Will someone who sprays swastikas on a grave with the star of Saint David, or someone who throws petrol bombs through the houses of a Hindu/Muslim/Sikh family start voting for Labour if we address people's grievances? No. But this is not about wooing a key bloc of voters in Combat 18. This is about the middle-aged woman who wants to tell politicians to 'fuck off'. This is about the single mother who says she would vote for the BNP, but won't because her children are mixed-race. I suggest you read Johann Hari's latest article in the Independent, with anecdotes like those.


It's easy to dismiss these people as racists. I wish I could. But people simply voting for a fascist party, doesn't immedietly connote that they are racist. If this had been the case, then the Nazi's vote during the Weimar republic would have either stayed the same at a low percentage, or they would have always been a major party. You don't just go from 7,000 votes to nearly a quarter of a million, because of turnout. Are people simply more racist? Of course not.

Only by addressing peoples' concerns, can we stem the vote of the BNP.


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#20)

by StevenAdams on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:36:32 PM GMT

Let's face it... by focusing on Alex's comments regarding fascism vs socialism there's a real case of denial going on here. 

The fact is, the literature sent out by the Labour Party in this by-election is abhorrent. It starts off by calling him Tory Boy Timpson, and asks the following:

Do you live in a big mansion house?

Do you think that regeneration is adding a new wing to your mansion?

Do you oppose making foreign nationals carry an ID card?

Now... can anybody here - ANYBODY - honestly tell me that this leaflet is trying to do something other than create a crass (an over-used word on this page already) caricature of a Tory an then prey on voters' fears and insecurity? 

 


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#21)

by jkitleft on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:42:05 PM GMT

no it's an abhorrent leaflet, that degrades progressive politics. I did not bring up Alex's views on Naziism though


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#22)

by Free Radical on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:48:59 PM GMT

Steven

It is notable that nobody has defended that leaflet and several people here have condemned it, as I do - especially the point about ID cards. So, I don't think anyone has any argument about that.

But the outrageous comments about socialism and fascism being somehow the same had to be answered very robustly in my view.


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#27)

by alexswanson on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:51:15 AM GMT

"the outrageous comments about socialism and fascism being somehow the same"

 

Let's be clear about what I am and am not saying:

(1) Socialism and fascism have the same internal logic and the same emotional appeal. Both are based on hatred and malice and seek to blame an outside group for the troubles of the working classes. In the two cases the groups are different, but this is not important. It is the possibility of blame that is important.

 

(2) Both creeds have led to the deaths of tens of millions of innocent people. This is a matter of historical fact. If there is anybody who does not wish to be associated with those deaths, then you can simply reject the label "socialist" and otherwise retain exactly the same views as you had before.


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#35)

by alexhilton on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:15:53 PM GMT

Socialism is not "based on hatred and malice" and if you really think that is the case, whet are you doing here?

For me, I have a very personal reason for being a socialist and that is the Christian upbringing that I had as a child. The values I learned at Sunday schools are the values that drove me to socialism.

Fundamentally, it's about rejecting the concept of the undeserving poor - not because there aren't people who make bad decisions, but because you have to give people an opportunity to get out of a hole, no matter how deeply they have dug themselves in. We don't leave anyone behind.

Secondly, it's a rejection of the class system. Not class war in the sense that the working class rise up against the middle and upper class, but an assault on the system itself. So we don't tell a child at birth that they are by their parentage and circumstances destined for a certain life. We aim to give opportunities to people to exceed their expectations. And this is as true for any discriminated against part of the population as it is for the working class.

But it's also a faith in our neighbours - a recognition that we are, ultimately, all in this together, that we achieve more together than we can apart. And nothing evidences this so well as the international fight against poverty and against the human impact on the environment. Both of these issues are harder to address because the world doesn't stand together, yet no-one is suggesting that the problems are so great that they couldn't be addressed if we did work together.

Of course, you could quote me countless examples of so-called Socialist states that have failed on all these counts and committed atrocities to boot. But you would be quoting the failures of Socialism, not its successes.

You think what we do is based on hatred. I think we're trying to give some hope and opportunity to the most destitute of children. You think what we do is based on malice, and I think we're trying to build a society where women can safely presume they will not ever be a victim of rape or domestic violence? I think we're trying to secure environmental and resource sustainability for future generations and an end to poverty.

And so Alex, the more criticism you throw at a Labour government for failing on all these issues, the more driven I become to be in politics - because if we give up, the alternative is a party who treats social justice like window dressing.


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#43)

by jkitleft on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:47:33 PM GMT

Socialism is based on a campaign for equality.
Fascism is based on hatred.

1) Imagine the outrage if I had said right-wingers campaigns were based on hatred of poor people. I have condemned, as have others btw Alex, the talk of 'class warfare'. It degrades my socialism. I don't hate people nfrom rich backgrounds. One of my cousins goes to Eton on my mum's side. The others all go to private schools. As do I, but I have my hands tied as the council is essentially sending me on a school voucher, because I am statemented. My mum is from an upper-class background of a low-income woman from Arkansas and a WW2 vet who worked for the Queen. Despite all this, I am a republican, and believe in forced integration of state schools. I can remember both ideals, without my belief in socialism being degraded because my mum grew up in an upper-class household, but now qualfies for WFTC's.

2) Fascism holds a direct guarentee of death and mutilation and destruction. But Socialism also had the Chartists, the Jarrow marchers, the International Brigade, the Civil Rights movement, the Sufferagettes, as well as democratic socialists, social democrats, trade unionists, and campaigners for social equality, who did not hate the rich, and have not killed tens of millions of people. I do not believe in the theory of counting how many people tyrants killed. It is a callous way of somehow attributing Stalin to the left, or Hitler to the right, while forgetting the heinous crimes of both.


I am not going to dismiss the Right, because Augusto Pinochet privatised social security. I'll dismiss the right because I don't support privatising social security. Similarly I don't support communism (although I'm a great admirer of Rosa Luxembourg). I don't support a vision of a '1984' state, which would be like spreading the North Korean vision to the world. But again I sense the syllogism of 'Kim Jong-Il calls himself a socialist'. 'Sweden's society is largely based on socialism'. 'Therefore, Sweden is morally responsible for the deaths of starving children in North Korea.'


I'll call myself a socialist because I look objectively at the most successful societies which have a social democratic outlook.


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#23)

by otware on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:20:51 AM GMT

Gosh it took me a while to work this one out. Wow...ID Cards for foreign nationals. Is this the message supported by Dunwoody???

If it is I wouldn't bloody vote for her. 


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe and Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#30)

by dogstarscribe on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:50:43 AM GMT

You see what happens when you make a theoretical error Alex? You build an edifice of criticism on sand.
Socialists aren't opposed to the capitalist class (a small group of people according to you). We're opposed to a capitalist system that gives rise to them. It's not about scapegoating capitalists, they're a symptom, not the cause.


[ Parent ]

Franklin quote (#6)

by David Boothroyd on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:03:49 PM GMT

Not the bogus Franklin quote again. This quote was a motto on a pamphlet Franklin published, but afterwards he insisted he had not written it. The phrase originated in the Philadelphia Assembly, and in the form published by Franklin it is slightly different:

"Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY."

This form makes it clear that there is no denial in general terms that making society safer occasionally encroaches on the liberty of the subject. And indeed there could not be; it is a truism. The question is, is it essential? I can't believe it is essential to liberty in this case.


Re: Franklin quote (#10)

by Free Radical on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:04:56 PM GMT

David

Well, the quote that "For the Union" presented was little different from the correct quote from Benjamin Franklin. If you do not regard the traditional liberty to go about your lawful business unchallenged by the authorities as essential, then I wonder what other of our liberties you also do not regard as essential? Please tell us... 

Make no mistake (it's obvious really), if foreign nationals are required to carry an identity card with them then it will be inevitable that this will be extended to all other citizens - for the simple reason that our nationality is not tatooed on our foreheads, and the authorities can not distinguish between foreign and British nationals in the street. 

Indeed it is clearly the government's intention to override resistance to ID cards by introducing them by stealth - for foreign nationals, for all citizens, and finally the compulsion to carry them at all times in public.


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe & Nantwich campaign (#9)

by fluffymike on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:19:00 PM GMT

I had posted this before I realised someone already had done so - here's a link to the website and one of the most embarrassing Labour lefalets I've ever seen!

http://www.creweandnantwichlabour.org.uk/dont_be_conned_by_tory_boy

is this the new labour approach post election massacre?


Re: The Crewe & Nantwich campaign (#18)

by rwendland on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:23:52 PM GMT

BTW is it normal for CLP candidate leaflets, like this one, to be "Promoted by Chris Lennie, Acting General Secretary, the Labour Party, on behalf of the Labour Party", as this website page claims?


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe & Nantwich campaign (#19)

by Angiem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:05:49 PM GMT

I agree. I strongly disagree with name calling and stereotyping the Conservative candidate in this way.

I am not a Tory troll but a Labour activist that likes to treat other parties decently during elections. I have stood as a candidate three times myself and would not dream using this kind personal attack on an opponent. 

Is is also the case that none of the Tories who I have stood against or their colleagues have ever been anything other the polite and respectful towards me.


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe & Nantwich campaign (#47)

by swatantra on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:55:33 AM GMT

Good point Angiem. We have to be careful that we too don't descend into gutter politics like the Tories, eg at every election its guaranteed that they'll play the 'xenophobic' and 'race card'. That's why they are the 'nasty party'. We also have to avoid stereotyping individuals; they can't help having been born with a siver spoon in their mouth. We as a Party have to move on from the old 50's and 60's type of socialism of the cold war, as well, where everyone went around calling each other 'comrade'. I thought we had progressed on from there. 


[ Parent ]

Crewe campaign is disgusting AND stupid (#11)

by TonyHannon on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:25:05 PM GMT

What’s the policy about swearing on this site?

I'm very pissed off about this. Very pissed off indeed.

Firstly, the person who commissioned it should be fired or removed and never consulted again.

Secondly, it should be apologised for - unreservedly. I'm deeply ashamed someone from this party thought it was a good comms strategy and they had the naivety – the *1@king stupidity!! -  not to think it wouldn’t be exploited.

I’m two steps short of sending money to the Tory campaign.

I wholeheartedly agree with every point you’ve mad For the Union except your first one.

The class warfare stuff is not acceptable – not acceptable at all and NOBODY is convinced or won over by it. In general terms, it is the same spiteful, accusing, divisive, moronic advertising that sets ‘conservatives’ against those on benefits or foreigners diluting British culture.

We’re in a tailspin as a Party and at times like these, people cast about to remind themselves why they leaflet, call, donate money, canvass and show up to interminable meetings reciting the application of endless rules. Thanks to Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes - this shit, which is what it is, has won countless more Tory voters nationwide than it could’ve ever hoped to send the other way in Crewe. I hope we lose if that's what it takes to smarten some of our idiots up.

What is awful about this is that Alex Swanson is given the hook to idiotically conflate the modern socially democratic, Labour Party with Nazism via socialism (which I’ll bet a tenner he couldn’t properly define without looking it up). Not even going to engage the normally tolerable Alex – just too vexed at the minute!


Re: Crewe campaign is disgusting AND stupid (#28)

by alexswanson on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:56:41 AM GMT

"I’ll bet a tenner he couldn’t properly define without looking it up"

 

I've discussed the definition of "socialism" many times over the years with self-styled socialists. Not one has ever managed to produce a clear definition, and no two have ever matched. 

 

If you're angry, my sympathy is limited. How much abuse have people like me had to put up with over the years? How long is it since Alex Hilton publicly condemned people like me as "evil"? When people debate properly, I do too. But I see no reason why I should spare the feelings of people who do not care how offensive they themselves are.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe campaign is disgusting AND stupid (#31)

by dogstarscribe on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:53:59 AM GMT

How about the abolition of exploitation and the alienation of the workers from the product of their labour? That'd be a good start. Inconvenien tfor you, obviously, since it's about class, not scapegoating,a dn rather shoots your 'socialists and nazia are all the same' fox, but hey ho, life's like that.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe campaign is disgusting AND stupid (#36)

by alexhilton on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:19:12 PM GMT

I think it is Tory ideologues who I have described as evil. Are you one?


[ Parent ]

Re: Yours disgusted C&N (#16)

by madasafish on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:28:09 PM GMT

Anyone who is suprised about the Crewe and Nantwich leaflet issued by the Labour Party leads a sheltered political life and should get out more.

It's the evolution of attacks on Tory Toffs: Cameron and Osbourne : attacks on Boris Johnson... a toff and a racist are some of the words used... , attacks on almost anyone who has had a privleged upbringing.

Of course it's also rank hypocrisy as Labour also has its own share of privileged people : viz Hilary Benn, Lord Sainsbury , Blair, Purnell, Mark Fisher, etc.


I have news for you. Some of us live in the 21st century and don't really care.

But Labour strategists obviously live in the early 20th century to publish such drivel.  I use the word drivel advisedly.

 I am sure the electorate of C&N will make up their own minds about people who issue leaflets like that.
 


Re: Yours disgusted C&N (#40)

by BritishAsian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:21:53 AM GMT

I have always been a Labour supporter but I have to say this aspect of fellow Labour people's attitudes mystifies me.

I would be delighted to send my children to a school such as Eton. I cannot afford to do so, well not for all of them and what one can have all should have, so I would not do it. But this school is world famous. World famous. I cannot think of any country in the world, not one, that has schools famous all over the world. Not one, and Britain has so many. I grew up in India and I tell you there are no such schools there and we have heard of this one.

Does it bring advantage? No doubt. Of the last ten Labour leaders four went to public schools and were thus toffs. The other six went to grammar schools but presumably opposed them for others. If you want to be Labour leader do not attend comprehensive! Not enough class! Must be toff!

Do we not see how offensive this is? That this works equally against us? Did we see Mr Blair sending his children to comprehensives, letting them take their chances in the job market? I did not.
 
Where is the logic in this? Does anyone imagine that if you removed the public schools and forced their pupils into comprehensives that anything of benefit would accrue to anybody? 7 per cent go to such schools, that is 2 in 30. Add two well behaved children to a class of 30 in a comprehensive and you think they will civilise the rest of the class if they are not civilised? It will be like pouring water into tea, it will still look and taste like tea. And of course many will simply go overseas.  

Has anybody else read the Frank Chalk book? To fix schoold we must first remove the 2 or 3 disruptors in the class. Most children want to learn but are easily led and it takes only 2 or 3 wrongdoers per class to ruin the school. 

Are we saying we would rather our MPs were badly educated than well? Come on this is upside down snobbery. I tell you who is not fit to be involved in our politics and it is not the man Timpson, it is those stupid ones in their rented top hats who have no manners and who think a good education should bar a man from office. In doing so they prove themselves stupid and an embarrassment to us.


[ Parent ]

Re: Yours disgusted C&N (#44)

by George08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:15:33 AM GMT

BritishAsian,

I would mostly agree with what you have to say in your above post. The question is, why does this petty and embarrassing class warfare still persist, when there seems to be considerable amounts of 'toffery'/privilege amongst all three main parties (Clegg went to Westminster, Blair Fettes, Cameron Eton)? What do you think these 'top-hat' campaigners are trying to achieve? In my view, it smacks of a return of the ills of Old Labour and is not conducive to Labour winning the by-election.


[ Parent ]

Re: Yours disgusted C&N (#45)

by BritishAsian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:24:37 AM GMT

I do not know my friend, but what I know is this.

It is not helpful to say that because some schools are better than others, we must close down all the good ones. Without the good ones how we would know the bad ones for bad?

It looks very bad when our own leaders, cabinet ministers and the like all talk down the public schools having been to one themselves! What is this?? This is like being in Cabinet supporting post office closures then demonstrating against them when they are your own constituency. An awful mistake, makes us look disconnected and very bad. "This is what other people should do but I don't have to?" 

And finally those who send their children to such schools pay 3 times. They pay for the state education they do not take up, they pay privately and they pay a third time because those fees fund bursaries and linkages with state sector. So they may have gained an education for their children but they have lost because they have not the pension they would have had, not the house they would have had.

It is a freedom argument I guess. We cannot be seen as a party that tells you you must do this or that even though we Blair,  Harman and the like all did same ourselves.
 


[ Parent ]

Re: The Crewe & Nantwich campaign (#24)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:46:15 AM GMT

The leaflet, whilst offensive, strikes me more as crass and immature.

This is why I say the presentational skills of the Labour party in all aspects is dire.

Whether it was the 'wee little Alex' cartoons up in Scotland or the 'Dave the Chameleon' sketches in 2006, our campaigning skills turn more away from us than for us.


Re: Crewe & Nantwich campaign disgusting (#29)

by NB on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:40:33 AM GMT

This "win at all costs" mentality is disgusting at the best of times.  When it is obvious that Labour is going to loose this by-election it is both disgusting and pathetic.  Labour must focus on two things and two things only in the coming 1-2 years:

  1. Doing the right thing for the country, so that people can look back on the Brown government with some pride in their achievements.
  2. Avoiding being wiped out at the next election, with a share of the vote of less than 25%.
By doing this there is even a small chance of denying the Tories and majority.  But if things carry on they way they are at present, there is a real risk that Labour will be bankrupt and pushed into 3rd place.


Crewe and Nantwich (#32)

by bigpapi on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:29:40 PM GMT

In all the fury being posted on here, has nobody noticed that the original point about ID cards for foreign nationals is actually accurate?  It is Government policy, for better or for worse, to introduce ID cards first for those people entering the country and for non-UK nationals.

As for the leaflet being promoted by Chris Lennie on the imprint, that (as an Agent) leads me to believe that the leafelt has not been produced locally, but is a "bog-standard" National leaflet that has just had the words "Crewe and Nantwich" and "Tamsin Dunwoody" added to it.

Finally, and I hesitate to post this for fear of the ignorant vitriol that I will get in response, can we PLEASE get away from this nonsensical idea that everyone who votes for the BNP is a racist?  I have nine BNP councillors in my City (six of them in my Constituency).  My next door neighbour is an ex-BNP voter, and he is no more racist than anyone on this site.  He, and many others, vote BNP for many reasons - often because they have no alternative for an anti-Labour vote (the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats cannot be bothered to contest a majority of seats here) - this year's elections saw gains across the City by Independents, and a massive under-performance by the BNP, illustrating that when provided with an alternative to Labour they will take it.

The BNP have, by successfully presenting an acceptable public face, have succeeded in being the main repository of anti-Labour votes in our heartlands.  Instead of branding everyone who votes for them "racist" we should redouble our efforts to expose the BNP for what they really are.  In places such as Sandwell where the Party and Unions have united to do this, the BNP have become an electoral irrelevance.


Headlines (#34)

by Limony on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:13:47 PM GMT

Well done. This post is a headline on Politicshome http://www.politicshome.com/landing.aspx


Re: Crewe & Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#37)

by ChrisPaul on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:44:02 PM GMT

Barnbrook actually only got 69,000 first preferences which suggests that the other 60,000 or so who supported BNP in the LA poll voted elsewhere first preference on the mayoralty. Possibly for Boris though I'm not sure there's any way of checking. I'm relieved that his majority was more than the BNP polled which ought to kill this argument dead. The Poles in Crewe would not have to carry iD cards under New Labour's proposals. Though they could as an entitlement card if they wanted to I suppose. Labour Home readers should not underestimate the proportion of Labour supporters, members and activists that supports iD cards. The use of the word "foreigner" and the construction of the point is the real mistake rather than raising iD cards, which - much as I disagree with them - is legitimate. As Tamsin Dunwoody has already said she doesn't support 42 days there is little chance she supports compulsory iD cards, though of course Dave (and possibly Edward) might well do when you drill down. Cam after all wrote the dog whistle manifesto for Michael Howard. To my eyes any attack on ET over his conspicuous wealth should be on the basis of his attempts to portray his childhood as tough. Like Monty Python's Four Yorkshiremen sketch. http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2008/05/edward-timpson-shoe-box-in-middle-of.html With link in post to Channel 4 report where ET pretends he had it tough.


Re: Crewe & Nantwich campaign is disgusting (#39)

by ChrisPaul on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:55:46 PM GMT

http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2008/05/edward-timpson-shoe-box-in-middle-of.html


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe & Nantwich (#41)

by John Pickworth on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:56:53 AM GMT

Sir,

You are quite the cheeky 'spin doctor' aren't you?  I've read a few of your comments around the internet where you claim that Ms Dunwoody has said she doesn't support '42 days' but can you or anyone quote her precise words? I doubt it.

She did say (to my knowledge) when pressed on the local TV news; that she wasn't happy about the 42 days policy but she wouldn't commit herself beyond that, merely adding "ask me after I'm elected".

Similarly, its a bit rich that you also go on to extrapolate Ms Dunwoody's opposition to the hated ID Cards... when in fact, she previously refused to support an anti-ID Card vote in the Welsh Assembly.  Also, as she raised the issue in her campaign leaflet it strongly suggests its not an issue she's particularly principled about and will merely vote with whatever her London masters dictate.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe & Nantwich (#46)

by BritishAsian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:29:36 AM GMT

Well you know she more or less inherited that seat so I think she is not too bright. Really, "ask me after I am elected"? We are supposed to elect her without knowing her views?

Also I saw her interviewed with John Denham she would not support the Prime Minister.

I think she is very poor candidate. Likewise Livingstone recently. We seem to have lost the art of winning arguments with convincing people. We have all those candidates to be deputy leader but none to be leader! We had only Livingstone in London and now this very mediocre lady in Norwich.

Have we really no better than such as these?


[ Parent ]

The Crewe & Nantwich campaign is disgusting | 47 comments (47 topical)