Solidarity and Rights: Euston Manifesto One Year On

On Wednesday (afternoon and evening) I went to the first “Euston Manifesto” conference held at the SOAS, University of London. It was sold out. I arrived a bit late and the lecture theatre was packed with people, many were sittings on the isles or standing at the sides. There was a notably good mix of people (age, sex and race). I really enjoyed the conference even though some of it made my head hurt. I accept that many will be unclear about what the Euston Manifesto stands for – this is the preamble from the website

“We are democrats and progressives. We propose here a fresh political alignment. Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values. It involves making common cause with genuine democrats, whether socialist or not.”

They are "For democracy, No apology for tyranny, Human rights for all, Equality, Development for freedom, Opposing anti-Americanism, For a two-state solution Against racism, United against terror, A new internationalism, A critical openness, Freedom of ideas, Open source and A precious heritage"

There are nearly 3000 signatures to the Euston Manifesto. A left wing mate who heard I was attending this conference suggested that I had become a “liberal tankie” (discuss)

There were five main speakers. I will try to make relevant comments (my own personal interpretations of course) on each of the speakers during the next week or so.

Abdal Ullah for Wimbledon?

Abdal is an elected Councillor and Cabinet member in Tower Hamlets. He has been short listed as a prospective Parliamentary candidate for Wimbledon CLP. This is a Tory marginal.
He has always been very positive and constructive about trade unions. He’s a hard working canvasser and campaigner. Pity he is in the GMB. Abdal is part of a new generation of Labour Londoners who can appeal across all sections of the community, young and old. He would be just the sort candidate to help the local Party defeat the Tories at the next election
The hustings will be held tomorrow. There are only 380 eligible members. Every vote could count. Local activists tell me he is a “front runner”.

Home of Labour Party votes for Brown and Harman

West Ham CLP, where the first ever Labour MP, Kier Hardie, was elected in 1892, voted tonight to nominate Gordon Brown for Leader of the Labour Party and Harriot Harman to be the deputy. Gorden was nominated overwhelmingly and Harriot also won the deputy vote by a clear margin. Jon Cruddas was 2nd then Alan Johnson. There was a lively but good natured and comradely debate in an “all members” CLP meeting.

UPDATE: just heard that Tower Hamlets Labour Party voted to nominate (supportive) Brown as leader, and Jon Cruddas as deputy (Alan Johnson 2nd).

Battle of the Kruger

This, is on the face of things, off message, however it also reminds me of the join UNISON “Polar Bear’s and Ants” TV adverts of a few years back. UNISON had to pull the advert since viewers were found to identify with the Polar Bear's (the “bosses”) rather than the Ant's (the workers). UNISON now has a new very good “one in a million” advert.
However, please watch this entire “my space” video link (sorry I haven’t worked out yet out to put a video on my blog directly – anyone got a step by step advice for "blogger" on how?). I know that people email us “this is great “links” all the time. Believe me this is honestly the most amazing wildlife film I have ever seen and does have a trade union message (of sorts). Watch all of it! Sound on. You will not "get" it otherwise. UNISON are obviously water buffalo - Which one is Dave? the baby? polite comments please - Hat trick thingy to my South African cousin-in-law “mine’s a cold one” Peter.

Click on Battle of the Kruger

UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown & Johnson

UNISON Labour Link National Committee have voted unanimously to make a supporting nomination for Gordon Brown as Leader.

Alan Johnson was nominated as Deputy Leader (Peter Hain to have 2nd preference).

This is a recommendation (all levy payers will have a postal vote). Will post some thoughts later.

Excellent news for UNISON and the Labour Party.

Salford, Stratford and Bow Belles: Deputy Leadership Meetings

Excuse the probably sexist pun – Tonight there was the second event organised by West Ham CLP (sponsored by London UNISON Labour Link) in Stratford to meet Deputy Leadership candidates. Last Wednesday we had Hilary, Jon and Harriet. Tonight it was the turn of Alan, Peter and Hazel. First picture is of Hazel with local MP Lyn Brown MP and Rushanara Ali, the new Labour Prospective Parliamentary candidate for Bethnal Green & Bow (to take on Galloway’s) Again, I was acting as a steward (and self appointed CLP photographer), so I only picked up bits and pieces.

Each candidate had 10 minutes followed by a Q&A. Peter was “proud” to have sent his children to a comprehensive in the middle of a South London Council estate. He spoke about his background in the anti apartheid movement and his recent work promoting peace in Northern Ireland. He pointed out that all the candidates had voted in favour of the War in Iraq.

Alan, the only candidate to have left school at 15, he said that the Labour Party was only able achieve things (minimum wage) since it had stopped being losers and started wining general elections. He wanted the 21 century to be one dominated by the progressive left, not as was the case in the 20 century, the regressive right. Controversially, in response to a question, he was the only candidate to indicate that we should consider some type of “amnesty” for illegal migrants while the others were opposed. He recognised that there were difficulties (encouraging further illegal immigration etc) but he thought it was a trade union principle. Peter thought if we adopted this we could lose an election on this point alone.

Hazel started off by saying this is the first hustings she had been to that she had been given a “lollypop” (courtesy of UNISON). Her main thrust was she wanted to be an organising and campaigning deputy leader. Labour will only win the next election through “discipline, unity and loyalty”. If Cameron and the Tories win they will cut through vulnerable people like a knife through butter. She was firmly in favour of Academies which she said had transformed a school in one of the toughest wards in her constituency.

I did note that all the candidates supported (to a lesser or greater degree) Councils being allowed to build social housing. Alan was probably the most enthusiastic. They all stressed their trade union backgrounds. They left at 9.15pm to rush to the “Newsnight” Deputy Leadership live debate. We then had a raffle (tickets picked by Rushanara). After packing and clearing up we then ended up in the pub “The Goose” in Stratford.

See No Evil: Diss-Respectful hypocrisy?

Former Tower Hamlets Respect councillor, Wais Islam, makes a damning attack on “Respect” in this week’s East End Advertiser (24 May 06 page 12 “Off you Chest” - can’t find an Internet link yet). One of the reasons he gave for leaving Respect and joining Labour was that “George Galloway and Respect should practice what they preach. They call on the Town Hall to employ ethic minorities and make accusations of “institutional racism”…. Yet Respects own employees are mostly non-ethnic minority. How hypocritical”. He points out that the (predominantly white) Socialist Workers Party stopped a Bangladeshi businessman, Azmal Hussein, from standing as the chair of Tower Hamlets Respect last year. Note also the SWP white candidate for the 2008 mayor of London election.

His defection is not the only “problem” for the beleagued “Respect”. Kumar Murshid (above centre), former Asian Affairs advisor to Ken Livingston, announced that he was leaving Labour for Respect. Kumar, a former Tower Hamlets Councillor was recently cleared of corruption charges. He somehow blames the local Labour Party for the criminal charges. However, he waited until his attempt to become the next Labour Party candidate for Bethnal Green & Bow, had failed (not a single nomination) before announcing he would leave Labour for Respect.

What is really interesting and I think potentially the long awaited death nail of “Respect” in Tower Hamlets, came out in an embarrassing interview, he and Galloway gave to the BBC. It has long been rumoured that the only reason that most of the (complete and utter non-socialist) Bangladeshi Respect councillors, have not left Respect is that Galloway had always claimed that he would not stand for re-election and that the future candidate for Bethnal Green and Bow would be one of these Respect councillors. However, since Kumar (his old mate) has now joined Respect, Galloway now says that Kumar could be the Respect candidate by saying “yes definitely, one of the strongest possibilities”.

The Bangladeshi community took the SWP for mugs in last years Council elections in Tower Hamlets and Newham. They got the SWP money and volunteers to run the elections, yet not a single white SWP councillor was elected. Even in what should have been “safe” Respect wards, the community voted for Asian candidates of any Party rather than white SWPers.

However, it seems that they now want their revenge by imposing their own candidate for the next general election. Expect trouble at mill…
Guest Post: Neil T.

Guest Poster: Benn, Harman and Cruddas at West Ham

By Richard B
Last Wednesday West Ham CLP organised the first of two deputy leader debates. In Stratford we had Hilary Benn, Jon Cruddas and Harriet Harman. We have the others this week (Tuesday).

Congratulations to West Ham activists, Lyn Brown MP and her team for the organisation and UNISON-Labour Link for stumping up some cash. I think West Ham is one of the few CLPs that has organised events with all the candidates. Shows what you can do with everyone working together! The meeting was chaired by Conor McAuley (West Ham CLP Chair) who chaired the meeting in a professional and balanced way.

Below I will give my general impressions of the debate. I will declare an interest as I had Cruddas leanings before the meeting and was likely to vote for him with my first preference before the meeting. Although I do have a lot of time for Harriet as she was one of the few MPs that turned up at one of the “Justice for Cleaners” rallies at Canary Wharf (I recognise her TGWU family connection). Likewise Hilary has attempted to move the agenda on over international aid and comes across as a human being

My initial impression was that all the candidates seem to suffering from campaign fatigue and looked tired. However their opening 10 minute speeches were well presented and they then answered a range of questions from Iraq to heat islands (don’t ask). There was a high level of agreement that the party needs “renewal” and is not “fit for purpose”. On this point I do find it interesting that two cabinet ministers seem to give the impression that they were not around as the party was run into the ground. Will this change under Brown?

I thought that Harriet was slightly lacklustre and seems to be campaigning as Gordon’s preferred number two “I have worked with him for 20 years”. I am also not sure that I buy in to her argument that she will resonate with southern swing voters. Having been brought up in a seat in London during the 1970s and 80s, that went Tory in 1983 and back to Labour in 1997 I am not convinced. I broadly agree with the argument about a woman in the position (I supported an AWSL in West Ham) but I think this is outweighed by other issues. When Harriet was speaking suddenly the picture of Shirley Williams and her hectoring tones appeared in my minds eye. Shouldn’t renewal mean policy not image? On Iraq Harriet did call for an immediate withdrawal which surprised me. Does Gordon know?

In my opinion Hilary started slowly but got better as he got going. He was the only candidate to mention Warwick “We need Warwick Two” and international issues other than Iraq. He showed some real passion and commitment and I left with a more positive impression of him than I started with. I think overall he answered the questions with the greatest detail.

Jon has actually thought deeply about what renewal means and has a programme for bringing back lost voters in policy and practical terms. Maybe he is still a bit vague on other policy issues but has passion and can enthuse people. The dig from other candidates that the position also means deputising for the Prime Minister in the Commons and abroad which seems aimed at Jon doesn’t hold up. I know about the suspicions of Jon’s “tack to the left” but in my opinion he can energise the party and I think resonate with voters that have deserted us. I left very enthusiastic about Jon.

Overall I thought Jon came over the best at our first debate. In a highly unscientific poll afterwards (but with people who were going to support each of the candidates before or were undecided) Jon went down very well and Hilary impressed me. Roll on Tuesday.
Richard B.

grayee: If anyone else who was there wants to post a different view let me know.

Labour Left Forum already has first “splitters and wreckers”

Less than 48 hours after the formation of a new hard left blog - “Labour Left Forum” they have already had their first split! The “Editor” censured a post title by a member over the Labour Party deputy leadership contest. A new member quite rightly objected to this and it ended up with him leaving the forum. He didn't follow the "line". See comments below.

"Clarification of the Labour Left Forum editorial guidelines"
9 Comments -
Show Original Post
Collapse comments
Owen said...
"I only did this in order to maintain the "LLF" line of total impartiality in the ongoing Deputy Leadership contest..."Mikael, my impression was that this isn't a political faction - it's just a discussion forum for those on the Labour Left. If, however, there are certain lines dictated by yourself that you expect everyone to follow, than I'm afraid that I'm going to have to excuse myself from this forum. Sorry.
26 May 2007 16:17
Mikael said...
That's right, again. I will change the word "line", in the post, to "guideline". The only "line", in this case, is that no Deputy Leadership contender should be promoted on any post. That is the only line. If you cannot stick to it, then yes, you will have to excuse. Having said that, I hope you understand that this is for everyone's benefit. If I am not wrong, you once defended Cruddas against some criticism on my part.
26 May 2007 16:57
Mikael said...
It should have said:The only "line", in this case, is that no Deputy Leadership contender should be promoted as the official candidate of the forum-members on any post .
26 May 2007 17:05
Owen said...
Mikael,I've got absolutely no interest in promoting any deputy leadership candidate. That's not actually what I was getting at. My point was that, if you're going to start imposing political lines and treating this as a political faction rather than a discussion forum, it's not actually going to work. There's a difference between a guideline (e.g. avoid abuse, stay comradely in debate etc), and an arbitrary political line from yourself that you expect everyone to follow - especially if you start editing people's posts. Furthermore, it sets a precedent where you will, presumably, continue to issue other lines on other questions.But anyway, in the most comradely manner possible, I won't now be taking part in this forum so please do remove my email address.
26 May 2007 17:14
Mikael said...
Strange decision, Owen. It discussed with other members of the forum who agreed that it would be best not to discuss the leadership election to any greater length - this doesn't mean that it cannot be discussed at all; simply that it shouldn't be THE topic, whixh it seems to have become on other "Labour Left" blogs. The idea was to discuss policy, strategy, programme etc.As I said, I changed the title. It wasn't decision that I took lightly, but since it appeared at the top of the page, I did want it to sound more conciliatory. Wrong, perhaps, but Grim was free to change it back. She didn't (really) do so, if she had well, frankly, that would have been fine. If you go back to the comment you will see that I asked her for permission."My point was that, if you're going to start imposing political lines and treating this as a political faction rather than a discussion forum, it's not actually going to work."I wouldn't call it a "line" as such, simply, it was a way to make sure that the debate wasn't overtaken by the Deputy Leadership contest, which is what has happened in other blogs. " Furthermore, it sets a precedent where you will, presumably, continue to issue other lines on other questions."Sorry, Owen, but that's sort of an extreme suggestion. Honestly, I think it's deliberately provocative and quite insulting. Given that you have requested to leave the forum, fine, I will delete your account. I hope you will come back at a later stage.
26 May 2007 17:26
Curlew said...
This is why I had hoped that we could have a LRC members only site. We can only freely criticise each other/contenders etc etc if it is a closed forum. Otherwise we are seen as "there's the left bickering amongst each other" yet again.It would be fantastic if we could all follow John MCDonnell's example and keep it to POLICY and not mention personalities.Sometimes the paranoid in me thinks people infiltrate to upset the applecart - but I guess it is just human nature ;-)Owen come back - the struggle for the left is more important than this issue.
26 May 2007 17:31
Mikael said...
Curlew,There is a possiblity of restricting the "forum" to its members which I briefly contemplated before setting it up. I would personally be against it, since that would prevent it from growing. To a certain extent, that is already with the "no anonymous comments" option, which is active on this forum."Otherwise we are seen as "there's the left bickering amongst each other" yet again."That is why I would prefer to "stay out" of the Deputy Leadership contest. As you know, Labour Rightists are rubbing their hands as we speak due to the amount of ink wasted by good Labour Left comrades slagging of Cruddas - for whom I have no particular sympathy.What do you think? Should I restrict this forum to members only? My "gut feeling" is that I ought not to.
26 May 2007 17:40
Curlew said...
I'd like to keep it open too, but we must remember that the opposition are watching all the time and we don't want to provide them with bullets.Net Nanny :-) (aka Curlew)
26 May 2007 17:57
Mikael said...
:-) I'll ask Duncan, without whose encouragements I couldn't have set up the forum to begin with, for his opinion.Until then, I'll leave it open, but restricted to those possessing a "google account" - that should limit the damage, for a while. :-)Comradely,Mikael
26 May 2007 18:03
marshajane said...
Hi all just to add my tuppenth worth.I don't think you should have changed the title of susans blog - this is a discussion blog with a variety if different contributors and opinions.Perhaps add a disclaimer @ the top of the page saying LLF is a number of individuals with differing views.Were not a faction to be endorsing DL candidates but that doesn't stop us posting with headlines like - y I'm not backing cruddas or y I'm backing benn - it starts off discussion.Also I don't think we should be members only - we should air our differences comradly in public - yes some may say oh the left bickering again. But that's not what it is its a discussion and we are all individuals with different views.(That's what makes us different from the careerist toe the line right wingers)I think if this LLF is to grow we shouldn't have any restrictions on what we post or that any one person should have editorial control over contributors (unless its to remove persona, uncomradely or abusive posts)RegardsMj
26 May 2007 18:51
Mikael said...
Hey Marsha,I agree - this is an open Labour Left forum - and I regret Owen's decision. I tried to disuade not once, but twice. I don't think that my editing of Susan's title was reason enough to leave and I sincerely hope he comes back. As far as Susan's post is concerned, I would have changed it back to normal if she had asked me to. She did not - in fact, the very same post appears on her own blog with another title altogether - "The Cruddas Question". If you ask me, it is the best of the 4 titles that the entry in question has had during these last 12 hours. The Cruddas issue was beginning to "grind my beans", so to speak, and I didn't want to be bombarded by a myriad of comments from "soft-Left"-types, claiming that the entries, let alone the debate, was uncomradely - I hope you see what I mean. Of course, I know - and you know, and Owen knows - that no-one intends to be deliberately uncomradely; I was simply trying to remove a title which could have been decried as uncomradely by others. Unfortunately, though it was in no way my intention, my action was seen as "uncomradely" (though not by susan, apparently) and that is what I regret the most. The present title will stand however - again, in light of the fact that Susan hasn't complained.The forum will be kept open, come what may - for the moment, I hope that's final.
26 May 2007 19:04

UPDATE from grayee: the whole post has now been "deleted" (or should I say vapourised?) from the Labour Left blog.

"Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary."

Islington North CLP Nominate Brown and Harman as Leaders

Interesting – just noticed unionfutures report that Islington North CLP "arguably a contender for the leftist CLP in the UK" , whose MP Jeremy Corbyn nominated and campaigned for McDonnell. Voted at a “all members” meeting on Thursday to endorse the nomination of Brown for Leader and to nominate Harriet Harman as deputy Leader . I can’t confirm this anywhere else, the CLP website has not been updated yet. However, Andrew Berry, the CLP trade union liaison officer appears to verify this (by claiming in a “comment” that “all members” meeting are in someway “undemocratic” - hmmm?)

I think we can safely say that if somewhere like Islington North (Jeremy was comfortably reselected as their MP recently) supports Brown, then the nonsense we have been subjected to recently about the real “membership” supporting McDonnell is just wishful thinking – at best. Talk about “New Labour” spin. This is further evidence to me anyway, that the Party has really changed not just the PLP.