I know Diane Abbott slightly. I once had the pleasure of accompanying her across the Canopy Walkway at Kakum in Ghana. The photo of the walkway may come in handy as a metaphor. Last time I met her we chatted in Westminster tube station about Tony Blair – our views on him are similar.
A question for my Labour supporting commenters. I do not know if, now John has stepped down, if Diane will now get enough MP nominations to stand. But why is hr candidature treated as a joke, or at best a half-hearted bit of tokenism? Look at her voting record:
Voted moderately against a stricter asylum system.
Voted very strongly against the Iraq war.
Voted moderately against an investigation into the Iraq war.
Voted moderately against Labour’s anti-terrorism laws.
Voted a mixture of for and against allowing ministers to intervene in inquests.
Voted moderately against greater autonomy for schools.
Voted a mixture of for and against introducing ID cards.
Voted a mixture of for and against laws to stop climate change.
Voted moderately for removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords.
Voted very strongly for a wholly elected House of Lords.
Voted strongly for more EU integration.
Voted moderately for equal gay rights.
Voted very strongly against replacing Trident.
Voted moderately against introducing student top-up fees.
Voted a mixture of for and against a transparent Parliament.
Voted strongly against introducing foundation hospitals.
Voted moderately for the hunting ban.
Diane Abbott is the only possible candidate left who was against the Iraq War, against Trident and for civil liberties. All the other candidates are deeply steeped in Iraqi blood and strongly associated with New Labour’s viciously authoritarian agenda. The frontrunner, David Miliband, spent most of his tenure as Foreign Secretary engaged in numerous legal attempts both to keep secret and to justify Britain’s complicity in torture under New Labour.
But she is the joke candidate because she is the only one who is not an Oxford educated cabinet minister.
Which opens the question, what is New Labour for? To me, it has found its niche as a neo-conservative opposition to a more traditional Conservative party given a still more comparatively Liberal tinge by coalition.
i thought she was a joke because of er hypocrisy over education, but then i don’t follow these things as closely as i should. Am i wrong? i just have her filed under “stong principles: see toynbee”.
A colleague pointed out to me that Diane Abbott went to Cambridge.
It seems sad that someone closer to the origins and former radicalism of the Labour Party is treated as a joke. She seems the best candidate to lead a credible opposition, which is a vital part of democracy.
“But why is her candidature treated as a joke, or at best a half-hearted bit of tokenism? Look at her voting record: […] Diane Abbott is the only possible candidate left who was against the Iraq War, against Trident and for civil liberties.”
I think you’ve just answered your own question there… And as if that weren’t bad enough, she’s a girl. The Establishment may be willing to accept women in positions of power as long as they’re smashing the unions and murdering Argentinians (or even just gutting civil liberties), but there are limits to the sort of fluffy-headed nonsense that they’re prepared to put up with, and opposing wonderful things like illegal foreign wars and potential nuclear Armageddon definitely puts you on the wrong side of the line.
She will bring all sorts of subjects into the leadership debate which otherwise will just be suppressed.
She will make people actually interested in the contest because she will talk about things which actually interest people and are relevant to their life, rather than the candyfloss blathering and avoidance strategies the other candidates specialize in.
She will also add to the gaiety of the nation.
Mention any of this on Labour’s moribund sites and you’re frozen out.
Without Abbot your quote – “what is New Labour for? To me, it has found its niche as a neo-conservative opposition to a more traditional Conservative party given a still more comparatively Liberal tinge by coalition.” – sums up the election perfectly.
“All the other candidates are deeply steeped in Iraqi blood”
The Labour Party itself is irretrievably steeped in Iraqi, Afghan and Serbian blood. Its warmongering record in government should have rendered it unacceptable to any civilised, honest and morally consistent voter by 2003, if not long before.
But in practice people who claim to take humanity seriously are often hypocrites who put their own domestic political preferences on relatively minor tax and spending issues ahead of blowing apart women and children in foreign countries.
If Labour had been destroyed electorally in 2005 as a direct consequence of the Iraq crime, we would at least have a clear precedent to put before our political elite – engage in a war of aggression and you get voted out. And it’s hard to see how a Conservative government from 2005-2010 could have been any worse than Labour in terms of blowing people up (or much else for that matter). They probably wouldn’t have been any better, either, but at least we would have an opposition that genuinely opposed aggressive wars at least some of the time, and no British government for the foreseeable future would have lightly stepped into a US-led war of aggression without at the least looking over its shoulder nervously. And perhaps politicians would look on million-plus demonstrations as actually meaning something they have to pay attention to, rather than being able to dismiss them as nothing that won’t stop them winning another election.
But no, 9 million hypocrites and warmongers re-elected a party of war criminals because in the end their petty partisan party loyalties weighed more heavily for them than the crime of aggression.
And those warmongers remain in control of the Labour Party and will do so for the foreseeable future.
Labour – party of war criminals and the hypocrites and useful idiots who enable them.
Just to save the Labour apologists time, I’ll post up some of their inevitable rationalisations here so they don’t have to bother soiling themselves with apologetics for mass murder.
Conservatives just as bad, supported Labour wars……what about the poor……education….health……no realistic alternative…….what about gay rights…..racism…..sexism…….environment……..humanitarian intervention……..naive idealist…….strong defence………evil Tories….etc, etc ad nauseam
There. Now go and take a good long look at some photographs of butchered Afghan wedding parties, or Iraqi families shot to pieces at roadblocks, to put your apologetics in perspective. We all know you’ll vote for the war criminals again next time anyway, so what’s the point?
“what is New Labour for?”
It is for control, by state oppression, smothering control of business harking back to the days of nationalisation which was right for its post war (WW1 & WW2) period but not for a new Century where education and personal freedom are the expectations of this country. It’s for covering up its complete lack of business acumen by creating a QUANGO state to use public funds to employ people it can’t otherwise find jobs for because it has abandoned the working man by stifling business development. It’s for Orwellian, creeping, micro control of individuals, spying by database convergence and manipulation, Internet and CCTV and NHS database integration with employment and immigration data.
Quite what we are going to get with ConLib remains to be seen but we can breathe a collective sigh of relief that the Blair/Brown years are behind us, God forbid that either of the Milliband nuts or the congenital idiot who is Ed Balls gets in and if you listen to Diane Abbot on ‘This Week’ she is a dismissive, arrogant bitch who is barely controlled by Michael Portillo but guests frequently suffer her grimaces and facial contortions that are rude and clearly display her contempt for anything other than her opinion.
isn’t the Labour Party in a mess, when a man like John Macdonald can’t get enough support from his colleagues to stand for Leader, so he stands down to give Dianne Abbot the chance of getting over the starting line. The real reason D. A. is larfed at by the media is that she’s a threat to the UK buying American weapons, Trident and Aircraft (for the carriers). btw the aircraft are going to cost a lot more than the carriers.
I had never previously dismissed her as a joke but was very disappointed with the way she conducted herself on Question Time.
She had a perfect high profile opportunity to expose Israel’s murderous agenda but blew it because she couldn’t get her figures straight.
At one point it was 6 flotilla dead; at another it was 4. Where’s the credibility in that?
Despite these reservations I do support her taking a stand against the other candidates and am happy for her to scupper David Milliband having a smooth ride of it.
Always had a lot of time for Diane Abbott, I very hope she can be factor in the leadership election.
Behind the smiley, friendly exterior is a real tough lady, and will do damage to Nu Lab whatever the outcome.
I’d prefer John McDonnell too, who is a genuine left candidate that would represent what Labour should stand for. He allegedly has handed to the media a big stick to beat him with, though he is reported (gleefully by the Sun and other outlets) to have joked that he would like to go back in time to assassinate Thatcher.
Sadly he has withdrawn his candidacy, ostensibly on the basis that he won’t get the nominations and that he would like to “secure a woman on the ballot paper”.
Quoth Redders: “Orwellian, creeping, micro control of individuals, spying by database convergence and manipulation, Internet and CCTV and NHS database integration…”
Well, have to say that sounds a lot like the motivations and intentions of most of the megacorporations, to be frank. Whenever I hear some greed apologist bleating about how business acumen is mercilessly crushed in the UK, my first reaction (after filling a barf bag or two) is to laugh like a drain for, oh, roughly a week. Yer kidding, right? Light touch regulation and other bizniss perks have made the UK a capitalists playground. Whereas in an authentic democracy, bloated salaries and bonuses would not be tolerated, nor would attacks on public services and the sections of the state which are intended to maintain basic standards of civilisation. The pro-business lobby’s attitude is what its always been – yes, you the little people can have jobs and services and decent schools, even good health care, all of that good stuff – just as long as some entrepreneur can figure out a way to make a buck out of it and you. Otherwise, just shuffle off to your hovels, will you?
Have you seen her supercilious, dismissive and arrogant attitude towards guests on the BBC Politics show? Most unpleasant. No thanks.
Cruddas would have been the best bet.
If she doesn’t win the leadership, maybe she’ll join us in the LibDems. She seems to vote with us anyway.
She’s treated as a joke because according to westminster doctrine such policies are suicide – people want strong authoritarian government. They don’t actually care much about illegal wars until British casualties mount – foreigners are an abstract, we feel bad for them and then get on with our lives.
Unfortunately I think that the Westminster wisdom is about right – but largely due to years of propaganda from Westminster and politicians (left and right) – especially through the education system (the purpose of which is to train people for industry (hence a focus on regurgitate and repeat) and to squash critical thinking).
Cruddas was a positively enthusiastic advocate of the Iraq war. A peculiar hero of the left.
What is New Labour for? Well, I suppose the short answer is… nothing. Nothing in the sense of it not being a radical, or progressive, alternative to the other two ‘conservative’ parties, or factions, that make up the triumverate.
Labour was always a social democratic party, and essentially these parties, across Europe, were employed to make as good a deal as possible out of the cards they were dealt, in a game that wasn’t there’s in the first place.
More radical interpretations would probably focus on the role of social democrats as ‘lighting rods’ designed to channel popular, mass, discontent, into managable and untimately non-threatening forms of political behaviour.
Without the Labour alternative, one could be forgiven for thinking we actually lived in a one-party state, which of course we don’t.
She is now in the running having secured enough nominations.
‘Cruddas was a positively enthusiastic advocate of the Iraq war. A peculiar hero of the left.’
Cruddas is the champion of the right wing think tank the Compass group. It’s purpose is to masquerade as a left group to keep Labour members on board and paying their subs. They make them think that they have a say and influence on Labour party policies.
“Beware of Greeks bearing gifts” when dealing with the Compass group.
Tony Blair and Mandelson destroyed the Labour party, thus completing Thatcherism.
Both were well paid for their work.
Diane Abbot would be the perfect leader of what’s left.
You’re a brave man Craig, walking across that bridge with Diane.
Compass
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/comp-j18.shtml
@mike cobley
So a QUANGO state where the nulabour deregulated the banks after they had been regulated following the 1930’s depression to avoid exactly what happened then, to happen again, is better that a business driven society? A nulabour country where bonuses spiralled beyond what would have been naturally allowed by well governed business instead of the government glove puppets the banks turned out to be?
You would prefer all that as well as paying your income tax straight into some ‘non-job’ occupying lacky who is too lazy to get off his/her ass to get a job that means they have to actually work for a living; but work hard enough and you can reap considerable rewards.
Typical nulabour attitude, corrupt, lazy, whining excuse for a worker who wants everything handed to them on a plate whilst hiding behind legions of non jobbers in the hope that they are the last to get sacked when the cuts come.
I want the cuts, I’ll take the pain, none of us is innocent in this downturn, we all contributed to it with profligate spending and rampant debt and the banks were no more guilty than a government totally ignorant of the commercial world, that sold our gold reserves at the worst possible time…….don’t mention the war(s)!
I want the majority of QUANGO’s kicked into touch, once that’s done we can pay off a huge amount of debt and try to encourage businesses back into the country, diversify our business portfolio into more manufacturing instead of relying on the service sector. And that has to be one of nulabours biggest betrayals, to the working community who don’t want or expect anything more than a manual job to sustain some pride in their existence, so what did nulabour do? They stabbed them in the back, sold them the pup of higher education for all and employed them in unsustainable, taxpayer funded organisations and like the pack of cards they built it’s all coming tumbling down. Now they have barely any manufacturing infrastructure to fall back on and who’s going to have to pick up the pieces? Yep, business because the evidence is there for all to see, a state funded workforce is unsustainable particularly when it produces nothing!
Thatcher freed us from creeping communism and not before time; but previous labour governments were just playing at it compared to nulabour. As usual, a labour government screws our economy up and the Tories are left to sort it all out, personally I would rather it were the Libertarians who are committed to complete freedom with almost no government intervention in our lives, and importantly, almost zero income tax. But you think all that’s bad because you’ll be responsible for your own destiny instead of being directed to disaster by some corrupt, expense grabbing MP.
While I’m no particular fan of Diane Abbott, she is at least one of the MPs for whom it is not straightforwardly morally unacceptable to vote, since she did not vote for the invasion of Iraq.
On the other hand, characterising her candidacy here as tokenism seems only fair. It’s objectively inarguable, surely, given that her nomination was supported by rival candidate (and established warmonger) David Miliband specifically for the purpose of making the contestants seem a more diverse bunch. You can be sure Miliband wasn’t nominating her with the slightest concern that she might actually win. Same applies to another established warmonger who nominated Ms Abbott, Harriet Harman, and furthermore she only got the nomination at all because John McDonnell pulled out and “gave her” his 16 nominations explicitly on the grounds that it would “at least secure a woman on the ballot paper”. Does it actually ever get more token that that?
The true power in the Labour Party is well illustrated by the other candidates for leadership plus Ms Harman:
David Miliband – a proven warmonger who voted in favour of blowing up women and children in Iraq by assisting a US war of aggression
Andy Burnham – a proven warmonger who voted in favour of blowing up women and children in Iraq by assisting a US war of aggression
Harriet Harman – a proven warmonger who voted in favour of blowing up women and children in Iraq by assisting a US war of aggression
Ed Balls & Ed Miliband – two greasy pole-climbers and leadership lackeys who would undoubtedly have toed the Labour leadership line in 2003 if they had been in the Commons – buying career advantage with the lives of foreigners.
Of them all, Abbott is the least bad option, but not coincidentally she is also the least likely to win.
@Randal
A very concise and accurate summary. I would add just one thing and that is that if DA has to be propped up for her candidacy it’s an admission of her ineligibility and an indictment of nulabours policy of PC before ability. No wonder we’re in the mess we are. Besides, doesn’t it just make your skin crawl when that grinning monkey Dave Milliband ‘nominates’ DA and you just know they are plotting something once he’s elected, nice bit of back scratching.
‘As usual, a labour government screws our economy up and the Tories are left to sort it all out’
I think not. The tories gave birth to this disaster and NuLab feed it.
‘Prior to the 1997 election, which brought Labour to government, one senior Conservative smugly noted that, in terms of economic policy, there was “not a cigarette paper between” the Thatcherite Tory Party and Blair’s New Labour.’
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18948
Appearing opposite Portillo on the political equivalent of This Morning probably hasn’t helped.
‘Prior to the 1997 election, which brought Labour to government, one senior Conservative smugly noted that, in terms of economic policy, there was “not a cigarette paper between” the Thatcherite Tory Party and Blair’s New Labour.’
And didn’t nulabours policy change as they saw all the new opportunities especially towards the end.
I wish you would use a monika on your posts.
Portillo is more to the left (these days) then Abbott. He has denounce much of what Thatcherism was all about. Strong supporter of Gordon was Abbott.
‘And didn’t nulabours policy change as they saw all the new opportunities especially towards the end.’
No.