lord of the blog

« Journalism | Main | Scotland »

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Mayor of London

Benjamin managed to get our Ken into the journalist slot. Pretty smart! It gives me the opportunity to say how I saw it.

The Labour Party has interviewed candidates before putting them forward as the Party's candidate in public elections for many years now.

It was a common practice of mine to ask candidates if they were prepared to fight the election on the Party's manifesto. Ken wouldn't agree to do so because he felt it should be within his power to change it.

We allowed him to go forward not because all candidates should be allowed to run on their own manifestos but because we felt the divisions in the Party would be very damaging.

When Ken came back into the Party he drew an analogy with a separation between lovers. It was quite a good analogy. He was fed up with living alone in a bed sitter and we wanted someone to walk down the isle with us in subsequent elections!

Many relationships in the Labour Party are as stormy as many marriages - but we often emerge stronger!

Clive,

Five months ago today, one of the most brutal acts of political repression since Tiananmen Square took place in Uzbekistan when unarmed protestors were first penned into Bobur in the capital city Andijan, and then shot by government troops. The death toll may well be in the thousands and according to eye witness statements included men, women and children.

Despite your constant preaching about the need to deal with "failed states" and "tyrants" you have managed to go five months without even mentioning the word "Uzbekistan". How is that possible? This is a brutal dictatorship which boils political opponents alive and massacres its own population (your constant mantra when you were arguing for the immediate bombing of Iraq) but both you and your friends in high places have said and done exactly nothing to pressurise the government of Uzbekistan which your friends have dubbed a "Partner in the War for Central Asian Pipelines...er, I mean Terror".

Help me understand the inconsistency. You claim that your unquestionning support for the bloody invasion of Iraq was based on some moral obligation to deal with a brutal dictator, yet you manage to remain absolutely silent about Karimov. Not a word in five months. And the same goes for your friends who, after a few empty statements in the days following the massacre have remained completely silent about their relationship with a sadistic psychopath.

Help us to understand why this isn't a cold, calculated attempt to cover up the actions of a useful tyrant.

S.

Whatever the rights or wrongs in the case of The Labour Party v. Ken Livingstone, no one can dispute The Labour Party lost the Mayoral election in London, shattered morale among members and triggered a members' boycott of the Labour Party candidate.

Today, the Labour Party has an opportunity to rebuild.

If you have been following the media since Thursday last you will know about the LabOUR Commission. Today
as Bob Piper http://www.councillorbobpiper.blogspot.com/ puts it, if you want one of those snazzy 'Make LabOUR Party' banners on your blog

go to http://www.theuktoday.co.uk/

you have a left or right wing choice!

Peter Kenyon

Sign up to the labOURinquiry to Make Labour..OUR Party
Don't be passive, make it massive

http://www.pledgebank.com/labOURinquiry

Nice to hear your side of the story, Clive.

I think the Labour Party really ended up looking silly though. Frank Dobson's subsequent nomination just looked like a stitch up, rather false, and everyone knew that Livingstone would run come hell or high water. Steve Norris came the closest to defeating him the end.

If the aim was to stamp stamp out Livingstone's campaign, the Labour Party should have started that operation much earlier.

Let me guess Clive, you'll continue to remain silent about Uzbekistan and the UK government's shameless support for it's psychopathic dictator and move swiftly on to another subject. When I continue to raise the issue you'll complain about people posting outside the narrow list of subject headings you use to try and control debate on this site. No doubt the usual sheep will offer practical advice about how to better limit the range of acceptable speech and life will go on as normal. Stop me when I go off track.

It is clear that Uzbekistan is a repressive dictatorship, and certainly qualifies for the imposition of regime change, for example. It would be a tactical error to do anything about Uzbekistan just now, though. The US and UK are comitted in Iraq and Afghanistan - there aren't any spare troops to invest in Uzbekistan.

As a matter of political reality, any intervention in Uzbekistan would have to involve the Russians as a major partner. That may be less than ideal for the Uzbekistanis. Still, it's probably better than life under President Nutter.

Sam,

I think there's enough evidence from the now full blown civil wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan to strongly suggest that fantasies about benevolent US/UK led "regime change" are best knocked on the head without further delay. The fact that US and UK troops are tied up in those countries is bad news for Iraqis, Afghans and the troops themselves but it keeps Bush and Blair from spreading havoc anywhere else, for which I'm personally very grateful.

But its not resource constraints that's stopping these two Saviours of the Free World from doing anything about Karimov. My complaint isn't that they're neglecting the situation, it's that they are actively and deliberately supporting the man. This is illustrated not only by their covering up of the recent massacre, but by their provision of military support and "sharing intelligence" with a regime that tortures people to death. That is, the US and UK intelligence services are consumers of "information" gleaned from individuals being boiled to death or worse.

If you want a first hand account of the government's determination to keep Uzbekistan out of the headlines, have a read of this website by Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan who was first smeared and then constructively dismissed by the the Foreign Office for refusing to take part in the cover up of Karimov's actions. http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/

As a side point, it's probably safe to say that the last thing in the world the Uzbeks need is to be "liberated" by the Butcher of Grozny. If Bush and Blair really were sincere about dealing with terrorists they'd have removed Putin some time ago. Of course, consistency would dictate that they'd then have to surrender themselves into custody, so maybe they're saving that for last.

S.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: