Cruddas shows true colours again in Iraq debate
Posts are few and far between at the moment - but i'm afraid you'll just have to put up with that for the foreseeable!
One thing I had to bring to your attention though was the way Cruddas voted yesterday in parliament - as you may be aware, there was a vote and debate yesterday in parliament on a motion (tabled by the opposition) to oppose Brown's proposal of holding the inquiry in to Iraq war in secret (although he conceded that they would 'try' to determine that 'some' of the inquiry 'may' be in public), without oaths and any form of possibility of repercussions in relation to the findings. Oh yeah and that the members of 'independent' inquiry were hand selected by the government.
George Galloway made a very good speech during the debate and quite aptly summed up the farcical nature of the inquiry:
'People have queued up to say they have nothing against the membership of the inquiry. Well, I do. The more the Foreign Secretary adumbrated their distinguished characteristics, the more I saw a parade of establishment flunkeys—Sir Humphrey This and Sir Humphrey That. Those who are not just grey blurs are in fact partisans. Freedman is one of the authors of the intellectual case for the war. He and his neo-con friends were the people who made the then Prime Minister’s bullets for the war. Gilbert hailed Bush and Blair—imagine, they are already two of the most discredited political figures in the world, and history has not even started on them yet—as akin to Roosevelt and Churchill. Yet both Freedman and Gilbert are among the very small group of people who will conduct the inquiry.'
John McDonnell MP, as usual, was there with a key intervention urging the government to finally allow the will of the people to prevail see here .
Jeremy Corbyn and Alan Simpson also spoke very well before the vote on the motion.
Being as the vote was probably the only chance that MPs will get to voice their opposition to Brown's proposal it was extremely depressing to see that only 19 Labour MPs rebelled.
After all this time, after each argument or supposed fact that was originally presented to the public to justify the war has been systematically discredited, after hundreds of thousands of deaths, after millions of people taking to the streets, after the intensification of anti-Muslim racism that has ripped our communities part, after most people across the political spectrum accept that the invasion of Iraq was at the very least a mistake or, as we on the left know, a wilful crime against humanity, only 19 Labour MP rebelled!
This is an inquiry about one of most important issues that has determined the political climate of our generation and still Labour MPs block any chance of there being any type of public accountability with regards to the people and the system that implemented this crime.
I would like to point out that Jon Cruddas MP and Michael Meacher MP were among those who voted AGAIN with the Government. Comrades, it is about time people stopped sowing (or allowing union bureaucracies / The Guardian /The New Statesman to sow) illusions in politicians who have repeatedly voted against the will of the people. Both Cruddas and Meacher voted for the war and complained since that they 'were misled' or that 'they made a mistake'.
Well the best way to remedy this would have been to vote against this shameful inquiry and allow for a proper examination of the facts! At the Compass Conference people spoke of change , what change when yet again the compass MPs voted with Government yesterday and defended the privilege of parliament against democracy.
For people's information the principled 19 were:
1. Corbyn, Jeremy
2. Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit
3. Drew, Mr. David
4. Farrelly, Paul
5. Field, rh Mr. Frank
6. Fisher, Mark
7. Flynn, Paul
8. Godsiff, Mr. Roger
9. Hoey, Kate
10. Hopkins, Kelvin
11. Jones, Lynne
12. Mackinlay, Andrew
13. Marshall-Andrews, Mr. Robert
14. McDonnell, John
15. Prentice, Mr. Gordon
16. Simpson, Alan
17. Soulsby, Sir Peter
18. Strang, rh Dr. Gavin
19. Wood, Mike
* NB. I just thought it was fair to point out that Katy Clark MP is on maternity leave.
30 comments:
Here's the full day's stream - fast forward to 4h 42m 45s for Galloway's contribution
mms://twofour.wmod.llnwd.net/a2238/d1/u/UKParliament/Archive/0000007215.wmv
Scroll down to his answer on voting for the war. Why has someone who has 'deeply regretted his vote' continually voted against investigation?
Very suspect.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6383069.stm
Cruddas has made it clear time and again that he'll remain loyal to the Labour leadership whilst at the same time criticising it's policies.
Now, I think this is a stupid strategy. Better to weaken the New Labour policies than to strengthen the Tories by tailing a leadership which has alienated millions of Labour voters.
I feel that Dr Cruddas would be better suited to being a "public intellectual" rather than a politician.
Marsha, let's be clear. Attacking those closest to you is not the way to protest about issues with the Labour Govt.
What will this enquiry cost? And what will it really achieve?
In terms of the Labour Party's future we cannot afford to have this McDonnall/Cruddas split. When Brown goes we need to run one candidate from the left of the Party, who in my view would then have a very good chance of winning.
Running an LRC and Compass candidate would be foolish.
In the meantime we have to back Brown for the next election. Be critical when he his wrong - yes, but the prospect of the Tory Govt (and that is what we are looking at,) for me is unbearable, and will likely end with me and you on the dole.
Keep left, (but not too far left).
Galloway. Would that be the same George Galloway who has recently condemned the demonstrators in Iran and come down firmly on the side of a state that kills people in the streets and jails trade unionists?
Still he was also pretty keen on Saddam.
Ho hum
Dave Draycott
The Brown governement is ending up with millions on the dole, in case you hadn't noticed.
Cruddas is a joke, and to most people not obviously different to the current discredited crew.
Ho hum VP what with the heat wave it must be getting awfully hot down in that trot bunker cos it's clearly affecting your reasoning.
The choice next year will not be between DC and John McDs revolutionary nirvahna, It will be David Cameron or Labour under Gordon Brown. Two million+ on the dole...you noticed. Were you as quick to congratulate Labour when we had full employment for 10 years? Yeah millions pumped into the banks and if that hadn't happened 4 million maybe more on the dole and complete economic meltdown for 10 years. That would have been the scenario if DC and his buddies were in treating the economy like it's the domestic household accounts. We would be standing in the ruins. Those people would not even have nationalised Northern Rock. Papers like the New York Times can't understand why GB isn't more popular.
Cruddas a joke. Mmmmm... hardly ....beat 2 cabinet ministers in the deputy leadership election......as opposed to John 'couldn't quite make it onto the ballot" McDonnell ( though I understand that was Cruddas's fault as well....that John couldn't scrape home.)
Do you think the Tories would have tripled spending on the health service, introduced Sure Start or measures to help people facing repossessions. They sure as hell didn't do it in the nineties. The government are also introducing entitlements written into law to make it harder for the Tories to cut.
I think we need a lot more on issues like Council House building and support for short time working etc. but who do you think you're convincing? It won't be a small difference between a Brown Labour Government and the Cameron Tories it will be big.
Still if that time comes... God forbid as a good Trot there will always be someone else to blame.
Btw how you voting next year VP? We do have an election to win.
Dave Draycott
Ho hum VP what with the heat wave it must be getting awfully hot down in that trot bunker cos it's clearly affecting your reasoning.
The choice next year will not be between DC and John McDs revolutionary nirvahna, It will be David Cameron or Labour under Gordon Brown. Two million+ on the dole...you noticed. Were you as quick to congratulate Labour when we had full employment for 10 years? Yeah millions pumped into the banks and if that hadn't happened 4 million maybe more on the dole and complete economic meltdown for 10 years. That would have been the scenario if DC and his buddies were in treating the economy like it's the domestic household accounts. We would be standing in the ruins. Those people would not even have nationalised Northern Rock. Papers like the New York Times can't understand why GB isn't more popular.
Cruddas a joke. Mmmmm... hardly ....beat 2 cabinet ministers in the deputy leadership election......as opposed to John 'couldn't quite make it onto the ballot" McDonnell ( though I understand that was Cruddas's fault as well....that John couldn't scrape home.)
Do you think the Tories would have tripled spending on the health service, introduced Sure Start or measures to help people facing repossessions. They sure as hell didn't do it in the nineties. The government are also introducing entitlements written into law to make it harder for the Tories to cut.
I think we need a lot more on issues like Council House building and support for short time working etc. but who do you think you're convincing? It won't be a small difference between a Brown Labour Government and the Cameron Tories it will be big.
Still if that time comes... God forbid as a good Trot there will always be someone else to blame.
Btw how you voting next year VP? We do have an election to win.
Dave Draycott
Hi MJT,
no attacks allowed on the Great Leader GG. So much for "principled" and democratic. Ho hum. Some things never change.
Dave Draycott
I don't recall Galloway backing violence against protesters or the imprisonment of trade unionists, Dave.
I agree with you about the Tories. Most certainly they would ignore any countervailing pressure from working people through trades unions, cooperatives, and campaign groups.
And sadly, without a constitutional process requiring amendments to be put before the electorate, it's going to be very easy for a Tory government with a majority to undo the good things Labour has done.
Hi Charlie,
thanks for the comment. I think the Left has to recognise the danger of a Tory Government and the advantages of a Labour one. I take it VPs still sweating it out in the bunker.
On Galloway. Yes, I don't like the guy. And I think no one on the Left or indeed any democrat should have any truck with him. He hasn't supported violence against demonstrators or the imprisonment of Trade Unionists? He has supported a regime that does both does things without a murmer of critiscm. In Dante's Hell there is a special place for those who maintain moral neutrality in times of crisis. And Georgeys heading straight there unless there's a whole special circle just for him. In fact George has praised Iranian democracy as better than ours despite the limits on human rights. I'd call that a pretty thorough going endorsement and the whole Left would if a right winger give that sort of support to a dictatorship. He also didn't notice that the Supreme Leader is unelected as is the Guardian Council and candidates are vetted with non-Islamic candidates barred.
In fact George gets so carried away in praising the Iranian turnout.....wow in 2 provinces it exceeded 100%. How democratic can you get? Whereas George scored 18.4% in the Bethnal Green and Bow bye-election in 2005.
Good to see btw that critiscm of the 'great' man can be published after all.
Dave Draycott
Hi Dave,
I wasn't refusing to publish comment - I thought I had already published it.
I'm not online much at moment as in and out of hospital.
Thanks for the comments all
Mj
In what way has Galloway maintained a neutrality? He has said quite clearly that until there is evidence of large scale corruption he accepts the result of the election. That's what any sensible person would do.
And as far as that accusation goes, do you demand that BBC employees stand against the British government when it is involved in war crimes of a far more serious nature than anything Ahmedinejad is concerned with?
Moussavi used to be the leader of Iran - did you see any great changes then in Iran? If he is such a great proponent of 'freedom' why didn't he retract the laws which people like yourself latch onto?
Just out of interest Dave, didn't you used to be in the SWP ?????? The major reason why the Tories are likely to win next year is not the far left, but New Labour's squandering of the best opportunity we ever had in the Labour Party to really bring about fundamental change. People see no difference between the parties. Who is to blame for that?
Hi MJ.
thanks for the clarification about my posting not initially appearing being in error. I hope you're well soon.
Dave Draycott
Hi Faceless,
It's interesting to see the words "any sensible person" in the same sentence as George Galloway, but you should try reading what I wrote. I am not accusing Georgey of being neutral on the regime. Quite the reverse. I am accusing him of being neutral on the regimes attacks on demonstrators,trade unionists and their own people in their own homes. War crimes? This is just the routine viciousness that an authoritarian regime imposes on it's own people on a daily basis. So that's alright then? Or do you pine for the Gulag? An independent academic study showed that two provinces had more people voting than voters, all of the most liberal candidate's votes had been given to Ahmedinejad and there was evidence that the voting pattern showed signs of having been produced by a computer programme. Still don't expect that will be enough for you or George (it would be if it were in the USA however and quite right too.) Still don't think Florida quite matches it. Also Mousavi et all even lost in their own villages and this 'election' with a massive turnout for Ahmedinejad followed the massively low turnout in 2005 which your favourite holocaust denier won.
Even if you believe that Ahmedinejad was properly elected how come you and George can't condemn the violence meted out to the demonstrators? That old moral neutality?
Not sure what point you're making about the BBC but try watching BBC National News or Newsnight. I'm not aware that the Labour Government gets an easy ride on any issue including Iraq. Still as Georgey is in paid employment for a Iranian Press Agency he might take a different view.
Aaaah the "laws that people like yourself latch onto"......like the right to form free and independant trade unions or to make a mobile call without getting a bullet in the heart. People like me......lousy democrats? I could talk about people like you but of course you're 'faceless.' Mmmmmmm.
Moussavi did use to be leader of Iran. He didn't democratize the country.....but a re-run of the election with Ahmedinejad falling by the wayside would be a victory for democracy.......and Moussavi would be in because of the action taken by masses of ordinary Iranians, who might be expecting a little bit more. Even if 'your boy' won it would still represent a victory for progressive forces in Iran in forcing the re-run.
Dave Draycott
To Susan Press,
Hi Susan,
back in the 80's I was in the SWP and the Labour Party at different times. Back then of course the SWP said vote Labour (with no illusions or was that confusions? There were a few in the SWP) . So no need for 5 question marks (bit Trot.) It's hardly a secret.There's also a rumour going around that you used to be in the Labour Party? Any truth in that one? You couldn't work it out by reading your blog.
Also I would suggest that you attempt to take a position on the Iran issue on your own blog: the regime or the demonstrators. Ducking the issue is not the best stance to take in politics.
On the next election: I think I covered it in my earlier reply to VP but I know some on the Left have selective recall so here it is again:
"The choice next year will not be between DC and John McDs revolutionary nirvahna, It will be David Cameron or Labour under Gordon Brown. Two million+ on the dole...you noticed. Were you as quick to congratulate Labour when we had full employment for 10 years? Yeah millions pumped into the banks and if that hadn't happened 4 million maybe more on the dole and complete economic meltdown for 10 years. That would have been the scenario if DC and his buddies were in treating the economy like it's the domestic household accounts. We would be standing in the ruins. Those people would not even have nationalised Northern Rock. Papers like the New York Times can't understand why GB isn't more popular."
"Do you think the Tories would have tripled spending on the health service, introduced Sure Start or measures to help people facing repossessions. They sure as hell didn't do it in the nineties. The government are also introducing entitlements written into law to make it harder for the Tories to cut. I think we need a lot more on issues like Council House building and support for short time working etc. but who do you think you're convincing? It won't be a small difference between a Brown Labour Government and the Cameron Tories it will be big."
You say you're determined to stay in the Labour Party whilst tearing the House down. Try and find something good to say. The election is less than a year away. And yes. I know it won't be your fault if we lose. Is it ever?
Dave Draycott
Dave, does your patronising tone go down well in normal day-to-day life?
Where have I stated any support for Ahmedinejad? If you want to base your position on conjecture rather than fact, then that's your problem. I don't support Ahmedinejad, but people with your attitude will always assume that I do because you apparently can't understand the principle of pragmatism.
Of course, you'll just say that's being neutral - but when the other alternatives are to believe people like you with little or no facts (but lots of hot air), or the Iranian government with their bias and bullets, then being neutral is the only sensible option.
If you can't see this, it's because you're too self-assured of your position even in the absence of proof.
Provide me with facts and evidence that show large scale voter fraud and I'll happily back the campaign against Ahmedinejad.
Hi faceless,
think the lack of facts are on your side of the fence ( the one you're sitting on and hadn't even noticed me old neutral mate.) Whoops now that was a bit patronizing. Here are the facts again and thank God for cut and paste:
" An independent academic study showed that two provinces had more people voting than voters, all of the most liberal candidate's votes had been given to Ahmedinejad and there was evidence that the voting pattern showed signs of having been produced by a computer programme. Still don't expect that will be enough for you or George (it would be if it were in the USA however and quite right too.) Still don't think Florida quite matches it. Also Mousavi et all even lost in their own villages and this 'election' with a massive turnout for Ahmedinejad followed the massively low turnout in 2005 which your favourite holocaust denier won."
Heck I didn't think you'd accept any of this but you're actually unable to absorb any facts you don't want to see. Could that be a disadvantage when reading menus in restaurants? Put simply you have no arguments and hide behind pseudo pragmatism.
Glad I was able to drag the comment about the Iranians government's 'bias and bullets' out of you. Your mate Galloway doesn't agree.
Also you supported Galloway,attacked Mousavi and didn't condemn the regimes violence so I came up with the crazy idea that faceless supported the regime.
Glad you don't.
Dave Draycott
Dear God, Dave - you really are a bag of wind, aren't you?
You reveal a lot about your own politics when you presume that anyone critical of the supple-spined Mr Cruddas must be a "Trot".
Yes, Cruddas beat two cabinet ministers - in a ballot of Labour Party members. That electorate hardly represents anything much these days in terms of a political left, in any true sense of the word. His voting record doesn't make him look like a man of the left, because in reality he isn't one. If you're OK with his votes on things like the Iraq War and 42 day detention then fine. I however am not.
As to the blah-blah-blah'ing about Labour's record, I don't think riding a credit boom into its inevitable bust is much of an economic record to speak of. The gap between rich and poor has risen massively, and yes, millions are now on the dole - under Labour.
The reality is that Labour has been more servile to financial institutions than the Tories were. More servile to big capital in general, and more awed by money.
So no, I won't be voting for them next time, and I wouldn't urge anyone else to do so either. Go out canvassing to get a Brown government re-elected if you want, but don't be surprised if (at best) you're laughed off quite a few doorsteps.
Hi VP,
my, my you are upset aren't you. When I used the expression Trot in respect of yourself I wasn't wide of the mark was I: any defense of Labour's record is just: "blah....blah....blah." Wow nothing like a well honed political argument is there VP. Hell much better to get into self-indulgent, self-rightousness and howling at the moon. Yeah a Trot.
Of course should the Tories get in, it won't be your fault when some people notice there is a difference. Again as a good Trot you will have a nicely worked out rationalisation as to how it had nothing to do with you. Apart from how you voted of course. Indeed it will probably be the fault of people like me for voting Labour!
If not Labour VP then who..... it is Labour or the Tories at the next GE. As for your elitist and patronising attitude to the Labour Party membership: 'Cruddas only did well because the electorate don't cut the mustard' ( you can't help but laugh): bit of nonsense. Cruddas did well for the same reason all of the groupuscles you might vote for in a GE (Respect1, Respect2,Respect3, No2EU, SLP, etc,etc,etc) do so badly: the electorate are not stupid.
I won't be bothering with dealing with the other issues you raise as I've already done so in my earlier postings and you seem to respond to politics which don't suite you, by attempting to puff yourself up to an enormous size.
I had suggested earlier that you had overheated. Looks more like total meltdown to me. Not much fun debating with a ranter (oops another Trot characteristic.)
I couldn't help but notice it did take you quite a while to build up to such a level of political incoherence.
BtW: assumptions are the price you pay for anonymity: glad I got so thoroughly under your skin
Bye
Dave Draycott
And just who exactly will you be voiting for at the next election VP???
Or will you not declare your hand?!
I always find it amazing that when ever Dave Draycott put's anyone right they respond with nasty personalised rants.
Mind you, that's what you have to do if you can't beat people on the arguments.
Dave, scabies get under people's skin. If you want to equate yourself with such infected annoyance that's your choice.
You don't bother me in the slightest though - you'd have to be able to break free of your obvious programming to be in a position where you'd have even a chance of that.
I recommend you try 'sex'. Give it a go at least once - you might like it.
Hi Faceless
Strange advice for Dave? You sound like the type of person who only has sex with themselves?
Hi Faceless
of course I don't bother you at all 'dear boy' which is why you reply by comparing me to a disease and making comments about my sex life.
Oscar Wilde, who had wit, once said " we are all in the gutter but some of us are reaching for the stars."
You are just in the gutter me old mate and you've just made it clear to everyone.
I 'don't bother you in the slightest'.........ho..ho....glad to have been of annoyance.
Dave Draycott
hey, I'm just here to provide facts and information that I have available.
If you think you've got under my skin, that's because of your arrogance and tainted self-belief that what you say is somehow important.
Have you got your own website where I can come and see what you've got to offer? I'd be very interested to see if you've ever written anything that suggests you have the ability to be anything other than a 'company man'.
I'd put money on you being a virgin though.
Comrades, let us agree to disagree.
Name calling isn't debate.
As Thumper says in Bambi, "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say nothing at all."
No website 'faceless' and no intention of letting you continue your 'na nady naa naa' level of debate. I see there is a complaint elsewhere on this site about 'trot bashing' by Dave Prentice. You guys are a joke.
Dave Draycott
At the risk of raising the tone of this debate, I think that the obvious failure of Western military strategy in Afghanistan is going to pose a further important question to those who present themselves as being on the left of the Labour Party.
Comrades in the Labour Representation Committee will I am sure support the sensible demand to bring the troops home - we need to see similarly straightforward demands from Compass if we are to be expected to put any faith in them.
Of course the next General Election will be a choice between a Labour and a Tory Government (whether with a majority or in a coalition). Few people currently doubt the outcome.
The priority for socialists in the Labour Party is not silly point scoring against socialists outside the Labour Party, but doing what we can to retain the few socialists we have in Parliament.
I won't be hurrying over to Dagenham to campaign there though.
Hi Jon,
I wasn't intending to continue with this discussion (not because of the level of the 'debate,' but the level one or two contributors on this blog descend to}. When they run out of politics they resort to sexual insult and comparing people to diseases, etc.)
'On point scoring.' Well it's an interesting expression normally used on the Left to mean 'you've just said something I haven't got an answer to.'
You then turn to Compass, which I'm a member of. Your position as an active member of the Labour Party is an interesting one. Hang onto a few Labour MPs who are sufficiently 'pure' and the rest of the Labour Party can go hang. In your view the next election is already lost and lets be nice to 'socialists' outside the Labour Party. OK when talking about unaligned people but the 'socialist' groupuscles always have and always will be hostile to the Labour Party. Even if it achieved the socialist nirvana in the morning.
Do I get the whiff of an agenda?
But putting this all aside and addressing the much more serious matter of Afghanistan. A war like Afghanistan is heartbreaking on a number of levels: the loss of civilian life or the recent deaths of young troops who are in their graves before they have barely started to live. Afghanistan though is a war that has to be fought and won. A return of the Taliban would a disaster for the people of Afghanistan, (which is why a majority support the coalition.) It would again provide a state which can act as a base to terrorists who are prepared to kill innocent people on the streets of London and New York. Which is why an opinion poll in yesterday's Guardian showed support for the war staying "firm."
There is in fact plenty of space for common ground between the LRC and Compass from more Council House building to opposition to the part privatisation of the Post.
Now is your opportunity to raise the tone of the debate John
Dave Draycott
Post a Comment