Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Progressive London - just another Labour front...

Mark Pack has already noted that Progressive London is not all that it seems, or at least that not all of those involved are singing from the same hymnsheet, so to speak.

I am not in the least surprised that Dawn Butler doesn't get it. Anyone willing to claim more than £21,000 as a second home allowance when they represent a constituency within 24 minutes of Westminster, who complains about unfair coverage in her local newspaper and who appears to have given up representing those constituents being transferred into Brent North, is hardly likely to be backward in seeking endorsement of her Party above a wider cause.

However, I thought that I should see what 'Progressive London' is all about. After all, I am a Londoner, born and bred, and I want the city to be successful. So imagine my surprise when, amongst the articles posted are a series of pieces from the Socialist Economic Bulletin, penned by one Ken Livingstone, and which make no reference, direct or otherwise, to London.

The Conference was opened by one Ken Livingstone, and one might almost suspect that the organisation is simply a front for a 're-elect Ken' campaign for 2012.

In fact, why beat about the bush, it is a front for Ken, and anyone who has any experience or knowledge of how the old hard left worked, will recognise it for what it is, a way to keep Ken in the spotlight. Given that Citizen Ken led an administration which became more and more ethically bankrupt as it felt more secure - Lee Jasper, anyone? - I for one don't want to see him back.

I'm not attacking Susan Kramer or Mike Tuffrey, after all, it was certainly worth checking the lie of the land. And whilst I do wonder why Lembit has gotten himself involved - Montgomery must be in, oh, zone 127 - he does live in London midweek and it's nice to see him take an interest. But enough is enough. We have a fairly appalling relationship with London Labour - with a few honourable exceptions - and I see no advantage in lending them the credibility that comes with our involvement.

After all, they'll almost certainly shaft us if their ploy works...


Anonymous said...

Lee Jasper emmmho yes that would be the black man the Johnson's Forensic Audit Panel cleared in July last year of any wrong doing. In addition to the Mets finest now having decided that there no criminal charges to be faced by 9 of the 11 individuals representing black organisation. The last to unfortunates are set to hear their decision any day now.

So no criminal charges, no standards of conduct issues, no professional issues but I suppose him being black and accused is enough for you eh Mark!

Mark Valladares said...


You will notice that I made no reference to Mr Jasper's difficulties over budgetary issues during his period at the GLA. Indeed, my problems with him date back to watching him and his friends behave disgracefully at a public hustings meeting for the Lambeth & Southwark GLA seat in 2000.

His deliberate and orchestrated attempt to prevent the Conservative representative from completing a single sentence demonstrated a total and utter disregard for democracy and pluralism, unless it benefits him.

To me, that represents moral and ethical bankruptcy. Anonymous intimations of racism fall under the same category. Besides, within the context of your presumed world view, as a person of mixed race, I can't be racist anyway.

Go away, and don't come back until you (a) post in your own name - anonymity is sooooo cowardly - and (b), you have something credible to say.

Anonymous said...

OMG Tory heckled in Brixton. Its a cardinal sin . Hey Mark self hate is a real bummmer eh!

Mark Valladares said...


Self-hate? You know, you can get help for that, so I suggest that you do. The cowardice will be more of a problem, but I'm sure that any friends you may have will make you feel braver.

You clearly share that sense of moral bankruptcy - unless, of course, you are Lee Jasper or were there yourself - I didn't say where the hustings was, yet you seem to. For the record, heckling presumes that the person being heckled gets a chance to respond.

Oh yes, and a public hustings is supposed to be an opportunity for those uncommitted voters to find out more about candidates. You clearly don't get it...