Ken vs. Boris: It's So On

several xposts

I think BJ is racist in a quaint paternalistic English public school manner.

The rest of your post is spot on, Pinefox.

SWP are more lol than omg, but at least they were always anti-Stalin, unlike all the "serious" people who became Labour ministers and were in CPGP. They're the real tossers.

xpost

wonder what the standard's last-day splash will be. 'ken livingstone ate my hamster', possibly.

SWP are more lol than omg, but at least they were always anti-Stalin

what with them being formed 20 years after stalin died, i remain unmoved here.

SWP are more lol than omg, but at least they were always anti-Stalin, unlike all the "serious" people who became Labour ministers and were in CPGP. They're the real tossers.

Unlike the various SWP members who became Garry Bushell and various Hitchens

CPGB - der.

Yes, but it's just a continuation of whatever Socialist group Tony Cliff started in 1950, and history is important &C.

Whatever.

this stuff on ken's economics guy john ross is lololololol:

http://archive.workersliberty.org/publications/readings/trots/socaction.html

Tom D, every political movement in the history of the world has had prominent members who lurched into reactionary views with age. Your posts on this thread just reek of gratuitous lefty-bashing.

"THEY ALL HATE JEWS OMG!!!"

Gratuitous SWP-bashing, thank you

Get it right

I've heard he gets it from his dad. Wrighty would never have a Jew manage England.

So what are German and her supporters proposing that you object to so strongly? Please answer without reference to hidden anti-semitic agendas or other such blah. What stated policies is she putting forward that you find so objectionable?

Paul Foot. Worracunt he was, eh?

I quite like the SWP because they provide the infrastructure for protest. You know, they print posters, book coaches, that sort of stuff. You don't have to agree with them about anything. I can see how this could be seen as hijacking causes, though.

SWP (and the islamic right) brought a lot of other issues into the STWC and turned a lot of people off, see Tom D above. it stopped it from being an ongoing broad based coalition against an illegal war.

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/05/keeping_the_fai.html

"The Iraq War is part of a Zionist plan which targets the establishment of the Greater State of Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates"

I always felt the same way, Jamie, when I was very vaguely involved in such things. But perhaps others who are still practically, politically involved now feel differently.

xpost

Ed is correct (to imply) that it ought to be OK for Tories, liberals, whoever to be part of a stop-the-war movement, without any other agenda being part of the deal. Such a movement, I think, needs to be single-issue in some strong sense.

I admit this is all a big digression.

I agree, and the SWP did their best to drive people away.

I'm renowned on these pages for my "lefty-bashing"

I've seen you at it, behind the pub ;-)

quite hard to hit the back of your own head though.

I'm a Self-Hating Non-Jew

amen

caek, the page you link to contains this sentence:

"Respect 'Coalition', which is the electoral front for the Socialist Workers' Party, and the BNP"

makes me kind of question everything else there

I don't really have an opinion on that page, as I don't know what I'm talking about (heard of the Left List this morning), but I suspect the comma between SWP and BNP is crucial.

The guy is very easy to disagree with and has a particularly objectionable tone (think a Blairite Simon Heffer), but he's often on telly and I'd be staggered if he thought the BNP and SWP were connected in some organizational way.

lol at me saying "he is often on telly" as though that makes him intelligent. Excuse me.

the quotes from the musician guy are legit so far as i can tell (citing wiki lol).

i remember that Harry's Place thing had some beef with that gilad atzmon guy mentioned in the link

Personally, I hate the vulgar multi-cultured metropolis which Ken has helped to create

I think he might be giving Ken a bit too much credit there.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/30/pressandpublishing.london08

^^ interesting, though naturally decca aitkenhead is fathoms out of her depth.

i've come around to the idea of voting to ken, because having ken as mayor under a cameron government will be wtflol to the max.

"A lot of people say you can't support a Tory because you're a progressive," he says. "Well, actually, in some respects the Tories are more progressive than Labour now. It comes down to this idea of what's progressive. Under New Labour, the Labour party has forfeited progressiveness. It's doing things like starting wars and imposing ID cards and locking people up for six weeks without trial."

YEAH BECAUSE THEY HAD NO SUPPORT FROM THE TORIES FOR THOSE THINGS YOU DICKMUNCH

having ken as mayor under a cameron government will be wtflol to the max.

However having Boris as mayor under a Cameron government:

http://www.mimifroufrou.com/scentedsalamander/i/Anschluss_tears.jpg

I've just read Decca A's interview with Gilligan. I don't respect her much, normally, but I don't see much wrong with the job she's done here.

I think that piece is quite shocking. Perhaps one should not be shocked by anything nowadays, or by the conduct of the Standard. But I think it is the brazen openness with which the most prominent and influential (?) journalist in this campaign admits that, in reporting (not merely 'Comment'), he is following a personal agenda of grievance and hatred. If a Guardian journalist (nb I mean someone who seeks out facts, not a columnist / pundit -- some of them do still exist) admitted to that in relation to anyone (BJ, Cameron, Brown, McCain, Clinton, whoever), there would be a furore - this would not be regarded as proper journalism. A newspaper should not be the platform for a reporter to play out his personal grudges and grievances. For this to be so openly admitted really ... well, it really surprises me. Am I going to be alone in this country in feeling this way?

you're certainly quite naive.

when the guardian was pursuing jonathan aitken, how was that not openly partisan?

Aitken = a criminal. Ken isn't.

It's hardly the same thing! (xpost)

You are not alone, but it may be just the two of us. Gilligan is a odious cunt. xpost

hmm, Jonathon Aitken turned out to be a criminal.

In what way is Andrew Gilligan a "lefty"? Because of the David Kelly thing? I thought he was seriously being considered as a Tory candidate for something or other?

I agree that the piece is shocking. I don't know wether the guy is a hateful cunt, or a pathetic patsy, probably a bit of both I suppose. The guy is openly admitting that he's running a smear campaign against Livingstone, in any sane world he'd be sacked on the spot for this. This story should be bigger news than it is.

I'm sure Gilligan's still very happy about building a nice little career for himself on the back of a man he helped kill.

Why on earth would he be sacked?!

I mean, he is essentially gleefully going about doing his paymaster's bidding.

i'm not talking about the nature of the offence -- assuming handing out public funds to your friends isn't a criminal offence -- but the nature of the press campaign. when have newspapers ever been nonpartisan? well into the last century a large number of them were directly party-controlled, or, like the times, as near as damn it.

xpost

i think gilligan is somewhat -- a shitload -- less culpable for kelly's death than campbell and blair. i don't think he's a great guy, but the idea that what he did = opposition to labour = toryism, can fuck right off.

We're talking about what's he's doing NOW = Toryism, Enrique.

I mean in what universe did anyone claim opposition to the war = Toryism?

Lot of Countryside Alliance dudes on the original anti-War marches, Matt.

Alan Clark RIP and "we should just have left the Germans to get on with it" to thread.