A blog by Luke Akehurst about politics, elections, and the Labour Party - With subtitles for the Hard of Left. Just for the record: all the views expressed here are entirely personal and do not necessarily represent the positions of any organisations I am a member of.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

4 Reasons not to vote Cruddas

From his website, some of the fresh new, innovative thinkers and campaigners who are "nothing to do with the 1980s", factionalism, breaking the whip or any of that silliness. Oh no.:



There's another half dozen Campaign Groupers on there too, but no one would recognise them so posting pictures seemed a bit of a waste.

Just bear in mind when voting, every extra Cruddas vote cheers up Ken, Diane, Glenda and Michael. Make them miserable instead - vote for someone else.

36 Comments:

Anonymous HandInGlove said...

Luke

This smacks of desperation.

What's wrong with Jon Cruddas being endorsed by Ken Livingstone?

He's the popular Labour mayor of a city which by all standards is proving to be a huge success - winning the Olympics, leading cities around the world in the fight against climate change, cutting traffic in the centre, increasing cycling, improving the bus service, abolishing child bus and tram fares, putting police back on the streets, cutting crime and so on. Commentators now regurlarly refer to how London is challenging New York.

The London mayoralty is a Blair innovation, implemented by Labour, and run by a Labour mayor with three decades of public service in London who's rivals are in a total mess about who they will select to challenge him. It's a Labour success story.

In fact, across Europe only the Presidents of Russia and France have a bigger personal constituency of voters than the mayor of London.

Next year you'll be out campaigning for Ken Livingstone to be re-elected and you will be arguing that his achievements more than justify his election and the defeat of the Tories.

Cruddas shows great breadth in his campaign through the diverse backing he has secured - such as Tom Watson and Ken Livingstone.

It shows he can help bring the party together.

3:11 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous James said...

Desperation is excatly the right word!

3:16 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous Andrea said...

"Just bear in mind when voting, every extra Cruddas vote cheers up Ken, Diane, Glenda and Michael. Make them miserable instead - vote for someone else"

A vote for Blears would instead cheer up a group of incompetent ministers (Armstrong, Kelly, Jowell), divisive former ministers (Milburn and Byers) and not remarkable backbenchers (Kitty Ussher, Rosemary McKenna)

3:18 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous plectrum said...

Oh dear

Are you serious? You're a Labour councillor dismissing the record and achievements of the Labour Mayor. You might as well be working for Cameron.

Face it Luke, you lost the Ken wars.

He was welcomed back into the Labour Party by its leader, endorsed by its NEC, and his membership of the party is a positive for Labour in London. As I recall Jules Pipe, the Labour mayor of Hackney, was happy to have Livingstone's endorsement when he stood for re-election.

Having the Mayor of London backing Jon Cruddas is an asset, not a negative.

Livingstone works with the Labour government to deliver for Londoners. Right now the Labour government is taking a bill through parliament to give him more powers. If Tony Blair can work with Ken Livingstone,
and government ministers can regularly appear with him and work with him, it's difficult to see how having his support is somehow intolerable to a Labour party member.

3:22 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Blogger Luke Akehurst said...

Imagine how you would feel about a candidate endorsed by Blair. Gives you a rough idea how I would feel about one endorsed by Livingstone. I can want Ken deselected - I voted for him to be - and deplore his readmission to the Labour Party - but still go out and work to get him re-elected in the 2008 GLA elections.

3:29 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous James said...

Luke, you're talking absolute rubbish. Ken Livingstone is POPULAR. Surely even you can grasp that fact. Dear oh dear oh dear. You may go out and campaign for him next year but if I was Ken I'd personally pick up the phone and ask you to stay at home. Where your very public attitude towards Ken is concerned you're no better than a Tory.

3:32 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous plectrum said...

It's difficult to see how Luke Akehurst can seriously justify going out and campaigning for Ken Livingstone to be re-elected next year given all the rubbish he writes about him.

His argument is flawed anyway - I can think of two candidates who Ken Livingstone endorsed that Luke also supported - Tony Blair, at the last general election, and Jules Pipe, at the last Hackney mayoral election.

And of course Tony Blair endorsed Ken.

All this blog does is provide ammunition for Labour's opponents at the next London elections in less than a year's time by writing sectarian things down that the Tories and Liberal Democrats could use in their leaflets.

Why don't you blog for Labour not against Labour, including by blogging for the Livingstone mayoralty's achievements insetead of sniping against them?

3:36 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Blogger Luke Akehurst said...

I've not said anything negative about his Mayorality for months - in fact the last thing I posted about Ken was extremely supportive and about under 16 bus passes.

He does a good job as Mayor (except when toadying to Latin American autocrats). Of course I accept he is popular. I enjoyed his Evening Standard restaurant reviews!

I was Jules Pipe's election agent so I clearly didn't object to Ken endorsing him. Jules is in any case rather to the left of me.

But this is an internal election. And Ken is from the opposite wing of the Party to me. I am merely pointing out that Cruddas, in the absence of a Hard Left candidate, is the candidate whose victory would cheer up the left of the party most, so if like me you are engaged in a strategic struggle to defeat and marginalise the party's left, you should be voting and campaigning to stop Cruddas. If he hadn't allied himself with flat-earthers he might have got my second preference.

3:48 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shameful.

3:59 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Blogger Luke Akehurst said...

He can't have his cake and eat it. He's taken votes from the dark side so he should expect to be attacked by the forces of light.

4:04 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous handinglove said...

But Luke, Tom Watson isn't on the opposite wing the Labour Party to you, and he - like Ken - is backing Jon. So reducing your argument down to school playground nonsense along the lines of 'he's in your gang so you can't be in mine' is counterproductive.

Furthermore, you say that Ken is on the opposite wing of the party to you, but then you say you agree with most of what he does.

You say that he 'toadys' to Latin American autocrats, by which I assume you mean the democratically elected President of Venezuela. Presumably you will be discouraging your consituents on Income Support from taking up half price bus travel when the concession begins later this year - delivered by Ken Livingstone's agreemement with Venezuela.

Furthermore it's difficult to see how Ken Livingstone can be criticised by someone on the 'moderate' wing of the party for talking to the President of Venezuela when Tony Blair - the leader of said wing - is more than happy to meet with Gaddafi in his tent.

4:05 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous plectrum said...

@ Luke: 'He does a good job as Mayor (except when toadying to Latin American autocrats).'

How can you seriously have a pop at Ken for 'toadying' given the legacy of Labour's mistakes in foreign policy?

For every Chavez that Ken meets and deals with there is a Saudi monarch or Bush or Berlusconi.

4:13 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous Someone with a memory longer than last week said...

How can these people come here and praise Ken to the skies (are they all on the payroll of his client voluntary sector groups - Ken loves ethnic minorities until they answer back) and forget that it was Ken who got sheds loads of money (and lets not forget he was so dishonest about where he got the money that he was forced to apologise to the whole of Parliament about it) and used it to put ads in the Evening Standard attacking a fellow Labour Party memeber (this was before he was expelled for being a scab).

Margaret Thatcher was popular too, that's why she won three elections. Ken is a snide little creep. I vote for him out of a loyalty to my party that he has never shown.

4:17 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous handinglove said...

'If he hadn't allied himself with flat-earthers he might have got my second preference.'

Are you saying that Ken Livingstone is a flat-earther?

4:19 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous plectrum said...

According to someone, 'Ken is a snide little creep' and 'a scab'

Luke, this is where your blog's approach takes you - hosting remarks from people throwing personal insults at the Labour mayor of London. It's a gift to the party's enemies.

Far from being pro-Labour and moderate, initiating such a negative framework for your debate and persisting with it attracts this kind of unpleasantness and brings the party into disrepute.

4:23 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Truly shameful.

4:24 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Blogger Luke Akehurst said...

It's a blog - I don't write or police the comments - if I did I'd delete all the nauseating crawly stuff from the left and all the attacks on me, Blair, Brown, Blears and everyone else that doesn't buy into a Guardian letters page world view.

4:40 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Far from being pro-Labour and moderate, initiating such a negative framework for your debate".

Exactly.

4:42 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous plectrum said...

Luke said: 'It's a blog - I don't write or police the comments - if I did I'd delete all the nauseating crawly stuff from the left and all the attacks on me, Blair, Brown, Blears and everyone else that doesn't buy into a Guardian letters page world view.'

But you seemed to be saying that Ken Livingstone, the Labour mayor of our capital city, is a 'flat-earther.' Can you clarify if this is your view?

4:45 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous Someone with a memory longer than last week said...

Surely the shameful thing was Ken paying moeny to the Evening Standard and the Guardian to attack in personal terms a fellow member of the labour Party in personal terms (how he looked).

What's wrong, little Kenistas? can dish it out but cannae take it?

What about Ken's attack on Labourtransport ministers as "morons" for wanting to scrap routemasters? bet he doesn't like to be reminded of that given that he scrapped them himself.

Or his attacks on Gordon brown for being, errr, Scottish?

Like I said: SNIDE LITTLE CREEP

5:24 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shameful. Luke, you should be allowing these types of comments about a Labour Mayor if you are Labour. Oh I forgot, you started them. Shameful.

5:34 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ someone with a memory longer than last week: Ken Livingstone is a 'SNIDE LITTLE CREEP'

Luke, this is what your blog has become. You should do something about it.

5:34 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous handinglove said...

Luke

you previously defended the right of 'someone with a memory...' to call the Labour mayor of London a snide little creep, the effect of which is that they've come back and said it again.

This is no way to run a pro-Labour blog.

If you want to change the terms of the debate you could retract your description of Livingstone - your Labour mayor - as a 'flat-earther.'

Unless you rein in some of this stuff you risk seriously bringing the party into disrepute.

5:38 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Blogger Luke Akehurst said...

Please go away and stop reading this if you don't like it. I find your pompous efforts to control what my audience writes deeply irritating, in addition to which they are completely contrary to the spirit of blogging, which is all about allowing vigorous debate and free speech. I don't censor Tories, Trots or whoever else comments here.

5:49 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You should be reported to the party.

6:01 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Blogger Luke Akehurst said...

For what? Being sarcastic about opponents of the Party leadership?

6:09 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous James said...

THE CRUDDAS COLLECTIVE WILL SEEK AND DESTROY ALL CRITICS

CRITICS! BEWARNED! THOUSANDS OF CRUDDAS DRONES HAVE TYPED IN 'CRUDDAS' INTO SEARCH.BLOGGER.COM AND ARE PRESSING REFRESH APPROXIMATELY EVERY 6 SECONDS

ALL DISSENT WILL BE TRACKED DOWN AND CRUSHED

WE WILL NOT HESITATE TO SPAM CRITICS WITH THOUSANDS OF AGGRESSIVE COMMENTS UNDER WHATEVER PSEUDONYMS COME INTO OUR HEADS

'JO' AND 'AMY' WILL NOW BE DROPPED AS EVERYONE'S SEEN THROUGH THEM

THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE WILL STOP SPAMMING OUR ULTRA-LEFT OR ULTRA-BLAIRITE CRITICS

DISSENT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED

EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!

6:51 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous hovedan said...

Luke - the personalised nature of your attacks today does nobody any good. As a fellow moderate (a fully functioning Brownite and supporter of Harman), I think the policies of the campaign group would be disastrous; they opposed some of the key reforms that have benefited the Uk over the last 10 years - and we should all remember that Livingstone used to call for Brown's resignation - until Ken realised that Gordon was going to be PM and he needed to cosy up to him. However as a party we have to renew and that means taking a long hard look at the policies of the party and think how we need to re-engage with the electorate.. the deputy leadership campaign has largely been about that, but this factionalism that you are engaging in only gives succour to the Tories.

we should be exposing the vacuity of Cameron's strategy (Heir to Blair!) and be engaged with Gordon on a set of policies which respond to the demands of 2007 and beyond not sticking to the strategy of 1997.

8:50 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Blogger Luke Akehurst said...

I'm sorry, I don't get the sense in which pointing out the politics of the people backing a candidate is a personalised attack. I want to get the DL election away from personalities and on to a referendum on whether the party stays on the sucessful track of the last 10 years or veers left. Cruddas has an attractive personality, it's his politics that are at best muddled, at worst dangerous.

8:55 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous Hovedan said...

Luke - exactly right - however where you and i might disagree is whether or not the policies of the last 10 years have been an unalloyed success! There have been huge advances - particularly in the regeneration of our cities and towns, support to less well off families, devolution, investment in public services, and important equalities legislation, as well as an incredibly succesful economy. However there have been some particular failures (not just in Iraq) and we must now address them - issues in my area are affordable housing, environmental concerns, rationed social care services, access to decent schools. We now have an opportunity to debate the way forward. Labour under Brown can offer something different from what we have had, without jettisoning the fundamentals, whilst the hard left are an irrelevance and the tories are more interested in spin than substance.

9:39 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Blogger Guido Fawkes Esq. said...

These kind of rude abusive comments are ruining the blogosphere.

9:53 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Blogger Hamer Shawcross said...

Nice one, Luke. Very classy.

10:17 pm, May 30, 2007

 
Anonymous Black Country Boy said...

Diane Abbott...grr...

7:44 pm, May 31, 2007

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But the reaons I joined the labour party was to make people happy. So I think I might support cruddas

7:50 pm, May 31, 2007

 
Blogger Jo said...

Luke -this is pretty unpleasant.

I happen to agree with a lot of what you say in this and other areas, but putting up people's pictures to attract ridicule is offensive and surely has no place in the Labour party. I just don't think it helps anybody.

I would have exactly the same reaction if this happened with your picutre on a hard left blog. It's not nice for the individuals or their families and it doesn't make you look that impressive either,

Criticise them or ridicule their arguments by all means - but showing someone's picture and inviting criticism there just isn't nice - and I have no trouble believing that you're a nice person personally

11:30 pm, May 31, 2007

 
Blogger Luke Akehurst said...

Jo

The pictures weren't really central to the point I was trying to make, I could as easily have put up logos of certain organisations.

11:37 pm, May 31, 2007

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

 
Free Hit Counters
OfficeDepot Discount