Gandhi would only smile.
I have just returned from a day campaigning in Brighton and Lewes with a series of meetings with 6th Form Students, University students at Sussex University, council trade unions representatives, FBU members at Brighton Fire Station, POA members at Lewes and the local branch of MIND. The day culminated in a public meeting with Tony Benn in the evening in support of my campaign with 400 people in attendance.
In contrast Gordon Brown has flown to India for a soundbite associating himself with Gandhi. There is a sense of mischevous absurdity in that the Big Brother saga meant that he spent more time having to talk about Jade Goody than Gandhi.
However most will understand the irony of the sight of a New Labour Chancellor, who has supported and poured billions of pounds into a war in Iraq, quoting and hailing as his hero the world reknowned advocate of non violence, Gandhi.
I sure that Mahatma Gandhi would only smile, just as most of us have smiled at the parade of ministers and deputy leadership candidates now coming forward to attack the Iraq war policy they voted for.
Largely buried in the media reports of the Chancellor's trip is a reference to one of the reasons he has undertaken the visit. The Chancellor has gone to demand that India removes one of the restrictions it introduced in the past to protect its developing economy. In the insurance sector the Indian Government has restricted foreign companies operating to 25% of the market. Gordon Brown has insisted that India opens up its insurance market to foreign competition.
This just serves as a reminder that the same old neo-colonialism and the same old ruthless free market exploitation of the Developing World continues apace.
In contrast Gordon Brown has flown to India for a soundbite associating himself with Gandhi. There is a sense of mischevous absurdity in that the Big Brother saga meant that he spent more time having to talk about Jade Goody than Gandhi.
However most will understand the irony of the sight of a New Labour Chancellor, who has supported and poured billions of pounds into a war in Iraq, quoting and hailing as his hero the world reknowned advocate of non violence, Gandhi.
I sure that Mahatma Gandhi would only smile, just as most of us have smiled at the parade of ministers and deputy leadership candidates now coming forward to attack the Iraq war policy they voted for.
Largely buried in the media reports of the Chancellor's trip is a reference to one of the reasons he has undertaken the visit. The Chancellor has gone to demand that India removes one of the restrictions it introduced in the past to protect its developing economy. In the insurance sector the Indian Government has restricted foreign companies operating to 25% of the market. Gordon Brown has insisted that India opens up its insurance market to foreign competition.
This just serves as a reminder that the same old neo-colonialism and the same old ruthless free market exploitation of the Developing World continues apace.
posted by John at 12:53 AM
13 Comments:
Though this post is, as usual, very good John, I think it is time that the figure of Mohandas K. Gandhi be de-mystified (and de-mythified). It is a well known, yet often overlooked, fact that Gandhi did nothing to stop the brutal execution of Bhagat Singh-a genuine socialist fighter against colonialism. Furthermore it is equally well known, and equally overlooked, that Gandhi in fact condemned the disobeying of orders by Sikh police officers who refused to fire at moslem demonstartors, saying something along the lines of: "What if these men choose to disobey MY orders once I'm in charge...?" Gandhi, a true man of peace, eh? No, absolutely not, no rather a proponent of comunalism and violence against the weak...
Time passes John. When you are PM what will you now do about Iraq? And will you offer a job to Gordon or to anyone else who voted for the invasion? If you only want those who voted against the war, then I had better stand by. So I won't contribute to you campaign fund in case it should be interpreted as cash for the Peerage you might then wish to offer me!
Harry, you are being silly.The odds may be against John being PM but the way things are going at Scotland Yard, who knows what could happen.Gordon might need a Cabinet untinged with sleaze and known for principled behaviour.Most of the current mob woulddefinitely not pass muster. Your favoured man, Peter hain, said some great things this week about Bush's foreign policy.Why on earth didn't he say them when it mattered?
^ My guess is that so weakened is Blair that ministers are sticking less strictly to the party line and some outright are saying the exact opposite.
a vintage article above John; excellent
I hope you enjoyed your trip to my old stamping ground of the Bton unis when I was still a sixth form student nearby. We were allowed to use Sussex uni library's facilities and collection for our A Level Politics projects: mine was on Civil rights under the Kennedy administration so I spent a lot of time there researching this and read a lot about Martin Luther King (who was influenced by Ghandi of course) and non-violence of course.....while my friend researched the Greenham Common women's peaceful protests also using the Peace Centre in Brighton - I hope you went there; they had a great display about the Guatanomo detainees and how they have sadly been tortured and of course one of them hails from Bton during the 2005 Labour conference.
(The other thing about Bton is that you seem to be able to buy the Morning Star which covers John's issues and trade union issues; it's not just communist party news at all in case anyone still thinks that but is like the real news, tells you what's really going on and can be got on the web in case anyone's interested by the way).
Anyway when we studied all this inspiring political history it was the two years in which the Berlin wall came down and Thatcher resigned and we had hope that we would again be able to achieve great things under a Labour government when it eventually arrived. Now I just feel sick to the stomach sometimes when Brown and co profess to share the ideals of Ghandi et al and then behave as they do and yet be able to work out the real consequences of their actions or what they're up to; it's just like the way the Tories treat the working class.
A few days ago my husband who just joined Labour a few months ago received and invite to a Spring policy forum and I a member of ten years at the same address didn't - (no mention of it being for new members). Also a chef at my Mum's work who hasn't been a member more than a year or two and is in the same region as me is always being invited to receptions with Blair etc. My neighbour also a member for about the same time dosen't remember receiving any of these invites either; I might be wrong but it does seem as if the Blairites are chooding to market certain events to certain members....unless it's just that their lists are out of date but I receive a membership renewal every year although I didn't receive the conference one this year though I'm supposed to be on the mailing list. All members (that are left ! - as you say it may be that they will be searching round for honest activists to fill all the positions before long...!)should be given a fair chance to attend anything they want; just because they went or didn't go one year to each event should't affect their invitation to the next.
If I turn out to be wrong about the above that's ok; it's probably just an attack of (healthy) paranoia!
400 is a great turnout; would Gordon get so many??
Angela Eagle gave an accurate if depressing summary of Labour's financial probs on the news today. It was announced at conference that their will be a lot of staff redundancies. Perhaps you John could come up with an alternative budget on this.
The US Presidential campaign has kicked off; I think our leadership election can't be far behind!
Like the comrade above, I have heard good things from your trip to Brighton. One of my comrades' brothers in Kent Labour Students is at college in Brighton, and was very impressed by you.
As we get further into 2007, and closer to the leadership contest proper, it is so important that all of us on the left fight to reclaim our Labour party. The Labour Left is back and growing, and now is the time to take that fight to New Labour.
John. I have read most of your policy statements but have yet to come across your pensions policy- as a member of Southwark Pensioners Action Group (SPAG) I know that they would be most interested in it.
Ron Phillips LRC member.
I found your web site from todays BBC news item.
After reading, I find this politicians glib comments on the war in Iraq very disconcerting and the fact that he smells of old socialism very worrying. I thought that schtick was dead. The last thing the world needs is to go backwards. The war happened and all you want to do is pull troops out as soon as possible leaving a vacuum before the Iraq government and country is able to be up and running. If it is our mess - which it is - we need to stay and clean it up, not cut and run. You also don't seem to want to face up to the fact that, whether you like it or not, there is a radical muslim threat to the world. The war did not cause it and we'd be facing the same home made bombs if we'd have removed Saddam or not. If you didn't want us to go to war, then you have to admit that we should never intervene in foreign policy anywhere and for that matter, why are we giving so much aid to foreign countries when all they seem to want to do is send it back in a bomb and anti west hyperbole? I don't think you realise that this is how the man on the street actually thinks. Inbetween making the extortionate rent or mortgage and the lord knows how many bills we have to pay, we have to listen to you lot banging on about something we cannot relate to or frankly give a sxxt about. Do you really think we gave a hoot when you said 'the war is illegal'? What a nonsense! We went to war and now all you want to do is cut and run making us look worse to the world. It makes no sense.
I'm sick of seeing leftish politicians kow towing it with oh so soft policies with regards to our security. We don't need to go backwards with old socialism, we need to go forwards. By that I don't mean the happy clappy born again christian Blair way, I mean it'd be good to see someone with some common sense that relates to the public on the street. There's no way I'd ever vote for that jerk off Cameron or those touchy feely idiots, the Lib Dems. We need a party that's going to do something about our security, the environment and the rest of it. Unfortunately, the way the Labour party is going, you'll be split down the middle with your constant in fighting and voters like me will feel that once again they have no party to vote for, so we wont vote and the Cameron will get in and it'll be 1991 all over again. Well done guys. Nice one.
Quoting the likes of Gramsci in your blog is just laughable. How is that going to relate to anyone on the street? If you really want to keep going with those old ideas, why dont you form a socialist party and just say what you mean? Oh that's right, there already IS a socialist party.
Yours sincerely
A voter who hasn't the foggiest who he's likely to vote for, so probably wont.
Anonymous said : and we'd be facing the same home made bombs if we'd have removed Saddam or not.
Indeed
Anonymous wrote "If it is our mess - which it is - we need to stay and clean it up, not cut and run."
We've had troops in Iraq for 3 years and their presence is making the situation worse not better, not to mention the widespread use of torture and death squads as much by the 'democratic' government we're meant to be installing as by their enemies - plus torture by many coalition forces (and no not all of them or close to it - we wouldnt know about half of it if many decent soldiers hadnt come forward to denounce it).
Anonymous wrote
"You also don't seem to want to face up to the fact that, whether you like it or not, there is a radical muslim threat to the world. The war did not cause it and we'd be facing the same home made bombs if we'd have removed Saddam or not."
This is a pretty daft accusation. The debate isnt over whether that threat exists - it over how to defend against and defeat it.
Yes al Qaeda existed before the Iraq war but the Iraq war has been a huge gift to it - handing it a propaganda coup , new recruits and supporters worldwide and the ability to operate freely in a country it couldnt survive in before.
The Iraq war did not prevent the July 7th bombings or the Madrid bombings - and the presence of our troops in Iraq or any other foreign country won't protect us against such attacks - they just increase the risk of them.
To defend against these attacks we need more police , better policing and intelligence and better relations with moderate Muslims in Britain - not to mention abroad.
Attacking or occupying other countries won't help in any way - the civilians killed in every war along with the combatants are a huge loss of life in themselves and a gift to Al Qa'ida as well.
As for you being 'the ordinary man in the street' sorry but who elected you to that position?
As for Gordon Brown he said his other role model was Churchill - does he know Churchill wanted to have Gandhi assassinated but was over-ruled by the rest of the cabinet?
What's really boring is when some-one comes and puts in an irrelevant post about something no-one's said. Sham by name and sham by nature judging by that post.
"ruthless free market exploitation"
ruthless capitalist exploitation, please
"These constants rantings about Iraq being a paradise when Saddam was in power are getting quite tiresome ..." - Sham
Not to mention hard to spot with the naked eye.
Post a Comment
<< Home