quote:

---

Headlines about an 82-year old Jewish escapee from the Nazis being manhandled out of Labour conference for daring to yell "nonsense" at the foreign secretary is probably not the way Tony Blair wanted to end this rally.

---

I just heard Tony on TV saying how very sorry he is, "you shouldn't do that to an elderly man." Oh, manhandling and ejecting young hecklers and detaining them as terrorists is alright, then?
Police used powers under the Prevention of Terrorism Act to stop Mr Wolfgang as he tried to re-enter the conference venue in Brighton on Wednesday. His pass was confiscated.

"My case is not important. But what happened to me when I was ejected from the Labour conference - simply for a one-word protest during Jack Straw's speech this week - tells us there is something deeply wrong with the culture of our Government under Tony Blair."

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

Oh, never mind. I just read the third link now. It's a backgrounder on how he came to activism, and discusses his past. Fair enough. I hadn't seen that before.

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Tony Blair said: "Yes, he does. I'm really sorry about it.

quote:

---

"It was only when his father was interned by the Nazis and he was himself briefly detained, that he and his family fled to the safety - and liberty - of Britain.

He said: "When I went back there in 1938, I was held there for just a few hours and nearly did not get out again."

---

In other words "The last time I was detained by thugs was in 1938 in Hitler's Germany. I never thought the next time would be in a British Labour Party conference."

quote:

---

Originally posted by letitbleed:

Why do you guys direct so much heat towards Tony Blair...

---

One word will suffice: Iraq.

quote:

---

Originally posted by letitbleed:

So what if an old lady was muscled out of the convention? Hell, wouldn't some big union dudes do the same thing at an NDP convention?

---

Well, they've never tried it on me so far.

Gawd. That last post of yours just reeks of scorn for democracy. If you don't know how firm the defence of the right of independent protest must be (and you apparently don't), then you are reason for your fellow citizens to be nervous.

Of course, freedom and civil society are difficult to achieve. But, the Iraqis deserve their chance. How else were they going to get it under Saddam and sons?

If you ignore those who died under sanction (which are argued as being the responsibility of both Saddam and the countries that enforced the sanctions) then the killing under the rule of the USA is far far greater than under the rule of Saddam.

party membership has drastically slid since 1997:

quote:

---

When Mr Blair became prime minister in 1997, the party officially had more than 400,000 individual members - more than when he became leader, but well short of his early ambition to turn Labour into aparty with up to 1 million members.

The national executive committee was told last month [WW - July 2004] that membership had dipped to 208,000, down from 214,952 at the end of last year.

But when those who have let their membership lapse for the past six months are discounted as well, the figure stands at 190,000: the lowest since Ramsay MacDonald split the party in the 1930s and a drop of 25,000 in the past six months.

---

and party conference has increasingly come under central control, with major issues (iraq, renewal of the nuclear deterrent) just being ignored.

quote:

---

Outside, a huddle of party veterans, whose faces betray a grim kind of amusement, can't quite make sense of it all. One MP, who has just spent an hour listening to Ruth Kelly [WW - UK Secretary of State for Education], is looking askance at a page of his notepad, filled with a spidery scrawl. "This is off the record," he says. "But listen to this: 'The people out there', 'harnessing that energy', 'needing a narrative', 'the good society', 'social mobility', 'people engaged in a mission'. I want to hear some policy. What's she going to do?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by letitbleed:
Let's try this arguement at another level. What's wrong with invading Iraq and kicking out Saddam?...

I'd even say despite the violations by some US soldiers, Abu Gharab prison is safer in the hands of the US Army than when it was run by Saddam.

---

Clearly there is no possibility in hell of discussing anything based on reality with this one.

quote:

---

[QB Of course, freedom and civil society are difficult to achieve. But, the Iraqis deserve their chance. [/QB]

---

Yes, indeed they do, but instead they got the Project for a New American Century, aka Empire Light, rammed down their throats.

And we all know how well that has worked out.

Bob Marshall Andrews, Labour MP for Medway, says:

quote:

---

The price of Blairite "success" has been the near disintegration of the most valuable and influential democratic party of the 20th century.

The cheerful indiscipline of conferences past may have cost Labour votes but those losses will be nothing compared with the seismic effect of the bullying of Walter Wolfgang. There is no escaping the conclusion - if we are to have a future as a political movement, the architect of this rotten structure must leave, and leave quickly.

---

John Lee, a member of the party for 50 years and an MP for nine, said he was resigning . . . he had been increasingly dissatisfied with Labour in past few years with Iraq, tuition fees, the widening gap between rich and poor, but this was the final straw.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
I'm trying to figure out whether your mindless fixation on superficialities makes you a better candidate for supporter of a dictator or just an addict of American crap celebrity television.

---

The mass bulk of Labour supporters oppose the war, just like most Democrats in the US opposed the war. It's the party bureaucrats, officials, and thugs who say otherwise. Unofrtunately they seem to run the show.

Edited to add: The next question is why don't anti-war ridings, MPs, and labour leaders work towards the creation of a new national party?

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: blake 3:17 ]

quote:

---

Outside, a huddle of party veterans, whose faces betray a grim kind of amusement, can't quite make sense of it all. One MP, who has just spent an hour listening to Ruth Kelly [WW - UK Secretary of State for Education], is looking askance at a page of his notepad, filled with a spidery scrawl. "This is off the record," he says. "But listen to this: 'The people out there', 'harnessing that energy', 'needing a narrative', 'the good society', 'social mobility', 'people engaged in a mission'. I want to hear some policy. What's she going to do?"

---

My gosh, but that made me do a double-take.

Anne McClellan has turned up as UK secretary of state for education?!?

In 1985, Solange Denis (b. 1922), a 63-year-old Ottawa woman, made national media headlines during a protest by seniors of the Conservative government's plan to limit the inflation protection on Old Age Security pensions:

quote:

---

Denis strongly attacked Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, contending that "You made promises that you wouldn't touch anything … you lied to us. I was made to vote for you and then it's Goodbye Charlie Brown," ("You 'lied' on pensions, Mulroney told", Toronto Star (June 20, 1985).) said Denis. The government later backed down on the proposal.

---

quote:

---

Talk of the Third Way and the reign of Tony Blair doesn’t make much sense unless you factor in his relationship and NewLabour’s relationship to gender politics, and to the new social movements which erupted in the 1970s and 1980s, to which NewLabour is partly a response.

First, let’s get rid of Blair's 'Third Way'.

This is a little confession. I was once in a room with a group of Labour Party people including three members of the Cabinet, and one of them said to the others: "Oh, did you get that fax from Peter, about the Third Way?" And they all looked at each other and said, "Yeah ...". And the first person said, "Have you read it?" And they all said, "Yeah ...". And the person then said, "Do we know what it means?" And they all said, "No." And that was that. So now you know what the ‘Third Way’ is.

The three Cabinet members weren’t the designers of the Third Way, it was a project afoot that had nothing to do with them.

But what I’m going to talk about now has a great deal to do with us, if not them.

The story starts with the brief reign of the late John Smith, the leader of the Labour Party before Tony Blair, who died suddenly. Not of the Left, he was regarded as very traditional, straight and rather rightwing.

However, he was the agent of a radical reform of the Labour Party’s internal structures, and in particular, the movement towards ‘one member, one vote’. And during one of the phases of the sorting out of ‘one member, one vote’, the women snuck in ways to encourage the all-women short lists, and other things to increase the representivity of the Labour Party and to ensure more women on the parliamentary candidates list.

Feminism and the new social movements that stirred everything up in the 1970s and 1980s weren’t part of John Smith’s culture. However, he had thought about a Labour Party that his three daughters might flourish in. So Smith was important in enabling women to imagine political careers in the Labour Party.

---

Edited to fix link.

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: blake 3:17 ]

quote:

---

Rousing return sees ejected Walter roughed up again

Labour sang the Red Flag* yesterday and a modest man in a blue suit was back in the hall to join in. With a CND [Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, one the main anti-Iraq invasion groups in Britain] badge, a shock of white hair and a slow, stooping gait Walter Wolfgang returned to his party's conference to steal it back from New Labour on behalf of the grassroots.
...
Mr Wolfgang's exit on Wednesday for heckling Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, was highly dramatic, dragged from his seat by the scruff of his neck by burly guards in Dayglo jackets. But his return yesterday morning was more extraordinary still, part politics, part media event and part riot.

A short, frail, old man faced a 21st century media crowd, all long lenses, live broadcasters and two-way mikes. As he stepped forward, the pack broke lines and charged, yelling, on to him as one. Labour officials - on Mr Wolfgang's side this time - jumped to provide a human shield but he appeared to struggle to stay upright. Facing his second physical assault in 24 hours, his voice vanished under the rapid-fire click of cameras.

---

* I'm surpised New Labour has not dumped this stirring socialist anthem In the 70's, Leon Rosselsonsung about the irony:

quote:

---

Firm principles and policies are open to objections;
And a streamlined party image is the way to win elections.
So raise the umbrella high, the bowler hat, the college tie
We'll stand united, raise a cheer. And sing The Red Flag once a year.

---

quote:

---

JUDY KEALL (NZ Labour---Otaki):
``The people's flag is deepest pink,
It's not as red as you would think.''

---

quote:

---

The peoples' flag is palest pink
It's not as red as most folks think
We don't want people all to know
What Socialists thought of long ago
Don't let the scarlet banner float
We need the middle classes' vote
Though Liberals scoff and Tories sneer
We sing the Red Flag once a year.

---

quote:

---

THE WORKERS FLAG IS PALEST PINK
A GREAT IMPROVEMENT, DON'T YOU THINK?
SO LIFT IT UP, BUT NOT TOO HIGH !
WE’LL GIVE THE DEMOCRATS A TRY

---

But the Ontario CCF version is not on the net:

The workers flag is palest pink
A vast improvement, don't you think?
(Bonus points for anyone who remembers the next two lines.)

quote:

---

Fri 30 Sep 2005
printer friendly    email articleBouncer says 'I'm no thug' after Labour heckler ejected

A FORMER bouncer today denied manhandling 82-year-old Labour stalwart Walter Wolfgang from the party conference, saying: "I'm no thug."

Paid-up Labour Party member Joe Ifill claims he was simply doing his job when he appeared to drag Mr Wolfgang, a Jewish refugee from Hitler's Germany, from his seat.

Television images of Mr Wolfgang being hauled from his balcony seat at the Brighton Centre after shouting "nonsense" during a speech by Jack Straw on Iraq prompted a personal apology from Tony Blair.

But Mr Ifill, 40, from Hove, an official conference steward and Labour member for 20 years, remained defiant and claimed he was only involved with evicting Mr Wolfgang's fellow heckler Steve Forrest.

He said: "The whole thing has been blown up out of all proportion. At no time did we manhandle him. I was concentrating on the man sitting next to him, Steve Forrest, a party member from Erith and Thamesmead. I was told: 'You go to him'."

Mr Ifill's role in the eviction on Wednesday of Mr Wolfgang and Mr Forrest caused outcry among delegates. Mr Wolfgang's conference security pass was confiscated by police under anti-terrorism legislation but returned later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by letitbleed:
Let's try this arguement at another level. What's wrong with invading Iraq and kicking out Saddam?

---

Everything... Where should I start?

1) It is for the Iraqi people alone to decide that.
2) If Saddam was as terrible as he is being portrayed in the media here - don't forget the US Presidents are responsible for more deaths than are even attributed to Saddam, and by the small numbers that are being brought to his trial (in the hundreads, not thousands or tens of thousands, for anyone paying attention) - then how come the Iraqi people, who appear to have no shortages of weapons in the hands of private citizens, didn't overthrow him themselves?

quote:

---

Leave out the WMD dispute...

---

Why?

quote:

---

the Iraqi people won history's lottery ticket

---

I am not sure I would call a country poisoned with tons of depleted uranium 'winning hostory's lottery ticket'. I'd call that more a curse which will haunt the Iraqi people for many generations as cancer rates and other effects of radiation poisoning will soar.

quote:

---

and the prize was UK and US and Coalition forces giving them a shot at freedom.

---

They gave them a shot at handing over control of their country and their resources. They game them a shot at being exploited by western-based corporations. They gave them a shot at someone killed or maimed in nearly every family, and 500,000 children starving to death during the coalitions rule of terror in the 90's.

I can only assume that the Shiites were as armed at the time of Saddams rule as they are now, and there is no reason why they couldn't have gotten rid of Saddam on their own if they really wanted to.

quote:

---

I'd say that's a gift.

---

You are looking at the whole situation in a very shallow light. I see nothing Iraq has to endure today as a gift. And isn't it starnge that the majority of Iraqis pick Saddam over the occupation, every time there's a poll? Doesn't that mean anything to you at all?

quote:

---

Sure, it's tough nowadays, but better than what Saddam put them through.

---

That is certainly not true. At the time of Saddam they had running water, power, food, education, equality, opportunity, and war (with the explicit help of the US, not to forget). The only thing they have of that now is war.

quote:

---

Did you guys make much noise when Saddam gassed the Kurds or tortured thousands?

---

Like I said. The media propaganda is, he killed thousands. And yet the charge (that he has not yet been convicted of) is about 200, if I remember right. Surely if he had really killed thousands, they'd bring out the big guns and actually charge him with that.

I am not defending Saddam, I am merely objecting to your callous defense of the international crime the US, Britain and their ridiculous gang of third-world 'coalition' members have committed against the people of Iraq, and are still committing. The US military has extimated that there are millions of weapons in the hands of Iraqis. If that is true, then it was true at the time of Saddam. And something doesn't wash about a story that speaks of a terrible dictator and the people having millions of weapons in their hands at the same time, with which they could have deposed him if they wanted to. Dictators have been deposed with a lot less firepower than that.

quote:

---

Of course, freedom and civil society are difficult to achieve.

---

Iraqis will not get freedom from the US and Britain. At best they will get slavery to a different sort of philosophy. They will never get to choose what THEY actually want, and that - nothing short of it - would actually be freedom.

quote:

---

But, the Iraqis deserve their chance. How else were they going to get it under Saddam and sons?

---

The Mehdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr was already around. If it is true the Shiites were that oppressed, why did he not choose to fight Saddam like he twice fought the US?

quote:

---

I'd even say despite the violations by some US soldiers, Abu Gharab prison is safer in the hands of the US Army than when it was run by Saddam.

---

quote:

---

Everything... Where should I start?

---

You shouldn't. It was an off-topic question by someone you're not going to convince. (That said - well said anyhow.)

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

The workers' flag is palest pink
A vast improvement, don't you think?
We're seldom firm, and never bold
And fighting makes our blood run cold

So "Temperence Now!" will be our cry
We'll strive to keep Ontario dry
Though Woodsworth might not understand
We'll keep the pink flag right at hand.

---

quote:

---

It was fear of the exposure of the extent of the crisis facing the Labour Party beneath its triumphalist rhetoric that fueled widespread media condemnation of Wolfgang’s treatment as a public relations disaster for Blair. Indeed, the incident became a focus for more general warnings that the Labour Party is politically out of touch, socially isolated and organisationally moribund.

The most significant of such comments come from those, such as the Guardian, more generally preoccupied with defending the Blair government.

It editorialised on September 26, “This shrunken party also has a shrunken appeal these days. On May 5 just 9.5 million people voted Labour, 4 million down on 1997. In the modern era Labour has only once polled fewer votes than it polled this year, and that was in 1983, an election in which Labour came close to extinction.”

Former Labour government adviser David Clark wrote in the same paper three days later: “The Labour Party is in urgent need of renewal and that can’t happen until Blair has gone. The party that met in Brighton is visibly exhausted. More than a third of constituencies failed to send a delegate and the ones that did turn up seemed lost and demoralised. Membership is below 200,000 and falling, and the base that is left is ageing and largely inactive. Labour is in a state of incipient organisational collapse. With Blair still in charge, next year’s local elections threaten the sort of wipeout that would leave Labour effectively moribund in large parts of the country.”

---