… saying one thing in one place and another somewhere else, it might be worth referring to this:
“When people describe the nature of a place they are often describing the nature of its people and their behaviour as well as how it looks and feels. This gives us a real opportunity to develop a series of ‘local’ Labour brands and values. We can’t have a position where Labour has the same approaches everywhere. Greater devolution within government and the party is essential.”
- Steve Houghton, Labour leader of Barnsley Council, in a new publication, ‘Labour, Leadership and Locality: Distinctive Approaches to Place Shaping’, by the LGA Labour Group office.
Share:
8 Comments
Demonstrative of the inheret cultural relativism of the Labour party.
What rubbish! This thing is presumably about campaigning as say “Manchester Labour” in Manchester. It is not about standing for one thing on the doorstep of Number 2 Acacia Gardens and for the opposite at Number 4.
And it is certainly not the same as campaigning FOR a mosque on one side of the Leeds Road in Oldham East and Saddleworth and AGAINST it on the other side.
Apart from anything else as one of the two parties that form governments in the UK Labour sometimes have the position where the party locally do not support the government.
For one example Manchester Labour did not support the attack on Iraq. And we said so including in an open letter from all elected members to Blair at the time.
Manchester Labour are not happy with the government over Metro Funding – even less happy with Tory Trafford and Lib Dem Stockport for trying to scupper it – but there are clearly instances where a local party generically has a difference with the national party.
I repeat this is not the same as saying different things on every doorstep – facilitated by apolitical leaflets – or the same as communalism over a mosque.
“And it is certainly not the same as campaigning FOR a mosque on one side of the Leeds Road in Oldham East and Saddleworth and AGAINST it on the other side.”
Several times you’ve referred to this – and I’ve asked you to back it up with some evidence. Could you this time?
I’ll do that when it suits me to do it not you Hywel.
I would suggest that you will get the answer far more quickly by asking the Lib Dems activists in the relevant part of that constituency than by expecting me to fall in with your requirements.
Have you even asked them?
Specifically ask them if following this particular disreputable campaign they were called in to see the MP Phil Woolas and what they said to him about mirroring almost any local view they came across.
Chris, why so defensive?
Isn’t it more usual for the person making an accusation to try and back it up with evidence?
If you want to convince people, try saying something convincing.
Well firstly Chris I was a Liberal Democrat activist in that part of the country for several years and can’t recollect the situation your talking about. It could quite conceivably be outside of the time I was there (either before or after).
As posted elsewhere I have been willing to criticised campaign techniques adopted by the party. But I’ve got the evidence to back up what I’m saying.
Given my knowledge of that part of the world I find the idea of being “called in” to see the Labour MP and explain the Lib Dems campaign techniques a little bit far fetched. My response to such a request would be pretty direct (in in fairness I would expect him to do the same if positions were reversed.)
So, Chris, can we take it you condone Newcastle Labour’s tactic of opposing the closure of a particular road in the ward at one end and vigorously supporting it in the ward at the other end?
Labour on the road to nowhere, eh?
Sorry.