Comments on: The Review Without End

By: Mark Hanson

Mark Hanson — Wed, 24 May 2006 08:49:27 +0000

we’re currently running a poll on our home page the thebigissue.net on the amazing speed with which the knives have come out for Ming Campbell.

Almost seems as if too many people voted for Ming on the basis that he wouldn’t be around for very long but felt that in the time he was around that SOME progress would be made.

All of those people who voted for him as the least worst choice have got very jumpy trigger figures after a few weeks and this could set the scene for a John Major type leadership. Two warring factions behind the scenes of a decent but essentially dull figure trying to hold it together whilst pulling knives out of his back.

By: James

James — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:08:34 +0000

Neil, I don’t have a problem with a member of staff in charge of such initiatives per se, but it has to be at arms length from the main operation. We’ve seen in Labour how “diversity” gets used selectively to weed out the “bad” candidates. As it happens, there are senior party officers who unapologetically believe that the party centrally should have a much greater role in co-ordinating which candidates are allowed to stand where, and the last time the issue was debated, no pretense whatsoever was made to say otherwise (to quote exactly “I believe in a ‘favoured daughters’ approach”).

It was a perceived conflict of interest that caused the English Party to employ its own candidates officer, and having sat on the FE for three years I can see exactly why they made that decision.

Mark, I’m personally working to pre-empt things long before September, which is far too late. In my view, whether or not this ends up being a whitewash will be a vital test of Ming’s leadership. If he sits back and lets it take its course without providing a strong steer (in the way, frankly, Charles always did), then nothing he said during the campaign is worth a damn.

By: Mark Valladares

Mark Valladares — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 23:36:10 +0000

James, you may well be right and I may well be rather naive (what am I saying, I am naive..). However, we were very cleverly ambushed by an amendment that was well constructed and prepared.

I do regret that Navnit decided to accept the amendment without consulting London Region in any way (if this is not the case, I will happily withdraw the allegation), and wonder what his logic was.

However, instead of moaning about it, it’s time to retaliate. I aim to work within London Region to ensure that we push the issue, and hope that a strong submission can come forward. If need be, I will happily speak in the September debate and accuse the Federal Executive of wilful sabotage (I’d rather forfeit my prospects than my integrity). You can even write the speech if you like…

By: Neil

Neil — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 21:09:21 +0000

James – whether or not there are ulterior motives behind the amendments i don’t know. But I disagree that there is anything wrong with having a member of staff in Cowley Street responsible for supporting this work. Firstly Campaigns Officers have no influence at all over selection contests in key seats. Most of us, as it happens, are strongly committed to diversifying the range of candidates. Secondly, even if they did have some influence, there would be no difficulty in keeping the functions separate. (In fact we are usually criticised for failing to talk to each other!). Your argument is a bit like suggesting that a Council shouldn’t employ an Equalities Officer because other people working for the Council are responsible for making staff appointments.