Skip to main content

Tariq Ali Says: vote Lib Dem to beat Labour

This issue is relevant in Sparkbrook and Small Heath and Perry Barr. In both of these seats the Respect group are standing.

Extracting from his article:
" the votes cast for the Greens, Respect and others will have no impact, with a possible exception in Bethnal Green and Bow,"

and

"It is possible that in some constituencies the Green/Respect vote could ensure the return of a warmonger, as we have seen in the odd by-election."

In this he is referring in part to Hodge Hill where having the Respect votes were sufficient to stop Labour winning.

The challenge for Talib Hussain and Jon Hunt is that of persuading anti-Labour voters to unite behind them as the best placed candidates to beat (probably) Roger Godsiff and (probably) Khalid Mahmood.

Comments

PoliticalHack said…
Let's continue the extracts:
'In constituencies where there are MPs belonging to the anti-war faction, one should vote for them despite disagreements on many other issues'

Last time I checked, Roger Godsiff opposed the war and voted with the Labour rebels. Therefore, anti-war Labour supporters can support him with clear consciences.

I'd be careful about implying that Roger is a warmonger. He isn't.
john said…
I haven't checked the source on this, but "strategic voter" says:

The MP for this constituency first voted that the case for the war had not "yet" been made out (Division 117 of March 18, 2003) but then immediately went into the Aye lobby with the government on the crucial main motion supporting an illegal war (Division 118)
Bob Piper said…
As opposed to Paddy Pantsdown who, as George Galloway points out, waited until we started bombing the shit out of the Iraqis before declaring his support for our bombers. One head... two faces.
john said…
Paddy Ashdown is not an MP. I don't know what he said about the war in Iraq.

I fail to see where it is relevant.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…