I am increasingly becoming suspicious of the motives of people who will not speak truth to power or even expect much of a standard from them. I mean if this is what we can expect from politicians and we feel we have to be ‘nice’ to them ‘aw there there’ and cannot even criticise them, well it is a very sorry state of the world. ‘Hold their hand come now, they’ve come this far’.

If I wrote job applications the way MPs and Ministers wrote speeches, I don’t think I would be getting any of them. Why do we in jobs have to perform to higher standards?

http://rayyanmirza.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/yes-we-can-barack-obama-and-lessons-for-progressives-everywhere/

Hmm, Jo and Sunder may have made the points you wanted to make, but are they the correct points?

If I ‘misunderstand the nature of this project (coalition-building, re-energising the left)’, why have you made the shift from calling it the liberal-left?

I don’t know whether you are naive or conniving, Sunny, but there is plenty you either aren’t telling or don’t know. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, so please enlighten us.

*sigh* still missing the point. It’s rather infuriating that even those that are willing to comment and engage here seem to be happy to ignore the realities of where the frustration was born from. The above is a simplification of where certainly my disappointment as come from, at best.

“But then you’re not party to what goes on behind the scenes.”

I certainly am not assuming that things don’t go on behind the scenes, however as this “comment piece” suggests supposedly Lammy is all about engaging the common person, about including sources outside Westminster. You assertion that perhaps he’s changing things from the inside is just more proof, in all honesty, that this idea of openness is (at least for the forseeable future of the Labour government) not going to take place. If Lammy was truly about openness then he would be putting forward at least ideas now as to how that can happen…ideas beyond trying to drain money from the pockets of the public to save Labour’s bacon…rather than continuing with *just* the back room dealings that he says are poisonous to the future of parliament and government!

I’m not unreasonable, if there was even the slightest of explanations about how he intended to take this forward, a modicum of strategy, or a shred of proof in what people outside Westminster see of him standing up for what he says, then I would support that. The trouble is there is no proof whatsoever that this speech is more than just empty words spoken by an on-the-up MP in a catastrophically on-the-down party.

“lthough I sympathise with Lee’s complaints I find myself unable to overtly support his categorical refutation of Mr Lammy’s legitimacy because he bases it on a side issue (42 days has little direct impact on political engagement and inclusivity, whereas social mobility does)”

There is more to political engagement than simply talking to people and getting them involved. One key aspect is showing the public you’re making decisions that are right. We have experts in this country for a reason, we have people in professional positions that have experience. If he wishes to ignore these people in favour of supporting a government then how can we not take his idea of “breaking out of Westminster” with more than a little bit of a pinch of salt? There are other areas (listed in comments above) that I also believe he is showing a contradiction, but the 42 days thing to me is a poignant example of saying one thing while doing another.

I was going to be accused of this sooner or later anyway, but thankfully Sunder, Jo and others have made the points I wanted to. I think you misunderstand the nature of this project (coalition building, re-energising the left), which is why I think Sunder does a great job of articulating the points. He gets it. But I will come back to this in another article because I’ve been thinking a lot about it anyway.

As this thread is now a little long in the tooth, I’m going to give myself permission to wander off-topic as you did and (taking my life in both hands) make a few observations on your comments on abortion.

As I understand it, very few abortions are performed on foetuses after 28 days – there was a piece in the Grauniad about it, I think it was 2% or 3% of the total. What I’ve not seen is any breakdown of the circumstances which lead a woman who wants an abortion to delay seeking it. Intuitively, it strikes me that it would be because she didn’t realise that she was pregnant until she missed her period, which in turn suggests that she might have the kind of lifestyle which doesn’t involve pregnancy tests – or, perhaps, much contact with the health-care system more generally. It would be good to know more about this.

I ask you, why is David Lammy a credible spokesperson for this subject?

Either we should support him or we should support the ideas behind what he says. We cannot do both because the two are incompatible unless he is trying to mount a leadership challenge on the basis that this speech crystalises his opposition to the way his party has lead our country and he is pushing for a major policy reversal.

Or doesn’t it matter that he is arguing against his own position? Doesn’t it matter that he, as a beneficiary of wider opportunities for inclusion, is complicit in the reduction of access to political office which he now calls for measures to address?

Mr Lammy’s terms of reference expose the flaws of his argument – he even describes the two US Presidential nominees as ‘outsiders’, although one has more then three decades experience on Capitol Hill and has previously contested the nomination, while the other was brought up in the family of the diplomatic service and has been groomed to stand for election to the highest office since that time.

I caution you against presuming to put words in my mouth in order to quickly dimiss what I said (first and third counter-arguments against me), as I think my criticisms are somewhat more serious than your straw man (de)constructions accept.

On the second point you raise you are projecting your own method of twisting the argument to your own benefit rather than effectively countering it: there is no such thing as bad light where truth is concerned – you are confusing ‘press coverage’ with ‘publicity’ (which returns me to my opening concern about which strings are being pulled by who on whom).

Sunder’s comment is a fascinating attempt to try to knot some of the threads here back together and of course nobody could disagree in the main. I think it needs to be added that this is a different medium so a different form of political expression needs to be found to prevent any breakdown in communication – the old axiom that freedom without limits is anarchy remains true and it applies equally to the way we behave in these discussions as it does to the format itself.

Furthermore we need to consider that politicians who’ve grown up and got into office without benefiting from the use of the greater access to debate afforded by blogs are unlikely to have fully adapted the expectations and responsiveness of the e-audience into their method of using it to approach and engage on an equal level. It is clear from this discussion that the purity of the debate remains subject to participants willing to pull rank and subvert the fluid (non-existent?) conventions by transferring external status on to individual interrelationships (also a by-product of recently developed real-world acquaintanceship).

Although I sympathise with Lee’s complaints I find myself unable to overtly support his categorical refutation of Mr Lammy’s legitimacy because he bases it on a side issue (42 days has little direct impact on political engagement and inclusivity, whereas social mobility does) in this instance and I have been careful to try to remain within parameters of the subject at hand which could be considered reasonable.

This is a place where the social, personal and polical all meet and our reactions are all defined by our response to the equality it affords us both individually and collectively. The truth is that this is something no party and no government can lay claim to having the sole right to address. (Apologiess for paraphrasing)

I think this is spot on. And this:

I am for a value-based politics. But unless we think the only way to have integrity is to always be on the point of resigning from any government, or political party, however small, or any campaign then there are always trade-offs.

… too is spot on.

thomas says:
if you notice he failed to take advantage of the most pertinent opening by avoiding mention of any personal struggles he may have faced, thus disengaging his own story from the subject at hand.

Oh right – he should have listed some personal problems he faced in life otherwise he’s just a typical lying politician who shouldn’t be bothered with. C’mon thomas, you’re better than that.

If a politician fears press coverage it indicates they are hiding something worth covering.

Erm – no. It can also mean a tabloid has an agenda to put someone in a bad light.

So he is in the wrong party to have any credibility on the subject while social mobility is declining under Labour?

Erm, yeah, clearly he should join the Tories because they’re really serious about the issue. This is the kind of tripe that makes it hard to have constructive discussions.

Lee Griffin:
I don’t see anything, other than this speech, from David Lammy that suggests for one moment he is really going to challenge the government on change.

But then you’re not party to what goes on behind the scenes. And not only that, you’re assuming thereis a direct linear, traceable line from what is said in a speech to related outcomes. The govt is a massive organisation – you can either believe he’s being dishonest or you can take in faith that he means what he writes above (don’t we all make that assumption when writing articles) and then debate the merits of what is being said.

And what Jo Christie-Smith said above.

Perhaps that’s a lesson for the future?

Jennie (apols for spelling) – what does it say at the end of the article??

… I should maybe stop expecting people to spell my name right, as it’s clearly too difficult to manage.

Sooni (:P), you know what I think the main cause of the problem here is? This wasn’t presented as a speech that was given somewhere else and then written up here, it was presented as a blog piece written for the site. We have reacted to it as we would react to a blog piece.

If it had had a nice strapline across the top saying “This is a write-up of David Lammy’s speech to the Fabian society about PPC selection” I probably wouldn’t have even bothered reading it, never mind commenting on it, because I would have realised that it wasn’t designed for us as an audience, but was simply a Labour party fishing expedition.

Perhaps that’s a lesson for the future?

I think its a bit of a shame that we’re having a discussion about how to have a conversation or debate, and much less the issues at stake. I thought Picasso’s comments were good. I think we could if we wanted to caricature my friend Sunny as sounding a bit like a 1950s broadcaster (have you anything else to add Minister) but the general point about wanting to open conversations, not close them down is important if we are interested in broader, plural progressive movements, including with people we can make common cause with without necessarily agreeing on everything.

So I suggested Sunny might be interested in the speech, because I think it gets into some issue of what building liberal-left alliances could be about. Sunny wanted to run something from it, and clearly, David was keen to make some effort to engage in the space once that was happening. (I didn’t know he planned to do that). I think some of the response sets the barriers to online engagement rather high. If you can’t answer every point, why are you just pretending. Who could ever meet that standard? (Like Sunny, but never quite as actively, I try to get back to lots of people on CommentisFree, etc, but not always and never everyone).

However strongly people feel about particular aspects of the government’s record, I think there is a danger of solipsism in some of the discussion.

Without wanting to generalise/caricature it too much, I think this captures one of the interesting issues about political engagement (on blogs) but actually about our political culture more generally.

We all get to have our say. No thought need ever go unpublished. The right to reply is extended ad infinitum. We tend to cluster around people who are like-minded. And so we can’t see why we aren’t getting what we want.

The politics of articulation are stronger than ever, but the politics of aggregation matters too. The politics of building alliances depends on that. What I am not sure about is how many people want to build alliances if they involve any degree of compromise or trade-off at all. But the pure politics of self-expression are barely politics at all. They certainly don’t do much to deliver social change.

A lot of the tonality of politics generally and perhaps online politics in particular is ’since I am obviously right, why aren’t the useless, incompetent bastards listening to me’. There is something consumerist and anti-political in this. I will leave the professionals to deal with what they are paid for when I’m too busy to bother. But then, if I am affected, the test of whether politics works is whether I get what I want when I do bother to engage. If I don’t, then politics is broken. But several hundred thousand people marching to not ban hunting doesn’t necessarily mean it will not be legitimate for Parliament to decide otherwise. They have a right to a voice, but not necessarily a veto.

So we are also losing that the meaning of politics is a collective endeavour to make collective decisions, and one by which disagreements are expressed, and compromises brokered. Compromise is a dirty word. But I never get everything I want, because your views count too, and in the end we share a society, and politics is how we do that. Clearly, a right that only wants the market to be dominant is interesting in diminishing the scope for politics of this kind. The liberal left has its libertarian and individualist side too, but needs to be more careful about balancing principles of equal citizenship, fairness and collective provision with that than the minimal government right.

Even the strongest political disagreements can be with opponents who honestly hold a different position from our own. I think recognising and talking about this is one of Obama’s strengths. McCain too to some extent. He is good at having a principled, substantive disagreement in a way which accepts the integrity of his opponents. At first, I thought this could contain excessive elements of being all things to all people, or riding a slightly simplistic anti-politics wave. But over time it has struck me as more sophisticated: a call for engagement in a collective political process. And, if elected, he has a task of engaging people in how political change is delivered.

I don’t think we are going to see the politics of personal destruction this time around. (Yes, there will be some of that: I think McCain will be damaged if he does not disown it in a credible way). To some extent, that tends to happen when the substantive differences are so small that the argument has to be either competence or integrity, because of a wariness to say I stand for something different in terms of values and policies.

I am for a value-based politics. But unless we think the only way to have integrity is to always be on the point of resigning from any government, or political party, however small, or any campaign then there are always trade-offs. They might be awful sell-outs, but they are more than sometimes the noble art of how we decide things as a society. Even those issues we are most likely to feel involve very core moral principles – such as abortion – are ultimately resolved around shades of grey and questions of degree for the vast majority of us. I am against 42 days, and quite possibly have my doubts about 28 too. But I am almost certainly OK about 14 days or slightly more. I favour the current abortion laws as an important protection of women’s rights, but I wouldn’t now vote or campaign to increase the limit by four weeks from where we are.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/03/civilliberties.communities

For me, liberty should be the ability for the politically weakest in any society to stand up and challenge the strongest; for the most marginalised groups to have as many rights as the most visible.

So he is in the wrong party to have any credibility on the subject while social mobility is declining under Labour?

That’s funny because that’s exactly the point I was going to raise as an anecdote but decided against it lest it be seen as too frivolous an example Obviously I was going to raise it in an opposite direction. I don’t see anything, other than this speech, from David Lammy that suggests for one moment he is really going to challenge the government on change.

He hasn’t made any impact on policy (clearly, very few have I’ll grant that also), he has stood up for “outside people” having more of a say yet not once spoke…even objectively and without siding…about the need to consider the vast amount of opinion from outside westminster on 42 days. He allegedly doesn’t even reply to his constituents when they write to him all that often (perhaps they’re not nice enough to him, and perhaps he’s too nice to write like David Clelland does).

So, am I not allowed to call him on this given the context of his “comment piece” or shall I expect a standing ovation on this site for the scheduled speech Nadine Dorries is making on individual liberties and the steps towards full-term abortion?

I didn’t ask for a life history, I tried to give him an opportunity to answer why he felt particularly qualified to introduce this subject and validate the relevance of the particular solution he was promoting – if you notice he failed to take advantage of the most pertinent opening by avoiding mention of any personal struggles he may have faced, thus disengaging his own story from the subject at hand.

And we are talking about engagement with the representative process!

This inescapably leads one to question both David Lammy’s representative ability as well as his engagement with and support for the process (the seriousness of these complaints mean the furious nature of subsequent comments shouldn’t have been surprising, nor should they be discounted).

I take the point about being careful how candid one is, but that shouldn’t preclude honest diplomacy and a demonstration of relevance to the debate – in fact aren’t those both measures of good politics? If a politician fears press coverage it indicates they are hiding something worth covering.

So isn’t this proposal to introduce wider use of open primaries just flash gimmickery and a distraction from the real meat of politics? I’d welcome Mr Lammy’s response at this point.

No I don’t ask for deference either. We all have dicussions online and sometimes due to work or other commitments we don’t reply to everyone. Hell, on CIF I never manage to reply to all the questions or abuse thrown at me.

The thing I object to here is the ‘tarring with the same brush’ debating tactic being employed. A small number of people asks questions and one or two support or attempt to communicate why they’re asking and suddenly we’re all one borg like horde of abusive trolls!

And yeah I’d choose your words very carefully before linking terms like left and Labour politician together…:D

I’m sorry, highlight the hypocrisy to me again.

We bring up tenuous (at best) links to his civil liberty record and beat him with it so as to make ourselves feel better about not supporting the only politician to make a visceral stand against 42 days that has clout.

Why don’t you take that up with Jenny and others who have been vociferously against him? I’m not shuffling my feet – my view is that the broader agenda should be supported, hence I hope the campaign is successful and that a vote for him OR the green candidate (who I support) is a vote against 42 days.

and pull him up on a poignant example of clear conflict between his actions and what he is saying…suddenly we’re part of the problem?

The context is important here. David Lammy is making a speech to say this is how he would like the govt to progress. Standing in his way is the PM, a whole load of civil servants, a whole bunch of interest groups, academics and the opposition. So its basically him writing a comment article saying this is the direction he’d like to see… he hasn’t promised the govt will go down that path because he’s not the only one who will make that decision. In fact the MPs rarely do – civil servants usually end up deciding more in terms of policy.

So rather than screaming that the policy and the rhetoric don’t match up (which is a valid point more generally but not in the context of this article), it would be better to debate the merits of what he said. I think you were trying to, I don’t think everyone was. If Gordon Brown came here saying he’d introduced all these changes and he wasn’t clear why they didn’t work in the way he had hoped, then I’d expect him to be chastised on the point you made (rhetoric v reality). This is simply a comment piece.