Left geras up for fight with Straw over US missile plan
no-nukes | 23.08.2001 11:16
Some 216, or more than two- thirds, of Labour MPs have signed a Commons motion opposing NMD. The former defence minister, Peter Kilfoyle, has been canvassing union support for what used to be called an emergency resolution to the party conference condemning NMD, due to be debated at the event's close.
Left gears up for fight with Straw over US missile plan
Special report: George Bush's America
Anne Perkins and Claire Hu
Saturday August 18, 2001
The Guardian
Delegates to Labour's conference in October are being urged to revolt against potential government support for US president George Bush's NMD missile defence programme.
Suspicion is mounting that the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, might give British support for NMD, which depends on two early-warning radar stations at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill in North Yorkshire, during the summer parliamentary recess.
Malcolm Savidge, MP for Aberdeen North, has accused Mr Straw of using the rhetoric of far right Republicans. Writing in Tribune, he said this week: "Labour's opponents caricature the party as led by a small coterie of cronies, with a shallow short-term agenda and contemptuous disregard for the parliamentary Labour party, the party outside parliament, and Labour's enduring principles.
"We all need to work together to prove how wrong that distortion is. The whole party must convey to the leadership the strength of feeling on this issue, not least through this year's conference."
Some 216, or more than two- thirds, of Labour MPs have signed a Commons motion opposing NMD. The former defence minister, Peter Kilfoyle, has been canvassing union support for what used to be called an emergency resolution to the party conference condemning NMD, due to be debated at the event's close.
Last month, in a Tribune article, Mr Straw spelt out his reasons for considering sup port for NMD. In a later briefing to Labour MPs, he said NMD was vital to prevent attacks by so-called rogue states.
The Bush administration did not want "an impenetrable shield", he said: "This is not Star Wars. We have a much more limited objective."
The briefing suggests the government has already accepted the idea of British participation in the US project.
Special report: George Bush's America
Anne Perkins and Claire Hu
Saturday August 18, 2001
The Guardian
Delegates to Labour's conference in October are being urged to revolt against potential government support for US president George Bush's NMD missile defence programme.
Suspicion is mounting that the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, might give British support for NMD, which depends on two early-warning radar stations at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill in North Yorkshire, during the summer parliamentary recess.
Malcolm Savidge, MP for Aberdeen North, has accused Mr Straw of using the rhetoric of far right Republicans. Writing in Tribune, he said this week: "Labour's opponents caricature the party as led by a small coterie of cronies, with a shallow short-term agenda and contemptuous disregard for the parliamentary Labour party, the party outside parliament, and Labour's enduring principles.
"We all need to work together to prove how wrong that distortion is. The whole party must convey to the leadership the strength of feeling on this issue, not least through this year's conference."
Some 216, or more than two- thirds, of Labour MPs have signed a Commons motion opposing NMD. The former defence minister, Peter Kilfoyle, has been canvassing union support for what used to be called an emergency resolution to the party conference condemning NMD, due to be debated at the event's close.
Last month, in a Tribune article, Mr Straw spelt out his reasons for considering sup port for NMD. In a later briefing to Labour MPs, he said NMD was vital to prevent attacks by so-called rogue states.
The Bush administration did not want "an impenetrable shield", he said: "This is not Star Wars. We have a much more limited objective."
The briefing suggests the government has already accepted the idea of British participation in the US project.
no-nukes
Comments
Hide the following 12 comments
all labour are pro imperialism
23.08.2001 12:03
orion noir
NMD?
23.08.2001 13:10
My guess is *national* missile defence shield. Not international. Suggesting only one nation will be covered, and i doubt it will be botswana.
So what the hell is Cack Straw talking about? Am i reading too much into this or is there a good point lurking somewhere in this post?
townie
e-mail:
cant_cope@hotmail.com
am i crazy?
23.08.2001 14:54
tommy60
yes - you are mad!
23.08.2001 16:29
if Labour lost again there is more chance that they will simply split as I cannot see the Labour left putting up with any further move to the right. even now they are starting to get more active - look at the stuff aroun the missile shield on here today - and there threatens to be mammoth internal row over Tony's plans for the "reform" of public services.
it is, as it always has been, the lesser of two evils
Tom
Liberal? Free tobacco for a month....
23.08.2001 18:33
Will Low
e-mail:
thewoods10@hotmail.com
Homepage:
http://www.thewoods.fsworld.co.uk
TOM: Your'e wrong !
24.08.2001 14:38
Tommy60 is closer to the position that SARTRE worked out in the 1940s, that more revolutionary work is possible under a regime which has no popular support. To blindly follow whatever the masses are happy with (which is what the awful SWP do) can lead into populism and worse...
P Layton
TOM: Your'e wrong !
24.08.2001 14:38
Tommy60 is closer to the position that SARTRE worked out in the 1940s, that more revolutionary work is possible under a regime which has no popular support. To blindly follow whatever the masses are happy with (which is what the awful SWP do) can lead into populism and worse...
P Layton
No I'm not - am I?
24.08.2001 15:16
To be blunt, where did Sartre ever get us? And what about any of the anarchist/libertarian groups in the UK since the 1940s? they have achieved absolutely nothing.
in contrast "the Establishment" Left implemented the welfare state, a massive house-building programme, workplace protection and a much better standard of living. I simply cannot see any case for arguing for a full-on revoltionary line that achieves nothing instead of pushing Labour and getting real improvements for ordinary folks. we should use whatever tactics suit the time, including parliamentary ones - I simply see this as sticking true to the maxim by any means necessary.
to flip your argument around I believe that only advocating a revolutionary line in every situation is pointless. it achieves nothing practical and politically makes the movement appear out of touch.
I can't accept either that the tories and labour are two wings of the same party because they are both part of the "establishment". does this then mean that anarchists, communists and fascists must be wings of the same movement because they are all "revolutionary".
labour has brought in the minimum wage, a lot of workplace legislation, and has genuinely tried to be a bit redistributive around the benefits system. on the flipside it is obsessed with the private sector and in the pocket of business a lot of the time. but I believe that shit as this is under the tories you would have only got the second bit.
Tom
No I'm not - am I?
24.08.2001 15:16
To be blunt, where did Sartre ever get us? And what about any of the anarchist/libertarian groups in the UK since the 1940s? they have achieved absolutely nothing.
in contrast "the Establishment" Left implemented the welfare state, a massive house-building programme, workplace protection and a much better standard of living. I simply cannot see any case for arguing for a full-on revoltionary line that achieves nothing instead of pushing Labour and getting real improvements for ordinary folks. we should use whatever tactics suit the time, including parliamentary ones - I simply see this as sticking true to the maxim by any means necessary.
to flip your argument around I believe that only advocating a revolutionary line in every situation is pointless. it achieves nothing practical and politically makes the movement appear out of touch.
I can't accept either that the tories and labour are two wings of the same party because they are both part of the "establishment". does this then mean that anarchists, communists and fascists must be wings of the same movement because they are all "revolutionary".
labour has brought in the minimum wage, a lot of workplace legislation, and has genuinely tried to be a bit redistributive around the benefits system. on the flipside it is obsessed with the private sector and in the pocket of business a lot of the time. but I believe that shit as this is under the tories you would have only got the second bit.
Tom
when i read toms stuff i feel ashamed
25.08.2001 12:02
ask a parisian of 1968 about sartre, tom
orion noir
ashamed of what?
28.08.2001 11:41
So I repeat the question, what has the anarchist movement achieved for ordinary working people in the UK in the past 50 years? Stack it up against what the Labour party has achieved in the same period and at least we are getting started.
I don't believe the Labour pary are the be all and end all, and I know they are at their most Right-wing for decades, but let's get a bit of balance in these debates. If all these labour people are simply the same as tories why don't they just.... errr.... join the tories.
Tom
PS
28.08.2001 13:05
Tom