Skip to content or view screen version

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.

no-nukes

Comments

Hide the following 12 comments

all labour are pro imperialism

23.08.2001 12:03

left or right, forget labour

orion noir


NMD?

23.08.2001 13:10

scuse my ignorance but what does NMD stand for?

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
mail e-mail: cant_cope@hotmail.com


am i crazy?

23.08.2001 14:54

I was watching the two tory candidates on newsnight lastnight and i thought yeah OK ian duncan smith is a right wing twat and clarke is a not quite so right wing twat. so whats the difference between blair and clark? apart from the derisory minimum wage not a lot. so its probably best if clark wins the next election allowing the labour party to ditch blair and brown and short and cook and start agin from their traditional position on the left. what d'yuh reckon? labour better with four years in opposition to sort themselves out and get rid of the right-wingers.

tommy60


yes - you are mad!

23.08.2001 16:29

I know what you are saying, but a Labour government is always going to be better than a Tory one. Ken Clarke isn't THAT liberal, he just looks comparatively sane next to Iain Dunkin-Donuts. Clarke knows he has to play the liberal card, but if he got in his natural Tory instinct would be to go for tax-cutting and full scale privatisation (and who knows what else).
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

Duncan-Smith is purely and simply a right wing die-hard, faced with Ken Clarke, who is so liberal he considers it good financial sense to makes his living by selling tobacco to third world countries, is there really any difference. Blair can emulate anyone he wants to whenever he wants to. Why must we help defend America anyway???

Will Low
mail e-mail: thewoods10@hotmail.com
- Homepage: http://www.thewoods.fsworld.co.uk


TOM: Your'e wrong !

24.08.2001 14:38

Tom: To claim that Labour will always be better than the Conservatives is to miss a point; both are from and act for THE ESTABLISHMENT . To simplify things, you might say that they are the two wings of the same party... bear in mnd that the 'tories' would never have got away with what Blair is doing right now.
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

Tom: To claim that Labour will always be better than the Conservatives is to miss a point; both are from and act for THE ESTABLISHMENT . To simplify things, you might say that they are the two wings of the same party... bear in mnd that the 'tories' would never have got away with what Blair is doing right now.
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

I think we need to be realistic about all this.
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

I think we need to be realistic about all this.
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

what typical labourism ! sartre, perhaps the greatest philosopher activist of all time, reduced to comparisons with nye beavan or is it bevin ?
ask a parisian of 1968 about sartre, tom

orion noir


ashamed of what?

28.08.2001 11:41

it's not typical labourism, it is my own badly thought-out libertarian socialism, based on experience. I was involved in the anarcho scene for about six years but I like to look at things a bit more realistically these days.
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

try asking a young gent from a UK council estate in 2001 for his views on Sartre.

Tom