The Bristol Labour Party has now waded into the Cancer’s row over Bunter Eddy and the Big Lottery grant to Educational Action Challenging Homophobia (Each).
Their Deputy Leader, Mark Bradshaw, published an open letter on the matter on Friday night. The full text is here.
Very interesting it is too, raising some interesting questions about what the modern Labour Party and their anti-homophobia fellow-travelers think terms like “progressive” and “equalities” actually mean.
Bradshaw writes towards the end of his letter:
I really hope [Bunter] isn’t suggesting that bullying should be tolerated in a progressive city like Bristol or anywhere else.
Then again, this is the man who year after year wants to cut funding for all equalities work in our city, further marginalising the disadvantaged, the disabled, and those who do not fit his 19th century vision for Bristol.
What an odd statement.
Now I appreciate that Bradshaw has never given much of an impression of being a deep thinker, let alone a serious student of the British Labour Movement – he altogether seems happier privatising sections of the public highway with public money for the exclusive use of private bus companies under the guise of ‘Showcase Routes’ than grappling with deeper political questions like “why the hell am I doing this”?
But surely he must know that Labour Party values derive directly from the 19th Century? A lot of us might even call it a “19th Century vision”.
The universal values of equality, suffrage and human rights that are supposed to underpin the Labour Movement were originally developed in late 18th Century. Then popularised – among other places – through the trade union movement as it developed throughout the 19th century, culminating in the birth of the Labour Party’s forerunner ,the Labour Representation Committee in 1900.
So if Bradshaw and friends reject a perfectly serviceable “19th Century vision for Bristol” what are they all about then?
A clue lies in the Cancer’s car crash thread about Bunter and Each.
One of the saner and more rational comments from the antis came from a chap called James who said:
What a lot of money….. Makes me angry to think we can give away that amount when we have our forces boys going without….. Maybe lottery should look at giving to that cause instead…..maybe to look at the more important factors where it is life or death instead of making someone feel better about their sexuality ??
The response to James was of course utterly patronising: “James – I read your post and was bit stumped at where to start,” huffed some sanctimonious little tosser from Horfield called David.
Well he might not know where to start but I do. How about this report from Tim Reid in Kandahar, Afghanistan from The Times in 2002?
Men accused of sodomy faced the punishment of having a wall toppled on to them, usually resulting in death. In February 1998 three men sentenced to death for sodomy in Kandahar were taken to the base of a huge mud and brick wall, which was pushed over by tank. Two of them died, but one managed to survive.
Not much sign of universal progressive values from the Taliban then. So no doubt our self-styled anti-homophobia progressives will have something to say about this? Indeed they do. David says:
I think a diminished military role in this world and avoiding entanglement in conflicts we just can’t win would do them more good, but that’s another story.
So these “progressives” believe that their rights, freedoms and special treatments should only be extended to an exclusive wealthy elite in the West and anyone else in the world can literally go hang because fighting for these values is too much like hard work?
Of course it’s true that the awarding of privileges and rights to elites on the basis of their proximity to power and money is not a “19th Century vision”. It was the reality of the 18th Century …
Says a lot when yer average squaddie and their supporters are more progressive than our highly educated liberal elite doesn’t it?
“Says a lot when yer average squaddie and their supporters are more progressive than our highly educated liberal elite doesn’t it?”
Lol – try googling “manlove Thursday”. Our squaddies generally decline to participate in this traditional Afghan custom. Apparently.
It’s a bit of a crazed leap to claim we’re turning Afghanistan into a slaughterhouse to save the gays.
Bradshaw’s reference to the nineteenth century is clearly re. UK anti-gay laws and culture rather than the foundation of the Labour movement, by the way. Glad I could help.
You think our armed forces should be funded from lottery grants?
Really?
If you don’t, I’m not really sure what your point is? (Well done though for getting a post out of wilfully misinterpreting what other people have said – the quoting someone in response to something that they weren’t actually responding to is a particularly transparent sixth-form debating tactic – classy!)
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it – to be seen to criticise the grant (to indulge your middle-England-man-of-the-people schtick), without actually coming out and saying it, as this would mean being on the same side of a debate as the Post and Bunter…
And – “Says a lot when yer average squaddie and their supporters are more progressive than our highly educated liberal elite doesn’t it?”
Have you ever spent a Saturday night in Hereford? Progressive is not the word I would use.
Ben and inks..I agree with you but that is what bloggers do, hence they are fairly pointless but probably therapeutic for the bloggers themselves.
Inks,
The stated war aims are to bring democracy and a basic level of human rights to Afghanistan. I’ve not noticed that Obama’s specifically excluded gay people from this.
Not clear to me. There’s nothing particular about the 19th century in terms of anti-gay laws and culture that sets it apart from any other century until (arguably) 1967. Anti-sodomy laws are very old. The term “19th Century vision” doesn’t conjure up an obviously more anti-gay period than any other to me. In fact, didn’t they stop executing people for buggery in the 19th Century? It’s positively liberal compared to what went before!
Ben
You’re confusing good manners with progressive politics. They are not the same thing.
Can’t really see that sending a boat load of polite, middle class charity workers to Afghanistan to wave around copies of the Guardian and anti-homophobia policies is gonna cut it. Can you?
But the Hereford-based SAS?
I know who I’d pick to go and fight for a progressive cause.
“I know who I’d pick to go and fight for a progressive cause.”
“The stated war aims are to bring democracy and a basic level of human rights to Afghanistan.”
I’m surprised you view Karzai and his rapey druglords as ‘progressive’ champions of democracy and human rights, TBB.
Also your claim about the stated war aims doesn’t stand up.
“The stated aim of the invasion was to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members and put them on trial, to destroy the whole organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime which supported and gave safe harbor to Al-Qaeda.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29
I’m a bit surprised you’ve not heard about the whole 911 WTC attacks / Al Queda / Osama bin Laden thing, it got a lot of media at the time.
UK troops are in Afghanistan under a post-invasion UN mandate to maintain security.
Meanwhile, back to the much more dangerous topic of interpreting local politicians clunky writing style.
Reading Bradshaw’s letter I think he’d simply painted himself into a corner by the end of the letter. He wanted to carry on working the angle Labour = progress, Tories = going backwards. To make help make the point he wanted to give a time the Tories are going back to.
As he wrote the sentence I’d guess he worked backwards in his head thinking something like “60’s – no, hippies, flairs, that won’t do at all; 50’s – no, founding of the NHS, that’s not it; 40’s… WW2, our finest hour, still not there; 30’s – jazz, PG Woodehouse… oh fuck it 19th century that’ll do let’s stop before I get to the industrial revolution”.
The key point is Bradshaw supports the gay grant, Richard Eddy – and it seems TBB – oppose it.
The term I meant to use was ‘implied’ or ‘unstated’. Must be half asleep.
No particular fan of Karzai but I’m not sure anyone is are they?
Unlike most of these ‘progressives’ I’m not interested in ding-dong party politics so have no need to define my politics either for or against Eddy or any other local party politician.
I think we may oppose this grant for different reasons, however.
As old-fashioned universalist and internationalist I’m mainly interested in what passes for progressive these days, which seems to be local, relative and thinks charity is left wing!
I doubt Eddy gives a toss about any of this – although I’m sure like all Tories he prefers charity to the state and the deserving to the undeserving poor.
Eddy and I probably do cross over in that we accept there are limits to the state. But then do so do our progressive friends.
After all they all seem to believe that the state can’t any longer deliver the big infrastructure it should and that we desperately need like energy, transport and high speed broadband.
But oddly they do seem to believe that this same state that can’t run a rail service can micro-manage our lives, attitudes and beliefs through charitable and other weird arms-length bodies.
I find it all a bit bonkers to be honest.
I think we are long overdue a reminder of the personal history of councillor Eddy. Living with his mum, brandishing gollywogs, potentially working illegally as a financial consultant without certification etc.
You must have deleted your response to this question by mistake before you pressed ‘post’, because I didn’t see it:
“You think our armed forces should be funded from lottery grants? Really?”
And:
“You’re confusing good manners with progressive politics. They are not the same thing.”
No I’m not. I am remembering watching a group of squaddies shouting racial abuse at a woman in a pub. Not very progressive.
(And before you go off on one, I’m not saying all squaddies are racist. My brother, and several cousins, are or have been in the forces – in fact, my Gramps drove army trucks in Burma for your beloved Field Marshall Slim – but for you to try to present them as somehow being representative of or interested in progressive politics – whatever that means – is a stretch.)
“Can’t really see that sending a boat load of polite, middle class charity workers to Afghanistan … SAS? I know who I’d pick to go and fight for a progressive cause.”
Yes, people who are trained to fight and kill will be better at fighting and killing than people who haven’t been trained to fight and kill. I’m sure that most ex-SAS would make shit social workers (or teachers, or whatever the current job of choice is when denigrating wooly lefties).
Not sure what you’re point is here?
And finally:
“weird arms-length bodies”
I still don’t understand why you think giving this charity this grant is evidence of some large sinister social engineering project, and why you continue to refer to it as an ‘arms-length body’, when it clearly isn’t.
Fair play for finally coming out and saying you don’t agree with the grant, though I don’t really understand your reasoning, as your last few paragraphs above got a bit garbled.
I don’t know where to start with this naive tripe.
Maybe put forward a coherent, internally consistent argument and acknowledge where you may not have been correct in your initial post?
How about vom up Blair’s spin on the reasons for the Afghanistan war, eat the chunky carroty bits then try, and fail, to prop up a straw man argument about charities being left wing?
Oh – you’ve done that already.
What I don’t get from your posts, TBB, is why you object to the grant to EACH. It seems to be because EACH is a voluntary organisation rather than directly owned by the state or local authority. Which doesn’t make sense as an objection.
If you think money to support gays is ok but don’t think EACH is the right type of organisation to deliver it what’s your idea of the right organisation?
Unless you are arguing that support for young gays is ‘bonkers’ in which case you seem to be on-message with Richard Eddy.
Aren’t we going around in circles?
It’s about limits to the state dear boy.
The state (which includes state funded charities) cannot hope to directly micromanage our attitudes and behaviour.
Coming from an anarchist background I get quite jumpy when it tries too.
It should stick to making sure there’s no discrimanatory laws and let us get on with it. We’re actually a really easy going people.
If you really think that providing a youth club and support to kids who have been victims of homophobic bullying is an attempt to ‘micro-manage’ your attitudes and behaviour you are drifting into tin-foil-hat territory.
Also, the statement “The state (which includes state funded charities)…” just does not apply in this instance, and I’m disappointed that you keep asserting it without responding to any of the challenges that have been made to this position – as I said before you wouldn’t categorise a charity funded by donations from a business as part of that business, would you? Without defending or explaining this point your whole argument (if you can call it that) is based on a false premise. It is activity & purpose that defines a charity – if you have objections to the activities of this charity please explain – clearly and simply – what they are.
“It should stick to making sure there’s no discrimanatory (sic) laws and let us get on with it. We’re actually a really easy going people.”
Now who’s being naive? I’m sure some of your best friends are gay – but it is a simple fact that huge numbers of people ARE still homophobic, and wide-ranging abuse and discrimination is a daily reality for many gay people, especially children (cf.: ‘gay’ becoming an insult again in playgrounds – and on Radio 1 – over the last decade). Your failure to acknowledge that not everyone in society is treated equally and that some people may therefore need, at times, more support than others does you a disservice.
Why not just admit you have tied yourself in knots over this one and move on?
whats so fuckin’ great about puffs anyway ! all they do is mince around like fuckin’ fairies letching after cock ! we shouldn’t give fairies, foreigners or asylum seekers special treatment over the British legion. send the foreign people home and stop fawning over puffs. Oh Lordy what next free T.V. licences for gaylords and foreigners !
And another thing we all know what happens if we get too ‘liberal’ the likes of Michael Barrymore, Gary Glitter and Stephen Gately to name but a few will start to think it acceptable to have their assbandit gardening party’s fuelled by drugs. The problem with this country is that normal people are in the minority and we have to pander to the gays, somalis and transvestites. If you don’t like this country go back to your own country or go live in a gay village. Why they teach all this fluffy gay crap in our schools I don’t know. This country is on a long spiral downwards and as far as i am concerned the idiots on Bristol City Council are to blame. We deserve a refund for all our taxes spent on thE GAYS, FOREIGNERS AND LAZY bastard croud that seem hell bent on taking over this country !
Taking a break from spouting bile on the Mail, are we?
WOw. Check out Bob’s website! Charming.
I wouldn’t bother. It’s just a front for book sales. No doubt bob and alice are trying to drum up business.
It’s more than that, there’s monetising of click throughs and all manner of SEO going on in that site, all pointed to by some trolling spam here.
Wonder if he earns enough from all this to join the NUJ
*gets coat*
And I fell for it by Tweeting a link. I thought the spelling and punctuation were suspiciously good.
I have no drum. Thanks.
Alice G (Bristol Traffic)
Apologies, but couldn’t see any WOW in the site.