BRADFORD WEST! BHANGEELAAR! tells the Guardian’'s Polly Toynbee that she has to face up to the fact that Blair morally bankrupted the "Labour Party" -

BRADFORD WEST!

BHANGEELAAR! THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST AN ELECTED EXECUTIVE MAYOR IN TOWER HAMLETStells the Guardian’'s Polly Toynbee that she has to face up to the fact that Blair morally bankrupted the "Labour Party" - 5

BHANGEELAAR!

THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST AN ELECTED EXECUTIVE MAYOR IN TOWER HAMLETS

0210 GMT

Tuesday

03 April 2010

To

Polly Toynbee

The Guardian web site

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/02/message-bradford-labour-angrier?newsfeed=true

In deed!
However, you appear "content" with the status quo.
Why are we saying this?
Because you do not refer to rights or to justice or to accountability.
"Restorative justice" is a very tiny part of what the bureaucracy can do in a field that is very wide.
“Restorative justice” is not justice.You refer to "local elections" but omit local people. As you do local democracy. As you leave out democratic audit or accountability.
What is most tellingly absent from your piece is your view on what change should be demanded in the behaviour of the post holders after their elections as MPs or as local councillors.
Which suggests in the context of your own history at the Guardian that by “Labour” needing “to get angrier” you are not primarily talking about ordinary Labour Party members or about ordinary people but about careerists in the Labour Party.
Worse still, you are not even talking about a UK-wide democratic awakening for accountable elected post holders on a sustainable level.
You are focussed on the immediate next polls! “Anger” in a moral sense, will not be engendered this way.
No surprise also that you do not, even contextually, diagnose the democracy-defiict and political bankruptcy of the utter majority of the post holders on the Ed Miliband-fronted “front bench” in the House of Commons.
If you were in Tower Hamlets between February 2010 and polling day in May 2010, you would have seen the bankruptcy of the “Labour”-tag-carrying time-servers. On the then floated “referendum” about a n eec etd executive mayor il the Borough, those “Labour”-tag-carrying time-servers changed their “principled positions” THREE times! And they were aided and abetted in various ways by several CURRENT MPs then and one or two THEN wannabe MPs too! How can these people be “angry” about anything that is moral, ethical and carries or career rewards for them at the end of any give “campaign”? To the absolute majority of the placemen and placewomen in the Blaired bureaucracy now operating as “the Labour Party”, a “campaign” equals activity that leads to a rewarding outcome for the participant. How can these people know [as in: to recognise] what moral outrage or ethical obligations are? To know [as in: to recognise] either, there needs to be the sustained and the permanent establishment of morality, ethics and compassion in the CONDUCT of the Labour Party.
Did Ed Miliband address this as the CORE task in his Midlands-sited “launch” that you positively report in this piece?
And did he spell it out?
Did Ed Miliband by the content of his speech raise the level of moral outrage In his audience against the lethal and the far-reaching CONDEM assault that is currently underway against Society ?
BHANGEELAAR!
THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST AN ELECTED EXECUTIVE MAYOR IN TOWER HAMLETS
0210 GMT
Tuesday
03 April 2010