View Full Version : Lambeth Labour's nasty attacks on candidates
First of all they attack Charles Anglin for being gay and posing naked on a website - this is available in the Google cache but even Lambeth Labour seem to have become embarrassed by this so have taken it down.
Originally posted by Lambeth Labour Councillor Anglin was previously responsible for Community Safety in Lambeth and represents highly marginal Princes Ward on the Council. Since losing the parliamentary election to Labour, he clearly has too much free time on his hands. Councillor Anglin's self-penned profile is illustrated with several explicit naked pictures of the Princes ward member…erm....sorry…we mean the member for Princes Ward!
Now they're attacking Adeline Aina (Lib Dem candidate in Vassall - North Brixton - where Labour are very afraid of losing a seat) for being evicted from her flat by the council because she didn't live there. They've forgotten to mention that she wasn't living there because in rapid succession she was away a while looking after a dying parent, followed by recovering from breast cancer. Obviously this hasn't stopped them carpeting the ward in leaflets calling her undeserving of a flat. :mad:
aurora green
26-04-2006, 07:11
Oh come on...don't you think Anglin was kind of setting himself up for it..?
It's hard to have any sympathy for a councillor who actually poses naked for a gay magazine....What ever was he thinking? Sounds like fair game to me.
Donna Ferentes
26-04-2006, 07:47
There's no nastier party in local elections than the Liberal Democrats.
Oh come on...don't you think Anglin was kind of setting himself up for it..?
It's hard to have any sympathy for a councillor who actually poses naked for a gay magazine....What ever was he thinking? Sounds like fair game to me.
Wasn't a magazine - was a dating website.
Streathamite
26-04-2006, 08:47
come off it Bob, politics - local or national - has never been a game for the ethically pure. I could tell a few about Libdems too.
aurora green
26-04-2006, 08:50
Wasn't a magazine - was a dating website.
Oh, that's so much more sensible....
William of Walworth
26-04-2006, 09:01
come off it Bob, politics - local or national - has never been a game for the ethically pure. I could tell a few about Libdems too.
Bob you've got a vested interest (admit it, man!) in painting the Lib Dems as purer than pure and in pretending that ONLY your main opponents (Labour) get up to this sort of thing. I can tell you for a FACT (from Southwark), that it ain't as onesided as that.
William of Walworth
26-04-2006, 09:02
There's no nastier party in local elections than the Liberal Democrats.
Agreed. I always thought they weren't as bad in Lambeth as in Southwark, but they're light on ethical campaigning (in local elections) everywhere :mad:
memespring
26-04-2006, 09:54
Agreed. I always thought they weren't as bad in Lambeth as in Southwark, but they're light on ethical campaigning (in local elections) everywhere :mad:
Very true, but that's not a justification for having a go at Anglin is it?
The substance of the SLP story (http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0400lambeth/tm_objectid=16883732&method=full&siteid=50100&headline=a-very-liberal-democrat-name_page.html) (from an annonymous tip off) is basically "uuurrhh, gay!" which is a bit pathetic. I don't think he's ever made a secret of being gay, and since pretty much every other single gay man in London seems to be on Gaydar it's hardly a shock.
William of Walworth
26-04-2006, 09:56
Very true, but that's not a justification for having a go at Anglin is it?
Did I say it was? Please point to where.
It was Bob I was having a go at! ;)
memespring
26-04-2006, 10:00
Did I say it was? Please point to where.
It was Bob I was having a go at! ;)
Sorry, I didnt mean you I meant the paper/labour.
William of Walworth
26-04-2006, 10:18
Sorry, I didnt mean you I meant the paper/labour.
Labour can be pretty sleazy at times true.
Little as I like Labour anyway, I would make a case for them having learnt some of their worst tricks off the Lib Dems**, who've been doing it for years in some areas ... ;)
</contentious!>
**probably not sustainable as a serious argument. But still, it ill behoves the Lib Dems in inner city local elections to get all sanctimonious and holier than thou, when the sleaze tables are turned on them -- not that I think there should be any sleazy tricks at all ...
"Since losing the parliamentary election to Labour, he clearly has too much free time on his hands."
Sounds like they implying that there is something wrong with having a profile on gaydar. Pretty feeble excuse to raise the issue of someone's sexuality in an election.
I really don't care which party members wrote this: I think we should jump on this kind of shit *whenever* and *wherever* it arises, regardless of which party (if any) we support.
I can't see what someone's sexuality or personal life has got to do with someone standing for election or whether they's make a good councillor. It is really nasty to start bringing personal details into political debates - we would't put up with it here on urban75, so why the fuck should we tolerate it in supposedly 'grown-up' and 'serious' public life?
:rolleyes:
Kid_Eternity
26-04-2006, 13:25
There's no nastier party in local elections than the Liberal Democrats.
Never heard of the BNP then?
Donna Ferentes
26-04-2006, 13:58
Promising, but they'll have to be around for a long time before they catch up with the Lib Dems.
Did I say it was? Please point to where.
It was Bob I was having a go at! ;)
Feel free to post up some evidence then. Absolutely delighted to see it.
William of Walworth
26-04-2006, 17:04
No time for this now. But I was mainly talking about past elections tbh.
William of Walworth
26-04-2006, 17:12
I really don't care which party members wrote this: I think we should jump on this kind of shit *whenever* and *wherever* it arises, regardless of which party (if any) we support.
I can't see what someone's sexuality or personal life has got to do with someone standing for election or whether they's make a good councillor. It is really nasty to start bringing personal details into political debates - we would't put up with it here on urban75, so why the fuck should we tolerate it in supposedly 'grown-up' and 'serious' public life?
:rolleyes:
On reflection, I should apologise to Bob to some extent I think.
It's not acceptable that this attack on a Lib Dem candidate is happening now. Nothing I said was intended to imply otherwise.
But it is true, that in PAST local elections, similar stuff has been happening, initiated by the Lib Dems.
No one is pure in this. I misinterpreted Bob's initial post as part of a fairly common/traditional Lib Dem habit (in part elections, especially in Southwark) of implying they're the cleaner than clean, purer than pure ones -- ie reacting in outrage at no doubt unpleasant attacks on their own candidates, while indulging in pretty sleazy stuff themselves in the same elections.
Others with more time right now may be more clued up on particular examples -- possibly Lambeth specific?? -- I can get back to it another time myself.
Streathamite
26-04-2006, 17:31
bob, to have the libdems complaining about their opponents dorty low-road campaigning is like hearing Kelly brooks shout in scandalised tones 'for godsakes, cover yer tits up love' at one of her rivals....
A quiz.
Which party can it have been that, in the 1998 Lambeth elections, ran a campaign alleging that a tory councillor, who wasn't defending his seat at the election, had 'abandoned' the ward and hadn't done any advice surgeries in the preceding months?
Could it have been the same party that knew that said tory councillor was in a hospice dying of cancer and did, in fact, die days after polling day?
You bet it was.
And can you name the party?
Clue: their little orange, diamond shaped posters come out like a rash of measles at election time.
The Labour Party campaign is pretty disreputable but, for God's sake, please don't get self-righteous about it.
Could it have been the same party that knew that said tory councillor was in a hospice dying of cancer and did, in fact, die days after polling day?
How can you be sure they knew?
Come on! We can say that something is wrong and undesirable (ie bringing someone's sexuality and private life into the debate) whomever is doing it, and we should. It is just no good enough to say "Well its OK because they did it first" or "I am not going to condemn it because the other side are wankers as well".
Both things may be true but it doesn't make it OK we should still condemn the action without qualification or excuse.
I would hope that if someone from a party I suppoirted did something wrong I would be big enough to admit that it was wrong, try to get them to cease and desist, offer an apology and never do it again. Offering excuses and pointing to another load of hypocrites just drags things further into the gutter and makes the public even more cynical about political parties than they are already.
There are enough important issues to fight elections on without introducing rubbishy issues, negative campaigning, personal attacks and tit-for-tat hand-bag fights.
I'd rather assumed that since the Conservatives weren't mentioned in the Anglin article in the SLP, they must have planted it! It was one of the few political pieces in that paper not to have a reference to Johnny Whelan somewhere :D
Come on! We can say that something is wrong and undesirable (ie bringing someone's sexuality and private life into the debate) whomever is doing it, and we should. It is just no good enough to say "Well its OK because they did it first" or "I am not going to condemn it because the other side are wankers as well".
Both things may be true but it doesn't make it OK we should still condemn the action without qualification or excuse.
I would hope that if someone from a party I suppoirted did something wrong I would be big enough to admit that it was wrong, try to get them to cease and desist, offer an apology and never do it again. Offering excuses and pointing to another load of hypocrites just drags things further into the gutter and makes the public even more cynical about political parties than they are already.
There are enough important issues to fight elections on without introducing rubbishy issues, negative campaigning, personal attacks and tit-for-tat hand-bag fights.
Teejay - just to say how nice it is to be on the same side of an argument with you for a change. :D
William of Walworth
28-04-2006, 14:58
Teejay - just to say how nice it is to be on the same side of an argument with you for a change. :D
I'm not sure you are.
TeeJay is (correctly) condemning negative campaigning by all parties, you're introducing an example of it (which sounds pretty bad I agree) directed at your own party by another party that you want to present, by implication at least, as uniquely bad.
As Mr BC and others say, the Lib Dem track record on sleazy local government campiagning in some elections in some places, has been appalling.
To point this out (>>>TeeJay) is NOT to say that it's OK for Labour, or anyone else, to get down and dirty with the sleazy stuff, or to excuse them in any other way. Just to point out that the Lib Dems' own condemnation of it is weakened by their own track record.
When I used to be active with Labour a (good) few years back, in Southwark, in MY ward at least, the local Labour people had a policy of NO negative campaigning.
The Lib Dems had no such policy there, at that time, and won three councillors off Labour, the sleazy innuendos were almost certainly a contributory factor. Some of the stuff they printed in their leaflets was borderline slanderous, and definitely highly negative and distorting ...
[QUOTE=Bob]First of all they attack Charles Anglin for being gay and posing naked on a website - this is available in the Google cache but even Lambeth Labour seem to have become embarrassed by this so have taken it down.
QUOTE]
I saw this article in SLP.The Lambeth Labour party did themselves no credit by making an issue of it.I expect they regret it now that the Labour party is telling the press to lay off Prescotts personal life.
I also find it it depressing that Lambeth Labour implied that whilst they arent against Gays they didnt think it was "appropriate" for a Councillor to advertise on Gaydar.
The serious point here is that New Labour have made a big thing about supporting "Ordinary Decent Families".I find their whole emphasis on this small c conservative.Its like saying that "decent" people dont advertise for casual sex.That gays are OK as long as they are discreet and in long term relationships-behaving like "ordinary decent people".
The LibDems dont have a great record on this either.All the main parties pander to a narrow agenda on sexuality-even though they all subscribe to "diversity".
Still Anglin is rather photogenic:D .
William of Walworth
01-05-2006, 21:12
The LibDems dont have a great record on this either.All the main parties pander to a narrow agenda on sexuality-even though they all subscribe to "diversity".
Entirely agree ... :mad:
lostexpectation
01-05-2006, 21:19
Originally posted by Lambeth Labour Councillor Anglin was previously responsible for Community Safety in Lambeth and represents highly marginal Princes Ward on the Council. Since losing the parliamentary election to Labour, he clearly has too much free time on his hands. Councillor Anglin's self-penned profile is illustrated with several explicit naked pictures of the Princes ward member…erm....sorry…we mean the member for Princes Ward!
I not surprised the photos would use to poke fun at the guy but look what they said
reviously responsible for Community Safety in Lambeth
is the community safe with this exhibitionist gay guy they ask??? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.