Lutfur Rahman: Bangladeshis are the new boilermakers
Posted on Monday 4 October, 2010
Filed Under New Labour
LUTFUR Rahman is an Islamic fascist entrist who rigged his selection as Labour candidate for mayor of Tower Hamlets by signing up 200 predominantly Muslim members from outside the borough. That’s how his detractors see things, anyway.
The alternative take is that Lutfur Rahman is simply a politically committed Muslim with widespread support among the local Bangladeshi community, which he legitimately sought to mobilise so that he can represent their aspirations at town hall level. The National Executive’s decision to overturn his fair and square victory is blatant racism.
I have no idea which account comes closer to the truth. Even though I live in an adjoining borough, only two or three miles away from where all this has been happening, the world of Tower Hamlets Labour politics remains, as ever, impenetrable to outsiders.
Clearly these charges are serious and need to be investigated. If substantiated, they are to my mind of sufficient gravity to disbar Rahman from running on a Labour ticket. On the other hand, the NEC plainly acted precipitously, without allowing him the due process to which he is entitled.
It also needs to be said that if he did do what he is accused of doing, he can hardly be said to have exceeded some of the past practices of Labour municipal clienteleism.
I write those words as a Labour Party member, of course. But there is no point in swooning like a crudely-propositioned Victorian maiden at the contention that in many locations, Labour local authorities have previously done things that would have made Boss Tweed blush.
This was most obvious in some working class northern towns, where one industry with one major union dominated the economy, leaving the officials of that union in control of the Labour Party machine.
Some became twentieth century rotten boroughs, in which a Westminster hopeful could get a seat for life on the union’s say so. Such mechanisms were common enough until the 1990s, and shocked few at the time.
Nobody said much because this system worked largely in favour of the old school Labour right, who thus commanded a cadre of beer-gutted middle-aged white men in parliament ,who would unquestionably do what they were told.
This type of set up reached its apex under Andy Cunningham, the legendary GMWU fixer in the north east, who died earlier this year, aged 100. Corruption, especially in local government construction contracts, was endemic. That’s how come Nuclear Jack’s dad ended up doing time.
It probably is no accident that the Newham tower blocks that had to be demolished in the 1980s after the collapse of Ronan Point were all part of the Freemasons Estate. The Brotherhood used to have Labour-controlled Newham stitched up more tightly than Liverpool under the Millies.
And one of the central issues in the Monklands East by-election in 1994 was the allegation that Labour-run Monklands District Council systematically discriminated in favour of Catholics when handing out the jobs.
It is not the democratic left’s task to defend these traditions. But if a gun was held to my head and I was forced to concoct an argument in their favour, I would say that at least they made for a rough-and-ready means of working class representation.
Back when a fair old chunk of Tyneside was made up of shipyard workers, there is a lot to be said for policies that broadly benefit boilermakers, even if a few corners had to be cut to get them. The Labour right knew that damn well, and made sure that they always delivered the (frequently shoddy) goods.
This brings me back to the Lutfur Rahman affair. Given the ethnic composition of Tower Hamlets, some interests in the local Labour Party will be tempted to regard Bangladeshis as the new boilermakers. It is a temptation that is better avoided.
<<Go back
Comments
24 Responses to “Lutfur Rahman: Bangladeshis are the new boilermakers”
Leave a Reply
Some interesting points Dave, but you haven’t mentioned anything about the suspicion Rahman has aroused; namely his ties with the Islamic Forum of Europe, a group with links to the East London Mosque, who in turn have unchallenging, uncritical links to Jamaat-e-Islami – founded in Bangladesh. One has to choose ones friends wisely, I’m sure you’ll agree.
Indeed Rahman hasn’t tried to play down these links, giving Andrew Gilligan more and more reason to suspect truth. Given a recent blog entry of his reciting the leak that all six of Rahman’s “official nominators to be mayor of Tower Hamlets are people with the same names as senior office-holders and trustees of the Islamic Forum of Europe”, it doesn’t look like Gilligan is going to back down.
Perhaps the least you could do is support further investigation, Dave. Do you?
*giving Andrew Gilligan more and more reason to *their* suspect truth
I’m sorry *giving Andrew Gilligan more and more reason to suspect *their* truth
Carl
IFE are the ‘fascist entrists’ alluded to in the first paragraph.
As I said, the charges are of sufficient gravity to merit impartial investigation.
But Rahman has now quit and decided to run as an independent.
I would put this affair down to good ol fashioned racism.
But I am sure a further witchhunt, sorry investigation, will not satisfy the Islamo fascist finder generals.
Thanks for replying Dave, sorry to take up three entries.
Rahman’s got links to Jamaat-e-Islami? The horror! Deselect the rotter immediately. Well, call the Independent Party and have them deselect him, then!
What’s that, Skippy? Rahman’s got links to the IFE, who have links to the East London Mosque, which has got links to Jamaat-e-Islami? Is that the best they’ve got? I find this new homeopathic approach to evidence strangely intriguing.
Dean. The oldest excuse in the world is I am being witch hunted. Kind of deflects away from investigating corruption where it exists. The so called left have to face the evidence like anyone else. You do yourself no good Dean suggesting the race card. Put the evidence forward instead of innuendo.
All this scandal-mongering has had the unfortunate effect of drawing attention away from a more fundamental question which needs to be asked: Should we consider it acceptable that people who associate with the politics openly espoused by the IFE (completely disregarding their links to the Bangladeshi far-right) feel the Labour Party is their home?
Being a new member of the Labour Party I wouldn’t want to campaign for a man who considers IFE anything but hostile to the values of his campaign.
“And one of the central issues in the Monklands East by-election in 1994 was the allegation that Labour-run Monklands District Council systematically discriminated in favour of Catholics when handing out the jobs.”
Actually the issue was that the town of Airdrie was discriminated against compared to the town of Coatbridge, an issue first raised by Catholic Labour politicians in Airdrie.
However as Coatbridge is about 60% Catholic, and Airdrie ‘only’ 40% Catholic, the media spun this as a sectarian issue, using the towns reputations for fuel, and the SNP were seen as fanning the flames too.
“the collapse of Ronan Point were all part of the Freemasons Estate. The Brotherhood used to have Labour-controlled Newham stitched up”
Ronan Point was named after Harry Ronan, who worked for the National Housing and Town Planning Council. East Ham built several estates in Essex. West Ham, like Salford, built high and hardly laid a brick outside its boundaries.
The ws a Town Hal Masoinic Loidge in Newham, but that was broklen in the early 1980s. I hear that Masons now discourage such Lodges. Very wise.
oh good point Phil, only I’m a socialist and member of the Labour Party and I, much like Simon, don’t fancy the prospect of Islamist entryists operating the party in local branches. Surely you can understand that, no?
As a medium-term Labour Party member, I don’t like the thought of hardcore zionists, US Republican-loving nukeheads or Thatcherites determined to privatise everything own being in the Party. But if they win an internal election fair and square there’s not much I can do about it, and so far I’ve seen no actual evidence of Rahman’s selection being anything but fair.
In fact, come to that, I’ve seen no evidence of him being an Islamist entryist other than a few vague insinuations by noted Muslim-basher (and famously inaccurate journalist) Andrew Gilligan. Anyone want to provide me with anything concrete?
Danny. The Monklands affair was divisive deliberate propaganda by a political elite. If my memory serves me well it was an attempt at having a go at Tom Clark MP. The whisperers never came clean and named themselves. The majority of people in Monklands laughed at the allegations. I do not have evidence to say it was the Tories. It has nothing to do with the potential London Mayoral election candidates. Evidence not gossip is required.
West Ham, like Salford, built high and hardly laid a brick outside its boundaries.
@ Alan Ji: perhaps you’re getting both Hams confused. I was brought up on one of many so-called “West Ham Estates”, built in what was then Essex. Ok – they were prefabs, and contained “hardly a brick”, but I don’t think you were referring to the mode of building used.
“suspicion Rahman has aroused; namely his ties with the Islamic Forum of Europe, a group with links to the East London Mosque, who in turn have unchallenging, uncritical links to Jamaat-e-Islami – founded in Bangladesh”
What an amazing sentance.
Aside from the by now familiar method of piling up associations, the last link in the chain seems to be inaccurate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaat-e-Islami
If you aim to be the 21st century version of an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist you might as well get the odd fact right.
“If you aim to be the 21st century version of an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist you might as well get the odd fact right.”
You mean like Gilad Atzmon, JohnG?
So what is the SWP’s views of that well known racist, Atzmon, who they hosted for 4+ years?
Come on, JohnG, if you are going to bring up this topic you could at least tell us about the SWP’s expertise in the matter? That is helping to push Atzmon’s racism, for over 4 years….
“Come on, JohnG, if you are going to bring up this topic you could at least tell us about the SWP’s expertise in the matter”
Modernity, this could easily be levelled at you. Why do you only tell us about Atzmon and the SWP??
I have posted extensively on Atzmon’s racism, as any elementary use of Google would indicate, see http://bit.ly/cgYZ4z
More’s the pity that the SWP are still in denial about Atzmon.
Try again, mod.
It’s not just about ‘political corruption’ though, is it?
On Jamaat and the East London Mosque, see http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-protest/bangladeshi_3715.jsp
On Jamaat in general, see http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/jamaat-leaders-arrested-for-genocide/
Moddy, I agree that the SWP were bang out of order hosting and promoting Gilad Atzmon. The SWP was thoroughly dishonest in its entire handling of the whole business. But then didn’t your hero David Toube take Atzmon out for a drink because the former sees the named Jews that Atzmon attacks as a bigger threat to the various forms of racism that you both support than Atzmon could ever be?
The problem for those of us who are sincere in our opposition to all forms of racism is that the zionist movement that you support so uncritically has falsely accused so many principled anti-racists of antisemitism, when a real wolf appeared no one would even believe anti-zionist Jews when they decried him.
Obviously the SWP leadership knew exactly what Atzmon’s worldview was and yet they covered for him. But many ordinary members of the SWP had never heard of him and still haven’t and they certainly weren’t going to believe allegations of antisemitism against the SWP that as far as they knew had been in circulation since the 1970s.
The SWP has also done an Engage/Harry’s Place and airbrushed their previous statements on Atzmon, though they can be found here. But you don’t criticise Engage. You don’t ask for peer reviews of Alan Dershowitz or David Hirsh or David Toube or Richard Littlejohn.
So now we have Gilad Atzmon masquerading as a victim of zionist smears. The SWP should take responsibility for its role but zionists too have a case to answer. They (including you) have cried wolf for too long.
The moral of the story in your case moddy (and in the case of this blog) is that if you base your politics on red-baiting and ethno-religious scaremongering you’ll only end up confusing people or worse.
I know I said I wouldn’t be back here because it attracts racist hypocrites like moddy, but there used to be others who picked up on his breathtaking hypocrisy before I had even noticed it.
Woops. I just noticed Dean asking why moddy only goes on about Atzmon and the SWP and nothing else. I see moddy has already dodged the question but supporters of ethnic cleansing like moddy and his friends have been accusing the SWP of antisemitism for decades now and yet Atzmon is the only example they have. But he is an example and that is why the SWP should never have given a platform to Atzmon and why they should admit that they were wrong. If they don’t, then racist hypocrites like moddy can distract attention from wars, ethnic cleansing, tortures, spending cuts, job losses, and so it goes on, whenever a known SWP member contributes to any thread and all because the SWP knowingly hosted an antisemitic celebrity.
Finally, good news! There’s a letter in today’s Guardian calling on Ed Milliband not to follow the modern Labour Party tradition of patronising the ethnic cleansers of the Jewish National Fund. Which brings us back to the topic of entryism. If you are a group which shares some tenets with fascism then you shouldn’t try entering the Labour Party at the grass roots level. You should simply invite the leader to become an honorary patron of your group.
” If you are a group which shares some tenets with fascism then you shouldn’t try entering the Labour Party at the grass roots level. You should simply invite the leader to become an honorary patron of your group.”
I think it is essentialm that the author of those words tells us who, precisely, he is talking about.
Who are these fascists, levi9909?