18 Doughty Street and Ken Livingstone - 26 comments
As you might have noticed, 18 Doughty Street has been publishing adverts through the MessageSpace ad network promoting an "attack ad" on Ken Livingstone. This has failed to go down well on the Labour side, or among those Labour bloggers who accepted ads from 18 Doughty Street on the basis of that site/organisation being a non-partisan political news and discussion service for "adults", rather than the Conservative front organisation it appears to be (why else would anyone want to interview a Tory MP on the make?), and everyone thought it was when it started.
I did reply to Benjy's comment earlier this morning along the lines that I felt our readers were intelligent enough to make their own mind up - and Ken has
Surely, though, if 18 Doughty Street isn't, in fact, a Conservative front organisation, and wants to reach out to all strands of political opinion (in an adult way), then it ought to consider whether the "attack ad" is compatible with its avowed aims, and mightn't be grounds for anti-Conservatives to take their stories, their plugs, and their vox-pops elsewhere - at least until the organisation comes clean about its objectives.
What do people think?
Update (15 Feb @ 1215): Minor edit - too strong before.
Update (15 Feb @ 1328): I foolishly wrote "South American dictators" when I should have said "dictators from South America and the Caribbean".
Labels: 18 Doughty Street, blogging, Ken Livingstone
![[Valid Atom]](http://www.bloggers4labour.org/images/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed")
26 comments so far...
I don't think this is right. There's no doubt that 18DS is a right-wing organisation (whether it's a Conservative party front organisation is open to debate) but then so is the Telegraph. Nobody on the left argues that the Telegraph shouldn't have leaders which criticise or even vilify the Labour party of the left in general. And yet Labour party politicians are quite happy to be interviewed by it, or to have their articles published in it.
You can't argue that left-wingers are not given a fair hearing by 18DS. Indeed, they are given a far fairer hearing than those on the right receive from the BBC.
If those on the left try to disassociate themselves from 18DS they are just cutting themselves off from an outlet for their views. This is self-defeating. You should have the courage of your convictions, and make your case, even it means stepping into the dragon's den.
Does the Labour Party allow The Telegraph to put adverts in its publications telling us what "rubbish" policies and candidates we've got. I think not.
And there's the difference. Whether going on Doughty Street is aiding and abetting or arguing our corner is a different debate.
It's Tory propoganda and will just get far worse nearer an election.
I think you should bin adverts altogether.
Tell us how much it costs to run the site and we'll do a fundraiser to keep it going.
Tom
18DS is taking the piss so much its almost painful watching you debate this.
Try this quote from
http://www.18doughtystreet.com/come_inside
18 Doughty Street is much more than a fine Georgian residence that has been renovated to the highest standards. It truly is a home and not just an office or studio. It is the home of the conservative movement.
As I've said in my post and a previous comment, I don't like the idea, as a Labour Blogger, or right-wing attack ads on London's Labour Mayor.
I'm a bit perplexed about one of your comments about Ken:
"with his embracing of Islamists and South American dictators"
Given that Castro is no more South American than Bob Marley was, and that Chavez is a democratically elected leader, which South American dictators are you thinking of?
Andrew, Tom,
It would be great not to have the ads at all, and to reclaim that space on the page, but I did investigate other ways of funding the organisation and none of them caught on. If people can think of a democratic funding arrangement (e.g. perhaps something like Amazon links, but better) that could, say, make 20 quid a month (about what we make), why not head over to the forum and we'll discuss it there?
Lobster Blogster,
I don't even watch 18DS - perhaps I should have made that clearer. It's largely not having the time/motivation, but I'm also wary of (despite the claims) an over-concern with Westminster gossip.
Graham,
Gah, will amend idiotic reference to Cuba being in South America. Still, I think the right to rule by decree is compatible with the claim about Chavéz being a dictator - at the very least it should send a signal to democratic politicians who wish to court him.
As 18 Dreary Street is quite clearly a partisan organisation, very anti-labour and a little bit pro tory, that actively seeks to influence electoral outcomes - i.e. the Livingstone "attack" film - shouldn't they be registered with the Electoral Commission as a "third party"? Info here:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/thirdparty.cfm
We wouldn't to think they were breaking the laws especially in the light of their stalking of a certain think tank and its charity status?
The other legal challenge could come if they ever decide to bill themselves as "entertainment" ;-)
Regarding 18 Doughty Street, I'm surprised that anyone can write: "whether it's a Conservative party front organisation is open to debate".
The site is financed by Stephan Shakespeare, who was campaign manager for Jeffrey Archer's mayoral bid. Shakespeare stood as a Tory candidate in Colchester in the 1997 general election.
The other co-founder is the well-known Tory blogger Iain Dale. He was the Conservative candidate for Norfolk North in the 2005 general election, and was chief of staff to David Davis in the run-up to the 2005 Tory leadership contest.
Almost all of those involved in 18 Doughty Street have been candidates or employees of the Conservative Party.
The whole thing is a political scam. The site claims to be "anti-establishment" and to "always take the working man's side" (hence the embarrassing mockney voiceover to the anti-Livingstone attack ad). But it's actually run by a bunch of right wing upper class Tories.
The 18 Doughty Street operation is exposed here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/28/british_political_blogging/
Labour Party members shouldn't be assisting 18 Doughty Street in perpetrating this fraud against the electorate.
"South American dictators - and so I'm not sure I've got a very strong reason to demand that those particular ads are taken down."
Issues, issues.
'South American dicators'. Of the 's', please. Chavez has rule by decree, true. But would you call Putin a dictator? Plenty of democratic countries operate this was in short bursts. Moreover, his rght to decree is limited, scrutinised, revocable and awarded by a democratically elected parliament to a democratically elected executive.
I'm not saying that it's right; it must be condemned. But that doesn't make him Mussolini.
"Ken has hardly not always behaved in a way that has united Labour supporters..."
Andrew, name me someone, anyone, who ever has.
You, for the reasons already stated, don't particularly like him, or his politics. Just be strightforward.
When the tories attack Blair, watch me (!) jump to his defence. Your turn now. Unity in London is particularly important in the face of the Tory attack on free bus travel.
Tory attack on Labour mayor, by duplicitous methods and trickeries.
I know which side I'm on.
Geoffrey R Brown
Whether 18DS is a Conservative front organisation depends on what you mean by "Conservative front organisation". To me, the phrase implies that the editorial line comes direct from CCHQ. I don't think this is the case. Yes, it is financed and largely staffed by Conservatives, but this is not a "front". They are quite open about it. Their editorial line is openly Conservative, but as I said they give a very fair hearing to people from other parties, including Labour.
As I said on another thread on this subject: if Labour supporters refuse to have anything to do with 18DS when they know they will be given a fair hearing, it smacks of a lack of confidence in left-wing views. It would be sad for political discourse in this country if we all sit in our separate bubbles, spouting off about how wicked the other side are.
Andrew Brown
Point accepted. I still think this site should take the money. Refusing it seems to me to be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Pecunia non olet, as Tim Worstall pointed out the other day. And anyway, anyone from the left is going to ignore an attack ad from 18DS aren't they?
A conservative front? you got to be joking. It's a center right discussion group nothing else. I doubt 18DS will influence voting either.
If you don't like it, don't watch it or sign up.
Livingstone is the democratically elected LABOUR mayor of London. You're a LABOUR site, and you're debating whether you should remove an attack ad from you site obviously produced by a bunch of Tories? Blimey.
Moreover, Blogger4Labour seem to AGREE with the content of the attack ad: but it is in fact a complete distortion of Livingstone's record as mayor.
Look, there is another aspect too: attack ads generally. This is quite an American phenomenon (at least they go in for them in a big way) and I do hope they don't catch on in such a big way in the UK. It rather debases political discussion. There are examples in the UK - but I generally don'tlike that style of political "debate", whomever produces attack ads.
Such a method is often hyperbolical, distorted and sometimes blatantly fear mongering.
So apart from the specific Livingstone issue, thats another reason why these ads should be removed.
Bishop Hill
Oh, Labour supporters should engage with the Doughty Street crew. Of course. But that does not mean one has to start running their attack ads surely?
Blimey, this is certainly a new line in viral marketing: getting the Labour supporting blogs to run attack ads against Labour figures. Its some achievement.
I doubt 18DS will influence voting either.
So Doughty Street spend money, time and resources on a professionally produced attack ad just for fun? For no effect?
The internet is growing campaign tool, and the ad is designed to circulate and create a distorted view of the mayor using classic propaganda techniques. It seems that some Labour bloggers are quite happy to go along with that.
Well, the more fool you: Doughty Street must be chortling into their cappuccinos. Indeed, from a marketing/advertising/propaganda point of view, it is some achievement.
OK...
I'm not condoning attack ads (then again, are we really saying they're uniquely "hyperbolical, distorted and sometimes blatantly fear mongering"? Surely that's just a function of their living on the Internet, rather than TV), that one in particular, nor am I advocating anyone clicks any of the ads we show (these are adverts for the attack ad, Benjy, not the attack ad itself).
Ultimately, if you duck hard questions for political expediency, you pay for it in the end. This is why I feel I'm quite entitled to flag up concerns with some of Ken's actions, even if that causes discomfort and unpopularity in the short run. Orwell was big on this. It's so much better that people learn from their mistakes than everyone lie/pretend on their behalf. This is does not, however, constitute support the attack ad, or a condemnation of Ken's record as a whole - far from it.
B4L cannot be a propaganda tool for Labour - it couldn't be, and shouldn't be. What we can do, and what we do well, is organise Labour online, spread that offline, and hope to come across as reasonable and intelligent people (which we are). It can't be our responsibility to win votes (which is extremely difficult) - we can try to avoid losing them, but ultimately our aim is organisational, to discuss policy, and to look ahead.
That's fine, and I wasn't suggesting that B4L and Labour blogs become bland, propagandistic tools for the party or that Livingstone should not be criticised.
But advertising Tory attack ads are a different kettle of fish altogether - slick, professionally produced films designed to defeat a Labour mayor and elect a Tory one, and representing a slanted and distorted view of the mayor. Smear and innuendo rather than balanced constructive criticism.
And having viewed the ad, stylistically its very similar to US ones I have seen: negative, ad hom attacks, innuendo and smear.
Adult politics? I don't think so. Doughty Street seem intent on promoting the worst style of campaigning, not the best.
BTW, you are very kind and understanding to the Doughty Street gang, but do you think there will be any reciprocity here?
Do you really think that Doughty Street or Tory blogs will run adverts for attack ads on Tory elected officials or candidates?
Pull the other one, mate, its got bells on it.
Adult politics? I don't think so. Doughty Street seem intent on promoting the worst style of campaigning, not the best.
worst style? ermm..how? 18DS are finding a new way of presenting politics, what is wrong with that?
Who cares! Ken livingstone needs to retire anyway, make way for a new fresh Labour candidate for Mayor of Greater London. Livingstone's finished, he's tired, worn out, lost the plot and every time he opens his mouth he's an embarrassment to the Labour Party! If 18 Doughty Street want to advertise this video I have no objection.
I can't see how this is 'blogging for Labour' if we are going to accept Tory attack ads and give political credence to them such as with comments like Ken has 'not always behaved in a way that has united Labour supporters in his support, with his embracing of Islamists and South American dictators - and so I'm not sure I've got a very strong reason to demand that those particular ads are taken down.'
Well name me a Labour figure who has always at every turn united every Labour supporter. There isn't one. Tony Blair hasn't united all Labour supporters over Iraq. It's not the point.
(By the way, Chavez - who along with Lula of Brazil is the only south American head of state Livingstone has met as mayor - is democratically elected and has won more national votes than any other leading politician currently in power. This is in stark contrast to Bush, who only came to power in the first place because the election was fixed).
It is pointless and counterproductive to chastise Livingstone for meeting people when Labour ministers have to meet people with self-evidently worse records in order to do their jobs. It just concedes grounds to our enemies.
What we should be doing is debunking and refuting Tory attack ads. The ad has been debunked by several blogs and commenters on other sites. It contains an outright lie - that Livingstone is going to spend £2m on a Cuban cultural festival in 2009, based on an Evening Standard invention. It is based on a series of highly partial sources. It uses methods of distortion and guilt by association (eg Qaradawi's views on gay rights, which Livingstone has openly disagreed with, or with Bob Crow who in fact has had a series of high profile run-ins with Livingstone and is not even on the TfL Board any more).
It is right wing and nasty.
We should be attacking the attack not publicising it or conceding to it. The attack comes from a body set up by Jeffrey Archer's former campaign manager for pete's sake.
Honestly, if this is the kind of equivocation that we're going to get as we run up to the mayoral election from supposedly Labour sites then it's about time some blogging for Ken was set up.
Banner4,
The blogosphere'll become a very boring and arid place if we all spend our time proselytising rather than thinking. We support Labour because the people are good, the principles and policies right/the best we can achieve. If this is going to continue to apply we need to challenge bad people/policies/thinking for our own good, as well as promote the things that are good. Sure, the Tories might have a few laughs for a while, but the alternative is that we put off the problem for another, more critical time. This is why B4L aims to offer positive, constructive, criticism of our own side.
What does it say about the people (or the content) if you think the attack ad will work? How can we hope to suppress it? On the contrary, we should prepare for it, and challenge all lies/errors/manipulation, as the temperature's only going to rise before the next Election.
No ones asking you to suppress them across the board. But you can refuse to host Tory attack ads on your site: attack ads that contain lies smears, innuendo and distortion, and contribute nothing to the constructive criticism that you apparently support. Its your choice, don't pretend otherwise: you can stop these ads on your site. You choose not to. As you say, there little financial incentive; hence the incentive is political.
One can only conclude therefore that you choose to continue displaying such lies and innuendo because a. you presumably think it's okay to attack Livingstone (or any politician) in such a way and/or b. you view it as a form of "debate".
But it's not okay. Not only is it inaccurate and presents a completely distorted view of Livingstone in particular, but such attack ads generally pollute not enhance debate.
But Doughty Street and Tory blogs are not such mugs as to allow space for attack ads against Tory elected officials and candidates - so this is a strictly one way street. But it seems some in the Labour blogosphere are quite happy to do the Tories work despite the lack of reciprocity. Must be a form of masochism. So be it.
You choose not to. As you say, there little financial incentive; hence the incentive is political.
No, maybe I just don't think it matters very much. That's not incompatible with my belief that the readership is sufficiently smart not to fall for lies. OK, that is a slight cop-out. I'll add, though, the fact that those particular ads aren't showing now anyway. Also, we - the wider B4L - are evaluating whether or not we need ads at all, and so all ads may soon disappear. That's also a slight cop-out, as we should be able to resolve these questions without hiding them just because we're suddenly able to.
Strictly speaking reciprocity is as irrelevant as whether you ask a friend to join you in playing Russian Roulette. Obviously there must come a point where a side that wants to be truthful and moral will simply be trampled-on by a devious or affluent opponent, but that's one of life's many injustices. I'm not a politician, so I'm not sure where to draw that line, but I can be swayed by public opinion.
Bloggers4Labour wrote:
'What does it say about the people (or the content) if you think the attack ad will work? How can we hope to suppress it?.'
It's not a question of thinking the attack ad will work it's a question of opposing it, both as a method that is not welcome (ie apeing the worst of US-style negative campaigning) and in terms of its content and agenda. It is designed to get the agenda onto something other than the positive agenda that Londoners want to talk about and that Labour/Ken will be putting to them - transport, neighbourhood policing, climate change and so on. We should resist this Tory attempt to change the agenda. In fact as the ITV London coverage showed, the ad has gone down badly - we should be saying that too.
It shows the Tories have nothing positive to say and are still the nasty party.
We should be talking positively about what Ken Livingstone has delivered, what his third term will do for London, and explaining to Londoners what the Tory alternative is, such as the attempt to abolish free bus travel for children:
http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=10870
http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=10831
We should be getting local Labour parties, Young Labour groups and trade unions out campaigning on this issue - it is a very clear dividing line with the Tory party.
Nor is it a question of 'suppressing' it. It just shouldn't be advertised all over a pro-Labour site. It's concretely no different from having an SWP, Respect or LibDem ad all over the site. Or, to use a different example, it's like having Tory ads on your Labour Party branch notice. No thanks!
Let's have posts about what's wrong with the ad, not ads for the ad.
'On the contrary, we should prepare for it, and challenge all lies/errors/manipulation, as the temperature's only going to rise before the next Election.'
Exactly, that's what people here have been saying. But challenging the 'lies/errors/manipulation' is hardly helped with comments such as Ken has 'not always behaved in a way that has united Labour supporters in his support, with his embracing of Islamists and South American dictators - and so I'm not sure I've got a very strong reason to demand that those particular ads are taken down.'
This is not challenging it, it's caving in to it.
'This is why I feel I'm quite entitled to flag up concerns with some of Ken's actions.'
Fine, but actually what you did was criticise Ken Livingstone over such things as "South American dictators", precisely the agenda of the ad.
The only South American leaders Livingstone has met are President Lula of Brazil and President Chavez of Venezuela, both democratically elected.
In relation to Cuba, which is in the Caribbean, Ken Livingstone has never met Castro. But his position is little different from that of other Labour figures such as Brian Wilson and can hardly be said to be outside of a legitimate Labour framework.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2008091,00.html
The issue of Chavez will come up in very specific way. Livingstone has said he wants to deliver an oil arrangement with the Venezuelans to reduce the costs of running London's bus service and therefore reduce some fares - in return for providing the Venezuelans with city-management expertise.
If he succeeds I hope Bloggers4Labour will back it.
I would just like to add that I don't think 18 Doughty Street is all bad: I don't agree with its general right wing agenda, but it has some interesting programmes and discussions on it.
This, for me, is really specifically about those anti-Labour attack ads, which I don't think are appropriate on Labour blogs.
Post a Comment
<< Home