Labour Mayor of London Ken Livingstone’s online message ahead of the 1 May London elections.
Archive for April, 2008
How do we deliver equality in the 21st century?
How do we deliver equality in the 21st century? The wealthiest 1% of the population owns 21% of the nation’s wealth; the bottom 50% own 7%; recently it’s been shown that health inequalities have grown; the government faces controversy over abolition of the 10p tax rate; this year’s budget pledged an extra £1.7bn in the fight against child poverty: whilst a recent report warned that child poverty could double over the next 2 decades; 67% of ethnic minority communities live in the 88 most deprived wards; the median gender pay gap has reduced from 17.4% in 1997 to 12.6% in 2007.
The purpose of this year’s Compass national conference on Saturday 14 June will be to make the case for a more equal society and help change the terms of debate towards greater equality for all across a broad-range of policy areas.
Olympic Torch Protests – Politics and Sports are One
Labour London Assembly Member, Jennette Arnold AM, argues that you cannot divorce sport from politics.
I had planned to join the celebrations welcoming the Olympic torch to London but in the end GLA campaign work took over. Reflecting on the debate and the protests during the day (the torch relay that is, not the GLA campaign!) I was left feeling that most of the coverage had missed the point.
We cannot divorce sport from politics and should not try. People often confuse ‘politics’ for the knock about of Prime Ministers Questions. Real politics is a serious business; it’s about values and choices. It leads to decisions about how we educate our children, care for our elders, look after the environment – and it provides the context in which we live our lives, and establishes the rights and responsibilities we have as citizens.
Sport, especially international sport, shares this context. That is not to suggest that everything that happens in a sporting context is right. Just looking at the Olympic context, who can excuse the murder of Israeli athletes at Munich in 1972? Equally, who could not be cheered by Jesse Owen’s success in Berlin 1936 – a black man beating the so-called ‘master race’? Black civil rights issues reached the medal platform in Mexico 1968 and an American led boycott in 1980 resulted in over 60 countries not sending athletes to Moscow. There are many other examples outside the Olympics and the sports boycott of South Africa is only one.
40 years ago today
40 years ago today the legendary US Civil Rights leader, Dr Martin Luther King Jnr, was assassinated on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee.
He delivered his last speech – “I’ve been to the mountain top” – the day before at the Mason Temple in Memphis and, in closing, had said:
“Well, I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn’t matter with me now. Because I’ve been to the mountaintop. And I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land.”
To mark the occasion, we have included an extract of that last speech here:
Counter-Terrorism Bill to get its second reading in Parliament
Amnesty International have released a letter signed by a host of high-profile figures voicing their opposition to the Government’s plans to extend pre-charge detention limits to 42 days in the Counter-Terrorism Bill, before it gets its second reading in Parliament today.
Signatories to the letter include Patrick Stewart, Vivienne Westwood, Colin Firth, A C Grayling, Iain Banks, Ken Loach, Sir David Hare, Nick Broomfield, John le Carre and Labour peer Lord Ahmed.
The letter calls on the Government to abandon proposals in the Counter-Terrorism Bill to further extend pre-charge detention to 42 days. It states that extending the limit would damage community relations and undermine human rights protected by international law. It concludes:
