14th November Movement for Left Unity

[nino_savatte]

TUSC knows it's utterly fucked? Well that's some kind of insight I guess

What?

 

[butchersapron]

No they're not. The only 45 obsessed people are people like you. For God's sake this the working class really love and yearn for my party, they just don't fully realise it stuff is possibly your worst yet. You do not live in the real world. Again, the only people who need to ask themselves such a question are people like you. Everyone else has gone home.

 

[Pickman's model]

a significant % of the w/c will STILL (in 2015!) look to the election of a Labour government as the only way of kicking out the Tories/LDs and punishing them for the austerity they have inflicted (even if they recognise that what Labour is offering is a slightly ameliorated version of much the same thing).

But even those, possibly especially those, really pissed off with what Labour is offering are alienated *precisely because* they are judging it in relation to the efforts of the 45 government - like Loach. So they have to answer how it's more possible for a new formation to begin from scratch (without the institutional support of a major section organised Labour movement, the financial/political advantages that provides, and the degree of established public profile it enjoys) and make what is essentially a re-formed Labour party work where the orginal hasn't....

if this is what passes for politics in the labour party then its no wonder that people aren't voting FOR it but AGAINST the opposition. it's this sort of facile and shallow analysis which saw the labour party act as the biggest recruiting sergeant for the bnp in the 00's.

 

[articul8]

The real world is a world of people distressed at having the welfare state smashed to pieces, their NHS privatised and at breaking point, their local services taken away etc. Yes New Labour has been complicit in that - but people remember what a radical (reformist) Labour government can achieve. Now, of course the 45 government operated in an entirely different context, and the social basis of the party was different, the weight of the trade union moment was different etc. Neither the Labour left, nor the electoral left outside Labour aiming at a "phoenix from the flames Labour Party Mk II" has really got to grips with what that means I acknowledge that. But to say that Labour is irrelevant or present only as a hostile force in working class lives is one-sided to say the least.

 

[Pickman's model]

The real world is a world of people distressed at having the welfare state smashed to pieces, their NHS privatised and at breaking point, their local services taken away etc. Yes New Labour has been complicit in that - but people remember what a radical (reformist) Labour government can achieve. Now, of course the 45 government operated in an entirely different context, and the social basis of the party was different, the weight of the trade union moment was different etc. Neither the Labour left, nor the electoral left outside Labour aiming at a "phoenix from the flames Labour Party Mk II" has really got to grips with what that means I acknowledge that. But to say that Labour is irrelevant or present only as a hostile force in working class lives is one-sided to say the least.

people don't give a fuck about the '45 gov outside your little bubble. people give a fuck about the here and now. are you too thick to understand that? i think you are.

 

[nino_savatte]

*coughs* Stockholm Syndrome *coughs*

 

[butchersapron]

The real world is a world of people distressed at having the welfare state smashed to pieces, their NHS privatised and at breaking point, their local services taken away etc. Yes New Labour has been complicit in that - but people remember what a radical (reformist) Labour government can achieve. Now, of course the 45 government operated in an entirely different context, and the social basis of the party was different, the weight of the trade union moment was different etc. Neither the Labour left, nor the electoral left outside Labour aiming at a "phoenix from the flames Labour Party Mk II" has really got to grips with what that means I acknowledge that. But to say that Labour is irrelevant or present only as a hostile force in working class lives is one-sided to say the least.

My god, let go of that moustache on Attlee's chin.

 

[articul8]

people don't give a fuck about the '45 gov outside your little bubble. people give a fuck about the here and now. are you too thick to understand that? i think you are.

d'oh the here and now is the effects of unwinding the 45 settlement

 

[Pickman's model]

d'oh the here and now is the effects of unwinding the 45 settlement

excuse me, you were pissing on about the 45 government and now you seem to be talking about something else. there never was a settlement in 1945. so please don't embarrass yourself by continuing to pretend there was.

 

[articul8]

there never was a settlement in 1945. so please don't embarrass yourself by continuing to pretend there was.

you what? What is the crisis of austerity other than the an intensification of the attack on the social wage and unwinding of the welfare state/public service model of capitalism (the post 45 settlement) that began after 73?

 

[Pickman's model]

you what? What is the crisis of austerity other than the an intensification of the attack on the social wage and unwinding of the welfare state/public service model of capitalism that began after 73?

so what was the settlement of 1945? pls point me to a contemporary source.

 

[articul8]

there was a post-45 settlement, under the ausipices of the Atlee government - but which came to be accepted as irreversible by the Tories - which effectively held until 73 when it started to come under attack with monetarist, and neoliberal, attacks driven forward by the IMF.

 

[J Ed]

What message do Labour have to offer the former Labour voters who are turning to UKIP? For that matter, what message do Labour have to offer anyone other than career advancement for aspiring politicians with no conscience?

 

[Pickman's model]

there was a post-45 settlement, under the ausipices of the Atlee government - but which came to be accepted as irreversible by the Tories - which effectively held until 73 when it started to come under attack with monetarist, and neoliberal, attacks driven forward by the IMF.

no, not the "post-45 settlement" - whatever that may be - tell me more about the 45 settlement of post 1238.

 

[emanymton]

compared to TUSC?

I am no huge fan of TUSC or LU, but your main argument seems to be that they have no MPs and are therefore crap, and that they and the left in general have achieved nothing.

First have do you expect TUSC/LU to grow if they do not stand? Won't any new party have to do the donkey work of standing and losing in order to build up its level of support, as the greens have done?

Second, even if TUSC had done literally nothing it will have still done more for the working class than labour has for decades, as labour has been actively making things worse. So rather than support a party that , in you view, infectivity campaigns for the working class you would rather support one that actively attacks the working class simply because it is bigger and has more MPs?

Which is another point, you seem to base your entire judgment of the parties on just electoral terms, when what happens outside Westminster is far more important. Just like your view that a strong labour left is the only way to make Labour tack left. When in reality what happens outside of the Labour Party will determine if and to what extent in tacks leftwards.

As for the left achieving nothing, it is true that there are relatively few concrete victory to point to. But that does not mean the left is pointless or infective. I think we can agree that the left is very week and there has been a sustained attack on the working class for decades, in essence we are losing. In those circumstances why should we expect any victories? In a very real sense surviving and keeping alive pro working class politics is a victory. There are left activists around the country keeping campaign groups, union branches, trade councils going. These are victories, small ones but victories still. Things change, and the more we hold together now, the stronger position we will be in if there is a shift to the left.

 

[Pickman's model]

articul8 the simple point is you can't even describe what you mean when asked a direct question to do so. if the nationalisation and welfare policies of the 1945-50 labour govt were so resonant with voters today, don't you think that the labour party might have adopted regaining those achievements as their policies? and as they haven't, don't you think you've wasted your life over the past several years?

 

[articul8]

no, not the "post-45 settlement" - whatever that may be - tell me more about the 45 settlement of post 1238.

FFS, talk about pedantry

 

[Pickman's model]

FFS, talk about pedantry

you're full of fail as i point out in post 1246. you started talking about the 1945 labour government. then you start talking about the 1945 settlement. then you start talking about the post-1945 settlement. which is it? do you know? you can't explain what you're talking about. your natural home does actually seem to be the labour party: but for no reasons which do you credit. i don't know why you think you're anything more than a slightly-angsty twat with a walter mitty notion that he's in fact a socialist intellectual.

 

[articul8]

I am no huge fan of TUSC or LU, but your main argument seems to be that they have no MPs and are therefore crap, and that they and the left in general have achieved nothing.

Firstly, I *don't* think electoral politics is the be all and end all of left interventions, it most certainly isn't. Which is why as I've said I spend far more time on non-electoral political work than canavassing on the fucking #labourdoorstep

But equally electoral interventions are significant - it's significant when good left MPs are elected (a rare occurrence) and it's significant when the extra-Labour left performs credibly. What is not significant is where new formations present themselves as offering some credible challenge, but in reality only confirm their own spectacular irrelevance.

It's a bit early to say whether that will be true of LU - although being an electoral party that abstains from electoral interventions seems odd - but, being charitable, perhaps they are taking their time to think through a decent targeting strategy. THe best thing they could do would be to concentrate on targetting a small number of symbolic targets - like Ed Balls, Rachel Reeves and Tristram Hunt.

I have every respect for groups like the independent campaign running a grassroots community candidate in a neighbouring ward to me - all the best of luck to them. I will work with them to shift the position of the local Labour party irrespective of whether they choose to join the party or continue to act outside of it.

 

[articul8]

you're full of fail as i point out in post 1246. you started talking about the 1945 labour government. then you start talking about the 1945 settlement. then you start talking about the post-1945 settlement. which is it? do you know? you can't explain what you're talking about. your natural home does actually seem to be the labour party: but for no reasons which do you credit. i don't know why you think you're anything more than a slightly-angsty twat with a walter mitty notion that he's in fact a socialist intellectual.

FFS - I've been talking about the post-45 settlement as inaugurated by the Labour government elected in 1945. Is that clear enough for you?

 

[Pickman's model]

FFS - I've been talking about the post-45 settlement as inaugurated by the Labour government elected in 1945. Is that clear enough for you?

this would be the thing i asked you about but you couldn't say what it was, then.

 

[butchersapron]

I have every respect for groups like the independent campaign running a grassroots community candidate in a neighbouring ward to me - all the best of luck to them. I will work with them to shift the position of the local Labour party irrespective of whether they choose to join the party or continue to act outside of it.

Or you will argue that they shouldn't stand against labour - again. Note it all revolves around labour in this perspective.

 

[articul8]

Pickmans, if you aren't capable of asking coherent questions, don't blame me for not answering them

 

[articul8]

Or you will argue that they shouldn't stand against labour - again. Note it all revolves around labour in this perspective.

I probably wouldn't support them if they decided to stand in the GE, no. I would continue to work with them, but think that would be a tactical mistake.

 

[Pickman's model]

so what was the settlement of 1945? pls point me to a contemporary source.

there was a post-45 settlement, under the ausipices of the Atlee government - but which came to be accepted as irreversible by the Tories - which effectively held until 73 when it started to come under attack with monetarist, and neoliberal, attacks driven forward by the IMF.

Pickmans, if you aren't capable of asking coherent questions, don't blame me for not answering them

 

[articul8]

the old retrospective edit, eh. How clever

 

[butchersapron]

I probably wouldn't support them if they decided to stand in the GE, no. I would continue to work with them, but think that would be a tactical mistake.

What on earth makes you think they'd want to work with you and the baggage you bring? But anyway, we finally get to it.

 

[butchersapron]

the old retrospective edit, eh. How clever

All edits are retrospective. Think before you type.

 

[butchersapron]

I probably wouldn't support them if they decided to stand in the GE, no. I would continue to work with them, but think that would be a tactical mistake.

You would do something and continue to do something that you think is a tactical mistake?

Or the tactical mistake would be you supporting a non-labour party candidate in a general election? Why, how many divisions do you have?

 

[Pickman's model]

You would do something and continue to do something that you think is a tactical mistake?

Or the tactical mistake would you supporting a non-labour party candidate in a general election? Why, how many divisions do you have?

he's rather fragmented.