BBC - Owen Jones

[nino_savatte]

Tories would probably fund a New Workers Party it if they thought it could prevent Labour from wiping out the Lib Dems and dominating the centre-left vote thereafter.

The Freedom Association funded Cold War paranoiac Julian Lewis in the infamous Reg Prentice deselection case. Lewis, a dyed-in-the-wool Tory, infiltrated the Labour Party.

 

[articul8]

i) are we fuck ii) So what it needs to get organised is to get behind labour - but you know, keep it quiet iii) the unions are now going to throw their weight as far and as aggressively behind labour from now until the 2015 - they are are not going to do a damn thing to jeopardise that. A TUC break from the labour party? You're off your rocker, you really are.

Whose talking about a TUC break from the Labour party? I'm talking about unions like PCS and UNITE starting to work more closely, and start to mobilise politically in ways other than through formal party political channels.

 

[articul8]

i) are we fuck ii) So what it needs to get organised is to get behind labour - but you know, keep it quiet iii) the unions are now going to throw their weight as far and as aggressively behind labour from now until the 2015 - they are are not going to do a damn thing to jeopardise that. A TUC break from the labour party? You're off your rocker, you really are.

nor am I talking about organising behind Labour quietly - I'm talking about a movement which includes, but certainly isn't limited to, Labour activists organising at community level for objectives beyond simply electoral ones.

 

[butchersapron]

Whose talking about a TUC break from the Labour party? I'm talking about unions like PCS and UNITE starting to work more closely, and start to mobilise politically in ways other than through formal party political channels.

You said:

iii) too much of the last 2 years has been wasted on telling the TUC to get off its knees - the unions can throw their weight into a different kind of organising if they can break from their political deference to the Labour party, which isn't to say that the conditions are yet there for a total break.

So ok, not a political break with labour - but follow the logic through, if they are not going to break politically then they sure as hell are not going to do anything to rock the labour boat and potentially damage labours election chances. That's the basket their eggs are very firmly in - and they are not going to let your fantasies break a single one of them.

Also, you moan about tuc off your knees time-wasting then go onto to pretty much shout unions on your own off your knees!

 

[butchersapron]

nor am I talking about organising behind Labour quietly - I'm talking about a movement which includes, but certainly isn't limited to, Labour activists organising at community level for objectives beyond simply electoral ones.

With the labour party and with the understanding (or maybe without that being mentioned eh?) that the key aim is the election of the labour party - the election of the party that is right now imposing cuts. What sort of political environment are you wallowing in that allows you to keep producing and believing (or saying that you do) these fantasies?

 

[William of Walworth]

The Freedom Association funded Cold War paranoiac Julian Lewis in the infamous Reg Prentice deselection case. Lewis, a dyed-in-the-wool Tory, infiltrated the Labour Party.

I remember about that! Makes me feel really old that I do though

 

[nino_savatte]

I remember about that! Makes me feel really old that I do though

Tbh, same here.

 

[Steel Icarus]

A rebuttal of Jones' piece, from Luke "Var of Piss" Akehurst. Really worth reading for the lulz, and to underline the question of how exactly does Jones see any "movement" outside Labour putting enough pressure on THIS kind of boneheadery to change the course of the party.

http://labourlist.org/2013/01/oh-dear-oh-dear-owen-jones/

 

[nino_savatte]

Lukehurst, apologist for Zionism and shill for neoliberalism. A total arsehole.

And bitter with it

We are not, apparently, “progressive”. Presumably nor are Ed Miliband or Ed Balls. This is using the word “progressive” like the old Communist Party did: code for “people that agree with our line”, and anyone else is written off as “reactionary”. Thanks a bundle Owen, very comradely.

 

[butchersapron]

Useful in that it basically says that a8 is right and that the leadership are moving left and he says and so already fulfill his needs.

 

[sihhi]

And here is the predictable soft-left Brownite Luke Akehurst Hackney CLP Labour response:

http://labourlist.org/2013/01/oh-dear-oh-dear-owen-jones

It's a crap response because for one thing the terrible 1983 performance had Labour at 36.9%, whilst the fantastic Brown years by 2010 sees it as 29%.
But it shows the basic political decision that will have to be made:

So people who fight to stop Labour winning elections like the Greens are in, but people like me who work their socks off for a Labour government are not to be included in this “broad network”. We are not, apparently, “progressive”. Presumably nor are Ed Miliband or Ed Balls. This is using the word “progressive” like the old Communist Party did: code for “people that agree with our line”, and anyone else is written off as “reactionary”. Thanks a bundle Owen, very comradely.

Will local Labour CLPs stand aside for Greens? That's basically what this all comes down to. If the answer is no, it will mean local Greens standing aside for Labour Left CLPs and venomously fighting Labour right CLPs so that Owen Jones can big up the size of the McDonnell majority as against the Blears one - or something.

 

[ska invita]

... the question of how exactly does Jones see any "movement" outside Labour putting enough pressure on THIS kind of boneheadery to change the course of the party.

...arguably the welfare state, nhs, etc were won from pressure and as a concession to a growing extreme (communist) left at the time. Thats how it works in theory.

 

[butchersapron]

...arguably the welfare state, nhs, etc were won from pressure and as a concession to a growing extreme (communist) left at the time. Thats how it works in theory.

The communists were for the state plans post-war as were the tories. It was fear of what may come from that pressure uncontrolled by the main parties and radicalised w/c class experience of the war, not any parties power.

 

[articul8]

And here is the predictable soft-left Brownite Luke Akehurst

He isn't "soft left Brownite", he's old right social democratic than went along with Blair.

Will local Labour CLPs stand aside for Greens? That's basically what this all comes down to. If the answer is no, it will mean local Greens standing aside for Labour Left CLPs and venomously fighting Labour right CLPs so that Owen Jones can big up the size of the McDonnell majority as against the Blears one - or something.

No, it's not about an electoral pact. It's about building a new left that can recognise and accomodate short-term differences over electoral tactics whilst still effectively co-ordinating and mobilising at a community level around the issues where we have common interests and concerns. Something like a Coalition of Resistance that isn't a "build it and they will come" top down ego-massaging exercise for wannabe Lenin's, but a genuine community-based network with branches across the country. It could be something as simple as a national federation of anti-austerity groups - which is open to anyone who is prepared to sign up to a basic refusal of austerity-driven politics.

 

[butchersapron]

He isn't "soft left Brownite", he's old right social democratic than went along with Blair.


No, it's not about an electoral pact. It's about building a new left that can recognise and accomodate short-term differences over electoral tactics whilst still effectively co-ordinating and mobilising at a community level around the issues where we have common interests and concerns. Something like a Coalition of Resistance that isn't a "build it and they will come" top down ego-massaging exercise for wannabe Lenin's, but a genuine community-based network with branches across the country. It could be something as simple as a national federation of anti-austerity groups - which is open to anyone who is prepared to sign up to a basic refusal of austerity-driven politics.

"went along with" - what a horrible dishonest way of looking at things. How did your party produce the leader and perspective that he was allowed to go along with? How has it now changed? He is labour - he is their future. You aren't. You know this.

 

[articul8]

If Akehurst is the future, Labour hasn't got one - it's heading the way of PASOK. Which might well be the case. But too early to tell.

As for the broader question - I don't see anything that isn't compatible wiht the description of Labour as a "bourgeois workers party" - although the Blairites wanted to transform it into a fully bourgeoisified party. I don't think they fully succeeded.

 

[sihhi]

"went along with" - what a horrible dishonest way of looking at things. How did your party produce the leader and perspective that he was allowed to go along with? How has it now changed? He is labour - he is their future. You aren't. You know this.

He was Brownite - he heavily attacked Purnell and others (Blairites) for their challenge in 2009 or whenever it was.

Let's get this straight:- a coalition on a local bottom up basis will start with councils. So in a given area Greens and Left Labour get together for a campaign against council cuts, calling for anti-cuts councillors. Then when the elections come they both stand against one another to prove the other lot are helping the pro-cuts Tories win by standing in the council seat.
At the same time this body also facilitates action against Labour councils imposing cuts, but is much better than existing anti-cuts groups at doing this.

You know this.

The most damning line.

 

[butchersapron]

If Akehurst is the future, Labour hasn't got one - it's heading the way of PASOK. Which might well be the case. But too early to tell.

As for the broader question - I don't see anything that isn't compatible wiht the description of Labour as a "bourgeois workers party" - although the Blairites wanted to transform it into a fully bourgeoisified party. I don't think they fully succeeded.

Akehurst was the future 2 decades ago. Have they gone the way of PASOK since? Don't be so stupid. Your - and akehurst's - party are going to win in 2015. They're going to do it on the basis of the sort of views he has. And you're going to argue for it as the best possible outcome.

And yeah blah blah fight in the party - not of course related to your bubble role in the party.

 

[articul8]

I don't have any role in the party - I work in parliament for trade unions almost all of which aren't affiliated. Of course that means working closely with the better Labour MPs - but I'm not paid by the party, or to defend the party.

 

[butchersapron]

I can see the massive gap then. I mean it's like different worlds.

 

[articul8]

You seem to think in incredibly static categories - "If you're in the Labour party that means you think it is an entirely adequate political vehicle" or "you accept that it's not adequate and therefore have no choice to be outside and to oppose it". Well it's possible to work for, argue for and build a different vision of politics with people who currently feel that Labour isn't offering what it ought to - and that this might generate a dynamic where people come to reject the existing insitutional framework as the basis for the kind of representation they're after - and some people in other parties or other traditions might be far closer to our politics than certain people inside the party.

 

[butchersapron]

You seem to think in incredibly static categories - "If you're in the Labour party that means you think it is an entirely adequate political vehicle" or "you accept that it's not adequate and therefore have no choice to be outside and to oppose it". Well it's possible to work for, argue for and build a different vision of politics with people who currently feel that Labour isn't offering what it ought to - and that this might generate a dynamic where people come to reject the existing insitutional framework as the basis for the kind of representation they're after - and some people in other parties or other traditions might be far closer to our politics than certain people inside the party.

Dialectics. A dead dogs shit doesn't move unless you start putting your nose in it.

Oh no, you think it's not adequate yet join and pay and argue for, ensuring its continued legitimacy. Why can't you just accept what you are?

 

[articul8]

What am I? I'm a socialist inside an increasingly bourgeosified workers party with neoliberal, anti-working class elements in the leadership. There needs to be much more serious thought given to the conditions under which an effective left break from Labour can sustain itself as a viable vehicle. The electoral system is a major impediment. Even AV could have begun to generate a progressive dynamic. But we're pretty much stuck with what we've got. So there has to be maximum attention paid to making the anti-austerity case to Labour voters, and building forces for a full scale battle against Labour cuts post-2015.

 

[butchersapron]

What am I? I'm a socialist inside an increasingly bourgeosified workers party with neoliberal, anti-working class elements in the leadership. There needs to be much more serious thought given to the conditions under which an effective left break from Labour can sustain itself as a viable vehicle. The electoral system is a major impediment. Even AV could have begun to generate a progressive dynamic. But we're pretty much stuck with what we've got. So there has to be maximum attention paid to making the anti-austerity case to Labour voters, and building forces for a full scale battle against Labour cuts post-2015.

There needs to be more thought about you? Fuck off. Otherwise as i said, but with you still denying it.

 

[articul8]

denying what?

 

[butchersapron]

denying what?

Where your future lies.

 

[articul8]

And where does it lie?

 

[co-op]

Even AV could have begun to generate a progressive dynamic. .

Arrrgh! Please no. Stop it.

AV was a massive mouldering sack of shit that the electorate treated with the contempt it deserved.The entire AV referendum is the finest monument that could ever be made to the sheer stupidity and political ineptitude of Nick Clegg and the upper echelons of the Liberal Democrat party.

It would have made not one flying fucksworth of difference to the political dynamic in this country. And I speak as someone who still believes that PR would be worth something, which I guess quite a few people on here would laugh at.

 

[butchersapron]

And where does it lie?

Depends what you're denying. Hack.

 

[sihhi]

Even AV could have begun to generate a progressive dynamic.

AV - good point, articul8, well done for exposing the holes:

And I’ll be completely honest: I oppose a change in electoral system because it will make a left-wing Labour government less likely; it will make undemocratic coalitions with the Liberal Democrats more likely; and it will make Tory-led governments more likely. If you want to avoid those outcomes, then I urge you to vote against AV.

By voting yes on 5 May we can ensure that finally voters can back their beliefs, rather than heed their fears. Under AV, voters will no longer face the dilemma of voting "tactically" to stop the BNP or Conservatives getting elected. Voters will be able to vote with their head and with their heart, expressing a clear vote for the party they support, while making a grown-up choice over which of the other candidates they prefer. It is as simple as 1, 2, 3 but it will be the dawn of an honest age. With a system that reflects how Britain actually votes, the progressive majority will be one step closer to reality.