Campaign for a New Workers Party Declaration

[Squatticus]

its funny how groucho will come back with an answer to nearly anything, whilst studiously avoiding the issue of the 'missing accounts'.

where are they, old chap? and - assuming you don't know - does this concern you, pray tell?

 

[gurrier]

The declaration was launched by the Socialist Party and says so, at a Socialist Party event. I think that's pretty clear without adding twenty something "and Socialist Party" tags to the signatories names.

As I'm sure you understand, anybody who isn't already knowledgeable will read the signatories and see 4 members of the SP and a bunch of union higher-ups. They will not understand that it is a list comprised entirely of SP members. As you know, this is a conscious choice on the SP's part - they know well that appeals like this that appear to come from a broad based group are more likely to generate interest than ones that come from a single party. That's to say that you are consciously setting out to deceive people, it really is as simple as that. Just because it is par for the course among trots and utterly unremarkable doesn't make it any less dishonest.

Actually that's quite interesting because you've hit on quite a big theoretical issue there for Trotskyists, or rather a set of theoretical issues - how are mass political organisation created, would a mass political organisation with weaker politics be a step forward, how should smaller groups interact with mass organisations. I suppose that they are probably big issues for Anarchists too, but whatever theories your organisations about this kind of stuff have been developed in relative isolation from our ideas.

Quite. I think the whole idea of creating a 'mass party of the working class' is simply a symptom of political thinking that is stuck in the 1930's.

Trotskyism, in general, has almost always existed within a large social democratic pool provided by labour parties and social democratic forces within trade unions. Your strategy is, briefly, to attempt to rebuild these types of broad social democratic forces and to work within them as revolutionaries.

The problem being that there simply aren't large numbers of workers out there with strong social democratic beliefs and the political project of social democracy has collapsed even more spectacularly than that of the Leninists. There just aren't masses of people who have faith in any left wing political project at the moment and I don't think it is any easier to build active participation in a social democratic project than a leninist project. In fact social democracy is probably less plausible a project than even Leninism nowadays. Which means that all of the practical attempts to rebuild this mass party will end up being little more than a core of existing activists who set them up surrounded by a layer of less committed and passive members with somewhat more wishy-washy politics.

The wishy-washy ones aren't politically organised and thus decision making power remains vested in the hands of the revolutionary groups who set them up, leaving them in the crazy position of trying to forming policy as if they were social democrats and build a political project which they do not believe in themselves. You have an effective leadership of revolutionaries asking themselves "what would we do if we were social democrats in this position?" and concentrating always on watering down their politics to appeal to the no-longer-existant social democratic mass of the class. In describing the similar and predictable Respect pantomime, I described it as "auto-entryism" - trying to create a political force which you can then enter and take over, a desperate desire to replay political failures in ever decreasing circles, or to put it more crudely, having one's head up one's arse.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

The problem being that there simply aren't large numbers of workers out there with strong social democratic beliefs ...

And Irish anarchism explains its lack of connection with the existing reality of capitalist society.

 

[Pilgrim]

And Irish anarchism explains its lack of connection with the existing reality of capitalist society.

On the subject of 'existing reality', perhaps you would care to explain the absence of RESPECT's accounts.

They were due to the Electoral Commission at the end of July, they weren't handed in.

RESPECT were given an extension until the end of August, they weren't handed in.

It is now mid-November, and guess what, they still aren't in.

Pehaps you would care to explain why RESPECT seems to haveso flagrantly violated electoral procedure, when the 'Church Of The Militant Elvis' managed to get their accounts in on time. And yes, they do exist and I checked their entry on the Electoral Commission website.

 

[gurrier]

And Irish anarchism explains its lack of connection with the existing reality of capitalist society.

No, an Irish anarchist going by the pseudonym of gurrier expresses an opinion on a bulletin board. Equating my idle musings with a prononciation on behalf of Irish anarchism is a bit silly, don't you think.

When I referred to "strong social democratic beliefs", I was not refering to abstract aspirations like the desires for greater equality, justice and so on (which I believe are widespread but are inspired by a variety of goals), but a belief in a particular political project of social democratic transformation, a belief strong enough for them to act upon it.

Saying that there aren't masses of people out there anymore in the UK and Ireland (relatively to any time since the 1870's anyway) who believe strongly in this project is not to my mind showing a disconnect from the reality of capitalism, rather I think it is impossible to deny in the face of the facts.

If there were masses of people who believed strongly in the project of social democratic transformation, they would act upon it. Where are they? Where are the strikes? Where are the Labour party rebellions and splits? Where is the widespread interest in the goings of the unions? Where are the working people's clubs, the co-operatives, the debating societies, the mass meetings? Where is the widespread involvement in political life and debate? Why are the branch meetings so empty? Why have all the social democratic parties abandoned all of their principles? Why are these masses so silent?

 

[Taxamo Welf]

An example of grassroots campaigning: the 'We want our buses back' campaign


http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2005/11/328125.html

missed it mate - went to footy. Any cop?

 

[Ratan]

This internecine sparring between two soulless sets of nothingness creeds, its has about has much interest as reading Norma majors birth certificate.

 

[articul8]

The declaration was launched by the Socialist Party and says so, at a Socialist Party event.

Out of interest, were Serwotka or Matt Wrack approached to sign the declaration? What are the chances of them doing so in the future?
If this is a genuine campaign, rather than an SP policy restatement, then it does kind of depend of involving other forces.

 

[lewislewis]

I think that RESPECT has more chance of achieving such a party on a national basis than the SP has.

'Respect- The Party for Muslims'? How can you support such an assertion from Galloway that has no reference to class whatsoever and seeks to categorise sections of the electorate on the basis of religion only?

 

[Fong]

If there were masses of people who believed strongly in the project of social democratic transformation, they would act upon it. Where are they? Where are the strikes? Where are the Labour party rebellions and splits? Where is the widespread interest in the goings of the unions? Where are the working people's clubs, the co-operatives, the debating societies, the mass meetings? Where is the widespread involvement in political life and debate? Why are the branch meetings so empty? Why have all the social democratic parties abandoned all of their principles? Why are these masses so silent?

My first instinct is to say that this argument is just as ridiculous as the usual argument put forward by conspiracists and Ufologists.

What is it? If its not a UFO then what is it?

You ask why are these masses silent and I say to you, show me where you would hear their voice?

The masses are not socialist workers looking out for the working class, they are people that are not happy about the state of the society that they live in. They are people that look to how America is and are fearful of the fact that we are moving closer and closer to their style of society.

These are the people that want social democracy and if you want to count their numbers, I suggest looking at the 1997 election when Labour did little else but spout off about a socially aware society, even the Conservatives started spouting about a 'Social Compassion' after they saw the results.

Is there a huge following for the extreme left wing, such as the SP, no, is there a huge following for socially aware parties, yes I think there is.

 

[gurrier]

My first instinct is to say that this argument is just as ridiculous as the usual argument put forward by conspiracists and Ufologists.

Read the bit about a strong belief in a social democratic project and not abstract aspirations. Do you really believe that large numbers of people nowadays have a strong belief in social democratic transformation?

 

[Random]

Pehaps you would care to explain why RESPECT seems to haveso flagrantly violated electoral procedure, when the 'Church Of The Militant Elvis' managed to get their accounts in on time. And yes, they do exist and I checked their entry on the Electoral Commission website.

I know the guy who runs it. Nice bloke, a poet. The party was seemingly mostly about winding up Kilroy, so not sure whether it'll exist any more.

 

[Random]

Read the bit about a strong belief in a social democratic project and not abstract aspirations. Do you really believe that large numbers of people nowadays have a strong belief in social democratic transformation?

I think people are missing your point, gurrier.

To the leninists -- Does a real belief in 'the parliamentary road to socialism' exist at large?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I think people are missing your point, gurrier.

Yes, I think there is a certain amount of talking at cross purposes here.

To the leninists -- Does a real belief in 'the parliamentary road to socialism' exist at large?

Short answer - no but there is still a real belief in the potential to reform the current system.

Long answer - I'm planning to reply to gurrier's original post when I get a chance, so hang on and I'll have a go at it.

 

[Fong]

Read the bit about a strong belief in a social democratic project and not abstract aspirations. Do you really believe that large numbers of people nowadays have a strong belief in social democratic transformation?

Well your problem is you are basing your argument around a lack of evidence.

That seems a bit odd to me.

As to the question you pose, I believe that large numbers of people are not happy at the fact that our eduction, health and transport, bolt by bolt, is being broken down and sold off to make money for private companies.

While at the same time standards are falling.

I think people would be willing to follow a Center Left Party that had its left rooted firmly in the socialist mentality. Free Health, Free Education and a Publicly Funded Transport system. While its center was rooted in rewarding those that work for it.

What people don't want is money being spent on Disabled African Gay Awareness Week.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Quite. I think the whole idea of creating a 'mass party of the working class' is simply a symptom of political thinking that is stuck in the 1930's.

Ok. That's your conclusion, let's look at your reasoning.

Trotskyism, in general, has almost always existed within a large social democratic pool provided by labour parties and social democratic forces within trade unions.

It's a side issue but I think you are extrapolating rather too much from the experience of my own current to "Trotskyism" in general. The bulk of self-described Trotskyists at most points have worked as independent organisations. These groups have of course had to work out how to interact with these mass organisations and how to win over the workers who adhere to them, but that's true of all subjectively revolutionary groups and not something particular to Trotskyism.

Your strategy is, briefly, to attempt to rebuild these types of broad social democratic forces and to work within them as revolutionaries.

Another minor but important distinction here. The aim is not to rebuild social democratic forces or organisations, but to rebuild basic class organisations. It is likely that the majority within such organisations will at least initially be reformist in outlook, but that's not our goal. It is instead a result of something we'll get to in a moment, which is the existing reformist attitude of most politically inclined workers.

The problem being that there simply aren't large numbers of workers out there with strong social democratic beliefs

This I think is the key statement in your post, the hinge around which the rest rotates. And on one level it is correct. As Random interpreted your statement, you are saying that there is no huge mass of workers who believe in a parliamentary road to socialism or who believe that we can reform our way there. Social Democracy in the Bernsteinian sense is indeed dead.

But that's been true for a long time. Reformism long ago became not a movement aiming for socialism by a particular means but a movement aiming at reforming capitalism to make it less exploitative / nicer / fairer. Reformism in this sense is far from dead, despite the fact that most of the traditional social democratic parties have abandoned even this outlook in favour of varying forms of Thatcherism. Its the persistence of this outlook amongst large sections of the working class which had led to the creation of new working class parties in various parts of the world - most recently in Germany.

What's more, every movement which has arisen has thrown up new layers of activists, most of whom have gravitated towards one reformist "solution" or another. So we get Tobin Taxes and fair trade coffee, and changing the world without taking power, and illusions in UN resolutions and all the rest.

There just aren't masses of people who have faith in any left wing political project at the moment and I don't think it is any easier to build active participation in a social democratic project than a leninist project.

Or presumably an anarchist project.

Leaving terminological issues aside for a moment (ie my point about what project we are trying to build above), I think that this is false. I would expect it to be false for theoretical reasons - that in the mass people tend to look for apparently easier solutions first - and I think that theory is more than adequately borne out by recent events.

Various new mass or semi-mass political organisations have come into being around the world, including what we would consider new workers parties (also including "civil society" organisations which I'm not really interested in for the purposes of this thread but this applies to them too). The one thing all of them that I can think of have in common is that they are, at least as a majority strand, reformist in outlook. We have seen these new non-revolutionary organisations come into existence in Holland, Germany, Brazil, Portugal etc. What we haven't seen are new mass or even semi-mass revolutionary organisations, whether Leninist, Anarchist or other.

If it really was just as easy (or difficult) to build those projects surely we would have seen it happen as often or more often, instead of not at all. It isn't as if there is a shortage of revolutionary groups of every conceivable stripe out there trying. The answer, as somebody from my tradition would expect, is that it isn't as easy. It's necessary, but more difficult.

[edited to add: articul8 I don't know the answers to the questions you asked earlier in the thread about Wrack, Serwotka etc. I live in Ireland so I'm not really up to date on such details]

 

[articul8]

articul8 I don't know the answers to the questions you asked earlier in the thread about Wrack, Serwotka etc. I live in Ireland so I'm not really up to date on such details]

fair enough - I wasn't suggesting BTW that a new party could emerge by way of "top-down" fiat of trade union leaders (though obviously their leadership could be an important factor). I hope, though, that the SP declaration is part of a genuine campaign to engage and persuade other forces. The main motivation for any such organisation has to be the desire of rank-and-file workers for a political voice, not just a re-alignment of the existing left.

 

[davgraham]

Who are the working class you are talking about tho?


If you are serious about creating a party that can combat New Labour/Conservative party, you will have to move far to the middle ground and prove that this is where you will stay by making solid commitments.

I am spouting, but I would love to see a third party emerge that catered to what a lot of people in this country want.

I always get interested when people tell me they really know what I want - care to enlarge on what I want

. . .and how you KNOW what I want?

gra

 

[gurrier]

It's a side issue but I think you are extrapolating rather too much from the experience of my own current to "Trotskyism" in general. The bulk of self-described Trotskyists at most points have worked as independent organisations. These groups have of course had to work out how to interact with these mass organisations and how to win over the workers who adhere to them, but that's true of all subjectively revolutionary groups and not something particular to Trotskyism.

I wasn't refering to living within a social democratic organisation, but the pool of ideas in the working class.

Another minor but important distinction here. The aim is not to rebuild social democratic forces or organisations, but to rebuild basic class organisations. It is likely that the majority within such organisations will at least initially be reformist in outlook, but that's not our goal.

Apart from the trade unions what are these basic class organisations of which you speak? The unions are scarcely even reformist anymore and the majority of their members are not involved in them at all in any meaningful way.

This I think is the key statement in your post, the hinge around which the rest rotates. And on one level it is correct. As Random interpreted your statement, you are saying that there is no huge mass of workers who believe in a parliamentary road to socialism or who believe that we can reform our way there. Social Democracy in the Bernsteinian sense is indeed dead.

That is the sense in which I have been using it.

But that's been true for a long time. Reformism long ago became not a movement aiming for socialism by a particular means but a movement aiming at reforming capitalism to make it less exploitative / nicer / fairer. Reformism in this sense is far from dead, despite the fact that most of the traditional social democratic parties have abandoned even this outlook in favour of varying forms of Thatcherism.

I think that the 'reformism' that you speak of is far too broad a term to substitute for what I was refering to. Lots of people would like to reform capitalism to make it nicer from a religious perspective and various other points of view that are not remotely connected to the left or socialism.

I think that, in general, for somebody to involve themselves in active political work on an ongoing basis as part of a political movement, they really need to have some idea where they are going and why. People get involved in local campaigns and in campaigns on issues that they care about easily enough (well not easily at all actually, but comparatively) but your putative mass party requires that a lot of people become actively involved in building it - which requires them to have some vision of where they're going in my opinion. Until recently, there was always a relatively large number of left wing activists of reformist views within the trade unions and within the labour parties. From a trot point of view, it made sense to target these people and to try to win them away from reformism and the strategy made sense. They don't exist anymore to nearly the same extent. If you wanted to create a new mass social democratic party, you would need to start off by convincing lots of people that a social democratic model for meaningful social change was realistic and worth fighting for.

Its the persistence of this outlook amongst large sections of the working class which had led to the creation of new working class parties in various parts of the world - most recently in Germany.

I see these "working class parties" as temporary regroupments for defensive purposes in the midst of a headlong retreat. They are all primarily alliances of the existing left or temporarily re-animated left, much of which used to be vastly bigger, vastly more ambitious and vastly more radical.

What's more, every movement which has arisen has thrown up new layers of activists, most of whom have gravitated towards one reformist "solution" or another. So we get Tobin Taxes and fair trade coffee, and changing the world without taking power, and illusions in UN resolutions and all the rest.

I take this point. I do realise that it is easier to sell superficial solutions based on huge doses of wishful thinking, but, on the other hand these are not really the types of things that I would classify as political projects with mass participation, nor will they ever be.

Or presumably an anarchist project.

of course.

Various new mass or semi-mass political organisations have come into being around the world, including what we would consider new workers parties (also including "civil society" organisations which I'm not really interested in for the purposes of this thread but this applies to them too). The one thing all of them that I can think of have in common is that they are, at least as a majority strand, reformist in outlook. We have seen these new non-revolutionary organisations come into existence in Holland, Germany, Brazil, Portugal etc. What we haven't seen are new mass or even semi-mass revolutionary organisations, whether Leninist, Anarchist or other.

I see your point. But I'm really specifically talking about the wealthy countries and, apart from Brazil, I don't see any of these "workers parties" as being anything more than a defensive regroupment of the left. Their politics are all, including Brazil, probably to the right of the British Labour party of the 1970's, for example. Most importantly, none of them have any answers to the big problems for modern proponents of pariamentary socialism. What do you do when you get enough votes to implement a fraction of your policy and international capital pulls the plug? I woke up this morning, by the way, to hear yet another of the farcical radio debates predicting mass financial flight if Bertie considered letting Sinn Fein into government (farcical considering that SF have less than 10% of the vote and no chance of being allowed to do anything important).

I think the effects of the neo-liberal mental model of how the world works are more profound than you think.

 

[Fong]

I always get interested when people tell me they really know what I want - care to enlarge on what I want

. . .and how you KNOW what I want?

gra

Well I was not specific to you, I said 'a lot of people'.

I base that on the large number of people that voted for new Labour in 1997 when this is what they professed to be.

So in essence, I am basing my knowledge of what people want, by what they choose.

But other then being a bit of a tard, what did you bring, did I say you specifically, did I single you out? Or was you just under the impression that I was basing that opinion on nothing at all? Perhaps you should have read some other posts, I have already stated that the 97 election was a strong indication of what the 'masses' in this country want.

 

[davgraham]

Well I was not specific to you, I said 'a lot of people'.

I base that on the large number of people that voted for new Labour in 1997 when this is what they professed to be.

So in essence, I am basing my knowledge of what people want, by what they choose.

But other then being a bit of a tard, what did you bring, did I say you specifically, did I single you out? Or was you just under the impression that I was basing that opinion on nothing at all? Perhaps you should have read some other posts, I have already stated that the 97 election was a strong indication of what the 'masses' in this country want.

OK . . .leaving me aside - 1997 and the election are now 8 years away - do you still think there is a mass social democratic constituency in the country?

gra

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I wasn't refering to living within a social democratic organisation, but the pool of ideas in the working class.

Fair enough, although that means that the point is in no way specific to Trotskyist organisations. Its something which effected all subjectively revolutionary groups.

Apart from the trade unions what are these basic class organisations of which you speak? The unions are scarcely even reformist anymore and the majority of their members are not involved in them at all in any meaningful way.

I would consider the mass working class party to be a basic class organisation, something which the working class in almost every country has developed (speaking of which can anyone come up with any major exceptions other than the USA?). As for the unions, I'm well aware of the problems with them but I think that you are perhaps extrapolating from the particularly badly damaged Irish ones a bit too widely. The union movement is in a mess in most places, but they haven't experienced the joys of decades of partnership elsewhere. The unions remain, in my view, basic organs of class struggle.

I think that the 'reformism' that you speak of is far too broad a term to substitute for what I was refering to.

I think the point here is that what I'm talking about is exactly what reformism has been for decades. While there were genuine Bennites and the like around, who did want to reform their way to socialism, for most reformist workers reformism has been about a reformed capitalism for a very long time. What gives this movement its specific importance (I almost used the word specificity there but I recoiled in disgust at the last moment) was the centrality it accords to the working class - through the unions in particular. That consciousness has been eroded but it is still there and in so far as there is a move into class based struggle, I think it's reinforced.

I see these "working class parties" as temporary regroupments for defensive purposes in the midst of a headlong retreat. They are all primarily alliances of the existing left or temporarily re-animated left, much of which used to be vastly bigger, vastly more ambitious and vastly more radical.

There is of course a strong element of truth to the first part of that. These are formations that are coming out of a long and messy period of retreat. Starting from a defensive posture is almost inevitable.

I think that you are wrong though about where these groupings have come from organisationally - there are in fact few common threads. The most succesful one to date is probably the Dutch Socialist Party which was basically a Maoist party which went reformist. Its politics are well to the left of the old Dutch Social Democracy and its membership went from next to nothing to 60,000 plus in the blink of an eye. The P-Sol in Brazil, like the PRC in Italy is essentially a split from a reformist party which has gone over to neo-liberalism. The Left Party in Germany is a combination of two very different phenomena - a Stalinist rump with a union based new reformist current. The others are different again.

What's interesting is that all of them (or at least all of them which have been succesful enough for the likes of us to notice them!) have pulled in significant quantities of new activists. Something which lets face it revolutionaries of every stripe would love to be doing and are not on anything like that scale.

Their politics are all, including Brazil, probably to the right of the British Labour party of the 1970's, for example.

Again this is something of a side issue, but the picture is a lot more mixed than that. The politics of the Dutch SP and P-Sol for instance are well to the left of the 1970s Labour Party. The Left Party in Germany you would be right about though.

Most importantly, none of them have any answers to the big problems for modern proponents of pariamentary socialism. What do you do when you get enough votes to implement a fraction of your policy and international capital pulls the plug?

Well yes. That's a traditional Trotskyist line of argument within radical movements and reformist parties - essentially that reformism doesn't work, that you can't deal with a Tiger by trying to pull out its claws one by one. What's different now, and I think you've hit on it well, is the fact that reformism is more widely discredited. That's part of the reason why we think that new working class parties and for that matter the unions will be much less politically stable and their ranks will be much more open to revolutionary ideas than was the case with the old social democratic parties.

Essentially my view can be summarised in a few sentences, although that does have the disadvantage of reducing what is a complex argument to a cartoon. Class struggle won't go away, however low an ebb we've been at in recent years. That class struggle will drive a need for mass political organisation. Unfortunately, in the mass, people will tend to look for apparently easier solutions first, which will probably mean that new mass organisations have an initially reformist colouration. But reality and the limits to reformism in a globalised world will prevent that reformism from achieving the kind of intransigent semi-permanence of old.

I think that a quick look at how things are developing in other countries shows that, like it or not, in so far as the working class is making any organisational moves on a mass scale these formations have a reformist tinge. I don't think that Britain or Ireland is going to be very different on that, although we can always hope. I'm not sure if you still disagree with me about this - if you still think that it is equally easy or even easier to build a revolutionary project rather than the kind of formation we are talking about here?

 

[Chuck Wilson]

Nigel,

Is this new party going to go face to face against RESPECT or will it settle for a non aggression pact?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Is this new party going to go face to face against RESPECT or will it settle for a non aggression pact?

I know that people the world over hang on my every word, listening desperately for the merest hint of advice, but really Chuck I don't think I'm in a position to outline details of policy for a party in another country which I'm not a member of and for that matter which doesn't yet exist!

 

[gurrier]

I think that a quick look at how things are developing in other countries shows that, like it or not, in so far as the working class is making any organisational moves on a mass scale these formations have a reformist tinge. I don't think that Britain or Ireland is going to be very different on that, although we can always hope. I'm not sure if you still disagree with me about this - if you still think that it is equally easy or even easier to build a revolutionary project rather than the kind of formation we are talking about here?

I think it's easier to build around a limited set of immediate demands (usually defensive nowadays) and having rather more vague specific long term solutions certainly helps too (suspension of disbelief ). I would classify these various regroupments (including the RUC and whatever "party of the working class" might emerge from the SP's campaign) as that rather than being specific constructive political projects.

These formations might, depending on the country, pick up a fair fraction of the traditional socialist vote, but I don't see them as putting forward a strong and plausible project of their own, nor do I see the "working class making organisational moves", just the formerly powerful left trying to halt their slide by watering down their policies and making everything a big vague.

Whether it's easier to build these types of organisation nowadays than revolutionary organisations - it probably is, but only because you're talking about countries with enormous traditional left wing movements and people use the tools they know. There hasn't exactly been a flourishing of left wing reformist parties in England or Ireland either, in fact there's probably as many active leninists as people who extoll reformist socialism.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

I know that people the world over hang on my every word, listening desperately for the merest hint of advice, but really Chuck I don't think I'm in a position to outline details of policy for a party in another country which I'm not a member of and for that matter which doesn't yet exist!

Words that I am sure will no doubt come back to haunt you. Is there any danger of someone who actually lives in England and who is a member of the SP learning to use the internet who might have some view?

 

[Ratan]

The thing about new MASS workers parties is that there always lead by smugtitudinal apes with the personality of a wet fart.Just look at john rees Simon cowellesq clobber and Galloway's pompous brian blessedness.
Being a good orator is not the only fruit.

 

[john malcolm]

The thing about new MASS workers parties is that there always lead by smugtitudinal apes with the personality of a wet fart.Just look at john rees Simon cowellesq clobber and Galloway's pompous brian blessedness.
Being a good orator is not the only fruit.

You think John Rees is a good orator ? looks more like Alan Rickman to me

 

[Ratan]

You think John Rees is a good orator ? looks more like Alan Rickman to me

Well I've never seen the wet fart in action, but what I've have seen on telly he has all the rhetorical hand movements, pregnant pauses and all the other cliches of being a orator.Thats why Galloway seems to be fated, because he is good at being orator in front of a hall.Surely you need more than that?.

 

[rebel warrior]

You think John Rees is a good orator ? looks more like Alan Rickman to me

What should good orators look like? Bruce fucking Willis?