Cruddas the Brave(Compass Conf)

[Random]

Did I say that? No. I'm saying that the language of empowering civil society organisation to determine and deliver local services is not inherently bad, it becomes bad when it is used cynically to undermine public ownership and accountability (as per the Big Society).

it's ok when Labour does Tory things

 

[articul8]

Big Society was a tory bastardisation of new left principles anyway - "If" Labour was to undertake a genuine expansion of participatory democracy it would be very welcome, even if initially within the context of a overall commitment to the parliamentary system.

If Labour does exactly the same as the Tories I will denounce them in exactly the same terms.

 

[articul8]

Yes you did, and you didn't even realise so far gone are you. In fact so far gone are you that you find cruddas doing the thing you mention as bad to be "encouraging"

I said that within the context of a worrying overall presentation, there were isolated elements that were encouraging. People want Labour to be offering things that make a material difference to them - like tackling sky-high rents.

 

[butchersapron]

Big Society was a tory bastardisation of new left principles anyway - "If" Labour was to undertake a genuine expansion of participatory democracy it would be very welcome, even if initially within the context of a overall commitment to the parliamentary system.

If Labour does exactly the same as the Tories I will denounce them in exactly the same terms.

Initially? You are off your fucking head pal. You're like some mad spart.

 

[articul8]

well obviously I'm not claiming Labour leaders have plans to go further just that things can develop their own dynamic, beyond what leaders envisage

 

[butchersapron]

Why do you do this? Why make some broad radical sounding rhetoric then cover it in get outs and weasel bollocks? You're a total mess.

 

[articul8]

Look - it's about trying to think through how best elements of the welfare state can be saved and built on but also improved by engendering a genuine element of collective democratic participation outside of the "command-and-control" state? These are good questions, and require some intervention at the level of the state, which can reciprocally assist in building the capacity of the organisations from which it draws its apparent democratic legitimacy.

 

[butchersapron]

Look - it's about trying to think through how best elements of the welfare state can be saved and built on but also improved by engendering a genuine element of collective democratic participation outside of the "command-and-control" state? These are good questions, and require some intervention at the level of the state, which can reciprocally assist in building the capacity of the organisations from which it draws its apparent democratic legitimacy.

It's about you being so politically fucked up and compromised that you'll paint an attack on the collective imposition of the needs of the working class on state and capital - a direct attack on the social wage - and an adoption of neo-liberal big-society rhetoric by ed milibands right hand man for electoral purposes as a move beyond parliamentary politics and into a form of broader participatory democracy - and all this whilst you're in the party that did most to write to write off and turn the old mutual support and workers fund type groups into centralised top-down state models of social control and monetary policy. You're so far away with the fairies it's not even funny anymore.

 

[Random]

Look - it's about trying to think through how best elements of the welfare state can be saved and built on but also improved by engendering a genuine element of collective democratic participation outside of the "command-and-control" state? These are good questions, and require some intervention at the level of the state, which can reciprocally assist in building the capacity of the organisations from which it draws its apparent democratic legitimacy.

We had to destroy the welfare state in order to save it

 

[articul8]

It's about you being so politically fucked up and compromised that you'll paint an attack on the collective imposition of the needs of the working class on state and capital - a direct attack on the social wage - and an adoption of neo-liberal big-society rhetoric by ed milibands right hand man for electoral purposes as a move beyond parliamentary politics and into a form of broader participatory democracy - and all this whilst you're in the party that did most to write to write off and turn the old mutual support and workers fund type groups into centralised top-down state models of social control and monetary policy. You're so far away with the fairies it's not even funny anymore.

completely dishonest. Where did I suggest that Cruddas plans " a move beyond parliamentary politics and into a form of broader participatory democracy"?

 

[articul8]

We had to destroy the welfare state in order to save it

it is being destroyed. We need a welfare state mkII - better and more accountable.

 

[butchersapron]

completely dishonest. Where did I suggest that Cruddas plans " a move beyond parliamentary politics and into a form of broader participatory democracy"?

Do you ever review what you write before posting it? Do you remember posting most of it? You suggested

a) that there were encouraging elements to Cruddas' guff
b) that part of that encouraging element was the willingness to take on board and discuss ideas about "empowering civil society organisation"
c) and that this, if undertaken genuinely, could led to "a genuine expansion of participatory democracy....even if initially within the context of a overall commitment to the parliamentary system"
d) as "things can develop their own dynamic, beyond what leaders envisage"

This is like talking to some Peter Dow type, so wrapped up in your fantasies are you.

 

[butchersapron]

it is being destroyed. We need a welfare state mkII - better and more accountable.

Just meaningless. Tell us whatdoes the labour parties plans for top down imposition of neo-liberal imperatives on the welfare state under the rhetoric of civil society and so on as signaled via Crudass' speech mean in relation to whatever you imagine that you've just posted this time?

 

[butchersapron]

he didn't say give up on the welfare state. His language is dangerous ambiguous, I accept that, but it's the game he's playing - holding the line whilst there's a good old fight about the party's direction. But the idea that we need to rebuild networks of solidarity and collective power in communities is fundamentally right. It's just that this language can also be used and traduced cynically, for a market-driven carve up of public services.

Holding the line? What line exactly?

 

[ViolentPanda]

not all bad


but this seems to the nub of it


It's the kind of statement that on the face of it is hard to disagree with but could actually be very dangerous indeed - as it could easily mean replacing the "simple state" with complex private financial architecture through PFIs, private equity and others along with mutuals and "social enterprises" in a giant market for services. I remain to be convinced this isn't what they have in mind.

It says nothing. The dreck about housing could mean subsidising private construction, with a payback in terms of pseudo-"rent controls" just as much as it could mean social housing construction., and the rest? It's neolib-apologia dogwank.

 

[ViolentPanda]

he didn't say give up on the welfare state. His language is dangerous ambiguous, I accept that, but it's the game he's playing - holding the line whilst there's a good old fight about the party's direction. But the idea that we need to rebuild networks of solidarity and collective power in communities is fundamentally right. It's just that this language can also be used and traduced cynically, for a market-driven carve up of public services.

Thing is, you're guardedly optimistic in your interpretation of what he's saying, because your perspective is party-political. I'm openly dismissive because from down here on the ground, it looks exactly like similar empty promises and proposals that have gone before.

 

[butchersapron]

He should ask himself exactly why "His language is dangerous ambiguous" - was that an accident? If not, why was it decided to pitch it in that way, who decided to go for that angle - and who was each part of the ambiguity aimed at?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Holding the line? What line exactly?

Fuck knows. The socialist "welfare state" line was ceded by Labour in '97 at the very latest, and arguably a minimum of ten years previously. Any other line-in-the-sand that Labour have is purely illusory when measured against that.

 

[ViolentPanda]

He should ask himself exactly why "His language is dangerous ambiguous" - was that an accident? If not, why was it decided to pitch it in that way, who decided to go for that angle - and who was each part of the ambiguity aimed at?

Come on, we both know that he'll never be able to bring himself to see (or at least admit) that Cruddas' language is deliberately and cynically constructed so that any apparent promises can be resiled from.

 

[ViolentPanda]

it's ok when Labour does Tory things

Yep, because the reason they do it apparently stems from the correct motivations, not from pesky Tory motivations.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If Labour does exactly the same as the Tories I will denounce them in exactly the same terms.

"If"? Where else can they go, given their commitment (despite the dog and pony shows that Miliband, Cruddas and others are touring) to the verities of neoliberal economics and politics?

 

[ayatollah]

They've got you "bang to rights" here on Cruddas' utter cynical bullshit, articul8. Come on , grasp what Butchers, Panda, sihhi, agricola, and others are saying in these recent comments , or feel your political soul slip further and further away on an ever quickening tide of pseudo leftish rhetoric, overlaying a poisonous neoliberal core . Cruddas is pure, unadulterated, political poison. His theatrical "man of the people" bullshit should evoke the same sort of loud "utter political opportunist" alarm as should go off in any socialist's head when they, for instance , see George Galloway do his cringe-making "friendly White District Commissioner" , " Bless the Prophet", act in the presence of gullible Muslim voters - too naive to see he's full of contempt for them. Cruddas is simply another NuLabour "frog boiler" aiming to keep gullible workers happy with the soft political musak of backward-looking communitarian sentimentality and vague promises, whilst NuLabour actually prepares to use their votes to get on the in-government gravy train again, and boil us all to utter penury in the interests of capitalism.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Why do you do this? Why make some broad radical sounding rhetoric then cover it in get outs and weasel bollocks? You're a total mess.

Nah, he's a wannabe party politician.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Look - it's about trying to think through how best elements of the welfare state can be saved and built on but also improved by engendering a genuine element of collective democratic participation outside of the "command-and-control" state? These are good questions, and require some intervention at the level of the state, which can reciprocally assist in building the capacity of the organisations from which it draws its apparent democratic legitimacy.

I'm stunned at how entirely you miss the point. If it weren't for the politics that Cruddas and nearly every other Parliamentary Labour Party member are willingly signed up to, we wouldn't be talking in terms of saving those fragments of the welfare state that are retrievable, because we'd have had 13 years post-'97 of reconstruction of the welfare state, rather than "reform" that was only ever going to turn over public assets to private hands.
"Saved and built on"? By the very people who took the Tory ball and ran with it, and only ever voiced faint mewings of regret for the welfare state after they lost power?

FUCK RIGHT OFF!

 

[ViolentPanda]

it is being destroyed. We need a welfare state mkII - better and more accountable.

If making a "better" welfare state was the name of the game, then it's signally odd how little effort was put into structural research to assess where reform would best support and enhance function, and even odder how much effort was from the off put into promoting PPP/PFI and other mechanisms for stripping public assets in the guise of "better service provision".

 

[Favelado]

I'm stunned at how entirely you miss the point. If it weren't for the politics that Cruddas and nearly every other Parliamentary Labour Party member are willingly signed up to, we wouldn't be talking in terms of saving those fragments of the welfare state that are retrievable, because we'd have had 13 years post-'97 of reconstruction of the welfare state, rather than "reform" that was only ever going to turn over public assets to private hands.
"Saved and built on"? By the very people who took the Tory ball and ran with it, and only ever voiced faint mewings of regret for the welfare state after they lost power?

FUCK RIGHT OFF!

I love this and didn't think a simple "like" was enough.

 

[articul8]

Cruddas is simply another NuLabour "frog boiler" aiming to keep gullible workers happy with the soft political musak of backward-looking communitarian sentimentality and vague promises, whilst NuLabour actually prepares to use their votes to get on the in-government gravy train again, and boil us all to utter penury in the interests of capitalism.

Look, I'm not expressing any faith in Cruddas - I started off by saying I find his agenda as a whole "very worrying". But within that there is some signal that dodgy landlords and punitive rents will be tackled. Which is something worthwhile, even if it doesn't offset the general capitulation to austerity. It's like saying "you'll all get poorer, but we'll stop the very poorest getting quite such a kicking". Not a great position, all told, I'd admit..

Where does IPPR get its money btw - would be worth knowing

 

[Random]

it is being destroyed. We need a welfare state mkII - better and more accountable.

Comrades! The shortage of currency in besieged petrograd is a sign that the workers state is on the verge of abolishing money! (true story)

 

[Random]

It's like saying "you'll all get poorer, but we'll stop the very poorest getting quite such a kicking". Not a great position, all told, I'd admit.

So why are you trying to get people to focus on the good parts? Serious question, in your professional circles are many of your lefty colleagues positive about Cruddas and this kind of talk from Labour?

 

[butchersapron]

Look, I'm not expressing any faith in Cruddas - I started off by saying I find his agenda as a whole "very worrying". But within that there is some signal that dodgy landlords and punitive rents will be tackled. Which is something worthwhile, even if it doesn't offset the general capitulation to austerity. It's like saying "you'll all get poorer, but we'll stop the very poorest getting quite such a kicking". Not a great position, all told, I'd admit..

Where does IPPR get its money btw - would be worth knowing

That'll def happen then. That's why they said it after all.