You are one disingenuous motherfucker, I'll hand that to you.
His orientation is clearly to shock Labour into reversing its NL neoliberal drift. He's right to attack the recent trajectory of the party, and would be warmly applauded by a section of Labour party members and activists for his arguments (though not necessarily his tactics, but since he was expelled this decision was made for him).
I think what he's aiming to achieve is relevant, and I hope it has some effect in the direction he intends but I don't think his approach is the "one true path" to achieving it. In fact I think it has a number of potential drawbacks.
Ha! Excellent result, I dunno what he stands for but its one in the eye for cunts. Tbf, if this shock result was a far right candidate we would be receiving this this much less favourably.
Tell me more about this...facebook...and what people say on there.
Do you know how mealy mouthed and pathetic this sounds? This golden vision? This idiocy? You are under many illusions if you think this is likely possible or achievable - you know as well as i do that it's bollocks. Hence the only practical expression of it being vote labour we're shit.
I don't know that at all. I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say it was "likely" but it's certainly possible. And yes it would only represent a moderate step forward and beg a whole series of other questions. But at least there is the prospect of some kind of dynamic opening up.
The practical expression is fight for a Labour party worth voting for (as a first step...)
have you heard his speech I linked to above - he makes it clear that he puts Labour in a different category to the Lib Dems/Tories, and makes a series of claims about what it "must" do, and "has" to do. What other conclusion could you draw? (hence earning him the ire of the WRP for being a "reformist"
)
Remember though, he is wrong, which is why articul8 uses him to illustrate the correctness of his approach.have you heard his speech I linked to above - he makes it clear that he puts Labour in a different category to the Lib Dems/Tories, and makes a series of claims about what it "must" do, and "has" to do. What other conclusion could you draw? (hence earning him the ire of the WRP for being a "reformist"
Are you kidding? This nonsense allied to your vote labour because we're shit slogan and the analysis it fits into is pretty silly.
he's right in what he is setting out to achieve, wrong in the way he's trying to achieve it. This is a perfectly consistent position.
I've never said "vote Labour because we're shit" - that is your stupid caricature. And what specifically is so stupid about believing that the Labour leadership can be pressured into a more traditional social democratic approach, especially in circumstances where it's so dependent on union funds?
