GMB plan move against (Blairites) Progress

[articul8]

Dead end? Lunatic? Well I guess I came to the conclusion that of two apparent dead ends, there was slightly more chance of finding a chink in the wall at the bottom of the "labour" one than the "NWP" one. I might be wrong, I hope I am in a way.

And I would like to be spoon fed apple pie by scandanavian virgins. But I'm realistic enough to know we don't live in that kind of world (yet )

 

[ViolentPanda]

what time? Isle of Dogs - Labour. Oldham/Burnley - SP. From 2007 on - Labour again.

But as SP as I was saying "Labour has lost the support of the w/c in these places - the BNP will pick up support unless we can build an alternative".

Only I came to conclude that on balance, making Labour recover its support was more possible than building a new workers party.

The BNP picked up support because of a combination of circumstances, not merely because Labour got lazy and sloppy about addressing the issues affecting their "natural supporters". That's why their support nationally doesn't map to w/c and/or cultural demographics to any significant extent.
As for an alternative. It's not necessary to build an alternative, but to build a locally-credible alternative.

 

[articul8]

Burnley and Oldham were 2001.
As for campaigning for PR, if you're referring to the referendum, then you didn't. You campaigned for AV "because at least it's change" (to paraphrase). You tucked your tail in and went with it, rather than sticking up for your principles.
You'll do well as a Labour MP, I'll give you that.

I'd have welcomed PR as a member of the SP. I've been consistent on that. Even during the referendum I never once suggested that AV was better than PR. I saw it as first step to PR (rightly or wrongly). And PR as a first step to the creation of a party that would surpass parliamentary democracy!!!

 

[ViolentPanda]

? How - I'm talking about Beacon

Beackon.

Know thine enemies.

 

[articul8]

They only tolerate a residual handful of left MP's as a screen for their single-minded neo-liberalism.

That's a serious danger. It still is. It must occur to people like McDonnell and Corbyn. Whether it outweighs any potential to change that neoliberal agenda from within is a moot point.

 

[butchersapron]

I can see why you inspire so much confidence and trust.

 

[articul8]

Beakkkon.

Know thine enemies.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Which is odd as a few short years ago this left-wing moon was arguing:

For a militant socialist, he's been remarkably formulaic and reformist in his prescriptions.

 

[articul8]

I can see why you inspire so much confidence and trust.

Well I changed my mind on tactical questions. But on long term goals? On wanting to see a party that fights for w/c interests? Nope.

 

[articul8]

For a militant socialist, he's been remarkably formulaic and reformist in his prescriptions.

typical ultra-left. Confuses transitional demands with reformism.

 

[butchersapron]

That's a serious danger. It still is. It must occur to people like McDonnell and Corbyn. Whether it outweighs any potential to change that neoliberal agenda from within is a moot point.

Amazing,

a) even if we're being used as left camofluge it doesn't matter because they're going to do it anyway.

Therefore

b) So join the party that your membership can can have no discernible effect on.

 

[butchersapron]

Well I changed my mind on tactical questions. But on long term goals? On wanting to see a party that fights for w/c interests? Nope.

Yes, in the way that John Smith and Tony Blair remained red hot socialists - they just differ on how to get there. .

Listen to this mad drivel that you're spouting.

 

[articul8]

I never said that - I said if the possible effect outweighs the danger of being used as camouflage in the short term, then it might be a price worth paying temporarily.

 

[articul8]

Yes, in the way that John Smith and Tony Blair remained red hot socialists - they just differ on how to get there. .

If you think I sound like Blair you must be mad!!

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'd have welcomed PR as a member of the SP. I've been consistent on that. Even during the referendum I never once suggested that AV was better than PR. I saw it as first step to PR (rightly or wrongly). And PR as a first step to the creation of a party that would surpass parliamentary democracy!!!

I didn't claim that you'd suggested that AV was better than PR, I stated that you'd engaged in a bout of arselicking apologia for AV.

 

[articul8]

..as a first step to PR...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Know thine enemies.

Because, of course, demonising someone as a member of the KKK is all to do with knowing your enemies, and nothing to do with gesture politics, no sir!

 

[butchersapron]

I never said that - I said if the possible effect outweighs the danger of being used as camouflage in the short term, then it might be a price worth paying temporarily.

You said no such thing. You said "Whether it outweighs any potential to change that neoliberal agenda from within is a moot point." - i.e exactly as i suggested. That this left-wing cover and lack of influence on the parties direction - i'm glad you're still accepting this btw as it undermines every single thing that you've written on joining the labour party and changing its direction - might be a price worth paying for changing the party. Do you see the madness of this - not changing the party and being used to stop the party being changed might be a price worth paying for the chance to change the party. Webs and webs of the stuff.

 

[ViolentPanda]

..as a first step to PR...

The "first step" that everyone except you (and your fellow-travellers) acknowledged would lead to political stasis rather than a reinvigoration of parliamentary politics.

 

[butchersapron]

If you think I sound like Blair you must be mad!!

I think you sound like a typical self-deluding labour party bullshitter. So yes, very much like Blair. But then Blair didn't think he sounded like Blair did he?

 

[articul8]

if the possible effect outweighs the danger of being used as camouflage in the short term, then it might be a price worth paying temporarily.

This is my position on that question. It's because influence might grow that this real danger is a lesser evil than leaving altogether. If there were no scope whatsoever to influence the party at all, ever, then you'd be right.

 

[articul8]

The "first step" that everyone except you (and your fellow-travellers) acknowledged would lead to political stasis rather than a reinvigoration of parliamentary politics.

err like we don;t have stasis already? You (and your fellow travellers) have given a shot in the arm of the system that keeps it that way.

 

[butchersapron]

This is my position on that question. It's because influence might grow that this real danger is a lesser evil than leaving altogether. If there were no scope whatsoever to influence the party at all, ever, then you'd be right.

There is no scope and that's why i'm right. You are now openly calling for the election of left-wing MPs in order to offer cover for neo-liberal policies because you think there is scope to influence the party away from neo-liberalism. You are off your head.

 

[butchersapron]

err like we don;t have stasis already? You (and your fellow travellers) have given a shot in the arm of the system that keeps it that way.

That's right - vote for change, vote for a party and system totally different from this one. Vote labour and vote lib-dem. Purple loon.

 

[articul8]

There is no scope and that's why i'm right. You are now openly calling for the election of left-wing MPs in order to offer cover for neo-liberal policies because you think there is scope to influence the party away from neo-liberalism. You are off your head.

No I'm not. I'm arguing for the election of left wing MPs to make the arguments against neoliberalism and help to turn the tide of opinion in the party against neoliberalism.

 

[articul8]

That's right - vote for change, vote for a party and system totally different from this one. Vote labour and vote lib-dem. Purple loon.

I didn't dress in purple and act like a twat, or encourage others to do.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Yes Miliband telling MPs to represent themselves as being of the same stock as their constituents is purely about image. It is the old 'triangulation' method copied by Blair from the American Democrats and employed by him to capture the votes of 'Middle England'. This time Miliband assumes that Labour already has the Middle Englanders vote (look at the polls) but wants to change the direction of the triangle (a variation of Lenin's 'bending the stick') to regain the votes of those who walked away, those from the wc who once would have been Labour's core vote.

 

[butchersapron]

No I'm not. I'm arguing for the election of left wing MPs to make the arguments against neoliberalism and help to turn the tide of opinion in the party against neoliberalism.

Er...you just argued that "They only tolerate a residual handful of left MP's as a screen for their single-minded neo-liberalism." but that this is a price potentially worth paying for the mad idea that you can change the party. Yet now these people whose job it is offer left-wing cover for neo-liberalism will turn the tide an influence the direction of the party. Whilst simultaneously not being able to influence the party. This is such a mess - why are you always such a mess?

 

[butchersapron]

I didn't dress in purple and act like a twat, or encourage others to do.

Yes you did - these were your people. Literally.

 

[articul8]

Er...you just argued that " . Whilst simultaneously not being able to influence the party. This is such a mess - why are you always such a mess?

Nothing at all difficult here. I don't know why you are having such problems.

"They tolerate a residual handful of left MP's as a screen for their single-minded neo-liberalism". Perhaps. In the short term. "but that this is a price potentially worth paying for the idea that you can change the party". n ow these people will turn the tide an influence the direction of the party

You might say - dream on, it won't happen etc etc. But it's a perfectly coherent position to take. The point is whether the position who do the "tolerating" is undermined altogether. It's a risk.