Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

has there ever been a lamer labour leader than ed miliband?

redsquirrel said:
But it's real 'alternative' is to implement cuts, idiot. You're a member of a party who is going to drive through an austerity agenda. You give money, time and effort to get Labour elected - you're helping impose the attack on what the working-class and what remains of the welfare state. You are a tory.
Click to expand...

Nah. I'm not having that!

He's a Fabian. ;) A gradualist, ameliorative reformist Fabian. :D
 
The Pale King said:
An opportunity nonetheless?
Click to expand...

Only if there were an impetus within the unions (and, here, within Unite especially) to break with Labour.
Probably unfortunately for most of the membership, the national officers and command structures of most of the big unions have way too much invested in the existence of this Labour Party to ever decisively break away and form an "honourable opposition" to Labour, putting decently-socialist policies up for debate.
 
ViolentPanda said:
Only if there were an impetus within the unions (and, here, within Unite especially) to break with Labour.
Probably unfortunately for most of the membership, the national officers and command structures of most of the big unions have way too much invested in the existence of this Labour Party to ever decisively break away and form an "honourable opposition" to Labour, putting decently-socialist policies up for debate.
Click to expand...

There is approx 190k Labour members and possibly 1.5-2 million Unite members funding Labour? So maybe they want some form of control over Labour policy?
 
That thing in the Guardian the other night about Miliband "reviewing" the union links was put out without Ed's consent apparently. The story was bollocks anyway, he'd struggle to get disaffiliation through conference and he's still in need of every penny he can get in donations. Hence the semi-climbdown "we'll keep accepting your money just don't expect to be able to vote on our policies" kind of arragement. Naughty Blairites putting Ed in a very tight spot though with all this briefing. It's a good example of how left-wing the left press really are - the Guardian and New Statesman are both actively helping out the Blairites with this campaign along with the Daily Mail and The Spectator. Nothing new about the right-wing of the Labour party working hand in hand with Tories to undermine the unions influence in Labour, and there's nothing new about the Guardian lining up on the same side as the Daily Mail to help out either.

Progress and co going for broke here. Unite were well on course for between 40-60 MP's in the new intake which is likely bigger than the Labour majority in 2015, and because the Blairite's are in a relatively weak position within the party (compared to pre-2010 anyway) their best assett is the fact they have enough friends at the Guardian and the Mail to turn a fairly dull run-of-the-mill scandal concerning arcane Labour party machine politics selection processes into a big news-agenda item. If Unite weren't on course to succeed in their aims I don't think this scandal would have even been brought up.

Here's what I don't understand. If you're gonna be in the Labour party as a socialist, you can't just immediately cave in when the Daily Mail starts growling, they're always going to do that. Did you not expect this? Are you surprised or something? Would the right in Labour have behaved any differently at any point in history? The people putting together that Unite political strategy must've known this was the likely outcome if they tried to cause a fuss and exert any kind of meaningful influence over the leadership. Did they not plan for this eventuality?

It's a lot easier to talk about being a socialist fighting for the Labour party than it is to actually fight for the Labour party. Labour party left wingers talk abour reclaiming our party, well now would be a good time. I think some people like the idea of being a socialist in the Labour party, as they can nestle within the bosom of the establishment left and get all the advantages that entails, more than the dirty, blood on the carpet reality.

Reclaiming the party is that's something that requires a long drawn-out battle, it means facing down and beating the vested interests at the top of the party, and rebuilding the base outside of the party too, and often it's just better to be a rhetorical socialist in the Labour party than face the daunting prospect that reclaiming that party would practically entail - a task every bit as arduous as the one that exists outside in the land of trot sects.
 
Delroy Booth said:
That thing in the Guardian the other night about Miliband "reviewing" the union links was put out without Ed's consent apparently. The story was bollocks anyway, he'd struggle to get disaffiliation through conference and he's still in need of every penny he can get in donations. Hence the semi-climbdown "we'll keep accepting your money just don't expect to be able to vote on our policies" kind of arragement. Naughty Blairites putting Ed in a very tight spot though with all this briefing. It's a good example of how left-wing the left press really are - the Guardian and New Statesman are both actively helping out the Blairites with this campaign along with the Daily Mail and The Spectator. Nothing new about the right-wing of the Labour party working hand in hand with Tories to undermine the unions influence in Labour, and there's nothing new about the Guardian lining up on the same side as the Daily Mail to help out either.

Progress and co going for broke here. Unite were well on course for between 40-60 MP's in the new intake which is likely bigger than the Labour majority in 2015, and because the Blairite's are in a relatively weak position within the party (compared to pre-2010 anyway) their best assett is the fact they have enough friends at the Guardian and the Mail to turn a fairly dull run-of-the-mill scandal concerning arcane Labour party machine politics selection processes into a big news-agenda item. If Unite weren't on course to succeed in their aims I don't think this scandal would have even been brought up.

Here's what I don't understand. If you're gonna be in the Labour party as a socialist, you can't just immediately cave in when the Daily Mail starts growling, they're always going to do that. Did you not expect this? Are you surprised or something? Would the right in Labour have behaved any differently at any point in history? The people putting together that Unite political strategy must've known this was the likely outcome if they tried to cause a fuss and exert any kind of meaningful influence over the leadership. Did they not plan for this eventuality?

It's a lot easier to talk about being a socialist fighting for the Labour party than it is to actually fight for the Labour party. Labour party left wingers talk abour reclaiming our party, well now would be a good time. I think some people like the idea of being a socialist in the Labour party, as they can nestle within the bosom of the establishment left and get all the advantages that entails, more than the dirty, blood on the carpet reality.

Reclaiming the party is that's something that requires a long drawn-out battle, it means facing down and beating the vested interests at the top of the party, and rebuilding the base outside of the party too, and often it's just better to be a rhetorical socialist in the Labour party than face the daunting prospect that reclaiming that party would practically entail - a task every bit as arduous as the one that exists outside in the land of trot sects.
Click to expand...


JonesOwen.jpg
 
http://labourlist.org/2013/07/if-the-union-link-ends-so-might-the-labour-party/

Yet what is becoming clear – and perhaps this is what the Guardian’s headline writer was reflecting this morning – that there are those in the Labour Party – although not Miliband himself – who are agitating for a wholesale end to Labour’s link with the trade unions. To do so would quite possibly be the end of the Labour Party as we know it. From a purely financial point of view, the Labour Party receives a large proportion of its income in affiliation fees from affiliated unions (note – these aren’t donations, they’re not negotiable, if the union is affiliated these fees must be paid). Without money coming in from millions of union members, the already tightly squeezed Labour Party budget becomes unsustainable. The Party couldn’t run an election campaign. Basic administration would prove difficult. The only alternative would be to rely on a small number of wealthy donors, rapidly scale up small donors or revisit public funding of political parties. Neither looks likely in the short term. End result? Bankruptcy and the end of the Labour Party.
Click to expand...

Interesting comments there from Mark Ferguson. But it's not the affiliation fee's that's the problem. They'll keep paying the affiliation fee's, they haven't much of a choice, it's all the rest that they're being called on to do. For instance - Labour as a party runs a big deficit, and has done for a while, which is managed via a rolling overdraft. The costs of maintaining this overdraft on a monthly basis with the Co-op is underwritten by Unite. Without Unite's funding there isn't a private donor ready to step in to plug that gap and they'd have to start laying off staff or taking out loans or whatever it is you do in these situations.
 
Unite are left and labour are skint so they should make labourt left or go away. /the whole pathetic labour left and their strategy.
 
The problem with leaders is that they don't want any form of real change. They just want to lead it all themselves. Fuck the lot of them!
 
butchersapron said:
So fuck all. I'm involved in anti-bailiff stuff, opposing the local hospital reforms/shut down, having barbecues. You harry?
Click to expand...

No I'm not. I did all that kind of stuff and more when I was younger. Now I feel the youngsters should be doing it. If we don't let them get on with it we are as bad as the hippies who can't relinquish their control
 
thedockerslad said:
No I'm not. I did all that kind of stuff and more when I was younger. Now I feel the youngsters should be doing it. If we don't let them get on with it we are as bad as the hippies who can't relinquish their control
Click to expand...

I can't do anything because if i did anything it would be bad. Walk on you faker.
 
Delroy Booth said:
That thing in the Guardian the other night about Miliband "reviewing" the union links was put out without Ed's consent apparently. The story was bollocks anyway, he'd struggle to get disaffiliation through conference and he's still in need of every penny he can get in donations. Hence the semi-climbdown "we'll keep accepting your money just don't expect to be able to vote on our policies" kind of arragement. Naughty Blairites putting Ed in a very tight spot though with all this briefing. It's a good example of how left-wing the left press really are - the Guardian and New Statesman are both actively helping out the Blairites with this campaign along with the Daily Mail and The Spectator. Nothing new about the right-wing of the Labour party working hand in hand with Tories to undermine the unions influence in Labour, and there's nothing new about the Guardian lining up on the same side as the Daily Mail to help out either.

Progress and co going for broke here. Unite were well on course for between 40-60 MP's in the new intake which is likely bigger than the Labour majority in 2015, and because the Blairite's are in a relatively weak position within the party (compared to pre-2010 anyway) their best assett is the fact they have enough friends at the Guardian and the Mail to turn a fairly dull run-of-the-mill scandal concerning arcane Labour party machine politics selection processes into a big news-agenda item. If Unite weren't on course to succeed in their aims I don't think this scandal would have even been brought up.

Here's what I don't understand. If you're gonna be in the Labour party as a socialist, you can't just immediately cave in when the Daily Mail starts growling, they're always going to do that. Did you not expect this? Are you surprised or something? Would the right in Labour have behaved any differently at any point in history? The people putting together that Unite political strategy must've known this was the likely outcome if they tried to cause a fuss and exert any kind of meaningful influence over the leadership. Did they not plan for this eventuality?

It's a lot easier to talk about being a socialist fighting for the Labour party than it is to actually fight for the Labour party. Labour party left wingers talk abour reclaiming our party, well now would be a good time. I think some people like the idea of being a socialist in the Labour party, as they can nestle within the bosom of the establishment left and get all the advantages that entails, more than the dirty, blood on the carpet reality.

Reclaiming the party is that's something that requires a long drawn-out battle, it means facing down and beating the vested interests at the top of the party, and rebuilding the base outside of the party too, and often it's just better to be a rhetorical socialist in the Labour party than face the daunting prospect that reclaiming that party would practically entail - a task every bit as arduous as the one that exists outside in the land of trot sects.
Click to expand...


Great post, one that should be resent to all left minded people still in the LP.
 
Even that pollster accepts the story hasn't had long enough to bed in to have an impact on Joe Punter yet
 
stowpirate said:
There is approx 190k Labour members and possibly 1.5-2 million Unite members funding Labour? So maybe they want some form of control over Labour policy?
Click to expand...

You think the membership of either organisation get a say?
Labour's remaining membership is a rump of the old Labour right, plus a salting of Blairites. They have no real activist base nowadays, and that's mostly down to Blair's re-writing of the party rules to remove any power to initiate policy discussions or decide policy from the CLPs.
As for the unions, their hierarchies are so locked into the Labour line, and to the benefits it'll bring them personally (a knighthood, party sinecure, safe seat or a place in the Lords) that outwith a revolutionary movement within the TUs, they won't say "boo" to a goose.
 
DotCommunist said:
Have to wonder if it wasn't all fatally fucked from the start with the shiteating fabians in from day 1
Click to expand...

You only need read any of the many histories to see that it always was (and still is) a top-down enterprise. Sure, it was quite "soft" in its' paternalism most of the time, but it was still attempting to guide "the lower orders" to be good productive units for the boss classes at the end of the day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hitmouse
Unions and Labour
Replies
20
Views
920
Fedayn
Fedayn
Kid_Eternity
New Labour government - legislative agenda
25 26 27 28 29
Replies
843
Views
24K
two sheds
two sheds
Humberto
Home Building Labour guff
Replies
1
Views
243
Humberto
Humberto
Voley
What next for Ed Davey, Action Man?
2 3 4 5
Replies
146
Views
4K
BusLanes
BusLanes
Buddy Bradley
How long before we get a proper Tory-style sleaze gaffe from Labour?
Replies
0
Views
172
Buddy Bradley
Buddy Bradley
Back
Top Bottom