How does the idea of 8+ more years of Conservative rule grab you? What does it mean for the left?

[butchersapron]

I don't know the exact figures, I'll ask at the next meeting. After a period where the LRC did'nt appear to be doing that much we are becoming more organised e.g setting up new branches etc, this is attracting new people.

At which point do you think the leadership will start listening to you? 30 000?

 

[dynamicbaddog]

At which point do you think the leadership will start listening to you? 30 000?

it's not about getting the leadership to listen, it's about rebuilding the left within the party so that at some point we can take over the leadership

 

[butchersapron]

At what point do you think you can take over the leadership? 30 000 members?

 

[butchersapron]

...and seriously, this is your 'alternative strategy' that you bashed nylock for not having? This...fantasy?

 

[articul8]

No they don't

well, the medium-long term trend makes them more likely and single party majority less likely. This is the general consensus.

 

[butchersapron]

well, the medium-long term trend makes them more likely and single party majority less likely. This is the general consensus.

No it's not - it was the immediate (self-serving) performative consensus of a limited group of due to temporary factors in the 3 months either side of the general election. The two main parties have now squeezed the lib-dem vote to such an extent that a lot of those assumptions are now rejected.

What do you see your role as when the LRC takes over the leadership of the labour party and by extension the country?

 

[dynamicbaddog]

...and seriously, this is your 'alternative strategy' that you bashed nylock for not having? This...fantasy?

don't see why you are saying this is fantasy - under the right conditions small left groups can begin to grow rapidly within the party.

 

[butchersapron]

...give me an example - a comparable example. Then give me an example of them taking over the leadership of the party. The show them following through on their pre-coup socialist policies.

 

[butchersapron]

don't see why you are saying this is fantasy - under the right conditions small left groups can begin to grow rapidly within the party.

...and i'm saying it's fantasy because it was the historic fantasy of the trot left that you abuse outside the party and reality dealt with them very well. It's the mad BNP-moseley-healy fantasy of the workers turning to you in times of a crisis. The workers don't know and don't care who you are - they're not going to even notice you let alone turn to you.

 

[Plumdaff]

we have just over a thousand. But that number is growing.

Righto, wish you luck, but I gave up on Labour and Labour-related a long time ago. I don't think this is the first time taffboy has claimed they are numerically comparable. For the record, that's blatantly not the case.

 

[articul8]

No it's not - it was the immediate (self-serving) performative consensus of a limited group of due to temporary factors in the 3 months either side of the general election. The two main parties have now squeezed the lib-dem vote to such an extent that a lot of those assumptions are now rejected.

No, it's been consistently argued by people like Jon Curtice and Guy Lodge more recently - the days of Labour and Tories getting 98% of the vote between them are long gone - the LDs will suffer somewhat at the next election, but the rise of the SNP, Plaid, Greens, UKIP, etc,etc fundamentally challenges the logic of majority government (in any case it's rarer than generally recognised that one majority gives way to one for the other party - how many times did that happen post-war?)

What do you see your role as when the LRC takes over the leadership of the labour party and by extension the country?

Lazy - you know full well I haven't made this argument. Have that debate with people who do hold that view.

 

[butchersapron]

No, it's been consistently argued by people like Jon Curtice and Guy Lodge more recently - the days of Labour and Tories getting 98% of the vote between them are long gone - the LDs will suffer somewhat at the next election, but the rise of the SNP, Plaid, Greens, UKIP, etc,etc fundamentally challenges the logic of majority government (in any case it's rarer than generally recognised that one majority gives way to one for the other party - how many times did that happen post-war?)

I didn't say that some people haven't argue it - i've said that you simply cannot say most psepholgists today take it as common sense. They don't.

Lazy - you know full well I haven't made this argument. Have that debate with people who do hold that view.

So what's wrong with your LRC's comrade argument that they will rapidly grow and take over the leadership of the labour party? What flaws do you see in his/their argument?

 

[articul8]

I didn't say that some people haven't argue it - i've said that you simply cannot say most psepholgists today take it as common sense. They don't.

Well I haven't seen any psephologist credibly argue otherwise

Even if the LRC did grow rapidly (I wouldn't discount the possibility altogether) there are next to no democratic structures to allow them to effectively challenge, let alone overthrow and replace, the leadership. The PLP, Victoria St, and local hierarchies will use their institutional power to wage all out war - keeping them out of candidate selection, policy development, national exec etc.

 

[butchersapron]

So the LRC's 'alternative strategy' is a fantasy then?

What does the iron grip that you identify as being blocks to significant left-wing influence in the party say about your competing labour party members 'alternative strategy'?

 

[articul8]

So the LRC's 'alternative strategy' is a fantasy then?

What does the iron grip that you identify as being blocks to significant left-wing influence in the party say about your competing labour party members 'alternative strategy'?

I think we need a much more sober and instrumental approach to what can be achieved by working inside the Labour party in the short-medium term. And I've never argued that the left should put all its eggs in this basket. But he's right to demand an alternative strategy beyond saying "they're all a shower of cunts now".

 

[butchersapron]

You don't put eggs in baskets full stop - you're a cuckoo.

 

[butchersapron]

I think we need a much more sober and instrumental approach to what can be achieved by working inside the Labour party in the short-medium term. And I've never argued that the left should put all its eggs in this basket.

So, what are these more sober aims? Apart from splitting the labour party whilst getting it elected and forming a new extra-parlimentary left with serious pretensions to some form of power of course.

 

[articul8]

stealing eggs? They'd need laying first

 

[butchersapron]

Doesn't stop you pre-emptively trying to nick them. Makes you look even dafter actually.

 

[articul8]

So, what are these more sober aims? Apart from splitting the labour party whilst getting it elected and forming a new extra-parlimentary left with serious pretensions to some form of power of course.

I think splits in Labour will come - but this might not necessarily mean some effective left alternative will emerge from the ashes. There will need to be serious work in organising and building elements inside and outside to make the most of whatever opportunities present themselves. Simplistic anti-Labour rhetoric will repel some of the people that need to be won over.

 

[butchersapron]

So no 'alternative strategy' just vague undefined 'serious work'?

 

[butchersapron]

I think splits in Labour will come - but this might not necessarily mean some effective left alternative will emerge from the ashes. There will need to be serious work in organising and building elements inside and outside to make the most of whatever opportunities present themselves. Simplistic anti-Labour rhetoric will repel some of the people that need to be won over.

Maybe your parties polices repel them? 'Win them over' to what? The party whose polices repel them winning the next general election?

 

[ViolentPanda]

don't see why you are saying this is fantasy - under the right conditions small left groups can begin to grow rapidly within the party.

Which is exactly why the LP has spent time and effort making sure that entryism doesn't pay.

 

[articul8]

Not that undefined - eg.
1) affiliated unions should formulate a programme of demands that any candidate would need to sign up to in order for their CLP to receive union funding, and withdraw sponsorship from any MP who refuses to sign
2) Reserve the right to stand candidates or back alternative candidates..

 

[butchersapron]

So, get labour elected on a tiny different basis or put up non-winning candidates. Very sober indeed.

 

[articul8]

Maybe your parties polices repel them? 'Win them over' to what? The party whose polices repel them winning the next general election?

No, win them over to the idea that an alternative is viable and not just a kite flown by trots in their own sectarian interests

 

[articul8]

So, get labour elected on a tiny different basis or put up non-winning candidates. Very sober indeed.

Demand that Labour candidates stand on a substantially different basis from that just outlined by the leadership, and that heavyweight unions will directly oppose Blairite candidates.

 

[butchersapron]

Demand that Labour candidates stand on a substantially different basis from that just outlined by the leadership, and that heavyweight unions will directly oppose Blairite candidates.

And you've just outlined in responding to the LRCs fantasy strategy why this is a...fantasy.

 

[butchersapron]

No, win them over to the idea that an alternative is viable and not just a kite flown by trots in their own sectarian interests

How? By voting for the party they've rejected and whose polices repel them? By structuring their politics through the party they despise.

 

[articul8]

Well, it's time to call the bluff of McCluskey, Kenny etc. No good just blustering and doing fuck all. Maybe it's charitable to think they have any intention of actually putting their mouth where there money is.