John Major: let's keep the Coalition after the next election

[ViolentPanda]

Within that situation, you still get professional politicians who do try to make a difference and go beyond the mainstream consensus, although increasingly rarely now, and they're as powerless as the rest of us. It's far too simplistic to simply claim, 'they're all the same.' The kind of people who take it as their default position would do so under any and every set of circumstances: 'Representatives of the (ahem) worker's soviets? They're all the same.' It's essentially an apolitical stance.

Oh, I don't disagree. My point was that when the party hierarchies are all singing from the same hymn-sheet, the perception that "they're all the same has some applicability.
And yes, it is an apolitical stance, even an abdication of individual responsibility, but it is understandable, given the marginalisation of protest, and the attendant de-politicisation of those who might have traditionally formed the backbone of protest movements.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Crikey this post seems to sum up just how confused a lot of urban75 people are.......miserablism and elitism looking down on people at the same time as saying they reject vanguardism etc et fucking cetra....
To be fair though it is quite funny to read.

I see you're really running with your new buzz-word of "miserablism". That's about 25 uses in a week. You're obviously enjoying yourself!

Pretty tiresome for the rest of us, though, watching you wriggle around trying to fit it into everything you write.

 

[goldenecitrone]

I see you're really running with your new buzz-word of "miserablism". That's about 25 uses in a week. You're obviously enjoying yourself!

That's because he's an anus miserablist.

 

[LLETSA]

I think what you meant to say there was that you are either indifferent, or even perhaps fully in favour of moves which restrict democracy and move us further towards a one party state in Britain. That IS bizarre.

A merger of the Tories and the Lib Dems, restricts party political choice, and seriously restricts ability of an electorate to influence policy. And it is hard enough to do so now, with Yellow Tory Turncoats reversing their policy on tuition fees and damning future generations of poor students to exhoribitant debts.

Small parties like Plaid Cymru, the Greens and the SNP represent a miniscule force within Westminister. A formal merger of the Tories and the Lib Dems into a new 'Conservative Liberal Party', with a democratic 'Labour Party' (perhaps containing many Lib Dem defectors) would end up turning Britain into an American style, two headed, one party state. A choice between two brands: 'Extra Strong Capitalism' or 'Capitalism Light'.

The upshot of that is that it would strengthen considerably the UK police state, the war machine, Britain militarily, geoeconomically and geopolitically. But it would seriously weaken it democratically. That would be a very retrogressive step indeed.

I don't think there's much of a difference between the US 'two-headed one-party state,' and our three-headed one. Nor do I think any of them represent 'capitalism lite' as opposed to 'extra strong capitalism'.

I think there are a number of factors that could feasibly pluge us into another Dark Age, as you put it earlier, but a merger of the Tories and the LD's isn't one of them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think what you meant to say there was that you are either indifferent, or even perhaps fully in favour of moves which restrict democracy and move us further towards a one party state in Britain. That IS bizarre.

You need to appreciate that to function as it does, our political system needs to present at least an appearance of democratic governance, which means that a one-party state id unlikely (and may indeed be unnecessary when all the three main parties buy into the same neo-liberal belief system).
You also need to appreciate that government (whoever is in power) will always tend toward awarding more power/control to the state than it can bring itself to cede.
Restriction of democracy is a given. if you accept this, then the question becomes: To what degree will I allow them to restrict democracy before I say something or do something to oppose those restrictions?

A merger of the Tories and the Lib Dems, restricts party political choice, and seriously restricts ability of an electorate to influence policy.

A look at 20th-century history shows us this, It also shows us that the right-Liberals have a fondness for "crossing the floor" to the Conservative benches if they think it suits their personal agendas.

And it is hard enough to do so now, with Yellow Tory Turncoats reversing their policy on tuition fees and damning future generations of poor students to exhoribitant debts.

I'm not convinced that Labour wouldn't have done substantially the same over fees, though. They already knew that places would have to be restricted again, and that restriction couldn't be done by sorting alone for more than a couple of years in a row, so they'd have realised that an external factor or two (such as cost) needed to be introduced.

Small parties like Plaid Cymru, the Greens and the SNP represent a miniscule force within Westminister. A formal merger of the Tories and the Lib Dems into a new 'Conservative Liberal Party', with a democratic 'Labour Party' (perhaps containing many Lib Dem defectors) would end up turning Britain into an American style, two headed, one party state. A choice between two brands: 'Extra Strong Capitalism' or 'Capitalism Light'.

We're already there. We had that with Thatcherism and Majorism being followed by Blairism and Brownism: Differing interpretations of the same basic text.

The upshot of that is that it would strengthen considerably the UK police state, the war machine, Britain militarily, geoeconomically and geopolitically. But it would seriously weaken it democratically. That would be a very retrogressive step indeed.

We don't have a "police state", and it's frankly childish to believe that we do. We're nowhere near that.
Yet.
We do, however, need to assert our rights, lest we lose them to the creeping encroachment of anti-democratic legislation.

 

[Streathamite]

A merger of the Tories and the Lib Dems, restricts party political choice, and seriously restricts ability of an electorate to influence policy.

no it doesn't, not now, because there's barely a rizla you could get between the two of them, on practically every issue of importance. A choice between two identical alternatives is no choice at all

 

[goebfwai]

I think there are a number of factors that could feasibly pluge us into another Dark Age, as you put it earlier, but a merger of the Tories and the LD's isn't one of them.

I actually said "new form of dark age". It wasn't meant literally, but metaphorically. Dark ages do occur during political changes and upheavals, on a broad spectrum. Whether speaking about the electricity black outs under Ted Heath in the 70's (now that was a literally dark age!), Hitler's Germany, Pinochet's Chile, Stalin's USSR or the metaphorical long dark nights of the soul for people living under the communist and pseudo socialist dystopias of eastern Europe. The new form of dark age I think could emerge in Britain over the next 5 years of Tory coalition rule is a kind of fascist leaning, state capitalist, free market. A real dog eat dog world. The misery of the Thatcher era might appear like "the good old days", and the Blair years, a utopia, in comparison.

 

[frogwoman]

@ spanky - yeah, i know, sorry, but ymu had mentioned ghe birmingham psc elsewhere on the thread and i was referring to when she said that this anti cuts stuff should be more like a single issue campaign - im not so sure it should tbh.

 

[moon23]

@ spanky - yeah, i know, sorry, but ymu had mentioned ghe birmingham psc elsewhere on the thread and i was referring to when she said that this anti cuts stuff should be more like a single issue campaign - im not so sure it should tbh.

I think you would struggle making any anti-cuts campaign single issue as it's such a partisan topic. I'm going along to an anti-cuts meeting this week, will be interesting to see what is being said and who is there.

 

[goebfwai]

We don't have a "police state",...We're nowhere near that.
Yet.
We do, however, need to assert our rights, lest we lose them to the creeping encroachment of anti-democratic legislation.

Agreed

 

[frogwoman]

I think you would struggle making any anti-cuts campaign single issue as it's such a partisan topic. I'm going along to an anti-cuts meeting this week, will be interesting to see what is being said and who is there.

I don't think it's a "partisan topic".

 

[Streathamite]

I'm going along to an anti-cuts meeting this week, will be interesting to see what is being said and who is there.

I see. And how upfront, honest and transparent do you intend to be about your current party affiliations, at that meeting?

 

[frogwoman]

(Parts of) the anti cuts movement is actually actively trying to get labour and even lib dem councillors to refuse to impliment cuts or resign on the condition that if they don't impliment them, they won't stand against them in eletions and will stand by them. The SP/TUSC are actively trying to get anti-cuts groups to stand candidates and if they do so we won't stand against them and Im sure other groups have the same policy as well. I don't think you can therefore say it's in a narrow party political interest to be opposed to all cuts as people from all parties (apart from yours!) and people who aren't involved in anything are opposed to them. However, I don't think it's a "single issue" campaign either tbh in that I don't think that these cuts can be stopped (or partially stopped) and then that's it, problem solved. It's an ongoing struggle and will go on possibly until the end of our lives.

 

[ViolentPanda]

(Parts of) the anti cuts movement is actually actively trying to get labour and even lib dem councillors to refuse to impliment cuts or resign on the condition that if they don't impliment them, they won't stand against them in eletions and will stand by them. The SP/TUSC are actively trying to get anti-cuts groups to stand candidates and if they do so we won't stand against them and Im sure other groups have the same policy as well. I don't think you can therefore say it's in a narrow party political interest to be opposed to all cuts as people from all parties (apart from yours!) and people who aren't involved in anything are opposed to them. However, I don't think it's a "single issue" campaign either tbh in that I don't think that these cuts can be stopped (or partially stopped) and then that's it, problem solved. It's an ongoing struggle and will go on possibly until the end of our lives.

Although the main parties have (and will continue to) play the anti-cuts movement as "single issue" in scope (breadth of reference and intent) on that points I'd say they're wrong. The scope of the cuts mean that so many disparate interests are affected that the movement has a base in multiple issues of harm(s) that will be/are being done, and it's unlikely that such a movement will disintegrate once the cuts are legislated either, because too many people can't afford to just give up and let themselves be shat on.

 

[frogwoman]

I also don't think it's just about THESE cuts but about other ones, implimented by labour etc too.

 

[Streathamite]

Civil disorder is likely to abate if Labour get back into government, though, particularly if they do so making noises about softer cuts (the most we can hope from them). And if it starts up again it is not only unlikely to do so with the same energy,

sorry for bumping so far back everyone, but on this I think LLETSA is wrong, and I think you are seriously underestimating people. they're not stupid. What they also are is angry, deeply angry, and the thing most likely to make them fight like fuck is a direct assault on their living standards and life chances. There is a huge, massive groundswell of diswcontent that isn't just going to fade away. The conventional mythg that the British people are too apathetic to ever do anything about being shafted - they will do, if they can see what to do.
tbh, the far bigger danger, is that of the swappies etc. fucking things up yet again with their usual antics. THAT is what will kill the energy and the impetus

 

[Streathamite]

Like I said, I heard it most from LP members and ex-members. The type of people who think the main thing is to get elected, as if the Tories and not the system in itself are the main problem.

the good news is, these gullible saps are decreasing injh number by the day. The silver lining to the cloud of mass disillusionment is that it forces people in their millions, to face the realities, and that gives them a chance of working out what to do.

 

[frogwoman]

Although the main parties have (and will continue to) play the anti-cuts movement as "single issue" in scope (breadth of reference and intent) on that points I'd say they're wrong. The scope of the cuts mean that so many disparate interests are affected that the movement has a base in multiple issues of harm(s) that will be/are being done, and it's unlikely that such a movement will disintegrate once the cuts are legislated either, because too many people can't afford to just give up and let themselves be shat on.

to be honest, i don't think this fight will EVER go away - not in my lifetime anyway

 

[ymu]

@ spanky - yeah, i know, sorry, but ymu had mentioned ghe birmingham psc elsewhere on the thread and i was referring to when she said that this anti cuts stuff should be more like a single issue campaign - im not so sure it should tbh.

Yeah, but I didn't mention PSC as an example of a single issue campaign - I mentioned it as an example of where introducing a committee structure was disastrous.

I don't consider PSC very effective, and I'm not expecting the anti-cuts tactics to be anything like their letter-writing, stall-holding approach, although no doubt there will be some of that (and nowt wrong with that, either).

I mentioned ISM as an example of a group focused on a single issue that has successfully avoided political in-fighting and endless blocking of action by making it very clear that wasting activist time with ideological arguments won't be tolerated.

Clearly, the anti-cuts campaign is very different, not least because it will involve large numbers of autonomous groups which will do whatever the fuck they like regardless of what anyone else thinks. There's no point trying to control that - it won't succeed, and if it does it'll just suffocate the movement.

I'm not saying you, personally, do or would want to do any of this froggie, but it's what happens far too often within the left. This battle is too important for that shit. Virtually the whole country can get behind at least some of the anti-cuts work. It doesn't matter what their politics are - their ideas will develop and mature as they get involved in activism anyway. Right now, it's a numbers game.

Strategic debate will be necessary and important, as will a critique of actions in order to improve future actions. But ideological posturing and endless criticism of what other people are doing just because it doesn't tick the right dogmatic boxes ... please, no, just no. If you want to influence other people, get out there and do an action that will inspire them, publish materials they can borrow from, and make sure your leaflets explain the deeper arguments, not just the headline demands.

 

[frogwoman]

i don't think anyone is making any ideological posturing and criticising others because it doesn't tick the right boxes tho. im just saying that if this is gonna progress further and get the right numbers then it will have to have even a vague idea(s) of where we want to go after this because OK, these cuts can be stopped and then what ?? and i fully support anything that anyone is doing even if they dont have exactly the same views as me - we don't waste time with ideological arguments??

 

[frogwoman]

Yeah, but I didn't mention PSC as an example of a single issue campaign - I mentioned it as an example of where introducing a committee structure was disastrous.

I don't consider PSC very effective, and I'm not expecting the anti-cuts tactics to be anything like their letter-writing, stall-holding approach, although no doubt there will be some of that (and nowt wrong with that, either).

yeah, sorry about that, i was really really tired last night and i also think i got the two confused!

 

[ymu]

i don't think anyone is making any ideological posturing and criticising others because it doesn't tick the right boxes tho. im just saying that if this is gonna progress further and get the right numbers then it will have to have even a vague idea(s) of where we want to go after this because OK, these cuts can be stopped and then what ?? and i fully support anything that anyone is doing even if they dont have exactly the same views as me - we don't waste time with ideological arguments??

Sure, I'm just struggling to see the practical impact of any of this. There will be lots and lots of different ideas about where people want this to end up, and no doubt different groups will be putting those ideas across in the actions they take. That's it. No action needed. Attempting to produce a manifesto that the entire anti-cuts movement can sign up to in advance is futile. So why are we discussing this?

yeah, sorry about that, i was really really tired last night and i also think i got the two confused!

No probs.

 

[frogwoman]

Im not talking about a manifesto Im just saying that it is equally futile to just say "there should be no cuts" and that's it - because people will ask stuff like, "who will pay for all this?" "if you don't want the tories (etc) in power, what do you suggest instead?" do you see where im coming from? im not saying that we should have a fully thought out list of transitional demands? but just that we should have some idea of where we want to go next beyond the immediate aim of stopping the cuts (and that's not even getting past the whole thing people have going on of which cuts? well all of them...)

I guess part of the reason im talking about this is because the other week there was a green party member who came to one of the anti cuts meetings and was like, "bob crow is an idiot because the rmt go on strike all the time and it's really counterproductive" ... etc. And we need to be clear that not only do we support the anti cuts stuff but we also support other stuff going on that is linked to it if you see what I mean?

 

[Streathamite]

The vast majority who are not involved in any kind of political campaigning do not think in terms of there being 'no honeymoon for Labour.' They cast their vote in the vague hope that 'they'll be better than the other lot.'

what makes you so very certain that you've got your finger on the popular pulse here?

 

[Streathamite]

It's anger combined with political incoherence though.

Fine by me. The last thing we need is to insist that everything is tied, chapter & verse, line by line into a rigid alternative manifesto, checked for ideological correctness by the usual 57 varieties of irrelevant old fart trot groupings. We tried that before, to disastrous (non) effect. Let the people, the protesters etc, decide what they want, by a "praxis process" of trial and error. We do not need, at this stage, a fully worked out, extensive programme, either specifically for the anti-cuts campaign, or for any wider struggle.

You can't riot your way to a political alternative

well, I'm pretty certain that civil unrest has been a pretty indispensable component of the 'prelude-to-revolution' stage! riots don't prevent alternatives being hammered out, either.

 

[Streathamite]

Riots may have occurred now and again during the period you mention, but they are a mere historical footnote. Any 'alternative political consensus' that came about between 1930(?) and 1980 was not due to rioting.

ther huge advances made by the workers between 1945 and the 70s were achieved by determined workers action, and people making it crystal clear they wanted a new deal and not the same old shit (i.e. the 30s). That's is the only way to win change. To force it on govts, and the ruling class, and to leave them with no other alternatives

 

[LLETSA]

ther huge advances made by the workers between 1945 and the 70s were achieved by determined workers action, and people making it crystal clear they wanted a new deal and not the same old shit (i.e. the 30s). That's is the only way to win change. To force it on govts, and the ruling class, and to leave them with no other alternatives

I know. What I took issue with was Ymu's strange notion that this was achieved by the kind of permanent state of rioting he seems to advocate as some kind of way forward now.

Aside from that, you can only win concessions by pressuring the established parties; the kind of concessions which are, as we've seen over the past thirty years, subject to gradual repeal. And the period you mention was the heyday of the British labour movement. The working class is now far weaker organisationally and less politicised, not to mentioned more fragmented and individually isolated.

 

[LLETSA]

what makes you so very certain that you've got your finger on the popular pulse here?

It's the impression I gain from listening to what non-politico friends and acquaintances say, as well as the myriad other ways you tend to absorb the way the average person thinks. I think you know as well as I do that most people think this way, to be honest. 'Give the other lot a chance; they can't be any worse,' could hardly be said not to be a widespread sentiment of what was a pretty apathetic population politically speaking, to be honest, even when I was a kid in what is now considered in both right and left mythology a period of popular revolt. Did you grow up in 'ungovernable' Britain? No, neither did I. There were sometimes strikes though.

 

[ymu]

Im not talking about a manifesto Im just saying that it is equally futile to just say "there should be no cuts" and that's it - because people will ask stuff like, "who will pay for all this?" "if you don't want the tories (etc) in power, what do you suggest instead?" do you see where im coming from? im not saying that we should have a fully thought out list of transitional demands? but just that we should have some idea of where we want to go next beyond the immediate aim of stopping the cuts (and that's not even getting past the whole thing people have going on of which cuts? well all of them...)

I guess part of the reason im talking about this is because the other week there was a green party member who came to one of the anti cuts meetings and was like, "bob crow is an idiot because the rmt go on strike all the time and it's really counterproductive" ... etc. And we need to be clear that not only do we support the anti cuts stuff but we also support other stuff going on that is linked to it if you see what I mean?

Yes, but what does this mean in practice? Noone does an action without explaining why they're doing it and what they want to see happen instead! Well, some do, but they learn.

I cannot see the relevance of this. I can't tell other people how to do their actions - I can only get involved in discussions and share resources and hope to influence them, and hopefully be open to being influenced in return. If I get involved in an anti-cuts group with no particular political basis, then I have to expect that there will be a wide range of different ideas and that we will have to compromise when it comes to agreeing messages - or I can withdraw if I cannot agree with the group consensus. If I can't work with a broad-based group because of this, then I work with one that has a more narrow political focus. That's a personal decision, it has fuck all to do with the wider movement.

 

[LLETSA]

sorry for bumping so far back everyone, but on this I think LLETSA is wrong, and I think you are seriously underestimating people. they're not stupid. What they also are is angry, deeply angry, and the thing most likely to make them fight like fuck is a direct assault on their living standards and life chances. There is a huge, massive groundswell of diswcontent that isn't just going to fade away. The conventional mythg that the British people are too apathetic to ever do anything about being shafted - they will do, if they can see what to do.
tbh, the far bigger danger, is that of the swappies etc. fucking things up yet again with their usual antics. THAT is what will kill the energy and the impetus

I don't dispute that there's a groundswell of discontent that won't easily disappear. As usual, though, it is not a majority, nor will the momentum be permanently maintained. You are surely the kind of person who understands this.

And are you really trying to claim that in the absence of any coherent political alternative, people who are opposed to the cuts won't be driven into the arms of Labour yet again?