New 'left-wing' think tank....

[butchersapron]

It's very failure is its success. At least 'we' know. At least the people who have voted for the party now urge us on to ever greater defeats. A better exercise in polarisation you could not find.

NO WAY OUT

 

[articul8]

Yeah the putting pressure on model is shit.
Unless, unless it can work elsewhere. Can it work in the labour party atricul8?

I don't think the approach of trying to win influence at the top table and gain influence incrementally works. Nor do I think people can afford to hold back in the desperate hope the Ed Miliband will offer some alternative of his own back.

My position's much closer to the one McDonnell outlines in his article - building a movement for an alternative on an independent (and pluralistic ) basis that transforms the co-ordinates of "public opinion" and puts the likes of Ed into a game of catch-up. But at the same time, if it's possible to win support for that platform within the party, that is all to the good.

 

[butchersapron]

My mum says "transforms the co-ordinates"? Go away. Well done - you did what you needed to do. She got cut out. Carry the fuck on.

 

[butchersapron]

My mum says "transforms the co-ordinates"? Go away. Well done - you did what you needed to do. She got cut out. Carry the fuck on.

Are there other areas that your party allows my mum to be involved in? How powerful do you think they are?

 

[articul8]

My mum says "transforms the co-ordinates"? Go away. Well done - you did what you needed to do. She got cut out. Carry the fuck on.

build the movement for an alternative - not exactly fucking Derrida is it?

 

[articul8]

Are there other areas that your party allows my mum to be involved in? How powerful do you think they are?

Not enough, on both counts.

 

[butchersapron]

build the movement for an alternative - not exactly fucking Derrida is it?

It must be derrida. Go away.

 

[butchersapron]

Not enough, on both counts.

Any answers? Not enough what? How did this happen? Why did this happen?

 

[butchersapron]

Are there other areas that your party allows my mum to be involved in? How powerful do you think they are?

I repeat.

 

[articul8]

Not enough opportunities for people who aren't longstanding party office holders, TU officials or elected reps to have real influence over the direction of the party even locally. Some limited voting rights, to attend meetings where the labour councillors justify their bullshit, and to deliver leaflets which are mostly either bland or wrong.

I don't want to climb this greasy pole (though clearly lots do, in London especially), so I do very very little - other than occasionally attend meetings to take a pop at the councillors and/or leadership. But I do work with other Labour/LRC people (amongst others) who are actively involved in working to build the local anti-cuts movement, and their are plans afoot to build a local branch of the LRC. Obviously if we are stronger in numbers and better organised we can exert more of an influence, and try to open up more to the kind of local people who would once have idenitified with the party and no longer do.

 

[butchersapron]

What would an opp mean? How would my mum get to know about the opp? In this pluralist world.

Enjoy.

 

[articul8]

What would an opp mean?

Chance to actually hold councillors/MP to account properly, have a real say in selections, to vote directly on specific policy proposals, to initiate campaigning activity in the community other than at election time (or about councillors pointing at pot-holes)...

 

[butchersapron]

Chance to actually hold councillors/MP to account properly, have a real say in selections, to vote directly on specific policy proposals, to initiate campaigning activity in the community other than at election time (or about councillors pointing at pot-holes)...

Like history demands must happen.

I hold you to account - great, now what.

 

[articul8]

You should have the power to deselect me in a democratic vote, and replace me with someone else

 

[butchersapron]

You should have the power to deselect me in a democratic vote, and replace me with someone else

I should - do i?

 

[Delroy Booth]

Christ almighty you two, go outside, it's a lovely day.

 

[articul8]

I should - do i?

Not yet you don't - but you would if I had my way.

(Delroy - what's got you? I thought you would still be on a high from the weekend?)

 

[Delroy Booth]

Not yet you don't - but you would if I had my way.

(Delroy - what's got you? I thought you would still be on a high from the weekend?)

Yeah I am still buzzing mate, thanks for reminding me, but it's just this tedious argument that you and butchers are having is totally derailing the thread. I mean, just go outside for a bit and relax, let someone other than you or butchers say something on here, coz I'm trying to follow the argument and it just looks to me like personal bickering expressed through dense political jargon.

I'm also interested in the think-tank and I'm cautiously optimistic about it, even though it's got the likes of Scumdal and Toynbee involved, something like this is required. Journo's are incredibly lazy, they will just re-phrase think tank press releases whenever they get the chance, the right-wing play this game and we should match them at it, otherwise their viwe of the world and will become the "common sense" that people accept as normal, when in actual fact it's batshit mental.

 

[articul8]

hehe - ok, fair enough

 

[ViolentPanda]

does it fuck - you wouldn't say that if you'd read what I posted.

Your politics stink of Fabianism, and what you post is sodden with it, all that puling reformism, that desperation to put people on the right path if only they'd listen to you, that concern with the opinions of others like yourself rather than with the grass-roots, and let's not forget the prescription of policy for the proles, rather than letting us decide for our selves.

I realise you'd quite like to have a stereotypical left liberal to have a pop at. But that ain't me (babe).

Nope, you're definitely not a stereotypical left-liberal. Most of them are gullible wishful-thinkers who think the way they do because they relate their own circumstances to what they see as being "right" and "wrong".
You, on the other hand, you go into this with your eyes open and your hand out, grasping for influence.

 

[articul8]

Hey, Billy Bull...so you think that you should...everyone's laughing?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not enough opportunities for people who aren't longstanding party office holders, TU officials or elected reps to have real influence over the direction of the party even locally. Some limited voting rights, to attend meetings where the labour councillors justify their bullshit, and to deliver leaflets which are mostly either bland or wrong.

And what brought this turn of events about?
Because the LP used to have internal democracy to spare, for it's membership.

I don't want to climb this greasy pole (though clearly lots do, in London especially), so I do very very little - other than occasionally attend meetings to take a pop at the councillors and/or leadership. But I do work with other Labour/LRC people (amongst others) who are actively involved in working to build the local anti-cuts movement, and their are plans afoot to build a local branch of the LRC. Obviously if we are stronger in numbers and better organised we can exert more of an influence, and try to open up more to the kind of local people who would once have idenitified with the party and no longer do.

You say this after moaning about Labour's lack of internal democracy, and yet you're talking in terms of an "alternative" whose effect, win or lose, will be exactly that.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Hey, Billy Bull...so you think that you should...everyone's laughing?

"Billy Bull"? Still holding onto that one like a drowning man to a lifebelt, eh? For all I care you can reiterate that entire thread. The only person who'll end up looking like a cunt is you, and we both know it.

Everyone's laughing? You're right. At you.

 

[articul8]

hold the front page - man drowns under tonne of bullshit ^. No one cares.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yeah I am still buzzing mate, thanks for reminding me, but it's just this tedious argument that you and butchers are having is totally derailing the thread. I mean, just go outside for a bit and relax, let someone other than you or butchers say something on here, coz I'm trying to follow the argument and it just looks to me like personal bickering expressed through dense political jargon.

I'm also interested in the think-tank and I'm cautiously optimistic about it, even though it's got the likes of Scumdal and Toynbee involved, something like this is required. Journo's are incredibly lazy, they will just re-phrase think tank press releases whenever they get the chance, the right-wing play this game and we should match them at it, otherwise their viwe of the world and will become the "common sense" that people accept as normal, when in actual fact it's batshit mental.

Like I said, my problem is that think-tanks tend to be a lot more about feeding ideas that fit to the current economic mode than in changing things, so the most that can be hoped for is gradualist reformism that's always going to "solve problems" too late to actually be useful for those of us on the sharp-end of neo-liberal policies.

 

[Delroy Booth]

Like I said, my problem is that think-tanks tend to be a lot more about feeding ideas that fit to the current economic mode than in changing things, so the most that can be hoped for is gradualist reformism that's always going to "solve problems" too late to actually be useful for those of us on the sharp-end of neo-liberal policies.

Trade unions being reformist? well I never.

Sorry to be sarcy, coz you're absolutely right, but I mean what were you expecting from a Unite backed think tank? syndicalism?

The same can be said about that recent John McDonell statement that came out, it's hardly radical by any means, none of it challenges capitalism a fundamental way. That will never happen inside the Labour party. But it shouldn't just be dismissed as pointless reformism imo. If a strong labour left can put class politics onto the agenda, if they can score a few reformist victories against the Tories, if they manage to counter some of the aggressive propaganda from the tory press, then it will be a worthwhile effort, one the wider left can benefit from too.

I think that the british left pretty much defines itself by it's relationship to Labour, and there's simultaneously a fight to be had inside the party and inside parliament, but there's also a fight to be had outside the Labour party, and outside parliament, especially in the trade union movement. I think it helps to have people inside the various parliaments, assemblies and councils in the country, so that with a bit of skill can apply pressure alongside with forces from outside the state, which could be home to much more radical ideas.

Although personally I'm not in Labour there's also a kind of moral mission involved with those who end up joining, simply that they don't want to see the party their grandparents were in, that built the NHS and etc fall fully into the hands of the right-wingers. I can certainly understand that, but I think at this point it's a bit of a lost cause. However little initiatives like this here shouldn't just be dismissed as reformist and written off, they have a role to play I think.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Trade unions being reformist? well I never.

Sorry to be sarcy, coz you're absolutely right, but I mean what were you expecting from a Unite backed think tank? syndicalism?

I can live in hope.

The same can be said about that recent John McDonell statement that came out, it's hardly radical by any means, none of it challenges capitalism a fundamental way. That will never happen inside the Labour party. But it shouldn't just be dismissed as pointless reformism imo. If a strong labour left can put class politics onto the agenda, if they can score a few reformist victories against the Tories, if they manage to counter some of the aggressive propaganda from the tory press, then it will be a worthwhile effort, one the wider left can benefit from too.

IMV they can't achieve the latter (reformist victories) because the party is in a situation (mostly as a result of "new Labour" and the ideas it gave currency) where it is unable to realise the former (putting class politics on the agenda). There's very little possibility of that happening when the party's internal democracy is a sham and the members have been divested of any power to control the leadership that they once had. That too is why I find articul8's insistence that a difference can be made from within so risible. I was a member of Labour when the membership had that power, and even then it was hard to actually carry something through that changed anything. Now..?

I think that the british left pretty much defines itself by it's relationship to Labour, and there's simultaneously a fight to be had inside the party and inside parliament, but there's also a fight to be had outside the Labour party, and outside parliament, especially in the trade union movement. I think it helps to have people inside the various parliaments, assemblies and councils in the country, so that with a bit of skill can apply pressure alongside with forces from outside the state, which could be home to much more radical ideas.

I don't disagree, but this think-tank is pretty much proposing an "all roads lead back to Labour" perspective, and to me that seems self-defeating insofar as if "all roads lead back to Labour", how then can anything move forward beyond the same "apologia for neo-liberalism bollocks they've churned out for 18 years?

Although personally I'm not in Labour there's also a kind of moral mission involved with those who end up joining, simply that they don't want to see the party their grandparents were in, that built the NHS and etc fall fully into the hands of the right-wingers. I can certainly understand that, but I think at this point it's a bit of a lost cause. However little initiatives like this here shouldn't just be dismissed as reformist and written off, they have a role to play I think.

Our perspectives differ. I think that they can play a role, but only if they're about a genuine independent (from immediate party politics) attempt at policy formulation that attempts to solve issues rather than continually and/or serially ameliorate them while the causes fester away, IYSWIM.

 

[Delroy Booth]

IMV they can't achieve the latter (reformist victories) because the party is in a situation (mostly as a result of "new Labour" and the ideas it gave currency) where it is unable to realise the former (putting class politics on the agenda). There's very little possibility of that happening when the party's internal democracy is a sham and the members have been divested of any power to control the leadership that they once had. That too is why I find articul8's insistence that a difference can be made from within so risible. I was a member of Labour when the membership had that power, and even then it was hard to actually carry something through that changed anything. Now..?

I share the sentiment of this, 100%, and this is kind of what I end up thinking every time I do hear someone like Owen Jones, whose politics aren't otherwise too disagreeable, defend the Labour party. 30 years ago, 50 years, it may have been a different story, there was scope for that once but it didn't succeed then, and I can't see it working out now. We wouldn't be in this position if being a left-wing rump in the Labour party produced tangible benefits. In theory it's fine, but I can't see it myself when I look at the Labour party.

The only other side to this is that arguably, in the same time period, the left outside Labour has fared even worse, if anything the collapse there has been even more dramatic. And that goes for Anarchists and Trots and Greens and the lot, I'm not picking out any groups specfically. The article McDonell wrote for the guardian mentions the effect the Melanchon campaign in France forced Hollande, and even Le Pen to some extent, to move to the left rhetorically. If the Labour Left is to have any hope at all of achieve it's modest aims, they will need pressure from outside the party to help them, but it's just not there.

I don't disagree, but this think-tank is pretty much proposing an "all roads lead back to Labour" perspective, and to me that seems self-defeating insofar as if "all roads lead back to Labour", how then can anything move forward beyond the same "apologia for neo-liberalism bollocks they've churned out for 18 years?

Well I suppose the real test of this think tank is if they actually do produce something that suggests votng against Labour, or even if it's prepared to make any serious criticism. It's not just a case of the Labour party, which a few exceptions, being the wrong type of socialist, it's to do with the fact it's run by a set of repulsively right wing corporate-backed scum, who are completely venal in the way they operate. Its more than just working independently from Labour, it's about fighting against them where needed. I've seen Labour councils in working class up places and down this country behave disgracefully, lining their own pockets whilst privatizating homes and services to dodgy companies, in bed with property developers and all the other bigwigs, it's incredibly destructive and needs to be stopped.

But where's the best place to do this? some on the labour left would argue inside the party is better than outside, because look at Labour on a local council level in some parts of the north of england, wales etc they're hegemonic, they have huge amount of control in places like Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sunderland, Newcastle etc running against them is ineffective, unless you've got huge amounts of money. Even if you do succeed in winning a few councilors here and there, they'd only be in any way effective if they can link-up with people outside in movements and civic organizations, so it's not a strong position to be in.

 

[articul8]

Its more than just working independently from Labour, it's about fighting against them where needed. I've seen Labour councils in working class up places and down this country behave disgracefully, lining their own pockets whilst privatizating homes and services to dodgy companies, in bed with property developers and all the other bigwigs, it's incredibly destructive and needs to be stopped.
.

But being in Labour needn't necessarily prevent you from being "against them where needed" - a lot of the work that LRC people (myself included) has been about campaigning against the local Labour council's cuts. But the fact that we can take these arguments into the party has been one factor in finally getting the Labour group to overthrow the former leader who was pushing the closures to half the libraries etc.

 

[butchersapron]

Trade unions being reformist? well I never.

Sorry to be sarcy, coz you're absolutely right, but I mean what were you expecting from a Unite backed think tank? syndicalism?

The same can be said about that recent John McDonell statement that came out, it's hardly radical by any means, none of it challenges capitalism a fundamental way. That will never happen inside the Labour party. But it shouldn't just be dismissed as pointless reformism imo. If a strong labour left can put class politics onto the agenda, if they can score a few reformist victories against the Tories, if they manage to counter some of the aggressive propaganda from the tory press, then it will be a worthwhile effort, one the wider left can benefit from too.

I think that the british left pretty much defines itself by it's relationship to Labour, and there's simultaneously a fight to be had inside the party and inside parliament, but there's also a fight to be had outside the Labour party, and outside parliament, especially in the trade union movement. I think it helps to have people inside the various parliaments, assemblies and councils in the country, so that with a bit of skill can apply pressure alongside with forces from outside the state, which could be home to much more radical ideas.

Although personally I'm not in Labour there's also a kind of moral mission involved with those who end up joining, simply that they don't want to see the party their grandparents were in, that built the NHS and etc fall fully into the hands of the right-wingers. I can certainly understand that, but I think at this point it's a bit of a lost cause. However little initiatives like this here shouldn't just be dismissed as reformist and written off, they have a role to play I think.

A fight to be had by who? In your wordy dismisal of what i've been pointing out you appear to have missed what i was actually saying. Who is to have this fight in the labour party and in parliament? is it to be bodies like this? Is it to be by think tanks like this putting pressure on MPs? if so, what does the closed nature of their open progressive pluralism say? Why even bother having a wider working class and working class interests at all?