Strike!

[butchersapron]

You're a shambles.

 

[redsquirrel]

I didn't think my opinion of A8 could get much lower but it has.

What a cowardly, liberal, wet prat.

The "what will the papers say line" is so fucking moronic that I just want to vomit over those idiots who bring it up.

 

[butchersapron]

But if they said a bad thing you might think twice. Yeah.

 

[articul8]

You think "serious disruption of a global event" follows from what one Gen Sec tells the Guardian? You're off your bonce. People like that give media interviews at least in part to influence the media agenda - insofar as he did that it was hamfisted. This is all.

 

[articul8]

The anarchoids on here couldn't cause serious disruption to a mothers union jumble sale. Get a fucking grip.

 

[butchersapron]

No one thinks that apart from you and the panicky milibands. That you shit yourself at even rhetorical supppput for a mere suggestion of it shows just how far your strings are being pulled. Can't do it, Mr Cameron might not like it.

 

[butchersapron]

The anarchoids on here couldn't cause serious disruption to a mothers union jumble sale. Get a fucking grip.

Look lens got you rattled. Maybe part of his lack if nous was in doing just this eh? The crude thing.

Anyway, bung another on line petition up. Show the anarchoids your power.

 

[articul8]

Yes, cos the last week shows that digital activism doesn't do shit, right? Compared to getting your pom poms out for a tactically daft bit of grandstanding by a union boss.

 

[butchersapron]

Yes, cos the last week shows that digital activism doesn't do shit, right? Compared to getting your pom poms out for a tactically daft bit of grandstanding by a union boss.

Yes, you're claiming the on-line workfare outrage as one of your own. Fantastic.

I'm still waiting for you to outline why lM's respones were tactically daft - beyond saying well they were weren't they.

Make sure you run your reply by that Nice Mr Cameron and that charming Mr Clegg (you still have his number right?) before posting.

 

[butchersapron]

Yes, cos the last week shows that digital activism doesn't do shit, right? Compared to getting your pom poms out for a tactically daft bit of grandstanding by a union boss.

Amazing, AV vote which you were centrally involved in - nothing to do with me guv
Workfare - which you were nothing to do with - that was me that one.

 

[articul8]

Media interventions aim (amongst other things) to shape the media agenda - did it do this a) to the advantage or b) to the detriment of the causes it was meant to be promoting?

Any other empy utterances from TU bureaucrats you're moistening your knickers about this week or is it just LM?

 

[articul8]

Amazing, AV vote which you were centrally involved in - nothing to do with me guv
Workfare - which you were nothing to do with - that was me that one.

I never said that - I said it showed how effective digital activism {I should have added - allied to offline campaigning and direct action] could be.

 

[butchersapron]

Media interventions aim (amongst other things) to shape the media agenda - did it do this a) to the advantage or b) to the detriment of the causes it was meant to be promoting?

Any other empy utterances from TU bureaucrats you're moistening your knickers about this week or is it just LM?

Media interventions Only been there a few weeks and already spouting the jargon - pass the handbook on after you've done, i could do with a laugh.The media agenda is all you see. You can't see anything else - hence shitting yourself over a few words. Ooh, what will dave say?

You mean the utterance i marked as being purely on the level of rhetoric in my my very first post? That i said repeatedly will not be followed up by action? Close reader ye.

 

[butchersapron]

I never said that - I said it showed how effective digital activism {I should have added - allied to offline campaigning and direct action] could be.

You didn't have to say it, the implication being that your power in on-line petitions mirrored the on-line anti-workfare stuff of the past week. You're a shambles.

 

[articul8]

I'm not sure it's the most effective intervention for him to have made this week - why not focus on the NHS bill or the Workfare issues, which could align the union's position with a potentially massive reservoir of public support. Talking about disrupting the olympics is just grandstanding(!), bound to be quite divisive and not really pressuring Cameron.

shitting yourself

Hail to the close reader in chief.

 

[butchersapron]

Hail to the close reader in chief.

I think your panicky response does fit - what we call in the urban demotic - shitting yourself. Whereas as me saying that LM remarks are purely rhetorical, will not be followed through on doesn't equal me saying the w/c are on the verge of a general strike or any of your other fantasies scattered throughout this thread.

 

[articul8]

Where's the panic in the post above? I haven't said it was some outrageous betrayal or thundering catastrophe. I've expressed doubt on the tactical wisdom of responding in the way he did.

You seem to think that the population (bar me and my alleged bubble) in general is entirely immune to the effects of bourgeois political discourse and the mainstream media. In which case, why haven't we see mass pressure from below for a general strike?

 

[butchersapron]

Where's the panic in the post above? I haven't said it was some outrageous betrayal or thundering catastrophe. I've expressed doubt on the tactical wisdom of responding in the way he did.

You seem to think that the population (bar me and my alleged bubble) in general is entirely immune to the effects of bourgeois political discourse and the mainstream media. In which case, why haven't we see mass pressure from below for a general strike?

The panic is spread liberally throughout the thread - not in the post where you try to sound non-panicky. For example, OMG LM is going to split the militants from the norms because Cameron says he's unpatriotic!!! Evidence and argument for this being the case - none. The story is now dead and you can sleep safer that this catastrophe didn't come to pass. So wrong again Marge.

I think that your estimation of how much people are led by the media is wrong and a direct result of you living and working within a bubble that argues that the media are the start and end point of politics. It's why you're constantly wrong.

 

[butchersapron]

Where's the panic in the post above? I haven't said it was some outrageous betrayal or thundering catastrophe. I've expressed doubt on the tactical wisdom of responding in the way he did.

You seem to think that the population (bar me and my alleged bubble) in general is entirely immune to the effects of bourgeois political discourse and the mainstream media. In which case, why haven't we see mass pressure from below for a general strike?

Did you run this by a focus group first?

 

[belboid]

the damage: headlines that are targetting LM not Cameron - this was not inveitable - self-inflicted wound

right-wingers are targetting a leftie not a rightie! Oh my god, no one could ever have seen that one coming!

Fer fucks sake, this is the most pathetic argument. Your responses are nonsensical, you want McLuskey to lie or roll over when asked directly about an issue - you might not say that plainly, but it is the only possible conclusion one can draw from your posts on here.
Or should he just have pretended he’d never heard of these ‘Olympics’ of which they spoke. None of those are really options at all. An attempt to refuse to answer the question, as you proposed, would have been bounced back in just the same way, the only difference being various members and sympathizers would think he was being rather cowardly and dishonest in not saying what his/the unions thoughts were.
What his comments did achieve yesterday was to put a smile on a hell of a lot of people’s faces, people who aren’t fussed about the Olympics, or who do like it, but still want to protest! It gives us opportunities to discuss exactly how we can most productively hold some kind of demo/protest around the games, and its always good to get these discussions going as soon as possible, or they’ll be shit.

 

[articul8]

What his comments did achieve yesterday was to put a smile on a hell of a lot of people’s faces,

The only happy faces I saw (other than what i assume were the happy faces of a tiny number in the anarchoid/ultra-left - an insulated bubble if ever there was one) were coalition MPs and their supporters in the media. I'm not saying it has made Cameron more powerful - it hasn't (hence no panicking, and no prediction of a catastrophe). What it did was to give him an easy come-back when he was in a tight spot - rather than him/Clegg/Lansley wrecking the NHS all we got was unions wrecking the olympics/country. This was entirely predicatable and avoidabe. The guy is paid enough - he should be able to handle the media better than this.

 

[butchersapron]

"all we got" - you mean David Cameron said something (something entirely expected that he would say anyway) and this is all you can see. You really cannot see out of your little snow globe thing can you? Your politics is one where you're winning depending on how a hostile media treats the things you say . It's insulting.

I think you're right, these probably were the only faces you saw yesterday.

 

[belboid]

well, my workmates aren't anarchoids or ultra-left, nor most of the people down the pub. And I have met quite a few who have gone good on him.

Sounds like you're hanging out with too many right-wingers mate, your perspective's gone all cock-a-hoop

 

[butchersapron]

This is how articul8 thinks of other people - i can't support that (gobs on saloon bar floor) That Mr Cameron he said it was unpat-riotic. Better make it a half luv, or the dog will have me tea etc

 

[articul8]

well, my workmates aren't anarchoids or ultra-left, nor most of the people down the pub. And I have met quite a few who have gone good on him.

Sounds like you're hanging out with too many right-wingers mate, your perspective's gone all cock-a-hoop

Maybe it's a geography thing - in my part of London the Olympics is seen on balance as a good thing - it's creating jobs (construction, engineering) in an area of relatively high unemployment and basically people will look forward to it. There are issues, certainly (VIP lanes etc). But whereas it should be Cameron on the back foot explaning why he's wrecking the NHS, instead it's the unions. The sky hasn't fallen in but he just helped Cameron get out of a spot, when he should have been intensifying the pressure.

Of course what happens in terms of the media agenda doesn't *determine* people's political outlook - but it does influence it. - so avoidable mistakes are best avoided.

 

[articul8]

This is how articul8 thinks of other people - i can't support that (gobs on saloon bar floor) That Mr Cameron he said it was unpat-riotic. Better make it a half luv, or the dog will have me tea etc

wtf?

If people are burning with class militancy and totally contemptuous of conservative attachments I assume you are expecting to see a general strike followed by the overthrow of the monarchy rather than celebrations of the Golden Jubilee?

 

[butchersapron]

wtf?

If people are burning with class militancy and totally contemptuous of conservative attachments I assume you are expecting to see a general strike followed by the overthrow of the monarchy rather than celebrations of the Golden Jubilee?

Who - other than you, have suggested that 'people are burning with class militancy'? You tried this general strike stuff yesterday and it fell flat. Why are you trying it again? What is this nonsense? Your defence of your craven media-focused timidity is to suggest that everyone else is a mad militant who thinks that we're on the verge of revolution?

 

[belboid]

The sky hasn't fallen in but he just helped Cameron get out of a spot,

Cameron isn’t out of a spot tho. This has made no difference. If McLuskey had said nothing about the Olympics and just talked about the NHS, Cameron would have just completely ignored it, and would have kept talking about the SWP. The only thing this did, was make Miliband squirm a little. But so he should.

 

[articul8]

Your defence of what LM said seems based on an idea that people are at least receptive to the idea of widespread direct action to disrupt the Olympics. Where's your evidence for this?

 

[articul8]

Cameron isn’t out of a spot tho. This has made no difference. If McLuskey had said nothing about the Olympics and just talked about the NHS, Cameron would have just completely ignored it, and would have kept talking about the SWP. The only thing this did, was make Miliband squirm a little. But so he should.

It hasn't made a major difference no (I never argued it would in and of itself). It just helped Cameron yesterday to deflect attacks on their plans to wreck the NHS. Cameron looks daft talking about Trotskyite wreckers. But the union leadership are genuinely in a position to act - and people realise this - so the stakes are higher.