General Politics Thread

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Damocles, 21 Jun 2017.

  1. Damocles

    Damocles

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2009
    Couple of things to deconstruct here:

    • You describe yourself as a decently hard socialist and then claim there's no entryism. That's like saying that I'm a white bloke and racism doesn't exist because nobody ever called me a racial slur.
    • Your argument that Labour was a socialist party 100 years ago holds no merit in terms of what the direction of the Party should be today because we don't live 100 years ago. You also fail to mention that that 20 year period was arguably the most successful Labour period in the Party's history.
    • The Tories and Labour are not ideologically opposites of each other and agree on about 95% of issues in society and always do. It's the 5% we focus on.
     
  2. urban genie

    urban genie

    Joined:
    11 May 2008
    Gender:
    Male

    Firstly I am saying there is no entryism in the context of the bollocks coming out about marxists and hard left cranks taking over, as is being suggested, of course some will get voted into local clp's, bit this idea of a take over is nonsense.
    Was progresses slow assimilation into the party at every level entryism? as I have never heard it refered to as

    I never argued anything of the sort, I stated that in 117 history as a party around 20-25 of it has been dominated by the more right side of the party, with that being more recent, some people who have in the last 30 years grew up or joined that version of the party are struggling with it choosing to look at returning back to some of it's core ideals.
    I would contest that the post war Attlee government achieved just as much in gevernment, unless you judge a successful party only on elections won only and not on performance when in power (And New Labour did some great and reforming things to be celebrated when in power).

    Lastly socialism and capitalism are not only 5% different in ideology, social or economical however it is recognised by many on both sides that a mixed economy is necessary and that private business can exist in a socialist led country and that public services can exist in a capitalist led government, and a pure form of either idiology in modern times isn't going to work, and I have never argued a complete hard left position.

    I already said all that labour has done is move the political landscape back to the area it was pre thatcher and are now in a center to left area.
    Time will tell if it is a good idea, but the membership voted for it and so the choice is either back it or don't, I dissagreed with labour in 2001 and left the party and voted green, I returned and rejoined under milliband and voted for jezza because I felt the other 3 candidates gave me no option but it is not some trotsky plot to hijack the party by anyone who decided this change in party direction as being suggested.

    There is a difference tgat between the membeeship that during kinnocks re-invention of the party amd the subsequent evolution into new labour they backed the changes even when many were in dissagreement (millitant and the other cranks aside) and supported and worked within the party through every change, went out and campaigned, even though a lot of it was not to their liking as the party good and getting in and serving the country for it's betterment was the goal
    Yet the new labour/progress lot refuse to do the same now and the left wing of the party are called the agitaters and ones splitting the party, after years of supporting new labour.
     
    Last edited: 11 Feb 2018
  3. bluethrunthru

    bluethrunthru

    Joined:
    19 May 2012
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    professional underacheiver
    Location:
    seconds away from bankruptcy
    No mate I was just pointing out "factional takeovers" aren't only happening in one party
     
  4. The perfect fumble

    The perfect fumble

    Joined:
    3 Jun 2012
    Gender:
    Male
    Very roughly the Conservative party can be split in to three factions, traditionalists, one-nation and neoliberal.

    Similarly with Labour you have socialists, social-democrats and trade unionists.

    I know there are subdivisions and overlaps in both parties and there's a green tinge here and there, but fundamentally these are the pillars of the two major parties.

    Depending on the weft and weave of history and politics, one can see that in the past there has been an overlap between the softer one nation Tories (that Thatcher used to refer to as the wets) and the more right wing social democrats in Labour (that the left refers to as closet Tories). But at other times, and now is one of them, there is very little overlap, the Tories are in thrall to the neoliberals and the Labour Party has embraced its socialist wing.

    Neither Labour or the Tories are ideologically rigid parties, so what is true today about the direction of the two parties is unlikely to be true in ten or twenty years.

    And of course the nature and mechanics of the two parties is different. The Tories, because of the way they view things, has always been a top down party. Tory party members rarely if ever dictate the direction of the party and never influence policy. Labour, because of what the party is and from whence it came, has always given a greater voice to the membership.

    At this moment in Labour's history the members have opted to support the parties socialist wing, this has been vehemently opposed by the Blairites (those dreaded closet Tories referred to earlier). There is nothing unique about this, it is the stuff of politics for one faction to be in the ascendancy and the others not. But what is unique is that if the ascendant group happens to be socialists, rather than say social democrats, the socialists are always accused of entryism, hijacking, takeover, bullying, ideological purging and whatnot, whereas if the social democratic wing are in the ascendant no such accusations are made.
     
  5. Damocles

    Damocles

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2009
    That's mainly because Progress didn't go around threatening to deselect MPs who wouldn't back their candidate.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politic...n-fear-deselection-after-get-on-board-warning

    The incidents referenced are not one offs either. While Momentum might state that they don't represent their national values, they certainly seem to represent a decent number of their members.
     
  6. Damocles

    Damocles

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2009
    https://www.theguardian.com/politic...on-jeremy-corbyn-to-act-over-escalating-abuse

    I'm pretty sure those women involved aren't buying the "there's no entryism, Guv" argument. Neither is Jess Phillips presumably.
     
  7. Len Rum

    Len Rum

    Joined:
    27 Nov 2012
    Occupation:
    Gentleman
    Location:
    The name's Rum, Len Rum.
    Bit of a foxes paw by Marr this morning.
    After an interview with Penny Mordant, thought he was off camera and was heard congratulating Ms Mordant on her interview.
     
  8. urban genie

    urban genie

    Joined:
    11 May 2008
    Gender:
    Male

    No Progress instead put up members or favoured candidates against locla members wishes in safe seats during new labour, John Woodcock, David Milliband, Jack Dromey, Georgia Gould to name a few were all pushed upon local CLPs and members were strogly urged to back their candidency.

    The MP in the article was acussed of being a parachuted candidate during her original selection, a policy new labour used with progress funding and selecting the candidates.

    Most local CLPs have objected to these and the ones that were successfully selected over local wanted candidates have been supported by those CLPs. In fact in Liverpool momentum were doorstepping for Luciana alongside labour members, as they did across tge country.

    I was at the Gorton selection and momentum had their prefered candidate and they had their members campaign locally, the candidate wasn't shortlisted and on selection night the one they backed was unsuccessful, during that meeting there was no pushyness or bullying, they cheered loud her speach and handed out leaflets nothing else.

    They never got their candidate and in recent selection proccesses nationwide they have been hit and miss with the candidates they back, no one has been deselected.

    As for momentum personally I would never join them.

    I don't get the so called self named moderates, the goal is to return to power, the progress movement has been and gone politicals (for better or worse) has moved in another direction, surely being mard about not getting you way and constantly opposing the party won't stop that.

    Help Labour get into power then try and influence how it governs
     
    Last edited: 11 Feb 2018
  9. The perfect fumble

    The perfect fumble

    Joined:
    3 Jun 2012
    Gender:
    Male
    You are wonderfully selective. Why was it that Jeremy Corbyn was required to win two leadership elections?

    The behaviour of Progress over the last couple of years, through the only lever they have left in the Labour Party, the PLP, has been nothing short of scandalous. The restraint shown by the left in this process has been muted bordering on the timid.

    All the shenanigans the right in the party gets up to, and they are legion, is either ignored by you or justified in the noble fight to restore "electability".

    I've been a member of the Labour Party all my life and supported the party even in the Blair years, but for you it's Blair or a Blair clone or nothing. For you the only way back to power for Labour is not to convince the electorate on policy, but to co-opt Tory policies in order to placate the likes of mcfc1632 and hope we can squeeze in some vaguely progressive policies when no one is looking, as long as they cost next to nothing.

    I disagree with you and in a democratic political party that is permissible.
     
    Last edited: 11 Feb 2018
  10. mcfc1632

    mcfc1632

    Joined:
    2 Jan 2009
    But you did not address the comment I made about the Labour Take-Over

    So for me it 'seemed' distraction
     

Share This Page