Post subject: Re: Housing Benefit Cuts for the Scroungers.
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:25 pm
Mintball
All Time Great
Joined: May 10 2002 Posts: 47951 Location: Die Metropole
WIZEB wrote:Well I want to publicly apologise to Minty for my downright personal nastiness earlier in this thread. I agree with the vast majority of what she posts and enjoy the way she sticks up for herself. I like George, she doesn't. I'll have to be big enough to live with that!
Oh, you've nothing to apologise for. We all get feisty when it comes to politics at least – and that's probably a good thing.
WIZEB wrote:Perhaps so, and you have every right to believe he's a Pied Piper. The fact remains that he does inspire and energise people. His passion, maybe flamboyancy, mixed with his oratory brilliance is bandwagon jumping, magnetic material. He's proven to have that ability time and time again. Anthony Wedgewood Benn was another. When they speak, you listen, (maybe not agree) there are very few others over the last 30 years who have had the same ability.
Oh, he has the oratory and the rhetoric that does inspire, yes. There's no doubt about that.
I'd also agree that the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan (and others) continue to haunt Labour – and rightly so (you know my views on those wars).
And it's quite clear that Labour has not worked out how on earth to connect/reconnect with the electorate and, in particular, the more traditional working class.
The Bradford West result was a rejection of a number of things and, I think, most of it is utterly understandable.
But that doesn't mean that Galloway is somehow a paragon of political virtue, so to speak. Or that there are not – and have not been in the past – some unsavoury aspects to his campaigning and to his willingness to pander to fundamentalists.
Personally, I also see that as being of concern for more than one reason. First – and most obviously – because it is about what divides people rather than what unites them.
And second, such campaigning has no place in progressive politics; it is utterly irresponsible – not least at a time when we see growing numbers of candidates standing for election on the basis of their religion, together with increasing demands being made by religious groups/individuals from across the faith spectrum for their 'rights' (which usually mean being allowed to discriminate against others) and, more generally, for religion to play a greater role in society as a whole.
"You are working for Satan." Kirkstaller
"Dare to know!" Immanuel Kant
"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive" Elbert Hubbard
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde
Post subject: Re: George Galloway wins Bradford West
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:31 pm
Mintball
All Time Great
Joined: May 10 2002 Posts: 47951 Location: Die Metropole
Chief Stinkwort wrote:No-one and certainly not I, can disprove something you say happened if they were not there. I have admitted this ...
It is not hearsay. It was reported quite widely at the time, in a wide range of media.
Chief Stinkwort wrote:You should be big enough to admit that Galloway has consistently and publicly railed against homophobia, both on his radio show and at public meetings. This I can prove. The evidence, including a discussion between Galloway and Peter Tatchell is all over that there video sharing site...
I am entirely happy to say that Galloway has railed against many things. He's also used such matters as political footballs when it suits him. Which brings into question how seriously he actually views them – perhaps simply not as important as his own political position?
Chief Stinkwort wrote:Galloway is not perfect on these issues. He comes from a strict Catholic background and clearly carries a lot of baggage from it ...
I come from a strict religious background (with Plymouth Brethren in the picture). Some of us manage to get over it – or at least not continue with the same baggage that our parents and families foisted on us.
But this doesn't explain his dismal record as an MP for Tower Hamlets. There were plenty of reasons Respect didn't get re-elected, even given Labour's own record. The Big Brother farce was just one aspect of that – although it did shock many in communities that are, largely, very conservative.
But his celebrity tours around the world didn't earn him many brownie points either – especially when it left the electorate without their MP representing their interests in Parliament at times when issues of particular relevance were being discussed. The impact of Crossrail is a specific case in point.
"You are working for Satan." Kirkstaller
"Dare to know!" Immanuel Kant
"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive" Elbert Hubbard
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde
Post subject: Re: Housing Benefit Cuts for the Scroungers.
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:33 pm
Dally
International Chairman
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 14845
Mintball wrote:And second, such campaigning has no place in progressive politics; it is utterly irresponsible – not least at a time when we see growing numbers of candidates standing for election on the basis of their religion, together with increasing demands being made by religious groups/individuals from across the faith spectrum for their 'rights' (which usually mean being allowed to discriminate against others) and, more generally, for religion to play a greater role in society as a whole.
What sort of campaining are you referring to? Surely, an MP should strive to represent his / her constituents. If the majority of those have one set of values they are the ones they want their MP to reflect.
Post subject: Re: George Galloway wins Bradford West
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:56 pm
Chief Stinkwort
International Star
Joined: Oct 26 2011 Posts: 1085 Location: Leeds
Mintball wrote:Workers. They voted to strike to defend their editor who was being sacked on utterly trumped up grounds (as later proven).
Being a right-on lefty I'd expect this to be all you needed to know.
But just to fill in a tad more, the self-described CEO wanted to replace the aforementioned editor with her son in law. He was being backed by Socialist Action – and was, indeed, a 'former' member of that group (which doesn't exist and therefore nobody is ever a member of it). Over a number of years, the CEO and a couple of her family had managed to get assorted SA types on the management committee in order to pave the way for the sacking/coup.
SA it was, which also organised for their puppet, Ken Livingstone to use Parliamentary privilege to threaten to put down an EDM that would libel my member, thus meaning that an EDM calling for the management to go to ACAS was withdrawn. We had the support of the likes of Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn and assorted others – and pretty much every trades union in the UK.
See above. But I've also seen assorted other Trots/Trot groups in action – and they don't give a toss about ordinary union members, for instance. They'll try to stall negotiated settlements that would really make a massive difference to low-paid workers – but hey, it would be so much better to train them in 'struggle' by having a strike than their lives improving.
In the above case, I'm particularly thinking of members of the Socialist Party.
Yet until a split in 2007 (two years after Galloway was elected in Tower Hamlets), Respect's supporters included the SWP (some stuff here).
And it continues to have the support of the Socialist Unity Network, the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), the Muslim Association of Britain and the Muslim Council of Britain.
See my comments above. I have direct experience of various Trotskyist groups behaving in an entryist manner. The parliamentary Labour Party is far from the only thing various such groups would like to control.
I'm not a member of a Trotskyite organisation but I think your obvious bile towards them clouds your judgment. It is IMO a big mistake to conflate the ideas and actions of all these (mainly tiny) groups together, just as it is a mistake to caricature them in the way you do. I agree there is a big problem in terms of some parties putting their own interests before those of the working class (particularly in the case of the SP) but there is also much good work done by members of Trot groupings, without which (for example) the Anti-Nazi League and Stop the War Coalition would probably never have existed. None of them are as self-serving as any of the mainstream parties, all of whom have the power and the apparent willingness to break strikes regularly and on a massive scale.
Yes, Respect did enjoy the support of the SWP. Given that it was founded to give political expression to the anti-war movement, itself led by Galloway, Benn and the SWP this is quite understandable. The groups you mention as members of Respect now however, are barely influential within it.
The RCPBML by the way can hardly be described as a Trot organisation. Some of their members still believe that Trotsky was an FBI agent. Believe me they hate Trots even more than you do! ...and why you add MAB and MCB to the list is totally baffling. Socialist Unity I can understand, but at the end of the day they are little more than a web discussion group.
I can totally understand your anger if you were turned over by a particular Trot grouping, but I think your sweeping generalisations about all Trots do them and yourself a big disservice.
Mintball wrote:Workers. They voted to strike to defend their editor who was being sacked on utterly trumped up grounds (as later proven).
Being a right-on lefty I'd expect this to be all you needed to know.
But just to fill in a tad more, the self-described CEO wanted to replace the aforementioned editor with her son in law. He was being backed by Socialist Action – and was, indeed, a 'former' member of that group (which doesn't exist and therefore nobody is ever a member of it). Over a number of years, the CEO and a couple of her family had managed to get assorted SA types on the management committee in order to pave the way for the sacking/coup.
SA it was, which also organised for their puppet, Ken Livingstone to use Parliamentary privilege to threaten to put down an EDM that would libel my member, thus meaning that an EDM calling for the management to go to ACAS was withdrawn. We had the support of the likes of Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn and assorted others – and pretty much every trades union in the UK.
See above. But I've also seen assorted other Trots/Trot groups in action – and they don't give a toss about ordinary union members, for instance. They'll try to stall negotiated settlements that would really make a massive difference to low-paid workers – but hey, it would be so much better to train them in 'struggle' by having a strike than their lives improving.
In the above case, I'm particularly thinking of members of the Socialist Party.
Yet until a split in 2007 (two years after Galloway was elected in Tower Hamlets), Respect's supporters included the SWP (some stuff here).
And it continues to have the support of the Socialist Unity Network, the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), the Muslim Association of Britain and the Muslim Council of Britain.
See my comments above. I have direct experience of various Trotskyist groups behaving in an entryist manner. The parliamentary Labour Party is far from the only thing various such groups would like to control.
I'm not a member of a Trotskyite organisation but I think your obvious bile towards them clouds your judgment. It is IMO a big mistake to conflate the ideas and actions of all these (mainly tiny) groups together, just as it is a mistake to caricature them in the way you do. I agree there is a big problem in terms of some parties putting their own interests before those of the working class (particularly in the case of the SP) but there is also much good work done by members of Trot groupings, without which (for example) the Anti-Nazi League and Stop the War Coalition would probably never have existed. None of them are as self-serving as any of the mainstream parties, all of whom have the power and the apparent willingness to break strikes regularly and on a massive scale.
Yes, Respect did enjoy the support of the SWP. Given that it was founded to give political expression to the anti-war movement, itself led by Galloway, Benn and the SWP this is quite understandable. The groups you mention as members of Respect now however, are barely influential within it.
The RCPBML by the way can hardly be described as a Trot organisation. Some of their members still believe that Trotsky was an FBI agent. Believe me they hate Trots even more than you do! ...and why you add MAB and MCB to the list is totally baffling. Socialist Unity I can understand, but at the end of the day they are little more than a web discussion group.
I can totally understand your anger if you were turned over by a particular Trot grouping, but I think your sweeping generalisations about all Trots do them and yourself a big disservice.
Post subject: Re: George Galloway wins Bradford West
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 1:28 pm
Mintball
All Time Great
Joined: May 10 2002 Posts: 47951 Location: Die Metropole
Chief Stinkwort wrote:I'm not a member of a Trotskyite organisation but I think your obvious bile towards them clouds your judgment...
The bile is based on experience.
Chief Stinkwort wrote:It is IMO a big mistake to conflate the ideas and actions of all these (mainly tiny) groups together, just as it is a mistake to caricature them in the way you do...
Even small groups can do incredible damage.
Chief Stinkwort wrote:I agree there is a big problem in terms of some parties putting their own interests before those of the working class (particularly in the case of the SP) but there is also much good work done by members of Trot groupings, without which (for example) the Anti-Nazi League and Stop the War Coalition would probably never have existed. None of them are as self-serving as any of the mainstream parties, all of whom have the power and the apparent willingness to break strikes regularly and on a massive scale...
I've worked with the likes of Show Racism the Red Card – which is (if you could characterise it in such a way) 'soft Trot' and I have no problem with people like that. Ged and co are straightforward and decent. But again, in terms of my own experience, they're in the minority.
Chief Stinkwort wrote:Yes, Respect did enjoy the support of the SWP. Given that it was founded to give political expression to the anti-war movement, itself led by Galloway, Benn and the SWP this is quite understandable. The groups you mention as members of Respect now however, are barely influential within it.
And yet some of the stuff that is being said about the campaign in Bradford suggests otherwise. Or perhaps there are other groups involved that would have inspired such campaigning angles – or perhaps no groups are needed and that was the candidates decision all on his own.
Chief Stinkwort wrote:The RCPBML by the way can hardly be described as a Trot organisation ...
I didn't say it was – any more than some of the other organisations mentioned. What I was trying to illustrate was that the SWP were an important part of the organisation at that stage, along with a variety of other groups, including ones that were simply outright and others that may well explain the campaign's pandering to certain fundamentalists.
Chief Stinkwort wrote:I can totally understand your anger if you were turned over by a particular Trot grouping, but I think your sweeping generalisations about all Trots do them and yourself a big disservice.
As I've tried to illustrate, it's been more than one such grouping that I've seen in pretty close action, so to speak.
"You are working for Satan." Kirkstaller
"Dare to know!" Immanuel Kant
"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive" Elbert Hubbard
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde
Post subject: Re: Housing Benefit Cuts for the Scroungers.
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 1:34 pm
Mintball
All Time Great
Joined: May 10 2002 Posts: 47951 Location: Die Metropole
Dally wrote:What sort of campaining are you referring to? Surely, an MP should strive to represent his / her constituents. If the majority of those have one set of values they are the ones they want their MP to reflect.
If you stand as a Tory candidate, you don't espouse communist economic ideas because it might appeal to some constituents.
Likewise, if you stand on for supposedly progressive party, you do not pander to religious fundamentalists because there happen to be a few on the electoral register.
"You are working for Satan." Kirkstaller
"Dare to know!" Immanuel Kant
"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive" Elbert Hubbard
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde
Post subject: Re: George Galloway wins Bradford West
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 1:49 pm
Chief Stinkwort
International Star
Joined: Oct 26 2011 Posts: 1085 Location: Leeds
Mintball wrote:As I've tried to illustrate, it's been more than one such grouping that I've seen in pretty close action, so to speak.
So have I. The difference is you appear to have only seen the worst. I've seen good and bad things from all sorts; mainstream, Trots and old Stalinists alike. I've also seen non-aligned lefties caucussing in a more sectarian manner than anyone could imagine. On these questions we wilol probably have to agree to disagree.
Bottom line for me is, regardless of his many faults, Galloway's result represents a shift in the public consciousness away from the mainstream concensus over war and austerity. That at least is in my view both progressive and refreshing.
Post subject: Re: George Galloway wins Bradford West
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:20 pm
Mintball
All Time Great
Joined: May 10 2002 Posts: 47951 Location: Die Metropole
Chief Stinkwort wrote:So have I. The difference is you appear to have only seen the worst. I've seen good and bad things from all sorts; mainstream, Trots and old Stalinists alike. I've also seen non-aligned lefties caucussing in a more sectarian manner than anyone could imagine. On these questions we wilol probably have to agree to disagree...
Fair enough.
On a considerably lighter note, some years ago, I was working in an office where we had one raving Trot and one raving Tankie. They got on remarkably well, under the circumstances, but sometimes little theological spats would break out. They were unified in disgust, though, the day I labeled them Snowball and Napoleon.
The rest of the office thought it hilarious.
Chief Stinkwort wrote:Bottom line for me is, regardless of his many faults, Galloway's result represents a shift in the public consciousness away from the mainstream concensus over war and austerity. That at least is in my view both progressive and refreshing.
It remains to be seen, though, whether it will carry over into any other area/election – or whether it will occur when there is no 'celebrity' candidate standing.
"You are working for Satan." Kirkstaller
"Dare to know!" Immanuel Kant
"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive" Elbert Hubbard
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde
Post subject: Re: Housing Benefit Cuts for the Scroungers.
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:22 pm
Dally
International Chairman
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 14845
Mintball wrote:If you stand as a Tory candidate, you don't espouse communist economic ideas because it might appeal to some constituents.
Likewise, if you stand on for supposedly progressive party, you do not pander to religious fundamentalists because there happen to be a few on the electoral register.
You amuse me!
A Tory candidate would not pander to a few commie consituents but GG had to pander to a large and growing Muslim community in Blackburn (sic).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
