I've seen my union have the same issues in the past. It used to frustrate me when extremists who see everything in black and white take over. It ends up turning people off and those that are doing the shouting end up doing far more harm than good.
I've seen my union have the same issues in the past. It used to frustrate me when extremists who see everything in black and white take over. It ends up turning people off and those that are doing the shouting end up doing far more harm than good.
"If you start listening to the fans it won't be long before you're sitting with them," - Wayne Bennett.
I've seen my union have the same issues in the past. It used to frustrate me when extremists who see everything in black and white take over. It ends up turning people off and those that are doing the shouting end up doing far more harm than good.
I also read it. I'll be honest, I'm now deeply suspect when I read accounts of people being abused, MPs receiving threats and intimidation. There have been too many cases where the reports are demonstrably untrue, going as far back as the leadership campaign itself. It's a very easy thing to set up an anonymous social media account and start sending abusive messages to your own "side" purporting to be from supporters of your enemy. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that there are feisty meetings up and down the land in the Labour Party at present. Yet it's also true - as any policeman will tell you - that no two people's accounts of the same events are ever the same. A similar account written by one of those red-T-shirted Momentum types would probably read that they saw people in the meeting denouncing them and their work, and being hostile and abusive to them, making them feel unwelcome in their own Party. It's a bit of a conundrum, and I'm not sure there's a solution.
For me, the problem the right of the party have is that they have a good riff on why holding power is important, but they are offering almost nothing on what they would do with power. On the very rare occasions when someone from Progress offers a policy opinion, it is either frighteningly Thatcherite (more cutting of benefits, more "crackdowns" on this that or the other), or it's warm and apolitical "identity politics" of the sort which has a cross-spectrum acceptance from Cameroonian Tories through LibDems.
The Right of the party (which is some 80% of the PLP, in truth) would do better to start to lay out some hard policies which they can compare with both the Tories' and Corbyn's. Instead, all I've heard now for 9 months is that Corbyn is unelectable, and should go. Fine. But who would replace him, and - more importantly - what would they stand for? Not vacuous warm words about helping the working class, but actual concrete policies that I can think about and weigh up. Corbyn's got loads - nationalising railways and power, increased Keynesian public spending, higher taxes on rich individuals and institutions etc. He also has some foreign policy obsessions and ideas which I don't always share, but I'm mature enough to know I'm never going to find a political party which subscribes to all my personal views! So what do Progress/Blairites/PLP have to offer, other than a clear and transparent desire for "electability"? What would they actually do?
Until they start to answer that question, they won't shift many Corbyn supporters.
"...the biggest boor, the most opinionated pompous bigot that frequents these
boards and he is NOT to be taken at all seriously. "
Joined: Jun 19 2002 Posts: 14970 Location: Campaigning for a deep attacking line
Roy Haggerty wrote:I also read it. I'll be honest, I'm now deeply suspect when I read accounts of people being abused, MPs receiving threats and intimidation. There have been too many cases where the reports are demonstrably untrue, going as far back as the leadership campaign itself. It's a very easy thing to set up an anonymous social media account and start sending abusive messages to your own "side" purporting to be from supporters of your enemy. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that there are feisty meetings up and down the land in the Labour Party at present. Yet it's also true - as any policeman will tell you - that no two people's accounts of the same events are ever the same. A similar account written by one of those red-T-shirted Momentum types would probably read that they saw people in the meeting denouncing them and their work, and being hostile and abusive to them, making them feel unwelcome in their own Party. It's a bit of a conundrum, and I'm not sure there's a solution.
For me, the problem the right of the party have is that they have a good riff on why holding power is important, but they are offering almost nothing on what they would do with power. On the very rare occasions when someone from Progress offers a policy opinion, it is either frighteningly Thatcherite (more cutting of benefits, more "crackdowns" on this that or the other), or it's warm and apolitical "identity politics" of the sort which has a cross-spectrum acceptance from Cameroonian Tories through LibDems.
The Right of the party (which is some 80% of the PLP, in truth) would do better to start to lay out some hard policies which they can compare with both the Tories' and Corbyn's. Instead, all I've heard now for 9 months is that Corbyn is unelectable, and should go. Fine. But who would replace him, and - more importantly - what would they stand for? Not vacuous warm words about helping the working class, but actual concrete policies that I can think about and weigh up. Corbyn's got loads - nationalising railways and power, increased Keynesian public spending, higher taxes on rich individuals and institutions etc. He also has some foreign policy obsessions and ideas which I don't always share, but I'm mature enough to know I'm never going to find a political party which subscribes to all my personal views! So what do Progress/Blairites/PLP have to offer, other than a clear and transparent desire for "electability"? What would they actually do?
Until they start to answer that question, they won't shift many Corbyn supporters.
"Democracy gives power to people, “Winning” is the small bit that matters to political elites who want to keep power themselves"
That's one of the most depressing things I've ever read. It's all my fears in one statement - the broader party ceases to believe in power as the only viable instrument of change. It's a fantasy world.
"Democracy gives power to people, “Winning” is the small bit that matters to political elites who want to keep power themselves"
That's one of the most depressing things I've ever read. It's all my fears in one statement - the broader party ceases to believe in power as the only viable instrument of change. It's a fantasy world.
When my club didn't exist it was still bigger than yours
"Democracy gives power to people, “Winning” is the small bit that matters to political elites who want to keep power themselves"
That's one of the most depressing things I've ever read. It's all my fears in one statement - the broader party ceases to believe in power as the only viable instrument of change. It's a fantasy world.
If you don't understand the nature of power and the state - or refuse to - you risk ending up like Syria: voluntarist romanticism without power or the ability to make any changes (even if you do get into government).
Unfortunately, Syriza are a model for much of the 'new' left around Momentum - despite their failure to actually achieve anything in Greece.
"Democracy gives power to people, “Winning” is the small bit that matters to political elites who want to keep power themselves"
That's one of the most depressing things I've ever read. It's all my fears in one statement - the broader party ceases to believe in power as the only viable instrument of change. It's a fantasy world.
If you don't understand the nature of power and the state - or refuse to - you risk ending up like Syria: voluntarist romanticism without power or the ability to make any changes (even if you do get into government).
Unfortunately, Syriza are a model for much of the 'new' left around Momentum - despite their failure to actually achieve anything in Greece.
"Democracy gives power to people, “Winning” is the small bit that matters to political elites who want to keep power themselves"
That's one of the most depressing things I've ever read. It's all my fears in one statement - the broader party ceases to believe in power as the only viable instrument of change. It's a fantasy world.
I have no idea what Lansman is talking about there. It's the dribblings of a student who isn't as clever as he thinks he is.
But then, on the other hand, I remember waiting with decent anticipation for the outcome of the Cruddas Policy Review. Then it emerged and I searched and searched for anything concrete beyond meaningless touchstone words : "diversity", "devolution", "partnership", and all the rest of that cock. Hardly a policy to be seen.
So we essentially now have one side who have policies but apparently don't feel the need to win power in order to implement them, while the other side very much wants to win power, but hasn't a bloody clue what it will do if it does.
Pretty depressing, overall. And I STILL can't believe they chose Eagle as the opposition. Is she the only Labour MP who comes across worse on telly?
"Democracy gives power to people, “Winning” is the small bit that matters to political elites who want to keep power themselves"
That's one of the most depressing things I've ever read. It's all my fears in one statement - the broader party ceases to believe in power as the only viable instrument of change. It's a fantasy world.
I have no idea what Lansman is talking about there. It's the dribblings of a student who isn't as clever as he thinks he is.
But then, on the other hand, I remember waiting with decent anticipation for the outcome of the Cruddas Policy Review. Then it emerged and I searched and searched for anything concrete beyond meaningless touchstone words : "diversity", "devolution", "partnership", and all the rest of that cock. Hardly a policy to be seen.
So we essentially now have one side who have policies but apparently don't feel the need to win power in order to implement them, while the other side very much wants to win power, but hasn't a bloody clue what it will do if it does.
Pretty depressing, overall. And I STILL can't believe they chose Eagle as the opposition. Is she the only Labour MP who comes across worse on telly?
"...the biggest boor, the most opinionated pompous bigot that frequents these
boards and he is NOT to be taken at all seriously. "
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 125 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
