# 1980's trendy-lefty idiocy



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

Do you have any examples of middle-class, trendy-lefty idiocy from the 80's?

Ah! the 80's...

The tories ran government, the big councils were the domain of all kinds of sectional interests under the banner of left-labour.

The Sun, Evening Standard, Mail etc called them the loony-left and ran all kinds of mad stories about their exploits. Unfortunately sometimes the truth was worse than their fiction.

These Councils, and particularly the sectional interests who wielded power within them, for me had a once in a lifetime opportunity to educate, empower and organise their workers... to redress decades of racism, sexism, homophobia in the workplace... to create something a new, exciting, progressive dynamic.

So what did they do? Well for the most part the new demagogues of the wimmins committee, the black committee, the gay committe, the disabled one, the Irish one etc made complete dicks of themselves by doing exactly what they had always complained about - impose a top-down orthodoxy by edict rather than education.

They replaced one bunch of little dictators with another. 

You know the way that blokes who were bullied as Apprentices often turn into the next generation of apprentice-bullies? Or kids who get batttered at school for being a twat become coppers or football referees? Well this was it in politics. If absolute power corrupts absolutely, then these knobs were living proof.

I worked on a London Borough Council (Direct Labour Organisation) for a while in the 80's and it was fuckin embarrassing to be constantly undermined (in the battle for hearts and minds of the workers) by the antics of these stupid fuckers. 

Whenever I, or my colleagues, were pursuing anti-racist, anti-sexist etc arguments we would always have 'you're as bad as that mob in the town hall'.

For example one day in the canteen queue a painter said "Fack me. heard the latest from the town hall? If you get caught holding a door open for a bird you get suspended". 

The reply they got was "you don't have to go to the town hall - look at X (the new painters foreman) he only got his job cos he played the race card, didn't he?" Cue knowing nods all round.

What did I say? Fuck all! What could I say?

The first painter was a young london-asian woman and the other one was a young black man (and they ALL their squad agreed about the arse of a foreman).

Now I am not saying the bit about holding doors was true (wished for by some, but not true) but the point is where the fuck was the discusion, the education, the empowerment? Democracy my bollocks.

Of course if you were black you could be a bit homphobic; if you were gay you could get away with something a bit iffy on the racial front; if you were a woman you could be as arsey as you liked, if anyone challenged you  - just shout sexist!

You were OK as long as you were not a white, working class male - they were the enemy.

from what I could see they just drove all the 'isms' underground and created a generation of cunts who manipulated the 'committees' system - put there to protect people from discrimination - for their own personal benefit. 

I have plenty of (mind-boggling) examples for later. For now, let the shit hit the fan.... what do you think?


----------



## southside (Sep 24, 2010)

Philofax and the Yamaha DX7 were king.


----------



## killer b (Sep 24, 2010)

LiamO said:


> what do you think?


 
that much like today, the vast majority of these things were either completely made up, or ideas floated by people which never became official policy, and were blown out of all proportion by the enemies of the left.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

Sorry, should have been clearer... I was talking about actual examples that people had, from their own work experience, rather than the stuff the papers ran with.

and like I said, sometimes truth was stranger than fiction

and btw can you clarify what 'the enemies of the left means'? From what I could see that often meant wwc men.


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2010)

southside said:


> Philofax and the Yamaha DX7 were king.


Stacatto drums were popular too.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 24, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Sorry, should have been clearer... I was talking about actual examples that people had, from their own work experience, rather than the stuff the papers ran with.
> 
> and like I said, sometimes truth was stranger than fiction


 
Examples?

My mum (working class) worked for the GLC in the 80s, including committees for anti-racist, anti-homophobic, anti-sexist causes. I would describe them as more than needed in the climate of the 80s. 'Loony-left' for me is a right-wing term.


----------



## southside (Sep 24, 2010)

editor said:


> Stacatto drums were popular too.


 
They look loud.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 24, 2010)

_You couldn't make it up._


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 24, 2010)

editor said:


> Stacatto drums were popular too.


 
Looking at them, those drums seem more powerful on the left, but if you were sitting behind them, the biggest would actually be on the right. There's a message there or something about the 80s. Or probably not.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

stephj said:


> 'Loony-left' for me is a right-wing term.


 
yes. that's right. it is. that's why I wrote...



LiamO said:


> The Sun, Evening Standard, Mail etc called them the loony-left...


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 24, 2010)

southside said:


> Philofax and the Yamaha DX7 were king.


 
_*F*_ilofax. 

Lordy @ the OP. All that happened in the Labour councils in the 80s was rampant overspending and abysmal cost-controls & accountancy.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 24, 2010)

stephj said:


> Examples?
> 
> My mum (working class) worked for the GLC in the 80s, including committees for anti-racist, anti-homophobic, anti-sexist causes. I would describe them as more than needed in the climate of the 80s. 'Loony-left' for me is a right-wing term.


 
^^^^^^^^^^^
word​
 and these committees weren't just all talk either. The funding they allocated for community groups etc really did help people in practical terms.


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2010)

southside said:


> They look loud.


They're like Neptune's sea horn. 

I think Frank's got a song about them too.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 24, 2010)

LiamO said:


> yes. that's right. it is. that's why I wrote...


 
Except, your OP, you seem to be buying into their notion too?

I do I think get what you are saying - using fractional identity politic interests at the cost of really working on roots of inequality, classism, etc. That said, I don't think some of what was done was any less _useful_ in those times. Otherwise, sections of the workplace, press, etc would be pretty fucking dire still if you are a minority...


----------



## Steel Icarus (Sep 24, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> _You couldn't make it up._



_It's political correctness gone mad._


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

dynamicbaddog said:


> . The funding they allocated for community groups etc really did help people in practical terms.



Perhaps I could have worded the OP better. 

How about... a lot of the good work they did was undermined by the idiocy of some of the more Jihadic elements

I am not arguing against pursuing progressive politics or creating a culture of inclusion in the workplace (or in society) . I am all in favour of that.

I am saying that some people ripped the arse out of it and that the legacy of this policy of panfering to the short-term, short-sighted sectional interests worked against the interests of the workers as a whole.

Thank you for your comments. They give me an opportunity to clarify what I mean before it gets silly.


----------



## southside (Sep 24, 2010)

editor said:


> They're like Neptune's sea horn.
> 
> I think Frank's got a song about them too.



They're not very nice looking, a bit like this pile of old wank from the same period






It had a stepped fretboard with no frets and was made from carbon graphite.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 24, 2010)

Why not post some examples now, LiamO?

Y'see, 'loony-left' was a term of abuse aimed at people like my Mum - someone who was pro workers, pro union, pro gay rights, anti-racism and anti-misogyny. I like to think that all those causes are those that society should value. The reality is that in the 80s, right-wing society and politicians all saw these things are being alien. Sadly, here we are in 2010 and I still think there is much to do - and I'd be quite happy to see some 'loony-left' vision rise again.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 24, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Perhaps I could have worded the OP better.
> 
> How about... a lot of the good work they did was undermined by the idiocy of some of the more Jihadic elements
> 
> ...


 
Why don't you just post some of your examples so we can discuss whether they are actually 'loony' or not?


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

stephj said:


> Except, your OP, you seem to be buying into their notion too?
> 
> I do I think get what you are saying - using fractional identity politic interests at the cost of really working on roots of inequality, classism, etc. That said, I don't think some of what was done was any less _useful_ in those times. Otherwise, sections of the workplace, press, etc would be pretty fucking dire still if you are a minority...



maybe I should have forwarded the OP to you Steph

between us we might have neen able to work out what the fuck I was trying to say, before I posted it, and you could have expressed it so much more succinctly


----------



## Steel Icarus (Sep 24, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Perhaps I could have worded the OP better.
> 
> How about... a lot of the good work they did was undermined by the idiocy of some of the more Jihadic elements



What made you choose the word "Jihadic"? Even the right word, "Jihadist", would be an odd choice, given its origin.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2010)

southside said:


> They're not very nice looking, a bit like this pile of old wank from the same period
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 what other sorts of graphite are there?


----------



## killer b (Sep 24, 2010)

stephj said:


> I'd be quite happy to see some 'loony-left' vision rise again.


 
quite.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 24, 2010)

Hmmm. How about how this kind of identity politics stuff has led to worse community relations in the long term (as it turned community action into a 'crumbs for funds' scramble), the results of which we're seeing now. 

Also, multiculturalism.


----------



## southside (Sep 24, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> what other sorts of graphite are there?


 
There are 3 principal types of graphite I suppose carbon fibre would have been a better description.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 24, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Hmmm. How about how this kind of identity politics stuff has led to *worse community relations* in the long term (as it turned community action into a 'crumbs for funds' scramble), the results of which we're seeing now.


 
I don't reckon community relations are worse now than  what they was in the 80s.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2010)

southside said:


> There are 3 principal types of graphite I suppose carbon fibre would have been a better description.


 
graphite is *by definition* carbon, being as the naturally occurring forms of carbon are graphite and diamond.


----------



## southside (Sep 24, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> graphite is *by definition* carbon, being as the naturally occurring forms of carbon are graphite and diamond.



And your point is ?


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

stephj said:


> Why don't you just post some of your examples so we can discuss whether they are actually 'loony' or not?


 
OK. There was a story I heard at work which I had difficulty believing. So I went to my union convenor and asked him the craic, convinced that I could then return to my workmates and tell them they were talking shite. Sadly he confirmed it.

Camden Council. Late 80's

Carpenter walks into day care centre. Sees girl off his estate and greets her. She sez (somewhat coyly) 'alright Trev. What you gonna do for me today then?'

He replies 'i know what I'd like to do for ya'. They laugh. He goes on to do his job and leaves.

Her supervisor has overheard and basically bullies her into thinking she has been sexually harrassed. They put in a complaint to the womens committee. They call for blood. NALGO (or NUPE) back the committee to the hilt. UCATT tells them to fuck off and backs the carpenter just as strongly. Impasse. problem.

The solution?

carpenter suspended on full pay whilst it is 'investigated and processed'. Problem being no-one blinks and the management are too shit scared to make a decision.

carpenter goes mini-cabbing and does 'the knowledge' in the 18 months he is suspended. 

My workmates used to refer to him as a 'jammy bastard' cos he was suspended on full pay.

I don't actually know how it ended up cos I'd left by then. It never made the papers so I presume yer man got paid off and bought himself a black cab.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 24, 2010)

southside said:


> And your point is ?


 
That saying 'carbon graphite' is pointless - you may as well call it 'carbon carbon' or 'graphite graphite'.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> What made you choose the word "Jihadic"? Even the right word, "Jihadist", would be an odd choice, given its origin.



because I meant that some of these people pursued their narrow, sectional interests with the fervour of fundamentalist holy-warriors... and didn't really give a fuck about anyone else (often including the individual workers they were supposed to be representing)

although obviously they didn't use suicide bombers

do feel free to substitute the word 'Crusader'


----------



## southside (Sep 24, 2010)

I should have said it was made from carbon fibre then


----------



## killer b (Sep 24, 2010)

LiamO said:


> OK. There was a story I heard at work which I had difficulty believing. So I went to my union convenor and asked him the craic, convinced that I could then return to my workmates and tell them they were talking shite. Sadly he confirmed it.
> 
> Camden Council. Late 80's
> 
> ...


 
this sounds like something someone would tell you down the pub, with the 'you couldnt make it up' suffix. i doubt the actual events were the same as you describe, and we have no way of confirming it one way or another.

do you have any actual documented cases of loony left insanity, or just stuff you heard from gossips at work?


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 24, 2010)

Yeah, I'm not sure how this example really equates to 'loony-left' philosophy, or invalidates any of the work that various committees and groups did within say the GLC, Labour councils in the 80s, etc.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

Example 2

Estate next to Mornington Crescent tube.

Council close Youth Club due to funding cuts.

6 months later they open a new one - but only for asian kids. 

The fash didn't have much fun with that one did they?


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

killer b said:


> this sounds like something someone would tell you down the pub, with the 'you couldnt make it up' suffix. i doubt the actual events were the same as you describe, and we have no way of confirming it one way or another.
> QUOTE]
> 
> except it wasn't down the pub, was it?
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2010)

southside said:


> And your point is ?


 
it is silly calling something carbon graphite. might as well call ice 'water ice'


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 24, 2010)

LiamO said:


> except it wasn't down the pub, was it?
> 
> It came from my (CPGB member) UCATT Union convenor, in front of a group of shop stewards. there were no dissenters.


 
I'm sure there's lots of these sorts of examples, which may be true or not, or blown out of proportion, which you could equally find them today if you look. None of which I think have any relevancy to supposedly 'loony-left' actions or 'left' councils tbh.


----------



## belboid (Sep 24, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Example 2
> 
> Estate next to Mornington Crescent tube.
> 
> ...



aah, another made up classic.

Good to see that this place is still getting a hefty bunch of people who think everyone else was born yesterday.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2010)

southside said:


> Philofax and the Yamaha DX7 were king.



Only if you could programme a DX7 and perform other mystical operations that required the sacrifice of Christian children.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 24, 2010)

LiamO has a point there are lunatics out there on the leftish who at least start out well meaning but lose sight of the point along the way.
  Brightons women's centre suffered from some very odd volunteers had to phone them up once and had the phone slammed down on me because "we don't talk to oppressors".


----------



## southside (Sep 24, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> it is silly calling something carbon graphite. might as well call ice 'water ice'



OK picky I'm sorry I will try to define everything I refer to in future with the utmost care and attention  in an attempt to avoid such trivial nitpicking in future. 

This will hopefully eleviate the problem I have caused here and help me you and us, I have learned something here today and I am most grateful that you have helped me understand that carbon graphite is like saying carbon carbon when what I should have said was carbon fibre I thank you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> _*F*_ilofax.
> 
> Lordy @ the OP. All that happened in the Labour councils in the 80s was rampant overspending and abysmal cost-controls & accountancy.



Happened in most councils, but also ended in most when the surcharge was introduced in '83-84.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2010)

southside said:


> OK picky I'm sorry I will try to define everything I refer to in future with the utmost care and attention  in an attempt to avoid such trivial nitpicking in future.
> 
> This will hopefully eleviate the problem I have caused here and help me you and us, I have learned something here today and I am most grateful that you have helped me understand that carbon graphite is like saying carbon carbon when what I should have said was carbon fibre I thank you.


 
i thought you were inviting some sort of argument to subvert the pitiful effort that is liamo's thread.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 24, 2010)

likesfish said:


> Brightons women's centre suffered from some very odd volunteers had to phone them up once and had the phone slammed down on me because "we don't talk to oppressors".


 
Seems fair enough.


----------



## southside (Sep 24, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i thought you were inviting some sort of argument to subvert the pitiful effort that is liamo's thread.


 

I read the OP but my ADHD kicked in and then I found that I was having an aspergers episode I wasn't looking for any trouble.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

Example 3 ... my favourite

I don't have any documentary evidence for this either, but somebody will have a copy of the publication in question.

sat outside the HR office one day (88 or 89) I was perusing a NALGO magazine - a london one I think.

It detailed a case involving two full-time staff members from a district housing office.

A white woman called a black man 'a black cunt'. He slapped her.

I was genuinely intrigued about how the Union would go with this one. The dilemna obviously being do we back the victim of racial abuse or the victim of a male assault? Obviously the race committee had one view and the womens committe the other. This was a real test.

it was almost like reading a detective novel. So what happened? Dunno what happened to th etwo workers but the article bottled it big time

it turned into some old wank about how it could all have been so different iof she had called him a 'black prick' instead of a cunt - about his reaction was so violent because he was compared to a female body part etc. I couldn't even finish reading it I was that shell-shocked

My own view? Don't say to people at work what you wouldn't say in the pub. And if you do and get the same reaction you could reasonably expect in the pub, then don't come crying about it. 

It seems simple enough. Both people have done something that could easily be a case for instant dismissal. get them in a room. offer them the road or a shake hands. get on with it.

but that wouldn't have kept the committees in work would it?

Any more examples out there folks?


----------



## belboid (Sep 24, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Any more made up bullshit out there folks?


 
corrected for you


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2010)

stephj said:


> Why not post some examples now, LiamO?
> 
> Y'see, 'loony-left' was a term of abuse aimed at people like my Mum - someone who was pro workers, pro union, pro gay rights, anti-racism and anti-misogyny. I like to think that all those causes are those that society should value. The reality is that in the 80s, right-wing society and politicians all saw these things are being alien. Sadly, here we are in 2010 and I still think there is much to do - and I'd be quite happy to see some 'loony-left' vision rise again.


 
I'd love to see the solidarity.
My problem is that the focus on "isms", while it was meant to complement the existing class solidarities, fed into a maelstrom of identity politics that ended up fracturing a lot of solidarities, and weren't those in the power-elite pleased about that!
We need to concentrate on our common bonds, not on defining ourselves into ever-smaller groups and sub-groups.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Hmmm. How about how this kind of identity politics stuff has led to worse community relations in the long term (as it turned community action into a 'crumbs for funds' scramble), the results of which we're seeing now.
> 
> Also, multiculturalism.


 
I mentioned all this on another thread a couple of hours ago.


----------



## elbows (Sep 24, 2010)

Im having a little bit of trouble getting my head round the opening post, so perhaps some more mind-boggling examples would be better sooner rather that later. edit - I spent so long writing this reply that Im out of date with this thread and see that further examples have now been given which I shall go off and read.

If its a complaint about the side-effects of things like excessive positive-discrimination, changes to the law, lots of little new rules that may seem petty to some, or may lead to rumours about what the latest 'normal' thing is that we're not allowed to do anymore, then I there is something worth discussing there, but it needs to be separated from the other agendas that drive 'its political correctness gone mad' rants.

Id be interested to know what sorts of education, debate & democracy would have achieved the results on the ground that were being sought. Because it seems to me like a lot of these problems existed within various institutions and groups within society because a large number of people didnt think there was a problem, thought their behaviour was quite acceptable, and would carry on as before given half the chance. But the elements within society who were disgusted or harmed by these ism's, had won some hard fought battles in a pretty democratic way, and so there was a mandate to take action, no matter if the people it would affect didnt believe in it. 

Now Im not a great fan of top down rulemaking and all the horror that can go with it. But its certainly one way to bring about change that doesnt look like its going to happen if left to its own accord. If you want to make certain conduct, intolerance and bullying unacceptable in a society, you have to back it up with something. Ideally this would be a rational argument that won people over, but it can be tricky to achieve this when there is a lot of ingrained attitudes and resistance. 

I think that its much easier to change a society over several generations, rather than stamp out the attitudes in the people you are dealing with right now. But if you want to bring about rapid change you are going to need to enforce things in a way that will cause some resentment, and then wait for the ideas about whats acceptable to change over time, for new generations to be shown a different attitude via education and the media and their peers. I dont see how you would get there without causing some resentment along the way.

The best that could be hoped for, and perhaps what you are trying to get at, boils down to the problem of fairness in general. People are resentful of the minorities new found rights for a multitude of reasons. The resentment caused by having to change your attitude, not be allowed to bully people in a certain way anymore, fears and hates of certain people or behaviours, well people will just have to come to terms with that. But theres another sort of resentment, which stems from all the inequalities that remain, all the injustices that happen, all the struggles that are not won. These two different types of resentment have become entangled and its not pretty. It seems like the loss of certain productive fronts to wage the struggle on, combined with various isms, has lead to a significant chunk of the unfairly treated working class directing their resentment to groups that have managed to win some rights, instead of towards the people that are denying the disenfranchised their rights. 

Its utterly the wrong target. It may well be very understandable that the resentment goes in these directions because these petty unfairnesses generated by positive discrimination and top-down management may be all that a person has direct experience of. And quite a lot of people seem to be highly tuned to detecting people in their immediate vicinity receiving preferential treatment, I hear no end of chatter at work which is nothing more than thinly disguised envy about people getting perks or not pulling their weight or not deserving this or that. And Im sure this was going on for long before the war on isms began. I would really like to see if alternative ways of humans organising within institutions, workplaces etc, a more radical attempt at fairness and equality, would eliminate most of the energy that powers these relatively petty gripes that cause conflict within the systems of today.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I mentioned all this on another thread a couple of hours ago.



Sorry didn't realise. would you care to direct me to it.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 24, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> My problem is that the focus on "isms", while it was meant to complement the existing class solidarities, fed into a maelstrom of identity politics that ended up fracturing a lot of solidarities, and weren't those in the power-elite pleased about that!
> We need to concentrate on our common bonds, not on defining ourselves into ever-smaller groups and sub-groups.



Do agree, VP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2010)

dynamicbaddog said:


> I don't reckon community relations are worse now than  what they was in the 80s.


 
Between power and the communities? No. Same old same old.

Between the communities themselves? There used to be a solidarity between many black and Asian communities in the 70s and early eighties that simply doesn't exist to anywhere near the same extent now. "Community leaders" for different ethnic and social groups allowed for a greater degree of (for want of a better word) "selfishness", which has dissolved some of the old solidarities between communities. You're as likely to see kids dividing along racial lines in schools and at leisure now, as you are to see them mixing willingly together, and this is partly down to the policy of appeasing community interests that shout the loudest and kiss the most arse.


----------



## Geri (Sep 24, 2010)

My mum worked in the NHS and was a union rep. She had to go on a course about language and what it was and wasn't acceptable to use in conversations. I can't remember all of them, but some of the discouraged phrases were "rule of thumb" and "nitty gritty".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Example 2
> 
> Estate next to Mornington Crescent tube.
> 
> ...


 
You don't have to look hard to find examples like that, and some of it was policy rather than ignorance. A plan to get ethnic communities "on-side" that has spectacularly failed and has (maybe) lit a spark for the boneheads and their slightly more-evolved brethren.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2010)

belboid said:


> aah, another made up classic.
> 
> Good to see that this place is still getting a hefty bunch of people who think everyone else was born yesterday.


 
This did, to my knowledge, happen with a community centre on Trinity road, Borough of Wandsworth (runs between Tooting Bec and East Hill), which was closed down in 1984, and re-opened 18 months later as an "Asian Community Centre" (those three words being the final three of a 4 word name, can't remember the name, but it was Hindi/Urdu for something or other that was fairly "right-on" like "fellowship").

They're not all made up. There's (unfortunately) enough real-world examples that bigots can fuel their arguments with them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Sorry didn't realise. would you care to direct me to it.


 
Just as soon as I can find the thread.

facepalm: @ self)

E2A:
Last couple of pages of this thread.


----------



## elbows (Sep 24, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'd love to see the solidarity.
> My problem is that the focus on "isms", while it was meant to complement the existing class solidarities, fed into a maelstrom of identity politics that ended up fracturing a lot of solidarities, and weren't those in the power-elite pleased about that!
> We need to concentrate on our common bonds, not on defining ourselves into ever-smaller groups and sub-groups.


 
Divide and conquer is easy! 

Balkanization of society. Probably should expect this to reverse in many senses because we really are so much more diverse and able to express and live our diversities now. When I look back to what was lost with the loss of various close-knit communities of old, I have to also remember what was gained in terms of increased potential to be ourselves, less suffocating restrictions on whats 'normal behaviour', the right sort of music etc.

But thats not to say we cannot reforge links on another level should circumstances deem it necessary. Catastrophes or struggles of almost epic proportions will be the test, we will just have to see where the divisions emerge and where common purpose forges co-operation when it really counts. It counts all the time of course, but we've gone down a very strange path and I see the disconnect remaining until something big jolts us into another state, whether it be something sudden or a prolonged economic decline for example.


----------



## belboid (Sep 24, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> This did, to my knowledge, happen with a community centre on Trinity road, Borough of Wandsworth (runs between Tooting Bec and East Hill), which was closed down in 1984, and re-opened 18 months later as an "Asian Community Centre" (those three words being the final three of a 4 word name, can't remember the name, but it was Hindi/Urdu for something or other that was fairly "right-on" like "fellowship").
> 
> They're not all made up. There's (unfortunately) enough real-world examples that bigots can fuel their arguments with them.


calling something an 'Asian Community Centre' (or whatever variatin thereon) is very much NOT the same as something 'Asian only.'  They are completely different things.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2010)

belboid said:


> calling something an 'Asian Community Centre' (or whatever variatin thereon) is very much NOT the same as something 'Asian only.'  They are completely different things.


 
In name, but sometimes not in action or intent.


----------



## rioted (Sep 24, 2010)

Is the St Augustus Youth Club only for christian kids, then?? 

What about the local Baptist church youth club? WTF are those kids with turbans doing there?

Why does St Bedes Catholic School, where I did my teacher training, have loads of muslim kids???


----------



## killer b (Sep 24, 2010)

LiamO said:


> except it wasn't down the pub, was it?
> 
> It came from my (CPGB member) UCATT Union convenor, in front of a group of shop stewards. there were no dissenters.


so the union who was representing the accused carpenter claimed his story was true? funny that.


----------



## killer b (Sep 24, 2010)

so, just to recap, your examples thus far are:

1) some workplace gossip
2) a story made up by racists
3) an article written by an idiot.

do you have anything with more substance for us?


----------



## elbows (Sep 24, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> They're not all made up. There's (unfortunately) enough real-world examples that bigots can fuel their arguments with them.


 
One reason I never know how angry I should be at these sorts of abuses and horror stories that give the equality systems a bad name, is that its entirely unclear to me how much it actually matters to bigots whether there are many real world examples or not. They are looking for things to reinforce their view, and they are always likely to be able to find an example of something that they can get themselves into a tiz about, relying on chinese whispers if necessary.

I think I still get angrier about how much has still not been won, than the failings of the systems which have helped get us this far. This is partly because where I work has lots of people who have been relatively untouched by these developments of recent decades. We still have someone who is touchy-feely, and plenty of blokes who will make racist, sexist & homophobic remarks/jokes/banter during break time. And I cant think of anybody playing the positive discrimination card. Some soft porn stuck on some factory walls, and if any of the women tried to use their gender to receive preferential treatment it was not through harassment cases but by flirting or crying. And they still havent won equal pay. 

So forgive me if I dont think the equality agenda has gone too far overall, for in some ways Im still trapped in a Carry On film, years after some metropolitan types think such a world expired.


----------



## belboid (Sep 24, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> In name, but sometimes not in action or intent.


 
come on.  Yes, we all know there were some OTT right on manouvres by labour 'lefts' retreating from class, even if the only people who ever bring them up these days are right-wing arseholes. But that is a rather different thing.  You remember the eighties, racism _was_ still rife and there were many community centres where asian people weren't welcomed. The idea that an 'Asian CC' must be (as the OP imlpes/fairly openly states) reactionary and 'Asian only'  is just nonsense.


----------



## rioted (Sep 24, 2010)

Is the Kashmiri Curry Centre just for Kashmiris?


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Just as soon as I can find the thread.


 
I'd already got it from clicking on your profile. Excellent points. 

And thank you for actually making the effort to understand my point.   

btw what does E2A mean? I see it all over these boards?


----------



## killer b (Sep 24, 2010)

ear to ass. it's a fairly obscure porn term, dunno why it's gained such prominence here...


----------



## belboid (Sep 24, 2010)

rioted said:


> Is the Kashmiri Curry Centre just for Kashmiris?


 
they're completely fucked if it is!  All the Kashmiris go to the Mangla


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

I know i've mentioned these examples before but it is relevant to the later discussion for two reasons: it shows the sort of organising models that provoked the classical sort of multi-culturalism from above and also that this project didn't just happen, it was planned with definite aims in mind, to fragment bottom up class organising and to racialise (whether openly or under the guise of culture and them two under the guise of religion) social problems:

(apols for length of quote but they're needed to get all the issues across)


Brum:


> To see this process in action, we need look no further than the Lozells riot. The riots demonstrated how the process of politically recognising distinct identities can give rise to communal conflict. The roots of the riots lie 20 years earlier in 1985 riots which took place down the road in Handsworth, when blacks, whites and Asians took to the streets together in protest against poverty, unemployment and, in particular, oppressive policing.
> 
> In response, Birmingham council proposed a new framework for the engagement of minority communities. It created a number of community organisations, labelled Umbrella Groups, the function of which was to represent the needs of their communities. By 1993 there were nine of these, defined by ethnicity and faith - the African and Caribbean People's Movement, the Bangladeshi Islamic Projects Consultative Committee, the Birmingham Chinese Society, The Council of Black-led Churches, the Hindu Council, the Irish Forum, the Vietnamese Association, the Pakistani Forum and the Sikh Council of Gurdwaras. A Standing Consultative Forum was established as a single body through which the Umbrella Groups could collectively represent the views of minority communities and to aid policy development and resource allocation.
> 
> Once political power and financial resources became allocated by ethnicity, then people began to identify themselves in terms of those ethnicities. And they began to identify others as also belonging to particular ethnic blocs. The consequence was the creation of tensions between groups, as in the words of one academic study of Birmingham, 'the different Umbrella Groups generally attempted to maximise their own interests'. The deepest animosities were created between African Caribbeans and Asians, each viewing the other as responsible for their problems. Multicultural prescription had made real the description to which it was supposedly a response.



Bradford:



> By the mid-1980s the political struggles that had dominated the fight against racism in the sixties and seventies had became transformed into battles over cultural issues. Political struggles unite across ethnic or cultural divisions; cultural struggles inevitably fragment. Since state funding was now linked to cultural identity, different groups began to assert their particular identities ever more fiercely. The shift from the political to the cultural arena helped to entrench old divisions and create new ones.
> 
> The city of Bradford provides a very good example of how the institutionalization of multiculturalism undermined political struggles, entrenched divisions and strengthened conservative elements within every community. Bradford has a large Asian population - mainly Muslim, but also including significant numbers of Hindus and Sikhs - as well as a smaller Afro-Caribbean population. Despite the large Muslim population, the question of Islam was not a political issue in the city in the 1970s. Instead, the main issues were the same that concerned minority communities elsewhere - racist attacks, immigration laws, workplace discrimination and police harassment.
> 
> ...


----------



## belboid (Sep 24, 2010)

I've never been entirely convinced by the argument that it was a carefully planned move from class, as oppossed to a simle reaction to the defeats the w-c had suffered, combined with an attempt to win some victory, any victory.

This line is palbable Malik nonsense: "Once political power and financial resources became allocated by ethnicity, then people began to identify themselves in terms of those ethnicities."  I think he'd find that many people already did (at least partly) define themsevles by ethnicity. Its plain wrong to say it started with multiculturalism.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

Gropings towards something don't have to be carefully planned though - they can be piecemeal, haphazard, aggressively followed through or half-hearted depending on whose doing and what conditions they're attempting to do them in. When taken together it's plain that there were large shifts happening towards a racial or culturalisation not of politics as such but more the everyday local type politics. Look at the similarity of the plans adopted in those above examples and add in the re-religification of local and institutional politics under labour (which was unquestionably deliberate). Or look across the channel at the new French right where similar plans were being theorised more coherently.

And yes, of course people had long defined themselves in terms of ethnicity - but not really in opposition to other ethnic groups (the AYM example), or exclusively - more as one aspect of their identity, not primary determinant and not as the main vehicle for political organisation. And when the attacks came on local democracy and resources...


----------



## rioted (Sep 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> classical sort of multi-culturalism from above


Cos there's no other sort is there? Tosser.


----------



## radio_atomica (Sep 24, 2010)

did you know though, right, that the 'loony-left' put illegal immigrants to the top of the list for a council house AND give them a grant so they can buy a car.  they were doing it in the 80s, and they're still doing it now.  i know its true because a guy who used to share a house with a girl who worked in a social security office (as a cleaner) overheard someone saying it in a corridor  just thought you should know, cos i mean, if that's true, everything liam is saying must be true as well. _you couldn't make it up_


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

I'm not bothering with you and your bizarre late life crisis/obsession with me rioted except to point out that quote exactly says _yes, there are other sorts of multi-culturalism._ That's precisely the point of it. Have another go if you want but don't hold your breath for a reply.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

belboid said:


> come on.  Yes, we all know there were some OTT right on manouvres by labour 'lefts' retreating from class, even if the only people who ever bring them up these days are right-wing arseholes. But that is a rather different thing.  You remember the eighties, racism _was_ still rife and there were many community centres where asian people weren't welcomed. The idea that an 'Asian CC' must be (as the OP imlpes/fairly openly states) reactionary and 'Asian only'  is just nonsense.



And I am thus a right-wing arsehole? How so?

I remember the 80's very well. I worked on building sites, mostly in London, throughout them. Racism was indeed rife. I was involved in anti-racist/anti-fascist activity (mostly with Anti-Fascist Action) throughout the decade and into the 90's. I spent much of my time (daily) opposing racist and fascists in conversation, in political activity (leafletting, meetings, marches etc) and physically. I put my hours in and I feel that entitles me to my opinion.

My views on trendy-lefties were formed by my experiences of them, observations of them and interaction with them. Perhaps my reason for bringing them up again (apart fron the entertainment value) is a simple one.

Another thread on here points to a shift in tactics from the edl to one of physical confrontation and targetting of left-wing meetings. This is a disturbing given the BNP abandoned this mid 90's. If they are making a comeback, I believe it is the political duty of those who were active in the 80's and saw TL's playing into the hands of the BNP to try to ensure the mistakes are learned from rather than repeated. 

I see this already in all this running around hysterically denouncing anybody even loosely connected to the edl as nazis. I suggested ...

"I don't live in england anymore, but from what I can see anti-fascists need to find a way to seperate the hardcore fascist wheat from the pissed-off-white-working-class-man-in-the-street chaff. The tactics at the moment seem doomed to lumping them all in together."

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...-in-Oldham?p=11082861&viewfull=1#post11082861 



Whilst my OP was designed (although to use the word design implies a forethought that was conspicuous by it's absence) to cause some polarity and debate, I would respectfully ask you to read it again.

I did NOT either implicitly or explicitly say "an 'Asian CC' must be (as the OP imlpes/fairly openly states) reactionary and 'Asian only' 

I was making the point that it was perceived as such by many people (not just racists) and was an example of well-meaning but myopic policy producing a bad effect. If that was not clear enough for you from the OP I am glad to have the opportunity to clarify it for you.


----------



## belboid (Sep 24, 2010)

LiamO said:


> And I am thus a right-wing arsehole? How so?


already answered that dumbo.



> Whilst my OP was designed (although to use the word design implies a forethought that was conspicuous by it's absence) to cause some polarity and debate, I would respectfully ask you to read it again.[/quiote]
> have done, confirmed my opinion.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## belboid (Sep 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Gropings towards something don't have to be carefully planned though - they can be piecemeal, haphazard, aggressively followed through or half-hearted depending on whose doing and what conditions they're attempting to do them in. When taken together it's plain that there were large shifts happening towards a racial or culturalisation not of politics as such but more the everyday local type politics.


but that is quite different to 'definite aims in mind, to fragment bottom up class organising.'  Supporting oppressed groups was seen as concomitant with class organising, revolution being the festival of the oppressed and all that.



> Look at the similarity of the plans adopted in those above examples and add in the re-religification of local and institutional politics under labour (which was unquestionably deliberate). Or look across the channel at the new French right where similar plans were being theorised more coherently.


Now, more latterly, with the total defeat of the labour left, this undoubtedly has come to pass. Not convinced the likes of Livingstone/Bellos actually for that.



> And yes, of course people had long defined themselves in terms of ethnicity - but not really in opposition to other ethnic groups (the AYM example), or exclusively - more as one aspect of their identity, not primary determinant and not as the main vehicle for political organisation. And when the attacks came on local democracy and resources...


well, they DID assert it in opposition to other groups sometimes, black youth took part in attacks on asians back in the early seventies and eighties too, its not a recent phenomenon. And Malik was explicitly saying both the identification and idetification in opposition to other groups was thus created.  Which is nonsense.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

belboid said:


> And that is an explicit lie "only for asian kids."



Actually it is not the OP. It is post 35. And don't call me dumbo, bell-end.

And neither is it a lie - i genuinely did not think I had used those words. I checked back myself and I did indeed write...


Estate next to Mornington Crescent tube.
Council close Youth Club due to funding cuts.
6 months later they open a new one - but only for asian kids. 
The fash didn't have much fun with that one did they? 

But that is not the most important embarrassing thing about the issue which I have to confess. So I might as well get this one out of the way, as well.

I just rang a former senior AFA member to confirm this Youth Club incident.

I said do you remember this? He said yeah. You were at the meeting. Asian guy.... worked in one of them committees... fell out with his mates and came to us with the inside story. He was well plausible. knew all the players etc"

"Aha! i cry I knew I wasn't imagining it". Then he continues...

"Just as well we checked it out first... turned out to be a real Walter Mitty character... it was all bollocks".


OOPS! I think I may have to lie down for a while...

Still argue my point about sectional/factional interests though


----------



## belboid (Sep 24, 2010)

OP = OPening poster, as well as opening post. Dumbo.

You just rang an ex-AFA organiser to confirm this 'incident'?  Scuse me if I am totally convinced you are talking complete and utter bullshit.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

belboid said:


> OP = OPening poster, as well as opening post. Dumbo.
> 
> You just rang an ex-AFA organiser to confirm this 'incident'?  Scuse me if I am totally convinced you are talking complete and utter bullshit.



I actually said a 'former senior AFA member' not 'an ex-AFA organiser'... see how easy it is to get a word or two mixed up?

But yes, that's exactly what I just did. He was AFA's national organiser. Posts on this forum regularly, Bell-end. Anybody that knows him will be well able to picture his snigger when I explained my predicament.

He's a bit tied up at the moment, something to do with a book, but would you like me pm you his username so you can check out both the call and it's content? You arrogant prick.



I made a mistake. I put my hands up. How about you?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

belboid said:


> but that is quite different to 'definite aims in mind, to fragment bottom up class organising.'  Supporting oppressed groups was seen as concomitant with class organising, revolution being the festival of the oppressed and all that.
> 
> 
> Now, more latterly, with the total defeat of the labour left, this undoubtedly has come to pass. Not convinced the likes of Livingstone/Bellos actually for that.



Sure, i've no doubt that people like that had no conscious intention of doing anything but addressing class issues but i'm equally as convinced that conservative or reactionary community leaders, the big local employers and so on who jumped in these projects due to their already existing local power had any such aims. Look at the groups who afflicted ot the National Interim Committee for Muslim Unity who then became the MCB under direct govt pressure.



> well, they DID assert it in opposition to other groups sometimes, black youth took part in attacks on asians back in the early seventies and eighties too, its not a recent phenomenon. And Malik was explicitly saying both the identification and idetification in opposition to other groups was thus created.  Which is nonsense.



Taking part in attacks like that is not politically organising around ethnicity though - which is what Malik is talking about. He's not arguing that there were no ethnic identities prior to official multi-culturalism (he makes this clear in both articles) but that they were seen as internal to fights for political or economic equality rather than being viewed as the struggle in and of themselves. He's not saying it created ethnic identities but _that it created a form of political process based_ around ethnic identity.


----------



## belboid (Sep 24, 2010)

LiamO said:


> I actually said a 'former senior AFA member' not 'an ex-AFA organiser'... see how easy it is to get a word or two mixed up?
> 
> But yes, that's exactly what I just did. He was AFA's national organiser. Posts on this forum regularly, Bell-end. Anybody that knows him will be well able to picture his snigger when I explained my predicament.
> 
> ...


 
All your posts are a mistake sunshine.  I stand by my earlier statement, anyone still banging on 25 years later about excesses of eighties 'loony lefts' are right-wing arseholes.  You have done nothing to disabuse me of that opinion.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2010)

elbows said:


> One reason I never know how angry I should be at these sorts of abuses and horror stories that give the equality systems a bad name, is that its entirely unclear to me how much it actually matters to bigots whether there are many real world examples or not. They are looking for things to reinforce their view, and they are always likely to be able to find an example of something that they can get themselves into a tiz about, relying on chinese whispers if necessary.


I agree, arseholes are always going to be arseholes, whether they're basing their arseholism on fact or fiction.


> I think I still get angrier about how much has still not been won, than the failings of the systems which have helped get us this far.


It's not just the system that has failed, though. We all bear some responsibility (however small) too, For not trying harder, for letting those with power insinuate their divisive agenda into our lives, for finding it easier to say nothing than to do something. 


> This is partly because where I work has lots of people who have been relatively untouched by these developments of recent decades. We still have someone who is touchy-feely, and plenty of blokes who will make racist, sexist & homophobic remarks/jokes/banter during break time. And I cant think of anybody playing the positive discrimination card. Some soft porn stuck on some factory walls, and if any of the women tried to use their gender to receive preferential treatment it was not through harassment cases but by flirting or crying. And they still havent won equal pay.


Sounds like most places I've worked, to be fair.
Sometimes we forget that we don't make social advances merely by legislating for them, we need to actually make a case for change, over and over again, if necessary.


> So forgive me if I dont think the equality agenda has gone too far overall, for in some ways Im still trapped in a Carry On film, years after some metropolitan types think such a world expired.


Oh, I don't think it's "gone too far", I just think that we've spent a long time legislating for people to be able to express their individuality at the expense of basic concerns such as class.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2010)

belboid said:


> come on.  Yes, we all know there were some OTT right on manouvres by labour 'lefts' retreating from class, even if the only people who ever bring them up these days are right-wing arseholes. But that is a rather different thing.  You remember the eighties, racism _was_ still rife and there were many community centres where asian people weren't welcomed. The idea that an 'Asian CC' must be (as the OP imlpes/fairly openly states) reactionary and 'Asian only'  is just nonsense.


Well, I wasn't arguing the OP's point, I was providing an illustration of one such venue. The fact that the venue *was* exclusionary (and this under a right-wing council currying favour with a particular community, if you'll pardon the pun, btw, so no *real* surprise there!), and that local blacks and whites who'd formerly used it were made to feel unwelcome wasn't policy but rather the whim of the "Chairman" of the centre and his friends on the borough council is by the by in terms of the *effects* that exclusion had.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

sunshine? what are you an OAP or a schoolteacher?

I did not call them the loony left. I said right-wing papers did. I called them trendy-lefties



LiamO said:


> Do you have any examples of middle-class, trendy-lefty idiocy from the 80's?
> 
> The Sun, Evening Standard, Mail etc called them the loony-left...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2010)

LiamO said:


> I'd already got it from clicking on your profile. Excellent points.
> 
> And thank you for actually making the effort to understand my point.
> 
> btw what does E2A mean? I see it all over these boards?


 
E2A - edited to add...


----------



## belboid (Sep 24, 2010)

LiamO said:


> sunshine? what are you an OAP or a schoolteacher?
> 
> I did not call them the loony left. I said right-wing papers did. I called them trendy-lefties


 
same difference.


----------



## belboid (Sep 24, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, I wasn't arguing the OP's point, I was providing an illustration of one such venue. The fact that the venue *was* exclusionary (and this under a right-wing council currying favour with a particular community, if you'll pardon the pun, btw, so no *real* surprise there!), and that local blacks and whites who'd formerly used it were made to feel unwelcome wasn't policy but rather the whim of the "Chairman" of the centre and his friends on the borough council is by the by in terms of the *effects* that exclusion had.


 
Sure, they can be, sometimes undoubtedly were. As they were excluded, so they excluded others...


----------



## belboid (Sep 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Sure, i've no doubt that people like that had no conscious intention of doing anything but addressing class issues but i'm equally as convinced that conservative or reactionary community leaders, the big local employers and so on who jumped in these projects due to their already existing local power had any such aims. Look at the groups who afflicted ot the National Interim Committee for Muslim Unity who then became the MCB under direct govt pressure.


all true, but rather later.  NICMU only became MCB in '97.  They (local employers etc) jumpde on what they saw to be a useful tool rather later than the eighties.



> Taking part in attacks like that is not politically organising around ethnicity though - which is what Malik is talking about. He's not arguing that there were no ethnic identities prior to official multi-culturalism (he makes this clear in both articles) but that they were seen as internal to fights for political or economic equality rather than being viewed as the struggle in and of themselves. He's not saying it created ethnic identities but _that it created a form of political process based_ around ethnic identity.


 
But that is also too simplistic. For one thing, that political process did already happen to some extent, and MC was still an attempt (albeit flawed) to find ways for more people to particpate in every aspect of British life.

Malik also ignores some of the class differences within asian society.  Muslims & Hindu's weren't separated solely by religion, there was a class divide too, Hindu's tending to come from better off families who migrated, whereas the Muslims, pakistanis particularly, tended to be damn poor rural dwellers who moved out of desperation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2010)

belboid said:


> All your posts are a mistake sunshine.  I stand by my earlier statement, anyone still banging on 25 years later about excesses of eighties 'loony lefts' are right-wing arseholes.  You have done nothing to disabuse me of that opinion.


 
I'm what the Yanks would call "conflicted" about talking about "the bad old days", whether that be the 70s or the 80s. I think we *do* need to "bang on" in order to establish a coherent narrative that can disabuse people of the narrative that power makes; the one that speaks of the IMF loan and the "winter of discontent", of grants for black Welsh one-legged lesbians and flats for pregnant teenage girls and all those other false tropes that still get traded by power.
I also, however, think that sometimes we should spend less time explaining about the lies (and the truths) of those times, and more time changing things in the here and now.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm what the Yanks would call "conflicted" about talking about "the bad old days", whether that be the 70s or the 80s. I think we *do* need to "bang on" in order to establish a coherent narrative that can disabuse people of the narrative that power makes; the one that speaks of the IMF loan and the "winter of discontent", of grants for black Welsh one-legged lesbians and flats for pregnant teenage girls and all those other false tropes that still get traded by power.
> I also, however, think that sometimes we should spend less time explaining about the lies (and the truths) of those times, and more time changing things in the here and now.


 
spot on


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

belboid said:


> all true, but rather later.  NICMU only became MCB in '97.  They (local employers etc) jumpde on what they saw to be a useful tool rather later than the eighties.



Indded they did, that's my point about definite plans though - people such as Bellos who you point to as an example of there being no such thinking were not _in control_ of the process - no matter how much they're associated with it in the folk memory today. There was always a heavy conservative component - it was just flying under the radar.



> But that is also too simplistic. For one thing, that political process did already happen to some extent, and MC was still an attempt (albeit flawed) to find ways for more people to particpate in every aspect of British life.



I don't think it was, i think the ethnic identities that the later process based itself on existed but the process didn't - it took the removal of labour/union politics from being the fulcrum around which community organising took place for that to happen.



> Malik also ignores some of the class differences within asian society.  Muslims & Hindu's weren't separated solely by religion, there was a class divide too, Hindu's tending to come from better off families who migrated, whereas the Muslims, pakistanis particularly, tended to be damn poor rural dwellers who moved out of desperation.



He actually talks about this in relation to Bangladeshi's being successively grouped in first the asian population and then later in the muslim population - and he has loads of articles (and books) making just this point. I'm sure you're aware of the focus he's tried to present in his work on the racialisation of statistics through the use of just such undifferentiated groupings.


----------



## belboid (Sep 24, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm what the Yanks would call "conflicted" about talking about "the bad old days", whether that be the 70s or the 80s. I think we *do* need to "bang on" in order to establish a coherent narrative that can disabuse people of the narrative that power makes; the one that speaks of the IMF loan and the "winter of discontent", of grants for black Welsh one-legged lesbians and flats for pregnant teenage girls and all those other false tropes that still get traded by power.
> I also, however, think that sometimes we should spend less time explaining about the lies (and the truths) of those times, and more time changing things in the here and now.


 
nowt wrong with banging on about ther right things.  But anyone whose main concern with eighties politics was the actions of 'trendy' lefties rather than the actions of the ruling class has things seriously fucked up.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

belboid said:


> But anyone whose main concern with eighties politics was the actions of 'trendy' lefties rather than the actions of the ruling class has things seriously fucked up.



i never said they were my main concern. far from it. 

I have said that I have serious concerns as to how their pandering to factional interests, their behaviour, their arrogant dismissal of people they perceived to be somehow 'beneath' them (a bit like yours actually) and their insistence on inflicting their myopic agenda on the rest of us led to lots of resentment and bad feeling.

I have also identified why that is of concern to me in the current political climate - and how their equally arrogant dismissal of everybody connected to the edl may well backfire.

now if you would kindly fuck off, and bore the arse of everyone on some other threads, somebody else might want to play. 

Although the price of posting - getting bored to death by you - may now be seen by many to be too high


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

elbows said:


> One reason I never know how angry I should be at these sorts of abuses and horror stories that give the equality systems a bad name, is that its entirely unclear to me how much it actually matters to bigots whether there are many real world examples or not.


 
Howya and thanks for addressing the substance of what I was saying rather than attacking how I said it.

my point would be that these 'horror stories', and they were by no means all chinese whispers, made it harder not easier to address issues on the shopfloor.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

killer b said:


> so, just to recap, your examples thus far are:
> 
> 1) some workplace gossip
> 2) a story made up by racists
> ...



1. Some workplace gossip - which was backed up by my Union Convenor who was representing the carpenter. Should I not believe him?
2. A story made up by racists - actually by a disaffected asian guy (see post no. 80)
3. An article written by an idiot - and considered suitable for a publication in a Union magazine. A union committed to anti-racist/anti-sexist policies.

I will return with some more.


----------



## killer b (Sep 24, 2010)

please don't. i'd like to think you've got something better to do with your time.


----------



## Nice one (Sep 24, 2010)

belboid said:


> OP = OPening poster, as well as opening post. Dumbo.
> 
> You just rang an ex-AFA organiser to confirm this 'incident'?  Scuse me if I am totally convinced you are talking complete and utter bullshit.


 
i was in the room when said person received the call. So yes it's entirely true.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

elbows said:


> If its a complaint about the side-effects of things like excessive positive-discrimination, changes to the law, lots of little new rules that may seem petty to some, or may lead to rumours about what the latest 'normal' thing is that we're not allowed to do anymore, then I there is something worth discussing there, but it needs to be separated from the other agendas that drive 'its political correctness gone mad' rants.
> 
> Id be interested to know what sorts of education, debate & democracy would have achieved the results on the ground that were being sought.
> 
> .



PC gone mad is not my complaint.

My point is that the councils, the interest groups, the councillors HAD the power, had the funding, had the opportunity. They had the premises, they certainly had the personnel to counter the propaganda in the tory papers.

They knew that all this stuff was going around. They knew that people were being taken in by the chinese whispers. What did they do to bring their truth to their workers? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. 

They were meant to be our haven of progression as opposed to the ravages of thatcherism. 

I worked for a Council. I was politically and personally in favour of much of what they were trying to promote. They, and their arrogance, were a hindrance in many ways. 

It was a lost opportunity and IMO a huge political mistake to impose this through a regime of fear - and let's be clear, many council workers and indeed officers WERE shit scared of coming up on the radar of the interest groups. They did nothing to counter this and many of them revelled in their own sense of power. They just seemed no better than what was there before. In fact they were worse - cos they were supposed to be on our side and were vindictive when crossed!

This was my experience and the experience of many of my co-workers and I couldn't give a fiddler#s fuck what bell-end thinks about me.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 24, 2010)

belboid said:


> OP = OPening poster, as well as opening post. Dumbo.
> 
> You just rang an ex-AFA organiser to confirm this 'incident'?  Scuse me if I am totally convinced you are talking complete and utter bullshit.



belboid you really are still so so nieve. You assume a whole succesion of people come on here and just make up things. You seem unable to accept people have had different experiences and views from you. Liam O was a very active member of ra/afa. He has no need to make silly stuff up. Working in London in the 80s for councils,the nhs etc people did have some really shit experiences of people riding the right on bandwagon. Some of the insincere right on lefties became new labour and some continued to talk loads and loads of shite and pretended to be to the left of new labour....


----------



## elbows (Sep 24, 2010)

LiamO said:


> My point is that the councils, the interest groups, the councillors HAD the power, had the funding, had the opportunity. They had the premises, they certainly had the personnel to counter the propaganda in the tory papers.
> 
> They knew that all this stuff was going around. They knew that people were being taken in by the chinese whispers. What did they do to bring their truth to their workers? Nothing. Nada. Zilch.



Can you give some examples of what they could have done. Countering a lot of that stuff isnt so easy.



> They were meant to be our haven of progression as opposed to the ravages of thatcherism.



Im not sure they were good candidates for being a universal haven all against the ravages of those times. Each had relatively narrow interests to promote, and this played into the hands of the competition and insecurity agenda rather than the solidarity one.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Sep 24, 2010)

stephj said:


> Why not post some examples now, LiamO?
> 
> Y'see, 'loony-left' was a term of abuse aimed at people like my Mum - someone who was pro workers, pro union, pro gay rights, anti-racism and anti-misogyny. I like to think that all those causes are those that society should value. The reality is that in the 80s, right-wing society and politicians all saw these things are being alien. Sadly, here we are in 2010 and I still think there is much to do - and I'd be quite happy to see some 'loony-left' vision rise again.



The thing is, the differences within the various groups oppressed during the 1980s are much more pronounced today.

Some from minority ethnic backgrounds who are religiously conservative by nature may not want to stand by a gay rights or womens rights platform. Also, with the decline of largescale employers and the rise of rampant consumrism & celebrity culture, developing the community consciousness that underpinned to movements of the 1980s is that much more difficult. Ditto with the movement of people and the increasing distances we have to travel to get to work. Far harder to get involved in community stuff if like me you're travelling 130 miles a day just to get to the office & back.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

elbows said:


> Can you give some examples of what they could have done. Countering a lot of that stuff isnt so easy.



Well they could have come and spoken to the manual workers for a start. They never did.

They could have produced pamphlets, leaflets etc aimed at the potential recruits of racist organisations rather than always aiming their propaganda at the potential victims. But they didn't. 

if they could not be bothered to educate and engage with their own workers, what chance did their message have of getting across to the wwc in general?

They could have arranged workplace meetings/debates etc. We had our own club in Camden. They never darkened it's doors.

I am not aiming this at the many good people involved. I am not even aiming it at Livinstone/Bundred etc. They did loads of important things - such as engaging in dialogue with Irish Republicans for a kick off. Instead of just slagging off Sinn Fein, they engaged in dialogue with them, many years before mainstream politicians did. I remember the Sun running a front-page on Ken Livingstone asking 'Is this the most odious man in Britain?' because he invited Gerry Adams to speak in London. They said he supported terrorism. He said 'No, I sympathise with their frustration but I want them to stop blowing up my city so I need to ask them under what circumstances they would consider stopping this'. Grown up talking and joined-up thinking.

But here's the rub. Livingstone could justifiably have held his nose and refused to talk to The Sun. However he wanted to reach their readers, so he wrote a regular column for it instead.

why could some of the people in the various committees not have followed his example? All these little mobs were absolutely riddled with in-fighting, back-biting and interminable squabbling. Too busy exagerating their own 'ism' to justify a bigger slice of the funding pie to actually engage with the 'great un-washed' IMO.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 24, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Perhaps I could have worded the OP better.
> 
> How about... a lot of the good work they did was undermined by the idiocy of some of the more Jihadic elements


 
I don't buy that either. It's accepting the Blairite doctrine that you mustn't ever suggest anything that will upset the most reactionary of your opponents. If objecting to bigotry causes some bigots to react then it's the bigots at fault not those objecting to the bigotry.

My experience at the sharp end was in the committee rooms in Lambeth from 85 to 90 and the way it is usually characterised is so completely different to reality I find it hard to recognise any of it. I missed out on Lambeth under Ted Knight when it might have been different, but mostly what I saw was fairly sensible stuff from a Labour Party that had far more working class people at the helm than I've seen before or since. Which, of course, is what used to upset many journalists since the last thing that the middle class want to hear is what council tenants, manual labourers and single mothers actually want.

In so far as there was any antagomism and intimidation it was generally from a very small rump of largely right wingish old trade unionists, and a slightly larger group of proto Blairites who wanted to turn the Labour Party into SDP2. There were some people who could spot examples of prejudice or discrimination from several miles away, but nobody who was ever offensive about it. The only people who had any problem were the ones who reacted on a basis of angrily objecting to ever being questioned. The rest of us listened and learned and found out what other people found offensive and why.

Bigotry doesn't go away simply because nobody ever talks about it. The complete unwillingness of the political establishment to engage with bigotry over the last couple of decades has, in my view, led to an increase in racism, sexism, homophobia, and attacks on the disabled. I'd rather the bigots were upset than thinking they were in the right.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

ericjarvis said:


> .
> 
> Bigotry doesn't go away simply because nobody ever talks about it.



I understand this. this is why I spent every tea-break and many's a work day discussing/debating with my workmates. They were not generally bigots (or are you referring to me?) but they did hold some reactionary views. For me the best and only way to change this was to consistently engage in dialogue with them. Not to try to intimidate them and promote a culture of fear and suspicion. 

This was not my position of a weekend when confronting genuine bigots in the NF, Blood & Honour or the BNP.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

ericjarvis said:


> . I'd rather the bigots were upset than thinking they were in the right.


 
Without wishing to be offensive, and obviously without knowing your intention in writing this bit...

This was the attitude that caused all the problems. Everybody who did not fit their definition of how they should be and think, was labelled a bigot. It was arrogant and misguided and counter-productive. It also led to a fundamentalist orthodoxy where different interest groups tried to out-do each other in their empty rhetoric and die-hard right-on-ism ( yes I know that's not a real word, but you get my meaning) and a culture of denunciation. This just drove racism and sexism underground.

Of course you can argue (and generally I would agree with you) that it was better hidden than public. my position is that they could and should have been wiser and more far-sighted - and certainly more open to feedback and constructive criticism.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 24, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> This did, to my knowledge, happen with a community centre on Trinity road, Borough of Wandsworth (runs between Tooting Bec and East Hill), which was closed down in 1984, and re-opened 18 months later as an "Asian Community Centre" (those three words being the final three of a 4 word name, can't remember the name, but it was Hindi/Urdu for something or other that was fairly "right-on" like "fellowship").
> 
> They're not all made up. There's (unfortunately) enough real-world examples that bigots can fuel their arguments with them.


 
The trouble with examples like that is that we get none of the necessary context. What was the level of usage of the original community centre compared to funding? How many similar facilities were there reasonably locally? How well was it managed? What was the story behind the idea of having an Asian Community Centre? What other such organisations and facilities were there in the area?

That two organisations had the words "Community Centre" in their name doesn't actually imply they were doing even remotely the same thing or were funded from the same budgets.

The trouble is it's possible to portray a perfectly sensible decision to close a failing organisation that's meeting needs already catered for elsewhare and replace it with a much needed facility covering different needs that aren't being met at all, as shutting down an X for the whites and replacing it with an X for Asians. I'm not saying that was the case in the example you give, just that it all means nothing without some backstory and context.

The trouble is that means being willing to challenge all such over simplifications all the time. It's hard work and gets repetitive and boring. Unfortunately the tools of bigotry are over simplification and misrepresentation, and the only way to deal with them is by challenging them every time.


----------



## Deareg (Sep 24, 2010)

not sure whether this counts or not, but about 20 years ago i travelled from belfast to london to attend a job interview and for probably the one and only time in my life i felt that i actually did well and was in with a shout of getting the job, only to receive a letter a few days later saying that because of some kind of fair employment law or policy i could not actually be considered for the post as it had to go to an ethnic minority, i did not have a problem with this as i feel that where you have had discrimination based on colour or gender then it was only fair to have some kind of counter balance, what i did have a problem with was the bastards not stating this in the first place as i would not have wasted my time travelling or put myself in debt by borrowing the money for the flight over


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

Why should they have to inform the likes of you deareg? You weren't on't committee lad.

or indeed on their list of people we must be nice to.

and anyway you were just as lazy a bastard as I was, so they were doing the poor ratepayer a service.


----------



## Deareg (Sep 24, 2010)

right, outside now 



LiamO said:


> Why should they have to inform the likes of you deareg? You weren't on't committee lad.
> 
> or indeed on their list of people we must be nice to.
> 
> and anyway you were just as lazy a bastard as I was, so they were doing the poor ratepayer a service.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

eric,
that's just the kind of rational explanation that was so often missing.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 24, 2010)

Deareg said:


> right, outside now



 meet you in Lisburn omniplex car park. If i'm not there, start without me


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 25, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Without wishing to be offensive, and obviously without knowing your intention in writing this bit...
> 
> This was the attitude that caused all the problems. Everybody who did not fit their definition of how they should be and think, was labelled a bigot. It was arrogant and misguided and counter-productive. It also led to a fundamentalist orthodoxy where different interest groups tried to out-do each other in their empty rhetoric and die-hard right-on-ism ( yes I know that's not a real word, but you get my meaning) and a culture of denunciation. This just drove racism and sexism underground.
> 
> Of course you can argue (and generally I would agree with you) that it was better hidden than public. my position is that they could and should have been wiser and more far-sighted - and certainly more open to feedback and constructive criticism.


 
I don't see that at all. I saw a lot of people reacting to any criticism at all as "denunciation". I saw a lot of people completely refusing to accept any responsibility for dealing with their own prejudices and objecting to any suggestion that they might. The attitude most of us in Lambeth had was that we are ALL prejudiced. What matters is what you do about when you realise you are being prejudiced. On the whole I'd rather know when I'm wrong about something so that I can get it right in future, and I don't have a lot of time for the idea that if somebody's wrong about something you should never mention it in case it might upset them.

Now it may be that Camden was vey different. I only know what it was like in Haringey up tp 85 and Lambeth thereafter. However I saw no unwillingness to accept feedback and constructive criticism, and I saw a largely working class alliance of men and women from different backgrounds and cultures attempting to make things better for ordinary people and being characterised as die hard lunatics.

I'm perfectly aware that there were many people in Lambeth able to simultaneously hold the opinion that the council was run by a load of loonie lefties, and that the councillors they actually knew were alright, without it ever crossing their minds that perhaps the former impression might possibly be because of other people's propaganda. I don't see that as a reason why we should have backed off and not tried to make things better. Doing things the way the right of the Labour Party wanted hasn't worked. It's simply separated the concerns of all the various dispossessed and oppressed groups and made it easier for them all to be controlled by the wealthy and powerful.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 25, 2010)

LiamO said:


> eric,
> that's just the kind of rational explanation that was so often missing.


 
Actually it was generally there, but it was usually ignored. The problem is that it isn't news (or even gossip) if the council closes down a place that nobody needs any more. It isn't news if they open something that a lot of people need. However if you can twist the story so that it's "council does something loony" then it's all over the papers and talked about all the time.

Meanwhile when councils really do something utterly stupid it's usually a real pain in the arse to get anyone to even notice. Usually because it either takes some effort to understand why it's dumb or because the only people it hurts are the poor, the disabled, the unemployed... etc etc


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 25, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Do you have any examples of middle-class, trendy-lefty idiocy from the 80's?



Yeah. He's called Ben Elton.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2010)

ericjarvis said:


> The trouble with examples like that is that we get none of the necessary context. What was the level of usage
> of the original community centre compared to funding?


Over-used, pretty much, and poorly funded due to the council preferring to put the community budget behind its' leisure empire.


> How many similar facilities were there reasonably locally? How well was it managed? What was the story behind the idea of having an Asian Community Centre? What other such organisations and facilities were there in the area?


Similar facilities - a couple of community centres in Wandsworth proper, and Balham, so within 2 miles.
Management - shit, but was funded by council, so (as happened so often then and since) place-men got employed.
The Asian community centre idea came from the high concentration of Indian and Pakistani Muslims that settled there from the late 1960s onward.


> That two organisations had the words "Community Centre" in their name doesn't actually imply they were doing even remotely the same thing or were funded from the same budgets.


Well, the remits were similar insofar as being about providing a space for "community functions" as well as an address for various community endeavours, but I don't know about the budget source.


> The trouble is it's possible to portray a perfectly sensible decision to close a failing organisation that's meeting needs already catered for elsewhare and replace it with a much needed facility covering different needs that aren't being met at all, as shutting down an X for the whites and replacing it with an X for Asians. I'm not saying that was the case in the example you give, just that it all means nothing without some backstory and context.


Of course.
Part of my point hasn't been that _a_ was replaced with _b_, but that _b_ was represented by some people (on both sides of the "argument") as being an exclusionary replacement, and that this representation was then fostered by the person who was employed to manage the place, regardless of whatever his *actual* remit was, which had the effect of making many people (rightly or wrongly believe that the "Asian Community centre" was actually a community centre purely for Asians. I strongly suspect that this was an issue to do with one particularly obnoxious "community leader" carving out another piece of his personal fiefdom, but the harm he did was real.


> The trouble is that means being willing to challenge all such over simplifications all the time. It's hard work and gets repetitive and boring. Unfortunately the tools of bigotry are over simplification and misrepresentation, and the only way to deal with them is by challenging them every time.


 
I know, I know.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2010)

ericjarvis said:


> I don't see that at all. I saw a lot of people reacting to any criticism at all as "denunciation".


I actually used to love people pulling that on me, because it was so easy to pick apart (so especially gratifying if you had an audience), although my favourite was when people would (knowing my past profession) say stupid things like "well what do you know? You were a soldier, so you're obviously right-wing".  


> I saw a lot of people completely refusing to accept any responsibility for dealing with their own prejudices and objecting to any suggestion that they might. The attitude most of us in Lambeth had was that we are ALL prejudiced.


This is what I was taught when I was growing up in the 60s and 70s. *Don't* expect favours because you're "different", because in the end EVERYONE is "different" to someone else, and we all have our irrational fears and hatreds. 


> What matters is what you do about when you realise you are being prejudiced. On the whole I'd rather know when I'm wrong about something so that I can get it right in future, and I don't have a lot of time for the idea that if somebody's wrong about something you should never mention it in case it might upset them.
> 
> Now it may be that Camden was vey different. I only know what it was like in Haringey up tp 85 and Lambeth thereafter. However I saw no unwillingness to accept feedback and constructive criticism, and I saw a largely working class alliance of men and women from different backgrounds and cultures attempting to make things better for ordinary people and being characterised as die hard lunatics.
> 
> I'm perfectly aware that there were many people in Lambeth able to simultaneously hold the opinion that the council was run by a load of loonie lefties, and that the councillors they actually knew were alright, without it ever crossing their minds that perhaps the former impression might possibly be because of other people's propaganda. I don't see that as a reason why we should have backed off and not tried to make things better. Doing things the way the right of the Labour Party wanted hasn't worked. It's simply separated the concerns of all the various dispossessed and oppressed groups and made it easier for them all to be controlled by the wealthy and powerful.


What always annoys me about the whole "loony left Lambeth" balls, is that some very good people (Bellos for example) get remembered as extremists, while some others (Narayan, certainly) get a free pass.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Yeah. He's called Ben Elton.


 
Who has proved himself to be about as left-wing as the scrotum of a rabid badger in an SS uniform.


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 25, 2010)

The main things I remembered about the University of London in the 80s:

1. Fucking swappies everywhere doing multi-level marketing on the emotionally bereft.

2. The miners (united, will never be defeated apparently) were swiftly forgotten once they'd been pwned.

3. South Africa was the alpha and omega of left wing discourse serving as the ideologically pure, incontestable totem much in the same manner as P*lestine does now.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

DownwardDog said:


> 2. The miners (united, will never be defeated apparently) were swiftly forgotten once they'd been pwned.


 
Yes the miners lost, but they did so with a bit of dignity. More dignity than you can apparently muster after the pub of a Friday


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

DownwardDog said:


> 3. South Africa was the alpha and omega of left wing discourse serving as the ideologically pure, incontestable totem much in the same manner as P*lestine does now.


 
In my experience Palestine was always up there as an issue.

As for South Africa, you might have had some grounds for discussion there - given the rose-tinted view much of the left had of (justifiable and necessary) political violence there as compared to their views on (justifiable and necessary) political violence in Britain. 

However smart-arse comments about the Miners strike will, I suggest, unite most people on this thread however disparaging they have been in this discourse. I'm curious. Why did you word this in this way? Was your intention to be offensive, or were you trying to make a valid point about the left dropping causes as soon as they lost their celebrity? 

If it was the former then please go away. If it was the latter then you could perhaps expand and explain your point better. Although I suspect they of the ruffled feathers will soon be flouncing in to say 'how very dare you?'.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

Good morning Bell-end. You posted....





belboid said:


> *OP = You just rang an ex-AFA organiser to confirm this 'incident'?  Scuse me if I am totally convinced you are talking complete and utter bullshit*.




I offered to put you in touch with him. You ignored this. 




Nice One posted


Nice one said:


> *i was in the room when said person received the call. So yes it's entirely true*.




Can you please confirm whether or not you think 'Nice One' is talking complete and utter bullshit too? Or do you only do one-way traffic - so much better at the questions than the answers.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 25, 2010)

Nice one said:


> i was in the room when said person received the call. So yes it's entirely true.


 
Oh, well that's obviously credible then...


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 25, 2010)

LiamO said:


> In my experience Palestine was always up there as an issue.



Admittedly, since the 80s I've had many episodes of GLOC and several high speed motorcycle crashes so it's entirely possible I'm cognitively impaired but I don't think Palestine was the all consuming obsession it is now for the left. In the 80s, as far as I can recall, the Trots hadn't yet figured out that significant tranches of the muslim vote could be delivered in bulk form by some combination of clerical dictat and electoral fraud and was therefore very much worth courting. This train of thought, of course, culminated in the shining success of the RESPECT project.

As for the miners I remembered that, one minute, it was all coal not dole stickers, bucket shaking galore and Billy Bragg gurning on the The Tube. Then, once they'd lost, nothing. They seemed to completely disappear from the consciousness of lefties of my immediate acquaintance to be replaced by a brief infatuation with saying "Free Tibet" and going to see Bogshed (whatever happend to them?) play in Camden. It was if the miners weren't actually going to bring Thatch down then what fucking use were they? I would have thought, that if you gave a shit about them in the first place, then the stickers, buckets and the Big Nosed Bard from Barking may have had greater utility as dole did indeed supplant coal.

This is all based on my personal experience of those times and sharing a house with a swappie. I concede it's entirely possible that other less fickle, earnest lefties were posting tins of beans to Barnsley even after Nevermind came out in the early 90s.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 25, 2010)

I wasn't aware that 'the left' is a registered charity.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 25, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Oh, well that's obviously credible then...


 
It probably is to be fair, given that the mysterious individual they're talking about is indeed a registered poster here.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 25, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It probably is to be fair, given that the mysterious individual they're talking about is indeed a registered poster here.


 
I don't doubt that LiamO is geniune btw. But even you know that every Tom, Dick and Harry will jump on that and think it's his mate posting from the PC downstairs...


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

Downward Dog

thanks for clearing up your intention... 

I am glad I followed up my initial 'pissy' reply with a more considered one and that you have now expanded on your views


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Good morning Bell-end. You posted....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
actually, you brain dead idiot, it proves you are a lying little shit!  Well done.

one minute he 'Posts on this forum regularly', but when he turns up he's making his 8th post! 

Utterly full of shit.

And, of course, the only other person to back you up is torybaldwin! Someone so far on the right of labour he makes David Miliband look like a trotskyist.

Fuck off back to Thailand you utter waste of space.


----------



## love detective (Sep 25, 2010)

this may sound like it's being made up now, but I was also in the room at the time yesterday evening (and you can trust me belboid)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> actually, you brain dead idiot, it proves you are a lying little shit!  Well done.
> 
> one minute he 'Posts on this forum regularly', but when he turns up he's making his 8th post!
> 
> ...


 
What the fuck are you gibbering on about? Nice one was in the room with the poster in question, he's not the actual poster and he made that quite clear.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 25, 2010)

love detective said:


> this may sound like it's being made up now, but I was also in the room at the time yesterday evening (and you can trust me belboid)



Ha, 58 posts since May 2008, 8 posts with the other account, you know Belboid is going to be convinced Liam0 created these accounts to back himself up if he ever got caught out by the frothing Sheffielder


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> actually, you brain dead idiot, it proves you are a lying little shit!  Well done.
> 
> one minute he 'Posts on this forum regularly', but when he turns up he's making his 8th post!
> 
> ...



Oh bell-end you are a ticket. how everybody in your local pub must hang on your every witty riposte - not. Are you on medication?

Sometimes you might actually read what people write ratehr than what your angry little head wishes they had written.

Nice One made no claim to be the person I phoned. he said he was in the room when my friend took the call.

I do not know who Nice One is. I have no idea.

Thus I too was somewhat puzzled about the small number of posts he had made previously. I actually considered he might be a friend of yours taking the piss. So I took a look at his posts. It did not take long as there were only a few since he joined Urban last December - to announce the Freedom Collective Xmas Party.

This, and his insider contributions to the 'beating the Fascists' thread, led me to conclude he was a member of 'Freedom'. This placed him exactly where my old amigo said he was when I phoned him. 

you could have ascertained these facts as easily as I. but instead, your blind hatred has led you to make a complete prick of yourself once more. Thank you.



*'Fuck off back to Thailand' ???*

I have never been further east than Germany, old chap. Do you think I am someone you know? an old enemy from the past? maybe someone who shagged your missus whilst you were holding court somewhere , boring the arse off your audience? This might explain your unbridled hostility and lack of critical function.



love detective said:


> this may sound like it's being made up now, but I was also in the room at the time yesterday evening (and you can trust me belboid)



*is love detective also  a 'lying little shit'? do tell, dear heart.*


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 25, 2010)

love detective said:


> this may sound like it's being made up now, but I was also in the room at the time yesterday evening (and you can trust me belboid)


 


It's like all the people and their dogs that were at the bar when George Cornell got shot in the Blind Beggar.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> It's like all the people and their dogs that were at the bar when George Cornell got shot in the Blind Beggar.


 
I initially thought 'Ah Bollocks' when I could not get through at first (cos he was on the Tube). 

How serendipitous then that , when he took my call, he was actually at a meeting with people who bell-end knows


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 25, 2010)

I predict some rapid back-pedalling.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

I'd predict the bell-end household will all be wearing crash-helmets while his ego implodes.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 25, 2010)

Sorry b. but i can think of at least one other person who you know very well who would probably have been there too


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 25, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Sorry b. but i can think of at least one other person who you know very well who would probably have been there too





I expect Montefuckingvideo was there...


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 25, 2010)

The first time I remember becoming politicised in the 80s was when Reagan visited Ireland; I wore an anti-Reagan badge to school and the teacher made me take it off. I started to wonder why a man like Reagan was feted and wooed in Ireland.

I read the NME at the time & that kind of had an effect on me, too. 

Not very daring, I realise but I was only 14!


----------



## likesfish (Sep 25, 2010)

tbf they people they interviewed on radio 4 about the gay parents book row.
 that was made up by the tabliods.

were on a completetly diffrent planet from the rest of us


----------



## IMR (Sep 25, 2010)

There certainly were plenty of trendy lefties in 1970s and 1980s, but they seemed to have been concentrated in London. Too many different strands and ideas fed into that scene to summarise easily or quickly, but a few points can be made here.

There is a long history of middle-class reformers seeing the London working class as needing to be changed from outside. Jerry White's book _London in the Nineteenth Century_ gives some good descriptions of earnest bluestockings venturing into the slums of Bermondsey and Whitechapel to lecture the people there on temperance, household budgeting and domestic hygiene. Also some caustic contemporary accounts in Thomas Burke's _Nights in London_, published in 1915:



> The Isle of Dogs, I may tell you, is a happy hunting-ground for all those unhappy creatures who can find no congenial society in their own circles: I mean superior Socialists, Christian workers, Oxford and Cambridge settlement workers, and the immature intellectuals. There are literally dozens and dozens of churches and chapels on the Island, and dozens of halls and meeting-places where lectures are given. The former do not capture Johnnie, but the latter do, and he will often wash and brush up of an evening to hear some young boy from Oxford deliver a thoroughly uninformed exposition of Karl Marx or Nietzsche. The Island is particularly happy in being so frequently patronized by those half-baked ladies and gentlemen, the Fabians, who have all the vices of the middle classes, and—what is more terrible—all the virtues of the middle classes.
> 
> The majority of Socialists, if you observe, are young people of the well-to-do middle classes. They embrace the blue-serge god, not from any conviction, not from any sense of comradeship with their overworked and underpaid fellows, but because Socialism gives them an excuse for escape from their petty home life and pettier etiquettes.



The trendy lefties of the 1970s and 1980s were similar kinds of people, but they had largely lost access to the working class who had become better-off and less deferential, many of them also moving out of range to Essex and Kent. What deference that remained was concentrated and focused towards institutions like the monarchy that represented continuity and national identity, not 'scruffy lefties' who commanded no respect.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 25, 2010)

Jerry White also did a fantastic book for History Workshop Journal back in the 80s called The Worst Street in North London: Campbell Bunk, Islington, Between the Wars, which touched earlier 20th century efforts to 'reform' the w/c.


----------



## IMR (Sep 25, 2010)

I'll have to look that up, thanks butchersapron. Not sure I completely agreed with all of White's conclusions in _London in the Nineteenth Century_, you might get the idea from it that the 'civilising' project had run out of targets by the century's end, but it's a good book imo.


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Sorry b. but i can think of at least one other person who you know very well who would probably have been there too


 
where? at a discussion sometime in the eighties? 

Tis clear 'Liam' is a sad, bullshitting, fuckwit and liar, who is about as leftwing as a wombat.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> where? at a discussion sometime in the eighties?
> 
> Tis clear 'Liam' is a sad, bullshitting, fuckwit and liar, who is about as leftwing as a wombat.



And you base that on what?
Yes thats right he has dared to post something that makes you feel a bit uncomfortable......
So better to dismiss him as a bullshitter.....
You have made a right tool of yourself.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> And, of course, the only other person to back you up is torybaldwin! Someone so far on the right of labour he makes David Miliband look like a trotskyist.



dear belboid bell-end

Not content with directing your little hissy-fit at me, you also arrogantly dimiss tbaldwin with a contemptuous sneer. 

*I have a simple question for you...* I know you prefer demanding answers to giving them, but... we can but try.

*Is everybody who holds a slightly different view to you a tory or a liar? *

Is agreeing with you the infantile, black & white, acid-test that people must pass in order for you to either work with them politically or engage with them respectfully? If so you must lead a lonely existence. Never mind you can always argue with, and snarl at, yourself in your bathroom mirror.

Even if what you wrote was an accurate reflection of tbaldwin's views (and I don't believe for one second that they are) why would this necessarily compromise his personal integrity? 

tbh some of the biggest wankers, the lowest, back-stabbing bastards I have ever met apparently 'shared' my political views. Some of the most honest, trustworthy and honourable people I have known shared hardly any of my views.

In the AFA days there were only two simple questions. Are you against the BNP? and are you willing to do something about it? 

Thus a motley crew of reds, anarchists and individuals of every political hue from the 57 Varieties of the revolutionary left through the Labour Party and beyond were able - for a time - to unite to fight the common enemy. tbaldwin was one of this crew and I, like everybody else, was glad to have him alongside me. By his presence and his valour he answered both questions with flying colours.

This alliance also included people who hadn't a political thought in their heads, but they hated the fash for personal reasons. They were made welcome. There were even Glasgow Rangers-supporting, serving members of the british army's paratroop regiment involved for a good while. They were made welcome too.

Frankly we had too much on our plates to snootily dimiss anybody who did not agree with our political stances on other issues - such as the IRA's armed struggle for example.

Comforting to see that you have found a never-ending supply of dollies just begging to be thrown from your over-sized pram - and that you have learned fuck all from the last 30 years... you trendy lefty never-was.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> Tis clear 'Liam' is a sad, bullshitting, fuckwit and liar, who is about as leftwing as a wombat.


 
What happened to the 6" thick book of theory with which you nearlty bored VP and the rest of us to death with last night.

Your pseudo-academic mask is slipping old chap... best go and lie down.


----------



## Deareg (Sep 25, 2010)

what tis clear is you haven't a fucking clue what you are talking about



belboid said:


> where? at a discussion sometime in the eighties?
> 
> Tis clear 'Liam' is a sad, bullshitting, fuckwit and liar, who is about as leftwing as a wombat.


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

LiamO said:


> you also arrogantly dimiss tbaldwin with a contemptuous sneer.


so do 99% of the boards' members



> *Is everybody who holds a slightly different view to you a tory or a liar? *


oh dear, you have trouble reading dont you? To repeat myself, again, my view is that anyone who thinks the most pressing issue to discuss re eighties politics is the (made up) actions of a few 'trendy lefties' is a right wing prick.



LiamO said:


> What happened to the 6" thick book of theory with which you nearlty bored VP and the rest of us to death with last night.
> 
> Your pseudo-academic mask is slipping old chap... best go and lie down.


and you get worse, any attempt to think critically is sneerily dismissed.  You stick to your reveries of the one time you hit a fascist, there's a good lad.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> actually, you brain dead idiot, it proves you are a lying little shit!  Well done.
> 
> one minute he 'Posts on this forum regularly', but when he turns up he's making his 8th post!
> 
> Utterly full of shit.



I thought this was your position, bell-end. 
Did I miss the post where you retracted this? 

and to add to the long list of questions you have not answered... 

*is love detective (post no. 132) a lying little shit too?*


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 25, 2010)

This is precisely why urban depresses me; the infighting - who's more "real" than who...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2010)

DownwardDog said:


> The main things I remembered about the University of London in the 80s:
> 
> 1. Fucking swappies everywhere doing multi-level marketing on the emotionally bereft.


Same at most unis, to be fair. The Swappies have always known where to sniff out new recruits.


> 2. The miners (united, will never be defeated apparently) were swiftly forgotten once they'd been pwned.


By whom? The Swappies maybe (they being legendary in their ability to jump from cause to cause as it suits them), but plenty of people stood by them, right up until Heseltine killed the industry.


> 3. South Africa was the alpha and omega of left wing discourse serving as the ideologically pure, incontestable totem much in the same manner as P*lestine does now.


Again, for whom? 
Seems to me like you're extrapolating a trend from your own limited experience.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

jer said:


> This is precisely why urban depresses me; the infighting - who's more "real" than who...



Splitter!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2010)

LiamO said:


> In my experience Palestine was always up there as an issue.


I certainly remember regular protest outside the Israeli embassy back in the early to mid 1970s.


> As for South Africa, you might have had some grounds for discussion there - given the rose-tinted view much of the left had of (justifiable and necessary) political violence there as compared to their views on (justifiable and necessary) political violence in Britain.


SA was always a bit more complex than the coverage of the issue by the media. IME (in my experience) some parts of the left took a while to see beyond the colonialism issue and accept that Capital was a major factor in policy decisions. Once that happened, the whole issue opened up and you had campaigns against major institutions and corporations happening too.


> However smart-arse comments about the Miners strike will, I suggest, unite most people on this thread however disparaging they have been in this discourse. I'm curious. Why did you word this in this way? Was your intention to be offensive, or were you trying to make a valid point about the left dropping causes as soon as they lost their celebrity?


He's a tedious right-wing bore, that's why.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 25, 2010)

it does make me laugh to see people(usually ageing hippies and swappie types) going on about how much they "did" about the south africa issue when all they did really was march up and down holding a sign, as some (distant) members of myfamily ended up being killed for their activism.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 25, 2010)

So, it did turn out that the community centre story was bollocks, didn't it?


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 25, 2010)

Depends on circumstances though eh?

My grandfather lost his life fighting the far right so more than anyone on here although he was in the pay of the RAF at the time.


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

jer said:


> This is precisely why urban depresses me; the infighting - who's more "real" than who...


 
pretend lefties banging on about irrelvances from thirty years ago depress me more


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> So, it did turn out that the community centre story was bollocks, didn't it?







LiamO said:


> But that is not the most important embarrassing thing about the issue which I have to confess. So I might as well get this one out of the way, as well.
> 
> I just rang a former senior AFA member to confirm this Youth Club incident.
> 
> ...




yes. as I readily conceded here. and I also concede it makes me look a cock - an honest one though

then bell-end accused me of making up the phone call and off we went again.

Incredibly he has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and actually made himself look a much bigger cock than me - that's some going, fair play to him.

and no, bell-end, being called a big cock does not mean you have one.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 25, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Depends on circumstances though eh?
> 
> My grandfather lost his life fighting the far right so more than anyone on here although he was in the pay of the RAF at the time.


 
true that


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 25, 2010)

LiamO said:


> yes. as I readily conceded here. and I also concede it makes me look a cock - an honest one though
> 
> then bell-end accused me of making up the phone call and off we went again.
> 
> Incredibly he has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and actually made himself look a much bigger cock - that's some going, fair play to him.


 
Fair enough mate, I'd just lost the thread


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

'Honest'?  My arse. You're a prick repeating age old bullshit as if it were true. That one wasn't true, and I don't think anyone believes any of your other so-called examples either.  

There was, briefly, an interesting chat about how those polices did come about, and the effects they had, but you found that 'boring.' Says it all. Hey ho.


----------



## FreddyB (Sep 25, 2010)

I'm not sure if you realise or care Belboid but to someone with no interest in the argument you're having with LiamO you look like a fucking nutter


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

fairy nuff.  At least i dont make up a load of right-wing bullshit tho


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 25, 2010)

He got something wrong due to being misinformed and admitted his mistake when he took the trouble to verify the information. So there's no need to keep banging that drum, belboid.


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

the point is, tho, that virtually all of those type of stories are bullshit.  ignorant repetition of them is idiotic, even if you do (eventually) admit tat one of them wasn't quite right.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 25, 2010)

I'd agree there; baa baa green sheep etc.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> the point is, tho, that virtually all of those type of stories are bullshit.  ignorant repetition of them is idiotic, even if you do (eventually) admit tat one of them wasn't quite right.



You do have a point here - while I totally disgree with your opinion on LiamO - it is irritating when you get people who do make these claims about this sort of thing, when you point out the bollockness of one given story and then they still come out with another, and another. 

But then as Mark Steel points out in Reasons to be Cheerful about his adventures as a Swappie in the eighties, there was truth behind the stories, the whole multicultural anti class identity politics brigade did have a damaging impact on left politics.


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

that is true (as I said in, I think, my first post). But it needs dealing with seriously, not by repeating Daily Mail rubbish


----------



## trevhagl (Sep 25, 2010)

stephj said:


> Why not post some examples now, LiamO?
> 
> Y'see, 'loony-left' was a term of abuse aimed at people like my Mum - someone who was pro workers, pro union, pro gay rights, anti-racism and anti-misogyny. I like to think that all those causes are those that society should value. The reality is that in the 80s, right-wing society and politicians all saw these things are being alien. Sadly, here we are in 2010 and I still think there is much to do - and I'd be quite happy to see some 'loony-left' vision rise again.


 
loony left is now known as PC . There were/are some right oddballs out there with humour bypasses that come out with embarrassing things but most of it i imagine was the Tory media trying to ridicule the left because if they ridiculed the left on the subject of workers rights even the dimmest Sun reader would struggle to fully support it.


----------



## Deareg (Sep 25, 2010)

i remember being told on numerous occasions that black people cannot be racist because they do not have the power or some other such bullshit, and that only white people could be racist


----------



## trevhagl (Sep 25, 2010)

Deareg said:


> i remember being told on numerous occasions that black people cannot be racist because they do not have the power or some other such bullshit, and that only white people could be racist


 
racism was another one where trendy lefties made idiots out of themselves ie positive discrimination - how could any kind of discrimination be positive?


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

That racism, as opposed to racial prejudice, is prejudice *+* power is a perfectly reasonable & arguable statement. It doesn't mean that no black peopleare capable of discrimination.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 25, 2010)

Deareg said:


> i remember being told on numerous occasions that black people cannot be racist because they do not have the power or some other such bullshit, and that only white people could be racist


 
Ive been told that a couple times, usually by American lefties though


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> racism was another one where trendy lefties made idiots out of themselves ie positive discrimination - how could any kind of discrimination be positive?


 
lots is! We all discriminate all the time, we discriminate in our choice of friends, lovers, who we choose to have in our football teams.  It's the basis that that discrimination is done on that matters.


----------



## Deareg (Sep 25, 2010)

you really enjoy playing with words, don't you?



belboid said:


> lots is! We all discriminate all the time, we discriminate in our choice of friends, lovers, who we choose to have in our football teams.  It's the basis that that discrimination is done on that matters.


----------



## Deareg (Sep 25, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Ive been told that a couple times, usually by American lefties though


 
it was an attitude that was rife in the british left too, i lost count of the number of times i was called a racist, mostly by white lefties but not always


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 25, 2010)

maybe, but i haven't heard it so much in real life. maybe the people i hang round with are more sensible, or maybe i'm just not being racist enough 

Ironically the people who tended to come out with that shit tended to be horribly prejudiced in other ways, including class.


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

Deareg said:


> you really enjoy playing with words, don't you?


 
it's useful to understand what the words you are using actually mean.  You should try it some time.

it's quite simple.  How can any discriminatin be wrong?  When it is used to correct previous wrongs seems a pretty reasonable answer (although I dont actually think that the PD trev is on about is a very good example of doing so, the general point is quite right tho)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> loony left is now known as PC


Nope.
There might have been *some* crossover, but they were hardly the same thing. So-called "loony left" councils were often accused of being such on the basis of nothing except trying to bring socialism to town hall politics. You need to bear in mind that the 70s and 80s saw more mass involvement in local politics than at any time since between the wars, and that couldn't really be allowed, so loads of scare stories were put out, along with a few true incidents, usually the responsibility of individual zealots rather than local authorities.
This basically meant we've ended up with local government power very weak, with most important functions, including local taxation, decided centrally. 


> There were/are some right oddballs out there with humour bypasses that come out with embarrassing things but most of it i imagine was the Tory media trying to ridicule the left because if they ridiculed the left on the subject of workers rights even the dimmest Sun reader would struggle to fully support it.



The Sun *have* ridiculed "the left" over the years on the issue of worker rights, both pre- and post-Wapping, and had parts of their readership agree with them.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 25, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> maybe, but i haven't heard it so much in real life. maybe the people i hang round with are more sensible, or maybe i'm just not being racist enough
> 
> Ironically the people who tended to come out with that shit tended to be horribly prejudiced in other ways, including class.



It doesn't really happen any more on the far left, outside certain limited and incestuous little political groups or the odd forum poster... Plus you're Socialist Party aren't you? Don't think they ever went in for that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2010)

Deareg said:


> i remember being told on numerous occasions that black people cannot be racist because they do not have the power or some other such bullshit, and that only white people could be racist



Everyone, every individual is capable, and often guilty of, racism, whatever your skin colour. It's how you deal with the impulses that matters.


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It doesn't really happen any more on the far left, outside certain limited and incestuous little political groups or the odd forum poster... Plus you're Socialist Party aren't you? Don't think they ever went in for that.


 
I think they always agreed that racism is prejudice PLUS power (which isn't the same thing as saying that no black person can be racist)


----------



## trevhagl (Sep 25, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope.
> There might have been *some* crossover, but they were hardly the same thing. So-called "loony left" councils were often accused of being such on the basis of nothing except trying to bring socialism to town hall politics. You need to bear in mind that the 70s and 80s saw more mass involvement in local politics than at any time since between the wars, and that couldn't really be allowed, so loads of scare stories were put out, along with a few true incidents, usually the responsibility of individual zealots rather than local authorities.
> This basically meant we've ended up with local government power very weak, with most important functions, including local taxation, decided centrally.
> 
> ...


 
oh aye, they have some success NOW but in the 80's people had some pride and solidarity, now there a load of wankers around who are like Cockney Wanker from Viz - in all areas, even where i live


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 25, 2010)

yeah im in the sp, but only joined recently, and before that was fairly active anyway. as i've said, i've heard it a few times, but it's quite unusual and you tend to hear it more from ageing hippy types etc  

i think the american left is a lot more concerned with identity politics and the like than the british one (or my experience of it, anyway).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> That racism, as opposed to racial prejudice, is prejudice *+* power is a perfectly reasonable & arguable statement. It doesn't mean that no black peopleare capable of discrimination.


 
Unfortunately, people all too often bypass the issue of power when discussing racism, and so also bypass the question of institutional racism, and just how pernicious it can be.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> I think they always agreed that racism is prejudice PLUS power (which isn't the same thing as saying that no black person can be racist)


 
that's a very good point but racism and racial prejudice are usually taken to mean the same thing anyway ... I agree with you and VP btw.


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

but they shouldn't be. Racism is more than just prejudice, it's about a systematic desire to demonise, divide, and conquer.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 25, 2010)

Deareg said:


> i remember being told on numerous occasions that black people cannot be racist because they do not have the power or some other such bullshit, and that only white people could be racist


 
Depends where in the world you are. A white man racially abusing a black man in the UK holds more power than the reverse.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> but they shouldn't be. Racism is more than just prejudice, it's about a systematic desire to demonise, divide, and conquer.


 
I agree 100% (eta: and with c66's post as well) but that's not how they used in general speech though and people might have just been lazy/ignorant in their use of language is what Im saying. 

Also in general it does hold more power but that isn't always the case, especially where jobs and job apps are concerned (although overwhelmingly it is more likely for ethnic minorities to still get discriminated against rather than white people)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2010)

Deareg said:


> it was an attitude that was rife in the british left too, i lost count of the number of times i was called a racist, mostly by white lefties but not always


 
I wouldn't say it was "rife", so much as an easy fall-back for some people when losing an argument (which is when I heard it most often, along with "you MUST be a racist, you were a soldier!").


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I wouldn't say it was "rife", so much as an easy fall-back for some people when losing an argument (which is when I heard it most often, along with "you MUST be a racist, you were a soldier!").


 
  all too bloody typical. Arguments around black sections always involved both sides calling the other racist.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> lots is! We all discriminate all the time, we discriminate in our choice of friends, lovers, who we choose to have in our football teams.  It's the basis that that discrimination is done on that matters.


 
Oh behave. Choosing a lover or friend isn't a form of discrimination to everyone else. If we shagged them all equally we'd be discriminating the monogamists.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> maybe, but i haven't heard it so much in real life. maybe the people i hang round with are more sensible, or maybe i'm just not being racist enough
> 
> Ironically the people who tended to come out with that shit tended to be horribly prejudiced in other ways, including class.


 
You'd have heard it more in the eighties (after the rise of identity politics in the UK) than at any other time. In my experience, it *was* mostly uttered by people who had other prejudices, usually against anyone that dared think outside of the "radical politics" consensus of the time, so it did often include being very snippy to nasty working class people.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> oh aye, they have some success NOW but in the 80's people had some pride and solidarity, now there a load of wankers around who are like Cockney Wanker from Viz - in all areas, even where i live


 
In the eighties you had people continuing to buy the Sun during the Wapping dispute, so solidarity and pride wasn't alive for at least 3.5 million people of the time.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 25, 2010)

But that was 20 years ago, i hear people talking about "the left" in the 80s including my parents' friends etc (who used to be really involved in all that), and while there is still some stuff that is the same (bullshit identity politics appearing from time to time being one of them) i do have to say that much of what they talk about i dont recognise or if i do recognise it isn't such an issue any more.


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Oh behave. Choosing a lover or friend isn't a form of discrimination to everyone else. If we shagged them all equally we'd be discriminating the monogamists.


 
but it is discriminating! Look it up 

a.  Able to recognize or draw fine distinctions; perceptive.
b. Showing careful judgment or fine taste: (a discriminating collector of rare books; a dish for the discriminating palate).


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 25, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> In the eighties you had people continuing to buy the Sun during the Wapping dispute, so solidarity and pride wasn't alive for at least 3.5 million people of the time.


 
Yeah but just because someone buys a newspaper it doesn't mean they don't care about stuff, maybe they just haven't heard enogh about it or thought about it properly, we're back to another, equally controversial, debate - how far buying stuff or not buying stuff can affect things or whether buying a certain product can make you a bad person or not - which i do hear and is quite annoying, espeically from the likes of you-know-who ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> all too bloody typical. Arguments around black sections always involved both sides calling the other racist.


 
Used to put me off going to political meetings, although I usually bit the bullet. It was like you had to wade through all this identity politics treacle before you could get anything sorted (usually in the last 5 minutes of the meeting *if you were lucky*.  ).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah but just because someone buys a newspaper it doesn't mean they don't care about stuff, maybe they just haven't heard enogh about it or thought about it properly, we're back to another, equally controversial, debate ...



The way I looked at it was that if a dispute that was nationally publicised couldn't stir the readership of _The Sun_ to express solidarity by buying another paper, they weren't worth the candle.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 25, 2010)

Fair dos I suppose. I don't know what it was like then so can't really comment. Sales of the sun in places like Liverpool went down massively though (and in Liverpools case still are by all accounts).


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> but it is discriminating! Look it up
> 
> a.  Able to recognize or draw fine distinctions; perceptive.
> b. Showing careful judgment or fine taste: (a discriminating collector of rare books; a dish for the discriminating palate).


 
But that assumes that I've made my choices through taste rather than convenience!


----------



## Maidmarian (Sep 25, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Fair dos I suppose. I don't know what it was like then so can't really comment. Sales of the sun in places like Liverpool went down massively though (and in Liverpools case still are by all accounts).



Sales dropped in Liverpool due to the Sun's coverage of the Hilsboro' disaster though, not because of trades disputes.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 25, 2010)

Yeah I know that was the reason. Sorry if I didnt make that clear.


----------



## trevhagl (Sep 25, 2010)

Maidmarian said:


> Sales dropped in Liverpool due to the Sun's coverage of the Hilsboro' disaster though, not because of trades disputes.


 
respect regardless!


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 25, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> respect regardless!


 
well yep exactly !!


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 25, 2010)

Although I did meet a guy once from Liverpool who took pride in buying it: "because I support Everton!"


----------



## Deareg (Sep 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> it's useful to understand what the words you are using actually mean.  You should try it some time.
> 
> it's quite simple.  How can any discriminatin be wrong?  When it is used to correct previous wrongs seems a pretty reasonable answer (although I dont actually think that the PD trev is on about is a very good example of doing so, the general point is quite right tho)


 
fair point and i will definitely give it a try, maybe you should try thinking about how words are sometimes used rather than just refer to the dictionary, to many people the word racism has come to mean a dislike of people simply for being of a different colour or nationality and not necessarily a feeling of superiority 

and i agree with you on righting previous wrongs by using positive discrimination, though i hate the term


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

How do I know how anyone is using a word?  And if it's being used wrongly, it seems reasonable to point the fact out (tho, in the case of 'racism' I happily accept that there isn't any simple dictionary definition, that it is a political term with debatable meaning(s))


----------



## Deareg (Sep 25, 2010)

i have to say i found it to be rife especially among middle class lefties.



ViolentPanda said:


> I wouldn't say it was "rife", so much as an easy fall-back for some people when losing an argument (which is when I heard it most often, along with "you MUST be a racist, you were a soldier!").


----------



## Deareg (Sep 25, 2010)

there is a lot of truth in this though it depends what part of the uk



Citizen66 said:


> Depends where in the world you are. A white man racially abusing a black man in the UK holds more power than the reverse.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 25, 2010)

Deareg said:


> there is a lot of truth in this though it depends what part of the uk


 
I don't mean it on a population level. Naturally, if a white man gets racially abused by Asian men in Tower Hamlets he's going to struggle to find immediate support...

What I mean is on a national conscious level. If a white man gets racially abused by black men he has the police, the courts and the whole judiciary behind him who are predominantly, nay, almost exclusively white. And that's on top of all the historical connotations of how the white man has held power over the black man and abused that power both through slavery and in modern times.

So that's why if a black man were to call me a honky I wouldn't give a fuck. And as it carries no historical weight, that probably explains why I've never been called one.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> How do I know how anyone is using a word?



context? 

If I call you a cunt, which you undoubtedly are, I don't think anybody on here will think I am refering to female genitalia.

I see 'nice' Belboid is back. has the full moon passed or have you doubled your medication?


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

When I'm talking to people who talk sense, I talk nicely, when I talk to brain dead bullshitting fuckwits, I dont.

'Context' wouldn't actually help in either instance that was spcifically being discussed, so your point is wrong.  Again.


----------



## Deareg (Sep 25, 2010)

again that is fair enough, i wouldn't argue with any of that, but i am not sure how often people of any colour get taken to court for name calling, though in many cases they should, i can't recall ever a case of a black man being prosecuted for name calling, but i do see where your coming from 



Citizen66 said:


> I don't mean it on a population level. Naturally, if a white man gets racially abused by Asian men in Tower Hamlets he's going to struggle to find immediate support...
> 
> What I mean is on a national conscious level. If a white man gets racially abused by black men he has the police, the courts and the whole judiciary behind him who are predominantly, nay, almost exclusively white. And that's on top of all the historical connotations of how the white man has held power over the black man and abused that power both through slavery and in modern times.
> 
> So that's why if a black man were to call me a honky I wouldn't give a fuck. And as it carries no historical weight, that probably explains why I've never been called one.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 25, 2010)

LiamO said:


> context?
> 
> If I call you a cunt, which you undoubtedly are, I don't think anybody on here will think I am refering to female genitalia.
> 
> I see 'nice' Belboid is back. has the full moon passed or have you doubled your medication?



Belboid is basically sound, he is just a bit highly strung.


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

dont capitalise my name, you cunt, or I'll have to kill you


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 25, 2010)

See!


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 25, 2010)

aye, he's sound,


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Belboid is basically sound, he is just a bit highly strung.



I'm sure he is Spanky.

but he called me a liar

when I provided him with an honest explanation of how I had come to hold my belief in that story, and admitted I had it arseways, instead of accepting this  he posted...



belboid said:


> Dumbo.
> 
> You just rang an ex-AFA organiser to confirm this 'incident'?  Scuse me if I am totally convinced you are talking complete and utter bullshit.



Now despite two seperate posters (Nice One & Love Detective - both Anarchists I believe) confirming they were in the room when yer man took the call and veryfying the conversation, he still refuses to concede that this post above was wrong and was thus unjustified.

Many people took exception to my OP. Other posters Steph, VP, Elbows etc all either asked for clarification of what I meant or argued the toss on the essence of what I said - rather than the pedantry and villification in which Belboid indulged himself.

I see he is still attempting to intimidate other posters by ignoring the substance of what they are saying and attempting to belittle them - by pulling them on individual words they have used, and refering to dictionary definitions. He doesn't seem interested in what peoples opinions are. he just scans their text for something to pull them on. This is childish and is intimidating to people who unlike him have not swallowed a dictionary.

This is exactly the type of dismissal of working class people - referred to above -  that gets my goat.


----------



## ernestolynch (Sep 25, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Belboid is basically sound, he is just a bit highly strung.


 
He's cool, for a Trockist.


----------



## Maidmarian (Sep 25, 2010)

Who _was_ LiamO btw ?


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

LiamO said:


> This is exactly the type of dismissal of working class people - referred to above -  that gets my goat.


 
no dear, I dismiss bullshitters


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> He's cool, for a Trockist.


 
I'm sunk now


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 25, 2010)

Deareg said:


> fair point and i will definitely give it a try, maybe you should try thinking about how words are sometimes used rather than just refer to the dictionary, to many people the word racism has come to mean a dislike of people simply for being of a different colour or nationality and not necessarily a feeling of superiority
> 
> and i agree with you on righting previous wrongs by using positive discrimination, though i hate the term



I actually quite like the term positive discrimination. I think that you should positively discrimanate in order to challenge under-representation of people in certain jobs etc. I did a thread on BBC newscasters recently...90% of whom went to private schools...In some jobs you more or less have to have gone to public school or university when its totally unneccesary. The problem with all that 80s leftie idiocy is that it was really all a bit insincere. The middle and upper classes would often automatically make assumptions about you based on accent and appearance. The people we both knew were routinely discriminated against. People made all kinds of assumptions about me being racist and or homophobic, which just showed their bigotry.
Black and Gay people are far from the only people being discriminated against. It suited the middle class to talk about the police being institutionalised racist.....but that was just a big cop out. The institutions of the state are institutionally anti working class....


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah but just because someone buys a newspaper it doesn't mean they don't care about stuff



In my uncles's pub, during and after the miners strike, several west of ireland subbies used to take great pleasure in goading Reggie. a cockney Miner (don't ask) by pulling out a copy of The Sun and complimenting Maggie. Reg would reply that he had been to Belfast with the Troops Out Movement and was a 'better Irish man than you sharra cants anyday'.

One day Reggie lost the head and went for Tony the ringleader. They were pulled apart and Tony continued to rise Reg from behind the safety of the crowd. reggie threw a glass which thankfully missed. Then deprived of all other weapons and in a fit of temper - Reggie took out his upper dentures, flung them at his tormentor and split him right across the nose.

There was a moments silence before the whole pub - Tony included in fairness - fell about laughing.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> no dear, I dismiss bullshitters



So I'll ask you once more dear heart... do you reckon Nice one and Love Detective are lying about witnessing the call?


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

certainly not, I was indeed wrnog no that one.  you really were an AFA member.  But that doesnt alter the fact that you're full of shit.  really, if that's your main concern you should grow a thicker skin.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 25, 2010)

> (Nice One & Love Detective - both Anarchists I believe)



Don't know about Nice One but I can certainly confirm that Love Detective is an anarchist, with dreads and everything.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> no dear, I dismiss bullshitters



He is far from being a bullshitter. He is someone who understands the meaning of the word solidarity. The type of person who would stand by friends to his last breath. Brave and a good laugh.
Nearly all your posts are pathetic. Even when you make some sense re positive discrimination i have to doubt your sincerity as you seem to hate anyone who's views you can dismiss as tory, racist,ignorant,lies etc.....
You never seem to think anything through.


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

yawn


----------



## ernestolynch (Sep 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> I'm sunk now


 
Who's got my Xperteleven team now?


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> When I'm talking to people who talk sense, I talk nicely, when I talk to brain dead bullshitting fuckwits, I dont.
> 
> 'Context' wouldn't actually help in either instance that was spcifically being discussed, so your point is wrong.  Again.



your internal dialogue consists of one long argument with a brain-dead bullshitting fuckwit.

And yes 'context' would help.

You provided dictionary definitions of the word discrimination. neither of them really fit into the context of the discussion about discrimination here.

Maybe I am wrong but I don't think hat when people are talking about racial discrimination they mean 



belboid said:


> Look it up
> 
> a.  Able to recognize or draw fine distinctions; perceptive.
> b. Showing careful judgment or fine taste: (a discriminating collector of rare books; a dish for the discriminating palate).


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 25, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Don't know about Nice One but I can certainly confirm that Love Detective is an anarchist, with dreads and everything.


 
An..._English anarchist_ at that!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 25, 2010)

*bangs on perspex screen*


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Who's got my Xperteleven team now?


 
you're welcome to come claim it back!


----------



## ernestolynch (Sep 25, 2010)

I think his nibs has had a sprog.


----------



## ymu (Sep 25, 2010)

Deareg said:


> again that is fair enough, i wouldn't argue with any of that, but i am not sure how often people of any colour get taken to court for name calling, though in many cases they should, i can't recall ever a case of a black man being prosecuted for name calling, but i do see where your coming from


 
Might be more helpful to think of effect on life chances, than the courts. In a white majority country, racism has a different impact on black people than it does on white people. It doesn't mean that racism isn't racism, but it does mean that it's easier for white people to shrug off as merely an unpleasant incident, rather than something that will affect them throughout their lives and negatively impact on their education, job, income, and those of their children, and grandchildren ...


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2010)

LiamO said:


> your internal dialogue consists of one long argument with a brain-dead bullshitting fuckwit.
> 
> And yes 'context' would help.
> 
> ...


 
the discussion wasn't about racial discrimination at that point.  Read the relevant posts again and it'll probably be clear, even to you


----------



## ernestolynch (Sep 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> you're welcome to come claim it back!


 
Might do. Class bunch of members - Dilzy, Ninja, Flimsier - the antimatter!


----------



## Deareg (Sep 25, 2010)

yeah it should be extended to cover class, i just think that it makes it to easy for right-wingers and opponents of it to twist what it actually means



tbaldwin said:


> I actually quite like the term positive discrimination. I think that you should positively discrimanate in order to challenge under-representation of people in certain jobs etc. I did a thread on BBC newscasters recently...90% of whom went to private schools...In some jobs you more or less have to have gone to public school or university when its totally unneccesary. The problem with all that 80s leftie idiocy is that it was really all a bit insincere. The middle and upper classes would often automatically make assumptions about you based on accent and appearance. The people we both knew were routinely discriminated against. People made all kinds of assumptions about me being racist and or homophobic, which just showed their bigotry.
> Black and Gay people are far from the only people being discriminated against. It suited the middle class to talk about the police being institutionalised racist.....but that was just a big cop out. The institutions of the state are institutionally anti working class....


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

belboid said:


> certainly not, I was indeed *wrnog no *that one.



*Fuck me, you can't even TYPE 'I was wrong'*

Since we are on the 80's wasn't there an episode of 'Happy Days' where the Fonz spent a whole episode trying to say 'OK I was www-wuh-wuh -wuh'

My therapist told me that admitting a little vulnerability made people more likeable. Would you like me to forward you his number, as yours doesn't appear up to much?


----------



## Deareg (Sep 25, 2010)

ymu said:


> Might be more helpful to think of effect on life chances, than the courts. In a white majority country, racism has a different impact on black people than it does on white people. It doesn't mean that racism isn't racism, but it does mean that it's easier for white people to shrug off as merely an unpleasant incident, rather than something that will affect them throughout their lives and negatively impact on their education, job, income, and those of their children, and grandchildren ...



i would agree that all of what you said is true, i probably was looking at it from a very narrow viewpoint, but i think also that some sections of the white working class can also fall victim to this type of isolation and sense of despair and are quite often overlooked or deliberately ignored and despised by society and parts of the british left


----------



## ymu (Sep 25, 2010)

Deareg said:


> i would agree that all of what you said is true, i probably was looking at it from a very narrow viewpoint, but i think also that some sections of the white working class can also fall victim to this type of isolation and sense of despair and are quite often overlooked or deliberately ignored and despised by society and parts of the british left


Oh, I definitely agree with that. But the solution, IMO, is to highlight the discrimination against working-class people, not to trivialise other types of discrimination.

There's a good example here. This study found just as much discrimination against working-class kids as black kids - but the headline is all about the black kids.



> Black pupils 'are routinely marked down by teachers'
> 
> The study concludes that black pupils perform consistently better in external exams than in teacher assessment. The opposite is true for Indian and Chinese children, who tend to be "over-assessed" by teachers. It also finds that white children from very poor neighbourhoods were under-assessed when compared with their better-off peers.
> 
> "What is worrying is that if students do not feel that a teacher appreciates them or understands them, then they are not going to try so hard," said Simon Burgess, professor of economics at the University of Bristol and co-author of the report. His study finds that the differences are a result of stereotyping, as opposed to other factors, and are particularly pronounced in areas where there are fewer black children – or fewer children from very poor estates.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 25, 2010)

Deareg said:


> i would agree that all of what you said is true, i probably was looking at it from a very narrow viewpoint, but i think also that some sections of the white working class can also fall victim to this type of isolation and sense of despair and are quite often overlooked or deliberately ignored and despised by society and parts of the british left


 
i agree with what you say, but they're not being discriminated against (in most cases) because they're *white,* are they? some people (not sying you btw) often say they want to get away from identity politics and then fall into the same trap of ignoring class issues in favour of an over-simplistic analysis that focuses on race rather than class - im not saying this is never an issue, but there is a risk of falling in that trap imo.


----------



## Deareg (Sep 25, 2010)

thanks, i will read that


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 25, 2010)

ymu said:


> Oh, I definitely agree with that. But the solution, IMO, is to highlight the discrimination against working-class people, not to trivialise other types of discrimination.
> 
> There's a good example here. This study found just as much discrimination against working-class kids as black kids - but the headline is all about the black kids.


 you might want to edit that last sentence ... there's a missing word! 
Also, there tends to be an assumption among some otherwise well-intentioned people that black and ethnic minorities almost can't be working class


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

ymu said:


> Oh, I definitely agree with that. But the solution, IMO, is to highlight the discrimination against working-class people, not to trivialise other types of discrimination.
> 
> There's a good example here. This study found just as much discrimination against working-class kids as black kids - but the headline is all about the black kids.



Great point. 

But then the prejudice of teachers towards wc kids is par for the course and would hardly be deemed worthy of a headline. This is disturbing but sadly typical.

I'd be interested to see some research into how the younger siblings of wc kids do. 

I see thisdiscrimination and assumption-making based on 'what your brother/sister was like' all the time. It was endemic when I was at school and my recent experiences have shown it is alive and well


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 25, 2010)

yep ...


----------



## Deareg (Sep 25, 2010)

i might be taking this off topic now, but if you are caught in the poverty trap you are not going to care if your skin is not the reason why, i am not trying to take away from the disgraceful way that people of colour have been have been treated for hundreds of years and as i have said i agree that positive discrimination is a necessity, i just feel that it is dangerous to focus solely on certain sections of society while ignoring others who may be equally in need 



frogwoman said:


> i agree with what you say, but they're not being discriminated against (in most cases) because they're *white,* are they? some people (not sying you btw) often say they want to get away from identity politics and then fall into the same trap of ignoring class issues in favour of an over-simplistic analysis that focuses on race rather than class - im not saying this is never an issue, but there is a risk of falling in that trap imo.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 25, 2010)

Deareg said:


> i might be taking this off topic now, but if you are caught in the poverty trap you are not going to care if your skin is not the reason why, i am not trying to take away from the disgraceful way that people of colour have been have been treated for hundreds of years and as i have said i agree that positive discrimination is a necessity, i just feel that it is dangerous to focus solely on certain sections of society while ignoring others who may be equally in need


 
i agree and that's the point i was making or at least trying to make, i think i maybe didn't put that so well. 
i havent even been argueing for "positive discrimination"/affirmitive action on this thread btw, im sort of ambivalent over whether its a good idea or whether it does any good, I often think it can be really fucking damaging and also it does ignore or generalise over a lot of things. class being one of them, but also the fact that there are some employers who also don't want to employ white people (sorry, i hope this doesn't come across wrong or anything, im trying to put this in a way which won't upset people). i remember talking to a girl who had applied for a job in a laundrette only for them to basically tell her that she wasn't going to get the job because she wasn't asian.


----------



## ymu (Sep 25, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Great point.
> 
> But then the prejudice of teachers towards wc kids is par for the course and would hardly be deemed worthy of a headline. This is disturbing but sadly typical.
> 
> ...


 
And, of course, older brother or sister were "like that" to some extent because they were expected to be "like that". Kids with a posh accent and a smart school uniform - they'll go far, they obviously belong in the top sets. Kids with an accent or from a poor background - bet they're good at sport and music.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 25, 2010)

or with a "chavvy" sounding name (urgh)


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

having experienced this a lot at school, i really hoped it had changed - but it seems to be endemic. 

My wife is a schoolteacher in a small Irish town. This means our kids get an easy ride. Our youngest fella for example is called a 'loveable rogue' and praised for his charm and confidence (He winks at teachers when he says hello). other kids would be dismissed as cheeky.

The last Principal was a complete knob. I used to collect ours and three other kids from another family. if we met yer man in the corridor he would always greet ours by name and never even acknowledge the other three. I was glad to discover I was as uncomfortable being 'on the inside' as I was being 'on the outside' as a kid. I started taking them all out through the playground to avoid him because it was so obvious and cringe-worthy.

the new one is well sound though on the politics and education of inclusion.

There are no black kids in the school at the mo. There are a fair sprinkling of eastern europeans who oddly enough get lots of preferential discrimination compared to the kids from 'the Parks' (would be called estates in england). This is because many of the snobby teachers see Poles etc as hardworking and devout (it's a catholic school) and dismiss many of the poorer kids because of their families 'reputation'. Happy to say my wife treats all the kids the same - with respect.


----------



## ymu (Sep 25, 2010)

@froggie

Yep. That's been studied too. Expectation - kids live up or down to it. Trouble is, by the time working-class parents work out what the posh people are calling their kids, it's become a working-class name (really interesting section in Freakonomics about this). No way out.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 25, 2010)

yep


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

ymu said:


> Trouble is, by the time working-class parents work out what the posh people are calling their kids, it's become a working-class name


 
can you expand on/clarify this bit please ymu


----------



## ymu (Sep 25, 2010)

LiamO said:


> can you expand on/clarify this bit please ymu


 
It's based on some research described in a chapter in Freakonomics. Names that are popular with the upper middle-class seep into popular usage, and ten or so years later start appearing in the top ten lists for the working-class. By which time, the upper middle class has a markedly different top ten - reviving some old names, inventing some new ones.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

thanks.

It's a little bit different where I live. Most people give their kids Irish names, but even within that I can definitely see the trend you are describing.

And now I come to think of it our eldest's name was greeted by many people with 'Oh yeah the old names are coming back'. She was actually named after my late mother - but that was not on their register at all


----------



## Nice one (Sep 25, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I expect Montefuckingvideo was there...


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

Nice one said:


>


 
Now now spanky. don't get picking on my new best friend, and cousin, who lives down my stairs

and you and Butchers were also quite naughty about love detective, who I now know is a scottish IWCA member rather than an english anarchist, with ne'er a dreadlock in sight - which you two were well aware of. Bold boys!


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

It's not just class discrimination that is a problem.

There is lots of research to show that we all have different learning styles. Some kids are kinesthetic learners. they need to be doing things and moving around to process stuff. They will generally be grand up til about 7 or 8 cos they get to play with things/make things etc. even flashcards (for learning maths) are fine as they have only one bit of info on them.

Then they get told to sit down, face the front, shut up etc. They are given info mostly in 2D b&w, with lots of info on one page. this makes it really difficult for them to process. It is made worse by the fact that few teachers will have this learning style, having successfully been through an education system that is based on visual learning, with no thought given to chunk-size etc. It becomes a self-perpetuating system.

Kinesthetic learners (who are never comfortable sitting still an just listening) tend to be labelled disruptive and tend to leave school earlier than other learning types. Many get diagnosed as having ADHD and get medicated to keep them quiet.

Of course if they are in a well-funded school - or come from 'good' families - they have a better chance of getting the help they need.


----------



## ymu (Sep 25, 2010)

Good teachers do try to incorporate different learning styles these days. It's got a lot better, AFAIK.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 25, 2010)

Nice one said:


>


 
Alright comrade? Good to see you online!


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

ymu said:


> Good teachers do try to incorporate different learning styles these days. It's got a lot better, AFAIK.



yep. dripping slowly through. 

I was talking to a client who is a student teacher recently and she told me they had covered it one afternoon. I said 'jeez that's great, but it was a bit quick. And did the lecturer actually cater for diff learning styles?' and she said 'did she fuck'.

The new fella at my wife's school is well up on it though - although he will meet a defiant rearguard action from some when he trys to get them to implement it!


----------



## ymu (Sep 25, 2010)

It's just more fun teaching that way. Teaching badly is an excruciatingly embarrassing experience. Doing it well is a buzz. There's always a rearguard action from those who have no interest in improving though, which is a shame because the best way to learn to do it well is to watch a good teacher in action.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 25, 2010)

DownwardDog said:
			
		

> Bogshed (whatever happend to them?)



Saw their gig long enough ago to be when the _then_ much lesser known PWIE were actually supporting them !


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

ymu said:


> It's just more fun teaching that way. Teaching badly is an excruciatingly embarrassing experience. Doing it well is a buzz. There's always a rearguard action from those who have no interest in improving though, which is a shame because the best way to learn to do it well is to watch a good teacher in action.



you're a teacher then? Obviously a good one.

Good teachers? couldn't pay them enough. Shit teachers? shouldn't pay the cunts at all

I think they should all be MOT'd regularly


----------



## ymu (Sep 25, 2010)

I'm an academic, but I love teaching. It is a lot easier teaching adults though, and also easier when you have more leeway over the curriculum. But the principles are the same, and I think too many teachers hide behind a didactic script because it's just too damn scary to step outside of that.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 25, 2010)

Fascinating thread, I've read it right through now, and it's left me much more informed about identity politics related controversies from 'back in the day' than I knew about at the time.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

ymu said:


> I'm an academic, but I love teaching. It is a lot easier teaching adults though, and also easier when you have more leeway over the curriculum. But the principles are the same, and I think too many teachers hide behind a didactic script because it's just too damn scary to step outside of that.



indeed.

I'm reading Ken Robinsons book 'the element' at the minute. Have to say Ireally like the guy and his thinking. Good speaker too.

Anyways, we are well off thread (but then maybe we are bang on thread at the same time) it has been enlightening chatting. Oiche mhaith mo cara.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 25, 2010)

William of Walworth said:


> Fascinating thread, I've read it right through now, and it's left me much more informed about identity politics related controversies from 'back in the day' than I knew about at the time.



Late to the field walworth, but welcome nonetheless. yes, it has been interesting hasn't it? Night night all.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 26, 2010)

I've just realised something.

When I was giving out about bell-end ignoring the substance of people's posts and harranguing them on using not quite the right word I never realised that that is EXACTLY what he did with me at the start of this thread.

I posted...


LiamO said:


> I did NOT either implicitly or explicitly say "an 'Asian CC' must be (as the OP imlpes/fairly openly states) reactionary and 'Asian only'



He posted



belboid said:


> And that is an explicit lie


 
because I had actually written the last three words (and 'asian only')... In my rush to admit this... and my embarrassment that the source proved to be completely unreliable... I missed that he had once again ignored the substance of the post *including the 'offending' sentence*... which was 



LiamO said:


> *I did NOT either implicitly or explicitly say "an 'Asian CC' must be (as the OP imlpes/fairly openly states) reactionary *(bell-end's favourite 3 words missing for effect)
> 
> I was making the point that it was perceived as such by many people (not just racists) and was an example of well-meaning but myopic policy producing a bad effect. If that was not clear enough for you from the OP I am glad to have the opportunity to clarify it for you.


 
I am happy to clear up the substantive point that I was attempting to make, which is pretty clear (I think, anyway) from the para in blue above.

I do NOT believe now - nor indeed have I ever been of the opinion - that an asian youth club, or even a 'youth club for asians' is, in and of itself, reactionary. Nor do I believe a 'women's Centre' is sexist, an 'Irish centre' racist or a that a club for blind people discriminates against the blind.
I was refering to the political context and the way it might be perceived and making the general point that it was incumbent on councils to communicate their rationale & decisions - and not leave the public to 'fill in the gaps' themselves.


That is not what I was saying. Whilst explaining this position and lifting a quote from bell-end (without paying too much attention to the last three words) allowed bell-end to once more go off on a semantic tangent and - in my embarrassment at checking out the stories veracity and finding ot was all bollocks - I allowed him to, without challenge. I won't be doing that again.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 26, 2010)

Incidentally, right in the middle of all this (literally at the same time) VP posted avery similar example of this trend which he could validate and did actually happen. Thus providing a concrete example of the point I was making. Despite a couple of people misinterpreting his point he calmly stuck to his guns - and the substantive point.

How did Mr B react? He carried on a two-page, rational, thoretical, academic debate with VP who Mr B obviously thinks is his intellectual and theoretical 'equal' (actually VP might be considered Premiership and bell-end League 2).

His reaction to me - the 'upstart' - was all mouth and trousers all frothing at the potty-mouth and totally self-indulgent. He bullies people with his extensive vocabulary and academic ability (such that it is). He would no doubt claim to be a cultural democrat - in reality he is as elitist as the front row of 'Last Night of The Proms'. I suspect he is blissfully unaware of this tendency, which is a shame because (like myself) when he is rational he can be quite engaging.

So thank you once more Mr B. I can't say this was all fun... but it has been a valuable learning experience.

I learned that most posters on here are prepared to argue the substance rather than indulge in nit-picking.

I learned that holding my hands up immediately if I realise I am in the wrong is still a good and honest thing to do, and most people will usually accept honesty of intent. Bellboid's ungracious, childish attitude afterwards does not change this.

I learned not be as easily side-tracked again - i will also make damn sure about the sources of any stories I post.

At the end of the day I have no regrets about starting this thread, although I could have made my position clearer at the start and used less Evocative (and to many PROvocative) language. Then again if I had, it might never have 'ignited' and many of the best posts on this thread might never have seen the light of day. I can't help thinking that the sideshow -slapstick provided by the little handbags incident between me and Mr B, and people's rush to see the car-crash brought many here that maybe might otherwise have given the thread a bye-ball. 

This thread has been an illuminating one and many people have found it interesting (as can be seen by the number of 'reads')


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 26, 2010)

Bun fights are always popular with readers.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 26, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Bun fights are always popular with readers.



Bun fight? BUNFIGHT???!!!??? How very dare you... young man... how ... very... dare... you... I'll have you know this was a duel... to the death... or something... a fight between the forces of loight... and those of darkness... a...a ... a

well yeah... a bunfight.

an entertaining one though.


----------



## dessiato (Sep 26, 2010)

I graduated in 1988. I then applied for a job at Hull College on the academic staff. Although I was the most qualified and most experienced for the job (according to the other applicants and the person who got the job) it went to a black woman 'because women and ethnic minorities are under-represented'. It seemed insulting to the woman that she got it because she was a black woman. I have no problem with being passed over for a job by someone better than me by the way.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 26, 2010)

A classic loony left myth was one london council 'banning black bin liners because they were racist'.

The truth was that they had merely changed to a cheaper supplier of bin liners - which happened to be green.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 26, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> A classic loony left myth was one london council 'banning black bin liners because they were racist'.
> 
> The truth was that they had merely changed to a cheaper supplier of bin liners - which happened to be green.



Has anyone ever found a single bit of evidence that a council has ever banned christmas so as not to offend minorities?


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 26, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Bun fight? BUNFIGHT???!!!??? How very dare you... young man... how ... very... dare... you... I'll have you know this was a duel... to the death... or something... a fight between the forces of loight... and those of darkness... a...a ... a
> 
> well yeah... a bunfight.
> 
> an entertaining one though.


 
Entertaining to a degree but not too suprising with belboid to be honest. Like loads of people on U75 and the Liberal left generally, his views are really quite narrow minded and conservative. Any sign that somebody might actually not be in full agreement with orthodox left positions,he will assume the worst.  Questioning the mistakes the Left has made to people like him signifys that your really some kind of frothing at the mouth right winger. Its that kind of narrow minded approach to politics that has been such a recipe for success for the far left since the 80s.


----------



## Maidmarian (Sep 26, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Has anyone ever found a single bit of evidence that a council has ever banned christmas so as not to offend minorities?



There's a fantastic "Winterval" thread somewhere----------------


----------



## ernestolynch (Sep 26, 2010)

At the council nursery we used to use they were actually banned from singing Baa Baa Black Sheep.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 26, 2010)

LiamO said:


> It's not just class discrimination that is a problem.
> 
> There is lots of research to show that we all have different learning styles. Some kids are kinesthetic learners. they need to be doing things and moving around to process stuff. They will generally be grand up til about 7 or 8 cos they get to play with things/make things etc. even flashcards (for learning maths) are fine as they have only one bit of info on them.
> 
> ...


 
I don't think that, in some circumstances, education has changed much at all in the last 150 years. Back then universal education was as much about social control as it was about raising an educated workforce. It's still as much about social control (for the working class at least) as it ever was.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 26, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> At the council nursery we used to use they were actually banned from singing Baa Baa Black Sheep.


 
Oh stop it.


----------



## ernestolynch (Sep 26, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Oh stop it.


 
What the fuck would you know about Croydon nurseries? There's a world outside your Second Life/webcam/iPad bubble.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 26, 2010)

Anyone remember the Nuclear Free Zones ? we had one in Brent, it was very effective.


----------



## ernestolynch (Sep 26, 2010)

Manchester was a Nuclear Free Zone too, I guess they watched Sheffield get zapped in Threads and thought 'no ta very much'.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 26, 2010)

They wanted to dump nuclear waste under where I was from!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 26, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Oh stop it.


 
Of course, the fact that such stories originated 30 years ago, and that would have made ern a father at an age that would have shocked even the _Daily Mail_ doesn't at all invalidate the veracity of his tale.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 26, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> They wanted to dump nuclear waste under where I was from!


 
Logical if you're from Cumbria, not so logical if you're from anywhere else, though.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 26, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Logical if you're from Cumbria, not so logical if you're from anywhere else, though.


 
North East, not North West.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 26, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> At the council nursery we used to use they were actually banned from singing Baa Baa Black Sheep.


 
Islington Council banned the use of the term 'black bags' and imposed 'refuse sacks' instead. 'Manhole covers' were transformed into 'sewer caps' and 'man hours' became 'resource hours' - failure to use politically acceptable terms would result in disciplinary action etc. 
 This mindset can have a sinister side too: the head of child protection in the same council was homosexual. He was also a paedophile who facilitated other nonces in an organised way. But because he was gay -hiding in plain sight - all allegations were brushed aside as examples of deep 'prejudice'...


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 26, 2010)

Joe Reilly said:


> Islington Council banned the use of the term 'black bags' and imposed 'refuse sacks' instead. 'Manhole covers' were transformed into 'sewer caps' and 'man hours' became 'resource hours'



This tends to trouble Richard Littlejohn and causes him sleepless nights too.


----------



## ymu (Sep 26, 2010)

Joe Reilly said:


> Islington Council banned the use of the term 'black bags' and imposed 'refuse sacks' instead. 'Manhole covers' were transformed into 'sewer caps' and 'man hours' became 'resource hours' - failure to use politically acceptable terms would result in disciplinary action etc.
> This mindset can have a sinister side too: the head of child protection in the same council was homosexual. He was also a paedophile who facilitated other nonces in an organised way. But because he was gay -*hiding in plain sight* - all allegations were brushed aside as examples of deep 'prejudice'...




What, exactly, are you trying to say here?


----------



## revlon (Sep 26, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Manchester was a Nuclear Free Zone too, I guess they watched Sheffield get zapped in Threads and thought 'no ta very much'.


 
the very first one. Apart from the peace garden statue (which was frankly a little sinister) and a few signs dotted around the streets of the town hall i don't think it had much impact.

_And I'm told that my home's in a nuclear free zone
But that ain't much help when there's bills to be paid_


----------



## LiamO (Sep 27, 2010)

ymu said:


> What, exactly, are you trying to say here?



I stand to be corrected but I think what JR is saying is that yer man abused his 'unassailable' position as a gay rights activist - and the fact that he would readily, and regularly, accuse anyone who questioned his intentions or actions of 'homophobia' - to disguise his nefarious, predatory sexual predilictions. People were intimidated by both his antics and the prevalent culture within the Council and many alarm signals were missed. To take him on was to put your whole personal reputation and career at stake - many people thought it unworth the risk. 

The same way many 'community' leaders have played the race card down through the years to cover their own personal and political corruption. 

It was a (seriously unfunny) parody of the way interviewees would often squirm and start falling over themselves whn Ali G would ask 'is it cos I's black?' 

I suspect he would receive short and brutal justice at the hands of the gay community, on whom he foisted himselfas some kind of 'champion'.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 27, 2010)

revlon said:


> the very first one. Apart from the peace garden statue (which was frankly a little sinister) and a few signs dotted around the streets of the town hall i don't think it had much impact.
> 
> _And I'm told that my home's in a nuclear free zone
> But that ain't much help when there's bills to be paid_


 
I think manchester was the last 'left' council to get elected


----------



## mauvais (Sep 27, 2010)

Still is supposedly nuclear free, as far as I know. Doesn't stop the university doing nuclear related stuff though so not much point.


----------



## revlon (Sep 27, 2010)

mauvais said:


> Still is supposedly nuclear free, as far as I know. Doesn't stop the university doing nuclear related stuff though so not much point.


 
is the poly's students union still named after nelson mandela?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 27, 2010)

LiamO said:


> I stand to be corrected but I think what JR is saying is that yer man abused his 'unassailable' position as a gay rights activist - and the fact that he would readily, and regularly, accuse anyone who questioned his intentions or actions of 'homophobia' - to disguise his nefarious, predatory sexual predilictions. People were intimidated by both his antics and the prevalent culture within the Council and many alarm signals were missed. To take him on was to put your whole personal reputation and career at stake - many people thought it unworth the risk.


 
All of the above I'm sure but also apparent in the subsequent inquiry was the lefty liberal reflex to reach for the polar opposite as soon as some suspicion arose. Whereas the Daily Mail might stereotype guilt of paedo activity on the basis that he was homosexual, for trendy liberals the conclusion was opposite - such and such couldn't be guilty as charged as a _consequence _of being gay. In the same way that while the NF would chant that 'all muggers are black' I remember on one occasion hearing an SWP organiser flatly deny that there was _any_ black involvement at all! So it follows that the paedophile in chief would not necessarily have to jump to is own defence - there were will accomplices aplenty. Margaret Hodge's role was particularly chilling.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 27, 2010)

revlon said:


> is the poly's students union still named after nelson mandela?



Camden Council named a back street alley after him.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 27, 2010)

Joe Reilly said:


> Whereas the Daily Mail might stereotype guilt of paedo activity on the basis that he was homosexual, for trendy liberals the conclusion was opposite - such and such couldn't be guilty as charged as a _consequence _of being gay. In the same way that while the NF would chant that 'all muggers are black' I remember on one occasion hearing an SWP organiser flatly deny that there was _any_ black involvement at all!


 
Now this is the kind of trendy-lefty idiocy I'm talking about.

Although this is a pretty extreme example of the _consequences_ of this attitude - my experience is that it is an every day example of the _logic_ of it.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 27, 2010)

Brent council set up a whole machinery of committees to deal with race and gender pretty much on the same level as the entire joint union/management structures all with facility time. This infrastructure was mainly used to back up management in dealing with trade unionists who were mainly concerned about pay and conditions but who obviously hadn't understood that pay and condition now had to have a context of being viewed through racial and gender lines, something that the trade unions (in managements view) were not equipped to deal with and therefore were a very small piece in the jig saw.

The black workers group (management led) gave way to a black workers group and an Asian workers Group, these then spawned an African workers group (made up of Rastafarians) and then a Real African Workers group. The Women’s Group soon spawned a Gay and Lesbian group, the Gay Workers group split into a men’s group and a women’s group and I think the transgender element stayed with the women’s group. Needless to say there later came a black women’s group and an Asian women group.

The Council launched a programme of anti racism training, the central tenant of which was that if you were white then the best you could aspire to be was an anti racist racist. Cypriots, Irish, Jewish staff etc as they were not black were therefore white and lumped in with the same mark of Cain. One of the extraordinary meetings I went to included a tirade on Asian staff for their attitudes towards black staff especially in relationships i.e. 'you think you are too good for us' and the observation that white males who married black women were still racist.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 27, 2010)

Jesus


----------



## LiamO (Sep 27, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Jesus



could you expand on that a little please, Frogwoman?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 27, 2010)

Not really much to say, just shocked at 39steps post really !


----------



## LiamO (Sep 27, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Not really much to say, just shocked at 39steps post really !



But shocked as in... 'Jesus! they actually behaved/behave like that?'

or shocked as in... ' Jesus! I can't believe a U75 poster actually posted that, that's awful - he/she must be a closet tory'

that would appear to be the nub of the issue.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 27, 2010)

the former.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Sep 27, 2010)

I'm on "Global Diversity Training" on Thursday, maybe I can fill you in on the UN's idea of this sort of thing.

Actually so far my experiences have been quite positive everyone seems to take a very common sense attitude to the manner they treat others here, but there are 1 or 2 exceptions to the rule.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 27, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> the former.



Then it appears we must continue the wait for an irate trendy-lefty to swing into action to denounce us all


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 27, 2010)

Not sure you'll find any of those here mate, although I live with someone who might be described as a bit like that. She's lovely though.


----------



## belboid (Sep 27, 2010)

Difference, Liam, is those examples aren't made up like yours were. And the 'diversity awareness' tosh that Steptoe talks of was carried out in all kinds of councils, not just 'trendy lefty' ones. Likewise most councils changed from 'black bags' to 'refuse sacks' & the like. I'd be intrigued to know if anyone was ever disciplined for using the wrong phrase, I doubt it (most places seem to have given up comng up with a decent alternative name for manhole covers, tho 'man hours' is largely a thing of the past now)


----------



## LiamO (Sep 27, 2010)

belboid said:


> Difference, Liam, is those examples aren't made up like yours were. And the 'diversity awareness' tosh that Steptoe talks of was carried out in all kinds of councils, not just 'trendy lefty' ones. Likewise most councils changed from 'black bags' to 'refuse sacks' & the like. I'd be intrigued to know if anyone was ever disciplined for using the wrong phrase, I doubt it (most places seem to have given up comng up with a decent alternative name for manhole covers, tho 'man hours' is largely a thing of the past now)


 
Ah here's one now... but with a (relatively) civil tongue on him this time

not that I am the slightest bit interested in your opinions bellend, but how is it that Steps post is _automatically_ acceptable to you (not that I doubt his accuracy for a minute) whereas mine were not? (and let's not re-visit my honest error over the youth club. VP provided a verifiable example of exactly the same thing in wandsworth).

I think you nmake up your mind on whether to post favourably or not on how far up your own little league table the poster is - rather than what they say. Obviously 39steps is ranked a little higher than you and you show due deference.


----------



## belboid (Sep 27, 2010)

No dear eejit, it's because his were true (and widespread, which you know if you botheared reading) and yours were ridiculous fictions.  Quite simple.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 27, 2010)

Seconds to go, round two.

Let's see a nice clean fight, chaps.

*ding ding*


----------



## belboid (Sep 27, 2010)

Naah, worry ye not, Liam's tosh  has been thoroughly dealt with so no need


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 27, 2010)

belboid said:


> No dear eejit, it's because his were true (and widespread, which you know if you botheared reading) and yours were ridiculous fictions.  Quite simple.


 
Your whole character seems to be a fiction. Probably made up by the Daily Mail to make the Left look really really stupid.....


----------



## belboid (Sep 27, 2010)

good of you to do such a thorough job cleaning Liams arsehole out tommers


----------



## likesfish (Sep 27, 2010)

Brighton has/had a nuclear free zone and sent a letter to the TA drill an demanding an assurance that no nuclear weapons were stored there:facepalm
 as if 
  Somebody thought they ought to get a polite responce its the council after all and phoned HQ for the appopiate response weeks went by. the offical response is the MOD niether confirms or denys the location of any nuclear weapons on any site
 so possibly the only TA unit with acess to nuclear weapons is in brighton


----------



## LiamO (Sep 27, 2010)

belboid said:


> good of you to do such a thorough job cleaning Liams arsehole out tommers



bellend you are a suppository. you are so far up the arse of anyone you think is an intellectual that you probably have your name stamped on the bottom of your shoes so your family can recognise you.

You really are a pathetic toady aren't you?

Nice Bell-end: Gawd bless you superior wit, You're a toff and no mistake Guv!...

Bad bell-end: Fuck off scum... you're all tories in disguise

NB: Oh excellent point majesty...

BB: back in line there scum, wait your turn, a deity wishes to speak, 

NB oh thank you sir... yes I am a bit of a tit, guv ... thank you for noticing guv.. and can I see sir... wonderful use of pedantry sir,


----------



## LiamO (Sep 27, 2010)

belboid said:


> Naah, worry ye not, Liam's tosh  has been thoroughly dealt with so no need



No No titter ye not!

self-congratulatory delusion is soooo last year, bell-end


----------



## belboid (Sep 27, 2010)

brill. Keep frothing baby


----------



## LiamO (Sep 27, 2010)

belboid said:


> brill. Keep frothing baby


Oh Belly, you are a one.  I am chuckling, dear heart. 

Do you really think putting that silly (and suitably manic) smiley face on stops anyone picturing you hopping from foot to foot like a demented little pixie?

Au revoir mon petit cheri... Jusqu'à demain


----------



## belboid (Sep 27, 2010)

aaah good man, throwing in the bit of french to show you are an intellectual. Shame you are so shit at reading english.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 27, 2010)

... and Nice Bell-end (sorry) Baldricks's intellectual  mask slips again.

Let you in on the french secret... there's this new invention, right... top secret... they call it ... wait for it.... the interweb .... or something like that... and there's a thing on it right...  called google... mad, I know... but....

I know I said "Jusqu'à demain" mon cher , mais Je n'ai pas pu résister, Mon petit ami délirant


----------



## belboid (Sep 27, 2010)

Thank you for proving my point


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 27, 2010)

I am not sure at all the Belboids assertion that all kinds of councils carried out these courses is correct at all. Councils like Brent had  a genuine aspiration to tackle racism albeit on very divisive terms . was it the case that Tory  Council's and others had the same aspiration never mind the methodology?

Brent later made another decision that was informed by this aspiration but again divided working class communities and that was their announcement that they would appointment of 180 black teachers to schools in Brent to tackle black kids underachievement.Brent is mainly working class and the majority of black kids came from working class parents. All pupils at scholos in those areas , mainly in the south of the brough did worse than their counterparts in the north of the borough.  But rather than just appoint more teachers to improve all working class kids attainment they decided that the solution to black underachievement were  black teachers, not good teachers but black teachers. it may have not been the case but this simply  translated into that white teachers to them were the problem and that white working pupils didn't need extra teachers.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 27, 2010)

Inverted racism.


----------



## Kaye (Sep 27, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> At the council nursery we used to use they were actually banned from singing Baa Baa Black Sheep.


 
Yes, a friend's daughter sings about rainbow sheep. I didn't believe it either!


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 27, 2010)

How terrible! Those awful teachers using a song to teach children about different colours.


----------



## Kaye (Sep 27, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> How terrible! Those awful teachers using a song to teach children about different colours.


 
Is that what it is? I've no idea - I'm not saying it's terrible (though obviously it is if they can't sing "Black sheep" because of some misguided suggestion of racism).


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 27, 2010)

That's how it was described to me by someone before. That they would change the colour of the sheep in the song as part of a learning exercise. Then the reactionaries get hold of it and say it's been changed because black is offensive or something.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Sep 27, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> That's how it was described to me by someone before. That they would change the colour of the sheep in the song as part of a learning exercise. Then the reactionaries get hold of it and say it's been changed because black is offensive or something.


 
I think you need to clarify who precisely the 'reactionaries' first.  The notion that there is a perfectly rational explanation for each lurid example of lefty lunacy is as big a nonsense and as damaging in earning working class contempt as the original policy pronouncement.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 27, 2010)

Kaye said:


> Yes, a friend's daughter sings about rainbow sheep. I didn't believe it either!



I don't believe it full stop.  They sing baa baa black sheep here in Brum.  I've never ever come across a real life banning of it.


----------



## ymu (Sep 27, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> That's how it was described to me by someone before. That they would change the colour of the sheep in the song as part of a learning exercise. Then the reactionaries get hold of it and say it's been changed because black is offensive or something.


There seem to be two different originating stories.

Rainbow sheep.

Lie plus idiotic council response plus more lies.


E2A: Three stories. There does appear to have been a genuine ban imposed by Brum for a while.

BBC story



> The guidelines stated: "The term 'black sheep' is considered by many people a very negative statement.
> 
> "It is often used to describe someone's negative feelings about a person, eg. 'he's the black sheep of the family'.
> 
> ...



Fuckin' ridiculous claim that it originates from slavery. Black sheep were less valuable because their wool could not be dyed. The rhyme is about tax.

Politically correct myths exploded, which gives the BBC link


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 27, 2010)

When we were taking industrial action in Brent Labour clrrs and management accused us of racism for using the term 'black leg'


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 27, 2010)

although my 3 year old currently likes singing "baa baa back pack" for some reason


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 27, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Do you have any examples of middle-class, trendy-lefty idiocy from the 80's?
> 
> Ah! the 80's...
> 
> ...



What would happen if the black guy held the door open for the female asian painter?


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 27, 2010)

Joe Reilly said:


> I think you need to clarify who precisely the 'reactionaries' first.  The notion that there is a perfectly rational explanation for each lurid example of lefty lunacy is as big a nonsense and as damaging in earning working class contempt as the original policy pronouncement.


 
I didn't say there was a rational explanation for all 'lefty lunacy' but baa baa rainbow sheep is teaching kids colours. Strange that should happen in a nursery school but there you go.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 27, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Example 2
> 
> Estate next to Mornington Crescent tube.
> 
> ...


 
Are you one of those racist haterz?


----------



## ymu (Sep 27, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What would happen if the black guy held the door open for the female asian painter?


 
 She's done nothing wrong. He, on the other hand, is a sexist pig!


----------



## ernestolynch (Sep 27, 2010)

ymu said:


> There seem to be two different originating stories.
> 
> Rainbow sheep.
> 
> ...


 
Ha ha, fuck you Fridgemagnet, wannabe copper.


----------



## ymu (Sep 27, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Ha ha, fuck you Fridgemagnet, wannabe copper.


 
Your kids went to nursery in Brum in the '90s?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 27, 2010)

ymu said:


> Your kids went to nursery in Brum in the '90s?


 
he just makes shit up to try and get a rise from people - ignore him, everyone else does


----------



## ernestolynch (Sep 27, 2010)

ymu said:


> Your kids went to nursery in Brum in the '90s?


 
No, Croydon in the 00s. It's probably a bit behind even that backwoods city.


----------



## ernestolynch (Sep 27, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> he just makes shit up to try and get a rise from people - ignore him, everyone else does


 
((Rennies))

Hold your pliers properly you wet fuck.


----------



## ymu (Sep 27, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> he just makes shit up to try and get a rise from people - ignore him, everyone else does


 
You think I hadn't noticed?


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 27, 2010)

It's his big comeback!


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 27, 2010)

ymu said:


> You think I hadn't noticed?


 
just wondering why you were bothering


----------



## ernestolynch (Sep 27, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> It's his big comeback!


 
Not really chief. It's only a messageboard, something to pass the time while I try to get the wee'un off to sleep. Probably your highlight of the day though.


----------



## ernestolynch (Sep 27, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> just wondering why you were bothering


 
((Rennies))


----------



## LiamO (Sep 28, 2010)

belboid said:


> Naah, worry ye not, Liam's tosh  has been thoroughly dealt with so no need




Yep. Have to put my hands up bell-end. You certainly put me in my place - practically made me your bitch...

I couldn't but help notice that there appeared to be something of a consensus view emerging about your anger-induced blindness. I thought to myself ''golly gosh. they might come in handy sometime in the future, when bell-end seeks to sabotage my contributions on other threads". Little did I know you would insist on me producing it so early

Hope you don't mind, you bilious bell-end, but I started cutting and pasting them into a word.doc which I am happy to paste below so everyone can see just how you put manners on me...



*Rest assured baldrick, I will be happily paste this entire list, each and every time you start your old fanny about me telling porkies. I didn't and I don't*







Nice one said:


> i was in the room when said person received the call. So yes it's entirely true.






love detective said:


> this may sound like it's being made up now, but I was also in the room at the time yesterday evening (and you can trust me belboid)






Citizen66 said:


> I don't doubt that LiamO is geniune btw.






Spanky Longhorn said:


> What the fuck are you (belboid) gibbering on about? Nice one was in the room with the poster in question, he's not the actual poster and he made that quite clear.






Spanky Longhorn said:


> Ha, 58 posts since May 2008, 8 posts with the other account, you know Belboid is going to be convinced Liam0 created these accounts to back himself up if he ever got caught out by the frothing Sheffielder






Citizen66 said:


> I predict some rapid back-pedalling. (from Belboid)






butchersapron said:


> Sorry b. but i can think of at least one other person who you (belboid) know very well who would probably have been there too






tbaldwin said:


> And you base that on what?
> You (belboid) have made a right tool of yourself.






Deareg said:


> what tis clear is you (belboid) haven't a fucking clue what you are talking about






FreddyB said:


> I'm not sure if you realise or care Belboid but to someone with no interest in the argument you're having with LiamO you look like a fucking nutter






Citizen66 said:


> He got something wrong due to being misinformed and admitted his mistake when he took the trouble to verify the information. So there's no need to keep banging that drum, belboid.






Spanky Longhorn said:


> You do have a point here - while I totally disgree with your opinion on LiamO
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LiamO (Sep 28, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> I am not sure at all the Belboids assertion that all kinds of councils carried out these courses is correct at all. Councils like Brent had  a genuine aspiration to tackle racism albeit on very divisive terms . was it the case that Tory  Council's and others had the same aspiration never mind the methodology?
> 
> Brent later made another decision that was informed by this aspiration but again divided working class communities and that was their announcement that they would appointment of 180 black teachers to schools in Brent to tackle black kids underachievement.Brent is mainly working class and the majority of black kids came from working class parents. All pupils at scholos in those areas , mainly in the south of the brough did worse than their counterparts in the north of the borough.  But rather than just appoint more teachers to improve all working class kids attainment they decided that the solution to black underachievement were  black teachers, not good teachers but black teachers. it may have not been the case but this simply  translated into that white teachers to them were the problem and that white working pupils didn't need extra teachers.




Have to agree with you 39 about this not being near as widespread as belboid claims. 

It also seems that the level of good intention and 'worthiness' is directly related to the level of stupidity and craziness.

Your last post outlining the mutation process was excellent. This carry-on seems to develop a life of it's own. It becomes it's own source of energy and momentum til no-one knows how or why it atarted - they just  know they are not putting themselves in te way of it. 

The problem seems to be that once this particular ball starts rolling - nobody seems able to shout 'STOP'! At least not without being labelled racist/sexist/homophobic/right-wing/a closet-tory etc. 

Who would be this person? Why would they risk their career to publicly make a stand? Better to stay safe and let someone else do it. Except no-one does, do they? Too many people who's first thought is never 'what would be the right and principled thing to do here?' but always 'What's my exposure here? what's in it for me?

Basically, as I said in my OP (which I readily concede could have been worded differently) well-meaning trendy-lefties put in place policies and systems which have ended up producing the opposite effect to that they intended. 

_And it's rarely them that suffers the consequences!_



The net result of the lunacy you outlined with regard to teachers is

1 pissed off white parents
2 patronised black kids - disempowered by the very people whose stated aim is their empowerment
3 disillusioned (and or resentful) white teachers - both the ones who can't apply for the new jobs, and the ones already working cos the management don't think they have what it takes to teach black kids.
4 disempowered and patronised black teachers, even the ones who were working in the school long before this scheme - how the fuck can you get the respect of kids when they all think you only got your job because of your skin colour


----------



## rover07 (Sep 28, 2010)

revlon said:


> is the poly's students union still named after nelson mandela?


 
LOL Cos thats a waste of time. Putting pressure on the South African government to have some marxist terrorist released from jail?!

Bloody lefty students eh...


----------



## revlon (Sep 28, 2010)

rover07 said:


> LOL Cos thats a waste of time. Putting pressure on the South African government to have some marxist terrorist released from jail?!
> 
> Bloody lefty students eh...


 
it was either that or bob holness


----------



## LiamO (Sep 28, 2010)

or Countdown, in fairness


----------



## newbie (Sep 28, 2010)

LiamO said:


> This carry-on seems to develop a life of it's own. It becomes it's own source of energy and momentum til no-one knows how or why it atarted


 So how and why did it start?  What were the impulses that led to the institutionalised promotion of all the fractional identities?  How much struggle went into creating the conditions which recognised people who'd previously been ignored and marginalised?  How much education, agitation and organisation was needed from the early days of the womens movement and black consciousness until the (fairly brief) period you're focussing on?  

The LA college I worked in in the early 80s was characterised by women doing drudge work, black men doing grunt work leaving white men doing anything remotely well paid, in particular the skilled jobs, anything with prospects, anything cushy and almost all the power heirarchy. There was a well rehearsed pecking order based on identity which decades of relatively strong w/c organisation had allowed to develop. No wonder that those most affected organised around the point of discrimination and sought, and got, support from the left and increasingly the wider w/c.  Also no wonder that when the tipping point came and their struggle bore fruit there was a wave of enthusiasm for identity politics.

Their relative success in transforming opinion should surely be celebrated? Not to do so raises questions.  But nothing comes without consequences, and it's not really a great surprise if change led to political initiatives which some people didn't like. Clearly some political thinking was forged around those issues and remains critical of initiatives made at the time.  Nor is it a great surprise that, as with other progressive social movements, apparent success meant institutionalisation & co-option by capital, nor that there were other longterm negatives.  That's what happens.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 28, 2010)

The tipping point was the election of Thatcher, a shift away from what was seen as the narrowness of trade unionism, and the defeat of the miners. Getting elected locally or taking over the Labour party at a local level was in most cases based on appealing to gender , race and ironically all the big issues that local councils couldn't deliver on. The demand for reserved places based on gender and race in Labour party structures and civic structures were symptomatic of this move away from the working class. Public funding also began to follow those same routes. The fact is that with the exception of Militant in Liverpool ( and where better to point out the poisonous interaction of the self appointed black lobby when Militant decided to appount someone who did not share their views as an equalities adviser) very few of the actual conditions that drove the affects of gender and race on class and visa versa were tackled even with the resources that were available.The Labour left councils therefore toyed around the edges and the appearance of equality.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 28, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> The tipping point was the election of Thatcher, a shift away from what was seen as the narrowness of trade unionism, and the defeat of the miners. Getting elected locally or taking over the Labour party at a local level was in most cases based on appealing to gender , race and ironically all the big issues that local councils couldn't deliver on.
> 
> The demand for reserved places based on gender and race in Labour party structures and civic structures were symptomatic of this move away from the working class. Public funding also began to follow those same routes.
> 
> ...



nothing to add... just i need a bit of white space (absolutely no pun intended) to be able to read things properly.

Incidentally millions of people have this issue with the chunk-size of information. Doesn't make us thick, but it does make people use the scroll button a lot when there is no space in a post.

Fortunately I have faith in your posts - and consider them well worth the edit effort!


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 28, 2010)

Joe Reilly said:


> I think you need to clarify who precisely the 'reactionaries' first.  The notion that there is a perfectly rational explanation for each lurid example of lefty lunacy is as big a nonsense and as damaging in earning working class contempt as the original policy pronouncement.


 
Really? In my experience there are very few political decisions ever made that are actually irrational. Many are made on insufficient information. Many are made for purposes I disapprove of. However every single time I've heard somebody complain about a totally irrational decision it has turned out to be misrepresentation of the decision on their part or simply them not knowing all the details. That is EVERY SINGLE TIME.

So in this case "the reactionaries" would appear to be people who react to the reporting of something with the assumption that those they politically diagree with routunely do things for no apparent logical reason. I see that sort of thing from the right, the left, the centre. It's simply lazy thinking to accept that sort of explanation.

There is a rational explanation for every example of left wing, right wing, and middle of the road lunacy. I may not always agree with the logic, I may believe the premises are mistaked or not share the aims of those making the decision, but I'm not going to accept the idea that something happens simply because "those people" are insane until I see a documented example where it's actually been the case.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 28, 2010)

ymu said:


> E2A: Three stories. There does appear to have been a genuine ban imposed by Brum for a while.
> 
> BBC story


 
No there doesn't. There is evidence that a working party for Brum Council produced a set of guidelines that suggested that some people might find the rhyme offensive. A document that appears to have been ignored by everyone except one inspector. The moment that inspector brought the guideline to the attention of a school the guidelines were pretty much immediately withdrawn.

No ban. Not even for one second. Just an over sensitive and somewhat ignorant passage in a set of guidelines that were pretty much completely ignored anyway.

However there do appear to be a hell of a lot of people who desperately want there to have been such a ban, and I suggest they might usefully think very carefully about their motivations for such a desire.


----------



## ymu (Sep 28, 2010)

Yeah, I agree with all of that.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 28, 2010)

*wrong thread**


----------



## rover07 (Sep 28, 2010)

newbie said:


> No wonder that those most affected organised around the point of discrimination and sought, and got, support from the left and increasingly the wider w/c.  Also no wonder that when the tipping point came and their struggle bore fruit there was a wave of enthusiasm for identity politics.



The success of identity politics has been overwhelming. To discriminate on sex/race/age lines is now regarded as being so obviously unfair and ridiculous as to be unthinkable!

 Even the EDL daren't openly promote a whites-only political agenda. Relying instead on a vague 'er well we dont want Sharia law extremists here do we?' 'Not that we're racist or Nazis or anything like that'


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 28, 2010)

i woudlnt put that down to the "success of identity politics".


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 28, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> What always annoys me about the whole "loony left Lambeth" balls, is that some very good people (Bellos for example) get remembered as extremists, while some others (Narayan, certainly) get a free pass.


 
Of course Linda Bellos gets portrayed as extremist not because of her political beliefs, but because she's the ideal person to use if you want to portray everyone fighting for justice and equality for all as being out for themselves. I don't see her as being very different from me when it comes to being placed on the political spectrum, but I'm a well educated straight white man, so therefore harmless/pragmatic/boring. It also doesn't help that she got landed the job of leading Lambeth Council in the wake of the surcharging and banning of the existing Labour councillors. She joined the party at much the same time I did, and at the time I considered myself far too inexperienced to even be a councillor. She got dropped in the deep end and on the whole didn't do all that badly compared with the likes of Ted Knight and Steve Reed.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 28, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Not really chief. It's only a messageboard, something to pass the time *while I try to get the wee'un off to sleep*. Probably your highlight of the day though.


 
Best wanking euphemism I've read in a while.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 28, 2010)

ericjarvis said:


> Of course Linda Bellos gets portrayed as extremist not because of her political beliefs, but because she's the ideal person to use if you want to portray everyone fighting for justice and equality for all as being out for themselves. I don't see her as being very different from me when it comes to being placed on the political spectrum, but I'm a well educated straight white man, so therefore harmless/pragmatic/boring. It also doesn't help that she got landed the job of leading Lambeth Council in the wake of the surcharging and banning of the existing Labour councillors. She joined the party at much the same time I did, and at the time I considered myself far too inexperienced to even be a councillor. She got dropped in the deep end and on the whole didn't do all that badly compared with the likes of Ted Knight and Steve Reed.


 
I entirely agree. It's why I had time for her over Narayan, who if you talked to him when he wasn't surrounded by Labour colleagues, was pretty naked about being out for what he could get, politically at least.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 28, 2010)

fogbat said:


> Best wanking euphemism I've read in a while.



that made me spit coffee through my nose... but then i thought hold on... this man was talking about cradling a small child... you did know that?


----------



## newbie (Sep 28, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> The tipping point was the election of Thatcher, a shift away from what was seen as the narrowness of trade unionism, and the defeat of the miners. Getting elected locally or taking over the Labour party at a local level was in most cases based on appealing to gender , race and ironically all the big issues that local councils couldn't deliver on. The demand for reserved places based on gender and race in Labour party structures and civic structures were symptomatic of this move away from the working class.


 
Certainly a tipping point, but the period under discussion was best part of a decade later.  The focus on identity maybe wouldn't have happened, not in the same way, had the pioneering equal pay legislation really been turned into genuine equal opportunities by the 70s Labour government, but that hadn't happened by the time of the election.  But what you call a "move away from the working class" disguises the simple fact that the working class isn't homogenous yet for decades was organised predominantly around the interests of white men, ie was complicit in tolerating people being actively done down because they were female or because they were black. TBH I think that was more thoughtlessness than malice, nonetheless the need for change had to be pointed out again and again, coming to a head in the period being whinged about.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 28, 2010)

newbie said:


> Certainly a tipping point, but the period under discussion was best part of a decade later.
> 
> The focus on identity maybe wouldn't have happened, not in the same way, had the pioneering equal pay legislation really been turned into genuine equal opportunities by the 70s Labour government, but that hadn't happened by the time of the election.
> 
> ...




just putting in some space so I can read your post properly.


----------



## newbie (Sep 28, 2010)

sorry, you're right that probably is easier to read.


----------



## ymu (Sep 28, 2010)

LiamO said:


> just puuting in some space so I can read your post properly.


 
I'm a fan of white space myself, but one sentence per paragraph is a little OTT!


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 28, 2010)

newbie said:


> Certainly a tipping point, but the period under discussion was best part of a decade later.  The focus on identity maybe wouldn't have happened, not in the same way, had the pioneering equal pay legislation really been turned into genuine equal opportunities by the 70s Labour government, but that hadn't happened by the time of the election.  But what you call a "move away from the working class" disguises the simple fact that the working class isn't homogeneous yet for decades was organised predominantly around the interests of white men, ie was complicit in tolerating people being actively done down because they were female or because they were black. TBH I think that was more thoughtlessness than malice, nonetheless the need for change had to be pointed out again and again, coming to a head in the period being whinged about.



The Thatcher election was 1979 the shift towards municipal socialism and the dominance of isms was established mid 80s . I left Brent for Manchester in 1986, Manchester was the last 'left authority'.

It was 'equal opportunity' from above and often at the expense of the working class. Perhaps they were being punished for being complicit in their toleration of people who were 'actively done down because they were female or black'. In fact it was the black and female middle and professional classes who benefit not working class women or blacks. There was money and funding that a whole layer of these people benefited from.

The same logic of equal opportunity from above can be seen in the pay equalistaion that most Councils have gone through in the past two years. The intention was to pay people the same for jobs of equal worth, this was supposed to have achieved equal pay for women and manual workers. Yet it was working class staff who suffered pay cuts to give others a rise, in some cases couples in the same family both lost . the management grades in most cases were exempt.

As regards being white and male that is exactly the divisive sort of language that the Labour managerial class and their gender and race lobbyists used. Future beckons?


----------



## LiamO (Sep 28, 2010)

ymu said:


> I'm a fan of white space myself, but one sentence per paragraph is a little OTT!



I'm a white space fundamentalist I guess!

I think it might have been a case of exaggeration to make a point. And it succeeded! Just look at 39 steps beautifully spaced and intelligently articulated post. I like to think I played a small part - in the eloquent design, if not the intellect - of 39's incisive post. 

And it's not as if we are wasting paper,is it?


----------



## rover07 (Sep 28, 2010)

That is such a shit argument:-

We cant have equal pay and opportunities because some manual workers might have their pay cut! 

The council tried that argument recently in Brighton. They wanted to cut pay for thousands of manual workers in the City Parks department blaming equal opportunity legislation. The unions were having none of it. After a 2 day strike backed by most the public and the local press the council abandoned the cuts.


----------



## newbie (Sep 28, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> It was 'equal opportunity' from above and often at the expense of the working class.


which working class?  

when I  was growing up a lathe operator would try to get his boy in as an apprentice toolmaker. 
The toolmakers son stood more chance, although really he was trying to slip into the drawing office. Union membership came with the job. 
What chance had the daughter of the cleaner?  Without a job she couldn't join the union. 
Anyone not known was invisible. 
No malice involved just institutionalised thoughtlessness.



> As regards being white and male that is exactly the divisive sort of language that the Labour managerial class and their gender and race lobbyists used. Future beckons?


  is 'used' the operative word there?


----------



## newbie (Sep 28, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> In fact it was the black and female middle and professional classes who benefit not working class women or blacks. There was money and funding that a whole layer of these people benefited from.


 whereas, as we all know, funding ought to be the preserve of whole layers of white men? Obviously not, so what's the beef?  Bear in mind I'm an ordinary council tax payer so although I might vaguely sympathise in cases of  understandable professional envy that's not really my interest.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 28, 2010)

rover07 said:


> That is such a shit argument:-
> 
> We cant have equal pay and opportunities because some manual workers might have their pay cut!
> 
> The council tried that argument recently in Brighton. They wanted to cut pay for thousands of manual workers in the City Parks department blaming equal opportunity legislation. The unions were having none of it. After a 2 day strike backed by most the public and the local press the council abandoned the cuts.



I'm confused. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with 39?


----------



## rover07 (Sep 28, 2010)

Disagreeing.

 Ive added Mr/Ms Sarcastic Rolleyes to help clarify my post.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 29, 2010)

rover07 said:


> That is such a shit argument:-
> 
> We cant have equal pay and opportunities because some manual workers might have their pay cut!
> 
> The council tried that argument recently in Brighton. They wanted to cut pay for thousands of manual workers in the City Parks department blaming equal opportunity legislation. The unions were having none of it. After a 2 day strike backed by most the public and the local press the council abandoned the cuts.


 
I think you completely misunderstood my post, I wasn't advocating not having equal pay. In fact I was on strike at Tricos over thirty years ago for it. In most cases 'equal pay' or  pay equalistaion on the councils was settled within the overall salary budget , did not include managers and resulted in wage cust for some and wage rises for others.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 29, 2010)

newbie said:


> whereas, as we all know, funding ought to be the preserve of whole layers of white men? Obviously not, so what's the beef?  Bear in mind I'm an ordinary council tax payer so although I might vaguely sympathise in cases of  understandable professional envy that's not really my interest.



This post puzzles me. You appear to be saying that 39's argument is based on professional envy. Is this a correct inference to draw from your post? Because I can find no evidence of this in any of 39's posts and thus can only conclude either 

a) you are being deliberately petty cos your argument is a bit wobbly 
b)  you are not getting a valid point across in a way that people (well me anyway) can understand 

please advise...


----------



## LiamO (Sep 29, 2010)

rover07 said:


> We cant have equal pay and opportunities because some manual workers might have their pay cut!


 
I don't think that is what 39 is saying at all and I find it difficult to understand why you do. 

Perhaps a question or two to clarify what he/she means would help. You may well fundamentally disagree with 39 but at the moment you seem to be disagreeing with something they have not said.

Reading the last few posts (from yourself & newbie) is a bit like reading a book with pages missing for me. I want to understand your argument, please enlighten me.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 29, 2010)

newbie said:


> whereas, as we all know, funding ought to be the preserve of whole layers of white men? Obviously not, so what's the beef?  Bear in mind I'm an ordinary council tax payer so although I might vaguely sympathise in cases of  understandable professional envy that's not really my interest.


 
Aren't we all ordinary council tax payers newbie ?

My beef is that I am pro working class not pro middle class and I don't support schemes that benfit them at our expense. 

As for the rest of your posts  the fact that you think legislation passed by the Labour govt is key says an awful lot from where you view life.I think you will find that an alternative history is where men and women, black and white have come together to fight for equality.

I was at Grunwicks and will always remember the day when white men from the Yorkshire mines took a day off work to came down in coaches to North West London to join mainly Asian women in their fight against their bosses.


----------



## newbie (Sep 29, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Aren't we all ordinary council tax payers newbie ?
> 
> My beef is that I am pro working class not pro middle class and I don't support schemes that benfit them at our expense.



I understand that but what I don't get is the actuality.

Are you saying that 
there are now fewer w/c jobs than necessary because funding has been transferred to the m/c layer 
or that 
the w/c jobs have been impervious to equal opps and it's only in the m/c layer that women and black people have benefitted?  

I can read your post either way.  

Does the m/c layer do anything useful or would you advocate cutting it?



> As for the rest of your posts  the fact that you think legislation passed by the Labour govt is key says an awful lot from where you view life.I think you will find that an alternative history is where men and women, black and white have come together to fight for equality.


There's nothing alternative about that it's the context of the period under discussion.  Legislation alone wasn't enough- further coming together was needed to push for real change, leading to the highly exhuberent mid/late 80s and institutionalised equality more recently. The work of equal value arguments bring that up to date.    




> I was at Grunwicks and will always remember the day when white men from the Yorkshire mines took a day off work to came down in coaches to North West London to join mainly Asian women in their fight against their bosses.


of course, that's not in dispute hence my emphasis of thoughtlessness not malice. Yet some years later the men of the miners union were supported by wives that equal opps had barely touched.


----------



## newbie (Sep 29, 2010)

LiamO said:


> This post puzzles me. You appear to be saying that 39's argument is based on professional envy. Is this a correct inference to draw from your post? Because I can find no evidence of this in any of 39's posts and thus can only conclude either
> 
> a) you are being deliberately petty cos your argument is a bit wobbly
> b)  you are not getting a valid point across in a way that people (well me anyway) can understand
> ...


 
b) I guess, I don't write very clearly, I've never figured out how to 

I've sought to clarify what his post meant.  I couldn't tell if it's a sort of water cooler remark, as though to a group of likeminds or a serious point about discrimination.


----------



## rover07 (Sep 29, 2010)

.


----------



## rover07 (Sep 29, 2010)

I think newbie is explaining things better than me.

I dont doubt your sincerity 39th but i dont understand why you think equal opportunities has only benefited managers? It seems to me that a majority of society accepts equal opps and indeed positive discrimination as a self-evidently good thing.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 29, 2010)

Equal opps yes, but positive discrimination, no.

And yes, I would say that in terms of the opening, then closing, of an opportunity window, it's been of more benefit to those in professional/managerial roles, especially in the public sector, than it has on the shopfloor.

Someone earlier in the thread said something along the lines of 'When I was working, the drudge work was done  by women, and the grunt work by black people'. Well, TBH I haven't really seen any huge changes there - sure there are more women & ethnic minorities doing the 'non-drudge' work (by this I assume the poster was talking about tedious admin/back office type stuff e.g. typing pool, or cleaning or tea lady etc), but every big office - private and public sector - I've worked in for the last 10 years has had BME cleaning staff.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 29, 2010)

rover07 said:


> I dont doubt your sincerity 39th but i dont understand why you think equal opportunities has only benefited managers? It seems to me that a majority of society accepts equal opps and indeed positive discrimination as a self-evidently good thing.



This is clearer for me now. Thank you.

Nobody on this thread has argued against Equal Opportunities as far as I can see. Nobody. At all. 

Several people, 39 (and myself) among them, have suggested that the way this was implemented in local authorities in the 80's had many negative outcomes.

What was posited (maybe a bit provocatively/cack-handedly) by my OP was that the off-hand manner, the top-down methodolgy, the fractionation, the culture of fear (a kind of 'civilised, well-mannered, english middle class version of Mao's Cultural Revolution) that they created, and encouraged has left wounds that are still raw to this day.   This 'great leap forward' left in it's wake a lot of collateral damage and anybody (like in most regimes of fear and denunciation from Franco's Spain to Stalin's Russia) who dares to voice an opinion at variance with that of the regime is denounced and villified. 

Some of the earlier posts on this thread provide ample demonstration of this. Even some of the more considered posters such as yourself and newbie seem to be focussed on the good _intentions_ of the various interest groups - even though nobody is questioning their original intention. Then you take a leap to the way things are now compared to back then. But none of you seem prepared to examine the collateral damage in between, or to question if it could have been achieved differently.

Other peoples focus is a little more on the actual _effects_ and outworkings and how it affected people on the shopfloor or in the office. These would be the people that some posters seem determined to label as right-wing, as tories  or as plain old-fashioned cunts.


----------



## newbie (Sep 29, 2010)

> Some of the earlier posts on this thread provide ample demonstration of this. Even some of the more considered posters such as yourself and newbie seem to be focussed on the good _intentions_ of the various interest groups - even though nobody is questioning their original intention. Then you take a leap to the way things are now compared to back then. But none of you seem prepared to examine the collateral damage in between, or to question if it could have been achieved differently.


  hang on, that's not what I joined the thread to discuss.  I just wanted to put some context to "how or why it atarted". I'm not sure I have much to say about collateral damage or the culture of fear in the town hall that hasn't been said by those who know more than I do. 

fwiw I'm far too cynical to imagine that any significant welcome change comes without unintended, unwanted, unexpected or unwelcome change in its wake.  That's what happens.  
You're welcome to sketch out ways in which it could have been achieved differently if that's what interests you.


----------



## newbie (Sep 29, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Equal opps yes, but positive discrimination, no.
> 
> And yes, I would say that in terms of the opening, then closing, of an opportunity window, it's been of more benefit to those in professional/managerial roles, especially in the public sector, than it has on the shopfloor.
> 
> Someone earlier in the thread said something along the lines of 'When I was working, the drudge work was done  by women, and the grunt work by black people'. Well, TBH I haven't really seen any huge changes there - sure there are more women & ethnic minorities doing the 'non-drudge' work (by this I assume the poster was talking about tedious admin/back office type stuff e.g. typing pool, or cleaning or tea lady etc), but every big office - private and public sector - I've worked in for the last 10 years has had BME cleaning staff.


 
sadly the third paragraph rings true.  The second I'm not so sure about. Are you suggesting that the 'shopfloor' remains structurally discriminatory against women or black people? I mean obviously it goes on and there are mechanisms to deal with the provable tip of the iceberg, but is that any different between shopfloor and managerial positions?


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 29, 2010)

I think those in the professional/managerial roles have been better able to leverage the gains made for personal benefit, rather than attempting to 'spread the butter around' as it were. So yes, there are mechanisms in place for dealing with workplace discrimination at all levels, but only a minority of those who could make use of them do so, and of those, the greater gains are made by those higher up the tree. 

IYSWIM.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Do you have any examples of middle-class, trendy-lefty idiocy from the 80's?


 
1990 my students union decided to ban Marlboro cigarettes from the vending machine beacuse they were according to rumour something to do with the KKK . Been smoking them ever since and very oddly still havent felt the desire to burn a cross on anyones lawn . Stranger still have yet to find a cigarette company with thics i should dedicate my addiction to instead . This was around the same time as Clare Short and a troupé of women in sever haircuts and dungarees started carry on style riads on WH Smiths to remove the pornography . I was just waiting for Sid James to start cackling in the back ground and could almost swear I heard a comedy whistle at one point .
It patently never occured to these people that a much more effective protest could have been made by ordinary working class mums with their kids picketting the same stores pointing out very sensibly that they werent going into a store to queue up alongside horny men with their masturbatory aids whileworking class women shouldnt be forced to sell this stuff as part of their job , pornogrpahy should be in a sex shop for people who want it - consenting adults - and not the high street were non conseting adults and kids have it flaunted in their faces . Would have got a lot more support and respect in my opinion but pretty much all those people on those protests just looked totally out of place in any normal working class setting . In fact they looked exactly like the cagoule wearing wankers with their offensive vegan farts that banned Marlboro lights .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

likesfish said:


> LiamO has a point there are lunatics out there on the leftish who at least start out well meaning but lose sight of the point along the way.
> Brightons women's centre suffered from some very odd volunteers had to phone them up once and had the phone slammed down on me because "we don't talk to oppressors".


 
i used to do a bit of photocopying and stuff for a womens centre in belfast - they didnt have a photocopier and my workplace did so if they phoned up looking a bit of help no problem . Twice i was left standing at the fucking door in the rain with stuff for them because they didnt let my kind in . Straight males . Didnt happen a third time .


wouldnt have happened twice onlly i was quite young and less cynical at the time


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Other peoples focus is a little more on the actual _effects_ and outworkings and how it affected people on the shopfloor or in the office. These would be the people that some posters seem determined to label as right-wing, as tories  or as plain old-fashioned cunts.


 
I think the problems encountered was probably a lot to do with forms of _cultural_ marxism , whereby every minority is pretty much automatically invested with an inherent virtue over and obove the mainstream society . Im not a political scientist but I certainly got that impression from the era . Add to that a hefty dose of middle class angst and prissyness  , navel gazing and your going to get problems . Always struck me as a good middle class way of fucking up a good idea . Whatever " it" was anyway it manged to really piss me off how they went about "it" . I was always left with the impression before a discussion even started I was somehow wrong . There was always a disapproving "look" before i even opened my mouth.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 29, 2010)

I remember  all too clearly (August 1990) a young neighbour of 16 casually reeling off the litany of sexual abuse she had suffered from the age of 9 at the hands of various people involved with her junkie mother. 

Despite her initial reluctance (and her expressed experience of dealing with social workers, counsellors etc) I persuaded her that things had moved on; that she was now old enough to hold her own and not let them dictate what happened etc and that she should get some professional help - she kept kicking off when she was pissed or stoned, unsurprisingly.

After a few conversations she said it was Ok for me to make some enquiries for her. In her presence I rang the local 'Rape Crisis Centre'. 

The woman who answered explained that their service was for rape victims and they did not usually speak to men.  I gave her my name and phone number, and explained the situation. X was beside me, was nervous about initiating contact, due to previous bad experience and had asked me to arrange something on her behalf. 

She asked to speak to X. X said shook her head. I told yer one X had declined. She said 'We can't speak to you cos you are a man'. I said well can you advise me as to where I might go to get this girl some help? She said 'i've already told you we can't speak to you - you are a man'.

I said 'I'm not asking you for your services I am asking for soem advice on where this 16 year old girl might get some help. She said 'well put her on'. X said 'no fuckin chance'. She says Well we can't help you then. I said you are only a shower of cunts and pass that on to your managers - you have my number. Never heard from them again 

X just laughed at my naievety and said 'told ya. they're all saps'.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 29, 2010)

Im not surprised to read that post Liam. 

Sadly that sort of thing sometimes still goes on (on a VASTLY reduced scale to what happened in the 70s and 80s tho). I worked in rape crisis myself for a little bit although our centre was much, much, better than others i've heard about. Some people still do have those kinds of attitudes though. 

However the people I worked alongside in RC were for the most part ordinary middle and working class women without any weird ideology.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 29, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> However the people I worked alongside in RC were for the most part ordinary middle and working class women without any weird ideology.



I Know that!  That's what makes it so hard to accept both this 'imposed orthodoxy' and the fact that you can't even raise stuff like this without people assuming you are automatically a wrong 'un.

Tell me honestly, in your experience, what would have happened to any volunteer who put up a real challenge to this orthodoxy?  Both in the 'better' place you worked, and in some of the nuttier ones.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 29, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> . I was always left with the impression before a discussion even started I was somehow wrong . There was always a disapproving "look" before i even opened my mouth.


 
Exactly. And with a sliding scale of victimhood 'free passes' - as long as you were not a white working class man.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 29, 2010)

It didn't really happen in our centre, men did come in to deliver stuff etc and when there were male callers who'd experienced sexual abuse etc I think what tended to happen is that they were put in touch with people who could help better. It did however in some of the places I've read about. However, I think there's quite a big debate going on in feminism about precisely this and also the issue of transgender people, etc as many local rape crisis organisations (dunno about nationally) have had a policy of not regarding transgender women as women. 

However, I can certainly identify with what Casually Red's saying about prissiness as well. 

As for what would happen, i don't think that anything would necessarily happen. Most of these people were open to talking about stuff, but in the more extreme and radical feminist organisations? I don't know as it's not something i had direct experience of.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Exactly. And with a sliding scale of victimhood 'free passes' - as long as you were not a white working class man.


 
white working class straight man . This same centre that refused me entry ( rememeber theyd phoned me up to photocopy something for them as a favour ) on the grounds i was possibly a sex fiend used to use a gay man as their minibus driver when they were taking women on retreats and stuff . On a number of occasions I saw this same ( resaonably affluent middle class )  man kerb crawling in a district frequented by rent boys . In fact it first came to my notice as I was walking home late one night and he prowled behind me in his car the length of the street . As that was the early 90s and the same street had been  a favoured hunting ground for the shankill butchers I was far from amused ,although quite relived to see it was him - before he hurriedly sped off as he recognised me  . Another night i saw him in a town 60 miles away lurking outside a public toilet right accross from a slot machine arcade favoured by vulnerable street kids with a lot of problems. He was openly gay and out so had absolutely no grounds to be engaged in furtive behaviour .
But apparetly I was the potential sex fiend by simple virtue of being white , working class and straight and he was the inherently  virtuous one ecause he was gay  ?

frankly thats just bollocks but thats the way it was in my experience 

I'll point out too there were a number of normal working class women associated with the same centre who i got on very well with , very down to earth and good humored . It was the ideologically driven ones who were the problem in my experience.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 29, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> I'll point out too there were a number of normal working class women associated with the same centre who i got on very well with , very down to earth and good humored . It was the ideologically driven ones who were the problem in my experience.



Ditto this

I think it's important to acknowledge this fact or else people can jump to all kinds of conclusions about what we are actually discussing.

I think my failure to include a statement as definitive as your last one in my OP contributed to the tangenital direction this thread took at first.

btw is 'Casually Red' a political reference or are you an old Cliftonville FC plain-clothes-skinhead?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 29, 2010)

I don't want to say too much on here but at the moment I live with one of the women I used to work with at the rc and she does come out with some strange (and often slightly offensive, well, to me anyway) stuff sometimes, but I understand why she's like that because of some of the experiences she's had. I certainly don't think she's a bad person or anything although some of her views are somewhat annoying, and imo it's important to recognise that even stuff like this identity politics stuff is often a reflection of people's experiences.


----------



## newbie (Sep 29, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> I think those in the professional/managerial roles have been better able to leverage the gains made for personal benefit, rather than attempting to 'spread the butter around' as it were. So yes, there are mechanisms in place for dealing with workplace discrimination at all levels, but only a minority of those who could make use of them do so, and of those, the greater gains are made by those higher up the tree.
> 
> IYSWIM.



You're suggesting that there remains a higher level of discrimination at shopfloor level. Does this stem from management/HR or somehow from the existing shopfloor workers themselves? How does it manifest, which groups are treated unfairly?  I'm curious because although I've read similar suggestions before I've never really understood what is meant: who is doing who down?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

> btw is 'Casually Red' a political reference or are you an old Cliftonville FC plain-clothes-skinhead?



a bit of both minus the cliftonville .

The best way i can figure this out though as regards how a good idea goes wrong is youve really got 2 sets of people . You have the genuine people who have an issue that needs addresed or who genuinely set out to address an issue , and you have the people who are in a minority and seeking an alternative lifestyle  and an affirmation of that lifestlye mainstream society doesnt afford them . In my opinion ,for what its worth ,the same sort of mentality that goes with religious cults and the like . They make up a set of rules that are designed to either exclude others or pronounce them as bad or unworthy , and with that the confirmation of themselves as right and good and in their particular little bubble , most importantly , in charge . Status . Something they dont have and wont have outisde of whatever little bubble theyve colonised . The first thing these cunts do is start creating hierarchies , with themselvs naturally at the top  of the hierarchy . The approach of those who are genuinely addressing an issue and the approach of those creating a little hierarchy/cultto be in charge of is always going to be very different . Ones going to be positive and the other negative . A lot of times the left seems absolutely plagued with this  and in my opinion thats why its fucked and has been for a long time in western europe.
If you look at the propaganda posters of the revolutionary left that actually got anywhere - eastern europe , Latin America  what do you see ? A white working class male with a machine gun or a banner kicking some capitalists ass . Not a little beared guy in sandals and a cardigan eating a tofu salad apologising for having a penis .

ok , thats a gross genralisation but the revolution isnt going to be led by a bunch of weirdoes in baggy jumpers  obssessed with minority issues . What happened to the masses ? It all boils down to addressing the issue in my view and how serious you are and how genuine you are in going about that .


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 29, 2010)

all good points , but i think there's a danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 29, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> a bit of both minus the cliftonville .
> 
> The best way i can figure this out though as regards how a good idea goes wrong is youve really got 2 sets of people . You have the genuine people who have an issue that needs addresed or who genuinely set out to address an issue , and you have the people who are in a minority and seeking an alternative lifestyle  and an affirmation of that lifestlye mainstream society doesnt afford them .
> 
> ...



just put some space in so I can read your post - i know, my issue. Good post though so well worth the effort.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> all good points , but i think there's a danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.


 
of course . What i mean to say though is its my belief that all this prissiness is evidence of superficiality and self interest . Those who obssess over orthodoxy and hierarchies of virtue and all the rest  dont have the courage of their convicitions to go to the masses or trust the masses or have any intention of doing so  . Which makes them pretty pointless in my view , a view the working class  would seem to share despite socialism and feminism obviously  being in their best interests .


----------



## rover07 (Sep 29, 2010)

So the Trendy Left are ineffectual wimps ... yet strangely they have managed to do very well for themselves at middle management level carving out all sorts of benefits at everyone elses expense. 

You cant have it both ways Casually Red.


----------



## rover07 (Sep 29, 2010)

And your story about being kept waiting at the door? Really? Your still pissed about this after all these years.

And the gay bloke...yeah obviously he must be a peadophile


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 29, 2010)

rover07 said:


> So the Trendy Left are ineffectual wimps ... yet strangely they have managed to do very well for themselves at middle management level carving out all sorts of benefits at everyone elses expense.
> 
> You cant have it both ways Casually Red.


 
Haven't we already established that you have the misguided and the manipulative?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

rover07 said:


> So the Trendy Left are ineffectual wimps ... yet strangely they have managed to do very well for themselves at middle management level carving out all sorts of benefits at everyone elses expense.
> 
> You cant have it both ways Casually Red.


 
they can


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

rover07 said:


> And your story about being kept waiting at the door? Really? Your still pissed about this after all these years.
> 
> And the gay bloke...yeah obviously he must be a peadophile


 
hes a schoolteacher funny enough


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 29, 2010)

> If you look at the propaganda posters of the revolutionary left that actually got anywhere - eastern europe , Latin America what do you see ? A white working class male with a machine gun or a banner kicking some capitalists ass .



thing is you can't generalise about what "the working class" think in the way you did in ythe post below this one otherwise you just become as bad as those you're criticising - im not saying you did this on purpose of course.

in addition, do you see how remarks like the above ^ could make someone feel a bit threatened? Im not saying you're that'syour intention tho!


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 29, 2010)

The point is rover07, that Casually Red is making - middle management serves middle management and middle class interests, nothing else.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> thing is you can't generalise about what "the working class" think in the way you did in ythe post below this one otherwise you just become as bad as those you're criticising - im not saying you did this on purpose of course.
> 
> in addition, do you see how remarks like the above ^ could make someone feel a bit threatened? Im not saying you're that'syour intention tho!


maybe im not the most perceptive but personally i dont see anything wrong with a white working class male sticking a machine gun ip a capitalists nose . The perception on the left  that there might be is something i cant get to grips with .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

stephj said:


> Where is Casually Red having 'it both ways'?


 
oo-eerrr


----------



## rover07 (Sep 29, 2010)

LiamO said:


> I said you are only a shower of cunts and pass that on to your managers - you have my number. Never heard from them again


 

Abusive male callers fishing for information or just taking the piss is probably the reason why they only spoke to men.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 29, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> oo-eerrr


 
Hence my re-wording


----------



## rover07 (Sep 29, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> they can


 
eh?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

Kenny Everett was funnier than Ben Elton , Alexei Sayle and Jo Brand put to together too . Im sorry , he just was .


----------



## rover07 (Sep 29, 2010)

The lefties of the 80s did upset people but so what? Thats how you bring about change. No good staying quiet and hoping problems will go away.

You have to break a few heads to make a revolution


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 29, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> maybe im not the most perceptive but personally i dont see anything wrong with a white working class male sticking a machine gun ip a capitalists nose . The perception on the left  that there might be is something i cant get to grips with .


 
i'm not saying there is  but equally  "the working class" isn't just made up of white working class straight men and while the identity politics thing is a bit ridiculous in the way it developed, i don't think that the other stuff should be ignored


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 29, 2010)

I'm always caught stuck in the middle in these discussions...

I must admit as someone who did get caught up in identity politics in the 90s, I came around to realising not too long later that most of these revolved around primarily middle class interests, and tended to do shit about the issues facing working class women/ethnic minorities/LGBT people (and of course at the cost of the working class as a whole - including men who did not fit other 'identity' boxes).

At the same time, as someone who is a bi intersexed woman, the fact that I have a voice at all in some areas (e.g. changing a patriarchal medical establishment's attitudes and treatment towards people like me) hasn't come about from class politics, but from leverage of identity politics.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 29, 2010)

rover07 said:


> *The lefties of the 80s did upset people but so what? Thats how you bring about change*. No good staying quiet and hoping problems will go away.
> 
> You have to break a few heads to make a revolution



Can you list some of these changes, brought about by 80s lefties, just out of curiosity?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

rover07 said:


> You have to break a few heads to make a revolution



they didnt break heads , they annoyed them . Banning Marlboro cigarretes out of my Poly SU bar as they did in 1990 was not a revolutionary action . It was the action of a superifical *git* .


----------



## rover07 (Sep 29, 2010)

jer said:


> Can you list some of these changes, brought about by 80s lefties, just out of curiosity?


 
Generally, the right to be treated equally. And be taken seriously when you complain.

Or is that a bit extreme for you?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 29, 2010)

I do agree that in the rush to be all inclusive (nothing wrong with this), all too often it means the exclusion of the largest demographic for the left.

Identity politics and multiculturalism has undermined class politics by dividing the working class into ethnic and cultural groups - and then even pitted them against each other in competition for funding! Look at how New Labour manipulated the rise of identity politics to shed off the skin of class politics and re-position themselves as a liberal (and neo-liberal) party.

For many of course, it was/is an admirable but misguided cause - it actually emphasises differences and exclusivity, not commonality and inclusivity.

For a start, the whole notion of a hierarchy of oppression needs to be knocked on the head for once and for all.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 29, 2010)

stephj said:


> I'm always caught stuck in the middle in these discussions...
> 
> I must admit as someone who did get caught up in identity politics in the 90s, I came around to realising not too long later that most of these revolved around primarily middle class interests, and tended to do shit about the issues facing working class women/ethnic minorities/LGBT people (and of course at the cost of the working class as a whole - including men who did not fit other 'identity' boxes).
> 
> At the same time, as someone who is a bi intersexed woman, the fact that I have a voice at all in some areas (e.g. changing a patriarchal medical establishment's attitudes to people like me) hasn't come about from class politics, but from leverage of identity politics.


 
yep, spot on.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 29, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> they didnt break heads , they annoyed them . Banning Marlboro cigarretes out of my Poly SU bar as they did in 1990 was not a revolutionary action . It was the action of a superifical *git* .


 
Ah yeah, agree with that too,


----------



## rover07 (Sep 29, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> they didnt break heads , they annoyed them . Banning Marlboro cigarretes out of my Poly SU bar as they did in 1990 was not a revolutionary action . It was the action of a superifical *git* .


 
Why did they ban Marlboro cigarettes?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 29, 2010)

one day im going to start a massive bunfight of a thread about my feelings about LGBT "liberation" politics, id imagine that a couple of people here would conclude that im somewhat to the right of fred phelps on the matter and others would think that i was ignoring straight people etc 

for the moment im too chicken to post it tho


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I do agree that in the rush to be all inclusive (nothing wrong with this), all too often it means the exclusion of the largest demographic for the left.
> 
> Identity politics and multiculturalism has undermined class politics by dividing the working class into ethnic and cultural groups - and then even pitted them against each other in competition for funding! Look at how New Labour manipulated the rise of identity politics to shed off the skin of class politics and re-position themselves as a liberal (and neo-liberal) party.
> 
> ...



spot on

and we Irish are as bad for that as anyone . Whether your being beaten off a picket line , shafted over your wages , battered by your spouse  or stopped and searched by foreign soldiers your up against _the man_ . Who can often be a lesbian woman , thanks to equal opportunites under capitalism .


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 29, 2010)

Do it! (@fw)


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 29, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> one day im going to start a massive bunfight of a thread about my feelings about LGBT "liberation" politics, id imagine that a couple of people here would conclude that im somewhat to the right of fred phelps on the matter and others would think that i was ignoring straight people etc
> 
> for the moment im too chicken to post it tho


 
Gwarn, froggie


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 29, 2010)

rover07 said:


> Generally, the right to be treated equally. And be taken seriously when you complain.
> 
> Or is that a bit extreme for you?


 
Not at all; don't make assumptions so fast. Can you expand on the equality and complaints changes; as I said - I'm curious.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

rover07 said:


> Why did they ban Marlboro cigarettes?


 
something to do with the Ku Klux Klan . There was a trendy lefty myth the marlboro packet design was an advertisement for the pointy heads . Ive been smoking them ever since as a personal protest  and have yet to burn a cross outside anyones house much less start referring to myself as the Grand Wizard/cheif pointy head Dragon whatever . Issues like these seemed to obsess the trendies I knew at the height of thatcherism .


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 29, 2010)

Wasn't it supposed to be the letters? KKK with a K facing each other and one looking down from above?

All bollocks anyway.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 29, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> something to do with the Ku Klux Klan . There was a trendy lefty myth the marlboro packet design was an advertisement for the pointy heads . Ive been smoking them ever since as a personal protest  and have yet to burn a cross outside anyones house much less start referring to myself as the Grand Wizard/cheif pointy head Dragon whatever . Issues like these seemed to obsess the trendies I knew at the height of thatcherism .


 
Feck's sake, that's a really ancient urban myth.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 29, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> something to do with the Ku Klux Klan . There was a trendy lefty myth the marlboro packet design was an advertisement for the pointy heads . Ive been smoking them ever since as a personal protest  and have yet to burn a cross outside anyones house much less start referring to myself as the Grand Wizard/cheif pointy head Dragon whatever . *Issues like these seemed to obsess the trendies I knew at the height of thatcherism *.


 
Really? As an Irish person, what most concerned us at the time was South Africa, US imperialism and of course, the occupied 6 counties... I've never met any of these mythical trendies, mind...


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

Idris2002 said:


> Feck's sake, that's a really ancient urban myth.


 
i know , but they banned them out of my poly SU bar as a resut of it in 1990 . They took it seriously . Hence my superfical git admonition .


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 29, 2010)

the people i knew (and yes they do exist) who are into that sort of thing were often extremely prejudiced in other ways, esp. the ones i knew at uni.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 29, 2010)

They do exist. I was once informed by a self-described radical anarchist feminist (middle class, obv) that the history of capitalism wasn't one of the capitalist class exploiting the working class, or capital exploiting labour, but of white straight men exploiting everybody else, and that as a white straight man I had no right to social justice as I was the oppressor. No class analysis, no understanding of the economic causes of social divisions, nothing. Mental, but a fringe of people believe this shit. Only a fringe, mind.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

jer said:


> Really? As an Irish person, what most concerned us at the time was South Africa, US imperialism and of course, *the occupied 6 counties*... I've never met any of these mythical trendies, mind...



hows your concern these days ?


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 29, 2010)

Basically my frustration with certain sections of feminism (as well as LGBTIQKDJKOSMDMAOW) in the past, PT, a lack of intersectionalism especially with class analysis.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> They do exist. I was once informed by a self-described radical anarchist feminist (middle class, obv) that the history of capitalism wasn't one of the capitalist class exploiting the working class, or capital exploiting labour, but of white straight men exploiting everybody else, and that as a white straight man I had no right to social justice as I was the oppressor. No class analysis, no understanding of the economic causes of social divisions, nothing. Mental, but a fringe of people believe this shit. Only a fringe, mind.



well if you were already damned you should have hit her a boot up the arse


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 29, 2010)

stephj said:


> Basically my frustration with certain sections of feminism (as well as LGBTIQKDJKOSMDMAOW) in the past, PT, a lack of intersectionalism especially with class analysis.


 
Exactly.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 29, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> hows your concern these days ?


 
Well, apartheid's gone but SA has plenty of new challenges facing it. US imperialism is still with us, despite Obama and the 6 counties are still occupied.

What do you think?

Oh, and this better not degenerate into "I'm more Irish than you are" that occasionally plagues such discussions


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 29, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> They do exist. I was once informed by a self-described radical anarchist feminist (middle class, obv) that the history of capitalism wasn't one of the capitalist class exploiting the working class, or capital exploiting labour, but of white straight men exploiting everybody else, and that as a white straight man I had no right to social justice as I was the oppressor. No class analysis, no understanding of the economic causes of social divisions, nothing. Mental, but a fringe of people believe this shit. Only a fringe, mind.


 
yeah i have met people who believe this shit.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 29, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> well if you were already damned you should have hit her a boot up the arse


 
Was on an e-mail group, alas, or I would have. I just called her a dickhead instead. Which apparently is a misogynistic insult, although she didn't know why.


----------



## newbie (Sep 29, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> yeah i have met people who believe this shit.


 
so have I though not for a long time.  To dismiss it out of hand is as fanciful as to believe that it illustrates all of the picture, as opposed to just part of it.


----------



## revlon (Sep 29, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> Kenny Everett was funnier than Ben Elton , Alexei Sayle and Jo Brand put to together too . Im sorry , he just was .


 


he was no richard digance


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

jer said:


> Well, apartheid's gone but SA has plenty of new challenges facing it. US imperialism is still with us, despite Obama and the 6 counties are still occupied.
> 
> What do you think?
> _
> Oh, and this better not degenerate into "I'm more Irish than you are" that occasionally plagues such discussions _


 
well im currently resisting  the temptation to engage in the trickier parts  of riverdance with a pig under my arm and giving an exaggerated music hall wink to all the lovely girls with a twinkle in my eye  if thats whats worrying you, and I only asked you how concerned you were these days that part of your own country is still occupied or was that just  a passing fad ?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

revlon said:


> he was no richard digance


 
true . Without him we'd have had no Bill Bailey .


----------



## revlon (Sep 29, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> true . Without him we'd have had no Bill Bailey .


 
lefty scumbag


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

revlon said:


> lefty scumbag


 
klingon may be a minority language but thats no grounds for hostility


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 29, 2010)

rover07 said:


> So the Trendy Left are ineffectual wimps ... yet strangely they have managed to do very well for themselves at middle management level carving out all sorts of benefits at everyone elses expense.
> 
> You cant have it both ways Casually Red.


 
I don't see that there's much contradiction in saying that people can be politically ineffectual at the same time as being effective at engineering their own career success. Shit, half the Trots I knew 30 years ago not only achieved little, but used their political stance and connections to get an "in" into local authority structures. Most of them keep quiet about politics nowadays, unless they're punting New Labour (which happened too often for comfort and a lack of nausea).


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

I believe they justified it originally as _" entryism" _, more commonly referred to as  _" taking the piss"_


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 29, 2010)

rover07 said:


> Abusive male callers fishing for information or just taking the piss is probably the reason why they only spoke to men.


 
Probably.
Doesn't rule out the possibility of ideologically-motivated separatism, though.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 29, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> I believe they justified it originally as _" entryism" _, more commonly referred to as  _" taking the piss"_


 
No, I think you're getting your trots confused here.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 29, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> They do exist. I was once informed by a self-described radical anarchist feminist (middle class, obv) that the history of capitalism wasn't one of the capitalist class exploiting the working class, or capital exploiting labour, but of white straight men exploiting everybody else, and that as a white straight man I had no right to social justice as I was the oppressor. No class analysis, no understanding of the economic causes of social divisions, nothing. Mental, but a fringe of people believe this shit. Only a fringe, mind.



Had that stuffed down our throats in the 1980s , all men are rapists etc. Took a plumber from the hospitial who was just getting involved with the left to a party and he wore , quite proudly , a men against sexism badge at work and had it on his jacket at the party. a woman who worked as manager in the Equal Opportunities Section came up with her sisters and told him to his face in front of everyone that he was the problem as he was male.

Whilst I was at North London Polytechnic involved in the Harrington Out campaign ( Harrington was an NF student studying there) lecturers criticising not what I said but criticising me for being  a 'white , articulate , tall and male' which apparently didn't allow for the space for those who didn't agree to voice their opinion.

As I said before racial awareness training in which if you were white you were racist.  and so on and so on.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 29, 2010)

newbie said:


> I understand that but what I don't get is the actuality.
> 
> Are you saying that
> there are now fewer w/c jobs than necessary because funding has been transferred to the m/c layer
> ...



Can you explain this further please?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No, I think you're getting your trots confused here.


 
maybe the trots have made me confused


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 29, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> They do exist. I was once informed by a self-described radical anarchist feminist (middle class, obv) that the history of capitalism wasn't one of the capitalist class exploiting the working class, or capital exploiting labour, but of white straight men exploiting everybody else, and that as a white straight man I had no right to social justice as I was the oppressor. No class analysis, no understanding of the economic causes of social divisions, nothing. Mental, but a fringe of people believe this shit. Only a fringe, mind.


 
She didn't really understand anarchism, then.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

Ill bet her name was Jemima , or something similar..with a signifcant other called Christian

not that i like to make wild generalisations or anything


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 29, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> I believe they justified it originally as _" entryism" _, more commonly referred to as  _" taking the piss"_


 
I don't have anything against entryism as a political tactic, *if* it's done (as was often the case with _Militant_, and with some of Livingstone's cohorts on the GLC) as a method of overcoming the inertia of a right-Labour local authority administration. It's when (and if) it becomes about feathering a personal or political nest that I get pissed off.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 29, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> maybe the trots have made me confused


 
It shouldn't be difficult given the ones who espoused entryism are outside of the LP. Firmly outside!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 29, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> She didn't really understand anarchism, then.


 
Safe bet I'd say.


----------



## newbie (Sep 29, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Can you explain this further please?


 
something like this, maybe


> As mining communities were often located in remote areas, their isolation created an increased importance in the local community. To understand the impact that the strike had on women it is important to understand that this isolation had created a specific social structure. Women of the mining communities were brought up with a very ‘traditional’ view of their position. Women’s lives were based around family, home, and children while the men worked in the pit and brought home the wage. The 1984-5 strike would not only forever change mining communities in the wider sense but it would also affect each individual. This was especially true for women and the role they occupied within the community. Even though great hardships were suffered positives did come out of the strike. For women it provided opportunities to flourish in new fields they had never had cause or chance to explore before.



from here

in my memory one of the few positive narratives of the strike was the effect it had on the women involved, and it was that transformation I had in mind. It was a bit of a throwaway remark tbh and now I rather regret it because I don't want to sidetrack into discussion of the miners strike.

I'm more interested in your response to the questions I asked in the post you quoted.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 29, 2010)

I'm old enough to remember some REAL lunacy around the 1980s**. But I need time to read this thread first to compare notes etc ... 


**(Those bloody CAMRA types!  Beardy weirdy woolly jumpered discreditors of the proper Left, the lot of em   )


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 29, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> They do exist. I was once informed by a self-described radical anarchist feminist (middle class, obv) that the history of capitalism wasn't one of the capitalist class exploiting the working class, or capital exploiting labour, but of white straight men exploiting everybody else, and that as a white straight man I had no right to social justice as I was the oppressor. No class analysis, no understanding of the economic causes of social divisions, nothing. Mental, but a fringe of people believe this shit. Only a fringe, mind.


 
I can't believe she called herslef an anarchist ... oh hang on, actually i can


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

didnt viz have _the modern parents_ or something ?

you need only look at the fucking state of _action man_ today to see the horrors wrought by feminist lunacy run amok. Emasculated .

from very politicially incorrect , but fun where your 9 realistic hard bastard 







to whatever this is, something out of Westlife


----------



## ernestolynch (Sep 29, 2010)

spot on

My sons are being raised to hate Germans.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 29, 2010)

rover07 said:


> Why did they ban Marlboro cigarettes?


 
If you look at the design of the packet the letter K appears on it 3 times. And (this stretches credulity a bit) if you turn the box upside down it reads 'orobl' (horrible) Jew. Kind of. If you add a few letters here and there and twist some about. 






Turn your head to the right and the red bit is one of the Ks.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 29, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> maybe im not the most perceptive but personally i dont see anything wrong with a white working class male sticking a machine gun ip a capitalists nose . The perception on the left  that there might be is something i cant get to grips with .


 
I can see three objections to it.

Firstly there's the student wanker trendy liberal lefty middle class pillock argument. That somehow the wealthy and powerful must be overthrown without violence and preferably without upsetting anyone or being too noisy after 10pm.

Then there's the identity politics question, that may have some merit if looked at on an appropriate timescale, though not a good question to ask at the point at which we have the oppressor at our mercy. Which is, how come it's the white man who gets to have the machine gun. Something I see mostly as a matter of more effective logistics.

Finally my objection is that a machine gun up the nose is too bloody quick and nowhere near painful enough. So perhaps we need to set up an execution and torture of oppressive capitalist pigs working party to report back on the most painful and slow way of putting them to death. After we've offed this one, of course.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 29, 2010)

LiamO said:


> This is clearer for me now. Thank you.
> 
> Nobody on this thread has argued against Equal Opportunities as far as I can see. Nobody. At all.
> 
> ...


 
The problem is that you are lumoing together several stages of a process and then trying to treat it as if it's all one thing done by one set of people. That isn't how it usually worked.

What mostly happened is that good political ideas were passed on to ineffective and often obstructive bureaucracies for implementation. Where the politicos stood behind the shoulders of the council officers and made damn sure they did what they were supposed to it didn't always go all that badly. Where the bureaucrats were ideologically in tune with the politics and more concerned with doing their jobs than feathering their own nests it went fairly well. In most cases well intentioned, and often well thought out ideas, were handed over to people who had no intention of allowing them to be effectively implemented or who had absolutely no understanding of what was intended.

This is actually a common problem whenever any attempt is made by the working class to control things. Unless you have some people who are both working class and experienced at dealing with the crap that senior and middle management get up to, then it's too often the case that good ideas get turned into crap actions. It's also a common problem when it's academics and the like in supposed control.

Personally I've always considered a certain level of ruthlessness is required to get something like an equal opps policy implemented properly. You have to identify the people who will attempt to emasculate it, those who will attempt to control it for their own ends, and those who simply don't understand it. The last lot have to have the basics beaten into their heads until they get it. The other have to be kept on a very short leash until either the policy is working well enough that they can't fuck it up, or they have been replaced by somebody more reliable.

Unfortunately it tends to be the case that the worst bureaucrats stay in post longer than the best politicians.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 29, 2010)

> Firstly there's the student wanker trendy liberal lefty middle class pillock argument. That somehow the wealthy and powerful must be overthrown without violence and preferably without upsetting anyone or being too noisy after 10pm.



Some anti fascist friends of mine in Berlin were part of a defence squad that got a call up everytime it looked like the fash were going to attack one of the squats , big problem after the wall came down . They arrived at this squat that had put out the SOS to find the inhabitants were preaching pacifism and their squats defences consisted of 2 large bags of potatoes which they planned to throw at the fash if they got handy . And the fash were shacked up just up the street and quite handy indeed . They left the place disgusted to find themselves coming under attack from boneheads  and the door firmly bolted behind them . Not a single spud got thrown in their defence either . To this day when they pass the now unsurprisingly empty former squat they still loudly curse the _" kartoffel haus"_

Something tells me the revolution might just not  win if these tactics are employed . Im also of the opinion an ability to shoot straight at the right people should take preference over racial , gender and orientation quotas when or if  the machine guns ever get handed out .


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 30, 2010)

newbie said:


> something like this, maybe
> 
> 
> from here
> ...


 
I will answer these which were:



> Are you saying that
> there are now fewer w/c jobs than necessary because funding has been transferred to the m/c layer
> or that
> the w/c jobs have been impervious to equal opps and it's only in the m/c layer that women and black people have benefitted?
> ...



Neither : the gender and race specific posts benefited a small percentage of middle class proffesionals, by relating to employees only  on the basis of gender or race they do nothing to tackle the systemic issues of low pay for staff ,they do nothing about the issues of inequality within the boroughs in whch residenst live. Far from the  ' highly exhuberent mid/late 80s and institutionalised equality' society has in fact become less equal. The work of equal value has not brough equality , in most cases the salary bill for non managerial staff has merely been redistrubuted and very often through a highly questionable formula.

The struggle for equal pay and against discrimination at work was not a struggle by the employer to pursuade a backward working class whose only interest was that of being white or male but in most cases a struggle by trade unions to wrest reforms off the employers.What was symptomatic of a number of these councils attitudes was that they actually viewed being white and male as being something that was not as positive as being black or female. 

I can't see any evidence that these specialist jobs contributed to a more equal society and in many cases have resulted in a view that certain groups  are treated differently than others, not on the basis of need but on the basis of gender or race. 

The present period we are in of public expenditure cuts will have a disproportionate effect on those paid on the lower side of the national average income. The top down gender and based 'equal opps' lobby has already found a willing spokesperson in Dianne Abbott who now calls for redundancies to be made on an equal opps basis with regards to gender and race ( not income you will note) . Note her starting point isn't on how to resist but how to capitulate .Where does trying to enforce 'equal opportunity' redundancies fit into a scenario where a strong section of the workforces victory may threaten the composition of those who were to be made redundant?

Finally on the miners. I am not sure what your contribution was in that period or indeed if you were too young what you would have liked it to be. When you say 





> some years later the men of the miners union were supported by wives that equal opps had barely touched


 You are inadvertently correct. The point is is that it wasn't the middle class gender and race managerialists of Labour Councils  or enlightend HR staff that brought about the key role that women played in that strike.

Ironically the women were completely behind the mainly white males who were out on strike and indeed their white male leader ( and in Nottingham and Yorkshire where there were black miners their wives and partners and mothers were equally behind the strike). Interestnigly  enough 'malicious' feminists like Beatrix Campbell whilst supporting the womens activity in the strike opposed both picketing and Scargill and supported Kinnock.

Yet despite not 'being touched by equal opportunities' ( a scenario akin to life before the railways no doubt or the internet) these working class communities spawned more active working class womens groups than the feminist cause celeb Greenham Common . alligned themselves with Gays Support the  the Miners, made links with workers from differrent racial and religous backgrounds with and even different countries.  

They did not need the middle classes ,however well intentional, to do it for them.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 30, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Gays against the Miners


 
Good post but I'm not sure about this!


----------



## LiamO (Sep 30, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> alligned themselves with *Gays against the Miners*, made links with workers from differrent racial and religous backgrounds with and even different countries.
> 
> They did not need the middle classes, however well intentional, to do it for them.



Excellent post 39. i have to confess that newbies comment about the miners strike jarred with me too. I was gonna reply myself but then I thought (rightly as it turns out) that you would make a better job of it.

I think the main point is that these new alliances and friendships - and the huge involvement of working-class women on a scale rarely seen before - were forged in common struggle, common bonds... not because they were being preached at by a committee issuing dictats from afar.

I assume you meant to write *Gays SUPPORT the Miners*? Everything else in your post points to 'gays against the miners' being nothing more than an unfortunate typo. Glad I got to say that before some loon had a chance to say 'See! Right-wing. How very dare you'


----------



## LiamO (Sep 30, 2010)

*Gays Support the Miners*

and The Dockers - and Cruising!


I tell this tale for two reasons...

1 Cos 'Gays Support the Miners' are mentioned above, and 

2 Casually Red makes a (somewhat disparaging) reference to a  Gay man engaging in 'cottaging' and  'cruising' above (post 405). Whilst CR was making a valid political point, I think he also makes one or two assumptions about cottaging and cruising that - whilst undestandable as seen by a straight person -  are a little wide of the mark in reality. 

I hope this little tale will provide some illumination.


During the run up to the Dockers strike (1989/90?) I was part of the East London Dockers Support Group (Yer man Lee something who ended up a panelist on 'Have I got news for you' was in it too).

Geordie Mark (who was a proud Mackem rather than a Geordie) contacted someone who had been a prominent member of GSM with a view to re-activating the group for the impending collision of Dockers and Tory govt. He and I went along to talk to the well attended meeting at which tales of the Miners strike were told which were proof of the fundamental shift in attitudes that common struggle can make so simple.

Afterwards we retired to a local pub. One of the gay fellas was saying his mate had been beaten up whilst 'cottaging'. I said 'fuck's sake John I don't get that. If he lived up the country somewhere he might need to do this, but he lives in London and there are loads of gay pubs and clubs, why the fuck does he need to be hanging around public bogs for sex?

John and his mates looked at me incredulously. 'Are you serious?' they asked. 'Absolutely' sez I. John smiled and shook his head at my innocence and said 'Because the lorrry drivers, the married men or the hunky builders like you won't go to or can't be seen in Gay Bars'. Thus they indulge in cottaging and cruising where they can quickly avail of some casual sex - before running off home to wifey. John's mate was also apparently kind of addicted to the danger of doing the business with some macho closeted-Gay man, who might turn violent afterwards in a fit of self-loathing (a not uncommon occurence they said).

There followed some discussion amongst them about what proportion of Gay men were married and secretly gay. The lowest guess-timate they came up with was 60%. I was gobsmacked, which they quite enjoyed, and educated - which I quite enjoyed. (btw that says 60% of gay men are married not 60% of married men are gay).

I tell this tale because Casually Red makes some reference to cruising/cottaging above in a post above - and seems to (innocently, I think) make the mistake of viewing cottaging and cruising by gay men - which as I have explained is an activity  specifically designed for casual sex amongst consenting gay men - through the prism of how a similar activity carried out by straight men would be seen. 

Straight men cruising or cottaging in public places, for casual sex with women, would be as creepy as it would be pointless - instead they meet them in pubs and clubs  and engage in a whole extended courtship ritual, that my new gay friends just couldn't be arsed with (pardon the pun!).

Anyways that was how the phenomenon of, and apparent need for, cruising and cottaging was explained to me. In my view it might be a bit seedy - and can lead to some embarrasssing 'mistakes' - but cannot really be seen as 'predatory'.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 30, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Good post but I'm not sure about this!


 
That one fatal flaw! IThanks I have edited it.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 30, 2010)

I suddenly thought I'd stumbled on the Daily Fail website for a minute! "Feminists fault for turning Action Man into a poof!", "Those gay men are predatory and perverted says straight men whilst harassing women in clubs because they think she's up for it"


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 30, 2010)

ericjarvis said:


> In most cases well intentioned, and often well thought out ideas, were handed over to people who had no intention of allowing them to be effectively implemented or who had absolutely no understanding of what was intended.



Still need more time to catch up with the whole of this thread (the subject fascinates me!!  ) but the above sums up in a nutshell IMO the real origins/background of so many 'PC Gone maad' tabloid myths.

Hand over the implementation of some aspect of equal opps policy to a bureaucrat who's more likely already believing Maily Telegraph 'facts' about what equal opps means, and you're highly likely to end up with an Express-sensation-friendly version of the policy ....


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 30, 2010)

Is the above a conspiracy theory? Daily Mail to blame for PC gone mad shocker?  

Well there's _some_ truth in it nonetheless .....


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 30, 2010)

stephj said:


> I suddenly thought I'd stumbled on the Daily Fail website for a minute! "Feminists fault for turning Action Man into a poof!", "Those gay men are predatory and perverted says straight men whilst harassing women in clubs because they think she's up for it"


 
innit?


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 30, 2010)

There's been lots I've really agreed with on this thread, but the last few pages - men: check your fucking privileges. Srsly.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 30, 2010)

stephj said:


> I suddenly thought I'd stumbled on the Daily Fail website for a minute! "Feminists fault for turning Action Man into a poof!", "Those gay men are predatory and perverted says straight men whilst harassing women in clubs because they think she's up for it"



I think CR was having a laugh with his 'Action Man' comment. Maybe he wasn't, but he is big enpough and (I presume) ugly enough to argue his own corner if he was actually trying to make a serious point.

Just to clarify... are you including my post (no. 485) above on this 'list of shame'?

If so, that is unfortunate because it was an attempt to address a couple of observations/points CR had raised earlier (in post no. 405. You did read this?). Whilst I have generally welcomed his contribution to this discussion I thought this post was a bit confused/conflicted and his 'Action Man' one was a bit Jeremy Clarkson tbh - whilst still making me snigger in a childish sort of way.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 30, 2010)

I'd be very surprised if the action man design team was run by a feminist group.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 30, 2010)

exactly.

also, works both ways, i was on a palestine protest once with some guy who told me i was "very knowledgeable for a woman"


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Sep 30, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> didnt viz have _the modern parents_ or something ?
> 
> you need only look at the fucking state of _action man_ today to see the horrors wrought by feminist lunacy run amok. Emasculated .
> 
> ...



I had a little Vietnamese guy, with the conical hat and AK.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 30, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Whilst I was at North London Polytechnic involved in the Harrington Out campaign ( Harrington was an NF student studying there) lecturers criticising not what I said but criticising me for being  a 'white , articulate , tall and male' which apparently didn't allow for the space for those who didn't agree to voice their opinion.


fucking hell, I had exactly the same thing happen to me, on the same campaign!
But let's put this in context. Most of those I met on that campaign - like on the miner's support campaign - were sound, sensible people who wewre firmly rooted in reality, and saw that sort of thing very clearly for the ridiculous bollocks it was. Unfortunately - and especially in London - there will always be a daft fringe. It's when they turn into New Left careerists (which accounts for just about every NUS president ever!) or get used by New Left careerists (eg the 'race relations industry') that the problem becomes serious.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 30, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Just to clarify... are you including my post (no. 485) above on this 'list of shame'?



I'm not, Liam, I read yours more as a debunking of certain myths.

I was more making a general observation because one of the reasons why I got caught up in identity politics for a while in the 90s (whilst realising its limitations afterwards) was that when I used to go along to class-oriented political groups, I did find that 'nudge nudge wink wink' anti-feminist (actually, that was invariably any woman that dared to have an opinion that differed in perspective to the mostly men in attendance), and gay/lesbian banter (which was at times borderline homophobic) put me off that whole side of left politics for a while. And, if you called it out, you were accused of 'not taking a joke' (implication: 'humourless feminazi').

Internet discussion threads that are predominantly discussed between teh menz often feel a bit like that too sometimes.

Jus' saying.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 30, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> exactly.
> 
> also, works both ways, i was on a palestine protest once with some guy who told me i was "very knowledgeable for a woman"


 
you are though, tbf


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 30, 2010)

yeah but that's because i'm just fantastically clever in general tho


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 30, 2010)

actually, that's what attracted me to the sp, that they are really good on that stuff without the identity politics bullshit that goes along with it (see the opposition to stuff like the oil refinery strike etc) 
ive also found some of the politics of some - SOME - of the people around single issue stuff like the palestine solidarity campaign to be very offputting tbf - but thats another thread


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 30, 2010)

stephj said:


> I'm not, Liam, I read yours more as a debunking of certain myths.
> 
> I was more making a general observation because one of the reasons why I got caught up in identity politics for a while in the 90s (whilst realising its limitations afterwards) was that when I used to go along to class-oriented political groups, I did find that 'nudge nudge wink wink' anti-feminist (actually, that was invariably any woman that dared to have an opinion that differed in perspective to the mostly men in attendance), and gay/lesbian banter (which was at times borderline homophobic) put me off that whole side of left politics for a while. And, if you called it out, you were accused of 'not taking a joke' (implication: 'humourless feminazi').
> 
> ...


 
i think (hope?) this will change personally as a result of the anti cuts campaigns involving a far, far wider range of people than the usual suspects and the fact that many of the people on the NHS, education, etc, whose jobs are at risk etc are women. certainly i've not encountered much of that recently altho i do have to say i get uncomfortable occasionally on urban, although i tend not to go near those types of threads any more.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 30, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> ive also found some of the politics of some - SOME - of the people around single issue stuff like the palestine solidarity campaign to be very offputting tbf - but thats another thread


 
Is it FW? I think it would sit nicely with this one and provide a welcome distraction from Action man! Please post.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 30, 2010)

well i find the borderline and not so borderline anti-semitism of a *very, very* small minority of people I met in the PSC offputting to say the least. one of the guys im thinking of, while im sure without meaning to be prejudiced, was the one who came out with the "you're very knowledgeable for a woman" stuff - and he didn't say it like it was a compliment either. as i said i think he was just slightly ignorant without meaning to be a cunt, but it didn't come across well.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 30, 2010)

This thread has actually turned into a really good 'Where the Left Went Wrong' discussion, and without the usual partisan bickering between the sects. Thanks to steph, CR, Liam and PT for articulating a lot of stuff I think far better than I usually manage


----------



## LiamO (Sep 30, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> well i find the borderline and not so borderline anti-semitism of a *very, very* small minority of people I met in the PSC offputting to say the least. one of the guys im thinking of, while im sure without meaning to be prejudiced, was the one who came out with the "you're very knowledgeable for a woman" stuff - and he didn't say it like it was a compliment either. as i said i think he was just slightly ignorant without meaning to be a cunt, but it didn't come across well.



Agree all round with your post.

We once picketed the 'Blood & Honour' shop in Soho. 

I remember talking to some local shopkeepers, mostly Asian and arab. One Palestinian who ran a nearby shop (though obviously not in the PSC!) was all enthusiastic about the anti-racist stuff but then added he supported the shop because B&H 'hated the fuckin dirty Jews'. 

He was not invited to join the Picket.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Sep 30, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> This thread has actually turned into a really good 'Where the Left Went Wrong' discussion, and without the usual partisan bickering between the sects. Thanks to steph, CR, Liam and PT for articulating a lot of stuff I think far better than I usually manage


 
LiamO's posts have been funny as fuck.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 30, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> This thread has actually turned into a really good 'Where the Left Went Wrong' discussion, and *without the usual partisan bickering between the sects*. Thanks to steph, CR, Liam and PT for articulating a lot of stuff I think far better than I usually manage



 Given it's inauspicious beginnings it's turned out right nice, although I'm sure someone will be along in a minute to destroy our new found consensus and fulfill that particular prophesy.

Ps. why did you edit out the nice bit that included me?  I've had enough abuse on this thread after all


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 30, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Agree all round with your post.
> 
> We once picketed the 'Blood & Honour' shop in Soho.
> 
> ...


 
one of the first protests I got involved with was the burma campaign. we were handing out leaflets to passer-bys when we were doing this picket outside a total garage and a guy said to us "yes, but what are you going to do about the Jews?" or something like that


----------



## LiamO (Sep 30, 2010)

Captain Hurrah said:


> LiamO's posts have been funny as fuck.


 
Thanks Uncle Hurrah.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 30, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Agree all round with your post.
> 
> We once picketed the 'Blood & Honour' shop in Soho.
> 
> ...


 
Actually most of the Palestinians and other Muslims involved in the PSC are all right. It's the old 60-something british men (and a few women) i'm referring to  Once I was at a protest (i was about 19 at the time and had only just started realising, in the last year, that israel wasn't "the good guy") and I got chatting to a woman and explained that I was Jewish but supported the campaign, for her to go into a rant about "holocaust guilt" and how that was making the West support Israel - no class analysis, no other views of possible reasons!  Not very good if you want to try and get ordinary Jewish people to support you


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 30, 2010)

she was supposedly a trade unionist as well!


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 30, 2010)

I know plenty of 'trade unionists' with questionable opinions.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 30, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I know plenty of 'trade unionists' with questionable opinions.



so you should


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 30, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> well im currently resisting  the temptation to engage in the trickier parts  of riverdance with a pig under my arm and giving an exaggerated music hall wink to all the lovely girls with a twinkle in my eye  if thats whats worrying you, and I only asked you how concerned you were these days that part of your own country is still occupied or was that just  a passing fad ?



I don't drape myself in the tricolor and send money to the bhoys but I still wish for a united Ireland. Why? Feeling oppressed a bit?


----------



## LiamO (Sep 30, 2010)

jer said:


> I don't drape myself in the tricolor and send money to the bhoys but I still wish for a united Ireland. Why? Feeling oppressed a bit?


 
I say Jer, old chap - that's a little provocative. 

Just the sort of thing that will encourage CR to respond in kind  - and drag us all off on another tangent. Still never mind, it will at least furnish you with a gilt-edged opportunity  (at some arbitrary future point in time of _your_ choosing) to post another of your admonishing 'this is what's wrong with us...' posts that you do so well

Just like this one...



jer said:


> Thank goodness. Longest thread I've ever started & it turned into the usual Irish infighting I thought I'd left behind long ago. Irish politics, Ireland in general. God, we are fucked as a nation, we really are.



or this...



jer said:


> This is precisely why urban depresses me; the infighting - who's more "real" than who...



Sorry, but my job involves spotting behaviour patterns even (or especially) when people are not necessarily aware that they have them.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 30, 2010)

LiamO said:


> I say Jer, old chap - that's a little provocative.
> 
> Just the sort of thing that will encourage CR to respond in kind  - and drag us all off on another tangent. Still never mind, it will also allow you (at some arbitrary future point in time of _your_ choosing) to post another of your admonishing 'this is what's wrong with us...' posts that you do so well
> 
> ...



I know; I know. I'm a mass of contradictions. Irish politics compell and repulse me. I've had a love/hate relationship with it all my life. You wouldn't believe - all I know is that there's very few people who agree with each other; layers of division.

Also, the "old chap" greeting; that's interesting, that is. I've had that from fellow compatriots before when they think I'm not singing from the same hymn sheet. "West brit", "Anglo" and so forth. "traitor for Betty's shilling" was the most hilarious insult...


----------



## newbie (Sep 30, 2010)

yeah, good post, thankyou.  I'm afraid this is a bit long and I can't figure whey the quoting doesn't work properly



The39thStep said:


> I will answer these which were:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither : the gender and race specific posts benefited a small percentage of middle class proffesionals, by relating to employees only  on the basis of gender or race they do nothing to tackle the systemic issues of low pay for staff ,they do nothing about the issues of inequality within the boroughs in whch residenst live.



Systemic low pay is a class issue affecting far too many people which has been understood, and acted on, by the working class for well over a century.  

That it overshadows and masks identity based pay differentials, lack of opportunity or discrimination was identified and acted on more recently, but now long enough ago that some of the dust has settled and the effects are becoming apparent.  

Are you really arguing that because those struggles didn't deliver the end of class based society they weren't worthwhile? Isn't that like saying that all the battles for workplace health and safety weren't worthwhile because systemic low pay still endures?  

They've transformed the possibilities for women- half the population- and others, isn't that a Good Thing, in and of itself.   




> Far from the  ' highly exhuberent mid/late 80s and institutionalised equality' society has in fact become less equal. The work of equal value has not brough equality



Less equal in the sense of gulf between rich and poor?  Do you honestly think that would be different if women were still paid less than men or black people stood no chance of becoming a manager?  Of course not.  

Apples and oranges, unless you want to pin all subsequent economic changes on a the antics of a few local government committees in the middle 80s.



> in most cases the salary bill for non managerial staff has merely been redistrubuted and very often through a highly questionable formula.



If you think that the redistribution should have been to bring everyone up to the position of the highest earners, then yes I agree. trouble is employers would always fight that, it's a demand that can only be won through solidarity, as in, was it Brighton someone mentioned upthread.  

The exact formula has presumably been different in different workplaces as it's negotiated locally?




> The struggle for equal pay and against discrimination at work was not a struggle by the employer to pursuade a backward working class of course not, who on earth would think it was? whose only interest was that of being white or male but in most cases a struggle by trade unions to wrest reforms off the employers.What *was* symptomatic of a number of these councils attitudes *was* that they actually view*ed* being white and male as being something that *was* not as positive as being black or female.



was, sure. 

now?



> I can't see any evidence that these specialist jobs contributed to a more equal society and in many cases have resulted in a view that certain groups  are treated differently than others, not on the basis of need but on the basis of gender or race.



But they are and they always have been.  Groups of people treated differently depending on an identity (other than class, which continues to overshadow everything). What's changed is who that different treatment acts on, and how much it acts on them.  

As for the jobs, I dunno.  You're not going to propose cutting them any more than I am, but redeployment to something more useful?  I'm sure the postholders, you, your union, the management, town hall and government politicians and many of the wider public have differing views on that.  




> The present period we are in of public expenditure cuts will have a disproportionate effect on those paid on the lower side of the national average income. The top down gender and based 'equal opps' lobby has already found a willing spokesperson in Dianne Abbott who now calls for redundancies to be made on an equal opps basis with regards to gender and race ( not income you will note) .
> 
> Note her starting point isn't on how to resist but how to capitulate .Where does trying to enforce 'equal opportunity' redundancies fit into a scenario where a strong section of the workforces victory may threaten the composition of those who were to be made redundant?


I don't follow, or care about, what Diane Abbot says but from that it looks like she means quotas. fwiw it seems obvious to me that, all other factors being equal no-one should be chosen to keep or lose their job simply on the basis of their gender or skin colour. That probably implies monitoring, because, for instance, first in last out might act disproportionately but not quotas. 

Of course the trick is not to get onto the list of those under threat of redundancy in the first place. I'm going to guess that some of the strongest sections will turn out to be the middle management layer you mentioned. They'll use their ability to play the system to protect themselves and their kind first, so the list will be made up of people in weaker positions. 

I don't know if that's what you meant, but anyway, that's my guess, based on a hunch, as an outsider. If I'm right the effect of their maneuverings may easily breed justifiable resentment, particularly if the policies those posts exist to service aren't core or popular. 

How you deal with that I haven't the faintest idea.  I'm sorry, as an outsider I don't have a clue, but unhappily I do know that it's a commonplace that middle class people look after themselves first and foremost and working class people bear the brunt of recession. 

In the context of this discussion if there's clear evidence that the gender or skin colour of the postholders is instrumental in protection of their jobs then it needs to be aired, because the effect is discriminatory. 

Similarly, disagreeing with the policies pursued or services delivered by a particular postholder is a matter of local politics. By and large only the people using the particular service really care, but if it's withdrawn they'll complain.  Good luck with that.  Again, if there's clear evidence that the post is being used in a way that unfairly discriminates then air it.

Without suitable evidence what does your complaint against "these people" (the black and female middle and professional classes) amount to? I still can't see much other than sectional office resentment.  Why bring the 'black and female' bit up?


----------



## LiamO (Sep 30, 2010)

jer said:


> I know; I know. I'm a mass of contradictions. Irish politics compell and repulse me. I've had a love/hate relationship with it all my life. *You wouldn't believe* - all I know is that there's very few people who agree with each other; layers of division.
> 
> Also, the "old chap" greeting; that's interesting, that is. I've had that from fellow compatriots before when they think I'm not singing from the same hymn sheet. "West brit", "Anglo" and so forth. "traitor for Betty's shilling" was the most hilarious insult...


 
Yes I would believe, readily, actually. Which reminds me of another story... for another time

And why, dear heart, would you find 'old chap' necessarily a derogatory greeting? 

btw I think "traitor for Betty's shilling" has a certain creative flair about it.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 30, 2010)

newb - put the quote tags at the start and end of the sentence, not the next line, and they should be fixed.

Liam - [/quote] for close tags...don't forget that fwdslash


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 30, 2010)

i dont see much evidence of many black women in professional managerial roles in places i've worked tbh, most of the bosses at places i've worked or had stuff to do with have been white middle class men or to a lesser extent women altho i admit my experience is limited and i wonder to an extent whether this has not been exaggerated as part of the whole "why do black men not achieve professionally and black women do" type of stuff. i think it' (racism) s still an issue and that it needs to be considered at a wider class issue, but equally it shouldn't be ignored.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 30, 2010)

Sorry Newbie, but you will have to work out the quotes thing befor I even _attempt_ to de-cipher (or even de-cypher) your post! Frankly I would rather tackle 'Das Capital' or even 'The Pedagogy of the Oppressed' again.

could you not go to 'advanced' and use colours for quotes of something?


----------



## ymu (Sep 30, 2010)

newbie said:


> I can't figure whey the quoting doesn't work properly


You've used [\QUOTE] instead of [/QUOTE] in a few places.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 30, 2010)

ymu said:


> You've used [\QUOTE] instead of


 in a few places.[/QUOTE]

ymu & Kyser.... The (techy) Dream Team 

ta very much

PS i now know this is true cos I can't even quote your quote properly because of the backwards slash (had to type 'backwards slash' cos I don't know where the fuck it is on a keyboard)


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 30, 2010)

> i dont see much evidence of many black women in professional managerial roles in places i've worked tbh



There are 5 out of 13 at the hospital I work at. Depends on the sector. When I worked in advertising, at the larger agencies there was about a 40/60 split, at the smaller ones there were more women in senior positions than men. IIRC there are a number of areas of media & marketing/PR where women outnumber men in senior management and directorships. Very few black people on the buying side, loads on the sales side, demographically representative number of Indians (i.e. matched the % in the UKs population).

And it's true that black women outperform black men in career achievement.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 30, 2010)

ah, ok, cheers for that. i agree re the men and women thing btw. i know people convinced that women are the most opressed group in society but in my opinion there isnt a "hierarchy of oppression" and its simply not the case imo much of the time.


----------



## newbie (Sep 30, 2010)

.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 30, 2010)

Liam - I always remember the back/fwd slash thing by the position of the top \ is leaning back / leaning fwd.


----------



## newbie (Sep 30, 2010)

ymu said:


> You've used [\QUOTE] instead of


 in a few places.[/QUOTE]

good spotting, thankyou.  fixed now.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 30, 2010)

dp


----------



## LiamO (Sep 30, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Liam - I always remember the back/fwd slash thing by the position of the top \ is leaning back / leaning fwd.



yes, but knowing this distinction and being able to find the right button to press are two different things, but thank you for your invaluable forward leaning advice.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 30, 2010)

The button looks like a speech bubble.


----------



## the button (Sep 30, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> The button looks like a speech bubble.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I'd be very surprised if the action man design team was run by a feminist group.


 
Haven't you ever questioned why Action Man has eagle eyes and gripping hands, but no wedding tackle?


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 30, 2010)

Ah, well, Palitoy changed that. The really old Action Men were sexless like Ken, but the later models had blue pants:







Old action man, with magnifying eye hole in his head..






Later model action man, with swivelling eagle eyes.

Having made an image search for 'naked action man' I'm happy I wasn't presented with a results page of cock, quite honestly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> well i find the borderline and not so borderline anti-semitism of a *very, very* small minority of people I met in the PSC offputting to say the least.


Not always who you'd expect in light of the way the media presents the subject, either. 


> one of the guys im thinking of, while im sure without meaning to be prejudiced, was the one who came out with the "you're very knowledgeable for a woman" stuff - and he didn't say it like it was a compliment either. as i said i think he was just slightly ignorant without meaning to be a cunt, but it didn't come across well.


Ignorance is a position that can be changed. It's the people who willfully hold irrational positions that piss me off.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 30, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ignorance is a position that can be changed. It's the people who willfully hold irrational positions that piss me off.



That's a very magnanimous and grown-up position to hold VP. Think it might catch on on Urban?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 30, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not always who you'd expect in light of the way the media presents the subject, either.


 
Exactly. I'm thinking of a few examples in particular here.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 30, 2010)

the button said:


>


 
I knew you'd respond to that.  

You must have a klaxon alerting you to any mention of your moniker.


----------



## past caring (Sep 30, 2010)

the button said:


>



He's not fucking wrong though. 

Good thread/debate.

I'll maybe leave the anecdotes to Liam and the Steps, but I do remember back in about 81-82 when I was first getting involved with left politics having a conversation with a lesbian-separatist feminist friend. She was a good woman as it goes, did loads in the miners support group later on, was ideologically lesbian-separatist, but in her own words "couldn't follow through with it, 'cos I like cock too much" (not mine, unfortunately, but that's for another time...) so was maybe a bit more ready to actually talk about stuff, rather than just straight-out condemn.

Anyway, I was talking to her about the "all pornography is rape" thing and saying how I could sort of understand where that was coming from, but where did that leave me when I wanted a J Arthur? I was explaining that I always needed to think of some woman to get me going - was it ok to imagine doing it with some woman I'd see in the street and fancied? What about an ex-girlfriend or even a current girlfriend? I said, it's not like you're going to phone them up and ask permission, is it?

After much musing, she decided that that was probably rape as well - ideological rape.  After that I felt so bad I think I went without for about a week. 

And it fucked things up big time with the woman I met a couple of weeks later when I asked, only minutes after the first shag, "Listen, can I knock one out over you if you're not there? Or do you think that's rape?"


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 30, 2010)

Jesus - but  at your date lol


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 30, 2010)

this is what i don't get - lesbian separatism  now i identify myself as gay/prob a bit bisexual and DONT support this, but why would a straight or bi woman support lesbian separatism??  how is removing yourself away and setting up some weird ideologically pure colony solving the problems? 


Some of the politics around lgbt stuff can be very very unpleasant btw and espeically the whole "gay nationalist" idea ...


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 30, 2010)

Political lesbianism. That's one I've never been able to get my head around. That's like me saying 'I'm gay, but only for my politics.'

past caring - that conversation was still happening a decade later when I was at uni, altho the language was toned down a bit - is fantasising during a wank any worse a form of objectifying women than porn, where at least they know they're going to be wanked over, unlike the woman on the tube? (and indeed, a decade after that when I asked the same question on Urban!)


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 30, 2010)

if your a "political lesbian" your not really a lesbian, more like a straight or bi woman who's repressing it!


----------



## LiamO (Sep 30, 2010)

:





past caring said:


> I'll maybe leave the anecdotes to Liam and the Steps



and then proceed to tell a really good one yourself? 

I'd be a tad miffed at your comment PC - if I wasn't too busy picturing the 'romantic' scenario you so beautifully weaved with your words


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 30, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> actually, that's what attracted me to the sp, that they are really good on that stuff without the identity politics bullshit that goes along with it (see the opposition to stuff like the oil refinery strike etc)


 
Ditto.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 30, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> if your a "political lesbian" your not really a lesbian, more like a straight or bi woman who's repressing it!


or a naive, trendier-than-thou political poseur


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 30, 2010)

Hmm. I might change my tagline...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 30, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I know plenty of 'trade unionists' with questionable opinions.


 
Innit. I knew an excellent rep in a previous union branch. Went for drinks one night, few of us talked about some anti-racist stuff we were doing, and she confessed that she voted BNP. Odd - I considered her the best rep in the branch.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 30, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> this is what i don't get - lesbian separatism



I always treated these people with the same bemused disdain as I would a racist (Irish) Republican,; a 'paki-hating' indian (of whom I have met many); a misogynist tade unionist or any other person with a narrow sectionalist view.

However, inspired by PC I have another anecdote to share...

Back in the day a whole mob of Red Action lads were working on the same building Site in Brixton.

There was a fella there we nicknamed 'Peter the Pipe' - on account of his name being Peter and him smoking a pipe. Now Peter was a strapping fella from the West of Ireland who didn't say much to anybody - and certainly didn't join in the many political discussions around the table in the canteen. We had a bit of a soft spot for him though because of his weekly political contribution was to bring in his copy of 'An Phoblacht - Republican News' (which I an sure he read cover to cover of a weekend) into work every Monday and defiantly read it (with his arms stretched wide apart) amongst his mostly English peers.

One day there was a discussion about the GLC etc when Peter suddenly blurted out something about 'It's all the fault of the Jews and that's an end to it'. Somewhat taken aback by both the ferocity and venom within his statement, and the fact that he normally would not say boo to a goose, a heavy silence descended.

Eventually I asked him quietly "What did the Jews ever do to you Peter?"

He looked at me gone out, then raised a ginormous clenched  fist in the air before bringing it crashing to the table, sending 8 breakfast jumping into the air and slopping tea everywhere. He once more turned to me looking astonished that I should ask such an obvious question and snarled "Didn't they kill Our Lord?"

There was again a short silence before I managed "Fuck me, you can hold a grudge can't ya?"

Again the silence. Then one person's shoulders started shaking... then it spread as we battled to keep it in... then one fella broke... then the whole place cracked up... and then Peter left in high dudgeon.

I mentioned to the lads that I had considered the possibility of pointing out that Jesus was himself of the Jewish Faith. The consensus was 'thanks be to fuck you didn't'. Just goes to show you should never make assumptions about someones politics based on their position on one issue.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 30, 2010)

Political lesbianism...

All I'll say is Julie Bindel


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 30, 2010)

LiamO said:


> I always treated these people with the same bemused disdain as I would a racist (Irish) Republican,; a 'paki-hating' indian (of whom I have met many); a misogynist tade unionist or any other person with a narrow sectionalist view.
> 
> However, inspired by PC I have another anecdote to share...
> 
> ...


 
Later in life, he became a big Mel Gibson fan... Great tale.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 30, 2010)

stephj said:


> Political lesbianism...
> 
> All I'll say is Julie Bindel



Who's she?


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 30, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Who's she?


 
Guardian journo.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 30, 2010)

LiamO said:


> There was again a short silence before I managed "Fuck me, you can hold a grudge can't ya?"


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 30, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Innit. I knew an excellent rep in a previous union branch. Went for drinks one night, few of us talked about some anti-racist stuff we were doing, and she confessed that she voted BNP. Odd - I considered her the best rep in the branch.


 
(how) did you deal with/respond to that pt if you dnt mind me asking? x


----------



## past caring (Sep 30, 2010)

LiamO said:


> :
> I'd be a tad miffed at your comment PC - if I wasn't too busy picturing the 'romantic' scenario you so beautifully weaved with your words



'Twas nothing compared to the tizzy my head got into only a couple of months later when the (different, for obvious reasons) woman I had started seeing told me she actually got turned on by rape fantasies and hinted at wanting to act them out in our relationship......

Anyway, Liam's cottaging anecdote reminds me of a story from when I was still in the SWP. Was at the time of Section 28 so 87? 88? Anyway, a meeting for all London branches to send delegates got called because of the "problems" that had been caused at the recent Skegness weekend by gay comrades supposedly cottaging the khasis. The line was, we were told, that cottaging was an understandable reaction to gay oppression by gays _outside_ the party, or even by gays _in_ the party when not attending party functions, but it was "not on" at a party event like Skegness because a) gay comrades were able to be open about their sexuality at Skegness etc and b) people should be able to use the toilets without being accosted.

Now I'd been at the Skegness do in question and truth be told I had noticed Danny and Mike, a couple of my gay mates, spending what seemed like an unusual amount time in the vicinity of the male khasis, but had thought no more of it at the time. After the meeting I asked Danny what had gone on. He confessed that there had been a certain amount of "hi-jinks" (his phrase, not mine) partly induced by drink and partly induced by the influx of new gay members around the Section 28 campaign who had felt able to let their hair down. A storm in a tea cup, nothing to worry about, he assured me. Still, there was something that didn't seem quite right....

"What is it, what aren't you telling me?"

"Nothing."

"Fuck off - tell me."

"It's Mike - he's a bit worried about what's going to happen at the CC this week. They're going to decide whether it's the control commission or not."

"What the fuck did he do?"

"He was having a piss and xxxx xxxxxxx (a _very_ well known CC member) was stood next to him and he noticed him glancing down at his cock. Put Mike right off his piss. In the end he turned round to xxxx and asked him whether he was wanting to suck it or was there some other problem?"


----------



## likesfish (Sep 30, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Political lesbianism. That's one I've never been able to get my head around. That's like me saying 'I'm gay, but only for my politics.'
> 
> knew a woman who was  at greenham common was all for for it although she admitted was mostly there for the drink and sex


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 30, 2010)

Either use quote tags properly, or don't! Simples.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 30, 2010)

Whilst we are still in the ' exuberant 80s' I was once the steward for a group of women nursery nurses across the road from where we worked and my own workplace. We held a joint meeting and had a water worker who was on strike ask for support, everyone duly contributes. Lizzy ,this soft feminist from our site  but quite good on trade unions, then asks for a collection for greenham common at the next meeting. Lots of polite  nodding from members from our site and a complete refusal by the nursery nurses who said that they wouldn't have anything to do with 'that bunch of lezzies'.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 30, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> (how) did you deal with/respond to that pt if you dnt mind me asking? x


 
Well, we all spoke to her about it, but not much we could do - she voted BNP, she wasn't active with them in any way. As I say, she was a great rep (still is, I think), always eager to get involved in stuff, good at recruiting, understood what trade unionism was about. She just took the view that immigration was used to keep wages low, which is true, and that it would be 'easier to reduce immigration' than to fight for collective wage agreements.

It had a lot to do with her fella I think.

In a different union branch, our equalities officer turned up on the leaked BNP members list. Lol.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 30, 2010)

sweet jesus  


As for the "leftie idiocy" stuff, i recently stumbled across a pro-palestinian page on facebook claiming to be "revolutiionary socialists" and something called the "muslim jewish liberation front", it goes on to say that only muslims and jews or those of a muslim or jewish background can be members of this "socialist" organisation and if you are not either of those you can just be a "associate member" - fortunately it only seems to consist of abt 4 people


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 30, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Yes I would believe, readily, actually. Which reminds me of another story... for another time
> 
> *And why, dear heart, would you find 'old chap' necessarily a derogatory greeting? *
> 
> btw I think "traitor for Betty's shilling" has a certain creative flair about it.



Depends on who's saying it, I guess. When it's aimed at you because you're considered a "west brit" because you happen to live in London, it's a bit silly. And there are those who think that. 

Looks like there will be plenty more taking "Betty's shilling" after the latest chapter in Ireland's economic meltdown


----------



## LiamO (Sep 30, 2010)

jer said:


> When it's aimed at you because you're considered a "west brit" because you happen to live in London, it's a bit silly. And there are those who think that.



Really? I have never come across west-brit as a term of purely geographical abuse before. 

I have however heard it used, often, as a derogatory term for somebody's politics or political philosophy - indeed I have used it myself on (too) many occasions.

No harm to you Jer, but if your opening gambit is to bounce in with all that old 'sending money home to the bhoys' bolloxology - which many Republicans find deeply insulting - then I think you will automatically provoke an aggressive response... one which will usually include terms like 'free-state' 'west brit' etc. 

I don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that that is where you and CR were heading had he responded to your post. 

regards
Liam


----------



## LiamO (Oct 1, 2010)

*Memories are made of this...*

Some of these tales have had tears rolling down my face. Top stories PC, 39 and froggy - any more for any more?

And I would like to ask a question - what is wrong with telling them? Why should political discourse centre around interminable 'Life of Brian'-style arguments. If we want this generation to know what it was like 'back in the day' (so they can avoid some of our mistakes or just for the craic) - and I believe we have a duty to the Class to do so - then treating this thread like a post-demo pub conversation, that is actually entertaining, will do a better job, for more people, than haveing the row.

I find these stories and reminisences illuminating, evocative and positive -as opposed to the usual silly-business on Urban which is depressing, provocative and negative. 

So keep those tales a-coming folks, and fuck the begrudgers.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 1, 2010)

a few years ago when i was involved in the lgbt at uni i was involved in a campaign to allow gay men to donate blood. i got fucked off with it when they were handing out leaflets outside the blood donation centre at our uni and were telling passers-by that gay men should be allowed to donate blood because they don't have as much risk of passing hiv to people than black women - but, in the words of one of the protesters, "if you tried to ban that there'd be an outcry".  

we also had a debate once where all the political parties came along and the tory candidate came along nad told people that the tories really stood for equality but it was just a lie put out by "the socialists" that they didn't.


----------



## newbie (Oct 1, 2010)

Stripped of their context these post-pub stories boil down to the grumblings of a bunch of (predominantly) 40-something blokes about their treatment by women.  Keep 'em coming- some of them are better written than when they first started circulating, and tbf one or two of them have been new to me (but then I don't read the Daily Express very often).

But to dress them up as important, positive even, lessons for 'the class'?  What?  which class?  

Somewhere up there someone (I think) mentioned that history can be viewed as the oppression of everybody else by white men, to general amusement.  Seen through that lens the political inferences littering this thread fit neatly into place.  The important lessons for 'the class' revolve around the interests of the downtrodden white working class bloke, the bit part players only come on stage to be mocked.

The interests of the working class can no longer be mapped directly to the interests of white men.  get over it.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 1, 2010)

Which is interesting as the thread has discussed race as well as gender, Ireland , South Africa and Palestine all in the context of the well intentioned and malicious politics of  liberal  left of the 1980s.

In contrast to the sheer dead endism of those politics  I and others have discussed from a pro working class view examples of working class unity at Grunwick and the Miners strike and I offered example of working class women at a nursery holding an entirely different perspective regarding Greenham Common to those who somehow feel that gender overides class.

The interest of the working class cannot be mapped directly to the interests of the well meaning middle class liberal left. You get over it


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 1, 2010)

newbie said:


> Stripped of their context these post-pub stories boil down to the grumblings of a bunch of (predominantly) 40-something blokes about their treatment by women.  Keep 'em coming- some of them are better written than when they first started circulating, and tbf one or two of them have been new to me (but then I don't read the Daily Express very often).
> 
> But to dress them up as important, positive even, lessons for 'the class'?  What?  which class?
> 
> ...



I'm surprised that you have opted for such a singular reading of the variety of posts made to this thread; I'd expect something much more differentiated and nuanced. The account you give can definitely be read into many of the stories presented here, but so can much else. For example, there are stories of confusion and difficulty; difficulty in dealing with apparently competing demands and confusion in identifying what those demands could actually mean. 

Taking on a plurality of readings (including but not exclusive to the two outlined above) could allow us to make sense of the at times difficult and confusing impact of identity politics (a better short hand than 'trendy left idiocy') without opting for either of the ultimately useless exclusive options of it's either pc gone mad or the grumblings of disaffected middle aged white men.

Cheers - Louis (40 something, white, male but not disaffected) MacNeice


----------



## past caring (Oct 1, 2010)

newbie said:


> *Stripped of their context* these post-pub stories boil down to the grumblings of a bunch of (predominantly) 40-something blokes about their treatment by women.



And stripping them of their context is precisely what you will do, in order to twist them. Cunt.


----------



## newbie (Oct 1, 2010)

Dead end?  really?  Been better if it hadn't happened?

You're not attacking the middle class liberal left you're attacking the female and black parts of it that concentrated on someone other than you.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 1, 2010)

newbie said:


> Stripped of their context these post-pub stories boil down to the grumblings of a bunch of (predominantly) 40-something blokes about their treatment by women.
> 
> The interests of the working class can no longer be mapped directly to the interests of white men.  get over it.



That this is a complete confabulation of what this is about comes as no surprise to me. Most posters have, up til now, engaged with you even though you speak a strange language all your own and continually misconstrue and misrepresent the views of others. And despite the fact that you usually finish off your intellectual tosh posts with a jarring jibe which betrays your passive aggression towards us. 

I suspect that patience will now be exhausted. Furthermore I suggest that it is _you_ that insists on seeing the entire world through your own, prissy, little prism and despite all your waffle about the workers, you actually despise working class people. We don't need your permission to have a bit of craic. Simple as.


I struggled for a while to find a socially and politically appropriate way to answer your post. Ultimately however, I came to the conclusion that I don't need to - and that you represent exactly the sniffy, po-faced, (uber) worthy, lifestyle-lefty, preachy, scolding, patronising, dry-shite, gobshite trendy-lefty,this thread is about. 

So why should I, or any of my fellow posters, give a fiddler's fuck what you think? There, better to get that off my chest than take it with me to Dublin Zoo with seven 8-year olds - although I'll probably be able to converse in plain english with them.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 1, 2010)

newbie said:


> Dead end?  really?  Been better if it hadn't happened?
> 
> You're not attacking the middle class liberal left you're attacking the female and black parts of it that concentrated on someone other than you.



Are you a Spart perchance?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 1, 2010)

actualy, there's no need to have a go at newbie like that, he's basically sound and i actually agree with part of his post


----------



## newbie (Oct 1, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I'm surprised that you have opted for such a singular reading of the variety of posts made to this thread; I'd expect something much more differentiated and nuanced. The account you give can definitely be read into many of the stories presented here, but so can much else. For example, there are stories of confusion and difficulty; difficulty in dealing with apparently competing demands and confusion in identifying what those demands could actually mean.
> 
> Taking on a plurality of readings (including but not exclusive to the two outlined above) could allow us to make sense of the at times difficult and confusing impact of identity politics (a better short hand than 'trendy left idiocy') without opting for either of the ultimately useless exclusive options of it's either pc gone mad or the grumblings of disaffected middle aged white men.
> 
> Cheers - Louis (40 something, white, male but not disaffected) MacNeice



that's a good post, and the thread could benefit from more of them. unusually I'm afraid I was just being direct and to the point.  I'll go back to heavily nuanced posts no-one reads in a bit


----------



## past caring (Oct 1, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> actualy, there's no need to have a go at newbie like that, he's basically sound and i actually agree with part of his post


Aye there is - fucker has form for this.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 1, 2010)

newbie said:


> Stripped of their context these post-pub stories boil down to the grumblings of a bunch of (predominantly) 40-something blokes about their treatment by women.  Keep 'em coming- some of them are better written than when they first started circulating, and tbf one or two of them have been new to me (but then I don't read the Daily Express very often).
> 
> But to dress them up as important, positive even, lessons for 'the class'?  What?  which class?
> 
> ...


 
I didn't say that actually although I agree that some of this stuff does have that feel to it. 
Louis McNiece puts it best IMO.


----------



## newbie (Oct 1, 2010)

LiamO said:


> That this is a complete confabulation of what this is about comes as no surprise to me. Most posters have, up til now, engaged with you even though you speak a strange language all your own and continually misconstrue and misrepresent the views of others. And despite the fact that you usually finish off your intellectual tosh posts with a jarring jibe which betrays your passive aggression towards us.
> 
> I suspect that patience will now be exhausted. Furthermore I suggest that it is _you_ that insists on seeing the entire world through your own, prissy, little prism and despite all your waffle about the workers, you actually despise working class people. We don't need your permission to have a bit of craic. Simple as.
> 
> ...


 
and I don't need your permission to post what I please on a silly billy urban politics thread.  Thanks for the psychoanalysis, I'll bear it in mind.


----------



## newbie (Oct 1, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I didn't say that actually although I agree that some of this stuff does have that feel to it.
> Louis McNiece puts it best IMO.


 
er, sorry, no offence intended. I'll edit.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 1, 2010)

yeah, thanks, it's just that i don't really like having my views presented in that way when that's not actually what i think and i don't actually think anyone on the thread has said this. and actually i don't really like that especially because one of the things ive been taking issue with on the thread is this idea that anyone who cares about racism or sexism is some kind of borgoise liberal, when frequently these are the lowest paid people in society anyway. many of the public spending cuts will affect women disproportionately.


----------



## newbie (Oct 1, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> yeah, thanks, it's just that i don't really like having my views presented in that way when that's not actually what i think and i don't actually think anyone on the thread has said this.


 



frogwoman said:


> Proper Tidy said:
> 
> 
> > They do exist. I was once informed by a self-described radical anarchist feminist (middle class, obv) that the history of capitalism wasn't one of the capitalist class exploiting the working class, or capital exploiting labour, but of white straight men exploiting everybody else, and that as a white straight man I had no right to social justice as I was the oppressor. No class analysis, no understanding of the economic causes of social divisions, nothing. Mental, but a fringe of people believe this shit. Only a fringe, mind.
> ...



sorry


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 1, 2010)

no problem


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 1, 2010)

actually i think the "working class = white men" thing is gonna be a bit more or seem a bit more prevalent on discussion boards like this one than in real life tbh simply because of the demographics of who usually goes on these things. those attitudes are still gonna exist,  don't get me wrong, but i think as the current campaign gets off the ground it will change a lot. there were only slightly more men than women in the demo i went to the other day.as butchers (I think) mentioned in one of the other threads, the shit (whatewver it is) is gonna get drowned out by real people if we do this right.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 1, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Whilst we are still in the ' exuberant 80s' I was once the steward for a group of women nursery nurses across the road from where we worked and my own workplace. We held a joint meeting and had a water worker who was on strike ask for support, everyone duly contributes. Lizzy ,this soft feminist from our site  but quite good on trade unions, then asks for a collection for greenham common at the next meeting. Lots of polite  nodding from members from our site and a complete refusal by the nursery nurses who said that they wouldn't have anything to do with 'that bunch of lezzies'.


 
as a gay woman i find myself feeling uncomfortable with stuff like this to say the fucking least - however from everything i have heard about greenham common it would have seriously pissed me off. 

i find those kind of feminists' ideas on who women are just as oppressive and demeaning as the "traditional" view of women, which frequently they're not so far from. im not sure how much more i should post on here to be honest but i actually find a lot of their ideas offensive, they seem to think women can never do anything wrong and if sometihng goes wrong in a woman's life it's usually a fault of a man - but to me it just seems like another version of "infantilisation" really and saying that women can't make own decisions or be responsible for their actions


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 1, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> as a gay woman i find myself feeling uncomfortable with stuff like this to say the fucking least - however from everything i have heard about greenham common it would have seriously pissed me off.
> 
> i find those kind of feminists' ideas on who women are just as oppressive and demeaning as the "traditional" view of women, which frequently they're not so far from. im not sure how much more i should post on here to be honest but i actually find a lot of their ideas offensive, they seem to think women can never do anything wrong and if sometihng goes wrong in a woman's life it's usually a fault of a man - but to me it just seems like another version of "infantilisation" really and saying that women can't make own decisions or be responsible for their actions



I should have, with hindsight, explained that I/we did take up the issue about 'lezzies' and also argued that the real issue was whether or not we should make a contribution to a campaign against nuclear missiles. Incidentially about nine months later we passed a motion supporting a Gay pride event.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 1, 2010)

oh, ok.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 1, 2010)

newbie said:


> Dead end?  really?  Been better if it hadn't happened?
> 
> You're not attacking the middle class liberal left you're attacking the female and black parts of it that concentrated on someone other than you.


 


Better if they hadn't happended?  Yes. Surely if we had our time again we would have wanted something different. In most cases they have made no discernable improvements for any sections of the working class and in many cases put working class people off the left. 

As for being selective about which sections of the middle class I attack I can assure you that I don't discriminate .


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 1, 2010)

LiamO said:


> That this is a complete confabulation of what this is about comes as no surprise to me. Most posters have, up til now, engaged with you even though you speak a strange language all your own and continually misconstrue and misrepresent the views of others. And despite the fact that you usually finish off your intellectual tosh posts with a jarring jibe which betrays your passive aggression towards us.
> 
> I suspect that patience will now be exhausted. Furthermore I suggest that it is _you_ that insists on seeing the entire world through your own, prissy, little prism and despite all your waffle about the workers, you actually despise working class people. We don't need your permission to have a bit of craic. Simple as.
> 
> ...


Liam, tbh, you are being more intolerant of others who don't see things your way than Newbie is, way more.


----------



## past caring (Oct 1, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Liam, tbh, you are being more intolerant of others who don't see things your way than Newbie is, way more.



Well, and also taking Steps post above as a way of maybe moving the discussion on, perhaps at least one of the problems was that we could have done with being _a bit more_ intolerant of some of this nonsense at the time. Rather than just citing examples, I'll try to shift the discussion a little more into why there wasn't greater resistance to some of the crap at the time.

Unfortunately, this does involve another anecdote.....

I can remember a discussion in the SWP branch that I was in back in the late 80s about the issue. A couple of leading members told how they faced a conundrum in their union branch because Lambeth council were operating a de-facto but unpublicised policy of "positive discrimination" by applying a quota to the numbers of disabled staff who had to be employed in particular clerical sections in the council. The issue (for the SWP members) was not that there was any problem with employing disabled staff, but that the council was unable to recruit disabled staff to fill the posts - which in effect meant staff cuts by the back door and an increased workload for those people who were in post.

The particular difficulty for the SWP members was they felt duty bound to defend the policy from attack by the right (i.e. those who would call it "loony left") within the union, feeling that a priority should be to side with "the left" and those who wanted to at least make a positive change and were anti-discrimination whilst also disagreeing with it as tokenism and reformist when debating (out of earshot of the right) with the proponents of the policy.

I make no comment on whether Lambeth did, in fact, have such a policy - I have no way of knowing, although the SWP members who told the meeting of it clearly believed it to be true. The reason for me telling the story is that what is really of interest is not whether it was factually correct, but the purpose of the SWP members in telling it - and _that_ was to back up the line given by the SWP CC member who giving that night's talk, that the correct "Marxist" position was to _always_ side with "progressive" forces in public and to always argue against those attacking such policies because the motivation of the attackers was inevitably reactionary.

Looking back now, I think that this nonsense can only have originated in the Leninist politics of the SWP, which in turn over time ensured that its leadership and membership became dominated by middle class individuals who then related much more readily to the middle class proponents of such entirely damaging anti-working class policies. 

Only my thoughts and, of course, only related to the internal thought processes of the SWP - but I do wonder why there wasn't a greater and more coherent resistance to the dead end of identity politics from within the left at the time, when the damage was being done?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 1, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Really? I have never come across west-brit as a term of purely geographical abuse before.
> 
> I have however heard it used, often, as a derogatory term for somebody's politics or political philosophy - indeed I have used it myself on (too) many occasions.
> 
> ...


 
He started it with his "passing fad" comments. I found that patronising, tbh. I'm as Irish as you or he, even if I don't support your precise politics. I want a United Ireland, free from racism and sectarianism. But not by means of violence. Never.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 1, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Which is interesting as the thread has discussed race as well as gender, Ireland , South Africa and Palestine all in the context of the well intentioned and malicious politics of  liberal  left of the 1980s.


Personally, I'd rephrase that as "well-intentioned but ultimately malign". 


> In contrast to the sheer dead endism of those politics  I and others have discussed from a pro working class view examples of working class unity at Grunwick and the Miners strike and I offered example of working class women at a nursery holding an entirely different perspective regarding Greenham Common to those who somehow feel that gender overides class.
> 
> The interest of the working class cannot be mapped directly to the interests of the well meaning middle class liberal left. You get over it


 
Until we realise that class interests are, in every case and for every individual, cross-cut with other factors such as gender, ethnicity, sexuality and culture that will influence how we perceive our class interests, we can't really map them directly to anything, and that's quite possibly a good thing.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 1, 2010)

PC - I can see how Leninism could produce this effect; taking a simple my enemies' enemy is my friend position (which can certainly be found in Leninism) could lead to this inflexible 'always side with "progressive" forces in public'. 

What it also allows organisations to rationalise, is the 'do one thing in public and another out of earshot' approach you describe; the orgainisation knows better than the public, and as a consequence should (must?) protect that relatively ignorant public.

As if that wasn't enough, Leninism, through the mechanisms of democratic centralism, also provides the means for ensuring (as far as you can) that such behavior and thinking is established as the norm/orthodoxy throughout the organisation (until of course it is required to change).

None of the above would be a problem if the leadership of Leninist organisation got things right all of the time, but...

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 1, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Until we realise that class interests are, in every case and for every individual, cross-cut with other factors such as gender, ethnicity, sexuality and culture that will influence how we perceive our class interests, we can't really map them directly to anything, and that's quite possibly a good thing.


 

this times 1000000000000000%


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 1, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Personally, I'd rephrase that as "well-intentioned but ultimately malign".
> 
> 
> Until we realise that class interests are, in every case and for every individual, cross-cut with other factors such as gender, ethnicity, sexuality and culture that will influence how we perceive our class interests, we can't really map them directly to anything, and that's quite possibly a good thing.



Nothing that I object to in your post


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 1, 2010)

jer said:


> I know; I know. I'm a mass of contradictions. Irish politics compell and repulse me. I've had a love/hate relationship with it all my life. You wouldn't believe - all I know is that there's very few people who agree with each other; layers of division.
> 
> Also, the "old chap" greeting; that's interesting, that is. I've had that from fellow compatriots before when they think I'm not singing from the same hymn sheet. "West brit", "Anglo" and so forth. "traitor for Betty's shilling" was the most hilarious insult...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 1, 2010)

newbie said:


> Dead end?  really?  Been better if it hadn't happened?
> 
> You're not attacking the middle class liberal left you're attacking the female and black parts of it that concentrated on someone other than you.


 
Nobody is arguing that. Nobody. What people are criticising are the attempts to look at issues abstracted from class analysis.

Would it have been better if 'it' didn't happen? Depends what you mean by it. It is certainly no bad thing that there is at least greater awareness of homophobia, racism, sexism etc, but the wholesale adoption of narrow identity politics by the liberal left and sections of the far left has been devastating. It is a major part of why not just 'the left' but class politics has become so marginalised; and even in the sense of greater social equality it has ultimately failed. The obsession with labeling and compartmentalising people on socio-cultural 'identity' grounds, for instance; and then people are surprised when the far right catch on and start pounding on about identity and culture instead of race and blood and soil and all that shit. Or putting different socio-cultural or ethnic groups in competition for funding in the name of multi-culturalism - yep, that has helped social cohesion enormously hasn't it?

Nobody is arguing that these issues should not have been picked up - absolutely they should, and still should. What is the worry is the politics underpinning it.

Identity politics and the complete idiocy of tops-down counter-productive  muliculturalism needs to be discussed without (I'm sure well-intentioned) people screaming that it is a 'white male 40 something' reaction blah blah. Hierarchy of oppression is a bag of shit. I'm fairly sure, for instance, that a white 40 year old straight man living on the streets is not going to feel like he rules the fucking world. Sexism, racism, homophobia etc can still be challenged, without resorting to an exclusive approach to identity, and inclusive of the vast majority of people rather than narrow sections of society, because ultimately the vast majority of people are oppressed, are economically exploited. Many who have pursued identity politics have been well-intentioned, but many have also used a very narrow interpretation of identity to intentionally undermine class consciousness and solidarity.

An injury to one is an injury to all - and that shouldn't be as long as you are white, or straight, or male, or all three, and all too often it has been and will continue to be. But it also shouldn't be so long as you are a recognised minority, which is unfortunately where identity politics leads us. It is exclusive by nature, and it is as reactionary as the world views it seeks to challenge.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 1, 2010)

excellent post PT


Also what infuriates me is when people talk about how things are in "developing countries" and isn't it terrible etc, to imply that we shouldn't complain about how things are here or should feel guilty about doing so, i know lots of people like this


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 1, 2010)

you know, "look how things are in africa" etc as a response to people's complaints about poor working practices


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 1, 2010)

spot on pt and very well put.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 1, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> you know, "look how things are in africa" etc as a response to people's complaints about poor working practices


 
Check the 2 Spanish women taunting the striking workers in Spain the other day with placards saying 'we'll do your jobs'. Same mentality. Race to the bottom.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 1, 2010)

wtf ??? thats disgusting


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 1, 2010)

Was all over the 'unbiased' BBC reports. 2 women on a balcony got as much attention as tens of thousands of workers.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 1, 2010)

Im working in a non unionised factory - owners a fascist -old mate of maggies and pinochets -  and wont let a union in the door . Probably a third of the workforce is east european . Theyre deluding themselves theyre only here for a short time and dont want any fuss . The _locals_ arent interested in forming an alliance with people they see as taking jobs . They werent even that interested in forming an alliance with each other before the east europeans arrived . The company used their arrival as an opportunity to do away with time and a half for overtime - just a flat rate no matter how many hours you work . I got my pay cut despite taking on extra responsibilities just before the holidays .Its notorious for the owner sacking people on a whim for fuck all .  Everybody gets shafted . In that type of scenario its bloody obvious theres no point in sectionalism and identity politics .


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 1, 2010)

agreed


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 1, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> Im working in a non unionised factory - owners a fascist -old mate of maggies and pinochets -  and wont let a union in the door . Probably a third of the workforce is east european . Theyre deluding themselves theyre only here for a short time and dont want any fuss . The _locals_ arent interested in forming an alliance with people they see as taking jobs . They werent even that interested in forming an alliance with each other before the east europeans arrived . The company used their arrival as an opportunity to do away with time and a half for overtime - just a flat rate no matter how many hours you work . I got my pay cut despite taking on extra responsibilities just before the holidays .Its notorious for the owner sacking people on a whim for fuck all .  Everybody gets shafted . In that type of scenario its bloody obvious theres no point in sectionalism and identity politics .


 
Exactly. I had similar not long back when we had strike action in my last job, with staff on the new t&c's moaning about staff on the old t&c's, and fixed term staff thinking fuck the lot of 'em, I just want job security. Divide and conquer. Fortunately the union was strong enough to get its message out, and most eventually backed it, but in non- or low-unionised workplaces it's a bosses playground.

Good reason why all us 'archaic' lefties bang on about workers' united...


----------



## newbie (Oct 1, 2010)

past caring said:


> Well, and also taking Steps post above as a way of maybe moving the discussion on, perhaps at least one of the problems was that we could have done with being _a bit more_ intolerant of some of this nonsense at the time. Rather than just citing examples, I'll try to shift the discussion a little more into why there wasn't greater resistance to some of the crap at the time.
> 
> Unfortunately, this does involve another anecdote.....
> 
> ...


 
interesting story and as an outside observer of both Lambeth council and the SWP strangely plausible from the mid seventies onwards  

an unannounced policy of staff selection to suit some councillors priorities.  who'd have thought it.

If you'd told me this story at the time I think I'd have shrugged, said as ever that as a Lambeth ratepayer sectional Town Hall union disputes pass all understanding, but that opening up the workplace to people with disabilites is welcome, giggled a bit that something involving a very few people in a very, very specific environment was being blown up as "entirely damaging anti-working class policies" (but wasn't Lambeth political gossip ever thus!) and carried on steering clear of Leninist parties.

But, taken at face value, it was a serious issue for those involved and, in retrospect I think I agree, your perspective should have been better put at the time, if it had been maybe some of the more negative consequences of the period could have been averted.  Not just in a council union balance-of-power argument but more widely within the progressive left. I don't recall how well articulated such views were back then, I guess there were tracts (there were always tracts) but swimming against the tide isn't always possible, few would have listened and they'd have been easily isolated as reactionary.  The tide of liberation politics had to peak in order for the problems of identity politics to became apparent- I'm not sure any amount of 'intolerance' would have made the slightest difference.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 1, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Good reason why all us 'archaic' lefties bang on about workers' united...



calls for a musical interlude methinks , we still have the best tunes .


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2010)

Bella Ciao!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2010)

***


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2010)

What an apt thread to post your disengaged radical rhetoric on.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2010)

oh haaaay maaaaaan

you just don't know me at all!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2010)

We'll have ernst Busch next.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2010)

you don't like bella ciao?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2010)

I like middle class kids shouting it. In england. Other than that, no. Not as a general feeling either.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2010)

a man possessed!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2010)




----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2010)

he's _loving_ it!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2010)

You love that shit - put the redskins on next


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2010)

happy with my weird post-modern traditional indian-jazz fusion shit on Radio 3 for now. thinking of popping on one of Martin Smith's selected mixes in a bit though.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2010)

Make sure there's no white filth.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2010)

i'm sure i don't know what you mean.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2010)

ooh, fast edit


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2010)

Not really, took me 5 mins to do.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2010)

something here to keep my life in perspective:




bet you wish you'd thought of that one, uh?

PS - this song is about me and you butchy


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2010)

Anyway, that is what white people listen to of a night. Before darts and cribbage.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2010)

Das Uberdog said:


> something here to keep my life in perspective:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Oh please, already - you're bringing your own 2nd hand cliches?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2010)

i'm cut deep by your rejection


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2010)

So post a good vid indicating so


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2010)

easier to wallow in self-pity...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2010)

Actually, just checked - this is a live thread. Apols for intermission.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2010)

yeah, act like your the big man


----------



## LiamO (Oct 2, 2010)

Hmmm. Where to start... but start we must. 

So I'll begin by saying that the post of mione that newbie objected to was somewhat tongue-in-cheek but newbie does not do humour, apparently.



Streathamite said:


> Liam, tbh, you are being more intolerant of others who don't see things your way than Newbie is, way more.



I think you make a very fair point Mr/Ms S and I can readily accept that yesterday's exchange (if taken in isolation) could read that way to you. I am glad you made this comment as it stoppped me in my tracks gives me a chance to clarify my position. 

 I can see why you would say that if you had only read yesterday morning's posts. But when placed _in context_ Newbie's post is indeed loaded and provocative. Over the last week a pattern has emerged of Newbie making all kinds of assumptions about the intentions of other posters. PC and others have readily engaged in clarifying what they meant and I have made one of two contributions myself  - but mostly not made comment to avoid being dragged into a tedious, circular debate prompted by one of N's trademark end-of-post barbs. 

This was not an option this time because the digs came thick and fast and started in the first sentence. From the evidence of the last week, I am left with little option but to assume tha N is being deliberately obtuse and provocative in dismissing context and assuming (malevolent and right-wing) intent on the part of other posters. 

FW for example, has asked for (and received) clarification of this a number of times.

The first few times newbie did this, honourable intent was (I presume) assumed by all. The second or third times made me wary and think perhaps their intent is mischievous. This last time has the needle of my intent-ometer hovering between mischievous and malignant


----------



## LiamO (Oct 2, 2010)

newbie said:


> Stripped of their context these post-pub stories boil... .


 
WHY would anybody, unless with either myopic or mischievous intent, seek to strip them of their context? Surely context is the point, no?

Their context is indeed problematic if you want to dimiss them as rightist propaganda.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 2, 2010)

newbie said:


> Stripped of their context these post-pub stories boil down to the grumblings of a bunch of (predominantly) 40-something blokes about their treatment by women.




No. They clearly do not.

They boil down to 

a) a series of first-person expressions of the frustration felt (daily) by a generation of left-wing, working class political _activists_ at the hands of a selected (but representative) cross-section of identity-politics driven, myopic people (and members of the general public) who regularly did the strangest things - which included the moral gymnastics of the CC of the SWP, builders, shopkeepers etc, as well as from _a very specific type _of female political activist (seperatist feminists).   

b) Amusing tales about people's discovery that because somebody shares your view abot a particular issue - does NOT mean they are sound on others!

c) Illustrate the abject failure of the left of the time to engage with many of the people they claimed to be representing. For example the Greenham Common story. The question for me is not 'why did these working class women trade unionists have such a disparaging view of the GC women?' Is it possibly that the left then, as now, thought it was enough to be worthy and 'right' and paid scant attention to the important thing - convincing other people (particularly those you claim to represent) that you are right. Incidentally the poster, when prompted by FW was happy to clear up any misconception about where they were coming from.


As such I see NOTHING wrong these stories. If you want calarification of the politics or intent of the point being made newbie, feel free to ask for it. But please stop making wild assumptions and accusing people of holding and propagating reactionary views which even you must know they simply do not hold.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 2, 2010)

newbie said:


> Stripped of their context these post-pub stories boil down to the grumblings of a bunch of (predominantly) 40-something blokes about their treatment by women.



Please identify clearly which of these stories you object and why?

I am sure the authors will be pleased to clarify their political intent in telling them.

I myself found one story contained some 'additional, specualtive' comments which I found a bit 'iffy', and posted to as FW called it 'debunk a few myths'. I did not attack the intent or integrity of the poster.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 2, 2010)

newbie said:


> Keep 'em coming- some of them are better written _than when they first started circulating_, and tbf one or two of them have been new to me (but then I don't read the Daily Express very often).


 

Now this is truly loaded. You seem to be accusing posters, whose political background is clear to most people from their posts, of regurgitating stories from the right-wing press. This is disingenuous. It is also blatantly unfair.

Please identify clearly and specifically which stories (and be extension which posters) you are accusing of doing this (it would be helpful; if you could keep this to the last few days of the thread, because you had ample opportunity and made plenty posts about what transpired before.)

I suspect you will struggle with this.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 2, 2010)

*When a disservice becomes a service*

Having accused the left of paying scant regard to how they are perceived by their 'audience', I think it is only fair that I started paying a bit more attention myself.

Might I suggest that from here on when you are contributing an illustrative storiy that you round it off by explicitly stating the political point you are trying to show.

Some readers seem to have no problem picking up on nuance and meaning. For others this process seems to be problematic. Newbie's post - and Streathamite's reading of my initial response - could actually do us a service, by focussing us a little more on how our posts might be received by others.

In fact I may start getting my posts vetted/critiqued by someone else first. I sent one to another poster on Thursday night to guage their reaction. It was 'initially not sure about that' so I trusted their judgement and did not post. Given the shit-storm yesterday, I'm glad I didn't. So thank you to that person.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 2, 2010)

Frankly newbie, I am *stunned *that you could interpret this... 



Louis MacNeice said:


> I'm surprised that you have opted for such a singular reading of the variety of posts made to this thread; I'd expect something much more differentiated and nuanced. The account you give can definitely be read into many of the stories presented here, but so can much else. For example, there are stories of confusion and difficulty; difficulty in dealing with apparently competing demands and confusion in identifying what those demands could actually mean.
> 
> Taking on a plurality of readings (including but not exclusive to the two outlined above) could allow us to make sense of the at times difficult and confusing impact of identity politics (a better short hand than 'trendy left idiocy') without opting for either of the ultimately useless exclusive options of it's either pc gone mad or the grumblings of disaffected middle aged white men.
> 
> Cheers - Louis (40 something, white, male but not disaffected) MacNeice


 
as some kind of endorsement. From my reading LM makes the same point I did (although in his inimitable, concise and erudite fashion) that you seem to be _choosing_ to interpret these stories in ONE particular way and just _persistently_ ignoring all the evidence that conflicts with your predetermined view. It is this persistance that annoyed me.





newbie said:


> that's a good post, and the thread could benefit from more of them. unusually I'm afraid I was just being direct and to the point.  I'll go back to heavily nuanced posts no-one reads in a bit



I have NO objection to your holding a different view to me. I DOo object to you persistently misrepresenting mine.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 2, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You love that shit - put the redskins on next


 
Steady butch , you know I have soft spot for them


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 2, 2010)

double post


----------



## newbie (Oct 2, 2010)

Good morning Liam.  I'm afraid you're going to have to accept that I really am going to post what I please, when I please.  I've already told you that I know I don't write very well.  I know my style isn't fluent, is too wordy, lacks humour, isn't as erudite or articulate as some other posters, and sometimes I struggle hard to get my point across. Look on the bright side, I am trying to put white space in.  

And yes, sometimes what I post is "loaded and provocative"- this is urban75 politics board mate, I'm afraid you'll have to get used to it.  

So I'm sorry if my style gets up your nose but really, you don't have to read my posts, it's not compulsory, you can put me on formal ignore or just skim past.  Also I would say, just to save you the effort, that you're very unlikely to get a rise out of me with a string of insults, so if you want a full-on row you'll have to look elsewhere.  ok?

What I've been trying to do is tease out how much of this is just grumbling and how much has a real political component that's worth thinking about 20 years later.  

Take a look at the story past caring posted (he writes well, you won't need to lecture him) #588.   Interesting enough and there's plenty of meat in the story and I can see how it can be used to helpfully reinforce the pattern of the problems of working class people at the hands of middle class identity politics.  But that's not the only reading- to my jaundiced eye it looks like just another Lambeth story of someone's pet project and a Town Hall union squabble. Why should I draw any significant political conclusions from it??

Something similar is true of the post from 39thstep I queried, #377.  For sure his post can be read as an attack on "*the* black and female *middle and professional classes*" but there are other readings too, one of which is the white bloke being done down, another is professional jealousy amongst local government workers.  Now as it goes these stories really _have_ been circulating for years, mostly serving an agenda coming from the right. As an outsider I've never really understood how much politics and how much distraction they contain.  From discussions here I have an idea of the political background and perspective of that poster and -not to get too sentimental- respect him and what he says, so I asked him and possibly pushed him to try and disentangle it.  If he didn't like the questions he could tell me to foad, he probably has before and may well do in future, which isn't a problem to me or, I hope, him.  It's just a thread on urban.

And finally to Louis.  I can compliment him on his post surely? Nobody but possibly you thinks Louis endorses my views- we've _all_ got form.  His post came in the middle of a string of people abusing me for what I'd said and managed to identify his disagreement with me, tell me off for my style, and take the discussion forward all in one post.  It's called debate and he's good at it.

OK?  I'm not going to apologise for being persistent, or for ignoring stuff which I don't want to comment on, or for interpreting the stories or the posts the way I have, or even for annoying you.  As all of those posters know, they've never fully convinced me to agree with the political tradition they share.  I'm not one of what you called "us".  you'll get used to it.

There, I've responded to your 7- seven!- posts about me.  Can we now move off the subject of _newbie_ please?


----------



## newbie (Oct 2, 2010)

LiamO said:


> c) Illustrate the abject failure of the left of the time to engage with many of the people they claimed to be representing. For example the Greenham Common story. The question for me is not 'why did these working class women trade unionists have such a disparaging view of the GC women?' *Is it possibly that the left then, as now, thought it was enough to be worthy and 'right' and paid scant attention to the important thing - convincing other people (particularly those you claim to represent) that you are right.* Incidentally the poster, when prompted by FW was happy to clear up any misconception about where they were coming from.


 
Ok that's a worthwhile enough question to ask, I suppose.  Of course it's possible, in fact I would have thought that it's mindbogglingly inevitable.  No political group or person or movement or whatever has *ever* convinced everybody.  Nor will they. er, and?  

A bunch of people took a particular and rather extreme stand about something.  A lot of people supported them.  And a lot didn't.  Why does the anecdote matter?  And what does it seek to demonstrate?  

Yes they thought what they were doing was worthy and was right, and at times they talked in terms which might let an innocent think they represented the views or interests of all women.  Well?  This thread and these boards are full of people making some statement or other purporting to represent the interests of the working class. Only a thirteenyearold takes that sort of rhetoric literally.  

I'm sure there were plenty of working class people with disparaging views of the women at Greenham, just as there are plenty of working class people with disparaging views of members of the RMT, anybody who ever uses the word 'class', anyone on strike, and so on and so on.  So what?  Their failure to convince everyone of their case is trivial irrelevance.

But you do appear to be agreeing with me on one thing at least.  What I called "_grumblings of a bunch of (predominantly) 40-something blokes_"  you described as  "_a generation of left-wing, working class political activists_".  Ok, that's a bit more polite but along the same lines, even if the rhetorical flourish of claiming an entire generation is a wee bit ott. 


the rest of this is a musing, it's not intended as an attack and I hope it doesn't come across as one.  It's probably a bad ideas to post it but I'm puzzled and if anyone can be bothered I'd be interested in their comments.

As you acknowledged, there is also the shared "political background" amongst posters who've built up an entire party or two and a long term, detailed analysis of society between themselves and their comrades. This thread has made me wonder how much of that analysis comes down to personal reactions to the sort of experiences recounted this thread. I've no idea, but, considering it's all twenty plus years ago, there does seem to be a lot of rancour over stuff which personally I'm still not convinced amounts to much.  But then I didn't cut my political teeth in local government in the 80s and I'm left a bit puzzled as to why these events appear to hold so much significance for people who apparently did.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 2, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Howya and thanks for addressing the substance of what I was saying rather than attacking how I said it.
> 
> my point would be that these 'horror stories', and they were by no means all chinese whispers, made it harder not easier to address issues on the shopfloor.



I agree up to a point, but would add that this is more to do with the right wing press and those bureaucrats who wanted to make a name for themselves, rather than "trendy lefties" as such.

I referenced housing law just the other week to someone who was banging on about refugees and asylum seekers having priority for social housing and they went into a hissy-fit, accused me of "upsetting them", said they weren't interested in housing law and labelled me "politically correct" - for quoting the law ffs! The term "politically correct" is being used to silence critics of bigotry and discrimination. 

Below is the reality of the housing crisis btw. Sorry I haven't got the link to back-up the figures. Just some notes I'd put down to reference.



> The crisis in housing has reached an epic scale. A property is repossessed every 10 minutes. Some five million people are on housing waiting lists. And millions more spend each night in damp, insecure or overcrowded accommodation. Some 300,000 private homes in England have been empty for more than six months on top of 75,000 in Scotland. If you include second homes in the figures, then there are about 700,000 empty properties in England. The speculative buy-to-let boom has resulted in even more empty flats that no one can afford to buy. In Leeds alone, 70 percent of city centre apartments are unoccupied. In Liverpool 35 percent of city centre flats are left empty by owners waiting for prices to rise.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 2, 2010)

good point.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 2, 2010)

DownwardDog said:


> The main things I remembered about the University of London in the 80s:
> 
> 1. Fucking swappies everywhere doing multi-level marketing on the emotionally bereft.
> 
> ...



I'm not in the SWP now, but your point on the miners I know is utter bollocks. You might recall that mining communities were devastated after the strike was over, with the massive pit closure programme that took place. Despite that, the links that were made during the miners strike of 84/85 were kept, some weren't of course for a variety of reasons, but certainly not as you state. These links made were always important to the Yorkshire branch I was involved with. Some became active once more when Hestletine announced further pit closures during the early 90's. The rest of your post is similar trite.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 2, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> it does make me laugh to see people(usually ageing hippies and swappie types) going on about how much they "did" about the south africa issue when all they did really was march up and down holding a sign, as some (distant) members of myfamily ended up being killed for their activism.



I knew one exile (sadly dead now) who was an ANC member and a main organiser in the anti-apartheid movement here. His daughter was an SWP member.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 2, 2010)

fair play!


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 3, 2010)

Is there something to be learned by all of this reminiscing then?

Only, with the cuts coming in there's going to be a lot more people aligned with working class movements than the usual show of hands. So if the 80s teaches things that we should avoid/do right now, then that is what should be prevalent rather than the same old sectarianism and finger pointing. All I've learned in this thread is that everyone has a different view of the eighties. Didn't we all.

And now for another interlude.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 3, 2010)

I fail to see how one of the drivers of top down multiculturalism can be dismissed as sectional disputes within local government some how all in the past.


----------



## newbie (Oct 3, 2010)

fair play, I'd be very surprised if a thread caused you to turn a major part of your outlook upside down 

If the discussion still has legs I'd seek to explore whether your term "top down" means the same as the term "institutionalised" I used earlier.  Have the formal aspects of multiculturalism been imposed or are they the culmination of grassroots struggle?

However, the question C66 asked is the important one, especially if, as you imply, it's not all in the past.


----------



## the button (Oct 3, 2010)

newbie said:


> Have the formal aspects of multiculturalism been imposed or are they the culmination of grassroots struggle?



Both, IMO. No denying that there were grassroots struggles, however these were pretty much co-opted and institutionalised. Often, it has to be said, with the co-operation of largely self-appointed 'spokespeople' and 'community leaders,' who were all too willing to have a place at the top table.


----------



## newbie (Oct 3, 2010)

Won't there always be individuals ready and willing to take advantage of any situation for their own benefit?  The simple fact that some-not-all 'community leaders' are self serving is no more surprising or indicative of widespread failure than it is that some-not-all trades union leaders are self serving. Or any other sort of politician (for that's what they are) 

I'm not doubting there's plenty of room for cynicism or distrust (in either case) but I'm not sure that the presence of people who claim to speak for a specific community is that harmful.  Rather disparate communities have some sort of voice than not, surely?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 3, 2010)

newbie said:


> I'm not doubting there's plenty of room for cynicism or distrust (in either case) but I'm not sure that the presence of people who claim to speak for a specific community is that harmful.  Rather disparate communities have some sort of voice than not, surely?


 
Except these 'communities' do not have the same interests, do they? Is a poor Bangladeshi in the same boat as a rich Bangladeshi? Of course not.

But by encouraging and placing everybody into these narrow identities, what you do is say exactly that - that the interests of the rich from community X are the same as the poor from community X, now let's give ourselves a pat on the back.

It is completely divisive - it doesn't bring anybody together, it separates them and gets different 'communities' to compete with each other for funding and political representation. So it is very harmful. It is also bollocks. What the fuck is the gay community? Or the muslim community?


----------



## newbie (Oct 3, 2010)

That's certainly one way to look at it, and contains a huge nugget of sense.  An alternative view says that the interest of every member of every minority (however viewed) cannot be adequately safeguarded solely by looking after the majority.  That just leads to exclusion and marginalisation.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 3, 2010)

newbie said:


> That's certainly one way to look at it, and contains a huge nugget of sense.  An alternative view says that the interest of every member of every minority (however viewed) cannot be adequately safeguarded solely by looking after the majority.  That just leads to exclusion and marginalisation.


 
If the interests of the minority are not safeguarded by multiculturalism, which they aren't, and if multiculturalism exacerbates exclusion, where is the benefit?

The primary cause of social, cultural and ethnic tensions is competition for resources. Always has been, always will be. The root of all bigotry is economic. Any initiative, however well-intentioned, that encourages further competition between ethnic, social and cultural groups, will set back not further the cause of social equality.

We need to stress the economic commonality of working class people, not cultural differences. Identity politics leads to the Balkanisation of society. It is cross class popular frontism based on extremely narrow interpretations of human identity. It detracts away from the primary force of inequality in society - economic inequality.


----------



## newbie (Oct 3, 2010)

surely "the economic commonality of working class people" has been stressed for 150 years or more?  Why, in that case, were liberation struggles necessary in the first place? Why did women and people from a variety of minorities identify and organise around specific oppression by virtue of that identity as well as their more general class position.

I don't think anyone on this thread doubts that economic inequality cuts across everything else, of course it does.  But that doesn't make the entire working class homogenous, nor are the interests of every single member identical, except in the most simplistic terms. Nor does history really indicate that dominant groups easily relinquish their power without struggle.

When you say "We need to stress ..." I have to ask who the "we" is.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 3, 2010)

newbie said:


> Why did women and people from a variety of minorities identify and organise around specific oppression by virtue of that identity as well as their more general class position.


 
It wasn't and isn't 'as well as'. It is instead of. I advocate 'as well as' but that is not what has happened in mainstream debate.

We being those who want to see a better society.


----------



## newbie (Oct 3, 2010)

Ah yes, mainstream debate.  For sure there has often been a gaping hole where discussion of class ought to be, though I've noticed it creeping in a bit more as the talk of cuts increases. I'll be a bit surprised if much anti-cuts campaigning or organisation is focused on identity rather than class... but of course the effect of cuts may well be discriminatory, so there will be elements of special pleading.

Virtually everybody wants a "better society" even the rampant individualists who say there's no such thing.  In that sense such a demand is meaningless until significant numbers group together with a common platform.  The big issue is that the vast majority of platforms on offer in this country leave white men at the helm.  Doesn't really matter whether they say they're representing 'middle England' or 'hardworking families' or 'the working class', everybody is asked to accept that white men can act on their behalf and nobody will be excluded or marginalised. Just as in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s when many many people thought identity and liberation struggles well worthwhile, especially but not exclusively those who weren't white or men.  The genie is out of the bottle, I can't really see it going back in, can you?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 3, 2010)

What genie? White men rule the world is apolitical bullshit. Capital rules the fucking world.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 3, 2010)

The right portray "political correctness" as 'a phalanx of stone-faced, thought-police, who enforce a tyranny of news-speak, censorship and fear'. In reality what's behind all this is a reaction to the radical movements of the sixties and the gains made at that time. The right want to cancel those gains and to halt the growth of any further movements to a better world. On the other hand, the objection to "political correctness" from some on the left, rightly so in my mind, is that it is often 'self-indulgent, a substitute for politics, a holier than thou moralism of the good and the politics of gesture'. To put it simply it amounts to a conviction from some that 'the ills of the world will be cured if male managers stop calling their secretaries "girls" and when thin people stop using the word "fat"'. Nevertheless, "political correctness" is at heart ideologically driven from the right, a power play, which contains within it some anti-intellectualism, that has been able to negate any opposition, or critique of the status quo. A successful public relations exercise that justifies the current corporate system. The political struggle against inequality has been severely hampered in the process.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 3, 2010)

audiotech said:


> The right portray "political correctness" as 'a phalanx of stone-faced, thought-police, who enforce a tyranny of news-speak, censorship and fear'. In reality what's behind all this is a reaction to the radical movements of the sixties and the gains made at that time. The right want to cancel those gains and to halt the growth of any further movements to a better world. On the other hand, the objection to "political correctness" from some on the left, rightly so in my mind, is that it is often 'self-indulgent, a substitute for politics, a holier than thou moralism of the good and the politics of gesture'. To put it simply it amounts to a conviction from some that 'the ills of the world will be cured if male managers stop calling their secretaries "girls" and when thin people stop using the word "fat"'. Nevertheless, "political correctness" is at heart ideologically driven from the right, a power play, which contains within it some anti-intellectualism, that has been able to negate any opposition, or critique of the status quo. A successful public relations exercise that justifies the current corporate system. The political struggle against inequality has been severely hampered in the process.


 
Good post.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Except these 'communities' do not have the same interests, do they? Is a poor Bangladeshi in the same boat as a rich Bangladeshi? Of course not.
> 
> But by encouraging and placing everybody into these narrow identities, what you do is say exactly that - that the interests of the rich from community X are the same as the poor from community X, now let's give ourselves a pat on the back.
> 
> It is completely divisive - it doesn't bring anybody together, it separates them and gets different 'communities' to compete with each other for funding and political representation. So it is very harmful. It is also bollocks. What the fuck is the gay community? Or the muslim community?


 
spot on . Griffin is adopting this very same tactic as his own and applying it to whites . One thing he can honestly do is point to the hypocrisy of those who condemn him for doing what theyve done themselves . Its this shit that creates the scenario where you can have working class people living right next door to each other but apparently theyre not in the same community . It is absolute bollocks .


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 3, 2010)

audiotech said:


> The right portray "political correctness" as 'a phalanx of stone-faced, thought-police, who enforce a tyranny of news-speak, censorship and fear'. In reality what's behind all this is a reaction to the radical movements of the sixties and the gains made at that time. The right want to cancel those gains and to halt the growth of any further movements to a better world. On the other hand, the objection to "political correctness" from some on the left, rightly so in my mind, is that it is often 'self-indulgent, a substitute for politics, a holier than thou moralism of the good and the politics of gesture'. To put it simply it amounts to a conviction from some that 'the ills of the world will be cured if male managers stop calling their secretaries "girls" and when thin people stop using the word "fat"'. Nevertheless, "political correctness" is at heart ideologically driven from the right, a power play, which contains within it some anti-intellectualism, that has been able to negate any opposition, or critique of the status quo. A successful public relations exercise that justifies the current corporate system. The political struggle against inequality has been severely hampered in the process.


 
100%

these people arent socialists , theyre fucking "word nazis" . The right has its own version of political correctness . Most people just call it snobbery .


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 3, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> Griffin is adopting this very same tactic as his own and applying it to whites . One thing he can honestly do is point to the hypocrisy of those who condemn him for doing what theyve done themselves .



Yep, people have banged on about this community and that community and the importance of cultural identity, and then are surprised when the far right starts talking about the white working class community and the british identity. Fucks sake.



> Its this shit that creates the scenario where you can have working class people living right next door to each other but apparently theyre not in the same community . It is absolute bollocks .



Also spot on.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 4, 2010)

newbie said:


> Also I would say, just to save you the effort, that you're very unlikely to get a rise out of me with a string of insults, so if you want a full-on row you'll have to look elsewhere.  ok?



Good morning Newbie.

a) just to confirm... 

    I am perfectly happy to insult you on occasion (if I feel you are deliberately misrepresenting my views) - without your feeling the need to 'rise' to it and respond.

b) Me lecturing 39th? Only you could think I was doing that. I don't. 39th doesn't.

c) Whilst my posts above are a rebuttal of yours, they are aimed at the wider readership rather than a forlorn attempt to reach you.

And thank you for your contribution to this thread. Without it we would not have had the excellent contributions above from PT, Audiotech and CR - as well as the previous ones from 39 etc, or indeed the ultimate 'wheat from chaff' post from Mr McNeice..

We have travelled some distance in terms of defining the issue at hand from my ramblings in the OP.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 4, 2010)

*An Anthology in the Making?*

Anybody fancy a little casual collaboration?

I suggest we collect, collate, edit and sort the most illustrative & funniest of the stories we have so far, and the wealth of illuminating tales still to come in - and turn them into an e-book/pdf which could be made freely available. 

If we add to that the analysis and insight of the likes of 39th, Proper Tidy and others, we could provide a handy resource for the many people who have an instinctive, intuitive resistance to this 'left-wing' dogmatism disguised as progressive politics - but might struggle to articulate it. 

One of the posts above says we could and should have spoken out about this at the time. Many of us did, but we were pretty isolated and certainly without power. Speaking out against this orthodoxy and suggesting the emperor's arse was on display, often attracted hysterical hostility and accusations of racism, sexism homophobia etc (a bit like the start of this thread).

Having a body of examples and the analysis to go with it might well encourage and inspire more resistance - and stem the flow of propaganda 'gifts' for the Right.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 4, 2010)

audiotech said:


> The right portray "political correctness" as 'a phalanx of stone-faced, thought-police, who enforce a tyranny of news-speak, censorship and fear'. In reality what's behind all this is a reaction to the radical movements of the sixties and the gains made at that time. The right want to cancel those gains and to halt the growth of any further movements to a better world.
> 
> On the other hand, the objection to "political correctness" from some on the left, rightly so in my mind, is that it is often 'self-indulgent, a substitute for politics, a holier than thou moralism of the good and the politics of gesture'.
> 
> ...



quoted and white space inserted.... this incisive post deserves no less!


----------



## newbie (Oct 4, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> spot on . Griffin is adopting this very same tactic as his own and applying it to whites . One thing he can honestly do is point to the hypocrisy of those who condemn him for doing what theyve done themselves . Its this shit that creates the scenario where you can have working class people living right next door to each other but apparently theyre not in the same community . It is absolute bollocks .


 
they're not in "the same community" because their interests are not necessarily identical.  Trying to pretend that simply because people are working class they have identical interests- even economic interests- is absurd.

At work at their neighbouring desks there is certainly a big commonality of interest. (though of course some are more or less likely to be discriminated against but working class solidarity should overcome that, just as it has in all circumstances throughout the last 150 years.)
At home the idea that owner occupiers have identical interests with either private or social tenants, or they one with another, is just plain daft as any gentrification debate reveals.  
Public sector job security implies higher taxes for private sector workers.  Again, w/c solidarity will overcome that this time just as it always has.   
Working class people with savings want high interest rates those with debts want low ones. Middle aged people with a paid off mortgage don't see house prices the same as first time buyers.
The 'traditional' family living on the single wage the busband brings in may view equal pay rather differently from the dual income childless couple.
Permies have identical interest to contractors and temps.


and so on and so on.  Just in simple, straightforward economic terms it's blatantly obvious that 'working class people living right next door to each other' are really not in the same community of interest in all spheres of their lives. There is no homogenous 'working class', not even in the most basic of economic terms. Not any more. Interests overlap in complex ways and it's simplistic nonsense to pretend that identities such as gender, skin colour, religion or disability have no bearing on that.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 4, 2010)

scroll...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 4, 2010)

newbie said:


> ...Just in simple, straightforward economic terms it's blatantly obvious that 'working class people living right next door to each other' are really *not in the same community of interest in all spheres of their lives*.
> 
> There is no homogenous 'working class', *not even in the most basic of economic terms*. Not any more. Interests overlap in complex ways and it's simplistic nonsense to pretend that identities such as gender, skin colour, religion or disability have no bearing on that.



The second assertion doesn't follow the first statement of the obvious.

Are you really trying to say that it is now illegitimate to argue that the working class as a whole shares the experience of producing wealth and then having that wealth taken from them?

I think that in your understandable desire to attack the at times very narrowly drawn class identities of the past your over egging the pudding. I don't think you're really in the business of rubbishing people's attempts to sustain and engender mutual recognition, solidarity, dare I say it class consciousness.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## newbie (Oct 4, 2010)

If I had your abilities with language I wouldn't keep getting picked up about it.

Of course I'm overegging the pudding- so are pt and cr- but I'm also trying not to freak Liam out with too many dense words.  It's not all in the past though, as plenty of posts demonstrate.  



> The second assertion doesn't follow the first statement of the obvious.


so says the theory, anyway: the working class has a single, overriding indivisible economic interest which trumps every other aspect of their lives. That interest can be  The problem is that from Basildon Man onwards the proportion of the w/c that believe the theory has been shrinking. I'd say that's because they look around and can't make the theory fit what they see. 

Mainstream politics seduced them with 'aspiration', liberation politics recognised that identity matters, environmental politics challenges growth, yet what pt called "we" continue to insist that nothing matters except class.



> I don't think you're really in the business of rubbishing people's attempts to sustain and engender mutual recognition, solidarity, dare I say it class consciousness.



actually what I'd like is exactly that.  The tone of this whole thread is divisive.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 4, 2010)

scroll...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 4, 2010)

Newbie I'm not arguing that class always trumps all. I am arguing that it is legitimate to talk about a common class interest and to work to identify and promote that interest as a crucial political, social and economic principle. 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## newbie (Oct 4, 2010)

of course it's legitimate to talk about it. The trick is getting other people to listen, and I don't think they are, for the reasons outlined. 

Nor will they while promoting class interest is done by attacking sections of the class... read through some of the key posts on this thread and tell me they're not divisive.  The one I've quoted a few times identified "the black and female middle and professional classes" working in local government as beneficiaries of change, to the detriment of others.  Yet they're all employees of local government (_middle_ class- huh?) where I would have thought solidarity was rather important just now.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 4, 2010)

I think the competing interests between working class savers and working borrowers are generally outweighed as against their concerns about crime and anti social behaviour , job security, health, closure of local schools, shops, amenities and employment and income levels.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 4, 2010)

Newbie, the middle and proffesional classes may be employees within local government but in my experience 'grow out' of becoming trade union members.I have ceased to be suprised by the number of right on managers who either take a days leave to save face or having failed o get an exemption for their service just come into work on the grounds the resident/client  comes first when there is a strike.


----------



## newbie (Oct 4, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> I think the competing interests between working class savers and working borrowers are generally outweighed as against their concerns about crime and anti social behaviour , job security, health, closure of local schools, shops, amenities and employment and income levels.


 
Do you?  I mean yes, those things obviously matter to everybody, though to differing extents.  For instance my parents, in their 80s in social housing, rely on savings for income above basic state pension.  Their fury when interest rates were slashed contrasted hugely with the cries of joy from those with overextended mortgages who suddenly had more cash in their pockets.  Simply because you place job security or schools higher on your own hierarchy of emphasis doesn't mean much to them with their reduced standard of living.  If you dismiss their priorities because they don't accord with either your own or the majority you distance them from the rest of the working class, easily demonstrating just how fractured it is by identity.  



The39thStep said:


> Newbie, the middle and proffesional classes may be employees within local government but in my experience 'grow out' of becoming trade union members.I have ceased to be suprised by the number of right on managers who either take a days leave to save face or having failed o get an exemption for their service just come into work on the grounds the resident/client  comes first when there is a strike.


 and threads like this will help win them over by mocking them personally for both their role in the organisation and their identity?  Surely it's easier to isolate individuals for their actions if their peers don't feel under attack for being who they are.

I'm not trying to tell you how to organise in your workplace, I don't know and I'm not going to pretend I do.  But I reckon if I was sat at my public sector middle management desk stealing back my surplus value by reading urban and I came across this thread I wouldn't automatically think "they're right, the working class is indivisible and identity politics have brought only problems, no gains".  Especially if I happened to be female and/or black.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 4, 2010)

Skim.... scroll


----------



## LiamO (Oct 4, 2010)

newbie said:


> and threads like this will help win them over by mocking them personally for both their role in the organisation and their identity?  *Surely it's easier to isolate individuals for their actions if their peers don't feel under attack for being who they are*.



AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH! *SEE OP*




LiamO said:


> You were OK as long as you were not a white, working class male - they were the enemy.


 




Note to newbie... stop stealing my lines/argument... get your own.

Note to self. Stop skimming... go back to scrolling


----------



## newbie (Oct 4, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Note to newbie... stop stealing my lines/argument... get your own.



no chance.  apart from anything else you nicked them from people fighting racism and sexism a few years back.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 4, 2010)

scroll...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

newbie said:


> they're not in "the same community" because their interests are not necessarily identical.  Trying to pretend that simply because people are working class they have identical interests- even economic interests- is absurd.
> 
> At work at their neighbouring desks there is certainly a big commonality of interest. (though of course some are more or less likely to be discriminated against but working class solidarity should overcome that, just as it has in all circumstances throughout the last 150 years.)
> At home the idea that owner occupiers have identical interests with either private or social tenants, or they one with another, is just plain daft as any gentrification debate reveals.
> ...


 
Nobody's interests are identical, and they are no more likely to be identical because they are the same ethnicity or gender, you fool.

Nobody is arguing that "identities such as gender, skin colour, religion or disability" are irrelevant. However, trying to address these issues whilst ignoring the elephant in the room - economic inequality - is as daft as giving somebody aspirin for a gunshot wound. At best it is misguided, at worst it is plain malicious.

Here is a question for you: Which demographic is most likely to be stopped and searched or be on the end of some rough justice from the police?


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 4, 2010)

I will try back to your first para but this sounds like a rehash of some very very tired and old views that most of us will have come across before.


Your second para reminds me of a spoof on another website a couple of years ago when it was argued that the strikers in France key issue was to win over the students on the grounds that it was only students that had the intellectual power to cange society. I suspect that as students could be considered to be more important in practise to the revo left , that race and gender are to the liberal left. Don't worry about these middle managers ( can i say regardless of race or gender) if they are under threat they will either negotiate voluntray redundancy or join the union no doubt making out that they have always been lifelong trade unionists. I'm not worried about winning the middle classes over. I will leave that to the Labour party.

I am not sure why you keep flogging the race and gender card . It gives me the impression that you assume that peoples politics and views are entirely defined by their race or gender and that in other words you address /appeal to people on those grounds. Whilst taking on the appearance of being inclusive it is actually exclusive and it denies those subject the right to be engaged as whole humans whose life experiences and discussions shape their views.A Sikh communist will have more in common with a white south african communist than with a Sikh Tory.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 4, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> 100%
> 
> these people arent socialists , theyre fucking "word nazis" .



Hyperbole doesn't help here.

You are just adding to where all this nonsense came from in the first place, from the neocons in the US. You know, those ex-leftists from the radical sixties who moved to the right and who convinced Reagan and later Bush that they knew 'the left', being members of it once, and were able therefore to speak of its 'totalitarian nature' and to push for 'the great PC scare!' 

There is a problem with all that though, as there was no 'totalitarian threat' to free speech from the 'left', because put simply there was no significant 'left' politics in the US academies. It's less so today or here for that matter, but they want you to think there is and it's 'extreme' and no doubt in some minds about to devour their children.

In fact what has happened is that the neocons themselves have stifled debate and by doing so perpetuate their new found home of the 'free market' and 'free competition' - a system of privilege and class exploitation.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 4, 2010)

Here is another anecdote to be told in pubs by over 40s white males:



> Twenty years ago, I worked as a clerk for the education offices at Haringey Council, London, when the then Conservative government introduced an anti-gay clause (‘Clause 28’) into its 1988 Education Act. The clause, which forbade the ‘promotion of homosexuality’ as a ‘pretended family relationship’ by any local education authority, was aimed directly at Haringey Council, which had a reputation for its liberal policies on lesbian and gay rights (1).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



James Heartfield ex RCP


----------



## newbie (Oct 4, 2010)

> Here is a question for you: Which demographic is most likely to be stopped and searched or be on the end of some rough justice from the police?


young men. in some parts of the country skin colour is a factor. young men are also the group ranked most likely to be both the victim and the perpetrator of violent crime.  Where's this going, if you want an argument about police behaviour can I suggest you find whatever thread db is currently whining on


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

Just young men? So young middle class men? Young toffs?

It isn't young men. It is the working class.

Nowt so blind as the class blind and all that.


----------



## newbie (Oct 4, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Don't worry about these middle managers ( can i say regardless of race or gender) if they are under threat they will either negotiate voluntray redundancy or join the union no doubt making out that they have always been lifelong trade unionists. I'm not worried about winning the middle classes over. I will leave that to the Labour party.


fair enough.  I only care about them in as much as I'm against cuts in public services.  tbh you've raised some doubt in my mind as to whether they perform any useful function at all, which I'll bear in mind when talk of 'efficiency' cuts comes round.   


> I am not sure why you keep flogging the race and gender card . It gives me the impression that you assume that peoples politics and views are entirely defined by their race or gender


 oh dear, does it   tbh I'm not sure what I've said to give that impression, but it is the thread topic.

I don't doubt that there are stronger bonds between communist and communist than between communist and tory and I'd guess there are likely to be stronger bonds between Sikh and Sikh than between Sikh and humanist, not that it matters what I'd guess.  What's at issue in this thread is that there is a Sikh pressure group to put forward their community view to the local council.  They don't speak for either the communist or the tory on economic matters (how could they?) but can properly represent both with regard to car parking near the Gurdwara.  They may be able to represent their community with regard to a planning application for a lapdancing club, or maybe they can't, that's up to the community.

I don't see a problem with that, but apparently it's divisive.  I have no idea how anybody is being denied anything as fundamental as "the right to be engaged as whole humans" because there's some committee full of worthies who claim to speak on their behalf about 'community' issues. I accept that pitting Sikh worthies against Muslim worthies for some chunk of funding is 'divisive' but then I wonder where that funding would go if the pressure groups weren't there.


----------



## newbie (Oct 4, 2010)

.


----------



## newbie (Oct 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Just young men? So young middle class men? Young toffs?
> 
> It isn't young men. It is the working class.
> 
> Nowt so blind as the class blind and all that.



oh.  ok.  it's the working class.  that's what, 70 or  80% of the population?  I don't know, maybe it's more maybe it's less.  I thought you wanted a slightly more detailed answer than that.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

newbie said:


> oh.  ok.  it's the working class.  that's what, 70 or  80% of the population?  I don't know, maybe it's more maybe it's less.  I thought you wanted a slightly more detailed answer than that.


 
Yet you gave a less detailed answer. One that tellingly ignored class altogether.

What does '70 or 80%' have to do with anything? I don't mean in terms of overall numbers, I mean in terms of likelihood. Clearly.


----------



## newbie (Oct 4, 2010)

isn't the likelihood of something happening related to the proportion of population?  I reckon the chance of s & s is probably higher here (Brixton) than in plenty of other areas.  Does that mean we can claim to be more w/c than them? Or does it just mean we have more crime?


I dunno, I'm sure you're trying to prove something though I haven't a clue what.  If it's simply that I didn't answer "the working class" on cue then well done, you're a winner.

anyway, I'm off out.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

newbie said:


> isn't the likelihood of something happening related to the proportion of population?  I reckon the chance of s & s is probably higher here (Brixton) than in plenty of other areas.  Does that mean we can claim to be more w/c than them? Or does it just mean we have more crime?
> 
> 
> I dunno, I'm sure you're trying to prove something though I haven't a clue what.  If it's simply that I didn't answer "the working class" on cue then well done, you're a winner.
> ...


 
No. Likelihood, you numpty. Not overall numbers, likelihood. Still, nice that you think working class people are so often victimised because 'they commit more crime'. Funny, because if somebody said the same about black people, I am sure you would rightly be up in arms.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 4, 2010)

^ This


----------



## LiamO (Oct 4, 2010)

newbie said:


> no chance.  apart from anything else you nicked them from people fighting racism and sexism a few years back.


 
So just to clarify...

Are you now suggesting that myself, 39th, PT etc and anybody else on here who *were active* in the 80's and disagree (quite fundamentally) with you (and with some of the more outrageous acts of the Council committees and interest groups) were actively PROMOTING racism and sexism...


a somewhat arrogant, illogical and sadly typical reponse.

So newbie..... 39th, CR, Louis, Proper Tidy and several more have attempted to engage respectfully with you and debate with you... from several different viewpoints... One by one they seem to have walked away...

I can think of two possible explanations for this scenario

1/ You are a fantatsic, insightful, fearsome debater who has wrapped them in knots and sent them on their merry way  or

2/ They have just grown exasperated at your refusal to actually debate anything - you just keep restating your position... never answer anything... and throwing in an occasional insult to the political integrity of the person currently on your radar.

You remind me of The Leninist's back in the day. By the way, you never answered... are you a Spart?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2010)

stephj said:


> ^ This


 
There appears to be an 'r' missing from your tag-line steph.


----------



## newbie (Oct 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No. Likelihood, you numpty. Not overall numbers, likelihood. Still, nice that you think working class people are so often victimised because 'they commit more crime'. Funny, because if somebody said the same about black people, I am sure you would rightly be up in arms.


 
I'm sorry I'm completely baffled.  what?

 	LAMBETH COUNCIL  	ENGLISH AVERAGE
Population 	273,000 	-
Households 	122,000 	-
Violence against the person 	28.6 	15.0
Sexual offences 	1.8 	0.9
Robbery offences 	8.0 	1.0
Burglary dwelling offences 	9.5 	4.3
Theft of a motor vehicle offences 	3.9 	2.3
Theft from a vehicle offences 	8.7 	6.3

http://www.upmystreet.com/local/crime-in-brixton-and-stockwell.html
there is more crime here than other places.  what on earth are you trying to say and why don't you just say it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

newbie said:


> I'm sorry I'm completely baffled.  what?
> 
> LAMBETH COUNCIL  	ENGLISH AVERAGE
> Population 	273,000 	-
> ...


 
What the fuck are you going on about? Why are you posing Lambeth crime figs?


----------



## newbie (Oct 4, 2010)

LiamO said:


> So just to clarify...
> 
> Are you now suggesting that myself, 39th, PT etc and anybody else on here who *were active* in the 80's and disagree (quite fundamentally) with you (and with some of the more outrageous acts of the Council committees and interest groups) were actively PROMOTING racism and sexism...


no Liam, I'm not.




> a somewhat arrogant, illogical and sadly typical reponse.
> 
> So newbie..... 39th, CR, Louis, Proper Tidy, frogwoman and several more have attempted to engage respectfully with you and debate with you... from several different viewpoints... One by one they seem to have walked away...
> 
> ...


 
3/  it's just a thread and we've done it to death.


No


----------



## newbie (Oct 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> What the fuck are you going on about? Why are you posing Lambeth crime figs?


 
look I've told you, I'm baffled.  I don't know why we're talking about crime but you seem to want to.  

You queried my statement that we have more crime here than elsewhere, I posted the first figures google provided.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

newbie said:


> look I've told you, I'm baffled.  I don't know why we're talking about crime but you seem to want to.
> 
> You queried my statement that we have more crime here than elsewhere, I posted the first figures google provided.


 
No. No. No.

I've mentioned fuck all about Brixton. You seem incapable of understanding that _as an individual_ a working class person is more likely to be victimised by the police. Not as a proportion of overall stop and seaches, but _as an individual_. You then tried to justify this by saying working class people commit more crime and therefore should expect to be victimised more, which is frankly offensive. Do you get it now?

Let's try another tack - sexism, misogyny, racism, homophobia. What causes it? Why are there prejudices against minorities? I'll give you a clue - it isn't inherent, it isn't just how things are. It has an actual sociological cause. What could that be?


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 4, 2010)

newbie said:


> fair enough.  I only care about them in as much as I'm against cuts in public services.  tbh you've raised some doubt in my mind as to whether they perform any useful function at all, which I'll bear in mind when talk of 'efficiency' cuts comes round.
> 
> oh dear, does it   tbh I'm not sure what I've said to give that impression, but it is the thread topic.
> 
> ...



But why isn't the issue ,whether it be lapdancing or parking, a matter for those who live (and pray) in the area? And actually what happens with the top down engagement into groups based on race/gender/culture or religion is that the same self elected group of worthies you are on about act as a barrier to connecting with not only the coomunity they are supposed to represent but more inportantly geographical community consultation in which people come together to work out how to resolve these issues face to face.
.

Is it any wonder that when the BNP posed the question regarding ethnicity re the white working class that despite the weakness of their organisation that they were very often pushing at an open door?


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No. No. No.
> 
> I've mentioned fuck all about Brixton. You seem incapable of understanding that _as an individual_ a working class person is more likely to be victimised by the police. Not as a proportion of overall stop and seaches, but _as an individual_. You then tried to justify this by saying working class people commit more crime and therefore should expect to be victimised more, which is frankly offensive. Do you get it now?
> 
> Let's try another tack - sexism, misogyny, racism, homophobia. What causes it? Why are there prejudices against minorities? I'll give you a clue - it isn't inherent, it isn't just how things are. It has an actual sociological cause. What could that be?



Its also fair to say that the working class suffer disproportionately from crime.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

Also don't forget that the people who hate, and i mean actually hate, minorities, in my experience are often not from working class backgrounds. 

i know.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 4, 2010)

Of the Greenham Common Peace Camp....



newbie said:


> Ok that's a worthwhile enough question to ask, I suppose.  Of course it's possible, in fact I would have thought that it's mindbogglingly inevitable.  No political group or person or movement or whatever has *ever* convinced everybody.  Nor will they. er, and?



This is typical of your posts Newbie. You are 'answering' a point and a post that *nobody* argued. Never. Not once.



newbie said:


> A bunch of people took a particular and rather extreme stand about something.  A lot of people supported them.  And a lot didn't.  Why does the anecdote matter?  And what does it seek to demonstrate?



I believe it seeks to demonstrate that too often (in the past *and* in the present) the 'worthy left' just assumes it knows best, being right and worthy is enough and they don't have to explain their actions to the working class (on whose behalf (E2A...)THEY  claim to act).


----------



## LiamO (Oct 4, 2010)

And what about the anecdote posted that came from an ex-RCP Trade Unionist. He had all the right left-wing credentials, did he not? Except the L&G group saw things differently.

_"But the first time someone dared say no to Valerie, she turned on her and said: ‘If you do not support the council’s policies, why do you continue working for it?’ Instead of asking for solidarity, my fellow agitator was trying to hint that failure to support us was a sacking offence"_


I don't know about you Newbie, but I think that fits the description in my OP perfectly...



LiamO said:


> These Councils, and particularly the sectional interests who wielded power within them, for me had a once in a lifetime opportunity to educate, empower and organise their workers... to redress decades of racism, sexism, homophobia in the workplace... to create something a new, exciting, progressive dynamic.
> 
> So what did they do? Well for the most part the new demagogues of the wimmins committee, the black committee, the gay committe, the disabled one, the Irish one etc made complete dicks of themselves by doing exactly what they had always complained about - impose a top-down orthodoxy by edict rather than education.
> 
> They replaced one bunch of little dictators with another.




and it only took 700 posts...


----------



## LiamO (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Also don't forget that the people who hate, and i mean actually hate, minorities, in my experience are often not from working class backgrounds.
> 
> i know.



are you posh then Froggy?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

LiamO said:


> are you posh then Froggy?


 
im middle class.

btw, please dont include me on the list of people who tried to engage with newbie and then walked away - i actually agreed with a lot of what was in his posts. ive been busy and not had time to look at this stuff really


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

as regards the racism and homophobia stuff btw, you can go and do a search of my threads and then im sure you'l find what im talking about, i got no wish to go over this again


----------



## LiamO (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> btw, please dont include me on the list of people who tried to engage with newbie and then walked away - i actually agreed with a lot of what was in his posts.


 
edited and corrected

slightly confused by your posts though. Did you think 'are you posh?' was a provocative question and I was looking for a row? If so I;m sorry you had that impression.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

No i didn't think that. sorry for not making myself clear. 

its just that i've discussed this subject quite a lot in the past on here, its my personal stuff though and i don't really want to go through it again on this thread, check it out if you're interested tho.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 5, 2010)

LiamO said:


> are you posh then Froggy?



Is durruti02 back?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 5, 2010)

LiamO said:


> are you posh then Froggy?


 
This class obssession must be infectious


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

I'm about as middle class as they come, parents ran a business, went to "posh" school and everything - got no problems admiting that on here, i dont need to proive my working class credentials because i dont really have any


----------



## newbie (Oct 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No. No. No.
> 
> I've mentioned fuck all about Brixton. You seem incapable of understanding that _as an individual_ a working class person is more likely to be victimised by the police. Not as a proportion of overall stop and seaches, but _as an individual_. You then tried to justify this by saying working class people commit more crime and therefore should expect to be victimised more, which is frankly offensive. Do you get it now?



No I don't get it and no I'm not gong to move onto another tack.  I thought if I slept on this it might make more sense, but it doesn't so I'm going to spend time on a reply.

out of the blue you asked


Proper Tidy said:


> Here is a question for you: Which demographic is most likely to be stopped and searched or be on the end of some rough justice from the police?


I said "_young men. in some parts of the country skin colour is a factor. young men are also the group ranked most likely to be both the victim and the perpetrator of violent crime. "_

Apparently that was wrong and the correct answer was 


> It isn't young men. It is the working class.



the undifferentiated working class!

that raises a question in my mind: "_I reckon the chance of s & s is probably higher here (Brixton) than in plenty of other areas. Does that mean we can claim to be more w/c than them? Or does it just mean we have more crime?_

oops, wrong thing to say


Proper Tidy said:


> nice that you think working class people are so often victimised because 'they commit more crime'. Funny, because if somebody said the same about black people, I am sure you would rightly be up in arms.


I never said  'they commit more crime' so I don't know why you used  quote marks.  In fact I didn't say anything remotely similar.  I just stated the entirely uncontroversial fact that Brixton, where I live, is a high crime area.

It seemed like such a peculiar response I said I was "_completely baffled_" and posted some upmystreet stats from a page titled "Crime figures for 2008/09 in Brixton and Stockwell" showing much higher crime here than the England average.  

and here we are.  I am apparently "incapable of understanding" and have caused offence by saying that"working class people commit more crime and therefore should expect to be victimised more".

cobblers.  I absolutely did not say that, but I don't suppose I'll get an apology.

but cobblers that, with a bit of consideration, illustrates this thread quite well.

what understanding can we derive from your assertion that the answer to the original question is "the working class"?  very little, imo, but feel free to enlighten me.  

It implies that any one w/c person has the same likelihood of stop & search as any other.  It also implies causality, that people suffer s&s simply because they're w/c.  I'm not sure how that's supposed to work but I'll assert that it's complete bunkum.  Unless you can produce convincing proof, of course.  

Your undifferentiated, unnuanced answer "the working class" provides little or no illumination to anybody about anything. It offers no information whatsoever as to why s&s happens more in one area than another.

Take a minor example of how no-one can produce any practical result from such meaningless dogma. Funding aimed at, eg education in legal rights during stop & search, would have to equally target each and every member of the working class because they are apparently all equally at risk, the 60yo w/c woman in a village just as much as any w/c young man.  It's just facile nonsense.  

Consideration of what I said produces a rather different result, linking together a key identity- young men- with a key reason why they may be stopped- risk of involvement in crime- gives far better identification of the individuals most at risk of s&s, maybe leading to a better use of education resources. 

Of course there are still other identity factors which need consideration, eg skin colour, location (innacity/village etc) &, yes, class probably matter but age leaving school or presence of a male role model at home may or may not. 

I'm not a sociologist and I don't actually know how much weight any particular factors have. But please note that none of that has anything to do with any specific behaviour of the individual, it's all down to their identity.

I don't know why you wanted to twist my words to prove a point.  I (still) don't have the foggiest what the purpose of the original question was. I'm sure your response will include a few random insults, but I'd be grateful if you'd also address the point I've made about identity.  tvm


----------



## newbie (Oct 5, 2010)

Liam and 39thstep, forgive me I've run out of time I'm not rudely ignoring your posts, I'll find time later.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 5, 2010)

Newbie - clearly, as an overall proportion, if working class people make up the majority, then the majority of police stops will be of working class people. On that we agree.

However, that is not what I am saying, and tbh I am bemused that you seem unable to understand that.

If working class people made up, let's say, 80% of pop, then you would expect 8 out of 10 (not 9 out of 10 or 10 out of 10) stop & searches to be of working class people, right? However, on an individual level, you would be no more or less likely to be stopped and searched if you were working class, middle class, or posh. Clearly, that is not the case. On an individual level, you are far more likely to be targeted if you are working class. Do you get this now? It has nothing to do with the overall population breakdown. Nothing.

Now concentrate this time, Dougal. These 
_(points to some plastic cows on the table) _
are very small; those 
_(points at some cows out of the window) _
are far away...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 5, 2010)

Also, class isn't identity. Class is class.


----------



## newbie (Oct 5, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> But why isn't the issue ,whether it be lapdancing or parking, a matter for those who live (and pray) in the area? And actually what happens with the top down engagement into groups based on race/gender/culture or religion is that the same self elected group of worthies you are on about act as a barrier to connecting with not only the coomunity they are supposed to represent but more inportantly geographical community consultation in which people come together to work out how to resolve these issues face to face.



Where is the barrier- in the connection between the LA and 'the community'?  Or am I misunderstanding?  

There must presumably be some defineable minorities that are not formally represented by a worthy. How much barrier exists for individuals in those groups- are they more likely to be actively involved in consultation, or are they simply invisible, individually as well as collectively? How are their needs identified and met? (eg access to services or leaflets in an appropriate language).

tbh I'm slightly suspicious of  "geographical community consultation in which people come together to work out how to resolve these issues face to face".  Isn't that just a magnet for busybodies who like meetings and are answerable to no-one? Or members of sects answerable only via democratic centralism?  Or single issue obsessives, random activists, religious nutters and wobbly drunks?  Or is that only Brixton?

The rest, the apathetic majority who don't do consultation meetings, only have representation in as much as other people claim to be speaking on their behalf anyway.  


> .Is it any wonder that when the BNP posed the question regarding ethnicity re the white working class that despite the weakness of their organisation that they were very often pushing at an open door?


 
there are people on this thread who have spent a lifetime fighting the BNP, They know far, far more about them than me, there's no point in me speculating.

But if you're asking if ethnicity gives malignant politicians a hook to organise around, well of course it does.  So does religion,  I'm not sure that the existence of the BNP proves that all organisation around identity is similarly supremacist.


----------



## newbie (Oct 5, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Of the Greenham Common Peace Camp....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Ok, lets talk about the women of Greenham.  

I challenge you to find a collective statement from them where they claim to be of "the left" let alone to act on behalf of the working class.  

I'd actually be surprised if you find any collective claim to act *on behalf of* anybody at all except themselves.  

I'm sure you'll find lots of overblown rhetoric with nebulous formulation of 'women', 'children', 'the earth', 'all living things' and so on, but that's taken literally by nobody at all. To some people it's very inspiring, as the history of the time demonstrated. And to others, complete nonsense.  A bit like overblown statements about 'the working class', in fact 



What's the mechanism by which they, or anyone else, should "_explain their actions to the working class_"?  Serious question, how does that work?


----------



## newbie (Oct 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> On an individual level, you are far more likely to be targeted if you are working class.


 


Proper Tidy said:


> Also, class isn't identity. Class is class.


 
jaamoi, how do the police establish the relationship to the means of production when they choose who to search?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 5, 2010)

Economic class relates to social and cultural class shocker


----------



## newbie (Oct 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Newbie - clearly, as an overall proportion, if working class people make up the majority, then the majority of police stops will be of working class people. On that we agree.
> 
> However, that is not what I am saying, and tbh I am bemused that you seem unable to understand that.
> 
> ...


 
I didn't think I'd get an apology for misrepresenting made up dross as a direct quote from me.  I also didn't expect that you'd have anything useful to say.  But that...  good grief.

why do the the police stop & search people?   don't tell me, it's because they're working class and for no other reason.  no other reason at all.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 5, 2010)

newbie said:


> I didn't think I'd get an apology for misrepresenting made up dross as a direct quote from me.  I also didn't expect that you'd have anything useful to say.  But that...  good grief.
> 
> why do the the police stop & search people?   don't tell me, it's because they're working class and for no other reason.  no other reason at all.


 
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Fucks sake.


----------



## newbie (Oct 5, 2010)

must be.  

why don't you spell it out.  

or don't, I really don't care


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 5, 2010)

newbie said:


> must be.
> 
> why don't you spell it out.
> 
> or don't, I really don't care


 
I have. Several times. Nowt so blind as a fucking liberal.


----------



## ymu (Oct 5, 2010)

newbie said:


> must be.
> 
> why don't you spell it out.
> 
> or don't, I really don't care


Being middle-class make a huge difference to the way the police treat you. They don't tend to stop and search people in suits, for example. A mate of ours is an enormous black guy, who also happens to have a cut glass public school accent. He drives a posh car in London and he finds it hilarious that they stop him all the time for no good reason, and then virtually doff their caps as soon as he opens his mouth.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 5, 2010)

the point is, newbie, that as the left we can't define our activity on the basis of peoples' existing prejudices/fears/sense of 'identity', because fundamentally we recognize class to be the fundamental constant in every capitalist society. the other forms of division are excess- they're either socially surplus to requirements (and will gradually be dissolved by the lure of bright lights from the 'big city' and the genuine fun of decadent consumption) or they are subtly encouraged and supported by those with an interest in maintaining at least elements of the existing status quo.

if we're not to be simply running around arguing on the basis of terms essentially set by the right wing and conservatives, we have to actually be asserting the primacy of a class analysis actively (whether that analysis resonates with contemporary consciousness or not). otherwise, we've actually just given up the ghost.

we don't bang on about class because its popular, we bang on about class because it's _correct_. if it's a popular analysis then that says no more than that we're doing well. people shouldn't be encouraged to indulge in their atomised senses of ethnic/religious/racial self, least of all by the left.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 5, 2010)

wrong thread.


----------



## newbie (Oct 6, 2010)

ymu said:


> Being middle-class make a huge difference to the way the police treat you. They don't tend to stop and search people in suits, for example. A mate of ours is an enormous black guy, who also happens to have a cut glass public school accent. He drives a posh car in London and he finds it hilarious that they stop him all the time for no good reason, and then virtually doff their caps as soon as he opens his mouth.


 
tbh I think you've just demonstrated my point.  I mean, everybody knows the police treat rich and poor differently, that's not at issue*.  But in terms of the basis on which they choose who to stop & search, being a man, in particular a man with black skin, is far more determinant than being working class.  I'd be surprised if you told me that he looks like an old man.   I'd be one hell of a lot more surprised if your story concerned a little old lady

* they also treat the articulate differently from the tongue tied, the belligerent differently from the passive and the friendly different from the hostile.  While class matters hugely in all aspects of life (and nowhere have I even hinted that it doesn't) the proposition that it is the *only* factor that's of importance (which is what pt has asserted in this particularly weird and pointless little subthread) is arrant nonsense.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 6, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Also don't forget that the people who hate, and i mean actually hate, minorities, *in my experience *are often not from working class backgrounds.
> 
> *i know*.





LiamO said:


> are you posh then Froggy?



taken with this one from another thread at the same time




			
				frogwoman said:
			
		

> i know ill never be working class - respectable or otherwise


 




jer said:


> This class obssession must be infectious



So this perefectly rational sequence of posts qualifies as an obsession how, exactly, Jer? 

My curiosity was stirred. I asked a simple question and received a simple, honest anawer - which is exactly what I would expect from FW.

Then you posted this sniggering little jibe - which is exactly...


----------



## LiamO (Oct 6, 2010)

newbie said:


> Ok, lets talk about the women of Greenham.
> 
> I challenge you to find a collective statement from them where they claim to be of "the left" let alone to act on behalf of the working class.



I am not engaging in your semantics... I see others are... that is their choice... however...

My recollection of every single conversation I had with representatives of the GC Peace Camp is they were doing it as, on behalf of and as part of a particular group (women). PC's story represented their abject failure not just to reach but even to address working class women, or even mainstream society in general. 

This was, I suggest, an endemic failure amongst middle-class lifestyle lefties and amongst feminist seperatists - both of which were amongst the most vocal of the peace women. 

I readily except that there were women from every background - not least those who had recently been active around other big campaigns such as  the Miner's strike . These were very much the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 6, 2010)

btw newbie 

I have observed your exchange with PT with an ironic smile.

I even spotted the sentence which would transform into the row immediately. I could have highlighted this but I was interested in the developing dynamic. I understand your frustration and watched it grow with what you have termed the 'sub-thread'.  Annoying, isn't it? when you feel you are being dragged off on a tangent by someone you feel is refusing to even try to understand what you are saying - and insists you are saying something else?

Now you might have some idea what it is like to debate with you.


----------



## newbie (Oct 6, 2010)

Das Uberdog said:


> the point is, newbie, that as the left we can't define our activity on the basis of peoples' existing prejudices/fears/sense of 'identity', because fundamentally we recognize class to be the fundamental constant in every capitalist society. the other forms of division are excess- they're either socially surplus to requirements (and will gradually be dissolved by the lure of bright lights from the 'big city' and the genuine fun of decadent consumption) or they are subtly encouraged and supported by those with an interest in maintaining at least elements of the existing status quo.
> 
> if we're not to be simply running around arguing on the basis of terms essentially set by the right wing and conservatives, we have to actually be asserting the primacy of a class analysis actively (whether that analysis resonates with contemporary consciousness or not). otherwise, we've actually just given up the ghost.
> 
> we don't bang on about class because its popular, we bang on about class because it's _correct_. if it's a popular analysis then that says no more than that we're doing well. people shouldn't be encouraged to indulge in their atomised senses of ethnic/religious/racial self, least of all by the left.


 
'the left' (by which I take it you mean the ideologically driven sects) can define itself any way it pleases.  The rest of us will look at what it says, look around us at our own experiences and observations and perform a reality check.  

If 'the left' wants to assert that, eg gender, religion or skin colour is of little or no consequence in the scheme of things they're free to do so. Write another tract about it. I predict it'll end up in the pile of fundamentalist dogma alongside tracts from the evangelicals who exist only to praise god, the sanctimonious who eat nothing but organic and haven't been in a car since 1974 and the wimmin for whom herstory is the only way to view the past. That's where all the left tracts from the last thirty years have ended up and it's pretty obvious why.     

Personally (and I can't speak for anyone else), I sort of agree with you, class is fundamental in every capitalist society, but it's not constant, to pretend nothing has significantly changed between 1850 or even 1950 and 2010 requires only a very quick reality check.

But the claim "_other forms of division are excess_" has been asserted by 'the left' throughout my life and has never stood up.  I would have thought that division by gender, race and religion were fundamental throughout all human history, irrespective of whether it's capitalist or some other variant of economic relations. Not constant, no obviously not, but observably a fundamental factor in the life of every individual ever.  

Whether gender, race, religion can be thought of as being more or less fundamental than class in the life of any given individual in Britain in 2010 depends on lots of factors, but most especially viewpoint.  I suspect you'll get differing views from the bloke on the estate in Barking, the woman in the burqa in East Ham, ymu's mate with a car, one of the 1200 people just made redundant by Orange and the farmworker on the laird's estate.  'the left' tell all of us we're wrong and they know best.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 6, 2010)

newbie said:


> 'the left' tell all of us we're wrong and they know best.




steady now newbie.... I'm shocked... that could _easily_ have been a quote from _me._


Luckily I won't now dissect it by asking 'who's us?' .... 'what do you have in common with blah blah... 'The left? ...what left?...  the labour party? communists?... Anarcho's?...


----------



## newbie (Oct 6, 2010)

LiamO said:


> I am not engaging in your semantics... I see others are... that is their choice... however...
> 
> My recollection of every single conversation I had with representatives of the GC Peace Camp is they were doing it as, on behalf of and as part of a particular group (women). PC's story represented their abject failure not just to reach but even to address working class women, or even mainstream society in general.
> 
> ...


 
It's not just semantics. If you're going to claim they "_they were doing it as, *on behalf of* and as part of a particular group (women)._" then you need to be able to demonstrate the bit I've highlighted.  Not just anecdotally but in terms of a collective statement.  Just as your claim about them being part of the worthy left or acting on behalf of the working class needs to be demonstrated.  Because without proof the conclusions you keep drawing amount to nothing at all.

they got through to the working class women in my own circles at the time.  They failed to get through to some others.  I don't draw any particular far-reaching conclusions from that, I go back to what I said earlier, no campaign has ever 'got through' to everybody.  

And, as I said before but you didn't answer, what this amounts to is that a core of very committed and (by anyone's standards) rather extreme women said stuff which didn't connect with an awful lot of either men or women.  So what, why do you think that matters?


----------



## newbie (Oct 6, 2010)

LiamO said:


> steady now newbie.... I'm shocked... that could _easily_ have been a quote from _me._
> 
> 
> Luckily I won't now dissect it by asking 'who's us?' .... 'what do you have in common with blah blah... 'The left? ...what left?...  the labour party? communists?... Anarcho's?...


 
I dunno, I guessed as to what was meant by 'the left'.  What I meant by 'us' was 'the working class' (there being little point in making political appeals to people who exploit others).


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 6, 2010)

newbie said:


> tbh I think you've just demonstrated my point.  I mean, everybody knows the police treat rich and poor differently, that's not at issue*.  But in terms of the basis on which they choose who to stop & search, being a man, in particular a man with black skin, is far more determinant than being working class.  I'd be surprised if you told me that he looks like an old man.   I'd be one hell of a lot more surprised if your story concerned a little old lady
> 
> * they also treat the articulate differently from the tongue tied, the belligerent differently from the passive and the friendly different from the hostile.  While class matters hugely in all aspects of life (and nowhere have I even hinted that it doesn't) the proposition that it is the *only* factor that's of importance (which is what pt has asserted in this particularly weird and pointless little subthread) is arrant nonsense.


 
Have I fuck. You're shit at this. Either you can't read properly or you're just a lying shit. Go read the posts again.


----------



## ymu (Oct 6, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Have I fuck. You're shit at this. Either you can't read properly or you're just a lying shit. Go read the posts again.


 
That was a response to me. Although I don't see how I proved his point either. He seems to think that the police can tell black from white but not rich from poor. Which is, of course, bollocks. They know fine well who's bullyable.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 6, 2010)

ymu said:


> That was a response to me. Although I don't see how I proved his point either. He seems to think that the police can tell black from white but not rich from poor. Which is, of course, bollocks. They know fine well who's bullyable.


 
Aye, s/he mentioned me at the end too. Class is irrelevant, yada yada.


----------



## newbie (Oct 6, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Have I fuck. You're shit at this. Either you can't read properly or you're just a lying shit. Go read the posts again.


 
you posted this



Proper Tidy said:


> Just young men? So young middle class men? Young toffs?
> 
> It isn't young men. It is the working class.
> 
> Nowt so blind as the class blind and all that.


 
and this



Proper Tidy said:


> On an individual level, you are far more likely to be targeted if you are working class.


 
you could add the charge of lying to the apology you owe me if you like.

You could also show where I've even so much as hinted that "Class is irrelevant".


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 6, 2010)

Newbie hasn't said that class is irrelevant. On the other hand the only poster who has come close to saying it's always and everywhere class is DU.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## newbie (Oct 6, 2010)

ymu said:


> That was a response to me. Although I don't see how I proved his point either. He seems to think that the police can tell black from white but not rich from poor. Which is, of course, bollocks. They know fine well who's bullyable.


 
Don't you, it seemed clear to me.  Why is someone who drives a "a posh car in London" stopped? A flash car is driven by a middle class person, no?  So why would that particular driver be stopped and not the old lady driving an equally posh car?  Why would the police make the presumption that one driver is poor but not another?


----------



## LiamO (Oct 6, 2010)

newbie said:


> ... then you need to be able to demonstrate the bit I've highlighted.  Not just anecdotally but in terms of a collective statement.



No.

I don't.

I really don't.

I really, really don't need to prove anything to you. Nor do I intend to try.


If I produced a personal statetement (signed in blood) by the founder of the GCWPC you would still argue semantics til the cows come home. I wish you, PT and ymu all the very best for your joint endeavours.

Mystic Meg style, I predict they too will soon walk away shaking their heads...


----------



## LiamO (Oct 6, 2010)

well... speaking purely anecdotally... and based on my personal experience...

The point that ymu was making was crystal clear to all except those who refuse to see.

ymu is clearly suggesting that the driver he referred to was stopped - often - precisely because he was a large black man driving a posh car (thus alerting the policeman to the 'probability' that he was a drug dealer or pimp.

However, on approaching the car the policeman discovers his 'cut-glass', public-school accent (this alerting the policeman to the 'probability' that he was posh - a member of his upper-class 'betters' - and therefore incapable of being a criminal)


what is so difficult to 'get' about this story


----------



## newbie (Oct 6, 2010)

thanks Louis I was starting to lose the will to live. 

I've just reread this police strand, from pt's original question and my reply in #685 onwards.  I can't find anywhere where s/he makes any allowance for any factor other than class in the way the police treat people.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 6, 2010)

newbie said:


> I dunno, I guessed as to what was meant by 'the left'.  What I meant by 'us' was 'the working class' (there being little point in making political appeals to people who exploit others).


 
You did not need to explain. I could see what you meant by the context. You seem to struggle with this. That I was being ironic also seems to have escaped you.


----------



## newbie (Oct 6, 2010)

LiamO said:


> No.
> 
> I don't.
> 
> ...


 
You don't have to do anything, of course not.  But in the context of a discussion on these boards it's usual to make at least some attempt to back up definitive statement when asked.  If you don't want to that's up to you.

You've drawn a strong conclusion from the anecdote about women of Greenham, based on your assertion that they were acting *on behalf of* others.  If they were only acting on their own behalf, in the tradition of many anarchists, Quakers and so on, your conclusion is meaningless.  That's why it matters.

It's not me building up all these ancient anecdotes into something meaningful.


----------



## newbie (Oct 6, 2010)

LiamO said:


> well... speaking purely anecdotally... amd based on my personal experience...
> 
> The point that ymu was making was crystal clear to all except those who refuse to see.
> 
> ...



thanks, that's pretty much exactly my reading too.  

and I still haven't got the faintest idea why pt asked the question in the first place, what s/he was trying to prove, or why s/he thinks that no factors other than class have any bearing on why the police behave as they do.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 6, 2010)

newbie said:


> It's not me building up all these ancient anecdotes into something meaningful.



Anecdotes they may be. I'm not so sure about the ancient; seems a bit dismissive to me. As does the apprent attempt to deny them any meaning beyond labelling the tellers as the U75 equivalent of 'grumpy old men'.

Louis (feeling stuck in a loop) MacNeice


----------



## LiamO (Oct 6, 2010)

newbie said:


> You don't have to do anything, of course not.  But in the context of a discussion on these boards it's usual to make at least some attempt to back up definitive statement when asked.  If you don't want to that's up to you.
> 
> You've drawn a strong conclusion from the anecdote about women of Greenham, based on your assertion that they were acting *on behalf of* others.  If they were only acting on their own behalf, in the tradition of many anarchists, Quakers and so on, your conclusion is meaningless.  That's why it matters.
> 
> It's not me building up all these ancient anecdotes into something meaningful.




so was it commonly referred to as a 'women's peace camp' or an 'individuals-not-representing-anyone-in-particular peace camp'?

I'm stopping now. To write an illuminating, illustrative anecdote as to why I think you are a twat. 

It willl not be in the form of a policy document. It will be in the form of a story. This is the traditional means in most societies of making points.

If Aesop had just said 'don't be pissy when you can't get what you want' - or produced a manifesto on positive thinking - would it be as easily memorable, easily understood, as powerful and as widespread as his story of the Fox and the sour grapes?


----------



## LiamO (Oct 6, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Anecdotes they may be. I'm not so sure about the ancient; seems a bit dismissive to me. As does the apprent attempt to deny them any meaning beyond labelling the tellers as the U75 equivalent of 'grumpy old men'.
> 
> Louis (feeling stuck in a loop) MacNeice



round and round the garden...

btw Louis, I have noted your timely, incisive (and mostly invective-free) interventions on this and other threads. Very clean communication. Something to aim towards. I'm sometimes capable of this... but strong emotions make us stupid...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2010)

Stop waffling liam. In and out.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 6, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Stop waffling liam. In and out.



kiss my cock BA


----------



## newbie (Oct 6, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Anecdotes they may be. I'm not so sure about the ancient; seems a bit dismissive to me. As does the apprent attempt to deny them any meaning beyond labelling the tellers as the U75 equivalent of 'grumpy old men'.
> 
> Louis (feeling stuck in a loop) MacNeice


 
what someone said to someone about Greenham?  half the people on these boards weren't even born then, a lot more were just children. Yet they're being handed a a fable based on crook foundations but dressed up as having real, contemporary political meaning. I think that's just lazy, agenda ridden and very disrespectful, not only to those individual courageous women but also to a great many others involved in liberation struggles.

I thought everything useful had been said some pages back, but I'm not running away if people keep poking me with a stick.

As for grumpy old me- I've been called all sorts of names, including liar, on this thread as well as being regularly patronised by Liam.  All part of the U75 fun


----------



## LiamO (Oct 6, 2010)

newbie said:


> I think that's just lazy, agenda ridden and very disrespectful, not only to those individual courageous women but also to a great many others involved in liberation struggles.





what a big stinky pile of prententious old poo!




How old are you newbie btw? and where were you in the 80's?


----------



## newbie (Oct 6, 2010)

old enough and Brixton.  you?


----------



## LiamO (Oct 6, 2010)

newbie said:


> old enough and Brixton.  you?



old enough? Is it necessary to be so coy? This is a thread on Urban not a cocktail Lounge - and the only bit of you I'm the least bit interested in fucking with is your brain.


----------



## newbie (Oct 6, 2010)

I don't _know_ if being coy is _necessary_ or not, but that's all you're getting.  I've been around here a bit longer than you, I've seen what happened when people started taking it all a bit seriously, drawing up lists of the posters they have an issue with, and collecting personal rl info.   for 'the files', like.  Toys all over the floor and tears before bedtime.  That's just noticing the behaviour of someone new, not me having a pop at you, I don't know you, and I have no reason to dislike you or be rude to you.  But I'll stick with being coy


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 6, 2010)

newbie said:


> If 'the left' wants to assert that, eg gender, religion or skin colour is of little or no consequence in the scheme of things they're free to do so.



that's not neither what i nor anyone else is saying though. these things obviously do matter, in practice; the point is that it's both incorrect and politically regressive for people to basically accept at root that the cultural/gender/racial roles they've been proscribed are in some way immutable and timeless, and that their political consciousness must be defined by their struggle (remaining as a segment of said group) to gain power/representation. in practice, that just leaves all these different cultural/ethnic/religious groupings operating as private interest groups, happy to further their own interests at the expense of others.

when i say that class is the 'constant', i mean that whereas capitalism is _structurally_ dependent upon the existence of a _working class_ to even exist, the existence of other groupings are essentially socially constructed (or pre-capitalistically inherited) tools of social control. being working class isn't the same; that refers explicitly to a fundamental aspect of the very workings of the entire economic system. the other cultural differences nation states can pick and choose which ones to focus upon, to suit their specific geopolitical/historical/national purposes.

capitalism could survive without the existence of a gender division, it's just that historically gender has been a useful medieval throwback with which to pursue political and social policies designed to maintain governmental control. capitalism could survive without racism; i think the example of many Latin American countries where the issue of race in cities like Rio (though actively pursued as a preferred method of social division by Gringos) has never been able to attract significant layers of social concern, as a result of the totally mixed racial character of Latin American urban populations.

Capitalism without workers, though... well, for better or worse, it's just no longer capitalism.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 6, 2010)

newbie said:


> I don't _know_ if being coy is _necessary_ or not, but that's all you're getting.  I've been around here a bit longer than you, I've seen what happened when people started taking it all a bit seriously, drawing up lists of the posters they have an issue with, and collecting personal rl info.   for 'the files', like.  Toys all over the floor and tears before bedtime.  That's just noticing the behaviour of someone new, not me having a pop at you, I don't know you, and I have no reason to dislike you or be rude to you.  But I'll stick with being coy



I was only asking in relation to this thread. fridge magnet asked me the same thing a while back. I answered him/her by pm. FM was just checking if I was old enough to have been around at the time, rather than a 20-something who was in nappies. 

You feel free to be as mysterious as you wish.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 6, 2010)

newbie said:


> I don't _know_ if being coy is _necessary_ or not, but that's all you're getting.  I've been around here a bit longer than you, I've seen what happened when people started taking it all a bit seriously, drawing up lists of the posters they have an issue with, and collecting personal rl info.   for 'the files', like.  Toys all over the floor and tears before bedtime.  That's just noticing the behaviour of someone new, not me having a pop at you, I don't know you, and I have no reason to dislike you or be rude to you.  But I'll stick with being coy



Its all about internet safety!


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 6, 2010)

newbie said:


> what someone said to someone about Greenham?  half the people on these boards weren't even born then, a lot more were just children. Yet they're being handed a a fable based on crook foundations but dressed up as having real, contemporary political meaning. I think that's just lazy, agenda ridden and very disrespectful, not only to those individual courageous women but also to a great many others involved in liberation struggles.
> 
> I thought everything useful had been said some pages back, but I'm not running away if people keep poking me with a stick.
> 
> As for grumpy old me- I've been called all sorts of names, including liar, on this thread as well as being regularly patronised by Liam.  All part of the U75 fun



Newbie, don't want to poke you  but do you really think Greenham Common was a liberation struggle?


----------



## LiamO (Oct 7, 2010)

*So, after 5 pages of merry-go-round, we have moved on not a jot - bit like the 80's actually. *

Anyways, though I'd horse in another anecdote to bring the thread slightly back on tack. 

80's trendy-lefties... (and their descendents of today) drove (and drive) me nuts. Often it seemed to us that it was not Socialism that was the problem but the people who represented it. It was all head-patting benevolent socialism - where us oiks just give them all the power because they know best. They were forever desperately attempting to make the world fit their prejudices rather than adapting their theory to suit the world. Here is an example…



Dunno if you remember them, but ‘back in the day’ there was a mob called the IBRG (Irish in Britain Representation Group). Although my own views were often at variance with theirs, they were a well-meaning ‘community’ group who were certainly an advance politically on the established (and Establishment) Federation of Irish Societies.


At the time, every August the Irish Freedom Movement (IFM - the irish ‘front’ org for the Revolutionary Communist Party) held an anniversary of internment commemoration march up the Holloway road.  The good news was that this was generally a lovely sunny day, as opposed to both the Manchester Martyrs march (November) and the Bloody Sunday one (January). The bad news was that it was the only ‘republican’ march held out of the football season – and thus the fash were able to call on many from football firms who would normally be otherwise engaged of a Saturday. This raised the ante for potential mayhem considerably.


After the Rally one year, I spotted the IBRG’s two main men (I’ll call them X and Y to save embarrassment) heading for Archway tube, wearing shorts and sandals and carrying their banner poles. X’s young son (about 9 years of age) was with them. I alerted them to the fact that the fash were mobbed up in the area and had taken over two pubs en-route to the tube. They were advised to avail of an escort to be provided to Tufnell Park tube instead. Y was always open to discussion and stopped to consider the options. Myself and another fella did our best to paint an accurate picture of what awaited them.


X, however, was what i would call a typical trendy-lefty who looked down his nose at us - in fact he considered us as little more than Fash ourselves. He snorted with derision at our temerity to even dare to suggest he should take avoiding action. He informed me ‘that’s ridiculous, if I can’t walk the streets of an Irish area… blah blah’. Once again both I and some others told them they were walking into an ambush. He dismissed us as ‘fantasists’ and ‘in love with violence’. He was after all ‘armed’ with more than enough theory to vanquish a few neanderthal knuckle-draggers - and off they strutted.


Ten minutes later they were back, X and Y with lumps missing out of them. 


Tragically (and unforgivably in my view) X’s wee fella was sobbing pitifully, covered in spit and had a big red mark on his face - where a grown man had stepped out of the crowd and slapped him full in the face. X was looking for sympathy. It was all we could do to not give him another boot up the hole for his arrogant stupidity. 


Not only had he handed the fash an easy ‘victory’ to whet their appetites for violence – an appetite they fully indulged in, until a small firm of their main men had that appetite quenched succinctly and brutally at Holloway Road tube later that day - He had walked his own young son into a traumatic and terrifying situation, purely (from what I could see) because the (tragically-typical) middle-class leftie lens through which he viewed the world could never see anything any other way than his way.


This was an occasion when that myopic arrogance (or stupidity) rebounded directly and immediately upon the person involved (with the additional damage to his son). In my experience it was often other people who suffered the consequences. I will happily expand on this comment later.


----------



## newbie (Oct 7, 2010)

Das Uberdog said:


> that's not neither what i nor anyone else is saying though. these things obviously do matter, in practice; the point is that it's both incorrect and politically regressive for people to basically accept at root that the cultural/gender/racial roles they've been proscribed are in some way immutable and timeless, and that their political consciousness must be defined by their struggle (remaining as a segment of said group) to gain power/representation. in practice, that just leaves all these different cultural/ethnic/religious groupings operating as private interest groups, happy to further their own interests at the expense of others.
> 
> when i say that class is the 'constant', i mean that whereas capitalism is _structurally_ dependent upon the existence of a _working class_ to even exist, the existence of other groupings are essentially socially constructed (or pre-capitalistically inherited) tools of social control. being working class isn't the same; that refers explicitly to a fundamental aspect of the very workings of the entire economic system. the other cultural differences nation states can pick and choose which ones to focus upon, to suit their specific geopolitical/historical/national purposes.
> 
> ...



thanks for explaining 'constant'. All true, just as it's been true every other time a member of a left organisation has explained it to me over the decades, in person, in print, from a stage and more latterly on the intertubes. As it's such a constant truth it's rather unremarkable, surely? 

Obviously not because members of those left organisations, or their successors, keep on banging their heads against a door that is constantly shut.  They "bang on about class because it's _correct_.".  They know best.

With very minor tweaks what you've written is a valid, and no doubt true, contribution to any thread about anything from identity to stuff like globalisation, the environment, genetics, or consumer debt.

I'm (very) unusual because I'm still listening.  Most people appear to have lost interest in being told the same thing over and over, perhaps because it explains so little about the changes that have taken place.  The left has lost a lot of the reach and influence it once had.

Keep banging on, you are correct and that's what matters.


----------



## newbie (Oct 7, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Newbie, don't want to poke you  but do you really think Greenham Common was a liberation struggle?


 
No, it was against American nuclear weapons.  But I don't think it's out of place in the same sentence, because it sits more comfortably within a tradition of reach, organisation and tactics which has more to do with liberation struggles than with, say, the struggles around collective bargaining which preoccupy the the left.

How many pages will this semantic point take, d'you reckon?


----------



## newbie (Oct 7, 2010)

Liam your anecdote tells us what?  That once upon a time a member of a left group with an acronym didn't take any notice of correct advice (from a member of left group with a different acronym?) and paid the consequences, as did others.

Once, on a demonstration, I told a member of a left group with an acronym that if, like all his comrades, he did x he would get kettled.  He did and he did.

Draw whatever conclusions you like from these anecdotes.  One I take is that members of left groups think they know best under all circumstances.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 7, 2010)

newbie said:


> The left has lost a lot of the reach and influence it once had.
> 
> Keep banging on, you are correct and that's what matters.



Now Noobs, I told you the other day... *stop nicking my lines!*




LiamO said:


> I believe it seeks to demonstrate that too often (in the past *and* in the present) the 'worthy left' just assumes it knows best, being right and worthy is enough and they don't have to explain their actions to the working class (on whose behalf (E2A...)THEY  claim to act).


----------



## LiamO (Oct 7, 2010)

newbie said:


> Liam your anecdote tells us what?



This post is a blue-peter... one I prepared earlier...





Well noobs, it tells _me_ this...

If I was about to alight from my Jeep in a (real) jungle whilst unarmed and a kindly park ranger advised me that there were a big mob of man-hating, man-eating lions on the path ahead… I would heed their advice and get myself and my son back into the safety of the jeep. I suggest it would be wise to follow the same rule-of-thumb in the concrete jungle, no? Or should I attempt to impose _my theory_ on the reality?

If I were walking along after a West Ham/Spurs match, or a Liverpool/Man U game… wearing team colours… and a fellow supporter advised me that a big firm of the opposing fans were up ahead… it would be unwise of me to continue on that route. And even if I was arrogant enough to dismiss fears about my own personal safety, I also have a father’s duty to protect my child, or do I not? Or should I put my child at risk because of my lefty papal-style infallibility?

These people were given first-hand information, from several credible sources, with extensive experience in the field, with local knowledge – they could also have asked the plod what the craic was. One of them decided that we were ‘delusional fools’ and ignored the good advice he had received. 

Unfortunately both his young son and X’s closest friend paid the price for this. Fortunately his words and actions did not ‘inspire’ any other people to take pursue a similar act of folly.





All of the words above I wrote before 7am this morning. I had to change not a word to answer your question, because your response is so predictable. But I had it written _before_ I had read your post outlining exactly this same, lame, lefty trait. Anyway that's what my anecdote tells *me*...

That it tells _*you*_ something completely different (and that you accuse _everybody else_ of engaging in pointless semantics) comes as absolutely no surprise whatsoever.


----------



## newbie (Oct 7, 2010)

btw I'm sure the liberation struggle you were involved with somehow differed from those of other people with priorities that were closer to their own lives.  I have nothing useful to say about how or why, or about any of the specifics, but to me it seems there was clearly some question of identity involved.  From that struggle has come an untidy, institutionalised compromise with all sorts of dynamically changing consequences for identity.  Just as has happened with struggles around other identity issues. But there's been no change in the underlying truths about the working class.  

I hope you don't reject the choice you made to be involved. Without getting too specific, do you analyse your own preferred struggle in the same terms as you analyse the struggles of others?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 7, 2010)

newbie said:


> Obviously not because members of those left organisations, or their successors, keep on banging their heads against a door that is constantly shut.  They "bang on about class because it's _correct_.".  They know best.



it's not about 'knowing best', it's about being a socialist and trying make socialism happen. yes, it _is_ that subjective. 



> I'm (very) unusual because I'm still listening.  Most people appear to have lost interest in being told the same thing over and over, perhaps because it explains so little about the changes that have taken place.  The left has lost a lot of the reach and influence it once had.



you don't think the left has lost that reach because its organizations and establishments were systematically destroyed and undermined in the 1980s-90s? you can't see a movement towards communal identity often as part of filling the social gap left behind by the old Housing Associations, TU groups, LP (& to a lesser extent CP) meetings, etc?

that's not because class is any less relevent, it's because we were beaten. and to stop being beaten, we need to build back up. do we do that by pandering to the identity politics of yore?



> Keep banging on, you are correct and that's what matters.



there's not a better reason to do anything than that you're correct. that's not arrogance, that objective logical fact.


----------



## newbie (Oct 7, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Now Noobs, I told you the other day... *stop nicking my lines!*


 
what makes them yours?  I was saying much the same while the left had some influence and you were still at school.  I've never been a member of a left group with an acronym.  We agree on something


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 7, 2010)

You would think anybody interested in social justice if not socialism would want to understand how it is we ended up in a fucking ghetto, but I guess not.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 7, 2010)

newbie said:


> what makes them yours?  I was saying much the same while the left had some influence and you were still at school.  I've never been a member of a left group with an acronym.  We agree on something



Pardon my Paraprosdokian imposition but you remind me so much of this one...

_"Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."_


I meant stop stealing MY lines for YOUR argument - and you accuse others of laziness - get yer own. 






newbie said:


> I don't _know_ if being coy is _necessary_ or not, but that's all you're getting.  I've been around here a bit longer than you, I've seen what happened when people started taking it all a bit seriously, drawing up lists of the posters they have an issue with, *and collecting personal rl info.   for 'the files', like*.  Toys all over the floor and tears before bedtime.



so yesterday you complain of this outrageous tendency... today you gimme the old fanny about 'I was doing this when you were still at school' after my freely telling you my age yesterday.

* G'way and clean yer dentures - You hypocritical old fart*.


----------



## newbie (Oct 7, 2010)




----------



## newbie (Oct 7, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You would think anybody interested in social justice if not socialism would want to understand how it is we ended up in a fucking ghetto, but I guess not.


 
perhaps I simply live in a different ghetto and that's helped shape my views?

I'm probably going to regret asking this, but tell me about the ghetto you're in (not the one 'the working class' is in, the one you're in personally) with respect to identity.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 7, 2010)

What ghetto is pro-working class politics in? Do me a favour. We're all going to be fucked by the cuts, whether we are white straight 40 something men or not. Which is why our economic commonality is much more important than division by identity.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 7, 2010)

newbie said:


> I've never been a member of a left group with an acronym





then you have never been a member of a left group at all then, have you noobs? You *SHOF! *





(shameless hypocritical old fart)


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 7, 2010)

newbie said:


> No, it was against American nuclear weapons.  But I don't think it's out of place in the same sentence, because it sits more comfortably within a tradition of reach, organisation and tactics which has more to do with liberation struggles than with, say, the struggles around collective bargaining which preoccupy the the left.
> 
> How many pages will this semantic point take, d'you reckon?



I didn't think I was making a semantic point . It was just a genuine question to try and clarify where you are coming from. The answer you gave is intriguing because it contrasts what you see as the components in a tradition of liberation struggle with your view   of the left: 'Reach , organisation and tactics' versus collective bargaining.

Not surprsing then that you find 'liberations struggles' more attractive if all the left is a preoccupation with collective bargaining?


----------



## newbie (Oct 7, 2010)

carry on with the insults if you need the typing practice, I don't care one way or the other.

Really though, I'd prefer considered answers to a couple of direct questions I've asked, not because I want to score points but because I'm genuinely interested in the answers.



newbie said:


> What's the mechanism by which they, or anyone else, should "_explain their actions to the working class_"?  Serious question, how does that work?





newbie said:


> Without getting too specific, do you analyse your own preferred struggle in the same terms as you analyse the struggles of others?


----------



## newbie (Oct 7, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> I didn't think I was making a semantic point . It was just a genuine question to try and clarify where you are coming from. The answer you gave is intriguing because it contrasts what you see as the components in a tradition of liberation struggle with your view   of the left: 'Reach , organisation and tactics' versus collective bargaining.
> 
> Not surprsing then that you find 'liberations struggles' more attractive if all the left is a preoccupation with collective bargaining?


 
That's not all the left is about, there are plenty of differing left perspectives about all other questions, but it's pretty central to the way working class interests are asserted, no?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 7, 2010)

newbie said:


> I'm genuinely interested in the answers.



Some of em



Proper Tidy said:


> What ghetto is pro-working class politics in? Do me a favour. We're all going to be fucked by the cuts, whether we are white straight 40 something men or not. Which is why our economic commonality is much more important than division by identity.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 7, 2010)

what's an 'LA College' noobs?


----------



## newbie (Oct 7, 2010)

Local Authority


----------



## LiamO (Oct 7, 2010)

LiamO said:


> then you have never been a member of a left group at all then, have you noobs? You *SHOF! *



just bumping this in the vain hope that you might answer a straight question.


----------



## newbie (Oct 7, 2010)

I was going to let this one go, but apparently Liam thinks I should respond.


Proper Tidy said:


> What ghetto is pro-working class politics in? Do me a favour. We're all going to be fucked by the cuts, whether we are white straight 40 something men or not. Which is why our economic commonality is much more important than division by identity.


 
I asked about the identity ghetto you, personally, are in. It seems that other than through your "pro-working class politics", you're not troubled by one. 

<other than through being a member of the working class, of course. That's the most central, and constant, oppression. that shouldn't need to be said, but I've said it just in case>

If only all those people hadn't concentrated on petty little concerns of their own, if only what you and du (and your predecessors) said had been listened to.


----------



## newbie (Oct 7, 2010)

LiamO said:


> just bumping this in the vain hope that you might answer a straight question.


 
Oh good grief.

No, not a left party with acronym.  all sorts of groups but whether or not you'd consider them 'left' I neither know nor care, and I'm not going into detail.

Neither do I know or care what a shof is.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 7, 2010)

newbie said:


> I was going to let this one go, but apparently Liam thinks I should respond.
> 
> 
> I asked about the identity ghetto you, personally, are in. It seems that other than through your "pro-working class politics", you're not troubled by one.
> ...


 
No, I said pro-working class politics is stuck in a ghetto, and asked you how identity politics changes the fact that we are all going to be hammered by a ruling class ideologically driven attack on the working class? How you can't see that we are all in the same boat, and dividing us doesn't fucking help?

Btw, you may never have been to my home town. It's about as far removed from a cushy middle class utopia as you could find. Was okay when we still had heavy industry, but that's long gone. Lowest waged region of the UK. It's a fucking shithole to be accurate. Still, by all means infer I'm out of touch with the grim real wold of which you inhabit.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 7, 2010)

LiamO said:


> then you have never been a member of a left group at all then, have you noobs? You *SHOF! *
> 
> 
> (shameless hypocritical old fart)


 



The mysteries of SHOF explained.

my point about acronyms is that I don't think I have ever heard of a left group which did NOT have a name that people turned into an acronym... LP, ILP, CP, CPGB, CND, 

You claim to have never been in one... I would suggest that if you haven't been in an acronymous (is this a word?) left group, you ain't really been in one at all, noobs


----------



## newbie (Oct 7, 2010)

fair enough Liam, you've scored your point.  

Any chance of answering the questions I asked?  To my eye they're pertinent to the politics of the thread and I am genuinely interested in your views.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 7, 2010)

newbie, would you say you're actually still bothered about changing the fundamentals of the capitalist system, and bringing about an end to social divisions of all kinds? or, honestly, are you more concerned with merely asserting the positions of established community groups etc etc within the confines of what we've got today? 'cos if it's the latter, then i can see why you find class politics so passe.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 7, 2010)

newbie said:


> fair enough Liam, you've scored your point.
> 
> Any chance of answering the questions I asked?  To my eye they're pertinent to the politics of the thread and I am genuinely interested in your views.



which ones... you ask many.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 7, 2010)

Looking back at that period where the trendy left made one giant step for person kind   what comes to the fore for me is that supporters of identity politics spanned the following:

-a pessimism that the working class as a class could overcome the bigotry and discrimination regrading race, gender and sexuality

-a rejection that the working class can be the agent of social change

-the identification of the working class as a barrier to overcome oppression

I suspect that membership of these categories wasn't static.These councils were elected after the Thatcher election victory ( some feminists welcomed a women Prime Minister btw)  and both before and after the miners strike , which was the defining moment of that decade for  the working class and the employers. For some the miners strike proved that the working class could potentially fulfill this role for others the same strike proved that it couldn't ( I am particularly thinking of Beatrix Campbells writings which whilst lauding women against pit closures lambasted men picketing).


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 7, 2010)

The other thing (just having read dennisr's contribution on another thread) was that in contrast to Liverpool Council the other labour councils were far more into tokenism. Liverpool Council built council houses, trendy left councils renamed council houses, normally after Nelson Mandela. 

After the defeat over rate capping and the Councils retreat on the Poll Tax ( Saturdays out with placards against it , Monday sending summonses out for those not paying it) tokensim became an even cheaper gesture that partly tried to stem the vote by the local working class away from what were seen by the end of the decade as just badly run services by appealing to identity.


----------



## newbie (Oct 7, 2010)

LiamO said:


> which ones... you ask many.


 
as in #779

What's the mechanism by which they, or anyone else, should "explain their actions to the working class"? Serious question, how does that work?

Without getting too specific, do you analyse your own preferred struggle in the same terms as you analyse the struggles of others?


----------



## LiamO (Oct 7, 2010)

newbie said:


> as in #779
> 
> What's the mechanism by which they, or anyone else, should "explain their actions to the working class"? Serious question, how does that work?
> 
> Without getting too specific, do you analyse your own preferred struggle in the same terms as you analyse the struggles of others?



Oh those ones. i didn't know who the fuck they were for. 

In order for me to answer them fully, they would have to be presented in both context and English.


----------



## newbie (Oct 7, 2010)

Das Uberdog said:


> newbie, would you say you're actually still bothered about changing the fundamentals of the capitalist system, and bringing about an end to social divisions of all kinds? or, honestly, are you more concerned with merely asserting the positions of established community groups etc etc within the confines of what we've got today? 'cos if it's the latter, then i can see why you find class politics so passe.


 
yes I would.  That's not the same as saying I think left parties have much idea about how to achieve that, or that I take much notice of what they say.


----------



## newbie (Oct 7, 2010)

Liam in #779 I posted two quotes.  each of them has a little icon 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 like that which takes you back to the post the quote comes from.  That provides the context. 

hth


----------



## LiamO (Oct 7, 2010)

newbie said:


> Liam in #779 I posted two quotes.  each of them has a little icon
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
what about the 'in English' bit?

 seriously, I'll look at them in the morning.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 7, 2010)

I posted this on the other thread - about the potential of local Councillors to fight Cuts. It follows from raisng the example of the Liverpool "Militant" Council led fightback. It seems more relevant on this thread though:




			
				dennisr said:
			
		

> One interesting lesson from the Liverpool dispute was the manner in which the non-class 'identity politics' supported by the trendier 'left' was used AGAINST a fighting council. The Daily Express(!) had a front page attacking the "racism" of the Militant council - because the Militants had employed a minority equal rights officer on their class views rather than non-class views of racial discrimination. The council was opposed to token 'positive discrimination' - seeing this as potentially divisive. More pages in newspapers were spent attacking Sam Bond (a black socialist, one of the founders of the original Newham Monitoring Project for self-defence) than (even...) on Derek Hatton. Middle-class white academics have been funded (by the man? - sic...) to wrote books "exposing" the supposed racism of the council. Ex-socialist playwrites have had their nasty innuendo (under the cover of their previous 'left' kudos...) in tv plays to smear fighting socialists given prime time on telly (of supposed socialists provoking 'race' riots - of course he was not trying to point the finger at Liverpool at all, ohhh, no...). Very few have heard Sam Bonds views or points.
> 
> One could argue that, in retrospect, the Militants made a mistake to allow themselves to be opened up to this vicious lying campaign. Maybe it could be argued that they underestimated the role these identity-based politics could play in giving the soft labour left (that existed at this time and run many councils...) the excuse to walk away and leave them (and as a result the Miners on strike at the same time...) isolated. Maybe they could have taken a diplomatic step back on this issue rather than unwhitingly opening another potential 'front' against the main campaign in Liverpool - but to argue that what the council was doing was "racist" was a sick joke led by hypocrites.
> 
> ...



A solid example of 'trendy left idiocy' if ever there was one?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 7, 2010)

Yep.


----------



## newbie (Oct 7, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> -a pessimism that the working class as a class could overcome the bigotry and discrimination regrading race, gender and sexuality


yes I think that's right but I can't really speculate as to why that pessimism arose.  



> -a rejection that the working class can be the agent of social change



that's very bound up in the history of the period. The question is far too big for a comprehensive reply, but could I venture that for an awful lot of people the key institutions of the working class- the unions and the financial mutuals- were not really perceived as seeking social change. I think people lost faith in the unions particularly after ballot argument and the failure of widespread solidarity during the miners strike (rail, docks, power stations and many pits carried on working). I also think the social change that people were seeking was not really reflected by the unions or the left parties of the time (although they paid lip service, sold papers and tried to take over every campaign). .        



> -the identification of the working class as a barrier to overcome oppression



that was certainly something that was said.  How much influence it had I don't know.  Some, probably.



> I suspect that membership of these categories wasn't static.These councils were elected after the Thatcher election victory ( some feminists welcomed a women Prime Minister btw)  and both before and after the miners strike , which was the defining moment of that decade for  the working class and the employers. For some the miners strike proved that the working class could potentially fulfill this role for others the same strike proved that it couldn't ( I am particularly thinking of Beatrix Campbells writings which whilst lauding women against pit closures lambasted men picketing).


 
Indeed. Why would political thought be static?  People react to events and views change.  

Some feminists did. Some may still do so for all I know.  Some people said that one lot of politicians was much like another and it would make no difference who they voted for.  Again, they may still think that for all I know.


----------



## Shevek (Oct 7, 2010)

interesting post ^^^


----------



## newbie (Oct 7, 2010)

dennisr said:


> I posted this on the other thread - about the potential of local Councillors to fight Cuts. It follows from raisng the example of the Liverpool "Militant" Council led fightback. It seems more relevant on this thread though:
> 
> 
> 
> A solid example of 'trendy left idiocy' if ever there was one?



surely the prime example, the one books and plays have been written about.  I haven't seen or read them, but I have vague memories of the battle between Militant and it's opponents in and around Liverpool council.  Not the detail, just the huge animosity.  I'd seen similar (from the outside) in Lambeth during the battle to get rid of the rightwing Stimpson leadership (he was replaced by Ted Knight) so I wasn't wholly surprised by the bitterness.  In Lambeth that fight generally got as far as the South London Press but I don't really remember the nationals being hugely involved except on one, defining, occasion (St Agnes Place). Later, when Knight was in the hot seat, they were a major factor, although the political arguments actually within Lambeth seemed to me a lot less bitter than previously, the council fightback had a lot of support.  

Once the Liverpool battle was on the national front pages you were pushed onto the back foot as all sorts of agendas came into play. Ultimately Militant lost, just as Knight and Livingstone their colleagues lost in Lambeth and at the GLC.  I regret that still.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 8, 2010)

dennisr said:


> I posted this on the other thread - about the potential of local Councillors to fight Cuts. It follows from raisng the example of the Liverpool "Militant" Council led fightback. It seems more relevant on this thread though:
> 
> 
> 
> A solid example of 'trendy left idiocy' if ever there was one?


 
Dennis thanks for that. It gets this thread back on track and provides some context for both threads


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 8, 2010)

newbie said:


> surely the prime example, the one books and plays have been written about.  I haven't seen or read them, but I have vague memories of the battle between Militant and it's opponents in and around Liverpool council.  Not the detail, just the huge animosity.  I'd seen similar (from the outside) in Lambeth during the battle to get rid of the rightwing Stimpson leadership (he was replaced by Ted Knight) so I wasn't wholly surprised by the bitterness.  In Lambeth that fight generally got as far as the South London Press but I don't really remember the nationals being hugely involved except on one, defining, occasion (St Agnes Place). Later, when Knight was in the hot seat, they were a major factor, although the political arguments actually within Lambeth seemed to me a lot less bitter than previously, the council fightback had a lot of support.
> 
> Once the Liverpool battle was on the national front pages you were pushed onto the back foot as all sorts of agendas came into play. Ultimately Militant lost, just as Knight and Livingstone their colleagues lost in Lambeth and at the GLC.  I regret that still.


 
Knight was a different kettle of fish from the other lefts. He was a long time Trot sympathiser whose politics weren't hardened in the 80s in identity politics but in an entirely different era. The root of those politics was originaly a tactical decsion to be in the Labour Party rather than a principle unfortunately for Knight the tactic ended up as a principle.

Livingstone on the other hand was someone who never ever saw life outside the Labour Party even when he was outside of the Labour Party.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 8, 2010)

newbie said:


> surely the
> Once the Liverpool battle was on the national front pages you were pushed onto the back foot as all sorts of agendas came into play. Ultimately Militant lost, just as Knight and Livingstone their colleagues lost in Lambeth and at the GLC.  I regret that still.



So do I newbie.

I can see it all happening again, with the added complication of the potential rise of the edl (playing the part the NF/BNP did in the 80's). 

A lot of the challenges faced by people who had an intuitive bad feeling about identity politics (and other essentially dilettante practices from trendy lefties) were caused by a lot of this stuff only getting discussed 'under the table' - people had a genuine fear of being labelled racist/sexist etc. We had no older comrades to consult with or to help temper our gut-feelings into shape. Open, frank discussion and advice from people who had been through a similar process would have been invaluable. This thread is a small example of this and the anthology I mentioned (somewhat tongue in cheek) might be another.


----------



## newbie (Oct 8, 2010)

Both* quite canny politicians though, they managed to carry their constituents with them into real support, which is by far the best way to neutralise opposition. In that sense I'm not sure it mattered to the local people whether they were entryist trots or deeply believed in the Labour party, it was more important that they managed to convince us to support their policies.  My guess is Knight would have won an election, had there been any hint that us normals might have a say in our own local authority;not so sure about Livingstone because even then the doughnut was polarised.

From a purely personal pov I took the brutal removal of both the councils I'd voted for and supported as the most crushing defeat of the period. Overnight, as I recall, both councils were just gone, one with fines and bans, the other simply abolished. Like waking up in a different story.   

In the scheme of things (for 'the working class' as a whole) perhaps it didn't amount to much, but losing such important battles where real, immediate self-interest is involved has a different quality to watching defeat from afar, however much you support those actually involved. 





(* the GLC era Livingstone, not so much the more recent incarnation)


----------



## LiamO (Oct 8, 2010)

newbie said:


> Ok, lets talk about the women of Greenham.
> 
> What's the mechanism by which they, or anyone else, should "_explain their actions to the working class_"?  Serious question, how does that work?



I have already answered a similar question way back in this thread. This is all very circular noobs and Dennis' post has 
moved us on

The mechanism is unimportant as they never had the political will, the intention or the faith in the ability of the wc to understand , to actually pursue such a policy.

Besides Steps has summed up my thoughts on this succinctly in post #792



The39thStep said:


> Looking back at that period where the trendy left made one giant step for person kind   what comes to the fore for me is that supporters of identity politics spanned the following:
> 
> -a pessimism that the working class as a class could overcome the bigotry and discrimination regrading race, gender and sexuality
> 
> ...


----------



## LiamO (Oct 8, 2010)

newbie said:


> Both* quite canny politicians though, they managed to carry their constituents with them into real support, which is by far the best way to neutralise opposition.



Yes, something the trendy-left singularly failed to do. This whole theread is about their failure to do so.

Unless of course they would admit openly, which they NEVER did to my knowledge, that their _constituency_ was actually the 'interest groups'.

Many of us took these defeats personally noobs. The fact that the 'defeats' were facilitated in part by the actions of the trendy-left is particularly galling.

Finally I think I get you. You thought I was attacking the legacy of the 'left' councils _per se_.  I would suggest that what I was attacking was some quite specific practices.


----------



## newbie (Oct 8, 2010)

LiamO said:


> We had no older comrades to consult with or to help temper our gut-feelings into shape. Open, frank discussion and advice from people who had been through a similar process would have been invaluable. This thread is a small example of this and the anthology I mentioned (somewhat tongue in cheek) might be another.


 
and yet you're taunting me about dentures!  

I can't remember quite what you proposed, but make your anthology, I promise I'll read it and hope not to be disheartened by unbalance.  All I've tried to do on this thread is say that the narrative those anecodes present is partial, that they obscure as much as they illuminate.  Maybe all the struggle, all the ordinary people (even if that does imply cross-class, they're still ordinary) coming together to fight collectively for political and social change doesn't matter anymore.  I think it should.


----------



## newbie (Oct 8, 2010)

LiamO said:


> I have already answered a similar question way back in this thread. This is all very circular noobs and Dennis' post has
> moved us on
> 
> The mechanism is unimportant as they never had the political will, the intention or the faith in the ability of the wc to understand , to actually pursue such a policy.
> ...


 
sorry, I've got to go, but the mechanism *is*  important.

what post number?


----------



## LiamO (Oct 8, 2010)

newbie said:


> sorry, I've got to go, but the mechanism *is*  important.
> 
> what post number?



talking, enlightening, educating, including, empowering, trusting, debating, campaigning

winning the hearts and minds rather than imposing top-down solutions... like you said earlier so many left groups were content to BE right rather than winning over as many as possible to their cause.

#792 

and I can't vbe arsed p[lpoughing through the entire thread again looking for where I have expressed this before.

I'm off too


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 8, 2010)

It's always someone else's fault. They didn't do it right. Fuckers.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 8, 2010)

newbie said:


> Both* quite canny politicians though, they managed to carry their constituents with them into real support, which is by far the best way to neutralise opposition. In that sense I'm not sure it mattered to the local people whether they were entryist trots or deeply believed in the Labour party, it was more important that they managed to convince us to support their policies.  My guess is Knight would have won an election, had there been any hint that us normals might have a say in our own local authority;not so sure about Livingstone because even then the doughnut was polarised.



I think one could argue that Knight - although Lambeth council was the only other council to support the refusal to sign up to a cuts budget and the slogan "better to break the law than to break the poor" - and the Lambeth left did not draw the necessary conclusions on HOW to fight. They did not build the grassroots, local trade union campaign but continued the big event, big publicity politics of the GLC. They saw themselves as working for the people of lambeth (and all power to their elbows for this) but not with those people.

They could therefore be defeated 'legally'. In Liverpool the Militants and other lefts built a mass campaign. They were answerable to the council workers Joint Shop Stewards Committee (which was having meeting of 1000s at the height of the campaign). They followed the decisions agreed and voted for by this committee. The Militants pushed for an all out strike which (in the beginning of the miner's strike) would have polarised the entire country. The tory papers even talked about sending warships up the mersey on their letters pages! This strike would have cut across the aquiensence of the trade union tops and could have led to a wider national movement of support as the working people of Liverpool were attacked for daring to fight for jobs and services. The population of Liverpool was not seen as passive voting fodder. The aim of the Militants all along was for those folk to led their own defence. We knew simply voting for lefts was not enough.

The vote was - narrowly - lost. The old right wing leaderships of the local white collar unions (right labour and CP stooges) managed to split the votes in their unions. We were defeated by the TU bureaucrats. One of the legacies of that movement though was a solid electoral support for the left in what was a traditionally conservative city. The tory vote was wiped out. It was the biggest swing to Labour in the country - If only the Labour leadership had defended working people they could have been elected on what they did for folk rather than (many years later...) on the basis of spin and anti-tory votes.

It was a very different approach to politics - even between the practice of Knight and the Liverpool councillors.

So the vote for the fighting council actually increased despite the atempts at division through the 'identity politics' issues played on by the press


----------



## LiamO (Oct 8, 2010)

Red Cat said:


> It's always someone else's fault. They didn't do it right. Fuckers.



have you read the thread? Do you have a contribution to make? If so you are welcome - if not stroll on


----------



## newbie (Oct 8, 2010)

LiamO said:


> talking, enlightening, educating, including, empowering, trusting, debating, campaigning
> 
> winning the hearts and minds rather than imposing top-down solutions... like you said earlier so many left groups were content to BE right rather than winning over as many as possible to their cause.
> 
> ...


 
isn't that exactly what all identity politics was about?  People weren't told not to be invisible by some top politician and slavishly obeyed.  All of the politics of liberation was about "talking, enlightening, educating, including, empowering, trusting, debating, campaigning".  what else was there?  The invisible had no grasp on the levers of power, they didn't matter, others could act on their behalf.  Gradually all that talking turned to campaigning, not because they were told that's what they should do but because that's what they wanted to do. 

The other day I listened to Alexi Sayle talking about his childhood at NUR conferences in the 70s, where his father was a regular delegate.  What was laid on for the wives and children was shopping and entertainment.  The housewives in the pit villages- am I really supposed to believe that their view of the ballot was identical to that of their husband, those in this village thought one way and in another village thought the diametric opposite, despite not being at the meetings, not hearing the arguments put this way and that?  They were undeniably working class, and undeniably very personally involved, yet they had no voice except via their husband acting on their behalf.  I've been wondering how many of them were later involved in the politics of identity?

All the talking and campaigning and empowering and that was ordinary people resonating with each other and demanding change.  I really don't see how you can view that in anything other than a positive light.


I'll reread #792


----------



## newbie (Oct 8, 2010)

Dennis, you talk about Militant being answerable to the Shop Stewards cttee and contrast that with the Lambeth approach. Fair enough, but the way you've expressed it appears to indicate that elected councillors were answerable to the Stewards, rather than to the residents.  Perhaps that's not what you meant?

Just on the face of it, as an ordinary resident, I would need to be persuaded that what's in the interests of the council workforce, let alone what the Shop Stewards want (not necc the same thing) is necessarily also in my interest.  I'm not a member of any of those unions, and my branch is outside the borough, so I have no say via any union mechanism. How do I get included?

I don't think I'm being unduly anti-working class by questioning how politicians exercise power, but I appreciate that the question will be construed in that way.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 8, 2010)

newbie said:


> isn't that exactly what all identity politics was about?  People weren't told not to be invisible by some top politician and slavishly obeyed.  All of the politics of liberation was about "talking, enlightening, educating, including, empowering, trusting, debating, campaigning".  what else was there?  The invisible had no grasp on the levers of power, they didn't matter, others could act on their behalf.  Gradually all that talking turned to campaigning, not because they were told that's what they should do but because that's what they wanted to do.
> 
> The other day I listened to Alexi Sayle talking about his childhood at NUR conferences in the 70s, where his father was a regular delegate.  What was laid on for the wives and children was shopping and entertainment.  The housewives in the pit villages- am I really supposed to believe that their view of the ballot was identical to that of their husband, those in this village thought one way and in another village thought the diametric opposite, despite not being at the meetings, not hearing the arguments put this way and that?  They were undeniably working class, and undeniably very personally involved, yet they had no voice except via their husband acting on their behalf.  I've been wondering how many of them were later involved in the politics of identity?
> 
> ...



Still intrigued as to these 'politics of liberation' . Are you really saying that  cliques inside the Labour Party and Labour controlled Councils were liberation politics? black sections as 'liberation politics'? 

Here is what one ordinary resident thought at the time somewhat in in contrast to your view  'the invisible having no levers to power':



> the fight against racism moved from the streets and the shop floor to the town halls and committee rooms where bureaucrats sought neatly packaged solutions to throw at the problem and their vocal 'spokespeople'. In the definition of the problem, the object of its struggle and its outcome all became changed. The fight against racism became a fight for culture and ethnicity, and personal racism rather than institutional racism became the site of struggle-thus providing a venue for a class of professional and middle class aspirants to Parliament. Black struggle and black issues were taken up not so much for the betterment of the community as for individual career prospects.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 8, 2010)

newbie said:


> Dennis, you talk about Militant being answerable to the Shop Stewards cttee and contrast that with the Lambeth approach. Fair enough, but the way you've expressed it appears to indicate that elected councillors were answerable to the Stewards, rather than to the residents.  Perhaps that's not what you meant?
> 
> Just on the face of it, as an ordinary resident, I would need to be persuaded that what's in the interests of the council workforce, let alone what the Shop Stewards want (not necc the same thing) is necessarily also in my interest.  I'm not a member of any of those unions, and my branch is outside the borough, so I have no say via any union mechanism. How do I get included?
> 
> I don't think I'm being unduly anti-working class by questioning how politicians exercise power, but I appreciate that the question will be construed in that way.


 
Firstly, I would argue that - relative to every other single council in the UK at the time - they were accountable to a much wider section of the local population. This was part of the strategy of this campaign - not being just about 47 councillors but about the population those councillors were elected to represent.

Secondly, I would argue that those councillors were answerable not just to the JSSC but to the people that body, in turn, represented - to the thousands and thousands of workers that elected (and could at any moment replace...) them. The council supported a policy of mass workplace meetings to discuss every position. The JSSC members were elected from those mass meetings and replaced by mass meetings if they do no longer reflected the views of those trade union members.

You have to remember that, the majority of organised working people in the city were working for for the council. The JSSC was, as far as I remember, further broadened to welcome all trade unionists organised in Merseyside. As i said before the JSSC meeting alone had hundreds of active members making day-to-day decisions which the councilors then acted upon as their representatives. Those hundreds represented and were answerable to thousands more. Direct democratic accountability to the widest layer of the population of the city - not just once every so many years at the ballot box but weekly and eventually (at the height of the movement - during the voting for the general strike) two and three times a week.

As an ordinary resident I would have said to you - join a bloody union 

Everybody would know somebody, have a family member, working for the corpy. Everywhere in the city mass meetings were held for residents. Everywhere in the city the issues were being discussed. You sat on a bus and quietly listened to two fellas in shell-suits arguing over the best tactics - reform v revolution - not in the language of textbooks but in their own language. The political understanding and reflection of tens of thousands of ordinary residents was raised by the situation they faced, by the mass media lies printed every day about the city and its population and by the threats of the establishment politicians. How many times did I hear the words of a sympathetic local resident beginning with "I'm not a Militant, but...." I lost count of the number of times. People know they had to win or they would be battered. They also knew they had no choice - fight or be battered anyway. And, eventually, they paid a heavy price for the isolation they faced - They were collectively punished as a city.

This was direct democracy. I learnt to understand here, during these events, what I had previously read about in an abstract manner from old leftie text books. This translated vague ideas I has been sympathetic to into practical experience and understanding. And, finally, I understood what it meant to have faith in the potential of those ordinary people to be extra-ordinary if only they were given the right circumstances - not in words but in practice. Its a blank book to many other leftists in the UK. Their tomes are silent on the matter - on what actually happened but it was the making of the "Militant Tendancy" and its politics in practice - it has shaped our views and understanding of the practice of socialist ideas as much as it was a result of our influence on events.

I am still very proud to have been involved - as one small 'nobody' - and honoured to have met (and learnt so much from...) the many other ordinary 'nobodies' I did at the time.


----------



## newbie (Oct 8, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Still intrigued as to these 'politics of liberation' . Are you really saying that  cliques inside the Labour Party and Labour controlled Councils were liberation politics? black sections as 'liberation politics'?
> 
> Here is what one ordinary resident thought at the time somewhat in in contrast to your view  'the invisible having no levers to power':


 
No, I'd argue that that represented the culmination of struggle, which manifested itself in institutionalised equality. Labour party politicians were influenced by all the talking and campaigning and acted as Labour politicians, they built on it for their own advancement.


----------



## newbie (Oct 8, 2010)

dennisr said:


> As an ordinary resident I would have said to you - join a bloody union


 
I'll come back to the rest of your post later, when I have more time, but this bit caught my eye.  I was a member of a union, throughout, but not one involved in local government and my branch was outside the borough anyway. As such I had no voice in that fight through union structures.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 8, 2010)

newbie said:


> I'll come back to the rest of your post later, when I have more time, but this bit caught my eye.  I was a member of a union, throughout, but not one involved in local government and my branch was outside the borough anyway. As such I had no voice in that fight through union structures.


 
well newbie - if this is the bit that caught your eye I would suggest you have missed the main points by a mile


----------



## LiamO (Oct 8, 2010)

dennisr said:


> well newbie - if this is the bit that caught your eye I would suggest you have missed the main points by a mile



You'll find noobs does that..... repeatedly.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 8, 2010)

Excellent post Den


----------



## dennisr (Oct 8, 2010)

newbie said:


> I'll come back to the rest of your post later, when I have more time, but this bit caught my eye.  I was a member of a union, throughout, but not one involved in local government and my branch was outside the borough anyway. As such I had no voice in that fight through union structures.


 
One other thing mate - this was never about "the interests of the council workforce" over and above other Liverpool residents. It was about the decision to refuse to implement cuts - passed on by a Tory government - on behalf of that government (unlike every other Labour council except Lambeth who eventually caved in - with the honourable exceptions of a few individuals - after facing legal threats - so much for local democracy under the Tories). 

Instead the Liverpool councillors - backed up and, in reality, led by the majority of the population of the city - fought to build houses and schools and create jobs. The council union members were simply supporting that campaign. So it DID effect you.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 8, 2010)

Another cracking post from Dennis... what red herring will newbie be able to seize on... and charge off on a tangent with.... this time


the crowd awaits....


----------



## dennisr (Oct 8, 2010)

I'm biast.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 8, 2010)

Or even biased, but who wouldn't be.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 8, 2010)

oops - yep - that too -


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 8, 2010)

Ballast, perhaps.


----------



## newbie (Oct 8, 2010)

dennisr said:


> well newbie - if this is the bit that caught your eye I would suggest you have missed the main points by a mile



I only read the one standalone line.  Read the rest, and the follow-up, now though.

I hadn't appreciated that the people of Liverpool were so dependent on a single employer, or tied quite so organically to the council.  Thanks for that, it helps explain the bitterness, perhaps, and to explain why you took so much more of the heat from press and establishment than Lambeth.  

Lambeth isn't really like that, many residents travel out of the borough for work, education or leisure, many council workers live outside.  It would probably have been possible to live here during that period and not notice, apart from the bus conversations and flyposters.  In some ways maybe that was a failure, I really don't think it could be described as an attempt at direct democracy Yes, I recall public meetings as being reasonably well attended- though a little offputting- and various marches and rallies but they were essentially the same old same old top down stuff.  Heady, important but ultimately _we_ supported _them_. Your description of Liverpool is much more one of _us_, although maybe you also had more, and more venomous, local opponents?

What about the aftermath?  You mentioned collective punishment, what happened?  From my memory, after the councillors were disqualified and surcharged Labour won the next elections, and not so long after we lost another council for advocating non-payment of the poll tax. Since then it's changed hands, had corruption scandals a-plenty and upheld its fine reputation for uselessness.  And implemented cuts, but that was the nature of the defeat.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 9, 2010)

Hi newbie, I'm guessing that the city - because it was a lot more dependant on port trade as much as loss of manufactoring industry had been more effected than most areas by the loss of that trade as the docks were wound down and the need for 'through' trade (material to and from traditional industries) had disappeared in the region (as those industries had been decimated). It was an unemployment blackspot as a result.

But the bitterness - that was, in reality, something else - at least the media presentation. The city came to the brink of a citywide general strike  - it terrified the government opening up both a second front alongside the miners and the danger of the spread of solidarity to other cities. It was a serious threat to their version of stability. Their response was vicious. Reams of tabloid nonsense, lasting for years, red-baiting, attacking not just individuals but the entire city. The lazy, feckless, robbing, on the make scouser was a concious media invention.

The resulting government and capital investment strike - prolonging the economic depression the city went through was the punishment. The city emptied out further - as tens of thousands were forced to move for work to an even greater extent than the rest of the industrial north. The population aged as the old and ill remained.

Yep, in the immediate wake of the movement the tory and liberal votes collapsed (in what had been a liberal/tory city for decades before) - there was a massive electoral movement to the left that was not reflected nationally. Thats the rub - this was NOT a traditionally radical city - despite how it is presented nowadays. The Labour and TU bureaucracies response to this wave of support for the left? - close the city party down and witch-hunt the activists and left labour MPs! (leaving the population of this country as a whole to face many more years under Tory rule while they continued their search for electoral 'respectability').

The government forced through a surcharge via an unelected stooge - an 'auditor' - (while the labour bureaucrats stood aside) for which the 47 councillors were directly liable (alongside a vicious campaign against each individual councillor by every state body) of £500,000. The story from their (and my...) point of view is here: http://www.liverpool47.org

Bitter is not really the word from my experience though - more defiant and proud of this defiance. (and with every right to be imho...)


----------



## newbie (Oct 9, 2010)

Oh yes I understand your pride.  And admire the continuing defiance, it must have been incredibly hard to stay organised in the aftermath and build from it- tbh I think you should take (collective as well as individual) pride in that too.  

I keep reading of northern cities in what might be similar conditions currently- heavily dependent on public expenditure and thus very exposed to the cuts. Some of that is benefits and decentralised government spending of course, but local government must still be a significant factor even though it's changed through outsourcing, housing & education department break up and so on. Do you think that organic people<>council link can still exist anywhere, could a council act as a focus in quite the same way? It seems a bit unlikely, if only because Tory and Labour governments tried to explicitly destroy the conditions for that sort of rebellion ever again, and that, of course, includes all the anti-union legislation. Without that focus the form of any city -wide resistance will be much harder to organise (and I can't imagine Liverpool was exactly _easy_  ).   

That seems closer to how Lambeth was and is.  Fractured, fragmented, atomised, and with no union structure that could really reflect the divergent concerns. Fighting _the cuts_ isn't the same as fighting my, particular, cut which will have different specifics to the cut that most affects my neighbour.  

And the decline in union membership w .Mass meetings (or the equivalent) will likely reflect the interests of the mass, which served well in Liverpool as you've explained but won't necessarily mean much to either me or my neighbour if we don't face exactly the same cut as the mass.  I hope that makes sense.  

Running alongside that is the thread topic. You've explained your problems in Liverpool with the groups who were organising around identity, a very different vision which became a significant part of the battleground.  Again Lambeth was different, being at the forefront of all that and, for a time, successfully coupled it with promoting strong union organisation.  To some extent I think it proved to be more resilient- the next leader was Linda Bellos and Lambeth continued as a high spending, high tax, defiant council for some years, which must have helped protect from the savagery you described.  But I don't think that's the case now.  

The fire has gone out of organising around identity, it's become institutionalised, a bunch of professionals bickering amongst themselves about funding, inevitably with some 'communities' (however defined) showing signs of resentment. Bottom feeding politicians seek to stoke that, of course, and there's a heavy left critique of the whole thing, we've been through why it's problematic.  My point is that identity isn't really going to be a major form of organisation in the forthcoming battles. There will be pockets because of identity targetted cuts- eg taking bus passes off the elderly- but I can't really see eg black or womens sections being a significant player.  Can you? 

I think those battles have gone. There are probably areas where racial division is a serious factor but I don't think they're commonplace, I certainly have no personal experience of it.  Apart from that most of us will have immediate, personal defensive concerns, very different one from another but for the most part that won't include questions of identity. These days few care with the same passion, if only because legislation has largely put paid to large scale discrimination.  What divides us now is not identity but the sheer complexity of our different circumstances and preoccupations. 

we (still) live in interesting times.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 9, 2010)

... is that a total turnaround, or... what were you saying before!?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 9, 2010)

newbie said:


> Fighting _the cuts_ isn't the same as fighting my, particular, cut which will have different specifics to the cut that most affects my neighbour.


 
Surely you just fight the cuts collectively?


----------



## newbie (Oct 9, 2010)

Das Uberdog said:


> ... is that a total turnaround, or... what were you saying before!?


 
well you might find a quote somewhere in all the words that looks like it supports that idea perhaps, but no, not in my mind.


----------



## newbie (Oct 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Surely you just fight the cuts collectively?


 
I *love* the word 'just'.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 9, 2010)

Okay, surely you fight the cuts collectively?


----------



## newbie (Oct 9, 2010)

How, o wise one?

sure, you join in the collective fight against a cut that affects you.  Your neighbour is part of a different collective fight against a different cut coming from an entirely different direction.  Your other neighbour has a paid off mortgage and a job where there's little or no chance of redundancy and is smiling and pushing for a pay rise.  Over the road got sacked, saw their debts implode and are facing repo, eviction and probably divorce. Only the people over there are affected by Child Benefit cuts directly. Council tax will rise massively yet the minority who work for the council want their fight prioritised and social tenants want rent rises capped, though in the TA the Ebay trader is much more vocal than any of the HB claimants because they won't notice . Younger private tenants watch every penny they hand over to their shark btl landlord vanish forever while older owneroccupiers sit on houseprice inflation windfalls*.  Membership of my branch is drawn from a myriad of different workplaces with like 15 people, plus freelances and contractors, and membership is very low. Net savers have a strong personal incentive for high stockmarket growth, everybody else wants low interest rates.  Older people see fighting changes to pension age and conditions as priority and younger ones know a demographically shrinking workforce puts all that onus on them.  

You only have to listen to what people are saying.  It matters.

The working class is not homogenous and does not have homegenous needs or interests**.  If it ever was it's not now. Not from my perspective anyway.  If it is from what you can see with your own eyes, tell me how, in terms which deal with the complexity of differing and in places directly competing, needs, interests and aspirations.  But please, tell me from what you see around you, not from chapter 1 of _What we think_ which we've all heard many times before.



* identity can/does still matter.  That particular age related identity issue is the cause of real anger but, so far, little passion.  There is scope for organisation around it however.

** except the one constant truth discussed earlier, which most people find neither interesting nor relevent to almost any conversation.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 9, 2010)

What different directions are the cuts coming from?

I don't understand what '*just* how we collective fight *the* cut*s*' means. Or what the 'one constant truth' is.


----------



## newbie (Oct 9, 2010)

dunno, you tell me
er, ah. no, that escaped proofreading, it doesn't mean anything
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...fty-idiocy?p=11125011&viewfull=1#post11125011


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 9, 2010)

newbie said:


> dunno, you tell me
> er, ah. no, that escaped proofreading, it doesn't mean anything
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...fty-idiocy?p=11125011&viewfull=1#post11125011


 
What?


----------



## newbie (Oct 9, 2010)

this is a bit tiresome.  you asked three questions I gave three answers, including looking up a link for you from only a couple of pages back.


what do you see around you?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 9, 2010)

newbie said:


> this is a bit tiresome.  you asked three questions I gave three answers, including looking up a link for you from only a couple of pages back.
> 
> 
> what do you see around you?


 
No, you've lost me. Completely. What questions have you answered? I'm still puzzled by that incomprehensible sentence with random letters bolded.

Why did you link to a post by somebody else?

You seem to be arguing that our economic commonality isn't enough; that different cuts will affect different people. But the cuts are part of the same offensive on working people, and we all have an interest in ensuring we can all enjoy a better quality of life. You can spin this yarn about how the world has changed, but it hasn't - the small minority at the top still get fat on our backs and we still get less than we deserve. What do I see around me? I see a town that was once highly skilled, one of the first industrial communities, but which now has de-skilled factory jobs instead, which affects everybody, not one section. Now, I don't see how all of us at the bottom fighting over scraps is going to help; I want to see us sat at the big table, a fucking big table that everybody can sit at - my pov, not a quote from some obscure tract. Why, what do you see?


----------



## newbie (Oct 9, 2010)

the sentence was an error that shouldn't have survived proofreading, should never have been there, didn't mean anything and has now gone.  
the link is to a post by me



Proper Tidy said:


> You seem to be arguing that our economic commonality isn't enough; that different cuts will affect different people. But the cuts are part of the same offensive on working people, and we all have an interest in ensuring we can all enjoy a better quality of life. You can spin this yarn about how the world has changed, but it hasn't - the small minority at the top still get fat on our backs and we still get less than we deserve. What do I see around me? I see a town that was once highly skilled, one of the first industrial communities, but which now has de-skilled factory jobs instead, which affects everybody, not one section. Now, I don't see how all of us at the bottom fighting over scraps is going to help; I want to see us sat at the big table, a fucking big table that everybody can sit at - my pov, not a quote from some obscure tract. Why, what do you see?


 
well I don't see factories, that's for sure.

Perhaps clear 'economic commonality' is more apparent in your area than mine?  Good luck with organising around it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 9, 2010)

newbie said:


> the sentence was an error that shouldn't have survived proofreading, should never have been there, didn't mean anything and has now gone.
> the link is to a post by me
> 
> 
> ...


 
You think economic commonality isn't a factor in Lambeth? Yet you saw your arse when I paraphrased your position as 'class doesn't matter'?

Clearly, the people of Brixton would all be fine if the tories ever get the chance to do away with the NHS. Different cuts for different folks, or something. We're alright Jack.


----------



## newbie (Oct 9, 2010)

y'know over the years I've had lots of conversations like this.  I've also watched other people have them, watched their eyes glaze over and their minds wander off to the etymology of the old English phrase "_trotting out the same old story_" and other fascinating insights, before they make their excuses and leave.

just as I'm about to do.  I hope you'll excuse me. When I come back it'll be to read what Dennis and others have to say.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 9, 2010)

I think they're saying class is fundamental too, btw. My eyes also glaze over when people like you bang on about how we're all so massively different. At least one of us has the advantage of not talking bollocks.


----------



## newbie (Oct 10, 2010)

Of course they are, I know that and I respect it and I'm interested in their views.

Largely because they're not entirely one dimensional.  It's not your politics it's your style.  Each time I've engaged with you on this thread I've regretted it, because you've said little substantial but insist on scoring the same dull point over and again, rudely and antagonistically.  I don't agree with your politics, nor you with mine.  so what?  Persuade me with real world understanding, don't lecture me with simplistic, and utterly inadequate, ABC.

So, in the spirit of fraternal debate, I'll try again...

In the midst of discussion about the complexity of social and economic relationships within the w/c, contrasting where I've lived most of my adult life with the descriptions Dennis gave of Liverpool, I asked about where you live and you posted this, stressing commonality, which is fair enough, but ignoring complexity almost completely.



Proper Tidy said:


> What do I see around me? I see a town that was once highly skilled, one of the first industrial communities, but which now has de-skilled factory jobs instead, which affects everybody, not one section.


Each morning during my childhood the men of the estate got on their bikes and pedalled off to the factory, in waves for different start times. At lunchtime they came back to eat the dinner their wives had put on the table, then went back for the afternoon.  Like my parents most had left school at 14 or so and postwar migrated from smoggy London, in that sense whatever their disparate origins they were all much the same. Both the factory and the estate were owned by 'the firm' (what the adults called it), all the housing was tied- lose or change job, move out, no exceptions- so every household had a common employer/landlord. The firm was paternalistic but also strict, eg residents weren't able to choose the colour of their own front door.  

As we got older my mother took on part time work to fit around her primary role.  The line at the sausage factory, school dinner lady, in shops. Womens work, very poorly paid, but making a bit of extra income.

The class analysis of that is simple, we can both do it and we're going to come to the same conclusion. There was little complexity to cloud the issue, except perhaps that everybody understood what the different start times meant. In retrospect there was also a clear identity issue for women, but at the time that was well beyond my horizon, although I guess my mother discussed it in her 'Young Wives' group.

Outside the house my mate lived in was a fairly large strip of grass we played football on, until his neighbour X put a privet hedge round it to stop us. X spent a big chunk of his working life in the same factory under the same conditions as my dad until that all ended when the factory shut. They were all shafted for their pensions when the firm shut the works down and chased a Thatcher redevelopment grant to open a replacement factory elsewhere. Years later, after the estate had transferred to a HA, X bought his house and, somehow, bought that strip of land with it, onto which he built a new house and made a fortune.  

I don't know where he got his money from, a lifetime of hard work most likely, but maybe he was an aristo in disguise for all those years, and the story can be written of a 'class enemy'.  Having known him slightly all my life I can't really see him other than as an ordinary w/c bloke who saw a chance and took it, but you can paint him differently if you wish. 

I don't suppose there are very many housewives these days.  The organic link between factory and estate is long gone, the factory is now an industrial park with loads of little, separate, workshops and offices and estate management is from a different county. There are HA and other social tenants, owner occupiers and private tenants. Many households are retired, some are on benefits, those in work travel all over the area and beyond.  There are very expensive cars and old heaps, obvious even ostentatious prosperity alongside (what I take as signs of) deprivation. I presume some have had a university level education, I know many, many haven't. 

And- and this is the worst of it- there's still nowhere for kids to play football!  

If you wish you can carry on analysing now, 2010, as though it's as simple as when I was a kid. In the most simplistic terms nothing has changed. 'We' know best. No matter what the question the answer is always the same. 

But what's the point? You explain precious little useful about current conditions if you gloss over all complexity by continually restating only the most basic point, that class commonality matters above all else, and saying nothing else at all.  From my pov you're just repeating a one-dimensional mantra over and over (as well as tediously playing to the gallery) and ignoring the real world around you.  That's you personally, not the 'pro working class' political ghetto.

Very few see any point in listening to that.  Few have listened to 'pro working class' politics for years. Few will listen if you argue the same way- style or content- in the coffee shop, on the paper sale or at a meeting. You need to listen and try to understand how complex, messy, inconsistent, contradictory realworld self-interest affects the lives of the people you live amongst,   Or you'll be, rightly, ignored when you try to draw it together into commonality.

Why are you not prepared to discuss this stuff? Stress commonality by all means, but at least try to demonstrate some nodding acquaintance with the real world.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 10, 2010)

What?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 10, 2010)

no-one's saying its the same, they're just saying that class is still the only issue over which we can push people forward progressively.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 10, 2010)

Does any one remember Marxism Todays series of articles called New Times?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2010)

Later published together in one handy edition called New Times (i.e impose neo-liberalism through the labour party).


----------



## newbie (Oct 11, 2010)

Das Uberdog said:


> no-one's saying its the same, they're just saying that class is still the only issue over which we can push people forward progressively.


 
That's a slightly different issue.  I don't want to push anybody anywhere nor do I want to be pushed. So no, I'm not signing up to join 'we'.


Actually, in retrospect, maybe it isn't a completely different issue.  Maybe the reason 'pro w/c politics' has so little meaning is simply because 'we' are more intent on pushing than listening.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 11, 2010)

that's a meaningless semantic point; if you're convinced of a perspective (e.g. a class analysis of society) then you need to argue for it. call it 'pushing', 'convincing', whatever you will, it boils down to the same.

one of the most fundamental features of capitalism is that it alienates people from the truth of their human condition, creates fetishes of consumption and reduces people to abstracted labour values, diminishing their self-worth. life experiences under capitalism are deceptive; that's one of the reasons people put their community/ethnic/racial perspectives above the real material issues at play. if what you're arguing is that the left should merely be the responsive 'recepticle' of the already-existing 'mood' of society then what you're ignoring is that for the vast majority of history, the prevailing ideology of the masses will be loosely constructed around the ideology of the ruling class. you won't get anything you want done merely by listening to what people are saying and acting representatively on their behalf! [edited to add] you have to actively present your own analysis to them and argue tooth and nail for its acceptance.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 11, 2010)

Little Lenin?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 11, 2010)

do you disagree?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 11, 2010)

We, or them?  Consciousness arising from within shared collective experience and activity, tooth and nail, or brought to people from without ...  By students.


----------



## newbie (Oct 11, 2010)

trust me, not wanting to be pushed around is a lot more central to most folk than some abstract like class alienation


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 11, 2010)

class alienation isn't abstract, that's the point. if you think it is then that's the whole fucking argument in a nutshell.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 11, 2010)

regardless of who 'brings the ideas', what do you do as a convinced socialist if you believe class is at the root of social strife and you know people need to organize collectively to stop their continued oppression? do you just not bring it up? that's effectively what you're arguing. no fucking difference if its students, doctors, dockers or whatever - if that's your analysis you fight for it.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 12, 2010)

Newbie , I am a bit older than you incidentially and found fellow workers in the 70s to have exactly the same sort of  pressures/self interests in their lives as you described in your post. I don't think you are describing anything new . I  put the New Times post in as bait to see if you would bite but you didn't .What point are you making exactly apart from the fact you are not a great believer in pro working class politics , don't like being pushed around, and have a soft spot for the Labour Party and the liberal left gestures of the 80s rainbow coalition?


----------



## revlon (Oct 12, 2010)

talking of 1980s trendy-lefty idiocy - what fucker let _this_ on saturday morning kids tv?  Absolutely surreal.


----------



## ericjarvis (Oct 12, 2010)

newbie said:


> Running alongside that is the thread topic. You've explained your problems in Liverpool with the groups who were organising around identity, a very different vision which became a significant part of the battleground.  Again Lambeth was different, being at the forefront of all that and, for a time, successfully coupled it with promoting strong union organisation.  To some extent I think it proved to be more resilient- the next leader was Linda Bellos and Lambeth continued as a high spending, high tax, defiant council for some years, which must have helped protect from the savagery you described.  But I don't think that's the case now.



What happened to the Labour Party in Lambeth was a double whammy of the LCC and then the Blairites.

The first body blow was the imposition of Kate Hoey as candidate for the Vauxhall by-election. That pretty much defined the relationship between the national Labour Party and the Lambeth parties for some while. Basically as soon as it looked like Russell Proffitt had enough support to get the candidacy the LCC dominated NEC stepped in to prevent them having to deal with a high profile by-election with a black candidate. From that point on there was very little trust between the Lambeth Labour parties and the party nationally.

For a few years after that the LCC started targetting specific wards and taking over. Followed by the Blairites after he was elected party leader. Meanwhile the high profile figures in Lambeth who wouldn't knuckle down and meekly follow the national party line were suspended or otherwise pressured into leaving the party. Which led to the present situation of the Labour Party in Lambeth pretty much dominated by toe the line party hacks.

What galls me is that after all the fuss on the right of the party about the Millies being a threat, when in fact all they ever managed to do was sell a few newspapers around Oval and on the Cowley Estate, it was precisely the tactics they were claiming were being used by the Millies that the right used to eviscerate the party in Lambeth. The difference being that the Millies were pretty crap at it, the LCC were slightly better, and the Blairites were a bloody effective group of entryist social democrats who managed to completely take over by a process of intimidating and attacking everyone who disagreed with them.



newbie said:


> The fire has gone out of organising around identity, it's become institutionalised, a bunch of professionals bickering amongst themselves about funding, inevitably with some 'communities' (however defined) showing signs of resentment. Bottom feeding politicians seek to stoke that, of course, and there's a heavy left critique of the whole thing, we've been through why it's problematic.  My point is that identity isn't really going to be a major form of organisation in the forthcoming battles. There will be pockets because of identity targetted cuts- eg taking bus passes off the elderly- but I can't really see eg black or womens sections being a significant player.  Can you?
> 
> I think those battles have gone. There are probably areas where racial division is a serious factor but I don't think they're commonplace, I certainly have no personal experience of it.  Apart from that most of us will have immediate, personal defensive concerns, very different one from another but for the most part that won't include questions of identity. These days few care with the same passion, if only because legislation has largely put paid to large scale discrimination.  What divides us now is not identity but the sheer complexity of our different circumstances and preoccupations.
> 
> we (still) live in interesting times.


 
Race is still an important factor in many people's lives. Ask any bright black kid about how they fare at school compared to their white counterparts. Just look at the statistics for employment, crime (as victims, as perpetrators, and when it comes to sentencing for those found guilty), and mental health. It just doesn't get talked about to any extent, because anyone who brings up the subject of racial/gender/religious/class bias is immediately attacked as if any mention of the existence of those biases is divisive.

Personally I don't see how it's possible to make a fairer society without identifying and eliminating injustice and prejudice. However I am in a minority in assuming that bigotry is a worse sin than exposing bigotry, and that it's worse to be wilfully ignorant than to point out somebody else's ignorance.


----------



## ericjarvis (Oct 12, 2010)

dennisr said:


> I think one could argue that Knight - although Lambeth council was the only other council to support the refusal to sign up to a cuts budget and the slogan "better to break the law than to break the poor" - and the Lambeth left did not draw the necessary conclusions on HOW to fight. They did not build the grassroots, local trade union campaign but continued the big event, big publicity politics of the GLC. They saw themselves as working for the people of lambeth (and all power to their elbows for this) but not with those people.


 
I think you have to make a clear distinction between politics in Lambeth under Ted Knight, and politics in Lambeth under Linda Bellos and Joan Twelves. It was a massive change. The surcharged councillors included a lot with a strong union background, and a lot with a strong connection to the GLC. Those who came after were relatively inexperienced, which was a bad thing and a good thing. Bad in that only a very small number of councillors had a strong union background, and for the obvious reason that they had all been thrown in the deep end with no life jackets. Good in that there was very little baggage brought into the administration.

My recollection of the years from 85 to 90 was that, at least in Vauxhall, the principal approach of the party was to work from the ground up. We couldn't compete with the Tories for cash, but we could outdo them and the Lib Dems through sheer grass roots numbers. So campaigning was pretty much based around getting to people one on one, either on the doorstep or through casework and surgeries, and making sure that the party really was letting ordinary people set the agenda. Not through the media. Not through surveys, focus groups and mass meetings. But through a process of neighbour talking to neighbour, colleague talking to colleague.

It didn't go through the unions. With a couple of exceptions the people who had been equipped to work that way were out of the picture. It worked through tenants groups, community groups, voluntary groups and so on.

One other problem in Lambeth was that there was then, as there is now, widespread corruption amongst council officers. Ted, for all the positives about him, didn't take that challenge on. However Linda and then Joan did. To the extent that the chair of the committee responsible for the DLO ended up getting death threats from people whose cosy backhanders were being ended. That meant, sadly, that in many cases the administration could be presented as attacking staff in the Town Hall. So the relationship with the unions wasn't anywhere near as good as it should have been. Though to be fair, the T&G were always wonderfully generous in supplying resources all through that period.

In the 87 general election we increased Stuart Holland's support against a national trend. Almost entirely through a grass roots campaign. Basically because very little of the national Labour Party campaign had any relevance to Lambeth. So not only was that sort of approach being used, it was being used succesfully.


----------



## ericjarvis (Oct 12, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You would think anybody interested in social justice if not socialism would want to understand how it is we ended up in a fucking ghetto, but I guess not.


 
S'obvious innit. The bloody toffs got all the good ones and left us with second rate defective satnavs. We're bloody lucky to be in a ghetto and not up shit creek... erm? Hang on. I need to rethink that.


----------



## newbie (Oct 12, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Newbie , I am a bit older than you incidentially and found fellow workers in the 70s to have exactly the same sort of  pressures/self interests in their lives as you described in your post. I don't think you are describing anything new . I  put the New Times post in as bait to see if you would bite but you didn't .What point are you making exactly apart from the fact you are not a great believer in pro working class politics , don't like being pushed around, and have a soft spot for the Labour Party and the liberal left gestures of the 80s rainbow coalition?


 
No i don't bite at a marxist tracts   I had a quick squint at wikipedia but wasn't sure what point you were making. 

I agree with you- some of the pressures were exactly the same in the 70s as now, though that doesn't mean there's any clear resolution to them.  The contrast I was drawing was with the 50s/60s though, when analysis was much simpler (even so, 'pro working class politics' had limited influence). Other pressures are new or newer, particularly those to do with significant wealth disparity within the working class and demographic, age related issues. 

I asked you earlier 'which working class?' It's a question which arises but usually remains unresolved whenever someone expounds on the what is or isn't in the interests of the working class. 

I guess you and me both would probably both argue that defending the index linked state pension from 65 is in the interests of the working class as a whole.  I hope all 'pro working class politics' and every section of society agrees.  I'm unclear why anyone in the 20's would think that, though.  







link

I'm not sure I have a single point to make, this thread has meandered all over the place.  You're right that I don't think 'pro working class politics' has either a clear view of what the working class actually is nor much to offer in the way of useful advice to people being forced- forced- to navigate through the balance of their own contradictory self-interest with that of their neighbour.  

but you're wrong about me having any affection for the Labour Party- offering critical support to some of what Ted Knight achieved tells you nothing about what I thought about goings on in the wider Labour Party of the period, let alone anything before or since.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 12, 2010)

newbie said:


> No i don't bite at a marxist tracts   I had a quick squint at wikipedia but wasn't sure what point you were making.
> 
> I agree with you- some of the pressures were exactly the same in the 70s as now, though that doesn't mean there's any clear resolution to them.  The contrast I was drawing was with the 50s/60s though, when analysis was much simpler (even so, 'pro working class politics' had limited influence). Other pressures are new or newer, particularly those to do with significant wealth disparity within the working class and demographic, age related issues.
> 
> ...


 

I suppose when I was 20 , actually right up untill I was about 40 I never even thought about pensions so i am not surprsied it isn't on the agenda of todays 20s either.

So tell us a bit more about what you thought before and or during the 80s and/or since.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 12, 2010)

ericjarvis said:


> What happened to the Labour Party in Lambeth was a double whammy of the LCC and then the Blairites.
> 
> The first body blow was the imposition of Kate Hoey as candidate for the Vauxhall by-election. That pretty much defined the relationship between the national Labour Party and the Lambeth parties for some while. Basically as soon as it looked like Russell Proffitt had enough support to get the candidacy the LCC dominated NEC stepped in to prevent them having to deal with a high profile by-election with a black candidate. From that point on there was very little trust between the Lambeth Labour parties and the party nationally.
> 
> ...



Re last para : I think some of the discussion here has been that  that identity politics leads to a position where only those who are oppressed can define the manner of their oppression and how to tackle it, that this leads to increasing fragmentation ( especially when imposed from above on working class people) and that in not linking the fight against oppression to the fight against exploitation that very often the working class is seen as a barrier to that fight.

Incidentially don't the attainment figures actually conclude that poor kids underperform per se  and that wihin that category that its poor white kids that do worst?

Ironic that the ex IMG ( who were the softest Trot group on identity politics and the Labour party) Kate  Hoey got imposed on Lambeth.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

i actually live with one of these people at the moment  she is actually my landlady and only a few years older than me (im 22) and she already owns one house she doesn't live in, and is collecting the rent for the one she does live in, which is owned by her mum. She sees everything - and i mean everything - as an oppression of women. I came back one night to find her and a friend of hers in the kitchen talking very serioujsly about how Raoul Moat and the fact that people were joining groups about what a legend he was proved that women were oppressed, whereas the "cat bin lady" was vilified etc, and people were threatening to kill her, proving that society hates women. She does have a point but she just does take everything so seriously and she is one of these people who thinks that women can never do anything wrong, especially if they are as educated etc as she is (and men can almost never do anything right). She lived a pretty sheltered life and i am pretty sure i know why she is like this and can understand, but it is really irritating.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 12, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> and given my background etc i can hardly talk, .


 
It's not where you're from it's where you're going...


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

heh


----------



## LiamO (Oct 12, 2010)

BTW Froggy have I seen you use the 'c' word on here on occasion? Better not let them hear you.

That was a hanging offence for fellas in the 80's... god knows what they would have done to a 'treacherous' woman who betrayed wimmin-kind by using it.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

Im terrified of saying it by mistake in front of her  

I should emphasise that not everyone in the SOS group is like that btw.


----------



## newbie (Oct 12, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> I suppose when I was 20 , actually right up untill I was about 40 I never even thought about pensions so i am not surprsied it isn't on the agenda of todays 20s either.


Missed point.  During our working lives we've been able to support the pension needs of the retired relatively easily. We have to pay, via our tax, for their pensions but because there are so many of us, and so few of them, year by year the tax burden on each of us for their pensions has been reasonably light. For someone in their 20s it's the opposite, they can look forward to a much larger tax burden, throughout their working life, as a much smaller workforce supports a much larger retired population who, additionally, are expected to live even longer than currently.  In their own turn they can anticipate an even smaller workforce to support them as they age.

At some point their minds will start concentrating and it will be on their agenda.  Do you think there's a single, identifiable, unambiguous working class interest in this? However if the young bucks of the pro working class political groupings want to campaign to keep the retirement age, hold on to (or improve) index linking, bus passes and winter fuel payments then I'll support them all the way.  Not because I'll necessarily believe all the rhetoric but because it's in my interests and they're very kind to offer to work harder and pay more tax to keep me cosy in my dotage.






> So tell us a bit more about what you thought before and or during the 80s and/or since.


 
what on earth for? I'm just what Dennis called a 'nobody', the only thing that separates me from the millions of other nobodies is that I'm still listening to 'pro working class politics' and even, on a good day, still sympathetic.  Most people have given up.  I really don't see how you can expect to convince them if you can't convince me.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 12, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> i actually live with one of these people at the moment  she is actually my landlady and only a few years older than me (im 22) and she already owns one house she doesn't live in, and is collecting the rent for the one she does live in, which is owned by her mum. She sees everything - and i mean everything - as an oppression of women. I came back one night (ironically from a SP meeting I think) to find her and a friend of hers in the kitchen talking very serioujsly about how Raoul Moat and the fact that people were joining groups about what a legend he was proved that women were oppressed, whereas the "cat bin lady" was vilified etc, and people were threatening to kill her, proving that society hates women. She does have a point but she just does take everything so seriously and she is one of these people who thinks that women can never do anything wrong, especially if they are as educated etc as she is (and men can almost never do anything right). She lived a pretty sheltered life and i am pretty sure i know why she is like this and can understand, but it is really irritating.
> 
> There are a few of them in the SOS group as well, we were talking about child benefit for people on over 44k and one of them goes, "well, it serves them right, as they all voted tory!"  i was later talking to one of them and it turns out she is doing an internship, unpaid, for a university for 9 MONTHS  now, i know how middle class I am, but even I couldn't afford to do something like that. nice girl though, and people's backgrounds shouldn't matter - but what is pissing me off at the moment is that it's basically just turned into something for them and their mates. they were talking about what banners to have and they were all saying "oh let's not have anything about that could be too heavily related to socialism and trade unions or refer to anything about welfare or benefits on it because that will put people off" (even though benefits are like the main thing under attack)
> 
> i don't want to have a go at them because they are all good people and well-intentioned, and have done a lot of good work, and given my background etc i can hardly talk, but i can see how a movement which is supposed to be for residents but actually ends up being dominated by a load of students and people working for green and climate change charities could be really off putting to a lot of people.


 
lol.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 12, 2010)

Newbie, the pensions example you give is pretty much the sort of piss poor line that is trotted out by social correspondents in a rush to put something vaguely provocative  to bed to meet a deadline . . Why should the present tax structure we have stay the same? Why shouldn't the private sector be forced to provide pension plans for their staff . The issue for many is not oh we are going to have to pay for the elderly but the fact that income levels for the elderly generally  reflect the inequalities that exist in the rest of society including those who are in their twenties. It interesting how the notion of 'grey power' seems so distant now .In fact the lack of success by pensioners groups illustrates perfectly the failings of single issue groups in that identity itself cannot overcome class differences. I suspect that your scenario in which youth start concentrating on youth issues simply because they are youth would end up in the same dead end . Sad but true.

And what of working class youth ? Would they want their grandparents bus pass, winter fuel allowance taken off them or would they rather sensibly point out that the impact of that would be greater than the impact of removing these from the better off ( I was somewhat surprised to find out on the radio  that people like Mick Jagger et al are entitled to the winter fuel allowance) 

The reason that I asked about you is to get some idea of your political journey  , you surely can't have finished where you are by starting at the same point.? And I am not sure that convincing you is the key to convincing those who you think have given up.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 12, 2010)

revlon said:


> talking of 1980s trendy-lefty idiocy - what fucker let _this_ on saturday morning kids tv?  Absolutely surreal.




I used to like them as it goes


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Newbie, the pensions example you give is pretty much the sort of piss poor line that is trotted out by social correspondents in a rush to put something vaguely provocative  to bed to meet a deadline . . Why should the present tax structure we have stay the same? Why shouldn't the private sector be forced to provide pension plans for their staff . The issue for many is not oh we are going to have to pay for the elderly but the fact that income levels for the elderly generally  reflect the inequalities that exist in the rest of society including those who are in their twenties. It interesting how the notion of 'grey power' seems so distant now .In fact the lack of success by pensioners groups illustrates perfectly the failings of single issue groups in that identity itself cannot overcome class differences. I suspect that your scenario in which youth start concentrating on youth issues simply because they are youth would end up in the same dead end . Sad but true.
> 
> And what of working class youth ? Would they want their grandparents bus pass, winter furl allowance taken off them or would they rather sensibly point out that the impact of that would be greater than the impact of removing these from the better off ( I was somewhat surprised to find out on the radio  that people like Mick Jagger et al are entitled to the winter fuel allowance)
> 
> The reason that I asked about you is to get some idea of your political journey  , you surely can't have finished where you are by starting at the same point.? And I am not sure that convincing you is the key to convincing those who you think have given up.


 
well said.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

Captain Hurrah said:


> lol.


 
oh no, ive probably made a twat out of myself again. reading that through again i sound like a bit of a twat sorry


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 12, 2010)

Not you.  Your landlady.  Probably clueless as to her own comfortable class position too.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 12, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> oh no, ive probably made a twat out of myself again. reading that through again i sound like a bit of a twat sorry


 
I think the good Captain is laughing WITH you rather than AT you froggy


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 12, 2010)

Yes.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Not you.  Your landlady.  Probably clueless as to her own comfortable class position too.


 
Yeah, I know. She is always going on about the environment and how we should all buy eco-friendly washing powders and that too because of the environment and how we should give her the money to buy them when I didn't want them in the first place because they're too expensive. 

I shouldn't be slagging her off but it does piss me off when sometimes she starts to go on about "capitalism" etc when that behaviour is actually adding to it, and like she is really worried about being "ethical" with things like the environment, but the other stuff she hasn't really given any thought at all really


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Yes.


 
Sorry. I seem to be doing that an awful lot at the moment - I am incredibly stressed at the moment for a lot of reasons I don't want to go on about on a politics board


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> She works in a school and gives talks on womens issues etc and once she came back and was like, "Oh my god, the kids here told me that they played Grand Theft Auto and watched porn and I talked to the teachers and they didnt see a problem with it", like it was this terrible thing...(



I don't know any teachers (and I know quite a few) who would not be a bit more circumspect about a diet of Grand Theft Auto and porn.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## newbie (Oct 13, 2010)

convincing me isn't key to anything.  All I meant was that arguments might work on me that wouldn't stand a chance with the likes of a Jeremy Clarkson fan. The sort who would just laugh at you and say "don't be ridiculous, the working class has voted with it's feet: _No-one Wants To Be Working Class Any More_." 




The39thStep said:


> Newbie, the pensions example you give is pretty much the sort of piss poor line that is trotted out by social correspondents in a rush to put something vaguely provocative  to bed to meet a deadline . . Why should the present tax structure we have stay the same? Why shouldn't the private sector be forced to provide pension plans for their staff . The issue for many is not oh we are going to have to pay for the elderly but the fact that income levels for the elderly generally  reflect the inequalities that exist in the rest of society including those who are in their twenties. It interesting how the notion of 'grey power' seems so distant now .In fact the lack of success by pensioners groups illustrates perfectly the failings of single issue groups in that identity itself cannot overcome class differences. I suspect that your scenario in which youth start concentrating on youth issues simply because they are youth would end up in the same dead end . Sad but true.
> 
> And what of working class youth ? Would they want their grandparents bus pass, winter fuel allowance taken off them or would they rather sensibly point out that the impact of that would be greater than the impact of removing these from the better off ( I was somewhat surprised to find out on the radio  that people like Mick Jagger et al are entitled to the winter fuel allowance)


 
none of which goes anywhere towards providing a reasonable stab at dealing with the problem.  Apart from the mild jibe at the start and an apparent endorsement of means testing at the end what is there?  A bit of wishful thinking about changing the tax structure, various attempts at sentimentality and some musing about 'grey power'.  Oh, and restating that identity "cannot overcome class differences".  

On this thread I don't care about the detail of the question, it's just an example.  I put others forward in an earlier post, there are plenty more.  To my mind they help illustrate the complexity of self-interest- economic, identity, sectional- and aspiration within the modern working class.


----------



## newbie (Oct 13, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Incidentially don't the attainment figures actually conclude that poor kids underperform per se  and that wihin that category that its poor white kids that do worst?



from what I can make out of the equality report just published the first part of that is true beyond doubt, the latter doesn't appear to be anything like so simple.  

Observer

There's a Google spreadsheet of some of the data here.  What does appear to be the case is that girls outperform boys across pretty much all indicators and yet men outperform women economically.  It also seems to show that whites, British or 'other', outperform all other groups even in households below 60% median income (eg the Wealth tab, line 138 onwards). I'm no statistician though, that rather glib overview may not stand up to real scrutiny any more than the one you presented does.  


Full report- 13.7MB PDF


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> oh no, ive probably made a twat out of myself again. reading that through again i sound like a bit of a twat sorry


 
Sweetheart, have some confidence in yourself. You are not a twat. Not by any stretch of the imagination. You make more sense than most posters here of thrice your age, let alone those only twice it.


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Not you.  Your landlady.  Probably clueless as to her own comfortable class position too.


 
Precisely the problem with middle-class lefties. They don't (in general) seem aware that their world view is fundamentally different because of their class, and that being more articulate and confident does not make them right.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

thanks mate - ive edited a lot of them posts anyway now in case someone i know reads them - i noticed that when im not logged in i can read this forum


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I don't know any teachers (and I know quite a few) who would not be a bit more circumspect about a diet of Grand Theft Auto and porn.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
oh sure, not saying its ok by any means, but these kids are teenagers basically ...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 13, 2010)

It's ok FW; I was more questioning the truth of your landlady's assertion.

All the best - Louis MacNeice


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> oh sure, not saying its ok by any means, but these kids are teenagers basically ...


 
There's also a huge difference between "have played/seen" and "diet of". Any teacher who is shocked by the former is living in cloud cuckoo land. Any teacher who is not worried by the latter should not be in the job.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

yeah, exactly. i agree with you.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> There's also a huge difference between "have played/seen" and "diet of". Any teacher who is shocked by the former is living in cloud cuckoo land. Any teacher who is not worried by the latter should not be in the job.


 
I was over egging the pudding to make a point...apologies. 

However, there are teachers who are shocked by children watching porn and playing violent video games; and I'm glad as they work in primary schools (the age of the children in question was not mentioned in the original post). 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

yeah i think people SHOULD be very worried if primary school age kids are watchging or playing that shit.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> There's also a huge difference between "have played/seen" and "diet of". Any teacher who is shocked by the former is living in cloud cuckoo land. Any teacher who is not worried by the latter should not be in the job.


 
You are very forthright today ymu... and bang on the money too!


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

she usually is


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 13, 2010)

newbie said:


> convincing me isn't key to anything.  All I meant was that arguments might work on me that wouldn't stand a chance with the likes of a Jeremy Clarkson fan. The sort who would just laugh at you and say "don't be ridiculous, the working class has voted with it's feet: _No-one Wants To Be Working Class Any More_."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tell me a bit more about what you see as the modern working class and the form that political engagment could take?


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 13, 2010)

newbie said:


> from what I can make out of the equality report just published the first part of that is true beyond doubt, the latter doesn't appear to be anything like so simple.
> 
> Observer
> 
> ...





This is a year old but this one says poor white kids don't attain at primary 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8368240.stm

This one says poor white boys don't attain at GCSE level

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8414122.stm

Perhaps the question of class was all to complex , even more comple than you have discovered,even for the top down equality experts?

Notice the real inequality gap is between those who are well off and those who aren't. For all your musings/obstacles that you like to put in the way re complexity of identity/self interest etc _within_ the working class the big issue and obstacle to overcome is the gap between the working class and the well off.


----------



## ericjarvis (Oct 13, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Re last para : I think some of the discussion here has been that  that identity politics leads to a position where only those who are oppressed can define the manner of their oppression and how to tackle it, that this leads to increasing fragmentation ( especially when imposed from above on working class people) and that in not linking the fight against oppression to the fight against exploitation that very often the working class is seen as a barrier to that fight.
> 
> Incidentially don't the attainment figures actually conclude that poor kids underperform per se  and that wihin that category that its poor white kids that do worst?
> 
> Ironic that the ex IMG ( who were the softest Trot group on identity politics and the Labour party) Kate  Hoey got imposed on Lambeth.


 
Personally I think that as soon as it goes much beyond "stop the powerful exploiting the rest of us" any analysis should be tactical rather than strategic. The biggest problem for the left in the UK has been its love of spliiting into groups based on a single tactical approach to progress, and then fighting everyone else on the left about how best to improve the lot of the working class rather than actually doing anything useful.

For those of us living on the real front line of poverty there is no clash between identity politics and class politics, and there never has been and never will be. When it comes to the crunch it makes no difference whether you are being shat on for being black, female, gay, or working class, you just need it to stop. So the only important thing is to target the oppressors regardless of who they are oppressing, rather than farting about trying to decide which particular label is leading to the most oppression.

There is no uniform working class. It's a label that can be applied to a load of very disparate people. Just as there isn't one kind of woman or one kind of black person. So the idea of the working class being a barrier to anything doesn't make sense to me. Some working class people will support some progressive ideas and others will oppose them, and that's how it should always be.

However there are, within the working class, many groups that develop quite a strong collective identity. Sometimes through unions, sometimes through political action, sometimes through tenants groups, and so on. Within such groups I think it's important to understand the difference between something imposed on the group from powerful vested interests outside the group, and something imposed on the group by the wider world in general. Back to targetting the oppressors again. Just because members of that group find themselves at odds with the context they have to operate in doesn't always mean that they are being oppressed. And, of course, sometimes it does.

As for education statistics. Given the varied nature of schools in the UK and the simple fact that children are all individual human beings. I don't see how it's worth looking at anything other than the broadest and most simole factors. There is no doubt at all that poorer kids tend to get a raw deal. That should be fixed. There is no doubt at all that black kids tend to get a raw deal. That should be fixed. Whether or not poor white kids get a worse or better deal than poor black kids. Fixing the handicaps unjustly imposed on poor kids and the handicaps imposed on black kids leads to a situation where a load of injustices have been remedied. Arguing about which set is most sinned against does nothing but create resentment and barriers to progress FOR EVERYONE.

The imposition of Kate Hoey was interesting. As I wasn't on the national party NEC I can only rely on hearsay, but I got the impression that feelers were put out about imposing Alf Dubs and they pretty much got an outright rejection. Kate was neck and neck with Russell Proffitt in the selection battle, so she was the next best thing. Not seen as politically sound, but at least not requiring the national Labour Party to be seen on the nation's TVs as being overtly anti-racist.

It's a shame for Kate that she had to be put in that position. She's been an OK MP. A rare thing. I don't think there were many in Vauxhall LP who ever thought she'd be anything else. No matter who they may have preferred. However a lot of us felt unable to take any part in the by election. As her predeccessor's agent I was one of the more high profile examples. Restricting myself to helping Richard Balfe campaign to be re-elected as MEP. It seemed to take a while to get Kate to fully understand that it was in no way a reflection on her.


----------



## newbie (Oct 14, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Tell me a bit more about what you see as the modern working class and the form that political engagment could take?


 
I can't imagine why anyone would be interested.... I have plenty of questions I can't articulate succinctly and make no pretense about having any answers. I keep looking to the far left to see if they have any, I'll post this in the hope of stimulating some responses beyond simply restating the constant answer to every question.

What I don't see when I close my eyes is forces of capital pushing here, exploitation of surplus value there or class alienation all around.  I just don't think like that, I'm glad there are people who do, I learn from them though I think their explanations gloss over what people actually want.  

I see people who want fair treatment but don't want to be treated collectively, and take every opportunity to get away from all that.  Their key objective is choice, something almost entirely absent from the mass stereotypical w/c of the past.  

Choice in, and within, work, choice in housing, choice in culture, in transport, in health & education. The choice of a consumer not the lack of choice of a robot.  

Not everybody has much opportunity to exercise choice, but for most when they see the chance they grasp at it with both hands and show great reluctance to let go.  Of course a lot of the opportunity has been provided by ready access to debt, but using that in itself was a choice the w/c eagerly grasped.

The option of choice is something historically much more available to the middle classes than to those without an underpinning of assets and wealth.  However, over the last few decades a big portion of the w/c has done their best to build up wealth (which brings resilience and opportunity as well as choice) and in so doing has developed the real self-interest of the stakeholder.  I don't think they've stopped being working class though.

Where direct economic choice is not possible (in health or education for most, in housing for many, and so on) there are all sorts of collective pressures and interests. But there's still a very strong strand of people demanding choice and individual decision making.  

With choice comes the risk of personal failure or setback, of course.  The ramifications of the debt boom are playing out, many people have been and will be hurt and many will be dumped unceremoniously back where they started, without wealth and with few choices.  However plenty of others will sail through with their wealth consolidated and their choices relatively unaffected.  When the dust has settled on the ConDem government of 2010-201? I think the w/c will still be seeking choice, still be trying to get away from being treated collectively. And will still be actively encouraged in that by all mainstream parties, of course.

Of course some have little or no wealth, and thus limited choices, because they're too young, because they've never had an opportunity, because they made other choices, all sorts of reasons.  When it closes it's eyes I have a feeling the left sees their position, which is simple to analyse and describe, as characteristic of the working class. Certainly the rhetoric relies on the plight of the simple, impoverished (and thus choiceless) worker, contrasted with and downtrodden by the prosperity of the greedy ("_the gap between the working class and the well off_").  The left looks for collective response to the collective problems of the working class, based on those at the bottom, the poor.

In reality I think a huge proportion of 'the working class' is reasonably prosperous and will choose how to act based on stakeholder self-interest not altruism.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 14, 2010)

you're constantly going on about what you see 'people' 'wanting', even though it's been made clear to you that 'what people want' or think has every chance of being reactionary.

you seem to know different kinds of people from me, and i can't really say that i recognise this massed demand for a linear-Nu Labour definition of 'choice'. regardless, if it is there, then that consciousness can't challenge capitalism, so you argue for a more sophisticated perspective.


----------



## newbie (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm only going on because I was asked, I'm not trying to shove my muddled thoughts down your throat.

I'm sorry if the reactionary views of 'people' are a disappointment to you.  You just carry on arguing tooth and nail at every opportunity and hopefully they'll see their errors.

tbh if you can't see demand for choice I think you're blinkered.  Just see the economic development through life: not everyone studies hard and willingly takes on debt to gain choice of career, but plenty do; as soon as they can afford it many or most buy a car, to give choice and remove dependency on mass, collective, transportation; if they can they try to move from parental home to sharing to renting independently, and from there to getting onto the so called housing ladder; those who do really well put their kids name down for some public school, those who can't afford that make their choice plain by buying into the right catchment area or paying for a tutor.  Some don't, of course, they spend every penny on day by day life and show no desire for choice about anything while others spend their time and resources fretting about challenging capitalism.  But for the most part I reckon when people see the opportunity they seem eager to take it.  

If you see different tell me where the counter trends can be observed, away from individual choice and towards collective provision.  I've noticed one, I wonder what you've seen.


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 14, 2010)

Nuclear free zones did they ever achieve anything except give daily mail something else to hate?Or was that the whole point of them?


----------



## ericjarvis (Oct 14, 2010)

Das Uberdog said:


> you're constantly going on about what you see 'people' 'wanting', even though it's been made clear to you that 'what people want' or think has every chance of being reactionary.
> 
> you seem to know different kinds of people from me, and i can't really say that i recognise this massed demand for a linear-Nu Labour definition of 'choice'. regardless, if it is there, then that consciousness can't challenge capitalism, so you argue for a more sophisticated perspective.


 
Now THAT'S the middle class telling the working class what they need if I ever saw it.

Actually what the working class want isn't reactionary, pretty much by definition. However many working class people are seduced into demanding reactionary methods to get what they want. Meanwhile left of centre politics in the UK is still dominated by people who insist that their analysis is perfect and that anyone who disagrees in any way is an enemy of the working class.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 14, 2010)

is it bollocks! do you agree with a class perspective or not? if you do, then you have to argue for it, against those who don't! nothing 'elitist' about it at all; all it entails is actually following through with what you believe.




			
				newbie said:
			
		

> I'm sorry if the reactionary views of 'people' are a disappointment to you. You just carry on arguing tooth and nail at every opportunity and hopefully they'll see their errors.



you're the only one who seems disappointed and jaded on this thread; i readily accept that traditional leftwing analyses of society aren't yet popularized, and that is one of the reasons we don't already have socialism! the point is that i haven't given up on actually demanding a realistic understanding of what building socialism means (even if that _is_ against the grain of popular culture) whereas that's exactly what you seem to have done.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 14, 2010)

ericjarvis said:


> Now THAT'S the middle class telling the working class what they need if I ever saw it.
> 
> Actually what the working class want isn't reactionary, pretty much by definition. *However many working class people are seduced into demanding reactionary methods to get what they want.* Meanwhile left of centre politics in the UK is still dominated by people who insist that their analysis is perfect and that anyone who disagrees in any way is an enemy of the working class.



what does this mean?


----------



## newbie (Oct 14, 2010)

Das Uberdog said:


> is it bollocks! do you agree with a class perspective or not? if you do, then you have to argue for it, against those who don't! nothing 'elitist' about it at all; all it entails is actually following through with what you believe.
> 
> 
> 
> you're the only one who seems disappointed and jaded on this thread; i readily accept that traditional leftwing analyses of society aren't yet popularized, and that is one of the reasons we don't already have socialism! the point is that i haven't given up on actually *demanding a realistic understanding of what building socialism means* (even if that _is_ against the grain of popular culture) whereas that's exactly what you seem to have done.


 
what does this mean?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 14, 2010)

it means that in order for socialism to be realisable there needs to exist a widespread sense of class consciousness.


----------



## newbie (Oct 14, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Tell me a bit more about what you see as the modern working class and the form that political engagment could take?


 
I'd appreciate your views on my post, as well as how you see the modern w/c.  Do you dismiss choice as easily as du?


----------



## newbie (Oct 14, 2010)

Das Uberdog said:


> it means that in order for socialism to be realisable there needs to exist a widespread sense of class consciousness.


 
so what do you see as the modern working class?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 14, 2010)

in the West, they're structurally different; more stratified into different sections (e.g. 'traditional' working class occupations [factory workers, etc] new service/retail sector occupations [call centres, Tesco's till workers, shelf-stackers, etc] and 'fallen' white collar professions [Civil Service staff, council workers, etc]). There's also more of an ambiguous political/social relationship between the traditional 'professions' (Teaching, Medicine, Law, etc) and working class society than there once was.

basically, the working class is (still) defined by being _employed_ on a wage for unskilled or manual (dirty) labour, broadly distinguished from a middle-strata management position by the degree to which their role entails the supervision and overseeing of their fellow wage-earners.

there's no doubt that the social interaction between working class people has been altered by the overhaul of the Western economy, towards a more retail-oriented economic base. there's also no doubt that the old Clarion cries of the left won't intuitively appeal to the mass bulk of the population in the same manner which they used to. the point is, that rather than merely accepting the dubious basis of modern centre-left identity politics the left should be looking to rebuild working class consciousness. otherwise, we can't ever win.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 15, 2010)

Das Uberdog said:


> you're the only one who seems disappointed and jaded on this thread; i readily accept that traditional leftwing analyses of society aren't yet popularized, and that is one of the reasons we don't already have socialism! the point is that i haven't given up on actually demanding a realistic understanding of what building socialism means (even if that _is_ against the grain of popular culture) whereas that's exactly what you seem to have done.


 
Sorry, but I fear your Little Lenin attitude to this, maybe be wholly counterproductive.  It's shouldn't be about bullying or brow-beating working class people.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 15, 2010)

'bullying' or 'brow-beating'? by having a discussion?

how exactly do you ever hope to convince anyone of anything if you think there's something inherently elitist about standing your ground and sticking to your point?

unbelievable! fucking 'little Lenin' bollocks.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 15, 2010)

*This thread has disappeared up it's own arse!*

In an effort to bring things back in thread - come on guys, where's all the bile, the bitterness, the flouncing? - and to introduce some much needed levity... I will post this below.

I posted it elsewhere in a 'discussion' about the forthcoming Ant-Fascist Action book. I re-discovered it when looking for something else so I thought I might sling it in to this mix for the craic. It is not an attack on Anarchists. Nor is it an attack on Crusties. It _is_ a disparaging analysis of a particular breed of people who called themselves anarchists but were really inveterate flouncers - and who used to drive genuine Anarchists nuts... much to my amusement.



*It wasn't just life-style Lefties we were suspicious of back then... the Anarchists had their own crosses to bear... *

One of the things that really used to annoy the fuck out of my activist Anarchist friends and comrades (mostly DAM aligned) was not just the childish shirking and sulking by ‘dilettante lifestyle anarchists’ (DLA’s) –  but the fact that they (the ‘good’ anarchists) often got lumped in with these chancers, simply because they both called themselves anarchists. Here’s an example…

Many times we (AFA) successfully mobbed up and managed to travel across Central London undetected (something impossible since the advent of mass CCTV). Now most of us would regularly Jib the Tube but on anti-fascist ‘duty’ we all bought Travelcards so as not to draw the attention of either the Transport Police or the normal Plod. 

This ‘operational imperative’ stuck in the craw of many people (who never generally paid fares on a point of principle) but there was no arguing against the logic of being able to move around freely and ‘under the radar’. I used to laugh at the pained expression on the faces of unrepentant, serial ‘jibbers’ as they face the harrowing proposition of spending £3 on a Travelcard. I remember one young Liverpudlian gentleman still sulking like fuck even though I bought his ticket FOR him – it just didn’t seem right somehow – but he used the ticket anyway, because it made sense.

Except some of the DLA’s just couldn’t bring themselves to do it, could they? This would be conforming, wouldn’t it? And that was something these fiercely individual people (who funnily enough all dressed exactly the same) simply could not bring themselves to do. So they would try to mooch through in the middle of the mob and if challenged by LT staff would shout really helpful, intelligent and brave things like ‘We don’t pay… We’re Anarchists!’ Then off they would stomp in all their puffed-up glory, while Tube workers (obviously the lap-dogs of the fascist state) would think ‘fuck you pal’ and get on the blower to the Transport cops.

One radio conversation later and we would have a police escort that we might spend the rest of the day trying to shake. I would smile sweetly at the DAM lads and ask ‘Are they with youse’ whilst they muttered darkly. Sometimes a raised eyebrow and a smile was enough to draw a shake of the head and an under the breath ‘Don’t. Just don’t.’ They (the DLA's) couldn’t be reasoned with. Even if you threatened the cunts they would run off squealing about fascist Stalinists trying to make them conform – or if it was the DAM lads who intervened, it meant that the DAM had caught Stalin-itis by mixing with Reds. Like I said… dilettantes.. 

The only thing they were good for was the fact that they collected nickings like a pervert collects knickers. In any confrontation… when the Plod arrived… this mob jumped around, shouting and drawing attention to themselves, til they got lifted (all the time shouting about ‘police brutality’). This made it very simple for other people to do the business and walk away unnoticed and undisturbed. Many’s a day we were thankful of the distraction these peacocks provided. 

They wore their arrests like badges of honour… (here’s the one I got in Trafalgar Square… Bow Street? Now there was a nick… Never liked the catering at Shoreditch…). It meant they had safely ‘done their bit’ . We cursed our arrests… because they took us out of the affray for the day… and meant our comrades might come unstuck because of dwindling numbers.


----------



## newbie (Oct 15, 2010)

Das Uberdog said:


> basically, the working class is (still) defined by being _employed_ on a wage for unskilled or manual (dirty) labour, broadly distinguished from a middle-strata management position by the degree to which their role entails the supervision and overseeing of their fellow wage-earners.


(still)?  

tbf I appreciate your difficulty. If you update to take some account of what people actually do in modern society you get tied up with the messy stuff I've been talking about.  

It's not your fault so many people have chosen to get a skilled or non-manual job, or to work for themselves, or to be so damn complex (in fact it's probably Thatchers fault). Even though you recognise some ambiguity that's no reason at all to deviate from (still).

The problem being that by (still) drawing such narrow, but relatively unambiguous, boundaries you can only claim to _act on behalf of_ a shrinking portion of the population, and one with only a light grasp on the levers of the mop. Mostly no grasp all all, of course. 

To build class consciousness you need people to take sides.  Everybody not defined as working class is placed either firmly on the other side of the barricades or at best invited to align themselves as they see fit.  I presume you won't reject those who align with the w/c but neither do you really want to include them and whatever pesky contradictions they introduce.  

You're telling skilled, non-manual workers (amongst others) that they don't necessarily have the same interests as those you define as the real, authentic working class. You make plain that you don't _act on behalf of_ such people and imply that you're content to cement  them into middle England.

It's tricky for you, I can see that, given that these days there's so many of them and they're now the ones with the firmest grasp.  Best to stick with simplicity and leave them with only New Labour to listen to.  What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 15, 2010)

i think that the boundaries i set include the vast bulk of the population, even in Britain. certainly of people i know. if you include the vast majority of welfare recipients and unemployed as part of the 'transient' working class (as i do) then it definitely pushes you way over the majority mark.

the reason that skilled non-manual work is essentially 'professional' is because of the socially and pyschologically variant nature of intellectual work; it is (still, today) backed up in almost all circumstances either by a university education and official degrees, or by an elite contact network. it enables the wage-earner with a far greater degree of creativity over the way they conduct their job, and often provides avenues for genuine self-advancement. these individuals lever far greater pressure on the state and politics than many other 'wage earning' groups and in many cases their status is even officially sanctioned and recognized in law ('Doctor'...).

if it's not the case that this is the backdrop to what may be classed as 'skilled non manual labour' then i'd class the individual as working class. this is why there's a far more ambiguous relationship between teaching at primary and secondary level, for example, and the rest of the working class than there was, say 30 years ago. the job is being rapidly de-professionalized and conditions are deteriorating rapidly.

i am (as i repeat quite often) an example of what i would define as 'professional' middle-class, and i try not to hide it. that's because i understand that as a political agent, one's commitment to the cause ultimately foreshadows the strict social origins of your Marxian 'class interest'. what i also recognize, however, is that the new society can't be built upon the children of a middle-income elite, and that actually in order for any kind of successful leftwing movement to take ahold of society it must be based amongst those with the political potential to actively seize and utilize the means of production in a given society for their own communal benefit. the support and mass involvement of the working class, on the basis of working class politics, is actively essential.


----------



## newbie (Oct 15, 2010)

Das Uberdog said:


> i think that the boundaries i set include the vast bulk of the population, even in Britain. certainly of people i know. if you include the vast majority of welfare recipients and unemployed as part of the 'transient' working class (as i do) then it definitely pushes you way over the majority mark.




No it doesn't.



Wealth and Assets Survey 2006/08  800k pdf 


that's the shape of the issue.  No, I haven't the faintest idea what a 'head of household' is, it strikes me as downright odd, but the graph gives an outline of the workforce.  

Draw a wiggly line where you please, you'll be pushed to get anywhere near a majority of unambiguously working class people according to your definition.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 15, 2010)

newbie said:


> No it doesn't.
> 
> 
> View attachment 12097
> ...


 

More chiefs than indians - even if your little graph was ever true (what is 'lower manager and professional' btw) it is clearly unsustainable economically. So either Middle England moves up the social order or down? What's your guess?


----------



## newbie (Oct 15, 2010)

there's a recession on, some will lose the lot, some will carry on as before, some will prosper.  I can't guess the proportions but it'd be ridiculous to believe the whole of middle England will be affected equally.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 16, 2010)

newbie said:


> I can't imagine why anyone would be interested.... I have plenty of questions I can't articulate succinctly and make no pretense about having any answers. I keep looking to the far left to see if they have any, I'll post this in the hope of stimulating some responses beyond simply restating the constant answer to every question.
> 
> What I don't see when I close my eyes is forces of capital pushing here, exploitation of surplus value there or class alienation all around.  I just don't think like that, I'm glad there are people who do, I learn from them though I think their explanations gloss over what people actually want.
> 
> ...


 
Choice is entirely different from a notion of stakeholder interest and in fact the notion of self holder interest is at the heart of monetarism . It is essentially a very negative view of society in which self interest triumphs over collective interest. 

You ought to read Seddon's chapter  in Systems Thinking in the Public Sector which essentially tears the self interest argument to shreds and exposes the very hollow narrative of choice especially in public services.There is a telling anecdote that he used when I heard him speak at a seminar when in Sweden his audience was shocked when he spoke about the notion of patient choice within Health. the idea that the patient chooses their treatment was an anathema to them , in their view it was the doctor who they relied on to advice on the best form of treatment not the patient. When he explained that in Britain it might mean that the patient could choose to go to another hospital if the waiting lists were long they said this was merely Hobsons Choice. In other words they wanted their problem sorted out not be given some abstract notion of choice.

However back to your views on self interest and indeed from  rereading your posts , your  advocacy of self interest. For someone who likes to describe this notion as being a reflection of a modern society which has moved away from class it is in fact nothing new and applies to all classes in society . Its the overcoming, however temporary of competing self interests,  that allow the expression of class power.Whether that be working class power, the power of capital , the feudal aristocracy or even sections of the capitalist class ie fascism.  On occasions where this naked  self interest cannot be resolved the state has stepped in ie Factory Acts , Clean Air Acts etc.I may be mistaken but Marx even described the idea of a Bonapartist state as being an example of this.

What I find odd is that for someone who triumphs identity over class that in reality you have even a deeper pessimism of the ability of identity to triumph and now resort now to the naked self interest argument. In someways that follows the  logic of identity politics or perhaps the link between identity politics and the notion of self interest in that notions of gender, race , sexuality  and other oppressions not only compete with a notion of class but indeed with each other. And as according to theory of self interest that each group sees the rest as enemies.And what of these competing self interests that exist within gender, race and sexuality?Of race within gender and sexuality , of sexuality within race and gender never mind the issue of income or lets be bold and terribly unfashionable and say class? 

Its a pessimistic picture isn't it? 

And lets me just end with a couple of comments on self interest and altruism. They are not opposites, indeed on of the features of capitalism is the existence of very wealthy people who have made their money by devoting years of their life to making money , motivated by that self interest and then give money to charity , to 'good causes'. In fact Camerons Big Society has a key economic strand which encourges  those ,who by self interest ,who have made money now displaying alurism , what the Victorians called philanthropy.

Similarly the notion that class coming together is based on altruism is also flawed. Class comes together not when there is choice but precisely when there is little choice but to act as class . In that it is the collective 'self interest ' not altruism which is the key, and that collective self interest as a class quite frankly dwarfs  individual self interest.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2010)

newbie said:


> there's a recession on, some will lose the lot, some will carry on as before, some will prosper.  I can't guess the proportions but it'd be ridiculous to believe the whole of middle England will be affected equally.



The real middle class, socially, educationally, culturally and economically  will for the most part carry on as before, the pseudo middle class, in non-productive jobs, whose lifestyle and aspirations were fueled by a mixture neo-liberal ideology, tax breaks, and easy credit will sink like a safe. And it goes without saying they won't be happy about it. So what then for the still thriving minority?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2010)

that graph shows 'households', not people in employment. also, it shows what i'd estimate as 40% of workers in working class positions anyway.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2010)

considering that as a historical estimate, the w/c often makes up around 2/3 of a given population, the invisibles not mentioned on that graph probably account for the remainder.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2010)

and that's also with no description of the author of the study's definition of working categories.


----------



## Neutron (Oct 17, 2010)

One example would be when Diane Abbott claimed that Finnish nurses working in black areas of London would not be able to understand the needs of black people.

Bernie Grant also supported her on this blatantly racist idea.

Anyone who claimed Afro-Caribbean nurses would not understand white people would rightly be condemned as being racist.


----------



## newbie (Oct 18, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Choice is entirely different from a notion of stakeholder interest and in fact the notion of self holder interest is at the heart of monetarism . It is essentially a very negative view of society in which self interest triumphs over collective interest.



Can't collective interest be measured as the product of millions of individual expressions of self-interest? Rather than what <someone> defines as collective interest.  

There's no actual way to either define absolutely or collate opinion on collective interest.  Ultimately it is what <someone> asserts it is.  

According to the government an aircraft carrier is, and universal child benefit is not, in our collective interests. With very slight justification they claim the majority of the public supports their view.  According to others the destruction of capitalism is in our collective interest. I'm sure someone somewhere will claim the entire working class does or should support that.   

 I'm not sure there's a method of democratic expression yet invented that really reflects what people want better than them getting on and doing it.



> You ought to read Seddon's chapter  in Systems Thinking in the Public Sector which essentially tears the self interest argument to shreds and exposes the very hollow narrative of choice especially in public services.There is a telling anecdote that he used when I heard him speak at a seminar when in Sweden his audience was shocked when he spoke about the notion of patient choice within Health. the idea that the patient chooses their treatment was an anathema to them , in their view it was the doctor who they relied on to advice on the best form of treatment not the patient. When he explained that in Britain it might mean that the patient could choose to go to another hospital if the waiting lists were long they said this was merely Hobsons Choice. In other words they wanted their problem sorted out not be given some abstract notion of choice.


tvm, I'll try and find the book.  I agree entirely that there is an illusion to some choices, but surely the true choice in health is bupa or traveling to Belgium or India for provision?  

Personally I condemn those that take such choices, just as I condemn those who send their kids to private school, because their expressed self interest diminishes and undermines the collective interest we all have in health & education provision. They should, I believe stay in the state sector and press for improvement. 

Should I also condemn those who actively choose to register for one NHS doctor over another or for a place at a better rather than worse state secondary? Is that condemnation greater if they buy into a school catchment or postcode prescription area? Those who employ a private tutor or pay for an osteopath? Those who consult the internet and tell their doctor which surgeon they want or spend time helping with homework? Where does the line get drawn?    

Even within the state sector, how should resource allocation- which surgeon, which school- be decided?  Top down- decided by paternalist GP or LEA seemingly acting for the collective good- or in the grasp of the individual?

The millions of individual self-interest decisions are powerful evidence that top down, homogeneous provision is not what's wanted. That's how it all used to be but it's been forced to change by popular pressure.  Even though we all know that collectively it's better to press for worse performing schools or GP practices to be improved we want to choose for ourselves in the here and now. Once private provision becomes affordable many people choose it whether condemned by their peers or not (yes, I've lost friends over this). 



> However back to your views on self interest and indeed from  rereading your posts , your  advocacy of self interest.


I didn't think I was championing self interest so much as peering at the sofa and inquiring about the elephant.  If it exists my advocacy may stem from so many others denying that self interest should play much role, being necessarily less important than generalised class interest, a position I think unduly idealistic.



> For someone who likes to describe this notion as being a reflection of a modern society which has moved away from class it is in fact nothing new and applies to all classes in society . Its the overcoming, however temporary of competing self interests,  that allow the expression of class power.Whether that be working class power, the power of capital , the feudal aristocracy or even sections of the capitalist class ie fascism.  On occasions where this naked  self interest cannot be resolved the state has stepped in ie Factory Acts , Clean Air Acts etc.



No, it's not new, but for the earlier parts of the last century any dream of individual self-determination was less imperative than struggle in favour of collective advancement, in work, housing, schools, pensions or health and later for women etc.  The appearance of Basildon Man on the scene signalled a shift which continues to gather pace, you could almost say that for as many as can working class power is being expressed in personal aspiration rather than collectivism. Returning to collective class strength is only necessary as a fallback.



> What I find odd is that for someone who triumphs identity over class that in reality you have even a deeper pessimism of the ability of identity to triumph and now resort now to the naked self interest argument. In someways that follows the  logic of identity politics or perhaps the link between identity politics and the notion of self interest in that notions of gender, race , sexuality  and other oppressions not only compete with a notion of class but indeed with each other. And as according to theory of self interest that each group sees the rest as enemies.


Really?  Each identity group see the oppressor as enemy but do, eg the visually impaired really see eg black women as 'enemy'.  That's a bit farfetched, except in the context of local authority funding committees, no? Competition for funding pits the tenants association from one estate against that of another, but only occasionally makes them organisational enemies and probably doesn't affect individual relationships in the slightest.



> And what of these competing self interests that exist within gender, race and sexuality?Of race within gender and sexuality , of sexuality within race and gender never mind the issue of income or lets be bold and terribly unfashionable and say class?
> 
> Its a pessimistic picture isn't it?



Is it?  Simply acknowledging that oppressive pressure on individuals is complex and contradictory is rather less pessimistic than saying that the single most important oppressive pressure has been unaltered for 150 years. TBH it seems to me pretty pessimistic to tell people that capitalism (still) oppresses the working class and their only hope remains to overthrow it worldwide, even though all previous attempts have ended in complete failure. 

Class oppression from capitalism is much the same now as it ever was, on that issue the glass is nowhere near half full.  Identity politics has at least delivered change and diminished race or gender based oppression. Self interest and aspiration have enabled some people to blunt the effects of class oppression by escaping from stereotypical working class choicelessness. A lot of personal glasses have been quite full. 



> Similarly the notion that class coming together is based on altruism is also flawed. Class comes together not when there is choice but precisely when there is little choice but to act as class . In that it is the collective 'self interest ' not altruism which is the key, and that collective self interest as a class quite frankly dwarfs  individual self interest.



Indeed.  If that was the message coming from the left we wouldn't be having this conversation.  It's not, though.  

This thread started as an attack on the collective self-advancement of identity groups and has continued with a theme that always, under all circumstances, the only worthwhile issue is that of promoting the interests of the unambiguously defined working class as a whole.  

Anything else is divisive, in particular collectively fighting race or gender based oppression.  Most divisive of all are the great chunk of the population that has willfully left the stereotypical working class by their choices.  Their interests deserve no consideration, only condemnation. 

We're about to see a massive assault on collective provision.  The working class may come together, as it did with the poll tax, to defend a collective interest (say in universal benefits) or it may be as divided as it was during the miners strike.  

I don't doubt that it's right for the left to say "NOW is the time to come together and fight". I do doubt that much of middle England will listen if they're told their interests and aspirations are irrelevant, that their only role is to choose to align with the choiceless working class before they're forced to sink back into it.


----------



## newbie (Oct 18, 2010)

Joe Reilly said:


> The real middle class, socially, educationally, culturally and economically  will for the most part carry on as before, the pseudo middle class, in non-productive jobs, whose lifestyle and aspirations were fueled by a mixture neo-liberal ideology, tax breaks, and easy credit will sink like a safe. And it goes without saying they won't be happy about it. So what then for the still thriving minority?


 
all of them will sink?  That's quite a prediction.  Sink to what, competing for the declining pool of productive, unskilled manual work and social housing?  (btw 'sink' isn't a term I'd choose, but perhaps it helps reveal how unpopular stereotypical working class choicelessness really is).

Of course if you define anyone who sinks as 'non-productive' then your prediction will necessarily be true.  But that's something of a value judgement, after all someone, somewhere thinks it worth employing the 'lower manager and professional' types at a handsome salary.  Personally I don't relish the likely cull in the public sector and I'd be very reluctant to join in with finger pointing about non-productive jobs. In the private sector there may be reduced demand for web developers, estate agents or call center managers as recession bites, but does that really mean their job is non-productive? I'm not convinced this is a useful tool to help understand how society functions.


----------



## newbie (Oct 18, 2010)

Das Uberdog said:


> that graph shows 'households', not people in employment. also, it shows what i'd estimate as 40% of workers in working class positions anyway.


 
Well yes, I highlighted that.  Of course most people are in a household with at least a partner, and possibly with kids as well, and are likely to put their family first. What you call 'invisibles' may have routine or semi-routine jobs, but that doesn't necessarily determine their status. Is the class of a nurse married to a doctor determined through their own personal em[ployment terms & conditions or does the enormous cushion in their household have a bearing?  If class coming together to fight is based on necessity the household income and wealth is an important factor for individuals.  

I'm not very interested in nit-picking about statistics, I only introduced the graph because your definition of the simple w/c was so narrow and so at odds with the complexities and contradictions of how people really live.  But it is sourced and the ONS site has masses of definitions and other data, define the w/c however you please, draw the wiggly line where you like.

I'm slightly mystified that you look back to a time when the (clear, unambiguous) w/c was (still) 66% and Joe looks forward to a time when a great chunk of middle England becomes w/c once again.  What's wrong with looking at now, recognising that things aren't like they used to be and they never will be again, and trying to make sense of it rather than wishing it would just go away.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 18, 2010)

how am i looking back to then, other than to account for your own nostalgia?

'nit-picking' about statistics essentially consists of me defending and refuting your misunderstanding about my definitions which lead you to believe they were 'narrow' and constituted a minority of the population. if you don't want to 'nit-pick' or 'discuss' your stats, don't post them.

and YES, a nurse married to a Doctor is working class.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 18, 2010)

Neutron said:


> One example would be when Diane Abbott claimed that Finnish nurses working in black areas of London would not be able to understand the needs of black people.
> 
> Bernie Grant also supported her on this blatantly racist idea.
> 
> Anyone who claimed Afro-Caribbean nurses would not understand white people would rightly be condemned as being racist.



Source?


----------



## revlon (Oct 18, 2010)

Das Uberdog said:


> how am i looking back to then, other than to account for your own nostalgia?
> 
> 'nit-picking' about statistics essentially consists of me defending and refuting your misunderstanding about my definitions which lead you to believe they were 'narrow' and constituted a minority of the population. if you don't want to 'nit-pick' or 'discuss' your stats, don't post them.
> 
> and YES, a nurse married to a Doctor is working class.


 
are you sure?

http://www.britishmedicaljobs.com/jobboard/cands/jobview.asp?v=203933


----------



## JHE (Oct 18, 2010)

As I remember Diane Abbott's comments on nursing and immigration, about which there was a brief fuss at the time, she did not talk about who would or wouldn't understand the needs of black people in particular, but rather about which immigrant nurses would understand the English-speaking people (white, black or neither) of Britain.  She was fed up with the recruitment of ('blond blue-eyed') nurses from northern Europe, rather than nurses (presumably black) from the English-speaking (ex-British) Caribbean. She also suggested - reasonably enough - that there were people in Britain who should be trained to be nurses, rather than having to recruit abroad, and I think she indicated that she was talking about some of her black constituents (among other people, presumably).

Perhaps she didn't put her points in a very diplomatic way and some Tories grabbed the opportunity to accuse her (disingenuously, I think) of racism against blond, blue-eyed nurses, but undoubtedly she saw herself as speaking against racism.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 18, 2010)

revlon said:


> are you sure?
> 
> http://www.britishmedicaljobs.com/jobboard/cands/jobview.asp?v=203933



am i sure about the Nurse being working class, or about the Doctor being 'professional'? either way, yes.


----------



## revlon (Oct 18, 2010)

Das Uberdog said:


> am i sure about the Nurse being working class, or about the Doctor being 'professional'? either way, yes.


 
same salary as an mp. Are you sure?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 18, 2010)

yeah, the _nurse_ is working class.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 18, 2010)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1500982.stm

how's £50K for 26 weeks a year do for you not being working class?


----------



## revlon (Oct 18, 2010)

Das Uberdog said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1500982.stm
> 
> how's £50K for 26 weeks a year do for you not being working class?


 
just trying to understand your criteria. And who told them they were working class

http://www.britishmedicaljobs.com/jobboard/cands/jobview.asp?v=203933


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 18, 2010)

who said Doctors were working class?


----------



## Neutron (Oct 19, 2010)

JHE said:


> As I remember Diane Abbott's comments on nursing and immigration, about which there was a brief fuss at the time, she did not talk about who would or wouldn't understand the needs of black people in particular, but rather about which immigrant nurses would understand the English-speaking people (white, black or neither) of Britain.  She was fed up with the recruitment of ('blond blue-eyed') nurses from northern Europe, rather than nurses (presumably black) from the English-speaking (ex-British) Caribbean. She also suggested - reasonably enough - that there were people in Britain who should be trained to be nurses, rather than having to recruit abroad, and I think she indicated that she was talking about some of her black constituents (among other people, presumably).
> 
> Perhaps she didn't put her points in a very diplomatic way and some Tories grabbed the opportunity to accuse her (disingenuously, I think) of racism against blond, blue-eyed nurses, but undoubtedly she saw herself as speaking against racism.



You may be correct that Diane Abbott was mis-quoted.

However, given that West-Indians have largely been a bedrock of labour to the NHS since the 1950's when one Enoch Powell encouraged immigration, I doubt you are right.

Abbott recently "justified" sending her son to a private school on the basis that "West-Indian mothers want to do the best for their children".

The vile Brillo-pad (Andrew Neil) rightly took her to task on this.

The millionaire opportunist scum Abbott chose to play the race-card in her own defence.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 1, 2010)

Just been completely fucked over by one of these people. AGAIN


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 1, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Just been completely fucked over by one of these people. AGAIN


sorry to hear that, do tell?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 1, 2010)

Landlord shite. She's a fucking counsellor as well. im really fucking upset actually


----------



## likesfish (Dec 1, 2010)

The aircraft carrier produces loads of proper w/c jobs building something big.
  if the contract had been written as is it would have been cancelled so child benefit would still have gone and no aircraft carrier/ helicopter carrier as we have no planes to fly off it.

diane abbot is not working class if your earning £40k plus and your salaried your not working class.


----------



## LiamO (Dec 2, 2010)

likesfish said:


> The aircraft carrier produces loads of proper w/c jobs building something big.
> if the contract had been written as is it would have been cancelled so child benefit would still have gone and no aircraft carrier/ helicopter carrier as we have no planes to fly off it.
> 
> diane abbot is not working class if your earning £40k plus and your salaried your not working class.


 
Pissed and posting on the wrong forum again?







I feel your pain... honest, I do...


----------

