# BBC - Owen Jones



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

If you have ever had the 'pleasure' of listening to Radio Five with Stephen Nolan at weekends you will have noticed that Owen Jones has become a regular panellist. The BBC's Shock-Jock* in chief has him in the studio alongside somebody from the extreme right - just for balance of course. He also pops up on various phone-ins such as Nicky Campbell. Invariably he's introduced as a correspondent/columnist from _The Independent_ and author...how could I forget?!

Needless to say he, like Penny, is more than delighted to opine on any given subject and to express his many years of experience and expertise in the hope - he thinks - of educating the great listening public.

The question I have is this? Are there no BBC Guidelines which state a host should not stick to the same contributors week in, week out? Is there only one person who can be paid to represent the so called 'Left'? Is there not a single person in the U.K. who can hold forthright opinions on the subject of the day besides Jones?

Would a letter to the BBC Trust be of any use?

*Shock-Jock. I use the term within the confines of 'emotional exploitation'. For example: "Would you like to tell us how you felt when you were feeling suicidal'? "What's it like being fat and being subject to abuse?'


----------



## ayatollah (Jun 26, 2012)

The ever greater rise of Owen Jones is a mystery.   He is certainly loved by the media:

"In September 2011, he was voted the most influential left-wing thinker of the year by readers of the Left Foot Forward blog.[21] _The Daily Telegraph_ placed him as one of their 'Top 100 Most Influential People on the Left 2011'.[22] _The Independent_ newspaper named him as one of their top 50 Britons of 2011 "

And yet this avid self promoter seems to have no  noticeable activist socialist credentials to speak of at all.  Indeed he seems to have pinched most of his  "Chav - defence of" stuff from reading the IWCA website, and I've never been awestruck with the originality of anything he's actually said on the many media outings I've seen/heard him on.   Stand by for his full recantation of these "youthful immature views" in a few years , as he rebrands himself and moves decisively to the neo Liberal Right, and gets a  "voice of the ordinary man" column on the Daily Mail !


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

Good post Ayatollah. Appreciated.

I think I _will_ write to The Trust and and them about their Editorial Guidelines and selection criteria given they are supposed to be committed to Equal Opportunities.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> Good post Ayatollah. Appreciated.
> 
> I think I will write to The Trust and ank them about their Editorial Guidelines and selection criteia given they are supposed to be committed to Equal Opportunities.


 
you wouldn't know left wing if it smacked you in your ugly pus filled face


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> you wouldn't know left wing if it smacked you in your ugly pus filled face


 
It goes without saying that I would consult you first Blagsta. You erudition and intellect along with your peculiar truncated sentences are something to behold.

I hope you will enjoy the company of your friends.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 26, 2012)

Zabo said:


> It goes without saying that I would consult you first Blagsta. You erudition and intellect along with your peculiar truncated sentences are something to behold.
> 
> I hope you will enjoy the company of your friends.


 
its good to have friends, not that you'd know


----------



## Zabo (Jun 26, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> not that you'd know


 
The Rumsfeld syndrome. Wonderful!

Merci!


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 26, 2012)

Have you been smoking crack?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 27, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> The ever greater rise of Owen Jones is a mystery. He is certainly loved by the media:
> 
> "In September 2011, he was voted the most influential left-wing thinker of the year by readers of the Left Foot Forward blog.[21] _The Daily Telegraph_ placed him as one of their 'Top 100 Most Influential People on the Left 2011'.[22] _The Independent_ newspaper named him as one of their top 50 Britons of 2011 "
> 
> And yet this avid self promoter seems to have no noticeable activist socialist credentials to speak of at all. Indeed he seems to have pinched most of his "Chav - defence of" stuff from reading the IWCA website, and I've never been awestruck with the originality of anything he's actually said on the many media outings I've seen/heard him on. Stand by for his full recantation of these "youthful immature views" in a few years , as he rebrands himself and moves decisively to the neo Liberal Right, and gets a "voice of the ordinary man" column on the Daily Mail !


 
Didn't he reject, or fail to even acknowledge, an invitation by IWCA members to visit and talk to them about their pro-working class activism?  Activism which doesn't have as its guide an analysis which may as well involve writing people off as 'chavs,' and inherently racist?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 27, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> you wouldn't know left wing if it smacked you in your ugly pus filled face


 
A pseudo-intellectual currently trying to be pass himself off as being knowledgeable about contemporary Russia. This, with even blagging a naive and inadequate knowledge of the various intellectual currents of Soviet-era dissidence (some of it far-right), and in the present cheer-leading certain individuals who while approximating the Russian version of 'liberal' (and in economic terms, we could include Vladimir Putin) have awful views of non-white, non-Slav compatriots living in that country known, in administrative terms, as the Russian Federation.

Not to mention those peoples of former Soviet republics in the CIS, who for reasons of grinding poverty have been migrating into that country seeking often low-paying work, and ended up being vulnerable to terrible exploitation and abuse because of it.


----------



## claphamboy (Jun 27, 2012)

When I first spotted Owen Jones popping-up all over the place, I thought 'who the hell is Owen Jones?"

I googled him & found his website, with this article - who the hell is Owen Jones?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 27, 2012)

I heard he was shagging Laurie Penny. Fucking class traitor.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 27, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> A pseudo-intellectual currently trying to be pass himself off as being knowledgeable about contemporary Russia. This, with even blagging a naive and inadequate knowledge of the various intellectual currents of Soviet-era dissidence (some of it far-right), and in the present cheer-leading certain individuals who while approximating the Russian version of 'liberal' (and in economic terms, we could include Vladimir Putin) have awful views of non-white, non-Slav compatriots living in that country known, in administrative terms, as the Russian Federation.
> 
> Not to mention those peoples of former Soviet republics in the CIS, who for reasons of grinding poverty have been migrating into that country seeking often low-paying work, and ended up being vulnerable to terrible exploitation and abuse because of it.


 
Is this self reflection or are you talking about someone else?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 27, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Is this self reflection or are you talking about someone else?


 
Your gentle ribbing is alive and kicking. Outsider's view from (non-white) Mrs Hurrah.


----------



## chilango (Jun 27, 2012)

Zabo said:


> If you have ever had the 'pleasure' of listening to Radio Five with Stephen Nolan at weekends you will have noticed that Owen Jones has become a regular panellist.


 
Back in the days when Edwina Currie was on R5 she used to regularly have Alice Nutter from Chumba as the "left wing" contributor. Waay better show in those days.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jun 27, 2012)

chilango said:


> Back in the days when Edwina Currie was on R5 she used to regularly have Alice Nutter from Chumba as the "left wing" contributor. Waay better show in those days.


 
you know alice isn't her real name?


----------



## chilango (Jun 27, 2012)

I know.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 27, 2012)

I must say that I find Stephen Nolan and Tony Livsey ( on Radio 5) extremely irritating.


----------



## love detective (Jun 27, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Didn't he reject, or fail to even acknowledge, an invitation by IWCA members to visit and talk to them about their pro-working class activism?


 
Given that he had spent 5-6 years in Oxford (and after that moved to London) some of which were spent writing his book, he was asked why he hadn't made any attempt to make the short trip down the Cowley Road from Oxford University to BlackBird Leys to see in practice the attempts being made there by the IWCA to do something about the crisis in working class representation that he was writing about in theory

His response at the time was that he had wanted to interview someone from the IWCA when doing research for his book but 'ran out of time' so didn't bother but he 'wished he had done' and was still very interested in doing so. All of the above exchange took place publicly on twitter where he was making all the 'right noises'

Then in a private email he was given the opportunity to make that contact that he 'wished he had done' and 'still very interested in doing' and since then we've never heard a word back from him since. Neither did he make any effort to respond to a number of constructive criticisms made of his overall approach/analysis.

No idea what Ayatolloh is going on about him getting his ideas from the IWCA website - quite the reverse I would say and these were the kind of criticisms that were made of him, by the IWCA, at the time, i.e. both in the mistake he seems to be making (an idealised/romanticised/homogenous view of the working class) and the reason for it (a walking on eggshell type approach to his subject matter as a result of his distance from it). Also the point about how his approach/viewpoint seems to put forward a working class which is completely determined through things external to them, leaving it as a passive object, devoid of any kind of individual or collective agency, rather than the active subject that it is/needs to be

On the topic of Jones I noticed the other day he made the claim that

I have never got a single job handed to me through a contact

So all those jobs working in parliament, for trade unions, for the press and now this new think tank were achieved through applying for jobs that were advertised that other people could apply for?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 27, 2012)

ayatollah was just making a crap dig.  Later on he'll no doubt be getting out his crap Trot template, that he uses for everything else.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

claphamboy said:


> When I first spotted Owen Jones popping-up all over the place, I thought 'who the hell is Owen Jones?"
> 
> I googled him & found his website, with this article - who the hell is Owen Jones?


I didn't realise he had any connection with Falkirk.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 27, 2012)

His bessie mate is called Ellie Mae O'Hagan who is a "freelance writer, campaigner and activist". This is a sample of her campaigning "As the tube pulls up at Tottenham Court Road to whisk me home from the latest UK Uncut protest, I catch my own reflection in the window. I’m holding an orange umbrella, or should I say,_ the_ orange umbrella: the one that was used as a meeting point outside the Ritz the first time a group of pissed-off activists decided to shut down a Vodafone shop.
It looks luminous against the Perspex, like a glowstick. I’m not sure if its prominence is because of its colour, or because it’s so potent with meaning for me. It’s like a gaudy little piece of UK Uncut history.
I get on the tube, slump down, and audibly exhale. A man opposite spots the sound system I’m also carrying, the one that was used for Josie Long’s set during the protest, and asks whether I’ve been busking. I say no, and tell him I just turned Barclays into a comedy club as part of a protest. The carriage falls silent. I can tell people are eavesdropping whilst feigning nonchalance. ‘Ah!’ he exclaims, ‘So you’re an anarchist then!’ The woman next to him, his wife I think, tuts, ‘she’s not an _anarchist_,’ she says impatiently, ‘it’s because they’re not paying their taxes.’ I mumble a bit, too tired to get into a debate. Turns out I don’t have to; she goes on a pro-UK Uncut diatribe on my behalf. ‘It’s like that Philip Green,’ she continues, ‘giving all that money to his wife in Monaco.’
It’s the first time something like this has happened to me: an apparent member of the mythical squeezed middle, at least not your average protester, knowing all about us and pronouncing on our behalf. Maybe I was being arrogant, but I couldn’t help thinking that she wouldn’t immediately have thought of Philip Green if it wasn’t for UK Uncut. The experience was a timely indication, I thought, that UK Uncut is gaining significant traction."

As someone said earlier (LD I think) the system is shitting people like this out constantly.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 27, 2012)

love detective said:


> No idea what Ayatolloh is going on about him getting his ideas from the IWCA website - quite the reverse I would say


 
What he did imo was to thieve examples from RA/IWCA - the Karen Matthews case for example - to support the incorrect political point he wanted to make.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 27, 2012)

I wonder if they pissed off the Vodafone staff.


----------



## love detective (Jun 27, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What he did imo was to thieve examples from RA/IWCA - the Karen Matthews case for example - to support the incorrect political point he wanted to make.


it's incorrect politicalness gone mad!


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 27, 2012)

> It’s the first time something like this has happened to me: an apparent member of the mythical squeezed middle, at least not your average protester, knowing all about us and pronouncing on our behalf. Maybe I was being arrogant, but I couldn’t help thinking that she wouldn’t immediately have thought of Philip Green if it wasn’t for UK Uncut. The experience was a timely indication, I thought, that UK Uncut is gaining significant traction."


 
The first time. Really?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jun 27, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> His bessie mate is called Ellie Mae O'Hagan who is a "freelance writer, campaigner and activist". This is a sample of her campaigning "As the tube pulls up at Tottenham Court Road to whisk me home from the latest UK Uncut protest, I catch my own reflection in the window. I’m holding an orange umbrella, or should I say,_ the_ orange umbrella: the one that was used as a meeting point outside the Ritz the first time a group of pissed-off activists decided to shut down a Vodafone shop.
> It looks luminous against the Perspex, like a glowstick. I’m not sure if its prominence is because of its colour, or because it’s so potent with meaning for me. It’s like a gaudy little piece of UK Uncut history.
> I get on the tube, slump down, and audibly exhale. A man opposite spots the sound system I’m also carrying, the one that was used for Josie Long’s set during the protest, and asks whether I’ve been busking. I say no, and tell him I just turned Barclays into a comedy club as part of a protest. The carriage falls silent. I can tell people are eavesdropping whilst feigning nonchalance. ‘Ah!’ he exclaims, ‘So you’re an anarchist then!’ The woman next to him, his wife I think, tuts, ‘she’s not an _anarchist_,’ she says impatiently, ‘it’s because they’re not paying their taxes.’ I mumble a bit, too tired to get into a debate. Turns out I don’t have to; she goes on a pro-UK Uncut diatribe on my behalf. ‘It’s like that Philip Green,’ she continues, ‘giving all that money to his wife in Monaco.’
> It’s the first time something like this has happened to me: an apparent member of the mythical squeezed middle, at least not your average protester, knowing all about us and pronouncing on our behalf. Maybe I was being arrogant, but I couldn’t help thinking that she wouldn’t immediately have thought of Philip Green if it wasn’t for UK Uncut. The experience was a timely indication, I thought, that UK Uncut is gaining significant traction."
> ...


 What am I doing wrong that I can't get in on this shit? Wrong public school? Wrong uni?


----------



## Schmetterling (Jun 27, 2012)

Besides: Owen Jones + Verso: akin to vanity publishing.  Only, the author gets paid.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I didn't realise he had any connection with Falkirk.


  Very little or no connection politically with Stockport either according to labour people I know


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 27, 2012)

So would people prefer that Owen Jones _not_ be on TV/radio so much? If so, why? What should replace him?


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> So would people prefer that Owen Jones _not_ be on TV/radio so much? If so, why?


yes, because he's no different from anyone else on the telly - same privileged background, blah blah. same reason as what people have been saying here and elsewhere since forever. do you even read this forum ffs.


> What should replace him?


butchersapron's mum.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> So would people prefer that Owen Jones _not_ be on TV/radio so much? If so, why? What should replace him?


 
He's useful.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2012)

killer b said:


> butchersapron's mum.


 
Imagine what she'd do to Paxo if he sneered at her!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 27, 2012)

killer b said:


> do you even read this forum ffs.


 
Sorry I didn't get the memo. Arsey tit.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> you wouldn't know left wing if it smacked you in your ugly pus filled face


A little over the line there, if you don't mind.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 27, 2012)

editor said:


> A little over the line there, if you don't mind.


Not at all. Check out his posts on the housing benefit thread.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jun 27, 2012)

Schmetterling said:


> Besides: Owen Jones + Verso: akin to vanity publishing. Only, the author gets paid.


 
Well then it's not akin to vanity publishing, is it?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jun 27, 2012)

Pretty pointless thread isn't it:

Dear BBC, can you please stop featuring Mr Owen Jones in discussions because I don't like his politics. Yours, Mr Angry


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jun 27, 2012)

love detective said:


> Given that he had spent 5-6 years in Oxford (and after that moved to London) some of which were spent writing his book, he was asked why he hadn't made any attempt to make the short trip down the Cowley Road from Oxford University to BlackBird Leys to see in practice the attempts being made there by the IWCA to do something about the crisis in working class representation that he was writing about in theory
> 
> His response at the time was that he had wanted to interview someone from the IWCA when doing research for his book but 'ran out of time' so didn't bother but he 'wished he had done' and was still very interested in doing so. All of the above exchange took place publicly on twitter where he was making all the 'right noises'
> 
> Then in a private email he was given the opportunity to make that contact that he 'wished he had done' and 'still very interested in doing' and since then we've never heard a word back from him since.


 
Quite a number of years ago, I was in a class taught by a leftist (anarchist, I think) lecturer which dealt in a bit of detail with the gentrification of Hoxton and some other bits of East London. At that time the IWCA was active locally (I believe this was the branch which later split rather than one of the ones which just disappeared) and the lecturer pointed everyone towards their local website as a resource. He did however tell the class that the IWCA didn't like questions from students or academic types, so don't email them!

This cracked me up.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 27, 2012)

"OWEN JONES, a columnist [eek!] with The Independent, has accused Martin Amis of showing contempt for Britain's poor. Jones made his views known during an introduction to an interview with the British novelist about his latest novel, _Lionel Asbo_, on BBC 2's _The Culture Show_.

Jones, who is also the author of the book _Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class_, calls Amis's latest novel "a cardboard cut-out of broken Britain" and "*a caricature of people he's in no position to know anything about*".
_Lionel Asbo_ is set in a fictional deprived London borough where the eponymous protagonist, Lionel, a thuggish criminal, wins the lottery and is catapulted to instant celebrity. Jones says that throughout the book, Amis revives the old distinction between the "deserving" and the "undeserving" poor, drawing on a long tradition of contempt for the lower orders among privileged liberal writers. He cites interwar British writers such as HG Wells, Virginia Woolf – and even George Bernard Shaw – who, Jones says, showed contempt for the unwashed masses."

Poster comment:

"William_Brown • 4 days ago It's a work of fiction, so let's not over analyse and immediately take offence.
Owen Jones is, as is his wont, just grabbing on to Amis's current 'new book out' headlines and doing his best (and failing) to be a trendy antagonist. Frankly, he's a University College, Oxford educated poser who likes to pretend to be 'down' with the working class. As a lifelong member of the working class, you don't fool me sir, so go sing another song, this one's becoming tedious and I really am tired of your patronising noise."

LOL


http://www.theweek.co.uk/books/47562/owen-jones-accuses-martin-amis-chav-hate-lionel-asbo
​​


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 27, 2012)

What was Jones' upbringing prior to university?

eta: actually don't bother answering. I just read his Wikipedia entry. Apologies for my laziness.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> What was Jones' upbringing prior to university?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Jones_(writer)


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 27, 2012)

To be fair, he isn't an old Etonian or anything; just went to a seemingly regular 6th form college.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Jones_(writer)


 
Having read this thread, I'd been assuming that he was the grandson of an Earl and went to Harrow.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jun 27, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> I heard he was shagging Laurie Penny. Fucking class traitor.



He's gay.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> a seemingly regular 6th form college.


What are they?  We don't have them here (so he didn't attend one in Falkirk).


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> What are they? We don't have them here (so he didn't attend one in Falkirk).


 
A college where you go after 16. Plenty of them around. They are free, state funded, and not posh in the slightest (well none that I know of). Can't speak for Jones' though.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> A college where you go after 16. Plenty of them around. They are free, state funded, and not posh in the slightest (well none that I know of). Can't speak for Jones' though.


So, like an FE college?

It's OK, I'll Google.  (I've probably asked this before).


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> So, like an FE college?


 
Yes, broadly. Although they are state funded rather than state run.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> So, like an FE college?
> 
> It's OK, I'll Google. (I've probably asked this before).


 
Well at least that is my understanding of one. I could be wrong though so don't quote me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2012)

Not all of them are state funded.


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> The ever greater rise of Owen Jones is a mystery. He is certainly loved by the media:
> 
> "In September 2011, he was voted the most influential left-wing thinker of the year by readers of the Left Foot Forward blog.[21] _The Daily Telegraph_ placed him as one of their 'Top 100 Most Influential People on the Left 2011'.[22] _The Independent_ newspaper named him as one of their top 50 Britons of 2011 "
> 
> And yet this avid self promoter seems to have no noticeable activist socialist credentials to speak of at all. Indeed he seems to have pinched most of his "Chav - defence of" stuff from reading the IWCA website, and I've never been awestruck with the originality of anything he's actually said on the many media outings I've seen/heard him on. Stand by for his full recantation of these "youthful immature views" in a few years , as he rebrands himself and moves decisively to the neo Liberal Right, and gets a "voice of the ordinary man" column on the Daily Mail !


 
Ridiculous, he was involved in the LRC, helped organised John McDonells's abortive leadership bid and rally, wrote Chavs which is more successful and influential than most left wing people could hope for, and certainly more than former leftists like Zabo....


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 27, 2012)

He's alright.

That's mad that he claimed to have not got any jobs through connections though, fucking hell what obvious bullshit.


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2012)

However, I will accept he should be more aware of his age and lack of real life experience, wonder if they ever said that to Danny The Red?


----------



## Zabo (Jun 27, 2012)

"Less than 5% of the Stockport population are from minority ethnic backgrounds. This is reflected at the Marple campus where ‘White-British’ students make up 97% of the 16 to 18 year old students. The borough of Stockport is relatively prosperous although pockets of social and economic disadvantage exist. The catchment area of the Cheadle Hulme campus includes 32% of students who live in areas with ‘widening participation’ postcodes."

Ofsted


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Well at least that is my understanding of one. I could be wrong though so don't quote me.


Well, according to this they don't really accord with my understanding of FE colleges (I used to work in FE colleges): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_form_college

They're more like somewhere you'd go to do your A levels (similar to our Highers) if your school didn't do A levels.


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Didn't he reject, or fail to even acknowledge, an invitation by IWCA members to visit and talk to them about their pro-working class activism? Activism which doesn't have as its guide an analysis which may as well involve writing people off as 'chavs,' and inherently racist?


 
eh, his whole book was about the repudation of the term 'Chavs' and deconstructing its use in the media, etc......


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, according to this they don't really accord with my understanding of FE colleges (I used to work in FE colleges): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_form_college
> 
> They're more like somewhere you'd go to do your A levels (similar to our Highers) if your school didn't do A levels.


 
Yes that's correct they are not classed as FE at the moment, although with all the restructuring, consolidation, cuts, and academisation the bounderies are shifting.


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2012)

'It’s the first time something like this has happened to me: an apparent member of the mythical squeezed middle, at least not your average protester, knowing all about us and pronouncing on our behalf. Maybe I was being arrogant, but I couldn’t help thinking that she wouldn’t immediately have thought of Philip Green if it wasn’t for UK Uncut. The experience was a timely indication, I thought, that UK Uncut is gaining significant traction."

The thing is on the visibility and outing of tax dodgers like Green she is right, Uk uncut seized the moment, WILOTL didn't....


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, according to this they don't really accord with my understanding of FE colleges (I used to work in FE colleges): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_form_college
> 
> They're more like somewhere you'd go to do your A levels (similar to our Highers) if your school didn't do A levels.


 
OK, fair enough, athough I know colleges that are FE and still offer A-Levels so that's probably where the confusion lies. I can never keep up with all the name changes and mergers of these places, that's for sure.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jun 27, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Not all of them are state funded.


 
True, but most are, including the one he went to.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 27, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'It’s the first time something like this has happened to me: an apparent member of the mythical squeezed middle, at least not your average protester, knowing all about us and pronouncing on our behalf. Maybe I was being arrogant, but I couldn’t help thinking that she wouldn’t immediately have thought of Philip Green if it wasn’t for UK Uncut. The experience was a timely indication, I thought, that UK Uncut is gaining significant traction."
> 
> The thing is on the visibility and outing of tax dodgers like Green she is right, Uk uncut seized the moment, WILOTL didn't....


 
Yep, UK Uncut are generally OK.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 27, 2012)

Excuse my ignorance, but who are WILOTL?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 27, 2012)

temper_tantrum said:


> He's gay.


 
Fucking sexuality traitor, too.


----------



## ayatollah (Jun 27, 2012)

treelover said:


> eh, his whole book was about the repudation of the term 'Chavs' and deconstructing its use in the media, etc......


 
You are quite right treelover, and when I said Owen Jones seemed to have nicked a lot of his (perfectly OK) stuff in his book "Chavs etc" from material on the IWCA website this was  actually repeating an earlier observation I recalled  a member of the IWCA had made on some other thread.... bemoaning the lack of credit from Jones for this suspiciously similar  series of positions. Very sensitive these IWCA chaps. (Even those of us who don't go along with your politics aren't ALWAYS having a snipe lads).

And I still maintain that for someone cited by the media as the most influential Leftie of current times, young Owen Jones has a remarkably sparse political CV.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but who are WILOTL?


TV panel show.  Has Lee Mack.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> What are they? We don't have them here (so he didn't attend one in Falkirk).


 
Which would make shagging Laurie Penny even more horrifying!


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)




----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 27, 2012)

Penny is supposedly a lesbian. So there ya go.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


>


 
Answered the wrong post!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Penny is supposedly a lesbian. So there ya go.


 
They're each others' beards?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> They're each others' beards?


Now there's a thought...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Answered the wrong post!


Good.  I thought there was something I _really_ wasn't understanding about 6th form colleges!


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> They're each others' beards?


Reverse beards, as it were, you mean?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Reverse beards, as it were, you mean?


 
Would a reverse beard be a mullet?


----------



## Stardark (Jun 27, 2012)

Jesus Christ, he's on The Moral Maze...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Would a reverse beard be a mullet?


I no longer know. This is more confusing than Lewis.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Reverse beards, as it were, you mean?


 
Yep.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Would a reverse beard be a mullet?


 
No, it's be a really odd looking combover style.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, it's be a really odd looking combover style.


Yey.  Is it talk like a pirate day?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 27, 2012)

Stardark said:


> Jesus Christ, he's on The Moral Maze...


 
confusing if Claire Fox is on as well as they sound identical.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Yey. Is it talk like a pirate day?


 
Ah-har, me hearty!!


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 27, 2012)

treelover said:


> Ridiculous, he was involved in the LRC, helped organised John McDonells's abortive leadership bid and rally, wrote Chavs which is more successful and influential than most left wing people could hope for, and certainly more than former leftists like Zabo....


 
how on earth has Chavs been influential?


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but who are WILOTL?


 
Sorry, 'what is left of the left'


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 27, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> how on earth has Chavs been influential?


 
treelover does not answer he asks


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> how on earth has Chavs been influential?


 
It's influenced some of its middle-class readers to feel a bit of a _frisson_ of guilt about their class prejudices?


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> To be fair, he isn't an old Etonian or anything; just went to a seemingly regular 6th form college.


does it matter that his privilege started a little later than some?


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 27, 2012)

It usually happens that no mater who the person is we can never find full agreement,but he does say things we can agree on


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jun 27, 2012)

killer b said:


> does it matter that his privilege started a little later than some?



So as soon as you acquire some 'privilege' then you become persona non grata, is that how it works?


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2012)

not at all. i'd just like to see less oxbridge types on the telly.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jun 27, 2012)

Blatant 'fewer' opportunity designed to flush out Oxbridge wannabes ...


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2012)

i went to an ex-poly.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jun 27, 2012)

Blatant snotty-bitch opportunity well and truly taken, as I'm sure the usual suspects are thinking.
Anyway, no offence intended, sorry.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> It usually happens that no mater who the person is we can never find full agreement,but he does say things we can agree on


 
"Mater"? You've just outed yourself, posh boy!!!


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2012)

temper_tantrum said:


> Blatant snotty-bitch opportunity well and truly taken, as I'm sure the usual suspects are thinking.
> Anyway, no offence intended, sorry.


 
none taken.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2012)

killer b said:


> not at all. i'd just like to see less oxbridge types on the telly.


 
Not going to happen while the media is still lousy with them. It's all "well, he went to the same college as me, young Jones , must be a good sort!".


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 27, 2012)

temper_tantrum said:


> Blatant 'fewer' opportunity designed to flush out Oxbridge wannabes ...



How?


----------



## love detective (Jun 27, 2012)

5 items or less etc...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 27, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> How?


Kb should have said fewer Oxbridge types.  Fewer of those people, less of that sort of thing.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 27, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Kb should have said fewer Oxbridge types. Fewer of those people, less of that sort of thing.


 
How do you get fewer? Or put another way how do you get genuinely working class people into the same positions of influence within the mainstream media? Genuine question, always read/hear a lot about wishes, less about strategy and plan of action.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 27, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> His bessie mate is called Ellie Mae O'Hagan who is a "freelance writer, campaigner and activist". This is a sample of her campaigning "As the tube pulls up at Tottenham Court Road to whisk me home from the latest UK Uncut protest, I catch my own reflection in the window. I’m holding an orange umbrella, or should I say,_ the_ orange umbrella: the one that was used as a meeting point outside the Ritz the first time a group of pissed-off activists decided to shut down a Vodafone shop.
> It looks luminous against the Perspex, like a glowstick. I’m not sure if its prominence is because of its colour, or because it’s so potent with meaning for me. It’s like a gaudy little piece of UK Uncut history.
> I get on the tube, slump down, and audibly exhale. A man opposite spots the sound system I’m also carrying, the one that was used for Josie Long’s set during the protest, and asks whether I’ve been busking. I say no, and tell him I just turned Barclays into a comedy club as part of a protest. The carriage falls silent. I can tell people are eavesdropping whilst feigning nonchalance. ‘Ah!’ he exclaims, ‘So you’re an anarchist then!’ The woman next to him, his wife I think, tuts, ‘she’s not an _anarchist_,’ she says impatiently, ‘it’s because they’re not paying their taxes.’ I mumble a bit, too tired to get into a debate. Turns out I don’t have to; she goes on a pro-UK Uncut diatribe on my behalf. ‘It’s like that Philip Green,’ she continues, ‘giving all that money to his wife in Monaco.’
> It’s the first time something like this has happened to me: an apparent member of the mythical squeezed middle, at least not your average protester, knowing all about us and pronouncing on our behalf. Maybe I was being arrogant, but I couldn’t help thinking that she wouldn’t immediately have thought of Philip Green if it wasn’t for UK Uncut. The experience was a timely indication, I thought, that UK Uncut is gaining significant traction."
> ...


 

I've met her. Works for Unite. She's really fucking irritating, must have name-dropped Owen Jones (calling him "Owen", I assume in the hopes that I'd either ask, "Owen who?" or just be suitably impressed) about 15 times in a 5 minute conversation. No self-awareness whatsoever, went on about how Jones was a nobody when she met him, that she was better known than him. This was at the time of the Carole Malone interview thing, and she also told me that she was "the one" who sent the video viral. I was drinking from a bottle of coke and the time and it very nearly came out through my nose.

These sorts are Gulag bound come the glorious day, right?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 27, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> The first time. Really?


 
Remember I told you about someone making a daft argument about how union leaders _should_ get high salaries cos it keeps the average up and so helps everyone's pay stay high, and that if you're poor that doesn't mean you will resist austerity, rather it means that you'll simply despair and possibly become prey to the far-right? Guess who that was!


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jun 27, 2012)

killer b said:


> none taken.



Thanks 

Anyway - anyone interested in the works of Ellie-May O'Hagan (she did a piece about how we should all support the police strike recently, if anyone can be bothered posting the link) should look at Helen Lewis-Hasteley and Dawn Forster as well.
I'd love to come up with some ubiquitous male equivalents in order to ensure gender balance, but I can't think of many. Shiv Malik is becoming quite repetitive. Erm. Will think further.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 28, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've met her. Works for Unite. She's really fucking irritating, must have name-dropped Owen Jones (calling him "Owen", I assume in the hopes that I'd either ask, "Owen who?" or just be suitably impressed) about 15 times in a 5 minute conversation. No self-awareness whatsoever, went on about how Jones was a nobody when she met him, that she was better known than him. This was at the time of the Carole Malone interview thing, and she also told me that she was "the one" who sent the video viral. I was drinking from a bottle of coke and the time and it very nearly came out through my nose.
> 
> These sorts are Gulag bound come the glorious day, right?


 
that's clearly bollocks because WE sent the video viral.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 28, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> that's clearly bollocks because WE sent the video viral.


 
Precisely - she didn't realise she was talking to the person who _uploaded_ it (treelover's video mind).


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 28, 2012)

I've been told by someone who I trust and who really ought to know that Jones' dad was, at one stage, a Militant full-timer.


----------



## rekil (Jun 28, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> . This was at the time of the Carole Malone interview thing, and she also told me that she was "the one" who sent the video viral. I was drinking from a bottle of coke and the time and it very nearly came out through my nose.


Proletarian Democracy should have a decorations system. Anytime someone like this reels off their day's victories you could just pull out a medal and pin it on them. Official recognition would help foment a healthy competitive atmosphere.


----------



## october_lost (Jun 28, 2012)

Owen Jones was a fairly well-known leftist in the days of Socialist Alliance. I say fairly well-known, because he was pretty young and quite articulate as I remember, and he wasn't lost to the plethora of infighting that seemed to dominate that period. He put his name about on UKLN in various ways (if it is still up, I am sure there is interesting stuff on there by him) and you can source articles in the weekly worker from around twelve years ago that he wrote. 

I think people comparing him to Laurie Penny are unfair, they may have similar backgrounds and now wade in a similar environment, but he has totally different roots.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 28, 2012)

treelover said:


> eh, his whole book was about the repudation of the term 'Chavs' and deconstructing its use in the media, etc......


 
I was talking about ayatollah, you muppet.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's influenced some of its middle-class readers to feel a bit of a _frisson_ of guilt about their class prejudices?


 
passing phase , it will be the homeless next


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 28, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> How do you get fewer? Or put another way how do you get genuinely working class people into the same positions of influence within the mainstream media? Genuine question, always read/hear a lot about wishes, less about strategy and plan of action.


Your question illustrates the problems with that line of thinking brilliantly - that there need to be more "genuinely working class people into the same positions of influence within the mainstream media". Why?

Putting resources into such an aim is an utter waste of time, there are plenty of more important issues (the cuts, continuing attacks on labour conditions, etc) that need tackling. If we win those fights then the problem of the over representation of Oxbridge types in the media will be fixed by itself.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jun 28, 2012)

It's really a bit of a stretch to compare Owen Jones to Laurie Penny, there's a big difference between what they write.

The only way in which they're remotely comparable is that they're both young-ish left-wing spokespersons who have reached a (relative) degree of success and fame. If this alone is justifiable grounds to attack them then count me out. The fact that people are reaching to find something to bash him with seems really perverse to me. There's an almost palpable sense of disappointment, on both left and right, that he didn't go to a public school, for example, as that deprives people from being able to make ad hominem attacks against him.

Whereas Penny makes me cringe 99% of the time I read anything of hers, Owen Jones' work seems very good to me. Chavs is dangerously close to being classic, there are various sections of it that are amongst the best left-wing polemnic I've read in years, so fair play to him. I also think he does an excellent job of putting accross class-based politics in a media environment which is overwhelmingly hostile to the left.


----------



## Zabo (Jun 28, 2012)

His asteroids must converging with his haemorrhoids in the galaxy of the BBC for he is now a star witness on the Moral Maze!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01k29ph


----------



## Schmetterling (Jun 28, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Well then it's not akin to vanity publishing, is it?


You don't know Verso, do you?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 28, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> How do you get fewer? Or put another way how do you get genuinely working class people into the same positions of influence within the mainstream media? Genuine question, always read/hear a lot about wishes, less about strategy and plan of action.


By changing the structure of society.  Not otherwise.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 28, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> It's really a bit of a stretch to compare Owen Jones to Laurie Penny, there's a big difference between what they write.
> 
> The only way in which they're remotely comparable is that they're both young-ish left-wing spokespersons who have reached a (relative) degree of success and fame. If this alone is justifiable grounds to attack them then count me out. The fact that people are reaching to find something to bash him with seems really perverse to me. There's an almost palpable sense of disappointment, on both left and right, that he didn't go to a public school, for example, as that deprives people from being able to make ad hominem attacks against him.
> 
> Whereas Penny makes me cringe 99% of the time I read anything of hers, Owen Jones' work seems very good to me. Chavs is dangerously close to being classic, there are various sections of it that are amongst the best left-wing polemnic I've read in years, so fair play to him. I also think he does an excellent job of putting accross class-based politics in a media environment which is overwhelmingly hostile to the left.


 
Sort of person that we need on The Moral Maze


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 28, 2012)

Claire Fox practically referred to that twat Neil O'Brien as a 'genius' last night.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 28, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> Your question illustrates the problems with that line of thinking brilliantly - that there need to be more "genuinely working class people into the same positions of influence within the mainstream media". Why?
> 
> Putting resources into such an aim is an utter waste of time, there are plenty of more important issues (the cuts, continuing attacks on labour conditions, etc) that need tackling. If we win those fights then the problem of the over representation of Oxbridge types in the media will be fixed by itself.



The line of thinking was framed in response to the line of complaint.


----------



## Random (Jun 28, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> The only way in which they're remotely comparable is that they're both young-ish left-wing spokespersons who have reached a (relative) degree of success and fame. If this alone is justifiable grounds to attack them then count me out.


 Has anyone actually said that, you silly billy?


----------



## Random (Jun 28, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Chavs is dangerously close to being classic, there are various sections of it that are amongst the best left-wing polemnic I've read in years, so fair play to him. I also think he does an excellent job of putting accross class-based politics in a media environment which is overwhelmingly hostile to the left.


 It's a media environment that is overwhelmingly hostile to the working class and to working class politics. Not so much to Oxbridge lefties.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 28, 2012)

Owen isn't anywhere near as bad as Laurie to be fair - I don't think his opinions are strikingly new or original in any way at all though.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 28, 2012)

Stardark said:


> Jesus Christ, he's on The Moral Maze...


 
Just listened to this. He did a really good job on it.


----------



## Sue (Jul 1, 2012)

..and on Broadcasting House this morning. Apparently, it's bad that there's an increasing number of MPs who've never had a job outside politics. Obviously fine for 'voice of the working class' Owen Jones to have never had a proper job though...


----------



## love detective (Jul 1, 2012)

This is his constant mantra - with the implicit suggestion that we need an an oxford educated type whose never had a job outside politics to protect us from, and speak out against, oxford educated types who've never had a job outside politics


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 1, 2012)

For the closed off.  Just poor objects to be pitied.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 1, 2012)

I don't like his hair.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 1, 2012)

temper_tantrum said:


> I don't like his hair.


 
And therein lies the weakness of his position.  I'm not so sure that I could rely on the strength of his convictions if things kicked off. Mind you I'm not sure that I could rely on meself these days but at least I've got the hair for it.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 1, 2012)

Libertad said:


> And therein lies the weakness of his position.  I'm not so sure that I could rely on the strength of his convictions if things kicked off. Mind you I'm not sure that I could rely on meself these days but at least I've got the hair for it.


 
Off-topic, but funny as fuck...

This reminds me of a wedding when a mate, just out from severing a little bit of time for drug dealing, was marrying the daughter of Lord & Lady so-and-so, and the best-man made mention of the 'strength of his convictions', some heckler shouted, 'don't you mean length?'  

This made us lot piss ourselves laughing,  Lord & Lady so-and-so's party was not amused.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 5, 2012)

Back to the future with


> poster boy of the new left and author of the bestselling politics book of 2011, Chavs: the Demonisation of the Working Class. He's on the train to Brighton to address the Unite conference. "There isn't going to be a bloody revolution in Britain, but there is hope for a society by working people and for working people," he counsels.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/04/the-return-of-marxism

Apparently the 1974 Labour *manifesto* is where it is all at. The Labour government of that period actually saw the living standards of the working class fall, unemployment rise and the far right grow.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 5, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Back to the future with
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/04/the-return-of-marxism
> ...


 
He's claiming to have been mis-quoted in that on twitter, "A figure I never used. I said 'if you stand up for the bottom 70% they call you a class warrior' etc" which seems about right, but even still 70% seems awfully arbitrary.

Also, It's not it's the whole 1974 Labour manifesto, it's the phrase "Bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families" that gets him going, which is just standard bennite stuff, but in abstraction it's a statement I can't disagree with. If our generation manages to halt the progress of neo-liberalism, and reverse it with fundamental shift in the balance of power towards the working class, then I'd consider that a great achievement. No, it wouldn't be socialist paradise, but it would be a the first major victory for the left following 30 years of decline and defeat.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 5, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> He's claiming to have been mis-quoted in that on twitter, "A figure I never used. I said 'if you stand up for the bottom 70% they call you a class warrior' etc" which seems about right, but even still 70% seems awfully arbitrary.
> 
> Also, It's not it's the whole 1974 Labour manifesto, it's the phrase "Bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families" that gets him going, which is just standard bennite stuff, but in abstraction it's a statement I can't disagree with. If our generation manages to halt the progress of neo-liberalism, and reverse it with fundamental shift in the balance of power towards the working class, then I'd consider that a great achievement. No, it wouldn't be socialist paradise, but it would be a the first major victory for the left following 30 years of decline and defeat.


 
Manifesto versus what actually happened situation.

Lets not go back to those days when a small army of well meaning leftists thought that drafting the Labour manifesto was actually meaningful only to see the Labour right refuse to implement most of it.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 5, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Manifesto versus what actually happened situation.
> 
> Lets not go back to those days when a small army of well meaning leftists thought that drafting the Labour manifesto was actually meaningful only to see the Labour right refuse to implement most of it.


 
Well you're right, but I did say in abstraction, in practice it's a different story. A skim through the benn diaries between 74-79 is a good documentary record of how this failed to be achieved. The history of that Callaghan government is an important one for understanding what we're going through today I think, but that's a different topic that would require a thread of it's own. I don't recall Jones being quoted in that article as actually endorsing the entire 1974 manifesto, just that isolated quote, which personally isn't a statement I find really objectionable.


----------



## poisondwarf (Jul 5, 2012)

He's stated he has had a 'proper job', selling hearing aids, on one of the programmes I saw him on. I'd rather him as a talking head than some of the other twats that are around.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 5, 2012)

He's articulate and he provides an entry point in the media for a slightly different narrative. That's god enough for me.


----------



## love detective (Jul 5, 2012)

he pretty much is articul8


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> He's articulate and he provides an entry point in the media for a slightly different narrative. That's god enough for me.


Oh what heights!

_As he was valiant, I honour him. But as he was ambitious, I slew him._
​


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Oh what heights!
> 
> _As he was valiant, I honour him. But as he was ambitious, I slew him._
> ​​


 
What more do you want from him? He's a talking head.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> What more do you want from him? He's a talking head.


Nothing. What do i want from you? Everything. Not, _that'll do me, fancy a pint?_


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2012)

love detective said:


> he pretty much is articul8


 
Minus the good looks, but with extra cash


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Minus the good looks, but with extra cash


You was moaning that he was skint and had to do this the other month - you've got a bit of a cheek.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2012)

? I've no idea about his financial circumstances.  I'd be willing to swap even so...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 5, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Manifesto versus what actually happened situation.
> 
> Lets not go back to those days when a small army of well meaning leftists thought that drafting the Labour manifesto was actually meaningful.


 
Which is exactly what the group he is around from Unite and this new CLASS think tank are trying to do...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2012)

articul8 said:


> ? I've no idea about his financial circumstances. I'd be willing to swap even so...


Yeah, i bet you would. if you'e no idea about this financial circumstances why did you try and suggest he's raking it in?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2012)

he's bound to be - money from loads of Beeb appearances/Indie/Unite work - got to be doing alright.  Guido Fawkes reckons he's paying top rate tax


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2012)

articul8 said:


> he's bound to be - money from loads of Beeb appearances/Indie/Unite work - got to be doing alright. Guido Fawkes reckons he's paying top rate tax


Nice to see your sources now. (*compares to lengthy list of attempted smears that you've made on basis of source*). Odd that you said before that he had to do this and would be on pretty much fuck all.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 5, 2012)

articul8 said:


> he's bound to be - money from loads of Beeb appearances/Indie/Unite work - got to be doing alright. Guido Fawkes reckons he's paying top rate tax


 
He won't be paying top rate, he'll probably be on 40% tax.

He won't normally get paid for most of his tv appearances

The Indie will pay a bit and with Unite it's hard to tell if he is on a fulltime contract for CLASS it will be between 30 - 40k per year, if it's piece work who knows?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 5, 2012)

round 203 in the eternal Butchers vs Articul8 exhibition slugfest to get underway here, shortly. Ding Ding, seconds out!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2012)

It's the first Thursday in the month, he's probably got some ghastly labour thing at 8.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It's the first Thursday in the month, he's probably got some ghastly labour thing at 8.


Don't do ghastly labour things.  But might do something more productive like sleep


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2012)

Yes you do. It's all you do.

Glad to see that you recognise the damage you do though.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2012)

Let's just say I'm not in the approved list for local cllrs.  Thank f***


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2012)

A rebel, like grit. A rebel within the labour party.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> A rebel, like grit. A rebel within the labour party.


 
Inside the tent pissing out.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 5, 2012)

grit in the oyster - future pearl (necklace)


----------



## Sue (Jul 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Inside the tent pissing out.


 Changing it from within, surely..?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 6, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> He won't normally get paid for most of his tv appearances


You are joking?  I know people get paid for radio punditry, so surely TV pays more?  Sky news etc?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> A rebel within the labour party.


 
For now


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

articul8 said:
			
		

> For now



Oh God. Now a martyr too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2012)

Sue said:


> Changing it from within, surely..?


 
That's what he tells us. 
I see him more as standing at the tent opening, spraying out on anyone who isn't in the tent with him. Hosing us all with his various takes on "you have to vote Labour to get the Tories out" piss.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2012)

articul8 said:


> For now


 
Absolutely!
Soon you won't be a rebel within the Labour Party at all.

You'll be just another Labour Party sheep, hoping to trade abject compliance with doctrine for advancement up the greasy pole.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Oh God. Now a martyr too.


 
I'm sure a suitable martyrdom can be arranged.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 6, 2012)

nah, not happening.  My patience is wearing thin already.  I don't do any "Labour party activism" per se.  My membership is in no way limiting my extra-party activism.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

Everyone esle should join and vote labour but that's not good enough _for you._


----------



## articul8 (Jul 6, 2012)

People should judge for themselves whether its worth taking the anti-austerity argument into the only party capable of mounting an alternative to the Con/LDs at the next election....


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

How nice of you to grant that freedom. Meanwhile carry on as normal - _the labour party is good enough for you lot but not for me. That's why i joined and urge you to vote for them. _Do you have any idea how incoherent you are?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 6, 2012)

It's perfectly clear, in the absence of any credible alternative, to attempt to influence the Labour party but not by organising a clear a distinct pole of attraction within it which is clearly distinct from the bulk of the party where class politics have been evacuated.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

articul8 said:


> It's perfectly clear, in the absence of any credible alternative, to attempt to influence the Labour party but not by organising a clear a distinct pole of attraction within it which is clearly distinct from the bulk of the party where class politics have been evacuated.


Yeah, crystal.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You'll be just another Labour Party sheep


 






Fuck teh system!!!!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

Just join del. You know where you're heading, save yourself some time.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Just join del. You know where you're heading, save yourself some time.


 
nah I'm deep in the process of entryism within SPEW, gonna win 'em round to democratic socialism and get owen jones to be leader, trust


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

luckily, articul8 has already beaten out your path for you


----------



## articul8 (Jul 6, 2012)

Not just me either, that very public sociologist fella too.  Bet there's a few more too...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

The very earth moves beneath our feet.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> How nice of you to grant that freedom. Meanwhile carry on as normal - _the labour party is good enough for you lot but not for me. That's why i joined and urge you to vote for them. _Do you have any idea how incoherent you are?


 
I think you're missing the point because you're being too kind and understanding.
It's now becoming clear that articul8 has imperial ambitions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Fuck teh system!!!!


 
No, not sheeple, sheep.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 6, 2012)




----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think you're missing the point because you're being too kind and understanding.
> It's now becoming clear that articul8 has imperial ambitions.


Celestial surely?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Celestial surely?


 
You think?  Hmm, thinking about it, you're probably right. Why rule on earth when you can rule in heaven?


----------



## love detective (Jul 6, 2012)

articul8 said:


> It's perfectly clear, in the absence of any credible alternative, to attempt to influence the Labour party but not by organising a clear a distinct pole of attraction within it which is clearly distinct from the bulk of the party where class politics have been evacuated.


 
factor 36 - per spinoza


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 7, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Just listened to this. He did a really good job on it.


He actually did a pretty good job on Newsnight last night, even though he was in one of those Bruce Lee versus 12 baddies situations.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 7, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Which is exactly what the group he is around from Unite and this new CLASS think tank are trying to do...


Have you seen who's on their National Advisory Panel? Sunny fucking Hundal ffs!


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jul 7, 2012)

articul8 said:


> It's perfectly clear, in the absence of any credible alternative, to attempt to influence the Labour party but not by organising a clear a distinct pole of attraction within it which is clearly distinct from the bulk of the party where class politics have been evacuated.


 
Jesus, that's as convoluted as Jeremy Corbyn draping himself in the the red flag while travelling from his own constituency to canvass against the iwca in a council by-election in 2003.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 7, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> Jesus, that's as convoluted as Jeremy Corbyn draping himself in the the red flag while travelling from his own constituency to canvass against the iwca in a council by-election in 2003.


 
I'm always amazed at the lengths Labour go to to dislodge any left-wing competition as soon as it pops up, especially the Labour Left. They never showed that kind of urgency when the BNP were on the rise in some of their safest areas (Stoke, Dagenham and Barnsley spring to mind). They probably spent more effort in getting rid of Dave Nellist in coventry than any other individual council seat this may, and apparently when it looked like George Galloway might actually win the by-election in Bradford just a few days before the polls they wheeled Dennis Skinner out to campaign for them, and even had poor old Tony Benn working the phones for them and everything.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 7, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> I'm always amazed at the lengths Labour go to to dislodge any left-wing competition as soon as it pops up, especially the Labour Left. They never showed that kind of urgency when the BNP were on the rise in some of their safest areas (Stoke, Dagenham and Barnsley spring to mind). They probably spent more effort in getting rid of Dave Nellist in coventry than any other individual council seat this may, and apparently when it looked like George Galloway might actually win the by-election in Bradford just a few days before the polls they wheeled Dennis Skinner out to campaign for them, and even had poor old Tony Benn working the phones for them and everything.


Funny you should say that. Here's what Representing the Mambo said about Coventry LP's efforts to remove Dave Nellist.



> Indeed, if I was a Labour councillor in Coventry, I certainly wouldn’t be very upset at the prospect of people like Nellist sitting in the same council chamber. In fact, I would probably welcome it as politically I probably have far more in common with them than many in the Labour Party. So the decision by the local Labour Party to ‘go after’ Nellist is a little bit depressing. It is frankly bewildering that anyone in the Coventry LP thought a better use of resources would be targeting an anti-cuts socialist councillor with such an exemplary, principled record (however much I might disagree with him on some issues) rather than the local Tories.
> And to top it off when Nellist was making his final speech in the council chamber the Labour councillors childishly staged a walk-out. Juvenile, brainless and indicative of the state of much of what passes for ‘Labour thinking’ in 2012. Attacking and belittling socialists is seen as a bigger priority than opposing the Conservatives and their socially destructive agenda. And I’m not exaggerating when I say that either.
> http://representingthemambo.wordpre...llist-really-have-been-a-priority-for-labour/


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jul 7, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> I'm always amazed at the lengths Labour go to to dislodge any left-wing competition as soon as it pops up, especially the Labour Left. They never showed that kind of urgency when the BNP were on the rise in some of their safest areas (Stoke, Dagenham and Barnsley spring to mind). They probably spent more effort in getting rid of Dave Nellist in coventry than any other individual council seat this may, and apparently when it looked like George Galloway might actually win the by-election in Bradford just a few days before the polls they wheeled Dennis Skinner out to campaign for them, and even had poor old Tony Benn working the phones for them and everything.


 
Yes, indeed, nothing as subversive to Labour Left as 'the threat of a good example'. I don't know whether it has happened in other areas or to other groups, but the strategy eventually employed against the BNP -whereby all the other parties put up candidates and campaign like their life depended on it - in order to boost overall turn out and thus deny the BNP, _without_ the need to engage with the BNP constituency on the issues pertinent to them, was also employed against the IWCA, particulalry in Oxford.

On one notable occassion, even the Tories stood in Blackbird Leys and not only did they canvass as in a real campaign, but were out energetically knocking up their supporters until the 10pm cut-off point, as if for all the world, the result hung in the balance.

They got 60 votes.

P


----------



## youngian (Jul 8, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> The ever greater rise of Owen Jones is a mystery.
> 
> Stand by for his full recantation of these "youthful immature views" in a few years , as he rebrands himself and moves decisively to the neo Liberal Right, and gets a "voice of the ordinary man" column on the Daily Mail !


 
Sounds like Tony Parsons.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 8, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> Jesus, that's as convoluted as Jeremy Corbyn draping himself in the the red flag while travelling from his own constituency to canvass against the iwca in a council by-election in 2003.


there was a stray "not" in there it should have said "by organising a clear a distinct pole of attraction within, demonstrably different from the bulk of the party where class politics have been evacuated".


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jul 8, 2012)

articul8 said:


> there was a stray "not" in there it should have said "by organising a clear a distinct pole of attraction within, demonstrably different from the bulk of the party where class politics have been evacuated".


 
Yeah, there's 'not's' and then there's 'knots' which are generally harder to untangle.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 8, 2012)

yep - but the knots are objective


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 8, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Not just me either, that very public sociologist fella too. Bet there's a few more too...


 
Yes, he left the Socialist Party claiming that his basic politics were still the same, but that he had come to the conclusion that it was necessary to work inside Labour, to built a pole of attraction etc. Within a year and a half he was a loyal assistant to a Blairite MP.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 8, 2012)

articul8 said:


> there was a stray "not" in there it should have said "by organising a clear a distinct pole of attraction within, demonstrably different from the bulk of the party where class politics have been evacuated".


 
So how's that coming along then, now that the last bastions of the Labour left, the LRC and Campaign Group, can mobilise less people to their open conferences than even runts of the left litter like the AWL?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 8, 2012)

really  - which one?  It's not axiomatic that working for an MP makes you a cunt, though plenty would fall into that category.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 8, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> So how's that coming along then, now that the last bastions of the Labour left, the LRC and Campaign Group, can mobilise less people to their open conferences than even runts of the left litter like the AWL?


Depends how you measure it. On the plus side Christine Shawcroft beat Luke Akehurst by 10,000+ votes. I don't share the view of some (CLPD etc) that this shows the Labour left is on the march. I think it's more an index of a fairly meaningless vote in the NEC being practically the only opportunity to stick two fingers upto the leadership.

LRC aside, the rest of the Labour left seems moribund and decaying - I was at the AGM of Labour Briefing (at which there was a vote to make it into the journal of the LRC btw) where there were probably only three or four people younger than me in the room. And I'm no spring chicken. At least the LRC realises it has to face outwards and that the current state of the labour party isn't the be-all-and-end-all of class struggle.
I don't know whether it can build itself into any kind of influential force. But then I don't see many other left forces are in that position either.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 8, 2012)

> currently working with Stoke-on-Trent MP Tristram Hunt on a project to bring the local business and ‘third sector’ communities together.


http://democraticfutures.org.uk/our-people-5341.html

Oh.  That sounds shite.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 8, 2012)

articul8 said:


> http://democraticfutures.org.uk/our-people-5341.html
> 
> Oh. That sounds shite.


 
Yes. His move to Labour was initially surrounded with leftish babble about strategy, but the trajectory and career path were clear very early on. He's not even a Labour "left", just someone who turned his coat.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 8, 2012)

That's a shame. I hope he sees the error of his ways.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 8, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Depends how you measure it. On the plus side Christine Shawcroft beat Luke Akehurst by 10,000+ votes. I don't share the view of some (CLPD etc) that this shows the Labour left is on the march. I think it's more an index of a fairly meaningless vote in the NEC being practically the only opportunity to stick two fingers upto the leadership.


 
Ok, so we agree that this is meaningless.




			
				articul8 said:
			
		

> LRC aside, the rest of the Labour left seems moribund and decaying - I was at the AGM of Labour Briefing (at which there was a vote to make it into the journal of the LRC btw) where there were probably only three or four people younger than me in the room. And I'm no spring chicken. At least the LRC realises it has to face outwards and that the current state of the labour party isn't the be-all-and-end-all of class struggle.
> I don't know whether it can build itself into any kind of influential force. But then I don't see many other left forces are in that position either.


 
So, we agree that the Labour left outside the LRC is "moribund and decaying", not to mention tiny and elderly. I'll even go so far as to agree that the LRC does indeed "face outwards" more than the rest of what's left of the Labour left. But we should be clear that the LRC itself is tiny and for all that it is more vigorous than the rest of the crumpled remnants of the Lab left it can mobilise less people and actually does left than even groups on the scale of the AWL. It's been around for a few years now and it isn't having an impact in any field. The milieu its surrounded by - the Labour Party - is extremely unpromising in terms of attracting politically radical young people. Its attempt to set up a youth wing ended up involving fewer people than the youth wing of Workers Power. What purpose does it serve? What purpose does being in it serve?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 8, 2012)

articul8 said:


> That's a shame. I hope he sees the error of his ways.


 
It was predictable, at least in broad outline. The only surprising part was how quickly the process happened. 99 times out of a hundred these days if some political radical decides to join Labour it means that they are either going into retirement from activism or that they are drastically shifting their politics to the right.


----------



## love detective (Jul 8, 2012)

only 99 times out of hundred?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 8, 2012)

love detective said:


> only 99 times out of hundred?


 
There's the odd fool in amongst the knaves.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 8, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes. His move to Labour was initially surrounded with leftish babble about strategy, but the trajectory and career path were clear very early on. He's not even a Labour "left", just someone who turned his coat.


 
Bit cheeky doing a PhD on your mates and then jumping ship    . . . but he's always seemed like a good bloke on his blog and elsewhere.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 8, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> for all that it is more vigorous than the rest of the crumpled remnants of the Lab left it can mobilise less people and actually does left than even groups on the scale of the AWL. It's been around for a few years now and it isn't having an impact in any field. The milieu its surrounded by - the Labour Party - is extremely unpromising in terms of attracting politically radical young people. Its attempt to set up a youth wing ended up involving fewer people than the youth wing of Workers Power. What purpose does it serve? What purpose does being in it serve?


 
Actually the LRC youth has been growing and was an annoyance to the NOLS types who run the Young Labour conference, having some motions passed (I think on rent caps amongst other things).

As for it being an unpromising milieu - it is true that no amount of cut softening or soft-soap capitalist reform-mongering are relevant given the crisis. But at the same time people want to see a radical alternative being posed, including at the electoral level. Given that TUSC or any other putative new workers party aren't able to do this credibly, there is an appetite for a current which confronts the Labour party directly with the kind of programme that would be necessary were it really to represent the interests of those it was set up to represent.
Make the lives of career politicians as uncomfortable as possible by raising hell on their own doorsteps. Given that realistically only a Labour vote is going to keep the vicious Con/LD parties out of power this is a politically and strategically critical space.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 8, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It was predictable, at least in broad outline. The only surprising part was how quickly the process happened. 99 times out of a hundred these days if some political radical decides to join Labour it means that they are either going into retirement from activism or that they are drastically shifting their politics to the right.


I must be 1 in 100.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 8, 2012)

imposs1904 said:


> Bit cheeky doing a PhD on your mates and then jumping ship  . . . but he's always seemed like a good bloke on his blog and elsewhere.


 
There's no such thing as a good assistant to a Blairite MP. Whether he's personally pleasant or not is about as relevant as whether or not a Tory is kind to animals.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 8, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There's the odd fool in amongst the knaves.


I am but mad north-north-west. When the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a handsaw.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 8, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I must be 1 in 100.


 
See my response to Love Detective above.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 8, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Actually the LRC youth has been growing


 
I'm sure it has, but it's still smaller than Revo. Just think about that for a second. The youth wing of the only remaining leftist current in Labour is smaller than the youth wing of a piddling little Spartoid sect. What does that tell you?




			
				articul8 said:
			
		

> As for it being an unpromising milieu - it is true that no amount of cut softening or soft-soap capitalist reform-mongering are relevant given the crisis. But at the same time people want to see a radical alternative being posed, including at the electoral level. Given that TUSC or any other putative new workers party aren't able to do this credibly, there is an appetite for a current which confronts the Labour party directly with the kind of programme that would be necessary were it really to represent the interests of those it was set up to represent.
> Make the lives of career politicians as uncomfortable as possible by raising hell on their own doorsteps. Given that realistically only a Labour vote is going to keep the vicious Con/LD parties out of power this is a politically and strategically critical space.


 
Where is this "appetite"? Why hasn't this "appetite" resulted in the LRC growing to a point where it can at least out-mobilise the AWL? What "raising hell" does the LRC actually do for that matter? How exactly to they "make the lives of career politicians" miserable, when in fact those career politician couldn't give a flying fuck about it because it's entirely impotent?

You see, if the LRC was actually a strong, growing, current able to mobilise even a couple of thousand and possessed of a reasoned strategy, I still wouldn't think that being in Labour was a good idea. But it wouldn't be so obviously _stupid_ as it is when the LRC is a complete fucking irrelevance, barely able to mobilise a couple of hundred and with no prospect of that changing.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 8, 2012)

LRC have only very recently sought to develop any youth wing - and there have only recently been any democratic structures to Young Labour to have made it worthwhile to start specifically organising as a youth current inside the party. In terms of influence over the political ideas of young people I would say that John McDonnell has more of a profile than Taaffe, Matgamna or anyone else leading a small sect

As for "entirely impotent" - we'll what's the baseline for comparison? TUSC?


----------



## treelover (Jul 8, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Ok, so we agree that this is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> So, we agree that the Labour left outside the LRC is "moribund and decaying", not to mention tiny and elderly. I'll even go so far as to agree that the LRC does indeed "face outwards" more than the rest of what's left of the Labour left. But we should be clear that the LRC itself is tiny and for all that it is more vigorous than the rest of the crumpled remnants of the Lab left it can mobilise less people and actually does left than even groups on the scale of the AWL. It's been around for a few years now and it isn't having an impact in any field. The milieu its surrounded by - the Labour Party - is extremely unpromising in terms of attracting politically radical young people. Its attempt to set up a youth wing ended up involving fewer people than the youth wing of Workers Power. What purpose does it serve? What purpose does being in it serve?


 

When John  MC had his leadership election rally it was packed with young people, etc...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 8, 2012)

articul8 said:


> In terms of influence over the political ideas of young people I would say that John McDonnell has more of a profile than Taaffe, Matgamna or anyone else leading a small sect


 
Jesus fucking Christ, what a comparison!

Nobody knows who any of those people are. All of them are completely irrelevant to "the political ideas" of the overwhelming majority of young people. The only difference between them in terms of their political significance is that Peter is a leading figure in a tiny, politically marginal, group which happens to be ten times the size of the tiny, politically marginal, groups that the other two are leading figures in. But that's tallest dwarf in the circus territory, not a big claim for the real-world political significance of the Socialist Party.




			
				articul8 said:
			
		

> As for "entirely impotent" - we'll what's the baseline for comparison? TUSC?


 
Pick any baseline you like. The LRC is a complete fucking irrelevance no matter who or what you compare them to. Nobody gives a shit about them inside or outside the Labour Party. It's a few dozen bewildered old lefties huddling together for warmth and wondering where everyone went. They have no strategy. They do nothing of importance. It is a complete and utter waste of time.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 8, 2012)

treelover said:


> When John MC had his leadership election rally it was packed with young people, etc...


 
This would be an election rally for a leadership campaign which never got to first base because even the Campaign Group's remaining MPs wouldn't all nominate him?

Presumably this alleged packed crowd of young people have all streamed into the LRC as a result and the LRC has since gone beyond a group which can mobilise a couple of hundred people? Or perhaps, none of that happened and the LRC is still an organisation of the size and significance of the AWL.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 8, 2012)

So you're "tiny, politically marginal" group has importance because...?  No single group on the UK left has a legitimate claim to being important and relevant.  How many council seats does the SP currently hold?  I don't say this with any sense of triumphalism.  Our class is facing the harshest attack for a generation - sectarian point-scoring from a position of abject failure doesn't help anyone one iota.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Jul 8, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This would be an election rally for a leadership campaign which never got to first base because even the Campaign Group's remaining MPs wouldn't all nominate him?
> 
> Presumably this alleged packed crowd of young people have all streamed into the LRC as a result and the LRC has since gone beyond a group which can mobilise a couple of hundred people? Or perhaps, none of that happened and the LRC is still an organisation of the size and significance of the AWL.


actually we have well over a thousand members at the moment, and we're growing. As well as the new youth wing, there are  new branches starting up, several national unions and branches affiliated to us and we now have Briefing as our official journal.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 8, 2012)

articul8 said:


> So you're "tiny, politically marginal" group has importance because...?


 
Did you read the post you are responding to at all? I made no claims for the importance of the Socialist Party at all.

The Socialist Party is one of only two reasonably sizeable clusters of socialist activists in Britain. It has some limited influence in the trade union movement. It is in a position to initiate quite a number of local campaigns in various parts of the country. That's about the biggest claim I'd make for it's importance in terms of size and social weight if really pushed, ie not a lot. As it happens, I'm not in the English and Welsh Socialist Party, I'm in the Irish Socialist Party. Which has an MEP and a couple of members of parliament and a few councillors. Not that having a few public representatives make us particularly politically significant. We're still a small, marginal, activist group.




			
				articul8 said:
			
		

> No single group on the UK left has a legitimate claim to being important and relevant.


 
There are, as people used to point out repeatedly to Cockneyrebel when he tried out the same line of argument, degrees of irrelevance, degrees of unimportance and degrees of capacity to do anything useful. You may recall that particular gambit. The SWP and Socialist Party are small and irrelevant (true), his group of 30 was small and irrelevant (true), therefore there was no distinction to be made. It was stupid when he was trying it on and it's just as stupid when you do so.

The LRC can turn out about as many activists as the AWL. And what it does with those activists is not a whole fucking lot. It has no sensible or even slightly believable strategy to make itself politically relevant.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 8, 2012)

dynamicbaddog said:


> actually we have well over a thousand members at the moment, and we're growing. As well as the new youth wing, there are new branches starting up, several national unions and branches affiliated to us and we now have Briefing as our official journal.


 
You are a clown.

The LRC has a "thousand members" in the same way that the CPB has a "thousand members". And it has various affiliations in the same way that UAF or Defend Council Housing has various affiliates. That is, they have them on paper. In actual practice, the LRC can't produce more than a couple of hundred people, just like the CPB. Or are you going to claim that there are a thousand LRC activists now, just to give everyone a good laugh?

As for having Briefing as your official journal, why on Earth do you think that's something to boast about? Labour Briefing is a deathly dull publication put out by jaundiced pensioners and read by nobody.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 8, 2012)

And although you've admitted your marginal and irrelevant status, you've not made any attempt to account for the fact you have lost what limited electoral gains you managed to make.

Small and going backwards.  Not exactly a strong basis for denouncing other groups?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 8, 2012)

articul8 said:


> And although you've admitted your marginal and irrelevant status, you've not made any attempt to account for the fact you have lost what limited electoral gains you managed to make.
> 
> Small and going backwards. Not exactly a strong basis for denouncing other groups?


 
The Socialist Party has lost a few council seats, sure. It's also larger now than it has been in fifteen years and has more influence in the unions than it has ever had previously (the latter, by the way, is at least as much due to the hollowing out of the union movement as anything else). I'm still not making any huge claims for the SP's strength and significance, but I'd rather be in its position now than in its position a few years ago when it had six council seats or whatever.

You really are pulling a cockneyrebel here, almost word for word. Yes, the SP is small and irrelevant to the politics of Britain. But it is substantially bigger and more relevant than the LRC, and it actually does some things that, on a small scale, matter, unlike our friends in the LRC. Where's your positive case for the LRC? Why does its continued existence make a blind bit of difference to anything? The core issue here isn't that the LRC is small and irrelevant - which it is - but that their strategy is bonkers. People of radical inclinations simply don't join the Labour Party, so there is no audience for them.


----------



## JHE (Jul 8, 2012)

The sad descent of Trottery...

From: We are the world party of proletarian socialist revolution! Comrades, come rally!
To: We are small, powerless and irrelevant, but you are even smaller, even more powerless and even more irrelevant, so ner!


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 8, 2012)

JHE said:


> The sad descent of Trottery...
> 
> From: We are the world party of proletarian socialist revolution! Comrades, come rally!
> To: We are small, powerless and irrelevant, but you are even smaller, even more powerless and even more irrelevant, so neh!


 

I hate to  at this, but  and  (  )


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 8, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> *There's no such thing as a good assistant to a Blairite MP*. Whether he's personally pleasant or not is about as relevant as whether or not a Tory is kind to animals.


 
Is that what he's doing nowadays? I had no idea. I guess that explains why his old blog had restricted viewing last time I tried to look at it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 8, 2012)

JHE said:


> The sad descent of Trottery...
> 
> From: We are the world party of proletarian socialist revolution! Comrades, come rally!
> To: We are small, powerless and irrelevant, but you are even smaller, even more powerless and even more irrelevant, so ner!


 
One of the bigger flaws in the Trotskyist tradition has been the tendency of small groups to belt out inappropriate bombast of a sort that would be a little silly coming from much bigger organisations. That said, Trotskyism is the dominant strand by far of what's left of the British left. It's just that being the dominant strand of the British left isn't all that impressive an accomplishment, given that the Stalinists imploded, the left social democrats disappeared and the anarchists have always been entirely irrelevant.

I don't think that there's any point in sugaring the pill. The left in Britain is very small and very politically marginal.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 8, 2012)

imposs1904 said:


> Is that what he's doing nowadays? I had no idea. I guess that explains why his old blog had restricted viewing last time I tried to look at it.


 
I think he had one or two less than flattering comments about the guy who is now his boss on it!


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The left in Britain is very small and very politically marginal.


 
It is. It might be a bit less so if it were slightly less hung up on class hate and ideological purity and spent a bit less time and effort sneering at people who, whilst they might not be perfect, at least have their hearts in roughly the right place.  Such as Owen Jones, for instance.

Burying the festering corpse of Trostskyism ('ism,' not 'ists'!) and developing a body of theory that's not re-fighting the battles of the 1930s might be an idea too.


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2012)

'left social democrats disappeared and the anarchists have always been entirely irrelevant.'


Thats a rather big statement, Boycott Workfare are obviously influenced by libertarian/anarchist ideas and they are very successful...


----------



## audiotech (Jul 9, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> It is. It might be a bit less so if it were slightly less hung up on class hate and ideological purity and spent a bit less time and effort sneering at people who, whilst they might not be perfect, at least have their hearts in roughly the right place.  Such as Owen Jones, for instance.
> 
> Burying the festering corpse of Trostskyism ('ism,' not 'ists'!) and developing a body of theory that's not re-fighting the battles of the 1930s might be an idea too.




Austerity in the 30's, austerity now. Do we ignore it? Of course not. Nothing wrong with some good old class struggle. I'd prefer a classless society, as do the trots last time I looked. Who specifically on here is doing the sneering? Developing a body of theory involves studying past theories.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 9, 2012)

treelover said:


> Thats a rather big statement


 
Yes, it's a big sweeping statement, which leaves out important nuances.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 9, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> . Yes, the SP is small and irrelevant to the politics of Britain. But it is substantially bigger and more relevant than the LRC, and it actually does some things that, on a small scale, matter, unlike our friends in the LRC.


 
More relevant on what grounds?  This hasn't been my experience locally, where the LRC - along with the trades council, SWP and a few Greens -have been central to the anti-cuts campaign.  The TUSC people only came down to insist we stood against Labour in a by-election where the work hadn't been put in, and we haven't seen them since.



> The core issue here isn't that the LRC is small and irrelevant - which it is - but that their strategy is bonkers. People of radical inclinations simply don't join the Labour Party, so there is no audience for them.


 
Your organisation's strategy is to repeat (ad infinitum or ad absurdam) the attempt to float the basis for a new workers party, usually on the basis of some new acronym, and despite repeated failures still repeat the same old failed formula in conditions even less likely to see a breakthrough. 

I'd hope that the SP have a better sense of priorities than go in for these futile spates of sectarian oneupmanship.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 9, 2012)

> I'd hope that the SP have a better sense of priorities than go in for these futile spates of sectarian oneupmanship.


 
Hang on, isn't that what Labour did in Coventry? Rather than use all their efforts to fight the Tories, they instead attack a potential ally in the fight against cuts... or would the Coventry City LP rather side with the Tories and their programme for dismantling public services?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 9, 2012)

I'm certainly not going to defend that, and can't be held responsible for the actions of every Labour group up and down the country.  I don't consider it any sort of victory that Dave lost his seat.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2012)

_I certainly don't consider the actions of the party that i elected to join and now urge others to join and to vote for doing what they always do and will always do to be any responsibility of mine._


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 9, 2012)

Well, consider the Bradford West example. The following day, rather than use their energy to develop an identifiable alternative to the Tories, many Labour members (especially that Akehurst cunt) spent the next two days slagging off Galloway.  There was a lesson to be learned there and Labour failed to learn it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Well, consider the Bradford West example. The following day, rather than use their energy to develop an identifiable alternative to the Tories, many Labour members (especially that Akehurst cunt) spent the next two days slagging off Galloway. There was a lesson to be learned there and Labour failed to learn it.


Consider that articul8 himself wanted a labour victory there.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Consider that articul8 himself wanted a labour victory there.


Now there's a surprise.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Consider that articul8 himself wanted a labour victory there.


 
I was fairly ambivalent about the outcome - Galloway didn't exactly transform Tower Hamlets and is unlikely to do much for Bradford


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 9, 2012)

From my own experience, the LRC is an organisation that is quite small in number, and dominated by middle-aged men. What's more, they're brimming with dynamism compared to much of the Labour left I briefly got involved with, which felt moribund and decrepit at times. They may have more political influence than the SP, but didn't feel like it was a group on the up.

By comparison the SP branches I've come in contact with are much younger, less homogenous and less male dominated. They may be totally politcally marginalised, but the average SP branch meeting has more people, and more interesting discussion, than the typical labour party ward meeting. The problem they have tho, is keeping them involved, not attracting them in the first place. That's true of the SWP too, moreso infact, they have this revolving door where they sign up a few thousand freshers every year at red brick uni's, then they all leave and they sign up next year's freshers to replace them, ad infinitum.

Also, when I speak to ex Militant people who were in Labour, not all of which are currently in the SP btw, the consensus is that there's no audience at all for left wing idea's in the Labour party, that in many area's it's structures are hollow and decrepit, and that many of the attractive features that entryism once had simply aren't there any more. The Labour party isn't where the class is anymore, and joining Labour holds less appeal to sincere left-wingers than at any point in it's history.

It's also not a place you'd go to recruit people into a radical group. Thinking about some of the people who go to SP meetings, and anarchist meetings, that I've been too, most of the people there wouldn't really define themselves ideologically as either Trotskyites and Anarcho-syndicalists, and I have often thought that maybe a generation or two ago a lot of those people would've gravitated initially towards Labour party young socialists, and then perhaps become more radical later on. Today though, no-one with any nascent radical inclinations would think to join Labour, it seems totally inappropriate.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I was fairly ambivalent about the outcome - Galloway didn't exactly transform Tower Hamlets and is unlikely to do much for Bradford


Why must you constantly attempt to re-write history? You know damn well i can show you what you actually said.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 9, 2012)

I can't remember what I said - I was surprised that Galloway won.  And not entirely delighted, that's true enough.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 9, 2012)

> It's also not a place you'd go to recruit people into a radical group. Thinking about some of the people who go to SP meetings, and anarchist meetings, that I've been too, most of the people there wouldn't really define themselves ideologically as either Trotskyites and Anarcho-syndicalists, and I have often thought that maybe a generation or two ago a lot of those people would've gravitated initially towards Labour party young socialists, and then perhaps become more radical later on. Today though, no-one with any nascent radical inclinations would think to join Labour, it seems totally inappropriate.


 
Depends what you mean.  I accept that at the moment there is no stampede to join Labour from young people or the wider class.  That's manifestly true.  But at the same time there is a) a desperation to get rid of the coalition parties and b) the belief that there should be someone putting a proper radical alternative to austerity on the table.   In these circumstances it's entirely appropriate to direct demands towards the Labour party as a party which has historically claimed to exist to represent the interests of working people.  And the more a clear pole of resistance develops within the Labour party the more people will look to _it_ if not to the party as a whole.

I think the LRC has gained a new relevance in the wake of the crisis and the formation of the coalition - it has an energy and a relevance sadly lacking elsewhere in the party - and I accept that what there is now is pretty much a hollowed out shell.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I can't remember what I said - I was surprised that Galloway won. And not entirely delighted, that's true enough.


 
Perfect example of where your incoherence and habit of offering different logics and justification to different audiences gets you. I'm talking about your position _before_ the election which was hostile, saying he opened the door to the edl, you then accused him of theft and fraud and so on, then continuing on to predict he would have no role to play in the final outcome. _Afterwards_ you switched to being cautiously supportive.

If you can't even keep straight what _your own_ positions were/are - and more importantly the logic that led to you taking them - then what do you think they look like to other observers? And this is why after each wrong position/logic (greens standing against BNP, AV, Galloway etc) you come back on here and try to re-write history (sometimes you even do i under a pseudonym in your mag).


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 9, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I think the LRC has gained a new relevance in the wake of the crisis and the formation of the coalition - it has an energy and a relevance sadly lacking elsewhere in the party - and I accept that what there is now is pretty much a hollowed out shell.


 

This is where you've got your Labour goggles on. Only when compared to the rest of the Labour party could the LRC ever be described as energetic and relevant. I tell you now, when i was there they were the last two words on my mind.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Perfect example of where your incoherence and habit of offering different logics and justification to different audiences gets you. I'm talking about your position _before_ the election which was hostile, saying he opened the door to the edl, you then accused him of theft and fraud and so on, then continuing on to predict he would have no role to play in the final outcome. _Afterwards_ you switched to being cautiously supportive.


 
My position hasn't really changed.  How does hostility to Galloway as an individual equate to uncritical support of the local Labour party?   The result wasn't one I anticipated, but I'm abivalent as to what it represents - it's negative insofar as Galloway is a recruiting gift for the EDL, positive insofar as it may kick the local Labour party into sorting itself out.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 9, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> This is where you've got your Labour goggles on. Only when compared to the rest of the Labour party could the LRC ever be described as energetic and relevant. I tell you now, when i was there they were the last two words on my mind.


Well it's not perfect - it needs to up its game, as we all do.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2012)

articul8 said:


> My position hasn't really changed. How does hostility to Galloway as an individual equate to uncritical support of the local Labour party? The result wasn't one I anticipated, but I'm abivalent as to what it represents - it's negative insofar as Galloway is a recruiting gift for the EDL, positive insofar as it may kick the local Labour party into sorting itself out.


 
And here we have that re-writing. Viciously libelous hostility was really _ambivalence_.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 9, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I can't remember what I said - I was surprised that Galloway won. And not entirely delighted, that's true enough.


I wasn't surprised. The week before the by-election, it was pretty apparent that Labour hadn't done enough work on the ground. On the Tuesday, Galloway was telling his Twitter followers that a victory for him was a certainty and to place your bets now.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 9, 2012)

Galloway is an effective political operator - at least until it requires long term unglamorous graft at community level.   I don't remember ever denying that.  But I still wouldn't touch him with a bargepole in terms of his standards of integrity.

Where's this abrupt shift in position?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 9, 2012)

I could say the same thing about many Labour politicians: all full of fine words but when push comes to shove, there's fuck all behind the rhetoric.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 9, 2012)

Speaking of the LRC and Labour Briefing:
http://www.leftfutures.org/2012/07/the-labour-left-at-its-worst/


----------



## articul8 (Jul 9, 2012)

terrible article - I'm sure it has nothing to do with Lansman being on the losing side in the debate.

(I don't recall Ted Knight even being there!)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 9, 2012)

The politics of the article are indeed terrible. But it's interesting enough in terms of information. I didn't know that anyone can show up and vote at Labour Briefing meetings or the the vote on the LRC merger was extremely close.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 9, 2012)

It was an odd debate in that 90% of the people opposing the merger were also LRC members!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 9, 2012)

That part was clear from the article. I hadn't realised the degree to which the various remaining organisations of the Labour left are basically the same people wearing different hats. The distinctions seem to be more about which group they put the most emphasis on.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 9, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That part was clear from the article. I hadn't realised the degree to which the various remaining organisations of the Labour left are basically the same people wearing different hats. The distinctions seem to be more about which group they put the most emphasis on.


 
It's like the Morcombe and Wise film where they have all these dummies behind the battlements and run round changing their hats and firing rifles from behind each one.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 10, 2012)

Christine Shawcroft has a press release out denouncing the LRC "takeover" of Labour Briefing.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


>


 
You *naughty* little entryists!!


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

It was dying on its arse.  I don't see what the fuss is about.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

So where's your pole? Seen what your _talented_ mate is up to today?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

LRC is the pole!  Yes, and I have publically taken the piss.  That's a very bad idea.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

So the pole is dying on it's arse despite the demand that you point out exists for it to live etc. Wow, you've publicly taken the piss. Out of someone you congratulated on getting the position in the shadow cabinet that allowed them to do this. Thanks you so much. Does't make you think twice or that taking the piss is not a decent response. I can list the stuff that your party have done, propose to do, and will do and all you will be able to do is publicity take the piss.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

Fucking hell - read the thread.  Briefing is dying on its arse, not the LRC.

As to Stephen Twigg taking the piss is a perfectly decent, if not sufficient, response.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

So, the pole now has something that's dying on its arse as it's main voice. Onwards.

I wasn't talking so much of the response but the situation that tits like you got yourself into that ensure people like Twigg will always run rings around you. But i'm all ears for your sufficient response. As a socialist militant within the labour party what is your sufficient response?


----------



## treelover (Jul 10, 2012)

'John McDonnell MP, Chair of the LRC and always keen to smoothe over differences within the LRC, said “_Whatever happens in this room, whatever the decision, we leave here as comrades._”

great guy....

though any title with 'labour' in it is going o struggle...


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

treelover said:


> though any title with 'labour' in it is going o struggle...


 
I think LRC being involved with it should open it out to non-Labour or extra-Labour (not so much anti-Labour) perspectives - one reason I think people like Christine Shawcroft weren't keen.  They really do want it to be about reporting on the latest updates from NPF reps etc (oh dear God )

Having said that, it will now be the organ of one particular organisation.  If only there were a left magazine which was open to people of all left traditions, looked great, and carried analysis that left the rest of the national mags in the shade.  Oh, hang on....


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> As a socialist militant within the labour party what is your sufficient response?


The response will be to stop people like this - however nice they might be personally - from getting parachuted into working class constituencies with which they have no links and are incapable of either understanding or representing.  Personally, I think the idea of mandatory re-selection had a lot going for it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

So a) the response is nothing - it's not something that you can carry out and b) it's something the centre stopped you being able to do and will never let happen over 30 years ago.

Great. Look at my pole.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 10, 2012)

> Great. Look at my pole.


 
Ooer, missus!


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

Well it's a long term objective.  In the short term it's possible and necessary for the unions to start finding, training and working to select working class candidates.  I think they ought to commit to taking the average London workers wage as a measure of their commitment.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> The response will be to stop people like this - however nice they might be personally - from getting parachuted into working class constituencies with which they have no links and are incapable of either understanding or representing. Personally, I think the idea of mandatory re-selection had a lot going for it.


 
So all you need is an influx of working class radicals into the Labour Party, determined to vote out these MPs, plus the massive redemocratisation of the Labour Party to allow that to happen. Perhaps you'll follow that up by mobilising an army of goblins and pixies to storm Westminster?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Well it's a long term objective. In the short term it's possible and necessary for the unions to start finding, training and working to select working class candidates. I think they ought to commit to taking the average London workers wage as a measure of their commitment.


How long term is your project? 

What's your immediate response as a socialist militant in the party to what your party has committed to?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

a)mild desparation
b)taking the piss
c)talking to the teaching unions about resisting it and mobilising support in parliament for the idea to be dropped (there is already a fair bit of unease about Twigg's role)
d) beginning to articulate a socialist education policy based on non-selective schools under well-run LEAs.
e) lobbying for the exclusion of the idea from the NPF/PiP documents and the next manifesto and the adoption of d)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> a)mild desparation
> b)taking the piss
> c)talking to the teaching unions about resisting it and mobilising support in parliament for the idea to be dropped (there is already a fair bit of unease about Twigg's role)
> d) beginning to articulate a socialist education policy based on non-selective schools under well-run LEAs.


So, fuck all as it's nothing to do with you. And fuck all that doesn't mention labour. Why Not?

Are you in the teacher role on the the last 2?

Unease about Twigg's role? Did you not notice the unease about Twigg full-stop when you were bigging his talents up?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

Twigg would be a decent, good even, constitutional minister.  He'd be disaster on anything around foreign affairs or public services.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

The teaching unions aren't Labour.  And where have I said Labour policy ought to be made without reference to people outside the party?  FFS


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 10, 2012)

Twigg is an abysmal man.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> The teaching unions aren't Labour. And where have I said Labour policy ought to be made without reference to people outside the party? FFS


The point was that you didn't mention labour because you as a socialist militant in labour can do nothing about labour as a member - despite your argument being that militants should join labour as they can change things in labour. You know they can't.

You offer some waffle about a future change through re-selection - i ask when this will happen (leaving aside how and that the party has stopped this) - silence.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

when will this happen?  When the balance of forces makes its possible.  It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that it can't and won't happen if you stay outside.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 10, 2012)

Good grief a Bennite without Tony Benn.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> when will this happen? When the balance of forces makes its possible. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that it can't and won't happen if you stay outside.


So no timetable - no realism.

OK, given that the people at the centre of the party got rid 40 years ago, do you envisgae it happening withion the next 40 years? And of course ignoring the decades worth of work to get to that point where the centre just flicked a finger and said bye. So we're ta;king 60 years at the very very least right?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

There could be a new generation of Bennites - even be people who were leaning right in government could get swept along by a powerful extra-parliamentary force.

As St Luke said, with god nothing is impossible   I'm not suggesting *waiting* for this to happen, I'm suggesting building up the maximum possible extra-parliamentary influence to drag Labour along in its wake


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> There could be a new generation of Bennites - even be people who were leaning right in government could get swept along by a powerful extra-parliamentary force.
> 
> As St Luke said, with god nothing is impossible


So no answer? Even after repeated prodding? Even after saying people are crying out for it? And why not? You know as well as i why not. You can't say what time-scale that your plan works on. It's at least 80 years plus though.

Just stop this shit.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

I'm not going to make promises that can't be kept. I don't argue that the balance of political work should be tipped towards activism inside the Labour party right now- anything but.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'm not going to make promises that can't be kept. I don't argue that the balance of political work should be tipped towards activism inside the Labour party - anything but.


I don't want your promise. You push the idea that you have a plan and others don't - when prodded on it, you have nothing. Zero. Zilch. You don't even have a plan to defend your plan. Fuck off, you are a shambles.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> There could be a new generation of Bennites


 
No doubt there could be, but why would they want to join the Labour party?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> There could be a new generation of Bennites - even be people who were leaning right in government could get swept along by a powerful extra-parliamentary force.
> 
> As St Luke said, with god nothing is impossible  I'm not suggesting *waiting* for this to happen, I'm suggesting building up the maximum possible extra-parliamentary influence to drag Labour along in its wake


Let's all focus on the party i'm a member of - and do stuff to make people vote and join it. In 2012.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

I'm precisely NOT saying focus on the Labour party right now - I'm saying that it's an important space to contest because it's the only alternative to the coalition parties, but by far the biggest priority is extra-parliamentary struggle.  The Labour leadership must be led, unwillingly in all likelihood.


----------



## mk12 (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'm precisely NOT saying focus on the Labour party right now - I'm saying that it's an important space to contest because it's the only alternative to the coalition parties, but by far the biggest priority is extra-parliamentary struggle. The Labour leadership must be led, unwillingly in all likelihood.


 
What "extra-parliamentary struggle" are you referring to?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

> As St Luke said, with god nothing is impossible  I'm not suggesting *waiting* for this to happen, *I'm suggesting building up the maximum possible extra-parliamentary influence to drag Labour along in its wake*


 
The aim = to drag the labour party somewhere careerist cunts like you feel happy with. That's focusing on labour. It's aim is totally about changing labour.

You literally just said it.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

I'm referring to trade union militancy and - just as importantly - community action, service users, disabled people, carers, pensioners and all the rest of it resisting cuts and austerity.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'm referring to trade union militancy and - just as importantly - community action, service users, disabled people, carers, pensioners and all the rest of it resisting cuts and austerity.


 


> I'm suggesting building up the maximum possible extra-parliamentary influence to drag Labour along in its wake


 
To vote labour.


----------



## revol68 (Jul 10, 2012)

I fucking wish I could totally sell out and start hanging around the left bubble, certainly would help my job prospects.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The aim = to drag the labour party somewhere careerist cunts like you feel happy with. That's focusing on labour. It's aim is totally about changing labour.
> 
> You literally just said it.


That's a welcome side-effect of building up solidary and militancy *which is important in its own right*.  It isn't to subordinate all activity to influencing Labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'm referring to trade union militancy and - just as importantly - community action, service users, disabled people, carers, pensioners and all the rest of it resisting cuts and austerity.





> - just as importantly -


 
_soft voice here_


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

revol68 said:


> I fucking wish I could totally sell out and start hanging around the left bubble, certainly would help my job prospects.


Sell out?  I don't think so.  I'm going to take a massive cut in salary to take up a job that I think is politically important.  And I don't expect it to advance my career inside the Labour party either.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> That's a welcome side-effect of building up solidary and militancy *which is important in its own right*. It isn't to subordinate all activity to influencing Labour.


What is and what isn't? You literally just said that all this lovely sexy work was only to help labour. Did you forget who you were talking to tonight?


----------



## revol68 (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Sell out? I don't think so. I'm going to take a massive cut in salary to take up a job that I think is politically important. And I don't expect it to advance my career inside the Labour party either.


 
The fact you can talk about getting a job that suits your politics says it all.

Cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Sell out? I don't think so. I'm going to take a massive cut in salary to take up a job that I think is politically important. And I don't expect it to advance my career inside the Labour party either.


Oh brilliant, have you got a labour party job now?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

I didn't say it was only, or principally, to help Labour.  That is an important but secondary consequence.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Oh brilliant, have you got a labour party job now?


yes and no.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> yes and no.


Well say what it is. You disgust me either way.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

in that case you won't care


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I didn't say it was only, or principally, to help Labour. That is an important but secondary consequence.


No, you did say it had the prime aim of helping labour. You must have forgot for a second.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> in that case you won't care


No, i do care. _Wrong again marge._


----------



## revol68 (Jul 10, 2012)

I so wish I had the opportunity to take a pay cut in order to do politics.

Fucking parasite.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

How much was you on at avvaaaz then articul8?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

mind you own business.  I was on what I thought was a very good salary - probably comparable to mid-ranking union officials.


----------



## revol68 (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> mind you own business. I was on what I thought was a very good salary - probably comparable to mid-ranking union officials.


 
you dirty fucking cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

Or was that a move into what you believed in, because you used that done foe the last job - where is the paycut and where is the democratic openness?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

revol68 said:


> you dirty fucking cunt.


 
?  for working with the NUJ and taking a pop at Murdoch.  Shame on me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> mind you own business. I was on what I thought was a very good salary - probably comparable to mid-ranking union officials.


You said it was a cut. What jobs are we on about? (remember a) what lies you've told and b) what we can check


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> mind you own business. I was on what I thought was a very good salary - probably comparable to mid-ranking union officials.


How much?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

I said the job I'm about to take up is a substantial cut on what I was paid by Avaaz.  Which it is.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> mind you own business. I was on what I thought was a very good salary - probably comparable to mid-ranking union officials.


40 grand right?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> How much?


 
I don't see anyone else declaring their employer and pay on here.  I'm not going to be the first.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I said the job I'm about to take up is a substantial cut on what I was paid by Avaaz. Which it is.


I don't care if it, i care what it is. It's pretty clearly got a better career ladder and so is a labour one. You transparent cunt.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> 40 grand right?


 
nah Avaaz would be more like 35k max imo


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I don't see anyone else declaring their employer and pay on here. I'm not going to be the first.


You're the only only one banging about who your views ans your bosses are the same, then after that you really didn't agree with them. I think people have every right not to trust you due to you being a lying cunt.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I don't care if it, i care what it is. It's pretty clearly got a better career ladder and so is a labour one. You transparent cunt.


 
Hardly.  More like fast track to expulsion!


----------



## revol68 (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I don't see anyone else declaring their employer and pay on here. I'm not going to be the first.


 
It should not be a problem for a revolutionary.

Mine's the JSA and £142 every two weeks.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 10, 2012)

@articul8 Progress?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> @articul8 Progress?


 very witty


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Hardly. More like fast track to expulsion!


From the labour party! What a rebel! But of course, your idiocy is based on the idea of twats like you taking over the labour party at some level. Have think about why if you get kicked out this can't happen.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> very witty


So, in the name of open socialism (as you were unable to do it the last two times), who are you working for now?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 10, 2012)

It's not Greenpeace or CND is it Redmond?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So, in the name of open socialism (as you were unable to do it the last two times), who are you working for now?


 
I don't know why I should be so open - since I've no idea how you earn a living, or how much you are paid.   I'll be working out of the office of a left Labour MP, and working for trade unions - not principally Labour party affiliated ones.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

all gone quiet now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I don't know why I should be so open - since I've no idea how you earn a living, or how much you are paid. I'll be working out of the office of a left Labour MP, and working for trade unions - not principally Labour party affiliated ones.


The career path opens up before you. That's why you took the cut.

Me, i'm an unskilled worker - never earned above 12 grand. Never had a carer path. I'm 40 and i don't have one now. I'm better than you.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> all gone quiet now.


Your life is so empty that 4 minutes bugs you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I don't know why I should be so open - since I've no idea how you earn a living, or how much you are paid. I'll be working out of the office of a left Labour MP, and working for trade unions - not principally Labour party affiliated ones.


yes, so much for your critical approach to the labour party


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

If I was a careerist I wouldn't be doing this I can tell you. 



> I'm better than you


You might well be.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, so much for your critical approach to the labour party


I am highly critical of the Labour party


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I am highly critical of the Labour party. And so are my new employers


who include, from what you've posted, at least one senior member of the labour party.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I am highly critical of the Labour party


But still urge people to  join and vote for it. Which MP are you now semi-working for?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

relatively so I guess


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> But still urge people to join and vote for it. Which MP are you now semi-working for?


Use some imagination?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> If I was a careerist I wouldn't be doing this I can tell you.
> 
> 
> You might well be.


Yes you would. And that's what a careerist who just falls into things would say.

Did my mum get a crack at your new job? Where was it advertised?


----------



## binka (Jul 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> who include, from what you've posted, at least one senior member of the labour party.


didnt you see him say it is a _left_ labour mp. those are the good ones


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Use some imagination?


I have no idea, if you're not ashamed just say it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2012)

binka said:


> didnt you see him say it is a _left_ labour mp. those are the good ones


and _left_ labour mps aren't senior members of the labour party?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

_I am highly critical of the Labour party_


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Use some imagination?


diane abbott.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

as fascinating as my employment history is, I'm going to bed to read my book on Spinoza.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> diane abbott.


Fuck off!


----------



## binka (Jul 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> and _left_ labour mps aren't senior members of the labour party?


only reluctantly


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Your life is so empty that 4 minutes bugs you?


 
Messages: 96,178


----------



## revol68 (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> as fascinating as my employment history is, I'm going to bed to read my book on Spinoza.


 
you're such a cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> as fascinating as my employment history is, I'm going to bed to read my book on Spinoza.


If you're too ashamed i can understand it, but you're suggesting that you can defend it - so fucking do so. You fuxking weasel.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Messages: 96,178


Messages: 539


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2012)

binka said:


> only reluctantly


i think not. perhaps you haven't noticed, the only group of labour mps to defect in recent decades formed the sdp, not the ruc or some sort of socialist group. people like jeremy corbyn and john macdonnell and dennis skinner haven't ever met in rooms to plot the foundation of the new leftie party, have they? not even viscount stansgate sought to form a new party...


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Messages: 539


 
I'm proper looking forward to when you hit 100,000, I do you hope you'll start a special thread to mark the occasion.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

All gone very quiet.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> I'm proper looking forward to when you hit 100,000, I do you hope you'll start a special thread to mark the occasion.


Maybe you could rip-off bog standard histories of the labour party and add on a twist by saying _this isn't enough - and p_ass it off as analysis?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i think not. perhaps you haven't noticed, the only group of labour mps to defect in recent decades formed the sdp, not the ruc or some sort of socialist group. people like jeremy corbyn and john macdonnell and dennis skinner haven't ever met in rooms to plot the foundation of the new leftie party, have they? not even viscount stansgate sought to form a new party...


 
That's a good point. The Labour Left is way more slavishly loyal to the Labour party than the careerist right, they really do buy into the whole ethos of it, it's really very dogmatic and sectarian, far worse in many ways than the standard trot stuff.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe you could rip-off bog standard histories of the labour party and add on a twist by saying _this isn't enough - and p_ass it off as analysis?


 
Too busy ripping off EP Thompson at the moment to retread old ground lol thanks tho


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

Delroy - sort of a half  articul8.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Too busy ripping off EP Thompson at the moment to retread old ground lol thanks tho


I look forward to re-reading _your_ stuff then lightweight.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 10, 2012)

admit it, you're only posting half of these replies so you can hit that 100k benchmark as soon as possible.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Delroy - sort of a half articul8.


 
articul8 without the success, a failed articul8 if you like


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> articul8 without the success, a failed articul8 if you like


These cunts bloom every year mind.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 10, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> articul8 without the success, a failed articul8 if you like


 
ouch! In my defense can i just plead that joining labour was a youthful indescretion that I now humbly and sincerely regret? Or am I entirely beyond redemption?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> ouch! In my defense can i just plead that joining labour was a youthful indescretion that I now humbly and sincerely regret? Or am I entirely beyond redemption?


inarticul8


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> It was dying on its arse. I don't see what the fuss is about.


 
I remember the Millies making a similar argument to excuse their entryism into Labour.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> So all you need is an influx of working class radicals into the Labour Party, determined to vote out these MPs, plus the massive redemocratisation of the Labour Party to allow that to happen. Perhaps you'll follow that up by mobilising an army of goblins and pixies to storm Westminster?


 
Pity that so many were driven out by Blairism, isn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So, fuck all as it's nothing to do with you. And fuck all that doesn't mention labour. Why Not?
> 
> Are you in the teacher role on the the last 2?


 
Please do not mock Guru Arti.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Twigg would be a decent, good even, constitutional minister. He'd be disaster on anything around foreign affairs or public services.


 
He *is* a disaster full-stop. He doesn't exactly have a shining record for holding his own against other political heavyweights, and he's a typical machine politician - he bends before the prevailing wind.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2012)

mk12 said:


> What "extra-parliamentary struggle" are you referring to?


 
I suspect that it has occurred to some on the soft left that there are people out there who might be "brought on-side" if arti and his mate make the right noises at them, and that getting behind some of the "single-issue campaigns" that "the kids" engage in might buy them a voice.

Not that I'm cynical, mind.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> How much?


 
Anything from £25,000 up to about £40,000.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I am highly critical of the Labour party


 
Not really. You're highly critical of "things that articul8 doesn't like about the Labour party", which is a somewhat different thing to being highly critical of the party _per se_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> diane abbott.


 
Rachel  Reeves.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

That would make my year.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> _I am highly critical of the Labour party_


 
In the sense of "I whistle a happy tune", I suspect.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That would make my year.


 
But possibly not hers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> I'm proper looking forward to when you hit 100,000, I do you hope you'll start a special thread to mark the occasion.


 
There's no fun to that. Some damn Canadian already got there a couple of years ago.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Rachel Reeves.


 
No  Although funnily enough I do know the SPAD to Rachel Reeves and he's a good bloke


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

They all are aren't they?

*vomits*


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

no there are some proper cunts too


----------



## revol68 (Jul 11, 2012)

Will the new series of The Thick of It feature an Adorno quoting shitbag?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> no there are some proper cunts too


So, who are you working for?


----------



## cesare (Jul 11, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Will the new series of The Thick of It feature an Adorno quoting shitbag?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

I'll be working for a number of trade unions out of an MPs parliamentary office.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'll be working for a number of trade unions out of an MPs parliamentary office.


Who you're too scared to mention because you know what it means.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

what would it mean?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> what would it mean?


Scorn and ridicule - and a further demonstration of your right wing careerist trajectory. Which is why you won't dare say who.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

Not at all. As it goes he's as sound as MPs ever get. But I haven't even started the job yet!!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Not at all. As it goes he's as sound as MPs ever get. But I haven't even started yet!!


What on earth do you mean not at all? You don't get to decide that. And wtf does it matter if you've not even started yet? So proud and unafraid are you of your choice and what it means politically (as you've explicitly tired this to your politics) that you're ashamed to say who it is. You're even fucking up the fuck up.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

explicitly tired? Even your subconscious is sectarian


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

Excuse the extra 'r' - the post should read:



> What on earth do you mean not at all? You don't get to decide that. And wtf does it matter if you've not even started yet? So proud and unafraid are you of your choice and what it means politically (as you've explicitly tied this to your politics) that you're ashamed to say who it is. You're even fucking up the fuck up.


 
So, got any less ashamed of yourself and your politics in the last 5 minutes?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

No, I've never been ashamed of myself or my politics and have no reason to be.  You'll enjoy using you sleuthing skills - until you find out, then you'll be disappointed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> No, I've never been ashamed of myself or my politics and have no reason to be. You'll enjoy using you sleuthing skills - until you find out, then you'll be disappointed.


You're being pretty ashamed of yourself right now. I love_ the new politics_ - it's your little bubble secret. How did you get this job btw - where was it advertised?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

What do you care?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

Seriously? Is that all you have left?

I think it's quite funny that a hardcore communist militant is moving rightwards (and with such career options opening up) at such a rate of knots (as predicted) and it mirrors something i've seen in other rhetorical communists locally. I'd quite like to know just how ashamed you are of yourself, or if, as you claim, that you're _not ashamed at all_ and this is a political move on your part.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

I'm not ashamed at all, it's a sideways or even leftward move if anything.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'm not ashamed at all, it's a sideways or even leftward move if anything.


If you're not ashamed then say who it is and why it's a political move.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

For one thing I'll be helping to edit and maintain a website that is dedicated to promoting news of strike action that is under the general media radar and resources for unions who are campaigning against attacks on workers rights.   None of which is tied to the Labour party.

How is that not "political"?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> For one thing I'll be helping to edit and maintain a website that is dedicated to promoting news of strike action that is under the general media radar and resources for unions who are campaigning against attacks on workers rights. None of which is tied to the Labour party.
> 
> How is that not "political"?


Yet you won't say who it is. Yet you won't say how you got the job. Why are you so ashamed? if it's not going to give those of us laughing at you and noting a wider rightward trend any political ammunition then why not say who and how?

And you're going to do Tim lezard out of a job into the bargain. Not that typing 'strike' into google news and changing the text of the results is that much of a job anyway.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

Won't just be that  Will cover the likes of the sparks, IWW/John Lewis, anti-blacklisting stuff.  To be honest it will mean the unions pushing stuff our way too.  It's based in McDonnell's office - and I got recommended by the RMT.  Is that enough for you?  Or should I flog myself and say 50 hail marys as penance?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

So you're not ashamed then, Well done. 24 hours of ruddy bravery. Why/how did you get recommended by the RMT? Who in the RMT recommended you? You lot have this all openness well stiched up don't you?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

I'll tell you what - when Verso pay for my life story you'll find it all out in minute details.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

All tied up nice and tight.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

Who is "you lot"?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Who is "you lot"?






			
				aerticul8 said:
			
		

> I have a lot of respect for McDonnell, but don't like the Labourist clique around him.


 
Now you _are_ the labourist clique around him. Well done again.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

_Inside and against the clique. _

_A pole of atraction within the clique._


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

I am not a "Labourist" - I still am critical of Labourists like the anti-takeover of Briefing crowd.

I'm a critic of Labourism in the school of Ralph Miliband and Leo Pantich. John wrote for Red Pepper on how Ralph Miliband's marxist analysis of politics and society was of far greater relevance than anything his sons or their circle were offering.

And for the record there's currently 3 people in the office - one Labour/LRC and two non-Labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

The clique magically dissapeared when you joined it. Impressive.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

There are tensions in the LRC orbit between a Labourist pull and a more outward looking pull.  But everyone sees working in/against Labour as strategically important in the short-medium term.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 11, 2012)

"everyone"?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

Joining labour, working for labour, voting labour, urging others to do the same, working to these ends is _the counter-movement to labourist politics?_

You're a loon.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

> everyone


people currently in the LRC. If they didn't recognise this they'd have left.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Joining labour, working for labour, voting labour, urging others to do the same, working to these ends is _the counter-movement to labourist politics?_


 
It needs tackling from both inside and outside.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> people currently in the LRC. If they didn't recognise this they'd have left.


LRC working _against_ labour? John Mcdonnell working _against_ labour? You working against labour? You really are the most self-deluding person i've ever met.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> It needs tackling from both inside and outside.


How is that in anyway a response to me listing the pro-labour politics of the group of people that you imagine constitute an anti-labour movement?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You really are the most self-deluding person i've ever met.


 
says someone who's never met me  priceless


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> LRC working _against_ labour? John Mcdonnell working _against_ labour? You working against labour? You really are the most self-deluding person i've ever met.


in and against.  Against the logic of Labourism as described by Miliband Sr.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> says someone who's never met me  priceless


Oh i've met you - i've met your shameless self-justifications, i've met the ludicrous logic used to support them, i've met the dishonesty required to keep posting them and so on. It seems that you're the only person who hasn't.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> in and against. Against the logic of Labourism as described by Miliband Sr.


In and for. The same as Miliband ended up doing. The same as you are doing now and the _labourist clique_ that you're now part of have done for years.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

I'm not working for the Labour party.  I'm working for the more militant trade unions.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

You work for them in the sense of joining and voting for them, urging others to do the same, and seeking to channel politics through labour. Saying that you don't is not true. You do. Every single day. 

Working for the more militant trade unions - lol, well done Joe Hill. I can't wait to see your union-news rip-off website.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

it won't just be "my" site - and that's only part of my JD.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

So this new bubble job, what else does it entail?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

organising the NUJ parliamentary group, inc its response to Leveson for instance...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 now said:
			
		

> The response will be to stop people like this - however nice they might be personally - from getting parachuted into working class constituencies with which they have no links and are incapable of either understanding or representing. Personally, I think the idea of mandatory re-selection had a lot going for it.


 



			
				articul8 then said:
			
		

> The Labour left is incredibly poorly organised compared to the right wing. The LRC has better overall politics but is culturally trapped into a role as 1983 re-enactment society where everyone talks about composite 341 being remitted and all that horseshit which the CLPD loves too


 
_All that horseshit_ has now become the new strategy.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 11, 2012)

Episode 7899 of Urban's own Itchy and Scratchy show.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> _All that horseshit_ has now become the new strategy.


 
No - that stuff is still horseshit.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

> Jones recalls that his father, a Militant supporter in the 1970s, held to the entryist idea of ensuring the election of a Labour government and then organising working people to make sure that government delivered. "I think that's the model," he says. How very un-New Labour. That said, after we talk, Jones texts me to make it clear he's not a Militant supporter or Trotskyist. Rather, he wants a Labour government in power that will pursue a radical political programme.


 
I've only caught up with the full article quoted earlier on the thread:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/04/the-return-of-marxism

This might have been the formal rhetoric of the entryist Militant, but it hardly stopped there - and I doubt anyone actually thought it would be that simple (the famous "enabling act" wasn't taken at face value - by anyone other than the SWP etc...). 

Engaging with Labour in a tactical or even broader strategic sense needn't mean buying into the idea of a mildly redistributive social democratic government in charge of capitalist economy,  which I take it is what Owen wants here.   It wasn't what Militant wanted either.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Seriously? Is that all you have left?
> 
> I think it's quite funny that a hardcore communist militant is moving rightwards (and with such career options opening up) at such a rate of knots (as predicted) and it mirrors something i've seen in other rhetorical communists locally. I'd quite like to know just how ashamed you are of yourself, or if, as you claim, that you're _not ashamed at all_ and this is a political move on your part.


 
Last time we had as speedy a trajectory, wasn't it moon23 and his shift from SP to Lib-Dem?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

when will I learn the only trajectory allowed on here is towards embittered ulta-left passivity


----------



## revol68 (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> when will I learn the only trajectory allowed on here is towards embittered ulta-left passivity


 
we may be sitting on our arses, but atleast we're sitting on the right side of the line, cunt.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 11, 2012)

To be honest I think doing this new job would be morally better than working for Avaaz


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

revol68 said:


> we may be sitting on our arses, but atleast we're sitting on the right side of the line, cunt.


jeez - if McDonnell and the left TUs are the wrong side of your line, maybe you've drawn it in the wrong place?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> To be honest I think doing this new job would be morally better than working for Avaaz


I don't think I was doing anything morally deparaved at Avaaz - a bit of lobbying for the NUJ and BBC and some dicking around at Murdoch's expense.


----------



## revol68 (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> jeez - if McDonnell and the left TUs are the wrong side of your line, maybe you've drawn it in the wrong place?


 
Left wing of capital and I don't mean that jokingly.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 11, 2012)

Hang on a second. I thought articul8 had essentially fantasist Labour left politics for quite a while now? I don't see that there's a further right turn in his current attitude. It's the sort of thing he's been saying for ages, isn't it?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Left wing of capital and I don't mean that jokingly.


McDonnell, Crow and Serwotka are the left wing of capital.    And you're the left wing of Gerry Cottle's fucking circus.  Clown.


----------



## revol68 (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> McDonnell, Crow and Serwotka are the left wing of capital.  And you're the left wing of Gerry Cottle's fucking circus. Clown.


 
shut it you sub menshevik scum.


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2012)

Artic, why are you going to replicate what Union News is doing?


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Episode 7899 of Urban's own Itchy and Scratchy show.


 

yes, i wish it would stop, less people on P/P than ever now...


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

treelover said:


> Artic, why are you going to replicate what Union News is doing?


 
It's not meant to be a replica - it's meant to give more concrete expression to inter-union solidarity between the Trade Union Co-ordinating Group affiliates - and it won't just be news, it will be campaign resources, policy briefings etc.


----------



## JHE (Jul 11, 2012)

The furious denunciations of Articul8 would be a little less absurd if the people denouncing him had any credible alternative of their own to offer.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 11, 2012)

i like him, completely wrong about everything ever but i dont think he's a cunt. i don't dislike many people here tho tbf.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> completely wrong about everything ever


 
I should nick that for my tagline


----------



## JHE (Jul 11, 2012)

You're not tempted to use "sub-menshevik scum", then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I don't think I was doing anything morally deparaved at Avaaz - a bit of lobbying for the NUJ and BBC and some dicking around at Murdoch's expense.


You're not morally depraved, you're like a human blancmange


----------



## articul8 (Jul 11, 2012)

JHE said:


> You're not tempted to use "sub-menshevik scum", then?


 
only if he takes "neo-Narodnik wanker"


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 11, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Hang on a second. I thought articul8 had essentially fantasist Labour left politics for quite a while now? I don't see that there's a further right turn in his current attitude. It's the sort of thing he's been saying for ages, isn't it?


 
I think it was because of his refusal to name the MP he is working for, coupled with his previous arse licking of Reeves and Umuna etc, made it possible that he was going to be working for someone a bit more moderate than McDonell.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> when will I learn the only trajectory allowed on here is towards embittered ulta-left passivity


 
Interesting attempt to imply that those further left than yopu are embittered and passive, but like so much about you, ultimately a failure.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> jeez - if McDonnell and the left TUs are the wrong side of your line, maybe you've drawn it in the wrong place?


 
I don't believe revo was passing comment on McDonnell or the unions, but on your own political position.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2012)

JHE said:


> The furious denunciations of Articul8 would be a little less absurd if the people denouncing him had any credible alternative of their own to offer.


 
Who's denouncing him? No-one. All people are doing are reminding him of his (many) previously declared political positions.


----------



## revol68 (Jul 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> only if he takes "neo-Narodnik wanker"


 
You joined the labour party cos you still believe it is where the people are.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 12, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who's denouncing him? No-one. All people are doing are reminding him of his (many) previously declared political positions.


how (many)?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 12, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't believe revo was passing comment on McDonnell or the unions, but on your own political position.


which is different how?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 12, 2012)

revol68 said:


> You joined the labour party cos you still believe it is where the people are.


No but it's where they will look to get rid of the coalition parties.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> No but it's where they will look to get rid of the coalition parties.


so why did you join the labour party? Did you agree with clause 4?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 12, 2012)

I first joined Labour in 93(?) when John Smith was leader - because I wanted to see the back of the Tories.  Also we had a really good Labourleft MP in Audrey Wise, and a decent local council being run by Labour led by her daughter Val.     Clause iV - I wasn't in favour of scrapping it.  But I don't think that the old top down state nationalisation model somehow scales up into socialism either.  Socialism has to mean workers control.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> how (many)?


 
Well, let's see, there's the "vote Labour, it's the only viable option" position; the "support the Lib-Dem electoral reforms" position; the "I was a member of the SP" position; the "c'mon kids, if we work together we can _change Labour from the inside!_"position...

I'm sure I'm missing a few hundred, but what's a few hundred, eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> which is different how?


 
Different from those of McDonnell and the unions?
Hmm, well, for a start, McDonnell's political position has remained the same for many years. He's a convinced parliamentary socialist, whereas you, you're whatever the moment calls for.
Can't put it simpler than that.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 12, 2012)

Labour left to SP and back (via Socialist Alliance).  Nothing that dramatic.  Anyone that thinks supporting electoral reform necessarily makes you a Lib dem fellow traveller is one thick cunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think it was because of his refusal to name the MP he is working for, coupled with his previous arse licking of Reeves and Umuna etc, made it possible that he was going to be working for someone a bit more moderate than McDonell.


 
To be fair (and sexist) I wouldn't blame him if he wanted to rim Reeves.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 12, 2012)

quality bants. epic


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Labour left to SP and back (via Socialist Alliance). Nothing that dramatic.


 
Except that you've travelled that road via the many detours detailed in your posts over the years.
All those little hostages to fortune that *keep on* coming back to bite you in your arse. 



> Anyone that thinks supporting electoral reform necessarily makes you a Lib dem fellow traveller is one thick cunt.


 
I didn't accuse you of being a "fellow-traveller". Why would you think that?
Is there something you're feeling guilty about, that you haven't told us about?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 12, 2012)

No.


----------



## treelover (Jul 12, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be fair (and sexist) I wouldn't blame him if he wanted to rim Reeves.


 

Sometimes you are just too coarse for your own good...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2012)

treelover said:


> Sometimes you are just too coarse for your own good...


 
And that's a bad thing...how?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 12, 2012)

revol68 said:


> we may be sitting on our arses, but atleast we're sitting on the right side of the line, cunt.


 
That can't be a source of comfort to you can it?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 12, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be fair (and sexist) I wouldn't blame him if he wanted to rim Reeves.


 
I prefer Gloria DiPietro


----------



## revol68 (Jul 12, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> That can't be a source of comfort to you can it?


 
not really, but it's better than being a sell out careerist shitbag.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 12, 2012)

This is boring now.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 12, 2012)

Quick tip for you here revol68, if you fancy a successful career in the Labour party, working for John McDonnell on behalf of the unions isn't the best way to go about it.


----------



## revol68 (Jul 12, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Quick tip for you here revol68, if you fancy a successful career in the Labour party, working for John McDonnell on behalf of the unions isn't the best way to go about it.


 
if you are looking a career in politics full stop you should kill yourself.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Quick tip for you here revol68, if you fancy a successful career in the Labour party, working for John McDonnell on behalf of the unions isn't the best way to go about it.


 
Kind of depends what you mean by "successful career", given that networking with all those still-somewhat-credible people makes one an ideal "point of contact" for the more mainstream parliamentary Labour Party member and/or their advisors.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Quick tip for you here revol68, if you fancy a successful career in the Labour party, working for John McDonnell on behalf of the unions isn't the best way to go about it.


 Are you kidding? The labour movement employs thousands of people - it's one of the material basis (on the labour side of the capital relation) of a century of political reformism - and there's always been room for rhetorical leftism among its ranks, in fact it _requires_ it. And that's why, despite the whinging, it's worth discussing in some detail. Especially now in fact.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Are you kidding? The labour movement employs thousands of people - it's one of the material basis (on the labour side of the capital relation) of a century of political reformism - and there's always been room for rhetorical leftism among its ranks, in fact it _requires_ it. And that's why, despite the whinging, it's worth discussing in some detail. Especially now in fact.


 
Look, you're right on the theory here, but if articul8 really was the snakey weaselly serpent determined at all costs to make a successful career for himself in the Labour party that you say he is, then there's many easier ways of going about this than joining up with the LRC and working out of John McDonnell's office. Infact that's probably the hardest path to take, short of joining Socialist Appeal or the Posadists.

If he really was this evil guy you're making him out to be he'd be in Progress denouncing the ultra-left like all the other careerist shitbags.

Now I know there's still time for that to happen, but in the meantime I'm prepared to accept that Articul8 is sincere about why he's doing this, rather than it being some cynical ploy to further himself by consciously shafting the movement.


----------



## revol68 (Jul 12, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Look, you're right on the theory here, but if articul8 really was the snakey weaselly serpent determined at all costs to make a successful career for himself in the Labour party that you say he is, then there's many easier ways of going about this than joining up with the LRC and working out of John McDonnell's office. Infact that's probably the hardest path to take, short of joining Socialist Appeal or the Posadists.
> 
> If he really was this evil guy you're making him out to be he'd be in Progress denouncing the ultra-left like all the other careerist shitbags.
> 
> Now I know there's still time for that to happen, but in the meantime I'm prepared to accept that Articul8 is sincere about why he's doing this, rather than it being some cynical ploy to further himself by consciously shafting the movement.


 
He's just aiming for the niche market.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Look, you're right on the theory here, but if articul8 really was the snakey weaselly serpent determined at all costs to make a successful career for himself in the Labour party that you say he is, then there's many easier ways of going about this than joining up with the LRC and working out of John McDonnell's office. Infact that's probably the hardest path to take, short of joining Socialist Appeal or the Posadists.
> 
> If he really was this evil guy you're making him out to be he'd be in Progress denouncing the ultra-left like all the other careerist shitbags.
> 
> Now I know there's still time for that to happen, but in the meantime I'm prepared to accept that Articul8 is sincere about why he's doing this, rather than it being some cynical ploy to further himself by consciously shafting the movement.


I guess you could apply that to just about everyone who enters the machine - determined to change it, determined not to let it change them...which is why we're talking about far more than bloody articul8 and his intentions here. 

And no, on the specific case - being recommended for jobs in high profile nationally known MPs offices by unions is _already_ part of it, this is _already_ on the inside - this rhetorical leftism is perfectly fined and acceptable for those in charge, even welcomed at certain times. Do you really think they don't want mugs doing this sort of work for them? That they'll be chased out of the party and jobs? No chance - because the people in control know that these peoples project is doomed, is no internal threat to them whatsoever, can even be functional for them. Which is why this isn't about personal intentions - that's to ignore the history of this sort of thing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> If he really was this evil guy you're making him out to be he'd be in Progress denouncing the ultra-left like all the other careerist shitbags.


 
Er...he already repeatedly denounces 'the ultra-left' - and now he does it from within the offices of the leading labour-left MP.

Starting to see the point?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Er...he already repeatedly denounces 'the ultra-left' - and now he does it from within the offices of the leading labour-left MP.
> 
> Starting to see the point?


 

Yeah slight contextual difference though butchers is that anyone to the left of James Purnell is ultra-left to the Progress and co. There's plenty of Luke Akehurst articles saying that Bennism is "ultra-left" for instance. Which is blatantly ridiculous to you and me, but inside the bubble it's a different story.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I guess you could apply that to just about everyone who enters the machine - determined to change it, determined not to let it change them...which is why we're talking about far more than bloody articul8 and his intentions here.


 
No arguments from me on this point, I've seen it with a lot of people I know in real life, and it's why I'm not in the Labour party any more. They'll change you before you change it. There's a quote from Leo Panitch from The End of Parliamentary Socialism that I put in my article that I know you love so much, and I think it's appropriate here.

_“For its part, the Labour new left contributed to its own defeat through some major weaknesses. The most important of all was, evidently, that in concentrating on trying to change the Labour party it became trapped in that struggle. It never solved the problem of having to fight for its goals through unending party committee’s and conferences without becoming absorbed by them. For many it was a point of principle to try and win the party over to a new democratic socialist project by persuasion and the fullest use of the party’s existing democratic processes. But the bitterness of the right’s resistance prolonged the struggle over so many years that almost a whole political generation consumed their energies in this way.”_



butchersapron said:


> And no, on the specific case - being recommended for jobs in high profile nationally known MPs offices by unions is _already_ part of it, this is _already_ on the inside - this rhetorical leftism is perfectly fined and acceptable for those in charge, even welcomed at certain times. Do you really think they don't want mugs doing this sort of work for them? That they'll be chased out of the party and jobs? No chance - because the people in control know that these peoples project is doomed, is no internal threat to them whatsoever, can even be functional for them. Which is why this isn't about personal intentions - that's to ignore the history of this sort of thing.


 
Yeah I can see where you're coming from, that it occasionally helps Labour to have some left-wingers they can call upon as cover every now and then, but I was talking about articul8 specifically. Also, I don't think that McDonnell or the LRC could ever really be called either high profile, or the inside, or in charge of anything. They're hopelessly, structurally, marginalized. They day that changes they'll be booted out, as you say. Which makes it the very last place you'd go to make a career for yourself.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 12, 2012)

As one of the few people here who actually used to know articul8 a bit, I don't think he's a scumbag. I just think that frogwoman's description "wrong about everything, ever" was spot on.

I disagree with Delroy that the McDonnell/LRC stuff is a particularly bad career move though. It would be a good way to get into the union job career ladder, if you were so inclined.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 12, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> As one of the few people here who actually used to know articul8 a bit, I don't think he's a scumbag. I just think that frogwoman's description "wrong about everything, ever" was spot on.
> 
> I disagree with Delroy that the McDonnell/LRC stuff is a particularly bad career move though. It would be a good way to get into the union job career ladder, if you were so inclined.


 
Ah but the unions is a slightly different thing to the LRC. The unions are way more powerful and important than the LRC, Unite specifically, and there's plenty of Unite members who are in Progress, Luke Akehurst and Peter Wheeler for example, for careerist purposes.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 12, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Ah but the unions is a slightly different thing to the LRC. The unions are way more powerful and important than the LRC, Unite specifically, and there's plenty of Unite members who are in Progress, Luke Akehurst and Peter Wheeler for example, for careerist purposes.


d

Sure. But there are plenty of unions and factions within unions who would regard having worked out of a Labour left MP's office, editing some union related website and doing some nonsense with union sponsored MPs, as a very solid background for an employee.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 12, 2012)

Well yeah you're right, it's a solid background for a TU employee, but the fact it's for McDonnell would almost certainly prevent him from getting anywhere with the bulk of the Labour party. Working for and with the LRC is like kryptonite to a lot of Labour people.

And I also don't think working for a Trade Union is like a sign of evil in itself. When we're talking about TU bureaucracy it's more about institutional conservatism than individuals being careerists or sell outs. Trade Union bureacracies don't move unless they're pushed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Look, you're right on the theory here, but if articul8 really was the snakey weaselly serpent determined at all costs to make a successful career for himself in the Labour party that you say he is, then there's many easier ways of going about this than joining up with the LRC and working out of John McDonnell's office. Infact that's probably the hardest path to take, short of joining Socialist Appeal or the Posadists.
> 
> If he really was this evil guy you're making him out to be he'd be in Progress denouncing the ultra-left like all the other careerist shitbags.
> 
> Now I know there's still time for that to happen, but in the meantime I'm prepared to accept that Articul8 is sincere about why he's doing this, rather than it being some cynical ploy to further himself by consciously shafting the movement.


 
No-one is making him out to be evil.
I'm implying that he's looking after number one first, and that, conveniently, working where he will be would be a very good "resource" for him.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2012)

revol68 said:


> He's just aiming for the niche market.


 
Given his philosophising, I'm surprised he's not aiming for the Nietzsche market.

(gets coat, legs it)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 13, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Given his philosophising, I'm surprised he's not aiming for the Nietzsche market.
> 
> (gets coat, legs it)


 
Without looking I assumed that was a bignose1 post


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 13, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> As one of the few people here who actually used to know articul8 a bit, I don't think he's a scumbag.


 
I can vouch for that too, having met him a couple of times.  Apart from anything else if he was really a careerist he wouldn't hang around here taking flak...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2012)

Articul8's not a scumbag. He doesn't have the character.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 13, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Articul8's not a scumbag. He doesn't have the character.


odd the obsession that the privately educated have with things being "character-building"


----------



## articul8 (Jul 13, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> As one of the few people here who actually used to know articul8 a bit, I don't think he's a scumbag. I just think that frogwoman's description "wrong about everything, ever" was spot on.


Err, thanks?  Funny how the SP have maintained the old (and entirely self-defeating) Stalinist tradition that an ex-comrade becomes "wrong about everything, ever"!


----------



## grit (Jul 13, 2012)

articul8 said:


> odd the obsession that the privately educated have with things being "character-building"


 
PM went to a private school?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 13, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> There's a quote from Leo Panitch from The End of Parliamentary Socialism that I put in my article that I know you love so much, and I think it's appropriate here.
> 
> _“For its part, the Labour new left contributed to its own defeat through some major weaknesses. The most important of all was, evidently, that in concentrating on trying to change the Labour party it became trapped in that struggle. It never solved the problem of having to fight for its goals through unending party committee’s and conferences without becoming absorbed by them. For many it was a point of principle to try and win the party over to a new democratic socialist project by persuasion and the fullest use of the party’s existing democratic processes. But the bitterness of the right’s resistance prolonged the struggle over so many years that almost a whole political generation consumed their energies in this way.”_


 
I totally agree with this - it's why I'm clear from the outset that extra-parliamentary, extra-Labour struggle is critical - doesn't mean that there is nothing to be achieved from contesting the space in any way whatsoever though.  Just that you musn't be sucked into it at the expense of building a "new democratic socialist project".


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Err, thanks? Funny how the SP have maintained the old (and entirely self-defeating) Stalinist tradition that an ex-comrade becomes "wrong about everything, ever"!


 
I've met you a few times and I thought you were a very pleasant individual. But get the feeling you would be much more comfortable and contented working in academia, where you could then be a lot more open and accepting of the fact that wage labour activism is never going to lead anywhere. You would also do a lot less damage being wrong in academia than in these kind of political activist jobs you seem to do/cherish


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Without looking I assumed that was a bignose1 post


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2012)

grit said:


> PM went to a private school?


 
No, articul8 believes that Pickman's Model went to private school, which isn't *quite* the same thing.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 13, 2012)

revol68 said:


> not really, but it's better than being a sell out careerist shitbag.


 
Jesus, you'd think he was taking a job as NIck Clegg's speechwriter from that hyperbole.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 13, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, articul8 believes that Pickman's Model went to private school, which isn't *quite* the same thing.


He's not denying it.


----------



## cesare (Jul 13, 2012)

articul8 said:


> He's not denying it.



Why would he bother to?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2012)

articul8 said:


> He's not denying it.


 
Which is *obviously* ABSOLUTE proof that he must be a public school Old Boy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2012)

cesare said:


> Why would he bother to?


 
Quite.


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Jesus, you'd think he was taking a job as NIck Clegg's speechwriter from that hyperbole.


 
He's already worked for Nick Clegg on electoral reform (sic)


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> He's already worked for Nick Clegg on electoral reform (sic)


 
Lots (edit - hardly lots given the result but you get what I mean!) of people (not me I should add) supported AV without being pro-lib dem.


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2012)

not many people earned a living from supporting it though!


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> not many people earned a living from supporting it though!


 
So would it have been better to have supported it in a personal capacity and have a job in the arms industry say? Would that be more honorable?


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2012)

why have you turned it into a morality play?

your initial point was that 'it's not as if articul8 was working for nick clegg' - i pointed out that in effect he's already been there

but as to your point, this idea that class struggle via political activist wage labour is ever going to lead anywhere is politically naive and ultimately just becomes self serving, as we have seen as well it's completely undemocratic and unaccountable - where was this new job of articul8's advertised for example?

and also are you saying that people who end up working in the arms industry to pay the bills and can't get work anywhere else are less honourable than the right honourable articul8?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2012)

articul8 said:


> odd the obsession that the privately educated have with things being "character-building"


you're the only person here talking about character building, i'm talking about innate character.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> but as to your point, this idea that class struggle via political activist wage labour is ever going to lead anywhere is politically naive and ultimately just becomes self serving, as we have seen as well it's completely undemocratic and unaccountable - where was this new job of articul8's advertised for example?
> 
> and also are you saying that people who end up working in the arms industry to pay the bills and can't get work anywhere else are less honourable than the right honourable articul8?


 
So I might as well throw my lot in with Nukem at Weber Shandwick and earn 4 or 5 times as much at least?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> why have you turned it into a morality play?
> 
> your initial point was that 'it's not as if articul8 was working for nick clegg' - i pointed out that in effect he's already been there
> 
> ...


 
It was already a morality play when other posters fiercly denounced articul8 as being a sell out, a careerist and so forth. I'm trying to discover what the basis for such righteous indignation is. According to you it's because what he does is ineffectual and maybe self serving - in which case he's basically no different to most people with a job is he?


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2012)

articul8 said:


> So I might as well throw my lot in with Nukem at Weber Shandwick and earn 4 or 5 times as much at least?


 
at least then you wouldn't conflate/confuse class struggle with your career


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> at least then you wouldn't conflate/confuse class struggle with your career


 
And you don't?


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> It was already a morality play when other posters fiercly denounced articul8 as being a sell out, a careerist and so forth. I'm trying to discover what the basis for such righteous indignation is. According to you it's because what he does is ineffectual and maybe self serving - in which case he's basically no different to most people with a job is he?


 
there's a huge difference - everyone else has a job because they need to work to live, no one other than the likes of articul8 pretends that his job is politically important/relevant and in some way a positive contribution to the development of progressive working class politics


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> there's a huge difference - everyone else has a job because they need to work to live, no one other than the likes of articul8 pretends that his job is politically important/relevant and in some way a positive contribution to the development of progressive working class politics


 
So you're involved in politics out of the goodness of your heart?


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> And you don't?


 
i've never had any kind of political or academic job, so not sure how it would be possible to conflate class struggle with a career


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> So you're involved in politics out of the goodness of your heart?


 
self interest actually, like any good communist


----------



## articul8 (Jul 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> at least then you wouldn't conflate/confuse class struggle with your career


I don't - I just think if I'm able to earn a living and make some kind of politically worthwhile contribution at the same time I'd rather do that than sell myself out to the highest bidder.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> i've never had any kind of political or academic job, so not sure how it would be possible to conflate class struggle with a career


 
It depends what you consider to be your career.  I suspect that you consider your career to be quite different from what you do for money.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> self interest actually, like any good communist


 
You say that like it's a joke, but you wouldn't be the first to make a very good career out of communism.

Seems to me that the only moral difference between you and articul8 is that his bet that his politics will aid his career is a fairly safe one, while yours is a long shot.  But then again, the potential benefits to you are that much greater.

But of course none of that ever crossed your mind, and you're utterly devoid of personal ambition, am I right?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> there's a huge difference - everyone else has a job because they need to work to live, no one other than the likes of articul8 pretends that his job is politically important/relevant and in some way a positive contribution to the development of progressive working class politics


 
Are you suggesting that articul8 has enough disposable income to be able to afford not to work? In any case it seems like it's articul8's own disposition towards his job that infuriates people, but I mean why give a toss really?


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> It depends what you consider to be your career. I suspect that you consider your career to be quite different from what you do for money.


right so if we completely redefine the word career, humpty dumpty style, so it doesn't mean career anymore then it negates my original point to articul8, and thus your counterpoint (counterpoint in the loosest possible sense of the word that is)


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> You say that like it's a joke, but you wouldn't be the first to make a very good career out of communism.
> 
> Seems to me that the only moral difference between you and articul8 is that his bet that his politics will aid his career is a fairly safe one, while yours is a long shot. But then again, the potential benefits to you are that much greater.
> 
> But of course none of that ever crossed your mind, and you're utterly devoid of personal ambition, am I right?


 
again you show very little understanding of Marx

i wasn't in the slightest bit joking by saying self-interest

i'm not surprised a fuckwit like you can't see the relevance of self interest playing a crucial part in the possibility of communism however

it's only liberals and the like who seem to see progressive politics as being some kind of moral/charitable/benevolent activity

it's in the self interest of everyone to be a communist, to create a better world for us to live in, without self interest it hasn't got a hope in hells chance of happening (not that it does anyway mind)

Also what do you mean by me making a good career out of communism? Is this career as in the dictionary definition or your definition which doesn't equate to anything like what career actually means?


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> right so if we completely redefine the word career, humpty dumpty style, so it doesn't mean career anymore then it negates my original point to articul8, and thus your counterpoint (counterpoint in the loosest possible sense of the word that is)


 
So it's never occurred to you that a small group of dedicated individuals who do not shrink from political violence might, given propitious circumstances consequent on a major crisis in capitalism, be able to seize and hold power for themselves?

Or that such a band of radicals might well find themselves crying out for the leadership of a diminutive bald man with a comprehensive grasp of Marxist economics but not too many ethical scruples?

If not, then I've got a couple of books you might like to borrow.  But I suspect you've read them already eh?


----------



## cesare (Jul 13, 2012)

Are we ready to start the argument about altruism yet?


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> So it's never occurred to you that a small group of dedicated individuals who do not shrink from political violence might, given propitious circumstances consequent on a major crisis in capitalism, be able to seize and hold power for themselves?


Yes, the IWCA have contingency plans to seize power at the next available opportunity, probably around next tuesday evening once our tea has went down, should be pretty easy so we'll be done in time for lunch on wednesday, evening at the latest


> Or that such a band of radicals might well find themselves crying out for the leadership of a diminutive bald man with a comprehensive grasp of Marxist economics but not too many ethical scruples?


so it's kind of like a career in waiting then? kind of like the rapture in that it will never come - I'm not bald by the way (nor fat, ugly, old & stupid like you)


> If not, then I've got a couple of books you might like to borrow. But I suspect you've read them already eh?


it's all books this, books that with you isn't it

i know you've never worked outside of academia in your life, so it's to be expected that everything you know about life comes straight out a book, but we're not all like you, you know


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> Yes, the IWCA have contingency plans to seize power at the next available opportunity, probably around next tuesday evening once our tea has went down, should be pretty easy so we'll be done in time for lunch on wednesday, evening at the latest


 
Yes of course, seizing power never enters your head does it?  All this political stuff is just like a community bring-and-buy sale really isn't it?  A sort of church fete with dialectics.

Still, if the Owl of Minerva should happen by some wild trick of fate to settle upon your shoulders, I'm sure you wouldn't be churlish enough to brush her away.



love detective said:


> so it's kind of like a career in waiting then?


 
Yep.  And don't despair--it's happened before, many times, as well you know.



love detective said:


> I'm not bald by the way


 
Yes you are.  You're _spiritually _bald.  Baldy.  Kojak.


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Yes of course, seizing power never enters your head does it? All this political stuff is just like a community bring-and-buy sale really isn't it? A sort of church fete with dialectics.


 
ironically the later is usually what the IWCA gets criticised for and also for not having ambitions as to the former. I disagree with such criticisms but I can understand where they come from. Yours however just shows how desperately struggling you are - most undignified really



> Still, if the Owl of Minerva should happen by some wild trick of fate to settle upon your shoulders, I'm sure you wouldn't be churlish enough to brush her away.


 
She's been with me for some time as it happens, probably explains why your still so stupid. I can send her round your way though, although it's a big job so no promises can be made as to what can be done. Can give it a go though, even the smallest improvement would be a world of difference



> Yep. And don't despair--it's happened before, many times, as well you know.


 
can't wait



> Yes you are. You're _spiritually _bald. Baldy. Kojak.


 
at least i'm easy on the eye, not like your rotting carcass (spiritually & physically)


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> at least i'm easy on the eye, not like your rotting carcass (spiritually & physically)


 
Oooh you little _bitch._

Right, that does it.  Time to put up or shut up.  You post a pic, I'll post a pic.  Everyone on the thread votes on who's best looking.  Loser can never post on PnP again.

Are we on?


----------



## cesare (Jul 13, 2012)

I think you're about equal, tbf.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 13, 2012)

cesare said:


> I think you're about equal, tbf.


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Oooh you little _bitch._
> 
> Right, that does it. Time to put up or shut up. You post a pic, I'll post a pic. Everyone on the thread votes on who's best looking. Loser can never post on PnP again.
> 
> Are we on?


allow me to do both

you can find me here 

1. Me






2. You



You can have one last post


----------



## the button (Jul 13, 2012)

What you don't get from that pic is that Phil's sitting in a doll's house.


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2012)

well you know what they say about folk in doll's houses


----------



## cesare (Jul 13, 2012)

the button said:


> What you don't get from that pic is that Phil's sitting in a doll's house.




Yebbut ld's got clothes on.


----------



## the button (Jul 13, 2012)

Fully clothed lonely pint.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> allow me to do both
> 
> you can find me here
> 
> ...


 
Phil looks kind of dreamy.


----------



## cesare (Jul 13, 2012)

the button said:


> Fully clothed lonely pint.





That's the Captain Kidd init?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> well you know what they say about folk in doll's houses


 
Shouldn't throw fake food


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 13, 2012)

imposs1904 said:


> Phil looks kind of dreamy.


 
That's not me, that's _him._

I'm the one on the beach who looks like Mel Gibson.  He's the one drunk in a pub who _acts _like Mel Gibson.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 13, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Err, thanks? Funny how the SP have maintained the old (and entirely self-defeating) Stalinist tradition that an ex-comrade becomes "wrong about everything, ever"!


 
Nah, there are plenty of "ex-comrades" on here. They aren't wrong about everything, ever. You are wrong about everything because you are a Labour left, which makes you roughly the equivalent of one of those bewildered Japanese soldiers they used to find on a jungle island every once in a while in the 1960s, still fighting a war which was over twenty years earlier.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 13, 2012)

From someone who is still trying to get a democratic centralist organisation to forge another international as the vanguard of world revolution, in order to achieve state power/the dictatorship of the proletariat, it's a bit rich to say I'm the one fighting the battles of the past!!

fwiw I've never expected to win the Labour party bag and baggage to socialism - I share Ralph Miliband's view of the limits of Labourism.


----------



## ayatollah (Jul 13, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> That's not me, that's _him._
> 
> I'm the one on the beach who looks like Mel Gibson. He's the one drunk in a pub who _acts _like Mel Gibson.


 
FFS Phil you haven't got any LEGS... !!!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 13, 2012)

articul8 said:


> fwiw I've never expected to win the Labour party bag and baggage to socialism - I share Ralph Miliband's view of the limits of Labourism.


 
You really don't get it all. The point is not that you are mental to think that you can win over the whole Labour Party to socialism. It's that you are mental not to understand that Labour is now a neo-liberal party with no audience inside it for radical ideas and so any activism within it is a waste of time at best and actively counterproductive much of the time. No politically radical young person would even dream of signing up to Labour. You are only there because you are a bewildered long term left activist.


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> FFS Phil you haven't got any LEGS... !!!


 
he does, just not one to stand on


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 13, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You really don't get it all. The point is not that you are mental to think that you can win over the whole Labour Party to socialism. It's that you are mental not to understand that Labour is now a neo-liberal party with no audience inside it for radical ideas and so any activism within it is a waste of time at best and actively counterproductive much of the time. No politically radical young person would even dream of signing up to Labour. You are only there because you are a bewildered long term left activist.


 
Is there a particular time at which Labour's transformation into a place with no audience inside it can be dated?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 13, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Labour is now a neo-liberal party with no audience inside it for radical ideas and so any activism within it is a waste of time at best and actively counterproductive much of the time. No politically radical young person would even dream of signing up to Labour.


 
Most politically active people on the left who vote at the next election, including your "radical young person", will vote Labour (in England, bar Brighton perhaps).    They are comparatively unlikely to vote for the far left's latest acronym.  Given this, it makes sense to contest that particular space, whilst at the same time building popular support for radical left alternatives/analysis.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 13, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Is there a particular time at which Labour's transformation into a place with no audience inside it can be dated?


you know - its when Militant were expelled (or walked, half of them).  After that it was a barren bourgeois cesspit.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 13, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Is there a particular time at which Labour's transformation into a place with no audience inside it can be dated?


 
3rd January 1996, at about 12:35 pm.

It was a process which took a long time. The early to mid-80s highpoint of Bennism, followed by thirty years of continuous rightward movement and the hollowing out of party structures. The early years of Blair did see a brief expansion in membership, bucking the trend, but by then it was a notably different set of people looking for notably different things. I don't think there's actually a day, a month or a year when you can say that Labour stopped being a place where you'd get large numbers of politically radical people gathered. It was a process of attrition.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 13, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Most politically active people on the left who vote at the next election, including your "radical young person", will vote Labour (in England, bar Brighton perhaps).


 
And most vaguely leftish people in the US will vote Democrat. Doesn't mean that there's any point in "contesting that particular space", does it you nimrod.




			
				articul8 said:
			
		

> you know - its when Militant were expelle


 
You have no excuse for that kind of stupidity.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 13, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> And most vaguely leftish people in the US will vote Democrat. Doesn't mean that there's any point in "contesting that particular space", does it you nimrod.


 
US Democrats were founded on a different basis to the Labour party - it's not comparable


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 13, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Depends what you mean. I accept that at the moment there is no stampede to join Labour from young people or the wider class. That's manifestly true. But at the same time there is a) a desperation to get rid of the coalition parties and b) the belief that there should be someone putting a proper radical alternative to austerity on the table. In these circumstances it's entirely appropriate to direct demands towards the Labour party as a party which has historically claimed to exist to represent the interests of working people. And the more a clear pole of resistance develops within the Labour party the more people will look to _it_ if not to the party as a whole.
> 
> I think the LRC has gained a new relevance in the wake of the crisis and the formation of the coalition - it has an energy and a relevance sadly lacking elsewhere in the party - and I accept that what there is now is pretty much a hollowed out shell.


Article8 give up; just give up. That train - what used to be the Labour Party - has left. It is gone. It is time to fight the Tories and the neoliberal economics supporters directly without reference to the Labour Party which is part of the problem.

The propaganda battle against neoliberal economics happens outside of party politics and through the various media - old style printed and broadcast as well as the internet. There is no parliamentary party involved in this battle; they have all bought into that Chicago School philosophy. Our opposition must be constant and be nothing to do with elections. The political parties only really gear up in the run-up to elections, we have to keep going in between elections attacking every policy that is announced and continuing the fight after one party or another has won their election. You are not part of this opposition to neoliberal economics if you are part of any of the electoral parties. You are of no use to us at all.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 13, 2012)

articul8 said:


> US Democrats were founded on a different basis to the Labour party - it's not comparable


 
Yes, of course they were founded on a different basis, as if it makes a blind bit of difference what either party was like a century ago. Now they fulfil very similar roles.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2012)

cesare said:


> Are we ready to start the argument about altruism yet?


 
I was just thinking that! 

 that tbaldwin isn't here to give us his unique take on altruism.


----------



## cesare (Jul 13, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I was just thinking that!
> 
> that tbaldwin isn't here to give us his unique take on altruism.


 
Aye, was sad to hear about balders


----------



## revol68 (Jul 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> allow me to do both
> 
> you can find me here
> 
> ...


 
You look like such a Mogwai fan.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Yes of course, seizing power never enters your head does it? All this political stuff is just like a community bring-and-buy sale really isn't it? A sort of church fete with dialectics.
> 
> Still, if the Owl of Minerva should happen by some wild trick of fate to settle upon your shoulders, I'm sure you wouldn't be churlish enough to brush her away.
> 
> ...


 
The "bald" jibes again, phil?
Are you feeling a bit insecure?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2012)

revol68 said:


> You look like such a Mogwai fan.


 
He doesn't look anything like dubversion!


----------



## articul8 (Jul 13, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes, of course they were founded on a different basis, as if it makes a blind bit of difference what either party was like a century ago. Now they fulfil very similar roles.


 
There has been a certain convergence - but it's not a process that's been completed or that's irreversible.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 13, 2012)

articul8 said:


> There has been a certain convergence - but it's not a process that's been completed or that's irreversible.


 
And we're right back to the bewildered Japanese soldier act. I'm sure one or two of them would have accepted that the Japanese Empire had perhaps suffered a few reverses, but defeat wasn't complete or irreversible yet.

You're more than 20 years late pal. It's over.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> And we're right back to the bewildered Japanese soldier act. I'm sure one or two of them would have accepted that the Japanese Empire had perhaps suffered a few reverses, but defeat wasn't complete or irreversible yet.
> 
> You're more than 20 years late pal. It's over.


 
Every time articul8 posts now, I'm going to have visions of a grizzled old veteran, bayonet mounted on his Arisaka Model 99, gazing incredulously at the modern world..


----------



## Greebo (Jul 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> self interest actually, like any good communist


The personal is political, after all.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 13, 2012)

articul8 said:


> you know - its when Militant were expelled (or walked, half of them). After that it was a barren bourgeois cesspit.


 
That's what I thought.


----------



## JHE (Jul 14, 2012)

articul8 said:


> you know - its when Militant were expelled (or walked, half of them). After that it was a barren bourgeois cesspit.


 
Yup.

The Millies were not just Trots who thought it was prudent and useful to be in the Labour Party.  For them, being in the Labour Party and working through the Labour Party was an article of faith, an absolutely key tenet of Millie Trottery.  They fetishised it.  Any would-be socialist who was not in, or organised any campaign or protest without going through, the august organs of the Labour Party and its affiliated unions was denounced as ultra-left, petty-bourgeois blah, blah, blah.

After their expulsions/resignations, the Millies performed an 'about turn' as smartly as any bunch of well-trained parade-ground squaddies.  They still care deeply about the issue but now the key point is that the Labour Party is no longer a workers' party.  The Millies (or Socialist 'Party', as they call themselves) retain all their fervor and dogmatism, but now use it to denounce anyone who (however moderately) believes that it's worthwhile working in the Labour Party.


*"Trotlets, abouuuuuuuuut..... wait for it, wait for it...  abouuuuuut turn!"*


----------



## Sue (Jul 14, 2012)

love detective said:


> Yes, the IWCA have contingency plans to seize power at the next available opportunity, probably around next tuesday evening once our tea has went down, should be pretty easy so we'll be done in time for lunch on wednesday, evening at the latest


 
Dammit, can't do Tuesday. Free on Wednesday though..?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 15, 2012)

JHE said:


> Yup.
> 
> The Millies were not just Trots who thought it was prudent and useful to be in the Labour Party. For them, being in the Labour Party and working through the Labour Party was an article of faith, an absolutely key tenet of Millie Trottery. They fetishised it. Any would-be socialist who was not in, or organised any campaign or protest without going through, the august organs of the Labour Party and its affiliated unions was denounced as ultra-left, petty-bourgeois blah, blah, blah.
> 
> ...


 
is there anything wrong about the SP's stance on the labour party then? apart from "fervour and dogmatism" and the fact that imo we should never have been in it at all what's wrong with it?


----------



## Knotted (Jul 15, 2012)

Militant used to hate other Trot groups in the Labour Party as well as those outside the Labour Party. To be fair to the Socialist Party they are much less sectarian than they used to be. Getting rid of Grant and Woods probably had something to do with it.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 15, 2012)

yep, SP has changed a lot as an organisation from the old militant days.


----------



## mutley (Jul 15, 2012)

What's wronng with the SP line is that it leads to positions which are obviously gravely mistaken - such as the refusalk to clearly back Ken Livingstone against Boris Johnson.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 15, 2012)

It's not that the SP are wrong with the characterisation of the Labour party, coz it isn't a working class party any more and entryism would be a total waste of time today, its more the way it done, in this sort of Orwellian "Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania" kind of way, how overnight what appeared to be deeply held convictions suddenly changed on the instruction of the top. I've seen similar kinda of things, where all of a sudden everyone changed their mind about something, in the SP before. I remember well how everyone was singing the praises of Jerry Hicks and how Len McCluskey was a Labour hack, then all of a sudden it changed when the SP decided to back McCluskey. Was very weird.

And yes the SP is less sectarian than other left groups. There's even a quote in the Official History of mi5 book by Christopher Andrews that says the same thing, how mi5 noted on more than one occasional the the Militant was unusual in that it didn't have mass expulsions every few years like the SWP and co do, and had managed to remain a fairly coherent organization.


----------



## JHE (Jul 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> is there anything wrong about the SP's stance on the labour party then? apart from "fervour and dogmatism" and the fact that imo we should never have been in it at all what's wrong with it?


 
I don't really agree with either Millie position, the one before or the one after the abrupt 180 degree turn. The post-abouuuuut turn position is that there was a profound change (a 'qualitative change' in Marxoid language) in the nature of the Labour Party from being a 'bourgeois workers' party' (as Old Father Lenin called it) to being a bourgeois party. On this account, the Millies' change from being devoted entryists to devoted exitists results from a changed world, not just from a change of opinion on strategy among the leadership of the sect.

I don't think there has been such a profound change. The organisational (and financial) links with the TUs still exist. Given the failure of all (of many) attempts so far to establish alternative parties, it is even true that the Labour Party remains _the party_ (ie, the only significant party) of the organised working class. That doesn't make it good. It doesn't make it socialist. It implies nothing one way or another about the utility or reformability of the Labour Party, but it does make the Labour Party basically the same beast that it was when the Millies insisted (wrongly, IMO) that all political work must go through the organs of the Labour Party.


----------



## Sue (Jul 20, 2012)

Seems he's on Any Questions on R4 tonight...


----------



## cantsin (Jul 20, 2012)

love detective said:


> allow me to do both
> 
> you can find me here
> 
> ...


 
love the way this thread went off on such a admirably daft tangent. and others just carried on with the dialectical discourse.

LD maybe shades it for it me, though chuck a gold chain and some speedos on PD and there could, surprisingly, be some Marbella style swagger there. Needs a poll to sort it properly though.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 20, 2012)

Sue said:


> Seems he's on Any Questions on R4 tonight...


So is Kelvin MacKenzie.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 20, 2012)

Owen has promised to give his fee over to the Hillsborough justice campaign - for sharing a platform with MacKenzie.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 20, 2012)

Good man.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2012)

If he's got any sense he'll open on that line and put KM under pressure from the start.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2012)

..and hjc has asked jones to donate it to the Tomlinson fund. Utterly typical of them.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 21, 2012)

How serious are these calls for a minimum turnout for a strike ballot to be made legit?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 13, 2012)

Just seen this, Owen Jones denounced as a "braying jackel" on Fox News:


----------



## Stardark (Nov 13, 2012)

That guy and Jones deserve each other, though...


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 13, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Just seen this, Owen Jones denounced as a "braying jackel" on Fox News:



Love the way the anchor chucks in the word "appeasement". These fuckers are trapped in a feedback loop.


----------



## rekil (Nov 16, 2012)

Research madskillz.

*Owen Jones* ‏@*OwenJones84*
Does anyone know anything about negative attitudes towards poor people in other countries or have any links to stuff? Thanks!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

History masters too. At Oxbridge as well.


----------



## love detective (Nov 16, 2012)

_anyone got any links to stuff and shit, leave them on my desk i'm off for brunch with the kebab bum finger_


----------



## rekil (Nov 16, 2012)

At the SP thing a couple of weeks ago, he said he'd speak at any left wing meeting. Victory to Spineynorman who while wearing his PD tshirt asked him to speak at a PD do.


----------



## rekil (Nov 16, 2012)

kebab bum finger said:
			
		

> Let's wine soon!


.


----------



## love detective (Nov 16, 2012)

for folk like that that have so much disdain for people who eat their tea they don't have spend a load of time talking about/organising getting their own tea


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 23, 2012)

> Jack Hurley
> 
> Friday 23 November 2012
> *Questionable Time: Iain Duncan Smith is no quiet man, especially when confronted by Owen Jones*
> Two ex-party leaders and Britain's foremost angry young man make for a heavyweight line up, but will a great show follow?


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ly-when-confronted-by-owen-jones-8346634.html

I very much enjoyed watching Owen get under IDS' skin last night. I am sick of the Tories controlling the 'narrative' about the real impact/implications of their welfare reforms!



> Iain Duncan Smith Loses Temper With Owen Jones Over Benefit Cap On BBC's Question Time (VIDEO) http://huff.to/WFjzOl


 
It was also good to hear a bit more of a 'truth' with regard the Gaza situation although as this tweet points out, it shouldn't be this way!





> Blimey, thanks everyone. But what a a shame that stating the bleeding obvious on telly is such a revolutionary act #*bbcqt*


----------



## Firky (Nov 23, 2012)

I don't like OJ but he came across as an intelligent person last night. He did a good job of stopping all the major parties setting the bar of discussion and setting the consensus for the evening.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 23, 2012)

i think he did a pretty good job, I'm not his biggest fan in some ways (he's altogether too pally with Laurie Penny and Ellie Mae O'Hagan for a start) but he was great last night. Getting IDS to drop the mask.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 23, 2012)

I hear ya. For me it's not a question of whether I like him or not, more because there is nothing more frustrating/insulting than to hear members of all three main parties saying pretty much the same thing whilst pretending to be 'different'.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 23, 2012)

Getting IDS annoyed by naming someone who died after being assessed fit was grand.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 23, 2012)

firky said:


> I don't like OJ but he came across as an intelligent person last night. He did a good job of stopping all the major parties setting the bar of discussion and setting the consensus for the evening.


 
He has got a degree hasn't he , surely he should be able to come across as intelligent


----------



## marty21 (Nov 23, 2012)

articul8 said:


> How serious are these calls for a minimum turnout for a strike ballot to be made legit?


 less serious after the PCC elections I'd say


----------



## Firky (Nov 23, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> He has got a degree hasn't he , surely he should be able to come across as intelligent


 
I don't know about that, I have degrees.


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 23, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> I hear ya. For me it's not a question of whether I like him or not, more because there is nothing more frustrating/insulting than to hear members of all three main parties saying pretty much the same thing whilst pretending to be 'different'.


 
I could only watch a couple of minutes. When did Kennedy become such a wanker?


----------



## Firky (Nov 23, 2012)

imposs1904 said:


> I could only watch a couple of minutes. When did Kennedy become such a wanker?


 
Around about the time he discovered drink.


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 23, 2012)

firky said:


> Around about the time he discovered drink.


 
I see he still has that rosy glow to his cheeks.


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 23, 2012)

He rattled Rod Liddle's cage, so he must be doing something right. Nice to see that the overwhelming majority of comments to Liddle's post is taking him to task.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 23, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> He has got a degree hasn't he , surely he should be able to come across as intelligent


 
You obviously don't know many students!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 23, 2012)

imposs1904 said:


> He rattled Rod Liddle's cage, so he must be doing something right. Nice to see that the overwhelming majority of comments to Liddle's post is taking him to task.


 
This man has no self-awareness did he actually think he'd get a round of applause for that smug 'oh I'm in Italy' crap?


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 23, 2012)

Looks like Capri to me. One of the most expensive playgrounds in Italy.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 23, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> Looks like Capri to me. One of the most expensive playgrounds in Italy.


 
Hows organising the Firebox staff going?


----------



## Firky (Nov 23, 2012)

I also can't look at Owen Jones without imagining him as Macaulay Culkin.


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 23, 2012)

I thought he performed quite well and he rattled smith.that dimbelby is a tory cunt an insult to his father


----------



## where to (Nov 23, 2012)

I thought he was excellent. 

Actually weakest on the last question if anything. Really showed the rest of them up on Gaza. Saying Kennedy  "disappointed" him on Gaza was a great, clever put down, worst you could give to generally likeable guy like Kennedy.


----------



## Firky (Nov 23, 2012)

Kennedy isn't likeable.


----------



## where to (Nov 23, 2012)

Oh and his criticism of EU from the left was great too. That's what sets him apart from liberal twats like Sunny Hundal and L Penny etc. Shame he mixes with those fakers.

Can't help but like the guy tbh.


----------



## where to (Nov 23, 2012)

firky said:
			
		

> Kennedy isn't likeable.



I'm no *fan* but its quite hard to hate him. For a politician that is pretty remarkable.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 24, 2012)

Vote Labour Vote Owen


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Nov 24, 2012)

Britain's foremost Angry Young Man.  

lol.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 24, 2012)

I quite like him tbh. Unlike Laurie Penny & co I think he has a genuine commitment to the politics, it's not just a fashion statement. And unlike them he does talk about class.

Although I disagree with him on some pretty important issues (not least the Labour Party) I reckon the media is better for having Owen Jones in it. I think it's worse for having Laurie Penny in it, she makes the left look fucking stupid.

Also, when I asked him to speak at a PD meeting he laughed - and stopped around for a chat and he's a nice fella - so that may be clouding my judgement a little bit. But I reckon Penny would have made out I was victimising female writers or being a homophobe or summat.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 24, 2012)

Lest we forget....


----------



## love detective (Nov 25, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I quite like him tbh. Unlike Laurie Penny & co I think he has a genuine commitment to the politics, it's not just a fashion statement. And unlike them he does talk about class.
> 
> Although I disagree with him on some pretty important issues (not least the Labour Party) I reckon the media is better for having Owen Jones in it. I think it's worse for having Laurie Penny in it, she makes the left look fucking stupid.


 
yep completely agree about the differences in political commitment and substance between the two, jones also seems to have a genuine sense of humility about him and has far more self awareness 

compare and contrast

Owen Jones

Laurie Penny


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 25, 2012)

Not a fair comparason IMO. Surely better to find a vid in which LP shares her political ideas? Sales pitches aren't known for being full of meaningful analysis and humility.


----------



## Geri (Nov 25, 2012)

Owen Jones could do with a bit more gravitas. He looks like he isn't old enough to shave. Maybe he should think about dyeing his hair grey.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Nov 25, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Sales pitches


 
That is her 'politics.'


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 25, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> That is her 'politics.'


 
So her promotion of that is all we need to know? Or is it more that she engages in that kind of promotion?


----------



## Balbi (Nov 25, 2012)

Geri said:


> Owen Jones could do with a bit more gravitas. He looks like he isn't old enough to shave. Maybe he should think about dyeing his hair grey.


 
His tweet before going on Question Time shows he's well aware of that.

*Owen Jones* ‏@*OwenJones84* 
OMG HE LOOKS 12 DOES HIS MUM KNOW HE'S UP THIS LATE WHY ISN'T HE DOING HIS PAPER ROUND << just anticipating the tweets later  #*bbcqt*


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 25, 2012)

Geri said:


> Owen Jones could do with a bit more gravitas. He looks like he isn't old enough to shave. Maybe he should think about dyeing his hair grey.


 
I think he plays up to the being young thing, else he would've opted for some designer stubble by now or at least asked the barber to stop giving him the haircut of a 12 year old boy.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 25, 2012)

Geri said:


> Owen Jones could do with a bit more gravitas. He looks like he isn't old enough to shave. Maybe he should think about dyeing his hair grey.


 
A lot of the criticism aimed at him uses his age/the fact he looks young as if it undermines his opinions. Very few of those who took this stance after bbcqt the other night actually engaged with or countered a single argument he made. I think that says a lot.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 25, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I think he plays up to the being young thing, else he would've opted for some designer stubble by now or at least asked the barber to stop giving him the haircut of a 12 year old boy.


 
Perhaps you have some ideas about how he should present himself?

How does a 'younger' person not be 'younger'?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 25, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Perhaps you have some ideas about how he should present himself?


 
Doesn't bother me to be honest, but I get the impression that he's deliberately cultivating a young look.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 25, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Doesn't bother me to be honest, but I get the impression that he's deliberately cultivating a young look.


 
Or maybe he just looks young?

If he opted for a suit or was partial to the 'hipster' style I can just imagine how much stick he'd get. I think his age is being used against him in a way that is unfair. What I dislike about that is that the narrative seems to be there is no place for young/er people in politics, especially those who look young and don't try to hide it.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 25, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Or maybe he just looks young?


 
Maybe.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 25, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Perhaps you have some ideas about how he should present himself?
> 
> How does a 'younger' person not be 'younger'?


 
Pipe down until he's older and more experienced


----------



## Balbi (Nov 25, 2012)

This is how people treat Jones, and he's much less annoying than Wesley


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 25, 2012)

So if he looked older the politics he promotes (vote Labour, rebuild the party, focus on minority issues etc) would reasonate more? Fucking hell.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 25, 2012)

He likes his Ben Sherman shirts, doesn't he?


----------



## Firky (Nov 25, 2012)

I can't watch that video of Laurie Penny, every time I hear her I want to shit in her mouth.

lol.[/quote]

He's no Rude Kid


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> He likes his Ben Sherman shirts, doesn't he?


Obviously. Or he wouldn't have bought them. Do you often buy clothes you don't like?


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Obviously. Or he wouldn't have bought them. Do you often buy clothes you don't like?


 
Er, what?


----------



## love detective (Nov 25, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Surely better to find a vid in which LP shares her political ideas?


 
She gives it her best shot here





Rutita1 said:


> Not a fair comparason IMO. Surely better to find a vid in which LP shares her political ideas? Sales pitches aren't known for being full of meaningful analysis and humility.


 
this is (partly) the point of the comparison, she is empty, she has very little in the way of political ideas, let alone an ability or capacity to articulate them, yet somehow she has successfully anointed herself as the spokesperson for a new 'radical' generation


----------



## Balbi (Nov 25, 2012)

She's a patina of dish-soap on the dirt of the modern protest movement. At least Jonesy's a dishcloth.

[/pseuds corner]


----------



## Firky (Nov 25, 2012)

That's the best video of her I have seen.


----------



## Riklet (Nov 25, 2012)

the real, human face of the radical student youth, eyes blazing from laptop glare, and revolutionary zeal at the insult of the background 'norm' music growing ever stronger.

wow have to say i found it quite heartening watching that owen jones video, might scour youtube to catch the rest of it.  good seeing these scumbags and complacent loonbins being challenged...


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 25, 2012)

Riklet said:


> the real, human face of the radical student youth, eyes blazing from laptop glare, and revolutionary zeal at the insult of the background 'norm' music growing ever stronger.
> 
> wow have to say i found it quite heartening watching that owen jones video, might scour youtube to catch the rest of it. good seeing these scumbags and complacent loonbins being challenged...


 
You can watch the whole show here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01p2wbj/Question_Time_22_11_2012/


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 25, 2012)

Riklet said:


> wow have to say i found it quite heartening watching that owen jones video, might scour youtube to catch the rest of it.  good seeing these scumbags and complacent loonbins being challenged...



I find watching/listening to him profoundly depressing. He might look young but his politics are decrepit.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Nov 25, 2012)

Well that's the conventional wisdom well and truly ripped to shreds.

It's official: Owen Jones is shit.

You are now no longer allowed to like Owen Jones. Liking Owen Jones will lead to smirks behind your back and insinuations that you don't know anything about politics and that you're an idiot.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 25, 2012)

firky said:


> That's the best video of her I have seen.


 
Did you manage to get to the vinegars, then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Er, what?


you said he likes his ben shermans. Now does it make sense? Or are you too daft to understand the simple point i'm making?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 25, 2012)

I think that anyone who can discomfit IDS so effectively is worthy of being liked by anyone including me.. I loved the way the camera     kept going to his face while our Owen was speaking.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 25, 2012)

> Owen Jones
> 
> Sunday 25 November 2012
> *The cosy consensus I saw on Question Time's panel is a disservice to every man and woman in Britain*
> Given how thirsty the electorate is for anything that counters the sterility of Westminster, the rewards for a party that has the courage to speak out will be huge


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...o-every-man-and-woman-in-britain-8348713.html


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 25, 2012)

> *Laurie Penny* ‏@*PennyRed*
> Writing on welfare, disability cuts and Atos for @*newstatesman*. Would anyone like to chat to me about their personal experience?


 
Maybe she has read Owen's article today and thought _YEAH! I'll have some of that!_ 


......or simply followed his lead


----------



## Firky (Nov 25, 2012)

She obviously doesn't know anyone on welfare.

A different sort of person.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 25, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Well that's the conventional wisdom well and truly ripped to shreds.
> 
> It's official: Owen Jones is shit.
> 
> You are now no longer allowed to like Owen Jones. Liking Owen Jones will lead to smirks behind your back and insinuations that you don't know anything about politics and that you're an idiot.


We are all like the left face of labour


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you said he likes his ben shermans. Now does it make sense? Or are you too daft to understand the simple point i'm making?


 
You're such a pedantic little shit sometimes. How the fuck do you live with yourself?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> You're such a pedantic little shit sometimes. How the fuck do you live with yourself?


I'll take that as a 'no'


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 25, 2012)

firky said:


> She obviously doesn't know anyone on welfare.
> 
> A different sort of person.


 
Apart from herself at one point.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 26, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> I'll take that as a 'no'


Get the fuck out of here.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Apart from herself at one point.


 
Yes indeed - i think she may well be right that no one who graduated from Oxford in 2008 had a job in 2010. She is also right that middle class graduates should recieve higher benefits due to the shock factor of having no money, in the same way that MPs get re-integration grants when they lose their seats:



> Laurie Penny, 23, never imagined she would find herself enmeshed in a world of poverty and the grip of the benefit system when she graduated with a 2:1 degree in English from Oxford University in 2008. Even with that name on her CV, she and her contemporaries have found it fiercely difficult to get work.
> 
> "It is hard to think of anybody who graduated with me in 2008 who has a job," she said. "People have tried and not been able to find anything, particularly when the recession hit, and you simply cannot live on £50-a-week jobseeker's allowance."
> 
> ...


----------



## weepiper (Nov 26, 2012)

Hold on, I feel my knuckles clenching again.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2012)

Note that she doesn't actually say that she is/was on benefits - considering that she was writing for the large newspapers and magazines at least a year before this point , had been working for the labour party and so on i don't believe that she was. It's the usual bullshit attempt to appropriate others situations for herself. To use others peoples situation to promote yourself. A little unveiling of this period of crushing poverty would be very instructive i think.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Get the fuck out of here.


----------



## rekil (Nov 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Note that she doesn't actually say that she is/was on benefits - considering that she was writing for the large newspapers and magazines at least a year before this point , had been working for the labour party and so on i don't believe that she was. It's the usual bullshit attempt to appropriate others situations for herself. To use others peoples situation to promote yourself. A little unveiling of this period of crushing poverty would be very instructive i think.


I can't remember where she mentioned it, but her inheritance came in handy did it not?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 26, 2012)

copliker said:


> I can't remember where she mentioned it, but her inheritance came in handy did it not?


 
I've only ever read about this mythical inheritance on here, never seen her write about it let alone put a figure to how much she allegedly was given...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 26, 2012)

Just watched that question time. Owen Jones very much out on his own  - thought he acquitted himself very well. Dimbleby was an utter cunt to him, not letting him speak for long, not letting him deviate  and repeatedly allowing him to be interrupted. Everyone else was allowed to waffle on interminably. Duncan Shit losing his rag was hilarious all red faced  'Now just you listen young man'
Charles Kennedy seemed to be phoning in his performance from planet mogadon.


----------



## rekil (Nov 26, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I've only ever read about this mythical inheritance on here, never seen her write about it let alone put a figure to how much she allegedly was given...


Guido fawkes mentioned it, and he's a cunt so I dunno, but I think she said something about it herself somewhere.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I've only ever read about this mythical inheritance on here, never seen her write about it let alone put a figure to how much she allegedly was given...


 



			
				laura said:
			
		

> The internship system is already expensive enough to exclude all but the richest and most fortunate young people from popular jobs. I could pretend, for example, that it's my winning smile and blatant genius which have enabled me to find work as a journalist - but a year's unpaid interning, during which I survived on a small inheritance from a dead relative, had just as much to do with it. Any graduate or school-leaver without the means to support themselves in London whilst working for free can currently forget about a career in journalism, politics, the arts, finance, the legal profession or any of a number of other sectors whose business models are now based around a lower tier of unpaid labour.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2012)

A year??


----------



## discokermit (Nov 26, 2012)

oh no. now she's got _two_ threads.


----------



## shifting gears (Nov 26, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Just watched that question time. Owen Jones very much out on his own  - thought he acquitted himself very well. Dimbleby was an utter cunt to him, not letting him speak for long, not letting him deviate  and repeatedly allowing him to be interrupted. .



I just watched it as well and roundly agree with this ^ . He put one of the architects of the Tories miserable welfare 'reforms' on the spot, clearly making him uncomfortable; just unfortunate he wasn't allowed to go into deeper detail with regard to the multitude of suicides and deaths which IDS and his cronies are responsible for. (Interesting the beeb kept that topic until last, wasnt it? Gave a convenient cut-off point before it got too heated.) He also was the only guest who presented an opinion on Gaza etc which was remotely credible, as the rest of them lamely toed the standard Western line. 

It's always going to be difficult to go deep enough into reasoned argument and debate on QT, particularly when some minor celebrity off dragons den is distracting the audience while offering a lack of insight befitting of someone locked in a cellar for the last few years. 

In the grand scheme of things, he did ok. I'm fairly ambivalent towards him in general, but lets face it - he was the only one talking any sense, even if occasionally his arguments weren't that thoroughly explained, which, from a charitable position, it could be argued was down to the format of the show, the meddling of dimbleby, and the parroted guff of the rest of them.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 26, 2012)

copliker said:


> Guido fawkes mentioned it, and he's a cunt so I dunno, but I think she said something about it herself somewhere.


 
Yeah I wouldn't use GF as a source tbh...until I see some actual links to her words I'm going to take it as urban75 mythology at work I'm afraid...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 26, 2012)

discokermit said:


> oh no. now she's got _two_ threads.


 




Owen says, _'Concentrate on me dammit!'_


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Nov 26, 2012)

Larry who?


----------



## rekil (Nov 26, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Yeah I wouldn't use GF as a source tbh...until I see some actual links to her words I'm going to take it as urban75 mythology at work I'm afraid...


There you go, what butchers posted.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 26, 2012)

copliker said:


> There you go, what butchers posted.


 
Where?


----------



## rekil (Nov 26, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Where?


Post 653. A link to the blogpost and everything.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 26, 2012)

Heh. I'd forgotten I'd put that idiot on ignore. 

Well I can't see it so my point stands. Sorta. Koff koff.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 27, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Heh. I'd forgotten I'd put that idiot on ignore.
> 
> Well I can't see it so my point stands. Sorta. Koff koff.


 
Grow up.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 27, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Grow up.


Asking a bit much there I think Spanky, KE's whole shitty liberal bubble politics is based on pretending what he doesn't want to see doesn't exist.


----------



## Random (Nov 27, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Heh. I'd forgotten I'd put that idiot on ignore.
> 
> Well I can't see it so my point stands. Sorta. Koff koff.


Here it is again then

--
The internship system is already expensive enough to exclude all but the richest and most fortunate young people from popular jobs. I could pretend, for example, that it's my winning smile and blatant genius which have enabled me to find work as a journalist - but* a year's unpaid interning, during which I survived on a small inheritance from a dead relative*, had just as much to do with it. Any graduate or school-leaver without the means to support themselves in London whilst working for free can currently forget about a career in journalism, politics, the arts, finance, the legal profession or any of a number of other sectors whose business models are now based around a lower tier of unpaid labour.


----------



## JimW (Nov 27, 2012)

At least she didn't use that inheritance from a living relative  Our greatest young wordsmith etc.


----------



## rekil (Nov 27, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> That is her 'politics.'


So is this.



			
				laura said:
			
		

> this is the thing. I'm suspicious of elites, and of vanguardism in general.


That. Is a cracker.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 27, 2012)

> *Dear BBC, More Owen Jones's on Question Time Please!*


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/joshua-funnell/dear-bbc-more-owen-joness_b_2193448.html


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 27, 2012)

> *Ben Frew* ‏@*bfrew14*
> really good podcast. 'The Legacy of the Iron Lady: Are we all Thatcher's Children?' http://www.bishopsgate.org.uk/audios.aspx?vid=8401 … with @*OwenJones84* and @*MarkFieldMP*


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 28, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Grow up.


 
Get a grip dickhead, it was joke a joke.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 28, 2012)

Random said:


> Here it is again then
> 
> --
> The internship system is already expensive enough to exclude all but the richest and most fortunate young people from popular jobs. I could pretend, for example, that it's my winning smile and blatant genius which have enabled me to find work as a journalist - but* a year's unpaid interning, during which I survived on a small inheritance from a dead relative*, had just as much to do with it. Any graduate or school-leaver without the means to support themselves in London whilst working for free can currently forget about a career in journalism, politics, the arts, finance, the legal profession or any of a number of other sectors whose business models are now based around a lower tier of unpaid labour.


 
Cheers mate. Although that doesn't answer the question of how much...


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 28, 2012)

*Owen Jones* ‏@*OwenJones84*
If you're kicking about in Edinburgh this weekend, I'm speaking at this cracking anti-poverty conference on Saturdayhttps://www.facebook.com/events/398592460209982/ …


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 29, 2012)

> *Owen Jones* ‏@*OwenJones84*
> Speaking of media distortions and lies - you know that huge army of benefit scroungers you hear about? It doesn't exist http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/28/benefit-scroungers-child-poverty-parents?CMP=twt_gu …


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

I wonder, is there some way to actually be able to go on twitter?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder, is there some way to actually be able to go on twitter?


Are you trying to say that you are the only person in the whole world who is not on twitter?


----------



## Firky (Nov 29, 2012)

Stephen Fry is the only gay man on twitter. They have limits on there.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

I'm saying that there's a limited worth in posting up twitter comments without anything else on a discussion board. If only there was some way to stop rutita doing this


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 4, 2012)

Owen is having a bad day or someone is up to funny business:



> *Owen Jones* ‏@*OwenJones84*
> So someone stole my dictaphone, my hard drive seems to have failed, and all the crucial backed up files on DropBox seem to have been wiped


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 5, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Owen is having a bad day or someone is up to funny business:


 
cripes!


----------



## sihhi (Dec 31, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I find watching/listening to him profoundly depressing. He might look young but his politics are decrepit.


 
You have it in one. The main thrust of the strategy is:


> Working class and young voters need to be inspired again. Somebody should grab the Labour leadership by the lapels and tell them to be more radical.


 
It's full of ugly chauvinism:


> If Scottish Labour continues as it is – devoid of any coherent vision and unable to inspire those who have deserted it – then Salmond has little to fear. Scottish nationalism will not want for recruits. This will not be the Strange Death of Scottish Labour: it will be its Entirely Explainable Suicide. But it is not just the party’s future at stake. Its failures could lead to Britain as we know it being dismantled.


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-strange-death-of-labour-scotland-8430502.html

He says Clement Attlee was a radical politician and looks to recreate 1945. Except Attlee wasn't radical and nor were his policies, but most importantly they produced what we have now and allowed Thatcherist backlash to thrive.



> Lehman Brothers came crashing down, changing the world forever. Radical times need radical politics. Both Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher were radical politicians who realised crisis was an opportunity, created a new political consensus, and transformed Britain. The next Labour government must do the same.


So Labour again. Except this time 2015 will be like the radicalism of 1945. We can look forward to EU intervention in Greece 2015 (Britain in the Greek Civil War, 1945) and mass flotillas to Iran in the late 2010s and onward (the various 'Abadan crises').

On the struggle for work the conclusions... ... :


> I agree unpaid internships are a scandal, turning whole professions into middle-class closed shops. They must be abolished and _employers who use them pursued in the courts for violating the National Minimum Wage Act_.


The courts and the legal system are (with the possible exception of specialisms in medicine) the most extreme 'middle-class closed shop' there is. In fact it's more an outright upper-class/ruling-class domain. Also, there are millions of violations every year already (nothing to do with internships), often by removing essential-for-work items or rent-in-allocated-residences from wages. Yet none lead to prosecutions.

At the same time as attending national TU congresses, debating with the left sects, and appearing on the BBC again and again (today's Today programme calling for pillars of society awards WTF! was the last straw for me), Owen Jones is also happy to grace the private-members clubs of Soho.

See: http://thespanner.net/pdfs/The-Spanner-Issue-One.pdf



> So, have the toffs worn the chavs into a self-loathing submission? At Blacks, perhaps, but it’s hard to say when there’s a strict no chav entrance policy at the door. (Mobiles are banned and you’ve got to be accompanied by a member.) In wider society, however, Owen Jones’ argument remains thoroughly convincing. Perpetually _haunted by the chav stereotype_, _undercut by foreign labour_ and _left in the cold by a rigged educational system_, the working class have been stripped of their identity. You can’t get more lost than that.


That's the conclusion of a member of Blacks after Owen Jones discussed his book there - entry by membership only with (presumably pay-for) reservations.

http://www.foodepedia.co.uk/restaurant-reviews/2011/mar/blacks.htm


Typical lunch: 





> Open to Blacks’ members and non-members alike, lunch is served from 1pm to 5pm, with tickets priced at £35 (excluding wine). Payment must be made in advance to confirm reservation.


A club so exclusive it's impossible to see its entry/membership requirements online.

That's the advice Owen Jones is giving to the ruling class:- stop the chav stereotypes (try a fresh remodelled 'salt of the earth', today;s ; think about immigration's impacts on the working-class (reduce it introducing EU quotas, push up entry costs); abolish the private schools (go for the European continental model: near-total comprehensive system, competitive exams at the end, division of labour force after that... ie delay the division of people into classes for a while longer).

The advice Owen Jones is giving to trade unionists: is basically articul8-ism (no offence articul8) join the party, move Ed Miliband to the left, don't let the United Kingdom die (yah boo the SNP and SSP).


----------



## sihhi (Dec 31, 2012)

Look at this exchange on twitter:




> Owen Jones ‏@OwenJones84
> The Tories have tried to divide the working poor and unemployed - but they are attacking both http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20873180 … #allinittogether
> 
> 1h Ian McNeill ‏@McNeill56
> ...


 
'Nationalism is not a substitute for class politics'
Class politics _is_ Labour, either inside the Labour Party proper or the left outside calling for the 'vote with illusions'. If you stray in any fashion beyond that you become "elitist puritanical ultras"

Note how the Labour Party are non-nationalism. The new charge of the (Old) Labour Brigade.
Less annoying than Laurie Penny but more poisonous, also has many, many more media appearances, more twitter followers over 75,000 most recently.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 31, 2012)

that's pretty much spot on sihhi, great post.



sihhi said:


> That's the advice Owen Jones is giving to the ruling class:- stop the chav stereotypes (try a fresh remodelled 'salt of the earth', today;s ; think about immigration's impacts on the working-class (reduce it introducing EU quotas, push up entry costs); abolish the private schools (go for the European continental model: near-total comprehensive system, competitive exams at the end, division of labour force after that... ie delay the division of people into classes for a while longer).
> 
> The advice Owen Jones is giving to trade unionists: is basically articul8-ism (no offence articul8) join the party, move Ed Miliband to the left, don't let the United Kingdom die (yah boo the SNP and SSP).


 
I totally agree with this analysis of his politics, it's very Labourist post-bennite stuff, it's not hugely imaginative at all.  I think faced with all the mad systemic problems in Europe and worldwide, this is too backward looking to lead to any sort of radical change. It actually fits in nicely with what people like Cruddas and Glasman are trying to do, so even if Jones is moderately left wing and a fairly convincing talking head, a nice non-threatening socialist opinion for the media, that's how his idea's will be taken up. I think that's how Chavs should be read, why it's got so many journalisty style quotes, coz it's aimed at that bubble.

I also think that the idea you can force Ed Miliband to the left by joining Labour and the LRC is flawed. There needs to be a comprehensive rebuilding of the radical left as a movement, starting with rebuilding trade unionism, before Ed Miliband will be moving anwhere to the left. You have to be able to put real pressure on leaderships, and right now the LRC even if it doubled its membership overnight, can't bring that sort of pressure. 

The only other point I can think of is this line of thinking has some appealing qualities, the most appealing being that it's being seriously considered by Ed Miliband, who according to this has an 85% chance of being prime minister. I can see little elements of what Jones says being incorporated into this One Nation theme that Labour's planning on doing at the general election, but then once the election is over and Labour start making the exact same cuts as the Tories it'll quickly start sounding very hollow, and then maybe Owen being dropped as a Labour spokesperson? 

Of course if there actually was a realistic chance of making Labour follow a Jonesy-Bennite policy after they got elected, it'd be great, infinitely preferable to more Tory neo-liberalism, but it's not going to happen Labour haven't budged an inch on their commitment to making cuts.


----------



## sihhi (Dec 31, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> I totally agree with this analysis of his politics, it's very Labourist post-bennite stuff, it's not hugely imaginative at all. I think faced with all the mad systemic problems in Europe and worldwide, this is too backward looking to lead to any sort of radical change. It actually fits in nicely with what people like Cruddas and Glasman are trying to do, so even if Jones is moderately left wing and a fairly convincing talking head, a nice non-threatening socialist opinion for the media, that's how his idea's will be taken up. I think _that's how Chavs should be read_, why it's got so many journalisty style quotes, coz it's aimed at that bubble.


 
I have to reserve total judgement on Chavs because I still haven't been able to read it. I'm normally about 4 years late after this kind of exciting working-class literature. I read Michael Collins The Likes of Us: A Biography of the White Working-class last year from the local library. The only title with 'Working-class' in it in the library that wasn't a social work, education or  health/nursing university text(!). Found it full of innuendo little substance and in the end pretty meaningless. I can only hope Chavs won't be that much of a let-down.




> I also think that the idea you can force Ed Miliband to the left by joining Labour and the LRC is flawed. There needs to be a comprehensive rebuilding of the radical left as a movement, starting with rebuilding trade unionism, before Ed Miliband will be moving anwhere to the left. You have to be able to put real pressure on leaderships, and right now the LRC even if it doubled its membership overnight, can't bring that sort of pressure.


 
The LRC could quintuple its membership and its pressure would still be limited. But assume it did, then it would revert to a neo-1974 neo-1964 style Labour Manifesto. The last time there was a Tory-to-Labour shift before New Labour. And what was the result? A massive attack on sterling in 1966 and recession and a massive attack on sterling in 1975 and recession. 

1 If the power is there to make Labour both adopt the manifesto and then fully enforce it by closing loopholes, abolishing the Lords, stripping back all wealth from the rich.
2 It means you have the power to not wait for Labour at all, and begin controlling your own areas/lines of production - distributing seized products on your terms
3 Not very likely as long as you're waiting for Labour.
4 Labour and its general elections and manifestos is always cart before the horse.



> The only other point I can think of is this line of thinking has some appealing qualities, the most appealing being that it's being seriously considered by Ed Miliband, who according to this has an 85% chance of being prime minister. I can see little elements of what Jones says being incorporated into this One Nation theme that Labour's planning on doing at the general election, but then once the election is over and Labour start making the exact same cuts as the Tories it'll quickly start sounding very hollow, and then maybe Owen being dropped as a Labour spokesperson?


 
Owen is not a 'Labour spokesperson' in any official capacity, that's what makes him effective.
Note his biography on twitter: 'A _'braying jackal' according to Fox News_. Socialist, Independent columnist, author of 'Chavs', _Sheffield-born but Stockport-bred_. _My views only, obviously_.' = 'I'm viciously attacked by the right, I come from the north, I am beholden to no one'



> Of course if there actually was a realistic chance of making Labour follow a Jonesy-Bennite policy after they got elected, it'd be great, infinitely preferable to more Tory neo-liberalism, but it's not going to happen Labour haven't budged an inch on their commitment to making cuts.


 
If Labour did commit to simply reversing coalition cuts - not a massive step at all, just keeping things as bad as they are in 2010 -  the counter-response from concentrated business power would be heavy to put it mildly.
And there is no push for it - there is no strategy for One Nation either at local Labour or national Labour.
One Nation would have to imply Labour Left councils setting deficit budgets keeping services in w/class areas at least to something approaching the level at m/class areas. But there's nothing - just more socialist cuts.



> I can see little elements of what Jones says being incorporated into this One Nation theme that Labour's planning on doing at the general election


 
Which elements? The only ones I can see are the cultural element - 'We Love Public Servants. Hi, I'm Ed I Heart Nurses' and the anti-SNP soft unionism.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 31, 2012)

sihhi said:


> The LRC could quintuple its membership and its pressure would still be limited. But assume it did, then it would revert to a neo-1974 neo-1964 style Labour Manifesto. The last time there was a Tory-to-Labour shift before New Labour. And what was the result? A massive attack on sterling in 1966 and recession and a massive attack on sterling in 1975 and recession.
> 
> 1 If the power is there to make Labour both adopt the manifesto and then fully enforce it by closing loopholes, abolishing the Lords, stripping back all wealth from the rich.
> 2 It means you have the power to not wait for Labour at all, and begin controlling your own areas/lines of production - distributing seized products on your terms
> ...


 
Well you're quite right, again, but what you're talking about goes a lot further than just Owen Jones, but the limits of social democracy. You can get so far through parliamentary means before you come up against irreconcilable class interests, and at that point they'll use power brutally (capital flight, attacking the currency, even including sanctions and military intervention in the worst instances) to keep them in check.

The bit Owen Jones always goes on about was the line from the 1974 Labour Manifesto "irreversable shift in the balance of power in favour of working people and their families" which tbh I've always thought of as a bit of rhetoric, not sincere policy, but lets just assume you intend to follow up that pledge, what would be the result? Well you can look at Miterrand in France for a good example. If the Bennites/Labour Left had actually succeeded in the 80's and formed a government I can't see how that would've been any different.

And these guys were operating in a time when the Labour Left, and wider left, was significantly stronger than it is today. I don't see how this can work now when it didn't work then.



sihhi said:


> Owen is not a 'Labour spokesperson' in any official capacity, that's what makes him effective.
> Note his biography on twitter: 'A _'braying jackal' according to Fox News_. Socialist, Independent columnist, author of 'Chavs', _Sheffield-born but Stockport-bred_. _My views only, obviously_.' = 'I'm viciously attacked by the right, I come from the north, I am beholden to no one'


 
No he's not an official Labour spokeperson but c'mon he's not getting all this publicity out of nowhere. He's a de facto Labour spokeperson and he's definitely someone the party wants to be out there at the moment.



sihhi said:


> If Labour did commit to simply reversing coalition cuts - not a massive step at all, just keeping things as bad as they are in 2010 - the counter-response from concentrated business power would be heavy to put it mildly.
> And there is no push for it - there is no strategy for One Nation either at local Labour or national Labour.
> 
> One Nation would have to imply Labour Left councils setting deficit budgets keeping services in w/class areas at least to something approaching the level at m/class areas. But there's nothing - just more socialist cuts.


 
Don't disagree with this at all. The thing is, after 30 years of continuous defeat and pathological cynicism setting in, I'd settle for even a small reformist victory against the Tories. Perhaps that's a measure of my own cynicism but that's just the world as I found it.



sihhi said:


> Which elements? The only ones I can see are the cultural element - 'We Love Public Servants. Hi, I'm Ed I Heart Nurses' and the anti-SNP soft unionism.


 
Well the bit you mentioned that caught my eye "stop the chav stereotypes (try a fresh remodelled 'salt of the earth'," coz Cruddas has written articles and mentioned similar in interviews. The common theme is "X million of working class voters stopped voting Labour between 97 and 2010" and how to win them back. This includes losing working class voters to far-right parties, which may prompt a policy change on immigration and europe and so on.

Then because the election might be fought by the Tories on the idea of Labour being the dolescum party, something which has a lot of support in the media and even within working class communities. Labour is invoking this One Nation stuff to undermine them, to paint them as a party of a priviliged minority that seeks to divide people, "Two-Nation Tories" is the label that hurts them the most along with The Nasty Party.

But there's plenty within Labour, Byrne Purnell etc who are unapologetically in favour of just getting into an arms race with the Tories on who can demonise those on benefits the most. Triangulation etc. Right now they're in the cold in a little bit coz David lost and Ed won the leadership, but that'll be very different should Ed Miliband actually get elected. I can see Labour using all this nice pseudo-lefty stuff rhetorically in the election campaign and then once the election is over bringing all Purnell and the real right-wing bastard back in to continue with austerity, i've seen it enough from local Labour councillors who talk about opposing cuts then go and vote for them, and at least councillors have the excuse of punitive central governmant budget cuts to local councils, so I have no doubt a future Labour cabinet ministers will do do the same.


----------



## sihhi (Dec 31, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Well you're quite right, again, but what you're talking about goes a lot further than just Owen Jones, but the limits of social democracy. You can get so far through parliamentary means before you come up against irreconcilable class interests, and at that point they'll use power brutally (capital flight, attacking the currency, even including sanctions and military intervention in the worst instances) to keep them in check.


 
The crucial part of 'parliamentary means' is that before you even get close to challenging anything, you're splintering and flopping about all over the place - a section of your supporters are ready to throw the towel in at any moment. The right has seen your moves and starts mobilising on a campaign where the effects of capital flight,  are blamed as government policy.

Every liberal who explains the riots are "about designer trainers" actually senses 

In Western capitalism, sanctions and external military intervention will never happen in the same way ever again. They're not needed and are restricting of returns on capital (when profitability is needed) and dangerous (can backfire). Capital flight and attacking the currency are used again and again - ie the merging of class interests upon fixed goals to overcome unwanted programmes. 







> The bit Owen Jones always goes on about was the line from the 1974 Labour Manifesto "irreversable shift in the balance of power in favour of working people and their families" which tbh I've always thought of as a bit of rhetoric, not sincere policy, but lets just assume you intend to follow up that pledge, what would be the result? Well you can look at Miterrand in France for a good example. If the Bennites/Labour Left had actually succeeded in the 80's and formed a government I can't see how that would've been any different.


 
It wouldn't have been much different. The Labour Party is the worst social democratic party you could possibly ever choose to try entrism on, because of it is hypocrisy, its relationship with British capitalism world-wide, its countless victims abroad etc.



> And these guys were operating in a time when the Labour Left, and wider left, was significantly stronger than it is today. I don't see how this can work now when it didn't work then.


It's meant to not to work right now. The Labour Left is not needed now, but might be at a later point in time.



> No he's not an official Labour spokeperson but c'mon he's not getting all this publicity out of nowhere. He's a de facto Labour spokeperson and he's definitely someone the party wants to be out there at the moment.


 


> Don't disagree with this at all. The thing is, after 30 years of continuous defeat and pathological cynicism setting in, I'd settle for even a _small reformist victory_ against the Tories. Perhaps that's a measure of my own cynicism but that's just the world as I found it.


 
There's no such thing as a '_small reformist victory_ against the Tories' helps store up a firestorm for future generations. Every reformist victory won by reformist tactics, facilitates further backlash from the right - Labour or Tory.
Take Royal Mail, say there's a reformist success and Labour agrees _without struggle from below_ not to privatise and doesn't privatise for the next 5 years (2015-2020), Tories and Right Labour continue along the lines of 'throwing good money after bad', 'benefits must be a fair deal worse than work' 'what have cuts got to do with youth rioting, we were young in 19** we didn't riot'. All that happens is that Royal Mail is made leaner and more suitable for its eventual private sector buyer.
Take something big shooting-the-moon-unlikely, the closure of every single private health facility and their transference to the NHS - the reversal of privatisation. At a guess the private health firms will begin lengthy battles in the courts. The consultant doctors will leave to other anglo countries. The professors at the medical schools will likely do so to, slowing the pace of new supply. Other doctors will begin non-cooperation with the NHS, a professional work-to-rule - effective against. Charities will start offering doctors posts in their institutions, which distribute their consultations on the basis of how much families have contributed to said charity (or simply start locating in middle-class areas without any discriminatory access policy), effectively re-creating the private system. Law judges will allow extreme leniency for said charities etc.
Don't get me wrong, it's the right thing to do, but middle-class people will whip up a backlash from all over:-  civil libertarians; professionals from other fields scientists, engineers, academics; 'markets' will point to the drop in GNP (less profitability); Tories; Liberals; Right-wing Labour; parts of the PCS that use private health systems; foreign rich people saying they will now go elsewhere for their super-specialist medical care etc etc.
Labour cannot sustain itself for any significant progressive reformist measure. Even something simple like extending the NHS will not fly, nor will any mass job-creation programme, nor any increase in benefits, nor any mass extension of council housing, nor any restriction of property ownership... none of these measures - when you get down to it - matter a damn in Labour's hands. 



> Well the bit you mentioned that caught my eye "stop the chav stereotypes (try a fresh remodelled 'salt of the earth'," coz Cruddas has written articles and mentioned similar in interviews. The common theme is "X million of working class voters stopped voting Labour between 97 and 2010" and how to win them back. This includes losing working class voters to far-right parties, which may prompt a policy change on immigration and europe and so on.


 
Yes Labour wants to win those votes, but also crucially seeks to retain and widen its support from a section of capitalists - the Hinduja brothers, Richard Bransons, Mike Dansons, David Sainsburies, public sector managers and beyond - and, of course, the wider financial investment markets. 




> Then because the election might be fought by the Tories on the idea of Labour being the dolescum party, something which has a lot of support in the media and even within working class communities.


'Labour as a dolescum party' - I'd like to hear more on this.
Where I am, where Labour will still win by a mile, the mood is 'they (Labour and Tories) are all as bad as each other, trust no one' or amongst the minority but still there - 'Too many immigrants, need a cap, that'll give us a chance to breathe'.

Labour is invoking this One Nation stuff to undermine them, to paint them as a party of a priviliged minority that seeks to divide people, "Two-Nation Tories" is the label that hurts them the most along with The Nasty Party.

But there's plenty within Labour, Byrne Purnell etc who are unapologetically in favour of just getting into an arms race with the Tories on who can demonise those on benefits the most. Triangulation etc. Right now they're in the cold in a little bit coz David lost and Ed won the leadership, but that'll be very different should Ed Miliband actually get elected.



> I can see Labour using all this nice pseudo-lefty stuff rhetorically in the election campaign and then once the election is over bringing all Purnell and the real right-wing bastard back in to continue with austerity


 
Left-wing people do austerity and cuts just as well as right wing ones. Tony Benn is very solid proof of that. I don't see why Purnell needs rehabilitation. He's a film producer as well as other things

http://www.screendaily.com/news/pro...eils-future-plans-as-producer/5044367.article


> Producing isn’t Purnell’s full-time job. Among other activities, he is also currently Chair of IPPR Trustees, serves on the Board of the National Theatre and The BFI and is Senior Advisor at The Boston Consulting Group.


 
Purnell is a Cruddas-er, and as Cruddas describes it of 1997 there was a coalition within the Labour Party going for New Labour. It wasn't something imposed falling from the moon a Blair'n'Brown hijacking - it was the consensus for Labour. I think the basic Miliband aim will be for as wide a Labour consensus as possible - just Labour no adjectives, the One Labour might not last for the election.





> councillors have the excuse of punitive central governmant budget cuts to local councils


That's not an excuse, that's - at best - an excuse or a reason to resign force new bye-elections and delay the process.

Also finally let's remember that the Tories are good at being anti-cuts too, they won the basis of Labour is making the wrong cuts:


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 2, 2013)

Good posts sihhi and Delroy. I like that kind of analysis.

I think most of the earlier posts saying good things about Owen Jones on Question Time were out of sheer relief that _in relative terms_ (and only that), he's somewhat to the left of the usual mainstream consensus**. Challenging 'benefit scrounger' rhetoric is sadly a pretty leftish thing to do now.

**Not sure too many on here would make any greater claims about him than that though.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 7, 2013)

I see Owen Jones is going to be joining Toynbee to help the Fabian's choose 3 policies for the next Labour manifesto.

I'm not sure how that will progress his stated politcs

Is it just that he can't say no to a panel request?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 7, 2013)

Maybe he simply overestimates his own influence?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 7, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Is it just that he can't say no to a panel request?


who can?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 7, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> who can?


 
Rob Brydon can't that's for sure


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 7, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Is it just that he can't say no to a panel request?


 
C'mon, it's a good little earner. His income from his CLASS think-tank can't pay that much.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 7, 2013)

That's the thing I doubt the Fabians are paying him to be on the panel


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 7, 2013)

The wee fucker didn't reply to me on Twitter when I corrected him on Thatcher's infamous slamming down of Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty on the table ("This is what we believe"!). He said it was The Road to Serfdom. Pillock.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 7, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> That's the thing I doubt the Fabians are paying him to be on the panel


Bunch of tight-arsed cunts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Bunch of tight-arsed cunts.


 
More self-importance than stinginess, probably. "We're the Fabian Society, we're giving you the privilege of working for us".

Fabianism - The follow-through part of the wet fart of reformism.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 9, 2013)

I know we're supposed to scorn him because he's one of _them_ but I can't help liking him

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...orer--and-laughed-as-they-did-it-8443619.html


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2013)

weepiper said:


> I know we're supposed to scorn him because he's one of _them_ but I can't help liking him
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...orer--and-laughed-as-they-did-it-8443619.html


Not a bad piece and the anger comes across really well, but then it's reduced to the usual  "Demand the Labour leadership offer blah blah".


----------



## Grandma Death (Jan 9, 2013)

I like Owen-he's got a big platform at the moment and he's using it well-sure some may not say effectively but hes out there saying a lot of good stuff-and he pissed off IDS too which ticks my box.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 11, 2013)

It's all kicking off on twitter re: Owen Jones
I haven't got a clue what it's all about
Maybe Firky can fill in the details, LOL


----------



## where to (Jan 11, 2013)

Nobody is saying he's perfect, but he's as good as there'll be on the platforms he's allowed access to now

There is a big difference between out and out snakes and idiots like sunny Hundal and LP, and Owen Jones, who is basically one of the good guys.


----------



## where to (Jan 11, 2013)

Grandma Death said:
			
		

> I like Owen-he's got a big platform at the moment and he's using it well-sure some may not say effectively but hes out there saying a lot of good stuff-and he pissed off IDS too which ticks my box.



Nobody is saying what he is saying on tv. And he's saying it well.


----------



## Firky (Jan 11, 2013)

Divisive Cotton said:


> It's all kicking off on twitter re: Owen Jones
> I haven't got a clue what it's all about
> Maybe Firky can fill in the details, LOL


 

Suzanne Moore, who's a bit of everything really and stood as an independent for stokey, made a somewhat clumsy comment that suggested that trans women are basically "men with their dicks cut off". Twitter goes nuts, other journalists jump into defend her, including Owen Jones who to his credit usually has a bit more common sense than to defend such slips, ( distancing himself from Laurie Penny when she declared an IWCA article racist).

That's about it really, I kept an eye on it on twitter but did not want to get involved too much. Pointless anyway as my card has been marked by just about every journo now! 

Owen Jones is one of the better ones out of the whole bunch but I think he's being a prat about this. It's as though they're scared to criticise one of their own for fear of being ostracised from the champagne dinners.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 11, 2013)

where to said:


> Owen Jones, who is basically one of the good guys.


 
I wasn't even aware of him until relatively recently  , but I definitely agree  ...


----------



## where to (Jan 11, 2013)

"People on the left should be working to obliterate lib dems not calling for labour to go into coalition with them"

The best and worst of O Jones there in one sentence. The best is pretty good though.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 11, 2013)

Can't see any 'worst' in that sentence tbh!


----------



## Serotonin (Jan 12, 2013)

The problem with Jones is he clings to the idea that if only Labour would pretend to be a bit more left wing then everything would be OK.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 12, 2013)

Serotonin said:


> The problem with Jones is he clings to the idea that if only Labour would pretend to be a bit more left wing then everything would be OK.



The people who 'quite like him' think 'he's the best of a bad bunch' never explain that they also share that view do they? The politics he pushes died in the 80's and help strengthen the narrative that the left alternative is top down statism that the working class have rejected time and again.

I fucking loathe him.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 12, 2013)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The people who 'quite like him' think 'he's the best of a bad bunch' never explain that they also share that view do they?


 
That's because I don't.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 12, 2013)

Am I in the minority thinking he's a bit of a nob?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 12, 2013)

no. He'd be ok if it wasn't for his labourite pipe dreams.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 12, 2013)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Am I in the minority thinking he's a bit of a nob?



He's the poster boy of the left. Which says it all.


----------



## rosecore (Jan 12, 2013)

> *Owen Jones* ‏@*OwenJones84*
> @*krasejc* Pro tip: I've never claimed to be the "spokesman" of anyone, but yes I'm vile liberal counter-revolutionary scum and THE REAL ENEMY
> 
> *Owen Jones* ‏@*OwenJones84*
> ...


 
What's the deal with him referencing Communists when losing an argument? It's not the first time he's done this.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 12, 2013)

there was the one where he called his detractors, what was it- third period stalinists?

something like that. Either way, lol.


----------



## Firky (Jan 12, 2013)

Serotonin said:


> The problem with Jones is he clings to the idea that if only Labour would pretend to be a bit more left wing then everything would be OK.


 

I still find it surprising that people think Labour is left wing let alone think they're a viable alternative.



Captain Hurrah said:


> Am I in the minority thinking he's a bit of a nob?


 
Nah, I am not keen on him but at least he doesn't make me seethe. He does have some self-awareness and is vastly more mature and composed than LP or Moore.

He's part of the 'Cool Britannia' generation brought up under NL.

People like him because he made IDS squirm - well so fucking what?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 12, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> no. He'd be ok if it wasn't for his labourite pipe dreams.


 
No, he isn't like Dave, with an expensive purple Hitler hairdo, but he's still got a 'brand' and he's also part of the problem, re top university, connections, mainstream platform as a self-appointed middle class voice of the working class.

He reminds me of an annoying sixth-former. Opinionated, wet behind the ears and a different class.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 12, 2013)

firky said:


> People like him because he made IDS squirm - well so fucking what?


 


A few on here could make IDS squirm if given the chance, but that's the point.


----------



## rosecore (Jan 12, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> there was the one where he called his detractors, what was it- third period stalinists?
> 
> something like that. Either way, lol.


 
Is the same (15 year old) Owen Jones? I was trying to Google his tweet about third-period Stalinists.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/marxist-leninist-list/message/5610



> We are in full agreement on this point. BTW, I just noticed
> Owen Jones unsubbed himself this time. Owen was removed
> from the M-L list some months ago but way back I had
> some reasonable discussions with him on all sorts of things
> ...


http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/marxist-leninist-list/message/5618


----------



## rosecore (Jan 12, 2013)

Here's Owen using Third Period Stalinism twice when he's struggling in an argument

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/285394747403681792
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/285392399868510209


----------



## Firky (Jan 12, 2013)

I don't know what third period Stalinism is but I suspect that is his point. Most people don't.

Captain Hurrah is my go to authority on all things wussian.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 12, 2013)

where to said:


> Nobody is saying he's perfect, but he's as good as there'll be on the platforms he's allowed access to now
> 
> There is a big difference between out and out snakes and idiots like sunny Hundal and LP, and Owen Jones, who is basically *one of the good guys*.


Not to me he's not, his support for Labour makes him (and Toynbee, articl8 and all the rest) part of the problem not part of the solution.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 12, 2013)

Captain Hurrah said:


> A few on here could make IDS squirm if given the chance, but that's the point.


 
The difference being that Mr. Jones made Iain Duncan Shit squirm with words. Some of the people on here want him to squirm on the end of a spear.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 12, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Not to me he's not, his support for Labour makes him (and Toynbee, articl8 and all the rest) part of the problem not part of the solution.


 
"Toynbee, articul8 and all the rest". 

He won't know whether to feel insulted or flattered when he reads that!


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 12, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Toynbee, articul8 and all the rest".
> 
> He won't know whether to feel insulted or flattered *when* he reads that!


 
'When'?

You mean Owen Jones actually reads this tripe on here?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 12, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> 'When'?
> 
> You mean Owen Jones actually reads this tripe on here?


 
I was talking about articul8.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 12, 2013)

Aha!


----------



## cesare (Jan 13, 2013)

He's all well meaning and sort of "nice" which means I feel guilty whenever I'm having a go at him, as if I'm tormenting a kitten or something. I said that to button a couple of nights back when the Moore row broke out. Button's response was "yeah, fuck that. It's bullying, AND?"  

That whole well meaning/nice thing makes me pull punches, rather than go for it. Does anyone else feel like that?


----------



## BigTom (Jan 13, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The difference being that Mr. Jones made Iain Duncan Shit squirm with words. Some of the people on here want him to squirm on the end of a spear.



As long as by spear you mean sharp stick, and by squirm you mean a slow, agonisingly painful death, then yes I'd agree with you, there are some on here who would want that. 

If Owen dropped his support for labour and electoral politics I'd probably agree with most of what he says, and although he has a brand i think there's an honesty to his beliefs and writings, so he hasn't just chosen his brand cos he thinks that is what will sell.
Hopefully he'll radicalise with time, though it'd cost him what he has.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 13, 2013)

Which is why he won't.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 13, 2013)

Yeah I know, I wonder if he'd even be able to drop Labour for tusc or similar at any point. Probably not.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 13, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Labour cannot sustain itself for any significant progressive reformist measure. Even something simple like extending the NHS will not fly, nor will any mass job-creation programme, *nor any increase in benefits,* nor any mass extension of council housing, nor any restriction of property ownership... none of these measures - when you get down to it - matter a damn in Labour's hands.


Given that Labour are wedded to the notion of a deserving/underserving poor in their rhetoric and policies (new deal, hard-working families rhetoric), id agree that there is almost no chance of there being an increase in benefits under a labour government, apart from maybe, in-work benefits. Which is a shame really, because in the midst of failed economic policies like quantitative easing, (designed to get more buying and selling happening through increased money supply but instead rested in bank ledgers instead of filtering down the real economy), an argument for increasing benefits to stimulate growth could be made in fairly uncontroversial neoclassical economic terms of the fact that poorer people having a greater marginal propensity to consume, that is if they get money they will spend it rather than surpluses languishing around banks doing nothing. Ok this is hardly radical stuff, but thats what i reckon could have made it implementable since its fairly sound according to the economic assumptions that are held. The problem is that labour are definately not a 'dole scum' party and that choices like that are off the table as a result.

Also, Owen Jones whenever i've seen him on the telly seems to emphasise the impact that the benefits cap will have on in-work benefits, thus tacitly going along with the skivers/strivers or hardworking families rhetoric that prevails


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 13, 2013)

BigTom said:


> Yeah I know, I wonder if he'd even be able to drop Labour for tusc or similar at any point. Probably not.


 
No one with any brains would drop Labour for TUSC.

Drop Labour to work to encourage and support working class self organisation by all means but that is a different thing.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 13, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> No one with any brains would drop Labour for TUSC.
> 
> Drop Labour to work to encourage and support working class self organisation by all means but that is a different thing.


 
Yeah, somewhere down the line there might be some kind of left split or something from Labour that would mean he could stop supporting labour whilst continuing to remain with electoral politics.


----------



## Firky (Jan 13, 2013)

Andy (Sabcat) wrote this for Owen, it's good! Very good.

http://sabcat.com/identity-it-tells-you-almost-nothing/

Identity. It Tells You Almost Nothing.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 13, 2013)

BigTom said:


> Yeah, somewhere down the line there might be some kind of left split or something from Labour that would mean he could stop supporting labour whilst continuing to remain with electoral politics.


 
No there won't


----------



## Firky (Jan 13, 2013)

cesare said:


> He's all well meaning and sort of "nice" which means I feel guilty whenever I'm having a go at him, as if I'm tormenting a kitten or something. I said that to button a couple of nights back when the Moore row broke out. Button's response was "yeah, fuck that. It's bullying, AND?"
> 
> That whole well meaning/nice thing makes me pull punches, rather than go for it. Does anyone else feel like that?


 

He's like that Irish singer Mrs Doyle bakes a cake for. I suspect his bashful and youthful looks make a lot of people want to ruff his hair like a naughty puppy.

The said singer, with a puppy.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 13, 2013)

firky said:


> Andy (Sabcat) wrote this for Owen, it's good! Very good.
> 
> http://sabcat.com/identity-it-tells-you-almost-nothing/
> 
> Identity. It Tells You Almost Nothing.


 
I wonder what ever happened to Sharon Ebanks. She was a good activist for the BNP, ironically the sort that the left should have claimed.


----------



## Firky (Jan 13, 2013)

Didn't she start a family and call it all a day?


----------



## Zabo (Jan 14, 2013)

Last week in _The Independent _he sorted out the Indian rape case and all the causes of rape. Today he's offered a penetrating insight to the Mali war. It'll soon be over when they have read his polemic. Thank You Owen.

Is there no end his talents and worldy expertise?


----------



## cesare (Jan 14, 2013)

"Penetrating insight"


----------



## Firky (Jan 14, 2013)

Fuck me! He has blocked me because I asked him why he chose to mention that she is Muslim. The PCS agreed with me and said they didn't seem it necessary to mention it either.



> An inspiring new face for the trade union movement: @pcs_union in Wales is now led by a young Muslim woman



What a cunt.


----------



## Firky (Jan 14, 2013)

Can you ask him, cesare, he seems to like you 

Bet he says the predictable speil that muslim women are under-represented yada yada.


----------



## cesare (Jan 14, 2013)

firky said:


> Can you ask him, cesare, he seems to like you
> 
> Bet he says the predictable speil that muslim women are under-represented yada yada.


Does he? All I said was that it wasn't as clear as he was saying.


----------



## Firky (Jan 14, 2013)

Well he replies to you, which is more than he does to other people who ask him to clarify or expand upon something.


----------



## cesare (Jan 14, 2013)

firky said:


> Well he replies to you, which is more than he does to other people who ask him to clarify or expand upon something.


Oh, ok. Tbh, I just said a couple of things amongst hail of tweets he was batting back, and then wandered off


----------



## the button (Jan 14, 2013)

cesare said:


> He's all well meaning and sort of "nice" which means I feel guilty whenever I'm having a go at him, as if I'm tormenting a kitten or something. I said that to button a couple of nights back when the Moore row broke out. Button's response was "yeah, fuck that. It's bullying, AND?"
> 
> That whole well meaning/nice thing makes me pull punches, rather than go for it. Does anyone else feel like that?


He's an autolabourist prick whose response to criticism is "BUT THE TORIES."

Fuck him.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

Hang on, he also _calls on _miliband to do this and that now and then.


----------



## the button (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Hang on, he also _calls on _miliband to do this and that now and then.


He loves a good "call on," does Owen. I understand he's also pretty keen on "sending a message" to the government -- by returning a Labour government in 2015, for example.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

_Make them listen_


----------



## the button (Jan 14, 2013)

He's basically a cross between articul8 and the Andrex puppy.


----------



## cesare (Jan 14, 2013)

the button said:


> He's basically a cross between articul8 and the Andrex puppy.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

At least the puppy wipes his own arse after shiting everywhere.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 14, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Toynbee, articul8 and all the rest".


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 14, 2013)

i think that's pretty harsh on the andrex puppy.  it knows not what it's doing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> i think that's pretty harsh on the andrex puppy. it knows not what it's doing.


It had only attained an i'm having a shit consciousness. It needs the party to come and clean that shit up.


----------



## Firky (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> At least the puppy wipes his own arse after shiting everywhere.





V giod


----------



## Firky (Jan 14, 2013)

the button said:


> He's an autolabourist prick whose response to criticism is "BUT THE TORIES."
> 
> Fuck him.



Why can I never articulate myself like this!


----------



## Firky (Jan 14, 2013)

All I want to know is why he mentioned she was Muslim. 

Reminds me of when ninjaboy of all people left a job after a day because the manager welcomed the first black member of the sales team by getting everyone to give her a round of applause. 

The prick. 

As cesare siad he reduced it to pure tokenism. Focus on her skills jot her faith.


----------



## trevhagl (Jan 14, 2013)

i think Owen Jones is great and only on here would left wingers and anarchists manage to find something about him to criticise


----------



## trevhagl (Jan 14, 2013)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> So would people prefer that Owen Jones _not_ be on TV/radio so much? If so, why? What should replace him?


 
 no one , just anonymous bitching on forums


----------



## Firky (Jan 14, 2013)

trevhagl said:


> i think Owen Jones is great and only on here would left wingers and anarchists manage to find something about him to criticise



Name ten great things about our Owen.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 14, 2013)

firky said:


> Fuck me! He has blocked me because I asked him why he chose to mention that she is Muslim. The PCS agreed with me and said they didn't seem it necessary to mention it either.
> 
> 
> What a cunt.


 
He loves the 'trade union tops', so that tweet is unsurprising. I've never seen a single word directed against trade union structure - the enemies are "Tories and Liberals" (obviously) and "Blairites" (everything bad in Labour ever).

My favourite Owen Jones article was this one for The Sun.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3626754/.html



> Producers go out of their way to present the working class families in the most negative light possible — work-shy, unable to look after kids, bigoted, fag-smoking and the rest. The lives of real working class folk have been airbrushed from our screens. We used to be spoilt for choice. Think of The Likely Lads, The Rag Trade and Auf Wiedersehen Pet. These were classic British TV shows that celebrated working class culture.
> ...
> It has become frowned upon in this country to verbally attack women, ethnic minorities and gay people and rightly so. But it has become totally acceptable to vilify working class people. Look at how mainstream “chav”-bashing has become. Some say “chav” is just used to describe tracksuit-wearing teenagers. Tell that to those who say it stands for “Council House Associated Vermin”, a slur on the overwhelmingly decent ten million people in social housing. It’s a disgrace.


 
The Likely Lads and the Rag Trade display "the lives of _real_ working-class folk" not very well/in careful stereotype.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 14, 2013)

aye  paving the way for attacks on the sun's kinda verbage as an "attack on working class culture...."


----------



## Firky (Jan 14, 2013)

sihhi it does not stand for Council Housing Associated Vermin, that is utter bollocks. It comes from "charver", an ancient NE term (romany in origin IIRC) for anyone who was not afraid to go against the grain of what is deemed as socially acceptable or a bit of petty crime.

It's been used by people around here for years with no negative connotations. I can remember using it at first school to describe the kids who poked holes in your milk bottle tops ffs


----------



## sihhi (Jan 14, 2013)

firky said:


> sihhi it does not stand for Council Housing Associated Vermin, that is utter bollocks. It comes from "charver", an ancient NE term (romany in origin IIRC) for anyone who was not afraid to go against the grain of what is deemed as socially acceptable or a bit of petty crime.


 
You are writing as if I said that, OWEN JONES said it. It's in quotes!


----------



## Firky (Jan 14, 2013)

Sorry, I know_ you_ did not say it.

Even the BBC has a more accurate description

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/northeast/series7/chavas.shtml


----------



## Favelado (Jan 14, 2013)

Yeah, can't be a coincidence that there is a Spanish word "chaval" meaning "lad" which has been taken from gypsy culture and absorbed into Castillian.


----------



## Firky (Jan 14, 2013)

> KATHY FORD, NEWCASTLE
> I have been classed as a chaver for years now I am 19 and since I was about 12 I have been classed as one. I dont wear fake trainers and tracksuits nowt but the best for me. I may be a charver but I gan to college and have been going for 3 years now and plan to be a barrister. I gan to the new monkey and used to go every week. All I can say is dont judge a book by its cover.


----------



## Firky (Jan 14, 2013)

Owen Jones is a fucking prick, Council House Associated Vermin my fucking arse. How many other anagrams (thats not the rigbt word is it?  ) did he cross out before sticking to that one?

What a prick.


----------



## cesare (Jan 14, 2013)

firky said:


> sihhi it does not stand for Council Housing Associated Vermin, that is utter bollocks. It comes from "charver", an ancient NE term (romany in origin IIRC) for anyone who was not afraid to go against the grain of what is deemed as socially acceptable or a bit of petty crime.
> 
> It's been used by people around here for years with no negative connotations. I can remember using it at first school to describe the kids who poked holes in your milk bottle tops ffs


But the people that use it in a derogatory way about working class people aren't exactly interested in its etymology.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 14, 2013)

The worst thing is I've just ordered his book on Amazon and if he's got something as basic as that wrong I'm not in for a good read am I?


----------



## Firky (Jan 14, 2013)

cesare said:


> But the people that use it in a derogatory way about working class people aren't exactly interested in its etymology.


 
But why is perpetrating his made up definition instead of correcting people to it's true origin? It doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

firky said:


> sihhi it does not stand for Council Housing Associated Vermin, that is utter bollocks. It comes from "charver", an ancient NE term (romany in origin IIRC) for anyone who was not afraid to go against the grain of what is deemed as socially acceptable or a bit of petty crime.
> 
> It's been used by people around here for years with no negative connotations. I can remember using it at first school to describe the kids who poked holes in your milk bottle tops ffs


It's a different word.


----------



## cesare (Jan 14, 2013)

firky said:


> But why is perpetrating his made up definition instead of correcting people to it's true origin? It doesn't make sense to me.


Because he doesn't get the linguistic leap from Romany to everyday slang; so he's tried to make it into an acronym instead?

Kushti.


----------



## Firky (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's a different word.


 
Words evolve from other words, language is fluid. Sorry for patronising you, not my inteion, but the reassemble between chav and charv is far too close to say they're different words.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 14, 2013)

There are several daft acronym etymologies out there. There's the one about "fuck" being "Fornication Under King's Consent". They're invariably S.H.I.T.E.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 14, 2013)

firky said:


> Words evolve from other words, language is fluid. Sorry for patronising you, not my inteion, but the reassemble between chav and charv is far too close to say they're different words.


 
When I was growing up a bit further north 'chav' was a word used for little pesky kids. Also used as a verb for stealing. 'Did you chav that?'.


----------



## Firky (Jan 14, 2013)

weepiper said:


> When I was growing up a bit further north 'chav' was a word used for little pesky kids. Also used as a verb for stealing. 'Did you chav that?'.


 
Twoccing little shites


----------



## sihhi (Jan 14, 2013)

Favelado said:


> The worst thing is I've just ordered his book on Amazon and if he's got something as basic as that wrong I'm not in for a good read am I?


 

Part of a review from Socialist History Society:

"At its best Chavs reads like The Road To Wigan Pier for modern Britain; and like Orwell, Jones is sometimes prone to sweeping generalisations. For instance, when Jones visits Ashington in Northum-berland we are told that if you ‘take away the heart of a community [by deindustrialisation] it will wilt and begin to die’. Indeed, a local resident confirms that ‘the community just disintegrated’. However, Jones also believes that ‘there’s a real community spirit in the air’. Whilst these two statements might not be contradictory, the book does sometimes feel like it is trying to make two opposite points at once. For instance, Jones mocks the middle class obsession with teenage pregnan-cies, but also admits that ‘Britain has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Western Europe. It is also impossible to deny the class dimension of this issue’.  
...   unlike Orwell, the author’s ambiguous class position is never fully scrutinised. For instance, in a passage about the middle class complexion of Parliament, Jones neglects to mention his own former role as a parliamentary researcher."


----------



## Firky (Jan 14, 2013)

My family is from Ashington, I worked there, I know it very well. I am even a member of the Fell Em Doon club... do I really want to read further than that or will I burst a blood vessel?

Actually there is a massive sense of community in Ashington, no one talks to the police or goes to them for help. Everything is sorted within the community; it's a shit hole but if you're known there it is one of the greatest places you could live. So long as you don't upset the Purvis family.



Favelado said:


> There are several daft acronym etymologies out there. There's the one about "fuck" being "Fornication Under King's Consent". They're invariably S.H.I.T.E.


 
I never knew about the chaval thing btw, made a mental note of that.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 14, 2013)

Well, I didn't expect Owen to take a bullet in the throat for the POUM anyway.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 14, 2013)

firky said:


> I never knew about the chaval thing btw, made a mental note of that.


 

It's an informal, non-pejorative word in frequent conversational usage.


----------



## Santino (Jan 14, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Yeah, can't be a coincidence that there is a Spanish word "chaval" meaning "lad" which has been taken from gypsy culture and absorbed into Castillian.


It might be a coincidence.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 14, 2013)

Santino said:


> It might be a coincidence.


 
Well, I guess it might. I'll employ a more suitable modal verb for you next time Santino. You're welcome.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

firky said:


> sihhi it does not stand for Council Housing Associated Vermin, that is utter bollocks. It comes from "charver", an ancient NE term (romany in origin IIRC) for anyone who was not afraid to go against the grain of what is deemed as socially acceptable or a bit of petty crime.
> 
> It's been used by people around here for years with no negative connotations. I can remember using it at first school to describe the kids who poked holes in your milk bottle tops ffs


 
Council House Associated Vermin was in use long long before Owen Jones wrote Chavs, I heard it being used as a etymology for the word Chav at least 10 years ago now. It's still an urban myth that this is what Chav stands for.

I think you're clutching at straws trying to give him shit for that.

Incidentally round my area it's a word I never heard used until it started appearing in the papers. The term of choice for somethign similar to Chav was townie or perhaps scratter.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Jan 15, 2013)

I first heard Charver being used to describe young lads from the West End of Newcastle in the early 90's, they would often wear a sheepskin coat and have a small pencil style moustache (known as a tack-tash), and were often in possession of something to sell (tack/black or a car radio/item of clothing nicked off a washing line) and would often be armed with a knife or occasionally a sawn-off shotgun.
It seems a younger generation came through replacing the sheep skin with burberry gear and a cap.

As for Chav, I think I first heard that used in early 2000 by someone from Leicestershire or Nottingham who used it as an acronym for Council House Associated Vermin. (which seemed a bit of a play on C.H.U.D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.H.U.D.)



firky said:


> My family is from Ashington, I worked there, I know it very well. I am even a member of the Fell Em Doon club...


 
I used to go to the Beer Pigs Scooter Club do's there back in the 80's, is it still standing?


----------



## Serotonin (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Incidentally round my area it's a word I never heard used until it started appearing in the papers. The term of choice for somethign similar to Chav was townie or perhaps scratter.



It was Townie round my way too. If you were a bit alternative you got called a jitter.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 15, 2013)

"Chavvy" is used like "mate" in at least one Irvine Welsh book, predating when I first heard the word "chav" used pejoratively (in 2004, and I only know this cos I was on holiday and someone had a copy of The Daily Mail).


----------



## articul8 (Jan 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> For instance, in a passage about the middle class complexion of Parliament, Jones neglects to mention his own former role as a parliamentary researcher."


So the mere fact of being a parliamentary researcher renders him middle class?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

You think _being an MP_ doesn't make you middle class though.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

Does that mean Dennis Skinner is more middle-class than Jacob Rees-Mogg or Zac Goldsmith, because he's been an MP for longer than them?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 15, 2013)

articul8 said:


> So the mere fact of being a parliamentary researcher renders him middle class?


 
His CV and trajectory indicates his class fully. Stop being stupid.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Does that mean Dennis Skinner is more middle-class than Jacob Rees-Mogg or Zac Goldsmith, because he's been an MP for longer than them?


There's a line, once you're over it - and all MPs are over it - then you're over it. Not interested in any such silliness as who is more m/c. And it's not (not solely anyway) about the level of wages before you throw Dennis Skinner takes the av wage or something similar at me, it's about your role in the political arm of the the state. Or i suppose we could potentially have 650 working class MPs couldn't we? The fact of them being MPs changing nothing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

articul8 said:


> So the mere fact of being a parliamentary researcher renders him middle class?


How much time have you spent in parliament this last week then?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How much time have you spent in parliament this last week then?


a bit.  Does that make me a bit middle class?  I don't see being an MP is enough to make you middle class - was Terry Fields middle class?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

MPs are middle class. Even ones with scouse accents.

Is your class analysis really this shallow?


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> MPs are middle class. Even ones with scouse accents.


 
wasn't he on a workers wage?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> wasn't he on a workers wage?


Probably. More to the point,_ he was an MP_. A Member of Parliament, the political body that fronts up the capitalist system and whose function is to ensure the conditions for its continued reproduction. Of course, i can see why someone who believes in socialism through parliament would believe that it's possible for an MP not to be middle class, or playing a role in that continued reproduction


----------



## articul8 (Jan 15, 2013)

"socialism through parliament" - I don't believe there is any purely parliamentary route to socialism, and nor did Fields (who did take a workers wage).


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

articul8 said:


> "socialism through parliament" - I don't believe there is any purely parliamentary route to socialism, and nor did Fields (who did take a workers wage).


I wasn't talking to you. I do note your _purely parliamentary route _though.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Probably. More to the point,_ he was an MP_. A Member of Parliament, the political body that fronts up the capitalist system and whose function is to ensure the conditions for its continued reproduction. Of course, i can see why someone who believes in socialism through parliament would believe that it's possible for an MP not to be middle class, or playing a role in that continued reproduction


 
the only people I think are middle class are social workers and people who work in bookshops. Other than that it's the workers versus the fat controller. I'm lumpen like that. 

eta: Oh, and people who subscribe to Red Pepper.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I wasn't talking to you. I do note your _purely parliamentary route _though.


note it?  Why?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 15, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> the only people I think are middle class are social workers and people who work in bookshops. Other than that it's the workers versus the fat controller. I'm lumpen like that.


shit- I used to work in a bookshop.  Really not doing well on the prole-o-meter


----------



## Firky (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Council House Associated Vermin was in use long long before Owen Jones wrote Chavs, I heard it being used as a etymology for the word Chav at least 10 years ago now. It's still an urban myth that this is what Chav stands for.


 
So owen didn't invent the acroynm? I'll forgive him for that much but 10 years ago isn't very long ago at all (maybe feels like it for you because you were about 13). It's a still a load of shite to say that it stands for council HA vermin. It's only in recent times, i.e. the last ten years or so that it has been used as a slur in the way he describes. 

Like the lass training to be a barrister said who calls her self a chav / charv, there's a lot more to it than Little Britain's image of a chav and what our Owen says it is.

And of course you're not going to hear it around your way until the papers used it. It is regional dialect.

Zote!


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 15, 2013)

articul8 said:


> shit- I used to work in a bookshop. Really not doing well on the prole-o-meter


 
It's just class envy on my part. It would have been my dream job to work in a secondhand bookshop . . . with no customers.

Alas, it wasn't to be.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

articul8 said:


> note it? Why?


Because it's another example of you attempting to have your cake and to eat it too:

I want to tear down the bourgeois institutions (_look how radical i am_) - partly through those same bourgeois institutions (_look how sensible i am, any jobs going?_).


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> the only people I think are middle class are social workers and people who work in bookshops. Other than that it's the workers versus the fat controller. I'm lumpen like that.
> 
> eta: Oh, and people who subscribe to Red Pepper.


I saw someone reading New Internationalist on the train the other day:

_Well, you know how the English upper classes is thick and ignorant_
_(that's true)_
_And you seen the scum from Notting Hill and Moseley_
_They called CND?_


----------



## articul8 (Jan 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Because it's another example of you attempting to have your cake and to eat it too:
> 
> I want to tear down the bourgeois institutions (_look how radical i am_) - partly through those same bourgeois institutions (_look how sensible i am, any jobs going?_).


 
There is no contradiction between recognising the ideological and political significance of bourgeois democracy and attempting to use it insofar as that's possible for a politics of class struggle.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 15, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> It's just class envy on my part. It would have been my dream job to work in a secondhand bookshop . . . with no customers.
> 
> Alas, it wasn't to be.


 
Mine too - but alas I was working resentfully for a big chain as a seasonal blow-in on shit wages to sell (mostly) shit books to (mostly) shit people.


----------



## Firky (Jan 15, 2013)

sunnysidedown

Can't quote you for some reason, it's still there and has had a lick of paint recently. I haven't been in since my old man took bad though


----------



## sunnysidedown (Jan 15, 2013)

articul8 said:


> There is no contradiction between recognising the ideological and political significance of bourgeois democracy and attempting to use it insofar as that's possible for a politics of class struggle.



The old using a turd to wipe your arse trick.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Jan 15, 2013)

firky said:


> sunnysidedown
> 
> Can't quote you for some reason, it's still there and has had a lick of paint recently. I haven't been in since my old man took bad though



Sorry to hear about your old man. 
I think the last time I was there was about 88, certainly needed a lick of paint back then.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 15, 2013)

sunnysidedown said:


> The old using a turd to wipe your arse trick.


That is a shit analogy


----------



## Firky (Jan 15, 2013)

sunnysidedown said:


> Sorry to hear about your old man.
> I think the last time I was there was about 88, certainly needed a lick of paint back then.


 
Some nostalgia for you!

http://www.mikcritchlow.com/photo_9178955.html#photos_id=9178955

Ashington in 88:

http://www.mikcritchlow.com/section284514_470038.html

I can still remember the smell of the pit and all the coal fires, sulphurous smell and the air was thick and yellow. Looking at the photos now it feels like a different world altogether. I have boxes and boxes of 35mm slides of Pegswood and Ashington from way back. Come to think about it, they're at my brothers.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 15, 2013)

firky said:


> My family is from Ashington, I worked there, I know it very well. I am even a member of the Fell Em Doon club... do I really want to read further than that or will I burst a blood vessel?


 
I've only flicked through it in a bookshop, so I can't say for certain, but _Chavs: The Demonisation of the working-class _appeared like a request to the middle-class "to play nicely with the working-class" they're not as bad as you think. It seemed a weak history of the past 30 years, with some very sloppy cultural analysis.

It also has a long chapter about Parliament being shorn of working-class MPs and this being terrible and it points out how many MPs are former researchers meaning they come from a particular sector of university-educated society. So as some have suggested here, he believes there are working-class MPs and that their numbers should be increased.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I've only flicked through it in a bookshop, so I can't say for certain, but _Chavs: The Demonisation of the working-class _appeared like a request to the middle-class "to play nicely with the working-class" they're not as bad as you think. It seemed a weak history of the past 30 years, with some very sloppy cultural analysis.


 
I think that's a bit of a harsh assessment. My biggest problem with it is that it's padded out with lots of pretty pointless quotes from celebrity interviewee's, there's a lot of instances where he says "and I asked my buddy Polly Toynbee who recalled - whatever" when he could've just made the same point himself without having to call up someone to validate it with a quote. It'd have saved a lot of unnecessary repetition that starts to wear you down towards the end if he had. That's partially a stylistic criticism, but I also think it was written with an audience in mind and for a certain type of arsehole who judges the merit of an argument by how many guardian journalist or Labour MP opinions you can get to back you up that sort of style of quoting helps.

But the chapters at the beginning talking about how people view their own class are good, and I think a proper class awareness is a crucially important thing to assert after years of post-class end of history neo-liberal hegemony, the bits that deal with the slide of Labour party toward New Labour were good but could've been more scathing, and there's a load of other bits that I liked too that I can't be arsed listing. And I'm grateful that someone's actually addressing these class-based issues in a way that reaches more people that the incredibly narrow confines of the radical media, because it's sorely needed, even if they are a Labour party hack and a careerist and so on.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I think that's a bit of a harsh assessment. My biggest problem with it is that it's padded out with lots of pretty pointless quotes from celebrity interviewee's, there's a lot of instances where he says "and I asked my buddy Polly Toynbee who recalled - whatever" when he could've just made the same point himself without having to call up someone to validate it with a quote. It'd have saved a lot of unnecessary repetition that starts to wear you down towards the end if he had. That's partially a stylistic criticism, but I also think it was written with an audience in mind and for a certain type of arsehole who judges the merit of an argument by how many guardian journalist or Labour MP opinions you can get to back you up that sort of style of quoting helps.
> 
> But the chapters at the beginning talking about how people view their own class are good, and I think a proper class awareness is a crucially important thing to assert after years of post-class end of history neo-liberal hegemony, the bits that deal with the slide of Labour party toward New Labour were good but could've been more scathing, and there's a load of other bits that I liked too that I can't be arsed listing. And I'm grateful that someone's actually addressing these class-based issues in a way that reaches more people that the incredibly narrow confines of the radical media, because it's sorely needed, even if they are a Labour party hack and a careerist and so on.


 
I may change my view if I get the chance to read it in full.

Question to Delroy: Do you think it's a book aimed at middle-class people or working-class people?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I may change my view if I get the chance to read it in full.
> 
> Question to Delroy: Do you think it's a book aimed at middle-class people or working-class people?


 
Middle-class people, 100%. A book with this many quotes from Polly Toynbee and Simon Heffer is not for the working class. It did feel like reading one massive guardian editorial at times though. Although it's been a bigger success than I suppose they anticipated and it's probably reached working class people, I certainly reckon a lot of the stuff he's documenting will strike a chord with working class people, even if he's not writing it pariticularly well in some cases. I reckon the demonisation of working class people is one of the central features of political life in this country and that it's a crucially important issue. He's picked a vital topic to write a book about.

I reckon it could've been done without all the quotes from the middle-class media circus, and all the same substantive points made, in a more concise 120 pages or something, and sold at a cheap price maybe, perhaps that would've been better.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Middle-class people, 100%. A book with this many quotes from Polly Toynbee and Simon Heffer is not for the working class. It did feel like reading one massive guardian editorial at times though. Although it's been a bigger success than I suppose they anticipated and _*it's probably reached working class people*_, I certainly reckon a lot of the stuff he's documenting will strike a chord with working class people, even if he's not writing it pariticularly well in some cases. I reckon the demonisation of working class people is one of the central features of political life in this country and that it's a crucially important issue. He's picked a vital topic to write a book about.
> 
> I reckon it could've been done without all the quotes from the middle-class media circus, and all the same substantive points made, in a more concise 120 pages or something, and sold at a cheap price maybe, perhaps that would've been better.


 
It has - it's on the reading material for FBU's rep training courses, and Unison's U magazine had it as a prize some months back.

Some of those he quotes from are outright absurd. He quotes approvingly from Fiona Millar, adviser to Cherie Blair, and basically a Blairist but an anti-private school one that once private schools are nationalised "all that demonization of poor children, or children from different races, is broken down"


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 15, 2013)

The book is fundamentally dishonest. Owen visits working class communities and concludes that the Tories and new Labour are bad. A statist lefty top down labour government is the solution and that 30 years of neo liberalism has failed the even dent the values and confidence of the proles he bumps into.


----------



## Firky (Jan 15, 2013)

You're a bit of fan of him, Delroy, why?

I have wanted to read his book but I know it would anger me. Maybe I should.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 15, 2013)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The book is fundamentally dishonest. Owen visits working class communities and concludes that the Tories and new Labour are bad. A statist lefty top down labour government is the solution and that 30 years of neo liberalism has failed the even dent the values and confidence of the proles he bumps into.


 
It's dishonesty is because it's selective though rather than being an outright fabrication imo.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 16, 2013)

firky said:


> You're a bit of fan of him, Delroy, why?


 
I swear to god I'm not uncritically trying to kiss his arse, it's just it seems like people are tripping over themselves desperately reaching for anything possible to give him shit, and I think in a lot of cases that's unwarranted. And I think that's to do with posturing for a small group of people on the internet, like there's a perpetual arms race on to see who can hate well known left-wing writers the most, as by doing this it somehow proves how much more ahead of the curve, more intelligent, and so on, they are. It's like being 16 and listening to a load of middle-class moshers trying out-do each other by only liking incredibly obscure bands and anything that's not unknown is by definition is automatically shit(hur hur you like tool, don't you even know tool are shit, lol what an idiot). In fact in some instances it borders on the ridiculous - like for instance you giving him a hard time for using a phrase "council house associated vermin" as if he genuinely was claiming that's where the word Chav derives from, which he wasn't btw, or like he'd invented the acronym. You do realise there's a chunk of the book actually dedicated to unravelling the etymology of the word chav? It's not as perfect and comprehensive as it could be, but it's a good introduction for a leyman.

It's criticising the book not coz it's bad, or coz you've even read it, but beacuse of who is he. There's plenty of scope for critique but I think a lot of this is fucking ridiculous.

I agree that the solutions he offers aren't enough, some sort of Bennite Labourism in this day and age isn't going to suffice imo there needs to be some new idea's that can go beyond this nostaligic Labourism, but that's a difference in opinion - I still think his book is a good polemnic account of anti working class bigotry in the media in Britain. I also think his media appearances are good because he goes out there and pushes class politics, and it might not be the exact type of class politics I believe in but fuck me I'm happy enough to see him do it. I also think that his comments attacking the Tories for the welfare stuff they're doing are very good, even if he does (as someone on here has already rightly pointed out) always use the "most people are on benefits are in work" line which validate the argument that those out of work deserve to have their benefits cut. My auntie who's an elderly, blind, disabled, widow was going on and on at me for weeks asking me about Owen Jones after his comments to IDS, and scorn all you like but those comments have given hope to people in my family who are suffering as a result of this government. And he should get some credit for that, which reluctantly some do, but the default position is just total animosity. And after 30 years of neo-liberalism I'm genuinely relieved that there's people pushing class politics in the media who exist outside the ever decreasing circles of the radical left discourse, which is totally fucking moribund and irrelevant.



Smokeandsteam said:


> The book is fundamentally dishonest. Owen visits working class communities and concludes that the Tories and new Labour are bad. A statist lefty top down labour government is the solution and that 30 years of neo liberalism has failed the even dent the values and confidence of the proles he bumps into.


 
Tbh I'm not an anarchist and I'm not scared of "statist lefty top down Labour government" coz my entire life has been a world where socialism is dead and we've known nothing but thatcherism and rampant narcissistic individualism and bigotry in our political culture. I'd much much rather have a "statist lefty top down Labour government" of a mildly social democratic or bennite complexion than to continue indefinitely with the current state of affairs, with the neo-liberal right hegemonic and in control of both parties and the far-left utterly irrelevant, moribund and powerless. I don't think that would solve all our problems, but I think the most pressing political task facing us is to be dismantling the post-1979 neo-liberal consensus that has so comprehensively wiped out left wing politics as a major force in this country.

My problem and where I differ from Owen Jones is that I don't think the Labour party will ever allow politics of that sort to be promoted as policy, and even if they did captal woudn't allow it to function (see my posts further up the thread with shihhi) I think the historical moment for that struggle came and went in the 80's, and I don't think it's feasible today. It's a nice idea, but it's not likely to happen.

Speaking of nice ideas that aren't likely to happen I don't think any anti-statist or libertarian political tendency is ever going attract enough popular support in this country to make a discernable impact on British politics. Infact I think class-struggle anarchism will die out alongside the trots in my lifetime, and anarchism perhaps in 20 years or so will mean privilige-checking liberal identity politics, and be quite hostile to class politics. It might be good fun to be part of, no doubt there are some individual campaigns and issues here and there that they might take up and that could be very helpful, and more power to them, but for actually challenging the sovereignty of the british state? No, there's more chance Laurie Penny would have me as her boyfriend than that ever happening.

Thing is I'd love to be less cynical and I'd love to be able to participate in far-left groups with some vague notion of it actually having a practical influence on the politics of the country I live in, but this is just the world as I found it, I can't help the fact I was born into a generation where left-wing politics has declined to this extent. In this sort of environment we should be grateful for every owen jones we can get.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 16, 2013)

I'm not an anarchist either Delroy. And whilst you and Jones might pine for the election of a 'radical' Labour Government when given the choice the working class has rejected it. One of the reasons for this is that the model has been an abject failure whenever it has been implemented over the last 100 years or so. One of the reasons it's been an abject failure is that it's normally implemented by people like Jones, who despite being middle class, know what's best for us.

I agree that the left is dying (in fact it may already be dead and we haven't noticed yet). One of the key reasons for this is that people like Jones (a high profile figure in relative terms) continue to flog the dead horse. And anyone casually interested in hearing alternatives to the current system hears Jones setting out the case for the cobweb left and moves on.

The left urgently needs new ideas, it's needs to get competitive, it needs, for once, to orientate to the class it espouses to lead and to reflect its ideas and demands and interests. It needs to decide what's its even in the game for. Jones contributes nothing to this. He uses his position to bolster the rejected ideas of a small self serving group of professional lefts remote from the class. 

As someone once said its socialism or barbarism. If Jones and his ilk is really the best we have to offer  its barbarism here we come.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 16, 2013)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I agree that the left is dying (in fact it may already be dead and we haven't noticed yet).


 
Quite a few of us have noticed it to be fair


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I swear to god I'm not uncritically trying to kiss his arse, it's just it seems like people are tripping over themselves desperately reaching for anything possible to give him shit, and I think in a lot of cases that's unwarranted. And I think that's to do with posturing for a small group of people on the internet, like there's a perpetual arms race on to see who can hate well known left-wing writers the most, as by doing this it somehow proves how much more ahead of the curve, more intelligent, and so on, they are. It's like being 16 and listening to a load of middle-class moshers trying out-do each other by only liking incredibly obscure bands and anything that's not unknown is by definition is automatically shit(hur hur you like tool, don't you even know tool are shit, lol what an idiot). In fact in some instances it borders on the ridiculous - like for instance you giving him a hard time for using a phrase "council house associated vermin" as if he genuinely was claiming that's where the word Chav derives from, which he wasn't btw, or like he'd invented the acronym. You do realise there's a chunk of the book actually dedicated to unravelling the etymology of the word chav? It's not as perfect and comprehensive as it could be, but it's a good introduction for a leyman.
> 
> It's criticising the book not coz it's bad, or coz you've even read it, but beacuse of who is he. There's plenty of scope for critique but I think a lot of this is fucking ridiculous.
> 
> ...


 
Why and how has he managed to get into the positions that he has? (And i don't mean the usual elite contacts here - i'm talking about the content of what he writes and argues). I think it's because the powerful should feel challenged (at least on an intellectual level) by the sort of class analysis that you say he puts across. I think they're not for a number of reasons, chiefly:

a) they know the soft-bennite stuff that you talk about and that he does is historically dead as both a response to capital and as an organising point around which to rally - there is no body in a position that will argue for try or to implement it on national level and that global conditions will not allow it to happen and

b) his favoured path for achieving soft-bennism is one that they are very comfortable with for various reasons - labour being a party of the rich and super-rich (leaving aside wider questions about parties and so on) being entirely committed to the policies that the powerful support and want (albeit with different _public_ emphasis) and that he and his politics represents nothing whatsoever in the centres of power in the labour party, and as such he can play a useful role in maintaining the appearance but not the content of a left-party open to all.

c) the _struggle for soft-bennism_ necessarily reduces peoples vision down to a certain ways of doing things, it argues that this is the only possible and legitimate way things can ever really change - despite any sort of verbal commitment to supporting individual direct action (which aren't really direct actions as they are aimed to pressure change through and at the state level) - much the same way that Obama and that madness helped shut down much left-wing activity and organising in the US. Once you're onto that territory you might as well be just be solely making the argument (as someone said recently) _but the tories..._

Now, given that it's the powerful (Alexander Lebedev!) who have given him these jobs what does that say? I'll stand by what i said months ago, he's genuine _and that's the problem. _


----------



## sihhi (Jan 16, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Tbh I'm not an anarchist and I'm not scared of "statist lefty top down Labour government" coz my entire life has been a world where socialism is dead and we've known nothing but thatcherism and rampant narcissistic individualism and bigotry in our political culture. I'd much much rather have a "statist lefty top down Labour government" of a mildly social democratic or bennite complexion than to continue indefinitely with the current state of affairs, with the neo-liberal right hegemonic and in control of both parties and the far-left utterly irrelevant, moribund and powerless. I don't think that would solve all our problems, but I think the most pressing political task facing us is to be dismantling the post-1979 neo-liberal consensus that has so comprehensively wiped out left wing politics as a major force in this country.


 


But you're writing as if no one here or in the wider world would prefer Bennism to Cameron/Clegg - on a theoretical level give everyone the option and probably 95% on these boards and in the wider working-class would choose the former.

I don't want to open all cylinders on you, but it feels like a smart ugly trick to describe "a post-_1979_ neoliberal consensus" as if Benn wasn't part of that consensus while in government pre-1979.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

Good point, and i'd ask Delroy - whose consensus? At what level?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


> But you're writing as if no one here or in the wider world would prefer Bennism to Cameron/Clegg - on a theoretical level give everyone the option and probably 95% on these boards and in the wider working-class would choose the former.
> 
> I don't want to open all cylinders on you, but it feels like a smart ugly trick to describe "a post-_1979_ neoliberal consensus" as if Benn wasn't part of that consensus while in government pre-1979.


Benn was opposed to the IMF spending cuts and the monetarist turn - although he chose to argue it out in cabinet rather than resign.  But it's entirely true to say that neoliberalism didn't begin with Maggie.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

What does 'argue it out' mean? And what does it mean when the exemplar of popular labour-leftism, the example to follow today 'argues it out' rather than resign or effect a break? Is this merely a personal failing or something that is inherent to labourism? Something that it develops through it's very functioning? And where does that leave modern day benns suchb as yourself who start from an much much worse position, benns who are already isolated and ineffectual before you even start?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


> But you're writing as if no one here or in the wider world would prefer Bennism to Cameron/Clegg - on a theoretical level give everyone the option and probably 95% on these boards and in the wider working-class would choose the former.


 
I appreciate that, I wrongly interpreted what smokeandsteam said about anti-statist to mean something else, and anyone in their right mind would clearly prefer bennite paradise over what we have now. But I accept that it's not going to happen, I only put it out there hypothetically. That nostaglic bennism is something Labour quite cynically use as a bit of left cover as they've gone about their business invading countries, PFI hospitals, academy schools, etc and I don't like that, but at the same time it's _always_ been a bit like that, the Labour left (and Militant too) were always apologists for this setup.




sihhi said:


> I don't want to open all cylinders on you, but it feels like a smart ugly trick to describe "a post-_1979_ neoliberal consensus" as if Benn wasn't part of that consensus while in government pre-1979.


 
Again I totally accept that, Benn was part of the consensus the test came when he had to pass cuts or leave the cabinet and challenge the leadership, but he stayed in. and I don't buy that stuff in his diaries about how he humbly put his career in the hands of his constituents in Bristol at a meeting, that's just abdication.

and butchers I'll reply in a minute, but get it right it's militant bennism, not soft bennism


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

Pretty sure i have it right


----------



## sihhi (Jan 16, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> and butchers I'll reply in a minute, but get it right it's militant bennism, not soft bennism


 
Militant Bennism would be attacking Lebedev and organising for nationalising the press and mass media. That was Scargill's approach - a respectable militant, ultimately Bennist approach.

Soft Bennism is something closer to Owen Jones: calling for a people's honours system and encouraging those people to do the fighting against the system.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Pretty sure i have it right


 
Stalinist means for Bennite ends.


----------



## Random (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> benns who are already isolated and ineffectual before you even start?


 Beanns


----------



## articul8 (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What does 'argue it out' mean? And what does it mean when the exemplar of popular labour-leftism, the example to follow today 'argues it out' rather than resign or effect a break? Is this merely a personal failing or something that is inherent to labourism? Something that it develops through it's very functioning? And where does that leave modern day benns suchb as yourself who start from an much much worse position, benns who are already isolated and ineffectual before you even start?


 
There are no Benns today - he's trajectory was only possible because of a very different scale of w/c organisation and militancy.   But you ask a good question, what are the conditions where a break from labourism can be made effective?  I'm still thinking that through.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 16, 2013)

articul8 said:


> There are no Benns today - he's trajectory was only possible because of a very different scale of w/c organisation and militancy. But you ask a good question, what are the conditions where a break from labourism can be made effective? I'm still thinking that through.


 
Didn't you willingly enter Labourism after being outside it? Now you're wondering how to break from it?


----------



## Random (Jan 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Didn't you willingly enter Labourism after being outside it? Now you're wondering how to break from it?


It's like someone who willingly entered the bed and snuggled under the quilt, under historical conditions under which a warm bed offered the only realistic hope in modern Britain of sheltering the productive energies from the attacks of entropy. Now hours later, under worsening attacks from both the forces of want breakfast, and the forces of full bladder, the bed entryist is reconsidering his position, wondering what will be the right time to leave the refuge of the warm bed, to attempt to reestablish a warm refuge based on a united front of trousers and woolly jumper.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why and how has he managed to get into the positions that he has? (And i don't mean the usual elite contacts here - i'm talking about the content of what he writes and argues). I think it's because the powerful should feel challenged (at least on an intellectual level) by the sort of class analysis that you say he puts across. I think they're not for a number of reasons, chiefly:
> 
> a) they know the soft-bennite stuff that you talk about and that he does is historically dead as both a response to capital and as an organising point around which to rally - there is no body in a position that will argue for try or to implement it on national level and that global conditions will not allow it to happen and...


 
Ok I don't dispute this, you know I don't coz we've surely discussed this before. The moment passed for that years ago. It's one thing to be a trotskyite 1917 re-enactment society but I'd rather be that than a 1983 general election one.



butchersapron said:


> b) his favoured path for achieving soft-bennism is one that they are very comfortable with for various reasons - labour being a party of the rich and super-rich (leaving aside wider questions about parties and so on) being entirely committed to the policies that the powerful support and want (albeit with different _public_ emphasis) and that he and his politics represents nothing whatsoever in the centres of power in the labour party, and as such he can play a useful role in maintaining the appearance but not the content of a left-party open to all.


 
Owen Jones has opinions that are just about on the right side of respectable enough to be palatable to the Lebedevs and Sky News and co - and at the same time because it isn't linked to an actual movement, unlike say Tony Benn or Arthur Scargill, those views can be tolerated a small opening in the respectable debate. It's a concession, partly down to how class has become more of an public issue as a result of recession and austerity, I think that's also probably a factor in why his book sold so well, that and the riots. By comparison Tony Benn in the early 1980's was never indulged like Owen Jones is today, not because of his wild views but because at that time he had manouvered himself into being the de facto figurehead for a substantial "power centre" in the party. That power centre doesn't exist now. Jones is a writer and not a politician, although I wouldn't rule out that he does become an MP at some point, he doesn't have that clout. On top of that, unless a million people suddenly join the Labour party or something, that power centre isn't going to come back.

Owen Jones does get quite a lot of flak compared to some, that "braying jackal" clip is wonderful, but the mere fact he's actually able maintain the profile that he has shows just how confident powerful people are that _soft bennism_ poses no threat, not even in it's ability to shift the Labour party marginally to the left. But on the other hand are you trying to argue that the left, the specifically class orientated radical left, doesn't benefit in any way from having a half-decent pundit with a platform in the mainstream media, who's competent enough to actually challenge the overwhelming tide of right-wing bullshit we're subject too without ritually embarassing themselves (see Laurie Penny thread)? I don't accept that at all, whether or not his position is an example of tendencies and power structures, that I know you're dead keen on showing us and I'm very grateful for, that are malign and that socialist should be working against I still think there's scope for him to say things in the media that are critical and good for him for actually doing it.



butchersapron said:


> c) the _struggle for soft-bennism_ necessarily reduces peoples vision down to a certain ways of doing things, it argues that this is the only possible and legitimate way things can ever really change - despite any sort of verbal commitment to supporting individual direct action (which aren't really direct actions as they are aimed to pressure change through and at the state level) - much the same way that Obama and that madness helped shut down much left-wing activity and organising in the US.


 
Well that's an institutional feature of British politics. First past the post, an historically unique anachronistic constitutional setup that's deliberately vague, all these things give us a system that it does not really function like most other multi-party liberal democracies do, and Labour is integral part of that, no different to how the Whigs were once part of that*. Miliband et al. Verbal commitments to supporting individual direct action aren't really what I'm looking for in Owen Jones, got to tell you the truth, and I couldn't care a bit whether he does give me permission to riot or not. The danger lies in the fact because Owen Jones is tribally Labour, that whatever class consciousness his media work and writing can help stimulate it'll all end up being funnelled back into the Labour party, where it can be safely contained until sterile then diffused.

And the comparison with Obama is interesting. Owen Jones is Obama-like  steady on lad. I do think that the US ruling class were actually very fortunate to have a charismatic candidate like Obama that neutralise any populist, left-ish response to the big crisis. Can you imagine how things would've panned out if McCain had won in 2008 and Palin in 2012?  It'd probably be like Greece by now if the ruling class hadn't financially and politcally backed Obama the last two elections.



butchersapron said:


> Once you're onto that territory you might as well be just be solely making the argument (as someone said recently) _but the tories.. _


 
That's absolutely right. I am very wary of this - my parents are the sort of people who vote Labour_ at every single election _regardless of how outraged they are at what they do because they're scared to death of the Tories. A lot of that generation who lived through the sharp end of Thatcher still think like that. And it is really damaging. I don't like how much of the Labour left is reduced down to Bennite platitudes because truthfully I do feel more affinity to that tradition than any trot stuff, and furthermore I reckon even the corniest and most insincere Old Labour shtick still has more support amongst working class people in this country than any derivation of Marxism or Leninism. There's a good working class political tradition in this country that's culturally, ideologically and intellectually monopolised by a neo-liberal Labour party, which is a shame to be honest.



butchersapron said:


> Now, given that it's the powerful (Alexander Lebedev!) who have given him these jobs what does that say? I'll stand by what i said months ago, he's genuine _and that's the problem. _


 
I reckon he's utterly sincere, that's probably one of the reasons why I'm inclined to defend him. And I think that all these problems go way beyond Owen Jones tbh I don't feel any need at all to attack him.

*well, obvioulsy not _exactly_ like the Whigs, that'd be stupid... 

As an after-thought I think all this will play out post 2015 in a really interesting way. If there's scope for a wider left re-groupment it'll be then, one that's away from the Labour party, not committed to exclusively parliamentary means, classed based and so on. I think Labour is going to continue to keep an electoral stranglehold on anything left wing up until the Tories are out, then there'll be crippling disappointment as Labour make cuts and behave like Tories the whole time they're in power. Like the Lib Dems over tuition fee's only a million times worse, especially because the pretense of soft bennism that Owen Jones likes to keep up will be ripped to shreds.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 16, 2013)

> As an after-thought I think all this will play out post 2015 in a really interesting way. If there's scope for a wider left re-groupment it'll be then, one that's away from the Labour party, not committed to exclusively parliamentary means, classed based and so on. I think Labour is going to continue to keep an electoral stranglehold on anything left wing up until the Tories are out, then there'll be crippling disappointment as Labour make cuts and behave like Tories the whole time they're in power. Like the Lib Dems over tuition fee's only a million times worse, especially because the pretense of soft bennism that Owen Jones likes to keep up will be ripped to shreds.


 
Lots that could be said in response but Labour are doing it NOW in Wales and in city governments.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 16, 2013)

Random said:


> It's like someone who willingly entered the bed and snuggled under the quilt, under historical conditions under which a warm bed offered the only realistic hope in modern Britain of sheltering the productive energies from the attacks of entropy. Now hours later, under worsening attacks from both the forces of want breakfast, and the forces of full bladder, the bed entryist is reconsidering his position, wondering what will be the right time to leave the refuge of the warm bed, to attempt to reestablish a warm refuge based on a united front of trousers and woolly jumper.


 

It only needs someone to lay a breakfast maker of revolutionary thought.


----------



## Random (Jan 16, 2013)

Just want to say I'm really impressed delroy that you bother to write such long thoughful posts that work through arguments; though I don't necessarily agree. You too, sihi. I'm nore into snide one-liners these days.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 16, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> breakfast maker


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 16, 2013)

Random said:


> Just want to say I'm really impressed delroy that you bother to write such long thoughful posts that work through arguments; though I don't necessarily agree. You too, sihi. I'm nore into snide one-liners these days.


 
Thank you, but steady on now I wouldn't say they're _thought through_ I haven't got the attention span for that. And really I'm just procrastinating from emailing CV's to people and stuck at home broke coz it's arctic and I'm broke.


----------



## Random (Jan 16, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Thank you, but steady on now I wouldn't say they're _thought through_


 ....I very carefully didn't say that


----------



## articul8 (Jan 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Didn't you willingly enter Labourism after being outside it? Now you're wondering how to break from it?


the point is not how I as an individual can break from it, but what would allow a significant mass break from Labourism to become politically viable.


----------



## Firky (Jan 16, 2013)

Random said:


> Just want to say I'm really impressed delroy that you bother to write such long thoughful posts that work through arguments; though I don't necessarily agree. You too, sihi. I'm nore into snide one-liners these days.




They haven't been worn down by a over ten years of bean


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 16, 2013)

I'd never seen this before, thought it might belong here. Great intro by William F Buckley


----------



## Firky (Jan 16, 2013)

Credit to button.


----------



## Firky (Jan 16, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I'd never seen this before, thought it might belong here. Great intro by William F Buckley


 
Have you seen the Chomsky one?

I think Chomsky even said a few words about him in an orbit'


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I'd never seen this before, thought it might belong here. Great intro by William F Buckley



You know Buckley was scum right? (Just checking)


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You know Buckley was scum right? (Just checking)


 
_come on_


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

You may be surprised how many people mistake him for overly-sensitive troubadour Tim Buckley. I've seen it all.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 16, 2013)

articul8 said:


> the point is not how I as an individual can break from it, but what would allow a significant mass break from Labourism to become politically viable.


Which will be achieved by getting people to vote Labour and Lib Dem, oh and for AV.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 17, 2013)

Random said:


> It's like someone who willingly entered the bed and snuggled under the quilt, under historical conditions under which a warm bed offered the only realistic hope in modern Britain of sheltering the productive energies from the attacks of entropy. Now hours later, under worsening attacks from both the forces of want breakfast, and the forces of full bladder, the bed entryist is reconsidering his position, wondering what will be the right time to leave the refuge of the warm bed, to attempt to reestablish a warm refuge based on a united front of trousers and woolly jumper.


 
But we all know he'll make time for a swift thrap onto yeaterdays t shirt first.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 17, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Which will be achieved by getting people to vote Labour and Lib Dem, oh and for AV.


I don't suggest anyone votes lib dem.  But av though far from ideal would have started a dynamic towards a PR system where the emergence of a viable left party becomes possible.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 21, 2013)

Vague rallying cry! Same but different! 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ft-to-counter-capitalisms-crisis-8459099.html


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2013)

He actually says:



> I’ve met thousands who want to do something with their anger. Until now, I have struggled with an answer.



And, the answer that came upon him is - as he goes to great lengths to make clear - supporting labour and through this support somehow pressuring the centre to adopt radical left-wing measures. It's the early 80s _everyone into the party_ stuff again, but with a twist as it's clear to all where labour are and where they intend to stay, the twist being _everyone into the party but outside._

The stuff he's calling for, what on earth does he think people have been doing the last 3 years? And what have they had to spend their time doing - fighting labour councils who are imposing cuts locally and a party re-inforcing the propaganda logic of them nationally, whilst preparing their own version of them for when they get re-elected.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He actually says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Exactly this. "Everyone into the party but outside" made me laugh. Yeah, I'm seriously doubting whether he'll be able to cut the apron strings, if indeed he was ever going to.


----------



## Random (Jan 21, 2013)

S☼I said:


> Vague rallying cry! Same but different!
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ft-to-counter-capitalisms-crisis-8459099.html



"We could link together workers facing falling wages while their tax credits are cut; unemployed people demonised by a cynical media and political establishment; crusaders against the mass tax avoidance of the wealthy; sick and disabled people having basic support stripped away; campaigners against crippling cuts to our public services; young people facing a future of debt, joblessness and falling living standards; and trade unions standing their ground in the onslaught against workers’ rights... it is a mystery that such a network does not already exist."

The fact that he's unable to work out a few major reasons why such a network doesn't already exist does not bode well for his ability to actually create this kind of network. 

Hey everyone! The emperor does have clothes!

Edit: and I'm speaking as someone who's more and more in favour of the broadest possible work to defend against the current class war being waged by the rich. But we can't just pretend that the reason it's not already happened is because a well-connected twitterer has failed to think of it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2013)

...and one of the reasons it's not developed as we like despite promising beginnings is the partial destruction of such groupings by the pressure applied by labour councils imposing cuts that leads to people having to deal with (or feel as if they must) their own individual situations as a priority, atomising those initiatives. That cannot be got past by internet rhetoric about _but i call on labour to oppose cuts._


----------



## sihhi (Jan 21, 2013)

This is lies.




> _I’ve met thousands who want to do something with their anger. Until now, I have struggled with an answer._


 
Hmmm... he well knew what to do when he was telling readers of the Morning Star:




> LAST Friday, the most important campaign of our generation was launched. John McDonnell's promise to challenge new Labour in the forthcoming leadership elections represents the beginning of a fightback to reclaim Labour as the party of working people.
> 
> It is a campaign that will draw on many of the movements that have inspired young people over the past decade - not least the struggles for global justice and against tuition fees and the war on Iraq. That is why it is crucial for young people to be at the very forefront of this historic campaign.


 
Only the leadership is ever blamed and he was all about _using front organisations to build the party_ - his party - the worst Second International party in the history of the world - the British Labour Party:




> There is hardly a lack of radicalism among young people. The global justice and anti-war movements have proved that. However, understandably, thousands of us have deserted the Labour Party because of the reactionary policies of _its leadership_.
> 
> Young socialists are scattered in a number of different campaigns and groups or, having failed to find any viable alternative, have abandoned politics altogether. However, for the first time in years, we have a chance to elect a candidate who is against tuition fees, in favour of a living wage without exceptions and for an end to child poverty. It is more crucial than ever for the young left to unite and join this campaign.
> 
> ...


http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/layout/set/print/content/view/full/32616

Then using the internet _to build the party_:




> Left New Media: next meeting details
> Comrades, as requested:
> 
> LeftNewMediaForum
> ...


 
http://pennyred.blogspot.co.uk/2008/12/left-new-media-next-meeting-details.html

Then using regionally-based non-party/party front groups to _build the party._




> Comrades,
> 
> To build on the _successes of the John4Leader campaign_ in mobilising thousands of activists, we're setting up local LRC groups right across the country.
> 
> ...


 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/merseysidelrc/?m=0
A wag might ask what successes of the John4Leader campaign?


I feel I'm being had with every column he writes.


----------



## Random (Jan 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I feel I'm being had with every column he writes.


In other words, anyone who jumps into bed with Jones in a network like this should expect to be sold out the second the network endangers the LP in any way, or to be abandoned in favour of yet another LP leadership challenge.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 21, 2013)

Random said:


> In other words, anyone who jumps into bed with Jones in a network like this should expect to be sold out the second the network endangers the LP in any way, or to be abandoned in favour of yet another LP leadership challenge.


 
It's dishonest because there already are about half a dozen networks like this - the National Shop Stewards Network, Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (the Scottish Anti-Cuts Coalition) & the Campaign for a New Workers' Party, the Coalition of Resistance, the People’s Assemblies, the Right to Work, the Socialist Campaign to Stop the Tories and Fascists, the Green Left organisation... 

OJ should at least openly declare 'I was John McDonnell's parliamentary aide for a while so my view might be compromised'. It just seems dishonest to say 'Until now, _I have struggled with an answer_'.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's dishonest because there already are about half a dozen networks like this - the National Shop Stewards Network, Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (the Scottish Anti-Cuts Coalition) & the Campaign for a New Workers' Party, the Coalition of Resistance, the People’s Assemblies, the Right to Work, the Socialist Campaign to Stop the Tories and Fascists, the Green Left organisation...
> 
> OJ should at least openly declare 'I was John McDonnell's parliamentary aide for a while so my view might be compromised'. It just seems dishonest to say 'Until now, _I have struggled with an answer_'.


 
Have I your permission to challenge him on this? Whether or not he'll ignore it remains to be seen.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 21, 2013)

S☼I said:


> Have I your permission to challenge him on this? Whether or not he'll ignore it remains to be seen.


 
On what?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 21, 2013)

If you mean what subject - being McDonnell's aide while "struggling for an anwser"
If you mean what platform - Twitter.

Only asking cos I'm going to use almost your exact words, like.


----------



## Random (Jan 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's dishonest because there already are about half a dozen networks like this - the National Shop Stewards Network, Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (the Scottish Anti-Cuts Coalition) & the Campaign for a New Workers' Party, the Coalition of Resistance, the People’s Assemblies, the Right to Work, the Socialist Campaign to Stop the Tories and Fascists, the Green Left organisation...
> 
> OJ should at least openly declare 'I was John McDonnell's parliamentary aide for a while so my view might be compromised'. It just seems dishonest to say 'Until now, _I have struggled with an answer_'.


Yes, exactly. That's part of what I meant earlier, about obvious reasons why such a network doesn't already exist: Because it already exists several times over. Whereas I assumed he was just being a bit thick and also pretending to be naive, you're right that he's really being more on the dishonest side. 

"'Until now, I have struggled with an answer'" It could have been scripted by Monbiot. Columnists keep re-inventing themselves, having fake revelations. It's a basic part of the way they try to made themselves into a dramatic person, who things happen to, who makes great intellectual efforts.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's dishonest because there already are about half a dozen networks like this - the National Shop Stewards Network, Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (the Scottish Anti-Cuts Coalition) & the Campaign for a New Workers' Party, the Coalition of Resistance, the People’s Assemblies, the Right to Work, the Socialist Campaign to Stop the Tories and Fascists, the Green Left organisation...


 
there's also an informal network, unaffiliated - although involving some members - of all those groups, a serious attempt to drag that under the control of labour would destroy everything that's been achieved till now (which isn't fantastic, but is something)


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 21, 2013)

Hang on, what about C.L.A.S.S. - for whom Jones is policy adviser? And the Coalition of Resistance, on whose front page a video of Jones appears?


----------



## Firky (Jan 21, 2013)

Twitter, the saber of the working class left. Godspeed, Sol and take this saber.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 21, 2013)

S☼I said:


> Hang on, what about C.L.A.S.S. - for whom Jones is policy adviser? And the Coalition of Resistance, on whose front page a video of Jones appears?


CLASS is really Unite outsourcing their policy department and looking for work from a couple of other unions it is deeply wedded to Labour.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 21, 2013)

firky said:


> Twitter, the saber of the working class left. Godspeed, Sol and take this saber.


 
Well, it was alright for you until it made you go all cross.   Yeah, it's not great but there's a fair chance of getting him to hear. He won't listen, though.

(It's Ess-sun-aye", by the way, not Sol, for REASONS.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 21, 2013)

S☼I said:


> If you mean what subject - being McDonnell's aide while "struggling for an anwser"
> If you mean what platform - Twitter.
> 
> Only asking cos I'm going to use almost your exact words, like.


 
My guess he would say

1 He was only a parliamentary researcher, just a job, everyone needs to make a living under capitalism (technically true). It's only my suspicion that he was by tacit agreement with McDonnell a youth operative on behalf of the whole McDonnell approach within the lower TU bureacracy and the internet bloggers.

2 Suggest why you aren't out there working against cuts instead of tweeting him, making you the clown and he the smart practical man of reason. 

In all honesty, bubble is bubble, via twitter you won't change OJ's opinion and you won't 'reach' any of his 75K followers to change theirs, challenge his position in an open public meeting appealing to the interests of the audience - against their doing the legwork for a party structure that will only abuse them.

The Labour Left did immense but tiring work in 1979-1992 for the Labour Party as it suffered from the Callaghan legacy, the SDP split etc - virtually all of it for keeping alive the party drawing people from other currents and ideas (black, womens and green movements). The Party was able to reorganise to shaft its Left and the wider population 1992 onwards.

The phenomenon of 'Left revitalisation' of social democracy when out of power happens time and time again - a number of the people in Syriza now were in Pasok in the past against ND, the SPD did it with the anti-nuclear movement in the 80s, Mitterand did it massively with the Trotskyists who worked for a SFIO-PCF alliance in the 1970s.

There's probably a case to be made for entrism into social democratic/populist parties in circumstances if open organisation on non-party lines is not tolerated at all and leads to immediate arrest/seizure of resources.
In EU countries now entrism into or working for the return of social democratic parties is doing the work so that others benefit.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> CLASS is really Unite outsourcing their policy department and looking for work from a couple of other unions it is deeply wedded to Labour.


 
Well, quite, and it's another thing which Owen is involved in among the many that he nevertheless complains about (no coherent unified movement etc)


----------



## sihhi (Jan 21, 2013)

S☼I said:


> Well, quite, and it's another thing which Owen is involved in among the many that he nevertheless complains about (no coherent unified movement etc)


 
He will reply the movement isn't unified (which it isn't) and CLASS is just for research/analysis purposes.

In many respects, the LRC that accepts Labour Party members and non-members alike just like the SWP's RTW, but as OJ probably understands is too fixated on Labour internal issues.



> I WAS interested to read Martin Jenkins's letter (M Star December 5) concerning the launch of Merseyside Labour Representation Committee.
> 
> He is right to point out the deplorable state of the Labour Party leadership, especially in light of recent events.
> 
> ...


 

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/54186

I think what OJ is saying in the piece is 'there are too many people outside the LP+LRC we need to make them work towards our own ends without having them as members'


----------



## Random (Jan 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> My guess he would say
> 
> 1 He was only a parliamentary researcher, just a job, everyone needs to make a living under capitalism (technically true). It's only my suspicion that he was by tacit agreement with McDonnell a youth operative on behalf of the whole McDonnell approach within the lower TU bureacracy and the internet bloggers.


When has being a parliamentary researcher ever been just a job? It's always involved being a paid political activist, hasn't it?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 21, 2013)

Unsurprisingly I think it's a very good piece - he's really callling for some sort of organisational expression to the kind of space Red Pepper occupies at the level of ideas.   Which gets beyond the "work inside/outside Labour dilemma, accepting that people differ about the opportunities of lack thereof when it comes to that field, but actually organises something over and beyond that division over electoral tactics to work together on building a consensus around alternatives and bring groups like UNITE and LRC into closer co-operation and dialogue with people like PCS, Greens, groups like uncut/occupy, DPAC and others.


----------



## Random (Jan 21, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Unsurprisingly I think it's a very good piece - he's really callling for some sort of organisational expression to the kind of space Red Pepper occupies at the level of ideas.


 I am surprised that you'd call it "very good", actually. I would have thought you'd at least see the problems in the fact that his "call" is totally vague and impossible to properly implement, and that it ignores the reasons why no such network exists already. So you're saying you're simply smiling because it looks like he's wanting to set up something for "our kind of people"?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 21, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Unsurprisingly I think it's a very good piece


 






articul8 said:


> - he's really callling for some sort of organisational expression to the kind of space Red Pepper occupies at the level of ideas. Which gets beyond the "work inside/outside Labour dilemma, accepting that people differ about the opportunities of lack thereof when it comes to that field, but actually organises something over and beyond that division over electoral tactics to work together on building a consensus around alternatives and bring groups like UNITE and LRC into closer co-operation and dialogue with people like PCS, Greens, groups like uncut/occupy, DPAC and others.


 

But to what end? To move Labour leftwards. Like they haven't in decades.


----------



## Random (Jan 21, 2013)

Can someone please start a fire on a hilltop, and smoke-signal to UkUncut that the Labourite vampires are coming for them, after failing with the LRC?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2013)

Random said:


> Can someone please start a fire on a hilltop, and smoke-signal to UkUncut that the Labourite vampires are coming for them, after failing with the LRC?


The labour interns have been in there from the very start.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 21, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Unsurprisingly I think it's a very good piece - he's really callling for some sort of organisational expression to the kind of space Red Pepper occupies at the level of ideas. Which gets beyond the "work inside/outside Labour dilemma, accepting that people differ about the opportunities of lack thereof when it comes to that field, but actually organises something over and beyond that division over electoral tactics to work together on building a consensus around alternatives and bring groups like UNITE and LRC into closer co-operation and dialogue with people like PCS, Greens, groups like uncut/occupy, DPAC and others.


 
i admire the fact you're so tenacious articul8 but do you not see that it is often the case that instead of people like this changing party/institutional stuctures it is usually the other way round, these structures and the social circles they end up going into (like owen jones for example and his bubble mates) usually end up changing them


----------



## articul8 (Jan 21, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i admire the fact you're so tenacious articul8 but do you not see that it is often the case that instead of people like this changing party/institutional stuctures it is usually the other way round, these structures and the social circles they end up going into (like owen jones for example and his bubble mates) usually end up changing them


It's a danger, certainly - but I don't see it being inevitable.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 21, 2013)

S☼I said:


> But to what end? To move Labour leftwards. Like they haven't in decades.


 
No it shouldn't assume or discount the possibility of this - but it would create some kind of external pressure for change by organising in civil society more broadly than the traditional labour movement has been able to.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 21, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Unsurprisingly I think it's a very good piece - he's really callling for some sort of organisational expression to the kind of space Red Pepper occupies at the level of ideas. Which gets beyond the "work inside/outside Labour dilemma, accepting that people differ about the opportunities of lack thereof when it comes to that field, but actually organises something over and beyond that division over electoral tactics to work together on building a consensus around alternatives and bring groups like UNITE and LRC into closer co-operation and dialogue with people like PCS, Greens, groups like uncut/occupy, DPAC and others.


 
you really have no idea the level of contempt that many people in those latter groups hold for the labour party do you


----------



## Random (Jan 21, 2013)

articul8 said:


> No it shouldn't assume or discount the possibility of this - but it would create some kind of external pressure for change by organising in civil society more broadly than the traditional labour movement has been able to.


Rounding up even more people into the Labour at Any Cost team


----------



## articul8 (Jan 21, 2013)

smokedout said:


> you really have no idea the level of contempt that many people in those latter groups hold for the labour party do you


 
I understand the contempt for New Labour very well.  I doubt those groups would have the same contempt for a McDonnell or a Corbyn.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I understand the contempt for New Labour very well. I doubt those groups would have the same contempt for a McDonnell or a Corbyn.


I reckon the labour leadership that all this bollocks  is supposed to put pressure on would. Don't you?


----------



## Random (Jan 21, 2013)

articul8 said:


> it would create some kind of external pressure for change by organising in civil society more broadly than the traditional labour movement has been able to.


Very similar vagueness to Jones' own article. What does this mean? Actually putting in the work yourself, delivering thousands of leaflets, running stalls, basing campaigns on working class people's needs? Or are you really sayingm let's set up some great summit meetings including representatives from all kinds of tenants' associations, along with some Occupy conspiraloons and Labour lefts?

because the main task is to actually rebuild this "civil society"; by which I mean rebuilding working class strength.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2013)

Random said:


> Very similar vagueness to Jones' own article. What does this mean? Actually putting in the work yourself, delivering thousands of leaflets, running stalls, basing campaigns on working class people's needs? Or are you really sayingm let's set up some great summit meetings including representatives from all kinds of tenants' associations, along with some Occupy conspiraloons and Labour lefts?
> 
> because the main task is to actually rebuild this "civil society"; by which I mean rebuilding working class strength.


He means doing some stuff then getting labour lefts to publicly head it - a spear into the parties side.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 21, 2013)

articul8 said:


> It's a danger, certainly - but I don't see it being inevitable.


 
It's not inevitable no but i had the impression that (correct me if I'm wrong) a parliamentary researcher worked for an MP and as part of their work they were expected to have political stances and party allegiances which were similar to them because the parliamentary research would support what the MP said in parliament and in committees etc

correct me if i am wrong but that is the impression I got of the role.

and if you're mixing in that sort of social environment you are likely to become a bit insulated from the world outside, its not necessarily a bad thing it's normal, it's like most people assume that other people have similar living standards etc to what they do


----------



## Random (Jan 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He means doing some stuff then getting labour lefts to publicly head it - a spear into the parties side.


And the LP will be all like, fuck you City of London, we've got articul8 and Jones and their Network to keep us warm at night now!


----------



## Random (Jan 21, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i admire the fact you're so tenacious articul8 but do you not see that it is often the case that instead of people like this changing party/institutional stuctures it is usually the other way round, these structures and the social circles they end up going into (like owen jones for example and his bubble mates) usually end up changing them


End up?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 21, 2013)

subbing furiously for the Morning Star- wait no, wrong person


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 21, 2013)

Random said:


> End up?


 
I mean that somebody might go into the labour party or whatever with the intention of changing it but the higher up they go the more the party will end up changing them


----------



## Random (Jan 21, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I mean that somebody might go into the labour party or whatever with the intention of changing it but the higher up they go the more the party will end up changing them


Sorry for my brusque and lazy post. I mean that OJ, and articul8 and their like are already changed by their political careers - and that they're embracing that change; they are public political careerists. The Labour political beast is dear to their hearts. There's no core of working class free socialism that's being compromised.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 21, 2013)

Random said:


> Very similar vagueness to Jones' own article. What does this mean? Actually putting in the work yourself, delivering thousands of leaflets, running stalls, basing campaigns on working class people's needs? Or are you really sayingm let's set up some great summit meetings including representatives from all kinds of tenants' associations, along with some Occupy conspiraloons and Labour lefts?
> 
> because the main task is to actually rebuild this "civil society"; by which I mean rebuilding working class strength.


 
It's about overcoming the division which has historically seen the unions leave "political" (for which read electoral) activity to the party, whilst they get on with "industrial" (predominantly wage-bargaining) issues.   UNITE's own internal structure reflects this - it's political committees about LP connected work - the other stuff (including community organising) happens elsewhere, and is allowed and encouraged only insofar as it is compatible with the general steer given by the political committees.  Hence at some levels UNITE officials have been running around telling Labour councillors to vote for cuts!

I'd like to see unions take on a more directly political role - by bracketing altogether (for the time being) the quetion of electoral alignments - and working together with other forces, like non-aligned unions, tenants and residents assocs, community groups, pensioners groups, students, and - yes - beginning to rebuild indepedent working class organisation and capacity.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 21, 2013)

Random said:


> Sorry for my brusque and lazy post. I mean that OJ, and articul8 and their like are already changed by their political careers - and that they're embracing that change; they are public political careerists. The Labour political beast is dear to their hearts. There's no core of working class free socialism that's being compromised.


 
"working class free socialism" - who'd want a socialism that was working class free (other than the Webbs - but don't get me started on them)?


----------



## Random (Jan 21, 2013)

articul8 said:


> "working class free socialism" - who'd want a socialism that was working class free (other than the Webbs - but don't get me started on them)?


Independent/self organised socialism, then


----------



## Random (Jan 21, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I'd like to see unions take on a more directly political role - by bracketing altogether (for the time being) the quetion of electoral alignments - and working together with other forces, like non-aligned unions, tenants and residents assocs, community groups, pensioners groups, students, and - yes - beginning to rebuild indepedent working class organisation and capacity.


You want people who argue for cuts to take on the task of rebuilding working class organisation? Or what?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 21, 2013)

It's total bollocks. I'm glad he's come out with this because I was beginning to resent having to stick up for him. Now he's written something that deserves some proper criticism. 

What does he imagine such a "broad network" of lefties, nominally in the Labour sphere of influence, can do to push Labour to the left? If the Labour leadership feels like all the radical left is within their orbit, and that through this can neutralise it as a rival, then it's just going to make them feel even more secure in being able to continue with austerity after 2015. If you really wanted to put pressure on the Labour party's leadership, ie the Leader the PLP, to move to the left you'd be better off working outside, and against, them. Specifically targetting the worst right-wing Blairite MP's and councillors would be a good start

But then that leads to a more important question, is why should people have to constantly frame everything they do in relation to the Labour Party? Should people even be so limited in their thinking to just moving Labour to the left, rather than a more comprehensive project of re-building the radical left from the ground up.  British left wing politics is utterly dominated by Labour, whether inside or outside it's always in relation to it. That's substantially a result of how our poiltical system functions, it's a systematic feature of first past the post and the unwritten constitution etc. That in itself is an obstacle to any meaningful socialist and democratic society, and Labour is fully integrated into that. It's not going to challenge the very setup which gives it a virtual monopoly on the British left.

and Owen Jones, although I don't think he's cynical (I notice he's getting some flak from the Labour right for supposedly recruiting from the SWP) I do think it's "all roads lead to the Labour party" and that is quite damaging. Even if every SWP member, or everyone who's been on the Trot merry-go-round for the last 30 years, all of a sudden decided "Right, we're all going back in, wahey!" then joined up, it wouldn't amount to fuck all. Labourism survived through periods where the working-class and socialist left was unimaginably more potent, and numerous, than it is today, so what makes these people think they've got a chance in hell? There's probably more chance that the SWP will lead a revolution and the CC will become our government than the Labour party suddenly embracing Soft Bennism.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 21, 2013)

Random said:


> You want people who argue for cuts to take on the task of rebuilding working class organisation? Or what?


No - make a clear call to everyone inside and outside Labour to oppose all cuts and work together where thay can on building a movement independent from any particular political party to sustain orgnaised protest, civil disobedience, and develop alternatives.


----------



## Firky (Jan 21, 2013)

I can't even get onto Twitter. Get a message saying my IP has been blocked. My account hasn't been hacked and spam anyone so I guess...

Wankers. I'll have to restart my router.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 21, 2013)

articul8 said:


> No - make a clear call to everyone inside and outside Labour to oppose all cuts and work together where thay can on building a movement independent from any particular political party to sustain orgnaised protest, civil disobedience, and develop alternatives.


 
What makes you think anyone _inside_ Labour will oppose all cuts? Like, ever?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2013)

articul8 said:


> It's a danger, certainly - but I don't see it being inevitable.


 
Of course you don't! To acknowledge the likelihood of it happening would be to acknowledge your own position as being one where yourself change to conform to your political surroundings.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2013)

smokedout said:


> you really have no idea the level of contempt that many people in those latter groups hold for the labour party do you


 
Indeed, or why they do.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 21, 2013)

S☼I said:


> What makes you think anyone _inside_ Labour will oppose all cuts? Like, ever?


They not only can, and will, but are:
http://councillorsagainstcuts.org/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He means doing some stuff then getting labour lefts to publicly head it - a spear into the parties side.


 
Making a wound through which the inevitable middle-class"entryism"-lite would follow, perpetuating the whole cycle.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I mean that somebody might go into the labour party or whatever with the intention of changing it but the higher up they go the more the party will end up changing them


 
Which is historically why alternative movements only tend to thrive outside of a party environment. Inside, the inpulse will always be toward reaction - playing it safe, "building the party". The party becomes the end rather than the means.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 21, 2013)

articul8 said:


> They not only can, and will, but are:
> http://councillorsagainstcuts.org/


 
With clout, I mean


----------



## articul8 (Jan 21, 2013)

well, that is more likely to happen if there's a broad movement of civil society actively mobilising in their communities.  OK, then you might face a Benn-type situation, with no guarantee of success.  But there'd be a new dynamic opening up.


----------



## Random (Jan 21, 2013)

articul8 said:


> well, that is more likely to happen if there's a broad movement of civil society actively mobilising in their communities.


 The broad mobilising community movement is what's missing. Not "calls" to found new networks. We're knee-deep in those.

It's like some kind of socialist engineering project. If we get the call exactly right, if we get the meeting full of exactly the right people, if we appeal with the right demands, etc etc. The groundwork in the communities has to exist first, otherwise you're just putting the cart before the horse.


----------



## Balbi (Jan 21, 2013)

It's like candidates who get shocked they don't win local elections by just being a candidate. Without campaigning you're about as useful as a Lib Dem promise. All to do with profile raising etc - which is a twatty way of saying put the fucking effort into your area.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 21, 2013)

It's a bit chicken and egg - people tend not to be involved because often they don't see anything out there to get involved with.  I've no illusion that there will be some perfect way of organising a "unity conference" which magics life into something.  And just saying "we'll stand a no-cuts candidate in the election" and expecting any greater involvement or communitiy campaigning around that is similarly futile.   But this is why the dissenting current within the Labour party is in a good position to say to the millions who might be thinking of voting Labour - don't just vote Labour and expect that to solve all your problems - to turn the tide it's necessary to create the maximum pressure possible on all politicians and political parties.  An effective movement of the kind Owen is talking about would mobilise *Labour voters and supporters" in addition to, and along with, people who are pissed off at or sceptical of Labour.  That's why some of the right wing on Twitter started to shit themselves and accusing him of wanting to launch a new party.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2013)

articul8 said:


> It's a bit chicken and egg - people tend not to be involved because often they don't see anything out there to get involved with. I've no illusion that there will be some perfect way of organising a "unity conference" which magics life into something. And just saying "we'll stand a no-cuts candidate in the election" and expecting any greater involvement or communitiy campaigning around that is similarly futile. But this is why the dissenting current within the Labour party is in a good position to say to the millions who might be thinking of voting Labour - don't just vote Labour and expect that to solve all your problems - to turn the tide it's necessary to create the maximum pressure possible on all politicians and political parties. An effective movement of the kind Owen is talking about would mobilise *Labour voters and supporters" in addition to, and along with, people who are pissed off at or sceptical of Labour. That's why some of the right wing on Twitter started to shit themselves and accusing him of wanting to launch a new party.


Why would right-wingers be quaking in their boots at his (misread) rhetoric? The right-wingers he was replying to are tories - why would they shit themselves as a potential labour split? Spinning madness.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 21, 2013)

no, he's been replying to the likes of Richard Angell (Dep Director of Progress), Jessica Asato (PPC and former acting Director of Progress) and Dan Hodges (Blairite and Torygraph)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2013)

And toby young and ...you. And he's been shouting his loyalty to labour and commitment to never setting up or joining a party outside of them. That's his response to criticisms from the people who have real power in your party people who you define as right-wingers and who lead your party - _i'm a good boy really, we are on the same side after all._

Do you not see how fucking ridiculous your suggestion that the strength of the idea is demonstrated by the fear that a split would cause to labour right-wingers when you (and him) then go on to argue against any such split. Effectively saying, yes, we side with those right-wingers in their misreading. Madness.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 21, 2013)

Tories would probably fund a New Workers Party it if they thought it could prevent Labour from wiping out the Lib Dems and dominating the centre-left vote thereafter.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And toby young and ...you. And he's been shouting his loyalty to labour and commitment to never setting up or joining a party outside of them. That's his response to criticisms from the people who have real power in your party people who you define as right-wingers and who lead your party - _i'm a good boy really, we are on the same side after all._
> 
> Do you not see how fucking ridiculous your suggestion that the strength of the idea is demonstrated by the fear that a split would cause to labour right-wingers when you (and him) then go on to argue against any such split. Effectively saying, yes, we side with those right-wingers in their misreading. Madness.


 
No - neither of us aret saying "never a new party" - but neither are we saying "launch a new party now".  The conditions aren't there.  What is clear is that i) what limited progress can be made through the election of a Labour government will depend in part on the scale of the pressure they feel under from Labour-voting communities, and that ii) a movement built in opposition to austerity can draw active support from a range of forces who will be more effective if not fragmented at every level along party lines.  Of course there will be a parting of the ways over electoral strategy.  But there is loads we can agree and work on together.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 21, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Tories would probably fund a New Workers Party it if they thought it could prevent Labour from wiping out the Lib Dems and dominating the centre-left vote thereafter.


Hydman took Tory funds for the SDF at one stage?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 21, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Hydman took Tory funds for the SDF at one stage?


 
That doesn't surprise me at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2013)

articul8 said:


> No - neither of us aret saying "never a new party" - but neither are we saying "launch a new party now". The conditions aren't there. What is clear is that i) what limited progress can be made through the election of a Labour government will depend in part on the scale of the pressure they feel under from Labour-voting communities, and that ii) a movement built in opposition to austerity can draw active support from a range of forces who will be more effective if not fragmented at every level along party lines. Of course there will be a parting of the ways over electoral strategy. But there is loads we can agree and work on together.


What a surprise, cake and eat it too as normal. Rhetoric about the future - as normal, hedged in with a list of ifs and when's - as normal. Faith offered _as strategy_ - as normal.

i) their has been widespread opposition to the cuts for two years - effect on labours policy? None. effects on their actions - none. ii) that opposition is _not_ split on party lines - any electoral effect from it will go to labour. So iii) wasting time in corralling it to do something that it was already going to do and to do something that will have no effect is a big waste of time and betrays a lack of understanding of what's happening with both anti-austerity groups and the labour party.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2013)

Not really - he took it to _stand_ two candidates rather than set up a party. Why would he set up a party when he already had one?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 21, 2013)

D'ya reckon there's much scope for being able to con some thick rich Tory out of their inheritance by getting them to bung a load of money towards a new workers party? Gotta be worth a go, surely.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 21, 2013)

i)we are now seeing the emergence of a network of anti-cuts Labour councillors, and this will only continue to grow since cuts on the table are planned to run into 2018 and decimate local government - not everyone has wakened up to the realities of this, ii) opposition might be widespread, but as yet relatively weak in its organisation and unfocused in terms of strategic interventions, iii) too much of the last 2 years has been wasted on telling the TUC to get off its knees - the unions can throw their weight into a different kind of organising if they can break from their political deference to the Labour party, which isn't to say that the conditions are yet there for a total break.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not really - he took it to _stand_ two candidates rather than set up a party. Why would he set up a party when he already had one?


I never said that, just that he took Tory funds.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 21, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> D'ya reckon there's much scope for being able to con some thick rich Tory out of their inheritance by getting them to bung a load of money towards a new workers party? Gotta be worth a go, surely.


didn't impress the workers much that time


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 21, 2013)

articul8 said:


> didn't impress the workers much that time


 
Perhaps not, but I bet my bank manager would be impressed if I got a £20k a year full-time job out of it. The wolf's at the door they want to take my student overdraft off me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2013)

articul8 said:


> i)we are now seeing the emergence of a network of anti-cuts Labour councillors, and this will only continue to grow since cuts on the table are planned to run into 2018 and decimate local government - not everyone has wakened up to the realities of this, ii) opposition might be widespread, but as yet relatively weak in its organisation and unfocused in terms of strategic interventions, iii) too much of the last 2 years has been wasted on telling the TUC to get off its knees - the unions can throw their weight into a different kind of organising if they can break from their political deference to the Labour party, which isn't to say that the conditions are yet there for a total break.


i) are we fuck ii) So what it needs to get organised is to get behind labour - _but you know, keep it quiet _iii) the unions are now going to throw their weight as far and as aggressively behind labour from now until the 2015 - they are are not going to do a damn thing to jeopardise that. A TUC break from the labour party? You're off your rocker, you really are.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 21, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Tories would probably fund a New Workers Party it if they thought it could prevent Labour from wiping out the Lib Dems and dominating the centre-left vote thereafter.


The Freedom Association funded Cold War paranoiac Julian Lewis in the infamous Reg Prentice deselection case. Lewis, a dyed-in-the-wool Tory, infiltrated the Labour Party.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> i) are we fuck ii) So what it needs to get organised is to get behind labour - _but you know, keep it quiet _iii) the unions are now going to throw their weight as far and as aggressively behind labour from now until the 2015 - they are are not going to do a damn thing to jeopardise that. A TUC break from the labour party? You're off your rocker, you really are.


 
Whose talking about a TUC break from the Labour party?  I'm talking about unions like PCS and UNITE starting to work more closely, and start to mobilise politically in ways other than through formal party political channels.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> i) are we fuck ii) So what it needs to get organised is to get behind labour - _but you know, keep it quiet _iii) the unions are now going to throw their weight as far and as aggressively behind labour from now until the 2015 - they are are not going to do a damn thing to jeopardise that. A TUC break from the labour party? You're off your rocker, you really are.


nor am I talking about organising behind Labour quietly - I'm talking about a movement which includes, but certainly isn't limited to, Labour activists organising at community level for objectives beyond simply electoral ones.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Whose talking about a TUC break from the Labour party? I'm talking about unions like PCS and UNITE starting to work more closely, and start to mobilise politically in ways other than through formal party political channels.


You said:



> iii) too much of the last 2 years has been wasted on telling the TUC to get off its knees - the unions can throw their weight into a different kind of organising if they can break from their political deference to the Labour party, which isn't to say that the conditions are yet there for a total break.


 
So ok, not a political break with labour - but follow the logic through, if they are not going to break politically then they sure as hell are not going to do anything to rock the labour boat and potentially damage labours election chances. That's the basket their eggs are very firmly in - and they are not going to let your fantasies break a single one of them.

Also, you moan about _tuc off your knees _time-wasting _then_ go onto to pretty much shout _unions on your own off your knees!_


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2013)

articul8 said:


> nor am I talking about organising behind Labour quietly - I'm talking about a movement which includes, but certainly isn't limited to, Labour activists organising at community level for objectives beyond simply electoral ones.


With the labour party and with the understanding (or maybe without that being mentioned eh?) that the key aim is the election of the labour party - the election of the party that is right now imposing cuts. What sort of political environment are you wallowing in that allows you to keep producing and believing (or saying that you do) these fantasies?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 21, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> The Freedom Association funded Cold War paranoiac Julian Lewis in the infamous Reg Prentice deselection case. Lewis, a dyed-in-the-wool Tory, infiltrated the Labour Party.


 
 I remember about that!  Makes me feel really old that I do though


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 21, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> I remember about that! Makes me feel really old that I do though


Tbh, same here.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 22, 2013)

A rebuttal of Jones' piece, from Luke "Var of Piss" Akehurst. Really worth reading for the lulz, and to underline the question of how exactly does Jones see any "movement" outside Labour putting enough pressure on THIS kind of boneheadery to change the course of the party.

http://labourlist.org/2013/01/oh-dear-oh-dear-owen-jones/


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 22, 2013)

Lukehurst, apologist for Zionism and shill for neoliberalism. A total arsehole.

And bitter with it



> We are not, apparently, “progressive”. Presumably nor are Ed Miliband or Ed Balls. This is using the word “progressive” like the old Communist Party did: code for “people that agree with our line”, and anyone else is written off as “reactionary”. Thanks a bundle Owen, very comradely.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

Useful in that it basically says that a8 is right and that the leadership are moving left and he says and so already fulfill his needs.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 22, 2013)

And here is the predictable soft-left Brownite Luke Akehurst Hackney CLP Labour response:

http://labourlist.org/2013/01/oh-dear-oh-dear-owen-jones

It's a crap response because for one thing the terrible 1983 performance had Labour at 36.9%, whilst the fantastic Brown years by 2010 sees it as 29%.
But it shows the basic political decision that will have to be made:



> So people who fight to stop Labour winning elections like the Greens are in, but people like me who work their socks off for a Labour government are not to be included in this “broad network”. We are not, apparently, “progressive”. Presumably nor are Ed Miliband or Ed Balls. This is using the word “progressive” like the old Communist Party did: code for “people that agree with our line”, and anyone else is written off as “reactionary”. Thanks a bundle Owen, very comradely.


 
Will local Labour CLPs stand aside for Greens? That's basically what this all comes down to. If the answer is no, it will mean local Greens standing aside for Labour Left CLPs and venomously fighting Labour right CLPs so that Owen Jones can big up the size of the McDonnell majority as against the Blears one - or something.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 22, 2013)

S☼I said:


> ... the question of how exactly does Jones see any "movement" outside Labour putting enough pressure on THIS kind of boneheadery to change the course of the party.


...arguably the welfare state, nhs, etc were won from pressure and as a concession to a growing extreme (communist) left at the time. Thats how it works in theory.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

ska invita said:


> ...arguably the welfare state, nhs, etc were won from pressure and as a concession to a growing extreme (communist) left at the time. Thats how it works in theory.


The communists were for the state plans post-war as were the tories. It was fear of what may come from that pressure uncontrolled by the main parties and radicalised w/c class experience of the war, not any parties power.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2013)

sihhi said:


> And here is the predictable soft-left Brownite Luke Akehurst


 
He isn't "soft left Brownite", he's old right social democratic than went along with Blair.



> Will local Labour CLPs stand aside for Greens? That's basically what this all comes down to. If the answer is no, it will mean local Greens standing aside for Labour Left CLPs and venomously fighting Labour right CLPs so that Owen Jones can big up the size of the McDonnell majority as against the Blears one - or something.


No, it's not about an electoral pact.  It's about building a new left that can recognise and accomodate short-term differences over electoral tactics whilst still effectively co-ordinating and mobilising at a community level around the issues where we have common interests and concerns.  Something like a Coalition of Resistance that isn't a "build it and they will come" top down ego-massaging exercise for wannabe Lenin's, but a genuine community-based network with branches across the country.  It could be something as simple as a national federation of anti-austerity groups - which is open to anyone who is prepared to sign up to a basic refusal of austerity-driven politics.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> He isn't "soft left Brownite", he's old right social democratic than went along with Blair.
> 
> 
> No, it's not about an electoral pact. It's about building a new left that can recognise and accomodate short-term differences over electoral tactics whilst still effectively co-ordinating and mobilising at a community level around the issues where we have common interests and concerns. Something like a Coalition of Resistance that isn't a "build it and they will come" top down ego-massaging exercise for wannabe Lenin's, but a genuine community-based network with branches across the country. It could be something as simple as a national federation of anti-austerity groups - which is open to anyone who is prepared to sign up to a basic refusal of austerity-driven politics.


"went along with"  - what a horrible dishonest way of looking at things. How did your party produce the leader and perspective that he was allowed to go along with? How has it now changed? He is labour - he is their future. You aren't. You know this.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2013)

If Akehurst is the future, Labour hasn't got one - it's heading the way of PASOK.  Which might well be the case.  But too early to tell.

As for the broader question - I don't see anything that isn't compatible wiht the description of Labour as a "bourgeois workers party" - although the Blairites wanted to transform it into a fully bourgeoisified party.  I don't think they fully succeeded.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> "went along with" - what a horrible dishonest way of looking at things. How did your party produce the leader and perspective that he was allowed to go along with? How has it now changed? He is labour - he is their future. You aren't. You know this.


 
He was Brownite - he heavily attacked Purnell and others (Blairites) for their challenge in 2009 or whenever it was.

Let's get this straight:- a coalition on a local bottom up basis will start with councils. So in a given area Greens and Left Labour get together for a campaign against council cuts, calling for anti-cuts councillors. Then when the elections come they both stand against one another to prove the other lot are helping the pro-cuts Tories win by standing in the council seat.
At the same time this body also facilitates action against Labour councils imposing cuts, but is much better than existing anti-cuts groups at doing this.



> You know this.


 
The most damning line.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> If Akehurst is the future, Labour hasn't got one - it's heading the way of PASOK. Which might well be the case. But too early to tell.
> 
> As for the broader question - I don't see anything that isn't compatible wiht the description of Labour as a "bourgeois workers party" - although the Blairites wanted to transform it into a fully bourgeoisified party. I don't think they fully succeeded.


Akehurst was the future 2 decades ago. Have they gone the way of PASOK since? Don't be so stupid. Your - and akehurst's -  party are going to win in 2015. They're going to do it on the basis of the sort of views he has. And you're going to argue for it as the best possible outcome.

And yeah blah blah fight in the party  - not of course related to your bubble role in the party.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2013)

I don't have any role in the party - I work in parliament for trade unions almost all of which aren't affiliated.  Of course that means working closely with the better Labour MPs - but I'm not paid by the party, or to defend the party.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

I can see the massive gap then. I mean it's like different worlds.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2013)

You seem to think in incredibly static categories - "If you're in the Labour party that means you think it is an entirely adequate political vehicle" or "you accept that it's not adequate and therefore have no choice to be outside and to oppose it".   Well it's possible to work for, argue for and build a different vision of politics with people who currently feel that Labour isn't offering what it ought to - and that this might generate a dynamic where people come to reject the existing insitutional framework as the basis for the kind of representation they're after - and some people in other parties or other traditions might be far closer to our politics than certain people inside the party.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> You seem to think in incredibly static categories - "If you're in the Labour party that means you think it is an entirely adequate political vehicle" or "you accept that it's not adequate and therefore have no choice to be outside and to oppose it". Well it's possible to work for, argue for and build a different vision of politics with people who currently feel that Labour isn't offering what it ought to - and that this might generate a dynamic where people come to reject the existing insitutional framework as the basis for the kind of representation they're after - and some people in other parties or other traditions might be far closer to our politics than certain people inside the party.


Dialectics. A dead dogs shit doesn't move unless you start putting your nose in it.

Oh no, you think it's not adequate yet join and pay and argue for, ensuring its continued legitimacy. Why can't you just accept what you are?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2013)

What am I?  I'm a socialist inside an increasingly bourgeosified workers party with neoliberal, anti-working class elements in the leadership.    There needs to be much more serious thought given to the conditions under which an effective left break from Labour can sustain itself as a viable vehicle.  The electoral system is a major impediment.  Even AV could have begun to generate a progressive dynamic.  But we're pretty much stuck with what we've got.  So there has to be maximum attention paid to making the anti-austerity case to Labour voters, and building forces for a full scale battle against Labour cuts post-2015.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> What am I? I'm a socialist inside an increasingly bourgeosified workers party with neoliberal, anti-working class elements in the leadership. There needs to be much more serious thought given to the conditions under which an effective left break from Labour can sustain itself as a viable vehicle. The electoral system is a major impediment. Even AV could have begun to generate a progressive dynamic. But we're pretty much stuck with what we've got. So there has to be maximum attention paid to making the anti-austerity case to Labour voters, and building forces for a full scale battle against Labour cuts post-2015.


There needs to be more thought about you? Fuck off. Otherwise as i said, but with you still denying it.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2013)

denying what?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> denying what?


Where your future lies.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2013)

And where does it lie?


----------



## co-op (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Even AV could have begun to generate a progressive dynamic. .


 
Arrrgh! Please no. Stop it.

AV was a massive mouldering sack of shit that the electorate treated with the contempt it deserved.The entire AV referendum is the finest monument that could ever be made to the sheer stupidity and political ineptitude of Nick Clegg and the upper echelons of the Liberal Democrat party.

It would have made not one flying fucksworth of difference to the political dynamic in this country. And I speak as someone who still believes that PR would be worth something, which I guess quite a few people on here would laugh at.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> And where does it lie?


Depends what you're denying. Hack.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Even AV could have begun to generate a progressive dynamic.


 
AV - good point, articul8, well done for exposing the holes:




			
				Hard Labour Left Owen Jones said:
			
		

> And I’ll be completely honest: I oppose a change in electoral system because it will make a left-wing Labour government less likely; it will make undemocratic coalitions with the Liberal Democrats more likely; and it will make Tory-led governments more likely. If you want to avoid those outcomes, then I urge you to vote against AV.


 




			
				Green Party Caroline Lucas said:
			
		

> By voting yes on 5 May we can ensure that finally voters can back their beliefs, rather than heed their fears. Under AV, voters will no longer face the dilemma of voting "tactically" to stop the BNP or Conservatives getting elected. Voters will be able to vote with their head and with their heart, expressing a clear vote for the party they support, while making a grown-up choice over which of the other candidates they prefer. It is as simple as 1, 2, 3 but it will be the dawn of an honest age. With a system that reflects how Britain actually votes, the progressive majority will be one step closer to reality.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

Bong!


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 22, 2013)

more articul8ism lol


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2013)

If Owen was opposing electoral reform per se (which is what he seems to be doing in that quote) that runs counter to the thrust of what he's argued in his latest column.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> If Owen was opposing electoral reform per se (which is what he seems to be doing in that quote) that runs counter to the thrust of what he's argued in his latest column.


 
Seems? He was. oh god


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

You're why people vote labour because they're the last worst. You're closing down options to get past that. Hack.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2013)

What options am I closing down?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> What options am I closing down?


Outside labour. But of course with a _call fo_r rhetorical radicalism.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> If Owen was opposing electoral reform per se (which is what he seems to be doing in that quote) that runs counter to the thrust of what he's argued in his latest column.


 
Every single Labour left person I'm aware of IRL is virulently anti-AV and anti-PR for that matter - if anything they're probably the kind who think the Euros should be changed to be FPTP


----------



## sihhi (Jan 22, 2013)

Here's the link http://owenjones.org/2011/04/20/why-im-voting-no-to-av/




> Above all, I oppose the Alternative Vote because I think it will institutionalise mushy centrist politics. I think that’s exactly the aim of many of its staunchest supporters, because they are (and I hope they don’t take offence to the description) mushy centrists and want an electoral system most likely to ensure their ideology dominates. They are completely entitled to that, but given I’m not a mushy centrist – I’m an unapologetic left-winger who wants a left-wing government – I have every reason for wanting to stop them achieving their aim.


 
He's saying your allies are _mushy centrists_, articul8.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

> ... because I think it will institutionalise mushy centrist politics. I think that’s exactly the aim of many of its staunchest supporters,


 
there is the bubble. That's it.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Every single Labour left person I'm aware of IRL is virulently anti-AV and anti-PR for that matter - if anything they're probably the kind who think the Euros should be changed to be FPTP


 
McDonnell isn't anti-PR (he even backed AV - quietly), Livingstone isn't (though how far you'd describe him as "left" is open to question), likewise Cruddas, Billy Hayes - it's not as cut and dried as all that


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> there is the bubble. That's it.


there are some for whom that's true - but not all.  Is he calling Serwotka, for eg. a "mushy centrist"?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> there are some for whom that's true - but not all. Is he calling Serwotka, for eg. a "mushy centrist"?


I'm talking about you - you've burst out how?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2013)

I chose to campaign for electoral reform as a consequence of seeing that FPTP was a major obstacle to a viable left-of-labour alternative. Realistically, the referendum defeat has taking the voting system off the agenda in Westminster for the forseeable future. The overwhelming imperative now is to fight austerity and cuts, and that is true irrespective of whether you are fighting inside or outside Labour. (and I took a massive pay cut to work in a position where I might help to advance w/c interests in so far as that's possible in Westminster).


----------



## sihhi (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> McDonnell isn't anti-PR (he even backed AV - quietly), Livingstone isn't (though how far you'd describe him as "left" is open to question), likewise Cruddas, Billy Hayes - it's not as cut and dried as all that


 
I'm talking about leftie Labour-supporting old-timers in real life - I don't know many it has to be said - but they were all anti-AV.

Cruddas returns to "the Left" - this is good news for all progressives inside and outside the party.
As Laurie Penny bravely pointed out it makes sense to support both the left Jons - the Jon Cruddas and John McDonnell:





			
				Laurie Penny said:
			
		

> ‘A new pro-social economy won’t work if it means a top down, domineering politics. The focus must be on the local level by politically reengaging with people and rebuilding institutions of local civic authority.‘
> 
> *PUNCHES THE AIR* Yess!
> 
> ...


 
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/12/18/where-does-capitalism-go-from-here/


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I chose to campaign for electoral reform as a consequence of seeing that FPTP was a major obstacle to a viable left-of-labour alternative. Realistically, the referendum defeat has taking the voting system off the agenda in Westminster for the forseeable future. The overwhelming imperative now is to fight austerity and cuts, and that is true irrespective of whether you are fighting inside or outside Labour. (and I took a massive pay cut to work in a position where I might help to advance w/c interests in so far as that's possible in Westminster).


How much was the pay cut jesus?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> ...in so far as that's possible in Westminster).


 
How far is that possible?


----------



## Random (Jan 22, 2013)

"LeftNewMedia, John McDonnel’s new project, which I’m also on the steering committee of" An endless fractal of self-replicating networks all serving on each others steering committees.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I chose to campaign for electoral reform as a consequence of seeing that FPTP was a major obstacle to a viable left-of-labour alternative.


 
I think in electoral terms it is - but Owen Jones wants FPTP precisely so there is no 'viable left-of-labour alternative' - that someone - Greens or Labour - has to stand down in the race, none of this vote transfering business.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2013)

about 14k a year


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I think in electoral terms it is - but Owen Jones wants FPTP precisely so there is no 'viable left-of-labour alternative' - that someone - Greens or Labour - has to stand down in the race, none of this vote transfering business.


I hope that his advocacy of a network beyond tribal party loyalties shows he's reconsidering that


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I hope that his advocacy of a network beyond tribal party loyalties shows he's reconsidering that


All together in a big cake that you can have and eat too.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I hope that his advocacy of a network beyond tribal party loyalties shows he's reconsidering that


Call on him if he ain't. LIb-dems welcome?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I hope that his advocacy of a network beyond tribal party loyalties shows he's reconsidering that


 
He's not reconsidering it because he knows what happened to the Labour Left in selection for the Mayoral assemblies (done with mixed member proportional representation) - blown out of the water because Labour people new that a Labour centrist is the best bet 'cos Greens will use their second prefs for Labour while a Labour Left would put off a mushy centrist from a Labour second pref.

He has been active in LRC 'vote for the right NEC' level Labour politics in addition to being McDonnell's researcher, he's not an idiot.

He doesn't want AV- I don't think he really wants PR either. He's fooling you. Defend AV. Resist usurpers like Owen Jones.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Call on him if he ain't.


 
I call on Brendan Rodgers to discipline his players and his sons.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2013)

sihhi said:


> He's not reconsidering it because he knows what happened to the Labour Left in selection for the Mayoral assemblies (done with mixed member proportional representation) - blown out of the water because Labour people new that a Labour centrist is the best bet 'cos Greens will use their second prefs for Labour while a Labour Left would put off a mushy centrist from a Labour second pref.


 
On the contrary - an anti-war leftish sort would be MORE likely to get 2nd prefs from Greens (and Lib Dems) than a Blairite neocon.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Call on him if he ain't. LIb-dems welcome?


Lib Dems aren't welcome - they are propping up a vicious Tory government


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Lib Dems aren't welcome - they are propping up a vicious Tory government


Rather than having taken part in or preparing to take part in the same. Just fuck off.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> On the contrary - an anti-war leftish sort would be MORE likely to get 2nd prefs from Greens (and Lib Dems) than a Blairite neocon.


 
But note a hard left Labour candidate would alienate more 2nd prefs from Lib Dems and other confused souls than the extra it would gain from the Greens' 2nd prefs (which are fairly automatic). In 2008 and 2012 it's been an automatic 'vote Labour 2nd Pref' from Green HQ. No iffing and butting about it. All London Assembly people are Labour centrists - Labour left has made no headway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> i)we are now seeing the emergence of a network of anti-cuts Labour councillors, and this will only continue to grow since cuts on the table are planned to run into 2018 and decimate local government - not everyone has wakened up to the realities of this...


 
Organisational dynamics being what they are, assuming that "this will only continue to grow" is a tad optimistic. While councillors tend to have a slightly better appreciation of the principles of public service than MPs do, there's often not much between them in terms of self-interest. There'll never be more than a minority of overtly anti-cuts councillors, because too many of them are creatures of their respective parties, and are unwilling to queer the future political career they desire.s




> ...ii) opposition might be widespread, but as yet relatively weak in its organisation and unfocused in terms of strategic interventions...


 
And of course Labour are the natural rallying-point for anti-cuts activism, given what Balls has already said on the subject, and given what Labour councils have already passed in terms of cuts. 



> ....iii) too much of the last 2 years has been wasted on telling the TUC to get off its knees - the unions can throw their weight into a different kind of organising if they can break from their political deference to the Labour party, which isn't to say that the conditions are yet there for a total break.


 
A total break can't happen as long as the panjandrums of the unions see their positions as stepping stones into the Parliamentary Labour party or the Lords.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 22, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Lukehurst, apologist for Zionism and shill for neoliberalism. A total arsehole.
> 
> And bitter with it


 
He's not very well-endowed with reflexivity, is he?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> What am I? I'm a socialist inside an increasingly bourgeosified workers party with neoliberal, anti-working class elements in the leadership. There needs to be much more serious thought given to the conditions under which an effective left break from Labour can sustain itself as a viable vehicle. The electoral system is a major impediment. Even AV could have begun to generate a progressive dynamic. But we're pretty much stuck with what we've got. So there has to be maximum attention paid to making the anti-austerity case to Labour voters, and building forces for a full scale battle against Labour cuts post-2015.


 
Have you been sniffing Tippex thinner?
If you're a socialist at all, you're a socialist inside a _bourgeois_ party that is shot through, throughout the party structure, with neoliberal anti-working class elements. It's not just a disorder of the parliamentary party and the upper heirarchy of the party. Thanks to the "reforms" of party democracy in the '90s, Labour lost *any* remaining semblance of being a "workers' party".


----------



## smokedout (Jan 22, 2013)

just as a point of info, owen claimed on twitter yesterday he is paid 20k a year by the independent, he didnt answer whether he is a paye employee or not


----------



## sihhi (Jan 23, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> And of course Labour are the natural rallying-point for anti-cuts activism, given what Balls has already said on the subject, and given what Labour councils have already passed in terms of cuts.


 
I for one look forward to Welsh and Scottish activists rushing to embrace an Owen Jones network whose author's whose main idea is:




> 1h Ian McNeill ‏@McNeill56
> @OwenJones84 You still think the best thing for the Scots is to vote no to independence given your views on the Labour party in Scotland?
> 
> 1h Owen Jones ‏@OwenJones84
> @McNeill56 Nationalism is not a substitute for class politics


----------



## sihhi (Jan 23, 2013)

A pictorial representation of the new alliance:







An ex-SWP type bored of being on the wilderness with dusty Ian Birchall pamphlets, a hard left Labour Tony Benn admirer, a young anarcha-feminist plus a confused anonymous Labour soft left.


----------



## Balbi (Jan 23, 2013)

Ok, I have 3/4 on my radar - who's the chap on the right? 

(All of them, lol)


----------



## cesare (Jan 23, 2013)

Is the beige trilby standard SWP sartorial statement?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 23, 2013)

I'm sure that a couple of them are in one of my sixth form sets.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

sihhi said:


> But note a hard left Labour candidate would alienate more 2nd prefs from Lib Dems and other confused souls than the extra it would gain from the Greens' 2nd prefs (which are fairly automatic). In 2008 and 2012 it's been an automatic 'vote Labour 2nd Pref' from Green HQ. No iffing and butting about it. All London Assembly people are Labour centrists - Labour left has made no headway.


 
The Assembly candidates are no more centrist than any other set of Labour candidates - if anything some are marginally left leaning (Murad Qureshi, Tom Copley etc) - certainly isn't an argument against preferential voting systems (note that the Irish have a significantly better left representation under STV than we have over here).


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 23, 2013)

Still looking to woo those floating voters?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 23, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's not very well-endowed with reflexivity, is he?


Typical Nu Labour type tbh.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> The Assembly candidates are no more centrist than any other set of Labour candidates - if anything some are marginally left leaning (Murad Qureshi, Tom Copley etc) - certainly isn't an argument against preferential voting systems (note that the Irish have a significantly better left representation under STV than we have over here).


 
Don't try and muddy the wide waters between AV and STV.

Also the left vote in Ireland is generally about good, respected local campaigners working hard in their communities for years and building good local profiles to some extent - even the SWP there have kind of learnt that to some extent.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

Actually, Sihhi was using SV as an example - but his logic about how to win transfers stands under any preferential system.  I'd much rather have STV - but in any case of course a change in voting system isn't a magic wand that avoids the need for consistent community work.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

In the context of Owen's argument, John Palmer's recent article for the RP website is worth a read:
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/facing-reality-after-the-crisis-in-the-swp/


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> The Assembly candidates are no more centrist than any other set of Labour candidates - if anything some are marginally left leaning (Murad Qureshi, Tom Copley etc) - certainly isn't an argument against preferential voting systems (note that the Irish have a significantly better left representation under STV than we have over here).


out of curiosity, what do you do within labour to campaign for better left representation within that nefandous party?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> In the context of Owen's argument, John Palmer's recent article for the RP website is worth a read:
> http://www.redpepper.org.uk/facing-reality-after-the-crisis-in-the-swp/


The syriziation of the middle class left continues apace.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

You don't think that a substantial section of the working class would welcome the emergence of a broad anti-austerity formation like Syriza here?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> out of curiosity, what do you do within labour to campaign for better left representation within that nefandous party?


Ability to influence that is very limited, beyond NEC elections.  Best option is to press unions to use their influence to block Blairite candidates and promote people with some kind of class instinct and backbone


----------



## Random (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> You don't think that a substantial section of the working class would welcome the emergence of a broad anti-austerity formation like Syriza here?


What's happening here is that some people from the far-left are hoping for a Syrizia style umbrella to work in. It's about realising their hopes and needs, not something that's coming as a response to a working class demand or building organically out of anti-cuts campaigning.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> You don't think that a substantial section of the working class would welcome the emergence of a broad anti-austerity formation like Syriza here?


The middle class left licking their lips at owen and sensing a new leading role for themselves would for sure.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I for one look forward to Welsh and Scottish activists rushing to embrace an Owen Jones network whose author's whose main idea is:


 
Well, he has a point in that nationalism *isn't* a substitute for class politics, but he's entirely missing the point that in this case nationalism (in terms of the "national vision" of the Scotnats and Plaid) may well reinforce the "more-equitable-than-England" socialism-shaded politics they already have. Owen's analysis is baldly "nationalism always bad". I don't like nationalism, but you have to look at it on a case-by-case basis in our existing political world. What serves "the people" best? As opposed to "you can't have nationalism, it's bad, m'kay?".


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Ability to influence that is very limited, beyond NEC elections. Best option is to press unions to use their influence to block Blairite candidates and promote people with some kind of class instinct and backbone


Yes,_ call on_ the unions to do something. The unions that are instinctively left-wing. Comes the reply: the leaders might be a prop of labour flavoured neo-liberalism, the members aren't, we must call on them to pressure the leaders to pressure the labour leaders. (of course, this say that there is no possibility of influencing the labour leadership from within the party - so bang goes the main argument for staying in, but that will be ignored). And there's yet another step, when it's pointed out that union members don't really care about and are not on the whole involved in this political stuff the next thing to do is pressure them to get involved in order to pressure the reps to pressure the leaders to pressure the labour leaders. I love this participatory democracy stuff.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

cesare said:


> Is the beige trilby standard SWP sartorial statement?


 
Fedora. A Trilby has a much skimpier brim.


----------



## cesare (Jan 23, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Fedora. A Trilby has a much skimpier brim.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

It's a mid-life crisis fedora.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 23, 2013)

eye shadow or camera angle?


----------



## cesare (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's a mid-life crisis fedora.



I like hats, but it just looks a bit ... Out of place.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Typical Nu Labour type tbh.


 
That whole Progress _milieu_ is filled with arseholes. Every time I see an article by Dan Hodges in the _New Statesman_, I know before I read it that it'll be puffing neo-Blairite ideas and rubbishing any other Labour current (snidely rather than openly). The spiritual heirs of Eric Hammond - rightists dressed up in vaguely leftist rhetoric.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> The Assembly candidates are no more centrist than any other set of Labour candidates - if anything some are marginally left leaning (Murad Qureshi, Tom Copley etc) - certainly isn't an argument against preferential voting systems (note that the Irish have a significantly better left representation under STV than we have over here).


 
Wow, "marginally", you say? Well, that makes socialism a shoo-in, doesn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> You don't think that a substantial section of the working class would welcome the emergence of a broad anti-austerity formation like Syriza here?


 
This'd be the broad anti-austerity formation that would, of course, fall in behind the Labour party, as per your hilarious statement of a few months ago?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> . I love this participatory democracy stuff.


 
But this is the point of the network Owen was proposing - participation doesn't have to be totally inside Labour or totally hostile to the involvement of anyone near Labour or Labour-affiliated unions.  A stronger anti-austerity movement outside formal electoral politics would make it easier to force concessions from insitutions bound up with it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's a mid-life crisis fedora.


 
I bought a black one last month.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> eye shadow or camera angle?


 
Both.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

cesare said:


> I like hats, but it just looks a bit ... Out of place.


 
He's got it on crooked, it's about half a size too small and having the brim pulled down low on the forehead may look a bit Al Capone, but it also makes him look like a gom.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 23, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, he has a point in that nationalism *isn't* a substitute for class politics, but he's entirely missing the point that in this case nationalism (in terms of the "national vision" of the Scotnats and Plaid) may well reinforce the "more-equitable-than-England" socialism-shaded politics they already have. Owen's analysis is baldly "nationalism always bad". I don't like nationalism, but you have to look at it on a case-by-case basis in our existing political world. What serves "the people" best? As opposed to "you can't have nationalism, it's bad, m'kay?".


4

It comes down to Owen Jones not liking the left nationalist opposition- Cymru Goch, SSP, IRSP etc etc because they show up Labour.




butchersapron said:


> The syriziation of the middle class left continues apace.


 


SYRIZA is the wrong benchmark - in Western strong capitalist substantial foreign investment (hate the word imperialist) it is Die Linke - the mass coalition of trots, pissed off Greens (admittedly after they were in coalition and hard SPD).
Basically I don't think a split from Labour would lead to SYRIZA but Die Linke.

I updated a thread about them here but it's in the wrong forum. Reality is still there.


----------



## Random (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> But this is the point of the network Owen was proposing - participation doesn't have to be totally inside Labour or totally hostile to the involvement of anyone near Labour or Labour-affiliated unions.  A stronger anti-austerity movement outside formal electoral politics would make it easier to force concessions from insitutions bound up with it.


 I don't see how this lash-up would mean a stronger anti-austerity movement. Instead it could lead to a few good campaigners getting embroilled in the endless arguments between the 57 different trot groups who want to take over, and just when that's finished a Green party member gets up to speak about why everyone should be working to ban mobile phones and laser mouses.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

sihhi said:


> SYRIZA is the wrong benchmark - in Western strong capitalist substantial foreign investment (hate the word imperialist) it is Die Linke - the mass coalition of trots, pissed off Greens (admittedly after they were in coalition and hard SPD).
> Basically I don't think a split from Labour would lead to SYRIZA but Die Linke.
> 
> I updated a thread about them here but it's in the wrong forum. Reality is still there.


I think you're probably right about what would happen - at least as regards the trad/trot groups, but i was really on about Red Pepper and their fellow travelers, it's def the Syriza model they are trying to push right now and with Red Pepper as the party house mag and Jones, Hilary etc as leading thinkers. That's right ain't it articul8?

edit: 100 red pepper articles on them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

Random said:


> I don't see how this lash-up would mean a stronger anti-austerity movement. Instead it could lead to a few good campaigners getting embroilled in the endless arguments between the 57 different trot groups who want to take over, and just when that's finished a Green party member gets up to speak about why everyone should be working to ban mobile phones and laser mouses.


 
It'd also mean that the Labour elements of any such campaign would trot out the hoary old "vote Labour with no illusions" _schtick_ at every opportunity, and attempt to dominate any such broad formation. Think Swappies with StWC.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> But this is the point of the network Owen was proposing - participation doesn't have to be totally inside Labour or totally hostile to the involvement of anyone near Labour or Labour-affiliated unions. A stronger anti-austerity movement outside formal electoral politics would make it easier to force concessions from insitutions bound up with it.


It could even be aggressively anti-labour then?


----------



## Random (Jan 23, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It comes down to Owen Jones not liking the left nationalist opposition- Cymru Goch, SSP, IRSP etc etc because they show up Labour.


 My guess is he wants a united Britain for the same reason he wants first past the post - it'll make it possible for his party, Labour, to dominate across the board.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It could even be aggressively anti-labour then?


as long as it wasn't being sectarian towards the limited forces in Labour that are promoting the same anti-austerity agenda then absolutely, no question of pulling punches when it comes to cuts being implemented by Labour councils, or justified by affilated unions.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> as long as it wasn't being sectarian towards the limited forces in Labour that are promoting the same anti-austerity agenda then absolutely, no question of pulling punches when it comes to cuts being implemented by Labour councils, or justified by affilated unions.


So first a no, then another no dressed up as a yes. because without that union money and manpower, this ain't going nowhere.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> The Assembly candidates are no more centrist than any other set of Labour candidates - if anything some are marginally left leaning (Murad Qureshi, Tom Copley etc) - certainly isn't an argument against preferential voting systems (note that the Irish have a significantly better left representation under STV than we have over here).


 
The organised Labour Left - the LRC which Owen Jones was a youth leader of - have probably the largest base anywhere in southern England and Midland, in Hackney - yet they still can't get anyone up into Assembly posts.
LRC Youth - from website only - is actually looking quite unactive maybe wrong.

http://www.lrcyouth.org.uk/blog-2/?post_type=latest_news

The point is LRC are not being selected even where their logic says they should be.Although they will get a few NEC members I'm sure.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think you're probably right about what would happen - at least as regards the trad/trot groups, but i was really on about Red Pepper and their fellow travelers, it's def the Syriza model they are trying to push right now and with Red Pepper as the party house mag and Jones, Hilary etc as leading thinkers. That's right ain't it articul8?


Syriza faces tough tests to come.  But its emergence has been hugely positive in Greece, and something along these lines would be very desirable over here if Labour starts to persist like PASOK in an austerity-driven agenda.  Frankly, we know full well that a love-in of various left groups won't amount to anything - it needs to be locally rooted and speak to the social needs of working class communities.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Syriza faces tough tests to come. But its emergence has been hugely positive in Greece, and something along these lines would be very desirable over here if Labour starts to persist like PASOK in an austerity-driven agenda. Frankly, we know full well that a love-in of various left groups won't amount to anything - it needs to be locally rooted and speak to the social needs of working class communities.


Give them red pepper then.


----------



## Random (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> something along these lines would be very desirable over here if Labour starts to persist like PASOK in an austerity-driven agenda


 In other words, it's too soon to write off Labour!  What's to say that something like the Greek group could even emerge here? Especially considering even you are not even sure if you want it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

Random said:


> In other words, it's too soon to write off Labour!  What's to say that something like the Greek group could even emerge here? Especially considering even you are not even sure if you want it?


Yesterday Labour were def going the PASOK route and heading for oblivion. Which makes the advice to join vote and work for them all the more curious.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The organised Labour Left - the LRC which Owen Jones was a youth leader of - have probably the largest base anywhere in southern England and Midland, in Hackney - yet they still can't get anyone up into Assembly posts.
> LRC Youth - from website only - is actually looking quite unactive maybe wrong.
> 
> http://www.lrcyouth.org.uk/blog-2/?post_type=latest_news
> ...


 
In all honesty the LRC is very weak and poorly organised.   It keeps a flag flying but it doesn't have anything like the resources of level of organisation that something like Progress has.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

Random said:


> In other words, it's too soon to write off Labour!  What's to say that something like the Greek group could even emerge here? Especially considering even you are not even sure if you want it?


The conditions for a SYRIZA type electoral bloc don't exist (yet?).  What is possible is a greater degree of organisation and national infrastructure for a network of anti-austerity activists.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

Random said:


> My guess is he wants a united Britain for the same reason he wants first past the post - it'll make it possible for his party, Labour, to dominate across the board.


 
I'm sure he couldn't *possibly* be that cynical.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yesterday Labour were def going the PASOK route and heading for oblivion. Which makes the advice to join vote and work for them all the more curious.


it will go in that direction *in the absence of mass movement against austerity*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> as long as it wasn't being sectarian towards the limited forces in Labour that are promoting the same anti-austerity agenda then absolutely, no question of pulling punches when it comes to cuts being implemented by Labour councils, or justified by affilated unions.


 
Fuck's sake! 

"You can be part as long as you don't bitch about Labour's anti-austerity agenda"? Get a fucking grip, you goatcock!


----------



## sihhi (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think you're probably right about what would happen - at least as regards the trad/trot groups, but i was really on about Red Pepper and their fellow travelers, it's def the Syriza model they are trying to push right now and with Red Pepper as the party house mag and Jones, Hilary etc as leading thinkers. That's right ain't it articul8?
> 
> edit: 100 red pepper articles on them.


 
I take your point I think you are wholly right about a Red Pepper bias towards presenting Syriza - the best case scenario in a country with a completely different dynamic and recent history - the aftermath of the military years and many adults remember PASOK in the 1980s as a Thatcher-type government and other things to do with the KKE.

The interviews with Die Linke leading figures are interesting:

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/left-leading-interview-with-die-linke-leader-katja-kipping/



> I am one of the co-founders of the Institut Solidarische Moderne (see http://tinyurl.com/solidarische) because we think a change of government needs to be well prepared. It’s not enough to simply replace ministers; we need to shift hegemony and that requires people to accompany this shift in hegemony – i.e. organic intellectuals, to cite Gramsci.


 



> One of the first things that Bernd Riexinger and I have done is set up a *movement council*. This is made up of people who represent the full political spectrum of the left, from the unions to the radical left. We haven’t invited the press, because we want to create a space for internal dialogue, both about the current potential for mobilisation and about the issues Die Linke should focus on.
> 
> It’s striking that many of the movement representatives said that while they thought social protests were important, they believed in the need for a real left-wing party in parliament and wanted us to run a successful election campaign. When Die Linke entered the Bundestag, we set up a contact point for social movements.
> 
> ...


 
Come to the *movement council*!


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Fuck's sake!
> 
> "You can be part as long as you don't bitch about Labour's anti-austerity agenda"? Get a fucking grip, you goatcock!


FFS - I'm not saying that.  I'm saying don't slag off people that are fighting that anti-austerity agenda from inside the party


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Give them red pepper then.


 
Will we be frowned down on from the high table?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> as long as it wasn't being sectarian towards the limited forces in Labour that are promoting the same anti-austerity agenda then absolutely, no question of pulling punches when it comes to cuts being implemented by Labour councils, or justified by affilated unions.


it's back to post-neo-classical endogenous growth theory, i see


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> FFS - I'm not saying that. I'm saying don't slag off people that are fighting that anti-austerity agenda from inside the party


why couldn't you say that like that instead of coming out with all manner of awful guff?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Will we be frowned down on from the high table?


If they even bother to turn up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> FFS - I'm not saying that. I'm saying don't slag off people that are fighting that anti-austerity agenda from inside the party


 
So you're saying exactly what I've claimed you're saying, but with words that suit you better.
As a textual analyst, I find your posts an almost never-ending source of amusement. It's like watching Ouroboros consume its' tail.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> FFS - I'm not saying that. I'm saying don't slag off people that are fighting that anti-austerity agenda from inside the party


Why not?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why not?


 
It'll make them cry.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> So you're saying exactly what I've claimed you're saying, but with words that suit you better.
> As a textual analyst, I find your posts an almost never-ending source of amusement. It's like watching Ouroboros consume its' tail.


it's more like watching someone who's extremely drunk pretend to be sober


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

because building an effective and united movement in situations where people have different tactics round elections and different party allegiances (including Leninist ones) means setting aside questions of party card and concentrate on organising around common aims and objectives where we can.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> So you're saying exactly what I've claimed you're saying, but with words that suit you better.
> As a textual analyst, I find your posts an almost never-ending source of amusement. It's like watching Ouroboros consume its' tail.


no you were saying something totally different - that I was saying people "shouldn't bitch about Labour's anti-austerity agenda" - that was NOT what i was saying


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> because building an effective and united movement in situations where people have different tactics round elections and different party allegiances (including Leninist ones) means setting aside questions of party card and concentrate on organising around common aims and objectives where we can.


the problem is that your party is a major part of the problem.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> because building an effective and united movement in situations where people have different tactics round elections and different party allegiances (including Leninist ones) means setting aside questions of party card and concentrate on organising around common aims and objectives where we can.


So you can be aggressively anti-labour but you're not allowed to criticise labour members for their membership and their parties policies. Cor this sounds great.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

which is why it must be challenged and changed - no by all means attack Labour policy when it falls short of what an anti-austerity movement needs to be saying (or doing the opposite for what it should be doing).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> which is why it must be challenged and changed.


so your position is in your opinion a position which must be challenged and changed? what the fuck sort of position is that?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> which is why it must be challenged and changed.


So, we're back to everything having to revolve around your party.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> FFS - I'm not saying that. I'm saying don't slag off people that are fighting that anti-austerity agenda from inside the party


 



articul8 said:


> In all honesty the LRC is very weak and poorly organised. It keeps a flag flying but it doesn't have anything like the resources of level of organisation that something like Progress has.


 
Are Progress fighting that agenda?

http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2013/01/21/beyond-the-dented-shield/





> This poverty scars our borough, and 13 years of Labour investment in government in Westminster hadn’t shifted the dial, in no small part down to the indolence and apathy of the ruling Lib Dems on the council.
> 
> Inspired by The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, we decided that the response to the shocking realities outlined above wasn’t merely to try to tackle poverty, but rather to tackle inequality, creating a fairer Islington that would be to the benefit of all residents.
> 
> ...


 
Are Progress allowed in on the pan-coloured anti-cuts initiative?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So, we're back to everything having to revolve around your party.


he's all over the fucking shop. it's embarrassing to watch, can we shut him up?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Give them red pepper then.


You missed this one articul8.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> so your position is in your opinion a position which must be challenged and changed? what the fuck sort of position is that?


Not my position fuckwit, the position of the Labour party leadership at national and local levels


----------



## sihhi (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> which is why it must be challenged and changed - no by all means *attack Labour policy when it falls short* of what an anti-austerity movement needs to be saying (or doing the opposite for what it should be doing).


 
Progress are doing this  - expand the movement, join Progress. Stella Creasy is Walthamstow's most popular MP since the 1970s, attacking the failures of Miliband's wibbling over child benefit! Progress is assisting the councillors overcome austerity for the poor.

http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2013/01/11/bringing-labour-councillors-together/


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Are Progress allowed in on the pan-coloured anti-cuts initiative?


 
This guy is a careerist slimeball from Brent (my own CLP) and I've consistently opposed the policy of the ruling Labour group on Brent council - in public and in private.   "The cuts are inevitable" is a position which must be fought.


----------



## Random (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> The conditions for a SYRIZA type electoral bloc don't exist (yet?).  What is possible is a greater degree of organisation and national infrastructure for a network of anti-austerity activists.


Sounds like any network you and OJ are involved with should be prepared to have its life support machine turned off as soon as it would benefit Labour. No offense.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> You don't think that a substantial section of the working class would welcome the emergence of a broad anti-austerity formation like Syriza here?


 
Not involving the equivalent of pasok tho ...


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You missed this one articul8.


No, I saw it - a cheap dig.  Red Pepper is aimed primarily at people who have some involvement in or previous history of left organisations of one sort or another - and activists in the labour movement for thinking through the direction fo the movement.  We don't claim to be a party or structure in utero.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 23, 2013)

Articul8 what's your position on working with a "network" that involves standing candidates against Labour councillors and MP's? Like Syriza did against PASOK.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 23, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Not involving the equivalent of pasok tho ...


 
Why is someone in the Labour party actually advocating a Syriza-ish _anything?_ Have they seen how many MP's PASOK now has?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Not involving the equivalent of pasok tho ...


The Greeks came to the conclusion that PASOK was irredeemable after the experience of seeing the consistently implement cuts.  If Labour heads in that direction than the same might be true of Labour.  *If*


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> The Greeks came to the conclusion that PASOK was irredeemable after the experience of seeing the consistently implement cuts. If Labour heads in that direction than the same might be true of Labour. *If*


 
But they already do constantly implement cuts


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> No, I saw it - a cheap dig. Red Pepper is aimed primarily at people who have some involvement in or previous history of left organisations of one sort or another - and activists in the labour movement for thinking through the direction fo the movement. We don't claim to be a party or structure in utero.


It wasn't a cheap dig. It was a constructive proposal - if you argue that conditions exist for this floppy network then give your mag to the people who constitute it. Now. Or do you see your role as sitting above the fray ordering the forces hither and thither?


----------



## Random (Jan 23, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Articul8 what's your position on working with a "network" that involves standing candidates against Labour councillors and MP's? Like Syriza did against PASOK.


This Netwoek isn't really a Syriza, even in embryo. It's an attempt by Labourites to hustle various campaigners into something that'll help the Labourites get some leverage to affect changes in their own party. With the LP as the focus, the nexus, the alpha and the omega.

edit: Netwoek sounds like some Dutch group


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Articul8 what's your position on working with a "network" that involves standing candidates against Labour councillors and MP's? Like Syriza did against PASOK.


I work with people who stand against Labour in our local anti-cuts group no problem.  Don't see why the same couldn't happen on a national scale.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Articul8 what's your position on working with a "network" that involves standing candidates against Labour councillors and MP's? Like Syriza did against PASOK.


I think you can guess - labour candidates who take a rhetorical anti-cuts position should not be challenged, they represent one form that opposition to the austerity agenda may take. Thise who don't must be called upon and challenged etc


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Not my position fuckwit, the position of the Labour party leadership at national and local levels


 it appears to be a reply to my post. are you sure you're not wriggling like some nematode?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> This guy is a careerist slimeball from Brent (my own CLP) and I've consistently opposed the policy of the ruling Labour group on Brent council - in public and in private. "The cuts are inevitable" is a position which must be fought.


 
He is a councillor for Islington, organising the Islington Fairness Commission.
His twitter is here:  https://twitter.com/Croslandite

He is fighting the cuts by changing aspects of council policy and inviting the movement to attend so that it knows the truth about the Lib Dems and Tories' austerity policies. 

Only in the blinkered world of a puritan non-pluralist could he be considered a 'careerist slimeball'!

Progress 'FTW' as the youth say.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think you can guess - labour candidates who take a rhetorical anti-cuts position should not be challenged, they represent one form that opposition to the austerity agenda may take. Thise who don't must be called upon and challenged etc


No, if they vote for cuts they are part of the problem, whatever their rhetoric


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> No, if they vote for cuts they are part of the problem, whatever their rhetoric


But if they say they are anti-cuts before the election they must not face other anti-cuts candidates - right?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

sihhi said:


> He is a councillor for Islington, organising the Islington Fairness Commission.
> His twitter is here: https://twitter.com/Croslandite
> 
> He is fighting the cuts by changing aspects of council policy and inviting the movement to attend so that it knows the truth about the Lib Dems and Tories' austerity policies.
> ...


Oh sorry - there was another one on Progress recently by Cllr. Zaffa von Kalwala in Brent.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think you can guess - labour candidates who take a rhetorical anti-cuts position should not be challenged, they represent one form that opposition to the austerity agenda may take. Thise who don't must be called upon and challenged etc


 
articul8 dismissed the suggestion that this was anything to do with electoral politics or that Greens would be made to stand down in favour of Labour Lefts fighting in narrow local contests.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> But if they say they are anti-cuts before the election they must not face other anti-cuts candidates - right?


 
I'm talking about a movement, not an electoral bloc.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I'm talking about a movement, not an electoral bloc.


You were asked about your involvement in networks standing candidates against labour. I'll ask again, if they say they are anti-cuts before the election they must not face other anti-cuts candidates - right?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

sihhi said:


> articul8 dismissed the suggestion that this was anything to do with electoral politics or that Greens would be made to stand down in favour of Labour Lefts fighting in narrow local contests.


I like the way that he's set out the parameters for what's acceptable beforehand  You've reminded me, i need to check out what the Greens are saying as regards economic stuff beyond the green new deal stuff.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 23, 2013)

sihhi said:


> articul8 dismissed the suggestion that this was anything to do with electoral politics or that Greens would be made to stand down in favour of Labour Lefts fighting in narrow local contests.


 
He's doing good things for Brent too. 



> Brent achieved £14m of savings in adult social care, which is similar to the local NHS Trust. Despite the huge budget reduction the council still managed to *deliver a better service and successfully move away from high-end expensive care to more preventative social care*. Labour nationally can be confident that it can manage the finances and still work hard for social justice as Labour locally has done.


 
It's a win. He represents the people of a massive pan-cultural estate - Stonebridge Park - his voice needs to be a part of any anti-austerity pluralist initiative.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You were asked about your involvement in networks standing candidates. I'll ask again, if they say they are anti-cuts before the election they must not face other anti-cuts candidates - right?


There's two separate things. I would welcome the involvement of TUSC< Greens and others in a national anti-austerity network that was organised from the bottom up and had real community roots. But I would *not* be in favour of an organisation which stood candidates in elections at this stage. At elections people in the network will be free to vote Labour, Green, TUSC or whoever else. The movement may choose to intervene in election campaigns but will not endorse candidates - that would have to be clear from the outset.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's a win. He represents the people of a massive pan-cultural estate - Stonebridge Park - his voice needs to be a part of any anti-austerity pluralist initiative.


 
He's an advocate of "efficient" cuts - these people are the problem.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> The Greeks came to the conclusion that PASOK was irredeemable after the experience of seeing the consistently implement cuts. If Labour heads in that direction than the same might be true of Labour. *If*


 
_When_ Labour get elected and start passing the exact same cuts as the coalition I suspect a lot of people will come to the conclusion Labour is irredeemable too. Everyone has their Ramsay MacDonald moment. I think I came to the conclusion Labour was irredeemable somewhere between the fall of Baghdad and the death of David Kelly.

They already doing it, look and Wales and Scotland and practically every council in every Labour area I can think of. These anti-cuts councillors are few and far between, and besides even if there is loads of them, do you really think that they'd be able to compell a big chunk of the Labour party on a council-level to pull a Militant and start setting a needs budgets? Even if they could, local government is utterly dependant on government spending, the Tories have no shame in just suspending all of them. I notice Lenny McCluskey had some criticisms of Labour councillors who were more concerned with their careers than fight cuts, in that speech he did recently, but saying this stuff during your election campaign is very nice but is there any prospect of it happening? None that I can see.

I don't think making comparisons, and basing our actions on cargo cult imitation of what's going on in Greece, is a good thing either. All these anaologies between our situation and theirs aren't very helpful - we're not trapped in a overvalued currency and being held at gunpoint by Germany whilst our country is systematically ransacked. Our political parties and recent history are very different. All the same, if we must discuss this in Greek term, Owen Jones will have his Syriza-ish network once Labour start implementing neo-liberalism with a vengence post-2015. Whether he'll be in it or against it is upto him.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> There's two separate things. I would welcome the involvement of TUSC< Greens and others in a national anti-austerity network that was organised from the bottom up and had real community roots. But I would *not* be in favour of an organisation which stood candidates in elections at this stage. At elections people in the network will be free to vote Labour, Green, TUSC or whoever else. The movement may choose to intervene in election campaigns but will not endorse candidates - that would have to be clear from the outset.


You were asked about your involvement with a network standing candidiates against labour, you replid that you would have no problem with this. You then went onto to demonstrate that you do, in fact, have very big problems with it indeed when asked if labour candidates say they are anti-cuts before the election they must not face other anti-cuts candidates. And you're now trying to weasel out of your don't challenge labour position by having your cake (_of course we should, no problem_) and eat it too (_this isn't about candidates anyway, why mention such a thing as challenging labour, that's off the table to discuss, verboten_). Such weaselly politician blah blah.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I like the way that he's set out the parameters for what's acceptable beforehand  You've reminded me, i need to check out what the Greens are saying as regards economic stuff beyond the green new deal stuff.


 
Report back on what you find out I can't be arsed with them though they annoy me a tad on a local level.

Matt S used to provide insights but he buggered off as soon as the Greens got an MP in this spectacular flounce.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:
			
		

> The movement may choose to intervene in election campaigns but will not endorse candidates - that would have to be clear from the outset.


_I'm in control!!! _


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> No, if they vote for cuts they are part of the problem, whatever their rhetoric


why aren't you part of the problem?

you are a labour voting labour member.

labour stand for cuts.

labour are part of the problem.

you, as a labour party member voting labour, are therefore part of the problem.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

It's not a question of control - it's a question of providing a basis that allows the network to function without immediately splitting over what we know already are likely to be divisive tactical questions


----------



## sihhi (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> He's an advocate of "efficient" cuts - these people are the problem.


 
Cuts against the rich, services for the poor - how is that "the problem"? Blairites, Tories and Lib Dems are the problem. If budgets are increased, the bond providers and ratings agencies will further increase the cost of borrowing for local  councils.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> why aren't you part of the problem?
> 
> you are a labour voting labour member.
> 
> ...


 
Labour is widely seen as the only alternative, and the only way to punish the coalition

There is a section of Labour party supporters who oppose cuts.

I'm in the party in order to fight that battle and raise the idea of Labour government committed to representing the interests of working people


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Labour is widely seen as the only alternative, and the only way to punish the coalition
> 
> There is a section of Labour party supporters who oppose cuts.
> 
> I'm in the party in order to fight that battle and raise the idea of Labour government committed to representing the interests of working people


you're not making a very good job of it


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> It's not a question of control - it's a question of providing a basis that allows the network to function without immediately splitting over what we know already are likely to be divisive tactical questions


 



			
				articul8 said:
			
		

> The movement may choose to intervene in election campaigns but will not endorse candidates - that would have to be clear from the outset.


And you've already decided what that basis is beforehand, saving everyone else the bother. Thank you claire.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Cuts against the rich, services for the poor - how is that "the problem"? Blairites, Tories and Lib Dems are the problem. If budgets are increased, the bond providers and ratings agencies will further increase the cost of borrowing for local councils.


who says the costs of local government borrowing are prohibitive in relation to the effect of cuts in services?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And you've already decided what that basis is beforehand, saving everyone else the bother. Thank you claire.


FFS - the dogs in the street know that the relevant forces would be divided over electoral tactics


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> FFS - the dogs in the street know that the relevant forces would be divided over electoral tactics


Well then i guess then that it's handy that you've decided that there will be no discussion or debate over the issue. Tell you what. why don't you go ahead and draw up something more detailed and pass it as policy yourself. Save other people going to the effort.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

it's not a matter of me or anyone else deciding it - it's a pragmatic precondition


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> it's not a matter of me or anyone else deciding it - it's a pragmatic precondition


oh dear.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> it's not a matter of me or anyone else deciding it - it's a pragmatic precondition


 
I rather think that you have decided for everyone else. 




			
				articul8 said:
			
		

> The movement may choose to intervene in election campaigns but will not endorse candidates - that would have to be clear from the outset.


 
I can just see the people flocking to this open participatory network that you've set up for them.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> At elections people in the network will be free to vote Labour, Green, TUSC or whoever else. The movement may choose to intervene in election campaigns but will not endorse candidates - that would have to be clear from the outset.


 
"intervene"

OK so you have a local election with Tory, Lib Dem, Labour Left, Greens and TUSC all standing.
"The network" *intervenes* by advising people not to vote for the Tory and Lib Dem candidates. What is the point of that?

In fact, that kind of advice to the TUSC and Green people (part of the network) will appear to them, as the network advising a Labour vote because the biggest national non-Tory non-Lib Dem party is Labour.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

sihhi said:


> "intervene"


That intervention could take different forms.  It could present a series of questions, or draw up a set of demands that the candidates would be challenged to sign up to.  It may well be the case that a Labour candidate didn't sign.  It would then be upto people to draw their own conclusions


----------



## sihhi (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> That intervention could take different forms. It could present a _*series of questions, or draw up a set of demands that the candidates would be challenged to sign up*_ to. It may well be the case that a Labour candidate didn't sign. It would then be upto people to draw their own conclusions


 
Aha! So exactly the same as what BARAC, YFFJ, National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts, False Economy and their Anti-ATOS Alliance, Anti-Academies Alliance, Boycott Workfare, Save Our Stations, People's Charter, Women Against the Cuts, Campaign for a Fair Society, Coalition of Resistance, Other TaxPayers’ Alliance, Public Services Alliance, Cuts Disgust, Keep Our NHS Public, High Pay Centre, Lost Arts, Tax Justice Network, Frontline First and hundreds of local anti-cuts unions and bodies do across the country. Brilliant!
Round-robin pledges to the candidates - why haven't we done that before hmmn... . 

In fact why can't CLASS or the LRC make up its own lists without another bl--dy network?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

Some of the above are a handful of activists no more - I'm talking about a significant overarching national network with a real basis in w/c communities


----------



## Random (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Some of the above are a handful of activists no more - I'm talking about a significant overarching national network with a real basis in w/c communities


Again I am struck by the sheer practical problems. Why would this proposed network get the real basis that the others lack?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

Random said:


> Again I am struck by the sheer practical problems. Why would this proposed network get the real basis that the others lack?


 
Well, this time it would have Red Pepper at the centre. 




			
				guess who? said:
			
		

> Well said @OwenJones84 - sounds like you want an organisational expression of @RedPeppermag


 
And not make the mistakes that compass made.




			
				and about what? said:
			
		

> it had potential early on, but lost its way and was too Westminster based


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

Well the problem is groups like "CoR" or "Unite the resistance" which are just pretty obviously top-down fronts.  The proposed network would need to be both sufficiently broad to encompass all the aspects of anti-austerity politics AND a structure that was consciously open and pluralist.   I'm not sayign it's going to be magically successsful.  It will need sustained commitment from across the existing left and beyond - not just a token involvement.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

All the labour linked one like CLASS, what is the red pepper presence across them?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 23, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> That whole Progress _milieu_ is filled with arseholes. Every time I see an article by Dan Hodges in the _New Statesman_, I know before I read it that it'll be puffing neo-Blairite ideas and rubbishing any other Labour current (snidely rather than openly). The spiritual heirs of Eric Hammond - rightists dressed up in vaguely leftist rhetoric.


Hodges is a weird fucker. He's well at home at the Torygraph, where idiot Tories call him "leftist scum". Little do they realise how much they have in common.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> All the labour linked one like CLASS,?


CLASS is seen as having run out of steam (already!) - and a miscarried bureaucratic attempt to "do a thinktank"


----------



## Random (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Well the problem is groups like "CoR" or "Unite the resistance" which are just pretty obviously top-down fronts.  The proposed network would need to be both sufficiently broad to encompass all the aspects of anti-austerity politics AND a structure that was consciously open and pluralist.


 A network being set up by media lefties like Jones will, by definition, be top-down. And what happens when your open structures mean that people decide to start attacking Labour, when you think it's too soon? Maybe you'll have to force these idiots to be pluralists.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> CLASS is seen as having run out of steam (already!) - and a miscarried bureaucratic attempt to "do a thinktank"


And what other think tanks - esp the labour linked ones - is there a red pepper presence on?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> CLASS is seen as having run out of steam (already!) - and a miscarried bureaucratic attempt to "do a thinktank"


By who? Who views it like that? I didn't get asked. Who here did?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 23, 2013)

Random said:


> A network being set up by media lefties like Jones will, by definition, be top-down. And what happens when your open structures mean that people decide to start attacking Labour, when you think it's too soon? Maybe you'll have to force these idiots to be pluralists.


 
That's why the piece is so dishonest Owen Jones has zero interest in actually getting a functional rooted network off the ground (I'd argue against it being 'national' after all what is the nation?)

The Coalition of Resistance is to all intents and purposes the biggest national anti-cuts network. 

Here is their AGM:


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> no you were saying something totally different - that I was saying people "shouldn't bitch about Labour's anti-austerity agenda" - that was NOT what i was saying


 
"*as long as it wasn't being sectarian towards the limited forces in Labour that are promoting the same anti-austerity agenda*". Which reads as "don't bitch at people in Labour" *unless* you happen to believe that Labour has an identical agenda with regard to anti-austerity as non-partisans do (which we both know is NOT the case). Why does it read as "don't bitch about people in Labour"? Because those inside Labour who represent an anti-austerity agenda are NOT "anti-austerity" first and foremost, they're Labour first and foremost, and even *you* have represented them as such.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

Articul8's flapping around about anti-labour candidates reminds me of this from him yesterday:



> That's why some of the right wing on Twitter started to shit themselves and accusing him of wanting to launch a new party.


 
He's now the one 'shitting himself' and desperately seeking ground on which to argue against challenging labour candidates. Makes sense that people with the same interests argue the same things i suppose.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 23, 2013)

And you can have a peek at their agenda and resolutions:






A lot of people agree:






Including some famous faces:






Why *do* we need another one?


----------



## Random (Jan 23, 2013)

sihhi said:


> That's why the piece is so dishonest Owen Jones has zero interest in actually getting a functional rooted network off the ground (I'd argue against it being 'national' after all what is the nation?)


 It seems to me - maybe I'm naive! - but if you want a locally-rooted grassroots network then you have to make sure it is owned by the grassroots, you have to see that it's initiated by local groups. This means that celebrities like Owen Jones will have to commit themselves to trying to build a network that they don't themselves entirely agree with, and submit to the priorities of anti-cuts groups.

On the other hand, certain lefties could just get together and create a "CoR for people like us"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> But if they say they are anti-cuts before the election they must not face other anti-cuts candidates - right?


 
Shades of the Lib-Dem "we are totally against tuition fee rises" that metamorphosed into the opposite once they had power.  Anyone who *doesn't* expect Labour to pull that one if they win the next GE is hopelessly naive, or pathologically-deranged.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

Random said:


> It seems to me - maybe I'm naive! - but if you want a locally-rooted grassroots network then you have to make sure it is owned by the grassroots, you have to see that it's initiated by local groups. This means that celebrities like Owen Jones will have to commit themselves to trying to build a network that they don't themselves entirely agree with, and submit to the priorities of anti-cuts groups.
> 
> On the other hand, certain lefties could just get together and create a "CoR for people like us"


This is has been the thrust of my posts here  - and i hope people have been picking up on that, because it seems to me that articul8 (and by extension his bubble) have already decided that they are the ones who own this vague proposal.


----------



## Random (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is has been the thrust of my posts here  - and i hope people have been picking up on that, because it seems to me that articul8 (and by extension his bubble) have already decided that they are the ones who own this vague proposal.


I just assumed you were worried that the Greens would suffer electorally


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is has been the thrust of my posts here - and i hope people have been picking up on that, because it seems to me that articul8 (and by extension his bubble) have already decided that they are the ones who own this vague proposal.


 
Not at all - first of all I'm asking whether there isn't a deficit between local self-initiated coalitions (like the one I'm an activist in) and bureuacratically co-ordinated fronts like CoR?  Couldn't there be a national structure to reinforce and amplify the arguments and activities of open, democratic community coalitions against the cuts which would offer a united platform of people who make the case against austerity (I don't mean "too far too fast" austerity-lite).    I don't see why this has to decide for or against standing candidates and make that a shibboleth (sorry Lynds!) - any more than it is for PCS or StWC.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> _When_ Labour get elected and start passing the exact same cuts as the coalition I suspect a lot of people will come to the conclusion Labour is irredeemable too. Everyone has their Ramsay MacDonald moment. I think I came to the conclusion Labour was irredeemable somewhere between the fall of Baghdad and the death of David Kelly.


 
For me it was 1994, and the replacement of clause 4 with some fluffy Blairite bollocks.



> They already doing it, look and Wales and Scotland and practically every council in every Labour area I can think of. These anti-cuts councillors are few and far between, and besides even if there is loads of them, do you really think that they'd be able to compell a big chunk of the Labour party on a council-level to pull a Militant and start setting a needs budgets? Even if they could, local government is utterly dependant on government spending, the Tories have no shame in just suspending all of them. I notice Lenny McCluskey had some criticisms of Labour councillors who were more concerned with their careers than fight cuts, in that speech he did recently, but saying this stuff during your election campaign is very nice but is there any prospect of it happening? None that I can see.


 
Frankly, I've seen nothing to convince me that any ruling party within any local authority has members with enough grit to compile and propose a needs budget that will leave the councillors open to surcharge. 20 years ago, maybe, when we had councillors who weren't political careerists _per se_, but now? Most of them wouldn't risk a parking fine, let alone a multi-million pound personal surcharge.



> I don't think making comparisons, and basing our actions on cargo cult imitation of what's going on in Greece, is a good thing either.


Agreed. Yes, Syriza *is* a good example of what can be done, within a particular polity, to resist. That really doesn't mean that such an example represents a "best possible hope" transplanted bodily to the UK, except for the "bottom-up" nature of the movement, something that I'm not convinced that Labour (or indeed articul8) would be too happy about.



> All these anaologies between our situation and theirs aren't very helpful - we're not trapped in a overvalued currency and being held at gunpoint by Germany whilst our country is systematically ransacked. Our political parties and recent history are very different. All the same, if we must discuss this in Greek term, Owen Jones will have his Syriza-ish network once Labour start implementing neo-liberalism with a vengence post-2015. Whether he'll be in it or against it is upto him.


 
And on current form, he'll go along with Labour while sighing and chuntering about "the lesser of two evils".


----------



## Random (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Couldn't there be a national structure to reinforce and amplify the arguments and activities of open, democratic community coalitions against the cuts which would offer a united platform of people who make the case against austerity.


 Genuine question based on my ignorance of UK politics: do these community coalitions you speak of already exist. Which group are you in, that you say is so much better than CoR?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> oh dear.


 
Could be worse, he could be talking about the need to hegemonise.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

Random said:


> Genuine question based on my ignorance of UK politics: do these community coalitions you speak of already exist. Which group are you in, that you say is so much better than CoR?


I'm in Brent Fightback - it is small and has serious work to do to engage a wider base of people - but it brings together the LRC, Greens, TUSC, SWP along with a local housing campaign, an unemployed workers campaign, NHS campaigners, Anti-Academy campaigners and a campaign to save a local pub/social space.  Other than the question of elections (where TUSC want to stand, the Greens want to stand, LRC would be kicked out of the party if we supported them etc.) then it's going OK.  But although we get covered occasionally in the local rag, there's nothing similar on a national scale.


----------



## Random (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I'm in Brent Fightback - it is small and has serious work to do to engage a wider base of people - but it brings together the LRC, Greens, TUSC, SWP along with a local housing campaign, an unemployed workers campaign, NHS campaigners, Anti-Academy campaigners and a campaign to save a local pub/social space.  Other than the question of elections (where TUSC want to stand, the Greens want to stand, LRC would be kicked out of the party if we supported them etc.) then it's going OK.  But although we get covered occasionally in the local rag, there's nothing similar on a national scale.


Sounds like a good group. What do the other people in Brent Fightback think of this Network idea? Won't the SWP in your local group want everyone to be in CoR? Again, practical problems.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

CoR isn't SWP - that's Unite the Resistance  And they aren't strong enough to push that through.  I don't see the idea of a network as an alternative to a group like this - it would be about creating a framework of institutional support at a national level and have some form of national profile without the kind of unelected and unaccountable bureaucratic directives of a CoR/UtR


----------



## sihhi (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> it would be about creating a framework of institutional support at a national level and have some form of national profile without the kind of *unelected and unaccountable bureaucratic directives of a CoR/UtR*


 
Let's get this straight you're saying Coalition of Resistance are 'unelected' and 'unaccountable' - yet they have an AGM where you stand on positions - I've posted pictures of it.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

but they don't really have a network of active local branches - so who is electing to whom and what basis?


----------



## Balbi (Jan 23, 2013)

Is the surcharge still a thing? 

Edit: no, been abolished.

Pickles gets to set the budget if needs budget is repeatedly set in face of warnings.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> but they don't really have a network of active local branches - so who is electing to whom and what basis?


 
Local anti-cuts unions affiliate and send delegates - Haringey signed up for instance.

You are making the claim that a different network will avoid all of COR's weaknesses - the stage is yours...


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2013)

it's a valid question to pose - what kind of iniative could produce a viable network on a democratic basis that could be both pluralist and strategically coherent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Local anti-cuts unions affiliate and send delegates - Haringey signed up for instance.
> 
> You are making the claim that a different network will avoid all of COR's weaknesses - the stage is yours...


In articul8's case it's more of a scaffold


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 23, 2013)

Dave Nellist responds to Owen Jones

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/letters-how-is-jihadism-our-fault-8462371.html



> *New alliances on the left*
> Whilst I understand his impatience, Owen Jones ("British politics urgently needs a new force", 21 January) is far too dismissive about attempts to build an electoral alternative to the main three parties' overlapping agenda of austerity.
> Owen does not want "another party of the left to be built"; he wants Labour to change. Yet he limits his aspirations to a "network" outside Labour to pressurise it from the left (but leaving the same politicians in post).
> His sideswipe against the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) is misplaced. We know TUSC is small at the moment; Owen, however, can't see the wood for the saplings. Yes, the average of our results, where we stood in a small number of council elections in 2011 and 2012, is only 7 per cent. This May, however, we hope to stand 400 candidates.
> ...


 
Very stirring. 400 candidates in May? However, don't rush to the barricades just yet, straight after that the Inde prints this:



> Excellent article by Owen Jones. Having been a member of both the Socialist Alliance and the Socialist Party, I know how undemocratic the British left is. We will only get a new force when such parties are left to flounder and people are allowed to form their own alliances of co-operatives and community activism.
> Robin McSporran
> Bristol


 
So there ya go. Is it Left Unity time yet? Has someone called a conference?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Dave Nellist responds to Owen Jones
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/letters-how-is-jihadism-our-fault-8462371.html
> 
> ...


 
Robin McSporran? Sounds like a _nom de plume_.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 24, 2013)

articul8 said:


> FFS - I'm not saying that. I'm saying don't slag off people that are fighting that anti-austerity agenda from inside the party


Why when they are supporting a pro-austerity agenda? They can make all the anti-austerity talk they like if they are giving money and support to the Labour Party then they are pro-austerity.


----------



## Random (Jan 24, 2013)

How can Nellist quote an average result of 7%? Is this based on a very small number of elections, including some good SP results that bump up the average? When TUSC stand nationally they seem to get less than 2%


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2013)

Random said:


> How can Nellist quote an average result of 7%? Is this based on a very small number of elections, including some good SP results that bump up the average? When TUSC stand nationally they seem to get less than 2%


He's a graduate of the trotskyite school of falsification


----------



## Random (Jan 24, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> He's a graduate of the trotskyite school of falsification


2010 General Election
TUSC/STUSC had announced the following list of parliamentary candidates for the 2010 general election, including ten in Scotland.[16] They received a total of 15,573 votes, or 0.1% of the popular vote. TUSC's average vote nationwide was around 371 (1.0%), no deposits were returned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Unionist_and_Socialist_Coalition#Candidates_and_results

All of this suggests that, instead of TUSC getting only 7% and then hoping for more with more candidates, they ONLY got as high as 7% because of their small number of candidates, and any attempt to run 400 will see results once again in the 1% range.

Which, if true, means that Nellist is trying to give people a false impression of the TUSC's situation


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2013)

I thought that's what I said


----------



## brogdale (Jan 24, 2013)

Random said:


> How can Nellist quote an average result of 7%? Is this based on a very small number of elections, including some good SP results that bump up the average? When TUSC stand nationally they seem to get less than 2%


 
He did actually state _local election results _in his letter....tbf.
http://www.tusc.org.uk/pdfs/2012/TUSC_Results_Report.pdf


----------



## Random (Jan 24, 2013)

brogdale said:


> He did actually state _local election results _in his letter....tbf.
> http://www.tusc.org.uk/pdfs/2012/TUSC_Results_Report.pdf


I'm not saying that result of 7 % is factually inaccurate. I'm saying he's being misleading by saying "Yes, the average of our results, where we stood in a small number of council elections in 2011 and 2012, is only 7 per cent. This May, however, we hope to stand 400 candidates." and implying this big effort with the 400 candidates will be better than "only" 7 %.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 24, 2013)

Random said:


> I'm not saying that result of 7 % is factually inaccurate. I'm saying he's being misleading by saying "Yes, the average of our results, where we stood in a small number of council elections in 2011 and 2012, is only 7 per cent. This May, however, we hope to stand 400 candidates." and implying this big effort with the 400 candidates will be better than "only" 7 %.


 
Politician.


----------



## cesare (Jan 24, 2013)

Fighting talk


----------



## Random (Jan 24, 2013)

cesare said:


> Fighting talk


I'm sure brogdale is talking about Nellist, not me.


----------



## cesare (Jan 24, 2013)

Random said:


> I'm sure brogdale is talking about Nellist, not me.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 24, 2013)

cesare said:


>


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 28, 2013)

Tim Montgomerie tries his hand at dystopian sci-fi in this little masterpiece.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/t...in-has-voted-to-leave-the-european-union.html

This caught my eye.



> Labour soon became a very unpopular government. Like Francois Hollande in 2012, Ed Miliband had campaigned for office on an anti-austerity message but had had to U-turn once in office. The Tory/LibDem Coalition had eliminated half of the deficit it had inherited and international investors were demanding that there could be no deviation from the deficit reduction path. New taxes on richer Britons could not produce enough revenue to stabilise Britain’s public finances. New taxes were therefore introduced on National Insurance by the Chancellor, Ed Balls. He also enacted cuts in the aid, school building and pension budgets. The unions and green campaigners felt particularly betrayed. Throughout 2015 and 2016 there had been angry demonstrations throughout the country. *The main beneficiary was the new Green and Justice Party, which under the leadership of Owen Jones, promised new taxes on land, property and an end to the European capitalist model. The GJP started to score 15% in some opinion polls. Four Labour MPs from the party’s Left joined with Caroline Lucas to ensure it had a significant voice in parliament.*


 
Oh my! Seems like Tim Montgomerie has a higher opinion of what a potential new Left party might poll post-2015. 15%!? No chance. Now, is he using the spectre of a new left party to scare the UKIP'ers into voting Tory? Or has he genuinely lost his mind?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 28, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Tim Montgomerie tries his hand at dystopian sci-fi in this little masterpiece.
> 
> http://conservativehome.blogs.com/t...in-has-voted-to-leave-the-european-union.html
> 
> ...


 
Knowing that God-bothering waste of space, I'd say the latter.


----------



## Firky (Jan 29, 2013)

I wonder if Owen Jones had this with him when he went to Ashington:

I asked him but alas "You are not authorized to look up related results for that Tweet." was my answer.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 29, 2013)

Random said:


> I'm not saying that result of 7 % is factually inaccurate. I'm saying he's being misleading by saying "Yes, the average of our results, where we stood in a small number of council elections in 2011 and 2012, is only 7 per cent. This May, however, we hope to stand 400 candidates." and implying this big effort with the 400 candidates will be better than "only" 7 %.


 
Good spot Random.

Is there a detailed analysis anywhere of where TUSC is going from the SP/RMT? Is there any sober analysis of their strategy and results to date? 

The SP website has nothing more than the "62 votes is an encouraging start" type of stuff.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 30, 2013)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Good spot Random.
> 
> Is there a detailed analysis anywhere of where TUSC is going from the SP/RMT? Is there any sober analysis of their strategy and results to date?
> 
> The SP website has nothing more than the "62 votes is an encouraging start" type of stuff.


 
Come on everyone knows what's going on here - every single deposit drained away in the general election in 2010. In the letter Nellist chose not to include that fact - the well below 5% in each of the constituencies were TUSC stood - ignoring 2010, when it was clear that the SP planned TUSC in 2009 knowing that 2010 would have to be an election year and they wanted a better name than No2EU as in the Euros in 2009.
Of the 2010 general election battles, only in 8 elections in England and 2 in Scotland, none in Wales was a result above 1.0% scored. In the overwhelming majority of cases the vote was significantly below that.

Why? Because if Owen Jones counter-responded he would say 'in only 10 constituencies across the country can you lot get more than 1%, Labour are on course to win a fairly thumping majority of around 80'.

Nellist also didn't choose to compare the results with the Socialist Alliance - a former version of what Owen Jones and him are talking about.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 30, 2013)

This is one of Owen Jones's articles 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




It's as close as you're gonna get him admitting he stuck the word 'Chavs' in massive capitals on his book so it would get middle-class attention.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 31, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Come on everyone knows what's going on here - every single deposit drained away in the general election in 2010. In the letter Nellist chose not to include that fact - the well below 5% in each of the constituencies were TUSC stood - ignoring 2010, when it was clear that the SP planned TUSC in 2009 knowing that 2010 would have to be an election year and they wanted a better name than No2EU as in the Euros in 2009.
> Of the 2010 general election battles, only in 8 elections in England and 2 in Scotland, none in Wales was a result above 1.0% scored. In the overwhelming majority of cases the vote was significantly below that.
> 
> Why? Because if Owen Jones counter-responded he would say 'in only 10 constituencies across the country can you lot get more than 1%, Labour are on course to win a fairly thumping majority of around 80'.
> ...


 

Classic bit of desperate spin here - for the 72 votes TUSC got in Brixton:



> New Labour-led Lambeth council called the Brixton Hill byelection for 17 January, minimising scrutiny of their cuts programme with a short election campaign period.
> In near zero temperatures, the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition campaign - supported by the local anti-cuts movement - was enormously positive.
> Despite the short campaign, the whole ward was leafleted with two-thirds canvassed. Unlike many elections, TUSC received coverage in the local press and 80 people heard our candidate speak at a hustings meeting organised by the Brixton Bugle.
> A complication was that the purely propagandist Socialist Party of Great Britain also stood. However the combined TUSC and SPGB vote was 4.2 %.
> ...


 
How has 72 votes given anyone "authority" to call anything?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2013)

They said the _campaign_ not the votes - and frankly, in the logic of standing candidates as flags around which disparate groups/individuals can rally on a broad front then this is only ever going to be the real immediate aim, not actual election. The view the view that the result is all that counts is a bit shit. The test of whether the claim above proves to be correct (ignoring the bad wording) is practical - it may have developed in the way they hoped (_authorised _) after the election or it may not.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 31, 2013)

The result is some measure of how effective (or otherwise) the campaign has been though, surely?  (as an aside, the candidate was Steve Nally...!) Respect my authority!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2013)

articul8 said:


> The result is some measure of how effective (or otherwise) the campaign has been though, surely? (as an aside, the candidate was Steve Nally...!) Respect my authority!


The real campaign is surely _after_ the election.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 31, 2013)

Was anyone expectig TUSC to win? I wasn't. It's a shit result for TUSC, that even the SP website struggles to spin it, but why revel in the fact a neo-liberal party has won another election in a deprived borough? Will you feel satisfied when this new Labour councillor inevitably starts taking the axe to all the local services articul8? I think the fact there's nothing capable of even putting a dent in Labour electorally from an anti-cuts position is a bad thing myself (although I suspect the glee at being able to revel in defeating your hopelessly outgunned and outmatched left political opponents means more to you than owt else)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Was anyone expectig TUSC to win? I wasn't. It's a shit result for TUSC, that even the SP website struggles to spin it, but why revel in the fact a neo-liberal party has won another election in a deprived borough? Will you feel satisfied when this new Labour councillor inevitably starts taking the axe to all the local services articul8? I think the fact there's nothing capable of even putting a dent in Labour electorally from an anti-cuts position is a bad thing myself (although I suspect the glee at being able to revel in defeating your hopelessly outgunned and outmatched left political opponents means more to you than owt else)


articul8 doesn't accept that the labour party is a neo-liberal party though.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> articul8 doesn't accept that the labour party is a neo-liberal party though.


 
What, like some people don't accept that the moon exists?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2013)

Only leading elements of the moon exist.


----------



## cesare (Jan 31, 2013)

Ongoing attempt by the Clangers to alter the moon's orbit.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 31, 2013)

I'm not saying it's a good thing they did so badly.  I'm saying don't try to polish a turd.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I'm saying don't try to polish a turd.


/\ the voice of experience


----------



## cesare (Jan 31, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I'm not saying it's a good thing they did so badly.  I'm saying don't try to polish a turd.


The LP's a turd.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> articul8 doesn't accept that the labour party is a neo-liberal party though.


 
He doesn't accept that he's a vapid Fabian fuck, either.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2013)

cesare said:


> The LP's a turd.


 
TBF, articul8 isn't trying to polish the turd that is the Labour Party.


He's trying to gild it.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2013)

to be fair, surely it isn't the number of votes but doing the slow patient work in the areas that historically the SP has been quite good at.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 31, 2013)

a turd with some gold in it


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2013)

articul8 said:


> a turd with some gold in it


yes, dennis skinner's still in the labour party. the rest of it's a turd though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, articul8 isn't trying to polish the turd that is the Labour Party.
> 
> 
> He's trying to gild it.


let's hope he doesn't get confused and try to geld it.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 31, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> to be fair, surely it isn't the number of votes but doing the slow patient work in the areas that historically the SP has been quite good at.


Well I'm not saying that it was wrong to have stood necessarily (although you'd think they'd be evaluating the wisdom of that), but that it's wrong to use a very poor result to claim "authority" for things in the future


----------



## articul8 (Jan 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, dennis skinner's still in the labour party. the rest of it's a turd though.


Not just skinner Corbyn, McDonnell and a few other decent sorts


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> to be fair, surely it isn't the number of votes but doing the slow patient work in the areas that historically the SP has been quite good at.


 
As you might expect from me, I think that the grassroots work is the most important work of local politics, and that's something the three main parties have pretty much residualised. Back in the '70s and '80s you could generally contact a ward councillor and expect to see them in person within a week. Now, you're more likely to have to attend a fortnightly or monthly surgery (usually over-subscribed), or try and sort stuff out by phone or e-mail (if you have access to either). I'd much rather an SP councillor who takes their ward responsibilities as the primary purpose of their councillorship, than a Labour, Tory or L-D councillor who sees their ward duties as a drag on the business of promoting themselves and climbing the greasy pole.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 31, 2013)

It's like when Dave Nellist lost his seat, seeing all the Labour arseholes rejoicing at the fact they'd beat him like it was some sort of grand achievement. What an achievement.

And articul8 "Well I'm not saying that it was wrong to have stood necessarily" surely it's absolutely necessary for a Labour party member to disagree with standing rival candidates against them? Infact isn't supporting a non-Labour candidate something you can technically get expelled for? You might be a bit ambiguous about this here but I bet when you're back in the bubble you're nothing like as vague.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Not just skinner Corbyn, McDonnell and a few other decent sorts


and then there's you.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 31, 2013)

Yes I couldn't publically support a non-Labour candidate without inviting expulsion (although they didn't expel Ken Livingstone for calling for a vote for the Rahman bloke in Tower Hamlets).  I'd be unlikely to campaign in favour of a rubbish Labour candidate if there was a TUSC candidate in the race.  And of course in the privacy of the polling booth...


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 31, 2013)

You're a living breathing walking cop out articul8. If you're gonna be a Labour hack at least fucking defend being in Labour, god I managed to grit my teeth and do it for a while I'm sure a high-flyer like you can manage it.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 31, 2013)

I can do defend being in Labour.  At a General Election I will be campaigning for whatever no mark careerist gets selected to contest our, highly marginal, seat - if only to see Sarah Teather turfed out on her arse - irrespective of whether TUSC stand.  But not at a local level.  I'll find myself very busy with work commitments.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 31, 2013)

oh yeah just wondering, will the SWP be part of TUSC in the future? Coz I'm not voting for TUSC if it's got a load of SWP loyalists in it, no chance.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 31, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> He doesn't accept that he's a vapid Fabian fuck, either.


I'll take that in the inane and infantile spirit in which I'm sure it was meant


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> You're a living breathing walking cop out articul8. If you're gonna be a Labour hack at least fucking defend being in Labour, god I managed to grit my teeth and do it for a while I'm sure a high-flyer like you can manage it.


 
articul8's theme tune: "Embarrassment" by Madness.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2013)

Articul8 - _the world of the ghetto elf._


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2013)

articul8 said:


> a turd with some gold in it


But still not a neo-liberal turd right? And if you think it's a turd why have you dived face first into it and spread it all over your self like some some mad eric heffer on a dirty protest? And now you're running around spreading it on everyone else, come on in, the shits lovely...


----------



## cesare (Jan 31, 2013)

.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 31, 2013)

Leaving aside the LP/Articul8 baiting the fact is that the TUSC Brixton result was shockingly bad even by the pathetically low standards set by the left to measure success.

Here was one of the leading SP figures (an ex local councillor in fact), the ward was leafleted and canvased, there was media coverage and the result was 72 votes.

What I was asking is if there are any signs of some reflection by the SP or the RMT (who presumably bankroll the TUSC jaunt and pick up the lost deposits tab) on the result? Is there an acceptance than the conditions were as good as they probably could be for this sort of election?

Seemingly the answer is no and no. So what are TUSC expecting whern they stand in 400 places with lower profile candidates, no resources to leaflet and canvas many of them and media indifference?

In other words at what stage will it be noted that the horse is in fact dead and the flogging should stop?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> But still not a neo-liberal turd right? And if you think it's a turd why have you dived face first into it and spread it all over your self like some some mad eric heffer on a dirty protest? And now you're running around spreading it on everyone else, come on in, the shits lovely...


 
This metaphor is getting out of hand.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2013)

Metaphor?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 31, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I'm not saying it's a good thing they did so badly. I'm saying don't try to polish a turd.


No just that we should polish a whole heap of turds.

Well done for supporting the party that is closing 10 out of 18 libraries in Newcastle.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 31, 2013)

I've just published an article arguing labour councillors should refuse to vote for any cuts.  I am not defending their decisions


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 31, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I've just published an article arguing labour councillors should refuse to vote for any cuts. I am not defending their decisions


Yeah? Good luck with that but there are plenty of lily-livered (and Blairite) Labour councillors who will. I know Luke Akehurst will vote for cuts. He's that kind of cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I've just published an article arguing labour councillors should refuse to vote for any cuts. I am not defending their decisions


And what exactly did your party do to those councilors who did vote against cuts? And yet you defend the party. All over the shop. And why didn't you say that you are a member in the article?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 31, 2013)

articul8 said:


> a turd with some gold in it


 
That's not gold, it's an undigested kernel of sweetcorn.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 31, 2013)

cesare said:


> .


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 31, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I've just published an article arguing labour councillors should refuse to vote for any cuts. I am not defending their decisions


Of course you are, you are giving them your money, you're promoting precisely this sort action by your stupid 'vote Labour' policy. This is exactly what the party you area member of stands for, and it's what you support however much you squeal about it.

Fuck you and fuck your party.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2013)

As articul8 doesn't want to tell us what the labour party did to the labour Councillors who voted against the cuts:



> Anti-cuts councillors
> 
> There have been some limited local exceptions, such as the two Southampton Labour councillors who refused to vote with the ruling Labour group to close a leisure centre they had explicitly promised to save at elections a few months earlier. Following their decision to form a rival group on the council, Labour Councillors Against the Cuts, they have been formally expelled from the party.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> As articul8 doesn't want to tell us what the labour party did to the labour Councillors who voted against the cuts:


 
What the Labour would have done to this councillor too, had he not jumped.



> I resigned from the Labour Party of Stoke on Trent in revolt against a proposed budget saving of £2 million against staff Terms & Conditions, which will see a large number of middle and lower paid staff having their salary reduced by one level of the pay scale and having their hours reduced also.


 
Laughably "Councillors Against Cuts does not advocate councillors leave the Labour Group"


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 31, 2013)

I remember hearing, from respectable left-wing Labour people to careerist neo-liberal scum, the argument "if we refuse to pass cuts and set a needs budget then all that will happen is Eric Pickle's will set the budget and take an axe to absolutely everything" so articul8 now you're encouraging people to not pass cuts, and have intimated about councils refusing to set budgets in line with what the govt wants, what answer do you have to this question? Even if all those Labour councillors decided to commit career suicide and a load of Labour councils set a needs budget, how will you deal with Pickles coming in and effectively surcharging the councils?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 31, 2013)

He no longer has power to surcharge individual councillors.  It is true there is the power to suspend the elected council and send in his own administrator.  But if unions and community are mobilised to resist its not an easy option.  In any.case even short of fulll illegal budget they could resist eg by refusing to evict.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 31, 2013)

articul8 said:


> He no longer has power to surcharge individual councillors. It is true there is the power to suspend the elected council and send in his own administrator. But if unions and community are mobilised to resist its not an easy option. In any.case even short of fulll illegal budget they could resist eg by refusing to evict.


 
Perhaps you should set out this strategy in detail for us before actually getting people to vote against cuts. And it's just funny how whenever I've heard people from TUSC make the exact same comments they get summarily dismissed for being ultra-left Millie madness.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 31, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I remember hearing, from respectable left-wing Labour people to careerist neo-liberal scum, the argument "if we refuse to pass cuts and set a needs budget then all that will happen is Eric Pickle's will set the budget and take an axe to absolutely everything" so articul8 now you're encouraging people to not pass cuts, and have intimated about councils refusing to set budgets in line with what the govt wants, what answer do you have to this question? Even if all those Labour councillors decided to commit career suicide and a load of Labour councils set a needs budget, how will you deal with Pickles coming in and effectively surcharging the councils?


 
Bizarre post.

Labour councils are not going to set needs budgets. Even if needs budgets were somehow set, the people doing them would long have been removed from the Labour Party.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 31, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Bizarre post.
> 
> Labour councils are not going to set needs budgets. Even if needs budgets were somehow set, the people doing them would long have been removed from the Labour Party.


 
I know Labour councils aren't going to set needs budgets, or do much at all beyond a bit of insincere posturing, to stop the cuts, I'm askng Articul8 to explain to me how his vision of Labour councillors defying govt cuts will end up working out in practice - especially considering I've heard first hand Labour people dismiss proposals similar to the ones he's making as lunatic and impossible to carry out.

At the end of the day the Labour party believe in making cuts as policy. If you don't like making cuts then the first thing you ought to do is leave a political party that intrinsically does.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 31, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I know Labour councils aren't going to set needs budgets, or do much at all beyond a bit of insincere posturing, to stop the cuts, I'm askng Articul8 to explain to me how his vision of Labour councillors defying will end up working out in practice - especially considering I've heard first hand Labour people dismiss proposals similar to the ones he's making as *lunatic* and impossible to carry out.
> 
> At the end of the day the Labour party believe in making cuts as policy. If you don't like making cuts then the first thing you ought to do is leave a political party that intrinsically does.


 
From a left-nationalist social democratic point of view proposals not to cut (or at least to rapidly revive profitability) _are_ lunatic, and they _are_ impossible to carry out under the current constitutional set-up. Precisely why it's essential to state that no cuts of any description is a bedrock minimum - to make Bennism eat itself and disrupt the established centre-local order.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 3, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I can do defend being in Labour.


 
*The Labour Councillors took the decision that they will not facilitate the trashing of their communities, by signing the founding statement of Councillors Against the Cuts, an umbrella organisation that unites elected representatives who refuse to do the Tories dirty work for them by setting local budgets that will cut jobs and services for working people. These are services that the Cabinet of Millionaires in London do not understand, and do not want to understand. Children’s Services protect the lives of our most vulnerable and are in the cross hairs of the Tory executioners of local help, delivered by local people for their fellow citizens.*

*The Labour Group leaders, instead of praising the initiative of their progressive comrades and following their lead in speaking out, have instead convened a Kangaroo Court to meeting on Monday evening. This consists of the Leadership carpeting Gary and Gill, then expecting their fellow Labour Councillors to meet out some kind of summary justice in the name of so-called democracy.*

http://hull-lrc.webnode.com/news/st...e-labour-leaderships-kangaroo-court-tactics-/


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2013)

Well done the Hull LRC comrades - I hope very much they can see off the local whips throwing their weight around.    Given Hull has this dickhead for a Labour MP it's no surprise they've been told to crack down:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/03/alan-johnson-ed-miliband-union


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 4, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Well done the Hull LRC comrades - I hope very much they can see off the local whips throwing their weight around. Given Hull has this dickhead for a Labour MP it's no surprise they've been told to crack down:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/03/alan-johnson-ed-miliband-union


 
Thought the LRC approved of MP's with a working class & trade union background and wanted more of them?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2013)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Thought the LRC approved of MP's with a working class & trade union background and wanted more of them?


In general, yes, but not just on any political basis - not right wing bureaucrats who are happy to soil their own bed


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Well done the Hull LRC comrades - I hope very much they can see off the local whips throwing their weight around. Given Hull has this dickhead for a Labour MP it's no surprise they've been told to crack down:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/03/alan-johnson-ed-miliband-union


So the first group to do what you said your party should do were expelled by the party, the second group are about to be expelled by the party. Ever thought of taking up chess?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2013)

it's not certain that this is what will happen just yet - they think they can keep a lid on opposition by picking off one or two groups at this stage - but it won't be contained indefinitely.  Of course we should stand by the expelled Southampton councillors and demand their reinstatement.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 4, 2013)

articul8 said:


> it's not certain that this is what will happen just yet - they think they can keep a lid on opposition by picking off one or two groups at this stage - but it won't be contained indefinitely. Of course we should stand by the expelled Southampton councillors and demand their reinstatement.


 
Reinstatement - why now? Shouldn't the Labour Left let these people stay out for 5 years (like Ken Livingstone - and a handful of members who signed his nomination papers were expelled in 2000, but allowed back on appeal in 2004). 
Their being stuck out of the party would prove to the party membership and potential members that the Labour right were vile creatures - hence accelerate the process of change in five years' time by which point the Labour right could fracture and splinter off and a reunited Leftist Labour party could emerge.
That's what you want isn't it, you do want the Labour right to leave the party, don't you?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Feb 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So the first group to do what you said your party should do were expelled by the party, the second group are about to be expelled by the party. Ever thought of taking up chess?


 
Grandmaster articul8 in action


----------



## sihhi (Feb 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Grandmaster articul8 in action


 
That's probably a fairly accurate metaphorical vision of a Labour Left-Posadist discussion on strategy within the Labour Party.

Posadists:




> The election of Dilma Roussef in Brazil by 56% proves that the world balance of forces continues to be profoundly anti-imperialist. The continuation of world convoys and flotillas bound for Gaza, many from Britain, says the same thing. The trip of Ahmadinejad to South Lebanon on the invitation of Hezbolah and the Lebanese government shows the courage, the audacity and comprehension of the populations most exposed to the war preparations of imperialism. The position of Israel and its settlements gives an image of the impasse and impotence of world imperialism. The latter has few options but all-out war, partly against its own allies, in conditions where it is being beaten, every day a little more.
> 
> Revolutionarize Labour
> 
> ...


 

http://quatrieme-internationale-pos...e-labour-party&catid=18:great-britain&lang=en

Labour Left:




> Voters reject coalition cuts policies. Time for Labour’s alternative
> 
> 5th May 2012
> 
> ...


 
Who else likes the phrase "Revolutionarize Labour"?


----------



## smokedout (Feb 4, 2013)

interesting titbit, Jones' bloke went to eton

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/love-reigns-over-the-great-class-divide-8480244.html


----------



## BigTom (Feb 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Who else likes the phrase "Revolutionarize Labour"?


 
Definitely taking this slogan for a PD image. Need to post this so I remember. I have an idea as to the way we can "revolutionarize labour". It involves a wall


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 5, 2013)

smokedout said:


> interesting titbit, Jones' bloke went to eton
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/love-reigns-over-the-great-class-divide-8480244.html


 
What a pleasant and well written article that makes several social and political points so well


----------



## Delroy Booth (Feb 5, 2013)

smokedout said:


> interesting titbit, Jones' bloke went to eton
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/love-reigns-over-the-great-class-divide-8480244.html


 
Not that interesting to me I have to say.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 5, 2013)

course not, says nothing at all about the circles he moves in

(ive never met anyone who went to eton)


----------



## Delroy Booth (Feb 5, 2013)

I couldn't give a flying fuck about where his boyfriend went to school, it's absolutely none of my business, and using it as a stick to beat him with puts on you on the exact same level as the Evening Standard.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 5, 2013)

im not using it as a stick to beat him with, just saying it all helps paint a picture of who these people are thats all


----------



## sihhi (Feb 5, 2013)

smokedout said:


> course not, says nothing at all about the circles he moves in
> 
> (ive never met anyone who went to eton)


 
It would hardly be a surprise that his circles include (probably) the media world, given that he is a major columnist on the Independent, a major mass media publication. People can have more than one circle.

This line takes the biscuit: "But it seems Nick Clegg isn’t the only closet fan of public school as Oxford-educated Jones reaches across the class divide."

It implicitly equates Clegg (announcing he is actively looking for a private school for his children) with Owen Jones as a "closet fan of public school" - some kind of typo there. Jones opposes private schooling and has no children, Clegg supports its existence in general and in practice for his own children.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Feb 5, 2013)

smokedout said:


> im not using it as a stick to beat him with, just saying it all helps paint a picture of who these people are thats all


 
It paints a pretty vivid picutre of the people who work at the Evening Standard, not Owen Jones.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It would hardly be a surprise that his circles include (probably) the media world, given that he is a major columnist on the Independent, a major mass media publication. People can have more than one circle.
> 
> This line takes the biscuit: "But it seems Nick Clegg isn’t the only closet fan of public school as Oxford-educated Jones reaches across the class divide."
> 
> It implicitly equates Clegg (announcing he is actively looking for a private school for his children) with Owen Jones as a "closet fan of public school" - some kind of typo there. Jones opposes private schooling and has no children, Clegg supports its existence in general and in practice for his own children.


 
Good opportunity to shoehorn the word closest though into an article already dripping with gooey homophobia.

It is not surprising to me that Owen mixes in circles which include people from Eton, not just because of his work in the media but if he does frequent some bars and clubs in the gay scene in London; they are generally quite mixed in terms of class, more so possibly than straight bars and clubs.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 5, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> It paints a pretty vivid picutre of the people who work at the Evening Standard, not Owen Jones.


 
i should probably point out i'm not endorsing the tone or the conclusions of that piece, its just where i happened to find it


----------



## mrs quoad (Feb 7, 2013)

*Luke Bozier* ‏@*LukeBozier* 
@*OwenJones84* I think we should have lunch.

A tempting offer right there, I'd wager.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Feb 7, 2013)

> Owen Jones
> 
> 
> Chuffed to win Young Writer of the Year at the Political Book of the Year Awards. Given the £3,000 prize is donated by Lord Ashcroft, I'm giving half to Lisa Forbes - a brilliant principled working-class women standing against right-wing Tory caricature MP Stewart Jackson in Peterborough. Ashcroft money well spent. The other half to Disabled People Against The Cuts, fighting for disabled people getting a kicking by the Tories.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 7, 2013)

chuffed again.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Feb 7, 2013)

He's definitely using the word chuffed to wind people up. No doubt about it.


----------



## the button (Feb 7, 2013)

Metachuffed.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2013)

What a nice gesture and way forward for the class - let _more working class MPs_ be inscribed upon the battle flag!


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What a nice gesture and way forward for the class - let _more working class MPs_ be inscribed upon the battle flag!


 
"The other half to Disabled People Against The Cuts" at least worthy of a fist bump though?


----------



## smokedout (Feb 7, 2013)

and done in the most public way possible, presumably to encourage others to do the same


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 7, 2013)

chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 7, 2013)

bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off


----------



## kavenism (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off bore off


 
Saw Owen at the 10 years since the Iraq war debate at Goldsmiths yesterday evening. He was on fine form but didn't quite hit the hights of Mehdi Hasan who made David Aaronovitch look very daft. At one point Hasan seemed to goad Aaronovitch into agreeing that the war wasn't worth it, a motion he was there to argue against! Aside from those flourishes the rest was a bit of a pointless spectacle.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 8, 2013)

Mark Steel is in support of this Owen Jones plan.

https://twitter.com/mrmarksteel/status/293318950777929728


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted


 
When you read those words so many times they stop having any meaning


----------



## mk12 (Feb 9, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> He's definitely using the word chuffed to wind people up. No doubt about it.


 
I once knew a guy who always wanted to get killed by a train. When it finally happened, he was chuffed to bits.


----------



## binka (Feb 9, 2013)

mk12 said:


> I once knew a guy who always wanted to get killed by a train. When it finally happened, he was chuffed to bits.


thats the best post youve ever made


----------



## mk12 (Feb 9, 2013)

Probably because it's plagiarised.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 10, 2013)

I entirely endorse his points here:




> The left-wing campaigner, who wrote Chavs: The Demonisation of the Working Class, said: “It’s clearly a hospital right in the centre of the community.
> “No wonder that back in 2010, thousands of people took to the streets to save its A&E. I am absolutely committed to saving that hospital. It’s part of a wider fight against the attack on the NHS by this government.
> “Despite Tory claims that they were going to protect NHS budgets in real terms, we are going to see the biggest squeeze on budgets since the war.”
> Mr Jones, who lives in Cheverton Road, Archway, added: “I don’t accept that people can receive care at home. Local authorities are cutting back on carers for the elderly and disabled. So if there are cutbacks at the hospital as well, it will be a double whammy.”


 

http://www.hamhighbroadway.co.uk/ne...battle_to_save_whittington_hospital_1_1880035


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 10, 2013)

mrs quoad said:


> *Luke Bozier* ‏@*LukeBozier*
> @*OwenJones84* I think we should have lunch.
> 
> A tempting offer right there, I'd wager.


 
Well, Jonesy is rather babyfaced.


----------



## magneze (Feb 10, 2013)

Interview here:
http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/5556


----------



## Delroy Booth (Feb 10, 2013)

magneze said:


> Interview here:
> http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/5556


 
Interesting quote there



> Jones studied history at University College, Oxford, where he says that in his “third year I panicked and thought there wasn’t really anything extra-curricular on my CV, so I wrote stuff for the student newspapers” before beginning work for trade unions and left-wing magazines. “And because the training you get here [at Oxbridge] often makes you write in quite an abstract way, or in quite an academic way, actually I had to unlearn some of that, to write in a more populist way”. His literary agent warned him against making his writing too “clinical”.


 
Whilst there's nothing wrong with being populist, personally I would prefer it if Owen Jones was a bit _more_ clinical at times, a bit more dense and involved. That populist editorial way of writing really tired me out in Chavs by the end.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 11, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Interesting quote there
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst there's nothing wrong with being populist, personally I would prefer it if Owen Jones was a bit _more_ clinical at times, a bit more dense and involved. That populist editorial way of writing really tired me out in Chavs by the end.


 

I don't know if it's the publication by Oxbridge students for Oxbridge students or if he means it but this



> His alternative? Jones suggests a different kind of austerity which targets the wealthy and those businesspeople, such as private landlords, whom he claims get rich off the state. He advocates a “proper industrial strategy, as in Germany” and, quoting Keynes, argues that the government’s focus must be on unemployment rather than the deficit. “Look after the unemployment, and the budget will look after itself”, was his message, in the appropriate surroundings of King’s College’s Keynes Room.


 
1. Germany's industrial strategy moves working-class people nowhere except divide and rule within Germany as well as beyond.

2. The budget won't look after itself if all other nations around are imposing austerity and you go for an extension of the state sector to solve unemployment... the budget will collapse as the rich counter-strike via the financial markets increasing the cost of borrowing for the state, precipitating a capital shut-down and investment of funds abroad. The battle only just begins when you try to solve unemployment.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> 2. The budget won't look after itself if all other nations around are imposing austerity and you go for an extension of the state sector to solve unemployment... the budget will collapse as the rich counter-strike via the financial markets increasing the cost of borrowing for the state, precipitating a capital shut-down and investment of funds abroad. The battle only just begins when you try to solve unemployment.


depends on what you mean by an extension of the state sector. If the extra spending is on useful infrastructure such as the severn barrage, national grid, HS2, rail electrification, Cross Rail, or social housing, then there's no reason for the markets to be concerned about loaning money to the government to fund that spending because the spending will result in assets that act as security for those debts, and income generators once built - whether in public control (my preference) or flogged to the private sector.

If it's just being spent on more petty beurocrats pushing paper around, though then you've probably have a point.

The main reason that UK companies keep losing the contracts for the major building projects that actually are going on in this country is that the government keeps insisting on not actually borrowing to finance it themselves, but packaging up the deal and making the company provide both the finance and deliver the project, which Siemens etc can do at much lower interest rates than their competitor UK companies. This is the sort of thing that would need sorting out for any UK infrastructure package to really be successful in pulling the UK out of recession.

I'd agree though that it would all work far better if the whole of Europe, or even the world dumped austerity together and went for a well targeted keynesian growth strategy instead.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Feb 18, 2013)

Seems our Owen pulled out of an appearance on 5 live with seconds to spare, having been told there's a strike today. Oops. Well done to him for pulling out, obv, but ffs. You'd think Britain's foremost hard-left journalist would have been aware of it, eh.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 18, 2013)

He'd probably just woken up, hadn't he?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Feb 18, 2013)

He'd been "away", busy at an anti-austerity conference in Dublin.


----------



## RedDragon (Feb 18, 2013)

He did a sterling job demolishing a couple of homophobic 'save our children' tory twats on Stephen Nolan's 5live friday night show


----------



## sihhi (Feb 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> chuffed again.


 
Chuffed yet again, this time at Firebox, with a musician.


"Phil Marriott ‏@phildrumsUK
Chuffed to meet @OwenJones84 at @FireboxLdn http://moby.to/jumnkx 
 Retweeted by Owen Jones"


----------



## sihhi (Feb 26, 2013)

Accepting praise from vile people like Mehdi Hasan:

Mehdi Hasan ‏@mehdirhasan
The must-read column of the day: @OwenJones84 on the failure of Osbornomics and what Labour needs to do: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...their-alternative-to-osbornomics-8508690.html …

‏@OwenJones84: @mehdirhasan Cheers Mehdi

For this desperate article:

"Another way. And yet Labour do have the outlines of an alternative. When Ed Balls stood for the Labour leadership, he launched a now-vindicated attack on austerity. His Bloomberg speech is a founding document of British neo-Keynesianism. He accepted he was taking on a “consensus”: just as in the 1930s, collective insanity is still insanity. He warned austerity would be “counterproductive”, “tipping us back into recession”."

Ed Balls enforced austerity massively under the Brown government. His speech was dire and lies.

"Imagine if Clement Attlee’s government “had decided that the first priority was to reduce the debts built up in the war”, he asked us: there would be no NHS, no rebuilt railways and housing, no welfare state. If only he had stuck unrelentingly to this script."

It was a weak speech.

"As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman put it, the Tories’ cynical comparison between national debt and household debt makes no sense because “our debt is mostly money we owe to each other... Your spending is my income, and my spending is your income.” I become poorer because you spend less; you become poorer because I’m spending less, and so the debt grows. The Tories’ sneers about the borrowing habits of their opponents don’t even make sense: they are borrowing, not as a temporary price to lift us out of economic disaster, but as the cost of failed policies.
Last year – before the full calamity of Tory austerity had been exposed – YouGov found 45 per cent of us believed the Government should switch to focusing on growth “even if this means the deficit stays longer or gets worse”. But Osborne’s failure must not lead to yet another bout of austerity under Labour."

Paul Krugman is a vicious centrist, his approach is vile. This is what he is cited for.

"And there’s a clear moral to this story: When the private sector is frantically trying to pay down debt, the public sector should do the opposite, spending when the private sector can’t or won’t. By all means, let’s balance our budget once the economy has recovered — but not now. The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/opinion/krugman-the-austerity-agenda.html

Impose austerity during a boom. Lunacy. It's blaming governments for not cutting during the long (wage-stagnant) boom. 

Osbourne's failure will lead to precisely another bout of austerity under Labour.

This part is just mad: "The Tories’ sneers about the borrowing habits of their opponents don’t even make sense: they are borrowing, not as a temporary price to lift us out of economic disaster, but as the cost of failed policies."

Labour borrowing (and austerity) is better than Conservative borrowing because apparently Labour doesn't have failed policies.

"Pushing growth through house-building, an industrial strategy and genuinely publicly run banks; hiking taxes on the wealthy – who, contrary to myth, studies show do not flee as a result; reducing welfare spending by no longer subsidising private landlords and badly paying bosses: here can be the basis of Labour’s alternative. Osbornomics is sunk – and, if Cameron et al are ignominiously thrown on to the scrapheap of history in 2015, it must not be resuscitated."

Taking each in turn:

_House-building._
Labour is enforcing the rundown in construction in local government. Camden Council's Labour leader says "lack of available housing in Camden will mean that more people will soon have to consider moving from the borough and in some cases London entirely.” to explain their plans to shift around 800 unemployed household council tenants to councils north.
_Industrial strategy._ Jones doesn't explain it, Labour doesn't explain it. It's just code for import controls and soft economic nationalism, or redistribution within working class close a plant in Berkshire, offer tax breaks in Monmouthshire and industrial relocation described as 'British jobs for British workers'.
_Genuinely publicly run banks._
Labour had their chance to do this in 2008-2010 and failed spectacularly to the extent that the "publicly subsidised" banks are as destructive as the "private" ones.
_Subsidising private landlords._
Exactly what Labour intends to carry on doing.
_Subsidising badly paying bosses._
What the 'welfare state' under Labour and Conservatives has been doing for forty years.
_Hiking taxes on the wealthy – who, contrary to myth, studies show do not flee as a result_
They don't flee or attempt to flee simply because their taxes are not hiked very much. When they are properly hiked like in Cuba they do try and flee, or at least send away their money.
The political dimension is interesting. Setting up a new non-Labour party is like losing your mind.
"he suggested I would lead the left-wing “Green and Justice Party” which would benefit from Labour’s collapse: if I was to lose my mind and set up some new party, it would certainly have a catchier name than that."
Here he is desperately giving advice to Labour, please, please don't let what happened to PSOE/PASOK happen to you, do your betrayals and lies more sensibly, more embracing, more cunningly, don'y be so brazen: "In Greece, PASOK unleashed self-defeating austerity; it now languishes on single-figures in the opinion polls. In Spain, the Socialists were booted out in 2011 not because their right-wing opponents won more votes (they barely did), but because their own supporters sat on their hands."


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 2, 2013)

> *Ellie Mae O'Hagan* ‏@*MissEllieMae*
> I have a spare ticket to see @*OwenJones84* and @*helenlewis* do comedy at the Soho Theatre tomorrow evening. £10. Tweet me if you want it!


 
Oh lord....


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 2, 2013)

I had to google Helen Lewis, and found this



> I’ll tell you why: she’s literally exactly the same as every other twenty-something British journalist right now. I can guess her background for you: educated at either Oxbridge or Durham, did a follow-up degree at City. And boy can you tell. Everything is so… bland. Qualified. Helen Lewis may hold some actual opinions, but you’d never know it from anything she writes.
> 
> She comes out and bats heavily on a left-wing pro-feminist wicket… but she used to work for the _Daily Mail_. She quite rightly decries violence against women in video games… then she shouts out some indie piece of shit where you shoot a bra-clad Michelle Bachman in the face. Every important tweet is inevitably followed five minutes later by a “funny” spelling mistake in a local newsletter or a picture of a fucking cat wearing galoshes or something. To paraphrase Truman Capote: that isn’t tweeting, that’s typing. The revolution will not be televised but if we’re lucky someone might make a rage comic out of it.
> 
> ]


----------



## treelover (Mar 2, 2013)

S☼I said:


> Seems our Owen pulled out of an appearance on 5 live with seconds to spare, having been told there's a strike today. Oops. Well done to him for pulling out, obv, but ffs. You'd think Britain's foremost hard-left journalist would have been aware of it, eh.


 

I'm not sure you know but O/J's is currently traversing the country speaking at all sorts of events to raise issues/political debate. he can be accused of various things, commitment is not one of them.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

What events is he speaking at? To who? What's he saying? Working hard doesn't mean anything unless you can say what it's for. You spend post after post slagging off labour, Jones goes around the country saying vote and join labour and you say...what?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 2, 2013)

Well that's me told!



> *Owen Jones* ‏@*OwenJones84*
> @*DelroyBooth* @*MissEllieMae* @*helenlewis* It's not doing comedy at all! It's a slightly tongue in cheek political panel podcast thingy


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 2, 2013)

good, I thought we were in for Joneses Sarah Teather moment


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

> It's a slightly tongue in cheek poshoes who think they're political talking, for £10


 
Where is the money going?


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2013)

Back to the soho theatre, booking fees?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 2, 2013)

Is Owen Jones attacking John O'Farrell or bigging him up?

"2015 … Kudos to @*mrjohnofarrell*"


----------



## marty21 (Mar 7, 2013)

Owen Jones spoke at my Union AGM this afternoon - he is actually an impressive live speaker tbf


----------



## past caring (Mar 7, 2013)

Was looking out for you - didn't see you there.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 7, 2013)

marty21 said:


> Owen Jones spoke at my Union AGM this afternoon - he is actually an impressive live speaker tbf


 
I'm chuffed for you


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 7, 2013)

past caring said:


> Was looking out for you - didn't see you there.


 

I bet you were gutted


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 8, 2013)

marty21 said:


> Owen Jones spoke at my Union AGM this afternoon - he is actually an impressive live speaker tbf


 
Are you Unison?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 22, 2013)

Labour member elected as Labour councillor, Labour MP congratulates and OJ agrees with this line. 




> Kat Fletcher ‏@KatFletcher 9h Completely thrilled to have been elected by St Georges residents today as their new councillor. Thank you to everyone for your support.
> 
> Sadiq Khan MP ‏@SadiqKhan 7m @KatFletcher: Congratulations. You will be a great Councillor for St Georges
> 
> Owen Jones ‏@OwenJones84 3m@SadiqKhan @KatFletcher Seconded


 
He is a Labour megaphone ie facing outwards "to the people" - something that's not been there for a while - but nothing special - zero ideas possibly sub-Laurie Penny, sadly.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 22, 2013)

He laid into them on the workfare vote.  More than you can say for eoin clarke


----------



## shifting gears (Mar 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> He laid into them on the workfare vote.  More than you can say for eoin clarke



And how many more disgusting betrayals of the working class will it take before he pulls his head from his arse and withdraws his support for the treacherous, weak, morally bankrupt disgrace that labour has descended into?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> He laid into them on the workfare vote. More than you can say for eoin clarke


Bizarre post.


----------



## the button (Mar 22, 2013)




----------



## ffsear (Mar 22, 2013)

That man child freaks me out!


----------



## sihhi (Mar 22, 2013)

Isn't it weird that a committed Keir Hardie-ist like Owen Jones is appearing _on the same side_ on a platform with Tim Montgomerie (a figure so right-wing he attacked Obama and Cameron for withdrawing occupying forces from Iraq) and Ruth Porter (head of PR for the IEA, so right-wing it wants immediate vouchers for healthcare and schooling) to debate with other pro-Labour lefties Mehdi Hasan and Helen Lewis alongside Powellite Simon Heffer. Tickets £10.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 22, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Tickets £10.


 

thanks, but no thanks.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 22, 2013)

sihhi said:


> *Isn't it weird* that a committed Keir Hardie-ist like Owen Jones is appearing _on the same side_ on a platform with Tim Montgomerie (a figure so right-wing he attacked Obama and Cameron for withdrawing occupying forces from Iraq) and Ruth Porter (head of PR for the IEA, so right-wing it wants immediate vouchers for healthcare and schooling) to debate with other pro-Labour lefties Mehdi Hasan and Helen Lewis alongside Powellite Simon Heffer. Tickets £10.


 
Not really no.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 22, 2013)

I actually used to think that he was all right despite being a bit of a labourite. what's going on? has he got further into the bubble


----------



## sihhi (Mar 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Bizarre post.


 
Laying into, means online tutting at them with this bold strategy:

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/314074934836097024

lesson from today's outrage: we need to get more Labour MPs selected who have a backbone and do what the party was founded to do


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 22, 2013)

how long will it going to take him to realise


----------



## sihhi (Mar 22, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> how long will it going to take him to realise


 
It's odd because part of the Labour Left thinks the scale of rebellion against Miliband was promising:




> It was barely noticed, for example, that Gateshead MP Ian Mearns had resigned as PPS to Ivan Lewis on Tuesday night as a result of the vote. Or that former Housing Minister and Shadow Health Secretary John Healey voted against the Labour front bench for the first time in his parliamentary career. Or that Nick Brown – a former Chief Whip who wanted to stay on in the role until Miliband urged him not to in 2010 – voted against the party line not once but twice. Labour’s biggest affiliate Unite attacked the decision to abstain, and said that those MPs who opposed the legislation “saved the party’s honour”. I’m told than Len McCluskey will be writing to all of the Labour rebels today.
> Individually all of these things are significant. Taken together, they signify how poor this Bill really was.
> Last night one Labour rebel told me that as many as 2/3 of Labour MPs disagreed with the party line, and front benchers are believed to be among them. Labour members and supporters have certainly been making their feelings clear with the party too, and several senior Labour figures are privately talking about Tuesday as one of the first (and clearest) examples of lobbying and whipping of MPs through social media. That certainly rings true to me.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Bizarre post.


why?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 22, 2013)

Well, firstly, your attempted disassociation from the party of which you are a member through the use of 'them'. Secondly the idea that a 'on-line tutting' means much at all, and thirdly, your choice of tutting online at Eoin Clarke.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 22, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Not really no.


 
It's not weird if you follow his trajectory carefully, it is a bit weird if you fully accept his LRC Labour Left politics outside the context in which it is operating. He worked for John McDonnell at Parliament, you wouldn't find John McDonnell doing anything like being on the same side as an IEA goon.



frogwoman said:


> I actually used to think that he was all right despite being a bit of a labourite. what's going on? has he got further into the bubble


 
There is a problem, simply because he gives "rousing speeches" to already committed trades union people at rallies events across the country, doesn't mean he'll know better what needs to be done than anyone else. In which case why spend your columns telling us what to do, instead of organising the fightback against Lebedev.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 22, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's odd because part of the Labour Left thinks the scale of rebellion against Miliband was promising:


 
yeah that mark ferguson blog is a bit dodgy i think. It was a small rebellion, that looked like the battered remnants of the socialist campaign group to me. If you measure the labour left by how many people it has in the House of Commons it's just a reminder of how few decent Labour MP's are left. I'm sure lots of Labour party members are furious about it, but so what, what does that matter when the PLP is solidly onside with the cuts and workfare and the rest of it? Also this sentence - _"Last night one Labour rebel told me that as many as 2/3 of Labour MPs disagreed with the party line, and front benchers are believed to be among them."_ - sounds like bullshit to me, the likes of Tom Watson and Diane Abbott with "left-wing" reputations trying to save face after being caught out doing something naughty and it getting all over the social media. If 2/3 of Labour MP's disagreed with the party line it'd be a totally different party. Actions, not weasel words after the event, that's how these people will be judged.

It's not a case of Ed Miliband making a mess of it, why would the Labour leadership care or feel threatened by a rebellion of that size? Why would Ed Miliband be bothered when he knows the bulk of the PLP are on side, and when he knows what the polls say about the British public's attides to welfare and benefits? No, what he's doing is no different to what any other Labour party leader of the last half a century would do in the circumstances, it might be immoral if you're a principled socialist, but if you're a Labour leader wanting to win an election it's fairly sensible. Why everyone's shocked about this is a bit of mystery to me. Maybe it's because it's just one of those things no-one would've noticed years ago, but social media has changed how these things happen.


----------



## treelover (Mar 22, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's odd because part of the Labour Left thinks the scale of rebellion against Miliband was promising:


 

I would say there is some interesting elements in that, John Healey and Nick Brown, rebels, very surprising..


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 22, 2013)

In what way?


----------



## Random (Mar 22, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Also this sentence - _"Last night one Labour rebel told me that as many as 2/3 of Labour MPs disagreed with the party line, and front benchers are believed to be among them."_ - sounds like bullshit to me, the likes of Tom Watson and Diane Abbott with "left-wing" reputations trying to save face after being caught out doing something naughty and it getting all over the social media. If 2/3 of Labour MP's disagreed with the party line it'd be a totally different party. Actions, not weasel words after the event, that's how these people will be judged.


I've been hearing this nonsense for the last 20 years of New Labour. People telling me that Robin Cook was "really" a red socialist, etc.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 22, 2013)

the fifth column that never does fuck all.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 22, 2013)

Sawfords old man was socialist campaign group. The main organ shuts down these people and confines them to limited constituency work, which yeah ok doing what you can. But the main players in the party are just fucking waste


----------



## articul8 (Mar 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Well, firstly, your attempted disassociation from the party of which you are a member through the use of 'them'. Secondly the idea that a 'on-line tutting' means much at all, and thirdly, your choice of tutting online at Eoin Clarke.


 
"them" referred to those who supported abstaining on workfare.  I didn't.   Owen's column was clearly as critical of this at is possible from within the terms of his Labour left politics.  Eoin Clarke was arguing that Labour;s "future jobs [sic] guarantee" (actually 6 month placements on sub-living wage pay) would be a "luxury" for those fortunate enough to be on the receiving end.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 22, 2013)

So yes, as i said, dissociating yourself from the policies of your party, arguing that this rhetorical radicalism is just spiffing and launching a odd attack on someone most people have not heard of or care about = bizarre.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 22, 2013)

He has a soft passive aggressive form of online-tutting at those who do reject the Labour Left:

He retweets stuff like this:



> ‏@ravingleftie Rather have ppl like @OwenJones84 on our side,despite our (many!) differences.Remember th real enemy;th rich,& rightwing politicians!


 
with comments in humour like:

Owen Jones ‏





> @ravingleftie What do you mean? Impure so-called "socialist" careerists like me are the real enemy!


 
Then goes deadly serious saying:



> People's Assembly is backed by key unions, community groups, Greens, Labour lefts etc and will be Britain's broad anti-austerity movement


 
Then retweets this kind of response to it



> Danny Turner ‏This is the only show in town for the Left, it's *this or nothing*! Hope this snowballs and brings together divided progressives.  Retweeted by Owen Jones


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 22, 2013)

25 grand to hire the venue for this only and last hope for the left.


----------



## Zabo (Mar 22, 2013)

How anybody like Jones who is a card carrying member of the Labour party can waffle on about socialism beats me.

How come none of the CLP's have issued a an ultimatum to Central Office to have Straw, Blair, Millburn et al,. to be expelled from the Party?

Go on then kidda, get down with it and become well chuffed at doing something real or have you no balls?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 22, 2013)

greens. Do me a solid


----------



## sihhi (Mar 22, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> greens. Do me a solid


 
Worth examining that whole exchange:

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/315124120943747073

asking anything about structure becomes: "why not ask the political questions instead of this nit-picking then?"


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 22, 2013)

I had no idea they were planning to charge, astounding.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> 25 grand to hire the venue foe this only and last hop for the left.


i don't know why he's getting so excited about this - it will be the usual rally full of speeches and little else


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> i don't know why he's getting so excited about this - it will be the usual rally full of speeches and little else


I don't know why you aren't either.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I don't know why aren't either.


no, that's uniquely incoherent even for you


----------



## sihhi (Mar 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I had no idea they were planning to charge, astounding.


 
The location itself means it'll cost at least £4.40 by bus for people living in outer areas - where many low-paid in private sector housing have moved, the bedroom tax is just an attempted push for the stragglers. So you're looking at £8.40 at least, and you'll be condescended to by Green Party and Labour Party stalwarts before your union or community group gets to speak.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> no, that's uniquely incoherent even for you


And that is a remarkably point-missing post even for you.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 22, 2013)

This or nothing eh?


----------



## rosecore (Mar 24, 2013)

> *Owen Jones* ‏
> @*DrEoinCl* Can you explain why you demanded Manchester bedroom tax protest not have me on platform and have withdrawn all support from it?
> 
> 
> ...


 
LOL


----------



## muscovyduck (Mar 24, 2013)

Was just emerging from page 188 of the Laurie Penny thread to point that Twitter argument out to everyone but it looks like I was beaten to it.


----------



## rosecore (Mar 24, 2013)

It's still going on! This is hilarious. Clarke is pretty laughable.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 24, 2013)

> @*KarenBroady*
> 10h​I wish someone had warned @*DrEoinCl* was a crank. Could've saved me a lot of grief.


----------



## muscovyduck (Mar 24, 2013)

To be fair he has been making out like it's souly Labour organising the bedroom tax protests. His heart's probably in the right place but it's still quite irritating.


----------



## treelover (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I had no idea they were planning to charge, astounding.


 
It's not the entrance fee, its the fact that many many people inc the angry masses on FB about benefits/bedroom tax, etc simply can't afford to get to London, they should have regional events as well...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

Little owen back in the trenches for the crime of being "critical of the Labour leadership." He should know by now that all communists are dead men on furlough.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

treelover said:


> It's not the entrance fee, its the fact that many many people inc the angry masses on FB about benefits/bedroom tax, etc simply can't afford to get to London, they should have regional events as well...


It _is_ the bloody entrance fee thanks, and it is those things you mention as well.


----------



## rosecore (Mar 24, 2013)

> *Karen Broady* ‏@*KarenBroady*
> @*OwenJones84* That's right. I was told if you spoke LL support would be removed. @*DrEoinCl*


Labour Left hijacking the bedroom tax for political ends.


----------



## treelover (Mar 24, 2013)

C'mon 4 pound for a whole day, I agree there should be solidarity collections to pay for those who just can't afford it

its one event, not the revolution, i think people are over-reacting..


----------



## treelover (Mar 24, 2013)

rosecore said:


> Labour Left hijacking the bedroom tax for political ends.


 
Yes, Eion has been branding the facebook events with the Labour Left logo, unnaceptable, even the SWP didn't do that.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

rosecore said:


> Labour Left hijacking the bedroom tax for political ends.


They are all labour party members - all three.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

treelover said:


> C'mon 4 pound for a whole day, I agree there should be solidarity collections to pay for those who just can't afford it
> 
> its one event, not the revolution, i think people are over-reacting..


It's only 4 quid unwaged - it's 8 quid otherwise. Amazing, i wonder how much it will cost to get into the soviets.


----------



## muscovyduck (Mar 24, 2013)

rosecore said:


> Labour Left hijacking the bedroom tax for political ends.


 
Most people don't think Labour even belong at protests like such any more. Labour's only line of defence is to ask people to not turn the protest into something political (yes, I know) - aka "Don't point out how hypocritical we are, now, where's the photographer for the local newspaper?" 

It happens a lot around my local area, people from smaller groups doing all the hard work and the main political parties taking the credit, usually by using the local press after telling the others that they shouldn't be going after brownie points with the public.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> Most people don't think Labour even belong at protests like such any more. Labour's only line of defence is to ask people to not turn the protest into something political (yes, I know) - aka "Don't point out how hypocritical we are, now, where's the photographer for the local newspaper?"
> 
> It happens a lot around my local area, people from smaller groups doing all the hard work and the main political parties taking the credit, usually by using the local press after telling the others that they shouldn't be going after brownie points with the public.


Yes, here the labour PPCs for bristol south and bristol west did just this, presented themselves as the non-political face of the protests, got all the interviews and so on - of course nothing to with their election in 2015. Owen Jones just does the same sort of thing without the ambition. It all adds up to vote labour.


----------



## treelover (Mar 24, 2013)

There are still some decent people in the L/P, such as Karen mentioned above, but yes, they were largely invisible on protests, etc, during the Blair reign.


----------



## rosecore (Mar 24, 2013)

Ewww. I just went on some Bedroom Tax Facebook group. Quite a noticeable EDL presence.


----------



## treelover (Mar 24, 2013)

Yes, and very robust challenges from others, the sites don't need an invasion of HNH, etc, not saying that is what you are suggesting..


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> 25 grand to hire the venue for this only and last hope for the left.


Signatories to the Guardian letter in support:
Ken Loach (20 grand lost on assange ffs)
Roger Lloyd-Pack
Iain Banks
Tariq Ali
John Hendy QC 
4 MPs
Load of union gen secs on a great wedge
Tony Benn


And they couldn't come up with 25 grand? At least a few on there are millionaires.


----------



## rosecore (Mar 24, 2013)

treelover said:


> Yes, and very robust challenges from others, the sites don't need an invasion of HNH, etc, not saying that is what you are suggesting..


Better moderation, that's all.


----------



## treelover (Mar 24, 2013)

some of them lost money on the Assange bail guarantee


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

treelover said:


> some of them lost money on the Assange bail guarantee


Loach lost 20 grand- as i said on the post. Do you not think they could come up with 25 grand between them? Banks spends that money on porsches, Ali is millionaire from one of the wealthiest families in india/Pakistan and so on.


----------



## treelover (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Loach lost 20 grand- as i said on the post. Do you not think they could come up with 25 grand between them? Banks spends that money on porsches, *Ali is millionaire from one of the wealthiest families in India and so on*.


 
Wow, didn't know that

fair enough


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

Zabo said:


> How anybody like Jones who is a card carrying member of the Labour party can waffle on about socialism beats me.
> 
> How come none of the CLP's have issued a an ultimatum to Central Office to have Straw, Blair, Millburn et al,. to be expelled from the Party?


 
Because since (IIRC) '01, the CLPs have had no fucking power. Blair basically made sure that the CLPs pretty much lost all their powers, so he could turn conference into a circus where he didn't have to worry about getting heckled or barracked by people who thought he was full of shit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Signatories to the Guardian letter in support:
> Ken Loach (20 grand lost on assange ffs)
> Roger Lloyd-Pack
> Iain Banks
> ...


 
If Tariq still drinks as heavily as he used to, that's about a years' worth of GlenMorangie 12 for him. Not agreat price to pay considering how much he inherited, and the entirely comfortable living he makes from his journalism, books and talks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

treelover said:


> Wow, didn't know that
> 
> fair enough


 
You must have missed a whole decade of pisstaking of Mr. Ali during the '90s, then!


----------



## Zabo (Mar 24, 2013)

Cheers Panda.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 25, 2013)

Owen Jones no platformed-


> Owen Jones  @*OwenJones84*
> @*DrEoinCl* Can you explain why you demanded Manchester bedroom tax protest not have me on platform and have withdrawn all support from it?
> 12:09 PM - 24 Mar 13


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

Look up me steps, look up.

So what we have is eoin saying yes invite own that would be great (conversation published) and owen saying that eoin said that he said the opposite (not published) and then speaking for and applying pressure to a single member of an 18 person body to say that what he, the non-attending owen wanted her to say and then taking personal ownership of both the action and deciding that the peoples assembly will instead arrange it for rmanchester. Can'r much difference between labour left and the labour left here. I wonder what articul8 thinks?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 25, 2013)

I thought no-one cared about Eoin?


----------



## junglevip (Mar 25, 2013)

He was on the radio 5 phone in this morning and he was quite good.  Apparently its all the fault of immigrants and nothing to do with thatchers de-industrialization policiy, asset srtipping the country or banking fraud


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

Doesn't sound like something owen would say.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I thought no-one cared about Eoin?


Owen and you clearly do. To the point of obsession i would say.


----------



## junglevip (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Doesn't sound like something owen would say.


 
The callers believe its the fault of immigrants. Funnily enough there was not a single mention of asylum seekers eating swan


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 28, 2013)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> So would people prefer that Owen Jones _not_ be on TV/radio so much? If so, why? What should replace him?


 
the IWCA? 

Anyway, beware the dangers of Digital Bennism. Wooooo!

http://www.progressonline.org.uk/20...of-the-digital-bennites/#.UVH0Jpgd-fh.twitter


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 28, 2013)

the IWSA more like


----------



## J Ed (Mar 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Worth examining that whole exchange:
> 
> https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/315124120943747073
> 
> asking anything about structure becomes: "why not ask the political questions instead of this nit-picking then?"


 
Maybe I just don't understand how things are in London but I don't really get his justification, are there no alternative venues that would have been sympathetic enough not to charge this much? Do they not understand the irony of charging this much for a meeting to start an anti-austerity movement? Was the lure of prestige and historical significance of Westminster enough for them to overlook that irony?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 28, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Maybe I just don't understand how things are in London but I don't really get his justification, are there no alternative venues that would have been sympathetic enough not to charge this much? Do they not understand the irony of charging this much for a meeting to start an anti-austerity movement? Was the lure of prestige and historical significance of Westminster enough for them to overlook that irony?


 
Yes, they want to be close to Westminster and no they don't particularly care about missing out people who can't afford the entry fee or those from the outer districts without Travelcards from attending.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 28, 2013)

The more I hear Owen's name, the more I want to throw stones at him is.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 29, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Yes, they want to be close to Westminster and no they don't particularly care about missing out people who can't afford the entry fee or those from the outer districts without Travelcards from attending.


 
or didn't want them to, no riff raff


----------



## sihhi (Mar 29, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> The more I hear Owen's name, the more I want to throw stones at him is.


 
Maybe overdoing it LOL!

But look at the purpose of the People's Assembly in this exchange - his newspaper columns are endless variations of 'Tories are bad' so the actual politics comes out in twitter 

Owen Jones says "Ultimate vindication - the People's Assembly attacked by the Spectator http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/freddy...ssembly-is-sound-and-fury-signifying-nothing/ … Brendan O'Neill attacked it yesterday too #win"

Someone asks "‏@OwenJones84 perhaps its a ploy to create a new lft party and split the labour vote? #thelongame"

Owen Jones responds "@JustinianSecond Nope, it definitely isn't."

Whatever else it is, it definitely will not include creating a new political force that will in any way diminish Labour votes.

The Guardian's Martin Rowson bigs it up
"@OwenJones84 You're on a roll, Owen! How do I join up?"


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 29, 2013)

Best tweet ever - "the people's assembly should be shot from a canon, into a brick wall'


----------



## Firky (Mar 29, 2013)

treelover said:


> There are still some decent people in the L/P, such as Karen mentioned above, but yes, they were largely invisible on protests, etc, during the Blair reign.


 
Ian Lavery sounds OK - then you look at his record and he's largely loyal to his party. They're all shit when you scratch the surface.



Mr.Bishie said:


> Best tweet ever - "the people's assembly should be shot from a canon, into a brick wall'


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 29, 2013)

I really don't get Owen. His 'Chavs' book shows a semi solid understanding of the attacks the working class have faced over the last thirty years. His heart is clearly in the right place. But he _still_ recons vote Labour. Not just vote labour but work within it to change its direction!

that isn't doable anymore. If it ever even was. It's not even 'with no illusions' from matchstick owen, its genuine 'this is the hope of the left' stuff. How can someone who offered cogent if slightly obvious analysis of the state of play be so utterly lind to the collaborationist role played by a party that ceased to be the trade union political wing nearl 40 years ago? He's not a thick cunt so _why is he still on this fucking wagon_


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 29, 2013)

Feathering his own nest.


----------



## Libertad (Mar 29, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I really don't get Owen. His 'Chavs' book shows a semi solid understanding of the attacks the working class have faced over the last thirty years. His heart is clearly in the right place. But he _still_ recons vote Labour. Not just vote labour but work within it to change its direction!
> 
> that isn't doable anymore. If it ever even was. It's not even 'with no illusions' from matchstick owen, its genuine 'this is the hope of the left' stuff. How can someone who offered cogent if slightly obvious analysis of the state of play be so utterly lind to the collaborationist role played by a party that ceased to be the trade union political wing nearl 40 years ago? He's not a thick cunt so _why is he still on this fucking wagon_


 
It pays well?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 29, 2013)

maybe he is still operating under those orders from the kremlin (join Labour and await the glorious day). Nobody rescinded them did they?


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 29, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I really don't get Owen. His 'Chavs' book shows a semi solid understanding of the attacks the working class have faced over the last thirty years. His heart is clearly in the right place. But he _still_ recons vote Labour. Not just vote labour but work within it to change its direction!
> 
> that isn't doable anymore. If it ever even was. It's not even 'with no illusions' from matchstick owen, its genuine 'this is the hope of the left' stuff. How can someone who offered cogent if slightly obvious analysis of the state of play be so utterly lind to the collaborationist role played by a party that ceased to be the trade union political wing nearl 40 years ago? He's not a thick cunt so _why is he still on this fucking wagon_


 
I'll have to explain then, Dot.  Because he's a self publicising opportunist twat who's currently simply  mining a profitable (for him) early career niche as the "acceptable face of pseudo Lefty radicalism", available 24/7 for comments, interviews and conferences , oh, and paid column inches for his puerile ,utterly textbook, radical-lite  reformist drivel. Then,  in a year or so its over to the Daily Mail with the  "New, more mature, rabid right wing, Owen Jones". We have seen this stuff many, many, many, times before. (Muggeridge, Birchall, Hitchens, etc, etc, etc,etc) Betcha a fiver that's how it will go for Comrade Jones too.


----------



## muscovyduck (Mar 29, 2013)

As with Laurie Penny, my first instinct with Owen Jones was "I don't like them but it's probably because I'm just jealous I'll never be that articulate about my political beliefs." but then I think more and more about it and actually I'm wondering if it's because:



ayatollah said:


> I'll have to explain then, Dot. Because he's a self publicising opportunist twat who's currently simply mining a profitable (for him) early career niche as the "acceptable face of pseudo Lefty radicalism", available 24/7 for comments, interviews and conferences , oh, and paid column inches for his puerile ,utterly textbook, radical-lite reformist drivel. Then, in a year or so its over to the Daily Mail with the "New, more mature, rabid right wing, Owen Jones". We have seen this stuff many, many, many, times before. (Muggeridge, Birchall, Hitchens, etc, etc, etc,etc) Betcha a fiver that's how it will go for Comrade Jones too.


----------



## Firky (Mar 29, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I really don't get Owen. His 'Chavs' book shows a semi solid understanding of the attacks the working class have faced over the last thirty years. His heart is clearly in the right place. But he _still_ recons vote Labour. Not just vote labour but work within it to change its direction!
> 
> that isn't doable anymore. If it ever even was. It's not even 'with no illusions' from matchstick owen, its genuine 'this is the hope of the left' stuff. How can someone who offered cogent if slightly obvious analysis of the state of play be so utterly lind to the collaborationist role played by a party that ceased to be the trade union political wing nearl 40 years ago? He's not a thick cunt so _why is he still on this fucking wagon_


 
Because there's money and some milage in the niche that he's chosen. I don't know if that was a conscious choice or one he's been groomed into or if he has painted himself into a corner. I suspect a bit of all three. It's difficult not to feel a twinge of guilt when criticising him - because when he is on form he can be quite good. But so can most articulate, well mannered and intelligent people in the left (and more dangerously the right).

I wonder if he was another 10 or 20 years older he'd be so green?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

thing is owen jones has always come across fairly normal and likeable to me. not that that means anything, i have a notoriously bad cunt radar at times


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> I'll have to explain then, Dot. Because he's a self publicising opportunist twat who's currently simply mining a profitable (for him) early career niche as the "acceptable face of pseudo Lefty radicalism", available 24/7 for comments, interviews and conferences , oh, and paid column inches for his puerile ,utterly textbook, radical-lite reformist drivel. Then, in a year or so its over to the Daily Mail with the "New, more mature, rabid right wing, Owen Jones". We have seen this stuff many, many, many, times before. (Muggeridge, Birchall, Hitchens, etc, etc, etc,etc) Betcha a fiver that's how it will go for Comrade Jones too.


He's not a faker. He's a genuine committed labourite. That's problem enough without looking to suggest he's just on the grab or secretly a tory. He is neither of those things.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He's not a faker. *He's a genuine committed labourite.* That's problem enough without looking to suggest he's just on the grab or secretly a tory. He is neither of those things.


 
That's it. How can he be so _fucking stupid. _Thats a dead duck, worse than that its a brake on any left movements. He's no older than me ffs but still is calling 'rally to the tent! We'll make it left wing this time' as if history hasn't shown that to be literally worth the the blood laced crap I did this morning.

solidariteas with ms penny and dreams of a real labour left. Fucking hell.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 30, 2013)

65 isn't all that old these days.
RIP


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> 65 isn't all that old these days.
> RIP


 
lol


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 30, 2013)

Fuck, wrong thread obviously.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 30, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I really don't get Owen. His 'Chavs' book shows a semi solid understanding of the attacks the working class have faced over the last thirty years. His heart is clearly in the right place. But he _still_ recons vote Labour. Not just vote labour but work within it to change its direction!
> 
> that isn't doable anymore. If it ever even was. It's not even 'with no illusions' from matchstick owen, its genuine 'this is the hope of the left' stuff. How can someone who offered cogent if slightly obvious analysis of the state of play be so utterly lind to the collaborationist role played by a party that ceased to be the trade union political wing nearl 40 years ago? He's not a thick cunt so _why is he still on this fucking wagon_


 
Why is his belief that a Labour party under the control of decent socialists and honest social democrats could bring about a better society any madder than the idea that the revolutionary left or the post-Labour self organised working class are going to do such a thing any time soon?

(I'm not saying he's right btw) But he's not just in it for the money he is coming from a geniuine and fairly sane postion.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 30, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> I'll have to explain then, Dot. Because he's a self publicising opportunist twat who's currently simply mining a profitable (for him) early career niche as the "acceptable face of pseudo Lefty radicalism", available 24/7 for comments, interviews and conferences , oh, and paid column inches for his puerile ,utterly textbook, radical-lite reformist drivel. Then, in a year or so its over to the Daily Mail with the "New, more mature, rabid right wing, Owen Jones". We have seen this stuff many, many, many, times before. (Muggeridge, Birchall, Hitchens, etc, etc, etc,etc) Betcha a fiver that's how it will go for Comrade Jones too.


 
I doubt he'll move to the Mail (this keeps getting said about lefty types with very little examples of when it actually happens), reckon he'll end up in a solidly Labour seat.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Why is his belief that a *Labour party under the control of decent socialists and honest social democrats* could bring about a better society any madder than the idea that the revolutionary left or the post-Labour self organised working class are going to do such a thing any time soon?
> 
> (I'm not saying he's right btw) But he's not just in it for the money he is coming from a geniuine and fairly sane postion.


 
thats whats mad you fool. It isn't, wasn't, can't be. If it was then we could say 'give em a fair shake'

but it isn't


----------



## free spirit (Mar 30, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> thats whats mad you fool. It isn't, wasn't, can't be. If it was then we could say 'give em a fair shake'
> 
> but it isn't


eh?


----------



## where to (Mar 30, 2013)

DotCommunist said:
			
		

> thats whats mad you fool. It isn't, wasn't, can't be. If it was then we could say 'give em a fair shake'
> 
> but it isn't



Yeah, but spankys point is that neither probably are.

I like Jones. Its pretty clear some of you are desperate to find a reason to hate him and that searching is pretty sad. Criticism of his position is only right and proper, but imagining some of the circumstances written about above just to realise that hate is nuts frankly.

I would be interested to see who he would support in an electoral run off between an outside of labour, left candidate - with a chance of winning - and a blairite. Or if a left party was polling close to the 10%s in any euro constituency next yr (unlikely I know).


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2013)

where to said:


> Yeah, but spankys point is that neither probably are.
> 
> I like Jones. I*ts pretty clear some of you are desperate to find a reason to hate him* and that searching is pretty sad. Criticism of his position is only right and proper, but imagining some of the circumstances written about above just to realise that hate is nuts frankly.
> 
> I would be interested to see who he would support in an electoral run off between an outside of labour, left candidate - with a chance of winning - and a blairite. Or if a left party was polling close to the 10%s in any euro constituency next yr (unlikely I know).


 

marry him then


----------



## where to (Mar 30, 2013)

You're better than that. funnier too.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 30, 2013)

Only Melanie Phillips and Suzanne Moore as leftists have gone on to write for the Mail - it would be impossible.



where to said:


> I would be interested to see who he would support in an electoral run off between an outside of labour, left candidate - with a chance of winning - and a blairite. Or if a left party was polling close to the 10%s in any euro constituency next yr (unlikely I know).


 
He supports the Labour Party. 







Sure he's next to Corbyn, but the Blairites Lammy are always there you can't remove them.

The last time it happened (exit of Labour right, 1980) Labour Left figures and Militant (today's SP) said it would all be easier for the left in Labour to transform society on socialist lines etc. Reality proved otherwise because of forces outside of Owen Jones' columns.

None of this is hate.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2013)

where to said:


> You're better than that. funnier too.


 

i'm really not.

but I don't 'want' to hate owen nor do I. As I've stated I just find his labourism bewildering.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 30, 2013)

I don't see why everyone sees this as an either/or thing in terms of whether he is a genuine Labourite or is motivated by career advancement. The prospect of the latter probably has a lot of influence in convincing him of the rightness of the former.


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 30, 2013)

You're all completely wrong about Jones. He's a total opportunist , not a naive schoolboy, he's about 29, even if he looks like one - and using his completely inexplicable media fame to fool people into wasting yet more time in trying to "push the Labour Party to the Left".

My fiver is on the table. Five years from now he'll have flogged his "self appointed spokesperson for radical Labourism" schtick to death and will be writing "how I've seen the light and embraced moderation and common sense on the right" articles for the Sun , Telegraph or Daily Mail. (or OK , be a moderate Labour MP - but that comes down to exactly the same thing).   Outside of writing "Chavs" and writing newspaper articles and being a media regular the chap has no record of  activist struggle at all  - NONE - and despite the fact that he's older than he looks, that should tell all those giving him the benefit of the doubt all the information they need for a judgement. His dad did all the sustained political grunt work. Young Owen has done nowt (unpaid) , but  just wants the fame and money. Sorry , glib fluency in putting over a political position a genuine, or even naive, radical does not make.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 30, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> My fiver is on the table. Five years from now he'll have flogged his "self appointed spokesperson for radical Labourism" schtick to death and will be writing "how I've seen the light and embraced moderation and common sense on the right" articles for the Sun , Telegraph or Daily Mail.


 
I strongly doubt it - I suspect he will carry on as Labour Left for the Morning Star/ Independent/ Guardian there's nothing to suggest any kind of betrayal on that score.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2013)

ayatollah said:
			
		

> You're all completely wrong about Jones. He's a total opportunist , not a naive schoolboy, he's about 29, even if he looks like one - and using his completely inexplicable media fame to fool people into wasting yet more time in trying to "push the Labour Party to the Left".
> 
> My fiver is on the table. Five years from now he'll have flogged his "self appointed spokesperson for radical Labourism" schtick to death and will be writing "how I've seen the light and embraced moderation and common sense on the right" articles for the Sun , Telegraph or Daily Mail. (or OK , be a moderate Labour MP - but that comes down to exactly the same thing).   Outside of writing "Chavs" and writing newspaper articles and being a media regular the chap has no record of  activist struggle at all  - NONE - and despite the fact that he's older than he looks, that should tell all those giving him the benefit of the doubt all the information they need for a judgement. His dad did all the sustained political grunt work. Young Owen has done nowt (unpaid) , but  just wants the fame and money. Sorry , glib fluency in putting over a political position a genuine, or even naive, radical does not make.



Give some reasons why.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 30, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Why is his belief that a Labour party under the control of decent socialists and honest social democrats could bring about a better society any madder than the idea that the revolutionary left or the post-Labour self organised working class are going to do such a thing any time soon?
> 
> (I'm not saying he's right btw) But he's not just in it for the money he is coming from a geniuine and fairly sane postion.


 
Well, historically speaking, there's at least precedent for the (sometimes rapid, and unexpected) rise of new parties and movements in changing political and economic conditions. For social democratic parties being reclaimed for socialism, there's absolutely none.


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2013)

where to said:


> Yeah, but spankys point is that neither probably are.
> 
> I like Jones. Its pretty clear some of you are desperate to find a reason to hate him and that searching is pretty sad. Criticism of his position is only right and proper, but imagining some of the circumstances written about above just to realise that hate is nuts frankly.
> 
> I would be interested to see who he would support in an electoral run off between an outside of labour, left candidate - with a chance of winning - and a blairite. Or if a left party was polling close to the 10%s in any euro constituency next yr (unlikely I know).


 
like your balanced posts, are you considering Left Unity?


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2013)

Owen was on the BBC The Papers show last night, he is like a Rottweiler, no false cameradie with the other Tory guests, very incisive, wish he didn't look so young though..


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2013)

Outside of writing "Chavs" and writing newspaper articles and being a media regular the chap has no record of activist struggle at all - NONE - and despite the fact that he's older than he looks,


I'd like more evidence of that, though he is trekking right through the country at the moment, snow and all, spreading his ideas..


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 30, 2013)

treelover said:


> Owen was on the BBC The Papers show last night, he is like a Rottweiler, no false cameradie with the other Tory guests, very incisive, wish he didn't look so young though..


he's clearly a vampire. It's the only possible explanation for his having a face born in 1995 and politics born in 1980.


----------



## where to (Mar 30, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> i'm really not.


 
well you're certainly funnier. that was playground stuff.


----------



## where to (Mar 30, 2013)

sihhi said:


> He supports the Labour Party...


 
He does and you're probably right.  I'm not sure though.



sihhi said:


> None of this is hate.


 
I agree.  I actually agree with the more thoughtful and honest criticism of his position too.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 1, 2013)

where to said:


> He does and you're probably right. I'm not sure though.


 
He does support the Labour Party - he often claims bizarrely this is because it has a link to most TUC unions.

Take a look at this latest example:




*tom_watsonVerified account* ‏@*tom_watson*3h​@*OliverKamm* @*OwenJones84* Hi Oliver - I think Owen prospers because opinions like his have not been heard in newspapers for a long time.
*Details*


*Oliver Kamm* ‏@*OliverKamm*3h​@*tom_watson* Hi Tom, I certainly think there's important place in newspapers for @*OwenJones84*'s opinions, though not sure they're so unusual.
*Details*


*tom_watsonVerified account* ‏@*tom_watson*3h​@*OliverKamm* @*OwenJones84* I can't think of a columnist who displays such trenchant views from the left these days. Can you?
*Details*


*Laurie Penny* ‏@*PennyRed*3h​@*tom_watson* @*OliverKamm* @*OwenJones84* *clears throat*
*Details*


*tom_watsonVerified account* ‏@*tom_watson*3h​@*PennyRed* @*OliverKamm* @*OwenJones84* Ooops! Sorry comrade. You know the point I was making.
*Details*


*Laurie Penny* ‏@*PennyRed*3h​@*tom_watson* @*OliverKamm* @*OwenJones84* absolutely I do. I just want to be your favourite, is all.
*Details*


*Owen Jones*‏@*OwenJones84*​
@*PennyRed* @*tom_watson* @*OliverKamm* Ha - I'm sure Tom loves you 

A right-wing columnist has a little poke at OJ, Labour right MP Tom Watson comes to his defence, OJ later comes in to suggest that Tom loving you is a good thing.


----------



## love detective (Apr 1, 2013)

note the continual oppression of laurie penny by others, by erm, not saying sh'es brilliant at all times


----------



## where to (Apr 1, 2013)

are those Laurie Penny quotes for real? they can't be. surely to fuck.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 1, 2013)

love detective said:


> note the continual oppression of laurie penny by others, by erm, not saying sh'es brilliant at all times


 
My point was why should socialists like Owen Jones or Laurie Penny welcome the respect and support of figures like Tom Watson. There's something that doesn't fit right particularly as he abstained over the government breaking the constitution to rescind a judgement from the court ordering the payment of workfare contracts.

He is Labour centrist if not right - not even LAbaour left.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 1, 2013)

sihhi said:


> My point was why should socialists like Owen Jones or Laurie Penny welcome the respect and support of figures like Tom Watson. There's something that doesn't fit right particularly as he abstained over the government breaking the constitution to rescind a judgement from the court ordering the payment of workfare contracts.
> 
> He is Labour centrist if not right - not even LAbaour left.


 
Well, it's important to get the approval of the other children on the playground :/


----------



## killer b (Apr 1, 2013)

sihhi said:


> My point was why should socialists like Owen Jones or Laurie Penny welcome the respect and support of figures like Tom Watson. There's something that doesn't fit right particularly as he abstained over the government breaking the constitution to rescind a judgement from the court ordering the payment of workfare contracts.
> 
> He is Labour centrist if not right - not even LAbaour left.


people like him 'cause he shouted at murdoch.


----------



## love detective (Apr 1, 2013)

sihhi said:


> My point was why should socialists like Owen Jones or Laurie Penny welcome the respect and support of figures like Tom Watson. There's something that doesn't fit right particularly as he abstained over the government breaking the constitution to rescind a judgement from the court ordering the payment of workfare contracts.
> 
> He is Labour centrist if not right - not even LAbaour left.



Yep I know - was just remarking on a side issue about penny


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> As articul8 doesn't want to tell us what the labour party did to the labour Councillors who voted against the cuts:


 


> Anti-cuts councillors
> 
> There have been some limited local exceptions, such as the two Southampton Labour councillors who refused to vote with the ruling Labour group to close a leisure centre they had explicitly promised to save at elections a few months earlier. Following their decision to form a rival group on the council, Labour Councillors Against the Cuts, they have been formally expelled from the party.


 
Tonight they suspended Warrington cllr  Kevin Bennett for voting against cuts.

Don't join labour. Don't work for labour. Don't vote labour.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Don't join labour. Don't work for labour. Don't vote labour.


 
What do you think of anti-cuts groups inviting Labour councillors who have already voted for cuts in previous financial years onto anti-cuts platforms and protests outside council meetings?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> What do you think of anti-cuts groups inviting Labour councillors who have already voted for cuts in previous financial years onto anti-cuts platforms and protests outside council meetings?


I wouldn't like it and would argue against it and try and ensure that they keep their heads down and do some proper work as long-term rehab before ever having the honour of speaking for them. Which should either ensure some commitment or find out the ones who are just after furthering their own careers via a spot of opposition. And full and open accounts of what the party did/talked about/planned as price of admission.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 5, 2013)

Abbott also failed to do the absolute minimum to stop or delay workfare... yet:




> Diane Abbott MP @HackneyAbbott  5h
> Go @OwenJones84! Brilliant on @Channel4News injecting some facts into a toxic fact free #Philpott debate.
> 
> @OwenJones84
> @HackneyAbbott @Channel4News Thanks Diane


 
He was on This Morning too - can't see the vid but seems to have done OK.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I wouldn't like it and would argue against it and try and ensure that they keep their heads down and do some proper work as long-term rehab before ever having the honour of speaking for them. Which should either ensure some commitment or find out the ones who are just after furthering their own careers via a spot of opposition.


 
We/I (delete as appropriate) have no spine, we welcome people who are trampling over us, making society into a pyramid so it becomes harder to organise, just for the mirage of success.



> And full and open accounts of what the party did/talked about/planned as price of admission.


 
This is a brilliant point - every word of the insiders' memos/emails.


----------



## treelover (Apr 5, 2013)

Just been looking at tweets on R/W sites about Owen, they really hate him , but more significantly they appear to fear him, not surprised with his demolition of Ruth Porter, etc.


----------



## treelover (Apr 5, 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zbj3IJcMrv8





from Sky news earlier

can't embed

btw, is that Harry Cole in the debate , the odd looking fat knob who is always posted up on here as one of the Libertarian Alliance


----------



## articul8 (Apr 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Don't join labour. Don't work for labour. Don't vote labour.


 
The reality is that come the next election this position amounts to tellin people to piss away their chance of helping to kick out the coalition parties.  Unite - who backed Bennett - should suspend every penny of funding until he's reinstated.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 5, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zbj3IJcMrv8
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
It's Harry Cole.

Jones does so well here.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 5, 2013)

_


articul8 said:



			The reality is that come the next election this position amounts to tellin people to piss away their chance of helping to kick out the coalition parties. Unite - who backed Bennett - should suspend every penny of funding until he's reinstated.
		
Click to expand...

Telling the leadership off on the internet._


----------



## treelover (Apr 5, 2013)

J Ed said:


> It's Harry Cole.
> 
> Jones does so well here.


 
No, I meant he is the fat one with a mop of hair who urbanites are always posting up as part of a group of weirdoes?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 5, 2013)

treelover said:


> No, I meant he is the fat one with a mop of hair who urbanites are always posting up as part of a group of weirdoes?


No he's not the libertarian from the pic.


----------



## treelover (Apr 5, 2013)

looks similar anyway

always good to have an excuse to put that up, in your files?


----------



## Firky (Apr 5, 2013)

J Ed said:


> It's Harry Cole.
> 
> Jones does so well here.


 
He [Jones] didn't list anyone who committed suicide when he made IDS squirm.


----------



## treelover (Apr 5, 2013)

It is always wrong to name someone in that manner, especially if it in the public domain, not sure...


----------



## sihhi (Apr 5, 2013)

treelover said:


> btw, is that Harry Cole in the debate , the odd looking fat knob who is always posted up on here as one of the Libertarian Alliance


 
No! Harry Cole formerly Tory Bear, then ConHome, then politics head of the Guido Fawkes blog is in the middle here with libertarians to either side of him - Paul Staines Guido of the Guido Fawkes blog and polymath Toby Young.


----------



## Favelado (Apr 5, 2013)

I haven't read all of this thread, although I'm aware of some of the criticisms of Owen Jones that have been made. Fair play to him in terms of his performance on Sky News though. He was great.


----------



## treelover (Apr 5, 2013)

He is like that every time, makes sure he gets the message across, doesn't play the interviewers game...


----------



## treelover (Apr 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> No! Harry Cole formerly Tory Bear, then ConHome, then politics head of the Guido Fawkes blog is in the middle here with libertarians to either side of him - Paul Staines Guido of the Guido Fawkes blog and polymath Toby Young.


 
Whats all that about, bunch of gobshites all..


----------



## Firky (Apr 5, 2013)

treelover said:


> It is always wrong to name someone in that manner, especially if it in the public domain, not sure...


 
No names:


----------



## treelover (Apr 5, 2013)

BOT. Staines is saying that Cole owned Owen, yeah right...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> No! Harry Cole formerly Tory Bear, then ConHome, then politics head of the Guido Fawkes blog is in the middle here with libertarians to either side of him - Paul Staines Guido of the Guido Fawkes blog and *polymath* Toby Young.


 
I didn't realsie polymath meant cunt


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> No! Harry Cole formerly Tory Bear, then ConHome, then politics head of the Guido Fawkes blog is in the middle here with libertarians to either side of him - Paul Staines Guido of the Guido Fawkes blog and polymath Toby Young.


 
I didn't know that the meaning of "polymath" had changed to mean "fucking useless at everything".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 5, 2013)

treelover said:


> Whats all that about, bunch of gobshites all..


 
What's all that about?
About four and a half inches of cock between them.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 5, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I didn't realsie polymath meant cunt


 
It's worse than when gay stopped meaning happy


----------



## treelover (Apr 5, 2013)

anyone have Owen's email?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 5, 2013)

treelover said:


> anyone have Owen's email?


 
??


----------



## youngian (Apr 5, 2013)

This Morning debate with Owen Jones and Paul Staines on the Philpott welfare bandwagon. I prefer seeing Jones letting rip than some anodyne Labour spokesperson-

http://www.itv.com/thismorning/life/philpott-victim-welfare-uk-debate


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> No! Harry Cole formerly Tory Bear, then ConHome, then politics head of the Guido Fawkes blog is in the middle here with libertarians to either side of him - Paul Staines Guido of the Guido Fawkes blog and polymath Toby Young.


 
A sleepover? At their age?


----------



## J Ed (Apr 5, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> A sleepover? At their age?


 
They are acting like childish brats, which incidentally is what they do for 'work' too.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 5, 2013)

youngian said:


> This Morning debate with Owen Jones and Paul Staines on the Philpott welfare bandwagon. I prefer seeing Jones letting rip on than some anodyne Labour spokesperson-
> 
> http://www.itv.com/thismorning/life/philpott-victim-welfare-uk-debate


Piss Staines had no answer to OJ's points. His first response to OJ was an ad hom. Bravo.


----------



## shagnasty (Apr 5, 2013)

youngian said:


> This Morning debate with Owen Jones and Paul Staines on the Philpott welfare bandwagon. I prefer seeing Jones letting rip on than some anodyne Labour spokesperson-
> 
> http://www.itv.com/thismorning/life/philpott-victim-welfare-uk-debate


Owen Jones wiped the floor with Staines


----------



## shagnasty (Apr 5, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> A sleepover? At their age?


I know their not gay but that picture does suggest it


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 5, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> I know their not gay but that picture does suggest it


I'm not sure what image they're trying to project tbh. I wonder if they go to School Dinners? Bet they do.


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 6, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> I know their not gay but that picture does suggest it


It more than suggests it, one guy has his legs over another under the quilt.

they're* btw


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 6, 2013)

You know that if it wasn't Owen Jones making these arguments against various professional pisswizards, the telly would have got Diane Abbott in to battle against them. Be grateful for what you get.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 6, 2013)

Being grateful for what we have got is one reason why we've ended up in such a weak position.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Apr 6, 2013)

I noticed during some of the Owen Jones bits on various shows that we seem to have adopted the US phrase "on welfare" to refer to anyone receiving benefits. Interesting use of language; it's a bit like being "on drugs" - you've made bad decisions and ultimately only have yourself to blame.


----------



## cesare (Apr 6, 2013)

Buddy Bradley said:


> I noticed during some of the Owen Jones bits on various shows that we seem to have adopted the US phrase "on welfare" to refer to anyone receiving benefits. Interesting use of language; it's a bit like being "on drugs" - you've made bad decisions and ultimately only have yourself to blame.


Tbf, we've used (for example) on the rock for way before that.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 6, 2013)

on the rock'n roll, on the dole


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Apr 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> Tbf, we've used (for example) on the rock for way before that.





The39thStep said:


> on the rock'n roll, on the dole


Yeah, I guess - although to me the extra word makes a difference. Being "on the <something>" implies active action - on the scrounge, on the take, etc. Being "on drugs" or "on welfare" is a passive state. Anyway, not important, just an observation about yet another Americanism that has arrived without anyone seeming to notice.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 6, 2013)

It's because the term 'welfare' is massively stigmatised in the states where this kind of marginalisation and name-calling is deeply entrenched. It comes from the belief that you can encourage the poor to go out and work, even for shit money, by placing them in these metaphorical stocks if they 'take money from the state'. The Tories dream of a similar culture existing here.


----------



## cesare (Apr 6, 2013)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Yeah, I guess - although to me the extra word makes a difference. Being "on the <something>" implies active action - on the scrounge, on the take, etc. Being "on drugs" or "on welfare" is a passive state. Anyway, not important, just an observation about yet another Americanism that has arrived without anyone seeming to notice.


It's a bit unfortunate that you just used my "on the rock" to say it was active action, but as in "on the scrounge" and "on the take"  Was that deliberate?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 6, 2013)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Yeah, I guess - although to me the extra word makes a difference. Being "on the <something>" implies active action - on the scrounge, on the take, etc. Being "on drugs" or "on welfare" is a passive state. Anyway, not important, just an observation about yet another Americanism that has arrived without anyone seeming to notice.


 
'Yeah I guess ' smacks of that creeping Americanism that DeGaulle was so right to oppose


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Apr 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> It's a bit unfortunate that you just used my "on the rock" to say it was active action, but as in "on the scrounge" and "on the take"  Was that deliberate?


No, they were just the only examples starting with "on the" that I could think of off the top of my head - no relationship implied. Could have also said "on the up" or "on the town" I suppose.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Apr 6, 2013)

I was going to watch that video, but seeing him sat there wearing a blue jumper with buttons on the shoulders & a white shirt underneath, brought back the urge to throw stones again. So I didn't bother.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 6, 2013)

Buddy Bradley said:


> I noticed during some of the Owen Jones bits on various shows that we seem to have adopted the US phrase "on welfare" to refer to anyone receiving benefits. Interesting use of language; it's a bit like being "on drugs" - you've made bad decisions and ultimately only have yourself to blame.


The word "liberal" is used in the States to describe anyone who is Left and now it's being used here. I blame the Tories for this.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 6, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> The word "liberal" is used in the States to describe anyone who is Left and now it's being used here. I blame the Tories for this.


 
"Left"?

My experience is that anyone not subscribing whole-heartedly to the neo-con/neo-liberal/industrial/military plutocracy is denigrated as a 'liberal'.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 6, 2013)

brogdale said:


> "Left"?
> 
> My experience is that anyone not subscribing whole-heartedly to the neo-con/neo-liberal/industrial/military plutocracy is denigrated as a 'liberal'.


Seriously, people of a Left persuasion are referred to as "liberal" in the US. I've seen revolutionary socialism lumped in with "liberalism" on boards like The Bully Pulpit. The morons on Torygraph blogs do it all the time.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 6, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Seriously, people of a Left persuasion are referred to as "liberal" in the US. I've seen revolutionary socialism lumped in with "liberalism" on boards like The Bully Pulpit. The morons on Torygraph blogs do it all the time.


 
Oh yeah, but my point was...not just 'left' as we might understand that.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 6, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Oh yeah, but my point was...not just 'left' as we might understand that.


Fairy snuff.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 6, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Seriously, people of a Left persuasion are referred to as "liberal" in the US. I've seen revolutionary socialism lumped in with "liberalism" on boards like The Bully Pulpit. The morons on Torygraph blogs do it all the time.


 
To be fair liberal left is a good description of much of the 'revo' left


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 6, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> To be fair liberal left is a good description of much of the 'revo' left


 
If you're referring to what's left of the SWP, then perhaps.

But I once saw some American describing Stalin as a "liberal".


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 6, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> If you're referring to what's left of the SWP, then perhaps.
> 
> But I once saw some American describing Stalin as a "liberal".


 
Do you mean what is to the left of the SWP or what is left of what was the SWP?


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 6, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Do you mean what is to the left of the SWP or what is left of what was the SWP?


The SWP residue... or is that the residual SWP?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 6, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> The SWP residue... or is that the residual SWP?


 
There was a  Residential Social Workers rank and file group which had the unfortunate name Residue


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 6, 2013)

I love it when Americans talk of 'liberal extremists' as though the phrase makes any sense at all. I always end up thinking up the existence of the Provisional SDP, Shirley Williams in a bomb-belt.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 6, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> I love it when Americans talk of 'liberal extremists' as though the phrase makes any sense at all. I always end up thinking up the existence of the Provisional SDP, Shirley Williams in a bomb-belt.


 
hopefully a successful suicide bomb attempt by Shirley


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2013)

Wee Owen on  Campbell disgrace of an easy money program this morning. 10. I bet he looks like a future rosen in a checked shirt.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2013)

Owen "what sort of blue checked shirt shall i wear on Tv today? Jones . Outflanked from the left by the audience.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 8, 2013)

Landed another gig  via the _Working Class Movement Library - _doing its main annual lecture the Frow Lecture on 4 May.


----------



## rekil (Apr 8, 2013)

Party policeman Owen going round pleading with people to keep the music down and stop spilling booze on the carpet. And it's not even his house.

*Owen Jones* ‏@*OwenJones84*2h​@*AAEmmerson* @*AaronLSpence* I'm not trying to get hits, for Christ's sake! I'm trying to calm people down

*Owen Jones* ‏@*OwenJones84*2h​@*simonjamesraine* @*GuidoFawkes* Nope, I posted to warn people not to celebrate. Pretty straightforward.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2013)

Heed my blue checked shirt - where did the money go from the 4 minutes on the big question last week owen?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Apr 8, 2013)

Spunked up the wall on M&S blue check shirts. Do keep up


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Apr 8, 2013)

copliker said:


> Party policeman Owen going round pleading with people to keep the music down and stop spilling booze on the carpet. And it's not even his house.
> 
> *Owen Jones* ‏@*OwenJones84*
> 2h​
> ...


 
I still have no fucking clue how this twitter thing works. I mean, who in that mess is saying what to who about who? I just don't get it.


----------



## rekil (Apr 8, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I still have no fucking clue how this twitter thing works. I mean, who in that mess is saying what to who about who? I just don't get it.


Yeh it doesn't c+p very well so it looks like mess. Simplified.



copliker said:


> Party policeman Owen going round pleading with people to keep the music down and stop spilling booze on the carpet. And it's not even his house.


 



			
				OwenJones said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to get hits, for Christ's sake! I'm trying to calm people down






			
				OwenJones said:
			
		

> Nope, I posted to warn people not to celebrate. Pretty straightforward.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 8, 2013)

copliker said:


> *Owen Jones* ‏@*OwenJones84*
> 2h​
> @*AAEmmerson* @*AaronLSpence* I'm not trying to get hits, for Christ's sake! I'm trying to calm people down
> 
> ...


 
Sounds like a South African liberal telling people not to welcome the death of Verwoerd because apartheid still continues.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2013)

owen said:
			
		

> Unlike you, I actually know Tony Benn.


----------



## rekil (Apr 14, 2013)

That latest piece in the indy is well patronising isn't it. It's "a lesson" if you please. 



			
				owen said:
			
		

> It’s comforting for both sides to build hate figures and saints. All of the bitterness and rage of the social devastation unleashed in the 1980s can be concentrated in one easily hatable individual. For Tories – who, after all, have not won a general election for over twenty years – there is the obvious appeal of a new crusading Thatcher-figure to lead them to victory again. But history is not made by a few individuals at the top, however formidable they may be. And for those who want to change the world – in whatever direction – it’s a lesson that has to be learned.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 14, 2013)

A lot of love for this guy these days amongst lefty friends of mine, he's a real hero by the look of it, having his praises sung all over the shop. Looks like he's going to break through to the big time and be a real figure of influence on the left...


----------



## Zabo (Apr 15, 2013)

Kid_Eternity said:


> A lot of love for this guy these days amongst lefty friends of mine, he's a real hero by the look of it, having his praises sung all over the shop. Looks like he's going to break through to the big time and be a real figure of influence on the left...


 
Won't be long. A safe seat for Labour in a die hard Labour community like South Shields. He's got the right c.v. and will fit the Labour mould of Oxbridge careerist - Purnell, Milliband et al,.

I wonder if any Labour stronghold will rise up against being exploited by Party H.Q.? Oh the irony!

'Hey lad, them bastards down in that there South have dumped more shit on us yet again!'

'Yer right there dad.'


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 15, 2013)

Kid_Eternity said:


> A lot of love for this guy these days amongst lefty friends of mine, he's a real hero by the look of it, having his praises sung all over the shop. Looks like he's going to break through to the big time and be a real figure of influence on the left...


 
What does breaking through 'to the big time' entail?


----------



## Balbi (Apr 15, 2013)

If he's smart, he'll stay the fuck away from Parliament until 2020. Let the major shite blow over, build a credible voice and image and then sail in like Foot and really bollocks stuff up


----------



## Favelado (Apr 15, 2013)

Jones as PM. Penny as Chancellor of the Exchequer. 2030 Labour General Election dream ticket.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2013)

Balbi said:


> If he's smart, he'll stay the fuck away from Parliament until 2020. Let the major shite blow over, build a credible voice and image and then sail in like Foot and really bollocks stuff up


He'll be 70 years old by the time he is leader then if he sails in like foot (2020 he'll be 35, +35 years from election as MP to leader as foot had).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2013)

Oh god, he'll be leader in 2055.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2013)

And articul8 will still be shining his shoes.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And articul8 will still be shining his shoes.


 
He needs to get started ASAP.


----------



## treelover (Apr 15, 2013)

he was introduced at the UK Uncut event at Freuds house as "the Justin Beiber of the Left"

least he went there though, good for him..


----------



## treelover (Apr 15, 2013)

> Won't be long. A safe seat for Labour in a die hard Labour community like South Shields. He's got the right c.v. and will fit the Labour mould of Oxbridge careerist - Purnell, Milliband et al,.


 
FFS!, he is nothing like Purnell, maybe one day but certainly not now...


----------



## sihhi (Apr 15, 2013)

treelover said:


> least he went there though, good for him..


 
To be applauded/cheered for charting that Britain follow the German path of industrial capitalism


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2013)

DownwardDog said:


> He needs to get started ASAP.


 
He could do with a shirt advisor too.


----------



## Firky (Apr 15, 2013)

The next Tony Benn.

He needs a prop. Benn has his pipe and banana eating. Penny has her effete rollies and hat. Owen needs something more than a blue gingham shirt.


----------



## treelover (Apr 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> To be applauded/cheered for charting that Britain follow the German path of industrial capitalism





to me that was a classic social democratic speech, whats the problem he doesn't share your politics, so what?

its great that loads of young people spent their saturday in this imaginative way....


----------



## Firky (Apr 15, 2013)

I wish I had your positivism, tree!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2013)

treelover said:


> to me that was a classic social democratic speech, whats the problem he doesn't share your politics, so what?
> 
> its great that loads of young people spent their saturday in this imaginative way....


That's the point - he doesn't share my politics, hence the political problems with what he is saying, who he is saying to, who is sponsoring him - you know...politics!


----------



## Zabo (Apr 15, 2013)

treelover said:


> FFS!, he is nothing like Purnell, maybe one day but certainly not now...


 
You mean he's not an Oxbridge careerist? Isn't he a Labour Party member?

I'm still unsure - like many - who he is supposed to be representing other than himself. But...credit due, where credit due the lad can turns his hand and sharp pen to making a comment on absolutely anything except for animal rights in Transnistria. That really did stump him.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 15, 2013)

treelover said:


> to me that was a classic social democratic speech, whats the problem he doesn't share your politics, so what?
> 
> its great that loads of young people spent their saturday in this imaginative way....


 
Why are people like him - people with those politics - elevated by the Lebedev Independent?


----------



## Balbi (Apr 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Oh god, he'll be leader in 2055.


 
Not so difficult to imagine, is it


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 15, 2013)

> He needs a prop. Benn has his pipe and banana eating. Penny has her effete rollies and hat. Owen needs something more than a blue gingham shirt.


 
pint and  paper. That way when he's not using them as props he can drink his pint and read his paper


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2013)

sihhi said:


> What do you think of anti-cuts groups inviting Labour councillors who have already voted for cuts in previous financial years onto anti-cuts platforms and protests outside council meetings?





butchersapron said:


> I wouldn't like it and would argue against it and try and ensure that they keep their heads down and do some proper work as long-term rehab before ever having the honour of speaking for them. Which should either ensure some commitment or find out the ones who are just after furthering their own careers via a spot of opposition. And full and open accounts of what the party did/talked about/planned as price of admission.


 


sihhi said:


> This is a brilliant point - every word of the insiders' memos/emails.


 
What do people think of the arguments in this article?

Labour, the movement and the radical left


> Labour activists are an important part of the anti-cuts movement in many areas. Reuben Bard-Rosenberg argues for a united anti-cuts movement involving those inside and outside the Labour Party


 
The formal argument is that a united front (a UF is a temporary campaign based on achieving a specific limited aim by class allies - it does not mean all people who agree should stop fighting with each other, it is a term with a meaning) is required to stop the cuts. This is further required in the longer term because there needs to be a social movement in place to fight the post 2015 cuts no matter who wins. (They mean labour). And that a key part of building this UF is labour party activists. So, the questions are 1) Doesn't this UF mean 'vote labour' with some rhetoric of social movement on top? 2) What  a UF with that unstated aim can actually do given its hamstrug itself? 3) Who are these labour party activists? How many of them are there? What is their social weight? 4) What is the price of their involvement? 5) Others?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 28, 2013)

Our hero is coming under pressure to stand against Clegg.....

"@OwenJones84: Got approached by local Labour activists to stand against Nick Clegg. Tempting and flattering, but will support someone else to oust him "

No doubt he's also chuffed at the 'approach' but perhaps the seat isn't safe enough in the long term?


----------



## sihhi (Apr 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What do people think of the arguments in this article?
> 
> Labour, the movement and the radical left
> 
> ...


 
I'm sceptical of it. A UF with Labour is already hamstrung - look at the case of Labour anticuts councillors in opposition 2010-215 now. The Labour Left has zero room for manoeuvre. It's whole strategy is based around a growing economy and British economic power which can be slowly converted to nationalised form - it's game over IMO. 

Do you remember similar such efforts around 1987 after the defeat of the miners strike? Apparently there in respects there was a de facto Labour Left-good WRP-SWP-IMG(Tariq)-Workers Power alliance in favour of a Labour Left vote against Kinnock by voting Labour.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 29, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I'm sceptical of it. A UF with Labour is already hamstrung - look at the case of Labour anticuts councillors in opposition 2010-215 now. The Labour Left has zero room for manoeuvre. It's whole strategy is based around a growing economy and British economic power which can be slowly converted to nationalised form - it's game over IMO.


 
There's always a built in assumption in these arguments that there is a Labour left of consequence in the first place. "Labour activists" in the sense they are used in this kind of discussion are like choirs of angels to a certain kind of religious believer. They are assumed to exist, and no evidence of their existence in any kind of number is required or desired.

If you think that's somewhat peculiar in Britain, it's even more bizarre when people on the left in Ireland start talking about the Labour "rank and file" in strategic arguments. The whole Irish LP has a paper membership claim of circa 6,000. Which doesn't stop various leftists over here from talking about these imaginary armies.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 29, 2013)

How do we relate to the Labour left?  We pretend it doesn't exist.  Genius.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> How do we relate to the Labour left? We pretend it doesn't exist. Genius.


the labour left mostly left some time ago.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> How do we relate to the Labour left? We pretend it doesn't exist. Genius.


It exists then? In what sense? Where?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 29, 2013)

to pretend no Labour left exists is just daft - you can argue about numbers or how effective it can be internally - but to pretend there isn't one is silly


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> How do we relate to the Labour left? We pretend it doesn't exist. Genius.


How do we make w/c politics revolve around the labour party? We pretend that a real substantial labour left exists within in it and has the potential to either win the party as a whole to its positions or is such a poweful force that it can both force a large scale split to the left and attract enough support from outside the party to establish itself as a long-term challenge to labour. 

Remind me, who are the fantasists here?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> to pretend no Labour left exists is just daft - you can argue about numbers or how effective it can be internally - but to pretend there isn't one is silly


Can you answer the question please?


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 29, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Why are people like him - people with those politics - elevated by the Lebedev Independent?


simple; he talks 'left' enough to be sold to their (soft-left-ish) readers as a genuine 'left' voice, without him saying anything too radical and dangerous, as you would expect from a 'lesser evil, vote Labour' default-positioner


----------



## articul8 (Apr 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It exists then? In what sense? Where?


 
At a bare minimum there's there 22,000+  who voted Christine Shawcroft onto the NEC.  That alone would make the Labour left around 8-10 times as big as even the biggest Trot group around today.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> to pretend no Labour left exists is just daft - you can argue about numbers or how effective it can be internally - but to pretend there isn't one is silly


If an LP member over the past 20 years was genuinely 'Left' in any real, meaningful sense of the phrase - one that is more than just warm words, and one which unites ideas and action - then either they left Labour years ago, or are careerist ladder-climbers, or are simply wildy, massively delusional, to the point where one fears for their grip on reality. I mean - WHY would anyone want to stay in an organisation so totally devoid of any progressive, let alone (gasp!) _socialist_ principles or values?
There's simply no reason to.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> At a bare minimum there's there 22,000+ who voted Christine Shawcroft onto the NEC. That alone would make the Labour left around 8-10 times as big as even the biggest Trot group around today.


Are you serious with that reply? (Beyond you not knowing who voted for her or why?). How does the act of individuals voting for mean there is a labour left? Ok, that's your bare min answer, let's see what you have beyond that - as you must have something beyond that.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 29, 2013)

Oh come on - seriously?  How does the fact she received the votes of over 20,000 Labour members when standing on a radical left platform show there are people who support these ideas?  FFS.  It might be inadequately organised, bureaucratically out-manoeuvred, and without real purchase on party policy - but it still exists and has a presence in national internal elections.   (and that's before we get to the size and influence of the left in Labour aligned unions - like UNITE).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Oh come on - seriously? How does the fact she received the votes of over 20,000 Labour members when standing on a radical left platform show there are people who support these ideas? FFS. It might be inadequately organised, bureaucratically out-manoeuvred, and without real purchase on party policy - but it still exists and has a presence in national internal elections. (and that's before we get to the size and influence of the left in Labour aligned unions - like UNITE).


Yes, that's exactly what i'm asking you to outline - what 'radical left' ideas these are  would be helpful too. It would also be interesting to hear why labour
briefing can only get a 100 people to a AGM that would decide if it was to exist as an independent voice of the labout left or not. That sort of thing is rather more important than a few votes isn't it?​


----------



## articul8 (Apr 29, 2013)

well maybe it's just my crazy old prejudice that how many votes someone gets bears some sort of relation to the support for the political platform they're standing on?

As for the Briefing AGM - all that proves is that people often prefer to spend their Saturday afternoons in better ways than debating the internal management structures of minor left publications.  Mad I know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> well maybe it's just my crazy old prejudice that how many votes someone gets bears some sort of relation to the support for the political platform they're standing on?


no, it's because you're stupid. because it's not like there's a level playing field for parties is it?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> well maybe it's just my crazy old prejudice that how many votes someone gets bears some sort of relation to the support for the political platform they're standing on?
> 
> As for the Briefing AGM - all that proves is that people often prefer to spend their Saturday afternoons in better ways than debating the internal management structures of minor left publications. Mad I know.


Are you going to answer the questions or not?

It may also  indicate that the broad grouping of which they are supposed to be a leading representative has no actual effective existence that can be talked of. And that this is probably closer to the real picture than a few thousand passive votes that may represent very little beyond habitual passive voting by people who are not active in any sort of ongoing labour-left.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 29, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> no, it's because you're stupid. because it's not like there's a level playing field for parties is it?


So the number of votes candidates get bears no correlation to the political support they enjoy?  It's just a random number generator?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Are you going to answer the questions or not?
> It may also indicate that the broad grouping of which they are supposed to be a leading representative has no actual effective existence that can be talked of. And that this is probably closer to the real picture than a few thousand passive votes that may represent very little beyond habitual passive voting by people who are not active in any sort of ongoing labour-left.


 
There are two questions here which can't just be conflated
1) How many people in the party hold radical left views and
2) How well are they organised, and to what end?

I'd be the first to accept that the left in the party doesn't punch its weight sufficiently, or sufficiently often. But even so the fact that Shawcroft is on the NEC and Akehurst isn't is a political indicator that there is a left out there which can mobilise to win positions of influence.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> There are two questions here which can't just be conflated
> 1) How many people in the party hold radical left views and
> 2) How well are they organised, and to what end?
> 
> I'd be the first to accept that the left in the party doesn't punch its weight sufficiently, or sufficiently often. But even so the fact that Shawcroft is on the NEC and Akehurst isn't is a political indicator that there is a left out there which can mobilise to win positions of influence.


I wasn't arguing that the left doesn't punch its weight and that it should, i was saying that the vote that you offered is a sure sign of a desperate moribund dying labour-left, reduced to voting for elections to a body it doesn't accept the legitimacy of, _appearing_ to punch _above_ its weight - when the lack of interest in labour-left organisation is a truer indicator of how things stand. This vote (and you've still not addressed how the vote was in support of a 'radical left platform) actually indicates that this is the last and only option open to the labour left - that it has, in fact, been defeated.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> That alone would make the Labour left around 8-10 times as big as even the biggest Trot group around today.


tbh, the trot left is such a marginalised, tiny, irrelevant and altogether pitiful thing that that comparison really doesn't amount to very much at all - if anything.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> So the number of votes candidates get bears no correlation to the political support they enjoy? It's just a random number generator?


no, you're stupid. political parties don't start from a level playing field. in addition, relatively few members of the electorate familiarise themselves with the detail of the political platform parties stand on: i doubt that many people voting conservative in june 1987 were voting for a great change in the way local government was financed from the rates to the poll tax. and i could have the best set of policies modern britain had ever known but if i don't have the money to put forward sufficient candidates - call it £1.75m - then they have no chance of becoming law. oh - and the number of votes a candidate gets may show the political support that party has as you say in the post i quote but it doesn't follow that the number of votes represents support for the platform, which is what you said in your previous post.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It exists then? In what sense? Where?


 
It inheres in articul8. He is *the essence* of "the Labour left". Through him, all things Labour left shall be made manifest.

HTH


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> It inheres in articul8. He is *the essence* of "the Labour left". Through him, all things Labour left shall be made manifest.
> 
> HTH


i think you mean he, er, passes the labour left


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How do we make w/c politics revolve around the labour party? We pretend that a real substantial labour left exists within in it and has the potential to either win the party as a whole to its positions or is such a poweful force that it can both force a large scale split to the left and attract enough support from outside the party to establish itself as a long-term challenge to labour.
> 
> Remind me, who are the fantasists here?


 
Wouldn't that beg the question as to whether the Labour party have any interest whatsoever in working class politics, in an era when it's fairly obvious they don't, and merely see as as voting fodder?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> At a bare minimum there's there 22,000+ who voted Christine Shawcroft onto the NEC. That alone would make the Labour left around 8-10 times as big as even the biggest Trot group around today.


 
I'm not sure that you actually understand the dynamics behind election to the NEC. It's not a marker of the "leftness" or "rightness" of party members when they vote for a particular candidate. It's about chess - about *blocking* people - as much as it's about electing someone who *might* represent a particular wing of the party. Look at the Cashman debacle in the '90s for a fine example of such chess.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Oh come on - seriously? How does the fact she received the votes of over 20,000 Labour members when standing on a radical left platform show there are people who support these ideas? FFS. It might be inadequately organised, bureaucratically out-manoeuvred, and without real purchase on party policy - but it still exists and has a presence in national internal elections. (and that's before we get to the size and influence of the left in Labour aligned unions - like UNITE).


 
Ask yourself this: "Who else was in contention, and which interests would he have represented?".
Answer that, and you answer your own question above.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Apr 29, 2013)

Owen Jones said:
			
		

> Mystified (again) why Ed Miliband didn't say social security spending could be brought down with a living wage and by building housing




_Mystified._


----------



## articul8 (Apr 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ithe vote that you offered is a sure sign of a desperate moribund dying labour-left, reduced to voting for elections to a body it doesn't accept the legitimacy of, _appearing_ to punch _above_ its weight - when the lack of interest in labour-left organisation is a truer indicator of how things stand. This vote (and you've still not addressed how the vote was in support of a 'radical left platform) actually indicates that this is the last and only option open to the labour left - that it has, in fact, been defeated.


 
well, yes and no.  The NEC vote was just a way of getting a handle on the sort of numbers involved.  Actually it's precisely the limits of internal democratic processes which mean that there is a section of Labour activists who are prioritising work with forces outside the party and involving themselves in the anti-austerity movement throught the trade unions or at a local level (against NHS cuts/reforms, free schools etc).  Certainly in my local group, LRC activists are among the most active campaigners on this score.   Now, where this is going is a longer debate - but, for now, the Labour left clearly does exist - and in a more relevant form than the left sects.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, that's exactly what i'm asking you to outline - what 'radical left' ideas these are would be helpful too. It would also be interesting to hear why labour
> briefing can only get a 100 people to a AGM that would decide if it was to exist as an independent voice of the labout left or not. That sort of thing is rather more important than a few votes isn't it?​


 
This is actually overly generous to the "Labour left". The LRC - as in the only remaining institution of note of the Labour left and the body that unites it, such as it is, - is lucky to get 200. Its attempt to found a youth wing was smaller than Revo. We are talking about a current here with approximately the same ability to get activists out for the day as one of the runts of the Trot litter, like the AWL say. In fact, the AWL would regard it as a bit embarrassing if they could only produce LRC numbers.

Which won't stop one of our resident clowns from bleating on about the tens of thousands(!) of Labour leftists hiding under some rock outside Northampton. It's like dealing with some super-credulous new recruit to the SWP who will earnestly tell you that they have 8,000 members. Although, to be fair, that would be markedly less mental. It's like arguing with a religious believer: His narrative is unshakeable by argument or experience.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 29, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> tbh, the trot left is such a marginalised, tiny, irrelevant and altogether pitiful thing that that comparison really doesn't amount to very much at all - if anything.


 
Even after the most dramatic crisis in its history, a major split, while total demoralised, and being generally ostracised, the SWP will turn out a large multiple of the number of people at its main public event that the Labour left can produce.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 29, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not sure that you actually understand the dynamics behind election to the NEC. It's not a marker of the "leftness" or "rightness" of party members when they vote for a particular candidate. It's about chess - about *blocking* people - as much as it's about electing someone who *might* represent a particular wing of the party. Look at the Cashman debacle in the '90s for a fine example of such chess.


Is it not about a mixture of tactical blocking *and* voting positively for a candidate/programme/agenda etc?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 29, 2013)

12.5% of Dublin voted for a Trotskyist candidate standing on a transitional programme in the last European elections. That doesn't mean that there are tens and tens of thousands of Trotskyists here.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 29, 2013)

I'd ask how many votes made Peter Taaffe your General Secretary for the last few decades, but it would of course be totally rhetorical


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I'd ask how many votes made Peter Taaffe your General Secretary for the last few decades, but it would of course be totally rhetorical


 
More to the point, it would be a typical example of you moving from crazy claims to irrelevant jibes when you can't defend your fantasies. Really, the main differences between you and some "we've got 8,000 members" SWP student fool are (a) that your delusion is on a larger scale, almost an order of magnitude nuttier, and (b) that the SWP student will probably grow out of it in six months.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 29, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This is actually overly generous to the "Labour left". The LRC - as in the only remaining institution of note of the Labour left and the body that unites it, such as it is, - is lucky to get 200. Its attempt to found a youth wing was smaller than Revo. We are talking about a current here with approximately the same ability to get activists out for the day as one of the runts of the Trot litter, like the AWL say. In fact, the AWL would regard it as a bit embarrassing if they could only produce LRC numbers.


 
If you are looking for crazed semi-Trot sects no wonder you only see a handful of AWLers and Socialist Appeal. That's not what a "Labour left" looks like


----------



## articul8 (Apr 29, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> More to the point, it would be a typical example of you moving from crazy claims to irrelevant jibes when you can't defend your fantasies. Really, the main differences between you and some "we've got 8,000 members" SWP student fool are (a) that your delusion is on a larger scale, almost an order of magnitude nuttier, and (b) that the SWP student will probably grow out of it in six months.


 
so 22,000 people voted for the most left wing of the NEC candidates - this is verifiable, objective evidence of the scale of support for the left inside the party.  No fantasy involved.  Unless you are claiming people just liked the name "Christine" or something


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> so 22,000 people voted for the most left wing of the NEC candidates - this is verifiable, objective evidence of the scale of support for the left inside the party. No fantasy involved. Unless you are claiming people just liked the name "Christine" or something


 
Less than 200 of these 22,000 people can be convinced to go to the main events of the only remaining Labour left organisation of any size. That's what you are fucking working with, you deluded fucking imbecile. That's the scale you are operating on. That's what you have. That's what you are. I don't know how many different ways I have to point out the bleeding fucking obvious before you get it through your thick fucking skull.

Do you know that the Grantites managed to get thousands of votes in the last French Communist Party internal elections? Now, would you say that they are a group of a few dozen or a group of many thousands? Which of those answers would be meaningful and which would be mental? Try working it out in a context you've less of your identity invested in first.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 29, 2013)

again you confuse support for one or other particular sub-grouping, with support for the Labour left as a whole.   The Labour Left is much broader and larger than the LRC, Socialist Appeal, NextGeneration Labour, or whatever other component of it.  (Eoin Clarke has cheekily called his group "Labour Left"). But I'm not talking about them.   By and large the Labour Left doesn't operate in the same way as a Trot group - you might as well ask how many papers Labour lefts sell on their weekend sales!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> again you confuse support for one or other particular sub-grouping, with support for the Labour left as a whole. The Labour Left is much broader and larger than the LRC, Socialist Appeal, NextGeneration Labour, or whatever other component of it. (Eoin Clarke has cheekily called his group "Labour Left"). But I'm not talking about them. By and large the Labour Left doesn't operate in the same way as a Trot group - you might as well ask how many papers Labour lefts sell on their weekend sales!


 
The LRC is not merely "one sub group" of the Labour left, it is the umbrella body of the Labour left to the left of Cruddas. It isn't as if there are dozens of other left factions, squabbling with the LRC and getting hundreds to their rival events. There's nothing. There's a desert. There's the LRC, an ageing clump of a couple of hundred useless people, and then there are few smaller clumps of exactly the same ageing people who can gather together a few dozen.

I'm not comparing them to a "Trot group" in the sense that I expect much activism from the intrepid couple of hundred. In fact, a couple of hundred at some runt of the Trot litter's event is much more meaningful than a couple of hundred at the LRC's flagship event, as most of the couple of hundred Trots can be expected to actually do something. You can't even hope for that from your useless associates.

But really, I'm not going to waste my time explaining that the cherubim and seraphim don't exist to a religious believer any further for today. Go pray for their intercession with God somewhere else.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> again you confuse support for one or other particular sub-grouping, with support for the Labour left as a whole. The Labour Left is much broader and larger than the LRC, Socialist Appeal, NextGeneration Labour, or whatever other component of it. (Eoin Clarke has cheekily called his group "Labour Left"). But I'm not talking about them. By and large the Labour Left doesn't operate in the same way as a Trot group - you might as well ask how many papers Labour lefts sell on their weekend sales!


 
How does the Labour Left operate - genuine question? 

Their means of operation have been pretty cruddy if they can't even get Left MP Diane Abbott to oppose workfare - which Haringey Labour is using for its estates programme.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 29, 2013)

Is it relevant that she's a Hackney MP though?

(Not defending her or anything -- just saying!)


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 29, 2013)

If anyone in Labour Left was near achieving any actual change, they'd be gotten rid of by now.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 29, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Is it relevant that she's a Hackney MP though?
> 
> (Not defending her or anything -- just saying!)


 
Yes but she is Labour Left Campaign Group unlike Lammy who is also pro-workfare but not Labour.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

sihhi said:


> How does the Labour Left operate - genuine question?
> 
> Their means of operation have been pretty cruddy if they can't even get Left MP Diane Abbott to oppose workfare - which Haringey Labour is using for its estates programme.


 
Diane doesn't really represent anything or anyone but her own career ambitions - that's way Blairites were happy to include her (but not McDonnell) on the ballot paper, to make sure the relevant diversity boxes were ticked and leave the membership with an unappealing "left" option.  Not excusing her but she abstained because she is a minister - and given that they've booted out PPS's for breaking the whip, it would effectively have meant resigning.

The Labour left is quite amorphous and hard to make generalisations about - I don't dispute that it could be a hell of sight more effectively organised or effective, but that doesn't mean it simply doesn't exist!  One section of it (the CLPD/Grassroots Alliance) seems to spend most of its time organising for internal elections and making procedural points about conference.  But even the more externally active sections like the LRC don't prioritise recruitment, party building and selling the paper etc.  But it's there fostering initiatives like "councillors against the cuts".


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> *The Labour left is quite amorphous and hard to make generalisations about - I don't dispute that it could be a hell of sight more effectively organised or effective, but that doesn't mean it simply doesn't exist!* One section of it (the CLPD/Grassroots Alliance) seems to spend most of its time organising for internal elections and making procedural points about conference. But even the more externally active sections like the LRC don't prioritise recruitment, party building and selling the paper etc. But it's there fostering initiatives like "councillors against the cuts".


 
Perhaps it is hard to make generalisations about because it is so amorphous that it cannot cohere in any sustained way; i.e. in practical terms, rather than as a rhetorical flourish or imagined sleeping army, it doesn't exist.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

It clearly exists in the form of LRC; Grassroots Alliance/CLPD; "Labour Left"; Labour CND, Next Generation Labour...etc.etc..even before you get to the unions  - I don't overestimate what this amounts to, but I do object to isolated sects (on the fringes of the Labour movement ) somehow conjuring 20,000+ people out of existence


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> At a bare minimum there's there 22,000+ who voted Christine Shawcroft onto the NEC. That alone would make the Labour left around 8-10 times as big as even the biggest Trot group around today.


no it wouldn't. The one simply doesn't follow necessarily from the other, there may be loads of different reasons why Shawcroft picked up votes, from all sorts of different people. Also, _one_ candidate getting onto the NEC - ain't big potatoes.
(and you STILL haven't outlined that all-important 'platform' of hers which was oh-so-persuasive, and such 'proof' of a healthy 'Labour Left'. As you were the one flagging it up, it's up to you to outline it.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> so 22,000 people voted for the most left wing of the NEC candidates - this is verifiable, objective evidence of the scale of support for the left inside the party. No fantasy involved. Unless you are claiming people just liked the name "Christine" or something


It's still, when all is said and done, ONE vote, _one_ slip of paper, _one_ two-minute effort. Hardly to-the-barricades stuff


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> It clearly exists in the form of LRC; Grassroots Alliance/CLPD; "Labour Left"; Labour CND, Next Generation Labour...etc.etc..even before you get to the unions - I don't overestimate what this amounts to, but I do object to isolated sects (on the fringes of the Labour movement ) somehow conjuring 20,000+ people out of existence


I don't think that you've managed to convince anyone that it exists. What years were you in the party from again?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> It clearly exists in the form of LRC; Grassroots Alliance/CLPD; "Labour Left"; Labour CND, Next Generation Labour...etc.etc..even before you get to the unions - I don't overestimate what this amounts to, but I do object to isolated sects (on the fringes of the Labour movement ) somehow conjuring 20,000+ people out of existence


These people exist physically - what this represents politically is being questioned. You say that they represent the labour left in one breath and that they "spend most of its time organising for internal elections and making procedural points about conference" in the next. In what sense then do they represent a really existing labour-left?

And for the third or fourth time, what is this 'radical left' platform that you think they represent - this is really quite important.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

I don't have her candidate statement, but as I recall it was along the lines of her website which says, "On the NEC and the NPF I regularly raise issues such as using our huge financial stakes in banks to control their policies, rail re-nationalisation, ending the war in Afghanistan, the fourth option for council housing, and Party democracy."

Ok this is not the revolutionary expropriation of the capitalist class, but it is clearly "of the left".


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 30, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Perhaps it is hard to make generalisations about because it is so amorphous that it cannot cohere in any sustained way; i.e. in practical terms, rather than as a rhetorical flourish or imagined sleeping army, it doesn't exist.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


This is kinda what i'm thinking, and the truth is, articul8 doesn't seem able to come up with any specifics or hard fact about this shadowy 'Labour Left'; I mean, where's the detail? The numbers? the specifics?
This isn't having a go at you, articul8, but you really do need more of those things


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

I'm the last person to claim the labour left is "fit-for-purpose" - even if the purpose was a given, which it isn't.   But I'm just saying that the some people are so wrapped up in their own rhetoric that they can't even acknowledge what is there.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> This isn't having a go at you, articul8, but you really do need more of those things


 
As you know, the leadership prevented McDonnell from getting on the ballot paper in the leadership elections, which presumably indicates they were worried about the extent of the support that he'd get and the impact he;d have had on the debate.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

Jesus, we've gone from secret armies to secret generals - this is why people are saying that no labour-left exists.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

You think it was a coincidence that Abbot got on the ballot paper and McDonnell didn't?


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> As you know, the leadership prevented McDonnell from getting on the ballot paper in the leadership elections, which presumably indicates they were worried about the extent of the support that he'd get and the impact he;d have had on the debate.


a) you may be right (I don't know) but that's still just a guess in part - 'presuming' isn't enough
b) it still doesn't really give those specifics or details


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I don't have her candidate statement, but as I recall it was along the lines of her website which says, "On the NEC and the NPF I regularly raise issues such as using our huge financial stakes in banks to control their policies, rail re-nationalisation, ending the war in Afghanistan, the fourth option for council housing, and Party democracy."
> 
> Ok this is not the revolutionary expropriation of the capitalist class, but it is clearly "of the left".


It's of UKIP and the BNP and others isn't it? In fact, it's something that isn't specifically left. And, given that it's just rhetoric and that the party centre and leadership simply decides what to do and when, isn't it just another example of the labour-left not actually existing beyond these rhetorical demands?

The question surely is, _can a labour-left exist today?_ The answer is a clear no.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> You think it was a coincidence that Abbot got on the ballot paper and McDonnell didn't?


I couldn't care less. I do care about your secret left-wing armies just waiting to be called into action by a left-wing napoleon. And there non-appearance being evidence of their hidden power. You're crazy.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> As you know, the leadership prevented McDonnell from getting on the ballot paper in the leadership elections, which presumably indicates they were worried about the extent of the support that he'd get and the impact he;d have had on the debate.


 
The Labour leadership's paranoia over controlling their media representation as a party free from left contagion is not evidence of the existence of a Labour left. The actions of such a left wing would be evidence of its existence and those actions are minimal at best.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

There are two questions
- an empirical one - does an identifiable Labour left exist (answer yes - in the LRC but also in the organisations I've listed above, in the votes for left candidates, in groups like "councillors against the cuts")
- is this Labour left in any way adequate to the task it has set itself?

It is possible to answer the second in the negative without denying the former.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I couldn't care less. I do care about your secret left-wing armies just waiting to be called into action by a left-wing napoleon. And there non-appearance being evidence of their hidden power. You're crazy.


 
That is a silly caricature of what i said - all I'm saying is that the leadership swiftly moved to prevent a credible left candidate from appearing on the ballot paper *because that would have allowed the membership to demonstrate a real choice for an alternative set of priorities, and this could have been measured reflected objectively* - not that some great leader would lead the masses like the pied piper. 

Ironic to see the ultra left working in the service of the Blairite attempt to argue that socialism in the party has been killed off.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> That is a silly caricature of what i said - all I'm saying is that the leadership swiftly moved to prevent a credible left candidate from appearing on the ballot paper *because that would have allowed the membership to demonstrate a real choice for an alternative set of priorities, and this could have been measured reflected objectively* - not that some great leader would lead the masses like the pied piper.
> 
> Ironic to see the ultra left working in the service of the Blairite attempt to argue that socialism in the party has been killed off.


No, your argument was silly and deserved nothing but the (slight) caricaturing i gave it.The argument that the labour leadership conspired to block a candidate because his success would then prove the real existence of a sleeping labour-left army is very silly. If it were true you would be able to point to the existence of this labour-left in the period since - you've been totally unable to. In fact, your straw grasping has just made it ever clearer.

Excellent, now onto the sweating desperate angry amalgamation. Never takes long does it?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

Given that you won't accept that internal election results count as evidence, or the existence of numerous membership bodies, it's like someone persistently asking for proof that water is wet.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:
			
		

> Given that you won't accept that internal election results count as evidence, or the existence of numerous membership bodies, it's like someone persistently asking for proof that water is wet.



If you managed to convincingly explain why they politically mean what you say they do and then place them within a set of other evidences of the existence of the labour left then I happily would. That you are struggling to do so tells its own story.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Given that you won't accept that internal election results count as evidence, or the existence of numerous membership bodies, it's like someone persistently asking for proof that water is wet.


 
Given you've proved how left Labour is strong with that website statement - explain how such a 20,000 strong body can't block any single cut budget that a Labour council wants to make.

If you admit the Labour Left is ineffective - how can it be made effective to achieve significant left wing aims - by a pluralist coalition (which Cruddas types will quickly lead so as to neutralise it) and AV then PR?

No one really understands your strategy which is why your vote Labour in 2015 thing goes down like a lead balloon here. It makes people think you are being hypocritical. 

Most try not to raise raise false hopes. You have a strategy which no one understands but raises false hopes.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

You are inferring some political comment from my empirical claim that the Labour left exists - I'm not saying that it's going from strength to strength, or is adequately organised, or has real purchase on the party's direction.  But it's there and hasn't simply vanished.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Most try not to raise raise false hopes. You have a strategy which no one understands but raises false hopes.


 
Let me try being clearer and perfectly honest

1) I think we need vehicle capable of giving electoral expression to anti austerity politics
2) At the same time, the overriding imperative at the next General Election will be to kick out the Tories and LDs - Labour will be the chief beneficiary
3) As yet Labour's policy stance is unformed, what little there is seems contradictory or inadequate, but is being contested from inside and outside the party and the wider labour movement.
4) The task is therefore to maximise pressure inside and outside on the Labour leadership and build confidence in and around the idea of resistance to austerity
5) The process of doing that ought to see what remains of the Labour left look outward and work around common aims with forces outside the party (building an anti-austerity bloc), whilst also maintaining pressure on, and exposing the inadequacy of, official Labour policy.
6) Pressuring the leaderships of the affiliated unions to demand influence in return for funding

What happens if, as is quite possible, the above fails to have achieved sufficient results? Well, then that will be the stage to reassess whether Labour has become so toxic that *tens, hundreds of thousands* are willing not only to break from Labour but can be won to a socialist alternative. Trying to pre-empt this only undermines credibility that such an alternative is possible.  But having utilised the mainstream platforms opened up to Labour party members, and consolidated links with forces outside, such a left would be in a better position from which to think about how a new party could be built.

I don't claim this is any earth-shattering innovation or insight. It is by and large what is already happening. The Labour left isn't the alpha and omega of what's needed, obviously. But dismissing its strategic relevance altogether is to be blind to the roots of Labourism in popular consciousness. The fact that someone like Ken Loach - in the Spirit of '45 - is effectively looking to rehabilitate a version of classic old Labourism shows that.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Let me try being clearer and perfectly honest
> 
> 1) I think we need vehicle capable of giving electoral expression to anti austerity politics
> 2) At the same time, the overriding imperative at the next General Election will be to kick out the Tories and LDs - Labour will be the chief beneficiary
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

So where is the strategy for 4 and 5? You don't really consider stating what you ideally want to happen to be a strategy do you? Where is the strategy to achieve those idea aims? You must be able to outline i would have thought?

(Also, in passing: Loach is someone unable to find distribution in the UK for his films, who exactly is he a tribune for?)


----------



## sihhi (Apr 30, 2013)

Louis MacNeice

This what Red Pepper think - that Ken Loach is trying to bring up something that doesn't exist now,





> But the clue is in the title. Ken Loach has made a film about the spirit of 1945, not the institutions that were established or Labour’s shortcomings. It is the spirit among the people, the certainty that a better world was within their grasp, that Ken Loach wishes to record and to celebrate, in the hope that some of it will rub off.


 
articul8 thinks the optimism is already there are and voting for Labour so what needs doing is shifting the manifesto left.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

a) Red Pepper, thought it has a coherent overall orientation, doesn't do groupthink. That is the view of the reviewer.
b) where does anyone say anything about optimism today? It's precisely the contrast between the ambitions of the 45 government, under mass w/c pressure, that contrasts so strongly with the abject poverty of the present Labour leadership.

In terms of contesting the "no money left" narrative we need to start:
1) building pressure around popular policies that don't need a big cash outlay or are even revenue positive - like scrapping Trident, eliminating subsidy for low pay, proper rent controls, or bringing back the rail franchises back in house and progressively restoring rail under public ownership, or utilising the existing stake in publically owned banks
2) continue pressure/exposure of corporate tax evasion, tax havens, introducing a FTT etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

Stop saying _pressure_ over and over and outline the strategy.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> scrapping Trident


 
Why did the leftist government of 1945 start <Trident>? 

If the Spirit of '45 represents deep immovable Labourism what good is it for your strategy against <Trident>?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

Hold on a minute, I'm not saying "let's do '45 all over again" - part of the problem of that generation is the Labourist assumptions I want to move beyond - I'm just saying that the idea of a radical Labour government is part and parcel of our present political consciousness so much that even opponents of Labour invoke it.   I'm not saying that the assumptions of Labourism are "immovable" I'm saying that can't just be ignored out of existence.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Hold on a minute, I'm not saying "let's do '45 all over again" - part of the problem of that generation is the Labourist assumptions I want to move beyond - I'm just saying that the idea of a radical Labour government is part and parcel of our present political consciousness so much that even opponents of Labour invoke it. I'm not saying that the assumptions of Labourism are "immovable" I'm saying that can't just be ignored out of existence.


 

But is Loach invoking it as part of mobilising the Labour left to do something with the Labour Party, or for them to take up arms as part of much broader forces inspite of (and if needs be against) the Lbour Party?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## sihhi (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Hold on a minute, I'm not saying "let's do '45 all over again" - part of the problem of that generation is the Labourist assumptions I want to move beyond - I'm just saying that the idea of a radical Labour government is part and parcel of our present political consciousness so much that even opponents of Labour invoke it. I'm not saying that the assumptions of Labourism are "immovable" I'm saying that can't just be ignored out of existence.


 
You want to _move beyond_ Labourism by _doing_ Labourism in the political sphere.

Explain:




> 4) The task is therefore to maximise pressure inside and outside on the Labour leadership and build confidence in and around the idea of resistance to austerity
> 5) The process of doing that ought to see what remains of the Labour left look outward and work around common aims with forces outside the party (building an anti-austerity bloc), whilst also maintaining pressure on, and exposing the inadequacy of, official Labour policy.


 
Abbott is very anti-austerity wants a return to fiscal spending, was saying Kinnock would have saved Britain not ruined it like Thatcher. Do you not think "the Abbott left" (including David Lammy, Emily Thornberry, Katy Clark, Renewal etc) will be all over this anti-austerity bloc? Within this bloc, they will work to make the bloc a secondary external wing or a subs bench for the Labour party, whose Labourism we both oppose.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So where is the strategy for 4 and 5? You don't really consider stating what you ideally want to happen to be a strategy do you? Where is the strategy to achieve those idea aims? You must be able to outline i would have thought?





butchersapron said:


> Stop saying _pressure_ over and over and outline the strategy.


 
Any chance of doing this articul8?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

sihhi said:


> You want to _move beyond_ Labourism by _doing_ Labourism in the political sphere.


I don't see there's any alternative but an immanent critique of Labourism, "in and against".  It can't be bypassed or ignored.  It has a number of institutional supports, like the the parliamentary/electoral system, the trade union bureaucracy, etc. etc. Militant was far too quick to fold its hand in the 80s (in the anticipation of the red nineties).  But by the same token when it was inside, it was too quick to dismiss everyone outside as sectarians, timewasters, petit-bourgeois elements or whatever.

There have been paths not taken (from Ralph Miliband and Tony Benn through to the SLP and the Socialist Alliance).  I hope Loach's Left Unity outfit doesn't take up a sectarian position re the genuine Labour left, nor the left to it.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

Do you have an immanent critique of law too? Of economics? Why does immanent critique mean you have to be inside? It doesn't. It's supposed to show the inability of the thing under consideration to do what it says it aims at. So welld one on both arguing that it cannot do what you say but let's try it anyway.

But isn't that claim to be doing this immanent critique just a wanky way of saying that you are challenging labour to 'do better'? Like some pathetic manager,_ you can do better than that Keiron, i know you can, don't let yourself down by not working your arse off me_


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Any chance of doing this articul8?


 
The key strategic position at the moment is that of McCluskey and the UNITE broad left, and therefore the main question how they can be made to use what influence they have.  Jerry Hicks' 80,000 votes should be giving Lennie food for thought right now.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> - is this Labour left in any way adequate to the task it has set itself?


surely "is this nebulous left rump significant enough to be worth bothering with in any way whatsoever?" is a more pertinent question?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> The key strategic position at the moment is that of McCluskey and the UNITE broad left, and therefore the main question how they can be made to use what influence they have. Jerry Hicks' 80,000 votes should be giving Lennie food for thought right now.


That's not an answer is it? At least notto  the questions asked. You have to say something here other than pressure. You outlined what you think is a strategy - it isn't a strategy, it was just a list of things you want to happen that involved the word pressure. Outline the strategy.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's supposed to show the inability of the thing under consideration to do what it says it aims at.


 
this is precisely it!  To _show_ the inability, not just assert it.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> this is precisely it! To _show_ the inability, not just assert it.


I know. Why does it require that you a) be in it and b) argue that _actually_ it can be changed, come and join us in it.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> this is precisely it! To _show_ the inability, not just assert it.


So, you need to prove to yourself that the labour party is not some sort of party that seeks to bring about real social change for the w/c. What better way then than to join it and argue for other people to do so, to work for it, and to vote for it. Oh but you meant _everyone else_ didn't you? They're the ones who need their illusions in labour smashed by this process. The 4 million w/c votes they lost since 1997 - these are the people who need their eyes opening by joining working for and voting labour, not you. 

There's something very wrong with you.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So, you need to prove to yourself that the labour party is not some sort of party that seeks to bring about real social change for the w/c. What better way then than to join it and argue for other people to do so, to work for it, and to vote for it. Oh but you meant _everyone else_ didn't you? They're the ones who need their illusions in labour smashed by this process. The 4 million w/c votes they lost since 1997 - these are the people who need their eyes opening by joining working for and voting labour, not you.


 
The point is that disaffection from Labour at a particular point in time doesn't imply the rejection of Labourist assumptions which are alive and well enough.  It's part of the cyclical ebb and flow.   It's to Labour that people will look, because they have to look [in England at least], to get rid of the ConDems.  Breaking from this means breaking from its inner logic not just its contingent manifestations.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> The point is that disaffection from Labour at a particular point in time doesn't imply the rejection of Labourist assumptions which are alive and well enough. It's part of the cyclical ebb and flow. It's to Labour that people will look, because they have to look [in England at least], to get rid of the ConDems. Breaking from this means breaking from its inner logic not just its contingent manifestations.


That doesn't have anything at all to do with what i posted or immanent critique. It's just wank. Tell me why immanent critique needs you to be inside and encouraging people to get inside of the structure you're critiquing. Then outline this strategy you were talking about. What does it involve? Can you even say what 'pressure' means?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I know. Why does it require that you a) be in it and b) argue that _actually_ it can be changed, come and join us in it.


 
by walking we make the road etc


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> by walking we make the road etc


By standing in the shit we don't stand in the shit. Great.

Let articul8 take you by the hand children, let him take you through the meadow of illusions in labour to the hidden door of failed hopes and into the golden dawn of SYRIZA..._what do you mean that you don't have any illusions in labour_...wtf? Are you serious? But this is the strategy!!!


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> the golden dawn of SYRIZA..


 
unfortunate turn of phrase. SYRIZA is not the magic solution, nor is it necessarily about illusions in Labour. It's more the ongoing institutional power which sustains Labourism as an ideology in Zizek's sense, "I know very well, but nevertheless". It requires what Freud calls "working through":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_through
It's like an unresolved state of mourning for what's lost. We need to go through this phase


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> to get inside of the structure you're critiquing.


This is just it - you only really get a feel for the inner contradictions, unresolved problems, gaps, etc of a logic by engaging on its own terms whilst also being in a sense outside of it


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> unfortunately turn of phrase. SYRIZA is not the magic solution, nor is it necessarily about illusions in Labour. It's more the ongoing institutional power which sustains Labourism as an ideology in Zizek's sense, "I know very well, but nevertheless". It requires what Freud calls "working through":
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_through
> It's like an unresolved state of mourning for what's lost. We need to go through this phase


No, not an unfortunate turn of phrase. What do the big-brains called_ catching up with everyone else?_

That post is a condensed version of everything wrong with you - wanky shallow intellectualism based on antediluvian politics which are in turn based on your own warped individual needs to appear radical whilst you know that you're not - you must all go through labour to see it's shit (_see also this argument of mine about why labour isn't really shit_), whilst having no grasp on contemporary political realities whatsoever. Beyond a joke now.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

So, this strategy articul8, going to outline it? Can you? If you can't, just say.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

Labour isn't simply shit - it is and remains a contradictory formation, in development.  I'll spare you the lecture on dialectics (wanky intellectualism?).  It can't just be inherited and utilised.  But it can't just be jettisoned entirely altogether.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Labour isn't simply shit - it is and remains a contradictory formation, in development. I'll spare you the lecture on dialectics (wanky intellectualism?). It can't just be inherited and utilised. But it can't just be jettisoned entirely altogether.


No, please give me the lecture - i and the class obviously need it if you're going to herd us into the party ignite our hopes and dreams then destroy them, then set up a real left wing party afterwards. Because i and the class think that you're mad.

Sure you should be boozing at work on a tuesday btw?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

"I and the class" - your version of the "royal we"?

The point is people don't need herding anywhere.  The point is that given people who want to kick out the coalition are inexorably being pulled towards the Labour party, there is no point standing aside from the battles that are taking place over where it stands.  Labour is the battleground not the winning side.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Sure you should be boozing at work on a tuesday btw?


 
hard as it is to believe, I'm neither working nor boozing.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> "I and the class" - your version of the "royal we"?
> 
> The point is people don't need herding anywhere. The point is that given people who want to kick out the coalition are inexorably being pulled towards the Labour party, there is no point standing aside from the battles that are taking place over where it stands. Labour is the battleground not the winning side.


Your point was that they do, that they need to go through labour to reach the promised land. They need the hellfire of your immanent critique, when this critique has never required people be member of the object of critique. And more to the point, you want people inside labour to save labour - see your flip-flipping between pressure on the leadership can move a leftward moving membership and leadership and the party is only good for destroying other peoples illusions in it.

You don't know what you're saying half the time i think. You sound a little lost. Like a lost little twat.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> The fact that someone like Ken Loach - in the Spirit of '45 - is effectively looking to rehabilitate a version of classic old Labourism shows that.


he's not, he really isn't; he's trying to recapture and present the optimism and idealism particularly associated with those times, and that didn't - and certainly doesn't now - start and end with the LP.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

what flip-flopping?  It's clear that a) it is both useful and necessary to pressure the Labour leadership  in the current context and b) this does not mean that Labour can or will ever be an adequate vehicle for the left.

This is about real - material and historical - contradictions.  I've never argued everyone "has to go through" Labour.  But it won't go away if you just shut your eyes and pretend it doesn't exist, or think you represent "the class" in rejecting it, when actually millions are planning to vote for it.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 30, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Do you not think "the Abbott left" (including David Lammy, Emily Thornberry, Katy Clark,


#
Are you SURE those people can be described as 'abbott left'? How so?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> he's not, he really isn't; he's trying to recapture and present the optimism and idealism particularly associated with those times, and that didn't - and certainly doesn't now - start and end with the LP.


Regardless of what the subjective intentions of Loach might be, look at how people were celebrating Atlee instead of Thatcher, at how little was said about the context of British imperialism, NATO, or the flaws of centralised state management.   He knows what buttons to press, because the Labourist illusions are alive and well - even if for the movement they are partly inherited by the likes of Galloway (claiming to stand up for "real" Labour values) - the kind of nostalgic talk you get around the fringes of TUSC too.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> what flip-flopping? It's clear that a) it is both useful and necessary to pressure the Labour leadership in the current context and b) this does not mean that Labour can or will ever be an adequate vehicle for the left.
> 
> This is about real - material and historical - contradictions. I've never argued everyone "has to go through" Labour. But it won't go away if you just shut your eyes and pretend it doesn't exist, or think you represent "the class" in rejecting it, when actually millions are planning to vote for it.


Your flip-flopping. Between arguing different and contradictory things at different times - or more usually at the same time. God only knows what shite you push within the party.

What's clear? Oh more _pressure_. Can you say what this pressure consists of given that it's all you strategy contains. Surely not hot air? If this does not mean that Labour can or will ever be an adequate vehicle for the left then why have you argued over and over for years and years for people to join labour, work for labour and vote labour? If you're arguing  - as you are this time, in this forum - that this will result in disappointment (or the your crude understanding of what constitutes immanent critique) then this is going through labour to lose illusions is exactly what you are arguing for.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Regardless of what the subjective intentions of Loach might be, look at how people were celebrating Atlee instead of Thatcher, .


yes, but in the context of late May, 1945, an exhausted populace etc., and a new hope after that - that context cannot possibly ever be repeated


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Regardless of what the subjective intentions of Loach might be, look at how people were celebrating Atlee instead of Thatcher, at how little was said about the context of British imperialism, NATO, or the flaws of centralised state management. He knows what buttons to press, because the Labourist illusions are alive and well - even if for the movement they are partly inherited by the likes of Galloway (claiming to stand up for "real" Labour values) - the kind of nostalgic talk you get around the fringes of TUSC too.


Hence the massive interest in this film by mum. Button well and truly pressed. You clueless bubble.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 30, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The Labour leadership's paranoia over controlling their media representation as a party free from left contagion is not evidence of the existence of a Labour left. The actions of such a left wing would be evidence of its existence and those actions are minimal at best.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


actually, that is a much more feasible explanation, considering that bunch of paranoid control freaks


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

I'm saying that it's necessary *in order precisely to realise the best aspects of a century's experience of working class involvement in the Labour project* to win a section of the Labour party and the unions over to a different kind of politics and link up with forces who are already outside.  It's as someone who values aspects of the Labour tradition that you;re best placed to evaluate what has to go.   Like you're in the house of a recently deceased relative.

But dismissing this is like saying to someone who's close family member has just died "come on, are you a bit slow or something, they're dead - now cheer the fuck up".  People are still fighting for the memory of what they thought Labour stood for - even where some have written off Labour today. But what Labour means is contested, not just in the party but in the country - but being in the party gives you full access to that "working through" that's going on.


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 30, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I must say that I find Stephen Nolan and Tony Livsey ( on Radio 5) extremely irritating.


 
stephen nolan is an utter wanker


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I'm saying that it's necessary *in order precisely to realise the best aspects of a century's experience of working class involvement in the Labour project* to win a section of the Labour party and the unions over to a different kind of politics and link up with forces who are already outside. It's as someone who values aspects of the Labour tradition that you;re best placed to evaluate what has to go. Like you're in the house of a recently deceased relative.
> 
> But dismissing this is like saying to someone who's close family member has just died "come on, are you a bit slow or something, they're dead - now cheer the fuck up". People are still fighting for the memory of what they thought Labour stood for - even where some have written off Labour today. But what Labour means is contested, not just in the party but in the country - but being in the party gives you full access to that "working through" that's going on.


It's amazing- one minute it's not necessary and the next it is. And in between a post that demands evidence of your flip-flopping. You're like some sort of wretched bubble parody.

Tell me, how often do you say that the party is dead within the party, how often in your vote work and join labour arguments do you say that the reason they should join is because the party is dead?

Everyone went home hours ago you cloth-brained twat btw. They don't need you shouting after them that they come back. The class has moved on, yet articul8 insists the voice of the 20 000- are what count.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

It's dead but there's a battle over the inheritance.  Ok some of the kids in the family don't care and are playing outside.  But the family is still mourning and we need time to sort out the funeral arrangements


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> It's dead but there's a battle over the inheritance. Ok some of the kids in the family don't care and are playing outside. But the family is still mourning and we need time to sort out the funeral arrangements


It's dead but we need to get right in it and re-animate the corpse. We, ffs. You get worse by the week and you were a pathetic two faced cunt to start with.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2013)

Where do I keep saying join labour, vote labour?


----------



## redsquirrel (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Regardless of what the subjective intentions of Loach might be, look at how people were celebrating Atlee instead of Thatcher,.


Sorry which people were these? You and your mates in the Labour-left bubble.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Where do I keep saying join labour, vote labour?


In all your posts that says that. Jesus, what is wrong with you? You shift between saying that people will vote labour so this means that you need to join and vote to kill it and people should join and vote because it's a good thing dragging a beating labour heart leftward. But you can never remember which face you're supposed to have on.

Your performance here today is beyond shambolic.


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

Let me be clear (if you've any interest beyond misrepresenting what I'm saying) - I know it's annoying that I refuse your simple binary: uncritical supporter of Labour vs pro w/c opponent.

A significant section of people, whatever their reservations and "nose-holding", will be drawn to vote Labour in 2015 as the only way of kicking out the coalition parties.  I think this is a perfectly understandable and rational behaviour - but hardly needs any exhortation from me.  Given this, in the short term it is worth attempting to shift Labour to the left *to the extent that this is possible*, whilst working with forces outside the party to build an effective anti-austerity bloc.   The popular impression of Labour achievements (welfare state, NHS, rail nationalisation etc) means there it is a privileged strategic position from which to contest the battleground.  And it is not possible to determine in advance exactly how far the above can be achieved. But at a certain point in time there will, of necessity, be a break from the working assumptions of Labourist politics, and new opportunities will emerge for sections of the class who previously looked to Labour to look for a realignment of the left. 

The principle alternative - to embark on building a new mass workers party when the conditions are unfavourable, and without substantial support from the unions or anywhere else - is self-defeating and the loss of credibility it entails makes it even harder to realise what it sets out to do.  Whether the Labour left succeeds (and whilst some amelioration of the neoliberal onslaught seems possible, it appears very unlikely that the party will be shifted to an all-out anti-austerity position) or not, a new electoral formation will be more likely to emerge if the left has left no stone unturned in trying, and in the process has utilised whatever mainstream platforms are available to argue the case. 

I suppose there's always your perspective - political parties are fucked, the unions are fucked, it's a matter of time before the jackboots start stomping up Whitehall - but I think we're some way off this yet.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Let me be clear (if you've any interest beyond misrepresenting what I'm saying) - I know it's annoying that I refuse your simple binary: uncritical supporter of Labour vs pro w/c opponent.
> 
> A significant section of people, whatever their reservations and "nose-holding", will be drawn to vote Labour in 2015 as the only way of kicking out the coalition parties. I think this is a perfectly understandable and rational behaviour - but hardly needs any exhortation from me. Given this, in the short term it is worth attempting to shift Labour to the left *to the extent that this is possible*, whilst working with forces outside the party to build an effective anti-austerity bloc. The popular impression of Labour achievements (welfare state, NHS, rail nationalisation etc) means there it is a privileged strategic position from which to contest the battleground. And it is not possible to determine in advance exactly how far the above can be achieved. But at a certain point in time there will, of necessity, be a break from the working assumptions of Labourist politics, and new opportunities will emerge for sections of the class who previously looked to Labour to look for a realignment of the left.
> 
> ...


 

This is really confused.

1. If people will vote Labour without 'any exhortation' (and I think that they will in sufficient numbers to defeat the coalition), then why bother promoting Labour at all (which you are doing consistently despite all your equivocations and qualifications)?

2. What would constitute victory for the Labour left (the 20,000 Campaign Group voters or the 200 conference attendees?); is it your break with 'Labourist assumptions' or a recovery and reassertion of precisely those assumptions (I'm guessing that some of the 20,000 would be up for that)?

3. Why is the principle alternative to build a 'new mass workers party'? Why not to help build effective anti-austerity/pro-working class activity, from which the working class will develop its own political tools?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Let me be clear (if you've any interest beyond misrepresenting what I'm saying) - I know it's annoying that I refuse your simple binary: uncritical supporter of Labour vs pro w/c opponent.
> 
> A significant section of people, whatever their reservations and "nose-holding", will be drawn to vote Labour in 2015 as the only way of kicking out the coalition parties. I think this is a perfectly understandable and rational behaviour - but hardly needs any exhortation from me. Given this, in the short term it is worth attempting to shift Labour to the left *to the extent that this is possible*, whilst working with forces outside the party to build an effective anti-austerity bloc. The popular impression of Labour achievements (welfare state, NHS, rail nationalisation etc) means there it is a privileged strategic position from which to contest the battleground. And it is not possible to determine in advance exactly how far the above can be achieved. But at a certain point in time there will, of necessity, be a break from the working assumptions of Labourist politics, and new opportunities will emerge for sections of the class who previously looked to Labour to look for a realignment of the left.
> 
> ...


The last two paragraphs are a disgrace but entirely in line with what i have come to expect from you, so i'm largely going to ignore them beyond a few brief points. Building a new mass workers party is not the principal alternative to your join/work/vote labour plan (i won't say strategy as you don't have one, your inability to outline one or your belief that a strategy simply means you outlining what you would like to happen demonstrates this in the clearest possible terms). Even if it were the principal alternative, i still neither support it nor believe that it's possible. It's just another way for you to say_ but the trots only have a few thousands, there's billions in labour. _And on top of that you know damn well that i don't support the idea and have criticised it over and over.

The last paragraph: real shocker this, you really should be ashamed - and you say that you were sober? You know even better than on the other one that this isn't my position, doesn't come close to my position and is a lie to say that it is. And it should be in your memory as you only recently accused me of it, and i had to point out to you the article i wrote for your shit mag that argued the exact opposite. This is taking dishonesty to a new level here, you've done the double lie. And you've done it because of the failings of your own shambolic two-faced positions. And you actually typed out "if you've any interest beyond misrepresenting what I'm saying".

Onto the first para: You undermine yourself from the opening line. How on earth can labour be in a privileged position when, as you say, the bulk of their votes don't come from a commitment to labour and the future possibilities they open but from _well red shit is 1% better than blue/yellow shit? _You can't - and only someone so bought in and so buried into the idea of join/work/vote labour forever could not see this staring them in the face. What do you think would happen to the second part of your master-plan if the first part happened btw? If the labour party shifted leftwards and for some reason (reasons you think are impossible remember, they can't happen - that's the result of your immanent critique - despite you arguing that it is now your primary short term aim) started to aggressively represent and pursue w/c class interests?

What a mess.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> This is really confused.


 
No Louis, as he said. this is him being _clear _


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> 1. If people will vote Labour without 'any exhortation' (and I think that they will in sufficient numbers to defeat the coalition), then why bother promoting Labour at all (which you are doing consistently despite all your equivocations and qualifications)?


 
I spend very little time "promoting" the Labour party, as opposed to arguing that limited achievements are possible for lefts within it, and that some committed class fighters - like McDonnell - do play a good role from within the party. I do think voting Labour makes sense at the next election, and there is a point to joining and getting involved with the left within it. But it's not the only way of making an important contribution, far from it



> 2. What would constitute victory for the Labour left (the 20,000 Campaign Group voters or the 200 conference attendees?); is it your break with 'Labourist assumptions' or a recovery and reassertion of precisely those assumptions (I'm guessing that some of the 20,000 would be up for that)?


 
A majority want to go back to a fantasy world of party democracy, radical social democratic policies, and left union leaders having a word in the ear of decent sorts sat around the cabinet table. Come back Michael Foot types. Not a view I share.



> 3. Why is the principle alternative to build a 'new mass workers party'? Why not to help build effective anti-austerity/pro-working class activity, from which the working class will develop its own political tools?


I'm all in favour of organising effective anti-austerity and pro-working class activity. But state power is a reality, electoral politics does have a legitimating function and we need to contest these spaces too.[/quote][/quote]


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

Not a view you share? I think it is. That is all your pressure amounts to - but with an oh-so-radical rhetorical substitution of members for leaders - no question of structural stuff. All these people and positions that you think that you're not, you are. And your 'we' above makes me wretch (yes, i know).


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> *I spend very little time "promoting" the Labour party*, as opposed to arguing that limited achievements are possible for lefts within it, and that some committed class fighters - like McDonnell - do play a good role from within the party. *I do think voting Labour makes sense at the next election, and there is a point to joining and getting involved with the left within it.* But it's not the only way of making an important contribution, far from it
> 
> 
> 
> ...


[/quote][/quote]


You've done nothing to overcome your confusion.

1. Just look at the bits in bold; I don't promote the Labour Party but you really should join...its worth it.

2. if a majority of the Labour left wants what you describe (and you may well be right), that doesn't constitute what you see as a victory for the Labour left namely a break with 'Labourist assumptions'; i.e. your appeal to/demand of the Labour left is to do something fundamentally opposed to their desires, their aspirations and their hopes.

3. Yes electoral spaces need contesting, but it doesn't need to be the 'tail wagging the dog' manner that your 'Labour is the battle ground' rhetoric requires.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

Ok, not jackboots along Whitehall, permanent neoliberalism.



butchersapron said:


> Onto the first para: You undermine yourself from the opening line. How on earth can labour be in a privileged position when, as you say, the bulk of their votes don't come from a commitment to labour and the future possibilities they open but from _well red shit is 1% better than blue/yellow shit? _You can't - and only someone so bought in and so buried into the idea of join/work/vote labour forever could not see this staring them in the face. What do you think would happen to the second part of your master-plan if the first part happened btw? If the labour party shifted leftwards and for some reason (reasons you think are impossible remember, they can't happen - that's the result of your immanent critique - despite you arguing that it is now your primary short term aim) started to aggressively represent and pursue w/c class interests?


 
a) When people rally to "save the NHS", "defend the welfare state", "renationalise the railways" - this all points to the popular memory of Labour achievements, even if it also illustrates the inadequacy of the present leadership.

b) I'm not arguing that the Labour party leadership can be won to militant pro w/c politics.  It can't and won't.  But concessions can be wrought in the short term, and it can provide some platform for allowing a minority to demonstrate what fighting class represenatives would look like (and I don't mean Eric Joyce).


----------



## Streathamite (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> But dismissing this is like saying to someone who's close family member has just died "come on, are you a bit slow or something, they're dead - now cheer the fuck up". People are still fighting for the memory of what they thought Labour stood for - even where some have written off Labour today.


But a) Labour weren't the only people who stood for whatever 'that' is, or even the best ones and b) that's just conflating pointless,. delusional nostalgia with hard political reality. Anyone with half a braincell realised that Labour, as a means of socialist advance, was a dead letter years ago. 
What you're really suggesting on this thread is not rescue, but trying to revive the rotting corpse. There's no point. It's a corpse.


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not a view you share? I think it is. That is all your pressure amounts to - but with an oh-so-radical rhetorical substitution of members for leaders - no question of structural stuff. All these people and positions that you think that you're not, you are. And your 'we' above makes me wretch (yes, i know).


So I'm simulatenously accused of harbouring after a return to the politics of Michael Foot, and a cheerleader for Syriza.  How can I be both?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> So I'm simulatenously accused of harbouring after a return to the politics of Michael Foot, and a cheerleader for Syriza. How can I be both?


 
Because you are....as has been said more than once...really really confused.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Ok, not jackboots along Whitehall, permanent neoliberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
No, i've never ever said any such thing. Can you give some examples of me arguing what you say that i have?

No, it points to their enduring interest in collective provision of social needs - and your attempt to capture these needs for your own join/work/vote labour because it's shit and can't meet these needs but you have to join/work/vote labour because we can make it meet those needs bollocks is duly noted again.

Who said that you were? Why do you keep starting paragraphs by stating that you're not saying something that no one has said you've said? It's almost like a trick to avoid answering the points put to you. So As above, your immanent critique leads to the conclusion that labour is now incapable of meeting/representing and fighting for w/c needs, but people must join/work/vote labour because it can meet those needs in some way. And this is essential so that the children can see what they might really gain if they went beyond labour. The labour that can both be won to the left (which in your world =w/c needs) and never won to the left. They need to go on a journey through labour (one which millions have already been on, sort of slips by you) but a journey which you also deny arguing needs to happen. You are _such_ a mess.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> So I'm simulatenously accused of harbouring after a return to the politics of Michael Foot, and a cheerleader for Syriza. How can I be both?


If we put side by side the various contradictory positions that you've attempted to hold the thread would be rivaling the Laurie Penny one for length. And the answer is easy anyway, because you're two faced and say different things to different audiences.


----------



## sihhi (May 1, 2013)

> I do think voting Labour makes sense at the next election, and there is a point to joining and getting involved with the left within it. But it's not the only way of making an important contribution, far from it


 
Happy Mayday, but you must be more explicit on the kind of anti-austerity vehicle you desire - that after all was, what you suggested was necessary.




> I'm all in favour of organising effective anti-austerity and pro-working class activity. But state power is a reality, electoral politics does have a legitimating function and we need to contest these spaces too.


 
It feels like you want to legitimate electoral politics at a time when the ballot box is the cuts box. Especially by tying in Greens, TUSC and others to the Labour wagon. 
How would it work in Scotland BTW or is it only an England thing?

What exactly is the anti-austerity electoral bloc you desire, as much detail as possible, please.


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

[/quote]

You've done nothing to overcome your confusion.

1. Just look at the bits in bold; I don't promote the Labour Party but you really should join...its worth it. [/quote]

I am not promoting or exhorting people to join Labour.  But it is not senseless to do so. 



> if a majority of the Labour left wants what you describe (and you may well be right), that doesn't constitute what you see as a victory for the Labour left namely a break with 'Labourist assumptions'; i.e. your appeal to/demand of the Labour left is to do something fundamentally opposed to their desires, their aspirations and their hopes.


 
Not necessarily - the Labour left (at least since the late 70s, but actually well before in the likes of GDH Cole) has contained an element which looks to extra-parliamentary sources of power, and doesn't limit itself to Labourist assumptions.  Ralph Miliband saw this and took another look at Labour.  Benn was kind of riding both horses.  But when the left as a whole is relatively weak and marginal (I've not disputed this - I've disputed that it's not there or it counts for nothing) these debates aren't really going to go anywhere.



> 3. Yes electoral spaces need contesting, but it doesn't need to be the 'tail wagging the dog' manner that your 'Labour is the battle ground' rhetoric requires.


How else can the electoral space be effectively contested in the next couple of years?


----------



## frogwoman (May 1, 2013)

but when is the new statesman article about this thread going to come out?

""All I'm saying is we need to vote labour without illusions so we can pressure the leadership," articul8 says wistfully, while drinking his coffee. "Some people may say that's a waste of time, but I don't.""


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Because you are....as has been said more than once...really really confused.


Or articulating a position that the simple-minded find deeply confusing


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

_Hey you, care about the health of your family - then you're really caring about and showing a commitment to labour. Who can't meet you needs and are shit but you need to join/work/vote for them because they can make things better by not being able to meet your needs and then your illusions will be dispersed and another party can be formed. But first, vote/work/join labour - because they're shit._


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Or articulating a position that the simple-minded find deeply confusing


That's correct, all criticisms and identifications of your confusions stem from simple-mindedness. Everyone else is literally too stupid to see just how clever you are.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Or articulating a position that the simple-minded find deeply confusing


_Who is the real sick man in this so called society?_


----------



## sihhi (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Or articulating a position that the simple-minded find deeply confusing


 
How is it simple minded to ask what your anti-austerity vehicle actually is or will be? Will Greens have to stand aside for Labour Lefts?

How do you think the rest of Labour will view its Left that 
1 is happy to set up beyond-Labour challengers in seats where it doesn't like the prospective MPs?
2 has ensured it will not receive any such challenges?


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

sihhi said:


> How is it simple minded to ask what your anti-austerity vehicle actually is or will be? Will Greens have to stand aside for Labour Lefts?
> 
> How do you think the rest of Labour will view its Left that
> 1 is happy to set up beyond-Labour challengers in seats where it doesn't like the prospective MPs?
> 2 has ensured it will not receive any such challenges?


He answered this a few months back by unilaterally declaring that any outside labour party that came from the assembly movements would not be allowed to challenge labour candidates. Nice of him to sort that out for everyone prior to the assemblies.


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> your immanent critique leads to the conclusion that labour is now incapable of meeting/representing and fighting for w/c needs, but people must join/work/vote labour because it can meet those needs in some way. And this is essential so that the children can see what they might really gain if they went beyond labour. The labour that can both be won to the left (which in your world =w/c needs) and never won to the left. They need to go on a journey through labour (one which millions have already been on, sort of slips by you) but a journey which you also deny arguing needs to happen. You are _such_ a mess.


 
You seem incapable of registering the difference between small but important short-term incremental gains (which are all any electoral strategy can aim at in the present conditions), and long-term structural necessities.   The point is not about "illusions" in Labour - it's about the structural inevitability of people turning to Labour if they want to kick out the coalition parties.  *There is no other way to do it*.  Given that we know this, why isn't it relevant to force concessions in the short term *to the extent that this is possible*?

How we transform the structural logic of the electoral space is a much more challenging question, and of course this entails questions of strategy at a level which goes way beyond the electoral (the production of a counter-hegemonic anti-austerity bloc) - I'm not talking about an electoral bloc in the first instance, but an ideological one. 

In the medium term the deeper and more widespread the attempt to build the latter (and here is where the Peoples Assembly could play a role, although I'm certainly not saying it's fit for the purpose in terms of its organisation and structure) - together with the frustrations of a Labour government constrained by the demands of capital - is likely to raise opportunities which go beyond short term electoral lesser evilism.


----------



## sihhi (May 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He answered this a few months back by unilaterally declaring that any outside labour party that came from the assembly movements would not be allowed to challenge labour candidates. Nice of him to sort that out for everyone prior to the assemblies.


 
Did he? I'm sorry for retreading ground. 
In which case it would put the Labour Lefts on a pedestal over and above (effectively silencing) everyone else: Sinn Fein, Plaid, SNP, Greens, socialists, ex-Labour, local independent types, stop NHS service closure types - all of them would have to submit to Labour - it would become a Labour subs bench albeit without the rose and the TU link.


----------



## sihhi (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> How we transform the structural logic of the electoral space is a much more challenging question, and of course this entails questions of strategy at a level which goes way beyond the electoral (the production of a counter-hegemonic anti-austerity bloc) - I'm not talking about an electoral bloc in the first instance, but an ideological one.


 
How can non-Labour people assert their interests in this ideological bloc, if they know that it will lead to an electoral sidelining eventually?


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

sihhi said:


> How is it simple minded to ask what your anti-austerity vehicle actually is or will be? Will Greens have to stand aside for Labour Lefts?
> 
> How do you think the rest of Labour will view its Left that
> 1 is happy to set up beyond-Labour challengers in seats where it doesn't like the prospective MPs?
> 2 has ensured it will not receive any such challenges?


 
Sorry, wasn't aimed at you.  You've asked perfectly reasonable questions, as I try to explain above, I don't see that any electoral vehicle is viable this side of a GE.   The idea that the assemblies could stand candidates is bound to be divisive not just in terms of Labour but also the Greens, the union movement, the nationalist parties etc.  I'd be willing to explore the possibility of cross-party co-operation on the electoral field (for example in Labour and Green standing down candidates in Sheffield Hallam for a single anti-cuts alternative - I think Owen Jones would be excellent in that role as it goes).  But it will be difficult to co-ordinate.

If and when Labour get into power and try to impose austerity - that opens up a new dynamic and there'll be major battles and fractures internally and new possibilities are likely to emerge.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> You seem incapable of registering the difference between small but important short-term incremental gains (which are all any electoral strategy can aim at in the present conditions), and long-term structural necessities. The point is not about "illusions" in Labour - it's about the structural inevitability of people turning to Labour if they want to kick out the coalition parties. *There is no other way to do it*. Given that we know this, why isn't it relevant to force concessions in the short term *to the extent that this is possible*?
> 
> How we transform the structural logic of the electoral space is a much more challenging question, and of course this entails questions of strategy at a level which goes way beyond the electoral (the production of a counter-hegemonic anti-austerity bloc) - I'm not talking about an electoral bloc in the first instance, but an ideological one.
> 
> In the medium term the deeper and more widespread the attempt to build the latter (and here is where the Peoples Assembly could play a role, although I'm certainly not saying it's fit for the purpose in terms of its organisation and structure) - together with the frustrations of a Labour government constrained by the demands of capital - is likely to raise opportunities which go beyond short term electoral lesser evilism.


Now, grandmaster of dialectics, how do you think the successful achievement of short term gains for the w/c through the labour party is going to impact upon the way that that party is viewed by the working class? Is it going to push it away from it and force it to reject it through your childs dialectic of disenchantment, or is going to draw it closer to it and lead it to in some way identify its needs with that of the party (and remember master, this is happening in the past is exactly what you base your current, _hey it's all about labour _approach on)?

Can you tell the difference between a social movement outside of labour imposing its needs on the state and capital and the capture of those interests by a neo-liberal party explicitly committed to the continuation of current social relations. I think you attempt to enclose the former within the latter and need a radical front to maintain your self-image. So we get the above confused guff wheeled out (with a different emphasis placed depending on which crowd you're talking to). Why does the development of that social movement have to go through labour as you alternately say/don't say? Are you waiting for people to catch up to your elevated position? Like some awful vanguardist passive aggressive christian socialist? Why does all your rhetoric of challenging labour through wanky critique fall at the first hurdle when reality comes knocking - why do you always retreat into don't stand against labour (_but but but i'm not saying ideal conditions where such a challenge would be justifiable could exist blah blah_)?


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Sorry, wasn't aimed at you.


 
Note it was me, Louis Mac and maybe frogwoman he was calling simple-minded.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Did he? I'm sorry for retreading ground.
> In which case it would put the Labour Lefts on a pedestal over and above (effectively silencing) everyone else: Sinn Fein, Plaid, SNP, Greens, socialists, ex-Labour, local independent types, stop NHS service closure types - all of them would have to submit to Labour - it would become a Labour subs bench albeit without the rose and the TU link.


Only pointing it out to compare with whatever he scrabbles around to come up with this time around.


----------



## Streathamite (May 1, 2013)

My brain is actually beginning to hurt from trying to detangle what articul8 is trying to say


----------



## sihhi (May 1, 2013)

A8 please note: _no one_ on this thread is being simple-minded, just trying to nail down your positions, you needn't aim it at anyone.



articul8 said:


> The idea that the assemblies could stand candidates is bound to be divisive not just in terms of Labour but also the Greens, the union movement, the nationalist parties etc. I'd be willing to explore the possibility of cross-party co-operation on the electoral field (for example in Labour and Green standing down candidates in Sheffield Hallam for a single anti-cuts alternative - I think Owen Jones would be excellent in that role as it goes). But it will be difficult to co-ordinate.
> 
> If and when Labour get into power and try to impose austerity - that opens up a new dynamic and there'll be major battles and fractures internally and new possibilities are likely to emerge.


 
This changes the game somewhat - slowly prepare an ideological block up to and beyond 2015.

When Labour wins and does a Hollande or a Gillard, you want the same bloc electoralised so that Labour rights will be challenged, but Labour Lefts remaining unchallenged or just changing their clothes to become independent (eg Owen Jones) remaining unchallenged.

Again, how do you think the Labour centre and Labour right will respond to this kind of behaviour from Labour Lefts?


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

sihhi said:


> How can non-Labour people assert their interests in this ideological bloc, if they know that it will lead to an electoral sidelining eventually?


 
As I see it, there's an inevitable gap between what is possible/necessary electorally and what can be achieved in terms of building an extra-electoral coalition/ideological bloc.    Surely everyone involved in the anti-austerity movement accepts that it would be no bad thing to kick out the coalition parties from government?   Beyond that, electoral tactics will be determined by what is possible and desirable locally.  If it means contesting certain Labour seats where the MP is particularly useless, I don't have a problem with that - but don't think it's possible or advisable to over-generalise this to the point where you stand candidates against most Labour MPs and the effect exactly the reverse of what you want. 

But there is so much more that can be done in terms of building a movement than standing in elections: co-ordinating direct action and civil disobedience, helping to stop evictions, helping people to access legal advice, etc.etc. Not just abstract "pressure".


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Everyone went home hours ago you cloth-brained twat btw. They don't need you shouting after them that they come back. The class has moved on, yet articul8 insists *the voice of the 20 000- are what count*.


 
Even as late as the early '00s, NEC candidates used to poll much larger numbers. 20,000 is a pretty sad comment on just how residual Labour party membership _per se_ is nowadays, hovering just under the quarter of a million mark - the lowest it's been for more than 70 years, IIRC.
Could that be related to the fact that even the "Labour left" have _de facto_ accepted neoliberalism?


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> As I see it, there's an inevitable gap between what is possible/necessary electorally and what can be achieved in terms of building an extra-electoral coalition/ideological bloc. Surely everyone involved in the anti-austerity movement accepts that it would be no bad thing to kick out the coalition parties from government? Beyond that, electoral tactics will be determined by what is possible and desirable locally. If it means contesting certain Labour seats where the MP is particularly useless, I don't have a problem with that - but don't think it's possible or advisable to over-generalise this to the point where you stand candidates against most Labour MPs and the effect exactly the reverse of what you want.
> 
> But there is so much more that can be done in terms of building a movement than standing in elections: co-ordinating direct action and civil disobedience, helping to stop evictions, helping people to access legal advice, etc.etc. Not just abstract "pressure".


So, i guess this is where you outline the strategy that you said that you have - right?


----------



## sihhi (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Surely everyone involved in the anti-austerity movement accepts that it would be no bad thing to kick out the coalition parties from government? Beyond that, electoral tactics will be determined by what is possible and desirable locally. If it means contesting certain Labour seats where the MP is particularly useless, I don't have a problem with that - but don't think it's possible or advisable to over-generalise this to the point where you stand candidates against most Labour MPs and the effect exactly the reverse of what you want.


 
But again how will a local Labour Left that considers eg Glenda Jackson useless and puts it energy into fighting against her for a real Labour/anti-asuterity vehicle candidate (perhaps Green perhaps Labour Left perhaps non-party) be viewed by other Labour members  [193,961 - 200 or - 20,000 (depending on how large the Labour Left is, Nigel Irritable or articul8) members]


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Ok, not jackboots along Whitehall, permanent neoliberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> a) When people rally to "save the NHS", "defend the welfare state", "renationalise the railways" - this all points to the popular memory of Labour achievements, even if it also illustrates the inadequacy of the present leadership.


 
It doesn't, though. It points to a popular memory of *peoples'* achievements. People with an interest in politics and/or history might grasp the wider narrative - that Attlee's government legislated the creation of the welfare state - but most of them don't attribute the social gains to Labour, but to themselves; their grandparents and great-grandparents, and 100+ years of momentum behind *several* social movements, not just Labour and the unions.
And they're right. It was demands from "the people" that gave shape to the legislation, not the whim of party bureaucrats.



> b) I'm not arguing that the Labour party leadership can be won to militant pro w/c politics. It can't and won't. But concessions can be wrought in the short term, and it can provide some platform for allowing a minority to demonstrate what fighting class represenatives would look like (and I don't mean Eric Joyce).


 
Because indulging in a bit of tokenism isn't at all like giving a balky child a biscuit and patting it on the head!


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

What I am not saying - if that's what you;re inferring - is that this activity is about re-mobilising disaffected sections of the w/c back into the Labour party to start changing it.  There is a role in the short-term for this, if they choose it, but I can well understand why they wouldn't and am certainly not going about exhorting people to join Labour on this basis.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _Who is the real sick man in this so called society?_


 
Jim Bowen.


----------



## frogwoman (May 1, 2013)

I'm looking forward to the film version of this thread with Jack Nicholson and Ben Stiller in it


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> What I am not saying - if that's what you;re inferring - is that this activity is about re-mobilising disaffected sections of the w/c back into the Labour party to start changing it. There is a role in the short-term for this, if they choose it, but I can well understand why they wouldn't and am certainly not going about exhorting people to join Labour on this basis.


Why have you avoided the point again? I asked you the question below - a question based on you identifying the possibility of short-term gains for the w/c through the labour party - this is a key question that your _strategy _need to meet head on rather than avoid, because it puts all your other claims into serious doubt:



> how do you think the successful achievement of short term gains for the w/c through the labour party is going to impact upon the way that that party is viewed by the working class? Is it going to push it away from it and force it to reject it through your childs dialectic of disenchantment, or is going to draw it closer to it and lead it to in some way identify its needs with that of the party (and remember master, this is happening in the past is exactly what you base your current, hey it's all about labour approach on)?


----------



## treelover (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Sorry, wasn't aimed at you. You've asked perfectly reasonable questions, as I try to explain above, I don't see that any electoral vehicle is viable this side of a GE. The idea that the assemblies could stand candidates is bound to be divisive not just in terms of Labour but also the Greens, the union movement, the nationalist parties etc. I'd be willing to explore the possibility of cross-party co-operation on the electoral field (for example in Labour and Green standing down candidates in Sheffield Hallam for a single anti-cuts alternative - I think Owen Jones would be excellent in that role as it goes). But it will be difficult to co-ordinate.
> 
> If and when Labour get into power and try to impose austerity - that opens up a new dynamic and there'll be major battles and fractures internally and new possibilities are likely to emerge.


 
like 97?


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

treelover said:


> like 97?


And 66. And 74.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Ok, not jackboots along Whitehall, permanent neoliberalism.


 
Found any evidence of me arguing this anywhere yet?


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Now, grandmaster of dialectics, how do you think the successful achievement of short term gains for the w/c through the labour party is going to impact upon the way that that party is viewed by the working class? Is it going to push it away from it and force it to reject it through your childs dialectic of disenchantment, or is going to draw it closer to it and lead it to in some way identify its needs with that of the party (and remember master, this is happening in the past is exactly what you base your current, _hey it's all about labour _approach on)?


 
I think what has changed this time is that "short term gains" can be misleading, what I'm really talking about is amelioration of the neoliberal programme Labour would otherwise be able to implement.  It's not that there'll be much in the sense of positive gains (although I hope I'm wrong about this) but of important defencive holding off from aspects of an assault.  This is not nothing - it's necessary.    But the overall balance of forces and state of global capitalism means that in government Labour will find itself pushing back on this.  The level of struggle inside and outside will amplify.



> Can you tell the difference between a social movement outside of labour imposing its needs on the state and capital and the capture of those interests by a neo-liberal party explicitly committed to the continuation of current social relations.


It's precisely this distinction which I find simple-minded.  The Labour party has always been committed at one level to "the continuation of current social relations".  But it has also dependend on its claim to represent the interests of ordinary people.  Not since 1931 has there been such a diversion between these two ambitions, and therefore it is precisely the nature of this contradiction that makes Labour other than "just another neoliberal party".   The role of the unions is a vital mediating factor here too.  The organised working class is both part of your "social movement outside" but it is also a real strucutral limit and presence within the party itself - disguised and weakened under Blair et al because cushioned by the relative prosperity and low industrial struggle of the period.  The unions are not just entirely co-opted elements of a neoliberal formation.  There are stresses and tensions in this relationship that mean they are sites of struggle.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> You seem incapable of registering the difference between small but important short-term incremental gains (which are all any electoral strategy can aim at in the present conditions)...


 
It's all any electoral strategy that your position allows can aim at. Don't mistake positioning as being anything more than a rhetorical limitation.



> ...and long-term structural necessities. The point is not about "illusions" in Labour - it's about the structural inevitability of people turning to Labour if they want to kick out the coalition parties.


 
No, it's about an attempt at the creation of a dominant narrative that says "the only way out is to vote Labour". That's somewhat different to a structural inevitability. "Structural inevitability" only resides within the inconvenience of a system that requires money in order to participate in a way that could sweep aside those representatives of neoliberalism that currently supposedly represent "our" interests.



> *There is no other way to do it*. Given that we know this, why isn't it relevant to force concessions in the short term *to the extent that this is possible*?


 
Because what you're preaching is the sort of gradualist reformism (Fabianism incarnate!) that has already been shown to not work, and the "concessions" it wins are partial sops, not substantive social gains.



> How we transform the structural logic of the electoral space is a much more challenging question, and of course this entails questions of strategy at a level which goes way beyond the electoral (the production of a counter-hegemonic anti-austerity bloc) - I'm not talking about an electoral bloc in the first instance, but an ideological one.


 
"The structural logic of the electoral space" is already being transformed - arguably has *already* been transformed, but in such a way as to obviate the application of your strategy. Convince enough people for long enough that party democracy doesn't require internal democracy, and that carries through into everyday political life too, which makes the production of your "counter hegemonic anti-austerity bloc" problematic at best, impossible at worst, because those changes in structural logic have minimised your support base down to a residuum of activists.
BTW, "counter-hegemonic" is better stated using the words "anti-establishment". 



> In the medium term the deeper and more widespread the attempt to build the latter (and here is where the Peoples Assembly could play a role, although I'm certainly not saying it's fit for the purpose in terms of its organisation and structure) - together with the frustrations of a Labour government constrained by the demands of capital - is likely to raise opportunities which go beyond short term electoral lesser evilism.


 
It's no more likely to do so than it is to be realised.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2013)

sihhi said:


> How can non-Labour people assert their interests in this ideological bloc, if they know that it will lead to an electoral sidelining eventually?


 
By "voting Labour with no illusions" and/or joining the party!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> My brain is actually beginning to hurt from trying to detangle what articul8 is trying to say


 
Just keep in mind that it always comes back to voting for Labour, and you'll be okay!


----------



## sihhi (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> The role of the unions is a vital mediating factor here too. The organised working class is both part of your "social movement outside" but it is also a real strucutral limit and presence within the party itself - disguised and weakened under Blair et al because cushioned by the relative prosperity and low industrial struggle of the period.


 
1 In what way will Miliband _not_ behave like Blair when it comes to trade unions - 'keep sweet when they do what we say, isolate and attack if they don't'?

2 In what way will trade union behaviour be improved - in so far as TU-ism _can_ block or put an obstacle against neoliberalism - by the anti-austerity vehicle you strategised as very important?

3 Will tying the anti-austerity vehicle to Labour as providing gains for the trade union movement, help or hinder that movement in acting against Labour beyond 2015?


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I think what has changed this time is that "short term gains" can be misleading, what I'm really talking about is amelioration of the neoliberal programme Labour would otherwise be able to implement. It's not that there'll be much in the sense of positive gains (although I hope I'm wrong about this) but of important defencive holding off from aspects of an assault. This is not nothing - it's necessary. But the overall balance of forces and state of global capitalism means that in government Labour will find itself pushing back on this. The level of struggle inside and outside will amplify.
> 
> 
> It's precisely this distinction which I find simple-minded. The Labour party has always been committed at one level to "the continuation of current social relations". But it has also dependend on its claim to represent the interests of ordinary people. Not since 1931 has there been such a diversion between these two ambitions, and therefore it is precisely the nature of this contradiction that makes Labour other than "just another neoliberal party". The role of the unions is a vital mediating factor here too. The organised working class is both part of your "social movement outside" but it is also a real strucutral limit and presence within the party itself - disguised and weakened under Blair et al because cushioned by the relative prosperity and low industrial struggle of the period. The unions are not just entirely co-opted elements of a neoliberal formation. There are stresses and tensions in this relationship that mean they are sites of struggle.


 
And he accuses me of believing in  permanent "neoliberalism". You start off by saying that the party in govt can provide "small but important short-term incremental gains" - now you say that it can't. Is this to avoid the hole that you've dug for yourself with your previous assertion that past popular initiatives such as the NHS has created a measure of identification between the needs of the party and the class and the the possibility of "small but important short-term incremental gains" re-establishing or re-enforcing that identification contra your claim that all the w/c will find in labour is shattered illusions forcing it to go beyond them?

"But the overall balance of forces and state of global capitalism means that in government Labour will find itself pushing back on this." - so what you're saying is that once in power the labour party will impose neo-liberalism again. So the obvious answer is to help them into power and make a commitment to fight them when they do. I think one part of this plan isn't necessary and in fact hampers the other part. Can you tell which is which?

And no, that's not what you find simple-minded, it's that people can spot your confusion as you've sold it to yourself as sophistication, as strategy. This lat para, it repeats the same things that were said in 1951, in 64 and 66, in 74 and 83. This time its different. Its different each time isn't it. Yet the results are always always the same.  Maybe there's some sort of structural reason for that, what do you think?


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

It's bonkers, it's like joining a pro-gravity party and arguing others should too.


----------



## sihhi (May 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's bonkers, it's like joining a pro-gravity party and arguing others should too.


 
Is there some connection with Hilary Wainwright's support of trade unions who tow the line like Newcastle?




> Newcastle is another case in point. There, the workers’ and the community’s commitment to council services has been the basis for successful struggles to keep those services public and improve them in the process.
> 
> One of the trade unionists driving this process was Kenny Bell, who died this summer of cancer. His work as a highly effective and practical trade union leader with a radical strategic vision exemplifies how it is possible to bring together community and workplace organising.
> 
> ...


 
Labour in Newcastle are driving through very severe cuts backed by police body-searching the public as they do it.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

> a newly political trade unionism, which Labour politicians came to respect and to support, not as the ‘industrial wing’ of the party but as a form of politics beyond their reach and yet essential to improve the lives and build the power of working people.


 
Ugh, not-labour labour. This is Glasman's civic society stuff but firmly under the control and watchful eyes of those who need to be in control at all times.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 1, 2013)

sihhi said:


> How can non-Labour people assert their interests in this ideological bloc, if they know that it will lead to an electoral sidelining eventually?


 
They can't . It is the Labour electoral tail trying to wag the working class dog; a situation that articul8 says can't be (and therefore shouldn't be?) challenged in the next couple of years. So its keep your heads down, get Labour back in and then we'll see the real work begin...neither inspring nor realistic.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

Poor old Hilary, loving the w/c but never _quite trusting_ them


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> They can't . It is the Labour electoral tail trying to wag the working class dog; a situation that articul8 says can't be (and therefore shouldn't be?) challenged in the next couple of years. So its keep your heads down, get Labour back in and then we'll see the real work begin...neither inspring nor realistic.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


I'm sure there's plenty here who remember the various articul8s transforming themselves into the most aggressive critics of the structural role the labour party and the unions are forced to play in bourgeois democracy on the 2nd of may 1997.


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> what you're saying is that once in power the labour party will impose neo-liberalism again.


 
What I'm saying is that it is possible for the left and the unions to attenuate the all-out anti-austerity assault in terms of the programme on which Labour will come to power.   What happens then depends to an extent on the movement inside and outside the party, but inevitably there will be pressure from capital to implement further neoliberal reforms.  My wager is that we'll be in a better position to resist this is we've built alliances and begun to win hearts and minds both in the Labour movement and beyond, than if we just stick a flag in the ground as say "here we are  - the anti-austerity party" (TUSC or whatever).



> This lat para, it repeats the same things that were said in 1951, in 64 and 66, in 74 and 83. This time its different. Its different each time isn't it. Yet the results are always always the same. Maybe there's some sort of structural reason for that, what do you think?


 I think the relevant parallel is 31 - and why it merits some serious thought about why the attempt to launch the ILP as an independent party failed.  Owen J regularly cites this is "proof" that there is no prospect for the left outside Labour.  I'd want to have a better understanding of what went wrong then and why (sure it relates to international balance of class forces etc.).


----------



## coley (May 1, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> My brain is actually beginning to hurt from trying to detangle what articul8 is trying to say


Pleased it ain't just me


----------



## sihhi (May 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ugh, not-labour labour. This is Glasman's civic society stuff but firmly under the control and watchful eyes of those who need to be in control at all times.


 
What does this mean? This is Hilary Wainwright of Beyond the Fragments very different to Glasman.

Glasman is a pure social democrat, promoting Germany CDU and SPD alike:




> The paradox of the crash was that Germany – the country with the greatest degree both of constraint on capital markets in its banking system and of worker representation on boards, and the deepest interference of vocational institutions in regulating labour market entry – is the most competitive and successful economy in Europe.
> 
> Labour's new position on immigration allows us to explicitly engage with the problem of wages and skills among our fellow citizens, and not rely on importing skills from abroad. The one nation idea allows an inclusive politics of the common good to be developed in which virtue, loyalty and honesty can be spoken of as necessary features of the move from debt to value in our economy.
> 
> A further paradox is that the renewal of democracy can be achieved only with effective leadership. By challenging prevailing orthodoxies, having the courage to defy the old consensus and define a new political position, and championing changes (party organisers; the living wage; the interest rate cap; the establishment of regional banks; a renewed vocational economy; a relational approach to welfare within a politics of renewed solidarity) Miliband has all the ingredients necessary to bake the cake.


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because what you're preaching is the sort of gradualist reformism (Fabianism incarnate!) that has already been shown to not work, and the "concessions" it wins are partial sops, not substantive social gains.


 
No! I'm saying that's what it's possible to achieve in the very short term *on the electoral field* - nowhere am I saying that is all politics should be about in the next 2 years, far from it. I have talked in very practical ways about the work on the ground based on class militancy that could help to cement a anti-austerity ideological bloc with genuine grassroots support and a relevance to w/c people beyond the ballot box.

What I *don't* think is to productively contest elections before 2015 through any vehicle other than through Labour. If there is a better way please explain how and why...


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> What I'm saying is that it is possible for the left and the unions to attenuate the all-out anti-austerity assault in terms of the programme on which Labour will come to power. What happens then depends to an extent on the movement inside and outside the party, but inevitably there will be pressure from capital to implement further neoliberal reforms. My wager is that we'll be in a better position to resist this is we've built alliances and begun to win hearts and minds both in the Labour movement and beyond, than if we just stick a flag in the ground as say "here we are - the anti-austerity party" (TUSC or whatever).
> 
> 
> I think the relevant parallel is 31 - and why it merits some serious thought about why the attempt to launch the ILP as an independent party failed. Owen J regularly cites this is "proof" that there is no prospect for the left outside Labour. I'd want to have a better understanding of what went wrong then and why (sure it relates to international balance of class forces etc.).


 
So you mean yes, once in power the labour party will impose neo-liberalism again. Why don't you just say that?

No, you just want to relive those old lost battles and those failed perspectives really.


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

nothing is wholly new under the sun


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Poor old Hilary, loving the w/c but never _quite trusting_ them


 
Even when looming over the poor stool-sitters in her chair..


----------



## treelover (May 1, 2013)

Labour have just backed Universal Credit, we should ask Owen about that


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

sihhi said:


> What does this mean? This is Hilary Wainwright of Beyond the Fragments very different to Glasman.
> 
> Glasman is a pure social democrat, promoting Germany CDU and SPD alike:


I'm suggesting that HW's pro-w/c politics and Glasman's pro-civic society approach have considerable crossover in that both circle around the labour party and the established Trade Unions and see the forwarding of their projects through similar organisations and institutions. HW's sounds more radical (if you can get past the insufferable,_ see workers have brains too_ type stuff - what sort of audience would need to be told that?) and glasmans more expansive but is still based in and on the idea of some outside-labour but really determined by their influence area.

(BTF was a long long time ago as well - and what politics did she adopt as a result of it. The same mess as articul8 offers today, just with Benn instead of McDonnell.)


----------



## sihhi (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I think the relevant parallel is 31 - and why it merits some serious thought about why the attempt to launch the ILP as an independent party failed. Owen J regularly cites this is "proof" that there is no prospect for the left outside Labour. I'd want to have a better understanding of what went wrong then and why (sure it relates to international balance of class forces etc.).


 
Don't the realities of 1984, 1986 and 1987 and expulsions from Labour have some relevance, hell even the 1992 expulsions of the AWL must have some relevance too?

Owen Jones today is 'join but don't get kicked out play by the Labour Right rules'.

His answer to the Trotskyists of the 50s and 60s generation would probably be 'you should never have left but waited to be kicked out'.


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Is there some connection with Hilary Wainwright's support of trade unions who tow the line like Newcastle?


She's not defending the role of unions in Newcastle in general  She was pointing to a specific instance of tabling an in-house bid to take back services from private hands.


----------



## sihhi (May 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'm suggesting that HW's pro-w/c politics and Glasman's pro-civic society approach have considerable crossover in that both circle around the labour party and the established Trade Unions and see the forwarding of their projects through similar organisations and institutions. HW's sounds more radical (if you can get past the insufferable,_ see workers have brains too_ type stuff - what sort of audience would need to be told that?) but is still based in and on the idea of some outside-labour but really determined by their influence area.


 
Ah. Got it.

Wainwright has always been dismissive of people who want to enter those institutions but not play on their terms:



> Sectarian Trots did indeed have a noisome presence in some branches of the Labour party. But Livingstone demonstrated another left, the memory of which seems to be repressed: a left that was innovative, radically democratic and determinedly egalitarian. It was a powerful and effective force.


 
By contrast these people tow the line



> Certainly the popular planning unit, which I directed as part of an innovative, bottom-up industrial strategy, was an independently minded gang of ex-shop-floor leaders, feminist organisers and writers, experienced adult educationists and community organisers.


 
Ultimately Wainwright is Labour and so is Glasman.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> No! I'm saying that's what it's possible to achieve in the very short term *on the electoral field* - nowhere am I saying that is all politics should be about in the next 2 years, far from it.


 
You may not be saying it, but such a conclusion isn't exactly difficult to draw from your perorations.



> I have talked in very practical ways...


 
Nope. Be honest. You've waffled vague generalities and offered a few rheotrical flourishes. You've not "talked in practical ways".



> ...about the work on the ground based on class militancy that could help to cement a anti-austerity ideological bloc with genuine grassroots support and a relevance to w/c people beyond the ballot box.


 
Cemented into what, though?
The answer, as always, is "into an alliance with Labour, with 'the bloc' operating as a provider of electoral raw material (votes), and being offered the occasional sop for their trouble.



> What I *don't* think is to productively contest elections before 2015 through any vehicle other than through Labour. If there is a better way please explain how and why...


 
Well obviously for *you*, with your investment in a system of parliamentary democracy, there's *NO* "better way", because only with that system can the results you desire be achieved.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

treelover said:


> Labour have just backed Universal Credit, we should ask Owen about that


Shut up and eat your "small but important short-term incremental gains".


----------



## treelover (May 1, 2013)

pardon?


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

Don't suppose anyone has a copy of the old billy bragg pic with the slogan by any means necessary on the top and:
If you come vote with me i'll come protest with you and stand on the picket line with you (something like that anyway) across the main body? Suddenly feels so...apt.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Shut up and eat your "small but important short-term incremental gains".


Ok, articul8 argued a few posts ago that labour will and can provide "small but important short-term incremental gains".


----------



## sihhi (May 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Shut up and eat your "small but important short-term incremental gains".


 
There _are_ significant gains on the verge of being realised:

_Labour is today calling on the Government to lead a national effort to construct a national memorial to commemorate the conflict in Afghanistan._

_Labour supports offering the public an opportunity to provide ideas on the what form the memorial should take. All innovative ideas on how to make a meaningful memorial which will engage the service communities, military families and the public should be welcome. The process of deciding the design of the memorial can itself be a way of the country engaging with our Forces’ contribution to Afghanistan. A panel, perhaps led by the Chief of the Defence Staff, Prime Minister and leading Service Charities, could judge the final memorial design. A national, government-led fundraising effort should fund the memorial, alongside funds from the Community Covenant grant scheme._

_Jim Murphy MP, Labour’s Shadow Defence Secretary, said: "It is essential there is meaningful commemoration of our Forces’ painful sacrifice in Afghanistan. This must be a national memorial that the whole nation feels part of. The public should be involved from the start so that they can show their sympathy and solidarity."_


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

> Sectarian Trots did indeed have a noisome presence in some branches of the Labour party.


She's not attacking their radicalism she's attacking their sectarianism!


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

Anyway if the likes of butchersapron Louis MacNeice and ViolentPanda will oblige us, let's hear their alternative proposals beyond the vagueries of "independent w/c self-organisation" - how and in what way will this find organisational expression?  So far we've had the IWCA bring about the world-historical breakthrough of a few seats, promptly lost, with just a small provincial athletics club to show for it.  I'm sure that countering such a movement will be on the agenda of the next Davos summit of world leaders. 

I criticise TUSC for being ill-timed and self-defeating, but at least it's clear what it's aiming at.  But what alternative are you lot putting forward and how will it scale up to challenge neoliberalism?


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

This strategy that you claim that you have, you've been asked to outline it at least 5 or 6 times over the last few days alone. Can you outline it now please?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Anyway if the likes of [B]butchersapron Louis MacNeice and ViolentPanda will oblige us, let's hear their alternative proposals beyond the vagueries of "independent w/c self-organisation" - how and in what way will this find organisational expression?[/B] So far we've had the IWCA bring about the world-historical breakthrough of a few seats, promptly lost, with just a small provincial athletics club to show for it. I'm sure that countering such a movement will be on the agenda of the next Davos summit of world leaders.
> 
> I criticise TUSC for being ill-timed and self-defeating, but at least it's clear what it's aiming at. But what alternative are you lot putting forward and how will it scale up to challenge neoliberalism?


 
Can't you see the contradiction in demanding that I outline the organisational expression of 'independent working class self organisation'?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Anyway if the likes of butchersapron Louis MacNeice and ViolentPanda will oblige us, let's hear their alternative proposals beyond the vagueries of "independent w/c self-organisation" - how and in what way will this find organisational expression? So far we've had the IWCA bring about the world-historical breakthrough of a few seats, promptly lost, with just a small provincial athletics club to show for it. I'm sure that countering such a movement will be on the agenda of the next Davos summit of world leaders.
> 
> I criticise TUSC for being ill-timed and self-defeating, but at least it's clear what it's aiming at. But what alternative are you lot putting forward and how will it scale up to challenge neoliberalism?


 
My alternative?
Liquidate you and your class. Start with a clean slate, and a system that doesn't make places for you and your ilk to manufacture careers out of.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Can't you see the contradiction in demanding that I outline the organisational expression of 'independent working class self organisation'?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Probably not.


----------



## sihhi (May 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Don't suppose anyone has a copy of the old billy bragg pic with the slogan by any means necessary on the top and:
> If you come vote with me i'll come protest with you and stand on the picket line with you (something like that anyway) across the main body? Suddenly feels so...apt.


 
Just as point of fact, Billy Bragg did declare he _was_ against Kinnock when supporting and encouraging others to support him on tour _for 18 months. _

This interview with Stephen Wells (important NME journalist in the 1980s and 1990s) highlighted it:


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> My alternative?
> Liquidate you and your class


my class? really? I suppose you and your lumpen/boho/crusty mates won't have much time for the working class, no


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Can't you see the contradiction in demanding that I outline the organisational expression of 'independent working class self organisation'?


what forms would you imagine this might take?


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This strategy that you claim that you have, you've been asked to outline it at least 5 or 6 times over the last few days alone. Can you outline it now please?


You've already determined in advance it couldn't possibly be adequate, so what is the point?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> my class? really? I suppose you and your lumpen/boho/crusty mates won't have much time for the working class, no


 
I've got plenty of time for the working class.
You are not part of the working class. What you are is someone who wants to *use* the working class. You're part of the problem, not part of the solution.


----------



## sihhi (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> what forms would you imagine this might take?


 
Are you asking because you think those forms will be inside Labour Party, and want to crib something for you to answer the requests for you to outline your plan to make Miliband not be Hollande by supporting and voting for his party?


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Are you asking because you think those forms will be inside Labour Party, and want to crib something for you to answer the requests for you to outline your plan to make Miliband not be Hollande by supporting and voting for his party?


 
I don't have, or want, a strategy to rescue Miliband


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You are not part of the working class. What you are is someone who wants to *use* the working class.


You really don't have a clue.  Now off you fuck


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> You really don't have a clue. Now off you fuck


 
I have plenty of clues.
You want to use the working classes to shore up/bolster the party you support. *That you may once have been a member of the working classes is irrelevant*. That you wish to use the working classes to advance the cause of a party whose policies have mostly negatively affected the working classes *is*.
That you have no sense of shame about wishing to do so, and strategising so as to do so, is signal of the fact that you've left us behind, and allied yourself with the _bourgeoisie_.
Perhaps you should change your username to Esau. He too sold his birthright for a mess of pottage.


----------



## sihhi (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I don't have, or want, a strategy to rescue Miliband


 
Here's my take: Every new member, every Labour MP, every 'Miliband could change, we don't know him yet', every single vote is part of sustaining Miliband.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> She's not attacking their radicalism she's attacking their sectarianism!


 
She's contrasting both their radicalism and their sectarianism to Livingstone's supporters "innovative, radically democratic and determinedly egalitarian" politics. Before rambling on about the wonders of some funded quango she was on. It is not simply about "sectarianism", her critique of "sectarianism" exists so as to propose a reformist bureaucrats social democracy, with Livingstone as her then exemplar.

I'm never quite sure how much of your inability to see this is wilful disingenuity and how much of it is ordinary stupidity.


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2013)

She might well be soft on Livingstone (in this context) but what she wanted to do with the GLC was to build alliances with forces beyond simply Labour and the unions - in communities, in the womens movement, in environmental or peace campaigns, LGBT, disabled people etc.    Not in any way as a cross-class "popular front" but as a genuinely empowering participatory form of radical democratic politics.

You may have done a 180 degree turn from Labourist dogmatic sectarianism to anti-Labourite dogmatic sectarianism - but otherwise learnt nothing....


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> She might well be soft on Livingstone (in this context)


 
No, you slimy ratfucker. You can't gloss over it like that and hope that nobody will notice.

She's not "soft on Livingstone". She presents Livingstone's politics - at least as of 1996 - as an example of the "innovative, radically democratic and determinedly egalitarian" politics she advocates. That's not "softness", it's an identification of her project with his. And it's contrasted to the noisy "sectarian" radicalism of people to her left and Livingstones left. It's particularly fitting that she then waxes lyrical about her former job as a funded quangocrat back when Livingstone had the cash to coopt people like her and her "radically democratic" friends.

That piece sums her up. And it sums you up too.




			
				articul8 said:
			
		

> but what she wanted to do with the GLC was to build alliances with forces beyond simply Labour and the unions - in communities, in the womens movement, in environmental or peace campaigns, LGBT, disabled people etc.


 
An alliance towards social democratic ends, controlled by social democratic bureaucrat's money, and administered by social democratic bureaucrats. But, to be fair to her, at least back when she had some slight relevance she was fantasising about this against the background of a strong Labour left with control of things like the GLC. She wasn't as divorced from reality as some clown we can probably both name who dreams not entirely dissimilar dreams while surrounded by the rotting corpses of the Labour left she thought would make this happen.


----------



## articul8 (May 2, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> An alliance towards social democratic ends, controlled by social democratic bureaucrat's money, and administered by social democratic bureaucrats.


 
Retrospectively tarring the whole GLC resistance to Thatcher with Livingstone's spinelessness does no justice to the historical reality.   In any case, it's a bit rich to imply that any tactical engagement with him - however criticial - is enough to constitute the mentality of a social democratic bureaucrat, given that your organisation supported Livingstone in his first bid for London mayor (yet another false dawn of the mythical "new workers party")!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 2, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Here's my take: Every new member, every Labour MP, every 'Miliband could change, we don't know him yet', every single vote is part of sustaining Miliband.


 
The sad thing being that this "follow the leader" strategy was and is absolutely predictable given the hollowing out of party democracy over the last 15 years or so. If you have a party where political thought is circumscribed by boundaries put in place by neoliberalism, then stimulating non-neoliberal solutions to *any* question was always going to be a hiding to nothing. That articul8 either can't or won't see that is, at the very least, indicative of who he's positioned himself with.


----------



## articul8 (May 2, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> a party where political thought is circumscribed by boundaries put in place by neoliberalism


Whose thought?  Not the members or the activists, or even a section of the PLP.  There is a question of the limits on what gets taken up as policy, but even here there is a hiatus at present, where the boundaries of what is/isn't possible to take up can be contested.  The fact Miliband D has recognised that his pro-neoliberal wing are on the defensive shows they aren't having it all their own way.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> unfortunate turn of phrase. SYRIZA is not the magic solution, nor is it necessarily about illusions in Labour. It's more the ongoing institutional power which sustains Labourism as an ideology in Zizek's sense, "I know very well, but nevertheless". It requires what Freud calls "working through":
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_through
> It's like an unresolved state of mourning for what's lost. We need to go through this phase


 


articul8 said:


> Whose thought? Not the members or the activists, or even a section of the PLP. There is a question of the limits on what gets taken up as policy, but even here there is a hiatus at present, where the boundaries of what is/isn't possible to take up can be contested. The fact Miliband D has recognised that his pro-neoliberal wing are on the defensive shows they aren't having it all their own way.


 
Freud calls this denial:



> Denial is the refusal to acknowledge the existence or severity of unpleasant external realities or internal thoughts and feelings.
> 
> Defense mechanisms are indirect ways of dealing or coping with anxiety, such as explaining problems away or blaming others for problems. Denial is one of many defense mechanisms. It entails ignoring or refusing to believe an unpleasant reality. Defense mechanisms protect one's psychological wellbeing in traumatic situations, or in any situation that produces anxiety or conflict. However, they do not resolve the anxiety-producing situation and, if overused, can lead to psychological disorders. Although Freud's model of the id, ego, and superego is not emphasized by most psychologists today, defense mechanisms are still regarded as potentially maladaptive behavioral patterns that may lead to psychological disorders.


----------



## articul8 (May 2, 2013)

perhaps....


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Whose thought? Not the members or the activists, or even a section of the PLP. There is a question of the limits on what gets taken up as policy, but even here there is a hiatus at present, where the boundaries of what is/isn't possible to take up can be contested. The fact Miliband D has recognised that his pro-neoliberal wing are on the defensive shows they aren't having it all their own way.


 
As far as I'm aware (and I do still talk to people from my old CLP quite regularly), none of the moves that eroded internal democracy and disempowered local activists have been rescinded, so your claims are nothing but obfuscation, and there's no mechanism by which policy formulation can be guided from below (as used to be the case), just the usual "we hear what you're saying, but here's what we're going to do" top-downism.
Until such mechanisms allowing internal democracy are reinstated, all your jabber is meaningless. As for neoliberalism, the conflict in the parliamentary party isn't "neoliberalism vs socialism", it's "which form of neoliberalism - slightly more ameliorative, or slightly less ameliorative?". Whichever way the axe falls, it's still neoliberalism.


----------



## articul8 (May 2, 2013)

To be honest, these glory days where conference determined policy is all a bit of a myth anyway. Conference would decide, and then the Cabinet would ignore whatever it chose to. 

Ameliorating the neoliberal attacks is not enough, certainly, but it's not nothing either.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> To be honest, these glory days where conference determined policy is all a bit of a myth anyway. Conference would decide, and then the Cabinet would ignore whatever it chose to.


 
Well, that's the received wisdom about it nowadays, anyway. Reality differed.



> Ameliorating the neoliberal attacks is not enough, certainly, but it's not nothing either.


 
In fact it's worse than nothing, because it holds out the hope for people that things will get better/things will get no worse, while allowing them to continue to be ground down by forces enabled by the party's adherence to neoliberalism.


----------



## articul8 (May 2, 2013)

> In fact it's worse than nothing, because it holds out the hope for people that things will get better/things will get no worse, while allowing them to continue to be ground down by forces enabled by the party's adherence to neoliberalism.


 
That's a silly spartoid argument like "the welfare state was a bad thing because it masked the real nature of class division" or some such bollocks


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> That's a silly spartoid argument like "the welfare state was a bad thing because it masked the real nature of class division" or some such bollocks


 
Nothing like.
Fact is, that whether or not the welfare state masked the real nature of class division or not, the welfare state was of great benefit to the working class.
The slavish adherence to neoliberalism displayed by the party you support (and it is slavish. Arguing about how to serve it up to the electorate isn't resistance, it's surrender) is of no benefit to the working class. Neoliberalism destroys jobs and lives, and in fact *needs* to destroy prospects in order to ensure a sizeable reserve pool of labour through structural unemployment.

Get a grip, and try getting some political _nous_ at the same time.


----------



## sihhi (May 7, 2013)

articul8 said:


> You've already determined in advance it couldn't possibly be adequate, so what is the point?


 
Come on articul8, I genuinely think you could do better than Owen Jones. This is his laughable attempt with Chuka Lambeth's left but not Labour Left MP discussing strategy how to win back the millions and overthrow neoliberalism.


*Chuka Umunna* @ChukaUmunna 2d​
We need the banking sector to better serve the real economy - this is crucial to implementing the UK industrial strategy I've talked about
View details ·    


 *Owen Jones*@OwenJones84 ​​
.@ChukaUmunna Why not argue for turning the bailed out banks into a publicly owned investment bank?


----------



## sihhi (May 13, 2013)

Verso heart Verso.




> Tariq Ali in conversation with Owen Jones.
> £5. Time – 15.00, Sunday. Venue – Abney Public HallBuy tickets
> Tariq Ali is a writer and filmmaker, described by The Observer as ‘an outlier and intellectual bomb-thrower’. He has written more than a dozen books on world history and politics, including Pirates of the Caribbean, Bush in Babylon, The Clash of Fundamentalisms and The Obama Syndrome, as well as five novels in his Islam Quintet series. He talks to Owen Jones, ex-trade union lobbyist and author of Chavs: The Demonisation of the Working Class, one of the defining young voices of the Left. Together, they will discuss the reissue of The Stalinist Legacy and cover a lot of ground in their exploration of current global politics.
> 
> In association with New Statesman.


----------



## Citizen66 (May 23, 2013)

Great. He's building a movement for us all.

http://tyneandwear.sky.com/news/art...-jones-rallies-anti-cuts-support-in-newcastle

At a time when NE activists are doing the legwork to build stuff, famous lad wants to split any initiative between grass roots and his Labour back door shit. Cheers Owen.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 23, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Great. He's building a movement for us all.
> 
> http://tyneandwear.sky.com/news/art...-jones-rallies-anti-cuts-support-in-newcastle
> 
> At a time when NE activists are doing the legwork to build stuff, famous lad wants to split any initiative between grass roots and his Labour back door shit. Cheers Owen.


 
FFS - we all know what party he's in, but constant partisan sniping has got us to the exact point of nowhere further than People Front Of Judea sketch from 40 years ago.

Why have UKIP had a clear run with their phoney and reactionary anti-establishment pose? Because of left-sectarianism. It's at the point where it's failure is flat out disgusting and a betrayal of the public in not having a solid platform of some kind to offer, either in, out or across parties (as far as parties matter). 

Owen Jones is but one person doing the People's Assembly stuff and is not claiming any kind of "leadership". How do you know he "wants to split the initiative"?
The linked piece is Murdoch - no shock it singles out one person, tending towards being "household name". It's not Owen Jones fault they might think their readers are too dense to digest the notion of something more collective.

The Manchester PA had contributers from plenty of parties and none, none made a big show of it and none were partisan. Did they want to "split the initiative"? They probably know it would fuck up if they tried. It's a piece of piss to slag off Labour, Greens, SWs, other socialists and anarchists any time. Any fucker can be a critic.

But what the PAs are showing is that a broad left can draw far more attendees than any single party from anywhere on the spectrum. That's positive stuff and I struggle to see why people STILL seem compelled to be negative after the decades of endless screw-ups.

Owen Jones happens to be a good orator, capable of making good points, and with solid enough centre left credentials. The bitterness towards him is pretty hilarious.

So he went to a good university? How shocking and treacherous. Are all who went to Oxbridge or redbricks obliged to be conservatives? Should socialists be compelled to lower their academic ambition?


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2013)

You prat, he's being criticised for leading all that positive energy into supporting voting and joining labour. The party you have spent the last few years condemning , writing off and loudly proclaiming that every last member has gallons of blood on their hand. All forgot now that you've been in a room with him though.

 And you don't even know what sectarian means as your increasingly shouty and can't be bothered to read what anyone else is saying posts show.


----------



## sihhi (May 23, 2013)

Citizen66's analysis is right Labour always gets its left and the non-party left to do its work for it.

taffboy's point is an absurd one, after all this is taffboy's post against John McDonnell, the Labour MP Owen Jones was parliamentary researcher/aide to:



taffboy gwyrdd said:


> He could join The Greens, or if he wanted a machine to give him a good chance he could try the Libdems who are more sincere on the environment and aint apologists for war, ID cards. Neither are they as inherently corrupt or as full of liars pretending to be more "left wing" than they actually are.
> 
> Labour would probably win his seat anyway, people generally vote for the rosette and not the person. In some ways, so what if it was a right-winger? Labour are a right wing party, it is appropriate they should have right wing candidates and people will get what they voted for.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2013)

There's two implicit levels to this isn't there - you lot at the PA you do the legwork, the groundwork and come election time, we (labour) reap the rewards. Which is why they can afford to play around with non-party forces like this, as they know the involvement of Jones etc will only bring them credibility_+other things)-->votes, and votes among those who may be more likely to have broken with or thinking of breaking with labour.

All one big happy labour movement family _urgh_.


----------



## Delroy Booth (May 23, 2013)

_Neither are they as inherently corrupt or as full of liars pretending to be more "left wing" than they actually are._

That's classic.


----------



## sihhi (May 23, 2013)

I'm reading through Chavs from the library now - not a good look. I read the Conclusion first it judges that left-wing intellectuals in the 1950s and 1960s helped Labour and its leadership assist the working-class.
Then finds that because most academic articles now aren't key-worded with working-class the Labour Party brains trust don't receive these ideas anymore.
Then it offers Jon Cruddas as the way forward as to how to think about 'aspiration', and sees Obama lying to millions of people as a good way to enfranchise them ie get them to vote Labour.

The whole book appears a bit of a fraud it has Burberry cap on the front cover - worn only by the young really - then connects Karen Matthews as being a 'chav'. Then spends only bits of the next chapters discussing the use of the term. 'Chavs' is not really about the term chav or really about the people it's applied to.

There's been so far only 4-5 pages on old Labour and seems to imply inflation would not have occurred in Britain had credit controls not "been eased" in the late 1960s and the Vietnam war not happened. He repeatedly cites Graham Turner (his consultancy business here) to explain post-war economic trends.

Six word summary: bashing chavs bad, Keynesianism is answer.


----------



## articul8 (May 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There's two implicit levels to this isn't there - you lot at the PA you do the legwork, the groundwork and come election time, we (labour) reap the rewards. Which is why they can afford to play around with non-party forces like this, as they know the involvement of Jones etc will only bring them credibility_+other things)-->votes, and votes among those who may be more likely to have broken with or thinking of breaking with labour.
> 
> All one big happy labour movement family _urgh_.


 
The point is to help build a mass movement against austerity that will effectively force the Labour party to shift fundamentally its position, not to recuperate opposition for a barely reconstructed New Labour vehicle.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2013)

The point for Owen is that this movement 'doesn't _challenge_ labour - you have said this yourself when you decided for the PA's that they would not be standing ay candidates against labour. This movements central aim, it's central relationship is not to be with the class but with labour and its internal battles. And its generals and would be generals openly state this - look at the post i'm replying to for example.


----------



## articul8 (May 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The point for Owen is that this movement 'doesn't _challenge_ labour - you have said this yourself when you decided for the PA's that they would not be standing ay candidates against labour. This movements central aim, it's central relationship is not to be with the class but with labour and its internal battles. And its generals and would be generals openly state this - look at the post i'm replying to for example.


 
A substantial section of the class either actively supports Labour or at least thinks that a Labour vote is a regrettable tactical necessity - so breaking from Labour into an electoral dead end would divide the movement and weaken its force.  But this doesn't mean it doesn't challenge the politics of Labour, or might not evolve into something which needs to challenge Labour electorally further down the line...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You prat, he's being criticised for leading all that positive energy into supporting voting and joining labour. The party you have spent the last few years condemning , writing off and loudly proclaiming that every last member has gallons of blood on their hand. All forgot now that you've been in a room with him though.
> 
> And you don't even know what sectarian means as your increasingly shouty and can't be bothered to read what anyone else is saying posts show.


 
I've always found LRC to be just about an "acceptable face" as it happens. Of course I can slag off the war crime stuff, will continue to. But I'm far more inclined to do it once people get overtly partisan. I've never heard Owen Jones do that to be fair.

Why you think I should be so transfixed just by being within a couple of hundred metres of him is anyones guess. 

And electioneering is to be expected at election time, not forgetting that most votes don't count anyway. But outside of election time I recognise that unless there is a broad spectrum of efforts we are fucked.

As I said, PA is commanding more activist enthusiasm than any party, it also predates this current run by many years as a concept. Sorry to not be so divisive on this occasion, I have faith in others to keep up the resentment and bitterness. I managed to avoid an ad hom attack too.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> A substantial section of the class either actively supports Labour or at least thinks that a Labour vote is a regrettable tactical necessity - so breaking from Labour into an electoral dead end would divide the movement and weaken its force. But this doesn't mean it doesn't challenge the politics of Labour, or might not evolve into something which needs to challenge Labour electorally further down the line...


 
UKIP have shown the politics of party X can be dragged in a given direction far better from outside than pushed from inside.


----------



## articul8 (May 23, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> UKIP have shown the politics of party X can be dragged in a given direction far better from outside than pushed from inside.


Well, I'm all for building effective extra-parliamentary support for an alternative to austerity beyond the ranks of Labour - but I simply don't think that the conditions exist at present for an alternative left party to make a UKIP style breakthrough.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:
			
		

> I've always found LRC to be just about an "acceptable face" as it happens. Of course I can slag off the war crime stuff, will continue to. But I'm far more inclined to do it once people get overtly partisan.
> 
> And electioneering is to be expected at election time, not forgetting that most votes don't count anyway. But outside of election time I recognise that unless there is a broad spectrum of efforts we are fucked.
> 
> As I said, PA is commanding more activist enthusiasm than any party, it also predates this current run by many years as a concept. Sorry to not be so divisive on this occasion, I have faith in others to keep up the resentment and bitterness. I managed to avoid an ad hom attack too.


The political points ignored in favour of more surlyism. You spent years arguing labour are beyond the pale, now you're wetting yourself at being able to sit in the same room as one of their generals and willing to follow his orders designed to derail any anti austerity movement into labours hands and even to openly argue that labour are a necessary part of any broad anti austerity front. 

I'm not sure if you go as far as  articul8 in arguing that the correct perspective of such a movement should be concentration on getting labour elected and establishing some form of institutional pressure on them, that it should revolve around labour and their interests. Do you? Or are you going to participate in his pro labour plans as an unpaid independent?


----------



## treelover (May 23, 2013)

Something went badly wrong with the Sheffield one: they invited LP Councillor Jack Scott(who won't supports no cuts), etc as well as Owen, and Scott made an outrageous partisan speech saying not just vote Labour but join Labour!, cringingly long term SWP hack Ben Morris defended him and seemed to agree with him, a lot of unity was lost as the focus became Scott and the LP.

Apart from that, the turn out was massive, hundreds of young people, Owen was good but Mark Steel was superb and people nearly fell off their seats laughing.

I think it was largely organised by one guy, as student with a double barrelled name, he just wants unity I think and hadn't thought about the consequences of having a LP councillor on the panel, especially as SCC is imo right wing.


----------



## treelover (May 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There's two implicit levels to this isn't there - you lot at the PA you do the legwork, the groundwork and come election time, we (labour) reap the rewards. Which is why they can afford to play around with non-party forces like this, as they know the involvement of Jones etc will only bring them credibility_+other things)-->votes, and votes among those who may be more likely to have broken with or thinking of breaking with labour.
> 
> All one big happy labour movement family _urgh_.


 
that was exactly how Scott phrased it, they clearly see the PA as a LP election vehicle, Owen afaicr never mentioned the LP.


----------



## Delroy Booth (May 23, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> UKIP have shown the politics of party X can be dragged in a given direction far better from outside than pushed from inside.


 
UKIP have been able to move the Tories right by standing candidates against them and getting good results in their safest areas. The People's Assembly is going to do no such thing, it will funnel all the indignation about cuts into the Labour sphere of influence. Bottom line = vote Labour.


----------



## articul8 (May 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not sure if you go as far as articul8 in arguing that the correct perspective of such a movement should be concentration on getting labour elected and establishing some form of institutional pressure on them, that it should revolve around labour and their interests. Do you? Or are you going to participate in his pro labour plans as an unpaid independent?


 
The movement;s objective is not to get Labour elected, the movement's objective is to mobilise support for an anti-austerity politics.  But, do I hope this exerts pressure on the direction of the Labour party?  Yes, I do.


----------



## treelover (May 23, 2013)

its clear what Scott's agenda was, it was partisan and outrageous, he abused his position on the panel, we never had anyone who is suffering from the cuts on the panel.


----------



## articul8 (May 23, 2013)

treelover said:


> its clear what Scott's agenda was, it was partisan and outrageous, he abused his position on the panel, we never had anyone who is suffering from the cuts on the panel.


Sounds very inappropriate, yes.  I don't think PA should be talking about standing candidates generally, certainly at this stage.  But it must be completely free to criticise Labour where necessary.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2013)

The general speaks! Only after having already decided no candidates are to stand against labour though.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2013)

Why no discussion on candidates? Because it would mean people like you have to leave. Or come out into the open before you are ready to.


----------



## articul8 (May 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why no discussion on candidates? Because it would mean people like you have to leave. Or come out into the open before you are ready to.


 
The discussion on electoral candidates would, for the most part, be divisive and distracting from the main task which is to mobilise as much support as possible around a common anti-austerity platform.   Or at least that discussion should take place in a way that avoids shedding key constituent parts of the coalition (like Labour, Labour-affiliated unions, Greens, nationalists maybe). 

Otherwise, you'll end up not with a mass coalition against austerity but a small group of isolated left fragments (like Left Unity or Tusc).  Obviously, in circumstances where a mass movement comes into existence and finds itself pitted against a Labour party trying to push through cuts then this might have to be revisited.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2013)

Yeah divisive for you and your stay-behinds - exactly as i said. Anything that you're not in control of or that isn't moving in the direction that you want is 'divisive'.


----------



## articul8 (May 23, 2013)

This is not about "control" - if it was, or was seen as, simply a Labour controlled front, it wouldn't succeed either.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 23, 2013)

treelover said:


> its clear what Scott's agenda was, it was partisan and outrageous, he abused his position on the panel, we never had anyone who is suffering from the cuts on the panel.


 
The problem is only that he was too crude and stirred up a resentful backlash. But what he was arguing is the core agenda of the PA's union bureaucrat paymasters. And the people they've outsourced the management of the PA to, Counterfire, know that and will be entirely loyal as long they are able to put Rees and German etc on stage in front of large audiences and as long as they are able to recruit themselves.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 23, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Well, I'm all for building effective extra-parliamentary support for an alternative to austerity beyond the ranks of Labour - but I simply don't think that the conditions exist at present for an alternative left party to make a UKIP style breakthrough.



I didn't happen to say a party necessarily had to do it

("UKIP have shown the politics of party X can be dragged in a given direction far better from outside than pushed from inside.")

In the case of "left of labour" I think you are right. The conditions don't exist (thanks to generations of naval gazing, fetishised rhetoric, sectarianism and one up-ship that has utterly fucked things in that regard) 

What I suggest is that a broad movement can and should scare almighty fuck out of the government with concerted confrontation / civil disobedience etc. I wouldn't expect the Labour Party on board per se. Far from it, though many activists might be. 

This is workable and it's important because

1) Most people can not change who the next government is, only a small number of swing voters in a small number of seats. We can argue for ever about who we should vote for but when it comes down to who has most seats at Westminster it's almost certainly an academic question in most cases. 

2) Who ever forms the next government will behave better if we stand up to them, though we will need our narrative straight and plenty of seeming neutrals to be quite sympathetic. This is what gets me out of the "you're only ultimately working for Labour" bind. 

The next government will be dominated by Labour or Tory anyway (no one ever seems to consider the mathematically sensible option of a Lab/Con coalition - not so much a policy issue, more that it would give the game away).

The point is to stand up to these psychopaths and criminals now. 

3) If we don't kick up a big stink as a collective now then other anti establishment stinks could kick off and we will have missed the boat. Again. These could be reactionary, somewhat aimless or something else. But for the broad left not to take a united and confrontational stand at a time like this is actually letting a lot of people down anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2013)

> What I suggest is that a broad movement can and should scare almighty fuck out of the government with concerted confrontation / civil disobedience etc. I wouldn't expect the Labour Party on board per se. Far from it, though many activists might be.


 
What does this mean as regards labour party activists being on board. Like Owen.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The political points ignored in favour of more surlyism. You spent years arguing labour are beyond the pale, now you're wetting yourself at being able to sit in the same room as one of their generals and willing to follow his orders designed to derail any anti austerity movement into labours hands and even to openly argue that labour are a necessary part of any broad anti austerity front.
> 
> I'm not sure if you go as far as articul8 in arguing that the correct perspective of such a movement should be concentration on getting labour elected and establishing some form of institutional pressure on them, that it should revolve around labour and their interests. Do you? Or are you going to participate in his pro labour plans as an unpaid independent?



Owen Jones is hardly a "general", certainly not at this point. I have no continence issues as of yet, and ask you to allow me the grace of aging somewhat before bringing in that kind of jibe. Nor would I "follow his orders" at the drop of the hat. Where do you get this stuff? Why do you make it up? You know full well that your arguments can carry good weight and challenge effectively, there is no need for the psychic act, but you keep having to be told :-0

As for other points, I hope my immediately previous post speaks to them on the whole : We can not change that Labour or Tory will govern : In that regard, all we can do is scare this lot as much as possible and make the next lot behave better.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2013)

They don't - and now, today Jones is their only general.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What does this mean as regards labour party activists being on board. Like Owen.



It means being on board more as individuals than as with their hat on. I've been involved in loads of campaigns down the years with people from all parties and none, including LRC. We were all capable of not being partisan. Electioneering in election time with little aggression. It's not as if it's a huge amount of the time anyway. I've honestly not found Owen Jones to be partisan.

There's a good speech somewhere that he gave to the SP. Managed to mention plenty loads of left groupings and parties, though not the SWs, perhaps from diplomacy. Fuck knows what is going on between those 2. I do know that TUSC is disfunctional in my locality, and it gives me no pleasure.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2013)

So, pretend that they're not labour and not using you to to ensure some sort of anti-tory bloc.


----------



## sihhi (May 23, 2013)

Can you explain why Owen Jones gets a free pass on his partisanship for Labour, whilst John McDonnell doesn't?



taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I've been involved in loads of campaigns down the years with people from all parties and none, including LRC. We were all capable of not being partisan. Electioneering in election time with little aggression. It's not as if it's a huge amount of the time anyway. I've honestly not found Owen Jones to be partisan.


 


taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Is that John McDonell of the Parallel Universe Nothing To Do With War, Privatisation and Authoritarianism Labour Party?
> Ah yes, the poor sod who couldnt even get enough signatures to challenge The Supreme Leader.
> The guy the Morning Star denialists continually refer to as "Left MP" because they cant admit that he is a member of a right wing capitalist project that seeks to fingerprint and eyescan us for a database?
> He's going on about climate change isnt he?
> ...


 
You wrote of John McDonnell and the Labour Left he is the head of:



> Labour continues to defacate on the working class and the planet, pursuing crazed fundementalist policies on behalf of the global elite. Thanks to the likes of JM, plenty of deluded people will continue to vote for this bastion of the corruptocracy.


Have you changed your mind? Is Labour a "bastion of the corruptocracy" your phrase?
If you have changed your mind, what influenced this?
Please answer without lashing out at other posters like Citizen66 for listening carefully to what people are saying.


----------



## muscovyduck (May 30, 2013)

I don't understand the Twitter eBooks accounts joke but Owen Jones has one

Edit: this explaination of Horse eBooks (the most well known eBook account) doesn't help at all


----------



## Delroy Booth (May 30, 2013)

Seeing people arguing with the Zizek ebooks as though it's really him is one of the few things about twitter I miss


----------



## muscovyduck (May 30, 2013)

LLESTA eBooks


----------



## muscovyduck (May 30, 2013)

Also https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/250992973997809666

He Tweeted this:


> OK, Twitter, bit of an odd one, but I've been told to come up with 5 ideas for How To Be A Good Left-Winger. Thoughts?! #howtobeagoodlefty


 
I'd say not voting Labour is a big one?


----------



## Delroy Booth (May 30, 2013)

following @delroybooth would've been pretty high on the list at one time I'm sure...


----------



## sihhi (May 30, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> Also https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/250992973997809666
> 
> He Tweeted this


 
Shameless - he crowdsourced - LOL (but didn't pay his appearance fee out) to make this tripe:



saying
1 have some kind of aim
2 don't be like Militant, Socialist Worker, Red Action, Class War or class struggle anarchism (Black Flag)
3 join a trade union and obey its picketing rules
4 don't hate people for being born posh
5 pay tax


----------



## smokedout (May 31, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> Also https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/250992973997809666
> 
> He Tweeted this:
> 
> ...


 
Don't go to Oxford


----------



## smokedout (May 31, 2013)

Don't work for an oligarch


----------



## smokedout (May 31, 2013)

Don't let your employer pretend you are self-employed to save you both on tax


----------



## smokedout (May 31, 2013)

Don't block me on twitter


----------



## smokedout (May 31, 2013)

Don't pretend you are like karl marx when someone points out you work for an oligarch


----------



## DexterTCN (May 31, 2013)

Anyone have a do?


----------



## smokedout (May 31, 2013)

Don't accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being on drugs


----------



## articul8 (Jun 3, 2013)

he's faily chuffed here
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/the-peoples-assembly-making-a-movement/


----------



## brogdale (Jun 4, 2013)

Seen elsewhere...







*ED TO GIDEON: ‘Owen Jones is asking people to vote Labour to stop the cuts’*


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 7, 2013)

I just cycled to get some free lunch off the Hari Krishnas and on my return nearly had a cycle collision with.....Owen Jones.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 7, 2013)

proving there is no such thing as a free lunch


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jun 7, 2013)

Where did Owen Jones get his copies of Class War and Red Action from 20 years ago?

Does have a huge archive of them or something?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 7, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Where did Owen Jones get his copies of Class War and Red Action from 20 years ago?
> 
> Does have a huge archive of them or something?


 
If he does he would fit in well on here


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jun 7, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> If he does he would fit in well on here


 


Oh hang on, I got rid of all mine!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Oh hang on, I got rid of all mine!


Are you suggesting that we check your eBay record see who bought them and then spend hours searching through their buying record then taking the piss out of it on here?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jun 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Are you suggesting that we check your eBay record see who bought them and then spend hours searching through their buying record then taking the piss out of it on here?


 
It was a few years ago so probably isn't still accessible, but I did that myself and it was a bit mental.

Sold quite a few "Fighting Talk" to some guy called Odin45356 or something who was obviously fash from the rest of the things he was buying. I did have a chuckle at him sitting in the armchair of an evening reading about his comrades having the shit kicked out of them by AFA.

And some "Cable Street Beat" mags to Dave Hann.

Maybe Owen Jones is scouring ebay RIGHT NOW for these things...


----------



## imposs1904 (Jun 10, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Where did Owen Jones get his copies of Class War and Red Action from 20 years ago?
> 
> Does have a huge archive of them or something?


 

From that clip they look a bit too pristine looking to have actually even been read.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 10, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> From that clip they look a bit too pristine looking to have actually even been read.


 
Unread, eh?
He probably borrowed them from the old Special Branch archive for the photoshoot, then.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 12, 2013)

Article.

'I'm with the people'



> having spent the last two years zig-zagging across Britain, I know there’s no shortage of anger and fear out there. Anger, from the kids at a Sheffield sixth-form who simply could not understand why their futures were down-payments for a crisis they had nothing to do with. Fear, from the young woman with a little daughter in Hackney driven from her home by benefit cuts, forced to bring her up in sheltered accommodation. But there’s one thing missing – and this isn’t a throwaway platitude – and that’s hope.


 
'The People's Assembly means the real (Labour) left is entering the ring:



> It will come up against the sneers and venom of smug middle-aged pub bores (otherwise known as the “liberal commentariat”); Tories and Blairites, dismissive of anything not drenched in free-market dogma; and even left-wing sects, unable to explain why they have failed to grow five years into the biggest crisis of capitalism since the Great Depression. It will have to prove them all wrong.
> 
> Letting councils build houses and controlling rents, rather than subsidising landlords; a living wage, instead of state-subsidised low wages; an industrial strategy to create hundreds of thousands of renewable jobs, instead of the misery of unemployment; an all-out war against tax avoidance worth £25bn a year; public control of the banks we bailed out: here are demands that have long been ignored. They won’t be ignored any more.
> 
> The Labour leadership will face a new reality, too. They’ve taken it as read that they are the sole national spokespeople for the left; the only standard-bearers of an alternative to Tory calamity. Because their main competitors have been on the right, the terms of debate have been kept on the terms of the wealthy and powerful. No longer. The fragmented strands of progressive Britain are coming together; the anti-austerity movement is making its belated appearance. Finally, the left is entering the ring.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 12, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> From that clip they look a bit too pristine looking to have actually even been read.


 
_Red Action_ never looked that pristine even when just printed.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 12, 2013)

> It will come up against the sneers and venom of smug middle-aged pub bores (otherwise known as the “liberal commentariat”); Tories and Blairites, dismissive of anything not drenched in free-market dogma; and even left-wing sects, unable to explain why they have failed to grow five years into the biggest crisis of capitalism since the Great Depression. It will have to prove them all wrong.


 
so the student protests, March 26th, the claimant and disability movement, Occupy, UK Uncut - this all meant nothing, but now owen jones has helped call a meeting to save us by telling us to vote labour

fucking arrogant prick, i like him less and less everyday


----------



## brogdale (Jun 12, 2013)

The loathsome Staines has a piece on his site about John Spellar's comments at the recent 'Progress' conference referring to Owen Jones.


> _“It’s perfectly true that the organised evil, the militant socialist workers and the communist party are nothing like as strong as they once were but the sort of mindset is still there. There’s some teenager who seems to have a column in The Independent who says ‘Labour finally has some real competition on the left.’ Well whoopee.”_




I don't post this as a defence of Jones, but it is interesting to see the 'mainstream_' _Labour view 'the left'_._

And these are the people we're expected to vote for?


----------



## treelover (Jun 12, 2013)

what a twat...

good find.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 12, 2013)

Spellar is a grade A prick and always has been.  Big mate of Luke Akehurst


----------



## treelover (Jun 12, 2013)

was his dad an M.P?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2013)

And he's wrong, Oran juice jones doesn't say "‘Labour finally has some real competition on the left" - he says that the labour party left can offer some competition to the labour party leadership from within labour. It's as much internal to labour as is his progress shite.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2013)

treelover said:


> was his dad an M.P?


 
If he was he must have been a staunch socialist to send his kid to independent school then oxbridge.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And he's wrong, Oran juice jones doesn't say "‘Labour finally has some real competition on the left" - he says that the labour party left can offer some competition to the labour party leadership from within labour. It's as much internal to labour as is his progress shite.


 
Yes, but it looks like Spellar was reacting to this Indy piece in which Jones _appears _to be suggesting otherwise. Disingenuously he characterises the 'People's assemblies' as a device to effect a leftward shift in the LP, but seems willing to accept that such a strategy is useless...without explicitly declaring his position, on the basis that such a distiction doesn't matter.



> *Some will want a movement that puts pressure on Labour to do the job it was founded to do, fighting for working people; others think that’s about as productive as mating with a toaster*. That doesn’t matter: it’s a broad movement, not a party, and there is a shared determination to give a platform to those hit by the Government’s austerity offensive, and to push an alternative that gives people hope. “We can’t afford to cock this up this time round,” as a young man put it to me in Nottingham.


 
This obfuscation allows him to conclude...



> The Labour leadership will face a new reality, too. They’ve taken it as read that they are the sole national spokespeople for the left; the only standard-bearers of an alternative to Tory calamity. Because their main competitors have been on the right, the terms of debate have been kept on the terms of the wealthy and powerful. No longer. The fragmented strands of progressive Britain are coming together; the anti-austerity movement is making its belated appearance. Finally, the left is entering the ring.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2013)

Yeah it was a direct reaction to that piece, but his misreading allows Jones to get off the hook - but, he can only do that by making it clear that he and spellar are really on the same side. Otherwise spellar the fool has just given jones exactly the sort of cover he needs to funnel the left outside of labour and anti-austerity stuff into labour support. Ineptness all round.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> If he was he must have been a staunch socialist to send his kid to independent school then oxbridge.


 
I think he - Spellar - does have some kind of Labour connection he was a national fulltimer official for EEPTU as soon as he left Oxford from 1969 until he became an MP!


----------



## Callie (Jun 12, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> I just cycled to get some free lunch off the Hari Krishnas and on my return nearly had a cycle collision with.....Owen Jones.


stalker


----------



## smokedout (Jun 20, 2013)

so Disabled People Against Cuts, having already asked Owen to change his piece in Red Pepper where he claimed they were involved in organising the People's Assembly (which wasn't true), have now issued a statement regarding the Assembly: http://dpac.uk.net/2013/06/dpac-position-statement-the-peoples-assembly/

Owen's not chuffed.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 20, 2013)

Shot in the arm:



> Saturday will be a massive shot in the arm for the anti-austerity movement. Make you're part of it @pplsassembly http://thepeoplesassembly.org.uk/register/


 
You hear?


----------



## smokedout (Jun 20, 2013)

you'd have to be on smack to sit through it


----------



## sihhi (Jun 20, 2013)

Are DPAC still going as advertised smoked?



> Hear from our speakers from DPAC, BARAC and PCS and discuss how we can challenge and oppose these attacks on our welfare system.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 20, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Are DPAC still going as advertised smoked?


 
not sure of current state of play, expecting an update soonish, as far as I know their position statement still stands, but I think there's some stuff being done on access now


----------



## brogdale (Jun 20, 2013)

DPAC logo still shown on the 'Organised by' page, but the hyperlink appears broken.


----------



## rekil (Jun 20, 2013)

John Rees looking dynamic. Do they submit their own pics?


----------



## treelover (Jun 20, 2013)

wrong info...


----------



## smokedout (Jun 20, 2013)

DPAC definitely not involved in organising and still going as individuals rather than formally as a group - latest news is that no-one will be turned away if they haven't got the money to get in, DPAC now being consulted on access but seems to be a problem with number of wheelchairs allowed in the building, sounds a right farce


----------



## sihhi (Jun 20, 2013)

smokedout said:


> DPAC definitely not involved in organising and still going as individuals rather than formally as a group - latest news is that no-one will be turned away if they haven't got the money to get in


 
Not on the website yet, but perhaps they recognise they can't fill the venue they've hired.


----------



## treelover (Jun 20, 2013)

there is very little upto date info on the website,

they have 3000 registrations.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 20, 2013)

I still have no idea what this People's Assembly is about or for really, the impression I get is that it's a front to get people angry about austerity to vote for Labour?


----------



## shifting gears (Jun 20, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I still have no idea what this People's Assembly is about or for really, the impression I get is that it's a front to get people angry about austerity to vote for Labour?



* Paging articul8


----------



## smokedout (Jun 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Not on the website yet, but perhaps they recognise they can't fill the venue they've hired.


 
dont think its that, they've been laying on marquees to cope with numbers, think they are panicking because they've been using DPAC's name in the build up to this without their consent.  I'm not sure they will tell people its free now if you tell them youre skint on the website, think thats a last minute concession in response to criticism that they'd rather not shout about

obv am reading between the lines a bit


----------



## treelover (Jun 21, 2013)

reading twitter, they don't seem to have many volunteers, etc for the now predicted 4'000 registered punters, plus loads who will just turn up.

is that mark steel in the white shirt?


----------



## treelover (Jun 21, 2013)

> We need volunteers to help out on the big day! If you can help pls email office@thepeoplesassembly.org.uk or phone / txt Jacqui 07746 330422]


 

They really need vols, I think they may be overwhelmed, whatever you think of the event if I was in London I would volunteer

largely aimed at the London lurkers on here.

maybe the unions can second their staff


----------



## brogdale (Jun 21, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I still have no idea what this People's Assembly is about or for really, the impression I get is that it's a front to get people angry about austerity to vote for Labour?


 
...and reverse the cuts.


----------



## Riklet (Jun 21, 2013)

oh my god.  you have to fucking PAY to go to this people's assembly bollocks?

some people are more worthy of assembly than others, it would seem.  Owen Jones and other revolutionary leaders, for example.

fuck me, rarely does some "that sounds meh" leftie scheme turn out to be miles beyond the shitness you initially envisaged, but this would be it. no wander DPAC wants rid, what a tarnishing image.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

They've said this morning a pathetic and very late _no one turned away for lack of funds - _the day before the thing. Bit late for those already not going because of the tenner or whatever it is. And give the very very wealthy backers of the call out. I think 30 grand was all these people needed to fork out to get rid of the entrance fee.


----------



## treelover (Jun 21, 2013)

its 4 quid for unemployed, less than people throw in the bucket for 'free parties'


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

treelover said:


> its 4 quid for unemployed, less than people throw in the bucket for 'free parties'


 
Plus travel plus accommodation/food/childcare/time off work. It shouldn't cost a single penny. And wouldn't have had if the original signers had forked up the 30 grand hire cost. As they very easily could. Or not hired such an expensive venue in order to 'make a mark'.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 21, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I still have no idea what this People's Assembly is about or for really, the impression I get is that it's a front to get people angry about austerity to vote for Labour?


 
yeah, i've been wondering that myself.  none of the fb updates i've received from them have shed any light on it.  so i've concluded that it's hot air and voting labour.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 21, 2013)

it will be all hot air and about 75% vote Labour and praise Len


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> it will be all hot air and about 75% vote Labour and praise Len


 
It def won't be 'vote labour' at all - it'll be go away and build community resistance that implicit  involves voting labour - never openly expresssed. This will be all about posing as challenging labour. What won't be mentioned is they mean challenging labour to _do better_ as labour. Not getting rid of labour.


----------



## treelover (Jun 21, 2013)

Which is nearest to Westminster Hall, is it Kings x or St Pancras, friend wants to know


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 21, 2013)

treelover said:


> Which is nearest to Westminster Hall, is it Kings x or St Pancras, friend wants to know


the station overlook each other


----------



## muscovyduck (Jun 21, 2013)

> Owen Jones @OwenJones84 14m
> Always been baffled by a (small) minority on the left who seem to actively want any major attempt to push their ideas to fail


 
Oh Owen, if only you weren't saying that because we've all noticed how pathetic The People's Assembly is.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It def won't be 'vote labour' at all.


 
It will though because the anti-Labour lot and the pro-Labour lot will spend far more time than they should debating the merits of voting Labour than discussing the building of actual community self organisation.

And it will be the anti's fault as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It will though because the anti-Labour lot and the pro-Labour lot will spend far more time than they should debating the merits of voting Labour than discussing the building of actual community self organisation.
> 
> And it will be the anti's fault as well.


 
Quote possibly - but no one up there will openly say vote labour. Not even Owen


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Quote possibly - but no one up there will openly say vote labour. Not even Owen


 
They will - Len will.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

I bet you not, i bet he's never _openly_ said any such thing in his life.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 21, 2013)

We will see


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

_I have already seen. Hearken. _


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 21, 2013)




----------



## binka (Jun 21, 2013)

i hope this is going to be recorded and put on youtube


----------



## treelover (Jun 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It will though because the anti-Labour lot and the pro-Labour lot will spend far more time than they should debating the merits of voting Labour than discussing the building of actual community self organisation.
> 
> And it will be the anti's fault as well.


 
that happened to a degree at the local one here..


----------



## treelover (Jun 21, 2013)

binka said:


> i hope this is going to be recorded and put on youtube


 
if you are being serious, yes it will be partly live streamed, photos, videos posted as the day goes on,

I hope they film the audience and all the contributions from the floor, they, counterfire,  don't usually


team of 6 from the BBC there now...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

They paying to get in?


----------



## rekil (Jun 21, 2013)

That Sam Fairbairn counterfire fellow in the dull dull dull promo video is down as a chair for a couple of people's assembly talks. Only 81 followers on the twitter machine! (While PD has 801) Who is he?

Vicki Baars NUS president a few weeks ago.





> "I hate tuition fees. But when people wake up in morning and decide to drop out, that's not because they can't pay their tuition fees. It's because they can't afford to pay their rent or bills – these are the issues that need tackling. When we only talk about one issue, like tuition fees, we risk deprioritising everything else, almost by accident."


Also chairing a couple of things. They're not going to do anything are they.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 21, 2013)

She's not the President she's a token lefty VP - and she's right as well


----------



## binka (Jun 21, 2013)

treelover said:


> if you are being serious


im not


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> She's not the President she's a token lefty VP - and she's right as well


 
So is toothless benn. Who the frig is that going to inspire?


----------



## sihhi (Jun 21, 2013)

Len McCluskey will not say 'vote Labour'. He doesn't need to. He's already one of the John Cruddas ideas team.

He will relentlessly attack the Lib Dems-Tories and maybe UKIP (how dangerous they are etc).


----------



## rekil (Jun 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> She's not the President she's a token lefty VP - and she's right as well


NUS VP then, sorry, it's late. The point stands, the NUS will carry on as before.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Len McCluskey will not say 'vote Labour'. He doesn't need to. He's already one of the John Cruddas ideas team.
> 
> He will relentlessly attack the Lib Dems-Tories and maybe UKIP (how dangerous they are etc).


 
he does need to as the antis will force him to


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 21, 2013)

copliker said:


> NUS VP then, sorry, it's late. The point stands, the NUS will carry on as before.


 
of course


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> he does need to as the antis will force him to


 
Will they frig. And he doesn't need to.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

They can't force him to do anything. As far as he's concerned he's just talking at yet another thing.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 21, 2013)

Depends how long there is for floor contributions - admittedly there might not be time given how top heavy the platforms are.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 21, 2013)

Also attending are: Mark Serwotka, Christine Blower, Michelle Stanistreet, Manuel Cortez, Billy Hayes, Bob Crow and Mick Whelan. Seven other trade union general secretaries.
It's going to have to be a really smart question that flays them all or forces something out of just Len McCluskey.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

_Should we vote labour? We have to put our shoulder to the wheel of all anti-austerity forces. zzzz_


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 24, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> She's not the President she's a token lefty VP - and she's right as well


To students what Donnacha Delong is to journalists


----------



## sihhi (Jun 25, 2013)

Alerted to this by on twitter



> Pretty damn excited to be speaking at Left Field at Glasto. Who's going? http://www.glastonburyfestivals.co.uk/areas/left-field … And thanks to @billybragg for the invite


 
Billy 'Tories have a positive vision for the future' Bragg is on the Left Field Stage four times over three days 

*FRIDAY 28th JUNE*

12.00 Panel: The Ideology of Austerity - how should the left respond to the cuts? Featuring Owen Jones

13.30 Panel: Meeting the Challenge of the EDL - can music counter racism?
Featuring Sam Duckworth

*15.00 The Radical Round Up - Billy Bragg trades songs with Martyn Joseph, Louise Distras and ONSIND. *

17.00 Comedy from Phill Jupitus

18.00 - The Milk

19.30 - Emmanuel Jal

*21.00 - Billy Bragg & Band*

*SATURDAY 29th JUNE*

12.00 Panel: Feminism - the unfinished revolution. Featuring Kate Banyard from UK Feminista

13.30 Panel: There is Power in a Union. Featuring Ricky Tomlinson

*15.00 The Radical Round Up - Billy Bragg trades songs with Amanda Palmer, Sean McGowan and The Quiet Loner. *

17.00 Comedy with Steve Gribbin

18.00 Dizreali and the Small Gods

19.30 Wayne Kramer

21.00 The Beat

*SUNDAY 30th JUNE*

12.00 Panel: The Next Election - how do we stop voters from switching off? Featuring Tony Benn

13.30 Workshop: Beautiful Trouble - practical guides to creative direct action with members of UKuncut and the Intruders

*15.00 The Radical Round Up - Billy Bragg trades songs with Beans on Toast, Ste McCabe and Grace Petrie*

17.00 Comedy with Chris Coltrane

18.00 Geoff Berner

19.30 Kate Nash

21.00 Amazing Grace Live! Featuring Sam Duckworth, Jehst, Sweet Billy Pilgrim and special guests
Thank you Billy says Owen.
The whole thing has been "Programmed by Billy Bragg" where "the Left Field endeavours to give that ethos some edge by bringing together activists and artists who strive to articulate that better world through argument and song."
*Give the ethos some edge.*


----------



## treelover (Jun 25, 2013)

but you need about 400 smackers inc entrance to be part of it


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 25, 2013)

My mate, Stevie! 

17.00 Comedy with Steve Gribbin


----------



## rekil (Jun 29, 2013)

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/350958983995076608


> .@billybragg calls on #glasto to fight austerity, and says the main enemy is our own cynicism. Preach.


Preach is it. I'll give youse preach.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 29, 2013)

total usual supsects fest


----------



## rekil (Jun 29, 2013)

Is this annoying linkshund person an oxbridge grad?


> .@OwenJones84 Piss off @billybragg my cynicism is the only weapon I have.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2013)

Yes.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 29, 2013)

Is Jones no longer popular here? Not surprising. I saw him at an impeccably progressive shindig the other day conspiring with Nigel Lawson, thick as thieves, like respectful grandson and doting grandfather, like Frodo and Gandalf. I thought at the time: he's probably going to lose the P&P constituency with his sleb antics and general ubiquity.


----------



## treelover (Jun 29, 2013)

> .@billybragg calls on #glasto to fight austerity, and says the main enemy is our own cynicism. Preach.


 
at 200 pounds a pop not much austerity there...


----------



## sihhi (Jul 1, 2013)

He sounds like an "Old Labour" government already:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/jun/30/glastonbury-views-from-leftfield


"But the problem is there is a democratic deficit and there are elements of free-market dogma – such as the privatisation of public services – that are enshrined in those treaties. So I'd want to renegotiate those elements."

_Renegotiate those elements_ - what does he think this all is? Renewing his home insurance?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2013)

Note what he identifies as the problem - lack of democracy. Nothing else.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jul 1, 2013)

sihhi said:


> He sounds like an "Old Labour" government already:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/jun/30/glastonbury-views-from-leftfield
> 
> ...


 
'So _I'd_ want to...

Meanwhile his article in The Independent on Labour's current failings is illustrated with a red flag at half mast. What an utter plum.


----------



## rekil (Jul 1, 2013)

Joe Reilly said:


> 'So _I'd_ want to...
> 
> Meanwhile his article in The Independent on Labour's current failings is illustrated with a red flag at half mast. What an utter plum.


I see Gideon. Journos don't choose the pics that accompany their articles tbf.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 2, 2013)

Horatius at the bridge once more:



> *Owen Jones* ‏@*OwenJones84*
> I'm literally having to go on TV to argue against Tory attacks on the poorest... and my opponent is a *Labour* MP defending them. Incredible
> 
> 9:49 AM - 2 Jul 13


 
Literally?

_LITERALLY._


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 2, 2013)

"I'm having to go on TV" he makes it sound like something he really doesn't want to do. you know, like "oh my god i was literally dying  "


----------



## articul8 (Jul 2, 2013)

I am often figuratively on TV


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 2, 2013)

Makes a change from your cross then.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2013)

How is it incredible, doesn't he know what the party he cheerleads for are actually about


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 2, 2013)

he's an advanced layer so he really should.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 2, 2013)

Well if he didn't indicate surprise then the premise of all his articles would seem ridiculous...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 2, 2013)

I'm literally having to go to oxbridge.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 2, 2013)

I am literally being forced to take a leading role and speak on behalf of others.

I am literally embedded in and taking advantage of a series of social relations that privilege me. I literally have to.


----------



## caleb (Jul 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'm literally having to go to oxbridge.


 
Being the brightest boy at a bright school he probably had very little choice, poor lad.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 2, 2013)

you won't believe it, I've literally had to speak for half an hour on a platform with Tony fucking Benn


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 2, 2013)

_Unlike you, i LITERALLY KNOW TONY BENN._


(and he reeks of skunk)


----------



## articul8 (Jul 2, 2013)

We can take the piss - but short of abolishing the society of the spectacle, it remains a relatively good thing that he has something of a platform to challenge the demonisation of benefits claimants and the ideological justifications around it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2013)

can we literally take the piss?I'm chuffed


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> We can take the piss - but short of abolishing the society of the spectacle, it remains a relatively good thing that he has something of a platform to challenge the demonisation of benefits claimants and the ideological justifications around it.


 
Oh shut up. One misused allusion + a pompous claim followed by a wrong one. Nice one.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> We can take the piss - but short of abolishing the society of the spectacle, it remains a relatively good thing that he has something of a platform to challenge the demonisation of benefits claimants and the ideological justifications around it.


 

1 VOTE 4 LABOUR = 1 LIKE FOR ENDING DEMONISATION OF BENEFIT CLAIMANTS


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> We can take the piss - but short of abolishing the society of the spectacle


 
Triple lol for ed miliband quoting Debord points. Do you know what you look like?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 2, 2013)

Abolish the society of the spectacle with voting labour as a transitional demand.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 2, 2013)

literally chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Note what he identifies as the problem -* lack of democracy*. Nothing else.


 
Musical differences


----------



## articul8 (Jul 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Triple lol for ed miliband quoting Debord points. Do you know what you look like?


A bit like Tim Clark showing Tory MPs round a load of Lowry paintings?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> A bit like Tim Clark showing Tory MPs round a load of Lowry paintings?


 
Get fucked you chummy twat.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Get fucked you chummy twat.


They don't like it up 'em!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 2, 2013)

_I am literally on a charity walk!_


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 2, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> literally chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed


 
Pardon me boys, is that the chattanooga choo-choo?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _I am literally on a charity walk!_


If young Yaxo had said that, he would have been literally more truthful that Jones-Dawg.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 2, 2013)

He is literally on TV now


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'm literally having to go to oxbridge.


 
I literally had to go for a shit after reading Owen's whine.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 2, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> literally chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed gutted chuffed


 
I bet he's literally chutted and guffed, too.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 2, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I literally had to go for a shit after reading Owen's whine.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> He is literally on TV now


 

Was that guy on the right really a Labour politician? Wow.


----------



## cesare (Jul 2, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


>



I'm liking Red Whine even more than zote.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Jul 2, 2013)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...bands-labour-is-running-scared-of-owen-jones/


> “We’ve been told Ed wants to be seen leading a broad coalition,” says the second source. “We’ve all been instructed we can’t debate Owen Jones, and we can’t criticise him. We’ve been warned attacking him would be the equivalent of friendly fire.”


----------



## killer b (Jul 2, 2013)

i dislike the phrase 'debate <insert name>'. what's wrong with debating _with_ someone? 

i appreciate it probably isn't that important.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 2, 2013)

killer b said:


> i dislike the phrase 'debate <insert name>'. what's wrong with debating _with_ someone?
> 
> i appreciate it probably isn't that important.


It is kind of an important distinction, in that "debating Owen Jones" is something we are doing here, without _literally_ debating with Owen Jones like that titan of the labour movement Simon Danczuk was.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 2, 2013)

Cyril Smith, now this fella - poor Rochdale


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 2, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> It is kind of an important distinction, in that "debating Owen Jones" is something we are doing here, without _literally_ debating with Owen Jones like that titan of the labour movement Simon Danczuk was.


 

In a way all of us are owen jones. But in an equal sense, none of us are, nobody will ever know how he feels, except for owen jones, falling into the sea


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 2, 2013)

£5 for anyone who can find something Danczuk says about the actual policy under debate, rather than just criticising Jones for being "idealistic"


----------



## sihhi (Jul 2, 2013)

Nice use of the phrase "twitter types" for people who disagree with the 7 day bar.

"A Labour MP and left-wing newspaper columnist brought their twitter spat into the TV studio as they disagreed over changes to benefits for newly-unemployed people.

The Independent's Owen Jones said Simon Danczuk "sounded like a Tory MP" for appearing to back coalition plans to make people wait to claim benefits for seven days after losing a job.

But the MP said "welfare has limitations... and we have to build self-reliance among people". He also said he was not going to take lectures from a "privileged" columnist who "sounded like a 1980s alternative comedian".


Also good to see Labour hero David Blunket weighing in aswell on the importance of having a flexible labour market.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23147021


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 2, 2013)

Anyone know how we can get in on this?



> Register of Members’ Interests
> 2. Remunerated employment, office, profession etc
> Payments from ComRes, Four Millbank, London SW1P 3JA, for completing surveys:
> 13 February 2012, payment of £75. Hours: 15 mins. (Registered 28 September 2012)
> ...


----------



## sihhi (Jul 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone know how we can get in on this?


 
'completing surveys'? 

I assume it's only for MPs as in X% of MPs think China is a bigger threat to Britain than Al Qaeda; Y% of MPs would back a no confidence motion in the Speaker.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 2, 2013)

Normal people don't get £75 for it! they'd need to spend all day every day to earn what he does in 20 minutes. I wonder does he count this as a 'privilege'?


----------



## sihhi (Jul 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Normal people don't get £75 for it! they'd need to spend all day every day to earn what he does in 20 minutes. I wonder does he count this as a 'privilege'?


 
No for him it's a democratic duty of MPs. 
Surveys/Polls by telephone for normal people usually last longer, are very rare and they are paid nothing.

He dislikes Owen Jones that's for sure:




> People forget it wasn’t all that very long ago when we had a Labour Work and Pensions Secretary claiming that the welfare “system is crackers”. The eight principles of welfare reform outlined by David Blunkett in 2005 united around a common Labour principle, which we should never forget; that work is the best route out of poverty.
> 
> That the Tories are trying to make incursions into this territory is hardly surprising. But this is Labour territory and we should not be ceding it to a party that famously declared “unemployment is a price worth paying”. Labour understands the value and dignity of work better than any other political party. From our very reason for being founded as a party to represent the workers to our unshakeable bonds with the trade union movement, we have always understood the dignity and transformative power of work. The Tories don’t share these values. For them, the value of work is measured not so much in the dignified sweat on your brow or the strong communities it builds, but the Bentley on your drive and the gated community you can aspire to live in.
> 
> The recent pantomime TV debates between Owen Jones and Guido Fawkes, Owen Jones and Harry Cole, or Owen Jones and some other frothing right-winger created a lot of heat but little reforming light on welfare. If Owen and others think that the only people who want a stronger and sustainable welfare system are swivel-eyed crazies then they are wrong. This is by far the dominant view across the country, as every poll shows


 
He's also some kind of boss of a firm:

http://www.research-live.com/news/vision-21-boss-to-fight-next-general-election/3002743.article

"Simon Danczuk, boss of UK social research agency Vision 21, is in the running to be the next MP for Rochdale after winning the backing of local Labour Party members.
<snip>
Danczuk co-founded the agency in 1999 with Ruth Turner and Anne McNamara, however by 2005 both McNamara and Turner had left, selling their stakes in the business.

Since then, Danczuk has been building up a new management team, bringing in Nick Carley, co-founder of PR firm October Communications, as a director, and Kevin Lee, former Labour Party director for the North West region, as an associate director.

Along with director Helen Bidwell – a long-serving Vision 21 executive – Danczuk said: “The idea was to bring people in to help develop the company. There has always been an intention for me to do less day-to-day work.

“We're not at that stage yet,” he said, “but that [plan] moves forward.”

Danczuk is “convinced” he can win back the Rochdale seat for Labour at the next general election. In 2005, it went to the Liberal Democrats with a majority of just 444.

He is no stranger to politics, having been a councillor for Blackburn with Darwen from the age of 27 to 35. Now 40, he has been active in the Labour movement for over 20 years.

But were he to win at the next election, Danczuk said he has no intention of completely severing all ties with Vision 21.

Former business partner Ruth Turner also has close links with the Labour Party. She left Vision 21 in June 2005 to become Prime Minister Tony Blair's director of government relations.

On Friday, 19 January, Turner was arrested by police investigating the ‘cash-for-honours' affair – an inquiry into allegations people had been given peerages in exchange for donations and loans made to political parties."


----------



## agricola (Jul 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Normal people don't get £75 for it! they'd need to spend all day every day to earn what he does in 20 minutes. I wonder does he count this as a 'privilege'?


 
According to Wikipedia, ComRes have nearly 300 MPs doing these surveys.  They also have probably similar arrangements with MEPs, AMs, MSPs etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 2, 2013)

Money for old rope, money every way they turn.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 2, 2013)

Our Owen discusses "Brother in the Land", by Robert Swindells, a post-apocalyptic novel set in the North of England on Radio 4's A Good Read at 4.30.

That's ten minutes.


----------



## agricola (Jul 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Money for old rope, money every way they turn.


 
Sadly the same cannot be said of Vision 21 (mentioned by sihhi above, and shares in which are mentioned in his register of members interests entry), which went bust a couple of years ago. I wonder how it ended up owing £133,000 to HMRC?


----------



## caleb (Jul 2, 2013)

Libertad said:


> Our Owen discusses "Brother in the Land", by Robert Swindells, a post-apocalyptic novel set in the North of England on Radio 4's A Good Read at 4.30.
> 
> That's ten minutes.


 
What is it with this sort and sci-fi?


----------



## Libertad (Jul 2, 2013)

caleb said:


> What is it with this sort and sci-fi?


 
Not satisfied with the dystopia that they're experiencing?


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 2, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> £5 for anyone who can find something Danczuk says about the actual policy under debate, rather than just criticising Jones for being "idealistic"





"The benefit of being on benefits."

Wow. Just wow. I can't even bring myself to swear.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 3, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> "The benefit of being on benefits."
> 
> Wow. Just wow. I can't even bring myself to swear.


 

What is it with Labour politicians having columns in the Telegraph? First of all there's Dan Hodges, and now there's this Danczuk guy too.


----------



## where to (Jul 3, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:
			
		

> Danczuk guy too.



Interesting piece, it contradicts his own  support for the 7 day delay.


----------



## co-op (Jul 3, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> What is it with Labour politicians having columns in the Telegraph? First of all there's Dan Hodges, and now there's this Danczuk guy too.


 
Probably a sign that the Telegraph thinks Labour will win the next election or at any rate form the next govt. Got to have a few guys on the inside track.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2013)

Hodges is there to cause trouble for Miliband - he's effectively a Blair Gladiator.


----------



## co-op (Jul 3, 2013)

sihhi said:


> He dislikes Owen Jones that's for sure:
> 
> 
> 
> > People forget it wasn’t all that very long ago when we had a Labour Work and Pensions Secretary claiming that the welfare “system is crackers”. The eight principles of welfare reform outlined by David Blunkett in 2005 united around a common Labour principle, which we should never forget; *that work is the best route out of poverty.*


 
The "work is the best route out of poverty" one is a good 'un. For decades after WW2 it justified Labour's reformism - because it was basically true; if you had a job you weren't in poverty. And if you did that enough so that unemployment was low, and Unions were strong then wages for low paid people tended to rise and the general social wealth gradient got less steep. Creeping revolution. Just about credible. I bought it.

But when it comes out of the mouth of a Labour politician *now* it's utter horseshit. *The number of people in full time work who are also in poverty* now outnumber those in poverty who are workless.* The disconnect between employment/not in poverty began to show up under New Labour - that may tbf be co-incidental, they just happened to be in govt as the long term effects of Thatcherism kicked in. But this is what the whole series of Living Wage campaigns have been about (campaigns that Labour has tried to piggyback on) - the fact that the Minimum wage is so low that it can easily mean that many (most?) workers on it are in poverty. It's a fucking disgrace for Labour to claim that work is a way out of poverty; it isn't now, it wasn't under their 13 years in power and it won't be in the future unless they repeal TU legislation or massively boost the MW - both of which they certainly won't do.

**(by conventional definitions - expect them to be changed soon) *

http://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/2012/11/work-poverty-outstrips-poverty-workless-households


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 3, 2013)

Someone bought me his Chav book for my birthday. Is it worth reading?


----------



## treelover (Jul 3, 2013)

> It’s been an open secret in Labour circles for some time that Miliband’s office have been courting the 29-year-old Independent journalist, *with one insider saying Miliband’s senior adviser Stewart Wood has been acting as his “handler”.* Although Jones’ writing is seen as being influential, he is also an important link to the unions – via the new union-funded think-tank Class which Jones fronts – and the direct action movement, via the newly formed People’s Assembly Against Austerity.


 

From Hodges blog, surely this is rubbish, if it is true then Owen has been very disengenous in his role as an 'independent' activist who just supports the LP.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 3, 2013)

I don't think he'll be formally working to orders from Miliband's office - but of course they want to influence him


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 3, 2013)

fractionMan said:


> Someone bought me his Chav book for my birthday. Is it worth reading?


 
yeah its worth a go. Nothing you don't already know but a decent read despite that


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2013)

These are the people wood talks to most- the same old bubble.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 3, 2013)

fractionMan said:


> Someone bought me his Chav book for my birthday. Is it worth reading?


 
There are lots of opinions on the book contained in this thread.

I personally think the book is garbage and the politics underpinning it worthless/disengenuous. Other than that it's alright.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 3, 2013)

co-op said:


> *The number of people in full time work who are also in poverty* now outnumber those in poverty who are workless.*


 
please don't say workless when you mean unemployed


----------



## Libertad (Jul 3, 2013)

smokedout said:


> please don't say workless when you mean unemployed


 
Insidious, this whole vocabulary. See also "welfare", "service users" and all the other wankspeak.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 4, 2013)

Owen Jones was on This Morning with Nadine Dorries debating 'health tourism', did brilliantly and even got a hilarious jab in at the end while Nadine Dorries tried to be jokey with him, "this is all just a game to you isn't it?" A+++


----------



## sihhi (Jul 4, 2013)

What can you say:- Ed Miliband, Sunny Hundal, Owen Jones and the resigned Archbishop.


----------



## treelover (Jul 4, 2013)

what event was that?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2013)

the archbish looks starving


----------



## emanymton (Jul 5, 2013)

treelover said:


> what event was that?


Some kind of Islamic benefit thing I believe. And the Archbishop probably is starving if it was like the one I went to during the last round of attacks on Gaza. Took them ages to serve the bloody food.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> What can you say:- Ed Miliband, Sunny Hundal, Owen Jones and the resigned Archbishop.


 
Looks like Tariq "two bottles" Ali on t'other table to the right (teehee!) of Williams.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 6, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Some kind of Islamic benefit thing I believe. And the Archbishop probably is starving if it was like the one I went to during the last round of attacks on Gaza. Took them ages to serve the bloody food.



Launch of a Ramadan fundraising campaign if its what I think it is...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2013)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Launch of a Ramadan fundraising campaign if its what I think it is...


 
For what? What do you think that's what it is?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 7, 2013)

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ours-union-links-must-notsucceed-8693653.html

Owen Jones tells the truth about Labour Students and it makes them very upset, anti-Owen Jones nonsense from right-wing Labour Students all over twitter lol


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> For what? What do you think that's what it is?



Grammar fail? I know there was a Ramadan campaign launch this week and the photos I've seen look an awful lot like that one. Didn't hear OJ or Sunny was there though...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 7, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ours-union-links-must-notsucceed-8693653.html
> 
> Owen Jones tells the truth about Labour Students and it makes them very upset, anti-Owen Jones nonsense from right-wing Labour Students all over twitter lol



Brave fella that Owen Jones.


----------



## treelover (Jul 8, 2013)

Sickening to find out that Jim Murphy supported the welfare uprating bill which massively cut benefits, I seem to recall he spent some time on the dole.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 8, 2013)

The guy is trying too hard:

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/354157030174494720

Mehdi Hasan is a snake too:

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/354184425250107395

(Muslim or Non-Muslim) socialists attacking capitalist charity bash = not standing side by side with British Muslims


----------



## caleb (Jul 8, 2013)

Hasan seems to be siding with Morsi and the MB in the name of democracy, or am I reading his tweets wrong?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2013)

I do find these capitalist gala dinners for charities a bit sick making to be honest. World Jewish relief do them as well as I am on their mailing list because I helped out with a load of stuff in the past. I wonder how much money goes on the charity galas which are supposed to "raise money" rather than the people that they're meant to be helping. I think Crisis do them as well not sure about others, I'm sure things like Cats Protection etc do too. 

Can anyone point me in the direction of any Marxist critiques of the charity sector?


----------



## treelover (Jul 8, 2013)

You don't have to be a Marxist to be very critical of charities, etc, many disabled people are very very disappointed with how their respective organisations have responded to the benefit reforms and on going misery and how they have been co-opted by the govt, etc.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2013)

treelover said:


> You don't have to be a Marxist to be very critical of charities, etc, many disabled people are very very disappointed with how their respective organisations have responded to the benefit reforms and on going misery and how they have been co-opted by the govt, etc.


 

There's not really all that much about it though, it would be good to read something in depth about it, I keep on wanting to write something about it but I don't have the time/the knowledge to do it. Even in the SP they sometimes shied away from criticising charities too much at times.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Can anyone point me in the direction of any Marxist critiques of the charity sector?


 
A Bed for the Night

I hear that in New York
At the corner of 26th street and Broadway
A man stands every evening during the winter months
And gets beds for the homeless there
By appealing to passers-by.

It won’t change the world
It won’t improve relations among men
It will not shorten the age of exploitation
But a few men have a bed for the night
For a night the wind is kept from them
The snow meant for them falls on the roadway.

Don’t put down the book on reading this, man.

A few people have a bed for the night
For a night the wind is kept from them
The snow meant for them falls on the roadway
But it won’t change the world
It won’t improve relations among men
It will not shorten the age of exploitation.

Bertolt Brecht


----------



## sihhi (Jul 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I do find these capitalist gala dinners for charities a bit sick making to be honest.


 
But "this is Muslim, allow it, Muslims oppressed" etc etc


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2013)

sihhi said:


> But "this is Muslim, allow it, Muslims oppressed" etc etc


 

so what? i want to know if i give money to something, i want to know where the money is going. and jews and christians are also oppressed in various parts of the world, if i'm going to give money to something i'd like to know that the money is actually helping people rather than going down owen jones's throat.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 8, 2013)

sihhi said:


> But "this is Muslim, allow it, Muslims oppressed" etc etc


 

Reckon Owen Jones would decline to go to non-Muslim capitalist charity galas?


----------



## rekil (Jul 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Can anyone point me in the direction of any Marxist critiques of the charity sector?






			
				Jay Z said:
			
		

> To some degree charity is a racket in a capitalist system, a way of making our obligations to one another optional, and of keeping poor people feeling a sense of indebtedness to the rich, even if the rich spend every other day exploiting those same people


!


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 8, 2013)

"Now go out and buy my new range of clothing merchandise..."

(yours for only $50, made in an Honduran sweatshop for less than livable wage)


----------



## sihhi (Jul 8, 2013)

I have no idea J Ed

Sunny Hundal, Blairite Sadiq Khan, millionaire sister of Tory MP Jemima Khan, Rowan Williams, Ed Miliband, Mehdi Hasan, Owen Jones. 

http://www.islamic-relief.org.uk/ne...d-express-support-for-islamic-relief-campaign

Here is the UK director.

https://twitter.com/jehangirmalik

He retweets stuff conforming the general worldview. Turkey's democracy has expanded because of Muslim democracy, bomb threats against mosques are terrorism, Syria must be a focus of anti-hunger efforts.

It sponsors lots of events tied to the Muslim Council of Britain.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 8, 2013)

Islamic Relief welcoming one of the richest men in the world welcoming one of the most deceitful governments against the poor and hungry maintaining its aid budget.
Long live Muslim-Christian Unity.

https://twitter.com/IslamicReliefUK/status/313180607687561216

Background http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...iggest-charitable-donations-in-history.241871


----------



## rekil (Jul 8, 2013)

steph said:


> "Now go out and buy my new range of clothing merchandise..."
> 
> (yours for only $50, made in an Honduran sweatshop for less than livable wage)


say it ain't so


----------



## sihhi (Jul 8, 2013)

He's sneaky and goes with the flow that suits.

He's retweeted this guff about lack of ethnic minority journalists

https://twitter.com/commentisfree/status/354273928421707776 

The whole thrust of Chavs was about how it was the absence of working-class figures that needed to be redressed (and when done properly) the ethnic composition would jump up as a result. 
His stuff about MPs is also about working-class MPs (naturally he believes it's possible to be a working-class Parliament MP "rooted" in your community  )


 ... we need more working-class people rooted in their communities in Parliament. I interviewed Hazel Blears before the last general election and asked her - there's up to 5 million people stuck on social housing waiting lists, why didn't Labour do anything to solve it? And she - candidly to her credit - said there just wasn't anyone interested in housing. But if you had people in Parliament who had been stuck on a social housing waiting list, or whose kids were in that situation, those sorts of issues would be forced to the top of the agenda. That's why we need more working-class people as MPs; I type this en route to Peterborough, where I'm doing an event in support of Lisa Forbes, a brilliant working-class Labour candidate who will be taking on an odious homophobic Tory MP.
Plus, I already get people accusing me of being a careerist using his politics to build a profile for himself, which to anyone who knows me is a bit of a joke, but _if I stood as a Labour candidate there would obviously be the suggestion I was going through the clichéd journey of radical-lefty-turned-ambitious-politico-sellout_. But at the same time I fear at the moment I'm unaccountable - no-one has elected me to speak on their behalf, and I worry about just being seen as a lefty rent-a-gob with no mandate to say what he believes.
I do think we need more socialists in Parliament. I want a Labour government that fights for working people, particularly at a time of crisis. At the end of the day, at some point, I'll have to make a judgement based on how I can best push the beliefs I've had - which I've had all my life and will have till the day I have - and try and give a platform to issues, causes and people otherwise completely ignored by the media and political establishment. It's worth pointing out I never wanted to be a journalist and - after ending up here by accident - I'm only using it as a means to an end.
Tip to Owen Jones, you don't have to be an MP to be a sellout.
_if I stood as a Labour candidate there would obviously be the suggestion I was going through the clichéd journey of radical-lefty-turned-ambitious-politico-sellout_


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2013)

So essentially turning the (white?) working class into another identity group?


----------



## sihhi (Jul 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> So essentially turning the (white?) working class into another identity group?


 
No he has a diatribe in Chavs (which is a waste of money doesn't deserve buying, worth borrowing) about how the left gave up on the working-class and class - evidence is - kid you not - in 2007 the keywords in the database of academic articles shows more for 'post-colonial' and 'women' than 'working-class'. That's 'left' to him.
He's a buffoon.

Weekly Worker says Owen Jones is back in the LRC:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/969/lrc-left-in-the-dark

"And what about that Owen Jones, anyway? A few months ago, comrade Stan Keable took him to task on the matter of Leninism, while conceding “activists in the Labour Representation Committee feel justly proud when we see our very own Owen Jones on TV demolishing rightwing politicians and standing up for students, workers, unemployed and disabled people” (‘Babies and bathwater’ Weekly Worker February 7). Those same activists were no doubt slightly wrong-footed when, in Facebook discussions on the piece, comrade Jones conceded that he had let his LRC membership lapse, and was more enthused about the Coalition of Resistance.
Now, according to some, he is back in the fold."


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2013)

Someone on here sent it to me, I haven't read the whole thing but lent it to dotty, I've read a couple of chapters. Is the whole thing worth reading?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 9, 2013)

a lot of it is stuff-you-already-know- the whole compare/contrast between how a missing child scam (karen whatserface) was used to tar an entire community as subhuman scum but middle class parents of maddie were treated with nothing but sympathy and horror at their plight etc. Then theres stuff about the anti working class nature of what happened in the aftermath of hillsborough etc.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> a lot of it is stuff-you-already-know- the whole compare/contrast between how a missing child scam (karen whatserface) was used to tar an entire community as subhuman scum but middle class parents of maddie were treated with nothing but sympathy and horror at their plight etc. Then theres stuff about the anti working class nature of what happened in the aftermath of hillsborough etc.


 

I'm not sure they were treated with nothing but sympathy and horror tho ... although a lot less of that sort of thing than with karen whatserface.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I'm not sure they were treated with nothing but sympathy and horror tho ... although a lot less of that sort of thing than with karen whatserface.


 
It was a weak comparison, Karen Matthews did have pity at the start when people naturally magnified the call to find her daughter, when it was found out it was a lie, the anger was all the more bitter, the McCanns did not commit fraud and imprison their own daughter, hence no diatribes against them. 
I'm not sure how Verso ever published it.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2013)

But there were people in the media implying they were lying, etc.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> But there were people in the media implying they were lying, etc.


 

quickly vilified and silenced as having dared to intrude on the narrative of the blameless mganns


I'd agree that the comparison was weak- not that the level of vitriol directed at the whole community was justified or logical though. It did bring out some naked class hatred from journos that had nothing to do with righteous anger at a woman who'd used her child to dupe everyone for finacial gain


----------



## sihhi (Jul 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> But there were people in the media implying they were lying, etc.


 
That's because Matthews and her partner _were_ lying and police sources to newspapers indicated that their initial statements were misleading.

Anyway, Owen seems to think people should be worried about a drop in Labour funding.


Worried about a drop in Labour’s funding? Don’t worry! Loads of hedge funds, tax avoiding businesspeople and legal loan sharks out there

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/354510936167559168


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> quickly vilified and silenced as having dared to intrude on the narrative of the blameless mganns
> 
> 
> I'd agree that the comparison was weak- not that the level of vitriol directed at the whole community was justified or logical though. It did bring out some naked class hatred from journos that had nothing to do with righteous anger at a woman who'd used her child to dupe everyone for finacial gain


 
yep


----------



## sihhi (Jul 9, 2013)

Also he doesn't understand how rightist capitalism actually wants a highly advanced industrial society to function:

The right will never be satisfied or appeased until the trade unions are completely driven from British political life


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2013)

sorry i meant people implied mccanns were lying!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2013)

I think a comparison between say John Diamond and Jade Goody may have been more straightforward.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Also he doesn't understand how rightist capitalism actually wants a highly advanced industrial society to function:
> 
> The right will never be satisfied or appeased until the trade unions are completely driven from British political life


 

to be fair, then half of the trot left doesn't understand that then ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2013)

John Diamond gets this (in the travel section oddly enough):



> It was no accident that the summer parties he threw with his second wife, the journalist Nigella Lawson, were famous for being attended, in turn, by the famous whom he so enjoyed collecting around him and who, in return, so loved him.
> 
> In the summer of 1999, there was another John and Nigella party, this time thrown for them by the architect Lord Rogers and his wife Ruthie. It was, we were told, to mark 10 years of their relationship, though as John had only recently been informed that his condition was terminal it was clear we were celebrating an extraordinary life as well as a marvellous marriage.


 

Jade Goody get this:

What next? ‘I’m a tumour, get me out of here’? 



> Here’s a notable first for television — a contestant on a Big Brother programme was told, in front of a television audience, that she had cancer. The woman in question was Jade Goody, whom you may vaguely remember as the coarse, thick, Bermondsey chav who sprung to national prominence for having been allegedly racist on a previous series of the programme.


 


> I assume she really does have cancer and that they weren’t all joking, having a bit of a laugh, ‘pulling her plonker’ as the demotic has it. Or — another consideration — that it’s a publicity stunt whipped up by Jade’s charming agent, Max Clifford. Or again, it is not inconceivable, I suppose, that written into Goody’s contract was a demand that at some point she be seen to be suffering from a potentially fatal illness, given that without one she isn’t very interesting any more. A stroke would have made for more dramatic television, but cancer, you have to say, has a certain cachet. Jade’s life expectancy as a celebrity has certainly entered its tamoxifen and radiation therapy stage, although it is not quite at the no-more-drugs-I-just-wish-to-be-at-home-with-the-family endgame. It has been a fairly brief life in the spotlight, although not brief enough for many. Calling the smug Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty ‘poppadom’ and thus causing a national furore about racism was the high point of her career; since then it’s all been downhill.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 9, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> quickly vilified and silenced as having dared to intrude on the narrative of the blameless mganns


 
(At the time at the Sun) Jon Gaunt wrote an attack on the McCanns for them not taking their daughter with them to their evening with a pack of playing cards suggesting it was middle-class selfishness which lay at the root of their ill judgement and disappearance.



> I'd agree that the comparison was weak- not that the level of vitriol directed at the whole community was justified or logical though. It did bring out some naked class hatred from journos that had nothing to do with righteous anger at a woman who'd used her child to dupe everyone for finacial gain


 
It brought this out yes but it was (middle-class) newspapers the Telegraph, Independent and Guardian that suggested yoking Matthews and McCanns in order to redouble efforts for media senationalism for the Matthews case. 
In both cases what particular special reporting was required other than pictures of the child abducted and where they were last seen, and updates on police labour usage and particular requests.
According to most psychologists, sensationalist extreme coverage allows abductee paedophiles (or murderers) to re-receive their thrills, and doesn't encourage them to come forward and confess. 

Just about every crime in a poor area or every injury at work brings out classism in its reporting or the absence of reporting. It was an unsatisfactory start to the book.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Jade Goody get this:
> 
> What next? ‘I’m a tumour, get me out of here’?


 
He does make that comparison as many did at the time of Goody's death - but it is a very short comparison - a line or two.

And for every good two-line comparison, it is full of stuff like:-

'It is middle-class bands like Coldplay or Keane that rule the roost in music'

bemoaning how inauthentic soaps are and how inauthentic Damon Albarn is compared to Oasis.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It brought this out yes but it was (middle-class) newspapers the Telegraph, Independent and Guardian that suggested yoking Matthews and McCanns in order to redouble efforts for media senationalism for the Matthews case..


 
in fairness it was also Karen Matthews and her cronies, who almost right away tried to con money off the McCanns .


----------



## sihhi (Jul 9, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> in fairness it was also Karen Matthews and her cronies, who almost right away tried to con money off the McCanns.


 
Yes and more to the point:- should every campaign deserve public charity - surely the demand should have been for equal investigation to find missing or kidnapped children?
Owen Jones reduces a complex series of events (hence difficult to yoke together in spite of the ostensible missing child similarity) to the most banal Trot-like (even though he'd hate that! LOL) scream of 'OMG working-class don't get a fair voice in the media'.
For instance, a lot of the column inches and then sympathy donations in the Madeleine McCann came as a result of the McCanns being treated as suspects by the Portuguese police, then there was more interest as others were also questioned as suspects including another British holiday home owner - it was a rolling story.
Karen Matthews' story did not have the same rolling new details of information effect in part because it was a hoax. Police found no sightings of anything at all happening much less anything suspicious, nothing and nobody to particularly question until doubts began to develop about the behaviour of her parents/carers.


Anyway a public meeting with OJ and purely ultra peaceful protestor Ellie Mae O'Hagan.

_People's Assembly: people, listen to union bureaucrats and weekly Indie columnists_


https://twitter.com/PeoplesBookshop/status/354694172436987908


----------



## sihhi (Jul 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> For what? What do you think that's what it is?


 
It's a campaign against hunger - hence a lavish slap up, fine China, crystal glass four course meal makes perfect sense. One in the eye for people like you who don't like it or something ... 

https://twitter.com/y_alibhai/status/353071149657235456

Thanks Mehdi Hassan for invite to the Islamic Relief dinner. The charity has declared war on hunger. How will rabid atheists respond?

Is that "rabid athiests" meaning "athiests" are essentially "rabid" or the rabid ones of them believe religions don't do charity, Yasmin? I'd say weak Labour luvvie Muslim liberals but I'd be an Islamophobe.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2013)

> Thanks Mehdi Hassan for invite to the Islamic Relief dinner. The charity has declared war on hunger. How will rabid atheists respond?


 
War on hunger, how good of them. Plainly this is proof of God's existence


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2013)

Wait...what?


----------



## sihhi (Jul 9, 2013)

I don't even know if it's the real Yasmin Alibhai Brown the tweets are so outlandish and cartoon liberal

_Chief Rabbi warns Jewish people marrying out will kill Jewry. So, what to do? Forced marriages? Mixed kids expelled? Some chief, some Rabbi_

_Met Martha Lane Fox properly on thurs night. Open, bright, warm, so too her man passionate about saving our oceans. Being good humans._

_Was in Belfast on BBC Sunday Live. Saw Catholic/Protestant couples, diverse, cool folk, gay pride march. What a difference peace makes_

Made a short polemic film on the new sport of bashing the poor. Catch that and the follow-up debate on Sunday Morning Live BBC1

_Defended the Venable decision on the Jeremy Vine Show. Brits were humane  when Mary Black , 11 murdered two younger children. Not any more_

_Was not invited to Osborne's party for successful Ugandan Asians. Maybe retribution. Must learn to suck up to power._

_British Library this pm with historian Linda Colley and Jonathan Freedland- talking about Britain's image abroad. Anyone from Ukip coming?_

_Hateful Muslim rapist barbarians never knew the joy of consensual sex. And never will. Pity the sinners._

_The Night Alive, the Donmar- in your face and heart. Between people who have nothing, love comes through. A 'shirkers' triumph. Brilliant._

This is the best

_Lawyers stop legal aid withdrawal; historians beat back Gove's spun history. Labour fiddles. Professionals- new leaders of the opposition_


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2013)

WJR have sent me some ridiculous spam sihhi, including raising money with a "business breakfast with terry leahy" 

The fact is that many of these charities especially the larger ones are basically businesses. No matter how "religious" they are.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2013)

> _Defended the Venable decision on the Jeremy Vine Show. Brits were humane when Mary Black , 11 murdered two younger children. Not any more_


 
our genes must have degenerated


----------



## sihhi (Jul 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> WJR have sent me some ridiculous spam sihhi, including raising money with a "business breakfast with terry leahy"
> 
> The fact is that many of these charities especially the larger ones are basically businesses. No matter how "religious" they are.


 
Apparently WJR combined with IR to make some weird courses for schools

http://www.diversityanddialogue.org.uk/node/204

_Diversity and Dialogue was conceived at a meeting of Christian, Jewish, Muslim and secular NGOs in July 2002. They talked about the problems that the Middle East and other conflicts were causing for interfaith relations in the UK and thought about what they could do. Their conclusion was a commitment to run an interfaith education project in partnership: Diversity and Dialogue._


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2013)

How come hindu and sikh charities are not involved  or atheist charities for that matter (are there any?)


----------



## sihhi (Jul 9, 2013)

Guess where?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Guess where?


 

where?


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> How come hindu and sikh charities are not involved  or atheist charities for that matter (are there any?)


 
they are all religions originating in the middle east though - maybe its a "was formerly part of Assyria" thing.


----------



## yield (Jul 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> atheist charities for that matter (are there any?)


There are lots of secular charities.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2013)

yield said:


> There are lots of secular charities.


 

I know there are - I meant is there Atheist Relief or anything like that


----------



## yield (Jul 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I know there are - I meant is there Atheist Relief or anything like that


Humanist Charities?


> The BHA is sometimes asked to recommend secular charities, and occasionally we are asked why there are no specifically humanist ones.  Our answer to the second request is contained in our answer to the first one – when there are so many excellent, non-religious, inclusive charities we generally see no need to set up our own.


So the answer appears to be no.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 10, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> where?


 
At the entrance for the People's Assembly where Owen Jones was a main speaker. $$$.


----------



## treelover (Jul 10, 2013)

what wrong with selling your book at a place you are speaking?


----------



## sihhi (Jul 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> what wrong with selling your book at a place you are speaking?


 
It was meant to be a People's assembly - a congress for organising action.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 10, 2013)

> Ismael Serrano  @*SerranoIsmael*
> Uno agradece escuchar a @*Pablo_Iglesias_* entre tanto tertuliano aburrido y políticamente correcto. Nuestro Owen Jones español (@*OwenJones84*)
> 5:47 PM - 10 Jul 2013


 
He's gone international, lefty singer song writer hails lefty Spanish commentator Pablo Iglesias as "the Spanish Owen Jones"


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 10, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I know there are - I meant is there Atheist Relief or anything like that



There could never be because atheism isn't a belief system or anything that creates major bonds of commonality.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2013)

Or because atheists and secularists are largely happy to work with the religious for charity.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 10, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I know there are - I meant is there Atheist Relief or anything like that


 
But it makes no sense to. The whole point of atheism on a social level is that societies should be secular.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 10, 2013)

Those courses are still a bit weird though.  where are the hindus and sikhs?

wtf is the difference between an interfaith youth group and a normal youth group? surely youth groups should include people of all religions and be accessible to all (no alcohol etc, vegetarian food served and that sort of thing)

sihhi


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 10, 2013)

I guess I don't have "intersectional-loving heart" so i don't understand


----------



## sihhi (Jul 10, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Those courses are still a bit weird though.  where are the hindus and sikhs?
> 
> wtf is the difference between an interfaith youth group and a normal youth group? surely youth groups should include people of all religions and be accessible to all (no alcohol etc, vegetarian food served and that sort of thing)
> 
> sihhi


 
Yes I think it's disturbing for it to be stressed in this fashion - it's like announcing the
_Equal Opportunities-committed Oxford University_
_genderinclusive political parties_
_intersectional socialism_

The more you stress it the more of a facade it appears.

Also frogwoman The PD cadre need an intersectional spiel from you for the Workers' Girder to make up the damn quota. Something like this intersectionalist's political programme

_My presence in the world provides a different viewpoint that can challenge others, and all the power inherent within that different voice. This is awesome. __So when I introduce myself as a queer black fat femme feminist, I cannot present myself in any lesser way. I've been questioned by others on this (mostly white men, unfortunately) that it's a bit much, that I'm putting myself into boxes when I'm just human. My sensible, adult response to that is "fuck off"! I refuse cut myself into smaller parts to fit any longer. It is as damning and extreme as I make that last sentence sound. When I'm in intersectional spaces, my heart glows. I gain something I didn't realise was missing; of which its absence had hurt me so much and caused so much damage._


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 10, 2013)

*This Tisha B'Av ... Think about Oppression. As Usual. *

Proletarian Democracy's recent yet welcome forays over the intersectional crossroads, while they have angered some stalwarts of the Barry Mainwaring faction of our Party who still prefer to see everything exactly as it appeared to the Western admirers of Lenin and Trotsky in 1917, with class as the fundamental source of inequality in our society, strike a blow for those within our ranks who have been arguing that in order to become a truly transformatory movement Proletarian Democracy must make smashing the kyriarchical systems which form a tangled web of oppressions for us all, whether they are from the new bourgeoisie or the oppressed proletariat.

Indeed Proletarian Democracy's very name is potentially pandering to unexamined privileges since it excludes those who may not be part of the proletariat, such as New Statesman columnists and editors, and those who do not support democracy - a highly contentious concept in the third world post-colonial setting.

The comrade who requested that I write this piece requested that I do an "intersectional spiel". Well, I will call him out. I will call him out right now and say that I felt oppressed by his cultural appropriation of that word which has formed such an essential part of our culture. What is next, buying and wearing a furry black hat in winter when it is cold, while eating fish and chips? Only days away from a fast which commemorates centuries of oppression, too. Did he know that? I bet he didn't, the bastard.

There are times when, as a westerner enmeshed in a mesh of privilege which benefits me more than it oppresses me, I have to call myself out and reflect on how oppressive my own actions are. Take for example the word I just said, the word "bastard". By using that word I am silencing the voice of people who were born out of wedlock. But by not using it I am allowing myself to hide away when I really need my wrongness to be shown the hell up. That's what intersectionality is about, it is about calling people out and showing them the hell up. Because most of them are too privileged to realise how wrong they are and how they benefit from everything that is wrong in the world, and the ones that are oppressed have the privilege of never having to be called out, so they're benefitting too.

So at this time of year think about how oppressed you are. And then "examine your privilege" and tell yourself what a bad comrade you are for thinking you're oppressed. Because if you're privileged enough to be able to read this, you've benefited from the oppression of people who haven't been able to. And you are. A very bad comrade indeed.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2013)

I dont have the energy to wade through 60 odd pgaes of this . But young jones has appeared on my radar a few times and i didnt think he was all that harmful, mind you i have only the sketchiest knowlege . Could someone please tell me what hes been saying about _chavs_, as that seems to be an issue here.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 11, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> He's gone international, lefty singer song writer hails lefty Spanish commentator Pablo Iglesias as "the Spanish Owen Jones"


 
Is Ismael Serrano bigging the guy up with or doing him down?

Anyway the imperialism of the British Left wing commentariat continues, this time recolonising the white Commonwealth.

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/355073809897893888

About to address the New Zealand trade union youth wing via the wonders of Skype. Exciting! Beer in one hand. I look like a reprobate


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Is Ismael Serrano bigging the guy up with or doing him down?
> 
> Anyway the imperialism of the British Left wing commentariat continues, this time recolonising the white Commonwealth.
> 
> ...


bigging him up. Both Serrano and Iglesias are pretty close to Jones' sort of politics (except in Spain there's a Left Party, so they don't have to be pro-PSOE by default)


----------



## sihhi (Jul 11, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> bigging him up. Both Serrano and Iglesias are pretty close to Jones' sort of politics (except in Spain there's a Left Party, so they don't have to be pro-PSOE by default)


 
Is that the Izquierda Unida or someone else? Do they support Batasuna and Basque independence?

I think Owen Jones is very pro-Union.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Is that the Izquierda Unida or someone else? Do they support Batasuna and Basque independence?
> 
> I think Owen Jones is very pro-Union.


Yeah, both linked to IU (not sure if they're members or not). The IU isn't really pro or anti independence, I think their policy is "freedom to choose", and their Catalan section is pro-referendum, but they've also referred to the PP as a "factory for making indepedentists".


----------



## cantsin (Jul 11, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> I dont have the energy to wade through 60 odd pgaes of this . But young jones has appeared on my radar a few times and i didnt think he was all that harmful, mind you i have only the sketchiest knowlege . Could someone please tell me what hes been saying about _chavs_, as that seems to be an issue here.


 

people are definitely too ready to attack Jones constantly - his adherence to the Labour Party is mind boggling at times, but the reason it appears so mad is because he seems so sound on so many fronts, always ready to take a (at least vaguely)  class based stance on current issues, fights his corner relentlessly against all comers -, of course there's a bit of self aggrandising /the PA's pure hot air/ and I've no idea what his long term contribution to anything in particular will be,   but  he's young and bright and not-posh ( to use a technical term)and there's no one else out there who's going to be taking on filth like Simon Danzcuk like he does.


----------



## ayatollah (Jul 11, 2013)

cantsin said:


> people are definitely too ready to attack Jones constantly - his adherence to the Labour Party is mind boggling at times, but the reason it appears so mad is because he seems so sound on so many fronts, always ready to take a (at least vaguely) class based stance on current issues, fights his corner relentlessly against all comers -, of course there's a bit of self aggrandising /the PA's pure hot air/ and I've no idea what his long term contribution to anything in particular will be, but he's young and bright and not-posh ( to use a technical term)and there's no one else out there who's going to be taking on filth like Simon Danzcuk like he does.


 
FFS cantsin ! "there's no one else out there who's going to be taking on filth like Simon Danzcuk like he does". Actually there's a million genuine Left activists with an actual record of struggle perfectly capable of ripping shits like Simon Danzcuk a second aresehole in any debate !  But they aren't the capitalist media ordained  all -purpose slightly Leftie but ultimately extremely mainstream Labour  "spokesperson" who alone appears as the self selected "voice of the Left, everywhere, are they ?   The capitalist media love Owen Jones - because he looks so unimpressively like a sixth form debating society Leftie, and simply doesn't have the gravitas or aggression to rip bullying blusterers like Danzcuk to shreds in the "managed" environment of TV "debate". He's got no record of personal activism predating his post Chavs fame either - and he's no spring chicken despite his yoof- full appearance, so he SHOULD have a past record of (non remunerated) struggle to match his "radical" rhetoric . Face it, He's simply using the Leftie posturing to build a personal career - leaving his options open as to whether this is just as media pundit (Leftie now -  right wing renegade when older) , or also as a Labour MP.

Wake up cantsin,  he's so blatant an opportunist, in an endless long line of opportunist self-promoting celebrity Leftie (but eventually renegade rightist)  posers,  he's practically got it on a big neon sign above his head !  He's not "sound on so many fronts" - he's just mouthing banal middle of the road slightly Left Labour platitudes - and trying to recruit the gullible back to Labour as members and voters.

By the way , cantsin, a treasure map, the real deal - honestly - trust me on this,  on lovely authentic parchment, has just come my way. Can I sell it to you for a mere snip at £1000 ?


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2013)

> Actually there's a million genuine Left activists with an actual record of struggle perfectly capable of ripping shits like Simon Danzcuk a second aresehole in any debate !


 
are you for real?

btw, can't find the video but he certainly got under 'Duncan Smith's' skin on Q/T awhile ago, twat went purple, prodding his finger like a street thug.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

He's right. Your whole politics is based on him being right ffs.


----------



## cantsin (Jul 11, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> FFS cantsin ! "there's no one else out there who's going to be taking on filth like Simon Danzcuk like he does". Actually there's a million genuine Left activists with an actual record of struggle perfectly capable of ripping shits like Simon Danzcuk a second aresehole in any debate ! But they aren't the capitalist media ordained all -purpose slightly Leftie but ultimately extremely mainstream Labour "spokesperson" who alone appears as the self selected "voice of the Left, everywhere, are they ? The capitalist media love Owen Jones - because he looks so unimpressively like a sixth form debating society Leftie, and simply doesn't have the gravitas or aggression to rip bullying blusterers like Danzcuk to shreds in the "managed" environment of TV "debate". He's got no record of personal activism predating his post Chavs fame either - and he's no spring chicken despite his yoof- full appearance, so he SHOULD have a past record of (non remunerated) struggle to match his "radical" rhetoric . Face it, He's simply using the Leftie posturing to build a personal career - leaving his options open as to whether this is just as media pundit (Leftie now - right wing renegade when older) , or also as a Labour MP.
> 
> Wake up cantsin, he's so blatant an opportunist, in an endless long line of opportunist self-promoting celebrity Leftie (but eventually renegade rightist) posers, he's practically got it on a big neon sign above his head ! He's not "sound on so many fronts" - he's just mouthing banal middle of the road slightly Left Labour platitudes - and trying to recruit the gullible back to Labour as members and voters.
> 
> By the way , cantsin, a treasure map, the real deal - honestly - trust me on this, on lovely authentic parchment, has just come my way. Can I sell it to you for a mere snip at £1000 ?


 
lulz, appreciate the sentiments here, but:

1 ) "there's no one else out there who's going to be taking on filth like Simon Danzcuk like he does " = as in , there's no one "out there" in meejah luvvie land , not "out there " in general - I'm making no great claims for OJ, but I see his anger when taking on the likes of Danscuk and Dan Hodges as genuine, and I dont see that elsewhere in the mainstream media - it doesnt make it important , or significant, and of course is to some degree or another the media reacting to changing times with a palatable lefty, but I dont see it as "posturing",.

2 ) " leaving his options open as to whether this is just as media pundit (Leftie now - right wing renegade when older) , or also as a Labour MP. " agreed, but i did say : _I've no idea what his long term contribution to anything in particular will be" _


3 ) but bearing in mind his mum and dad were both Militant, i dont think his inevitable drift to the right is nailed on t, I dont see that a big trait of Miltant types ( if that's what he is )


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 11, 2013)

he says some good stuff, thats all . If it makes some people sit up and think about issues its a positive in my view

mind you if hes sticking up for chavs hes a little cunt


----------



## Libertad (Jul 11, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> he says some good stuff, thats all . If it makes some people sit up and think about issues its a positive in my view
> 
> mind you if hes sticking up for chavs hes a little cunt


 
He's failed in your case then.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jul 12, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> FFS cantsin ! "there's no one else out there who's going to be taking on filth like Simon Danzcuk like he does". Actually there's a million genuine Left activists with an actual record of struggle perfectly capable of ripping shits like Simon Danzcuk a second aresehole in any debate !quote]
> 
> .


 
As per usual as good as 100% wrong. The media didn't select a glib Jones out of a cast of millions but rather because he is the only one routinely available to them who can credibly, in the interests of balance, forward a counter argument, given that all the professional politicians either know nothing of the working class or are simply 'agin em'. 'Credibly' is the operative word.

Simply put 'Left activists with and actual record of struggle' are the same people mired in generations of failure who have also time and again been rejected resoundly by the constituency they claim to represent.

So should your 'Left activist' make a telling point the Simon Danzcuk of this world would automatically question his/her credentials. 'That's all very well, but how then do you explain why, when you stood for SA/SLP/Left Unity you got exactly 16 votes' and so on.
End of credibility. End of debate. Embarassment all round.

It would be like Kirsty Wark or Paxman introducing a guest to discuss the finer points of medical ethics knowing full well that said guest had, despite the adoption of various aliases, had repeatedly been found out and struck off.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2013)

I wonder - given the looming strike vote - if Jones is freelance at the Independent or on the wage-bill. And if the former, what solidarity action he will be taking as regards turning in his column that week.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2013)

...and i'm not asking that in a snide, oh i doubt he'll put his money where his mouth is way, but recent strikes have been undermined by people saying _sorry guv nothing to do with me, i'm freelance_ (esp in the media) and it would be pretty useful to publicly blow a hole in the idea that unless you're in the specific union/section of the workplace/on exact same contract etc then you cannot take any work based solidarity action.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> ...and i'm not asking that in a snide, oh i doubt he'll put his money where his mouth is way, but recent strikes have been undermined by people saying _sorry guv nothing to do with me, i'm freelance_ (esp in the media) and it would be pretty useful to publicly blow a hole in the idea that unless you're in the specific union/section of the workplace/on exact same contract etc then you cannot take any work based solidarity action.


 

Completely agree with you mate. He'd be losing very little by taking solidarity action too.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 13, 2013)

There are far more strike ballots at national newspapers than there are strikes, so it's a hypothetical question and likely to remain so.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> There are far more strike ballots at national newspapers than there are strikes, so it's a hypothetical question and likely to remain so.


 
There are far more strike ballots than strikes _everywhere_ almost by definition.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> There are far more strike ballots at national newspapers than there are strikes, so it's a hypothetical question and likely to remain so.


 
Thanks for that homily, Maurice.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 13, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Thanks for that homily, Maurice.


 
The newspaper business is the only unionised industry I've ever worked in, so I have no idea how typical it is. How one sentence can qualify as a "homily" is between you and your dictionary.

Point is, I'm not quite sure how sabre-rattling is meant to affect non-unionised workers, or what "solidarity" is meant to consist of, when disputes are only at a negotiation stage and likely to remain so.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> It's the only unionised industry I've ever worked in, so I have no idea how typical it is. Point is, I'm not quite sure how sabre-rattling is meant to affect non-unionised workers, or what "solidarity" is meant to consist of, when disputes are only at a negotiation stage and likely to remain so.


 
Who said he's non union? And i was asking about his possible actions after a ballot for a strike had been won and acted on - not before.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Who said he's non union? And i was asking about his possible actions after a ballot for a strike had been won and acted on - not before.


 
Presumably there's a difference between being an NUJ member and a member of the local chapel. And you're talking about whether he'd submit a column on the week of a enabling vote for action, not on the week of any (unlikely) action itself.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2013)

I'm pretty sure of what i was asking thanks. And it concerned his actions if there was an ongoing strike during a period in which he is supposed to produce a column. Stop being silly.


----------



## rekil (Jul 13, 2013)

> The view from the balcony #DurhamMinersGala pic.twitter.com/FA9TQyUFrp


He's gone a bit Eva Peron.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 13, 2013)

Has there actually been a strike on a British national newspaper since Wapping?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 13, 2013)

Presumably not, then.


----------



## rekil (Jul 13, 2013)

So rude. The bubble is as the bubble does. And it's still unclear whether it's "payback in 2015" or not.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2013)

Make those blue and yellow Tories really pay by voting for red Tories!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'm pretty sure of what i was asking thanks. And it concerned his actions if there was an ongoing strike during a period in which he is supposed to produce a column. Stop being silly.


 
tbh I'd be very surprised if he doesn't demonstrate solidarity in some way that we can all agree with here.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 14, 2013)

I'm sure his editor will understand the need to maintain his brand.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 14, 2013)

smokedout said:


> I'm sure his editor will understand the need to maintain his brand.


 
Why wouldn't he show genuine solidarity?

Some people seem to think that just because he believes in a different strand of socialism to them he must be a cynical hack...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2013)

Just to go back a bit:

'Private Eye reveals Labour MP Simon Danczuk "earns" £1K per day advising PFI firms. ' 


Anyone seen the piece?


----------



## yield (Jul 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Just to go back a bit:
> 
> 'Private Eye reveals Labour MP Simon Danczuk "earns" £1K per day advising PFI firms. '
> 
> ...


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/130708/danczuk_simon.htm


> From 1 February 2013, Non-Executive Director, providing business advice for Shine-Bid Services Ltd, The Design Works, 93-99 Goswell Road, London, EC1V 7EY. Remuneration of up to £1,000 per month, for 1 day per month.
> 
> 2 May 2013, received £1,000. Hours: 8 hrs. (Registered 19 June 2013; updated 3 July 2013)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2013)

He's a proper chiseler - seems to spend a lot of his time looking for ways to make money, a bit here (pollsters stuff) a bit there (PFI stuff) and bit that is kept quiet (the outside businesses - gone under or carrying on).


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 15, 2013)

yield said:


> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/130708/danczuk_simon.htm


 
I see that 'Shine-Bid Services Ltd' have produced a booklet entitled 'Bid Brutal: A Relentless Will to Win'. Everyone involved in that company should be made to suffer really badly.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 15, 2013)

*chuffed I have a Labour Left MP* 

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/356846316149669889

Well, my local MP is Jeremy Corbyn so I’d get neither me or Liam Byrne


----------



## sihhi (Jul 15, 2013)

Some 'democratic' credibility for the cutters at CIPFA: http://www.cipfaannualconference.org.uk/programme/10-july




> Fairness? Panel discussion speakers:
> 
> Owen Jones, The Independent columnist and author of Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class
> 
> ...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 16, 2013)

Despite coming from a senior Spiked contributor this is spot on:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...tic-tribe-to-be-fawned-over-and-photographed/

"So his starting point is pity, not solidarity, a lofty Dickens-like concern for the down-at-heel rather than any experience or understanding of working people’s resourcefulness. To Mr Jones, the miners of Durham are just more vulnerable people to be fawned over, congratulated for surviving.
Of course, Mr Jones isn’t the only young Leftist who looks upon working people as ordinary yet heroic, savage as well as noble. Who can forget when the radical anti-tax dodging collective UK Uncut invited its impeccably middle-class members to attend one of its demos “dressed as a worker” – a PC version of blacking up. Or when a Royal College of Art Student designed “Arthur Scargill chic” clothes, including a green donkey jacket and tatty bobble hats, for youths to dress up in. It seems that for the new generation of Leftists, born after the political defeat of working-class movements, workers are just odd creatures from a bygone era, whose hilarious styles we should copy and whose sad, little villages we should visit and check into on Facebook."


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 16, 2013)

What's Brendan O'Neill doing for the working class, I wonder?

Fuck all. That's what.


----------



## JHE (Jul 16, 2013)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Despite coming from a senior Spiked contributor this is spot on:
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...tic-tribe-to-be-fawned-over-and-photographed/
> 
> ...


 

Spiked publishes some decent articles, but I'd be a little surprised to find that particular extract is spot on.  The only place I have come across UK Uncut is in Nottingham and there they didn't seem a very posh or privileged bunch to me.  Perhaps I didn't look or listen closely enough.  Alternatively, perhaps UK Uncut are hoity-toity in Henley and Hampstead, but normal in Nottingham and Norwood.

In any case, their demands, though not radical, are perfectly legitimate.  It is sickening how some rich people and companies get away with not paying tax.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2013)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Despite coming from a senior Spiked contributor this is spot on:


 
What you mean is that his and your own prejudices on this subject happen to coincide.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 16, 2013)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Despite coming from a senior Spiked contributor this is spot on:
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...tic-tribe-to-be-fawned-over-and-photographed/
> 
> ...


 
I agree, if by 'spot on' you mean 'a laughable caricature'.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 16, 2013)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Despite coming from a senior Spiked contributor this is spot on:
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...tic-tribe-to-be-fawned-over-and-photographed/
> 
> ...


 
Hows that spot on? What has the Royal College of Art Student got to do with the left? Why even bring that totally unrelated issue into it if not to be a crude smear attack? Since when was Durham a "sad little village" and since when was the Durham Miners Gala a event to pity the poor workers?

I listened to Owen's speech and I don't think that characterisation of it is at all fair, but then again that's what you'd expect from a shit, crude anti-left propaganda piece from the in-house newspaper of the Conservative party.

It's incredibly revealing how some people will quite happily buy into this reactionary Tory nonsense because they're so desperate to shit on Owen Jones, straining at the leash to find fault even if it means uncritically endorsing the demonstrable bullshit you find on the Telegraph blogs.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 16, 2013)

O'Neill also writes piffle and tosh for the Murdoch Empire. He's a cunt of the first order.


----------



## Sue (Jul 16, 2013)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Despite coming from a senior Spiked contributor this is spot on:
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...tic-tribe-to-be-fawned-over-and-photographed/
> 
> ...


 
In the mid/late 90s, I was a union activist in an unrecognised, white collar workplace with pretty bad terms and conditions and rubbish, vinidictive management. We were trying to recruit members in anticipation of the union recognition rules coming in (and in fact it was one of the first places that won recognition via a ballot ) and as part of this, we were organising a social event with a few other workplaces -- normally it'd be a room in pub with a few sarnies and whatever. A TUC-sponsored union organiser suggested we could entice people along/attract attention by staging a mock picket line outside the venue while wearing flat caps and stuff. To say we were astounded by the shitness of the idea would be an understatement. Believe the person who suggested this has since risen through the ranks.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 16, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Hows that spot on? What has the Royal College of Art Student got to do with the left? Why even bring that totally unrelated issue into it if not to be a crude smear attack? Since when was Durham a "sad little village" and since when was the Durham Miners Gala a event to pity the poor workers?
> 
> I listened to Owen's speech and I don't think that characterisation of it is at all fair, but then again that's what you'd expect from a shit, crude anti-left propaganda piece from the in-house newspaper of the Conservative party.
> 
> It's incredibly revealing how some people will quite happily buy into this reactionary Tory nonsense because they're so desperate to shit on Owen Jones, straining at the leash to find fault even if it means uncritically endorsing the demonstrable bullshit you find on the Telegraph blogs.


Especially as the Brendan O'Neill stuff isn't really aimed at Owen Jones, it's aimed at perpetuating the idea that _all_ left-wingers are Hampstead liberals who exoticise the working class_. _It's about claiming authenticity as the sole preserve of "common-sense" right-wingers.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 16, 2013)

Of course, right-wingers never exoticise the working class. All that stuff about "hard-working families", "alarm-clock Britain", and "people getting on and doing the right thing" isn't ideology and has nothing to do with patronising ("respectable") working class people at all...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 16, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Especially as the Brendan O'Neill stuff isn't really aimed at Owen Jones, it's aimed at perpetuating the idea that _all_ left-wingers are Hampstead liberals who exoticise the working class_. _I


 
Which is amusing to anyone who has had personal contact with (former) senior cadres of the RCP


----------



## sihhi (Jul 16, 2013)

"Mr Jones heaps opprobrium on these folk in his book, accusing them of having been won over by Thatcherite “dog-eat-dog individualism” and failing to celebrate their “working classness” (oh, Jesus)." 

The book is written from a middle-class perspective with a middle-class audience but both of those quotes are - massively - out of context. The Blears quote is included with criticism later of how difficult her policies made life for working-class people, how hard retaining pride was after 11 years of Labour as it was when written. 

His real-life examples are 
1. A single media stunt by one local UK Uncut group outside Nick Clegg's Sheffield home (not a mass protest calling for fancy dress) - a crass action but still one playing to positive attributes of workers unlike the right-wing fancy dress parties full of worker caricatures as feckless alcoholic and lazy.

2. A capitalist firm Burton (part of tax-dodger in chief Sir Philip Green's Arcadia Group) using an apolitical rightist fashion designer students to bring out a range of fashion that reappropriates working-class culture for consumption and profit purposes.

And err that's it.

This mountain of evidence gives us the following conclusion which I can't even understand, can you Lo Siento. ?

"for the new generation of Leftists, born after the political defeat of working-class movements, workers are just odd creatures from a bygone era, whose hilarious styles we should copy and whose sad, little villages we should visit and check into on Facebook."


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


> This mountain of evidence gives us the following conclusion which I can't even understand, can you Lo Siento. ?
> 
> "for the new generation of Leftists, born after the political defeat of working-class movements, workers are just odd creatures from a bygone era, whose hilarious styles we should copy and whose sad, little villages we should visit and check into on Facebook."


 
I'm not sure why he needs to add "for the new generation", people have been running this "Hampstead bleeding heart liberal" schtick for a long time. Nobody in opposition to capitalism is allowed to be "authentic"... if you're middle class, you're a naive idealist (or cynical manipulator), if you're working class, you're self-interested, greedy, envious, violent, chippy etc.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 16, 2013)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Despite coming from a senior Spiked contributor this is spot on:
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...tic-tribe-to-be-fawned-over-and-photographed/
> 
> ...


 
See bold.

Anybody else remember that story of a couple of RCP members donning nurse's uniforms when  attending a NHS demo back in the day?

O'Neill is ex-RCP.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 18, 2013)

Anyone have any idea what this is a reference to Owen Jones having said?

https://twitter.com/__Hari__/status/357551258812432385


----------



## rekil (Jul 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Anyone have any idea what this is a reference to Owen Jones having said?
> 
> https://twitter.com/__Hari__/status/357551258812432385


 
Must be this.

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/07/how-to-write-an-owen-jones-column-a-step-by-step-guide/




			
				oj said:
			
		

> Jimbo, I get more criticism in a week than anyone will ever bother to shower you with.


"I'm a _star!_"


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

JAMES BLOODWORTH is now due a PD how-to.


----------



## rekil (Jul 18, 2013)

He has a point. Mr.Bloodworth's piece is sad.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 18, 2013)

I was thinking in terms of Which appearance was this? Is this slander or truth?

"No, trolling would be going on national TV & blaming Islamism purely on foreign policy."
from @__Hari__ #Antitheist. Pro #EU. #LGBT Ally. Social #Liberal. #Feminist. #Secularist.
missing out by not being on twitter to ask


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 18, 2013)

when did antitheist become a thing


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 18, 2013)

Whether or not one subscribes to Jone's particular brand of old labour reformism I think he is sincere and honest in his beliefs whereas James Bloodworth is a fraud of the highest order. He's a rightwing contrarian piece of tory shit posing as a leftist about as convincingly as that Brandon o'Neil (?) twat.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 18, 2013)

Bloodworth is the Independent's new Hari. A plagiarist. Spot the difference.

James Bloodworth (2010):



> It may sound far-fetched today, but when troops and tanks suddenly appear at Heathrow, when private armies are openly talked about; and when the support of the Royal Family is being canvassed, we are not far from the abyss.


 
http://socialistunity.com/when-democracy-goes-too-far/

John Booth (2006)



> When troops and tanks suddenly appear at Heathrow, when private armies are being openly talked about and the support of the Royal Family is being canvassed, we are not far from the abyss.


 
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/mar2008/wilson_1974.html


----------



## rekil (Jul 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I was thinking in terms of Which appearance was this? Is this slander or truth?
> 
> "No, trolling would be going on national TV & blaming Islamism purely on foreign policy."
> from @__Hari__ #Antitheist. Pro #EU. #LGBT Ally. Social #Liberal. #Feminist. #Secularist.
> missing out by not being on twitter to ask


 
Someone said Bloodworth's piece was just trolling OJ, then this hari person defends bloodworth. It's nonsense.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 18, 2013)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Whether or not one subscribes to Jone's particular brand of old labour reformism I think he is sincere and honest in his beliefs whereas James Bloodworth is a fraud of the highest order. He's a rightwing contrarian piece of tory shit posing as a leftist about as convincingly as that Brandon o'Neil (?) twat.


 

He's certainly an odd one, although is adamant that Brendal O'Neill is the troll and not him:

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013...ll-the-five-stupidest-brendan-oneill-articles

This article to extend grammar schools and free schools takes the biscuit:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-got-it-wrong-on-grammar-schools-8448381.html


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 18, 2013)

I think it's probably more accurate to say he's set out on the O'Neill gravy train!


----------



## rekil (Jul 18, 2013)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Bloodworth is the Independent's new Hari. A plagiarist. Spot the difference.
> 
> James Bloodworth (2010):
> 
> ...


 
He posted a link to the piece on his blog with "as john booth put it" in then someone posted a cached version, minus the opening line, showing it's been edited in the last week, ie today.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 18, 2013)

Bloodworth 2011:



> According to Gramsci, we may judge ideology to be effective if it is able to blend with the “common sense” of the people.


 
http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2011/07/14/stopping-murdoch-is-not-enough/

Whoever Wrote This:



> According to Gramsci, we can judge ideology to be effective if it is able to connect with the 'common sense' of the people.


 
http://people.bath.ac.uk/hssbpn/theories of media.htm


----------



## rekil (Jul 18, 2013)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Whoever Wrote This:
> 
> http://people.bath.ac.uk/hssbpn/theories of media.htm


 
Have a look at Understanding Media Cultures: Social Theory and Mass Communication by Nick Stevenson.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 18, 2013)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Bloodworth is the Independent's new Hari. A plagiarist. Spot the difference.
> 
> James Bloodworth (2010):
> 
> ...


 
was just going to mention that
http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/hounslow-council-run-foodbank-shuns-undeserving-poor/
http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/hounslow-council-run-foodbank-shuns-undeserving-poor/

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/06/hounslow-foodbank-rejects-undeserving-poor/


----------



## smokedout (Jul 18, 2013)

smokedout said:


> was just going to mention that
> http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/hounslow-council-run-foodbank-shuns-undeserving-poor/
> 
> http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/06/hounslow-foodbank-rejects-undeserving-poor/


 


> A recently formed foodbank -  jointly run by Hounslow Council -  have rules stating they will not help people with ‘chaotic’ lifestyles or those who have had benefits sanctioned.


 


> A new council-run foodbank in Hounslow has rules stating that they will not give food to people with “chaotic lifestyles” or those who have had their benefits sanctioned.


 



> Hounslow Community Foodbox was established as a partnership between local tenants and residents groups and Hounslow Council, and is chaired by Labour Party Councillor Steve Curran.





> Hounslow Community Foodbox was recently set up in a partnership between Hounslow Council and local tenants and resident groups. It is chaired by Labour Party councillor Steve Curran.


 




> Hundreds of thousands of benefit sanctions are currently being handed out every month with Jobcentre staff believed to be working to unofficial targets to stop as many claims as possible.  Claimants can be sanctioned for something as simple as missing a meeting, being unable to attend workfare or in many cases not fully understanding the endlessly complex and draconian Jobseeking Activity conditions.


 


> A large number of benefit sanctions have been handed down already by Jobcentre staff who are believed to be under pressure to meet unofficial targets to reduce claims. Claimants can be sanctioned for things like missing meetings, turning down jobs and failing to attend workfare placements.


 

he can copy and paste thats for sure


----------



## rekil (Jul 18, 2013)

Saucy fecker.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 18, 2013)

Cheeky little shiteweasel.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 19, 2013)

If only there was a journo that some of us know who sometimes posts here and has previously played a sterling role in exposing another journalistic fraud at the Independent...


----------



## Sue (Jul 19, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> If only there was a journo that some of us know who sometimes posts here and has previously played a sterling role in exposing another journalistic fraud at the Independent...



??? (Not young Owen, who I'm pretty sure lurks on here?)


----------



## lazyhack (Jul 19, 2013)

Open goal this one, worth checking all of his copy, lucky it's a sunny weekend and I've got two days off...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 19, 2013)

Sue said:


> ??? (Not young Owen, who I'm pretty sure lurks on here?)


 
No not young Owen, someone else who I think may already be on to the story


----------



## Sue (Jul 19, 2013)

Ah ha...


----------



## sihhi (Jul 19, 2013)

*Big enough to be the billed speaker at the People's Assembly in Manchester*
*Manchester People's Assembly - Austerity Cut It Out*
Public · By Manchester People's Assembly - Austerity Cut it Out

Get Tickets​(www.eventbrite.co.uk)​
Speakers: Owen Jones
Plenaries and workshops on building opposition to austerity
Timetable to follow


----------



## emanymton (Jul 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> *Big enough to be the billed speaker at the People's Assembly in Manchester*
> *Manchester People's Assembly - Austerity Cut It Out*
> Public · By Manchester People's Assembly - Austerity Cut it Out
> 
> ...


 
Taking place on the same day as a Manchester demo against the bedroom tax.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 19, 2013)

Maybe they will go to the assembly and then to the demo tho?


----------



## emanymton (Jul 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Maybe they will go to the assembly and then to the demo tho?


People's assembly is 12 to 5, the demo starts at 1.

To be fair I have no idea which was organised first


----------



## sihhi (Jul 19, 2013)

Owen Jones' friend Ellie Mae O'Hagan trumpets:

_Just been in a session with Lisa Nandy - MP and Unite member. She's getting grilled by trade unionists rooted in local communities._
_That's what you get when MPs are involved in unions: politicians who understand working people's lives and are willing to be held to account._

essentially- _Long live the Labour Left!_

Q: How do we get the Labour Left?
A: Join Labour, select the most Left-promising candidate and of course vote Labour.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Taking place on the same day as a Manchester demo against the bedroom tax.


 
Wankers.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 20, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Owen Jones' friend Ellie Mae O'Hagan trumpets:
> 
> _Just been in a session with Lisa Nandy - MP and Unite member. She's getting grilled by trade unionists rooted in local communities._
> _That's what you get when MPs are involved in unions: politicians who understand working people's lives and are willing to be held to account._
> ...


Lisa Nandy, who was once a PPC in my area, turned up on my doorstep once during the 2005 election. She asked me if I would vote labour. I told her that I only voted for socialists and with that she left.


----------



## rosecore (Jul 21, 2013)

> I write about the misery caused by this wretched Government; I don’t experience it.


At least he's honest


----------



## cantsin (Jul 21, 2013)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Despite coming from a senior Spiked contributor this is spot on:
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...tic-tribe-to-be-fawned-over-and-photographed/
> 
> ...


 

such shit, no suprise at all, because it's from a Spiked wanker , written for the Telegraph, that uses other Telegraph stories as sources....but you think this is "spot on" ????


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 21, 2013)

doesn't matter who you lie down with so long as you can get a dig in on 'the Left' apparently


----------



## grit (Jul 21, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> doesn't matter who you lie down with so long as you can get a dig in on 'the Left' apparently


 

Is O'Neill really that far off point? frankly it mirrors the tirade of abuse directed towards Laurie Penny on this site, using broadly the same arguments.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 21, 2013)

grit said:


> Is O'Neill really that far off point? frankly it mirrors the tirade of abuse directed towards Laurie Penny on this site, using broadly the same arguments.


 
Shit troll fuck off


----------



## grit (Jul 21, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Shit troll fuck off


 

How is it different, people attacking the writer for the lack of "working class credentials" for lack of a better term. That the writer is engaging in essentially poverty tourism to advance their media career.


----------



## youngian (Jul 21, 2013)

cantsin said:


> such shit, no suprise at all, because it's from a Spiked wanker , written for the Telegraph, that uses other Telegraph stories as sources....but you think this is "spot on" ????


 
Brendan O' Neill and his gobshite Spiked mates are Katie Hopkins with longer paragraphs. If he cannot get it that trade unionism is about defending socially mobile aspirations like decent wages, job security and a better quality of life, that he has taken for granted all his life, he should take a long hard rest.


----------



## grit (Jul 21, 2013)

youngian said:


> If he cannot get it that trade unionism is about defending socially mobile aspirations like decent wages, job security and a better quality of life, that he has taken for granted all his life, he should take a long hard rest.


 

Interesting point, shame its completely irrelevant.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2013)

Lol at grits edit


----------



## youngian (Jul 21, 2013)

grit said:


> Interesting point, shame its completely irrelevant.


 
In what sense is it irrelevant to a ridiculous article that argues that organised labour is hostile to achieving better aspirations for its members?



grit said:


> How is it different, people attacking the writer for the lack of "working class credentials" for lack of a better term. That the writer is engaging in essentially poverty tourism to advance their media career.


 
And in what sense is involvement in trade unionism poverty tourism when the lowest paid workers in the country are non-unionised?

Making speeches at the Adam Smith Institute about 'freeing up labour markets' is poverty tourism.


----------



## grit (Jul 21, 2013)

youngian said:


> In what sense is it irrelevant to a ridiculous article that argues that organised labour is hostile to achieving better aspirations for its members?
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...otic-tribe-to-be-fawned-over-and-photographed


 

Except that's not what its arguing, its arguing that this new modern left, these poverty tourists are all middle class people are the ones actually against better aspirations. Its arguing that they dont really care they just see it as some warped anthropological curiosity.

That they don't give a shit, the precise view that is regurgitated ad nauseum on urban.


----------



## grit (Jul 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Lol at grits edit


 

Which one? The one where I called Delroy a dumb cunt or when I corrected "time" to "term"?


----------



## rekil (Jul 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> was just going to mention that
> 
> http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/hounslow-council-run-foodbank-shuns-undeserving-poor/
> 
> http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/06/hounslow-foodbank-rejects-undeserving-poor/


 
His article now says


> (Hat tip: http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com)


Too late James.

No hat tip here.


> This is Google's cache of http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/06/hounslow-foodbank-rejects-undeserving-poor/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 10 Jul 2013 00:28:04 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 22, 2013)

silly fucker should have just quietly rewritten it and hoped no-one noticed before google cache expired, instead he's just removed any element of doubt that this was accidental

just for the record I left a comment on there accusing him of plagiarism at the time, which went undeleted (gone now though) and ignored.  so it was only when it was posted on this thread, along with other examples, that he added a credit


----------



## Robin Fuller (Jul 22, 2013)

rosecore said:


> At least he's honest


 
What did everyone think of Owen's piece today? I personally thin some tories are pretty evil.


----------



## grit (Jul 22, 2013)

Robin Fuller said:


> What did everyone think of Owen's piece today? I personally thin some tories are pretty evil.


 

He nailed it in the last paragraph.

Welcome to urban.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 22, 2013)

smokedout said:


> silly fucker should have just quietly rewritten it and hoped no-one noticed before google cache expired, instead he's just removed any element of doubt that this was accidental
> 
> just for the record I left a comment on there accusing him of plagiarism at the time, which went undeleted (gone now though) and ignored. so it was only when it was posted on this thread, along with other examples, that he added a credit


 

I've posted comments on blog posts by him demonstrating his plagiarism that have been 'disappeared' too. Honestly, decent activist writers such as yourself deserve far more exposure than frauds like Bloodworth!


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 22, 2013)

Bloodworth writes a muslim-baiting, left-baiting op-piece for the Spectator, gets re-tweeted by Tommy Robinson:

https://twitter.com/EDLTrobinson/status/359374672527233025

The 'left' mask slips a bit further everyday.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 22, 2013)

Is Owen Jones on to him

*Owen Jones* ‏@OwenJones8447m​@J_Bloodworth @OVER3just3 As for retweeting people calling me a fraud - I suspect that could come back to haunt you


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 22, 2013)

wtf is it with these left blogosphere/commentariat types?


----------



## Sue (Jul 22, 2013)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Is Owen Jones on to him
> 
> *Owen Jones* ‏@OwenJones8447m​@J_Bloodworth @OVER3just3 As for retweeting people calling me a fraud - I suspect that could come back to haunt you





Sue said:


> ??? (Not young Owen, who I'm pretty sure lurks on here?)



A-hem.


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2013)

great repost to this new piece of disgraceful criminal justice.


----------



## editor (Sep 16, 2013)

Nicely done, Owen.


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2013)

Labour want fourteen years, ffs....


----------



## emanymton (Sep 16, 2013)

for the record Owen, I have no problem with people committing benefit fraud


----------



## RedDragon (Sep 16, 2013)

Owen, the jumper, what were you thinking.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2013)

treelover said:


> Labour want fourteen years, ffs....


Say clearly what you mean.


----------



## editor (Sep 16, 2013)

emanymton said:


> for the record Owen, I have no problem with people committing benefit fraud


Depends on the level and the type of fraud, no?  Are you OK with professional scamsters rinsing tens of thousands of pounds out of the system through multiple accounts/IDs?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 16, 2013)

He needs some more media training, he's spouting so many stats and messages...


----------



## emanymton (Sep 16, 2013)

editor said:


> Depends on the level and the type of fraud, no?  Are you OK with professional scamsters rinsing tens of thousands of pounds out of the system through multiple accounts/IDs?


Honestly? Given how small the overall amount lost to fraud is, the the sums involved must be tiny so I really don't care about it no.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 16, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> Owen, the jumper, what were you thinking.



He was thinking "if they see me wearing my blue gingham shirt again, they'll think I only own one shirt", I expect.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 16, 2013)

editor said:


> Depends on the level and the type of fraud, no?  Are you OK with professional scamsters rinsing tens of thousands of pounds out of the system through multiple accounts/IDs?



Thing is, the fuckwits have signally failed to "police" organised fraud for at least the last 2 decades, so scammers with multiple claims are a very small percentage of those that get prosecuted, as are conning bastard landlords who fuck over Housing Benefit.  More than 90% of "fraud" that's prosecuted by the DWP is individual small-time fraud or (about half the time) error.

me, I'd love to see resources put into closing down professional benefit scamming, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for anyone to do anything, 'cos they won't.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Sep 16, 2013)

MPs and peers defrauding the public purse via their expenses, abusing their positions of authority and trust, get a year or two but poor people get up to a decade? Stinks a bit doesnt it.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Sep 16, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> Owen, the jumper, what were you thinking.


Sober, non threatening, sensible and seasonal. Its a good jumper but then I also like his shirt.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2013)

treelover said:


> Labour want fourteen years, ffs....


Can you expand on this please?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> MPs and peers defrauding the public purse via their expenses, abusing their positions of authority and trust, get a year or two but poor people get up to a decade? Stinks a bit doesnt it.



If they're particularly egregious in their fraud they get "a year or two".  More often, they got (and get) a slapped wrist, a nod and a wink.


----------



## RedDragon (Sep 17, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Sober, non threatening, sensible and seasonal. Its a good jumper but then I also like his shirt.


A jumper is fine, it's the little crocodile I found offensive.


----------



## love detective (Sep 17, 2013)

i got one of them the other day (girlfriend thinks it might be a fake though)


----------



## ska invita (Oct 31, 2013)

Owen Jones has had a twitter spat with Boycott Workfare... ho hum... republished on this nasty right wing news aggregattor style site
http://www.trendingcentral.com/owen-jones-slapped-lefties-offer-support/


----------



## Ponyutd (Oct 31, 2013)

Guido didn't hang about posting this up.


----------



## Ld222 (Nov 19, 2013)

*Owen Jones*
9 hours ago
Apparently today is #InternationalMensDay. It also goes by the names of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 19, 2013)

ska invita said:


> Owen Jones has had a twitter spat with Boycott Workfare... ho hum... republished on this nasty right wing news aggregattor style site
> http://www.trendingcentral.com/owen-jones-slapped-lefties-offer-support/


What was Owen's offer/strategy?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 20, 2013)

Ld222 said:


> *Owen Jones*
> 9 hours ago
> Apparently today is #InternationalMensDay. It also goes by the names of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday




but then we chilled on sunday


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 20, 2013)

Ok, i'm sure posting this will be like pulling the tiger's tail here, and I get why people are pissed off at his attitude in the twitter stuff above. 

But if I'm honest, I don't get why he gets so much hate from others on the left. Not trying to be a dick, I'm honestly curious. Didn't he stick it to IDS on Question Time (and qutie probably why the dark lord has yet to make a reappearance.

Yes, I am that naive I suppose.


----------



## treelover (Nov 20, 2013)

He is on Free Speech tonight(BBC3), interesting to see how he goes down with the youth...

Oh my, Jacob Rees Mogg is on as well, lions den....


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2013)

Not sure 'the youth' watch it.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 20, 2013)

Jacob Rees the human Mogadon - and friend of racists!

Fucking Bath wankers voting him in. I hate the South West sometimes.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2013)

It was the bath labour voters that made a contest of that seat!


----------



## J Ed (Nov 20, 2013)

Nice of the BBC to put rapper Logic on that programme, can't wait for him to expand on the anti-freemason/illuminati conspiracy keeping us all down


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 20, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> Jacob Rees the human Mogadon - and friend of racists!
> 
> Fucking Bath wankers voting him in. I hate the South West sometimes.



That is Bath to be fair though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 20, 2013)

good old rees mogg. When some charity noted an increase in child poverty in the uk his immediate reaction was to question how they define poverty


he won't even need a trial come the day


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> good old rees mogg. When some charity noted an increase in child poverty in the uk his immediate reaction was to question how they define poverty
> 
> 
> he won't even need a trial come the day



He won't even need a neckshot - his neck is so long and fragile, that a swift punch to the Adam's Apple (his is prominent) should not only stop him breathing, but break his pencil-neck too.


----------



## treelover (Nov 24, 2013)

http://www.televisual.com/news-deta...e-how-TV-portrays-working-class_nid-3469.html


Big news, Owen is apparently the guest for this years Huw Wheldon Memorial Lecture, his talk is entitled "_Totally Shameless: How TV Portrays the Working Class_."


----------



## treelover (Nov 24, 2013)

He is doing well, but there is a noticeable absence of industry players in the audience, who would normally be there for such a prestigious event, I wonder why?


----------



## RedDragon (Nov 24, 2013)

Doesn't he ever change the record? It's nice of him to stick up for the working class - albeit in a self-appointed manner - but no wonder most of his audience has slipped off to the bar.


----------



## treelover (Nov 24, 2013)

Well, I thought it was a good presentation, well argued and incisive


----------



## RedDragon (Feb 20, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> ... but no wonder most of his audience has slipped off to the bar.


Oops, spoke too soon.

Owen on the evils of drink Independent


----------



## treelover (Mar 17, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/17/bbc-leftwing-bias-non-existent-myth


He has moved to the Guardian, thousands of comments, as many as Polly gets.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 17, 2014)

I'm liking his articles (all 3 of them so far   )


----------



## treelover (Mar 10, 2015)

> Take Paloma Faith, one of the stars of the recent Brit awards. She is from Hackney, which in the same week was named as the local authority with the highest level of deprivation in England. Faith is now taking writer Owen Jones on the road with her in an effort to convince potential Ukip voters to change their mind. We need to start hear more of these voices of political opposition in popular music itself. Young people especially need some good to believe in.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/09/pop-political-british-musicians-paloma-faith



Mmm, not sure how that will work, but seeing as he now charges for his appearances, this will help him.

actually I like Owen, but this has the hallmarks of a disaster.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 11, 2015)

treelover said:


> Mmm, not sure how that will work, but seeing as he now charges for his appearances, this will help him.
> 
> actually I like Owen, but this has the hallmarks of a disaster.



Pound shop Russell Brand.


----------



## treelover (Apr 14, 2015)

350 people paid 8 pounds ahead to hear Owen speak here at the Festival Of Debate, that's a fair few people.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Apr 14, 2015)

It couldn't just have been the boy wonder, though. Otherwise it would have been the Festival of Monologue. There must have been other luminaries on the programme.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 14, 2015)

maybe you got a personalised dirty story as well


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Apr 14, 2015)

And a Marks & Sparks shirt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 15, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> And a Marks & Sparks shirt.



A *blue* St. Michael shirt.
PD should issue a communique decrying OJ's blueshirt tendencies.


----------



## rekil (Apr 15, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> A *blue* St. Michael shirt.
> PD should issue a communique decrying OJ's blueshirt tendencies.


Our more extreme elements will take it further and go all out to #BanTheColourBlue


----------



## Sue (Apr 15, 2015)

copliker said:


> Our more extreme elements will take it further and go all out to #BanTheColourBlue


More importantly, what's the PD position on checks?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2015)

could a passing mod change the title to something like 'why owen jones is shit' or similar?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 15, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> could a passing mod change the title to something like 'why owen jones is shit' or similar?



outside now


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> outside now
> View attachment 70224


he'll have to get teacher's permission


----------



## rekil (Apr 15, 2015)

Sue said:


> More importantly, what's the PD position on checks?


What part of 'Dickies Workwear For All' do these peacocks not understand?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 15, 2015)

He was having a go at Cheadle the other week


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 15, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> He was having a go at Cheadle the other week


Which one?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 15, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Which one?



THE one.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 15, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> THE one.


Oh, Staffs. 

Jones was denigrating it was he? Tosser.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> THE one.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 15, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> He was having a go at Cheadle the other week



I saw that. He's from inner city Stockport isn't he?  

Hope it doesn't start a gang war between the two manors


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 16, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I saw that. He's from inner city Stockport isn't he?
> 
> Hope it doesn't start a gang war between the two manors


Think he was a school boy in Offerton but not on the council estate. I did ask him if he would come and give a talk in a couple of pubs in the less ' leafy ' parts of Cheadle but didn't get a reply.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 5, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-dont-let-your-voice-be-taken-away-owen-jones

Video from Owen Jones telling everyone to vote. To sum up, society is run by an untouchable elite, and we must fight them and build a better society, and we must do this by voting in the election to endorse the continued dominance of that elite.

Worthy of a real party political broadcast. Here are some facts, and now here is a conclusion. Never mind that the one bears no relation to the other, just look at the pretty graphics and listen to my Churchill-esque rhetorical flourishes. Politicians divide us, scapegoat us, lie to us. So go out and vote for one of them


----------



## DotCommunist (May 5, 2015)

Well its not like he was going to vote Proletarian Democracy is it


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 5, 2015)

It is quite interesting that Owen Jones couldn't bring himself to say Vote Labour but just kept on about voting in general. He knows the doubts people have about the Miliband band even Guardian readers. He assumes that the unspoken message will meet less resistance than the crude slogan.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 5, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> It is quite interesting that Owen Jones couldn't bring himself to say Vote Labour but just kept on about voting in general. He knows the doubts people have about the Miliband band even Guardian readers. He assumes that the unspoken message will meet less resistance than the crude slogan.



I guess even Jones doesn't have the temerity to complain about a corrupt political elite and then openly endorse the Labour party in the same breath. But that does seem to be what he's getting at so maybe he should just come out and say it.


----------



## krink (May 5, 2015)

He did say it elsewhere

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/21/cruel-society-vote-labour-rights-tory


----------



## bemused (May 5, 2015)

It is cute he thinks working for the Guardian and being a regular media pundit on the BBC doesn't make him part of the establishment. 

I do like some of his stuff this piece on English nationalism is good. Although I'm not sure why he wants to portray it in such a negative light. 

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ationalism-tories-jingoism-lethal-englishness

I think more localised politics would be a good thing, because of that I doubt it'll happen.


----------



## ska invita (May 12, 2015)

Ian Bone just posted this

This is an extract from Owen Jones' article in tomorrow's Guardian about aspiration - let's get our fucking OJ banner out and show him wots wot - cunting little patronising shite!
"Let me sum up this argument, because it is going to be very prominent in the coming months and years. Yes, food banks and poverty pay are terrible blights, but they affect only a relatively small sliver of the population, who are in any case less likely to vote. Campaigns focusing on these forms of injustice depend too much on appealing to the empathy of others, and have little to say to middle-income workers. The desire to improve your lot in life is natural, and should be nurtured and encouraged, but Labour – and, more broadly, the left – fail to appreciate this."

Oj telling it like it is with no illusions


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2015)

ska invita said:


> Ian Bone just posted this
> 
> This is an extract from Owen Jones' article in tomorrow's Guardian about aspiration - let's get our fucking OJ banner out and show him wots wot - cunting little patronising shite!
> "Let me sum up this argument, because it is going to be very prominent in the coming months and years. Yes, food banks and poverty pay are terrible blights, but they affect only a relatively small sliver of the population, who are in any case less likely to vote. Campaigns focusing on these forms of injustice depend too much on appealing to the empathy of others, and have little to say to middle-income workers. The desire to improve your lot in life is natural, and should be nurtured and encouraged, but Labour – and, more broadly, the left – fail to appreciate this."
> ...



Brilliant! Antisocialism.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2015)

Unfair - taking jones characterisation of vermin as one of his own. Please stop this.


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Unfair - taking jones characterisation of vermin as one of his own. Please stop this.


Correct. Just read the whole article; seen out of context I misread that extract.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Correct. Just read the whole article; seen out of context I misread that extract.



Didn't esp mean you, i know you do read stuff when linked to and recced. Loads going around right now.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2015)

JUST READ IT!!!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 13, 2015)

Bone still hanging out with Max Keiser?


----------



## rekil (May 13, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Bone still hanging out with Max Keiser?


I don't like the look of this at all.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 14, 2015)

fucking hell


----------



## mather (May 14, 2015)

I hear about this Max Keiser person from time to time. I know he is some kind of economist or something and he has been on TV from time to time, anyone know what he is all about? Is he another one of those American free market nutters?


----------



## ffsear (May 14, 2015)

copliker said:


> I don't like the look of this at all.
> 
> View attachment 71454




Max keiser being the financial expert who lost $4,000,000 trading Bitcoin !


----------



## J Ed (May 14, 2015)

ffsear said:


> Max keiser being the financial expert who lost $4,000,000 trading Bitcoin !



If he lost that much to a darknet exit scam it would explain a lot


----------



## mather (May 14, 2015)

ffsear said:


> Max keiser being the financial expert who lost $4,000,000 trading Bitcoin !



Oh God, he is a Bitcoin nutter. This also means there is a high chance he is a free market nutter too as Bitcoin tends to attract those types.


----------



## rekil (May 14, 2015)

mather said:


> Oh God, he is a Bitcoin nutter. This also means there is a high chance he is a free market nutter too as Bitcoin tends to attract those types.


Yes he is. And it doesn't stop there.


----------



## treelover (May 27, 2015)

> How do we do it? It means a new form of community-based politics rather than a strategy of yet another leftwing rally followed by yet another A to B demonstration. Do I have the answers to how this could be done? No, but that’s where the debate must surely be. Look to Podemos in Spain. They abandoned the old shackles of the left – the terminology and rhetoric from a different era – and they started to win. Some on the left are all too accustomed to losing; it’s almost become comforting. The rest of us have to change, just like Podemos, or we will die.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...spain-podemos-winning-streak-inspiring-people



Is Owen calling for a new formation or just another Peoples Assembly?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 27, 2015)

treelover said:


> Is Owen calling for a new formation or just another Peoples Assembly?



Neither as far as I can see. 

I'm more interested in his view that 'a new form of community politics' is needed and that the left needs to abandon strategies involving rallies and demos. How he develops this argument - whilst remaining tied to the apron strings of new Labour - will be fascinating.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 4, 2015)

Less than a week after demanding a new politics based around community:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/04/jeremy-corbyn-vital-labour-leadership-debate

Are there 2 Owen Jones' or is there just one who is all over the fucking shop


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Less than a week after demanding a new politics based around community:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/04/jeremy-corbyn-vital-labour-leadership-debate
> 
> Are there 2 Owen Jones' or is there just one who is all over the fucking shop


There is, like many in the labour party who feel a personal need to maintain their self-image as the radcialist of the radical, a number of faces they present depending on the audience. They never add up to the whole well integrated psyche they are intended to defend/produce.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 4, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> There is, like many in the labour party who feel a personal need to maintain their self-image as the radcialist of the radical, a number of faces they present depending on the audience. They never add up to the whole well integrated psyche they are intended to defend/produce.



Except these are two columns in the same paper aimed at the same guardianland readership.

Last week - we need to learn from Spain, we need to abandon demos/rallies/zomble left politics, we need to engage people where they are - in their communities 
This week - Jeremy Corbyn getting 30 odd nominations is the decisive task for the left.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Except these are two columns in the same paper aimed at the same guardianland readership.
> 
> Last week - we need to learn from Spain, we need to abandon demos/rallies/zomble left politics, we need to engage people where they are - in their communities
> This week - Jeremy Corbyn getting 30 odd nominations is the decisive task for the left.


Different contexts at different times - one immediately post labour defeat and directed  to the wider movement (through the windows of the guardian onto social media), one to the labour membership just simply through the paper. Two faces of the same animal.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 4, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Different contexts at different times - one immediately post labour defeat and directed  to the wider movement (through the windows of the guardian onto social media), one to the labour membership just simply through the paper.



Setting out 2 fundamentally contradictory messages - he's a genius.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Setting out 2 fundamentally contradictory messages - he's a genius.


Not ness contradictory (at least not theoretically, though they are in reallife), but close enough to emphasise one aspect to one audience and another to the other - all thing to all people. Though of course the latter message here is the dominant and context setting one.


----------



## andysays (Jun 4, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Setting out 2 fundamentally contradictory messages - he's a genius.



He's simply following the Proletarian Democracy-inspired method of Multitudinous Positionism


----------



## sihhi (Jun 17, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Except these are two columns in the same paper aimed at the same guardianland readership.
> 
> Last week - we need to learn from Spain, we need to abandon demos/rallies/zomble left politics, we need to engage people where they are - in their communities
> This week - Jeremy Corbyn getting 30 odd nominations is the decisive task for the left.



In honour of how he the thinks the "left" won "it" for Corbyn I think he needs another poster or *mug*.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 17, 2015)

Is this an example of 'scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'





> Ah come on Labour MPs. It'll just look silly if @stellacreasy isn't on the ballot paper



God-awful anti-historical s***e: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/17/conservatives-unions-tax-housing-brussels

"A true conservative should be championing trade unionism – as Churchill did"

Chumps always win.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

Would that be the same churchill who sent troops in on strikers? what a friend to the working man he was.

I've got an owen jones tribute shirt now. Blue check. Maybe some cunt will give me a column in the guardian too


----------



## Libertad (Jun 17, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Would that be the same churchill who sent troops in on strikers? what a friend to the working man he was.
> 
> I've got an owen jones tribute shirt now. Blue check. Maybe some cunt will give me a column in the guardian too



Or a slap.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 20, 2015)

I presume this is sarcasm?!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 20, 2015)

is he being sarcastic?


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 20, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> is he being sarcastic?



Oh, it looks like it was. Can't always tell these days.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 20, 2015)

I can't tell either way, its that deadpan.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> is he being sarcastic?


Don't make me come round there.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2015)

OJ effectively says  I am the alternative.


----------



## red & green (Jul 20, 2015)

Why is this person constantly making speeches ? Who the f is he -apart from a journo and why is his opinion so important ? Don't get it


----------



## cantsin (Jul 20, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> I presume this is sarcasm?!


It's a fair point, neatly made tbf


----------



## YouSir (Jul 21, 2015)

red & green said:


> Why is this person constantly making speeches ? Who the f is he -apart from a journo and why is his opinion so important ? Don't get it



Because history is moulded by the minds of great men and Owen Jones already has one foot in the hallowed halls of the intellectual Valhalla. Tremble, ye lowly mortals, and know your salvation is at hand.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I've got an owen jones tribute shirt now. Blue check. Maybe some cunt will give me a column in the guardian too



They might if 
a. you've done a degree in Oxford
b, you can describe Labour as "one of the great parties of the left in the western world" with a straight face.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 4, 2015)

The guy is delusional:

Let's start with the Parliamentary Labour Party. It is well known that Corbyn only scraped on to the ballot paper. _Presuming that no left candidate would make it on to the ballot paper, the Shadow Cabinet minister Jon Trickett and I had been planning a 'Not The Labour Leadership'-style national tour to try and build up a grassroots movement. That proved superfluous._ _Some MPs nominated Corbyn because they were on the left of the party, including many new MPs. But some did so because they came under extraordinary pressure from their own grassroots, a foreshadow of the increasingly enthusiastic movement we see today._ There were politically savvy right-wing Labour MPs who knew that the Labour Party had changed since Blair was effectively ejected as leader, and they feared from the outset what Corbyn's campaign could achieve.

Labour MPs put him on the ballot in order to scupper him. Jon Trickett is a pro-EU fraud of a "Labour Left".

Backtracking on housing:-

_It will surely pledge to deal with the housing crisis by not just building council housing and legislating in favour of private sector tenants, but enable home ownership for those who want it without undermining social housing. _

This is the killer:-

_An emphasis on conciliation and unity within his own party – building on his recent 'unity statement' – will make it politically harder for those within the PLP who wish to undermine him._

Exactly what happened to Ken Livingstone when he won against the Millbank machine - he adopted a Blairist deputy Gavron ? iirc and a centrist cabinet and said all is forgiven in 2003 after the war on Iraq.


----------



## youngian (Aug 4, 2015)

sihhi said:


> The guy is delusional:
> 
> Let's start with the Parliamentary Labour Party. It is well known that Corbyn only scraped on to the ballot paper. _Presuming that no left candidate would make it on to the ballot paper, the Shadow Cabinet minister Jon Trickett and I had been planning a 'Not The Labour Leadership'-style national tour to try and build up a grassroots movement. That proved superfluous._ _Some MPs nominated Corbyn because they were on the left of the party, including many new MPs. But some did so because they came under extraordinary pressure from their own grassroots, a foreshadow of the increasingly enthusiastic movement we see today._ There were politically savvy right-wing Labour MPs who knew that the Labour Party had changed since Blair was effectively ejected as leader, and they feared from the outset what Corbyn's campaign could achieve.
> 
> ...


Its a complicated old business politics, that's why its called politics. But what would I know I don't possess such a clear sense of good and evil as so many posters do on political threads on Urban75.


----------



## rekil (Aug 5, 2015)

Letting Staines push him about. Just tell him to fuck off and stop posing for chummy bubble pics with the scum ffs.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 5, 2015)

A better man would wear the hatred of Pinochet supporters like Paul Staines with pride.


----------



## treelover (Sep 25, 2015)

> Owen Jones
> 
> Why Labour must become the party of home ownership
> 
> ...



Blimey, in our turbo charged times, even political positions seem to shift with speed, is Owen taking the well worn path to the right?


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 25, 2015)

It's not like Labour is even anti-home ownership anyway. And it's not like there aren't bigger priorities when it comes to housing right now (private landlords, 'market rents', bedroom tax, shit tenancy agreements, lack of social building and supply, etc). I'd rather we won back the argument that social housing is a common good, and doesn't have to be seen as somehow 'only for those in need'.

(Which actually he seems to spend the piece arguing for improving the social and rented situation rather than home ownership anyway, but then drops into that phrase of the moment 'aspiration'. Which seems to be measured on private ownership and individual status.)


----------



## Wilson (Sep 25, 2015)

sihhi said:


> They might if
> *a. you've done a degree in Oxford*
> b, you can describe Labour as "one of the great parties of the left in the western world" with a straight face.



Aye, and we all know what that means now


----------



## J Ed (Sep 25, 2015)

Owen Jones has gone seriously to the right in the past few months, not that he was that much to write home about before, he's getting further sucked into the bubble of scum


----------



## sihhi (Sep 25, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Owen Jones has gone seriously to the right in the past few months, not that he was that much to write home about before, he's getting further sucked into the bubble of scum


_
The left can only win if it offers policies that inspire both low-income and middle-income Britons – that is, the majority of society. That means those who are really struggling in life, and those who are doing OK, but for whom life is insecure and who worry about the future of their children._

He supports this garbage

_And then there’s promoting, say, local authority mortgages for those who cannot currently get on the housing ladder.
_
Tory (+ Labour) councils were doing this in the 1970s and 1980s. It's just fluff.


ETA: If you're actually doing the stuff you promise and building and repairing council housing so that it's above the quality of private built why would anyone take up mortgages for people in the private sector _Firstly: an ambitious programme of building council housing, to bring down the 5 million-strong social housing waiting list, reduce the housing benefit bill, create jobs and stimulate the economy. Such council housing should surely be according to the spec of Nye Bevan: of a better quality than private housing, and intended to foster mixed communities, rather than ghettoise the poorest. _


----------



## smokedout (Sep 25, 2015)

> One-in-seven British workers are now self-employed: many value their independence, but are not so happy with the insecurity, and that includes difficulties in being accepted for a mortgage.



Such as twenty something newspaper columnists who are self-employed for tax purposes and can't afford a mortgage in London in areas where twenty something newspaper columnists would like to live.


----------



## campanula (Sep 26, 2015)

I expect we will be seeing quite a bit more whinging about the housing crisis now that the middle class children of home-owners are being directly affected - course, not a fucking peep when their parents were raking in more from housing equity than what they actually earned as a salary whilst the homeless levels reached crisis proportions and the housing benefit /landlord's subsidy was cheerfully being dispensed...but these things tend to be generational,


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 29, 2015)

copliker said:


> Letting Staines push him about. Just tell him to fuck off and stop posing for chummy bubble pics with the scum ffs.


Late to the party on this, but... Talk about missing an open goal.

Staines, aged twenty:


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 6, 2015)

Just putting this one here...

Owen Jones at the Conservative party conference: ‘Just to clarify, I’m not a Tory’ – video


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2015)

needs this as a soundtrack:


----------



## rekil (Oct 22, 2015)

smokedout said:


> was just going to mention that
> Hounslow Council Run Foodbank Shuns 'Undeserving Poor'
> 
> http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/06/hounslow-foodbank-rejects-undeserving-poor/


It looks like Bloodworth's poorly disguised bit of c+p was taken down a few days ago (but is still cached)



Spoiler


----------



## sihhi (Nov 8, 2015)

Column-writing with Owen Jones

Sorry to call you again Rob Ray and lazyhack 

_*Times:* 6.30pm-9.30pm
*Location:* The Guardian, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU
*Price: *£49_

but this just seems mental that's just over £18 an hour and you're in a hall of 100 people listening to just one speaker.


----------



## rekil (Nov 8, 2015)

I wonder if this cavalier attitude to admission prices still applies. I suspect not.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2015)

He's only going to say_ go to oxbridge _anyway.


----------



## tim (Nov 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> He's only going to say_ go to oxbridge _anyway.



You're so behind the times. No respectable British publication of the left would now consider employing any columnist who hadn't been to Harvard.


----------



## rekil (Nov 8, 2015)

"If you're using Remembrance Sunday as an excuse to have a pop at a politician you don't like, it's you disrespecting the occasion."

I can't think of a more appropriate occasion to "have a pop" at politicians tbh.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2015)

How about if you use it to have a pop at your twitter enemies Owen? And how about some critical interrogation of 'the occasion'. 

The occasion ffs.


----------



## rekil (Nov 8, 2015)

Harshing the remembrance day buzz is it. What is 'the occasion' other than a glorification of imperialism, nationalism and militarism half-arsedly cloaked by the aegis of anti-fascism.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> He's only going to say_ go to oxbridge _anyway.



Well it would be good advice if someone wants to work at the Graunid


----------



## sihhi (Nov 8, 2015)

_When that little Syrian boy was found washed up on a Turkish beach, it had an impact on public opinion, because humans are naturally empathetic creatures, but that empathy is undermined when the humanity of a group of people are stripped away. Suddenly refugees became human beings again: story-telling humanises. Focusing on, say, personal experiences of being treated by foreign-born nurses and doctors in the NHS can be effective, too, because a large chunk of the population has experience of being treated by, say, Nigerian, Lithuanian or Bangladeshi careworkers. Making arguments that connect with people emotionally, rather than treating them as statistic-computing machines, is more effective._


----------



## sihhi (Nov 17, 2015)

copliker said:


> I wonder if this cavalier attitude to admission prices still applies. I suspect not.
> 
> View attachment 79325



It has already sold out, so no.

Column-writing with Owen Jones

If you want to see him in London talking in general that'll be £16.

Owen Jones: The Politics of Hope - Leicester Square Theatre

This one is just him talking for Colchester £12 a pop.

Owen Jones: The Politics of Hope at Colchester Arts Centre

His talk in Sheffield was a bit more reasonable at £7.50.

Off the Shelf 2015


----------



## J Ed (Nov 17, 2015)

sihhi said:


> His talk in Sheffield was a bit more reasonable at £7.50.
> 
> Off the Shelf 2015



Or £3 to watch it streamed elsewhere in the building, wow.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 17, 2015)

Has he got any new jokes?




I'll get my coat...


----------



## sihhi (Nov 17, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Or £3 to watch it streamed elsewhere in the building, wow.



Interesting that the only one out of Owen, Shami Chakrabarti, Gary Younge and Paul Mason to be streamed is Owen Jones.
I think Paul Mason is empty, but SC is a proper lawyer and GY has close hand perspective on black America - but Owen Jones has more to give apparently.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 17, 2015)

Did you see that one in the guardian today - 'why the tories are planning to steal the schools from the church'


----------



## sihhi (Dec 2, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Or £3 to watch it streamed elsewhere in the building, wow.



Here you go this is the kind of wisdom we can get



*Owen Jones *@OwenJones84
The heat in the Syria debate isn't proportionate to the tokenistic contribution Britain will make, is it?

suggests Pope is socialist in this interview with Mogg


----------



## gosub (Dec 2, 2015)

sihhi said:


> Here you go this is the kind of wisdom we can get
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Been thinking that all day


----------



## Vivity Report (Jan 8, 2016)

ahh man I liked Owen Jones, I guess no one is perfect.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2016)

Vivity Report said:


> ahh man I liked Owen Jones, I guess no one is perfect.


idols with feet of clay


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 12, 2016)

Can't say I'm over pleased with his 'jokey' interviews with the likes of Rees-Mogg, but more importantly with his flip-flopping (hey, remember that term?) over Europe. A couple of months ago he was passionately calling for the Left to unite behind an 'out' vote, suddenly he's saying the opposite. Not impressed.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 13, 2016)

Grotesque. You have an opportunity to squeeze division into Britain's ruling powers and you say campaign for in.

_With Cameron in retreat, Labour can unite behind “in” while calling for a different EU. That means making it more democratic, more transparent and, above all, challenging how it is all too often hardwired to support unaccountable corporate interests rather than working people. There will be differences in emphasis in how this is achieved. For those on Labour’s left, there are two European initiatives that must surely be engaged with. One has been set up byYanis Varoufakis, the former Greek finance minister. In February, he will launch the Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DiEM25), with the aim of democratising unaccountable EU institutions. Another is Plan B, set up by leftwingers such as Germany’s Oskar Lafontaine and France’s Jean Luc Mélenchon, which aims to coordinate European politicians, intellectuals, activists and NGOs with regular summits to chart a different way forward._

So you can big two new soft-left talking shops


----------



## sihhi (Feb 23, 2016)

J Ed 

A new high: Boris Johnson's sister & Owen Jones to watch live for an hour and a half that'll be £16.07. 



> Professor *Mike Savage*, from the LSE, helped collate the survey and published the results in 'Social Class in the 21st Century'. Join Mike to find out more about class in modern Britain and take part in a debate about the impact of historic social structures in this country with *Owen Jones*, as he republishes 'Chavs: the demonization of the working class'; *Rachel Johnson*, Mail on Sunday Columnist, author and broadcaster; and* Lynsey Hanley*, author of 'Respectable: The Experience of Class'. Chaired by The Guardian’s *Anne Perkins*.
> 
> Running time: 90 minutes, no interval.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2016)

sihhi said:


> J Ed
> 
> A new high: Boris Johnson's sister & Owen Jones to watch live for an hour and a half that'll be £16.07.


Weird - she was referenced throughout his chavs book as the voice of truth on class. Was quite sickening. As is the title of that monstrosity you linked to: Class Wars.


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 23, 2016)

July 2015:
The left must put Britain's EU withdrawal on the agenda
The left must now campaign to leave the EU  | Owen Jones 



			
				Owen Jones said:
			
		

> Progressives should be appalled by European Union’s ruination of Greece. It’s time to reclaim the Eurosceptic cause



Feb 2016:
How Corbyn could make a virtue of his former EU doubts
How Corbyn could make a virtue of his former EU doubts | Owen Jones



			
				Owen Jones said:
			
		

> Like me, Jeremy Corbyn questioned the benefits of staying in the EU. He should join a left-leaning European movement for change from within


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 23, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> July 2015:
> The left must put Britain's EU withdrawal on the agenda
> The left must now campaign to leave the EU  | Owen Jones
> 
> ...



So, Owen falls back on the "vote for 'x' with no illusions" argument, just like he did regarding the General Election.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 24, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> So, Owen falls back on the "vote for 'x' with no illusions" argument, just like he did regarding the General Election.



It's a winning strategy - campaign for an 'in' vote by slagging off the EU at every opportunity. 

I'm constantly amazed that social democracy isn't more popular given its tactical savvy.


----------



## Teenage Cthulhu (Feb 24, 2016)

I criticised Owen Jones on Facebook page yesterday, never swore, never used any disparaging language or anything. Simply pointed out that I did not agree with him and that I believe Labour should support an out campaign. The response I got from his followers was unbelievable, I was accused of being racist, EDL and all sorts. So many people reported my post that the Guardian blocked me from posting for 24 hours to their facebook page. I even had my profile picture reported for containing nudity!

Is this how the left treat their own?


----------



## killer b (Feb 24, 2016)

No.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 24, 2016)

Teenage Cthulhu said:


> I criticised Owen Jones on Facebook page yesterday, never swore, never used any disparaging language or anything. Simply pointed out that I did not agree with him and that I believe Labour should support an out campaign. The response I got from his followers was unbelievable, I was accused of being racist, EDL and all sorts. So many people reported my post that the Guardian blocked me from posting for 24 hours to their facebook page. I even had my profile picture reported for containing nudity!
> 
> Is this how the left treat their own?


did you get called an anarchist? OJ was doing that last year at people who disagreed with him. On that twitter machine.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 24, 2016)

Teenage Cthulhu said:


> I criticised Owen Jones on Facebook page yesterday, never swore, never used any disparaging language or anything. Simply pointed out that I did not agree with him and that I believe Labour should support an out campaign. The response I got from his followers was unbelievable, I was accused of being racist, EDL and all sorts. So many people reported my post that the Guardian blocked me from posting for 24 hours to their facebook page. I even had my profile picture reported for containing nudity!
> 
> Is this how the left treat their own?



Were you invited to check your privilege too?


----------



## treelover (Jun 12, 2016)

Owen has just stormed out of the Sky News Paper review, he was very angry that the presenter and Hartley Brewer were not acknowleging the exceptionalism of the awful events in Orlando. which he said "was a homophobic terrorist act and the worse for LGBT since the holocaust". One could see he was fragile, was understandably  'on the brink'  and maybe shouldn't have gone on tonight and maybe left it till he had slept etc.

btw, i met Owen a couple of weeks ago, he is a deeply compassionate man.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 13, 2016)

I don't agree with Owen Jones on much (anything to be honest) but he was right to walk off from what I have seen. 

My only criticism is that he should be tanned the jaw of the presenter on the way out.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 13, 2016)

Hartley-Brewer, apart from being as thick as mince, is an appalling troll. Good on Owen for walking out of the studio. I'd have done exactly the same thing.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 13, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Hartley-Brewer, apart from being as thick as mince, is an appalling troll. Good on Owen for walking out of the studio. I'd have done exactly the same thing.


Yeah, but you wouldn't have been there in the first place, would you? He takes Murdoch's £.


----------



## gosub (Jun 13, 2016)

I think he did the right thing.


----------



## treelover (Jun 13, 2016)

The presenter is usual very progressive, decent, etc, etc, not sure why he acted that way.


----------



## gosub (Jun 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> The presenter is usual very progressive, decent, etc, etc, not sure why he acted that way.



It is, in one way,a major step forward, presenting LGBT as average Joe soaps. But it was vacuous. I had the Admiral Duncan in my head way before the bloke in the gallery screamed it in his ear.  I don't go to these sort of places often,they are not aimed at me for a start, and I find them predatory meat markets, last time I found myself in one was a year ago but I was shocked at the number of cuts and bruises on display.  I like progressive pubs where sexuality isn't an issue and would like a society that felt similar, but I don't think its right to pretend we are at that stage.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, but you wouldn't have been there in the first place, would you? He takes Murdoch's £.


*shrugs* Don't be such a pedant.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 13, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> *shrugs* Don't be such a pedant.


I respect him for walking, but I'll respect him even more if he doesn't walk back.


----------



## hot air baboon (Jun 13, 2016)

On Sky News last night, I realised how far some will go to ignore homophobia | Owen Jones

I am reluctant to dwell too much on my appearance on Sky News last night, because this isn’t about me, so let’s just use it as a case study. In sum, I walked off in disgust during a discussion about the massacre: it was an instinctive reaction to an unpleasant and untenable situation. The presenter continually and repeatedly refused to accept that this was an attack on LGBT people. This was an attack “against human beings”, he said, and “the freedom of all people to try to enjoy themselves”. He not only refused to accept it as an attack on LGBT people, but was increasingly agitated that I – as a gay man – would claim it as such.


----------



## chilango (Jun 13, 2016)

Shocking (well kinda...) to see how few fucks they gave at Jones' visible distress. Unpleasant viewing. Fair does to Jones for fucking it off. There's bigger questions of course, but right there, right then, he was right.


----------



## planetgeli (Jun 13, 2016)

hot air baboon said:


> On Sky News last night, I realised how far some will go to ignore homophobia | Owen Jones
> 
> I am reluctant to dwell too much on my appearance on Sky News last night, because this isn’t about me, so let’s just use it as a case study. In sum, I walked off in disgust during a discussion about the massacre: it was an instinctive reaction to an unpleasant and untenable situation. The presenter continually and repeatedly refused to accept that this was an attack on LGBT people. This was an attack “against human beings”, he said, and “the freedom of all people to try to enjoy themselves”. He not only refused to accept it as an attack on LGBT people, but was increasingly agitated that I – as a gay man – would claim it as such.



I thought you were doing really well until (and when) you walked off. You gave good media, unlike the knuckle-dragging presenter. Yeah, could have head butted the asshole but apart from that, spot on. (Now think twice about going back for the Sky dollar?)


----------



## Wookey (Jun 13, 2016)

If anyone could possibly arrange for me to marry Owen Jones, I'd be dead grateful. 

Thanking you.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> Fair does to Jones for fucking it off


showed mrestraint in not giving a middle finger as well. 


Wookey said:


> If anyone could possibly arrange for me to marry Owen Jones, I'd be dead grateful.
> 
> Thanking you.


on the proviso you buy him some non-chequed shirts.


----------



## Wookey (Jun 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> on the proviso you buy him some non-chequed shirts.



I can't acquiesce to that, plaid is part of our culture.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 13, 2016)

chilango said:


> Shocking (well kinda...) to see how few fucks they gave at Jones' visible distress. Unpleasant viewing. Fair does to Jones for fucking it off. There's bigger questions of course, but right there, right then, he was right.



He would have been 'right' and his outrage understandable only if at the time of broadcast it had been thought to be the action of an entirely random attacker. But this was not the case. As a 'soldier' of Isis, hatred of gays is unlikely to have been the only or even primary motivation of the attacker. Isis do throw gay men from tall buildings, but they also behead Christians, as well as fellow Muslims, English tourists, seek out Jews as well as burning Yazidi girls in cages and so on. This time it was the gay community in Orlando. Today, tomorrow, someone else, somewhere else. Against a background of a general slaughter his stomping off was ill-judged at best. "This isn't about me' he says now. But he did appear to think it all about himself on the night.


----------



## chilango (Jun 13, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> He would have been 'right' and his outrage understandable only if at the time of broadcast it had been thought to be the action of an entirely random attacker. But this was not the case. As a 'soldier' of Isis, hatred of gays is unlikely to have been the only or even primary motivation of the attacker. Isis do throw gay men from tall buildings, but they also behead Christians, as well as fellow Muslims, English tourists, seek out Jews as well as burning Yazidi girls in cages and so on. This time it was the gay community in Orlando. Today, tomorrow, someone else, somewhere else. Against a background of a general slaughter his stomping off was ill-judged at best. "This isn't about me' he says now. But he did appear to think it all about himself on the night.



We don't know (yet, at least) what "being a soldier of ISIS" actually means in this case. How integrated he was, if at all in their structures. Thus, I don't think it's (yet) possible to place his motivations fully within those of IS. As things stand Jones' contention that it was a homophobic crime is valid enough, even if other motives emerge in due course. 

However, as I said there are bigger questions but we won't be getting answers to them from Jones or from Sky News.


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 13, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> As a 'soldier' of Isis...


No, I really doubt he was. Is there such a thing in America?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 13, 2016)

CNT36 said:


> No, I really doubt he was. Is there such a thing in America?


If he says he is, he is.
Not that it detracts from Jones' point; it clearly was a specifically homophobic act of terror.


----------



## planetgeli (Jun 13, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> He would have been 'right' and his outrage understandable only if at the time of broadcast it had been thought to be the action of an entirely random attacker. But this was not the case. As a 'soldier' of Isis, hatred of gays is unlikely to have been the only or even primary motivation of the attacker. Isis do throw gay men from tall buildings, but they also behead Christians, as well as fellow Muslims, English tourists, seek out Jews as well as burning Yazidi girls in cages and so on. This time it was the gay community in Orlando. Today, tomorrow, someone else, somewhere else. Against a background of a general slaughter his stomping off was ill-judged at best. "This isn't about me' he says now. But he did appear to think it all about himself on the night.



But there is no clear evidence of an IS link.

Orlando shootings: 'No clear evidence' of IS link - BBC News

There ARE comments attributed to the attacker of how he was disgusted by men kissing. Owen Jones did not make this about himself on the Sky programme, he merely tried defending the obvious against ignorance. If ISIS blow up a synagogue there isn't a person who says it's not anti-Semitic. An attack on French people out enjoying themselves is an 'attack against western values'. This was an attack, a terrorist attack, on the gay community. All he did was call it for what it was.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 13, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> But there is no clear evidence of an IS link.
> 
> Orlando shootings: 'No clear evidence' of IS link - BBC News



He was, as they say, 'known' to the FBI and interviewed more than once.
He is reported to phoned 911 prior to attacks lest their be any doubts about his motives.
He was 'a soldier of the Caliphate' according to Isis outlet.


----------



## co-op (Jun 13, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> As a 'soldier' of Isis, hatred of gays is unlikely to have been the only or even primary motivation of the attacker.



He was born and brought up in the USA, he was violent to his wife who had to be rescued by her family. She says he wasn't interested in religion, but was fascinated by guns. This has got a lot more to do with his fucked-up masculinity than ISIS (not that the two are incompatible of course).

Hatred of gay men and a drive to use violence against them is typical of men with this kind of pov; ISIS merely becomes the culturally-available way to express it if you have muslim heritage.


----------



## gosub (Jun 13, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> He would have been 'right' and his outrage understandable only if at the time of broadcast it had been thought to be the action of an entirely random attacker. But this was not the case. As a 'soldier' of Isis, hatred of gays is unlikely to have been the only or even primary motivation of the attacker. Isis do throw gay men from tall buildings, but they also behead Christians, as well as fellow Muslims, English tourists, seek out Jews as well as burning Yazidi girls in cages and so on. This time it was the gay community in Orlando. Today, tomorrow, someone else, somewhere else. Against a background of a general slaughter his stomping off was ill-judged at best. "This isn't about me' he says now. But he did appear to think it all about himself on the night.



I disagree. We have unfortunately had numerous attacks from the beheading of Lee Rigby where women were considered bystanders til the police woman nobbled them, the Paris attacks - christian nutters were quite quick out the block to call eagles of death metal satanist rather than an ironically named and I'm sure the attackers made the same mislabelling, a Jewish supermarket and a gay club that have shown it isn't artibitary. There are tiers to their fucked up hatred and those within those groups need to be warned to be especially vigilant.
The narrative of IS could strike any where entirely at random actually plays into IS's hands in terms of 'terror' and the but that we safer here coz we have gun control, yes but no wonder the producer screamed Compton street nail bomb in his ear.


----------



## planetgeli (Jun 13, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> He was, as they say, 'known' to the FBI and interviewed more than once.
> He is reported to phoned 911 prior to attacks lest their be any doubts about his motives.
> He was 'a soldier of the Caliphate' according to Isis outlet.



Yeah. Interviewed twice. Which, as you say, is more than once. And cleared.

Yeah. Phoned 911 at the very last minute. And ISIS are well known for giving warnings aren't they?

Yeah. ISIS news agency claims successful mass murderer as one of their own. Big fucking surprise there.

How about 'mentally disturbed bi-polar twat goes on killing rampage of gays and claims topic of the day (Islamic Fundamentalism) as justification'? 

Soldier of the Caliphate my arse.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 13, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> Yeah. Interviewed twice. Which, as you say, is more than once. And cleared.
> 
> Yeah. Phoned 911 at the very last minute. And ISIS are well known for giving warnings aren't they?
> 
> ...



He wasn't 'cleared'. No more than the many other terrorists, including London Paris of Belgian Islamist attackers, that initially came to the attention of the authorities were ever 'cleared' either. 

He didn't phone-in to supply a warning.  His intention was to make sure his motivations would not be mid-construed afterwards: 'he once saw gay men kissing' he was 'mentally ill' etc.

Are all the other 'soldiers of the Caliphate' mentally disturbed bi-polar twats simply 'claiming topic of the day' or is there do you sense a bit of a pattern?


----------



## chilango (Jun 13, 2016)

There's no evidence, yet, that he was part of IS's command structures, subject to its organisational discipline or that his target was selected to further IS's goals. 

Would he have targeted a Yazidi community centre instead if there was one near by? Did he target one of Orlando's numerous churches?

No.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 13, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> How about 'mentally disturbed bi-polar...



How about not?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 13, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> Yeah. Interviewed twice. Which, as you say, is more than once. And cleared.
> 
> Yeah. Phoned 911 at the very last minute. And ISIS are well known for giving warnings aren't they?
> 
> ...



Are you offering that as some sort of explanation?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## co-op (Jun 13, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> He didn't phone-in to supply a warning.  His intention was to make sure his motivations would not be mid-construed afterwards: 'he once saw gay men kissing' he was 'mentally ill' etc.



It's obviously unlikely the call was meant to be a warning but equally it seems really clear to me that his primary motive is far more likely to be extreme homophobia - possibly related to concerns about his own sexuality (or at least concerns over how his sexuality was _perceived_ in macho USA culture where his own family cultural behavioural norms were likely to be seen as effeminate and sexually suspect by many men).

A typical macho response to feelings of humiliation or shame - maybe the archetypical one - is violence. Hating homosexuals and seeking to kill them is the purest way of representing your own gender status as unimpeachably masculine.

Do you seriously think that this guy's obsessive machismo, his narcissism, his gun-fetishing, his history of violence to women, that these are epi-phenomenal here? That the *real* reason for murdering 50 random probably-gay strangers was that he suddenly got into islam?

You've got the cart before the horse.


----------



## planetgeli (Jun 13, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork Look, if you want to go against the words of his wife he beat up, that's up to you. If you wanna argue about the validity or political correctness of my use of the word twat, I reckon you'd have a better argument.


----------



## planetgeli (Jun 13, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Are you offering that as some sort of explanation?
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Well it's obviously missing out a few nuances about the availability of guns in the USA and probably a few facts  neither of us know yet but I reckon it's a better start than Joe Reilly is offering, yes.


----------



## Shechemite (Jun 13, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> ItWillNeverWork Look, if you want to go against the words of his wife he beat up, that's up to you. If you wanna argue about the validity or political correctness of my use of the word twat, I reckon you'd have a better argument.



His wife beaten up by him doesn't make her *description* of him as 'bipolar' the equivalent of a *diagnosis* of BP,  nor a valid reason on its own to believe his apparent bipolar was a factor in his mass-murdering

What evidence, apart from his ex-wife saying he 'was bipolar', is there that he had Bipolar? What evidence that it had an impact on his killing of lots of people?


----------



## planetgeli (Jun 13, 2016)

I reckon his wife's words, someone who suffered at his hands, might be a better starting point than what's been said on this thread by some people before, and certainly more of a concern than yours for crossing every t and dotting every I at this point for the sake of...what exactly? I don't think your worry about me supposedly miscasting every bipolar person as a potential terrorist, which I'm certainly not doing, kinda outweighs these events in any way whatsoever. You are free to disagree.


----------



## Shechemite (Jun 13, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> I reckon his wife's words, someone who suffered at his hands, might be a better starting point than what's been said on this thread by some people before, and certainly more of a concern than yours for crossing every t and dotting every I at this point for the sake of...what exactly? I don't think your worry about me supposedly miscasting every bipolar person as a potential terrorist, which I'm certainly not doing, kinda outweighs these events in any way whatsoever. You are free to disagree.



Your post is hard to follow, but I'll attempt a response:

His wife has insight into his mindset, yes. But her describing him as 'bipolar' isn't, on its own, reason to believe he suffered from said condition, nor that such condition played a part in his actions. I'm not sure what your getting in terms of 'concern' and 'crossing t's' etc.

I'm not worried about you 'miscasting every BP person as terrorist'; you have made an assertion, I think that assertion isn't reasonable, I'm challenging it.

Why are you being aggressive?

ETA: I'm not taking issue with eg 'mentally disturbed bipolar' being offered as an explanation, just wanna know why you believe, in lieu of anything substantial, why you think it is an explanation.


----------



## Reno (Jun 13, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> He would have been 'right' and his outrage understandable only if at the time of broadcast it had been thought to be the action of an entirely random attacker. But this was not the case. As a 'soldier' of Isis, hatred of gays is unlikely to have been the only or even primary motivation of the attacker. Isis do throw gay men from tall buildings, but they also behead Christians, as well as fellow Muslims, English tourists, seek out Jews as well as burning Yazidi girls in cages and so on. This time it was the gay community in Orlando. Today, tomorrow, someone else, somewhere else. Against a background of a general slaughter his stomping off was ill-judged at best. "This isn't about me' he says now. But he did appear to think it all about himself on the night.


Terrorists abroad who claim allegiance to Daesh are not necessarily one organised force. In many cases they are lone psychopaths/bigots/evil cunts who justify their mass murder by honouring some religious and political belief system and this is what happened here. The killer's father's report pretty much confirmed this. This is primarily a homophobic crime and the presenters failed to understand that and their response towards Owen Jones was condescending and ignorant.

I'm at least relieved that pretty much all of the reporting I've seen today focuses on this as an attack on the LGBT community. This doesn't mean that the LGBT community or Jones claim that this is worse than other recent atrocities, but it has to be acknowledged within the wider context of homophobia so to doesn't get chalked up merely as a result of Daesh terrorism. All homophobes who spread their hatred are complicit in this and this wasn't just an attack on "people wanting to have fun".


----------



## Wookey (Jun 13, 2016)

I've been on my own all day, and getting quite tearful.  So I'm off to the vigil in the village, really in an attempt to find someone to hug.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 13, 2016)

((((Wookey )))) Take care of you x


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 13, 2016)

MadeInBedlam said:


> you have made an assertion, I think that assertion isn't reasonable, I'm challenging it.
> 
> Why are you being aggressive?


Yeh, I'll have that from you


----------



## Shechemite (Jun 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh, I'll have that from you



Fascinating


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 13, 2016)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Fascinating


You've got a nice phrase there, I'll nab it for use myself. Have a like for it. Fascinating is by contrast very much a cliché.


----------



## Shechemite (Jun 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> You've got a nice phrase there, I'll nab it for use myself. Have a like for it. Fascinating is by contrast very much a cliché.



Got anything to add re the discussion or are you just going to flatter me with attention all evening? Am I going to get another hug and a comment on the frequency of my sexual encounters (which you'll then delete again after I make reference to said comment)?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 13, 2016)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Got anything to add re the discussion or are you just going to flatter me with attention all evening? Am I going to get another hug and a comment on the frequency of my sexual encounters (which you'll then delete again after I make reference to said comment)?


I have to the best of my recollection never commented on your sex life. But rest assured you won't get a hug.

E2a: having looked back though your posts I don't believe this allegation has any substance.


----------



## Shechemite (Jun 13, 2016)

It will just be the flattering attention then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 13, 2016)

MadeInBedlam said:


> It will just be the flattering attention then.


Not even that. You're on your own for the duration.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 13, 2016)

Reno said:


> Terrorists abroad who claim allegiance to Daesh are not one organised force. In many cases they are lone psychopaths/bigots/evil cunts who justify their mass murder by honouring some religious and political belief system and this is what happened here.
> _*
> He was an Islamist. The lone wolf attack is a tactic approved by Isis. The unique kill ratio may suggest some sort of weapons training. Plus the attack happened during Ramadam when fundamentalists are asked to make a special effort*.* So he may not be as disconnected as he is being presented. *_
> 
> ...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 13, 2016)

Coming home, all the papers that I saw mentioning this at all were talking about ISIS. The Times had it on their front page this morning. You'd be excused thinking that it had anything to do with someone wanting to kill gay people from just reading the headlines.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 13, 2016)

Have they released the 911 call yet?


----------



## Wookey (Jun 13, 2016)

I made the vigil.... Julie Hesmondhalgh and Antony Cotton did some words and there was some poetry... And our choir sang All You Need Is Love....the rain pissed down but it didn't put our candles out. 

I really needed to do that.  I'm now heading home with a heavy heart, but I feel better for touching base with my community.

Love to everyone.  

X


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 13, 2016)

Joe Reilly not a unique kill ratio: breivik


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 13, 2016)

co-op said:


> It's obviously unlikely the call was meant to be a warning but equally it seems really clear to me that his primary motive is far more likely to be extreme homophobia - possibly related to concerns about his own sexuality (or at least concerns over how his sexuality was _perceived_ in macho USA culture where his own family cultural behavioural norms were likely to be seen as effeminate and sexually suspect by many men).
> 
> A typical macho response to feelings of humiliation or shame - maybe the archetypical one - is violence. Hating homosexuals and seeking to kill them is the purest way of representing your own gender status as unimpeachably masculine.
> 
> ...



Who said he _suddenly_ got into Islam? He was born into the Muslim faith. He wasn't a convert. As such his homophobia etc was already in-built.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Jun 13, 2016)

gosub said:


> christian nutters were quite quick out the block to call eagles of death metal satanist rather than an ironically named and I'm sure the attackers made the same mislabelling



You think?  I'm more inclined to believe that it was an attack on western values - people out at night, enjoying a rock gig in this instance.  And I wouldn't be surprised if the attack on Pulse was inspired by that.  I don't see these two attacks as existing separately.  I hope I'm proven wrong, but I think we'll see more lone wolf attacks on entertainment venues, clubs and bars, gay or straight, now that idea is out there.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 13, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Who said he _suddenly_ got into Islam? He was born into the Muslim faith. He wasn't a convert. As such his homophobia etc was already in-built.


the hell


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Joe Reilly not a unique kill ratio: breivik



Good point. But the killing ground there was an actual island. Not an urban area in the USA.


----------



## Reno (Jun 13, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> You think?  I'm more inclined to believe that it was an attack on western values - people out at night, enjoying a rock gig in this instance.  And I wouldn't be surprised if the attack on Pulse was inspired by that.  I don't see these two attacks as existing separately.  I hope I'm proven wrong, but I think we'll see more lone wolf attacks on entertainment venues, clubs and bars, gay or straight, now that idea is out there.


His own father seems to think this atrocity was motivated by homophobia. Usually family and spouses notice when someone becomes radicalised, but both his father and his ex-wife seem to think that there were other reasons and they don't look to me like they have a good reason to lie. 

The Bataclan massacre was a coordinated attack by an ISIL terror cell.


----------



## gosub (Jun 13, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> You think?  I'm more inclined to believe that it was an attack on western values - people out at night, enjoying a rock gig in this instance.  And I wouldn't be surprised if the attack on Pulse was inspired by that.  I don't see these two attacks as existing separately.  I hope I'm proven wrong, but I think we'll see more lone wolf attacks on entertainment venues, clubs and bars, gay or straight, now that idea is out there.


I don't think it was this lot need attacking more we need a target... Nice choice


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 13, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> You think?  I'm more inclined to believe that it was an attack on western values - people out at night, enjoying a rock gig in this instance.  And I wouldn't be surprised if the attack on Pulse was inspired by that.  I don't see these two attacks as existing separately.  I hope I'm proven wrong, but I think we'll see more lone wolf attacks on entertainment venues, clubs and bars, gay or straight, now that idea is out there.


Now the idea is out there...

...like it's a new idea tho I can think of examples going back to the nineteenth century. 

It's like Carlos the jackal never chucked a grenade into a Paris restaurant


----------



## co-op (Jun 14, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Who said he _suddenly_ got into Islam? He was born into the Muslim faith. He wasn't a convert. As such his homophobia etc was already in-built.



Seriously? More than if he was a christian in the US?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 14, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> *Well it's obviously missing out a few nuances* about the availability of guns in the USA and probably a few facts  neither of us know yet but I reckon it's a better start than Joe Reilly is offering, yes.



Really...just a few nuances? How about some actual confirmation of the diagnosis, a verified history of trauma, evidence of comorbidity and history of substance misuse (all characteristics which increase the chances of impulsive rather than premeditated violence), that's before we move away from your preferred 'medical' explanation to look at the potential impacts of factors such as weapons availability, ideological commitment, religious belief or homophobia (in this instance there seems to be some emerging evidence of possible self loathing).

So rather than hanging the deaths of 49 people on the convenient peg of bi-polar disorder (and thus avoiding all of the stigmatizing baggage and easy assumptions that go with such a superficial comment), why not step back and take a little longer to see how things develop?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 14, 2016)

co-op said:


> Seriously? More than if he was a christian in the US?


 
What have christians in the US got to do with it?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 14, 2016)

co-op said:


> It's obviously unlikely the call was meant to be a warning but equally it seems really clear to me that his primary motive is far more likely to be extreme homophobia...



Inconvenient then according to his current wife that he considered Disneyland first.


----------



## co-op (Jun 14, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> What have christians in the US got to do with it?



Many of them; deeply ingrained homophobia.


----------



## co-op (Jun 14, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Inconvenient then according to his current wife that he considered Disneyland first.



Considered and didn't do it. Isn't a bit inconvenient for your muslim thesis that it turns out he had attended this club quite regularly? That issues surrounding his own masculinity and how he believed this was perceived may have been the key here? If we're quoting his wife remember she says he didn't care about religion; if that's true and you really follow your line then what? It's a genetic muslim thing?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 14, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Inconvenient then according to his current wife that he considered Disneyland first.



But he chose to maim and murder in an LGBT venue. Not Disney.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 14, 2016)

co-op said:


> Many of them; deeply ingrained homophobia.


Fair enough. And when they start chucking gay men off buildings or butchering them as in Orlando, which then attracts headlines such as 'Death toll rises to 50 in bar where perverted homosexuals go' in places like Canada then we may be able to draw an equivalence.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 14, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> But he chose to maim and murder in an LGBT venue. Not Disney.



Yes, but according to his second wife, who was with him, he had a look at Disney World first. Deterred by metal detectors apparently.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 14, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Yes, but according to his second wife, who was with him, he had a look at Disney World first. Deterred by metal detectors apparently.



So his current wife has admitted she knew what he was up to in terms of planning this attack? 

I haven't seen any articles about that.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 14, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Fair enough. And when they start chucking gay men off buildings or butchering them as in Orlando, which then attracts headlines such as 'Death toll rises to 50 in bar where perverted homosexuals go' in places like Canada then we may be able to draw an equivalence.



I seem to remember the NY Post describing George Michael as a "washed up pervert" and "pop perv".

That's mainstream, Christian US press only a decade ago.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 14, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Yes, but according to his second wife, who was with him, he had a look at Disney World first. Deterred by metal detectors apparently.



So, it would have been Disney, if he could. It definitely, definitely couldn't have been anything to do with a hate crime against LGBT people? Or even a self hate crime, given his alleged internal strife and issues?


----------



## treelover (Jun 14, 2016)

> *Another atrocity carried out by a young Muslim. And as usual the Owen Joneses of this world miss the point entirely.*
> 
> In a world where stupid generalisations are frowned upon, it is depressing that generalising about ‘Muslims’ is standard fare for non-Muslims – both ‘Islamophobic’ chauvinists and their equally irrational, ‘Islamophilic’ opposites.
> 
> ...



This is written by I think a Muslim and yes it is on Harrys Place, but I wonder what people think?

This is the authors twitter to get more info on him.

Mehrdad Amanpour (@MehrdadAmanpour) on Twitter


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 14, 2016)

treelover said:


> This is written by I think a Muslim and yes it is on Harrys Place, but I wonder what people think?
> 
> This is the authors twitter to get more info on him.
> 
> Mehrdad Amanpour (@MehrdadAmanpour) on Twitter


you think it's written by a muslim. but you're not sure. why not?

and even if he is a muslim, i suggest that there's an _ulterior motive_ in harry's place putting it up


----------



## treelover (Jun 14, 2016)

Don't attack the messengers, and yes he is a muslim.

The article?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 14, 2016)

treelover said:


> Don't attack the messengers, and yes he is a muslim.


how refreshing it is to see you actually respond, even when your response is both mealy-mouthed and unsatisfactory


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 14, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I seem to remember the NY Post describing George Michael as a "washed up pervert" and "pop perv".
> 
> That's mainstream, Christian US press only a decade ago.



Bigoted yes. But hardly the same as being chucked off a roof.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 14, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Bigoted yes. But hardly the same as being chucked off a roof.



Ok; it's not a competition but, lest we forget

History of violence against LGBT people in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 14, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> So his current wife has admitted she knew what he was up to in terms of planning this attack?
> 
> I haven't seen any articles about that.




Has anyone seen any articles about this?


----------



## co-op (Jun 14, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Fair enough. And when they start chucking gay men off buildings or butchering them as in Orlando, which then attracts headlines such as 'Death toll rises to 50 in bar where perverted homosexuals go' in places like Canada then we may be able to draw an equivalence.



I'm not drawing a direct equivalence in terms of what is done by members of each group in the name of that group, I don't need to because I think this is a really typical US rampage murder spree, not a religiously-inspired incident of political terrorism. As others have pointed out, during the short period when we knew roughly what had happened but not who had done it, there were all sorts of questions about the identity of the shooter but one thing was always absolutely certain; it was a man.

Why so certain? Because rampage killers always are. 

Which is why the best work that's been done on what makes people do this kind of thing inevitably has to discuss issues surrounding masculinity and in particular the public performance of masculinity and why violence is a crucial resort for men who fear that their own (publically-defined) masculinity is in doubt. A key crisis issue for such men is homosexual men - 'men who are not real men' in their eyes. 

When the target is an LGBT venue that issue is even more obviously salient. 

The idea that this was a radicalised political islamic attack is daft frankly, especially as more details come out; I see this guy was claiming allegiance to IS and also to Hezbollah - yet the latter are basically an ethnic, clan-based South Lebanese shi-ite group who would be regarded as revolting heretics by IS. 

He knew nothing at all about the middle east or its islamist politics, not surprising really as he's just another typical American man committing a gotterdammerung American male suicide via a flamboyant public display of hyper-violence, a suicide-form that is highly culturally available in the USA, it's almost become the go-to way to do it.


----------



## tim (Jun 14, 2016)

Johnny Vodka said:


> You think?  I'm more inclined to believe that it was an attack on western values - people out at night, enjoying a rock gig in this instance.  And I wouldn't be surprised if the attack on Pulse was inspired by that.  I don't see these two attacks as existing separately.  I hope I'm proven wrong, but I think we'll see more lone wolf attacks on entertainment venues, clubs and bars, gay or straight, now that idea is out there.



Or a manifestation of good old Western values; alienated and disgruntled individual finds an honourable cause which gives him the excuse to go out and slaughter people and usually obtain martyr status; it's as American as apple pie. Remember Colombine, Oklahoma, Colorado springs Charleston etc

The perpetrators of all these atrocities are just following in John Wayne's hoof-steps.


----------



## hot air baboon (Jun 14, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Has anyone seen any articles about this?



...looks like this one...

Orlando Nightclub Gunman Scouted Walt Disney World as Potential Target: Source

_Omar Mateen and his wife, Noor Zahi Salman, visited Walt Disney World in April, the source says. Salman told federal authorities on Sunday that her husband had more recently been "scouting Downtown Disney and Pulse [nightclub] for attacks." _


----------



## planetgeli (Jun 14, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Really...just a few nuances? How about some actual confirmation of the diagnosis, a verified history of trauma, evidence of comorbidity and history of substance misuse (all characteristics which increase the chances of impulsive rather than premeditated violence), that's before we move away from your preferred 'medical' explanation to look at the potential impacts of factors such as weapons availability, ideological commitment, religious belief or homophobia (in this instance there seems to be some emerging evidence of possible self loathing).
> 
> So rather than hanging the deaths of 49 people on the convenient peg of bi-polar disorder (and thus avoiding all of the stigmatizing baggage and easy assumptions that go with such a superficial comment), why not step back and take a little longer to see how things develop?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



It's your emphasis on my words, not mine, to characterise what I said as 'hanging the deaths on the convenient peg of bi-polar disorder'. My emphasis and intention was to offer an alternative, some of it based on his wife's actual words which I now regret using and apologise for, to the explantion that was being jumped to that this was obviously an organised ISIS plot. My comments in this thread started from the basis of solidly defending Owen Jones for his analysis of, and disgust at Sky's refusal to accept, this as a homophobic attack.

So take out bi-polar which was never my emphasis, as explained and apologised for, and instead see it as mentally disturbed man with inner demons and possible issues about his own sexuality, (the facts that are coming out now that I alluded neither of us knew yet), going on a rampage made easy by the availability of guns in the USA. A man who has so little grasp of ideology that he claims allegiance to both ISIS and Hezbollah without even being aware of any incompatibility.

My posts were standing against Joe Reilly and his insistence on the absolute proof of an ISIS-led ideological attack. I don't think I'm being proved so wrong so far, despite a couple of people's misinterpretations of my emphasis.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 14, 2016)

Hartley-Brewer has forgotten that useful old adage: "When you're in a hole, stop digging". If she carries on at this rate, she should be in Australia by teatime tomorrow. 
The Orlando shooting is not about Owen Jones, despite what his hate-mob would have you think


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 14, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Hartley-Brewer has forgotten that useful old adage: "When you're in a hole, stop digging". If she carries on at this rate, she should be in Australia by teatime tomorrow.
> The Orlando shooting is not about Owen Jones, despite what his hate-mob would have you think





> If Owen Jones wants to live in a world where people can only say what is on the officially approved list of platitudes, then perhaps he has more in common with Islamic State than he thinks.


----------



## Celyn (Jun 14, 2016)

hot air baboon said:


> ..._Salman told federal authorities on Sunday that her husband had more recently been "scouting Downtown Disney and Pulse [nightclub] for attacks." _



I hope this is not unseemly levity, but if you're doing something else and glance at this page, you know, sort of seeing it in the corner or the eye, but not seeing properly, then there's the interesting notion of him scouting Downton Abbey for his murderous spree.


----------



## hot air baboon (Jun 14, 2016)

Omar Mateen may not have understood the difference between ISIS, al-Qaeda and Hezbollah

_In the early hours of Sunday morning, Omar Mateen killed at least 49 people during an attack on the popular gay nightclub Pulse in Orlando. During the attack, Mateen placed a 911 call and told the operator that his actions were motivated by his hardcore Islamist beliefs. However, Mateen's comments about Islam suggested that while his viewpoints were no doubt extreme, they were also confused, perhaps even incoherent._


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 14, 2016)

hot air baboon said:


> ...looks like this one...
> 
> Orlando Nightclub Gunman Scouted Walt Disney World as Potential Target: Source
> 
> _Omar Mateen and his wife, Noor Zahi Salman, visited Walt Disney World in April, the source says. Salman told federal authorities on Sunday that her husband had more recently been "scouting Downtown Disney and Pulse [nightclub] for attacks." _



Does this implicate his wife as an accomplice?


----------



## hot air baboon (Jun 14, 2016)

..it seems to be the source of the story afaics...that she knew what he was up to...a passive rather than active role...


----------



## chilango (Jun 14, 2016)

> Owen, a Guardian columnist and political commentator who also happens to be gay, was, understandably, very upset and angry about the news from Orlando when he arrived in the green room





> He had had a bad day, was tired and emotional, and was spoiling for a fight.



Yeah. You could see straight away that Jones was distressed. It was the first thing that struck me watching the video.

Hartley-Brewer acknowledges that she noted it too. Yet, expressed no empathy, no human concern for the visibly distraught man sat next to her.

Nope, instead she gleefully poked him till he couldn't take it anymore.

Nice.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 14, 2016)

Her Twitter timeline is always good for lulz.
Julia Hartley-Brewer (@JuliaHB1) on Twitter

Have a look at this exchange. It involves H-B, Tom Chivers and Owen Jones. It also draws in a few of her [knuckledragging] admirers. She quite literally doesn't know when to stop. She's a bully.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 14, 2016)

hot air baboon said:


> Omar Mateen may not have understood the difference between ISIS, al-Qaeda and Hezbollah
> 
> _In the early hours of Sunday morning, Omar Mateen killed at least 49 people during an attack on the popular gay nightclub Pulse in Orlando. During the attack, Mateen placed a 911 call and told the operator that his actions were motivated by his hardcore Islamist beliefs. However, Mateen's comments about Islam suggested that while his viewpoints were no doubt extreme, they were also confused, perhaps even incoherent._


much about his life seems to have been confused, perhaps even incoherent


----------



## planetgeli (Jun 14, 2016)

hot air baboon said:


> ...looks like this one...
> 
> Orlando Nightclub Gunman Scouted Walt Disney World as Potential Target: Source
> 
> _Omar Mateen and his wife, Noor Zahi Salman, visited Walt Disney World in April, the source says. Salman told federal authorities on Sunday that her husband had more recently been "scouting Downtown Disney and Pulse [nightclub] for attacks." _



Fuck me the comments under that article make Daily Mail readers look like communists.


----------



## 8den (Jun 14, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Hartley-Brewer has forgotten that useful old adage: "When you're in a hole, stop digging". If she carries on at this rate, she should be in Australia by teatime tomorrow.
> The Orlando shooting is not about Owen Jones, despite what his hate-mob would have you think



Tell her that one Kate Hopkins is one too many, kay bye tks.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 14, 2016)

8den said:


> Tell her that one Kate Hopkins is one too many, kay bye tks.


I saw her being described on Twitter as the 'Waitrose Katie Hopkins'.


----------



## 8den (Jun 14, 2016)

hot air baboon said:


> ..it seems to be the source of the story afaics...that she knew what he was up to...a passive rather than active role...



FYI the wife says he "scouted" these locations with her. It's entirely plausible and likely that they went to these places and with the benefit of hindsight she thinks perhaps they were "scouting missions", and it's being misreported. Cause the media never does that.


----------



## belboid (Jun 14, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Bigoted yes. But hardly the same as being chucked off a roof.


what about the Christian fundamentalist movements in Africa?


----------



## Wookey (Jun 14, 2016)

When I watch the video of the Sky newspaper review, it's very clear to me that Hartley-Brewer DID acknowledge the homophobic nature of the attack, several times.

It's also clear that Owen was distressed and upset, and was not bringing his best game to the segment. I would have preferred him to have taken a breath and carry on debating. (Actually, I'd have preferred him to have had a bath and an early night and give himself a break from the commentariat bullshit on Sky).

I understand why he walked; because he perceived that his voice was being contradicted by two non-gay people. But his exit left no gay voice on the panel, which is really regrettable.

I have also in the past used the argument "You don't understand this because you aren't gay...." which even at the time felt to me like a weak and tergiversational way to win an argument, and a very effective way of shutting down anyone who doesn't completely reflect what you believe from a gay perspective. There isn't any such thing as a single gay perspective though, just personal perspectives made by gay people.

By Monday, Owen should have had time to reflect, and perhaps refocus the story back on the crime, the victims and the issues at hand, rather than repeat the unfair and inaccurate accusation towards two people of trying to whitewash the homophobic nature of the attacks.

I love the guy dearly, currently really enjoying (right word?!) his book The Establishment And How They Get Away With It. But Julia HB makes the most important point - no-one should be telling her what to say, or how to say it. That's not what our movement should be about.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 14, 2016)

Wookey said:


> When I watch the video of the Sky newspaper review, it's very clear to me that Hartley-Brewer DID acknowledge the homophobic nature of the attack, several times.
> 
> It's also clear that Owen was distressed and upset, and was not bringing his best game to the segment. I would have preferred him to have taken a breath and carry on debating. (Actually, I'd have preferred him to have had a bath and an early night and give himself a break from the commentariat bullshit on Sky).
> 
> ...


Imagine the scene: "you don't understand because you're not straight" - wld no doubt go down like a lead balloon. Perhaps if instead of that argument being deployed 'one' might proceed by way of analogy to convey the sentiment desired.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 14, 2016)

Here's an interesting take from Zelo Street. Jones apparently told his Twitter followers to lay off, but this didn't stop Hartley-Brewer as I've already noted.


> But what Jones made clear is that no blame for the situation should be directed at fellow guest Julia Hartley Brewer, Tweeting “_And please lay off @JuliaHB1 - none of the abuse directed at her is in my name_” to underscore his concern.
> 
> Having extended the hand of friendship, one might have expected Ms Hartley Brewer to adopt a measured and understanding tone in response. But that would have missed her insatiable appetite for promoting More And Bigger Media Attention Events For Herself Personally Now. Jones was her latest meal ticket, and with the inevitability of night following day, she used the platform given her by the _Telegraph_ to put the boot in.
> Zelo Street: Julia Hartley Brewer - Me Me Meee!





> He’s not asked for an apology from her. But now that she has openly accused him of being ratarsed on set (we all know what “_tired and emotional_” is code for, thanks) he has a damn good reason to request one. Her use of “_This is peak Generation Snowflake … If Owen Jones wants to live in a world where people can only say what is on the officially approved list of platitudes, then perhaps he has more in common with Islamic State than he thinks_” just underscores the point. This is abuse _ad infinitum ad nauseam_, to no point at all.



She's a bully _and_ a troll.


----------



## Wookey (Jun 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Imagine the scene: "you don't understand because you're not straight" - wld no doubt go down like a lead balloon. Perhaps if instead of that argument being deployed 'one' might proceed by way of analogy to convey the sentiment desired.



Good point! My response would be that I was raised as a straight person, in a straight family, in a straight culture. I know exactly what it is like to be straight because I was forced to live that way for many years. Few straight people would be able to claim the same kind of direct personal experience of "the other side" because they are never expected to.

That means that gay people's perspectives are unique, and vital to understanding many issues - but that doesn't mean to say it's the only perspective, or that straight people are incapable of empathy, imagination, self-education etc...cause they are. 

Some of the most insightful gay rights statements I've ever heard have come from well-informed straight people. Some of the most narrow-minded, bigoted and self-defeating opinions I've heard have come from gay people. Go figure.


----------



## Wookey (Jun 14, 2016)

Compare and contrast the Sky new segment with the papal statement on Orlando - Pope Francis manages to condemn the violence without once using the terms "gay" "LGBT" or "homophobia".

THAT is whitewash.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 14, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Ok; it's not a competition but, lest we forget
> 
> History of violence against LGBT people in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Any precedent for a supposedly self-hating gay man shooting up to a hundred people (essentially near everyone but himself) and deliberately killing women as he went  because he was suffering an identity crisis?


----------



## 8ball (Jun 15, 2016)

Wookey said:


> Compare and contrast the Sky new segment with the papal statement on Orlando - Pope Francis manages to condemn the violence without once using the terms "gay" "LGBT" or "homophobia".
> 
> THAT is whitewash.



With the Pope I'm less surprised, but when mainstream news are plastering over it there's a problem.

I was a bit busy when the story broke and caught snippets running along TV tickers and on the internet and it was over a day before I found out it was a gay club.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 15, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> So, it would have been Disney, if he could. It definitely, definitely couldn't have been anything to do with a hate crime against LGBT people? Or even a self hate crime, given his alleged internal strife and issues?



Anyone involved in religious fundamentalism is by definition not entirely rational. So there could have been a myriad of factors behind the selection and rejection of the numerous targets and the timing of the attack. Very clearly it was a hate crime against LGBT people.

But what Owen Jones and certain posters want everyone to believe is that 'hate crime' was all it could ever be. Cut and dried. Nothing more to see here folks.
_
'It definitely, definitely,couldn't have been anything to do with Islam' _has been the message from the start. No case to answer has been the cry. Even, or especially, when the substantial evidence, is in one way or the other, pointing directly at it.


----------



## Wookey (Jun 15, 2016)

8ball said:


> With the Pope I'm less surprised, but when mainstream news are plastering over it there's a problem.
> 
> I was a bit busy when the story broke and caught snippets running along TV tickers and on the internet and it was over a day before I found out it was a gay club.



Wow. I am surprised at that, everything I've seen has had "gay club" plastered all over it. (Apart from the papal statement, which as you say is not a surprise)


----------



## belboid (Jun 15, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Anyone involved in religious fundamentalism is by definition not entirely rational. So there could have been a myriad of factors behind the selection and rejection of the numerous targets and the timing of the attack. Very clearly it was a hate crime against LGBT people.
> 
> But what Owen Jones and certain posters want everyone to believe is that 'hate crime' was all it could ever be. Cut and dried. Nothing more to see here folks.
> _
> 'It definitely, definitely,couldn't have been anything to do with Islam' _has been the message from the start. No case to answer has been the cry. Even, or especially, when the substantial evidence, is in one way or the other, pointing directly at it.


He didn't say anything g like that you dishonest shit. Your politics are now those of Julia Hartley Brewer, you must be proud.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jun 15, 2016)

Wookey said:


> When I watch...



(Snipped...)

I'm quite a fan of his anyway, and whilst I wasn't expecting him to act like that, it did endear him to me further...He came across as very normal or human and acted as we all might under such a distressing event and windup shitheaddery.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Anyone involved in religious fundamentalism is by definition not entirely rational. So there could have been a myriad of factors behind the selection and rejection of the numerous targets and the timing of the attack. Very clearly it was a hate crime against LGBT people.
> 
> But what Owen Jones and certain posters want everyone to believe is that 'hate crime' was all it could ever be. Cut and dried. Nothing more to see here folks.
> _
> 'It definitely, definitely,couldn't have been anything to do with Islam' _has been the message from the start. No case to answer has been the cry. Even, or especially, when the substantial evidence, is in one way or the other, pointing directly at it.


For substantial read circumstantial?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> He didn't say anything g like that



You are correct, the Owen Jones walk off was prompted by an attempt by the presenter and JHB to deny that this was a hate crime against LGBT people.

However, others - on this thread and elsewhere - have certainly tried to downplay any role religion may have played and/or the stated reasons given by the killer for the massacre.

It's already clear that in this instance the reasons are complex and possibly ones we will never fully understand. But there is a wider point about some on the left so desperate to defend Islam that it leads them to adopt positions or make assertions to let religion off the hook that in other circumstances they would rightly condemn. It's almost as though they think it counters those who wish to blame everything on those who hold irrational beliefs about a God.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 15, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Anyone involved in religious fundamentalism is by definition not entirely rational. So there could have been a myriad of factors behind the selection and rejection of the numerous targets and the timing of the attack. Very clearly it was a hate crime against LGBT people.
> 
> But what Owen Jones and certain posters want everyone to believe is that 'hate crime' was all it could ever be. Cut and dried. Nothing more to see here folks.
> _
> 'It definitely, definitely,couldn't have been anything to do with Islam' _has been the message from the start. No case to answer has been the cry. Even, or especially, when the substantial evidence, is in one way or the other, pointing directly at it.



These aren't the excuses you're looking for.


----------



## belboid (Jun 15, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> However, others - on this thread and elsewhere - have certainly tried to downplay any role religion may have played and/or the stated reasons given by the killer for the massacre.


really?  We must be reading different threads


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 15, 2016)

Across the Guardian comments section yesterday there was almost a palpable sense of relief that the killer had possible conflicts about his sexuality. 

On here posters have advanced theories about the mental health of the killer and advanced the view that because he appears not to have been working as part of a cell,/an ISIS member 'proper' that his stated reasons for the attack can be dismissed.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 15, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Across the Guardian comments section yesterday there was almost a palpable sense of relief that the killer had possible conflicts about his sexuality.
> 
> On here posters have advanced theories about the mental health of the killer and advanced the view that because he appears not to have been working as part of a cell,/an ISIS member 'proper' that his stated reasons for the attack can be dismissed.



He's a homophobic conflicted arse who used Isis and Hezbollah(!!!) as an excuse.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 15, 2016)

Wookey said:


> Wow. I am surprised at that, everything I've seen has had "gay club" plastered all over it. (Apart from the papal statement, which as you say is not a surprise)



The BBC ticker said 'night club' iirc.  Other bits I saw said things like '50 feared dead in Orlando shooting' and 'worst mass shooting in recent US history' (I figured the word 'recent' was a late insertion after an informed viewer chirped up).

I only saw headlines and tickers, and the sample I saw is by no means representative, obv.  It felt plausible enough when I saw the clip with Owen Jones, though, having not seen the terms 'gay club' or 'hate crime' in the (admittedly very restricted) content I saw.


----------



## belboid (Jun 15, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Across the Guardian comments section yesterday there was almost a palpable sense of relief that the killer had possible conflicts about his sexuality.
> 
> On here posters have advanced theories about the mental health of the killer and advanced the view that because he appears not to have been working as part of a cell,/an ISIS member 'proper' that his stated reasons for the attack can be dismissed.


 who gives a flying fuck what is in the guardian comments?  And give us some quotes to support your assertion, cos it does look an awful lot like bollocks


----------



## chilango (Jun 15, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> On here posters have advanced theories about the mental health of the killer and advanced the view that because he appears not to have been working as part of a cell,/an ISIS member 'proper' that his stated reasons for the attack can be dismissed.



I would strongly argue, on the basis of what is known at this point, that he was not a member of IS in any shape or form, so that trying to project IS's goals/aims/ideology or whatever onto him is mistaken.

However, that is not to say that IS did not provide some form of inspiration or justification or whatever for his act. Regardless it was a homophobic attack no matter what the balance of inspiration is between all the various factors that may be at play.

That's it.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 15, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> Yeah. Interviewed twice. Which, as you say, is more than once. And cleared.
> 
> Yeah. Phoned 911 at the very last minute. And ISIS are well known for giving warnings aren't they?
> 
> ...



Well there is this for starters.....

And are you saying the Guardian comments section is not representative of left opinion by the way? Bizarre shit.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 15, 2016)

chilango said:


> I would strongly argue, on the basis of what is known at this point, that he was not a member of IS in any shape or form, so that trying to project IS's goals/aims/ideology or whatever onto him is mistaken.
> 
> However, that is not to say that IS did not provide some form of inspiration or justification or whatever for his act. Regardless it was a homophobic attack no matter what the balance of inspiration is between all the various factors that may be at play.
> 
> That's it.



I pretty much agree with that. My point however is that some on the left are desperate to eliminate religion/ISIS propoganda as having any weight as a casual factor.


----------



## chilango (Jun 15, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I pretty much agree with that. My point however is that some on the left are desperate to eliminate religion/ISIS propoganda as having any weight as a casual factor.



Perhaps. I certainly wouldn't want to do that.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 15, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I pretty much agree with that. My point however is that some on the left are desperate to eliminate religion/ISIS propoganda as having any weight as a casual factor.



Who? It is a casual factor. But it is not the main factor. It's like an excuse, an afterthought, a disguise. A sham.


----------



## Sue (Jun 15, 2016)

chilango said:


> I would strongly argue, on the basis of what is known at this point, *that he was not a member of IS in any shape or form,* so that trying to project IS's goals/aims/ideology or whatever onto him is mistaken.
> 
> However, that is not to say that IS did not provide some form of inspiration or justification or whatever for his act. Regardless it was a homophobic attack no matter what the balance of inspiration is between all the various factors that may be at play.
> 
> That's it.



So how does one become a 'member of IS'? Is there an application form to be completed and subs to pay? He said his allegiance was with IS when he called 911 so I'm not quite sure why people are trying to pretend that this wasn't so.


----------



## belboid (Jun 15, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> And are you saying the Guardian comments section is not representative of left opinion by the way? Bizarre shit.


 you're fucking kidding, arent you?  Its full of fucking crackpots and imbeciles


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 15, 2016)

Sue said:


> So how does one become a 'member of IS'? Is there an application form to be completed and subs to pay? He said his allegiance was with IS when he called 911 so I'm not quite sure why people are trying to pretend that this wasn't so.



I'm Irish. Say I suddenly go postal on a room full of innocents and I ring the cops and mention the IRA. Does that mean I'm automatically a member?


----------



## belboid (Jun 15, 2016)

Sue said:


> So how does one become a 'member of IS'? Is there an application form to be completed and subs to pay? He said his allegiance was with IS when he called 911 so I'm not quite sure why people are trying to pretend that this wasn't so.


 well, the way he also said he was hezbollah and hamas kinda contradicts it.  Clearly he was inspired by islamic fundamentalism in a genereic sense, but to tie him to any particular group seems well wide of the mark


----------



## Sue (Jun 15, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I'm Irish. Say I suddenly go postal on a room full of innocents and I ring the cops and mention the IRA. Does that mean I'm automatically a member?



I'm not familiar with the IRA membership procedure but if you said your allegiance was with the IRA then I'd think you believed you were doing it on behalf of the IRA.


----------



## chilango (Jun 15, 2016)

Sue said:


> So how does one become a 'member of IS'? Is there an application form to be completed and subs to pay? He said his allegiance was with IS when he called 911 so I'm not quite sure why people are trying to pretend that this was nothing to do with IS.



I'm fairly sure there'll be some sort of command structure. Some sort of support structure. They're probably not just a bunch of unrelated randoms doing whatever they individually feel like on the day.

To argue that is probable that he was outside of these structures is not say that "it had nothing to do with IS".


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 15, 2016)

Sue said:


> I'm not familiar with the IRA membership procedure but if you said your allegiance was with the IRA then I'd think you believed you were doing it on behalf of the IRA.



I might "believe" it, in a delusional sense.


----------



## Sue (Jun 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> well, the way he also said he was hezbollah and hamas kinda contradicts it.  Clearly he was inspired by islamic fundamentalism in a genereic sense, but to tie him to any particular group seems well wide of the mark



Was there not recent research indicating that here at least, young men becoming radicalised often had a very poor grasp of the religion they purported to be fighting for and of the various groups involved? (About to go out so not got time to find a link just now.)


----------



## belboid (Jun 15, 2016)

Sue said:


> I'm not familiar with the IRA membership procedure but if you said your allegiance was with the IRA then I'd think you believed you were doing it on behalf of the IRA.


When I was 17, I rang up my college and told them I was the INLA and that' we'd planted a device in the building. I dont think I ever thought I was doing that on their behalf, they certainly never sent me a thank you note.


Sue said:


> Was there not recent research indicating that here at least, young men becoming radicalised often had a very poor grasp of the religion they purported to be fighting for and of the various groups involved? (About to go out so not got time to find a link just now.)


That does sound familiar and abouit right


----------



## YouSir (Jun 15, 2016)

Sue said:


> Was there not recent research indicating that here at least, young men becoming radicalised often had a very poor grasp of the religion they purported to be fighting for and of the various groups involved? (About to go out so not got time to find a link just now.)



Same applies to a fair few of the young men fighting for religion everywhere.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> you're fucking kidding, arent you?  Its full of fucking crackpots and imbeciles



I wasn't referring to the Daily Mail trolls, but now you come to mention it


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> For substantial read circumstantial?



OK to clarify: there is _substantial circumstantial_ evidence pointing to Islamism as a critical factor.

For example it is now alleged he tried to befriend the owner of another gay bar a couple of days before. But when the guy checked his friends list it was just people talking Arabic. So he knocked him back because "it didn't make sense". That club was closed on the day of the attack.
As well as Disney World it also suggested there may have been other targets.
Targets he scoped out with his wife. Tactically not dissimilar to the San Bernadino couple.
He went to Saudi Arabia twice in the last five years it is reported.
He was in contact with and went to same mosque as America's first suicide bomber, Moner Mohammed Abu Jalha
He was also in regular contact with Dwayne Roberston an ex-Marine convert, cleric and heavy-weight ISIS recruiter.
He made an emergency call just before he started shooting claiming allegiance to ISIS
Told one victim he was doing it 'for his country',
Cited the Tsaranev brothers who executed the Boston bombing in his last communique with police.
Employed indiscriminate slaughter to induce the greatest terror in wider society.
The kill ratio itself suggests both calmness and some level of military training.
He didn't commit suicide or surrender.
Finally the taking of hostages (_after_ the massacre) to maintain the media spotlight and dominate the news agenda for as long as possible which is something straight out of the ISIS playbook.
"God allowed Omar Mateen, one of the soldiers of the caliphate to carry out an attack entering a crusader gathering in a nightclub in Orlando killing and wounding more than 100 of them"  (Isis's Albayan radio station.)

** "Make Ramadam the month of conquest and Jihad...make it a month of calamity for non-believers everywhere especially in Europe and America"
Abu Mohamed Al-Adnani
May2016*

***April 2016
Speaker at the Husseni islamic Centre in Orlando

"Lets get rid of them (homosexuals) NOW!"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 15, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Well there is this for starters.....
> 
> And are you saying the Guardian comments section is not representative of left opinion by the way? Bizarre shit.



Representative of left-liberal Toynbeeist hand-wringing opinion, maybe.


----------



## chilango (Jun 15, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> OK to clarify: there is _substantial circumstantial_ evidence pointing to Islamism as a critical factor.
> 
> For example it is now alleged he tried to befriend the owner of another gay bar a couple of days before. But when the guy checked his friends list it was just people talking Arabic. So he knocked him back because "it didn't make sense". That club was closed on the day of the attack.
> As well as Disney World it also suggested there may have been other targets.
> ...



Y'see the three things I've bolded might start to suggest a greater possibility of an organisational link. It'll be interesting to see if more comes out about these.


----------



## hot air baboon (Jun 15, 2016)

Fealty and Modern Terrorism

During his deadly attack on a packed Orlando nightclub where he killed 50 people and wounded many more, Omar Mateen called 911.  

On the recorded call, he pledge his loyalty to ISIS.  

A day later, a terrorist outside of Paris, used Facebook livestreaming to pledge his loyalty to ISIS while stabbing a police chief and his wife to death.

What's going on?

The answer is that these pledges aren't simply expressions of loyalty, they are expressions of *fealty*, a much more powerful means of connection.  

Fealty is something we haven't seen since the middle ages.  ISIS became capable of employing fealty once it rebuilt a barebones Caliphate and it is using it to transform modern terrorism.

To understand this, let's dig into fealty a bit. 


Fealty is a strict, lifelong pledge of loyalty from a vassal to a lord.  It's public and irreversible.  (If you watch Game of Thrones, it's why everyone hates the Kingslayer, even if he was justified in his actions)


Fealty obligates the vassal to act in the service of the lord, without any need for specific direction.  It also gives the protection of the lord to the vassal (in a religious context, salvation and redemption).


Fealty made it possible to build large, geographically segmented networks in a world without instant communications and rapid travel.	
Fealty allows ISIS to get around some of problems of modern open source insurgency.   For example:


A potential terrorist shouldn't express fealty until the attack.  Benefit: This prevents discovery during the grooming process.


A public expression of fealty (FB, Twitter..) provides them with instant acceptance by the "lord"  Benefit: this provides them spiritual protection for the attack and maximizes the publicity for ISIS


A Jihadi, or their local network, shouldn't ask for permission, planning, or support.  They should act on their own.  The attack itself is a demonstration of loyalty.  Benefit: this reduces chances of discovery and maximizes the innovative potential of the global network.
The more I think about it, fealty is an extremely useful way of harnessing and directing the power of an open source insurgency (aka, herding cats).


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 15, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> You are correct, the Owen Jones walk off was prompted by an attempt by the presenter and JHB to deny that this was a hate crime against LGBT people.



When it came up that there had been a second arrest elsewhere, Jones by this stage in a deep silent sulk still roused himself to interject "he wasn't a Muslim!" which chimed-with his narrative that this was pure and simply a hate crime motivated by homophobia and nothing else. And as such could really only be understood by gay men like himself.

PS Belboid is never 'correct'.


----------



## Biscuitician (Jun 15, 2016)

Wankstain Murray of course has to earn his keep; getting funding for his laughable imperialist arms manufacturer fellating shit show by trotting out the tired islamism card


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 15, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> When it came up that there had been a second arrest elsewhere, Jones by this stage in a deep silent sulk still roused himself to interject "he wasn't a Muslim!" which chimed-with his narrative that this was pure and simply a hate crime motivated by homophobia and nothing else. And as such could really only be understood by gay men like himself.


Careful. You'll have Bellend calling you a homophobe in a minute!


----------



## cantsin (Jun 15, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> OK to clarify: there is _substantial circumstantial_ evidence pointing to Islamism as a critical factor.
> 
> For example it is now alleged he tried to befriend the owner of another gay bar a couple of days before. But when the guy checked his friends list it was just people talking Arabic. So he knocked him back because "it didn't make sense". That club was closed on the day of the attack.
> As well as Disney World it also suggested there may have been other targets.
> ...



all seems to point that way, but as he was also confirmed to be active on Grindr / going to  gay clubs etc  ,nothing straightfwd about any of it .

Although it would be hard to argue that the religio-political culture to which he attached himself / immersed himself ( in some ways )  didn't play a signifcant part in the final self hate / other hate inspired murder rampage.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Careful. You'll have Bellend calling you a homophobe in a minute!



I was quite pleased he turned up actually. As he tends to pick the wrong side in every discussion. Plus he'll still be on here to have the last word (something like Bollocks!) long after every one else has packed up and gone.


----------



## belboid (Jun 15, 2016)

excellent company you're keeping now Joe.  At least you're coming out as a plain old right winger now

Funny that you've ignored everything I've actually said, I wonder if that is because it contradicts your rightist nonsense


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 15, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> I was quite pleased he turned up actually. As he tends to pick the wrong side in every discussion. Plus he'll still be on here to have the last word (something like Bollocks!) long after every one else has packed up and gone.


His thought processes are just completely binary. He'll call you a tory next.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> excellent company you're keeping now Joe.  At least you're coming out as a plain old right winger now


LOL!

QED


----------



## belboid (Jun 15, 2016)

I am delighted to be hated by two such utter wankers.  Thank you, you deserve each other.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> I am delighted to be hated by two such utter wankers.  Thank you, you deserve each other.


I don't hate you, Bellend. You're a brainless fuckwit, but that amuses me.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 15, 2016)

What a shit thread this has turned into.


----------



## belboid (Jun 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I don't hate you, Bellend. You're a brainless fuckwit, but that amuses me.


 stop following me around you repugnant creep.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> stop following me around you repugnant creep.


Get fucked.


----------



## editor (Jun 15, 2016)

Time to employ forced mutual ignore on Spymaster  and belboid  in the name of world peace etc. Lasts for a month.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 15, 2016)

Fair enough. Fleas in our ears from the editor.

Bellend will probably try to shoot his.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 15, 2016)

cantsin said:


> all seems to point that way, but as he was also confirmed to be active on Grindr / going to  gay clubs etc  ,nothing straightfwd about any of it .
> 
> Although it would be hard to argue that the religio-political culture to which he attached himself / immersed himself ( in some ways )  didn't play a signifcant part in the final self hate / other hate inspired murder rampage.



Very good point. Not sure however your other observation has actually been 'confirmed' as such. The motivation for individuals saying so a) might simply be for their 15 minutes of fame or b) to blacken his name in the eyes of Muslims who they think might be otherwise sympathetic. The story for instance of him attempting to pick up a man (who remains anonymous) who was still in the closet in 2006, if the attacker was in the closet himself just dosen't ring true. Also the claim that he '_tried'_ to pick up men, suggesting he was perennially unsuccessful, but why would that be? Even if he was it is hardly either or. The 9/11 bombers went on a protracted drink and hooker jolly prior to the attack. While loads of the Nazis leant in that direction ('Out of every Hitler Youth emerges a member of the SS' as the old joke went) and it didn't make them any less Nazi did it?  However the tapping up the_ owner_ of another gay bar (plan b?) just a couple of days before the attack does hint at a reasoning behind the orientation other than an overtly sexual one.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 15, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> When it came up that there had been a second arrest elsewhere, Jones by this stage in a deep silent sulk still roused himself to interject "he wasn't a Muslim!" which chimed-with his narrative that this was pure and simply a hate crime motivated by homophobia and nothing else. And as such could really only be understood by gay men like himself.
> 
> PS Belboid is never 'correct'.



Why did he target a gay club?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 15, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Why did he target a gay club?


Because he was also homophobic.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Because he was also homophobic.



How about a self loathing homophobic bigot first and foremost, with ISIS and religion in second place?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 15, 2016)

Quite possibly. But no way to be sure at the moment.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 15, 2016)

all my actions are guided by a coherent set of ideas. In no way would there be a lot of bleed through and confusion. Because I am a robot


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 15, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> all my actions are guided by a coherent set of ideas. In no way would there be a lot of bleed through and confusion. Because I am a robot



A homophobot


----------



## Combustible (Jun 15, 2016)

chilango said:


> I'm fairly sure there'll be some sort of command structure. Some sort of support structure. They're probably not just a bunch of unrelated randoms doing whatever they individually feel like on the day.



In the case of Al-Qaeda it was my understanding that there were a wide range of levels of command and support, from those who operated on orders from the leadership, to those who were given training and guidance but then left to their own devices, to those who were essentially "self radicalised" and acted by themselves. It seems pretty likely there could be similar different levels for IS, particularly given their propaganda efforts.

Many people seem to be determined to cast this killer as one or the other, either as a typical American spree killer driven by his own neurosis, insecurities and misanthropy or a terrorist who is driven by an external foreign islamic ideology. But in reality I'm not sure the two can always be separated. I don't think you can read too much into the fact he didn't know the difference between IS and Hezbollah, I'm sure there were plenty of idiots who made their way to Syria to join IS who didn't have much of a clue about the politics of the region.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 15, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> A homophobot


Eh? So now Dotski's a homophobe too?

Has everyone just gone fucking mad this week?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Eh? So now Dotski's a homophobe too?
> 
> Has everyone just gone fucking mad this week?



Of course he's not! I wasn't meaning him.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 15, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Why did he target a gay club?



*"Lets get rid of them  - NOW!" *

Guest speaker at the Husseni Islamic Centre in Orlando.
April 2016


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 15, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> *"Lets get rid of them  - NOW!" *
> 
> Guest speaker at the Husseni Islamic Centre in Orlando.
> April 2016



Homophobe is still homophobe. "Religion" is still secondary.


----------



## Sue (Jun 15, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Homophobe is still homophobe. "Religion" is still secondary.


What about a religion that promotes homophobia?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 15, 2016)

Sue said:


> What about a religion that promotes homophobia?



is there one that doesn't?


----------



## Sue (Jun 15, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> is there one that doesn't?


Well quite. But not sure why you're saying religion is secondary. Not sure we know enough to say that.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 15, 2016)

Sue said:


> Well quite. But not sure why you're saying religion is secondary. Not sure we know enough to say that.



Sue, he targetted a gay club. That's a pretty specific target, don't you think?


----------



## Sue (Jun 15, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Sue, he targetted a gay club. That's a pretty specific target, don't you think?



Sure and we don't know whether he targeted it due to his religious beliefs or due to non-religious homophobia. We do know he phoned 911 claiming allegiance to IS though.


----------



## chilango (Jun 15, 2016)

Did he become homophobic because of IS? 

or was he attracted to IS because of his homophobia?

Or is it likely to be far less simplistic than that?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 15, 2016)

Sue said:


> Sure and we don't know whether he targeted it due to his religious beliefs or due to non-religious homophobia. We do know he phoned 911 claiming allegiance to IS though.



There was 15 people killed in a Mexican gay bar the other day; the official story is it was a drug thing. But people are challenging that, trying to hilight the homophobic angle. 

He targetted the Pulse because he's a homophobe. Pure and simple - a homophobe is a homophobe is a homophobe. The other stuff, whilst definitely factors, are secondary.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 15, 2016)

But it's not that simple, is it? It's far from simple?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> But it's not that simple, is it? It's far from simple?



what; there's levels of homophobia?


----------



## Combustible (Jun 15, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> He targetted the Pulse because he's a homophobe. Pure and simple - a homophobe is a homophobe is a homophobe. The other stuff, whilst definitely factors, are secondary.



But it's not that simple. Homophobes are not born homophobic. And many homophobes as horrible as they are do not kill anyone, nevermind 49 people.


----------



## Winot (Jun 15, 2016)

Combustible said:


> But it's not that simple. Homophobes are not born homophobic. And many homophobes as horrible as they are do not kill anyone, nevermind 49 people.



Homophobe + easy access to automatic weaponry = bad combination.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 15, 2016)

Combustible said:


> But it's not that simple. Homophobes are not born homophobic. And many homophobes as horrible as they are do not kill anyone, nevermind 49 people.



And there are many gay people who have died at the hands of a homophobe and/or homophobes.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 15, 2016)

Winot said:


> Homophobe + easy access to automatic weaponry = bad combination.



Couldn't agree more.


----------



## Combustible (Jun 15, 2016)

Winot said:


> Homophobe + easy access to automatic weaponry = bad combination.



Of course it is but many homophobes in the US also have easy access to automatic weaponry.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 15, 2016)

Combustible said:


> Of course it is but many homophobes in the US also have easy access to automatic weaponry.



And?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 15, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Homophobe is still homophobe. "Religion" is still secondary.



We all know that if the situation was reversed and it was Muslims who were the victims you would not be so keen to strip the attacker of his religious/political identity.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 15, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> what; there's levels of homophobia?


Well there are, for sure, but that's not the point. As mentioned above, the homophobia probably doesn't stand alone, devoid of any other context.

Take Copeland and the Admiral Duncan bombing. Was that a homophobic attack _plain and simple, _or was he a nazi scumbag with mental health issues too?

He also attacked ethnic minorities in Brick Lane and Brixton. Did he hate blacks and gays and become a nazi because of that, or did his nazi sympathies lead him to kill blacks and gays?

So, politically motivated or homophobic? What makes it more one than the other?

There are loads of questions, it's not simple at all.


----------



## Combustible (Jun 15, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> And?



And therefore your explanation that he attacked the nightclub simply because he was a homophobe doesn't really explain a lot and more to the point, given the lack of information I don't see how you can know what factors did or did not lead to him doing what he did.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 15, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> And?



On  the index of victims of homophobic crime in America show us where there is a precedent for an attacker killing dozens of strangers who it turned out was gay himself?
Accordingly, in order for your stance not to appear entirely ridiculous there simply has to be precedent.  Over to you.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 15, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Homophobe is still homophobe. "Religion" is still secondary.



This may be a surprise to you but the Muslim world generally has it the other way round.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2016)

.


----------



## belboid (Jun 15, 2016)

Sorry, but where has this supposed denial that it was a homophobic attack, driven by islamism to some unknowable extent, come from?  One remark from someone storming out of a  studio?  There has been no such denial, every report I've seen mentions his pledge to Isis or other such links.  The point about the importance of saying it was a homophobic attack isn't to deny that it was islamist, it is to stop right wingers, who _are _undoubted homophobes, trying to say 'well it _was _a gay club, but it really could have been anywhere - _one of us_' - ie not on of 'them'.  As OJ was pointing out before leaving, no one would dream of saying the attack on the bakery in Paris wasn't anti-semitic, even tho it was islamist as well. 

And even if you dont go along with that, it's an act of basic solidarity, acknowledging which community has been affected.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 15, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> On  the index of victims of homophobic crime in America show us where there is a precedent for an attacker killing dozens of strangers who it turned out was gay himself?
> Accordingly, in order for your stance not to appear entirely ridiculous there simply has to be precedent.  Over to you.



I have not denied that religion may well have been a factor.

But he targetted a gay venue. He murdered people because of their sexuality as well as any other motives.

If a Christian did the same would his homophobia be questioned at all?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 15, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> If a Christian did the same would his homophobia be questioned at all?


No one's questioning his homophobia, krtek.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No one's questioning his homophobia, krtek.



No but people are  repeatedly focusing on siting the core of his homophobia in Islam, rather than on say, the extraordinarily widespread cultural, cross-denominational hatred of gays that's still endemic in the West (though seemingly in decline) and has been seen both in regular less spectacular attacks and in very recent legislative campaigning. A hatred that is particularly pervasive in the kinds of circles a macho hard man-wannabe from a conservative background in the Southern US might move through.

Thing is everyone's seen the photos of the guy wearing NYPD T-Shirts - what sort of Islamic fanatic brands themselves with the logo of the enemy's internal security forces? What sort of fundamentalist doesn't bother distinguishing between Isis and al-Qaeda when bragging (!) about his terror links to co-workers? None of this makes any sense if you frame it primarily in terms of an anti-Western jihad, but it does if he's someone who hates gays as part of everyday life and then picks up a "belief system" to justify himself.

The reason that's important, afaics, is that if you talk about it primarily in terms of Islamic fundamentalism and a war on the West, it's basically sliding over any responsibility for ongoing societal reform at home. It's giving reactionary types a bye on how their behaviour enables homophobia in the everyday and the lethal effects that has, in favour of a narrative which is actively used by conservative agenda setters to reinforce racism, hawkish foreign policy etc.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 10, 2016)

sihhi said:


> Here you go this is the kind of wisdom we can get
> 
> 
> 
> ...



_"NATO: the merits of membership are so far from the mainstream of political debate, it would be pointless and self-defeating to pick a fight over it."_

Owen Jones on two major foreign policy issues has a 'it's not worth debating' line.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 10, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Thing is everyone's seen the photos of the guy wearing NYPD T-Shirts - what sort of Islamic fanatic brands themselves with the logo of the enemy's internal security forces? What sort of fundamentalist doesn't bother distinguishing between Isis and al-Qaeda when bragging (!) about his terror links to co-workers? None of this makes any sense if you frame it primarily in terms of an anti-Western jihad, but it does if he's someone who *hates gays as part of everyday life* and then picks up a "belief system" to justify himself.



One thought, but maybe one reason he "*hates gays as part of everyday life*" is because his everyday life was influenced by Islamic conservatism for instance his dad's Pashto TV activities and Muslim community involvement, the general conservatism of his local mosque in florida which he had visited from boyhood onward where other family members also volunteered etc. It was this conservatism which led his dad to post that facebook video after the massacre saying “God himself will punish those involved in homosexuality”


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 10, 2016)

"I blame the parents" is certainly one thought, and a marginally more rounded one than just "he's muslim and conservative, he must murder gays because he's muslim and conservative." 

Not as rounded as noting that conservatism in the southern US enourages homophobia _generally_, or that he'd been an adult for many years before going against his father's stated views by unloading weapons into people, or that the circles he personally moved in as an adult weren't primarily muslim fundamentalist ones, or that he seems to have been so theologically clueless he didn't know the difference between Hezbollah and Isis though.


----------



## co-op (Aug 10, 2016)

sihhi said:


> One thought, but maybe one reason he "*hates gays as part of everyday life*" is because his everyday life was influenced by Islamic conservatism for instance his dad's Pashto TV activities and Muslim community involvement, the general conservatism of his local mosque in florida which he had visited from boyhood onward where other family members also volunteered etc. It was this conservatism which led his dad to post that facebook video after the massacre saying “God himself will punish those involved in homosexuality”



Also there's an element here of complexity in switching codes between his identity as an American and an Afghan. In the latter culture homosexual behaviour can be tolerated so long as its not adopted as a key component of your social identity, it can even be quite 'normal' young male behaviour. It's taboo but not totally. In the US it more schismatic in a different way - you can either fully adopt a 'gay identity' or you can repress public symbols of your sexuality and pass as 'straight' but there's less inbetween space. 

Navigating these gaps is stressful; the same individual can imagine themselves in all the different ways culturally available, but they don't really co-exist and there's always liable to be a tension there.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 10, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> "I blame the parents" is certainly one thought, and a marginally more rounded one than just "he's muslim and conservative, he must murder gays because he's muslim and conservative."
> 
> Not as rounded as noting that conservatism in the southern US enourages homophobia _generally_, or that he'd been an adult for many years before going against his father's stated views by unloading weapons into people, or that the circles he personally moved in as an adult weren't primarily muslim fundamentalist ones, or that he seems to have been so theologically clueless he didn't know the difference between Hezbollah and Isis though



First, using quote marks to quote my position is twisted, please don't.

Your suggestion that conservatism in the southern US helped mould his actions is, at present, baseless. He was not part of US southern conservatism, on the other hand he married Muslim partners the second in particular had been sought on a Muslim marriage website - this partner (from non-southern California - does the southern angle matter??). He also went as an adult to perform umre in Saudi Arabia on two separate occasions. 
He visited the mosque with his very young son to do evening prayers four times a week including evening prayers the day before the attack.

The father's views on his facebook video were “God himself will punish those involved in homosexuality. This is not for the servants”.  

On the Hezbollah al-Qaeda issue he said that he had relatives who were part of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan but that he supported Hezbollah. When the Boston marathon and Westgate shopping centre attacks happened he said he was relatives with them aswell. It would appear that he was trying to link himself and his heritage to perpetrators of these kinds of attacks.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 10, 2016)

sihhi said:


> First, using quote marks to quote my position is twisted, please don't.
> 
> Your suggestion that conservatism in the southern US helped mould his actions is, at present, baseless. He was not part of US southern conservatism, on the other hand he married Muslim partners the second in particular had been sought on a Muslim marriage website - this partner (from non-southern California - does the southern angle matter??). He also went as an adult to perform umre in Saudi Arabia on two separate occasions.
> He visited the mosque with his very young son to do evening prayers four times a week including evening prayers the day before the attack.
> ...



Weird way to put it, my "quote" was directly below your post, if I was deliberately misrepresenting you as opposed to just summarising based on content it'd be a weird way to do so.  

Of course he was part of US southern conservatism, he went to a southern US school and brought his family values with him both there and into adulthood, where he worked in normal jobs with plenty of non-Muslims. It's fantasy to pretend he was somehow insulated in some muslim-only bubble. And as you point out yourself, his dad was against murder, not for it. It's possible to be homophobic _and _anti-killing. Yes he was clearly trying to link himself to some sort of Islamic extremism, but trying to work up the incoherence of supporting Hezbollah and then claiming a murder spree on behalf of Isis as him somehow being driven by ideology is just silly.


----------



## binka (Aug 11, 2016)

https://humanism.org.uk/events/?page=CiviCRM&q=civicrm/event/info&reset=1&id=211



> *The Holyoake Lecture 2016, with Owen Jones | Towards a humanist politics*
> October 18th, 2016 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM
> The British Humanist Association presents the Holyoake Lecture 2016 delivered by columnist, commentator, and political activist Owen Jones.
> 
> ...



Who's in? Only £12.50 a ticket and we could make a proper night of it


----------



## sihhi (Aug 24, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Weird way to put it, my "quote" was directly below your post, if I was deliberately misrepresenting you as opposed to just summarising based on content it'd be a weird way to do so.
> 
> Of course he was part of US southern conservatism, he went to a southern US school and brought his family values with him both there and into adulthood, where he worked in normal jobs with plenty of non-Muslims. It's fantasy to pretend he was somehow insulated in some muslim-only bubble. And as you point out yourself, his dad was against murder, not for it. It's possible to be homophobic _and _anti-killing. Yes he was clearly trying to link himself to some sort of Islamic extremism, but trying to work up the incoherence of supporting Hezbollah and then claiming a murder spree on behalf of Isis as him _*somehow being driven by ideology*_ is just silly.



Obviously living in the west, he was not in a Muslim only bubble, I doubt a single western Islamist perpetrator has been either but they have been perpetrators or accessories.
How is going to a school means he is part of US southern conservatism? 
His family moved from New York to eastern seabord Florida, ethnically mixed mostly democrat Port Saint Lucie where Obama beat Romney. Where is the dividing line anyway? 
How on earth anyone can claim there is no ideology is completely puzzling to me. So far we don't have evidence of any southern Republican associates of his engaging in anti-homosexual talk but we do have evidence of his dad. No one knows where his wife has gotten to, so evidence will be slight.

Back on topic Owen Jones bigging up praise from Andrew Marr



because a rightist tweeted now deleted that Corbynists were idiots


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 24, 2016)

sihhi said:


> How is going to a school means he is part of US southern conservatism?



It doesn't inherently but as you say his dad brought him up very conservatively, implying he would be hanging out in primarily conservative circles and encouraged to do so at school. If you want broad stats then the school district itself is a Republican stronghold, though that doesn't necessarily mean much I suppose.  



sihhi said:


> ow on earth anyone can claim there is no ideology is completely puzzling to me.



Well fortunately no-one's claimed that. Not that you'd twist a position or anything, but the claim is that he wasn't *driven* by a *fundamentalist* ideology. 



sihhi said:


> we don't have evidence of any southern Republican associates of his engaging in anti-homosexual talk ... No one knows where his wife has gotten to, so evidence will be slight.



Yes, evidence is slight. And that's the trouble. You're making an assertion that he was driven primarily by an islamic fundamentalist creed. But the evidence for this is slight, and contradictory on its own terms. There's an array of possible - and logically, quite probable - other factors involved which don't reduce his motivations to "Islam hates the West" but those were completely ignored in favour of a narrative that met conservative requirements.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 24, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> It doesn't inherently but as you say his dad brought him up very conservatively, implying he would be hanging out in primarily conservative circles and encouraged to do so at school. If you want broad stats then the school district itself is a Republican stronghold, though that doesn't necessarily mean much I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That school district is absolutely huge like the 20th biggest in the USA, where there are many many thousands of school districts, 
the county might well be Republican but the built-up area where the home was Port St Lucie is democrat and was Obama over Romney. It's not southern conservatism that dominates.

The attack was apparently claimed for Islamists by the perpetrator.

_It remained unclear why the FBI released only partial aspects of Mateen’s 911 calls, which constitute the lion’s share of evidence for his claimed allegiance to Isis, and continued to withhold the transcripts of his later calls to police. Reportedly, Mateen repeated his invented connections to the Boston Marathon bombers on the call, as well as pledging simultaneous loyalties to Isis enemy Hezbollah and rival al-Qaida._

It can't be wrong for it to be classed as an example of Islamist fundamentalist terror, can it? It is other things aswell but also a suicide attack done swearing loyalty to Islamist organisations, from someone who praised bin Laden.
Oklahoma city attack likewise, fundamentalist Militia patriot, Christian patriot if you like, terror.

Those other factors weren't ignored, they were debated and aired for about a fortnight afterwards then forgotten, the wife has disappeared and there.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 24, 2016)

sihhi said:


> The attack was apparently claimed for Islamists by the perpetrator.



We've been through this repeatedly, in fact I addressed it in the post you first responded to. Yes he did claim to be doing it for Islam, but quite clearly he had no clear understanding about any of the fundamentals of Islam as he couldn't, for example, distinguish between Shia and Sunni sects. If I were to claim I did a shooting on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland but simultaneously said I was a member of the UVF and IRA would you take that claim seriously? People say shit all the time as justification for the things they wanted to do anyway.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 24, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> We've been through this repeatedly, in fact I addressed it in the post you first responded to. Yes he did claim to be doing it for Islam, but quite clearly he had no clear understanding about any of the fundamentals of Islam as he couldn't, for example, distinguish between Shia and Sunni sects. If I were to claim I did a shooting on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland but simultaneously said I was a member of the UVF and IRA would you take that claim seriously? People say shit all the time as justification for the things they wanted to do anyway.


 
His point is more likely something along the lines of I'm for Islam against Islam's oppressors, particularly homosexuality. Of course it's confused and unclear but it's not non-Islamist. In the west, living in western society his feeling on behalf of both Hezbullah and ISIS can make sense on its own terms. Both Hizbullah and ISIS claim behaviour on behalf of the ummeh, to defend it against its enemies.
We don't fully know what those words were on the phone to the police, the police still haven't released the full events, it's possible that Hezbollah was an earlier dalliance and ISIS was the final one.

I read in a French newspaper that one of the Paris attackers Ismail Omar Mustafa supported Tablighi Jamaat but then also supported ISIS and al-Qaeda at the same time so then also went to Syria to join al-Qaeda or ISIS.
When you get to details they have contradictory ideologies, but it's still Islamist behaviour even if the wires are crossed.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 24, 2016)

To clarify, if someone grew up and lived in Lebanon then it would make little sense because Hezbollah and al Qaeda have been - since 2011 in particular - physical opponents.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 24, 2016)

sihhi said:


> His point is more likely something along the lines of I'm for Islam against Islam's oppressors, particularly homosexuality.



Why? Is there something specifically "Islamist" about homophobia that isn't present in other parts of US society? I assume you don't subscribe to the idea that Muslims are inherently homophobic in a way that Christians aren't? And if not, what does this tell us about the actual root of the problem?



sihhi said:


> Of course it's confused and unclear but it's not non-Islamist.



There's no "of course" about it. If you're going to assert he's killing gays because of Islam then you've got to show he understood enough about Islam to justify that action. There is no evidence of this, and some evidence to the contrary, that he understood very little about Islam, but _did_ hate gays and was a fanboy of violent machismo (eg. bragging he had terror links and wearing NYPD T-shirts).


----------



## sihhi (Aug 24, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Why? Is there something specifically "Islamist" about homophobia that isn't present in other parts of US society? I assume you don't subscribe to the idea that Muslims are inherently homophobic in a way that Christians aren't? And if not, what does this tell us about the actual root of the problem?
> 
> There's no "of course" about it. If you're going to assert he's killing gays because of Islam then you've got to show_* he understood enough about Islam to justify that action. *_There is no evidence of this, and some evidence to the contrary, that he understood very little about Islam, but _did_ hate gays and was a fanboy of violent machismo (eg. bragging he had terror links and wearing NYPD T-shirts).



Ok well Are you suggesting he didn't know about Islam but took his kid to evening prayer and sermon in the local mosque?


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 24, 2016)

I have no idea how learned he was in sum, but we do know his learning didn't stretch to which side of the biggest philosophical rift in Islam he believed in.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 24, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Why? Is there something specifically "Islamist" about homophobia that isn't present in other parts of US society? I assume you don't subscribe to the idea that Muslims are inherently homophobic in a way that Christians aren't? And if not, what does this tell us about the actual root of the problem?



One possibility is that his expression of it was a very, very extreme form of immigrant conservative sunni Islam.
This doesn't mean 'Islam hates the West' or whatever, but it's a different kind of homophobia compared to say far-right anti-homosexual ideas or patriot anti-homosexual ideas or Baptist anti-homosexual ideas or Amish anti-homosexual ideas.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 24, 2016)

sihhi said:


> One possibility is that his expression of it was a very, very extreme form of immigrant conservative sunni Islam.
> This doesn't mean 'Islam hates the West' or whatever, but it's a different kind of homophobia compared to say far-right anti-homosexual ideas or patriot anti-homosexual ideas or Baptist anti-homosexual ideas or Amish anti-homosexual ideas.



Right so he's now a Sunni hardline fundamentalist NYPD fan, with a sideline of supporting Shia militias. And this sounds more plausible to you than a confused and possibly sexually repressed Taxi Driver type who latched onto a handy religious creed to justify murder?


----------



## sihhi (Aug 24, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> I have no idea how learned he was in sum, but we do know his learning didn't stretch to which side of the biggest philosophical rift in Islam he believed in.



Many if not most Sunnis in the west believe Islam is Islam you pray and follow the rules to gain god's favour thus save yourself from hellfire. Shiism is simply not even discussed in the kind of mosque school that he attended or his sisters volunteered at.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 24, 2016)

Oh whatever, I'll leave you to explaining how a mosque in Florida you've never visited doesn't bother addressing fundamental tenets of the faith. This is just going to go round in circles.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 24, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Right so he's now a Sunni hardline fundamentalist NYPD fan, with a sideline of supporting Shia militias. And this sounds more plausible to you than a confused and possibly sexually repressed Taxi Driver type who latched onto a handy religious creed to justify murder?



Does the Molenbeek terrorist also get the "confused and possibly sexually repressed Taxi Driver type" assignation or not? 
What of the Boston terrorists? Paris? Gaziantep?

On the NYPD, there are plenty of conservative Muslims training across the world training to be police or prison or security guards etc, it's not relevant to the action taken here a target not against police but against a gay and lesbian nightclub.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 24, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> Oh whatever, I'll leave you to explaining how a mosque in Florida you've never visited doesn't bother addressing fundamental tenets of the faith. This is just going to go round in circles.



Sunni mosques explain Islam as the faith. If you go somewhere Shiite that's different it's either twelver or fiver or sevener or zaidi or nusayri or any number of other things and the heritage beyond Muhammed is important, for most Sunni mosques, sadly, it's based around the prophet and only the prophet's life and message.

To add: Yes I'm extrapolating from personal experience but this is what it's been like in Sunni mosques and their education courses in this country.

One reason mosques or any place of worship don't actually address the crucial tenets of their faith seriously is because to do so would slowly lead to adherents acculturated in that religion understanding the truth that central scriptures are of human origins.


----------



## sihhi (Sep 27, 2016)

On BBC Newsnight: "the leadership [ie Corbyn] should not support reselection"


----------



## Sue (Sep 27, 2016)

sihhi said:


> On BBC Newsnight: "the leadership [ie Corbyn] should not support reselection"


Thought he was quite annoying really.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 27, 2016)

Rob Ray said:


> I have no idea how learned he was in sum, but we do know his learning didn't stretch to which side of the biggest philosophical rift in Islam he believed in.



Most immigrant muslims don't care about that shit in the same way.


----------



## sihhi (Sep 27, 2016)

Sue said:


> Thought he was quite annoying really.



I swerved most of it. He added that Labour was the 'biggest political party in members in Western Europe'


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 6, 2016)

"University-educated middle-class professionals may take to Twitter to vent, but it is their cultural distance from working-class communities that May seeks to exploit"

An unusually perceptive piece from Owen Jones who seems to have noticed (20 odd years later than others it must be said) the absence of working class political representation and that it is the right who are orientating to it more effectively.

There’s a fight over working-class voters. Labour must not lose it | Owen Jones


----------



## IC3D (Oct 6, 2016)

Pennies just dropped eh Owen.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 6, 2016)

IC3D said:


> Pennies just dropped eh Owen.



It's a fraud of a piece in its main purpose:

_Jeremy Corbyn toyed with progressive patriotism in his leader’s speech; he should persist with that and he must be positive. For as Labour thinker Jon Cruddas has pointed out, the party wins when it presents an optimistic vision of national reconstruction._

Blairist Cruddas together with Corbyn Jesus wept


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 6, 2016)

No surprise on the 'lessons' he draws given his politis and the trajectory he's on. What raises an eyebrow is Jones (and presumably those around him) realisation that the right are making some headway filling the vaccuum and the associated comments regarding the left and its remoteness from the class.


----------



## bemused (Oct 6, 2016)

Whenever a read a Owen Jones piece all I can hear is his whiny voice.


----------



## Smoking kills (Oct 6, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> "University-educated middle-class professionals may take to Twitter to vent, but it is their cultural distance from working-class communities that May seeks to exploit"
> 
> An unusually perceptive piece from Owen Jones who seems to have noticed (20 odd years later than others it must be said) the absence of working class political representation and that it is the right who are orientating to it more effectively.
> 
> There’s a fight over working-class voters. Labour must not lose it | Owen Jones


----------



## Smoking kills (Oct 7, 2016)

Tbf he did write  book called "Chavs" about pretty much just that.


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 7, 2016)

Smoking kills said:


> Tbf he did write  book called "Chavs" about pretty much just that.


Yeah, but that's where you've fucked up by not realising 'Chavs' was an experiment in stylised pontificating through Owen channelling something he describes as a 'working class perspective'. The entire thing was a piece of coursework in creative writing.

By some fuckin fluke some daft cunt somewhere thought it was genuine, Owen thought WTF? Better than working for a living, and the rest is history. He's not even gay- he just doesn't really get out. He spends most of the day knitting quilts with Polly Toynbee and, every so often, one of them nips down Londis for another bottle of Old English and, while they're there, they take random snaps of 'poor people' because if you catch a good one you can stare into the eyes and share the suffering and angst...and that's what makes you write better..honest...we weren't posh..we never had more than 2 cars, and a 4 bedroom detached in Stockport-with extensive grounds-in the 90s is sorta a box room under the stairs in Privett Drive, Peckham, these days...cunt.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 7, 2016)

James McFadden said:


> The entire thing was a piece of coursework in creative writing.



You could save yourself so much time!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## James McFadden (Oct 7, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You could save yourself so much time!
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Oh Louis...if only the others had your powers of comprehension.


----------



## rekil (Nov 21, 2016)

Are you not #inspired comrades?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 21, 2016)

pulpit pounding from the checkshirted man. Feel his anger


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Nov 21, 2016)

The fake anger, the fake outrage. 'The horror, the horror'.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 1, 2016)

interesting to see people like Owen Jones drawing the same conclusions as some of us did 15-20 years ago (and for which people like Owen Jones attacked us at the time).

There are however two flaws in his argument.

First, he underplays the extent to which working class communities have mentally abandoned labour. When Labour - under Blair - consciously, almost proudly, turned its back on the working class the working class responded in kind. Nothing that has happened since has rebuilt the bridges burned.

Second, under Corbyn Labour is actually travelling in the opposite direction to that which Jones demands. Both Corbyn and his key allies are intellectually and politically signed up to free movement, and continue to ascribe progressive characteristics to what is a key tenet of the EU new-liberal project.

Labour would save the NHS – but the NHS won’t save Labour | Owen Jones


----------



## brogdale (Dec 1, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> interesting to see people like Owen Jones drawing the same conclusions as some of us did 15-20 years ago (and for which people like Owen Jones attacked us at the time).
> 
> There are however two flaws in his argument.
> 
> ...


Yes, but in attempting to analyse "where our people are at" Jones, yet again overlooks the economic basis for addressing free movement of labour, preferring to concentrate on his perceived cultural aspects of 'social conservatism'. Perhaps Labour need to start seeing the world from the neoliberal perspective before they can articulate a response to its effects? 

Streeck might offer them a glimpse...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 1, 2016)

I noticed his multiple references to 'social conservatism'.

I presume he identifies these working class people in the focus groups as socially conservative as they are not pacifists (defence), have a strong beleif in work (welfare) and do not support a policy that does not operate in their interests (free movement/immigration).

I always have to laugh when people from middle class, white, backgrounds lambast mixed, vibrant working class communties for their refusal to be as 'tolerant' as they are.


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2017)

Owen Jones is refusing to speak/support tomorrows Trump demo, because of the leading role of the SWP in it and their history of 'rape culture'

on his FB page

Wow,


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2017)

> I'm sorry, I have to take on some of the comments here, because they are completely unacceptable. Covering up rape is not an issue to simply have a difference of opinion over. It is disgusting. It is vile. It is abhorrent. It is repulsive. It must be driven from the left. There is no unity to have with a cult which covers up rape. No-one on the left should work with an organisation that covered up rape. That anyone disagrees with this and places themselves on the left is completely and utterly wrong, and there is nothing more to be said on this.



To his detractors, pretty robust stuff.


----------



## chilango (Feb 3, 2017)

treelover said:


> To his detractors, pretty robust stuff.



Shoulda used the platform to say that.


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2017)

do you mean on Monday?


----------



## chilango (Feb 3, 2017)

treelover said:


> do you mean on Monday?



I mean the platform he's refusing to speak from co of the SWP.


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2017)

chilango said:


> Shoulda used the platform to say that.



Wow, that would have been something.


----------



## chilango (Feb 3, 2017)

treelover said:


> Wow, that would have been something.



It would've been more useful.


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 4, 2017)

treelover said:


> Owen Jones is refusing to speak/support tomorrows Trump demo, because of the leading role of the SWP in it and their history of 'rape culture'
> 
> on his FB page
> 
> Wow,


I've just got back from an evening in London with one of my kids. Picked up a copy of the Standard on my way home only to see OJ bigging himself up as usual.

This was him on Monday:





Surrounded by SWP and Stand Up To Racism placards at the demonstration he "called," but didn't think to arrange a PA system. Doesn't seem to have had a problem associating with the SWP when he needs their mike to address the crowd.*

Worthless gobshite!

* According to eldest child who was there.


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 4, 2017)

whys people listening to ron weasley?


----------



## ska invita (Feb 4, 2017)

they did arrange a pa, but the hire company fucked up at the 11th hour.

can happen at the best of times, even more likely if you arrange something this big last minute


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 4, 2017)

ska invita said:


> they did arrange a pa, but the hire company fucked up at the 11th hour.
> 
> can happen at the best of times, even more likely if you arrange something this big last minute


Fair enough. 

So the choice was walk away or accept the help of a "_disgusting, vile, abhorrent, repulsive" _group who_ "must be driven from the left._"

Hmmm.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Feb 4, 2017)

19force8 said:


> I've just got back from an evening in London with one of my kids. Picked up a copy of the Standard on my way home only to see OJ bigging himself up as usual.
> 
> This was him on Monday:
> 
> ...



Various feminists,  including some of Sisters Uncut,  have been acting on social media this week by circulating the open letter from last October asking speakers to withdraw from a Stand Up To Racism event, and pointing out that SUTR and UAF etc are SWP fronts or coalitions in which they are prominent,  and the SUTR/SWP involvement in the anti-trump stuff.

I often get annoyed with OJ,  but i think credit where its due,  he's obviously listened and learnt this week. Glad he's stood up against them now - unlike a lot of the left of Labour and the labour-aligned left grouplets who have kept working with the SWP through SUTR and other groups.


----------



## YouSir (Feb 4, 2017)

Who's actually organizing the embassy protest? Fairly sure it's not just SWP.


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 4, 2017)

crossthebreeze said:


> Various feminists,  including some of Sisters Uncut,  have been acting on social media this week by circulating the open letter from last October asking speakers to withdraw from a Stand Up To Racism event, and pointing out that SUTR and UAF etc are SWP fronts or coalitions in which they are prominent,  and the SUTR/SWP involvement in the anti-trump stuff.
> 
> I often get annoyed with OJ,  but i think credit where its due,  he's obviously listened and learnt this week. Glad he's stood up against them now - unlike a lot of the left of Labour and the labour-aligned left grouplets who have kept working with the SWP through SUTR and other groups.


He denounced SUTR last October despite having worked with them before that. Where were these fabulous principles of his on Monday?

This whole thing is about opportunism and sectarianism. He's channelling the sectarian demands of a small section of the left as cover for his own drift to the right.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Feb 4, 2017)

19force8 said:


> He denounced SUTR last October despite having worked with them before that. Where were these fabulous principles of his on Monday?
> 
> This whole thing is about opportunism and sectarianism. He's channelling the sectarian demands of a small section of the left as cover for his own drift to the right.


Ah,  i hadn't realised he'd already denounced them in October. I had assumed that he'd been (belatedly) persuaded this week. That puts a different spin on things.

I don't think its sectarian to refuse to work with the SWP. Its about taking a stance against violence against women and defending ourselves against an unpleasant cult of bullies (who are also the most sectarian group i've come across).


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 4, 2017)

crossthebreeze said:


> Ah,  i hadn't realised he'd already denounced them in October. I had assumed that he'd been (belatedly) persuaded this week. That puts a different spin on things.
> 
> I don't think its sectarian to refuse to work with the SWP. Its about taking a stance against violence against women and defending ourselves against an unpleasant cult of bullies (who are also the most sectarian group i've come across).


Sectarianism is always based on important principles, that's the tragedy of it.

I've worked alongside the SWP (and others) locally and nationally in my union and various campaigns over more than 20 years. I don't recognise the bullying violent sectarians you describe at all. If anything they're the least sectarian of the left groups I've come across, especially so when compared to the behaviour of some in the Labour Party.

E2A: Also, we're not just talking about "refusing to work with the SWP" which is a valid choice, imo. But actively trying to sabotage initiatives around important issues just because they're involved at some level is, again imo, the height of sectarian irresponsibility.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 4, 2017)

A lot of Owen Jones' critics seem to be saying that his opposition to working with SWP front groups is due to his 'racism'. Wonderful, sophisticated good faith positions taken by all.


----------



## treelover (Feb 4, 2017)

The demise of the SWP can't come soon enough, its not just the disgusting rape incident and response but their behaviour over many many years.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 4, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Who's actually organizing the embassy protest? Fairly sure it's not just SWP.


STWC. But there is a massive SUTR presence (I'm there, or was, I'm getting something to eat now then heading back - they only left the square at half twelve).

Speeches opened with some pointed remarks about internal unity that I thought were aimed at OJ, though I doubt many people noticed or cared.


----------



## pk (Feb 4, 2017)

Swappies are now calling Owen Jones racist??

He's a gobshite for sure, but WTF?

(((the Left)))


----------



## crossthebreeze (Feb 4, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Sectarianism is always based on important principles, that's the tragedy of it.
> 
> I've worked alongside the SWP (and others) locally and nationally in my union and various campaigns over more than 20 years. I don't recognise the bullying violent sectarians you describe at all. If anything they're the least sectarian of the left groups I've come across, especially so when compared to the behaviour of some in the Labour Party.
> 
> E2A: Also, we're not just talking about "refusing to work with the SWP" which is a valid choice, imo. But actively trying to sabotage initiatives around important issues just because they're involved at some level is, again imo, the height of sectarian irresponsibility.


I also have extensive experience over the last 20 years of the SWP in both union and campaigns and have had multiple bad experiences with them. Wheras i differ greatly in politics with Socialist Party,  RCG, AWL, CPGB, Green Party and the other lefty groups of various stripes that have come and gone during the years,  and they have mostly all done sectarian or stupidly counterproductive things, this has not been on the same scale as the SWP - and i have never felt personally threatened by them. But time and time again i've seen disgusting behaviour from SWP and - i agree - from Labour (and also CPB) - and there have been occasions when its got very personally unpleasant (SWP members shouting in my face, telling people in my neighbourhood and union that i advocate violence,  etc). Especially when those groups are working together as in with anti-racism.

The nadir of this was in 2013 when the labour party councillors involved in Newcastle Unites basically got the police to arrest 14 antifascists (7 RCG supporters,  the rest anarchists, unaligned socialists,  militant anti-fascists,  and randoms) at the start of an anti-edl protest and SWP stewards were witnessed colluding with police with this. 

The way they dealt with the rapes was the last straw - and any SWP members i had any respect for union-wise left at that point. As the open letter says
This is not about bad individuals. The SWP as a whole is an acute example of collective disregard for sexual violence. Their culture and leadership continues to put its own internal interests above tackling rape and supporting complainants within its ranks. Sexual assault and harassment are not unique to the SWP, or to left-wing organisations, but the SWP’s unwillingness to address its failings show it should not to be worked with... 

... It is vital for women and non-binary people – particularly people of colour who wish to resist the racism they experience – to be able to organise politically without groups that facilitate or cover up sexual assault. The SWP and the campaigns they lead are demonstrably not capable of offering this.​


----------



## J Ed (Feb 4, 2017)

pk said:


> Swappies are now calling Owen Jones racist??
> 
> He's a gobshite for sure, but WTF?
> 
> (((the Left)))



Not swappies, Labour people defending their participation in SWP fronts.


----------



## pk (Feb 4, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Not swappies, Labour people defending their participation in SWP fronts.


On what planet is Jones "racist" though?
Is there any hope for the Left in Labour now?

I can't see it shaking the spectre of Blair, Blairites and the fuckwitted futility of Corbyn. Shame.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 4, 2017)

pk said:


> On what planet is Jones "racist" though?



Planet Everyone I disagree With is Racist


----------



## pk (Feb 4, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Planet Everyone I disagree With is Racist


Yep, a common theme.
I find it frustrating that with so many wide open goals, from Piggate to Brexit, nobody from Labour managed to thump in a strike from the penalty box. To me there is no real opposition to the tories. Even Clegg has more teeth. Too much petty infighting and obsessive redefining of principles.
And Momentum serve only to cloud any view of reality Corbyn might have.

He needs to go.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 4, 2017)

As killer b said before, I think he may well go sooner rather than later.


----------



## pk (Feb 4, 2017)

J Ed said:


> As killer b said before, I think he may well go sooner rather than later.


Then this is the last chance to put someone up that will do their job as opposition leader. Otherwise that's another victory for the tory bastards.
And yet more whiny handwringing angst from those on the Left.
It can't be that hard to gain enough support to win an election from all the frustrated Remainers, anti-Trump activists and those old enough to see the familiar pattern of tory corruption, surely?


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 4, 2017)

he always looks so ill and pasty, is he vegan?


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 4, 2017)

crossthebreeze said:


> I also have extensive experience over the last 20 years of the SWP in both union and campaigns and have had multiple bad experiences with them.



And as I said, no problem with your decision not to work with them.

On the other hand OJ's (and others) attempts to sabotage anti-racist initiatives are classic sectarianism.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 4, 2017)

crossthebreeze said:


> Ah,  i hadn't realised he'd already denounced them in October. I had assumed that he'd been (belatedly) persuaded this week. That puts a different spin on things.
> 
> I don't think its sectarian to refuse to work with the SWP. Its about taking a stance against violence against women and defending ourselves against an unpleasant cult of bullies (who are also the most sectarian group i've come across).





crossthebreeze said:


> The nadir of this was in 2013 when the labour party councillors involved in Newcastle Unites basically got the police to arrest 14 antifascists (7 RCG supporters,  the rest anarchists, unaligned socialists,  militant anti-fascists,  and randoms) at the start of an anti-edl protest and SWP stewards were witnessed colluding with police with this.



What about working with Hope not Hate and Searchlight? Are they welcome on demos/should they be worked with?


----------



## crossthebreeze (Feb 4, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> What about working with Hope not Hate and Searchlight? Are they welcome on demos/should they be worked with?


No i wouldn't work with them because i don't trust them, i think they probably are involved with monitoring antifascists for the state. I have always argued against groups using their material/affiliating with them. Its hard to completely avoid them when unions support them though. 
Right now they aren't involved in organising many demos though.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 5, 2017)

Seymour wrote a piece about the tactical utility or otherwise of boycotting SWP-related events, which is kind of similar to a discussion I was having in the pub last night: LENIN'S TOMB: "Hard arguments"


----------



## treelover (Feb 5, 2017)

> here was a fairly large protest against Trump in London yesterday, part of the ongoing wave of protests which is galvanising an otherwise despondent Left and giving it some purpose and direction. It's a good, hopeful sign that this is happening.



FFS, there are plenty of issues here to give it direction, not least the deaths from the brutal welfare sanctions, I find it beyond comprehension that many many thousands of the liberal left can go and see I daniel blake, then come out in tears, and then do absolutely nothing. Then of course, the Trump comes along and they are all on the streets. It is as if they couldn't wait to not have to think about the 100's of deaths as a direct consequence of the brutal welfare reforms or the misery SADP face , ones that are to be intensified as the State now demands access to NHS records etc and will work with medical authorities, etc, to put pressure on people to force them into work.

I am aware of someone who has IBS, has been in a cafe with excrement running down her legs as she couldn't make to the toilet, she had her benefits stopped, what about her, doesn't she count in this identity politics top trumps?


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2017)

Calling the people whose support you want wankers for supporting something you don't consider important is always an excellent way to win friend and influence people.


----------



## treelover (Feb 5, 2017)

belboid said:


> Calling the people whose support you want wankers for supporting something you don't consider important is always an excellent way to win friend and influence people.




Who is saying that Trump, a dangerous proto-autocrat and his henchmen like Bannon aren't important and need challenging, its is the nature of the mobilising and its intensity(and band wagon jumping) as opposed to things happening here in the U.K, It beggars belief that for nearly ten years i and others have been asking the wider left to do something, why wasn't a sustainable coalition against the reforms(the disabled led one collapsed through lack of support) set up, they are quick to set up ones on global issues, there have been hundreds of deaths, actual ones, isn't that enough, ff.


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2017)

There have been hundreds of deaths in 'global issues' too, or are those not 'actual ones'?

And if your tactics to build a movement on this issue have failed for so many years, maybe you should try different tactics.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Feb 6, 2017)

treelover said:


> Who is saying that Trump, a dangerous proto-autocrat and his henchmen like Bannon aren't important and need challenging, its is the nature of the mobilising and its intensity(and band wagon jumping) as opposed to things happening here in the U.K, It beggars belief that for nearly ten years i and others have been asking the wider left to do something, why wasn't a sustainable coalition against the reforms(the disabled led one collapsed through lack of support) set up, they are quick to set up ones on global issues, there have been hundreds of deaths, actual ones, isn't that enough, ff.


I think that these trump protests have been so big first of all because a lot of people were disgusted by his misogyny and the rape allegations against him,  and more recently because a lot of people are genuinely frightened about what he's capable of doing (ie he has the nuclear button etc). I think its a reaction to events,  and i think the response has more to do with the mainstream media than anything "the left" has done. The coalition(s) are on the one hand just a way of coordinating tasks and resources for the protests,  and on the other hand a way for various groups to capitalise on the tide of public feeling for their own ends.

There's never been so many people out on the streets against benefit cuts/for sadp because we've had about 15 years of "scroungers" rhetoric from politicians and media. Also, the benefits and social care systems are complicated (perhaps deliberately so) so many people (even people who are good on other issues)  just don't understand the issues if they haven't experienced it themselves. And many of the reforms and cuts mean that either by coincidence or design benefits claimants and sick and disabled people don't get pushed together as much (ie no dole queue any more, being sent to private providers not just the jobcentre, day centres closed down etc) so there's less oppurtunity to organise. 

Yes there have been some crap attitudes around benefits cuts and sadp from some sections of the organised left,  liberal left, and anarchist/radical milleu. For example not wanting to criticise pre-corbyn labour policy too much,  or saying thst unemployed people (and therefore sadp) are not a "revolutionary force" and therefore there's no point organising on those issues,  or prioritising action camps rather than day-to-day action. 

To be fair though there have been groups that have done a fair bit on this though - for example unite community, solfed, socialist party,  a methodist group, and dpac have all organised stuff on benefits and social care cuts locally in the last year or so, and other groups have attended these protests. Part of the difficulty is its not just something you can just protest - people need support and lots of energy goes into that.

I don't really have answers to this,  but i don't think its productive getting upset at some monolithic left, and i think its worth thinking about how issues can be linked up.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 6, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Seymour wrote a piece about the tactical utility or otherwise of boycotting SWP-related events, which is kind of similar to a discussion I was having in the pub last night: LENIN'S TOMB: "Hard arguments"


" Some time after I left that splinter, I found out that it had its own rape cover-up."

IS that Rs21? what splinter did Seymour go to? Another rape cover up?


crossthebreeze said:


> There's never been so many people out on the streets against benefit cuts/for sadp because we've had about 15 years of "scroungers" rhetoric from politicians and media.


Thats not true really, there have been lots of anti-austerity and anti-bankers actions. The biggest was in March 2011 which saw at least half a million people march in London. The Trade Unions got their shit together and bussed people down from all over the country.
Arguably you could blame the TUs for not doing more...the march was done with some reluctance IIRC, and was designed to shut up activists asking for more. thats how i remember it anyway

timelapse of that demo


----------



## chilango (Feb 6, 2017)

> However, even at the height of the SWP's influence in Stop the War, when it had far more clout and many more members than today, it didn't grow as a result. It stagnated, and declined. It went into crisis. I don't think the SWP is more powerful, attractive and dynamic today than it was back in 2003. Far from it, it is a degenerating organisation, whose ability to reproduce itself through the usual means of student and public sector recruitment is increasingly in question. It might be noisy and visible at protests, but I doubt it is recruiting very many people, and its tactics are by now stale and routinised. It is not capable of attracting the kinds of new members capable of making it an attractive organisation, even if one didn't know about its history. So, it's not the power of the SWP, but the weakness of the tactic, that indicated it would fail. Most people likely to attend just wouldn't be reached by a disorganised boycott taking shape on social media by left-wing Twitter celebrities or, if they were, persuaded not to go purely on that account.



From Seymour's piece, not much more needs to be said at this point.


----------



## belboid (Feb 6, 2017)

ska invita said:


> " Some time after I left that splinter, I found out that it had its own rape cover-up."
> 
> IS that Rs21? what splinter did Seymour go to? Another rape cover up?


ISN. iirr it was sexual abuse short of rape, but I might be misrecalling. A complaint had been made, but never properly pursued, in part because of the actions of the accuseds sister. The cover up only came to light after the organization had disbanded.


----------



## treelover (Feb 6, 2017)

ska invita said:


> " Some time after I left that splinter, I found out that it had its own rape cover-up."
> 
> IS that Rs21? what splinter did Seymour go to? Another rape cover up?
> 
> ...




Austerity and bankers actions are not specifically about benefit cuts, like CTB says these need many allies to be successful.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Feb 6, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Thats not true really, there have been lots of anti-austerity and anti-bankers actions. The biggest was in March 2011 which saw at least half a million people march in London. The Trade Unions got their shit together and bussed people down from all over the country.
> Arguably you could blame the TUs for not doing more...the march was done with some reluctance IIRC, and was designed to shut up activists asking for more. thats how i remember it anyway
> 
> timelapse of that demo



Fair enough - there was a big wave of anti-austerity action,  and i certainly think that benefit cuts were seen as one of the things people were protesting against. I think there were problems around the prominence that sick and disabled people or benefits cuts were given within some of the protests (ie in terms of publicity,  speakers,  etc) - including the 2011 March - in that case resulting from people not criticising what was Labour policy at the time.


----------



## treelover (Feb 6, 2017)

On that TUC march i spoke to quite a few people, including lots of teachers, I was very very surprised how many of these middle class people supported at least the principle of the welfare reforms, most of them will now have seen I Daniel Blake, i wonder how they feel now.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

.


----------



## treelover (Feb 6, 2017)

What isn't?


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

pk said:


> On what planet is Jones "racist" though?
> Is there any hope for the Left in Labour now?
> 
> I can't see it shaking the spectre of Blair, Blairites and the fuckwitted futility of Corbyn. Shame.



To be fair, that isn't limited to the world outside of Urban.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Planet Everyone I disagree With is Racist



Yup, sadly this occurs more often than some folks would ever admit.


----------



## malatesta32 (Feb 6, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> he always looks so ill and pasty, is he vegan?



No worse! He is an homosexualist communist!


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

malatesta32 said:


> No worse! He is an homosexualist communist!





Waits for the self-appointed guardians of righteousness to appear...


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Waits for the self-appointed guardians of righteousness to appear...



Can you go back to wank-speak please? 3 posts of passive aggressive whinging in a row is a bit much.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Can you go back to wank-speak please? 3 posts of passive aggressive winging in a row is a bit much.



Nice. Maybe your mirror isn't broken. You want to play?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> You want to play?



I don't want to play with you. No one does. Just want you shut up you boring twat.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I don't want to play with you. No one does. Just want you shut up you boring twat.



Okay. Nice. You know Urban has rules?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Okay. Nice. You know Urban has rules?



Like the ones which got you a ban?


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Like the ones which got you a ban?



Interesting. See, here is the thing. If you want to discuss the ban please feel free - I would very much like to see what your informed opinion is. And I will, as you might suppose, expect evidence to support your apparent position.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Interesting. See, here is the thing. If you want to discuss the ban please feel free - I would very much like to see what your informed opinion is. And I will, as you might suppose, expect evidence to support your apparent position.



Honestly no one is interested in listening to you moan about receiving a ban. 

(The last 5 words of that sentence are, I guess, unnecessary)


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Honestly no one is interested in listening to you moan about receiving a ban.
> 
> (The last 5 words of that sentence are, I guess, unnecessary)



If no one is interested why are YOU so apparently involved? And so clearly being uninterested in evidence at the same time? If you have a problem I suggest you contact the moderators - otherwise go away and sulk.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> If no one is interested why are YOU so apparently involved? And so clearly being uninterested in evidence at the same time? If you have a problem I suggest you contact the moderators - otherwise go away and sulk.



Bit rich for you to suggest others sulk elsewhere when you're transparently using this thread for a massive sulk


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Bit rich for you to suggest others sulk elsewhere when you're transparently using this thread for a massive sulk



Not at all. So, evidence or go away. What is your charge exactly? Otherwise complain to the moderators.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

My charge?


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> My charge?



Your accusation? Your point? You must be a fan of Ben Jonson?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Your accusation? Your point? You must be a fan of Ben Jonson?


You remind me of the title of jonson's commonplace book, chopped into a couple of pieces about 12" x 6" x1"


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You remind me of the title of jonson's commonplace book, chopped into a couple of pieces about 12" x 6" x1"



Are you sure you have actually _read_ it, as opposed to indicating what shelf it could be found?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Your accusation? Your point? You must be a fan of Ben Jonson?



Your posts today on this thread are poorly disguised whinges about your ban. Fairly obvious given their content, and the context of your ban.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Are you sure you have actually _read_ it, as opposed to indicating what shelf it could be found?



Ah the italics. You'll be back on form in no time


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Are you sure you have actually _read_ it, as opposed to indicating what shelf it could be found?


Yes. But you don't need to have read 'timber...' to know what I'm saying. Btw your binaries are shite.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Your posts today on this thread are poorly disguised whinges about your ban. Fairly obvious given their content, and the context of your ban.



The ban. Yes, the ban. Your involvement in that ban has hardly left you with any credibility. Except, perhaps, as a sheep.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes. But you don't need to have read 'timber...' to know what I'm saying. Btw your binaries are shite.



I've read 'Timber'. Have you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> The ban. Yes, the ban. Your involvement in that ban has hardly left you with any credibility. Except, perhaps, as a sheep.


Yeh cos obv the ban was ott


----------



## seventh bullet (Feb 6, 2017)

malatesta32 said:


> No worse! He is an homosexualist communist!



Liberal tosser.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> I've read 'Timber'. Have you?


I've already told you. And you wonder why I think you're thick as two short planks.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> The ban. Yes, the ban. Your involvement in that ban has hardly left you with any credibility. Except, perhaps, as a sheep.



Wow I had an 'involvement' in your ban? What involvement was this?


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh cos obv the ban was ott



Tell me something. What do you understand by the ban. What was your role? What did you base your participation and involvement upon?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> The ban. Yes, the ban. Your involvement in that ban has hardly left you with any credibility. Except, perhaps, as a sheep.



See posts above about no one being interested in your ban whinge


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Tell me something. What do you understand by the ban. What was your role? What did you base your participation and involvement upon?


I orchestrated the entire thing, from prompting your thread to having editor on hand at the vital moment. The only thing I got wrong was buying editor a half instead of a pint, otherwise you'd have got a permaban.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Tell me something. What do you understand by the ban. What was your role? What did you base your participation and involvement upon?



Those are several things you want told there


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> See posts above about no one being interested in your ban whinge



Except you appear to be interested in my ban. As I have said, if you have a complaint (presumably requiring justification / evidence) please contact the moderators. Otherwise - fuck off.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Except you appear to be interested in my ban. As I have said, if you have a complaint (presumably requiring justification / evidence) please contact the moderators. Otherwise - fuck off.



I don't have a complaint just don't want you to spam the boards with your complaining.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I orchestrated the entire thing, from prompting your thread to having editor on hand at the vital moment. The only thing I got wrong was buying editor a half instead of a pint, otherwise you'd have got a permaban.



Really? Try harder.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Really? Try harder.



Buy two pints? Crisps?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Really? Try harder.


For MadeInBedlam I would. For Orang Utan I would. Hell, for teuchter I would. But there's no point making an effort for you.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 6, 2017)

he was doing isis finger the other day. Never use the finger, its a step from that to jazz hands. Once you've held the finger aloft a temptation to wag it becomes overwhelming. The horns, the clenched fist of power and the vulcan greeting hand slang are acceptable


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> For MadeInBedlam I would. For Orang Utan I would. Hell, for teuchter I would. But there's no point making an effort for you.



Looking back on your posts leading to my ban - you really are an 'internet wannabe'.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Looking back on your posts leading to my ban - you really are an 'internet wannabe'.



What was my involvement with your ban? Come on, you being so keen on charges having foundation


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Looking back on your posts leading to my ban - you really are an 'internet wannabe'.


I'm cut to the very quick, as a mediocre put-down from a thick as pigshit racist twat is the nadir of my year



Maybe not eh


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> For MadeInBedlam I would. For Orang Utan I would. Hell, for teuchter I would. But there's no point making an effort for you.



The people that matter know you're doing your level best.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 6, 2017)

He wants people to own up for reporting him and contributing to his ban?

Fucking hell. 

So much more important than the reasons why he was repeatedly warned in that week and then banned for such an idiotically transparent, race baiting thread? Yeah. So much more important is his hurt ego and whimpering.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm cut to the very quick, as a mediocre put-down from a thick as pigshit racist twat is the nadir of my year
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not eh



Just so we are clear here - you are calling me a racist?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Just so we are clear here - you are calling me a racist?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> He wants people to own up for reporting him and contributing to his ban?
> 
> Fucking hell.
> 
> So much more important than the reasons why he was repeatedly warned in that week and then banned for such an idiotically transparent, race baiting thread? Yeah. So much more important is his hurt ego and whimpering.



Yes sadly mr pieces missed the 'taking ownership' and 'taking on board criticism' aspects of growing up.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

So about my 'involvement' Beats & Pieces...


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


>



No. Make it clear. Are you accusing me of being racist?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> No. Make it clear. Are you accusing me of being racist?



How about you make clear what my involvement in your ban was?


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> He wants people to own up for reporting him and contributing to his ban?
> 
> Fucking hell.
> 
> So much more important than the reasons why he was repeatedly warned in that week and then banned for such an idiotically transparent, race baiting thread? Yeah. So much more important is his hurt ego and whimpering.



That is quite brave for you - lacking evidence as always but an opinion nevertheless.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> That is quite brave for you - lacking evidence as always but an opinion nevertheless.



Like the evidence I was 'involved' in your ban


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 6, 2017)

Bravery? How much do you fancy yourself exactly? 

You are like the worst kind of Victorian anthropologist. Full of jargon, theory and bias, not an inch of self awareness or ability to reflect and learn. In need of attention so hard that'll you stoop to just about anything to get it.

The evidence is here for all to see. Evidence of your repeated warnings too. Your pathetic race baiting thread which led to your ban is still visible in the bin also.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 6, 2017)

...awhinge-away...awhinge.away...awhinge.away...awhinge.away...awhinge-away...awhinge.away...awhinge.away...awhinge.away... 

Name that tune, anyone?


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> ...awhinge-away...awhinge.away...awhinge.away...awhinge.away...awhinge-away...awhinge.away...awhinge.away...awhinge.away...
> 
> Name that tune, anyone?



Yeah. Hypocrisy. Stupidity. Blindness. 

You'll start with 'authenticity' - bad choice - bad bad choice.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Why are you ignoring my question Beats & Pieces ?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 6, 2017)




----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Yeah. Hypocrisy.



Ignorance of Hypocisy's back catalogue now added to your list of failings


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> ...awhinge-away...awhinge.away...awhinge.away...awhinge.away...awhinge-away...awhinge.away...awhinge.away...awhinge.away...
> 
> Name that tune, anyone?



Yeah. Hypocrisy. Stupidity. Blindness. 

You'll start with 'authenticity' - bad choice - bad bad choice.

A


Rutita1 said:


> Bravery? How much do you fancy yourself exactly?
> 
> You are like the worst kind of Victorian anthropologist. Full of jargon, theory and bias, not an inch of self awareness or ability to reflect and learn. In need of attention so hard that'll you stoop to just about anything to get it.
> 
> The evidence is here for all to see. Evidence of your repeated warnings too. Your pathetic race baiting thread which led to your ban is still visible in the bin also.



As is your misguided, uninformed, evidence lacking reaction.

(To say nothing of your love of editing)


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


>




Great song. Thanks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> No. Make it clear. Are you accusing me of being racist?


No. I am accusing you of bring racist and thick. Don't leave the thick bit out of it.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> No. I am accusing you of bring racist and thick. Don't leave the thick bit out of it.



I won't. No evidence to support such a serious accusation. Reported.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Wow I had an 'involvement' in your ban? What involvement was this?



Beats & Pieces ?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 6, 2017)

Yeah, yeah, we all know, alternative facts.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah, yeah, we all know, alternative facts.



Discourse. You know. Duh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> I won't. No evidence to support such a serious accusation. Reported.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

For all Beats & Pieces bleating about 'evidence' I'm finding it confusing that he's reluctant evidence his comment re me and his ban


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> For all Beats & Pieces bleating about 'evidence' I'm finding it confusing that he's reluctant evidence his comment re me and his ban


It's very strange how he likes throwing accusations at you


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Discourse. You know. Duh.



In your case it's just called lying.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> It's very strange how he likes throwing accusations at you



Well it's a step up from the curious glances he used to throw at me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> I won't. No evidence to support such a serious accusation. Reported.


You didn't complain when Thimble Queen called you a racist so don't know why you're so put out now


----------



## Thimble Queen (Feb 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You didn't complain when Thimble Queen called you a racist so don't know why you're so put out now



I'm not up for being summoned into this tbh. Among other things, I've got a funeral to go to I'm the morning. But have fun, eh


----------



## editor (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Waits for the self-appointed guardians of righteousness to appear...


Your main purpose on this thread appears to be derail it. Given that your last thread came with a title so offensive you were awarded an immediate ban, I'd suggest you tread a little carefully from now on, because it's all getting a bit _trollesque. _


----------



## editor (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> The ban. Yes, the ban. Your involvement in that ban has hardly left you with any credibility. Except, perhaps, as a sheep.


You were banned for a deeply offensive thread title. No other poster was 'involved' in that decision.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> I'm not up for being summoned into this tbh. Among other things, I've got a funeral to go to I'm the morning. But have fun, eh


Just thought you'd be interested - I hope tomorrow not awful.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

editor said:


> You were banned for a deeply offensive thread title. No other poster was 'involved' in that decision.



That can be read in _so_ many ways.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Feb 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Just thought you'd be interested - I hope tomorrow not awful.



Ta


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You didn't complain when Thimble Queen called you a racist so don't know why you're so put out now



Good point, well remembered.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> In your case it's just called lying.



As opposed to stupidity? Duh.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> That can be read in _so_ many ways.



If you can grasp the plain meaning that would be a start


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> As opposed to stupidity? Duh.



How was I involved in your ban beatingpiece?


----------



## editor (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> That can be read in _so_ many ways.


No, it can't. You used a deeply, deeply offensive word as a thread title and added no explanation or context. There is no wriggling or bluffing out of that. You were bang out of order and many boards would have perma-banned you on the spot for such racist/trolling/provocative conduct.  But don't take my word for it. Go join some popular forums and start a thread with the same title, and the same post, and see how you get on.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 6, 2017)

editor said:


> No, it can't. You used a deeply, deeply offensive word as a thread title and added no explanation or context. There is no wriggling or bluffing out of that. You were bang out of order and many boards would have perma-banned you on the spot for such racist/trolling/provocative conduct.  But don't take my word for it. Go join some popular forums and start a thread with the same title, and the same post, and see how you get on.



I used a deeply offensive word for a reason, as I had the courtesy to explain to you via pm. I also admitted that the use of such a word without further explanation was wrong. I did not try to 'wriggle' or 'bluff' - instead I contacted you directly and offered an explanation.

You will also recognise (as I indicated) why the use of the term 'racist' against me is, to put it politely, 'problematic'. I see, however, that such accusations (unfounded and based on no evidence) appear to remain unchallenged.


----------



## editor (Feb 6, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> I used a deeply offensive word for a reason, as I had the courtesy to explain to you via pm. I also admitted that the use of such a word without further explanation was wrong


You seemed to be saying rather different a few moments ago.

Anyway, this thread isn't about you or your well deserved ban.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 7, 2017)

editor said:


> You seemed to be saying rather different a few moments ago.
> 
> Anyway, this thread isn't about you or your well deserved ban.



You are absolutely right - this thread is not about that. However, we could raise the question of authenticity and the issue of assumptions being made by way of prejudice. My ban was NOT well deserved - and it highlighted the implicit prejudices of particular posters.


----------



## editor (Feb 7, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> You are absolutely right - this thread is not about that. However, we could raise the question of authenticity and the issue of assumptions being made by way of prejudice. My ban was NOT well deserved - and it highlighted the implicit prejudices of particular posters.


Hey, there's some things I get to decide around here as the bloke who started this site, and although I may get things wrong from time to time, banning a poster for starting a thread with the title "N*gger" was one hundred per fucking cent correct. And don't take it personally: any cunt posting up a thread title like that gets banned too. Every fucking time.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> No. Make it clear. Are you accusing me of being racist?



He's already made it clear.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> ...awhinge-away...awhinge.away...awhinge.away...awhinge.away...awhinge-away...awhinge.away...awhinge.away...awhinge.away...
> 
> Name that tune, anyone?



Arghhhhhhh!!!  Ear-worm!!!


----------



## malatesta32 (Feb 7, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Your accusation? Your point? You must be a fan of Ben Jonson?


well he is cute!


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 16, 2017)

Latest piece of stomach churning hypocrisy from OJ:

Apparently I’m a stooge of the Israeli government

It seems there's no contradiction for a "passionate supporter of Palestinian justice" in supporting apartheid in Israel.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 16, 2017)

'Socialists have a responsibility to stand with Jewish people and to be seen to stand with Jewish people'.

Why?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 16, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> 'Socialists have a responsibility to stand with Jewish people and to be seen to stand with Jewish people'.
> 
> Why?



Are you asking Owen? He probs doesn't post here


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 17, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> 'Socialists have a responsibility to stand with Jewish people and to be seen to stand with Jewish people'.
> 
> Why?



Stupid post. Stupid poster.


----------



## belboid (Feb 17, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> 'Socialists have a responsibility to stand with Jewish people and to be seen to stand with Jewish people'.
> 
> Why?


In a paragraph relating to opposing anti-semitism, it's pretty fucking obvious why.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 17, 2017)

belboid said:


> In a paragraph relating to opposing anti-semitism, it's pretty fucking obvious why.



The problem arises in respect of the complex interplay between what is regarded as 'anti-semitism', Jewish identity, and by extension - Zionism. The use of categories is, necessarily, an issue, but the idea of being completely non-critical in respect of any position (and being expected to do so by way of identification) is surely problematic.


----------



## belboid (Feb 17, 2017)

Bollocks


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 17, 2017)

belboid said:


> Bollocks



Okay, we disagree.


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Latest piece of stomach churning hypocrisy from OJ:
> 
> Apparently I’m a stooge of the Israeli government
> 
> It seems there's no contradiction for a "passionate supporter of Palestinian justice" in supporting apartheid in Israel.



There are some crazy people about when it comes to I/P, now its OJ's turn to get the abuse.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 17, 2017)

I think he was seen in a good light by most here for long enough. I didn't like him from the off treelover


----------



## emanymton (Feb 18, 2017)

IC3D said:


> I think he was seen in a good light by most here for long enough. I didn't like him from the off treelover


You hated him before it was fashionable.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 18, 2017)

Jones accusing Aaron Bastani of being "a bully like Trump " last night on Tiwtter ( deleted)  just cos Bastani cast doubt on the record of Simon Fletcher ( who just left Corbyn's inner team ) - feeble from Jones, his little bursts of snark and aggression are sounding increasingly unhinged / egotistical


----------



## killer b (Feb 18, 2017)

Some hipster left twitter celeb then called Jones a racist too. Jolly good.


----------



## ayatollah (Feb 18, 2017)

emanymton said:


> You hated him before it was fashionable.



I hated him first ! I claim first place as Owen Jones  debunker , for my description on Urban 75 in 2012 of Owen Jones as an utter, transparent, opportunist twat.  Re my 2012 June 26th post. I now confidently await his eventual repositioning as an "I was a  big Leftie in my yoof, but saw the light", sad Old Fogie  writing for the Spectator and Daily Mail.  I seem to remember at the time HUGE numbers of you fellows rushing to Owen's defence .

That  insightful 2012 post in full:

 "In September 2011, he was voted the most influential left-wing thinker of the year by readers of the Left Foot Forward blog.[21] _The Daily Telegraph_ placed him as one of their 'Top 100 Most Influential People on the Left 2011'.[22] _The Independent_ newspaper named him as one of their top 50 Britons of 2011 "

And yet this avid self promoter seems to have no noticeable activist socialist credentials to speak of at all. Indeed he seems to have pinched most of his "Chav - defence of" stuff from reading the IWCA website, and I've never been awestruck with the originality of anything he's actually said on the many media outings I've seen/heard him on. Stand by for his full recantation of these "youthful immature views" in a few years , as he rebrands himself and moves decisively to the neo Liberal Right, and gets a "voice of the ordinary man" column on the Daily Mail !

ayatollah, Jun 26, 2012


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 19, 2017)

ayatollah said:


> I hated him first ! I claim first place as Owen Jones  debunker , for my description on Urban 75 in 2012 of Owen Jones as an utter, transparent, opportunist twat.  Re my 2012 June 26th post. I now confidently await his eventual repositioning as an "I was a  big Leftie in my yoof, but saw the light", sad Old Fogie  writing for the Spectator and Daily Mail.



Ah, the practice currently known as "doing a Burchill". 



> That  insightful 2012 post in full:
> 
> "In September 2011, he was voted the most influential left-wing thinker of the year by readers of the Left Foot Forward blog.[21] _The Daily Telegraph_ placed him as one of their 'Top 100 Most Influential People on the Left 2011'.[22] _The Independent_ newspaper named him as one of their top 50 Britons of 2011 "
> 
> ...



It's where the money is, and most journos...well, they go where the money is.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 19, 2017)

when he started calling those who disagreed with his left labourism anarchists was the beginning of the end. Or the end of the beginning. Whichever.


----------



## Bakunin (Feb 19, 2017)

cantsin said:


> Jones accusing Aaron Bastani of being "a bully like Trump " last night on Tiwtter


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 19, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ah, the practice currently known as "doing a Burchill".
> 
> 
> 
> It's where the money is, and most journos...well, they go where the money is.


To be named as one of the top 50 anything by the indy surely more of a cuss than anything else


----------



## J Ed (Feb 21, 2017)

How the Israel lobby is using Owen Jones



> Last week the Jewish Labour Movement announced that _Guardian_ columnist Owen Jones will be the big name speaker at an event the group is holding on 2 April.
> 
> Jones will lecture on “left anti-Semitism, the Middle East and the Labour Party.”
> 
> ...



Unsurprising I suppose that Jones has decided to begin all this work with pro-Israel, anti-Corbyn groups within the nominal left. He announced what side he was on a while ago, particularly damning though that he has decided to do it so soon after the revelations that the Israel embassy has a list of MPs across British politician parties who they consider targets to undermine.


----------



## treelover (Feb 21, 2017)

On his FB he said he was attending in tribute to a very close friend's father who had died recently and primarily personal.


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 22, 2017)

treelover said:


> On his FB he said he was attending in tribute to a very close friend's father who had died recently and primarily personal.


If he was merely "attending" it probably wouldn't have attracted the attention it has. But no, he's delivering the memorial lecture about (amongst other things) "anti-semitism on the left." It appears to me this whole event has been built around Jones. The JLM is certainly milking his appearance for all it's worth.

He talks about his strong support for Palestinian rights and yet at an event hosted by one of the foremost Zionist organisations* in the country he only proposes to express his views on the subject "if that discussion happens." And how will that discussion happen if he doesn't start it?

If he had any self awareness at all I'd say he was utterly shameless. But he clearly believes that his despicable behaviour doesn't count because his "views on Palestine haven't changed one jot."

* If anyone doubts that the JLM is a purely Zionist organisation they only need visit its website (About) where they will find that its *only* object is:



> To maintain and promote Labour or Socialist Zionism as the movement for self-determination of the Jewish people within the state of Israel.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 23, 2017)

19force8 said:


> If he was merely "attending" it probably wouldn't have attracted the attention it has. But no, he's delivering the memorial lecture about (amongst other things) "anti-semitism on the left." It appears to me this whole event has been built around Jones. The JLM is certainly milking his appearance for all it's worth.
> 
> He talks about his strong support for Palestinian rights and yet at an event hosted by one of the foremost Zionist organisations* in the country he only proposes to express his views on the subject "if that discussion happens." And how will that discussion happen if he doesn't start it?
> 
> ...



Socialist Zionism?! WTF?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 23, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Socialist Zionism?! WTF?



Your ignorance isn't surprising


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 23, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Your ignorance isn't surprising



Justify such a concordance then. Zionism. Socialism.


----------



## belboid (Feb 23, 2017)

Try reading a teeny weeny bit about the history of zionism.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 23, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Justify such a concordance then. Zionism. Socialism.



Is the expression 'Socialist Zionist' new to you?

Surely it can't be - given your ability to use clever words like concordance.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Feb 23, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Is the expression 'Socialist Zionist' new to you?
> 
> Surely it can't be - given your ability to use clever words like concordance.



I am waiting for your explanation, and understanding, of the possible concomitance of terms?

You can explain, surely?


----------



## Bakunin (Mar 9, 2017)

Interesting piece here:

No Easy Answers | Jacobin


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 11, 2017)

Bakunin said:


> Interesting piece here:
> 
> No Easy Answers | Jacobin


Worth cross posting on the Time for Corbyn to go thread. I disagree with some of it but the main thrust is correct, it's utter idiocy to argue that Corbyn going would assist in moving the LP to the left.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2017)

I see OJ is leaving social media.


----------



## phillm (Mar 11, 2017)

YOU...PEOPLE....have...gone...too...far....THIS TIME.
_
Look, I'm told all the time that these angry and bitter people are completely unrepresentative. I know that to be true. In real life, nobody ever comes up to me and behaves like this, not once. Which is probably an argument for spending less time arguing with strangers and more engaging with decent, good-natured people in real life.

_


----------



## Bakunin (Mar 11, 2017)




----------



## phillm (Mar 11, 2017)

brogdale said:


> I see OJ is leaving social media.



nothing to do with diminished revenue because of ad-blockers then ?


----------



## Bakunin (Mar 11, 2017)

phillm said:


> nothing to do with diminished revenue because of ad-blockers then ?



I think it's more to do with people having disagreement with the divine pronouncements of Saint Owen the Anointed.


----------



## phillm (Mar 11, 2017)

sorry was trying to be cynically sarcastic...


----------



## Bakunin (Mar 11, 2017)

I love how even flouncing becomes an opportunity to smear critics and keep the brand name on social media. Not that this might engender further cynicism, obviously.


----------



## LDC (Mar 11, 2017)

Hmmm, I hate to not be a hater, and I can't stand his politics, but I do think that FB post of his is pretty fair in lots of ways.

I think the behavior of some people on social media is fucking poisonous, the level of 'debate' often horrendous and pointless, and being subjected to that on a daily basis (as it seems he is) must be really depressing and exhausting.


----------



## killer b (Mar 11, 2017)

He's right isn't he? You know all that stuff is true.


----------



## Bakunin (Mar 11, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Hmmm, I hate to not be a hater, and I can't stand his politics, but I do think that FB post of his is pretty fair in lots of ways.
> 
> I think the behavior of some people on social media is fucking poisonous, the level of 'debate' often horrendous and pointless, and being subjected to that on a daily basis (as it seems he is) must be really depressing and exhausting.



Nobody can deny that you're right about some folk on social media. People are harassed and picked on, definitely. Trouble is, he doesn't mind using his platform, one much larger than most, to dish it out when it suits him. The problem being that, on social media, doing that is effectively calling out anyone who feels slighted in addition to the usual trolls and casual 'drive-by' nasties as well.


----------



## killer b (Mar 11, 2017)

When has Jones 'dished it out'?


----------



## Bakunin (Mar 11, 2017)

killer b said:


> When has Jones 'dished it out'?



His attitude to people disagreeing with him isn't exactly polite. He's also not unknown for provocative tweets that invite invective, which he then complains about. Nobody is condoning the serious threats/abuse/harassment that happens on social media, but there's a difference between that and either honest disagreement or everyday rough-and-tumble that you'd expect online.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 11, 2017)

I don't think he's at all aggressive on social. If there's anything wrong it's that he responds to things which are clearly in bad faith. Social does make it harder to distinguish between people who are asking questions seriously and people who are just trolling, and I'm not going to criticise somebody for that. It also has no filtering mechanism for comments - you'll be presented with questions from trolls and rational folk in the same list.


----------



## killer b (Mar 11, 2017)

That's not dishing it out is it? That's just having a debate. He's fine with having a debate.


----------



## killer b (Mar 11, 2017)

That Mark Fisher piece about the vampires castle nails this (also written as a response to how people dealt with Jones online). I don't really agree with Fisher about jones' importance, but everything else in there is bang on. 

Exiting the Vampire Castle


----------



## Bakunin (Mar 11, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I don't think he's at all aggressive on social. If there's anything wrong it's that he responds to things which are clearly in bad faith. Social does make it harder to distinguish between people who are asking questions seriously and people who are just trolling, and I'm not going to criticise somebody for that. It also has no filtering mechanism for comments - you'll be presented with questions from trolls and rational folk in the same list.



True, and you don't have the personal, face-to-face clues like tone of voice, facial expression, inflection to guide you. How something looks on a screen and how it would sound face-to-face could be very different things.


----------



## phillm (Mar 13, 2017)

Craig Murray's take...

_Jeremy Corbyn should not now be abandoned. I was saddened to see Owen Jones stab him in the back. Jones appears sadly set on the trajectory typically caused by the salary of a Guardian columnist. He will now increasingly retreat into identity politics rather than the cause of universal social justice. I give it eight years before he spends his entire time attacking the left as having “lost their way”._

The Disappearing Prime Minister - Craig Murray


----------



## sihhi (Mar 14, 2017)

centrist thinly-concealed pro-EU pap

_The Conservative party has plunged this country into existential crisis. Britain’s internal divisions may not have been invented by Cameron – the sense of abandonment, decline and general disillusionment felt by many of Britain’s communities long pre-date the Cameroons – but both Cameron and his successor are chief architects of Chaotic Britain. And even that name may have to change if a significant portion of the population opts to flee the union.

We are on course for deeply acrimonious talks with EU countries who are increasingly fed up with us and in no mood to give us good terms. The possibility of no deal is real, turning Britain into a tax haven stripped of social provision_

Britain is in chaos – and now the Tories may destroy the union | Owen Jones

No deal is no better or worse than deal.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 14, 2017)

An incredible descent.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 14, 2017)

sihhi said:


> centrist thinly-concealed pro-EU pap
> 
> _The Conservative party has plunged this country into existential crisis. Britain’s internal divisions may not have been invented by Cameron – the sense of abandonment, decline and general disillusionment felt by many of Britain’s communities long pre-date the Cameroons – but both Cameron and his successor are chief architects of Chaotic Britain. And even that name may have to change if a significant portion of the population opts to flee the union.
> 
> ...


Oh no not 'the union'. 

(((The Union)))


----------



## chilango (Mar 14, 2017)

killer b said:


> That Mark Fisher piece about the vampires castle nails this (also written as a response to how people dealt with Jones online). I don't really agree with Fisher about jones' importance, but everything else in there is bang on.
> 
> Exiting the Vampire Castle



Don't agree with all of that by any stretch, but an interesting read nonetheless. Thanks.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 14, 2017)

killer b said:


> When has Jones 'dished it out'?



He hasn't 'dished it out' it's true. His favoured  tactic was to retweet those who disagree with him and let his insane/frothing followers do the dishing out. 

His current predicament is man bites dog stuff.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 14, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Hmmm, I hate to not be a hater, and I can't stand his politics, but I do think that FB post of his is pretty fair in lots of ways.
> 
> I* think the behavior of some people on social media is fucking poisonous, the level of 'debate' often horrendous and pointless, and being subjected to that on a daily basis (as it seems he is) must be really depressing and exhausting*.



this obviously true, but I'd always have a little look at the latest OJ based hoopla on twitter, and just did not see 'poisonous behviour' swirling around, did you / did others ,and I just wasn't following it closely enough ? 

I deffo saw pissed off people venting after the Labour Friends of Israel spat, but again, would not describe it as poisonous, it felt like v well deserved criticism, and rejection of his weak defence.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 14, 2017)

killer b said:


> When has Jones 'dished it out'?



recently, he went fairly radio rental on Aaron Bastani, then swiftly deleted - I saw another one, have forgotten , and again, no doubt deleted.

Proves nothing, but felt like he was getting a bit high handed about it all , though no doubt it would be exhausting from his side.


----------



## 8den (Mar 14, 2017)

He's blocked me on twitter, I suspect I was too mean to Laura.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 14, 2017)

killer b said:


> That Mark Fisher piece about the vampires castle nails this (also written as a response to how people dealt with Jones online). I don't really agree with Fisher about jones' importance, but everything else in there is bang on.
> 
> Exiting the Vampire Castle


No offence, but I hate that article with a passion. It's a huge example of the necessity of everything he's trying to slag off.


----------



## killer b (Mar 14, 2017)

You haven't offended me. I'm not sure what you mean though.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 14, 2017)

killer b said:


> You haven't offended me. I'm not sure what you mean though.


I think it was easier to parse at the time (2013) - I remember it being roundly slagged off as a reactionary response to things which are now considered pretty unremarkable (trans rights, feminist response that didn't excuse someone for their valued role in the community, intersectionalism generally) and the comments under it bear that out. That was its role at the time, when that was starting to appear on social.

Now it just looks antiquated: starting with the impassioned defence of Russell Brand - above and beyond how he defended himself - and then continuing to the straw-man attacks and calling of everyone who doesn't subscribe to a very narrow sort of analysis a "liberal" who actively opposes class-based analysis. At great length.


----------



## killer b (Mar 14, 2017)

I guess we can disagree with some of the detail, and much of (not all) the stuff about Brand seems quite quaint - but I think the kind of behaviour he identifies was and remains a significant stumbling block, and not just on the part of the identarian liberals he rails against - it isn't the liberals driving Owen Jones off twitter. You see that kind of stuff from all sides.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Mar 15, 2017)

Bakunin said:


> His attitude to people disagreeing with him isn't exactly polite. He's also not unknown for provocative tweets that invite invective, which he then complains about. Nobody is condoning the serious threats/abuse/harassment that happens on social media, but there's a difference between that and either honest disagreement or everyday rough-and-tumble that you'd expect online.


Evidence please


----------



## cantsin (Mar 15, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> Evidence please



first search on Titter Jones vs Bastani last week :

"So did *Owen Jones* compare *Aaron Bastani* to Donald Trump, then delete it 'cos he didn't want to cause 'beef'?"

answer was, yes, and not in some calm 'evaluation of populism on the margins' type thing, Jones was v riled up about not v much, and went off on one . 

Doesn't prove anything, just a recent example


----------



## pengaleng (Mar 15, 2017)

they are still giving this dickhead airtime?


----------



## killer b (Mar 15, 2017)

He did, I saw it. I guess he lost his rag - we all do occasionally. It's hardly something he's renowned for though - you can count the occasions on the fingers of one hand.

Even so, so what? It doesn't make his criticisms any less read does it?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 22, 2017)

_There are beacons of hope. The Turner Contemporary gallery opened in Margate in 2011; two years later, the acclaimed Ramsgate Music Hall opened its doors too. But still the headline speaks of loss and decline, of a general lack of confidence in a better future. This pessimism, it strikes me, was what drove so many here to vote Brexit. It’s a pessimism that is lethal in its toxicity.

This is the reality and the challenge, for there is nothing inevitable about decline in our coastal communities. They need money and attention: perhaps a fresh start. When that occurs, as was the case with London’s Olympic Park, metamorphosis happens quickly. And if ever there is a will, there may be a way. The New Economics Foundation, for example, has launched a “blue New Deal” to regenerate coastal Britain, from sustainable fisheries to investing in renewable energy. It’s just a start, but it’s the kind of thinking that is badly needed. Brexitland-on-Sea might be a different place if it felt that someone was listening._

How can this be written with a straight face? 

Gallery, concert venue, park and this "Blue New Deal" seems to be the total opposite of the New Deal it's a series of medium scale businesses and ways to promote them:

_The Wales Coast App has been developed by the environmental charity Keep Wales Tidy to offer visitors to the Wales coast all the information they need to fully explore and enjoy what coastal Wales has to offer, as well as supporting the local economies of Welsh coastal communities.
The App contains detailed, easy to use information on over 150 beaches, including beach access, the awards they hold, beach facilities, parking, lifeguards, weather updates and tide times, as well as nearby wildlife and historical attractions.
Using GPS technology, the app routes the entire Wales Coast Path, enabling users to find the nearest access point to the iconic path whilst mapping detail such as gradient, stiles and gates ensuring that walkers of all levels can tackle sections to match their expectations.
By offering a platform for tourism businesses, the app aims to boost local coastal economies by allowing them to connect with new audiences and through smartphone technology, guide customers directly to their doors. 
_
The social democrats don't believe in social democracy any more.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 27, 2017)

_As I drive around the borough with Darren Rodwell – who grew up on a local estate and now leads the council – he speaks passionately about efforts to resist government policy._
...
_Yet it’s difficult not to sympathise with a council that has limited options with a government determined to shred social housing._

"Efforts to resist government policy" means set up private non-electable firm using the 2011 Act introduced by the Conservative government to give property for rent on annual contracts only to those with secure employment contracts at 80% of market rates. 

Make believe soft Labour pap


----------



## emanymton (Mar 27, 2017)

sihhi said:


> _As I drive around the borough with Darren Rodwell – who grew up on a local estate and now leads the council – he speaks passionately about efforts to resist government policy._
> ...
> _Yet it’s difficult not to sympathise with a council that has limited options with a government determined to shred social housing._
> 
> ...


Thrte is something about this line right at the top. 



> As he continues his journey around leave-voting areas



Sounds like he is on safari or something. Probably just being over-sensative.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 27, 2017)

I think a lot of journos are to the left of what they write, Owen Jones is to the right of his writing which itself is moving rightwards.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 10, 2017)

> Owen Jones has responded to criticism of the cost of clothing he wore in a photoshoot for the latest issue of GQ magazine.
> 
> Jones, who appears in May’s edition as an interviewee of Tony Blair’s former communications director Alastair Campbell, was photographed wearing an outfit worth a total of £1,569.




Owen Jones Responds To Criticism Of Costly GQ Interview Clothes | The Huffington Post


----------



## YouSir (Apr 10, 2017)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Owen Jones Responds To Criticism Of Costly GQ Interview Clothes | The Huffington Post






			
				Owen Jones said:
			
		

> Think the most I’ve ever spent on a jacket is £50



Don't worry Owen, media circuit you're on and friends your making the £1k one will be yours soon enough.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 11, 2017)

How could he not see what was going to happen with that jacket, f*cking no marks like the Speccie ( " Oj ponders the crisis of capitalism in £1600 jacket" ) +   fake clowns like PJ Watson laughing at him, and then he turns around and bleats some moreabout " the left" going after him -  Jones is becoming a liability.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 11, 2017)

cantsin said:


> How could he not see what was going to happen with that jacket, f*cking no marks like the Speccie ( " Oj ponders the crisis of capitalism in £1600 jacket" ) +   fake clowns like PJ Watson laughing at him, and then he turns around and bleats some moreabout " the left" going after him -  Jones is becoming a liability.



Becoming?


----------



## J Ed (Apr 13, 2017)

France is angry. The left must show Europe that bigotry is not the answer | Owen Jones



> Some believed that Mélenchon had one aim: not to win the presidential election, but to crush the Socialists.
> 
> It was a view I took to Mélenchon’s headquarters. A cocky little Brit, they must have thought, suggesting their candidate stand down and give Hamon a shot at the second round.



What a dick


----------



## treelover (Apr 13, 2017)

> Brexitland: With pay so low for this long, no wonder there’s anger in Sheffield | Owen Jones
> *Brexitland: With pay so low for this long, no wonder there’s anger in Sheffield *



Owen In Sheffield


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 13, 2017)

owen jones having his picture taken outside someone else's house.


----------



## treelover (Apr 13, 2017)

Its the old family home, which i am sure you knew.


----------



## mather (Apr 13, 2017)

J Ed said:


> France is angry. The left must show Europe that bigotry is not the answer | Owen Jones
> 
> 
> 
> What a dick



He most certainly isn't the brightest bulb in the box.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 13, 2017)

J Ed said:


> France is angry. The left must show Europe that bigotry is not the answer | Owen Jones
> 
> What a dick


tbf he does say Melenchon was trailing by some way to Hamon at the point, so it would make sense Melenchon stands down to make way for Hamon at that point... now that the polling has gone the other way the reverse is true and as he says Melenchons camp are having the "last laugh".....the fault in the piece for me is that he doesn't now suggest Hamon should stand down and fall in behind Melenchon -an act which could see Melenchon win. I guess any standing down would happen very close to the day of the vote


----------



## Sue (Apr 18, 2017)

Owen rallies the troops aka 'Labour's immense grassroots army'. Hmm .

'And here’s a message for Labour’s immense grassroots army. This is your moment. No excuses: every single one must take to the streets, knocking on doors every possible night that you can, getting the message across, ensuring that on election day there’s the biggest get out the vote operation in the history of British democracy. That may make a sizeable difference in terms of how many seats are won or lost. Voting in a leadership election was not enough, or even close. Go out and fight with everything you have.'

Labour is in deep trouble, but it’s our only defence against a Tory landslide | Owen Jones


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2017)

treelover said:


> Its the old family home, which i am sure you knew.


It's someone else's house now chuck, which I'm sure you knew


----------



## treelover (Apr 18, 2017)

Sue said:


> Owen rallies the troops aka 'Labour's immense grassroots army'. Hmm .
> 
> 'And here’s a message for Labour’s immense grassroots army. This is your moment. No excuses: every single one must take to the streets, knocking on doors every possible night that you can, getting the message across, ensuring that on election day there’s the biggest get out the vote operation in the history of British democracy. That may make a sizeable difference in terms of how many seats are won or lost. Voting in a leadership election was not enough, or even close. Go out and fight with everything you have.'
> 
> Labour is in deep trouble, but it’s our only defence against a Tory landslide | Owen Jones



It, the 'grassroots army' has evaporated, many will go Green or even LD.


----------



## Sue (Apr 18, 2017)

treelover said:


> It, the 'grassroots army' has evaporated, many will go Green or even LD.


The 'immense grassroots army' disappeared in many places decades ago but Owen doesn't seem to have noticed.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Apr 19, 2017)

Sue said:


> The 'immense grassroots army' disappeared in many places decades ago but Owen doesn't seem to have noticed.



The grassroots army (if it ever existed) likely never read OJ, and would never identify with OJ. They might be interested to have seen OJ flip flop around JB, and will have made an appropriate judgement.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 19, 2017)

Sue said:


> Owen rallies the troops aka 'Labour's immense grassroots army'. Hmm .
> 
> 'And here’s a message for Labour’s immense grassroots army. This is your moment. No excuses: every single one must take to the streets, knocking on doors every possible night that you can, getting the message across, ensuring that on election day there’s the biggest get out the vote operation in the history of British democracy. That may make a sizeable difference in terms of how many seats are won or lost. Voting in a leadership election was not enough, or even close. Go out and fight with everything you have.'
> 
> Labour is in deep trouble, but it’s our only defence against a Tory landslide | Owen Jones



'As your fearless Leader, comrades, I am determined to fight until the last person, last bullet and last drop of YOUR blood!'

'FORWARD!'


----------



## Sue (Apr 20, 2017)

Well I'm shocked to discover people voted leave/remain for various and different reasons. Now we all just have to unite and vote Labour 

Brexitland: So much for the fractured nation – I haven’t found it | Owen Jones


----------



## Ponyutd (Sep 22, 2017)

The beginning of this is surely a set up, but is interesting none the less.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Nov 21, 2017)

Some of his Facebook generated posts are "becoming" petty, almost teenage in their tone. With a hyperbolic, canary like wiff to them.

The Alistair Campbell piece generated some cognitive dissonance in me, the clunky offensive felt either like a false establishment of who was who in the interview or worse Jones felt outgunned/intimidated and needed to go out on the attack from the start (unsuccessfully)  neither option looks good on Jones


----------

