Subscribe |
Track your commentsYou post a comment on a blog. How do you know if anyone responded? You read an interesting post. How do you know when there are new comments? Use co.mments to bookmark posts you want to follow. It tracks new comments for you, so you don't miss out. You can see all the new comments from your tracking page, or subscribe to the feed. To get started, just grab yourself a bookmarklet and start tracking. Click here to get an account. |
Conversations for Charliemarks
Tip: Don't have an account? Get one, it only takes a few seconds. (Why?)
-
Real England - The Battle Against The Bland: What's Dave up to?
[Source: http://realengland.blogspot.com]
7 comments in conversation. Last comment found 4 hours ago.
-
Tramping the dirt down
4 May, 2008 Dave's Favourites, Labour Politics, Trade Unions Both Compass and John McDonnell have written eulogies for New Labour, and everywhere online there are Tories making hay out of Thursday's defeat. Socialist Unity and Shiraz Socialist have led the way in considering what all of this means for the orientation of socialists within the Labour... [Source: http://thoughcowardsflinch.com]
No comments in conversation. -
John's Labour blog: Don't Panic - Organise and Change.
[Source: http://grayee.blogspot.com]
3 comments in conversation. Last comment found May 05.
Last 3 comments:
Charlie Marks said...
That Boris has not quit his job as MP points to the possibility of him using the mayoralty in a bid for Tory leadership. So there's hope that he'll either fuck it up for Cameron by being a total failure or by being a success. (I truly am the eternal optimist!)
At present John, we don't have a mixed economy - there are no nationalised industries. Oh, there's Nothern Rock... doesn't really count though, does it?
I doubt that Brown will change much on issues of social justice. Ken 4 Leader, anyone?
05 May 2008 05:59
ian said...
Hi John
Brown has to go, the new labour philosophy has to be ditched to win the next election, we need to win back working class votes, we need to be seen to visibly tackle class inequality whether it be in the work place or in the city and we need to reconstruct our party to be fit for purpose to fight the next election.Blimey, I could go on
In the 80s/90s it was argued that left wing politics/policies loses votes; well now its moderate/new labour policies that loses us votes.
Down here in Southampton the Tories rule with a thumping majority yet on the basis of 35% actually turning out to vote.At that rate come the election we lose our two Labour MPs.
Im not panicking!!!
Ian
05 May 2008 07:14
Anonymous said...
MAYDAY,MAYDAY we are sinking MAYDAY,we are going under,MAYDAY,MAYDAY,blub,blub,blub.Bye,Bye Liebour.
05 May 2008 08:46
-
Coming out of the woodwork…
3 May, 2008 Labour Politics, Politics, Terrible Tories, Trade Unions Now it begins. Conservative loser Kwasi Kwarteng has come out on Comment is Frightening to demand that Boris Johnson, who is apparently brains of Britain, should become an articulate opponent of the "neo-Trotskyite" RMT. He should roll back the bureaucracy of the police by getting... [Source: http://thoughcowardsflinch.com]
1 comment in conversation. Last comment found May 03.
Last comment:
Charlie Marks on May 4th, 2008 at 1:41 am
Neo-Trotskyite: a Matrix-obsessed socialst?
-
Give a little whistle, woo-oo, give a little whistle…
3 May, 2008 Dave's Favourites, Labour Politics, Miscellaneous I rather like the tongue in cheek element of the Jiminy Cricket song in the title. Now it looks almost as out of place as "Onwards Christian Soldiers!" might on such a blog as mine. Nevertheless, there is a point to it. It is early May and traditionally labourers around the world rejoice... [Source: http://thoughcowardsflinch.com]
No comments in conversation. -
AngloNoelNatter: Elections v. v.quick update- First Highgate, then the world...
[Source: http://anglonoelnatter.blogspot.com]
1 comment in conversation. Last comment found May 03.
Last comment:
Charlie Marks said...
You missed out the Communist Party's "Unity for Peace and Socialism" which, since it didn't unite with others... You get the picture.
Of course, what we need is a unified yet pluralist workers' party not several squabbling groups who are in agreement over most things but are irrationally arguing over minor details or past disputes. Won't be easy getting the movers and shakers of various groups to see the bigger picture, mind.
I must say Noel, given that for unions thinking of breaking from New Labour (like the GMB, at the moment) the Greens are the only show in town in England (Plaid and the SNP may benefit elsewhere in Ukania) - you might just be right.
I note well that Dr Wall appeared at conferences of both Respect Renewal and Respect (Left List). Might we see a debate in the pages of the Morning Star on what happens next?
And if New Labour resists bringing in pro-worker and green policies, perhaps defections to the Green Party would make the most sense?
04 May 2008 01:23:00 BST
-
Billy Bragg: playing off-key
1 May, 2008 Dave's Favourites, Labour Politics When Billy Bragg's book, "The Progressive Patriot" was put on bookshelves a couple of years ago, I pointedly ignored it. Even when it went on the 3 for 2 tables, along with Dawkins' "God Delusion," you couldn't have paid me to read it. Alas, I was finally captured by the musician's witterings under the... [Source: http://thoughcowardsflinch.com]
No comments in conversation. -
Labour And Capital: 1968 and all that
[Source: http://labourandcapital.blogspot.com]
3 comments in conversation. Last comment found May 01.
Last 3 comments:
Charlie Marks said...
I love your mention of "comfortably-off young peeps". How I wish I was one of those...
My idea of revolution is much like that formerly espoused by the Labour party - "To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."
Read Mark Steel's piece in the Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-there-was-more-to-1968-than-hippies-and-festivals-818009.html) for a counter-balance:
"in May 1968 the French general strike was the biggest to have ever taken place in the world, and started with a mass meeting of car workers. Or maybe the union meeting began, "Brothers, sisters, dudes, hey look at the colours on this carburettor. Those in favour raise your hand." And the strike's demands were five vibes an hour, rising to seven and three-quarters for overtime. Similarly, in the United States the anti-war campaign involved more than the festival at Woodstock. By 1968 the most prominent characters were ex-soldiers who'd been in the war, and the Black Panthers, which eventually caused such disarray in the US army, as one third of soldiers were black and were unenthusiastic about fighting for a country that didn't let them eat at the same table as whites.
"The sense of revolt spread to almost every country, so hundreds of Mexicans were gunned down for opposing the regime, and a civil rights movement began in Northern Ireland to challenge the discrimination against Catholics. Then in Czechoslovakia a reforming government was crushed by Russian tanks, and protesters put flowers in the barrels of the soldiers' guns. Even this, while sounding hippyish, would be an ideal way to protest in today's busy time-conscious world, because even if you were too rushed to demonstrate you could send your protest by Interflora.
"Yet all this courage and imagination is dismissed by so many, such as one columnist who recently derided the whole movement as "self-loathing twaddle." So Martin Luther King and the protesters in Prague and the French strikers could have stopped themselves getting so worked up if they'd just learned to enjoy a little "me" time. And then the Viet Cong could be laid out one by one, while a shrink said gently, "So when your family owned half an acre of a rice field and shared a mule, and then the mule was napalmed - did this make you angry in any way?""
30 April 2008 22:47
Tom P said...
I think you might be in a small minority of the far left though Charlie. Most of the Trots I have met down the years have hardly come to the branch meeting straight from the pit head!
I don't get the need for a revolution. Why not just convince the punters of your political programme and get them to vote you in? Also who, apart from the few thousand far left activists, thinks a revolution is a proportinate response to the issues facing the UK? It seems about 100 years out of date.
30 April 2008 23:00
Charlie Marks said...
Don't worry Tom, I'm not talking about armed insurrection!
A "shift in the balance of wealth and power towards working people and their families" of the kind historically fought for by people within the Labour party would be regarded as revolutionary - and is the kind of change that is would be an entirely proportional response to the current crises we face.
02 May 2008 02:34
-
The Soul of Man Under Capitalism: The Party's Over
2 comments in conversation. Last comment found May 03.
Last 2 comments:
Charlie Marks said...
I wonder what will happen to the Labour left after the local and mayoral elections? Perhaps they're thinking is this: they can sit New Labour out. A lot of NL MPs have marginal seats which could swing to the tories at the next election - not really the case for the Campaign group, they're biggest threat being a manipulated deselection process.
30 April 2008 07:59
Seán said...
Sorry so late getting back, Charlie, but life in the form of a new baby has taken over our existence at the moment. The prospects for a left-wing Labour revival is remote at best. Neo liberalism will continue unchecked (in parliament) through both Brown and - when he eventually calls an election - Cameron. The unions have a big decision to make over the next decade or so. Do they look to a new party/movement to best forward the interests of the working class of this country or do they continue to subserviently keep supporting the party which no longer share its interests?
Yesterday's election results make a tory landslide seem virtually inevitable.
03 May 2008 10:49
-
A Very Public Sociologist: Pubs Ban English People, Apparently
9 comments in conversation. Last comment found April 29.
Last 5 comments:
Phil BC said...
What can I say, Darren. The competition for readership's a tough one. If it means I have to start doing features on Maddie and Princess Di, so be it.
28 April 2008 08:04
Anonymous said...
I cringe whenever I see that wretched little flag as well. Badges, yuk.
Has this driven you to contemplate exile Phil? Are you planing to leave England behind? I mean using the fat American toad of a past participle, 'gotten'.. Instead of got (conjugation: get, got, got).
Does some Professorship in post-Baudrillian simulacra-fetishism at Houndstown California beckon? I await your on-line courses in the deontological semiotics of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
AC
28 April 2008 10:22
Phil BC said...
In a word, no. However bad things are in Blighty, all I have to do is look across the pond and despair at how things are so much worse for the left over there ...
28 April 2008 13:14
Madam Miaow said...
I see Darren has beaten me to the observation that you are turning into Splinty.
Wossis meme, then?
Hey, AC, don't knock Buffy. She's a fine role model for any working class gal. And well worth the PhD time.
28 April 2008 22:53
Phil BC said...
Wot is this?
I post up two (two!) pictures of women showing a bit of flesh, and all of a sudden I'm competing with Splinty for the crown of the lefty Benny Hill. It's political correctness gone mad! ;)
29 April 2008 17:08
-
St. George's Day
23 Apr, 2008 Labour Politics, Politics, Race Relations, Trade Unions In their London election manifestos, both the English Democrats and the BNP include material about the denigration of St. George's Day. The BNP include a quote from some London punter; "I vote BNP because I'm proud of my country and our heritage. We should celebrate things like St... [Source: http://thoughcowardsflinch.com]
No comments in conversation. -
A Very Public Sociologist: Knocking on Doors
1 comment in conversation. Last comment found April 20.
Last comment:
Charlie Marks said...
The "former Labour voter" category includes millions, I'd guess. Another consideration is the "would've been Labour voter" which might account for the lower turnout amongst young people - it's usually ascribed to apathy, but on the whole young people are engaged and passionate. Good luck with the campaign, by the way.
20 April 2008 23:38
-
Labour And Capital: Book request
[Source: http://labourandcapital.blogspot.com]
8 comments in conversation. Last comment found April 08.
Last 5 comments:
Tom P said...
Primarily because I'm interested in the stuff on hegemony. Plus a couple of mates (and my boss!) have said some of it is worth a read.
05 April 2008 07:55
Charlie Marks said...
It's a useful concept to help understand how social change comes about and how it is resisted. I wonder, are your mates Euros? Do ask, see if they smile fondly...
06 April 2008 07:17
Tom P said...
My boss was on that wing of the CP actually! Long time ago though - he's a Compass supporter these days.
06 April 2008 12:43
Charlie Marks said...
Check this out, quite a good introduction to Gramsci by a former CP Euro, now Compass - hmm, sounds familiar...
http://www.compassonline.org.uk/uploads/documents/GramsciforCompass.doc
07 April 2008 21:23
Tom P said...
cheers - looks interesting.
08 April 2008 22:51
-
Solidarity with Palestine?
2 Apr, 2008 International Politics The subject of Palestine has come up several times on this blog and perhaps I can be forgiven for re-visiting it yet again in the aftermath of a rather amusing article from pro-war Harry's Place. This article just about sums up everything I feel about Palestine solidarity groups, which is why I avoid them like the... [Source: http://thoughcowardsflinch.com]
1 comment in conversation. Last comment found April 02.
Last comment:
septicisle on April 2nd, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Very true. While the Hizbullah supporters on the London march in August 06 were a distinct minority, it was of course them deciding to burn the Israeli flag that made the front pages of the Sunday broadsheets, making it all the easier for the usual suspects to then claim that we were in league with fascists and dedicated to "letting the Jews die".
-
Neil Clark: Mass Immigration: Why the Left should oppose it
[Source: http://neilclark66.blogspot.com]
5 comments in conversation. Last comment found April 01.
Last 5 comments:
Lucas said...
Neil, I think you may have erred here. The Left should not oppose anything that will ultimately weaken capitalism. Whilst the short term benefit of immigration certainly is to the capitalist class, the reality is that in the long term, mass migration reveals the inner contradictions of capitalism, and as such reveals to all races and nationalities where the problem lies. I would strongly reccomend the following lengthy article for consideration on the subject. http://www.lalkar.org/issues/contents/mar2006/immigration.php (part one) and, http://www.lalkar.org/issues/contents/may2006/immigration.php (part 2).
Please put any prejudice aside and actually take the time to print and read this.
3:58 PM
David Lindsay said...
Would you believe it? Mass immigration makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, with no net gain to the economy as a whole. You don't say!
We now have the deliberate importation of a new working class whose members understand no English except commands, know nothing about workers' rights in this country, can be deported if they step out of line, and (since they have no affinity with any particular part of this country) can be moved around at will, so that the old working class can be told to go hang, taking with it its unions, its minimum wage, its health and safety regulations, and so forth.
In accordance with this new state of affairs, we also have an enforced bilingualism or multilingualism which transfers economic, social, cultural and political power to a bilingual or multilingual elite, so that those who are or will be excluded are or will be the English-speaking working class, black and white.
Far from our having grown richer since 1979, we have in fact grown vastly poorer: only a generation ago, a single manual wage provided the wage-earner, his wife and their several children with a quality of life unimaginable even on two professional salaries today.
This impoverishment has been so rapid and so extreme that most people, including almost all politicians and commentators, simply refuse to acknowledge that it has happened. But it has indeed happened. And it is still going on.
The root of the problem is that this country's sovereignty, liberty, democracy and identity have all been eroded by a very heavy reliance on imported goods, rather than on a domestic manufacturing base; by a very heavy reliance on imports in order to feed her people, instead of maintaining a thriving agricultural sector, itself characteristically a bastion of strong family ties, and therefore also of strong community spirit; and by the ownership and control of much of her agriculture, industry and commerce by persons who are either not her citizens or not resident within her borders for tax purposes.
4:08 PM
Anonymous said...
Another insightful post Neill.
This is a topic I feel pretty strongly about, and I'm routinely rounded on by bleeding hearts for expressing sentiments similar to to your own. Letting market forces dictate the movement of people leads to a raw deal all round (except, of course, for the capitalist class of the host nation).
I abhor the anti-immigration rhetoric of reactionaries, and I'm a little hardened to sentimental arguments about how immigration takes people away from family and friends (I know plenty of foreign nationals only too happy escape their nearest and dearest for a time), but my reasons for opposing mass immigration are:
1. It obviously depresses the wages of low-skilled workers.
2. It deprives poorer countries of much-needed labour .For example, here in Ireland there are a lot of Filipino nurses who do tremendous work, but whose skills I'm sure are missed in the hospitals of Manila. But the market values as greater the health of a European than the health of an Asian.
3.And not least,the powers that be in the host nation feel no obligation to equip the indigenous workforce with certain skills because they can just cherry-pick the best and brightest talents from the third-world.
OPiR
5:00 PM
olching said...
I disagree with you on this, Neil. It is possible to be against the forces of globalisation without articulating it in an anti-immigration position. Mass immigration is in part the result of global, economic pressures (of all kind), and therefore I think you are confusing cause and effect. I think in being anti-immigration one targets the wrong issue. It's dealing with the symptom rather than the cause.
All we do by calling for a knee-jerk stop of immigration is to bask in the rich-poor divide and, let's face it, distinguish between people on the grounds of race and ethnicity.
In other words, it's attacking completely the wrong group and issue.
lucas, interesting argument. It's a bit like the anti-fair trade stance, in the sense that by purchasing truly unethical goods the contradictions and inequalities of capitalist, globalised trade will come stronger to the fore. By buying fair trade we give the beast breathing space (and an air of credibility and morality, unlike with the anti-immigration stance).
8:44 PM
Neil Clark said...
thanks to all who have commented, and lucas- thanks for the link.
anonymous- agreed. your second point is a particularly strong one that many who claim to believe in global justice seem to have overlooked.
david: your analysis is spot on.
olching: I don't think we're in much disagreement on this. You're right, of course we have to continually focus on the cause of the problem- globalisation. The left should oppose both the free movement of capital and free movement of labour as both only benefit big business. I'm not calling for a 'knee-jerk stop to immigration'- only for an end to mass immigration. And socialists are the best people to make the case against mass immigration, because we have no racist agenda. If we do duck the issue, then racists will exploit the issue as they are already doing.
9:13 PM
-
OK, it's not quite up there with the all-time greats such as 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts'. But the f...
The article it accompanies purports to be objective coverage of a House of Lords economic affairs committee report on Britain's immigration policy. But the hyperbole kicks in with the first par and just doesn't let up. 'Labour's justification for mass immigration was torn to shreds by experts last night … landmark study … devastating cross-party re... [Source: http://www.davidosler.com]
6 comments in conversation. Last comment found April 02.
Last 5 comments:
O/T but two small pieces of good news for lefties this afternoon: NUT members vote 3-1 to fight their rubbish pay offer, and the NUS 'reform' proposals fell according to the Guardian.
Posted by Rory | 17:11, 1 April 2008
You often find yourself discussing immigration with people who are not racists, but feel threatened by more competition in the labour market, for housing etc. We must be clear that if the Tories were in power they'd have done the same things on immigration because it's benefited employers.
Galloway's support for a points system in principle is not the same as support for allowing billionaires to move about freely - it's a bit dishonest to suggest that, Dave.
Posted by Charlie Marks | 00:13, 2 April 2008
I notice that you don't contest the actual findings in the House of Lords report - that the government grossly exaggerates the economic contribution of immigration. In fact, if you use GDP per capita instead of going on about GDP increases, you find that immigration has a negligible and possibly negative impact on GDP in this country.
Posted by Letters From A Tory | 09:41, 2 April 2008
Any discussion on immigration will always be exploited by the racists. That is a constant and we always have to oppose the bigots. That does not mean just putting a minus where our political enemies put a plus and vice versa. There is little doubt that New Labour's enthusiasm for immigration is based upon the hope that it will bring in skilled labour without having to invest in training, liberalise the labour market and partially inhibit wage inflation. Demonising the immigrants at the same time splits them and the existing workforce and helps to push them into low paid jobs.And if they are "illegal" the employer does not even have to pay the minimum wage.
There will always be immigration. The crucial thing is to give those immigrants full employment rights ( particularly to Agency workers) and full access to benefits. And the unions need to gear themselves up to launch a unified push to massively increase union density.
None of this means that we can simply portray immigration as a good thing.We are not Norman Tebbitt inviting them to get on their bikes, jumbo jets or sinking boats.We poach skilled workers from poor countries that desperately need them.The left needs to take the issue of world poverty seriously. At the moment 90% of activists on this are from the churches and voluntary groups.We must refuse to retreat to sectarian sniping about Jubillee 2000, Oxfam and Fair Trade.But, of course, they do not provide a semblance of a full political response to world built on exploitation.Only the socialist left can come up with that analysis and the systematic campaigning to solve these problems.So why the hell are we so obviously absent from this fight? Dave's columns are often full of points about the deficiencies of the left. But his is the biggest default and we rarely discuss it.
Posted by badger | 10:37, 2 April 2008
All very true, other than the idea that the management of tabloids would somehow be upset if their work resulted in BNP candidates getting elected.
They'd LOVE that to happen, just as they'd LOVE another race riot, especially if it involved Muslims.
It would be a big story. Big story = big circulation = big money.
It would also be a story that fitted very neatly with their narrative about the coming race war. Blame for the coming race war of course rests with the government (rather than themselves or the BNP for instance) for their failing to 'take heed' of the demands of their readers, and so just positively *forcing* the poor darlings to vote BNP (or riot).
Posted by jungle | 11:25, 2 April 2008
-
The Daily (Maybe): Green Party launches fund raising nude calendar
[Source: http://jimjay.blogspot.com]
10 comments in conversation. Last comment found April 02.
Last 5 comments:
Charlie Marks said...
Thank goodness this isn't true...
Tuesday, April 01, 2008 11:25:00 AM
Jim Jay said...
You'll be pleased to know that this story has been picked up in Australia... I can't tell you how childishly proud I am of this post :-)
Tuesday, April 01, 2008 1:50:00 PM
matt said...
Jim, please don't even JOKE about this sort of thing....!
;-)
Matt Wootton
Wednesday, April 02, 2008 1:50:00 PM
a very public sociologist said...
Tis a good slice of April [tom]foolery. You've raised the game with this one, Jepps. I'm going to have to pull out all the stops next year.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008 7:37:00 PM
Natalie Bennett said...
Better than any of the print efforts - it gave me a laugh!
Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:36:00 PM
-
Neil Clark: British Comedy: A Question of Class
[Source: http://neilclark66.blogspot.com]
9 comments in conversation. Last comment found March 31.
Last 5 comments:
Charlie Marks said...
I recall seeing that episode years ago, Neil.... Most prescient!
A good sitcom that's been going for a few years is Still Game, about senior citizens living on a Glasgow council estate.
Check it out on youtube, it's worth it. This episode "Cauld" is a classic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLxl3lClb1I
10:23 PM
Neil Clark said...
Thanks Charlie, for the link. I'll take a look.
All best,
Neil
11:57 AM
slapheads anonymous said...
The point I'm making is that if the writers I mentioned came along today as new talent and tried to sell the BBC their ideas, they'd be rejected.
It's difficult to respond to this because of the lack of any supporting evidence.
Perhaps if you could name a new writer who's been trying unsuccessfully to sell a Perry/Croft-style sitcom to the BBC, it might carry slightly more weight.
9:36 PM
lenin said...
You're certainly right about Little Britain, and the disappearance of the working class from television production is a global phenomenon, about which there is a good article here:
http://www.affdoublethink.com/archives/020424.php
However, I can't for the life of me understand the veneration of "It Ain't Half Hot Mum". If racist 'native' humour isn't tedious and trivial and mind-rotting, then there is hardly any reason to criticise Lucas and Walliams. What sense is there in which this was great 'working class' humour? And there is surely a huge difference between the sophisticated humour of Steptoe and Son and the heavily cliched post-empire melancholia of Perry & Croft. Galton and Simpson generated some remarkable moments of television pathos, particularly in 'The Desperate Hours', which in my view is the single best episode of Steptoe and Son. It has hardly dated, albeit modern viewers would quite rightly be put off by some of the in-jokes about immigrants and the way in which female characters are handled. Speight's show lacked these virtues, but was quite unintentional in any encouragement it gave to the racist filth of 1970s Britain - it was intended to attack racism. (Although if anyone saw the Alf Garnett stand-up show a decade ago, it was depressingly obvious that he was still getting laughs for all the wrong reasons). But "It Ain't Half Hot Mum" looks like quite deliberate denigration of colonial indigenes in the context of Britain's imperial decline and a global Third World uprising. The equivalent today would be a "Mussie" show, with little 'jokes' about the niqab and suicide bombings and the Prophet and so on. I can't find a redeeming feature in it. Mind you, I always thought "Dad's Army" was hideously over-rated despite its obvious charms.
9:55 AM
Neil Clark said...
Lenin: thanks for the link.
I agree with you about The Desperate Hours- it's not only the best ever episode of Steptoe but also one of the best half hours of comedy ever written.
But I don't agree with you on It Ain't Half Hot Mum or Dad's Army being 'hideously overrated'.
IAHHM was not racist, the people being sent up are the silly arse officers and the ott, homophobic RSM Williams, played so memorably by Windsor Davies. Jimmy Perry said that the aim of the series was to show how Britain became a multiracial society. Perry and Croft haven't got a racist bone in their body.
I think the fact that Dad's Army is still bringing in the viewers nearly 40 years from first being broadcast, speaks for itself.
All best, Neil
7:36 PM
-
Christians are surely the last people who should be getting uptight about healing the sick; after al...
OK, I've never actually read the Douay-Rheims Bible on which I presume Cardinal Keith O'Brien bases his teachings on. But according to the King James Version that I am familar with, Christ cured dozens of people with ailments ranging from unspecified fever, leprosy, menorrhagia and/or haemophilia, withered limbs, dropsy, deafness, blindness and par... [Source: http://www.davidosler.com]
10 comments in conversation. Last comment found March 25.
Last 5 comments:
You forget that corporate-directed won't be looking for cures... The old Chris Rock joke springs to mind - they're looking to develop medicines, not discover cures. I get the wording wrong, but you get the picture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWHiVMNQ_b0
Posted by Charlie Marks | 13:50, 25 March 2008
"I expect GG's 'revolutionary socialist' apologists will perform their usual function".
Yes, those vile apologists. I expect they'd say something like "I do understand why some Christians may have reservations about the Bill".
Posted by pope joan | 14:03, 25 March 2008
In fairness to Thomas Aquinas (not a phrase I use every day) even he acknowledged that it was a lesser sin to abort before 20-odd weeks because he considered "ensoulment" to happen around that time.
Posted by John A | 14:11, 25 March 2008
I am surprised at Georges pick n mix Catholicism.
Posted by War On Want Bulk Condom Purchase | 14:38, 25 March 2008
Pope Joan,
Could you inform George that when framing the adultery,theft and bearing false witness rules, I was generally against.
Particularly when all three were done on the same day and in the same postcode.
Posted by God | 14:57, 25 March 2008
-
A Very Public Sociologist: What is Britishness?
5 comments in conversation. Last comment found March 25.
Last 5 comments:
Charlie Marks said...
Hmm, Britishness.
My view is since most "Brits" dwell in England, and there's been a growth of inclusive national identity in Wales and Scotland since devolution, the ruling class push for Britishness is a way to hold together the British state.
I think that socialists in England should not talk about Britishness, but rather, an inclusive Englishness. If anything, British identity is declining - partly because of devolution - as a primary identification and there's a danger that Englishness is left to the fascists to articulate.
20 March 2008 01:42
thinking about difference said...
Indeed, how much can a national identity stretch to include, incorporate and turn itself more 'liberal' than 'national'... Maybe the problem is 'national identity' itself.
20 March 2008 20:52
cat said...
Most Scots see themselves as Scottish. Many immigrants and their decendants quickly take on a Scottish identity check out http://edinburghsikhs.com/Photo-Gallery
The Sikhs love being Scottish - they have caused big fights in the Royal Mile by having bigger and better tartan tat shops that the other tartan tat shop keepers.
I don't know anyone who calls themselves British in Scotland. The discussion has to be what is Britishness - I see it as imperalistic, greedy, boorish, first worldist, war mongering, racist. Why would I identify with that?
Though I have a strong Scottish identity - not because I think the Scots are better than anyone else just because I feel Scottish - I think it is an expression of not being British actually, to react against Britishness I identify with being Scottish.
Oh identity is a complex one!
21 March 2008 20:46
Phil BC said...
I don't feel particularly British, or even English for that matter. I suppose if pushed I would identify myself as *happening* to be English by virtue of birth, like most comrades in England.
Re: Britishness though, the establishment know it has all these exclusionary overtones of the past, but also they have no alternative but to try and articulate a multicultural Britishness. It is the only means available to them to reach all corners of these islands. If they are successful in their inclusive project it may well undercut the appeal of Scottish and Welsh identities as something opposed to Britishness.
23 March 2008 18:09
Charlie Marks said...
I'm English by birth - by which I mean, my family are all from Ireland (and oddly enough, some of my ancestors were Europeans fleeing persecution who settled in Ireland!)
The task for us, I think, is to articulate an inclusive Englishness, based upon a civic rather than ethnic national identity. So, for example, the NHS which is a key part of our lives is an institution in England which we recognise as something to be defended and strengthened - it doesn't matter what your religious beliefs are, where you or your parents originate, etc, all are entitled to medical care.
If an English parliament existed we would be calling for it to have and use economic powers to the benefit of working people instead of big business. As it stands, New Labour can use its MPs with Scottish constituencies to win votes for things like tuition fees in England and Wales...
25 March 2008 04:24
-
Labour And Capital: Information cascades and eating on holiday
[Source: http://labourandcapital.blogspot.com]
3 comments in conversation. Last comment found March 21.
Last 3 comments:
Charlie Marks said...
Not if you own the "popular" restaurant!
18 March 2008 21:47
Tom P said...
THere must be a way of using this to our advantage... (not financially!)
20 March 2008 13:20
Charlie Marks said...
I'm not sure I'd be happy to capitalise on such instinctive thinking. It strikes me though that if there are two restaurants and one is significantly cheaper than the other choice might depend upon affordability. Also if one is a well-known chain restaurant tourists might opt for it over an unknown?
My problem with the example given is that it assumes that the second and third tourists are acting on "popularity" over other, unmentioned factors such as those I've given.
With regard to the near-run on HBOS this week, am I alone in thinking the supposed manipulation is a ruse - the Bank of England's plan to rescue the financial sector? It would seem like the best way of preventing more Northern Rock-type scenarios playing out, no? Punters think: oh, it's just a hoax, nothing to worry about...
22 March 2008 01:07
-
IPPR [English Regions Network] speak up
[Source: http://www.thecep.org.uk]
3 comments in conversation. Last comment found March 30.
Last 3 comments:
1
Comment by "charliemarks"
I find this statement a bit odd: "Englishness has in general terms tended not to find favour with British progressives and remains the object of considerable suspicion."
They continue:
"The discomfort with English identity carries to the very top of government, where its increasing salience sheds awkward light on the prime minister's own Scottish background."
Seems to suggest there's something progressive about New Labour. We'll, I suppose it's getting progressively more reactionary…
At the end of the article they suggest:
"We need a comprehensive review of how England is governed. This would provide the opportunity for some seriously joined-up thinking about the accountability and authority of the multiplicity of local, regional and national bodies that decide on, among many other things, how we are policed, how welfare is organised and delivered, and how our children are taught."
But the question is: who will be doing this review and how? They don't give any recommendations…
March 18th, 2008 at 1:09 am
2
Comment by "britologywatch"
So 85% of the UK population enjoying the rights currently enjoyed by 15% is lop-sided, is it? Sounds like the other way round to me! Besides, this sort of statement relies on a massive inconsistency, which is as follows: if the whole point of devolution was to liberate Scotland and Wales from excessive control effectively from English MPs and power, then in principle, this must mean a) that the current reversal of that power relationship is also wrong (Scottish and Welsh MPs having a say on English matters not reciprocated by English MPs being able to vote on the corresponding matters for Scotland and Wales), and b) that the retained powers represent the continuing dominance of English priorities and control over Scotland and Wales.
So the whole point of restructuring the current Union framework would be to create more fairness and equality for all the nations of the UK, including fulfilling the original intentions behind devolution, one of which was to give Scotland and Wales more genuine autonomy. Within a federal UK, one of the ways this could be assured in the new UK parliament would be to introduce qualified majority voting: the majority opinion of any one nation on vital strategic matters could not be overruled by the others. Given that the various national and UK parliaments would be elected on a proportional system, cross-party and cross-national deals would have to be done to get things through in any case, which would eliminate the current ability of the majority party to push through virtually anything it wants. Better democracy all round, including for England.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:34 am
3
Comment by "Omni"
Devolution by Labour was a flawed process, it gave Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales the right to govern affairs in certain
areas yet the responsibility for funding those were in the main left to the English taxpayer, this breeched a fundamental principle of democracy that those who fund public services should have a say in how the money is spent and allow them to hold those politicians to account. Time and again you will hear labour politicians saying that current funding for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales was agreed under the Devolution Settlement as if it were fact, afraid not the English electorate were never consulted about the abolition of their constitutional right to representation or did I miss the referendum for English voters? If Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales want to have devolved powers all fine and well, but don't expect the English to pay for them. First of all these countries should pay the proportion of funding for the reserved powers at Westminster from taxation and revenue from their countries then anything that is left can be spent in their own countries on the powers that have been devolved. I for one think it is obscene thatEnglish taxpayers are funding Scottish MSPs and Northern Ireland and Welsh assembly members salaries and pensions and yet have no say in their affairs.
March 30th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
-
The Soul of Man Under Capitalism: British Rewrite History Shock!
4 comments in conversation. Last comment found March 20.
Last 4 comments:
Charlie Marks said...
Erm, how's about:
DYING
Yes, dying. I mean, these wars will become too expensive - and as the economy collapses, the troops might just be brought home to occupy some towns and cities...
16 March 2008 05:07
Graeme said...
all of these words could apply to us in the states as well.
I would add PATHETIC, cause that would piss the proud ruling class off
17 March 2008 18:49
Seán said...
These definitely feel like the death throes of an outdated entity.
Britain, however, has never given up anything without a fight, or an attempt to divide. Without wishing to have scorn heaped upon me, maybe we need the words Britain erased completely from the map of these isles: Self-determination for all the peoples of these isles, then.
19 March 2008 18:36
Charlie Marks said...
No scorn here, compa. I will heap praise instead.
20 March 2008 22:25
-
John's Labour blog: Galloway: "executed in Iran for being gay? That's not true"
[Source: http://grayee.blogspot.com]
7 comments in conversation. Last comment found March 15.
Last 5 comments:
Charlie Marks said...
Fair comment, but is it not New Labour that's threatening Mehdi Kamezi, saying exactly the same?
14 March 2008 01:06
ian said...
I cant condone Galloways comments.
Similarly in no way can I condone new Labour cuddling up to the Saudi despots, like King Abdullah.
Same camp as the Iranian regime in my view.
Ian
14 March 2008 08:55
John Gray said...
Hi Tim/Charlie and Ian
I think that I agree with all of you! Not sure that you will all be happy with this?
Except Ian, no matter how dubious the Saudis are things are changing while Iran is increasingly becoming a basket case.
14 March 2008 18:16
Sean said...
It was an awful piece of commentary by Galloway. Not sure where he was coming from on this one at all.
15 March 2008 08:47
John Gray said...
Maybe being Scottish, Galloway knows that he who pays the piper calls the tune?
15 March 2008 14:23
-
Unstinting Labour loyalist that I am, I will of course be backing Ken Livingstone in the London mayo...
But somewhere deep inside in the cerebral cortex - presumably next to that bit that continues to urge you to smoke, however long ago you gave up - whispers a siren voice of temptation. As an ex-Trot, I am experiencing the political equivalent of nicotine cravings. The thing is, these elections offer London voters who identify ideologically as eithe... [Source: http://www.davidosler.com]
18 comments in conversation. Last comment found March 17.
Last 5 comments:
Shayler? Last I heard he was convinced he was the Messiah.
I think we all know, that really, he's just a very naughty boy.
But seriously, it was very distressing to see how ill had become. The stress of being a whistleblower i suppose...
Posted by Charlie Marks | 02:38, 13 March 2008
A Messiah!! Isn't that just what we need?
Posted by Sue R | 10:52, 13 March 2008
I agree that the title 'Left List' makes a pretty clear statement, but I can't see them picking up more than a handful of votes on that basis. People who take politics seriously like to have some idea of who they're voting for - and people who don't take politics seriously don't vote for principled minor parties, except as a joke.
The time to start building the profile of the Left List was last November, after the SWP generously handed over the name of RESPECT to the Renewal group. The Left List wasn't even registered until three days ago - less than two months before the election.
Posted by Phil | 11:32, 13 March 2008
In 2004, the ballot box counts clearly showed that "Respect" won two Newham wards in most of the GLA and European Parliaeent elections.
But even then and there Lindsay German couldn't beat Ken Livingstone. And by 2006 Labour had won one of those wards back and the other was very close.
It's over.
Posted by Alan Ji | 20:58, 13 March 2008
If I were a London resident (will be again shortly, but briefly out of town for health reasons) then I'd probably vote Livingstone.
But this would be entirely based on the individual candidates. Livingstone may not be perfect, but he's hardly a Blairite and appears to be reasonably competent, while Mayor Boris is a fairly terrifying concept. I also fear Boris will get a substantial idiot vote simply by being famous and having a memorable hairstyle.
I don't buy the argument that a vote for Labour in general elections means a lot any more, now they've presided over (to take just one of many issues) the fastest increase in income inequality since 1945.
Posted by jungle | 12:29, 17 March 2008
Last 5 comments:
Toque said...
Wow - what a compliment.
14 May 2008 07:38
Jonnie Falafel said...
I agree absolutely, fo nigh on 20 years the "major" British parties have occupied pretty much the same philosophical territory: "Don't follow leaders/Watch the parking meters"
14 May 2008 08:31
Jonnie Falafel said...
Since the row over the 10p tax band erupted I can't stomach Tories blathering on about the lowest earners in society....
14 May 2008 08:40
I Albion said...
He mentions England twice,Once when he mentions you book .
which is twice more than he has ever done
14 May 2008 08:56
Charlie Marks said...
Let's not get too excited. Big businesses fund the Tories and in power they'll act to shift the burden of taxation off of corporations...
16 May 2008 04:54