Mr Andy C said...

Thank you for posting these. How are the events funded?

07 August 2008 15:55

Charlie Marks said...

Bloody hell 'Identifying internal resources and "traitors"'...

WTF?

07 August 2008 16:42

I doubt if it's even crossed their mind, Sue. The phrase "labour movement" isn't much used by New Labour types.

Posted by Charlie Marks | 20:25, 7 August 2008

charlie you're right, New Labour types will be chatting up Tories over drinks to see if there are any vacancies?

Posted by modernity | 02:13, 8 August 2008

WebCameron bravely started by letting the website readers vote for the questions that they wanted, but it had to be withdrawn for obvious political reasons.

Number 10 are desperate for gimmicks right now and they clearly have no understanding of how small the audience is for this kind of stuff. Like you said, it would have to be a truly radical format e.g. live broadcasts in front of the public with no hiding place for Brown.... Oh wait, Cameron's already done that as well.

Posted by Letters From A Tory | 08:56, 8 August 2008

Is it not rather that the story of Number10TV is itself the gimmick, timed to keep Brown's head above water in the pre-leadership holiday period?

Number10TV won't work because it won't be at all participatory - it'll be a pretence like the laughable National Policy Forum.

It's not the crankier types that pose the problem with questions about policy specifics, but the ordinary folks wanting to know why their wages are being cut, why their utility bills are rising, and why Brown isn't on their side.

Posted by Charlie Marks | 09:05, 8 August 2008

Good comedy is good comedy, how about re-runs about weapons of mass destruction, never fails.

Posted by Robert | 09:54, 8 August 2008

Charlie Marks said...

Bad boy! Better get back to the non-job job, then Tom(!)

The reasons why libertarianism isn't a big deal is because, rather like the US Republican Party, the Tories have mixed social conservatism with economic conservatism. Given Gove's speech this week blaming lad mags, you can see this isn't likely to change.

07 August 2008 19:11

Tom P said...

I'm a bit old school about this. I think if you have to resort to insults and personal attacks then your argument can't be that strong. It doesn't take much effort to take a deep breath before you post.

You're right about the Right. So-called libertarianism seems to only run so far.

07 August 2008 22:21

John Miles said...

Tom - check your emails! :)

08 August 2008 08:35

Tom P said...

Hi John

Will do!

08 August 2008 08:53

This isn't about sectarianism. The facts about Cruddas are as follows:

1) He voted for the invasion of Iraq. It was the defining political issue of our generation and opposition was hardly confined to the hard left of the PLP - 139 other Labour MPs managed to find it within themselves to vote against it.

2) He voted for Foundation Hospitals, demonstrating clear support for New Labour's policies of marketisation within public services. He has also failed to vote against other policies of privatisation, e.g. the probation service (as opposed - from the left - by the likes of Norman Tebbitt).

3) He has consistently voted for attacks on civil liberties, including 90 days and 42 days.

If there are those who believe that the interests of the left and the wider labour movement are best served by lining up behind an ex-Blair adviser who votes for war, privatisation and attacks on civil liberties, then be my guest.

Tragically I can see the prospect of some on the soft left supporting a Harman-Cruddas dream/nightmare ticket. I guess this is just illustrative of the desperation of our times.

Posted by Point of Information | 16:03, 4 August 2008

So rather than actually have a debate about policies for now or the future, you'd rather hark back to past disagreements - again.

For what it's worth I agree with your position on those three issues, but I don't believe they should guide choices when it comes to looking to the prospect of a leadership contest - that would be yet another suicide for the left and we do not have nine lives. We need a rapprochement within the party and with the electorate over issues like Iraq, whether we supported them as individuals or not.

I think your attitude seems designed purely to exacerbate division - to make demands of people that are so unrealistic that they truly are not possible. But demanding the impossible in this context amounts to little more than posturing.

The idea that a few votes the wrong way five years ago should taint a bacbench MP forever shows very little forigivng spirit and, is, particularly in the current circumstances, the height of divisiveness and sectarianism.

Posted by Johnny Truant | 16:53, 4 August 2008

Oh I see - voting to support an illegal war in alliance with the most rightwing US administration in modern history and in defiance of the mainstream of the Labour party and the broader electorate; to marketise and privatise public services; and to casually discard civil liberties that were won at the expense of thousands of lives over the course of centuries - these are just a "few votes the wrong five years ago."

Nice try.

You talk of avoiding splits which would constitute "another suicide for the left". My question to you is how someone with a track record of voting for wars, privatisation and attacks on civil liberties is in any meaningful sense on the left as you or I would understand it?

The reason that so many have abandoned our party is precisely because of policies such as the Iraq war and privatisation. How on earth do you expect to win back this support with a candidate who voted for these disastrous policies?

You may think this is ultra-left purity. It isn't. If you were arguing the case for MPs who clearly aren't on the hard left but are at least fairly consistent social democrats - like ex-Cabinet minister Frank Dobson, for example - then it would be practically impossible for people like me to make this sort of stand.

You're not. You're talking about a former ex-Blair adviser who has voted for almost all of New Labour's policies who happens to talk left on a few issues here and there.

If you think that the salvation of the Labour party lies with a social democrat, then fair enough, I respect that even if I don't agree. But for god's sake find someone who actually is a social democrat.

Posted by Point of Information | 17:43, 4 August 2008

I am suggesting that those past votes are not the crucial consideration when thinking about the future leadership or a left alliance. That position in no way diminishes the importance of those policies, particularly the catastrophe of the war in Iraq.

My point was about looking at policies for the future, and I maintain that the hard left and soft left/ LRC and Compass/ McDonnell and Cruddas would share many similar priorities that would be the focus of a future alliance and manifesto. It would be a shame to let that opportunity go to waste because of past bitterness which is clearly of little interest to most voters. The consequences would be a Blairite coronation and I will leave the party if that happens. I do not believe Cruddas is a Blairite.

In any case, I think this issue goes beyond the personalities of John and Jon. As a couple of other posters have suggested it is about the left establishing a dialogue and talking about the interests of the country and the party - and forming an alliance against the neo-liberals who have control over our party and our country.

There are talented people and good in both the LRC and in Compass, particularly young people; many of whom opposed the war in Iraq, foundation hospitals and 42 days. We need to talk, heal wounds and work together.

- I don't think it can be reduced purely to the personalities of McDonnell and Cruddas

Posted by Johnny Truant | 21:18, 4 August 2008

Well quite.

The bottom line is that a left challenge for the leadership needs to be more successful than it was last time - that will require some sort of engagement from those of us on the LRC/McDonnell wing of the party with those on what we must reluctantly call the 'soft left'. And while Cruddas and Compass may - as individuals and as organisations - have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, what they articulate connects with a huge chunk of the party, the sort of people who consistently elect Grassroots Alliance candidates to the NEC ahead of the Blairite Labour First ones, as happened again this year.

The bottom line is, a left challenge for the leadership needs to be more successful than the last one was. So the main tactical question is, how do we make that so?

Posted by E10 Rifle | 01:08, 5 August 2008

But I get the joke.

As you do I guess Darren?

Posted by tim | 14:15, 11 July 2008

The joke?

Yeah, it struck me after that latest article of his in the Daily Record, and his insistence on mentioning the 1978 Margaret Curran in certain terms.

That particular chip of his pisses me off. Never did him any harm, did it?

Posted by Darren | 14:21, 11 July 2008

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5457608463947849320&postID=5436901891692225263

Posted by georgie porgie | 14:39, 11 July 2008

Dear Sue R,

That's a perfectly fair question, and I've just been scouring the house for my copy of "Maxton" by Gordon Brown to bend my mind to giving you a well informed answer. Unfortunately, the love of my life has been tidying the place, and I can't find it.

Broadly, he showed no interest in being strategic in any way, and he thought evanglism would do in place of leadership.

I don't think he'd been influenced by "the road to power" by Karl Kautsky.

Posted by Alan Ji | 20:28, 11 July 2008

Sue R,

I read both Brown's and William Knox's biographies of Jimmy Maxton over 15 years ago, so my memory's a bit sketchy about both books but I'm sure that Brown was saying something a bit more than Maxton was a world class prat. (Remember this was the same Brown who, ten years previously, had edited the Red Paper on Scotland.)

However, I did spot this piece from someone who has read Brown's biography in more recent years.

Posted by Darren | 21:46, 11 July 2008

Nick Drew said...

well one needn't expect much by way of coherent logic from a TV polemic, but I thought it was sloppy

example (quoting from recollection)

Oborne interviews Trevor Kavanagh: puts it to him that "you'd never write that kind of thing about other minority groups - blacks, Jews (etc) ..."

TK: "yes we would, if they were harbouring the same types of extremist doing the same types of things"

[pause for commercial break, after which ...]

PO: "SO - we've seen that the media writes things about Muslims that they'd never write about other minority groups"

and so on. just polemic, I'm afraid

08 July 2008 08:53

Charlie Marks said...

I thought it was a sloppy programme, welcome but sloppy. No mention of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - without which there would not have been home-grown terror plots in the UK.

As far as I am aware, prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, there were no arrests for Islamic extremism. I realise that the subject of the documentary was the violence and intimidation faced by Muslims, but it's all relevant.

08 July 2008 21:17

Tom P said...

yeah I agree it was polemical, but I think it would have lost its power if it was done in a more nuanced way. personally it rings true that media coverage of the type to which muslims are currently subject would be unacceptable if it were another minority. I think he made this point fairly well when he substituted 'jew' or 'black' for 'muslim' in some sample headlines.

dunno about pre-Iraq arrests, but there were certainly concerns about extremists.

09 July 2008 08:13

Charlie Marks said...

Prior to the invasion of Afghanistan - and later Iraq - concerns about extremism were related to Irish republicanism, Ulster loyalism, and the animal rights movement.

Let's not pretend here - all these actual and would-be suicide bombers cite foreign policy in their "martyrdom" videos. If not for the collusion by the British govt in US wars, we'd be a hell of a lot safer.

15 July 2008 00:42

Charlie Marks said...

How appropriate that one of the most prominent proponents of "free" trade should be a man we can't sack? I mean, free trade's all about shifting production to where the labour's cheap - if he means it, he should step aside. There are plenty of people in the developing world who could do his job, after all...

9:42 PM

Neil Clark said...

Hi Charlie,

Great point. The globalist elite make sure the free market/free trade principles espouse never apply to them. The insecurity is always ours, not theirs. When they leave their jobs, they get other, even better paid ones. Just think Tony Blair. John Pilger once described the present globalised system as 'socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor'- and he was dead right.

4:29 PM

DAVIDD said...

Perhaps you should be grateful to Mr. Mandleson Neil. It was in large part due to him that the Lisbon Treaty was rejected here in Ireland. Our farming community, even though advised by their union to vote in favour of the referendum seem to have chosen not to have heeded this advice, thanks to Mandleson. And as for our fishermen well lets just say that they're not overly fond of him either. Sometimes being a wally can be a positive thing. Do you reckon this is all a Baldrick -like cunning plan by Mandleson????

5:02 PM

John Gray said...

Hi Anon 1

Actually, although I was disappointed that Labour did not win in Chadwell Heath, the BNP was knocked into 3rd place and I know that this has been seen as a bit of a blow, if they couldn't win that seat with all the momentum after Henley and the GLA - then when can they win!

Yes, it doesn't mention all the BNP defections to Islam!

12 July 2008 14:45

freelance redwatch said...

Redwatch for you John!

12 July 2008 20:15

John Gray said...

Oh well "freelance redwatch", - it's actually good to know that you Nazi's, Islamic fascists, diss-respect bigots, SWP and the rest of the "Heinz 57" trot comrades hate me in such an equal opportunities manner!

12 July 2008 23:08

Anonymous said...

your a bunch of leftie scum bags hope u go and fucking die COMBAT 18 IS NOT DEAD AND NEVER WILL BE we are just resting the Terror mechine will be back

21 July 2008 00:04

Anonymous said...

Combat 18 is indeed alive and well. Can't say that 'just resting' is an apt description of things, but to each their own. Some cells may have needed a nap. It happens. Never personally understood the BNP-Islamic crossovers, as it makes little sense, but who am I to judge, eh? Looking forward to reading the book though, and thank you kindly for the publicity, even if same is mostly negative. Truth is, it reminds folks that we are still here. Best Regards!

28 July 2008 20:56

Charlie Marks said...

A majority of MPs have voted to keep their perks. How urgently we need people like Terry in parliament.

03 July 2008 19:42

Phil BC said...

I couldn't agree more, Charlie. The example set by Terry Fields will still be discussed in our movement 50 years from now, long after the witch-hunters, the Blairites and the Brownites have faded from the pages of history.

04 July 2008 09:29

Seán said...

Nice tribute, for a nice guy.

I only met him a couple of times, the second time after his release from prison for his non-payment of the poll tax. I shared a pint and a chat and he was fully committed to the cause - and more importantly prepared to give up his liberty. I wasn't sent to jail because of his actions.

Everyone in the working class pub we supped in that day supported him.

None of the current Labour Party careerists (sorry MPs) - and I mean none - could be comfortable in a really working class pub in a run down and economically devastated area like he could.

A true peoples' representative, his actions and deeds reflected his words.

04 July 2008 11:38

Charlie Marks said...

'Cos the Tories have been bumped into third place in Scotland and Wales.

Here's an interesting question: how would the Tories fare if there was a fixed ratio between MP and constituents?

03 July 2008 02:04

Rick said...

Truly great weasel reasoning by the Rt Hons, ironically so very reminiscent of the tories they profess to despise so much.

02 July 2008 18:19

Charlie Marks said...

Quite remarkable logic, eh?

That Gordon Brown must have files on everybody. Either that or he has some kind of hypnotic power over them...

03 July 2008 00:33

Jack Ray said...

it's a bit of a habit or Labour MPs these days, I wrote about it back in March and there's 7 cabinet ministers trying to make local political capital out of campaigning to save POs shut by their own government. And remember Hazel Blears marching to save Hope Hospital in Salford?

03 July 2008 10:29

Duncan Money said...

Our local Labour MP tried exactly the same thing.

The contempt they have for voters is astonishing, they must think we're too thick to notice them campaigning against a measure they voted for.

03 July 2008 15:55

Phil BC said...

Never underestimate how thick MPs are. Why do you think so few of them blog, and those that do are either mad, evil or, a sock puppet (allegedly)?

03 July 2008 16:18

John Gray said...

Hi Charlie

Apologies to everyone for not responding sooner to comments. Still trying to catch up on domestic chores after conference.

Apart from the fact that the Labour would (in theory anyway) expel UNISON if any region gave money to Plaid or the SNP (like they did with the RMT), I would be very doubtful that either Party would actually bring about a socialist nirvana for Wales or Scotland. Being Welsh/Scots and despite having relatives who are sincere Plaid activists I am very suspicious of the "blood and soil" wing of the separatists parties. As far as I am aware the SNP have simply come up with what amounts to a new version of PFI which they are trying to get way with calling it something else.

I was not aware that disaffected unions fund some "pro-union Labour MP's"? Interesting.

Finally, UNISON currently gives the responsibility for whose Constituency Labour Party (not directly the MPs) are supported via Constituency Development Plans to the elected regional lay committees. I can assure you that a lot of care and thought is gone through about whom we support and regions have stopped supporting CLP's in the past and will no doubt do so in the future.

22 June 2008 16:48

John Gray said...

Hi Mark

Very well put - I haven't really mentioned all the positive stuff that was in the successful NEC amendment. Particularly the potential threat posed to the unions funding any political parties by the Hayden report.

22 June 2008 17:14

John Gray said...

Hi Ian

I take your point and maybe I am being a little bit mischievous - but this was what many delegates were saying at the end of Friday. Even those who voted against the amendment because they were fed up and wanted to give Labour a fright thought that the behaviour of most of the different Trotsky Party supporters was simply appalling.

Despite everything I haven't given up hope at all that things will swing round again. I think (and expect) that there will be a "change" in policies and approach, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because Labour has to do something to win. The next election will be lost not won. Given the many successes I think that Labour should win. It needs to get rid of its failures and some of its caution of upsetting the middle classes. If the Government and the Party is still hungry for power then it will have to take some risks (without upsetting the horses too much).

22 June 2008 17:29

Anonymous said...

John you are totally bonkers! Labour is currently running at 23% in the polls...some put the Tories on 49%? ...We should win it? After ten years in power you need to wake up and smell the coffee mate...Labour are quite simply sleep walking towards total annihalation under Brown.

22 June 2008 21:56

John Gray said...

Hi Anon

Never,say never in politics. I don't think the Party is sleep walking. It will get very lively if the polls don't improve (which I think they will).

06 July 2008 14:36

Charlie Marks said...

But if Davis is up against Murdoch's puppet, arch-bigot Kelvin Mackenzie, there's no question that Davis would be my favourite Tory of the two... And if nothing else, he's fucking things up for Camoron, which is surely a good thing.

14 June 2008 07:59

Absolutely correct Charlie

Like much of the London left, Dave simply hasn't noticed that there are centre left administrations in Cardiff and Edinburgh.

Posted by Andy Newman | 11:34, 11 June 2008

Do you mean 'Whither Britain?', Dave, because I would agree in many ways it is whithering on the vine.

Posted by Sue R | 21:29, 11 June 2008

Sorry, that should be 'withering'.

Posted by sue r | 12:21, 12 June 2008

Policy is now firmly isolated from politics. Thanks largely to financial de-regulation, concentration of media ownership and large scale privitisation both parties now converge around a cynical, technocratic consensus. In power they pursue virtually equivalent policies. Of course, there are differences in rhetoric and sometimes in tactical approaches to issues that do not affect large concentrations of capital: gay rights, etc.

Unfortunately the 'official' English 'left' now leads a rather pathetic half life in the hollowed out remnants of the old TUC/Labour Party bureaucracy, where it exists in a state of permanent stasis. For years our 'comrades' made a career from conflating socialism with bureaucratic maneouvering, parliamentary careerism, sectarian dogmatics, authoritarian chauvinsm, marching in circles and paper selling, so it's hardly surprising that the majority of the population reach for their sick bags when they hear the world 'socialist.'

Posted by Cassandra | 20:55, 13 June 2008

Policy is now firmly isolated from politics. Thanks largely to financial de-regulation, concentration of media ownership and large scale privitisation both parties now converge around a cynical, technocratic consensus. In power they pursue virtually equivalent policies. Of course, there are differences in rhetoric and sometimes in tactical approaches to issues that do not affect large concentrations of capital: gay rights, etc.

Unfortunately the 'official' English 'left' now leads a rather pathetic half life in the hollowed out remnants of the old TUC/Labour Party bureaucracy, where it exists in a state of permanent stasis. For years our 'comrades' made a career from conflating socialism with bureaucratic maneouvering, parliamentary careerism, sectarian dogmatics, authoritarian chauvinsm, marching in circles and paper selling, so it's hardly surprising that the majority of the population reach for their sick bags when they hear the word 'socialist.'

Posted by Cassandra | 20:55, 13 June 2008

Anonymous said...

You keep saying "the BBC" like it's a homogeonous organisation. But of course it isn't - it's made of up of hundreds of editors, producers etc of differing levels of seniority.

So how does "the BBC" decide to cover anything? Do they have meetings in which these strategies to "back Blair", "back Cameron" "attack Spelman" etc are discussed? And how time consuming must it be for one central body to regulate the entirety of the ouput of all BBC jounrlists across different forms of media 24/7? You seem very well informed, so how is it done? How many people make these decisions and enforce them? What happens if an individual news editor disagrees? Are these decisions binding?

09 June 2008 18:03

David Lindsay said...

"Do they have meetings in which these strategies to "back Blair", "back Cameron" "attack Spelman" etc are discussed?"

Clearly, to anyone watching or listening to the output.

"how time consuming must it be for one central body to regulate the entirety of the ouput of all BBC jounrlists across different forms of media 24/7?"

Not in the least. Anyone would ever run the slightest risk of stepping out of line for any "regulation" to be necessary. So it isn't. Again, don't you ever watch or listen to the BBC?

"How many people make these decisions and enforce them?"

Make them, extremely few. No "enforcement" is needed.

"What happens if an individual news editor disagrees?"

The BBC would never be employing such a person in the first place.

"Are these decisions binding?"

If you like. But nobody needs to be "bound".

Seriously, don't you ever switch it on?

09 June 2008 18:15

charliemarks said...

This story is the work of Michael Crick - who cut his teeth reporting on the Militant Tendency within Labour...

10 June 2008 01:28

David Lindsay said...

Well, indeed.

Militant barely existed beyond Merseyside. It was far smaller than the International Socialists (now the SWP - of course, I know that you know this; but other people might not) or the International Marxist Group (whatever happened to the International Marxist Group?).

Yet much of the New Labour mythology is based on the "defeat of Militant". It is therefore easy to ignore that the fact that New Labour is itself wholly the work of utterly unrepentant old Stalinists, Trotskyists and fellow-travellers from that period.

10 June 2008 16:12

1

Comment by "charliemarks"

Calling people "toffs" says nothing about class at all, it's just bullying based upon someone's name or manner. McCabe might be a class warrior - but it's not for the working class as the Labour party in Crewe had nothing to say about helping workers. The candidate Tamsin Dunwoody said she wouldn't rebel against New Labour, which only acted over the 10p tax abolition *because* backbench MPs rebelled…

June 5th, 2008 at 12:36 am

Charlie Marks said...

Great post, Bethan. Seems like the Tories and Labour are adrift in Wales. What happened to Welsh Labour's campaign in defence of the Union?

04 June 2008 16:02

rog said...

Bethan

Regarding the future for the Assembly.

Reading on the new Cambria blog site, there is news of an alleged "Royal Charm Offensive" to get us in Wales to believe what a wonderful asset William windsor is for us. As if we haven't had enough sickening propagander about him and his brother already. This apparently is in preperation for a possible investiture for William windsor taking over from his father as Prince of Wales.

It is going to be more lavish so it is said, than the one that wonderful Christian (how we remember him) George Thomas did for his Father Charles windsor.

If true it makes you wonder how much credibility we can take from the Labour Party who must be in the forefront of it all in their commitment to a Parliment for Cymru.

05 June 2008 05:41

rog said...

Dear Bethan

To follow on from my previous message.

Looking at the "National Newspaper of Wales"( ha ha )today, it looks like it is already starting, and we are begining to fall for it by look of the photo shots.

Start with the young, treat the windsors like celebrities and it will escalate from there. They will win in the end you know because of our sad preocupation with the celebrity culture.

It won't be long before the Labour Party jump on that bandwagon

05 June 2008 22:51

Phil BC said...

Believe me CWI'er, not many people who have graduated college can't read them either. Understanding, of course, is something else.

These might be of use though. We had a discussion at branch about Gramsci - you can read that here. AVPS readers seem to think it's a fair introduction. And there's this short piece on Adorno and the culture industry.

Aside from this I haven't got any material I can send, but there's a couple of book recommendations I can make. Alex Callinicos's 'Is There a Future for Marxism?' and John Rees's 'The Algebra of Revolution' have excellent chapters on commodity fetishism (bits and bobs of the latter are on Google Scholar). They might be in your public library or at least the local college collection. If you've got some student comrades still around get them to photocopy the relevant bits.

10 June 2008 18:30

jaya said...

Hi,

Appreciate your insightful assessment of this post-feminist moment. What troubles me as you rightly pointed out is the seizing of the megaphone by the privileged classes and races and then they set the agenda as well as what is the authentic experience. i for one do not want carrie or miranda or sam or charlotte to speak for me and my femininity.

i recently blogged on this:

http://inbetwixtandbetween.blogspot.com/

i am new to blogging

thanks for listening

respectfully yours

16 June 2008 00:43

The Scarlet Pervygirl said...

Sweet baby James, phil, how exactly is it "not that bad"?

From a literary perspective, this movie is a fairy tale (very much like those insipid princesses Disney is so keen on flogging past any illusion of sanity): it stars not characters, but the status and wealth they gain, re-gain, or secure for themselves through virtuous action.

And here virtue is traditionally defined: the female characters are rewarded for their lack of practical or physical ambition, their ornamentality, and their adherence (and enforcement of others' adherence) to power inequalities in class, race, and sex and gender.

Everything has import, even if a particular meaning is not intended on the part of the creators; and the less serious something is, the less people criticize it. I'm not saying *Sex and the City* is the devil out to take women's souls and convert them to vapid shells while reminding men and society at large that women are objects to be taken rather than subjects to be taken seriously, but . . .

Okay, yes, I am.

16 June 2008 09:58

Phil BC said...

Ouch! Well, I guess I wrote "it's not that bad" still reeling from the Indiana Jones experience. Sex and the City is more insidious, more reactionary and conservative than Indy ... but it's also more entertaining!

16 June 2008 11:20

jsr said...

Hi Sorry it has taken me a while to reply back. I am not sure what you are asking me. bUt I do enjoy your blog! I have added yo on as well.

Cheers,

jsr.

17 June 2008 23:45

Charlie Marks said...

A welcome change from the "we're all middle class now" mantra...

04 June 2008 00:49

Adam Ford said...

The last part is good:

'If governments do not react to the new reality of economic insecurity, they risk unprecedented social upheaval. Students of history know that revolutions occur when the middle classes make common cause with the workers. The middle classes now see themselves as wage slaves - and in the end slaves inevitably stage an uprising.'

Watch out plutocrat bastards! Be nicer or else!

04 June 2008 18:15

Graeme said...

Wouldn't it be nice if we demanded the means of production and didn't settle for a few more bucks.

04 June 2008 18:53

Tom P said...

Hi Nick

Dunno what does it but I have a real problem with ideas being presented in personal terms.

It's more common for people to assert, and therefore attack, the motives of people behind a concept. Which again is a poor way to argue. But to given an idea a sort of personality and then attack that.... blurgh!

By the by, I'm was purely having a go at the style in the post, but I don't agree with the thrust of it anyway. I don't think most mainstream politicos believe, or have done for some time, that the state can do everything. Surely the balance has been tilting the other way for some time?

The more interesting/important discussion at the moment is surely about how markets work (or not)?

03 June 2008 08:06

Nick Drew said...

blurgh

so - not a big fan of Nietzsche, then, Tom ?!

Poetry can be a great way of communicating solid truths, y'know: have a read of this

don't think most mainstream politicos believe the state can do everything

I hope you're right, (though look at La Toynbee in today's Guardian for a prime bit of recidivism: she's not alone)

and yes, how markets work/not is indeed rather important, since (by default or otherwise) that's the jungle we must make our home

03 June 2008 09:26

Tom P said...

I'm too much of an Orwell fan...! I like clear, straightforward writing.

Can't say I am much of a Polly Toynbee fan, though Did Things Get Better? was a useful (if boring) defence of Labour's record. Is there anyone writing from the Left that you rate?

04 June 2008 07:57

Nick Drew said...

Larry Elliott is good

and I cannot but admire the intellectual honesty (and endearing bewilderment) of George Monbiot

05 June 2008 08:12

Tom P said...

Interesting. I don't mind Larry Elliott's stuff in the Grauniad but I thought Fantasy Island was pretty poor.

Can't say there's many Righties I read regularly, except Danny Finkelstein and Irwin Stelzer (who wrote what I thought was a barking piece the other other day about why Labour is in trouble).

I generally find if you read what Simon Heffer writes and assume the opposite it's quite a good guide to the future. In recent history he's been very positive about UKIP, very negative about Cameron, and last summer warned the Tories not to underestimate Gordo. I see he's just had a pop at Obama, so a £10 on a black president seems like a good bet.

05 June 2008 12:57

Beowulf said...

Nice blog Tom P, Standpoint looks the usual load of decent left arse to me...With respect to your blog, I completely agree with the idea behind it. I would reccomend checking out Doug Henwood and the Left Business Observer, excellent anaylsis of financial markets and real insight into how they work(His book Wall Street is well worth a read as well). An example for the British left to follow.(I come from a Libertarian Socialist Free Market perspective...)

29 May 2008 21:09

Charlie Marks said...

Sounds very Encounterish. Not going to work though, is it? If anything, it's bound to fuel other forces who aren't keen on liberal values. Islam has come to be regarded in racial terms: for many racists changing the word "Paki" or "wog" to "Muslim". This is what the fascists have been doing, using criticism of religious extremism to cover racism. Obviously this isn't the point of Standpoint - but there's a certain racism here, undoubtedly - the point is to legitimise modern-day colonialism: the wars of occupation in the Middle East.

I think Nick Cohen is generally a sell-out but I do feel sorry for him in a way. It's not exactly a good time to join the Dark Side, is it? As for Frank Field, what I like about him is that he's seen the need for Labour to back devolution for England.

30 May 2008 00:51

Tom P said...

Hi Beowulf

Actually I've recently come across LBO and it looks very good. I managed to get a freebie PDF of Wall Street and some of the stuff he says about socially responsible investment is very accurate (and sceptical). I might post up a bit actually now you mention it.

30 May 2008 07:29

Tom P said...

Hi charlie

That defintely seems to be the way they want to pitch it. I was a little unfair in what I wrote (blame the hangover) as it is a serious magazine. Don't think I'll be taking out a sub just yet though!

Although I quite like his stuff (and I enjoyed What's Left, despite disgareeing with chunks of it) I think Nick Cohen has fundamentally lost his way. To get close to calling for a vote for Boris in the mayoral election shows the problem. I also think he overestimates how much his new stablemates really are committed to liberal values. He'll be useful to them to show that they have pluralistic outlook, I don't see what he gets out of it though.

30 May 2008 07:36

Charlie Marks said...

The tenor of What's Left - the fact it included lengthy sections on obscure political sects - led me to believe it was actually aimed at an American audience. Either that, or it was just badly written. Nick wasn't alone - Martin Bright of the New Statesman also turned out for Boris with that anti-Ken doc for Channel Four. Bright has written for the Policy Exchange think tank which is now ensconced in City Hall...

31 May 2008 02:34

Anonymous said...

Scotland has kept Labour in power for years...at the last election more p[eople in England voted Conservative than voted Labour. Labour pushed the devolution question in an attenpt to slow the rise of SNationalism which would permanently wipe out their chances of Govt.

23 May 2008 19:17

Anonymous said...

What about Nantwich then John? Its all going wrong for you mate! This result demonstrates the overwhelming anger and contempt in which New Labour is now held by (your) traditional supporters.

23 May 2008 19:20

John Gray said...

Hi Charlie

It is a serious issue but I must admit that if there is no pressure from anyone for such an assembly then...?

24 May 2008 16:28

John Gray said...

Hi Ian

Great idea - I will pass your contact details to the Chair and Secretary to see if we can sort things out.

24 May 2008 16:33

John Gray said...

Hi Anon (s)

It wasn't that many years ago in the scheme of things that more people voted Conservative than Labour in Scotland. I think your "point" has more to do with the unfairness of the 1st past the post system. Labour got 55% of seats with only 36% of the vote (not that I am complaining mind).

Check out http://grayee.blogspot.com/2008/05/oh-mr-porter-what-shall-i-do.html on Crewe. It's not all doom and gloom methinks. It's not so much getting traditional supporters out to vote (although we need to do this as well) it is the post 1997 Labour Party supporters who we need to attract back.

Thanks for the concern though...

24 May 2008 16:55

Oh, yes. This reminds me about Letwin's wittering about socio-centric rather than econo-centric politics in a speech last May which was later ridiculed by Blair. Letwin writes, "Cameron Conservatism is also an attempt to shift the theory of the State from a provision-based paradigm to a framework-based paradigm." [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1760043.ece]

Problem is, that at a time of economic crisis it ain't easy going into an election with a programme of privatisation. When you think about it, Thatcher didn't say "A Conservative government will sell public industries at knock down prices to people who funded our election campaign."

Posted by Charlie Marks | 01:03, 22 May 2008

'Pragmatism' is an ideology, Evan. It never ceases to amaze me that conservatives really do think that their political and economic thinking has nothing to do with ideology. As if the conservative mindset can simply and unproblematically grasp the world as it is without the need for theory or careful methodology or philosophical relection on the problem of how one understands what reality is in the first place.

Conservatives really don't get the basics of philosophy do they?

Posted by Ed | 21:10, 21 May 2008

''Although the 1970 Heath administration half-heartedly flirted with ideas, it was only from 1979 that fashionable rightist -isms were elevated to the level of policy, in the form of a clearly identifiable Thatcher project.''

But those ideas had been around along time within the Tory Party, (Institute of Economic Affairs)est 1955. Enoch Powell was advocating them in the 1960's, granted they were viewed as extreme.

The reason the Tories elevated them to policy was the crises the ruling class faced, a low rate of profit and a militant working class.

But lets not worry about a intellectually coherent conservative policy. Its us on the Left who should be putting forward an intellectual coherent alternative to the right wing consensus.

Posted by john | 22:38, 21 May 2008

''British Labourism - unrelentingly theoretically backwards by continental standards and positively frightened of Marxism ''

Yes you are dead right there. When i joined the Labour Party as a young man a old member said to me the '' Labour Party owes more to Methodism than Marxism son.''

Posted by john | 22:52, 21 May 2008

Oh, yes. This reminds me about Letwin's wittering about socio-centric rather than econo-centric politics in a speech last May which was later ridiculed by Blair. Letwin writes, "Cameron Conservatism is also an attempt to shift the theory of the State from a provision-based paradigm to a framework-based paradigm." [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1760043.ece]

Problem is, that at a time of economic crisis it ain't easy going into an election with a programme of privatisation. When you think about it, Thatcher didn't say "A Conservative government will sell public industries at knock down prices to people who funded our election campaign."

Posted by Charlie Marks | 01:03, 22 May 2008

Charlie Marks said...

Jim, you are one of the best bloggers around but you'd be shit as a spy. Brown's compromised, right? So if he does call asking for advice, rattle out a list of Green Party policies for him to nick. As McDonnell says, we'd be happy for him to steal our ideas...

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 1:41:00 AM

Jim Jay said...

I'm happy for him to nick any of my ideas - although I suspect he wont have long to implement them!

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 11:11:00 AM

It isn't actually a factory it's just an office but it is still where they develop the software for rockets or something. Regardless of what it is the company make $20 billion every year making weapons that kill innocent people - we do not want it and we shall not allow it! Regardless of what the 'law' tells us.

Comment By Ciaran Gallagher At 23/05/2008 17:48

See comment here on Irish political forum 'Machine Nation':

http://machinenation.forumakers.com/world-politics-and-events-f27/the-uk-independent-ratheon-9-mark-steel-and-media-censorship-t683.htm#16971

Comment By Miriam Cotton At 25/05/2008 10:01

[...]We were glad to have Davey McAuley from the Derry Anti-War Coalition & Raytheon 9 Campaign speak in Cardiff at a rally against the Military Academy recently.Mark, your support for our campaign would be very welcome! [...]

Comment By battery At 03/07/2008 09:25

Very good site. Thank you.

Comment By ??? At 20/07/2008 00:53

some things aren't fair my illegal article it must feel like reading Lady.

Comment By Martina At 08/08/2008 09:05

John Gray said...

Hi Charlie

Better late than never (under Tories) I suppose. Not sure I get your point about EU treaty?

23 May 2008 07:52

John Gray said...

Hi Sean

Yes, you are right - it's a start and the devil will be in the detail. I think there is a reasonable chance that the EU will force further changes. Once this is in we need to start campaigning and lobbying employers about the extra cost (17.5% VAT on the entire cost which normally cannot be claimed back). This should make "in-house" employment far more competitive.

I've known people employed by agencies but placed with an employer for 7 years! This needs to change. The "fixed term contract" parity a few years ago didn't end the world as we know it. Again, this is something I hope the EU may prove to be a way forward.

23 May 2008 07:59

Charlie Marks said...

The vote on the EU treaty was promised in 2005, so if a New Labour promise take 6 years to be fulfilled - 2011.

24 May 2008 06:09

John Gray said...

Hi Charlie

I think actually that the promise to vote was on the proposed EU constitution but I take your point.

24 May 2008 16:57

Charlie Marks said...

EU constitutional treaty = EU reform treaty... as most European leaders readily admit.

But I'm glad you take my point ;-)

26 May 2008 01:33

Antony said...

Hey Tommo, thought this was one of your best posts to date....all the philosophy stuff just keeps me checking your pic for cornflakes in your beard ;0)

I agree that on the whole reactions to 'innovation' in the city are both inadequate and tardy, which wouldn't be so much of a worry if this wasn't driving so much of govt policy globally. At times this can feel like an inexorable slow drift towards total financialisation with very little real, informed resistance. We've seen too many shocks to think that sub prime.fatcat bonuses et al are the tipping point for a Charlie Marxsian societal reaction...the best that conscientious objectors can do is to get wise and get their answers straight fast. I had the same feeling reading Naomi Klein's latest book: shock doctrine economics doesn't surprise me unfortunately and is easier to finger. However, it's the gradual, and just as dangerous, financially motivated undercurrents, that are harder to resist.

Cheers,

The Scarlet Pimpleyone

20 May 2008 15:42

Charlie Marks said...

"We've seen too many shocks to think that sub prime.fatcat bonuses et al are the tipping point for a Charlie Marxsian societal reaction..."

I'd agree with you if people like Soros weren't sounding like Millies... Biggest economic crisis since the 70s, perhaps the depression of the 30's - hello!

20 May 2008 20:15

Tom P said...

Soros is speaking tonight at LSE actually, but I couldn't get a ticket. Will get his new book when it comes out though.

21 May 2008 12:47

Nick Drew said...

have to admire your honesty, Mr P

we capitalists get a really easy ride from the Left because so few of you have a clue about what's actually happening

witness the risible 'revelation' in the Guardian that Northern Rock's securitisation vehicle made use of a charitable trust, as if this was news (when the Revenue's own website has a 'how-to-do-securitisation' page setting it all out)

Heaven knows there's enough that needs fixing, without one side of a potential debate choosing to vacate the building with its fingers in its ears

21 May 2008 13:27

Tom P said...

Hi Nick

Yes, I think we are several laps behind, which is a real problem.

A good example is a lot of the TU responses to private equity. Unions know there is a problem there somewhere, because they can see members getting squeezed, but haven't really got a clear idea of what needs to be done - hence they got pulled onto the territory of just calling for changes to taxation.

Nice blog by the way. I'll give it a plug - you may get some lefty traffic!

22 May 2008 07:26

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

Anonymous said...

I don't know what saddens me most, reading about the loss of an English way of life or the idiotic anti-tory rants from Thatcher's Orwellian future to how many times Cameron has mentioned England.

Surely we must take heart from the fact that a leading politician has heeded the message conveyed by Paul's brilliant book and will hopefully demonstrate the vision (or encourage Brown) to do something about it.

Besides, are we blind to the fact that the last 11 years have had a massive contribution to the state we are in? Regional Development Agencies, spiraling houses prices (where profits have fuelled an exodus to the country displacing the local population), uncontrolled mass-immigration from eastern-Europe (Blair signing the treaty of Amsterdam), the banning of traditional country pursuits (fox hunting), a top down (unrepresentative) approach to government, the list is endless.

However, all this is missing the point. With hindsight it is easy to point out the mistakes of government past, but much harder to get government to correct them. We should be encouraging this interest when it occurs, regardless of party politics.

18 May 2008 15:35

Kevin Elliott said...

Party politicking is precisely the kind of smoke screen that has allowed quangos, corporations, governments et al to get away with what they do. One of the ways to turn it all round is to restore trust and integrity so why not (cue the oohs and aaahs) take what Cameron says at face value? The job of governments, or potential governments, is to prepare the way for change.

Party political sniping merely maintains the status quo.

22 May 2008 07:55

William Gruff said...

I don't wish to 'piss on your oysters', as the saying goes, Mr Kingsnorth but I think Cameron used your book simply because he has absolutely no ideas of his own. All he's actually offered us are a lot of 'we-need-tos', 'maybes' and wait-and-sees'. Two years ago he was describing English ignorance to a Scotch audience as the biggest threat to the 'union'. At one stage he was promising that he'd increase the Barnett allocation to Sc*tland. Not so long ago he told an audience of women that the burden of proof in rape trials needs to be reduced. Grooovey Dave says what he thinks his audience of the moment wishes to hear and seems not to understand that others hear him too. He's a politician hungry for power and he'll say whatever he thinks helpful to his interests at the time. It's unlikely that England's interests are as close to his heart as they are to yours and mine.

Cameron is a buffoon and if, as I think is highly unlikely, he ever gets to No. 10 we'll soon see just how much of an empty headed buffoon he is, and 'party political sniping' has nothing to do with my opinion.

We ought to have learned by now that if 'leading politicians' do actually start listening to what we tell them it is only because they haven't a clue what empty promises and outright lies to peddle next.

24 May 2008 09:51

Anonymous said...

It means that the powers that be have decided you're a threat, and are trying to co-opt you.

I lived in England as a visitor, so my perspective may be skewed, but I've been astonished by how many people in England loathed George W. Bush, but got very enthusiastic for David Cameron, even though he's very similar to Bush, and uses Bush style lines about "compassionate conservatism."

He's like Gordon Brown, Tony Blair,, or any of the other kakistocrats who dominate your headlines, and if he starts saying he's your friend, you should put some armor on your back to intercept the dagger he's planning to put in it.

A Nonny Yank

31 May 2008 05:41

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

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