RISE - The "Scottish Syriza"

[NotThePars]

What's WTM's beef with teaching LGBT rights in school?

[Mr Bairn]

That "maximum income" is the worst policy I've ever seen by a political party

[Ivo den Bieman]

I'm sure RISE will be noting the responses of a sociopathic internet troll very carefully.

[Ivo den Bieman]

Some of it was barmy: the national mass transit system, free at the point of use?

 

Out of interest, what is "barmy" about that?

 

It's the direction we will all be heading in. We cannot continue to have personalised fossil-fuel burning transport indefinitely. Even motoring journalists recognise that the private car is on its way out and will be a luxury unaffordable to all but a few in 20-30 years time. However, we need a reliable public transport system capable of fulfilling far more jounreys for people to go to work and what is being suggested is a massive change in how we all travel and get about.

 

RISE are about radical change. I am not sure why some of the suggestions for radical change in their manifesto are such a surprise.

[Ad Lib]

What's WTM's beef with teaching LGBT rights in school?

Pretty straightforward really.

He's a homophobic bigot.

[Mr Bairn]

I'm sure RISE will be noting the responses of a sociopathic internet troll very carefully.

 

 

Sociopathic

[Ad Lib]

It bears repeating but Universal Basic Income at a functional level is, to borrow the Peter Mannion phrase "fffucking mental".

A UBI set at half the living wage would cost about two and a half times as much as we currently spend on the whole budget of the DWP, including both benefits and pensions, plus the ticket value of tax credits and benefits administered by the Treasury/HMRC. It would increase total government spending by about 60% and would increase it by about a third even if it replaced our entire state welfare and pensions system.

Serious parties of government do not advocate a policy that ruinous to public finances. To pay for it you would have to either run a national deficit of about 30% of GDP, or introduce marginal rates of income tax on low and middle earners well in excess of 60-70%, which would be utterly disastrous for work incentives. Or I guess you could abolish education and health spending. Except that wouldn't actually pay for it either. Like, barely half. The policy breaks even, remember for a level that's half what people need to live a reasonable standard of living, if you abolish education, healthcare, benefits and pensions.

It's a total non-starter.

[renton]

Out of interest, what is "barmy" about that?

 

It's the direction we will all be heading in. We cannot continue to have personalised fossil-fuel burning transport indefinitely. Even motoring journalists recognise that the private car is on its way out and will be a luxury unaffordable to all but a few in 20-30 years time. However, we need a reliable public transport system capable of fulfilling far more jounreys for people to go to work and what is being suggested is a massive change in how we all travel and get about.

 

RISE are about radical change. I am not sure why some of the suggestions for radical change in their manifesto are such a surprise.

 

The free at the point of use bit.

 

Also, while personalised fossil fuel burning transport may not be sustainable in the long term, that assumes that - for example - electric personal transport won't be available. It almost certainly will. No doubt there needs to be a massive extention of public infrastructure in terms of rail networks, particulalry for freight - I just don't buy the idea that free at the point of use public transport is a goer, the sheer amount of money that would cost is eye watering.

 

RISE is about radical change, and it wasn't a surprise to see radical proposals, but me, being a stickler for a sense of reality, was hoping for something workable. As noted, some of it is very backwards looking, other parts are simply not enforcable or unworkable.

[Ivo den Bieman]

the big problem for me is the lack of attention to detail in the manifesto. shrugging off glaring errors in the publication during the press launch event as "irrelevant" makes the organisation look like fucking amateurs.

 

I don't have a problem with them proposing fundamental shifts in how we all live. There's no point to RISE if they are just going to be another claque of fiscally sober middle aged male bank managers in grey suits.

 

agree with you also though that this manifesto is pretty poor on the whole and indicates a real lack of strategic thinking within the party.

[Menzel]

 

RISE is about radical change, and it wasn't a surprise to see radical proposals, but me, being a stickler for a sense of reality, was hoping for something workable. As noted, some of it is very backwards looking, other parts are simply not enforcable or unworkable.

 

Isn't this pretty irrelevant, as everyone, including RISE, know they're not going to get near government? 

[Ivo den Bieman]

Isn't this pretty irrelevant, as everyone, including RISE, know they're not going to get near government? 

 

well not really, as manifestos are part of a process rather than an event in themselves. Parties have to build credibility over time and this isn't a great start.

 

the manifesto is littered with errors and in the opinion of some contains many unworkable /fanatasy passages.

 

first impressions, particularly with an electorate, are important. The good bits in the manifesto seem to be drowned out by the wish list elements, and outright drivel. Presenting this to the press and then trying to face down glaring errors isn't a good look, even if them being in government isn't a realistic aim.

 

we will see after the election if RISE are actually in this for the serious long haul.

 

Fortunately for RISE, so few have heard of them that this will pass largely un-noticed.

[renton]

Isn't this pretty irrelevant, as everyone, including RISE, know they're not going to get near government? 

 

I'd argue not. Because even if you are in no position to implement it, if you want the concept to be taken seriously, then it has to be believable. And it's only through serious, believable concepts that the party will gain any credibility, and only through credibility do  you gain electability. I also think there is a knock on effect - if you start making outlandish claims about breaking up private estates via Land reform, I think you automatically pin a certain ridiculousness to the wider debate about land reform (for example) that makes any changes in that area harder.

 

I'm not saying tone down the radicalism, I'm saying find a way of implementing it. I'm saying that even if you are going to be nowhere near government, if you want the issue heard and debated, have it framed in a way that is practical and believable.

[Wee Willie]

I'd argue not. Because even if you are in no position to implement it, if you want the concept to be taken seriously, then it has to be believable. And it's only through serious, believable concepts that the party will gain any credibility, and only through credibility do  you gain electability. I also think there is a knock on effect - if you start making outlandish claims about breaking up private estates via Land reform, I think you automatically pin a certain ridiculousness to the wider debate about land reform (for example) that makes any changes in that area harder.

 

I'm not saying tone down the radicalism, I'm saying find a way of implementing it. I'm saying that even if you are going to be nowhere near government, if you want the issue heard and debated, have it framed in a way that is practical and believable.

Good post

[strichener]

Isn't this pretty irrelevant, as everyone, including RISE, know they're not going to get near government? 

On that basis you would think the Scottish Tories would be equally bold.

[Wee Willie]

Isn't this pretty irrelevant, as everyone, including RISE, know they're not going to get near government? 

Back in the day you could have said that about the SNP or going back further, the Labour party

 

On that basis you would think the Scottish Tories would be equally bold.

Naw, they're wee, sleekit, cow'rin, tim'rous beastie's

[Menzel]

I think you're all missing what I mean somewhat, which perhaps I should rephrase. Working on the assumption that there should be a fair whack of Leninists in RISE, the idea should be to use the elections to propagandise and to communicate a minimum programme, rather than merely getting somebody elected.The problem with RISE is that it's no doubt going to collapse after May, rather than using the election to agitate and built a class-based movement, which they should really be doing. 

[Ivo den Bieman]

yep, a fair claque of Leninists and Trots.

[WaffenThinMint]

I was surprised at how bad it was.

 

Not in terms of general sentiment, or direction of travel but it seemed like a collection of well meaning, ill thought out pledges - some of which were blatantly contradictory.

 

Other parts were quite backwards looking...

 

Some of it was frankly unworkable...

 

Some of it was barmy...

 

The odd emphasis on teaching kids about our place in the Empire and our history with slavery (quite cleary, both are important facets of scottish history, particularly the evolution of Glasgow but it should be taught within context of the wider Scottish history, which is more often ignored. I don't think kids history curriculum should be 'the battle of Hastings' 'social change post 1945' and 'your ancestors were shit, and if you don't feel bad enough about that, your as awful as them')

 

Sorry about the cut, but this covers the bases of your pertinent points.

 

RISE's document seems less a manifesto than vanity press: a list of Guardian reader style aspirations the members stood by "& what fine fellows we are to believe them." Much of it reads like it had been written by the writers of Millie Tant and The Modern Parents in Viz.

 

In any election, it's the economy ("...stupid!") that's foremost in most minds - knowing what the parties will do to ensure people can put food on the table, a roof over their head, get the kids through school, etc. RISE's economic policy seems to be based on being able to magically grab pots of money from "the rich" to pay for it all - & to be honest they don't really seem to believe it themselves. It's merely the case they found the topic boring, so they're rather not dwell on it, concentrating on the "groovy" stuff about shaping society.

 

Nothing wrong with that... if you choose to be a pressure group or think tank. But for any sort of grouping aspiring to political power, it's daft & dangerous. Moreover, it tars any good ideas they have with the "numptie" brush, something the Greens discovered the hard way made politicians in this country very resistant to the good ideas they had for almost two decades buried under self-indulgent dross.

 

Britain - never mind Scotland - needs a plausible left as any sort of healthy pluralistic political community needs balance (lord knows it's been dangerously laissez-faire right wing predominant for far too long), but it seems no matter how many kickings they get at the polls they are obsessed with trotting out the same silly nonsense year after year bearing only a superficial grasp of the realities of the communities or nations they are within.

 

What's WTM's beef with teaching LGBT rights in school?

 

When it's being proffered by a pseudo-party who one moment are hammering out an exhaustive list of indoctrination into kids, the next (and very far down in their manifesto may I add) saying politicians should not be allowed to interfere with teachers doing their jobs. "Trotskyite speaks with forked tongue", kemosabe!

 

I'm highly cynical of the all-time champions of hive think of having any good intentions towards any form of minority rights other than cynical political opportunism. The machismo British far-left only became the champions of ethnic minorities, gays, small cute furry creatures with big eyes once they'd burned their boats with just about everyone else; & they'll quietly dump them if they'll get more support from elsewhere & the price for doing so is turning a blind eye to a medieval view of homosexuality (or whatever else).

 

Pretty straightforward really.

He's a homophobic bigot.

 

Swing & a miss, champ. Only bigoted towards anyone wanting incest to be decriminalised - for which I make no apology.

 

Thankfully you & the rest of the "socially awkward middle class mummy's boy closet Tory scum that favour the Lib Dems" (© RISE, the Socialist Workers Student Society, etc), will never, ever be in a position of power to make this little wet dream of yours come true. Or any other.

Edited April 20, 2016 by WaffenThinMint

[NotThePars]

Aye fair enough. I know from quite a few people active in the Glasgow Uni feminist groups that there's loads of rumours about RISE's unsavoury attitude towards women and other groups so I can believe it's not genuine from some.

[Menzel]

Aye fair enough. I know from quite a few people active in the Glasgow Uni feminist groups that there's loads of rumours about RISE's unsavoury attitude towards women and other groups so I can believe it's not genuine from some.

 

Well this is certainly true, as I've pointed out myself some ten pages ago or so, what WTM seems to be saying here is some sort of abstract rant which goes for crude generalisations of the left rather than actual involvement and fact, i.e knows who SWSS are, well done him etc. Stopped listening to his left insights when he tried to compare the movement to modern day fascism about a page ago tbh. 

Edited April 20, 2016 by Menzel