Next UK Labour Leader - post Brexit

[pandarilla]

4 hours ago, WaffenThinMint said:

Oh please!

The SWP/SWSS has been attempting to infiltrate and take over branches of the Labour Party since back in their International Socialists days. You don't need to have the majority of members being from the SWP/SWSS, you simply have to spot the people you can easily threaten & bully to vote members into key branch posts, after which the rest is a doddle. History has shown they're also very good at working in conjunction with "fellow travellers" such as the old Militant of yesteryear when needs must.

Most of those that have registered to vote in the leadership elections will never, ever attend a single party meeting anyway, the same as happens in most parties where the number of activists as opposed to mere members is about one in ten if you're lucky.
Peter Hitchens will soft-soap that vicious gang of rapey little shits in the same way Tory & UKIP members will tend to soft-soap the NF & BNP if they held past memberships too.

Maybe that's why the Socialist Workers Party/Socialist Workers Student Society is so obsessed with calling all their opponents "Tory b*****ds" - they're like those Christians proclaiming publicly that "homosexuals will burn in Hell" whilst their closets are rattling away. Show me a diehard Trotskyite of today, & I'll show you the right-wing Tory b*****d of tomorrow. 

That this nutcase actually thinks the current Tory government is SOCIALIST says it all.

 

This is quite a delusional post.  

 

That vicious gang of rapey little shits?  What the f**k is wrong with you?

[WhiteRoseKillie]

5 hours ago, pandarilla said:

It's not about telling people they're wrong - it's about convincing them to change their views.  If people vote for nothing other than self-interest then Thatcher has won - but I genuinely think it's more flexible than that.  They need to be given something worth voting for.

Miliband was nowhere near genuine enough. Anyone with a brain could see he was trying to play the same old game and just improve his 'style' and 'persona'.  The idea that the left united behind him is just daft.   

Exactly. Put policies, especially social policies, in front of normal, decent people, and they will overwhelmingly support those proposed by the left. One of the news programmes tried this in Surrey last year, asking the inhabitants of the Tory heartlands what they thought of various policy proposals. The look on their faces when they discovered they were part of Corbyn's campaign was priceless.

The biggest problem is that the public's perception of Socialist policy is that it costs money, i.e. that taxes will go up. Fact is, that's true, but the alternative is the Conservative route of selling off OUR railways, OUR power supply, OUR Public Services - all in the name of short term profit.

What's necessary is an honest statement of an undeniable fact - a decent society requires contribution by all. Emphasis on the word "all".

Equally, we need to stand up and say that a society where foodbanks exist, where decent housing is denied to the most vulnerable, where the State would rather build Nuclear Weapons than look after those broken individuals who have put their lives in danger in the name of that state, has no right to call itself decent.

[pandarilla]

1 hour ago, jmothecat said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/28/john-mcdonnell-attack-on-lord-sainsbury-labour-party-donations

Sensible as usual from Alan Johnson.

Accuses McDonnell of 'point-scoring in the press' in a piece in the press that's clearly designed to score points.

 

 

[WhiteRoseKillie]

2 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

Accuses McDonnell of 'point-scoring in the press' in a piece in the press that's clearly designed to score points.

 

 

Yep. A desperate piece of attempted justification, coupled with a weak attempt at character assasination on McDonnell, which in no way attempts to address the issue of the NEC deciding who can or cannot vote.

Kind of explains why I tend to laugh when people reckon I'm a Grauniad reader because of my politics.

 

[jmothecat]

And now McDonnell's team are attacking the wrong Lord Sainsbury. It's a bit depressing when the Shadow Chancellor's own team don't know the man who has been their parties biggest individual donor in recent years.

[invergowrie arab]

5 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

Was your encounters with Trots through student politics?  The reason I ask is that you always seem to insinuate that they are all middle or upper class.  I knew a lot of guys on the far left when I was active in politics and they were virtually all working class folk.  We didn't agree about politics but they were genuine, down to earth people who believed passionately in their cause.

 

There was literally one or two university lecturers in the Dundee SWP when I was involved. Whilst some might categorise an academic career with being middle class they probably don't know what your average lecturer earns.

The rest were all social workers, community workers, nurses, tradesmen, the long-term unemployed and unemployable. Also almost all were active trade unionists ie shop stewards assisting their members and not getting a hint of a conference jolly out of it.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

13 minutes ago, jmothecat said:

And now McDonnell's team are attacking the wrong Lord Sainsbury. It's a bit depressing when the Shadow Chancellor's own team don't know the man who has been their parties biggest individual donor in recent years.
 

Yep.

 

"McDonnell's team", ffs. You really do think this is some kind of game, don't you?

[WhiteRoseKillie]

2 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

There was literally one or two university lecturers in the Dundee SWP when I was involved. Whilst some might categorise an academic career with being middle class they probably don't know what your average lecturer earns.

The rest were all social workers, community workers, nurses, tradesmen, the long-term unemployed and unemployable. Also almost all were active trade unionists ie shop stewards assisting their members and not getting a hint of a conference jolly out of it.

Hush, now, you'll be challenging the Mail there - which, as we all know, is the ultimate authority on the ideology, income, and class of all " hardcore left-wing loonies".

Oh, and trust me - in our Union, Annual Conference is far from a "jolly". In fact, thanks to Maude and his attacks on the TU movement, most reps now not only attend Conferences, but also carry out their other duties, in their own time. My workplace, for instance, with over 300 TU members, allows eight hours for all the reps to represent their members' interests. That's spread around four Unions, by the way.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

7 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

Was your encounters with Trots through student politics?  The reason I ask is that you always seem to insinuate that they are all middle or upper class.  I knew a lot of guys on the far left when I was active in politics and they were virtually all working class folk.  We didn't agree about politics but they were genuine, down to earth people who believed passionately in their cause.

 

Militant (and it's successors) were/are predominantly working class - one of the few Trotskyite organisations that were/are.   Given that they were the biggest and best organised in Scotland it's not surprising that those you know would be working-class. Most of the others beyond - certainly those that are London-centric - and that's beyond my student experiences - are usually middle-class.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

2 hours ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

Oh I do.

You're the one who doesn't.

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

1 hour ago, pandarilla said:

 

This is quite a delusional post.  

 

That vicious gang of rapey little shits?  What the f**k is wrong with you?

Actually that part is true if you know about the SWP's cover-ups.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

1 hour ago, invergowrie arab said:

There was literally one or two university lecturers in the Dundee SWP when I was involved. Whilst some might categorise an academic career with being middle class they probably don't know what your average lecturer earns.

The rest were all social workers, community workers, nurses, tradesmen, the long-term unemployed and unemployable. Also almost all were active trade unionists ie shop stewards assisting their members and not getting a hint of a conference jolly out of it.

My original post was about the AWL not the SWP - the AWL is what used to be Socialist Organiser.

And I would have been lectured by one of them - Eileen Cook - Public Sector Economics - along with a Tory - Mary Scanlan - talk about getting different points of view!!!

I also remember the President of our SA defecting to the SWP from the SNP during his sabbatical year - that did not go down well!!

[DeeTillEhDeh]

1 hour ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Hush, now, you'll be challenging the Mail there - which, as we all know, is the ultimate authority on the ideology, income, and class of all " hardcore left-wing loonies".

Oh, and trust me - in our Union, Annual Conference is far from a "jolly". In fact, thanks to Maude and his attacks on the TU movement, most reps now not only attend Conferences, but also carry out their other duties, in their own time. My workplace, for instance, with over 300 TU members, allows eight hours for all the reps to represent their members' interests. That's spread around four Unions, by the way.

I could name a few ex-trade union leaders where it was a jolly  and this is not political - they ranged from the right of the Labour Party through to the Stalinist left and hard left.

One bluntly said to me at an STUC conference in Dundee that it was "Part of the perks." 

Mind you that must over 25 years ago - I would hope things have moved on since then.

That being said the Tories conference is not exactly jolly-free either.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Strange that, when the common humorist's depiction of socialists has them fragmenting into labelled splinters, á la Judean Popular Front*, it's those who wish to decry anything left-of-Thatcher who seem to be very well-versed in the socio-economic category each group of bogeymen fall into. It's almost as if they didn't want people to look into the socialist ideology and find that, at bottom, it's quite simply about building a fairer society. Much better to keep everyone in their wee boxes, not asking awkward questions and accepting the lives ther masters deem fitting.

 

*Yeah, I know - fúcking splitters!

[WaffenThinMint]

2 hours ago, pandarilla said:

 

This is quite a delusional post.  

 

That vicious gang of rapey little shits?  What the f**k is wrong with you?

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/05/comrades-war-decline-and-fall-socialist-workers-party

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/09/socialist-workers-party-rape-kangaroo-court

http://internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/ideas-and-arguments/organisation/swp-crisis/253-trigger-warning-rape-in-the-swp-a-comrade-s-testimony-and-experience-of-the-disputes-committee

etc, etc, etc.

This was carried by virtually every single British broadsheet and the fallout from it still dogs the British far left to this day (partly from walking the ghosts of unfinished business from the old WRP where similar events occurred in the 1970s and 80s), particularly in Liverpool where the b*****d responsible was reemployed by a local university despite protests.

Hi Pandarilla - feeling stupid yet?

[jmothecat]

Yep.

 

"McDonnell's team", ffs. You really do think this is some kind of game, don't you?

I really don't. Bizarre to accuse me of thinking its a game for using a common phrase to describe a politician and his advisors etc. What would you describe them as, McDonnell's crew? Young team? Posse?

[jmothecat]

It's not about telling people they're wrong - it's about convincing them to change their views.  If people vote for nothing other than self-interest then Thatcher has won - but I genuinely think it's more flexible than that.  They need to be given something worth voting for.

Miliband was nowhere near genuine enough. Anyone with a brain could see he was trying to play the same old game and just improve his 'style' and 'persona'.  The idea that the left united behind him is just daft.   

Ignoring what the public think and attempting to get them to change their mind does not lead to electoral success. The best way to change views is to get into power and enact legislation, like we've done before. Take gay rights for example. When we got into power the legal age of consent was different for gay and straight men, by the time we left even the mainstream of the Conservative party had changed their view and legalised gay marriage. This shift happened because we were in power and could make it happen.

I also don't think that people vote just based on self-interest, though many do, and I don't think socialism has the monopoly on those who vote because they think their choice is best for everyone. Tory voters, Lib Dems, Nats and Labour voters probably all believe that their party is what will lead to the better outcome for society as a whole and I always think it's staggeringly arrogant of the left to constantly believe that we are the only ones voting for moral reasons. This disdain for the electorate at large switches the very moderate Tory voters we need to attract away from us.

[Cream Cheese]

Enacting legislation doesn't change public opinion. It enforces a rule while public opinion is different.

[Fide]

Can we all just agree that Labour are very, very shit?

[MarkoRaj]

Ignoring what the public think and attempting to get them to change their mind does not lead to electoral success. The best way to change views is to get into power and enact legislation, like we've done before. Take gay rights for example. When we got into power the legal age of consent was different for gay and straight men, by the time we left even the mainstream of the Conservative party had changed their view and legalised gay marriage. This shift happened because we were in power and could make it happen.

So did the labour position on this change when they got into power or were they always advocating gay rights?