By Joe Cox
The recent cabinet resignations and the expenses revelations have meant that a deeper, more meaningful conversation about the future of British politics and society has been smothered. When Jeremy Paxman asked Barry Sheerman MP (one of the leading voices that called for Brown’s resignation) what Gordon Brown should do to improve Labour’s performance, his answer was ‘better communication’. Yet it's the issues that matter, and the issues that get activists knocking on doors.
Compass has always maintained that inequality would rise if we did nothing about taxing the very rich; support for the BNP would increase if we ignored our core vote; markets in key areas like housing would fail if social investment wasn't forthcoming. Millions of voters and thousands of party members have been lost since 2001. They will go on being lost unless the Party changes direction. Now the dust has settled, this is the reality that Labour must now confront head on.
In our ‘No Turning Back’ statement back in March 2009, Compass said that if we don't want to turn back to the old political economy of market fundamentalism then we need a conversation with individuals and groups who want to build a better society: not just the Labour movement but NGOs, faith groups, Liberal Democrats, Greens and others. It's no good having a conversation with a dwindling number of ourselves about ourselves.
The European election results were undoubtedly shocking for the left but there was one progressive party, the Green Party, whose vote was up almost 44% since 2004. This bucked the national and European wide trend of voters turning to the right. There are also other progressive NGOs that are thriving; I am reliably informed that Hope not Hate's email list now dwarfs that of the Labour Party.
That is why at Compass we took the bold move of inviting Caroline Lucas MEP, leader of the Green Party, to address our conference this Saturday 13 June at the Institute of Education – she’ll be joined by high-profile Labour figures including Harriet Harman, Jon Cruddas and Baroness Helena Kennedy QC. We are also bringing together 40 sessions organised by the leading think tanks, pressure groups, NGOS and publications from the wider progressive community. We believe we must reach out and build alliances and have a conversation that goes beyond Labour if there is to truly be No Turning Back to the old politics – those who preach a new politics must practice a new politics and that’s what we’re trying to do through the No Turning Back conference this Saturday.
We understand this is challenging and even uncomfortable territory for some Labour Party members but if we are to renew our Party into something more pluralist (and less tribalist), more open, and more democratic - that goes beyond ‘better communication’ - then it is a fundamental necessity.
We only have around 50 places left but if you would like you to join us this Saturday then click here to register.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
You can sneer at Christians but why not try a sneer at Muslims in Bradford for example and see whether the police arrest you for racial intolerance.
My children went - one is still there - to a C of E secondary school and the care and attention and the inspirational teaching and pastoral care they receive is fantastic. And all the children who go there - from Christian, Muslim, Catholic and Jewish, white, black, asian, and middle and working class backgrounds - get the same start to life.
The real question is why the government has failed to make all schools like this.
Blind prejudice is always an ugly thing Richard, and it's not a positive personal attribute either.
My main objection is towards misrepresentation - a union boss may be entitled to negotiate with an employer on behalf of union members - but their opinion on other matters is no more significant, important, relevant or represetnative that that of a random person in the street.
People acting outside their remit need to be slapped down - hard.
If you really want to consult every one - i.e. there is a matter so important that everyone should be consulted - and you are going to act on their wishes, then you can always have a referendum (or general election).
But in practice, if you can't consult everyone on a subject - thats fine, but be honest and say that you are using your judgement, don't suggest that you know what people want and are delivering on that basis.
Hearing a politician in an interview saying "what people really want..." is very annoying when I know full well what I want, and it is rarely what the politician claims...
I respectfully disagree. If this site was by invitation, or members only (that is, identifiable members and with posts only viewable by those members) then I would agree. If you have a cosy club, then you want to keep it cosy. But that is not what we have here.
This site is open for all, and rightfully so. If you think that getting a meaningful post out of Tory Troll is fruitless, then you should try canvassing the public at the moment: it is impossible to get past MPs expenses, (which frankly is a trivial affair compared to everything else we are facing). But engaging with people like TT is what we should be doing. The arguments that we present to him/her should be instructive to the public that we are passionate about a Labour fourth term. That is the most important thing. We need to be passionate about that fourth term, and that will make the fourth term achievable.
You don't have to engage with him/her, and if his/her posts are content-free then there should be no reason to reply. I recognise that when complete lies are being peddled then they should be rebutted. And I admit that I am guilty of sometimes being too passionate doing that. But far worse than that is snuffing out the "oxygen of publicity" (or whatever the phrase that the mad witch Thatcher used).
You're a lightweight Mr Troll, just like your Blair-lite leader.
You are seriously one very cracked individual.
Civil disorder is nothing to be proud of either.
In all the insults I had to bear with 'chink lover' as a kid and much worse I never hit a single one of them and I was a kid not a grown man.
I never ever stooped to their level.
heh, it looks like I am getting under the skin of a Tory. Good, that means I am being effective. :-) bb J There's more coming your way!
What makes you think that the left don't do this, other than your misguided prejudices, of course?
As for faith groups... Yes you are right, faith is private and should be kept that way. If people want to have imaginary friends then let them, but don't let such people have a say in how the country is run. With the debate on reforming the constitution heating up, it should mean that the time of the "Lords Spiritual" will be over soon. Well, with any luck (I don't have an imaginary friend to ask for help).
Yeah, that really does look like a future, to talk with people who obey imaginary friends.
There is one thing that is important about faith, and that is that it is private. Religion should have nothing to do with government, nothing to do with education, nothing to do with welfare. It should be a personal commitment only, and imposed on no one.
But once faith gets brought into education (ugh! faith schools) you discriminate children based on something they have no control. For example, a friend recently "re-found" his Catholic faith because his son has special education needs and only the local Catholic comprehensive has a special needs unit, but their entrance criteria puts the faith of the child above their educational needs. Wouldn't you say you've found god if it is the only way to get the education appropriate for your child?. Pah!
So drop the "talk with faith groups" stuff. Keep god in his rightful place: in the church, the synagogue, the mosque and the temple. Keep him out of politics.
a) yours
b) yours
c) yours
d) all of the above
Let's make this clear: you claim Labour is 100 per cent responsible for the BNP. Let's not even go there with the historical truth. Listen to what you said. Labour is 100 per cent to blame for the rise of the BNP. That's deflecting blame away from right wing thugs (i.e. the BNP) and in effect lets them off the hook, makes Labour not them responsible for their racist ideology. It makes Labour responsible for their literature, their fielding 100s of candidates: ergo - it is an apology for their actions.
De-facto? Do you seriously know what that means, that's laughable. Is that in your court of public opinion? Spare me the pontification.
I said that Labour's current immigration policy and 'No Platform' created the environment for the BNP to garner support, yes, these are Labour heartland seats of political power. The buck stops with Labour. End. Of.
I didn't suggest for a second Labour were responsible for the creation of the BNP that's ridiculous, ex-Communists maybe, more on that later...
There is no better letting off the hook than 'No Platform' and when this has been discussed, my criticism of this policy has been clear - it is wrong.
Labour created the environment for the BNP to thrive. The votes had to come from some where.
Here's what Rod Liddle said on the matter: The BNP’s success has been hugely understated. Most of those million people who voted for the BNP on Thursday are not fanatics at all; instead they are drawn from that section of the electorate which is least likely to struggle down to the polling booth, namely the largely unskilled, low-paid working class.
and
The BNP took votes almost exclusively from the Labour party for the straightforward reason that the Labour party does not even pretend to represent the interests of the white working class any longer, and particularly the provincial white working class. It considered its support a given, and in any case electorally insignificant. Not any more, on either count.
So by that quote is Rod Liddle an apologist for the BNP? An apologist for racism?
Of course not. Neither am I.
So to defend an indefensible statement, you end up saying 'It's not the fault of the far right wing... it's Labour's fault.'
Parse it how you will, package it any way you like, you're apologising for them.
If you don't understand the meaning of your own statements, then maybe think twice before posting them.
Oh I do understand my statement perfectly, your over-sensitivity prevents you from any cogent or rational debate. I am not alone in my viewpoint. Again, I guess Rod Liddle is an apologist for racism is he?
Rod Liddle had this to say also...
Then there’s the racism business; the mantra trotted out by every mainstream politician, correspondent and pundit interviewed after the poll — that the people who voted BNP were not, of course, themselves racist. This was repeated robotically, ad nauseam, akin to a child in the back of a car forever pleading ‘are we there yet?’ The metropolitan elite is clinically obsessed with racism, almost to the exclusion of everything else. The public — black and white — is not. And yet the liberal elite cannot quite define the term ‘racist’. The answer is that the people who voted BNP are racist if your definition of racism includes people who think they are being racially discriminated against, i.e. the white working class. As opposed to my definition of racism, which is to hate someone because of the colour of his or her skin.
Well quite.
I said earlier in that thread that the reactionary language of the self-appointed leftist intelligentsia is quick to use the words, bigot, xenophobe and racist when faced with criticism. Quick to use it to stifle the debate.
And for that you are truly banged to rights. I think Rod Liddle is being too kind to call you 'elite' though.
I can see why you've got yourself in this desperate position - so desperate you need to try to get my links to your original remarks deleted. It's because you have no idea of politics, no idea of the Powellite background of the BNP, and the long long legacy of their funders and supporters.
You have already been moderated with your insinuations and smearing of my character. I suggest you remind yourself of the comment moderation policy.
Powellite BNP? Former ex-Communists stood for election with the National Front as much as ex-Monday Tories were member of NF. Powell had no ties and no affiliations to NF so if you want to insult people - get your history right. It seems all parts of the political spectrum came to form the BNP. Powell? He didn't.
I have no idea of politics? I suggest you stop, you are embarrassing yourself and coming over as nothing more than an intellectual bully. The only thing I am guilty of is standing up to bullies.
Taken from me at university by the girl who also took my heart.
I feel old. But happy.
But labours support for discrimination on arbitrary basis is a first and clear step on the path that accepts the same mentality displayed by the nazis.
If labour supports the rejection of job applicants for being male or for being white (which they do) then what logic is there to say it is fundamentally wrong to reject people for any other reason (including religion/culture etc). If you discriminate against people getting jobs, it is not such a great step to discriminate against they owning businesses... etc...
Discrimination like this is absolutely disgusting and must be nipped in the bud. When the government get a head of steam, they cannot be stopped regardless of public opinion (vis. ID cards) so they must be stopped before they start.
I am sorry if this offends their (probably) well meaning but stupid supporters, but I would rather be attacked for what I write now, than later see people socially, financially and/or physically attacked because they are another groups bete-noir.
Feel like listening to the extended mix of Lullaby, no problem, Spotify takes care of it.
The layout is quite iTunes-esque as well.
It'll finish off any hope you may have had of doing anything constructive for a good few hours though.
I said that there were limitations to consulting with community leaders, but a flawed reality is better than an ideal imaginging. Or are you seriously suggesting that because public consultations are imperfect, we just shouldn't bother?
I really don't get you. I try and engage in a proper conversation with you and you are just objectionable and absolutist, like a teenager. (Apologies if you actually are a teenager!)
I'm pretty sure that we agree on nothing other than a love of cheese but I enjoy reading your posts.
But the recent spate of posts by others doggedly insisting that the BNP are socialists has forced me to hold my nose. I enjoy being both a Jew and a socialist, and some people's mindless, repeated assertions that National Socialism is (meaningfully) related to socialism, as we define it in 21st century Europe, is nonsense.
I don't normally get offended, but this has brought me close.
So, that is when I hold my nose.
ps glad to see that you are using italics for emphasis rather than capitals!
You still do not get it, in my comment I blamed Labour, lock, stock, barrel. The far right are not in government; Labour are and have been for 12 years, Ergo, 100% of the blame lies at Labour's door. Labour in local and national government in the case of both these BNP MEPs.
If you cast an insinuation on me that is a total and utter falsehood and then start linking your insinuation throughout this website in some perverted sick pleasure to smear someone's reputation and name; I will report you in a heartbeat. I'm glad despite a difference in political viewpoint; there is a line that was crossed Peter; you crossed it. The matter is resolved unless you want to report your insinuation again?
As for mis-reading a thread, well, you throwing around sick accusation is now all part of your psyche here to me; pardon me if I don't apologise.
You disgust me.
As for blogging under your maiden name. You can do whatever you like: but your virtual anonymity would suggest you don't take full responsibility for your words.
I don't see why you are quick to defend Hardwidge; he had sympathy with the Nazi's.... You probably missed it.
As for this now trumped up Holocaust denial and the disgusting insinuation you made of me; I'm starting to think you are seriously unhinged.
I think you've made a deliberate effort to single some people out here for your full-on emotional rants. Stop it.
Well pardon me for not debating properly, like you with your trashed thread below where you call Mike a fascist apologist.
As to calling me a "bastard", just because you did it in Latin doesn't make it go away. Is it coming back to you now, Peter?
And what is the other "B" word you allude to? Do tell. Why can't you say it? Does it demean you?
As stated elsewhere, Stobart is my birth name, Celia is my given name. You have a problem with that? Do you castigate Harman for not being Mrs Dromey? Do you introduce your wife (if you have one) as "Mrs Jukes"?
Most of us have moved on from your cave man 'women as property' attitude.
Adieu indeed.
You of all people should know about context; you are a writer and I find your slur morally reprehensible.
I was not discussing the BNP in that comment, I was discussing Labour's policy so unless the BNP are secretly subverting Labour policy. Labour's immigration policies (or lack of them) have nothing to do with the BNP; Labour's policy and the action of policies are Labour's fault.
That is the context of my quote.
If you are a writer of some note; I do not understand how that context is so difficult to see.
I think your clear over-sensitivity and emotion is clouding your sense of judgement on this issue; sadly this pattern of behaviour isn't unique on the political left (witness the egg throwers) and it inhibits any serious debate on immigration.
That in turn inhibits any serious and dispassionate action to resolve it.
That is childish behaviour to say otherwise and also offensive to me and my sense of values.
Want a grown up debate? Act like a grown-up.
Finally, to remove any tiny remaining doubt you might have in case the penny has not dropped. I have stated that I neither agree with any BNP policy and I don't endorse any BNP policy either.
So drop it.
It's been said elsewhere on here that the triangulation and broad church approach has a limited shelf life before the tensions become irreconcilable. Arguably, if the Tories had been a bit more of an opposition from 1997-2005, then these tensions might have been exposed earlier.
As I said, a messy few years (at least) coming up for Labour.
However, Labour would have to jettison any concept of class struggle and truly embrace the market economy.
That's an apology for the BNP I'm afraid, whatever way you want to try to wiggle out of it.
Not too worried about the crying and tantrums, have a 16 month year old and a 10 year old already, but they are both boys. This time it's girl. Ever since we found out I've been really nervous, but my wife assures me that if I treat all our kids equally we'll all be fine.
with
/the arrival of the BNP
/the police force in the process of being regenerated
/the end of the political class as we know it
/the danger that children could be in - in the "trusty" nurseries...
....perhaps middle England is now in the process of tipping into a more collectivist and less individualist mode........?
However the Tory / UKIP split is somewhat different from the splits in Labour. Members of the Tory party are becoming ever more eurosceptic, and the ideological split in the party is fading as the pro-European generation (mostly in their 50s and 60s) start to age. Basically, the shift is a demographic one that is mirrored in the British population, so the activist base is moving with the grain of public opinion.
The problem the right has on Europe is not ideological, its psychological. The Tory leadership is made up of people who think themselves 'born to lead' at life's top tables and cannot imagine being demoted to a second rank or - perish the thought - outside the club entirely. (Tony Blair was much the same because his background was so similar - witness how he hated not to be on the inside track of any international power broking.)
Hence the major split on the right is between an activist base and population who wants to move in a direction that the Tory leadership is unwilling to go in for reasons of vanity. That is different from Labour's split where Old Labour and New Labour appeal to two quite separate ideological constituencies.
The point I am making is about acknowledging the limitations of what happens instead of pretending it is anything greater.
Not to forget the joy that a child brings to the world either but you get my point ;)
As for the troll issue, there are some on here that are obviously just out on the wind up as well as others who combine that with making stuff up about their lives.
I'd take the easy option and ban them or have an 'ignore' function on the site and let people make up their own minds.
I was speaking not only of personal experience but how Labour's immigration policy was causing a lot of these social tensions.
It's not the BNP in power, it is this government which then led onto that sentence. That's what I was alluding too and only a idiot would infer otherwise.
It is taken out of context but then smearing people that argue with you Peter is plat de jour for you.
Do you accuse Michael White of being an apologist for saying "I think they have it right on reducing mass immigration and opposing further integration into the EU."?
No.
It also seems I'm singled out every time I make a comment by you and the use of your language, first it was 'troll', next I'm slurred by showing 'bias' towards the xenophobic right, next I'm an apologist.
Yet I've never endorsed a single BNP policy and neither would I.
It's simply a series of personal slights Peter; it goes to prove that you cannot debate immigration intelligently with the left because out come the insinuations and slurs.
Agree though, when debate is reduced to name-calling, its difficult for anyone to understand or make a point. Not a lot can change that though as we're all guilty of it from time to time. Maybe I'm a bit of a wuss with this, but I always think of banning people as an easy way out.
Heated debated over at ConHome about what to do with party members who 'lend' their vote to UKIP. Tensions abound it seems but Labour are winning at having theirs cause so much difficutly (We're Number 1, We're Number 1).
Potentially Labour v Tory is coming to an end and will be replaced by progressive v conservative, with advocates of either coming from any of the 3 main parties. Going to be a messy few years after the election methinks.
If you really care what people think *and* believe that you can ask representatives rather than asking people directly.... Then for labours new approach to the EU you should ask the Tory and UKIP MEPs what to do, after all they got the votes in the EU elections, so why would you speak to anyone else?
Outside of the specific roles for which people are elected, they should be given no more weight than a random person in the street.
And don't other 'certain bloggers' make you wonder, 'perhaps they have a point'?
Surely, most of us are not so tram-lined that we cannot see the other side's view on anything?
The reason I like LL so much is the diversity - from barking mad (left and right) to right to wrong but persuasive.
The only thing I dislike on LL is the bullying and hectoring by the blinkered - you know who you are.
Not a lot is going to get done this afternoon.
Plus ca change...
xx
I always enjoy debating with your good self. Have you joined BUPA since Burnham was made Health Secretary?
(and we really do need a button for this on the site - it gets boring having to type it out!)
Time for some exact quotations Peter, since you deny the truth as well as the holocaust.
You said: "I don't know what religion had to do with Nazism".
I said: "Ask the Jews".
Jews are an ethnoreligious grouping, that is what "religion had to do with Nazism".
Spin it any way you want Peter, what you said stands for itself.
(You've contravened Stobart's Law again.)
Not quite sure what the problem is with talkng to community leaders. Rather tricky to speak to everyone within a community. From my (limited) experience, community leaders are a mixture of the truly representative and the repressive and unrepresentative.
True. I hate whenever the Board of Deputies is taken to speak for the Jewish community in the UK. But there are alternative voices within every community.
The problem is not consultation with community leaders, but rather limiting consultation to only a few community leaders, surely?
See, Tory Troll, if you now respond to my response calmly we might manage to have a debate on this question.
Or you could just rant about socialism. We shall see.
We're both Labour-minded Simon and we could debate with each other for hours as we hold very different viewpoints on a number of issues, but you can bet commenters like BBJ will come along and present an angle from time to time that neither of us would have thought of while we're busy arguing.
Off topic comments are bound to happen, whether to distract from a valid point or just in good humour, but I can't see it makes that much of a difference to most debates. Just my personal view.
A lot of people posting here are probably like myself socialists who have watched the last 12 years with some dismay, and who are as a result questioning what politics they believe in, and how they think their old principles might need to be rethought. If like me you are not yet quite ready to join the Conservative Party, it's useful and interesting to talk to other like minded people about all this.
It's even interesting to have reasonable, rational arguments with people on the right - of course it is.
But when someone starts chucking semi-abusive inflammatory insults about, and just seems to want to win an argument at all costs, then arguments flare up, the board gets fragmented with loads of small, inflammatory posts and the sensible, reasoned arguments get swamped. I can't work out why half of your posts are interesting, challenging arguments, but then some of the others are just plain abusive.
Of course it's a free country and you write what you want and all that, I'm just trying to explain why some people get put off by the more aggressive/abusive posts.
He / it thinks Harmans equality bill is putting us on the road to Nazism.
I'm sure he'd have much to add to the debate.
Actually on previous form he'll probably claim he liberated Normandy single handed.
Understand why the BNP issue touches you deeply. Touches me too. It's why I have a tendency to get a little sore when fools bang on about the BNP being socialists.
If I went to a Tory site and wanted to argue, I'd make sure I was at least armed with some facts, had something persuasive or polite to say, and showed some genuine good faith in trying to reach a consensus or sharpening of points of view.
But you've never shown one iota of these qualities in all the thousands of words you've posted on this site. Quite incredible really. And very very dull.
If you want to indulge in a bit of nostaliga without paying for it and don't mind a few adverts it is the place to be.
Apologies if I'm preaching to the converted but if not -
Spotify
Thanks Michael for showing how it can be done.
Tory Troll asked why Labour always want to talk to different groups rather than individuals. That's easy to answer. Its because most Labour types inherently think collectively rather individualistically. Now, there is a case for some degree of collectivism in society, but what I notice on Labour list is that 95% of those posts that talk about policy and 'renewal' of the party talk ENTIRELY in terms of collectivist answers. Among the Labour rank and file there clearly remains a deep suspicion of empowering individual people to make decisions for themselves. I very much doubt you will ever win power on such an agenda because middle England especially has a much more individualistic rather than collectivist mentality. This Tony Blair understood. Old Labour does not.
Lastly and perhaps most seriously, what the recent election of the BNP have shown is that your old white working class base isn't going to be passively taken for granted anymore. I think this is a really major problem for you because in most areas, the views of your white working class base and Metropolitan New Labour are diametrically opposed.
Consider:
Old Labour White Working Class
-------------------------------
Socialistic in economic terms
Patriotic / nationalistic.
Conservative in social terms
Believes in majority rights
Metropolitan New Labour
-----------------------
Capitalist / liberal in economic terms
International in outlook
Liberal in social terms
Obsessed with minority rights
I simply can not see how you can reconcile these two diametrically opposed traditions. I think in opposition whats likely to happen is that you split. The party will return to its socialist roots (a hence a lifetime in opposition) and the New Labour luvvies will drift away to the LibDems or the Cameroons.
I'd be interest to hear of what any Labour activists think - can you reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable?
The question still hasn't been answered - so I ask it again...
Great idea, daily referenda using X-Factor voting it is.
Obvious really, government should consult 60,000,000 people every time they want to buy some paper clips. Forget churches, unions, the CBI, the FSB (not the Russian one), the WI, political parties or any other organization that allows representative democracy to operate.
Split up the UK into city states and make everyone participate fully. Rousseau would be proud.
Speaking of plebiscite's, isn't California doing well nowadays.
Speaking as someone whose family tree had most of its branches permenantly pruned when the Nazis reached Riga, I would have to say that religion had little to do with the Holocaust. It was about ethnicity, wealth and - being a Marxist I would add this - class.
The causes of the Holocaust and guitar pop from the early 1980s - we may be off topic but it's nicely eclectic, no?
*Ok then , Gordon Brown. I know, not the same thing really.
a) resumed my blog b) finished this corporate job I am doing c) did the washing up d) started my novel.
Sigh.
Your 'holocaust denial' above is a perfect example of trolling. It's completely off topic: I said racism and ethnic hatred was responsible for most the catastrophes of the last century. You say 'No, religion'. I say that most the wars and genocides were ethnic (the Nazi's had 'race' not religious laws and non believing quarter Jews were murdered). You call me a holocaust denier.
That's just a waste of time. Perhaps it satisfies some deep craving for antagonism. But it's not a productive discussion of immigration, the BNP, or any other issue. It's an attempt to divert away from the subject, jam discussion of Labour minded issues, and cause some kind of offence: i.e. trolling.
If you can *prove* that there are absolutely no rational arguments in favour of socialism, then I am indeed wasting my time here - and I will stop looking, and just broadcast your proof.
However as long as there are people who think socialism is a good idea, I will keep challenging them just to reassure myself that they are irrational an not in possession of some great argument I have not yet heard.
My post (which peter pretends not to understand) - just asks why labour want to speak to supposed 'representatives' rather than directly to individuals.
A couple of months back Baroness Warsi was on question time asking some minister or other why the government want to talk to 'ethnic community leaders' when people are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.
The question still hasn't been answered - so I ask it again...
(I suspect the answer is because the people doing the asking don't think they will get the answer they want from the public, so ask people who will give them the right answers (in return for money, influence, power etc) but I have been good enough to put my cynicism aside to give labour supporters the chance to give me a different answer - it there is one).
Peter hasn't got an answer (which basically confirms that he agrees with my cynical guess) but he doesn't want to say so, further he wants me banned so he need not be embarrassed by his inability to answer this kind of awkward question.
Celia's good friends with the Saudis :)
Carazy Carrot, Obnoxio and Tory Troll are never worth reading, whereas James Tory and Guy M (although objectionable and ill-informed) are (sometmes) worth engaging with.
I would like to see more discussion between Labour folk, but then this is in our hands surely. It is too easy to get drawn into playground tit-for-tat-ing, mainly because it can be great fun. Every time I see Celia has made a post, I have to fight the urge to retort.
Bottom line: healthy disagreements can be productive; sparring (especially when good natured at heart) can be fun; but positive discussion and exchange of ideas between Labour people should be the core purpose of LabourList.
It's not up to Alex to achieve this. It's up to us. When we blog and comment, lets stay on topic. Let's not be drawn into pointless nonsense. Ignore the idiot trolls, without cold-shouldering those Tories and others who have come here for legitimate political debate.
(I do reserve the right to banter with Celia however; it reminds me of the cheeky insult swopping with the girl who used to sit behind me in my English GCSE class, which kept me forever hormonally distracted from 'The Mayor Of Casterbridge'.)
Peter, you are objectionable because you lecture people. Sorry you must know your faults. I know that I am rude and arrogant at times, I wish you knew that YOU ARE TOO. I wish also that you didn't have this obsession with getting the last word in especially when the facts are against you.
For example, you are throwing 'free speech' at me when I never even mentioned it.
And in one thread you've actually denied the holocaust - you asked what World War 2 and the Nazis 'had to do with religion', I replied 'ask the Jews'.
Cool your anger and calm down. If you don't want to 'engage' then don't.
It isn't compulsory!
(You've contravened Stobart's Law again.)
How many times do you have to be called a Troll when a socialist loses the argument?
How many times do we have to tell you there are two sides to the coin?
The tories come here because we need to set the record straight. If you lot were so right - their would be far more of you left wingers with better arguments. BUT this is not the case. Simples.
Perhaps it's time for Labour to listen?
Those who's minds are made up have no interest in debate and given that that is the case, you need to ask what their purpose is here.
Labour supporters know the shortcomings of their party / government better than anyone, that's why they stayed home last thursday.
Alex - you've done a great job moving on from DD but if this site is to fulfill it's potential I'd suggest some troll culling is necessary.
And honestly, calling people "trolls" is the last bastion of the bombastic. He lives by Godwin's Law - a law should be coined for troll-callers like him.
"Stobart's Law" has a certain ring to it...
Until the BNP issue, which I feel passionately about, this had just bored and tired me and dissuaded me from posting here. (So yes Tory Troll you got what you wanted).
I have absolutely no problem with someone with different points of view engaging in debate. But content-free posts are a different matter, and those who advertise themselves as Tory Trolls probably suppress more debate than they encourage. I bet you have dozens of lurkers who are just put-off by the domination of posters like this.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you can see the figures, and get plenty of feed back from other readers, but generally there's more heat than light generated: many debates end up in personal attacks. I can deal with that, but I wonder how many others are deterred and put off.
Certainly very few of your diarists actually return to wade through the comments section. Except maybe in Hazmat suits.
For example, to take my own Catholic faith, I really only have limited interest in hearing what the Catholic bishops have to say (although, apart from gay rights and abortion, they have a progressive social agenda). I would be much more interested in outreach to groups like The Handicapped Children's Pilgrimmage Trust, local St. Vincent de Paul Societies, or CAFOD. There are thousands of Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Evangelical, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh groups that do this sort of thing.
On the whole, though, I think reaching out to the resolutely secular "Third Sector" would be even more worthwhile. I suppose "NGO" covers this, but you need to a bit more specific - almost all disease oriented charities, as well as foreign aid charities involve hundreds of thousands of people in almost exactly the same kind of voluntary work that religious groups do. And this is a primarily secular country.
What I really object to, however, as happened with RESPECT, is when alliances with certain groups leads to efforts to ignore or disregard support for equality for women, and especially lesbian, gay, bi, and trans people.
Labour is no longer a party with a cause: it is a party in search of a cause.
Sad characters in search of an author.
Why not just merge with the LibDems and have done with it?
"We have to talk to Faith groups, NGOs, Greens and Lib Dems to renew our movement"
given that Labour is already in touch with business finance and the trade unions and is well aware of where the Tories and the media are coming from ... it seems that the suggestion here is that we should talk to everyone in the mainstream of society..... i.e a co-alition of the willing. sounds sensible.
I guess it is their obsession with hierarchy - ensuring that the 'great' leader is as remote from the people as possible - 'divide can conquer' disguised as 'coming together'.
Even people who are elected won't exactly represent the people who elected them - so even using them for this kind of discussion is entirely bogus.
Each later of representation decreases the accuracy with which people (the only political entity that truly matters) have their views reflected.
Being elected as (say) an MEP gives you the right to act as an MEP within the EU Parliament - it confers no special right to claim to talk for people on any other platform.
As for faith groups -- noone (even supposedly devoted memebers) agree what any religion means. Ask the pope about family planning - then ask a supposed catholic about it... What right does a 'pressure group' (those evil usurpers) have to *our* politicians ears?
If you care what people want/think - then *ask*the*people* not the scummy jumped up do-gooders who think they know best, the know no more than the people who are consulting them -- A political party speaking to these groups is just the blind asking for a lead from the blind.