Chindie Posted August 23, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted August 23, 2021 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 42 minutes ago, bickster said: Socialist Appeal = Trotskyite Marxist Political Party. Formed when Militant split in two in the 1990 (the Ted Grant half of Militant). Militant split over entryism. Ted Grant maintained the need for entryism as espoused by Trotsky, whereas the other half didn't Of the 4 banned orgs this one should actually be the least shocking. They aren't in the Labour Party to further the aims of the Labour Party, they are in the Labour Party to recruit for the Marxist Revolution they desire. The Labour Party is of no consequence to them. It is a separate Political Party with aims in conflict with the Labour Party, just like Militant were. This is the half of Militant that maintained the policies of Militant They even come out with the same bollocks, Socialist Appeal is a Newspaper and its supporters organise around the Newspaper. (replace Militant and exactly the same was said in the 80s) The Times = News Corp. Owned by the Murdochs including Rupert Murdoch, one of the most effective forces for bad and ruiner of social cohesion in the 20th and 21st century. News Corp hacked dead children's voicemail along with many other people in the public eye. The current CEO is Rebekah Brooks, a core figure during the phone hacking scandal. News Corp newspapers regularly demonise minorities and use any kind of hate device they can to create conflict and culture wars. They're a racism factory pretending to be a media conglomerate. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-interview-prime-minister-boris-johnson-8qgxhq9pb Quote INTERVIEW Keir Starmer: ‘I’m not like Boris Johnson. There’s almost nothing we have in common’ Has the Labour leader really got what it takes to be prime minister? He tells Decca Aitkenhead about his challenging first year and why he’s trailing behind in the polls I'd hate to be Keir Starmer when Keir Starmer discovers the background of The Times. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted August 23, 2021 13 minutes ago, darrenm said: The Times = News Corp. Owned by the Murdochs including Rupert Murdoch, one of the most effective forces for bad and ruiner of social cohesion in the 20th and 21st century. News Corp hacked dead children's voicemail along with many other people in the public eye. The current CEO is Rebekah Brooks, a core figure during the phone hacking scandal. News Corp newspapers regularly demonise minorities and use any kind of hate device they can to create conflict and culture wars. They're a racism factory pretending to be a media conglomerate. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-interview-prime-minister-boris-johnson-8qgxhq9pb I'd hate to be Keir Starmer when Keir Starmer discovers the background of The Times. The disconnect between what you quoted of mine to what you posted is so large I'm going to assume you were replying to someone else and made an error Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 57 minutes ago, bickster said: Socialist Appeal = Trotskyite Marxist Political Party. Formed when Militant split in two in the 1990 (the Ted Grant half of Militant). Militant split over entryism. Ted Grant maintained the need for entryism as espoused by Trotsky, whereas the other half didn't Of the 4 banned orgs this one should actually be the least shocking. They aren't in the Labour Party to further the aims of the Labour Party, they are in the Labour Party to recruit for the Marxist Revolution they desire. The Labour Party is of no consequence to them. It is a separate Political Party with aims in conflict with the Labour Party, just like Militant were. This is the half of Militant that maintained the policies of Militant They even come out with the same bollocks, Socialist Appeal is a Newspaper and its supporters organise around the Newspaper. (replace Militant and exactly the same was said in the 80s) In the same way as some Labour front benchers say you have to talk to Sun readers to win over non Labour voters, is it not the the same thing to talk to these sorts of groups? I know which of the two I'd say were more in line with Labour values. Also how can you be excluded for talking to a proscribed group, prior to them being proscribed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 39 minutes ago, bickster said: The disconnect between what you quoted of mine to what you posted is so large I'm going to assume you were replying to someone else and made an error Is it? You said Socialist Appeal are basically a front for a political organisation pretending to be a newspaper. So is The Times but at the opposite end with far more power and blood on their hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted August 23, 2021 1 minute ago, darrenm said: Is it? Yes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted August 23, 2021 38 minutes ago, dAVe80 said: In the same way as some Labour front benchers say you have to talk to Sun readers to win over non Labour voters, is it not the the same thing to talk to these sorts of groups? I know which of the two I'd say were more in line with Labour values. Also how can you be excluded for talking to a proscribed group, prior to them being proscribed? Labour has never been a Revolutionary Marxist Party. The talking to Murdoch thing is an absolute false equivalence 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted August 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted August 23, 2021 1 minute ago, bickster said: Yes Agreed. The disconnect is enormous. A politician talking to a Newspaper read by all sorts of people, but I guess quite a lot of the readership is Tory - and these people need to be communicated with in order to stop them voting Tory and persuade them to vote Labour, or give Labour a hearing - I mean they're unlikely to read the Mirror, I'd say. Yes the Times is owned by Murdoch, but at least it's editorially independent of him (probably the only one of his papers that is). It's OK to talk to voters via media that isn't wholly supportive of whichever party at whichever time. The "comparison" is made with a group who want/wanted to undermine the Labour Party from within, for aims that are not Labour aims. Whatever the rights, wrongs or unclears of the actual expulsions and all the rest, the comparison is not one of @darrenm's better ones, IMO 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 Just now, bickster said: Labour has never been a Revolutionary Marxist Party. The talking to Murdoch thing is an absolute false equivalence Didn't say it was, I asked if Labour should talk to group like this? In the same way I talk to Socialist Party or SWP members when with my local trades council. We may fundamentally disagree on a lot of things, but there are still similar, universal aims and ideals that most on the left hold. Stop talking to them, and you get them standing against you, and taking your vote away more than they already do. I don't see how talking to them to encourage them to vote Labour is any different to talking to Murdoch press, aside from them being more willing to vote Labour, if you gave them hope of living up to socialist part of the being a democratic socialist party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted August 23, 2021 22 minutes ago, dAVe80 said: Didn't say it was, I asked if Labour should talk to group like this? In the same way I talk to Socialist Party or SWP members when with my local trades council. We may fundamentally disagree on a lot of things, but there are still similar, universal aims and ideals that most on the left hold. Stop talking to them, and you get them standing against you, and taking your vote away more than they already do. I don't see how talking to them to encourage them to vote Labour is any different to talking to Murdoch press, aside from them being more willing to vote Labour, if you gave them hope of living up to socialist part of the being a democratic socialist party. The post of General Secretary is an NEC appointment isn't it? Why would talking to Socialist Action have any bearing on that appointment? It rather seems like one of those half truths that seem to get told, of which there a number of examples of just the last two pages, in order to get people angry and garner their support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 39 minutes ago, blandy said: the comparison is not one of @darrenm's better ones, IMO It is your opinion obviously but I completely disagree. I don't see any moral ambiguity whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted August 23, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted August 23, 2021 I'm wondering what any self declared socialist MPs, or members, are doing staying in Labour. Is the hope that there will be another shot at a leadership election? Obviously the strategy has been to purge them or demoralise them so that they go, and it's looking quite effective - so why not go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 12 minutes ago, bickster said: The post of General Secretary is an NEC appointment isn't it? Why would talking to Socialist Action have any bearing on that appointment? It rather seems like one of those half truths that seem to get told, of which there a number of examples of just the last two pages, in order to get people angry and garner their support. If at the point of talking to them it wasn't against the rules at the time to be a member of Socialist Appeal, and in the Labour Party, would it not have been the same as talking to Momentum or Progress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted August 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, dAVe80 said: If at the point of talking to them it wasn't against the rules at the time to be a member of Socialist Appeal, and in the Labour Party, would it not have been the same as talking to Momentum or Progress? There were months and years where before Militant started to be expelled anyone who wasn't a "reader of the newspaper" knew not to be associated with them. One MP at the time, a member of the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs and keen photographer, used to take pictures of any Militant sympathiser at any Labour Party meeting he spoke at. I actually witnessed him doing that at least twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted August 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted August 23, 2021 36 minutes ago, Jareth said: I'm wondering what any self declared socialist MPs, or members, are doing staying in Labour. Is the hope that there will be another shot at a leadership election? Obviously the strategy has been to purge them or demoralise them so that they go, and it's looking quite effective - so why not go? Perhaps there are people that still think having a Labour party is worth fighting for? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted August 23, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted August 23, 2021 49 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: Perhaps there are people that still think having a Labour party is worth fighting for? Well it's a very long game they're playing I'll give them that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Jareth said: I'm wondering what any self declared socialist MPs, or members, are doing staying in Labour. Is the hope that there will be another shot at a leadership election? Obviously the strategy has been to purge them or demoralise them so that they go, and it's looking quite effective - so why not go? For me there are a few reasons. The main one is there isn't an alternative at the moment. The Labour Party still represents the best chance of outing the Tories, and bringing about socialism (although that all looks a long way off at the moment granted). As well as that it's kind of part of my role in my union at the moment. If there was scenario that saw my union disaffiliates, and becomes part of a new movement or party that can genuinely challenge the status quo, then I'd reconsider sticking around. Also at the moment I've got to say I enjoy pitching up and being a pain in the arse at CLP meetings. I don't want to give them the satisfaction of going. I won't let Keir Starmer and his ilk force me out of my party. Edited August 23, 2021 by dAVe80 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 23, 2021 Moderator Share Posted August 23, 2021 3 hours ago, Jareth said: I'm wondering what any self declared socialist MPs, or members, are doing staying in Labour. Is the hope that there will be another shot at a leadership election? Obviously the strategy has been to purge them or demoralise them so that they go, and it's looking quite effective - so why not go? It has always been a fight over the brand. Control of the brand has always been key In repect of the MPs themselves, without being in the Labour Party, they know absolutely that they won't get elected. They'll just be another Chris Williamson 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted August 24, 2021 Share Posted August 24, 2021 9 hours ago, bickster said: It has always been a fight over the brand. Control of the brand has always been key In repect of the MPs themselves, without being in the Labour Party, they know absolutely that they won't get elected. They'll just be another Chris Williamson As was also the case for the Change UK lot. There are a couple of them who I think could win their seats not using the Labour name, but it certainly helps for the vast majority of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 24, 2021 Moderator Share Posted August 24, 2021 39 minutes ago, dAVe80 said: As was also the case for the Change UK lot. There are a couple of them who I think could win their seats not using the Labour name, but it certainly helps for the vast majority of them. I think the former leader may be one of those exceptions but even that's just a maybe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts