How long has Comrade Blair got left now?

[TAE]

I'm not so sure of this. I think they're arrogant enough to think they can just swap Brown for Blair and claim that there is a significant difference between them.

As long as dodgy union-hating millionaires are still willing to hand them massive bungs under the table to pay for expensive targetted PR campaigns in key marginals, I reckon it might actually work too.

Isn't it getting to the stage where the unions will have to pull out of Labour and form their own party? I'm surprised they've stayed this long. Surely many of the people who have already left the Labour party would join too.

 

[trainspotter]

Until all this came out I was thinking he'd probably be around for another couple of years. This has damaged him very badly, though, and I'm thinking 6 months to a year now.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

Until all this came out I was thinking he'd probably be around for another couple of years. This has damaged him very badly, though, and I'm thinking 6 months to a year now.

I disagree. He's been badly damaged before, time and again, and I think the nickname Teflon Tony is appropriate, because it doesn't matter how much damage has been caused, he's just so brazen, he rides the storm where any decent person (note I say person, not politician, because they're a breed apart) would have resigned. He has no principles and no morals. He'll continue to brazen it out.

I reckon he's probably convinced himself he can beat Maggie's record, and also I wouldn't put it past him to go for another, historic, term of office. I think he's so out of touch, any dissenting voices, anyone who might have told the emperor he's wearing no clothes is long gone. He's totally deluded.

And do you think he's going to handover power before the Olympics? I don't think so. He won't be able to resist the lure of the media spotlight on the UK. He's a total megalomaniac.

He probably doesn't realised the depth of animosity and distaste, he probably just feels misunderstood, because he *knows* he's in the right, because after all God is on his side.

 

[Streathamite]

ann o'neemus and fullyplumped have come nearest to calling this right.
Blair is an astonishingly resourceful, resilient politician. He will go at the very earliest, a year to 18 months before the end of the term.
this is what will NOT happen;
1) Parly labour records will NOT no-confidence him, because their members in the constituencies will crucify (and de-select) them for the disloyalty. Also because assegai-ing the most successful leader labour has ever had makes Labour look stupid
2) Brown will NOT attempt a coup, because the PLP will do the same to him

 

[Streathamite]

Isn't it getting to the stage where the unions will have to pull out of Labour and form their own party? I'm surprised they've stayed this long. Surely many of the people who have already left the Labour party would join too.

As one who left at the end of 1999, I'd certainly join a TU-led party, and I alone would bring 40 people along with me. and I reckon that scores of ex-LP activists could, and would, say the same.

 

[trainspotter]

I think he knows it's different from what's gone before because it's about him now. It's not about whether he was right about Iraq, it's about how he's been shown to have behaved.

 

[treelover]

blimey RJ, how do you know forty politically minded people/activists that well as to know their intentions towards a new party.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

blimey RJ, how do you know forty politically minded people/activists that well as to know their intentions towards a new party.

Something I’m curious about is if RJ could lead them back into a "better" Labour party why haven’t they considered other parties (or thought about forming their own?)?

 

[fela fan]

They must get rid in the autumn. I dont think there is another mechanisim outside conference.

Yes there is. The public. But british people don't do democracy that way. They play by the rules too much.

Blair is bankrupt to the core over legitimacy, and has been acting with none for years now. But the british people continue to accept.

See what's happening in thailand between the people and a leader who they deem no longer has legitimacy to rule them. It's a great example of democracy in action. Y'know, the sort where the people give voice to their wants and needs, and then organise themselves!

Blair still in power is unbelievable. The man should be in prison. The people should put him there.

 

[fela fan]

I disagree. He's been badly damaged before, time and again, and I think the nickname Teflon Tony is appropriate, because it doesn't matter how much damage has been caused, he's just so brazen, he rides the storm where any decent person (note I say person, not politician, because they're a breed apart) would have resigned. He has no principles and no morals. He'll continue to brazen it out.

Yes, but he gets away with all his lies and crimes coz the media and the public - as a whole - let him do so.

This is a democracy you have in britain. If the people speak, then it can happen that he will lose office. But no, they accept.

The other thing is ann (and i'm not disagreeing with your summing up of the man), if he has no principles or morals, then what of the people who voted for him again? Do they have any principles and morals? Surely not!

 

[Lock&Light]

Blair still in power is unbelievable. The man should be in prison. The people should put him there.

Blair's power is perfectly believable and legitimate. The man is in Downing Street because he was elected. That is, the people put him there. (Three times, as it happens.)

 

[Streathamite]

blimey RJ, how do you know forty politically minded people/activists that well as to know their intentions towards a new party.

i don't 'know' but I am confident, on the basis of 15 years intensely active work within the Labour party, and thinking of all the people I met via thaqt. tbh, i may have expressed myself badly; they are as likely to 'lead' me. What I mean is; if this extremely cynical, bruised, disillusioned ex-activist was to encounter a mass party good enough to join and get involved again as I once was, there'd be at least that many of simiar mind and background, whom i know personally, joining me in the race to apply, or whom I could persuade to

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Blair's power is perfectly believable and legitimate. The man is in Downing Street because he was elected. That is, the people put him there. (Three times, as it happens.)

You think the current system of voting creats legit governance? Or the actions of this government thereafter are credible in any sense?

 

[Streathamite]

Something I’m curious about is if RJ could lead them back into a "better" Labour party why haven’t they considered other parties (or thought about forming their own?)?

Which? WESPECK? do me a favour!
The SA was such a colossal failure, it was the final straw for many, the lib-dems is perceived by many - including myself - as the Tory party for people who can't stand the feeling of self-loathing the day after a GE, the Greens.
and as for that panoply of tiny fringe Trot and Tankie cults - I am convinced that they will never, ever, get anywhere, based on the complete failure of them and their predecessors to make even the slightest and most negligible inroads into the hearts and minds of the British people, and their colossal 'in denial' syndrome when faced with this undeniable fact.
It CANNOT be done without an alliance of TUs, ex LP-grassroots, radical left activists, community groups etc, and it will take a political earthquake to get all that lot marching together in the same direction (as opposed to squabbling, which is their normal behaviour-pattern)

the fact is that the LP is too big a heap of shit to shift.

 

[Streathamite]

Blair's power is perfectly believable and legitimate. The man is in Downing Street because he was elected. That is, the people put him there. (Three times, as it happens.)

let's be precise here. Between 36% and 42% of between 60% and 71% of those entitled to vote elected him, and our knackered f-ed up electoral system did the rest. neil Kinnock LOST in 1992 with more votes than Blair got.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Which? WESPECK? do me a favour!
.

Being a member of the Labour party then makes as much sense as being a Respect member now to me...people like you left Labour and the Blair lot got their way. People like you joining something like Respect would mean more chance of it becoming the party you want.

 

[Lock&Light]

You think the current system of voting creats legit governance? Or the actions of this government thereafter are credible in any sense?

Yes and yes.

 

[Lock&Light]

let's be precise here. Between 36% and 42% of between 60% and 71% of those entitled to vote elected him, and our knackered f-ed up electoral system did the rest. neil Kinnock LOST in 1992 with more votes than Blair got.

I was alive (though I was only 3 years old at the time) when the Tories won in 1951 with less votes than Labour. The rules apply to all parties.

 

[tbaldwin]

Which? WESPECK? do me a favour!
The SA was such a colossal failure, it was the final straw for many, the lib-dems is perceived by many - including myself - as the Tory party for people who can't stand the feeling of self-loathing the day after a GE, the Greens.
and as for that panoply of tiny fringe Trot and Tankie cults - I am convinced that they will never, ever, get anywhere, based on the complete failure of them and their predecessors to make even the slightest and most negligible inroads into the hearts and minds of the British people, and their colossal 'in denial' syndrome when faced with this undeniable fact.
It CANNOT be done without an alliance of TUs, ex LP-grassroots, radical left activists, community groups etc, and it will take a political earthquake to get all that lot marching together in the same direction (as opposed to squabbling, which is their normal behaviour-pattern)

the fact is that the LP is too big a heap of shit to shift.

I dont see much hope in dogmatic left groups getting together but i dont see a lot in a rerun of Old Labour... New Labour came to power cos people had enough of Old Labour and their failures... Just look at some of the Housing they built....Look at there record on the economy,they promised BIG and delivered little and thats why they kept losing elections.

 

[dennisr]

New Labour came to power cos people had enough of Old Labour and their failures...

they got in because of opposition to the tories and thatcherism - people voted to give Labour a chance they did not realise they were going to get more of what that had just voted against.

No one was voting against old labour and failures or otherwise... you seem to be spouting rubbish just to get a new but completly false angle on the same old repetative arguement.

Do you know any other arguements baldwin? ... other than the "failure of the left" is to blame for everything since the dawn of creation one ...

 

[tbaldwin]

they got in because of opposition to the tories and thatcherism - people voted to give Labour a chance they did not realise they were going to get more of what that had just voted against.

No one was voting against old labour and failures or otherwise... you seem to be spouting rubbish just to get a new but completly false angle on the same old repetative arguement.

Do you know any other arguements baldwin? ... other than the "failure of the left" is to blame for everything since the dawn of creation one ...

All due respect dennis but NL were keen even before 97 to dampen down any expectations of major change. People voted for them because they trusted them with the economy in a way they just couldnt trust Kinnock etc.
The Left were busy predicting that a NL govt would lead to an upsurge in struggle and support within 2 years of NL getting elected,it never happened.

If your serious about wanting to challenge the system/overthrow capitalism,you have to look at where the Left has got things wrong and where it has got things right.
And to be honest its a lot easier to look at how wrong the Left has got things.
Your own organisation has lost so many members.. Ignoring that might make you happy but it wont lead to any success!

 

[Streathamite]

I was alive (though I was only 3 years old at the time) when the Tories won in 1951 with less votes than Labour. The rules apply to all parties.

agreed - but 36%???? c'mon, that tends to remove a lot of authority and legitimacy from a govt. (yes, I do want PR -= it's fairer).

 

[dennisr]

All due respect dennis but NL were keen even before 97 to dampen down any expectations of major change. People voted for them because they trusted them with the economy in a way they just couldnt trust Kinnock etc.
The Left were busy predicting that a NL govt would lead to an upsurge in struggle and support within 2 years of NL getting elected,it never happened.

If your serious about wanting to challenge the system/overthrow capitalism,you have to look at where the Left has got things wrong and where it has got things right.
And to be honest its a lot easier to look at how wrong the Left has got things.
Your own organisation has lost so many members.. Ignoring that might make you happy but it wont lead to any success!

And due respect to you mate - you've helped me get a better idea now of where youre coming from other than simply 'were all doomed'.

I would agree on the need for honesty and yes there is a tendancy of some on the left to use a different version of the pessimistic view in the desperate hope that it will result in some 'upsurge in struggle'. In 84-85 , as a young fella, with Liverpool and the Miners on the boil, I seriously believed that Thatcher was on her last legs. And I was wrong. My own organisation is much more wary nowdays of talking about 'inevitable collapses'.

I don't think though that the vast majority of people voting Labour were that bothered about New Labour's 'economic trustability' factor. They were more concerned about an absolute lack of trust in the Tories. In a sense, since then Labour have secured the support of the more well-heeled voter on such things as the economy - for all the wrong reasons (defending the very worst aspects of keeping the rich rich by making the poor poorer etc) in my opinion.

But New Labour did secure the key support (in bourg politics) of the 'media' - which did definately help them. There are deeper ideological reasons for this though. The old social democratic 'workers' parties moving towards openly embrassing neo-liberalism (New Labour being the flagship). This was something echoed across the various mass workers parties internationally... in the wake of the collapse of stalinism. My own organisation was also effected by that collapse in confidence as to what was possible. The 'capitalism in inevitable, all else fails' line was largely swallowed for a period of time - understandably. It was huge ideological defeat - regardless of wether such and such lefties predicted it or not (and they clearly did not see than coming or at the very least the way it turned out ...).

Ideas are constantly re-thought out though (not just by the 'left') even if some hold on to outmoded ideas to an extent (that is true of the majority of people in the majority of the plant for most of the time - so what?). But even the very worst elements of the left have been searching for a response. That of the Militants/SP has been to seriously set ourselves the task of completely re-building from the ground up a voice for working people in the UK. Surely that is a recognition of and response to some sort of 'new reality' Now that is not an easy task - not half as easy as joining up to our wee leftie group back in the days of the miner's strike or the poll tax.

Frankly though, even if socialists or lefties or whatever the label did not have a hope in hell and we were all genuinely doomed to permanant defeat in every thing we did, I'd still stand there and stick my fingers up to them as they shot me.

In the same way, i would not constantly put down every single attempt at thinking outside the box with some cynical 'you've got no hope' comment and that is all I see coming from you. I don't follow the older marxism of the 'inevitablity' of some bright socialist future. But, one thing that is inevitable is change and folk have to play a role if they are going to influence the direction that change takes. Things do not stand still.

Thats an honest answer i think ...

 

[tbaldwin]

Frankly though, even if socialists or lefties or whatever the label did not have a hope in hell and we were all genuinely doomed to permanant defeat in every thing we did, I'd still stand there and stick my fingers up to them as they shot me.

In the same way, i would not constantly put down every single attempt at thinking outside the box with some cynical 'you've got no hope' comment and that is all I see coming from you. I don't follow the older marxism of the 'inevitablity' of some bright socialist future. But, one thing that is inevitable is change and folk have to play a role if they are going to influence the direction that change takes. Things do not stand still.

Thats an honest answer i think ...

That was a good response that made even a miserable old git like me feel optimistic for a while.
I hope that people will try and learn as much as possible from past mistakes and New Dawns that never really arrived..
The best hope for me lies in a pragmatic alternative that genuinelly looks first at what interests ordinary people and not first at what interests activists...
But i could be wrong.....
I have been before....

 

[Lock&Light]

agreed - but 36%???? c'mon, that tends to remove a lot of authority and legitimacy from a govt. (yes, I do want PR -= it's fairer).

I'm very much in favour of (genuine) PR, but till it happens I prefer Labour to take advantage of the rules, rather than the Tories.

 

[Streathamite]

Being a member of the Labour party then makes as much sense as being a Respect member now to me...people like you left Labour and the Blair lot got their way. People like you joining something like Respect would mean more chance of it becoming the party you want.

all due WESPECK (sorry ) but the two can't be compared. The one was a genuine, if knackered mass movement, that encompassed alll shades on the socialist left when I joined, and had real strength from top to bottom, and also had a clear mission; power via the ballot box. The other is a laughable fringe movement, formed of an unholy cook-up between the house fuckwits of the trot left and the MAB.
which is why the LP hasn't ALWAYS been like it is today. WESPECK is dodgy goods from day one to whenever it dies.
as, assuredly, it will die, for the same reason as I'll never join; the swappies control-freakery and rigid internal discipline mean they'll ALWAYS dominate, and suck the life out of it. They'd do whatever it took to keep it their toy; the pseudo-left-front plaything of a secretive, manipulative trot cult. individual joiners don't have a hope in hell of wresting away that control.

as for the LP; I always knew I was in a broad coalition, and I didn't object to SOME things he did. they were voted for (eg' clause 4 aboliton) because the logic was impeccable. he got his way not just because of mass desertions, but because no-one on the left had ideas anywhere as good to give the moderate mainstream bulk of the mebership a viable alternative

 

[dennisr]

all due WESPECK (sorry ) but the two can't be compared.

And also, 'kid' - by your own logic - where youre lot as responsible? I mean the swp left it all to go to pot decades before? its all a bit of a 'kettle/pot' arguement to come out with against RJ, isn't it?

Personally, I think you're organisation did not have an understanding of the real nature of the of the stalinist states and therefore of the collapse of those regimes so have not looked at the underlying causes of the shift of the social democratic parties to openly embraseing the 'market'.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

And also, 'kid' - by your own logic - where youre lot as responsible? I mean the swp left it all to go to pot decades before? its all a bit of a 'kettle/pot' arguement to come out with against RJ, isn't it?

Personally, I think you're organisation did not have an understanding of the real nature of the of the stalinist states and therefore of the collapse of those regimes so have not looked at the underlying causes of the shift of the social democratic parties to openly embraseing the 'market'.

I'm not a member of any political party, never have been and am not likely to ever be.

 

[dennisr]

I'm not a member of any political party, never have been and am not likely to ever be.

oops Sorry mate - got you mixed up completely - its all the references to young people in the usernames, Befuddles me

 

[Kid_Eternity]

oops Sorry mate - got you mixed up completely - its all the references to young people in the usernames, Befuddles me

No worries!