The New Statesman - How's It Generally Perceived?

[editor]

Mark Thomas also writes for it from time to time

Me too!

Well... just two or three times, actually.

 

[treelover]

what on?

 

[ska invita]

its a bit boojwah at times - isnt there a wine coloumn in it? infact lots of the strip coloumns in the sceond half of it could quite happily be repreinted in the times.

i cant say its ever made me see the world in a new light, or given me information i haven't seen elsewhere.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Me too!

Well... just two or three times, actually.

You did? Links!?

 

[Red Faction]

Me too!

Well... just two or three times, actually.

what have you written for it?!

 

[vince noir]

You forget the question mark at the end of "The Forward March of Labour Halted?" which was and is a crucial question.



It appears that events have confirmed Hobsbawm's judgement and forced a different perspective regarding the socialist cause.

The question mark was rendered superfulous by an article Hobsbawm wrote a few years later for MT called "Labour's lost millions", in which he argued the working class had shrunk beyond a level which could command a parliamentary majority. As a result he suggested the party drop class politics and become a popular front within itself, making common cause with middle class values. Whether he intended it or not, this set the train in motion for new Labour.

Hobsbawm was, of course, on the CP's Eurocommunist wing which was, if anything, to the right of Labour's Bennite left, let alone Militant.

Martin Jacques, the editor, was of course even more right wing and has now abandonned class politics altogether; while Hobsbawm remained outside Labour Jacques enthusiastically slurped from the Blairite cup.

 

[editor]

what have you written for it?!

I wrote stuff on the commercialisation of festivals, a big piece about Footie and the Criminal Justice Act and I remember being a judge or something on their awards.

 

[audiotech]

The question mark was rendered superfulous by an article Hobsbawm wrote a few years later for MT called "Labour's lost millions", in which he argued the working class had shrunk beyond a level which could command a parliamentary majority. As a result he suggested the party drop class politics and become a popular front within itself, making common cause with middle class values. Whether he intended it or not, this set the train in motion for new Labour.

Hobsbawm was, of course, on the CP's Eurocommunist wing which was, if anything, to the right of Labour's Bennite left, let alone Militant.

Martin Jacques, the editor, was of course even more right wing and has now abandonned class politics altogether; while Hobsbawm remained outside Labour Jacques enthusiastically slurped from the Blairite cup.

Don't disagree with any of that.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

John Harris hoping we all forget he used to interview Menswear for a living..

John Harris is a civilised leftist who ran a useful website at the last election encouraging other leftists to pool knowledge and advice. Why in God's name does it matter what his musical tastes are?

 

[Dubversion]

John Harris is a civilised leftist who ran a useful website at the last election encouraging other leftists to pool knowledge and advice. Why in God's name does it matter what his musical tastes are?

Oh donna

i wasn't criticising his musical taste, you numpty, more his recent desperate attempts to position himself as a political pundit after spending years as a music journalist. Be very careful how you respond to this since i suspect there are posts on record where you deride pretty much anyone of Harris' ilk.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

No, I deride people who, deriving from the music press, employ its normal approach, to wit exaggerating everything and writing to provoke. Harris does neither.

He was also a Labour Party activist when that meant something, whereas most of the Miranda Sawyer types think radical politics meant being seen at the Hacienda.

Nor were his attempts "desperate". Matter of fact he spoke to a considerable constituency of people.

 

[William of Walworth]

I got fed up with most of what was in the NS a good few years ago (mid to late 90s, was getting too Blairite) but I'd be inclined to sample it again on the basis of what some have said in the thread. Bearing the the health warnings in mind etc.

Trouble is the time factor. But I'm not ruling it out ...

 

[Streathamite]

He was also a Labour Party activist when that meant something, whereas most of the Miranda Sawyer types think radical politics meant being seen at the Hacienda.

he was never that much of an activist, not really well-known in GLLP circles.
The NS is a well-read, well-informed, vacuous Nu labour read for m/c islingotnistas who still want to be thought of as wadical, when they are in fact anything but, and who want to change the world, but only a little, and not when it might harm their VERY comfortable palce within the System

 

[imposs1904]

I must confess that i pick up a copy of the New Statesman 5-6 times a year, usually because there's a current affairs issue about which somebody worthwhile has written a feature (for example this week's big Pilger piece on the Lebanese situation). But how is it generally perceived in terms of the various internecine squabbles? It appears to have some fairly radical writing but then pisses its own pants with a Roger fucking Scruton wine column and John Harris hoping we all forget he used to interview Menswear for a living..

As boring as Red Pepper and Tribune, but not as boring as Labour Left Briefing.

 

[purves grundy]

I've been a subscriber for 6 years. Love the new revamp. Good columns, good reviews, sound articles but yeah - read with the 'health warning' outlines earlier.

And Mr. Version: did a friend of yours write a letter to the NS a few weeks back about a line you noticed in the NS and mentioned on here?

Edit: Hmmm, actually maybe both Urban and NS points were his... ah yes they were. http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4736256&postcount=58

 

[treelover]

Pilgers article at the start of the year positing 'Iran is next' was very illuminating and disturbing.

i cant say its ever made me see the world in a new light, or given me information i haven't seen elsewhere.
Reply With Quote

 

[JoeCowenlives]

Ah (sigh) "The Leveller"

I alway's preferred Labour Research Department, Marxism Today and let's not forget The Leveller.

Now there was a magazine. I beat myself ritually about the head and body twice a week in penitence for throwing out my old copies during a purge of the Cowen Archive. And I KEPT New Socialist!!

As for the Staggers, I've been a subscriber since it was founded in 1916 - or shortly after - and it just comes through the letter box every week like the bills and the dog excrement, so I don't really think much about whether I care for it or not. It looks bigger and prettier since last the revamp (or was it the one before that). That John Pilger is a bit of a caution, though!!! Whorrr!!!

Joe

 

[Donna Ferentes]

he was never that much of an activist, not really well-known in GLLP circles.

He was in Cheshire.

 

[Azrael23]

i shouldn't bother, it's full of well-researched opinions so it would be worthless to you.

Oh ye of little faith. I do have my subscription to New Scientist.

Although my first ever magazine subscription was X Factor..the one about the paranormal. It was mostly shite and conspiracy theory disinformation. Good stuff on Rendlesham Forest and the like though.