Harry: there is an important debate on Guardian CIF about GM foods, with the Guardian seeming to join the lobbyists in pushing the GM case. Newlabour, especially Blair, was very pro-GM as we would expect from a party that sold itself to corporations (who knows, Blair may even be on Monsanto's board by now). The latest pro-GM thrust by Obama, who has appointed a senior Monsanto executive to his administration, is a very ugly development. The EU opposition to GM is fragile, and Monsanto is buying up more and more prostitute "scientists" to push their case. It is clear that Obama is determined to break EU opposition and would love to have the UK as his ally. His stance is the same as Bush's: that there should be no labelling or identification of GM products (which is the position in the US today) so that consumers are forced to purchase and consume GM foods. As more independent research shows completely different concerns to the fake research that Monsanto and the US government finances, there is growing panic in the Obama administration that the GM genie may escape from the bottle.

Here in Scotland we do real science and real politics and we know what the GM scam is about; we are pretty determined that it will not cross our border. Our SNP representative in the European Parliament is playing a strong role in exposing the lies and deceptions. GM is a form of botanical pollution, extremely dangerous for the planet, and it has already caused huge damage in developing countries, both in destroying genetic stock and contaminating traditional varieties, and in forcing hundreds of thousands of small farmers into bankruptcy. Needless to say, Compass doesnt care about this. Its too big and important.

Is there a way in which we can get the candidates to say where they stand on GM ? I am sure the four goons are fully in favour of it and ready to be buttered up by the corporations; and I imagine Diane is opposed or strongly skeptical. But it would be good to find out.

Well done Harry. That is an extremely innovative and helpful move.
Thank you.

I will certainly read your site before voting.

All five candidates for the Labour Leadership have now responded positively to the campaign run by Dronfield Blather to issue "Manifestos of Intent". On Friday Ed Balls was approached at the close of the final hustings which was held at Manchester and he accepted the proposal. This means that all five candidates have now agreed. But there are still problems to be resolved before our wish becomes reality.

On 16 August balloting commences. So we are keen to gain access to the finalised Manifestos for publication by then. So far we hold some initial material from two of the candidates, although if they wish they still have time to elaborate on what we hold.

Whenever all five Manifestos are available we will publish them alongside each other. If anyone falls out of the boat we will, however, publish what we then hold on 16 August. We can't wait any longer than that.

Candidates are, of course, free to publish their own Manifestos at any time they wish. If they beat us to it, we will nevertheless stick to the above timetable.

We will also give credit where it is due to three Labour MPs who have to date helped.

Brian, you said it better than I did.

Jonathon, for a number of years now the same posters have kept this forum debating real issues. Mainly calling it right on the major topics and political intrigues, and inspiring articles, comments and campaigns.
As a democratic forum all are welcome to either comment or join in on the debates.
However we live in politically cynical times
unfortunately emanating from the use of spin by NewLabour. The majority of posters are on the left of the political spectrum, which you would expect from a movement for the left. Therefore it is no surprise that the topics are anti NewLabour and a vision for the party to move back to the traditional left of centre. However if there are too few engaging in debate, that is surely not the fault of the people who do post here frequently. Perhaps that is the issue that needs to be addressed not only here but in the country as a whole.

Sorry. I intended to say the Carer Watch forum. Old age takes its toll.

Jonathon Hawkes

I would like to read some arguments in favour of your political position, which I am not clear about at the moment. What strategy do you propose for returning the Labour Party to a social democratic position of substance, which is desperately needed at the moment. Read the fear in the voices of the seriously ill and disabled claimants on the Compass forum. What can you do to help ?

I am an elderly socialist who first joined the Labour Party in 1950. For many years I was the 24/7 carer for my wife, who died earlier this year. My own daughter has an illness which forced her to abandon a successful career and is now threatened by the continued policies of New Labour, under the management of the coalition. Win my respect.

Jonathan Hawkes: The only reason you are saying this is because you agree with and support Jonathan Rutherford's article and his style of reducing serious debate to cliche and triviality. Your comments are self-rightous and disingenuous. There has been a centuries long tradition to greet dirigist, pompous, and portentous proclamations with satire; and if you were educated in this matter, you would also know that satirists are the most feared and hated by those who seek to market mediocre ideas. You would have Steve Bell banned from publishing his cartoons in the Guardian. By all means satirise our satires, disagree with our critiques. Compass is not a fan club. It is an open debating association dedicated to inclusion. You wish to be a censor and this is anathema to the spirit of Compass. As Paul has pointed out, if a third-rate piece of posturing is published there, it is the fault of the Compass management. Rutherford's articles, in my view, receive what they deserve. We who have commented here are dedicated to a serious purpose, the restoration of Labour's essential socialist tradition in a modern and relevant form. We often praise and support Compass publications that contain that message. We have all praised the Spirit Level because of the serious contribution it makes. One of the greatest features of British culture is our freedom to detect bullshit and pan rubbish. Listen any night to Radio 4, "Front Line" and you will see that culture in action as critics tell you what they really think about crap films, books and plays. I am sure you would love to reduce Compass to the status of a fan club. Maybe you will be successful, in which case you will face the departure of the serious thinkers here who work hard to make sense of complex options and dilemmas.

Finally, it is really pathetic to suggest that you or others dont post here "because of the tone". Are you and "these others" such delicate and fragile creatures that are unable to debate and put forward their views ? If you have something to say in defense of Rutherford, who is stopping you ? Teacher, I wont participate until the others are made to shut up ?

You and Rutherford came in at the tail end of this thread. You made no effort to show the merit of argue the case in favour of this brochure. This thread had almost come to an end, in fact it probably is at an end, and you chose to come in and make a fuss as the lights were being turned off.

If anything good has come of this, it would be Compass setting a much higher standard for the articles they post. No one said that the brochure did not make valid points (although these were blended with highly tendentious and in some cases utterly meaningless statements). But, as in all the Rutherford pieces I have read, the content was so superficial and so widely understood already, that the consensus here seems to have been that it did not contribute much. These are serious times and we need well thought-through analytical, empirically based, policy-oriented, substantial debates.

Jonathan, you complain at how you perceive yourself to being treated here. But has it ever occurred to you that the analysis you offer, together with the tone in which you offer it, is at least part of the problem? The fact that you appear to politically consort with some of the least admirable and most consistent supporters and careerists ‘new labour’ to offer, is another factor.

Not everyone takes the same benign view you apparently do, of the way in which some of your ‘new labour,’ friends like Jon Cruddas, James Purnell, Neal Lawson and Polly Toynbee, have acted towards the Labour Party during the last 12 months.

You frequently admonish your opponents with the stick of ‘alliances.’ Yet the only alliances you ever seem to act with are of metropolitan types who have done very well out of the post 1997 and are determined to continue doing so, come what may. They think they are entitled, to Place, Influence and Attention. From a middle class liberal intellectual, many views and positions are almost enviable. From a senior academic in Cultural Studies, rigor beyond cheerleading for Compass and its slightly reformist position taking, might be expected.

We all know what more than thirty years of almost continuous Rightward movement has done to politics and political discourse. As a result it seems, you appear to subscribe to a kind of soft focus emotionalism that more than anything you may hope for it, always ends up as pretty close to a comodification of speech anyway. At the very least, it mirrors that comodification, rather than challenges it.

Why not attempt to break with the dominant ideology, in this respect, by developing a more clear and straightforward means of expressing whatever it is you want to say? People have been emoted at and have had concepts like ‘virtue’ and ‘community’ drained of meaning before their eyes over the last 13 years in particular. Perhaps I should say have been so emoted at so that concepts like ‘virtue’ and ‘community,’ have acquired distinctively neo-liberal terms of reference.

In your defence, Jonathon Hawkes, says in terms that I’m being wilfully contrary. But he is mistaken, not least because I always take you seriously. Hence, (for example,) my lack of admiration for your comments about the Tories appropriating what you called, ‘our’ traditions of mutualism and association. A first year student would not have baldly asserted this, ‘our.’

Like some valiant brigadier, he gallops from one flank to the next. So to your equally bald assertion that, ‘society is what people hold in common;’ Well, If Jonathon really thinks that to disagree with you on that is contrariness, he is doing you a disservice for more grievous than anything you will ever suffer at my hand.

Unfortunatety, Jonathan Rutherford's last comment is entirely accurate. I know many people who are active and non active members of Compass and none of them post on this site. The absence of robust, creative discussion of the actual articles posted has led to a rather bizzare situation where this site acts the public face of Compass, but the tone of the user content is such that many members simply can't be bothered running the gauntlet of abuse that they get if they attempt to comment constructivly. The tone of discussion is, as JR correctly suggests, sneering, patronising and willfully contrary. It's also, for the most part, completley at odds the ideas Compass are seeking to advance. If I thought that was an accurate reflection of the attitudes of the majority of the membership, or if I thought that there was widespread opposition to the direction of Compass in the membership, then that might be appropriate. However, in my experience, it is not. As such, I would suggest that the discussion on this site is now completley unrepresentative of the views of most Compass members.

There is fault on the part of Compass here- I think members of the MC should be more ready to engage with the site, they don't attempt to enforce their own guidelines and I think Compass should now think seriously about a site overhaul. I think the deteriation of this site poses a problem to Compass that they appear not to take as seriously as maybe they should.

Dugsie: It is depressing. All this hoopla about something new, about the end of Newlabour, about a new compassion etc etc, and all we get is more of the old Newlabour spin and deception.

The other day I wrote that lack of authenticity is the core political problem of our day. That, of course, is by no means confined to Newlabour, but they do have a special knack at being unauthentic in a way that screams "fake". I wonder whether underlying this core problem, there may be a core psychological condition: chronic and obsessive narcissism. I have been re-reading the prison diaries, and notice how Gramsci again and again talks in terms of those in power being so consumed by their fascination with themselves, that they begin to act in their own films about themselves rather than living authentically in the real world. This is a theme that Zizek developed beautifully with the rise of Clinton, and then Bush and Blair.

Burnham is especially narcissistic, DMil too, and Balls in his own strange way. So, in fact is Diane. EdMil doesnt appear to be aware that he exists at all, which gives rise to the strange and embarrassing awkwardness when he is in the limelight.

Posted by Lewis Parry (Elx)
on 01 August 2010, 9:38:20 AM
Jon r,a prophet is rarely honoured on his own web site.
************************************************************
A, Lewis; 'tis as ye say, and top o' the mornin' to you too.

Teacher, they are laughing at me. Make them stop !

Options: stop behaving laughable; enforce the no laughing rules. There will be no laughing at funny people in our best of all possible worlds good society. Quick now, before the bus leaves. You dont want to miss the journey down the yellow brick road.

So, onto more mature subjects, dear Lewis. What will Catalans do with all their spare time ? Obviously some will be spent consuming the noble artichoke, some laughing at funny people (Catalans not being subject to the Compass "No Laughing Rule"); some trying secretly to introduce purgatives into expats glasses of Watneys Red Barrel. But given that "killa de bull" has been exiled, I am concerned that Catalans may get diverted into undesirable things like trying to build greater social justice. That would be catching and we dont want any of that socialism drifting over here into Narrativeland. Next thing, David Miliband, Compass heir apparent, will be matching actions to words, like promising fairer healthcare and then falling asleep in front of X factor. Cant have that !

From watching the leadership debate it seems clear to me that the four leading contenders are still irredeemably New Labour. The project may be over but the basic politics continues, no doubt to be re-wrapped by the new leader in due course. They are still practising the craft of professional politicians. They are not real people.

If we are indeed to move beyond recession to a long-term depression, we have to ask where the political opposition to the coalition will come from ?

Jon r,a prophet is rarely honoured on his own web site.
Hard knocks are given and taken,and I guess some blows slip off the legitimate target area.If I have it's in the spirit of genuine enquiry (and the odd cheap laugh!).I wouldn't like to summarise complex arguments in short extracts.Do not do unto others what you would not want them to do unto you as Jon Cruddas so succinctly put it.Having said that,points emerging are surely that Labour had massive failures of vision and operation during its last go round,and that the next leader really has to address these rather than give them as alms to oblivion.Specifically the "on message" culture,and all its tough enforcement concomitants,and sly manipulation and disinformation absolutely have to be expunged.They all say they agree,but a lot of the usual suspects seem uncontrite and active in the same areas.

There is a lot of sneering and attempts to belittle, and not much reasoned criticism to respond to. The last time some of the individuals in this thread stepped over the line of civility and engaged in personal abuse, Compass drew up a set of guidelines. It's time they were enforced, because the tone of some of these comments will put people off joining in online discussion. It'll give the impression to visitors to the site that this is how people in Compass speak with one another; it isn't.

Paul: yes, he is a phenomenon. I am sure he is popular because he doesnt demand any intellectual concentration. Its all minimalist frothy stuff, which I am sure makes him the darling eastof the Campari Progressives, and probably Aunt Polly's favourite pet.

Lee, I’m not in the least angry. I treat Jonathan Rutherford seriously because the political and cultural phenomenon, of which he is a conspicuous part, is interesting. Add to that as one of the thousands of stakeholders upon whom the neo-liberal political economy depends, he probably has a greater influence on the Labour Party than the wide range of Labour voters and supporters.

One day, a young man or woman will write a PhD thesis on the neo-liberal emancipation of the middle class and their cultural, political ideological contribution to the neo-liberal social order.

I must admit, the sight of Jonathan talking to working class children would be interesting to see. A Cultural Studies paper in itself.

This is what Newlabour and David Miliband stand for. With all the spending, which David Miliband and the Tribals advocate here on this site, America is now in DEPRESSION:

Today's Telegraph:

With the US trapped in depression, this really is starting to feel like 1932. The US workforce shrank by 652,000 in June, one of the sharpest contractions ever. The rate of hourly earnings fell 0.1pc. Wages are flirting with deflation.

"The economy is still in the gravitational pull of the Great Recession," said Robert Reich, former US labour secretary. "All the booster rockets for getting us beyond it are failing."

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Comment


"Home sales are down. Retail sales are down. Factory orders in May suffered their biggest tumble since March of last year. So what are we doing about it? Less than nothing," he said.

California is tightening faster than Greece. State workers have seen a 14pc fall in earnings this year due to forced furloughs. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is cutting pay for 200,000 state workers to the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour to cover his $19bn (£15bn) deficit.

Can Illinois be far behind? The state has a deficit of $12bn and is $5bn in arrears to schools, nursing homes, child care centres, and prisons. "It is getting worse every single day," said state comptroller Daniel Hynes. "We are not paying bills for absolutely essential services. That is obscene."

Roughly a million Americans have dropped out of the jobs market altogether over the past two months. That is the only reason why the headline unemployment rate is not exploding to a post-war high.

Let us be honest. The US is still trapped in depression a full 18 months into zero interest rates, quantitative easing (QE), and fiscal stimulus that has pushed the budget deficit above 10pc of GDP.

The share of the US working-age population with jobs in June actually fell from 58.7pc to 58.5pc. This is the real stress indicator. The ratio was 63pc three years ago. Eight million jobs have been lost.

The average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks. Nothing like this has been seen before in the post-war era. Jeff Weniger, of Harris Private Bank, said this compares with a peak of 21.2 weeks in the Volcker recession of the early 1980s.

"Legions of individuals have been left with stale skills, and little prospect of finding meaningful work, and benefits that are being exhausted. By our math the crop of people who are unemployed but not receiving a check amounts to 9.2m."

Republicans on Capitol Hill are filibustering a bill to extend the dole for up to 1.2m jobless facing an imminent cut-off. Dean Heller from Nevada called them "hobos". This really is starting to feel like 1932.

Washington's fiscal stimulus is draining away. It peaked in the first quarter, yet even then the economy eked out a growth rate of just 2.7pc. This compares with 5.1pc, 9.3pc, 8.1pc and 8.5pc in the four quarters coming off recession in the early 1980s.

The housing market is already crumbling as government props are pulled away. The expiry of homebuyers' tax credit led to a 30pc fall in the number of buyers signing contracts in May. "It is cataclysmic," said David Bloom from HSBC.

Federal tax rises are automatically baked into the pie. The Congressional Budget Office said fiscal policy will swing from
a net +2pc of GDP to -2pc by late 2011. The states and counties may have to cut as much as $180bn.

Investors are starting to chew over the awful possibility that America's recovery will stall just as Asia hits the buffers. China's manufacturing index has been falling since January, with a downward lurch in June to 50.4, just above the break-even line of 50. Momentum seems to be flagging everywhere, whether in Australian building permits, Turkish exports, or Japanese industrial output.

On Friday, Jacques Cailloux from RBS put out a "double-dip alert" for Europe. "The risk is rising fast. Absent an effective policy intervention to tackle the debt crisis on the periphery over coming months, the European economy will double dip in 2011," he said.

It is obvious what that policy should be for Europe, America, and Japan. If budgets are to shrink in an orderly fashion over several years – as they must, to avoid sovereign debt spirals – then central banks will have to cushion the blow keeping monetary policy ultra-loose for as long it takes.

The Fed is already eyeing the printing press again. "It's appropriate to think about what we would do under a deflationary scenario," said Dennis Lockhart for the Atlanta Fed. His colleague Kevin Warsh said the pros and cons of purchasing more bonds should be subject to "strict scrutiny", a comment I took as confirmation that the Fed Board is arguing internally about QE2.

Perhaps naively, I still think central banks have the tools to head off disaster. The question is whether they will do so fast enough, or even whether they wish to resist the chorus of 1930s liquidation taking charge of the debate. Last week the Bank for International Settlements called for combined fiscal and monetary tightening, lending its great authority to the forces of debt-deflation and mass unemployment. If even the BIS has lost the plot, God help us.

Paul: I hope you dont get angry, but I really think you are treating what Rutherford says far too seriously. Rutherford doesnt offer any coherent meaning...its just narrative writing, putting together nice sounding campari progressive sentiments as little slogans, and repeating axioms he might have heard among undergrads. Yes, it does sound very archaic, which might suggest Burke; but it's much more likely to be the kind of statements you might hear from a reformist-minded victorian mill-owner in a BBC TV period costume epic. it is also stunningly naive and out of touch with people's experiences. I would love to see Rutherford talking to a hall of working class kids from a poor council area and a rotten failing comprehensive. I think it was you that used the word "salon" to describe his style. That describes it perfectly. It is completely detached and frothy as we would expect in a salon conversation among well-bred, self-indulgent petit bourgeoisie.

Lewis, I am pleased that your idealism about Labour has dimmed somewhat. One or two of the essentially civil liberties infringements; some of the aspects of authoritarianism upon which the late Gvt depended upon are to be watered down, - some even abolished by the Coalition Gvt. It strikes me that this gives a good idea of the role Compass envisioned for itself had Labour won the election. - A kind of social liberal ginger group. Something nearer the truth is that the Lib Dems are accomplishing the core of Compass’s elite pre-occupations.

But, even if all of the policy areas you list were changed in ways you would wish, would that define a specifically Labour Gvt? To be recognisably Labour, would it not need at least to do also the other things from Diane Abbot’s leadership manifesto, quite regardless of who was or was not the party leader?

As you say, Jonathan Rutherford says that Labour must defend society against the state. That sounds nice, and what financially secure, well-meaning middle class liberal would disagree?

Yet in reality, society as he defines it, is fantasy. Thus, “Society is what people hold in common.” In reality what do ‘people’ hold in common? It is not even a plausibly Gramscian position. Which ‘people’ does he have in mind? Even by the most expansive and salonesque of definitions, ‘people’ hold little in common. In reality a powerful minority of people, hold absolutely nothing in common with the rest of ‘the people. But that nothingness comes down critically to the relationship to the means of production. This nothingness in common, is as much the defining characteristic of society as it is of the state. Yet I very much doubt that this is what the Cultural Studies Academic was seeking to convey by his definition of society.

Taking Jonathon Rutherford at his chosen definition of society and re-reading the introduction to the paper, is there not a case for saying that he is emerging as a fan of Edmund Burke; as a modern Oakshottian, perhaps? It seems that his centre of concern is not the state as socialists would understand it and would thereby formulate significant parts of their outlook and policies. It is something quite other. It is something further to the Right; something philosophically and ideologically organic. And if this is so, disagreeing with him because he occasionally uses terms like ‘socialism’ or ‘social democracy,’ whilst believing him to be neither, seems an altogether fruitless endeavour because it misses the point.

The point is that the introduction to the paper is shot through with expressions of feeling. It is a kind of moral, somewhat treaclely discourse and a political one of course, expressed in terms that Burke would have approved of and the 21st century student of Michael Oakshott would be interested in. The tone and tenor of the introduction is built on an essentially conservative appeal to passions, to associations and affiliations, and in this same organic context, to mutualism and reciprocity. And in this explicitly non-socialist ideology, the purpose and parameters of change and solidarity are firmly located

The State is the Society organized. It is when we come together, formally, when decisions need to be made. It is how we make decisions. So many people mistake the State having to be the top down edifice governed for the interests of the wealthy. Open the State up to democracy. All the little mutuals and volunteering that are going to light all our lives in the future, really need a good State upon which they and standards for them can be set - democratically.

Lewis Parry (Elx)
jon rutherford says labour must defend society against the power of the state.
**************************************************************

See, this is what happens with dumbshit narratives. You get to say some horrendously stupid and infantile things. "Labour" IS the fucking state !!!

I agree that for Labour to move on they must purge the terrible stain of Iraq with a public apology. This certainly will not bring back the countless thousands who have lost their lives through Bush and Blair's folly. However it would also go some way to reverse the craven image that NewLabour has, and suspicion that the same mistakes would be made again. Harold Wilson rejected America's request to get us involved in Vietnam. Only Dianne Abbot has the same credibility among the leadership contenders.
If Ed Miliband truly wishes to move on from NewLabour, it is surely time for him to stand up and be counted. I also agree with Lee that we need to see a condemnation from Compass on NewLabour's atrocious neocon foreign policy, and the disaster of Iraq.

jon rutherford says labour must defend society against the power of the state.
also against the exploitation of the market.
but in stark honesty and all seriousness when did the last labour government ever do this?
id cards,extended data bases,proposed detention measures,alleged rendition,divisive foreign wars,demonised welfare recipients,-were us.
the gambling lobby,the tobacco lobby,the drinks lobby,the fuel\energy lobby,the nuclear power lobby, the armaments industry,the food monopolies,the financiers-all kowtowed to.
to believe that the successor labour government could be persuaded to use its powers solely to benignly craft the gentle society is
a tad too idealistic even for me.persuasion plus penalties methinks!

The bit I find eternally absurd is the argument - repeated again this morning by Prescott to Chilcott - that Blair tried so hard to get the UN on board. Of course he did. He wanted to be legal.

But the UN is an organisation of representatives of the rest of the world. If they vote against soemthing should you not stop and think about respecting their view.

Blair so blatently thinks it is there to rubber stamp his actions or not. He doesn't feel any need to respect their opinion and alter his intentions according to their wishes. He was not consulting them.

Blix wanted another three or six months. That was where as a member of the UN we should have been. But the forces were already on their way. The UN wasn't being consulted about a course of action. It was being asked to provide cover.

Compass seems to be sticking rigidly to its policy of "never mentioning the Iraq Invasion". At a time when leadesrhip candidates are openly quarreling about Iraq, and one prominent person after another is underlining Blair's war crimes guilt at the Chilcot Whitewash, you would think that Compass would have the courage to open up this taboo topic. Surprise me, Neal !

Re: the Guardian article featured here on the Iraq argument between the Milibands. When I first read the article it struck me as just another sad revelation of deeply guilty people doing their weasel things, each as ugly as the other. But then I realised that David Miliband has broken new ground. Until recently, Blair's claims about WMDs had been the biggest set of blatantly and knowing lies in a generation. Now DMil says: "if we had known in 2003 there were no weapons of mass destruction then of course we would not have voted for the war."

I realise this isnt the first time someone has uttered this stinker, but given that DMil has the audacity and stupidity to make this statement during a leadership contest, qualifies it for the lie that dislodges Blair's into second place. There is massive evidence that it was known AT THE TIME that Blair and Bush's claims about WMDs were false. They were not simply bad intelligence, they were lies deliberately fabricated by the circle around Bush and Cheney. We know that leading members of the UK and US intelligence service AT THE TIME, denied these fabrications. We know that Blix constantly showed that there was zero substance in the claims Bush/Blair were making. We knew at the time, that these lies exposed by Scott Ritter, and the top UN weapons for oil administrators. We know that within two days of Powell's famous set of lies to the UN, that every single claim he made was exposed as fabrications by many commentators including McWhirter at the Glasgow Herald. We know that Blair's dossier was not based on intelligence, but copied off the internet. Millions of people world-wide KNEW (didnt just think, BUT KNEW) that these were utter lies.

Individuals within the Newlabour administration supported Blair NOT because they believed in the lies, but because they were passionate supporters of Bush's neo-con administration and would have done anything requested to play the poodle role. David Miliband today remains a totally unrepentant disciple of the Bush neo-con world outlook. His last acts in Government were involved in trying to protect Bush's torturers from prosecution, and by so doing he shamed his office by using his power to further his own far right political ideology.

I hope that disgust for David Miliband is as strong as mine, both here, in Westminster, and among the voters. He is as absurd a candidate for Labour leadership as Sarah Palin would be a candidate for the Republican leadership. As sure as day follows night, if David Miliband were ever to become Prime Minister, this country will be embroiled in illegal acts of imperial aggression in the middle east in support of whatever dreadful regime replaces Obama. I call on Compass, which it is believed is secretly supporting David Miliband's candidacy, to disavow him and launch a campaign to ensure he is defeated.

Is Ed Mil telling the truth that while in America before joining the government, he opposed the Iraq invasion ? Probably. He didnt have the guts, of course, to openly oppose Blair; he was more interested in the Government position. That isnt specially virtuous, but there have been so many other members of the PLP in exactly the same position, so Ed is not unique, just not very courageous or principled. Ed's selection would be largely inconsequential for Labour and the country; David's would be a disaster.

Lewis, you have a touchingly idealised view of Labour. The near beauty and undoubted eloquence with which you express it however does not disguise the fact that the values of ‘new labour’ are not those of the Labour Party.

As to the common ground, (that is to say, not in the way Margaret Hilda defined the term,) I think that for all parts of Labour, it is little more than an anti Toryism. Your question, “ how can this end well?, is a very good one. How indeed? I don’t know.
For the dominant strands within Labour, given that they are content to be the ‘Left’ of current political centre, it has arguably ended well already. Compass and their ‘post Marxist’ friends in the Soundings salon seem particularly pleased.- In a neo-liberal ‘end of history,’ kind of way.

As Paul points out, the benefits (such as they are) of Blair's devolution policy provides no credit to Newlabour. Those benefits were the result of coalitions (formal and informal) in Scotland and Wales. Blair's main reason for devolution was not to strengthen social democracy in Scotland and Wales, but simply to try to cement Labour power in these outposts against a possible Tory resurgence. It turned out a disaster: Labour in Scotland, albeit in coalition with the Lib-Dems, was one of the most disastrous and underachieving administrations in modern British history. In Wales, Labour had to rely on a coalition which has not impressed the Welsh and has probably crocked Plaid for a decade. What we have seen is that the Tories under Cameron are a better bet for coalitions aimed at improvements in social justice, than Labour, in the pocket of the USA and the City, could possibly have delivered. Its hard to see the current Tory-LibDem enterprise working very well, although their will be pockets of reform well to the left of anything New Labour could dream of. And we must remember, all the time, how terrible another five years of Brown or DMiliband would have been.

The Newlabour aficionados who put together this very shallow brochure, seem to have a very effective way of purging their memories about what Newlabour was really like since 1997.

In the section, ‘Democratising the party,’ Jeremy Gilbert tells us that the devolved administrations were able to ‘deliver’ (it’s always, enviably, market speak ‘deliver’, in these narrative exercises,) “real social democratic reforms.” He further asserts that as much indicates the, “final failure of the (‘new labour) idea that a new kind of popular politics, as well as pursuing a political programme that tried to align the interests of the voters with those of the corporations, also had to imitate the organisational and communications techniques of the corporations.”

Doubtless he is sincere in what he says. But like it or not this has all the characteristics of a critical beneficiary of the neo-liberal settlement indulging in a bit of revisionism. This after all is one of the purposes of the paper as a whole.

To a certain extent of course, in the neo-liberal economy and society, social democratic reforms are what ever is branded as social democratic reforms. Given the shift of the political centre ground to the Right and Labour’s current commitment to the hegemony which determines the position and content of the political centre ground, the necessity of being able to brand some aspects of policy as, ‘social democratic’ is vital. Without them, there is no ‘new labour’ role for the Labour Party. All of that being said, lets agree that the devolved administrations under Labour leadership, did indeed, are indeed pursuing recognisably social democratic policies in some important respects. Housing, Health, Education and areas of other collective social provision come to mind. Of course in Scotland, it is the SNP, not Labour who are leading in the provision of social democratic policies. In Wales, Labour has never been quite so dominated by the various stands of Labour neo-liberalism, as have Labour in England. In Scotland, it was arguably the necessity of coalition specifically, which kept the powerful ‘new labour’ elite from breaking, commanding and selling short, the strong working class base of Scottish Labour, when Labour did lead the Scottish Gvt.

So matters are not as simple as Mr. Gilbert would represent. Scotland and Wales each separately have a political culture and a broader culture which is not English and perhaps significantly, is not metropolitan and Home Counties English. Moreover, the black and white dichotomy as advanced by Mr Gilbert of ‘social democracy’ counterpoised against ‘new labour/neo-liberalism’, was never totally accurate. However, what he brands as ‘social democracy’, are little more than concessions, easily retrieved, given the political, ideological and financial bankruptcy into which all of Labour’s neo-liberals, have, in their own interests, systematically reduced the Labour Party.

“The strange death of Labour England,” (as a not entirely sympathetic commentator, called it recently in a related context,) is more nearly the society in relation to what Mr Gilbert says of ‘new labour’, holds sway In England, there is not the ameliorative balm of social democracy in even the limited degrees found in Wales, Scotland and it might also be argued, in Northern Ireland. At the moment, the loudest reformist voice the working class in England hear, is not their own, because that has been systematically stifled by Labour neo-liberals. If they read The Guardian, or if they are extensively networked, the loudest reformist voice working class people in England hear is nothing like their own, but is in fact that of Compass and some of the other assorted agendas and strata of neo-liberal beneficiaries and supporters.

In practice, the extent to which the Welsh and the Scottish political systems can be social democratic is very circumscribed. They have been so in an era before capitalist boom became bust. With the impending cuts, the impending redistribution of wealth and power to those who already have it, the limited but important social democratic policies found in Wales and Scotland are in the Tory-Lib Dem line of fire. Their defences against greater neo-liberal economic and social policies perhaps reduced in due course to the level to those found in England. - Such as these are.

For Scotland in particular the next elections to the devolved Parliament will be critical. The SNP Gvt will have de-facto either had large cuts imposed on them; or will have acquiesced and made the cuts themselves. For which actions they will be damned by a Labour Party, which would have done little different against the neo-liberal onslaught.

Jeremy Gilbert claims that ‘new labour’s’ embracing of neo-liberalism came some time after it had adapted this approach to the party’s organisation and ideology.

Well yes, but that is, - to state the obvious, - because to put in place its specific changes to the economy, (and some of the neo-liberal corporatists changes to the party for that matter,) it needed office. It needed to be admitted to state power.

Months, years in fact before the ’97 election, going back to the now deified John Smith, Labour’s retreat from reformist socialism was both gathering pace and becoming clearer. Indeed the groundwork was done with the defeat of the Left under Kinnock. Little wonder therefore that one of the contributors to this paper, took a moment out to crow at this defeat.

Whist it is the case that politics has been professionalised as Mr Gilbert suggests, an additional part of that same intellectual current and one which quite accurately reflected the restructuring of the economy was the emergence of an array of stakeholders: members of the broadly liberal middle-classes who emancipated from notions of class solidarity and social democracy acted for themselves in the new market place. With organised labour broken by Thatcher, some of them, -particularly associated with the Right and with what was to become Labour’s contribution to the neo-liberal settlement, - stepped into the political space from which the organised labour and the political working class had been evicted by Capital and its Gvt. The credited authors of this paper and the other participants in the discussions it reflects, appear to be a cross section of the social liberal elements who, as stake holders in the current settlement, seem determined to remain politically squatting in this space, (and in the Labour Party,) come what may. - And very much to their own advantage it has proved to be.

Lewis: Slight correction:

New Labour see themselves on a continuing mission to TALK ABOUT enhancing the original values of the cause by TALKING ABOUT adapting and modernising. Its not real, that is what we all have to understand. What we are observing is posturing.

And if your task ends when you TALK ABOUT something, then its very easy, you can say whatever you want with no responsibility, and it should be inconsequential. However, there are many people, even ones here, who think this is real, serious stuff.

Paul,the most ancient complete fossil human cranium has been found in Burgos.
It's half a million years old.
Isn't the Labour party in danger of becoming a memento mori of ideas and inspirations that have long since wafted away into ancient sunlight?
Chesterton's lines on the religious schisms of the reformation come to mind,
"Dead is all the innocence of anger and surprise".
New Labour see themselves on a continuing mission to enhance the original values of the cause by adapting and modernising.
Alternative Labour stresses core principles.
In stark honesty and all seriousness how can this end well?
Where is the common ground?

And while on the theme of lack of authenticity, here is an important article from the Telegraph about Obama's disntinct lack of authenticity and self-promotion. This seems to be an inherent characteristic of neo-liberal politics:

OBAMA SIGNS A BILL THAT LETS BANKS HAVE U.S. OVER A BARREL ONCE MORE
"Because of this law, the American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street's mistakes," Obama boomed at the schmaltzy signing ceremony, amid bursts of applause.

"These reforms will put a stop to a lot of the bad loans that fuelled this debt-based bubble," the President gushed to America and the rest of the world. "This bill also empowers consumerse_SLpsdelivering the strongest consumer financial protections in history."

It would be reassuring if we could agree with Obama, concluding that Dodd-Frank will help to prevent the next systemic crisis and associated bail-out of "too-big-to-fail" banks. Reassuring, but wrong.

For despite some marginal regulatory improvements, this is no Rooseveltian legislative milestone. Amid the hype and back-slapping of last week's launch, the sad reality is that Dodd-Frank fails to address the fundamental problems that resulted in the sub-prime fiasco and the related damage to not just America, but the entire global economy.

The inherent feebleness of this door-stopping bundle of statute and its lack of desperately needed substance, was brilliantly captured by Laurence Kotlikoff, a highly-respected professor of economics at Boston University. "This law is like being invited to dinner and served pictures of food," Kotlikoff remarked.

It would be tempting to smile at such a wry observation if the situation it described wasn't so depressing. For what the US political establishment's non-response to the credit crunch illustrates is this: such is the lobbying power of the big Wall Street institutions that they not only caused a global economic crisis and then forced the US government to pay for a massive bail-out, but then used a slice of that bail-out cash to bribe politicians with campaign donations in order to block rule changes that might prevent a repeat performance.

That leaves the politicians and high-flying bankers happy, of course, while regular citizens – and their children and grandchildren – foot the multi-billion dollar bill.

The principal function of a financial services industry is to link savers with investors and creditors with borrowers, so facilitating broader commercial activity. Such intermediary functions are crucial to economic progress and can be the basis of a profitable and socially useful business.

What we've created, instead, is a group of institutions that between them comprise nothing less than a financial oligarchy. These guys have Western taxpayers over a barrel. And what's alarming is that there is almost nothing in this bill that will stop yet more too-big-to-fail calamities. Mr President, you have missed a historic opportunity and, for that, history's judgment will be severe.

In 1933, in the aftermath of the Wall Street crash, America introduced the Glass-Steagall divide – a firewall separating high-risk "investment banks" from regular "commercial banks". The idea was to draw a regulatory line in the sand, preventing Wall Street from playing fast and loose with the deposits of ordinary firms and households, deposits rightly covered by a state guarantee.

For more than 60 years that divide stood firm. But during the late 1980s and 1990s, increasingly powerful vested interests, first in the City and then Wall Street, pushed for the "co-mingling" of banking activities. The resulting "universal banks" eventually bestrode the Western world, particularly after Bill Clinton succumbed to the lobbyists' dime and formally repealed Glass-Steagall in 1999.

It is an indisputable fact that since that repeal, the Western world has lurched from crisis to crisis. Little wonder, given that the end of Glass-Steagall allowed investment banks to borrow heavily against their taxpayer-backed deposits, then place vastly leveraged heads-I-win-tails-the-government-loses bets on risky investments such as internet stocksor sliced-and-diced sub-prime mortgages. Yes, bank failures happened under Glass-Steagall, but they were less frequent and far smaller.

Obama didn't consider re-instating Glass-Steagall. On the contrary, he packed his administration with the same people who helped Clinton remove it.

During his first year in office, the President dithered over financial reform but then, in the aftermath of an electoral mauling in Massachusetts, he placated those calling for root-and-branch banking reform by calling in former Federal Reserve Chairman, Paul Volcker.

The so-called "Volcker Rule" is the centrepiece of Dodd-Frank and as such, is indicative of the entire package. It's designed to restrict the ability of universal banks to speculate with taxpayer-backed money, rather than making sure by keeping deposit takers and investment banks separate.

Volcker places limits on so-called "prop" trading without defining what it is, so allowing banks to exploit what they claim is "the grey area between market-making and speculation".

Wall Street firms will also still be able to lever up punters' money and deal in credit-default swaps – the main culprits in the AIG bankruptcy, which cost US taxpayers $182bn and counting – while also destroying Bear Stearns and Lehman. The only stipulation is that ratings agencies should classify such derivates as "investment grade". Such agencies are unreformed and were at the heart of the last debacle – so that's hardly reassuring.

Last-minute changes mean that banks can, anyway, use 3pc of their tier-one capital for out-and-out speculation, circumventing Volcker. That doesn't sound much, but once levered up 50-times – and such a figure isn't unusual – this huge loophole in Volcker is more than enough to allow investment banks to keep destroying themselves in full knowledge the state will pay. Adding insult to injury, Wall Street then secured delays to the introduction of Volcker – or what's left of it – that in some cases will last for more than 10 years.

The closer you look at Dodd-Frank, the more apparent becomes Wall Street's influence. Limits on leverage – rejected. Limits on bank size – rejected. Restrictions on derivatives – well, some trading will go through a central exchange, allowing more scrutiny, but it's entirely unclear how much.

At every turn, this bill avoids decisions, delegating them instead to an army of regulators who will turn generalities into actual rules. If the banks were able to skew Dodd-Frank their way , think of the influence they'll have when the details are hammered out behind closed doors.

Obama put the spotlight on the creation of a consumer protection bureau – an attempt, before November's mid-term elections, to make arcane legislation meaningful to the public. Are there limits on credit card interest, ensnaring adjustable rate mortgages or predatory pay-day loans? Nope.

Some other omissions in the bill are breath-taking. There is no mention of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac – the government-sponsored mortgage-providers that have already cost $145bn in bail-out cash, rising to almost $400bn by 2019. No mention, either, of capital requirements – which means the global banking system must rely, once again, on the ridiculous Basel process for resolving this crucial issue. Once again, Obama missed a chance to give a lead when it comes to financial reform.

Based on sound-thinking courageous judgment, the Glass-Steagall legislation was only 17 pages long. Packed with wheezes and loop-holes, Dodd-Frank runs to 2,319 pages. Enough said.

Sorry, me below

Paul: "It is not ‘our message’ that needs revitalising: It is a socialist democratic path that shows the very concept of ‘our message,’ for the consumerist degrading of people, intellect and ideas that it is."
*****************************************************************
Excellent summary verdict. You will notice that none of the Newlabour tribals behind this pathetic paper, are at all embarrassed to be urging a lack of authenticity....dont change what we are doing, just present it as different. Lie about it, and if the PR materials are clever, people will buy the detergent that gets your clothes whiter than white. This is so unbelievably stupid..because it was the patent loss of authenticity that was the number one reason so many deserted Labour in droves. And now they advocate that the unauthenticity needs to be further refined. I do detect a lacuna of brain power behind this miserable and insulting brochure.

Having read all of the paper and re-read the first half, a few opening observations on the opening sections.

The first and most obvious thing to strike the reader is how its credited participants so clearly represent a wide range of middle-class liberal opinion, anxious in part to be critical of the neo-liberal settlement. And how delicious, how innovative, to include one’s publisher for no apparent good reason that she is one’s publisher. Now there’s elite networking for you.

But crucially, they are even more anxious to slightly reform that settlement and to in effect establish an intellectual, partly ethical, hegemony in relation to the ways in which an active, self referential group of well established actors within the ideological superstructure, seek to determine how everyone else sees the future role of a neo-liberal Labour Party. Given the reputation of Stuart Hall, his efforts to inject socialist and class based understanding into what is at root very much a ‘new labour’ narrative exercise, were muted at best. Those who own and in the final analysis control the state and its capitalist society need lose no sleep over these plans for the Labour Party.

Interesting as this paper is, it points to the crying need for a much wider range of workers, trade unionists, co-operators and those who simply and quietly contribute to the community, to come together to begin the process of reclaiming Labour and reclaiming the power to determine what the Labour stands for and whom it represents. Left to themselves the representatives of the Labour Right, so implicated in and still so very much the elite, mostly metropolitan beneficiaries of the neo-liberal settlement, cannot be allowed to dominate the future direction of the Labour Party. Indeed there may be a powerful argument for actively excluding the more egregious of the ‘new labour’ faction from discussion of the party’s future where it takes place outwith formal Labour Party structures. If as I result, they pack their bags and go, then so be it.

In the introduction Jonathan Rutherford and Alan Lockley denounce the Tories for appropriating ‘our’ traditions of mutualism and association. This is cant. It ignores how much Labour and Tory policies now converge. No less importantly, mutualism is not and never has been a specifically Labour or indeed social democratic construct. From the earliest years the Co-operative Movement enjoyed the support of non-radical workers and working class Tories. More recently of course, James Purnell and his colleagues in Gvt actively sought to highjack the principles of mutualism by claiming that the increasingly privatised Hospital Trusts were Co-operatives. As to Association, that long ceased to be a specifically Labour or social democratic characteristic. If Messrs Rutherford and Lockley were unaware of this, why on earth are they contributors to a paper on the Labour Party’s future?

The intellectually bereft habit of putting up ‘Aunt Sally’s’ like this may say much about the ‘new labour’ petty bourgeois, but it does not serve anyone else; and certainly does not serve the Labour Party.

Replete as the PLP is with ‘new labour’ careerists, each drawing a substantial Place Seekers Allowance, why David Lammy in particular? He parades a ‘new labour’ alibi competently enough, to give him his due. But to say that people turned away from Labour because ‘they were not clear what we stood for,’ is patronising beyond belief. Many people, by no means exclusively readers of the Tory press had a pretty shrewd idea what Labour stood for. James Purnell, Afghanistan, Iraq; and the increasing economic, social and cultural gap between the lives typically lived by the unholy alliance credited to this paper, and the lives of many of the working class Many, made it clear what Labour stood for. The treatment meted out to Mrs Duffy – remember Brown apologised only because he was caught out- made it clear what Labour stood for. Like some mindless ‘new labour’ spinner, David Lammy expresses such ideas and values as he posses in the marketing language of the neo-liberal on the make. Thus, “zeal and sense of mission…energy and radicalism for the future”, balance a formulaic expression regret for some failing of the Labour Gvt.

Reasonably enough he modestly lists those of the Gvt’s achievements in which he played a part. Let’s touch briefly on universities. A wider range of people than ever before, did indeed attend universities. But the neo-liberal model and imperatives of the university market place lowered the level of attainment expressed in some Degrees, in some universities as against others. Waitrose against Lidl to use an analogy the authors of this paper might grasp without too much effort. In short the market expanded the range and number of degrees available, but it was the poorer non-traditional university entrants who were effectively sold short by Mr Lammy and his colleagues. Lammy dismisses the notion of working class betrayal – As far better men and women on the Labour Right, than he will ever be, have done down the decades. But to expand university courses and the social background of students whilst allowing the market to erode the standing of some degrees, is pretty much a betrayal of working class men and women. If they had all had the option of Oxbridge, or even a wider choice in practice of degree and university than was the case in practice, the ex minister might have some justification for preening himself in the unfortunate manner that he chooses to do it.

It is not ‘our message’ that needs revitalising: It is a socialist democratic path that shows the very concept of ‘our message,’ for the consumerist degrading of people, intellect and ideas that it is.

But,Dugsie,you are a celebrity on this website.
It can only be a short while before YTV commission
a reality series about you.
I'm making a one off offer to be your agent.
Ring me on the premium rate line.
Or my SDP people can talk to your LRC people.
That would be a first.
Mandelson,Progress,pah!
Jon Rutherford could write your back story,
and delineate your future vision for Labour.

A test of your ability to resist temptation.

'If you join Progress you will be the first to receive the monthly Progress Magazine, and if you join before 1 August 2010 you will go into a draw to win a signed copy of Peter Mandelson's new memoirs.'

If you resist temptation you will win the right to be transmogrified into a celebrity of your choice. Why is the world divided into celebrities and hoi polloi ? Why are you on the wrong side of the divide ?

Dugsie,"society is what people hold in common".
How many long hours of fevered analysis would
it have taken you to reach that,if you ever could.
If only John McD could have glimpsed that on the
far horizons of his political ken.
In stark honesty and all seriousness I think Jon
Rutherford,like his illustrious scientific namesake,
has made a quantum conceptual leap,compared to
which Jon Cruddas' new journey is just a Trot round
the car park,whereas Jon R has reached level 42.
As you say there I was making no sense when the
wisdom of the ages lay unheeded before me.
You see I thought there was no such thing as society.

Now, now, Dugsie...there is honour among versifiers. We have our off days and our very off days, and thank the lord, we say, merrily (I believe or have been told).

The mandelbat moves silently through the thickening fog of Rutherford, a phenomenon known only to aficionados of the Compass garden party. Aunt Polly invites all to sniff her new (NEW !!) Rutherfordian scent produced at nightfall from the ghosts of failed narratives, and a ground-up brick from the yellow brick road. Ah, see ! there ! look, my lord ! a fast-fading Cruddas seeking eternal youth in the Mines of Purnell, rushing down to the party, all a-flutter, for David (he of Miliband stock, the veritable David itself) is coming to grace the gathering with the magic banana, denying that it was he that is the real Mr Bean...look at the profile, take a measurement of the inner leg, and forth-sooth, if truth be told, Black Adder will soon begin the Journey of Labour with loyal knight templar Crudd and various others of the campari persuasion. Let not the cloth-cap man besmirch our proceedings, Jeeves, we are the chosen one who will deliver the chosen people, and will restore the casino to the temple. Why so you cry and wail so, fair maids ? It is the new NEW that we are aiming to bring to attend to your needs, the newest new NEW that our Lord Rutherford can conjure up in the eye of the storm. So take heart, gentle maidens, the new journey of new Newlabour is newly launched in new fresh meadows, alive with new things...and so we have been told, and must believe, because what else is there besides believing and deep fried marsbars. So vote DMil and save your teeth !

Dugsie,in stark honesty and seriousness,who is Tony Blair's agent,and Mandelson's?
And do they pay full UK taxes?
Lee is the King of Misrule,but not all fool.
"Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
To watch such a king play bo peep,
And go the fools among."
In a political world of fools the half-witted are king.
Must go now,Lee is expected,and all the pastiches are
only half baked!
I think ed miliband will win the contest and is a good bet
at 6/4.We're all going to need that windfall bonus.

Lewis

People won't take you seriously as a potential future leadership candidate if you go around saying things which make no sense. The wages of a court jester are not significant when the monarch is Lee.

Either catch yourself on, or get an agent.

Sorry Lee,distracted,rather nasty confrontation between Andy Burnham and David Davis and the Chakrabati girls.
Andy was leaving choir practice with football boots under his surplice,when David and the girls emerged from the Laughing Cow obviously the worse for raspberry milk shakes.
David made a loud remark about where Nick Clegg would sit on the Pope's visit,and Andy shouted something about taking a liberty.
Then it all kicked off.Rita yelled,"Leave him Dai,he'll only get 7.8% of the alternate ballots anyway,"but this incensed David even more.
In the end Chief Inspector May in her immaculate uniform had to firmly caution them all as to their future conduct,and Andy had DNA samples taken.Will try very hard to get to to Professor Rutherford's exposition in the Unitarian Chapel on "Stark Honesty and Seriousness".

I believe that a little while ago Paul suggested that it would not be beyond possibility that Compass is supporting David Miliband. This event seems to confirm a Cruddas-Purnell-DMiliband nexus. Left of Center ? Excuse me ?

In the old days you had to spend quite a long time in the sea (being tossed around in an old ship's box, or placed in a raft oif reeds, or whatever) and when you were washen up on the shore, you were transformed...the result of a sea-change, immersed in Poseidon's realm, you emerged with shining face, a reformed reprobate now a prince to lead his people to the land of oz. Nowadays all you need to do is to avoid obviously giggling in the face of people when you lie about having completely changed. Its so easy, isnt it ?

Lewis, may I suggest some poesy to record this whimsy ?

Of Heather Wakefield, I intended to write the words 'working class' between the words token and women. My apologies to her for the omission of the two critical words.

Before settling to the substance of the Rutherford-‘new labour’ piece, I’d be fascinated to learn why it was felt necessary that Jon Cruddas in particular should be consulted before this paper was published? Even as the indefatigable networking of Compass continues within the dominant hegemony, it is noteworthy that for this paper, Compass expands only to the extent that it gives a platform to youngish rightwing men, hardly sociologically or intellectually different to those who already hold sway in Compass and for the benefit of whom, Compass exists. In this context, Heather Wakefield seems content to function as the token women and the token representative of the trade union movement. In these straightened times that may well be a prudent political economy. But given her trade union and Labour roots, why is she not using her obvious abilities and insights to encourage more discussion of policy within the trade union movement, rather than giving cover to ‘new labour’ insiders who have only ever sought to use the organised working class for their own ends?

Dugsie: We really do need to go beyond well-intentioned waffle.
***************************************************************

I have now ploughed through this dire piece, introduced by Rutherford, at some risk to my mental health. Dugsie's description of waffle suits it well. It is, like all the previous yellow-brick road narratives, a set of global and rather naive generations and self-evident sentiments that repeat much of the same stuff we have been receiving every six months ago. If this is the Cruddas "new journey", its more like a trot around the car park.

Some of the contributions are a little better than others. The Rutherford intro is the most flaccid, containing statements like:

"Labour has to evolve a more ethical and emotional language for its politics".... is it that Labour needs to be more ethical, or just use language which makes it appear to be more ethical. I will leave you all to decide.

"Pressing issues included the need for Labour to develop a new political economy and a new model of a social and democratic state." Why should we believe that this is anything else other than bluffing or pretentious posturing ? Its the word "new" that tells us we are in the business of smoke, mirrors, and snakeoil. Why, every time one of these people propose anything, they have to attach the word "new" to it. And none of their ideas last more than a few weeks, because we are constantly told that yesterday's ideas are old, and today, once again, we have to do something new ? Why ? Are their no ideas, no ideologies, no past experience that counts ? Its a "new political economy". What is that, other than a cliche ? What does it mean ? How does one "DEVELOP" such a thing ? "A new model for a social and democratic state" ? No precedents ? Where does such a thing come from ? Purnell's mining of the deep traditions of Labour ?

I am grizzled and skeptical enough to concede that what Dugsie says, that this waffle is "well-intentioned" may well be the case, although I think the goal is deliberately to deceive, to sell the Milibands as somehow detached from their past, deep and loyal association with a defeated and failed Newlabour. In my view, this crowd (Rutherford, Miliband, Cruddas et al) doesnt want anything new...its just publicity material which is all claim and no evidence. But maybe they are well intentioned and just dont know how to do it. Which means they are not suitable for office or to take change of Newlabour's transformation.

Anyway, it is nice to see confirmed that we have a Cruddas, David Miliband, Rutherford alliance on the far right of the party. That should put to rest any further speculation that this is a progressive enterprise.

Dugsie: We really do need to go beyond well-intentioned waffle.
***************************************************************

I have now ploughed through this dire piece, introduced by Rutherford, at some risk to my mental health. Dugsie's description of waffle suits it well. It is, like all the previous yellow-brick road narratives, a set of global and rather naive generations and self-evident sentiments that repeat much of the same stuff we have been receiving every six months ago. If this is the Cruddas "new journey", its more like a trot around the car park.

Some of the contributions are a little better than others. The Rutherford intro is the most flaccid, containing statements like:

"Labour has to evolve a more ethical and emotional language for its politics".... is it that Labour needs to be more ethical, or just use language which makes it appear to be more ethical. I will leave you all to decide.

"Pressing issues included the need for Labour to develop a new political economy and a new model of a social and democratic state." Why should we believe that this is anything else other than bluffing or pretentious posturing ? Its the word "new" that tells us we are in the business of smoke, mirrors, and snakeoil. Why, every time one of these people propose anything, they have to attach the word "new" to it. And none of their ideas last more than a few weeks, because we are constantly told that yesterday's ideas are old, and today, once again, we have to do something new ? Why ? Are their no ideas, no ideologies, no past experience that counts ? Its a "new political economy". What is that, other than a cliche ? What does it mean ? How does one "DEVELOP" such a thing ? "A new model for a social and democratic state" ? No precedents ? Where does such a thing come from ? Purnell's mining of the deep traditions of Labour ?

I am grizzled and skeptical enough to concede that what Dugsie says, that this waffle is "well-intentioned" may well be the case, although I think the goal is deliberately to deceive, to sell the Milibands as somehow detached from their past, deep and loyal association with a defeated and failed Newlabour. In my view, this crowd (Rutherford, Miliband, Cruddas et al) doesnt want anything new...its just publicity material which is all claim and no evidence. But maybe they are well intentioned and just dont know how to do it. Which means they are not suitable for office or to take change of Newlabour's transformation.

Anyway, it is nice to see confirmed that we have a Cruddas, David Miliband, Rutherford alliance on the far right of the party. That should put to rest any further speculation that this is a progressive enterprise.

Robert - the ESA legislation is a farce.

CarerWatch are trying to persuade all the disaility charities to get their act together, up their game and make a stand.

We sugggest that the line in the sand is drawn as follows.

Firstly - drop the sanctions. Everyone on ESA no matter how severe their disability can receive all the proactive back to work help they want. They can have assessments, courses, pep talks - anything. If and when they want it. BUT NO THREATS AND SANCTIONS. Concentrate on positive help.

Secondly - the only test that is necesary is on the JSA/ESA interface. This test needs to be totally transparent. Potential claimants need to know the criteria that determine if they will qualify for ESA and the public certainly need to know so that they know where their money is going and start to respect claimants again.

Sorted.

What do you think Robert?

Tens of thousands of claimants facing losing their benefit on review, or on being transferred from incapacity benefit, as plans to make the employment and support allowance (ESA) medical much harder to pass are approved by the secretary of state for work and pensions, Yvette Cooper.

The shock plans for ‘simplifying’ the work capability assessment, drawn up by a DWP working group, include docking points from amputees who can lift and carry with their stumps. Claimants with speech problems who can write a sign saying, for example, ‘The office is on fire!’ will score no points for speech and deaf claimants who can read the sign will lose all their points for hearing.

Meanwhile, for ‘health and safety reasons’ all points scored for problems with bending and kneeling are to be abolished and claimants who have difficulty walking can be assessed using imaginary wheelchairs.

Claimants who have difficulty standing for any length of time will, under the plans, also have to show they have equal difficulty sitting, and vice versa, in order to score any points. And no matter how bad their problems with standing and sitting, they will not score enough points to be awarded ESA.

In addition, almost half of the 41 mental health descriptors for which points can be scored are being removed from the new ‘simpler’ test, greatly reducing the chances of being found incapable of work due to such things as poor memory, confusion, depression and anxiety.

There are some improvements to the test under the plans, including exemptions for people likely to be starting chemotherapy and more mental health grounds for being admitted to the support group. But the changes are overwhelmingly about pushing tens of thousands more people onto JSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Labour has a dam sight more to prove then just window dressing, the Milibands are just another copy of the New labour crap we have had for the last thirteen years, I going for my new medical in October, then in November I will go through the other two medicals, next February I will be going for my DLA medical, all you lot can talk about is how can we hide what we have done and move on, moving on will be a dam sight harder for new labour or Labour.....

A lot of people will rember the Blunketts the Purnells and the Coopers of this party every time I look at the bunch that sits as so called labour MP's my bloody boils.

Labour Tory Tory labour hard to see the difference.