frances
on 28 July 2009, 7:49:01 PM
'But what do you do if you look around and notice that the audience and even the front table is full of cuckoos ? Do you feel this doesnt matter?'

You put up a concrete issue and surprise them by taking an open vote.

*********************************************************

Frances: I dont think you understand what cuckoos are. They will vote for everything that sounds progressive or seems to capture the mood. They will go beyond that, and take leadership of the issue. It doesnt matter if its exactly the opposite to how they voted...Cruddas does that all the time. Their goal is to make you feel they are "NEW" and reformed.

I am too long in the tooth now to believe in fair weather conversions. I have encountered only two or three in my life time that were authentic. They are accompanied by anguished contrition, passionate apology, and open admission of all that was wrong. These Open Left conversions wont even mention the name Tony Blair or Iraq. So, by all means, go along full of hope, believe whatever the cuckoos tell you, and enjoy the day. I promise not to say "told you so".

'But what do you do if you look around and notice that the audience and even the front table is full of cuckoos ? Do you feel this doesnt matter?'

You put up a concrete issue and surprise them by taking an open vote.

Everyone can say I'm progressive, I believe in better opportunities for all, I'm looking forward to pie in the sky.

Until you put up something as universally acceptable as - people with severe disablity and illness should be put in the 'support group' in ESA as Professor Gregg intended where they can have every opportunity to access back to work programs without being subject to threats of sanctions and loss of benefit - and see who supports it. If you have a row of cabinet ministers sitting on the platform - watch their arms.

It's distressing me listening to the hundreds of thousands of pounds being awarded to ex soldiers and road accident victims who sustain disability at the same time as someone who sustains the same disability from an illness is put on £62 a week and threatened that if they don't get out there and find a job this will be removed.

Why is it so different what you need if your disability is the same.

Professor Gregg invented a very harsh system but he did leave the 'support group' as a place to put severely ill people as a protection. It is only the ideological zeal of Purnell and now apparently Cooper that is determining to put almost no one in the 'support group'. It's a simple change that could protect the very seriously ill as it was intended to do.

Any one who voted against that would be as mad as Purnell.

"Lee, you should persuade the SNP to make workfare one of the top issues for the SNP come the election. That might be the way to win working class deprived seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt switch from Labour to the SNP."
*****************************************************

I think I have mentioned here before that the mood for independence is shifting. You hear it in the pubs, hear it at council meetings, read it in local papers, and SNP meetings discuss it a lot. The original group gung-ho about independence has traditionally been under 50%. The group strongly opposed has never, of course, been 50%...it is much smaller. That traditional group, passionate about Scottish identity, sensitive to past wrongs at England's hands, were somewhat boosted by the insulting visits and speeches made by Thatcher, and later by son-of-Thatcher, Tony Blair, and his bumbling friend, Brown. There is one thing about Scots. We hate being talked down to and lied to. We dont forget or forgive easily.

Now the pro-independence group seems to be reliably above 50% and climbing. The traditional group is being joined by people utterly horrified by New Labour and actions like the Welfare Reform Bill. It is much discussed, well-known, and taken as a token of what Labour stands for. So independence is seen now as not simply Scottish pride, but also an act of national self-defense. There are fears about the Tories: no one here forgets Thatcher. But of late, the Tories in Scotland have been quite pragmatic and supported progressive legislation that Labour resolutely opposes. The Lib-Dems are constantly uncomfortable with its anti-independence stance, which is a directive from the English party. Many of us have spoken to Lib-Dem personalities that privately concede that the Scottish Lib-Dems are by no means monolithic on independence, and that their position will almost certainly evolve.

There is also an expectation that the Tories will be far less adamantly anti-independence than Labour (because it suits them politically and its a trading card in event of a hung parliament). I have no doubts at all that the Tories, as long as Cameron remains leader, will accelerate devolution faster than Labour ever would now that it is so desparate and staring into the face of defeat.

It would be interesting to get Hassan's take on this.

Posted by frances
on 28 July 2009, 5:30:52 PM

We used to do exactly that at Labour Party meetings where passions were stirred, people felt an enormous comradely feeling of shared sympathies and then we converted it to resolutions asking for concrete things.

The last bit is the bit that is missing. It's wonderful that Compass provide the meeting place for people once again to be in a room with other people with high hopes and convictions and no NewLabour careerists and controllers. That is a lovely feeling to get back.

But where does all this passion go. Compass isn't a political party. NewLabour will press on with the Welfare Reform Bill however many people sign from Compass against it.

*********************************************************
Frances: I dont know what Compass is. But it is not correct to suggest that only a political party can convert vague sentiments, into action programmes. Take a look on the web at the Institute of Policy Studies in Washington DC. They are a whole lot more concrete and applied than Compass, and they do create actionable programmes. I have to conclude that Compass prefers to keep things as abstract and rarified as possible, because that is the platform around which it is easiest to produce consensus. The question is "what is that consensus actually worth ?" Some of you feel it is invaluable. I dont think it lives much beyond thew social occasion on which it is forged.


At some point we have to say - not in my name and convert this passion in to getting power back from these cuckoos.
********************************************************
But what do you do if you look around and notice that the audience and even the front table is full of cuckoos ? Do you feel this doesnt matter ?

Jon, You need to do a roadshow in Labour's heartland of Yorksire to Labour Supporters, Members and intellects not to the old faithfuls who reside in London who have the opportunity to attend regularly. Like 16th - 18th Century utopians, who are you reaching out to, "here and now", "the good place that is no place" or the educated elite. An audience of 200 for such an important issue is poor. Why is iot it always London.

Action against the Welfare Reform Bill - make it an issue in Purnell's constituency come the next election. If only it were possible to persuade Martin Bell to stand against him - that would get publicity. But if there were a large enough campaign to remove him the media might report it. That would raise awareness.

Compass itself is unlikely to endorse such a campaign because Neal wouldn't want to fall out with Cruddas and Cruddas has a good relationship with the reptile. But there is no reason why we sholdn't all go to the meeting and lobby for an anti Purnell campaign in his constituency. Neal might wish to retain plausible deniablility but if Compass people did succeed in raising the issue come the election it would increase Compass's clout with New Labour and decivisely swing the New Labour balance of power from Progress to Compass

The prospect of us all raising the issue on radio phone ins might frighten New Labour into passing an amendment exempting the mentallly ill from sanctions. There is time enough to do that before the election.

Lee, you should persuade the SNP to make workfare one of the top issues for the SNP come the election. That might be the way to win working class deprived seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt switch from Labour to the SNP. Salfordgal you should do the same for the Liberal Democrats. Maybe Frances could lobby the charities. The political class must be punished for this at the election and be seen to be punished for it.

My dream would be for Martin Bell to stand against Purnell in his constituency and campaign on rights for the disabled as well as expenses. This issue demonstrates more starkly than any other the dangers of the corrupt corporate party machines that Bell showed up in 1997. The victory in Wyer Fores by the independent doctor made it harder to close down cottage hospitals. Politicians are terrified of bad publicity especially now.

The Tories are going to get in anyway - the priority should be to punish New Labour from the left so they cant say once in opposition that floating voters in Middle England are all that matters. It is of course perfectly possible to appeal to the better angels of Middle England's nature and move the centre leftwards, but New Labour was too cowardly and besotted by the super rich to even try.

"The charities are a good example. They don't depend for income any more on the alms of the good or guilty or membership money from the afflicted and their friends. Not when the government can give them £18 million for an anti stigma campaign. They don't consult with the sufferers - they 'brief' the government and thereby block any channel the afflicted might have to express themselves."

frances, what you descibe is both corrupt and corrupting, and demeans the very concept of charity. The professionalisation of "charitable" organisations is the essense of corruption. But what else can we expect of a system in which "public" schools enjoy all the benefits of tax exempt status as charities designed to educate the poor when their purpose has simply become to advance the children of the rich at a hefty discount, and at an even greater cost, socially and economically, to the rest of us?

I think Dick the Butcher would find room - possibly lots'n'lotsa room - for this well heeled band of what the late President Nixon once delicately referred to as "welfare bums".

What are the options ? Given that all the major parties in this country support, broadly, the idea of a 'free market' then politics will be reduced to advertising on the basis of electoral product differentiation. Social democracy, of the kind we have experienced in recent years, fits into this situation very well. It signals that we are moderates. You can trust as with the family silver. We won't do anything to upset the apple cart.

But at a time of economic crisis and its social consequences, perhaps a different kind of social democracy will be supported. One which challenges the status quo. More resources allocated to public services like the NHS and less, much less, to fighting overseas wars. Greater democracy in our electoral system. An end to privilege in education and so on.

'but I still think events such as these are important in bringing people together and forging the kind of collective, pragmatic will whose absence you lament'

We used to do exactly that at Labour Party meetings where passions were stirred, people felt an enormous comradely feeling of shared sympathies and then we converted it to resolutions asking for concrete things.

The last bit is the bit that is missing. It's wonderful that Compass provide the meeting place for people once again to be in a room with other people with high hopes and convictions and no NewLabour careerists and controllers. That is a lovely feeling to get back.

But where does all this passion go. Compass isn't a political party. NewLabour will press on with the Welfare Reform Bill however many people sign from Compass against it.

It's a start and a necessary start but unless democracy is reintroduced in the Labour Party or in another party - where does all this good feeling go to effect a small change like putting ptprotection in the WR Bill in October to stop the bullying of the most severely sick. It's not a massive thing to ask, it shouldn't even be necessary to ask - but NewLabour listen to no one and then think they can pull the loyalty card and we will all go out and put in more NewLabour lobby fodder.

At some point we have to say - not in my name and convert this passion in to getting power back from these cuckoos.

And that means a check list of issues that we can use to challenge the relics of NewLabour to see who we wan to stay and who we wanty to go. Rhetoric will never separate sheep from goats in the way a current issue will.

Adrian: I hope its a good event for you, and wish you well

Lee - though I see what you are saying, I don't think this will be just another statement of left-wing values. The originality of the moment we are witnessing, where old orthodoxies lie shattered, makes this very pertinent. Yes, if you have read Cruddas's articles (or Rutherfords, or Lawsons or any other leftie piece) you can probably second guess what is going to be said, but I still think events such as these are important in bringing people together and forging the kind of collective, pragmatic will whose absence you lament. Of course, it will only be preaching to the converted but if it makes the converted "better preachers" and gets these ideas out there where they are needed then its all good

Forgive if this is a duplication

Jonathon Hawkes
on 28 July 2009, 3:47:57 PM
Lee –

Stop it, you will do yourself some sort of a mischief,

Look, I actually don’t disagree with much of your list there, I doubt that many on this forum would. However, outside of these and other left forums, those ideas are not forming part of the mainstream political debate.

*******************************************************
OK, Jonathan, we havent been that nice to one another in the past, but I will try to be as nice as I can even although I have just recovered from a serious fit of frustration, as you observed. Chuka's article didnt help.

We disagree about this, although I do take your point. Establishing political consensus is a positive and constructive goal. But the people who will be going to the Cruddas lecture and who attend the Compass events, are already believers. The people of the country vote. By and large, if you pop into a pub or tea-room anywhere in the country, you will hear what kind of society people want.

What is missing is political candour and will. We know for example, that the mass of this country do not want murderous alliances with the US, invading other countries and killing their citizens. But where have you seen or heard anyone on the left proposing a resolution for the Labour Party to adopt, that Labour will never permit that to happen again ? Compass doesnt even mention the word "Iraq" on this website.

I did. I drafted the resolution. See (and I have to de-url it):

http colon //www dot compassonline dot org dot uk/news/item dot asp?n=276

Zero interest.

Instead we have vague, abstract, polite, generalised whisps of ideas, for which no one has to take any political accountability. These are what I would describe as "profiterole" events, light and full of air, with no chocolate or cream. The people have already spoken pretty clearly. But, like all political parties, New Labour will do its utmost to keep its promises so insubstantial and slippery that there is no accountability.

There is something seriously wrong with the kind of language that is used at these events and in these narratives. It is accountability-free language. We talk about something like "democratic socialism". To the voters, they want to know what that looks like. They want to touch and feel it. They want it manifest, living in their high streets. But all they hear are words, and the word are so easy to say; they require no effort and they contain almost no meaning.

Jonathan, please do me a favour, and do what I did a few days ago. Compass keeps a pretty good archive. Go back as many years as you can, and read all the Cruddas and Rutherford articles you can manage, and you will see why I am tearing out my hair. Its the same stuff, the same words, again and again. I dont know whether this is simply laziness (because it requires almost no effort to pump out this stuff) or whether it is intellectual limitation.

Until you can ask: what will it look like, how will it work, what benefits will it produce in ways we can count and describe, what will it cost, what indicators can we agree that will enable us to determine whether it has been done and what its impact is...until the voters understand what this means in their every day lives, I am afraid I see these activities as acts of self-indulgence. In the four years or so I have been posting here, I have never seen one of these "narratives" or "goodsociety" products converted into anything practical and implementable.

I hope I have been able to explain myself without being overly rude. But that is why I will not be attending the Cruddas event. He has said it all before, and I knew it all already. Plus I have a funny rule that people should practice what they preach.

Jonathon Hawkes
on 28 July 2009, 3:47:57 PM
Lee –

Stop it, you will do yourself some sort of a mischief,

Look, I actually don’t disagree with much of your list there, I doubt that many on this forum would. However, outside of these and other left forums, those ideas are not forming part of the mainstream political debate.

*******************************************************
OK, Jonathan, we havent been that nice to one another in the past, but I will try to be as nice as I can even although I have just recovered from a serious fit of frustration, as you observed. Chuka's article didnt help.

We disagree about this, although I do take your point. Establishing political consensus is a positive and constructive goal. But the people who will be going to the Cruddas lecture and who attend the Compass events, are already believers. The people of the country vote. By and large, if you pop into a pub or tea-room anywhere in the country, you will hear what kind of society people want.

What is missing is political candour and will. We know for example, that the mass of this country do not want murderous alliances with the US, invading other countries and killing their citizens. But where have you seen or heard anyone on the left proposing a resolution for the Labour Party to adopt, that Labour will never permit that to happen again ? Compass doesnt even mention the word "Iraq" on this website.

I did. I drafted the resolution. See (and I have to de-url it):

http colon //www dot compassonline dot org dot uk/news/item dot asp?n=276

Zero interest.

Instead we have vague, abstract, polite, generalised whisps of ideas, for which no one has to take any political accountability. These are what I would describe as "profiterole" events, light and full of air, with no chocolate or cream. The people have already spoken pretty clearly. But, like all political parties, New Labour will do its utmost to keep its promises so insubstantial and slippery that there is no accountability.

There is something seriously wrong with the kind of language that is used at these events and in these narratives. It is accountability-free language. We talk about something like "democratic socialism". To the voters, they want to know what that looks like. They want to touch and feel it. They want it manifest, living in their high streets. But all they hear are words, and the word are so easy to say; they require no effort and they contain almost no meaning.

Jonathan, please do me a favour, and do what I did a few days ago. Compass keeps a pretty good archive. Go back as many years as you can, and read all the Cruddas and Rutherford articles you can manage, and you will see why I am tearing out my hair. Its the same stuff, the same words, again and again. I dont know whether this is simply laziness (because it requires almost no effort to pump out this stuff) or whether it is intellectual limitation.

Until you can ask: what will it look like, how will it work, what benefits will it produce in ways we can count and describe, what will it cost, what indicators can we agree that will enable us to determine whether it has been done and what its impact is...until the voters understand what this means in their every day lives, I am afraid I see these activities as acts of self-indulgence. In the four years or so I have been posting here, I have never seen one of these "narratives" or "goodsociety" products converted into anything practical and implementable.

I hope I have been able to explain myself without being overly rude. But that is why I will not be attending the Cruddas event. He has said it all before, and I knew it all already. Plus I have a funny rule that people should practice what they preach.

'And right now, the central question isn't ‘what sort of society do we want to live in?’ It is how can we reconstruct our democracy so that everyone is in a position to debate and determine ‘what sort of society do we want to live in?’, and have a government whose purpose is then to bring that about.'

Best sentence posted in months. There is no way to campaign against them, no vehicle for expression of opposition. A million people went on the street against Iraq. One man stands vigil still. We rant on Compass, the Baronesses are so, so polite in the Lords but NewLabour just go their own sweet way - preaching and spinning and dictating and telling us and doing things to and for us and knowing best. How exactly would mass revulsion in the Labour Party grass roots at what they are doing get expressed? It can't. Try campaigning on an issue. If you find out how to do it tell me.

'The central lesson of the loathsome Thatcher/Major/New Labour experience is that, in a flawed democracy, form is the single greatest determinant of content'

The charities are a good example. They don't depend for income any more on the alms of the good or guilty or membership money from the afflicted and their friends. Not when the government can give them £18 million for an anti stigma campaign. They don't consult with the sufferers - they 'brief' the government and thereby block any channel the afflicted might have to express themselves. They have become cosmetic and a stand in for real consultation. The government then says it consulted with the afflicted but it didn't. It consulted with people effectively on the government pay roll in large organisations that exist to sit between the government and the afflicted. There are tens of disability organisations out there. Did you here any of them say a word when the government took the right to benefit away from sick people. How sick is that?

Lee –

Stop it, you will do yourself some sort of a mischief,

Look, I actually don’t disagree with much of your list there, I doubt that many on this forum would. However, outside of these and other left forums, those ideas are not forming part of the mainstream political debate. And they need to be, if we are ever going to get anywhere. Which is why I think events like this are useful – they act as a mechanism to explore and promote these ideas. Shifting the terms of debate is a continuous process – it’s not necessary a quick one, either – events like this only contribute to that process.

SG - I take your point about democratic renewal – I don’t see it as an either/or. I think the debate about a true representative democracy is part of the wider debate about what kind of society we want to live in.

I hope to see both of you at the event.

SG: If they were really concerned about "what sort of society do we want to live in" they would stop telling us, and ask. Its not for Cruddas or Rutherford (or Chukka, dismal on CIF) to tell us. This is for people to decide.

And why do we spend so much time, asking the same frigging question again and again and again, ad nauseum, beyond ad nauseum ?? O I know, because that means you dont have to do anything practical.

For heavens sake, we know enough !! Please can we stop pretending this is an esoteric issue that needs endless frigging narratives. We need a fair society without the extremes of wealth; we need to place strong limits around corporate behaviour; we need to stop invading countries and killing their populations; we need banks to be banks and not agencies of financial speculation; we need to keep our essential social services within state control , debureaucratise them, pay their employees decently, and iron out defects based on postal code; we need to increase taxes on speculative profits; we need to enforce civil rights and remove unnecessary surveillance; we need to combat tacism and sexism; we need to promote local democracy, cooperatives, worker power; we need to introduce a form of proportional representation; we need to kill the whip......OK....enough already !! We know this stuff !!! Stop it now !!!

Is there anyone who suffers even a modicum of the foaming frenzied frustration that I experienced above, hearing this bloody stupid mantra constantly repeated: "we need to decide what kind of society we want"...the bloody jury's in, for Christ's Sake !!

Lee's lost it.

"It clings to power that it seems to not to know what to do with."

But hasn't this been New Labour's central, and only, principle since its inception?

And right now, the central question isn't ‘what sort of society do we want to live in?’ It is how can we reconstruct our democracy so that everyone is in a position to debate and determine ‘what sort of society do we want to live in?’, and have a government whose purpose is then to bring that about.

The central lesson of the loathsome Thatcher/Major/New Labour experience is that, in a flawed democracy, form is the single greatest determinant of content and if we get the procedures wrong the substantive result will also be wrong, whatever our desires, however great our hopes, and however hard we try to get it right. This why Shakespeare so stirs the soul of Everyman when he has Dick the Butcher say, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". I'm sure, if he were to do a quick re-write to accomodate the complexity of modern society, Shakespeare would also find it prudent to incorporate all those with regular need of a lawyer's services - bankers, accountants, patentholders, accountants, PR "professionals", and the like.

Jonathon Hawkes
on 28 July 2009, 2:20:58 PM
A new economic narrative is just part of a wider debate needed on the Left right now.

******************************************************
You wont be disappointed. A narrative is what you will get.

I presume this is an Open Left event ?

I will not be attending the lecture by Jon Cruddas and the reply from Polly Toynebee who until recently was telling us that poverty was being reduced under NEw Labour.
As we know vast sums have been squanderd by Labour and inequality and poverty and economic inactivity is increasing.
Given his voting record and his antecedents I have no confidence whatever in Cruddas 'setting out a new vision' (sic) for Labour which will sound very much like the old vision. Essentialyl it boils down to 'we are a bit better than the Tories'
Tell me something new

The future of social democracy is now. Labour is struggling to catch up and have found out the hard way, as seen in the recent by-election, that they are behind. This lecture is a big step in the right direction toward the left and Labour defining itself again and outlining what it needs to be for the people. The timing is perfect to take on this issue right before the Labour Party conference. Hopefully Cruddas’ lecture will outline the future, but more importantly how to jumpstart the change before election day comes. It certainly should be interesting.

A new economic narrative is just part of a wider debate needed on the Left right now. The below thread has gone into detail on the possible reasons for the defeat in Norwich North. I believe the one overriding reason for that defeat (now as seems likely, a precursor to an election defeat next year) is that the party no longer knows what it believes in. It clings to power that it seems to not to know what to do with. Is it any wonder there is a negative reaction on the doorstep? If the party leadership cannot articulate what they are in power for, there’s no chance of convincing anyone else

This debate needs to start putting together a sense of purpose for the left again. It’s been a very long time since the mainstream political debate asked the question –‘what sort of society do we want to live in?’. That these questions are being explored offers hope that the left can come out of the other side of the current malaise in the Labour Party renewed.

Look forward to the debate.

My post above has been badly mangled and is not as I sent it.

If there was ever a need for a reassertion of social democratic values and visions then this is the time. I hope the lecture will be big on the economic alternatives to neoliberalism as we really need a coherent and joined up alternative.

After reading Cruddas' book on the Crash, he has some very good ideas on left economics. I look forward to hearing them.

perché non sorpreso?

A lecture on the future of social democracy is to be welcomed at this time. Of course, social democracy is a very problematical polit, both plutocratic and aristocraticical position and it is unlikely that I will agree with the view of it proposed by Dr Cruddas, given his parliamentary voting record.

For me, it is essentially about an approach to socialism within capitalism. It seeks to actualise al those aspirations of socialists for a collective democracy, a welfare state based on equality for all and a foreign policy based on peaceful co-existence. It should be a dynamic radical system seeking to challenge all vested interests.