Salfordgal (London)

Nope, It may be snappier, but it lacks precision, and it's very, very eighties, Lee.
**************************************************************
So are campari progressives

Salfordgal (London)

Nope, It may be snappier, but it lacks precision, and it's very, very eighties, Lee.
**************************************************************
So are campari progressives

Adrian's post has really illuminated a lot about Compass and the way they're approaching the problem of what the left should e.

Neal Lawson is suggesting - significantly along with Cruddas, Purnell and Toynbee - a peculiar spin on how we have ended up where we are. It basically posits the absurd assumption that Blair was 'Communitarian' and believed that Community Values (minus any Socialist content naturally) and defined by him and his coterie - should be imposed on the country - with an iron hand if necessarily (Asbos).

But because Blair's ideological committment to communitarianism wasn't deep enough - he strayed from the path and lost his way through a cynical lack of substance sometime after the First Term.

This is conveninet for two reasons because of courseit excuses anyone who initially supported Blair - only for him to go off the rails through no fault of theirs. (Maybe this is McDonnell's biggest 'sin' being right about Blair all along...)

But it also leaves an ideology, complete with claims for a 'Good Society'
behind for the enlightened to carry forward as a 'progressive' beacon of hope. Now who could possibly match both these criteria!?

So all Society needs is for Blair's former Acolytes - who were more sincere than their erstwhile Master - to return to complete the job. That maybe is what Neal Lawson means about Blair and Brown neither being 'Labour enough - or 'New enough.'

'Jaundiced' means 'affect a person with envy, resentment or jelousy' which could be construed as a lazy smear - but perhaps just reinforces the impression that you fail to understand both me and the point about Blair.

You don't set out to symbolically remove Clause 4, show hostility to the Unions, dismantle Party democracy , start unpopular Wars - all very confrontational positions for an alleged pragmatist! Blair didn't take easy options - unless you thnk taking on the Labour Party is quite easy because they're generally feckless - but I don't think that is quite the point you want to make.

Blair and Purnell genuinely believed that the market is a superior mechanism for almost forms of distribution of services (even Prisons!) than say Bureaucratic Management or Co-operative Democracy. This is inherently an ideological position to take - whether you or Blair can see this or not.

You're confusing Strategy with Aims - just because New Labour took political manipulation and 'fixing the agenda' to new lows - doesn't mean that there wasn't a coherent (but dangerous) ideology driving this. Until this is understood - the undemocratic and elisitst idelologues who 'know' they're always right ('clarity of vision', 'convictions' 'leadership' all misleading terms of oppression) will continue tio impose their opinions on the rest of us. And that isn't democracy.

The fact that Blair was expedient doesn't mean that he wasn't ideological too. In practice the two things are not mutually exclusive. Jon is correct, in my view.

Blair may have been opportunistic and populist and with a Tory family background fairly open to siren calls from the right but around him he and the Project had young diligent and committed policy wonks the keenest of which was Purnell.

So when events overtook Blair and Brown Purnell felt the call to carry the Blaitite torch on in to the future.

Compass was set up to provide an alternative to undiluted NewLabour. If you love NewLabour why would you need to join anything other than the Labour Party. NewLabour has never been part of Compass. When Compass hoped for better from Brown it was disappointed. Harriet was invited as a possible Blairite recidivist on the dither like Polly. But Purnell was never wobbley and was never invited before.

So why would he be invited now.

The most logical explanaion is that Compass has finally given up on Brown and wants to put clear rose coloured water between themselves and the Blairite legacy and that Purnell embodies the future of Blairism and is invited for that purpose.

Harry

I pretty much agree with your anlysis of what is likely to happen, but things have changed since the advent of New Labour. Not all of the people who post here are members of the Labour Party any longer. Some have just left others have left and joined other parties. Those who are still members have a range of views. Some of us are very much opposed to the policies of New Labour and don't give it unconditional support. I wouldn't vote for anyone who was a supporter of New Labour, anymore than I would vote for a Tory. The Tories may be worse, but that is to be expected. I don't feel betrayed by them. My concern is to restore the Labour Party to something resembling an authentic social democratic party. I don't believe that socialism is available at the moment, but a welfare society based on decency and democracy surely should be on the agenda.

Jon, I disagree with your jaundiced view of Blair. I never saw any ideology in him, or at least not any that was based on logical analysis. The only possible exception was in his foreign policy. Otherwise he was pragmatic in the extreme and his political direction was constantly evolving throughout his tenure. There was no Grand Plan in the way that Thatcher and Keith Joseph had a Grand Plan before 1979. Blair was a manager, and like most managers in large corporations he appeared to get seduced by the latest trendy management thinking. Like those corporate managers he believed in change for the sake of change to justify being in charge. He just wanted to give the illusion of New Labour being cutting edge and radical, that's why so many policies were so badly thought out and were unworkable. There was no intellectual backbone to anything New Labour did after 2001, and most of the policies enacted before 2001 were not Blair's. They dated back to John Smith and Neil Kinnock.

"SG: "well heeled non-(or, more precisely, anti)-populist sort-of-centre-sort-of-weekend-Observer-flicking-left"
************************************************************

I guess I cant tempt you with my rather more concise "campari progressives".

Nope, It may be snappier, but it lacks precision, and it's very, very eighties, Lee.

'He merely pointed out that she had a coherent and consistent set of policies that were based on ideology, and that most PMs since (including Blair) haven't. If he was endorsing anything it was probably politics based on conviction and ideology, as opposed to those based on Daily Mail headlines and focus groups.'

Adrian if you are correct in your view that this is what Neal Lawson really believes (like you)- then he has clearly missed the point - Blair's obsession with using the market to turn the UK into a US-lite haven for market fundamentalism, and using an Imperialist Froeign Policy to impose the same 'vision' in the partsof the Middle East and Eastern Europe) is ideological in the extreme. Blair was verging on the fanatical - (maybe he thinks he's doing God's work despite Campbell's 'we don't do God') but any Political Group that can't see this - doesn't inspire much confidence.

Communitarian (Yorkshire)
on 29 July 2009, 9:56:22 PM
DOCTOR Jon Cruddas talks too much and does very little in terms of action and results. I am not sure that he is the individual that will be involved in Labour's reinvention. Not convincing
****************************************************************
Quotes:

"Labour lost the language of generosity, kindness and community"

"the notion of the Good Society ...offers a new language of generosity, solidarity and hope in public life."

"We also need to clear out a bit of wreckage in the road in order for us to make some progress; by isolating some common ground and decontaminating some of the language and recent history of this debate."

"We do look a bit mechanistic at the moment. On the fire-fighting, we are doing quite well but we are not using the language to tell a difficult story. People know it is a global shake down. The Government has to paint in big primary colours."

"Blair lost the language and the ethical dimension, but there was quite a rich texture to the early Blair.”

"Jon Cruddas's main thesis boiled down to the view that New Labour had lost its ability to think in and use emotive language, focusing instead on delivering choice to the middle classes."

"In its reinvention in the 1990s New Labour jettisoned the language of ethical socialism, and so lost its capacity to match Cameron’s pro-social rhetoric and usurp his claim to value politics.It no longer knows how to talk about relationships, values, or even social justice. It doesn’t know how to talk about a culture of care and empathy, nor how to speak to people’s insecurities. Its silence over the super rich is matched only by the harsh language deployed against migrants or welfare recipients. It has become a politics without sympathy, unable to engage with everyday life. In contrast,Cameron’s ethical language of social life has resonated amongst many who in the past would never have considered voting for the economic liberalism of Thatcherism."


"Above all, the party needs a new language about our purpose. So try this, from 1995: "A nation for all the people, built by the people, where old divisions are cast out. A new spirit in the nation based on working together, unity, solidarity, partnership. That is the patriotism of the future. Where your child in distress is my child, your parent ill and in pain is my parent, your friend unemployed or homeless is my friend, your neighbour my neighbour. That is the true patriotism of a nation." That was Tony Blair, who had it - but lost it. Now, before it's too late, we need to rediscover that kind of Labour politics. And, not that I want to scare the horses, we might even call it a New Socialism."

Adrian (Southampton)
on 29 July 2009, 9:57:54 PM
Just a few of points:

(1) Why has James Purnell been invited to attend and respond to Jon's lecture?
Probably in order to initiate a wider debate. That is how you generate debate, by engaging with people of opposing views. The clue is in the above article, if people would read it in good faith instead of projecting their political bias and prejudices onto everything that they read.
"The lecture will be followed by critical and varying responses from key figures."
The key words here are CRITICAL and VARYING !!!!

******************************************************************
So why did Compass select Purnell and Toynbee ?

(2) Lee: if you're going to compare voting records, contrasting MPs in different parties who are following different whips is hardly illuminating. A more informative survey would be to compare the frequency with which each MP votes against the party whip (given that it happens so rarely), and on which issues.
*************************************************************
So are you saying that Cruddas is nothing but "whip fodder" ? Is that a qualification for addressing us on the future of social democracy ?

Look at Public Whip and see the number of true-left Labour MPs that have voted against the Government while Cruddas almost always voted for the Government's most reactionary legislation.

SG: "well heeled non-(or, more precisely, anti)-populist sort-of-centre-sort-of-weekend-Observer-flicking-left"
************************************************************

I guess I cant tempt you with my rather more concise "campari progressives"

Just a few of points:

(1) Why has James Purnell been invited to attend and respond to Jon's lecture?
Probably in order to initiate a wider debate. That is how you generate debate, by engaging with people of opposing views. The clue is in the above article, if people would read it in good faith instead of projecting their political bias and prejudices onto everything that they read.
"The lecture will be followed by critical and varying responses from key figures."
The key words here are CRITICAL and VARYING !!!!

(2) Lee: if you're going to compare voting records, contrasting MPs in different parties who are following different whips is hardly illuminating. A more informative survey would be to compare the frequency with which each MP votes against the party whip (given that it happens so rarely), and on which issues.

(3) Yes Lewis, I too saw Neal Lawson on Newsnight last night and he in no way ENDORSED Margaret Thatcher. He merely pointed out that she had a coherent and consistent set of policies that were based on ideology, and that most PMs since (including Blair) haven't. If he was endorsing anything it was probably politics based on conviction and ideology, as opposed to those based on Daily Mail headlines and focus groups. Moreover, his skepticism of primaries is well-founded, not "unusual". They are one of the reasons that Democrats and Republicans in the USA are so indistinguishable as they pull all candidates to the centre. The other main reason for this lack of voter choice is because candidates have to do their own campaign fund-raising, so they are dependent on rich donors more than on their own party for support. Of course there are other reasons as well, e.g. the media etc

DOCTOR Jon Cruddas talks too much and does very little in terms of action and results. I am not sure that he is the individual that will be involved in Labour's reinvention. Not convincing

"How would you characterise the spectrum represented by Cruddas, Purnell, and Tonybee, who will be responsible for exploring for us the relevance and future of social democracy in Britain ?"

I think (perhaps it may ony be a hope) that Compass has entered a transition period and the lineup at the summer Lecture represents yesterday-think at its most precise point of sub-optimal political decadence.

Essentially, Compass' strategic problem is that it was devised to grab market share amongst both the aspirational and the already well heeled non-(or, more precisely, anti)-populist sort-of-centre-sort-of-weekend-Observer-flicking-left so that it could exert some influence on, and on behalf of, one faction of New Labour in the UK's dysfunctional and unrepresentative one and two half party FPTP parliamentary system. Straightforward traditional insider politics financed by liggers and anoraks, basically.

This is no longer a tenable strategy and Compass, in its own way, is slowly beginning to catch on that it needs to adapt to a much more complex, quicksilver environment in which the popular will is going to be a key variable in Westminster elections for the first time since 1951 (when, of course, FPTP and two party politics flipped the popular verdict as ruthlessly as the Supreme Court did for Bush in 2000). Even with FPTP, the next election is going to tumble us into a multi-party system, and the locus of the "centre left" is visibly shifting and being pulled in both - perhaps many more than two - directions at once. That's the problem, and there's the opportunity, and it's the surest forecast of the future of British politics, and the lineup offered at the Summer Lecture on Future of Social Democracy shows that Compass just hasn't got it yet. Maybe by next May...?

lee (westofeden)

I think I feel a parody coming on.

************************************************************
I imagine that means I am going to stay and fight unless you send the man in the grey suit to tell me to piss off. As long as there is space to laugh there is space to struggle

(Sorry about what may have seemed like melodramatics, but I really was knocked sideways by the Purnell development, even although I predicted it. Artists do tend to act out and get obnoxious)

Jon: Of course I agree that the Lib-Dems arent the answer to a maiden's prayer. But as one of my favourite old Scots alcoholics, known for his exuberant coarseness, once described the situation like this at one of my favourite watering-holes: "Suppose you find yourself in a public toilet which hasnt been flushed for days, do you really worry about whether its going to be perfect outside ?"

I think I feel a parody coming on.

The only people who seem to be 'flogging a dead horse' are New Labour and Compass Lee - but you reinforce the very point I made on this website while Cruddas was taking a bow at the jolly Conference in June - that the most ems are clearly to the left of most Labour MPs - particularly on Welfare matters - but then Beveridge was a Liberal (and ironically so was the 'anchronistic' Keynes that so everyone suddenly seems so nostalgic for!). SG has also made this point - and we all generally congratulate them on showing some evidence of bein g humane - in an increasingly less generous and cohesive 'atmoshere.'

But we can't get too exercised over this because as I have siad many times before - the Lib Dems have not moved one inch to the left ) it is of course the majority of the Parliamentary and 'Leadership' of the LP which has lurched (got this idea from Stan - I would have used shifted before!) to the right.

So even allying with the Lib Dems is a form of collusion and acceptance of the undemocratic and unwanted eradication of any real socialist content in our politics. (This may well though be a necessary act - because desperate times need desperate measures - so SG may well just 'being getting her hands dirty' in circumstances - perhaps more than usual - not of her - or anyone with a heart - choosing).

But what a mess that genuine democratic socialists should be forced into thinking along the lines of - which MP/Party is the least reactionary?

It was a very good and informative post Lee. If it doesn't do for Cruddas then nothing will.

He is useful to people, you have to remember that.

No one has commented on my long post, which compares Cruddas' votong record with Webb's. I have been browsing through Public Whip, and I can announce that all the Lib-Dems have a voting record considerably to the left of Cruddas. Now, isnt that somehow important, or am I just flogging a dead doodaa

Duh !! Whatever !!

So should we go out and work for the worst and most committed NewLabourite to hold his seat. How is that going to help anything except make sure the new MPs elect a NewLabourite PM.

I'll work for a free thinking candidate but not a NewLabour loyalist.

Good to see you here Harry. I remember canvassing with Robert Skidelsky in Oxford. I had to show him how to do it. He wasn't strong on the practicalities of politics.

More Later.

1. Labour is heading for a drubbing at the General Election.

2. There is no way to avoid this via a change of leadership, for there can be no smooth change of leader in the current circumstances.

3. We, therefore, need to prepare our minds now for the dramatic situation which will emerge immediately after the General Election. Remembering that New Labour will still hold a firm majority of the remaining Labour seats.

4. In the meantime we should work via the Labour Party to try to limit the scope of the coming electoral defeat, so that democratic socialists have a base to work through for the future.

5. This requires democratic socialists to be inside the Labour Party, working to hold onto whatever they can of Labour's traditional working class support.

6. We need to press for feasible programmes which are directed to tackling unemployment, poverty and communal deprivation. This involves stressing the importance of matters which the Labour Government are already pursuing in these areas.

7. Whilst such an approach is both correct in moral and economic terms, it is also necessary in electoral terms to enable Labour to hold onto as many seats as possible. It is, therefore, a position which is also likely to have a short-term appeal to elements of New Labour.

8. The moral and economic relevance of such an approach will also have significance after the coming electoral defeat as New Labour will be on the back foot after the election, as its overall approach will be in tatters.

9. The development of further feasible proposals for democratic and social advance will be easier in the above circumstances.

10. Democratic socialists need to operate in the above ways or we will be subject to the following judgement which was made about our predecessors from the time of the 1931 slump - "Socialism explained the past and promised the future; it had nothing of consequence to offer the present". The fact that the quote comes from Robert Skidelsky, does not mean that it is an an incorrect assessment of what occurred. It is imperative that we do not repeat past failures. Although on the plus side, it must be remembered that it only took 14 years from Labour's collapse in 1931 for it to achieve the triumph of 1945 for the best Labour Government in our history. So perhaps I can look forward to my 87th birthday.

For further debate on these matters see "Dronfield Blather".

Dugsie's comments welcome.

1. Labour is heading for a drubbing at the General Election.

2. There is no way to avoid this via a change of leadership, for there can be no smooth change of leader in the current circumstances.

3. We, therefore, need to prepare our minds now for the dramatic situation which will emerge immediately after the General Election. Remembering that New Labour will still hold a firm majority of the remaining Labour seats.

4. In the meantime we should work via the Labour Party to try to limit the scope of the coming electoral defeat, so that democratic socialists have a base to work through for the future.

5. This requires democratic socialists to be inside the Labour Party, working to hold onto whatever they can of Labour's traditional working class support.

6. We need to press for feasible programmes which are directed to tackling unemployment, poverty and communal deprivation. This involves stressing the importance of matters which the Labour Government are already pursuing in these areas.

7. Whilst such an approach is both correct in moral and economic terms, it is also necessary in electoral terms to enable Labour to hold onto as many seats as possible. It is, therefore, a position which is also likely to have a short-term appeal to elements of New Labour.

8. The moral and economic relevance of such an approach will also have significance after the coming electoral defeat as New Labour will be on the back foot after the election, as its overall approach will be in tatters.

9. The development of further feasible proposals for democratic and social advance will be easier in the above circumstances.

10. Democratic socialists need to operate in the above ways or we will be subject to the following judgement which was made about our predecessors from the time of the 1931 slump - "Socialism explained the past and promised the future; it had nothing of consequence to offer the present". The fact that the quote comes from Robert Skidelsky, does not mean that it is an an incorrect assessment of what occurred. It is imperative that we do not repeat past failures. Although on the plus side, it must be remembered that it only took 14 years from Labour's collapse in 1931 for it to achieve the triumph of 1945 for the best Labour Government in our history. So perhaps I can look forward to my 87th birthday.

What kind of Blairism is being talked of here?
What does 'early Blair' mean?
Is that the same as 'Blairism in one country'?

Rest of previous post:

* Opposition to big business (votes that express the view that continued expansion of our economy and it's bias towards larger and larger businesses is not sustainable, nor is it in the interest of the general population): Cruddas 38% Webb 100%

************************************************************
* Trident replacement: Cruddas 0% Webb 0%
* Oppose legal recognition for transsexuals: Cruddas 26% Webb 50%
* Equal rights temporary/agency workers: Cruddas 100%
* Preventing termination of pregnancy: Cruddas 0%
* Right to strike: Cruddas 100% Webb 0%
* Privatise prisons: Cruddas 0% Webb 0%
* Keep recreational drugs illegal: Cruddas 15%
* Equal gay rights: Cruddas 100% Webb 69%
* Ban fox hunting: Cruddas 100% Webb 100%
* Strengthen freedom of information: Webb 90%

I am gratified by the opinion of many of you that I can play a useful role by fighting on. The trouble may be that I dont see the problems mainly one of POLICY, IDEOLOGY,POLITICAL DIRECTION, but instead a problem of AUTHENTICITY. Even when the going has been better, I would not have regarded Compass as my intellectual reference point about matters like the meaning of social democracy. There are many other and better sources. For me, the interest in Compass has been whether it can play a useful role in winning back my party that was raped by Tony Blair and his coterie and turned into a grotesque parody.

Now, for me, that is on the line. I no longer know whether Compass is fighting to get my party back, or fighting to keep a gentile version of Blairism in charge. I know there is a great deal of bluff and deception taking place in efforts to save New Labour from decimation, and wherever I look I am seeing things that are not authentic. That doesnt surprise me...after all, politics is the art of lying, and all parties do it. I have simply been struggling to make sense of my own personal role. I think I am not bad as a bullshit detector, but I dont know whether people really want or need that.

Dugsie has put his finger on my problem. My mind can think of a few possible interpretations regarding the announced Compass lecture event on the Future of Social Democracy. One interpretation is that this is a genuine quest to find practical ways in which social democracy can be promoted in Britain the current global and domestic political environment. So how do I judge whether or not that is authentic ? The format is to have a main speaker and three respondents. The main speaker would presumably be a recognised expert both academically and through his/her practical achievements in promoting social democracy, a person who comes with authority and recognition (and hopefully will live up to that reputation). The same would be true presumably of the respondents, selected not only for their academic and/or practical reputation, but also to represent the known spectrum of views on this topic.

It is so very tempting for me to give my candid views regarding how those selected meet the criteria for selection I have stated. You already know what I would say and many would agree with me. So I will desist and hope at least some of you will enjoy the humour and irony of the unspoken thoughts.

Another way in which my maybe nasty mind sees this event is part of a Jon, Polly, and James roadshow.. a theatrical happening aimed at promoting the stars. Politically its an effort to grant them respectability as leaders in what Guardian is now calling "The New Politics", and establishing their "left" credentials. Its also an effort to create a home for ex-Blairites where no one talks about Blairism any longer, where one can claim that one was never involved in all the bad things that happened, and where no personal apologies are necessary. In this scenario, we can expect other Blairites to become ex-Blairites, and find a home. How do I know this ? How do I know its not just my paranoid and rather flamboyent imagination speaking to me ? I know because Jon Cruddas told us.

He claimed that talk about Blairism, left, right, no longer made any sense. It was now simply a matter of inventing a new language, new narratives. And when you probe, even gently, for Cruddas, the quest is not an alternative to Blairism. It is a return to the authentic early Tony Blair before something went wrong (ie before people discovered what Blairism was all about). To prove this is not my nasty mind, here are two recent quotes from Cruddas:

“See I was never into scientific socialism. I was quite interested in Blair’s communitarianism. Early Blair. [...] A lot of the debate around the Labour Party’s future in the coming years will be about reinstating aspects of Blairism. Blair lost the language and the ethical dimension, but there was quite a rich texture to the early Blair.”

“Above all, the party needs a new language about our purpose. So try this, from 1995: 'A nation for all the people, built by the people, where old divisions are cast out. A new spirit in the nation based on working together, unity, solidarity, partnership. That is the patriotism of the future. Where your child in distress is my child, your parent ill and in pain is my parent, your friend unemployed or homeless is my friend, your neighbour my neighbour. That is the true patriotism of a nation.' That was Tony Blair, who had it – but lost it. Now, before it’s too late, we need to rediscover that kind of Labour politics.”

"The Labour Right has a noble history – as a source of reliability, honesty and dependability for the leadership. It has usually understood changing times. But a rogue element has developed since the departure of Tony Blair. Their personal attacks, anonymous briefings and confused diagnoses are symptomatic of an inability – or simple refusal – to grasp the end of an era. With echoes of current events in the Vatican, the Doctrine of Market Infallibility is collapsing: as Blair used to say, 'we should leave the past to those who live in it'."

So when I say that the "NEW" politics is old Blairism, am I exaggerating ? Social democracy is an issue of interest and concern for the entire left spectrum of British and European politics. And that spectrum is huge. Even among us here, it stretches from Frances to Paul Mc, and they are all on the left. How would you characterise the spectrum represented by Cruddas, Purnell, and Tonybee, who will be responsible for exploring for us the relevance and future of social democracy in Britain ? I would suggest it is the smallest spectrum conceivable, and none of it is what I recognise as "LEFT".

The presence of Steve Webb is quite ironic. I am going to post data from Public Whip. Please tell me what you think it tells us in general, and about the value, nature and intention of the forthcoming Compass lecture

Jon Cruddas and James Purnell have voted identically 96.6% of the time.

Jon Cruddas (presumably Compass' left-winger in the publicised event, in the way he was promoted in the debate with Blond) voted with Steve Webb 22.9% of the time.

Compare the strength of votes in favour (where data missing, that means the person was absent for votes):

* Welcomes American imperialist hegemony: Cruddas 100% Webb 0%
* Limiting civil aviation pollution: Cruddas 0% Webb 98%
* Strengthening climate change measures: Cruddas 50% Webb 100%
* Control orders: Cruddas 89% Webb 0%
* Foundation hospitals: Cruddas 100% Webb 20%
* Lisbon treaty referendum: Cruddas 8% Webb 100%
* In favour of ID Cards: Cruddas 92% Webb 4%
* Abolition of 10% tax bracket: Cruddas 69% Webb 0%
* Suspects inncocent until proven guilty: Cruddas 1% Webb 100%
* No detention without charge or trial: Cruddas 0% Webb 100%
* In favour of Iraq invasion: Cruddas 99% Webb 99%
* Investigation into Iraq invasion: Cruddas 1% Webb 99%
* Jury trials sacrosanct: Cruddas 1% Webb 100%
* Easier detention and forced treatment of mental health victims: Cruddas 86% Webb 0%
* Promotion of nuclear power: Cruddas 94% Webb 0%
* Reduce parliamentary scrutiny: Cruddas 99% Webb 1%
* Bail-outs for pension scheme collapses: Cruddas 33% Webb 67%
* Gvt policy on post office closures: Cruddas 99% Webb 2%
* Pro-human rights, pro-democracy: Votes in favor of greater personal freedom, fewer economic regulations, lower taxes, and less intervention overseas: Cruddas 12% Webb 97%
* Unrestricted right to protest near parliament: Cruddas 30% Webb 99%
* Pro-Liberty: Human rights are inalienable, and held by everyone including those suspected of crimes: Cruddas 12% Webb 74%
* Terrorism Laws: Cruddas 94% Webb 0%
* Transparency of parliament: Cruddas 58% Webb 58%
* Renationalization of public services: Cruddas 11% Webb 100%
* Opposition to big business (votes that express the view that cont

I completely agree with you SG - and I think that we have reached very similar conclusions on how to reclaim the State back from the murky Private-Government conspiracy that enriches only the very few at the exspense of the majority.

Those contracts have no moral authority whatosver and any Party that proposed to make them null and void would receive overwhelming support from the electorate (if not from the newspapers and the internets sites they read...)

I too wonder why John Harris' excellent article hasn't been put up for debate here - rather than the far less relevant and interesting ones we're getting. I would far rather see John discuss social democracy than any of the ones who are going - but even more I would like to see someone like Mick Hall who has yet again made an excellent post on his blog Organized Rage - here's an excerpt he put on Red Pepper today:

'WEDNESDAY, 29 JULY 2009

Andrew Mackinlay MP resigns: A man who was loyal to a Labour Party that no longer existed.


I read with interest that Andrew Mackinlay, the Labour MP who has represented Thurrock since 1992 is to stand down at the next general election. According to the London Times Mackinlay said he has become “disillusioned with Parliament and the final straw that led to his resignation was the failure of the Westminster parliament to block the controversial extradition to the USA of Scottish computer hacker, Gary McKinnon,” who in 2001-2002 hacked into US military and NASA computers in search of unidentified flying objects.

The 60-year-old MP for Thurrock, which is situated along the Thames Rim, believes the “rights and liberties of the public is currently being undermined by the dominance of the party whips.” He was apparently one of only ten Labour MPs to vote in favor of a review of the current extradition agreement between the UK and US, despite 74 MP's publicly backing the motion.

I know Mackinlay quiet well as he was once my local MP and whilst a periphery of issues may have played a role in his “disillusioned with Parliament” I doubt it had anything to do with the dominance of the party whips, who in modern times have always attempted to rule their MPs with an iron hand.'

"John Harris who has links with Compass writes in the Guardian today pointing out the obvious - privitisation is goin gto increase in the next few years (whoever is in charge - because 'UK democracy isn't working')"

I read the same article, Jon, and it struck me that it would provide the basis of a very useful policy debate in that it implies that there are two very practical questions whiich call out for consideration: first, "how do we eliminate the ground of contractual, or indeed, any other form of commercial confidentiality the better that electors and their representatives call best bring service providers to account?"; and second, "how can we best acheive value by reversing the privatisation of public services at least cost to the taxpayer and consumer?"

Given the fact that a parliament cannot bind suceeding parliaments, plus the German Federal Constitutional Court's position on European Treaties and Directives, it strikes me that it's not beyond the bounds of a competent lawyer's imagination for parliament to resile from contracts made by a previous government on the reasonable grounds of the inappropriateness of contractual confidentiality in the provision of public services funded by the taxpayer, and/or corrupt influence (which is why God invented lobbyists for us to blame), and/or restrictions on trade and the need to limit monopoly in the provision of public services.

For instance, John Harris uses the example of Serco, whose great skill is obtaining a broad range of public service contracts whilst being much less skilled in delivery. What obstacles would need to be removed to take back all these contracts and return them to the public sector? What are the issues involved in nationalising the firm and then, on the basis of the subsiduarity principle, breaking up Serco so that these contracts can be managed directly by the appropriate level of government in the locality affected?

Just a thought, but John Harris has produced a very thought provoking article. Wonder if Compass will post it?

I agree with dUGSIE
An unequivocal explanaationis required about the precise relationship between PUrnelll Cruddas and Compass.
New Labour must be given a decent burial. THere is no point in pursuing the goal of New Labour witha different leader.

As usual, Lee causes us all to pause and think.

As I have said, I think that a re-launch of an authentic social democratic project is very timely. I have also warned that after an election defeat by the Tories, New Labour would attempt to relaunch its pernicious project, possibly in the name of social democracy.

So what is the nature of the Compass social democratic project, given the ambiguity associated with this organisation ? The lecture will be given by Dr Jon Cruddas. The main characteristic of Jon Cruddas is that there is a big difference between what he says and what he does. His parliamentary voting record suggests a very significant degree of support for New Labour, whatever he says. One of the key responders to the lecture is James Purnell MP, friend of Dr Jon and much heralded think tanker. He is, in certain quarters, infamous for his ministerial introduction of the Social Reform Bill. Lee is correct to question the significance of his involvement. There are other participants, of course, but these are the salient ones for me.

So, I think that we are entitled to call upon Compass to please explain its intentions, not just to those who post here, but to the wider world.

One of the many things that irritates me every time Brown speaks is the way he says that the Tories did nothing about unemployment during the last recession. I worked at the Department of Employment then and we had YOPs schemes and training schemes and work experience schemes all over the place.

They aren't real jobs because you don't get paid real money. The providers do but you don't. They keep you doing something until things pick up. Sometimes you learn things, mainly how to collude with the provider who is getting a salary for clocking you in and out and making up things for you to do. I'm not saying they are a bad thing but this is not a new idea. The difference now they have the WR Bill is it will be compulsory bootcamp and lots of real paid jobs for Indus Delta contractors inventing and managing the schemes. You could look at them as providing jobs for bootcamp professionals and all sorts of other people running the schemes.

Last time round people were enthusiastic at first but when it got to the point that they had been on three schemes and were no nearer getting a job thye were learning counter productive messages like this is a waste of time.

My main objection is that Brown keeps saying the Tories did nothing last time round when they actually invented youth bootcamp.




1bn fund to help the young find jobs
Peter Walker The Guardian, Wednesday 29 July 2009

A £1bn government scheme to create jobs and work experience for unemployed young people is being launched today, with ministers saying it will ensure the country does not "lose a generation" to joblessness caused by the recession.

The future jobs fund is aimed at creating tens of thousands of jobs in sectors such as social care, education, tourism and sport. It also aims to create around 10,000 internships and work placement opportunities for 18 to 21-year-olds who have not been to university, as well as job clubs and a mentoring network.

The fund was announced by Alistair Darling in April's budget. Around £100m of the money was later earmarked to help businesses specifically tackling social or environmental issues to create jobs.

Among the measures launching this week is a website promoting 2,000 internships available to graduates, with another 4,000 to be advertised in the coming weeks.

"We are determined not to lose a generation of talent because of the recession," the work and pensions secretary, Yvette Cooper said. "Many young people were denied the help they needed in the recessions of the 80s and 90s, ending up out of work for months and years. Too many never got a start in the jobs market."

The fund would create 47,000 jobs, Cooper said. When the scheme was first announced, her department said its eventual aim was to bring 150,000 unemployed young people into work.

Young people's job prospects have been hit particularly hard by the downturn. Figures released in June showed there were 900,000 people aged 18-24 out of work, a rate of 16.6%, the highest for 15 years. This is expected to rise further as thousands of people leave schools, colleges and universities.

The future jobs fund is aimed mainly at those aged 18-24 who have been without work for a year or more. Organisations and companies can bid for funding, set at a maximum of £6,500 per person, to help create jobs lasting at least six months which can both be set up quickly and will improve local communities.

The Conservatives have criticised the plans as insufficient given the current scale of youth unemployment. John Wright, chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, said the majority of his members would like to take on young trainees but tended to be put off by "the administration involved and the lack of financial support".

Lee, I'm flattered that you should ask for my opinion.

I think without a doubt that despite your misgivings you should stay and educate the rest of us on the workings of Neo-liberalism. I have a view of what Compass is for but refrain from posting as it might upset the host providers. At least on this siite we are of a similar mindset, the comments on CiF for example to the piece by John Harris are depressing.

On a general note we have been lucky that very few 'spoofing' incidents have occurred so far but I tend to agree that we should register then at least I posting details are remembered each time (we have all done it I know).

I look forward to more enlightenment from yourself Lee and of course all the others like Frances and SG.

John Harris who has links with Compass writes in the Guardian today pointing out the obvious - privitisation is goin gto increase in the next few years (whoever is in charge - because 'UK democracy isn't working')
and he finishes with this point:

'Here, anyway, is what increasingly seems to be the future: slick corporate logos flashing from prisons, hospitals, schools, detention centres, defence facilities, police stations and more, and a cut-price society pitched somewhere between Margaret Thatcher and Philip K Dick. Real-life dystopias, let us not forget, tend to arrive by stealth; whatever the political fashion, we need to start talking about all this again – and fast.'

He doesn't metion Purnell or Cruddas - but presumably he thinks they're not part of the solution - and seeing their voting record shows which side of the chasm in our society they are on - those who serve and vote for the Corporatist State.

Can someone from compass please address
the question why James Purnell has been invited to attend and respond to the above debate. This is an insult to the intelligence of
most of the membership and contributers to this site. If there is a genuine attempt to undermine Purnell and publicly show him as the right winger that he really is, then fine.
If not then i'm afraid compass has shot itself in the foot and will only add to the despair and frustration of the left at the moment.
In addition calls have been made constantly here to widen the debate by inviting others to
contribute. Surely John McDonnell should have been invited to attend this, as he has forgotten more about the labour movement
than Purnell will ever know.
Finally hopefully a mental health charity will challenge the welfare reform bill through the courts. Compass should support such a challenge if it happens, and then credibility might just come back into play. Sorry to see you go Lee, but totally understand why!

Lee,did you see the Newsnight interview with Neal last night?
Some points he made arising from a debate on local candidate
selection by primaries seemed unusual.Endorsement of Margaret
Thatcher as the last conviction political PM was interesting,but
maybe more for what it conveyed about his present mind set
than her historical ideology.
As your mob lawyer I advise you not to cease in mental fight
until the philosopher king is stripped of his purple robes and
his tinsel crown cast on a thorn bush.
Perhaps you should get a second opinion from Glen Fiddich
on a case by case basis?

'Everyone with 'influence' in the country seem to know which way the wind is blowing'

Lord Mandelson announced it this morning (it isn't even his turn, Harriet is supposed to be in charge)

Lord Mandelson - who I think could fairly be described as a man with influence - said that Labour is now the underdog. I think he imagines that the British sense of fair play will now pile in on the side of the poor little puppy.

If you want to be the underdog then it's not a good idea to keep puffing round knowing everything and bullying everyone - especially the most vulnerable - not the underdog image at all.

I don't know why this discussion about leaving is going on but it can't happen.

If this government is going to start bringing US style welfare policies in then Lee has to be here to explain the paradigm behind them to us because they are very alien to us. Everyone in the UK is sittiing here like the people behind the Berlin wall thinking that US means rich and that means lovely.

There are never two perspectives exactly the same on here and that's why everyone is so important. It's not easy being a leading progressive but someone has to do it.

Contrast with NewLabour brainless on message and realise why this forum matters and they don't.

Dear Sir,

I would like Lee and others to carry on postings here. Lee has taught me a lot about how things work in the world of New Labour.

Paul

Lee, I hope you don't think the comment below by Adrian (on 28 July 2009, 4:48:19 PM) is in any way connected to me. I can assure you it is a different person entirely.

This is one of the reasons I wish Compass would require forum users to register and login as they do on Labourhome. Otherwise there is the possibility of people being confused by duplicate identities and names (as here) or, more worryingly, of being the victim of deliberate impersonation. The forum could still be open to all including non-members of Compass and the debate could still be made visible to the general public. But I think we all have a right to be able to define ourselves uniquely without this confusion, otherwise debate becomes like shadow-boxing, our reputations become vulnerable, and our political opinions become corrupted by those of others (however innocently).

Perhaps I should be addressing this concern to Neal and Zoe?

Everyone with 'influence' in the country seem to know which way the wind is blowing as today's Independent has today:

'Britain's top accountancy firms are channelling resources and staff worth hundreds of thousands of pounds into the Conservative Party ahead of an anticipated Tory government after the general election.

Analysis by The Independent has revealed that leading companies including PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and KPMG, have given the Tories nearly £500,000 since the start of last year as they attempt to build ties with the party that has a double-digit lead in the polls.

The firms involved already hold government contracts worth millions of pounds between them. More consultancy contracts would be on offer for auditors and consultants as the party would be forced to grapple with making vast savings across the public sector should it form the next government.'

The Corporatist Workfare State isn't going to listen to polite Social Democrats - it has gone way too far to the right for that and we know how Cruddas, Toynbee and Purnell have all played their part in this creating this authoritarian regime.

By Lee ….””I cannot stay here without speaking out and saying candidly what I think.””

I would suggest you stay Lee.
Whether what you say is good/bad/indifferent,the fact remains you have a right to say it.Also on a personal level, I learn as much from your posts as I do many others on here, for that alone you need stay :P

“””This is a turning point, and you are all going to be making your own decisions”””

I know with the above you mean people will be deciding about Compass but in actual fact Lee,many of us hit a turning point a long time ago.We have lost faith,trust and confidence in all of the parties and yet we cannot give up trying to help those who are unable to do it for themselves.

If Compass want to invite Purnell,that is their right and to be honest maybe it is needed, as hopefully once and for all you will learn just exactly what, if anything is afoot, with Cruddas/Purnell/Compass/ whoever……

After listening to the news tonight I have to be honest, and say just now the only feeling I have for this govt is disgust.The book for the expenses wherein receipts are not needed at times is a slap in the face to every tax payer in the country.And to think these are the people who hold the power to impose sanctions on some of the poorest of society.

It is individuals like you Lee, and others on here, who want the ‘Good Society’ that Compass mentions.Until more people have less of the “ I’m alright Jack” attitude and actually stand up,raise their voice when they see injustice,we as a country will be getting more of the same and then, even worse when the Tories come to power.

We all have a responsibility, not just to ourselves but to those around us to try bring about a positive change. A start would be the abolition of the Welfare Reform Bill, next would be moves to stop private companies making obsecene profits from OUR money,money that should be ploughed back in to services.

I apologise to Compass for going off topic a bit but to me, in a way, they are all valid points.

Hopefully I will still be reading posts from you tomorrow Lee.

Night x



.

Lee and anyone who is interested.

You've got to channel your understandable rage into something creative - because leaving in anger won't do anyone any good! And remember while your intelligence may be belong insulted - it won't be you directly who is going you (or me) who pays the most for the inadequacies of the left in general - it will be those around and below the poverty line.

And when these people realise that the MPs have gone back on their word again (all see 28 July Telegraph particularly the editorial about the betrayal by all three parties) and will now be able to claim twice as much in expenses WITHOUT having to show any receipts - but that the poorest will be the ones who will suffer the full weight of the cuts (whoever wins the ‘election’) there will be even deeper and more widespread anger.

Parliament collectively (there are some exceptions but not enough) holds the people in contempt and they will pay the price. Their arrogance and ability to be so out of touch - at a time when communication has never so efficient and easy is staggering!

The next decade may well see the most widespread social upheaval since the mid 1980s when Thatcher assaulted the Unions etc. Most of the poorest people don’t vote mow and they haven’t heard of Compass – let alone Social Democracy!

What these people really need are those principled enough to stand up for them - in any way possible – and you have a lot to give. There is always Red Pepper debates (and I’m glad to see the return there of the great Dugsie tonight!) but when all those self important but irrelevant ‘narratives’ are put forward here – someone has to give an example of independent thought – and demonstrate that there has to be practical suggestions – because you never know who might be reading.

At a time when the Corporatist State is almost a fait accompli – it is definitely time to stay awake and not just cede all the internet space to the vested interests.

My question to Jon Cruddas would be: since social democracy failed last time (mid 70s Keynes’ paradigm to balance inflation and employment was completely derailed BEFORE the market fundamentalists ripped it apart). We had stagflation and slumpflation for reasons – even if we can’t describe them – (even the economists with their two broken models inherited from Keynes and Hayek/Friedman) so just hoping to return to say 1969 – is not only absurd but also misguided.

So my general point to Jonathon H and Stan R who I respect because they insist (with me at least) on constructive debate – if the State Top down model has been largely discredited (and surely too much of this is an appropriate criticism of New Labour) and the post war consensus was derailed for economic reasons – what possible worth do they think there will be in Jon Cruddas in raking over the ashes of the economic war before the last one?

Lee: It is true that Compass loves to associate itself with well known public personalities, almost regardless of their political views. Purnell, however, has just been invited as a 'key figure' to respond to the lecture from Cruddas. I don't think that this implies any particular endorsement. On another piece, Neal Lawson criticises Purnell for suggesting that the market is better at making decisions than the democratic process. Frances has been awarded the title of 'leading progressive' along with Rosemary, another friend from the world of carers. I have heard a whisper that you, yourself, are about to be awarded a title by Compass, that of 'profound pain in the arse'. So please, remain here to receive the award you so richly deserve. Do not desert us, we need you.

"With the announcement that Compass is now openly promoting James Purnell, I honestly dont know what I am doing here any longer."

I think you will end up discovering that he's in the process of being fingered in the dual role of the thinking person's non-thinking person and as the non-thinking person's thinking person. Suits him down to the ground. On a purely intellectual level, let alone a moral level, putting Purnell in charge of the Demos Open Left project is a brilliant attempt to subvert whatever little remains in the dripping wet ashes of the New Labour/Neo-Con "project" and, more colloquially, as not a little unlike leaving Herod as childminder when you need a relaxing evening out. All part of the pageant of life. And the Left will define itself, as it has so far, as being what Purnell is not. Betcha!

Time to go. The Wire's just beginning and I'm an addict!

I need help from my friends here on this site, especially Dugsie, Jon T, Paul Mc, SG, Frances, Ian, Paul H, Robert:

With the announcement that Compass is now openly promoting James Purnell, I honestly dont know what I am doing here any longer. I feel like s Cassandra. I have been predicting this for weeks, while still somehow fighting against fully accepting what Paul Mc has always said. I admire his strength of conviction.

In the past, I would not have hesitated. I have in the past, left organizations that went pear-shaped, and I am pleased to say my judgment has never once been wrong. The only reasons why I have not immediately left from here is because you have become important people in my life. I also feel we have been so badly deceived that somehow I want to stay and fight.

So what do you think I should do ? I know that Neal Lawson, with whom I have had a good relationship in the past, would love to see me leave. I am a nuisance and maybe even more. I cannot stay here without speaking out and saying candidly what I think. I just dont know whether that would be self-indulgence, and simply get under everyone's skin. And who knows, if I stay and speak out, I am sure it will be only a matter of time before Neal boots me out.

This is a turning point, and you are all going to be making your own decisions. Maybe some of you dont see this as a turning point at all (I can imagine Paul Mc muttering "business as usual"..I am sure this has not turned a hair on what I hope is his finely coiffed head). But for me, for Compass to place the author of the Welfare Reform Bill on the platform, is a significant, albeit not unexpected turning point.

I am really not conceited enough to think my departure will make any difference. It is I who find it difficult to leave you. So I hope that I have been fully open and candid as to where I stand, and I am looking for some kind of mandate from all of you. I hope you believe me when I say I am not asking you to beg me to stay...that would be a dirty trick. I just want direct, candid advice.

'Frances: I dont think you understand what cuckoos are. They will vote for everything that sounds progressive or seems to capture the mood'

But not against specific policy proposals currently going in to law. Not if they are cabinet ministers.

What I am suggesting is concrete. It's an amendment to a bill in the report stage in Lords. It is practicable and humane. If cabinet ministers indicate that they support putting protection on the very sick then they can be held to it. Then it becomes the law or at the very least the DWP Minister has to make a statement why not. They can't vote for it in public with the press watching however humane and sensible it is. It will be quoted back to them for ever.

Anyone can talk in generalities. But specific policy proposals that become law are a different matter.

And Frances you will have a chance to meet James in person

Dear Sir,

New Labour, bought everyone, infiltrated every organisation and put their creatures at the top. Consultants, GP's, Nurses, NHS managers, Trade Unions, Judiciary, Civil Servants, Quangos, and others. , ANYONE THAT ROCKS THE BOAT IS DISCREDITED BY THE LIZARDS AND CUCKOOS OF NEW LABOUR AND ITS MANY CRONIES.

David Icke was right all along.

Paul