frances,better Don Quixote than don't care,I suppose.
Though these days Sancho Panza may be a better mentor.
In the olive gardens of Valencia Sane is a byword for
chivalry and sage counsel.I will avoid smugness and
embrace only poetic conceits!

Thanks for the Christmas gift Lee. Something to meditate upon on 25th.

"Be careful smugness and conceit when it is clear that they people they have wiped the floor with are you."
Obviously lost in translation, the first sign of smugness and conceit! Try some expletives it may help.

Be careful smugness and conceit when it is clear it is your age.

Be careful smugness and conceit when it is clear that they people they have wiped the floor with are you.

Be careful smugness and conceit when failure to handle decent points is dressed up as superiority.

Be careful smugness and conceit when wetness can drown all vitality.

You are to be wished well, but careful smugness and conceit.

frances,have forged a new identity as an agitator in Catral.
Using the media,FOE,university lecturers and town hall petitions.
Am also your poster boy~Bread + Roses!

Lewis, you take care now. The Spanish town hall mafia can make Tammany Hall look like a play group.

frances,have forged a new identity as an agitator in Catral.
Using the media,FOE,university lecturers and town hall petitions.
Am also your poster boy~Bread + Roses!

It seems to me the one off tax on bounus payments in the finacial sector seems at first sight a good idea, but I'm sure the bankers will find a route to get round the tax payments by stagering the payments and putting shares into there pensions.
All the banks which have been bailed out by the British tax payer should come under the control of an independant bankinking authority to oversea such things as wages, investments and if deserved bounus payments, based on a sucess in the type of bussiness it brings to the bank over a longer space of time than the present end of year payment.
Lets not forget it was the banking sector that has taken every major industrial nation to the brink of collapse, with many in those populations losing ther livleyhoods and cousing misery to millons of pepole around the world and yet the bankers still cry about there bounus, they still don't seem to get it that there faliures mean that they aren't entiteled to one.

This is a Christmas Gift For Paul. It is one of the best critiques I have read about Obama's neo-liberal effort to save capitalism. I will be interested in reactions.
***************************************************************

To Save the Capitalist System
Reflections on Orin Kramer's understanding of Barack Obama's duty to America
December 2009 By Paul Street
printer friendly version Street's ZSpace page


Here are 50 fascinating words from a leading member of the U.S. financial aristocracy and political class, captured and reproduced in a front-page article in the New York Times on October 20: "There is some failure in the finance industry to appreciate the level of public antagonism towards whatever Wall Street symbolizes. But in order to save the capitalist system, the administration has to be responsive to the public mood, and that is a nuance which can get lost on Wall Street."

The speaker of these words was Orin Kramer, a partner in a leading Wall Street investment firm. Kramer served as a co-chair of a Democratic Party fundraising dinner at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in New York. The dinner was held for 200 donors, each of whom paid the legal maximum of $30,400 a couple. The dinner was attended and addressed by no less a Democrat than President Obama.

Kramer, 64, "helps manage" the hedge fund Boston Provident, LP. A graduate of Yale and Columbia Law who once worked as a staffer in the Jimmy Carter administration, he is what the liberal weekly New York Observer last year called "an undisputed leader among [the] ancient, wealthy, largely Manhattan-based species of political fundraiser." He is "well known in government and donor circles for his gruff, sardonic manner" and was "the most established of Barack Obama's early supporters in the mega-bundler community" (Jason Horowitz, "Orin Kramer: King of the Obamasaurs," August 5, 2008, www .observer.com). Kramer's words were in response to Times reporter David Kirkpatrick's query as to why Wall Street financial giants like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and Citigroup were sending only six representatives (with a total contribution of "just" $91,200) to the posh gathering (D. Kirkpatrick, "Financial Giants Donating Little to Obama Party," October 20, 2009).

According to a Wall Street lobbyist interviewed by Kirkpatrick, the low attendance reflected top Wall Streeters' "growing disenchantment with Mr. Obama over the angry language emanating from the White House over million-dollar bonuses and anti-regulatory lobbying." Dr. Daniel E. Fass, another co-chair of the fundraiser, lives "surrounded by financiers" in Greenwich, Connecticut. He told the Times that, "The investment community feels very put-upon. They feel there is no reason why they shouldn't earn $1 million to $200 million a year and they don't want to be held responsible for the global financial meltdown" (Kirkpatrick, "Financial Giants").

This attitude struck Kramer as short-sighted. The profit system's smarter defenders grasp the need to demonstrate openness to the worries and anger of the populace, he told Kirpatrick. To keep the business order intact, Kramer was saying, Obama needed to occasionally rebuke (and perhaps even mildly half-"regulate") the nation's financial overlords.



Is Capitalism in Danger?


Is capitalism really in danger? Kramer's comment might sound unduly paranoid in light of the relative absence of any meaningful revolutionary anti-capitalist movement in the United States and the system's recurrent success in overcoming its inherent cycles of boom and bust. Still, according to the leading global investment analyst, entrepreneur, and economic commentator Marc Faber in September, the current crisis of the hyper-leveraged, debt-finance western profits system is no passing phase. Faber, no leftist, said that the future "will be a total disaster, with a collapse of our capitalistic system as we know it today, wars, massive government debt defaults and the impoverishment of large segments of Western society" (Marc Faber, "Capitalistic System Will Collapse" Huffington Post, September 25, 2009).

Whatever the accuracy of Faber's prediction, majority public attitudes about that system have certainly been pushed leftward since the epic financial meltdown of September-October 2008. As giant financial bailouts have exposed the chasm between the investor and political classes on one hand and the increasingly destitute citizenry on the other, liberal journalist William Greider has noted that, "People everywhere learned a blunt lesson about power, who has it and who doesn't. They watched Washington run to rescue the very financial interests that caused the catastrophe. They learned that government has plenty of money to spend when the right people want it. 'Where's my bailout,' became the rueful punch line at lunch counters and construction sites nationwide" (William Greider "Obama Asked Us to Speak, But is He Listening?" Washington Post, March 22, 2009).

Last April, the national polling firm Rasmussen Reports asked 1,000 randomly selected American adults: Which is better, capitalism or socialism? Only 53 percent picked the profits system. Among younger adults (18- to 29-year-olds), just 37 percent preferred capitalism, 33 percent socialism, and 30 percent were undecided (Rasmussen Reports, April 9, 2009). These were remarkable results considering decades of ongoing Red Scare propaganda in this country.

Seven months later, millions of Americans had attended Michael Moore's documentary Capitalism: A Love Story, released in early October. "Capitalism," Moore proclaims near the end of his movie, "is evil and you can't regulate evil." Maybe Orin Kramer has reason to worry for the life of his cherished profit system.



Whatever Wall Street Symbolizes


On the same day that the Times quoted Kramer and Dr. Fass, Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote of his shock at "another orgy (with taxpayers as the enablers) of bonuses" inflicted while a rising sea of Americans struggled to keep jobs and homes and their health coverage. "Even as tens of millions of working Americans are struggling to hang onto their jobs and keep a roof over their families' heads," Herbert noted, "the wise guys of Wall Street are licking their fat-cat chops over yet another round of obscene multibillion-dollar bonuses—this time thanks to the bailout billions that were sent their way by Uncle Sam, with very little in the way of strings attached.... Goldman Sachs is thriving while the combined rates of unemployment and underemployment are creeping toward a mind-boggling 20 percent...." Herbert was struck by a sense of "deja voodoo" as he recalled a column he wrote on the same topic—Wall Street big shots "harvesting a record crop of bonuses" and "ordering up record shipments of Champagne and caviar" while working families struggled to survive—three days before Christmas in 2007 (Bob Herbert, "Safety Nets For the Rich," New York Times, October 20, 2009).

The financial giants' relative no-show at the New York fundraiser did in fact demonstrate "responsiveness to the public mood." As Wall Street told Kirkpatrick, giant firms feared "getting caught in public rage over the perception that Wall Street titans profiting from their government bailout may use their winnings to give back to Washington in return" ("Financial Giants"). Going to the event would have provided an all-too public window on the close-knit alliance and revolving door quid pro quos that exist between concentrated wealth and the political class under America's "unelected dictatorship of money," which "vets the nominees of the Republican and Democratic parties, reducing the options available to U.S. citizens to two candidates, neither of whom can change the foreign or domestic priorities of the imperial U.S. regime" (Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, "Riding the 'Green Wave'," Electric Politics, July 22, 2009).



Democracy Deficit


The g

Funnily enough I thought your mistake made sense (in that some trolls are very much motivated by being threatened by others who refuse to accept their comfy world view - like adoring the masters who continually hurt them) and I didn't for a moment think about any more lurid connotations!

And Dugsie is too sharp - be rest assured that he will only subvert your meaning - when you least expect it!!

Jon, do you think that Freudian slips happen digitally. Of course I meant "kick some stupid arses." I am grateful I noticed my error before Dugsie did. He has in the past hinted at suggested shameful predelictions on my part, which I hastened to assure all and sundry have no basis in fact.

Lee - you really have put your finger on it when you write: ' You are asking people to engage in WORK, to think hard, do research, read objectively and keep the ego under strict control.'

This is exactly what I mean and this will clearly be far more taxing than anything connected with mere 'virtual self-indulgence'. Your post has also
reinforced my first impression not to be too concerned by 'wreckers' and you're not alone in warning about them. Because hard work is a minimum
requirement of the proprosal - anyone who is not prepared for this will soon be put off.

And you've very much helped me clarify the subtle form of standard, we need to measure whether contributors are genuine and working with everyone to try achieve something worthwhile. The 'tone' of their form of
communication will 'speak volumes' about their intentions!

So I think I'm right to be more concerned about the prospect of effort putting too many people off - when we consider the limits placed on us all
by time etc. But even this suggests to me that, those such as yourself
who so patently put so much care and attention into your posts online (and there are numerous examples of this but your recent work on the Copehagen thread illustrates this very well) should be getting back both more positive 'feed back' and tangible results as an end product.

Dugsie, Frances and others have been really helpful with this initiative (see for example Dugsie's points on RP) and I can't stress too much how much vital assistance you have already provided - in just a handful of posts here - cheers Lee!

Jon: you are very welcome. The main problem you will have to contend with is the expectation when people click onto the internet, that it is going to be pure fun ans entertainment, a diversion, and maybe if I go onto a forum, a way to boost my ego and lick some stupid arses. What you are proposing couldnt be more different. You are asking people to engage in WORK, to think hard, do research, read objectively and keep the ego under strict control. That is the reason I am enthusiastic about your idea...its real, in contrast to so much virtual self-indulgence that exists on the internet. There will be wreckers..and you will need to decide about how to handle them. This requires quite a bit of thinking through because in so many ways it is counter-cultural.

I forgot to add my name to my last post - and I would like to add that the RP thread is developing very well thanks to the goodwill from diverse
points on the authentic left (i.e. those who completely reject what is known as the 'neo-liberal' settlement).

Lee you made your point so well I just quoted it directly - which just underlines how collective action is the left's strongest point - which is so often neglected, which explains why the right has been calling the shots for the last three decades.

Lee - you are absolutely right about the intention of the proposed site:

'It is a much more practical endeavour...a collective and hopefully collaborative effort to craft policy and programme responses to the biggest issues of the day, especially in those areas where current policy has failed, is inappropriate, or just absent. It would go beyond opinions, although of course, opinions, experience, and research would underpin individual contributions.'

You may well be correct that I haven't got this across well enough, which would explain why some of the posters appear to think it would just repeat the 'superficial, ephemeral focus that the typical forum offers.'

Frances clearly understands the medium and long term objectives of it and she's right to point out though that in the initial stage it has to 'first build an identity' which is above all genuinely 'transparent.'

Many of the posters have realised this too - but I will reinforce this just in case.

My feeling is that the forum will first build an identity. Initially people a range people will try and take it over. All my experience is that egos abhor a vacuum and feel compelled to puff up and fill it.

Having survived the intitial roller coaster and persuaded people that this is really a transparent open forum it will stop bobbing about like a cork in the ocean the forum will have found an identity.

At that point all kinds of people will start to link to it. And the network will support the site.

Frances: even better, you can invite politicians to make contributions, so that it becomes a kind of clearinghouse of ideas for the left

So is the idea that having agreed a policy the group would set about practical active promotion of the policy?

There are a lot of new web based ways of doign this. For example you can e-mail organisations/politicians and ask them if they support a policy and publish their replies.

With all these silver tongued politicians it's important to find out where other groups stand. You seem to get quite a long way as a group and with other organisations to back you. Every thing needs to come out in to the open and be transparent.

Jon...thanks for the Red Pepper heads-up...I read the thread. I think you need to emphasise to the doubters (and I hope I understand you correctly), that you are not aiming just to have a space to record opinions and have arguments. It is a much more practical endeavour...a collective and hopefully collaborative effort to craft policy and programme responses to the biggest issues of the day, especially in those areas where current policy has failed, is inappropriate, or just absent. It would go beyond opinions, although of course, opinions, experience, and research would underpin individual contributions. It wouldnt be an attractive site for people who just want to drop in, rant, insult someone, spout off and leave. The site would try hard to set a high standard. Debate would, of course, be part of the modalities, but not debate for its own sake. The idea is a collective crafting of tangible initiatives, in line with what a think tank is meant to achieve. And, of course, the site would be unapologetically left, an effort to go beyond simply voicing left ideas, and building proposals that have practical value, that a sympathetic policy maker could pick up and do something with.

It would also be very different to the kind of superficial, ephemeral focus that the typical forum offers. The various topic threads wont vanish, but will be used as a record to build and construct towards solutions.

Jon, tell me if I understand properly

Google Red Pepper Forums and go to the General Disucssion section and you will find a thread called 'An Independent Left Think Tank' which is was started by me.

Obviously my attempt to get around the spam filter was at fault here - sorry for any inconvenience!

www[dot]forums[dot]redpepper[dot]org[dot]uk


Sorry!

The site you were looking for has not yet been configured by the owner of this site.

If you are the site owner, please use our control panel to configure your site's virtual host.

Please see this www.gradwell.net/support/virtual-hosts support article for information on how to configure your virtual host.

Please remember to input all entries into the control panel in lower case.

If you find that http[colon][double-slash]www[dot]forums[dot]redpepper[dot]org[dot]uk[slash] works, but http[colon][double-forward slash]www[dot]forums[dot]redpepper[dot]org[dot]uk[forward slash] does not, then please remember that you must create an additional website rule to enable the other virtual host.

If you have any queries, please contact support[at]gradwell[dot]net

Lee - as I make very clear on RP, all the people I would like to contribute
to the proposed forum (and of course there will be many more that I am
not aware of!) are all vastly more experienced than me - and you are no exception to this.

The point I make to and about Brigg there, is very much the same I way I think of you:

'it is your insistence on trying to clarifiying issues and raising uncomfortable ‘objections’ that I appreciate as much as your wide ranging knowledge...'

Not only do I fully agree with Frances's post - it was my involvement with Carer Watch that very much encouraged me to build on ideas about a Think Tank that first arose on a thread on RP last year.

And if anyone is interested in how the relevant thread is developing on RP then go to:

http//forums[dot]redpepper[dot]org[dot]uk/index[dot]php/topic,14120[dot]html

'The way in which things have failed in the past is the way in which future success can be defined.'

Love it. With the recent dismal history of the left Jon can only succeed.

The internet is so new. It's a very fast learning curve. CarerWatch has achieved things we could never have expected. But not at all in the way we envisaged when we started. We knew what we wanted to do but we thought we were just changing medium. But the internet is different. The opportunities are enormous, there are all kind of other people out there you can link up with. And the ways you achieve things are very different.

The secret is to clearly define what you are aiming to do and what you are not aiming to do. Argue it out, get the objectives clear, and then I think the methods and means to do whatever you want to do will appear by trial and error. For example - is it going to stay as a think tank or is it going to move on to campaigning?

We decided we were not going to do tea and sympathy. There were so many organisations already doing that. Everyone does it because it's a good way of recruiting and keeping members but we were looking for people who wanted to campaign. It's not the same thing at all. CarerWatch is only really about campaigners.

I think this think tank will be the same. It will want to achieve something quite specific and it should be set up like that and make it quite clear what it is trying to do and hopefully only people who wnat to do that will get involved.

This isn't the place to work out what the aims are but that should be the first discussion on the board. It might take a bit of time but it's worth getting it right.

If you get that straight then how to do it will be discovered on the journey.

'However to avoid any misunderstanding, Roger wrote this on a thread before Martyn clumsily reinforced the smear.'

I had forgotten about this earlier post Jon.

Passionate and interesting discussion. The thing that I least understand if why Roger should work so hard at running down Jon's forum proposal. Sure it wont be easy...sure it needs a lot of thinking through if it is to be any better than many other mediocre political chat places on the internet. Jon has never denied that. So why the hostile tone ? As Dugsie says, if you hate the idea, ignore it. Is it 100% likely to be successful ? The world just added significantly to its carbon footprint by holding Copenhagen, which will flop. Does that mean you dont even try ? I applaud Jon's resolve and will contribute in a positive way if invited. The way in which things have failed in the past is the way in which future success can be defined.

I also agree with Dugsie and Jon on the anti-semitism charge. Because of the enormous power that the term "anti-semite" carries, it is utterly unforgivable to use the term loosely and inappropriately. If it is used as a means of defending from criticism the behaviour of the existing Israeli government, or to smear critics of zionism, it is unforgiveable. I speak as someone who had family members murdered in Nazi concentration camps. Hald my family is Jewish. Anti-semitism means a hatred of Jews based on their ethnic and/or religious identity. Anti-zionism means opposition to a creed that states that based purely on their Judaic identity, Israelis have the right to occupy Palestine as God's chosen people regardless of the rights of Palestinians. To call an anti-zionist anti-semitic, is equivalent to describing an opponent of the Inquisition as anti-catholic, or an opponent of apartheid as being anti-afrikaner. It is a cheap trick and if this is what Roger did, we should apologise now, without qualification for having debased himself and for having smeared SG.

Dugsie - who I have nothing but the highest respect, wrote this below in a post for Roger - in his usual geneorus spirit:

'It isn't fair or honourable to make an accusation as serious as this and then run away. Not that you made it, but did you support it ?'

However to avoid any misunderstanding, Roger wrote this on a thread before Martyn clumsily reinforced the smear:

'Posted by Roger (East Sussex)
on 12 September 2009, 12:05:47 PM
Salfordgal seems incapable of letting a single post here go by without venting her hatred of Israel and those she sees as its supporters.

Of course the key here is her deliberate linking of the Jews and their state with the 'financial power, regardless of from whence it comes' (now where have I heard that sort of language before?) to which our government 'grovels'.

Perhaps being a 'zionist sympathiser' my anti-semitic radar may be a little more finely tuned than other regular commentators here - but add this to her views on holocaust denial (apparently those of us who worry about it are zionists demonising opponents of Israel) and her decidedly non-Liberal Democrat views on the EU and immigration and I do wonder why she insists on spending so much time here when there are other forums she might find more congenial.

In any case the one thing one should never do to internet trolls is feed them - So I'll be ignoring all future comments from SG on any subject and hope that we can somehow get back to discussing Jon's speech.'

SG and I disagree over quite a lot (!) but I believe (like Angela made it very clear at the time) that Roger went too far and should have openly withdrawn the subtle but unsubstantiated inference he was clearly try to make about SG's motives. Not that it is too late for him to do this.

Roger-Prune:
"This is the time for old politics - if we don't drop all this crap and spend the next 3-6 months knocking on doors and arguing with people who actually have votes we'll have a good decade or more in opposition to argue amongst ourselves."

I have been in opposition since 1979, I don't know about you.

See Copenhagen, our so called democratic states still defend their lack of democracy by a policeman's stick and, the lovely Danes using pepper spray.

Accusing someone of being anti-semitic is not something which will just go away. If a person is innocent of the charge, it may haunt them indefinitely. I don't share SG's anti-Zionist position, as I understand it, but she may be proven right on that and me wrong, as it seems to be the case that the Israeli state is making the two-state solution impossible, by continuing to settle occupied land.

When the charge of anti-semitism is made and is challenged, it needs to be either substantiated or withdrawn. It is because the historic persecution of the Jewish people has been so horrendous that this is so. SG is a Lib Dem, not a member of the BNP. There is no justified predisposition to assume that those of this political persuasion are in any way racist, just the opposite. It isn't fair or honourable to make an accusation as serious as this and then run away. Not that you made it, but did you support it ?

Responding to your very valid points that you make Roger - I agree that after the election all those on the left will need to work together because
it may well be a very very difficult time - not least for the vulnerable who will bear the brunt of the very deep cuts that will happen - whoever wins.

And although a hung parliament MAY be preferable in a narrow political sense, it appears that it may bring a very risk of economic collapse. It is already widely talked about in financial circles (both at home and abroad)
that the UK's credit rating and more importantly our Bond market will be very threatened - with possibly catastrophic results.

In Greece, where the collapse of the bond market is worsening in a way that is going to force a Socialist government to attack the low-paid - the very people they have promised to defend. This happened in Mitterand's France of the 1980s.

There are growing warnings to the UK government that the country's credit rating will badly suffer if they don't get the public finances in line. This would transalte into a threatened fall in the bond markets, i.e. a 'capital strike', where international finance would refuse to provide the money that the British government needs to keep many of the banks going.

As the Greek government is being told, if the government won’t carry out the 'necessary' attacks on living standards (and disproportionally against
the poorest, then the markets 'will do it instead' and in a far more ruthless way.

I never claimed that my proposals would be easy - as you are right to point out - they patently won't be. But the problems that face us are far more difficult (and dangerous) and at present the 'left' and those who
'we' claim to campaign for need all the help they can get.

Apart from the your first and last points Roger your last post is both far more constructive and valid.

'whether or I described someone else as an anti-semite in another wildly off-tangent discussion that took place months ago.'

You can try and obscure this matter by using 'whether' - but you did accuse SG of anti-semitism without any substantiation or withdrawing of a very serious accusation. There were witnesses - both Dugsie and Frances defended SG at the time.

And as for your last point - many people have objected to the fact that very few of those who write articles bother to respond to those who have taken the time to write posts. How you see this as a postive is far from clear. And this detracts from your undoubted expertise on social housing and perhaps other fields you may know a lot about.

As Frances makes clear below how complicated matters are - there is no escaping the fact that New Labour are very right wing and have done some very harmful and terrible acts - in cold blood over the last 12 years.

'The next election will almost certainly be a defeat for New Labour and its ideas from which it won't ever recover.'

Roger
But are you really, really sure. I can be very persuasive. I might tip them in to victory. Can't take the risk.

You seem to be saying that I should go out and knock on doors confident that Labour can't win and all this wasted effort on my part is to try and make their defeat less severe. Am I aiming for a hung Parliament? I would be better urging tactical voting. Or do I want them to be less severely defeated. If so why? If the party is to reform along healthier lines then the worse the defeat the more it might sort itself out.

It's academic any way because I can't knock on doors. I had to stop during the Iraq war because I didn't support that. I didn't support going in to Afghanistan. Suppose a very sick person or their family open the door and ask why the sickness benefit is no longer unconditional and the sick person is being required to prepare for work even if they have only a year to live and are very ill. How am I supposed to explain that Ministers think work is so beneficial this coercian is for their own good. I really don't think the Labour party would want me on the doorstep.

And the experts aren't always the best people to formulate policy. The Welfare Reforms are backed up by pages and pages of research and consultation and they add up to complete nonsense. But very ideological consistent water tight circular nonsense. A better approach to welfare could have been put together by three members of the public on a bendy bus. And I don't think I am being unrealistic if I say CarerWatch has input from all sides and is actually as well if not better informed than Miisters, charities, claimants.

We discovered at CarerWatch that if you are a bunch of people with no sponsors, backers, money or costs you are unique. Without needing to raise finances you are the only voice speaking freely. The professional voice these days has often become the sponsored voice.

There you go - what was originally supposed to a discussion of the PBR is now to become a discussion of whether or I described someone else as an anti-semite in another wildly off-tangent discussion that took place months ago.

This is exactly why effective think tanks never pay very much attention to what is said on their open discussion forums (assuming they have one at all).

If you do get something off the ground it will be valuable only if you can find some way to keep discussions on-topic and exclude precisely the sort of negativism you accuse me of.

Your practical experience may be different but mine emphatically tells me that this is incredibly hard to do and that at this particular juncture of history there probably are more politically worthwhile things we can spend our time and money on.

Compass make the right choice by not responding directly to these discussions at all and I'm much happier that Neal, Gavin and Zoe are spending their time actually producing publications and organising meetings instead.

So FWIW I wish you luck and post-election would happily participate within my own genuine areas of expertise.

However this and virtually every other thread I've ever participated in on the Compass site suggests that while there are some very clever, eloquent and passionate people posting down here, focusing hard on the practical and detailed questions of policy formation is not something we excel at.

Roger

I have considerable experience of research work and I have run two Internet forums myself. They were not as ambitious as Jon's proposal, but they did provide for a lot of sharing of experience. His ideas for moving beyond this are excellent and deserve to be supported.

You seem to be very negative and elitist. If you want to be involved with the proposed project, then welcome. If not, then farewell.

Roger:

And why do you assume that there aren't any 'genuine experts' who use the internet? I've come across several over the past few years - just by engaging in debate on the internet (which you seem both to deride and do yourself more than most).

Despite easy generalisations by many people - the so-called 'virtual' world is both part of the real world and conducted by flesh and blood mortals such as you and I.

It is what Compass have very done (in conjunction with more traditional forms of activism) to great effect. What we need is, as many people as possible to become involved in all avenues of left activism - with the reality that too many people are barred from this by circumstances.

We should be trying to get around the latter as much as we can - rather than sneering at those who are are able (for whatever reason) to give more time than others.

Roger - In your strident attempt to dismiss others you just come across as someone who has wasted their time on the internet:

"Firstly in ten to fifteen years of reading, contributing to and occasionally moderating political forums on the internet I've seen very few or no examples of 'good ideas' being 'created' "

You shouldn't use this to pronounce on the effort of others.

And you contradict yourself when after making the very valid point about many people not having the time to go on the internet:

'Real time open democracy also disenfranchises all of us who have jobs and lives that preclude us spending most of our days and weeks in this kind of discussion.'

by insisting later in the same post that people (who I presume are still just as busy and pressurised as they were when you mentioned this) should:

"spend the next 3-6 months knocking on doors and arguing with people who actually have votes we'll have a good decade or more in opposition to argue amongst ourselves."

And who was being an 'obsessive' and spending their (valuable) time 'bickering' about "anything and everything except the Tory electoral juggernaut" when they (you Roger) insisted on smearing SG with the completely baseless charge of being an 'ant-semite' (just because she
is anti-Zionist).

I clearly remember you doing this - and you never apologised or made any attempt to withdraw such a serious accusation. For some reason all the justified ire was reserved for Martyn Rosen who had supported your
original claim.

Please now don't try and dismiss me as merely attempting to prove my 'intellectual superiority'. You have made some points that seriously need to be addressed.

Dugsie,

I may not have started in 1950 but I have spent enough time around think tanks and internet forums to know that a 'think tank democratically linked to a forum' is a nonsense.

Think tanks only work if they assemble genuine experts in a hierarchical structure with a real division of labour, a long-term programme of work and solid and copious funding to pay for it all.

None of these features are compatible with the sort of internet forum you seem to envisage.

Real serious policy research papers take months if not years of work to plan and complete and cannot be written by ad hoc committees of self-appointed amateurs however enthusiastic they might be.

You disagree? - point me to a functioning example of an organisation that does substantive policy work this way.

Frances,

I have a lot of respect for you and your contributions.

You are right about the probable consequences of rallying around the flag and getting New Labour re-elected.

However that is not a realistic option anymore - all the activism in the world will not win Labour a working majority in the next parliament.

The next election will almost certainly be a defeat for New Labour and its ideas from which it won't ever recover - and the cleverer members of the clique are already repositioning themselves accordingly (and in the case of Jon and Neal have been doing so for the best part of a decade).

It is true that the covenant has broken down but with a return to more social democratic policies - and we are starting to see that however too little and too late it might seem - that covenant can perhaps be rebuilt again.

But doing so also requires a return to old politics - if you remember it was Blair's and Mandelson's New Politics and its replacement of democratic accountability with the managerialist pseudo-democracy of policy forums and endless consultation exercises that got us where we are today.

What we might still get from rallying around the flag is at the very best a hung parliament that can limit the damage the Tories will do - or failing that for Labour retain a strong enough electoral position to be able to recover power in 2014/15.

It may not be much to fight for but it is still better than a Tory landslide and the destruction of wat's left of the welfare state.

And that really is the only alternative to Labour.

I disagree with Roger and agree with Frances.

It would be pointless to go back to knocking on doors, without first developing a coherent political strategy. You go and try to explain away Blair and Brown if you want to. I first started doing that kind of thing in 1950. There has never been a time since then when it has been more thankless than now.

The idea is not just to start another discussion forum, but to develop a think tank democratically linked to a forum, in the way Compass is not. Of course, there are lots of possible variations on this theme, as Jon has explained.

'This is the time for old politics - if we don't drop all this crap and spend the next 3-6 months knocking on doors and arguing with people who actually have votes we'll have a good decade or more in opposition to argue amongst ourselves.'


And if we rally to the flag and go out and knock on doors and get Brown re elected with his dream team then we have another decade of being marginalised and ignored by the leadership to look forward to while NewLabour carries on as before doing things which are unacceptable. Been there. Got the t-shirt.

I think the covenant between leadership and foot soldiers has broken down.

And forums don't have to be like that. They can develop and people can learn like everything else.

This whle discussion shows a surprising degree of naivete about how both internet forums and political organisations work.

Firstly in ten to fifteen years of reading, contributing to and occasionally moderating political forums on the internet I've seen very few or no examples of 'good ideas' being 'created' - the medium of an open forum is simply not conducive to the development of original policy ideas.

This is even more true on the left than on the right as we are far more obsessed with proving our moral and intellectual superiority by picking fights over matters which most actual voters care and know little about.

Real time open democracy also disenfranchises all of us who have jobs and lives that preclude us spending most of our days and weeks in this kind of discussion.

Instead it privileges obsessives with time on their hands.

Take a representative sample of leftists and give them the kind of forum you are talking about and we would spend all our time bickering about Iraq, Israel, holocaust denial, nuclear power, the suppression of the Kronstadt uprising - anything and everything except the Tory electoral juggernaut that is rolling towards us.

This is the time for old politics - if we don't drop all this crap and spend the next 3-6 months knocking on doors and arguing with people who actually have votes we'll have a good decade or more in opposition to argue amongst ourselves.

Dugsie - you make a very good point about good ideas being created on discussion boards (after considerable effort and energy being spent) only
to be 'lost' in all the subsequent information and posts etc.

This particularly happens when the grassroot members and contributors have no control of how topics and initiatives are placed on the website like here. Regular votes on which ideas or suggestions should be given more focus or practical activism is perhaps the best way to avoid 'top down' manipulation of the agenda, which is clearly an abuse of the very people who give any political organisation any meaning in the first place.

Which is why Frances is so absolutely right:

'You could have a members vote. It could be challenged or developed at any later point but you would be building something. What you couldn't agree would be just as interesting as what you could agree.'

S. I fully support your point about Compass and your conclusions. As you point out Compass' record is indeed a mixed bag - but as they never seem to openly admit their faults - even when made by those who are making constructive criticism - making such an effort appears pointless. I really hope that you will be one of the 'constructive and productive people' who contributes to the forum which will be launched early in the New Year.

And Frances point was so good I'll repeat it!:

'You could have a members vote. It could be challenged or developed at any later point but you would be building something. What you couldn't agree would be just as interesting as what you could agree.'

You could run it a bit like Wikapedia.

After exhaustive discussion you could agree a position. You could have a members vote. It could be challenged or developed at any later point but you would be building something. What you couldn't agree would be just as interesting as what you could agree.

I think Compass have come up with many good ideas. The problem has been in who has been running the show and in the other activities of some of those running the show, particularly where such activity involves Compass, as an organisation, in a way it should not be.

This leads to the crux of the problem: Who is Compass for? Many of us were attracted to it, coming as we did from an anti-Blue Labour leftist position. However, we have found in practise that Compass is a little more about saving Blue Labour than any of us would be pleased to do. Compass has perhaps not been able to get the balance of fighting the Tories whilst also not giving Blue Labour any nourishment to be going with.

If Compass cannot do this, an entirely new organisation is needed.

I think that Jon is correct in thinking that the ambitious project he proposes won't get off the ground without a great deal of work. The political left needs ideas with legs. Many good ideas are generated on discussion forums, but they are often then passed over as new ideas emerge. They sometimes appear again later,only to be passed over again.We need a means of deciding which of them have sufficient practical application to be picked up and developed and shared and used in everyday political practice.The critical thing for me in what Jon is saying is that the approach should not be top down. If a forum is just used for general discussion, but the ideas for policy papers, for example, are generated elsewhere, by a different process, then much that is potentially valuable may be lost.

Good one Jon. Involve the constructive and productive people more than the de-constructive and destructive.

Brian - I agree that internet activism should complement traditional forms
of campaigning - and certainly not replace them. However I think that if you want grassroot commitment and spontaneous creativity - I don't think that top-down organisations - like Compass - are the place to start from. But I certainly support you in your intention to try and reconnect politcal action to the wider public.

Frances and Lee

Thank you very much both for your support and suggestions.

I certainly want the 'strength of the idea(s)' to be paramount and realise that 'serious analytical commentaries' would really help.

This project is not going to be easy! But what encourages me is the deph
of detail and quality that posters both here and on RP have produced - on a complete voluntarily basis and on very wide ranging subjects that would still be considered as left. I have also noted how a subject thread might not appear promising - but can then go off on fascinating and very
informative 'tangents' - it is usually the spontaneity and intelligence of posters that make these kind of websites so worth reading in my opinion.

What the regular posters have achieved and learnt from responding to each other here is both impressive and an example of what I am trying to encourage. A website given over to this may have a chance of taking this dynamic to a higher level.

So I expect that this forum would start very slowly but make no apologies
for relying on the intelligence and impulses of the participants. This is key to it both avoiding stagnation but also of it being a genuninely grassroot
democratic creation that both imforms and inspires.

"Brian what would be the substance of these leaflets?" Jon, this a generalisation point i'm using to help engage the electorate and public at large. It is the majority that need to be
endorsed into voting for real social democratic change. So activists need to engage with people not only through web sites but in streets and city squares. This is what was used successfully for generations, yes electronic campaigning is also used effectively these days, but face to face word of mouth still works best. The organisations i am involved in all use web sites, and membership stabilises at a certain level and does'nt increase further. Compass struggles to increase its membership, as does Liberty and Amnesty. However if Compass was to leaflet the public on recent campaigns, especially a high pay commission or bankers bonuses. The outcome may well be different re membership, and more importantly voting intention, hence my comment to Gavin.

Jon: I will happily take part in and support your forum. I hope that in addition to comments, ideas, and opinions, it will also feature some serious analytical commentaries, because that is what we so badly miss. How will you attract participants ?

3) The overall political direction would be very much down to those who contributed their ideas and suggestions. There would be a lot of space given to those who wanted to start their own threads and to write or highlight articles from elsewhere.

I think these are excellent aims and objectives and a group like this is sorely needed. However I think you will have teething problems because people are so unused to groups which run like this. They will expect a hidden political agenda. They will be used to making allies with people who have the same political perspective as them however weak the arguments or fractious the proponent. They are going to find it very hard not to bring these patterns with them. The idea should be that the strength of the idea wins the day not the strength of the proponents but that is not easily accomplished.

Making it clear that a range of views are welcomed is the challenge. If you could get people with a range of views comfortably and constructively talking together it would be sensational.

I am now working on starting an Independent Left forum with the aim of providing a transparent Think Tank that tries to create left policies that are both practical and relevant to the wider population.

I have no strict deadlines and the objectives of this are as open ended as possible:

1) It will be completely transparent and accountable in the sense that all debates and suggestions would be made 'public' (although of course any posters who wanted to be anonymous could be).

2) It would be entirely independent. At first I would intend to provide a forum for discussion with the view to creating practical left proposals. If enough people became interested and contributed, there would some form of membership, but it would start off both free and without any form of funding to ensure it was autonomous.

3) The overall political direction would be very much down to those who contributed their ideas and suggestions. There would be a lot of space given to those who wanted to start their own threads and to write or highlight articles from elsewhere.

If you think like I do that there is a pressing need for a space for those who count themselves as part of the independent Left - without links to established or organised political parties - to try and work out realistic policies and suggestions that take into account both ethical and practical
concerns than you may be interested in this project.

Feel welcome to contact me directly - or to post on the thread I have started on Red Pepper Forums (General Discussion) 'An Independent Left
Think Tank' if you would like to either comment on or help with this.

If you think that solutions and progress, is unlikely to come from those who profit from careers in the political mainstream, then this may be the kind of democratic and left alternative that you want to be part of.