I think I shall attend, even though I doubt the invitation was aimed at me.
I can only assume it is a gathering of some kind of political equivalent of the English Civil War re-enactment societies - "The Sealed Trot" rather than the "Sealed Knot" - dedicated to reenacting the golden age of the 1980s ultra left.
Particularly retro are:
- the use of a Labour Party logo last in circulation in 1985 before the Rose was adopted
- the presence on the platform of a meeting about the Labour leadership of Gill George, a Respect Party council candidate, and Matt Wrack the General Secretary of a union that threw away its vote in the election by disaffiliating from Labour
As a comrade has pointed out, the only thing missing from the list of speakers is "Gordon Brown (invited)".
In the spirit of re-enacting the '80s I could go dressed as Neil Kinnock and try expelling them all. Now that would be fun.
"Personal capacity" always strikes me as a bit of an odd idea. It would suggest to a cynic that you know full well that the organisation which you are using as your only claim to any authority to speak, doesn't want anything to do with you on this. Which kind of looks like you're shooting yourself in the foot before you even start.
ReplyDeleteBetter maybe to do it just in your name and leave it at that? Those people who've heard your name will know who you are anyway (and base their opinion of the event accordingly), whilst those who don't know who you are might not be swayed particularly by such a half-cocked endorsement.
Luke
ReplyDeletePerhaps they regard you as living in a parallel galaxy too - I suspect so.
You seem to use the word "Trot" a lot. I presume this is a standard appellation used by the New Labour crew to describe anyone to the left of Roy Hattersley. I can't imagine you using it any technical sense.
The irony is (do you do irony?) is that your use of the term is strangely nostalgic in itself. Perhaps you are still stuck in the 1980s yourself.
Benjamin I am stuck in the 1950s not the 80s.
ReplyDeleteThey regard me as living about half a mile away from them on Stoke Newington High Street.
I am very careful to only use the word Trot to describe Trotskyists rather than as a general term of abuse for the Hard Left - some of whom are merely fellow travellers and others of whom are Stalinists not Trots.
The people involved in this meeting are mainly self-confessed Trots who would not see it as an insult. The speakers include one from Respect, one from AWL, and one formerly in Militant, all of which are in the Leninist/Trotskyist tradition.
"Do you do irony?" must be one of the most unobservant questions ever asked on this site.
"Do you do irony?" must be one of the most unobservant questions ever asked on this site.
ReplyDeleteLuke, forgive me old boy. I have only just stumbled upon your site (from the Daily.)
Benjamin I forgive you. Some of my posts are a semi-humorous look at politics, other times I am deadly serious. Depends on my mood and the gravity of events. Welcome to the site as a new reader.
ReplyDeleteYou've got the red hair, Luke, so go for it.
ReplyDeletePerhaps they'll stage a walkout and then you can finish them off at a very very lengthy meeting down Walworth way.
I am very careful to only use the word Trot to describe Trotskyists rather than as a general term of abuse for the Hard Left...
ReplyDeleteRespect aren't trots - try telling this to George Galloway and the Muslim Association of Britain.
Pay attention, Luke, Respect is a *break* from the Trotskyist tradition.
ReplyDeleteAnd I always think it's kind of weak (to say the least) to have a pop at a political stance for being "old-fashioned", rather than saying what you think is wrong with it.
Here's an example of a *really* old-fashioned policy.
ReplyDeleteIn the 19th century, before the labour movement won the right to free state schooling for all kids, what schools there were used to be run by charities, religions, philanthropists and businesses. Now, under the Academies programme, New Labour is handing control of state schools to ... charities, religions, philanthropists and businesses. Super-retro or what?
Do you do irony?
ReplyDeleteDo I do anything else?
Janine, I stand corrected on Respect. But are their largest component, the SWP, Trotskyists or some other kind of Leninists?
ReplyDeleteYou are right, I'm in no position to laugh at '80s leftists for being old fashioned when my own politics are mainly informed by nostalgia for Herbert Morrison's heyday.
Are you Morrisonian, Luke? (in any way other than a fondness for the politics of his grandson?) I'm intrigued. Although there were lots of facets to the politics of Morrison (is involvement in London Labour cultural politics in the 1930s was interesting - and perhaps reflects your own hitherto-referred-to penchant for socialist anthems) - but he is mostly remembered, I suppose (from his government days rather than his municipal days), for a particular model of state ownership: centralised, yet at arms length from poltical control. Are you a closet Clause Four man, or is it other aspects of Herbert Morrison's polity that appeal to you? (I ask this from a position of genuine interest, as a labour historian, not of mickey-taking as a perceived political opponent).
ReplyDeleteAh, Herbert Morrison, one of my favourite subjects. In a bad way.
ReplyDeleteOne of the more interesting episodes from his time as Hackney Mayor was during the Poplar Rates Rebellion in 1921 (read all about it here: http://www.workersliberty.org/node/3156). While George Lansbury and 29 other councillors were fighting the unfair rating system and going to prison in support of a just cause, Herbert was determined to stick to the law (even the unfair law) and prove how trustworthy and respectable he was. He deluded himself that chasing Lloyd George round Scotland was the way to win a change in the law, even sitting on the lap of Sir Alfred Mond (fat-cat industrialist and Liberal Heatlh Minister in the Coalition Government) during his forlorn chase.
It was Poplar's defiance rather than Morrison's brown-nosing that won a change in the law - even his political co-thinkers such as Jimmy Thomas admitted it.
I don't agree with everything that George Lansbury stood for, but in this instance, he and Morrison neatly encapsulated the 'two souls of socialism'. And I prefer Lansbury's soul.
Gill as an NEC member of Amicus, the union with the largest affiliated membership, has, with other Respect members on the NEC, been pushing for the union to support John. In particular they have been calling for the Parliamentary Group, the largest union group of MPs, to ensure that John gets his 44 nominations. They are aldo working for a ballot reccomendation for John. The broad left in Amicus, Amicus Unity Gazette, of which Gill is a supporter, and I, another Respect member, am the London convenor, has endorsed John. We are committed to organising a public meeting for London trade unionists early next year for John to address and to mobilise union members for the campaign. We all pay the political levy and therefore, under the rules of the Labour Party, have a voice in the leadership election.
ReplyDeleteSo Gill has every right to appear on the platform with John - as she did in Crawley just a couple of weeks ago.
To say this does not mean that we all agree on the way forward. I think it important, as John says, that the campaign is about policies not personalities. If John's campaign strengthens the resolve of public sector trade unionist to resist New Labour privatisation, then it will be positive. If it strengthens the labour movement's commitment to oppose further imperialst adventures then that is a step forward. If, however, it is just about personality, and the only criteria for success is whether or not John gets elected, that is has the danger of further demoralising activists if Brown or Reid are elected. I don't think John wants that, and I know we don't.
They key task at the moment is to make this meeting a large rally of working people in hackney who want to say no to 10 more years of Blairism.
Gill as an NEC member of Amicus, the union with the largest affiliated membership, has, with other Respect members on the NEC, been pushing for the union to support John. In particular they have been calling for the Parliamentary Group, the largest union group of MPs, to ensure that John gets his 44 nominations. They are aldo working for a ballot reccomendation for John. The broad left in Amicus, Amicus Unity Gazette, of which Gill is a supporter, and I, another Respect member, am the London convenor, has endorsed John. We are committed to organising a public meeting for London trade unionists early next year for John to address and to mobilise union members for the campaign. We all pay the political levy and therefore, under the rules of the Labour Party, have a voice in the leadership election.
ReplyDeleteSo Gill has every right to appear on the platform with John - as she did in Crawley just a couple of weeks ago.
To say this does not mean that we all agree on the way forward. I think it important, as John says, that the campaign is about policies not personalities. If John's campaign strengthens the resolve of public sector trade unionist to resist New Labour privatisation, then it will be positive. If it strengthens the labour movement's commitment to oppose further imperialst adventures then that is a step forward. If, however, it is just about personality, and the only criteria for success is whether or not John gets elected, that has the danger of further demoralising activists if either Brown or Reid wins. I don't think John wants that, and I know we don't.
They key task at the moment is to make this meeting a large rally of working people of Hackney who want to say no to 10 more years of Blairism.