That assumes the continued existence of the host bodies in forms and to extents where the word "party" properly applies.
Of the impending Tory intake, anywhere between a third and a half either are or may as well be Blairite Labour members or wannabe-Blairite Lib Dem members. At least one of the latter, Liz Truss, has the Trotskyist background to prove it, since who else infiltrated the Lib Dem Students in the early Nineties with a view to turning the whole party anti-monarchist? Meanwhile, anywhere between a third and a half of that impending intake either are or may as well be UKIP or (more rarely, but they are there) BNP members. In fact, actual UKIP membership is very common indeed.
Of the impending Labour intake, a few (only a few, but there is going to be a hung Parliament or a very small majority, almost certainly the former) are actual members of sectarian Leftist organisations or have extremely close ties to one or more such. A lot more are primarily loyal to certain trade unions historically aberrant both in their sheer enormity and in the level of fealty that they plan to expect from their sponsored MPs in the course of their specifically parliamentary duties. The rest are as devoted to the Blairite cause, which is campus sectarian Leftism gone cultural rather than economic because gone middle-aged within the upper middle class to which it has always belonged, as is Louise Bagshawe or Liz Truss ostensibly in another party.
And no one has ever been "just", "purely" or "simply" a Lib Dem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Do you not approve of union sponsorship?
ReplyDeleteDepends on what policies the unions want, and in whose interest. That the best-known union official about to become an MP is married to Harriet Harman and owes his position to that status, does not augur well.
ReplyDeleteWhat hard evidence do you have to maintain Blairites are really trots?
ReplyDeleteYou have a positive view of several Soviet Bloc apologists. You even claimed one of them was a BPA candidate in Wantage! How can we be sure you are not a closet communist or the BPA a front?
You need to get out more. These people's roots are a matter of record.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't regurgitate Kammite rubbish about Neil Clark, although I admit that you will have to post it somewhere when Harry's Place is bankrupted in the libel courts.
Clearly "always a trot" applies here. Yet you are a convert, rather than a cradle Catholic, but no one could confuse your opinions with whatever you were before you adopted your faith.
ReplyDeleteQuite why having no time for the monarchy means one is automatically a trot you don't explain; the Labour Party conference debate on the subject, referred to in the most recent BPA document, was in 1923!
Is Stephen Haseler, the republican who joined the SDP thirty years ago, or was Willie Hamilton, a trotskyist. Many, many more people would find such a claim against themselves ridiculous. You think trotskyists are everywhere, but claim Militant was a myth propagated by Michael Crick. Still, Stalin thought socialism in Britain was consistent with maintaining the monarchy. A wild connection? Your style is catching.
"Of the impending Labour intake, a few ... are actual members of sectarian Leftist organisations or have extremely close ties to one or more such." True John Cryer used to write for the CPB associated Morning Star, but Clark and Galloway do so now. You dismissed the Sunday Times piece of nearly a fortnight ago, yet now you go further than it did. The Labour Party, much more right-wing than when the Militant MPs were expelled, would have acted against candidates if your claims stood up. It's all one big conspiracy isn't it, and you cannot be persuaded otherwise.
"Clearly "always a trot" applies here"
ReplyDeleteIt certainly does in the cases in question. To say otherwise is to be perfectly ignorant of the development of the sectarian Left during the last three decades.
"Yet you are a convert, rather than a cradle Catholic, but no one could confuse your opinions with whatever you were before you adopted your faith"
There is barely any difference, hence the conversion, which of course made and makes every difference.
"Quite why having no time for the monarchy means one is automatically a trot you don't explain"
Such are the people who inflitrate parties through their student organisations to that sort of end. Step forward, Liz Truss.
"Is Stephen Haseler, the republican who joined the SDP thirty years ago, or was Willie Hamilton, a trotskyist"
I make no attempt to defend the SDP. And Hamilton was not a Trot, because he was a Soviet fellow-traveller.
"You think trotskyists are everywhere, but claim Militant was a myth propagated by Michael Crick"
It was. A very successul deflection of attention from the real ones onto something conveniently working-class and provincial, why, even Scouse, darling.
"Stalin thought socialism in Britain was consistent with maintaining the monarchy"
He was hardly alone in that. New Labour gave up both simultaneously. Well, of course.
"Morning Star, but Clark and Galloway do so now"
Proving that it is not what you say it is. All sorts of colourful people also write for the Guardian, you know.
"The Labour Party, much more right-wing than when the Militant MPs were expelled"
That one is beyond a joke. There is no right wing, if that is what you want to call it, in Labour now. None. The morally, socially, culturally and constitutionally conservative patriots who used to dominate it, and who successfully delivered one of the world's model social democracies, have been completely purged.