Militant Tendencies?

THE MILITANT TENDENCY.

Definition of 'Militant': "Having or showing a desire or willingness to use strong, extreme, and sometimes forceful methods to achieve something."

In the 1980's the 'Militant Tendency' as they were known became pariah within the Labour Party. One of the reasons for that was their absolute unwillingness to compromise and thus promote party unity. They refused to listen to repeated calls for 'Unity' and, in consequence caused some significant disruption. (There were many other obvious reasons but that was always underlying the disunity problem.) As time went by they hardened their attitudes even further and eventually forced a very acrimonious split. There could be only one winner and subsequently Militant died a slow and painful death. I remember it all too well being ancient myself and a Labour Party member at the time.

Well perhaps it's just me but comparisons with the 1980's 'Militant Tendency' movement and today keep popping into my head. The palpable irony is though that now it seems it is the neo-liberal right wing 'New' Labour representatives that are hardening their attitudes and have adopted a no compromise disunity stance. The outcome is causing terrible disruption and seems to be leading us once again towards a forced split within the Labour Party. Not something to look forward to believe me.

That said, and for me it has become a given in just 4 short days after Jeremy Corbyn was re-elected with a huge mandate, it is the case that those acting in a likewise disruptive manner have now become a mirror image of that group of people once known as the 'Militant Tendency'. A group of people who seem unable or unwilling (or maybe both) to listen to repeated calls for 'Unity' and so carry on regardless causing significant and terrible disruption in their quest to undermine and destroy a democratically elected leader, and at any cost.

Increasingly, to me anyway, the only observable difference is that 'Militant' were hard left whilst they are hard right. Is that not the only real distinction between these two factions? Can it be that the same fate that befell the 'Militant Tendency' of the 1980's can now be clearly seen rising above an horizon that only those acting in a militant fashion today cannot and/or will not look to and acknowledge?

Just asking.

GB.

Let's be forgiving in nature and idiots in life.

As much as I am a Jeremy Corbyn supporter (and I most definitely am), and although I know he is trying so very hard to promote a "new kind of politics" (because he says so and he always means what he says), and although I have the greatest respect for him and his 'new way' I have to differ with him on topics like turning the other cheek. 

Those openly opposing JC from within the LP have, right from the start, colluded together with evil intent and behind the scenes with the insidious old guard like Mandelson, McTernan, Kinnock, Blair and Campbell in a malevolent spirit of "get him at all costs" (JC). They will NEVER be his allies and will carry their opposition and even hatred to their graves. I've never seen anyone filled to the brim with more acid and hatred than John McTernan. He must be at an internal combustion point most days. 

Anyway for me it's not the left wing 'Entryists' and those that are trying to reclaim the LP that are the problem and 'the enemy within'. It is Blue Labour and all they stand for. They are members, some founder members, of that imitation careerist filled Tory Party that has lost the LP five million votes between 1997 and 2010 and pushed us out in to the political waste ground. Harry Truman said it all; "If you give the people a choice between an imitation conservative and a real conservative they'll choose the real conservative every time." And that's why we are where we are today - not because of JC. It's squarely because of them and their ilk. 

Now the Chicken Coup members desperately want a return to that state of imitation. a kind of 'safe house' for them; for what they truly believe in, and obviously what  they hold so very dear - that is being 'Tory Lite'. A deep and abiding belief in neoliberalism and its vigorous application but with softer words and a smiley face. 

Their behaviour has been abysmal, insulting, painful, damaging, undemocratic, unnecessary and unwarranted. They need to be dealt with as severely as they have dealt with JC and us lot via their malevolent creation; 'The Great Purge' (both Episode 1 and currently Episode 2). 

However, it's not revenge that drives me - it's practicality. Let them off and they will just wait in the wings to strike again at another time but with sharper knives. If anyone thinks they will give up and simply go away then please forget it because they won't. When has that happened so far? What day was that on? They will just go underground and emerge again in the near future. As much as some think and wish it were true, we do not live in 'Pink Fluffy Bunny Land' and there are those that really should make a mammoth attempt to remove their rose tinted glasses and try as hard as they can to overcome their inbuilt but unfounded faith based narrative of "but they are lovely people really" forgiveness mode. "By your actions you are known" - and their actions have been disgraceful bringing nothing but negative outcomes to all. Them included actually. But maybe that's for the future too.

Mark these words - if a spirit of 'forgive them for they know not what they do' does finally reign then we will, without doubt, end up with the outcome of another very relevant whiff of sagacity; "Those who cannot learn from history are destined to repeat it." (George Santayana.) 

Want to go through this again? No - nor me! 

Graeme.

Tory-vs-Labour Purges. And the winner is..........................

To Purge is; “to rid of whatever is impure or undesirable; cleanse; purify.”

Seems to me there are two ‘purges’ going on at the moment. One by the Labour Party that is aimed at ridding the Leadership Election of those who are “impure” and “undesirable” in thought and deed. An active attempt to emasculate what the rump of the old guard of ‘New’ Labour would see as a very inconvenient democratic outcome in an election process based on voting criteria that they insisted upon. A method of emasculation far better described by one of those already ‘purged’ when he said on the BBC that they (the Labour Party) are “trying to rig the election.” God bless Jeremy Hardy then. Sheldon Wolin is perhaps more generous when he calls it ‘Managed Democracy’ but I’m sticking with Hardy. Mainly because I’m one of the ‘purged’ too.

This ‘purging’ has now been going on for a couple of weeks and will continue for a little while longer. Subsequently there is a growing anger in the air and much spitting of dry feathers but really no-one has been harmed beyond their sense of justice or pride. Certainly no-one has died.

However, there is a second ‘purge’ in progress that has been going on for some years now. A Coalition and now Tory Government ‘purge’ of the poor, the destitute, the recovering sick, the disabled and the vulnerable. In this ‘purge’ people do die. Regularly.

This second ‘purge’ (and I’m getting heartily sick of that word) is, in my view, well thought out, deliberately applied, and an obvious crime against humanity. If another government elsewhere in the world was treating their sick and disabled, their children and their poor as the UK government is doing to those in the UK today, (and especially if that country had resources we could appropriate), we would be at least sabre rattling if not at war for humanitarian reasons and the UN would be passing resolutions left right and centre. So far, as far as I can see, there has been little more than a muted ‘tut tut’ from those in power and then back to business as usual.

Is it not only the other day that Iain Duncan Smith, the Sinister Minister announced even more attacks on the disabled? A speech full of sophistry designed to cover cruelty with kind words spoken softly and aimed squarely at one of the most vulnerable groups in society. One far less able to counter his blows. By then he would (should?) have known all about the Death Statistics produced by his very own DWP. And if not then why not? However, although knowing that people are dying in their thousands it wasn’t even enough to make him break stride. We are dealing with a very ugly form of inhumanity here and on an industrial scale as far as resultant deaths are concerned. We are fast approaching 100,000.

The DWP have had these statistics, that they have done their very best to keep hidden, for years. As the Minister in charge if Iain Duncan Smith didn’t know about these deaths then there is something desperately wrong at the DWP and at the Cabinet Table. And if he did but still carried on regardless then are there not criminal charges to be answered here?

Manslaughter; “The unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury.”

Or worse,

Murder; “The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.”

Seems to me the Courts should decide.

The Lesser Beings.

Death statistics reluctantly issued by the DWP after claiming they didn’t collect and collate them, after they tried their best to obfuscate bully and bluster their way (and in any way they could) to hiding the numbers and to deny public access even through the courts and the Freedom of Information Commissioners Office have been forced to reveal that since the Work Capability Assessment began in earnest we are fast approaching 100,000 deaths of sick and disabled people deemed ‘fit for work’ in a flawed ‘tick in a box’ system that is still being used. I wonder why it’s still being used? But that’s for another day.

Can you imagine (God forbid) if 100,000 body bags had already come home from our illegal war in Iraq since 2010? Just take a second to think about that.

If that had been the case this disgraceful Tory Government and its predecessor Coalition would have been out of office in days and the war ended within weeks. Maybe even the warmonger who sent those troops to war in the first place might have ended up where he should – at a War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. Wonder who that might be eh?

However, have you ever asked yourself why there is this seemingly huge difference in empathetic attitude and sympathetic approach to these two different subdivisions of society? Why would they be treated differently?

Could it be that one has been the never ending victim of the propaganda machine and government ‘double speak’ and the other not? After all, it’s only now that people in high places wring their hands and the very occasional article appears in the press regarding that Procrustean event called ‘The Chilcott Enquiry’ whereas the public has been told in no uncertain terms via a right wing demonising media and a certain Tory Minister almost daily that “75% of those on the sick are faking it”, or that everyone who is disabled is “more sick in the head than sick in the body”, or that everyone and anyone who is claiming unemployment benefits are doing so because “it is a lifestyle choice”. Pick up a newspaper today, you won’t have to look far or hard to see at least one of these stories.

We have Channel 5 programmes like ‘Benefit Street’ and ‘On Benefits and Proud’ and ‘Benefits Britain: Life on The Dole’. All portraying people unfortunate enough to have nothing or less as a disgusting and degraded sub-culture out to steal from the pockets of us ‘normal’ people so that they can live the high life on £7 a day. These are the scum of humanity; worth less than the shit you would wipe off your shoes. ‘They’ are the problem. ‘They’ are the cause of it all. ‘They’ are “skivers” and “benefit cheats”, they are the “feral and feckless”, breeding like flies all day and night behind drawn curtains, taking drugs and drinking cans of cheap lager as they watch porn all day. And, often unspoken but implied if only by the very fact that ‘they’ – the disabled - also receive benefits, everyone who is classed as incapacitated can also be included. Well, after all they claim too don’t they? Tar spreads well when brushed broadly.

“They’re all the same them lot on benefits.” “Disabled – yeah right, there’s nothing wrong with them” and “I don’t see anything wrong with him/her. They should get a job.” The outcomes? Disability hate crime on the increase. Understanding and compassion on the decrease. The philosophy of ‘the lesser being’ drummed into us at every opportunity by continuous inculcation promoting in turn a ‘Them and Us’ culture.

Once you identify and dehumanise through language any people anywhere at any time (like immigrants desperately fleeing for their lives and trying to enter Europe on rafts built of wooden pallets being described  as “cockroaches” by a certain bottle blonde narcissist) it is a precursor to being able to commit and/ or ignore atrocities since those people are no longer human. They become subhuman. That’s how it was for Jews in 1930’s Germany. That’s how it is for the sick; the disabled; and the unfortunate in Britain today.

And the worse thing is – the public believe it and there’s the difference. 

Managed Democracy

Politicians of all main parties dribble on continuously about "voter apathy"; about "engaging people"; and about how terribly regrettable it is that so many "can't be bothered to go out and vote". They wring their hands and slowly shake their heads in disbelief and disappointment. What utter nonsense! They don't want 'involvement'; they don't want 'engagement'; and nor do they want people to be 'enthused'. Or at least, only if those same people are 'involved'; 'engaged'; and 'enthused' with them and their cause. They don't want democracy - they want what Sheldon Wolin calls "Managed Democracy". 

Look only to Scotland and the sheer panic that the Establishment displayed when it looked as if they might not be able to manage the independence vote last September. Running around like headless chickens trying to convince people by fair means or foul to vote for the status quo. A status quo that favours only them and no others. A status quo that has, for generations, been maintained by "apathy", by "disengagement"; and by lack of "involvement". The supporters of independence may well have lost the vote but they showed the way.

And so the same is happening all over again with Jeremy Corbyn. As soon as there was even a sniff of a chance he would be elected Leader the Labour Party Establishment big guns came out and started lobbing shells at him and his ideas. The falling Labour Party membership, so long bemoaned and whinged about by Labour Party members and Labour Party Parliamentary politicians alike has increased by (just about) three fold. But rather than being excited and happy about this they see it as a curse from the gods. In fact it seems all those recently joined are "entryists" (whatever the hell that means) and/or "Trotskyists" and/or subversive "hard left extremists" when actually it's all about not being able to control this new democratic upsurge and turn it to their advantage. They want the status quo to remain. They are Emperors ruling an Empire they infiltrated and eventually took over some twenty five years ago. It is they that are the "entryists" not those that want the Labour Party back or those who are joining because Jeremy Corbyn offers hope. A commodity in very short supply for many a year as far as being on offer from the Labour Party. 

Democracy can be very inconvenient but it is still democracy. The irony is that it was the right wing of the Labour Party that instigated this new 'democratic system' in the first place. "Be careful of what you ask for because you may get it." They wanted it - they got it - they don't want it. And they don't want it because they can't control it.

The Last Chance for Labour?

• It’s no surprise to me that almost all Labour MPs do not oppose the Tory cuts in the Westminster parliament. Don’t forget it was the Labour Party when last in government who started privatising the NHS, who doubled the tax rate on the poorest paid, and who spent billions bailing out the London bankers.

  
  

  That's because they're not the Labour Party. The Labour Party was high-jacked NOT by 'Militant Tendency', or by 'Trotsky entryists'; or by 'Morons on the left', but by right wing Tory mimics who think Margaret Thatcher was a goddess and who accept without question the neo-liberal agenda that is doing so much damage to ordinary people everywhere. Look only to Greece. It's coming here soon.

  
  

  What a message the Labour Party has been putting out lately when they say; "without power then we can do nothing". (No shit Sherlock?!) The underlying message of course is that "we will do anything, say anything, promise anything, and become 'shape changers' in any way you want us to in order to gain power and then do what we want when in power." Brilliant innit? Nothing like an attempt to deceive voiced out loud eh?

  
  

  It is this 'gain the centre ground' (which is continuously moving to the right) madness that they seem hell bent on trying to capture. But unfortunately for Mandleson and Blair et al they can't because, as Harry Truman said; "Give the people a straight choice between a Republican and an imitation Republican and they will choose the true Republican every time." For 'Republican' read 'Tory' of course. 

  
  

  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and the Labour Party needs to recognise that that is what they are about. They flatter the Tories daily if it is only by abstaining on proposals aimed at sucking the poor dry for the benefit of the rich. Trying to outdo a Tory on their own ground is like trying to dive deeper than a whale without oxygen. Problem is they simply don't see it let alone recognise the futility of the exercise.

  
  

  It's about time they realised that it's not their core supporters that have moved away from them but the complete opposite - they have moved away from their core supporters. No-one abandoned is at their happiest and there's always a backlash. People want their Labour Party back from those that stole it away from them. Look only to the number of CLP's supporting Jeremy Corbyn and the incredible and increasing support he's getting everywhere he goes. That the other Leadership Candidates should get the same eh? But nowhere near. 
• 
  
• A sparkling example is that he has just reached £100,000 from crowd funding alone. Thus when 5 of the big (read that as "rich") donators to the Labour Party say they will stop giving money if he wins then so what? The Labour Party was funded totally by public subscription and Trades Union contributions generations before these people came along. It did ok then did it not?
• 
  

  If there was one single thing that the Labour Party of old offered it was 'hope'. Jeremy Corbyn for right or wrong offers that in abundance. That's all they have to do is look to the SNP and their incredible victory in the recent General Election. The SNP Manifesto (and I've read it) could have been written by Michael Foot in 1983. The people may not have been ready for it then but they are now. 

  
  

  Unfortunately, if Corbyn doesn't win on first ballot then it's over. The second ballot will be rigged against him in any way they can. (In fact, let's face it, they are already trying to rig the first ballot.) And I wouldn't mind betting that the CLP's who have given him their initial support will have already been 'briefed' on what they 'should do' if it goes to a second. Believe me, after 16/17 years a Labour Party member (resigned 1999) I know how the system works. 

  
  

  The irony is of course is that this 'new' system of leadership election was formulated and imposed by the Blairites and the right wing of the Labour Party (shouldn't that be an oxymoron? - "right wing of the Labour Party"?) but because the threatened outcome doesn't suit them they are suddenly running around calling "foul". The smouldering hypocrisy is choking me if no-one else. Hoisted on their own petard comes to mind.

  
  

  Go go Corbyn.

Let's not get carried away here.

The Baroness Warsi.

I applaud her courage and display of integrity. Her principled stance is commendable and has sparked some useful debate within the government and Tory Party - indeed within the country. Her stand on the Gaza massacres marks her out as a Tory with a heart. An extremely rare animal indeed. She has done far more than many others who are wringing their hands and making muted protest or shedding crocodile tears such as that great champion of human rites, Nick Clegg. Well done girl! It was the right thing to do, but.....................

Is this the very same Baroness Warsi that I have seen on Question Time defending the austerity measures imposed by a government of millionaires? Is this the same Tory Party member and life Peer who has defended and spoken in favour of; The Bedroom Tax?; sanctioning benefit claimants?; whipping the unemployed into zero hour contracts?; workfare?; cuts to this and cuts to that? (Only for the poor, the disadvantaged, and the vulnerable of course!) Is this the same Baroness Warsi?

I started this blog by raising her sleeves and patting her on the back for her reaction to Cameron's inaction. However, where was she when the DWP confirmed that in 2011 no less than 10,600 people on Disability Benefits died, and many by their own hand, when their legitimately claimed benefits were reduced and/or removed completely? Maybe not as many dead as due to the pogrom being pursued by the Israeli's in Gaza but a significant number of people none the less, and all living under her government's cruel regime. Where was she when the Work Capability Assessment carried out by a darling of the Tory Party machine - Atos, was finding people who were terminally ill 'fit for work'? Not just once or twice but multiple times. People that died within weeks if not days of that lunatic decision?

I could go on and on and on and on, but you'd get bored and you know exactly what I'm getting at anyway. 

Honesty; integrity; empathy; sympathy; and indeed just about every positive human emotion is usually for sale with a Tory. Remember 'Cash for Questions'? or 'Peerages for Sale' (which is still happening); or 'Expenses Scandals'?; or Maria Miller MP?; and so many more shady if not downright criminal behaviours? I look around the government benches and wonder how many of them have portraits up in their attics.

So let's not go overboard eh? What she has done is good and right, but please keep in mind she is a Tory with all the negative connotations that implies and that are displayed daily by people that are still her party friends and close colleagues. Leopards simply don't change their spots.