06/09/2012 - 18.30pm to the Glynhill Hotel for a political meeting run by the Labour Party and the Unite Union, to be addressed by Jim Sheridan labour MP and Len McCluskie Gen. Sec. of Unite. Those harbingers of poor turn outs wind and rain were in evidence as I made my way to the venue where to my slight surprise I found a healthy crowd which swelled to standing room only as the meeting got underway. I reflected that such meetings were once commonplace and how gratifying it was to be attending here. The crowd was overwhelmingly Labour with enough members of other smaller parties in the hall eyeing each other suspiciously but it was genial enough. There was certainly a mood of common purpose in the room laced with anger; this anger was directed at the Tory/Libdem Govt. closely followed by anger and criticism of the Labour Party.
The theme of the meeting which developed as the speeches and questions went on was one of rebuilding the labour Party or as some chose to put it "reclaiming the labour party" a theme close to my heart as readers of this blog will know. Are you a worker, a union member, a socialist, do you want to change society, do you want to help those less fortunate than yourself, do you want to redistribute wealth in favour of the working class, do you want full employment etc. etc. if you do 'join the party' the party needs you and you need the party so why not.
Maybe its wishful thinking but this meeting gave me hope, there was a tangible feeling of anger, a feeling that things had gone so far against us that we have to unite and stand together. The Labour Party is the voice of the working class and the unions that's why we were formed and we can still play that role. The theory is simple you join and you attend meetings. At those meetings you get to vote on the issues and if you get a majority of the votes you win.
Do you like the Party leaders? If not you make sure your MP will support the candidates chosen by you and those who agree with you, you have a voice and it's time to use it. See what is being done to the poor the sick, the homeless, the disabled by this bunch of knuckle dragging bastards in Government who allow billions and billions to be spirited away from the country by their rich friends, time to hit back? We need unity not division we need to be heard in the Party and in the streets.
I once by a happy accident spent approx. 1 hour in the company of Tony Benn, just him, me, the late Labour Cllr. Ronnie Burns and my Labour colleague Tommy Williams a fabulous never to be forgotten hour and I remember his conviction and sadness as he told us that there were at that time 23 left wing parties in the UK and he speculated about how unity could rule the day and help bring about socialism. This is still the case today but I don't accept that it has to be like this, the fact is that we all want the same things and the only way we will get them is together in unity. There is room in the Labour Party for all of us and what we are about to face over the next few years demands action and loyalty to the cause we can't go on forever splitting hairs and arguing amongst ourselves. We can make the Labour Party a great Socialist Party and we can make it a mass party, it's time!
30 comments:
Ah yes, what a trio... 'Leather Bed'Sheridan, 'Bugger the Olympics'McCluskie and Kelly, appropriately, bringing up the rear, all wanting to go back to the days before Blair made the party electable.
A laudable ambition, Councillor.. I wish you every success.
Despite your obvious nostalgia for the days when working class people could not afford to enter politics we will not be going back there.
"bugger the Olympics" If I had the choice of spending money on games or education, Health or housing the games would indeed be buggered. As would the Royal Family, The House of Lords etc.
While disabled people are being forced to work and subjected to humiliating tests,interviews and bullying I think our priorities as a country are wrong, does that make me a dangerous Marxist revolutionary?
You wish, Terry. You're more of an irrelevance, as is that other nostalgist McLuskie.
Anonymous said..Tuesday, September 11, 2012 5:01:00 PM.
You are of course entitled to your opinion but can you not give us an inkling of what you stand for? is it that stupid? are you that ashamed. We know that your name being disclosed scares you but surely you could give us an argument; under the cloak of anonymity of course.
Thanks for the invitation, councillor. I don't stand for anything, but if you're interested in my opinions...constitutionally, I'm a Scottish nationalist and a republican: I believe in the nation state generally, I value my country's culture (not uncritically, of course), and I think that choosing your head of state by birth is imbecilic. Socially, I'm a liberal: people are entitled to live however they choose as long as their actions don't harm others. So if someone is gay, or practices a particular relgion, or chooses to drink heavily or take drugs, or hold unpopular opinions, that's their business and no-one else's. Economically, I'm a liberal too: individuals are best placed to make their own decisions about how to spend their resources. A free market is the best way to allow an effective allocation of wealth where it'll do most good. I dislike conservatism because it subordinates the interest of the individual to tradition, and I dislike socialism because it subordinates the interest of the individual to a perceived idea of the collective interest. I loathe corporate capitalism, because it allows big business to form cartels that exploit consumers and employees, and to stifle competition. I believe that most people are both pretty decent and self-interested: those two things together are sufficient to allow harmonious co-operation between individuals with minimal interference from the state, church or anyone else who believes they have a right to tell people how to behave. You did ask...
Anonymous said...
Sunday, September 16, 2012 12:45:00 PM
A long winded and tedious way of saying I stand for nothing and believe in less as long as I’m all right.
Well, as for long winded, it's shorter than most of your blogs. As for tedious, it's not my fault if you have a short attention span.
I told you what I believe in-effectively I don't like other people telling me what's good for me, and by extension I don't like wee yaps setting themselves up as having the right to tell anyone else how they should behave. Most people like that are personally inadequate, in my experience. You'd probably know that better than me.
Anyway, tell me what parts of my earlier post you dispute, and why: try to avoid dogma, cliche or ad hominem abuse. I bet you can't.
Anonymous said..Sunday, September 16, 2012 3:00:00 PM
I think comments should be as short as possible, But my attention span is fine if what I’m reading is interesting. I found your post to be vain and arrogant and not a little cowardly. Just like this one which talks tough and remains anonymous. I asked you to state what you stood for and got what I expected “Nothing”
Vain? Arrogant? Cowardly? In what sense? You asked what I believe in, and I told you. I believe that individuals are best placed to make the decisions that affect them directly. I'd say that's the opposite of vanity or cowardice: I know what's best for me, and I'm not arrogant enought to believe that I'm a special case. You, I assume, don't agree: am I correct? If I am, is that because you believe people are too stupid or too immoral? At least try to justify your objections to what I wrote, if you can.
I knew that you couldn't respond to a different point of view without resorting to insults. You must be a joy to spend an evening with.
Anonymous said.. Monday, September 17, 2012 6:22:00 PM
“I knew that you couldn't respond to a different point of view without resorting to insults.You must be a joy to spend an evening with“
You don’t do irony either do you? Just my opinion of course but you come across as a vainglorious bully who is not as clever as he thinks he is. And anyone who is prepared to enter into an exchange of correspondence such as this while remaining anonymous is indeed a coward. I put you down right away as a nationalist, the kind Einstein was referring to when he described people like you as the measles of the Planet Earth,
I tried to post a reply to your last message earlier today, councillor, but I don't think it loaded. Anyway, you accuse me of being a vainglorious bully. I'm neither. I treat people with respect, and as for vaingloriousness, I can only assume that you interpret my conviction that I'm best placed to make decisions for myself as arrogance. Do you really think that other people are in a better position than you to decide how you should live?
I explained to you, on another thread, that my job requires political neutrality: hence my decision to remain anonymous. I think that the only reason you're belabouring that point is that you don't feel capable of responding analytically, or even rationally, to the points I made with regard to my political opinions.
So I'm not as clever as I think I am... That's a bit of a moot point, isn't it? But I have to say that the only people I've ever heard use that expression are those who that know, deep down, that they're not very clever at all.
You're right: I am a nationalist. I probably gave that away when I wrote "I'm a nationalist" on an earlier post in this thread, but it was very perceptive of you to pick that up. Congratulations.
Anyway, I'll challenge you again-dispute, without abuse or dogma, any of my political beliefs. Go on, try at least.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:16:00 PM Anonymous said...
Are you aware that this is the third version of the same post you have sent? As I said not nearly as clever as you obviously think you are.
"As I said not nearly as clever as you obviously think you are. "
He sounds fairly intelligent to me, unlike you who comes over as an overbearing boor who has learned to parrot stock phrases.
Are you aware that this is the third time you've shown yourself incapable of disputing anything I've written? As I suspect, every bit as thick as you fear you are.
Deary Deary me Terry! Every person in every country is a nationalist and the people in every country do not want to fight anyone or invade the country of anyone else. It is governments that are the problem that manipulate the people into wars for usually selfish reasons i.e.stealing resources, land etc.
Maybe if you go do a wee bit of research you will find the same (bankers) names behind most of the wars in the last couple of hundred years. You will also find the same bankers controlling all the political parties now - yes you are right the people do need to take back control of the Labour party as do the people in the other parties - the trouble is political parties are too easily controlled.
The system is the problem it has been set up by the bankers to pass all the wealth up to them at the disadvantage of EVERYONE else. What is happening just now with the collapse of the financial system is deliberate with the aid of the controlled at the top of the political parties - Afraid to say Terry your unions are controlled at the top as well with the top man on the board of the PRIVATE Bank of England that is scamming the people. Ask yourself why the government who prints the money can be in debt to itself - it is a huge scam!
Go and Google the Lawful Bank especially the Youtube video of Roger Hayes speaking in Manchester
How can it be Terry that after lightening my day by reading a real piece about real socialism, just a day later I see you taking Iain Duncan Smith's side in the Herald.
This idiotic Bain principle that Labour have against the SNP is destroying the Labour as a party.
Time for a rethink. The real enemy of the people of Scotland is the Tories.
Running Man said... Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:55:00 PM
Anyone who thinks I would take Ian Duncan Smith’s side in anything is either completely thick or an absolute liar. You choose. P.S. what is a Bain principle?
Billy said... Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:54:00 PM
“Every person in every country is a nationalist”
No they are not. And I don’t need the lecture thanks.
So are you saying that the current Labour party isn't the party you want it to be?
Wow Terry.
You haven't come out of those exchanges particularly well.
The only thing missing from your replies is "Nyaaa nya de nya nya".
And you were calling someone "not as clever as you think you are"?
How do you think you come across in this blog?
Childish beyond belief?
Ignorant?
Boorish?
All of the above?
People like you have taken the labour party to the abysmal situation it has found itself in.
Oh you had help from your own personal Tory boy Blair, but you were heading there anyway by virtue of your arrogance and complacency.
So go on Terry, use a few witty name calling choices and quote some serious books you have never read.
I know who and what you are.
An old, tedious, boorish, pretend socialist of the worst kind.
You will be the death of labour.
Iain Kelly said...Friday, September 21, 2012 9:34:00 PM
“The only thing missing from your replies is "Nyaaa nya de nya nya".”
Indeed and Nya, nya, de nya nya to you to Iain.
When I am being attacked by people who use various versions of nya nya etc. I tend not to take them very seriously, That of course includes you. Have you got your “Jack Boots” polished up for the march?
Books? I always made a point of reading voraciously every time I found myself in prison.
Anonymous said.
Friday, September 21, 2012 12:30:00 PM
“So are you saying that the current Labour party isn't the party you want it to be?”
I’ve been a party member for approx. 40 years and I have never spent one of those days entirely happy with the Labour Party, perhaps I never will. However when I find people who are entirely happy with their own political party I instinctively distrust them, that includes lots of Tories some labour and almost every snp member I have ever met.
"Have you got your “Jack Boots” polished up for the march? "
Pathetic but predictable.
The dearth of your capability knows no bounds it would seem.
And for the record, I am a labour supporter.
Your blog (which I was advised to read by a friend who could not believe what she read) and your comments make me ashamed of the fact.
Iain Kelly said...Friday, September 21, 2012 9:34:00 PM
So according to you I’m Childish, Ignorant, Boorish, arrogant, complacent, tedious and a pretend socialist. You then get something right when you say I’m old (63?) and I quote from books I’ve never read which is true but; you could have included poetry, plays, essays, lectures etc. as well as those I have read or attended. A rather strange accusation, I’m not sure what you mean, perhaps your temper is getting the better of you; maybe you could explain why you said that?
All of this apparently makes you ashamed, so what can I say except you are rather silly and a thick liar, I hope that upsets you as well.
"so what can I say except you are rather silly and a thick liar"
First class work.
I am overwhelmed by your insight Mr Kelly.
Now that I have seen for myself that what my friend pointed out to me was indeed correct and that she did not exaggerate your idiocy, ignorance and petty-mindedness, I will let your 'blog' slip back into my own personal oblivion file, where it so rightly belongs.
I hope what is left of your life brings you happiness and the ability to see yourself as you are being seen.
How far is the Labour party from being the party you'd wish it to be and what would you most like to change about it's current incarnation?
Iain Kelly said...Sunday, September 23, 2012 7:45:00 PM
You do a good line in idiocy, ignorance, and petty mindedness yourself.
When I find someone writing to me who is so obviously false I don’t take them seriously. It’s much easier to treat such people in the way they treat me so there you have it. You are probably better to leave it at that but please feel free to come back if you are interested in a real debate.
Anonymous said...Monday, September 24, 2012 10:42:00 AM
That is not possible to answer; I would simply say that along with many others I think we can be a more socialist party, more to the left. We are the only party in the UK which stands for the working class but we can always do more.
How do you define the 'working class' and do you feel this demographic has changed much since you first joined the Labour party?
"How do you define the 'working class'"
It's a reference that goes back quite a bit and has never really been replaced but Of course it does not mean the same as it did 80 years ago.
I'm not aware of any drastic changes in my 40 years in the party, it's more to do with how you think about yourself and what you do for a living and of course how you see others as well and what they do and who has got money and power. but changes? yes things change.
"the only constant is change" (Leon Trotsky)
Post a Comment