ChatterBank2 mins ago
Labour's Immigration Policy
http://
Even though the 'man in the street' knew this anyway, Ed Milliband will be saying in a speech that the last Labour Government were wrong on immigration.
Thoughts?
Even though the 'man in the street' knew this anyway, Ed Milliband will be saying in a speech that the last Labour Government were wrong on immigration.
Thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip_flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well sandyRoe, I was shocked that Jack Jones was a Soviet spy, I thought he was far left but not actually paid by an Empire that had a hundred nukes pointed at us.
The big problem with Western politics and especially British politics is that the electorate vote against the snobs or against what they believe are the feckless lower classes. In Britain the labels for these advanced opinions are "Labour" and "Tory". However, these parties are run by small gangs who mount internal coups and have agendas that have little relevance to the good of the English people. Yes, the people who run Labour are all university graduates, academic in orientation and postmarxists and the people who run the Tories are grubby little stooges for big business. You are not really surprised ...
The big problem with Western politics and especially British politics is that the electorate vote against the snobs or against what they believe are the feckless lower classes. In Britain the labels for these advanced opinions are "Labour" and "Tory". However, these parties are run by small gangs who mount internal coups and have agendas that have little relevance to the good of the English people. Yes, the people who run Labour are all university graduates, academic in orientation and postmarxists and the people who run the Tories are grubby little stooges for big business. You are not really surprised ...
@JohnnySid - You have, on at least a couple of occasions, referenced claims or comments you have made in posts here to a political blog, "political thoughts". Are you the writer of that blog? If not, is there any information on the blogger? Why do you think that we should pay any attention to this particular source?
The allegations against Jones were by Soviet defector Oleg Gordievsky, who made similar allegations against Michael Foot which the Sunday Times foolishly printed. Foot sued and the claims did not hold up in court. The Sunday Times paid substantial damages to Foot. The source of the allegations against Jones was thus proven to be unreliable.
OK guys, either all of the data showing that nearly the whole of the New Labour cabinet were Stalinists and Trotskyists is false (including the admissions by Straw and the history of Reid) OR I am making it all up.
On Jones the BBC is also making it up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8289962.stm
Of curse you would say the Daily Mail is making it up:
http://
And the Telegraph:
http://
Or a summary:
http://
During the 70s the strikes were heavily orchestrated by the Soviets, we all know that. People like Jones and Kitson were later found to be Soviet Agents and many of the union guys were left wing fanatics put in post by these two union leaders. This industrial action almost broke Britain but it was not until the 1990s that it became definitely known to be a plot by a small number of insiders.
The 1970s subversion was a subversion, the main players kept it quiet, but the last 10-20 years is completely public. New Labour make no bones about being extreme left and now postmarxist, its just the electorate that refuses to believe they could be acting in bad faith towards the country. They are, of course, because they are public and open about their philosophy, acting in good faith towards their own beliefs. Its just that the left leaning cannot believe it.
On Jones the BBC is also making it up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8289962.stm
Of curse you would say the Daily Mail is making it up:
http://
And the Telegraph:
http://
Or a summary:
http://
During the 70s the strikes were heavily orchestrated by the Soviets, we all know that. People like Jones and Kitson were later found to be Soviet Agents and many of the union guys were left wing fanatics put in post by these two union leaders. This industrial action almost broke Britain but it was not until the 1990s that it became definitely known to be a plot by a small number of insiders.
The 1970s subversion was a subversion, the main players kept it quiet, but the last 10-20 years is completely public. New Labour make no bones about being extreme left and now postmarxist, its just the electorate that refuses to believe they could be acting in bad faith towards the country. They are, of course, because they are public and open about their philosophy, acting in good faith towards their own beliefs. Its just that the left leaning cannot believe it.
Jonnysid:
I am well aware of what postmarxism/poststructuralism are. I just think your use of the terms up until your response was incredibly ham-fisted and deserved challenging.
"That Kromo... believes the readers of this forum might not appreciate being introduced to the real motivations of those who imported millions of people from overseas in the past decade and a half, or find the explanation of these motivations "arrogant", is perhaps giving the readers too little credit."
'Poststructuralism' and 'Postmarxism', in my experience, are not terms which one generally finds outside of academia or specialist literature. I don't see how I was discrediting ABers by asking you to justify your use of the terms for people who hadn't come across them before or weren't as well acquainted with them. Any academic or writer worth their salt would always make it clear from exactly what angle they are deploying terms poststructuralism/postmarxism even to audiences who are well versed in them - people who don't are invariably severely criticised for it. There's no reason the same standard shouldn't apply here.
I am well aware of what postmarxism/poststructuralism are. I just think your use of the terms up until your response was incredibly ham-fisted and deserved challenging.
"That Kromo... believes the readers of this forum might not appreciate being introduced to the real motivations of those who imported millions of people from overseas in the past decade and a half, or find the explanation of these motivations "arrogant", is perhaps giving the readers too little credit."
'Poststructuralism' and 'Postmarxism', in my experience, are not terms which one generally finds outside of academia or specialist literature. I don't see how I was discrediting ABers by asking you to justify your use of the terms for people who hadn't come across them before or weren't as well acquainted with them. Any academic or writer worth their salt would always make it clear from exactly what angle they are deploying terms poststructuralism/postmarxism even to audiences who are well versed in them - people who don't are invariably severely criticised for it. There's no reason the same standard shouldn't apply here.
@ johnnysid - is the "political thoughts" blog you offer as a reference yours?
As to your last tranche of references The BBC do not believe Jack Jones was a soviet spy - they are merely reporting on the claim that he was, made by gordievsky.
The Daily Mail reference is simply a melodramatic retelling of the same claim, made by the same person - Gordievsky. It offers no additional corroborative evidence.
And, amazingly enough, your Daily Telegraph article is another retelling of the same claim, again with no additional corroborative evidence.
So, 3 references, from different sources, but all reporting the same story and offering no independent, corroborative evidence.
I have no idea whether Jack Jones was a soviet mole. It is certainly true to say there were elements within the Labour movement sympathetic to Soviet ideology, but to make such bald statements as yours, as a self evident truth, in the absence of anything other than 1 source is poor practice.
I may also be missing the point, but to claim,as you do in your last post, that the "New Labour" project was "extreme left" is just wrong, as any moderate lefty will tell you :) Tony Blair jettisoned many totemic leftist ideals, to the anguish of the left wing of the Labour party, and enthusiastically embraced several key centre- right ideas in an effort to gain the trust of the electorate and become electable. Or have I misunderstood your last post?
As to the last reference you offer - no specific comment to make except to say that what you are referencing appears to be a personal blog, not a definitive, objective evidence source. A brief review of the reference to Straw being a Stalinist links to yet another site, which again does not offer the original Straw letters, just says that arguments he makes were originally attributable to "Stalinists". Thats not evidence that Straw is or was a Stalinist at all! Thats just an offered opinion from a website, without offering original sources for reference and review.
Politics is a journey - it should never be viewed as a fixed position in time,with individuals incapable of changing their worldview. Many people become idealogically motivated in their youth, and attracted to Left wing philosophies. Life experience, work,and family will all impact and effect an individuals worldview, so to label mature politicians as "Trots and Marxists" purely on the basis of groups they may have belonged to as teens and young adults is just sloppy. They should be judged by their comments and actions at the time they are making them, rather than just dismissed out of hand as extremist lefties on the basis of youthful political ideology.
As to your last tranche of references The BBC do not believe Jack Jones was a soviet spy - they are merely reporting on the claim that he was, made by gordievsky.
The Daily Mail reference is simply a melodramatic retelling of the same claim, made by the same person - Gordievsky. It offers no additional corroborative evidence.
And, amazingly enough, your Daily Telegraph article is another retelling of the same claim, again with no additional corroborative evidence.
So, 3 references, from different sources, but all reporting the same story and offering no independent, corroborative evidence.
I have no idea whether Jack Jones was a soviet mole. It is certainly true to say there were elements within the Labour movement sympathetic to Soviet ideology, but to make such bald statements as yours, as a self evident truth, in the absence of anything other than 1 source is poor practice.
I may also be missing the point, but to claim,as you do in your last post, that the "New Labour" project was "extreme left" is just wrong, as any moderate lefty will tell you :) Tony Blair jettisoned many totemic leftist ideals, to the anguish of the left wing of the Labour party, and enthusiastically embraced several key centre- right ideas in an effort to gain the trust of the electorate and become electable. Or have I misunderstood your last post?
As to the last reference you offer - no specific comment to make except to say that what you are referencing appears to be a personal blog, not a definitive, objective evidence source. A brief review of the reference to Straw being a Stalinist links to yet another site, which again does not offer the original Straw letters, just says that arguments he makes were originally attributable to "Stalinists". Thats not evidence that Straw is or was a Stalinist at all! Thats just an offered opinion from a website, without offering original sources for reference and review.
Politics is a journey - it should never be viewed as a fixed position in time,with individuals incapable of changing their worldview. Many people become idealogically motivated in their youth, and attracted to Left wing philosophies. Life experience, work,and family will all impact and effect an individuals worldview, so to label mature politicians as "Trots and Marxists" purely on the basis of groups they may have belonged to as teens and young adults is just sloppy. They should be judged by their comments and actions at the time they are making them, rather than just dismissed out of hand as extremist lefties on the basis of youthful political ideology.
One for your scrapbook JohnySid
From the Leveson Inquiry, 18th January 2012. John Witherow of the Sunday Times giving evidence.
// 2.37pm: Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, refers to a Sunday Times story in 1994 decribing Michael Foot as a KGB agent.
Witherow says it was based on FALSE INFORMATION in a book by Russian defector Oleg Gordievsky and admits: "I overcooked it and cocked it up."
Foot sued over the story and Witherow dryly tells the inquiry that the politician "built another wing to his house with the proceeds". //
Gordievsky is the same source spreading false information about Jack Jones.
From the Leveson Inquiry, 18th January 2012. John Witherow of the Sunday Times giving evidence.
// 2.37pm: Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, refers to a Sunday Times story in 1994 decribing Michael Foot as a KGB agent.
Witherow says it was based on FALSE INFORMATION in a book by Russian defector Oleg Gordievsky and admits: "I overcooked it and cocked it up."
Foot sued over the story and Witherow dryly tells the inquiry that the politician "built another wing to his house with the proceeds". //
Gordievsky is the same source spreading false information about Jack Jones.
I dont know why people have such trouble with the fact that labour recruits from a rarefied set of graduates who do apprentiships with the unions, learn the latest left wing fad such as postmarxism then get into government and implement what they have learnt.
What is your problem with the truth? Postmarxism replaces class with race in the revolutionary dialectic. The idea that Labour work unrelentingly for the interests of the poor rather than for their own intellectual fantasies is naive.
What is your problem with the truth? Postmarxism replaces class with race in the revolutionary dialectic. The idea that Labour work unrelentingly for the interests of the poor rather than for their own intellectual fantasies is naive.
Lets return to the debate then. Was there a natural change in the climate of debate from class conflict to racial conflict in the past 20 years and was Labour's immigration policy simply a love of the free movement of labour OR was Labour's immigration policy due to a move among the Labour elite from Marxism to postmarxism - from class based polarisation of society to a racially based polarisation - a desire to "rub the Right's nose in diversity" (Andrew Neather) and engender a new style of revolutionary politics?
I say that the evidence is clear. The Labour elite became postmarxist after the fall of communism and imported large numbers of foreigners to ensure a postmarxist racist/antiracist polarisation of political discourse. The Marxist/postmarxist inspired cultural movements of postmodernism and poststructuralism have aided this process immeasurably.
Other posters seem to be arguing that the high rate of immigration and the shift in the terms of political debate from class to race was independent of changes in the political philosophy in the governing party. Those who support this argument do so using the "Sir Humphrey" generic method: Johnysidz's argument is insufficiently referenced/relies on unverifiable sources/may be exaggerating connections/draws conclusions that may not be implied by its postulates etc, etc. The truth of the matter is that they hate to think that they have been duped by a bunch of ex-university trots and stalinists who have become postmarxists without many people noticing.
(PS: Jack Straw's letter was to the Independent on 16th November 2004 - it is now inaccessible on the internet - I read it at home in the paper itself - but there are numerous references to it)
I say that the evidence is clear. The Labour elite became postmarxist after the fall of communism and imported large numbers of foreigners to ensure a postmarxist racist/antiracist polarisation of political discourse. The Marxist/postmarxist inspired cultural movements of postmodernism and poststructuralism have aided this process immeasurably.
Other posters seem to be arguing that the high rate of immigration and the shift in the terms of political debate from class to race was independent of changes in the political philosophy in the governing party. Those who support this argument do so using the "Sir Humphrey" generic method: Johnysidz's argument is insufficiently referenced/relies on unverifiable sources/may be exaggerating connections/draws conclusions that may not be implied by its postulates etc, etc. The truth of the matter is that they hate to think that they have been duped by a bunch of ex-university trots and stalinists who have become postmarxists without many people noticing.
(PS: Jack Straw's letter was to the Independent on 16th November 2004 - it is now inaccessible on the internet - I read it at home in the paper itself - but there are numerous references to it)
"The Marxist/postmarxist inspired cultural movements of postmodernism and poststructuralism have aided this process immeasurably. "
Postmodernism and poststructuralism predate postmarxism. By several decades. And your consistant bandying around of the terms 'postmodern' and 'poststructuralist' without any justification to what particularly you mean by them (as is normally done by pretty much any academic writer worth their salt) just makes me more convinced that you don't know what you're talking about.
I don't have any problem with your characterisation of modern-day Left wing movements as postmarxist, but I think then to make the logical leap that this meant immigration levels over the past 20 years has been 'controlled' somehow is nonsense. Global migration patterns aren't something governments have ever really been able to control - all they've been able to do is react to them. This includes imagining migrants in certain ways perhaps - which is about where I could see the point you're making about the construction of racial politics though I think what you're describing is a broader interest in identity politics rather than exclusively race.
But that's a very different claim to saying that migration levels have been minutely controlled by governments somehow in order to generate racial tension - which is what you appear to be saying. That's some rather paranoid conspiracy logic going on there.
Postmodernism and poststructuralism predate postmarxism. By several decades. And your consistant bandying around of the terms 'postmodern' and 'poststructuralist' without any justification to what particularly you mean by them (as is normally done by pretty much any academic writer worth their salt) just makes me more convinced that you don't know what you're talking about.
I don't have any problem with your characterisation of modern-day Left wing movements as postmarxist, but I think then to make the logical leap that this meant immigration levels over the past 20 years has been 'controlled' somehow is nonsense. Global migration patterns aren't something governments have ever really been able to control - all they've been able to do is react to them. This includes imagining migrants in certain ways perhaps - which is about where I could see the point you're making about the construction of racial politics though I think what you're describing is a broader interest in identity politics rather than exclusively race.
But that's a very different claim to saying that migration levels have been minutely controlled by governments somehow in order to generate racial tension - which is what you appear to be saying. That's some rather paranoid conspiracy logic going on there.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Asma Al-Assad Cannot Return To The Uk
News7 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
