Labourhome » Bryan Gould PM

Advertise on this site

Bryan Gould PM

jkitleft Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 11:28:36 PM GMT Facebook

I don't know if anyone else has seen this, but there was a 'comment is free' section, I believe for the Guardian, in which Tony Benn as PM was invisaged. It was a bit too optomistic, but Paul Linford added a different scenario. What if Gould had agreed to a pact with Smith in 1992? Smith offered him a pact, which would see Gould as deputy leader. Now if Gould as acting leader, could have managed to win, it would have been he, not Blair, who entered Downing Street on 2nd May 1997.

Advertise on this site with MessageSpace

tags: Bryan Gould, Tony Benn, Paul Linford, John Smith, Tony Blair (all tags)

Bryan Gould PM | 40 comments (40 topical)

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#1)

by petercoe on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 11:40:43 PM GMT

Well yes, but if Margaret Beckett had managed to win it as the actual acting leader she'd have been entering Downing Street on 2nd May 1997 (assuming, of course, that a Gould or Beckett-led Labour Party would have won the actual election - and that's a big if given that neither would have likely made the necessary party reforms).

We could go on like this ad nauseum: if John Smith hadn't died he'd have been entering Downing Street in 1997; if Kinnock hadn't lost the general election in 1992 he'd have been PM, etc. etc.

The thing is: events didn't happen like that, so what's the point of this thread? And I ask as someone who voted for Gould (as Leader - think I voted for Beckett for Deputy) in 1992.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#3)

by jonesythered on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 12:23:14 AM GMT

"(assuming, of course, that a Gould or Beckett-led Labour Party would have won the actual election - and that's a big if given that neither would have likely made the necessary party reforms)." Under John Smith - before these "necessary party reforms" you refer to - Labour was enjoying poll ratings of about 50%.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#4)

by Glass House on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 01:17:07 AM GMT

The public were afraid of us though and were perfectly capable, as in 1992, of swinging back to the Tories given a suitably negative/fear-driven campaign.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#6)

by petercoe on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 02:31:26 AM GMT

Yes - before the 1992 General Election Labour was enjoying huge leads too - including election night exit polls. Remind me who won the 1992 General Election please?

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#7)

by jonesythered on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 09:05:45 AM GMT

Labour had not previously reached the consistently high opinion ratings it achieved post-Black Wednesday 1992 since the early 80s. Indeed, from Black Wednesday onwards, Labour had a consistently high opinion roll rating that was only broken temporarily by the 2000 fuel crisis - 8 years later. The poll leads enjoyed by Labour pre-1992 General Election were nowhere near as high or as sustained.

Furthermore, there is something of a myth about the early 80s. Despite the SDP breakaway, it was not until the Falklands War that the Labour lead was lost. Throughout 1981 - the year of left ascendancy (including Benn's deputy leadership campaign), Labour was enjoying 10-point leads.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#9)

by jkitleft on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 09:23:36 AM GMT

exactly jonesy. Glass, our poll leads were all over the place from 87-92, sometimes the Tories would close the gap, or lead, sometime we would be ahead. We had uninterupted poll leads from Black Wednesday. And John Smith didn't have the same stigma as a left-winger. Interesting Peter that you voted for Gould, not Smith.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#19)

by petercoe on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 04:07:08 PM GMT

Yes, I was the one!

Not that interesting really, unless you want to cast that vote in terms of left and right which would be a mistake. Gould was one of the people responsible for beginning the modernisation of Labour - so hardly a left-winger by any definition. The fact that some on the left ended up backing him as the lesser of two moderate evils just means that the left backed him, not that he was the candidate of the left.

I was never especially impressed with John Smith: he was always someone who seemed to prefer to muddle along and not cause waves rather than a person of principle willing to lead. It was actually Gould, not Smith, who was arguing that "one more heave" wasn't good enough after the 1992 defeat. Hence, is it really so surprising that someone who believed Labour needed to keep reforming voted for Gould rather than "steady as she goes" Smith?

: Re: Bryan Gould PM (#35)

by jkitleft on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 10:26:18 PM GMT

Smith had principle. Blair doesn't.

[ Parent ]

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#10)

by petercoe on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 01:04:48 PM GMT

You need to re-read your history Jonesy: Labour throughout the early 1980s NEVER performed as well as it did between 1987 and 1992.

And all you need to do to check that is look at Labour's record in parliamentary by-elections from 1979 to 1992: very poor performances (even in seats we won, like Fulham in 1986 the showing wasn't close to being good enough to win, and was followed by disasters like Greenwich).

During the 1987 to 1992 parliament, Labour performed much more convincingly, both in polls (which did, in fact give Labour leads in the high teens and low twenties - which I think trumps the 10% leads you refer to); and in by-election results; most impressively Mid Staffordshire.

Sooner or later you're going to have to emerge from your fairytale that Labour was popular when the Bennites were in charge: you're just making yourself look ridiculous.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#12)

by jonesythered on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 01:21:38 PM GMT

Peter,

What you really need to do is learn to be civil to people. I suggest you look at the following website: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/trends/voting-all-trends.shtml. As you can see, Labour enjoyed a consistent high lead (10 points in Jan 1981) which was then decreased by the SDP breakaway (Feb 1981). Despite a potentially lethal party split, a lead was maintained until the Argentine invasion of the Falklands in April 1982.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#13)

by petercoe on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 01:38:42 PM GMT

Telling you you're wrong just because you consistently are doesn't make me uncivil - it just makes you wrong.

I'm not disputing that Labour had 10% leads in the early 1980s - where did I say we did not? What I said was that the leads Labour managed to scrape together (due far more to the initial unpopularity of the Thatcher reforms than to some massive feeling of love for a divided Labour Party just booted out of power) were incomparable to the far more impressive leads in the high teens and low twenties that Labour racked-up in the late 1980s and early 1990; backed up in parliamentary by-elections.

In fact, we have good reason to believe that those poll leads overstated Labour's support and even Mid Staffs was not a convincing enough by-election win for the Party (though light years better than anything it had managed in the decade til then).

But that's beside the point: the point is that you falsely claimed that Labour performed far more impressively in the polls in the early Bennite 1980s than it did in the late 1980s. That's simply untrue and no matter how many times you claim otherwise you can't rewrite history Jonesy.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#14)

by jonesythered on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 02:05:12 PM GMT

"But that's beside the point: the point is that you falsely claimed that Labour performed far more impressively in the polls in the early Bennite 1980s than it did in the late 1980s. That's simply untrue and no matter how many times you claim otherwise you can't rewrite history Jonesy."

Sorry, where did I say that? You've got an uncanny ability to completely misrepresent and distort people's arguments, Peter. I never anything of the sort - I was referring to how Labour was faring in the opinion polls and what I have written makes that abundantly clear.

If you continue to argue in such an unpleasant fashion and distort my arguments - as you keep doing - then I will simply cease to debate with you.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#15)

by jkitleft on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 02:39:54 PM GMT

The New Labour school of thought that we would be unsuccessful if we are moderately left-wing is false. Jim Callaghan (rightly said) that whoever won the 1979 election would be in power for a generation. Because of oil. I resent people saying that 'socialism is dead'. No it's not. If Callaghan had won, Social Democracy would be the model being copied by other countries, and other parties in other countries. We can't simply accept Thatcherism and say, 'the world has changed', Blair had the chance to change the concencus into a social democratic concencus. He didn't.

: Re: Bryan Gould PM (#18)

by petercoe on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 04:00:02 PM GMT

You're back to these hypotheses again jkit: Labour may well have been in power for a long time in 1979 had the party managed to win that election, but THEY LOST - and given the failures of the Callaghan government Labour didn't really have any chance of winning (maybe in October 1978, but not in April 1979).
Anyway, Jim Callaghan was wrong: if you seriously believe that Labour would have reformed Britain in the ways that were needed post 1979 to guarantee re-election again and again you're deluded.
But this thread is about Labour post-1992, not 1979. And then, Labour was in broadly the same place as the Tories are today: with substantial baggage and with the public widely believing that they were saddled with the same old beliefs that had been rejected four times in succession.
By completing the modernisation began by Neil Kinnock (which John Smith was, at best, reticent about, being of the "one more heave" mentality) Blair demonstrated to the public that Labour had changed and acknowledged that the Conservatives hadn't won four times by some fluke - that they had changed the country and we needed policies that reflected the times, not that were stuck in the late 1970s.
Today, the Tories have the same problem: they like Cameron, but believe he leads a still largely unreformed party that's still in denial that it's lost three elections and blames everyone but itself for those defeats.
By insisting that Labour could have won by anything like so emphatic a margin in 1997 without the reforms that the party underwent, you are mirroring precisely the attitude of the right-wingers in the Conservative Party of today who believe they just need to return to Thatcherism and they'll be back winning again.
Emphatically wrong in both cases, I'm afraid.

[ Parent ]

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#17)

by petercoe on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 03:46:43 PM GMT

Jonesy, given that you don't seem to be aware of what you yourself are writing, let alone anyone else, perhaps it would be better if you took yourself off instead of contradicting yourself so blatantly. Just take the above post of yours:

With your comment "sorry where did I say that?" you deny you were talking about how Labour was faring in polls - then in your very next line you acknowledge that you were referring to how Labour was faring in polls! Well, you were right second time, but then why start off your post denying it?!

Let me help you untangle the muddle you've got yourself into (I'm generous like that):

First you claimed (wrongly) that "Labour had not previously reached the consistently high opinion ratings it achieved post-Black Wednesday 1992 since the early 80s."

I then pointed out that this was untrue: in the 1987-1992 parliament Labour performed far more strongly in both polls and by-elections than at any point since it lost power in 1979.

You then claimed (correctly) that Labour enjoyed poll leads of up to 10% in the early 1980s - as if that was a refutation of the fact that Labour was far stronger in polls in the late 1980s than the early 1980s. You are again wrong in that belief: between 1987 and 1992 Labour's lead was often in the high teens or low to mid twenties - right up until Margaret Thatcher resigned but they still went on to lose the 1992 election.

The relevance of that fact is simply that opinion poll leads - which we now have strong evidence to suspect were erroneous anyway (including during the 1992-1997 parliament) - do not in themselves mean that Labour would have won the 1997 election under a different leader. It is highly probable that they would; though probably by less without completing the modernisation of the party (something Gould probably wouldn't have done, but neither would Smith) but as this is a hypothesis it cannot be claimed as certainty.

If you don't like me pointing out that you are repeatedly wrong in fact, start being correct. This isn't about opinions - it's about facts: just get them straight is all I'm asking.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#21)

by jonesythered on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 04:30:09 PM GMT

I'm a rush right now, you don't seem to realise that I was referring to opinion polls in both cases? When I referred to "polls", I wasn't referring to elections. This is why I posted a link to opinion polls for the last 30 years. To be perfectly honest, this is entirely clear from what I had written - and indeed jkleft seems to have avoided being as confused as you seem to be.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#30)

by petercoe on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 09:49:47 PM GMT

Well therein lies your confusion, because actually I did comprehend you were talking about opinion polls in both circumstances.

I brought elections into the argument (obviously now a mistake as you didn't seem able to compute this additional complexity) because Labour also did much better in by-elections at the end of the 1980s than it did in the early 1980s - it's called substantiating an argument.

Do you now accept that Labour in the late 1980s performed substantially better than it did in the early 1980s, given that leads in the high teens and low twenties are better than leads of around 10%? Just agree, admit you're wrong and we can move on to one of the many other arguments we're having elsewhere...

: Re: Bryan Gould PM (#34)

by jkitleft on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 10:22:59 PM GMT

SDP were the by-election kings of the early 80's, it was labour from 87-92, Lib Dems peformed better than Labour in the next parliament for by-elections, and recently they've been peforming well against Labour in by-elections.

[ Parent ]

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#2)

by swatantra on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 12:18:22 AM GMT

What absolute cods. petercoe beat me to it, what if Margaret Becket..... Gould had all the charisma of a wet fish. The party does not like intellectuals to lead it; never has.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#5)

by MM on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 01:30:41 AM GMT

It was when Gould emigrated to NZ and John Major tried to taunt Blair at PMQ's that Tony Blair shot back with his famous 'I lead my party not follow'. A line that David Cameron recently copied on the Today program. I was reminded of this because the excellent BBC Parliament showed the clip in a show on Blair's parliamentary life 'From Beaconsfield to Baghadad'. If you have a spare half hour you can still watch it on online http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/default.stm Some great clips of Blair's in fine form both mocking the Tories and having the ability to laugh at himself.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#8)

by jkitleft on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 09:20:19 AM GMT

i'm merely pointing out that any leader would have won in 1997. And it's rediculous to suggest that a majority of 179, could so easily turn into a Tory majority. We would have won because the Tories had finally lost their poll lead on economic competence in 1992.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#11)

by petercoe on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 01:08:49 PM GMT

It's likely that this proposition would have been proved true: but it's equally true that an unreformed Labour would have won by nowhere close to the majority we achieved.

You may say "so what - a win's a win" - but what you fail to grasp is that it was the overwhelming nature of our victory in 1997 that set up 2001 and 2005 and keeps Labour in a strong position comparative to the Tories in 2009/10.

Sneaking into office with a timid leader and an only partially reformed party still committed to the sort of toxic policies the left still want to impose on the country would have achieved precisely the same thing all previous Labour governments have accomplished: a very short blip in Tory rule followed by another decade of electoral defeat.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#16)

by jkitleft on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 02:42:09 PM GMT

John Smith-timid? Bull. He was a man of conviction. He was respected. Which is more than I can say for Anthony.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#20)

by petercoe on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 04:17:41 PM GMT

Anthony who? Blair? Are you joking?! You really lose credibility with these frivolous and just plain bitter outbursts jkit. Just look at the post-resignation polls to see that of all the accusations you can lay at Blair's feet not respected isn't one.

It's also somewhat odd that a "soft left" winger like you is the one defending John Smith - just goes to show that all someone has to do for the left to U-Turn on their history of attacks on them is pass away.

John Smith was always a machine-politician of the old right - principle was the last thing the left ever claimed the back-room fixers of the right: Hattersley, Healey, Shore, Silkin and Smith ever possessed...at least when he was alive.

Of course John Smith was widely respected: he was a commanding performer in the House of Commons, but he also made tremendous mistakes: his shadow budget before 1992 being a major one; his opposition to OMOV another; his belief that doing nothing post 1992 would get Labour into power - key failings of leadership.

Let's not confuse respect and conviction: he had much of the former, much less of the latter. And let's have the integrity to hold the same opinions of someone after they died that we held of them while they were alive.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#22)

by otware on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 05:24:13 PM GMT

I think John Smith would have made a better PM than Blair. Fair enough, he wouldn't have had quite the same landslide but overall his policies were less toxic and divisive than Blair's.

And anyway, a monkey in a red rossette could have led Labour to a victory in 1997 - Oh sorry, a monkey did lead Labour to an election victory in 1997.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#23)

by Glass House on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 05:44:23 PM GMT

Except in times of crisis (1945, 1979) you change the politcal landslide by taking and holding the centre-ground and remaking it in your own image - not by staying on your own patch and getting an occasional and temporary sniff of power when the public simply can't stand another second of the other guys.

The right of the Conservative party, which dominated the country for 18 years has been virtually destroyed as an electoral force. The Tories must now talk of the benefits of public spending and praise Labour's social policy to even seem like a plausable government in waiting.

That is Blair's legacy.

: Re: Bryan Gould PM (#27)

by otware on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 11:22:34 PM GMT

I agree that is a very good legacy =). I'm not denying that Blair's government has done some brilliant things. Minimum wage, N. Ireland, devolution (although that's unfinished business), fox hunting, sierra leone and destroying Thatcherism are all wondeful achievements. It's just a shame in my opinion that Iraq, privatisation, PFI, trust schools, topup fees, city academies, sleaze and party democracy issues have left a bitter taste.

[ Parent ]

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#24)

by jkitleft on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 09:56:59 PM GMT

Blair was seen overall as a 'good' PM in the post-resignation polls. Let's not confuse this with respect. Oh, and wasn't Smith the one who introduced OMOV in 1993? Hardly being opposed, and even if he was, there were many policies which Blair introduced, which he was firmly against. And I doubt John Smith opposed OMOV, he was a conviction politician. And if it's odd for a 'soft-left' to support Smith, then it is odd for you to have supported Bryan Gould in 1992.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#28)

by petercoe on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 02:19:23 PM GMT

Err no, if you recall, it was left to Prescott to squeeze through the narrow OMOV result; with Smith largely quiet and making it quite clear he'd rather not have had such a divisive discussion when what Labour should be doing is being quiet and just waiting for the Tories to defeat themselves.

As for your last line, please explain why you find that odd for me to have supported Gould given that as I explained before he was one of the founders of the modernisation of Labour. The fact that he won some support among the left (and let's be honest: even a large chunk of the left of the party voted for Smith or abstained) didn't make him the left-wing candidate, any more than it makes any of the Deputy Leadership candidates of today left-wingers (even though some are pretending to be).

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#32)

by jkitleft on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 10:18:21 PM GMT

I'm aware Prescott was the one who pushed through the OMOV reforms. But OMOV took up the first year, rather than policies for Smith. He should have paid more attention to policies. He had some very intriguing policies. but Smith's OMOV reforms were more important that the abolition of Clause 4. Clause 4 was strictly, symbolic, and OMOV changed party democracy, and can be seen as the reforms that led to Clause 4 being more widely accepted.

: Re: Bryan Gould PM (#33)

by jkitleft on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 10:20:50 PM GMT

I'm not old enough to know what Smith was doing, but i would prefer him staying quiet like Attlee, all substance and no show, than Blair who used soundbites to control a situation.

[ Parent ]

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#25)

by jkitleft on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 09:59:43 PM GMT

I think you often lose credibility for saying that people like Segolene Royal are loony left. I don't try and hide my bitterness at Blair. he was a man who had the oppertunity to change the Thatcherite concencus, into a social democratic concencus. This is what he failed to do. I still stand by my comment about him not having respect though.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#26)

by swatantra on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:42:43 PM GMT

Whatever you think of Blair, he is definitely in a different league to the others. John Smith was just another pedestrian politician who would have led us into another defeat.There was no special about him, in fact he had all the bearing of a chartered accountant. I doubt if he could have struck a chord in the electorate who would have regarded him as just another boring politician. What Blair brought to politics was excitment and hope.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#29)

by petercoe on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 02:30:21 PM GMT

Again, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on both counts.

All mainland European Socialist parties with the possible exception of Portugal's embody policy that is either as extreme, or further to the left of Labour in 1983 when it was - whether you like it or not - a party dominated by the loony left.

As for your comments on Blair, to answer whether he's changed society you simply need to think back to what the country was like in 1997 and how it is today: more tolerant, more outgoing, stronger, more prosperous. These are all progressive values. You seem to determine how successful a government has been on particular shibboleth policies - far more concerned with means rather than ends - and as such it's little wonder that you end up unhappy with the Government. I just don't think your measures are right, or fair or objective.

I guess I also disagree with you about the ability of government to change a "consensus": again I think this is very much a debate about how one perceives our country. You seem to be from the school that believes that there's a left-of-centre majority in this country that has been denied a voice because the centre left has been split between Labour and the LibDems. I belong to the school that believes that the country is essentially right-of-centre which is why until finally waking up to that post 1992 Labour had only served as an interlude to Conservative government.

Those two philosophies dictate how leftwing we believe a Labour government either could or should be. You'll always be disappointed in your Labour governments, I suspect - they'll never be as bold as you believe they could be, which to me is a rather depressing way to be.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#31)

by jkitleft on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 10:13:36 PM GMT

I believe it is the leadership of the party that believes in the means, rather than the ends. The leadership, is of spin and no substance, floating the idea of abandoning civil liberties, without considering that the ends could be alienating the muslim commuity, in a way that only the black community have been alienated under the sus laws of the '70's. These are truly the Labour politicians who believe in means rather than ends, purely for the fact of spin, to make us look 'Tough on Crime, tough on the causes of crime'. We have shocking inequality. We are weaker, as the 'tolerance' has led to prejudice, in which communities are suspicious of each other, and has led to the stereotyping of young, muslim, men. I'm from a school of thought that believes that the public isn't as immersed in politics as us, and that voting is most often decided on superficial reasons. And find me the european socialist party that calls for a single chamber parliament, pulling out of the EU and NATO, nationalising the 25 main companies, and other such policies. it seems that New Labour often seems to have a panic attack at the though of being even a centre-left party. It's not that I believe we should be centre-left, just for the sake of being centre-left, for I do not believe in the means rather than the ends. I believe in being centre-left, because it is the best way of solving our shocking inequality, the 'Education, education, Education' promise which we haven't fulfilled.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#36)

by petercoe on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 02:38:56 AM GMT

Yet it's the far left that goes on about "mass privatisation of public services" even though a) there's no such thing and b) the involvement of the private sector in the NHS has improved the outcomes for patients be it shorter waiting times, better facilities, new hospitals being built far quicker than without PFI etc.

Likewise, it's just spin that anyone's abandoning civil liberties - it's just that many of us prefer to champion the civil liberties of the law abiding majority than of terrorists, and if your only argument against that prioritisation is that it offends a community over a quarter of whom believe that the government was responsible for the July 7th bombings when in fact it was exclusively from that community that the terrorists have emerged, then that's a risible excuse.

Crime is down and we have more police back on the beat. How is that spin?

We do not have "shocking" inequality - stop being so melodramatic. Poverty is incomparable to that of fifty, let alone 100 years ago - there will always be inequality and equality of wealth is both unachievable (because all you do by improving the affluence of the least affluent is reweight the median, thereby creating a new definition of affluent/deprived) and undesirable (because wealth should in part be determined by effort, and some will always be more diligent than others). Yes, more can be done to raise people out of poverty but lets not pretend that no-one has already been lifted out of poverty: in fact hundreds of thousands of children have already been.

How can you claim that "tolerance" has led to prejudice: are you really arguing, for instance, that there is more homophobia as a result of civil partnerships and equal rights for gays and lesbians?

Communities as defined by race may well be more suspicious of each other, but deep down how certain are you that this is due to government policies and not - as there is far more evidence to support - of the failure of multiculturalism, and the acceptance of those who refuse to integrate? That failure is of a cherished left-wing tenet that even the CRE acknowledges.

Finally, in respect of education, what precisely would your "centre left" government have done beyond what this government has done? Even more investment than has gone in? Paid for how? Even more places in higher education? Paid for how? Is it a betrayal of centre left values for this government to have set out a goal of funding pupils in the state sector to the same level as the private sector? Would standards have risen even faster than they have under this government? How, precisely? Nursery education complemented by SureStart and Baby bonds - not good enough? Again, how would you have done better? Or is it just that the government hasn't abolished all grammar schools, faith schools and public schools? If so, that's the politics of means, not ends.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#37)

by jonesythered on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 08:56:41 AM GMT

For the damaging effects of privatisation in public services, I'd suggest that you have a look at this pamphlet. "and if your only argument against that prioritisation is that it offends a community over a quarter of whom believe that the government was responsible for the July 7th bombings when in fact it was exclusively from that community that the terrorists have emerged, then that's a risible excuse."

Is your implication that the Muslim community is collectively guilty of the 7/7 bombing attacks?

The majority of the British people as a whole believe that there is a direct connection between the invasion of Iraq and the 7/7 attack.

"Communities as defined by race may well be more suspicious of each other, but deep down how certain are you that this is due to government policies and not - as there is far more evidence to support - of the failure of multiculturalism, and the acceptance of those who refuse to integrate? That failure is of a cherished left-wing tenet that even the CRE acknowledges."

Perhaps you'd like to expand on this, Peter? I'd love to hear more of your opinions on this issue.

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#38)

by petercoe on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 12:32:01 PM GMT

Here we go again: Jonesy extracting the most absurd and inaccurate possible interpretation from a post. For the record: no, it is not my "implication", my belief, my assertion or - and I know this is hardly of any import - what I actually wrote that the Muslim community is collectively guilty of the 7/7 bombing attacks. Clear enough for you?

Yet again you're off claiming to speak for the majority without any substantiation: where are you sourcing your claim that the majority believe there to be a direct connection between the invasion of Iraq and the 7/7 attack? You may well be able to source that claim - it's just you've made so many untrue statements in previous posts (the latest being that I've made "over 300 posts" on Conservative Home - an out and out lie) that from now on every time you claim something to be a fact I'm afraid I'm going to ask you to provide evidence.

But let's try to deal with this ludicrous and offensive assertion that you and your appeasing, Saddam-apologising, pacifist, coward Stop-The-War SWP chums routinely advance, shall we, because it's one of those phantom claims that's both completely true and completely untrue at the same time.

True because in itself that's what the terrorists are claiming their motivation to be - de facto there's a "connection". Untrue - and irrelevant - because there is absolutely no rational justification for a decision to strap a bomb to yourself, get on a train or bus packed with civilians and detonate it. None whatsoever. At any time, in any circumstance. Just for the record, do you agree with me on that?

And had it not been Iraq you know full well that their list of imagined grievances extends beyond that - it would have been Afghanistan; it would have been Israel/Palestine; it would have been the Muslims killed during the break-up of Yugoslavia (regardless of the fact we intervened on that massacre); it would have been perceived racism against Muslims in any number of western countries; it would have been free trade, democracy, women's rights, the outrageous reluctance some of us in the west have to stoning homosexuals to death, the refusal to return much of western Europe to a caliphate...and the list would go on and on and on.

So there's no link - it's just the latest threadbare excuse by psychopaths who have no respect for humanity or for their own religion, latched onto by people like you who really should know better but who'll use any opportunity, no matter how distasteful, to buttress your opposition to the Iraq War.

In respect of your last sentence what would you like to know? Are you even attempting to claim that multiculturalism has been a good thing for our country? Or is this just another (completely transparent) attempt by you to paint anyone who doesn't subscribe to your warped outlook on questions of race and integration as racist - just as you tried (and failed) over the Hodge housing row and in your above attempt to infer that my comments about terrorists actually referred to Muslims en masse?

Re: Bryan Gould PM (#39)

by jkitleft on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 05:54:57 PM GMT

peter, you're implying that people like jonesy, grim etc are all SWP members, and it doesn't suprise me as you called our sister parties in the PES more to left of our party in 1983. That's absoloute rubbish, considering that Schoeder, Royal, Prodi etc. are seen as admirers of the 'Third Way'.

: Re: Bryan Gould PM (#40)

by petercoe on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 07:38:10 PM GMT

I didn't imply that at all; but it's irrefutable that the driving force behind the Stop The War Coalition, the so called anti-privatisation front and pretty much every posturing here-today-gone-tomorrow campaign is the SWP, with which Jonesy and others I suspect are far too cosy - both ideologically and organisationally.
The problem I have with the leaders you listed is that, sure, they campaigned as moderates but their record proved them anything but. In part, that's because they have stupid PR systems that then force them to pander to the left; but both Prodi and Schroeder in office showed that they were typical leftwing leaders. We'll never find out with Royal, but given the inclinations of her party, I suspect she'd have been the same.
You suspect otherwise - fair enough.

[ Parent ]

Bryan Gould PM | 40 comments (40 topical)