The Election

sweller wrote

I really do have to dispute this. If the membership really felt its
views were being put to one side in order for the leadership to pursue
their own agenda there would be a revolution and it wouldn't be pretty.

The fact that no revolution has been forthcoming suggests to me that the
membership does indeed support and endorse everything that lying scrote
Blur and his cohort has hoodwinked us with.

Again, from my perspective, the Labour party is in fact under the
control of a few bad men and women and for that you can only blame the
membership, collectively.

 

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 07:13:15 +0100, "sweller"

Snip to go back to this point

But how many want that? And what level of knowledge do we require them
to have? Look at the number of people here who aren't going to vote.
How do you re-engage them with the process?

 

I don't see how the membership can not think that given the way
conferences have been manipulated to stifle opinion. And how exactly
do you expect them to revolt?

Oh come on Steve, you must still have contact with party members, is
that what they are saying?

On this sadly, I agree.

 

Agree with that in its entirety and particularly the analysis of EU.

<mild consternation>

 

<VBG>

 

There is plenty of equality still to be had. You'll be saying that our
society is fair, open minded and non discriminatory next. Hah - if only
it was.

Well the Tories did a bloody fantastic job of closing most of it down in
the 1980s. The appalling disdain of Thatcher and her gang of cronies in
wrecking industry and communities is one of the reasons why I hate her
so much. I lived through that and I cannot forgive her for not caring.

Can you explain why you are a Tory, Andrew? I struggle to understand
how anyone from the North East of England can be.

 

And what should have been done in 1997?

[snip]

thanks for posting those thoughts from your friend. I can't say I am a
political activist at all but I consider it important to be interested
in the subject. There were some thought provoking comments and
observations in his "manifesto".

I do struggle with the views that he expressed about "taking back" the
Labour Party. I'm not at all sure how that would be achieved without the
Tory press maligning the process and thus rendering the Labour Party
unelectable in the process. A "too obvious" lurch back to the extreme
left (as that's how it would be portrayed) would let the Tories in for
at least 2 terms. The Tories apparently can't wait to get Gordon Brown
in number 10 as they see him as an easier target to defeat.

While I understand why you and your friend dislike the current "new
labour" leadership and much of what they stand for there are at least a
number of things they have done that the Tories would never do - extra
rights for workers and minorities is one glaring example. Surely you
would prefer Labour to be exercising power rather than making
interesting origami shapes with policy papers from the opposition
benches?

I do wish the politicians would be brave enough to conduct a proper
debate on their policies. While I haven't watched all of the Question
Time programme from last night I was mildly reassured to see that many
people (still) seem to view the Tories as the nasty party and it was fun
watching Michael Howard shoot himself in the foot over the Iraq war.
Talking about taking the "election brief" on "I'm an honest chap and
will do what's best for Britain" a stage too far.

Charles Kennedy did pretty well but I got a sense that there was a
disproportionate "anti war" element in the audience. I haven't seen the
whole Blair session but he did look a bit stressed and anxious. He's
normally pretty polished - even I was agreeing with the woman over
doctor's appointment times and I was surprised he didn't know about that
issue and how GPs have had to change their practices (perversely) to
meet the targets. Even my own GP told me they'd had to do that.

Anyway back to policies - almost every "vox pop" thing I read from
ordinary people about the election says that their interests are not
being addressed. There's been little of substance about the economy and
its future management, nothing about industrial policy, agriculture and
food, transport (predictable for me I know). the environment, energy
policy or even foreign policy. All these things are important and some
will be real issues in the next 5-10 years and yet nothing. Is it all
because they believe the electorate are too stupid? - surely politicians
don't treat the voters with that much disdain?

 

This is the real 'taking back', not a lurch to the left - it's
interesting that a majority assume I'm talking about an entryist agenda -
but a simple reopening of debate.

Talking about 'proper' politics. What is the best way to approach
Europe? I'm with 'Hog: remove the corporate influence and level *up*
the playing field. What of the transport policy? What best for the
rural infrastructure?

Grown up debate and open solutions; engaging people in a rounded response
to complex problems, not pandering to a disproportionately influential
minority.

It will take a brave party to take on the vested interests and
intelligently discuss where we want to be.

Maybe one day...

 

Couldn't you please just do Australia and America a favour and kill them
for us while they're over there ?

JL
(if it helps, our last election was just as pathetic, for exactly the
same reason)

 

Lady Nina wrote

No they don't actually say as such. If you can remember it, it is like
the morning after Thatcher was elected for a second time, all looking
very sheepish and avoiding eye contact and mumbling.


A lot of my knowledge of the internals of the Labour Party come from
family contacts, I am the only Auvache in 4 generations that isn't a
member and I feel it gives me a freedom to take the piss.


From my standpoint of not financially supporting any party, except
perhaps the PLO when I buy a bit of solid, I ask them what has happened
to "their democratic party of social change and equality" and they come
on like they are all entered in the finals of a Blur act-alike contest.
Pathetic it is.


Simple questions like "How do you defend the morality of citizens in
your Socialist Utopia being made to pay twice for education or health
care." You know how kids do it in the playground when they are
involved but not really directly, when the have been little more than
one of a supportive crowd? Now you know the body language used by these
"Labour Supporters" to defend their positions. They know they are doing
wrong, they know it will all end in tears, they know their is a fair
chance they will get caught and punished hard for it while the
ringleaders get away with it scot free and retire to nice little holiday
homes in Tuscany but they continue to co-operate willingly in being
blindly led by the rhetoric regardless.

Judasii the lot of them. Traitors to a man.

 

Que - Snot me - this time.

 

About as welcome as one of those in a space suit you are.

 

This really shouldn't surprise you!

Bit that riles me, having vested interests, is that those
straightforward and easily legislated ideas would also make British
companies much better enterprises, more competitive and more efficient.
The current format pursues short term gain and minority greed for long
term wealth for all.

How much do you know about the WM Gore business model? it's quite
shocking to discover.

'Hog

 

Would you like my strategy for transforming the British rail and tube
networks? lolol

'Hog

 

Very little - any recommended reading?

 

I know what this is already - "shut them down". British Rail doesn't
exist by the way so I guess you're half way there.

 

I meant that rail network which is British not BR of course and no,
deffo not shut it down. "Give it to the Swiss" I love travelling by
train over there.

'Hog

 

You can google around for them but IMHO the UK TU movement should be
promoting it as the "Model for Business"

To quote:
WL Gore, the manufacturer of GoreTex products, is a trendsetter in
managing an innovative enterprise. Among its secrets is a reliance on
small teams, which promote more camaraderie and less bureaucracy. Even
its manufacturing workforce is capped at 200 for each plant. Reflecting
Gore's flattened hierarchy-anyone can talk to anyone and there are no
"bosses" as such-associates (employees) select mentors and decide for
themselves which projects to take on. Anyone is free to launch a project
and lead it, providing they have a good enough idea to attract a
following and the passion to carry it through. Committees evaluate each
associate's contribution and determine compensation. Failure is not
stigmatized-in fact, when a project tanks and the team decides to
abandon it, they celebrate it with beer or champagne. Key to Gore's
successful management style is lots of communication, preferably
face-to-face. And finally, while Gore is always looking for new products
or strategies, it's patient-the company realizes that it takes years,
and sometimes decades, to bring revolutionary ideas to market.

'Hog

 

Two questions: do they do any manufacturing in these 200 employee
plants or is it subbed out to a sweatshop? Who gets to decide on
hiring and (especially) firing?

 

They do manufacture I believe and hiring and firing is done by peer
review.
People are appointed (and salaried) with varying levels of
responsibility however there are no "bosses" as such. When a new
employee is chosen, normal methodology and selection panel, they are
then subject to a scheduled review by their working peers before they
become permanent.

This stuff is well enough documented but I'm just not sure where to get
academic literature on it, 13 years since I did my MBA.

'Hog