When I heard about the Euston Manifesto I admit I was predicated to look kindly on it as a couple of the people involved are bloggers I have read online for a while, and have met a couple of times.
Having skimmed the document itself on their website, I find that I can’t really disagree with anything. Although some parts relate to things that don’t loom large in my day-to-day priorities, so I don’t have strong, fully-formed opinions on them, the manifesto does not offend what vague opinions I have.
So I don’t have any disagreements with it (and have signed it on that basis) but I can’t actually see what its for. I don’t know if there is any intended practical purpose in the longer term or whether it is purely some sort of starting point for discussions.
There probably is a need for the left to get their heads together and establish what common ground there is. It is too easy for factions to disagree so strongly on obscure points that they lose sight of the common ground and common enemy – as we found in the 70s and 80s and as Monty Python satirised so well in the Life of Brian film. One of the reasons fro Thatcher’s extended reign was surely that the left were ignoring the 90% they agreed on so they could concentrate on internal arguments about the other 10%.
Whenever I have conversations with our local Respect/SWP members I find myself agreeing with a lot of what they say. I don’t know what they do, but I try to ignore the difference and basically agree to disagree for the sake of some sort of solidarity. I still see them as part of the Labour movement if not part of the party. (At a local level I find there is actually a lot of common ground between all the parties, including the Tories but ignoring the BNP, but this is an unusual town in many ways)
My immediate loyalties are obviously still with the Labour party, and as long as the Euston Manifesto is compatible with that I am happy to support it.
“Common ground between all the parties..including the Tories”.
Oh dear, Skuds…and that’s why we need an “Independent” voice…as a matter of urgency.
Oh come on Richard! There is a lot of common ground. In many cases the common ground is in what we want, while the differences are in how that can be achieved, and in the priorities.
I don’t think the common ground with the Tories is anything like as large as on the left, because of some fundamental differences of principles. I can’t see the point in trying to find a general consensus with them, but I won’t waste my time trying to criticise any good things they might happen to do, just because its them doing it.
If you want examples, all the parties want to see reductions in crime and antisocial behaviour. They all want to see less litter and better cleaning. If you want to be truly independent and advocate more crime and littering then go ahead, but I think you are much more likely to find some common ground with us there.
If other people happen to agree with you, you can either accept that or change your own opinions.
Look, Skuds, I know I have become a kind of ‘enemy’ to the local Labour Party by standing as an Independent – which means that during this ‘silly season’ before election day we might say things less diplomatically than at other times during the year – but, for goodness sake, what’s gone wrong with you lot ?!
The political philosophy (idealogy) of the real Labour Party should be at opposite ends of the spectrum to Conservative idealogy – shouldn’t it ? The fact that it is not – and that no-one can tell the difference between a Blairite or a Cameronite – shows just how far the original Labour ‘vision’ has become corrupted in the 21st Century.
Even the Lib Dems, in the form of a sober ‘Minge’ Campbell, sees this : “The Conservative Party remains ‘right wing and unpleasant’ to the core…Sir Menzies said Labour and the Tories were essentially ‘disputing about management’; but the Liberal Democrats were ‘values and principles based’ ” (CEEFAX 119, 14 April).
Where are the “values and principles” in your Labour Party now, Skuds ?
You have a (New) Labour Prime Minister who lies to the electorate about the Iraq war – and the Crawley Labour Party says and does nothing.
You have a (New) Labour Cabinet that sides with an extreme right-wing US regime to invade and occupy another sovereign state, in gross violation of international law – and the Crawley Labour Party says and does nothing.
You have a right-wing Tory ‘cabal’ in Chichester who made a monstrous, deceitful and vindictive decision to axe hot school meals, with an obscene act of pin-striped vandalism by ripping out its 240 kitchens (making 550 dinner ladies redundant) – and the Crawley Labour Party says and does nothing (until its ‘Leader Bliar’ says so)…
The list is as long as my arm.
So please, Skuds, cut the crap, and stand up for what you believe in – which (I think) is ‘light years’ from what the Tories believe in and stand for. But maybe not now…?
“Common ground” with the Tories ? Sad and true, it seems.
This just now confirms how critical it is to have an “independent” voice – and how 20th Century political idealogies are proving dangerously useless to meet the needs of 21st Century humanity.
Skuds: The EM is about highlighting the inconsistencies of some on the left who fail to criticise regimes that fail the basic principles of democracy (regimes such as Cuba), just because it agrees with the ‘old left’ anti-American ideology. For this reason the basic principles of democracy are re-iterated in the EM and we all should agree with those basic principles (even if a lot of it seems like stating the obvious).
The problem I have with the EM is the implication that all criticism of the US is invalid (particularly they disagree with the suggestion that the Iraq war was about petrodollars, and they also disagree with highlighting the despicable history of the US establishment in subverting democracy for economic benefit). In this way I think the EM-ers are just as blind to injustice as those who support Cuba.
Changing the subject, good luck in Crawley, is it too late to offer some last minute assistance?
Richard I don’t think you realise how much I actually agree with you on many topics.
As far as the Tories go, I know that their party is really all about maintaining the balance of power and privelige and keeping it in the same few hands, while Labour and the left generally is all about eroding the inequalities and making sure that those who actually produce everything get their due rewards for that.
If you like it is about improving society as a whole rather than improving life for some individuals and hoping it will eventually trickle down – surely the biggest con-trick in the world.
The problem with the left is we get hung up on what that means, and whether we want everyone at exactly the same level or just everyone above a decent minimum level. By concentrating on those differences we can allow the ‘greedy party’ to sneak back in.
Mentioning that there are some areas where all parties agree at a local level was really just an aside and not really the whole point at all. A bit of a red herring based on some of the personalities within both main parties, which really alludes to the fact that some members of the local Tory party probably don’t belong there. I won’t stir things up by naming those who I think are far too nice to be in that party and who I would happily see jump ship.
If there is a problem with the Labour party it is that so many people with principles left it rather than remain to improve it. I would see it as a greater personal sacrifice to stay and work for change than to bottle out and join the Greens (for example).
Neil – any extra bodies are always welcome, and its never too late.
Skuds: As for Mr Symonds here, he seems to have missed your point. Of course we have common ground with all parties (and independents) when it comes to delivering the best local services (how much we spend on them and which are priorities is where we differ).
As for national politics, there are still massive ideological differences between Cameron and Blair (yes both supported Bush and Iraq), but in terms of ideology, the Tories cut taxes and cut public services and Labour increases taxes and increases public spending. That is a pretty fundamental difference! Of course we know longer believe in nationalisation, but that is a difference in ideology very few would advocate returning to.
What, Mr Symonds, do you stand for? I am always suspicious of those who spend all their time criticising everybody else without coming up with any policies of their own.
Ok I’ll send you an email to find out when you are next campaigning.
Oh No.
I believe I am the only person who has met both Neil and Richard, therefore I am uniquely qualified to have a real sinking feeling about the prospect of them having a row here…
Don’t get a “sinking feeling”, Skuds, cos I don’t want a row with anybody, especially when I’m off to bed now to play with my dreams. But, of course. I would be delighted to send Neil (or anyone else) my Independent Manifesto – it’s a ‘7 Point Plan’ outlining what I “stand for” !
Sorry, it’s me again. But just a word of warning about the ‘Euston Manifesto’. It sounds an awful lot like the ideas of the Henry Jackson Society (HJS). If there are connections – beware. I know a little about HJS (through the Cyril Joad Society). I might be wrong – and apologise to all concerned if I am – but my ‘instincts’ are detecting a ‘Billingsgate aroma’.
Well I can’t vouch for the others, but I have met Damian and Andrew and I trust their motives.
At the end of the day I (and they, come to that) can always disown it and chalk it up to experience if it turns out to be a crock.
Please be careful of this “crock”, Skuds.
Is there a connection between the New Statesman Magazine/Euston Manifesto/HJS and the Encounter Magazine scandal of the 1960’s ?
I am investigating a possible connection at this very moment…I hope my ‘instincts’ are wrong on this…
Hi,
Euston Manifesto Group has nothing to do with Scoop Jackson. They are neo cons. We are labour or socialists: perhaps one or two of us might call themselves left-liberals but Ive never heard anyone say so.
The intention is to hold a few meetings, strucutre some debates and see what comes next.
Hi Jane,
I hear what you are saying, but dig a little deeper.
Look at two “signatories” to the ‘neo-Con’ Henry Jackson Society (HJS) : Denis MacShane, Labour MP for Rotherham, and Gisella Stuart, Labour MP for Birmingham-Edgbaston. What are they doing there ?
Then take a look at the two people who wrote the “Euston Manifesto” – and link their names to the HJS.
Then decide for yourself…
Can’t believe people are still using the ‘neocon’ tag: it’s the new ‘Thatcherite’ or ‘fascist’ – just another way of persuading the easily-led to dismiss other people’s views without actually listening to them.
If the EMG and HJS have supporters in common, that should neither surprise nor worry anyone, and I do think it’s a bit pathetic for people to rifle through litter bins looking for some kind of clue to a massive conspiracy that, you’ve guessed it, will allow the easily-led to dismiss other people’s views without actually listening to them.
It’s all a million miles from why I support the EM.
Nonsense
Don’t you mean: “Pah! Stuff and nonsense!” ?
🙂