Derek Hatton

Not cycling, but still important.
Iris
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 1 year ago

Re: Derek Hatton

Post by Iris » 7 months ago

The Real Ravenhurst wrote:
7 months ago
he represents a dated dogmatism that is way out of step with the more consensual and pluralist inclinations of the 21st-century membership (@Iris might well snort at that, but I stand by it).
The Real Ravenhurst wrote:
7 months ago
Generally speaking I approve of the fact that the party is not the Jezocracy of the mainstream media imagination
I find these comments interesting (and yes, I know it's taken me quite a long time to get around to responding to them). Not because I disagree with them - absolutely, I don't. I can well believe that the membership is consensual and pluralist and believes that the party isn't a Jezocracy. But because the picture that the members themselves choose to paint is precisely the opposite.

The "mainstream" media (what those of us who aren't succumbing to the temptations of populism call "the media") actually does a pretty good job of painting quite a nuanced view of the party, pointing out the differences between the Momentumites and the unions, and between the unions, between Corbyn himself, Milne and McDonnell, between Formby and Lansmann, between Starmer and some of the backbenchers.

But if all you did was follow left-wing new media, whether the yellow press of the Canary and the other left-wing Breitbarts, or the social media accounts of otherwise honourable party members, or the comment threads underneath newspaper articles, or even online forums, you'd get a very different view. You'd see a party that was extremely dogmatic, that had absolutely no time for anyone with an opinion different from the approved party line, that treated consensus as so much dirt, and that thought St Jeremy was - quite literally - a saint whose every proclamation was the word of God and who could do no wrong because he was infallible.

21st century politics is not just about new policies - though those are desperately needed. It needs to be about finding solutions which stick. Which means accepting that those who have a slightly different view from your own are not traitors or Tory lapdogs or capitalist stooges who are doing everything they can to stop a labour government. It means publicly disagreeing with each other, while being polite about it. It means recognising that a Labour MP or a Labour party member who has some profound disagreements with the current party leadership is nevertheless a member of the same party, with the same overall goals and aims and should be respected.

I think Corbyn is a lousy leader. He was the wrong choice for the party when he was elected. He was the joke candidate. He's an ideological campaigner who is only interested in standing up for the oppressed overseas - except when they happen to be oppressed by people with whom he once agreed.

If the left of the party in parliament had bothered to put up a sensible candidate who was able to unite rather than divide the party* - or if Ed Miliband (who is himself a radical with some very good, leftwing ideas) hadn't stood down quite so quickly the whole country would be in a better position. Strong leaders persuade, and forgive. They don't bear grudges. They recognise when they're wrong, and change their mind proudly.

*If, that is, they could find one. I can't even name a member of the shadow cabinet other than Abbott (useless), McDonnell (showing signs that he recognises the need to compromise) and Starmer (his talents are being completely wasted by the shitshow that is Brexit). If there are any competent potential ministers on the Labour frontbenches, I'd love to know who they are.

[edit] Of course. Tom Watson. Whose treatment at the hands of party members rather proves my point.
0 x

User avatar
The Real Ravenhurst
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 213
Joined: 1 year ago

Re: Derek Hatton

Post by The Real Ravenhurst » 7 months ago

Iris wrote:
7 months ago
I find these comments interesting (and yes, I know it's taken me quite a long time to get around to responding to them). Not because I disagree with them - absolutely, I don't. I can well believe that the membership is consensual and pluralist and believes that the party isn't a Jezocracy. But because the picture that the members themselves choose to paint is precisely the opposite.

The "mainstream" media (what those of us who aren't succumbing to the temptations of populism call "the media") actually does a pretty good job of painting quite a nuanced view of the party, pointing out the differences between the Momentumites and the unions, and between the unions, between Corbyn himself, Milne and McDonnell, between Formby and Lansmann, between Starmer and some of the backbenchers.

But if all you did was follow left-wing new media, whether the yellow press of the Canary and the other left-wing Breitbarts, or the social media accounts of otherwise honourable party members, or the comment threads underneath newspaper articles, or even online forums, you'd get a very different view. You'd see a party that was extremely dogmatic, that had absolutely no time for anyone with an opinion different from the approved party line, that treated consensus as so much dirt, and that thought St Jeremy was - quite literally - a saint whose every proclamation was the word of God and who could do no wrong because he was infallible.

21st century politics is not just about new policies - though those are desperately needed. It needs to be about finding solutions which stick. Which means accepting that those who have a slightly different view from your own are not traitors or Tory lapdogs or capitalist stooges who are doing everything they can to stop a labour government. It means publicly disagreeing with each other, while being polite about it. It means recognising that a Labour MP or a Labour party member who has some profound disagreements with the current party leadership is nevertheless a member of the same party, with the same overall goals and aims and should be respected.

I think Corbyn is a lousy leader. He was the wrong choice for the party when he was elected. He was the joke candidate. He's an ideological campaigner who is only interested in standing up for the oppressed overseas - except when they happen to be oppressed by people with whom he once agreed.

If the left of the party in parliament had bothered to put up a sensible candidate who was able to unite rather than divide the party* - or if Ed Miliband (who is himself a radical with some very good, leftwing ideas) hadn't stood down quite so quickly the whole country would be in a better position. Strong leaders persuade, and forgive. They don't bear grudges. They recognise when they're wrong, and change their mind proudly.

*If, that is, they could find one. I can't even name a member of the shadow cabinet other than Abbott (useless), McDonnell (showing signs that he recognises the need to compromise) and Starmer (his talents are being completely wasted by the shitshow that is Brexit). If there are any competent potential ministers on the Labour frontbenches, I'd love to know who they are.

[edit] Of course. Tom Watson. Whose treatment at the hands of party members rather proves my point.
A lot here to respond to, most of which I disagree with! But I will save it for when I'm not about to crash out.
0 x

User avatar
Regulator
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 1369
Joined: 1 year ago
Location: Cambridge

Re: Derek Hatton

Post by Regulator » 6 months ago

My mother has just got back (on Wednesday) from her second trip/pilgrimage to Israel. She's said she won't be going back.

They had the misfortune of being there during the finale of the election and she found the atmosphere generally was markedly different to when she went 4 years ago. She found the open expression of rabidly apartheid views by many Israelis very unsettling - it was far more visible and 'in your face' than on her last visit, even in 'liberal' areas such as Tel Aviv. The lionisation of Trump was also very marked.
2 x

User avatar
JohnToo
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 317
Joined: 1 year ago
Location: Leatherhead

Re: Derek Hatton

Post by JohnToo » 6 months ago

This was a thread where we were talking about people being accused of being anti-Semitic for making comments that some of us would have been quite happy to make ourselves. So here is the next example. Labour MP Richard Burgon is in trouble for having said:

"The enemy of the Palestinian people is not the Jewish people, the enemy of the Palestinian people are Zionists and Zionism is the enemy of peace and the enemy of the Palestinian people. We need to be loud, we need to be proud in support of a free Palestine.”

I might have found a way to express that without using the Z word simply because I'm aware what a trigger the Z word is - but that sentiment seems to me nuanced and thoughtful and absolutely true.
3 x

User avatar
Regulator
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 1369
Joined: 1 year ago
Location: Cambridge

Re: Derek Hatton

Post by Regulator » 6 months ago

JohnToo wrote:
6 months ago
This was a thread where we were talking about people being accused of being anti-Semitic for making comments that some of us would have been quite happy to make ourselves. So here is the next example. Labour MP Richard Burgon is in trouble for having said:

"The enemy of the Palestinian people is not the Jewish people, the enemy of the Palestinian people are Zionists and Zionism is the enemy of peace and the enemy of the Palestinian people. We need to be loud, we need to be proud in support of a free Palestine.”

I might have found a way to express that without using the Z word simply because I'm aware what a trigger the Z word is - but that sentiment seems to me nuanced and thoughtful and absolutely true.
I think that even if he’d avoided reference to Zionism and Zionists, the pro-Israeli state drones within Labour would have complained about ant-Semitism ...
0 x

User avatar
JohnToo
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 317
Joined: 1 year ago
Location: Leatherhead

Re: Derek Hatton

Post by JohnToo » 5 months ago

I previously resurrected this thread to cite a Labour MP, in trouble for alleged anti-Semitism, for expressing views that I considered to be legitimate and not necessarily anti-Semitic. To prove that even I can be even-handed, the Guardian today have a story about Nigel Farage being allegedly anti-Semitic on Alex Jones' radio station. Now, clearly, Farage and Jones are both manifestly obnoxious, indeed, and I use the word carefully, evil people, and many of their views are wrong. And, clearly, language such as "globalists" and "new world order" have been used by antisemites, and choice of those words opens you to suspicion of dog-whistle politics. But actually, of the following things he is accused of saying, I'd suggest that 1 and 2 are serious issues deserving discussion, 3 and 5 are conspiracy theories that are nonetheless based on legitimate concerns, and 4 is simply wrong. 1 and 2 are as much left-wing concerns as right-wing. But I don't see that raising any of these concerns is inherently anti-Semitic.
Members of the annual Bilderberg gathering of political and business leaders are plotting a global government.
The banking and political systems are working “hand in glove” in an attempt to disband nation states.
“Globalists” are trying to engineer a world war as a means to introduce a worldwide government.
Climate change is a “scam” intended to push forward this transnational government.
In the most recent interview, filmed in April last year, Farage said the EU is “the prototype for the new world order”, and “globalists have wanted to have some form of conflict with Russia as an argument for us all to surrender our national sovereignty and give it up to a higher global level”.
1 x

User avatar
Rocky
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1024
Joined: 1 year ago

Re: Derek Hatton

Post by Rocky » 5 months ago

Quassim Cassam has written about intellectual (epistemic) vices:



By this he means 'character traits, attitudes or thinking styles that prevent us from gaining, keeping or sharing knowledge' - he would include conspiracy theories, fake news and Trumpisms. I'm quite relaxed about accusations that an organisation is plotting a global government and that globalism seems to be taking over. Part of exploring and understanding our world, is to have these debates. Where I draw the line is fantasists like Farage, manipulating the facts to explain his own particular conspiracy theory - that (and the people who believe him) is a demonstration of an intellectual vice. Cassam also coins the phrase epistemic insouciance by which he means that people have a casual lack of concern about the facts (and getting the facts right). Farage, Boris, Trump all demonstrate this on a regular basis.

I am not sure Derek Hatton did demonstrate epistemic insouciance. I might not agree with his framing of things, but speaking about them was not an intellectual vice.
1 x

Post Reply