- Sep 10, 2014
- 5,837
- 9,978
Don't think this has been posted on here so.....
I found this comparison on SSC by EJG
I found this comparison on SSC by EJG
@davidmatzdorf What, if anything, does all this mean to THFC and also to the local community.
In layman's terms please
And who is Mr Peters?
It may make a bit more sense now that I have edited in two paragraphs that didn't copy over properly the first time.
@davidmatzdorf What, if anything, does all this mean to THFC and also to the local community.
In layman's terms please
Didn’t realise just how big the chances were to the west stand entrance.
New
View attachment 35795
Old
View attachment 35796
That is so Spurs. Always selling our best equipment. Some things never change. #SIGNAFUCK*INGCRANELEVY
Didn’t realise just how big the chances were to the west stand entrance.
New
View attachment 35795
Old
View attachment 35796
Levy managed to buy the sun on a compulsory purchase order as it hadn’t been seen much in 6 months. He’ll probably sell it on to Spain in the summer for a profit.It's a lot brighter in the new one. Very impressive floodlighting!
Can you explain this part of your informative post to me?Do not believe the press spin that this is a Momentum tactic to take over Haringey. There has been great disquiet locally at grassroots level with this scheme and that - not Momentum - is what has made Kober's job untenable and why the voters are likely to replace most of Haringey's councillors this spring.
.
Whoever took that pic should go into porn production.
Can you explain this part of your informative post to me?
The voters can surely only replace most of Haringey's Councillors if they either vote for a different party or the Labour Party has a very large roster of candidates for each ward including the current councillors and a replacement set.
If this is the case then it provides an opportunity for other parties to get their candidates selected instead, as the vote for Labour candidates will be spread over a larger number of candidates, and it is a FPTP voting system.
If sitting councillors are deselected or resign because of intimidation as Ms Kober suggests she has done, or for other reasons, then it becomes less a case that the voters will replace the current councillors than that the the choice of Labour candidates they are presented with has changed.
This new set of councillors may or may not have been promoted or approved by Momentum or a similar "grassroots" Labour Party group, but in these circumstances are you not presenting your own spin in suggesting that it has little or nothing to do with them?
So, you agree that it would not be the voters who will remove the councillors but the Labour Party changing the list of candidates voters can choose from. So your assertion that the voters will remove them is, to put it nicely, spin.Those Labour councillors who supported the HDV have lost support among the local ward Labour parties. That made it much easier for the local Labour left to deselect them and substitute them with councillors who oppose the HDV. But the driver here has been local anger and disquiet, not "entryists" from elsewhere, which is what one reads in the press. There are plenty of local Momentum members, without anyone having to mount a takeover.
Conservatives do not get elected in Haringey. I think there are seven Liberal Democrats and the rest of the council is Labour.
I don't have to use spin, because I'm modestly involved in my own local Labour party and I can see how little what is reported resembles what actually goes on. Everything you read about how the Labour left is dominated by "entryists", i.e., imported Momentum ideologues is bollocks. They are local Labour party members. All those new members who joined over the past 2-3 years didn't come from Mars. They came from the neighbourhoods where Labour has strong support and joined their local parties.
I have not read about "entryists", a particularly left-wing term ... "entryist" is not a term I would tend to use, as it smacks to me of spin.
You have used the word "imported". I have not seen that, but I have read about a "Momentum" takeover, which you have not denied, merely denying that the new members have come from outside the borough.
No, it's the word that Blairites and right-of-Labour people coined to denigrate the left-leaning members who have joined the party since Corbyn became leader. That's why I put it in quote-marks. It's a bit of spin from the right, not the left. The implication, the impression they were trying to promulgate, was that they weren't "proper Labour", they were all non-locally-based metropolitan Trotskyists who had mounted a hostile takeover of local Labour parties.
Those people exist. I reckon they are 10% or fewer of the people who joined en masse over the past few years. I mean seriously, are there even 570,000 Trotskyists left in the country ? Or even 280,000, the increase in membership since the 2015 election? The remaining ~90% of recent members are split between two types of supporter. The majority are young people who were comprehensively fucked-off with the political parties and weren't voting for anyone, never mind being politically active. The minority were people similar to me: people who had left the Labour Party in disgust, many of them after Blair's adventures in Iraq with his bro' George. I never quite left, but at the time when the first polls surprised everyone by suggesting that Corbyn was ahead in the leadership race, I'd had enough and was literally 3 days from quitting and joining the Greens. I had the application forms filled out online and everything.
I'm not sure how the word "deny" even gets in there (talk about spin!) - I take issue with the whole concept that it is a "takeover". The party membership is not the same people it was 5 years ago - numbers have doubled. Momentum doesn't have to put together a "takeover". It just has to serve as a vehicle, a focus for the sentiment and energy that already exists among the party rank-and-file. All the stuff about "entryism" and "takeovers" and "orders" presuppose that Momentum is an outside force trying to co-opt and undermine an existing power-base. The reality is that local and national political offices are still occupied by people whose politics no longer represents the members of their party.
The "takeover" is a press invention, characteristic of how journalists work and whom they know. They still speak disproportionately to MPs, not to party activists or members, and Labour MPs and local councillors still contain a high percentage of aggrieved and disgruntled Blairites. Of course these office-holders want to create the impression that "their" party has been stolen from them. But it isn't their party. They are the representatives of the membership. The membership shrank after Blairite policies became the rule of law in the party and it grew spectacularly as soon as someone appeared who would break the party's self-inflicted omerta.
We haven't had a party for people on the left to support since 1994. People on the left had been effectively disenfranchised for 20 years: we could grit our teeth and support Blairite/Brownite policies, some of which were a lot better than the Tory alternative, some not distinguishable, or we could stay at home. Since 1979, the "centre" has been dragged off to a location nowhere hear the actual centre of the population's sentiments, because leftists got outmanoeuvred in the Labour Party and were left with no one to vote for. Now we have an option.
I just wish Labour would stop dreaming that it can win a Parliamentary majority itself - it can't, for a variety of reasons - and would accept the possibility of coalition and compromise. I would much rather have a left-wing party to vote for, even knowing that they would have to compromise in order to govern. At least we'd have a voice in government.
No, it's the word that Blairites and right-of-Labour people coined to denigrate the left-leaning members who have joined the party since Corbyn became leader. That's why I put it in quote-marks. It's a bit of spin from the right, not the left. The implication, the impression they were trying to promulgate, was that they weren't "proper Labour", they were all non-locally-based metropolitan Trotskyists who had mounted a hostile takeover of local Labour parties.
Those people exist. I reckon they are 10% or fewer of the people who joined en masse over the past few years. I mean seriously, are there even 570,000 Trotskyists left in the country ? Or even 280,000, the increase in membership since the 2015 election? The remaining ~90% of recent members are split between two types of supporter. The majority are young people who were comprehensively fucked-off with the political parties and weren't voting for anyone, never mind being politically active. The minority were people similar to me: people who had left the Labour Party in disgust, many of them after Blair's adventures in Iraq with his bro' George. I never quite left, but at the time when the first polls surprised everyone by suggesting that Corbyn was ahead in the leadership race, I'd had enough and was literally 3 days from quitting and joining the Greens. I had the application forms filled out online and everything.
I'm not sure how the word "deny" even gets in there (talk about spin!) - I take issue with the whole concept that it is a "takeover". The party membership is not the same people it was 5 years ago - numbers have doubled. Momentum doesn't have to put together a "takeover". It just has to serve as a vehicle, a focus for the sentiment and energy that already exists among the party rank-and-file. All the stuff about "entryism" and "takeovers" and "orders" presuppose that Momentum is an outside force trying to co-opt and undermine an existing power-base. The reality is that local and national political offices are still occupied by people whose politics no longer represents the members of their party.
The "takeover" is a press invention, characteristic of how journalists work and whom they know. They still speak disproportionately to MPs, not to party activists or members, and Labour MPs and local councillors still contain a high percentage of aggrieved and disgruntled Blairites. Of course these office-holders want to create the impression that "their" party has been stolen from them. But it isn't their party. They are the representatives of the membership. The membership shrank after Blairite policies became the rule of law in the party and it grew spectacularly as soon as someone appeared who would break the party's self-inflicted omerta.
We haven't had a party for people on the left to support since 1994. People on the left had been effectively disenfranchised for 20 years: we could grit our teeth and support Blairite/Brownite policies, some of which were a lot better than the Tory alternative, some not distinguishable, or we could stay at home. Since 1979, the "centre" has been dragged off to a location nowhere hear the actual centre of the population's sentiments, because leftists got outmanoeuvred in the Labour Party and were left with no one to vote for. Now we have an option.
I just wish Labour would stop dreaming that it can win a Parliamentary majority itself - it can't, for a variety of reasons - and would accept the possibility of coalition and compromise. I would much rather have a left-wing party to vote for, even knowing that they would have to compromise in order to govern. At least we'd have a voice in government.