New Stadium Details And Discussions

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
10,769
@davidmatzdorf What, if anything, does all this mean to THFC and also to the local community.
In layman's terms please:)
I don't think it means a great deal to THFC, at least not to the NDP and not in the short term. It means that there will be changes in political control within the Labour Party that controls Haringey. How that might affect THFC is unclear. I don't think any wing of any party would be stupid enough to alienate, casually, such a much-loved symbol of local identity and generator of inward investment and consumer spending as THFC. THFC is not allied with or identified with the HDV. It's a separate project.

It means different things to different sectors of the local community. I'm not sure the judicial review will mean very much, because, unless the forthcoming local elections turn up a freak result, Haringey Council is going to be run by people who are more in sympathy with Mr Peters' views. They intend to reverse the decision to pursue the HDV anyway, which would make the judicial review decision redundant.

To the people who voted for the estate to be regenerated, it will mean that they will not be rehoused in new, modern flats. They'll stay put for the foreseeable future. To people on Haringey's housing waiting list, it will mean that the construction of some new affordable housing will be delayed, but it also may mean that there will be a substantially higher proportion of affordable housing - with lower rents than planned in the HDV - in the long run.

In the short term, no one in the local community wins if the HDV is cancelled. But something has to be done to stop "regeneration" from degenerating into a scam for mega-developers to profiteer at local authorities' and local communities' expense. Kober's departure is a start. 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.

For Lend Lease's solicitors, it means a big windfall, because I can virtually guarantee that they will sue Haringey (or at least threaten to do so) if Haringey try to cancel the deal.
 

longtimespur

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
3,365
E="davidmatzdorf, post: 5764689, member: 1870"]I don't think it means a great deal to THFC, at least not to the NDP and not in the short term. It means that there will be changes in political control within the Labour Party that controls Haringey. How that might affect THFC is unclear. I don't think any wing of any party would be stupid enough to alienate, casually, such a much-loved symbol of local identity and generator of inward investment and consumer spending as THFC. THFC is not allied with or identified with the HDV. It's a separate project.

It means different things to different sectors of the local community. I'm not sure the judicial review will mean very much, because, unless the forthcoming local elections turn up a freak result, Haringey Council is going to be run by people who are more in sympathy with Mr Peters' views. They intend to reverse the decision to pursue the HDV anyway, which would make the judicial review decision redundant.

To the people who voted for the estate to be regenerated, it will mean that they will not be rehoused in new, modern flats. They'll stay put for the foreseeable future. To people on Haringey's housing waiting list, it will mean that the construction of some new affordable housing will be delayed, but it also may mean that there will be a substantially higher proportion of affordable housing - with lower rents than planned in the HDV - in the long run.

In the short term, no one in the local community wins if the HDV is cancelled. But something has to be done to stop "regeneration" from degenerating into a scam for mega-developers to profiteer at local authorities' and local communities' expense. Kober's departure is a start. 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.

For Lend Lease's solicitors, it means a big windfall, because I can virtually guarantee that they will sue Haringey (or at least threaten to do so) if Haringey try to cancel the deal.[/QUOTE]
Thanks David, I, m not politically motivated, there's good and bad in all parties as far as I see them.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
630
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.

.
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?
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
10,769
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?
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.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
630
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.
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.
I have not read about "entryists", a particularly left-wing term, I'd suggest, but have read about orders from above, the Labour Party NEC(?), about stopping the HDV, which was then denied, and the word "suggestions" substituted for "Orders". 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. I'd have thought that local political parties would have regulations excluding members from outside the locality, as this would stop them being local parties, but I admit I'm not an expert on local politics, merely an interested person. Your definition of "entryist" appears to exclude new members of the party, which seems strange, but then again "entryist" is not a term I would tend to use, as it smacks to me of spin.
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
10,769
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.
No, it's the word that Blairites and right-of-Labour people coined [EDIT: or rather co-opted] 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.

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.
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.
 
Last edited:

Dinghy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
5,018
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.
This is where an element of self awareness might be necessary (no offence intended) If you think that Labour should not be aiming for a parliamentary majority then it says a lot about you and not about the Labour party. Labour have always been centre left and not hard left (which is where I think you actually are, but not where you think that you are) 'Entryist' is not a 'term' 'coined' to denigrate anyone. It is a simple matter of fact term to indicate those that are not part of the 'natural' position of the labour movement that have joined to move the Labour party to the left. It defines those that were previously part of the 'militant' movement and now 'momentum' who are more aligned with the SWP and the Communist Party and have 'joined' the Labour party with the intention of moving them further left.
IMO (and this might surprise some @Arnoldtoo @Spurs' Pipe Dreams ) we need a strong centre-left opposition in this country to mitigate some of the extremes of the economically right wing Tories. Moving the Labour party further left does not do this.
Don't want to derail this thread but you are wrong on the definition of 'entryist'. You should quit the Labour party and join the Greens.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
630
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.
As I've said, I'm not an expert on local politics, and I'm not au fait with the in-fighting within local Labour parties.
Wikipedia, which you may or may not agree with, defines entryism, as:
"Entryism (also referred to as entrism or enterism, or as infiltration) is a political strategy in which an organisation or state encourages its members or supporters to join another, usually larger, organisation in an attempt to expand influence and expand their ideas and program."
Lo and behold the homepage for the website for Momentum http://www.peoplesmomentum.com/ contains at the bottom of the page "Join Labour" and directly below that a request to "Join Momentum".
If Wikipedia's definition of entryism is accepted and you may not (you may wish to put your own spin on it) then Momentum also entirely accepts that it fulfills the criterion, otherwise it wouldn't be requesting membership for itself as well as and separate to the Labour Party and going to the trouble of setting up a website of its own and broadcasting how many members and supporters it (rather than the Labour Party) has.
You state that "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." Three points: Firstly How did Blairite policies become the rule of law within the Labour Party, surely they would have been voted for by the then membership. Secondly, the likes of Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott and their acolytes have never been affected by omerta. Nothing could be further from the truth. They have always been very loquacious and widely reported and they have been MP's for what, four decades? Thirdly to say that the party membership grew spectacularly when they appeared doesn't fit the facts for that reason. It grew directly before and after the election of Corbyn as leader, aided and abetted by the formation and activism of Momentum at that time, not as your spin would have it.
You clearly feel that Momentum and its like-minded colleagues represent some sort of "real Labour". You may be right, it's not of great concern to me, but your comments are riddled with spin, which is what I was originally implying.
No more from me.
 
Top