The Next President?
- Thread starter Guest_
- Start date
archie
Senior Jockey
Because there's a damn great alsatian a couple of metres behind him.
OK you barstools. 
I thought when I saw a post on the thread that you were going to tell me that John Edwards was out of the race with heat in his leg. 
Those of you who are interested might spot a familiar looking name as the number 1 candidate on the regional list for Mid and West Wales, for the Assembley. Alas all is not as straight forward as it looksh34r: As there's two of us who share identical names norty
I thought when I saw a post on the thread that you were going to tell me that John Edwards was out of the race with heat in his leg. Those of you who are interested might spot a familiar looking name as the number 1 candidate on the regional list for Mid and West Wales, for the Assembley. Alas all is not as straight forward as it looks
h34r: As there's two of us who share identical names nortyThankyou BM - Don't believe all the thoughts and quotes etc I haven't spoken to any of the journos who claim to be quoting me.
And it's not my rebsite, but glad you found it
Where as i will almost certainly lose by deposit. Who's gonna gimme a spread?
And it's not my rebsite, but glad you found it
Where as i will almost certainly lose by deposit. Who's gonna gimme a spread?
Perhaps you'd be so good as to tell us what a Labour (a LABOUR Party is?) BM with the best will in the world. I was bought up on the hostility of '84- '85 some of my friends left school to work in the pit and others were sent out to arrest them. This divided us big time.
betsmate
At the Start
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 5,752
Ok bad choice of phrase, I was just referring to anything further left than the centre-left. I appreciate that your opinion of 'New Labour' might not be that it is left at all. I was also trying to be polite and not say extremists. Perhaps I should have been blunt.
I haven't read all of their manifestos - although I did read that of the party that you are representing - but my suspicion would be that they share a lot of common ground?
Surely whilst they remain fragmented their opportunity to influence remains very limited?
Not that personally I see that as a bad thing, but that is a different debate.
I haven't read all of their manifestos - although I did read that of the party that you are representing - but my suspicion would be that they share a lot of common ground?
Surely whilst they remain fragmented their opportunity to influence remains very limited?
Not that personally I see that as a bad thing, but that is a different debate.
We represent what you my call socialism, I have no problem with that? Any one who's read my rantings on here from time to time I hope will have detected that? Personally I've always put people first.
I'd accept that there are aspects of my party which I'm not not completely comfortably with, but equally I hope you'll respect my integirty for 'having a go'?
I'd accept that there are aspects of my party which I'm not not completely comfortably with, but equally I hope you'll respect my integirty for 'having a go'?
cricketfan
At the Start
Oh for the day when the mainstream parties had beliefs.
Fair enough
But i promise you that I speak to all parties on a civil level (I realise you weren't accusing me of doing otherwise). It's kind of bizzare because in many respects, i have more experience of foriegn affairs then many of my opponents, (and definately local politics and how it works - ortherwise) and a good reading etc I respect the fact you haven't called me stupid (i've been called that a few times) I can assure you I'm not not!!!
Although my result is not in yet, I expect to lose my deposit :laughing:
We'll see tomorrow whether your warbler is the most popular socialist in Wales? Not counting Labour obviously
Well, I said this to you before, Warbs, but it's worth saying again - well done for having a crack and giving a damn. And 'grumpy'? I thought you were just in a mellow mood! You really ought to get the traditional Labour vote, since people I know who've previously been very loyal to Labour are no longer. Basically they feel it's a 'can't tell Stork from butter' scenario between 'New (but not improved)' Labour and the Conservatives, and rebellion seems to be afoot.
I take it you're going to stay up to the wee small hours awaiting results but, as I've got to go to Lingers tomorrow, I'm off the Uncle Ned, so well done again for making the effort.
I take it you're going to stay up to the wee small hours awaiting results but, as I've got to go to Lingers tomorrow, I'm off the Uncle Ned, so well done again for making the effort.
LAB 2 elected on 39,979, 18.4% Alun Davies, Joyce Watson
PC 1 elected on 67,258, 31.0% Nerys Evans
CON 1 elected on 49,606 22.9% Nicholas Bourne
LD - 28,790, 13.3%
GRN - 8,768 4.0%
UKIP - 8,191, 3.8%
BNP - 6,389, 2.9%
SLP - 2,196, 1.0%
IND - 1,598, 0.7%
WCP - 1,493, 0.7%
IND - 1,108, 0.5%
CPB - 666, 0.3%
VER - 502 0.2%
CPA - 413% 0.2%
Turnout 216,957 50.8%
I demand a recount :laughing:
Anything symbolic in the Communist Party of Britain polling 666 :brows:
Now I realise it's kind of traditional for parties to spin their results into a great victory etc but right now I'm struggling. In fairness 1% is about what I thought I'd get and the rank order is pretty typical too. The only one that surprises me is that UKIP beat the BNP. My cunning plan of trying pick up transferable votes from Labour didn't work norty but in fairness it didn't deserve to, but picking up 5.5% of the Labour vote is a small breakthrough of sorts. Thats nearly 1 in 20 Labour voters abandoning them for a socialist ticket.
'Tony Blair PM' is of course an anagram of 'I'm Tory Plan B'
Just to answer some of your questions in a slightly more lucid manner this morning BM.
1: A lot of the blog stuff and attacks etc were actually invented by the authors, I never spoke to the person whose been quoting me, nor have I publicly said anything he attributes to me. I always thought these people 'twisted' stuff, I didn't actually realise they just completely made it up. Mind you, you put yourself in the firing line and so expect to take a bit etc
2: The South would have been more fertile territory, but then the party was essentially founded on the back of the NUM and Labours scandalous abandonment of them. With this in mind there were long-standing candidates in the South who more than deserved to take their place ahead of myself. In any event, I speak with a Nottingham accent despite having a Welsh name. As soon as I opened my mouth, I'd be a candidate for summary execution in the South :laughing:
3: The business of the left wing parties etc and their number is actually one of the more amusing aspects of life on the British left. Most people take Labour as the reference point and work West from there etc. I think this is a false compass, and believe the likes of the LD's might have moved through them anyway. In many respects I think we can view the Tories as being the equivilant of the right wing Republicans, and Labour as equviliant to the right of centre Democrats, and this a truer reflection on the state we're in.
There's a piece in 'The Life of Brian' where John Cleese is rattling on about the Judean peoples popular front and the popular front of Judea and how both hate each other more than anything else even though neither follower can remember which one they belong to. Trust me. That piece of observational comedy is very accurate. :laughing:
A lot of these factions and apparent duplication of effort (at face value) stems from the 'second international' and the gathering momentum to war in 1914. Whole books have been written on the geneology of the various splinters that came off this, as Social Democratic Parties, Trade Unions and Labour parties supported the capitalist interests of the gathering war, with the different strands of Communism and Anarchsim recognising that it was the working classes that would bear the brunt of defending the class interests of the elite, duly opposed it. (I seem to think some anarchists thinkers did support the war actually). There's a famous anarchist cartoon on a book by John Woodcock I seem to think that features a mock wedding cake that encapsulates it (I say famous in a relative sense :laughing: ). But it's tantamount to the idea that we send 'you' (the masses) out to fight and defend our wealth, our businesses, our banks, our property, our judicary, our government, our instruments of state, our hegenomy etc "our" = the ruling class, obviously
To some extent this first division represents the split that accounts for the rift between Left Wing movements/ philosophies like Communist, (Bolshevism in the Soviet Union), Spartacists (in Germany) and the Centerist parties and their interests, like the Labour Party, The Trade Unions, the Fabians etc. The former would of course would go onto to become Leninist, and latter Capitlaist.
After Lenins death, Stalin gradually took control of the Triumphrate that ruled that encompassed Zinoviev, and Kamenev. This really represents the second point where a lot of the other groups you see today orginate from, (I tend to differentiate between a philosophy and a group) as the purposes of this triumphrate was to block the largely distrusted Trotsky. He obviously emerged as the pivitol figure in the resistance against Stalin and a number of groups allied themselves thus. Their modern day manifestations in the UK include things like Militant, Socialist Workers Party, The Socialist Alliance, The Socialist Alternative, Class War, and Workers Power etc. In truth they're too numerous to list. Other groups like the Communists, Workers Revolutionary Party, and International Marxist Group have a different descendancy, and thats before you trace back those with Anarchist roots too. Occasionally you might come across Maoist groups or those that draw on the Eurpoean philosophies of Gramsci and Lukas et al but they're quite rare in the UK, though have a small base in France and Italy
In truth it looks like a dogs dinner, and it is :laughing: The various groups tend to hate each other more vehemnetly than they do the Tories, and most hate Labour as their common enemy, (though the SWP aren't adverse to canvassing for them). Personally, I find the philosophical side of things sufficiently stimulating to keep out of the fundamentalist aspects but there are some seriosuly scarry comrades out there. I've always kept a healthy enough perspective to see things in context, and believe that theres actually enough material to write a cracking screen play on it.
A lot of it goes back to Trotsky's theory of 'Permanent Revolution' and Stalin's advocacy of 'Building Socialism from one State' though I suspect this is the back-drop as much as they reason. It causes some of the most hysterical arguments you can imagine, and I've certainly witnessed people practically coming to blows over who was at fault for the Kronstadt rebellion, circa 1921 for instance. God streuth :laughing:
4: Their fragmentation will always reduce their influence, and in truth I can't see anyway of reconciling this. What tends to happen in reality is that a small group forms, a few of the egocentric types start to fall out with each other over some minor interpretation of Marx and who has the superior understanding etc (a lot of hard left people are not necessarily appealing types, as they exhibit bucket loads of arrogance and a mis-placed sense of superiority). Any way a clash tends to occur, followed by a fall out, and the inevitable 'break away' faction, and thus the whole devisive process starts again. It's a cellular in nature to give it a biological analogy.
If you want a historical example of the dysfunctional nature of this arrangement then the best I can think of is the Spanish Civil War cry There was a scene in Ken Loach's 'Land and Freedom' where a lad from Liverpool is on one side of a barracade shooting at another group. As they trade insults it becomes apparent that he's fighting against a lad from Manchester, both of whom ask the other to come and join their side. It duly dawns on both that neither know what they're doing there fighting each other.
PC 1 elected on 67,258, 31.0% Nerys Evans
CON 1 elected on 49,606 22.9% Nicholas Bourne
LD - 28,790, 13.3%
GRN - 8,768 4.0%
UKIP - 8,191, 3.8%
BNP - 6,389, 2.9%
SLP - 2,196, 1.0%
IND - 1,598, 0.7%
WCP - 1,493, 0.7%
IND - 1,108, 0.5%
CPB - 666, 0.3%
VER - 502 0.2%
CPA - 413% 0.2%
Turnout 216,957 50.8%
I demand a recount :laughing:
Anything symbolic in the Communist Party of Britain polling 666 :brows:
Now I realise it's kind of traditional for parties to spin their results into a great victory etc but right now I'm struggling. In fairness 1% is about what I thought I'd get and the rank order is pretty typical too. The only one that surprises me is that UKIP beat the BNP. My cunning plan of trying pick up transferable votes from Labour didn't work norty but in fairness it didn't deserve to, but picking up 5.5% of the Labour vote is a small breakthrough of sorts. Thats nearly 1 in 20 Labour voters abandoning them for a socialist ticket.
'Tony Blair PM' is of course an anagram of 'I'm Tory Plan B'
Just to answer some of your questions in a slightly more lucid manner this morning BM.
1: A lot of the blog stuff and attacks etc were actually invented by the authors, I never spoke to the person whose been quoting me, nor have I publicly said anything he attributes to me. I always thought these people 'twisted' stuff, I didn't actually realise they just completely made it up. Mind you, you put yourself in the firing line and so expect to take a bit etc
2: The South would have been more fertile territory, but then the party was essentially founded on the back of the NUM and Labours scandalous abandonment of them. With this in mind there were long-standing candidates in the South who more than deserved to take their place ahead of myself. In any event, I speak with a Nottingham accent despite having a Welsh name. As soon as I opened my mouth, I'd be a candidate for summary execution in the South :laughing:
3: The business of the left wing parties etc and their number is actually one of the more amusing aspects of life on the British left. Most people take Labour as the reference point and work West from there etc. I think this is a false compass, and believe the likes of the LD's might have moved through them anyway. In many respects I think we can view the Tories as being the equivilant of the right wing Republicans, and Labour as equviliant to the right of centre Democrats, and this a truer reflection on the state we're in.
There's a piece in 'The Life of Brian' where John Cleese is rattling on about the Judean peoples popular front and the popular front of Judea and how both hate each other more than anything else even though neither follower can remember which one they belong to. Trust me. That piece of observational comedy is very accurate. :laughing:
A lot of these factions and apparent duplication of effort (at face value) stems from the 'second international' and the gathering momentum to war in 1914. Whole books have been written on the geneology of the various splinters that came off this, as Social Democratic Parties, Trade Unions and Labour parties supported the capitalist interests of the gathering war, with the different strands of Communism and Anarchsim recognising that it was the working classes that would bear the brunt of defending the class interests of the elite, duly opposed it. (I seem to think some anarchists thinkers did support the war actually). There's a famous anarchist cartoon on a book by John Woodcock I seem to think that features a mock wedding cake that encapsulates it (I say famous in a relative sense :laughing: ). But it's tantamount to the idea that we send 'you' (the masses) out to fight and defend our wealth, our businesses, our banks, our property, our judicary, our government, our instruments of state, our hegenomy etc "our" = the ruling class, obviously
To some extent this first division represents the split that accounts for the rift between Left Wing movements/ philosophies like Communist, (Bolshevism in the Soviet Union), Spartacists (in Germany) and the Centerist parties and their interests, like the Labour Party, The Trade Unions, the Fabians etc. The former would of course would go onto to become Leninist, and latter Capitlaist.
After Lenins death, Stalin gradually took control of the Triumphrate that ruled that encompassed Zinoviev, and Kamenev. This really represents the second point where a lot of the other groups you see today orginate from, (I tend to differentiate between a philosophy and a group) as the purposes of this triumphrate was to block the largely distrusted Trotsky. He obviously emerged as the pivitol figure in the resistance against Stalin and a number of groups allied themselves thus. Their modern day manifestations in the UK include things like Militant, Socialist Workers Party, The Socialist Alliance, The Socialist Alternative, Class War, and Workers Power etc. In truth they're too numerous to list. Other groups like the Communists, Workers Revolutionary Party, and International Marxist Group have a different descendancy, and thats before you trace back those with Anarchist roots too. Occasionally you might come across Maoist groups or those that draw on the Eurpoean philosophies of Gramsci and Lukas et al but they're quite rare in the UK, though have a small base in France and Italy
In truth it looks like a dogs dinner, and it is :laughing: The various groups tend to hate each other more vehemnetly than they do the Tories, and most hate Labour as their common enemy, (though the SWP aren't adverse to canvassing for them). Personally, I find the philosophical side of things sufficiently stimulating to keep out of the fundamentalist aspects but there are some seriosuly scarry comrades out there. I've always kept a healthy enough perspective to see things in context, and believe that theres actually enough material to write a cracking screen play on it.
A lot of it goes back to Trotsky's theory of 'Permanent Revolution' and Stalin's advocacy of 'Building Socialism from one State' though I suspect this is the back-drop as much as they reason. It causes some of the most hysterical arguments you can imagine, and I've certainly witnessed people practically coming to blows over who was at fault for the Kronstadt rebellion, circa 1921 for instance. God streuth :laughing:
4: Their fragmentation will always reduce their influence, and in truth I can't see anyway of reconciling this. What tends to happen in reality is that a small group forms, a few of the egocentric types start to fall out with each other over some minor interpretation of Marx and who has the superior understanding etc (a lot of hard left people are not necessarily appealing types, as they exhibit bucket loads of arrogance and a mis-placed sense of superiority). Any way a clash tends to occur, followed by a fall out, and the inevitable 'break away' faction, and thus the whole devisive process starts again. It's a cellular in nature to give it a biological analogy.
If you want a historical example of the dysfunctional nature of this arrangement then the best I can think of is the Spanish Civil War cry There was a scene in Ken Loach's 'Land and Freedom' where a lad from Liverpool is on one side of a barracade shooting at another group. As they trade insults it becomes apparent that he's fighting against a lad from Manchester, both of whom ask the other to come and join their side. It duly dawns on both that neither know what they're doing there fighting each other.
Oh I think you're quite safe BM.
I've dug this hillarious Wikipedia link out for you. If you scroll down to the section headed "Minor far left political parties in the UK" you'll get a taste of 'the family' and you'll see what I mean. If you click on any of the names, you'll then get a brief history, which underlines the fractious nature much better than anything I could produce.
You only need to read a few to get the general idea of splits, mergers, factions, egotistical maniacs, expulsions, more splits and more mergers, the odd break away here and there, a few more splits etc It caused me a degree of amusement as I was reading it through, and some of minor references contained within them, along with some of the coded references to individuals.
About half of the parties mentioned are Trotskyist in origin (and then there's a whole sub-layer of groups, societies, or associations lurking even below this strata) I've personally struggled with Trot groups as I find them to be disingenious cuckoos (a bird that doesn't build its own nest, but rather tries to take-over someone elses) which is the classic 'entryist' Trot tactic of choice, and did so much damage to the Labour party in the early 80's of course. I remember attending the first meeting of Leicester's SLP, when someone asked from the floor if they could join the party and also be a member of another? :suspect: I think half the room reached for the nearest ice axe, :laughing: as everyone seemed to recognise what this meant, and the need to remove a troublesome Trot before they started doing damage etc (in truth we can do enough damage to ourselves and don't usually need Trotskyist assistance)
FWIW, my own affiliation to the SLP came out of International Leninist Workers Party (whose existance the link does acknowledge
), as we're talking seriosuly minority groups here. I used to take a copy of the Economic Scientifc and Philosophical Review which the link also refers to although I must admit to having not read anything they've put out now for about a decade though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_polit...litical_parties
I've dug this hillarious Wikipedia link out for you. If you scroll down to the section headed "Minor far left political parties in the UK" you'll get a taste of 'the family' and you'll see what I mean. If you click on any of the names, you'll then get a brief history, which underlines the fractious nature much better than anything I could produce.
You only need to read a few to get the general idea of splits, mergers, factions, egotistical maniacs, expulsions, more splits and more mergers, the odd break away here and there, a few more splits etc It caused me a degree of amusement as I was reading it through, and some of minor references contained within them, along with some of the coded references to individuals.
About half of the parties mentioned are Trotskyist in origin (and then there's a whole sub-layer of groups, societies, or associations lurking even below this strata) I've personally struggled with Trot groups as I find them to be disingenious cuckoos (a bird that doesn't build its own nest, but rather tries to take-over someone elses) which is the classic 'entryist' Trot tactic of choice, and did so much damage to the Labour party in the early 80's of course. I remember attending the first meeting of Leicester's SLP, when someone asked from the floor if they could join the party and also be a member of another? :suspect: I think half the room reached for the nearest ice axe, :laughing: as everyone seemed to recognise what this meant, and the need to remove a troublesome Trot before they started doing damage etc (in truth we can do enough damage to ourselves and don't usually need Trotskyist assistance)
FWIW, my own affiliation to the SLP came out of International Leninist Workers Party (whose existance the link does acknowledge
), as we're talking seriosuly minority groups here. I used to take a copy of the Economic Scientifc and Philosophical Review which the link also refers to although I must admit to having not read anything they've put out now for about a decade though.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_polit...litical_parties
betsmate
At the Start
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 5,752
Thanks for the link. The following paragraph from wikipedia sums up the the infighting rather well for me:
Scargill's distrust of such organisations and dislike of Trotskyists resulted in expulsions described as the 'voiding' of membership. Scargill was initially more willing to work with more traditional organisations such as the Economic and Philosophic Science Review group and the Fourth International Supporters Caucus although both groups were later expelled.
The capitalists are barely getting a look-in as enemies...
Scargill's distrust of such organisations and dislike of Trotskyists resulted in expulsions described as the 'voiding' of membership. Scargill was initially more willing to work with more traditional organisations such as the Economic and Philosophic Science Review group and the Fourth International Supporters Caucus although both groups were later expelled.
The capitalists are barely getting a look-in as enemies...
I was aware of the Blabberbell article BM, but hadn't picked up on the chat-forum stuff that followed it :laughing: The link's only just been sent to me this afternoon.
It's quite nostalgic really
It's years since I've been called a 'tankie' (and it brought a wry smile to my face when one of the posters had to explain the derivation of the phrase to another). Oh yes..... the elitism of the Left wing lexicon? the pecuiliarities of a short-hand language, that is increasingly known only to a few desperados who try and preserve it for posterity. The Trotskyist bit was mildly amusing too. On balance though, they even gave me a reasonably sympathetic airing I thought, though I must admit to having never picked up on these spooky goings on in Llandrindod Wells. Does the Principality have a 'Bible belt?'
betsmate
At the Start
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 5,752
It was the Blaberbell stuff I was referring to, but I didn't name it in case you didn't want to draw publicity to it.
I actually watched most of the evening unfold on that site and it was far more interesting watching through traditional media. It is that sort of thing that the web does well.
I actually watched most of the evening unfold on that site and it was far more interesting watching through traditional media. It is that sort of thing that the web does well.
They're clearly political junkies, and in a kind of nice way, it's actually quite refreshing. They were the only people who picked up on my candidacy apart from a couple of abusive Labout party supporters who accussed me of trying to wantonly mislead and dupe the electorate I did point out that I'll take no lectures from "a Labour Party, - a Labour Party" (in a mock Kinnock accent) when it comes to misleading the electorate, and they went a bit quiet. I know that even their own rank and file are increasingly uncomfortable with the "I word", and few will put their hand in the fire these days to defend it.
I might drop Blabberbell an email actually, as they gave me a reasonably sympathetic airing as mentioned earlier, (not something I'm used to :laughing: )and there's clearly a philosophical under current to some of their observations rather than silly political name calling. Apart from anything else, there are a few things they've stated about me which are wrong, but I'm not really minded to quibble, as I think their activities of trying to provide a political forum for debate ought to be encouraged to be honest
I did point out that I'll take no lectures from "a Labour Party, - a Labour Party" (in a mock Kinnock accent) when it comes to misleading the electorate, and they went a bit quiet. I know that even their own rank and file are increasingly uncomfortable with the "I word", and few will put their hand in the fire these days to defend it.I might drop Blabberbell an email actually, as they gave me a reasonably sympathetic airing as mentioned earlier, (not something I'm used to :laughing: )and there's clearly a philosophical under current to some of their observations rather than silly political name calling. Apart from anything else, there are a few things they've stated about me which are wrong, but I'm not really minded to quibble, as I think their activities of trying to provide a political forum for debate ought to be encouraged to be honest
Long way to go Suny, but I do hope Rudi gets the Republican nomination, it would be a hoot. Much as though I disagree with him (he seems to have mellowed since his cancer) he's lethal, and I have to conceed an extremely able politican. He'd be a formidable opponent for anyone to take on, and a very dynamic campaigner. The dream ticket of course would be Rudi versus Hillary, which would the most amusing election in my living memory, but as I said I've taken the 14's about Edwards
Rudi vs Hillary would be the best thing for America, both seem extremely able candidates and the election would be a hell of a fight, I would have to pick Hillary as I imagine Bill will be rallying the troops and he is still so popular