|
|
Post by matureleft on Feb 25, 2022 11:12:13 GMT
It does feel like there is a growing intolerance in the Labour Party for difference of opinion. I don't agree with the MPs that signed this letter but I think they're entitled to that position. In trying to broaden our base we appear to be trying to narrow opinion in the party. It becomes a very lonely place when you don't agree with everything said. I understand many felt the same not all that long ago but I don't remember anyone being threatened to lose to whip over a difference of opinion. I'd also hope that those who felt alienated in the party during the Corbyn years wouldn't want anyone else to experience that I've never been a disciplinarian and was always perfectly happy with having pretty diverse opinions within a core set of shared values. That worked easily when the traditional Left was an indulged but ignored minority. Many of Corbyn's foolishnesses happened during that period - he could say and do broadly what he liked and nobody paid much attention. When he became leader opponents both in the party and, with more resource, in the Tory media, dug through all this to his and the party's disadvantage. That period and its consequences has made the right and centre of the party much less permissive than Blair was. Of course there's an argument for saying that now troops are in conflict particular care is needed on one's views and that is probably the stance of most of those withdrawing their signatures. They signed when Russian troops were still massed but not in combat. Now they are one's opinion, and certainly the balance of blame about the situation, needed in revision even in their eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Feb 25, 2022 11:33:34 GMT
It does feel like there is a growing intolerance in the Labour Party for difference of opinion. I don't agree with the MPs that signed this letter but I think they're entitled to that position. In trying to broaden our base we appear to be trying to narrow opinion in the party. It becomes a very lonely place when you don't agree with everything said. I understand many felt the same not all that long ago but I don't remember anyone being threatened to lose to whip over a difference of opinion. I'd also hope that those who felt alienated in the party during the Corbyn years wouldn't want anyone else to experience that I've never been a disciplinarian and was always perfectly happy with having pretty diverse opinions within a core set of shared values. That worked easily when the traditional Left was an indulged but ignored minority. Many of Corbyn's foolishnesses happened during that period - he could say and do broadly what he liked and nobody paid much attention. When he became leader opponents both in the party and, with more resource, in the Tory media, dug through all this to his and the party's disadvantage. That period and its consequences has made the right and centre of the party much less permissive than Blair was. Of course there's an argument for saying that now troops are in conflict particular care is needed on one's views and that is probably the stance of most of those withdrawing their signatures. They signed when Russian troops were still massed but not in combat. Now they are one's opinion, and certainly the balance of blame about the situation, needed in revision even in their eyes. There is a lot of truth to what you say and there's little to argue with. I suppose the truth is there aren't grey areas here. Either you aren't tolerant to the behaviour when it didn't matter and you aren't tolerant of it when it did or you are tolerant of it when it didn't matter and you are tolerant of when it did. To be tolerant of it when it didn't matter but intolerant of when it did is immoral. It suggests you only care about the optics |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Feb 25, 2022 11:44:21 GMT
I've never been a disciplinarian and was always perfectly happy with having pretty diverse opinions within a core set of shared values. That worked easily when the traditional Left was an indulged but ignored minority. Many of Corbyn's foolishnesses happened during that period - he could say and do broadly what he liked and nobody paid much attention. When he became leader opponents both in the party and, with more resource, in the Tory media, dug through all this to his and the party's disadvantage. That period and its consequences has made the right and centre of the party much less permissive than Blair was. Of course there's an argument for saying that now troops are in conflict particular care is needed on one's views and that is probably the stance of most of those withdrawing their signatures. They signed when Russian troops were still massed but not in combat. Now they are one's opinion, and certainly the balance of blame about the situation, needed in revision even in their eyes. There is a lot of truth to what you say and there's little to argue with. I suppose the truth is there aren't grey areas here. Either you aren't tolerant to the behaviour when it didn't matter and you aren't tolerant of it when it did or you are tolerant of it when it didn't matter and you are tolerant of when it did. To be tolerant of it when it didn't matter but intolerant of when it did is immoral. It suggests you only care about the optics Broadly fair and I should say that I'm personally tolerant in almost all circumstances. But I can understand both a concern about the optics (which do lead to lost votes) and a desire on the centre and right of the party to avoid any repetition of the Corbyn period. So this sterner approach goes with a tightening of some party rules to make a Corbyn-like success less likely. I never got involved in intra-party stuff, and found those who spent their lives on it, on any side, rather narrow people. But I can see and explain where they are coming from. The Left went through a period of seeking to drive people out but much of that was rather clumsy (and nasty) and incompetent. Some of the guys on the right are doing this with rigour in comparison. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,916
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 25, 2022 11:47:37 GMT
Sorry, I feel like this was exactly the case during the Corbyn years, even if not by the man himself (though one example of this is removing Hilary Benn from the cabinet IIRC? And Ivan Lewis was the first shadow cabinet minister to be sacked, by text message, as soon has he became leader), certainly I get the impression his activists across the country (and McCluskey and other cronies probably pulling the strings) were worse, threatening deselections and 'trigger ballots' left right and centre, and the word 'Blairite' used as an insult, as if it was a toxic word. But Blair or his party didn't threaten to remove JC or anyone from his wing during his time... and the fact that the far left either is unaware or chooses to forget, the fact that he won 3 elections - the loss of X million votes '97-05 is a moot point... But all the above shows how the Labour left was (to the regret of some in their ranks) nearly all bark and no bite. McCluskey is a convenient bogeyman (and much of that was self-inflicted) but how many "moderate" MPs did he actually deselect in reality? And as already pointed out, Benn was sacked from the SC for a reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 25, 2022 11:57:02 GMT
Hold on, you seem to be implying that the Labour left was exercising restraint over deselections when this was certainly not true. They reformed the trigger ballot process for a reason.
The main thing that stopped the "democracy roadshow" in its tracks was that the process didn't start until the middle of 2019 and before it had really got going, Johnson forced an election and all the MPs had to be reselected. The Corbynites certainly wanted to have mass deselections and openly said so.
And we all know Hilary Benn was sacked because of his enormously effective speech from the heart about Syria which showed Corbyn's foreign policy up as the dictator-appeasing muddle it always had been.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Feb 25, 2022 12:00:41 GMT
There is a lot of truth to what you say and there's little to argue with. I suppose the truth is there aren't grey areas here. Either you aren't tolerant to the behaviour when it didn't matter and you aren't tolerant of it when it did or you are tolerant of it when it didn't matter and you are tolerant of when it did. To be tolerant of it when it didn't matter but intolerant of when it did is immoral. It suggests you only care about the optics Broadly fair and I should say that I'm personally tolerant in almost all circumstances. But I can understand both a concern about the optics (which do lead to lost votes) and a desire on the centre and right of the party to avoid any repetition of the Corbyn period. So this sterner approach goes with a tightening of some party rules to make a Corbyn-like success less likely. I never got involved in intra-party stuff, and found those who spent their lives on it, on any side, rather narrow people. But I can see and explain where they are coming from. The Left went through a period of seeking to drive people out but much of that was rather clumsy (and nasty) and incompetent. Some of the guys on the right are doing this with rigour in comparison. I agree, I have little time for internal politics. It's interesting from afar but I'd rather talk to real people. They are nicer and votes in the ballot box are real unlike votes in internal elections. The thing about optics is it's what divides us from the average person. Most people don't care about political parties and so bad optics don't matter to them, so a damaging story is perfectly welcome amongst the the public whereas anyone in a political party wouldn't welcome such news. Being aware of this is important because many people aren't and that's where inconsistency happens |
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Feb 25, 2022 12:05:18 GMT
Hold on, you seem to be implying that the Labour left was exercising restraint over deselections when this was certainly not true. They reformed the trigger ballot process for a reason. The main thing that stopped the "democracy roadshow" in its tracks was that the process didn't start until the middle of 2019 and before it had really got going, Johnson forced an election and all the MPs had to be reselected. The Corbynites certainly wanted to have mass deselections and openly said so. And we all know Hilary Benn was sacked because of his enormously effective speech from the heart about Syria which showed Corbyn's foreign policy up as the dictator-appeasing muddle it always had been. Given that speech was made 6 months prior and there had been quite a few events that happened since that's a stretch but whatever you need to feel better about it. Rule 66 was a compromise made by the unions and the soft left including people like Anne Black who was endorsed by Labour to Win not all that long ago. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,916
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 25, 2022 12:05:30 GMT
I know what they (or at any rate some of them) wanted, but the point is they achieved very little. And of course many desired automatic reselection and saw trigger ballots as a poor substitute - with some justification given their outcomes.
As for Benn's speech, many of us continue to see it as the overhyped fluff it always was.
|
|
batman
Labour
Posts: 12,386 
Member is Online
|
Post by batman on Feb 25, 2022 12:41:06 GMT
It does feel like there is a growing intolerance in the Labour Party for difference of opinion. I don't agree with the MPs that signed this letter but I think they're entitled to that position. In trying to broaden our base we appear to be trying to narrow opinion in the party. It becomes a very lonely place when you don't agree with everything said. I understand many felt the same not all that long ago but I don't remember anyone being threatened to lose to whip over a difference of opinion. I'd also hope that those who felt alienated in the party during the Corbyn years wouldn't want anyone else to experience that Sorry, I feel like this was exactly the case during the Corbyn years, even if not by the man himself (though one example of this is removing Hilary Benn from the cabinet IIRC? And Ivan Lewis was the first shadow cabinet minister to be sacked, by text message, as soon has he became leader), certainly I get the impression his activists across the country (and McCluskey and other cronies probably pulling the strings) were worse, threatening deselections and 'trigger ballots' left right and centre, and the word 'Blairite' used as an insult, as if it was a toxic word. But Blair or his party didn't threaten to remove JC or anyone from his wing during his time... and the fact that the far left either is unaware or chooses to forget, the fact that he won 3 elections - the loss of X million votes '97-05 is a moot point... This is why Andy Burnham was very astute to keep his powder dry and become a local leader - stepping back from JC's shadow cabinet to become Mayor - so that he did not resign in disgrace or be sacked for being 'Blairite'. Whereas I do understand the frustration of some of the left around Starmer 'betraying' them, being a former JC cabinet loyalist, running for leader on a similar policy, then recycling into a 'Blairite' - though all that means is trying to steer to electability, no doubt he will have to continue with putting up with such shouting from the sidelines. I could agree with some of that. But the revelations about Ivan Lewis, plus his subsequent political behaviour, tend to suggest that Corbyn was absolutely right to sack him. His attempt to deflect from the allegations against him when he resigned from the party by suddenly talking about antisemitism - a subject which despite his background he had hardly mentioned during Corbyn's leadership - was disgraceful and made things much worse for people who genuinely felt they did have to leave for that reason. |
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Feb 25, 2022 12:54:03 GMT
oh sorry I didn't realise we were talking about Ivan Lewis being suspended. I thought the post was suggesting Corbyn sacked him from the shadow cabinet. It was 100% correct to suspend Ivan Lewis. Allegations of sexual harassment are on another level to signing a letter from Stop the War. It's disgraceful that only Charlie Elphicke was the only MP of that cohort to actually be investigated for sexual harassment. The MP from Barrow always promised to clear his name, that clearly never happened
|
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Feb 25, 2022 12:56:05 GMT
I know what they (or at any rate some of them) wanted, but the point is they achieved very little. And of course many desired automatic reselection and saw trigger ballots as a poor substitute - with some justification given their outcomes. As for Benn's speech, many of us continue to see it as the overhyped fluff it always was. like most things, it was amazing if you were a fan of Benn and it wasn't if you weren't bothered by him |
|
batman
Labour
Posts: 12,386
Member is Online
|
Post by batman on Feb 25, 2022 13:47:03 GMT
oh sorry I didn't realise we were talking about Ivan Lewis being suspended. I thought the post was suggesting Corbyn sacked him from the shadow cabinet. It was 100% correct to suspend Ivan Lewis. Allegations of sexual harassment are on another level to signing a letter from Stop the War. It's disgraceful that only Charlie Elphicke was the only MP of that cohort to actually be investigated for sexual harassment. The MP from Barrow always promised to clear his name, that clearly never happened it was right for Corbyn to sack him & right that he was suspended. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 25, 2022 14:02:41 GMT
I know what they (or at any rate some of them) wanted, but the point is they achieved very little. And of course many desired automatic reselection and saw trigger ballots as a poor substitute - with some justification given their outcomes. I'd argue it wasn't the trigger ballot system that protected the likes of Neil Coyle, it was the incredibly ineffective campaigns the left ran against those they were seeking to deselect, combined with the leadership winding up rank and file members over Brexit. |
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Feb 25, 2022 14:07:46 GMT
Truth is people are rarely triggered because we don't live in a world where MPs and members are numbers and whoever got the most on their side wins. More often than not members know their MPs, they're friends. You don't do stuff like that to your friends
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 25, 2022 14:16:11 GMT
Counter-argument: they failed to deselect Neil Coyle, and I don't think that was because of his sparkling personality.
|
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,379
|
Post by stb12 on Feb 25, 2022 14:21:27 GMT
oh sorry I didn't realise we were talking about Ivan Lewis being suspended. I thought the post was suggesting Corbyn sacked him from the shadow cabinet. It was 100% correct to suspend Ivan Lewis. Allegations of sexual harassment are on another level to signing a letter from Stop the War. It's disgraceful that only Charlie Elphicke was the only MP of that cohort to actually be investigated for sexual harassment. The MP from Barrow always promised to clear his name, that clearly never happened That sounds dangerously close to a guilty until proven innocent sort of attitude |
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,379
|
Post by stb12 on Feb 25, 2022 14:41:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 25, 2022 16:59:11 GMT
I've no particular preference (English not being Greek, after all), though usually use 'ise' because it is now widely (though, yes, quite incorrectly) assumed that 'ize' is American. Though on the origins of the now dominant suffix in Britain, 'ise' comes from the French, not American spelling reformers. It is interesting how rapid the eclipse of 'ize' has been though; there was a Morse episode in which the Oxford preference for 'ize' was an important plot point (with the 'educated' connotations of 'ize' being taken for granted), which I suspect would cause confusion now, just a quarter of a century later. How did I miss out on this entertaining debate back in 2019?
I'd hesitate to accept the description of 'ise' as the dominant suffix in Britain. The last time I saw a count on this (and yes, there are people that keep track of these things) UK sources were measured as preferring 'ise' 61% of the time, which makes it 'more frequent' but hardly 'dominant'.
It's certainly true that 'ize' is usual in academic writing so maybe the Morse reference is not wearing that badly. I'd certainly agree that the better educated a UK writer is, the likelier he or she is to prefer 'ize'.
Also, 'ize' better reflects the etymology of these words since they all derive from Greek. It's true that many of them came to us through French, which is where they picked up the 'ise' spelling - but we took many of them direct from Greek, with no French intervention, and it's very difficult etymologically to justify the use of 'ise' in a word that did not arrive via French, and perhaps has never existed in French.
It would be absurd to have a spelling rule that varied according as a word is derived from Greek via French, or from Greek directly, so my recommendation is to be consistent and prefer 'ize' in all words of this kind.
Note, however, that although the great majority of 'ize' verbs derive directly or indirectly from Greek, there is a class of ostensibly similar words that derive from Latin, usually via French, and not even indirectly from Greek. Familiar examples are advertise, advise, chastise, devise, enfranchise, exercise, improvise, revise, surprise, televise and so on. You have to spell these with an 's' no matter how well-educated (or American) you are. The best way to tell the difference, without having to look it up, is to consider how the corresponding noun is formed. If it ends in '-ism' or adds '-ation', it's a 'z' word; if it ends in '-ision', or '-ice', or adds '-ment', or if the noun is the same as the verb, then it's 's'. The main exception to this is 'improvise', but that's because of poor word-formation - according to the normal rules the noun from 'improvise' should have been 'improvision' (along the lines of 'revise') or simply 'improvisement'. It's far too late to put it right now, of course, so we're stuck with 'improvisation' with an 's': but if you treat that as an unfortunate exception, the 'what's the noun?' test is reliable.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Feb 25, 2022 23:11:21 GMT
Wait until you read about what Clement Attlee did to the Labour MPs who signed a letter supporting the wrong Italian Socialist Party in 1948. What's the story here? EDIT: I've just remembered it's John Platts Mills. |
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Feb 28, 2022 10:18:41 GMT
oh sorry I didn't realise we were talking about Ivan Lewis being suspended. I thought the post was suggesting Corbyn sacked him from the shadow cabinet. It was 100% correct to suspend Ivan Lewis. Allegations of sexual harassment are on another level to signing a letter from Stop the War. It's disgraceful that only Charlie Elphicke was the only MP of that cohort to actually be investigated for sexual harassment. The MP from Barrow always promised to clear his name, that clearly never happened That sounds dangerously close to a guilty until proven innocent sort of attitude In our work place, if there was allegations of sexual harassment; the staff accused would be suspended on pay while an investigation takes place. We had a staff member who accused of abusing a client. They left during the investigation so they didn't have dismissal on their record. This is in short what these MPs did. All three Labour's Ivan Lewis, Kelvin Hopkins and John Woodcock have left the Labour Party. They all cited that they treated badly and maybe that's true but the fact is they will never have to face a full investigation into the claims. |
|
