Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Who are the so called hard left infiltrating labour that Owen Smith talked about in t Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Who are the so called hard left infiltrating labour that Owen Smith talked about in the leadership debate? Can someone give names of the organisations?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The AWL(Alliance for Worker's Liberty) are one. They're a far-left Trotyskist group who de-registered as a political party after Corbyn was elected leader.

    Former members of Militant(another Trotyskist group) who were expelled in the 1980's are also trying to rejoin.

    This article talks about it in more detail. They're mostly modern day decendants of Communists who call themselves various other names these days.

    http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_57...b074297db34303
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hsv)
    Who are the so called hard left infiltrating labour that Owen Smith talked about in the leadership debate? Can someone give names of the organisations?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    John McDonnell confessed to being a Marxist during the financial crash.

    There's likely many others who share the same opinion but just don't voice it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheIr0nDuke)
    John McDonnell confessed to being a Marxist during the financial crash.

    There's likely many others who share the same opinion but just don't voice it.
    (I don't know if you watched tonight's QT or not?)

    He was blatantly trying to deny it when put on the spot and then implied it was being taken out of context. I mean there is no context to a statement like that, you're either a ****in Marxist or you're not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    (I don't know if you watched tonight's QT or not?)

    He was blatantly trying to deny it when put on the spot and then implied it was being taken out of context. I mean there is no context to a statement like that, you're either a ****in Marxist or you're not.
    I haven't unfortunately, was planning on catching up tomorrow.

    Likely backtracking as he knew the comment would put him in hot water. Looking forward to watching that creature squirm now.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheIr0nDuke)
    I haven't unfortunately, was planning on catching up tomorrow.

    Likely backtracking as he knew the comment would put him in hot water. Looking forward to watching that creature squirm now.
    These loonies should 100% be called out on this stuff, but at the same time being a lifelong Labour supporter it's also painful to watch.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    These loonies should 100% be called out on this stuff, but at the same time being a lifelong Labour supporter it's also painful to watch.
    Then stop supporting that evil party.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    When you have an entrenched two party state with a first past the post electoral system, you are effectively left with no other option than to support the one closest to your ideas. Supporting a party does not mean you agree with everything it does or that you think you can influence it to do everything you want. It is logical for people to the left of Labour and to the right of the Tories to lend their respective support. The idea that accepting the support of these people means that you are going to adopt all their proposals is ridiculous. The media and many on this forum take the attitude that any association with anyone outside of strict party policy is traitorous, disloyal or that the Party is going to suddenly change into the other parties that are supporting it. It is just sensationalism at its worst.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    When you have an entrenched two party state with a first past the post electoral system, you are effectively left with no other option than to support the one closest to your ideas. Supporting a party does not mean you agree with everything it does or that you think you can influence it to do everything you want. It is logical for people to the left of Labour and to the right of the Tories to lend their respective support. The idea that accepting the support of these people means that you are going to adopt all their proposals is ridiculous. The media and many on this forum take the attitude that any association with anyone outside of strict party policy is traitorous, disloyal or that the Party is going to suddenly change into the other parties that are supporting it. It is just sensationalism at its worst.
    It's not sensationalism, it's happening. Fringe groups are actively telling their supporters to join Labour en-masse with the very intention of influencing it. It's a repeat of the 1980's.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mili...tskyist_group)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    (I don't know if you watched tonight's QT or not?)

    He was blatantly trying to deny it when put on the spot and then implied it was being taken out of context. I mean there is no context to a statement like that, you're either a ****in Marxist or you're not.
    Well I can post a photo of him as keynote speaker for the Marxist Association of Students (my friend is an organiser) so....

    PS: I forgot, I've actually posted it on here before *
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The term 'hard left' is a smear designed to demonize anyone who is on the left.

    It is used by centrists who call themselves 'centre left'.

    But what people like Owen Smith are referring to socialist parties like the AWL, SWP etc joining the Labour party. These parties only have maybe 200 members max.

    Their ideas are not allowed in the mainstream so have to be demonized placed beyond rational thought. The reaction that the mainstream wants is immediate disapproval and condemnation when they call an entity 'hard left'

    If you were a Green party member and joined the Labour party recently, it's fine.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheIr0nDuke)
    John McDonnell confessed to being a Marxist during the financial crash.

    There's likely many others who share the same opinion but just don't voice it.
    Confessed...like it's a crime.

    In actuality, if you put it in the correct context, he meant I'm a Marxist when it comes to the collapse of capitalism. What that means is he believes that capitalism's contradictions cause cyclical crises.

    It requires an addition to this context to leap to a full blown Marxist in every respect (eventhough I do not think that position deplorable unlike the mainstream)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    It's not sensationalism, it's happening. Fringe groups are actively telling their supporters to join Labour en-masse with the very intention of influencing it. It's a repeat of the 1980's.
    Even if every single one joined that would probably be not more than 2,000 so hardly enmasse. The key word here is 'influencing'. There are things that some fringe groups have in common with Labour, those are likely to be their focus. Labour are not suddenly going to adopt every suggestion from every member. So far Corbyn's proposals are quite moderate, and cannot be remotely called hard left.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It will take another Kinnock to get rid of the 'hard left', when they finally get rid of Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    It will take another Kinnock to get rid of the 'hard left', when they finally get rid of Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott.
    I think the divide on the left can be boiled down simply into two groups, those who are pragmatic and willing to compromise and those who aren't. Being the former makes me a Tory in disguise apparently.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    Even if every single one joined that would probably be not more than 2,000 so hardly enmasse. The key word here is 'influencing'. There are things that some fringe groups have in common with Labour, those are likely to be their focus. Labour are not suddenly going to adopt every suggestion from every member. So far Corbyn's proposals are quite moderate, and cannot be remotely called hard left.
    His policies aren't hard-left, not that he has much of any substance in that regard.

    However his supporters issuing death threats and bricking constituency office windows, proposed deselections of moderate MPs and target lists containing the names of those who dare to challenge him most definately are the actions of the hard-left.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hsv)
    Who are the so called hard left infiltrating labour that Owen Smith talked about in the leadership debate? Can someone give names of the organisations?
    As JamesN88 mentioned, AWL is one. They viewed Corbyn's ascendancy to the leadership of the Labour Party as essentially the success of all their goals in terms of having hard leftists take control of the Labour movement.

    The original Militant organisation turned into the Socialist Party, which very clearly states on its website its affiliation with, and support for, Jeremy Corbyn. In fact, they went out on marches the weekend after the shad cab resignations to express support.

    The guy who headed Militant in the 1980s, Peter Taaffe, is rejoining the party. Mark Serwotka, the extremist head of the PCS, who hadn't been a member of Labour for 20 years (it wasn't militant enough for him) rejoined the party recently, and then had the audacity to argue on TV that he somehow represented "true" Labour. He was making this argument to someone who had stayed loyal through all those years.

    The level of entitlement that these hard leftists have, that they can just join the Labour Party and not only do they have a "We are the masters now" attitude, but they also have the gall to somehow claim they are and always have been "true Labour". And yet most of them have opposed Labour for decades, even during the time of Michael Foot he was considered too far right by many fractious socialist and communist parties. Even Attlee was considered to be too right-wing for a large cohort of communists inside and outside the Labour Party.

    As long as there has been a Labour Party, there have been hard left groups outside the party who consistently attack and undermine the Labour Party while claiming to be "true Labour", and also groups wtihin the party who claim they are the true inheritors of Labour and that every leader of the party is a capitalist sell-out.

    The electorate is not going to be impressed by this rabble. What is most painful is that even if Labour badly loses the next election, they won't relinquish power. They'd rather Labour was destroyed than allow the party to return to the management of people who have actually won elections and know how to appeal to the people.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    His policies aren't hard-left, not that he has much of any substance in that regard.

    However his supporters issuing death threats and bricking constituency office windows, proposed deselections of moderate MPs and target lists containing the names of those who dare to challenge him most definately are the actions of the hard-left.
    Also, unilateral disarmament is pretty hard left. Associating with the Stop the War Coalition, long a front for the SWP, is hard left. His entire foreign policy slate and his associations (which have been repeated ad nauseum and don't need further elaboration here) are definitely the actions of a hard-leftist.

    I'd say he's also demonstrating a certain characteristic incompetence and imperviousness to economic consequences that we see on the hard left. Hence the first pledge of Jezbollah's ten commandments, "1. Full employment and an economy that works for all" (a meaningless platitude), with a second line promising £500 billion to be borrowed to create 1 million new homes and 1 million new jobs over the course of a single parliament, is quite typical of the reckless indifference of the hard left to serious policy work or economic analysis.

    Owen Smith proposed a £200 billion Keynesian investment programme for industry and housing, so naturally the next day Corbyn promised £500 billion. But when you look at the figures, if the money is split half-half, that works out to £250,000 per home and £250,000 per job. That is an insanely expensive job creation and housing development scheme, paying way over what could reasonably be spent to achieve those outcomes.

    Surely if one is proposing to borrow £500 billion, thus increasing the national debt from £1.5 trillion to £2 trillion and the debt-to-GDP ratio from 81% to 107%, in a single massive hit, then it is incumbent on you to be very thorough. Surely a reasonable opposition leader would proceed by commissioning expert economists and former treasury officials to do all the numbers, to assess the economic implications, to identify risks to such a programme, determine the challenges and costs for administering such a vast programme, to quantify the benefit and to put forward a business case (i.e. is this capital expenditure that will essentially pay for itself, or are we just spending a £500 billion whack which will be added to the exchequer's balance sheet?). These questions need to be answered, but of course that kind of preparedness and due diligence never crossed Corbyn's mind.

    All this is totally characteristic of the hard left's MO as they know they will never win power and thus will never actually have to carry it out and be held accountable for their claims.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    His policies aren't hard-left, not that he has much of any substance in that regard.

    However his supporters issuing death threats and bricking constituency office windows, proposed deselections of moderate MPs and target lists containing the names of those who dare to challenge him most definately are the actions of the hard-left.
    Why is it always the actions of the tiniest minority of supporters, and not the actions of the vast majority of supporters that are the focus of any judgement about Corbyn?
    It is a bit like judging the entire Leave campaign on the actions of the nutter who killed Jo Cox.
    I think the term 'moderate' is being abused, and for some reason now making a list is a crime. Then the media get hold of the list and rush to publish it saying 'if those evil Corbyn supporters see this list they are going to en-masse abuse the people on it', but we'll publish it anyway. I think you will find that all of the MPs on the list have been 'listed' in the media too, when they are not being quoted under the term 'Labour spokesperson'.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    https://libcom.org/blog/trotspotting...d-ask-18092009
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply
Updated: September 20, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Is GoT overrated?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.