No doubt many of you will have read Neil Lawson's latest 'letter to Tony' on the Compass website. What do you think? I am a member of Compass, been to a few of their events and backed a couple of their campaigns (most notably their opposition to the Education White Paper).
But recently I have been having my doubts about just what Compass is attempting to achieve.
In his latest letter to the Prime Minister, Neil Lawson writes:
"Your New Labour was a closed conspiracy of a few very clever individuals who in the glum shadow cast by Thatcherism seized a traumatised and disorientated party without breaking with the central tenants of that neo-liberal hegemony."
First of all - do you mean tenants? or should I assume it should read tenets?
Is this true? Am I part of a neo-liberal hegemony? Is Compass suggesting that New Labour has not achieved anything because it has not done everything?
Is Compass pointing us in right the direction of travel or is it leading us down a dead end?
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Compass - taking Labour in the right direction or a sure fire way to the wilderness years?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I too am a member of compass, went to their fringe at conference and have backed some of their campaigns.
Compass is heading in the right direction. However Neal Lawson is not.
He craves constant attention in the media and has no idea of what the concerns are of the average voter.
I belong to no particular wing of our party,agreeing with the government on much of its programme and less on others.
However, Compass is the cult of Neal Lawson who is typical of a strain of Guardian reading middle class academia who dont understand or have any experience of real life.
I found the bit where Neal says economic efficiency and social justice are incompatible to be a bit confusing, because he then gives us the example of Sweden and tells us it can be done. However, overall, as a critique of Blairism, for want of a better phrase, it seems OK to me.
Yep, could not agree more about Neal. How many doors has he knocked on recently. People wat jobs, they want to be safe, they want an NHS free at the point of us. I'm not sure they are overly bothered how we deliver that.
No, he's talking bollocks. I think I'll post on this a little later on so thanks for raising the topic Mike.
Neal Lawson is talking through his arse - that is my considered view
A little tale from a recent encounter at a Labour Party social event:
Comrade X is talking with Comrade Y....
X says that the LP is up the spout because of (a), (b), (c), and (d) etc, and he for one won't be supporting anything Blair or any other member of the Cabinet does, and so forth and so on.
Y, who has only just come to that particular (London) constituency, is fairly lost for words. She is well aware of the debates and has herself quite strong views on many of issues.
On this occasion however her comment is to the point. She simply observes that she had always believed people joined the LP broadly to support it (and where appropriate to engender debate / change from within), rather than, as X seems to believe, to bring it down.
Enough said.
I would really like to reply to this, but I have already done a nice long peice on Compass here, for anyone further interested in this topic.
cheers for taking an interest Mike. Nice to see someone not taking sides (too much!) on this issue...
oh, and hilary; if it were'nt about changing it from the inside, X wouldn't be at a CLP meeting.
enough of the trot comparisons people.
Post a Comment