Response to the response of the response
Tom,
I’m glad you start your reply (to my reply of your reply to my article) by acknowledging that “this topic arouses passions.” As you will have noticed, it is a topic that not just arouses passions but makes my blood begin to boil, mainly out of sheer frustration that I’m not getting through.
I’m not going to go over my arguments once again by combing through your article point-by-point, as we are now moving far away from the central issue, which is that the Labour party must renounce its No Platform Policy. I will make a few general comments though based on my reaction to reading your post.
As for some preliminary remarks, I find it nothing more than a little cheeky that you begin by talking about yourself, then proceed to bemoan the fact that I am the one “playing the man rather than the ball” while continuously crying foul and on top of that getting in some digs of your own! I don’t know who you are apart from what I’ve heard on the Internet (about Draper and all that), and you have probably never heard of me because there’s nothing to hear (as far as I am aware) so I think ad hominem attack claims (certainly sounds like you went to Debating Society!) are quite a stretch of the imagination.
I found it especially amusing when you went so far as to call me naive (though I did slate your patronising tendencies, so mud is mud) but I think my favourite “man-not-ball” line goes to “I find this argument quite incoherent I’m afraid.” Which I may have misinterpreted, it might actually have been a faulty argument, until you finish the paragraph with “That hardly sounds like Einstein.” Thanks for insulting my intelligence there! Bath may not be Manchester, and Modern Languages may not be Law with Politics, but please don’t treat me the way you treat the average voter! “Call me patronising as much as you want.” I will, particularly when I feel like I’m being patronised like when you tell me “You can do better than that.”
One final thing, “No, it’s your ‘realisation’, i.e. your appreciation. Your subjective opinion. It’s an opinion which has been catching on, especially with what seems to be a LabourList campaign to ditch the policy.” One, thanks for reminding me what my opinion is, having only spent about 3000 words on it the past 2 days or so. Two, the “LabourList campaign” is paranoia, because I suspect you are more intelligent than you are leading us to believe, and have actually figured out that we’ve already won (more on that later). If it is an opinion which is catching on, that might suggest that people who used to be in favour of No Platform have realised it is wrong and have changed their mind. It also means that if Anti-No Platformers (Not Pro Platform, note) are writing in, that just reflects the majority opinion and should not be stifled, I’ve already talked about how I perceive your views on democracy, so no need to go into that again. There is no campaign, though I’d gladly set one up, but calling cheat is one of the last resorts for people who are in the wrong and find themselves more and more isolated.
Moving on to arguments now. (You don’t need to worry yourself the above rant, it’s just my impatience).
I said I’m not going to pick apart your points again, mainly because the comments on your articles do it for me, incontrast to the comments on my pieces, which are almost exclusively supportive. There seems to be a democratic majority/minority divide reoccurring.
From “Madasafish”:
Tom said “I’m saying this because I’ve traipsed all over university campuses delivering leaflets in support of this policy”
What have university students to do with Labour voters voting BNP.
Students live a different life from working people and are totally unrepresentative. No wonder your policy is so out of touch with reality in my view.
The Aneurin adds:
A very good question indeed. I’d have thought that spending one’s time traipsing around council estates would be more productive in the fight against the BNP.
Says it all really. In fact, it allows me to bring in a another personal anecdote. In may 2007 the leader of the Youth BNP was a student at Bath, who invited Nick Griffin to speak. Instead of the SU taking a stand either way, for or against No Platform, Griffin was not allowed to speak because “it would disrupt exam time”. The result was that Griffin sat in a pub in town chatting to anybody who cared to listen, instead of just smart-arsed students hurling loaded questions at him.
In a very reactionary way, the following year the SU tried to introduce a No Platform Policy. In a referendum, Bath Students voted AGAINST No Platform in a ratio of 3:1. Voila democracy. Anyway, No Platform at Uni is totally removed from Labour Party No Platform. So let’s have that argument another day.
From Monkeybot 5000:
We are adults. We are your intellectual equals and in many cases your superiors. We do not need you to protect us from the likes of the BNP just in case we’re too stupid to make the right choice when it comes to cast our ballot.
Alun Lloyd:
No platform is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “I’m not listening, lalala!!”. You give them a mystique and aura they don’t deserve. They develop a persecuted persona to wheedle their way in. We need to stand them up in front of everyone and make them say out loud what they believe. Not let them whisper invidiously in corners.
Political Scrapbook:
“The BNP have a right to free speech, but nobody is under any obligation to provide them the means to use it effectively”. Erm, apart from the BBC, who are legally bound obligated to provide political balance. In the 1999 Euro elections UKIP gained three seats – one less than the BNP have now. If the BBC had decided to ‘no platform’ UKIP then they could have had John Birt up in court.
No Platform is an article of faith for many on the left. It’s sad to see people clutching at straws when it is clear that – as a strategy – it isn’t working. The game has changed!
Tristan Pithers:
I can totally understand your anger at the BNP and I share your belief that we have a ‘moral obligation’ to fight against them and their ideology of hate but No Platform is not the way to go. It is regressive and as much the start of a dangerous slippery slope as the election of Brons and Griffin.
Jules Wright:
No it doesn’t tom. prohibition of any sort always fails. i suspect that you simply lack the bottle to take them to task.
Ricki Lake:
Burying our head in the sand wont make the bnp go away , look at it from a voters view , the bnp come on and make a statement witch is riddled with lies ( i know this could apply to all 3 main parties) and no one challenges them then the voter thinks its true and falls under the spell of bnp .
We must ( all parties) debate with them and show the voters the type of nasty and racist party they are .
Hugh Pettit opens another compelling case:
But they’re going to be on TV whether you refuse to share a platform with them or not since they now hold office, as you admit. The only difference with following your logic is that there will be no one there to actually point out that they are a racist party and their policies are underpinned by bigotry.
It links back to my earlier “more on this later” statement. I think the argument is over because the BNP will get their place on Question Time. We might not like it, but if we can’t win through argument then it says more about us than it does about them.
We should now stop digging this hole because the debate is now a forgone conclusion. Labour can either swallow its pride and get with the program as the Tories and Lib Dems have done, or we can stay sitting at home (much like our voters probably will) while they have the debates without us.
What will you do come the election if the BNP fields a candidate in Woking? Will you take them on as your electorate watches or will you let them forget you exist?
We are baying at the gates Tom. Will you let us eat cake?
PS I think it’s painfully obvious that neither of us is going to back down so we had better end our feud with the non-progressive ”agree to disagree.” If you want to say something else, it would be better if you posted it as a comment here, or better yet send me a message via my contact form. That way we can stop spamming LabourList and LabourHome with our debate that seems to have gone rapidly off topic.
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:53 pm
[...] Comments George Galloway on The conman of british politics David cameronResponse to the response of the response | Hadleigh Roberts on Response to HadleighGeorge Galloway on Cameron’s Spending Plansbathbevan on Response to [...]
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:22 am
Okay then, as the final word on this thing, my opinions, so no need to come back on them, though feel free to email your opinions if you must:
1. In my opinion, you’re way too paranoid about LabourList. It’s not out to get you.
2. In my opinion, you’re not “on the Left of the party”. You strike be as an Uber-Blairite who got caught with his trousers down and has since tried to rehabilitate himself into one of those crusty-old-lefty types.
3. In my opinion, you’re a good example of the StudentUnionocrats who get in my way in just about everything I try and do. It’s a strange mix of bureaucrat and technocrat.
Still, this was fun, we should do it again some time.
[Reply]
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:30 am
Readers should bear in mind that my comment has been heavily redacted.
IMHO this would have best been done at LabHome as a response to my piece as you were actually responding to me in the first place.
1. I was the first person to work for LabourList. I spent months working with Alex and Derek. I know how it works.
2. Fair enough. I suppose the fact that I have spent my time between the Socialist Campaign Group and Compass (and before that as a Trotskyist) is completely irrelevant. What do you actually know about me?
3. OK. Good names there. Seems slightly like you’re projecting though.
4. Workingclasstory agrees with you. LOLZOR
[Reply]
Bevan Reply:
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:40 am
Actually looking at all these articles you are the only person who has made this personal stop whining, your supposed to be a PPC are you going to whine this much when your opinions get scrutinised at General Election time. Are you going to whine this much if you ever got elected and are put in the limelight and scrutinised. People without a thick skin should not be politicians.
[Reply]
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:31 am
The last but one paragraph really infuriates me. There used to be a time when Student Unions used to be the central hub of political activity but now in an attempt to cater to everyone they have neglected this and created a large apathetic body of students.
Student Unions are not there to act as a little Student Nanny state. You cannot protect people from an opinion. I don’t see why people need protecting from somebody else’s opinion, the truth is if that person is not strong enough individually to stand up for themselves then there will always be a large number of people willing to step up to the plate and do it for them. If the BNP turn up to my SU then to be honest if I was one of the minorities you are thinking about I would want to sock it to them (so to speak). A debating hall is a safe environment and I’m sure an SU can prevent any violence against individuals on their campus.
This paragraph also is yet another example among many others of your distrust in democracy. You would rather just say they are wrong than justify that.
As I have commented elsewhere the article in response to Hadleigh was inadequate, you decribe it as Ad Hominem yet you continue to ignore the justification for No No platform policy that he brings up.
You declare that you are not patronizing, yet me as a reader and Hadleigh (actually I have shown your posts to about 10 people, they have all come to this conclusion independently) as a reader gets that message from your articles. Surely if it comes across as patronizing to so many people but you don’t mean it to, then you should think harder about how you convey your points.
[Reply]
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:40 am
Also, where did the bold come from on ‘already won’? It deliberately decontextualises my point.
[Reply]
Hadleigh Roberts Reply:
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:41 am
It’s for scanning purposes, I do it in all my articles.
[Reply]
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:14 am
“Are you going to whine this much if you ever got elected and are put in the limelight and scrutinised. People without a thick skin should not be politicians.”
Bevan, that’s also pretty low.
I’m up for election and someone is making personalised attacks on me. I’m not sure how I’m supposed to respond apart from arguing back.
[Reply]
Bevan Reply:
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:49 am
Its not Low, the truth is Hadleigh’s initial response was a justification for No No platform. You just ignored that and made the article ad hominem. Yes there were a few parts of the post that accused you of being anti-working class, but this is based on the comments you were making which when picked apart suggest such an attitude.
But more importantly to me is the fact that your “no platform policy” was picked apart but all you did was claim foul from the “personal attacks”. This is where I think you are whining because rather than focus on the issue at hand you seem to be putting your hands up looking for a moderator to go “look Hadleigh play fair”. You can’t even handle a blogger scrutinising you, how will you fare when in front of the media circus.
[Reply]
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:19 am
Bevan, you should name yourself after someone who didn’t support No Platform.
Rather than going personal in response, I went right down Hadleigh’s points and fisked them, but I was basically pretty annoyed that he accused me of being contemptuous of my electorate; accordingly I did pick up on what he said about me, yes, but only in response.
There was no need to even question my motivations, let alone go off on one like that. He could have just said why he disagreed with what I wrote and why, but chose to attack me instead.
It was clearly not I who lowed the first blow.
On Labourhome I can’t look for a moderator, because I AM the moderator. If I wanted, I could have just deleted his whole article, or changed it in the way he has changed my comment.
Scrutiny… no, I object to him assigning the worst motives to me when he has no reason to, he could just tackle the substance. And I object to him censoring my responses and changing their meaning, without asking my permission. It’s all debate and free speech when it suits him. But now he’s literally making it up.
[Reply]
Bevan Reply:
September 23rd, 2009 at 10:51 am
Ok well I’ll pursue the legal avenues and get my name changed then.
You keep missing the point that I am raising about scrutiny so nevermind. The truth is the personal attacks are based on the way you wrote your article. Its not just Hadleigh and Me that think that you are patronizing your electorate look at Monkeybot 5000 comment for further proof.
Sorry Hadleigh this is my last comment.
[Reply]
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:20 am
Also,
“Student Unions are not there to act as a little Student Nanny state”
I wish they were.
[Reply]
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:23 am
Okay guys. Closing time. I don’t know how many different ways I can say “get over it”.
[Reply]