There’s not a systematic, essentialising narrative attached to celebrity status though.

On the face of it, sure, there’s nothing inappropriate about an honest assessment of a particular crime, and how best, in those circumstances, we can prevent it from reoccurring. I just think it’s important to note that “acknowledgement” can, in certain cases, be the result of ulterior motives – Howard Kirk being a case in point; his bigoted veneer quickly came to the surface. So if the police or social workers or even, at a stretch, the media, find it useful to publicise certain facts, OK, that’s fine, but it has to be done sensitively and not allowed to escalate to the extent entire groups are considered suspect.

Sorry everyone else, if you want to come in then we’ll leave the key under the plant pot!

And again…let me take you through this s-l-o-w-l-y.

Scotland is a devolved colony of England. The former colonial authority of the Scottish Office was devolved in 1999 to Holyrood, which was a democratic improvement, but we still have no control over major chunks of our political landscape – most notably tax, defense, social security and international relations.

Farange is a British Nationalist, Britain is dominated by the English ruling class, with which he has strong links. He conflates the two (most notably when he suggested that the protesters wanted to burn the Union Jack (the flag of the UK) as a means of conveying their “anti-English” stance,if the UK is a free and equal union as he suggests – why is burning the UK’s flag not equally offensive to all of the nations of the UK?

Its not that there arent any racists in Scotland, simply that the left actively and vociferously confronts them, where-ever, when-ever they appear in any kind of political formation – whether they are public school toffs or wannabe street fighters. We dont take this wishy washy woolly liberal “well, he’s got a tie on and he’s well funded so he’s not the same as that bloke with the swastika on his forehead” line. Its crap and its dangerous crap – its how racism gets a grip, grows roots and eventually blossoms into something very nasty.

This ridiculous idea that Scottish Independence = Scottish Nationalism = SNP = Alex Salmond = King Alex of Scotland is *ludicrous*.

Yes there are nationalist elements within the Independence campaign, most with a civic nationalist rather than ethnic nationalist bent, but there are a considerable number (a majority?) of internationalist elements.

Yes, there are a lot of supporters of independence within the SNP (both nationalist and internationalist), but there are far, far more outwith it.

Yes, there are people who support Scottish Independence who like Alex Salmond, the vast majority are either ambivalent or actively dislike him.

And no, Scottish Independence is not about setting up a quasi-fascist dictorship of Alex Salmond modelled on Mugabe – someone should really tell the BBC.

Just in case I didn’t: No, not at all, I was adding to what you were saying.

Well in the case of Jimmy Saville the particularity of the abuse of celebrity status has indeed led to a general scrutiny of that closed world, and questions have been asked of the BBC and charities who fAiled those in their care.

Only s minority of child abusers were 1970s TV stars, only a minority of date rapists are professional footballers. But it is not unreasonable to acknowledge the specific factors that lead to these incidences happening in otder to address problems

Andy Newman: If s minority of child abusers are Muslims then it is appropriate for the relevant child protection agencies to deal with that particularity by constructive engagement with concerned stake holders in the muslim communities.

And this is precisely what Ajmal Masroor’s arguments will put a stop to. If the Asian community comes under this kind of fake attack cos of fake sex abuse figures – bolstered by the predictable bleatings of the EDL (which made huge, and completely fake, claims that a 7 year old white girl was raped in her school toilets by Muslim boys, and that the authorities were covering it up – claims that are now being investigated in case they amount to incitement), will make the Muslim community even more alientated and isolated, and thus less likely to co-operate with child protection agencies. Given that we’re interested in child protection, it will obviously help if we rebut the lies that are told about the Muslim community.

Well paedophile gangs are not dealt with by politicians or tabloid newspapers, not even by hand wringing liberals.

They are combatted by social services, the police , child protection agencies and other qualified professionals, with hopefully the support of community organisations, faith groups, and other socially engaged parts of civil society.

Clearly within the specialist field of child protection it is useful to acknowledge the particularity of specific manifestations of organised child abuse, and deal with each specific context in the appropriate way.

If s minority of child abusers are Muslims then it is appropriate for the relevant child protection agencies to deal with that particularity by constructive engagement with concerned stake holders in the muslim communities.

Manzil: You assume that British withdrawal magically neuter or substantially weaken the forces currently driving the anti-EU narrative within the Tory Party and UKIP?

I make no such assumption. A lot must happen before Britain could withdraw from the EU. It would be much more eventful than in 1975. Even if we stopped in a referendum might well destroy the Conservative Party in the way the repeal of the Corn Laws wreaked the old Tory party.

If the trade union movement and groups like LPBP mounted a campaign that highlighted issues like public services we could well come out of a referendum with a very different balance of forces than the one we have now… even if a majority of people vote to stop in.

What happens will depend on what people do, and that includes what we do.

There is no magic. This is not ‘Harry Potter’ or ‘Lord of the Rings’

Manzil: You say yourself that LPBP is “redefining politics”, which I imagine is what you feel is needed, while at the same time you do not believe it is repeatable. In other words, you offer a political cul de sac.

I didn’t say that it wasn’t repeatable, I said it wouldn’t be easy. That is not the same thing.

On “redefining politics”.
For most people politics is something that relate to through the media. Consequently it means the Conservative, LibsDems, Labour and, just recently, UKIP.

Involvement in a campaign changes that perception.

It is far too simplistic to bundle everyone critical of UNISON together. Those criticising UNISON for its equality agenda, or making unrealistic demands upon UNISON to be more militant than its level of organisation or the combativity of its membership would allow are both making a mistake but not necessarily the same mistake.

Criticism of UNISON for the excessive zeal some of its leadership show for marginalising left activists is well placed.

Criticism of UNISON for its seeming inability to front up to private sector employers is also well placed.

My concern is not with the agenda for proportionality, but that there is an element of fiddling while Rome burns.

‘What is incontestable surely is that SNP civic-nationalism is at the opposite end of the political spectrum to Farage’s version of English nationalism.’

###

When Salmond refers to the people of Northern ireland as ‘blood of our blood, bone of our bone’ I can’t help thinking that ethnic and civic nationalism are but two cheeks of the same arse.

George Hallam: your problem is that, as a leftist, you know that ‘the Left’ is incapable of generating and leading a popular movement

There you go, projecting your own criticisms of the Left onto others. I “know” no such thing. You evidently believe so. You say yourself that LPBP is “redefining politics”, which I imagine is what you feel is needed, while at the same time you do not believe it is repeatable. In other words, you offer a political cul de sac.

You assume that British withdrawal magically neuter or substantially weaken the forces currently driving the anti-EU narrative within the Tory Party and UKIP? It won’t. The relentless attack on any amelioration of pure market forces through social provision or regulation will continue apace.

The anti-”Europe” attitude is, in reality, merely “anti-government”, faux-Hayekian sentiment (“respectable” public services like marketised-but-free education and health care being curiously exempt from the individualist ethos), tinged with barely-repressed xenophobia. Its translation to a non-EU context, redirected towards domestic sources of populist antipathy would be speedy and profound (likely targeting “scroungers”; immigrants – who we should remember aren’t bloody going anywhere even were Britain to leave the EU, leaving behind a permanent source of resentment for UKIP voters; and the politicians, cultural elites and public sector workers supposedly in hock to them).

As to the effect which a successful revolt of England’s merry band of enraged poujadists would have on the ability of big capital to monopolise power in the UK: I don’t know. I suspect very little. UKIP is inherently unstable, as are the social forces it is drawing support from. Its co-option, by an appeal to the more venal interests of any representatives it elects, would most likely result in Nick Clegg looking like a principled and honourable politician. The slop would barely be in the trough before Farage and Co.’s snouts were ensconced.

Manzil: You seem to suggest that people should be prioritising the identification of EU competition law and treaties with the assault on public services, even if the only feasibly circumstances that would lead to British withdrawal – the strengthening of the radical right, in UKIP and the Tory Party, would merely accelerate that assault within an ‘independent’ Britain?

The combination of EU competition law and the US-EU trade treaty constitutes the next big threat to public services in Europe. Ignoring it won’t make it go away.

I think your problem is that, as a leftist, you know that ‘the Left’ is incapable of generating and leading a popular movement. Therefore you are afraid that any popular movement will automatically benefit ‘the Right’.

You may well be right that the issue of British withdrawal from the EU might “strengthening of the radical right, in UKIP and the Tory Party” but you need to think this through.

In the event of an actual withdrawal would the ‘radical right’ “in UKIP and the Tory Party” be stronger or weaker than it is now?

Would such a strengthening secure or weaken the hold of big business and finance on British politics?

Assuming that the ‘radical right’ was stronger, would it gain as much as the popular, anti-austerity, or (dare I say it) the working-class movement.

Manzil: do you believe the model of Lewisham People Before Profit is unique to Lewisham, on account of the particular threats to Lewisham Hospital, or that such mobilisation can be generated against austerity elsewhere?

LPBP was initially formed 2008. We have been lucky in having a) a history of decent in the borough and b) some very able people. So I don’t think it would be easy to duplicate the movement in other areas.

Manzil: Most anti-austerity campaigns attempt to be broad and comprehensive; they respond to specific cuts and closures in their local community; and they attempt to draw in “ordinary people”. So what is the key difference?

LPBP has been big enough to counter the tendency of Left groups to dominate the campaign. This has been hard work and we have had allies but so far we have been successful.

Tony Collins: In the meantime, you might find it if you google a few keywords plus site:socialistunity.com in the search box.

Why should we have to? Eh? EH?!

Fair enough.

In which case, do you believe the model of Lewisham People Before Profit is unique to Lewisham, on account of the particular threats to Lewisham Hospital, or that such mobilisation can be generated against austerity elsewhere? If the latter, what subjective factors account for the fact this has generally not occurred – what are the big differences between LPBP and other attempts to build a “redefined politics”?

Most anti-austerity campaigns attempt to be broad and comprehensive; they respond to specific cuts and closures in their local community; and they attempt to draw in “ordinary people”. So what is the key difference? Is it merely that LPBP has been able to relate to express itself differently than other such bodies (co-opting the fluffy democratic rhetoric of “the people”), and organise people differently as well, or is it something more substantial?

As to my remark about abstract principle, I am talking specifically about the EU. You seem to suggest that people should be prioritising the identification of EU competition law and treaties with the assault on public services, even if the only feasibly circumstances that would lead to British withdrawal – the strengthening of the radical right, in UKIP and the Tory Party, would merely accelerate that assault within an ‘independent’ Britain?

Nick Wright: You seem to be arguing with someone else other than me.
It really won’t do to erect an imaginary construct such as: “leave the EU so we can create a workers state in Britain” or “we can’t have socialism because it is illegal under the Treaty of Rome” and attribute such crude views to your adversary.

Nick – those things you suggest are “crude” are expressions I have encountered from No to EU supporters. I honestly don’t see your views in contradiction to them.

Nick Wright: The argument for conducting a battle to get Britain to withdraw from the European Union is built around the notion that political, economic and ideological power of the dominant section of the bourgeoisie would be thus weakened.

Probably. You would also strengthen the most backward and insular sections of British capital. Further, you would also reinforce the most chauvinist and xenophobic sections of the working class. Overall this doesn’t amount to a clear shift in favour of the advanced sections of the working class.

A break up and decline of the EU is likely to create further reductions in living standards. Why would this not prompt further demoralisation within the working class and the poor?

Nick Wright: Do you think the struggle against privatisation would be conducted with greater clarity in Britain if our rulers were unable to rely on the the framework of EU law and directives?

No. Knowing a little about the postal industry, I get tired of anti-EU supporters insisting that EU Directives are responsible for government attempts to privatise Royal Mail. This simply lets the British government off the hook. Nothing in the Postal Directives compels privatisation. Equally, nothing compels the British government to include Royal Mail’s investments in the PSBR – that’s just Treasury guidelines. These don’t apply in the rest of Europe. The British government has pioneered neo-liberalism in Europe, not been forced into it. It’s tempting to say that the EU would move left if Britain left it – but it would have a deflationary impact upon the EU too.

Nick Wright: Where I disagree with you most profoundly is not over the issue of the EU but over the your conception that the human bearers of racist, chauvinist and reactionary ideas are constituted as ‘the other’. In their vast majority they are working people whose objective interests are in contradiction with the ideas in their heads.

No concessions on this, even when dressed up as a problem of existential method (“the other”). Those who give even their little finger to racism are lost. Voting UKIP is an act of bigotry. It is not about an “idea” in the head. It is the active promotion of a political force who are capable of destroying Britain’s multi-cultural society. Tip-toeing around this – because of the EU issue – is a concession to backwardness.

Nick Wright: Your final point – “the argument that we are prevented from struggling for socialism by membership of the EU is a contemporary form of parliamentary cretinism” – is nonsensical. Imagining that the structures of the EU provide a more favourable terrain for the struggle for socialism is cretinism without the parliamentary dressing

I was being much too provocative. But really, have you not heard of the European parliament? Who will you be voting for in the 2014 elections?

Manzil: How do you envisage “answering” those UKIP voters (in a way that is actually likely to happen in the present circumstances) that will IMPROVE the situation vis a vis the EU framework – rather than standing on a principle, entirely divorced from the needs of the situation,

I live in Lewisham so this is not an abstract question for me.

LPBP has been active in a number of campaigns that address some very real problems and it has done so in a way that has drawn ordinary people into activity. We have worked to build broad organisation such as ‘Save Lewisham Hospital’ but we have not hesitated to initiate actions on our own when the need has arisen (e.g. the occupation of 5 council houses to prevent them being auctioned off). Alongside all this we have stood candidates in elections (Incidentally, our candidate in the GLA election endorsed the TUSC list). This way of working has little or nothing to do with “standing on a principle, entirely divorced from the needs of the situation”; in fact it is the exact opposite.

I believe that our comprehensive, active approach has made people in the area generally more hopeful and less apathetic. In turn this helped to change the way some people think. I also believe that this been a factor in limiting the appeal of UKIP, not to mention other organisations that even I find unsavoury. In short I think that LPBP’s actions are part of the process of redefining politics.