rational geekery

yawn.....

or is this all about the future of the Labour party...at grassroots level.

It's about bloggers and the where the Left is.

And it's about the where the Left (Labour Party) is going...

That really is comedy. I love Nick Cohen's 'I give up' line, lol

I love that article, a simply perfect example of people not talking the same language, despite using the same words.

The debate tonight on the EM went really well actually, majority vote in favour of the manifesto - and even where there was disagreement it was of the rational sensible kind. All good stuff.

"Talking shops" and "puppets" come to mind...

I don't think activism should be mocked. Anyway, hasn't the EMG=HJS argument been kicked in the ghoulies? :)

"“Talking shops” and “puppets” come to mind… "

How sad.

I cannot understand how today there still exist discussions on right and left. Who is right and who is left is no longer a consideration on politics, and you have the proof in the "Neo" prefix parties are adorning their original names with.
Communism was left in its inception but right from Stalin and Mao on. Conservatives are all those who insist in keeping their politics in aeternum, be them left or right, progressives those who continuously look for changes. Progressive-conservatives are those who try to strengthen conservative doctrines,as are progressive-leftists in their leftist trends. They both tend to maximise their ideas by adapting them to the modern times. But the real question here, the sense of all our modern lives is just progress without left or right considerations.
The prevailing idea in democracy always ought to be to meet the people's need of progress(by honouring the word "democracy").

I may analyse a Manifesto trying to concile it with my personal ideas, but manifestos are simply that: manifestos. A statement of intentions. It may serve the egos of those who draft them, but they mean nothing to the "vulgar" ones. The "vulgar" ones just want to progress, irrespective of Marx, Hitler or any other genuine representatives of the Left or the Right.
Cynically speaking, good politics means "bread and butter".

Re : 7 (Dai)

"Philosophers (& Bloggers, Journalists - Ed) have interpreted the world in different ways; the point, however, is to change it".

And Tyger, EMG=HJS argument "kicked in the ghoulies" ? No, just 'kicked into touch' - but the game continues :)

Part of being on the left has always been about a continal thirst for knowledge and a permanent debate - by its very nature, being anti-conservative, means looking beyond the 'common sense'.

But conversation, debate and intellectual back-and-forth doesn't in any way shape or for mean and either/or with physical political action. If anything it is a necessary part, side by side.

If we want to change the world, we cannot do it by the old 'mechanical' means of simply imposing change from above and expecting that to push people into the correct positions of a beter society: it has to be 'moral' change - and that means the ability to argue, debate and make our case for the good society. That is why debate is needed, why values must be contested. That is not sad. (It is also enjoyable, as a bonus)

Unless of course the remark was just another off the cuff, sectarian-lefty, sidewipe at a document that some don't like, rather than at the very initiative of debate and discussion.

In which case, that is even sadder still.

Sometimes I say things just to mischievously provoke an argument. Sometimes not. This is one such time :

There is little difference between The Euston Manifesto Group (EMG) and The Henry Jackson Society (HJS).

Therein lies the lethal danger for EMG - and you 'card-carrying' Labourites are pitifully unaware of it.

Not sure what that means. Are you backing out?

Maybe you could outline which sections of the Manifesto you disagree with?

With reasoned logic naturally…

"The heart has its reasons of which reason (especially 'reasoned logic'-Ed) knows nothing" - Blaise Pascal.

Is that "backing out".

No way, Tyger :)