European Tribune

Display:
I didn't mention it because it was more an excuse for the right-wing to hammer labour than any big deal in terms of policy formulation.

It was kept for totemic value, but getting rid of it was emblemetic of shedding the militant past which ws far more important. As a formulation of words it was not only meaningless in the 90s, it was meaningless when it had been incorporated. It was only done to throw a thank-you bone for the Webbs who were saddo Marxists but who had been instrumental in getting the party started.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Apr 27th, 2008 at 04:29:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Didn't the Fabian tendency and those who left to form the Social Democrats following the "Gang of four" also want to get rid of Clause IV?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Apr 27th, 2008 at 04:55:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Fabians weren't a tendency afaik, but they were fairly moderate.

By the time Clause 4 was eliminated, most members of the party knew it was meaningless except for people who actually thought Britain still had a Marxist future. It was like throwing away a piece of clothing we never wore and didn't need.

Disclaimer : I was a member of the party during the 80s and had my share of shouting matches and genuine physical intimidation from Militant. They were scum who deserved to be removed. I left the party because I realised Blairism was coming and didn't like it. And a few other more personal reasons.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Apr 27th, 2008 at 05:01:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recent Diaries
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series