What is it I ask myself that allows some of the greatest cynics/know it alls, to prescribe the future of the towns voters actions to all voters hating the current incumbents representing Labour party in this locality?
What makes such cynics sound as they have some crystal ball that allows them to sound so upright and correct in their proclamations for the rest of Labour candidates and the future of politics for our town.
Well besides the proclamations stated in such positive -know it all language- and with such a dismissive and cruel identification of all the current incumbents -portrayed as self perpetuating -inferring corruption -on all of them -with such sweeping pronouncements -which really shows a hate or despondency of what Labour has turned out locally or maybe nationally. Well join the club -many of us may have a similar despondency but would not claim to -damn all those that hold office and many who gave up their time to discuss/debate to seek a better world than what the class enemy of the working class of Rotherham and wider society would have under Toryism and also worse still UKIPism.
So can we have a bit of sanity in the discussion about what both happened in Rotherham and what ‘may happen’ in Rotherham. The focus on junkies and individuals is up for discussion but not to the lost of rationality and fairness. Like any football manager-or business leader there is a need to visit twin towns -or promote Rotherham. But i feel that the current leader who does not seem to endear himself to either the trade unions and the left in general -and is praised by the local business people -as he like the latter has always been noted to seek power for power sake. He is noted as a bully (but aren’t all bosses-and i certainly am not condoning such an attribute). he is also noted to be a cunning and devious sort-which most leaders and owners of business are. So was Jack Layden who also was noted for his bullying, conniving and yes-corrupt ways. So there is a general feeling that a certain group within the Labour group (and if you went to any town or city or even Parliament) most have been identified as self effacing and leaning towards being in it for their own financial gain-but that does not mean all of them are.
Most of the list you present -with your clever scrawl on Barry Dodson -for an act he is alleged to have committed in the 1980s-and you cynics and anti labour -gloat on each person’s demise. The Christian statement ‘Let you who are without sin’, comes to mind and he has not proven to be corrupt. Also if all these -current Labour councillors are so rubbish -and maybe their inactiveness to challenge the leader -is what most of them can be accused of-and well that takes us into the realm of philosophy -were a French guy named Michel’s wrote about the Iron Law of Oligarchy; which basically said that Party politics -cannot be democratic-as it is steered by authority and ideology rather than conscience’. Well now that means we are all responsible for what is going on in the world. How many of your subscribers cynics or otherwise -spend their time of speaking on issues of the corrupt capitalist system that brought about colonisation and slavery? How many spend their time on issues as the current attrocities happening to the Palestenians? How many identify the fact that the austerity attacks on the masses for something that they were not the cause of -which we are informed mainly came about from the corrupt financial system -with a major focus on the banking system?
Now hopefully we now realise that we all live in a corruopt economic order called capitalism and that we are all corrupted by it -by not shouting out about its corrupt ways. But as Michel’s stated -Political Parties can be labelled the opposite of what they are-ineffective because of their structure is opposite what they claim to be their goal to run a democratic system of government.
Finally I do not want to start and contradict myself by espousing points and sounding a know it all -but i hope that i can present some evidence to whatever facts i present. I am merely trying to challenge the ranting style that forms a lot of what appears here and also in the Advertiser. I am also seeking a bit of sanity in not damning all those that seek to stand to represent us (though that is my starting pioint-in offerring a new kind of politics that is not -us being dependent on others -to represent us). Surely its the fact that those who stand at all are up to loose as -the cynics will always seek to put them down and others are jealous or do not like the idea of others thinking they are -deemed to be over us -or more important than the rest of us. It is no win situation as its like that game of throwing bags of water a gianst them -either from time to tme -or for some all of the time because its a way for us to get back at authority. In other words -How good woukd you be at the job? Yes lets have change but real radical change in selecting/electing on experience and success-which many do a decent job-but others are in it for their own devices and perform the role as an actor performs on stage-but has no real idealogocal affinity to what their party originally was formed for.
I know several of these councillors and I may agree with some of the allegations that they are self fulfilling -self efacing types -who actually think they are better than us-and accordingly act in that way- when you see them or meet them in formal occasions. The sycophantic nature of many locals that allows them to think they are more important -is what is worrying. The fact that some maybe like the latter-such as Barry Kaye and I could name a few -does not mean that they are all like that. Maybe we should let the people choose them rather than the party -which then would mean that -that as long as they have a belief in the main plank of what the party stands for -then they should be elected by their peers -not just in the party but in the locality.
Enough of my concerns that politics should not descend into a hate campaign and fall apart altogether-but instead -a place where ideas can be discussed and a structure that does not give anyone a ‘Strong Leadership’ role that allows the cunning to ascend to the top and corrupt others. That is what we have running the economic order of capitalism -the national politics and the local. What is needed is good grounding in Marxism (but not in the majority of followers -though one is better than the others namely Socialist Appeal). Also lets have a little respect for those that are not self fulfilling but who actually joined a political party to make a difference on behalf of their class but who many sadly got sucked up into the mind boggling game of -conniving politics and cow towing that comes along with it. Many loose their souls because they vote with aparty rather than their conscience and the main bulk of others with a conscience that seeks a freer and better world. But no group can ever get rid of it (corruption) unless you change the rules by which it is played-but it would be far worse if you had the real cunning political jackals who are the most experienced at corruption in representing the rich over the masses-namely the Tories and the abilty to seek power in order to undermine any sense of justice or values of the predicament of the poor. But then you will have me talking about Socialism as an alternative rather than power by -ego’s -you may actually have power for a rationale reason.taht has been recently taken up by the best selling book in America by -oops another – French philosopher. Now that won’t do as we like ouir own grown philosophers -niot that there is even racism in academia -like yes. Though Britain does have some great writers and thinkers. but they all end up in the trash bin, when a society and world has been taken over by the most corrupt power of all the ideology of profit over people which is capitalism.
I don’t believe it