Span That World With Friendship

Welcome to SpanThatWorld.com! The online home of the District Fellows Movement, the 16-20 age group of the cooperative children and young people's charity The Woodcraft Folk.

 

Videos

Your Committee and Regional Council 3
Huge Ideas Pot 2 - News!
DF Camp 2011 Advert #1

I’ve never voted Tory before, but then I joined Woodcraft Folk

Mar 29, 2010 by     25 Comments    Posted under: Span That World

The Election Series

Hello. Time marches swiftly and the general election draws steadily closer.Welcome to part 3 of the SpanThatWorld.com election series where members of the movement craft an argument for which party is most in tune with Woodcraft Folk.

We have already heard from Kieran Ford for Liberal Democrats (Click HERE) and Daniel Rawnsley for Labour (Click HERE)

Now Kit Jones gets stuck into The Conservatives

DISCLAIMER: The views presented in this series are of the individuals not of the organisation. Woodcraft Folk and The District Fellows Movement remain party politically neutral.

Comrades,

I set out here to convince you of two things:

  1. The Conservative Party is the major political party that best represents the Woodcraft Folks progressive aims and values.

  2. The means that the Conservative Party proposes to use to enact those values are more closely related to what I will call “Woodcraft Socialism” than any other major party.

I assume you are embarking on this article from a fairly sceptical base. After all, the Conservative Party is the party that, under Margaret Thatcher and John Major, destroyed the unions, privatised the public utilities and funded tax giveaways for the rich whilst selling off social housing… oh, and they took away our milk! Surely David Cameron’s Hug-a-Hoodie-Hitch-on-Huskies image is nothing more than a façade for the same old “help the rich, fuck the poor” mentality? Surely the recent nod to co-ops is nothing more than privatisation rebranded? You may find it difficult to believe that the Conservative Party has really changed; nevertheless I want you to look at the evidence with me with an open mind.

We can’t ignore the fact that Cameron was elected to be leader of the Tories with a mandate to change the party. It is said by many that the defining moment in his leadership campaign was his speech to the 2005 party conference. This speech wasn’t about slamming Labour, or appealing to right-wing interests in the party, it was a brave speech that asked delegates to be self critical and, more importantly, asked them to change. Cameron said “When I say change, I’m not talking about some slick rebranding exercise: what I’m talking about is fundamental change”.

Perhaps the most convincing testament to this change is not the rhetoric, but the actual change in who will represent the Tories in parliament. The expenses scandal means there is a much greater than usual turnover of MP’s, and the new candidates mark a massive shift in demographic for the Conservatives – more women, more gay people and more ethnic minorities in particular.

Nevertheless, a change in faces is immaterial unless it goes hand in hand with an ideological reassessment. In November 2009 Cameron set out the ideological basis for the Conservative approach to the current general election campaign. In stark contrast to Lady Thatcher’s infamous 1987 “there is no such thing as society”, Cameron called for what he termed “the big society”; he envisions “a new role for the state: actively helping to create the big society; directly agitating for, catalysing and galvanising social renewal”. Cameron’s vision is not simply for the state to take a step back, but to be instrumental in creating a new kind of social solidarity. It is easy to see how an organisation that sings “should any be weary, we’ll help them along” fits into that vision.

So, whatever you may think of the Conservative Party, be in no doubt, the Conservative Party loves you. Enshrined within the idea of the big society are the Changemakers, the volunteers, the activists, the people who run youth groups, the people who engage in peer education, the people who write Zines and web articles because they care about issues, the people who put on gigs to raise money for charity, call up brothels to investigate sex trafficking and organise events that bring people together from all over the world… people just like you.

Fine, you say, the Conservative Party loves us, of course they do, it’s hard not to. That doesn’t mean that we should love them. That doesn’t mean that we share the same values.

Well, like any political party, the Tories are an ideologically diverse bunch. There are certainly elements of the Conservative Party that we should deplore: Their links with big business, their alliance with the far right in Europe, their commitment to cutting inheritance tax to millions of wealthy people, for example. Nevertheless, it would be possible to construct a similar list of abhorrent policies for any of the parties: Labours 10p rate of income tax, the war in Iraq and renewal of trident, for example. I don’t expect you to agree every other member of Woodcraft Folk on every issue, neither should we expect to agree with every Tory on every issue. So what is the evidence that our values are enshrined in the Conservative Party?

Enter Progressive Conservatism. Enter One Nation Conservatism. Enter the Red Tories. Enter Philip Bloom.

Philip Bloom is the foremost thinker on progressive conservatism. He describes progressive conservatism as being the merging of progressive aims with conservative means. Progressive conservatives, he says, are critical in equal measure of both the welfare economy and the free market economy – both are barriers, he says, to realising progressive aims, which can only be brought about by enabling civic society.

On welfare, he is critical that rather than acting as a floor, below which people cannot fall, welfare is just as often a ceiling, condemning an entire class of people to dependence on the state, and indeed, on the monopoly capitalism with its super-normal profits that funds it – he calls welfarism the “Faustian bargain that the left has struck with monopoly capitalism”.

On the “free” market he is equally critical, arguing that “market fundamentalism has abandoned the fundamentals of markets”. The privatisation of the past simply replaced a government monopoly with a private one – about as far from Adam Smiths dream of efficient competition and the moral market as it is possible to be.

“Progressive” is one of those words that has become so ubiquitous in politics that nobody really knows what it means, but in a Conservative context, David Cameron is very clear:

  1. Fair – help people out of poverty and help them stay out of poverty

  2. Opportunity is Equal – so everyone can write their own life story

  3. Green – a sustainable clean and beautiful world

  4. Safe – protected from threat and fear

It is remarkable how similar these are to our own aims and principles, including “equality for all”, “one world” and “a world at peace”. Not only this, but what we call “education for social change” and “a cooperative and sharing attitude to life”, are particularly close to what Cameron calls the conservative means of decentralising responsibility and power to the individual and community. Our own aims, principles and programme document virtually looks as if it could have been written by Cameron and his progressive Conservative friends. Has anyone checked whether Cameron was in Woodcraft Folk as a child?

Hopefully you can see that there is a certain similarity. Maybe you don’t think our own aims and principles are radical enough. That is fair enough but isn’t my concern here, my point is that you could barely fit a cigarette paper between them and the aims of the progressive conservatives.

My second challenge – to convince you that voting Conservative is the path to Woodcraft Socialism – is perhaps a little trickier than the first. I think most Conservatives would flinch at being called a socialist – the party certainly isn’t a socialist one – so what do I mean when I say that voting Conservative may advance the cause of Woodcraft Socialism?

Is the Woodcraft Folk a Socialist organisation? Undoubtedly so. The Woodcraft Folk charter in the 1936 Handbook of Folk Law and Constitution read:

“We further declare that the welfare of the community can be assured only when the instruments of production are owned by the community, and all things necessary for the good of the race are produced by common service for the common use… and when man shall turn his labour from private greed to social service to increase the happiness of mankind”

This is a staunchly socialist statement, and even though we no longer find this kind of thing in our constitution, I don’t want to deny that we are a socialist organisation. Yet I think our kind of socialism is a far cry from the Marxism or labour party state socialism that Rawnsley advocated in his pro-Labour article. Our kind of socialism is a decentralised, community based socialism that is most evident in our long association with the cooperative movement.

Steven Yeo describes Cooperative socialism as tracing from ideas that were around long before Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto. Our intellectual ancestors instead are people like Robert Owen. To Owen, Socialism was simply the antithesis of individualism, but that didn’t mean they wanted a big state; instead his politics was “associationist”, he believed in the mutual association of communities as the basis for progress. Yeo argues that “To modern politicians, including Labour Party people, distinctively cooperative politics/cooperative socialism would probably be dismissed as un- or anti-politics”. I think he is right, I think our kind of socialism – a radical, utopian vision for society – has about as much in common with the Labour Party as the Atlantic ocean has in common with a tuna sandwich.

A big part of the Conservative Party’s approach to this general election has been highlighting how Labour has undermined this power of the community, that is so important to Woodcraft Socialism, by interfering and creating additional barriers to volunteering and engagement. In his speech to the Party conference last year Cameron made this point clearly

“this idea that for every problem there’s a government solution, for every issue an initiative, for every situation a czar….

It ends with them making you register with the government to help out your child’s football team. With police officers punished for babysitting each other’s children. With laws so bureaucratic and complicated even their own Attorney General can’t obey them.”

So…

Have I achieved my aims? Have I convincingly argued that the Conservative Party stands for our values and will be good for Woodcraft Socialism? If I’m being truthful with myself I think I have done this only in part.

It would be stupid to conclude that the entirety of the Conservative Party has progressive ambitions. Nevertheless, being a conservative is not the opposite of being a radical socialist. These are exciting times for the Tories. They may not have arrived at the destination of being a truly progressive party, but I believe they have started the journey; they at least have their key in the ignition.

You can help the Tories to transform themselves, and in doing so you can help transform British politics. When it comes to the general election, don’t simply judge your local candidate by the colour of their badge; judge them by what they stand for.

  • hannah

    good gracious, never thought i’d see the day when conservatives were likened to the woodcraft folk.
    i guess it was a brave move writing and posting this kit, but let safely me say you haven’t won me over to the tories just yet.

    (p.s- massive party at mine when thatcher finally bites the big one..)

  • Alec mezzetti

    Brilliant, I take back all scepticism that we wouldn’t get all three.

  • r

    “We further declare that the welfare of the community can be assured ONLY WHEN THE INSTRUMENTS OF PRODUCTION ARE OWNED BY THE COMMUNITY”

    I’m sorry, but the notion that this statement, which is about the collectivisation of the means of production, is reflected in the Tories is frankly absurd. And I’m pretty sure that David Cameron would be the first to agree with me on that. You’re right, it does suggest that the WCF are a socialist organisation (at least in roots) but we have to recognise that socialism is irreconcilable with capitalism. Capitalism is private control of the means of production, socialism is the socialised control of the means of production: simple as that really. The Tory party do not want to redistribute the means of production, (they are not anti-capitalist) ergo they are not in tune with socialism. Sorry.

    I agree that a decentralised, community based socialism is significantly preferable to centralised/statist models, but the Tories certainly ain’t that.

  • Verity Jones

    I’ve been tricked by an article masquerading as something it’s not. There I was carefully collecting together some problems with the argument, only to find that you told me to vote for individuals not parties anyway. Bloody socialist.

    (For the record I think the problems are:
    Despite having read the rhetoric explaining what is meant by the big society, which you say is vital because ‘Enshrined within the idea of the big society are the Changemakers’; I was still not clear of what the big society is. This is probably because, as you tell us, rhetoric is an un’convincing testement to this change’. Further, perhaps the difficulty with Cameron’s definition of Progressive, is precisely that it is only ‘written by’ and not acted by so we can’t tell if he’s telling the truth. Thus, I agree and urge you to vote the blues in, give them a chance to show us it’s not just rhetoric.)

    And anyway, it doesn’t matter much if we get it wrong anyway. As David Mitchell says: politicians really are all the same. (I can’t actually find him saying this anywhere so to avoid misquotation here is something else he says:

    I felt a bit sorry for the UK Independence party last week … Ukip struggles to present itself as a respectable political force with a civilised agenda, rather than a bunch of grouchy extremists who haven’t quite got the courage of their convictions. It has to fight hard to dismiss suggestions from the political mainstream or, as Ukip would probably call it, the left, that they’re basically a little bit envious, a little bit hatey, a little bit weird.

    Perhaps a rather stronger point than mine…

  • jessie

    Are the tories and cameron in particular progressive in anyway? I think Richard Seymour, author of liberal defence of murder deals with this question well.

    “Yet we have a man who is an ardent royalist, an opponent of multiculturalism and immigration, a supporter of war and an Atlanticist, a supporter of cutting taxes on the rich (he is particularly moved by government impingement on the unearned inheritance of rich kids), a friend of Murdoch, an ally of the most ferociously reactionary forces in Europe, a supporter of increased restrictions on abortions, a fairly traditionalist proponent of marriage (married couples will get tax breaks), and the current high priest of the small state. His shadow chancellor is an unreformed Thatcherite and union-basher. His closest allies in the Conservative Party are neoconservatives. He has, when opportunity arose, engaged in some fairly obnoxious baiting of ethnic minorities, specifically Muslims. Himself a descendant of royalty and child of a City stockbroker who got his first job with the Tories on the recommendation of someone at Buckingham Palace, his front bench is stuffed with venal millionaires. And he’s basing his campaign on a line about a “broken Britain” which channels the most socially authoritarian Victorian moralising.”

  • amy

    Progressive, green, community, empowerment rhetoric is in.
    When did we start basing our entire view of the tories on some of their sweeping, ideological chat and not on the nitty gritty of their policies or indeed their track record.
    I wonder if Kit will put his vote where his mouth is and give the tories a chance…

  • philip

    excellent article – yay!

  • Bridget Holtom

    Also, is Philip Bloom the same Philip Bloom who scammed something around $8 million through bribery and corruption out of the Iraqi Development Fund? Or am I getting muddled up?

    Otherwise I thoroughly enjoyed the article! Its always great to be pushed to see the other side…

  • danny

    Very plausable on paper Kit, but until I see and hear the Conservative party working in another way I wont be giving them the benefit of the doubt. Is it the begining of a journey of change for the party? Well I really hope so but whilst you have the right stomping around in the background I won’t feel safe giving it the green light to work on its changes whilst running the country or my future, I’m afraid I remember the last one and it is hard to get over such bitter times the only change I feel is that there is a midler side at the forefront, but how long has that being going on? Not long enough for me to take notice yet. Change, lets hope so, enough for this election, no way.

  • Mo

    ‘Progressive Conservatism’

    An oxymoron right there.
    The very nature of the word Conservatism is to conserve, to keep the same. ie a Conservative party attracts people because it has historically wanted to have the rich and powerful stay rich and powerful. To further this aim, they ensure wealth stays with key individuals instead of with the collective by using excuses like efficiency.

    The public services in this country are overly privatised already but that which is left (notably the NHS and BBC) are still ‘owned’ by the people. The conservatives see these as untapped sources of private wealth and will waste no time selling off our assets to private bidders in the name of cost-cutting. What we will be left with will resemble the shambles that America is in. Millions of people without adequate health care and a wholly privatised media. A media which has destroyed any semblance of democracy in the USA because politicians have to appease the rich, non-elected media controllers.

    When the choice is between Labour and Tory, i’m afraid one must choose the lesser of two evils. (Yes the Liberals are exist too but i still don’t trust that they have any concrete policies, less so than the Tories). In our electoral system, it’s the battle between these parties that will decide the outcome of government. It is imperative that the Tories are kept out even if it means voting for the war mongering Labour party (remember also, it was only with the votes of Tory MPs that the vote for war was passed.) As Rawnsley said, vote Labour but this doesn’t mean settling for their spin either.

  • kit

    Loving the comments coming in… Planning to put a bit of effort into writing a response to some of them soon… In the mean time there was an article in the Guardian today that expands on this subject:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/31/cameron-big-society-conservative-party

    enjoy

  • Mo

    Seizing dormant assets provides a short-term wind-fall. What happens when that money runs out? This ‘Big Society’ smacks of a one-off event to bait the voters.

  • Rawnsley

    Kit. You and I are on a sinking ship. I am proposing that we go for the life raft, rickety and decrepit as it is. You are proposing that we grow wings and fly away. I feel that your argument comes not from an accurate analysis of the conservative party, but some kind of fantasy and I’d like to discuss this further with you. For the moment I’ll limit myself to one point.

    For better or worse my article has come to be known as the ‘Labour’ one; in reality it is no such thing. I state that ‘as politically conscious working class people we have no faith in parliament. We elect it only so as to eventually destroy it.’ I cannot help but feel that your description of my argument as being for ‘labour party state socialism’ is grossly misrepresentative. If I had simply said ‘vote Labour and let the good times come’ then you would be correct, but I didn’t. I worry that perhaps you gave my article only the most cursory of glances. I shall try to make future ones more enjoyable to read.

    You are quite right that these things, socialism and Marxism, are quite distinct ideas. You accurately point out that Owenism was pre-Marxist socialism. An enlightening article on this subject is Hal Draper’s ‘Two Souls of Socialism’ http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/index.htm . In this, one of Draper’s points is that there are many kinds of Socialism, be they Owenism, Marxism, or earlier-existing forms within the ideas of Thomas More and Plato.

    Draper’s article is also useful because I feel it indicates the point at which you are going wrong. Draper contrasts two ideas:
    1. Socialism from above – a method where a benevolent leadership graciously hands down socialism to the plebs
    2. Socialism from below’ – where the masses, acting in democratic unity, take it for themselves.
    The dividing line for Draper here is not what world are we building, but rather, how are we building it. His question is ‘are we doing this democratically or in a totalitarian manner?’

    ‘Socialism from above’ is perhaps the wrong term for Owenism, which you suggest is closer both to Woodcraft socialism and ‘Conservative socialism’. Though a ‘centre’ existed around Owen and a few colleagues that published literature and sent out what they called ‘social missionaries’, Owenism was a movement from below. It was not big government fixing things from above, but small groups of people combining Owen’s Socialism with that of others like Saint Simon and Fourier, trade unionism, co-operatives, spiritualism, Christianity, atheism or any number of other things that came readily to hand. However the theory remains an un-democratic form of socialism.

    A closer analogy to the movement that sprouted from Owen’s ideas is utopian socialism as Marx understands it in the Communist Manifesto.

    ‘The founders of these systems see, indeed, the class antagonisms, as well as the action of the decomposing elements in the prevailing form of society. But the proletariat, as yet in its infancy, offers to them the spectacle of a class without any historical initiative or any independent political movement.’

    Owen and those like him saw the horrors of Capitalist society and bravely sought to end them, but they couldn’t identify a force within society strong enough to accomplish such a task. They turned only to themselves and attempted to set up little utopias. They would create blueprints of a perfect society and hope that in creating such a world the rest of the human race would bow to their genius and good example and follow them.

    If this is your socialism I don’t want it. If to you socialism is a question of leading a population you feel can’t save itself out of the wilderness, then I don’t want it. I still have some faith in people. Your socialism is a socialism of intellectuals, not movements. It is a socialism of cold calculations, not of living, breathing humans. It is a socialism where decisions are made behind closed doors and I want nothing of it. To leave Marx and return resoundingly to Draper, the issue at hand is democracy, and the world you propose is a horrifyingly undemocratic one.

    You accuse me of wanting state socialism, but you can see nothing beyond state control. Out of you, myself and Kieran I am the only one to propose something beyond Capitalism. You give lip service to Woodcraft socialism, but have no idea how the tories will get us there. I am the only one of us who has argued for something to do after the election. Further to this I am the only one who has accurately stated that none of the mainstream political parties can represent our ideas. It seems that I am the only one to whom politics is something other than the goings-on in a 19th century palace beside a river in London.

    It is on this point that I will end. I don’t believe the last statement I made. I don’t think you agree with what you have written. You and I are quite similar; we are both concerned about the world around us and its many horrendous brutalities. We are both of us determined to do something about this. I am certain that we are both dedicated to fighting for a better future that we are certain is not a utopia, but entirely realisable. I think Kieran fits this image as well. Though I disagree with Kieran, both he and I have written for something that we sincerely believe in. I feel that you have joined this debate somewhat dishonestly and attempted to represent ideas that you don’t actually hold. At best you cannot hope to do this ideas justice.

    I don’t think you will vote for the conservatives and I don’t think you want other people to vote for them. Because of this I think what you have written is misleading and incredibly irresponsible. It is not a good thing to have the pretence of a balanced argument where no such balance exists; this simply stifles debate and in the present case keeps it locked in the same old three-party argument that has been going on for decades. Furthermore it masks the political debate that is possible within the Woodcraft Folk, one where people feel free to express their own ideas and not just the ones expressed in parliament.

    Dante once wrote ‘say what you will and let the people talk.’ I wish you’d say what you think about the world and the election, rather than restricting yourself to talking about the conservatives.

    In solidarity,

    Rawnsley

  • kit

    Rawnsley,

    I want to reply to your comment because I think that it is an impressive, extremely passionate and well constructed counter attack.

    You are right that I am not going to vote Tory – I’m going to vote green. I think I came clean at the end of my article that my position was more subtle than “vote Tory”; my position is mainly that there isn’t necessarily a contradiction between conservatism and our progressive values (that you rightly say we all share), and also that what Woodcraft understands to be socialism isn’t the same as the socialism of the Labour Party. I’m not being disingenuously balanced, I just don’t think it is as simple as saying Tory=bad, and I think that that perception, based on a kind of privative tribalism, is damaging.

    I think you are right that I to some extent misrepresented the Labour Party and your article. I am happy to concede this. I probably didn’t put enough detail into this aspect of my argument and I massively oversimplified it.

    What I don’t accept is that:
    a. I don’t believe in what I said (about the Tories).
    b. I didn’t talk about politics in a broader way than who controls Westminster.

    On the first point the truth is that I find the arguments of Blond (in particular) very compelling. I do believe the power of markets can be harnessed in the public good, I do believe that there are many areas where the State should take a step back. ID cards, the Independent Safeguarding Authority and the ban on fox hunting are good examples. And the other side of the coin – increasing the responsibility of individuals and communities – also resonates with me.

    Like I said in my article, that doesn’t mean that I want everyone to go out and vote Tory, but that doesn’t undermine the fact that I want people to be aware of the good things about the Conservative Party. What I am really against, is people tactically voting Labour because they don’t want the Tories to win, instead of voting for who they really want to vote for. What I would consider a real achievement in this general election would be for Lib Dems and Greens to make major gains, but for that I think people need to stop voting tactically. Who actually wins is a lesser consideration for me at the moment.

    I agree totally that Politics is about more than May the 6th. This is exactly the point I was highlighting when I said:

    “Enshrined within the idea of the big society are the Changemakers, the volunteers, the activists, the people who run youth groups, the people who engage in peer education, the people who write Zines and web articles because they care about issues, the people who put on gigs to raise money for charity, call up brothels to investigate sex trafficking and organise events that bring people together from all over the world… people just like you.”

    I devoted a large part of my article to this idea of the big society, so to say that you are “the only one to whom politics is something other than the goings-on in a 19th century palace beside a river in London” is a misrepresentation. If you really believe that socialism is something we create for ourselves then I am with you, but this isn’t what your criticism of my article suggests; you say “You give lip service to Woodcraft socialism, but have no idea how the Tories will get us there”, which completely misses my point, which is that we shouldn’t expect them to get us there – but we can expect them to create the space for us to get ourselves there.

    Perhaps you are sceptical that this is really what the Tory party stand for? Yeah, I am sceptical about this too (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fad850aa-40e7-11df-94c2-00144feabdc0.html is interesting). Too many people vote for Tory because they believe the party will protect their vested interests and it would be naive to think that will change overnight – absolutely. I acknowledged the validity of this scepticism in my article and it is why I couldn’t urge people to go out and urge everybody to vote Tory at the end.

    Nevertheless, just as you were not arguing “vote for Labour and let the good times come” I was not arguing “vote for the Tories and let the good times come” – but I was arguing that a party that places emphasis on cutting government bureaucracy, strengthening civil society and handing responsibility over to communities and professionals is more conducive to us achieving the kind of socialism we create for ourselves than a party that want every person to be put on a database, every activity to be licensed, every public servant to be the slave to targets. Surely the latter represents a Westminster centred politics whereas the former gives us the liberty to create the kind of society we want to live in?

  • Elle

    I’ve learnt a lot from this post and the subsequent comments.

    Thank you.

    This has been an Education, now let’s see about the Social Change.

  • Beni

    LOL. Good attempt Liam at a major rebranding of of the Tories. How do you know when a politician is lying? His/her mouth moves! If the Tories are so progressive perhaps you can explain their stance on Trade Unions? Does Cameron distance himself from the anti-trade union laws brought in under Tory governments and left in place by a discredited Labour Party? No of course not. And recently said he’d introduce even more repressive anti TU policies in the future. Will he repeal the anti-trade union laws in the UK- which are incidentially the most repressive in Europe? Er…no! Why is this such a concern? Because in the battle to come over public sector cuts- under Tories or Labour or in a Hung Parliament, Trade Unions will be in the forefront of fighting to maintain those services- NHS, schools, universities, the welfare state etc. Massive privatisation is on the agenda with PFI still be used to hock your future. When I’m dead youre likely to still be paying. Cameron will say anything now. But look at his attitude over the recession. The bankers drop us in it, but its the poor who will pay under the massive drive the Tories will introduce to reduce the deficit. Thats real people. Behind the so called progressive mask, the same old Tories lurk.

  • Discuss

    There are a few interesting comments about this article coming from Woodcraft Adults (Kinsfolk) in the Discuss e-mail list…

    “How deeply disappointing.

    And I note the label on the picture of the ‘Cameron Cutie’. How very post-feminist.

    Is there no hope for the future AT ALL????”

    “I could hardly believe my eyes. Really disappointed. What happened to our values and principles?”

    “In debate we should accept all arguments, even if it is only to knock them down”

    “I congratulate DFs on putting education before opinion… Well done on raising awareness of all concerns, no matter how unpopular they may prove. Rather than viewing this as “no hope for the future AT ALL????” I think the young people of the movement should be held in great esteem for having the wisdom to say “don’t simply judge your local candidate by the colour of their badge; judge them by what they stand for”.

    Surely judging people by what they stand for is what Woodcraft encourages in all situations, and I for one applaud DFs for having the integrity to apply that to their life outside the movement.”

    “Well, it was either an early april fool or there really is no future at all. Its all very well being disillusioned with Labour (some might argue how could you not) but not the Tories surely!

    Woodcraft socialism = Conservatism!? Please, that would be the party of homophobia, fat cat bankers and inheritance tax cuts, alliances with Euro fascists and small-minded xenophobia generally, anti trade unions, etc, etc Do we remember 1979-1997? As awful as much of last 13 years have been, lets not forget where their real heart lies and its not Cameron’s smarmy face but somewhere much darker. There is nothing remotely woodcraft about any of it

    Its good advice to say look at what they say rather than the colour of their badge but in this case its still the same old ****

    Hopefully the Woodies for UKIP and the BNP pages are up now

    Whoops, sorry, Ive finished now & i haven’t even mentioned george osborne or camerons bloody bike…..”

    “If you don’t listen to all the arguements you can’t really fight your corner. The Torries would a move back to the dark ages and they will do everything they can to reverse all the good stuff that Labour have done (remember although the minimum wage is not great, at least we have a minimum wage.

    1997 was full of hope and Labour have had many good things overshadowed by greed, war and spin. However, although many are unhappy with Labour, they are the best of the 2 evils.

    However, to ignor the Torries is a big mistake and with the right wing press queeing up to support them we must ensure that all arguements are push analised so that people make an informed choice. I welcome the DF page, and as for the BNP they are wolfs in sheep clothing and appeal to many people. One of our jobs is to ensure that people have the skills to unpick the racist arguements, there is nothing worst than hearing a result where the BNP are picking up hundreds of votes, not all that vote for them are racist just conned”

    “I hate the Tories- always have, always will. I know what class they represent and in whose interest they would govern. Im not fooled by blue f888ing trees! But I think the Dfs have done something to be applauded. Education in its broadest sense is having an open mind. So however upset I get seeing a picture of Thatcher on a WF website I bite my tongue and don’t throw my laptop against the wall. Some of us were students under Thatcher and cut our political teeth in that period. The class enemy was so easy to see then. Now we have a LP that attacks the poor, lets bankers off the hook, invades countries, attacks trade unions, takes bribes and who selects MPs who trough it as badly on expenses as any Tory bast88d! The real issue in this election is going to be pragmatism vs principle. If we vote on principle- we’d vote for the Trade Union and Socialist Alliance or Green, if we vote pragmatically we’d vote liberal or labour to keep the Tories out!

    One last thing though on the DF site- are only the mainstream parties to be represented? In Brighton there is a real chance that the Greens might take their first Parliamentary seat. And what of the BNP? If we are being so open? Or are we practicing a no platform for racists and fascists?”

    “Surely no problem putting up an article in favour of the BNP – Griffin has stated very clearly that they’re not racists.

    What do you mean, don’t believe what politicians say?!

    I don’t know about all this… education perhaps but the articles are all written in favour of each party. Yes there is a balance in that all of the main parties are represented, but each article is biased. The articles are opinion rather than fact. But that’s probably unavoidable as it seems difficult to work out what is fact in politics.

    All in all well done to the DFs for getting involved, better to analyse things and make a reasoned choice than to not vote at all or just vote for who your friends/parents etc tell you to! Just don’t whatever you do vote Tory!”

    “It does get rather confusing when shiny-headed Dave reckons gays are cuddly but cosies up to some of the most rabid facists in Europe who would happily go along with some of the African countries and consider the death penalty for gay people.
    It’s also confusing that in the European parliament we have the UKIP (or ukkypee) who are against Europe but are unable to survive without the money that comes form the European parliament.
    What’s not confusing are the BNP and EDF. The EDF seems to be picking up those who feel that Griffin has gone soft – EDF=NF?”

    “I would like to point out that I did not at any point question whether it was right for the DFs to be producing such an article. What I expressed was my heart felt, gut wrenching hurt and horror at seeing that we actually now live in a world where there are young people of a liberal persuasion (i am presuming this based on their WF membership!) who are believing what the Tories say (at least in this speech). That is all, and I think i’m well within my rights to do that in the same way that this article is clearly an opinion piece (well it is clearly not an empirically correct analysis of Tory policies and statements).

    But I do accept that the DF magazine is a perfectly fine place to write challenging opinion pieces so don’t have a problem with that and I would rather people didn’t assume I did, or that I think one way or another (including that I go around deciding who I vote for based on the colour of their badge rather than what they stand for (sigh) ).

    I think I am going to stop writing on this site because it just increases my blood pressure too much….”

    “There was never a personal element to the debate and I welcome your comments as it does start debate. Differing opinions are uncomfortable in the Woodcraft Folk, but essential for democracy.

    It is sad that the Tories and people like the BNP do pick up votes but the new votes do not remember the worst of Maggie and nor do they remember the National Front of the 70s who were just redressed Nazis. Currently the Tories and the BNP have just got better at hiding their true self under a world of spin and media, but lets not be fooled that they have changed. Good debate is always welcome although at times I sometimes think I will disappear up my own behind just talking and that is why we also need activists.

    Younger people always seem to have more energy for the battle, perhaps it’s because they haven’t lost so many, but I welcome all debate and am delighted to have controversial elements on discuss, how boring if we never disagreed, it would be like the Labour Party under Blair.”

    “Reading the original DF post it seemed to me like the sort of essay that, when I was a Uni. lecturer, I used to ask my (better) 1st/2nd. year Politics students to try as a piece of lateral thinking.
    It is nonsense, of course, but would score a high B for trying.
    It will, I hope, convince no-one in Woodcraft.
    As to the BNP this is a different matter. However much they try to dodge the Equalities law they are racists and fascists and Woodcraft can never (especially given our proud history from the 1930s) contemplate putting them in with other political groups.
    I myself do take a “no platform for racists and fascists” position in general but even if I didn’t it is clearly the case that some parties are so far outwith Woodcraft principles that they cannot be included in a democratic debate in our movement.”

  • Guardian reader
  • Laurie

    I just got bored and tried to see if there was a group near Cameron when he was little.
    Turns out he grew up less than an hour from Banbury!

    He could’ve gone to your group Kit!

  • kit

    I don’t think we have any groups based in Eton…

  • Jack

    Banbury didn’t exist then, well as a place it did.

  • Guardian reader
  • M

    You seems to believe everything the tories claim.

    The contrast between what the conservatives talk about and what they are is huge.
    Let me point out a fewstone cold facts, that even Cameron cannot deny.

    -Cameron voted against the abolition of the homophobic section 28.

    -Cameron despite his claims about ‘living wages’ has voted against every single proposed rise in the minimum wage.

    -There are no fewer than 15 old etonians on his front bench.

    -He took a trip to apartheid africa at thepoint where the governemnt was telling MPs not to visit it. It was funded by a pro-apartheid organisation and he described it as ‘a jolly good time’.

    Slightly more debatable claims are:
    -The big society is not a universal idea across the party, and it’s simply an excuse for the government to pass responsibility for society on to volunteers who are already working flat out.

    -The recent comments by Grayling show that the change in attitudes to gay people is only superficial and PR.

    -The tories are reluctant to share policies because they are aware their support largely comes from people who feel labour has betrayed them as oppose to people who support their ideas.

    -The branches of conservatism that resemblethe woodcraft ideals to ANY extent are the least popular in the party.

    I admit I am biased against the conservatives. ButI would be willing to consider them as a political option IF they ever showed the scale anddegree of change that I want. Amusingly if this ever happened they simply would not be able to call themselves conservative. The more I read about, and see of Cameron the more I realise the extent of thesuperficiality of his policies.

    Lots of us have been betrayed by labour Phinn, but that doesn’t mean we should try and turn a blind eye, to see only what we want to see.

  • M

    Whoops not Phinn, Kit.

  • zack

    well made argument but as you will now see, the tories do not like us at all, and most of your arguments have been proved to be wrong

More in Span That World (248 of 398 articles)