Talk:Militant tendency/Archive 1

Requires Neutral POV

There has been sustained biased Political content posted on this page against the Militant Tendency. Can I remind contributors that posts should try and remain objective. Slavering and drooling over Kinnocks witch hunts against Militant should take place on a discussion group, not here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trotboy (talk • contribs) 17:52, 28 December 2005.

Actually this page should conform to a neutral point of view which is not necessarily objective. - FrancisTyers 17:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There is too much subjectivity and POV in this article. Should be edited to factual encylopedic standard instead of attempting to express a POV.69.250.249.122

? (In response to FrancisTyers' point: is this nitpicking?).

These comments date from Dec 2005 and the article has considerably changed since then. I think the "The neutrality of this article is disputed" notice can go. Andysoh 18:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV tag should remain. The article is too dependent on sources which are not independent of the organisation beimg discussed. Philip Cross 23:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Efforts to address this have begun. Andysoh 08:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the NPOV tag is a bit harsh and should be removed, there seems to be many references to non- Militant sources, particularly the highly critical Micheal Crick.Votemoose 08:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What you, or anyone else 'thinks,' is not the point. The article is clearly biased, rehearsing the arguments of the Labour leadership in the very, inflammatory and biased terms that they used at the time: 'party within a party' is clearly from their POV. The template should therefore be replaced.

The opening wording has been changed, replacing the assertions of a 'party within a party', in the second sentance, an assertion the article should not have made, with the findings of the Labour Party commission, which is pertinent to the opening remarks.Andysoh 20:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Was this too POV?

This section was just cut. However, it seems to be that this could be reworked, without the opening sentence. ANy suggestions? --Duncan 17:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Militant and the Labour Liverpool City Council's record on "the real needs" of Liverpool speaks for itself: The council created 10,000 new jobs, built 5,400 new Council homes, Community Centres and Sports Halls and increased public services. The 5,400 homes built by the Militant-led council still stand today, almost the only new Public Housing built in Britain in the past 25 years. The Councillors who were removed from Office and surcharged had their huge fines paid by a campaign to raise money from the Labour & Trade Union movement.

This seems like a fine paragraph to me. It could do with some sources though. i.e. citations. - FrancisTyers 18:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It is the first part of the first sentence which, even for someone sympathetic to the sentiment expressed, detracts from factuality, sounding instead like a political pamphlet. But that surely does not justify the removal of the remainder, and its factual content, an action more POV than ever.

Proposed merge

Discussion at Talk:Militant (Britain). - Jmabel | Talk 02:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Entryism

"Accused" of entryism? I thought their entryism was pretty explicit. - Jmabel | Talk 02:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The article refers to claims of "entryism" and later explicitly admits to the organisation's use of the tactic! Philip Cross 22:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes with Crick's references have hopefully begun to address this anomaly in the opening lines, and will be followed up in the body where needed. Andysoh 08:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper headline?

I seem to remember the memorable tabloid headline "STOP THE TROT ROT"... AnonMoos 17:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've found "Trot conspirators inside Labour Party" and added it, although it could perhaps be noted the anomaly re the tabloids (both pro-conservative and pro-Labour ones) attempting to influence Labour Party internal affairs. Andysoh 08:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

GBH

Would it be worth mentioning somewhere that what took place inside Liverpool City Council at this time provided the inspiration for Alan Bleasedale's G.B.H.? Robert Lindsay's character was at least 60% Derek Hatton and although I was young at the time, there seemed to be an overlap between the storyline and the events of a few years earlier.

The GBH serial is referred to in the article on Hatton, and is only tangential to this article. Philip Cross 22:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Tactics

"The tactical decision of the leadership of Liverpool City Council (agreed by the City Council Shop Stewards) in September 1985 to issue redundancy notices to all their workforce backfired and handed a propaganda gift to a Labour leader who had made no secret of his contempt for Trotskyism." - this part needs a bit of work. The article goes on to explain that it was a tactical device in order to prevent the council going bust, but it doesn't explain exactly how this was supposed to work, or for what reason, or why the council was facing financial ruin (I had assumed that the whole thing was an attempt to drum up sympathy, along the lines of "look at what the Tory government has made us do to the poor workers etc"). -Ashley Pomeroy 14:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And slightly later on we learn that "Few trade union leaders had ever had much sympathy with Militant, and the threat to sack every employee in the city had legitimised a hugely negative reaction from some Liverpool trade union leaders". The section I mention above pooh-poohs the threat of redundancies as a ruse, whereas this part of the article suggests that the trade unions at least took the threat seriously, or (as I suspect) they were out of patience with what they perceived to be a bunch of clowns. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

dot dot dot In fact there is quite good coverage of this issue in the article on Eric Heffer; it goes into depth about the council's crises, and could be copied and pasted into this article, mutatis mutandis, for great justice. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's what the Hefer article says on the issue. Apparently it wasn't tactical in order to prevent the council going bust, it was tactical in order to promote Militant's political agenda. It sounds like Militant were deliberately causing an unnecessary financial crisis in order to provoke a strike, but it backfired on them. Can anyone verify this, and if so does anyone want to work this into the article?

"However, with a Militant-dominated Labour council in Liverpool having been elected in 1983, Heffer found increasing trouble in his constituency. Militant's philosophy of local government was to increase services and cut rates in order to provoke a confrontation with central government and thereby demonstrate that a 'true socialist' administration would never be allowed. The Liverpool administration also cut council housing rents which produced a financial crisis. When the council met on March 29, 1984 it was told clearly that the Militant proposed budget contained an illegal £30 million deficit, but no alternative could get a majority and it went through. Heffer supported the council in its demands of government and after a series of meetings with the Secretary of State for the Environment Patrick Jenkin, the government eventually gave way and allowed practically all of the budget."

"Liverpool's financial confrontation continued in 1985 when it eventually set another 'deficit budget'. This time the government would not help, and Militant's attempt to get the council's workforce to strike against the Thatcher government was defeated by most in a ballot. The councillors who had voted to delay setting a rate were individually surcharged for their actions. By September the council was almost out of cash and applied to the new Environment Secretary (Kenneth Baker) for a loan of £25 million. In a desperate attempt to avoid bankruptcy, on September 27 the council issued redundancy notices to its entire workforce, using a fleet of taxis to deliver them."

"On October 1 Neil Kinnock spoke at the Labour Party conference and denounced (without identifying Liverpool) the actions of the council."

2006 Councils Elections

I added this section to bring the article up to date. I also added the last paragraph to the Niel Kinnock/Liverpool section. A small piece of recent history that should not be forgotten. SmokeyTheCat 15:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Kinnock material. Let's not make this a page on the SP, and keep it to the Militant and its fragmentation. Otherwise, we will duplicate the SP pages --Duncan 23:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)