Jennifer Mahony
The radicals
“We’re listening politely whilst appointed arbiters of the centre-left mow the grassroots into a neat, acceptable bourgeois lawn #netrootsuk”. She pulls no punches. Laurie Penny (later mocked for tweeting this from a presumably proletarian iPad) was highly critical of attempts to make the movement ‘respectable’ at the expense of grassroots participation and energy. In the feminism session that took place in the afternoon, one wing of the radicals came together to voice its distaste for parliamentary process, and for the perceived sexism of “shoving us all [women] in one room”. Lisa Ansell in particular seemed intent on arguing that nothing vaguely linked to mainstream politics was acceptable, and that lobbying for change through the law was futile. After all, women were given the right to vote, the right to an abortion, the right to be treated fairly in the workplace and the right to own property when married through – what’s that? Legislation you say? How unspeakably bourgeois!
THis is a response to Jeniifer Mahony's interpretation of my assessment that Labour were not currently a part of the solution to the cuts that affect me, because they have committed to the same policies. Apparently I am a 'radical who has no clue about the relevance of 'legislation'(like the Digital Bill?) A statement of fact. I am radical for not treating a party who support what is happening to me, as my best hope of preventing it? (Spending my time setting up an enterprise to protect some of us from the effects of this policy, writing, campaigning, protesting...not 'real activism..that would be writing for recognised lefty websites on behalf of 'the poor')
Also when I say that women are marginalised in discussion on this issue, I am apparently going against everything I know about how women got the vote, got abortion rights, and the right to be treated fairly in the workplace? I suggest Ms.Mahoney revisit her history AND what I said. And her motives for wanting to be marginalise me in this 'progressive' movement.
My position WAS that in order to politically engage Westminster, I lobby my party to reassess their position, rather than pretending they are opposing on the basis of no evidence. This is a position I stated in the room, even though I was under a great deal of pressure to say otherwise(the amount of pressure to pretend was obscene). This is also a position I have repeatedly laid out elsewhere. I am affected by the cuts, and can't change the effect or Labour policy. I do not quite understand what other position I could take. How will I conform to this new progressive movement I am on the periphery of? And why do I have to pretend otherwise to journalists?
People affected by the cuts, who don't trust Labour are a minor radical faction in the so called 'progressive' movement who now 'lead' our fight? Really?
Another wannabe journo/politico exploiting the real hardship the cuts will cause to regenerate their 'movement' and their career? Now I am a radical. My daughter will be impressed. When did not voting Labour make you radical?
Unfortunately the New Left Project refuse to discss the piece, apart from whether it is factually accurate. It wasn't. I wonder why an organisation that represents those who oppose the cuts would want to marginalise those affected, and what on earth gives them the idea that Labour are not part of the problem for quite a lot of people.
Hope they er...lead us well in our new 'progressive' movement. A movement led by people not affected by the cuts, and deciding that a vote for a party who were cutting BEFORE the election is the only sensible solution for all of us- and who dismiss us as radical if we are 'adamant' that we can think for ourselves? Women stay silent or be mocked? Progressive? My fucking arse.
Solidarity sister.
A rough cut of my radical, ignorant talk(Please note I look like shit-had been up all night throwing up- and didnt have anything written down) http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3421076/ansell_speech_50.mp4
Ms.Mahoney and her 'radical' colleagues at the new left project, and her other wannabe journo friends are now so threatened by the idea of people affected by the cuts speaking for themselves, that they have christened us 'self appointed 'authentics'. Please don;t forget the inverted commas. It hasn't actually occured to her, that the reason we need to fight the cuts is that we are not actually 'self appointed'. I understand that this is a good way of marginalising people- but is it really wise to do that-when you are basing the regeneration of you 'movement' on their lives?
Still- they won't need a conference centre for the next netroots. A pub back room will probably be ample.
