It’s a tough line to draw strictly, but David Lammy essentially admitted his conflicted position when he responded initially at comment #9 on the LC thread by contradicting his own speech and saying that that politics is not about single issues, but about how coherent philosophy informs every issue.

The thread is significant in marking an important departure for Sunny’s LC strategy because it shows how the independence of the conspirators is being forced/encouraged to coalesce.

I wasn’t in attendance at the consiprators conference and I try to maintain my independence because I recognise there is a threat to the articulated ambitions of the project being subverted/channeled towards support for insider figures within the pre-existing establishment, such as David Lammy.

However, it will be interesting to observe whether the site will be able to simultaneously maintain and grow its direction and independence, or whether recent events indicate the fatal shift which sees it subsumed into existing party machinery.

The openness you mention, Lee, is the most significant point which will provide the definitive indication as to whether or not contributors are being manipulated. So when Sunder Katwala suddenly intervened at comment #91 it was striking for his apparent substitution for David Lammy in an attempt to defuse the growing discontent we (and others) both felt and were articulating while calling for a response. This suggested to me two things, namely, 1)that our criticisms are valid and we were scoring hits, and 2)there were backroom communications going on in order to satisfy the complaints which David Lammy couldn’t or wouldn’t provide himself.

Without being privy to the internal workings of the network I cannot conclusively state whether Sunny is naive or conniving, but I’d prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding the closeness of his connection with the Fabians. It is important to not let suspicion get the better of us as this will defeat any purpose to which it is put, but there is ample circumstantial evidence we would regret ignoring in retrospect - so continued vigilance is a must.

The history of coalition-building is one which is fraught with the same difficulties. Eventually the crunch comes, decisions must be made and to the victor go the spoils - credit goes to the senior partner and any junior partners are forced to hold their tongues, fall in line and search for crumbs of comfort in the wider context of the narrative. It is far preferable to know what you are letting youraelf in for before you experience the ride.

It is a recurring cliche, but to be forewarned is to be forearmed against how dissent is managed by keeping it within acceptable parameters for the purposes of preserving the appearance of unity.

Sunder’s comment is worth rereading in this light as it exposes a deeper truth than he may have intentionally desired. He is more interested in social change than good politics - which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, provided they don’t prove exclusive to one another. He is nevertheless strident on the need for certainty in maintaining clear political direction, which harks of old-fashioned socialist strategy to me, rather than something more liberated.

Anyway, whatever you think about where LC is going I hope you are clear-headed and conscious about the limitations of the choices which face the group in building a movement. The ’politics of aggregation’ will always play a part, so there will remain an important role for sympathetic critics to enable at least some balance to be maintained.

Yeah, it’s like others have said: the price of freedom is eternal vigilance...

But then on blogs it is hard to express the precise amount of vehemence each feels!