Talk:Western Goals (UK)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Western Goals was essentially an anti-communist and ultra-conservative organisation, and soon took up campaigning against allegedly left-wing charities such as Oxfam,War On Want, and Christian Aid, and denouncing far-left Labour candidates such as Ken Livingstone as 'extremists' during the 1987 election campaign.

Would any reasonable person fail to recognize the POV sentiments of this article? CJCurrie 02:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC).

So you're here too, Mr.Currie. Still telling us you have no agenda?

The answer to your question is this: that is precisely what they did. So any change to it would be a lie. Its really that simple. Its not a question of POV but a question of truth. Robert I 22:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

So it's fair to describe Ken Livingston as "far left" but not to describe leading figures of the Monday Club as "far right"? 00:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC).

If you think that someone who supported the Marxist IRA which was murdering thousands of innocent civilians, blowing men women and children to bits, is not far left then I feel very sorry for you. The leading figures of the Monday Club were not involved in any activities which would relegate them into the far right at all. Unless you're a Guardian reader, that is. 213.122.67.71 08:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Monday Clubbers were not supporting murderers. Livingstone was. Moreover, they were murdering British people in Britain, so Livingstone was supporting traitors. Just how does that compare with anyone in the Monday Club?

My real reason for coming onto this Talk page is to ask why Western Goals is designated as "far-right"? How does one achieve this distinction? Their principle objective was fighting communism and all of its various followers. How does opposing absolute evil get you the appellation of "hard-right"? I'm flabbergasted. Lightoftheworld 14:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the previous comments entirely, I would like to ask for clarification on this point:

The Commissioners upheld the complaint.

What precisely does this mean? Given that the charities continued in their previous activities, it would appear that the decision to uphold the complaint did not result in a legal prohibition of any activities. CJCurrie 18:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian 8 May 1987 has a story to the effect that the chief Charity Commissioner, Mr Dennis Peach, admonished War on Want on the matter: "War on Want had 'overstepped the mark,' and an explanation had already been demanded, along with an undertaking to play the game in future. The rules of the 'game' are set out in a masterful commission leaflet on political activities: charities may seek to influence Government policies in 'reasonable advocacy of causes which directly further their objects,' but not 'inappropriately. '" WoW was under the leadership of George Galloway at the time, who was a candidate in that election, but still they only got a slap on the wrist. Rd232 talk 22:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't realized Galloway was involved. Thanks for the quick response. CJCurrie 22:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is opposing communism and supporting those groups who do that hard-right? Is it possible that I could obtain a rational answer to this question please?81.129.154.82 13:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

How is promoting xenophobia under the guise of anti-communism not hard-right? CJCurrie 21:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You permit your personal opinion to enter into things here CJCurrie. Xenophobia is a leftist word virtually unheard of until a few years ago. It simply means that people (in this case the British) don't like foreigners. As this is a national and long-recognized trait here, are you suggesting that the majority of people in Britain are "hard-right". I'm glad to see others are contesting these left-wing tags of yours. 81.131.51.31 15:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Lightoftheworld 09:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The arrogance of CJ Currie's comments and actions defy description. He is now telling us that Ken Livingstone was not and IRA supporter! I loathe disputes but I think I may have to put his edits to arbitration unless an element of reasonable discussion can be entered into on this page regarding the edits. I believe the basis for such a discussion must be that the article represents fact and not merely Mr Currie's personal opinions. Sussexman 09:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sussexman,

Your initial edit and its subsequent follow-up were seriously flawed in two respects:

(i) The introductory sentence read like an apology for the Western Goals organization (particularly when compared to the previous version).

  • I must protest at this assertion. "Apology"? Western Goals has nothing to apologise for. You may not agree with its agenda but it's wrong to permit your personal views to enter into the Wikipedia article. 86.137.204.101 14:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I think you may have misunderstood my use of the word "apology". CJCurrie 01:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

(ii) You tried to slip in a reference to Ken Livingstone being an IRA supporter. This is not quite accurate -- Livingstone held a press conference with Sinn Fein representatives in 1983, but I don't believe he ever came out in support of IRA tactics or the IRA as an organization.

  • Livingstone stated several times that he supported the IRA's cause. I suppose we'll just have to locate the relevant speeches. At the time he held his 'press conference' Sinn Fein was a proscribed organisation on the mainland. 86.137.204.101 14:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • "Supporting the IRA's cause" (the reunification of Ireland) is not the same as "supporting the IRA" (the organization). CJCurrie 01:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that I was justified in reverting your changes on these points alone. CJCurrie 15:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"Xenophobia is a leftist word virtually unheard of until a few years ago." It appears in my 1982 edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary, wihch was published 24 years ago. It usually takes some time after words enter into common usage before they make into the concise edition. I recall learning it at my very establishment private school in the early 1980s. It never occurred to me that it was a "leftist word", let alone a neologism.

  • There are many words in the dictionary which have been highjacked by the Left. The use of this word in political parlance is to smear. The simple fact is that the British generally don't like foreigners. You cannot smear a whole nation. 86.137.204.101 14:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"are you suggesting that the majority of people in Britain are "hard-right"." It continues to amaze me that you people claim to represent a majority even though, when given a chance to vote for an anti-immigration party, less than 5% of Britons do so. It seems pretty clear to me that times have changed in the UK, and Lightoftheworld and Sussexman aren't very happy about things changing. Ground Zero | t 18:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"It seems pretty clear to me". Well it may. But not being British and not living here or having any hands-on practical experience in British politics I cannot see how anything could be that clear to you. Such experience is fundamental to any understanding. The majority of the British electorate vote the same way for life. Most have no idea what the latest policies are. Labour, for instance, prints less than a million manifestos. There are 60 million people in the UK. So statistics tell you nothing. Don't rely upon them. 86.137.204.101 14:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • So instead of providing evidence to counter my claim, you try an ad hominem attack to question my credibility. Old debating trick, that. I have lived and worked in the UK, although I don't now. I read widely on UK issues. Political parties are successful when they promote policies that appeal to voters. When parties fall out of touch with voters, the voters go elsewhere. This is why changes in government happen. Election statistics show that voters do change their minds. It seems to me that you think that voters are mindless sheep who don't know there own minds simply because they overwhelmingly don't agree with you, and you cannot provide any evidence that they do.
  • "So statistics tell you nothing. Don't rely upon them." So in lieu of statistics, you think that I should take the word of an anonymous poster on the internet? Good plan there. "It must be true -- someone on the internet siad so!"
  • "simple fact is that the British generally don't like foreigners." Can you provide any evidence for this? Any? Something beyond you own personal opinion? Ground Zero | t 14:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We're all anonymous Mr Zero. Even you. Yes, the British electorate are like sheep. I agree with what's been said above. You seem to get very upset when anyone disagrees with you. There is a book out at the moment called "Bloody Foreigners". Can't remember the author but I'd get a copy iof I were you. 195.194.75.209 16:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I was just going to respond but I'm happy with what has already been said. 86.129.77.169 18:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't intended to be a debate forum. I keep asking for verifiable evidence, and I am met with unsubstantiated assertions and ad hominem attacks. It seems that you want people to accept your opinions as truth, but can't be bothered to provide hard evidence. Ground Zero | t 22:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

These are Talk pages. They were designed for discussion of the articles and disputes about article content. No-one is attacking you personally. What is being said here is that you don't have all the information at your fingertips, which you seem to think you have. On the ground experience counts for much in elections, as I can attest. But it must be plain for anyone, anywhere in the world, to see the British voting patterns. Many constituencies have voted the same way throughout the twentieth century, regardless of their party's policies. When they reach the ballot paper they cannot bring themselves to vote any other way. Yes, there is some minor movement to small parties: Greens, BNP, and at Kidderminster an Independent was elected, (albeit on a local issue). But by and large the British electorate is stuck in a rut. Voting patterns are therefore not an indication of how people think, just how they vote. Lightoftheworld 10:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. I'm talking about the articles. the articles are not intended as debate forums. Wikipedia has a policy on "No original reearch", so personal, on-the-ground experience is fine for forming your own opinions, but not for writing Wikipedia articles. The problem with personal experience is that everyone interprets information they receive through their own filters and biases. So Wikipedia doesn't accept it.
  2. I did not suggest that anyone was making personal attacks, although that has happened a great deal in the past. If I had a pound for everytime a WG/CMC/GLF fan has accused me of being left-wing.... The point that I am making is that instead of addressing the points that I am raising, certain people here take the intellectually lazy approach of trying to dismiss me (not my arguments) on the basis of my residence, as if to say that anyone -- anyone at all, even an idiot-- residing in the UK, by default, knows more than anyone living anywhere else. Which is just silly.
  3. British voting patterns are plain for everyone to see: the Conservatives had a majority of 144 in 1983, while Labour had a majority of 179 in 1997. And at one point in 1981, 50% of Britons were telling pollsters that they would vote SDP-Lib Alliance. (See here.) Some rut.
  4. And if voting patterns are not an indication of how people think, can you provide a better indication that is verifiable and not nased on conjecture, personal experience/original research? Ground Zero | t 11:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The electorate

Possibly what he's trying to say is that while there is some minor movement, and the Liberals have considerably increased their seats since 1970, the electorate remain apathetic generally and stick to the same three parties at Westminster. The big swing to the Conservatives in 1979 was almost certainly not on idealogical grounds, rather economic. By 1997 people were sick of the Conservatives because they were bogged down with scandal and were failing to deliver. One thing about the electorate here is that they sometimes like change for the sake of it! But most importantly in 1997 there were boundary changes, and there will be more boundary changes before the next General Election. These can drastically affect a seat.

Probably the best way to look at the British electorate is by the percentage tables. The Conservatives have stood virtually still for about 15 years in General Elections. This indicates the core vote I think the fellow above speaks of. The same core vote goes for Labour. There are seats which have not been anything but Left (Liberal or Labour) for over a century. If you canvassed in these places, regardless of your political position, you will find that people generally have no idea whatsoever about the manifesto policies, but simply tell you they will be voting Labour because thats what they've always done. So yes, there is a little movement here and there, dependent on a number of factors, but by and large the electorate don't really think very hard about policies. Sussexman 13:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hard Right

The group were not "hard right". The were not Nazis etc., and virtually the entire membership consisted of card-carrying Tories, some of them MPs and party activists. Personal views on such groups should be kept out of Wikipedia. 86.129.79.148 19:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Searchlight magazine(London, January 2006, p.23) the self-proclaimed "anti-fascist" magazine run by three former communists describes Western Goals as "ultra-conservative". 81.151.89.176 17:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Begs the question, then, as to why CJCurrie insists otherwise. Presumably its just his opinion. 86.129.79.146 16:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)