The Euston Manifesto: an obituary
by Jura Watchmaker, 15 April 2008
Actually no, I cannot be bothered to write a proper obit for the movement that never was. But it appears that our good friend Daniel Davies has done so, albeit for a forum that doesn’t particularly appreciate such weighty matters.
So, if you have the stomach for it, do check out “Next stop Euston. This manifesto terminates here” (Subed, you’re fired! Ed.). And if you’re a real glutton for punishment peruse the comments, including a certain Prof. A Johnson’s defence of the project he struggled so hard to turn into a mass revolutionary movement.
Tuesday 15 April 2008 at 13:15
The EM never seriously existed as anything other than a vehicle for (mainly) academic arseholes with titanic egos* to pontificate, get on a few junkets and polish their CVs. It quickly became apparent that it was not going to be the source of a socialist realignment - omitting any mention of economics was a clue.
* with honourable exceptions: ie Eve G, Phil Spencer and Norm G.
Tuesday 15 April 2008 at 13:31
* with honourable exceptions: ie Eve G, Phil Spencer and Norm G.
What’s Location, Location, Location got to do with the Euston Manifesto?
Tuesday 15 April 2008 at 17:25
So a frivolous London stockbroker has chimed in with the same kind of critique of the Euston Manifesto that was making the rounds within a week of its initial publication. And he’s upset that no one wants to seriously engage him.
A perfect fit for CiF.
I could barely bring myself to continue reading after his pathetic misrepresentation of Johnson’s essay on the legalistic incapacitation of Britain’s anti-terror laws. That’s a hallmark of these denunciations, I’ve noticed. Can’t admit to what it is about the Eustonards that upsets you? Can’t quite put a finger on it?
No problem. Make stuff up.
Worth it for Johnson’s generous response, though.
Tuesday 15 April 2008 at 17:41
Just to make it clear that I do not defend the stockbroker. There may be a few sentences with which I agree in his CiF article, but as usual with “dsquared” the bulk of it he made up as he went along.
Worth it, though, for the comments from Conor Foley, with which I agree in this instance, and the mental contortions of Zdenek Vajdak.
Tuesday 15 April 2008 at 18:14
[Antisemitic comment from someone impersonating the original “EMG don’t make me laugh” deleted.]
Tuesday 15 April 2008 at 18:16
The aforementioned frivolous London stockbroker fails to mention when he was promoting the “Manifesto for the Third Camp against US Militarism and Islamic Terrorism” on CiF. I, in my youthful folly, actually tried engaging with it–revisiting that is as welcome as a punch in the nuts.
Tuesday 15 April 2008 at 21:29
An absolutely awful piece by Davies. Smug and triumphalist about arguments that he has, in fact, already comprehensively lost. The Euston Manifesto was a serious contributor towards that defeat and its initial impact was impressive. However, as the basis for a political movement it was limited by its lack of a political economy and of political activism. A solid, social democratic commitment would have made it more distinctively left and distinguished it from New Labour. As an outsider I always thought there was always a tension between it as political and as an academic project.
Tuesday 15 April 2008 at 22:11
Change that to “academic/literary project” and you are spot on.
Wednesday 16 April 2008 at 9:38
An absolutely awful piece by Davies.
Some very wet water, some very hot fire, etc.
Is there no subject he is not an expert on?
Wednesday 16 April 2008 at 9:41
I’m waiting for a real expert to call him on the Vietnamese railway system.
Wednesday 16 April 2008 at 13:44
Is there no subject he is not an expert on?
He knows a great deal about less good looking John Hartson impersonation.
Friday 18 April 2008 at 2:36
It quickly became apparent that it was not going to be the source of a socialist realignment - omitting any mention of economics was a clue.
Yes yes yes.
Met 1000001 anti-Deutsche who were in principle up for the EM but v dubious about the lack of economics. “We’ll sort that out later” I said. We never did. A couple of bell-ends who shall remain nameless ran a mile from genuine leftist agitators and the rest is history.
Completely agree with EMG don’t make me laugh: Norm is obviously still le daddy, but discussing important shenanigans with Phil S and Eve is like bumping into the Hitch minus the sweary. They won’t get medals for it, but they’re fucking troopers. Seeing Eve deal with a rabid anti-Zionist at conference and come out decidedly the winner was one of the smoothest debates I’ve ever seen. I wish I had her patience. And PS’s interview with the LittleAtoms fellas is class - top notch from the collar bone down.
SP: DD is definitely aiming for the John Hartson award - big fish in a small pond. Why else does he blog at Bent Wood? 30 hoofs at Celtic better than 10 at West Ham I guess.
One point that passed him by about the EM was Norm saying in his speech at the launch: “Maybe this is the beginning of something, or perhaps it’s the end of something - it’s hard to tell“. It was the end of something I think, although that end spurned some brilliance e.g. FiskingCentral, despite certain EMers being nobjockeys in that regard… That said, the ginger cnut plies his trade on negativistic fuckwittery, so praps we shouldn’t be surprised at his latest outburst.