Talk:Nina Temple

Untitled
My deletion of the following section was reverted: The Democratic Left continued through the 1990s, becoming more and more obviously pro-New Labour in its political tone. This is perhaps best symbolised by the promotion of so-called 'syntegrity' as a mode for running political meetings.

To one member - and perhaps many other members - of Democratic Left, this was the straw which broke the camel's back, especially after Nina Temple increasingly stressed an affiliation to the ideas of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe in this context. This member, Brian Precious, thought that this amounted to a trivialization and misrepresentation of the ideas of the latter, and so he organised a meeting featuring Laclau and Hilary Wainwright in November 1996, at which the ideas of Ernesto and Chantal were placed in a much better context, without seeming to give any credence to the obviously opportunistic posturing of so many New Labour politicians.

Let me explain again my objections to this section. (1) It is biased, as shown by the way in which "syntegrity" is discussed", and also in the tendentious phraseology ("placed in a much better context", "opportunistic posturing"). (2) It appears to elevate a single member of the organisation who is not well known and is of no importance. In effect the views of a single member, Brian Precious, are given two paragraphs in a relatively short article - is he a substantial enough figure to merit that?  It seems not. 09:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)86.146.228.185 (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)