Heartland

https://www.myheartland.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=25711

Ah, now I recognise the poster.

Going back to the original question, don't remember TSOM doing any political benefits in the 80's (eg for the miners), apart from the original gig on the Thompson Twins "No Nukes" tour.
If anything Eldritch seems more interested in US politics, being very anti-Republican, with VT "inspired" by Reagan/Bush and more recently Trump almost apparently enticing him back into the studio.

I seem to remember that the Sisters website carried a suggestion on the home/news page to vote for a left wing party shortly before a previous UK general election (2001? 2005?).

Edit: someone quoted it in a 2005 thread:

Andrew Eldritch wrote:VOTE

Of course we cannot vote for the self-serving spivs of the Conservative Party. Michael Howard's own Legion Of The Undead must not be allowed to carry on asset-stripping the country where they left off. Even the Conservatives are now upset by the unsurprisingly wanton offspring of an underclass which they themselves created in the eighteen years it took them to run down Industry, Education, Health and everything else they could get their hands on. Their reaction: merely to render a p*ss-poor election even more distasteful with Michael Howard's rancid appeals to the prejudice of the insular Right.

The Conservatives must not win.

But we don't want a Thatcherite Labour government, and this government has breached our trust on some important issues. This government needs a smaller majority and a decent Opposition.

According to our local Green candidate, the UK Greens are hoping to win just four seats, including the Labour fortress of Leeds West. Fat chance. Unlike their mainland counterparts, they oppose European integration. They've had years to sort out the punctuation and grammar on their flimsy leaflet. Waste of time.

The Liberal Democrats can't use an apostrophe either, but they are a credible force which has not marched off to the right or the Tigris.

Go figure.

Here in Leeds West, where there is no Tony Benn and where the Labour droid last polled a massive 46% more than the next candidate, we call for a vote (or two, or none, according to the fecklessness of your council and the kleptomania of your postman) against a government which erodes accountability and civil rights. Our vote in Leeds West won't make much of a difference. Yours might. Please use it.

For context, especially for non-UK readers who don't follow UK politics, Eldritch posted this to the Sisters site just before the May 2005 UK General Election. The Labour Party were currently in power with a large majority. By this time the Labour Party (under Tony Blair) had shifted right (from an original moderate-left outlook) to a more centrist stance and had also allied themselves with George W Bush in his invasion of Iraq. This put them in conflict with some of their core left-wing support and some of their own staunchly left-wing MPs such as Tony Benn (mentioned in the quote). The Liberal Democrats at the time were indeed marketing themselves as a liberal left party. This was 5 years before they formed a coalition with the right-wing Conservative party following the 2010 General Election, and broke a large number of manifesto policies in the process - not so much marching off to the right as running straight into its arms (then wandering off into irrelevance when they were no longer needed by the right, with just a handful of seats in the 2015 election).

I think it can be reasonably assumed from the quote above that Eldritch would prefer to vote for a traditional left-wing Labour MP (such as the late Tony Benn, who he mentions), but not a Labour MP from Tony Blair's wing of the party (at least not when Labour were strongly predicted to win the election, which they did in 2005 - the situation might be different if the threat of a Conservative government had been realistic at that election), but would look at other left-ish parties if no traditional left-wing Labour MP was standing in his constituency.

That said, I'm sure that some people might be able to conclude (through the use of numerology, divine revelation, or whatever other example of confirmation bias they're using this week) that this is all clearly a right-wing agenda.

Anyway, I think it's clear what Eldritch's politics are, but the question was "are The Sisters a 'left wing' political band?"

This is a slightly different question: is the band a political one, and if so, is it left-wing?

Vision Thing (the album and the song) certainly has strong political overtones - particularly the song, and especially the version of the song from a Leeds gig (2005? 2006?) where the lyrics "This war is wrong!" were added multiple times. The Reptile House has quite a few (somewhat obscure) political overtones. I could probably dig out a few other examples, but not their entire oeuvre.

And the "Sisters Gegen Nazis" t-shirt, and all the other examples mentioned by others, and the fact that the quote above was posted on the homepage of the band website (not just Eldritch talking personally in an interview) would lead most to conclude that the Sisters, as a band, are sometimes political (and when they are political, they are left-wing). But that doesn't mean that every song is necessarily a political song - one or two of them may be about drugs and/or relationships instead. Allegedly.

Leeds West is my constituency. Our Labour MP is Rachel "We are not the party of people on benefits" Reeves. So... yeah, "Labour droid" is not far from the mark.

The endorsement of the LibDems is obviously from before Nick Clegg sold their electoral soul for a few years as an impotent deputy PM.

I remember the Green leaflet he's talking about one plank of the platform was the removal of fluoride from drinking water...

I always thought of the Sisters as iconographically leftwing, what with the star and all that. Then again, paraphrasing Groucho Marx, Eldo probably wouldn't join any party that would take him in. And good for him. Oppose all kind of organized totalitarism, no matter if it's from the left, the right or the religious. Come to think of it, "left" and "right", while they once had a very specific meaning (in the French National Assembly of two centuries ago), today are mostly labels for idiots who cannot form their own opinion.

nowayjose wrote:"left" and "right" [...] today are mostly labels for idiots who cannot form their own opinion.

Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both.

Mark, you can cry out against this words, but in real politics these labels means lesser every hour. These labels are just to lure voters, to remind about the tribe and the colours.

Mentioned above Labours during Blair's gov., were center-neo-liberal. I know, that was phase of the third way, which failed miserably (results we see today). That's just small proof.

And i'm not feel good about this, and most certainly, i don't feel superior - i'm just lost as voter, i can't find any good option except lesser evil or voting against.

When there are literal neo-fascists on the rise all over Europe and the US, painting the division between them and their opposition as "lesser of two evils" seems a little short-sighted.

markfiend wrote:When there are literal neo-fascists on the rise all over Europe and the US, painting the division between them and their opposition as "lesser of two evils" seems a little short-sighted.

But they are on the rise because the "left" has left the building, or turned right so they are not left anymore (that Blair effect). And the few who *are* traditional left (Sanders? Corbyn?) won't come to power because not enough people support them or think they have a chance.
So today's choice is mostly between extreme economically right (utilise everything and everyone to the limit) and fascist/nationalist right. Might be that the former is far less evil, but certainly not "good".

Yes I'm probably too pessimistic, cynical or "comfortably numb"

Nah, seriously?
Rising popularity of neo-fascists and neo-nazists is results of that stupid short-sighted policy of parties formarly known/labeled as/labeled left-wing.

And, so far they (extreme right-wing; to simplify) are minority, plankton. So far. But i am aware of that. I see that problem, I'm teriffied to see how stupid are some of voters, and how littel they learned from history.

And because of that I still feel as "abandoned" voter. And I certainly don't fell that there are only two options to choose from. This is not a time of that simple division. Not yet.

The left is to blame for the rise of the far-right? What?

So what is, in your opinion, cause-and-effect relationship between rising popularity of extereme-right/nationalists and dropping popularity of left-wing parties?
Tatcher?

I dispute that left-wing policies are dropping in popularity; if only "left-wing" parties would actually espouse them!

The rise of the far-right? The WWII generation are dying out and there are fewer people that remember where the combination of charismatic demagoguery and populistic xenophobia leads. (Helped along by useful idiots that think there's no difference between them and their opposition.)

First, thank you for naming me.

Secondly, I agree about forgeting about the past (even that, indirect, i mentioned this before). Forthemore, I agree (so far with myself) that blaiming only Blair, Schroeder & Co. is way too simple.

And yes, ironically, left-wing policies are still very popular. But then, again, you may forgot that in the past nor fasctist nor nazist were purely "right", they were right-socialist.

And finally, I guess that you see issue with the right-wing a bit too shallow. While among right-wing and extreme-right wing are dramatic division. From nationalists to jingoists. From Tea party libertatians thinkg that world is to destroy because they are humans, to straight edge, environment loving, veggies - autonomists.

markfiend wrote:

nowayjose wrote:"left" and "right" [...] today are mostly labels for idiots who cannot form their own opinion.

Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both.

I do not just feel that way.

Sorry, I didn't mean the phrase "useful idiot" to be taken personally

We had a saying over our way back in the day about generally not mentioning politics or football in parties or at the pub.

Bartek wrote:But then, again, you may forgot that in the past nor fasctist nor nazist were purely "right", they were right-socialist.

This is your regular reminder that just because they called themselves "National Socialist" doesn't mean they were socialist.

Similarly the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (i.e. North Korea) is not democratic, Buffalo Wings are not the wings of buffalo, and the Sisters of Mercy are not sisters (they're not even siblings or distant cousins).

For an explanation of why the NAZI's cynically co-opted the word "socialist" into their party name see https://www.indy100.com/article/nazi-so ... ry-7900001

For a longer, fully-cited, explanation see the fact-checking service Snopes - https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/ ... ocialists/ - which ends with this summary:

Snopes wrote:Despite co-opting the name, some of the rhetoric, and even some of the precepts of socialism, Hitler and party did so with utter cynicism, and with vastly different goals. The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality.

Just to add some water in the mill:
- As systems Democracy and Republic are not the same. And though many western Republics like to characterize themselves as Democratic states you can see that they don't use in any of their official seals or titles the term "Democracy of xxxxx" but rather the most accurate "Republic of xxxxx" in some extreme cases the official title is "Kingdom of xxxx" and they believe or tend to characterize themselves as Democratic state falsely

that's enough at the moment, next.

lazarus corporation wrote:

Bartek wrote:But then, again, you may forgot that in the past nor fasctist nor nazist were purely "right", they were right-socialist.

This is your regular reminder that just because they called themselves "National Socialist" doesn't mean they were socialist.

I meant that kind of socialism

Bartek wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:

Bartek wrote:But then, again, you may forgot that in the past nor fasctist nor nazist were purely "right", they were right-socialist.

This is your regular reminder that just because they called themselves "National Socialist" doesn't mean they were socialist.

I meant that kind of socialism

These chaps may had call themselves "Socialists" but always with the "National" in front, i don't remember any example of usage the term Socialist from NSDP 1922-1945 alone, if someone knows please provide example. And i doubt there are people that believe that NSDP are socialists the way that for example SPD in Germany use the term for.

Bartek wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:

Bartek wrote:But then, again, you may forgot that in the past nor fasctist nor nazist were purely "right", they were right-socialist.

This is your regular reminder that just because they called themselves "National Socialist" doesn't mean they were socialist.

I meant that kind of socialism

the kind of socialism that is not socialism.

lazarus corporation wrote:the kind of socialism that is not socialism.

It doesn't matter... socialism has stacked up a 100 million dead in the last century, corpses don't care if they were snuffed by nationalists or internationalists.

Ah, we're into the "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up" stage of the thread.

Time for me to slip away and get on with some productive things, then.

IIRC, The Sisters said in an interview that they weren't in for any sort of "isms" ...