I was reading this blog yesterday - http://lhote.blogspot.com.br/2012/12/bad-faith-and-zerodark-thirty.html
It's a discussion about torture, militarism, going to war, and films - Zero Dark Thirty to be precise. However, the mindset which leads some people (on the 'soft left' in this country, or in America, liberals - I personally prefer the term liberals because it identifies them pretty well, and Phil Ochs wrote a nice tune all about them.) to support war (see support for bombing Libya from Sunny Hundal, or the ex-chair of GPEX's comments on the futility of demonstrating against the Iraq war) and the following quote stuck out at me:
You could easily take out the word torture, and replace it for cuts:
"It's not that I think the Green Councillors support cuts. No, I think the Green Councillors want to be forced to support cuts. What the Green Councillors want is ultimately to do what conservative hawks want to do, but only after experts and leaders assure them that they have no choice. They want extreme events to make the choice for them"
When you read/talk o or generally hear a response to the call for opposition to cuts from anyone within the party, or even within the Labour party and beyond, then the most important part of their argument is the inevitability of cuts, and ultimately that there is no choice - because that's what we are told, that there is no choice.
I think that this is something, in and of itself that requires challenging - the reason why we want a bottom up party (or union) is not that we like it that way, or it's nicer - it's to avoid the situation where people are able to absolve blame onto a higher power which sets the agenda that there is no choice - there is always choices, you might not like them, but they are certainly there.