Lib Dems AHEAD on some polls!!!

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

on yougov, anyway:

Lab - 26
Cons - 32
Lib Dems - 33
Others - 9

i bet a mate a couple of weeks ago that Britain would never vote for a Liberal government and therefore would not get anything higher than 24.9%. 25% and i lose 20 sheets. So does anyone think the Lib Dems have got a chance and what might be the difference fromt he Labour and the other lot, or is it simply a different colour tie? Does their success depend on how much the Clegg has/can latch onto the buzzwords - "Change" and "Fairness"?

So far as i can tell the Liberals are actually the most left wing of the three main parties in terms of social policy?

[Green/Red]

The Liberal Democrats need to poll at least 39% in the general election to win an overall majority, which is still very unlikely. They are more left-wing than Labour so I hope they do well.

[Obs]

In before "ELECTIONS ARE BOURGEOIS STUPID REFORMISTS THE LIB DEMS AND LABOUR ARE BOTH WORSE THAN HITLER".

[Dimentio]

Obviously, no matter who is entering office, Britain is facing some tough times. What I like with the Liberal Democrats is that they are advocating a proportional system of representation, which by itself gives more opportunities to progressives to be heard.

[bricolage]

Obviously, no matter who is entering office, Britain is facing some tough times. What I like with the Liberal Democrats is that they are advocating a proportional system of representation, which by itself gives more opportunities to progressives to be heard.

And the fascists.
Who are much more likely to get something about of PR.

[Demogorgon]

They can't win under First Past The Post, even with the most votes. But if the election yields, as some polls suggest, Labour Winning a Plurality of seats despite coming third on the popular vote, then it simply won't be possible to hold off on PR any longer. The only danger would be Brown might be able to pass off his proposal for the AV as a reasonable reform.

Of course the Lib Dems have moved a lot to the right under Clegg, so don't expect anything good except electoral reform and maybe more progressive taxation and proper gay marriage.

[Demogorgon]

And the fascists.
Who are much more likely to get something about of PR.
We shouldn't have a more democratic system in case the people vote the wrong way?

[bricolage]

We shouldn't have a more democratic system in case the people vote the wrong way?

I am just pointing out the way that proportional representation would work in the UK, based on previous election results the Lib Dems would gain a lot, the Conservatives would actually lose a bit and Labour would lost a bit but less than the Conservatives. The BNP would probably do the best of the small parties, aside from the Greens perhaps. There would be no upsurge of 'left' electoral support.

Probably the biggest effect will be to slow down parliamentary decision making which I suppose you can say is a good or a bad thing depending on whether you'd like parliament to be passing more or less bills.

It's not a case of people voting the wrong way or about making a fundamentally undemocratic system 'more democratic', it is that when the support base exists no amount of PR will matter.

[Mendax]

Of course the Lib Dems have moved a lot to the right under Clegg, so don't expect anything good except electoral reform and maybe more progressive taxation and proper gay marriage.
Thats alot more then wierd get from labservative though.

[Demogorgon]

I am just pointing out the way that proportional representation would work in the UK, based on previous election results the Lib Dems would gain a lot, the Conservatives would actually lose a bit and Labour would lost a bit but less than the Conservatives. The BNP would probably do the best of the small parties, aside from the Greens perhaps. There would be no upsurge of 'left' electoral support.

Probably the biggest effect will be to slow down parliamentary decision making which I suppose you can say is a good or a bad thing depending on whether you'd like parliament to be passing more or less bills.

It's not a case of people voting the wrong way or about making a fundamentally undemocratic system 'more democratic', it is that when the support base exists no amount of PR will matter.
Well here in Scotland PR is used for all elections except Westminster and the BNP have not so much as a single Council seat, so there is no necessary correlation.

If PR were implemented (on a list basis with no threshold), the BNP would probably win a handful of seats in parts of England, but it wouldn't give them any influence.

[bricolage]

Well here in Scotland PR is used for all elections except Westminster and the BNP have not so much as a single Council seat, so there is no necessary correlation.

If PR were implemented (on a list basis with no threshold), the BNP would probably win a handful of seats in parts of England, but it wouldn't give them any influence.

That being said I was under the impression the BNP are a lot more popular in England than in Scotland.

[Demogorgon]

That being said I was under the impression the BNP are a lot more popular in England than in Scotland.Yes, there is little following here. But all the same that demonstrates that they have gained their following without an electoral system that can do them much good. Don't imagine that the BNP's potential danger varies based on whether they have half a dozen seats in Parliament or not.

Mind you, as I have said before, the BNP are more of a distraction than anything else. Anyone with any experience of how the Government treats immigrants, asylum seekers and so on will know that very racist policies are alive and well in this country BNP or no BNP and the electoral system has damn all to do with that.

[Demogorgon]

Thats alot more then wierd get from labservative though.
Maybe, but there isn't a huge difference between the parties. The Lib Dems were in coalition with Labour for eight years in Scotland and so far as I can tell they only brought about the most minor changes.

Don't imagine bourgeoisie elections really make all that much of a difference. For me with my particular interest in the protection of the immigrant population and asylum seekers one could make an argument that voting tactically for the least racist parties (of which the ones mentioned really don't measure up), but we aren't going to get what we want from these elections.

PR would make it fairer incidentally, but apart for a few seats for left representatives, it still wouldn't see all that much change in actual policies.

[anticap]

Brits: is this (http://politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010) more-or-less accurate enough to give an ignorant U$-American a bit of insight into your political situation?

[revolution inaction]

Brits: is this (http://politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010) more-or-less accurate enough to give an ignorant U$-American a bit of insight into your political situation?

i disagree with the basic concept of the political compass, i dont think you can separate the economic and political the way they do, and its clear from the quiz that the people who run it think entirely from within a liberal framework, so it exaggerates the differences between the different parties while excluding revolutionary politics altogether.
If you know nothing about british polotics hen its proebly better then noting, but its more informative to look at what they say/do since that cant be determined from that graph

[Die Neue Zeit]

Obviously, no matter who is entering office, Britain is facing some tough times. What I like with the Liberal Democrats is that they are advocating a proportional system of representation, which by itself gives more opportunities to progressives to be heard.

Alternative voting is hardly proportional. It still keeps much smaller parties out, unlike a system that is proportional:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1003890


Under STV, votes of candidates at the bottom of the poll are redistributed according to their secondary preferences until someone achieves a majority; but a good number of these lower-preference votes will have been given grudgingly and you would expect many voters to be happy to get another chance to vote for their first choice.

[flobdob]

This stuff about the lib dems somehow being more left-wing than either Labour or the Tories is nonsense. The vast majority of their quasi-shadow cabinet contributed to the notorious Orange Book, a tirade of neoliberal nonsense, and Vince Cable was chief economist for Shell whilst they were butchering and pillaging all over the Niger Delta. All 3 parties are the parties of imperialism, and don't let some palliative assumption let you think otherwise.

[Wanted Man]

In before "ELECTIONS ARE BOURGEOIS STUPID REFORMISTS THE LIB DEMS AND LABOUR ARE BOTH WORSE THAN HITLER".

Well, what else are these elections? Proletarian?

[Demogorgon]

Alternative voting is hardly proportional. It still keeps much smaller parties out, unlike a system that is proportional:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1003890
The Lib Dems do favour STV, it is Labour that wants AV. A list system or MMP would be much bette rthan either though.

[The Vegan Marxist]

What is the Lib Dems politics, of the entirety?

[HEAD ICE]

I was under the impression that other than in the USA, the term 'liberal' expressly means market liberalism.

[Demogorgon]

I was under the impression that other than in the USA, the term 'liberal' expressly means market liberalism.
It varies in English speaking countries. The Liberal Demcorats here veer more towards social liberalism. And also are a merger of the old Liberal Party and the Social Democrat Party (who were actually more market liberal than the Liberals).

Interestingly there is a small party made up mostly of former members of the old Liberal party who refused to accept the merger and claim to be the legitimate continuation of the party. They are considerably to the left of the Liberal Democrats.

[Dimentio]

It varies in English speaking countries. The Liberal Demcorats here veer more towards social liberalism. And also are a merger of the old Liberal Party and the Social Democrat Party (who were actually more market liberal than the Liberals).

Interestingly there is a small party made up mostly of former members of the old Liberal party who refused to accept the merger and claim to be the legitimate continuation of the party. They are considerably to the left of the Liberal Democrats.

Interesting that the Liberals are so left-wing. It is reminiscent of the development in Norway and Sweden, where some liberal parties actually turned to the left of the social democrats during the 70's and 80's (in Sweden, they have gravitated back to the right, but the Norwegian centrist party is still a left-liberal party).

[Proletarian Ultra]

What is the Lib Dems politics, of the entirety?

EU is great. Unions are not so great. Yay schools and hospitals. Progressive taxation is good. Privatization is usually good. Iraq War was bad. Privacy rights are good. We <3 gays. More devolution. Oh and PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IS F***ING AWESOME!!!

I think that's a fair summary.

[Coggeh]

EU is great. Unions are not so great. Yay schools and hospitals. Progressive taxation is good. Privatization is usually good. Iraq War was bad. Privacy rights are good. We <3 gays. More devolution. Oh and PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IS F***ING AWESOME!!!

I think that's a fair summary.
Ya i would agree.
I think as far as politics go they would be better than new labour, a key point to conclude from this is that labour are no longer seen as the left wing alternative and by moving to the right in the hope of winning an election their are basically shooting themselves in the foot.

[Demogorgon]

Interesting that the Liberals are so left-wing. It is reminiscent of the development in Norway and Sweden, where some liberal parties actually turned to the left of the social democrats during the 70's and 80's (in Sweden, they have gravitated back to the right, but the Norwegian centrist party is still a left-liberal party).
That's interesting, but note that the rump Liberal Party here are a very minor player with support on only a few local Councils. They are basically just holdouts against the merger with the Social Democrats. Only one Liberal MP went with them and he is not an MP anymore. Most people haven't heard of them.

I bring them up though because I find it interesting that a party that claims it holds out because it didn't want Liberalism contaminated with Social Democracy has ended up holding really left wing views. For instance it supports an inheritance tax system that confiscates most wealth above a certain level and redistribute it by giving an equal lump sum to all people in their early adulthood. It also speaks favourably of workplace democracy, workers sharing the profits rather than it going to management and so on.

Also they worked with Bob Crow with No2EU. An interesting anomaly to be sure.

[Demogorgon]

Brits: is this (http://politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010) more-or-less accurate enough to give an ignorant U$-American a bit of insight into your political situation?
I don't know how they get the view that the Scottish Socialist Party is on the authoritarian end of the Spectrum. Also the SNP and Plaid Cymru should really be a single dot and on the slightly Libertarian side, rather than the slightly authoritarian one.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Brits: is this (http://politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010) more-or-less accurate enough to give an ignorant U$-American a bit of insight into your political situation?

Approximate conversion table (British to American):

BNP, UUP and DUP = Republican Party
Conservatives = Blue Dog Democrats
New Labour = DLC
Old Labour = CPUSA
Lib Dems = Lady Republican senators from Maine

Lib Dems are cool on the war and on some civil liberties issues. I wouldn't trust them at all on labor questions though. (Not that NuLab is any better).

[Q]

The Lib Dems do favour STV, it is Labour that wants AV. A list system or MMP would be much bette rthan either though.

STV isn't proportional either. AV is just an adaptation of STV.

[Zanthorus]

Oh yay, now we get a country run by an ex-conservative (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/04/nick-cleggs-tor.html) who called Thatchers victory over the unions "immensely significant (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/11/nick-clegg-praises-margaret-thatcher)" and in the same interview (http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5831523/clegg-heir-to-thatcher.thtml) said that his was the only party that opposed the structural deficit with 100% spending cuts putting them to the right of even the tories. Oh and if he turns out to be a bit right-wing he's balanced out by the gladstonian liberal Mr Cable. :rolleyes:

And Gordon Brown may be an anti-union piece of shit but I do agree with him on this at least:


Why do they want to cut child tax credits? I think that is unfair. Why do they want to cut child trust funds?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8627745.stm

And as for "civil liberties" what about the right to strike? That's been under attack by succesive governments for years and I don't see the libdems planning to do anything about it. And seeing as how their leader is a Thatcherite I don't see it happening anytime soon.

[Demogorgon]

STV isn't proportional either. AV is just an adaptation of STV.
The proportionality of STV depends on how large the constituency is. In a constituency of one it is AV and is not proportional at all. In Thomas Hare's original notion of having it in a six hundred odd member constituency it would be ultra-proportional, though totally impractical, not to mention the ballot papers would have to be several meters long.

In the real world STV does tend to be fairly proportional, but not so much as a list or MMP system. The Republic of Ireland with 3-5 member constituencies comes close to only being semi-proportional for instance but Northern Ireland with 6 member constituencies does seem to achieve quite a close degree of proportionality.

[Dimentio]

That's interesting, but note that the rump Liberal Party here are a very minor player with support on only a few local Councils. They are basically just holdouts against the merger with the Social Democrats. Only one Liberal MP went with them and he is not an MP anymore. Most people haven't heard of them.

I bring them up though because I find it interesting that a party that claims it holds out because it didn't want Liberalism contaminated with Social Democracy has ended up holding really left wing views. For instance it supports an inheritance tax system that confiscates most wealth above a certain level and redistribute it by giving an equal lump sum to all people in their early adulthood. It also speaks favourably of workplace democracy, workers sharing the profits rather than it going to management and so on.

Also they worked with Bob Crow with No2EU. An interesting anomaly to be sure.

They sound like they are to the left of the Swedish ex-communist party.

[gorillafuck]

In before "ELECTIONS ARE BOURGEOIS STUPID REFORMISTS THE LIB DEMS AND LABOUR ARE BOTH WORSE THAN HITLER".
Nobody ever equated these parties with Hitler. But that doesn't mean that socialists should support either one.

[Sasha]

here in holland we also have a party wich is described as left-liberal, they are called D66 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrats_66).

and yes, on a lot of issues (immigration, racism, individual freedom, privacy) they are quite okay, sommetimes a lot better than the social-dems and even sometimes the greens (who turned quite liberal themselfs under the new new-left leadership after they ditched the last remains of their communist party and pascifist party heritage) but i woudlnt trust them one bit when it comes to labour or geo-political issues

[Obs]

Well, what else are these elections? Proletarian?

My problem is mostly with the idea that we shouldn't care at all about any elections, ever, and that even taking the slightest interest in them is reformist and should be punishable by death like Papa Stalin would've wanted.

[Wanted Man]

here in holland we also have a party wich is described as left-liberal, they are called D66 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrats_66).

and yes, on a lot of issues (immigration, racism, individual freedom, privacy) they are quite okay, sommetimes a lot better than the social-dems and even sometimes the greens (who turned quite liberal themselfs under the new new-left leadership after they ditched the last remains of their communist party and pascifist party heritage) but i woudlnt trust them one bit when it comes to labour or geo-political issues

Basically this. I would compare the LibDems to D66. I suppose in both cases, these parties basically put on a social, enlightened, and internationalist mask as opposed to the authoritarian, anti-intellectual, isolationist and provincialist far-right.

This makes them the perfect choice for outward-thinking college students who don't know what else to choose. In fact, my signature currently has a quote from a satirical political test on one particular question: "Don't know what to choose? Click here for the D66 escape!" and then you just get the advice to vote for them.

What these students fail to see is that this party would be the first in line to cut student grants, replacing it with a loan system so that we can all leave college in massive debt. Their positions on labour issues are also execrable. People sometimes dream of a "left coalition" involving them, but they are simply too far apart economically from the Socialists, or even the social-democrats.

I wonder if it's much the same with the Lib Dems in the UK.


My problem is mostly with the idea that we shouldn't care at all about any elections, ever, and that even taking the slightest interest in them is reformist and should be punishable by death like Papa Stalin would've wanted.

So who's saying that? Even if a lot of people are saying that, it's not like they're itching to put a bullet in the back of your head. Get some perspective. :rolleyes:

[anticap]

i disagree with the basic concept of the political compass, i dont think you can separate the economic and political the way they do, and its clear from the quiz that the people who run it think entirely from within a liberal framework, so it exaggerates the differences between the different parties while excluding revolutionary politics altogether.
If you know nothing about british polotics hen its proebly better then noting, but its more informative to look at what they say/do since that cant be determined from that graph

I understand all that of course; I just meant the "mainstream" politics (which don't really represent the mainstream at all, as we both know, hence the sneer-quotes).


I don't know how they get the view that the Scottish Socialist Party is on the authoritarian end of the Spectrum. Also the SNP and Plaid Cymru should really be a single dot and on the slightly Libertarian side, rather than the slightly authoritarian one.

OK, so that's a "No" vote.


Approximate conversion table (British to American):

BNP, UUP and DUP = Republican Party
Conservatives = Blue Dog Democrats
New Labour = DLC
Old Labour = CPUSA
Lib Dems = Lady Republican senators from Maine

Lib Dems are cool on the war and on some civil liberties issues. I wouldn't trust them at all on labor questions though. (Not that NuLab is any better).

If you say so, but that seems rather more simplistic even than the Political Compass.

At any rate, the LibDems appear to be some sort of right-"libertarian" party, more ideologically aligned with LPUSA (http://www.lp.org/) than with Maine's Snowe and Collins. If that's even partly accurate, then Hell would freeze over before they'd get my vote. I fail to see what all the excitement is about. Is it just settling for the more socially-liberal version of economic right-wingism? Because in that case, I'll just start voting Democrat and expect not a peep from anyone about it.

[Demogorgon]

The comparison of the Lib Dems to D66 is quite a good one I think. As I understand it D66 sold every principal they had to participate in Balkenede II and the Lib Dems were much the same with the way the governed with labour i the first two Scottish Parliaments.

Of course that being said the Lib Dems are hell bent on making the electoral system more proportional and the D66 were at least initially keen to make it less so! Grass is always greener...

[Obs]

So who's saying that? Even if a lot of people are saying that, it's not like they're itching to put a bullet in the back of your head. Get some perspective. :rolleyes:

I just remember hearing a lot people getting their undergarments tied up in a tight and very complex knot over the PSL getting votes. Mostly Lefts, but Stalinists too. Might've been on another forum.

[Zanthorus]

My problem is mostly with the idea that we shouldn't care at all about any elections, ever, and that even taking the slightest interest in them is reformist and should be punishable by death like Papa Stalin would've wanted.

Oh yeah, Left-Communists and Anarchists are total Stalin worshippers.

[Obs]

Oh yeah, Left-Communists and Anarchists are total Stalin worshippers.

Thank you for reading my last post.

EDIT: Fuck, my derail lasted a whole page. Sorry, guys.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Just found this in Marx's old New York Tribune columns (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/newspapers/new-york-tribune.htm). On the LibDem's ancestors, the Whigs:


The British Whig, in the natural history of politics, forms a species which, like all those of the amphibious class, exists very easily, but is difficult to describe. Shall we call them, with their opponents, Tories out of office? or, as continental writers love it, take them for the representatives of certain popular principles? In the latter case we should get embarrassed in the same difficulty as the historian of the Whigs, Mr. Cooke, who, with great naïvété confesses in his “History of Parties” that it is indeed a certain number of “liberal, moral and enlightened principles” which constitutes the Whig party, but that it was greatly to be regretted that during the more than a century and a half that the Whigs have existed, they have been, when in office, always prevented from carrying out these principles. So that in reality, according to the confession of their own historian, the Whigs represent something quite different from their professed-liberal and enlightened principles. Thus they are in the same position as the drunkard brought up before the Lord Mayor who declared that he represented the Temperance principle but from some accident or other always got drunk on Sundays.

[Wanted Man]

The comparison of the Lib Dems to D66 is quite a good one I think. As I understand it D66 sold every principal they had to participate in Balkenede II and the Lib Dems were much the same with the way the governed with labour i the first two Scottish Parliaments.

Of course that being said the Lib Dems are hell bent on making the electoral system more proportional and the D66 were at least initially keen to make it less so! Grass is always greener...

D66 wanted an elected mayor and other electoral reforms, which was promised to them when they joined that government. The government fell before anything concrete was realised, and one wonders whether anything was going to be completed at all. In recent years, there have been some experiments with mayoral "elections" involving candidates from the same party, with very low participation.


I just remember hearing a lot people getting their undergarments tied up in a tight and very complex knot over the PSL getting votes. Mostly Lefts, but Stalinists too. Might've been on another forum.

There is a bit of a difference between the PSL and the Lib Dems.

[scarletghoul]

It's true that most votes for the Glib Dems come from people who have no one to vote for, but are compelled to vote because they feel its the only power we have. These voters are, correctly, disillusioned in the 2 main parties for their corruption, warmongering, serving only bourgeoisie, etc, but they don't understand that these things are all inherent in the bourgeois state regardless of which party is ruling. The Lib Dems seem attractive because, having not been in power, they are able to make opportunistic criticisms of Labour and Conservative as corrupt selfish and so on. In other words they can attribute every defect of the bourgeois state to the rival parties, thus filling the void of dissatisfaction that people feel towards the state. This criticism is all done on a very superficial level of course, and collapses as soon as their policies are examined, but it still works because most voters do not examine policies or even read the manifestos. Clegg is always playing the moral voice of the nation, and its disgusting to me but most people dont see through it :(

On a related note, did anyone else find it strange to see the Tories use the slogan "Power to the people" ? Is our movement this dead, that such a right-wing party can steal our rhetoric and get away with it ? Weird. It also illustrates how theres obviously a desire for genuine power to the people, which the conservatives are trying to take advantage of and which is the rightful place for the left ..

[flobdob]

On a related note, did anyone else find it strange to see the Tories use the slogan "Power to the people" ? Is our movement this dead, that such a right-wing party can steal our rhetoric and get away with it ?

Not at all. Thatcher spoke of the attack on the Malvinas under "the right of nations to self determination", and Blair said of Iraq that "history will absolve me". The capitalists know how to stick the dagger in.

[AK]

Brits: is this (http://politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010) more-or-less accurate enough to give an ignorant U$-American a bit of insight into your political situation?
How in the hell is the BNP even remotely left-leaning?


i disagree with the basic concept of the political compass, i dont think you can separate the economic and political the way they do, and its clear from the quiz that the people who run it think entirely from within a liberal framework, so it exaggerates the differences between the different parties while excluding revolutionary politics altogether.
If you know nothing about british polotics hen its proebly better then noting, but its more informative to look at what they say/do since that cant be determined from that graph
The political compass is just baby steps. At least it removes people like us from people like Stalin who - thanks to public opinion from history and propaganda - won't do socialism much good if we continue to be synonymous with him.

[Spawn of Stalin]

That political compass thing is a load of crap, the Tories I think are far more authoritarian than UKIP on everything except immigration, and I don't see have Plaid Cymru are at all to the left on the SNP and Sinn Fein. I think that they've got the Liberals and the Greens just right, maybe Labour too. Respect are pretty much exactly where I sit on the political compass, and I'd probably actually vote for them if they had a candidate in my constituency.

[robbo203]

In before "ELECTIONS ARE BOURGEOIS STUPID REFORMISTS THE LIB DEMS AND LABOUR ARE BOTH WORSE THAN HITLER".


This is a bit silly.

Elections per se have nothing to do with reformism. Reformism is about running capitalism and seeking to alleviate its problems. Even political dictatorships that have completely suspended elections can be reformist in that sense.

As for saying that the lib dems and labour are worse than Hitler, this is totally dumb. If you are saying you would prefer to live under a nazi regime then be my guest. I certainly wouldnt but that doesnt mean I have to support the lib dems or Labour either

[eyedrop]

How in the hell is the BNP even remotely left-leaning? If I would guess I would say that they have a lot of reformist/populist demands as an opposition party, as opposition politicians usually have a tendency to promise a lot of grand things while out of power. Those grand promises would never come to pass if they came to power. In a superficial analysis those populist promises could be said to be remotely left-leaning.

I don't know if BNP have those populist demands now alongside their other reactionary demands, but I wouldn't be surprised.

It's the same with left wing parties they always promise a lot of good thing before they come to power and has to adjust to the realities and drop most/all of it.

[Demogorgon]

If I would guess I would say that they have a lot of reformist/populist demands as an opposition party, as opposition politicians usually have a tendency to promise a lot of grand things while out of power. Those grand promises would never come to pass if they came to power. In a superficial analysis those populist promises could be said to be remotely left-leaning.

I don't know if BNP have those populist demands now alongside their other reactionary demands, but I wouldn't be surprised.

It's the same with left wing parties they always promise a lot of good thing before they come to power and has to adjust to the realities and drop most/all of it.
It's true. The BNP aren't big on privitisation for instance and generally think the economy before Thatcher was okay, apart for the Trade Unions, which they don't like one bit. So saying they are moderately right wing economically and very right wing otherwise is probably fairly accurate.

Actually if you look at their economic policies they are just bizarre. They want to withdraw from the EU and join NAFTA. Quite apart from the fact that Britain is not in North America they don't seem to realise the difference between the EU and the EEA. Nor the EU and the Council of Europe for that matter, but I digress.

Also they seem to combine really right wing tax policies with a more left leaning welfare ones and so forth. All in all it is an utter mess and actually fairly comic in an absurd sort of way if you understand economics.

[eyedrop]

It's true. The BNP aren't big on privitisation for instance and generally think the economy before Thatcher was okay, apart for the Trade Unions, which they don't like one bit. So saying they are moderately right wing economically and very right wing otherwise is probably fairly accurate.

Actually if you look at their economic policies they are just bizarre. They want to withdraw from the EU and join NAFTA. Quite apart from the fact that Britain is not in North America they don't seem to realise the difference between the EU and the EEA. Nor the EU and the Council of Europe for that matter, but I digress.

Also they seem to combine really right wing tax policies with a more left leaning welfare ones and so forth. All in all it is an utter mess and actually fairly comic in an absurd sort of way if you understand economics.
Not surprising that most right wing opposition parties follows the same recipe. What people also often forget is that a BNP in power would be a completely different beast than BNP as an opposition party. Just as a left wing party also becomes a different beast when in power. Politicians don't have free reign divorced from rest of society.

Although BNP seems to be one of the more stupid anti-immigration parties.

There is a reason why politicians are among the least trusted groups in society.

[Obs]

There is a bit of a difference between the PSL and the Lib Dems.

I am not comparing the parties. I am noting that there are people who believe that caring at all about any election is counter-revolutionary Thoughtcrime, and I am criticising this attitude.

[Jazzratt]

I am not comparing the parties. I am noting that there are people who believe that caring at all about any election is counter-revolutionary Thoughtcrime, and I am criticising this attitude.

It's not "counter-revolutionary thoughtcrime" and that's not what people are saying. The point is that it's completely irrelevent. Capitalism remains pretty much unchanged no matter which gaggle of bourgeois pricks gets to be in charge.

This argument comes up every time there is an election and it always ends in the same way. People go out and they vote in their Labour Party or their Democrats and then they realise that the working class is no closer to emancipation. For fuck's sake, I'd hoped people had learned a little from what happened in America when so many "leftists" were lning up to kiss president obama's backside only to discover that they were being served the same shit.

[Demogorgon]

Not surprising that most right wing opposition parties follows the same recipe. What people also often forget is that a BNP in power would be a completely different beast than BNP as an opposition party. Just as a left wing party also becomes a different beast when in power. Politicians don't have free reign divorced from rest of society.

Although BNP seems to be one of the more stupid anti-immigration parties.

There is a reason why politicians are among the least trusted groups in society.
Well the BNP is a bit different from the Progress Party* in Norway for instance in that it very clearly comes from the extreme right, containing out and out Neo-Nazis and other like that. That of course also has the implication that they are never going to seriously threaten to come to power the way the Progress Party in Norway does and hence a lot less Dangerous.

It is for that reason that I often say that UKIP worries me more, because while they are a little milder, they are a lot more credible and therein lies their danger. Of course neither concerns me as much as the simply appalling policies we have right now regarding immigration-and even more so asylum-which I can see getting even worse after the election. Anyone who sees the kind of shit I see on a daily basis at work will soon realise that the fact that the far right continues to be pretty fringe in britain is small comfort next to the appalling nature of the Home Office, which regardless of what the right wing tabloids might say, is not operating an "open doors" policy.

*I am aware that Anders Lange had Nazi links in his past, but I still think it

[bailey_187]

How in the hell is the BNP even remotely left-leaning?

On a purely economic level, i guess because they want more protectionism etc

[eyedrop]

Well the BNP is a bit different from the Progress Party* in Norway for instance in that it very clearly comes from the extreme right, containing out and out Neo-Nazis and other like that. That of course also has the implication that they are never going to seriously threaten to come to power the way the Progress Party in Norway does and hence a lot less Dangerous.While anti-immigration parties legitimates such sentiments I also think they work as a dampener on the extreme right. While Norway has the large Progress Party (FRP) I also think we have a smaller problem with outright Nazis than both UK and Sweden.

[Demogorgon]

While anti-immigration parties legitimates such sentiments I also think they work as a dampener on the extreme right. While Norway has the large Progress Party (FRP) I also think we have a smaller problem with outright Nazis than both UK and Sweden.
Maybe compared to Sweden, I don't know, I have heard of both Norwegian and Swedish Nazis and probably in equal measure.

With Britain too, it isn't really that significant either. People over-emphasise it here I think. The BNP has that element to it certainly, but they are a long way from mainstream.

I have to disagree about anti-immigration parties dampening the far right though. The more politicians talk negatively about immigration, the more unremarkable the far right seems. The mainstream parties here (apart from the SNP) say they are just responding to "legitimate concerns" and "recognising why the BNP has attracted support", but don't believe a word of it. When the left-the real left-does well in elections, politicians don;t respond at all and they certainly don't move their rhetoric leftwards to try and capture some support let alone actually adopt some left policies.

The poisoned atmosphere in British politics concerning immigration has given the BNP this breathing room. But in reality the BNP remain a distraction as a result. The real danger is the bastards in the main parties pursuing more and more racist policies as they try and scapegoat immigrants for the problems they and their business cronies have caused. The worst example is perhaps the way they have started saying "white working class people feel ignored" and sell the message that it is because they are white and not because they are working class.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The Lib Dems, Labour and the Tories are all right wing parties. The Greens are the party you could describe as liberal, it shows the state of the political climate in this country that even a liberal party is on the fringe of british politics.

[eyedrop]

Maybe compared to Sweden, I don't know, I have heard of both Norwegian and Swedish Nazis and probably in equal measure.

With Britain too, it isn't really that significant either. People over-emphasise it here I think. The BNP has that element to it certainly, but they are a long way from mainstream. Well may be, they are pretty insignificant all over anyway.


I have to disagree about anti-immigration parties dampening the far right though. The more politicians talk negatively about immigration, the more unremarkable the far right seems. The mainstream parties here (apart from the SNP) say they are just responding to "legitimate concerns" and "recognising why the BNP has attracted support", but don't believe a word of it. When the left-the real left-does well in elections, politicians don;t respond at all and they certainly don't move their rhetoric leftwards to try and capture some support let alone actually adopt some left policies. Your probably right.

On a more positive note our construction unions just had a 19 000 man strong strike which succeeded in raising the minimum wage they can hire unorganized workers on. As some immigrants working cheap is probably one of the causes for much of the anti-immigrant causes. (As far as I can see from the proposed settlement they didn't get that clause though though.)

[bricolage]

Respect are pretty much exactly where I sit on the political compass

You got in the top half of the political compass? Jesus, I swear you have to be homophobic or something to get up there.

[Demogorgon]

As I understand it, in Norway certain immigrants aren't given the same wage protections Norwegians are and hence can be hired at lower wages. Of course such a policy would have passed based on hostility to immigrants and ended up hurting local workers. Which is a good lesson in how attacks on certain members of society are ultimately attacks on us all.

[eyedrop]

As I understand it, in Norway certain immigrants aren't given the same wage protections Norwegians are and hence can be hired at lower wages. Of course such a policy would have passed based on hostility to immigrants and ended up hurting local workers. Which is a good lesson in how attacks on certain members of society are ultimately attacks on us all.
We don't have a minimum wage, but the wages still stay high since we got such a good bargaining point because of the extensive security net. Some immigrants are more desperate and end up undercutting. I was positively surprised that LO (main union) attacked it with that angle. (Solidarity with the unorganized workers)

[Demogorgon]

We don't have a minimum wage, but the wages still stay high since we got such a good bargaining point because of the extensive security net. Some immigrants are more desperate and end up undercutting. I was positively surprised that LO (main union) attacked it with that angle. (Solidarity with the unorganized workers)
Yeah, I know. But isn't it similar to the pre-Thatcher British system where collective agreements are binding and as far as I have been informed certain firms were allowed to pay immigrants lower pay than Norwegians.

It is good though that people are realising that it is not just a case of native workers v. immigrant workers.

[eyedrop]

Yeah, I know. But isn't it similar to the pre-Thatcher British system where collective agreements are binding and as far as I have been informed certain firms were allowed to pay immigrants lower pay than Norwegians.I need to brush up on my labour laws knowledge I see.

The collective agreements are binding, but only for employers and employees (also unorganised) in workplaces that has agreed to the collective agreement, (link (http://handelogkontor.no/id/4195.0) Norwegian) and I haven't heard of immigrants being exempt from them. There are plenty of scandals with companies illegally paying them less. There may be some cases of hiring foreign companies which does work in Norway and underpaying it's workers and that being quasi-legal. Or maybe through a bemanningsbyrå (staffing agency) which does work in a workplace governed by the collective agreement, but are payed less, which should still be illegal although employers mostly get of the hook.

Last time I talked to a LO recruiter we where told that if we joined we would be assured tariff wage while we wouldn't be that if we weren't members, but I guess that was because it was the service business, which may not have any collective agreement.

[Demogorgon]

I need to brush up on my labour laws knowledge I see.

The collective agreements are binding and I haven't heard of immigrants being excempt from them. There are plenty of scandals with companies illegally paying them less. There may be some cases of hiring foreign companies which does work in Norway and underpaying it's workers and that being quasi-legal.

Last time I talked to a LO recruiter we where told that if we joined we would be assured tariff wage while we wouldn't be that if we weren't members, but I guess that was because it was the service business, which may not have any collective agreement.I think what I was referring to specifically was what a Norwegian friend of mine told me about the fishing industry. That they were able to hire people from Eastern Europe at below the rates Norwegian workers were paid and the inevitable followed.

Of course it could be he was confusing something that simply happened with something the Government allowed but he did seem quite clear that it got a lot worse after it was allowed.

Bare in mind he told me this back when Bondevik was PM, so this particular policy may be long gone by now.

[Revy]

If the Lib Dems win that will be a first. I guess either way, Tory or Lib Dem, Labour would still have a way of casting itself as the workers' opposition. I hope the socialist parties in the UK don't fall for it. A left shift in Labour could excite many but also would be a dishonest way of putting more energy into its left-wing base, not fighting genuinely for the working class.

(I know I'm late to this thread)

edit: I accidentally wrote "left shit" instead of "left shift". lol!

[eyedrop]

If it's in the fishing industry I have heard talk about the problem before. Redere (ship-owners) is a group of capitalists which are exempt from plenty of regulations.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I understand all that of course; I just meant the "mainstream" politics (which don't really represent the mainstream at all, as we both know, hence the sneer-quotes).



OK, so that's a "No" vote.



If you say so, but that seems rather more simplistic even than the Political Compass.

At any rate, the LibDems appear to be some sort of right-"libertarian" party, more ideologically aligned with LPUSA (http://www.lp.org/) than with Maine's Snowe and Collins. If that's even partly accurate, then Hell would freeze over before they'd get my vote. I fail to see what all the excitement is about. Is it just settling for the more socially-liberal version of economic right-wingism? Because in that case, I'll just start voting Democrat and expect not a peep from anyone about it.

The Liberal Democrats are generally perceived to be social democratic (at least in the current political climate of britain, which is broadly thatcherite - with - a - human - face, rather than liberal/libertarian, although they have been making some more "free market" overtures of late, ever since the pro free market wing of the party won the leadership a few years ago.

[The New Consciousness]

3 neo-liberal parties with some slight variations in policy. What an exciting election...not. The only 'exciting' outcome is that there will be a coalition government of these three disgustingly similar parties, forming a watery neo-liberal monolith. Great stuff.

I really am unsure about who to vote for. Cameron - no way. For me it's between Clegg and Brown, leaning towards Brown just because Clegg's an ex-Tory boy and I don't think there's much substance to him...it's so hard to decide. Any advice?

I wish we had some dynamic left-wing parties with popular appeal. But I think we'll have to wait a while for that...

[Revy]

I really am unsure about who to vote for. Cameron - no way. For me it's between Clegg and Brown, leaning towards Brown just because Clegg's an ex-Tory boy and I don't think there's much substance to him...it's so hard to decide. Any advice?


I don't think you should have to choose between the three. there are other choices than that. Like TUSC.



I wish we had some dynamic left-wing parties with popular appeal. But I think we'll have to wait a while for that...

I don't think it will ever come if we just wait for it. people in the movement have to build it.

[HamishFTW]

I know exactly what you mean. I was set on voting LibDem, but I hear that Stephen Williams is a bit of a **** and I heard of Danny Kushlick supporting The People's Manifesto, "standing on a single issue – the legalisation and regulation of drugs – to try and engage the parties in a key debate". The Tories aren't going to get in here anyway.

[Spawn of Stalin]

3 neo-liberal parties with some slight variations in policy. What an exciting election...not. The only 'exciting' outcome is that there will be a coalition government of these three disgustingly similar parties, forming a watery neo-liberal monolith. Great stuff.

I really am unsure about who to vote for. Cameron - no way. For me it's between Clegg and Brown, leaning towards Brown just because Clegg's an ex-Tory boy and I don't think there's much substance to him...it's so hard to decide. Any advice?

I wish we had some dynamic left-wing parties with popular appeal. But I think we'll have to wait a while for that...

If you're seriously swinging between Lib and Lab I think it's time to educate yourself on bourgeois parties and democracy, or just figure out where you stand, what your line is and if it fits in with Brown/Clegg's adgenda (I seriously hope it won't). Most importantly, get out of the mindset that you must vote simply because you can, that you have a duty to vote, you do not have to vote, bourgeois democracy is a right, not a duty. Find out if a socialist is standing in your constituency, vote for them if you must, if you can't be bothered just go along to the voting station on the 6th and look at who is on your ballot paper, if there aren't any socialists just spoil your ballot, write "TROOPS OUT OF IRELAND" or something across the whole sheet, but for the love of christ DO NOT vote for an imperialist party, and yeah, the Liberals and Labour are both thoroughly imperialist and thoroughly anti-communist. A vote for Brown is a vote for everything we as socialists despise.

revolutionarycommunist.org

[Proletarian Ultra]

I don't think you should have to choose between the three. there are other choices than that. Like TUSC.

Is CPBG-ML supporting TUSC?

[Spawn of Stalin]

CPGB-ML is not supporting TUSC, here is CPGB-ML's statement on the election, brilliantly named "DON'T VOTE LABOUR".

http://www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=601


Don’t vote Labour!

The significance of the coming election for British working people.



As communists, we harbour no illusions about the electoral process in capitalist society. Our British parliament, advertised around the world as the ‘birthplace of parliamentary democracy’ is little more than a talking shop, while governments in Whitehall are formed by whichever party the ruling class judges to be most suited to carrying out its desired programme at any particular time.

Given these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that parliament is stuffed with corrupt, self-serving, two-a-penny stooges, only interested in getting the most out of the gravy train while they’re on it, and falling over themselves to prove their willingness to sell out the interests of most of their constituents in favour of the interests of the rich.

The recent expenses scandal confirmed most working people in the view that MPs from the major capitalist parties are all as ‘as bad as each other’ when it comes to corruption. (And even that story probably only got the media coverage it did because it was a timely distraction from the much more scandalous bailout of the big banks.)

Where the power is

Real power is exercised outside of parliament, with the officials in Downing Street and Whitehall simply carrying out decisions that are taken elsewhere. These decisions, which affect the lives of millions, even billions, of people, not just here, but all over the world, are taken in the boardrooms of Britain’s giant corporations, and in the clubs where the owners and directors of these companies mix and mingle.

The owners and major shareholders of such companies as BP and Shell (oil firms), HSBC, Standard Chartered and Barclays (banks), GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca (pharmaceutical companies), Vodafone and BT (communications), Tesco, National Grid (utilities), Unilever (foods etc), Rio Tinto (minerals), BAE (arms), etc are the real rulers of the country – and much of the world. Rupert Murdoch, with his vast media empire, has more real say in who will be elected and what their programme will be than most of the British electorate combined, while ‘democratically elected’ governments such as ours are merely the paid hirelings of the superrich emperors of finance capital, none of whom have been elected, and most of whose names we do not even know.

Marx put it very succinctly when he said that bourgeois elections simply gave the workers the opportunity to decide “once in three or six years which member of the ruling class [is] to misrepresent the people in parliament”. (The Civil War in France, 1871)

The only thing that’s changed since Marx’s time is that these days, as well as younger sons of ruling-class families, there are plenty of middle-class and even the odd working-class stooge willing to do the job, giving the impression that society is somehow more ‘equal’ than it used to be.

Contempt for bourgeois politicians

While the media are busy telling us that there’s been a big ‘swing’ in public opinion away from Labour and toward the Conservatives, what they neglect to mention is that the biggest swing has been away from all the mainstream parties.

During the 2009 European elections, which took place in the wake of the MP expenses scandal, only 34 percent of registered voters in England, Scotland and Wales turned out, as compared to 39 percent in 2005, despite the fact that, for many of them, there were local elections too.

The Labour vote may have dropped drastically in 2009, but, in absolute terms, so did votes for the other mainstream bourgeois parties (Conservatives by 200,000 and LibDems by 370,000 respectively). The main gainers during the European elections were the Greens and the BNP, while support for UKIP (a major pole of attraction for the ‘little Englander’ school of anti-Europe thought during European elections, although not British parliamentary ones) plateaued.

Much was made of the BNP’s increase of 135,000 votes as compared with 2005, which took them to a total of 900,000 and enabled them to take two seats in the European parliament, but the Green vote increased by twice as much, from 1 to 1.3 million. Neither of these increases made much of a dent in the number of former Labour voters who simply failed to turn out, however. The Labour vote dropped from 3.7 to 2.4 million – a drop of 1.3 million!

In all, 3.8 million fewer people turned out to vote in 2009 than had done five years earlier. Clearly, the ‘Conservative swing’ is a figment of the headline writers’ imaginations – a result of deciding not to count all those who are no longer voting at all.

Of course, voting patterns are different during a general election. Turnout will usually be considerably higher (61 percent in 2005), and fewer people are prepared to vote for the smaller parties, feeling that their votes go to waste in a first-past-the-post system. During the 2005 election, the Greens and BNP each received around 0.9 percent of the vote, and UKIP around 2 percent.

Given the exceptionally undemocratic nature of the first-past-the post system, even in bourgeois terms, none of these parties was anywhere near being able to win a seat. Two independents standing on the single issue of health care did manage to get elected, however, as did George Galloway, the most high-profile antiwar candidate. These victories reveal, more than any other election results, the simmering anger against Labour and Tory policies alike of public service cuts and imperialist warmongering – and the willingness of the electorate to vote where a high-enough profile opposition candidate is standing.

During the Norwich North parliamentary by-election in July 2009, the Tories won, not because more people voted for them than previously – in fact, they won 2,000 fewer votes than at the last general election, but because nearly 15,000 people who had voted Labour in 2005 stayed at home. Despite all the media interest in the campaign, the turnout was 46 percent, as opposed to 61 percent at the last general election.

What choice for workers?

What’s clear is that the lack of a real alternative force that clearly represents workers interests, combined with a general feeling that ‘all politicians are the same’ is keeping more and more people at home on election days.

And this is hardly surprising. For a century, the working class has been told by trade unions and by most of the left that Labour is the party that represents the working class. Yet, despite voting Labour into power many times in the last hundred years, there is mass unemployment, working conditions are worsening, public services have been privatised in droves, and there is a desperate shortage of housing. Workers today have fewer trade-union rights than they did in 1906! Since 1997, they have had to bear 13 years of the continuation and extension of what used to be called ‘Thatcherism’, but is in fact just capitalism of a more rapacious kind than British workers have been used to since the end of the second world war.

They have seen more privatisation, more attacks on welfare and social provision, the further decline of British industry, criminal wars against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, the introduction of draconian anti-terror laws, the imprisonment and persecution of immigrants and asylum seekers, and a host of other anti-worker measures.

They have seen the blatant lies of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown et al totally exposed, although there is no sign of these criminals being held to account for their actions. To serve the interests of the oil and arms companies who seek domination over the Middle East, our leaders told lies which led Britain into unjustified and barbarous attacks that have led to the deaths of over 1.5 million people in Iraq alone.

They have seen the double standards of our leaders brought into stark relief as the massacre of Gaza and use of banned weapons by Israel against it were supported, while Iran’s perfectly legitimate development of a nuclear power infrastructure is bringing ever-more hysterical threats of war from the US, Britain and Israel.

Now, to cap it all, they have watched a government who claimed not to be able to find money to save British industry or to provide adequate social housing, pensions, health care or education provision stump up a grand total of £850bn (so far) in the great banking robbery – and every mainstream party agrees that not only was this necessary, but that the working class must now foot the bill. And this despite the burdens already heaped on them as a result of imperialist wars and the capitalist world crisis of overproduction.

Following ‘cash for questions’, ‘cash for peerages’ and the parliamentary expenses scandals, it is hardly surprising if most working people should feel confirmed in their view that mainstream politicians and parties are all equally corrupt and self-serving.

Economic crisis, war and racism

Given the state of the global capitalist system generally, and British capitalism in particular, the ruling class is very keen for workers to turn their attention away from the real cause of their ills: the inability of capitalism to continue without crises and wars, and the system’s inability to provide a reliable, decent standard of living to all.

So there is little or no talk about how and why it was possible for Labour to find money to bail out the banks when it claims not to have money for public services. Nor is there much in the way of explanation about how money continues to be found for waging aggressive wars for control of raw materials and domination of markets and sources of profit abroad.

And there is definitely no mention of the fact that even poor socialist countries like Cuba and north Korea, under decades of embargo and blockade, are able to provide free education of a high quality at all levels, free health care on demand and virtually free housing to all their citizens. Instead, we are asked to put the blame for lack of jobs, homes and adequate services onto immigrants, whose presence is alleged to put an ‘intolerable strain’ on our ‘finite resources’.

Even as economic commentators are asserting that the worst of the crisis is over and that the ‘green shoots’ of recovery are already appearing, all the mainstream parties and media alike are unified in telling us that in order to start paying off a national debt that now stands at over £850bn (ie, roughly the same amount as has been given to the banks over the last 18 months), we need to ‘tighten our belts’ by several notches in the coming years.

We are told that there is no option other than to make massive cuts to social provision and welfare benefits, but these cuts can only lead to ever greater rounds of redundancies in both the public and private sectors. People who currently work providing services in the public sector will lose their jobs, and many more people who provide them with goods and services will follow. All of which will take even more demand out of the economy, leading to still further lay-offs, and exacerbating and deepening the crisis we’re allegedly recovering from.

In fact, like the phoney war in 1939, the effect of the crisis has hardly been felt yet by most British workers. The true extent and impact of the cuts in jobs, housing and benefits, cuts in education, health care, child care and provision for the elderly, as well as cuts in pay and pensions, combined with the devaluation (through printing of money and inflation) of the pay, pensions and savings we do still get, are yet to be revealed.

Moreover, in their desperation to find and hold onto sources of profit and vital raw materials abroad, unjust imperialist wars are only set to increase; wars that will waste huge amounts of material resources and millions more precious lives. The US, Britain and Israel have made it clear that they would like to attack Iran, which has the cheek to pursue an independent policy. North Korea is also high on the hit list. China and Russia are the main targets long term, possessed as they are of massive resources, and standing as they do in the way of unfettered imperialist looting of large parts of the world. And, as the crisis deepens and competition over sources of profits increases, the chances of war between rival imperialists or groups of imperialists will only get higher.

It is clear that we are on the edge of a downward spiral, the effects of which will be many times more severe than most people in Britain currently imagine.

Labour the main enemy at present

Over the last 13 years, the Labour party has ramped up racist hysteria and anti-immigrant legislation (which only exists to give workers the impression that immigration is ‘a problem’) to unprecedented levels. Alongside this, and in order to justify its wars against the people of the Middle East, targeted repression of British muslims and the branding of entire communities as ‘terrorists’ has created a particularly virulent new form of racism, islamophobia, very similar to the persecution that Irish people have endured during their centuries of struggle against British imperialism.

And, of course, all this racism has been amplified a thousand fold by the corporate British media – from the Sun to the Guardian, from Sky to the BBC.

Anti-immigrant and anti-terror legislation, repressive policing and hysterical reporting have all combined to create a climate in which openly racist outfits like the BNP can thrive.

However much we abhor such overt and crude racism, however, we must recognise that it is the mainstream, ‘respectable’ parties’ insistence on scapegoating immigrants as a ‘problem’ and branding them as ‘leeches’ and ‘criminals’, as well as these parties’ continued assertions that muslims present a ‘threat to our way of life’, that have created this atmosphere and fooled many British workers into believing that their declining living standards are somehow connected with the brown people who live next door, rather than with the rich people who exploit us all.

Racism is an age-old tool used by imperialism to divide and rule. The twin problems the British working class must overcome if it is to build a strong anti-capitalist movement are the racism that keeps us weak and divided, and the century-old connection with the imperialist Labour party, which represents the interests of the capitalist elite and has nothing to offer the working class of Britain or the world.

Therefore, the main enemies of British working-class unity and advance today are not the thugs of the BNP, however disgusting these bigots are, but the criminal, racist, imperialist-supporting stooges of the Labour party. We do not need to be scared into voting Labour ‘to keep the BNP out’. On the contrary; getting Labour out of our movement is the first step towards overcoming and sidelining the racists in the BNP.

Approach to elections

Ultimately, the only cure for the many ills of capitalism – for economic crisis, poverty, homelessness, joblessness, racism, war, imperialist plunder and environmental catastrophe – is a revolution by working people that takes public control of the means of production and uses them to create a decent, sustainable, cultured and rising standard of living for everyone. And we won’t get that by voting in even the most revolutionary set of parliamentarians.

A Marxist-Leninist understanding of the state teaches us that it is necessary for workers, in Marx’s words, not merely to take over the existing state machinery with a view to wielding it in its own interests, but rather to smash it and replace it with the workers’ own state. Whenever the election is called, and whatever the outcome, the working class and its allies will be exploited and oppressed on the day before polling, on polling day, and on the days after. The election cannot make any fundamental difference to our revolutionary goals or tasks.

All the same, communists do not boycott all capitalist elections on principle. Instead, they view them as a prime opportunity to talk to people at a time when political issues are being talked about far more widely than usual. And parliament itself, while not capable of delivering meaningful change, provides one of many platforms that communists have a duty, if they are able, to use to expose the true nature of the capitalist system and of capitalist dictatorship (also known as ‘bourgeois democracy’, ie, democracy for the capitalist ruling class).

At the present time, our own party has neither the base nor the resources to stand candidates in a serious way during the coming election. To put up candidates under the British system requires plenty of money and a huge local machinery of volunteers for publicising and spreading awareness of the policies of the party, especially when you can guarantee that communist candidates will be ignored as much as possible by the mainstream media – and lied about the rest of the time!

That being the case, our evaluation of the coming election campaign is as follows.

Since continued illusions in and affiliation to Labour by trade unions and antiwar organisations is the major obstacle to advance for the British working-class movement at this time, we believe the main work of communists and progressive workers during the election should be to help shatter those illusions, certainly not in attempting to preserve some vestiges of them by claiming voting Labour can somehow help to diffuse the ‘threat’ posed by the BNP (which in fact stands absolutely no chance of securing more than one seat at most (and is highly unlikely even to get that..

It is not the BNP, but Labour that has spent the last 13 years locking up immigrants and their children in concentration camps, dehumanising and slaughtering millions of innocent people in the Middle East, Afghanistan and elsewhere, terrorising and demonising muslims and asylum seekers, removing our civil liberties and criminalising those who protest against these crimes. It is not the BNP, but Labour that uses ‘anti-terror’ legislation against peaceful protests and has given billions to the banks while slashing and privatising our public services.

But, despite all the publicity it receives, and the recruiting work that the Labour party and corporate media does for it, the BNP is not currently anywhere near to power. The real threat to working people right now is the Labour party. And the best way to explain that, and to keep people away from the BNP too, is to ditch Labour and become part of a real workers’ movement against the failed system of capitalism and for socialism – the only system that is capable of abolishing all forms of inequality and putting workers’ interests and needs first.

We therefore call for:

* No vote for any of the main, bourgeois parties, who are all as racist and pro-capitalist as each other.

* Workers should, however, consider giving support to credible candidates who stand against Labour and the other main capitalist parties and who they consider to fulfil enough of the following criteria:

1.Antiwar – a candidate who calls for a complete British withdrawal from Afghanistan; one who supports the struggle of the Iraqi and Palestinian peoples against imperialism; one who stands against British participation in any new imperialist wars (eg, against Iran).

2.Pro-worker – a candidate who calls for the repeal of the anti-trade union laws; one who stands against closures and privatisation of schools, hospitals etc; one who stands against making the working class pay for the capitalist crisis; one who stands for unionisation of low-paid migrant workers (whatever their official status).

* While single-issue campaigners (eg, around health care) might not fulfil all of the above, if they are putting serious pressure on Labour and highlighting an issue of importance to working people, they might well be worth endorsing.

In the north of Ireland, we call for a vote for Sinn Fein, as the most consistent and credible anti-imperialist force, whose struggle to end British occupation of the six counties has put Irish unity and independence firmly on the agenda.

Whether endorsing a particular candidate or not, this is an important time to get out and expose the racism of all the ‘respectable’ parties. At a time of heightened racism, it is vital that we explain to British people that it is capitalism, not other workers, that is to blame for economic crisis, joblessness, cuts in services, benefits, pensions and housing, privatisation etc.

With the bank crisis fresh in people’s minds and the prospect of a serious assault on workers’ jobs, houses, pay and pensions that all the main parties are openly offering to carry out after the election, there has never been a better time to get involved in the real struggle for workers’ rights: the anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist struggle for socialism.

And if you would like the opportunity to vote for a credible communist candidate at the next general election, then now is the time to join us and get active in building a party capable of leading a really effective, anti-capitalist, mass revolutionary movement.