Lib Dems steal Labour stronghold

[the Beast of Bolsover]

Lib Dems steal Labour stronghold
2003-09-19 07:38:11

Prime Minister Tony Blair's popularity appears to have taken a battering after the Liberal Democrats won the Brent East by-election.

Labour's General Election majority of more than 13,000 was destroyed by a 29 per cent swing to the Liberal Democrats.

Sarah Teather won the previously safe north London seat, once held by London mayor Ken Livngstone, to produce the first Labour by-election defeat in 15 years.

It was also the first major test of the Government's popularity since the war in Iraq.

Ms Teather got 8,158 votes, Labour's Robert Evans got 7,040 and Conservative Uma Fernandes 3,368 - a Liberal Democrat majority of more than eleven hundred votes.

There was bad news too for Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, whose candidate was knocked into third place in a seat where the Conservatives came second in the 2001 General Election.

Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said: "This is not just a big boost for the Liberal Democrats, it is a big boost for British politics.

"We have shown that there is no such thing as a no-go area for the Liberal Democrats.

"In Britain's most diverse community, we have shown that we can speak for every section of society and the Liberal Democrat message is one they want to hear and support."

Turnout was 36.4 per cent, well down on the General Election, when the seat was taken by Labour's Paul Daisley, whose death in June sparked today's poll.

Ms Teather, 29, becomes the youngest MP in the House of Commons.

Accepting her victory, she said: "This by-election has a message for all parties.

"Tony Blair, I hope that you are listening. The people of Brent have spoken for the people of Britain. They want you to listen. They want you to deliver.

"But there is no comfort in this result for the Conservative Party. They are irrelevant to constituencies like this.

"The tide may be turning against Tony Blair and New Labour, but the tide remains far out for the Conservatives in this country.

"The result is a vindication of the courageous stance that Charles Kennedy has taken on issues such as Iraq, but also health and schools."

Labour chairman Ian McCartney said: "We are very disappointed with this result. It is our first by-election loss since we were elected in 1997 and it is unprecedented in modern times to have come this far without a defeat.

"The backdrop of the controversy surrounding the Iraqi conflict, in its many forms, made this the most difficult by-election Labour has fought in the last 20 years.

"A disproportionate number of Labour voters staying at home was also a key feature."

[Marxist in Nebraska]

It is good to see the progressive population of the United Kingdom showing such disapproval of Blairism.

[Funky Monk]

Not really too suprised there. A by-election is a fine example to show discontent at an unpopular government, not reallly sure how much this will be repeated in the general election.

[ElRuso1967]

blair seems to be becoming increasingly unpopular among the working classes. This is shown by many british trade unions withdrawing their financial support they give to new labour, and it seems as though the number of strikes that are taking place seems to be increasing as well. I think that tony blair is the most right wing prime minister britain has had in a long time, probably even surpassing that ***** thatcher. Hopefully the public will vote for a more left wing party in the next general election :)

[Kez]

What has happened in Brent East is great news in terms of getting closer to opening the hatch for the **** Blair.

It is silly to suggest that labour votes are voting liberal now or anyone else. They are simply not voting. This is to be expeccted as Labour is still the working classes party. ONly 37% turned out, and this is not down to lazyness, this is down to being sick and tired of the bliar bunch.

the socialist alliance (being the bastion of the workers) got a measly 360 votes, had these votes gone into the Labour Party, they could have deselcted the Labour candidate, put inplace a socialist and he would have pissed all over the opposition. And this would have been mirrored by all those workers who are sick of the bliar beurocracy. The process of deelection and putting up a socialist candidate instead takes around a week, and the Labour leadership CANNOT not accept the choice, this is the power still given at local branch level.

instaed the sects got their way, got their 360 votes, and now a liberal soft piece of crap has become MP, im sure she will be the workers spearhead against capitalism....

let us not put faith into nice moderates and softies, but for socialists and those who want to make this world something else, a socialist world made for the people, not for profit

[stonerboi]

What a load of shit Kamo came out with.

The Lib-Dem majority over Labour was more than a 1000. Do you think that 360 votes the SA took would of made Labour win??? Get your math right before making comments like that.

I will agree with you that the Lib-Dems are right-wing opportunists who play left if city areas to get votes, but will play right-wing in tory ares to get votes. The Lib-Dems have no principles and in local government privatise like Labour and the Tories. Look at the Lib-Dems shit record in Scotland and Wales, once in power they are capitalist dickheads.

Anyways Kamo, why on earth should have people voted for Labour, they had some right-wing Blairite clone who parroted what Blair spews out.

Yes most working class voters stay at home now and even though I supported the Socialist Alliance candidate, I will agree that the SA was shit in the way they went around things. Just because the SA fuck up today, does not mean the working class should commit political suicide and vote Labour.

Labour is NO longer a working class party. The Unions are now ignored or worse vilified by the Labour Party. Most of Labours working class voters don't vote now. Most of Labours money now comes from wealthy business donations and corporate backers.

You make pathetic comments on the SA. Well where the hell was your 'Socialist' Appeal in the Brent election??? Nowhere to be seen as usual. Unless your group actually does something in Brent, don't go around and expect people to vote for that Labour ****.

Even the vetrens of that failed policy of entrism, Ted Grant and Peter Taffes Militant, now the Socialist Party have all given up on Labour. Supporting Labour now make no sense whatsoever.

What about Scotland, Kamo? Does your 'Socialist' Appeal urge people to vote labour against the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP)??? The SSP is stong and has seven seats in the Scottish parliament. If the 'Socialist' Appeal tells people to vote for a right-wing captialist Labour against the Marxist SSP, then your group has no right to call itself socialist.

The best advice for Socialist Appeal is to leave Labour; it is a the dying corpse of a right-wing and reactionary political organisation. Just lets leave this dying corpse to rot and hopefully someday the labour party will cease to exist.

[YKTMX]

I'm glad Labour got beat, but I really, REALLY hate the Liberal Democrats. Even their name makes my skin crawl. Charles Kennedy is the a decent mainstream politician but his party are the worst kind of spineless, souless rubbish this side of New Labour.

[Kez]

oh dear...

please read my posts, i said that had the SA voters ENTERED the labour party (instead of voting for labour, which was of no use anyway) then they could have DESELECTED the blairite ****, and put instaed a socialist candidate who would have wipeed the floor clean with the opposition

As for Ted Grant giving up on entryism, he founded and although isnt the editor of the Socialist Appeal journal anymore he is still a respected figure in socialist appeal, so please get your facts correct.

As for the unions, had you read what the left union leaders are saying, such as tony woodley, Jeremy Dear etc etc they are all telling their workers to reclaim labour. Not to say this is enough, we need socialist leaders, not nice left ones, but its a start

Just coz idiots such as Crow shout loud and get publicity doesnt mean they are the voice of the workers, the guys a nut.

[Funky Monk]

You think a scoialist leader would get elected?!?!?!

[kylie]

The Liberal Democrats stopped the city i live near declaring itself opposed to invading Iraq. For the first time in Norwichs history the public seating in the council city hall was at full capacity, due to opposition to the war. So someone, i think a green party member, suggests a vote on whether to create a statement officially showing the city was not in favor of war. Of course the majority of people were for it. Except for the Lib Dems, who would not allow a vote to occur. No suprise really, it just shows thier true right-wing tendancies. They're oppertunists, and just as bad as Labour and the Conservatives.

[Kez]

had the Socialist Alliance people gone into the Constiuency Labour Party and voted for a socialist there, no-one NO-ONE could have stopped this selection.

Now, would this socialist got voted into parliament? i think he/she would. People are sick and tired of bullshit right-wing blairites, as clearly shown by scottish and welsh labour gains by going back to more socialistwing Labour policies

now, had we got this marxist mp in parliament, he/she would have been invaluable to a revolution, and at the question time would be able to unnveil the democratic system for the sham it is, (despite the many rightwing tendencies in media, govt, civil service) and this would be able to trigger off a mass shift to the left in labour MP's. The result in the short term would be the end of blair, but more importantly would be the platform for MP's IN PARLIAMENT to call for revolution

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

As someone said already, this is no suprise because of the way the Lib Dems "play left" in the city votes. But, to be honest, I'd prefer them to New Labour.

This results shouldn't have a massive effect on politics. The most we can hope for is that other parts of London may react in similar ways, showing their discontent at Bliar.

Kamo, you mentioned the turnout. 36.4% is pathetic for any kind of election. But you say this wasn't down to laziness but down to people "being sick and tired of the bliar bunch". Although you are right that people would jsut be sick and tired, I think you're being very kind to the people of Brent and the UK. About 50% of the 63.6% that didn't turn out would have not turned out through sheer apathy. "Can't be bothered to go to the voting station". As is always the case when we hear results of any kind at the moment, the turnout has to be talked about. What if the others had turned up?

Kamo, your optimism about voting in a Marxist MP is good to see, but a revolution would not have been caused by one Marxist MP. Besides, many people are Marxists/Lefists before they get into Parliament. I was told once by my Politics teacher that 4 Tory MP's were former Student Union leaders who led mass left wing protests!

Personally, my vote would have gone to the "Public Services- Not War" candidate.

[stonerboi]

Unfortunatly Kamo, all of what you say is nice in the ideal world, but will only EVER remain fanstasy!

Do you really think the Labour Party will EVER tolerate Marxist MPs?

No it won't. You only have to go back to the 1980s to look at what Neil Kinnock did to Militant (now the Socialist Party) MPs like Dave Nellist.

Dave Nellist is exactly the type of MP you would (and I would) like to see in parliament. Yet ask Mr. Nellist himself what he now thinks of the concept of being a Marxist MP in the Labour Party. He will now tell you that the Labour leadersahip will do ANYTHING (including using un-democratic methods to change the Labour Part constitution) to prevent any MP or Labour Party member for that matter from agitating from WITHIN the party.

Just saying that socialists should join the Labour Party and use the consituencies to bring in Marxist MPs. Well even if by some miracle they could select a Marxist candidate, he/she would face the following by the Labour leadership:

1.) It wouldn't suprise me if the Labour leadership (Blair et al) would rather ask people to vote against their own Marxist Labour candidate in favour of the Tories or Lib-Dems, because if Blair had the choice of a Marxist MP or a Tory/Lib-dem one, he will go fo the Tory/Lib-Dem one without thinking twice! Remeber ALL politicians (Lab/Lib/Tory) all do what those who fund their campaigns ask them to do. All the main parties are funded by BIG BUSINESS and the businessmen don't give a shit if its Lab, Tory, Lib-Dem, as long as the working class and Marxists are kept out of parliament.

2.) Even if by a HIGHLY unlikely chance a Marxist Labour MP got in, they would be immediatly EXPELLED form the Labour Party. They are already doing it to George Galloway, even though he is NO Marxist, just an opportunist who like to talk left for public support and being from Scotland is terrified of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) taking his seat and having a PROPER Marxist MP in place. The Labour Party expelled Ken Livingston in the 2000 elections for London Mayor, even though Livingston's mainfesto was in no way socialist and it wasn't even social-democratic. So even when mild social-democacy (and anyone who lived in Britain in the 1970s will tell you what a nightmare social-democracy was) is NOT tolerated in the Labour Party, how on earth are we to expect Marxist MP's to start springing up in the party?

It also very immature to now go with the "if you don't vote Labour, the Tories will get in" line. One the Tories are now so unpopular that even going against Labour will not really give them any boost. Besides, this Blair government is MORE right-wing than ANY Tory government and has done many of the things Thatcher has done, like seeing off the Unions (Thatcher in Miners strike 1984/85 and Blair with firefighters in 2002/03), Labour supports ALL of the Tories anti-union/workers laws, Labour hates civil liberties and thanks to Blunkett we now have a police state.

But Labour have gone FUTHER than any TORY government (hard to imagine, but.....) with it's far-right ideology.

*Labour wants to introduce MORE anti union laws including the banning of strikes in public sector jobs like the emercency services and the NHS (all of course in 'the national interest').

*Labour wants to sell off the NHS and the education system to private companies, something the Tories would of liked to do, but NEVER did in fear of the public outcry.

*Labour refuses to link pensions to earnings and supports compaines defrauding pensioners. The unemployed now face the abolition of the welfare state and will soon be left to fend for themselves.

*Labour is selling off council homes (in league with estate agents who buy up sold council homes on the cheap and then sell them off at high prices making a massive profit). The sad irony is that whilst Labour is responsible for pushing people on to the streets, Blunkett (Britains answer to Henrich Himmler) brought a law effectivley criminalising the homeless and now the police go around unrestricted persecuting and ARRESTING homeless people simply for sleeping in the streets due to the fact they have NO WHERE else to go. It was this government that put these people on the streets in the first place.

It is alright for these Guardian reader types and so-called socialists (most of whom are socially comfortable middle class people who have not been at the recieving end of the governments anti-working class offenive) like Kamo and his 'Socialsit' Appeal to say that people should vote Labour!

*Why should those Firefighters who have been RUINED by Labour, vote Labour?

*Why should those people who can't find any work because of Labour mismanagement, vote Labour?

*Why should those who have no home to live in vote Labour, when Labour is the one selling off council homes and keeping mortages high for comapies to make a profit?

*Why should ethnic minorities vote Labour, when key Labour figures bow to tabloid racism and court the BNP on the issues of racial equality and asylum seekers?

*Why should those unfortunate workers (like cleaners, service staff, shop workers and other non-unionised private sector workers) have to suffer more exploitation due to the fact that Labour has not and WILL not repeal the anti-union laws, why on earth should they ever vote Labour?

All these people mentioned above were natural Labour voters and now don't vote Labour. Most if not all will NEVER go back to Labour, the damage has been done (as with the firefighters, after the awful treatment they got from Labour, many firefighter said they will NEVER vote Labour again).

Kamo, you cannot go to these people (the working class) and tell them all to join Labour and vote Labour in order to turn it into a 'socialist' party. As I have just said, most of them are so put off that it is IMPOSSIBLE.

By telling the workers they have to vote Labour, your treating the working-class like cattle or sheep.

Very Stalinist (even more ironic as you claim to be a Troskyite). It is also the typical behaviour of little sects like the Socialist Appeal, who think they can boos around the working class on a whim.

The working class can think for themselves you know, as proved on many occasions like in Russia in 1917 and Paris in 1968.

Besides your group has BIG contradictions in it's whole political approach.

What do you tell Scottish voters?

Do you urge them to vote AGAINST Scotlands own mass workers party with a REAL socialist program (the SSP) in favour of a right-wing pro-business anti-union party?

Do this time answer the question as you have avioded it last time I asked you and this confirms to me that you do indeed think people should vote for Labour over the SSP, but are too embarressed to mention it in PUBLIC!

Also Parliament should only be used for Marxist propaganda! True socialists know that parliament is a capitalist talking shop used to quell and absorbe peoples demands and give capitalism the veneer of democracy. The revolution will ONLY come about outside parliament. Organised workers will achieve power through their day to day class struggles. Lenin himself said that whilst Marxism can use the platform of parliament to agitate and for propaganda, it will never in itself (through legislation or 'debate') overthrow capitalism.

A good example of the failed policy of socialism trying to use the parliamentary road to socialism is Salvador Allende and his Popular Unity government. If Britain had the same type of government as Allende's, then what happened in Chile in 1973 will happen in London as well.

Believe me if Labour could give us socialism, I would be the first to be with them!

But I cannot EVER see that being the case.

I mean what has Socialist Appeal DONE???

What have your group been up to since Blair got into office?

It seems that your group has been totally absent from the class struggle and the trade union strugle.

Even the so-called 'left-wing comeback' (this being the far-right Tory media's use of language), is just a pathetic social-democratic convetion with NO REAL aim of bring us a socialist alternative. The 'Give us back our party' conference in August was just a bizaare call for a return to Labour of the 1970s.

Well was Labour of the 1970s that great???

No it fucking wasn't. Wilson forced the Unions and workers into class collabaration and comprimise to the governmet and Callahgan took the IMF advice and cut back spending on social services and the public sector. 'Old Labout was the party that started Thathcer's crazed moneterist policy of starving the people of the services they need!

Lenin said that the UK Labour Party was a capitalist party with a right-wing leadership and a base membership of workers. Yet the Labour Party is designed to NEVER to give the workers any say in party policy.

Kamo, you say that just because Labour has workers in it's membership we should join it. That is a very shallow and un-Marxist statement, as the BNP is around 85% working class in it's memebrship. Shall we now try and set up a Marxist sect within the BNP vased on the social compostition of it's members??? That is where the logic of the Socialist Appeal can edn up taking us.

Before I go one point to make:

What gives you the fucking right to call a respected Trade Union leader like Bob Crow a "nut" and "idiot" you sound like a fucking TORY or SUN journalist! He is the genuine voice of the workers in his union as he was elected by them you ignorant little shit.

Ohh, but I forgot that you prefer right wing shits like John Monks who just use the unions to collect nice large salaries and tell the workers to commit suicide by voting Labour. The Labour party is a parasite that uses workers to keep it in power and use it's office for politicans to have a first-class lifestlyes at our expense whilst we all suffer.

More to the point is your group (or shall i say sect) the voice of the workers, or is it (and most probably is) a bunch of middle class liberals and reformists who think that socialism is 'old labour' and that we should have a Wilson government that bashes the unions around and fucks the workers.

Your group thinks the need of the Labour Party (or any party for that matter) should be put first ahead of the workers. Socialism and Marxism state that the party is tied to the workers needs and that if necessary, that party can be dumped if the workers don't like it's performance.

It is obvious from your amny statements that you either don't follow Lenin or have never heard of him. Either way it makes a mockery of your claim to be a socialist and a Marxist.

Labour have proved beyond doubt that they are not worth the fucknig effort. The sooner they go the BETTER!!!

[Collective]

And that, ladies and gentlmen, is why ultra-leftist Trotskyites have never achieved anything around the world.

[Kez]

stonerboi, for crying out loud mate, read up on what you talk about.... saves me wasting time repeating myself

the reason entryism is the solution in the situation of today is clear, the workers are still in labour, last time i check there had not been a massive member boost to the CP of 200,000....therefore as marxists we must make every effort to be in the workers in every mass organisation be it trade unions, students unions, or political parties...

What happeneed in the 80's with militant cannot be repeated, You cannot be expelled in such a manner in anyway now, due to legislation which comes from the fact u cannot be unfairly dismissed from work etc...

On your first point, what difference does it make to the working class and marxists what blair thinks of marxists, when we have our way the bastards will be on the dole queue

ur 2nd point is a repeat and i have already covered that we cannot be expelled either legally, or physically if we can convince more workers to marxism.

Labour are not more right wing than the Tories, Blair and his clique is, which is why it is so fucking important to boot the cunnt out, rather than quiting and letting the Tory bastard take over our party.

thank you for stereotyping me, but i dont read the guardian as it is bullshit..

also im impressed that u think u can tell what class i am from, by sitting in front of ur computer, genius...

"Kamo, you cannot go to these people (the working class) and tell them all to join Labour and vote Labour in order to turn it into a 'socialist' party. As I have just said, most of them are so put off that it is IMPOSSIBLE."
Ive already done it, and im only 18....so maybe you should get the fuck up and do some real talking and then find out...

"Very Stalinist (even more ironic as you claim to be a Troskyite). It is also the typical behaviour of little sects like the Socialist Appeal, who think they can boos around the working class on a whim."
who is doing bossing? have u seen a socialist appeal comrade with a chunk of iron going round unions telling them to join or meet his/her wrath? i doubt it... please explain your "points"

On the question of Scotland, how many members has labour got? how many has SSP got? who are the unions linked to? i hope u can answer ur own questions...
im not embarresed of answering anything, i just dont see the point of answering some sect loving fool...

On the question of parliament you show your real colours in being a dogmatic fool, who do you listen to???
Surely we should take power by whatever means neccessary? be it by parliament or by the gun...
Parliament would only be used to as a platform for marxist propaganda, eg Pakistan, Mahmood Anzar (sp) elected Marxist MP from our international was elected into parliament, within the space of a year he has turned 2 other MP's into marxists, now these 3 have the platform to shout to the masses the voice of marxism, which is almost as good as people good as you who spew shit from "www.dailysecterianbollox.org.uk
I like your near ending where u say u havent heard of lenin or sum shit...when clearly it was lenin who said that theoretically we should be strong and not opportunist, but organisationally we should be flexible...seems some1 only learns the slogans thrown at him....

"Labour have proved beyond doubt that they are not worth the fucknig effort. The sooner they go the BETTER!!!"
hmmm, another well thought out post, the sooner they go, and quicker the tories get in....another victory for the masses it seems hey?

also please dont call me socialistappeal a secct when you dont know the meaning of the word...

As for u ****lective....The trotskysits have done nothing? have u forgotten who the leader of the red army was? idiot

However, no1 has forgotten what the stalinists have done , in quelling each workers revolution from portugal and spain, all the way to iran the stlainists did their best to smash the workers struggle. viva stalin....you twat

[Scottish_Militant]

The Militant tendency acheived nothing?? Get your facts right, read up on your history before you talk rubbish. Also 'ultra-left' means that you refuse to work in unions/social democratic mass orgs, that is the very basics of socialism Collective, I thought you would have known that....

[Scottish_Militant]

A few months ago I had a good discussion with SSP members and others here (http://www.tmfife.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=politics;action=display;num=10570561 21). Most, if not all of Stonerboi's points were brought up, I suggest you read it so I don't need to repeat myself.

[Collective]

As for u ****lective....The trotskysits have done nothing? have u forgotten who the leader of the red army was? idiot

However, no1 has forgotten what the stalinists have done , in quelling each workers revolution from portugal and spain, all the way to iran the stlainists did their best to smash the workers struggle. viva stalin....you twat

Haha. While the evil 'stalinists' are leading revolutions and socialist states involving well over 1 billion people the 'Trots' are still arguing over...well just about everything actually. Keep it up lads. From Beijing to Havana to the jungles of Colombia to the mountains of Nepal you'll always be a source of amusement to us all.

[Scottish_Militant]

The biggest 'revolution' lead by Stalinites was Hitlers rise to power mate, and you aint gonna tell me you are proud of that surely?

Were the Stalinists laughing in 1956 when the workers and communists of Hungary toppled the giant statue of Stalin and smashed it into billions of peices :rolleyes:

[Collective]

Its not about Stalin. The ruling class, assorted ultra-leftists and their allies pursue their anti-communist, formerely anti-soviet, agenda under the cover of opposing stalinism - by which they mean Marxism-Leninism. Many people you'd label as 'stalinist' aren't fans of old JV himself but they aren't members of one of the menshevik worshipping cults either. "Stalinists", by which we mean Marxist-Leninists or Communists, are the people who have led revolutions and movements since that glorious october. They continue to do so because they are pragmatists and realists, interested in the business of fighting for socialism not in spending their time arguing over theory, misunderstanding it and then not even putting it into practice. Theory is important but so is practice. Communists strike the balance, Trots forget to actually put their money where their mouth is. Idealists and ultra-leftists the lot of them. Waiting for their perfect revolution which will never come.

That is why they've never held any influence in Britain. There was a famous quote that went along the lines of 'communist policy today, labour policy tomorrow' in the 70's. Communists built considerable influence in the labour movement and led many sections of it. They led the anti-fascist and unemployed movements in the 30's. They greatly helped in Britain's contribution to fighting in the Spanish war and championed in the peace movement. Despite the setbacks of the 90's Communists in Britain today are rebuilding that. Look at the sterling work done by the CP in the Stop The War Coalition. Look at the sales of the Morning Star. Slowly but surely Communist influence is growing and when we return to the days of 'communist policy today, labour policy tomorrow' the Trots will still be splitting and moaning.

And there is a good example of the fundamental difference between Communists and the ultra-left. Papers. Look at the papers of the various sects, such as the Weekly Worker or Liberty. They spend all their time attacking and arguing about the self-perpetuating world in which they live. Moaning about the CPB or SWP or the BLT they bought that morning. Then look at the Morning Star - generally accepted as being a Communist paper becuase of its support for the British Road To Socialism. It covers actual news, is published daily to tens of thousands of readers, is written and read by trade unionists, socialists, labour party members, Greens, Communists, peace campaigners, pensioners. It is supported by almost every union and acts as a newspaper reaching many with progressive views not attacking the rest of the left. That symbolises the fundamental difference and the reason why it has a growing readership that far outweighs any independent publication in the country. But more than that it demonstrates how Communists will continue to work for socialism and the ultra-left will live in the its own closed world of irrelevance and shady dry cleaning businesses.

Maybe its because I'm not all that articulate that I can't explain it too well, but I can just by looking at them see the real difference between Communists and ultra-leftists. They just aren't realistic. They haven't ever gotten anywhere and won't in the future. I don't know properely how to convince you except by telling you to go tomorrow and buy the Morning Star and then the Weekly Worker. Compare. Or go to 'stalinist' Cuba, so attacked by them, and see socialism in the flesh then go to one of their meetings and hear the nonsense they spout.

As Billy Bragg famously put it, 'which side are you on boys?'. I don't know about you but for me its not about seeming 'revolutionary' at any cost, its about revolution at any cost. I know which side I am on - the side of the hundreds of millions who are actually struggling for and building that better world not the cynical cults who attack that.

[stonerboi]

viva stalin....you twat

Kamo, you and I may not agree on a lot, but on Stalin I am right with you.

Collective makes a mockery of Lenin when he says that Stalin followed in the glory of the October Proletarian Revolution.

Stalin not only gave up on socialist internationalism and instead pursued a reactionary policy of Russian nationalism and endlessly in his propaganda elevated Tsarist tyrants like Ivan 'the terrible' and Peter Romanov, the so-called 'Peter the Great'.

Stalin co-operated with Hitler from 1939-41 and did not really care for Germany's Marxists as he told them to fight the social democrats BEFORE the Nazis. Yes the social democrats were anti-working class scumbags (remember they killed Rosa Luxemburg, crushed the German Soviets of 1919 and supported the Kaiser during WW1) but for heveans sake, the Nazis should of been the priority, but not according to braindead Stalin.

Stalin agian showed his lunacy and his paranoid sectarianism when he urged the Spanish communists to fight (more accuratly a slaughter, as the Stalinists mass murdered many Spanish Marxists) other Marxists during the civil war agianst fascist Franco. Despite creating the disunity in the anti-Franco side, the Stalinists use their typical resort of re-writing history and blame the Trotskyists and then says they were in the pay of the fascists. Typical Stalinist CRAP!

[QUOTE]From Beijing to Havana to the jungles of Colombia to the mountains of Nepal you'll always be a source of amusement to us all. [QUOTE]

Well well, Collective really it really shows how anti-working class and right-wing Collective is when he thinks that China is even socialist let alone communist. This being the China that slaughtered 1000s of people (most of whom were actually RADICAL MAOISTS who were agianst the pro-US pro-business Chinese dictatorship) and now prostitues itself as the leading free-market pro-US pro-Bush noe-liberal state in Asia! The sam Chinese goverment that crushes strikes ans workers and sells off just about anything to multinational comapanies is the same government that Collective thinks should deserve a place amongst the socialist famliy! What a dickhead!

It is no suprise that most of the ex-USSR, Eastern European, Vietnamese and Chinese Stalinst leaderships are now courting the free-market, global capitalism and Bush's America. Stalinist leaders never cared for the workers (hence they crush them in Germany 1953, Hungary 1956,) and only care for their own social status and power.

Stalinism is a system that arises when a workers revolution is isolated and then a class of civil servants and opportunist party memebers takes power and then crushes any attempt by the working class if they try and reasstert a workers democracy. Stalinism does NOT have ANY loyalty to the worknig-class, but to their own power and vested interest. Hence they see NO problem with co-operating with capitalism, like China does with the US and Stalin did with everyone from Churchill to Hitler!

Collective NEVER wants to see socialism in Britain and certainly will hate the thought that the working class could stage their own revolution in this country. No him and his shit little CPB want to trail behind the social democrats in the Labour Party and pick up what meesly crumbs they drop on the floor.

Collevtive moans at all the other groups (like the CPB can be called a party, with less than a thousand members they are only a third of what the SWP is today!) yet what has the CPB done in the last decade to help the working class? Nothing, it seems and their absolutly content with that!

Collective also has problems with understanding the English language so it seems. :rolleyes:

He label every non-CPB group as ultra-left.

Most of these groups he accuses are invovled with Trade Unions.

Ultra-leftism is applied to those who refuse to work with any organisations (trade unions, other left parties etc...)

Get your fucking facts right and don't keep bringing up Lenin when you have no fucking idea what Lenin meant in the first place.

If you want to get an idea of the right-wing politics Collective subscribes to (on top of his perverse love of the current Chinese tyranny) then look as his so-called sister parties in the USA and Iraq.

The CP-USA supports the Democrats at elections and thinks that somehow Al-Gore or Lieberman are going to give the US workers what they want. With groups like the CP-USA you can now see why communism us non-existant in the USA.

In Iraq the ICP is part of the US puppet regime (the so-called 'Governing Iraqi Council'). Yep the ICP, which supported Ba'athist slaughter of Iraqi workers and trade unionists and now support the colonial regime is lauded by Collective and the CPB as "the genuine vioce of the iraqi worker"), What Bastards!

The school of thought the CPB and collective belong to is one where instead of having a socialist or communist government in the Thirld World, you should have tyrannical dictators like Saddam Huessien, Asad in Syria and the Ayattollahs in Iran. Just because these Tyrant make a few statements on the US, somehow they deserve the unending support of socialists the world over. This is a leftover form Stalinism and Stalin himself did it with the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939.

With an outlook like this the CPB and all their other little sect and assorted Tyrants from China, have been a MAJOR help to global capitalism and preventing the workers form siezing power in many countries accross the world.

If you look at it, Stalinism and those that the likes of the CPB trail onto have done a better job at crushing workers revolutions than the CIA or the US military. Would'nt suprise me if the CPB is a CIA front anyway, the ICP and Chinese CP are backed to the hilt by Bush.

Before I depart, Collective make the LIE that any non-CPBer (ie; a Trotskyist of any sort) would welcome a US invasion or counter-revolution in Cuba or US invasions of IRan or Syria.

I hate all Stalinism stands for, yet I was opposed to Yeltsins takover in 1991 and the counter-revolutions in East Europe in 1989. I would oppose an invasion of Cuba and would offer myself to the Cubans to fight come such an invasion.

I aslo oppose naked agression against non-socialist state like Iraq and Syria. These two countries have fascist regimes yet it is for their people to overthrow.

No I don't support any US invasions and non of the other left-wing groups do. That lie cam form your narrow minded paranoid Stalinist head!

Lasltyyou accuse Troskyists of being 'too idelological'. Well you cannot have a revolution without Marxist knowledge and Theory is one of the main componets of socialism. But Stalinists like yourself just want power and to put the tanks on the streets!

[Collective]

History will absolve us.

[FabFabian]

Ok, I have a little request. Could you refrain from using the word "****" as a pergorative word. It really works my first and last feminist nerve.

As for Labour losing, that should not be a surprise. It also would not surprise me that Labour are not phased by it either. They are so smug in their majority position that they probably don't give a shit about some by-election.

Labour is all about that 3rd way crap. Blair, Clinton, and Chretien in Canada all subscribe to that ultra lite leftist but really conservative rubbish. They rely on polls and floating ideas in the press to gauge the public's reaction to possible policies. They have no guts because they so desperately want to be liked. What is that with these noveau lefties? Do Conservatives give a shit about popularity? No they just plow ahead anyway. Where are the leaders on the left? These middle class kids from the sixties have to be sorted out.

[Kez]

indeed these bastards needd to be sorted out.

but how? by getting out and letting them plough ahead? or by being a block against them, and kicking them out of the party?
cowards and ultra-lefts urge people to leave labour, this simply makes it easier for scum blair, and yet why do we continue?