British General Elections

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

The title and description say it all i think. Just curious as to wether people are going to vote 'tactically' or for the party they would actually want to see get in?

[Invader Zim]

I dunno, if their is a good socialist candidate standing then I will vote for them, if their isnt, then I will vote Lib Dem.

[YKTMX]

Well, it will be the first election I'll be able to vote in! I'll be voting the SSP obviously.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 06:50 PM
Well, it will be the first election I'll be able to vote in! I'll be voting the SSP obviously.
If they have a candidate standing in your constituancy... They may well not do.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Enigma+Sep 29 2003, 05:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Sep 29 2003, 05:57 PM)
[email protected] 29 2003, 06:50 PM
Well, it will be the first election I&#39;ll be able to vote in&#33; I&#39;ll be voting the SSP obviously.
If they have a candidate standing in your constituancy... They may well not do. [/b]
They stand in all constiencies in Scotland barring exceptional circumstances.

[Funky Monk]

Tory.


First time i will be able to vote also

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Funky [email protected] 29 2003, 06:48 PM
Tory.



Sticking with New Labour eh?

[monkeydust]

BNP - Just cos I think a vote for BNP will actually indirectly make all the other parties improve due to there collective worry that BNP might get more seats.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 08:06 PM
BNP - Just cos I think a vote for BNP will actually indirectly make all the other parties improve due to there collective worry that BNP might get more seats.
Be joking, please.

[ElRuso1967]

I cant believe that your gonna fuckin vote for the BNP&#33;

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

(Lenin24 @ Sep 29 2003, 08:06 PM)
BNP - Just cos I think a vote for BNP will actually indirectly make all the other parties improve due to there collective worry that BNP might get more seats.

As each party wants to get voted in, surely it will if anything make other parties MORE like the BNP?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What&#39;s the voting age? 16? I don&#39;t remember.
Well if I can vote then I might as well vote for the BNP, or any of the socialist parties, &#39;cos they ain&#39;t getting in, there was only one non-tory/non-labour PM and that was ages ago. (He was Lib Dem btw)

And also Leftist parties are generally as useful as a chocolate teapot, and hav he morale of damp tissue paper.

[Kez]

labour

[ElRuso1967]

why not just not vote at all? don&#39;t be a tool for the bouguiesie democracy to use&#33;

[crazy comie]

S.A

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 03:37 PM
labour
YOu have to be fucking kidding, they are the enemy. They are MORE conservative than the actual conservative party. No leftist in thier right mind would vote to keep that bag of right wing filth in power.

If you think that the labour party is actually the pro-workers party it once was, try reading their manifesto first.


How I hate them&#33;

[Scottish_Militant]

The right wing will be chased from the Labour party. Labour remains a trade union party, you say you&#39;d vote Lib Dems - blatant capitalist party&#33; Always have been... :rolleyes:

[Bianconero]

Bourgeois elections are useless anyway. I don&#39;t know how any Communist coulod take them seriously.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 07:41 PM
The right wing will be chased from the Labour party. Labour remains a trade union party, you say you&#39;d vote Lib Dems - blatant capitalist party&#33; Always have been... :rolleyes:
The right wing will be chased from the Labour party.

Before or after you have re-elected Tony Blair?

Labour remains a trade union party,

Are you serious, the Labour party spits in the face of the Unions, or were you asleep during the fire strikes.

Labour is not remotly left wing, and I doubt it ever will be again.

you say you&#39;d vote Lib Dems - blatant capitalist party&#33; Always have been... :rolleyes:

They are still better than fucking labour, and considerably further left wing.

Learn some politics.

[Scottish_Militant]

Enigma, maybe you should take your own advice here about learning some politics.

Trade Unions build the LP for parliamentry representation, the Blair clique do not represent the working class so they must be replaced, the unions have the power to do so and I beleive they will.

The key to the Labour party is the TU&#39;s, once we have a left Labour party it will become a breeding ground for Marxism once more. The Militant tendency in the 70s showed the correctness of this method.

The Lib Dems.....I mean, why??? :rolleyes:

[Bornagainlefty]

The Green Party

A vote for the Tories, Labour or the SDP is a wasted vote...they are all the same...you may as well not vote if you go for any of those. The Greens want the US out of England, no more bases, no more "Special relationship", no more NATO. Land reform...taxing landowners. Those two policies alone are enough for me. All they need to say now is " We will abollish the monarchy" and I will be a life member". :rolleyes:

[Bornagainlefty]

* abolish

[Scottish_Militant]

The Greens are a &#39;free market&#39; party though, and they are an irrelivant joke to most workers....

[Kez]

Enigma, i think the writing style of your post shows your maturity and your level of thought.

Had you been listenign to what the trade unions were saying insteaad of shitheaad ultra-leftist secterians you would notice even people like Bob Crow saying they will fight for labour

Then another example is Woodley yesterday fighting for labour with dedmonstration outisde, had we wanted to split the links surely he would be at home thinking of plans to split?

[FabFabian]

One suggestion to British voters....strategic voting does not work.

I think you should vote your conscience. If the Labour candidate in your riding was not on side with Toady and his gang of poodles, you should show your confidence in said candidate for having principles. If they are just a Blair lackey, vote green or communist or that silly loon party. The best situation would be a minority Labour gov&#39;t with the arrogance knocked out of it.

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

What about the socialist labour party? I meen are they decent, i must admit i dont know alot about them.

[RedAnarchist]

[B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][COLOR=red]

As i&#39;m 18 next February, it will be my first time to vote.

The only leftist party with a realistic chance of winning this time is the Lib Dems, although if the Communist/Socialist parties and the Greens formed a coalition they might have a chance.
As i&#39;m from Preston, Lancashire, the area is a left-wing, proleatriat-dominated area. I think that the main leftist voters who once voted for Labour will not vote for them again.

[YKTMX]

Reformist politics are dead in the water. The Labour Party will never be "reclaimed", I doubt whether it was ever a "workers party.

[Scottish_Militant]

The SSP are every bit as reformist as anyone else&#33; And by the way, Sheridans new tax system he&#39;s talking about is all about hitting workers hard, it&#39;s about as good for us as the poll tax&#33;

As Marxists our aim should be to reach the masses with our ideas, this is best done within the trade unions and the Labour party, simply denouncing reformism without explination will leave you standing on the sidelines.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 11:25 PM
Enigma, i think the writing style of your post shows your maturity and your level of thought.

Had you been listenign to what the trade unions were saying insteaad of shitheaad ultra-leftist secterians you would notice even people like Bob Crow saying they will fight for labour

Then another example is Woodley yesterday fighting for labour with dedmonstration outisde, had we wanted to split the links surely he would be at home thinking of plans to split?
Enigma, i think the writing style of your post shows your maturity and your level of thought.

The fact that you think the labour party is a workers or Union party shows you are just another traditionalist, who votes for the same party no-matter their policys, manifesto&#39;s or actions. You are supporting conservativism in the name of unionism, and no amount you insult me will alter that fact.

Just look at new labour&#39;s record in treatment of unions, it is a catalogue of back stabbing and humiliation. Yet you still seem to be under the impression that labour is pro-union. What do they have to do to get it through your skull? Out-law strikes? Arrest Union leaders?..? Not that they havent already tried that. In the Fuel strikes afew years, the strikers were told that they would be forcefuly removed unless they dropped their action.

Had you been listenign to what the trade unions were saying insteaad of shitheaad ultra-leftist secterians you would notice even people like Bob Crow saying they will fight for labour


Well I wonder who the firemen and postal workers will be voting for? Since as they are the ones being fucked over.

As to you point about some of the unions supporting labour, they support new labour, so they are just other pawns under blairs belt, the real left wing unions will not vote for blair.

the simple fact remains that Labour is not left wing, and quite frankly, is unlikley to never be again.

If you vote labour you are voting for a reactionary right wing government.

Just look at their policys, to punish aslum seekers, smash strikes, support free trade, etc etc.

No socialist would ever vote new labour.

Trade Unions build the LP for parliamentry representation, the Blair clique do not represent the working class so they must be replaced, the unions have the power to do so and I beleive they will.

And how do you intend to replace the vast majority of Labour back benchers and members to those who support socialism? Kill them all?

The key to the Labour party is the TU&#39;s, once we have a left Labour party it will become a breeding ground for Marxism once more.

Labour was never a "breeding ground for Marxism", and never claimed to be. It was a trade union party, now it has removed its support from the TU&#39;s it is little more than a second tory party which just happens to keep the name Labour.

The Lib Dems.....I mean, why???

Well mate, im not the one who advocates voting for tony blairs party.

Why dont you vote UK independance party, or conservative, its not like new labour is any different.

Also I wish that you would learn to read, I said I would: - "a good socialist candidate standing then I will vote for them."

Now go back to your right wing chums in the Labour party, and get out my face.

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 12:52 PM
I cant believe that your gonna fuckin vote for the BNP&#33;
Nah I was just joking. The fact is in my constituency the tories always win significantly but the fact remains that Britains far from a democracy when the only 3 realistic parties for government have such similar overall policies. It seem to me that recently the majority of people are unhappy with the majority of what the goverment has been doing and this has been the case for quite a while.

[El Commandante]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 11:12 AM
Reformist politics are dead in the water. The Labour Party will never be "reclaimed", I doubt whether it was ever a "workers party.
Sorry but I really disagree with you - if you look at the pre-WWII Labour party then they were most definately a workers&#39; party. You need to examine their history - the Chartist movement for the 1830s which was the first solely working class movement formed in objection to the 1832 &#39;Great&#39; Reform Act which did nothing to improve the position for the working classes.


The original Labour party bares no comparison to this Blairite monstrosity. Keir Hardy (first ever Labour MP) would be turning in his grave if he saw the state of the party today.

New Labour = Conservatism and nothing else


Even as late as 1983 the Labour party were still left wing socialist - with the likes of Foot in charge of the party the manifesto. This manifesto included the explusion of American soldiers, the closing of the nuclear arsenal and also the introduction of a minimum wage with a large role for the unions. This gained much support with the trade unions but was not greatly successful with the media. Anyway even then the party was Left wing but with the taking over of the party by Smith and then Blair the Labour party has been sodomised to a state that it is no longer recogniseable.

[Funky Monk]

Well done, a Lancy Lad.

Who is it that is saying that Labour was never a workers party? Are they mad?

Personally i think New Labour is safe for some time.

And secodnly i would like to take issue with the person who complained about strategic voting. It was instrumental in denying the Tories votes in the 97 election.

[FabFabian]

Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but aren&#39;t the Libdems created out of a bunch of dissatisfied Labour people?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by El Commandante+Oct 1 2003, 08:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Commandante @ Oct 1 2003, 08:54 PM)
[email protected] 1 2003, 11:12 AM
Reformist politics are dead in the water. The Labour Party will never be "reclaimed", I doubt whether it was ever a "workers party.
Sorry but I really disagree with you - if you look at the pre-WWII Labour party then they were most definately a workers&#39; party. You need to examine their history - the Chartist movement for the 1830s which was the first solely working class movement formed in objection to the 1832 &#39;Great&#39; Reform Act which did nothing to improve the position for the working classes.


The original Labour party bares no comparison to this Blairite monstrosity. Keir Hardy (first ever Labour MP) would be turning in his grave if he saw the state of the party today.

New Labour = Conservatism and nothing else


Even as late as 1983 the Labour party were still left wing socialist - with the likes of Foot in charge of the party the manifesto. This manifesto included the explusion of American soldiers, the closing of the nuclear arsenal and also the introduction of a minimum wage with a large role for the unions. This gained much support with the trade unions but was not greatly successful with the media. Anyway even then the party was Left wing but with the taking over of the party by Smith and then Blair the Labour party has been sodomised to a state that it is no longer recogniseable. [/b]
You need to examine their history - the Chartist movement for the 1830s which was the first solely working class movement formed in objection to the 1832 &#39;Great&#39; Reform Act which did nothing to improve the position for the working classes.

The Chartist movment is not really an ancestor of the Labour party, and it was not formed as a responce to the 1832 reform act, it was created largley as a political movment to get the working class of Britain the vote and other equalitys with the Upper classes. Your statement is obviously wrong, because Chartists were campaiging as early as 1830, people such as Thomas Attwood attended the Birmingham Union meeting in January 1830, as I am sure you know Attwood was an infamous chartist leader. Only really the LWMA was formed inresponce to the 1832 reform act, but it could be argued that it was founded because of the collapse of the GNCTU in 1834.


But anyway, chartism and its roots were long dead well before the formation of the Labour party. But you are right in saying that the labour party was once a working class party... but it is just another petty capitalist party of right wingers and reactionarys now. So I find it shocking to see people still thinking its the workers party. All those who think it is should wake up and read the labour manifesto.

[Funky Monk]

The libdems were created when the Social Democrats (left wing Tories and right wing Labour) and the Liberals joined.

[El Commandante]

It was not formed as a responce to the 1832 reform act, it was created largley as a political movment to get the working class of Britain the vote and other equalitys with the Upper classes.

I disagree - the working classes had been campaignging for political change pre-1832 but it had been under a middle class banner - mainly the Birmingham Political Union headed by Attwood. But Attwood was purely out for his own gains and those for the middle classes. Once he had secured his seat for Birmingham and the middle classes had been enfranchised he had no desire for further reform for the working classes. He had only included the working classes into his movement to give the perceived threat of violence and revolution which would &#39;encourage&#39; the established upper classes to make reforms. Sadly Attwood had no ties with the chartist movement with the major radical leader being Daniel O&#39;Connor of County Cork.

I do agree with you though that the Chartist movement was designed to bring about political reform to create some sort of equality with the working classes but also had a social reform element to it. What I was implying by stating that Labour had it&#39;s routes in Chartism was that the points of reform that they proposed were so radical that they bear resembalance to those of the Labour party in the early part of the C20th.

[Kez]

i like the way people say they gonna vote liberal because they are "left-wing" when they are made from the most right wing tendencies of the Labour Party&#33;

the Labour party even Lenin said was a bourgeois-workers party, ie a party maded from the workers, led by the bourgeois.

Enigma, i find it really hard replying to you when you deny the facts&#33;

Try looking at the facts insteaad of pure teenage pubic anger, you state that the uunions are simply blairite lackeys...how is it then Tony Woodly head of one of the bigger unions brought out a demo against blair, FOR Labour???
Why is it the head of a the Journalists union is an out-and-out marxist??? why was it Sir Ken Jackson was booted emphatically out of the union???

no1 is saying it is easy work, simply it is the easiest work. if i had a choice between booting blairites out of the labour party and getting socialism back into the party, or getting a pathetic 300 votes standing in an election, id go for the former. Why?? because its the easiest canal for socialist revolution.....

now, go back and talkto your insignificant SWP comrades and wank over the CP for being brave and sticking it out....(out of the workers movement)

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 2 2003, 05:02 PM
It was not formed as a responce to the 1832 reform act, it was created largley as a political movment to get the working class of Britain the vote and other equalitys with the Upper classes.

I disagree - the working classes had been campaignging for political change pre-1832 but it had been under a middle class banner - mainly the Birmingham Political Union headed by Attwood. But Attwood was purely out for his own gains and those for the middle classes. Once he had secured his seat for Birmingham and the middle classes had been enfranchised he had no desire for further reform for the working classes. He had only included the working classes into his movement to give the perceived threat of violence and revolution which would &#39;encourage&#39; the established upper classes to make reforms. Sadly Attwood had no ties with the chartist movement with the major radical leader being Daniel O&#39;Connor of County Cork.

I do agree with you though that the Chartist movement was designed to bring about political reform to create some sort of equality with the working classes but also had a social reform element to it. What I was implying by stating that Labour had it&#39;s routes in Chartism was that the points of reform that they proposed were so radical that they bear resembalance to those of the Labour party in the early part of the C20th.
I disagree - the working classes had been campaignging for political change pre-1832 but it had been under a middle class banner - mainly the Birmingham Political Union headed by Attwood. But Attwood was purely out for his own gains and those for the middle classes.

Hardly, why would he have been a major contributer and leader of the LWMA, which campained workers to gain the vote, hardly a middle class policy is it?

He had only included the working classes into his movement to give the perceived threat of violence and revolution which would &#39;encourage&#39; the established upper classes to make reforms.

That is an obvious falicy, as Attwood was a Moral force chartist. He was well known for attacking the ideals of the physical force chartists.

Sadly Attwood had no ties with the chartist movement with the major radical leader being Daniel O&#39;Connor of County Cork.

You have made an error I think, Daniel O&#39;Connell was the MP for County Cork, he was more involved with Catholic Emancipation than chartism. The leaders were, William Lovett leader of the LWMA with Henry Hetherington, John Cleave and James Watson. The other big leader was Fergus O&#39;Connor the editor of the Northen Star chartists newspaper. It could be argued that William Cobbett was a major leader, but it was really just O&#39;Connor and Lovett.

I do agree with you though that the Chartist movement was designed to bring about political reform to create some sort of equality with the working classes but also had a social reform element to it. What I was implying by stating that Labour had it&#39;s routes in Chartism was that the points of reform that they proposed were so radical that they bear resembalance to those of the Labour party in the early part of the C20th.

Yes I would agree with you on that to an extent.


Its been nice to talk to an informed individual, most leftists on this board dont know or care about Chartism. We must continue this discussion at a later time.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 05:39 PM
i like the way people say they gonna vote liberal because they are "left-wing" when they are made from the most right wing tendencies of the Labour Party&#33;

the Labour party even Lenin said was a bourgeois-workers party, ie a party maded from the workers, led by the bourgeois.

Enigma, i find it really hard replying to you when you deny the facts&#33;

Try looking at the facts insteaad of pure teenage pubic anger, you state that the uunions are simply blairite lackeys...how is it then Tony Woodly head of one of the bigger unions brought out a demo against blair, FOR Labour???
Why is it the head of a the Journalists union is an out-and-out marxist??? why was it Sir Ken Jackson was booted emphatically out of the union???

no1 is saying it is easy work, simply it is the easiest work. if i had a choice between booting blairites out of the labour party and getting socialism back into the party, or getting a pathetic 300 votes standing in an election, id go for the former. Why?? because its the easiest canal for socialist revolution.....

now, go back and talkto your insignificant SWP comrades and wank over the CP for being brave and sticking it out....(out of the workers movement)
i like the way people say they gonna vote liberal because they are "left-wing" when they are made from the most right wing tendencies of the Labour Party&#33;

Excuse me but if try actually reading what I said, rather than just attack then maybe I will take you seriously. I refuse to repeat my self again.

the Labour party even Lenin said was a bourgeois-workers party, ie a party maded from the workers, led by the bourgeois.

If as El Commandante says, chartism is the for founder of the Labour party, then it seems that Lenin knew very little about the Early Labour party.

Enigma, i find it really hard replying to you when you deny the facts&#33;

Why dont you try looking at the facts, such as: -

Labour is not a pro-union party anymore.
Labour Is not pro working class.
Labour is not Marxist.
Labour is now highly right wing.
Labour has crushed every Union which has opposed them so far.

They are the facts.

Try looking at the facts insteaad of pure teenage pubic anger,

If I wanted to talk to a condesending, patronising person I would go to conservativeX.com or protestwarrior.com I dont have to take that kind of Bullshit.

you state that the uunions are simply blairite lackeys...

Well if they advocate voting Blair that obviously they are. Its hardly rocket science.

if i had a choice between booting blairites out of the labour party and getting socialism back into the party,

But that just isnt going to happen though. The backbenchers will support Blair and "new labour" policys if they wins elections, that is what politicians do. The party will back him if he wins.

now, go back and talkto your insignificant SWP comrades and wank over the CP for being brave and sticking it out....(out of the workers movement)

HAHAHAHA, at the beginning of the post I am Lib-Dem voter, now Im a SWP voter. Whats up, are you like your party... incosistant as well as right wing.

Well you go off and vote labour, and when the Unions suck his cock for scraps, I will relish saying "I told you so."

:cool:

[YKTMX]

The SSP are every bit as reformist as anyone else&#33; And by the way, Sheridans new tax system he&#39;s talking about is all about hitting workers hard, it&#39;s about as good for us as the poll tax&#33;

Well, comrade, the SSP are openly campaigning for the abolition of capitalism, I hardly see how this can be considered "reformist". Certainly some of their methods and ideas are distorted and some cases reactionery but they are the only socialist party left who have any sway with people. And if you are referring to the service tax, I don&#39;t see how a tax on personal income can be compared to the poll tax.


As Marxists our aim should be to reach the masses with our ideas, this is best done within the trade unions and the Labour party, simply denouncing reformism without explination will leave you standing on the sidelines.

The Trade Unions? Yes. The Labour Party? No. The Labour Party will never again be anything approaching a workers party (as I say, I doubt it ever was). The Unions have little influence on real agenda setting, the constiuency candidate elections are higly bueracratic, and designed so that real socialists can&#39;t get elected. Marxists have been talking about "influencing" the LP for decades, with the MT the most obvious failure. The only way to gain influence for socialists electorally is to create a new broad party of the left in the UK, like the SSP in Scotland. That is the challenge of the left in the UK, not some half baked nostalgic notion of "reclaiming" vaguely left parties.

[El Commandante]

I believe that voting is one of the most important civic duties which any citizen can take part in, but the major problem with the system is that the voting system is biased against us. In truth are views are those held by the minority and as a result the first past the post system is designed is be damaging against representation for these views. To many this results in a system of apathy as there is a belief of isolation from the system and that their vote will not count. This is by far the most damaging possibility for the country because it needs to be examined who is actually vote (turnout of 59% in the last election) - they are typically over 30, married, white, male. This leaves a whole spectrum of the electorate not taking part in the electoral system - this is by far the most worrying aspect of the system. It is important to choose a political party to support but it is far more important to cast the ballot to make sure that our views are represented - just look at tuition fees. The government can pass this ridiculous bill because the parties do not need the support of the youth because ... they dont vote so they dont need to represent them.

And the government&#39;s solution to this massive problem ... citizenship lessons and possibly lowering the voting age to 16. Instead the government should propose some policies which are actually designed to assist the youth rather than oppress and restrict them. Just vote ... vote for anyone, it doesn&#39;t matter who.

[Kez]

Dissullionment is a bi-product of the Blairite clique hijacking the Labour Party, and this is why it is a bourgeois-workers party, ie it is led by bourgeois.

The worker cannot relate to Blair, as he could with the ideals of Labour, however, he is less likely to relate to SA (who have stalinist elements within them) or the SWP who are quite possible the most opportunist parrty i have ever seen, ultra-left AND secterian in their approach to the workers.

Face facts, SWP has 2,500 members (300 are active) SP had 6000 members in 1992, now has (it claims) 1000 members, and this "success" is due to being completely detached from the workers movement (WHICH INCLUDES THE LP whether u like it or not)

[YKTMX]

Your knowledge of the SWP is about as shallow as your support for New Labour.

[Crypticchronoclasm]

I am considering standing myself, if I can get the funds together for the deposit. So I will be Voting for Myself

[email protected]

[Scottish_Militant]

Why do the SWP and other sects refer to Labour then as &#39;New Labour&#39; as if they supported &#39;old Labour&#39; when they were actually still busy building &#39;an alternative&#39; (with no success....still)

If we are to use the Socialist Alliance as an example of building outside mass organisations then we can see this tactic is dommed from the start, they are absolutley pathetic - they even now contain an &#39;opposition platform&#39;&#33;

The Trade Unions can get rid of Blair and co who do not represent the views of the Labour Party, the recently defeated foundation hospitals bill proves this - the unions will get rid of Blair, this is not an overnight struggle as some people expect it should be.

The SSP have never declared they want to overthrow capitalism, more like they want to tame it. I hear nothing but reforms from them, whats the point in that? Why build yet another reformist party?

Also taxing on income wont hurt the very rich, it will more likely hurt people like me who work hard to earn what I can only for more to be taken off me to pay for some dole boy who has never even looked for a job and never will. Only socialism can sort those guys out so thats what i&#39;ll fight for, SSP can shove their school dinners up their...

[YKTMX]

Why do the SWP and other sects refer to Labour then as &#39;New Labour&#39; as if they supported &#39;old Labour&#39; when they were actually still busy building &#39;an alternative&#39; (with no success....still)

Well, I think the SWP would have at least advocated a vote for Labour in the past, as they were a much lesser evil to tories. Now as the two parties are indistinguishable voting Labour, or supporting them in anyway is totally counter productive and a betrayal of the working class.


The Trade Unions can get rid of Blair and co who do not represent the views of the Labour Party, the recently defeated foundation hospitals bill proves this - the unions will get rid of Blair, this is not an overnight struggle as some people expect it should be.

Foundation hospitals area good example. Yes, they lost the vote at conference, now what? Will Blair drop the policy? Ofcourse not, it will make even more determined. The whole ideology of New Labour is to do the opposite of what the Unions naturally want. As far as I can see, most of the unions will still be advocating a vote for New Labour in the next election, this is hardly "anti-Blair".


The SSP have never declared they want to overthrow capitalism, more like they want to tame it. I hear nothing but reforms from them, whats the point in that? Why build yet another reformist party?

It is the stated aim of the SSP to replace Capitalism with socialism. Ofcourse we can argue about how to get there, but that is a fundamental aim of the SSP, I can assure you. We need to build a mass party because the Labour Party are now thoroughly right wing, even the LP members round where I live are snivelling idiots.


Also taxing on income wont hurt the very rich, it will more likely hurt people like me who work hard to earn what I can only for more to be taken off me to pay for some dole boy who has never even looked for a job and never will. Only socialism can sort those guys out so thats what i&#39;ll fight for, SSP can shove their school dinners up their

Well, comrade. I know lots of people who "work hard" for their money and get fuck all reward. Taxes on income are the only fair way to tax people, it is also a progressive measure which every "socialist" support. And with all due respect man, that shit about "dole boys" could have came right out a &#39;Sun&#39; banner headline. And you&#39;ll be fighting for socialism a hell of a lot longer if you are fighting inside the Labour Party.

[Scottish_Militant]

So what you are saying is that there is no difference between a party with people like Thatcher, I.D Smith, J.Archer, Major, Hague and all the rest - to a party created by the trade unions who have a 50% vote in party policy, and contain socialists such as Tony Benn, George Galloway, Tony Woodley, Jeremy Dear etc (and thousands more btw)?

Surely to suggest that voting for the latter over the former is &#39;betrayal of the working class&#39; is sheer madness&#33;

Will Blair drop his foundation hospitals policy? of course not, will the unions sit tight and accept this though? Anyone who thinks they will is out of touch.

I wouldnt know anything about what the Sun say&#39;s as I havent read it for years, I&#39;m talking about my personal experience, guys living near me that have never worked a day in their life get every benefit going, I break my back working every day for f*ck all, and the SSP want more of my wages to pay for those bums, who as ive said, can only be sorted out under socialism.

The "new mass workers party" btw is used by the 20-30 tiny sects throught the UK, they misunderstand the fact that the masses in times of struggle turn to their trade unions which then reflects in the Labour party, this is the easy route to a mass workers party, but the leaders of the sects reject it because they want to lead the masses and play at being Lenin and Trotsky.

[Danton]

I&#39;m not going to participate in this farce, I abstain....

[Invader Zim]

[]So what you are saying is that there is no difference between a party with people like Thatcher, I.D Smith, J.Archer, Major, Hague and all the rest - to a party created by the trade unions who have a 50% vote in party policy, and contain socialists such as Tony Benn, George Galloway, Tony Woodley, Jeremy Dear etc (and thousands more btw)?
[/b]

Thats about right. You see Tony Benn, for example is no-longer an MP, so his opinons count for Jack shit. The people who make desisions in the Labour Party, are people such as Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Alistair Campell, etc.

The Unions know this, and they are basically sucking Blairs cock so that they can get scraps from the left overs of Blairs plate. The majority of those within the labour party agree with Blair because he is winning them elections, and they will continue to support him, or his successor.

Working class labour is dead.

Surely to suggest that voting for the latter over the former is &#39;betrayal of the working class&#39; is sheer madness&#33;

But your not voting for the Labour party of the 70&#39;s, you are voting for Tony Blair and supporting him.

will the unions sit tight and accept this though? Anyone who thinks they will is out of touch.


If they think that they can get his support then they are not going to do anything. You just wait and see.

guys living near me that have never worked a day in their life get every benefit going, I break my back working every day for f*ck all, and the SSP want more of my wages to pay for those bums,

Thats a very conservative attitude, maybe thats why you support labour. :cool:

[Kez]

u know what the shame is? that in a couople of years all the hard work put in by socialists for the SWP, SPGB, CP, CPB, SP etc etc etc will have all gone to waste as the workers anter the trade unions, and the labour party....

no point arguing over same points, just waitfor the results, i just hope fuckups dont claim they started the revolution, for their work carries as much wait as a piece of shit in a sewer towards the revolution.

[Pete]

How many people are in &#39;Great&#39; Britian? And how many seats are in the Parliment?

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 04:47 PM
How many people are in &#39;Great&#39; Britian? And how many seats are in the Parliment?
About 60 million. And I maybe be talking rubbish (no change there then) but I think that their are about 650 MP&#39;s.

[El Commandante]

I think that there are 654 parliamentary constituencies and each one votes for a Member of Parliament. The Speaker of the House also counts as having a vote in crucial votes where the vote is almost equal but it is on very rare occassions that this is necessary. The number of MPs varies depending on the number of members in each constituency - they try to keep it at 70,000 for equal representation so some constituencies that are lacking in members will be merged with others.

[lifetrnal]

Guys,

Take it from an American. The ballot box serves no use, except to absorb the anger of the masses. That is even more true for countrys like GB and the US where first past the post &#39;democracy&#39; is the way of things.


L

[Kez]

lifetrnal,
getting into parliament is a way of using parliament as a platform to spread marxism.
eg look at Pakistani parliament, our international had 1 marxist (i mean out and out marxist, not nice soft guy) now he has been able to persuaded another 2 into marxists.
From this platform they can spread marxism across the nation.
Pakistan now has 3 Marxist MP&#39;s and thousands of members of the party who are out and out marxists, all due to using it as a platform

Another thing useful for the parliament for marxists is to gain short term concessions for the working class, and at the same time show how empty this reform is, and that the only wayto guarantee it is by overthrowing capitalism.

http://www.marxist.com/Asia/pakistani_marx...peaks_out_.html (http://www.marxist.com/Asia/pakistani_marxist_mp_speaks_out_.html) (well worth reading)
http://www.marxist.com/Asia/yfis_pakistan0703.html
http://www.marxist.com/Asia/pak_mp_lambast.html (well worth reading)
http://www.ptudc.org/News/budget_2003.html
http://www.marxist.com/Asia/pak_mps_tour2.html (well worth reading)
http://www.marxist.com/Asia/press_conference0603.html (well worth reading)

and more related stuff here http://www.marxist.com/indiapak.asp

[Collective]

We need to use the British parliament right now. The situation in Britain means that combining that with mass action and a mass movement is the only route. But we have no other aim in using western capitalist democracy than bringing about its destruction and seizing state power.

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

Can anyone tell me anything bad they know about The Socilaist Labour Party?

[Kez]

SLP is a reformist weak, soft, stalinist party, with a composition of an older generation of nostalgic people

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 12:22 PM
SLP is a reformist weak, soft, stalinist party, with a composition of an older generation of nostalgic people
Isnt that an oxymoron?

But I agree, we must use the parlimentary system.

I just think that voting for the labour party the way it is is a big mistake.

[Collective]

Normally that would be the case. But what is vital is the link with the unions...if we win the unions to our side, which is being done with the new &#39;left majority&#39;, we can win Labour to our side. As it stands we need to persuade the mass party of working people to adopt a socialist programme. In terms of parliament, we&#39;ll be successful when we have a left government consisting of Labour, socialiss and Communist MP&#39;s. That a long way off but taking Labour is a start. We work within mass working class movements...and the labour movement is just that, with the Labour party as its parliamentary arm.

[Kez]

collective i know we had a big difference in a topic b4, but here u are bang on

[Kez]

even CPGB people have this on their site, going against the leadership of CPGB
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/497/08-unavoidable.html

[crazy comie]

i think sa would be best to vote for.

[Collective]

That article is from a Labour party member...not one of the CPGB...who have lost the plot by the way.

If its a choice of Labour or the SA full of arguing sects like the CPGB or AWL, I know who most on the left will choose as the viable route to socialism each tiime.

[Scottish_Militant]

Agree with Collective. I think the anti-Labour comrades need to realise that we are not urging everyone to simply &#39;vote Labour&#39; it&#39;s more a case of good hard trade union work which will influence the party and kick out the leadership.

Its not called &#39;the struggle&#39; for nothing

[ComradeRobertRiley]

im not sure who to vote for (i live in Cyprus but still vote in England) im not sure who to vote for Green Party or CPGB

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2003, 12:06 AM
im not sure who to vote for (i live in Cyprus but still vote in England) im not sure who to vote for Green Party or CPGB
(i live in Cyprus but still vote in England)

You luck lucky bastard....

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Thanks Enigma, its lonely on this island though. Wanna come see me??
its 30C every day

[Collective]

CPGB?&#33; Argh. Are you mad man? They are a loopy little sect with like 50 members. Even though they hijacked the name, they aren&#39;t the communist party. They aren&#39;t even a party, just a &#39;provisional central committee&#39;.

Theres the real one reformed after the collapse of the CPGB in the 80&#39;s:

www.communist-party.org.uk

[ComradeRobertRiley]

oh really? thanks collective man, ill check out the site, nice one

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 3 2003, 07:51 PM
I think that there are 654 parliamentary constituencies and each one votes for a Member of Parliament. The Speaker of the House also counts as having a vote in crucial votes where the vote is almost equal but it is on very rare occassions that this is necessary. .
Yeah the speaker gets the deciding vote in the case of a draw however realistically he has no choice which way to vote. If I remember rightly he always has to choose to give a policy another reading in parliament. Or if its the last vote on a policy he has to vote the way of the government in power, or something along those lines.



I havn&#39;t read all of the thread but some people seem to be claiming that the labour party is as internally undemocratic as the tories. Admittedly its gone away from its roots of trade unions but internally theres still some democracy with ordinary members for example, the tories national policy forum only serves to advise the leadership wheras labours can decide policy. Having said that these days labour MP&#39;s cannot debate policy at the annual conference and it serves just to outline Blair and Browns policies.

[Smackingtosh]

Stoke Socialist Party

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2003, 12:28 AM
Thanks Enigma, its lonely on this island though. Wanna come see me??
its 30C every day
Ive been before, I went to limosol and Pathos (SP&#39;s?)

Nice place, loads of pirated music and porn though...