Elections UK: Left marginalised [Archive]

View Full Version : Elections UK: Left marginalised

6th May 2011, 23:51

Election results for Scotland (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/election2011/region/html/scotland.stm).

Election results for Wales (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/election2011/region/html/wales.stm).

Election results for Northern-Ireland (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/election2011/constituency/html/northern_ireland.stm).

Election results for England (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/election2011/council/html/england.stm).

The picture is pretty clear overall. SSP and Solidarity in Scotland face further wipeout and seems to be on par with the rest of the left throughout the UK.

The Communist Party of Britain (Morning Star) gets 0.3% of the vote, TUSC gets 0.2% of the vote in Wales (still doing better than the Monster Raving Loony Party at least!).

And if I'm not mistaken, the SPEW (running as "Socialist Alternative" in England) has even lost Dave Nellist, who has been Coventry councillor since 1998.

Surprisingly, Arthur Scargill Socialist Labour Party, where it participated, did often a lot better than the other left alternatives. The SLP ran no campaign and, for all intents and purposes, has no actual members.

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

6th May 2011, 23:57

can't believe tusc got lower than the cpgb! wow the british left is a real embarrassment.

6th May 2011, 23:59

can't believe tusc got lower than the cpgb! wow the british left is a real embarrassment.

CPB. The CPGB is that other club (http://cpgb.org.uk) ;)

Zeus the Moose

7th May 2011, 00:03

IndependentCitizen

7th May 2011, 00:12

Labour
22 +13 523,559 26.3 -2.9
SNP
16 -9 876,421 44 +13

Don't you love western democracy, SNP got more votes, but less seats than Labour.

7th May 2011, 00:14

Don't you love western democracy, SNP got more votes, but less seats than Labour.

UK democracy.

FPTP is quite possibly the worst electoral system available.

IndependentCitizen

7th May 2011, 00:38

UK democracy.

FPTP is quite possibly the worst election system available.

I suppose the U.S is absolutely fair, as is the rest of Europe....damn..how did I not know that.

agnixie

7th May 2011, 00:39

I suppose the U.S is absolutely fair, as is the rest of Europe....damn..how did I not know that.

The US is FPTP as is much of Europe.

7th May 2011, 00:49

The US is FPTP as is much of Europe.

Actually, most of Europe has either representative voting systems, or some form of AV.

Dr Mindbender

7th May 2011, 01:14

Hey, you cant 'elect' a revolution anyways.

Tim Finnegan

7th May 2011, 01:19

Delenda Carthago

7th May 2011, 01:21

agnixie

7th May 2011, 01:32

I wouldnt say that the Left is (further) marginalised in the UK. The last year's demos show that. Matter of fact, there is obviously a connection right there. The parties cannot express the feelings and the dreams of the people that participated in those demos. Thats the point right there.

Btw, after December uprise in Greece, the Left came out really weaked election wise. Probably for the same reasons.

So basically a strong left of the street but not a strong party left - admittedly greece's left seems to be heavily anarchist and it wouldn't exactly be ahistorical to have a far far stronger anarchist left in Europe in general.

Delenda Carthago

7th May 2011, 03:39

So basically a strong left of the street but not a strong party left - admittedly greece's left seems to be heavily anarchist and it wouldn't exactly be ahistorical to have a far far stronger anarchist left in Europe in general.
Well, if you consider the fact that we have a Communist Party(which is more left than most CPs on the Western World) that is about 9% on national election, plus the leftist coalition of SYRIZA in 5%, the more to the left leftist coalition ANTARSYA in 1,5% and other communist and leftist parties that together gather another 1,5%, you see that there is not just anarchists around here.

On the other hand, you dont apply reality to your ideals, you bring your strategy to reality. If people prefer the movements over the parties, its the parties problem- not the people's.

Die Neue Zeit

7th May 2011, 07:38

The party-left in the UK is and has for some time been a total shambles. This just confirms an incompetence about which we were already well aware.

And, to be frank, I'm glad that Solidarity and the SSP did horribly. The former those two mewling lumps burn up altogether, the sooner the Scottish left can set about constructing something useful in their place.

So basically a strong left of the street but not a strong party left - admittedly greece's left seems to be heavily anarchist and it wouldn't exactly be ahistorical to have a far far stronger anarchist left in Europe in general.

If people prefer the movements over the parties, its the parties problem- not the people's.

Correction: Should read "electoral machine Left" and not "party Left." Where was the door-to-door campaigning, and where were the permanent campaigns between elections?

robbo203

7th May 2011, 08:21

Hey, you cant 'elect' a revolution anyways.

Problem is if people are not going to be bothered to vote for a revolutionary platform, how much less likely are they going to struggle for a revolutionary transformation of society in some other way?

Voting does at least provide a useful yardstick by which one can measure the extent of support for a socialist society (and you cant have socialism without majoriity support). This is where organisations like the SPGB are on pretty strong grounds vis-a-vis those on the left who dogmatically assert "there can be no parliamentary road to socialism" (see http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/Parliament_Pamphlet_update_09.pdf)

There certainly can be but this implies that the way in which socialist revolutionaries make use of parliament has to be totally different from the way in which capitalist parties use parliament.

While organisations like the SPGB are comparatively small and inconsequential I dont think anyone on the left is any position to dismiss anyone else on grounds of size . The collapse in support for the Left candidates last night proves this. Some leftist groups would make the SPGB look positively like a mass movement!

Point is now is the time to get the ideas straightened out, to figure out where we go from here and not to dwell obsessively on the negative and depressing fact that the total number of Leftist activists in the UK would probably have some difficulty in filling the football stadium of some second division football club

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

7th May 2011, 08:26

tusc campaigners did a hell of a lot of door to door campaigning where i live actually. they were far more than just paper candidates, they were very active.

Die Neue Zeit

7th May 2011, 08:38

I guess Scottish workers have had enough with the UK and voted for the party most capable of achieving independence. :confused:

I read a blog comment praising the historical role of the Scottish left in the international worker movement while lambasting English obstructionism (British tred-iunionizm and such).

Tommy4ever

7th May 2011, 10:40

@ DNZ:

A lesser emphasis on independence probably actually boosted the SNP in this campaign.

Labour's general incompetence, arrogance and disinterest in Scotland alongside Lib Dem suicide in Westminister and the Tories being Tories contributed towards basically all the SNP's gains. Whilst in 2007 and in 2003 the Left wing parties had polled much, much better their losses didn't really make much of a difference at all to SNP's victory.

We now seem pretty much guarunteed a refendum on independence - most polls show that this is rather unlikely to result in a Yes vote.

caramelpence

7th May 2011, 11:23

Actually, most of Europe has either representative voting systems, or some form of AV.

No, no European country has AV. Maybe you are thinking of France, which uses a two-ballot system, i.e. a run-off system, because AV is sometimes called instant-run-off?

I guess Scottish workers have had enough with the UK and voted for the party most capable of achieving independence

Nope, talking out of your ass again, the SNP did not really emphasize independence in their campaigning, and it seems unlikely that a referendum on independence would pass.

Serge's Fist

7th May 2011, 11:33

And if I'm not mistaken, the SPEW (running as "Socialist Alternative" in England) has even lost Dave Nellist, who has been Coventry councillor since 1998.

Dave Nellist's seat was not contested this year. However, Rob Windsor, another SPEW councillor for St Michael's ward in Coventry lost his seat coming second behind Labour.

Overall a terrible set of results for the left. But this is what you get with amatuer sect projects.

The Idler

7th May 2011, 13:18

How do the Socialist Labour Party do it?

A.J.

7th May 2011, 14:13

Is any of this really a surprise? The party-left in the UK is and has for some time been a total shambles. This just confirms an incompetence about which we were already well aware.

And, to be frank, I'm glad that Solidarity and the SSP did horribly. The former those two mewling lumps burn up altogether, the sooner the Scottish left can set about constructing something useful in their place.

I would agree with this. If either of these opportunistic social democrats had got any members elected it would have only served to re-inforce illusions about there being a peaceful parliamentary road to socialism.
From a strategical perspective a reactionary development that would have severley hindered the sometime future emergence of a genuinely revolutionary party.

Thirsty Crow

7th May 2011, 14:31

There certainly can be but this implies that the way in which socialist revolutionaries make use of parliament has to be totally different from the way in which capitalist parties use parliament.

If I got it straight, you claim that there can be a "parliamentary road to socialism".
How would you elaborate possible "totally different" use of parliamentary democracy on behalf of socialist organizations (against the backdrop of the total disaster that was entry into parliament for socialists since the beginning of the 20th century)?

Jimmy Haddow (SPS)

7th May 2011, 15:29

The Socialist Party Scotland (CWI) politcal analysis of the Scottish Election

SNP landslide – but it will be a government of savage cuts, by Philip Stott, 6 May 2011

The Scottish National Party (SNP) has won the elections to the Scottish parliament by securing an unprecedented 69 MSPs, an increase of 23 on 2007, gaining an overall majority. This is the first time any party has been able to hold more than half the 129 seats in the Scottish parliament since its establishment in 1999.

The SNP’s share of the vote was 45.4% (+12.5%) in the constituencies and 44.1% (+13%) in the regional lists. This is the biggest vote ever for the nationalists and was achieved largely due to the collapse of the votes of the Con-Dem parties in Scotland. Between them the Tories (-3%) and LibDems (-8%) lost 11% of their constituency vote, almost all of this went to the SNP. The Lib Dems in particular were mauled, losing 11 MSPs and ending-up with just 5.

The swing to the SNP meant that although the Labour vote did not collapse, the SNP won scores of seats in former safe Labour areas. For the first time ever the SNP have won a majority of seats in Glasgow, Lanarkshire and across the central belt of Scotland. Every seat in north east Scotland, including those in Dundee and Aberdeen were won by the SNP. Five of the six Edinburgh seats as well. While in the past, the nationalists were restricted to wining first-past-the-post seats in the more rural parts of Scotland. They now hold 53 of the 73 local constituencies - a huge gain of 32 seats from the 21 they won in 2007. They also picked up 16 seats on the PR based regional lists.

The SNP’s historic victory was a result of a number of factors. Alex Salmond’s minority government postponed the bulk of the spending cuts until after the election to try to avoid being fully exposed as a government of cuts. The £600 million cuts to the Scottish budget as a result of the June 2010 emergency Con-Dem were put-off and wrapped up in the £1.3 billion cuts for 2011-12 voted through by the SNP, the Lib Dems and the Tories in February. This meant that a majority of these cuts have still to be fully felt. The SNP will now, however, attempt to use their parliamentary majority to attempt to carry through the deepest and most savage spending cuts in decades. Their plan is to pass on the Con-Dem austerity and axe £3.3 billion from jobs and public services in Scotland over the next four years.

Ironically, with a Con-Dem government in power in Westminster, many people will have voted SNP as a protection from the cuts that are looming like a tsunami over the jobs, benefits and wages of millions of people in Scotland. In reality this new SNP government will arouse mass opposition if they attempt to implement the Tory cuts on the working class communities across Scotland.

The SNP re-built a significant electoral base in Scotland from the late 80’s on, as a radical nationalist party positioned to the left of Labour. While they moved to the right and in a more neo-liberal economic direction during the nineties and the noughties, they have still maintained the veneer of radicalism

To an extent the support for the SNP in this election was based on the carrying through of some relatively progressive policies from 2007 - 2011, including the freezing of council tax, the ending of prescription charges, the abolition of the back-loaded tuition fees and the reversal of plans to close A and E services at hospitals. For a layer of people, the SNP are still seen as a more radical alternative to Labour. This reflects the potential for the development of a new mass workers party, especially as the SNP will now be exposed in a way that did not happen in their first 4 year term.

Labour’s catastrophe

If the election was a triumph for the SNP, it was a catastrophe for Labour. Bad enough was the overall loss of 7 seats, but worse, and more significant, was the loss of 20 first-past-the-post seats, leaving Labour with only 15 MSPs from a possible 73 available constituency seats. It was only the top-up section of the regional vote that allowed Labour to retain a total of 37 MSPs overall.

It’s an open question as to whether they can ever recover from their worst result in Scotland in 80 years. Added to a pitiful campaign, which began by stealing the SNP policies on the freezing of the council tax, opposition to any form of graduate tax or tuition fees and prescription charges, Labour were undermined again and again by the weakness of their leader, Iain Gray, compared to the populist oratory and debating skills of the SNP leader Alex Salmond. With virtually no policy differences, except on independence and a referendum, the outcome of the election came down for many between a choice between Gray and Salmond as First Minister. A contest that could have only one winner. This was reinforced by Labour’s incapability of exposing the SNP over their spinelessness over the cuts – because Labour support austerity and are making deep cuts as well. In the run-up to the 2010 Westminster elections Labour promised to make cuts even deeper than Thatcher’s.

Iain Gray has indicated he will resign as Labour leader after the summer. Who replaces him is unclear. Labour have also lost many of their “leading” MSPs. The new crop of Labour MSPs, are widely seen as the “third eleven” - totally inexperienced and devoid of any real connection with the trade unions and the working class. As such they will also reinforce Labour’s long term decline as a political force in Scotland. The outcome of the election underlines the analysis of the Socialist Party Scotland and the CWI that Labour is no longer seen as a party of the working class by big sections, especially of younger people. Although it can still maintain an electoral base as a “lesser evil” as we saw in the Westminster elections in 2010.

SNP and big business

Following the election Alex Salmond said, “We are now the national party of Scotland – acting in the interests of all of Scotland.” But in reality Salmond and the new SNP government will be a party acting in the interests of big business and carrying out savage cuts. It was no accident that a series of leading business figures backed and bankrolled their campaign. This included Brian Souter, head of Stagecoach who donated £500,000 to the SNPs election funds, Tom Farmer, millionaire founder of Kwik-Fit and a long-term donor, George Mathewson, former Chair of the Royal Bank of Scotland and many others. The SNP have proved again and again that they are prepared to defend the priorities of capitalism – which is to unload the costs of the economic crisis onto the backs of the working class. The widespread support for the SNP by the billionaire owned press, including Murdoch’s Sun, the News of the World as well as the Scotsman, the Herald and Express groups and others, are also a clear signpost to the political direction of the new SNP government.

Independence referendum

One of the most important consequences of the outcome of the election, is the inevitability of a referendum on independence. At this stage, the SNP have only said that the referendum will be held “at some time over the next 5 years.” Moreover, in the last parliament the SNP advocated a bill for a multi-option referendum, including a vote for more powers as well as full independence. They are likely to want to adopt a similar approach towards a new referendum bill.

It is also likely that in the first instance the SNP will use their election victory to wrestle concessions on the Scotland bill that is currently being debated at Westminster. This bill proposes extending, in a limited way, the powers available to the Scottish parliament. But this election outcome will apply extra pressure on the ruling class and the Con-Dem government to concede further powers, possibly over borrowing and even control over corporation tax.

The SNP have been very careful not to “antagonise” the interests of the majority of the capitalists who are opposed to independence at this stage. Opinion polls indicate a minority of people back full independence, with a big majority for stronger powers. For the SNP a multi-option referendum would still be their preferable course of action – which, even if the independence option was defeated, would deliver extra economic levers to the Scottish government. As one of their MSPs, Kenny Gibson, commented, “more powers are an important staging post on the journey towards independence.”

Socialist and anti-cuts candidates

While no socialist/anti-cuts candidates were elected, the highest left vote on the regional lists was achieved by the George Galloway – Coalition Against Cuts list in Glasgow, which also involved Solidarity, Socialist Party Scotland and the Socialist Workers Party. This campaign, which stood on a platform of opposing all cuts, supporting the setting of needs budgets and standing shoulder-to-shoulder with trade unionists and communities fighting the cuts, polled a very respectable 6,335 (3.5%) of the vote. This was 3,600 votes short of seeing George Galloway elected, although it did defeat the Lib Dem’s list and came 5th out of 15 parties.

Alongside the Coalition Against Cuts, Solidarity also stood on its own in the other seven Scottish regions. As expected, Solidarity’s votes were very low and averaged around 0.2% - a total of 2,837 votes in the seven regions. The jailing of the Solidarity leader, Tommy Sheridan, earlier this year after being found “guilty” of perjury was a major factor. Many people, even those who supported Tommy, felt that it was a wasted vote to back Solidarity with Tommy in jail and unable to take part in the election. There is also no doubt that the public standing of Solidarity has been affected by the unrelenting campaign by the Murdoch press, the police and the legal establishment against Tommy Sheridan and other members of Solidarity. Also, without a presence in the parliament, the profile of Solidarity has dipped considerably since its high point in 2007. Nevertheless, the Solidarity vote added to the Coalition Against Cuts list in Glasgow (which also involved Solidarity) polled more than 9,000 votes for clear and principled anti-cuts platform.

The votes for the Scottish Socialist Party, who had six MSPs as recently as 2006, fell even further compared to their 2007 result when they lost 90% of their vote and all their MSPs. The SSP polled 0.4% of the national vote with 8,200 votes. Nevertheless, these votes also reflected support for a fighting anti-cuts platform. However, for the SSP leadership, who were instrumental in the state’s prosecution and jailing of Tommy Sheridan, and who believed they would gain electorally from having “told the truth,” this result was a damning public verdict on their criminal role and actions. An indication of their deluded belief that they would gain significantly in this election was the SSP’s boast that they would “push the Lib Dems into 6th place in Scotland.” In addition the Socialist Labour Party achieved a vote of 16,847 (0.8%).

Urgent task to build an alternative

The results for the socialist left were undeniably poor, with the exception of the George Galloway – Coalition Against Cuts list in Glasgow. The primary responsibility for having thrown away an important electoral position for socialists with parliamentary representation from 1999 until 2007 lies with the political mistakes and actions of the leadership of the SSP. It is a vital task now to work to rebuild a viable socialist and anti-cuts movement in Scotland.

With the election of an SNP government prepared to make huge cuts to jobs and public spending this task is urgent. Alex Salmond and his new government are demanding public sector workers accept year-on-year wages freezes – pay cuts in reality - as well as attacks on their terms and conditions. Tens of thousands of jobs in the public sector will be lost if these cuts go through. Services that communities rely on will be butchered unless a struggle is built to oppose them. The trade unions must organise national and coordinated strike action and quickly against the cuts, rather than accept the cuts. Working class communities need to be organised in the local anti-cuts campaigns and through the Scottish Anti-Cuts Alliance to oppose all cuts and fight for the a return of the money stolen from us to pay for the bail-outs of the bankers and capitalism.

As part of this anti-cuts struggle, that can spread like wildfire in the months ahead, a political alternative to cuts and capitalism must be built. Socialist Party Scotland will be advocating that the anti-cuts movement, socialists, trade unionists and communities work to build a fighting coalition against cuts that will stand in the council elections next year. To elect councillors who will refuse to make cuts and will stand up to the Con-Dem government in London, the SNP in Edinburgh and the councils who are wielding the axe across Scotland. This can be an important platform to help build a powerful socialist alternative to the parties of cuts in the year ahead.

Tim Finnegan

7th May 2011, 23:39

I would agree with this. If either of these opportunistic social democrats had got any members elected it would have only served to re-inforce illusions about there being a peaceful parliamentary road to socialism.
From a strategical perspective a reactionary development that would have severley hindered the sometime future emergence of a genuinely revolutionary party.
That's really not what I meant. I, for one, would be quite happy to see a Scottish reformist party roughly equivalent to the German Left Party, as the pre-split SSP was more or less intended to be; that we would later abandon it would make us no different that the Bolsheviks when they broke with the Mensheviks, to pick the most prominent of a great many possible examples. My objection to Solidarity and the SSP is specific, those parties exhibiting all the worst traits of the left- sectarianism, delusions of grandeur, providing platforms for petty demagogues- while monopolising almost all of the energy devoted to the Scottish party-left. No surprise, I think, that the increasing number of increasingly radical young people in the country have largely passed them by.

Rooster

7th May 2011, 23:51

IMO I think that it's not surprising that the SNP got a majority in Scotland. With the shambles of the left floundering around, it left little choice left for people to express their selves. While it might not be a vote for independence, it probably is a show for a change or an opposition to London capital. You could relate that to class awarness but I'm too tired right now to think about it much. I think it shows a dissatisfaction with the current system which I think has to be seized upon.

robbo203

7th May 2011, 23:56

If I got it straight, you claim that there can be a "parliamentary road to socialism".
How would you elaborate possible "totally different" use of parliamentary democracy on behalf of socialist organizations (against the backdrop of the total disaster that was entry into parliament for socialists since the beginning of the 20th century)?

Yes I think there can indeed be a "parliamentary road to socialism". However I dont think one can depend on this alone; it needs to be supplemented by other approaches.

I dont think the election of representatives of frankly capitalist organisations like the British Labour Party or social democratic parties elsewhere, parading as socialist parties is in any way comparable to a situation in which genuine socialist delegates would elected to parliament on a socialist ticket only, would be directly answerable movement as a whole and would in no way propose to adminsiter capitalism on behalf of the workers through the implementation of reforms.

The sole purpose of such a socialist party would be to enable capitalism to be brought to an end and, upon achieving this, would itself go out of existence

Many of the more detailed arguments in favour of a parliamntary road to socialism are to be found here

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/p..._update_09.pdf (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/Parliament_Pamphlet_update_09.pdf))

Triple A

8th May 2011, 00:01

See the positive side: the BNP lost 11 councilors (whatever that is).

I wasnt expecting the lib dems to be that massacred.
And the labour to grow that much.

Dumb

8th May 2011, 00:06

Voting does at least provide a useful yardstick by which one can measure the extent of support for a socialist society (and you cant have socialism without majority support).

This brings two relatively unrelated thoughts to my mind:

1. To what extent would you account for undecideds? For example, let's say hypothetically that 10% oppose a socialist society, 30% support it, and the other 60% can't make up their minds.

2. If a majority at the polls support a socialist society, then wouldn't it be possible for a revolution to get "voted in"?

Rooster

8th May 2011, 00:09

I can't imagine the coalition government lasting much longer sfter this and I have no idea how the future will turn out in the UK. The LibDems have been completely marginalised as well as New Labour so who does that leave us with?

Tommy4ever

8th May 2011, 00:12

Surely the Lib Dem lower ranks are going to rebel against Clegg? SURELY.

I guess they are in a tricky position. If the break free and force an election soon then they will be slaughtered at the polls regardless. If they wait 4 more years then they will be sent to oblivion.

At the moment though, the Lib Dems seem to be clinging to the hope that the economy will recover and they will magically become popular by the time the term is over ....

Until then they can play government.

robbo203

8th May 2011, 07:31

This brings two relatively unrelated thoughts to my mind:

1. To what extent would you account for undecideds? For example, let's say hypothetically that 10% oppose a socialist society, 30% support it, and the other 60% can't make up their minds.

I think the general view is that it would have to be a clear majority that support socialism before the switch can be undertaken. There is no point in trying to introduce socialism with minority support; it would be unsustainable. You need the democratic mandate - some sort of head count - to indicate such majority support not only for your own benefit but for those who might oppose socialism and seek to argue that it lacks that mandate. Seen from that point of view, there is nothing wrong as such with contesting elections and I think people who bang on about anti electoralism are making a fetish of it. How else does one count heads? Providing we can be absolutely sure that socialist delegates to parliament do not function in any sense as representatives in the sense of bourgeois representative democracy - making electoral promises to people if they vote for them - but are there for one purpose and one purpose, then there is no reason why the system cannot be used by socialists. Or in the words of the Communist Manifesto to "win the battle of democracy". The problem is not electorialism as such but the reformist policies for which people vote which leads to betrayal - you cannot run capitalism in the interests of the workers anyway - and the feeling that "parliamentary democracy" is a sham. It is but not for the reasons given

2. If a majority at the polls support a socialist society, then wouldn't it be possible for a revolution to get "voted in"?

Yes, technically I think this is quite possible. You need something to siginify the readiness of the population to go for socialism and to coordinate the changeover in an open and public manner. The electoral process does this. Try for a moment to imagine how else one might introduce a non-market moneyless socialist/communist economy? You certainly cannot introduce it via some vanguard deciding when the time might be appropriate. To quote the Manifesto again such a society represents the "most radical rupture" with existing property relations. That means the break with capitalism must be swift and complete. And that in turn is precisely why the electoral process is useful - as a means of publicly coordinating and signifying this break

Magdalen

8th May 2011, 12:46

How do the Socialist Labour Party do it?

To someone glancing over a ballot paper, 'Scottish Labour Party' and 'Socialist Labour Party' look pretty similar. I wouldn't be surprised if a fair proportion of their votes were a result of that.

Serge's Fist

8th May 2011, 12:55

To someone glancing over a ballot paper, 'Scottish Labour Party' and 'Socialist Labour Party' look pretty similar. I wouldn't be surprised if a fair proportion of their votes were a result of that.

I do think that is rather unfair. The SLP are a backwards still-born project but have been consistent in their electoral activity. The SLP has been standing in elections under the same name for over 15 years now. This is partly why it consistently beats the rest of the non-Labour left who contest elections under a new name nearly every election. We should also remember that the advanced sections of the working class, especially those involved in the unions and Labour in the 80s remember Scargill, remember the miners strike and vote SLP because of those experiences. I am no fan of Scargill but he is held in high esteem by many workers who fought with the miners in the 80s.

Die Neue Zeit

8th May 2011, 16:20

Perhaps the left should "enter" the SLP, boot Scargill out, and replace him with newer leadership. He seems to be a very poor man's Ferdinand Lassalle and Johann von Schweitzer to me.

Tommy4ever

8th May 2011, 16:54

Perhaps the left should "enter" the SLP, boot Scargill out, and replace him with newer leadership. He seems to be a very poor man's Ferdinand Lassalle and Johann von Schweitzer to me.

From the wikipedia article on them it seems a bunch of Stalinists joined and tried to turn the party their way before being expelled. That's just from wikipedia mind.

Jimmy Haddow (SPS)

8th May 2011, 17:22

An analysis by the Socialist Party (England and Wales)

Government Con-Demned at Ballot Box

The general election of May 2010 seems a lifetime ago. For the thousand richest people in Britain, whose wealth has increased by 18%, the year that followed has been a resounding success.

The number of billionaires increased from 53 to 73. For the rest us the year has brought pain, with the biggest fall in family income since 1977 and cuts and privatisation of public services on an unprecedented scale.

The misery inflicted by the Coalition has not been taken lying down. We have seen the biggest student movement in twenty five years, and the biggest trade union demonstration in Britain's history.

At the end of June co-ordinated strike action against the cuts will begin.

Last Thursday however, was the first opportunity for voters to pass judgement on the Coalition at the ballot box. As was widely predicted beforehand, the Liberal Democrats bore the brunt of the population's anger, losing 700 councillors in England and 12 members of the Scottish Parliament.

Slapped, punched and kicked...

As Jonathon Freedland put in the Guardian: "The party was not just given a bloody nose by the electorate: it was slapped, punched, kicked and finally knifed before being left for dead."

The overwhelming defeat of the AV referendum was also a reflection of the population's fury with its main advocates, the Liberal Democrats. Some media commentators have attacked the electorate for voting in the referendum on 'trivial' grounds.

But given a rotten choice between two bad systems, why not vote in order to punish the Liberal Democrats? As even Nick Clegg admitted before the election, AV was a 'dirty little compromise' which would have been no fairer or more proportional than the existing system.

The Tories, by contrast, are breathing a sigh of relief that they have, for now, escaped the electoral consequences of their brutal policies. There are several reasons for this.

In the working class cities of the North the Tories are still hated for the crimes of Thatcher. As a result they had no councillors to lose.

The same is true in parts of London, where there were no elections this year.

Tories

In most of England, however, Tory councils still dominate, despite some gains for Labour including in Gravesham and Ipswich. The Tories were even able to marginally increase their numbers of councillors, largely by making gains from the Liberal Democrats.

This is no surprise - after all why vote for the monkey if you can have the organ grinder?

However, it would be a major error to assume the Tories will escape in future elections. A year into the Coalition government, there is still a section of society who believe the Tory propaganda that it was New Labour's policies in government that were responsible for the misery that is now being inflicted.

However, the Tories have only escaped punishment because the cuts, brutal as they are, are only just beginning to bite at local level. As local services close around voters' ears, anger at the government will increase, including in the seemingly safe Tory shires.

The Tories are aware of the electoral dangers they face, as was demonstrated by their hasty retreat from Suffolk County Council's plans to become an 'Easy' council and privatise virtually all of its services.

Nationally Labour gained over 800 seats despite, not because of, its policies. Millions voted Labour to punish the government, and in the hope that Labour councils would cut less brutally than those led by the Tories or Liberal Democrats. However, they did so without real enthusiasm.

Scotland

In Scotland, the SNP beat Labour decisively. A major factor in this was Liberal Democrat voters switching to the SNP.

However, the SNP also won in some working class inner city seats which were traditional Labour strongholds. This reflected a feeling that the SNP would be far more likely than Labour to fight in the interest of the working class in Scotland.

In reality, the SNP will attack, not defend, workers' living standards. However, the rejection of Labour for a seemingly more combative alternative is an illustration of workers' distrust of Labour, not just in Scotland but across Britain.

Even in Wales, where Labour made gains, it was left one seat short of a majority. Fundamentally, Labour's woeful failure to provide a combative and coherent opposition to the government flows from its support for the essence of the government's policies.

When in power Labour acted in the interests of big business, and in particular of finance capital. More privatisation of public services took place when New Labour was in office than under any previous government.

The deregulation of the City which began under the last Tory government continued apace under New Labour.

When the economic crisis began, New Labour bailed out the banks and demanded that working class people paid the price. Just like the Tories and Lib Dems, Labour support huge cuts in public services, just at a marginally slower rate.

New Labour said it would carry out cuts

In the last election New Labour said it would carry out cuts equal to 4/5ths of those being carried out by the current government. It is no surprise that, at local level, Labour councils are implementing government cuts without hesitation.

Such is the weakness of the Labour leadership they do not even seem to seriously aspire to a majority Labour government. On the contrary, Ed Miliband has again appealed to the hated Lib Dems, obviously trying to prepare the ground for a future Labour/Liberal coalition.

Labour was founded a century ago because the working class was no longer prepared to back the capitalist Liberal party. The development of Labour as - at base - a mass party of the working class, albeit with a capitalist leadership, marginalised the Liberals for an historical era.

It is ironic that today Labour is chasing after the Liberal Democrats just as the Liberal Democrats face electoral annihilation. It confirms again that Labour today is not a mass party of the working class but is one more capitalist party.

These elections demonstrate the worthlessness of the unspoken strategy of most national trade union leaders - to defeat the cuts by voting Labour. The election results will have bought home the need for coordinated strike action against the cuts to many trade unionists.

The weakness of the Coalition government has also been graphically highlighted by the election campaign. The cracks in the Coalition have become fissures.

This does not mean that it is about to collapse, although the pressure of different events - in particular of a mass movement of the working class - could break the government apart within a short period of time.

However, as the attempts since the election of Cameron and Clegg to declare peace show, neither party has any interest in breaking up the Coalition. For the cash-strapped and profoundly unpopular Liberal Democrats, triggering an early general election would be committing Hari Kari.

Coalition

Some on the right wing of the Tory party are bleating that Cameron should take advantage of the election results and break up the coalition in the vain hope that the collapse of the Liberal Democrats would deliver a Tory majority.

The leadership of the Tory party know better and, given their complete dominance of the Coalition, have no pressing reason to bring it to an end. However, as Philip Stevens commented in the Financial Times, "coalitions rot from the bottom up".

At the top, the Coalition parties are clinging to each other and to power. For the Lib Dem activists who are watching their party being destroyed, however, it is a different story.

Clegg

The ousted Lib Dem leader of Nottingham City Council has called for Clegg to resign immediately.

In response to the pressure of the party rank and file, Clegg has promised to be more "independent" of the Tories and for "a louder Lib Dem voice in government".

Objectively, the Lib Dem voice in government is now weaker than ever, but the pressure of Clegg and co. to stand up the Tories over the destruction of the NHS and the scale of the cuts is enormous.

To fail to do so will also be to commit Hari Kari, albeit more slowly.
Therefore the removal of Clegg, splits in the Lib Dems, and even their withdrawal from the government are all possibilities. The Lib Dems might then back an unstable Tory minority government from outside on a 'grace and favour' basis, or perhaps trigger a general election.

There are a number of fault lines for the government, including the difficulties that could be created at a later stage by a referendum in Scotland on independence.

Profound crisis of capitalism

But however it is manifested, the root of the government's weakness is the continuing profound crisis of capitalism in general and British capitalism in particular.
Far from being over, the economic crisis in Britain is ongoing. According to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research Britain output will not reach the levels of 2008 until 2013. And even this may be optimistic.

The latest figures show that manufacturing, previously the part of the economy that had stuttered into growth, now has the second lowest level of new orders since the recovery began in 2009.

The fall in orders is a reflection of very weak demand in Britain, rather than reflecting the weakness Britain's puny exports.

No wonder. On average, workers are taking home £1,088 less a year than two years ago.

Their real pay has fallen by 5% since the beginning of 2009, which was half way through the recession. As the Bank of England governor Mervyn King admitted, workers are already suffering the most sustained fall in wages since the 1920s.

Bad as they are, the government's cuts have only just begun to bite, and will dramatically further depress demand. It is a pipe dream to imagine that British capitalism will be able to compensate with increased exports against a background of a profound crisis of Europe and world capitalism.

No way out

British capitalism has no way out other than to attempt to offload the crisis on the working class.

However, they are already facing mass resistance to their attempts to do so. The working class flexed its muscles on 26 March - when over half a million people marched in opposition to the cuts.

At the end of June the PCS and NUT, perhaps along with others, will strike together against the cuts and in defence of public sector pensions. In the other public sector unions the call for co-ordinated strike action is growing.

A 24 hour public sector general strike is on the agenda for 2011. This would terrify the government.

The working class in Britain now needs its own political voice more urgently than ever. The Trade Unionists and Socialists Against Cuts candidates in the local elections, who received 25,000 votes, were a step in that direction.

Over the next year the anti-cuts movement can draw the conclusion that it is necessary to stand far more widely to offer an electoral alternative to the axe men and women.

Most importantly, faced with the barbarity of twenty first century capitalism, a growing number of workers and young people are searching for socialist ideas.

Our most important task in the immediate period is to reach them with a clear socialist programme.

Serge's Fist

8th May 2011, 20:19

From the wikipedia article on them it seems a bunch of Stalinists joined and tried to turn the party their way before being expelled. That's just from wikipedia mind.

Large sections of the left did participate at the beginning. The CPGB organised fraction work within the SLP and exposed the Scargill leadership of its undemocratic organisation and its stalinist tinged Labourism. Obvious serious groups like CPGB and IBT walked away from the SLP when it became clear that there any views that contradicted King Arthur's would not be allowed.

Android

8th May 2011, 22:34

Large sections of the left did participate at the beginning. The CPGB organised fraction work within the SLP and exposed the Scargill leadership of its undemocratic organisation and its stalinist tinged Labourism. Obvious serious groups like CPGB and IBT walked away from the SLP when it became clear that there any views that contradicted King Arthur's would not be allowed.

I don't know the history, since I was not politically active at the time and have not checked the record before posting.

But wasn't CPGB's pulling out of the SLP a re-orientation toward the emergence of the Socialist Alliance or am I wrong on this?

LuÃs Henrique

9th May 2011, 12:53

Don't you love western democracy, SNP got more votes, but less seats than Labour.

That's not "western democracy", that's districtal vote. Changing the rules for proportional representation would end that, but would still be "western democracy".

(What's with "western", though? From where I see it, Britain is definitely to the Northeast.)

Luís Henrique

Hit The North

9th May 2011, 13:37

Originally Posted by IndependentCitizen http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2103156#post2103156)
Don't you love western democracy, SNP got more votes, but less seats than Labour. That's not "western democracy", that's districtal vote. Changing the rules for proportional representation would end that, but would still be "western democracy".

IndpendentCitizen is mistaken, anyway, as the SNP received 69 seats out of 129, (to Labour's 37) and therefore have a working majority.

Meanwhile, the voting system for the Scottish parliament is not first past the post but is a form of proportional representation called the Additional Members System.

9th May 2011, 13:40

TUSC and Socialist Alternative results: 13 out of 173 candidates poll more than 10% in vote (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/11967/07-05-2011/tusc-local-election-results).

TUSC local election results

Total number of candidates: 143
Updated results 7/5/2011 21:41pm
The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition stood 143 candidates in the 5 May 2011 UK local elections. In addition there were 18 Socialist Alternative candidates in Coventry and eight Democratic Labour Party candidates in Walsall who have endorsed the TUSC local elections policy platform.

In Leicester, there were also four candidates of the Unity for Peace and Socialism party, and a mayoral candidate, who stood on a common platform with the TUSC candidates in the city. Their votes are also recorded here.

Thirteen candidates polled over 10%. Over a quarter polled more than 5%. The total vote for the 173 candidates listed was 25,523.

Demogorgon

9th May 2011, 13:47

That's not "western democracy", that's districtal vote. Changing the rules for proportional representation would end that, but would still be "western democracy".

(What's with "western", though? From where I see it, Britain is definitely to the Northeast.)

Luís Henrique
To clear up the point, Scotland uses Proportional Representation and the SNP did indeed get more seats. What they got was fewer list seats, but those are there to compensate for disproportionality in the districts. The SNP won more of those so in order to make the results proportional it got fewer list seats. The system is akin to the German one.

Overall the SNP got 69 seats to Labour's 37

Serge's Fist

9th May 2011, 18:49

I don't know the history, since I was not politically active at the time and have not checked the record before posting.

But wasn't CPGB's pulling out of the SLP a re-orientation toward the emergence of the Socialist Alliance or am I wrong on this?

Obviously the SA was a much more dynamic and open process. That is why we established London Socialist Alliance. The SLP was a dead end, there was only so long you could do fraction work under such conditions with diminishing comrades to actually speak to within SLP.

Mather

9th May 2011, 22:03

TUSC local election results

Total number of candidates: 143
Updated results 7/5/2011 21:41pm
The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition stood 143 candidates in the 5 May 2011 UK local elections. In addition there were 18 Socialist Alternative candidates in Coventry and eight Democratic Labour Party candidates in Walsall who have endorsed the TUSC local elections policy platform.

In Leicester, there were also four candidates of the Unity for Peace and Socialism party, and a mayoral candidate, who stood on a common platform with the TUSC candidates in the city. Their votes are also recorded here.

Thirteen candidates polled over 10%. Over a quarter polled more than 5%. The total vote for the 173 candidates listed was 25,523.

This is a very poor result for the TUSC, if we take into account the current economic crisis, the complete collapse of the Liberal Democrat vote and the collapse of the BNP and far-right vote.

Of course this may have been different if certain organisations like the SWP and others did not insist on dissolving the former Socialist Alliance (SA) for the total disaster that was the Respect Party. Had the SA, which was formed for the 2001 general election, still been around it may have had a better showing on account of it establishing itself as a name familiar with voters and people. This seems to be the case with the Socialist Labour Party (SLP) who, despite their authoritarian and confused politics are able to perform better at elections than the numerous 'left coalitions' which we have had.

Hit The North

10th May 2011, 10:57

This is a very poor result for the TUSC, if we take into account the current economic crisis, the complete collapse of the Liberal Democrat vote and the collapse of the BNP and far-right vote.

It would be odd indeed if disaffected liberals or racists turned their vote towards the TUSC.

Serge's Fist

10th May 2011, 21:16

It would be odd indeed if disaffected liberals or racists turned their vote towards the TUSC.

Yeah because every worker that votes BNP is a racist....

Hit The North

14th May 2011, 10:39

Yeah because every worker that votes BNP is a racist....

That pretty much sums it up. Or do you think they voted BNP because they're stupid and didn't realise, despite this being a well known fact in the UK, that the BNP are a racist party?

Serge's Fist

14th May 2011, 11:55

That pretty much sums it up. Or do you think they voted BNP because they're stupid and didn't realise, despite this being a well known fact in the UK, that the BNP are a racist party?

People vote BNP out of desperation and the abandonment of the working class and those in extreme poverty by the Labour Party. It is wrong to claim that all of the million or so workers who voted BNP in the Euro elections are just racists or fascists.

Concrete conditions of oppression and exploitation breed backward and reactionary views as a way to explain the world. What is needed is Marxist organisation in communities to off a political alternative to the BNP and Labourism. What we do not need is half-baked lefty radicals condemning a sizeable section of our class as racists for voting for a party that does offer a political alternative to the main parties and is organised in our communities. You need to think about why people turn to the far-right at times of crisis.

We need patience, working class politics and a party if we are to defeat the far-right.

TheLeftStar

14th May 2011, 12:09

So sad, the Left in the UK will again bounce back

Hit The North

14th May 2011, 12:50

It is wrong to claim that all of the million or so workers who voted BNP in the Euro elections are just racists or fascists.

Well you seem to be under the impression that racism is some irreversible essentialist condition of identity. I'm not claiming that workers who vote BNP are irredeemable racists. At the same time, they were attracted to the racist politics of the BNP - either that, or I'd like you to name the non-racist, progressive policies of the BNP that attracted those working class votes. Or maybe you believe the BNP's own propaganda and think they're not a racist organisation? Perhaps you also think that there's no such thing as a working class racist, and that all racists are members of the bourgeoisie and wear top hats!

Concrete conditions of oppression and exploitation breed backward and reactionary views as a way to explain the world. Indeed. Racist anti-immigration being a typical example of such reactionary views.

What we do not need is half-baked lefty radicals condemning a sizeable section of our class as racists for voting for a party that does offer a political alternative to the main parties and is organised in our communities.
What we don't need is half baked lefty radicals who are in denial that many working class people can gravitate towards racist "solutions" to their own oppression. Meanwhile, as we know, the majority of workers who are suseptible to far right propaganda are the most economically marginalised sectors of the class and far less likely to be unionised when they do find work. It would therefore be unlikely that they would turn to an organised alliance calling itself the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition.

By the way, what is this "alternative" to the main parties that you claim the BNP represent? Next you'll be arguing that working class BNP voters are more radical than Labour Party voters.

We need patience, working class politics and a party if we are to defeat the far-right.Yes, we need a perspective that doesn't assume that reactionary workers will turn to the left, as if by magic, without there being a change in the political conditions of the class. My intervention in this thread was to make clear that people do not lurch from the right to the left, over night, and for no reason at all.

Die Neue Zeit

14th May 2011, 14:36

Well you seem to be under the impression that racism is some irreversible essentialist condition of identity. I'm not claiming that workers who vote BNP are irredeemable racists. At the same time, they were attracted to the racist politics of the BNP - either that, or I'd like you to name the non-racist, progressive policies of the BNP that attracted those working class votes. Or maybe you believe the BNP's own propaganda and think they're not a racist organisation? Perhaps you also think that there's no such thing as a working class racist, and that all racists are members of the bourgeoisie and wear top hats!

"White working class" support for the BNP can be explained by their own rhetoric based on vulgar economics.

More Immigration = Bigger Labour Supply Pool, Bigger Labour Market, "Stolen Jobs," and Downward Pressure on Wages

Less Immigration = Not as big a Labour Supply Pool or Labour Market, Less "Stolen Jobs," and Less Downward Pressure on Wages

Anti-immigration sentiment is very similar to a tred-iunion wanting to establish Closed Shops. France's equivalent of US "right to work" laws has even less of a unionized workforce but more public support for unions. At most trade unions should collect mandatory benefit fees from non-union workers working in a unionized environment, not force workers to join them (http://www.revleft.com/vb/building-pan-left-t150572/index.html?p=2031336).

CORRECTION: The correct term in the link above is "agency shop" and not "union shop."

Serge's Fist

14th May 2011, 14:56

I don't know how you confused my argument to understand workers voting BNP because of material conditions to arguing that racism is irreversible and denying workers can be racist?

It was you that implied an essentialist understanding by dismissing the idea TUSC should be winning workers votes from the BNP. Though I am glad you have now explained your original mistaken position.

You also share a mistake with many on the left that workers only vote BNP because of their racist policies. But what we actually get is workers voting for a party that puts old labour policies alongside their racism. The failure to grasp that the struggle against the BNP is one of programme and presenting a serious alternative in our communities is severely damaging. What you end up with is groups like SWP with their UAF front essentially working as an auxiliary for Labour during the elections. When you put this alongside the trade unionist politics that the left pushes come election times it is not surprising that sectarian endeavours like TUSC get nowhere.

Jimmy Haddow (SPS)

21st May 2011, 09:41

[Britain now facing crisis on all fronts

Peter Taaffe
Socialist Party general secretary

If splits at the top denote opposition from below, then the character of the divisions between the alleged 'partners' in the Con-Dem government means that a massive social and political revolt is brewing in Britain.

"We should stab them [the Liberal Democrats] in the eye before they stab us in the back," one Tory MP told a Financial Times correspondent. Vince Cable, Lib Dem business secretary in the coalition, replied in kind and attacked the Tories for being "ruthless, calculating and very tribal".

The reason for the mudslinging can be found in the results of the local government elections and the referendum on the alternative vote (AV) electoral reform. The outcome represented a damning verdict, in particular on the Lib Dems' decision to share power in the last year with the Tories.
Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg insisted that the party should 'own' fully the vicious anti-working class austerity programme of the Tories. Voters took him at his word and ruthlessly punished his party. From a 'radical' alleged protest party, the Lib Dems - and particularly their ministers in government - have acted as human shields for the Tories.

The consequence of this is that the Lib Dems have been pushed back from the urban areas in the North, Scotland and Wales and are now largely a party of the 'shires'. Their strategists admit that when voters heard "Lib Dems" it immediately connected in their minds with "Conservatives" and "cuts".
In Liverpool, the Liberal Democrats, who have acted historically as the hatchet men for big business and the Tories, saw one of their former leaders, Mike Storey, defeated by an 18-year-old! The Tories generally did better, although they merely held the ground gained in the 2010 election, flat-lining electorally.

Could the coalition then fall apart given the internecine conflict in its ranks? This is unlikely in the short-term. The Liberal Democrats are in no fit state to fight an election, particularly this year. Among other things, the loss of 700 council seats is a heavy financial blow, particularly as councillors are now paid by the state. They are part of a new caste or 'salariat' with a material stake in capturing and holding council positions. The same also applies to councillors from the other main parties.

Gone are the days when Labour councillors, although they did not always stand on the left, nevertheless tended to be volunteers dedicating themselves to defending their communities and class. As Labour has been transformed from a workers' party at bottom into another capitalist party, so workers have dropped out of Labour Party membership. In their place have come careerists and place seekers, devoid of any sympathy or susceptibility to the worsening plight of ordinary working class people.

So the Liberal Democrats are unlikely to jump ship and Cameron's Tories are unlikely to push them out of the government at this stage. As the defeated Tory leadership contender David Davies commented: "They are passengers on the aeroplane but without parachutes."

The Tories did not calculate nor wish for a coalition with the Liberal Democrats originally. But it has dawned on them that this is probably the best government through which their draconian cuts policy could be carried out. A Tory government ruling by itself but not yet 'decontaminated' from Thatcherism - the "nasty party", in the words of present Home Secretary Theresa May - would have attracted much greater opposition than this one, where Clegg is taking the hit for the unpopular policies.

Hence the campaign to 'save the whale' is dwarfed by the noisy attempt of Cameron and even Osborne to 'save the Lib Dems'. Forgotten temporarily are the spats within the Cabinet as Lib Dem minister Chris Huhne assailed the "dishonest" role of the Tories and particularly Cameron in the 'No' campaign against the AV proposal.

Actually, Cameron originally wished to remain relatively neutral in the referendum campaign. But as former Tory minister in the Thatcher government Michael Portillo has revealed, Cameron was in effect forced to come out strongly in opposition to AV. He was confronted by a rebellion of Tory MPs, who would have probably lost their seats under AV, threatening to unseat him as Tory leader unless he led the charge for the 'No' campaign.
This, in turn, is a reflection that incipient splits are not restricted to the Lib Dems alone. Under the impact of the economic and social situation in Britain, the Tory party can be riven with big splits and even a trend towards disintegration.

Economic crisis

It is the dire economic situation of British capitalism - against the background of an intractable world crisis of capitalism - that is driving this government to launch an offensive against the rights and conditions of the working class which is unprecedented in the modern era.

The justification of Osborne and Cameron, with the discredited Clegg in tow, for inflicting so much misery, is that 'it will be all right on the night'; the government cuts will do their job in laying the basis for the economy's revival and, happily for them, the victory of the Tories or the Con-Dem coalition in the next election.

But that promise lies in tatters, due to the British economy's miserable performance in the last few months. Moreover, the worsening of the European and world economic crisis - described elsewhere in this issue of the Socialist - will dampen further any lingering hopes.

Even the miserly 2% growth rate envisaged for this year has been downgraded to a miserable 1.7%. This undermines any hopes of a sustained recovery; instead, we have what capitalist economists now call a "growth recession". This means that the growth rate is so low as to be almost invisible and utterly incapable of making serious inroads into unemployment levels.
In fact there has been no real substantial drop in unemployment in the last six months. Consequently the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, now says there will be slow if any growth at all and a "protracted fall in living standards" is now most likely. Britain's economic performance is worse than any of the advanced industrial countries with economic output 4% below pre-recession levels.

Downward spiral

Added to the woes of the working people, who are called upon to pay the bill for this crisis, are the spiralling price increases. There is the looming prospect of a period of stagflation, with little or no growth combined with price rises. Fuel could increase by anything from 20% to 30% in the next period, which will feed through to vital household items, including food.

This economic scenario could be considerably worsened if, because of rising prices, the government pressurises the Bank of England to increase the rate of interest, which is possible sometime later this year.

This, combined with the severe depressionary effects of Osborne's £81 billion worth of cuts over four years could send the economy, and with it the lives of working people, into a further downward spiral. This has led to a chorus of leading capitalist economists, alarmed at the consequence of the British government's policies, condemning Osborne and Cameron. Will Hutton, Nouriel Roubini, and even former US financial secretary Larry Summers have lacerated them.

In fact, capitalist economists outdo each other to describe the severity of the present crisis. Comparisons with the 1930s depression have even given way to economists like Roger Bootle, managing director of Capital Economics, predicting that this crisis' severity and duration will be the most severe "since the Great Depression of the 1870s".

This holds out the prospect of decades of 'eternal austerity' for Britain's working people. Such a system, with mass unemployment and the tendency for this to become permanent, widening economic divisions and inequalities, is signified in Britain with the publication of the recent Rich List, indicating a system that is sick unto death.

This alone guarantees a massive collision between the classes in Britain which is in its first stages, signified by the mighty demonstration of 26 March. Not just nations but also classes fight more ferociously over contracting incomes than when the economic pie is expanding. This is the situation in Britain today.

Under the cover of the crisis an unprecedented offensive against the rights and conditions of the working class is underway. Even where there is no economic justification for cuts - as with the teachers' pension scheme which can presently meet all future claims on it - this government is determined to wield the axe. There are cuts in local government and the state sector.

'Mini-Greeces'

So severe are these projected cuts that in the 400 or so local authorities in Britain, 'mini-Greeces' can develop. Those who carry out these cuts at local level could be besieged on the same scale locally as has the Greek government on a national level. Nine general strikes have taken place in Greece because of the determination of the bosses to inflict greater and greater pain on the Greek workers. An element of barbarism, the tendency towards disintegration, is therefore taking place alongside heroic attempts by the working class - despite the leaders' cowardice - to fight back.

Britain is not yet at the stage of Greece. We have not yet experienced the big events - apart from 26 March and the student revolt against tuition fees - which Greece and other countries have faced. But such events are decisive in changing the industrial and political consciousness of working class people. But if Osborne, Cameron and Clegg get their way, such a mass revolt or a series of revolts are on the way here as well.

The explosion of anger in the so-called 'Tesco riot' in Bristol indicates the gathering force of opposition from below. The causes of this event were many: police violence, unemployment, as well as resentment against big business in the form of opening new superstores. Such inchoate revolts, only on a bigger scale, will take place elsewhere as the widespread uprisings of the 1980s under Thatcherism showed.

Of even greater significance - because of the colossal difficulties facing the participants - was the tremendous demonstration in London on 11 May of the sick and disabled against the government's barbaric attack on them. Over 10% of the £81 billion that Osborne intends to cut - a total of £9 billion - is directed against this most vulnerable section of society. As one demonstrator said: "Once we were poor dears. Now we are the benefit cheats."

For every one of the 5,000 who participated in the London demo, there were 100 or more behind them either too sick or too poor to travel to the capital. A battle royal will open on this issue alongside many other crucial social questions in the next period. But the Tories will press ahead unless they meet resistance.

How many times have we said that the Tories don't preach class struggle because they are too busy practising it? Yet that is not strictly true today. Witness George Osborne speaking to the Institute of Directors (IoD) recently, in which he mapped out, under the guise of eliminating 'red tape' in industry, a programme for dismantling hard-won trade union rights; on tribunal appeals, raising the percentage of workers who must participate before a union ballot is 'valid', etc.

He concluded with the rallying cry of a committed capitalist class warrior, telling the IoD to "get stuck in". His sidekick Cameron has become so bellicose, including assertive insults in the House of Commons, that he is now being compared to the fictional toff and bully "Flashman" in the book Tom Brown's Schooldays!

U-turns

And yet the Tories are not as confident as they appear on the surface. The sound of screeching rubber - arising from u-turns and projected changes in policy - has dominated the political arena in the last period. This is because they have met with a wall of resistance to their proposals to effectively 'privatise' the NHS.

So popular is the NHS, with massive opposition to Lansley's proposals from the Royal College of GPs, doctors in the BMA, etc, as well as users of the NHS, that the plans are discredited. Even the Financial Times urges Cameron to withdraw the Bill completely. However it would be a mistake to conclude from this that the government will completely abandon measures to privatise the NHS.

Therefore Cameron's promises, alongside those of Francis Maude, the Con-Dem coalition's 'privatisation general', not to go down the road of privatisation on the scale of the 1980s are not worth the paper they are written on. Cuts including disguised and open privatisation are taking place in the NHS and will only be fully defeated by mass resistance of the health trade unions together with the trade union movement as a whole and users in the working and middle classes.

The government's u-turn on the sale of forests, followed in recent weeks by their backtracking on their sneaky proposals to privatise allotments, shows the government can be defeated and brought down. Such is the scale of the growing opposition in Britain that is not excluded that the government will be forced into another general election this year.

The local election results do not indicate that victory is guaranteed for the Tories and certainly not if they have the Liberal Democrats on board. The Lib Dems face political extinction, as we pointed out previously. Already there are calls, after the election debacle, for Nick Clegg to walk the plank!
But New Labour is no real alternative. The election results were disastrous for its leader Ed Miliband, particularly in Scotland. In a general election, however, Scotland is not guaranteed necessarily to vote in such heavy numbers for the SNP.

Some ground could be gained, not that the mass of working people hold out much prospects for radical change. But such is the fear of this government and the proposals in the pipeline there could be an electoral swing towards New Labour. However there is no prospect of any movement of working people into the party.

Mass workers' party

It is incredible that, as the situation worsens, New Labour shifts even further towards the right, offering even to rescue the Liberal Democrats in an alternative coalition to that of the present Tory-led coalition! New Labour's leadership made this grand gesture for two reasons.

Firstly Miliband, because of the reduction to 600 MPs introduced by the government, obviously no longer believes that Labour can be victorious in future electoral contests. At the same time, given the overall economic and social situation Miliband is probably now afraid or half afraid of actually ruling alone and is preparing like Cameron to hide behind the Liberal Democrats if necessary in a new coalition government.

Yet they totally underestimate the scale of the crisis in Britain and its political repercussions in future. Canada's general election result shows, particularly in the near destruction of the Liberal Party and the discrediting of its leader Michael Ignatieff, that this could take place in Britain in the period opening up.
Cameron's scenario - that after four years of 'difficulties', in reality savage cuts, the Tories alone or in coalition with the Liberal Democrats could carry through tax cuts on the eve of the next general election and ride back into power - is very far-fetched to say the least.

The Tories will need at least an 8% lead in opinion polls to guarantee a majority government and they are far from that at the present time. This is one reason why Cameron will be reluctant to go towards an early election even in the medium-term. Particularly as, given the damage which will be inflicted on the living standards of working people, the Tories would be unlikely to win.

However, for working class people the rocking of the Parliamentary cradle from right to 'left' will not fundamentally change their conditions. The local election results and the situation that flows from this require a stepped-up campaign to lay the foundations for the new mass socialist alternative, a new mass workers' party.[/SIZE]

Mather

23rd May 2011, 20:23

It would be odd indeed if disaffected liberals or racists turned their vote towards the TUSC.

With the Liberal Democrats, most of their former voters are not ideologically committed liberals but ex-Labour voters who voted for the Liberal Democrats as a protest vote against Labour (when they were in government) for a myriad of reasons such as the Iraq war, Labour's introduction of tution fees, Labour's piss poor record on civil liberties etc... This is why the Liberal Democrats made inroads into areas that were traditionally Labour territory such as the big towns and cities of the north of England such as Sheffield or inner city constituencies such as Brent Central (formerly Brent East).

After the 2011 local elections, we have seen the Liberal Democrats being wiped out in these areas with the exception of London, which was not part of this election. The Liberal Democrats have been reduced to their former strongholds of the south west of England and a few wealthy suburbs and towns like Bath, Eastbourne etc... The Liberal Democrats have long played the game of being all things to all people but now they are in government and people can see what they are really like, they can no longer pull this trick. The only Liberal Democrat voters left are the ideologically committed liberals and they are more than happy with this coalition government and the right-wing free market ideology of the Orange Book faction who now have near total control over the party.

Many ex-Liberal Democrat voters have gone back to Labour in the big cities and the north of England, so my point was this:

With the collapse in support for the Liberal Democrats and a lot of the smaller parties, we have seen voters going back to the big two parties (Labour and Conservatives).

Given that Britain is in the midst of a severe economic crisis and the coalition government is pushing ahead with it's savage 'cuts agenda' and that the official and now only 'opposition' party in parliament (Labour) have no real plan to oppose or change any of this, why did the TUSC have such a poor showing?

Given the current political and economic circumstances, the TUSC could have done a lot better.

palotin

24th May 2011, 01:48

But the BNP utterly failed in this election and is quite clearly in the midst of a full-on melt down. The far right did not enjoy enjoy any meaningful electoral success. Unlike on the continent where the right is advancing through xenophobic populism, the British public feels disenfranchised within their existing system to a point where the only groundswell of support for a particular party entirely favored a group that wishes to dissolve its country's bonds of union with the British State itself. There is decidedly an appetite for fundamental change here.

human strike

24th May 2011, 13:54

And nothing of value was lost.