Attention British Comrades! [Archive]

Correa

30th August 2005, 19:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 12:40 AM
"Social Democrats" are called the Liberal Democrats over here.

The other two parties are the Tories and Labour.

There's also the BNP, a white supremist party...racist bastards. They believe that it should be only whites in the UK, even though some ethnics (pakistani, indian) have been born here and ARE british.

There's also the environmental Green Party, pretty self-explanatory.

In Scotland there is the SNP, a nationalist party seeking Scottish independence from the UK. But that wont happen. The tories would fight to the death before the see the breakup of "Great" Britain.

also the Scottish Socialist Party...pretty self-explanatory for that one. They want a socialist Scotland before trying to spread it to the continent. But there is nowhere near enough support. The Iraqi war has boosted the membership of the party but nowhere near the levels needed to win a major share of seats in Holyrood.

There are probably more political parties but i would think they will be regional parties rather than national parties....oh there is of course the Raving Loony party! :D
I see, so out of the capitalist the Social Democrats are the least oppresive? Sounds like the Green party might be a decent option of course if one is conforming to existing parties. I like sound of SNP are they similar to the IRA?

Correa

30th August 2005, 19:11

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 30 2005, 08:43 AM
Labour is just as bad as the conservatives and I personally think the lattar are worth a try (because of all the promises they will have to live up to).
Labour took sides with the Bush Administration in the modern day crusades. Death to Phony Tony is what I say! :hammer:

Lord Testicles

30th August 2005, 19:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 07:40 AM
The other two parties are the Tories and Labour.

haven't you hear they dont want to be called tories because it means robbing bastard :lol:

Amusing Scrotum

30th August 2005, 19:38

The main Political Parties are as follows -

The Conservative Party (Tories) -
Centre right to right. Policies and political alliances similar to that of the Democrats in America. In favour of privatisation and the "Free Market". Parts of the party are very racist and anti-Europe. They also are staunch defenders of the Monarchy, Nationalism, the Upper Class and of course, fox hunting.
Not quite as bad as the Neo-Cons or Christian facists, but hardly a party that should entice support from anyone who even leans to the left.

The Labour Party -
Founded mainly as a party to represent the interests of the working class. Without doubt over the last century it has had a strong Socialist element to it. Tony Benn, Michael Foot etc. all could be said to have a strong link with the far left.
However under Tony Blair, have thrown out most of the Socialist principles it once had. Becoming a times a party that Mussolini or Hitler may admire. Though anyone under the impression that Tony Blair is what the party stands for, is greatly mistaken. There still lies within the parties backbenchers, a strong Socialist current. Hopefully within time, this will once again come to the fore.

The Liberal Democrats (Lib-Dems) -
Under its old form, the Liberals governed at the turn of the 20th century. However have only recently regained a degree of that power. Becoming a viable third option.
Under the leadership of Charles Kennedy, who in my opinion has strong roots in Scottish Socialism, has become the only main party with policies to cater for moderate lefties. In the last election, progressive taxation among other things showed that it may shifting to the left as a party.
However since then, the right of the party, "Free Market" Neo-Liberal types, have put pressure on the leader to shift to the right, which he seems to have done. Politicians with backbone and principles, not a chance. :angry:

They are the main parties, however there are also -

The Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) -
Want Scottish independence and seem to be a left based party. Not to sure about these, not being Scottish among other things.

Plaid Cymru/The Party of Wales -
Similar to the SNP in their goals. Are a left based party, however to Nationalistic for my liking.

The British National Party (BNP) -
Racists, thugs and generally uneducated white working class males. See the solution to every problem as deporting the immigrants. Hate the left, however they pledged to re-Nationalise the railways if they gained power.
Tend to win support in the areas where Socialists should find their power base.

The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) -
Want the withdrawal of Britain from the EU. Similar to the Tories in aims and views. Flopped however at the last election. Seem to be a flash in the pan.

The Green Party -
Like Greens everywhere, want protection for the Environment to be a top priority. Yet to have a MP, however Green Socialism seems to be the form of Socialism most likely, at this point, to gain mass support.

The Socilist Workers Party (SWP) -
Along with other factions, Communists, Anarchists etc. They are the party that believes in Marxist principles etc. Rarely gather mass support and are not really close to any form of power, local or national.

These are all the parties I can think of, that have any form of political platform.

Not having PR as the system of governance, harms the smaller parties greatly. If Americans want to view Capitalist Political systems. You're best bet would probably be to look at somewhere like Germany, as the best form.

bolshevik butcher

30th August 2005, 21:08

Yes, SSP seems to have unfortunatley gone reformist recnetly. Although I'd stillv otre for them as they seem like the best party on offer.

Correa

30th August 2005, 21:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 11:56 AM
The Socilist Workers Party (SWP) -
Along with other factions, Communists, Anarchists etc. They are the party that believes in Marxist principles etc. Rarely gather mass support and are not really close to any form of power, local or national.
Now I know to when it comes to the UK SWP has my support. However out of Labour and Liberal Democrats, which is preferable? I would imagine the Liberal Dems.

Camarada

30th August 2005, 21:34

Originally posted by Correa+Aug 30 2005, 08:30 PM--> (Correa @ Aug 30 2005, 08:30 PM)
[email protected] 30 2005, 11:56 AM
The Socilist Workers Party (SWP) -
Along with other factions, Communists, Anarchists etc. They are the party that believes in Marxist principles etc. Rarely gather mass support and are not really close to any form of power, local or national.
Now I know to when it comes to the UK SWP has my support. However out of Labour and Social Democrats, which is preferable? I would imagine the Social Dems. [/b]
It's Liberal Democrats, not Social Democrats. ;)

I don't live in the UK, but I would imagine the Lib Dems to be at least much more left-wing than the right-of-centre "Labour" Party as it stands now.

It's sad how much the Labour Party moved right, with the emergence of "New Labour". Similarly, the Democratic Party was gradually moving more left in the '70s and '80s, until a group of centrists/conservatives called the DLC or "New Democrats" infiltrated the party and put it into a centrist stasis, with exception of the left-wing current in the party which still exists and is gradually regaining strength in the party

Mr Brightside

30th August 2005, 22:09

The Scottish Socialist Party was formed out of many ex-militant members from the Labour Party such as Tommy Sheridan as well as a variety of other socialist groups and individuals. The members are all very active in the campaign for nuclear disarmament, palestinian solidarity campaign and so on. Within the party, more significantly at lower levels, there are many who support revolution over parliamentary participation and see election campaigns and Holyrood as a platform to be heard. At the upper levels of the party they are all as back stabbing and contriving as any other party, displyed when Tommy Sheridan was turfed out from the position of party leader.

The Scottish National Party is a very pro-business party and attempts to appeal to the nationalist feeling held among many in Scotland. Significantly using the oil found in the north sea as a device to display Scottish independance as possible as this would sustain the nation economically which the claimed would give Scotland some economic strength. The portrayed the English as stealing the revenue made from North Sea oil.

Hope that helps and isn't too erroneous...

:)

Faceless

30th August 2005, 23:36

Now I know to when it comes to the UK SWP has my support. However out of Labour and Social Democrats, which is preferable? I would imagine the Social Dems.

The actual party is "liberal democrat". I think some people here are looking at british politics in a manner which is far to linear. That a party is "bad" for instance or that the tories should be allowed to show their promises to be hollow. To their real constituents, the bourgeoisie, they will fulfill their commitments to the best of their ability. They generally stand for privatisation and the proliferation of bigotry and racism. Dont see how they can fail to deliver except in a manner which is to be perceived as positive by anyone of a progressive nature.

The "liberal democrats" do not have any real working class base for their power. They are populist and opportunist (at the moment) and as such they may make promises which appear to be "progessive" to some extent or other. This doesnt change the fact that their constituents are the liberal bourgeoisie, unworthy allies of the working class. It was perceived by any clear thinking, class consciouss worker as a great success for the english working class when the labour party was founded, meaning that the workers had independent representation and did not have to petition and tag on to the liberal democrats.

The difference, inspite of the rhetoric of the mutually capitalistic leadership is that labour is basically founded upon the unions and is at base a working class organisation. Not everything has been lost by the leadership falling under the control of the right.

Even if the lib dems were to move twice as far to the left, the labour party would remain a safer bet for a workers vote as it is the only one of the three main parties which he can even hope to influence.

Correa

31st August 2005, 01:10

Interesting! This makes the US/UK alliance even a worse event! Considering it was the "left wing" party that joined the US in its disasterous adventure in Iraq!

Amusing Scrotum

31st August 2005, 02:55

Correa-
Now I know to when it comes to the UK SWP has my support. However out of Labour and Liberal Democrats, which is preferable? I would imagine the Liberal Dems.

Camarada-
It's Liberal Democrats, not Social Democrats.

I don't live in the UK, but I would imagine the Lib Dems to be at least much more left-wing than the right-of-centre "Labour" Party as it stands now.

It's sad how much the Labour Party moved right, with the emergence of "New Labour". Similarly, the Democratic Party was gradually moving more left in the '70s and '80s, until a group of centrists/conservatives called the DLC or "New Democrats" infiltrated the party and put it into a centrist stasis, with exception of the left-wing current in the party which still exists and is gradually regaining strength in the party

Hopefully, post Blair. The left of the Labour Party will regain its prominence. It is one of my biggest gripes, as someone who is working class, has grown up in a Labour heartland. That my party, the Labour Party, has left behind its principles in the search for power. Its leader, has as much in common with the working class struggle, as I have with the Monarchy. I for one don't know a Labour voter, who in any way likes Tony Blair.

Faceless-

The "liberal democrats" do not have any real working class base for their power. They are populist and opportunist (at the moment) and as such they may make promises which appear to be "progessive" to some extent or other. This doesnt change the fact that their constituents are the liberal bourgeoisie, unworthy allies of the working class. It was perceived by any clear thinking, class consciouss worker as a great success for the english working class when the labour party was founded, meaning that the workers had independent representation and did not have to petition and tag on to the liberal democrats.

The difference, inspite of the rhetoric of the mutually capitalistic leadership is that labour is basically founded upon the unions and is at base a working class organisation. Not everything has been lost by the leadership falling under the control of the right.

Even if the lib dems were to move twice as far to the left, the labour party would remain a safer bet for a workers vote as it is the only one of the three main parties which he can even hope to influence.

Well said.

Correa -
Interesting! This makes the US/UK alliance even a worse event! Considering it was the "left wing" party that joined the US in its disasterous adventure in Iraq!

It was the final nail in the coffin, burying New Labours links with the working class and Socialism. Bring back Old Labour. PLEASE.

Correa

31st August 2005, 03:50

Amusing Scrotum

31st August 2005, 13:03

Hopefully the Labour party will turn things around. Crap! I had no idea Labour was the left! A lot of seats were lost in the British equivilant of the US House and Senate, no? If I remember correctly.

They did lose alot of seats. Their majority in Parliament went from 150 plus, possibly the biggest majority ever, to either 66 or 67. Which is still a big majority.
The worse thing is that, on alot of the big issues, Iraq, Tuition Fees, Foundation Hospitals etc. Many Labour backbenchers opposed their own party and the votes were only won with Conservative Party help. Shows you where Tony Blair is on the political spectrum when right wing parties support his biggest policies.
Anyway quite a few of those Labour backbenchers lost their seats at the last election because of Blair. And a few I'd bet, were out and out Socialists.

Commandante_Ant

31st August 2005, 13:40

Originally posted by Armchair[email protected] 31 2005, 01:21 PM
They did lose a lot of seats. Their majority in Parliament went from 150 plus, possibly the biggest majority ever, to either 66 or 67. Which is still a big majority.
The worse thing is that, on alot of the big issues, Iraq, Tuition Fees, Foundation Hospitals etc. Many Labour backbenchers opposed their own party and the votes were only won with Conservative Party help. Shows you where Tony Blair is on the political spectrum when right wing parties support his biggest policies.
Anyway quite a few of those Labour backbenchers lost their seats at the last election because of Blair. And a few I'd bet, were out and out Socialists.
I have no doubts that some Labour MP's were true to the roots of the old Labour party, where there was a strong socialist feeling. However, New Labour is moving more and more to the right...as i've said elsewhere, Keir Hardie will be turning in his grave to see the party he brought to prominence with such a standing in public opinion.

Unfortunately, Labour will always be voted into power....from upper middle class to the rich, they support Conservatives...but there's such a strong feeling of hate for tories after their own reign of terror on the island during the 80's and early 90's. And the only other party capable of causing an upset is Liberal Democrats, who stick right in the middle of the political spectrum but dont have the policies or ideals to rule the country.

Amusing Scrotum

31st August 2005, 14:11

The Labour Party returning to the left and Socialists once again gaining prominence within the party. Is still I reckon, the most likely way a British revolution will happen.

Dark Exodus

31st August 2005, 16:01

Originally posted by NoXion+Aug 30 2005, 06:25 PM--> (NoXion @ Aug 30 2005, 06:25 PM)
Dark [email protected] 30 2005, 03:43 PM
Labour is just as bad as the conservatives and I personally think the lattar are worth a try (because of all the promises they will have to live up to).
Since when have political parties in the UK ever lived up to their manifesto? [/b]
The best we can hope for is less superficial laws and less ties to America. Pretty much anyone other than Tony and his supporters can deliver this.

Nothing Human Is Alien

31st August 2005, 16:06

Labour (which represents anything but) is a bourgeois reformist party similar to the Democrats in the US.

If you're waiting for a Labour Party-lead revolution you'll be waiting a long time. Forever.

Axel1917

31st August 2005, 18:23

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 30 2005, 03:43 PM
Labour is just as bad as the conservatives and I personally think the lattar are worth a try (because of all the promises they will have to live up to).
I do think that they can get on the right track, given that Blair is losing support. I think that the Labour Party can get toward a worker-oriented thing, especially since the unions are already there.

Correa

31st August 2005, 19:53

Originally posted by Dark Exodus+Aug 31 2005, 08:19 AM--> (Dark Exodus @ Aug 31 2005, 08:19 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 06:25 PM

Dark [email protected] 30 2005, 03:43 PM
Labour is just as bad as the conservatives and I personally think the lattar are worth a try (because of all the promises they will have to live up to).
Since when have political parties in the UK ever lived up to their manifesto?
The best we can hope for is less superficial laws and less ties to America. Pretty much anyone other than Tony and his supporters can deliver this. [/b]
Indeed! I live in America and it has turned into a Fundamentalist Christian Right Wing hell hole! What is worse is that Democrats (which are also loyal to their corporate supporters) are moving closer to the Republicans each day. Only one man in congress is doing a half way decent job and that is Bernie Sanders.

http://bernie.org

Camarada

31st August 2005, 21:01

Originally posted by Correa+Aug 31 2005, 07:11 PM--> (Correa @ Aug 31 2005, 07:11 PM)
Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 31 2005, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 06:25 PM

Dark [email protected] 30 2005, 03:43 PM
Labour is just as bad as the conservatives and I personally think the lattar are worth a try (because of all the promises they will have to live up to).
Since when have political parties in the UK ever lived up to their manifesto?
The best we can hope for is less superficial laws and less ties to America. Pretty much anyone other than Tony and his supporters can deliver this.
Indeed! I live in America and it has turned into a Fundamentalist Christian Right Wing hell hole! What is worse is that Democrats (which are also loyal to their corporate supporters) are moving closer to the Republicans each day. Only one man in congress is doing a half way decent job and that is Bernie Sanders.

http://bernie.org [/b]
don't oversimplify things, there are many left-wing democrats, John Conyers, Cynthia McKinney, Barbara Boxer, many more. However, alot of the "centrists" seem to be gaining strength in the party, they call themselves "New Democrats" and they are part of a faction called "Democratic Leadership Council". I think many leftists (like the ones mentioned above) in the party are starting resist the goals of these centrists that want to move rightwards.

but yeah Bernie Sanders rocks

Correa

31st August 2005, 22:25

I'm glad you agree Bernie rocks. I think part of his success is because he is an independent and not a member of the 2 mainstream parties. Bernie is way left of any democrat I know. With that said I would vote democrat over republican any day. However this should be obvious.

Camarada

31st August 2005, 22:33

I hope Bernie Sanders gets elected as a Senator from Vermont. It may (correct me if I'm wrong) be the first time a socialist is elected to the Senate in the U.S., and that would be historic for the socialist cause. That would be wonderful. I am a Democrat and Howard Dean (the Democratic Party chairman) looks to be supportive of Bernie and may convince his party to endorse Bernie for Vermont Senator in 2006 (I hope this is true, because it will be easier for Bernie Sanders to win)

Amusing Scrotum

31st August 2005, 23:38

but yeah Bernie Sanders rocks

Just read his site. He seems like a great bloke. Is there anywhere where I can read about him in a bit more depth.

Correa

31st August 2005, 23:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 03:56 PM
Just read his site. He seems like a great bloke. Is there anywhere where I can read about him in a bit more depth.
Check this one out, it even has some video clips. Bernie 06!

http://bernie.house.gov

Direct link to video...
http://bernie.house.gov/multimedia/20050816001/

Nothing Human Is Alien

1st September 2005, 04:38

So you guys have given up on classless society?

Correa

1st September 2005, 05:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 08:56 PM
So you guys have given up on classless society?
I too would love the revolution to arrive tomorrow, but in the mean time I'll take the best from what is offered. ;)

Hate Is Art

2nd September 2005, 11:43

I would say we should all still vote Labour. Under our electoral system, Lib Dems have no chance of winning. Diverting votes from Labour to Lib Dem en masse would mean a Torie rise into power.

Which is in no way preferable to the Labour party being in power.

Secondly the Lib Dems are a joke of a party. No viable alternative. They are just liberal capitilists, they are not a party of the working classes.

Commandante_Ant

2nd September 2005, 12:24

Are Labour a party of the working classes???? that was their aim when it was first founded by Keir Hardie. But is that the case anymore?

I'd rather waste my vote than give it to Labour. I vote Socialist and i'm proud i do.

bunk

2nd September 2005, 12:57

Vote green party. There probably the best socialist party in elections. Looking past the environment they have very good policies. It's difficult to see what can be done anyway when Labour are in powere with a 1/3 of the vote. Proportional representation would be a step towards true democracy

Faceless

3rd September 2005, 13:12

Labour (which represents anything but) is a bourgeois reformist party similar to the Democrats in the US.

If you're waiting for a Labour Party-lead revolution you'll be waiting a long time. Forever

There is a distinct difference between Labour and the Democrats. The unions wield a large section of the votes at the Labour Party Conference. If the unions had a proper working class, anti-reformist agenda, there would be no question of the Thatcherite leadership opposing them. This is distinct to the Democrats in America. The democrats are similar more to the Liberals over here. The American Labour movement is in many ways more backward than the British Labour movement and the failure to create a party of Labour is one of the central problems.

I am not debating that the leadership is bourgeois and reformist. Indeed, reformist insofar as Thatcher was a "reformist". However, the party remains the centre of working class expression. At the current time in the revolutionary movement, we can not hope to create a class consciouss mass party. Quite simply there is insufficient class conscioussness. However, what we should be doing is forming the cadres who will be in sufficiently close contact with the working class when such a consciousness forms which can also catalyse and bring in to coherent expression this conscioussness. On this I doubt we differ much.

However, the difference is that I am prepared to work within the existing mass organisations to form a cadre organisation of revolutionaries who will have a platform within such organisations and also respect among its members. You advocate a solution which multiplies our problems numerous times over. The problem of leadership in the British Labour movement extends not just to the Labour Party but also to the majority of the Unions, which have themselves seen a left-ward shift in recent years, an expression of low level discontent. To advocate rebuilding a party but also, presumably, the unions to the point of becoming mass movements, presumably retaining their true communistic world outlook even in times of reaction and revision, AS WELL AS forming the cadres of the future revolutionary leadership is what I call dreaming.

Cadres who operate within a mass organisation and those who operate without it differ no more in indepedence. To be a member of the LP is not to subscribe to its reformist outlook. They only differ insofar as the former have at their disposal the advantages of being in close contact with workers.

The Labour Party, as we know it, may not lead a revolution, but the cadres who operate within it and the bulk of its membership, comprising in the main of the working class, may do just that.

Are Labour a party of the working classes???? that was their aim when it was first founded by Keir Hardie. But is that the case anymore?

I'd rather waste my vote than give it to Labour. I vote Socialist and i'm proud i do.

See my previous post, I believe you are looking at the situation in a manner which is too literal. Of course it depends what you mean by "of the working class"

Amusing Scrotum

3rd September 2005, 16:23

Well put Faceless.

CompaneroDeLibertad-

Labour (which represents anything but) is a bourgeois reformist party similar to the Democrats in the US.

If you're waiting for a Labour Party-lead revolution you'll be waiting a long time. Forever.

You do not mention the links, (which are still there, if not a bit strained) with the Trade Unions. As a political force for "Revolution", the Labour Party is well poised. The structure is already in place, unlike the Democrats.

h&s

3rd September 2005, 16:37

Originally posted by Axel1917+Aug 31 2005, 05:41 PM--> (Axel1917 @ Aug 31 2005, 05:41 PM)
Dark [email protected] 30 2005, 03:43 PM
Labour is just as bad as the conservatives and I personally think the lattar are worth a try (because of all the promises they will have to live up to).
I do think that they can get on the right track, given that Blair is losing support. I think that the Labour Party can get toward a worker-oriented thing, especially since the unions are already there.[/b]
Thats never going to happen. Blair maybe losing popularity, but so what?
The Brownites oppose Blair, but Brown is the major architect of New Labour.
The unions are in the party but the leaders of the unions are all 'new realist' Kinnock-types. The FBU and RMT have both been kicked out, the FBU bascially for striking against Labour's anti-working class policies, and the RMT for supporting the SSP (though they still try to pay their subs to Labour!).
These unions and ones such as the PCS (with a socialist sympathiser leadership) should form a new party, and then we'd have a proper labour party, worth working in.

People have missed out the Socialist Party. We are a Trotskyist organisation and used to be called Militant. We are similar in size to the SWP and are very active, but we are separate from the SWP due to major differences, mainly in practice, but some in theory.
Our site. (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk)

Amusing Scrotum

3rd September 2005, 16:57

People have missed out the Socialist Party. We are a Trotskyist organisation and used to be called Militant. We are similar in size to the SWP and are very active, but we are separate from the SWP due to major differences, mainly in practice, but some in theory.

Sorry I missed you out, never heard of you before now. Where are you based?

Andy Bowden

3rd September 2005, 21:32

Didn't Bernie Sanders support the war in Afghanistan and Kosovo?

Correa

4th September 2005, 03:18

Not sure. Is there a website where one can view voting records on politicians? If so please let me know. This would be most interesting.

Faceless

5th September 2005, 00:53

Thats never going to happen. Blair maybe losing popularity, but so what?
The Brownites oppose Blair, but Brown is the major architect of New Labour.
The unions are in the party but the leaders of the unions are all 'new realist' Kinnock-types.

Sorry I missed you out, never heard of you before now. Where are you based?

The Socialist Party are a diminutive sect relative to the organisation they claim to represent the legacy of. "very active" they may be but nevertheless they are reduced from the 8000 in the militant heyday to a few hundred now. They have been forced to sell off the headquarters of the old Militant, something which took great effort to construct.

If you do not know the Militant were an organisation who practiced entrism in the mass organisations of the working class. It was the single most successful trotskyist group in the UK, holding many council seats in liverpool and providing an engine to the anti-poll tax campaign which helped to oust thatcher. the Taffe group thought the correct move was to abandon the Labour Party and to build new mass workers organisations from scratch. This has met with disaster.

I'm not sure if the smaller organisation of the Socialist Appeal has been mentioned either but since we are in the practice of giving every sect a mention I thought I would. This is misleading as the Socialist Apeal is not a sect but possibly the only trotskyist organisation practicing entrism in the UK. This I believe, inspite of the success of Taffe in decimating the organisation, represents the better half of the Militant fiasco. www.marxist.com (http://www.marxist.com)

h&s

5th September 2005, 10:17

The Socialist Party are a diminutive sect relative to the organisation they claim to represent the legacy of. "very active" they may be but nevertheless they are reduced from the 8000 in the militant heyday to a few hundred now. They have been forced to sell off the headquarters of the old Militant, something which took great effort to construct.
Yeah, we may be a lot smaller than what we once were, but what do you expect? The changes in the late 80's and early 90's were catastrophic for all of the left.
And today our membership is above 1,000, not in the 100's.
We are building up again - our membership will not go down again.
You have no idea the ammount of people I have spoken to recently who were once members of Militant / LPYS who have said that the time is right for them to rejoin us.
We are working within the unions, and we are stronger in the unions than we have been for a long long time.

the Taffe group thought the correct move was to abandon the Labour Party and to build new mass workers organisations from scratch. This has met with disaster.

So we should still be in the Labour party? :rolleyes:
We should be working within an organisation that's sole purpose is to attack the working class?
Working class people have no respect for Labour.

Originally posted by Armchair.Socialism.+--> (Armchair.Socialism.)Sorry I missed you out, never heard of you before now. Where are you based?[/b]
All over the country. :) (though in Scotland we - as the CWI (which has sections all over the world) - work in the SSP)

Correa
Not sure. Is there a website where one can view voting records on politicians? If so please let me know. This would be most interesting.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com

Correa

6th September 2005, 18:31

Thanks for the website. Although it seems to concentrate (or is only) on the UK. Is there a US version of this?

h&s

7th September 2005, 15:46

Sorry, I forgot you were American. :rolleyes:
Will this one do?
http://www.vote-smart.org/
:)

Faceless

8th September 2005, 14:06

In a word; yes, although you have ignored all of my theoretical reasoning for such an answer. It wasn't so long ago when your organisation drew the same conclusion and with no theoretical grounding made an about turn :blink:

James

8th September 2005, 18:57

Bit of a long post... i refer to comments made on page one by:
Dark Exodus
Noxion
Correa

dark exodus;

Labour is just as bad as the conservatives

Well it depends what you mean by "bad".
At a crude level...from a left wing perspective, the labour party are not as "bad" as the conservatives, as they have delivered reasonably "left wing" policies. The conservative party would not have delivered less "left wing policies".

noxion:

Since when have political parties in the UK ever lived up to their manifesto?

Thats a base statement. Look at fox hunting, true the government put it off for as long as possible, but eventually they delivered. They have also initiated political reforms: for example devolution on two counts.

True they don't deliver everything, and sometimes they do against promises; but it is misleading to state what you did. It just demonstrates either ignorance, or poor posting.

correa:

I see, so out of the capitalist the Social Democrats are the least oppresive? Sounds like the Green party might be a decent option of course if one is conforming to existing parties. I like sound of SNP are they similar to the IRA?

At the moment, they are the most "liberal". But it easy to be liberal when in opposition, because you don't actually have to deliver. The liberal dem's arn't even the major opposition either. I'd agree with those who commented that they are opportunist. As it stands, labour and tory have similar policy themes regarding security and freedom. The lib dems want to increase their vote, so they are going for the clear liberal ground (centre right ground is crowded by labour and tory - they split that vote substantially).

Although i must also say though, that they arn't entirely opportunist. If you look at their constitution, and fundamental make up, they do seem to firmly rooted in traditional "liberalism".

Greens win a few council seats. I myself sometimes vote for them. They are still a very small party though.
Proportional representation could (it might not: there is no such thing as "proportional representation", there are numerous systems) benifit them (and the lib dems).

SNP are obsessed with nationalism. In this regard they are "bad" in my opinion. To be fair, scotland is part of the UK, as are england and wales. The UK is not going to be breaking up. Devolution has however meant that scotland has a massive say on how it rules itself. Personally i think it is a good balance as it stands. Likewise with wales: they have less devolved powers, because less wanted devolution (referendums were held in wales and scotland shortly after labour came to power in 1997: again another reason why labour are "good" compared to the tories).

They are nothing like the IRA. Which claims to be an "army" fighting for republicanism. The ira political counterpart (sien fien - sorry, i'm not sure about the spelling) is more comparable to SNP.

Labour took sides with the Bush Administration in the modern day crusades. Death to Phony Tony is what I say!

Well that isn't a terribly fair statement. Several ministers resigned, and there was a backbencher revolt in the commons (meaning alot of MPs apposed the war). It nearly tore the party apart.

If labour are to loose the next election, then a troy one will take its place. For your information nearly all the tories supported the war (although the tory party is shortly to have a new leadership - it is therefore worth pointing out that a strong contender (Ken Clarke) did actually opposed the war: and still does)

James

8th September 2005, 19:13

H and S:

So we should still be in the Labour party?
We should be working within an organisation that's sole purpose is to attack the working class?
Working class people have no respect for Labour.

Its interesting to go away from this board, and then come back a year later. You get to see the swings in opinion that happens in everyone (especially when growing up).

Its the classic "do we work in or out of the party??" argument which seems to always being argued on this board when i visit. I remember i argued once both ways! usually against kamo, who also argued both ways over a period of a few years.

Anyhow, you shouldn't be so sure of your standing mate. Don't take as gospel what these parties/groups tell you as 100% accurate.

Please visit this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_general_election,_2005/06

I want you to look at two things: the map on the right a little down showing party support. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/2005UKElectionMap.png/220px-2005UKElectionMap.png).

And also at the bottom, the number of votes for each party.

Both show that, to be fair, the labour party has good foundations for a future left wing govenrment. It still retains HUGE support.
Also notice how far ahead the 3 main parties are from the others. They have a massive lead. They share the core vote.
Also look at how many other parties there are: it is unrealistic to hope for a relatively new party to gain a decent chunk of the vote.
It is also interesting to note how concentrated the right wing vote is - only a few parties go for it. Maybe this is how the BNP manages to do so well? Imagine if the BNP split into its different factions.
Such fragmentation results in political failure.
With the british first past the post system, this is especially so.

Infact, before i say another thing, which is your party on that list?

h&s

9th September 2005, 16:30

James , I know exactly what you mean by pointing me ot that site. I accept that Labour has large support in the key working class areas, and that it has a base in the working class.
I know not to take what people tell me as gospel (I don't), but I wouldn't have joined the Socialist Party if they still worked within Labour.
My reasons are the ovious - I will not lend my support, time, and effort to a party that stands against eveything I stand for.
Its a massive uphill struggle to get a new workers party (that would take a large ammount of the left-wing parties in with it), but so is everything in the left - and it always has been.
I don't think it is unrealistic for a new party to get a decent vote, if it is formed as a mass workers party, from the bottom in the unions.

The Socialist Party seems not to be on that list. We got around 5% where we stood though.

James

9th September 2005, 18:30

glad you replied! Its nice to see that you are still here by the way, hows things going?

James , I know exactly what you mean by pointing me ot that site. I accept that Labour has large support in the key working class areas, and that it has a base in the working class.

I'm glad you accept that.

I only posted what i did because you said: "We should be working within an organisation that's sole purpose is to attack the working class?
Working class people have no respect for Labour."

It is my opinion that it would be more productive to work within the party, as opposed to doing what essentially is creating a new one from scratch (i know thats not what you guys are doing, but when you look at the share of the vote - see the chart, then it sort of clarifies what i said).

But of course that is just my opinion: maybe i'm wrong completely! It may be that after blair and brown labour will implode.

I will say this though: it is VERY likely that following the demise of Blair, there will be a backlash against this whole new labour business. Especially once Brown looses an election. It makes perfect sense: after an electoral defeat, new labour will no longer be. The reaction against a new labour defeat shall be similar in my opinion to the reaction following the defeat of labour in the 80s (which arguably allowed new labour to emerge).

These things swing back and forth.

It is my very strong opinion that you would be spending your time more effectively building up a grass root movement, which will be able to strike when it is possible to do so. And don't get me wrong, there are some fantastic chaps and chapetes in your organisation. I REALLY think that you would be better helping the left wing of the labour party.

Do you disagree with the above? If so, please explain.

My reasons are the ovious - I will not lend my support, time, and effort to a party that stands against eveything I stand for.

With respect, it is not the party that stands against your values: but the leadership.
The leadership is not the party.

No leadership lasts for long.

Its a massive uphill struggle to get a new workers party (that would take a large ammount of the left-wing parties in with it), but so is everything in the left - and it always has been.
I don't think it is unrealistic for a new party to get a decent vote, if it is formed as a mass workers party, from the bottom in the unions.

The Socialist Party seems not to be on that list. We got around 5% where we stood though.

I told you about the chart, because i so wanted you to realise how many left wing parties there are.
They split the vote horrifically.
Each party thinks that they are "the one" too.
Where in actual FACT, statistics suggest that "the one" is indeed Labour (look at the number of votes, and the people who are voting for them).

Amusing Scrotum

9th September 2005, 18:51

I told you about the chart, because i so wanted you to realise how many left wing parties there are.
They split the vote horrifically.
Each party thinks that they are "the one" too.
Where in actual FACT, statistics suggest that "the one" is indeed Labour (look at the number of votes, and the people who are voting for them).

To James -

A bit of an off topic question here, but, what are your thoughts on Proportional Representation becoming, almost a unifying cause for the left at the moment. It seems to me under PR, the left would dominate the majority of Parliament the majority of the time. From the Greens to the Socilist Workers, far more fringe parties would have a platform, resulting, in my opinion, in a stronger Socialist voice within the Labour Party and mainstream British politics.

What are your views on this?

James

9th September 2005, 21:51

i'm a little irritated because i wrote a long reply, and then it all crashed.
grrr!

AS,

A bit of an off topic question here, but, what are your thoughts on Proportional Representation becoming, almost a unifying cause for the left at the moment. It seems to me under PR, the left would dominate the majority of Parliament the majority of the time. From the Greens to the Socilist Workers, far more fringe parties would have a platform, resulting, in my opinion, in a stronger Socialist voice within the Labour Party and mainstream British politics.

What are your views on this?

Well, it depends on what you mean by PR: there are many different systems.
I'm not sure it would actually benifit the left.

FPTP does have its advantages: the system returns a strong government, on a relatively small % of the vote. This does make it easy for right wing governments to take power - but it also makes it possible for left wing governments to get power: and substantial power (i.e. the ability to draft and PASS legislation).

On a basic national level, a crude form of PR would have split the seats around 30% labour
30% tory
20% lib dem
AND then the next largest % would be UKIP with 2% of the vote.
It then drops away susbtantially, with parties sharing the vote at a pathetic level of less than 1% in many cases.
Veritas has a bigger % than the first left wing party (not including lab or green).

The leftwing of britain would not be favoured by PR because it so fragmented.
The right would benifit however, as there are fewer, stronger, popular parties.

So, basically, i don't think it would. But it depends on what system of PR you mean. Local or national? What type of PR? There are several different (complicated) ways of splitting the vote up etc.

Does PR offer the best form of representation too? The current system does return reasonably "local representatives": one representative, representing an area of the country. Everyone goes to this one person with their problems.
How do you split one seat up by 30% / 30% / 20% / 2% / 1% / 0.2% etc etc?

A fundamental question also, is how do people vote? Are we a nation which is simply split between 3 parties? At a basic level, this doesn't seem too bad: as they cover the main ground of politics (from moderate left to moderate right).
I think the place for "other" parties in brit politics is restricted mainly to local council elections.

I ultimately think we are better off with the current system, and us all backing labour: and working within it. See my post above concerning my thoughts regarding what will happen within the party once labour loose government.

However, i would be interested to hear your opinion. What do you propose?

James

9th September 2005, 21:55

however....
voting behaviour may in itself be influenced by the fact that we don't have PR.

If we did have a system of PR: then it seems likely that the share of the vote would not be as concentrated with the big three (as in effect, each vote really would "count").

I don't know... its an interesting question. The EU elections are on a crude PR basis arn't they? If i remember correctly, it is the type of PR which i am incredibly against (as it gives total power to the central party leadership). Although i may be wrong, it was a long time ago that i studied EU elections.
As far as i'm aware though: the vote was still concentrated with the top few parties, few lefties got power: but more right wingers got power.

James

9th September 2005, 22:06

according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parl...C_2004_%28UK%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election%2C_2004_%28UK%29)

Nationally

Party
Votes
%

Conservative Party
4,397,090
26.7

Labour Party
3,718,683
22.6

UK Independence Party
2,650,768
16.1

Liberal Democrats
2,452,327
14.9

Green Party
1,033,093
6.3

British National Party
808,200
4.9

Scottish National Party
231,505
1.4

Plaid Cymru
159,888
1.0

Others 1,170,737 11.6

Total 17,028,947

When you look at it on a regional basis you see a possible effect of PR: the emergence of what i would call "pressure group parties" (e.g. "The Pensioner Party", and "The Countryside Party").

I don't know if i would like to see this happening to parliament.

Amusing Scrotum

9th September 2005, 22:37

Thanks for the reply.

I'll try to clarify where I stand as best I can.

So, basically, i don't think it would. But it depends on what system of PR you mean. Local or national? What type of PR? There are several different (complicated) ways of splitting the vote up etc.

Been as there is now a Welsh Assembly, Scottish Assembly and I think even a Northern Irish Assembly, though I think its suspended. This gives a good base for PR as Welsh Nationalist, Scottish Nationalist Parties etc. manage to gain reasonable political clout. Plus these parties tend to be generally moderate to far left.

Does PR offer the best form of representation too? The current system does return reasonably "local representatives": one representative, representing an area of the country. Everyone goes to this one person with their problems

Even if you go to your MP they tend not to give a crap, but thats another debate.
Having someone accountable to you in the FPTP system has its advantages. My preference would possibly be for everyone to have two votes. One for a directly elected MP for your area, then another vote for an MP on a national level. The House of Lords could be made into a Representative House elected on the basis of PR. The second house would have to pass anything passed in the first house, therefore making policy passed more in tune with what people want. I think this system is similar to the system Holland uses.

however....
voting behaviour may in itself be influenced by the fact that we don't have PR.

If we did have a system of PR: then it seems likely that the share of the vote would not be as concentrated with the big three (as in effect, each vote really would "count").

I think PR would have a profound impact on the way people vote. For instance people in the last election who only voted Labour in order to keep the Tories out. May be inclined to vote for the Socialist Workers etc. This could then lead to the main parties starting to distance themselves again. They would have to move out of the centre ground to gain votes and power.
Also in terms of the big three, I really don't think the Lib-Dems will be around for to long. Objecting to Iraq, tuition fees etc. won them votes from the left, but, none on the right. If the Labour Party returns to the left, the Tories stay centre-right, then they will be suffocated and will only play a minor role.

I don't know... its an interesting question. The EU elections are on a crude PR basis arn't they? If i remember correctly, it is the type of PR which i am incredibly against (as it gives total power to the central party leadership). Although i may be wrong, it was a long time ago that i studied EU elections.
As far as i'm aware though: the vote was still concentrated with the top few parties, few lefties got power: but more right wingers got power.

The EU election PR system is really weird. I couldn't explain how it works because, I don't really know.
The right tends to gain more of the vote because they want out, not because they really offer anything. One policy politics. Personally I am not much of a fan of the EU, however it does sort of distribute wealth reasonably well. However it also limits how much Governments spend.
However the issue of Europe no longer really affects national politics because of the European elections.

James

10th September 2005, 11:54

Before i go any further, i'd just like to make clear that i'm very rusty on elections, i did do them at a-level, but avoided them at uni completely.

Been as there is now a Welsh Assembly, Scottish Assembly and I think even a Northern Irish Assembly, though I think its suspended. This gives a good base for PR as Welsh Nationalist, Scottish Nationalist Parties etc. manage to gain reasonable political clout. Plus these parties tend to be generally moderate to far left.

I don't think these parties get power mainly because they are left wing. I think the main factor behind their success in nationalism, or "independence".

I'm only going to look at the welsh assembly, because i don't have the time to chase up the scot results too.

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:ysKdKi...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:ysKdKii16DwJ:www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-045.pdf+welsh+assembly+election+results&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

This shows that true the nationalists did well: but thats the only significant real change. Overall, the 4 main parties shared the votes, whilst "others" didn't really get much of %.
Although true, "others" did get a greater % than in FPTP, and also: the % for "others" increased when comparing 1999 and 2003.

But these are only two sets of results, so don't really show actual trends. Another important point, is that really we need to compare these results with welsh FPTP: to see if a change in the system resulted in a greater vote for "others".

Personally: i don't think the system has really had any profound impact. Generally speaking, wales is more "working class" than England. It is much poorer. It is far more likely to return a leftwing party to power (did you note that the labour vote actually increased?) with whatever system is in place.

Even if you go to your MP they tend not to give a crap, but thats another debate.
Having someone accountable to you in the FPTP system has its advantages. My preference would possibly be for everyone to have two votes. One for a directly elected MP for your area, then another vote for an MP on a national level. The House of Lords could be made into a Representative House elected on the basis of PR. The second house would have to pass anything passed in the first house, therefore making policy passed more in tune with what people want. I think this system is similar to the system Holland uses.

On paper a workable system. I think it would be rather easy to use the system used in wales and scot () to achieve the above.

Here is a link with the main PR systems listed:
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votingsystems/systems.htm

I think PR would have a profound impact on the way people vote.

Personally, i think it would influence the way people vote: but not as much as i think that you think it would.
I think England is pritty much a 3 party nation (as are scotland and wales - plus another party for independence).

But yes, i think it would increase the "other" share, a little. Maybe returning a handful of "others" to parliament. But not on a significant scale.

For instance people in the last election who only voted Labour in order to keep the Tories out. May be inclined to vote for the Socialist Workers etc.

I see what you are saying, but i remind you that "voting behaviour" is a very controversial topic. It is more "theory" than anything else.
But yes, i think alot did vote to keep the tories out.

I don't think a change in the system would prevent such "tactical voting" though. Those who voted like they did, probably didn't have any real strong conviction regarding "what they want". They did however have a strong conviction regarding what they did NOT want.

If what you say is true though, i ask you to look at the results again.

Lets say of the roughly 30% who did vote labour: 10% voted for labour, to keep the tories out.
Now, if you are correct, then in a PR system labour would poll 20%, Tories 30%, and the 10% would be shared amoungst "others". I see no reason as to why this would be concentrated in one left wing party. The left is bitterly fragmented. Indeed, PR encourages more minor parties to stand: therefore the "other" left wing parties may have their share even further diluted.

Meanwhile, the tories would be the biggest majority; then possibly the lib dems, then a weak labour, and then we would see a collection of Greens, UKIP, Veritas, BNP and a few left wing parties (who are in conflict with each other).

The above would clearly favour the right.

Also in terms of the big three, I really don't think the Lib-Dems will be around for to long. Objecting to Iraq, tuition fees etc. won them votes from the left, but, none on the right. If the Labour Party returns to the left, the Tories stay centre-right, then they will be suffocated and will only play a minor role.

It is a possiblity.
But i think it is a very weak possiblity. I find it hard to believe that the lib dems will just disapear. They have a VERY strong youth movement, and are reasonably credible.
Indeed, following a labour failure, labour will be fighting with the lib dems for the same ground. I'm not too sure labour would win: especially if PR was introduced (which would see many leave the party for minor "other" parties).

Personally though, i think the nation is a 3 party one. They all have their safe seats. They all have a far greater share of the vote of any other party. Put crudely, they share around 80% of the nations vote (30, 30, and 20).

James

10th September 2005, 12:02

http://www.umich.edu/~cses/resources/resul...s_LeftRight.htm (http://www.umich.edu/~cses/resources/results/CSESresults_LeftRight.htm)

Found the above a few minutes ago. It crudley plots how right/left wing each nation is.

I don't know how accurate it is, but it is rather interesting.

Amusing Scrotum

10th September 2005, 15:56

James

10th September 2005, 19:22

Perhaps you're right. Maybe it wouldn't be all that good for the left in terms of gaining more power, however, I do feel that if people vote, it should be for something they want.
In the last election, England voted in favour of a Conservative Government. Yet Labour regained power due to clever boundary making and Welsh and Scottish votes. Now been as Wales and Scotland have devolved Governments with law making and policy powers. I find it terribly corrupt that Labour still ends up with a huge majority.

I agree in part. Although as i stated, the existing system has such emense potential. Look at the post WW2 labour government: arguably it did the most for socialism in modern british history.

In theory, it is very possible to return a labour government to power: with a more socialist agenda (i'm more of a "few small steps", democratic parliamentary man, than a gigantic leaping, "there is going to be a revolution!" kind of person).

So it might not be in our interest to change the system in this respect.

I agree completely that the system has some major flaws: flaws which should have been sorted during the devolution period. Scotish and welsh representatives should NEVER be allowed to vote on English affairs. Scotish representatives made tuition fee's possible for example.
It simply doesn't make sense that devolution wasn't carried out properly: maybe it was rushed? I don't know.

This I believe, leads to the kind of voter and political apathy apparent in Britain at the moment.

I'd agree that it is a factor.
But not a terribly significant factor.

Now as a Socialist, I don't just wish to see a Socialist Government. I also want to see people become political. Socialism and Communism will never be achieved if people just sit around watching Eastenders and Hollyoaks. We need to get people engaged in politics.

I totally agree: the later makes a socialist government VERY unlikely! However, i don't think the voting system has much to do with this.

The creation of many different leftist parties doesn't help. Infact, it is most probably a hindrance. In effect, what these people are doing, is leaving the labour party (the only major left wing political group - see the statistics) and taking their left wing ideas with them. Leaving new labourites with the party!
I really do not understand the logic behind ignoring the labour party. I really don't.

I know alot of people on this board dislike the form of democracy that there is at present. However do they think one day people who have been non-political all their lives, will one day wake up and think what shall I do today, go shopping, go down the pub, oh no I'll become a revolutionary.

You are bang on: i agree completely. Be warned though, such logic is not welcomed by many on this board.

Getting people to engage in political discussion etc. should be our main aim. So personally I feel under a system like PR where their vote does count alot more, hopefully, more people will be inclined to vote.

Who is going to be persuaded/interested by the ideas of the numerous left wing parties that don't even have (collectively) as many votes as Veritas (kilroy's party)?

PR would encourage the numerous left wing parties to "go it alone" - probably encouraging even more to appear.
This means there will be numerous different leftist groups; statistically less significant/popular/known than Veritas!
Who is going to listen to any of them?
And how do you choose one anyway? My experiance of such English left wing parties is that they spend 70% of their time attacking the other tiny left wing parties.

Labour on the other hand has amazing significance (look at the support, the membership, and of course: the history). Personally, i see Labour as a coalition, a collection of all the different brands of socialism.

Imagine what would happen if all the left wing parties joined labour: and then pushed for a socialist agenda.

Apathy is at the moment our main barrier.

Regarding politics in general: this is quite true. Possibly even a characteristic of a liberal, stable, capitalist society.

"Our" problem runs deeper than that though. To me, the main problem is unity, coherence, and the refusal of many to be practical.

Amusing Scrotum

10th September 2005, 21:11

I agree in part. Although as i stated, the existing system has such emense potential. Look at the post WW2 labour government: arguably it did the most for socialism in modern british history.

That is my favourite Government in British History. No one even comes close.

In theory, it is very possible to return a labour government to power: with a more socialist agenda (i'm more of a "few small steps", democratic parliamentary man, than a gigantic leaping, "there is going to be a revolution!" kind of person).

So it might not be in our interest to change the system in this respect.

I'm more of a small steps leftist to. I suppose I'm a Bennite more than I'm a Marxist.
My point previously was that in order to try and engage people more in politics, the left in general, should be willing to be more altruistic and lose some power in the short term, to possibly gain more in the long term.

I agree completely that the system has some major flaws: flaws which should have been sorted during the devolution period. Scotish and welsh representatives should NEVER be allowed to vote on English affairs. Scotish representatives made tuition fee's possible for example.
It simply doesn't make sense that devolution wasn't carried out properly: maybe it was rushed? I don't know.

Devolution was in my opinion, New Labour trying to be left wing, but, been as theres nothing left wing about Blair and co., he just messed things up.

I'd agree that it is a factor.
But not a terribly significant factor.

I disagree with this. Personally I think alot of the apathy comes from people feeling removed from the political process. While PR wouldn't solve this, it will make the main parties value each vote more, therefore making individuals feel more involved in the political process.

I totally agree: the later makes a socialist government VERY unlikely! However, i don't think the voting system has much to do with this.

The creation of many different leftist parties doesn't help. Infact, it is most probably a hindrance. In effect, what these people are doing, is leaving the labour party (the only major left wing political group - see the statistics) and taking their left wing ideas with them. Leaving new labourites with the party!
I really do not understand the logic behind ignoring the labour party. I really don't.

I agree, trying to rebuild the Labour Parties links with the working class should be a priority to all British comrades. After Blair and Brown there is going to be a huge battle within the Labour Party, they'll probably be out of power at this time. The New Labour Distributionists will win this battle easily unless there is a strong Socialist voice coming from within the core of the party.

You are bang on: i agree completely. Be warned though, such logic is not welcomed by many on this board.

People I know consider me to be pretty far left. I should tell them to look at some of the people on this board. They'll end up thinking I'm a moderate.

Who is going to be persuaded/interested by the ideas of the numerous left wing parties that don't even have (collectively) as many votes as Veritas (kilroy's party)?

PR would encourage the numerous left wing parties to "go it alone" - probably encouraging even more to appear.
This means there will be numerous different leftist groups; statistically less significant/popular/known than Veritas!
Who is going to listen to any of them?
And how do you choose one anyway? My experiance of such English left wing parties is that they spend 70% of their time attacking the other tiny left wing parties.

Labour on the other hand has amazing significance (look at the support, the membership, and of course: the history). Personally, i see Labour as a coalition, a collection of all the different brands of socialism.

Imagine what would happen if all the left wing parties joined labour: and then pushed for a socialist agenda.

Thats a good point. The numerous left wing parties would probably end up having to work within the Labour Party. Like most of them once did.
This would be a really good thing for Socialism in Britain.

Regarding politics in general: this is quite true. Possibly even a characteristic of a liberal, stable, capitalist society.

"Our" problem runs deeper than that though. To me, the main problem is unity, coherence, and the refusal of many to be practical.

If the right had the problems the left did, they would have crumbled years ago. :P

James

10th September 2005, 23:02

That is my favourite Government in British History. No one even comes close.

I agree completely!

I'm more of a small steps leftist to. I suppose I'm a Bennite more than I'm a Marxist.

I think that you are probably, quite simply: a realistic british socialist.

I hate it when people refuse to be realistic and pragmatic. The concept of a revolution in england (in the foreseeable future) is just ridiculous. People who think it is possible here in the near future, are in la la land.

My point previously was that in order to try and engage people more in politics, the left in general, should be willing to be more altruistic and lose some power in the short term, to possibly gain more in the long term.

How do you mean?

Devolution was in my opinion, New Labour trying to be left wing, but, been as theres nothing left wing about Blair and co., he just messed things up.

I'd argue that it comes down to my comment regarding labour being a collection of different left wing groups.
As such, the manifesto was a collection of different policies, from these different groups. Devolution seems to have its strong support within labour; and was pushed rather firmly by this group within the party. I expect the leadership was ok with it, but wern't that crazy about it (thus possibly why it has such flaws). I think another example would be fox hunting. Pushed through by the leadership to keep sections of the party happy.

Demonstrating how labour is really a collection of different groups. I expect many confuse Labour as "new labour": in truth, New Labour is a (powerful) group within labour.

I disagree with this. Personally I think alot of the apathy comes from people feeling removed from the political process. While PR wouldn't solve this, it will make the main parties value each vote more, therefore making individuals feel more involved in the political process.

Fair enough.
I see where you are coming from. I do agree that it is an element; but still, i think apathy has its roots more in our society, than our political system (but i do agree the pol system contributes alot to apathy).

I agree, trying to rebuild the Labour Parties links with the working class should be a priority to all British comrades. After Blair and Brown there is going to be a huge battle within the Labour Party, they'll probably be out of power at this time. The New Labour Distributionists will win this battle easily unless there is a strong Socialist voice coming from within the core of the party.

Exactly!
Hence also why PR would be bad for the left: as it would encourage labourites to break away from labour and form their own parties - leaving labour dominated by the right wing of the party.

Doesn't it confuse you too though that people don't seem to get this? (That there is soon going to be a crucial battle within labour)

If the right had the problems the left did, they would have crumbled years ago.

You say that, but recently tory failure can partly be explained by their fragmentation and infighting. Imagine how dead the right would be if the tory party had split: the current run up to the party leadership battle demonstrates how diverse the tories actually are. Credit to them though; they stick together and can manage a degree of coherence.

the left could learn alot from them!

Amusing Scrotum

12th September 2005, 14:40

Sorry I didn't reply sooner, the site wasn't working all of yesterday. Maybe the Government was doing some homework. :P

I agree completely!

I've read a bit on various websites about this period of Government, however, I was just wondering if you know of a book which accurately describes this Governments successes and failures? Almost a difinitive account.

I think that you are probably, quite simply: a realistic british socialist.

I hate it when people refuse to be realistic and pragmatic. The concept of a revolution in england (in the foreseeable future) is just ridiculous. People who think it is possible here in the near future, are in la la land.

I don't really have a problem with the idea of a revolution itself. Its just the notion some people have that suddenly there will be one. Especially in developed countries.
People in these countries, are in general happy with what is a decent standard of living; and will not be willing to risk everything.
Using the current political mechanisms to bring about change, just seems more sensible to me.

How do you mean?

I don't really know. I was trying to make some form of argument for PR, but, to be honest you've changed my opinion on the issue.
Perhaps I should consider being a profesional politician with opinions as easily swayed as this. ;)

I'd argue that it comes down to my comment regarding labour being a collection of different left wing groups.
As such, the manifesto was a collection of different policies, from these different groups. Devolution seems to have its strong support within labour; and was pushed rather firmly by this group within the party. I expect the leadership was ok with it, but wern't that crazy about it (thus possibly why it has such flaws). I think another example would be fox hunting. Pushed through by the leadership to keep sections of the party happy.

Demonstrating how labour is really a collection of different groups. I expect many confuse Labour as "new labour": in truth, New Labour is a (powerful) group within labour.

To me it shows just how much the "New Labour" group is out of touch with true Labour values. When it tries to do something the left would like it ends up cocking it up.
In a recent interview with the Independent, Tony Benn was asked if there was still room for Socialists in the Labour Party. His answer "The Labour Party has never been a Socialist Party, however theres always been Socialists in it," I think demonstrates your views on the Labour Party being a coalition of different left wing groups.

Fair enough.
I see where you are coming from. I do agree that it is an element; but still, i think apathy has its roots more in our society, than our political system (but i do agree the pol system contributes alot to apathy).

Without a doubt the feeling of not being involved, is not the only reason people are apathetic. The way the media reports politics should shoulder alot of the blame, as well as television companies who have absolute crap on all day and rarely put a decent political programme on.
A gook book on this is Noam Chomsky's "Media Control", its a short, quick read and probably not worth £6.99, but, it makes some very good points regarding the use of Propaganda to subdue people into uniformity and obedience.

Exactly!
Hence also why PR would be bad for the left: as it would encourage labourites to break away from labour and form their own parties - leaving labour dominated by the right wing of the party.

Doesn't it confuse you too though that people don't seem to get this? (That there is soon going to be a crucial battle within labour)

As I've said you convinced me of the problems with PR.
The battle for the Labour Party's leadership and direction. Could well be, in my opinion, the biggest political event for the British left in quite some time. If the "New Labour" group regain power even when the Party is out of office. It could hinder the hope of Socialism in Britain for many years.
Also did you hear the TUC have asked Blair to step down. All they need to do now, is call a mass strike until he agrees to leave office.

You say that, but recently tory failure can partly be explained by their fragmentation and infighting. Imagine how dead the right would be if the tory party had split: the current run up to the party leadership battle demonstrates how diverse the tories actually are. Credit to them though; they stick together and can manage a degree of coherence.

the left could learn alot from them!

They are a funny old Party. While Right Wing Parties are in general, enjoying good support virtually all over the industrialised world. They are in a huge slump. Maybe, just maybe, Britain is becoming a more left wing country. We can only hope. :D

h&s

12th September 2005, 15:59

glad you replied! Its nice to see that you are still here by the way, hows things going?
Good man - its good to see you back. ;)

I'm glad you accept that.

I only posted what i did because you said: "We should be working within an organisation that's sole purpose is to attack the working class?
Working class people have no respect for Labour."

It is my opinion that it would be more productive to work within the party, as opposed to doing what essentially is creating a new one from scratch (i know thats not what you guys are doing, but when you look at the share of the vote - see the chart, then it sort of clarifies what i said).
OK, I understand what you mean, and the party would benefit from our contribution ( :P ), but practically what would that involve?
First many of our long-standing comrades would have to change their identities as they are still banned from ever being allowed back in.
Secondly, I believe that we would have to turn our backs on much of the work that we do as an organisation. If we are found to be selling the socialist we will be expelled.
To me that means that we would be building the Labour Party at the expense of our own.
If we were allowed to work within it, I may have a slightly different opinion.

But of course that is just my opinion: maybe i'm wrong completely! It may be that after blair and brown labour will implode.

I will say this though: it is VERY likely that following the demise of Blair, there will be a backlash against this whole new labour business. Especially once Brown looses an election. It makes perfect sense: after an electoral defeat, new labour will no longer be. The reaction against a new labour defeat shall be similar in my opinion to the reaction following the defeat of labour in the 80s (which arguably allowed new labour to emerge).

These things swing back and forth.
I'm not so sure about that. Blair and Brown's Labour may well collapse, but I can't really see them reinstating Clause 4 unless there is a significant change in the political situation.

It is my very strong opinion that you would be spending your time more effectively building up a grass root movement, which will be able to strike when it is possible to do so. And don't get me wrong, there are some fantastic chaps and chapetes in your organisation. I REALLY think that you would be better helping the left wing of the labour party.
I respect your opinion, but as I have said previously it is the principle of working within Blair's Labour that I am against.
Mind you, times do change and, if we are proven wrong, we may well re-enter the party.

With respect, it is not the party that stands against your values: but the leadership.
The leadership is not the party.

No leadership lasts for long.
Maybe so, but the legacy of the leadership does. This leadership has done its very best to destroy the grassroots of the party.
Take my grandfather - a once prominent member of Chesterfield Labour Party, and a socialist (well a parliamentary one). His local party has been completely destroyed - they never have branch meetings anymore, and are not publically allowed to go against the party line. They aren't even allowed to canvas the community anymore.

I told you about the chart, because i so wanted you to realise how many left wing parties there are.
They split the vote horrifically.
Each party thinks that they are "the one" too.
But we don't actually consider these elections to be important at the moment - they are just an idea spreading exercise.
It is council elections that are important to us, as these are the ones that are more reliant on actual policy.

Amusing Scrotum

12th September 2005, 18:11

To H and S, don't mean to butt in but I just want to add something,

First many of our long-standing comrades would have to change their identities as they are still banned from ever being allowed back in.

I have noticed alot of the people on this board are very young. I'm only 18 myself and have not been banned from the Labour Party yet.
So even if some of the older comrades are banned, there seem to be quite alot of younger comrades who could pick up the batton.
Just a thought.

chebol

13th September 2005, 08:36

And then get done over by the machine men! Yeah, smart move.

It's not every day that I find myself taking the same side as the CWI (although it would be nice to do so more often. Why exactly haven't you joined the Socialist Alliance in Australia?)

I'll post a more detailed reply to this thread later on (when I have time- I'm busy trying to dislodge a Labor member of NSW parliament right now), so I'll leave my contribution on both British and Australian Labo(u)r to Marx and Engels.

"If these gentlemen form themselves into a Social-Democratic Petty-Bourgeois Party they have a perfect right to do so; one could then negotiate with them, form a bloc according to circumstances, etc. But in a workers' party they are an adulterating element. If reasons exist for tolerating them there for the moment, it is also a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in the Party leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a matter of time."

-Circular Letter to Bebel, Liebknecht, Bracke, et al., Sept. 15-18, 1879

Amusing Scrotum

13th September 2005, 14:25

"If these gentlemen form themselves into a Social-Democratic Petty-Bourgeois Party they have a perfect right to do so; one could then negotiate with them, form a bloc according to circumstances, etc. But in a workers' party they are an adulterating element. If reasons exist for tolerating them there for the moment, it is also a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in the Party leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a matter of time."

Personally I would argue that the Labour Party in Britain is not a "Social-Democratic Petty-Bourgeois Party" rather it is a Workers' party that at this point in time has been infected by a "Social-Democratic Petty-Bourgeois" Group, New Labour. I have no problem with any of the Socialist Parties in the U.K. or anywhere else, its just at this point although they are ideologically a Workers' Party, as of yet they haven't formed the links with the Unions etc. that the Labour Party has.
So instead of everyone trying to start a party from scratch and take it to power, which could take centuries, if ever. It would be more sensible for Lefties in Britain to try to take back the Labour Party and make it a vessel for radical/revolutionary Socialism.
All it would take is a Socialist to lead the Party and get elected for a couple of successive terms for real change to set in. The kind of change which would at least make people think about Revolution. As Socialists/Communists/Anarchists etc. we should be constsantly trying to think of ways to emacipate the working class, and sadly, at this point in time having small Socialist groups which get no publicity etc. does not seem to be working.

h&s

13th September 2005, 15:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 05:42 PM
To H and S, don't mean to butt in but I just want to add something,

First many of our long-standing comrades would have to change their identities as they are still banned from ever being allowed back in.

I have noticed alot of the people on this board are very young. I'm only 18 myself and have not been banned from the Labour Party yet.
So even if some of the older comrades are banned, there seem to be quite alot of younger comrades who could pick up the batton.
Just a thought.
But our youth members are hardly enough to be the face of the party. People need faces that they can trust, and our older members have been key in so many struggles over time.
And the point is that the pressure of the purges from the Party mean that doing the work that we want to do would be near impossible.

All it would take is a Socialist to lead the Party and get elected for a couple of successive terms for real change to set in.
But we are not allowed in. Kinnock, Smith and Blair have all done their best to take the party away from the workers and its members, and straight into the hands of the bosses.
It is a workers party only in the minds of a dimishing number of people.

James

13th September 2005, 16:24

AS:

I've read a bit on various websites about this period of Government, however, I was just wondering if you know of a book which accurately describes this Governments successes and failures? Almost a difinitive account.

I'm afraid i do not.
You say that you are 18: you going to start uni in a few days?
If so, your uni (which is?) should have numerous books on the general era.

I don't really have a problem with the idea of a revolution itself. Its just the notion some people have that suddenly there will be one. Especially in developed countries.
People in these countries, are in general happy with what is a decent standard of living; and will not be willing to risk everything.
Using the current political mechanisms to bring about change, just seems more sensible to me

i quite agree. Revolution as a concept, i'm not against.
As a concept though, in the real world it has to have the appropriate context.

England simply does not have the context.
The only real change which shall come about are those which come via the house of commons.
To pretend otherwise is foolish, and to ignore: is fatal.

I don't really know. I was trying to make some form of argument for PR, but, to be honest you've changed my opinion on the issue.
Perhaps I should consider being a profesional politician with opinions as easily swayed as this.

To tell you the truth, i think that you simply had not thought it through completely.

Alot of "left wing thinking" in this country is completely ideological. In itself, this isn't "wrong". But problems emerge when reality isn't taken into account.
In this case: PR is def more ideologically satisfying.

But the reality of english politics is that the left wing vote is smaller than the right, and is far more fragmented.
You just needed to look at the statistics.

Simily, there is a strong degree of "reformism" concerning politics. Probably brought about by the blair governments sheer number of reforms. I think many don't stop to think about the benifits of the actual system.

This is why i support the monarchy as opposed to having an english republic. The monarchy is more benificial to the left, and the country in general (my views on this are rather complex, and are in a thread somewhere, from about a year ago).

Although of course, taken out of context: the initial "concept", (of a monarchy) is shocking to many socialists. Indeed, this was another factor leading to my restriction a while back.

I digress. MY POINT is that we need to concentrate on the current context and political system: and how we can benifit from using it. If this is achieved (i.e. forgetting about pressing for further reform), there is more unity within the left, and we can then focus on getting power, and then making changes which benifit the people.

At the end of the day, thats what i want to achieve. Helping people.

To me it shows just how much the "New Labour" group is out of touch with true Labour values. When it tries to do something the left would like it ends up cocking it up.
In a recent interview with the Independent, Tony Benn was asked if there was still room for Socialists in the Labour Party. His answer "The Labour Party has never been a Socialist Party, however theres always been Socialists in it," I think demonstrates your views on the Labour Party being a coalition of different left wing groups

I confess: he is probably the one who put the idea in my head. I've been to one of his speeches a while back and read alot of his work. I fail to understand why (especially english) members don't pay more attention to the man. He's been around for a long time: and has done alot of good for us all.

The battle for the Labour Party's leadership and direction. Could well be, in my opinion, the biggest political event for the British left in quite some time. If the "New Labour" group regain power even when the Party is out of office. It could hinder the hope of Socialism in Britain for many years.
Also did you hear the TUC have asked Blair to step down. All they need to do now, is call a mass strike until he agrees to leave office.

I doubt new labour as it is, will be able to hold onto power after Blair stands down. Brown will move in with his less right wing new labour. Indeed, the new labour of '97 is no more.

Yeah i did: but that isn't going to influence blair. Blair will stand down when the going is good. History is incredibly important to him.

More interesetingly, the TUC made it clear that they would not be automatically supporting brown as the new leader. Especially if he doesn't move substantially to the left. Therefore, if brown does not move more left, this could be a window for another candidate.

James

13th September 2005, 16:53

OK, I understand what you mean, and the party would benefit from our contribution ( ), but practically what would that involve?
First many of our long-standing comrades would have to change their identities as they are still banned from ever being allowed back in.
Secondly, I believe that we would have to turn our backs on much of the work that we do as an organisation. If we are found to be selling the socialist we will be expelled.
To me that means that we would be building the Labour Party at the expense of our own.
If we were allowed to work within it, I may have a slightly different opinion.

I don't know about "many". Also, i doubt that HQ are really that fussy about who joins.
Their membership is declining alot: i think they would welcome new members (although i do realise a few would find this tricky: although i would put the number at around 10 or 20).
Even if they can't officially join, they can still work with party members. For example at meetings.

To tell you the truth, i do not know the ins and outs of party rules. (even though i am a member, i'll try and find my member information).
I find it hard to see though that members would be kicked out for having opinions, and sharing opinions.
If it means "turning your backs" on some "concepts"; i don't really mind to tell you the truth. I think the whole party and the left and the country as a whole is at stake. I don't think we should be happy with further right wing governments, simply because SP want to keep their identity as a seperate party.

Infact you hit the nail on the head when you said:
"To me that means that we would be building the Labour Party at the expense of our own."

That is the whole point. Builing a left wing membership of the party. Creating left wing unity. Bringing socialists together, under one party.
That way we get power at elections.

I'm not so sure about that. Blair and Brown's Labour may well collapse, but I can't really see them reinstating Clause 4 unless there is a significant change in the political situation.

No offence, but i find that reply very weak (when compared to what i said). It is a matter of logic, demonstrated by history. Once the "concept" looses an election, it is seen as the "reason" as to why it lost. Therefore, a new image is used in the next election.
As i said: the percieved failure in the the 80s of a left wing labour, made it possible for the right wing of labour to take control.
"left wing labour lost us the election".

Clause four.
Well, i can't see them chaning it again. But having said that, it isn't impossible.
It is unlikely though because C4 was very old fashioned in the way that it was worded.
I don't actually think that they have really changed the "meaning" of c4, just the wording.

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. Where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe. And where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.’

That still allows an awful lot of left wing policies. Don't you think?

I respect your opinion, but as I have said previously it is the principle of working within Blair's Labour that I am against.
Mind you, times do change and, if we are proven wrong, we may well re-enter the party.

Its hardly Blairs labour. That is just an element of the national leadership.
Political parties are surprisingly independent of the leadership: for example in local government.
Anyhow though: the work that i suggest is not to strengthen the position of Blair's labour: indeed it is the opposite. Every left wing action within labour undermines the right of the party.
Also, look at the last election, most MPs did not have a picture of him on their propaganda: unlike the previous election. This was famously revealed by Howard when the house was sat. Blair was an electoral turnoff, so the party started to move away from him.

Here we already see the tide turning.

Maybe so, but the legacy of the leadership does. This leadership has done its very best to destroy the grassroots of the party.
Take my grandfather - a once prominent member of Chesterfield Labour Party, and a socialist (well a parliamentary one). His local party has been completely destroyed - they never have branch meetings anymore, and are not publically allowed to go against the party line. They aren't even allowed to canvas the community anymore.

This is what i mean by how the party may die after blair and brown.
But i honestly think after the next election we shall see serious attempts to return to pre '97 labour.

Indeed, this is something which i suggest that we all attempt to do.

But we don't actually consider these elections to be important at the moment - they are just an idea spreading exercise.
It is council elections that are important to us, as these are the ones that are more reliant on actual policy.

We?
Who is we? The royal we? Or the SP?

If SP: you honestly believe that elections are not important??
Elections are the way governments and parties come to power.
As well as an indicator as to how popular and succesful a party is.

However, the tactic that you then describe has its strengths. I do though as you to read again what i actually said:
I told you about the chart, because i so wanted you to realise how many left wing parties there are.
They split the vote horrifically.
Each party thinks that they are "the one" too.

James

13th September 2005, 17:38

i strongly recomend that one and all read:
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...entry1291936270 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=40407&st=0#entry1291936270)

Amusing Scrotum

13th September 2005, 19:54

h&s -

But our youth members are hardly enough to be the face of the party. People need faces that they can trust, and our older members have been key in so many struggles over time.
And the point is that the pressure of the purges from the Party mean that doing the work that we want to do would be near impossible

I'm probably slightly naive in my views on the Labour Party, however, I just feel it would be daft to rule out completely, the possibility of using the Labour Party as a vechicle for Socialism in Britain.

But we are not allowed in. Kinnock, Smith and Blair have all done their best to take the party away from the workers and its members, and straight into the hands of the bosses.
It is a workers party only in the minds of a dimishing number of people.

It still has roots with the Unions etc. and although the Unions have been handcuffed over recent years. You cannot completely kill all the links with the workers, no matter how much the right of the Party try.

James -

I'm afraid i do not.
You say that you are 18: you going to start uni in a few days?
If so, your uni (which is?) should have numerous books on the general era.

No I'm not starting Uni, I'm still in College. At first I decided to become a plumber so I did that, now I've decided to become a Civil Engineer, so I've got another two years in College. The College library is pretty shabby, but, it might have something on the subject.

i quite agree. Revolution as a concept, i'm not against.
As a concept though, in the real world it has to have the appropriate context.

England simply does not have the context.
The only real change which shall come about are those which come via the house of commons.
To pretend otherwise is foolish, and to ignore: is fatal.

Exactly, the conditions are just not there at the moment for a revolution and even if the conditions were there it doesn't mean that the revolution would be a success. So we must make do with what we've got and although British Parliamentary Democracy isn't perfect, its better than alot of countries have.

To tell you the truth, i think that you simply had not thought it through completely.

Very true even if it it hurts to admit it.

This is why i support the monarchy as opposed to having an english republic. The monarchy is more benificial to the left, and the country in general (my views on this are rather complex, and are in a thread somewhere, from about a year ago).

To be honest if I had a choice between the Queen and President Blair. I'd probably choose the Queen, not that I'd want either of them.

I confess: he is probably the one who put the idea in my head. I've been to one of his speeches a while back and read alot of his work. I fail to understand why (especially english) members don't pay more attention to the man. He's been around for a long time: and has done alot of good for us all.

I think Tony Benn is absolutely brilliant. Immensely intelligent and he's had experience in office. Though his son is an absolute donkey. ;)
I think one of the great "What ifs?" of recent times regarding British Socialism. Could well be what type of Government would there have been, had Michael Foot won the 83' election. The Labour Parties policies at that time were strongly influenced by Benn and the policies they stood on, in that election, were from what I have read, incredibly Socialist.

I doubt new labour as it is, will be able to hold onto power after Blair stands down. Brown will move in with his less right wing new labour. Indeed, the new labour of '97 is no more.

Brown is still part of the New Labour clique and personally I think he'll move further to the right, to try and win the next election. However Brown is a very clever man and could decieve all the various political commentators and become very left wing.

Yeah i did: but that isn't going to influence blair. Blair will stand down when the going is good. History is incredibly important to him.

Blair is very vain and making his mark in history will be important to him. However Iraq, will be his legacy and he should accept that and sod off.

More interesetingly, the TUC made it clear that they would not be automatically supporting brown as the new leader. Especially if he doesn't move substantially to the left. Therefore, if brown does not move more left, this could be a window for another candidate.

I've heard rumours about Alan Simpson possibly running against Brown. I don't know much about Simpson, but, from what I gather he is pretty left wing.

h&s

14th September 2005, 16:07

James-

Infact you hit the nail on the head when you said:
"To me that means that we would be building the Labour Party at the expense of our own."

That is the whole point. Builing a left wing membership of the party. Creating left wing unity. Bringing socialists together, under one party.
That way we get power at elections.

And that is what I want, but I just can't see that happening within the current Labour party.

No offence, but i find that reply very weak (when compared to what i said). It is a matter of logic, demonstrated by history. Once the "concept" looses an election, it is seen as the "reason" as to why it lost. Therefore, a new image is used in the next election.
As i said: the percieved failure in the the 80s of a left wing labour, made it possible for the right wing of labour to take control.
"left wing labour lost us the election".
I understand what you are saying, but can you really see the leadership deciding that being right-wing has lost them an election?
The right-wing is entrenched within the party so much, it now is the party - it will never go back to the left that it once was. It may turn left, but I personally doubt it will go half as far as what we need.

Clause four.
Well, i can't see them chaning it again. But having said that, it isn't impossible.
It is unlikely though because C4 was very old fashioned in the way that it was worded.
I don't actually think that they have really changed the "meaning" of c4, just the wording.

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. Where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe. And where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.’

That still allows an awful lot of left wing policies. Don't you think?

It allows left-wing policies, yes, but is in no way specific. Apart from the beginning (which is blatantly a lie) it is in no way socialist - unlike the old one:

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service

And that wording was important (even if it was a bit old) - it was openly socialist, and was there for the working class. The new one can be interpreted any way the leaderhip want, and js more of a liberal clause.

If SP: you honestly believe that elections are not important??
Elections are the way governments and parties come to power.
As well as an indicator as to how popular and succesful a party is.
For a small organisation on its own (like us) yes, but as part of a mass party obviously the elections are important.

However, the tactic that you then describe has its strengths. I do though as you to read again what i actually said:
I told you about the chart, because i so wanted you to realise how many left wing parties there are.
They split the vote horrifically.
Each party thinks that they are "the one" too.
This is why we need to be part of a mass organistion, working with other socialists. I just don't see the labour party as that organisation.
Anyway, we don't stand against other socialists.

At the moment however, I think that work within the unions is the key work. We need to make the unions militant again and kick the right wing out of them. If that leads to the right being kicked out of Labour, then its all good and we'll probably re-join, but I think it is more likely to result in a new party being formed.
It is the unions and the re-awakening of the class movement that is where we should be concentrating at the moment, in my opinion.

Armchair.Socialism.-

It still has roots with the Unions etc. and although the Unions have been handcuffed over recent years. You cannot completely kill all the links with the workers, no matter how much the right of the Party try.

But I think that getting rid of the right within the unions will show the true desire of the workers, which is to disaffiliate from a party that is attacking them.
And I do think that the leadership is trying to rely on businessmen for funding, and may eventually freeze out the unions power within the party.

Amusing Scrotum

14th September 2005, 16:50

But I think that getting rid of the right within the unions will show the true desire of the workers, which is to disaffiliate from a party that is attacking them.
And I do think that the leadership is trying to rely on businessmen for funding, and may eventually freeze out the unions power within the party.

I completely agree with you, that making the Unions militant again will be crucial if we are hoping to gain any success. However on the issue of the Labour Party, neither of us can be sure what will happen and at the moment all we have are What ifs? We will just have to wait and see, either way it could be an exciting time with regards to Socialism in Britain.

James

14th September 2005, 17:33

No I'm not starting Uni, I'm still in College. At first I decided to become a plumber so I did that, now I've decided to become a Civil Engineer, so I've got another two years in College. The College library is pretty shabby, but, it might have something on the subject.

ah pants, yeah my college library was rather "limited" too. Uni libraries are miles better.
If you remind me i'll take a look when i go back in 2 weeks, see if i can get some book titles for you.

No I'm not starting Uni, I'm still in College. At first I decided to become a plumber so I did that, now I've decided to become a Civil Engineer, so I've got another two years in College. The College library is pretty shabby, but, it might have something on the subject.

I agree. Whilst the country lacks alot, it also has alot. The political culture isn't too bad for one: the country has and could elect reasonably left wing governments. Corruption isn't a major problem. Of course there is also the more solid features such as the vote, secret ballot, free health care, free education, job security etc etc
Often over looked by many.

Brown is still part of the New Labour clique and personally I think he'll move further to the right, to try and win the next election. However Brown is a very clever man and could decieve all the various political commentators and become very left wing.

Brown is of course still part of the "new labourites". I was simply stating that new labour doesn't exist as it did in 97.
Brown is famous for being more left wing than Blair. I can't see Brown moving to the right: in any circumstances. A slight move to the left will generate much more support for brown.

H AND S

I understand what you are saying, but can you really see the leadership deciding that being right-wing has lost them an election?
The right-wing is entrenched within the party so much, it now is the party - it will never go back to the left that it once was. It may turn left, but I personally doubt it will go half as far as what we need.

I don't think you understand the post election process.
It isn't the leadership which decides such things.

The members vote for the leader: or put another way, they vote for their style, policies and ideology.
Generally speaking, leaders find it hard to retain their leadership if they loose an election. Usually they will stand down on their own free will, but often if they refuse to, members will ask for the leader to stand down: the party can revolt against leaders.

New labour is not entrenched in the party. The thing keeping them there is success.

Having said this though, it is even possible for elements of the new labour elite to change a little post Blair. Blair and Brown have their own followers of course: brown's arn't really in any position of power. This will change post Blair. We shall see a different philosophy influencing policy.
I know it is often said that they are "both right wing": but they do differ rather alot.

Did you read the report i posted on labour? More specifically: the point that "Compass" are working on a Brown manifesto; rumoured to be rather left wing.

Ultimately i suppose it depends on what you want: and how you percieve yourself getting it.
What do you want: and how do you see it happening?

It allows left-wing policies, yes, but is in no way specific. Apart from the beginning (which is blatantly a lie) it is in no way socialist - unlike the old one:

How is it a blatant lie?
True new labour isn't terribly socialist: but that is just one tiny element of the labour party.
Surely the fact that the constitution STATES that it is a Dem socialist party, is good news? Indeed, to use your words: this essential fact of labour is actually entrenched.

And that wording was important (even if it was a bit old) - it was openly socialist, and was there for the working class. The new one can be interpreted any way the leaderhip want, and js more of a liberal clause.

It certainly was old fashioned: this is important to consider when you are attempting to run for government. Tiny things can switch voters off.

You are right, there is a degree of interpretation in the current one: however the first line states "the labour party is a dem soc party". That frames how you interpret what follows.
I argue that elements of new labour policy can actually be challeneged on constitutional grounds. I'll try and form a coherent argument regarding this. The problem is that it takes time, and you have to have alot of statistics!
Anyhow though: the general socialist principles are there in the clause, especially when the first line states what the party IS.

This is why we need to be part of a mass organistion, working with other socialists.

I'm so glad you recognise this fact.
Question though: what if this mass organisation demands one organ? Would the SP objecT?
I expect it would. Indeed, the longer it is independent, and develops indenpendent characteristics, the harder it shall be for it to give up its independence. Thats something worth considering (as it was an objection of yours to joining the labour party).

I just don't see the labour party as that organisation.
Anyway, we don't stand against other socialists.

HOW is the labour party not that organistation?? Look at its origins: its history!
I agree "new labour" isn't it: but new labour isn't the party, just one tiny group within the movement.

At the moment however, I think that work within the unions is the key work. We need to make the unions militant again and kick the right wing out of them. If that leads to the right being kicked out of Labour, then its all good and we'll probably re-join, but I think it is more likely to result in a new party being formed.
It is the unions and the re-awakening of the class movement that is where we should be concentrating at the moment, in my opinion.

hmm, union membership has declined rapidly. I think it is something as small as 1 in 10 are members now.
Increased militancy would probably raise this to at least 1 in 20.

Would such a minority group be tolerated by the public?
I don't think it would.

People like stability. Look at the fuel protest today. It is possible to argue that the public defeated it: they want stability. In adition to another important development: the new terror legislation, which makes it easier for the government to defeat militants.

I'm not sure that the traditional path which you explained is actually the way.

Amusing Scrotum

14th September 2005, 17:58

ah pants, yeah my college library was rather "limited" too. Uni libraries are miles better.
If you remind me i'll take a look when i go back in 2 weeks, see if i can get some book titles for you.

They don't seem to go out of their way to promote education in Colleges these days. Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

I agree. Whilst the country lacks alot, it also has alot. The political culture isn't too bad for one: the country has and could elect reasonably left wing governments. Corruption isn't a major problem. Of course there is also the more solid features such as the vote, secret ballot, free health care, free education, job security etc etc
Often over looked by many.

Although some of the public sector has been eroded over the last twenty years. There is still, in my opinion, enough left for a Socialist Government to work with and expand on. As long as essential public services are controlled by the state. There remains the chance a Socialist Government will be elected through the current political system.

Brown is of course still part of the "new labourites". I was simply stating that new labour doesn't exist as it did in 97.
Brown is famous for being more left wing than Blair. I can't see Brown moving to the right: in any circumstances. A slight move to the left will generate much more support for brown.

Its certainly going to be an interesting time in British Politics, over the next few years.