Log in

View Full Version : A Challenge To New Labour



kingbee
14th July 2006, 13:34
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5179556.stm


Labour MP launches leadership bid

Mr McDonnell has been MP for Hayes and Harlington since 1997
Left-wing backbencher John McDonnell has said he will run for the Labour leadership when Tony Blair stands down.
The Hayes and Harlington MP said he was not a "stalking horse" candidate trying to topple Tony Blair.

But he wanted to ensure there was no "coronation" for Gordon Brown once Mr Blair leaves Downing Street.

Mr McDonnell said he wanted to repair the damage done by New Labour and represent people "who no longer feel they have a voice".


He promised to tour the country with his campaign and urged lapsed Labour members to rejoin the party to get involved in the debate.

"This is not a move against Tony Blair - it's a move against New Labour and the way it's formed at the moment," he told reporters on Westminster's College Green.

"We've had no debate. We in the party have felt very disenfranchised."

'Smooth transition'

The 54-year-old is chairman of the left-wing Campaign Group has been one of party's most rebellious MPs.

He promised to "get back to grass roots campaigning" and end the spin of New Labour.

He predicted Mr Blair, who says he will leave before the next election, would announce his resignation in the next 12 or 18 months.

"Some have argued that instead of an open democratic election for the leader of the party, there should be a smooth transition or virtual coronation of his successor," said Mr McDonnell.

"This would deny party members the opportunity of openly debating the issues facing our party and the future direction of the party."

He said a handover to Mr Brown could soon be followed by a "smooth transition" to Conservative leader David Cameron.

He accused the government of systematically alienating sections of Labour supporters - students, pensioners, public service workers, trade unionists, green activists and civil liberties and peace campaigners.

"This is reflected in lost votes, lost elections, lost members and a Labour prime minister having to rely upon Conservative votes in Parliament to force through legislation," he argued.

Loyalty?

But Mr McDonnell said he was happy to let Mr Blair stand down at a time of his choosing rather than try to hasten his departure.

"We have a real tradition in the Labour Party of loyalty to the leadership," he said. "We don't assassinate the leadership."

He insisted he was not a "stalking horse" but a "serious challenger" for the Labour leadership.

He denied his announcement would destabilise Labour and said it was not prompted by the recent "cash for peerages" allegations.

He said he had been wanting to announce his candidate for weeks but his plans were foiled every time by a new government controversy.

"We can't keep on delaying," he added.

Mr McDonnell has voted against Labour in the Commons on several occasions.

He has spent 25 years in politics and was the deputy leader of the Greater London Council under Ken Livingstone.


Will he gain any popularity at all though?

RedGeorge
14th July 2006, 13:47
Although most members of this board believe that all who associate themselves with a bourgeios institution like Parliament aren't worth the time of day for us Marxists, I happen to be a big fan of McDonnell and many others in the Socialist Campaign Group within the PLP (Parliamentary Labour Party). It would be fantastic if he could win, but I don't think he's well known enough to really stand a chance. Plus, he's very unpopular with the New Labour leadership, who will no doubt try to fix the elections to go in their (i.e. Brown's) favour.

RedAnarchist
14th July 2006, 13:47
here's the wiki on him - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonnell_%28politician%29

Whitten
14th July 2006, 17:29
It would be good to see him win, if only to provide a left-wing party to balance Parliament out again. I cant see it happening unless it turns out Brown touches little boys a few days before the vote though.

Comrade-Z
15th July 2006, 00:13
Labour MP launches leadership bid

Finally! If only we had some better leaders! :o

RedGeorge
15th July 2006, 16:06
John4Leader (http://www.john4leader.org.uk/)

This is the campaign website, which has just gone online.

RedAnarchist
15th July 2006, 16:14
And look at his voting record in Parliament - http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Jo...p%3B+Harlington (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=John_McDonnell&mpc=Hayes+%26amp%3B+Harlington)


this also shows some info - http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/john_mcdo..._and_harlington (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/john_mcdonnell/hayes_and_harlington)

bolshevik butcher
15th July 2006, 16:28
So I take it that all those in the various socialist sects are still maintaining htat the labour party is a bourgeoirse organisation. Some bourgeoirse organisation with marxist mps...... <_< Yes I think it&#39;s down to the left to fully support mcdonald, he will also hopefully present a focal point for the left in the trade unions and the labour party. I do not expect him to win but hopefully he can rally the left.

RebelDog
15th July 2006, 16:37
He could just be working for Brown in putting more pressure on Blair. I don&#39;t know. To be honest I don&#39;t care. If he was worth his salt he would have left the Labour Party years ago. I will personally will never go around again saying to the wotking class that their future lies with the Labour Party. Why the fuck would they ever trust the bastards again. Fuck them all, thats the way I feel. The Labour Party is not full of marxists, its full of traitors.

bolshevik butcher
15th July 2006, 17:00
Left to go where and do what? You see by no means do I &#39;like the labour party&#39; but in many ways it is still the organisation the working class identifies with and lets face it, it is still the unions party and where else is there? The socialist party? The SSP? Or another sect?

Comrade-Z
16th July 2006, 00:25
You see by no means do I &#39;like the labour party&#39; but in many ways it is still the organisation the working class identifies with

"You see by no means do I &#39;like the Anglican Church&#39; but in many ways it is still the organisation the working class identifies with"


and lets face it, it is still the unions party

And we all know how much the unions are on the side of the working class. :rolleyes:


and where else is there? The socialist party? The SSP? Or another sect?

How about ditching bourgeois-electoral bullshit altogether and refusing to confer to it any legitimacy?

bolshevik butcher
16th July 2006, 01:55
Yes because the anglican church was set up by the organised working class to represent their interstests, and has long been a focal point of their struggles? That is a ridiculous comparison.

Union leaders and bueraucrats certainly are not on the side of the working class. However, are you suggesting that as leftists we should not intervene in trade unions? Trade unions are where workers daily struggles are fought and are where rank and file workers should be introduced to the ideas of socialism.

Actually I agree with you to the extent that the left should not focus it&#39;s energies on beocming electable or anything like that. However contesting seats is a way of agitating amongst the working class and to introduce them to the ideas of socialism.

Comrade-Z
16th July 2006, 02:21
Yes because the anglican church was set up by the organised working class to represent their interstests

But is that still the purpose of the Labour Party? Or has its purpose now become to better manage capitalism and facilitate concessions by which class peace can be assured?

And is there any way to remake a political party into a vehicle for representing proletarian interests without altering it to such an extent that it&#39;s no longer recognizable as a political party? I hate to break it to the workers of Britain, but it was a bad decision in the first place to set up a non-recallable organization in order to represent their interests. Any efforts that go into such an organization are efforts down the toilet because there are no mechanisms within such an organization to ensure that these efforts always go towards the projects that the proletariat demands. It&#39;s a sad fact, but the sooner we realize this, the sooner we can stop wasting our efforts on things that won&#39;t help us and start putting our efforts into productive endeavors.


However, are you suggesting that as leftists we should not intervene in trade unions?

If leftists can intervene in trade unions in such a manner as to make them something other than a tool for managing capitalism, then go for it&#33; But be forewarned: losing their usefulness to the bourgeoisie, the unions will also become a target for heated attacks from the bourgeoisie. Get ready for an onslaught, and good luck&#33;

The thing about elections and unions that is so appealing is they seem to offer a relatively "pain-free" method of social progress. The unfortunate fact, though, is that if something were ever really useful to the proletariat, it would be made illegal. Emma Goldman said it best: "If elections could change anything, they would be illegal." And, historically, anywhere where elections did become capable of affecting real change or seemed likely to, they have been declared illegal (Chile 1970, Guatemala 1954, Iran 1953, Russian soviet councils 1918, Nicaragua 1980s, etc. etc. etc.). The bourgeoisie isn&#39;t going to make anything easy for us. Whatever we want to gain, we&#39;re going to have to fight for it, one way or the other.


However contesting seats is a way of agitating amongst the working class and to introduce them to the ideas of socialism.

So you say "Contesting elections won&#39;t bring any real change--we need socialist revolution for that&#33;" and then proceed to spend time and effort contesting elections. What kind of message does this send? That elections are a legitimate way of changing the system? If that&#39;s the case, then why don&#39;t we just work through elections? That&#39;s what most people will think.

And then you say, "If we can just elect some socialists, we can gain these improvements&#33;" And then those socialists get elected and become complete sell-outs (if there was ever a socialist politician that didn&#39;t become a complete sell-out upon election, the bourgeoisie would make sure to remove that politician ASAP). This doesn&#39;t exactly inspire confidence for the next time when you approach people with, "Okay, this time if you take these actions it will really make a difference&#33;"

Axel1917
16th July 2006, 07:02
"You see by no means do I &#39;like the Anglican Church&#39; but in many ways it is still the organisation the working class identifies with"

Churches and parties are two completely different things.


And we all know how much the unions are on the side of the working class. :rolleyes:

It is the tops that are against the working class, not the bulk of the working class. We have to go to the workers&#39; organizations. There is no other way. The workers will never just come to you. Your refusal to enter trade unions is a great service to the bourgeoisie, as it will just leave sections of the worokers under the influence of the reactionary tops. You should not fear pinpricks and difficulties when going to the workers. That has been the case, and it must be done, in spite of difficulty.


How about ditching bourgeois-electoral bullshit altogether and refusing to confer to it any legitimacy?

That has never succeeded and never will. History has shown that the workers try to go to traditional workers&#39; organizations frist. Every little attempt at what you advocate has been sectarian and ended up being a complete failure. The Bolsheviks did not shy away from unions, and they managed to overthrow the bourgeoisie, unlike the 9999999999999999 sects that are all over the planet.

Wasn&#39;t there supposed to be some kind of great alternative to Labour (Socialist Alliance?) that failed miserably?

If what you say is so correct, then why has it been totally unrealisable in practice?