The rules about single issue united fronts are pretty straightforward.

This is how Paul Le Blanc described the approach of the SWP (US) when it was contributing to the defeat of American imperialism in Vietnam. “…a non exclusionary united front to organize peaceful, legal mass demonstrations around the “out now” position. While the single-issue focus was linked to other various issues (Black liberation, women’s liberation, labor struggles, opposition to poverty, civil liberties, etc.), in speeches, flyers, and specific contingents in the mass demonstrations, the demonstrations were open to all who agreed on the antiwar perspective, regardless of where they stood on other issues, and regardless of what political party they did or did not support.”

No one can seriously argue that this has not been the same method adopted by the Stop the War Coalition in Britain. And yet you just can’t help feeling that there is something not quite right about inviting a prominent Tory MP to speak at an anti-war event. It turns out that Michael Ancram has better anti-war credentials than most Labour MPs, not a difficult achievement but laudable all the same. He even publicly expressed more hostility to Trident than most Labour MPs but then so did my cats. The trouble is that the Tories have not yet established any sort of track record as being a natural haven of anti-war activists, anti-imperialists or even well-intentioned do-gooders. They are still the party of Thatcher and Churchill and dozens of colonial wars. They will remain so too.

In a month where Cameron’s Tories are painting themselves greener than George Monbiot and reaching out to Black churches on the basis of family values and “morality” you can’t help thinking that Central Office was using Ancram’s evening with the Stop The War Coalition as part of the rebranding exercise. Something along the lines of “we still like most wars but Michael thinks we aren’t going to win this one.” Apart from a stinking cold the main thing that put me off going to the People’s Assembly was the prospect of being talked at from the platform by thirty or forty of the great and the good. Had I been there and still awake when Ancram came on stage I’d have walked out. If there are Conservatives willing to oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq let them prove it by organising and taking part in local and national activities before they are given the opportunity to grandstand at events like the People’s Assembly.

8 responses to “Michael Ancram at the People's Assembly – why does it not feel right?”

  1. Tell me this is an early April fool Liam.

    Like

  2. The ony thing that put me off going to the Peoples’ assembly was everything about it.I cannoy help noticing that the event got no coverage in the national press.Whereas I am sure our experience in Swindon was repeated round the country – of a small vigil or similar event getting good coverage in the local paper, and also empowering activists with the belief they are not just the audeice at a rally, but participants in their own right.

    Like

  3. When looked at in a certain way the probllem is not Ancram, but the problematic nature of putting on the type of event where Ancram even feels at home.I dount whther a Tory would have wanted to speak at trafalgar Square after a big demonstration, becasue that is not their sort of politicsm and it might be unruly.But when you have the politicall model of a top platform of importnat people and the hoi poloi gaterign ti hear theri wisdom, whay not have a Tory?

    Like

  4. To be fair, the event was billed as “THE DEBATE PARLIAMENT WON’T HAVE”, so given the nature of the event it would be appropriate to invite representatives from all mainstream political parties.It would only be a problem if there was evidence that the StWC was watering down their political demands to cater tories.To AN, wouldn’t it have been more effective to have had a demonstration on the weekend when thousands marched across the worldAJ

    Like

  5. AJNo it woldn’t have been more effective at the weekend, beacsue the anniversary was the 20th not the 17th.With regard to local press agendas, they are much more intersted in actual anniversaries.Why didn’t they have the people’s assembly at the weekend?

    Like

  6. The trouble is that the Tories have not yet established any sort of track record as being a natural haven of anti-war activists, anti-imperialists or even well-intentioned do-gooders. They are still the party of Thatcher and Churchill and dozens of colonial wars. They will remain so too. That could equally apply to the US Democratic Party (replacing Thatcher and Churchill with, say, Roosevelt and Kennedy). Yet the American SWP invited Democratic party politicians to speak at anti-Vietnam War events, actively defended their right to speak against other leftists, and even physically fought other leftists who tried to storm the stage. If they were right to do that, why was StWC wrong?

    Like

  7. I didn’t say the STWC was wrong. I say it was right. Then I try to explain why a correct decision caused such a queasy feeling. The other thing is that one way or another, for better or worse, the US left has always oriented to parts of the Democrats. This has not been the way we normally approach the Tories here.

    Like

  8. There always were anti-war Tories, like Clark and Ancram; just like , in the 1930’s the Tories were split over whether or not to go to war against Hitler. The pointis, whether or not any sort of progressive anti-war movement should ally with the isolationist right. The British SWP and their international co-thinkers (including the US “Workers World” people), have alreadfy answered that: yes they are. They are willing to ally with *anyone8, including Ba’athists, islamist anti-semites, and home-grown isolationists, against the war: shameful, and a good job that was not the US’s attitude in 1940.(I am using the “Anonymous” setting here, for purely technical reasons: I am., in fact Jim Denham).

    Like

Leave a reply to AN Cancel reply

Trending