Liam redux

,

Meanwhile over at the Morning Star

It’s a damned nuisance but the only way you can read the Morning Star online is to pay a subscription. Today’s (Monday) issue contains a full page article by Communist Party of Britain general secretary Robert Griffiths. It makes for interesting reading and is open to a couple of interpretations. The piece is called More…

Liam
2–3 minutes
, ,

It’s a damned nuisance but the only way you can read the Morning Star online is to pay a subscription. Today’s (Monday) issue contains a full page article by Communist Party of Britain general secretary Robert Griffiths. It makes for interesting rrobert-griffiths.jpg,scaledeading and is open to a couple of interpretations.

The piece is called More Nuremberg than “democratic”. That is a pretty harsh title for an article about the Labour Party conference I’m sure you’ll agree. It certainly makes you think that he’s not too impressed with the high level of membership participation. He trots through (boom boom!) some standard criticisms of Labour. It favours the rich. It likes to privatise things. It likes war. It doesn’t like civil liberties.

It took me a couple of readings to decide that I had fully understood his final two paragraphs.

The trade unions and the people of Britain need a mass party of labour. If, as in the US, we all agreed that we do not have one, we would be united in trying to create one. Opting out of the struggle to reclaim or re-establish a mass political party of the labour movement offers no solution.

From this Labour Party conference every trade union, whether affiliated or not, and every socialist organisation has a responsibility to outline its proposals for reclaiming or re-establishing Britain’s mass party of labour.

What do you think he’s saying and is it significant? It seems to me  that he’s indicating that a big chunk of his party and its supporters have reached the conclusion that Labour is now a pro-capitalist, anti-working class party. This means that it is now the right time to open a discussion on whether or not Labour can be won back to social democracy. The second paragraph is an open invitation to everyone who is interested to put their ideas on the table and have an open conversation about what our options are.

My contact with the Communist Party is non existent. But I do know that its influence in the unions is much greater than that of the rest of the left, even if it isn’t always a force for good. Reading the greetings to Labour Party conference gives you a taste of the breadth of its contacts. There was even a full page advert from the Prison Officers’ Association.

The defeat of John Mc Donnell’s campaign, the upcoming likely fights around public sector pay and the amputation of what remained of Labour Party democracy are obliging the CP and its supporters to re-assess their traditional support for Labour. This is one more stage in the process of making the socialist party to replace it. Now who is going to start organising the spaces where these debates can be had?

 

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

49 responses to “Meanwhile over at the Morning Star”

  1. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    Liam, when you write: “its influence in the unions is much greater than that of the rest of the left, ”

    I am not at all sure that is true. What is true is that the CPB has more good will with the unions than the rest of the left, but it has been many years since that actually translated into influence , and I suspect that in terms of members of leading bodies of the unions, the SP has more bums on seats nowadays.

    The CP do have a certain maturity of how they operate politically, that means they build bridges with people to the right of them. This is entirey to their credit, but we shouldn’t overestimate their size or influence.

    Like

    Reply
  2. twp77 Avatar
    twp77

    Oh boy – yet another saviour for you two – looks like the class struggle is really opening up now! Things must be looking terribly optimisitc all of the sudden. Just think about how wonderful the marriage of George Galloway and the Stalinist CPB will be!

    Like

    Reply
  3. Liam Avatar
    Liam

    Tami no saviour from on high delivers. The shift is noteworthy because it is a strong message that a formerly very loyal group of Labour supporters has reached the end of its tether.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Louisefeminista Avatar
    Louisefeminista

    “Formerly very loyal group of Labour supporters”…

    Really? We are talking about the same opportunistic CPB here. If you were able to pull a good chunk of Labour independent lefties to the project of Respect then I would sit up and pay attention but it is another dem cent group.. So what then?

    The problem is that Respect will have Galloway and Salma Yaqoob along with SR and the CPB and probably a smattering of independents but it really doesn’t seem that attractive to join in the least.

    Like

    Reply
  5. twp77 Avatar
    twp77

    Liam you have written or at least discussed previously that your hope for Respect’s supposed regeneration was going to at least partially come from the CPB. It is in this context that I wrote the above comments. Has your view on this changed?

    Like

    Reply
  6. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    If you were able to pull a good chunk of Labour independent lefties to the project of Respect then I would sit up and pay attention

    Who did you have in mind?

    My map of the Labour Party is a bit out of date, but when I was active in the Socialist Society (RIP) there were two main groups we could work with usefully, viz. SO and the ISG; we also had distant and slightly suspicious but generally friendly relations with the CG. The Mils wouldn’t talk to us, and neither would the CLPD. That soft-left bunch whose name I forget around Chartist would have talked to us, but we weren’t too keen; ditto ILP.

    Here’s the ISG opting (back) into RESPECT, so that’s one. The Chartist/ILP circle is basically Decent these days, so they’re out, as is the AWL for less fundamental reasons; and the Mils are out of the picture (unless you count Socialist Appeal). Apart from attracting individual LP members, what can RESPECT actually do to find a “good chunk of Labour independent lefties”?

    Like

    Reply
  7. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    Louise

    In what way are the CPB opportunist?

    And Tami – in any meaningful terms the CPB are a lot less “stalinist” than most Trot groups.

    Like

    Reply
  8. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    Phil

    I was having this discussion with JOhn Nicholson recently.

    I think the only constituency that exists of “labour lefts” are people who used to be in the LP but are no longer .

    This is of course why Louise’s criticism is ill founded, because you cannot judge any political project on its ability to attract a constituency that no longer exists – “Independent lefties from the LP”

    Like

    Reply
  9. Martin Wicks Avatar
    Martin Wicks

    Andy, I think we need to examine their “maturity” in “building bridges” to people to the right of them. This is a bit of a wooden abstraction.

    Take the example of the TGWU. Members of the CPB failed to demand a vote on the Executive over whether or not the union should support Brown. I think this qualifies as opportunism.

    Historically the CP has tended to seek to win positions within the bureaucracy rather than mobilising for membership control of them. They are not the only ones, of course.

    But I would have to see some evidence of this “maturity” to be convinced it wasn’t opportunism.

    Like

    Reply
  10. Louisefeminista Avatar
    Louisefeminista

    Phil: There are indie Labour lefties who aren’t part of a trot group, that’s who I mean.

    What about the activists around the McD campaign and certainly, many of them are not connected to a trot group. I was involved in the campaign and certainly met these people.

    And I think I know what’s happening in the LP than people outside.

    The other question, is where are the people who are leaving the LP going to? Certainly not into the arms of Respect.

    Like

    Reply
  11. Louisefeminista Avatar
    Louisefeminista

    Andy: when you manage to debate in a more comradely and less hectoring/lecturing blokey style then I will answer. It’s off-putting and I am sick of it.

    It just seems a put down and patronising you wonder why women don’t clamour to the Left.

    Like

    Reply
  12. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    I dunno Martin, as you know i disagreed with you at the time over the significance of the Unions backing Brown.

    At the Southern regional Council of the GMB I didn’t challenge our region’s support for Brown, but instead I challenged the support for Hain, and I argued for supporting Cruddas instead.

    That was a straight forward tactical consideration.

    I don’t necessarily agreethat a failure to challenging the backing for Brown was opportunist, given that they knew by that time there would be no contest anyway.

    The historical position of the CP with regard to positions within the union machine has indeed been electoral in the past (as has the Militant), and that can indeed be highly problematic for the reasons we all know.

    Historically I think we can all agree that the CPGB manouvred within the offical machines to the detriment of shop floor militancy on many occasions.

    But a lot of has happened since then, and whether it is helpful to characterise the CPB as opportunist today is arguable.

    It is also not at all clear to me that Lousie means the same as you do by the term opportunist, which is why i asked her what she meant.

    It would seem to me that in relation to the position that the CP have taken towards the labour party this may or may not be correct, but it does flow directly from the political analysis in the British Road To Socialism, and as such has been principled (wheter rightly or wrongly) rather than opportunist.

    The fact that when the CPB were forst thinking of joining Respect, they had a vote of the entire memebrship, and the leadership were defeated after an open debate also strikes me as not the characteristics of opportunism.

    Like

    Reply
  13. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    And Louise,

    It seems to me that you have a bee in your bonnet about the way i debate, and keep raising it. I know I can be a bit abrubt, for which i apologise,

    but, if you look through this debate, not just in this current thread but elsewhere, i would argue that quite a bit of hectoring has also come from you and tami.

    By which I mean taking a confrontational approach, and justifying your position with very bold statements, without supporting evidence or argument.

    Other people can judge whether my style of arguing is so much more lecturing and hectoring than everyone else that you are justified in not answering.

    Bt for example, you have said in several occasions that the LP bureucracy and the TU bureaucracy are linked.

    Whereas i ahev argues that the unions bureucracy has its roots in the labour movement, and the LP bureucracy has its base in the state, through the eelcted positiosn they win and patronage.

    My question is how does his linkage operate in your opinion? That is not lecturing and hectoring, it is a simple request for clarification of your position.

    Like

    Reply
  14. Martin Wicks Avatar
    Martin Wicks

    It was precisely the support for Brown which led the union leaders down the road of avoiding strike action in the NHS, agreeing to the constitutional changes which take away their power to defeat the leadership in Labour conferences over issues of importance. With the exception of UNISON (whose apparatus lost a vote in the local government committee and have been forced to ballot for strike action) the GMB and Unite are calling for a yes vote in the local government ballot.

    And if you hear what they have said about Brown it is arrant nonsense (see my piece on the “obsequious squad”). They are lieing to their members. They have capitulated to Brown.

    For the left on the TGWU executive (including the CPB)not to have pushed a vote on the leadership issue was opportunist, since they clearly wanted to avoid a split with Woodley.

    Like

    Reply
  15. twp77 Avatar
    twp77

    Andy – so what on earth does the CPB being “less Stalinist” mean as far as it relates to Respect? I am raising the issue precisely because Liam and yourself are excited at the prospect of a Galloway-CPB alliance inside the organisation. The issue is that you are pleased that an organisation with a record of undemocratic and opportunist functioning may join the Respect rump and as if by magic create a democratic alternative to the left of Labour.

    So I care very little if they are “more Stalinist” or “less Stalinist” – they are Stalinist – period. Your pie in the sky reliance on groups like this shows very clearly the fallacy of your original argument that Respect is somehow going to be regenerated into a party that trade unionists and others will want to join.

    Like

    Reply
  16. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    This is a non-Sequiter Martin, or peraps putting the cart before the horse:

    It was precisely the support for Brown which led the union leaders down the road of avoiding strike action in the NHS, agreeing to the constitutional changes which take away their power to defeat the leadership in Labour conferences over issues of importance

    Avoiding strike action in the NHS and accepting the changes over conference flow from the union leaders desire to have a labour government returned at the next election at almost any cost. In the case of Woodley and Simpson in particuar this is more importnat than their members’ interests.

    The left are correct to challenge the capitualtion of the leaders over these specific issues that directly effect the members (although the LP conference thing only indirectly).

    The public backing for Brown was motivated by the same desire to show support for a labour Third term, but was of no direct significance, and I think that the left were justified in making a tactical decision not to oppose it. Why split with Woodley over an issue that ddn’t matter?

    Theye did signal their desire for a change of policy direction by backing Cruddas, which is more than the GMB did.

    Like

    Reply
  17. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    TWP

    In what way in particular are the CPB stalinist?

    It seems to me that they are a fairly democratic group with a very light hand over internal discipline. And in recent years a reasonably good record at working with other people, particularly in the peace movement.

    With regard to their historical support for the USSR, paradoxically the official communist parties are much more open and self critical about the past than the trotskyists. Although it was the weight of that history that made the old, real CPGB irreformable, despite the best intentions of the Eurocommnists, and to a certain degree that weight of history still sits on the CPB.

    I am personally very happy to work with the CPB. They partcipate in the Socialist unity group in manchester, and we have good relations with them in swindon. I like and trust Rob Griffiths, who is a talented socialist and who talks a lot of sense in my opinion.

    But I put less emphasis on the significance of the CPB than Liam, so perhaps you should address your point about the CP being “saviours” to him.

    the question for me is not that respect has suddenly changed from crap to great. But that a process of debate and self-criticism is emerging out of which something better may result. Or at least may be a healthy component in something better and more ambitious in the future.

    Like

    Reply
  18. Martin Wicks Avatar
    Martin Wicks

    I’m staggered Andy. “An issue that did not matter.”
    Painting Brown as a friend of the working class doesn’t matter?!?! This is a ‘tactical’ question?

    So its OK for the left to accept the TGWU supporting Brown?

    You are defending a position which is indefensible here. The working class is paying a price for the opportunism of these leaders.

    What about the Gazette Group in Amicus? They call for a vote for McDonnell and then they are silent on the question of Simpson’s action as General Secretary (from behaving like a backwoods anti-union employer with his own staff to…supporting Brown). Should they keep their ‘alliance’ with Simpson?

    Like

    Reply
  19. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    Martin

    I don’t know whay you are staggered, this is exactly the same position I argued in the editorial group of “Solidarity – Trade Union magazine” over your editorial criticising the unions for backing brown.

    I don’t care whether they backed Brown or not, once McD was out of the race anyway.

    Yes we are paying a price for their unwillingness to break politically with the Labour government, but endorsing the coronation of brown was of no specific consequence.

    I don’t understand how you amalgamate that issue with Simpson’s treatment of his staff, which is a real substantive issue. (though whether it is worth the left considering Simpson has anything ion common with them whatsoever is another question)

    Like

    Reply
  20. Liam Avatar
    Liam

    The essential point about the CPB business is that it gives an entirely new legitimacy to the discussion about creating an alternative to Labour. If they were to get involved with the process of creating something new it would have more weight than the elements that make up Respect of the CNWP for example which means that people who have been reluctant to engage with the new formations are more likely to try them out.

    Like

    Reply
  21. Martin Wicks Avatar
    Martin Wicks

    I know it’s the same position you have argued Andy, but we have had one or two events since then. We have to judge our views against the test of events.

    What they have done since is entirely at one with their opportunism which has led them to avoid a conflict with the government. Don’t forget Prentis was talking about united action in relation to public sector pay earlier in the year.

    Like

    Reply
  22. George T Avatar
    George T

    The CPB talking with RESPECT may also lead Crow/the RMT into a new project. Would our Labour lefties decant in such a climate?

    As for our Labour left correspondents – what is your view on Brown changing LP Conference so the TUs can put motions but not vote on them. A historic change? Is the TU link as strong as ever? The AWL described Brown’s proposals as a death blow – but then fail to highlight who or what is dead now.

    Like

    Reply
  23. newleftparty Avatar
    newleftparty

    i don’t think crow has any time for galloway or the swp

    anyway a project that included the rmt, cpb, cnwp, sp and elements from the respect wreckage would be an interesting and potentially massive development.

    ks

    Like

    Reply
  24. charliemarks Avatar
    charliemarks

    This report on the CPB’s most recent EC meeting on saturday confuses matters:

    “Britain’s Communists also discussed plans to develop Unity for Peace and Socialism as a Communist-led electoral alliance” (http://www.scottishcommunists.org.uk/news/?page=article&story=56)

    Eh? Perhaps the Newsnight report on Friday has made people think its all over for Respect.

    Perhaps Respect was discussed as an alternative.

    Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…

    Like

    Reply
  25. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    Martin

    You can’t argue that a decision was opportunist because of subsequent events!

    Subsequent events may prove the decision to be wrong, but it could still have been a tactical decision made in good faith, rather then an opportunist one.

    And I still don’t think it is a big deal. the unions back the Labour Party, and want to see it elected, so they are going to support the leader of that party in general terms.

    The left is on stringer ground arguing over the specifics of how the unions should organise to defend their members against the government, rather than a general issue of whether they back the leader, once it had already been decided there wuld be no contest.

    Had the left been able to put up a credible candidate (i.e. one that the unions leaders thought might win) then it would have been a different story.

    Like

    Reply
  26. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    Charlie

    The Unity for Peace and Socialism initiative is long standing and two candidates stood in leicester in may.

    Like

    Reply
  27. charliemarks Avatar
    charliemarks

    Yes, I know – but is it the kind of long-standing initiative that is likely to be given up in favour of joining Respect?

    Like

    Reply
  28. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    I don’t see how the CPB can be brought into Respect, while Respect have the sectraian approach of challenging Livingston for mayor.

    I think that is a deal breaker.

    Like

    Reply
  29. Birmingham Respect Member Avatar
    Birmingham Respect Member

    Re the sectarian approach of standing against Livingstone for Mayor…

    It is not just the CPB for which this is a real obstacle. See the letter earlier this year from the British Muslim initiative (http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1994672,00.html).

    Salma Yaqoob has already argued at the Respect NC against standing a candidate for the London Mayor, and in favour of a strong campaign for seats on the London Assembly.

    Unfortunately she is in a minority in Respect at the moment. But I have no doubt that the big majority of Respect’s voters will be voting Ken. Given that the only realistic alternative is not Lindsay German, but Boris Johnson, it is not hard to see why.

    The conclusion of Salma’s document to the NC should be taken seriously: “…a coalition which acts to support all those who share a commitment to peace, equality and justice. In building Respect we have to act in a way that strengthens this broad progressive constituency and does not divide it.”.

    Respect will have to return to the issue of the Mayoral elections if it is not to risk alienating itself from those who would otherwise support it for the assembly elections.

    Like

    Reply
  30. LJ Avatar
    LJ

    Are you similarly calling for the Greens not to stand?

    Seriously, if Respect stand they get a booklet into every house in London, for a small party to decline such publicity would be suicidal.

    Also, last time, Respect called for second preference votes to go to Livingstone, if Livingstone’s position is more shakey this time round then that’s his fault for moving to the right not Respect’s

    Personally, if Livingstone wants to be the unified candidate of the left then he shouldn’t have a) Supported the police over the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes b) Called on workers to scab c) Been directly involved in the arrest and eviction of Brian Haw from Parliament Square

    If the left can put up a strong challenge to “Red” Ken it might force him to move leftward

    Another complication might be that Rob Griffiths is based in Wales, the CPB have gone ga-ga over the Labour/Plaid Coalition that are now in power to the point of organising meetings to promote “the progressive administration”. Respect supporters in Wales & the socialist party and every other left wing organisation take a more critical stance.

    Like

    Reply
  31. LJ Avatar
    LJ

    The profile gained through standing for Mayor actually helps the GLA campaign.

    If Respect doesn’t stand a mayoral candidate it will be strongly disadvantaged and the mainstream media probably won’t give them much coverage

    Like

    Reply
  32. Birmingham Respect Member Avatar
    Birmingham Respect Member

    LJ: “Also, last time, Respect called for second preference votes to go to Livingstone”

    Good, but unfortunately only 26% of Respect’s votes actually transferred to Ken.

    LJ: “if Livingstone’s position is more shakey this time round then that’s his fault for moving to the right not Respect’s”

    I don’t agree, but even if it were true, it is not the issue. Ken is the ONLY candidate from the left who can possibly be elected. The alternative is a hard right Tory. Everything that is progressive about Ken’s administration (and even his critics must admit there’s one or two things) would be overturned within hours.

    Like

    Reply
  33. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    Wales is a particularly difficult area for any progressive alternative, and although I had high hopes for Forward Wales at one stage, I think that socialists in Wales now should now join or at least support Plaid.

    I didn’t know the CP had taken the position you describe, but I think they are correct.

    Like

    Reply
  34. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    I don’t think the Greens should stand against Ken either. But they are a law unto themselves.

    I would be interested in whether anyone in the Green Left is advocating the Greens not opposing him which would be a sensible position considering Boris is opposed to the congestion charge.

    Like

    Reply
  35. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    On Livingston, as I argued in a comment on the SU blog:

    If we look at the analysis that John Cruddas put forward of where labour’s missing four and a half million votes are from, then the evidence is that Labour has lost that number of votes since 1997 from predominantly three groups. BME voters, middle class professionals (Guardian/Independent types) and manual workers.

    The first two groups are more higly represented in London than in the general popualtion, and manual workers are not in greater numbers, but are more acutely disadvantaged over housing and relative poverty than in other regions. So it is reasonable to assume that labour’s vote in London may be disproportionately down.

    I don’t think the threat to Ken is just an illusion. Indeed, it is less relevant what the actual threat is, the perceived threat is what politics needs to be based upon.

    What seems to have happened is that the SWP has lost all sense of proportion about elections. Electons are important, but they are not the most importnat thing. maintaining and building a network of alliances and relationships with other progressive forces is more important that winning a seat on the GLA – particularly as Resect’s chances of winning such a GLA seat are almost certainly being exaggerated. Respect has lost ground and momentum since the last GLA election, and the BNP have gained ground massively. Under the d’Hondt system respect probably needs to be able to get more votes than the BNP to get a seat.

    Ken Livingston is a very important figure in the British left, and it is importnat that we are seen to be supporting the broad progressive coalition that he has built.

    If we look to the most sucessful left unity project in Europe, Die Linke, we see that the SWP’s sister organisation (now Marx21) played a very constructive role in supporting the PDS in Berlin against the sectarian left in the Berlin WASG who opposed the PDS electorally. The arguments are prety much the same, the British SWP needs to learn from the experience of their German comrades.

    Like

    Reply
  36. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    This incidently reminds me of a conversation I was recently having with a young Italian boy about football.

    He asked me what team I supported, and I expained I supported Britsol City and Swindon Town, becasue they are the best teams.

    he said, no manchester United and Chelsea are the best teams.

    Ah ha, I clarified you are confusing best with successful. they are not the same thing.

    It is quite possible for Respect to fight a brilliant campaign for the GLA that helps pull the political context to the left, helps to reelect Ken, and build sbridges with other progressive forces. this would be a strong, goos and usefull campiagn.

    Winning a seat is of secondary importance, and if a tactic to win a seat (standing for mayor) undermines the primary purpose (shifting politica to the left, and building relationships) then it would be counterproductive.

    Like

    Reply
  37. karl s Avatar
    karl s

    i think socialists should stand against ken.

    just because he is good on social issues and supports venezuela doesn’t make him a left anymore. he is in power, and he has not carried out socialist policies (some policies have been ok its true, but he has not tackled housing nor dealt with the wealth gap in any way), he has not mobilised londoners to fight the government for the funds necessary, and he has called for strike breaking!

    he has totally accomodated himself with new labour.

    also, you can vote with preferences for mayor i think. so therefore you could vote 1st for a left candidate then 2nd for ken if you wanted to.

    ks

    Like

    Reply
  38. babeuf Avatar
    babeuf

    LJ said: “Also, last time, Respect called for second preference votes to go to Livingstone”

    and Birmingham Respect member replied “Good, but unfortunately only 26% of Respect’s votes actually transferred to Ken.”

    Birmingham Respect member, since you’re arguing against Respect running for mayor, I can’t see the logic of this point about the proportion of Respect votes transferred last time.

    Consider the 26% of first-choice Respect voters. Livingstone got his transferred votes from them. So what’s the problem here?

    Now consider the 74% of Respect voters who didn’t want to transfer their votes to Livingstone. Again, where’s the problem?

    You could only make your point work if you could somehow argue that a substantial number of the 74% would have cast their votes for Livingstone if only Respect hadn’t been standing. Obviously this is absurd.

    If these voters were so determined not to transfer their votes to Livingstone that they even disregarded Respect’s call on their voters to make Livingstone their second preference, then no-one could seriously argue that any of their votes would have gone to him if Respect had not been standing. Maybe you think the 74% were wrong in refusing to vote for Livingstone under any circumstances, but that’s a separate issue, and you certainly can’t hold Respect responsible, given their call for second-choice Livingstone votes.

    So this argument falls. I can’t think of any plausible scenario in which Respect’s vote would allow Boris Johnson to beat Livingstone (given the transferable-vote system in operation), and I doubt if you will be able to either (although if you can come up with one, I’m ready to listen).

    But at another level, I agree with Birmingham Respect member – as a fellow Respect member, I certainly think we need to debate these things openly (and credit to Liam for encouraging constructive debate). A truly democratic Respect – even if it makes mistakes – is worth far more than a bureaucratic Respect – no matter how many “brilliant ideas” the leadership can cook up.

    Like

    Reply
  39. Adam J Avatar
    Adam J

    Andy Newman:

    “I think that socialists in Wales now should now join or at least support Plaid.”

    Are you on your own planet? You’re obviously not from Wales and have no understanding of Welsh politics! And no knowlege of Plaid!

    Like

    Reply
  40. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    Dunno Adam.

    I have a lot of family in Waes, and my nephews and neices are Welsh speakers.

    It seems to me that the Socialist Alliance and Respect have both floundered in Wales, and Forward Wales didn’t take off.

    The national question is very important, andf the left has not built the sort of base that Scottish Militant labour were able to do.

    In those circumstances, the sort of turn into plaid that Jim Sillars so effectivley managed with the SNP may be the best way of promoting progressive politics.

    From what i gather – and I may be worng – there are no specific obstacles to socialists organisaing within Plaid.

    Like

    Reply
  41. charliemarks Avatar
    charliemarks

    The Plaid/Labour got strong backing in the unions and CLPs – because members knew that Plaid would add to the “clear red water” (more of a trickle, actually) between the Welsh Labour leadership and the UK Labour party. The CPB rightly sees this as a positive development.

    Welsh Labour MPs and MEPs are well worried. Here’s a choice cut from the One Wales agreement:

    “We firmly reject the privatisation of NHS services or the organisation of such services on market models. We will guarantee public ownership, public funding and public control of this vital public service.”

    And it’s strange actually, the nationalist parties appear less control-freakish. Plaid’s women AMs declared that a coalition with the Tories would be a bad thing – there was a debate within the party, and the party chose to enter government with Labour.

    Plaid’s sexiest socialist, Adam Price, has made overtures to the unions in the past with regard to party funding, and is familiar with Gramsci…

    In Scotland, a newspaper did a big piece on the SNP’s sole socialist MSP, Bill Wilson(http://charliemarks.wordpress.com/2007/08/03/snps-secret-socialist-scandal/) eliciting a relaxed response from the party’s spokesperson.

    Like

    Reply
  42. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    So Charlie – what is your view about socialist joining Plaid.

    I ask this partly becasue a friend of mine who was in the SWP for donkey’s years lives in Cornwall, and I think he should join Mebyon Kernow.

    Like

    Reply
  43. charliemarks Avatar
    charliemarks

    Yeah, I reckon socialists should join Plaid.

    If socialists in Wales agree that the break-up of Britain into smaller nation states (Scotland, Wales, England, Cornwall) – either independent and inter-related or federated and inter-related, is something that should be advocated. as it would weaken the power of the british, american and european ruling classes, then joining parties like Plaid and Mebyon Kernow is acceptable.

    By the way Andy, do you agree that Respect should confine itself to England?

    Like

    Reply
  44. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    Charlie: By the way Andy, do you agree that Respect should confine itself to England?

    I agree with that 100%.

    Like

    Reply
  45. CPB to drop support for Labour Party? « Rebellion Sucks!

    […] online at the Scottish Committee’s site. The implications of the article are discussed by Liam Mac Uaid, who […]

    Like

    Reply
  46. Adam J Avatar
    Adam J

    Andy would you urge socialists in England to join the LibDems? If so, why are you asking socialists in Wales to join a party that isn’t socialist? This is bullshit!

    If you come to Wales, you will simply find that Plaid is not an attractive option for many trade unionists, anti-capitalist young people, ex-Labour members.

    The potential for a party like Respect to build a base in South Wales is actually quite good, but we are starting from a small base. But objectively, the idea of a socialist organisation to the left of Labour and Plaid is one that many voters could be won to, hence the small sucesses in Blaenau Gwent and the limited progress of Forward Wales (before their implosion).

    Plaid has no influence in the trade union movement. Indeed, their “trade union organiser” was even caught out when he welcomed infamous union busting firm Amazon opening new warehouses in Wales!

    Actually Plaid were very close to joining forces against the Tories and LibDems in a “rainbow coalition” what scuppered it was not the very timid protest of 4 AMs but that the LibDems pulled out, leaving Plaid floundering. And let’s be clear that Ieuan Wyn Jones, the leader was extremely favourable to joining forces with the Tories.

    The most progressive thing in the One Wales agreement between Plaid and Labour is the scrapping of PFI in the health service, but why not in other areas?

    The reason why health is singled out is because there have been massive grassroots campaigns on this issue, that made it a key issue in the Assembly elections. ie. it was pressure from below that swung the mainstream parties left.

    But don’t kid yourself! Hospitals are still being shut down, the ink is not even dry on the One Wales agreement and where I live the council is closing schools, selling off the locally run bus service etc.

    Plaid as a nationalist formation are cross-class, particularly in the North and West of Wales they contain some real tories and bigots. The Leader of Plaid in the House of Commons even publicly supported limited military strikes against Afghanistan in 2001 and they fudged the question of pulling troops out of Iraq,

    You have to accept for many traditional Labour voters in the urban areas of South Wales where I live, Plaid is not an attractive option. In Cardiff and Swansea, traditional Labour voters switch to LibDems not Plaid – I live in a seat where the SLP got their second highest vote in 2001 – Plaid have never retained their deposit here.

    Plaid’s economic strategy for Wales as put forward by Adam Price is based on tax breaks to mulitnationals. Consider: Pre-Thatcher, big business paid over 50% tax, under Thatcher it went down to 30%, under Brown still further. Plaid are actually too the right of New Labour and Thatcher on this, they want to cut tax to big business further!

    Corporate globalisation means companies race around the world looking for the places with the lowest wages and least workers rights – Plaid’s economic strategy is based on attracting foreign multinationals to Wales – this can only mean the continuation of exploitation and a low wage economy.

    There is also a gap growing between the social democratic rhetoric of Plaid and the reality.

    For example, Plaid have always had a strong committment to opposing nuclear power. Yet now their leader has supported a new nuclear power plant in Anglesey and their recent Assembly Manifesto dropped mention of opposition to nuclear power!

    Plaid claim to want to disengage Wales from the arms trade but they have slavishly supported 100% (and no “socialist” in Plaid has spoken out) £16 billion being spent on a Military Academy to train the latest recruits to the war on terror. This military academy is becoming the focus of a growing campaign. Given that the MIlitary Academy is closely bound up with arms companies it is impossible for Plaid to claim to be against the arms trade and support it.

    When Plaid have got into power at local government level they have implemented the same neoliberal cuts in services as the other three parties

    Like

    Reply
  47. Adam J Avatar
    Adam J

    Should have read (above) Plaid were close to joining forces WITH Tories.

    And the SLP vote I mentioned was in 1997

    Like

    Reply
  48. charliemarks Avatar
    charliemarks

    I was going to write “Yeah, I reckon socialists should join Plaid, if it’s the only game in town.” But instead my mind wandered and I wrote a bit about the break-up of Britain – and consequently, British military power.

    My opinion on socialists joining Plaid is of no consequence, however – people should do and will do what they think is best and most effective.

    I notice Adam, you didn’t mention the issue of independence. Do you think Respect should follow the lead of the SSP/Solidarity in Scotland and fight the nationalists not only from the left but also for quick independence?

    Like

    Reply
  49. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    For me it is the national question that suggests Plaid as a useful place for socialists to be organising.

    Given that Galloway, the besy known figure in Respect, is a Unionist, then Respect is not an obvious vehicle for progressive politics in Wales.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment

Trending