That ISG statement on London's mayoral elections

April 6, 2008 at 10:53 am

GeorgeT

Is anyone in the SWP/Left List advocating a vote for Respect Renewal anywhere (2nd preference etc) or would it piss German off and there is a lack of spine or principle to stand up to her (or was that only at SWP Conference). JM – we could all throw such accusations. Rather than ranting – it may be better reading ISG/Socialist Resistance publications on the environment e.g Ecosocialism or Barbarism etc and Derek Wall’s stuff (and maybe you’ll think you have more in common with us than you think). If Green Left is so appalling, why did REESPECT (the forerunner of the Left List) invite Derek Wall as a speaker to their Conference?

LikeLike

April 6, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Padraic

Ask yourself this question: which of the two is a left position as opposed to a Green/New Labour coalition? Livingstone called for a vote for the Greens in the Assembly last time round.

Obviously , German is the candidate of the left.

But then, the ISG’s postion has more to do with pure sectarianism than the political need to build a party to the left of Labour.

LikeLike

April 6, 2008 at 12:32 pm

S

The anti SWP feeling appears to trounce what should be a vote for German. I agree with JM. The ISG and their supporters are repeating the supine position of the SWP when they faced Galloway, on “a woman’s right to choose an abortion, the right to speak out openly on religious matters, the need for embryo research, the persecution of gays, the deportation of migrants.”

LikeLike

chjh

April 6, 2008 at 1:04 pm

I particularly liked the cowardly afterthought in what many argued was a tactical decision. As opposed to what?

LikeLike

Matthew

April 6, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Padraic is wrong.There are 3 left candidates, including the Greens. Lindsey is a good candidate, but not ‘the’ candidate of ‘the left’, unless you consider the ‘left’ to be defined by the SWP.

It is a stretch for S to argue that the ISG is being ‘supine’ when they are clearly presenting a different position on these elections to that of Galloway. Would that have happened in the old Respect, let alone the SWP?

And although chjh is right to like the view that these are tactical decisions I can’t see why it is ‘cowardly’. In opposition to a decision to vote for Sian or Lindsey on ‘principle’ I guess. There is a bad tendecy to present tactical decisions as the only possible principled choice and anything else as rank betrayal, stupidity or whatever. This rally is one of the blemishes on the way the left argues.

And finally although I know many people find it hurtful and offensive to be accused of being in the SWP I would just record the regularity with which any opposition to the positions of the SWP is denounced as ‘sectarian’, to the extent that it seems to go beyond tactics and principles and into the realm of psychology..

LikeLike

prianikoff

April 6, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Dammit, is it just me?

LikeLike

prianikoff

April 6, 2008 at 3:03 pm

By the way, I just look at that last link properly and he’s a right-wing US whacko. So you’re not allowed to look at it, except for educational research?
I bet he thinks Gwyneth Paltrow is an unpatriotic traitor ‘cos she thinks the US is a bit nasty.

LikeLike

twp77

April 6, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Off topic but I just heard that comrade Greg Tucker passed away. I want to pass my condolences onto the comrades from SR here, his family and all of those who worked with him. I’ve done a short piece at Shiraz:

Comrade Tucker: Lifelong Trade Unionist & Socialist

LikeLike

petie

April 6, 2008 at 4:05 pm

The wheels on George’s bus go round and round – because it only takes one person to drive it.

When I was talking to someone after the bus went past me the other day, someone asked “Why does Galloway want to be on the GLA? He hasn’t even got the time to turn up in parliament.”

The ISG published an article early in the year saying that the Respect Renewal project would have to be a very different kind of organisation thanks to the fact that they’d lost the “foot soldiers” of the SWP, nice of you to think of them like that, but from what I can see the “foot soldiers” are still foot soldiering, and George is spending hours a day on a bus.

One bus doesn’t make an election campaign.

I think the destructive campaign is that of RR who aren’t serious about winning a seat on the GLA (otherwise they’d have Linda Smith top of the list). They will serve to split the vote and deny Lindsey German a seat on the GLA.

BTW why no ISG people on the RR list?

LikeLike

Adamski

April 6, 2008 at 4:30 pm

“The Green Party in England and Wales have also been part of the anti-war movement from the beginning”

Well actually at the Green Party conference in 2001, a motion linking the 9.11 attacks to US foreign policy was voted down and the Green Party didn’t join the Stop the War Coaliton until months later.

I should also note that in most areas the Green Party did very little to build the anti-war movement and also has and continues to fudge the question of pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, for a longtime they called for a UN occupation and promoted illusions in the UN before the invasion of Iraq. For example, where I live the Green Party showed up on anti-war protests with placards saying “US Out! – UN In!”

Peter Tatchell, a prominent member of the Green Party incidentally is a liberal imperialist who has attacked the Stop the War Coalition for calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops.

The ISG will be calling for a vote for the candidate of the London Green Party who on the GLA. opposed the sacking of Sir Ian Blair over the murder of Jean Charles De Menezes and have voted for neoliberal cuts and attacks on services and working class people.

Check the London Green manifesto and see which gets most mention “Green Business” and small busineses, or trade unions?

More to the point, you are not going to build ecosocialism by tailing the Green Party but by creating independent working class politics that takes up these issues and puts class-based solutions to the fore.

Does the ISG also endorse the Green Party’s campaign for more police on the beat?

The political collapse of the ISG is staggering!

LikeLike

jim jay

April 6, 2008 at 4:50 pm

“Well actually at the Green Party conference in 2001, a motion linking the 9.11 attacks to US foreign policy was voted down and the Green Party didn’t join the Stop the War Coaliton until months later.” But they were part of the movement, they refused to join the specific organisation that is the stwc initially because of a clause about non-violent protest getting turned down I seem to remember.

Just like the left the greens have been better and worse on the war depending on the area. If you take anti-trident protests or protests against US bases in my area the greens have led the way but i doubt that’s the case everywhere.

What you wont find is the greens demanding everything is done their way in the movement or taking credit for the entire movement against the war – which i personally find refreshing.

“The ISG will be calling for a vote for the candidate of the London Green Party who on the GLA…” really – where did you read that? I thought they’d only decided to vote for Sian.

And if you’ve read the manifesto and seen the policies to go on to imply the greens are neoliberal is silly.

I genuinely think alot of your anger, Adamski, comes down to your inability to read whats infront of you and take in information without turning every deviation from the one true path as some sort of world historic betrayal. See your remark baldly stating that Tatchell is a “liberal imperialist” as if this is some sort of uncontested fact.

LikeLike

Adamski

April 6, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Peter Tatchell has argued that US occupation is the lesser evil to Iraqi self-determination – what is this but liberal imperialism? He opposes the immediate withdrawal of troops because he evidently doesn’t think that Iraqis are capable of exercising self-determination, What is this but liberal imperialism?

The point is JimJay, in office, the record of the Green Party is no better than that of the Labour Party, only the Labour Party does have some kinda organic connection to the working class.

Now not a single Respect Councillor who is a member of Respect/Left Party of Respect Renewal has voted for neoliberal cuts in services or attacks on working class people, the same is true with the Socialist Party and Solidarity and the SSP. It is not true of the Green Party.

Of course, there are socialists in the Green Party, but by endorsing Sian Berry for Mayor, the ISG are helping build the project of the Green Party which is not particularly socialist. Has Sian Berry disassociate herself with the neoliberal cuts that Green elected representatives have supported in London? Therein lies the answer to your question.

I read the manifesto of my local Green Party, there was a whole section on small businesses and green businesses. Now I prefer small independent shops two clone-town big stores, I like farmers markets, and even believe that small shops should get some support such as lower business rates, but is small business and small shops really gonna save the planet?

Doesn’t this reflect the Greens orientations to the middle class and their middle class lifestyle environmentalism? Because most working class people don’t work in this sector and we need to be talking about trade union action on climate change and the big solutions around transport, housing etc.

LikeLike

pete S

April 6, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Could anyone tell me why there are no ISG people on the RR list for GLA? And why not Ken Loach either? Maybe this has been covered in a previous posting / discussion, but I’ve been abroad and away from the web. I would really like to know.

LikeLike

TLC

April 6, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Ken is busy preparing for his next film shoot in Manchester. Not the best place to campaign in a London election.

LikeLike

April 6, 2008 at 11:08 pm

S

On a different matter but related to principles what has Mac Uaid to say about Galloways ffailure to sign the EDM, now that he has time to have read it?

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=35401&SESSION=891

MEHDI KAZEMI AND THE TREATMENT OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN IRAN12.03.2008

Abbott, Diane
That this House is concerned by the case of Iranian teenager Mehdi Kazemi who is currently living in Holland; notes reports that Mr Kazemi’s boyfriend was forced by Iranian authorities to denounce other gay men, including Mr Kazemi himself; is appalled at reports that Mr Kazemi’s boyfriend was then hanged for the offence of homosexuality; believes that Mr Kazemi’s life is in serious danger if he were returned to Iran; further notes that the Dutch authorities have rejected Mr Kazemi’s appeal for asylum in Holland and are likely to deport him to the UK; believes that the Home Office view that Iran is safe for homosexuals as long as they hide their sexuality is contrary to human rights standards on sexual freedom; and calls on the Government to uphold its asserted position as a supporter of human rights by refraining from sending Mr Kazemi back to Iran and near-certain human rights abuses.

LikeLike

April 7, 2008 at 12:03 am

Ray

So the ISG won’t vote for the Left List because they claim it’s a vote for the SWP but they will support the Green’s who back New Livingstone. It’s the Renewal strategy by the backdoor.

Meanwhile the working class are ignored by Renewal and the ISG in favour of the interests of capitalists, green or otherwise.

I’m trying to locate where the working class fit into the strategies of Renewal and the ISG. Maybe I’m just not post-modern enough to comprehend.

LikeLike

April 7, 2008 at 12:10 am

Ray

On reflection, how could the ISG vote in conflict with Galloway? They’ve reached a nice cosy compromise that fits in well with Renewal’s strategy. All in Renewal will breathe a sigh of relief because the fragile alliance will hold as long as Galloway is not crossed. Excuse me for being cynical but I anticipated that the ISG would never back German and not for their excuse that the Left List is the SWP but because Galloway would never stand for it.

LikeLike

Mike Calvert

April 7, 2008 at 6:33 am

I have also heard that Greg died yesterday.
This is very sdad as Greg recruited me to the Socialist Leasgue in South london back in 1982 or 1983–well double recruited me, to the tendency of Phil and Dave, and Bob Pennington.
It is a very sad loss and I shalld efinitely attend the funeral.

Mike

LikeLike

prianikoff

April 7, 2008 at 7:12 am

re. Greg Tucker.

A serious loss for Socialists. I didn’t know him personally, but did leaflet with him during the last SA election campaign and he spent some time in the pub with us afterwards. He always struck me as a solid bloke who got on with the job.
Condolences to his friends, comrades and family.

LikeLike

Briz Blogger

April 7, 2008 at 8:05 am

Can’t help laughing when someone writes: “Obviously , German is the candidate of the left.” Er, no. German is the candidate of the neo-Stalinist SWP. Why would anyone who doesn’t support their rather unusual approach to left unity call for a vote for their candidate? The SWP comrades seem to have caught something of John Rees’s hubris.

BTW, condolences from me also to friends, family and comrades of Greg Tucker. He was a fine socialist.

LikeLike

Liam

April 7, 2008 at 9:01 am

Greg’s death was unexpectedly sudden. An obituary will be available shortly. Thanks to those who have expressed their condolences. I’ll make sure that they are passed on.

LikeLike

Mike Calvert

April 7, 2008 at 9:25 am

Liam

Please in all seriousness, pass on my condolences to all the comrades and to Joan.
I knew Greg quite well over the years and remember him with great fondness>

Mike

LikeLike

Doug

April 7, 2008 at 9:28 am

Calling for a first preference for a Green!

Is this the same party that, apart from a few deluded people like Derek Wall, completely accepts capitalism, has no working class or trade union orientation and, where it has councillors, rubber-stamps cuts in exchange for a few more recycling facilities. Anti-war activity virtually stopped after the invasion – got to support our boys now it’s started. They may have a raft of offical policies but in my experience the only campaigning they do is around trasitional environmental issues. Some of its members also have very dodgy views about ‘overpopulation’.

LikeLike

April 7, 2008 at 10:41 am

Ian Donovan

Condolences on the death of Greg Tucker, an excellent comrade and a firm supporter of Respect, among many other things. He is a major loss to the left, as well as to those close to him.

On the question of voting Green, I think the ISG are wrong about this, though some of their critics make the symetrically wrong error of writing off the Greens, and Green lefts in particular, as simply ‘deluded’.

The real point about the Greens is that they are a coalition of conflicting class outlooks, they contain genuine lefts and partisans of the working class and the oppressed, coalesced together with reactionary utopians who think the world is overpopulated and needs to return to a pre-industrial stage of development. All united by the ideology of environmentalism, which in its present form can mean many things to many people.

This is a not a bourgeois party in the class sense, but a petty-bourgeois radical party with genuine socialist elements within it. This needs to be split, along class lines, and the leftist elements won to a genuine left project.

In fact, it is not inconceivable that such a split could happen ‘spontaneously’. This could itself give birth to a genuine left project – abstracting from the fact that elements of such projects exist elsewhere and will therefore play a role in this process. But simply tailing the Greens, and putting forward this ideology of ‘Ecosocialism’ – i.e. making ideological concessions to a pan-class ideology – in my view retards this differentiation and is therefore somewhat self-defeating. This is just the latest manifestation of the USFI’s ‘Pabloite’ habit of tailing amorphous radical movements instead of trying to really engage with them and win the argument with them.

We need a more nuanced attitude to left-environmentalists than the ISG’s attitude implies, which is not to say that some of the cynical ISG/Respect bashers and ‘economists’ posting here are right. In the case of the SWP-loyalists, they are particularly hypocritical, since one of the key unrealised goals of Rees and German when they ran Respect was an electoral alliance with the Greens. It was the Greens who spiked this, not the SWP.

LikeLike

April 7, 2008 at 11:58 am

chjh

My condolences too on Greg Tucker’s death. I only met him a couple of times, but he struck me as a really nice bloke as well as a very committed comrade.

LikeLike

pete S

April 7, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Please, anyone, why no ISG on the Respect GLA List? Has there been a fall out between Thornett and Galloway?

LikeLike

Ray

April 7, 2008 at 2:54 pm

The arguements of the ISG are reminisant of the arguements put forward by Marxism Today about the Labour left in the 80’s. When Marxism Today had to find a justification for Kinnockism it advocate broad cross class alliances on single issues. The emergence of Renewal is reminisant of the rightward movement of some on the left that helped promote Kinnockism in the Labour Party. The big difference is that unlike the significant forces inside (and outside) the Labour Party that backed Kinnock at the time, Renewal and it’s apologists are the ones in the minority this time.

We all know where Kinnockism led and it’s this ideology that has undermined the left so greatly. Whatever happens at the election, the politics of Renewal and the ISG are moving away from class towards popular frontism. It’s only a matter of time before we see justifications for alliances with the LibDems and other pro-capitalist organisations.

It appears that the legacy of Kinnockism and New Labour have infected some of the left to such a degree that they are unable to envisage a strategy that involves the working class. Unless that changes and class is put at the centre of a left alliance then the left will struggle to grow.

LikeLike

Chris Brooks

April 7, 2008 at 5:02 pm

“Only a matter of time before alliances with LibDems”
Two questions… How deluded are you? And do you fancu a bet? Seriously, I’ll bet a grand that you,re totally wrong.

A popular front subordinated workers to the program of the bosses. Sian’s politics may be many things, but they do not reflects the politics of the opposing class.

LikeLike

GeorgeT

April 7, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Pete S – there is no ISG supporter as a candidate in London. Numerically the ISG is not a huge organisation and it hasnt got an ego thing about getting on electoral lists – unlike some left groups. I wasnt at any London meetings that discussed this issue and I believe no one wanted to put themselves forward.

This doesnt mean we are just footsoldiers – we do want to get our ideas across, but there are more ways to do this in politics than stand as candidates at every election. With regard to elections, Alan T helped shape the election manifestos of Respect and SA.

LikeLike

Norwegian

April 7, 2008 at 5:57 pm

“Numerically the ISG is not a huge organisation and it hasnt got an ego thing about getting on electoral lists – unlike some left groups. I wasnt at any London meetings that discussed this issue and I believe no one wanted to put themselves forward.”

Or, one might hope, some of them feel just a tad ashamed of being part of the whole splitty thing…

LikeLike

GeorgeT

April 7, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Norwegian – we are not at all ashamed about our choice for RR in the split fostered by the SWP – SR even published a book with the main documents – see Socialist Resistance books in Liam’s publications link – it may enlighten you!

LikeLike

Ray

April 7, 2008 at 6:31 pm

Chris, what makes the Greens any different from the LibDems apart from their more expansive ecological policies? Do they have any roots in the working class? If you read their policies then you’ll find that they are quite happy to support capitalism as long as it is green. If you think you’re supporting an organisation on the left by voting Green then the delusion is all yours.

Have the Greens on the GLA challenged Livingstones privatisation policies? Not a bit. We need candidates that represent workers not businesses.

LikeLike

Norwegian

April 7, 2008 at 6:34 pm

George – I wasn’t holding my breath, to put it mildly.

LikeLike

jj

April 7, 2008 at 8:00 pm

by the way when were the meetings to democratically elect the slate for the elections for the GLA. I am hearing there wasn’t any!!!! is this true?

LikeLike

GeorgeT

April 7, 2008 at 8:11 pm

Ray – the ISG has not called for a vote for the Green List but for the Respect Renewal List! If the ISG had endorsed Lindsay German for Mayor, would it be fair to blame us for all the policies of the SWP ie creating a split in RESPECT etc..?

LikeLike

GeorgeT

April 7, 2008 at 8:26 pm

JJ – Andy Newman, has written on this subject on the Socialist Unity blog. I’m sure you’re aware of this.

Now I’ve answered that no ISGers are standing for the GLA election (to everyone’s undoubted disappointment), can anyone tell us how many SWPers are standing on the Left List?

LikeLike

Ray

April 7, 2008 at 9:16 pm

GeorgeT, unless I read the article incorrectly which I know I didn’t then the ISG is calling for a vote for Berry who is in the same party as the Green GLA representatives.

Blaming the split exclusively on the SWP is an analysis that avoids any debate about political strategy and fits nicely in with the current voting strategies of Renewal and ISG. If the SWP didn’t exist then Renewal would’ve found some other scapegoat to excuse its capitulation to New Labour.

Dig out Hobsbawns, “The Forward March of Labour Halted?”, because it’s the template for the current direction of Renewal and ISG.

LikeLike

April 7, 2008 at 10:29 pm

GeorgeT

If you read the last Respect newspaper – you would see an article that stated Renewal hasn’t a position on the mayoral election . The ISG has a position on voting Sian Berry 1st and Galloway has a position of voting Livingstone 1st – that’s democracy. However ray, in your simple analysis Renewal, the ISG and Galloway all share the same positions.

In Respect, there will be a number of competing ideas how to take the organisation forward. The politics of the ISG/SR has nothing in common with the views of Hobsbawm/Marxism Today in the 80s. In the coming weeks, published documents from the ISG Conference will make you sleep a little easier on this question.

LikeLike

Ray

April 8, 2008 at 9:50 am

George, how can you claim that Renewal doesn’t have a position on the election? It is quite clear to everyone except yourself that Galloway’s call for a vote for Livingstone is the only position in Renewal that matters. The fact that the ISG has called for a vote for the Greens who support Livingstone is further evidence that Renewal is moving away from class politics by supporting an organisation that has no connections with the class.

In 1985 Hillary Wainwright and Doreen Massey of Marxism Today argued that,

“the existing insititutions of labour are old fashioned and sectional. But what the miner’s strike has shown is that these instituions can be superseded and challenged without abandoning class politics. It has shown that it is not a question of either industrial action or the new social movements, nor is it one of just adding the two together…New institututions can be built through which ‘class politics’ can be seen as more than simply industrial militancy plus parliamentary representation.”

Alex Callinicos in his article about Marxism Today in ISJ 29 wrote,

“Both the Marxism Today and the Morning Star factions of the Communist Party came from the same Stalinist political matrix. Both accept the notion of broad alliances between the proletariat and sections of capital…”

It’ll be interesting to read the documents from the conference but when the ISG called for a vote for Berry they allied themselves with the Greens who back the neo-liberal policies of Livingstone. That is an abandonment of class and the promotion of the ideas of Wainwright and Hobsbawn.

LikeLike

April 8, 2008 at 10:04 am

Ray

Back in the day, we had a good chant:

S W P we’re the best
we are the fucking trotsky-est

Although this wasn’t as good as

IS bootboys here are we
have you ever heard of the IMG
I say no
I don’t think so
but i have heard of the I S AGRO

(agro being 1970s slang for violence)

Ahh, happy days.

Are your points here adding anything that could not be expressed by these chants?

LikeLike

April 8, 2008 at 10:18 am

Ian Donovan

Still no comment on Lindsey German and John Rees’ repeated appeals for an electoral pact with the Greens? Is this the policy of the ‘Left List’, or have they changed their minds about this and renounced their previous appeals when they played a leading role in Respect? If so, where is it explained why? Or are ‘Ray’ and co going to denounce John and Lindsey over this?

The ISG may be wrong, but at least they’re open about what they say. You can have a debate with people who argue openly for a political position. Regarding the SWP-loyalist trolls, one can only observe, as did Oscar Wilde, that hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.

LikeLike

April 8, 2008 at 10:37 am

Doug

what about non-SWP loyalist trolls who look on the RR web-site, which is basically the Galloway show. Lets face it, he calls the shots over everything that matters and the socialists in RR merely ignore, evade or justify his grosser outpourings e.g. on Iran and the embryology issue. There’s one thing have differences within an organisation – that’s healthy – but not over matters like that.

LikeLike

April 8, 2008 at 10:58 am

JM

George T writes ” However ray, in your simple analysis Renewal, the ISG and Galloway all share the same positions.”

They all do – anyone but Lindsey.

LikeLike

April 8, 2008 at 11:12 am

Ian Donovan

Easy – he’s right on Iran and the ‘pink wing of the warmongers’, wrong on the embyrology issue, but has a right to his opinion just as much as the ISG have the right to their opinion on Sian Berry. How is this ‘grosser outpourings’? Doug seems to want a sect where all are forced to think alike.

LikeLike

April 8, 2008 at 12:23 pm

chjh

Ian – it’s one thing to be for a non-aggression pact, or even mutual endorsements, between a left organisation and the Greens. It’s quite another to choose to support the Greens in preference to a left organisation, even if you do try to hide behind it being just a tactical decision.

LikeLike

Ian Donovan

April 8, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Depends on your evaluation of Lindsey German’s campaign. My evaluation is that she has broken with her previous project of uniting the anti-imperialist and anti-neo-liberal left and is waging a thinly disguised sectarian campaign. The SWP’s decision to ‘go nuclear’ over the kind of disagreements in Respect that would be expected in any broad movement worthy of the name, signified that break in my opinion.

I might still consider giving one of my votes to her, in the same way as when the SLP stood a candidate in my constituency in the General Election I personally voted for her. Voting for a badly flawed, sectarian left candidate being better than anything else on offer. But I’m not going to denounce anyone as guilty of some terrible betrayal for disagreeing with me on this.

LikeLike

April 8, 2008 at 2:06 pm

chjh

“it’s one thing to be for a non-aggression pact, or even mutual endorsements, between a left organisation and the Greens. It’s quite another to choose to support the Greens in preference to a left organisation, even if you do try to hide behind it being just a tactical decision.”

In 1987 the SWP quite correctly backed the Lbaour Party in the general election, I don’t remember anyone arguing we should have supported the Red Front.

So clearly there is a tactical evaluation of whether a left electoral challenge is a serious one.

LikeLike

Doug

April 8, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Er no comrade Donovan I don’t want a sect – nor do I want to be in an organisation that’s turning into a personality cult. And actually he is definitely not right about Iran – he’s a disgraceful mouthpiece for a theocratic anti-working class clique . Given his general religoius hang-ups it wasn’t surprising either that he came on like a mad bishop about the dangers of embryo research. Having views like that is not comparable to discussing the tactical issue of whether or not Sian Berry should be first preference for the mayoral elections. From the overblown emphasis on Galloway on the RR web-site and the fact that he hand-picked his own GLA list it’s clear who calls the shots and who have become the cheerleaders. The options are becoming clearer for the genuine socialists in RR. Tell Galloway to either submit to the wishes of the RR democratic decision-making bodies or piss off . If not you’ll end up defending or justifying all the crass remarks and views and lose all credibility.

LikeLike

Ian Donovan

April 8, 2008 at 4:18 pm

“And actually he is definitely not right about Iran – he’s a disgraceful mouthpiece for a theocratic anti-working class clique.”

Funny, I thought he was supposed to be a mouthpiece for Saddam Hussein. Genuine socialists don’t apologise for the likes of Peter Tatchell, who among other things want’s the United States (sorry ‘United Nations’) to enforce no-fly zones on Sudan, opposes the immediate withdrawal of Western troops from Iraq (the nasty resistance might win), and agitates alongside the likes of Cameron and Melanie Phillips against Livingstone for his invitation to Qaradawi to a conference aiming to oppose state repression against Muslims in Europe.

Galloway’s remarks (aimed at Tatchell in particular) about the ‘pink contingent of the pro-war brigade’ were spot on and the fact that you rage against this means in my view your opposition to Respect and GG is hardly from the ‘left’. You don’t have to be religious to spot Tatchell’s softness on imperialism.

LikeLike

Doug

April 8, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Funny, comrade Donovan I don’t remember even mentioning Tatchell. Or Saddam Hussein for that matter. I note your silence in response to my comments about Galloway’s religoius idiocies and his role in RR. Before you carry on playing Lefter-than thou, you might want to consider that a crucial component of sociaiism is working class internationalism. And that included solidarity with workers jailed or worse in countries like Iran. But, hey, who cares – expressing solidarity and concern for their well-being could only be objectively pro-imperialist couldn’t it? If you took your head out of Galloway’s arse for a moment you might find time to re-discover your own socialist principles Donovan.

LikeLike

Ian Donovan

April 8, 2008 at 5:34 pm

“Funny, comrade Donovan I don’t remember even mentioning Tatchell. Or Saddam Hussein for that matter.”

Laughable, since Galloway’s attacks on those exploiting gay rights for pro-war purposes were principally aimed at Tatchell and others like him. You are attacking him for those remarks, so you don’t need to mention him. Whether you mention him or not, this issue involves him.

Actually, the chief princple of internationalism in an imperialist country is that the main enemy is at home, and the defeat of your own country particularly in colonial wars. Solidarity with anyone in a country targetted by such a war is subordinate to that. Britain, with the US, is currently involved in two such wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) and a third (Iran) is a real possiblity. GG’s stance has more in common with those principles internationalism than your jingo-baiting of him over his defence of Iran. Despite his left-reformist politics. That says quite a lot.

“Before you carry on playing Lefter-than thou”

I’ll leave that to you – except that in your case, it’s a fraud. An shallow ultra-left posture hiding a rightist essence, like so many of your ilk. No wonder Tim Robinson,under his 256th alias, is with you on this one.

LikeLike

Ian Donovan

April 8, 2008 at 5:36 pm

That should read

“You are attacking GG for those remarks, so you don’t need to mention Tatchell. Whether you mention him or not, this issue involves him.”

LikeLike

GeorgeT

April 8, 2008 at 5:55 pm

Ray – I think you have misunderstood the quote from Hilary wainwright – also I wouldnt have described her as from marxism today – I believe she had an IMG background in the 60s/70s and has been an editor of New Left review. She is now Editor of Red Pepper. Before the last general Election I recollect she was a speaker at a Respect rally near Liverpool Street (I imagine the SWP were happy to invite her)

Whilst Hobsbawm was Kinnock’s favourite theoretician and his ‘Forward March of Labour Halted’ was used by the Kinnockites to argue why the party needed to move to the right, Wainwright wrote Labour, a Tale of Two parties opposing this shift. Unfortunately I haven’t got a copy of this book at present. She wasn’t a Kinnockite. I think your mistake is not reading the source material and only a book by Callinicos, an SWP guru. Again you have lumped people together indiscriminately. Do you shout out snap before turning the cards?

LikeLike

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=35401&SESSION=891

S

April 8, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Still no answer by RR comrades about Galloway’s failure to sign Dianne Abbot’s EDM on the plight of Mehdi Kazemi .

LikeLike

GeorgeT

April 8, 2008 at 6:37 pm

I attach parts of an article from a 2007 edition of Socialist Worker about elections in the PCS Union where the SWP called for a vote for the Democracy Alliance slate. Standing on the same slate was Liberal Democrat Councillor Steve Comer – see link http://www.bristol.gov.uk/committee/2007/ua/ua000/0322_1.pdf .

Ray may be unaware of this, but his paper/comrades are again calling for a vote for a Liberal democrat in PCS Elections in 2008 – see the following link for the Left Unity slate including SWPers and Comer http://www.leftunity.org.uk/downloads/nationalleaflet08.pdf

Obviously, Ray will be calling for his comrades to break from this unholy alliance and support Independent Left candidates in the PCS NEC elections.

—————————————————————
Call for left vote in the PCS executive elections
by Sue Bond, Andy Reid and Paul Williams
————————————————————
The ballot opens this week for the elections to the national executive of the PCS civil service workers’ union.

The union’s existing leadership of the Democracy Alliance – a coalition of the socialist Left Unity and centre-left PCS Democrats – along with general secretary Mark Serwotka, has been the force behind the PCS’s jobs, pay and conditions campaign.

LikeLike

George S

April 8, 2008 at 8:56 pm

Just out of curiousity what do the rest of Socialist Resistance have as a position or isnt there one as such, and presumably the ISG are the majority anyway?

LikeLike

JM

April 9, 2008 at 9:02 am

George T said “Numerically the ISG is not a huge organisation and it hasnt got an ego thing about getting on electoral lists – unlike some left groups.”

But RR is a pretty small organisation too plus you’re providing the office and paper so I’d say your a very significant part of RR.

This makes your exclusion from the RR list seem craven, haven’t you lot got any self respect?

Some might say that the ISG now stands for the ‘International Society of Gimps”.

LikeLike

Adamski

April 9, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Good to see the Socialist Party are calling for a vote for Lindsey German in this weeks ‘The Socialist’

“The Socialist Party is calling for a vote for anti-cuts, anti-privatisation candidates where that is possible. For the mayor, there is only one such candidate, Lindsey German of the Respect ‘Left List’.”

LikeLike

Liam

April 9, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Do grow up JM. The delusional weakness of most currents on the British left is that if they are not in control then it is rubbish. And that is what wrecks 90% of what they get involved in.

If things go according to plan Respect might get Hanif and GG elected. What earthly difference does it make to anyone anywhere in the real world if there are no ISG members or fellow travellers on the list? By that measure the fact that 75% of the Left List candidates are SWP members is proof of its robust virility. Or something.

LikeLike

Adamski

April 9, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Liam, Lindsey German is the only candidate prepared to take a Living Wage and not to call for more police and policing.
Your candidate of choice, Sian Berry does neither.
Good to see the Socialist Party rising above sectarianism, unlike the ISG

LikeLike

George S

April 9, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Presumably sectarianism is the reason the SWP is standing against the long standing SP councillor in Greenwich, a rather odd decision really.

LikeLike

Adamski

April 9, 2008 at 2:21 pm

The SWP isn’t standing in the election, Respect is.
The majority of people in my Respect branch are not in the SWP, this smokescreen won’t wash.

This is a seat that Respect contested in 2004 (unlike the SP) so it’s hardly surprising they might want to stand there again:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/08/greenwich.lewisham

As I understand it the decision to stand there had been made before the split!

LikeLike

Adamski

April 9, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Sorry, on further investigation I see the SP/Respect stood a joint candidate in 2004, presumably the SP declined to repeat this arrangement.

The point is, despite this criticism & disagreements with the Respect project, the SP still take a principled position

LikeLike

Muon

April 9, 2008 at 2:36 pm

‘Presumably sectarianism is the reason the SWP is standing against the long standing SP councillor in Greenwich, a rather odd decision really.’

They have to stand everywhere to get the tv broadcast. Last time the SP endorsed Respect in the relevant area so that was enough. Don’t know if any attempt at such an arrangement was made this time.

LikeLike

Liam

April 9, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Since when has voting for the SWP become a “principle” and not voting for it “sectarian”?

The Left List candidacies and the electoral machine behind them are politically incredibly narrow and the slate of names it is putting forward shows this starkly. Assessing whether or not to vote for this list requires making exactly the same sort of judgement that would be required to choose whether or not to support a Socialist Party candidate. Sometimes you might. Sometimes you might not.

I’m still undecided. Though every sub-Healeyite denunciation of people who have the temerity to propose voting for Sian Berry as sectarian etc makes me question the wisdom of voting for Lindsey German if that’s the principal reason her supporters on this site are offering. It’s an odd way of building a left of Labour alternative.

LikeLike

Adamski

April 9, 2008 at 2:56 pm

“The Left List candidacies and the electoral machine behind them are politically incredibly narrow and the slate of names it is putting forward shows this starkly. Assessing whether or not to vote for this list requires making exactly the same sort of judgement that would be required to choose whether or not to support a Socialist Party candidate. Sometimes you might. Sometimes you might not. ”

Liam this is rhetoric, the Left List is putting forward a far broader slate and contesting more seats than Respect Reneawl.

The broad slate promised by George Galloway has not materialised. Notably, Harry Landis seems to have inexpicable dropped out? It is becoming increasingly clear how small in terms of forces and geographical spread, Renewal, truly is.

We should also ask Liam how the Renewal GLA candidates were selected?

Were they A) Selected by the London Renweal memebrship or B) George Galloway

The answer is B) they were handpicked by Galloway, so Renewal talk about democracy but can’t even hold a selection meeting so that members can choose candidates! Hell, even the bourgeois parties have selection meetings!

Your reason for declining to support Lindsey German is valid, but to then support the Green Party over her is nuts!

International comrades in the 4th International must be wondering what the hell is going on with the English section!

LikeLike

IJD

April 9, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Basically Galloway “selected” anyone who applied.
Being prepared to be associated with GG was a tiny list

LikeLike

Matt S

April 9, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Surely Lindsey German declaring that she will take a workers wage is a bit of a damp squib? It’s not as if she will be elected!

For what it’s worth, I think it is a principle worth upholding – but I don’t think the fact that a candidate who has absolutely nothing to lose by advocating a workers wage has done so is a clinching reason for voting for them.

It’s like me stating publicly (as I do now) that I will eat my own shoes if Brian Paddick wins the Mayoralty. There’s no risk to saying it.

Matt

LikeLike

Goran

April 9, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Given some peoples eager to attack ISG:s positions on the mayoral election, it would be more interesting – at least for me, an ousider, living in Sweden – to hear those people arguing their own politics. Not to forget to name what forces they command, their influence in trade unions etc.

To be an armchair revolutionary is easy.

Pass my condoleancec to Greg Tuckers family and friends. I met with him a couple of times, last time in Stockholm when SR was launched some years ago.
A great loss for all of us.

LikeLike

Prinkipo Exile

April 9, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Adamski, you used to be in the SWP.

Have you read this?
http://www.socialistworker.org.au/575/should-we-support-socialist-candidates/

What’s your take on it?

LikeLike

Norwegian

April 9, 2008 at 9:15 pm

Göran, Lindsay German beat the Green candidate last time around, so it’s not about supporting a broadly left, much bigger party against a small, socialist one. It’s crass sectarianism on the ISG’s part not to support the Left List (and then vote Livingstone second), and everybody on the left, except ISG and some of their new-found friends in the Renewal split-off, knows it. You wouldn’t get a clue about it by reading this blog, unfortunately.

LikeLike

TLC

April 9, 2008 at 9:26 pm

Crass sectarianism? So the Lindsey German plays a central role in an organisation – the SWP – that has gone out of its way to smash up three left of labour groupings in less than ten years and the rest of the left is obliged to vote for her? You must be joking.

After the last few months I wouldn’t trust German to run a whelk stall, let alone London.

LikeLike

April 10, 2008 at 9:16 am

jr

Does it matter?The ISG can vote for who it likes.It’s not as if Berry or German are going to win. The main thing is that they’re calling for a second preference vote for Livingstone to keep out Johnson.

I can’t see why there’s such a fuss on here about this.
It’s not if elections are the most important part of the class struggle,is it?

I myself in the local council elections will be voting Green as I can’t bring myself to vote Labour.Although admittedly I haven’t got a socialist alternative to vote for.
It’s a shame about the ISG.Their old newspaper was quite decent until they dumped it for Renewal.

I wish them well and hope they see through Galloway soon.

LikeLike

April 10, 2008 at 11:14 am

jr

Prinkipo Exile, there’s more than one IS group in Australia as far as I know and it’s a bit unfair to hold the British SWP responsible for anything they come out with so I don’t see what you’re getting at.

LikeLike

April 10, 2008 at 11:40 am

jr

The article Prinkipo exile quotes from is the official SWP franchise, and the article is by david Glanz.who is ultra loyal to the SWP.

LikeLike

April 10, 2008 at 11:51 am

Adamski

I’m not very knowledgeable with Australian politics but I’m dubious about this, particularly as the Australian Socialist Alliance seem to be really on the ball on the environment, consistently getting recognised by environmental groups as having a better record and policies than the Greens.

LikeLike

April 10, 2008 at 12:15 pm

jr

Yes Andy,but I don’t see what Prinkipo’s getting at. I don’t see what the relevance of what the australian ISO is doing to the matter of who the ISG is voting for.
Anyway are you saying Glanz has a radio controlled chip in his head operated by John Rees?
I’m way behind what’s happenning in Australia but I thought the official IS group(if that’s the right term) was called Solidarity not the ISO.

LikeLike

April 10, 2008 at 2:05 pm

There were four Cliffite groups, Solidarity, Socialist Alternative, Socialist Action and ISO.

ISO were the official IST sister organisation.

In January this year, all of the groups except the largest, Socialist Alternative, merged and took the name Solidarity.

At the time Dave Glanz wrote this, the ISO were the official IST franchise. He is now a member of solidarity.

LikeLike

April 10, 2008 at 2:06 pm

What he is getting at is that the ISO argued the exact opposite regarding the Greens to what Adam is now saying is a matter of pronciple.

BTW – the GPEW is more left wing that the GPoz.

LikeLike

April 10, 2008 at 2:50 pm

jr

Thanks for explaining that , Andy.I’m glad you’re keeping track of these things for those of us who can’t be bothered.

Can’t see what the ISO in Australia has got to do with Adam who is not a member of the IST and I have no idea what the UK SWP position on the Australian elections were .

Why not argue about Adam and the ISGs’ positions on their own merits rather than dig up something that happenned on the other side of the world.

For what it’s worth and for a vote for the Green Party if no socialist alternative exists.Which is what I’m doing.

However I don’t know how relevant all this is as I’m sure Lindsay German (and George Galloway ) don’t know and don’t give a flying one which way the ISG is voting.

LikeLike

April 10, 2008 at 2:52 pm

jr

Sorry , meant to say I’d vote Green if there was no socialist alternative. I’m a muppet when it comes to typing.

LikeLike

April 10, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Liam

Again from the Australian SW this piece shows that some unions in advanced capitalist Anglophone countries are willing to break from Labour and have a punt on the Greens. This may reveal how unprincipled these unions are or how fluid the relationship with social democracy is becoming.

“Discontent with Labor’s policy within the union movement led to two Victorian unions supporting Adam’s campaign – the Electrical Trades Union and the firefighters’ union.

In addition the medical scientists union recommended its members to vote Greens 1 and Labor 2 in all lower house seats.

All three unions, as well as the Finance Sector Union, supported the Greens in the Senate.”

http://www.socialistworker.org.au/576/greens-eat-into-labors-base-in-melbourne/

LikeLike

April 10, 2008 at 5:56 pm

The SWP (UK) also supported Nader running on a Green ticket in the US presidential elections in 2000, if I’m not mistaken. All of which is to say that the question of who to support in elections is largely tactical and depends on the balance of forces, which way the class is moving, etc. etc.

However, as Glanz notes in his article re: supporting the Greens: “Unfortunately, the Alliance was unsuccessful in tackling either Labor’s resurgence or the strength of the Greens. The space for an explicitly socialist electoral expression has been closed off for the time being.
“Of course, a decent vote for socialists is a positive thing because it reflects a desire for radical change and the clear association of a minority with socialist ideas. However, while Australia’s preferential voting system means voters can vote 1 socialist, 2 Greens, 3 Labor, the unfortunate reality is that the socialist electoral presence is currently so negligible that it is irrelevant.”

In other words, a more clearly radical or socialist electoral vehicle is always preferable. The question is whether a credible one exists because the point is to shift consciousness the next step to the left and, where possible, to build up the level of class organization at the same time.

LikeLike

April 10, 2008 at 6:19 pm

Or it could have just been that for the SWP principles only matter when they’re convenient.

LikeLike

April 10, 2008 at 7:41 pm

now there’s a productive and well thought out reply. Thanks, bill j!

LikeLike

April 10, 2008 at 11:40 pm

GeorgeT

As stated above, the SWP are supporting a liberal democrat councillor on their slate for the PCS NEC elections – why hasnt their comrades challenged this?
Their paper will say next week vote for all ‘Democracy Alliance’ candidates. It wont say vote only for some candidates on the slate. It wont explain why a sizeable proportion of the membership will vote for other far left candidates standing as the Independent Left. It won’t spell out any SW differences with the PCS NEC positions.

Maybe its because the SWP as an organisation desperately wants the publicity of being on NEC’s of Unions despite the politics of the slates they are standing on. In the Civil Service tens of thousands of jobs have been lost under a Left unity leadership and we are no nearer to national pay. In addition, this leadership supported by the SWP accepted a two tier pension system. Furthermore the PCS NEC have failed to argue for a party political fund or a workers party within the union. However much the SWP poses as the revolutionary left alternative, it has a shabby record of tactical compromises to get its people into top posts. Unlike the ISG, it made no criticisms of Galloway in RESPECT up until a few months of the split. Now it claims to be a principled left alternative.

In order for a progressive left to develop here, we need a critical membership of left organisations – we need healthy democratic norms – we dont want starry eyed leadership lackeys – comrades must be free to discuss different positions within left organisations and leaderships must be willing to accept members that vote against their wishes . There are many comrades in the SWP who will know ‘the (one and only?) party ‘ cannot be reformed into a healthy democratic organisation – why waste half your life in such a body? Use your energies to fight for the politics that you really believe in! The ISG Conference may have adopted a position on the green mayoral candidate that was wrong (?) – but it wasnt run like some Soviet bloc Conference – can SWP comrades really claim their Conference is truly democratic? The expulsion of oppositionists before the Conference does not suggest this to be the case.

LikeLike

April 11, 2008 at 12:01 am

Ray

GeorgeT you can make as many attacks on the SWP as you like but that still doesn’t justify an ISG vote for Berry and that is the issue under discussion. Perhaps you should spend your time justify the decision to support the Greens. Have they challenged Livingstone’s privatisation policies? Are they working with trade unions to challenge the governments attacks on pay? German and the Left List are doing this.

The claim that Renewal is democratic unlike the SWP is completely false. The Renewal “conference” was undemocratic, it has had no leadership elections and the GLA slate were hand picked by Galloway. As a self-styled “faction” in Respect they have completely excluded the whole of the Respect membership in any decision making. You may not agree with the democratic process in the SWP but at least we have one unlike Renewal.

LikeLike

April 11, 2008 at 12:07 am

Ray

By the way George, we missed the selection meeting for the Renewal/Respect London candidates. Us Respect members were wondering when that took place?

LikeLike

April 11, 2008 at 9:31 am

Chris Brooks

Ray, you’re on the verge of being amusing.

George seems to be to be pointing out that there is tactical choice between the various anti-war, socialist candidates for Mayor, and that there’s no basis for supporters of the SWP to suggest that its a principled and strategic red line – especially since the SWP itself has found itself supporting non-socialist Greens and even Liberal Democrats.

What’s amusing is that you say he is off-topic, and then you divert onto an even more distant topic: how unfair it is that the Respect slate was selected by its national council rather than by the whole Respect membership. How selections are made is a super-tactical question and, clearly, in the situation where Respect is rebuilding after the SWP’s split, and where there’s little dispute over candidates, the outcomes are not affected by the selection method.

So let’s get back to the topic: how come the SWP can support non-socialist Green party candidates in the US, and Lib-Dems, but the ISG can’t vote for the socialist candidate of an antiwar Green party?

LikeLike

April 11, 2008 at 9:32 am

Adamski

Please flag up this important campaign – JUSTICE FOR AMA SUMANI
Any messages of support for the campaign can be sent to thomas_muntzer_cardiff@hotmail.co.uk

AMA SUMANI CAMPAIGN ANNOUNCES DEMONSTRATION IN HER MEMORY

Assemble 1 pm, Nye Bevan Statue, Queen Street, Cardiff, Saturday 19 April

Supporters and friends of Ama Sumani, who died in Ghana on March 19th after being removed from the University Hospital of Wales whilst receiving treatment for cancer, have called a demonstration in her memory. Campaigners hope that the event will be both a tribute to Ama and a message to the authorities that this kind of situation must never be repeated.

“This protest is important because we have to make sure this kind of thing doesn’t happen again” said Janet Symmons, Ama’s friend and co-ordinator of the campaign. “Ama’s tragedy touched a lot of people, but it is important to understand that there are hundreds of people in similar situations right now. I know a Zambian lady who has a baby daughter with brain damage, a Cameroonian boy with Hepatitis – all have the threat of deportation hanging over them.”

Ama Sumani had contracted cancer whilst living in Britain and required dialysis after her kidneys became damaged. Despite protests that Ama would die in Ghana due to a lack of necessary medical resources, Ama was removed from hospital at 8am on January 9th and had been deported from the country by mid-afternoon.

The decision was condemned by the likes of medical journal The Lancet and Archbishop of Wales Dr Barry Morgan, and thousands of pounds were donated to help pay for Ama’s medical care. Despite this, Ama died just hours after hearing that doctors who could treat her had been found. She was just 39 and left two orphaned children, a daughter and son aged 16 and seven.

Karen Tyre, a local government worker and trade union rep who had been involved in the campaign, said that “Ama’s deportation shows just how cruel politicians can be when dealing with human life. It was a disgrace that local MP Alun Michael, rather than condemning this appalling act, chose to defend the actions of the Immigration Service.”

She continued: “To them, Ama was a statistic, a number, but for millions of people who learned of her plight she was a real person who was ignored by those who had the power to help her. This event will be a chance for people around the country to come together in memory of Ama and say ‘never again’.”

Organisers of the event, including African groups, refugee support groups and trade unionists, hope that they will bring British people and migrants closer together.

The demonstration will take place on Saturday April 19, exactly one month after Ama passed away. It will assemble at 1pm at the Aneurin Bevan statue on Queen Street. Speakers and supporters will be announced soon.

Ms Symmons summed up the appeal to people by saying: “I remember the case of the terminally ill woman who was denied the right to travel to Switzerland so she could take her life painlessly. Yet Ama wanted to live and she was sent away. This is not the way to treat human beings, so please join us and help get the message out.”

LikeLike

April 11, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Chris – “how come the SWP can support non-socialist Green party candidates in the US, and Lib-Dems, but the ISG can’t vote for the socialist candidate of an antiwar Green party?”

See my post 6 up. It’s contextual/contingent.

LikeLike

April 11, 2008 at 1:32 pm

TLC

‘It’s contextual/contingent’

In other words, if the SWP are standing then it is sectarian not to support them – and any of their current allies. But if the SWP are not standing, you shouldn’t support any potential ‘left’ competition as they will not be ‘serious’, ‘rooted’, ‘credible’ etc – so you argue for a vote for forces to your right which you percieve as having some purchase on the voters who you wished would vote for you (if only you were standing).

In short, make it up as you go along. It’s all tactical, you know.

Unless it’s a ‘cowardly’ tactical decision of others not to back an SWP candidate – cos that’s sectarian.

LikeLike

April 11, 2008 at 5:05 pm

“In other words, if the SWP are standing then it is sectarian not to support them – and any of their current allies.”

Is Ralph Nader a member of the SWP UK?

The Greens in Australia are attracting significant working class support – both in the form of voters and in terms of union support. This is as a result, in part, of their taking up clear class issues. Would it be better if there was a credible, openly socialist alternative? Of course – but the Greens represent a shift left from the neo-liberal ALP. Ditto Nader’s campaign in 2000 – he had mass rallies across the US that was a window into the newly developing post-Seattle radicalization. You work with what you have as a basis to shift the discourse to the left. And, no, just because you are a socialist doesn’t mean you’re worth supporting when you represent no forces on the ground.
The argument here, viz the ISG, is that a) The UK Greens are not the same as the Australian (or American) Greens. Sian Berry’s campaign is openly pro-business. She has not a whit of union support. Green Parties are ideologically fluid organizations and tend to be drawn this way and that, depending upon the balance of forces. In Canada, for instance, the Green Party was led by a former Tory and attract their votes from disaffected Tories & Liberals. It is entirely reasonable to judge them contextually. b) The Left List represents a clearer political choice and has real forces on the ground.
If you want to make an argument that this is not the case that is reasonable. But it is equally reasonable to suggest that the reason for the ISG’s decision is 1) sectarianism towards the LL because of the split and 2) an accommodation to “green” politics – which, as noted, in the case of Sian Berry, are openly pro-business.

LikeLike

April 11, 2008 at 5:57 pm

Ray

Chris I’m pleased you’re amused because it a pretty grim scenario when socialists go out of their way to support the Greens just to spite the Left List. When you can offer a political reason for a Green rather than a socialist vote then we can all stop laughing at the absurdity of it all.

LikeLike

April 11, 2008 at 6:01 pm

“b) The Left List represents a clearer political choice and has real forces on the ground.”

come on…

LikeLike

April 11, 2008 at 6:13 pm

bill j, with another incisive and well developed argument. Bravo!

LikeLike

April 11, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Why waste words?

LikeLike

April 11, 2008 at 7:59 pm

or thought, for that matter. save it for the revolution, comrade!

LikeLike

April 11, 2008 at 10:27 pm

TLC

Is Ralph Nader a member of the SWP UK?

No – don’t be daft.

The point about Australia is that when the ISO were in the Socialist Alliance – they said Vote SA. When they left the Socialist Alliance they said Vote Green. It’s all tactical – which is fine. But let’s not get all irate about another organisation copming to a tactical decision about the London elections.

There is no principle involved here – unless you believe that the only pricipled position is to agree with whatever the SWP say.

LikeLike

April 11, 2008 at 11:33 pm

TLC – exactly: the SWP called for a vote for Nader and he’s neither a member nor a fellow traveller. And the reason had to do with context – what Nader represented at that moment in history, what forces, etc.

I’m not that familiar with Australian politics but it seems to me that it’s pretty straightforward: the SA were going nowhere and were just a swamp of the far left with no influence outside of itself. Nobody necessarily to blame for that – it happens. However, the Greens are building a mass base amongst the working class and in the unions and provide a real opportunity to shift consciousness to the left and pose a challenge to neo-liberalism. The ISO put their money where their mouth is and left the SA and moved towards the Greens. You may disagree with their analysis but it’s absurd to think that they just randomly decided to go to the Greens or that they would leave the SA because they think it unrepresentative, etc. and yet still call for a vote for them. You may think that means the ISO has accommodated to Green politics and has moved rightwards, etc. – as I think has happened in the case of the ISG. But that is a different kettle of fish than just “it’s all tactical”. Tactics are always underpinned by principles and a method – whether those are stated explicitly or not.

And I will point out that I’m trying to be principled and engage with the substance of the argument but you are being ridiculous with your “agree with whatever the SWP say” nonsense. That is schoolyard level stuff. If you want to actually have a discussion about how socialists decide who to support, ie. method, be serious and don’t insult people’s intelligence or integrity.

LikeLike

April 12, 2008 at 3:27 am

Ray

For socialists, voting tactically means voting for a party that has links with the working class such as trade unions. The UK Greens do not have these links where as the Left List do. Not only that, but the Left List represent the majority of pre-split Respect members and to characterise the LL as the SWP is very dismissive of those members of Respect who are not in the SWP and support the LL.

No amount of chest beating by Renewal and the ISG about how they are the true representatives of all Respect members will make first preference votes for Livingstone or Berry correct.

The ISG backed German as Respects mayoral candidate 8 months ago. Nothing has changed politically in this time to justify a vote for the Greens. The only significant change is that Respect has split and the ISG now support Renewal which is opposed to German for sectarian reasons.

I have yet to read one political justification for a socalists vote for the UK Greens. There has been a lot of obsfucation from posters in this thread about socialists voting Green in other countries but we are discussing the situation in the UK. What goes on in Australia has no relevance to the decision made by the ISG. It’s a crass generalisation that is being used in an attempt to justify a vote for the Greens in the UK.

The ISG can vote Green if they wish but don’t try to make a virtue out of it and lie to the class that this is the best way for workers to vote.

LikeLike

April 12, 2008 at 9:50 am

TLC

“The ISG backed German as Respects mayoral candidate 8 months ago. Nothing has changed politically in this time”

Nothing? She was a leading member in the SWP that showed itself to be completely untrustworthy, duplicitous and a barrier to left unity. I wouldn’t tell people to vote for someone I don’t trust. It’s a mockery. German could have used her weight in the movement to argue for unity – instead she was right in the thick of the disgraceful slurs and lies. So forem my point of view she forfeited the support she had been given. You may trust her. I don’t. That’s not sectarian – it’s the real world where people have to live by their political choices and the consequences.

“don’t try to make a virtue out of it and lie to the class that this is the best way for workers to vote.”

I thought they were saying it was a ‘tactical’ discision not a virtue. As for lying – well one persons lie is another persons political arguement. That’s politics. Get used to it.

LikeLike

April 12, 2008 at 9:54 am

Prinkipo Exile

What has happened in the last eight months is that the SWP have moved rapidly in an increasingly sectarian direction, particularly electorally.

Examples of this include their decision to stand at the last minute against established socialist councillors and long ago selected candidates in the GLA elections in both City & East and Lewisham & Greenwich constituencies; and in the Weavers Ward by-election in Tower Hamlets, where they are supporting a candidate standing against the highest place Respect candidate who nearly won in the 2006 election, in favour of a canidate who was not even a member of Respect in that election just two years ago.

This is electoral sectarianism, pure and simple. And we have yet to hear any defence of it, yet alone a sensible one. When it comes to who to support in elections it is largely a tactical and practical question. But the SWP’s trajectory has no direction other than sectarian.

LikeLike

April 12, 2008 at 11:27 am

“For socialists, voting tactically means voting for a party that has links with the working class such as trade unions. ”

But Ralph Nader didn’t have links with the trade unions – yet the SWP supported a vote for him. Because of the “moment in history” or more accurately because it suited their interests at that moment in history.
What’s clear is that the SWP have no principled position regarding elections but make it up as they’re going along, based on whatever they think will win them the odd recruit at a given moment.
Willing members then construct a post factum rationalision for these twists and turns.
But I’ve written enough….

LikeLike

April 12, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Chris Brooks

>>I wouldn’t tell people to vote for someone I don’t trust.

I think this is very powerful, and totally spot on. The SWP’s machine politics demands that socialists outside the SWP treat it as if it has a hegemonic position. However, leadership is a social relation. The SWP are frittering away decades of work. Anyone who can remember, as I do, the isolation that the SWP faced in the 1980s because of the dominance of the Labour left and the CP, will have been amazed the by the SWP’s progress over the last decade. Clearly they have scared themselves, and prefer the isolation.

LikeLike

April 12, 2008 at 9:21 pm

jj

“I wouldn’t tell people to vote for someone I don’t trust.”

well that rules out KL and Berry then!!! come on its just a sectarian knee jerk reaction by the ISG. Fair enough and as Liam says in the scheme of things numbers wise a needle in a haystack but it shows where the ISG is moving… accomodation to GG and his little group and that they have no backbone and as always with thier history end up tailing the latest craze.

LikeLike

April 12, 2008 at 9:26 pm

jj

perhaps u trust the greens to be active in building the anti war movement and vote the right way on these issues (Look at Germany!!!), not good on strikes, middle class base, moralisitic towards working class but hey I am sure u can trust them……….what a load of nonsense.. or perhaps it KL u can “trust” well he calls on workers to scab, non doms to keep all their money and thinks the olympics will be great fdoe the rich and this is a good thing oh and defends racist police in murder of an innocent man but these are small issues. On the other hand German is convenor of the anti war movement, selected by 300 respect members, always supports strikes, wants the head of the met to be sacked, wants the rich to be taxed etc etvc but her real crime unlike KL is that she called GG some rude names………….yes spot on ISG good to see you put the politics first……..

LikeLike

April 12, 2008 at 10:21 pm

Goran

jj
Obviously you dont like the ISG. I understand that eaven if some of your arguments seems to be a bit odd.
What most surprise me, though, is that you offer time to this when its less than 3 weeks left and there is some serious campaigning to be done.

After all, wasn’t there a “credible socialist alternative” etc??

LikeLike

April 13, 2008 at 3:04 am

Prinkipo – “What has happened in the last eight months is that the SWP have moved rapidly in an increasingly sectarian direction, particularly electorally.”

I find it interesting that the attitude of the RR people is reminiscent of the Democrats towards Nader in thinking that they own the electorate and anyone running in “their” ridings is stealing “their” voters. Word on the street is that democracy is about offering people a choice. And since the SWP put in as much work as anyone else into building a base for Respect, they have a right – along with their other allies in Respect/Left List – to run in a bi-election. Should there be electoral pacts and unity – of course there should. But the trouble is there isn’t the basis for that unity right now and there’s no reason to expect that the Left List should step aside for Renewal. So, all of your arguments could be turned around in that regard. As to the other socialist councillors. Respect/Left List made it clear that they intended to stand in every seat as part of their electoral strategy – and they have the reach/people on the ground to do so. Why should they derail their strategy if the SP won’t reach an accommodation. That’s called being held to ransom.
I’m afraid that until there is the basis for unity – ie. one group clearly demonstrates the superiority of their methods in practice – there will be none. And it is simply not serious analysis to jump up and down and scream “SWP! SWP! SWP!”. It is simply sectarian blindness.

As for bill j and his rant, well, brother, you just prove that you know absolutely nothing about US politics and history and the struggle for a third party. Nader’s campaign in 2000 tapped into and mobilized the anti-capitalist sentiment amongst a large layer of young activists, post-Seattle. He had rallies of thousands and won the votes of millions on an anti-capitalist ticket. Was he a Marxist? No. Not even a socialist. Welcome to the United States of America where the socialist left was utterly destroyed by McCarthyism, where being a socialist was sufficient enough crime to get you thrown out of the union movement until a decade ago – that’s right, it was written into the constitution of the AFL-CIO. In this context the possiblity of building an activist-based, anti-corporate political party would have been a massive step forward.
As for union-backing for Nader, a fifteen second google search revealed the following:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/06/14/nader.green/index.html
Nader backed by nurses union
(He was also backed by the left-wing United Electrical Workers, purged from the AFL-CIO during the height of the McCarthy witch-hunts)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9903E2D81131F931A15755C0A9669C8B63
Nader wins limited support from Teamsters prez

LikeLike

April 13, 2008 at 5:28 am

Ray

We still haven’t heard a justification for a vote for Berry. Yet again the discussion is side tracked into an anti-SWP rant.
The word, “trust”, is easy to bandy about but it’s meaning is hollow when those who use it are projecting their own untrustworthy behaviour onto others.

LikeLike

April 13, 2008 at 9:33 am

TLC

Ray – you seem uninterested in real debate but instead impune others behaviour with no evidence.

As for being side-tracked – this thread has been side-tracked because people like you seem to want to have your cake and eat it. You want to tell the rest of us why we are being ‘sectarian’ by not backing German but don’t expect us to reply. On SUN you make a comment about it being bad that the LL are standing against an SP candidate (or is that an imposter Ray) but here you brook no criticism of the SWP/LL.

As for dishonest behaviour – our Lindsey has a rather long rap sheet – nobody needs to make anything up.

During the split she was involved in negotiations – negotiations that began when the SWP suggested to Alan Thornett that they may have to ‘call it a day’ with Respect. She attended the negotiations and then walked out of them once the SWP had got an emergency NC cancelled – and they thought they could just carry on regardless . She has never once publicly defended or explained her untrustworthy actions during those days.

So until she does – I don’t trust her. Trust is earned not given as a right. She’s forfeited trust in those few weeks – regardless of being the Convenor of Stop the War or any other thing she has done. Until she can tell the truth about what went on back in Octoner/November 2007 she has no right to ‘expect’ the support of any of the rest of the left.

It’s not sectarianism – it plain common sense.

LikeLike

April 13, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Rant? Please.
Well yes, that level of union backing reminds me of Respect’s claim to be backed by the RMT, based on the decision of the branch executive of one line on the underground – a decision subsequently repudiated by the executive.
Reagan of course was supported by the PATCO executive – something that they regretted a short while later when he smashed the 1980 air traffic controllers strike.
And of course the Democrats have far more union backing than Nader even at his peak. So as a justification its cobblers. But of a level that you’d expect from SWPers desperate to stitch together some rationale for their electoral opportunism.
Opportunism in the narrow sense I mean i.e. desperately ditching barriers (or principles as the rest of us know them) to take advantage of any “opportunity, or “moment in history” as you prefer to call it – in the vain search for a few recruits.
Plus why not reflect a little more – you slag off everyone as “sectarian” except your own group – who are of course beyond reproach. Might that not be concieved of as sect like, if not indeed sectarian?

LikeLike

April 13, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Ray

TLC, I don’t frequent Socialist Unity because it has nothing to offer the left except character assasination and childish smears against it’s opponents. When I viewed it last the latest tactic appeared to be impersonating opponents to discredit them. How much lower can it get? There is more fraternal political debate at Harry’s Place and that’s saying something.

You still haven’t addressed the main issue which is to politically justify a vote for the UK Greens. All this talk about trust is just a smokescreen to avoid giving any political reason for workers in London to vote Green.

billj, if you can’t distinguish the difference between Nader’s campaign and that of the Democrats then no wonder you believe a vote for Berry is the best option for workers. You kept complaining about the lack of socialist principles in Germans campaign so I find it incredulous that you now think Berry is the best option for workers. The two conclusions I draw from this are that you won’t vote German out of spite as your decision is not based on Marxist analysis or it is a logical extension of a move to the right of those parts of the left who believe that cross class alliances are the way forward for the left.

No one says you have to like the Left List but if you apply a Marxist analysis to the situation then regardless of your feelings towards German, the SWP and the majority of Respect then a vote for the Left List is the correct position for socialists to take in this election. I have voted for Labour in the past because, based on a Marxist analysis, it was the correct way for socialists to vote even though I may have disliked and disagreed with much of Labours politics. Voting is not a popularity contest, it is political and tactical.

LikeLike

April 13, 2008 at 5:34 pm

Ray *newsflash* I don’t support Berry.
Please re-write the above to take account of that fact.

LikeLike

April 13, 2008 at 6:44 pm

Ray

billj, we are debating the rights and wrongs of the ISG voting Green and so far you have spent the whole thread attacking the Left List so excuse me if I assume your support for the Greens. Why not post on topic so that we can have the debate instead of sniping in the wings.

I seem to remember that in another thread you declared your support for Livingstone but as you are so critical of any candidate that doesn’t have a full socialist manifesto that conversion appeared rather opportunistic and sectarian.

My point still stands, what political justification do the ISG have for voting Berry and not German?

LikeLike

April 13, 2008 at 6:56 pm

Not the whole list in fact. But true I don’t support the Left List. As I’ve explained its not socialist, its not working class and its not useful for socialists or the working class.
Under the circumstances I can’t imagine why anyone would support it.
I support LIvingstone because he has the support of masses of working class people, in fact millions of working class people in London, but critically of course.
So there’s nothing opportunistic about it at all.
You can read more here;
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=2027

LikeLike

April 14, 2008 at 2:54 am

Ray

Masses of working class people voted for Blair but that doesn’t make his policies any less reactionary. Livingstone is the kiss of death to workers in London. He is colluding with all the dirty tricks that his City chums get up to in London. However it is preferable to vote for him as second pref because Johnson might have slightly worse neo-liberal policies than Livingstone.

Your belief that Livingstone serves the interests of the working class in London better than the Left List is quite surprising for someone who believes in socialism.

The Left List is tapping into the huge discontent that working people in London have with the New Labour policies of Livingstone. Your accusation that the Left List does not represent the interests of the working class serves only to show that a tiny minority on the left still believe that a left opposition can only be built around New Labour.

LikeLike

April 14, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Nas

Ray: is Livingstone really the kiss of death to workers in London? I mean, really? This kind of ultra-left hyperbole is exactly why so many people are repelled by the SWP’s current turn.

LikeLike

April 14, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Ray

“I support LIvingstone because he has the support of masses of working class people, in fact millions of working class people in London, but critically of course.”

What criticisms are you making? This is like when Galloway says he will back Livingstone when he’s right but oppose him when he’s wrong. No specifics given just a generalised slogan that is meaningless unless it’s put into practice. The Left List are making those criticisms and that’s means they are defending the interests of workers unlike the Greens who are completely uncritical of Livingstone and New Labour.

LikeLike

April 14, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Nas

Ray: is Livingstone the kiss of death to workers in London? That’s not making criticisms, it’s ultra-left hyperbole. The SWP campaign has descended into pure propagandism – but at least that’s a tacit acknowledgement that they have no hope of winning an Assembly place.

LikeLike

April 14, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Scatteringfutilewarnings

“The Left List is tapping into the huge discontent that working people in London have with the New Labour policies of Livingstone…”

If that is true, the Left List will win a seat. I suspect it is not true, but the election results, when they emerge, should shed some light on this. Won’t be long now.

LikeLike

April 14, 2008 at 4:01 pm

What criticisms are we making?
Well I did give a link, and if you can’t be bothered to follow it I don’t see why I should bother either.
So there you go.

LikeLike

April 14, 2008 at 5:38 pm

Ray

“If that is true, the Left List will win a seat.”

Why make predictions that are based on nothing? Regardless of the outcome of these elections the Left List are actually showing the way forward for the left by challenging neo-liberalism. Livingstones policies are the kiss of death for workers in London and the sooner Renewal has the guts to admit this then we may actually be able to unite and build a credible left alternative to New Labour.

billj, it’s all very well pointing to a website but I don’t see any of those criticisms on here or out in public where it counts. That is exactly what the Left List are doing and what Renewal won’t do because they are cosying up to Livingstone. All I’m reading from you is a rant against the SWP and The Left List. No matter how much you try to conflate the two organisations for your own devisive purposes that is not the case.

It’s intertesting that on the one hand you believe the Left List are an irrelevance yet on the other you spend all your time attacking it. Perhaps it’s a tacit acknowledgement that the debate for the future of the left lies with those organising around The Left List. Why criticise Renewal if you don’t believe in their relevance?

LikeLike

April 14, 2008 at 6:04 pm

Liam

“the Left List are actually showing the way forward for the left”.

Well not really.

Lots of other people are challenging neo-liberalism too. Bill’s articles in Permanent Revolution show that he’s pretty serious about it too but no one can make a serious case that an electoral formation which is as narrow and isolated as the Left List is showing any sort of strategic direction for the creation of a broad class struggle party. Every e mail I receive from it confirms that its membership and activist base locally is nothing but the SWP. That is a statement of fact and not a criticism. The issue is that any serious electoral challenge to Labourism must be able to draw on a much wider range of support and while it would be a pleasant surprise to be proved wrong it is clear that the List has virtually no power of attraction for anyone outside the SWP’s periphery.

LikeLike

April 14, 2008 at 6:35 pm

What? Criticisms on here are in public – and they count – but criticisms on a public website – that you can’t be bothered to visit are private and don’t count – only because you can’t be bothered to read them?

Mmmm….

LikeLike

April 14, 2008 at 10:25 pm

Ray

Liam it’s patently untrue that the Left List is the SWP. Unless you have access to the SWP’s membership list then you are making this accusation based on bias rather than facts. It’s the language used by the critics of Respect and every other alliance involving the SWP. In fact wasn’t this the arguement used to justify the split? For an organisation that is supposed to be isolated the Left List seems to be attracting a lot of support. That’s because of its politcs which is fundamentally what this debate is about..

Conversely Renewal has no membership list, is totally undemocratic and unaccountable to anyone in the way it operates. It claims to be a faction in Respect yet has excluded the majority of fully paid up Respect members. Galloway makes the decisions and the ISG never challenges him. The call for a vote for the Greens by the ISG fits in nicely with Galloway and Livingstones campaign. I still haven’t heard a Marxist justification for a vote for the Greens rather than for socialists.

Renewal are giving Livingstone a ticket back into City Hall without any critical opposition. This will turn round and bite Renewal because Livingstone will continue with his neo-liberal policies if he is elected again. After the election, as a recession bites, it will be very difficult to explain to workers why Renewal called for a vote for Livingstone and the ISG for the Greens rather than the Left List, the principled opposition to neo-liberalism.

billj, despite the fact that this thread is about the ISG’s call for a vote for the Greens you’ve spent the whole of the thread attacking the Left List. Absolutely no criticism of Livingstone on here at all just a relentless diatribe against the Left List. Even the Left List can find something positive to say about Livingstone yet you have nothing but contempt for your fellow socialists in The Left List. If that’s not sectarian behaviour I don’t know what is.

We appear to be labouring our points and as we’re never going to agree it’s appears pointless going round in circles. Besides, there’s an election to campaign for! I hope both Renewal and the Left List do well. The left needs to build an opposition to neo-liberalism.

LikeLike

April 14, 2008 at 10:40 pm

Ray: “it’s all very well pointing to a website but I don’t see any of those criticisms on here or out in public where it counts. ”

You heard i here first, political critique on Liam’s blog is “where it counts”.

I enjoy Liam’s blog immensly, but Ii had no idea it as so infleuntial.

LikeLike

April 14, 2008 at 10:43 pm

I love this from ray:

“Renewal are giving Livingstone a ticket back into City Hall without any critical opposition. This will turn round and bite Renewal because Livingstone will continue with his neo-liberal policies if he is elected again. After the election, as a recession bites, it will be very difficult to explain to workers why Renewal called for a vote for Livingstone and the ISG for the Greens rather than the Left List, the principled opposition to neo-liberalism.”

As If it is in Respect;s gift to have Livinsgtone re-elected!

And no workers have ever heard of the left list so it will hardly be an isue having to exaplain why we didn’t back them!

LikeLike

April 15, 2008 at 8:41 am

Chris Brooks

I also enjoy that the ‘proof’ of the ISG’s subordination to Galloway is its refusal to follow his line – give Livingstone the first preference – and its agreement with the SWP that Livingstone should get the second preference.

As someone who came into politics through the pre-supernova Healyite movement, I have to say that the tone of Ray’s comments are starting to sound familiar. ‘The revolutionaries have mass support, which is growing all the time; it’s only the fake lefts that are disorienting the masses.’

All of this comes down to the reality that the ability of socialists of develop working-class leadership depends on the lived reality of the movement, rather than the formality of the written programme. The SWP feel that, because of their Marxist programme, it should be assured of the support of the socialists it has treated so badly. As Bill points out, the Left List’s platform isn’t a Marxist one. In fact, it would easily pass as a Labour left document, with no transitional content.

More importantly, socialists are not only using the formal manifestos to decide how to vote (otherwise Celia Pugh would be heading the Left List). The real question is: what takes the movement forward? The key issue is the defeat of ‘Borismainia’ while building the basis for broader future unity. In that context, German’s campaign is a footnote.

LikeLike

April 15, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Scatteringfutilewarnings

“Why make predictions that are based on nothing? Regardless of the outcome of these elections the Left List are actually showing the way forward for the left by challenging neo-liberalism.”

I think it is reasonable to suppose that it will win a seat if it really is “tapping into huge discontent”. If it does not, then it is not tapping into huge discontent, either because there is not huge discontent, or more likely because the discontent is expressed in ways other than a vote for the Left List.

Anybody can claim to show the way forward, sects, religious and otherwise, claim it all the time. It is simply a matter of whether you are believed.

The left’s capacity to fight itself and screw itself up, especially recently, has been remarkable. Meanwhile the right, including the far right, seems to be on a roll, and not just in the UK (look at Italy). Not all of this is the left’s fault but a lack of unity at elections seems to have contributed to the Italian situation and we may be heading towards the same in Britain.

LikeLike

April 15, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Phil

SFW: SWSS has recently sprung back to life at the university where I work (not much sign of Student RESPECT, though). I was interested to see, on the list of SWSS meetings, one addressing that old favourite “What kind of organisation do we need?” Date: May 8th. I wonder if they’ll be rewriting the speech in the week before.

LikeLike

April 15, 2008 at 10:54 pm

Ray

Having just watched the mayoral debate on BBC1 it was notable how much barracking Livingstone received. Naturally, as the current mayor this might be expected but if his unpopularity with the audience was anything to go by then Livingstone has a lot to worry about. He is unpopular because his neo-liberal policies have had a detrimental effect on workers in London and not because Johnson is offering anything better. Only those who won’t support a left opposition to New Labour in these elections are attempting to downplay Livingstones unpopularity.

As for the jibes about the Left List being insignificant or unrepresentative we’ve heard this all before from some sections of the left about Respect before it began to grow. The LL has been very well received while out campaigning and its support is growing. That may displease those who are opposed to it but come the election and beyond we will see how this plays out.

I don’t quite understand why it surprises anyone that supporters of the LL think that standing in the election is the correct way forward for the left. This is fundamentally a debate about political strategy so it would be rather surprising to think otherwise. If the critics of the Left List could see beyond their preoccupation with the SWP then perhaps they would realise this.

LikeLike

April 15, 2008 at 10:58 pm

Ray

Hi Phil, perhaps you missed the news about how well Student Respect did in the elections and how the New Labour right were defeated in implimenting their campaign to further depoliticise the NUS?

LikeLike

April 15, 2008 at 11:35 pm

Ray

“You heard i here first, political critique on Liam’s blog is “where it counts”.

I enjoy Liam’s blog immensly, but Ii had no idea it as so infleuntial.”

Unlike your news of the world sensationalism over on SUN at least there is a level of fraternal political debate being held on this blog.
But it’s all about the hits for you, right Andy?

LikeLike

April 16, 2008 at 6:45 am

Phil

perhaps you missed the news about how well Student Respect did in the elections

In Manchester? Yes, I did miss that news.

LikeLike

April 18, 2008 at 11:01 pm

Ray

Phil, your head in the sand mentality over all things Student Respect is tiresome and rather disingenuous.

It’s not often that I’d refer anyone to Socialist Unity blog but the ISG might find it interesting checking this thread:

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2116#comment-62670

LikeLike

April 19, 2008 at 8:58 am

Phil

They’ve been invisible for the last six months, popped up a couple of weeks before the vote, did virtually no campaigning and got wiped out. They may be terrifically strong in other places, but that’s what’s been going on in Manchester.

LikeLike

April 19, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Chris Brooks

Ray, your link is to an article about the evils of the Green Party in Germany. That’s a party the ISG and its co-thinkers don’t support, as you know. Your suggestion is that, because we supporting an anti-war socialist in the Green party for mayor, than we also support the pro-war, pro-capitalist leaders of the German Green party. That is not the case. Your tendency also supports candidates of Green party candidates in some countries, without supporting all of them.

I appreciate that you want to use every argument you feel comfortable with against the ISG, but you will be more credible if you don’t use arguments that don’t undermine you. We all hate people who say ‘don’t do what I do, do what I say you should do’,

Just a friendly tip.

LikeLike

April 19, 2008 at 2:21 pm

in a fit of ennui i somehow ended up on Engage (I blame Mark Elf actually). Bit shocked to read about Sian Berry’s position on the boycott. Mainly because I know some Green Party people very strong on Palestinian rights…

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1833

LikeLike

April 19, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Ray

Phil, it doesn’t matter how many times you repeat it, your accusation that Student Respect has been wound down are completely unfounded. I know this doesn’t fit in with your claims that the SWP have abandoned SR but then the truth is often held hostage when there is point scoring to be achieved.

Chris, my point is that essentially the UK Greens go along with the neo-liberal politics of their collegues in Germany. Their uncritical support of Livingstone is partial evidence of this. For the ISG to advocate a vote for the Greens when socialists are standing in the election is a complete abandonment of marxist analysis.

When the Greens have the chance to get into power they are prepared to do deals with virtually anyone as is evident in Germany. They are not socialist nor even left reformist organisations so their politics are not based on class. Where the Greens have taken up the interests of workers we applaude this but this is not the case in the UK.

A call for a vote for the UK Greens is either a sectarian ploy to attempt to ruin the chances of the Left List or the politics of Marxism Today and Stalinist popular frontism. I suspect the former rather than the latter.

LikeLike

April 19, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Ray

Hmm…the ISG supporting apologists for Zionism. Don’t say we didn’t warn you!

LikeLike

April 19, 2008 at 3:17 pm

I don’t think its true that the ISG really want to support candidates who equate political anti-Zionism with anti-semitism in order to get votes. But then this whole excercise is starting to look politically like an attempt to eat soup with a fork. Still…at least those dreadful totalitarians the swp aren’t being supported and thats the main thing isn’t it?

LikeLike

April 19, 2008 at 3:27 pm

I am recalling once again Duncan Halla’s famous comments about what you do in the privacy of the polling booth not being as politically significance as the vote you publicly call for. Those not willing to publicly call for a vote for Lyndsey, but who don’t much like right wing attacks on solidarity campaigns with the Palestinians might experiance a moment of existential angst in the polling booth…

LikeLike

April 19, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Adamski

Maybe the ISG and Liam are worried about crime and are voting for Sian Berry because unlike Lindsey, she wants more police (albeit of a fluffy, nice variety ) on the streets of London? Interestingly, Alan Thornett lists the murder of Jean Charles De Menezes as a reason not to vote for Ken but wants us to vote for the London Green Party candidate who gave cover to Ken over opposing the sacking of Sir Ian Blair, the intellectual author of the murder of Jean.

More to the point, the Green Party, may be anti-war but they are not anti-imperialist.

The article in International Viewpoint actually lies to your co-thinkers in the 4th International saying that the Greens have been consistently anti-war, I mean are you not aware that the position of the Green Party has been to consistently fudge the question of pulling the troops out of Iraq, as Spencer FitzGibbon when he was not writing red scare letters to the Guardian in 2004 warning of the trotskyists in Respect said in a Green Party public statement in the same year of immediate withdrawal of troops: “This is a disgraceful, callous attitude, because we know Iraq would dissolve into civil war.” The Greens instead called for a UN occupation. Incidentally, the Greens also wrote to the Observer to denounce Respect in these terms: “Respect, the George Galloway Party is an unholy alliance of the far left and reactionary Islamist fundamentalists”. Indeed, these attacks on Respect from the Greens continue in the latest Red Pepper where leading members of the Green Party justify coalitions with the Tories and say they are very careful not to position themselevs as a party of the left.

A friend of mine was on the Green NEC and he told me that the motion to the Green conference 2001 linking the attacks on 9.11 to US foreign policy was voted down by delegates!

I hope the LCR who seem to be getting their shit together kick the ISG out of the 4th International!

So will Liam defend his voting for someone who panders to the Zionist lobby to chase votes?

LikeLike

April 19, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Adamski

Here’s a direct quote from the Green Party website:

” Respect’s position is that troops should immediately be withdrawn and Iraq left to its fate. Fitz-Gibbon comments: “This is a disgraceful, callous attitude because we know Iraq would dissolve into civil war.”

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/1457

So why are the ISG lying to their international grouping about the Green Party and the war?

LikeLike

April 19, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Prinkipo Exile

Adamski – the Greens changed their position from Fitz-Gibbon’s time.

Your quote is from 2004 – this one is from 2007
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/3124

and from 2008
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/3350

LikeLike

April 19, 2008 at 4:36 pm

However the demand to reverse palestinian solidarity positions held by the green party by sian berry is this month.

LikeLike

April 19, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Adamski

Prinkipo,

I think that now the idea of an immediate withdrawal is fairly mainstream among the general public, so nothing impressive about the Greens now adopting it three years after the mainsream global anti-war movement!

But what’s interesting is that even in the links you give, Derek Wall is calling for UN troops to take over the war in Afghanistan? (indeed, I was surprised to read this, as I had heard Derek describe himself as a socialist)

Now what function would the UN have in Afghanistan except as a cover for further imperialist games?

Such a position is not made from the basis of an understanding of imperialism and is utterly bogus!

Out of interest, what does Liam think about Cllr Hanif Abdulmuhit’s claim at the headline of his website that EAST LONDON BUSINESS LEADERS BACK RESPECT?

http://www.abdulmuhit.co.uk/

Does Liam welcome this support for Respect Renewal from an unexpected quarter?

LikeLike

April 19, 2008 at 6:21 pm

Phil

Phil, it doesn’t matter how many times you repeat it, your accusation that Student Respect has been wound down are completely unfounded.

Ray, save the rebuttal for when I actually make that claim. All I’ve said about Student RESPECT is what I’ve observed on the ground in Manchester: precious little activity and zero success in elections, alongside a revived SWSS and lots of postering for Marxism and STWC. It’s not proof that Student RESPECT has been wound down, nor did I ever say it was. It does, however, suggest that there’s been a shift of emphasis away from Student RESPECT in Manchester, a campus where RESPECT has previously been active, successful and highly visible.

LikeLike

April 19, 2008 at 7:38 pm

|George T

Adamski – ‘I hope the LCR who seem to be getting their shit together kick the ISG out of the 4th International!’

Unlike the SWP’s International, one organisation does not determine the whole policy of the USFI – obviously Adamski knows nothing more than being in the orbit of the SWP and sees nothing wrong in one organisation in an ‘International’ pulling all the punches – national chauvinism?

LikeLike

April 19, 2008 at 8:26 pm

Andy Newman

interesting that some of the comments here from Adam and JOhn g are identical word for word with ones they have posted to SU blog.

Trolling?

LikeLike

April 19, 2008 at 8:55 pm

redbedhead

George T – you ought not to make the same technical mistake as Adamski re: the IST – as well as the additional mistake of assuming Adamski is a member of the SWP. He has repeatedly said he is not.

LikeLike

April 20, 2008 at 8:24 am

George T

Redbedhead – I have accepted Adamski is in the orbit of the SWP above.

LikeLike

April 20, 2008 at 10:36 am

Adamski

George T. re the USFI, I was being rhetorical, but it is serious concern that the ISG is lying to its international co-thinkers! I am not a member of the SWP, though I was for a time, I left them around 2005, and at one point toyed with the idea of joining the ISG ironically! Though they seem to have completely lost the plot.

For example, seriously acting as if the Green Party have played a role in the anti-war movement in a similar way to the Socialist Left is crazy! And as we have seen there has been no clarity in their position on the war. In my locale, the Green Party turned up around Feb15th to local demo’s with placards bearing the slogan – “US OUT! – UN IN!”

LikeLike

April 20, 2008 at 10:52 am

Adamski

Andy writes: “interesting that some of the comments here from Adam and JOhn g are identical word for word with ones they have posted to SU blog.”

No I think it is quite important to ask Liam, as a leading member of East London Respect Renewal, what he makes of their GLA candidate, a Respect Renewal Councillor boasting on his website as the top story: “EAST LONDON BUSINESS LEADERS BACK RESPECT”

I mean I feel a little uneasy about that. Imagine if the SSP had a headline on their website say for a candidate in Glasgow: “GLASGOW BUSINESS LEADERS BACK THE SOCIALISTS”, would you not find it a little odd?

I don’t think this kind of politics can be the basis for building a broad socialist party to the left of Labour.

LikeLike

April 20, 2008 at 11:04 am

Liam

Actually Adamski I’ve been rather preoccupied with other things and my local involvement in Respect is not that great. But what is more important than one or two interviews is what happens in real life and yesterday IN ONE WARD sixty young Respect supporters were out canvassing and leafletting. It was haphazard and amateurish and they were not even on nodding terms with a revolutionary programme but they identify themselves as supporters of an anti-imperialist, anti neo liberal party. Which is pretty much what all its members, supporters and voters do too.

That’s a pretty good place to be and it puts everything else into context.

LikeLike

April 20, 2008 at 11:20 am

Adamski

“But what is more important than one or two interviews is what happens in real life ”

So Hanif and Galloway organising a meeting with business leaders, didn’t happen in real life? I’ve seen the photo on the website to prove it. George Galloway is not some lowly member of Respect Renewal, he’s your most high profile figure, and a month before the election he has chosen to court the business and establishment leadership – I see that as being problematic.

Liam do you not even see this as problematic? I agree, that in a new political party, people will join who are fighting back but maybe politically naive in some ways, but this kind of stuff was happening too often in the old Respect.

It’s good that young people get involved and are doing this stuff, but they might feel cheated when they probably from the poorer sections of the community are doing the donkey work and then see the leaders at the top table enjoying banquets with the political establishment in Tower Hamlets and business leaders.

I mean it’s great that lots of people who want to hit back against the system are getting involved, but this lack of political clarity in your organisation means that all that energy and enthusiasm is being betrayed.

Liam, in your heart of hearts, you know that what I say is true!

LikeLike

April 20, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Its not trolling. Having recieved no response at all from SUN on the substantive point about Sian Berry’s disgusting position I thought it worthwhile asking the more reasonable comrades on this site. So far no response. Presumably its a bit embarressing.

LikeLike

April 20, 2008 at 12:25 pm

George T – It’s perhaps useful for you to write off Respect/Left List supporters as SWP or SWP hangers-on who you can treat as though they are the same thing – but it is wrong and lazy. Frankly, it smacks of a red baiting method. And you are wrong about the IST as well, since the SWP’s approach to left-of-Labour formations is different from the Greeks and the Zimbabweans and they have been criticized publicly by the New Zealanders over Respect and over Venezuela. Your argument here smack also of ignorance and red-baiting. But, then, I suppose at least you are consistent.

LikeLike

April 20, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Its not red baiting to say that the Left Lists supporters are SWP or hangers on.
It’s true.

LikeLike

April 20, 2008 at 1:50 pm

hangers on? What does this mean?

LikeLike

April 20, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Seriously you don’t know?
It’s people who hang around the SWP.
(A small and diminishing number certainly)

LikeLike

April 20, 2008 at 4:10 pm

George T

Redbedhead – you said I ‘ought not to make the same technical mistake as Adamski re: the IST – as well as the additional mistake of assuming Adamski is a member of the SWP. He has repeatedly said he is not’.

Yet Adamski says he was here a member of the SWP – so why is he so politically miseducated? Why is he under the impression that International organisations are run by one boss party that can kick out others at liberty?

As for the Greens Mayoral candidate I dont think the ISG is seeking to lie to its international comrades – its position is on the international viewpoint website.

Redbedhead – I’ve never been called a redbaiter before. Am I a self hating red? Are you a red-greenbaiter?

LikeLike

April 20, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Adamski

“Why is he under the impression that International organisations are run by one boss party that can kick out others at liberty?”

Oh please, George T, the remark wasn’t particularly serious. I am well aware that the LCR doesn’t run the USFI, I did think that they being a serious, right-on revolutionary organisation might be concerned about the ISG debacle.

“As for the Greens Mayoral candidate I dont think the ISG is seeking to lie to its international comrades – its position is on the international viewpoint website. ”

The point is that the ISG have been trying to paint the Green Mayoral candidate Red, anyone can see that there is only one socialist candidate standing: Lindsey German. But the ISG are calling for a vote for the candidate who panders to the Zionist lobby to get votes, orientates towards small business as the solution to climate change & wants more police on the streets. I’m not sure if Sian Berry is too the left of Ken Livingstone?

But what is hillarious is that Andy N got so embarrassed on his blog about George Galloway and Cllr Hanif boasting “EAST LONDON BUSINESS LEADERS BACK RESPECT” that he closed the thread down!

What is even more incredible is that Liam says he hasn’t really been involved in a major election campaign, now I know sometimes people have other stuff on etc, but I would suggest that this is because in his heart of hearts Liam isn’t really at home with the ISG/Socialist Resistance’s rightward turn?!

Comeback to the fold, comrade, all is forgiven!

Join Respect/Left List who are standing candidates who are not backed by local business leaders!

LikeLike

April 20, 2008 at 5:51 pm

George T

Adamski – in you’re last comment are you not being particularly serious? rhetorical? or not serious at all?

You seem to have a naive view that political candidates of the LL are beyond reproach and everybody else is beyond the pale. Have you any reformists on the LL slate, or are all your candidates revolutionaries?

LikeLike

April 20, 2008 at 6:50 pm

George T – Adamski says that he was briefly a member of the SWP but is not now. Is one marked for life after being a member of the SWP, however brief? And, as for politically miseducated, since you make the same ignorant claim about the IST – that it is run by a “boss party” – I can only assume you are doing something to overcome the same condition in yourself that you condemn in others. And, yes, you are a red-baiter, for the simple reason that your arguments are not based upon a critique of someone’s position viz their validity but simply on the ad hominem argument of determining the validity of their argument based upon their supposed association with a socialist group. I will only note that Elia Kazan was also a socialist – and he testified to the McCarthy hearings and ratted out his friends. And, of course, there was George Orwell. (Not that you are allying with the state, just to make the point that one can be both a socialist and a red baiter).

bill j – re: LL’s political demographics. Have you done a survey? Can you point to any scientific evidence for your claim or is it simply based upon your own narrow prejudices and unexamined assumptions? I suspect the latter, since you provide no evidence, in which case, expect to have your argument treated as such.

LikeLike

April 20, 2008 at 7:00 pm

Liam

redbedhead – as I’ve mentioned before the local Left List is absolutely indistinguishable from the local SWP. That’s just a statement of fact and if I were slightly more obsessive I could post the e mails saying who is leafletting where and when to prove it.

As for the IST- well, to take an example of which I know something, there hasn’t been any idea tried in Britain in the last several years that wasn’t repeated in a more cack handed, half baked, silly way in Belfast and Dublin a month later. Maybe that’s a local exception. Read my piece from last year on the abysmal Belfast People Before Profit (RIP).

LikeLike

April 20, 2008 at 8:02 pm

As opposed to your objective assessment of the facts I suppose?
Let’s put it like this, I have never, and know one I knows has ever met anyone associated with the Left List who is not either a member of the SWP or a hanger on.
Of course my experience maybe unrepresentative. But I’m pretty sure that when the votes are counted we’ll find that they’re not.

LikeLike

April 20, 2008 at 8:10 pm

George T

Redbedhead – you, some SWPers + Adamski seem to be basing your arguments upon associating myself and the ISG with unsavoury characters and parties from world history.

So far, the ISG is on the road of the Sri Lankan JVP and is worse than the German MPs that voted war credits for world war one. I’m now in league with Mccarthyite witchhunters. … Just because the ISG called for a vote for Berry over German.

I look forward to Adolf hitler, Attila the Hun and eating babies comparisons.

LikeLike

April 20, 2008 at 8:11 pm

Andy Newman

Adam

i closed the thread down because of repeated trolling by SWP supporters who seem to have made a collective decision to disrupt SU blog.

I am very pleased that hanif has the support of local business people.

LikeLike

April 21, 2008 at 2:12 am

Liam – “That’s just a statement of fact” No, actually, you are making a claim. To prove that it is a fact requires some evidence or a level of agreement that doesn’t exist in this argument.

bill j – “As opposed to your objective assessment of the facts I suppose?” I never claimed to know the political demographics of the Left List. I disputed that yours was based on anything more than mere animus. And as for what you and your friends know, that is still, like Liam’s, an argument based upon anecdote and thus fails a basic proof test.

Back to you Liam – re: Ireland and the People Before Profit. I have no knowledge of the initiative and can’t comment on it. But, you use this as the basis to back up an argument made by someone else that the SWP is a “boss party” that dictates to other IST groups. But again, all your argument can possibly prove is that the Irish copy the Brits – not that the Brits dictate. And since there are other examples where groups pursue strategies and tactics (Greece, New Zealand, Canada) based upon their own assessments (obviously within the context of collective discussions about general perspectives) it proves you and George T wrong. That is a statement of fact.

LikeLike

April 21, 2008 at 2:27 am

George T – “I’m now in league with Mccarthyite witchhunters. … Just because the ISG called for a vote for Berry over German.”

No, go back and read what I wrote. You implied you couldn’t be a red-baiter since you are a socialist, and I used the examples of two socialists who were, in fact, red baiters – Orwell and Kazan – and then wrote: “(Not that you are allying with the state, just to make the point that one can be both a socialist and a red baiter)” in order to make clear that they were simply examples to prove my point – not that you are either George Orwell or Kazan.

And, it had nothing to do with your calling for a vote for Berry over German. It had to do with your attempt to discredit your opponents by using a slur – they are members of the SWP – rather than engaging with their argument, ie. red-baiting.

In fact, I went back to my earliest comment on this thread, which stated that the SWP supported Nader’s Green candidacy for president of the US. And I pointed out that whether or not to support a Green candidate or the party must be based upon an assessment of the available forces on the left, the character of the Greens in that particular country at a particular time – ie. it is a concrete and not abstract, eternal discussion.
Your reply two posts down was to accuse SWPers of crass opportunism, of being “starry eyed leadership lackeys” and to say that the party was a waste of time and akin to Stalinist Russia – because it disagreed with you.
Now, who is engaged in demonization & deriding their opponent. Those who live in glass houses…

Anyway, it is frankly a shame that people have ended up in the usual nonsense – “the SWP is eeevvvvviilllll!” etc. – when there was the potential for an interesting discussion about the basis upon which one decides to electorally support parties that are not strictly-speaking, Labour-type parties. Instead of learning something it’s the same old, same old. Pity.

LikeLike

April 21, 2008 at 8:53 am

Chris Brooks

>>I pointed out that whether or not to support a Green candidate or the party must be based upon an assessment of the available forces on the left, the character of the Greens in that particular country at a particular time

I’m glad that we agree that it’s a tactical choice. Others here suggest that that’s a clear crossing of class lines, which is simply cult-building behavior.

LikeLike

April 21, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Chris – I don’t think it’s “cult building behaviour”, which isn’t a very helpful comment – either in terms of building comradely discussion or analytically. People can generalize based upon their experiences that the Greens are “never worth supporting”, etc. Or it can be based upon a fairly mechanical notion of how Marxists relate to elections. But, likewise, people can bend in the other direction.
I do believe the ISG is wrong because from everything I can see, the Greens are not a leftward moving party, pulling in sections of the working class or leading key mass movements. They have some people who are good – like Caroline Lucas – and they have people like Tatchell with his obsession with attacking Muslims. But their overall trajectory is not one in which they are an expression of discontent with neo-liberalism and war – from what I can see. Even the German Greens, before they became handservants to the SPD (and now, apparently, possibly even for the Christian Democrats), were a key leading force in the mass mobilizations of the anti-nuclear movement, the peace movement, etc. Did the British Greens – as a party – play a leading role in the movement? Or were sections of it simply pulled along by the prevailing sentiment?

Lastly, re-reading the post above, I’m reminded that the only reason noted for not voting for Lindsey is the split. Even hiding it behind words like “destructive campaign” can’t hide the fact that it is a sectarian decision to cut off your nose to spite your face.
Sian Berry is pro-business. She is against the pro-Palestinian boycott campaign. LG is explicitly pro-working class and anti-privatization. She is loudly against the war, against racism, etc. Yet, when people from the ISG on here explain why they won’t vote for her they are reduced to personal attacks on her – as though Ken Livingstone has delivered on his promises, etc. – as their reason for refusing to vote for her. Hardly the basis for a Marxist position, methinks.

LikeLike

April 21, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Prinkipo Exile

Redbedhead – the RCP’s ‘Red Front’, the WRP, the SPGB and numerous other left fringe groups in the past have stood in elections with a formal position that puts them to the left of Labour, for example, but for many years most sensible socialists have advocated voting Labour against them. In the USA and Australia, left groups associated with the IST/SWP have endorsed Green Party candidates, even where there are left wing candidates on the ballot. As everyone repeatedly says, it’s a tactical question that is entirely subservient to the issue that whoever one votes for first preference. The most important issue in the London elections is likely to be whether it is Livingstone or Johnson for Mayor and which of the three left wing slates is likely to be best placed to win a PR seat.

In terms of the Greens, it is a question of direction; the Greens are a contradictory force, but the activist and left wing are evolving in a positive direction. In such a circumstance, I don’t have a problem giving a first preference to Berry this time round, so long as the second vote is Livingstone, and the GLA list vote is for Respect. Many of left wing socialists voted Green in the 1999 Euro elections (including quite a few SWP members) because there was nothing better on offer.

I think more energy is being spent on criticising the ISG’s policy than the matter justifies. It’s a minor tactical issue, not a matter of huge principle.

LikeLike

April 21, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Prinkipo Exile

Sorry in relation to 1999 Euro elections, I meant to say outside London. In London, Scargill headed the SLP list and at that time he still had some credibility. Outside London, the SLP was pretty much irrelevant.

LikeLike

April 21, 2008 at 4:39 pm

redbedhead

Prinkipo – The argument put forward in the post by Liam does not say that the Left List is a marginal, ultra-left force a la RCP, etc. It argues on a sectarian basis, that is my point.

As far as your argument, well, that remains to be seen – ie. if the LL campaign is marginal. Things will be much clearer after May 1. I disagree with you however that when deciding on whether to vote for the Greens or not it is simply about examining the direction of the left wing. There is also a left wing inside the Democratic Party, including socialists in the DSA, the Progressive Democrats of America, etc. It is more complex than simply the politics of the left wing of a party with some electoral credibility. It is about what forces it represents, it’s connection to the movements, to workers’ organizations, etc.

And, I think, the reason people are interrogating this tactical decision is that some see it as an indicator of a shift to the right. That, in seeking to justify the split, political differences are emerging which put the ISG on the path towards an accomodation to politics that are, ultimately, hostile to the struggle for socialism.

LikeLike

April 21, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Ray

billj wrote: “Let’s put it like this, I have never, and know one I knows has ever met anyone associated with the Left List who is not either a member of the SWP or a hanger on.”

Stunning analysis that. You should run the New Labour NHS think tank. They’re always banging on about evidence based practice except that they cherry pick information often based on anecdotal evidence. I look forward to your empirical study of the Left Lists composition.

When you say “hanger on” I presume you’re referring to the majority of Respect members who didn’t split to form their own undemocratic minority organisation.

Just read the Left Lists rather good “what we stand for” in the candidates booklet. Berry’s promoting 24/7 community policing and a 20p cut in off-peak tube fares (horray!) Livingstone is recruiting 1000 more police and handing over more work to PFI (wow!) Looking forward to the election!

LikeLike

April 21, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Prinkipo Exile

The point I was trying to make is that the SWP/Left List are on a trajectory taking them towards the RCP etc. The trajectory of the Green Left, of which Berry is a member is a much more positive one, though it also has its contradictions.
http://www.greenleft.org.uk/intro.shtml

That certainly does not necessarily mean endorsing joining the Greens – something that would be wrong to do in the current situation. It is only about who to vote first preference for tactically in an election that neither Greens or Left List have the slightest possibility of winning and where the important vote is a ‘class vote’ for the Labour candidate despite his many faults.

LikeLike

April 21, 2008 at 8:06 pm

jj

I am led to believe the green candidate is banging on about needing more police to patrol the streets.. very progressive!! There appears to be a general bidding war on who should be toughest on working class kids… except for Lindsey German who is arguing a socialist position,,,, but that appears to be of little interest to many on this blog.
apperantly GG was banging on about not wanting Poles to cook his curry on the weekend!!! appersantly quite a nasty populist speech from the great one, also RR campaign slogan is vote ken and george!!!! not bad for an organisation that has no opinion aboput who to vote for in the mayoral election!! will be sure that the ISG keeps its mouth shut as usual.

LikeLike

April 21, 2008 at 8:15 pm

I don’t think we’ll have to wait long for some empirical evidence around the Left Lists composition. The night of the poll will reveal all pretty clearly.

LikeLike

April 21, 2008 at 10:15 pm

jj

how does the poll show the composition of the left list? a bit sloppy but hey any attack on the swp appears to be fine round here.

what about GG and the election bus blasting out vote Ken and George to all passers by.. when was this RR policy? was it the result of a democratic decision? why are the ISG not saying anything? perhaps cosying uo to new labour Ken is the latest wheeze of the ISG?

LikeLike

April 22, 2008 at 11:40 pm

d

German is a candidate of the SWP, an ultra-centralist, anti-democratic group which suffocates different opinions within its ranks, perpetuates a hierarchical division of labour (thinkers, cadres and footsoldiers), regularly uses deceit, and tries to instrumentalise the wider movement and left-wing alliances as mere “transmission belts” for their dominance.

LikeLike

April 23, 2008 at 12:58 am

Ray

We also drink the blood of small children…you forgot to add that, d 😉

LikeLike

April 23, 2008 at 3:23 pm

jj

The ISG backed candidate Sian Berry has attacked KL for inviitng a muslim cleric…. Are the ISG really doing the right thing backing this candidate?

LikeLike

April 23, 2008 at 4:17 pm

The night of the poll – is the night of the poll i.e. election night, something which hasn’t yet happened, which will reveal the breadth and depth of the LL’s support for all to see.

LikeLike

April 23, 2008 at 9:39 pm

jj

Bill
over on SUN they are wetting themselves because GG got hit on the head by a bouncy ball.. ovenden thinks its a great day for RR!!Isn’t this all a bit of a cult of the personality.. makes me feel a bit uneasy. Of course GG is well known.. thats not really the point its the direciton of his/rr politics that matter.. more and more cosy with “Red” Ken , no discussion within RR on slates and who to call a vote for and then decide by GG that its KL all the way. The ISG are clearly just there to provide left cover for GG.. A very sad day indeed.

LikeLike

April 24, 2008 at 9:52 pm

KrisS

The “hangers-on” thing (let’s not forget the hyphen, eh comrades?) is just a piece of circular argument, and it’s really not worth engaging with. Of course non-SWP members who stayed in Respect are happier working with the SWP than those who left are, otherwise they’d (we’d) have left too. That makes them (us) by definition, according to thingy above, “hangers-on”. So be it, who cares?

LikeLike

April 24, 2008 at 10:06 pm

I agree that is odd.

LikeLike

April 26, 2008 at 1:05 am

Ray

The latest news is that Livingstone is supporting Galloway! They’re united in the face of a threat from the left. Livingstone hopes Galloway will secure him the Muslim and left vote and Galloway is hoping for political rehabilitation. While Galloway and Livingstone are attempting to drag the left to the right, socialists in Renewal still believe that Renewal doesn’t have an official position on supporting Livingstone. This is tradegy played out as farce.

Livingstone has even offered Johnson a job! It’s pretty disgraceful that Galloway, Livingstone and the Greens are willing to sell out the electorate for a bit of power. They’ll do deals with anyone as long as they get elected. At least the Left List is sticking to its principles and offering a left of labour alternative for workers.

LikeLike

April 26, 2008 at 1:08 am

Ray

Perhaps the Renewal/New Labour/Green pact is what Ovenden meant by “synergy.”

LikeLike

April 26, 2008 at 4:24 pm

“At least the Left List is sticking to its principles and offering a left of labour alternative for workers.”

Hardly, I’m afraid. The Left List supporters otherwise known as the SWP sell a paper every week that I buy which includes each and every week the admirable formulation:

“There is no parliamentary road…
The working class needs an entirely different kind of state- a workers state based on councils of workers’ delegates and a workers’ militia.

At most parliamentary activity can be used to make propaganda against the prsent system.

Only the mass action of the workers themselves can destroy the system.”

But the Left List stands for what?

“1. Housing – An emergency council housing building programme.
2. Transport – Decent and cheap public transport to encourage less car use. Cut fares and increase provision with new tube and rail lines.
3. War – Bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. No attacks on civil liberties. Spend the money used for war on welfare.
4. Education – Good schools for every child in every borough. No academies, no tuition fees for students.
5. Health – No health rationing, stop hospital closures, no privatisation of doctors’ surgeries.
6. Poverty – Tax the wealthy to close the gap between rich and poor. Pensions to be linked with earnings.
7. Environment – Stop big business putting profits before the planet. No third runway at Heathrow.
8. Olympics – Londoners should not have to subsidise the games. No cuts in arts or local sport provision to pay for the Olympics.
9. Work – The London living wage of £7.20 an hour must be enforced, alongside full trade union rights and a 35-hour working week.
10. Equality – Oppose all forms of discrimination and racism.”

All fair enough but in no sense linked in the election literature with a way forward to build the self-activity of the masses- it is more like vote for us and this is what we would do if in power.- and therefore in direct contradiction of the where we stand column.

If masses of workers had generated this socialists would say all fine and good but let’s link this with the fight for a workers’ state and workers’ power. If we were voted down- fair enough. But it isn’t like that at all. It’s ‘revolutionaries’ diluting their program in a bid to look respectable to get voted in- completely forlorn I’m afraid and a complete dislocation between the avowed revolutionary socialism and the reformist praticice.

Almost as if the column was written when the SWP was at least a militant class conscious organisation but is now kept in as an adornment of nostalgia to disguise the daily dilution of the principles of socialism.

Actually what we need to do is build a mass movement, build the rank and files in the unions, build mass protests and demos on the streets.

I’m more than happy to work with the SWP on this- and I’m pretty sure many of their members are too- so let’s get busy!

LikeLike

April 27, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Ray

Jason, you falsley characterise the Left List as the SWP because this excuses your politics of abstaining from involving yourself in rebuilding the left. Your call for a revolutionary program is completely out of step with prevailing conditions. The Left List is comprised of Respect members who are continueing the work of Respect. It is a left alliance that does not have a revolutionary program.

I suggest that if you want to stand for election on a revolutionary program you organise around that. The rest of the left will continue building roots in the work place and community.

You don’t explain how to build a mass movement and this is the weakness of your politics. I assume you are waiting for the conciousness of workers to magically change. But the danger is that unless the left are actively involved in rebuilding the movement then the right will move in to fill the vacuum.

It is completely correct to stand a left candidate against New Labour in this election. Instead of abstaining why don’t you support the Left List? You say that you wish to work with the rest of the left but this never seems to materialises in a concrete way.

I’m happy to work with anyone on the left if it means challenging New Labour (i.e. Livingstone) and not abstaining from trying to rebuild the left.

LikeLike

April 27, 2008 at 8:54 pm

Hi Ray

Interesting points though I think slightly based on a misunderstanding of what I’m trying to argue- however I’m more than happy to clarify.

I don’t it is true know all the ins and outs of who is in the Left List nationally it’s true. But where I do have some knowledge it is mainly SWP dominated- you may say that’s not replicated across the country.

Even then though we should argue openly for our politics. You do seem to assume without really knowing me that I’m not involved in workplace or community politics- without being arrogant that is far from the truth!

In e.g. the Sukula campaign and Bolton NUT I and other PR members have alongside SWP built a locally vibrant movement which got hundreds out on to the streets in a scuccessful antideportation campaign that defeated a major government policy- and in the NUT we closed a lot of schools like I’m sure you did oin your area and have 80 strong branch meetings and a big rally. I’m not claiming it’s unique or et a mass movement but it’s not ‘abstaining’

You say I don’t explain how to build a mass movement. OK- I’ll try very quickly. Take the active day to day concerns of workers and link them via accesible and imaginative arguments with the need for workers’ control.

I have to go now tho’ I’m acutely aware I haven’t engaged all your points- but I really do have to go for domestic reasons.

Just quickly on rebuilding the left we’ve played a major role- though not just us of course- in helping promote http://www.conventionoftheleft.org

Take care and speak soon

Jason

LikeLike

April 27, 2008 at 9:13 pm

Ray

Jason I’m not criticising your lack of involvement in day to day activity as I am sure you and other comrades in PR are very actively involved. My criticism is of the politcal analysis of PR that results in it abstaining from uniting with others on the left in alliances.

It’s no help championing the Convention of the Left but then refusing to support Respect and the Left List who are actively organising in the here and now while PR stand apart demanding a revolutionary program. This is not realistic and will only lead to demoralisation on the left when workers are not radicalised enough to support these demands.

LikeLike

April 27, 2008 at 9:14 pm

Andy Newman

Ray:

“New Labour (i.e. Livingstone) ”

!!!!

You clearly have no idea what New Labour is.

LikeLike

April 27, 2008 at 10:21 pm

Actually we fully participated in the Socialist Alliance so your criticism doesn’t quite hold up.

The alliances of the left we need are to rebuild working class combativity- this is not abstaining from the struggle or abstaining from alliances of the left.

Electoral alliances I think may be possible where and when we build up a sufficient base in working class communties. It’s a great shame the Socialist Alliance collapsed and we now have the Left List and Respect standing against each other.

But there’s no point dwelling on the past- let’s build for the future. Revolutionary politics is not standing apart from struggle advocating a revolutionary program- I’m not sure who told you this but that really would be a forlorn approach.

You falsely counterpose revolutionary politics with abstaining form workplace and community work- however no worthwhile revolutionary will abstain from such work only a literary propagandist- if that’s your understanding of revolutionary politics then no wonder you reject it. But there is another far richer version of genuine revolutionary politics.

You say “You don’t explain how to build a mass movement and this is the weakness of your politics. ”

But can you explain how to? No and I can’t either nor can Liam or anyone esle- but we can have an open, honest, dialogue and start co-operating in action and debate. If you are gnuine in this- and I think you are- then please do not write off the Convention of the Left or write off working together in alliances.

Cheers, good night and take care
Jason

LikeLike

April 27, 2008 at 11:06 pm

Liam

I’ve been present at the two most important political events in London this week – the UCU/NUT strike march and the Love Music Hate Racism carnival. At both things the only people distributing Left List material were SWP members. I knew most of their names and all of their faces. Let’s stop this pretence that the creation has an independent existence.

LikeLike

April 27, 2008 at 11:10 pm

Ray

The Socialist Alliance is history. The issue at hand is the London elections and PR are abstaining from getting involved. How is that relating to the class?

Yes I can explain how to build a mass movement and that is to start by actively rebuilding the left by standing a left candidate as an alternative to New Labour (i.e. Livingstone.) No amount of distracting from Livingstones record by Andy Newman can alter the fact that unless workers have a left alternative to New Labour then this will provide fertile ground for the BNP to grow.

When Labour fails in government unless there is a left alternative then the nazi’s will take advantage of the demoralisation of workers. That’s why the Left List leaflet urges people to vote for a left alternative to stop the nazi’s and not just to fall behind New Labour who have betrayed workers (and that includes Livingstone.)

The trajectory of Renewal has been to move to the right by acting as apologists for New Labour. PR on the other hand has abstained from taking sides in the struggle for the political direction of the left and and as such are doing little to provide an alternative to New Labour.

LikeLike

April 27, 2008 at 11:32 pm

Ray

Liam let’s stop the pretence that Renewal is a not a campaigning arm for New Labour and Livingstone. If you want to characterise the Left List as the SWP it’s of little consequence. You’re not one of the people the Left List is trying to convince because you’re antagonistic to anyone who does not support the political direction of Renewal.

At least the Left List are challenging New Labour and offering a left alternative. Otherwise it would be an open door for the BNP to feed off of the demoralisation of workers who are sick of the betrayals of Livingstone and New Labour.

I do hope at some point you and Jason will see the sense in standing against New Labour and will acknowledge that an alternative to Labour is essential if we are going to rebuild the movement and counter the BNP. Until then I hope we will still work in solidarity with one another against New Labour and the right but let’s not forget that this is a debate about the political direction of the left rather than a guessing game about the composition of the Left List.

LikeLike

April 28, 2008 at 6:27 am

“I do hope at some point you and Jason will see the sense in standing against New Labour”

Liam is in a group standing against New Labour.

I and PR when we were workers power were in the Socialist Alliance and I for one would certainly support a similar initiative.

You say “The Socialist Alliance is history.” Yes but the future is open- we can do anything we want, it’s up to us, we can if we want form a campaigning alliance and network of socialists to organise class struggle, offer a political alternative, including standing in elections. Thrre’s no point writing it off- none of us have all the answers but we should engage in dialogue and realise that human beings, ordinary working class people, have the potenital to seize power and the intitiative if we but believe in ourselves

But the most crucial question is organising the class struggle not standing in elections- though sometimes standing in elections is a tactic towards organising class struggle.

One of the important priorities is to do everything we cna to ensure a further NUT ballot as soon as possible and another is build on the success of the carnival to build a vibrant Black and white united campaign against racism, in defence of migrants and to run the fascists off the streeets.

LikeLike

April 28, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Ray

Rank and file organaisation is important and is ongoing regardless of an election but the reality is that a very crucial election is happening and socialists can’t abstain from it. The election is crucial for the left because unless we offer an alternative to New Labour the right will attempt to fill the vacuum. Renewal is not offering an alternative to New Labour. They are in bed with Livingstone and voters who are sick of the betrayals of Labour are going to be fooled into believing otherwise. Actions speak louder than words so either abstaining from the election or campaigning for Livingstone gives the measure of the politics of the party.

LikeLike

April 28, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Ray

“They are in bed with Livingstone and voters who are sick of the betrayals of Labour are going to be fooled into believing otherwise.”

That should read:

“They are in bed with Livingstone and voters who are sick of the betrayals of Labour are NOT going to be fooled into believing otherwise.”

LikeLike

April 28, 2008 at 4:36 pm

Elections are not unimportant- however they are clearly secondary to the organisation of the class.

At most parliamentary activity can be used to make propaganda against the present system.

Only the mass action of the workers themselves can destroy the system

The point though is that the left as a whole is in very bad shape and we need to participate in the rebuilding of the fighting organisations of the working class and build an alliance of miltiants and socialists who can organise mass action and begin to change society.

This is much more important than elections though electoral activity can be used to idenitify, organise and moblise support for extra-parliamentary action and it does raise issues of politics- I am not arguing for an abstention but politics is about much mre than elections.

Cheers
Jason

LikeLike

April 29, 2008 at 12:22 am

KrisS

“At both things the only people distributing Left List material were SWP members.”

Just as a simple matter of fact, and for what it’s worth, this is not true.

LikeLike

April 29, 2008 at 6:13 am

but it is almost certainly true that the swp are the majority and that therefore the reformist politics of LL is because of a tactical decision by SWP to argue for that politics.

I think because they beleive standing on a revolutionary program is left propagandism, an empty exercise.

Such an approach is back to front I think. Socialists should seek to build mass movements- the SWP does I acknowledge to be clear. When and where we have some success in mobilising a section of the workforce or community in action against the bosses and their government it may be useful to use elections to identify, organise and mobilise further support for such struggles crystalising around a series of fighting demands that socialists link to the issue of power- who should run society and our services? The democracy of working class service users and providers? Or the market? Need? Or greed?

If in such a cmapaign workers agree on the fighting demands but cannot be won to the transitional demands for workers’ control- OK, if the electoral alliance still plays a role in mobilising support for the movement then we should go with it. But for socialists to argue for a series of reforms without any mention or tactics for socialism and mass action is simply bizarre. I can see where it comes from but it is forlorn I’m afraid and a bit of a diversion.

LikeLike

April 29, 2008 at 8:00 am

KrisS

Not wanting to split hairs, and happy to get onto the meat of what you’re saying, but in our branch it’s about 50-50 in terms of people who engage in some activity. Of course the SWP members are, on average, more active than those of us who aren’t SWP members. In terms of paper members, the SWP is a much smaller proportion.

But yes, clearly the SWP must be happy with the platform we’re putting forward in this election. I think the problem is that we’re too small. And that’s been exacerbated by people splitting from us, of course. But Respect needs/ed to grow in order for those with different political traditions to be able to argue for those without threatening the project. With the SWP as a majority in terms of membership – particularly active membership – as has always been the case, that’s got to be difficult, hasn’t it?

LikeLike

April 29, 2008 at 11:25 am

jj

Sian Berry couldn’t amke it onto the picket line last week, no support for workers in public sector. So ISG backing someone who can;t bring themselves to support workers in struggle and Lindsey German is the noly Mayoral candidate to go to the picket lines, march and rally.. so this leads the ISG backing a liberal anti working class poser… well done everyone at the ISG towers!!

LikeLike

April 29, 2008 at 11:40 am

Liam

jj – why are you spending so much time snarling at a small group of people you consider to be an irrelevant sectlet irredeemably lost to socialist politics?

There is a big wide world out there full of things that could cheer you up. Would that not be a more fruitful way to fill your time.

If the political level of your comments does not improve you will have to deposit them somewhere else. I’m welcome contributors with different viewpoints who engage constructively but that is not what you are doing.

LikeLike

April 29, 2008 at 5:04 pm

Yes but Liam given the immensity of the threat of capitalism, impending irreversible environmental catastrophe, millions dying every year already, privatisation and misery for th emany is there not soemthing to be said for seeing how we cna leave all the snipes behind and look at how we cna achieve unity in action and polite and friendly discussion of ideas?

Hence the http://www.conventionoftheleft.org

LikeLike

April 30, 2008 at 12:17 am

Ray

“I think because they beleive standing on a revolutionary program is left propagandism, an empty exercise.”

Jason it’s not necessary nor appropriate at the moment to argue for a revolutionary program (however that is defined) in order to address issues that are relevant to workers and at the forefront of a marxist agenda.

The Left List is campaigning on real issues that affect millions of working class people in London. The election broadcast championed support for last weeks strikes and for the anti-racist festival. It was one of the most political broadcasts the left has seen in decades. The Left List is relating to workers as an organisation not entirely comprised of revolutionaries regardless of whether its critics like to characterise it as such. The Left List is continueing in the spirit of Respect and, despite the split, the original ethos of Respect has helped revive the left. We need to carry on with that perspective and not get bogged down in arguements about whether or not a program is revolutionary enough.

LikeLike

April 30, 2008 at 5:54 am

I think, Ray, you misunderstand what I’m saying- it’s not that everything has to be posed as part of a full revolutionary program it’s that our politics should raise issues of workers’ control and set out a vision of workers running society. You may think that scares people off- I’m not so sure. But the point isn’t to have it in as some magic talisman but rather to make sure whatever we argue for and do is contributing to organising the self-activity of workers in struggle.

We can have a perfectly reasonable debate about politics, the content of the Left List and that’s fine. But far more important I think is to take practical steps towards e.g. 1) organising the rank and file in the NUT – getting school groups and associations to send in resolutions for a further ballot, communicating with each other, sharing ideas for rallies, public leaflets, a campaign strategy 2) getting a netowrk of antiracist activists 3) thinking about what way forward for th left in joint cmapiagning on the streets, in the unions and perhaps even electorally which may be where www,conventionoftheleft.,org comes in

But to prioritise one why not concentrate this week on the NUT- there is an executive meeting on the 6th- we need to get messages in before that.

LikeLike

April 30, 2008 at 8:12 am

Adamski

I think that Jason makes a valid point, that the key thing is to promote a sense of workers changing society through their own activity rather than looking to Parliament or the council chamber for solutions. I don’t think that, at this stage of the class war, standing on a revolutionary programme would be appropriate. Nevertheless, a socialist electoral challenge needs to constantly promote the idea of change through workers self-activity, and can also take up demands that while possible under capitalism challenge it’s logic – for example, the demand for free public transport or questioning whether immigration controls are really necessary, challenging ideas of “patriotism”, “Britishness” and “Englishness” (and “Welshness”)

One thing I have noticed with RR leaflets that I have seen on Brum Respect Renewal’s website is how apolitical they are & similar to the leaflets of the mainstream parties, even down to having the same tacky: “This is a two-horse race, Labour can’t win here” adverts that the LibDems have.

On our election leaflets we don’t call for revolution, but we do make it clear that we are a party of grassroots struggle that aims to link all those fighting back whether on picket lines, the anti-war movement etc. I think we have a phrase on our leaflets along the lines of ‘what this city needs is more activists not personal ambition:’we’re not wannable politicians looking for a pay rise or step up the career ladder, unlike the other political parties who promise the earth and don’t deliver, the Councillor we have elsewhere like London and Preston, organise in the community for change’

I mean there’s reformists and reformists. A guy who was one of our candidates in the last election is not a revolutionary, but a traditional labour voter, nevertheless he organised on council estates a successful campaign against housing stock transfer that saw 2 out of 3 council tenants vote ‘No’. This kind of ‘reformism-from-below’, I think is something we can work with and build a movement round.

I do worry when I see that Respect Renewal Councillor Hanif Abdulmuhit has as the headline on his website: “EAST LONDON BUSINESS LEADERS BACK RESPECT”,

LikeLike

April 30, 2008 at 8:23 am

Adamski

To give an example of Respect Renewal literature, this leaflet doesn’t seem that different to those that the LibDems issue:

Click to access sparkbrook-april-08.pdf

On of Alan Thornett’s criticisms of Respect Mark 1 was the low level of politics on their literature, and the lack of any socialist analysis. The ISG/Socialist Resistance seem to have done a 180 degree turn since they threw themselves in with Respect Renewal.

Remind me again: Who selected Respect Renewal’s GLA candidates?

Was it:
a) George Galloway handpicked them or
b) a democratic meeting of London RR members.

The answer is a)

LikeLike

April 30, 2008 at 9:52 am

Birmingham Respect Member

I will remember Adamski’s advice next time I am asked on the doorstep when the rubbish dumped on the corner will be removed.

I will not stoop to the rotten reformist line that our councillors have argued for and won extra funding for emergency rubbish pick ups. And I will certainly not lower myself to actually phoning the pick up service and getting the rubbish removed.

Dealing with these piffling problems might win us votes, but we are not about looking to the council chamber for solutions.

No, I see it all more clearly now. “We are part of a grassroots struggle that aims to link all those fighting back”, I will say. “We are about workers self-activity….so clean it up yourself…and, by the way, please vote for your local Respect councillor on Thursday”.

That should work.

LikeLike

April 30, 2008 at 10:29 am

Adamski

“I will not stoop to the rotten reformist line that our councillors have argued for and won extra funding for emergency rubbish pick ups. And I will certainly not lower myself to actually phoning the pick up service and getting the rubbish removed.”

Of course, you should do these things. Though the LibDems and any conscientious local politicians will take up these issues.

In our campaign, a big issue on the doorstep has been youth crime and the fact that there is literally nothing for young people to do in the ward.

The point is that socialists should link these issues with the wider issues in society such as privatisation and neoliberalism. Isn’t this what people like Michael Lavalette in Preston has done, or what the SSP used to do in the Scottish Parliament?

As to: ““We are part of a grassroots struggle that aims to link all those fighting back”, I will say. “We are about workers self-activity”

Yeah, I wouldn’t mouth these as slogans on the doorstep, but these concepts can be put across in an accesible way. For example, I mentioned the Defend Council Housing campaign that we played a key role in. This saw ordinary working people set up a grassroots campaign that linked up with trade unions and saw the People take on a LibDem campaign that forked out millions to pay for glossy leaflets and adverts – and won.

But Birmingham Respect Member, what distinguishes the leaflet above from something that Labour or LibDems might put out.

I mean where I live, I get the leaflets from the mainstream parties and they are all the same: Petty point scoring, the Labour leaflet complains about a disused building being turned into a Student Pub (shock! horror! young people enjoying themselves), the LibDem leaflet boasts that they took a takeaway to court for opening late. None want to talk about the big issues or the wider picture in society.

This lowering of tone of the politics is a symptom of neoliberalism & the neoliberal consensus – the trouble is that the Respect Renewal leaflet above has nothing very much to distinguish it from what the mainstream parties put out. It doesn’t articulate an alternative vision or politics.

LikeLike

April 30, 2008 at 12:49 pm

TLC

I think we have all got the message by now Adam. You don’t rate Respect Renewal, but you however are brilliant. Your success in Wales is eagerly awaited. You’ve obviously been keeping your powder dry for the last four years, so we’re all looking forward to your breakthrough on Thursday.

LikeLike

April 30, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Adamski

Pre-split and post-split, Respect has had areas where it has been weaker, and we have been one of those areas. Nevertheless, from a low base our organisation is growing and in this election campaign we have made many good contacts that will help us begin the process of bringing together a layer of people who want to organise against the status quo offered by mainstream politics.

I suspect our vote won’t be huge, and Renewal’s wrecking tactics haven’t helped, such as preventing Respect in Wales from standing candidates under its own name & forcing us to stand under a name people won’t recognise. The name confusion and split in Respect meant our campaign only got started very late

Nevertheless it has been a good campaign, and we have met some quality people along the way! I’m optimistic for the future of our organisation.

LikeLike

April 30, 2008 at 8:23 pm

I nearly agree with Adam here-
“I think that Jason makes a valid point, that the key thing is to promote a sense of workers changing society through their own activity rather than looking to Parliament or the council chamber for solutions…. a socialist electoral challenge needs to constantly promote the idea of change through workers self-activity, and can also take up demands that while possible under capitalism challenge it’s logic – for example, the demand for free public transport or questioning whether immigration controls are really necessary”

I think though the idea that society should be run by working class people ourselves is revolutionary and not all that alienating and very necessary.

However, if there was an electoral alliance standing that represented a real movement within the working class even if only a very local one I think that could be really good.

I’m for strikers or anti-privatisation campaigners standing- whether they’re Left List, Renewal or something else is not so important.

But we need to build the movement first. I wish all well in building genuine grassroots movements.

Birmingham Respect member is right that of course we should deal with local issues- they are very important but it is not actually about looking to the council chamber for solutions but making demands on the council and mobilising local support to make sure the council act.

We need though to see beyond the horizons of buikdoing our own organisations- that’s fine in and of itself but should be aprt of a wider revival of working class combatiivty and ocnfidence.

Hence to be a bit broken record the relevance of union rank and file groupings- NO ONE has taken me up on how to build the NUT strike- and http://www.conventionoftheleft.org

LikeLike

April 30, 2008 at 9:34 pm

lying George

Lying Galloway claims he will not be paid for his GLA Assembly job if he wins.

Looking at the GLA website, it seems George is lying about cash again.

Mayor £137,579
Deputy Mayor £90,954
Chair of the Assembly £60,675
Assembly Members £50,582
Assembly Members who are also MPs £33,721 (from May 2008, £16,861)

LikeLike

April 30, 2008 at 10:25 pm

jj

I think the b’ham leaflet with the exception of the mention of the war could be written by any politicla party in the mainstram… who isn’t for cleaner streets, fairer funding for example? I mean all the best for the election but it is dumbing down and a fairly unpolitical leaflet buit may not reflect the other elements of the campaign..Looks like they will win and for RR that is everything anfd the struggle of workers is most secondary. A leading member over on SUN from RR is arguing workers shoudn’t go on strike as its a waste of time!!!!

LikeLike