Roy Wilkes reports from the National Union of Teachers (NUT) Conference in Cardiff and suggests that No2EU may be more open than some might think.

image No2EU held a very interesting fringe meeting at NUT conference on Monday.  Rob Griffiths and Dave Nellist spoke.  There were about 60 people in attendance, including quite a few SP members (many of them youth) from Cardiff , plus NUT delegates from a variety of currents. 

Rob Griffiths spoke about the importance of a national trade union fielding candidates against New Labour.  He said that they were aiming to include workers in struggle on the lists, and that the convener of one of the Visteon plants had agreed to stand.  No2EU has already raised £55 000 and will be standing in every Euro constituency, and in two of the constituencies (the North West and the West Midlands I think) they will be mailshotting every household. There will also be television broadcasts.  Griffiths said that the emphasis on opposing the posted workers directive was important because under that directive it is the bosses who control the movement of labour and they do so in a way that undermines trade union terms and conditions.  Instead of accepting this situation, the approach of the left should be to resist it, but we should also oppose all racist immigration laws.

Dave Nellist explained that other left-of-labour initiatives hadn’t worked but that this one was different in that it was based on an important left wing trade union. Indeed, it has been the railworkers who had been instrumental in setting up the Labour Party in the first place.  He said that after the Euro election there would be an evaluation of the initiative, based not only on votes received but more importantly on the strength of the alliance that was generated, with a view to exploring the possibility of a longer term alliance.  Nellist said that after the election, any MEPs elected would meet with No2EU supporters in their constituencies to discuss what they should do next.  He said that taking a worker’s wage was popular when he did it as an MP, and that this was the pledge of No2EU. The MEPs would concentrate not on sitting in Brussels but on campaigning both in Britain and beyond, including making links with other workers parties such as the NPA.

A member of the AWL criticised the initiative for pandering to nationalism, and said that the campaign should not be about the EU.  I responded to that contribution by suggesting that opposing the Lisbon treaty wasn’t pandering to nationalism but was an essential component of any intervention into what is after all a European election.  I referred to the ‘non’ campaign in France , which had been led by the LCR and which had marginalised the FN. I welcomed Rob Griffiths’ opposition to racist immigration laws but said that this should have been featured in the platform of the initiative.  Socialist Resistance comrade Stuart said that the phrase ‘social dumping’ should not be used, and that the defense of industry, agriculture and fisheries was not class based.  Interestingly, members of the SP in the audience were also critical of the No2EU platform as it stands and suggested that it should be more explicitly socialist. 

Dave Nellist and Rob Griffiths both agreed with the criticisms that had been made by myself, Stuart and the SP members, and said that No2EU was a work in progress, and that the leaflet we were referring to was an early leaflet which had been rushed out.  Nellist hoped that a convention would be held after the election to take the initiative forward.  Rob Griffiths responded to criticisms from the AWL, who said that some people had been excluded from the initiative, by saying that the only people excluded were those who had opposed the initiative and wanted to prevent it from happening. Any left group that supports the initiative can be involved.

There seems to be an openness to this process which many of us hadn’t previously acknowledged. And it would seem that the platform of No2EU, and of whatever might follow it, is not a closed book but an evolving process.

48 responses to “No2EU Fringe Meeting”

  1. I was interested in this initiative when I first heard rumours of it, a major trade union standing candidates is an interesting and positive development, but the platform and emphasis leaves me cold & doesn’t seem to connect with the issues of workers on the doorstep. And the name could make many voters assume that this is a populist right wing outfit. I won’t,sadly, be voting for No2EU

    I would suspect that the speakers were in some ways tailoring their message to the audience. I believe that Rob Griffiths has described the SWP as ultra-leftist and that they couldn’t participate in the alliance because they took a crititical position on the Lindsey dispute (that saw the deputy leader of the BNP address a picket line in West Wales incidentally).

    Opposition to racist immigration laws is a confusing position, as ALL immigration laws are racist.

    I read an extremely disturbing article in the Morning Star by someone who was the election agent/nominating officer for the party? (if my memory serves correctly, but could have been someone with similar position) basically calling for restrictions on EU citizens coming in Britain.

    This is made more explicit on the No2EU website which attacks the free movement of labour referring to the so-called ‘free movement’ of labour” in the EU and “the social dumping of exploited foreign workers in Britain”, now the usual left wing solution to exploitation of migrant workers is to recruit them into trade unions, the No2EU platform is playing with fire.

    Haven’t seen it discussed anywhere, but at a meeting in Cardiff the week before Mark Serwotka mentioned that the PCS would be starting the process of discussing & debating standing candidates in some circumstances.

    While commending Bob Crow as the best trade union leader in Britain today (and various other statements to make clear that he respected many involved in the No2EU project) he was scathingly critical of No2EU – Yes2Democracy saying that he wouldn’t &couldn’t vote for it.

    He critiqued the very name, saying that the alternatives weren’t the EU vs. Democracy, Britain wasn’t democratic enough, it was the British government who privatised our utilities, and argued that the platform of No2EU promoted the idea of ‘socialism in one country’ and had a strong nationalistic tinge, he argued that we should be taking our lead from comrades in France and Ireland in the fight against neoliberalism.

    He also said that the way the slate had been set up was untransparent for a group with the name – ‘Yes2Democracy’ and said that you shouldn’t take short cuts when trying to form a new mass workers party. He alluded to not knowing who had drawn up the platform, how the candidates had been selected etc.

    He said in the PCS, in contrast, the process would take several months, they would be debating and discussing at every level of the union. He felt that the union taking the initiative in standing anti-neoliberal candidates in a handful of constituencies could help break the logjam on the left since the collapse of SLP, Socialist Alliance, Respect, SSP and other left unity projects. He said it was unlikely that they would have completed the debate in time to stand candidates for the General Election, but made it clear that if shortcuts were taken and things weren’t thought out and above-board then it would cause more damage in the longrun to the project of a socialist alternative.

    Like

  2. Adamski, I take on board a lot of your criticisms of No2EU . But then you go on to contrast, unfavourably, this actually existing, warts and all, organistaion with the PCS which may be “starting” to “discuss and debate” standing candidates at sometime in the future but not for at least several months and probably after the general election.
    IE not actually standing candidates for at least five years!
    Is that really any way forward?

    Like

  3. I think that the next General Election is coming up in the next 18 months

    . I was also mentioning the PCS initiative because I haven’t actually heard of it mentioned anywhere, if 2 major trade unions – the RMT and PCS are talking about sponsoring candidates then this is an interesting development. Serwotka alluded to the idea of the PCS standing a candidate against James Purnell over Welfare Reform, or a postie standing against the minister involved in the privatisation of the post office etc.

    Re. the RMT initiative, when I first heard rumours about it, I thought it was a very interesting development and had quite positive feelings, but the whole ‘No to EU – Yes to Democracy’ slant, and the platform of the organisation leave me cold.

    To be honest, many people seeing it on the ballot paper might mistakenly assume it is a UKIP type thing, it would have been great for the RMT to have stood candidates under a much more clearer and slogan like

    ‘We won’t pay for THEIR crisis – Bailout Workers not Banks’

    Or something like that, that contributes to building a grassroots movement against the credit crunch,
    and just had a very simple left populist programme like renationalise banks, water, electricity, railways etc., free education for all, tax the rich etc. rebuild the welfare state + a few points on the EU at the end affirming how inspired we are by the fightbacks in places like Ireland, France and Greece.

    (when Respect stood in the Euro’s in 2004, it was clear that it was a propaganda thing and didn’t focus narrowly on the European issues)

    That would have been a far more positive electoral intervention and one that I would feel inspired to sell to friends and family.

    The No2EU and their programme just doesn’t seem one that seems to connect with where people are at now, there concerns, and been drawn up in a way that builds the struggle against neoliberalism and connects with the way many people are pissed off about the reccession in a very clear direct way, it just seems all over the place and sloppy.

    If it had been much better done, I think that it would have pulled in support from all kinds of people (who might not neccessarilly joined it or actively campaigned for it) and played a much more positive and stronger role in building a left alternative to New Labour.

    Like

  4. Yes, the election will be within 18 months but as you wrote, “He said it was unlikely that they would have completed the debate in time to stand candidates for the General Election,” so effectively no outing for a PCS electoral initiative for five years.
    And even then, no guarantee that an intensive debate within the PCS would definitely lead to it standing candidates nor that its platform would be any better than NO2EU (although I would certainly hope it to be!)

    Back in 2009 we have to work with whats out there, despite its many imperfections.

    Like

  5. Comrades should check out the PCS website to see election statements for NEC positions released today – there is no mention from the Left Unity leadership candidates of the Campaign for a new workers party, NO2EU, or anything like this. Infact the LU (run by the Socialist Party) have opposed at Conference any motions making the political fund party political. There is however one NEC statement from an Independent left candidate and a supporter of Socialist resistance stating ‘PCS should be helping establish a new workers party’.

    Like

  6. Roy,

    What Griffiths actually said in response to the complaints that delegates from Trades Councils and RMT regions (only a couple of which were AWL activists) had been ejected from meetings was “if you’re not happy with the policies then f.ck off and form your own coalition”.

    It chimed in with what Nellist was saying -which more or less boiled down to ‘we know it’s undemocratic, we know the politics stink, we know our coalition partners are stalinist nationalists, but this is this only show in town so give us your money’. This is the SPs respect moment.

    The politics of the no2eu platform stink. Griffiths and his toady were the only people in the room not to agree fully with this. Nellist claims that the literature on display does not represent what will be available for the election -maybe so, but the details of the SP deal with the CPB are that SP can produce whatever literature they like for their candidates as long as they don’t interfere with the national literature or that for the other candidates. Presumably the SP will get the west midlands and wales while the RMT and CPB contest the rest of the country.

    It will turn out that in Lancashire you’ll be on the knocker for a old-time CPBer with terrible politics and even worse literature -good luck with that.

    I though the interventions that you and Stuart made in the meeting were good, but for the life of my I can’t understand why Socialist Resistance want to be involved with a project doomed only to spread crap politics further around – when you already have Respect to do that for you- is beyond me.

    Like

  7. It appears this initiative: NO2EU has elements of Popular Frontism with the involvement of the Liberal Party. What programmatic concessions have been made to them in return for them supporting this initiative? Trotsky in the 1930s opposed electoral blacks with Bourgeois parties. It is not the first time that Stalinists have supported Left Wing Social Democrats who wanted Popular Fronts with Bourgeois parties a la A. Bevin during 1939 in run up to World War 2.

    The tactical approach of Trotskyists maybe supports the Trade Unionist candidates and other candidates in the workers movement but no vote to Bourgeois parties such as the Liberal Party.

    One major problem of this initiative is that there is a strong Ultra-Left force which considers Labour as fully Bourgeois. Due to this they have a sectarian attitude to the struggle between Social Democracy and the Bourgeois elements. There are some on the Left who think there are dangers the BNP of winning Euro seats. They only need between 8% to 11% for them to gain these seats. If this is true there needs to be considered seriously overtures to a united front with Social Democratic elements of t

    It is not clear how far the RMT Bureaucracy will continue post-Euro Elections. There are moves towards a coalition government using Labour’s vote collapse as a pretext. If the Ruling Class does this they will remove Brown not for political reasons but because his control-freakily will be an obstacle to a functioning coalition government. In this context an argument could be made the more Labour gains votes the more Coalitionism is weakened. This move for a coalition government could split labour with a big left wing party being formed. Another possibility if Labour loses badly in the next general election: Left Wing Social Democracy seizing control of that party.

    Stuart’s (is that Stuart Richardson?) position of opposition to subsidies is ultra-left. His analysis that is supposedly non-class to demands subsidies for middle class elements such as Farmers and Truckers; and workers facing redundancies does not understand that is not these things not being granted is what forces them to struggle. Trotskyists using our Transitional method call for nationalisation as a condition of any subsidy of a large Capitalist firm. Thornett is the other side of an Opportunist coin in going along in illusions that a New Deal can grant major concessions to workers. Where both Stuart and Thornett go wrong is not seeing struggle and how they are mobilised as decisive in deterring workers’ consciousness

    Like

  8. Correction end of 3rd paragraph should be overtures of a united front with Social Democrats against the BNP electoral threat

    Like

  9. spelling correction of determining workers consciosuness in last paragrpah

    Like

  10. Spelling correction on 1st paragraph: it should be Trotsky opposed electoral blocks.

    Like

  11. The dishonesty of Martin Ohr is truly staggering. He writes above that:

    ‘What Griffiths actually said in response to the complaints that delegates from Trades Councils and RMT regions (only a couple of which were AWL activists) had been ejected from meetings was “if you’re not happy with the policies then f.ck off and form your own coalition”’.

    This is a lie. I was at the NUT fringe meeting and Rob Griffiths did not tell anybody to “fuck off”. Like Dave Nellist, he asked why people who totally oppose a political initiative believe that they have the right to sit on a steering committee set up to promote it.

    Ohr also writes above:

    “The politics of the no2eu platform stink. Griffiths and his toady were the only people in the room not to agree fully with this”.

    On the contrary, almost everybody in the room except Ohr and his toadie showed their support for the No2EU initiative very clearly. About 13 of the 15 or so contributions from the floor were in favour, including some who said their reservations had been dispelled by the platform speakers. It was the AWL members who isolated themselves with their whining, hectoring lectures. If he believes otherwise, he is either mad or dishonest to the core.

    Like

  12. NO2EU stinks of the politics of Left stupidity with what must be one of the worst unimaginative websites ever.It has zilch appeal and will win very very few votes.

    When is the Left going to wake up? Thereagain, who and what exactly is the Left nowadays is the problem

    I´ll just fuck off then.

    Like

  13. My reasoning is as follows:

    If it helps get people of different outlooks working together – good. If it takes votes from reactionary parties – good.

    But let us not expect that this is yet anything more.

    Like

  14. Is any organsisation down there bothering standing in the County Council elections this year?

    Like

  15. Bristol council elections this year.
    Maybe Jerry Hicks is standing?

    Like

  16. Witness. I was taken by what Griffiths said and wrote it down immeadiately. I guess my hand-written notes wouldn’t stand up in court, but they’ll do for me.

    To repeat the point made at the meeting, these people who were excluded were delegates from specific RMT branches and trades councils which had been invited to attend the meetings. In the case of a couple of the RMT delegates -who were not AWL supporters- they hadn’t oppose it, but were armed with ammendments -passed by the rmt sections- to the platform. Some other delegates walked out of the meeting in protest at their treatment. For our part, let’s be clear that the AWL intention was to seek to isolate the CPB and others within the no2eu coalition so that the relatively healthy RMT was not dragged down into petty nationalism, and that there was a chance of a genuine working class party. It’s a shame that the SP and SR are too opportunistic these days to support us in those endeavours.

    Only Griffiths and his toady defended the politics on the no2eu leaflet. Everyone else who spoke -including Stuart and Roy, Nellist and the SP comrades who spoke criticised major elements of the politics is displayed on the material, and expressed a desire to change them.

    You can denounce my intervention as hectoring and whining (although I did notice substantial round of applause as I sat down) I certainly wasn’t intended as that. The paper sales and contacts we made as a result of the meeting show that we were far from isolated.

    All this is a diversion though. Let’s discuss the politics of no2eu rather than who said what. The fact remains that as it stands no2eu is a backward step, the website and material produce so far are horrific sub UKIP/BNP pandering to nationalism.

    Like

  17. Thankfully, the SSP are standing up here and will drub the stalinists of the CPB via their No2eu front organisation, as the SSP have done on every other occasion the tankies have tried to stand in the last few years

    Like

  18. Roy,

    I was not at the meeting so don’t want to drag on about who said what to who but I want to take issue (as a former French noniste 🙂 when you say ” I responded to that contribution by suggesting that opposing the Lisbon treaty wasn’t pandering to nationalism but was an essential component of any intervention into what is after all a European election. I referred to the ‘non’ campaign in France”.

    At no point during the “non” campaign was a “no2EU” raised, not even as a shortcut on a leaflet or posters (1). The “non de gauche” campaign was against a neoliberal europe, a no to THIS europe, as entrenched by the treaty.
    You might describe that as a minor syntactic difference but that is a fundamental one, one that managed to organise the whole left against the treaty, and – PRECISELY – marginalised the rightwingers and nationalist nutters. Something that you are no going to do with this no2eu campaign.

    Just a few links to refresh your memory:
    http://www.nonalaconstitutioneuropeenne.be/
    http://www.france.attac.org/spip.php?rubrique548
    http://orta.dynalias.org/archivesrouge/article-rouge?id=599 (appeal signed, among others, by the SP)

    As for the “yes 2 democracy” bit, I’m having a laugh when I hear a “British democracy” opposed to a “EU lack of democracy”. You should remember that French people talk (wrongly I admit) about the “anglo-saxon” model to refer to neoliberalism, that a lot of pro-market decisions are seen to be passed by EU because of the UK pushing for it (should I say by Mr Tony bliar), and that few people would be really sorry if the UK would leave – or be kicked out.

    —-
    (1) well, it’s now 4 years away so my memory might not be that good anymore. But I’m prepared to bet on it, from the Rouge, ATTAC and Monde Diplo archives.

    Like

  19. This initiative from the RMT is something of a missed opportunity. As something cooked up at the last minute if it had adopted a better programme and slogans it could have genuinely tapped into (and contributed to extending) a mood of defiance and rage over the recession.

    Imagine if the RMT had sponsored candidates standing under the slogan –

    ‘We won’t pay for THEIR crisis – Bailout Workers not Banks’

    – or something quite class conscious.

    Imagine if the programme was a very simple left wing one, not even that radical, just designed to appeal to traditional labour voters and very direct:

    Nationalise the banks, water, electricity, gas, railways
    Tax the rich to rebuild the welfare state and pay for the crisis
    Abolish council tax – for a local progressive income tax
    Restore student grants – free education for all
    End imperialist war – the main enemy of workers is at home
    Oppose racism – the bosses not immigrants are attacking our living standards
    Green New Deal – Solve the recession through solving climate chaos
    Cheap and free public transport
    Scrap anti-trade union laws

    I think traditional labour voters would shout, ‘YES!’ and I would feel inspired to say with pride, I’m voting for this, and tell my friends and family about the initiative.

    That’s just a programme I drew up off the top of my head in 30 secs that I think would be a positive intervention, that would build working class resistance and class consciousness.

    Instead we have all this blather, waffle, that is all over the place, including some dodgy stuff attacking the right to free movement and EU workers coming to Britain.

    It’s a real missed opportunity. And it stinks.

    Only people completely out of touch with the working class and what is needed to build the working class movement could have come up with such a crap electoral intervention – it’s a disgrace.

    Like

  20. adamski,

    That’s almost exactly what I said in the meeting, it was well received- mostly because it is blindingly obvious.

    The other think I said was that organising to defeat the effects of Lisbon -such as the fight to save the post, prevent privatisations in other EU countries etc- was likely to have a much greater effect than organising directly against the EU or Lisbon.

    This sort of think used to be ABC for socialists.

    Like

  21. Would “Yo4NoSt8” be better?

    Like

  22. external bulletin Avatar
    external bulletin

    “This initiative from the RMT is something of a missed opportunity.”

    I wish people would stop talking about it as some major break by a trade union.

    It’s not an RMT initiative. Before it was announced, it was not discussed by any RMT members. It was not discussed at any RMT branches. It was not discussed by any RMT regions.

    It was discussed at RMT HQ by the NEC and passed there. RMT HQ is staffed by some good and not so good CPBers, and it’s from them that the initiative came.

    That cannot in any way be said to be an “RMT initiative”. It has no connection – not even tenuous – to the membership or political activity of the union.

    That doesn’t in and of itself make it a bad thing, of course. But let’s not allow our desperate hopes that the trade union movement might get some fire in its belly to confuse us into believing that the RMT union has collectively decided to get involved with electoral politics.

    Like

  23. I tend to agree that the No2EU campaign has some quite dodgy aspects to it; Focusing on the EU doesn’t answer all the issues facing workers at the moment.
    However, the campaign shouldn’t be rejected out of hand. It comes from a major union, which gives it some social weight. This is something that could be built on.

    Most of the left have traditionally been against the Common Market/EC/EU over the years, including the SWP. So the issue is not just the preserve of right wing little Englanders.

    Some of the demands Adamski raises a couple of posts up are very worthwhile should be included in any serious socialist platform for elections. Only die-hard sectarians would object to them.
    Rather than standing on the sidelines, wouldn’t it be better to particpate and try to alter the programme?

    In relation to Adamski’s points about the Visteon vs Lindsey disputes, which are becoming a bit of an artificial dividing line, here’s what I think:

    There’s really no significant difference between the issues in the Lindsey and Visteon disputes.
    In both situations, the sucess of one group of workers risks another losing their jobs.

    The only formula that can unify them is defence of union organisation and collective agreements.
    Given the companies involved, this has international dimensions.

    Visteon is a large multinational. If it shuts its UK plants, demand will be met from its other factories worldwide. To prevent this happening, a well organised union would call on its international affilitates to refuse any work from the UK plants.

    Alternatively, Visteon might be planning to reopen the UK plants with worse pay rates and contracts of employment.
    To prevent this, union members in the UK should refuse to take the jobs and try to stop any workers who do. Maintaining the occupations and/or picket lines is the best way to ensure that this happens.

    At Lindsey, the British workers were also convinced that their national agreements were being undermined by Total. They saw this as directly leading to their members loss of work contracts.

    A strike which tried to exclude other workers, purely on the basis that they were “foreigners” would be reactionary and therefore, unsupportable. But this was not the situation. So the Italian and Portuguese workers should have respected the picket lines and gone on strike. The fact that it improved their conditions and that none of them lost their jobs shows that this was the correct approach.

    The question of BNP “support” for the Lindsey strike is neither here nor there. It’s totally simplistic to suggest that fascists always scab on strikes. They often support them, in order to divert workers into nationalism.

    The correct tactic is to support the strike and fight for leadership. Which is what happened at Lindsey. The BNP were sent packing and had very little influence on the dispute. As a result, the “BJ4BW” slogan did not form the basis of the agreement reached with management.

    Like

  24. JimPage, on April 17th, 2009 at 12:10 pm Said:
    Thankfully, the SSP are standing up here and will drub the stalinists of the CPB via their No2eu front organisation, as the SSP have done on every other occasion the tankies have tried to stand in the last few years

    Are you sure Jim? The rumour I heard was that the deal with the SP involves the SSP standing aside so that no2eu can run Sheridan as their candidate.

    Like

  25. SSP are definitely planning to stand, if they have the money.

    KS

    Like

  26. SSP are definitely standing – http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/

    The Scottish Socialist Party will stand candidates in the June 2009 European elections.
    The decision was taken at the party’s annual conference, this year being held on the island of Arran.
    Delegates voted 2-1 to put forward a Scottish Socialist Party list for the European Parliament election on June 4th.
    SSP co-spokesperson Colin Fox said;
    “The Scottish Socialist Party will contest the European elections on our unique anti-capitalist programme, as we have done in all elections in the 10 years of our existence.
    “The SSP looks forward to our part in a European wide protest by the left, socialist and anti capitalist parties at the terrible consequences for working class people of the financial catastrophe that the banks and big business have brought upon us.
    “In the forthcoming European elections the SSP will be once again ask voters to mark their cross beside the SSP, for socialism, independence and internationalism.”

    Like

  27. According to Martin Ohr above: “I was taken by what Griffiths said and wrote it down immeadiately. I guess my hand-written notes wouldn’t stand up in court, but they’ll do for me”.
    You originally claimed that Rob Griffiths publicly told you to “fuck off”, literally, in quotation marks. He did no such thing. You know it, I know it and everyone at that NUT fringe meeting knows it.
    Your willingness to casually drop such poison, intended as part of an all-round character assassination which includes more personal abuse and insinuation (as in your subsequent entry on Shiraz Socialist) is despicable – and exactly what you like to accuse the “Stalinists” of always doing.

    Like

  28. Two quick reactions to Anthony Brain’s comment:
    1. What’s bad about the ‘Popular Front’ strategy isn’t that people with bourgeois ideas are involved, but that it subordinates the working class programme to a bourgeois programme. That’s not the case with No2EU: the demands are, when taken together, in the interests of working people rather than of the employers. If there are weaknesses in the programme of No2EU, they pre-existed in the CPB and SP’s approaches, rather than being introduced by the Liberals.
    2. Please start to use a spell checker. You often post follow-up posts to correct errors, and you even do this on your own blog. That’s really asking too much of the reader. Write your replies in a word processor, then paste the txt over when you’re happy.

    Like

  29. Duncan – I think you will find that during the period of the “Union of the Left” in 1970s France, the LCR called for an individual vote for the Socialist and Communist elements of the Union, but not for the bourgeois parties.

    Unfortunately in the system we have for the European Elections on 4th June it is not possible to choose between the candidates of the various parties in a “united” list such as No2EU.

    I, for one, would have difficulty voting for any list that had a member of the bourgeois Liberal Party on it, particularly if that same candidate had made a point of standing in the past against left wingers such as Bob Wareing in Liverpool.

    I know the Socialist Party no longer distinguish between the Labour Party and out and out bourgeois parties, but that does not mean that the distinction does not exist. I do not consider the Green Party in England and Wales to be a bourgeois party (but do in Ireland). That’s just standard pabloite revisionist heresy, not anything unprincipled. 😉

    Like

  30. Come off it Duncan. No2EU is a bourgeois programme and a right wing one at that. What’s more its half baked and going to do terribly.
    Frankly I’m quite glad its so completely unprincipled, it mitigates the impact of its disaster. When it happens. At least no one can say that socialism has been discredited when it sinks without trace.

    Like

  31. As Prinkipo Exile suggests, the choice does not exist to vote for one person on a list but not for another. Were that the case then, certainly, we would not be voting for Liberals. But the key issue for any electoral alternative whether or not the programme advances the interests of working people.

    Bill, I don’t get your point. Wage labour is bourgeois, so is perhaps a demand for higher wages pro-capitalist because the demand accepts the current existence of wage labour? The demands of No2EU may not be revolutionary but, if realized, would reflect a powerful advance for working people.

    Like

  32. Your sarcasm doesn’t do you any favours.
    The demands of No2EU are xenophobic. And bourgeois.
    Fortunately there is no prospect of them getting elected or even getting any votes at all.
    So the question is – does supporting a xenophobic half baked campaign like this advance the left?
    To which the answer is.
    Come off it.

    Like

  33. Weekly Worker reportsd that Alice Mahon will head the Tankie list in Yorkshire

    Like

  34. Duncan Chapel has an Ultra-Left posture towards the Stalinists and the SP in defining them as “Bourgeois” in programme. This is done to justify allowing the Liberal Party in the No2EU alliance. Trotskyists do not vote for workers’ parties such as Social Democracy and Stalinism because we agree with their programme which is to maintain Capitalism because they have a relationship with radicalising workers. The purpose of tactically voting for these parties are to deepen this radicalization and by going through an experience with these mis-leaderships can break them and win them to a Revolutionary Marxist leadership.

    Trotskyists reject electoral blocks with Bourgeois Parties because it undercuts class independence that workers have to organise their own parties in order to have improvements politically; economically; and socially which can only be maintained ultimately through Socialist revolutions. Bourgeois Parties utilise these electoral blocks in order to give them a left cover to attack the working class. There have been accusations that there have been opportunist adaptations to British Imperialist nationalism. I don’t know to what extent this is true as I have not followed all the details about this No2Eu electoral coalition. Chapel has not answered my question of what concessions the Liberal Party has gained from this electoral alliance.

    Like

  35. Prinkipo Exile Avatar
    Prinkipo Exile

    I’ve read a report that says Roger Bannister of the SP will top the No2EU list in the North West, but Liberal Party councillor Steve Radford will be number 6 on the list.

    The SP defend this as follows:

    “This list offers an alternative to the pro-capitalist parties, and its candidate lists are dominated by some of the most combative sections of the working class in Britain today.

    There are one or two exceptions, notably Steve Radford, a councillor for the small Liberal Party, which split away from the Liberal Party when it merged with the SDP in 1988, is on the list in the North West, having been proposed by the CPB. Clearly, the Liberal Party is not a workers’ party and, in the past, Radford attacked the Liverpool 47, the Labour councillors, led by Militant supporters, who defied Margaret Thatcher’s Tory government from 1983-87. However, all electoral blocs require some compromises. Some, of course, would be unacceptable and would lead to a break of the bloc. This, however, is an acceptable compromise. In the recent, period Steve Radford has taken a radical stand, has come out against the war in Iraq, and has been involved in anti-BNP campaigning. He has also agreed to the programme of the No2EU initiative. ”

    So presumably since Ken Clarke also opposed the war in Iraq and spoke out strongly against Ian Duncan Smith’s supporters in the Tory leadership election having links with the BNP, that makes it okay to have an electoral alliance with the Tory Party under the right circumstances? Just like Her Majesty’s Communist Party argued for in the 1930s and 1940s?

    Like

  36. Prinkipo Exile Avatar
    Prinkipo Exile

    Here’s the No2EU candidate Steve Radford’s take on the Labour Party opposition to the Liberal Democrat council and what he is opposed to, from a letter to the local press published on the Liberal Party website. Socialist Party members eat your heart out …

    ——————————————————————————–
    Thursday, March 08, 2007

    Labour would take us back to Militant Days

    Cllr Steve Radford
    Liberal Party Group

    Dear Editor,

    For the fifth year running our Liverpool’s token opposition , Labour, have come to a council budget decrying that the city is heading for another financial crisis.

    Haven’t we heard that one every year?

    If there was an element of truth in their cries of calamity , then it must beg the question where was their alternative budget ?
    Where was Labour plan to put the council budget back on course ?

    Of course Liverpool’s neolithic Labour Party complained we had not put up council tax over last decade and they would have in effect kept it at the highest in the land.

    We in the LIberal Party supported Liverpool having a modest and a legal budget

    We tabled an amendment to set officers to a more stretching target of selling a further £3m worth of surplus and derelict homes and land. The money raised to fund £1m additional traffic safety and £2m extra into the community safety budget

    If Labour had come close to winning the vote against the budget, we would have had another financial crisis of a council without a lawful budget.
    Labour would have taken us back to the Militant Days.
    Will they ever learn Liverpool deserves better

    Cllr Steve Radford
    Leader of the Liberal Party Group – The Responsible Opposition

    Like

  37. I was the ‘other’ AWL comrade at the meeting. I think those in the room understood what I thought of the CPB but the thing that most surprised me – perhaps I’m easily surprised – was the paucity of Dave Nellist’s argument. He gave a very detailed account of EU corruption, outlined the negative political impact of some EU legislation on workers etc… But he didn’t speak for the policy platform of No2EU, didn’t even attempt to finesse the left-nationalism or explain, as the SP’s press has suggested more than once, how and in what direction the working class could be ‘moved’ by such a project.
    What struck me most about the meeting – apart from the frankly ugly spectacle of ‘Trotskyists’ lining up with a Stalinist rump organisation – were Linda Taffe’s comments. Her pleading for people to get involved in No2EU whatever their reservations, however much they disagree with the platform and in spite of the ‘democratic deficit’ struck a familiar note. Perhaps I’d been to too many Respect and SWP meetings, had too many little chats with SWPers about their lash-up with Galloway etc… It all had a familiar ring to it.
    The icing on the cake of this utter, opportunistic mess involves a bit of history. A little bit of – in the run of things – insignificant history. Did the SP not walk out of the Socialist Alliance because, as they claimed, democracy in that organisation had been quashed? What utter hypocrisy to now lecture the rest of us who have an issue with dealing with the thoroughly anti-democratic (even by the SWP’s standards) CPB and their left-nationalism.

    Like

  38. were the rmt affiliated to the socialist alliance then????

    Like

  39. One small point, the non vote campaign was not ‘lead by the LCR’, it was a broad platform of the Left, organised and logistically run by the PCF and the Left of the Socialist Party- the group that have now broken off to form the Party of the Left, which is in the Left Front alliance for the Europeans.

    Olivier B is on record as saying in Montpellier, were we organised a 3,500 strong rally that this made a huge change from addressing rooms of 20 university students.

    Writing people out of history, I thought that was a Stalinist speciality.

    Like

  40. They’re not being written out of history, Pete – The Stalinists are in the dustbin of history, where they belong.

    Like

  41. Pete – when I tried to look at your site a message appeared reading “This web site at http://www.naturalchoicesmedia.com has been reported as an attack site and has been blocked based on your security preferences.”

    That’s a bit alarming. Does anyone know what it means?

    Like

  42. This whole “Stalinist!” / “Trotskiyte!” business is very disappointing. Can we not waste our time typing insults to each other?

    Like

  43. Following on from Charlie.

    Ian / Martin – I’ve deleted your entire “discussion”. It’s not the sort of thing I want on this site and it’s not I precedent I’m happy with. If you want to have a row with each other organise a sponsored boxing match with the proceeds going to the Visteon strikers.

    Tomorrow I’m posting a (very) long statement from Socialist Resistance on the Euro elections and no2eu. Maybe that will facilitate a more political discussion.

    Like

  44. So all Martin Ohr has to do is come in, start swearing and cursing and he can get critical comments about his organisation deleted. There was no abuse in any of my contributions, nothing in breach of the ground rules here. Just political criticism of some people who were already participating in this debate and smearing others on the left.

    This is unfortunately a sad example of Socialist Resistance’s political spinelessness on the question of democracy.

    If Liam was consistent, he would at least delete Martin Ohr’s own smears against people involved in No2EU.

    Like

  45. Yeah Liam, a team of Chinese based hackers bust into a back door I wasn’t aware of in my outdated adserver.

    This virus got into the html templates that are used when each page is created. The virus uploaded a whole series of hidden links to some Chinese sites that download viruses on anyone who visits them and this spreads. Bad bad bad.

    Its a huge pain, and has taken me hours to work out what was going on.

    It has been a 48 hour slog to get the damned thing out.

    Google are relooking at the site now and hopefully will give it an all clear sometime this morning.

    Lesson from it all is, if you run a website/blog make sure you download the latest version of any software you use on your servers- e-mail senders, adserver, content management systems.

    Its been a pain, traffic has dropped from 3,500 unique visitors a day to around 750, it will be a huge struggle to get it back again.

    By the way good to see you have got into using twitter, once you get going it tends to snowball. I;ve been twittering new articles for around a month now and have 1,200 followers who bring in around 500 unique visitors a day, you should try creating a stumbleupon page and collect articles you like on that, and add a Digg button to this blog. They really work for Natural Choices.
    All the best
    Pete

    Like

  46. Ian – political spinelessness is one explanation. Another is that I got back from the pub last night at 11.30 after four pints and thought “Christ! What a shit storm.” This was not a brilliantly political response perhaps. Rather than try to edit the whole thing it was easier to chop it. In any case Martin, as is his right, asked for his side of the discussion to be removed.

    The rules are simple. Anything that is not abusive stays up and if my editorial judgement is sometimes clouded by London Pride on Sunday night that’s just the way it goes.

    Pete – thanks for the scary explanation. The SR site uses Twitter. I’m not massively keen on the idea of having followers though I wouldn’t mind an acolyte or two.

    Like

  47. OK Liam, fair enough. But maybe editing after downing a few is not much smarter than posting in the same condition;-)

    Like

  48. followers, yeah sounds a bit cult like. People who are interested in the links you post sounds better but doesn’t fit into the space available.

    Like

Leave a reply to Witness Cancel reply

Trending