Euro election platform confirms general election left electoral challenge likely

PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE USE June 2nd Leaders of the RMT backed trade union/left alliance ‘No2EU-Yestodemocracy’, which is standing in all eleven regions in the Euro Elections on Thursday, made it clear yesterday that the need for a socialist alternative to New Labour will continue to be built after June 4th, and in preparation for…

Liam

June 3, 2009

2–3 minutes

PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE USE June 2nd

Leaders of the RMT backed trade union/left alliance ‘No2EU-Yestodemocracy’, which is standing in all eleven regions in the Euro Elections on Thursday, made it clear yesterday that the need for a socialist alternative to New Labour will continue to be built after June 4^th, and in preparation for the General Election which must take place by next May, and is likely earlier.

Speaking at a No2EU Rally in London last night, RMT General Secretary Bob Crow made a heartfelt call to gain votes on Thursday. “No2EU provides a progressive opportunity for working people on June 4^th. With Labour promoting Tory legislation, who else could trade unionists vote for on Thursday? We have no working class party at present – but, despite being largely ignored by the media, we have had a major impact in just nine weeks – think what we could do in nine months,” he said “We must come together after June 4^th and work out policies for the working class,” he concluded.

Former Labour MP Dave Nellist spelt it out very clearly. “On Thursday we will be giving people an opportunity to vote for jobs, public services and workers’ rights, and opposition to racism. We will continue to build a new, socialist working class party, and we intend it to be in time to contest the General Election.”

Earlier, Communist Party General Secretary Rob Griffiths, having outlined the tremendous activity that had gone into the No2 EU campaign, also suggested there was a need after June 4^th to discuss how to build an alternative to New Labour, and initial speaker Janice Godrich (PCS President) had put the same view forward.

“We have enjoyed an energetic lively campaign – now we are going to build on that and work to create that new left party which, given the state of politics at present, is essential,” West Midlands No2EU spokesperson Pete McLaren concluded.

NOTES

No2EU-YestoDemocracy is standing in all eleven constituencies. The initiative has support from the RMT, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party, AGS, Solidarity, the CNWP, Socialist Alliance, Socialist Resistance and a number of trade unionists, left activists and community campaigners. It will contest seats on a platform of ‘opposition to the Lisbon Treaty; against the EU led privatisation of public services; for workers’ rights; opposition to the BNP, racism and fascism; and to protest at the corrupt EU gravy train’. The policies can be seen in detail on the web site – www.no2eu.com

24 responses to “Euro election platform confirms general election left electoral challenge likely”

ID

June 3, 2009 at 2:30 pm

This is excellent news. And Respect must be part of this new coalition from the beginning – we had the opportunity to be in at the ground floor of No2EU and failed to do so; now other serious forces are engaged in seeking an alternative for the General Election it is imperative we throw our resources into making it a success.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

June 3, 2009 at 4:05 pm

I attended a Socialist Party organised no2eu event in Manchester. There were around 25 there. Including 2 BNP members who explained they had attended as they supported no2eu’s policy against “social dumping”.
No steps to exclude them were made by the SP. All in all. Dire.

LikeLike

Reply
Doug

June 3, 2009 at 4:10 pm

I agree – those in Respect who believe in class politics will have an important contribution to make.

A new socialist organisation will be more democratic as well – you won’t get a situation like Birmingham Respect not even voting on who they’ll back in the European elections and then Salma Yaqoob unilaterally deciding they’ll back the Greens – and spending money on 40,000 leaflets campaigning for that. Disgraceful. I thought Galloway was the only giant ego in Respect but the Respect election leaflet’s publicity for Yaqoob suggests otherwise. Where now to further her career – the Greens or the Lib Dems?

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

June 3, 2009 at 5:24 pm

I think the main issue will be to make sure that the meetings are open and democratic- in thpat sense it is not a coalition but an organisation with policies decided by members

and at least the call is for an explicitly ‘socialist’ organisation- a significant advance

LikeLike

Reply
prianikoff

June 3, 2009 at 6:12 pm

“…Rob Griffiths, having outlined the tremendous activity that had gone into
the No2 EU campaign, also suggested there was a need after June 4
to discuss how to build an alternative to New Labour.”

A bit of a diplomatic formula, since he doesn’t say whether this means forming a seperate party, or fighting for an alternative left-wing leadership within the LP.
“Tremendous activity” alone, isn’t a sufficient basis for either. Votes won and union support are more persuasive arguments.
Given the growing pressure on Brown, it would be foolish to dismiss the terrain of internal LP politics at the moment.
The last thing the left needs is another self-proclaimed party.

But who is there a “need to discuss” with and what will be discussed?

While it represents an important union-based campaign, No2EU has fudged the “S” word in its banner slogan.
The implication of its arguments being, that union rights and sustainable development can be achieved by fighting for “democratic, national” powers.
Which could either mean “nationalising the commanding heights”, or forming a bloc with domestic capitalists to resist EU laws.
In that sense, it’s still on the ideological defensive at a time when capitalism is in a major recession or slump.

Without clarity on this question, it’s hard to see any future discussions being very fruitful.
Not only is it crucial to distinguishing No2EU from the right wing Eurosceptics (just as crucial as their statement on racism and fascism).
It’s also an issue which has traditionally seperated the politics of the SP and CP-B.
Suprisingly the SP, which wanted to campaign with seperate leaflets in the Socialist Alliance, appear to be happy to tag along for this one.

Whether in or out, political clarity on these and other issues will be vital to any alternative leadership developing.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

June 3, 2009 at 9:24 pm

no2eu was a step backwards with unprincipled concessions to patriotism and no rank and file involvement.

However if the leading RMT activists call for a ‘socialist alternative’ with democratic meetings then we should take them at their word and participate in building a socialist organisation with rank and file involvement, deciding on policies democratically after ull and frank discussion.

This does not preclude working with the left of the Labour party at all- in fact in Labour constuency parties there should be a fight to replace the corrupt Brownite MPs with figting socialist candidates- the party machine may in fact block this but this is where trade unionists and activists both within and from without the Labour party can unite.

LikeLike

Reply
ks

June 3, 2009 at 9:45 pm

1. i think this press release is premature, but i have head promises noises that the rmt exec are pro creating a longer term alliance for the general election.

2. the sp actually wrote and delivered their own leaflets in most areas, as they did during the alliance days where the candidate was their member.

3. lets hope any new alliance has a better name, better policies that challenge the establishment and capitalism, and argues for socialism. also lets hope it has some democratic structures.

4. the left is in such a desperate state that we really need the rmt, pcs, fbu and all the left groups to come up with a decent coalition on a good programme we can unite around.

comradely greetings,

ks

LikeLike

Reply
Chris S

June 3, 2009 at 11:06 pm

I think it is good that there is a possibility of having a wide ranging discussion on the formation of a new party or alliance in Britain. The politics of No2EU were unsupportable, there was no democratic way for the platformed to be challenged and changed, let’s hope that we get that chance now.

LikeLike

Reply
ID

June 4, 2009 at 8:37 am

I just shrug at the honeyed ‘comradely’ platitudes of sectarian wiseacres who delude themselves that they have some kind of superior socialist consciousness to those determined to get involved in building a broad left party. They don’t … it is all crap.

Sects like PR and the CPGB, with their ridiculous ultimatiums to people to “do as we say or we”ll support New Labour against you” are not to be trusted, and any ‘advice’ they give out taken with a very large grain of salt.

And they are not to be trusted on questions involving democracy either – anyone who has the misfortune to join and disagree internally with the gurus of this kind of sect soon finds the honeyed talk of ‘democracy’ is just hot air – serious principled disagreements are treated as ‘disruption’. Down with all forms of sect discipline!

LikeLike

Reply
Brian Mac

June 4, 2009 at 12:31 pm

Oh no!

I’m turning Green with the thought.
No2EU – yes to blightey slightly bonkers.
Just would not start from here !
– and split later – this time.

Thats it I off out on my bike
” to vote green and fight for socialism”
alongside and in solidarity with thousands of good comrades throughout the EU.

Brian Mac

LikeLike

Reply
Duncan

June 4, 2009 at 2:15 pm

“including 2 BNP members”

Good!

At these elections the BNP vote will be in the millions and their membership is at least over 10,000. How do you propose to win people over from the fascist right without engaging with them?

LikeLike

Reply
Chris S

June 4, 2009 at 5:46 pm

Ian, get a grip.

LikeLike

Reply
charliemarks

June 4, 2009 at 7:43 pm

Without electoral reform, there’s not much of a chance of making an impact come the general elections which are winner-takes-all and prevent the growth of new parties.

So, the call is a bit premature, I think.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

June 4, 2009 at 8:08 pm

ID’s living in the past. The idea tjhat you shouldn’t be able to have disagreements in publc discussion and to treat deabte as disruption is not only fooliss it is self-defeating and part of why the left is so isolated… you need to think in new ways ID

we should proimote a left that’s open to debate, doesn’t label opponents and wlecomes differnt opinions

Duncan says
“At these elections the BNP vote will be in the millions and their membership is at least over 10,000. How do you propose to win people over from the fascist right without engaging with them?”

I think there are a couple of mistakes in this, Duncan. The BNP may well get hundreds of thousands of votes but these are not all fascist votes.

The BNP tries ot pose itself as a right-wing anti-immigrant Daily Mail style racist party- a significant proportion of workers share these views. That does not mean those workers are fascists even if they vote BNP.

We should engage those workers both with arguments for class politics, for the real enemy being the bosses not black people or immigrants and most of all winn them in struggle.

That is different from enbcouraging or tolerating BNP members or representatives in our meetings. The BNP as Duncan rightly says is a fascist organisation dedicated to violence against the workers’ movement and immigrant communities.

We should engage with workers who are racist and challenge their ideas: fascism is more than racism it is organised violence against the working class.

Workers who are disaffected and dseperate enough to be swayed by the propaganda of fascists are not the same as fascists.

LikeLike

Reply
ID

June 5, 2009 at 9:10 am

“ID’s living in the past. The idea tjhat you shouldn’t be able to have disagreements in publc discussion and to treat deabte as disruption is not only fooliss it is self-defeating and part of why the left is so isolated… you need to think in new ways ID”

I suggest you read my contribution again, Jason. I was criticising sects like your own and the CPGB for exactly these kinds of practices.

That’s why I concluded my contribution with the words “Down with all forms of sect discipline!”

That this can be twisted into the assertion that I am in favour of the kind of thing I was criticising is pretty disturbing.

In previous incarnations of your sect, people who left with political disagreements were routinely accused of being thieves. Internal bulletins were regarded as top secret material and people who left the organisation were bullied into returning them in a pretty nasty manner.

In the CPGB at the moment, the leadership has performed an almost Healy-like gyration/180 degree turn and decided to support New Labour against left-wing challengers like No2EU. This after correctly opposing advocating votes to rightward-moving/neo-liberal Labour leaderships since the early 1980s.

Those in the CPGB who are opposed to this turn away from principle are being gagged – their written contributions are not being published in the Weekly Worker during the election campaign. Presumably they will be published now it is over. Presumably also the CPGB’s election campaign in support of Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson brooked no ‘disruption’ from those who couldn’t stomach campaigning to re-elect privatising neo-Thatcherite scum.

Unlike, of course, their half-hearted call to vote Respect in 2004 – where a vociferously Islamophobic minority were allowed to denounce this position in the paper during the election campaign.

One rule for Muslim-haters, another rule for leftist opponents of hustling votes for New Labour scumbags, it seems.

I find it difficult to believe that you can have misread my contribution in such a manner as to ascribe to me exactly the views I was criticising as coming from you.

But then again, you are speaking for a duplicitous sect, so I’m not very suprised at this twisting of reality into its opposite. That tends to happen in such sects.

LikeLike

Reply
Neil Williams

June 5, 2009 at 9:52 am

ID “And Respect must be part of this new coalition from the beginning – we had the opportunity to be in at the ground floor of No2EU and failed to do so; now other serious forces are engaged in seeking an alternative for the General Election it is imperative we throw our resources into making it a success.”

Completly agree on this and I will be doing my bit on the Respect NC to make it happen and waht we do in te next sin months will decide if the Respect project moves forward or backward.

It is also clear that whatever new left grouing/alliance is formed some very very small sects (who represent nothing and never have) will always find fault and make it their lives work to attack rather than help to construct something new they cant control (like fleas on the back of a dog).

LikeLike

Reply
Chris S

June 5, 2009 at 3:01 pm

ID, what planet do you actually live on? It must be a wonderfully non sectarian world up Galloways’s backside…

The decision to vote Labour was agreed after discussion, you can read all the reasons why in the Weekly Worker. Yes there are differences, and yes they will be discussed in the paper openly. Find me an organisation that has the same commitment to open debate within our own ranks and with those outside?

LikeLike

Reply
ID

June 5, 2009 at 3:55 pm

Will be, or have been?

If you’re so ‘open’ then why haven’t the contributions hostile to this reactionary position been published already? Afraid they would ‘disrupt’ your campaign to, as you so delicately put it, get ‘up [New Labour’s] backside.

LikeLike

Reply
ID

June 5, 2009 at 4:03 pm

The precondition for a critical vote for Labour is a repudiation of privatisation, of all Blair’s wars, and a commitment to repeal Thatcher’s anti-union laws. If you don’t have that, you are voting for an open party of privatisation, union-busting and imperialist war. Hustling votes for New Labour against left-wing, trade union endorsed candidates is a reactionary position, across class lines.

Or to put it another way, in the words of the Red Flag “When cowards flinch and traitors sneer, we’ll keep the red flag flying here”.

No doubt Chris S will think that ‘sectarian’.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

June 5, 2009 at 4:07 pm

ID I wasn’t twisiting your words- I was agreeing that an overzealous and distorted view of ‘discipline’ to mean gagging open debate of opinion is a dsiaster but also criticising you for holding to the steretypicla view that the left is always like this…

you call us a sect and make a steretypical judgement based on prejudice not facts.

Workers Power in its final days and to some extent even before had some degenerations and some overzealous interpretations of dsicipline- that’s partly why there was a split…
but that’s all in th epast- we should learn from it and move on not be bogged down by it.

Neil then joins in “It is also clear that whatever new left grouing/alliance is formed some very very small sects (who represent nothing and never have) will always find fault and make it their lives work to attack rather than help to construct something new they cant control (like fleas on the back of a dog).”

of course Neil’s point is a tautology- but it implies that perhaps members of a group such as Permanent Revolution ar elike this- it’s little silly and unproductive. Apart from that it is to tease out a misconception.

It isn’t- or shouldn’t be- about building groups – e.g. PR or SWP or ISG.

It should be about building networks of workers and activists to take the necessary action to win against New Labour’s attacks on jobs, cuts to services etc. and rebuilding the workers’ movement.

If standing workers’ candidates against New Labour can be achieved this would be a mjaor step forward and shoudl be welcomed not because it builds a group or sect but becasue it builds the class struggle.

if a large democratic organisation of workers challenging Labour’s attacks came into being we should support it. That dpoesn’t preclude having differences of opinion or criticising some policies- but it is criticism and friendly discussion inthe context of joint action and support.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

June 5, 2009 at 4:25 pm

“votes for New Labour against left-wing, trade union endorsed candidates is a reactionary position”

I think I may agree with this. If unions backed a new party or candidates and their members voted overwhelmingly in favour of the candidates and policies then we should support such candidates.

We are a log way of f from that happening but it is something to build towards.

“The precondition for a critical vote for Labour is a repudiation of privatisation, of all Blair’s wars, and a commitment to repeal Thatcher’s anti-union laws. If you don’t have that, you are voting for an open party of privatisation, union-busting and imperialist war.”

But Labour has always been a party of union busting and imperialist war- there may be sometimes more sometimes less left-wing candidates but voting Labour (in the absnece of workers’ struggle candidates or party) as a way of entering debate and discussion with factions/ groups in the Labour party is not about endorsing capitalist politics but about trying to break a section of labour voters from that capitalist politics

LikeLike

Reply
ID

June 6, 2009 at 1:42 pm

Jason

“you call us a sect and make a steretypical judgement based on prejudice not facts…Workers Power in its final days and to some extent even before had some degenerations and some overzealous interpretations of dsicipline- that’s partly why there was a split…but that’s all in th epast- we should learn from it and move on not be bogged down by it.”

One thing I do know is that nearly all the main leaders of the old WP (bar one) are in PR. The main leaders of the slightly more rigid new WP are (bar that one) a somewhat younger layer. So I’m not really convinced that PR is quite as new as it says it is. Its name, however, is indeed new.

Anway, that bit’s for Kremlinologists.

[To my suggestion that advocating votes for Labour against trade union initiatives like No2EU crosses class lines, Jason somewhat disingenuously responds]:

“I think I may agree with this. If unions backed a new party or candidates and their members voted overwhelmingly in favour of the candidates and policies then we should support such candidates.”

Except of course that in conditions where the working class movement has been subjected to decades of defeats and repression, that ‘pure’ scenario is unlikely. The more likely scenario, at least initially, is that a militant minority of union activists will put together some kind of initiative that will, at some level still be marked with the flaws of the existing trade union left (i.e. be marked with left-reformism etc) but nevertheless be a real step forward towards reasserting working class politics. That in fact describes No2EU.

Backing New Labour against this kind of development, in the here and now, is a reactionary position in the real world.

Jason’s arguments are always about some kind of alternative scenario, based in a parallel universe where the working class has not been subjected to defeat after defeat with all that implies. But when forced to argue about developments in this, real, world, he ends up arguing a reactionary position because developments here don’t conform to the norms of that parallel universe. And voting New Labour against No2EU amounts to voting for the bosses agaisnt working class militants. A reactionary position – in the real world.

“But Labour has always been a party of union busting and imperialist war-”

Except that does not capture the shift in Labour from reformism to neo-liberalism. Labour, prior to its transformation under Kinnock and then Blair, was seen as a pro-union, pro-nationalisation party (or at least one in favour of a mixed economy that considerably modified the workings of the market for the purposes of social reform in the interests of the working class). It also generally was not the initiator of imperialist wars, but rather followed them when their lords and masters – the bourgeoisie – initiatied them.

Now it is an aggressively pro-market, pro-privatisation party that has the “rigour of the market and competition” written into its constitution. In government it has played a major role internationally in actively initiating a whole series of imperialist wars – including against some considerable bourgeois opposition (Iraq!). The current, thoroughly bourgeois, US President is to the left of New Labour over Iraq!

In other words, Labour prior to its transformation was a reformist party. Today it is a neo-liberal, openly anti-working
party. It still has some trade union afflilations, but its dominant politics is no longer reformist ‘socialism’, but neo-Thatcherism/neo-liberalism. Even the recent vaunted Keynesianism involves welfare for the capitalists, not the workers. That is why many reformists, particularly the more left-wing ones, cannot stomach it.

Again, in advocating votes for New Labour against initiatives like No2EU you are calling for votes for the bosses against the workers. Or to personalise it, for Peter Mandelson against Bob Crow. Any class conscious socialist should know where they stand when such poltical trends confront each other in the political arena.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

June 6, 2009 at 6:04 pm

Hi Ian
You claim to know PR’s positions and yet you say
“Jason’s arguments are always about some kind of alternative scenario, based in a parallel universe where the working class has not been subjected to defeat after defeat with all that implies”

despite the fact that a defining point of our tendency is to acknowledge that the many heavy defeats that the working class has suffered have a profound effect and that is why we emphasisie rebuilding the workers’ ,movement from the bottom up.

It has to be done by pateint piecemeal work: there are no quickfixes however much either of us may desire there to be.

Ian you also seriously misrepresent me when you say I agree with:

“suggestion that advocating votes for Labour against trade union initiatives like No2EU crosses class lines”

I do not agree- for reasons to which I’ll return.

I said I agree with:
““votes for New Labour against left-wing, trade union endorsed candidates is a reactionary position”

That is quite distinct. NO2EU has some good union militants as candidates and I can certainly see the attraction of voting for them. But it also has some nationalistic politics as well as some left refrmist politics and crucially no base in the working class- this doesn’t make voting no2eu a crime or crossing class lines but I am far from convinced that it is a useful exercise and where the BNP are standing it is necessary to vote even for a Labour candidate in the ansence of class struggle candidates.

What could be useful is using the call by some of the RMT and Unite activists for a socialist alternative (soemthing clearly distinct from no2eu which never called itself socialist) to participate in meetigns to get together workers’ candidates, seek union branch endorsements and at the very least mass meetings of workers/ strikers/ campaigners to debate and decide on policy.

This won’t be easy and it won’t overnight or even int he next few months lead to a mass new workers’ party but small deinite steps towards having candidates ready to stand against New Labour are possible and don’t require living in a parallel universe as Ian somewhat rudely suggests- call me old-fashioned but I think a modicum of politeness and respect for each others’ views wouldn’t go amiss.

This is only a modest proposal but is practicable. It is time that perhaps some people on th eleft believe that we do have the ability to begin the process of challenging New Labour not just in the ballot bx but crucially in the workplaces as well as the Visteon occupations showed.

LikeLike

Reply
ID

June 6, 2009 at 8:30 pm

The problem is, Jason, is that the scenario you put forward here as to the conditions for backing union-backed candidates do not acknowledge that the conditions where the kind of perfect rank-and-file democracy is the means by which such candidates are selected do not exist. Strong rank-and-file movements simply do not exist at the moment, they tend to come into being when the working class is on the political offensive. We have to deal with what exists now. The characterisation of your perspectives as akin to operating in a parallel universe is in that sense accurate, whatever formal nods are abtractly made in the direction of reality in your theoretical publications.

Again, Jason avoids the point about voting Labour against No2EU.

“I am far from convinced that it is a useful exercise and where the BNP are standing it is necessary to vote even for a Labour candidate in the ansence of class struggle candidates.”

We are not talking about voting Labour against the BNP – though that is a futile perspective in many ways because it is precisely the antics of New Labour that are driving some sections of the class towards the BNP. It is advocating votes for Labour against No2EU that is crossing class lines. It also incidentally politically strengthens the BNP as just explained.

Jason complains that there is left reformism and left nationalism in No2EU and therefore they are not ‘class struggle candidates’. He then counterposes Visteon to No2EU – but there are Visteon candidates on the No2EU lists. Presumably, by ‘contaminating’ themselves with the left reformism of No2EU they have ceased to be repesentatives of that struggle. I guess those workers, if confronted with that absurd argument, would probably be a lot more impolite than my analogy between Jason’s method and living in a parallel universe! This complaint about ‘impolite’ political content in someone’s argument, incidentally (as opposed to abusive language, which there was none) is common with people who find themselves defending a flawed argument. Trotsky himself once noted that ‘centrists’ are often ‘touchy’ for these very reasons.

The conditions Jason places before he is prepared to characterise trade union-backed candidates as ‘class struggle candidates’ are absurdly sectarian – effectively they have to break with left-reformism itself – i.e become revolutionaries – before they deserve even critical support from Jason and his comrades. But his converse conclusion – to vote for non-reformist, neo-liberal ‘Labour’ against them — is indeed to vote for the bosses against the workers. That is fundamentally wrong, and in a small way places you on the wrong side of the barricades, comrade (metaphorical barricades of course;-))

LikeLike

Reply