IMG_6302.JPGIf you don’t wake up screaming tonight from a nightmare in which a BNP member who’d been hiding under your bed is about to hack you to pieces with a rusty axe it can only mean one thing.  You were not one of the 150 or so people at the Convention of The Left in Brighton on Saturday.

Simple stupidity caused me to arrive an hour or so late which meant that I missed John McDonnell say the the Labour party is f#@ked, a statement confirmed by a couple of reliable sources. The post lunch session which I caught was “politics”. It was one of an alliterative set which also featured peace (i.e. war), people and planet. With such a vague title you could have made a contribution along the lines of “the politics of eighteenth century Denmark were really interesting and I want to talk about them at some length” and no one could have stopped you. Instead the discussion focused to a huge extent on what to do about the BNP. Do you throw eggs at them; beat them off the streets; ask the police to stop them being nasty?

Now you can’t really have a discussion about what’s happening in Britain at the moment without considering the rise of the far right. However it seemed to me that there was a bit of a tendency to work up a frenzy about the far right to avoid thinking more strategically. “The fascists are at the top of the hill! This is no time to talk about politics!” It made for a long an largely unsatisfying discussion in which a range of tactically options were explored and a number of uplifting anecdotes were retold.

The closing plenary was rather more useful. Martin Smith, who referred to the Left List and Left Alternatives as mistakes, and was pretty frank about things that had gone wrong, proposed that in areas where left candidates stand against Labour that they append “Left Unity” to show that socialists are able to present some form of united front in the upcoming general election. Bill from Permanent Revolution, and an occasional visitor to this site, offered the Chilean example of unions, parties and activists combining in a party. Rob Griffiths of the Communist Party said that they would be involved in son of No2EU while supporting some Labour some Bangladeshi and Pakistani Communist candidates and would stand a few of their own. Inspired by a train journey which seems to have been more stressful than mine he proposed that before the election that the left organise a day in support of taking the rail, water gas and electricity industries into public ownership. This was pretty well received.

What came out of the day? Probably not that much. A fairly wide spectrum of the Labour and non Labour left have fairly similar views on what’s wrong with the Labour Party. They showed that their social skills have progressed to the extent that they no longer feel the need to wag fingers and denounce each other. This is good and perhaps is the Convention’s main function.

67 responses to “Convention of the Left”

  1. “Martin Smith, who referred to the Left List and Left Alternatives as mistakes…..proposed that in areas where left candidates stand against Labour that they append “Left Unity” to show that socialists are able to present some form of united front in the upcoming general election.”

    Which of course shows that the SWP have at last found a stand-up comedian to replace the much-missed Mark Steel. Almost makes me wish I’d been there…

    Like

  2. Meanwhile elsewhere in Europe, the far left “Left Bloc” is looking likely to become the third largest party in the Portuguese parliament, overtaking the communist/green party bloc. The Left Bloc is an excellent model of left cooperation between a number of revolutionaries including the Portuguese Fourth Internationalists.

    http://dn.sapo.pt/Inicio/
    (BE are the left bloc, PS are the Socialist Party, PSD are the “social democrats” (centre right tories), CDU are the Communist/Green Party block and CDS-PP are the other tory party.) There may well be better sites for the results than this one.

    Like

  3. 16 seats and almost 10% of the vote for Bloco de Esquerda. Not bad.

    Like

  4. I think Liam has given a fair summary. It was interesting to watch the new leadership of the SWP in person. I’d never actually seen any of them speak before. They weren’t exactly impressive or especially coherent. They are obviously on the outside of the left unity bloc being constructed at present, which partly explains of course why they turned up at all.

    Like

  5. An interesting assessment Liam and I largely agree, especially about the BNP – one of the LRC members present gave a very good counterpoint in his reflection on the reality of modern fascism.

    There are two problems facing the Convention, which were pretty clear on Saturday. The first is that the election is now figuring prominently in the minds of the left with the result that the strategic alliances being considered are divergent – the attempt to work through some tactical agreement between some in Respect and the Green Party, the move towards a platform between the RMT and SP (CP is working a slightly different strategy from my understanding of Rob’s remarks) and then there is the SWP arguing for a ‘left unity’ coalition.

    The strategies were represented as divergent on Saturday hence its atmosphere but I feel that Respect should be seeking agreement with all the above – reflecting the reality of an uneven localized left in Britain. The concept of a ‘left unity’ coalition sounds nice but is largely abstract, though I would be interested if there was more flesh on the bones.

    The second problem is the role of the Convention. My view is that it is an important bridge between different strands of the left which could become very important in the aftermath of the General Election. Some good initiatives can come from learning to work together and listen to each other before that time as working relationships are built. These mostly informal relationships and discussions strike me as the achievement on Saturday. Of course, such things cannot really be trumpeted.

    Like

  6. If at very least the left can agree to put “Left Unity” on the Ballot it will be a good starting point. Any idea under which label the SWP will stand- assume they will make up the bulk of any left candidates in 2010?

    Like

  7. JimPage: in areas where particular left forces have name recognition it’s hard to see why they would risk confusing their voting base by adopting another name. Admittedly, those areas are few and far between, but they are important.

    I’m not sure about the SWP putting up the bulk of any left candidates. There doesn’t seem to be an appetite among their members for sinking a lot into the electoral front and it is expensive. I’d have thought they would rather target maybe half a dozen places and stand there. That might even be too ambitious at the moment.

    It seems more likely to me that there will be a number of different initiatives standing in a relatively small number of seats. The most sensible thing to do would be to adopt the policy Mike Rosen suggested, that is the left in each of those areas getting behind each of those candidates. The process will have to come first before there is any serious trust established. And that will only mean something if any of those candidates can achieve a creditable result or even win.

    Like

  8. Nas

    I think Martin Smith from the SWP was suggestting they tag Left Unity on the end of the party description so as to support, not detract from any brand name recongnition- i.e Respect (Left Unity)- but Unity for Peace and Sociaiism (Left Unity) simply sounds wrong

    Like

  9. The “Left Unity” suggestion is an addition to any existing name, isn’t it? Clunky, maybe, but no need to drop “Socialist Alternative” or “Socialist Labour Party” or “Respect” or whatever.

    Is it legal, though?

    Like

  10. KrisS: my understanding is that the idea from Martin Smith is to stand as Left Unity – Socialist Alternative/Respect/etc. That would require registering a new party with half a dozen descriptions to go after the main name. It’s unclear whether Left Unity could be registered given the other parties that are. And someone would have to be the nominating officer.

    Your proposal might face less technical problems, but again there may be issues about having the Left Unity describer.

    But the big issue for Respect, for example, is that is has fought in East London for two years to overcome the disabling impression that there were “two Respects”. Anything that implied that Respect at the next elections – council and general – was anything other than the party led by Salma Yaqoob and George Galloway would not be helpful in winning votes. So why should Respect do that? It wouldn’t make sense.

    What, on the other hand, would there be to gain? I can’t see at all how it would draw in other votes or other activists. Those who are not prepared to campaign for the candidates in the three seats where the left has a chance of winning are scarcely going to change their minds just because “Left Unity” appears on the ballot paper. Most of them have decided that Salma, George and Abjol are either not part of the left or are rightward moving communalists or witch-hunters.

    So all in all I can’t see the practical effect of the proposal.

    Like

  11. Its not ‘illegal’ – any existing party could register an additional party name- its own with Left Unity at the end (assuming this isn’t then more than six words) and this could go on the ballot paper.
    Alternatively, they could simply print election literature with the LU tag (or maybe a common LU logo) on but just appear on the ballot paper as their ‘normal’ name.

    I think the difficulty would be if aiming for a critical mass of candidates to get a broadcast- i don’t think an alliance of this sort would be allowed as it does not have registration with the Electoral Commission as a party.

    It could do this of course- register Left Unity as a party with six name variants eg LEFT UNITY, RESPECT-LEFT UNITY, PEOPLES ALLIANCE- LEFT UNITY, SOCIALIST PARTY- LEFT UNITY, etc.etc.

    Like

  12. Jinx on me this time!

    Like

  13. RobM,
    “I think the difficulty would be if aiming for a critical mass of candidates to get a broadcast- i don’t think an alliance of this sort would be allowed as it does not have registration with the Electoral Commission as a party.”

    The threeshold for a broadcast is to stand in 1/6th of the seats in england/ scotland or wales- so its a lot of seats to stand

    In the past, the electoral commission allowed a Socialist Alternative/Respect candidature in Lewisham in 2004

    Whatever, parties should start negotations now to avoid any clashes of candidates

    Like

  14. Nas – I suppose if Respect is only interested in the next election, and you are right that it wouldn’t bring anyone else to your election campaigns, then I suppose it would make sense to take that position.

    In which case, why talk to anyone about any level of unity project right now?

    Like

  15. KrisS: I think you’re putting it in rather a jaundiced way. Respect is not “only interested in the next election”, but we do understand that the biggest contribution we can make to the development of the left is to fight to win in the three seats where that is possible. If we win in any of those seats it will be a big boost for the left. Therefore it is very sensible to focus on those and to calibrate activity and initiatives accordingly.

    Like

  16. Excuse my jaundice, I’ve spent the last three days in bed full of otc drugs.

    Does the non-jaundiced way mean that there’s a reason to by particularly interested in any left unity initiative at the moment?

    Like

  17. KrisS: well there are a number of different left unity or electoral projects, aren’t there? Interest in them will be proportionate to how serious they are in having an impact on politics. But I think the most unifying thing that people on the left could do would be to applaud any advance made by any section of it and to help bring that about in the relevant areas.

    Put simply, Open Letters and proposals are fine but abstract. Surely you must see that those of us who do actually have a horse in the race in the next election are understandably primarily concerned about winning.

    Incidentally, what was the final tally of the Open Letter. I recall that the list was going to be published in time for the lobby of the Labour Party conference. It would be good to see as that would help everybody come to evidence-based judgements as to what is possible at the moment.

    Like

  18. It seems to me from what you’ve said that you think Respect should concentrate its efforts on the three seats you have identified, and spend very little time and energy on any wider “unity” proposals or initiatives, at the moment. Am I right?

    I don’t think that’s indefensible. I wonder how we would feel if we thought we were in the position that you think you are in.

    Working together and supporting each other is a good first step, yes. A shame that anyone feels the need to say that.

    I think you’re mistaken, by the way, to think that a unity project could not deliver you some extra forces where you need them.

    Like

  19. KrisS: what is it that requires time and energy? The Left Unity proposal is simply about discussion and you need to make a realistic assessment. We already know that the people who brought us No2EU have their own process and will field candidates as a result. The Communist Party is fielding candidates under at least two banners. The SWP launched an Open Letter – rarely a wise move in my opinion – staking out a unity position while not, as far as I know, engaging in any work in any consitituencies bar Preston to identify credible forces and individuals who might actually connect with a large number of voters.

    What it has served to do is to provide some people with a shibboleth and something to say about the elections, which they are utterly marginal too.

    Now, a serious change in the situation with actual forces coming together in a way that could register with the voters would be something different. But that’s no on offer.

    So by all means discuss and propose, meanwhile the next three months are the stage where most of your vote is decided. Respect has just had a very good result in Sparkbrook and is rightly building on it there and in Tower Hamlets.

    As for a left unity project bringing extra forces, why don’t those who say they are for successes for the left mobilise in any case for the best placed left candidates? Respect was able to do that in several areas at the Euro elections, most importantly in the North West. It didn’t require “a unity project” to do so. Just a non-sectarian method of work.

    Like

  20. The idea of a Left Unity tag was not the suggestion made on Saturday or in communications. The idea was for an electoral alliance and this was stated on Saturday. Given that there are discussions underway between various parties which I mentioned above, the idea is problematic. A more likely best case scenario is for avoiding competition between different left parties and agreeing to campaign for the best placed candidate in each locality. Discussions about this are already underway, certainly in the North West and a few other places that I know of.

    There is also the problem of timing – the election will come at some point in the next eight months and a new name will help nobody at this stage. However, if the proposal means that we could move a Left Unity project forward around opposition to the public spending cuts consensus and around practical solidarity for strikes, climate camps, etc., it could represent an important shift in preparing the ground for the major battles to come after the election.

    The other problem is whether the Green Party is considered part of this process. Caroline Lucas was outstanding on Saturday and rightly pointed out that the Green Party is anti-capitalist in policy and activist composition. Respect in a number of areas is in dialogue with the Green Party with a view to tactical co-ordination of electoral strategy and resources. Like Respect, the Green Party will see no sense in name changes at this stage as they are already canvassing for Caroline in Brighton.

    If Respect and the Green Party return MPs, we will have a focal point in Parliament for opposition to the assault on the public sector and for a green agenda. The Green Party cannot be left out of any discussions.

    Like

  21. daveinstokenewington Avatar
    daveinstokenewington

    register Left Unity as a party with six name variants

    Says it all, really.

    ROTFLMAO

    Like

  22. Salma, George and Abjol are either not part of the left or are rightward moving communalists or witch-hunters.
    I don’t think they are moving any further to the right and seem to be done with witch-hunting for the moment.
    What seems clear is that Respect(we stole the name and we’re gonna use it) is now entirely insignifcant outside its three target seats, and seems to beieve collectively that those seats are a much bigger priority than any left unity (one reason perhaps to think that they’re not part of it). Even if Respect does get any MPs elected, what reason is there to believe that this will lead to any national breakthrough, as failed to happen in 2005 after the victory in Bethnal Green & Bow in much more favourable circumstances? Any MPs elected will not be a focal point in parliament, they will be clientilist curiousities that can only perpetuate the idea that the left is a mass of competing sects.

    Like

  23. Keep fighting the good fight, skidders. Best that Respect candidates are not elected, eh? Did somebody mention left unity?

    Meanwhile, there is a more serious discussion with the SWP which ought not to be derailed by that kind of rubbish.

    Like

  24. ‘Any MPs elected will not be a focal point in parliament, they will be clientilist curiousities that can only perpetuate the idea that the left is a mass of competing sects.’

    If McDonnell, Corbyn, Green and Respect MPs are returned at the General Election, they will be able to puncture the consensus around public sector spending cuts and promote support for the action that is inevitable with this scale of assault on the public sector. This will help generalize the resistance. It will help the anti-racist agenda that is becoming a significant battle as the cuts bite. It will help promote the environmental agenda. Yet, Skidmarx is against this….does left unity mean leaving unity behind?

    If there were lots of left MPs elected from different organizations, you might have a point but you live in wonderland if you believe that. No left organization can claim to be truly national in its support at this time so your argument about localized pockets is true, though oversimplifies the development of Respect in the last year and misses the different strengths in the organization.

    ‘Clientilist curiousities’ – I have always found that those throwing abuse usually try to pin a label on others more appropriate to themselves. I’ll be your mirror, just for today.

    Like

  25. your argument about localized pockets is true, though oversimplifies the development of Respect in the last year and misses the different strengths in the organization.
    What development?What strengths? Respect in its current form has shown a sharp decline in active membership and an inability to create any sort of serious political cadre to replace the SWP. Respect continues the worst practices of denying any setbacks and over-egging any successes. “If you build it, they will come”.

    They haven’t so far, so if not now,when?

    If McDonnell, Corbyn, Green and Respect MPs are returned at the General Election, they will be able to puncture the consensus around public sector spending cuts
    Left-wing MPs have been elected before without puncturing the consensus. Watching Gordon Brown today taking about being a progressive, about the onward march of progress and justice and promising limited parliamentary reform, made me wonder if Respect might accurately be characterised as New Labour Lite. Why would the election of relatively declasse [forgive the missing accents] MPs shift the intellectual hegemony away from an incoming Tory government in a way that the far more significant forces of Bennism (and on a smaller scale, but still larger than anything Respect will ever manage, Militant) couldn’t in the 1980s?
    The belief that electoral gains for Respect are more important than left unity was expressed by Alan Thornett at the start of the month:
    For Respect, therefore, as the only party on the socialist left with a chance of a Westminster seat, the immediate priority has to be its own election results. It has to mount the most effective campaign possible. It has to fight for its key Westminster seats in East London and South Birmingham, as well as defending and, if possible, extending its foothold in local government. There is little to benefit by Respect going into any new formation if, in the process, it loses the electoral gains which make it unique.
    I think if that is the way priorities within Respect work, then they are a diversion.

    Generalising the resistance,helping the anti-racist and environmental agendas, I’m in favour of all that, and it is a sign of your weak political level that you should make the unfounded accusation that I am not.
    I’m not against Left MPs being elected, though still have my doubts whether Salma Yacoob, whose general political statements seem to go “Blah,blah,blah,blah,PR” really fits the category much, and I know relatively little of Abjol Miah, other than him appearing to be Galloway’s placeman.

    Mirror,mirror on the wall,
    why don’t you reflect the real world?

    Nas – you’re funny. Is this what you mean by having a serious discussion with the SWP:
    http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4682#comment-154966 ?

    Finally I see that neither of you attempts to answer the question of why electing a couple of Respect MPs (still fairly unlikely) would change the political landscape in a way that GG’s election did not, when the organisation is weaker, abandoning its attempt to be seen as a national force, and trying to trade votes as kingmaker.

    Like

  26. “For Respect, therefore, as the only party on the socialist left with a chance of a Westminster seat, the immediate priority has to be its own election results. It has to mount the most effective campaign possible. It has to fight for its key Westminster seats in East London and South Birmingham, as well as defending and, if possible, extending its foothold in local government. There is little to benefit by Respect going into any new formation if, in the process, it loses the electoral gains which make it unique.”

    For once Skidmarx posts something of use. What a good formulation from Alan.

    Like

  27. Finally I see that neither of you attempts to answer the question of why electing a couple of Respect MPs (still fairly unlikely) would change the political landscape in a way that GG’s election did not, when the organisation is weaker, abandoning its attempt to be seen as a national force, and trying to trade votes as kingmaker.

    Becuase a labour defeat at the next gernal election would be in a very different political context.

    The grip of New Labour on the party, whereby they gained the support of the traditional social democratic right, the major unions and the centre left was because new labour articulated a coherent strategy for wining elections. Indeed it was the only strategy oriented on that goal – as the left were locked in the past, and the traditional right were a busted flush after the creation of the SDP.

    Now, new labour have lost their credibility as an election winning force. And it was the new Labour method that militated against labour provided policies that benefitted the sctional interests of Labour’s core support.

    What is more, the domination by flag ship economic policies of the New labour era were deeply damaged with the banking crisis – giving much more credibility for arguments about an alternative economic strategy.

    So the dominent paradigm of Labour for the last decade and a half has come to an end, which is a very different context from 2005; and having a few left MPs woud make a real difference to the ensuing reallignment and debate.

    Especially as Respect is a political project that traction with labourism – social democracy without social imperalism.

    Why would the election of relatively declasse [forgive the missing accents] MPs shift the intellectual hegemony away from an incoming Tory government in a way that the far more significant forces of Bennism (and on a smaller scale, but still larger than anything Respect will ever manage, Militant) couldn’t in the 1980s

    Well, bennism introduced an entriely new paradign into labourism, which supported the social movements and broke from the social conservatism of bevanism, and also embraced extra-parliamentary activism. The success of Bennism caused the Labour party to split with the right wing walking out.

    There was noting preordained in what evertually happened.

    Like

  28. Respect as New Labour lite? Fine, skidders. Carry on in your terribly authentic as opposed to declasse wonderland. What produced this destructive animus, given that you are and were a member of neither of the organizations which split but which now have no time for the puerile name calling you seem to want to reduce discussion to? It seems odd to me. Almost as if you want to encourage friction and division.

    Like

  29. ‘Mirror,mirror on the wall,
    why don’t you reflect the real world?’

    You feigned intellect is on show now, Skidmarx. Can you not see that you have just insulted yourself? D’oh! Its a bit embarrassing to read.

    Nobody said you were not in favour of fighting on the issues but you seem to disparage others that do. If you believe that the social movements that have coalesced around the Green Party and Respect are insignificant, there is little else to discuss. Andy is quite right about the trajectory of Bennism and what was possible (even as late as the Miners Strike, it could all have changed).

    The only options other than trying to get anti-cuts, left wing MPs elected are to abstain or to descend into destructive sectarianism. By targeting electoral possibilities and reaching agreements that enable support for other left candidates in other organizations, Respect wants to contribute to building a left capable of resistance – this will be magnified if a group of anti-cuts, left wing MPs are elected.

    Like

  30. Can you not see that you have just insulted yourself?
    No. I can see that you’re doing your best to make this a battle of abuse, which just goes to further show that the level of political discussion emanating from most of Respect is at an embarrassingly low level.But before I move on:
    You feigned intellect is on show
    Your spelling is obviously not on show. Either you mean “your” or “yo’ “if you want to sound street. Before you use the word “feigned” it might be an idea to check out its meaning.

    If you believe that the social movements that have coalesced around the Green Party and Respect are insignificant
    What social movements?
    Respect wants to contribute to building a left capable of resistance – this will be magnified if a group of anti-cuts, left wing MPs are elected.
    If left unity is weakened by the determination to get a few questionably left MPs in, then it isn’t much of a contribution.

    Nas – What produced this destructive animus, given that you are and were a member of neither of the organizations which split but which now have no time for the puerile name calling you seem to want to reduce discussion to? It seems odd to me. Almost as if you want to encourage friction and division.
    Again, you seem to be the one that loves friction and division and desperately needs a mirror. What you call puerile name-calling I call evidence-based analysis.
    You seem to want to continue the arguments at the time of the split, demanding the SWP admit that it was wrong and hectoring them to support your objectives. They seem to have moved on, and rightly so. There was a point before the split where they wanted to put Respect on the shelf and only dust it off for elections, rightly perhaps realising that it wasn’t a model that would help the class struggle over time. When your lot launched your coup,they got caught up in fighting for control of the organisation, in the aftermath they may have bent the stick back the other way, realising that some of the mountain of mud you’ve thrown sticks, and bending over backwards to appear reasonable.
    For myself I came into this with no personal animus, but the facts pointed to your side of the split talking nothing but bollocks, and after months and months of abuse from you and your buddies I really don’t feel I’ve anything to prove on the politeness front. If you really want to make a case, go back through socialistunity threads for the last couple of years, and even on the most myopic reading, the number of times I’ve had personal abuse directed at me far exceeds in both quantity and intensity the number of times I’ve responded to it. So why don’t you leave this particular line of nonsense until you can support it with facts (remember those)?

    tlc – For once Skidmarx posts something of use. What a good formulation from Alan.
    Precisely a sectarian formulation from Alan. The needs of the three outweigh the needs of the many. And, though this is a slightly weaker point, parliamentary cretinism as well: what matters is getting them elected, not wider unity. A similar process may be going on with Jerry Hicks stropping out of the Broad Left and then threatening to stand against their candidate: if someone from Respect thinks they make an impression in an election, everyone else has to stand aside.

    I can see four possible scenarios for Respect’s performance at the next election:

    1. Most probably the current decline continues (holding the vote in one by-election in Sparkbrook is not one swallow making a summer), Salma gets about 10,000 votes, George and Abjol get about 5,000 each. None of them is elected and Respect quickly dies a death (70%).
    2. The upward trend in Salma’s vote is real, and Respect gains a bit from the parliamentary election scandal. She gets enough to be elected by a couple of thousand votes, George and Abjol miss by similar amounts. Salma has features about her in the broadsheets for the nextfew weeks, and every now and then the news mentions that the leader of the mostly Muslim Respect Party has had something to say. At the following election the mainstream parties’ votes are not as split and she’s out again. (22%).
    3. A miracle occurs and all three get into parliament. Much the same scenario as 2: outside their three constituencies, in the other 650-odd they make little impression, with the occasional distraction as they place themselves at the head of a movement and their supporters tell anyone who will listen that their speeches in parliament are the most important thing(2%).
    4. Respect implodes before the next election(16%)

    Like

  31. So off you toddle skidders, sucking percentages out of your thumb. Evidence-based analysis indeed.

    One thing’s for sure – you’re not going to poison attempts by serious people to cooperate.

    Like

  32. Sadly,I missed the Convention of the Left in my own town.
    One young Brighton Socialist Party member didn’t get a good impression,according to his blog report.
    See http://socialistv.blogspot.com/2009/09/lees-weekend-good-olrage-against-labour.html
    Was it really that bad?
    In Brighton I would like to see all local socialists get behind Caroline Lucas.Foolishly,some backed Tony Greenstein,the “alliance for green socialism” candidate.
    Though they only got 3-400 votes,that could be enough to give us a Tory instead of a Green.
    I think all socialists should also be behind Respect’s 3 main candidates,the Greens in Norwich,and Lavellete in Preston if he stands.
    The time for revolutionary purity is over.

    Like

  33. djinbrighton- any agreement with the Greens is one-way traffic; perhaps the Green Party will consider not standing in Leeds North East in return for AGS dropping greenstein- but the green party in Leeds despise the left much more than their mates in the conservative and liberal parties.

    We’ve always been told that the green party constitution expressly forbids any mutual standing aside agreements.

    Personally I’d rather sever my own limbs than use them to vote for the greens in Leeds or possibly anywhere else.

    Like

  34. Nas you cannot be serious. Your idea of co-operation is to demand support from the SWP while hurling abuse at them. Yes, my percentages are speculation, but I think we’ll see when the time comes they are a lot closer to the reality than your triumphalism. Your organisation has already wasted the time of many on the left in this parliament by insisting that the first priority is the few constituencies where your candidates have any hope of success, hopefully few will be fooled into thinking that the next five years should go the same way.

    dj – I don’t think it’s a question of revolutionary purity, it’s that socialists and Greens stand for noticeably different things, which Greens are prone to deny when they are appealing to the left, but claim a more general appeal when they are looking elsewhere for support.
    You mention Norwich, where the Greens were confident of challenging at the Norwich North by-election, yet came fifth. Is it possible that in many places the effect of the Greens will be to draw votes away from the left and ensure a Tory gets in?

    Like

  35. Martin – you are wrong. The Greens are not standing in manchester balckley. Why? because they have agreed not to stand against kay Philips from Respect. That is a local agreement. All agreements with the greens will need to be local as that is their constitution.

    But with coments about limb severing from Ohr no wonder many Greens have such a low expectation of the rest of the Left.

    Like

  36. Agree with Skidmarx.

    Like

  37. Out of curiousity bill – which particular piece of Skidmarx’s tripe do you subscribe to as well – or is it all of it? Cos I’m not sure even he is planning to vote Labour at the next election – unlike you.

    Like

  38. all of it. Tho I don’t think he mentions Labour?
    Stuart’s written a report here

    http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2847

    Like

  39. Nice political company you keep bill. You and skidders would make a lovely couple – bitter old lefties snarling at the failures of everyone else.

    Like

  40. I’m not so sure about that. Things are far from great- actually they are pretty crap. But acknowledging that the workers’ movement is in a dire state is neither bitter nor snarling.

    I’m sure we can all work together on some issues such as supporting strikes, opposing the fascists etc. even while disagreeing on who to vote for. Elections do matter of course but so does action and in our current dire state and that of the working class in general I think action is important.

    Btw Stuart’s piece is http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2846
    though the article on the St Paul’s Way defeat is instructive too! Not to be too down beat of course the Tower Hamlets College strike, from a similar neck of the woods, shows how with a different strategy workers can win.

    Like

  41. Quite right Jason, who’s bitter? Not me.
    Can’t speak for Skidmarx but he doesn’t seem especially bitter either. And at least in accepting the failure of Respect perhaps we’re making progress. So all in all pretty good. Huh?

    Like

  42. The descent of the thread again proves my point about the lack of any political cadre in Respect.
    I think it’s unlikely that I’ll be voting Labour, even though my MP is a relatively left black woman. I’ve been interested in the argument Tombside that the collapse of social democracy is something socialists should only cheer, though I am concerned that a Labour defeat may trigger a Nader effect where the left gets a lot of the blame for a renewed Tory hegemony (such as we saw in the attacks by Respect members over the mayoral election for even calling for a first preference vote for the agreed Respect candidate Lindsey German). I’ve stated somewhere that I think it might be tactically inadvisable not to support Respect in the three constituencies, but I certainly wouldn’t be enthusiatic about it.
    Nas – if you don’t like my figures, what would be your estimation of the likely result? And if it was you that was complaining about the lack of publicity SW gave to the VP! convoy, maybe if the next one was organised through the STWC rather than being a way of making Respect and Galloway the sole receptacles of any credit, and it didn’t involve praise for kings and tyrants in the Maghreb or hob-nobbing with members of the Egyptian ruling class they might be more receptive.

    Briefly on the latest farrago of fallacies from the Chinese embassy’s emissary:
    If Bennism was triumphant preseumable the party’s leader at the next two elections, Neil Kinnock , must have been a Bennite.
    And I don’t know what this is supposed to mean:
    Especially as Respect is a political project that traction with labourism

    Like

  43. Skidmarx – where has there been a collapse on Social Democracy? I’m not sure that I follow. If you mean Germany, Die Linke have been successful in the recent elections which would indicate that Social Democracy is alive and well. It is SPD/New Labour types that may need to be worried.

    Like

  44. “if you don’t like my figures, what would be your estimation of the likely result?”

    Well, Skids, you could start by trying to make your percentages add up to 100…

    Like

  45. respect is a political project that has traction with labourism, because we stand on much the same ground that the Labour party traditionally did; but we have broken from social-imperialism.

    Labour Party members and supporters understand what Respect is about.

    Like

  46. The last Viva Palestina convoy was, indeed, sponsored by Stop the War with both Lindsey German and Andrew Murray attending the launch and speaking at it.

    The next one is backed by StW too, hopefully with even more participation (though they are rightly focused on a Christmas campaign over troop withdrawal from Afghanistan at the same time). Whether SW chooses to ignore it is up to them. I think it would be in its interests to report it (unless it was to take the view that these are all people without jobs and alien to the working class movement, a position so bigoted I can’t imagine anyone serious adhering to it).

    The Palestine Solidarity Campaign is also a co-sponsor and doing sterling work in building the convoy, which is enabling it to reach out to new audiences and to build support.

    Those who want to find out more can come to a meeting which is launching a new PSC branch in Tower Hamlets. It’s at 5.30pm to 7.30pm at the Brady Arts Centre, 192-196 Hanbury Street, London E1 5HU. Among the speakers are George Galloway and Ken Livingstone.

    Like

  47. The reason Respect are not a social democratic party, comes down to the working class. Social Democracy is a liberal bourgeois programme tied to labour movement organisations.
    Take away the labour movement organisations and all you’re left with is a liberal bourgeois programme.
    The collapse of social democracy, in the sense of the collapse of political identification with the working class, is nothing to cheer then. What is collapsing is identity with the working class, not the liberal bourgeois programme.

    Like

  48. “hob-nobbing with members of the Egyptian ruling class”

    You might think this abusive but you really are a nasty piece of work Skidmarx. I don’t suppose you saw the Viva Palestina convoy members battling with the Egyptian police at Al Arish or Galloway standing with them as they were assailed by thugs almost certainly coordinated by members of the ‘Egyptian ruling class’.

    How pathetic.

    Like

  49. “Social Democracy is a liberal bourgeois programme tied to labour movement organisations.”

    yawn

    Like

  50. Or in Andy Newman’s case not.

    Like

  51. RobM- thanks for the correction. I guess I was trying to give 110%. I think I’d reduce 2. & 4. by a little under 5%, and the figure of 2% in scenario 3 may be a little high. What’s your estimation of the likely outcomes?

    Steve – I think your defintion of social democracy may be more appropriate for pre-WWI. We’ve seen reported here and elsewhere the succesful establishment of real Left forces in Portugal, France and Germany. It would be good if such a development could be seen here. Respect is not that development. It replaces the imperialism of Labour with a rotten and confused position on many foreign policy issues (which some sections of Respect don’t support, meaning that the organisation stands for very little when pushed). On domestic policy, when Galloway has been promoting the Cable guy as the next chancellor, no further proof of billj’s point that all is left is the liberal bourgeois programme is needed.
    There are socialists still left in Respect. It would be good if they would help to form a new workers’ party. More significant are the SWP, SP and billj’s Permanent Revolution comrades, and it would be nice if the latter two would pull their collective fingers out and find the way to work with the former. I don’t expect the SP to drop its belief that it is prolier than thou, or PR to stop thinking they’re the best marxists in town. But I don’t see the differences they have as insuperable, the way anyone following Alan Thornett’s sectarian belief that the needs of Respect should outweigh the needs of the Left.
    It is easy to understand why Socialist Resistance might take this position, they feel like they’re in a real political game with their control of the Respect paper, and it provides them with a potential pool of recruits under 50, which they may have been lacking until now. But it’s hardly the Fourth International, and I don’t see how they are going to come out of this period with any credibility.

    tlc – I don’t think it abusive, but I think your use of the phrase “nasty piece of work” is.
    But yesterday the opposition mood soured after accusations that Galloway had planned to co-ordinate with the ruling NDP party and take part in a welcoming ceremony featuring Ezz., a steel magnate who is a close associate of President Hosni Mubarak
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/04/galloway-viva-palestina-egyptian-government
    If you had any principles I would expect an apology for that piece of abuse. But of course the policy of most of Respect is never to tell the truth when it is difficult, never to explain when anything difficult happens, and certainly never to apologise.

    It is pathetic that members of Respect can hear what they want to hear. It disables you from the ability to see yourself as others see you, to see your, weaknesses, and to have any conception of when failure might arrive.

    Finally, again briefly on the idea that Respect is a pole of attraction for labourism. This is a continuation of the nonsense of a while ago that Labour MPs would be defecting to Respect to save their seats: garbage then, garbage now. Respect is never going to have that level of organisational pull, and while there is some ideological similarity with the soft left/traditional right in Compass and the Greens, they have stronger organisations and it will be the collapse of the remains of Respect that ejects a few people their way, not the other way round.

    Like

  52. Oh and Nas – that sounds good. You seem to be making reference to my response to the suggestion that the convoy was the most amazing exaple of working-class self-activity (which is also contradicted a bit by the notion that it was the sole brainchild of Galloway) by asking how working class it was . Was it you that posed as an swp member to tell me to fuck off and die?

    Like

  53. skidmarx your arrogance is only matched by you inability to understand.

    No-one has spoekn of people moving from labour or the Greens to respect. it is the politics of respect that has traction, not its organisational form.

    We have shown that it is possible to win elections (and under first past the post), with essentially social democratic politics but without the compromise with social-imperialism that the Labour party has always been associated with.

    That is an ingredient to out into the mix as the labour movement reconfigures itself in the aftermath of the next election.

    Like

  54. Oh and Skidmarx we do work with the SP. The SWP don’t. But that’s no surprise now is it? Notwithstanding Martin Smiths conversion to the foundation of a new workers party. As long as it’s not done by the SWP that is. Its premature here you understand. An aspiration more like. Or maybe something to think about over cake and tea?

    Like

  55. billj – good to the first. On the second, from what I can understand it has been the SP that has thrown up most obstacles to working jointly with the SWP, most notably over federal forms but also with statements like your lot have mad, that the SWP has to recognise its errors over Respect (and maybe SA) before it can be trusted.From a quick look at the PR report on the CotL, we ought to be on the same page:
    they appear to be more interested in supporting their own parties, the Greens, LP, CPB, Respect, SWP, than becoming part of a process that might see a real mass alternative based on the TUs
    http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2846

    No-one has spoekn of people moving from labour or the Greens to respect.
    Actually it was common on the sectarianlunacynetwork for Respect supporters to suggest that Labour MPs would defect to Respect at the next election to save their skins up until the Bad Day at Mile End. Your arrogance is only matched by your re-writing of history.
    it is the politics of respect that has traction, not its organisational form.
    And so the organisational form is liable to die off as its pointlessness becomes obvious even to its fans.
    I think the last two paragraphs have already been dealt with by billj pointing out that essentially social democratic politics means liberal bourgeois programme, not anything that’s going to re-configure the labour movement for the better.

    I notice that on Galloway’s Talksport show last night, one caller (about half-an-hour in) said he’d like to see a party that stood up to the Tories in a way that Labour doesn’t, and the rather odd reply was that now wasn’t the time for such a party, what with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Is it 1989 or 2009? Galloway also expressed the hope that he would still be around to go to the Rio Olympics in 2016: should somebody be asking Andrew Marr style painkiller questions about his life expectancy?

    Like

  56. your lot have mad
    Sorry, that should be “made”.

    Like

  57. Skidmarx:

    How exactly is arguing for a federal form or organisation “throwing up obstacles” to working with the SWP? If the SWP is remotely serious about working with others it will have to accept that nobody is going to agree to all join together in any kind of formation without serious safeguards being in place.

    Like

  58. Mark P – it is an issue that divides you(assuming that you are “Irish”Mark P and not the Eurocommunist Spurs fan) from the SWP, so it is an obstacle. My opinion would tend to be that if that is the only obstacle the SWP should back down and accept that that’s the way it has got to be, as the coming toghether of the two most significant forces on the left in Britain is too important to be derailed by this. I tend to sympathise with the SWP argument that federalism may make it harder to draw in individual socialists, but I don’t think it should be a shibboleth. There do seem to be other issues that hold back the SP from such levels of co-operation, a tendency to blow up differences into denunciations (or accusations thereof),but again I’d hope that what is held in common can be seen to be more important.

    Like

  59. Skidmarx – when you back up your arguments with a quote from an article in the Guardian written by someone who lifted his ‘facts’ from a blog then forgive us if we don’t take you seriously. Now you can watch Galloway demolish that blogger on the Amy Goodman show. I’m sure you’ll be able to find it.

    As for apologising for thinking you are a ‘nasty piece of work’. I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed. I stand by that absolutely. Your posts which are stuffed to the gills with sectarian bile (as well as numerous downright lies) are confirmation enough.

    Still it’s nice to know you still listen to GG’s show – It must be some strange masochistic tendency you have.

    Like

  60. tlc- once again you demostrate that the supporters of Respect find it difficult to rise above the gutter.Any evidence for this statement:
    Your posts which are stuffed to the gills with sectarian bile (as well as numerous downright lies) ?
    I don’t know of the Amy Goodman show.Did she question Galloway critically, or give him an easy ride? Was the blogger you mentioned one of the Egyptian oppositionists attacked and slandered at the time by your colleagues, despite having to operate in conditions of illegality while you comfortably sit on your arse and carp? Most relevantly, did Galloway arrange to meet Ahmed Ezz or not? I don’t take you seriously when your level of argument is so pathetic. As Lily says of Barney in How I Met Your Mother,”For anyone else this would be a new low, for you it’s a new middle.” Again this is no surprise given the lack of politics in Respect, nature abhors a vacuum,and any serious ideology has been substituted by abuse for those who disagree with you. I’d rather a serious discussion about the future of the actual left wasn’t diverted by your self-important rantings, but I suppose that’s why obstacles are so named.

    Does one have to be a masochist to listen to the Talksport Whine Club?

    Like

  61. skidders: I don’t intend to keep coming back to this as you are incapable of ceasing to spread lies once you’ve been caught out.

    1) Galloway did not “arrange to meet Ahmed Ezz”.
    2) The IST blogger who spread this much is just plain wrong. The mass opposition forces in Egypt welcomed the convoy. They were prevented by the Egyptian authorities from meeting it, but they know exactly who was responsbile for that.
    3) Members of the convoy were injured in a confrontation with the Egyptian security forces.
    4) The convoy, which had the support of the Stop the War Coalition and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, brought large numbers of people from some of the poorest communities in Britain into political activity. You, sickeningly, chose to make a crack about them not having jobs.
    5) The build up to the next convoy is deepening cooperation and coordination between forces in support of the Palestinian people in Britain. That will not be deflected in the slightest by lonely efforts from yourself to sow discord.
    6) … er you really are rather obsessed with George Galloway. Have you thought about talking to someone about it?

    Like

    1. Fascinating as this is it does seem to be off at a bit of a tangent from the Convention of the Left. So let’s draw a line under it.

      Like

  62. Liam – I did think you might want to call an end to this abuseathon which seems to serve little purpose. I’d just like to respond to Nas’ last salvo, which is again offensive in the extreme:
    skidders: I don’t intend to keep coming back to this as you are incapable of ceasing to spread lies once you’ve been caught out.
    I wasn’t spreading lies. I was putting a point of view backed by what seem to be the reported facts. You and tlc (or are you one and the same?) think that saying Galloway said it wasn’t so without even providing any reference to a denial is enough to make me a liar. How pathetic you are.
    You, sickeningly, chose to make a crack about them not having jobs.
    Sickeningly would be a strong term if I didn’t know that you just pull terms of abuse out of the air regardless of their actual meaning. To repeat myself,I’d seen several references to what an amazing example of working-class self-activity (which is also contradicted a bit by the notion that it was the sole brainchild of Galloway) by asking how working class it was . Was it you that posed as an swp member to tell me to fuck off and die?
    That will not be deflected in the slightest by lonely efforts from yourself to sow discord.
    What I actually said above about the VP! was “That sounds good.” I don’t think it bodes well for any attempt to get Respect involved in any left electoral co-operation that so many of its remaining supporters seem to have this boneheaded inability to notice what others are saying, in addition to the sectarian belief(and this is what sectarian really means, not the way you use it as a vacuous insult) that the needs of Respect come before all else, that others should be constantly hectored that they are not doing enough for Respect, and that there is nothing wrong with Respect and never could be.
    you really are rather obsessed with George Galloway. Have you thought about talking to someone about it?
    You’ve tried this nasty piece of abuse before. No I am not. I think there is a least one member of Respect who maybe should have talked to someone rather than using politics as therapy by being constantly over-praised by his colleagues and then finding that when he had to face the real world of arguing with those who disagreed with him he couldn’t cope.

    If anyone wants to get back to talking about how the left can co-operate, or leave it for another day I’d be happy either way.

    Like

  63. But you need to rise above it. What’s the point of this “How pathetic you are.” And so on etc.
    If you don’t like it, then don’t do it.

    Like

  64. billj – thanks for the advice.But the four words you quote follow a point that I made that I am being accused of lying without the accusation having any foundation for making a point that was supported by the reported facts. I found that pathetic and thought it reasonable to say so. There is a balance to be found between not allowing a real discussion to be distracted by personal attacks and finding it necessary not to allow calumny to go unanswered.And there are times when I feel that if this is the level of debate someone wants then I’m happy to oblige.
    Anyway, I don’t want to make this about me, so let’s move on.

    Like

Leave a reply to tlc Cancel reply

Trending