This is from Salma’s site.

Let’s start with the good news. The new Labour leader is not David Miliband. By the narrowest of margins, Labour has decided not to elect the person who was ‘unrepentant’ about the Iraq war but who believes that Labour should raise the white flag in the face of the Tory war on public services.

And there’s more good news. Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson, and the rest of the authoritarian, warmongering and privatising Blairites, have tasted another defeat. In fact, with Ken Livingstone having won a crushing victory over Oona King the day before to become Labour’s candidate for Mayor of London, the Blairites have not had a good week at all.

The new leader of the Labour Party did not appeal for support on the basis that he would continue the Blair revolution. He did not promise to push the trades unions out of politics. He did not pledge to ask ‘how high’ when an American president says ‘jump’. And he did not stand on a platform of wielding the axe over public spending more ruthlessly than the Tories.

I think all of that is worth a small cheer. It could have been worse.

But what now? The defining issue of the Blair years was Iraq. Labour’s capitulation to Bush’s war lost them the trust of large parts of the electorate and millions of votes. The defining issue of this parliament will be the ideologically-inspired attempt by the Tories to destroy public services through savage cuts.

Ed Miliband received the votes of tens of thousands of people because they believed, or hoped, that he would put up a fight against Tory cuts.  Instead, his first statements as leader are designed to lower expectations, not raise them, with the BBC reporting that “Mr Miliband pledged not to oppose every government cut, saying public services would need to learn to do more with less…”

This is sadly typical of Labour today. Too afraid to say what really needs to be said. Too weak to challenge the pro-market and anti-public service establishment consensus. Too willing to concede the argument before it has even begun. 

Public opinion is moving against these cuts as it becomes clear just how big a price we will all pay, individually and as a society. What is needed is a strong and vigorous defence of public services; and a determination to resist the devastation that these cuts are going to cause.

The good news is that Labour has not moved even further in the direction of the Tories. The bad news is that Ed Miliband has used his first minutes as Labour leader to reassure his opponents that he won’t hit them too hard.

24 responses to “Salma Yaqoob underwhelmed by Ed Miliband”

  1. Yeah, that sounds about right as a response to Ed M’s election. A shift to the left, a welcome result, but very inadequate indeed.

    Like

  2. Salma has struck the right tone and as people have said elsewhere the tricky question is what it means for the Labour Party and those of us outside it.

    I’m told that about 100 000 people have rejoined it since the election. They will have done this because they understand the need for fighting back from inside an organisation. They are clearly a group we want to work with. On the other hand I’ve seen no evidence of the re-emergence of what we can call a “class struggle left” inside the party. There may be groups of councillors saying that they will refuse to implement any cuts but they are not getting much press.

    The other concern is that although the union bureaucracy has called a very important demo and has upped its rhetoric a bit their relationship with the still pretty right wing Labour leadership will be very tight. At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious it will be what happens beyond the bureaucracy and the types of joint work that happen with unions and groups of Labour Party members that will be decisive.

    I’ve a fiver that says all sorts of groups are now dusting off their old documents on the “special tactic” and it’s an understandable response though not one I’d fancy.

    Like

  3. The soft left candidate got just 7% of first preference votes and Brown’s tribute to Blair got cheers and warm applause. That tells me all I need to know.

    Like

  4. Actually Liam, according to Harriet Harman’s speach, it was 35, 000 new members but agree. Ed and co offer little but assure Mail readers much. So has New Labour really changed?

    Like

  5. I don’t think we require any comments on Labour movement matters from a bourgeois Islamist, thanks

    Like

  6. Good point. It’s best to leave that sort of thing to proletarian tribunes like Peter Mandelson, Caroline Flint , Alistair Darling and David Miliband.

    Like

  7. I think my good friend James (SLIGHT EDIT – LIAM ) has long crossed the line. He is now no different politically/objectively from a ABUSE DELETED and should be treated as one. He is a zionist, supports imperialist wars, Orangeism in the north of Ireland, is constantly attacking Muslims and Respect and thinks Iran should be bombed.

    Emboldened, his nasty little assault on Salma above has been facilitated by DELETED on Resepct first from the ultra-left position prior to the election and now, since the election of Ed M, from the opportunist position that says anything to the left of Labour is now fair game. Is it only a few short weeks ago they were demanding that nobody vote Labour lest they be branded class traitors? How quickly the third period gives way to the popular front in the opportunist `brains’ of the centrists.

    Like

  8. If this becomes another personalised slanging match I wll stop it immediately.

    Like

  9. Jim Denham is no fascist and you can’t treat him like one. DELETED

    Lovely amalgam between me and Prianikoff, who have rather different views including on the Labour Party and the General Election by the way, even if there is some congruence of views on the meaning of this development. DE is not even factually accurate about this – Prianikoff was for votes to Labour in May – and indeed in favour of the left joining Labour, whereas I was opposed to this except for actual left opponents of New Labour.

    And for all this, neither of us have anything to do with Jim Denham. In fac, I am something of a hate figure for Denham, as anyone who followed the Respect split knows.

    This method, of amalgams, is straight out of the DELETED school.

    Like

  10. Sorry for the bad grammar above. Posting in a hurry today.

    Like

  11. Liam: there is nothing personalised about it. Salma needed defending from MY GOOD FRIEND JAMES Denham and I did it. I don’t think there is much difference from his `bourgeois islamist’ quip and some DELETED banging on about Libera Elites and PC madness.

    Like

  12. The amalgam of myself and Prianikoff, with Denham, is not just personalised, but in intent libellous, except that it is so obviously mad and incoherent that only an idiot would believe a word of it.

    Like

  13. Anyway, why is DE not denouncing Salma for her belief that there is some ‘Good News’ about the defeat of David Miliband by his brother?

    Because he’s going around denouncing others who say that as capitulators to Brownism, New Labour, etc. and other nonsense.

    On the significance of Ed M’s victory, Salma’s views seem rather similar to my own. So why no criticism?

    Like

  14. ID: DELETED Try sticking to politics. Salma is rightly `undewhelmed’ whilst you are presenting it as the dawn of a new golden age.

    Like

  15. Is that a quote? No, it isn’t! Just a fabrication from someone who deliberately lies about others’ political positions, as anyone who can read can see immediately above.

    Like

  16. Liam: how can you allow idiotic comments and insults to stand and then put me on moderation for responding to them. Do you have not sense of right and wrong? Not only that but Denham’s vile comment should have been deleted. Let me know when I’m off moderation and I’ll resume commenting again. Until then I hope you, Denham, ID and Priankoff are happy together.

    Like

  17. “Until then I hope you, Denham, ID and Priankoff are happy together.”

    Another amalgam.

    Like

  18. “a bourgeois Islamist, thanks”

    Denham’s comment is racist and should be deleted. Every Muslim no matter where they stand in the political spectrum have to be labelled Islamist by these people. A total disgrace.

    Like

  19. His comment is certainly deeply reactionary. Whether it should be deleted, or allowed to stand to show what a nasty piece of work he is, is moot.

    Like

  20. Be patient comrades, the liver can only take so much.

    Like

  21. The comments policy here is very simple.

    “No matter how right you are I will edit or delete comments which are abusive, offensive or insulting about individuals.

    You must refer to other people in the discussion by their first name or preferred screen name.”

    Maybe I’ve had a sheltered upbringing but referring to people as no different to fascists and “reptiles” seems to go against the letter and the spirit of it. Immediately flying off the handle and denouncing everyone as if they’ve just voted for compulsory infanticide clariifies very little politically. Some of the positions that JD and his co-thinkers express are well outside the mainstream but I think that can be explained by a small group looking to stand out from the crowd and the legacy of imperialism on the British Labour Movement.

    My view is that some JD’s opinions are so outlandish that it’s best not to rise to the provocation rather than write a pamphlet.

    Like

  22. It’s a bit hard for me to comment on the “amalgam”, as so many of the comments of Ellis are being moderated that it’s a bit hard to follow him.

    I don’t have anything at all in common with Denham’s hostile continually position towards Salma Yaqoob. I don’t think I’ve ever made any adverse comment about her at all.

    Regarding ID – I think his position on welcoming a Labour defeat in the last election was somewhat bizarre and don’t really accept that it was justified on the grounds that we now have Ed Miliband. The problem is we also have a Tory-Liberal government destroying the public sector.

    But ID is quite right to recognise the significance of the defeat of David Miliband in terms of the relationship between Labour and its base.

    I can’t really be bothered to respond to Ellis, who strikes me as a bit of a political hysteric , continually trying to draw attention to himself. So I won’t be participating in this particular thread any further.

    Like

  23. Before I leave this thread alone for good, just one thing that ID said I want to return to:

    “Prianikoff was for votes to Labour in May – and indeed in favour of the left joining Labour, whereas I was opposed to this except for actual left opponents of New Labour.”

    I actually said “Vote Labour where there are no credible Socialists standing” in May. If anything I was being a bit optimistic about the chances of “Respect” retaining a couple of MP’s. (Not that I’ve ever been prepared to join) I even attended the No2EU Conference. But I wasn’t very impressed by it or by what the CNWP were saying. I’ve rejoined the Labour Party.

    Like

  24. “I think his position on welcoming a Labour defeat in the last election was somewhat bizarre and don’t really accept that it was justified on the grounds that we now have Ed Miliband. The problem is we also have a Tory-Liberal government destroying the public sector.”

    Just on this, there is nothing strange about my attitude to the Blair/Brown governments. I was opposed to votes to Blair in 1997 and subsequent elections, not from a sectarian attitude to social-democratic reformism when it does actually fight for real reforms, but because I considered Blair, and New Labour, to be not reformist or social-democratic.

    A Labour government is a capitalist government, and as a revolutionary socialist, I cannot support any capitalist government or vote confidence in it. But there is a complication with the Labour Party, or other bourgeois workers parties, because such parties have a class contradiction within them. When the working class element is able to assert itself and the party thus fights, through electoral/parliamentary means, to achieve real gains for the class, then it is permissible to give it critical support. This can even sometimes be true when the Labour Party stands for re-election after being in government; – if the government has acheived enough in terms of social reforms to generate real illusions among its base that it is capable of acting in their interests, it is appropriate to give critical support then also.

    But when the bourgeois pole achieves unprecendented dominance, and Labour openly attacks previous social gains on behalf of the bosses, when it stands on a record of privatisation, of intiating imperialist war and being more gung-ho than the bourgeoisie itself, etc, and frequently attacks its bourgeois opponents from the right over a whole range of issues including racism/immigration (see Phil Woolas’ court case, and remember he was not just some maverick MP, but the immigration minister), then critical support is not appropriate.

    Such reactionary governments deserve no more support than those of the more traditional, purely bourgeois parties. Indeed, a defeat for such a reactionary government may well be just what is needed to create an opportunity for the working-class component of the bourgeois workers party to assert itself again. This is self-evidently what has just happened.

    This analysis is coherent, it is theorised in Marxist terms, and is completely in tune with the political reality we are currently experiencing. There is nothing strange about it.

    Like

Leave a comment

Trending