imageAlf Filer offers a personal opinion on the  opportunity the Woolas affair opens up. This is probably a harbinger of future discussions about whether Labour’s “dented shield” is all the British working class needs.

A challenge and an opportunity to raise principled socialist politics is clearly emerging once again and now it is needed more than ever. The demise of Phil Woolas, appeal or no appeal, means there will be an election in for his Oldham East and Saddleworth seat in the near future.

Whilst he is busy trying to raise £200,000 to fund his appeal, the Left should be planning to set this forth coming election alight with an anti-capitalist challenge, rejecting the cuts, racism, scapegoating, Islamophobia, illegal wars and the failed business friendly policies of New Labour.

Of course we do not know when an election may take place and whether his appeal will be successful, but I am prepared to say there is a very high probability that there will be a bye-election and it will come as the full force of the anti- working class Con Dem policies are being laid bare for all to see.

Day after day we have new announcements exposing the attacks on public services and promises of more to come. Day after day, there are more responses by those affected by the cuts through industrial action, meetings, marches and street stalls.

It is not just Woolas who should be banned for 3 years from Parliament. There are many other MPs who have betrayed working people and got to power on our backs. Although disowned by the Labour Party, Ed and co support policies which have allowed the Tories back in.

Gordon Brown last year called for “British jobs for British workers”, Margaret Hodge in Dagenham called for tighter immigration controls and New Labour presided over the use of Yarl’s Wood to process the weakest in our society, young and innocent asylum seekers fleeing from World poverty, disasters and the carnage caused by civil wars and dictatorships. Immigration is not the problem and immigration controls are not the solution.

Woolas referred to Friday’s court verdict as a "rich man’s charter" because only the wealthy will be able to afford the legal bills involved in fighting their case. Well it was New Labour who favoured the rich with tax loopholes since 2007 and snuggled up to them when ever they could. A financially cash strapped Labour Party has had to spend £800,000 in Labour Party Insurance, to cover this expense. The chickens are coming home to roost and the smile is being whipped off the faces of many others.

No doubt, when an election is called, Labour will select a clean candidate, denouncing Tory cuts and having many photo-opportunities to give the impression that all is well and it was nothing to do with us. We will here appeals about how we must return a Labour MP to keep the Tories out. Well if Labour were to select democratically a prospective candidate committed to fighting the cuts, opposing immigration controls, defending asylum seekers and calling for an alternative programme putting people before profit, then a case could be argued for that. Of course there is a difference between Labour and Tories, but Labour must decide which side of the class line are they standing on? There will be those that will argue for a vote Labour no matter what approach. There are also the sceptics who say an alternative will never happen.

The danger is that if the Left fails to get their act together then we could face the prospect of a low turn out, with the BNP/EDL/NF and other far right groups competing for the racist vote. It will not be good enough for the UAF and others to simply say “vote anyone but the BNP”. Yes the electoral laws prevent groups from saying much but then if we intervene, we will have the local, national and international stage.

The impact of the international crises of capitalism requires an international response. It also requires a united Left response. If only local anti-cuts campaigners, working alongside COR, NSSP and the RTW, supported by trade union branches and the local labour movements could come together for this purpose, linking up with groups representing the dispossessed in society then what a prospect for reversing the situation. Added to that, if anti-war groups, campaigns in defence of immigrants and asylum seekers, anti-fascist organisations, Gay groups, women’s organisations and many others could be mobilised then such an alliance would show that an alternative is possible beyond managing the debt. Green groups promoting green jobs as a response to Climate Change would show the problem is not benefit fraud and the answer is not getting us to take out credit we cant afford on goods we do not need. Then of course, the youth and students , whose future is being ruined would be motivated to mobilise in campaigning.

No, power does not lie in Parliament but the prospects of an election would show that the Left can work together in the interest of working people and the oppressed, rather than being concerned about their own hegemony. And if this was to succeed then maybe it will help spark and support other local initiatives which can work together to build an alternative that is long over due. All groups and organisations are now invited to put this at the top of their agenda and not to stand against each other getting nowhere, but to stand together and succeed. That is the challenge, now will it be taken up?

40 responses to “A challenge after Woolas”

  1. “Well it was New Labour who favoured the rich with tax loopholes since 2007″ should read ” 19997 and even before that”.

    Like

  2. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Liam Mac Uaid, Left News. Left News said: A challenge after Woolas http://bit.ly/aGrSLk […]

    Like

  3. I can’t agree. Oldham East is not the “big opportunity” it’s cracked up to be.

    There’s *always* the opportunity for the ‘left of Labour’ to get its distinctive message across in *any* election.
    Sometimes via several of such candidates standing in one constituency.

    There was an opportunity for ‘Respect’ in Birmingham & Tower Hamlets to do so, during the last General Election. But they got zero MP’s, because they aren’t a credible national party, capable of winning power nationally.

    The Woolas affair is highly unsavoury and makes Miliband’s leadership look absolutely dreadful.
    Which is why he got Harman to announce the suspension of Woolas from the LP.

    But to draw the conclusion that this is a big opportunity for the “left of labour” (who are completely disunited anyway) doesn’t conform to the logic of the case.

    It was brought by the Liberals; the verdict favours them.
    The only thing that will prevent them reaping the benefits at a forthcoming by-election is popular disillusionment with their role in the Coalition.

    But any Labour candidate standing will also be able to capitalise on that issue too and the NEC will make sure that a highly sanitised “left-talking” candidate is selected.

    So it’s very unlikely that there will be a large vote for a “left of Labour” candidate in Oldham East.
    More likely that the negative factors operating on the Lib-Dems and Labour will cancel each other out.

    There is also a worrying tendency for anti-cuts campaigns to be localised and depoliticised at the moment.
    The cuts *cannot* be fought succesfully at a local level.
    Nor can sectional trade union disputes alone win battles against cuts imposed by central government.

    Hundreds of local anti-cuts groups adopting a slogan of *no cuts* will fail.
    Unions that act on their own are likely to have to back-track, as the FBU was forced to do on Nov 5th.
    This is not about ‘sell-outs’, but follows the political logic of the current situation

    The cuts can only be fought sucessfully by bringing down the Con-Dem coalition and forcing a new General Election before its 5 year term is up.

    Unions need to move towards a one-day General Strike slogan and a big national demonstration in London.

    The biggest opportunity that could be missed out of the Woolas debacle would be to not to use it to weaken the position of the right wing of the Labour Party.

    Paradoxically, the left might be much more effective if they canvassed for Labour in Oldham East
    – using their own arguments of course!

    Like

  4. So this was the negative response I expected from some quarters but hope and believe others will be more optimistic.
    Campaigning for a Labour candidate who may endorse war, immigration controls, cuts and a pro-business agenda, whilst saying we dont support them really, we are Socialists but…… will confuse and demobilise the movement.
    Have confidence in ordinary workers and provide leadership instead of ducking responsabilities to the working class.
    If we don’t then the door is open to the far right.
    Ofcourse it is for the local communities, local labour movement and local anti-cuts campaigns to decide and not for us to parachute anyone in or impose a candidate by a C.C.
    Yet better be prepared. As Woody said,”don’t moan, organise”.

    Like

  5. I think the crucial factor will be the balance of forces locally in terms of whether an electoral campaign on the basis of againt all cuts, against immigration controls and imperialist war will build these campaigns locally and help organise and mobilise supporters.

    Prianikoff is right that to defeat the cuts will mean national mobilisations of co-ordinated strike action and community mobilisations. Hundreds of local abti-cuts movements will however be a useful building ground for that as could be a call for generalised strike (it would have to be more than one day I’m sure but again that could be a stepping stone).

    Electoral campaigns can help build a movement but only if they are geared to that. I agree this could be an opportunity but there are a lot of questions and I agree with Alf this has to come from the labour movement and local campaigns in and around Oldham.

    Like

  6. Respect is organizing a meeting next Sunday to prepare an electoral challenge. If you read Michael Meacher’s take on the Woolas affair, it is clear that Oldham Labour Party is not interested in addressing the racism at its heart and is seeking pity for Woolas and his parliamentary/constituency office (told they were out of a job as of 11am last Friday).

    This will not do and Respect is likely to stand on an anti-racist and anti-cuts position. A motion will be put to the Respect conference. There are circumstances in which Respect would not stand but nothing is suggesting these circumstances at the present time.

    Like

  7. Agree with prianikof on this. I dont think this is the time or place in w hat at best will be a three party fight and more likely a two party fight in the last two week (Tories V Labour) and if tthat is the case the Tories and all they stand for must be defeated.
    Having been involved in this sort of big profile by-election before I can aasure you that Respect and any other small parties will hardly get a mention in the media – all sorts of tiny loony groups will also stand and Respect and any others serious Left group will be lumped in with them by the media.
    Now for Respect to seek a candidate without even knowing who is the Labour candidate or if any other Left groups are standing is a mistake in my opinion and know doubtwill lead to Respect coming a poor 6th or so place without the 5% needed to save it deposit and add Respects continued poor recent record of results.

    If Labour were to pick a right wing Blairite then a United Left candidate woud be justified but that would take some negotiation with other Left/progressive groups like TUSC and the Greens which Respect once again clearly has no intention of doing.

    Like

  8. Neil: when did TUSC ever negotiate with Respect over candidates? Manchester Gorton perhaps? Tell us what happened there?

    TUSC has no record here. Respect have recently stood in a host of elections in Oldham and neighbouring areas in Manchester and Rochdale with some reasonable and some remarkably good results (and certainly significantly better than the dismal set of results TUSC achieved back in May).

    The Green Party did not contest a single election in Oldham in 2010 in either the three parliamentary seats nor the 20 council seats. An independent councillor has recently joined the Green Party but that is in the Ashton-under-Lyne parliamentary constituency not this.

    The other parties should be approached, but to back a Respect candidacy not for ‘negotiation’.

    Of course if you had stayed in Respect you could have argued your case at the Respect conference on Saturday …

    Like

  9. Neil Williams:
    “add (to) Respects continued poor recent record of results”

    Presumably Neil you include the 21% won by Respect on the same day as the General Election in a ward less than a mile from this constituency as “poor”?

    Like

  10. A fair point Prinkipo Prinkipo Exile about the 21% but you fail to add that is most of the other Council seats Respect came last with few votes.

    If Respect stand it will come a very poor 6th or so but so be it as I can see a momentum building up for this within Respect. evn if it will confirm thier continued decline.

    Very happy by the way to miss the conference as unlike some I dont see Respect as the “alternative” but as only a part of the make up of an “alternative Left Socialist Party” that Respect was fisrt set up to create. Some peoples egos got in the way along the road I am affaid to say.

    Like

  11. “Some peoples egos got in the way along the road I am affaid to say.”

    No Neil – your merry band of fellow travelers who wanted to take Respect down the cul de sac of No2EU and TUSC lost the argument. That’s politics. Time will tell who was right.

    Respect may well fail to break the hold of Labour over the British working class – but it certainly won’t because we didn’t follow your prescriptions.(How is TUSC by the way, I notice its website hasn’t been updated since June). Electoral politics is a tough game – and it takes years or consistent work. At least those still in Respect are in it for the long haul – and this potential by-election will be just hard one step along the way. We may get hammered – who knows – we may put a significant argument and still get few votes or we may do better – but your certainly that you already know the result – and its significance – seems a little premature.

    Like

  12. Now is not the time to say what should or should not have been done in the past. Nor is it the time to say because some on the Left failed to overcome sectarianism that the objective needs of the situation can not be met through such an initiative.

    Are we always to live in the shadows of past failures and never learn? Are we always to deny the opportunities available and take up the challenge?

    Respect and other parties on the Left need to discuss within a united front the possibilities and prospects, along with TUSC and others.

    If an anti-capitalist party to the Left of Labour is to be built along the lines of pluralism and openess then here is a chance.

    To Neil and others I say put all that behind you and for the sake of working people, the anti-war and anti-racism campaigns, the environment and for many other global issues, let us make an effort and show what can be done instead of bemoaning things.

    Socialists must be optimists and do we need it now more than ever.

    Like

  13. I think the best way forward is to propose engage with activists in and around Oldham to discuss whether an anti-cuts anti-racist candidate will help bolster and strengthen the movement and whether there are forces to make it viable.

    Then there may be virtue to the left groups uniting in joint work around supporting the candidate- if one emerges- and the wider movement.

    Like

  14. I agree totally with Jason. The local labour movement and anti-cuts/ anti-racism movement must make these decisions for themselves.
    The form of the campaign, whose umbrella it may come under, the selection of a candidate etc must be there decision.
    Any organisation must agree to accept working within a united front without prioritising a particular organisation for its own sake.
    If this is to succeed then what a great example of what can be achieved if we chose to do so. It will also give a lead to others and show all is possible once again.

    Like

  15. alf: are your crowd not members of respect? Is respect not already an electoral front? Why are you constantly reaching out to the hopeless sects? Why don’t SR just get on with helping to make Respect work? Why are you constantly pandering to the anti-marxist, ultra-left sects? Nobody owes these sects a living and unity between them is not a united front but an unprincipled lash up such as No2EU with its typical stalinist wheeze of `let’s nick votes of the fascists’.

    Respect has electoral experience and an organisation to deliver a political campaign. It should take its message to the local unions and community groups and drum up the support it needs for a successful bi-election campaign.

    Like

  16. “typical stalinist wheeze of `let’s nick votes of the fascists’.”

    Ah, so that’s why people like Ellis said it was obligatory to campaign for New Labour, even the likes of Phil Woolas as, it ‘tried to nick the votes of the fascists’.

    Like

  17. I don’t think I have ever met anybody more dishonest in debate than you ID. But I would say the reason for that is that you are constantly having to rationalise the virtually insane, definitely inane, sectarian and ultra left mistakes that you constantly make. You are pathologically ultra left and holier than thou like a sickness.

    Like

  18. I would never swap the non-sectarian but principled approach to voting labour in solidarity with workers where no other option was avaialbe so that we could gain a hearing for our programme for your third period `first the coalition then us’ mentalism. You are the kind of petty bourgeois socialist who thinks the working class needs a good flogging and plenty of pain and welcome a tory government on that basis.

    Like

  19. Its actually an entirely reasonable point, there’s nothing ‘third period’ about it. Woolas went so far in chasing far right votes that even the bourgeois state decided (hypocritically) to call him to order for doing so.

    Many working class people, not exclusively but particularly of immigrant background, including large numbers of people who have never heard of the term ‘third period’ and would have no idea what the hell it meant if they did, know that Woolas is racist thug and would find the idea of voting for the likes of him physically repulsive and vomit-inducing.

    What about a ‘principled and non-sectarian’ approach to those people? Instead of an arrogant and finger-wagging approach to people who can’t stomach voting for racist apes like Woolas?

    I have some personal experience of this; at the beginning of this year a friend of mine who is an overseas student ended up in immigration detention and had their passport confiscated for several weeks for the ‘crime’ of atttending a college that the UKBA Gestapo, under Woolas’ orders, targetted for arbitrary suspension and its students for victimisation. I spent months supporting my friend and helping to sort out their case, and had to deal with the consequences of this racist victimisation, that were not pleasant.

    You can stick your Trotsky textbooks that tell you to advocate that workers vote for the like of Woolas, no matter how far they move to the right. He belongs in jail for incitement to racial hatred, where hopefully he would find himself banged up in a cell with some real violent ‘Muslim extremists’, not the phantom kind he conjured up to hang on to his seat. If he were sent down for that, I’m sure that wouldn’t do Labour’s reputation much good, would it?

    Tough. Cleaning out the foul legacy of New Labour means utter defeatism towards scum like that. There won’t be any fightback until people like him are driven out by our side. We should’t have to rely on courts to get rid of creeps like him, we should do it ourselves.

    Like

  20. `Its actually an entirely reasonable point, there’s nothing ‘third period’ about it. Woolas went so far in chasing far right votes that even the bourgeois state decided (hypocritically) to call him to order for doing so.’

    No doubt there are fascists, and Woolas probably isn’t one, lurking in the labour and trade union bureaucracy but you are simply making a general third period, social fascist, point on the back of this individual case (for which he is being disciplined by the way) simply to rationalise your wretched sectarianism. You have become a vehement anti-Trotskyist now as your above remarks and previous discussions on here demonstrate but I doubt there is a single person alive who can tell the difference in method and approach between when you were the biggest self-proclaimed Trot on earth and what you are now.

    Like

  21. He ain’t some maverick backbench MP. He was the Immigration Minister in the last government. He was not being ‘disciplined’ until the courts ruled against him. He even briefly survived into the new Ed Milliband era, though I think that was a product of a pretty stupid ‘inclusiveness’ by Ed M – the new ‘big tent’ from Abbott to Woolas, as it were. But he was a symbol of the visibly vile and reactionary nature of New Labour.

    DELETED I am not particularly anti-Trotsky, not any more than anti-Lenin, anti-Luxemburg, or anti- any other revolutionary figure. They merit considerable respect for some things, sharp criticism for others.

    None of them were superhuman, they were all wrong about some things, often quite seriously wrong at times. So for that matter were Marx and Engels. We should take what is positive from all of them, and reject that which is faulty or deformed in some way, and try through doing that not to make too many similar mistakes ourselves.

    Sorry if that is ‘anti-Trotskyist’. Its just rational.

    Like

  22. “You accused me of opportunist pandering to New Labour above and now without quoting any position I have held you simply state that I am synonymous with sectarianism ”

    So you can actually be both opportunist and sectarian. Opportunist towards New Labour, sectarian towards those who hate it and couldn’t stomach voting for it.

    That’s not ‘the first thing that comes into my head’. I’ve been criticising you for that for quite a while now, quite consistently.

    Like

  23. And for a diehard ‘sectarian’ who is allegedly hostile to anything to do with the Labour Party, I actually had quite a sensitive and symathetic view of the leftward shift represented by the vote of LP trade unionists for Ed M.

    What you can’t get your head around, DE, is that some people don’t simply repeat stuff from textbooks, but formulate their own view of events and developments based on their own experience. Shocking, I know, but that’s not everyone thinks that Trotsky is god (I don’t think he is the Devil either).

    Like

  24. `So you can actually be both opportunist and sectarian. Opportunist towards New Labour, sectarian towards those who hate it and couldn’t stomach voting for it.’

    ABUSE DELETED

    Like

  25. By the by ID none of your politics is `self formulated’. It is more often than not regurgiated and recycled bits of old Stalinism passed of as something new. Third periodism, anti-Trotskyism and so forth.

    Like

  26. The problem is that the objective needs requires a united response. Whether this takes place under one name or another is not the issue. The issue is that a convention should be called involving all local campaigns and organisations to come together and discuss and agree on a united response.

    If Labour puts up an anti-cuts and anti-racist candidate committed to opposing the war and defending the rights of all, then we have the basis for considering voting Labour. However let us be realistic as this is unlikely.

    If the local labour movement is to mobilise to defend services against the Con Dems and provide leadership then fine.

    Sometimes the Left have to show and give leadership and fight for the right to give leadership. In a non sectarian manner here is an opportunity which some may chose to ignore but others hopefully will take up.

    Like

  27. DE

    “Yes we get the fact that your politics has barely risen above those of a child.”

    Isn’t that the kind of response the far left always get from apologists for the status quo?

    Like

  28. David Ellis = Bill Bailey.

    Like

  29. I think before the left takes a position on the likely Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, we have to know who the LP candidate is. Without knowing that, we can’t formulate a tactic. If the LP candidate is half-reasonable, then critical support is the appropriate tactic, combined with a savage attack on the political culture of New Labour that allowed the pig Woolas to even exist.

    If he is a right-wing bastard, then there has to be a challenge. If there is no agreement on a unified left candidate then a Respect candidate would be better than nothing. But I tend to think that particularly in this new situation where you see the potential for wider layers of trade unionists to be involved in struggles against the cuts, a Respect candidate would be seen as too narrow. Like it or not, Respect’s authority is quite limited.

    Like

  30. ABUSE DELETED

    As for Respect in Oldham if it stood in the absence of a serious labour candidate then of course it would seek support for its campaign not just amongst the local communities but amongst local trade unionists as well. It will gain the authority it works for and of course the higher the profile of the candidate the better. If Galloway could stand good or Salma if that is an option but if not a high profile local candidate. One thing is for sure, Respect should not go around seeking approval or even support from the sects and ultra lefts. Let their opposition to a Respect candidacy speak for itself. If on the other hand they genuinely want to help then welcome.

    Liam: you linked to a specifically anti-Trot posting on VPS there. Last time I checked you were a member of the at least ostensibly Trotskyist USFI. Is that not the case? ID’s first intervention into this thread was an outright insult and lie aimed at me. If you are not going to delete such things then you surely must expect a reply as sharp as the initial insult. In fact nearly every intervention ID makes on this site begins with a personalised insult against me followed by an attack on Trotskyism. That is now his new hobby horse, anti-Trotskyism and Third Periodism, though the transition from Trot to anti-Trot has been absolutely seamless proving that his `Trotskyism’ was never more than superficially assimilated. Perhaps he should have read more of the `textbooks’ he so disparages before declaring himself to be something he clearly never was.

    Like

  31. `Isn’t that the kind of response the far left always get from apologists for the status quo?’

    Isn’t that the kind of lie we expect from a toe rag who thinks the Coalition is a good idea.

    Like

  32. “thinks the Coalition is a good idea.”

    Quote me on that, if you can. Otherwise who is the liar will be obvious to anyone.

    Like

  33. You have said many times that the victory of the Coalition represented a golden opportunity for the Labour party or the labour movement to renew its leadership. You also, as you say above, thought that my position during the election to vote Labour in solidarity with the millions of workers who were going to do just that in constituencies where there were not serious alternatives was a conservative support for the status quo. ABUSE DELETED

    Like

  34. Incidentally, I see that there is now a ‘revolt’ by some Labour MP’s who think the LP should have backed up Woolas, and should be funding his appeal.

    Any criticial support for Labour in the likely by-election would have to depend on the selection of a candidate who condemns Woolas and his supporters in no uncertain terms, as well as someone who is going to seriously support action against the cuts.

    And as part of any campaign of critical support, if it proves possible, it would be necessary to advocate a thoroughgoing purge of Woolas’s friends among Labour MPs.

    Like

  35. DE

    “You have said many times that the victory of the Coalition represented a golden opportunity for the Labour party or the labour movement to renew its leadership.”

    Sleight of hand. Advocating the defeat of New Labour does not mean support for the current government. That is the just the hackneyed Stalinist hack argument of the form “Trotsky is against Stalin, Hitler is against Stalin, therefore Trotsky is a supporter of Hitler”

    You have to show me expressing approval of the current government, of its cuts, etc, not merely construct a Stalinist amalgam based on my refusal to support New Labour as you do.

    Otherwise, everyone can see that you are telling great big porkies, in a particularly silly way.

    Like

  36. `You have to show me expressing approval of the current government, of its cuts, etc, not merely construct a Stalinist amalgam based on my refusal to support New Labour as you do.’

    I don’t have to do anything. You said the victory of the coalition would be good for working class politics. End of. Please point out where I said you were a supporter of the coalition. But then you never do bother with the actual arguement do you?

    Like

  37. DE

    “Please point out where I said you were a supporter of the coalition.”

    Five posts earlier, he called me:

    “a ABUSE DELETED who thinks the Coalition is a good idea.”

    If that ain’t calling me a supporter of the Coalition then I don’t know what is.

    Like

  38. Saying you think the Coalition is a good idea because it would be good for working class politics in your usual Third Period manner and that you are a supporter of the coalition are two different things as I think anybody with half a brain could tell you. Reason is not one of your strong points is it ID?

    Like

  39. I’ll let others judge whether I’m a supporter of the Coalition or not. No reasonable person will be fooled by that kind of wriggling.

    Like

Leave a reply to David Ellis Cancel reply

Trending