Labour Left Forum

Where Left?

2009-06-08T19:11:00.002Z

If you glance the Guardian over the next few days, you'll see the same mouldy old opinion piece again and again - this election was not the victory of Conservative, hyper-Conservative and Nazi ideology, it says. Instead, it's just that there's a lack of je ne sais quoi about the incumbent party, the clear fault of boring Mr. Brown.

Other columns have this redundant thesis - that there is a natural cycle, established by Thatcher and then Blair, in which centre-left and centre-right take turns to move the country forward a decade at a time. Labour are unpopular because the very forces of nature decree it, and we'll have our turn again in 2020.

Many left bloggers shout for a spontaneous eruption of feeling, either within the Labour Party or outside it, which will throw out the bad leaders and supplant BNP voters' false consciousness with a genuinely popular party, winning elections from the grassroots. Now these rats are hurling themselves suicidally off their sinking ship, but we still see no changes.

All these people are wrong. Not just wrong, but their pleasingly sewn-up conclusions are reinforcing the very apathy at the core of the problem. Our party needs radical surgery to survive, but it is much easier to take a placebo and pray.

What would this radical surgery consist of? I can't say exactly - but I can give a broad overview - the party needs to become accountable to its members in a way that makes party membership worth participating in. The party needs to become as radically liberal as the public mood, and throw off its hard-won reputation for being curmudgeonly and authoritarian by restoring a shedload of lost rights and finding a way to capture the national imagination by going further.

There is an enormous paradox hanging over our recovery in that it depends both on a grassroots resurgence and on being backed by the big money necessary to fight modern campaigns. Handled well, this can become a virtuous cycle, of election victories and populism of the sort that Obama courted. Handled badly, electors will smell the sleaze oozing from the heart of an abandoned party.

A view from Yorkshire (reposted from Labourhome)

2009-06-08T14:40:00.002Z

For the first time in my life I feel a bit ashamed to be from Yorkshire.

We were the first to send a British fascist to Brussels.

I think back to the 90s when I was a strong advocate of devolution to Yorkshire, after 18 years of a Tory government we didn’t support, Thatcher’s war on the Yorkshire miners (followed by Heseltine’s Cold War on the miners); Thatcherite bankers declaring that recession in the north was a price worth paying for growth in the south.

For us to be the first (in England at any rate) to send a far-right MEP to Brussels is humiliating and heart-breaking. And not just any far-right MEP: Andrew Brons, former leader of the National Front. A Nazi.

But we need to analyse it.

6000 fewer people voted BNP in Yorkshire in 2009 than in 2004. This was not some great upsurge of support for the BNP or their policies in this county. This was not some great defection from Labour to BNP (though I’m sure some voters did make that switch, this was not the headline issue).

What happened was, on the night of a record low turnout, Labour voters didn’t vote. When they did vote, many of them scattered themselves amongst the other parties in protest, in fury, in thought-out defection, and some in sadness.

As such, the BNP did not need to increase their vote. They just needed to hold it up as much as possible.

So while the events of last night which hurt the most are the scenes of BNP jubilation, their apparent successes do not contain the most important lessons. Nation-wide, fewer than 3% of people chose to register a vote for the BNP. This was despite a more professional and active national campaign than they have ever done before, and despite the quite effective masking of their fascistic and Nazi core. Even in Yorskhire, less than 10% of the 35% of people who bothered to vote at all voted for the BNP.

The 65% of people who didn’t vote at all should be of much greater concern to us. Many of those people are those whose votes we used to be able to rely on.

Why have they deserted us? Let’s not imagine that it is all to do with expenses. Yes the expenses have added to a general cynicism and anti-politics feeling, but it didn’t create it. And we would have had a dreadful night if the election were a month or so ago too.

We didn’t earn people’s votes. We didn’t give them enough reasons to vote for us.

I mean, politically, partly because the mood of the popular media is that Labour is finished, we have become poor at ‘the game’. The economic signs are actually that Brown’s approach might well have been quite successful. There are some signs of recovery, banks here are going to be in a position to start paying the tax-payer back sooner than elsewhere, etc, etc. - we’ve just lost the ability to sell that.

But also we’ve lost that connection to reality that should tell us that that isn’t enough. Because that doesn’t house anybody, that doesn’t help somebody who lost their job last month, or is likely to lose it next month. Talk of green shoots is just offensively ironic to those people.
We’ve lost other things too. We’ve lost the moral high ground. Yes, expenses played a part in that, but policies played a bigger part. Illegal wars, illiberal anti-terror laws and heartless welfare reforms have - for many - made us the nasty party.

We’ve lost our sense of purpose. I hate the word ‘narrative’ in a political context, but we don’t have one. Certainly don’t have a positive one. 10 more months of Labour (unless something wholly unexpected happens in that election) - what is that government FOR? We will all have ideas about what it should be for, but I don’t sense any communication of what Brown, or the people around him, believe it should be for.

We need a radical agenda for the last months of this term. That radical agenda has to be rooted in real policies that produce real, tangible and measurable improvements in people’s lives: new houses, new jobs, repossessions halted, etc. rather than more academic, constitutional change that - while much of it necessary - should not be at the top of our priority list while unemployment and homelessness still rises.

I’ve kept out of the leadership discussion as much possible this time as it has essentially been a tiresome personality clash within the time-serving husk of what was once New Labour.
But if Brown won’t lead a government with that radical agenda, then he will need to be toppled and replaced with somebody who will.
It is all we have left.

University Challenge - Undermine Trade Unionism through Lies

2009-04-27T21:49:00.002Z

Joint Statement from SOAS UNISON and SOAS UCU on the Dismissal of SOAS
UNISON Branch Chair, Joseph Stalin Bermudez

"Dear Colleagues

"As we predicted, the School's hand-picked Star Chamber has rejected
Stalin's appeal against dismissal. Graham Furniss, Ian Brown and Matt
Craven, advised by Peter Mitchell the HR Director, would appear to
share the same perverted sense of justice as Sharon Page who sacked
Stalin in February.

"SOAS UNISON, UCU, and the Student Union, along with several voices on
Academic Board, had called for a genuinely independent panel to hear
the appeal. The School rejected that. Presumably they had no
confidence in an independent panel to produce the result they wanted.

"Stalin was absurdly accused by Sharon Page of a perceived "threat to
kill" a colleague in September 2008. In fact, the original complaint
contains no such allegation. The perception explicitly relates to
alleged "death threats" in 2007. Those allegations had been found to
be "unfounded and unsubstantiated" in an earlier grievance hearing.
Never mind. The investigating managers and Sharon Page fell over
themselves to use those unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations to
support the complainant's perception. Sharon Page made her decision to
dismiss Stalin on her perception of the complainant's perception. An
more unsafe conclusion could not be imagined.

"There was, however, an eyewitness to the alleged incident, Pablo
Grisales, a cleaner working temporarily in the post room. One might
have expected the investigating managers to ask for a written witness
statement, but that is not what happened. Pablo was called into an
intimidating meeting with three managers present (Richard Poulson,
Sian Jones and an OCEAN manager) and was read out a prepared statement
which he was not shown and which he was asked to confirm. He was given
no opportunity to qualify that statement (indeed, he was prevented
from doing so) or to provide his own independent statement of events.
That unsigned "statement" then became the "witness statement". No
written report of that investigatory meeting was provided except for
the manager's file note.

"At the disciplinary hearing Pablo attended in person to provide his
own witness statement which supported Stalin's recollection of events
that there had been no threats. But this was dismissed by Sharon Page
as a fabrication and she chose to believe the non-existent "witness
statement" from the investigatory meeting. She decided to privilege
the "evidence" of the managers' claim that Pablo had verbally
confirmed their prepared statement over that of Pablo's. What else
could one expect at SOAS? Obviously a black cleaner is less reliable
than two white managers.

"Here's what Sharon Page actually said: "In my role as Chair I was
being asked to conclude whether two long serving and trusted managers
were telling the truth, or whether Pablo Grisales had changed his
recollection of events. On the balance of probabilities I concluded
that I believed the two managers. I was satisfied that the evidence by
(the complainant) and the SOAS managers was on balance far more
credible than that of Jose Bermudez and Pablo Grisales."

"What kind of reasoning is this? Pablo had not “changed his
recollection of events” because he was never given the opportunity to
give his recollection of events during the investigatory meeting. The
managers were clearly not witnesses to the events. And just why is the
complainant's view "far more credible" than Stalin's or Pablo's (the
only independent witness to the incident)? Prejudice can be the only
explanation. To say that this borders on downright racism would be an
understatement. Sharon Page made her decision to dismiss Stalin on her
perception of the complainant's perception. One white manager's
perception of a white complainant's perception of a black employee. No
contest in SOAS.

"The greatest lack of credibility in this whole affair is in the way
the incident was investigated and the how the decision to sack Stalin
was arrived at. Even more incredible is the conclusion of the
"payroll" appeal panel which could regard Sharon Page’s conclusions as
being in any way “reasonable”. Quite frankly, this stinks. The whole
SOAS disciplinary process has been brought into utter disrepute.

"We cannot allow this to pass. As promised, UNISON and UCU will make
available all the documentation and evidence relating to this case so
that our members can make up their own minds. UNISON are currently
balloting for industrial action and UCU will support them taking such
action. Meanwhile a genuinely independent panel of professors will be
established to examine the evidence and documentation and
reinvestigate this miscarriage of justice.

"Sadly, SOAS management seem to want to drag us back to the state of
industrial relations at the end of 2005. If this is the case then both
unions are ready to respond."

LEAP Conference 2009

2009-04-15T21:14:00.004Z

LEAP conference 2009: Capitalism Isn't Working
LEAP Conference 2009 'Capitalism Isn't Working' takes place on Saturday 25th April, 10:30am-4:30pm at Birkbeck College, Malet Street, London. The conference comes just three days after the 2009 Budget Statement, and is an opportunity to discuss the economic situation, share information and build campaigns.

In between participative plenary sessions, there'll be four sub-plenaries:
Resisting the recession & Defending Jobs: the industrial agenda
Where's our bailout? Benefits, pensions, poverty & housing
What to do with the City and Global Finance: socialising the sector
Neoliberalism Isn't Working: fighting the ideological battle

Speakers and contributors include: John Christensen (Tax Justice Network), Bob Crow (RMT), Paul Feldman, Andrew Fisher, Professor Gregor Gall, Gerry Gold, Colin Hampton (UWC), John Hilary (War on Want), Jerry Jones, John McDonnell MP, Rosamund Stock, Graham Turner, Professor Richard Wilkinson, Matt Wrack (FBU).

Register online for the conference. We've frozen last year's conference prices: it's £10 waged and £5 unwaged, and you can also pay on the door. Debate online at: http://leap-lrc.blogspot.com/

Before this event, there is of course the 'Their Crisis Not Ours' Day of Action:

http://www.theircrisisnotours.org.uk/

They've bailed out the bankers who started the crisis – but millions of working people across the country are paying with their jobs, pay packets and their homes.

On Wednesday 22nd April, you will finally have your chance to demand of the Government: 'Where's Our Bailout?'

As the Chancellor delivers the Government's annual Budget, come and protest in front of the world's cameras.

The Day of Action is being organised by Their Crisis Not Ours, a new grassroots campaign launched by the Labour Representation Committee which is chaired by John McDonnell MP.

The following actions will take place:

11.30am: Protest with placards listing our demands on Whitehall along the route the Chancellor will take from No. 11 Downing Street to address Parliament

5pm: Protest outside the Treasury near Whitehall on 1 Horse Guards Road, London SW1A 2HQ.

7.30pm: Budget Question Time event in Committee Room 10, House of Commons with panellists including John McDonnell MP, economist Graham Turner and Clara Osagiede (RMT Cleaner’s Grade Secretary).

The campaign is backing the demands of the People’s Charter. On the day, we will call for a tax on the profits of big business and a crackdown on tax avoidance, an increase in pensions and unemployment benefit, an emergency council housing programme and an end to repossessions, a cap on energy prices, rail fares and rents, and free education for all.

PLEASE SUPPORT THESE TWO EVENTS. IF YOU CAN'T ATTEND YOURSELF, PLEASE PASS INFORMATION ON TO YOUR CONTACTS.

P.S. Please join the Facebook group and event here:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=53821945193&ref=ts

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=65057269898

Postal votes and PPC selections

2009-04-11T22:31:00.002Z

(Reposted from Labourhome)

There is a growing controversy surrounding the use of postal votes in PPC selections: is this a new way to manipulate selections to ensure 'favourable' results?
The current party rules are quite clear. Party members are entitled to a postal vote for PPC selections, but under quite specific circumstances:
(c)Postal votes shall only be granted to those who are unable to attend a hustings meeting - not to those who choose not to attend. Postal votes will be granted for those who cannot attend due to a medical condition, cannot make reasonable travel arrangements, are away on holiday, have work commitments or caring responsibilities or any other appropriate reason for non-attendance at the hustings as agreed by the NEC designate representative. They will not be made available to those choosing to undertake other engagements unless they are candidates for selection in this process.
and
(e) No shortlisted nominee or any person acting on behalf of a nominee should benefit from interference in the process of applications for, or the issue and return of, postal votes. Any evidence of such interference may lead to the disqualification of the nominee concerned.
Are these rules being kept to?
The controversy is particularly stirring in Erith and Thamesmead (read this article in the Tribune for details). A third of the CLP apparently had 'appropriate reasons' for requiring a postal vote. Now, in Calder Valley, 90 people voted by post (nearly double the 50-odd who attended the meeting) inevitably having a massive impact on the result.
Now there is a perfectly legitimate argument in favour of ensuring as many people can participate in this process as possible, but if people want to pursue the route of an OMOV postal ballot, then it has to be structured, it has to be fair and equal, and the party would have to pay for CVs and statements from all candidates to go to all members, etc. That is one option. There is an equally legitimate argument to say that this decision should be taken primarily by people who have engaged in the process, have heard all the candidates and had the opportunity to challenge them face-to-face. Either way, what is happening in Erith and Thamesmead, and what appears to have happened in Calder Valley, is something different entirely.
Is uncertainty about this rule being used by external influences to influence the results of selections? Are people working on behalf of some nominees (or perhaps more clearly, working very clearly against some nominees) in order to ensure the decision is taken at a distance, that the arguments aren't heard, that the candidates aren't challenged? If that is the case then this is a very serious issue indeed.

"The Islamist", A Review

2009-01-21T18:39:00.004Z

I read Ed Husain's book on Islamism in Britain at a particularly interesting time. The Israeli attack on Gaza had just ceased, and Husain's anti-Islamist think-tank has just been awarded a million pounds of government money. So what insights exactly are we paying for?

Husain's story begins in the East End of London during the Balkan Wars. Against the will of their parents, young Muslim men and women are creating radical Islamist groups fuelled by their frustration at massacres of Muslims in Bosnia. These groups, it turns out, are based on fantasies comparable to old Communist Party fantasies about the Soviet Union. Bearers of "true Islam" emanating from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan all come to London and find small crowds of Britons willing to listen to their messages and give their political backing to varying utopian visions of the Islamic state.

Husain's picture of the East End is worth noting. The only people willing to listen to and engage with angsty teenage Muslims are political Islamist or Trotskyite groups. The Socialist Workers Party pops up again and again as the only part of the scenery able and willing to challenge political Islamism by providing other solutions. As Husain's dad rages when he finds his son involved in extremist politics, "If you want politics, join the Labour Party", but apart from canvassing at election times, they aren't there.

One particularly appealing aspect of his analysis is an ongoing narrative about the history of different political Islamist factions. They are often based around particular ethnicities, but they have histories of splits and infighting to rival the British far-left: like the British far-left, they have developed their own political language and there is always a jockeying for position as different groups try to benefit from different issues by provocative grandstanding. But this world is a far tinier one than the British far-left. Husain knew the 7/7 bombers and knew most of the other active political Islamists in London at that time.

When he decides to split with the movement and teach English in Syria and then Saudi Arabia, the book changes noticeably in register, tone and opinion. Syria appears in the book as a good place to be: a place visited by British wannabe political Islamists who find that the locals don't really share their enthusiasm for jihad. Saudi Arabia, however, is a different story. The Saudis fund one of the three main strands of British Islamism highlighted in the book, but Husain's visit leads him to realise just how much of the liberal political atmosphere in Britain he has taken for granted. It also leads to several instances of more-than-casual racism, where Husain (himself a Bengali) damns the idea of an Islamic state because "[t]he racist reality of the Arab psyche would never accept black and white people as equal".

Ultimately the picture Husain paints is of a Britain where some young Muslims have created a political movement out of frustration and angst, have found funding from external sources to be no problem at all, and have created Leninist organisations mimicking the Trotskyites they competed with (a note here: Husain calls Hizb ut-Tahrir a "cell" organisation, but it has a clear hierarchy as described elsewhere in the book). Since many of these are gang-like (Hizb was certainly gang-like when it was still at SOAS) you get competition for turf. There is secrecy and hatred stirred up at non-Muslims ("kuffars") and attempts at creating 'party lines' so that all members know which lines to say and when. A surprising amount of "Islamic" material turns out to be Marx, Rousseau, Nietzche and Heidegger in disguise.

As history turns full circle, we need to show that it isn't only politicised Muslims who care about the slaughter of Muslims in Gaza. Husain gives his befriending of a self-described "liberal" American girl as his turning-point away from extremism. Bosnia radicalised him: Gaza may have radicalised thousands more, but it is only because Muslims felt alone in opposing the Bosnian killings that radicalisation felt like a reasonable option. I wonder what this foundation will do to prevent that.

Update: Better informed opinions can be found here and here.

What is to be done: a roadmap for left ascendency? (Part One)

2009-01-19T19:26:00.007Z

A few different discussions have led me to write this post, which is intended to start a conversation on the left rather than to end one.

Jon Cruddas apparently suggested that John McDonnell and the LRC might be planning a break from the Labour Party. Luke Akehurst has suggested that the Trade Union Co-ordinating Group (of which John will be the parliamentary convenor) might be associated with this idea. The left came out in force to point out the folly of the Cruddas claim - quite rightly.

But, of course, a group put forward a motion more-or-less to that effect to the last LRC Conference, and even some of those who opposed that motion have posited some vague, future moment of departure as something that could one day happen, when a left - fatigued by despondency or realism - might try and find a new home outside a Labour Party that was now entirely unreclaimable or unwinnable.

As an optimist, I find such talk unfortunate, to say the least. After all, we are not - despite what some may say - in a weaker position, as a Labour left, than we were 10, 15, even 20 years ago. Now is a time to build and assert ourselves, not to contemplate final defeat.

But - on that point - I was issued a challenge (in the comments). It is fair enough. If I wish to pursue the argument that the left should be fundamentally committed to Labour Party activism, that all socialists should join us and that we can gain a position of leadership and dominance in that party, I have to at least give a few pointers as to how such a thing could be done.

The roadmap:

Although the publication route is something of a cliche, it also has an important role to play. The LRC needs a publication - whether we revisit the discussions about making Briefing 'LRC Briefing' or produce something new, this is an important development. But just producing it is irrelevant: Briefing already exists and is hardly hostile to our position. The point is DISTRIBUTION. The LRC has the following affliliated unions: ASLEF, BFAWU, CWU, FBU, NUM, RMT along with a whole range of union regions and branches, socialist organisations (e.g. the Socialist Education Association) and local Trades Councils. At the same time every CLP receives at least one copy of Progress magazine, and that is possible because the magazine is heavily subsidised by a wide range of trade unions and trade union advertising - including some unions affiliated to the LRC. As such, Progress is now part of the fabric of the party, while the LRC is still seen as 'other' or - in some places - is not heard of at all (except in those areas where LRC regional groups are doing excellent work spreading the message, more of which anon...) So we don't only need a publication, we need our union comrades to help us get a monthly publication to every CLP in the country. The LNMF project will also be invaluable in this area. Another way forward could be using Membersnet to get an LRC briefing sheet out to a wide range of party activists who we currently don't reach.

We need to engage with the party at every level and in every way, however frustrating or mortifying it might be! Student members - get to Labour Students events, national and local (take over your student club if you can - it's quite easy to do!); young members - get along to Young Labour events, national and local. All of us, get to the regional conferences and policy forums. I know we won't achieve much, but we need to be seen - we need to be heard - we need to provide some leadership because there's a whole lot of people there who will follow. The last time I went to a regional policy forum I was hugely encouraged by the support that I received for the arguments I was putting across. At the time, the LRC was in its infancy and there were no regional organisations - but there are now; those regional conferences/policy forums are prime recruiting grounds. Compass leaflets were being greedily gobbled up at the last one I went to - that was because there was no alternative; people were very receptive to our arguments. Let's get stalls; let's get fringe sessions: national, regional and local. We've got to look outwards. If we're organising at these things it will give others a reason to go.

We must pick two or three campaigns and go at them all-guns-blazing. Indeed we should BE them. I would recommend at least one international campaign (I know the LNMF are looking at 'G20' which is a good idea) and at least one domestic campaign (welfare reform is a key one). We then lead those campaigns and do so in a welcoming, inclusive way; invite people from Compass and elsewhere to speak on our platforms, etc. - challenge them to do likewise.

Big public meetings. The Bevanites used the 'Brains Trust' meeting as their key organising method outside parliament. We can do better; so let's do it. Most CLPs would love a few high profile speakers on their programmes. Let's get a group of leading LRC speakers together - parliamentarians, trade unionists, 'celebrities', etc. - and offer them - severally or together - to address open meetings across the country. We could get going with that at the earliest opportunity, offering to launch local election campaigns, etc. and play our own part in revitalising CLPs into the bargain.

Create a national network - using email, face-to-face, our publication and blogs/LNMF, etc. Encourage as many BLPs, CLPs, etc. as possible to affiliate to their regional LRC group alongside individual members. Ensure alongside the discussion and policy meetings, there are doorstepping, leafleting, campaigning meetings, both on our campaigns and for Labour campaigns, especially elections. This is an essential part of ensuring that people - even those who will never see entirely eye-to-eye with us - see the LRC as an essential part of the fabric of the Labour Party and movement.

Engage in ensuring some serious labour representation: encourage left-wingers to take CLP positions, stand for council and stand for parliamentary seats. Gather the names and CVs of left aspiring candidates, share them with our affiliated unions (particularly those that are also affiliated to the Labour Party); keep track of all the selections and communicate with promising candidates; put them in touch with union branches and any LRC contacts in the area. Few selections are left for the next election. By this time for the election after, we need there to be an idea abroad that LRC approval is one of the best ways to get selected.

Aim for the moral high ground and keep it. It's easy to react - I do it all the time. I fly off the handle on some blog comment and the next thing you know it's 'lefties are so sectarian, lefties are so rude, lefties don't want to build bridges', etc. We need to point out why people are wrong, but we should do it in a comradely manner. In all these areas that I have outlined we should be scrupulously democratic, even if the actions of others are as corrupt as hell and it means we sometimes lose. Most people in the Labour Party are decent and will be turned off the leadership if they try and fix things and keep us out and will be attracted to us if we are transparent, comradely and upfront. Labour members tend to rally around if they see people are being unfairly treated - Ken Livingstone, Walter Wolfgang, etc. - unless those doing the unfair treating are able to put a convincing case out that we're bad, secretive, duplicitous, etc.

While we need to reinvigorate the internal democracy of the party, we should do this from the bottom up, for the most part: organise strongly and well at branch and CLP level and speak loudly enough that our voices have to be listened to. We should help democratising campaigns, but we shouldn't seem to be obsessed with process and minutiae. The best times to highlight democratising campaigns will be when there are clear victims of the lack of democracy (see above point) when we can have a broad church rally around the idea; we should never be talking about part seven of clause 6 of section 3 (etc, etc.) when everybody else is talking about welfare, banks or Gaza.

All of this is possible. It's bloody difficult, but the logic of much recent Labour left activity has been moving in this direction (which is - I stress - quite the opposite direction from that predicted by Jon Cruddas or Luke Akehurst: engagement rather than detachment).

Of course I understand two likely reactions to this:

One: it's pie in the sky; Labour's grassroots have been decimated and demoralised; people on the left who've never been in Labour (young people, primarily) won't go for this and they'll stay outside.

Two: why? What is it about the Labour Party that would make today's socialists see it as their natural home.

The answer to the first question is relatively simple: it's a plan, and it's better than yours. Even a decimated, demoralised Labour grassroots has more potential in one city than any 'new workers party' (or other ideas of that nature) has in the whole country. Some people won't take a leap in the dark and they'll stay outside. I suspect most of them will join the swell in the fullness of time, but if they don't they don't. None of what I've suggested here is contrary or runs contradictory to the idea of working with the non-Labour left on many campaigns and issues, of continuing to engage with the Convention of the Left, etc, etc.

The second question is, of course, much harder. It's not a difficult personal question: as a socialist teenager it never occurred to me not to join the Labour Party (though the left was not really any stronger then than today - and I think that's a point we need to bear in mind). I felt I was inheriting a great Labour dissenting socialist tradition that had always existed in a Labour Party whose mainstream always represented something rather different; a tradition that was at times more powerful than at others, that had periods of ascendency, that would have them again. Now, much as I dislike the whole concept of great leaders - preferring a bottom-up concept of democracy - I cannot escape the fact that encountering the ideas, speeches and passion of Tony Benn did a lot to establish the idea with me that Labour was my obvious home. There was a man eloquently expressing what I felt; bashing the dreadful Tories, but bashing the timidity and duplicity on his own side too. He got me listening, and then I started hearing Jeremy Corbyn and later Alan Simpson, later still John McDonnell, etc, etc. And that was the Labour Party for me, not Kinnock or Blair (though I couldn't ignore that they too were another version of 'real Labour').

So, in a funny way, John McDonnell speaking with such passion about Heathrow the other day, and grabbing the mace, though it was - of course - about Heathrow (as well as broader issues of both parliamentary sovereignty, executive dominance and climate change) can - as part of a broader tapestry - be like Tony Benn's speech on pit closures; a voice to encourage, to rally, to inspire. A different, alternative voice of Labour.

Please start conversing - I realise I've been controversial here, but it's an incredibly important discussion which we really need to have.

The Secret State and Socialism: An 80-year war against the British left (Part 2)

2008-12-18T19:20:00.003Z

B5b and F Branch

If you decide to conduct a war against a section of your own society you need soldiers. One area of fertile ground for finding people serious enough about 'anti-communism' to engage in such matters is amongst fascists.

It was amongst fascists that Vernon Kell - an early central figure in MI5 - found Maxwell Knight (or 'M'). Knight joined the British Fascisti in 1924, inspired by Mussolini, and determined to counter the growth of the Labour Party and the trade union movement, he quickly established himself as the organisation's Director of Intelligence. In that role Knight handled fascist cells in the trade union movement, engaged in 'counter espionage'. However his work came to the attention of Vernon Kell, he was soon recruited to carry out a similar role for MI5, organising against the General Strike in 1926 and, in the 1930s, he was put in charge of B5b, the unit in charge of countering political 'subversion'.

Amongst the subversive politics Knight found himself having to deal with were student pacifists (the Oxford Union motion, "this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country" was considered beyond the pale) as well as the British Communist Party and other left-wing organisations. Many of Knight's recruits were members of the main right-wing, fascistic organisations of the day, and he sent them into the left groups to counter subversion. Amongst his recruits were some whom the security services later had to turn on, such as Lord Haw Haw.

Knight also recruited left-wing agents. Tom Driberg - who would later be a charismatic Bevanite MP - was recruited in the 40s (while a communist party member) but was exposed and expelled from the party.

Increasingly, after the second world war, the security services saw that the labour movement itself could perhaps be its most effective enemy and, by infilitrating every left-of-centre organisation in the country, they could win a great victory against the left. F Branch particularly sought to recruit people from student unions, the Labour Party, Trade Unions, peace groups, etc. They were encouraged to sound as left-wing as possible in the hope that they might even be attractive to KGB recruitment agents. Quite how successful this was one day we may know. Just how many left activists were really working for the security services is a point of great interest to historians of this war on the left. Were some well-known figures in the labour movement really organising against it all along?

Well, certainly some were.

But we'll leave that little cliff-hanger there for the time being. The next section will consider the most bizarre chapter in all of this: the Wright and Wallace allegations about the Wilson plot and related events.

The Secret State and Socialism: An 80-year war against the British left (Part 1)

2008-12-17T14:02:00.004Z

Introduction

This is the first in an occasional series of articles on the role of the British secret services in trying to undermine the left in Britain over an 80-year period. Starting shortly after the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, I will evaluate events including the Zinoviev Letter, the alleged attempted coup against Wilson, operations against trade unions in the 1970s, the black operations intended to link a Labour government to the IRA also in that decade, the now infamous operation against the NUM during and after the 1984/5 strike and the framing of George Galloway. In some of these cases, the role of the security services is no longer a matter of doubt or debate, in others a variety of conflicting allegations exist. I will make use of publically-sourced materials only; as such do not expect any revelations, although I hope the discussion will make some new connections and raise new questions.

Before the Zinoviev letter

In the immediate aftermath of the Russian revolution of October 1917, and while war was still raging across Europe, the British security services took an immediate interest in Russia and the impact of Russian politics on British public opinion and the left in Britain. Left-leaning war correspondent Arthur Ransome, who wrote articles for the Daily News and later the Manchester Guardian, arguing for recognition of the Soviet government (and also opposing western intervention in the Civil War that followed) found himself the subject of intense security service interest, including an arrest in 1919 (when he was questioned by Sir Basil Thompson) and a good deal of innuendo that he was a Soviet agent. Russian documents exist that appear to show that Ransome and his wife (Evgenia Shelepin - former private secretary to Leon Trotsky) had smuggled a quantity of Romanov valuables out of Russia to raise money for 'Bolshevik causes' in the UK (the documents may be genuine or may have been a forgery). Although not a classic example of what was to follow in this protracted war - Ransome was not a Labour activist, though some of the characters in his story feature in other inter-war stories - his story does at least feature one (and possibly two) of the classic tactics employed by the secret state against its perceived enemies: the Soviet agent tactic (undermining somebody's arguments by suggesting that they are being made because of attachment to - and possibly financial reward from - a foreign state rather than genuinely-held views or principles) and the forged document tactic.

At the same time as Arthur Ransome was attracting great interest from the security services, a more definitively Labour and leftist figure was also under investigation: Fenner Brockway. As the editor of the Labour Leader, he had been investigated since receiving a letter from Lenin in 1915, and was continued to be investigated through the 1940s and 1950s (Ransome, at least, was removed from MI5's blacklist in 1937 - by which time he was probably the nation's favourite children's author!)

But security service interest in undermining the work of the British left - and employing it for clearly political purposes - emphatically got under way with the so-called Zinoviev Letter; the scandal that was to contribute to the premature end to the first Labour government, in 1924.

The Zinoviev Letter:

Many of the classic hallmarks of security service attacks on the left were present in that first major assault on the British left: the forged Zinoviev Letter. The letter, which was alleged to have been sent in 1924 from Zinoviev - then head of the Comintern - to British communists, recommending an increase in seditious acts to precipitate a British revolution reached British newspapers with extraordinary timing. The Times and the Daily Mail published the letter just four days before the General Election, and at a time when Ramsay MacDonald was arguing that the British government should enter into a new treaty with the Soviet government, which would include a loan of £40 million to promote trade and economic growth in the country following its long years of civil war and famine. Essentially this would have been the political realisation of the campaign that Ransome had been fighting in 1919 - but the Conservatives were swept into office in 1924 and the treaty vanished.

Some later security-service forgeries were very poor efforts. The alleged documents produced by the 'Clockwork Orange' campaign in the 1970s such as a 'Vote Labour' pamphlet advocating assassinations, another pamphlet, "Economics: Master or Servant of Mankind" attributed to Tony Benn, Denis Healey and Stan Orme from Autumn 1971, calling for revolution, and a forged letter from a pro-IRA group in the US, thanking leading Labour politician Merlyn Rees for an (imaginary) donation to Republican causes on Labour's behalf all would surely stretch the credibility of anybody who read them. The association of established Labour politicians - including some on the party's right, like Healey and David Owen - with extremist and violent political views were smears beyond all credibility. In contrast, the Zinoviev Letter was convincing enough to be believed by many - both in the public and in official circles. Ramsay MacDonald himself would appear to have thought it credible.

Research since that time appears to confirm that a number of UK spies were involved in the forgery. Sydney Reilly who, in the best traditions of the security services had been dispatched to Russia to assassinate Lenin, was one of the alleged forgers, alongside Arthur Maundy Gregory. A top SIS spy, Reilly, interestingly enough, met Ransome in 1918 and produced one of the first secret service reports on him (probably the one that concluded that Ransome was 'in the hands of the Bolsheviks'). Offiical connections between SIS and Reilly were allegedly severed in 1922, before the Zinoviev forgery. Gregory was recruited by Reilly, but his work had mainly been in the area of spying on UK politicians, compiling information about scandals. His own scandal was that of selling peerages, firstly on behalf of Lloyd George, and later for a Conservative government (for which he was imprisoned and, after his release, paid a £2000-a-year pension by the Conservative Party). While some research has raised questions about the identity of the forgers, pointing to the possible assistance of pro-White Russian emigres, it was undoubtedly leaked to the press with the full knowledge of senior people in MI6 (Desmond Morton was involved) and MI5, agent Major Joseph Ball was a key player - he went on to work for the Conservative Party as a spin doctor.

The impact of the letter was extraordinary. It was not to be the last time that elements in the security services would try to bring down a Labour government.

Unite to oppose the welfare 'reforms'

2008-12-11T21:52:00.003Z

The current set of right-wing so-called welfare reforms - really the latest round in the sustained Thatcherite assault upon the welfare state - has to be opposed, and opposed in every possible way.

We on the left have not been anywhere near vocal enough in our opposition to these proposals - proposals that have long been talked of and have indeed been 'sweetened' somewhat in recent weeks. It is our duty to defend the welfare state, defend our rights and the rights of the unemployed, the low paid, the sick and disabled and of lone parents. It is our duty to protect the most vulnerable in society against attacks from whichever angle those attacks come - even when it is from our own government. Indeed, as party members with at least an illusory role in its policy-making procedures, the duty on us to act is even stronger than when the Tories launched similar assaults.

I have been appalled reading comments from some on the left who have talked about 'parasites' and having to develop a new strategy for the 'lumpenproletariat'. Good God, to collude in the blatant division of the working class, and the horrendous demonisation of sections of the working class in this way is quite shocking. Those who will be effected by these proposals are not just the semi-mythological 'Shameless' benefit cheats - even the real, nuanced versions of those tabloid caricatures represent a tiny minority of benefit claimants; no, we are talking about a wide array of people. This is not some homogenous group of 'cheating' 'parasites' as comments seem to suggest, but disabled people, sick people, parents of young kids, people who have committed the terrible crime of living somewhere where there are no job vacancies.

And let's be clear, the proposals have not seen the light of day at a time when new vacancies are emerging to absorb these people who are to be thrown off their benefits. These proposals are here at a time when more people are joining the ranks of benefit-claimants; when jobs are scarce and are being lost. This is Tebbit; this is 'on your bike'; this is at the heart of why we hated Thatcher and all she stood for. So let's stand firm.

Making people work for their benefits? 'Sounds reasonable' - so I've read from Labour supporters in the blogosphere. Reasonable? For the government to become a poverty-pay employer? To make people work for less than the minimum wage? Because that is what we're talking about here. The proposals were always wrong: wrong-headed, philosophically-flawed, pathetic dog-whistle, headline-seeking crap. But in the current economic climate they are worse even than that: wielding a stick when there is no available, realistic or accessable way to comply with what is demanded is not cruel kindness, it is abuse.

Oppose this, we must. How we do it, let's discuss it in the comments. But we should not stop short of what we would have done if this were Peter Lilley instead of James Purnell. They're two sides of the same coin. I'm a tribal labourite, always will be; but party politics can't guide our actions here. This goes to the heart of why we came into socialist politics and we shouldn't rest for a moment.

Labourhome editor being sued

2008-11-28T20:49:00.004Z

Labourhome editor, Alex Hilton, is being sued over the content of an article published on Labourhome (written by another user) which was immediately pulled after a complaint was raised, and a right of reply was offered and declined.

It is important to try and maintain forums like Labourhome and keep them as open and free as possible, and this sort of action threatens that. As such I'm providing this link to Alex's Labourhome article about this, where he asks for assistance with the excessive legal costs.

I know this is unlikely to be a time when many of us have free cash to hand around - and if we did this might not be our number one priority, but if you can help out - or publicise the link - please do. Whatever you might think of Labourhome, or Alex's personal political position within the party, this is the sort of case that can really damage open debate on the broad left of the blogosphere.

Why Labour?

2008-11-18T23:03:00.003Z

Elsewhere on the net I have written a report on the LRC conference which I thought was a great success. The purpose of this short article is not to back-track on that in anyway, but to engage with some of the issues raised in the debate on 'motion 10' at the conference, and also respond to some remarks made elsewhere on the left regions of the web about the debate. I ought to point out first that I rather enjoyed the debate and I don't think it's ever a bad thing to have a debate and a controversial vote. I disagreed with Motion 10 - for the reasons I'll explain - and I disagreed with some of the points in the debate (on both sides) but that doesn't mean that I didn't welcome the discussion.

Briefly, on saturday, the debate was - as the motion seemed to suggest - about occasional local scenarios, where organised labour / socialists in an area might be presented with a right-wing Labour candidate and a decent socialist alternative - should they (and should the LRC) support the alternative? While I can't deny that at times in the past I have been tempted by just that situation, I agreed with the argument that won the day: that the LRC would eat itself were it to support - or even support the concept of supporting - anti-Labour candidates in elections. We have a real fight to get socialists elected into representative bodies in the UK and there isn't an easy route or a short-cut. Everybody at the LRC conference could stand as independent candidates around the country; we'd have a lot of fun, and we'd lose a lot of elections and waste a lot of money in deposits that could be better spent elsewhere. No, we have to take the difficult path: we have socialists in council chambers up and down the country and in parliament; we have people getting selected as PPCs; it's hard but it can be done. Standing as the New Socialist (Marxist-Leninist) Communist (Provisional) Party (Fourth International) Group is no answer to that struggle. It would be easier to get selected as a candidate, but harder to get more than a derisory vote. I apologise for the parliamentary focus of this - but then that was the focus of the motion in question.

But actually, the real debate wasn't about that difficult, occasional, local choice - it was about the breaking point. It was about moving on from Labour. One of the speakers in the debate made that point when they argued that those who opposed the motion had a 'shaky' view of history, suggesting that - had the original LRC responded in the way we did - the Labour Party would never have been formed and unions would be bound to the Liberal Party. Leaving aside the history for a moment, the clear implication is that this is an 1899/1900 moment, when 'a new party' might be formed, seperate from Labour. In other words, Workers' Liberty were echoing the calls for a 'New Workers' Party' (even though the loudest of those calls have tended to come from that organisations sectarian opponents).

Personally, I disagree with two contributors to debates on saturday (two people whom I agreed with on pretty much every other point) when they expressed feelings of despair in relation to the Labour Party today. Perhaps I am a hopeless optimist, but - as a historian of the labour movement - I am a long way from despair. Indeed I am more hopeful about the centre of gravity in Labour making a decisive leftward movement today than I have been for a very long time. I think the growth of the LRC represents something that actually hasn't been previously seen in our history. The closest match would be the extra-parliamentary Bevanite organisation of the 1950s (and we can and should learn some lessons from that) - but the LRC is a much more activist-led venture and is increasingly becoming much more organised. It is so much more interesting and exciting than previous groups that have been so centred around parliament.

The John McDonnell leadership campaign should not be seen as a cause for despair but a cause for hope. We could muster nothing of the kind in 1994. I recall comrades from Workers' Liberty telling me off (!!) for campaigning for a Ken Livingstone candidacy because it would split the left vote for John Prescott! Such paucity of ambition is completely alien to the Labour Left today.

We are not only winning the battle of ideas - we have won. The battle of spin, the struggle against neo-liberal and 'third way' hegemony in the media is another battle which will be much harder, but all the interesting ideas are coming from the left, along with all the common sense.

I am absolutely in favour of working in common cause with people outside the Labour tent when we can work together. But I make no apologies for saying, in the long run, my aim is to return a Labour government and to ensure that that government enacts socialist policies and redistributes wealth and power. That does not just require unity in terms of not tearing lumps out of each other - it requires unity of purpose.

I commend all the organisers of the conference at the weekend (especially those who I've just mildly criticised!) and I also commend everybody who spoke in the debates. I think we conducted ourselves in a good spirit and we shouldn't be afraid of debate.

I have some other things to say about communication and getting our message out, but I think I should probably wait until the bullets stop flying from this one!!

LRC Vice-Chair Election- Why I Am Standing

2008-11-06T15:54:00.002Z

LRC members can now download their election booklets from the website and I am glad to see there will be healthy competition for the National Committee and some officer posts.
As some of you will be aware I am standing for LRC Vice-Chair. You can also read my supporting statement on-line but there is only so much one can say in 100 words .
Those attending and voting at the AGM might find more information helpful. So here it is. Firstly, thanks for the nominations received, which include Socialist Youth Network, Greater London LRC and West Yorkshire LRC.
I have been a Labour Party member for over 30 years and an NUJ activist for 24 years. I have held many officer positions within the Party, and am currently Branch Secretary of my local Party and a member of the Calder Valley constituency executive.
For the past five years I have served as a Town Councillor , and am currently Hebden Royd Council Chair and Town Mayor. I have also stood as a candidate for the Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council and am Chair of the Calderdale NUJ.
In recent years I have actively campaigned on a national basis for the Labour Left. Until last year I was a National Committee member of Save The Labour Party and support the Grassroots Umbrella network, which brings together all left groups within the Party at Conference. I have also been an active supporter of the Campaign For Labour Party Democracy . In May, I was elected to the Editorial Board of Labour Briefing and I am a regular contributor.
Last year I organised a successful launch conference in Hebden Bridge which was a springboard for all the regional LRCs and I have just been re-elected Secretary of the West Yorkshire LRC, which is now one of the biggest regional groups in the country. But the plain fact is that much more needs to be done to build the LRC into a truly national organisation.
One of the key tasks when the LRC was founded was to try and re-claim the Labour Party for socialist values. That is still a task which I regard as absolutely fundamental. As I have said many times on this blog, I do not believe anything can be achieved by leaving the Party other than political oblivion.
But I also strongly believe we must build bridges with those who stay outside the Party for reasons of disaffection and disillusion. That's why I got involved in the Convention Of The Left - a very loose coalition of socialists who managed to forget faction-fighting and organise a tremendously successful event in Manchester to counter the official Labour Conference.
What divides left activists inside and outside Labour ? The truth is very very little. We can stand shoulder to shoulder with them on issues ranging from the economy, trade union rights, climate change , and peace . That work must go on.
We need an active Vice-Chair who puts in the work required over the next 12 months to build the LRC and raise its profile . If elected, I promise to do that. Within the Labour Party but also outside it in the wider labour movement.

Not The End of Capitalism.

2008-09-29T11:10:00.002Z

The crisis of finance capital continues with the nationalisation of Bradford and Bingley this morning, but it seems unlikely that the system itself is under threat. The left has nothing to gain from becoming a series of millennialist sects, in either case.

What is clear though is that there have been several important developments in how capitalism in the US and UK is being administered. First, it is now difficult to deny the conclusions of John Gray and others who say that free markets require strong, interventionist states to keep them artificially afloat. Second, a precedent has been set by the 700 billion dollars about to be spent to that purpose: when companies "too big to fail" gamble at long odds or cook the books to maximise their short-term profit and are discovered, it has now become the state's responsibility to bail them out. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the wave of nationalisations and state investment into finance gives the state a renewed corporatist aspect. If these companies were too big to fail when it was only workers' jobs and management salaries at risk, imagine the future profits to be made from investing in a company partially owned by the state, with an almost infinite stack of chips to cover its lost bets.

This aside, look at how this bubble has worked: at ground level, assets were significantly overvalued, ridiculously high and undersecured loans issued and a fat margin was taken by all the participants, as when Lehman Brothers paid their executives 70 million dollar salaries. Ultimately, when it turned out that the emperor was wearing no clothes, the prices of these assets plummeted and suddenly none of the banks found that they had money to lend each other. Short-termism paid off, however, because taxpayers are going to be paying for it.

Of course, there is no possibility of UK or US taxpayers actually paying anything in the short term, because it is unserviceable: any significant increase in taxation on the rich or their companies would be uncompetitive and would lead to capital flight. So the cycle continues.

The Death of Capitalism?

2008-09-18T08:06:00.002Z

This was posted on Labour Home, and it might be interesting for those of us on this forum to discuss just how the left can offer prgressive steps out of the current situation - and how we can encourage moves to ensure that we never allow capitalism to regain such unrestrained irresponsibilty again...

The Death of Capitalism?

The writing was on the wall for so long!
The current economic crisis has been predicted by some of us for several years now, and the only real surprise is that it has come as quickly as it has.It is the product of a failed experiment in giving the gamblers who play the global betting shop - sorry I mean the global markets - increasingly free reign over the past 15-20 years to speculate and gamble without proper regulation or control.New Labour endorsed this approach when Blair took over, and have failed to protect the British Public from the inevitable consequences of handing over financial control to a small group of money-drunk gamblers.And as usual, when the rich get it wrong they rely on the state to bail them out, and whilst they protect themselves, it is the working and middle classes that feel the pain.Free reign capitalism has constantly promised next week today, encouraged reckless spending and debt so that the rich get their hands on our money before we even earn it, and has manipulated the media and advertising to the extent that noone who follows the trends can ever feel happy with their lot, but are constantly bombarded with new 'must-haves', upgrades, and other ways to spend the money they do not have.At the same time, they have managed to mangle the worlds resources, exploit ever new Labour markets, and cause untold damage through climate change.The capitalist experiment has failed - just like the state-capitalism of the Soviet Block.It's time for true Socialist policies to be given a chance!

New Labour New Leader?

2008-09-14T13:44:00.004Z

The die is cast. It doesn't really matter what David Miliband says on the Politics Show, Gordon Brown will not win the next election as Labour Prime Minister.

Why not? Either he won't be Prime Minister, and it will be somebody else's job to win or lose; or he will be a bloodied, beaten Prime Minister, waiting for an election defeat so he can shuffle off stage. I've never been a Gordon Brown supporter, but his career doesn't deserve that sort of conclusion. Indeed, his career shouldn't be coming to an end at all. We need to find a Labour way out of this, and I think - earlier in the summer - John McDonnell spelt out what that way should be.

What can't happen now is for everything to go back to normal, the leadership issue to quietly go back in its box, Gordon to have an effective relaunch, and maybe - with a following political and economic wind - win in 2010. We might get that following political and economic wind, but the leadership issue won't go back in its box, therefore things won't go back to normal, therefore the relaunch will be anything but effective.

Without something happening very quickly, there will just be a steady drip-drip of opposition to Brown all Autumn. It has already been enough to ensure any 'relaunch' at conference will be drowned out by shouting about nomination forms, legal challenges, resigning junior figures.

So something has to happen. What can that something be?

John's compromise proposal early in the summer seems like the best bet, and it has to be said that Siobhan McDonagh used very similar language in her television interviews on the subject, despite coming at this from a completely different direction:

Let's have an election. An open election: anyone who thinks they could be the next leader should stand and put forward a manifesto. We have an honest, open debate, and our preferential electoral system comes up with the leader. I was going to say new leader, but of course, it might be that Brown is re-elected. I can't pretend that I don't think it would be better if somebody else won. Indeed I will be enthusiastically supporting John McDonnell. But this is not an attack on Brown, or a challenge to Brown - he should see this as an opportunity and play a full part in the process. There is no reason why he shouldn't remain a key player under a new leader.

This won't be easy. It will raise any number of questions: is it a distraction from running the country? Will we have to go straight to a general election? Will it hand ammunition to the Tories?

But answers present themselves: no, it won't be a distraction from running the country. A campaign can be short (and we managed to carry on running the country a year ago) - and the policy debate will be essential for ensuring we run the country BETTER. No, there won't have to be an immediate general election; but if a new leader gets a bit of a bounce we may not have to leave it to the last possible moment. And - it might hand ammunition to the Tories, but they don't really need any more. Not doing this - and having these stories appearing slowly day-by-day - will provide them with much more deadly ammo.

In conclusion - while the left should have no truck with some 'uber-Blairite coup' - it probably is the case that we've reached last chance saloon. As such, I think we should back the McDonnell plan - a plan that, in words at least, seems to have been embraced by McDonagh - and call for an open, comradely, friendly leadership election with a wide range of candidates from across the party's political spectrum.

Let's see it done.

Cynicism, Kynicism and Poverty in Britain

2008-08-13T19:07:00.004Z

A new word which I've sighted on a few blogs recently is "kynicism", a word coined by philosopher Peter Sloterdijk in order to separate out the concept of political cynicism into two opposing ideas. Kynicism is the progressive half, in which, for example, people mock George Bush for acting like a peacenik when it comes to other countries' wars, or are sceptical of any statement by Zimbabwe on human rights. The conservative half he calls cynical reason, and this is what people express when they say that, for example, there will never be peace in the world or that no one can change the Zimbabwean human rights situation. In short, cynical reason is a philosophy of inaction whilst kynicism is a shrewd caution in assessing the actions of those in power.

However, I'm not sure I necessarily agree with this characterisation. For one thing, it is impossible to find out where one cynicism ends and the other begins. Cynical reason, deployed effectively, is an incredibly effective propagandist tool - e.g. the conviction of some of America's working and lower middle classes that new taxes and unionisation will just bring about more misery and unemployment has led to a weak labour movement. But will experiments in kynicism not bring about similar results? If we convince the public that the Conservatives are not concerned about being green or helping the poor, then we are not using the logic of cynical reason, which might be that of climate change denial or trickle-down theory, but we do end up with a situation where the Conservatives can commit terrible crimes against the environment or the poor and not be thought to be hypocrites, since no-one believed their rhetoric in the first place.

The central question must be how to characterise authorities or powerful people and organisations that have agendas we oppose in order to evoke the maximum of active resistance rather than passive cynicism. What forms that resistance takes is a second question.

Fig 1: Something to be cynical about:

Despite the economic boom days, the poorest in Britain (primarily the unemployed) have actually seen their real income go down. Both inside and outside the Labour Party, we can resist policies which have caused this (among them the removal of the 10% tax rate and cynical reforms of the unemployment benefit system).

(Courtesy of the BBC's page of credit crunch graphs).

Libertarians Against Free Speech

2008-08-11T22:07:00.003Z

Most people by now will be familiar with a system of political ideas which goes by the name of libertarianism. This ideology is fundamentally concerned with the freedom of the powerful to fully exercise their power. However, as a sideline, many libertarians argue that their ideas will allow for more personal liberty: for example, that freedom of speech will be respected in a place where government is not able or willing to restrict it.

It is worth noting that libertarians aren't just some of the loudest people on the internet. Many of the most influential internet entrepreneurs claim to be persuaded by this political perspective. And it is from them I want to take our lesson today.

Peter Thiel is one of these new band of ideologues. He was behind PayPal, intending to undermine governments' abilities to collect tax through the creation of a web-based currency (1). Now he owns a large chunk of Facebook and an even larger chunk of other sites like Slide, LinkedIn and Friendster. It's safe to say that, even without consulting his book attacking multiculturalism, he isn't a natural friend of the left: "You can't have a workers' revolution to take over a bank if the bank is in Vanuatu" (2). As source 2 claims, the other directors of Facebook are venture capitalists sharing similar opinions, one closely linked to the CIA.

Libertarians being in favour of freedom, we would expect to see all ideas being freely expressed in the fruit of their endeavours, Facebook. There was the perhaps understandably American lacuna in the "political viewpoints" tab which excluded Socialism and merely left open the spectrum from "Very Liberal" to "Very Conservative", plus, of course, "Libertarian". But recently allegations have spiralled all over Facebook that the Cameronite "Nudge" policy has been replaced with something harder. Groups which were in favour of Lenin, the FARC and Fidel Castro and against Boris Johnson (!) are among the known casualties. In this 'public' sphere controlled by private corporate interests, the libertarian response is to stifle dissent in favour of their own ideology.

Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia (the non-profit arm) and Wikia (the for-profit arm) is also very open about his ideology. He calls himself a libertarian and credits Hayek for the inspiration which led to Wikipedia's founding (3). His entire project is aimed at creating a great encyclopedia by adding together the free speech of all, and yet he has been compared to a tyrant for occasionally exercising his unlimited control over the site (4). Overall, the "Neutral Point Of View" (NPOV) policy on Wikipedia has kept the political opinions of its founder more or less under wraps. But his new project, Wikia, will be more evangelical. "He calls it the “uncyclopedia” because he hopes to use wiki technology to build “the rest of the library”—books, articles about health and hobbies—with no presumption of neutrality." (5) - and no doubt there will be tranches of moderated opinion on politics as well.

Our final famous and potentially dangerous libertarian is one whose internet presence is perhaps only secondary. But in owning MySpace.com and all the websites of News Corporation, he is a big player nonetheless. Rupert Murdoch claims to be a libertarian: "What does libertarian mean? As much individual responsibility as possible, as little government as possible, as few rules as possible. But I'm not saying it should be taken to the absolute limit." (6), but he also shows an unhealthy contempt for free speech. MySpace.com refuses to let people link to certain anti-Iraq War websites (7) as well as making it difficult for users to link to YouTube. If that was not bad enough, his newspapers have been engaged in a long campaign of slander against internet competitors such as Facebook (8). See also.

One of the greatest dangers of the internet is that social websites and others with large audiences can begin to censor opinions and try to manipulate politics. It's well worth noting how few hands a large percentage of pageviews rest in, and how much power those few are beginning to have. This blog post was written on Blogger, owned by Google, who censor their content in China.

Questions of Leadership

2008-07-31T09:48:00.004Z

Westminster correspondents love to reduce everything to a personality contest. It's all about Brown v. Miliband (just as before it was Blair v. Brown). Their concerns are not those of Labour members, trade unionists or socialists. And yet too often we allow those correspondents to set our agenda and the parameters of our debates. Think back 12 months. To many in the movement there was no alternative to Brown. One reason for that was that the media deemed it so. Any suggested alternatives were based around personal grudges rather than around real differences in policy ideas. For that reason, the correspondents refused to take the left challenge seriously until the last minute: there just wasn't a personal angle. The very fact that McDonnell said it was about policy and not personalities rendered it a non-story for the lobby press pack.

Yet, the truth is that we can't entirely avoid the question of personalities. Indeed the upper echelons of the party made personality more central by wresting all real influence on policy away from party activists. The depressingly remote nature of the NPF at Warwick and the closing down of all voting at conference has meant that elections are all that are left to us. So NEC elections (which most members choose not to participate in) and leadership and deputy leadership elections (which are very few and far between) are really the only opportunities left for members to participate in the life of the party (other than at a local, associational level).

So for all that we say - quite rightly - that it's all about the policies rather than the personalities, we now have slightly more (potential) influence over personality than policy. No wonder the Labour blogs are full of leadership speculation.

Be that as it may, the truth is still as it ever was, that the personality of the leader is an entirely trivial matter if it is not associated with policy, principle and direction. The reason why Brown was the wrong choice for leader last year was not about his personality, his leadership skills or his Scottishness. All of those things were perfectly acceptable to party and electorate last summer when Labour was riding high in the polls. The reason why Brown was the wrong choice was because, in terms of policy, he did not represent a new direction for the party following the Blair era. He was the wrong person because he did not present a clear direction - he no longer had a clear idea of what the purpose of a Labour government should be.

That is the reason why we are in the difficulties we are in now. Of course the credit crunch and other trends outside the government's control haven't helped, but Brown's reputation as an Iron Chancellor might have made him seem the man for a crisis if he been spear-heading clear, socially-just policies with clear benefits for people, rather than playing silly games with tax thresholds.

What upsets me is that people say we should bide time for two years and the changes can happen then. People say the PLP will be smaller then, the choices will be clearer, etc. I think back to my student days, dreaming of a Labour government. Even two years of a Labour government would have been a glorious thing. The idea that we have two years now and we should do anything other than make the most of them is abhorrent. So is the idea that we should resign ourselves to the return of the Tories.

The only options can be ones where we seek to make the most of being in government and try and encourage people to vote for us again in two years' time.

That means, if Brown is to stay, it has to be with a radical and emphatically-Labour policy agenda: a clear two-year plan. The NPF was a massive missed opportunitiy, as far as the next manifesto is concerned, but the possibility of a decent relaunch is still there. That means dumping the idiocy of right-wing policies of the Purnell type, and embracing a real Labour agenda. I have to confess that I feel that that potential future has almost disappeared.

If, however, Brown is to go - and a coalition of Blairites and journalists seem to have decided it must be that way - then it is essential that there are no more coronations. There must be a full range of candidates including a real left candidate to put forward our arguments and a genuine alternative to the sorts of policies that are likely to emerge from Miliband and other potential candidates.

Of course the debate will start again about who that should be and the debate ends up back where we started: personalities.

For me, it isn't a difficult question. The candidate would need to have some legitimacy, in terms of the backing of left groups; the candidate would need a clear, collectively-formulated policy agenda; the candidate would need to have some profile, be a good public speaker, comfortable in the media, and would need to have a principled record. That candidate, therefore, is John McDonnell. Of course there are other talented parliamentarians on the left who tick some of those boxes (although some of the ones that would immediately present themselves are standing down at the next election) but none who are likely to get the backing of the LRC, Campaign for Socialism, the various union broad lefts, etc. I would suggest, therefore, that McDonnell is the only potential candidate who could be said to transcend the individual, personal, popularity contest and be the figurehead of an activist campaign.

So, if there should be a contest - and I'm not calling for one - I hope very much to see a John McDonnell campaign, and such a campaign would receive my 100% support.

When a Capitalist speaks more sense than New Labour

2008-07-28T20:24:00.005Z

Dont know if anyone read this article in the Observer on Sunday. I suppose articles like this would slip under the radar after the kind of week most Labour activists have had. Firstly we had the Glasgow East disaster and then the missed oppurtunity for Labour to reconnect at the Warwick NPF.

Now I am not one to talk up a member of the establishment especially the Building Industry establishment. This Industry has been blighted with poor health and safety, bogus self employment and the use of poorly paid migrant labour.

Mr Snook , in the article, does though speak alot of sense. I find it unsurprising to be honest that a pro capitalist Labour Party will listen to every rich spiv under the sun yet when one talks intelligently about current issues, for example, in the Building Trade, New Labour walk the other way.
The points I find interesting is Snooks view on property ownership (from someone who knows), his view on the current problems on building sites and how many building companies cut corners.

He sounds, dare I say it, like a decent employer. Makes you think doesnt it.

Workfare - A Quick Note

2008-07-25T07:24:00.002Z

The more desperate the government gets, the more it appears to be striking out at random in the faint hope of one day hitting the jackpot with a policy that people support. Maybe the focus groups are beginning to become unfocussed. The new "workfare" policy looks like a classic example - aimed squarely at the tabloids, completely bereft of ideology or any political grounding other than a vindictive Little Englander mentality.

Either way, if the monumental climax of over a hundred years of British Labour Party history is the re-introduction of the Poor Laws, you can count this blog out.

The problem for the left? We just aren't sufficiently organised!

2008-06-30T17:28:00.004Z

We know it really. We don't talk about it very often. It's something we whisper about, rather than shout. But we can't escape it: socialist politics is all about organisation, but organising is something people on the Labour left are traditionally pretty hopeless at!

It's not hard to see why. We're mavericks. If we weren't mavericks we'd have either somehow reconciled our principles with New Labour, or we'd have left and joined some sectlet. To borrow from Tony Benn, we dare to be Daniels. But Daniel wasn't overly organised!

But you can be a dissenting voice and be organised. That's the whole point of a labour movement and of trade unionism. Our dissenting voices only start to be heard if they are in chorus.

The extent of our disorganisation came to me in a flash today when I received my regular copy of 'Progress' Magazine. I assume I receive this because I am a CLP officer (I'm guessing not all party members receive it, though that's an interesting question!) It is clearly paid for by union sponsorship (the back page is a Unite advert) and slipped in the front cover is a flyer for the Labour First slate for the NEC elections.

For too many Labour Party members this is the voice of Labour. It comes just as the old Labour Party magazines used to arrive - as if this were the voice of the Party. Yet it is campaigning stuff: Alan Milburn on public sector reform, John Hutton on going beyond the small state/big state debate, Denis MacShane on pro-European politics since the Lisbon Treaty, and an editorial on the continued case for New Labour.

By contrast, how many Labour members see Socialist Campaign Group News or Labour Briefing? We couldn't even organise to link Labour Briefing clearly with the LRC, let alone get union funding to send it to every CLP (with a CLGA leaflet in the front cover)!

Yet, until we do, we continue to talk to ourselves and we maintain our position as a healthy minority in the party.

I believe that, on a huge number of issues, the left speaks the language of the membership in a way the right couldn't hope to. But too few members hear us speak.

The challenge is clear - how do we go about meeting it?

Navigating through the gossip and nonsense!

2008-05-25T21:58:00.004Z

Well the weekend papers have gone to town, as they were always bound to. Depending on what you were reading this morning, you'd now be thinking that almost any MP was on the verge of some stalking-horse or serious challenge.

The Observer has it that Brown will be urged to bring potential rivals (Miliband and Purnell are named) under his wing, appointing a Deputy Prime Minister alongside, presumably, some sort of reshuffle. Comment in the same paper suggests Miliband, Purnell, Straw, Johnson - even Cruddas - as potential challengers.

The Independent takes the unlikely Cruddas story further, suggesting that he has been approached by Charles Clarke to be a stalking horse, supported by 'left' (sic) and right. The paper reports Cruddas turning down the offer, but leaves a hint that he might change his mind. They have Cruddas at 10-1 to be the next leader (behind Balls at 8-1). They still have Miliband as the favourite. They also report Denis Healey comparing Brown with Michael Foot, and there is a dreadful piece by John Rentoul praising those few MPs who nominated neither Brown nor John McDonnell and suggesting that the likes of Miliband and even Blair betrayed the true path of Blairism by nominating Brown when they did. He ends up listing the usual suspects (all of whom nominated Brown) as the potential saviours.

The Times, in contrast, reports that Miliband is 'ready to go' but doesn't want to wield the axe himself. (Perhaps this ties in vaguely with the Independent story - Cruddas, if he were to accept Clarke's invitation - being Miliband's stalking horse after delivering the MPs of the 'Compass Group').

The Mail gets into more fanciful territory still: Cruddas to stand as Balls' deputy, and so and so on.

All of this doesn't get us very far. All the papers also include every single one of these stories being denied by all parties.

Are they all rubbish? I don't suppose so... There'll be a crumb of truth here and there. What I think it mainly shows is what lots of backbenchers and parliamentary researchers are prepared to say to journalists off the record, rather than what the various people mentioned are really doing and saying themselves.

But it all comes across as so shallow and pointless. In many ways it compounds the problems of the last few weeks and could confirm in people's minds that we're not serious and don't have the answers to their concerns.

All this personality stuff, the plotting, the whispers, is rubbish. It's about the policies or it's about nothing at all. Any sort of alliance-of-convenience with Clarke would be ridiculous. Indeed, any action that seems to obsess on the personality of the Prime Minister would be a dereliction of duty.

We need to spend the next two years bringing in decent, progressive, LABOUR policies. I also think it's the closest we have to a fightback strategy; but that isn't the reason to do it. We should do it because it's the right thing to do. Maybe Brown can't deliver those policies; on that basis and that basis alone should any discussions about the leadership be conducted.

Partnership in Power - some amendments from the experts!

2008-05-16T14:34:00.006Z

Thanks to Mike Ion for posting Comprehensive Future's proposed amendments to the EDUCATION AND SKILLS document, on Labourhome.

They are:

Page 9

There are two alternative amendments we suggest - both for line 47 following 'Code' They are - We now intend to go further and ensure no child has to face selective entry tests for secondary education (except banding) by ending selection on ability and aptitude.

Or

However many English children continue to face overt selective entry tests on ability and aptitude in order to transfer to secondary education. We intend to commission a wide ranging study on how this affects children, families, schools and educational attainment.

I recommend trying to get the first one passed (I'd be tempted to lose the 'except banding' bit...) and go for the second one if necessary.

Please also use the Defend Council Housing amendments (even though there are hundreds of them!) in preference to my earlier attempt. I know it's virtually impossible to read them at the top, so try here for a Word document, or here for pdf.

If you submit amendments based on those of Defend Council Housing, can you let them know here?

LEAP Conference - Sat. 24th May

2008-05-12T18:03:00.002Z

On Saturday 24th May, LEAP will be hosting its first conference ‘Beyond the Market Economy – socialist solutions to the economic crisis’. This is the Left Economic Advisory Panel, a group launched by the LRC, that has very successfully looked at how to fund socialist policies for several years now.

There will be platform speeches from John McDonnell MP and Tony Benn - and their experience in socialist economic policy (John from his days at the GLC and Tony from his days in the Cabinet) will be of enormous value - but the real point of the conference is the participation of party members. There will be four sub-plenaries on housing, global finance, social ownership and workers’ rights: hugely important issues for all socialists at this point of time and very relevant to many of the discussions that we've been having on Labour Left Forum.

You can find more details, and register online at at the LRC website.

How is Socialism paid for?

2008-05-10T08:31:00.003Z

Many on the New Labour right through this question back at Socialists in the party. Here is a reply I put to a New Labour blogger.

An important political reality is the fact that real political power is held by businesses and corporations and not the electorate. It is a failure of New Labour to realise this considering the facts are glaringly obvious. We have falling voter participation in elections which has been brought on by a belief that all governments and therefore all parties are the same.
At the same time we have a shrinking pot of money that governments have to try to utilise to bring in reforms; therefore you have political leaders not promising anything at election times. (its interesting though to point out here that there always seems to be enough money for Iraq, Trident,anti Terrorism, bailing out banks, struggling rail companies and failing PFI stunts, but still what do I know.......)

In the background you have an electorate increasingly aware at the obvious class divisions in society. For example you have super rich city businessmen flaunting their wealth while the employee class is struggling with food price and fuel and utility bill increases. This increase in poverty will affect the very few people that New Labour concentrated on in the marginal seats, middle England.

Labour has wasted their eleven years in power compared to what the Tories achieved in 18 years. The reforms, (ie minimum wage etc) that they did bring in are now hardly noticed by the electorate. The truth is voters vote against a government and not for a government. That was apparent in 1997 as it is in 2008.We are on the brink of another period of Tory government kept in not by so called ‘unwinnable’ left wing policies but by the very same philosophy that won Labour the election in 1997.

Where do we go from here?

The current status quo is unmanageable, unacceptable and unwinnable. Difficult decisions have to be made but in order to halt and reverse the growing class inequality. You say companies will desert the country. Well ask them to close the door behind them then and we will have to run the companies.

It’s simple really. Governments have a duty of care for the electorate and that includes their economic well being. It just needs a bit of 21st century thinking , a 21st Century Socialism.

That is why I think people like John McDonnell MP need to be listened to. No one is listening to New Labour any more.

Prosperity and Work: Proposed amendments

2008-05-08T20:18:00.004Z

You can read the 'Prosperity and Work' policy document here.

My proposed amendments:

Page 13 Line 39.

ADD

"We will reinstate the exemption for people with severe disabilities to continue to receive the higher rate Disability Living Allowance so that they can pay for their care."

(Robert - could you check this and re-word if you think necessary. Also there is stuff in there about Remploy, etc. which I feel could be effectively amended, but I'd prefer someone who had look at this in more detail to recommend the wordings. I will amend this section of the post accordingly in the near future).

Page 21, Line 43

ADD

"We will introduce a Trade Union Freedom Bill which will make provision for the law relating to the rights and freedoms of workers and of trade unions, the regulation of relations between employers and workers, protection of employment in lawful industrial action, and remedies
in trade disputes to bring Trade Union rights in the UK in line with those in other modern democracies."

Page 22, Line 7

DELETE

"The government will continue to work to seek an agreement in Europe on an agency workers
directive that offers appropriate protections while maintaining the flexibility of the UK labour market which has helped deliver record employment in recent years."

AND REPLACE WITH

"The government will introduce a Temporary and Agency Workers' Bill
to provide for the protection of temporary and agency workers and to promote the rights and enforce the principle of equal treatment of temporary and agency workers."

(Again with these sections - experts in the field please sort out my wording - this stuff comes more-or-less from the bills).

Building Sustainable Communities - amendments

2008-05-08T19:50:00.002Z

You can read the 'Building Sustainable Communities' document here.

These are my proposed amendments:

Page 17, Line 40.
DELETE

"We are working with fourteen local authorities to develop
Local Housing Companies which offer new ways of realising our ambitions for a new
generation of social housing"

AND REPLACE WITH

"We will legislate for direct investment in decent, affordable, secure and accountable council housing, to provide housing needs for that large proportion of people who are unable to get onto the ownership ladder. We will enable local authorities to improve all council homes and start the necessary programme of building new council houses to meet housing need (allowing councils to ring-fence rents and capital for investment in housing stock). In this way we will ensure respect for tenants' choice, stimulate the economy, enable democratically elected local authorities to get on with their job and meet our 2005 election manifesto commitment to ensure that all social tenants benefit from a decent warm home with modern facilities by 2010."

Page 17, Line 44

DELETE

"Well-performing"

Page 10, Line 13

ADD

"We will bring the railways back into public ownership."

Back with more soon!

"Partnership in Power" - time for action

2008-05-07T08:02:00.006Z

You can now access the policy consultation documents from Membersnet, here.

You will need to log in. I'm looking into how easy it might be for me to direct-link to the documents from here, as it's important that members of affiliated unions who aren't party members can access the documents.

They are, at present, the worst kind of woolly nonsense, characterised by imprecision and vagueness.

We need to make a concerted effort with proposed amendments. John McDonnell's May Manifesto is a good starting point. I shall try and work out what should go where (in terms of which document) over the next few days. Then as soon as your branch or CLP sends in an amendment, could you post it as a comment here too, that way we can follow what's been said and by whom?

You will, of course, need to ensure that you have a meeting in time to make the submissions before 20 June. There are guidelines on Membersnet about how to make the submissions (they should be specific amendments, i.e. page 20 line 6 remove 'compulsory homework for pensioners' and replace with 'nationalise the banks', etc.)

Okay I'm going to be adding links to the documents from here too (it might take a while to get them up). This first one is on Crime, Citizenship and Equalities, and includes anything on constitutional reform, etc. as well as some of the human rights-related proposals (e.g. ID cards, etc.) This is here?

Two important jobs!

2008-05-06T16:58:00.003Z

Hi all,

Two important jobs for us to do. The first is to sign John McDonnell's petition for a new, socialist manifesto:

PRESS NOTICE:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
John McDonnell MP launches 2008 May Manifesto Petition
In the light of Labour's election defeat last week, John McDonnell MP is circulating a manifesto petition to Labour Party members, trade unions and MPs to gain large scale rank and file support for a new policy programme for Labour to bring about a radical change in political direction for the Laboour Government.

John McDonnell MP said:

"After the serious rejection of New Labour at the polls last week assurances that the Government is listening are simply not going to be enough to restore any sense of belief in the Labour Party. What is needed is a radical change of political direction.

"We have to demonstrate that change by introducing a new policy programme that specifically and very concretely addreses peoples' concerns raised on the doorstep. This May manifesto petition is launched so that all our supporters can have a say in pressing for the changes we need."

We believe that Labour can win back the support of our people by adopting a new 2008 May Manifesto, which should include:
Nailing the 10p tax mistake by the introduction of a fair tax system removing the low paid from taxation and ensuring the wealthiest and corporations pay their fair share
An increase in the basic state pension, immediately restoring the link with earnings, lifting people off means tested benefits and providing free care for the elderly
An immediate start on a large scale council house building programme and assistance for those facing repossession
Immediate end to programme of local Post Office closures and liberalisation of postal services
An end to the privatisation of our public services
A new pay deal for public sector workers to protect their living standards and tackle low pay
Abolishing tuition fees and restoring maintenance grants for all students
Scrapping ID cards
Introduction of a trade union freedom bill and measures to protect temporary and agency workers
Rejecting the proposals to renew Trident

---ends---

To sign it, send an email to the LRC with 'petition' in the subject heading and with you name and CLP/Trade Union. Go for it, folks!

ALSO...

Get along to Labourhome and contribute to their survey of Labour grassroots.

Together we can save the government, and save it as a socially-progressive government worth saving!

Policy consultation - time for radical new legislation on social housing

2008-05-02T22:21:00.003Z

Since writing the last post on workers' rights, the results have come in. We've all had a terribly disappointing day. The London results are still coming in as I type, but they are not looking promising.

The one glimmer of light I can see is that lots of people in the movement are saying the same thing: we need to come back fighting, and we need to do that through having a raft of radical policies that will have a clear impact on the lives of our voters who have sent us such a clear message in the last 24 hours.

We have an opportunity to promote these policies through the policy consultation. As well as the workers' rights proposals, we should be able to build a massive consensus around the 4th option re: council housing, which is the agreed policy of the Labour Party and the TUC and was supported by a broad array of MPs in parliament. I've taken a proposed text from an EDM:

The Labour government will legislate for direct investment in decent, affordable, secure and accountable council housing, to provide housing needs for that large proportion of people who are unable to get onto the ownership ladder. We will enable local authorities to improve all council homes and start the necessary programme of building new council houses to meet housing need (allowing council houses to ring-fence rents and capital for investment in housing stock). In this way we will ensure respect for tenants' choice, stimulate the economy, enable democratically elected local authorities to get on with their job and meet our 2005 election manifesto commitment to ensure that all social tenants benefit from a decent warm home with modern facilities by 2010.

I would welcome comments from people - especially those involved in the Defend Council Housing campaign to improve that text. Then let's get as many CLPs and union branches as possible to propose it.

Policy Consultation - time for radical new legislation on workers' rights

2008-05-01T21:02:00.002Z

As I write, the polling stations are just shutting up and down the country. We don't know what the results will be. Fingers crossed that excellent Labour councillors up and down the country won't be unceremoniously flung out of office and replaced by feckless Tories, Lib Dems or worse. Fingers crossed Ken has held on in London.

But whatever the result, Gordon Brown has said that there is going to be a wide-ranging, genuine policy consultation in the party, giving CLPs and union branches the chance to submit full amendments to policy documents before they go to the NPF, and giving us the chance to have a real discussion about policies. People from all areas of the party seem to agree that the time is more than right to get some genuinely radical policies on the agenda. I started off a discussion at Labourhome (and got some interesting responses) and I know other Labour blogs are going to get involved with the discussion too. While there a wide range of interesting reforms being discussed (especially proposed constitutional reforms, etc.) I think we on the left should make a particularly strong push on the issue of trade unions and workers' rights. This is particularly in the light of recent comments by Osborne and the Tories.

We all know there have been policy consultations before, and we all know many have been nothing more than expensive PR exercises. But if we make a concerted effort on this, I think we could push some of this legislation to the top of the agenda, and - if nothing else - make it much harder for the government to talk out future private members' bills in these areas.

The two key pieces of legislation in this area, proposed in recent years, are the Trade Union Freedom Bill and the Temporary and Agency Workers Bill. I think we should use this consultation to make a strong case for the government introducing a Workers' Rights Bill: a synthesis of these two excellent bills, with full government support. Let's try and put in place some fundamental and irreversible protection for working people.

I propose that we come up with a form of words that clearly states that we want this legislation in place; take the words to our CLPs, union branches, etc. and publish here which organisations have proposed the amendment. We could disperse the amendment via the networks of the LRC, STLP, CLPD, Compass, etc, also via Labour Briefing, Tribune, the Chartist, etc. and through various Labour blogs. The temptation will be for everyone to put their own set of words in, and on some issues that will undoubtedly happen. But to have a big effect we should organise and work together.

Let's put our internal democracy to the test: let's try and get a set of proposals with overwhelming trade union support and strong parliamentary support and clear support among party members established as clear PARTY POLICY and then challenge the government to implement it.

Tories to attack the right to strike

2008-04-30T06:29:00.003Z

The question we really should ask is when wouldn't a Tory party attack the right to collective action?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/1907571/George-Osborne-warns-unions-over-strikes.html

George Osborne's latest gaffe as some are calling it reveals the true agenda of the Conservatives. They have always fought hard against the right of workers to combine in order to improve and defend their hard earned terms and conditions. After 11 years of a Labour government you would have thought that workers would have cast iron legislation to protect them from the worst excesses of national and international capitalism.

Sadly workers I believe are in a much weaker position economically now then they ever had been in the last 30 odd years.The original laws set in place by the Tories to curb the power of organised labour plus the breakdown of industry and working class communities by their policies, has created this flexible world where workers are at the complete mercy of employers. The Tories know this and with Labour languishing in the polls its time to go for the jugular.

What is to be done?
Calling for the formation of a new workers party, while a bold and noble suggestion, is not going to stop Osborne getting his way at the next general election which will be within the next couple of years. It completely unrealistic and will take valuable activists away from the struggle to keep the Tories out.

Asking for left Labour MPs to break from the Labour Party and to be some kind of 'beacon' to attract votes is unrealistic either. For a start the non labour left themselves struggle to find enough activists as it is and unfortunately are seen as much too divided. The net result of left MPs splitting away would be that we lose these voices in parliament as they are crushed by the main parties.It wont stop Cameron and his clowns.

Currently the only show in town are the Trade Unions themselves and their political voice , the Labour Representation Committee. As as much as it pains me to say it, especially when I hear people like Hutton, Brown, Blears and Miliband etc, Labour has to be kept in if only to play for time while trade unions build up their strength to oppose the Bosses economically and to strengthen their voice politically. Workers must use the power they have through the Unions in their affiliation to the Labour Party, to fight for their policies even if it is through the National Policy Forums.

If that battle ground is what at the moment is what is left of the Labour Party, and yes it is in a sorry state, then so be it.

Just remember if the Tories do get in we could see the wheels taken off the current resurgance of working class militancy. If they do get in it will be if nothing had changed since 1997.

Think Australia, Howard and his Work Choices but without the effective campaigning which eventually kicked him out because the Tories would have pushed through legislation tobreak the link between the TUs and is political wing.

Supporting the Calder Valley rule change

2008-04-13T10:31:00.003Z

A proposal will be before this year's Annual Conference to change the rules governing leadership elections. It is a modest proposal. It will only have an impact when there is a vacancy for the role. But, small though it is, it is of the utmost importance.

There are members who could have been in the party for nearly 15 years who have never had the opportunity to vote in a leadership election. What happened last year was not just bad for us, bad for supporters of John McDonnell, bad for the left - it was bad for the party, it was bad for all party members, it was bad for Gordon Brown. It is very important that it cannot happen again.

There are other ways to ensure a contest.

You could take the Tory approach - so the membership always get to choose between two candidates. But why restrict our role so greatly?

Some will say - it shouldn't be difficult to find a candidate who can persuade an eighth of the PLP to support them; they should endear themselves to their colleagues, etc, etc. Fine. Fair enough. But why should it be just up to MPs to decide who that endearing, 'credible' candidate is? The whole reason we have a preferential voting system is so the voting itself makes that decision, not cabals of powerful men. Those who make this point would presumably have preferred a different left candidate for the leadership. Well the only part of the system where 'splitting the vote' is a problem is the nominations: otherwise why not have multiple candidates and let the various rounds in the college decide which is 'credible' rather than twenty-or-so MPs?

Look at the leadership election of 1976. It was bad for many reasons: it didn't involve members, it didn't involve trade unionists. What it did have were six candidates, representing really quite nuanced differences of opinion in our movement. Tony Crosland only got 17 votes in the first round (about 5% of the MPs who voted). Was Crosland a maverick without support who should have been frozen out at the nominations phase? I don't think so. Denis Healey only got about 9% in the first round. Imagine if that election had gone to an electoral college? People would have been musing on whether to give their first preferences to Benn or Foot, Healey or Callaghan, Jenkins or Crosland. It would have given members a real boost, it would have given whoever was successful (and I suspect it may still have been Callaghan, though it isn't certain) a real flavour of what opinion in the party was. It would have involved the unions. Who knows it may even have won us the '79 election?

So, when thinking about this 'little', modest change, you should also think about the potentially enormous difference it could make. Push for your conference delegates to support it!

Cameron to speak at the TUC????

2008-03-23T19:52:00.002Z

I have just posted this on my blog but thought it worthy of discussion here.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-sets-out-to-woo-the-unions-away-from-labour-799633.html

I must admit being not at all surprised that Cameron, forever the opportunist, actually fielding such an idea.
It is insulting to think that a representative of a party that set as its main priority the destruction of the Trade Union movement back in 1979 would even be considered to address TUC conference. While it comments that one third of trade unionists support the Tories it is highly unlikely that these trade unionists are activists who would serve as delegates to TUC conference.The report though should be seen as a warning.

Cameron's march for the so called 'middle ground' which both he and New Labour worship, will see the Tories attempt to mop up the anti Labour mood amongst the Unions.

There are a few suggestions to stop Cameron in his tracks; give public sector workers decent pay; introduce the Trade Union Freedom Bill; stop the privatisation of our public services; build and stop the sale, of council houses and re-nationalise the companies sold off during Thatchers reign of terror. Most of all break this servile relationship the UK has with US foreign policy.

The Unions affiliated to the TUC would rally behind a workers Labour Party committed in this way. Cameron would disappear back into the hole he come from.

My wife has just asked the question; whats the difference between Blair speaking to the TUC and Cameron doing it?

Answers on the back of a postcard please.

British Values Under Fire: Oafs of Allegiance.

2008-03-12T12:18:00.003Z

It is common subject-matter for both broadsheet and tabloid journalists nowadays to try to define what makes Britain "British". Gordon Brown's speech to Labour Spring Conference referred repeatedly to "British values" without defining them. Now Lord Goldsmith's report on citizenship has recommended several important changes which will surely leave us feeling more British than ever.

What does make Britain "British", and why? Well, opinion polls regularly come up with the same few virtues which Britons consider themselves to embody: tolerance of others, politeness, fairness, modesty and a sense of humour. Tony Blair defined explicitly what he meant when he talked about British values: "[F]air play, creativity, tolerance and an outward-looking approach to the world."

I see history being responsible for this: the spirit of the Blitz, the Somme, Trafalgar and Agincourt have traditionally been said to have moulded the national character, for example. The fact that for over a hundred years Britain sent its intolerant megalomaniacs to govern places like Rhodesia and Burma into the ground might also have been a factor.

Anyway - my point is clear: where is the tolerance, politeness, fairness and modesty in Lord Goldsmith's proposals? Is the idea of schoolchildren pledging allegiance to some inbred hereditary billionaires his way of giving the British sense of humour some new material to work with? Since when have masturbatory nationalistic rituals fostered "an outward-looking approach to the world"?

I'm in favour of a voluntary citizenship ceremony/party/pish-up, perhaps to mark the time when incoming Britons and native Britons first exercise their right to vote. This is on the grounds that very occasional liminal rituals create a sense of belonging and can be good fun. But forcing children to make pointless and fake pledges throughout the time when they are just beginning to question and rebel against authority is the best possible way to impart nihilism to a new generation.

Still a lot of work to be done

2008-03-09T08:28:00.003Z

Hat-tip to Organised Rage for this one....

What’s the problem?

If I lived Birmingham, I would happily campaign for Salma Yaqoob, the Respect Renewal councillor. If I lived in Preston, I would happily do the same for councillor Michael Lavalette, from the other side of the Respect divide. In Coventry, I’d be with the Socialist Party and in Brighton with the Greens. There are Scots Nats as well as Scottish socialists [on both sides of the Tommy Sheridan split] who I’d be glad to knock on doors for. And of course there are still plenty of good Labour councillors and even a few MPs who I would be pleased to have representing me. I’m obviously far from being alone or none of these people would ever have been elected.

My question, in relation to the continuing inability of the left to unite in pursuit of a common purpose is this: If I and people like me have no problem with such a diversity of elected representatives, why do they all seem to have such a problem with each other?

Carol Winter
Leicester.

*http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article531.html

Any thoughts?

One law for the finance house...

2008-03-04T21:13:00.003Z

...another for us.

A friend of mine has just attended a meeting about pensions at his new job. Out of the money he (and his company) will contribute, the finance house will deduct:

a service charge - amount unknown; calculation unknown
an insurance premium - amount unknown; calculation unknown.

He doesn't want insurance - but they won't stop the deduction.

He is told he can choose the type of investment - high risk or low risk - but the amount he may lose or win is of course "unknown". He has no control over these investments or indeed over the bonuses the finance house will pay out to their staff. They also take his Serps (or equivalent) and use only that as the basis for his protected rights. In 20 years time they will probably say sorry - the stock market is iffy we can't pay you any more than you would have got with a state pension. But within those 20 years they will of course continue to pay bonuses and dividends.

WHY CAN'T I FILL MY TAX RETURN IN WITH "AMOUNT UNKNOWN - CALCULATION UNKNOWN"? It is time that finance houses are forced to be completely transparent in their dealings with ALL customers, especially the worker.

This robbery has got to stop.

Astrology for Libertarians.

2008-02-23T13:22:00.005Z

Imagine the utility we could derive from a market in markets. What we'd do is to create a market where people could trade in futures contracts about the future value of other markets. No longer would we have to appoint specialist advisors to warn us of potential crashes or booms: we could just sit back and let the market predict. The Stock Market Crash of 1929 surely would have been predicted by our market of markets, and so we could have avoided all of the deleterious effects with a little forward planning.

How about a market in disease? No longer would doctors have to spend millions of taxpayers' money to vaccinate entire populations: we could use the invisible hand of the market to predict which individuals would get SARS or AIDS, and then target them before the disease even has the chance to spread.

I'd like to see a market in people being struck by lightning. Even though relatively few people get struck by lightning, it would be useful to know when, where and who lightning will strike so that we can plan in advance to place mobile lightning-rods nearby: this is another market which will save countless lives.

So overall, I endorse wholeheartedly the plans of some of our tenured libertarian friends to construct an earthquake market so that we can predict earthquakes before they happen. I also find particularly interesting and useful the suggestion in the comments that seismologists should be banned from this market for having "inside information". As the Thatcherite/New Labourite/Cameronite project for markets in everything rolls on, I hope they will take into account the almost untapped predictive power of markets shown here.

Northern Rock Nationalisation: Statism, not Socialism.

2008-02-18T12:18:00.003Z

So the government has made its move: Northern Rock is to be nationalised.

What are we to make of it? The (most recent) Tory line is that Labour dithered and dithered, costing taxpayers millions whilst making up their minds. But what seems to have happened is that the Labour Party were unwilling to nationalise Northern Rock if a buyer could be found on reasonable terms, but the jokers at Virgin wanted a ridiculously good deal, including protection from risk in case of the firm collapsing again.

In the government's favour, we are not simply socialising the risk and privatising the profit: instead both will now be placed in a half-way position. Commercialisation at arms-length is basically the same deal as devolution in Scotland: the firm does the business and we pick up some of the cheques at the end of the day. It's not socialism, which would demand that working people both within and without the company would have control over it. It's simple statism, and in the circumstances probably a good solution to a difficult problem.

Selection battles

2008-01-18T16:25:00.000Z

So, where are we at in terms of increasing or decreasing left representation in the PLP after the next election?

One near to home for me was Walthamstow where unfortunately left candidate Laura Bruni had to withdraw for health reasons and the candidate will be Stella Creasey, about whom nothing really needs to be said...

Frank Cook has just lost his battle for reselection to some PR schmuck.

Wareing deselected.

Simpson retiring.

Someone please give me some good news.

The problem of slates

2008-01-15T21:59:00.000Z

An interesting debate is emerging about the Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance and the extent to which it can depend on the votes of those whom it hopes to represent. Discussions have been taking place on Labourhome and at Grimmerupnorth, largely as a result of John Wiseman's decision to stand for the NEC.

I am very far from making a decision about this myself, but it is certainly something that we should be discussing on Labour Left Forum.

On one side of the argument, the CLGRA has served us very well, more-or-less since the inception of New Labour and, by bringing left and centre-left together in an, at times, difficult unity, maintained a significant left and centre left representation on the party's executive committee. Excellent NEC members, such as Christine Shawcroft, have owed their position thanks not just to the votes of their natural supporters on the left, but to the wider votes secured by standing as part of a slate with centre-left candidates. I have been a supporter of the approach from the beginning, and indeed proposed expanding the same approach to other aspects of internal party politics (many moons ago!)

On the other side of the argument, no slates in internal elections have such a mandate that they can demand the loyalty of party members - especially party members who have not played any part in the choosing of such slates. Any member is entitled to stand for the NEC. Any CLP can nominate that member. Any member can vote for any candidate. With that in mind, what do people on the left do when presented with a candidate who ticks all the boxes but is not on the CLGRA slate? Without in any way meaning to attack or criticise anybody on the CLGRA slate this year, because of basic issues of political principle, I find John Wiseman a more appealing candidate than some of them. John has made the point that he is standing not just as a grassroots candidate (though that is clearly a major part of his bid) but also more specifically for the younger grassroots, and there is certainly an argument that there is a gap there (and one that can not, at least without a concerted effort from SYN or something similar, be filled through Young Labour rep.)

The debate at Grimmerupnorth has also moved on to another area - which I would like to keep seperate from the issue of whether left-wingers should nominate/vote people outside the CLGRA - whether the GRA needs to be completely restructured in the future. The CLPD and STLP do very important work in the party grassroots, but there is certainly a case to be made that an opportunity to involve a far greater number of activists could be developed in the GRA, were the LRC and Compass to play a part in the organisation. I don't know whether LRC and Compass organisers have expressed any interest in this, nor whether both groups' membership criteria could pose difficulties regarding such a role. But the GRA slate would certainly be representative of a very significant tranche of party opinion if those groups were to be incorporated. Furthermore, there would be a real momentum for developing such organisation into areas such as the National Policy Forum, etc.

So - two debates, really! One - what to do about the admirable Mr. Wiseman! Two - how to deepen and improve the CLGRA for future years.

I look forward to reading the debate!

Christmas Sale is cancelled...

2007-12-21T09:31:00.000Z

"Potential privatisations worth more than £6bn have stalled or been ruled out by the government because of difficult markets, regulatory concerns or political problems, analysis by the Financial Times has shown." www.ft.com

Apart from the venture capital company, CDC, items in the sale were to include :-
- Urenco, the uranium enrichment company
- the UK Atomic Energy Authority
- the state’s one-third stake in the Atomic Weapons Establishment (who owns the other two thirds?)

"The government’s main cash-raising focus is now on selling land and property, rather than businesses. Gordon Brown, as chancellor, set a goal of raising £30bn between 2004 and 2011 by selling off fixed assets. A further £6bn is due to be raised by selling off student loans, once legislation now going through Parliament allows this."

Selling the family silver is hardly the action of sound financial management and is a Tory trick. Oh sorry - yes, we are a labour government.

Happy Christmas everyone!

Crisis in Caracas?

2007-12-02T11:01:00.000Z

There is a major referendum today in Venezuela, granting Hugo Chavez the opportunity to stand for election beyond a fixed number of terms. Many see this as a step toward totalitarianism and students in their thousands came out to protest "Not like this" on Thursday. Reuters

But there is also a document in circulation claimed to be from a CIA operative in Caracas to CIA Director General Michael Hayden, uncovered yesterday, outlining a plan for interfering with a Venezuelan referendum set for Dec. 2, and laying out the steps for instigating and backing a coup. The plot, called "Operation Pliers," and laid out in the letter to Hayden by an undercover operative named Michael Steele, who reportedly works in the US Embassy as a "regional affairs officer," was intercepted by Venezuelan intelligence and released publicly on state TV yesterday. Associated Press. Another blog that has reported this in the peak oil forum has, by some coincidence, been hacked. Peak Oil Forum. I would point out though that the veracity of this document is yet to proved. operation-pliers. For more detail on the memorandum see :- IndyMedia Belgium

In response Chavez is threatening to cut-off oil exports to the US and possibly elsewhere thus creating the shortage that will fuel a massive price increase in black gold if there's evidence of interference in the referendum. He is also joining a call to price oil in the more stable Euro rather than US Dollars.

No doubt Bush and his cohorts will be fully aware of this power that Venezuela has, and they may react badly when they are cornered. A mistaken image mix-up by the CNN Spanish service ask a question "who killed him" under an picture of Chavez, how predictive is this?

The Criris (reposted from 'Labourhome'_

2007-11-30T16:39:00.001Z

It is time for us to be pretty blunt and self-critical as a party, and some big decisions and changes are necessary. The crisis in the party and the government has reached a critical point, and waiting it out is no longer an option.

Let us be absolutely frank about the origins of this crisis.From 1994 onwards, people in the Labour Party have sought to move away from our traditional reliance on money from our members and from trade unions (money that is clean, democratic and public) to money from wealthy individuals (money that is too often dodgy, questionable - at best - and secretive). The reason for this move has been political and ideological. Part of the New Labour project was always to break the link with the unions, and the Blair team felt that replacing a reliance on union funding with a reliance on private funding was the future. Becoming a party that, like the Tories, was funded by wealthy individuals, would help it distance itself from its past and its position at the heart of the labour movement, into being a new, one-nation party, friend of big business and capital.

This caused problems for us from the outset. Remember Bernie Ecclestone? But in Blair's early period the memory of Tory sleaze and the Teflon Tony phenomena meant that the mud didn't stick. It is only in the context of policy errors and disasters that this fundamental ideological funding error has begun to prove disastrous for us as a party.As confidence and trust in the government was shaken by a series of events - Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction; the breaking of manifesto pledges (just how had we "legislated to prevent" top-up fees?); an increasing number of blunders and competence questions - the spotlight was thrown on funding and first the cash for peerages, and now the dodgy donations scandal have left the Labour government we have spent our lives working for in very serious danger.

Even if it were to be shown that people acted in good faith in this business, and nobody knowingly broke the law (something which it is actually quite hard to believe) it is the culture at the centre of the party which needs to be revolutionised if we are to prevent this sort of thing from ever happening again.There needed to be a much more fundamental change at the end of the Blair era. As such it was an historic mistake - one which the PLP must bear responsibility for - to avoid a leadership contest and facilitate the much-yearned-for 'dignified handover' - a process which signalled to people inside and outside the party: 'business as usual'. That's in the past and cannot now be put right, but there are things that can be done:A cap on spending at elections is essential.

A very low cap on individuals' donations should be examined very seriously as well.

Jon Mendelson and anybody else associated with this big money culture needs to go.

Any undeclared issues about funding must come out now, and not be allowed to drip out over the coming weeks. There does not have to be a general election until 2010; this situation CAN be recovered, but it is not going to be easy, and there may have to be more bloodletting before we can start the rebuilding.

As for the rebuilding - this can't just be on party funding issues. Brown has got to put a stronger and more diverse team around him: if he continues to be the only dominant figure in government then he risks bringing the whole government down every time he opens his mouth. We have a much greater reservoir of talent on the Labour benches than the Tories or the Liberals have, but we are currently using it very ill. A major reshuffle is required.

We can't afford too many more weeks like the last few.

Which way forward for the left?

2007-11-24T19:16:00.000Z

There has been a serious debate going on about an aspect of last Saturdays Labour Representation Committee conference (17th November in Holborn, London).

The question has arisen over the support of non labour candidates at future elections.

My view is that this really is the type of storm in the tea cup issue that mars the development of many left wing organisations and therefore I would like to demonstrate my particular view and adding a few other thoughts.

People may or may not be aware that the LRC is open to non labour party members. Non LP members of the LRC have voting rights at LRC conferences .The proviso being that it is agreed not to stand against Labour at elections. A LP member campaigning against the Labour Party would get expelled.

All Labour lefts want to preserve their position that the LP will once again be the voice for working people and social change even though the climate at the LP top over the last 20 years has been one opposed to this view. The low to non existent level of workers participation in the CLPs, the drop in over 200’000 members since 1997 and the virtual elimination of democracy in the party, have given the right wing Labour Party bureaucracy an incredibly strong position.

Therefore ‘Reclaiming’ the party, a sensible demand put forward notably by some of the awkward squad of TU leaders and previously pushed by many on the LP left, is not on the agenda at this stage.

The appraisal of the work of the Labour Left, expressed in the LRC, the Grassroots Alliance and the Campaign Group needs to begin now and a realignment of how they organise and orientate themselves with a view to reaching out to the huge layers of discontent amongst our natural allies in the UK working class. It will be a long and patient process.

Once the working class starts to challenge the power that the bosses have built for themselves in the last period, we could then see a shift that could develop the LP into a fighting organisation.

The organic link to the Trade Unions in this case has to be preserved in order for the effect of class struggle in the workplace to echo in the LP. Incidentally this process has historically happened before and there have been frequent filling up and emptying out of the mass Labour party with the pressure of workers pushing the party to the left.

It will be a slow process ,but while the debate on workers representation develops there seriously is a case for cutting the money supply from the TUs to the LP while protecting the affiliation and bringing TU sponsored MPs to account to implement their Unions policies. Simply leaving the party would be a disaster.

The direction of the LRC and demonstrated by John McDonnell in recent Morning Star articles is that the left should look outside of the structures of the Labour Party as it stands now, to reach out to broad based campaigns over environmental, trade union and local community issues. This is an entirely laudable and sensible approach with the huge potential of uniting large sections of the left from both inside and outside the LP. It will focus attention on the issues that matter to working people rather than the tired old method of trying to form a ‘new electoral initiative’ that in every attempt over the last 15 odd years has failed to gain votes or imploded into sectarian division.

My view is that we should unite and campaign around the serious issues that unite us 99% of the time and work separately the 1% of the time, in this case at elections, where we have disagreement over the role of the Labour Party.

This is not a contradictory position. I fully respect the Socialist Party or the Socialist Workers Party or any other group, in their attempts at forming new workers parties. Many good socialists and trade unionists have chosen this route and again I respect that.

I am not a syndicalist and totally support participation in elections where the vast majority of working people demand it and participate in it but I am tired of the debate that surrounds this issue of standing in elections, especially at a time when the interest in elections by working class people has fallen and will continue to fall, to an all time low. Consider the turnouts at local elections. Is it worth all that work?

I’ll tell you what. Can we agree to disagree and get on with the real task of supporting our communities, our public services and fellow trade unionists in their struggle against the dominant neo liberal agenda.

If the RMT, an affiliate of the LRC, choose to stand a candidate at the London local authority/ Mayor election that will be up to them. It shouldn’t be an issue that divides the LRC. There will probably be some LP members that will vote for ‘the socialist candidate’ while not outwardly campaigning for them. Similarly would the non Labour left support progressive socialist MPs like John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn where they stand because of the excellent role they play as socialists in Parliament. Would they campaign for them?

The class struggle doesn’t and shouldn’t stop at election times.

You can follow all aspects of the debate here at these excellent blogs.

http://grimmerupnorth.blogspot.com/2007/11/lrc-conference.html
http://martinwicks.wordpress.com/2007/11/21/labour-representation-committee-conference/
http://petergkenyon.typepad.com/peterkenyon/2007/11/labour-represen.html
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1101

Labour: A Broad Church and A Good Thing.

2007-11-19T23:19:00.000Z

In conversation at the Labour Students political weekend, I had to dispel some misunderstandings about the Labour-left, which ranged from a prosaic idea that we hadn't changed our policies since 1983 to the more interesting canard that John McDonnell was a member of the AWL!

But the biggest question I was asked was what incentive I had to support a party which wasn't implementing policies anything like those I would choose for myself. There are a number of reasons, which I will try to lay out here:

First, my answer must be tempered with political pragmatism, since if I wasn't seriously interested in changing anything I would join or start a micro-sect, and be perfectly happy calling for the heads of MPs from my party newsletter.

Secondly, the longer I am in the UK, the more Labour members I meet - both activists and people who are fairly inactive members - and the more I learn about why or why not they support this or that policy; why they believe in or feel comfortable stuffing envelopes and knocking on doors for the party. And you know what? Even in the most stalwart Blairite lies a pure heart. A desire for good change; a need to know that the party's policies will produce better results for the least well-off and the most marginalised in our society.

I have spent most of my life outside the Labour Party, and now I'm inside it, I haven't stopped criticising its policies or talking about political scandals on our side of the fence. Politics is a game where even a slight change in legislation or policy can make an enormous amount of difference, and the party democracy of the Labour Party allows good people who believe that progressive change can be exacted in all different kinds of ways to remain within it with clear consciences and to try to campaign for a better future.

Thirdly, this is more than just a feelgood project where everyone must agree - as a party we want to hold power in order to exercise it for the good, and the new ideas required to stay in power will always come from the margins, whether they're the party's left, right, liberal or radical margins. If we want to have a party which stays in the same place and never innovates, we may as well get that micro-sect started.

Finally, I think we all like to see the Tories getting a good kicking now and again, don't we?

"Labour is the place where the greatest impact can be had today. I remain convinced that it is a workers' party and that it is the job of any socialist to be a member and fight for it." - Tami Petersen

"So here's vow number one: holding a Labour Party card won't shut me up." - Dave Osler

"No, I still think the Labour Party offers us the opportunity of a mass workers' party. But at the same time my campaign was completely non-sectarian, working across political campaigns and that's the future. We want to see a broad united front on a whole series of issues and industrial struggles will be part of that." - John McDonnell

Protest Against The Saudi Visit

2007-10-29T20:00:00.000Z

Socialist Youth Network
Youth Wing of the Labour Representation Committee

PROTEST THE SAUDI STATE VISIT!
Wednesday 31st October 6pm – 8pm
Saudi Embassy, 30 -32 Charles Street, W1J 5DZ
For directions, see: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=W1J+5DZ&ie=UTF8&ll=51.508075,-0.145741&spn=0.008641,0.010235&z=16&om=1

Speakers include: Yahya al-Alfaifi (Saudi trade unionist), Katy Clark MP, John McDonnell MP, Marsha-Jane Thompson (SYN Co-Chair), Sandy Mitchell (former British prisoner in Saudi Arabia), Murad Qureshi AM, Peter Tatchell

The Saudi dictator King Abdullah al Saud has been invited by the British Government on a 3-day visit from 30th October to 1st November.

Saudi Arabia is one of the most repressive societies on earth. It has no political parties, free elections, independent media or trade unions. Human rights violations are rampant – including the lack of basic rights for women, the repression of gays, the widespread use of torture, amputations and public executions.

This protest has been called to oppose British support for this repressive tyranny – and to stop our foreign policy being dictated by the oil and defense industries. Just recently, Britain sold 72 Eurofighters to the dictators in Riyadh .

Please spread the word far and wide – and make sure as many people as possible speak out against these murderous thugs.

John McDonnell MP has also tabled Early Day Motion 2102 opposing the state visit. Please ask your MP to sign it by getting in touch with them at http://www.writetothem.com/ - it only takes a couple of minutes of your time but will make a huge difference.

For more information, please contact the co-chairs of SYN:
Owen Jones – o.p.jones@gmail.com / 07870331835
Marsha-Jane Thompson – marshajanethompson@yahoo.co.uk / 07983592998

Respect Implodes Shock!! Why the left needs to organise itself

2007-10-28T18:41:00.000Z

I expect I could get me head kicked in for this but here goes.

The whole left blogging world seems to have fallen into a morass of self destructive navel gazing over the latest episode to engulf the Galloway/Respect project. Only, it would really be sad if it wasn’t for the fact that in reality Respect doesn’t have any, growing or otherwise, any influence on the wider working class. More of that later.

The SWP tactic of creating a reformist organisation for them to be a faction in had ‘doomed to failure’ written all over it from the start. For example, while I disagree with using the word ‘ communalist’ I think it was apparently obvious that the main orientation was to the Muslim population in the inner cities. This non class approach became obvious when it pandered to sections of the Muslim community that had far from socialistic/working class ideology. I believe this became a problem for many genuine SWPers who could see the contradiction.

The other problem was the man Galloway. While I could only applaud his stand against the war as a Labour MP and his confrontation with the US senate which received world wide attention, I believe the guy is a complete maverick and not a good left wing maverick at that. Compared to Left Labour MPs, John McDonnell or Jeremy Corbyn, the guy was a light weight and someone I would position on the soft left. You could arguably understand the need to focus the left around this character but it would always have to be short term.

Before Respect supporters start going on about their so many councillors and the fact that they have one MP lets try and attain a sense of proportion. This was no new start for the left; never was. It was an attempt to very roughly arrange certain tendencies within the anti war movement into a coalition that could absorb the millions of disaffected Labour voters and members that have haemorrhaged out of the Labour Party. It cannot be described by any stretch of the imagination, a launch of a workers party similar to what became the Labour Party in the early part of the 20th Century.

Anyway , that is only my humble opinion and I feel it would be completely counterproductive to go over the ground that our excellent blogging comrades are currently doing (links below)

Now, I am not going to condemn any socialist in making an effort to unify politically, independently, to the left of Labour. Indeed I have applauded the few socialists who have achieved remarkable election results in council elections north and south of the border.

Where I have to drawn the line is over the question of the validity, at this stage anyway , for any socialist independent, standing in elections, considering the complete hammering they will undoubtedly receive. Of course there are quite valid arguments for this; downturn in class struggle, fall of the old soviet union, lack of class consciousness amongst workers, we have heard them all.

But why do socialist have to beat themselves up orientating around an election, with all the time and money spent , and only achieving, at best 6 or 7% of the vote? There are surely more fruitful areas of work where all socialists can unite and fight together ?

The left as a force in the UK is much too weak to face the massive election machines of the three main parties. We must orientate ourselves to areas where we can and are strong. Trade Union struggle, the anti war movement and the defence of public services. I would also strongly recommend getting involved with international solidarity movements such as the Hands off Venezuela campaign (which coincidentally is headed by John McDonnell MP, he gets everywhere these days!!).

Posted earlier was John McDonnells comments about where the left has to direct itself if it is to become relevant to the UK working class and indeed the wider movement that involves community groups, environmentalists and most importantly, the Trade Unions. It is of utmost importance now that those sections of the CNWP and Respect get together with Socialists still remaining organised in the Labour Party to create a new movement that can attract support around the 99% of issues that do unite us and not fall out over the 1% (ie elections) that doesn’t.

So, cant we start talking? Hold up your own banner by all means but there is no reason why we couldn't organise under the banner or the LRC (which incidentally is the only part of the organised left that has affiliations from the FBU, RMT and the CWU, unions involved in struggle against New Labour over the last 6-7 years. I haven't noticed any of them affiliating to Respect or the CNWP) and work together against the war privatisation and supporting workers in struggle with their employer.

As an aside, I just want to briefly comment on the type of sectarianism that puts a complete brake on any progress towards socialist unity. The Organising For Fighting Unions and the Shop Stewards Network are both bold and correct attempts to organise amongst our re awakening trade unions.

Why haven't we got one organisation? Is it because the SWP runs one and the SP is dominant in the other? Come on comrades, do you want me to bang your heads together? This division only benefit’s the Bosses who thrive on a divided working class.

Links with loads of debate about the Respect issue can be found here

http://www.davidosler.com/ http://leninology.blogspot.com/
http://socialistunity.com/ http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/

An Early Election?

2007-10-06T08:42:00.000Z

We may hear today whether Gordon is going to opt for an early election: the BBC News is suggesting as early as November 1st.

What impact might this have on the left? On a practical basis it could mean that out-standing selections could be rushed through, with the possible result of parachuting in people where otherwise left-wingers might have been selected. I speak personally indeed - as I have put my hat in the ring for Skipton and Ripon, but couldn't possibly be the candidate for 1st November. It could prevent Tony Benn getting Kensington, and there must be other similar cases elsewhere. Okay, these won't be in Labour's safe or even target seats, but it is still an important thing to consider.

If we win with a big majority, then we have to take the opportunity to put forward socialist policies and try and pressure Gordon Brown to implement them. I think we would have to acknowledge that Gordon Brown would then remain leader for 4 to 5 years at least, and our efforts would certainly not be concentrated on the next leadership election.

We don't like to think about it, of course, but what if David Cameron is Prime Minister before Christmas? That would obviously be an enormous challenge for everyone in the party, not just on the left, to ensure that he was Prime Minsiter for as short a time as possible, and that we were swept back into power. A lot needs to be said about that.

The final possibility is that Brown is returned as Prime Minister but with little or no majority. Clearly not desirable (apart from the obvious disadvantages it would probably have meant us losing some very good MPs): however it is another scenario that requires a strategy.

I said that was the final possibility, but of course Brown could decide (perhaps this is still the most likely) not to hold an election until June next year (or later, indeed). After all, we know from the leadership debacle that Brown likes to eliminate all risk: why risk losing his long-longed-for prize any earlier than he need do? The scenario also requires a strategy.

John McDonnell in the Morning Star

2007-09-30T11:32:00.000Z

Very interesting article written by John in yesterdays Morning Star (Sat 29th September)

I think it is crucial that the points he makes and conclusions he draws are debated in the wider movement. The issue of Labour Representation is not going to go away. Far from it, as workers move into struggle, more and more will be drawing Political conclusions and the Labour Left will have to think a little more 'outside of the box' when it comes to trying to attract the workers to the ideas of Socialism.

There is a debate over at Socialist Unity blog ( http://socialistunity.com/ )

AFTER the events at the TUC and Labour Party conference, it is time for the left to take a hard-nosed look at where we go from here.
First of all, we have to face up to the harsh realities of the new political world in which we are operating.

The historical path of the left stems from working people coming together in the workplace and discovering their strength through solidarity. Nourished by socialist ideas, they recognised that, if they wanted to exercise power beyond the workplace, they needed political representation. So the Labour Party was born.
Democratic party structures were established to develop the policy programmes to be implemented when power was achieved.

This week’s vote to close down democratic decision-making at the Labour Party conference and Gordon Brown’s first speech as leader demonstrated that the old strategy is largely over. The conference is now virtually irrelevant and its replacement, the National Policy Forum, is a behind-closed-doors exercise of centralised control of party policy-making.

Brown’s speeches at both the TUC and Labour conference demonstrated decisively how much he fundamentally believes in the principles of neoliberalism - the dominance of the market, flexible labour and privatisation.
Even if there was the potential to use what is left of the party’s structures to attempt to influence him, it is clear that the overall political direction of the Brown government is non-negotiable.

The left has the difficult task of accepting and explaining to others that the old routes into the exercise of power and influence involving internal Labour Party mobilisations and manoeuvres have largely been closed down. We have to face up to the challenge of identifying and developing new routes into effective political activity.

The contradiction is that the more undemocratic the Labour Party becomes, the more it cuts itself off from the real world at a time when new social movements are emerging.
People may be increasingly giving up on political parties, but they haven’t given up on politics. They still want to challenge the injustices they meet in our society and they are devising a multitude of mechanisms to do so, from independent media and climate camps to affinity groups organising direct action.

New social movements have mobilised on a vast array of issues ranging from climate change, asylum rights, to housing and arms sales. Many trade unions have also rediscovered their roots as social movements themselves in their new campaigns on everything from private equity to the exploitation of migrant workers.

New alliances are being forged and, where trade union leaderships have been incorporated as supporters of the status quo, rank-and-file activity within their unions is re-emerging and organising.

The difficult task for the left now is to appreciate that new strategies, new coalitions of forces and, above all else, a new dynamism are needed to deal with the new political environment where the traditional routes have been so narrowed.

The left needs to open itself to co-operation with progressive campaigns within our community, learning from them, treating them with mutual respect, rejecting any patronising or sectarian approach and, where needed, to serve as the catalyst to instigate and facilitate campaigning activity. Creativity is also needed to stimulate the analysis, debate and discussion of the ideas and principles which we may share in our wish to transform our society.

The main political parties are increasingly seen as irrelevant to the real-world issues facing our communities, resulting in declining participation rates and election turnouts and deepening scepticism.

This doesn’t mean that people are apathetic. Far from it.
There is a growing radical nature to our times and an opportunity for a period of exciting, frenetic activity capable of creating a climate of progressive hegemony which no government could immunise itself from no matter how ruthlessly it closes down democracy in its own party.

John McDonnell is Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington. His book Another World is Possible: A manifesto for 21st century socialism is available to buy online, price £2.50 inc p&p at www.l-r-c.org.uk or by sending a cheque payable to LRC to PO Box 2378, London, E5 9QU.

Milliband's sentence on Branches and CLPs

2007-09-23T16:56:00.000Z

From his speech on Labour.org:

So local parties will get more support to hold their own discussions on policy and be able to invite in people from the community who can help. Every member will be invited to a regional policy forum with ministers. Every member who takes part will now be kept informed as policy develops.

And now there will be one member one vote.
Not just for selecting candidates
Or electing the leader

But [also] one member one vote on the programme they will stand on.

Reading this I can only see that OMOV will only be granted to those members who can afford to take time off work to attend these forums. How will they be informed of them? If there's a snap election then once again an opportunity to vote on something will be removed from a large proportion of members - so why should we trust this new OMOV? He goes on :-

So what are these programmes?

How we engage people beyond our membership.

Political change, whether it is local, national or international, doesn't happen because of politicians or political parties alone. Debt relief for the world's poorest countries happened because we campaigned and reached out beyond our party. And if we think about the coming years, we need a Labour Party that can reach out again, changing minds and attitudes on issues from child poverty to climate change.

And we need to recognise that real change in communities only comes when people are part of it. Whether it is a new zebra crossing, getting drug dealers off the streets, or better youth services, we can only do it by being rooted in communities we serve.

As a local MP I say to people: I can't solve the problems on my own. I need your help.

So local Labour parties need to be --- as many already are---community organisations showing people the difference we can make by working together.

And there will be new support for local parties to do that. And that's how we will recruit new members and build a stronger party.

At the start of this section he talks about national issues and policy, but when he gets to the grass-roots - the only discussions appear to be about LOCAL politics. This to me heralds the end of CLPs - putting all the power into either the PLP - who will no doubt be funded and supported by the party/big business; or by those elected councillors - who are solely focussed on battling with the opposition in council on local issues only. When will they have time to focus on local forums about national policy?

Parliamentary selections will be controlled by who? Head Office? Where does the ordinary supportive member get his say on national issues in a local forum with friends, comrades and experienced executive committees? Without this backing new members will never develop - or indeed ever understand the machinations of the party.

Is ignorance bliss?

IMHO this is the most dangerous attack on democracy I've yet to witness.

Tony Benns comment in the Guardian Today

2007-09-20T10:04:00.000Z

Grimmupnorth refered to this in her blog this am. I thought I would reproduce it in full for comment and discussion.

My last real conference?
Delegates must veto New Labour's bid to reduce the party membership to a glorified fan club Tony BennThursday September 20, 2007The Guardian

Next week's may be the last real Labour conference I shall attend after 65 years membership of the party. For if constitutional amendments put forward by the leadership are accepted, delegates will no longer be permitted to pass any resolutions on any policy questions.
The argument put forward is that when there is a Labour government it is unacceptable for members of the party, at conference, to be able to vote for policies that are in conflict with government policy. This process began in the 90s, when New Labour came to power and most proposals were referred to the national policy forum in which the government had a permanent majority.
But it was agreed that eight resolutions could be put to the conference every year - four from constituency parties and four from the unions. The conference was able, for instance, to vote for a restoration of the link between pensions and earnings. The government did, however, succeed in preventing discussion on other sensitive issues like Iraq and its decision to go ahead with Trident.
If the new proposals - now endorsed by the NEC and apparently some major trade unions - are accepted, delegates will only be allowed to identify issues they want looked at by the policy forums, and the manifesto that emerges will be put to a referendum of party members to accept or reject in full, with no possibility of amendment. This would complete the New Labour project under which the conference becomes a platform for ministers and a few handpicked delegates - and, of course, a big trade fair. There would be no point in joining the party locally or affiliating as a union in the hope of discussing policy.
In short, party members will only have one campaigning function - to get councillors and a government elected with policies which they have played no part whatsoever in formulating. If this divorce happens, policy campaigning will revert to those outside the party and parliament. This would be a tragedy, but it would indicate clearly that the New Labour leadership's attitude to the party and the movement is not only that they don't want certain policies passed but also that they don't want any decisions reached they do not control.
Of course this would also affect MPs, who would become elected "civil servants". I very much hope conference rejects the change, and makes clear that it intends to strengthen its role in policymaking; this the delegates in Bournemouth will have the power to do. But those who want to deal with issues not on the government's agenda will have to campaign vigorously outside parliament and build a body of opinion so strong no political party would be able to ignore it. Since I left parliament, all my work has been along those lines - against the Iraq war, privatisation, student loans; and for comprehensive education, union and workers' rights, civil liberties and public housing. The focus of these campaigns has hitherto been the conference, but if that opportunity is removed, the party will deprive itself of the support of activists when polling day comes.
Conference will then be an annual meeting for the fan club of the parliamentary bigwigs and their business friends. Even the fringe meetings which are now so vibrant could disappear, because those who attend them will know the issues they are interested in will never get on to the conference floor.
That is the choice that has to be made in Bournemouth - and it is the biggest decision since the party was founded, for it could also end the role of parliament as the buckle that links the demonstrations on the street to the legislation on the statute book upon which democracy itself depends.

· Tony Benn's latest book, More Time for Politics: Diaries 2001-07, is published by Hutchinson next month tony@tbenn.fsnet.co.uk

Bush setting America up for war with Iran

2007-09-18T10:31:00.000Z

No, I don't read the Telegraph, but I picked up this link from a Peak Oil blog.

Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.
Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran....The intelligence officer said that the US military has "two major contingency plans" for air strikes on Iran. "One is to bomb only the nuclear facilities. The second option is for a much bigger strike that would - over two or three days - hit all of the significant military sites as well. This plan involves more than 2,000 targets."

Daily Telegraph

This guy reminds me of my eighteen month old nephew - once he's knocked over one pile of bricks he looks for another.

Other discussions indicate Bush's fear is over the Straits of Hormuz. The US fears that, in retribution for their invasion of Iraq, other countries in the area will block exports of oil to the US through this route

It's going to happen folks - he's already got the new French foreign minister to rattle sabres in tandem with the US. - Iran scorns French warning of war: BBC News

Twigg ousts Wareing

2007-09-16T16:36:00.000Z

Another Campaign grouper has been ousted - this time it's Bob Wareing who failed to get reslected by his constituency who chose Twigg instead.

The Campaign group looks like collapsing to about a dozen at this rate.

Is the Labour really saveable anymore?

UPDATES!

2007-09-07T07:52:00.000Z

Hi Everybody. I'm just writing this to inform you of some recent changes and updates that I have made to this forum. These include:

-Updating the link to John McDonnell's blog (and removing the double link);

-Removing the the double link to Grim up North;

-Merging the "Left Blogs" and "Interesting Links" sections

To our brothers in Parliament: unionise!

2007-08-07T20:27:00.000Z

Mike earlier began an excellent thread on how Labour High Command are picking off troublesome backbenchers one by one.

There is only one solution: an agreement between today's backbench 'mavericks' in the name of protecting the diversity of opinion which will lead to future election victories. The oldest left trick in the book: a union.

BAA wins injunction

2007-08-06T12:51:00.000Z

Big business still in control

The annoying thing is that they have banned the local group NOTRAG - which comprises all those people severely affected by the third runway and thus would have the highest support.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6932519.stm

Instead of queuing at the check-in - why not enjoy the workshops being held nearby:-

http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/

Gordon in the Washington Post

2007-07-30T16:42:00.000Z

Partnership for the Ages By Gordon Brown
Monday, July 30, 2007; Page A15

"....I have come to the United States to affirm the historic partnership of shared purpose that unites our two countries.....our Atlantic partnership is rooted in something far more fundamental and lasting than common interests or even common history: It is anchored in shared ideals that have for two centuries linked the destinies of our two countries. Winston Churchill spoke of what he called "the joint inheritance" of Britain and America. ...The joint inheritance he wrote of was a shared belief in what he called "the great principles of 'freedom and the rights of man.' " Values that started with the British idea of liberty -- from our bill of rights to English common law -- found their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence....

...And when today, at my meeting with President Bush, I speak of a joint inheritance not just of shared history but shared values founded on a shared destiny, I mean the idea that everyone is created equal, that all faiths should be free to express their beliefs...It is these ideas that bind us and give us strength to work together to face down every challenge ahead -- from the danger of nuclear proliferation, global poverty and climate change to, today, the biggest single and immediate challenge the world has to defeat: global terrorism that is hostile and hateful to all the values we share...in this generation we defend together the ideal of freedom against the terrorist threat.

In this century, it has fallen to America to take center stage. And let me acknowledge the debt the world owes to the United States for its leadership in this struggle....It is our shared task to expose terrorism for what it is -- not a cause but a crime. A crime against humanity....So today the struggles of the 21st century are the battles that engage military might which we have been fighting together in Iraq and Afghanistan and through NATO -- and they are also the battles of ideas....during the Cold War, the united front against Soviet communism involved deterrence through large arsenals of weapons and a cultural effort also on an unprecedented scale, deploying what Roosevelt called the "arsenal of democracy." ...Foundations, trusts, ...universities, museums, ...trade unions... -- were all engaged. ...newspapers, ... the arts and literature sought to expose the difference between moderation and violent extremism.

...the way ahead is to support all communities in developing a strong identity resistant to violent extremists trying to recruit vulnerable young people....We must expose the contrast between great objectives to tackle global poverty and honor human dignity, and the evils of terrorists who would bomb and maim people irrespective of faith...

And just as we are united in tackling global terrorism, so we are united in our belief that globalization should be seen as an opportunity and not simply a threat. This is why I know that by working together we can restart the Doha round of world trade...And ...we cannot stand by and watch the humanitarian crisis in Darfur without taking action to speed up the deployment of U.N.-African Union troops, call for an immediate cease-fire and, following America's lead, impose sanctions if necessary. ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900862.html

Frank Cook MP

2007-07-23T19:36:00.000Z

One of the few decent MPs left, Frank Cook has failed to get automatically reselected by his constituency and now faces reselection in Stockton North. It will now go to an open contest.
According to another forum, likely runners alongside Cook are Unison President Norma Stephenson and the Brownite former Hornsey and Wood Green MP, Barbara Roche.

Any thoughts anyone?

Poverty in the UK

2007-07-17T10:52:00.000Z

This morning's report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation will come as no surprise to those of us who have repeatedly raised the issue of poverty and the damaging effects of free market economics on the population of the UK.

However, they are useful in isolating a few key points.

The first few things which leap from the page on reading the report are:

how the much-maligned 1970s saw a reduction in both the very poor and very rich
how little has changed since the 1980s to redress the damage done by Thatcherism
what Will Hutton called the 30-40-30 split is more accurately a 25-50-25 split between the poor, middle and wealthy.

One interesting point is how, since the 1990s, the number of very poor ("core poor") has declined but the number of breadline poor has increased. One persuasive explanation put forward for this is that the numbers of unemployed have fallen as the number of people working for a pittance has increased i.e. people are moved off unemployment benefit onto low-wage jobs.

This confirms what we have learned both anecdotally and statistically about the effects of the minimum wage. The Labour Government of the past few years ought to be congratulated on its introduction (and the lack of recession) but substituting "breadline poverty" for "core poverty" is hardly the great step forward which many of us might have expected from ten years of a Labour Government.

The urgency of the COFUP campaign has never seemed greater.

As a final aside, this report interested me particularly as, by coincidence, I started reading some of Charles Booth's reports on poverty in 19th century London this morning. The improvements to working people's lives made by the welfare state need hardly be remarked on again. What is so shameful is that which has not changed. Immigrant workers in particular are still overworked and underpaid.

Neither Charles Booth nor the Rowntree Foundation (both well intentioned middle-class reformers) offers much in the way of solutions. Those solutions must be presented and fought for by us in the Labour Party and the trade unions.

Any thoughts?

RANDOM THOUGHTS FROM WALES

2007-07-16T13:27:00.000Z

Utterly stressed out after five-hour journey from Llangollen ( third of three trains broke down at Rochdale) so not much coherent thought today. Saw Jose Carreras last night and he was fab....truly in a different League from all the pub singer wannabees who currently hit the headlines. A great experience. Soaked in the Welsh rain and atmosphere and spent some time finishing the second volume of Michael Foot's famous biography of Nye Bevan ( which I picked up in Oxfam the other week) .The trials and tribulations which Bevan suffered at the behest of the right of the Party (almost getting expelled at one point) make for strangely familiar reading. And bit depressing to note that Bevan, who died in 1960 when I was a baby, would I wager still be pretty unimpressed with Party policy , the right-wing bureaucrats and trade union leaders' timidity when challenging the staus quo. Bet he would have loved Carreras , though.....

Peak Oil

2007-07-15T10:14:00.000Z

With oil set to reach $80 per barrel in the next few days, this topic will affect our international politics in the coming months. With the US government finally producing a report admitting the potential of Oil depletion in the near future and it's impact on world economy, parliament have started to act.

U.K. Parliament Members Form `Peak Oil' Group to Study Reserves

July 10 (Bloomberg) -- The U.K. parliament formed a group to study peak oil, the theory that world oil production is approaching its zenith, as British lawmakers face up to the country's future as an energy importer.
The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil and Gas, which held its first meeting June 26, comprises 32 members of the House of Commons, or lower chamber, and seven from the House of Lords, or upper chamber.
It aims to collate predictions for when production may peak and consider the implications for energy policy, rather than push a particular view, said the group's chairman, John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, central England.

The All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil and Gas (APPGOPO) now has a website: http://www.appgopo.org.uk/

They are holding an open meeting at Portcullis House on the 24th (see website) with a presentation from David Strahan author of a recent book on oil depletion - he doesn't appear to be the most conservative of the ever-growing group of authors on this topic - but perhaps a shock is what is needed - or will it turn-off the audience? If anyone can get along to it I would love to hear about it.

I could argue that Peak Oil is imminent or that's it's a ploy by BIG OIL to push up prices. But I think policies for reducing car use must be implemented in the very near future - something for NEC to consider.

Why do many people commute when they could just as easily work from home in this telecommunications age?

Brown's First Government

2007-06-30T10:17:00.000Z

Okay... What do we think?

Here's a link to the full list (all positions).

Personally I think it's a dog's breakfast of a government: a bizarre array of Labour 'moderates', Tories and others heralding an apparent 'new politics'. This is the next stage of the New Labour project, and another attempt to bury the Labour Party. Digby Jones? I mean... honestly!

Brown has probably missed a trick. Blair managed to weaken the left in '97 by giving some people who were at least reasonably leftish government positions, weakening the parliamentary position of the left in a way which still effects us today. Brown hasn't bothered. The parliamentary left might be a small base at present, but it's been left intact by this set of appointments, and there are plenty of us outside parliament. It's interesting that he appears to have kept the compassite 'centre left' out too, despite their rush to join the mad nomination party.

So I don't think we should be depressed; but I do hope that any people who still had illusions that Brown was somehow going to be a little better than Blair have had the scales removed: the 'project' - rather halted by foreign policy disasters - is back on course and it's almost as if we're back to fighting the arguments of ten years ago. Or maybe 75 years ago...

BROWN TO CLASH WITH UNIONS OVER CONFERENCE

2007-06-25T15:27:00.000Z

Well, it didn't take long. Less than 24 hours into his official Labour leadership, Brown is already on the warpath against the trade unions. Last year, Dave Prentis (pictured) had his mike switched off by New Labour stooge Gary Titley MEP in a controversial debate on NHS privatisation. Now Brown wants to go the whole hog and end the block vote at Labour conference - and the unions' right to put forward contemporary and emergency motions. Instead, there will be "general debates" by members.
Now to the naive, this may sound perfectly reasonable.Indeed, it will be spun as an extension of democracy. It is anything but.
CLPs can already choose four key issues of their own they want to debate ( the bar was raised from 2 in 2003 with help from the UNIONS) to debate at Conference. Yes it should be more but were it not for the unions in the past few years, none of the following issues would have been debated: Iraq, social housing and the fourth option, NHS privatisation, the plight of agency workers. railway re-nationalisation. And, because the unions do vote in blocks, all these issues have a) got through the right-wing gerrymandering ofthe Conference Arrangements Committee and b) been passed by Conference with support from the CLPs. Some of you may recall a similar idea on curbing the unions' influence was once floated by Jon Cruddas. It will be interesting to see where he stands now. One thing is clear. The NEC MUST oppose this move . And so must the Party.See John McDonnell's blog for more details. http://www.john4leader.org.uk/

Can the Left start thinking out of the box?

2007-06-17T09:02:00.000Z

For the last two years workers in Britain - especially in public sectors - have faced some of the most devastating attacks on their conditions and pay that has been seen since Thatcher. In the Civil Service tens of thousands of jobs have been decimated, working conditions have been savaged, and stress levels have soared as fewer workers are forced to do more and more work as they try and cope with new systems that totally fail to deliver.

They haven't been alone in these attacks, as Pension rights have been slashed across the public sector, and now we have the prospect of imposed pay settlements at way below inflation rates.

Privatisation and outsourcing are creeping across the board in every wake of life.

Rarely can there have been such concerted attacks on workers since Thatcher - and yet where has the reaction been? Where has the resistance been?

We have the usual ineffectual day strikes, the small rallys and lots of big talk from Union leaders who try and lead their troops up the hill before leading them back down again battered and demoralised.

In the meantime the multi-nationals, the financial institutions and the Labour leadership sit pretty raking in profits and presteige at our expense.

Just how much can be attained by the current craven union leadership aproach to this struggle, and how many one day strikes and rallys will it take for the govt to concede that they are wrong?

If they can laugh off 250,000 people marching on a Stop the War March with its attendent big rally and speeches, will it be able to resist a fraction of that number marching to complain about cuts in working rights?

How should the looming Autumn of discontent be presented in a way that can actually produce results rather than empty rhetoric and sell out?

SAVE JOBS AND STOP THE ASSET-STRIPPERS !

2007-06-13T18:23:00.001Z

Last night Tony Woodley was on Newsnight speaking out against private equity companies who are aiming to snap up Ford 's Jaguar and Land Rover operations .Union leaders are now seeking urgent talks with the US-owned car-maker to warn against any takeover by "asset-stripping" private equity buyers. John McDonnell has just tabled a parliamentary EDM motion against the sale of the two marques to a private equity company. Woodley has disappointed many of us in the labour movement by not backing the Left in its bid to challenge the Brownite acceptance of global capitalism and all that goes with it. But nowthe fight must continue.

Jaguar has 10,000 workers in Coventry, Birmingham, and Liverpool, while Land Rover has 9,000 in Solihull, West Mids, Halewood, Merseyside, and Gaydon, Warks.These jobs are now at risk
As John McDonnell said in today's Daily Mirror: "Private equity business have no interest in the workforce and descend like locusts to asset-strip.I'm calling on the Government to intervene to prevent this sale, which could result in huge job losses." Moreinfo : http://www.john4leader.org.uk/

Faces of Bevanism (Part Two): The Parliamentary Bevanites

2007-06-08T15:30:00.001Z

The term Bevanism or Bevanite first emerged in the House of Commons as a word to describe the supporters or followers of Aneurin Bevan. Who initially coined the term is not known, although an early use of the word is from Dick Crossman on the 8th March 1951 (on a Keep Left paper on 'The Cold War in the Cabinet': 'each of us will be compelled to decide whether he is a Gaitskellian or a Bevanite...' The first meeting of the Bevanite Group took place the following month and Crossman was present, suggesting he had made that decision reasonably easily. The Bevanite Group came into being in April 1951 after Bevan, Wilson and Freeman resigned from the Government over the budget. When the three dissenting Ministers left the Cabinet they attended Keep Left Group meetings and the group quickly expanded. It is difficult to say when the Keep Left Group changed its name to the Bevanite Group as their papers were filed under 'Keep Left' until 1953, but 'Bevanite' was in wide circulation by 1952.

Any analysis of the parliamentary Bevanites must first consider the Keep Left Group which came into being as a small self-conscious entity in Parliament in 1946, expanded in 1950, and transformed into the Bevanites in 1951. From the start it included those who were later to be leading Bevanites such as Crossman, Foot and Mikardo. They came together to oppose what they saw as a retreat from socialism - particularly in Ernest Bevin's foreign policy. One of the primary ways in which this group operated was via the circulation of policy documents. These often concerned a full range of issues from foreign affairs to home policy matters. Certain Bevanites would specialise in certain matters (Thomas Balogh on the economy, Fenner Brockway on colonial matters, Crossman on the Cold War, etc.) Ian Mikardo would appear to have been the primary organiser, especially when Keep Left expanded to be the Bevanite Group. There were also admisitrative secretaries, Rose Cohen and Jo Richardson. While some have suggested a sexist division of labour here, later Barbara Castle and Jennie Lee went on to play key policy and propagandist roles in the group.

Links between Keep Left and Bevan did exist beefore the resignations of 1951. Donald Bruce (an author of the original Keep Left manifesto) had been in consultation with Bevan and others in the Cabinet over the Korean War and re-armament. While before 1950 Keep Left had been a rather small group of MPs (averaging perhaps ten regular attenders) it rapidly expanded when it began the Brains Trusts. These were meetings which were organised firstly by Keep Left and later by the Bevanites with the support of Tribune, where Keep Left or Bevanite speakers would form a panel at various meetings around the country. The organisation and success of the Brains Trusts really belong to another chapter, but they were part of the what caused Keep Left to prosperin the period leading up to the ministers joining its ranks. By the time those three rejoined the backbenches, Keep Left was the obvious focus of parliamentary left-wing organisation.

Did the nature of Keep Left dramatically change in the Spring of 1951, from the policy discussion group outlined here to Bevan's leadership campaign committee? While there would appear to have been an escalation in organisation to meet the expansion of the group's membership, it sees that the same sort of policy questions occupied their time both before and after the resignations. The first example of escalated organisation was the 'Plan for Mutual Aid' which Mikardo drew up in order that Keep Left/Bevanite MPs and prospective parliamentary candidates could assist each other during the 1951 General Election campaign. This plan includes a map of Britain with the location of all Bevanite or prospective Bevanite seats with the name of the candidate and his or her majority or minority written next to it. From there it goes on to organise who should go and speak at which constituency. The 'plan' was highly organised with the talents of those candidates defending a safe majority being re-distributed to the marginal seats. Mikardo also noted that 'there are a number of our friends outside the House who might be willing to help us in this plan'. At this stage this was not constituency foot-soldiers but well-known figures like A.J.P. Taylor and Lord Stansgate. While some might criticise this apparent reserving of many of the party's best platform speakers for the re-election of Bevanites rather than specifically for the return of a Labour government, the two are not mutually exclusive. There were occasions where group members seemed to put the group before the party. Richard Acland, in 1951, considered whether it might be in the group's interests to bring down the government in order to prevent Labour involvement in World War III, in a confidential paper (this was his feared consequence of the Korean War). While Acland did not emerge from a Labour tradition (he had been a Liberal Party member, then a leading light of the Common Wealth Party) even Crossman considered the benefits to be gained from losing the 1951 election. He feared the government were going to make three 'surrenders' on foreign policy issues, which he felt - if they had to be made - would be better made by a Tory government. In each case the offending sentence in his paper was crossed out.

There was some discussion at the start of 1952 as to whether the Bevanites should organise with the Left in other countries. This was an idea about which both Mikardo and Brockway were very enthusiastic. In a paper on the subject, Mikardo exclaimed his fury about the Party's xenophobic tendencies (particularly criticising Hugh Dalton, but also criticising some in the Bevanite group itself). He declared that what he was proposing was not 'a seventeenth International' but just some meetings with socialists from other countres. Brockway suggested that there was a lot of international interest, hope and enthusiasm for Bevanism, and there was a proposal for an international monthly review. Not much appears to have come of these suggestions.

Other examples of parliamentary Bevanite organisation are documents produced by the secretaries about finances and Brains Trust matters. There are income and expenditure accounts in the archives. In the 51/52 financial year 29 MPs paid their membership fee (£1) and all £29 was spent (mostly on stationery).

It is not always clear who the group members were. 15 MPs attended the famous 'first' Bevanite meeting in April '51, 23 atttended their first conference in December '51. By summer 1952 there were around 30 regular attenders. Some, like Jennie Lee, wished to see group expand and become a much larger faction, but the majority preferred the idea of an exclusive group with new members by invitation only (there would be occasional 'open' meetings for all PLP members).

Although Brains Trusts are of more interest for a later section, they did form part of the parliamentary organisation too. The two secretaries produced a list of the large number of towns which had had Brains Trust meetings between 1950 and 1952 (42 towns in total and some had had more than one visit) and which had requested meetings that had still to be scheduled. There was than a list of Keep Left/Bevanite speakers and how many Brains Trusts they had spoken at. Although the period is divided in half (before and after April 1951) there is clear general organisational continuity between Keep Left and the Bevanites. One reason for dividing the list in half was not to do a disservice to newer members who could not have spoken at as many Brains Trusts. However, by Spring/Summer 1952, Bevan had spoken at NO Brains Trusts (compared with Mikardo who had spoken at 46, 34 of which as a Bevanite rather than a Keep Lefter). By the start of 1954 there had been 150 Brains Trusts and there were 40 still pending organisation.

Bevan's poor record with the Brains Trusts raises another question: just how centralwas Bevan to the Bevanites? It is quite clear from the records that Bevan's role in the group was not one of circulating policy documents. Some, like Balogh and Crossman, were extremely prolific writers of policy documents; there is not a single such document from Bevan in the Keep Left/Bevanite files or the Crossman papers. Bevan was frequently absent from Group meetings. He was a 'shadow' leader of the party, but by no means the leader of the group. Mikardo was the first chair of the Bevanite Group, a role later taken by Harold Wilson. Effectively the Bevanite Group was the Keep Left Group, but with the additional prestige and notoriety which the inclusion of a top parliamentarian like Bevan gave.

Another aspect of parliamentary Bevanism was a social one. Thomas Driberg once quipped that the Bevanite group was 'not so much a "party within a party" as "the Smoking Room within the Smoking Room"'. Brian Brivati described the group as 'a hard-drinking group... a drunken night in Soho, ...a pub crawl during the party conference... ending in a row and a hangover.' John Campbell has described them as 'not much more than a group of congenial friends' but that is clearly an understatement.

What were the main issues for the PLP during the Bevanite period? There were the resignations of April 1951 (already mentioned). Then a rebellion of 57 MPs over Churchill's defence programme (they were whipped to abstain) in March 1952. There was the PLP's vote on German rearmament, Bevan's resignation from the Shadow Cabinet in 1954 over the creation of SEATO. 65 MPs rebelled to support a motion demanding parliamentary approval before the manufacture of the H-bomb. There was a showdown between Attlee And Bevan over the H-bomb in 1955, the rebellion (62 MPs) led to Bevan having the whip withdrawn (fairly briefly on this occasion). But the Bevanite Group began its slow disintegration from this time on, dividing into a number of factions, mainly over the issue of the bomb.

Critics on the right of Labour accused the Bevanites of being exclusive and disciplined, but the parliamentary rebellions mentioned abovle saw some Bevanite MPs being 'loyal' to the party whip, and involved temproray alliances with non-Bevanite MPs. For example, the 65 MPs who demanded parliamentary approval before the manufacture of the H-bomb did not icnlude a unanimous vote from the Bevanites (though it did include the leading lights such as Bevan, Mikardo and Crossman) but it did include a large number of other left-leaning MPs or those with strong views on the bomb, such as Tony Benn, Tony Greenwood and Maurice Edelman.

To consider, briefly, the collapse of the parliamentary Bevanites, one must consider what some have referred to as the defection of the centre-left and also Bevan's return to the leadership, which left the left-wing Bevanites leaderless. The new centre-left accused of defection from the Bevanites were characterised by Richard Crossman and Harold Wilson. After Bevan's resignation from the Shadow Cabinet (1954) Crossman complained to Wilson of Bevan's 'death wish' fearing 'they're going to try and get us expelled'. This was when the group was still at the height of its strength: the rifts that were to lead to its disintegration were already apparent, and they were more than just left vs. centre left (Mikardo, very much a 'left Bevanite' was cross that Bevan's resignation had not been discussed with the group).

In 1955, Crossman wrote (to his CLP EC) of a 'rift' which had opened out between him, Freeman and Wilson on the one side, and Bevan on the other. This was over the issue of nuclear weapons (Crossman believe Britain should have 'a small independent nuclear deterrent'). He later wrote to Bevan, declaring that his aim was to 'restore a proper balance between Right and Left in the Party by strengthening the Left' saying 'insofar as my "piddling little aim" as you would no doubt call it, coincides with yours, we work happily together'. He concluded that Bevan had decided to end the group in its old form and therefore 'each of us on each occasion has to think and act for himself'. The group had been formally disbanded in 1952 (it had been operating in a clandestine way from that time on, as one of the worst-kept secrets in the PLP!) Bevan had also denied any role in the organisation during the expulsion crisis in '55. Crossman said that Bevan entered a 'psychological semi-retired' in 1954.

People like Mikardo, Driberg and Castle were morally opposed to nuclear weapons, some - like Bevan - had no moral objection, but opposed the 'multilateralists' on tactical grounds. There was a significant realignment of the left in 1955, even though the group existed in some form until at least summer 1956. Crossman blamed Labour's 1955 defeat on an 'Anti-Bevanite vote' (signalling that he had well and truly changed camps).

The parliamentary Bevanites then divided amongst 'Victory for Socialism' and the higher echelons of the Party (most notably Bevan himself whose split from the Left was a very public confrontation with left-wing delegates at the 1957 Conference). As Shadow Foreign Secretary, Bevan did change his views on some long-argued issues (although he was never a declared 'unilateralist' so his comments in '57 were uncharacteristic rather than inconsistent). His support for Gaitskell's compromise over nationalisation that same year is less clearly explicable. He said he no longer wished to 'rock the boat', but he had done so in the past on issues of degree, rather than this issue of principle.

The 1955-59 parliament was described as 'a period of remarkable unity and concord within the PLP' (Victory for Socialism did not have a big impact). In fact it was in 1960 that parliamentary rebellion began to increase (again, particularly on defence), with many of the old Bevanite faces involved (Richard Crossman had to resign from the Shadow Cabinet). In June of that year, 81 MPs supported a Victory for Socialism motion of no confidence in Gaitskell. This was a bigger PLP challenge to the leadership than at any time during the height of parliamentary Bevanism. Nye died the following week, on the 6th July, 1960.

Was the Bevanite Group of MPs a 'party within a party'? How extraordinary was the anti-Bevanite discplinary reaction it met? There is no evidence that the Bevanites exercised any kind of internal discipline even though accusations of them having whips were common. In fact, a record of how Bevanites voted on the various divisive issues of the period, as we have seen, shows that the group rarely acted as one and while some difted away from the group there is no evidence of anyone being asked to leave. How broadly it was felt that the Bevanites used disciplinary measures can be seen in Tony Benn's letter to Fenner Brockway of 22nd November 1951, following an invitation to join the group:

Dear Fenner,

Just a note to let you know that I would prefer to postpone any decision on the question you asked me on Tuesday.

Though I share many of the views held by the group, as a new member enjoying a little independence for the first time I don't want to bind myself in any way at present

Yours ever,

Tony Wedgewood Benn

The combination of this feeling that members were bound somehow, coupled wit hthe rather exclusive way in which MPs were invited to join, helped fuel the notion of a 'Party within a Party'. Parliamentary factions were not uncommon and it was not beyond the memory of 1950s politicians when the Labour Party had been made up of official Parties within the Party in a political confederation (e.g. the ILP, which included Jennie Lee amongst its number). The Bevanite Group in Parliament never came close to having the independent political organsation of the ILP Group of MPs. However, Michael Foot suggested that, from 1950-1960, the leadership 'operated a system of discipline in the Labour Party of almost totalitarian proportions'. The most 'totalitarian' tactics were exacted not on MPs but on members outside Parliamentm which will be considered later. But Party managers certainly did seem to over-react to rebellions. The whip was constantly being threatened to be withdrawn (and occasionally was) and there was talk of expelling 'ringleaders'. R. K. Alderman has said that the leadership could not have 'ignored the challenge' of the Bevanites, which is true: but they presumably were not aiming to be ignored!

But this 'major organised rebellious group' in reality never had the whips and discipline which it was accused of having. Even at its height its membership never reached 50 MPs. Whether the party's managers really believed that the Bevanites were as organised as their publicly expressed fears suggested it is difficult to say. As Crossman said: 'the fact is that Bevanism and the Bevanites seem much more important, well-organised and Machiavellian to the rest of the Labour Party, an indeed to the USA, than they do to us who are in the group...'

As a faction it was only out of the ordinary because of the high profile of some of its leaders, but primarily because it reflected a growing tendency in the Party outside Parliament. One can only really understand the influence of the Bevanite Group of MPs through an understanding of extra-parliamentary Bevanism, and particularly the 'rank and file' Bevanism in the constituencies.

LABOUR PARTY MEMBERS SHIFT LEFT

2007-06-03T11:01:00.001Z

Good news for the Labour Left in a YouGov poll published today by the Sunday Times. Around 1100 Party members and 833 trade union members were recently questioned about their voting intentions for the Labour leadership and deputy leadership.
With only a few days of proper media coverage, support for John McDonnell still doubled from the last YouGov verdict - from 9 to 18 per cent of Labour members and an even better 26 per cent of trade unionists said they would vote for a left candidate. Interestingly, Jon Cruddas, the much-hyped "soft left" alternative, is an unimpressive fifth out of six with only 10 per cent support among Party members and 12 percent of trade unionists. It's pointless now to indulge in endless "if onlys" but with six weeks of a proper debate ( not the Albanian nonsense we're having now) it seems to me John would have got about 30 per cent of the vote.Which, coming from nowhere, would have been pretty damn impressive.
But let's look at policy, which is where it really gets interesting in terms of where we are now. A majority of Party members clearly support the policy platform outlined by John McDonnell.
Only 37 per cent of Party members support keeping Trident. 58 per cent want to scrap Blairite reforms of the NHS and education, and 66 per cent of Party members are in favour of increasing the top rate of taxation. 58 per cent want to bring the railways back into public ownership. 57 per cent want to see tax also increased on car use and air travel.And 68 per cent were in favour of distancing ourselves from George Bush's policies.
Basically , almost EVERY key policy John stood on is supported by a majority of the members and even more of the trade unionists. Real hope for the future......which I will point out next time someone tells me I am "extreme left" and living in the past.

Conservatives endorse Blairism

2007-06-01T07:06:00.000Z

The link below is self explanatory and as far as the left is concerned confirms everything we have been saying for years. What people like Brown have to realise is that the majority of voters cant see any difference between the policies of New Labour and Cameron. I frequently get the view expressed on the doorstep that 'all you politicians are all the same'. This is further backed up by the low turn outs at both local and general elections. Labour do little to attract working class voters which benefits ulta right loons such as the BNP.

New Labour's blind obsession with winning the 'centre ground' and keeping in with this mythical middle england idea is a short cut over a cliff for the Labour Party.

This is some of many reasons why Brown is likely to lose us the next election to a hung parliament or a Tory government, a worse prospect.

Still the way things are at the moment is there going to be a difference between the two?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6702295.stm

Mind you, help seems to be on hand for Brown. Dave's Part blog http://www.davidosler.com/2007/05/gordon_brown_seeks_liblab_coal.html identified this yesterday. The New Stateman carried this article in the link below

http://www.newstatesman.com/200706040011

Blair first raised this idea pre 1997 I believe when he flirted with the inviting Lib Dems into the cabinet (Paddy Ashdown I seem to remember) Blair was preparing for a minority Labour government in 1997 . (How wrong was he!! He completely misread the hatred the electorate had for the Tories!!)

Blair is on record back in the 90s of saying that the formation of the Labour Party was a 'mistake'. His natural home in my view would have been the Liberal Party of old.

The idea of a progressive coalition, maybe including left wing Tories perhaps will be on the cards.

All Brown has to do then is kick the Unions out of the party and the dream comes true!!

Industrial Development

2007-05-31T13:38:00.000Z

British industry has continued to suffer under New Labour as much as it did under the Tories.

As the 'market' place opens up, British workers are forced to accept huge job losses, tighter wage rises, and worsening conditions whilst the shops are flooded by cheap goods produced in foriegn countries who allow working conditions that would have been a disgrace in the 19th Century, and poverty wages.

Is it time for an element of protectionism to reintroduced to enable British industry to recover, and to force other governments to improve worker conditions and wages.

Several suggestions -

1) If tariffs were imposed on imported goods to bring them up to a level where British industries could compete, would this work?

2) Only allow imports from countries with acceptable human rights records and acceptable levels of pay and working conditions.

3) Invest govt money in building up British industries to reduce the need for imports and the environmental consequences that go with global trade?

4) Apply similar terms to food produce, to encourage us to grow more of the food we eat ionstead of sending the best produce abroad, whilst importing food that European countries know is too crap for their own consumers.

Answering Critics of the Labour Left.

2007-05-29T23:16:00.000Z

Derek Wall

"...The ordinary Labour Party member, concerned, opposed to Blair, wanting peace...ultimately you have each taken a gun and shot a child in Iraq. Are you going to stop the killing? Love to see you all sat in the road with the rest of us opposing the arms trade...but I guess I will have to wait a long time to see you put your weapons away and stop the killing."

My Response

"The ordinary concerned Labour member: done nothing more nor nothing less than the average Green to prevent this. We were on the anti-war marches alongside you. We disrupt the EXCeL conferences alongside you. We are at Faslane and the G8 alongside you. We struggle alongside you, and if you don't know we're left Labour, then that's because it's hardly a badge of pride at the moment.

The 251 Labour MPs who voted for the Iraq War are no more or less responsible than the other few hundred MPs who voted for it.

The people who lied about WMDs, from Hans Blix (if the report they cite in the debate on intervention in Hansard is correct) to Tony Blair to anyone who was in on the truth, must bear a heavier moral burden than anyone, IMO. Being sectarian about this helps no-one."

Haifa Zangana

"The entire Labour party shares blame for Iraq's horrors...
...
The Labour party should not be relieved of its responsibility just because Blair is leaving. It is the moral responsibility of its members to question the party's role in the destruction of Iraq, and whether its new leader will listen to them and to the people of Iraq."

My Response (via e-mail)

"Dear Haifa,

I read with much interest your article of May 28th which was titled "The Entire Labour Party shares blame for Iraq's Horrors". As a recent addition to the left of the party, as part of John McDonnell's short-lived revival of grassroots activity, I have to question to what degree the Labour Party as a corporate entity shares the blame.

Most Labour MPs believed the lies of its leader and were led to war: this is true. But there were 85 Labour rebels who voted against the war as opposed to only 2 Conservative ones, and 139 Labour members who voted in favour of the amendment to the effect that "the case for war was not proven", as opposed to 39 Conservatives. Large numbers of Labour MPs abstained from both votes. There were enough Labour rebels and abstainees that the leadership of the Conservative Party had the power to stop the Commons vote. Surely, by the logic with which you condemn the entire Labour Party for Blair's failures, the Conservative Party should recieve an equal condemnation for its eager support of the action?

Further, since most Labour members opposed the war and many actively expressed their opposition by quitting the party or joining Stop The War's many protests, you condemn them for remaining in the party and for not forcing Blair and Brown to apologise: "The Labour party should not be relieved of its responsibility just because Blair is leaving. It is the moral responsibility of its members to question the party's role in the destruction of Iraq, and whether its new leader will listen to them and to the people of Iraq." Believe me, if grass-roots members of political parties had the direct influence you attribute to us, the Labour Party would never have gone to war in the first place.

Any attempt to spread the blame from Blair to his party in general may as well include Parliament as an institution: did that not fail when two thirds of our elected representatives voted to enter an illegal war? How about blaming the electorate which elected these thugs, or those who did not even bother to vote against them?

The Labour Party has seen a staggering amount of action against the war: not only the thousands who left in 2003 or the stalwart voters who now take their votes elsewhere because of the international solidarity they still feel, but members acting within the Party; members acting within the Trade Unions; members acting within NGOs and anti-war groups and members acting as individuals. Clearly neither the Members of Parliament for Labour or for the Conservatives could foretell the consequences of their actions in 2003, but I believe that, despite Blair's rhetoric, not many of them would describe their decision as "right" in the knowledge of what has happened.

Clearly none of this will be any consolation to millions of Iraqis who have been affected by this morally indefensible conflict. I remain convinced both that the War in Iraq was deeply and intolerably wrong and that it is better to be actively opposed to illegal war in one of our imperfect political parties than to sit on the sidelines away from the blame.

Yours,

John Angliss
SOAS Labour Students"

The Rural Issue

2007-05-29T16:43:00.001Z

Down here in Kent we have an (ever diminishing) amount of rural areas. These tend traditionally to be seen as Tory safe spots, and in many parts Labour don't visit them at all.

Yet we really do need to be breaking into these areas and presenting not only a Labour vision, but also one that reflects true left-wing values. They are areas that have largely been ignored by the party, and could prove vital areas in picking up new recruits - but which of our policies are most likely to appeal to these areas, and how can we broaden our appeal in these areas?

I have spent the last two local elections working in some rural areas, and picked up quite a few votes - but these were largely due to local concerns and the fact that I've a record in Parish politics. They probably will not transfer en masse to Labour in other elections...

Yet I think there is a constituency in these areas that would vote for us if they had positive reasons to do so...

Any ideas anyone?

FACES OF BEVANISM: Organising the Labour Left, 1950-1960

2007-05-29T12:26:00.000Z

(Part I: Introduction)

"...a band of cheeky, irreverent and irresponsible outlaws merrily challenged a humourless party establishment... they were anti-upper class, anti-public school, anti-colonial, anti-capitalist and anti-American. The Bevanites delighted in being dangerously equivocal about Communism at the height of the Cold War, and they basked in the knowledge that not only the they have in Aneurin Bevan the most inspiring leader in British Politics, they also had an enthusiastic following among the rank and file in the still flourishing constituency parties" (Pimlott Wilson 1992)

This picture is similar to that often painted of the Bevanite Group of Labour MPs. They were a group which emerged from the meeting of minds between an existing group, Keep Left, formed in 1947 to urge the Labour Government not to retreat from its programme, and three members of that Government who resigned in the Spring of 1951: Nye Bevan, Harold Wilson and John Freeman. Bevan and Wilson, when threatening their resignations in the Cabinet, already talked of backbench supporters before the Bevanite Group came into being. They resigned over Gaitskell's 1951 budget which proposed health charges to pay for a large rearmament programme (the continued campaigns against the extent of the expenditure on armaments and in defence of the social services were important pillars of Bevanism throughout its turbulent existence). They declared then that their backbench supporters would not vote in favour of such changes. (Cabinet Minutes, 1951) Bevan was already a famous figure and something of a hero in the labour movement - the architect of the National Health Service - and to the eyes of observers he assumed the leadership of the dissenting group in Parliament. In fact, while he was a figurehead and a potential leadership candidate, he took a back seat in the organisation of this parliamentary faction. It is for that reason that this study does not begin in 1951 with Bevan's resignation from the Cabinet and end in 1957 with Bevan's inclusion in Gaitskell's leadership team. The 'Bevanism' in this study is the broad, organised Labour Left of the 1950s.

Although Bevanism came into being while Labour was in government, the 1950s was a decade when Labour saw a declining popular vote (from a peak in 1951) and a revival of fortunes for the Conservative Party. Bevanites wanted the Labour Opposition to use arguments based on socialist analysis to provide radical opposition to the Conservative Government's policy. However, certainly regarding economic policy, there was a degree of consensus in the arena of 'high politics' and the House of Commons, leading to the media invention of Mr. Butskell (a mixture of the Chancellor Butler, and his Shadow, Gaitskell). This was not a suggestion with found favour with many Labour Party members. The 1950s saw Labour in turbulent dicision and some of the issues that were fought over continued to recur as they Party's greatest controversies of the latter half of the twentieth century: nuclear disarmament, the power of the trade unions in the party, nationalisation and Clause Four of the party's constitution.

There is a considerable literature on the activites of this Bevanite 'band' although it is mostly in the form of autobiography, biography and diaries. The group that has not recieved so much attention is the 'enthusastic following among the rank and file'. It is my assertion that the legacy and impact of this group of MPs, who never numbered more than 50, cannot be understood without some consideration of Bevanism outside Parliament, and particularly in the CLPs. Through a study centred around the minute books of four chosen parties (Coventry North, Rugby, Pudsey and York) I attempted to uncover something about the organisation and motivation of left-wing constituency activists in the 1950s (the Constituency Bevanites). These were not chosen because they were necessarily consistently Bevanite CLPs - they are a mixture.

Minutes are not always satisfactory (a motion of censure in the Coventry North CLP officers for leaving something from the minutes was defeated, therefore the historian will never know what it was that was left out!) The other concern was that - then as now - there are a lot of 'silent members': the constituency Bevanites were clearly the activists (and at that time activists had rather more power in the party structures than today).

This is a reappraisal of Bevanism as a whole, putting the rank and file centre stage. The Bevanites were variously described as: 'a party within a party', 'no more than a nuisance', 'a major organised rebellious group', 'not much more than a group of congenial friends' or 'half vague emotion, half Mikardo's cunning organisation' (the last attributed to Hugh Dalton). Are any of these descriptions close to being accurate? What lessons can we learn as far as Labour left organisation in this decade is concerned?

Brown's Budget

2007-05-28T14:09:00.000Z

Like the anorak I am, I've downloaded the full budget and may spend "some time" reading it. He had a deficit of GBP37.2Bn and expects this to increase "slightly" over the next 3 years or so.

Next thing I'll do is download the LRC version and compare and contrast and then attempt to come up with our strong arguments about its feasibility. The fact that Brown has a growing deficit makes things difficult as we have less room to manoevre - but it also means that the argument about a left deficit is lost! All comments/thoughts welcome!

GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND REVENUE

Chart 1.1 presents public spending by main function. Total managed expenditure (TME) is expected to be around £587 billion in 2007-08. TME is divided into Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL), shown in Table C13 of the FSBR, and Annually Managed Expenditure (AME), shown in Table C11 of the FSBR.

Chart 1.2 shows the different sources of government revenue. Public sector current receipts are expected to be around £553 billion in 2007-08. Table C8 of the FSBR provides a more detailed breakdown of receipts consistent with this chart.

Do Not Feed Trolls

2007-05-28T08:26:00.000Z

If there is one thing guaranteed to slow down progress on the re-development of the Labour Left, it's taking time out to entertain right-wingers in the party who will take every opportuinty to ridicule, oppose and generally annoy and undermine us.
The blogosphere is a prime are for such activity, and certain names spring instantly to mind.

Can I suggest that we utterly ignore them, unless they actually have a decent point to make, which is very very rare.
It isn't to concede defeat, or to be undemocratic to ignore these people - most of the time they will be posting simply to goad us into responding so that they can then respond to our responses with more insulting / inane / irrelevant / utterly missing our point (on purpose?) rubbish Which they just know we'll respond to again, thus perpetuating the idiocy and making us look like knobs as much as they do. They don't care about looking like knobs - it's just a bit of Leftie baiting and they'll have a good laugh at our expense. But we DO end up lookng stupid by being drawn into stupid arguments about toss all.

And notice - if they're losing an arguement or can't perpetuate it easily, they don't concede or anything. They simply stop posting on that thread and start again on another topic on another thread...

If we all simply refuse to reply to them at all, they won't have the exscuse to keep their threads going - unless they talk to themselves! I've seen it work on other boards, so let's just try and ignore their crap wherevever they spout it?

Which way forward for the Left

2007-05-27T20:51:00.000Z

Mikael asked me to post something I put on my Blog earlier. Under the title 'The Long March' I thought I would share some of the discussions I have been having amongst Socialists in my part of the world (Southampton).

I mentioned in an earlier post about the need to evaluate the john4leader campaign and the undoubted success it had of bringing together the layers of the Labour and non Labour left behind what was a brave effort to challenge the ideas of New Labour. There have been a number of discussions started , on blogs in particular but also in the wider movement as a whole as to the ways forward. I thought I would add my own piece to consider in what will be a tense but crucial debate.

Over the last 5 years it has become increasingly apparent that the left both inside and outside of Labour is weak and disunited. This lack of unity has certainly damaged the cause of socialist ideas in the eyes of many workers conscious of the need to transform society.

The non Labour left have stubbornly refused to accept the Labour Left , deriding its aims as futile and its influence small or even insignificant. They see them as a spent force locked in the late 70s , early 80s (oddly sharing a view with many Blairites today!!)

They see the Labour Party as a dead end.

Meanwhile the non labour left organise around election campaigns as a socialist alternative with very few successes hoping that certain conditions will prevail sometime in the future that will enable them to be a challenge similar to movements in the Netherlands, Germany and Scotland (Mind you I think it might be wise to lay the Scottish experience to rest for the moment)

They have proved unsuccessful in wrestling traditional working class support from the Labour Party.To be blunt they have proved that they are not 'up to the job' and will remain so.It is mainly for this reason that organisations such as the CNWP and Respect will fail in bringing the Labour Left to their banner.

But what of the Labour Left?

To be associated with the Labour Party is a bummer!! The left take a hammering because they are wrongly associated with the Blairite leadership who boldly continue where Thatcher and Major left off.There is a way forward.I mentioned before about the success of the john4leader campaign. Not success in challenging Gordon Brown in a leadership election, that got clearly kicked into touch by some seriously unprincipled MPs, but success in getting out to the the layers of socialist activists all over the country , in particulat the activists in the Trade Unions in a way that the non labour left could only dream of achieving.

It became apparent quite early on that the campaign was tapping into something that showed potential for growth but most important , potential for unity.John McDonnell challenged the existing order of things by bringing to the attention of trade unionists in particular that Privatisation can be opposed politically as well as industrially, the War in Iraq can be opposed and stopped, that there are alternative views to the housing problems workers face and the full scale assault on our NHS can be reversed.

He showed socialist ideas were realistic and affordable.

But in my view , most importantly, his campaign brought a unity that showed that the challenge can come from both inside and outside the party as long as the left as a whole organised together to achieve these common aims.

The debate now centres on what kind of 'organisation' should exist in order to make this unity effective?

How do we bring socialists together who work in the trade unions, community groups and progressive single issue campaigns under a common campaigning banner?

At long last it is a unity debate that I am happy to take part in.

I will return with my proposals in a later posting.

Deputy Leadership: The Case for Hain.

2007-05-27T16:05:00.000Z

This is as much a thought-experiment as anything, to mark my joining the LLF and to perhaps stir up some debate in the comments.

Peter Hain has so far been neglected by the Labour left, and I can't see the reason for it. I have seen the strong supporters of John McDonnell pledge their support to Jon Cruddas, Harriet Harman, Hilary Benn and even Alan Johnson, so I would like to make the case for the most neglected "lefty" (by New Labour/Dep Leader contest standards) on the ballot.

First, he has something which Cruddas lacks: experience in the Cabinet and the respect amongst MPs which comes with making that position work. The personal credibility and influence which he has gained from his contribution to peace in Northern Ireland should not be underestimated. Moreover, the addition of a mandate from the Labour left and Unions would make him a force for Brown to reckon with on the left: his CV guarantees that he can't be totally ignored.

Second, he has a genuinely moral outlook: a commitment to genuine democracy at home and human rights abroad. If we are considering our nomination for Deputy Leader by virtue of what weight they have in the Cabinet for socialism and for good, I would suggest that Hain has it right. His adoption of the Alternative Vote system might jeopardise Labour's future electoral success by smashing the two-and-a-half party system, but it will energise and enfranchise the left as a whole, and it shows that he is willing to put people before party.

Thirdly, Peter Hain would genuinely be able to curb Brown's rightist tendencies in a way that no other candidate could. There is a strong statist consensus (right and left) in the Labour Party at the moment which I believe is extremely damaging to our popularity with the public. If Peter Hain could begin introducing a 'Libertarian' Socialist element to domestic policy, then the Party can finally leave behind Old Labour's unquestioning statism (sometimes at the expense of the people); leave behind New Labour's restriction of liberties and rolling-back of Old Labour's gains and begin a new movement to revitalise the grass-roots of the Labour Party.

NO MORE CORONATIONS!

2007-05-27T15:36:00.000Z

Procedure is dull but it has to be done right if we're ever going to get anywhere. Rule changemotions are currently the only way to make things different and avoid another stitch-up like the recent leadership fiasco.
June 8 is the deadline for CLPs to submit. If your branch or GC isn't meeting before then, circulate to anyone else you know who can help get this through. . Calder Calley CLP has already done this, ticked all the boxes, and our delegate will be arguing our case at Manchester in 2008 - yes it takes a year to get on the agenda. You will need a Constitutional Amendment Form . Labour Party national Contact Renee Finan 0207 783 1374.Can I also urge all CLPs to affilate to the Campaign For Labour Party Democracy - CLPD. Their main man, Pete Willsman, iso on the NEC and knows the rule book inside out!

Proposed rule change:
4B Procedural rules for elections for national officers of the Party.
Paragraph 4B.2b(1)
Nomination reads as follows
In the case of a vacancy for leader or deputy leader, each nomination must be supported by 12.5 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void."
Amendment: Delete 12.5 and insert 7.5

Points to stress: This isn't about individuals, it's about democracy.Party members have just been denied a vote and a candidate reflecting a significant strand of opinion within the Party. They have been disenfranchised.In effect, the MPs have had a political veto.
The original 1981 threshold was a modest 5 percent which was raised in 1988 by Neil Kinnock ( to stop the Left, basically) . Ensuring a a contest engages the wider public and gives the Party more credibility .....Gordon Brown's coronation will not exactly help his case come the next Election.

Past "Labour Left" Campaigns - guest posts by Comrade Harry Barnes

2007-05-26T21:51:00.000Z

Below are two guest posts written by Comrade Harry Barnes. In them, he deals with past Labour Leadership elections and the lessons which they represent for members of the Labour Left. The original articles can be found here and here. Many thanks to Comrade Harry Barnes for allowing the Labour Left Forum to re-produce his insightful articles.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond Our Ken

John McDonnell's Role ModelJohn is not the first member of the Socialist Campaign Group (SCG) to fail to gain sufficient nominations to stand for the Leadership of the Labour Party. Ken Livingstone went down that path in 1992.

After Labour's defeat in the 1992 Election, Neil Kinnock and Roy Hattersley bounced the Labour Party into elections for Leader and Deputy by their premature resignations, which gave the Party little time to give the matter much thought.

We can hardly plead that we were unprepared this time - although what is
happening is again devoid of questioning and analysis.

Trying To Talk Ken Out Of Standing

As soon as Neil and Roy announced their intention to resign, SCG weekly meetings were dominated by how we should respond. Opinions differed strongly, with some keen to push Ken Livingstone's candidature. After all, Ken enjoyed a high media profile.

Yet there were strong voices arguing against running any candidate. For a while no-one sort to test the water by moving for a vote on the matter. But time started to run out and those supporting Ken needed to move. This was done at a poorly attended meeting which was held as a parliament was either moving in or out of recess - I forget which.

There were only seven MPs present for the crucial meeting. These were Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner, Ken Livingstone, John Austin (who was newly elected and was then known as John Austin-Walker), the late Bernie Grant, the late Bob Cryer and myself.

Crunch Time

At that time, Ken and Bernie had been at loggerheads over the best way to pursue anti-racist activities. Ken was fully involved in the work of the Anti Racist Alliance, whilst Bernie was active with the Anti Nazi League. Ken and Bernie barely seemed to be on speaking terms.

It was, therefore, something of a surprise when Ken informed us that if he stood for the leadership he was in favour of Bernie standing as his running mate for the post of Deputy. Thankfully for Ken, Bernie liked the idea.Dennis Skinner and Bob Cryer were strong supporters of the notion that the Group should run candidates, so they supported the proposal for a Ken-Bernie ticket.

Tony Benn was probably chairing the meeting, as he did not vote. John Austin-Walker and myself opposed the proposal, as we felt that it would be counter-productive both inside the newly elected Parliamentary Labour Party and throughout the wider movement.Otherwise tied at 2-2 (Skinner and Cryer vs Austin-Walker and Barnes), the outcome was determined by the votes of the would-be candidates.

Needless to say without Ken and Bernie even having widespread support amongst the missing members of the SCG, they failed badly to obtain the required number of nominations from Labour MPs.

Tony's Contribution

The last time the SCG moved successfully to secure a nomination for the Labour Leadership was in 1988 when Tony Benn challenged the then incumbent Leader, Neil Kinnock. Tony obtained only 11.4% of the vote. (This contest is not to be confused with his famous narrow defeat by Dennis Healy for the Deputy Leadership of the Labour Party in 1981, during the high-water mark of Bennism.)

Before Tony's name went forward, there were again lengthy weekly debates in the SCG. I remember Red Dawn's reaction (i.e. Dawn Primarolo) in particular. She was a strong supporter of Tony Benn's political position and initially she argued forcefully in support of him standing. But when she discussed the situation with left activists in her Bristol Constituency (the very people who she thought would support her line), she was shocked to find them repeating the same warnings that some of us were putting to her at SCG meetings. She then changed her stance. Perhaps this was the start of her move into the Gordon Brown camp.

An immediate consequence of Tony's failed candidature in 1988 was that the Labour Party raised the hurdle for MPs' nominations beyond the then 10% level - a move that was unhelpful to John McDonnell in the long run.Yield Not To TemptationThe SCG and the left generally need to learn the futility in current circumstances of running their own candidates for top Labour positions. It takes activists to the top of the hill and lets them roll down again - as will be seen in John4Leader's comment box and on many a blog.

It was the above reasoning which led me to press for Peter Hain to stand for Leader and not just for Deputy. I judged that for the left he was a plausible candidate who would clear the nominations hurdle, run a campaign we could associate ourselves with and give us an opportunity to have a marginal influence on the future direction of the Party. I did not expect him to win, but to have some influence on Gordon Brown via his campaign.

As Peter did not stand for Leader (and few saw the significance of pushing him to stand), I eventually moved at the 11th hour to support John McDonnell - as (given the eventual lack of choice) I would have nominated him if I had still been an MP. Which is more than I did for Ken Livingstone in 1988.

But none of us should be placed in such a position. When it comes to issues as key as the Leadership of the Labour Party, the left and its MPs should make coherent moves to seek out feasible candidates. Unfortunately, that position has never won through in the SCG - except as below.

1988, 1992, 2007 Or 1994?

Although I know what went on in the SCG over the 1988 and 1992 Leadership contests, I'm not privy to what happened this year. But I am keen to find out.

There has, however, been one Leadership election where the SCG adopted the approach I favour. In 1994, I actively campaigned alongside Ken Livingstone and others for Margaret Beckett in the contest which Tony Blair won. Margaret might not seem to be a standard bearer for "left of centre" politics in current circumstances, but she did in 1994 (and for periods afterwards). At the least she would have maintained the Labourite stance of John Smith and would not have propagated a New Labour line - she was the Peter Hain of her time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Defence Of The 1994 Margaret Beckett

Here is a criticism of those of us on the Labour Left who supported Margaret Beckett in the 1994 Labour Leadership election campaign. Below, I give my response.

Why A Margaret Beckett Ticket in 1994?

(1) Unless someone had foreknowledge, the pros and cons of Margaret's actions since the 1994 Campaign are irrelevant to this assessment.

(2) Overwhelmingly in her favour - she was not Tony Blair.

(3) There was no-one to her left who could have obtained the nominations, unless the 1994 John Prescott (who also stood) is considered to have occupied that position.

(4) If anyone to her left had by magic gained the nominations, they would not have been able to mount a feasible campaign. The bulk of the Party members did not wish to upset the apple-cart after 15 years in opposition.

(5) As Deputy Leader under John Smith then Leader after his death, she first followed and then sustained his stance. Although John Smith was no left-winger, he was in the Labourite tradition and he did not seek to ditch Democratic Socialism and Labourism as being illegitimate parts of the Labour tradition.

(6) She had a sound grasp of the Democratic Socialist case. Including -

* In 1970 she became a Researcher to the Labour Party on Industrial Policy and worked closely with Judith Hart and Stuart Holland on the proposals which emerged in Labour Programme of 1973 and the 1974 General Election Manifesto which reflected and included Tony Benn's famous formula of making "a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families".

* When looking for a left-wing candidate in 1973, the Lincoln Labour Party first approached Margaret (then known as Margaret Jackson) at the Labour Party Conference. In February 1974, she stood against their former candidate Dick Taverne - the right-wing dissident.Although she lost, she took the seat during the later October General Election of that year. She moved straight into Government positions, but was seen as being on the Left.

* She lost her seat at the 1979 General Election, but she was successful as a left-wing candidate for the National Executive Committee in 1980 and actively supported Tony Benn's famous but narrowly unsuccessful campaign for the Deputy Leadership of the Labour Party (against Dennis Healy) in 1981.

* She returned to Parliament in 1983, as MP for Derby South. She joined the Socialist Campaign Group and only resigned in 1988 over Tony Benn's counter-productive decision to stand for Party Leader against Neil Kinnock, the incumbent. Three other women MPs resigned with her and the Group became more isolated than ever.

(7) Although she moved away from the Hard Left from 1988, within the confines of a front-bench position she had a good democratic socialist record as Opposition Spokesperson on (a) Social Security (held since 1984 to 1989) (b) Treasury matters (Shadow to the Chief Secretary 1989 to 1992) and (c) Deputy Leader 1992-1994). Although I was one of those who remained in the Socialist Campaign Group, I never considered myself to be part of either the Hard or (what used to be called) the Soft Left - but I attempted to work on both elements to show them that there was (and are still) socialist alternatives. Although confined by office-holding, I felt that Margaret had a similar approach.

In assessing whether it was reasonable for the Left to back Margaret Beckett those 13 years ago, we must remember that this was a decade before the invasion of Iraq (and many other mistaken New Labour moves.) I happen to think that few of these major errors would have occurred if she had won that Leadership vote, even though I am sorry that she stuck so closely to office from 1994.

End of posts

Why I won't be backing Cruddas.

2007-05-26T13:34:00.001Z

Jon Cruddas had my vote until Wednesday May 16 at around 8.30pm. That was when John McDonnell had to concede it was "mathematically impossible" to get the 45 nominations required to get on the leadership ballot. One of the major reasons why that just didn't happen was down to the ambivalent and, frankly, shameful attitude of the soft-left MPs in the Compass Group. These are the people who have shared platforms on anti-Trident demonstrations, walked into division lobbies against top-up fees, supported measures like the Trade Union Freeedom Bill and defended council housing. Yet when push came to shove off they marched again - into the lemming-like rush to sign Gordon Brown's nomination papers. In Cruddas's case, this particular signature might well be his political death warrant.
Read this week's Tribune. Cruddas says the Deputy Leadership election is " an unrivalled opportunity to refresh and renew our Party structures and our policy direction." Yes, the reason it is "unrivalled" is that the PLP, Cruddas included, has just performed the most undemocratic act in the Labour Party's history - and denied the membership a vote on the leadership.
And here he is again:""We have to examine why it is that half our members have left in the past 10 years and what we can do to build the party again as an active, community-based and campaigning organisation." Yes, Jon, a leadership contest would have been a start, wouldn't it? Just take a gander at the John4Leader website and read the posts from distraught members thinking of tearing up their cards.
In the past seven days I have thought about this long and hard. And others on the left will take a different view.But I'm still not falling into line with the Morning Star, which today said we should put aside "hurt feelings and ruffled feathers" and vote for Jon Cruddas.
This is not a trivial spat, nor the Schadenfreude of factional in-fighting . The fact is that Jon Cruddas based almost his entire campaign around grassroots involvement and Party democracy. He has helped deny us both. I think that is dishonourable. And the non-event of the Deputy Leadership just doesn't make up for that. Sorry

Some publishing guidelines

2007-05-25T21:59:00.000Z

The aim of this blog is to function as a forum. In order for this function, some "publishing guidelines" apply. I will - hopefully during the weekend - create some internal links, where readers of this blog will be able to find the different subjects up for discussion. The internal links will make sure that no post "expires" and allow members to find what they are looking for quickly/easily (i.e. without having to go through "archives").

So, here are the general "publishing guidelines":

Please "tag" your posts with the following labels as appropriate - "Trade Unions", "Common Ownership", "J4L" (for lessons of, and reflections on, the J4L campaign), "Manifesto" (for posts concerning the "programme" of the Labour Left", "SYN" (for posts related to the Socialist Youth Network), "Events" (for upcoming events and LRC/Labour Left meetings).
You are of course more than welcome to suggest "tags" and "internal links" of your own, but please do not create any other "label" in addition to those I have stated without telling me in advance - that would make the forum pretty difficult to organise.
All on the Labour Left can join this forum, so please don't hesitate to provide me with your e-mail address in any of the "comment" boxes - I will delete once I have invited you to join, so do not worry about privacy.

Now, the general "commenting guidelines":

Anyone is welcome to express his opinion, but please stay on topic (or ask me to create a new "tag").
Comments posted by Agents-Provocateurs of the Labour-Right will be deleted, if, that is, they are added only for the sake of provocation.
At the moment, a "google account" is necessary in order to publish comments. I may change this in the future.

These guidelines have been set up for the benefit of all readers, please stick to them in order for this forum to remain organised, as well as to maintain discussions as relevant, productive, and, of course, Comradely as possible.

Comradely,

Mikael, Labour Left Forum administrator

What are the lessons?

2007-05-25T20:41:00.000Z

Okay - a controversial one, I guess (judging from some of the debates that are going on around the blogosphere); but what lessons should the Labour left take from the John4Leader campaign? Obviously people can discuss what they want, but I'd like to avoid this being a thread about 'if only...' or 'what if...' - there are plenty of other threads for that: I'm looking entirely at the positive lessons we can take from it for the next couple of years (a couple of years in which there is unlikely to be another leadership election).

My own fourpenn'th:

There is a large constituency in the party and the movement (some of them newly recruited) who rightly feel disenfranchised; they also feel under-represented in the PLP

The New Labour clique has not successfully colonised the Labour Party outside parliament: it has hollowed out the party of its activist base in many places, but - given the prospect of a proper debate where socialist views can be aired - 'Real Labour' people are there in force and are ready and able to get involved in campaigns

The left can make excellent use of the internet and, just as Tribune was invaluable to the Bevanites of the 1950s, so internet forums, etc. can be a key organisational tool for the left today

In John we have a champion who can communicate left ideas and priorities, and lead campaigns in the mainstream media, and help us drive the left out of a 'usual suspects' ghetto: his performance at the one leadership hustings and in various media outlets during that brief time when a contest looked likely underlined that point very well indeed

That future campaigns (whatever they may be - and that's an important thread for another time) should, like the John4Leader campaign, begin outside parliament in the grass roots, because that is where our power base is.

I realise that some will think that I appear to have forgotten that the campaign was 'unsuccessful'. I'm sure others may disagree, but - in the end - the defeat of the campaign beneath the Brown steamroller was out of the left's hands; as - this time - was the political make-up of the PLP. It's worth bearing in mind that even those on the 'centre left' (such as El Tom) have expressed doubts that the 'soft left' could have delivered the 16 votes we were missing. My one bit of 'what if' 'if only' is that, had John got 30 plus nominations in the first public declaration, then I think that could have put the brakes on the Brown steamroller, and those people that had previously suggested that would have liked to ensure a contest may have maintained that position. So rather than debating 'what went wrong' (though I'm sure others will) - let's look at the positives. The left is stronger in the movement (outside the PLP) than for any time in the last 20 years, and we are building, growning, and our confidence is developing. There is an appetite for organisation, and there is a determination to build our role and our voice in our movement.

Of course there's got to be some reflection, but let us be clear that we are reflecting from a position of increased strength.

Thanks!

2007-05-25T14:34:00.000Z

For the invite to contribute - looking forward to building on the work weve started at J4L.

From the youth perspective SYN (socialist youth network ) will be campaigning for a Real Living Wage and building on the launch of the youth wing of the LRC.

We definitely have not gone away and just keep getting bigger and stronger so any of you under 30's please come along and join up! (anyone under 30 who's already a member of the LRC is automatically a member of SYN so join in!)

We have a SYN exec meeting on the 2nd of June so I'll publish our concrete plans for the campaign after that!

Onwards and upwards comrades.

21st Century Socialism

2007-05-25T09:24:00.000Z

So glad to be part of this initiative. This is where we consolidate the work started with the J4L campaign and begin to present a case to those in the left of the party - be they hard, centre, soft, PLP or CLP.

Our next campaign begins now!

I want to be part of the forum - what's to be done?

2007-05-25T09:05:00.000Z

Dear All,

Duncan and I set up this forum hoping that it was going to be a collaborative effort. We would very much appreciate people on the Labour Left to leave their e-mail addresses in the "comment" box of this post in order for you to take part in the debate and for us increase the number of participants - your e-mail address must be linked to your google account/you require a google account to be able to participate. Your e-mail addresses will be deleted as soon as you have been added to our list of authors; so don't worry about privacy!

If you have any suggestion concerning subjects up for discussion, don't hesitate to bring it up. All help is welcome!

Comradely,

Mikael

Welcome to Labour Left Forum

2007-05-24T21:04:00.000Z

This new forum for people on the Labour Left has the potential to be an invaluable addtion to the blogosphere! We have good comrade Mikael to thank for setting it up and designing it. It will undoubtedly be 'finding its feet' for a few days, but I'm hoping it will develop into an essential stopping place for lefties on the net! The idea is that it will be a collaborative effort with a variety of writers from the Labour Left offering their thoughts on various issues, raising awareness of campaigns and co-ordinating activities. It also offers every opportunity for comments/discussion/debate.

Also see the Labour Left forum Facebook group if you use Facebook (and if you don't, it's quite easy to join and a good way to make and keep contacts on the left).

Enjoy!