SOCIALIST UNITY

11 June, 2008

187 Comments »

1. Compass are a fake left organisation with no basis in the working class, the trade unions or even the Labour Party. They are no less marginalised than the LRC.

   What is to be gained from speaking at their conference?

   Comment by Rory — 11 June, 2008 @ 2:47 pm

2. jon Cruddas won every round of the deputy leadership contest in the Trade union section of the voting, and was backed by Unite, the biggest union in the land. His campign also set the terms of debate within other unions, even those that didn’t back him.

   Mcdonnell didn’t get on the ballot paper.

   go figure.

   Comment by Andy Newman — 11 June, 2008 @ 2:52 pm

3. “Already, sadly, one leading MP associated with Compass, Jon Trickett, has announced he will be supporting the government, which suggests that Compass is a more volatile and unstable project than John Harris would have it”.

   That’s an argument I have used before. They are an utterly unstable and voltaile force and who knows where, politically, they will end up. I have always had my reservations re Compass as I don’t trust them as far as I could throw them. There may be times when we can work with them (members as opposed to sell-out MPs).

   McD. has always been reliable and consistence. Where was Cruddas on the war? Where was Cruddas re Housing Bill? He may have redeeming features but really, I can’t see them.

   I did question whether I was ultra left in spoiling my ballot form re deputy leadership but no, they were a bunch of war mongering sods including Cruddas.

   Hard left and soft left in the LP?

   Oh, and re McD. getting little backing? Please, that is nonsense. McD. gets more media coverage now and at least there is some beacon that socialist ideas are still around and again McD is a reliable and consistent MP unlike Cruddas who isn’t.

   What were you expecting Andy a coup d’etat by the left in the LP?

   Again, this post is a distraction from the fact Compass supporting MPs have sold out once again and you attack John McD instead.

   Comment by Louise — 11 June, 2008 @ 2:59 pm

4. Yes, Cruddas got support from the bureaucracy of the TU where do his loyalties lie?

   Comment by Louise — 11 June, 2008 @ 3:00 pm

5. The reason why one got on the ballot paper and the other didn’t is very simple.

   Cruddas and McDonnell camps arranged a nomination swap to ensure both got on the paper.

   McDonnell’s supporters signed Cruddas’s nomination papers in good faith. Then the Compass MPs come back in and announce that, now they’ve got their signatures, they are not going to fulfil their half of the deal.

   That is how Cruddas got on the ballot paper.

   The reason he got endorsements from some union leaderships (and don’t forget that several unions supported McDonnell got despite not making it onto the ballot) was because he is a trade union bueaucrat and so union bureaucrats like him. Crudass, like them, loves nothing better than neutralising a left threat with a few token nice words before selling them out.

   Comment by Rory — 11 June, 2008 @ 3:01 pm

6. Having spent last year attacking George Galloway, including when he was unjustly kicked out of parliament, It seems that Andy is now turning on John McDonnell MP in favour of promoting the soft left of Compass.

   It seems at every opportunity whether it’s livingstone, nationalists, compass or whatever that Andy seeks to promote the fake left and attack the real left.

   Comment by Adamski — 11 June, 2008 @ 3:03 pm

7. Oh and let’s not forget Compass wholeheartedly backed Brown last summer, while most supporters of McDonnell gave critical support to Cruddas.

   I find it staggering that someone supposedly on the left could attack McDonnell and defend Compass over this. Staggering.

   Comment by Rory — 11 June, 2008 @ 3:04 pm

8. “Oh, and re McD. getting little backing? Please, that is nonsense. ”
   I am afraid that it is not nonsense. I would rather John Mc than Cruddas or Meacher but the fact is that John couldn’t get on to the ballot paper because of lack of support in the PLP. Turning his nose up at the Compass Group is hardly likely to change that.

   Comment by Matthew Stiles — 11 June, 2008 @ 3:09 pm

9. I don’t think turning his nose up at the Compass Group is supposed to change that.

   If you realise you have dog shit on your shoes, do you go back looking for more or wipe it off and carry on?

   Comment by Rory — 11 June, 2008 @ 3:11 pm

10. But Matthew, what exactly does Compass stand for? They are an unreliable political force who jump all over the place, it is hard to trust them. Also, the probs with McD. not getting on the ballot form is more to do with a spineless PLP. Do you actually trust Cruddas and Trickett with their current political trajectory?

    Comment by Louise — 11 June, 2008 @ 3:13 pm

11. Louise and Rory have this spot on, part of the reason that McD didn’t get on the ballot paper was that the compass mps did not nominate him. Trickett for example is some sort of decent left mp, but he nominated Brown in the knowledge that it would deny the party membership any chance to have a debate on the leadership. Cruddas himself is no sort of left MP at all, Compass support for various campaigns -against academies etc- has been quielty dropped since Brown was elected leader.

    McD’s record in parliament -in contrast to for example Galloway’s- is excellent, asking questions, raising EDMs, participating in debates and voting in exactly the manner you would hope that a socialist MP would; he’s been a constant thorn in the side of New Labour.

    Andy, genuine question, How do you think McD should have reacted to compass voting for 42 days? Bad tempered or not at least his article sets down a marker that defines one of the divisions between the broonites of Compass and the real labour left of the LRC.

    Comment by martin ohr — 11 June, 2008 @ 3:13 pm

12. Andy,

    Isn’t your article yet more proof that you have no real understanding of what it means to be left wing?

    “Galloway is left wing … it’s obvious isn’t it? … look, he calls himself a socialist … he stood up to Blair … opposed the war … the little matter of his support for reactionary regimes, his conservatism on abortion - all that is besides the point.”

    “Cuba - of course it’s socialist: Fidel says so. The Cuban Communist Party is in charge … must be socialist.”

    “Compass - of course, they’re socialists. They say nice things about poor people, wag their finger at the government for being nasty etc… Some of their MPs may vote for small things like wars and draconion detention but we should take them at face value. Look at how nice that Cruddas chap is.”

    “Well, it looks like dog-shit. Smells like dog-shit. Tastes like dog-shit. But it’s got a sign on it saying ‘Chocolate Cake’ - must be! YUM, YUM.”

    You are part of the general retreat of the left, clinging with desperation onto any old heap of rubbish - determined that something, somewhere out there must still be worth the effort. The rest of us - those who stick to our ideas and who continue to work for them - can see the rubbish for what it is.

    That’s the difference.

    Tom

    Comment by TomU — 11 June, 2008 @ 3:14 pm

13. Christ this is desperate stuff.

    Compass, a loose group of Labour MPs, whose politics would have put them on the hard right of Old Labour are now being championed as an important section of the Labour left. It just goes to show how weak the Labour left is, both numerically and politically, if that bunch of near-Blairite chancers represent a significant sector.

    Comment by Irish Mark P — 11 June, 2008 @ 3:17 pm

14. Where’s Compass going, more to the point.

    “Compass may publish policy statements decrying the government’s policies but these are not worth the paper they are expensively published on when Compass MPs go on to vote through policies like this which fly in the face of all that socialists should stand for.”

    Hear, hear. Voting for a government like this, on a measure like this, says more about a Labour MP than any number of conferences. I’m with Rory (and Jamie).

    Comment by Phil — 11 June, 2008 @ 3:23 pm

15. Oh, and Andy - are you suggesting that Cruddas would have got on the ballot paper for the leadership? Personally I doubt that anyone was ever going to be allowed to stand.

    Comment by Phil — 11 June, 2008 @ 3:26 pm

16. I think Phil asks a very pertinent question about where Compass is going. They are one unstable volatile force who are all over the place politically.

    And why do Cruddas/Trickett feel the need to vote for 42 days, it is not as if they woulda been alone in voting against? It kinda shows, again, that they are untrustworthy and desperate to ally themselves to the Brownite agenda. And Cruddas shifts “left” for opportunistic reasons, it is not real.

    Comment by Louise — 11 June, 2008 @ 3:30 pm

17. No - Cruddas wouldn’t have got on the ballot for leadership.

    There was no prospect of a leadership challenge as the left simply didn’t have a credible challenger. But standing for deputy leadership allowed a debate to take place within the party, and more importantly in the trade unions, about the future direction, and what sort of policies the unions wanted.

    Mark P, it is not just that the labour left are decimated, so are the left outside the Labour party.

    The question is where do we go from here.

    So yes, Compass are a volatile and unstable political grouping, but they have some purchase on the political mainstream debate, which was always the traditional aspiration for the labour left.

    Retreating away froom engagement with that debate, which is what John McD is doing is accepting the terminal marginalisation of the left within the labour party.

    it is interesting for example that many leaping to john McD’s defence here would consider themselves as “revolutionaries”, rather than mainstream left social democrats.

    Comment by Andy Newman — 11 June, 2008 @ 3:48 pm

18. I cannot understand why when my original article says:

    “Already, sadly, one leading MP associated with Compass, Jon Trickett, has announced he will be supporting the government, which suggests that Compass is a more volatile and unstable project than John Harris would have it.”

    people keep saying that Compass is unstable and volatile, as if they are contradicting me.

    That isn’t the question.

    the question is whether you continue to participate in a debate with them.

    Comment by Andy Newman — 11 June, 2008 @ 3:53 pm

19. Jesus Andy, just take your ass to Compass conference and rejoin the Labour Party already! Take a lute so you can serenade the warmongering phoney that is John Cruddas and see how much of a hearing you get.

    Comment by Randy Newman — 11 June, 2008 @ 3:54 pm

20. Louise

    the problem with McD not getting on the ballot paper was not just the arithmatic of the PLP.

    He is a very principled socialist, and an excellent activist, but was both too left wing, and had insufficient standing in the wider party to be seen as a credible leadership candidate.

    The problem was that there was no better placed candidate either.

    Comment by Andy Newman — 11 June, 2008 @ 3:55 pm

21. “it is interesting for example that many leaping to john McD’s defence here would consider themselves as “revolutionaries”, rather than mainstream left social democrats.”

    I don’t see what that has to do with anything. Sounds like Trot-baiting to me.

    And I can’t see any purpose in the LRC attending Compass’s utterly irrelevant event other than to remind socialists who are members of Compass who actually speaks up for socialist policies in Parliament on a consistent basis.

    Comment by Rory — 11 June, 2008 @ 3:56 pm

22. I think its quite something to denounce as ‘bad tempered’ someone taking a principled stand on such a fundemental attack on our liberties, and a Labour MP no less. If its true that left wing ideas are as marginal to the mainstream debate as Andy suggests, either his is an argument for shifting the left to the right, or on the other hand, a naive belief that being friendly to the right will lead them to take left wing ideas seriously. Can’t quite figure out which. Nevertheless pretty poor, as I’d have imagined that Andy might instead be blogging outraged posts on the fate of ‘free born englishmen’ under Brown. As opposed to denouncing one for being immoderately bad tempered about it.

    Comment by johng — 11 June, 2008 @ 4:01 pm

23. Sorry, posted too early there…

    The left within the Labour Party is utterly marginalised. John McDonnell is worth a hundred John Cruddases and your attempt to build the Compass group up as a left wing bloc within Labour seem like a bizarre and desperate attempt to invent a Labour left that you can relate to in a suitably Stalinist fashion. ‘Cruddas is better than McDonnel because he got union tops behind him’, because he’s a ‘realistic’ left, blah blah’. He’s useless, Compass are useless and anyone who thinks they represent a Labour Left that those of us now outside the party can relate to are simply propogating a ridiculous fantasy.

    Comment by Randy Newman — 11 June, 2008 @ 4:02 pm

24. “But he is saying he will not be associated with those seeking to develop a coherent left leaning political strand within modern Labourism.” If you think that Compass respresents any such strand, you are wrong. If I was McD, I’d have gone along to tell them exactly what I thought of them, not line myself up with them.

    “Retreating away from engagement with that debate, which is what John McD is doing is accepting the terminal marginalisation of the left within the labour party.” If you’ve read anything of what McD says about the future direction of politics, you would see he has no intention of marginalising himself.

    Of course, McD’s politics are limited - but it’s not strange for revolutionaries to defend an honest political character. With McD, at least you get what it says on the tin - he’s a reformist democratic socialist and he acts like one.

    Comment by TomU — 11 June, 2008 @ 4:02 pm

25. The relevence Tomu, is that if John mcDonnell takes the LRC in the direction of the revolutioanry left, then the LRC project is effectively finished in tersm of any mainstream infleunce in the movement.

    Comment by Andy Newman — 11 June, 2008 @ 4:11 pm

26. Some LRCers are revolutionaries, some (the majority) aren’t. Same as the Labour Party, which doesn’t seem to be finished in terms of mainstream influence quite yet.

    As McDonnell isn’t a revolutionary, he is unlikely to take the LRC “in the direction of the revolutioanry left”, is he?

    Finally, as the LRC is a transparent democratic organisation and not a personality cult like certain other nominally left groups, it is not up to John McDonnell on his own to decide where he wants to take it.

    So enough of the red-baiting eh?

    Comment by Rory — 11 June, 2008 @ 4:16 pm

27. Andy, what is this “revolutionary left” you speak of in the LRC? And what is this “mainstream influence”?

    How would you know it is effectively finished, it really isn’t helpful as there are committed socialists active in the LRC and this kinda view doesn’t help and nor is it backed with any evidence that this what could happen. You don’t know, you are only guessing and based on your own assumptions. How closely do you work with the LRC? Where is your evidence that this is the likely outcome? I might take what you said seriously if you showed examples.

    Comment by Louise — 11 June, 2008 @ 4:16 pm

28. I’ve organised and will chair a session at the Compass conference on Saturday. That sems to me a sensible way of going about an engagement with what remains an important part of Labour’s political landscape and one that is increasingly critical of both the Blairite past and Brownist present.

    Does that mean its not flaky and volatile. It clearly is. And Jon Trickett, Chair of Compass MPs group, voting for 42-days is a cardinal example of it.

    Does that mean there isn’t the necessity for building a left of Labour, inside and outside the Labour Party. No, its needed more than ever before.

    But the idea that John McDonnell represents this huge movement, capable of shifting the PLP, the trade unions, the constituency parties massively to the left and nobody else in Labour has much to offer is dangerously deluded. The Labour and Trade Union hard left are in a serious state of decline, quite possibly terminal. The numbers involved pitifully small when compared to the Bennite high tide. And of course a crucial part of Bennism’s successes was that it was in large measure a coalition. What sort of coalition does McDonnell represent today?

    This isn’t a criticism of McDonnell as an individual or particularly his politics but a hard-headed observation would surely admit that the position he and his backers find themselves in is very, very weak. If in that sitation his part of Labour’s left doesn’t have the good sense to realise it has no choice but to be part of a broader left, some of which it won’t always agree with, then it is only marginalisation that beckons, something the Labour hard left shouldn’t be exactly unfamiliar from the recent past.

    Mark P

    Comment by Mark P — 11 June, 2008 @ 4:25 pm

29. “What sort of coalition does McDonnell represent today?”

    Nobody has claimed McDonnell represents a coalition on his own. The LRC, however, does. You only have to look at the long list of affiliates to realise that.

    Comment by Rory — 11 June, 2008 @ 4:31 pm

30. the idea that John McDonnell represents this huge movement, capable of shifting the PLP, the trade unions, the constituency parties massively to the left and nobody else in Labour has much to offer

    has been put forward by… er, who exactly?

    Comment by Phil — 11 June, 2008 @ 4:48 pm

31. Some choice weasel words from Neal Lawson on the Compass website if anyone wants to read them.

    Comment by Rory — 11 June, 2008 @ 4:50 pm

32. Phil. See comment above.

    Don’t get me wrong I would hope that John McDonnell represented anything but a distinctly marginalised hard left in the PLP, the constituencies the trade unions. Whatever my reservations about Labour’s hard left anything would be better than Blairist-Brownism.

    But the sad fact is that its marginalised, ageing and showing no substantial signs of revival. In that situation, like it or, effecting political change is about coalition building. Somewthing McDonnell has proved singularly incapable of, this latest antic being yet another example.

    Mark P

    Comment by Mark P — 11 June, 2008 @ 4:54 pm

33. Obviously Mark is choosing to ignore the point I made half an hour ago.

    Look at the list of affiliates to the LRC.

    If getting that lot in one organisation isn’t a triumph of coalition building, I don’t know what is.

    Comment by Rory — 11 June, 2008 @ 5:01 pm

34. So Andy, your arguement is don’t go too left wing in case it frightens the horses. Wasn’t that Kinnocks arguement? Look where what we ended up with: neo-liberalism and the almost complete decimation of the left in Labour.
    How many times do us “Trots” (and non “Trots”) have to point out the folly of your rightward trajectory?

    Comment by Ray — 11 June, 2008 @ 5:13 pm

35. Yes. And what precisely has that list of affilates delivered in practical terms?

    Its what used to be known as resilutionary socialism. I’m not, repeat not, suggesting anyone elswe is doing particularly well either. I’m way beyond that era of petty point scoring but the idea that the Labour Hard Left is anything but perilously weak of short of obvious allies is a dangerous delusion.

    Mark P

    Comment by Mark P — 11 June, 2008 @ 5:15 pm

36. “the idea that the Labour Hard Left is anything but perilously weak of short of obvious allies is a dangerous delusion.”

    NOBODY HAS SAID OTHERWISE.

    The question for the ‘hard left’, as everyone else, is how many basic principles you want to sacrifice in order to buddy up with people who have practically no support themselves.

    Comment by Rory — 11 June, 2008 @ 5:17 pm

37. “the idea that the Labour Hard Left is anything but perilously weak of short of obvious allies is a dangerous delusion.”

    NOBODY HAS SAID OTHERWISE.

    The question for the ‘hard left’, as everyone else, is how many basic principles you want to sacrifice in order to buddy up with people who have practically no support themselves.

    And what has “delivered in practical terms” got to do with anything? The question was about building coalitions which has obviously been done there.

    Apologies if this double-posts. Delete the first one if you like, mods.

    Comment by Rory — 11 June, 2008 @ 5:19 pm

38. I had already decided to boycott the COMPASS conference on the grounds I was wasting my money. I was right. I would remind Andy Newman that Trickett was invited to the LRC conference last year and got 45 minutes as a key platform speaker to mouth off about how much he hated Brown and New Labour. Empty rhetoric - like everything COMPASS does in Parliament. John McDonnell’s article is not bad-tempered - it is an honest and passionate defence of principle over pragmatism.
    Cruddas and Trickett have earned capital and credibility ( always thought they were both crap myself) for over a year now on the back of their faux left credentials - Louise is right. They utterly shafted the McDonnell campaign last year and now this blog chooses to plug the COMPASS conference as a credible event. I have looked at Neal Lawson’s pathetic apologia and he chooses to suggest John Mc is using this as a “pretes#xt” for not attending. Shameful stuff.Even more shameful you give these jokers credibility. They are both a disgrace

    Comment by susan press — 11 June, 2008 @ 5:23 pm

39. There may be ‘a political consensus that accepts market forces’ if by ‘political’ it is meant ‘parliamentary political. But there is no popular consensus. In fact on railway nationalization, PFI and the NHS and public services – dare I say it – fuel prices, plus elderly care, dental care, preschool, education fees etc there is widespread antipathy to ‘market forces.’

    The current issue of price rises is a wide open door for the left to intervene to shape an anti big business consciousness and connect it to a wider understanding of how ‘globalisation’ represents a new stage in capitalist development.

    In this context even the hesitant and contradictory break that Compass is making with the New Labour tendency is a good thing.

    Whether or not John McDonnell is right to abandon his slot at the Compass conference is a purely tactical question and not one of principle and he is in a better position to work this out than most people.

    Compass represents a group of people in the Labour Party who see the wheels coming off Gordon Brown’s transatlantic politics and economics. They understand at some level that the historical continuity of their party is finished unless it can reconnect with working people.

    The main question of principle involved in relations with Compass is whether or not the interests of the working class are advanced or not. Does it help isolate and defeat the main enemy? If it does then only an inveterate sectarian would refuse limited joint action.
    That is why we find John Cruddas writing in the Morning Star.

    Comment by Anonymous — 11 June, 2008 @ 5:26 pm

40. It really is extraordinary red baiting going on here. The poor old LRC being accused of being the revolutionary left, MacDonnel attacked for his ‘antics’ (love the 1930’s language). Just how right wing can you get?

    Comment by johng — 11 June, 2008 @ 5:26 pm

41. anyone for a witch hunt?

    Comment by johng — 11 June, 2008 @ 5:26 pm

42. I’ve just heard Liberal and Tory MPs on the radio making civil libertarian arguments against this Bill. I haven’t voted Labour for over ten years, but I was still ashamed. The likes of Trickett don’t deserve to be a Labour MP, let alone to be called ‘Left’.

    Comment by Phil — 11 June, 2008 @ 5:28 pm

43. Without being in the Labour Party its difficult to judge this, however my personal experience of John MCDonnell is very positive, he is keen to work with all on the left supporting good work, rather pushing a personal agenda he seems to be prepared to push the general struggle, he has for example pushed the climate camp quite hard.

    Compass are entirely closed to the non Labour Party, the Green Party have contacted them for dialogue and been completely rebuffed…to be honest that is almost unique, I can think of dozens of groups on the left we have dialogue with despite our differences.

    The danger is that COMPASS keeps a few centre left activists in the Labour Party, it does not seem prepared to take on Brown seriously or to network on common projects whether developing alternatives to neo-liberalism intellectually or organising to support green or union struggles with those outside of Labour.

    Would Compass support the convention of the left, for example?

    Comment by Derek Wall — 11 June, 2008 @ 5:33 pm

44. I have just read Neal Lawson apologist nonsense regarding certain backboneless Compass supporting MPs caving in to 42 days.

    If, as Neal Lawson argues, the NL project is dead then why the hell do Trickett and Cruddas feel compelled to vote for a dead project and 42 days being part of that dead project?

    It makes no political sense.

    Also, what has Trickett got out of this, what did the Whips Office offer? And it is a very big deal now as two “left” MPs are now supporting 42 days and that could possibily tip the balance. It shows that they don’t give a toss about civil liberties just obeying the Whip. So much for a dead project!

    Comment by Louise — 11 June, 2008 @ 6:53 pm

45. Brown has won on 42 days by 9 votes. The 9 DUP MP’s all voted in favour and got the bill passed. The postion of the Compass MP’s on this is also of significance.

    Comment by me — 11 June, 2008 @ 7:05 pm

46. RIP civil liberties!

    And well done Cruddas and Trickett for giving that dead project help!!

    Comment by Louise — 11 June, 2008 @ 7:09 pm

47. bye bye magna carta and the right to not be locked up for one and a half months for no reason. it was bourgeois and silly anyway! right?

    …right? thank you compass, proper coherent left!!!

    Comment by marcus — 11 June, 2008 @ 7:19 pm

48. Brown has won on 42 days by 9 votes. The 9 DUP MP’s all voted in favour and got the bill passed.

    Bastards. Useless cringing Mail-reading reactionary bastards. (And the DUP’s no better.)

    Comment by Phil — 11 June, 2008 @ 7:42 pm

49. 

    Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 11 June, 2008 @ 7:44 pm

50. The 36 “rebel” Labour MPs were:

    Diane Abbott (Hackney North & Stoke Newington),
    Richard Burden (Birmingham Northfield)
    Katy Clark (Ayrshire North & Arran)
    Harry Cohen (Leyton & Wanstead)
    Frank Cook (Stockton North)
    Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North)
    Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne Central)
    Andrew Dismore (Hendon)
    Frank Dobson (Holborn & St Pancras)
    David Drew (Stroud)
    Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
    Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent Central)
    Paul Flynn (Newport West)
    Neil Gerrard, (Walthamstow)
    Dr Ian Gibson (Norwich North)
    Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Sparkbrook & Small Heath)
    John Grogan (Selby)
    Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)
    Kate Hoey (Vauxhall)
    Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North)
    Glenda Jackson (Hampstead & Highgate)
    Dr Lynne Jones (Birmingham Selly Oak)
    Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool Walton),
    John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington)
    Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)
    Bob Marshall-Andrews (Medway)
    Michael Meacher (Oldham West & Royton) J
    Julie Morgan (Cardiff North)
    Chris Mullin (Sunderland South)
    Dr Doug Naysmith (Bristol North West)
    Gordon Prentice (Pendle)
    Linda Riordan (Halifax)
    Alan Simpson (Nottingham South)
    Emily Thornberry (Islington South & Finsbury)
    David Winnick (Walsall North)
    Mike Wood (Batley & Spen)

    Comment by Jim Monaghan — 11 June, 2008 @ 8:16 pm

51. I don’t know how I became anonymous (38) above but I am Nick Wright

    Comment by Nick Wright — 11 June, 2008 @ 8:25 pm

52. “Since the Abortion Debate, Galloways Office staff are now “moderating” the SU blog and able to delete comments from his House of Commons Office.”

    Is that true Andy?

    Comment by ???? — 11 June, 2008 @ 8:27 pm

53. Hahaha how brilliant - aside from you being anonymous and posting something as a quote from… well, where? you would never believe Andy even if he told you they weren’t moderating the blog, which they’re not.

    Comment by tonyc — 11 June, 2008 @ 8:36 pm

54. It is extraordinary that anyone who makes a political criticism of the left is acccused of red-baiting.

    There is also political dishonesty from JohnG: had I actualy said that the LRc was part of the revolutionary left, then i couldn’t have argued that there was a danger of McDonnell steering the LLRc towards the revolutionary left.

    Over the substantive issue, 42 days detention without charge, McDonnell is correct, and Cruddas and Tricket were wrong.

    However, over the strategic issue. Compass remains today and tomorrow as much as yesterday, an important constituency of opinion for opposing neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism within the Labour Party.

    you have to look at the history of political thought within the Labour party to see what a historical break the LRC represents - in so far that the left has never before abandoned the main goal and aspiration to control the levers of power within the party, and policy making.

    What this means is that the LRC seem curioulsy adrift in terms of their strategy for influence within the labour party, however admirable their willingness to work with others outside the party over single issues may be.

    In that context, for the LRC to walk away from the Compass conference (and it does look like a pretext to me) is declining to participate in the next phase of the debate within the Labour Party, and the affiliated unions, about a more progresive direction after Blair/Brownism.

    Comment by Andy Newman — 11 June, 2008 @ 8:37 pm

55. #42

    Derek, Compass were completely open to a session being organised at their conference this Saturday by Mark Perryman (who is an associate member of Respect’s national council), and with participation from Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru.

    So it doesn’t seem true when you write: “The danger is that COMPASS keeps a few centre left activists in the Labour Party, it does not seem prepared to take on Brown seriously or to network on common projects whether developing alternatives to neo-liberalism intellectually or organising to support green or union struggles with those outside of Labour.”

    Comment by Andy Newman — 11 June, 2008 @ 8:41 pm

56. “However, over the strategic issue. Compass remains today and tomorrow as much as yesterday, an important constituency of opinion for opposing neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism within the Labour Party”.

    Do you seriously believe that? They have damaged their credibility today and who the hell will take them seriously again. You may criticise the LRC but what Brownite route is Compass going down and can it be stopped…and more to the point, does it want to be? Especially after seeing the voting behaviour of their leading MPs. Gives out such a positive image, doesn’t it.

    If the NL project is dead (according to Neal Lawson) then why did they vote for it today and give it mouth to mouth resuscitaion.

    Again, you seem to be using the LRC as a distraction from two capitulating soft left MPs.

    Comment by Louise — 11 June, 2008 @ 8:58 pm

57. Andy it may not seem true but unfortunately it is, Compass were contacted by a member of the Green Party exec and they were not interested.

    Everybody else on the left from CPGB to PR to the SWP has been than happy to engage and argue with Greens and I would certainly see John McDonnell as very supportive of the left irrespective of party.

    If I had the same experience or knew of others who did I would say.

    Comment by Derek Wall — 11 June, 2008 @ 9:25 pm

58. The left in the Labour party should fight for socialist policies.

    Brown’s policies are leading to disaster and the ever increasing likelihood of a Tory victory. Socialists in Labour should be making a call to arms for a complete re-orientation to fight on policy and to make links with the wider working class and socialist movement- including helping revive and recreate these movements.

    McDonnell is a principled MP and certainly worth talking to as are the LRC and both are getting involved in the Convention of the Left. McDonnell’s recent manifesto was disappointingly mute and bland. However, he and his supporters are worth talking to of course even if they do not represent by any means a mass movement.

    Nor do any of us. Though some of us are busy enough trying to build one and at least serious and humble about the need to discuss and rethink ideas about how this might be done whilst getting involved in working class defensive campaigns against privatisation, ctatstrophic climate change, racism and imperialist war.

    Comment by Jason — 11 June, 2008 @ 9:39 pm

59. Andy, I have got to agree with Louise on this I was around when some on the centre left of NL canvassed about setting up Compass, and was approached because they did not know I had been slung out, it was very clear then that it was going to kow tow to the pay masters. I cannot believe when at #20 you suggest that McD is too left wing for christs sake I find myself agreeing with Johng - McD is an open democratic socialist who would have sat comfortably alongside Micheal Foot et al … hardly a left revolutionary.
    It’s a very sad night when Cruddas and Trickett allow the DUP to destroy some of the last vestages of civil liberties left in the UK. It will be interesting to see how they are rewarded for there so-called loyalty

    Comment by Pete Brown — 11 June, 2008 @ 9:44 pm

60. The issue to me is where is John McD going? The capitulation of Compass on the issue of 42 days detention has not surprised me - but it does explode the myth that they (and LRC) represent a growing constituency in the LP open to left wing ideas - what is left wing about supporting 42 days detention.

    Even after the local election debacle, Brown and the LP are not for turning. Unfortunately the passing of Blair has brought no joy for the labour left - and many Campaign Group MPs are retiring at the next General election. Already the change to Union influence in the LP has changed the nature of the party. 42 day detention and the Guardian’s report on Labour widening the gap between rich and poor, should tell LP lefties the game is up. McD could help build a larger left force outside the LP to compete with NL - that would encourage unions like PCS to come onto the political stage. Mcd may not be as well known as Lafontaine in germany but he could help assemble a party outside the LP that brings in Union support as with the establishment of Die Linke.

    Comment by George T — 11 June, 2008 @ 10:14 pm

61. Until this evening I haven’t taken the 42-day vote very seriously, because I never dreamed it would actually pass. That Cruddas and Trickett have helped it pass… words fail me. Blair repositioned Labour on the Right of the Lib Dems; Compass seem to want to reposition the Labour Left somewhere to the Right of David Davis.

    Yes, it would be good to mobilise the Left and centre-Left within the Labour Party, and no, LRC aren’t going to be able to do it alone. But actions have consequences - and one of the consequences of Cruddas and Trickett’s actions tonight is to destroy any credibility Compass had.

    Comment by Phil — 11 June, 2008 @ 10:17 pm

62. Pete #58

    John McDonnell is not too left wing in the sense that his policies are outwith the traditions of the Labour party, but he was certainly to left wing to have any chance of winning the Labour leadership, or indeed gaining enough nominations to stand.

    the composition and membership of the PLP was known when McDonnell threw his hat into the ring, and it was always highly problematic that he would get enough nominations to win. The big affiliated unions were also highly unlikely to back any candidate that did not have a credible chance of victory.

    The paradox therefore remains that john McDonnell simply was too left wing a candidate, and with insufficient weight in the party to have a reasonable chance of getting sufficient nominations. Absolutley essential to getting enough nominations was to win over a layer of the centre left MPs: and the mcDonnell campain did not - and perhaps could not - achieve that.

    This is not an accident of bad luck; this is the result of years of marginisation and defeat for the left within the party.

    Yes, yes, McDonnell would have sat happily in Michael Foot’s labour party, but that is not the labour party we have any longer.

    So the question is a very serious one for the LRC, if they reject a dialogue to create a broader coalition within the Labour Party with the centre left, then who are they going to be working with?

    Politics is about working with people you disagree with, and trying to get the best outcome.

    Comment by Andy Newman — 11 June, 2008 @ 10:23 pm

63. Louise #55

    “If the NL project is dead (according to Neal Lawson) then why did they vote for it today and give it mouth to mouth resuscitaion. “

    i think you misunderstand Neal Lawson’s point.

    The consistent argument from Compass has been that New Labour has been devoid of content, other than triangulating around the issues of concern to swing voters in marginal constituencies; and thus ignoring the interests of working class voters.

    the strength of this argument, is that it restores a debate about class to the labour party, in terms that it is in the institutioonal best interests of the party itself to trun left.

    The weakness is that it overlooks the ideological and political continuity that New labour has with Thatcherism.

    In the sense that the New labour approach is now losing elections not winning them, then New Labour as a successful electoral strategy in the institional interests of the Labour party is dead. In his own terms Neal Lawson is correct, New Labour is dead, judged by the institutional interests of the Labour Party.

    But if you put the institional interests of the labour party first, then there was always going to be pressure on MPs of that persuasion to back down rather than force a defeat on the government.

    I am not particularly surprised, in the same way I wasn’t particularly suprised when jon Cruddas didn’t nominate John McDonell for leadership (in fact i would have been suprised if he had done).

    So Compass have always been volatile, because they have not developed an understanding of how ideologically deep the rivers of neo-liberlaism run, but arguable they share that with most of the left. Nevertheless, they are articulating a desire to analyse the nature of the society we live in, and what the tasks of a centre left governmemt should be. That is useful.

    Comment by Andy Newman — 11 June, 2008 @ 10:37 pm

64. #60

    Phil

    The votes by Cruddas and Tricket were wrong, but do you think that it really damages their credibility with - for example - the leaders of the big four unions?

    And if they still have credibility with the unions, then surely they remain players.

    Comment by Andy Newman — 11 June, 2008 @ 10:39 pm

65. I think this is quite an incredible attack on McDonnell from someone who is trying to build a left of labour party. He is standing up for principles and denying left cover for a not particularly left group. Campass appears to only have one principle; keep labour in power. They have recognised that left rhetoric is needed to motivate the grass roots of the party but have shown little in way of results.

    McDonnel’s significance is shown in that the bbc choose to quote him as a voice of the labour rebels on their web report.

    Comment by Radomer number 47 — 11 June, 2008 @ 10:51 pm

66. “The votes by Cruddas and Tricket were wrong, but do you think that it really damages their credibility with - for example - the leaders of the big four unions?”

    But they represent the TU bureaucracy and that’s where Cruddas originated from. Who does the TU bureaucracy speak for, not for the membership that’s for sure.

    Comment by Louise — 11 June, 2008 @ 11:04 pm

67. Louise #66

    I am not sure what relevence any difference of interest between the official trade union structures and the lay membership has to this.

    In most unions the officials are to the left of the membership on policy issues.

    Comment by Andy Newman — 11 June, 2008 @ 11:35 pm

68. Two bald men fighting over a comb. However poor the prospects for the left are, there is nothing whatsoever to be learned from people whose understanding of the way society works is so weak that they can support strengthening the ruling class’s war machine while simultaneously blethering about social justice.

    Comment by Tim Vanhoof — 11 June, 2008 @ 11:41 pm

69. I think it’s quite incredible that anyone on the left can trust an organisation ie Compass, that Neal Lawson is involved in. I have a very clear memory of him in the late 1980s when I was a Labour councillor in Bristol. He suddenly appeared from nowhere, took over positions in a local branch of Bristol West and then became the Secretaary of the Labour Group in Bristol, toatally supported by the right wing, and drafted in by the T&G union as part of a Kinnock’s concerted national witchhunt against the left. The result of his scheming with others was to remove left councillors and delegates from any influence on Bristol Council. I myself was disciplined and suspended from the council for supporting non payment of the Poll Tax, as part of the project. We had enormous battles with him then and so it’s galling to think anyone could believe he is a serious socialist. Since then he’s been a paid professional lobbyist(making stacks of money) and now has set himself up as some kind of spokesperson (paid)for a phoney pressure group.

    There are a number of us in Bristol who have very clear memories of Neal Lawson and on no account should he be trusted. I’m shocked that John Harris should be so taken in by him.

    Comment by elizabeth — 11 June, 2008 @ 11:53 pm

70. I am a little confused here.

    Two Compass supporting MPs vote to support the government over detention without charge being extended to 42 days. Apparently, the credibility of Compass is shot, and no-one on the left will trust them ever again.

    Two Labour Representatioon Committee (LRC) supporting MPs (David Hamilton and Michael Clapham) vote to support the government over detention without charge being extended to 42 days. Apparently, the credibility of LRC is intact, and everyone on the left praises the LRC and pretends it didn’t happen.

    Leading members of the LRC have commented in this thread deploring Compass, and saying it is a disgrace that left MPs have given credibility to the attacks on civil liberties. Yet not a word of criticism for LRC MPs who voted alongside them.

    I really don’t understand.

    Comment by Andy Newman — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:11 am

71. andy newman has lost any claim to have any level of politics whatsoever.

    do I have to spell it out? mcdonnell is not too left-wing, the labour party is too right wing.

    since when did socialists attack people for being a bit radical? andy, you remind me of dave prentis

    Comment by Dave Festive — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:11 am

72. Dave

    #71

    That is why i am not in the Labour party. We were not discussing whether Jjohn McDonnell’s politics are too left wing compared to the policies we would like to see enacted.

    he is to left wing to be electable in the current labour Party

    Comment by Andy Newman — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:15 am

73. So back to martin Ohr at #11, he wrote:

    “How do you think McD should have reacted to compass voting for 42 days? Bad tempered or not at least his article sets down a marker that defines one of the divisions between the broonites of Compass and the real labour left of the LRC.”

    Why is that the question?

    How is the marker set between the “real labour left of the LRC” and Compass, when two LRC MPs voted with the government?

    Surelly what this shows quite the opposite, that the LRC is as flaky as Compass.

    Comment by Andy Newman — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:19 am

74. DAVE, I applaud you. I don’t care if people say you’re a troll.

    If McDonnell, a member of the Labour Party and an oldfashioned lefty reformist type such as historically populated the ranks of that institution, is now regarded as some kind of swivelly eyed radical for suggesting that supporting the 42 day nonsense might be a bad idea….WTF?

    Comment by Rusu — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:21 am

75. #74

    Rusu.

    Who has suggested any such thing?? Cruddas and Trickett were wrong to vote with the government. McDonnel was correct to rebel.

    But i can see you are all keen to move the argument along, rather than dwell on explaining why there is so much hostility to Compass from LRC supporters, when two LRC MPs also voted with the government.

    Comment by Andy Newman — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:23 am

76. Andy, go back to helping organise StWC meetings in Swindon. At least you’re credible at doing that but please leave the debate over the Labour left to people who know what they’re talking about.

    Comment by Ray — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:26 am

77. I repeat, before we get side–tracked onto the usual topic about how deplorable I am:

    Two Labour Representation Committee (LRC) supporting MPs (David Hamilton and Michael Clapham) voted to support the government over detention without charge being extended to 42 days.

    Chair of the LRC, john McDonnell MP says: “I do not want to be associated with those that are willing to support undermining the basic human rights that socialists have fought and sacrificed themselves to secure and protect over generations.”

    john McDonnell has also said: ““Compass may publish policy statements decrying the government’s policies but these are not worth the paper they are expensively published on when Compass MPs go on to vote through policies like this which fly in the face of all that socialists should stand for.”

    But couldn’t the same point be raised:

    “The LRC may publish policy statements decrying the government’s policies but these are not worth the paper they are expensively published on when LRC MPs go on to vote through policies like this which fly in the face of all that socialists should stand for.”

    Now, personally I will continue to support dialogue with both the LRC and Compass. But some here are arguing this represents a watershed for Compass, but apparently business as normal for the LRC.

    I don’t understand the distinction.

    Comment by Andy Newman — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:34 am

78. Andy, the problem is that you appear to think McDonnell’s broken ranks in some way and he should stick with Compass no matter what dodgy shit their members get up to. Then you justify by saying that the TU officials are still Labour, or something. I got a bit lost by your argument there.

    If we need a left alternative in Labour (I think this is a fairly useless project, but for the sake of argument) it has to be made up of people who are actually on the left. The Compass statement you quoted was, and I’m sorry, boilerplate crap. New Labour ought to move slightly to the left, wow, radical thinking. Markets don’t hold all the answers, who knew?

    In a climate where people are disillusioned with a ruling party which originally claimed to be of the left and governed far to the right, moving slightly to the left is going to fix nothing, especially if one then votes with the government on draconian measures which are going to penalise ethnic minorities in this country. Compass don’t sound like they have any of the answers and it’s not just about the most recent vote.

    Comment by Rusu — 12 June, 2008 @ 1:03 am

79. compass that is something that I used years ago on my Duke of Edinburgh Award
    I always thought a compass was for finding the way seems to me they may have lost the plot somewhat!

    Comment by X — 12 June, 2008 @ 1:20 am

80. Sorry - I have to keep going back to the point that no-one wants to address.

    Two LRC MPs voted to support the government today on detention without charge for 42 days. these are the supposed hard-left in the PLP. JOhn McDonnell is chair of the LRC, and presumaably it isn’t hard to keep track of the voting intentions of the LRC MPs, as there are only nine of them.

    Yet for all the condemnation that Compass’s reputation is damaged, and today’s vote proves they are an unstable force, that alegedly no-one will trust again; no-one is prepared to explain why the same logic doesn’t apply to the LRC.

    In truth, both the LRC and Compass were always fragile.
    In truth both the LRC and Compass remain worth talking to.

    Comment by Andy Newman — 12 June, 2008 @ 1:31 am

81. Hi. Comment from a committed Compassite here.

    ‘“Already, sadly, one leading MP associated with Compass, Jon Trickett, has announced he will be supporting the government, which suggests that Compass is a more volatile and unstable project than John Harris would have it.”

    people keep saying that Compass is unstable and volatile, as if they are contradicting me.

    That isn’t the question.

    the question is whether you continue to participate in a debate with them.’

    Obviously, I’m going to agree with this approach. The irony is that Compass’s own survey of members shows that the vast majority of them agree with John McD. COmpass MPs such as Emily Thornberry voted the right way. Many in the campaign group did not.

    The Labour left as a whole, softest to hard, is unstable, because it is pluralist, not centralist.

    Compass in particular is built on coalitions of interests which in places contradict; the thing they have in common is a desire or need to take Labour beyond blairite dogma.

    It is essentially a broad front within a big tent.

    While I obviously deplore the effect that this has had on this particular vote, I think that such an approach in a general sense is commendable.

    The LRC may believe in centrally lining its MPs, but I do not, and neither does Compass; whether they are wrong or not.

    However, if someone is the leader of a group, they have to take responsibility for their decision. One wonders if Trickett will continue.

    there is a lot more beneath the surface of this which I am too tired to go into now; but I will be discussing it at my blog over the next few days.

    I extend the hand of comradeship to Mr McDonnell, and implore him to debate those with whom he disagrees, rather than boycotting them.

    I’d also point out that most of us agree with him, not the two Jons.

    It is seldom that Compass snipes at its harder-of-left comrades. It is unfortunate that such behaviour is seldom reciprocated.

    Comment by Miller 2.0 — 12 June, 2008 @ 2:47 am

82. Also, why is it that two LRC MPs, from the hard left of the hard left Campaign Group, voted with the Government.

    Why is the same attack not also directed at them?

    Comment by Miller 2.0 — 12 June, 2008 @ 2:49 am

83. This isn’t really a union issue.

    Comment by Ed D — 12 June, 2008 @ 6:06 am

84. So the policy is just keep tacking rightwards until we touch base with enough establishment politicians to win a few concessions, is it? Compass are a joke and last night’s vote shows it. Socialist Action and the various others arguing for working with Compass have been arguing the same tactic for years - find a “progressive” force to your right that you think you can win concessions from, and glue yourselves to it. Which is not good as not only does it not work for anything more than the short term, it also inevitably leaves the more left-wing of the forces involved losing its bearings.

    Comment by Voltaire's Priest — 12 June, 2008 @ 6:57 am

85. Andy - it’s quite clear that if you think the LRC and Compass are comparable bodies, then you just do not get how Labour politics works. And if you think the big deal here is that two unknown LRC MPs voted the wrong way on this issue (as against Compass whose entire political trajectory is wobbly and middle-ground), then you don’t seem to have grasped the issue at hand either. McDonnell is quite right to make the point that he did, whether you think he’s “too left wing” or not.

    Comment by Voltaire's Priest — 12 June, 2008 @ 7:03 am

86. COmpass MPs such as Emily Thornberry voted the right way.

    OK, let’s get this out in the open. Who are the Compass MPs? How many MPs would answer to that label, and how many of them voted the right way?

    But even before we see those figures (which I trust we will), I think the LRC comparison is a bit spurious. I’m very disappointed to hear that two out of nine LRC MPs voted the wrong way; this is deeply regrettable, and I think their close colleagues need to have a serious word with them. But Trickett’s the leader of Compass and Cruddas is its most prominent public figure; both of them have been at the forefront of efforts to establish Compass as some sort of new Labour Left. The profile of Compass itself is still vague and fuzzy - what its MPs actually do plays a part in establishing where Compass stands politically, in a way that isn’t true of older and better-established formations on the Left. Trickett was frequently named as a prospective rebel on this Bill in particular: that said something about Compass. He then rolled over and voted Yes, helping to save a dreadful piece of legislation that could have been defeated: that also says something about Compass.

    As Miller says, if someone is the leader of a group, they have to take responsibility for their decision.

    Comment by Phil — 12 June, 2008 @ 8:16 am

87. Phil. Make no mistake I share you disgust at Trickett and Crudass voting for 42 days. Bob Wareing did likewise, while Kate Hoey did not, or Frank Dobson, or as you mention Emily Thornberry, none of whom are hard leftists. And it is surely worth noting that apart from Anne Widdicombe every Tory MP voted against 42 dats, Lib-Dem, Plaid, SNO, SDLP too.

    But I feel you’re mistaken dumping everything Compass is seeking to do because two MPs who prominently support it do the wrong thing. It is seeking to be a movement of the non new Labour Left, primaruily though not exclusively, in the Labour Party. Its documents are pretty relentlessly critical of both Blairite legacy and Brownist present. And this morning in the Guardian its chair Neal Lawson sets out its ambition >

    “If Labour is incapable of making the switch, then those inside the party must start looking outside. Labour was always a necessary but far from sufficient vehicle for centre-left advance. Gordon Brown kicked off his premiership with a government of all the talents. But it was just his right hand that was extended to dissident Tories and business interests. This exacerbated the market fundamentalism problem. Just as the centre-left advanced in the past, so in the future it will take a movement of academics, intellectuals, open-minded politicians of all progressive parties, campaigners, activists and trade unionists to renew not just the centre-left, but a belief that politics can make a difference.”

    My problem with this, as it is with the LRC, is that the democratic structures in the Labour Party are so withered away, its activist base so declined, its links with the unions pretty much reduced to fundraising that I can see no model for actually effecting and more importantly democratically entrenching change in the Labour Party. So however much Compass or the LRC might promote opposition to 42 days thers nothing to stop their MPs wandering off to vote the wrong way.

    I’m reminded of poor old Peter Hain, once effectively the leader of Labour’s softer hard left, and look where he ended up. In a place I have no intention of following him to.

    The challenge for the entire left remains, in and out of the left, to generate a movement that our elected representatives cannot afford to ignore. In this instance they felt they could, thats the tragedy.

    Mark

    Comment by Mark P — 12 June, 2008 @ 9:17 am

88. I think Phil is correct. Trickett and Cruddas are leading lights in Compass and they roled over all poodle fashion very quickly.

    #63

    And on the issue of LRC supporting MPs voting the way will I expect that there will be a discussion in the LRC about this (rather like over the HFE Bill). Unlike Compass, the LRC won’t be making excuses for these MPs.

    I also think, Andy, there has to be proportion and perspective on this (the title of the post is over the top). So what McD. is not attending the Compass meeting, in the scheme of things does it make any difference compared with two MPs who decided to vote along with NL an attack on civil liberties that will end up on the statute books. They betrayed the class not McD.

    I understand only too perfectly Lawson’s apologia. And I still think you are using McD. not attending this meeting as a distraction from criticising Cruddas/Trickett and the political trajectory of Compass (re-discovering its Brownite roots…if it ever lost them)

    And no, I am not using Compass as a distraction re LRC supporting MPs, as unlike you, I will be asking questions and discussing political accountability not finding excuses.

    Comment by Louise — 12 June, 2008 @ 9:22 am

89. How did it betray the class? The majority of working class people are in favour of 42 days according to the polls. Islamist terrorists also come from all different classes.

    Jon Cruddas stuck up for the class.

    Comment by Ed D — 12 June, 2008 @ 9:27 am

90. Checked the votes in Hansard - CRUDARSE voted for it. The idea that anybody who could vote for 42 days detention without trial (is that 5 times the length of time in that bastion of democracy, Turkey?)is in any sense on the left is simply risible.

    Re the LRC and Compass - well, the core of the LRC MP’s have a much better track record. Remember, they voted in support of Council Housing and CRUDARSE didn’t, despite having previously signed an early day motion. And, of course, together with the leaders of the main trades unions, they supported Brown’s ‘coronation’. Might they not be said to be a tad responsible for the current situation?

    Comment by Martin Wicks — 12 June, 2008 @ 9:50 am

91. The idea that anybody who could vote for 42 days detention without trial (is that 5 times the length of time in that bastion of democracy, Turkey?)is in any sense on the left is simply risible

    Why? Some MPs voted for it on the basis Britain would not oppose lifting EU Cuba sanctions. Cuba imprisons political dissident and is a very authoritarian state, yet many on the left love Cuba’s system.

    Comment by Ed D — 12 June, 2008 @ 10:11 am

92. I presume (perhaps rather fulsomely)that the two LRC MPs who voted with the government did so for similar reasons to the two COMPASS MPs.
    Can’t say why for sure of course but maybe something along the lines of; ‘if Brown gets defeated he will be out and this will precipitate a leadership crisis in the PLP leading the real possibility of an early General Election which Labour will undoubtedly lose by a landslide, so rather than risk that let’s swallow hard and vote for Brown.’

    A pretty lame excuse I agree, but given the politics of NL and the corner they have boxed themselves and the rest of the PLP into it does at least go some way to explaining why the support was given by the turncoat Compass and LRC MPs.
    Unprincipled, clearly wrong and muddled thinking, yes! But from their way of seeing it perhaps an expedient, if highly questionable stance.
    It just stinks of political cowardice; but perhaps reflects more meaningfully on the limits of parliamentary roadism.
    ie: there will always be some MPs of the the so-called ‘hard-left’ who will be tempted by the illusory trappings of power and jump ship at the expense of just about anything principled.

    Comment by Halshall — 12 June, 2008 @ 10:45 am

93. #92 Difference is that Jon Crudass, the Leader of Compass appears to have supported extending the detention limit.

    Comment by Adamski — 12 June, 2008 @ 10:49 am

94. At the very least, Compass has shot itself in the foot. One week they’re calling on individual members to lobby their MPs against 42 days, the next their parliamentary spokesperson’s voting in favour. I think it’s entirely in order for other Leftists to keep Compass at arm’s length until they clarify what they’re up to.

    Comment by Phil — 12 June, 2008 @ 10:53 am

95. Are we supposed to take people seriously who think that the state being given the right to detain people for 42 days without charge is “sticking up for the class” ??
    Let’s bring back hanging while we’re at it.
    Idiot.

    Comment by Eddie Truman — 12 June, 2008 @ 11:01 am

96. Eddie - are you suggesting we shouldn’t take Ed D seriously? Even after he unmasked the great Swinton Advertiser conspiracy?

    Comment by Phil — 12 June, 2008 @ 11:07 am

97. Louise.

    The trouble is that mcDonnell has made a rod for his own back by his intemperate response to Crudass and Trickett’s vote.

    When he said: “I do not want to be associated with those that are willing to support undermining the basic human rights that socialists have fought and sacrificed themselves to secure and protect over generations.”

    Then he now has a problem with David Hamilton and Michael Clapham.

    (David Hamilton also voted to restrict the legal limit for abortion)

    If McDonnell doesn’t act to exclude David Hamilton and Michael Clapham from the LRC he comes over as a hypocrite; if he does seek to exclude them, then he undermines the credibility of the LRC as an organisation able to build a broad alliance within and without the Labour party.

    Shooting from the hip is rarely good politics.

    I will be interested in what response the LRC makes.

    Neal lawson’s resposnse was basically that Compass opposed 42 days detention without trial, recommended Mps to vote against, and is disappointed with those MPs who did vote with the government.

    Unless the LRC excludes David Hamilton and Michael Clapham, then it is going to need to make a very similar statement.

    If you do exclude David Hamilton and Michael Clapham (and David Drew over the abortion vote?) then you are narrowing down the political base of the LRC, and demonstrating increasing isolation within the party, not greater influence.

    Comment by Andy Newman — 12 June, 2008 @ 11:11 am

98. Who put the crud in Cruddas?

    Louise, I totally share your disgust with left MPs who have caved in on such a fundamental issue of civil liberties.

    If the New Labour project is on its last legs, this was the opportunity to put the monster out of our misery and make a principled stand. What is it with these people? Career? Money? Does Brown give the finest blow-jobs in Westminster? What Circean power is it that turns men into swine so easily? Who is ever going to take Cruddas and that other Compass quisling seriously ever again?

    Your figures for existing detainment limits — 48 hours in the US to six days in France — are shocking.

    And do I vote for Labour at the next general election? I’m pleased to note that Glenda Jackson did the right thing but I am loathe to give these creeps any more encouragement. After all, I can’t imagine the Tories having the front to introduce tuition fees.

    Comment by Madam Miaow — 12 June, 2008 @ 11:28 am

99. Eddie, this Louise character said that Cruddas “betrayed the class”. How can this be? What is she on about?

    And why does she oppose lifting EU sanctions on Cuba, and why is Cuba left wing if it is even more authoritarian than New Labour?

    I am puzzled on many fronts.

    Comment by Ed D — 12 June, 2008 @ 11:31 am

100. The comparisons don’t stand up. In the UK you have to be brought before a court in two days. Other states hold people under other mechanisms for much longer before this happens.

     Comment by Ed D — 12 June, 2008 @ 11:34 am

101. Thanks Madam Miaow. I am shocked and angry at the spinelessness of these so-called left MPs. Why, what did they lose if they had shown some guts in voting against?

     And Andy…”If McDonnell doesn’t act to exclude David Hamilton and Michael Clapham from the LRC he comes over as a hypocrite; if he does seek to exclude them, then he undermines the credibility of the LRC as an organisation able to build a broad alliance within and without the Labour party.”

     One word. Accountability. And no way does that undermine the LRC it strengthens itwhile Compass’s credibility has been shot to pieces along with Lawson’s apologia.

     If you don’t realise that with your unbelievable uncriticial and unconditional support for Compass then I don’t know what!

     Comment by Louise — 12 June, 2008 @ 11:43 am

102. I mean, for christsake…Frank Dobson did the right thing and voted against!

     Comment by Louise — 12 June, 2008 @ 11:44 am

103. “I am puzzled on many fronts.”

     As you’re the only person in the world who still contends that WMD were found in Iraq, I think you’re probably beyond help on most of those fronts. Perhaps you might find astrology more helpful than socialist websites.

     Comment by M — 12 June, 2008 @ 11:48 am

104. If you feel depressed about the DUP 9
     Let the victory of the Raytheon 9 lift your spirits:
     http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87945

     Comment by Adamski — 12 June, 2008 @ 11:52 am

105. Yes Louise but David Hamilton and Michael Clapham voted with the government.

     You claim that John McDonnell didn’t get enough nominations because of the spinelessness of the PLP, but now John McDonnell says “I do not want to be associated with those that are willing to support undermining the basic human rights that socialists have fought and sacrificed themselves to secure and protect over generations”

     That includes not wanting to associate himslef with at least two MPs who nominated him for leader.

     I honestly don’t understand the strategy of trying to deliberately isoloate yourselves further within th labour party.

     Comment by Andy Newman — 12 June, 2008 @ 11:56 am

106. In my opinion, Andy Newman and Tom Miller completely miss the point.

     Jon Trickett and Jon Cruddas are the two parliamentary leaders of Compass. Alongside ex-lobbyist Neal Lawson, they are the de facto leadership of Compass. In practice, a Compass parliamentary group does not exist. Of MPs in the Compass milieu (whatever that is), only Emily Thornberry voted against the Government.

     On the other, the Chair of both the Campaign Group and the LRC - John McDonnell - voted against 42 days. All the leading figures - and indeed the overall majority - of both groupings voted against the Government.

     I’d also like to ask Compass supporters how they think the credibility of their two leaders will ever be recovered because:

     a) They voted to repeal civil liberties that were fought for at huge cost (including people’s lives) over centuries in favour of the longest period of detention in the Western world;

     b) They defied the overwhelming majority of progressive opinion in doing so;

     c) The suspicion that they (or Trickett at the least - I’m sure Cruddas would have voted for it anyway) were bought off with some grubby little deal or other is widespread and will never go away.

     This wasn’t some controversial “hard left” issue. It was about opposing the most regressive legislation in the Western world with no evidence in support of it which was pushed purely in order to prolong the death agony of Brown’s frankly embarrassing premiership.

     Sort of leaves their reputations in tatters, surely?

     Comment by Owen — 12 June, 2008 @ 11:59 am

107. “I honestly don’t understand the strategy of trying to deliberately isoloate yourselves further within th labour party.”

     Andy, the LRC are not the ones who are isolating themselves Compass are. This argument is pointless as you seem to have uncritical unconditional support for a group that shafts the class. Accountability is important in my bks, maybe not yours.

     Comment by Louise — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:11 pm

108. And Owen @ 106. Spot-on.

     Comment by Louise — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:13 pm

109. Trickett has been forced to resign as Compass’ spokesperson - so terms out even Compass has an ever firmer line than Andy Newman on this.

     Comment by Owen — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:14 pm

110. Trickett has just resigned from Compass. See their website.

     By their two most prominent spokesmen voting with the government yesterday, Compass have isolated themselves from not just the LRC, not just the left, but the whole mainstream of progressive opinion.

     Comment by Rory — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:16 pm

111. Andy is completely wrong about this Cruddas/Compass stuff. These people aren’t worth a hill of beans. They are the kind of people we should be urging remaining genuine leftists in the LP to break from, not lamenting when they do. Compass are at best a waste of space, at worst a pernicious enemy.

     Comment by ID — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:20 pm

112. 42 days in Britain?
     Does anyone know how long people can be locked up in other countries under similar powers?

     Comment by Adamski — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:27 pm

113. Adamski: In the US suspects must be charged within 48 hours, in Italy within 4 days, in Spain 5 days, and in France 6 days.

     Comment by Louise — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:30 pm

114. Louise, now don’t tell porkies. You know very well that people are held for longer in France, Germany and Italy by using different mechanisms. In the US they can question someone long after they are charged. To make direct comparisons is extremely dishonest.

     This is why you lost the vote. You lied too many times. Cruddas had enough of the bullshit from you moralisers who didn’t know what they were talking about - certainly not worth bringing down the government over.

     Comment by Ed D — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:36 pm

115. In Germany the police can charge someone for a relatively minor offence and then hold them *indefinitely* with judicial review every…*six months*!

     Comment by Ed D — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:38 pm

116. Compensation for those held over 28 days could be as high as 3 grand a day.

     It will be like winning the lottery.

     Comment by Ed D — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:42 pm

117. If Ed I am telling “porkies” then read this from Liberty. Oh and NL never ever lie do they….WMD…comes to mind.

     http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/pdfs/pre-charge-detention-comparative-law-study.pdf

     Comment by Louise — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:49 pm

118. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450627.stm

     Comment by AA — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:54 pm

119. Dai Davies MP for Blaenau Gwent People’s Voice apparently voted for 42 Days, this genuinely shocks me.

     http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/politics-news/2008/06/12/brown-survives-a-big-labour-revolt-over-42-day-detention-bill-thanks-to-the-dup-91466-21061089/

     Comment by Adamski — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:55 pm

120. “There is great concern among the public on this issue, and I felt the Government had put enough safeguards in place.

     I hope they adhere to their promise that this will only be used in very exceptional circumstances.” - Dai Davies MP

     Comment by Adamski — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:56 pm

121. If Ed I am telling “porkies” then read this from Liberty

     You’re joking, aren’t you? Liberty have been extremely dishonest on this, deliberately making false comparisons with totally different legal systems. You should feel a right mug right now - apologise to Cruddas and Trickett was basing your views on Liberty’s propaganda.

     Others should follow suit.

     Comment by Ed D — 12 June, 2008 @ 12:57 pm

122. Its a strange way to build a movement to the left of Labour it has to be said. Bitterly attacking the Labour MPs who took a principled position for being left wing and hence ‘isolating’ themselves in the Party. I’d just re-itterate that we’ve heard these arguments before, and, in the end, when push came to shove, there was nothing to politically differentiate them from the arguments that actually pushed Labour to the right. But importantly, the people who were in the right did not notice these geniuses. Hence they got a bit upset and now declare that they were different all along (cf the Beatrix Campbell piece). Hard to believe that some people want a repetition. Surely these arguments should just be left where they belong in media studies departments?

     Comment by johng — 12 June, 2008 @ 1:05 pm

123. Incredible news that Tory MP David Davies is resigning his parliamentary seat over this. He’s going to fight the by-election on civil liberties and the lib-dems have said they won’t stand against him! So it’s Labour vs Conservative - a straight fight on civil liberties …

     Comment by Adamski — 12 June, 2008 @ 1:11 pm

124. JOhn G

     you are such a dishonest manipulator of the truth.

     You say “attacking the Labour MPs who took a principled position for being left wing and hence ‘isolating’ themselves in the Party.”

     Firstly, no one os being “attacked” they are being criticised.

     Secondly the criticism is not for taking a principled position over voting against 42 days, but in the tactical judgement to break off relations with those who did back the government.

     So your use of the word “hence” is dishonest.

     Naturally, if left MPs seek to break relations with all those who disaggree with them, then they are isolating themsellves.

     That is revealling about theit strategy, and it is reasonable to discuss and debate it.

     Comment by Andy Newman — 12 June, 2008 @ 1:12 pm

125. #123 Don’t let me be misunderstood that I have any illusions in the Tories. I just find it bizarre and surprising news.

     Comment by Adamski — 12 June, 2008 @ 1:27 pm

126. Andy, this is a very very weird stance you’re taking. To say that”mcDonnell has made a rod for his own back by his intemperate response to Crudass and Trickett’s vote”… well, words fail me, just for once. Intemperate?!? Labour MPs who voted for 42 days are scum, pure and simple.

     Comment by Briz Blogger — 12 June, 2008 @ 2:52 pm

127. “you are such a dishonest manipulator of the truth”

     This had me in tucks. Andy do you not see that the universally hostile responses to your position have something to do with the fact that no-one has to manipulate anything? You are attacking a Labour MP on the left for saying he does not want to work with people who voted through these disgusting measures. At the same time your involved in an organisation which claims to want to build an alternative to Labour, to the left of it. This strikes me as a bit silly, and the only explanation I have for it is your unaccounatable embrace of the politics of the old Eurocoms. Utterly incompatible with building an organisation to the left of Labour.

     Comment by johng — 12 June, 2008 @ 3:16 pm

128. For what it’s worth I doubt that any of the regulars at meetings of my Respect (Renewal) branch - Bristol - would be anything other than fully supportive of McDonnell’s response.

     Comment by Briz Blogger — 12 June, 2008 @ 3:22 pm

129. JOhn #127

     Firstly, doesn’t it strike you that as the Labour party has moved so far to the right and abandoned traditional social democracy, that “left of labour” includes a rather more broad spread of opinion than it did previously?

     secondly, I am criticising mcDonnell’s position of boycotting the Compass conference because it doesn’ make any strategic sense, especially as the battle lines are much more muddled than you allow - with some half dozen campiagn group MPs, two LRC MPs, and the Peoples’ Voice MP from Blanaeu Gwent backing the government.

     If you are saying that the left should - on principle - refuse to work with or be associated with the two LRC MPs who backed the government, or the campign group MPs who failed to rebel, or with Peoples’ Voice, then you have effectively abandoned any idea of effective politics in the political mainstream, or of any left coalotion building that extends beyong the hard left.

     Surely John McDonnell’s position is at least problematic, given that two LRC MPs also voted in the same way as the Compass MPs.

     The more effective approach is to continue to engage, but argue that they should do better when the issue is returned to the Commons after its defeat in the Lords.

     Comment by Andy Newman — 12 June, 2008 @ 3:33 pm

130. The Compass MPs are not a homogeneous lot, nor should they be thought of as hard-left or anything like that. The happen to be a fairly heterogeneous lot who tend to have some principles about Labour core values, but evidently not too many when it comes to civil liberties.
     No one should be surprised that the Campaign Group MPs voted against the government as they’d always opposed the PTA etc going right back.
     On Johng’s point about McDonnell - it isn’t quite as simple as you put it. McDonnell won’t work with anyone who doesn’t go along with him on any question, it seems. This may seem like ‘principled’, but it doesn’t build a left and reflects the isolation that the campaign group has been in for a while.
     It isn’t difficult to state that McDonnell was right, Cruddass was wrong on this issue and then get on with working with whoever you can run with on the next issue. Or you can build a sect.

     Comment by Howard T — 12 June, 2008 @ 3:36 pm

131. Howard T:

     “It isn’t difficult to state that McDonnell was right, Cruddass was wrong on this issue and then get on with working with whoever you can run with on the next issue.”

     EXACTLY

     Comment by Andy Newman — 12 June, 2008 @ 3:38 pm

132. “This strikes me as a bit silly, and the only explanation I have for it is your unaccounatable embrace of the politics of the old Eurocoms. Utterly incompatible with building an organisation to the left of Labour.” - John G

     Yes! YES! That 0.68% of the London Mayoral election vote for your most high profile (sic) member plus the lees than 2000 members the SWP have got after 11 years of the best possible conditins for building such an organisation show us all the conservative version of Leninism you lot believe in have sooooooo much to teach us unreconstructed Eurocommunists haven’t you? Give it a break and look to your own pitiful failures just for once.

     Mark P

     Comment by Mark P — 12 June, 2008 @ 3:40 pm

133. John G’s got a point. There is a whiff of the old Eurocomm bollocks about this, I’m sorry to say. Form an alliance with any forces to your right, no matter what their politics or their track record. I’m… surprised.

     Comment by Briz Blogger — 12 June, 2008 @ 3:49 pm

134. Mark P you really are going to have to leave your old right wing eurocom past behind you. Otherwise people will start to take the idea about witch hunts seriously. the notion that attacking a labour mp for not working with labour mps who voted for this motion will appeal to anyone seriously interested in building a movement to the left and outside of the labour party is clearly nonsense. you can either be interested in such a project, or, on the other hand, you can just accuse everyone of being a ’sect’ or a ‘revolutionary socialist’ if you don’t like something they say.

     Comment by johng — 12 June, 2008 @ 3:58 pm

135. John - grow up.

     criticising people is not witch-hunting. For criticising of an MP on a blog to be classed as witch-hunting is an insult to people who have really been witch-hunted.

     Building a movement to the left of labour is a complex task, and there is considerable political overlap between those who are within and those who outside the Labour Party, precisely becasue of the long term secular decline of Labourism.

     You haven’t explained what John McDonnell has to gain by refusing to work with two of the MPs that back his own LRC, the half dozen Campaign Group MPs and the Compass MPs. What is his strategy? To isolate the LRC from many people within the Labour Party who agree with much of the LRC’s politics? How does that make sense?

     Comment by Andy Newman — 12 June, 2008 @ 4:07 pm

136. Andy,

     Part of what seem to be failing to grasp in all of this is that for 12 months you have been building Cruddas up as someone serious and interesting on the left, but time after time he has failed to do anything to substantiate that, then at the vital moment you turn your fire on McDonell rather than Cruddas. Whatever the right or wrong of McD dropping out of the compass event surely his gut instinct -to not be associated with fake-socialists the weekend after this crucial vote- is something to be supported; maybe you can say tactically this is wrong or worthy of discussion.

     I think what irks regular readers here is that you attack McD so much more than Cruddas on this, and do nto reflect for a moment that you previous promotion of Cruddas might have been a mistake, particularly when you dismissed McD leadership challenge -which was very broad and involved the bulk of left activists, but supported for deputy. Not only did compass not support McD in any way, but they actively worked to make sure he didn’t get on the ballot by organising their MPs to nominate brown and using consituency positions to make sure that the issue or the possibility of mandating local MPs did not get discussed.

     A tactic worthy of discussion is what the LRC should do to maximise support, your suggestion of being soft on the mps who voted with Brown in order to win them over needs discussion on the basis of an honest assesment of who voted what and why. It seems that in recent days many labour mps were bought off, I’m sure over the summer the price they sold themselves for will be revealed in re-shuffles, government policy shifts, and local grants etc. (It’s not inconcievable that the Academy building programme in Wakefield will be postponed for exmaple) It’s unlikely that those mps which were bought off will go back on their word and vote against 42 days given another chance, or those that thought they were defending Brown against Cameron will change their minds over the coming months.

     Compass always has been a dead end for the left, only in a desperate attempt for allies would anyone seriously consider making compromise with them. What remains of the labour left needs to stand firm politically -it would be better to risk a swift bullet to the head than accept the slow but deadly poison of these fake-left careerists.

     Comment by martin ohr — 12 June, 2008 @ 4:07 pm

137. “Don’t let me be misunderstood that I have any illusions in the Tories. I just find it bizarre and surprising news.”

     I dont think anyone thinks that. It is odd, though, a symptom of the disintegration of the Labour Party that a leading Tory opportunist can pull something like this to attack Labour from the left.

     And regarding #136, its the first time I can remember finding myself agreeing with something written by Martin Ohr. Andy is way up shit creek without a paddle with this nonsense - this is a mistake, and should be chucked overboard. Screw Compass.

     Comment by ID — 12 June, 2008 @ 4:17 pm

138. How can the broader Left in a number of key unions support John Mc D for leader.

     When he has become involved in supporting certain candidates and groups within a union

     Ie to support Unison Labour Left is just one small section of unison of SWPers and Briefing.

     Many left wingers are not within this group and Johns support has marginalised his support in UNISON

     Comment by john — 12 June, 2008 @ 4:32 pm

139. “Whatever the right or wrong of McD dropping out of the compass event surely his gut instinct -to not be associated with fake-socialists the weekend after this crucial vote- is something to be supported”

     well, there is just a tiny difficulty with that isn’t there.

     Andy, I always enjoy being told to grow up, and hope I never do, in spirit anyway. But I am enjoying these constant right wing attacks on the left dressed up as ‘criticism’. you have’nt answered my criticism yet. what in the world is someone centrally involved in attempting to build an electoral organisation to the left of labour doing attacking a Labour MP from the right, simply because he won’t spend time in the company of those who have just behaved in a fashion which recalls for many, many people why they will never vote Labour again. It makes no sense. He should be applauded for this action if for nothing else.

     Comment by johng — 12 June, 2008 @ 4:34 pm

140. perhaps though if he boycotts the conference this will be uncomfortable for those who are not…(just in case anyone didn’t notice).

     Comment by johng — 12 June, 2008 @ 4:35 pm

141. “Building a movement to the left of labour is a complex task, and there is considerable political overlap between those who are within and those who outside the Labour Party, precisely becasue of the long term secular decline of Labourism.”

     That decline was caused by the Labour left moving to the right and compromising its principles for those of people like Cruddas. The point most people here are making is that the left can ill afford to go down that path again. McDonnell is taking a stand against this that’s why the left should support him.

     “You haven’t explained what John McDonnell has to gain by refusing to work with two of the MPs that back his own LRC, the half dozen Campaign Group MPs and the Compass MPs. What is his strategy? To isolate the LRC from many people within the Labour Party who agree with much of the LRC’s politics? How does that make sense?”

     That’s your interpretation. The rest of us see McDonnell standing up to the sell-outs in Compass. The left should not work with these Brownites because they will destroy any fledgling left opposition in Labour. We need to focus our attention on rebuilding a left (inside and outside Labour) that actually represents the interests of workers.

     Comment by Ray — 12 June, 2008 @ 4:40 pm

142. John G. Thanks, I always take those who lecture me on how right wing I am having achieved the electoral magnitide of 0.68% and managed to build their organisation’s membership to less than 2000 after 11 years of the best possible conditions for growth sooooooooooooooooooooooo seriously.

     Each to their own but I’d favour my right wing Eurocommunism over your conservative Leninism any day.

     Mark

     Comment by Mark P — 12 June, 2008 @ 4:53 pm

143. So it seems that several people support McDonnell’s “principled” stand not to attend a Compass conference.

     But what about the relations with David Hamilton MP and Michael Clapham MP, both members and supporters of the LRC, of which john McDonnell is the chair?

     Was the 42 day detention vote a line in the sand that will also see the LRC exclude two of its nine MPs?

     Comment by Andy Newman — 12 June, 2008 @ 6:24 pm

144. The 42-day vote raises very important questions. None of them are about who those outside the Labour party seeking to build a formation such as Respect should prefer from the Labour left and dissident centre.

     Of course there will be ongoing common activity with mainstream Labour figures. Contra Ray and johng, the SWP will do so - DCH, seeking wide support for the anti-fascist front, etc. It will also seek close relations with some of those who voted for 42 days - Bob Wareing.

     All the moralism in the world won’t substitute for politics.

     Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 12 June, 2008 @ 6:39 pm

145. In addition to David hamilton and Michael Clapham, the following seven MPs who nominated john McDonnell for leader, voted to extend detention without charge to 42 days.

     Ronnie campbell MP,
     Ann Cryer MP,
     Neil Gerrard MP,
     Nia Griffith MP,
     David Heyes MP,
     Dennis Skinner MP,
     David taylor MP,

     As John McDonnell now says; “I do not want to be associated with those that are willing to support undermining the basic human rights that socialists have fought and sacrificed themselves to secure and protect over generations.”

     So whereas he had the support of 29 MPs to stand for leader, he now wants to break irrevocably with nine of them!!!

     This is utterely stupid, surely there has to be some give and take in coalition building. but John McDonnell would rather shoot from the hip, and rubbish nine out of 29 of his own supporters!!!

     Can someone explain what the strategy here is?

     Or is this really just a pretext to distance himself from Compass?

     Comment by Andy Newman — 12 June, 2008 @ 6:52 pm

146. Dennis Skinner MP?
     What! The beast of Bolsover?
     Surely not.

     Comment by anticapitalista — 12 June, 2008 @ 7:12 pm

147. Kevin
     My understanding was that Bob Wareing voted against? but I may be wrong.
     But the point about having a united front with MP’s etc who vote on occassions for reactionary policies is correct in my view. Eg Galloway and abortion, china, Big Brother, earning £300,000 per year, sexist film reviews etc etc

     Comment by jj — 12 June, 2008 @ 7:32 pm

148. Remind me comrades, what was it Marx and Engels said about ‘parlimentary cretinism’?
     Doesn’t all this just show that plus ca change, plus la meme chose, as far as parlimentary roadism is concerned.
     Selling your soul for the illusion of being in power has ruined many a former self-proclaimed socialist;- Prescott, Foot, Kinnock, etc

     Comment by Halshall — 12 June, 2008 @ 7:33 pm

149. Andy
     You always side with the right………its not a question of some give and take like it was some gentlemans club. McDonnell is rightly disgusted with those extending the power of the state.

     Comment by jj — 12 June, 2008 @ 7:33 pm

150. Ahhh, but jj - you and the SWP destroyed such a front with Galloway and eschew one now. Your obsession with George, Repect is leading you into very foolish statements.

     Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 12 June, 2008 @ 7:43 pm

151. Ahhhh but Kevin a Front is not the same as a hostage situation and I well remember you giving a rather good talk on the need for the revolutionary party keeping its independence and being able to critise those it works alongside…. lets face it I haven’t heard much criticism from your good self re Galloway’s recent behaviour!!!

     Comment by jj — 12 June, 2008 @ 7:57 pm

152. Kevin
     Is RR members slagging off the anti BNP demo and saying it should not be supported a new theory of the united front??

     Comment by jj — 12 June, 2008 @ 7:58 pm

153. jj

     I think we’ve had enough pontificating about united fronts - of a special kind or as grandiloquent synonyms for campaigns - from the likes of you.

     You claim to remember a number of my talks and articles. If the opportunity comes around again, please pay greater attention - and I’ll spell things out more clearly.

     Meanwhile, no one’s in fact going to break off relations with those who voted for 42 days, not least the SWP. So cut the cant.

     Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 12 June, 2008 @ 8:29 pm

154. Sweet feckin Jesus, I can remember when Ronnie Campbell was nearly a Militant MP.
     It is him isn’t it ?

     Comment by Eddie Truman — 12 June, 2008 @ 8:40 pm

155. Mark P. If numbers maketh the party, the Conservatives beat the SWP by a crazy amount. I think they claim membership of 300,000. Maybe the fash have more than SWP, I don’t know.

     Maybe you could join the Tories! Then every time someone argued against a position you took on this site, you can say “I am taking no lectures from someone who is a member of a party of less than 300,000 people!”

     In other words, your argument is, I think, rather daft.

     Comment by Rusu — 12 June, 2008 @ 9:00 pm

156. Kevin do you seriously think its in order for people building a left of labour formation to denounce a labour mp for being ’sectarian’ towards those who have just voted for some of the most repressive legislation seen on these islands since the special powers act? surely this is the moment when you reach out to the minority of mp’s that have stood up to this rot, not denounce those who are rightly angered by it? this is just so obvious that its rather embarressing that this thread is still going on. please tell me that this is just andy and mark p off on one. its kind of hard to imagine others i know not seeing this.

     Comment by johng — 12 June, 2008 @ 9:42 pm

157. “grandiloquent synonyms for campaigns”

     “So cut the cant.”

     I may agree………..if I knew what the holy fuck you are on about!!

     Comment by jj — 12 June, 2008 @ 9:47 pm

158. It’s straightforward, jj: for all the moralistic outrage from you and johng the SWP will, rightly, be treating with the likes of Austin Mitchell, Ken Purchase, and more besides.

     You won’t be boycotting DCH conferences, Anti Academies Alliance events, or any broader conference you might be invited to to discuss where the labour movement should go.

     You won’t be regarding this vote in parliament as an absolute dividing line. After all, there was a great effort by the SWP (again rightly) to involve Clare Short in the Stop the War Coalition and she didn’t simply vote for the war, she was a member of the cabinet that oversaw it.

     So, of course the vote by the bulk of the Parliamentary Labour Party is shameful. It is further evidence of the implausibility of Labour being reclaimed for the left, even broadly defined. The least useful thing to do in those circumstances is to fall into the kind of intra-Labour infighting which attended the failure to get enough nominations to stand for the leadership.

     Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 12 June, 2008 @ 10:13 pm

159. johng

     I’m sorry, but your systematic mendacity means I’ve decided it is not worth engaging with you.

     Go back over all the rubbish you spooled out justifying the SWP leadership over the last few months. I simply can’t take seriously someone who argued that the four councillors who left Respect in Tower Hamlets were, in fact, to the left of me and Rob Hoveman.

     Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 12 June, 2008 @ 10:20 pm

160. I simply can’t take seriously someone who argued that the four councillors who left Respect in Tower Hamlets were, in fact, to the left of me and Rob Hoveman.

     do I have to spell it out for you?

     which side of respect uncritically backed the new labour candidate (in fact the city’s preferred candidate for london mayor)?

     which side of respect felt that there was no problem with refusing to defend a woman’s right to choose (after galloway had previously said he would)?

     which side of respect thinks that an article about which of the sex and the city stars you would ‘do’ is progressive politics?

     which side of respect is attacking john mcdonnell for daring to be critical of pencil case, and their leader cruddas, once again failing to display any left-wing credentials whatsoever?

     which side of respect responds to a national anti-fascist demo being called, and being backed by several national trade unions, by slagging it off? which wanker says about it ‘you’ll see nothing of value on 21 june’?

     that’s why it’s a left-right split, because every time a political question arises, renewal is to the right of the left list.

     Comment by Dave Festive — 12 June, 2008 @ 10:47 pm

161. “which wanker says”

     Honestly is this the best the putative ‘revolutionary vanguard’ can came up with?

     Calm down Dave. You’ll do yourself an injury.

     Comment by TLC — 12 June, 2008 @ 11:02 pm

162. Odd how Dave Festive seems to know all these national trade unions are backing the demo on 21st June, whereas nothing UAF has put out suggests anything of the sort.
     Obviously UAF have the wrong press and publicity person and should have emploted Dave Festive.
     I have just been informed that there are two by-elections in Dagenham soon after and there is serious work being planned to counter the BNP. Is this true? In whch case why is the demo heading in the opposite direction?
     Kevin’s points about the SWP’s barometer for deciding who’s on the left and right are very apt. It’s quite simple: if it suits the SWP project,or better still be controlled by SWP, they are on the left. If they won’t work with SWP they are clearly on the right.
     Anyone who understood the first thing about unite fronts with reformists would know that you are dealing with an inconsidtent bunch of careerists who are in one way or another tied to the labour bureaucracy. Working out who is on the left on any issue requires much hard work in order to maximise the number of MPs who break to the left.
     Anyone knows that John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn will speak on any platform, like Tony Benn before. If your serious about broadening out support on any issue, then you have to go beyond the Campaign group/ LRC.
     So when Frank Dobson, Ken Purchase, Colin Burgen, John Cruddas speak out on an issue, make the alliance.
     Or is Glenda Jackson suddenly on the left because she voted against the government?
     It’s not whether someone’s to the left or right - its whether what they say and do is in the interest of the working class. Being to the right of ultra-leftism is of course no sin.

     Comment by harold — 12 June, 2008 @ 11:11 pm

163. Odd how Dave Festive seems to know all these national trade unions are backing the demo on 21st June,

     you’re not too smart, are you? it’s backed by unite (who have ordered 2 million leaflets), ucu, nut, nasuwt, pcs and others. and their logos appear on the posters, which if you were bothering building the demo, you’d be sticking up.

     Comment by Dave Festive — 12 June, 2008 @ 11:16 pm

164. “Honestly is this the best the putative ‘revolutionary vanguard’ can came up with?”

     If “Dave” is the best they’ve got, god help them.

     Actually, it’s become a lot clearer just how much of a nasty piece of work “Dave” is, especially given that just about all his points above are either twisted or misrepresented.

     One would’ve expected the SWP’s stars to be better educated and better equipped to deal with actual debate.

     But the Scaries and their friends just can’t cut it, which is why they can’t use their real names.

     Comment by tonyc — 12 June, 2008 @ 11:16 pm

165. #162 “Or is Glenda Jackson suddenly on the left because she voted against the government?”

     Not to mention Kate Hoey or Roger Godsiff ….

     Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 12 June, 2008 @ 11:16 pm

166. harold conjures up straw men. no-one’s arguing against having pencil case members on united front platforms, quite the opposite, but i applaud john mcdonnell for saying that as an organisation they’re a disgrace who offer nothing to workers.

     Comment by Dave Festive — 12 June, 2008 @ 11:18 pm

167. I share Kevin’s attitude towards Johng and would extend it to Dave Festive, the terminally thick JJ, and some others: they have proven themselves to be nothing more than political belly dancers, prepared to dance to whatever tune their masters whistle. They are not to be taken seriously.

     As for Respect opposing the June 21 demo: this is another SWP lie. But in supporting the demo we have no illusions about the SWP motivations in initiating it. These are driven first and foremost by their own internal sectarian agenda. And that is to use LMHR as a mechanism to recruit to the SWP and in the process rebuild focus and moral inside their own organisation which has taken a battering. If they retain 10% of those that they recruit in the course of this new turn, they will be happy. However, even with a sectarian motivation, and tactical stupidities aside, anti-fascist gigs and demos are a good thing. So, let them get on with it. But for a serious strategy to undermine the BNP in the areas where they are putting down roots, don’t look to the SWP. They don’t have one.

     As for the guff about McDonald/Compass, Harold is absolutely right: ‘the SWP’s barometer for deciding who’s on the left and right are very apt. It’s quite simple: if it suits the SWP project, or better still be controlled by SWP, they are on the left. If they won’t work with SWP they are clearly on the right.’

     Comment by Ger Francis — 12 June, 2008 @ 11:23 pm

168. “that as an organisation they’re a disgrace who offer nothing to workers.”

     like the Labour Party?

     of which John McDonnell is a member.

     If they’ve ‘nothing’ to offer to workers why have them on the platform or any united front?

     What’s amazing about this thread is that we’ve got to 167 posts but almost none of them actually engage with the TACTICAL issue that Andy raises. No wonder few take the left seriously.

     Comment by TLC — 12 June, 2008 @ 11:28 pm

169. So, Dave Festive would have others beside the left of the left on united front platforms. Good for him.
     Perhaps he would explain how John McDonnell is consistent with Dave Festive here in that he won’t work with Compass MPs? The argument isn’t about speaking out against the 42 days - nobody from Respect has supported it.The argument is about McDonnell’s sectarianism to those who have got it wrong on this issue.
     I honestly think Dave Festive gets a little muddled sometimes as to what the issue is. Maybe we all do.

     Comment by Howard T — 12 June, 2008 @ 11:37 pm

170. “the terminally thick JJ, ”

     Ger….you can do better than that…

     Comment by jj — 13 June, 2008 @ 12:11 am

171. harold #162

     It is true, there are two by-elections coming up in dagenham. If the BNP win them they - a distinct possibility - then they are on track to maybe win control of dagenham council.

     the worrying thing is that in areas like barking and Stoke where the BNP have managed to establish an electoral base, then they have proven very hard to dislodge.

     The LMHR carnival will have zero impact on the dagenham by-elecions, and the real fight against the BNP is with the local activists doing the door to door canvassing and leafleting against the BNP in dagenham.

     Comment by Andy Newman — 13 June, 2008 @ 12:19 am

172. Ger, your analysis of the LMHR demo is absolutely bizzare. Are you seriously claiming that the SWP are promoting it for a recruitment drive? What you are saying is that SWP comrades like Karen Reissman are completely cynical. Not even the most rabid right winger would come out with such nonsense.

     As for supporting McDonnell or anyone in the Labour Party it comes down to following principles. It may have escaped you and Kevin but members of the SWP and other socialists who have been criticising Andy’s attitude to McDonnell in this thread see a difference between MP’s who vote to take away civil liberties and those who don’t. But perhaps you’re so used to defending another indefencible position of one of your mates on the unelected, undemocratic leadership committee of Renewal you’re following different principles to the rest of us.

     Comment by Ray — 13 June, 2008 @ 12:36 am

173. In some ways, I don’t give a flying one. But in others, I wonder how people on this blog can keep going “Lalalalalalalala, no one’s backing the demo, horrid Swappies”.

     There is trade union backing. Trade union backing, in layman’s terms, is when a trade union backs something. So here, when trade unions back something, in this case the demo, that would suggest there is trade union backing.

     Comrades, this is not rocket science.

     Comment by Rusu — 13 June, 2008 @ 12:36 am

174. #173

     maybe I am a bit dim, but can you explain why there is no mention of the LMHR demo on the websites of UNITE, UNISON, the GMB or FBU or RMT.

     Th only union I have checked that is advertising it is PCS. Now, getting support from the PCS is a good thing, but clearly there is no national push by the treade unions to realy get their members out on this demo.

     Comment by Andy Newman — 13 June, 2008 @ 1:23 am

175. Andy - I haven’t even been to the UAF website and I know that UNITE is sending out 2 million leaflets to their members. That seems pretty significant backing from one of the biggest unions in the country. In any case, the proof will be in the pudding in a week or so. But it’s foolish for people to criticize this demo because it’s not marching through somewhere else. It should be obvious that these big events are about building the momentum of the local campaigns - just like StWC did. It’s about the show of anti-fascist forces to raise morale.

     This stuff about McDonnell is really quite all over the map. Shouldn’t the first instinct of socialists be to trumpet the fact that a significant public figure is denouncing the supporters of this legislation from the left? Are there tactical considerations that will have to be worked out - well, yes, there usually are - but it is, ironically, the height of sectarianism to denounce as sectarian a Labour MP who is taking on New Labour and making himself a pole of attraction to all those who are disgusted by this latest betrayal. His principled and public stand will help maintain the morale of those Labour activists who want to see a better world and remain in the party.
     What’s more, it doesn’t follow at all that to say “hurrah for McDonnell” means as some suggest, that you don’t work with the people who voted for 42 days. Kevin is right that the SWP will work with such people. But the SWP will also not shirk from sharp criticism for this betrayal and, I suspect, won’t denounce McDonnell for having the incorrect tactical orientation. Further, we have to acknowledge that the tasks of the moment will appear different to someone within the Labour Party than to those outside of it. Within the party there is a sense of the need to create a sharp differentiation with a firm spine to resist the pressures & temptations to accommodate to Brown & the NuLab government.
     In any case, it seems to me, that Andy has gotten the balance wrong. Instead of starting from an attack on a principled stand, it should be whole-hearted agreement with McD’s disgust with petty bartering over this key issue with a (very small) side-bar about the need to work with those Labour MPs who voted for 42 days on other campaigns such as DCH, etc.

     Comment by redbedhead — 13 June, 2008 @ 2:33 am

176. Another stunning electoral triumph for the Rees-istas, vote drops to 56 votes, 2.1%, from 144 5.1% on 1st May

     Waltham Forest Forest Ward By-Election 12 June 2008

     Lib Dem 977 36.9%
     Lab 927 35.0%
     Con 507 19.1%
     Green 184 6.9%
     *** Left List 56 2.1% ***

     Result 6 weeks ago in Constituency Member section of GLA Election:
     Forest Ward GLA Constituency Member 1 May 2008
     NB does not include any postal votes

     The Labour Party 1143 42.5%
     Conservative Party 477 17.7%
     Liberal Democrats 382 14.2%
     Green Party 288 10.7%
     *** Left List 144 5.4% ***
     Christian Party 124 4.6%
     UK Independence Party 79 2.9%
     English Democrats 51 1.9%

     Certainly a big swing from Labour to Lib Dems, though in 2006 this was a Lib Dem ward and the Labour vote has increased since then, but look at the collapse in the Left List vote in one of their better ward results in the London GLA results. On this basis the Left List councillors in Tower Hamlets would be lucky to get into three figures in 2010. No wonder they are planning to jump ship as soon as they can find someone to have them.

     I would like to remind you of the criteria by which this result should be judged by quoting from Martin Smith in December 2007 issue of Socialist Review that the SWP’s version of Respect, now known as Left List, would be judged by winning elections. Unfortunately I can no longer quote from that article, as it, along with the whole of Socialist Review, appears to have been removed from the Internet lock, stock and barrel by the SWP.

     Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 13 June, 2008 @ 5:48 am

177. Firstly, I think Compass has been damaged by the exploits of their two leading lights and I don’t think it is sectarian of McD. to criticise them.

     Secondly, I still think it is still possible to work with Compass ordinary members (activists) and many seem pissed off by Cruddas/Trickett on 42 days. Working with Compass members on campaigns where we have broad argument and can unite. And it is in those circumstances that we can demonstrate that we can take the left forward.

     Just because the leadership of Compass is bankrupt doesn’t mean the membership is. But at the same time I can understand McD. re those spineless MPs and their need to capitulate endlessly.

     Comment by Louise — 13 June, 2008 @ 9:09 am

178. Louise

     What message does it send to ordinary members of Compass by refusing to go to their confernce?

     I agree that Cruddas and Trickett damaged the credibility of Compass, and so presumaby does John Trickett seeing as he has resigned from his position in Compass.

     But the tactical issues of John McDonnell’s shoot from the hip response is also damaging to the LRC. And that does seem to me to feed into a stategic problem that - from the outside - the LRC approach seems to be to gather together the hard left in the Labour Party without any clear idea what to do with it.

     Comment by Andy Newman — 13 June, 2008 @ 9:55 am

179. That’s a very poor result for the Left List in Waltham Forest. Surely there must be the equivalent of men in grey suits - or at least well off members who fianance the operation - who can tell the SWP tops that the game’s up. These results are an utter embarrassment. They must have anticipated this, as there seems to have been no mention in Socialist Worker that they were even contesting this election, in one of their heartland areas.

     Comment by Nas — 13 June, 2008 @ 11:22 am

180. #176 Thanks for the information re Forest Ward, which is still not up on the Waltham Forest council site or, perhaps not surprisingly, the Left List site. It is a truly appalling result for LL to lose in percentage terms more than half the LL vote from six weeks ago and numerically almost two thirds of that vote and to come in last with less than one third of the Green vote. Will anyone be drawing the appropriate lessons in SWP-land or is it still a little too early to call it a day?

     Comment by sergo — 13 June, 2008 @ 11:26 am

181. but mcdonnell hasn’t said he’ll never work with individual pencil case membera, he’s said he won’t give a false left veneer to their conference, just as mark serwotka refused to give a false left veneer to respect renewal conference because of the witch hunt they were carrying out

     Comment by Dave Festive — 13 June, 2008 @ 1:07 pm

182. Festive: do you think that Serwotka still feels comfortable about the closeness of his relationship with the Left List? Most people who went along with that rubbish seem to have bailed out since.

     Comment by Nas — 13 June, 2008 @ 1:19 pm

183. Come to the Dave Festival! It’s a land of wonder, where we pretend all sorts of things happened that didn’t and we lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie!

     Comment by Everybody come to the Dave Festival! — 13 June, 2008 @ 1:44 pm

184. kevin i can’t work out whether you actually really believe what i say about my mendacity, simply because i disagree with you politically about the split, or whether this is just grandstanding. there clearly is a left/right dynamic. its a difference in analyses not a personal insult. i never could quite understand why you took it like that. i must say i do like the idea of belly dancing for the cc of the socialist workers party. the image, the image…

     Comment by johng — 13 June, 2008 @ 2:05 pm

185. recall for example that attacking members of the swp as russian dolls (who for example only take part in demonstrations because they ‘like to recruit’) is here not considered a personal insult at all, but simply fraternal criticism. as is the observation that a small trotsyist sect had hijacked respect, made as part of an official press release. its all just fraternal criticism.

     Comment by johng — 13 June, 2008 @ 2:08 pm

186. In an effort to rediscover this thread i looked up johng bellydancing on google. a disturbing experiance.

     Comment by johng — 13 June, 2008 @ 5:24 pm

187. What odd about sergo etc is that they clearly think respect did well in London and Galloway did well for the GLA!!!! Galloway remember we were told has a national radio show which is mass appeal and his standing is so high……..vote was way down on German’s 4 years ago.. same name..respect, supposedly better candidate. It does not bode well for Galloway in the general election and helnows it,,,, but there is always the sunshine of his villa on the Algarve to keep him warm. Perhaps Ovenden and Hoveman will go there and do his cooking and laundry.

     Comment by jj — 13 June, 2008 @ 5:33 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

HOPE not hate
Celebrating modern Britain

• Recent Comments
  • bill on THE WORST BLOGGER EXPOSED
  • Ray on TONY BLAIR - THE THROBBING PASSION
  • Ray on TONY BLAIR - THE THROBBING PASSION
  • Ray on TONY BLAIR - THE THROBBING PASSION
  • Ed D on THE WORST BLOGGER EXPOSED
  • Manzil on THE WORST BLOGGER EXPOSED
  • Ed D on THE WORST BLOGGER EXPOSED
  • Ed D on MORE BAD NEWS FOR HARRY'S PLACE
  • Omar on TONY BLAIR - THE THROBBING PASSION
  • Dave on THE WORST BLOGGER EXPOSED
  • titch mitch on COALITION OF RESISTANCE UPDATE
  • Boab on BLAIR'S INTERVIEW
  • Andy Newman on TONY BLAIR - THE THROBBING PASSION
  • Rorschach on BLAIR'S INTERVIEW
  • Stuart on THE WORST BLOGGER EXPOSED
• Recent Posts
  • THE WORST BLOGGER EXPOSED
  • TONY BLAIR - THE THROBBING PASSION
  • THE BEST EVER RADIO PROGRAMME
  • RADIO WILTSHIRE
  • BLAIR’S INTERVIEW
  • THE 100 WORST BLOGS
  • MORE BAD NEWS FOR HARRY’S PLACE
  • FROM NEIL AND GLENYS KINNOCK
  • THE MIRROR GETS IT WRONG
  • AN INTERVIEW WITH DIANE ABBOTT
• 
  
• about this blog
  • admin
  • comments policy
  • CONTACT US
  • Louise's flickr pics
  • WHO WE ARE
• links
  • 21st century socialism
  • Amandla (South Africa)
  • At Ease
  • Bella Caledonia
  • Bolivia Solidarity Campiagn
  • by-elections archive
  • Challenge (Israel)
  • CND
  • Colombia Solidarity Campaign
  • Commitee for a Workers International
  • Compass
  • David Harvey economics course
  • Democratic Green Socialist
  • Edge of Sports
  • End Child Poverty
  • Frontline (scotland)
  • George Galloway
  • Global Womens Strike
  • granma international (cuba)
  • Green Left Weekly
  • haiti action
  • Hands off Iraqi Oil
  • Hands off Venezuela
  • hegemonics
  • International Socialism Journal
  • international socialist review
  • international viewpoint
  • ISJ & Review (archive)
  • islamophobia watch
  • KEN Livingstone
  • Labour Against War
  • labour left briefing
  • Labour Representation Committee
  • Latin American Workers Association
  • Leanne Wood AM
  • Left Women's Network
  • Links International Journal
  • Marxism Today (archive)
  • Marxist Economics
  • Military Families Against War
  • morning star
  • NATIONAL SHOP STEWARDS NETWORK
  • New Left Review
  • New Reasoner (archive)
  • New Statesman
  • open left
  • Pambuzuka (Africa)
  • philosophy football
  • political economy of football
  • Politics Home
  • Progressive London
  • Radio Galloway
  • Reality Radio
  • red pepper
  • respect
  • Scottish Left Review
  • Scottish Socialist Party
  • scottish socialist voice
  • Searchlight
  • socialist action
  • Socialist Campaign Group
  • Socialist Economic Bulletin
  • socialist renewal
  • socialist resistance
  • SOCIALIST WORKER (New Zealand)
  • socialist worker (USA)
  • Solidarity trade union magazine
  • Soundings
  • Stand Up Tall
  • Stop War Coalition
  • Student Respect
  • swindon stop the war
  • The Poverty Site
  • tigmoo
  • Union Renewal
  • unlock democracy
  • venezuela analysis
  • Witangemot
  • Women of 1970s punk
• other blogs
  • A very public sociologist
  • Adam Price
  • Another Green World
  • Barry Kade
  • Bethan Jenkins AM
  • Beyond the Transition
  • Bickerstaffe Record
  • black looks
  • bleeding heart show
  • blogging Africa
  • Britology
  • Buckdog (Canada)
  • Carnival of Feminists
  • Carnival of Socialism
  • Cedar Lounge
  • Charlie Pottins
  • Che's warlog
  • Climate and Capitalism
  • Cllr Susan Press
  • Colin Fox
  • cosmoproletarian solidarity
  • Darren o'Neil
  • Dave Osler
  • Dear Kitty
  • DebtoNation
  • Dr Nazir Khan
  • fetch me my axe
  • Flip Flopping Joy
  • Gaolhouse lawyer
  • Gaping Silence
  • Gay dissenter
  • Go Fourth
  • Godless Liberal Homo
  • Grace Fletcher-Hackwood
  • Green Party Trade Union group
  • Green ribbon
  • greenman
  • Harpy Marx
  • History's Revenge
  • international Rooksbyism
  • Jews Sans Frontieres
  • Joe Bageant
  • John Gray
  • Justice for Iraq
  • Kasama
  • Ken Macleod
  • Kevin Maguire
  • key trends (John Ross)
  • Labour Home
  • Labour Left Forum
  • LabourList
  • Leanne Wood's blog
  • left click
  • Left Foot Forward
  • Left Futures
  • Lenin's Tomb
  • liam mac uaid
  • Liberal Conspiracy
  • life of riley
  • Louis Proyect
  • lysis
  • Madam Miaow
  • martin wicks
  • MUTINY!
  • Natalie Bennett
  • NSSN south west
  • Ost blog
  • Our KIngdom
  • Paul Flynn MP
  • Paul Mason's idle scrawl
  • Penny Red
  • Pink Pasty
  • Politics in the Zeros
  • prisoner of starvation
  • Rachel North London
  • Random Blowe
  • Rebellion Sucks
  • renegade eye
  • respect blog
  • Rupa Huq
  • Rustbelt Radical
  • Salma Yaqoob
  • selection spotlight
  • Solomon's Mindfield
  • Splintered Sunrise
  • Swindon Roundabouts
  • SWP Notes
  • Ten Percent
  • The devil and all his works
  • The Palestine Center
  • The Soul of Man Under Capitalism
  • The Third Estate
  • Though Cowards Flinch
  • Tony Greenstein's blog
  • Tower Hamlets Respect
  • Trueten
  • UCAPV
  • union futures
  • Unity Aotearoa
  • unrepentant communist
  • We English
  • Wednesday's blog
  • Women of color
• Meta
  • Login
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

HOPE not hate
Celebrating modern Britain