BACK THE LEFT
We believe that there IS an alternative to wars, cuts, privatisation, environmental destruction. We believe that the current UK election system does not allow our views to become represented - a truly democratic society requires participation and involvement at all levels and that the next elections will inevitably not lead to major change.
However, we do believe that there are candidates of the left, across several political organisations, who should be supported by everyone who agrees that there is an alternative to Brown, Cameron or Clegg. And in the interests of unity we call for left candidates to avoid clashing in the same seats.
We will therefore support the following for example (and there may well be many more), who strongly demonstrate practical representation of the left in its widest sense:
Caroline Lucas (Green, Brighton)
Dai Davies (independent, Blaenau Gwent)
George Galloway and Abjol Miah (Respect), John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn (Labour) (in London);
Peter Tatchell (Green, Oxford);
Dave Nellist (Socialist Party, Coventry);
Salma Yaqoob (Respect, Birmingham)
Gayle O’Donovan, Kay Phillips (in Manchester; Green and Respect respectively);
Peter Cranie (Green, Liverpool);
Val Wise (independent, Preston).
Yours
Nick Bird (Lowestoft)
Duncan Chapel (NUJ)
Andrew Collingwood (Green Party)
Raphie de Santos (Scottish Socialist Party)
Sam Feeney (Unison)
Alf Filer (Harrow UAF)
Gregor Gall (University of Hertfordshire)
Stephen Hall (Wigan, Leigh & Makerfield People’s Alliance)
Chris Hyland (Green Party)
Aaron Kiely (Kent Uni.)
Nick Long (Lewisham)
Liam Mac Uaid (Socialist Resistance)
Jim Monaghan (Open University)
Miles Mothershead
John Nicholson
Declan O’Neill
Kay Phillips
Andy Richards (Brighton Unison and Respect)
Clive Searle
Norma Turner
Steve West (RMT, Manchester)
Leanne Wood AM/AC (Plaid Cymru)
Jack Youd (University of Manchester)
Organisational affiliations are for identification purposes only.
To add your name to this statement, email John Nicholson at backtheleft@sent.com or join the facebook group at http://bit.ly/backtheleft .
comments were disabled by mistake.
Now fixed.
Comment by Andy Newman — 13 December, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
You have identified a grand total of 13 candidates whom you think it is worth voting for,
There are 646 seats in the House of Commons. So what do you suggest the electorate should do in the rest of the country?
As the date of the election approaches, and with it the threat of a Tory government (which will be considerably worse than New Labour, as anyone who was alive under Thatcher will confirm), then the left has little choice but to hold its nose and vote Labour - or Liberal Democract in those few seats where the Lib Dems can beat the Tories.
I take no pleasure in pointing this out, but it’s just the way the undemocratic British electoral system works. If we want to keep out the greater evil, we may have to vote for the lesser one.
Comment by paul fauvet — 13 December, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
Yes, in most places the correct thing to do will be to vote Labour, unless the left coalition now getting off the ground is standing there. However because we don’t have the time or the numbers to build campaigns in 646 constituencies, our task it to go to the nearest constituency where we are standing and help the campaign there. Its part of the process of building a new electoral vehicle for the new left coalition which we’re attempting to build.
Comment by John E — 13 December, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
#3 : in my view calling for a Labour vote in the majority of constituencies is not only not “correct”, it’s an unprincipled and rotten strategy which could harm the credibility of genuine left candidates like those identified in the statement.
Ask yourself : what does Labour stand for today in the eyes of the people ?
It stands for corruption in office.
It stands for hammering the public sector and the trade unions after the next election as viciously as any Tory government in the last century.
It stands for a continuation of the belligerent foreign policy pursued by Tony Blair.
There is a sharp divide opening up in British politics and Labour is on the wrong side of that divide. We must not be associated with it.
Comment by red mole — 13 December, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
No, never.
Comment by Frank — 13 December, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
Look at the puny total of 13 candidates worth backing.
Look at the calls on SU and elsewhere to Back Labour.
Can you not see the connection?
Until the Labour Party is smashed, real socialists will never have the space to organise a real alternative to capitalism. We are all told that we must get behind Labour to stop the dreaded Tories - and then find ourselves with New Labour implementing Tory policies in the service of Capital.
I’m sorry, the difference between the two main parties is far too small to justify the diversion of effort away from building a socialist alternative.
This farcde has been played out at every election since the war and, as a result, Britain has one of the weakest lefts in Europe.
When will we learn? Until we smash the Labour Party, we’ll never build socialism.
Comment by Gaz — 13 December, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
#2
Paul is correct here, and that is why i would not be inclined to back this open letter.
Accepting that different dynamics apply in Scotland, Wales and Ireland, but the main choice at the next general electiopn is whether we want to see a Tory or labour government.
It is the hight of folly to issue a blanket call to vote for “left candidates” without taking that context into account.
Comment by Andy Newman — 13 December, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
13 worth backing? Ever the optimist? Of that list I would say three, McDonnell, Corbyn and Nellist.
Comment by bill j — 13 December, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
Andy is right to point out that the dynamic is different in Scotland: socialists and progressives can vote SNP, or parties to the left of Labour-big opportunity for the SSP and Solidarity to try and get their act together
Comment by Owen — 13 December, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
This list of 13 will end up much bigger by the time of the election surely. What about the groups in Wigan or Lewisham that may be standing candidates, what about son of No2EU etc etc.
Its looking very possible that the election will be in March - time for everyone to get organised and quick!
Comment by Bob — 13 December, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
I would have a big problem voting for the Greens, who are really liberals in disguise. In fact taking the above logic further, why aren’t you calling for a Lib Dem vote where there isn’t a Left candidate? On many issues they are to the left of Labour and not tarnished by the stench of betrayal.
Comment by Henry — 13 December, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
“It is the hight of folly to issue a blanket call to vote for “left candidates” without taking that context into account.”
Except the letter above isn’t a blanket call. It is very specific and targeted.
Comment by TLC — 13 December, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
Good point made at #11:-the logical conclusion of many of the ‘Labour is the lesser of two evil’ arguments would also be to support the Lib Dems. Henry is right-they are to the left of Labour on a range of issues-in fact as a party they are barely distinguishable from Labour.
Comment by Owen — 13 December, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
#2 big opportunity for the SSP and Solidarity to try and get their act together
No kidding? Is Glasgow NE forgotton already? In a solid working class constituency area the three left of Labour parties together got less votes than the fascist BNP who nearly came third and almost saved their deposit. Two out of three did not bother voting.
Rather than indulge in such ultra left fantasies as advocated on this site should the left not be raising the political consciousness of the people by agitating, educating and organising.
Mass extra parliamentary action by the left such as campaigning with the People’s Charter could create the conditions where the proletariat might actually consider it worth voting and indeed getting involved in trade union and class politics.
Comment by Star Supporter — 13 December, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
“Mass extra parliamentary action by the left such as campaigning with the People’s Charter could create the conditions where the proletariat might actually consider it worth voting and indeed getting involved in trade union and class politics.”
And you talk about ‘ultra left fantasiies” !!
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 13 December, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
I don’t get it mark, are you calling the Peoples Charter Ultra-Left?
I think we need to ignore the naysaying enemies of the Peoples Charter, and get out and campaign for it.
Comment by George W — 13 December, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
#11 The letter doesn’t call for a blanket vote for the Greens, it specifically mentions a few Green candidates who are on the left.
Comment by Chris H — 13 December, 2009 @ 9:22 pm
No I was pointing out that ‘Star Supporter’ was accusing the Ultra Left of fantasies, a point of view with which I would broadly concur. But then he rather spoilt the point with his own CPB original fantasy of mass campaigning for the moribund people’s charter…igniting a leftward moving proletariat (sic) and … a rising level of class politics. A fantasy if I’ve ever heard of one.
C’mon lets get real, how many signatures for the charter , what kind of campaigning around it reaching deep into working class communities , how many people out this weekend working to build support for it? Fantasies are the enemy of effective politics, whether from the ultra lft or the CPB.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 13 December, 2009 @ 9:22 pm
“I don’t get it mark, are you calling the Peoples Charter Ultra-Left?”
I think the point is that it’s just a fantasy to imagine that there will be anything like “mass” campaigning on the people’s charter full stop, and that we can’t accuse other people of fantasising if we’re then going to make this our demand.
It has barely touched the trade union movement. The unions I’m most familiar with, the RMT, ASLEF and Unison, have done stuff at the top but the most that gets seen is an email to the branch which may or may not get forwarded to the members. The union activists I know can sort of remember maybe being sent something but aren’t really sure, and the union members I know have no idea what the charter is (yes, it’s a failing of mine as well).
A whole series of conditions need to be met before we’ve got mass left wing campaigning on anything. Part of the problem we face on the left is people arguing in the abstract - of course what we need is mass campaigning on the people’s charter, but the fact that the charter originally called for a million signatures in a fairly short space of time either meant 1,000 people had to get 1,000 signatures, or 10,000 people each had to get a hundred signatures, and it’s not even close.
We’re in a situation where there’s very little “mass” stuff going on. But there are a lot of people simply “calling” for stuff that is unachievable (witness the crap stuff from people like Jim Lawrie about how we need revolution now and that parties like Respect are a dead end).
Mark P tends to try to burst the bubble of pomposity and grandiose claims made on the left. I think his hit on “Star Supporter” was off the mark, but it’s still in the right arena: We can say that we need this or that, but it doesn’t make it real. There are concrete things happening that we can and should (and must) promote, but there are way too many people on the left who make abstract demands (”what we need right now is to renationalise the steel industry”, “we need to smash the Labour party”) which have no credibility and come from people who’ve achieved close to nothing.
That applies to most of us. Mark P’s work will be done when we stop and say “it’s a bit shit, isn’t it? How do we make it better, right here and right now?” - he’s not an enemy of the left, merely a banging-his-head-against-a-wall hater of left-wing self-aggrandisement.
Comment by tony collins — 13 December, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
Sorry, I had that one sitting in the out box for too long.
Comment by tony collins — 13 December, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
What’s that meant to mean? No wonder I can’t be arsed commenting on this site. Clearly Mark P inhabits a world full of revolutionaries. I live amongst ordinary punters the majority of whom see no point in voting never mind having some sort of understanding of the need to transform society. If the masses supported the modest demands of the People’s Charter the political situation would indeed have potential for the left. At present the people of Glasgow NE had 3 left parties to chose from, only a tiny minority did,the vast majority did not bother their arse even voting. That’s what needs to be addressed. The masses sure aint bursting to vote for SSP, Solidarity or, wait for it,yet another “new workers party”.
Comment by Star Supporter — 13 December, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
Choosing to hold my thoughts.
Comment by Melvin of Quotes — 13 December, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
As 14, points out, the Glasgow east by election,was a disastorous result for the left not only by votes but also by turn out.
The Scottish electoral sysytem as we are aware is by far a more progressive and fairer way in electing our public servants,and democaticaly fairer to the minor parties understanding, the voting percentages.However, the English system of first past the post, has in the past and will continue to favour the two main parties Labour and Conservative,and with the numerous what can only be described as fringe parties and independants only aid the main protagonists by spliting the vote.
Comment by jim mc donald — 13 December, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
The road to lost deposits beckons.
Comment by neprimerimye — 13 December, 2009 @ 11:29 pm
#11 Don’t call me a Liberal for F~*K’s sake!
Comment by ECOLEFTY — 13 December, 2009 @ 11:46 pm
#21
“No wonder I can’t be arsed commenting on this site. Clearly Mark P inhabits a world full of revolutionaries. I live amongst ordinary punters the majority of whom see no point in voting never mind having some sort of understanding of the need to transform society.”
what on earth are you on about?
You are the one coming here making arguments for a labour vote conditional on silly preconditions about the “peoples charter”.
At the next election it is important to vote Labour, and to try to ensure a labour victory (except in the handful of seats where there is a credible left challenge). This shouldn’t be done on the basis of cloud cookoo land preconditions about a peoples charter that no-one has heard of, but to prevent the Tories forming a government.
Comment by Andy Newman — 14 December, 2009 @ 12:27 am
Would it not be a good idea to start from how small the left really is, how lacking in resources rather than the usual posturing to suggest that the masses (via the Peoples’ Charter?!!) are queueing up to join us.
I am prepared to vote Labour to keep the Tories out but won’t have a ‘nice labour’ candidate.
Can see the pointb of voting for Salma, Abjul as they are likely to get 5 figure votes, Dave Nellist a few thousand. Not sure about all the others and I for one wouldn’t want to waste my time with fringe candidates who put all their energy into getting 200 votes.
Comment by Sarah Hart — 14 December, 2009 @ 12:36 am
# The Scottish system is the same as England as far as Westminster is concerned. And as for the original statement there are one or two in the list who are in my mind opportunists at best.
When it comes to the bottom line the Left only does well through enrtryism or control of the TUC. I mean look at ultra Marxist Alistair Darling, it is clear he is hammering the working class so as to create the causality for a revolutionary situation, oh nope he has sold out like the rest.
ABSTAIN
Comment by doom and gloom — 14 December, 2009 @ 2:14 am
“Clearly Mark P inhabits a world full of revolutionaries. I live amongst ordinary punters the majority of whom see no point in voting never mind having some sort of understanding of the need to transform society. ”
Er, no, thankfully, I don’t. I live in precisely the world you describe, precisely zero of whom are gagging to sign the People’s Charter, let alone heard of it, in order to transform society.
The simple point I was making is that there it is no way to respond to the fantasising of the Ultra Left with the CPB constructing a fantasy politics of their own. Like it, or not, the People’s Charter is not a mass movement and is scarecely likely to become one before the General Election.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 14 December, 2009 @ 4:27 am
One potential danger (of many!) of a Tory victory is their plan to reduce the number of MPs without solving the problem of FPTP voting.
Those old enough (or geek enough) to remember how the UK used to vote for members of the European Parliament, will recall how the super-sized constituencies used first past the post, enabling in some cases majorities of over 60- and even 70- thousand. Minor parties - even the Liberal Democrats of whom I am a member - had very little to no chance of winning. For almost all the years of this system’s use, Labour and Conservative candidates had automatic top billing.
Cameron wants to reduce the number of MPs by some way, maybe even cutting the number by half. There will be no chance at all of minor party successes such as George Galloway, Richard Taylor, or Dai Davies, in a House of Commons where fewer MPs are elected in much larger constituencies under first past the post.
If Cameron wins, there needs to be electoral reform in more ways than just the number of seats.
Comment by Passing Leftie — 14 December, 2009 @ 8:19 am
“When will we learn? Until we smash the Labour Party, we’ll never build socialism”, says Gaz.
But the immediate task - in March, or May, perhaps - is not to build socialism, but to elect a new parliament. And the question is very simple - do we want a Tory government or don’t we?
And if we don’t, then we should be advocating votes for non-Tory candidates who stand a chance of winning. If that includes Caroline Lucas and Dai Davies, fine. But in most cases it will mean voting Labour or liberal Democrat.
Some people think it heresy to call for the left to vote Lib Dem. But it’s really just simple mathematics - in Cheltenham, for example, the Lib Dem candidate won in 2005 with 18,000 votes, the Tory had almost 16,000 and Labour less than 5,000. So in Cheltenham anyone who wants to keep the Tories out should vote Lib Dem.
Calls to “smash” the Labour Party would only make sense if there was a left wing alternative ready to step into its shoes. And there isn’t - and, unfortunately, real politics is about the world as it is, not as we might like it to be.
Comment by paul fauvet — 14 December, 2009 @ 9:08 am
I think this is a good idea but has some problems it doesnt give details of how you can donate to or help the candidates. Some people will get upset that they are not on the list what criteria would one have to pass to get on this list? In the end i think caroline lucas adrian ramsay and salma yaquob stand the best chance of getting elected under first past the post at this time. Labour left candidates have the party machine to help them so dont need the extra support.James?
Comment by james? — 14 December, 2009 @ 9:57 am
“At the next election it is important to vote Labour.”
I feel Andy is being too simplistic in his analysis here. In many parts of the country you can vote for a left candidate and be part of a campaign to build the left and have no chance of risking a Tory victory as the Tories come a distant third. A simplistic blanket - vote Labour - is as unhelpful as any other simplistic blanket demand. People should look at each constituency and make their minds up from the facts on the ground.
While the left should not be indifferent the outcome of the next election - and prefer a Labour Victory to a Tory one - it is not our responsibility (nor are we able) to try and rescue a discredited Labour adminsistration that seems incapable of taking the steps needed to save itself.
Comment by tlc — 14 December, 2009 @ 10:09 am
George Galloway and Abjol Miah (Respect), John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn .
Calling for support for Galloway is a shootable offence in the Tendance Coatesy Majority Postion (Faction One) Revolutionary Tribunal.
And not too well thought of in the *Labour Party* - one suspects.
Who the hell has got John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn to sign this meaningless document?
Comment by Andrew Coates — 14 December, 2009 @ 10:47 am
Bea Campbell?
Comment by neprimerimye — 14 December, 2009 @ 11:07 am
“Who the hell has got John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn to sign this meaningless document?”
Nobody. They didn’t sign it.
Comment by Mike — 14 December, 2009 @ 11:18 am
34. They haven’t signed it.
If you think the document meaningless, this is only further evidence, if any were needed, of your lack of substance between the ears.
Comment by RobM — 14 December, 2009 @ 11:19 am
#33
“I feel Andy is being too simplistic in his analysis here. In many parts of the country you can vote for a left candidate and be part of a campaign to build the left and have no chance of risking a Tory victory as the Tories come a distant third. A simplistic blanket - vote Labour - is as unhelpful as any other simplistic blanket demand. People should look at each constituency and make their minds up from the facts on the ground.”
TRUE ENOUGH.
Comment by Andy Newman — 14 December, 2009 @ 11:30 am
…but who are they? I’ll clarify that: I know who some of the people are, but don’t they need a minimum platform or something? Every day, I seem to hear about another left or left of Labour alliance or some such. My head hurts.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 14 December, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
Wherever there is an embedded, organic, serious left candidate then the left should support them (there is still time to achieve this in places - the Wigan People’s Alliance may be a good model with its trades council and community group approach). The left should not support sectarian parachutists or non-socialists against Labour. The former should be ignored whilst the latter can not be held to account or subsequently classed with any authority by those who supported them as renegades when they enter coalitions with New Labour or the Cameroons. The left must be unequivocally for the defeat of the Tories and that means the return of a labour government. However, it should encourage as many Labour MPs and candidates to stand on an alternative manifesto to the swill New Labour will be offering the British public. This manifesto should be launched with maximum publicity and it would be good to see the Respect candidates welcoming it if not attending the press conference. New Labour’s manifesto is not something any socialist this time should be able to stomach let alone stand by or on. It will contain not just a programme for huge cuts in public spending but an extensive privatisation proramme including possibly the NHS along `John Lewis Staff Trust’ lines. It will be New Labour’s suicide note not ours.
Will Compass candidates be standing on the New Labour manifesto for war, welfare cuts, climate change and unemployment does anybody know?
Comment by David Ellis — 14 December, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
#26 “what on earth are you on about?
You are the one coming here making arguments for a labour vote conditional on silly preconditions about the “peoples charter”.
At the next election it is important to vote Labour, and to try to ensure a labour victory (except in the handful of seats where there is a credible left challenge). This shouldn’t be done on the basis of cloud cookoo land preconditions about a peoples charter that no-one has heard of, but to prevent the Tories forming a government”
Rather than a “silly precondition” for a Labour vote the People’s Charter is a campaigning tool that has the potential by raising political consciousness to create the conditions where a Labour victory is possible. Just calling on people to vote Labour just doesn’t cut it.
The bit about “cloud cookoo land” and no one having heard of the People’s Charter is quite disturbing to hear on this site.
Lefts at the Welsh and Scottish TUC’s worked hard to try and win support for the Charter. It led to sharp dabate but we were defeated by the right wing. However ongoing work by the left led to winning support for the Charter at the TUC. Communists and other lefts put a lot of work in to win this position and a leading role was played by Len McLuskey of UNITE but maybe we were all being a bit “silly”. Certainly delegates to these conferences, if not the wider public, would be aware of the Charter although the TUC leadership will share Andy’s distain of it and want the Charter buried. In Scotland a People’s Charter Committee is made up of the best elements of the left in the Scottish trade union movement. It has gained support of left Labour and left SNP MSP’s.
As for Mark P’s claims, he should note the Charter is the policy of the trade union movement which the Communist Party supports and worked for. Where he is correct, is to say it is not a mass movement and that what the right wing of our movement want.
Re who was out at the weekend collecting signatures? Well we were. We have held public meetings on the Charter, going round door to door, collecting signatures in the workplace and on street stalls. Hundreds of discussion have taken place with working people during these activities over the last few months and that of course is the point. It is raising the political level. The problem is that it is not being taken up in a mass way which is what the right wing want.
Just a shame comrades on this site are lining up with the right wing on this issue.
Comment by Star Supporter — 14 December, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
“Who the hell has got John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn to sign this meaningless document?”
Nobody. They didn’t sign it.
So why is being posted as if they did?
Comment by Andrew Coates — 14 December, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
It isn’t.
The people who have signed at are listed under the word “Yours”. There! How difficult was that?
Comment by Andy BH — 14 December, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
42, please note my earlier put down at 37. This idea that a document can be ABOUT someone but not SIGNED by them is only difficult to those who, like you, are hard of brain.
Comment by RobM — 14 December, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
#42
Subject, verb, object.
As in, “Liam calls for a vote for Jeremy”. This is not the same as “Jeremy calls for a vote for Jeremy”.
Comment by Mike — 14 December, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
Many thanks to Socialist Unity for reprinting the letter: The number of signatories has increased quite a bit as a result through our facebook group, which is now up to 111 members. They are listed below:
Aaron Kiely; Adam Gargani Oxford University; Adnan Kochar; Ahmed Tounsi ; Alan Kaze No Kae; Alan Munro; Alys Elica Zaerin; Andrew Collingwood York UK; Andy Symons; Ben Pritchett Oxford University; Bill Harrop; Bill Walton; Bob Jeffery; Carlos A. Rivera-Jones; Charles Brown Uni. Westminster; Chris Branson; Chris J E Bingham University of Leeds; Clare Solomon SOAS; Clément Marlowe; Clifford Cawthon Buffalo State; Dana Schenefeld; Dave Harker; David Pardoe; Duncan Chapel; Ellis Palmer; Emily Elizabeth Powell; Emma Wilkes Alexandria University; Ewan Jones Cambridge; Gareth Jones; Gayle O’Donovan; Genevieve Nunis; George Hathaway Nottingham Trent; George Ward ; Greg Thomas; Hannah Alicia ; Bethan Roche Manchester Metropolitan University; Henry Amaya; James Nowlan; Jamie Davis; Jamie Gunn ; Jamie SMith; Jane Ward ; Jim Halliday; Jim Monaghan The Open University; Joanne Savage Lancaster; John Cooper; Jonathon Taylor; Joseph Edwards St. Olaves Grammar School; Joseph Kisolo-Ssonko; Katen Verma; Katie Buse; Katy Allen; Kavan Hawker; Kay Phillips; Keith Cooper West Midlands; Keith Nathan; Kent Uni. ; Kevin Hayes; Lam chi leung; Lawrie Coombs; Leanne Wood; Left-eris Papathanasis; Liam Mac Uaid; Liat Norris ; Luke Ivory ; Luke Walter Kent Uni.; Manuel Barrera ; Marcus Pj Luxemburg; Matt Hale Manchester Metropolitan University; Matthew Parsfield Oxford University; Michael Johnson; Michael R. Krätke; Mick Woods; Mike Aistrop; Mike Tucker; Miles Mothershead; Nadira Wallace; Natalie Csengeri BPP Law School; Neil Scott; Pablo Tenorio; Patrick Scott; Paul Frost; Peter Franzen; Peter Shield; Rana Raihan; Raphie de Santos; Ray Gaston; Rob Sewell; Roy Wilkes; Ryan McGinley; Sally Moore; Sam ‘Barry’ Richardson Queen Mary University of London; Sam Feeney; Sashie Peiris; Sean Thompson; Sheldon Hunt University of Toronto; Socijalistička Radnička Partija Hrvatske; Sonny Osman West Midlands; Steffan Lewis; Stella Ridgway; Stephen Clarke Oxford University; Stephen Hall; Stephen Lintott; Stephen Rigney; Susie Marie Hepworth; Thalia Trigoni; Tim Hayward ; Tom Arkell Central Sussex; Tony Dowling; Waseem Yaqoob Cambridge; Yiannis Kokosalakis UCL; Yosser Gissajob Hughes ; Zain Sardar.
Comment by Duncan Chapel — 14 December, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Yosser Gissajob Hughes?
Comment by Mike — 14 December, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
I think there are some on here who didn’nt like (how can i said) get the hands dirty .
This is not just about next GE ,it about build a voice for the future .
Comment by steelcityred — 14 December, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
Andy, can you post the People Charter ,thank you
Comment by steelcityred — 14 December, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwn! How many times do we have to have this same old tired and horribly stale debate as TLC comments above
” it is not our responsibility (nor are we able) to try and rescue a discredited Labour adminsistration that seems incapable of taking the steps needed to save itself”.
Support and back the Left but above all work for Left and Socialist unity.
Frankly, whether it´s New Blue murder Labour or the Tory filth who win at the next general election the point is that there is no future for the Left unless it is seriously prepared to fully break with New Labour and to rise above it´s present fragmented squabbling parlous state and radically move away from this dire impasse and it´s selfish egotistical sectional interests and unite on a common basis.
If the lEFT parties and groupuscles and sects were trade unions we wouldnt win anything anytime ever.
It looks like alot of people on the Left may actually need not just the threat and prospect but the actual reality of a tory government to galvanise themselves into action, kick arse and unite.It that is what it takes to bring about the creation of a New Left party then so be it !
Comment by Berlosconi´s bloody face — 14 December, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
That should read “if” that is what it takes to bring a bout the creation of a New Left party then so be it !
Or even if that´s what it takes to bring about a New Left pastry then I´ll have strawberry jam om mine thanks and what´s good for Berlosconi´s face, poor dear, is good for Blair and Obamma the new Black Blair/ B………….liar.
Comment by Berlosconi´s bloody face — 14 December, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
The thing is in elections what is important is how we use them to build campaigns, revitalise working class struggle and rebuild the left.
What can and will make a difference to working class lives is rebuilding the workers’ movement, nothing up successes, communicating ideas, and building a network.
Standing candidates of struggle can sometimes be a useful way of building such campaigns- identifying and mobilising support, building working class self-activity.
That’s why where there are genuine candidates of struggle we should support them. But even if there aren’t we can use the elections to discuss with people how to rebuild the left, how all the main parties represent capitalism, how even voting Labour against the Tories or BNP is only the beginning not the end and how we need a working class combat party to create a society based on ordinary people’s needs not the greedy profits of the few.
http://thepeoplescharter.com/moreinfo.html
The People’s Charter contains some demands which when plucked out of thin air sound OK and of course we should support them. However, as socialists we should say that’s all very well but how can we organise to fight for them- for that we need militant class struggle, direct action, linking the campaigns and democratic councils of action involving mass meetings of hundreds and actions of thousands and ultimately a revolutionary party prepared to fight for this real change and indeed much more profound change for services and a society under the democratic control of the service users, the working class.
Any candidate standing on the people’s charter who represents some section of the working class is almost certainly worthy f support but we need to think about why we stand in elections- not just to make passive propaganda but to make propaganda linked to and organising action and working class self-activity.
Comment by Jason — 14 December, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
Berlusconi isnt it ?
Comment by Berlosconi´s bloody face — 14 December, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
Left unity for a better world (from the Australian Green Left weekly)
Lisa Macdonald
9 December 2009
The call by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at the International Encounter of Left Parties in Caracas last month to begin to launch a “Fifth Socialist International’’ could not have been better timed.
Confronting huge poverty, escalating wars and the rapid destruction of our natural environment, the world’s peoples desperately need an end to the rapacious capitalist system. They need a chance to create a new, alternative way to live with each other and the planet.
To have any chance of achieving that, much greater cooperation and unity between all those social movements and organisations struggling against any facet of capitalism are urgently needed.
It’s for that reason that the Australian Socialist Alliance has endorsed Chavez’s call and will be participating as fully as possible in preparatory discussions for a new international socialist organisation.
Strengthening left cooperation and unity is no less urgent in Australia than anywhere else. A big goal of the Socialist Alliance’s seventh national conference in Sydney over January 2-5 is to help that process.
The conference, “Towards Justice, Sustainability and People’s Power: Fighting for Socialism in the 21st Century”, will bring together activists from many different campaigns to discuss and plan action to build the progressive struggles and the links between them.
The day before the Australian Socialist Alliance conference, the Democratic Socialist Perspective will meet to decide whether to merge with the Alliance. The DSP’s decision will be announced at the public meeting to open the Socialist Alliance conference on the evening of January 2.
The presentations, discussions and decisions made at the conference will be an important contribution to building the progressive movements in Australia in 2010. The Socialist Alliance welcomes everyone who wants to be part of creating a just and sustainable alternative to take part in the gathering.
A wide range of campaign leaders will share their experience and ideas over three days of discussions. From the campaigns for Aboriginal rights, Richard Downs, spokesperson of the Alyawarr people’s walk-off at Ampilatwatja in the Northern Territory will report on the battle against the Labor government’s racist NT intervention.
Queensland Aboriginal writer and activist Sam Watson and Sydney Aboriginal leader Pat Eatock will share their views on how to end the oppression of Aboriginal people.
Tackling the climate emergency will be another big theme of discussion. Dave Kerin, a Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union organiser and initiator of a workers’ cooperative to build solar-powered hot water systems (see interview on page 10) will address the opening public meeting. He will also conduct a workshop the next day on the relationship between workers’ control and stopping global warming.
John Rice from the Climate Emergency Action Network of South Australia and Resistance member Mel Barnes, who is involved in organising the 2010 national climate summit, will speak in a plenary session on the challenges confronting the climate movement in the face of an apparent resurgence in the climate sceptics’ lobby and claims of “climate action fatigue” in Australia.
Melbourne environmental researcher and writer Hans Baer will conduct a workshop to analyse in greater depth the connections between ecology, socialism and human survival.
The struggles for justice, sustainability and people’s power in Australia are intimately connected with what is happening in the rest of the world, and the need for an internationalist approach and solidarity will be addressed in several sessions.
These include presentations by special guest speaker Sivaranjani Manickam from the Socialist Party of Malaysia. Manickam will speak at the opening public meeting and hold a workshop on the struggle for democracy and socialism in Malaysia.
Well-known Tamil rights advocate Dr Brian Senewiratne will speak alongside Melbourne activist Sue Bolton about the Labor government’s treatment of asylum seekers and rebuilding public support in Australia for refugee rights.
Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network national co-convener Jim McIlroy and Green Left Weekly co-editor Stuart Munckton will lead a plenary discussion about the significance of the Latin American revolutions, and the need for international solidarity and left unity.
Getting the imperialist troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and building solidarity with the Palestinian people’s struggle, will be the subject of a session addressed by Sydney Stop the War Coalition activist Pip Hinman and Palestine solidarity campaigner Aaron Benedek.
The vital role of the trade unions, still the largest and potentially most powerful organisations for class struggle in Australia, will be examined in conference sessions, with unionists including Geelong and Region Trades and Labour Council secretary Tim Gooden and National Tertiary Education Union national councillor Susan Price.
They will introduce discussions about rebuilding democratic, militant trade unions capable of winning the many battles for environmental sustainability, workers’ rights and social justice more broadly that lie ahead.
Other feature sessions and concurrent workshops will address many issues: the current campaign for abortion rights; the struggle for equal marriage rights lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people; the nature of capitalism’s economic and financial crisis; and the history of the Communist Party of Australia and the left-Indigenous alliance in Australia.
This conference will be packed with information and discussion, but it is not simply a “talkfest”. The many discussions will be geared to better understanding the world to change it: taking action to strengthen the campaigns for real change and the linkages between them, and to build a movement for socialism.
The full conference agenda and registration details are available at www.socialist-alliance.org. Come along, join the discussions and help make a just, sustainable world possible.
Comment by Fleabite — 14 December, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
To be frank, there are 40 candidates standing in Wales, on a manifesto that will be broadly similar to any Peoples Charter. That manifesto will be the Plaid Cymru one. Devolution has thrown up a complete rejection of Blairite and Thatcherite politics in Wales, and any socialist in Wales who wants that corner to be fought could do worse than vote for Plaid who are the party of Welsh devolution.
And crucially, even for it’s class contradictions and reformism, it is a fact that Plaid (unlike even the SNP) still does not take any funding by big business despite having Ministers in the progressive Welsh Government, and is genuinely a community-based party.
Any UK-wide left initiative should take that on board, and Plaid might then be in a position to endorse candidates in English seats.
Comment by Illtyd Luke — 14 December, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
Illtyd Luke - I think that devolution makes the prospect of any UK-wide initiative very unlikely in the future. (Scotland and Wales for different reasons as well).
I suspect that is why the signatories of this letter shied clear of Scotland and Wales - with the exception of Dai Davies (who has may have won over the majority of the letter’s Mancunian signatories by his support for the Manchester-based Campaign for Free Public Transport.)
Comment by TLC — 14 December, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
I’m supporting Labour against the Tories, as I always have because the movement can put pressure on Labour and there are MPs, councillors, campainers that can be worked with on progressive issues.
If we had a serious force to the left of Labour,m we could look at the questin differently - more of the movement would be able to demand more of labour. (well, in that situation they wouldn’t be so right wing, anyway).
We don’t have that position and we’v elittle to support to the left who have any credibility and whereas I have no illusions in Labour and never did - this Labour government was the first to betray the working class before it came to power - I have no delusions about the forces to the left and some comrades really need to take a reality check as I’ve been there and know what it’s like to see opposition to Labour seeming massive, but few votes come our way. The oppositon seen in parts of industry eg BA right now won’t be transferred to votes to the left of labour (hasn’t for over 100 years)
#55 is interesting about Wales and I agree with his analysis of Plaid. It is by and large a progressive party free of big capital. However, if they follow the logic of progressive nationalists, they would surely conclude that they do not interfere in English affairs. (Not the same as voting at Westminster on matters that impact on Wales) Is this correct?
Comment by Howard T — 14 December, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
Howard T
‘I’m supporting Labour against the Tories, as I always have because the movement can put pressure on Labour and there are MPs, councillors, campainers that can be worked with on progressive issues.’
This reasoning is contradicted by the past 13 years of wars, privatisations, attacks on civil liberties, rising inequality, and a deepening of the free market policies which led directly to the recession.
I think it would be better if people looked at the evidence instead of engaged in this collective amensia when it comes to NL.
Comment by John — 15 December, 2009 @ 8:51 am
It’s amazing isn’t it that no matter how clearly the argument is made, people like John still refuse to even acknowledge it. Surely we are way past the ‘by calling for Labour you’re saying they are great’ point? It’s been done to death, already!
A Labour government is BETTER than the Tories. They are not brilliant and far from socialist. They have committed war crimes. THEY ARE STILL PREFERABLE TO THE TORIES. That is obviously a hard truth for some to accept.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 15 December, 2009 @ 11:01 am
#59
‘They have committed war crimes. THEY ARE STILL PREFERABLE TO THE TORIES. That is obviously a hard truth for some to accept.’
It’s not a hard truth, it’s complete and utter nonsense. It’s amazing how clearly the argument is made, people like you still refuse to acknowledge it.
New Labour was and is a continuum of Thatcher. This is what you fail to understand. Social democracy moved to the right in order to align itself with the needs and strictures of the free market. The political terrain is a reflection of the economic terrain, not the other way round.
The analysis which you espouse is guaranteed to keep the working class defeated and demoralised, as they have been for the past 13 years.
You may lie to yourself, but lying to the working class in this way is shameful.
Comment by John — 15 December, 2009 @ 11:07 am
‘You may lie to yourself, but lying to the working class in this way is shameful.’
It takes a certain amount of self-delusion to say this whilst proclaiming that Cameron will be no worse than Brown. I am proud not to be indifferent to a Tory victory at the General Election regardless of Labour’s record in government.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 15 December, 2009 @ 11:10 am
Oh and should have picked up on this first:
‘The political terrain is a reflection of the economic terrain, not the other way round.’
This is strange, because I thought there was a dialectic at work. Silly me.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 15 December, 2009 @ 11:12 am
Those that advocate a vote for Labour to keep the Tories out are jokers; there’s simply no difference only the fag paper of difference of how they would run capitalism better than the other. Post 58 hit all the relevant spots! But not only that, we have the spectacle here of many on this site who have either in past years stood against or campaigned against NL now in fact calling for a vote for them. Strange! Strange exaltation from this flock of larks!
Comment by Jim — 15 December, 2009 @ 11:13 am
#62
Do actually you know what dialectic means? Because it’s encapsulated in that very statement.
Scaremongering is no substitute for concrete analysis, my friend.
Telling people to watch out for the bogeyman is okay when it comes to reading bedtime stories to kids, but not when it comes to politics.
Comment by John — 15 December, 2009 @ 11:16 am
I didn’t see this:
#61
‘I am proud not to be indifferent to a Tory victory at the General Election regardless of Labour’s record in government.’
If this isn’t an abandonment of principle on the left, I don’t know what is.
Comment by John — 15 December, 2009 @ 11:21 am
If John could spell out why Cameron would be no worse (or who knows what you think, better perhaps?) than Brown that would be very useful.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 15 December, 2009 @ 11:21 am
The free market structural adjustment of the British economy has continued apace under NL since 1997. In this regard the evidence is irrefutable. What we know for sure is that whether or not the Tories or NL are elected, there will be swingeing cuts. The Tories advocate cutting now, NL next year. As I write the public sector is already under attack. The war in Afghanistan is being deepened, which is not only morally repugnant but also materially damaging with the resources and money involved. Social cohesion has never been in a worse state -Islamophobia, anti-immigration, and the rise of the far right are the results of NL’s foreign and domestic agenda. We have a housing crisis, the prisons are overcrowded, and Brown remains committed to privatisation as and where possible.
In answer to your question, no, I do not think that Cameron and the Tories will be worse than Labour in govt. If anything, a Tory govt will end the confusion that has pervaded large sections of the working class, and will inject some much needed militancy and fight into the trade union movement. Then there is the Labour Party itself. Giving this govt another mandate is akin to excusing 13 years of attacks on the poor and the working class, immigrants, and 1 million dead in Iraq.
Any root and branch reform of the Labour Party must begin with it being held to account for the huge betrayal it has committed. The current govt and its supporters are traitors to everything Labour once stood for.
There is no intrinsic difference between NL and the Tories.
Comment by John — 15 December, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Thanks John, as clear a response as I could have hoped for.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 15 December, 2009 @ 11:52 am
“There is no intrinsic difference between NL and the Tories.”
Correct!
Comment by In The Box — 15 December, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
I am off to Birmingham todsay to look at ways of getting more people from around the UK to canvass and leaflet for Salma, likewise been doing this for Caroline Lucas….all this stuff needs people on the ground and practical organisation!
Comment by Derek Wall — 15 December, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
Self-criticism aside - I had got the impression that this was a manifesto of the beleagured in search of the respectable.
But I have a problem for you lot.
In Norwick North,Ian Gibson’s former seat, the newly selected Labour candiate is John Cook.
The best of the best (apart from anything I have to say that since he presently lives a hundred metres from me).
He organised the anti-BNP activity locally a few months back in close co-operation with the Trades Council, the SWP, the Socialist Party, and the anarchists.
Is you gonna vote Green, the infamous Norwich Greens, against him?
For more on TC’s line:
http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/socialist-unity-goes-end-game/
Comment by Andrew Coates — 15 December, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
Andrew are you actually going to do anything at all, thought not!
right lets go and get the train to Birmingham New Street…
Comment by Derek Wall — 15 December, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
67
you say ‘no intrinsic difference between Labour and Tories’-
we are not talking intentions’ ‘principle’, logical niceties-yeas they are both parties in favour of capitalism and imperialism
BUT THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE
that is where your politics is NOT class politics-we have no interest apart from those of the working class-if we acknowledge that a Tory government will take the working class backwards(not its revolutionary cadre) even further/faster/more brutally-we have to oppose them when the choice is between them and Labour- and that is the choice-we may argue for a different Labour- but as we are not infants we also engage with the ACTUAL struggle occurring as it is REAL
of course we wish, hope, some may pray, they are better-but that is not the point- a defeat for Labour will take us all backwards- if you ask for defeet in order to go forwards you will lose any military campaign (of course that is not say you do not retreat sometimes…)
and as Lenin said-if someone is poisoning you and the other about to shoot you-and that is the only choice you have-you ally with the poisoner to deal with the one about to kill you ONLY THEN ARE YOU ABLE TO DEAL WITH the other
sad choices-brutal choices but real concrete materialist choices-all the rest like ‘intrinsic’ is poppycock
get it boys?
Comment by sylvia ebberly — 15 December, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
Good point at #71.
Derek, is Caroline committed not to joining a governing coalition with the Tories or New Labour? I would hate as an individual to endorse her and then find I’d led the working class into a deadly trap.
It would be legitimate for instance to accuse any Respect MP or any other socialist MP of treachery if they were decisive in propping up a pro-war, pro-Israel or a pro-cuts government but could one say the same about Caroline. Has she ruled out joining a coalition of warmongers, welfare cutters, job destroyers in exchange say for a few assurances on climate and/or a cabinet post? A serious question.
By the way, that is not to say that a workers’ government wouldn’t invite Green representatives if there were any to join it.
Comment by David Ellis — 15 December, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
#71 When I say good point I mean the one you made in your comment and not the utter nonsense that the link provided leads to.
Comment by David Ellis — 15 December, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
#71 Norwich North doesn’t feature in the list. It’s not Norwich South, which is the Green’s target seat in that city (opponent: Charles Clarke) and that’s not even in the list either.
Norwich North is now a rock solid safe Tory seat, enjoying the fragrant and unassailable Chloe Smith, and John Cook - good guy though he no doubt is - is just a paper candidate.
Comment by Strategist — 15 December, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
This stuff is hilarious. Who needs the Paramount Comedy channel?
David Ellis says:
‘I would hate as an individual to endorse her and then find I’d led the working class into a deadly trap.’
I’m sure the working class, having loyally followed you for years, would feel mighty betrayed by your lack of judgement.
and then:
‘By the way, that is not to say that a workers’ government wouldn’t invite Green representatives if there were any to join it.’
There’s a workers’ government being formed? Excellent! How do I get involved?
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 15 December, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
#69 “There is no intrinsic difference between NL and the Tories.” If that’s true, who are the Tory equivalents of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell?
Comment by chjh — 15 December, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
77 Friendly: I’m not quite sure what you are finding so hilarious. Is it the idea that Green MPs might find themselves in a power broking situation after an indecisive general election or that they might enter
a Tory or New Labour coalition in exchange for certain
`guarantees’ on the environment and in the belief that they can `make a difference’? Is that the funny thing? On the workers’ government, which you also seem to find hilarious, I don’t think it would be beyond the bounds of possibility that should a substantial number of Labour MPs and candidates stand on an alternative manifesto to New
Labour’s and which unashamedly took as its starting point the interests of the working class that they could find themselves as the majority of Labour MPs in a majority Labour parliament. In that case I would expect them
to form a workers’ government as opposed to the New `Labour’ (`workers’ get it?) abortion of the last 12 years.
Comment by David Ellis — 15 December, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
“I would hate as an individual to endorse her and then find I’d led the working class into a deadly trap.”
David, I would like to reassure you that your chances of leading the working class into a deadly trap are non-existent, as indeed are your chances of ever leading it anywhere.
Comment by lone nut — 15 December, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
#78
So on the basis of two progressive MPs, you’re calling for the left to support an anti-working class, neoliberal, pro-imperialist party at the next election? Nothing whatever to do with the record or policies of this party over the past decade or more? Oh no, that doesn’t matter. We’ve even had people citing Lenin on this thread, a man who lived in Tsarist Russia at the start of the last century, whose entire analysis was based on dealing with a regime under which the left was proscribed, its organisations, literature etc., deemed illegal.
Here, today, in the year 2009, it is not illegal to declare as a socialist, nor to organise within avowedly socialist parties.
New Labour, once again, are a neoliberal party. The fiscal sitmulus was forced on Brown by events which he as both chancellor and prime minister was largely responsible for with his deregulation of the banking sector and his subordination of the nation’s economic sovereignty to a small coterie of bankers and traders in the City.
The Third Way cross-class ideology upon which they emerged was a great deception foisterd on the working class and the trade union movement.
The ruling class supported NL when it turned its back on the working class and the unions and embraced a pro-business agenda at its expense. And you’re really calling for those who have suffered under this betrayal to vote them back into office to keep the Tories out. This is guaranteed to demoralise and alienate people, not to mention disempower them.
Comment by John — 15 December, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
#74 - I believe Caroline is on record saying she would not go into coaltion with another party. I think it is a matter of principle for her ( and many many others in the party!).
Comment by ben — 15 December, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
#81
Answer the question
Comment by 'spotter — 15 December, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
Taking the actual existing reality so beloved of some commenters we could try out a simple example that has fairly basic principles involved.
If British Airways are successful in using the courts to prevent a strike using anti trade union legislation brought in by the Thatcher regime what does this tell us about the nature of the Labour government ?
Comment by Eddie Truman — 15 December, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
It’s no accident that Thatcher herself cited New Labour as her greatest achievement in politics.
Comment by John — 15 December, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
I’ve listened to both sides but I think John is correct. Support for New Labour is an abandonement of principle and, fer chrissakes, we on the left at least have to hang on to that!
Comment by Omar — 15 December, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
#81 No, I’m not - read what I said. I’m challenging the assertion that New Labour and the Tories are identical, which amounts to saying that the Labour Party has lost every last vestige of connection with the working-class movement. I think that’s conceding too much to Blair and Brown - that may be what they wanted to do, but they haven’t entirely succeeded in it.
Comment by chjh — 15 December, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
In #57 Howard says ‘I’m supporting Labour against the Tories, as I always have because the movement can put pressure on Labour and there are MPs, councillors, campaigners that can be worked with on progressive issues.’ The movement has put pressure on Labour and look at the results, for example on the privatisation of Royal Mail: the unions oppose it, the Labour party conference opposed it, and the Labour manifesto opposes it. Yet the government continues because it responds primarily to the pressure of international finance capital.
I’d say that, where there is no better candidate to the left of Labour then working people should vote Labour. This will be the most important election for a generation because of what follows. We need to use the election to prepare for the struggle against the cuts Labour and Tories agree on. So that means the key task is to mobilise and unite a left alternative in the election campaign which can maintain and develop the momentum of the defensive struggles ahead.
Comment by Duncan Chapel — 16 December, 2009 @ 12:14 am
I thought the plans to privatise the post office had been put on a back burner following a revolt by (about 120) Labour back benchers , or did I ger that wrong ? - I’m not saying the government does not still want to privatise the Post Office, and I think their concerns about resistance from post men and women are probably the prime concern, but I am not sure your example proves your case here.
Comment by Solomon Hughes — 16 December, 2009 @ 11:07 am
#80 `“I would hate as an individual to endorse her and then find I’d led the working class into a deadly trap.”
`David, I would like to reassure you that your chances of leading the working class into a deadly trap are non-existent, as indeed are your chances of ever leading it anywhere.’
Ha, ha, very funny Lone Nutter. I see you have a problem with rhetoric. I was merely in a round about way asking whether those who are willing to endorse Green candidates can really feel confident that those candidate won’t, if they found themselves holding the balance of power after an indecisive election for instance, join a Tory or a New Labour coalition government in exchange for some assurances on the environment or perhaps the cancellation of the third runway and if that happened whether they were prepared to take their share of the opprobrium that would naturally follow. I certainly did not mean for you to understand by my comment that I believed for a moment that my endorsement or otherwise of any candidate would make a blind bit of difference.
#82 Ben, thanks for that though I must say I am not as confident as you and for that reason could not vote Green.
#85 John: It is good that you have clarified yourself on the nature of the labour leadership. However, you are not everybody and you are not really addressing the argument. Respect will not be taking a third-period style divisive line during the elections. Respect is calling for a vote for itself and a handful of other non-Labour candidates but, in solidarity with the millions of workers who have illusions or just want to keep the tories out Respect is also saying that it too is very much in favour generally of a labour victory. A national alternative has not yet been built and under conditions of a Tory government with a mandate to attack at will it will be more difficult to build such a thing than under a New Labour government slowly eating away at its own coalition as it faces the consequences of its previous policies.
Comment by David Ellis — 16 December, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
#89 Solomon, the government might be delaying formal approval of privatisation but both the intention remains and Royal Mail’s management are pressing ahead with the key preparations needed to make that happen. There are some useful reports here http://bit.ly/5JHzSP (SWP) and here http://bit.ly/4HiQai (SP). As you say, the key factor in delaying the finalisation of the privatisation is the work force.
#90 David, I think you’re right to say that much of this really rests on the confidence people feel in the individual candidate. That’s why, for the signers of this letter, it’s important to look for candidates that really represent and unite the left in those localities. If a green candidate in a constituency is able to unite around a green candidate, then that’s a sign of confidence and we should go through the experience with them. Of course, going into parliament is a difficult experience, as Scottish SSPs have found.
Comment by Duncan Chapel — 16 December, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
For those of you who have any illusions in New Labour just a gentle reminder that we are now under attack now from New Labour if you hadnt noticed. All this lesser of two evils crap - Evil is evil whichever way you look at it and New Labour has been a continuation of tory neoliberal capitalism and imperialism and the “New Tories” will be a continuation of New Labouir´s neo liberal capitalist offensive and imperialist wars.
New Labour’s cuts mean a war on public services
by Simon Basketter
In its prebudget statement, the government last week claimed it planned to squeeze the rich in an effort to boost income, and spare “core” public services from any serious cuts.
In reality, Chancellor Alistair Darling declared war on working people on a scale not seen since Margaret Thatcher’s Tory government in the 1980s.
Darling wants to cut £47 billion from public spending over the next four years—and the true scale of the assault could be much higher.
As the chancellor announced his plans, the Tories rubbed their hands with glee, knowing he had opened the door to even more savage slashing if they come to power next year.
Public services will face brutal cuts. The Financial Times newspaper estimates that, excepting police, hospitals and schools, most will face a 14 percent spending reduction over three years.
That will mean hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost.
Even the so-called ring fenced services, such as the NHS, are to feel the pain. The government wants to slash an astonishing £20 billion from the health service.
And, as the government measure of inflation rose to 1.9 percent, Darling declared that six million public sector workers will have their pay and pension “rises” capped at 1 percent from 2011.
Working people will also be hit hardest by the rise in VAT to 17.5 percent on 1 January, as the tax takes no account of income.
The government claims that its increases to National Insurance contributions will only affect the well off. The reality is that everyone who earns more than £20,000 a year will lose out.
David Phillips, an economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, points out, “National Insurance is, ultimately, paid by workers. In the short-term, bosses might take on the cost themselves. But, in the long-term, employers will cut gross pay.”
The response of the union leaders to this assault is mixed. Unite’s joint general secretary Derek Simpson said, “When it comes to a choice at the next election voters will reflect on who acted to save jobs, protect our services and build a fairer future.”
If the choice is reduced to Labour’s pay cap or the Tories’ pay freeze then it is no choice at all.
Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, was more outspoken. He said, “I am not going to sign up to this. It is just not on to make nurses, social workers, dinner ladies, cleaners and hospital porters pay the price for the folly of the bankers.
“The people who earn most should pay the most.”
We need immense pressure on the union leaders to get them to actively campaign for, and to organise, action to defend jobs and living standards.
That means that every service threatened by cuts must be defended by the most militant means possible.
If the axe falls on your local library, organising a community sit-in that involves workers and service users could save it.
If council bosses shut your child’s nursery, occupying the building is one of the few weapons capable of making them change their minds.
The bosses and politicians of all parties have thrown down the gauntlet.
Now it’s up to us all to ensure that working people aren’t made to pay for their crisis.
Comment by Santa Claws — 16 December, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
“For those of you who have any illusions in New Labour”
I think that’s none of us.
Comment by tony collins — 16 December, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
I really cannot say whether or not I would back this list. I am struggling to see how they arrived at this list of candidates.
Instinct tells me to support this but it also tells me that laying down a pre-conceived group of candidates in advance of support is a mistake that will cost support. I can see the point of supporting existing left MPs and possibly also some high-profile candidates who are not currently MPs, but how did the group arrive at Peter Crainie for instance?
I support the general aims of this action. I think it would be easier to unite around the ‘peoples charter’ though as there is a group of MPs already committed and a list of demands the UK left can back in a UK General Election. It is also an easier way of identifying candidates to add to the list, support all sitting MPs who sign up to the charter.
If we are going to be asked to commit to pre-conditions, let it be conditions about policy and actions, not conditions on who we must support in each place.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 20 December, 2009 @ 10:18 am
I just noticed that Jim Monaghan was one of those who backed this list. I should point out, in case of confusion, that #94 was by me, the other Jim Monaghan, not the clever one
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 20 December, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
94#
‘cos Peter Crainie is a principled Socialist Green that’s why!
Comment by ECOLEFTY — 20 December, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
#96 But that can be said of many people who could be candidates for smaller parties. This is about the General Election and it is obvious why Corbynn, McDonnel, Galloway and even Lucas and Yacqoob could be considered as a good proposition for the left to get behind.
Is there a reason to suggest that like the others mentioned, Crainie could win? Is there any reason to believe that he is the best possible candidate for the left to support in that constituency?
Thats where the charter is a better strategy. We could be pressurising one of the main candidates, Labour probably, to adopt the charter. If the charter is, (in my opinion it is) about the best the left could hope to get on the agenda within the limits of parliamentary politics, then the first task would be to identify which sitting MPs, or PPCs from the big parties, are willing to sign up. Then after that is done, the smaller parties could be looking at either supporting neutral candidates or avoiding each other in some seats.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 20 December, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
Peter Cranie worked hard to encourage Green Party members to support Salma, I think on that basis alone we should support him.
I would say that being a Green Party member but Peter knows I have had my disagreements with him but he has led the way on this….excellent,
By the way this is all fantasy football unless we go and door knock and help candidates, I am going to be doing so in Brighton and Birmingham Hall Green, join me.
Comment by Derek Wall — 20 December, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
I must say I find many of the comments concerning this statement to be extremely ill-thought out on both sides of the debate. I am also beginning to see why in many places the ‘Left’ will have little to zero impact on the result of the General election which ever Left grouping they are currently in, or not.
Given the personal venom directed at others from both sides of the argument I would also question, on what grounds their contributions could be considered to be furthering the cause of a principled unity on the part of Socialists and the Left in general throughout Britain and internationally, which is what I thought this blog is about promoting.
I can only actually comment with any degree of authority about the situation in the Wigan area, and what I and others on the Left are doing and proposing there.
I think Andy Newman’s Comment (#38) ‘TRUE ENOUGH’ concerning ‘In many parts of the country you can vote for a left candidate and be part of a campaign to build the left and have no chance of risking a Tory victory as the Tories come a distant third. A simplistic blanket - vote Labour - is as unhelpful as any other simplistic blanket demand. People should look at each constituency and make their minds up from the facts on the ground.’ is a good starting point.
The Left is non-existent in the LP in Wigan, other than for perhaps a few prominent TU bureaucrats who might like to call themselves Leftists, but who have in fact become pillars of the local Labour establishment and are involved in very little activity in relation to anything on the ground. The three constituencies in the borough - Wigan, Leigh, & Makerfield are all solid Labour and are amongst the safest Labour seats in the country. The Tories have no chance of winning whatever the Left does and whoever it calls for a vote for. However, due to boundary changes one of Wigan’s 25 Council Wards, the Atherton Ward in which I live, will become part of the marginal Bolton West Constituency at the General election.
The seat is currently held by Ruth Kelly, but will be fought by Labour in 2010, by a former Labour Party (I was in it for 25 years), Trades Council, and anti-pit closure campaign colleague of mine called Julie Hilling, who is a full-time official for the TSSA. At one time most of us on the Left would have considered her part of our number, but in her obsession to become an MP she has increasingly distanced herself from us, ridiculed those of who have fought to build up a local alternative to Labour in the area, and worst of all, in relation to the ongoing fight to save our local High School from closure (an overwhelming majority of locals want to keep it) by the Labour controlled Wigan Council, despite saying she supports us privately, is unwilling to come out publicly in support of our campaign (led by me and others via the local Atherton Forum) to save the school. Needless to say this hasn’t gone down well locally, especially since the Tory candidate (who has found this to be the biggest issue on the doorstep) has come out in favour of saving the school!
Our ‘People’s Alliance’ is likely to be fielding candidates in both the Atherton and adjacent Atherleigh Wards as part of a slate of twelve candidates standing across the Wigan borough in the local elections, at least half of whom have a good chance of winning (the CAP/Greens/Respect having polled over 8000 votes in these Wards previously - which is more than the BNP polled in the entire borough - i.e. all 25 wards during the Euro elections!). We are standing on the People’s Charter and our own localised version of it, and as the leading campaigners against Labour’s proposed school closure programme across the borough, which also includes plans to build three new PFI financed, ‘Monster’ schools in Lowton, Ashton & Standish. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that our candidates will beat Labour in the Atherton Ward. That said, since we are not planning at this stage, to stand candidates in the General election at all in the area since this would distract from our local effort to actually get candidates elected to the Council, the question arises (especially should the General election take place on the same day as the locals in May) who therefore should we advocate a vote for in the Labour marginal seat of Bolton West?
I know that the Green Party is planning to stand, and that we have a pact with them in Wigan and elsewhere. I don’t know whether their candidate is intending to stand on the basis of support for the People Charter or not, which would be a minimum requirement for all of us in Wigan for us to support them in Bolton West on any account I’d say. I intend to ask their proposed candidate at their meeting in January which I have been invited to.
My own view, notwithstanding my own support for standing Left candidates elsewhere (and especially on the basis of the People’s Charter) where there is a real basis for doing so, is that the Green Party candidate should withdraw from standing in the General election and join me in mounting a local ‘progressive’ campaign in support of the Labour candidate, and therefore di facto a Labour victory nationally. Our few thousand votes in the Ward might make the difference in this constituency and stop the Tories getting in, in what is a ‘national barometer’ seat.
Why? because I agree with those who say that we cannot as Socialists be neutral on such issues, wherever we are coming from!
Julie Hilling hasn’t come out in favour of the People’s Charter, and would do well to do so to help her own cause. Half her problem is her own cowardice in the face of pressure from her right-wing Labour ‘colleagues’. However, since the stakes are indeed high, I’d likely still advocate those people voting for us in the locals should vote for her anyway, as well as keep plugging away with the call that the People’s Charter should be adopted as Labour’s Manifesto if it wants to reconnect with its former core working class supporters and avoid defeat.
This wouldn’t of course mean I am advocating we politically endorse her own personal views or the likely Manifesto of the Labour Party at the elections, but would be for purely tactical reasons, in order to keep out the Tories who would be even worse for ordinary working class people than even Labour are, and because that’s the choice we are ultimately faced with nationally. Labour or the Tories! I think this line might also win us a few Labour votes in the locals too.
Since the Greens would likely lose their deposit anyway, I can’t see any benefit of them standing in this instance whatsoever. Especially since, the need to build up a genuine working class alternative to Labour in the constituency is what’s really needed, and whilst standing a candidate might well be one of the best ways to go about doing that in many areas, it would be counter-productive in this particular constituency. The problem is how to go about building up such a movement without standing a candidate in the General election!
It’s fairly easy really I think: do in the Bolton West constituency what we are already doing in the Wigan area, and field candidates in the locals instead. This would allow everyone to put the progressive case on the doorstep and to put out leaflets in their own name during the election period and give us a better chance of making advances in terms of Council seats won rather than MPs seats, without taking votes off Labour in the General election in key marginals like Bolton West.
To put it more clearly, if you haven’t got my drift already. I’ll likely be personally arguing for a vote for the progressive candidates (mostly from the Community Action Party & Respect) in the locals and by that I mean principally candidates who have come out in support the People’s Charter, and in the General election as well, were they actually have a chance of winning or alternatively getting a good result without letting the Tories in.
Where there is no credible alternative to Labour however, then under those circumstances I’d say we need to do two things. Firstly, to explain to people that they should vote Labour bad as Labour are and despite all the dreadful things they have done, and however reluctant they might be about doing so, precisely because such a progressives alternative doesn’t yet exist in their area.
Secondly, I’d take that as the starting point for arguing that in order to avoid us having to do this again in future, i.e. vote for New Labour ever again, we need to set about building that alternative here and now in each of our localities and as a matter or urgency.
I think the People’s Charter is an excellent basis for doing this, and we will be pursuing the idea of building a grassroots movement around the People’s Charter in the run up to the next local and General elections and beyond in the Wigan area.
I’d very much hope on the basis of that we will be strong enough to field ‘credible’ candidates against Labour, and who might even beat them, in the following General election. I know some of you don’t like the People’s Charter and few appear to be doing much to build up support for it at the moment, but it’s the way forward to a mass popular movement in Wigan as far we are concerned, our actual building up of which on the ground will hopefully be an example to all.
If some of you lot, who criticise others but likely do little yourself on the ground, took a leaf out of our book in Wigan (& Bolton) I’m sure you’ll make similar progress to what we are going to where you are, whatever party or grouping you are currently in. The key thing is for the ‘Left’ working together wherever we can. Comradely discussion and debate and unity in action is the basis for what we are wanting to build in Wigan. It is the key to our future success!
Both sides of this argument are not a million miles away from each other in reality I’d say. Of course the sectarian starts with that which divides us rather than what we agree on!
Comment by Steve Hall — 20 December, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
#98 “Peter Cranie worked hard to encourage Green Party members to support Salma, I think on that basis alone we should support him.”
I dont think that sort of reasoning will lead to getting the majority of the left on board with this. If we are using the list as a reward for backing other candidates on the list we will fail to get everyone on board. I dont know anything about Crainie’s constituency. He might be the best left candidate by far, it might make complete sense to get behind his campaign. But the reasons given so far, that he is a ‘principled green socialist’ or that he supported Salma Yaqoob, are no basis to build a list that can be supported throughout the movement.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 21 December, 2009 @ 10:04 am
Hi Jim - the key question is whether a candidate is one around which the left can best mobilise and be represented. The fact that someone is a principled socialist, or helped another socialist organisation, I think are important positive signs - even if they key thing is uniting around a candidate who represents the left. Other things being equal, someone who has stood consistently for progressive demands or who has worked for a socialist candidate in another organisation will be more reliable and more effective and a unitary candidate than someone who has not. Peter is exceptionally well placed as a candidate, having been the lead candidate on the Green list against the BNP. Of course, the best place to make decisions where we have more than on progressive candidate is on the group. But in this case I have no hesitation in backing Peter.
Comment by Duncan Chapel — 21 December, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
Bloody lefty
Comment by common sense — 11 July, 2010 @ 7:54 pm