Campaign for a New Workers Party
- Thread starter Philbc03
- Start date
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
Macullam said:
Apropos Nigel Irritable's comments: point taken. And the fact that Liddle, plus the hardly stable 'Coatesite Tendency' leader were there speaks volumes about how seriously it should be taken...
cockneyrebel
New Member
I suppose you've made the effort. 1/10
As said above you can keep going on about WP being freaks, but it was down to WP members that the RMT conference in January happened in the first place. RMT members at the national conference obviously didn't agree with you.
But as you are the font of all knowledge, and the only real socialist I suppose nothing else counts but your posts on U75.....keep 'em coming....
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
Philbc03 said:Doesn't the IBT boycott of the conference auger well for it in your eyes?
about as well as attendance by CPGB scum. Tell me, was MI5 pension recipient Michael Bettaney there? Or did he send Shayler/Machon instead??
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
way hey! democracy in action! tho actually democracy would rather imply having a full debate on the resolutions, not simply allowing them to be put. and what actually happened was we got a string of SP speakers repeating the opening contributions about how we really really need s new workers party. duh - we know that, that's why we were there. the actual motions werent really discussed, nor was very much concrete talked about in terms of actually organising a campaign.socialistsuzy said:
that didnt happen when we broke down into union 'fractions' either, or at least not in mine. "what shall we do?! 'uhh, try and write a leaflet and book a fringe meetng if we have a conference this year'. thats it)
in the early nineties the SWP had a summer campaign along similar lines to the CNWP - less well organised and stuff, just a big signature sheet really, but still.....it got more than 5000 signatures, including a number of 'serious' TUists. A few mnths later, Scargill set up the SLP, most of the singatories to the SWP campaign wouldmnt join up with Scargill tho. The idea that everyone who signs the declaration will almost automatically join any new party is incredibly wishful thinking.
why the hel lshould they automatically have had one anyway?
collapses on floor in hysterics
except for the inital declaration, which was not allowed to be amended, and which is a slightly trimmed down version of your reformist 'where we stand' bit - not even when you are in the absurd position of trying to argue that mentioning revolution is too off-putting, but repeating 'nationalise the top 150 monopolies' like a mantra will be like manna from heaven for workers. you made sure you controlled the conference, on your terms. it attracted virtually no one from outside the existing far left, absolutely no significant TU figure not from the SP (lets not count Serwotka, I'm losing count of the number of groups I've seen him make that speech too) - a fact evidenced by your initial proposal for 5/6 officers to be SP members. The only non-member - Pete McLaren. An absolutely lovely bloke, but really, c'mon....
oh - nice banner tho
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
belboid said:
The actual reason is because every organisation which submitted a motion got one but there are quite a few other reasons which would do quite as well. For instance, they're the second largest affiliate to the CNWP so far.
dennisr
the acceptable face
tbaldwin said:
Baldwin, Trying to work with WP or the rest of AFA was always a bit of a difficult task from my experience as a Militant - but we managed it quite effectively on occasion.
Anyway CR - i was one of the many visitors and not a hello from you despite buying some poxy 'fifth international' material ...
At the moment we have the very smallest beginnings of what is possible - but not a bad start all in all. We are realistic - but - many leading left trade union activists, leading community and campaigning figures (including anti-privatisation, pro-NHS, housing campaigns baldwin - its what we are good at after all) most reflecting what is already gathered around the SP. Hopefully that will fill out with the best of the other folk at the gathering - and the many more they are in contact with.
Alongside this, whispered murmering of support from some of the best of the left tu's - FBU, RMT and even from the POA!!). As one of the reports (a genuinely independent one from what i can gather) pointed out, most of those - TU and community campaign interventions - were not full of bombast and guff - but honest, considered and serious comments and experiences from people at the front end - also reflecting the sort of people we represent and are ourselves.
That's why the Militant/SP (looney lefts or whatever they may be considered to be...) are beginning to get an echo again as they have before now - our members tend to reflect the class we are part of. You get a few gobshites in any organisation (like me
) - but most of our members are fighting campaigns that are about themselves and thier people. They are putting themselves on the line - not a bunch of 'outsiders' telling 'others' what to do.As for WP - they reflect a particular viewpoint - a working class viewpoint (Although i may hate to allow them this credibility...) just as some of the class-stuggle anarchists do. An understandable one in this society - even if i do not draw the same conclusions as they do. To their credit they also come across as the sainest (at least as individuals I have met) and most serious of the 'ultra left' - putting themselves on the line in the anti-fascist work baldwin talks about (even if they were not much cop at mobilising the larger layers necessary - IMO). Hopefully the development of the CNWP into something concrete will be the beginnings of a real test of thier ideas if they hang around long enough to have those ideas tested that is....
Similarly, the SP is happy to have its ideas compared/contrasted/tested and/or taken up/rejected by those layers we hope to attract to a new worker's party - that is the whole point of the campaign.
a fact evidenced by your initial proposal for 5/6 officers to be SP members. The only non-member - Pete McLaren. An absolutely lovely bloke, but really, c'mon....
Vice-Chair Kevin Kelly (vice-president PCS national executive – personal capacity)
Vice-chair Jeremy Dewar
Press Officer Pete McLaren
All non SP members
Vice-Chair Kevin Kelly (vice-president PCS national executive – personal capacity)
Vice-chair Jeremy Dewar
Press Officer Pete McLaren
All non SP members
cockneyrebel
New Member
I didn't see you
Did you see me? I wasn't on the stall....Good post by the way. And I have no reason to think that WP won't be in the CNWP for the long run, indeed everyone I've spoken to in WP seems extremely enthusiastic about it.....
dennisr
the acceptable face
belboid said:
What did you expect? - if the SP had waved a magic wand and conjured up the active support of a folk already extremely wary of any 'new' initiative would you be happy? Probably not, you would limit yourself to guffing on about 'sell-out' reformist programmes ehh, belboid.
At the moment we have small beginnings - the SP is very, very cautiously working to build a genuine organisation - from its own experience and wary of setting up some SA mark2. It's membership figure include some of the very best community and tu activists. At the moment therefore we are not gonna hand the whole thing over to the 2 cynical feckers and accompanying dog who constitute the present involvement other than the SP - would you? (all democratically of course...). We are a serious organisation belbiod and you are a serious trade unionist (as far as I can tell) so i am assuming you know the actual thinking behind the present set up and the present position of the SP a) give us a bit of credit and b) give it a bit of time before writing the obituary, thanks
dennisr
the acceptable face
cockneyrebel said:I didn't see you
Good post by the way. And I have no reason to think that WP won't be in the CNWP for the long run, indeed everyone I've spoken to in WP seems extremely enthusiastic about it.....
Only jesting mate - I am sure you were a busy fella - I could put my feet up and play the simple role of a 'bum on a seat' as part of dominating group an all
ps i wish these sort of events wern't on a sunday
- some of us have lives... (as my partner reminded me..)Geoff Collier
Active Member
belboid said:
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
hardly dennis, if there had been some more significant forces there, then the arguments would have had some real weight behind them. i am against any kind of programme being adopted at the momentm, that should be for any new party to decide if and when....I have very little doubt that should such an orgnaistion come about, that was say twenty thousand strong (so not even really a 'mass' party, but still a fairly significant size) then it would adopt such a (far) left reformist programme, and that would be fine, as it was people actually arguing for rthere own position.dennisr said:
well, I'm not entirely writing it off, but I was seriously disappointed by the lack of faces other than the usual. Sorry, but its true. No, I can't blame you for not wanting to 'hand it over', but the fact that that is the only alternative suggests that perhaps this, tho still clearly a good idea abstractly, is not actually a good time to make the launch. Sorry.
Hopefully I will be proved wrong over the next year, and it will be a great success, and I'll do me bit towards that end, but, unless there is a sudden growth in w-c action, then I'm afraid I'll do so without much optimism.
cockneyrebel
New Member
Tell me about it......STW demo Saturday, CNWP on Sunday.....knackered on Monday morning......
cockneyrebel
New Member
Chairing
dennisr
the acceptable face
belboid said:
There is no programme, there is no party - all is up for discussion. The SP has the same wariness that you do of the forces involved. At the same time it (and we would probably agree...) know that a new party is long overdue. The SP (in the capacity of yours truely...) is fully aware of the limitations of such a development without a wider working class movement. The pensions strike was plugged again and again by activists at the conference - we know that this activity is the basis if any new formation.
But ... lets look at who is involved (and who is sniffing around). The SP has folk in 23 (+) on tu execs. Not all signed up to the CNWP statment by the way. It has played a leading role in recent disputes - PCS, UNISON. It has leading members on some of the 'successful' community campaigns - was it 8000 marching in Hudderfeild against NHS cuts. We have just won major, major retreats in the north on the NHS in Kendal after mobilising 1,000s in the area. We are heaviy invloved in a whole number of Housing campaigns (me personally in a couple..). In Lewisham this is the main campaign of the councillors alongside local people. In Southwark this is the main campaign of grassroots cdes who have led a five year long battle. I could go on and on and on. At least give the SP some credit belboid for the folk it has attracted to its organisation that reflect a lot more than the SP. We are not ourtside of our class, to summerise. That alone should be enough for you to be more positive - more people for you to influence. That is just the SP.
More importantly .. there are those around this base - take for example the telling 'support' from those tu folk who are fully understandably not willing to tie themselves to another 'fresh start' at this stage - Matt Wrack (FBU), th PCS the RMT even the POA (yes, I am daring to mention that one again..). Give it more than one poxy leftie meeting at least.... especially with the present cynical (and frankly - defeated - layer of 'supporters' involved...). What I find weird though is that if we already had left bureaucrat support you would probably be condemning the campaign for that reason...
belboid said:
I hope you are not. You represent a small layer - with a history and experience - that can be a key indicator and lesson for others. It would be a shame to go the way of so many other ex-SWP members (cynical but talking left...) When do you think it will be a good idea? ... rather than a necessity...?
belboid said:
Me too - i hope you are proved wrong. You have to give this a chance though rather than one very limited founding conference (given the particular experience and circumstances) to reinforce already partially cynical ideas. As you know woking class action is usually not started by the working class. That is part of the reason I am not so pessimistic. The SP has a longer term strategy o the possabilities f a new workers party - we a re trying to lay the grounds for when it becomes a real possability - I hope you don't give up on that on the basis of this one meeting - one which is not anywhere near as bad as you initially painted it too be.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
cockneyrebel said:Chairing
Can't the chair chair? Why the need for assorted deputy, vice and assistant chairs?
FWIF I think that the CNWP is a positive initiative - but people need to avoid navel gazing, hairsplitting, and imagining that voting yourself a grandiose title is enough to make you count for jack shit unless significant forces are drawn in.
socialistsuzy
New Member
articul8 said:
thats exactly why we have launched the campaign and not a party becuase we believe that a new mass workers party can only be created with a mass of workers. its also why we're out building the campaign in local areas, trade unions etc.
the debate was on the resolutions too, and they were debated. SP member talking about the work they have been doing in the trade unions and local campaigns was all linked to the debate over resolutions and most of the speakers commented on at least one resolution.
we remitted the resolution, so we didn't automatically get a speaker as nigel irritable suggested, but because at ISR conference in our resolution on supporting the campaign it was ammended to say that we will ask for an ISR speaker at the CNWP conference. which we did, and were granted, rightly so because the role of youth in establishing a new workers party will be very important. unfortunatly due to a lack of time we were asked if we would withdraw our speaker (we didn't have too) and we did because it was necessary.
dennisr
the acceptable face
nwnm said:"the point is that we are trying to set up a mass workers party without the mass of workers." Quality
as opposed to a mass liberal party without the liberals? or a mass muslim party without the muslims? a mass party without the masses?
The 'level' of your interventions here say quite a bit about the state of the SWP if people like you are the public voice. No politics just inuendo and cheap jibes that do nothing to raise anybodies understanding - either for or against. After decades of 'ultra-left' idiocy people like you are finally being exposed by events when you finaly have some influence in the situation - the other side of the coin for such ra-ra-revolutionaries - a bunch of shouty, patronising, liberals with no confidence or trust in working class people.
The damage that your organisation (in the name of the 'left') has done is a big part of the problem others face in attempting to build a new organisation that is more representative. No wonder your own ex-cdes on this site alone are so 'proud'. what is it now - one utterly dissoliusioned and (previously...) foolishly loyal ex-cde supended just for posting here. Another regular poster finally gone for the managment poistion after years wagging his tail for you. A couple of rote lernt robots. Countless, ex-swp members who seem to make up the bulk of the 'anarchists' who hate you with an almost blind vengence. And thats just here on urban - christ knows how that is reflected in the real world. You must be proud yourself?
Look at the immediate responses to you cheap comments - fool - what good are you doing for your organisation or your ideas? Get back to your prayer mat you muppet - go on, go and patronise some muslims.
You do know you come across as the most odious SWP gobshite posting on these boards don't you nwnm? - why don't you give it a break and let the more intelligent informed members of your organisation speak?
Similar threads
