John McDonnell admits the game is up

[dennisr]

I still believe that the reason the Labour left stay in is because there is no alternative.
The justification is that you hang on to the few left MPs, who have a media profile, to provide some kind of 'beacon of hope' that they can be a pole of attraction to layers of workers trying to change things. Some of the labour supporting TU leaders occassionally come out with socialist rhetoric to gather some support.

Unfortunately while the Union movement largely remain affiliated to the party we are going to stay in the same mess.

Therefore there is no point in leaving.

but there is no alternative within the labour party - unless you are arguing that a few invisible MPs also using socialist rhetoric is an alternative.

You are right the union movement remains affliated to a great extent but your conclusions are do nothing conclusions. You are right that the trade unions will probably be the key to the development of any genuine force capable of providing a real alternative to new labour but you are unwilling to provide any lead which others can take the step of questioning what is necessary and drawing their own conclusions. A left alternative must be one that fights to break that link - that fights for a genuinely alternative pole of attraction to new labour. At least the 'irrelevent' CNWP includes an important group of trade unionists (including 25-30 providing a genuine alternative pole of attraction in the very leadership of trade unions) - among those the ones pushing unions to take an position independent of new labour rather than doing owt

I guess the earlier attempt to play the 'they are not even trade unionists' is ironic(!) given the labour party member saying this is part of an organisation that trade unionists have been voting with their feet to leave en masse over the past decade

If the left of labour is so crap - then the task of a 'decent' left would be to build that alternative to labour not to join in the smears of the right they have been cow-towing to (and providing a fig-leaf for) for far to long. Why are you not even considering your own role - rather than 'waiting for someone else to do something'? (after all you may be waiting a long time...)

 

[Nigel Irritable]

The Democrats don't have the same institutional link with the unions. In fact, I think the Labour Party is pretty unique in that regard.

This is a myth, one which seems to be common amongst the remaining Labour leftists. Plenty of parties around the world have institutional links to trade unions. An example which springs to mind the Belgian Christian Democrats. Not what you would call a party of the working class.

 

[poster342002]

This is a myth, one which seems to be common amongst the remaining Labour leftists. Plenty of parties around the world have institutional links to trade unions. An example which springs to mind the Belgian Christian Democrats. Not what you would call a party of the working class.

Have the trots ever called for a vote for them "without illusions" on the basis of that union link?

 

[Streathamite]

I still believe that the reason the Labour left stay in is because there is no alternative.
.

but there is an alternative; realism. recognise that we've reached the deadest of dead ends, go right back to class-based grassroots, build campaigns, alliances, groups from scratch and from 'hot button issues', and forget an organisation which has left us all so far behind it holds nouse for us

Therefore there is no point in leaving.

and the benefit to be gained by staying is...?

 

[Jografer]

I would love to join an effective organisation to the left of Labour. Let me know where it is.

..... sitting waiting for an answer...

 

[Das Uberdog]

The Democrats in the States may not have a link to the Unions, but in Europe the Labour Parties have a much stronger tradition of Unionism. Look at the SDP in Germany as an example; the Labour Party certainly isn't anything special.

 

[tbaldwin]

Most people I know can't change channels fast enough if anything political appears on TV.

Street level door to door canvassing does make a difference, as proven by the BNP.

It may work for really small parties like the BNP who can flood an area with activists for a council byelection. But for political parties who want to form a government,its of probably less and less significance.

No amount of people knocking on doors would ever make somebody like minging campbell credible with the electorate.

 

[glenquagmire]

So my point is that at what point do you think that weakening becomes a qualitive change? You said you'd remain an LP member all the time there is support from the unions, but if nearly all the leverage is cut off, what does that support mean?

As long as there is the potential to influence policy, even at a local level, by means of the union link, it's worth remaining a member. And that is still the case in my experience.

On the point about McDonnell's meeting whatever way you look at it not being able to fill up a hall of 500 when an organisation has over 150,000 members says something fairly significant to me.

What organisation? The only left 'organisation' is the LRC, which is a pretty recent invention and not one with a broad membership so far. Most leftist LP members have probably never even heard of it. That's what I meant by saying the left of the party is very organisationally weak.

 

[tbaldwin]

but there is an alternative; realism. recognise that we've reached the deadest of dead ends, go right back to class-based grassroots, build campaigns, alliances, groups from scratch and from 'hot button issues', and forget an organisation which has left us all so far behind it holds nouse for us


and the benefit to be gained by staying is...?

Realism Jezza?
Most people want to see a better fairer world, less not more inequality.
But most people are every bit as suspicious of political and community activists as they are of political parties.
And lets face it, with good reason.

I have listened to so much bullshit over the years about "grass roots" "Class based" etc etfucking cetra......
It ends up with the same types of people slowly but surely falling out with each other...And ending with virtually no political impact.

And then i look at the LP with all its faults....I look at the minimum wage, the minimum income guarantee, the educational maintenance allowance etc etc etc.....And think well its not all bad.....

 

[Macullam]

Have the trots ever called for a vote for them "without illusions" on the basis of that union link?

[/I]

Im guessing the SWP who have even advocated vote labour when there has been a left alternative

 

[belboid]

This is a myth, one which seems to be common amongst the remaining Labour leftists. Plenty of parties around the world have institutional links to trade unions. An example which springs to mind the Belgian Christian Democrats. Not what you would call a party of the working class.

whicvh Belgian christian democrats? there are quite a few. And do the unions have the same organisational link, ie votes at conference & for councillors/MP's? As I understood it, only the Australian Labour Party has just that same set up

 

[Nigel Irritable]

whicvh Belgian christian democrats? there are quite a few. And do the unions have the same organisational link, ie votes at conference & for councillors/MP's? As I understood it, only the Australian Labour Party has just that same set up

The precise set up in Britain is indeed more similar to that in Australia. However, the substance of the relationship - affiliation - can be found all over the world. Most union linked parties are from the ex-social democratic camp, but current reformist parties, Stalinist parties, revolutionary organisations and even parties which have never been considered workers parties in any sense have or have had union affiliations.

In Belgium, the first example which sprang to mind, my understanding is that they have seperate Christian and Social Democratic unions, with the smaller Christian unions actually affiliated to the Christian Democratic party, at least in the Flemish region.

 

[nightbreed]

I am not 'doing nothing'.

For the last 15-20 years I have been actively supporting trade disputes, from the Dockers in the 90s to the post dispute today. I have actively suported the anti war movement including the huge 2003 London demo and supported local anti war demos. I have been involved in local Trades Council campaigns against the involvement of the private sector in public services. I have been active in the TU movement as far back as I care to remember

Unless you mean 'doing nothing ' is related to supporting any left of Labour political party at elections? If I cancel my LP membership tomorrow I must be 'doing something' then?

Look if socialists dont want to join the Labour Party then,as very well expressed on this board, it is up to them. I havent argued anywhere here that they should.

What I believe McDonnell is saying in the article is that all Socialists should show a bit of solidarity with each other and work together in a non secterian way. That is 'doing something'. I havent a problem with that.

(By the way,there should be a debate to discuss the validity of standing in elections, at the moment , due to the increasing low turn outs. My view, which I am quite sure you wont agree with is that there is no point of taking part in elections while workers arent voting.)

 

[nightbreed]

Socialist Workers take on the John McDonnell article.

Labour and Tories swing right as general election looms


(Pic: » Tim Sanders)

by Chris Bambery

As political debate centres on the imminence of a general election, this should not mask the fact that Gordon Brown's electoral strategy is to move New Labour yet further rightwards to win Tory votes.

Following Labour's conference, former Tory cabinet minister Norman Tebbit argued last week, "If David Cameron described himself as the 'heir to Tony Blair' it's only natural that Brown should make himself the 'heir to Margaret Thatcher'."

New Labour's takeover of Tory policies and Cameron's failure to overhaul Brown in the polls has meant this week's Tory conference saw the party shift on to familiar ground – promising tax cuts for the wealthy and appeasing racists – in order to consolidate its core support.

But as the two main parties shadow each other in competing to be the neoliberal party par excellence, it is re-igniting a debate among those who want a political voice in parliament for working people.

The main trade union leaders may have accepted the neutering of Labour's conference by agreeing to the abolition of motions being passed on key issues, but on the left of New Labour there is an argument going on which goes much further than saying it is necessary to "reclaim Labour".

Tony Benn argues, "Bournemouth saw the beginning of the end of the Labour Party as a representative organisation seeking to use parliament to meet the needs of its supporters."

He opposes quitting the Labour Party but has floated the idea that the Labour left dominated Labour Representation Committee could be widened to include as affiliates campaigning bodies like the Stop the War Coalition and unions who have broken with Labour such as the RMT rail union.

Leadership

John McDonnell, the left Labour MP who failed to gain sufficient nominations from MPs to challenge Gordon Brown in this year's leadership election, points out, "The left has the difficult task of accepting and explaining to others that the old routes into the exercise of power and influence involving internal Labour Party mobilisations and manoeuvres have largely been closed down.

"We have to face up to the challenge of identifying and developing new routes into effective political activity." He argues that while people are giving up on the established parties, they have not given up on politics.

He points to the success of new social movements which "have mobilised on a vast array of issues". He echoes Benn in saying that the Labour left "needs to open itself to co-operation with progressive campaigns… learning from them, treating them with mutual respect, rejecting any patronising or sectarian approach".

A general election will see the retirement of a number of Labour left MPs, to be mostly replaced by New Labour enthusiasts.

Across Britain Respect supporters need to engage with this wider debate on the left, as we work together over issues such as the war, while arguing for the urgent need for an independent left challenge to Brown and Cameron.




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



© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.

 

[dennisr]

(By the way,there should be a debate to discuss the validity of standing in elections, at the moment , due to the increasing low turn outs. My view, which I am quite sure you wont agree with is that there is no point of taking part in elections while workers arent voting.)

you arguements get weirder and weirder mate.

if workers are not voting (debatable if that is true of most - although I understand your point) then its because there is no one to vote for, no one who is seen as representing them. Providing an alternative to vote for is therefore a reason for standing. Or do we leave that to the hard right?

 

[tbaldwin]

you arguements get weirder and weirder mate.

if workers are not voting (debatable if that is true of most - although I understand your point) then its because there is no one to vote for, no one who is seen as representing them. Providing an alternative to vote for is therefore a reason for standing. Or do we leave that to the hard right?

To be honest dennis that seems to be what is happening.
Like me dennis i bet you remember the people on the left saying that wirthin 2 years of a Labour govt there would be huge opportunities for parties to the left of it. as people saw thru reformism etc.....
Has it happened? Has it fuck. The SLP........ The Scottish Socialist party.......Socialist Alliance........Respect...........
The latest list of failures on the Left.

And now dennis you may choose to say that anybody who wants to look at why they failed is some kind of right winger,but that is just hiding your head in the sand.

I think you have to look at how divorced the far left is from the views and aspirations of ordinary people.
If you cant do that dennis, what is the point of your political activity?

 

[dennisr]

you may choose to say that anybody who wants to look at why they failed is some kind of right winger,but that is just hiding your head in the sand.

where did i say anything of the sort you prat?

and its dennisr

 

[dennisr]

i bet you remember the people on the left saying that wirthin 2 years of a Labour govt there would be huge opportunities for parties to the left of it. as people saw thru reformism etc.....

not my fault if you swallowed what you were told.

again was I saying anything of the sort?

do you actually read the posts you are quoting or are you stuck on 'auto-paranioa reply' reponse?

 

[poster342002]

i bet you remember the people on the left saying that wirthin 2 years of a Labour govt there would be huge opportunities for parties to the left of it. as people saw thru reformism etc.....
Has it happened? Has it fuck.

Spot-on. And I remember saying back in 1997 that it wouldn't happen either. Apparently, even though I have been proved right, I was still wrong back then.

 

[dennisr]

Spot-on. And I remember saying back in 1997 that it wouldn't happen either. Appaently, even though I have been prvoed right, I was still wrong back then.

I thought your position on most things, most of the time has always been "it won't work, why bother", poster342002?

I suppose on that basis you just have to be right some of the time...

 

[tbaldwin]

where did i say anything of the sort you prat?

and its dennisr

I think you have dismissed views that you see as attacking the left as coming from the right. And i think that your hardly alone in that,dennisr. But i do think its a mistake.
Are you still in the SP? Do you remember when Militant were booking the Royal Albert Hall for meetings, how times have changed eh...........
Any idea why?

 

[dennisr]

I think you have dismissed views that you see as attacking the left as coming from the right. And i think that your hardly alone in that,dennisr. But i do think its a mistake.

I said nothing of the sort. The policies of the labour government have resulted in the relatively (looking at europe as a whole...) small but significent reaction in voting for the likes of the BNP. Do you disagree with this - or have you simply missed the point completely?

Are you still in the SP? Do you remember when Militant were booking the Royal Albert Hall for meetings, how times have changed eh........... Any idea why?

Quite a few ideas why (and i don't have to blame immigration either...) but that would require a 'dialogue' - always a problem with you baldwin.

I don't think things go it straight lines - real social and political realities intervine - much as I would like them to at such points. You seemed to think different at one time and now you have turned it all on its head 180% - now its all going in the opposite direction. Nothing is quite so straightforward, far from it.

 

[dennisr]

I think you have dismissed views that you see as attacking the left as coming from the right.

Admit it - admit i said nothing of the sort

 

[tbaldwin]

Admit it - admit i said nothing of the sort

I think you do dennisr. I think you are one of a dwindling number of people who still want to believe that the Orthodox and organised Left are basically right. And that the problem is with the brainwashed masses.

I really would like to know your views on how Militant went from being an organisation hodling rallys at the Albert hall to almost totally insignificant.

 

[dennisr]

I think you do dennisr. I think you are one of a dwindling number of people who still want to believe that the Orthodox and organised Left are basically right. And that the problem is with the brainwashed masses.

I really would like to know your views on how Militant went from being an organisation hodling rallys at the Albert hall to almost totally insignificant.

You admit that basic point - that i never actually said anything of the kind and I can then consider a conversation on the other matter because I could then hope it is not a complete waste of my time (even though my view on the setbacks for the left - including Militant - have been outlined here again and again - although you had no interest in the points being made at the time)

+ apologise for the crude and ignorant insinuation regarding my view of the 'masses'

 

[tbaldwin]

You admit that basic point - that i never actually said anything of the kind and I can then consider a conversation on the other matter because I could then hope it is not a complete waste of my time (even though my view on the setbacks for the left - including Militant - have been outlined here again and again - although you had no interest in the points being made at the time)

+ apologise for the crude and ignorant insinuation regarding my view of the 'masses'

dennisr. my reading of you....which may be wrong......Is that your well meaning enough....that you do see the way the left has organised as not being that effective....That essentially...your somebody who could be won over from Socialism from above politics.
But you struggle to take the step towards a critical view of how and what the orthodox left represents.

 

[glenquagmire]

Looks like John McDonnell hasn't given up yet

GREATER LONDON
LABOUR REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE
Chair: John McDonnell MP
Vice Chairs: Maria Exall (CWU NEC), Christine Shawcroft (LP NEC)
Secretary: Simeon Andrews
Treasurer: Graham Bash
www.l-r-c.org.uk


PLANNING MEETING
Greater London LRC
Saturday 13th October 1pm
Lucas Arms, 245a Gray’s Inn Road, London, WC1X 8QZ
(5 mins walk from King’s Cross Station)

For directions, see: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&h...734&spn=0.01116,0.021157&z=15&iwloc=addr&om=1

Dear Comrade,

I am writing to let you know that Greater London LRC will be holding a planning meeting on Saturday 13th October at 1 pm in the Lucas Arms, 245a Gray’s Inn Road (5 mins walk from King’s Cross St Pancas).

The meeting is open to all members of the Labour party or of no party at all. The main aim of the LRC is to fight for socialist policies in the labour movement and wider society. This meeting will discuss aims and objectives, setting up local groups across London, campaigns and other issues.

We hope that you will be keen to get involved and help build a vibrant network of socialists and trade unionists. It’s a great opportunity to meet other socialists in your area and create a new dynamic, campaigning force in our movement.

The meeting will be chaired by Gary Heather (CWU Exec / Chair of Islington North CLP / Chair of Islington LRC).

If you have any questions or want to add items to the agenda, please email Owen Jones at [email protected].

To subscribe to the Greater London LRC email group, please send an email to [email protected].

Best wishes,
Owen Jones
LRC National Committee

 

[poster342002]

I thought your position on most things, most of the time has always been "it won't work, why bother", poster342002?

My position is that if something hasn't worked the previous 1000 times it's been attempted, I see no reason for it to work on the 1001st attempt.

 

[dennisr]

dennisr. my reading of you....

You show me how your 'politics' for what they are represent anything that is 'socialism from below' or 'unothodox left' (or unorthodox anything) - genuinely - and i'll eat my hat.

let alone any idea of organising those masses as apposed to doing nowt

i live in the real world mate - i listen to and work with plenty of people who agree/disagree, are sympathetic or are very critical. my reading of you is you project your inability to listen onto those you are ignoring under the guise of disagreeing with

 

[dennisr]

My position is that if something hasn't worked the previous 1000 times it's been attempted, I see no reason for it to work on the 1001st attempt.

i suppose one could argue that just about everything has been tried a 1000 times which would legitimise you position on everything.

was it sartre who wrote that bit about facsism and anti-fascist violence? - something like "if they hadn't tried to crush every attempt to stand against them, a 1000 times and more, if it had only happened once or twice then I could understand a passive response to thier violence, but as it is that passive response is in effect part of their strength" maybe you could apply that little homily - or tell me something new