John McDonnell admits the game is up

[nightbreed]

I appreciate people on here get frustrated by the fact I want to remain in the Labour Party. The simple truth is that I can honestly see a time when workers, working through their Trade Unions start to return to the Labour Party. I cant say it will happen tomorrow or in ten years but I disagree with people who say it wont happen and rule it out completely. It doesnt mean I drop out of militant activity and do nothing because as a socialist I will and do get involved with plenty of action that comes into conflict with this so called Labour government and I will continue to do so.People take issue with the fact that Im a LP member well quite frankly I dont believe its an issue myself.

Just in case people dont see how bad things are for the dwindling band of lefties in the LP this cut n paste from Cllr Bob Pipers blog give you a clear idea of what the left are up against at the moment. Hes a LP councillor from Sandwell in the West Midlands.

I know. Why stay? You ask.

Dear Gordon,

I hope you are having a good time in Bournemouth. I saw you on the television this morning and you looked as calm and relaxed as I have ever seen you. I know you are busy, but as a lowly party activist I just wanted to take up an issue with you. You wrote in The Guardian on Saturday about the lack of engagement between political parties and the electorate, and more specifically between political parties and their membership. You tell Guardian readers: I want every constituency party to have a strengthened mandate to engage on a regular basis with all sections of the community as an initial step to strengthen our grassroots presence.

Excuse me if I yawn cynically. It brings to mind the promises made by your predecessor in his inaugural speech as Labour Leader when he pledged I will make the central priority of party organisation the creation of a genuine mass membership party, with roots in our local communities speaking up for those communities, because it represents them and their aspirations. He went on to preside over a halving of Labour Party membership.

Well, Gordon, there is a way to go. Ok, it is worth a try, but if you want to convince me this is not another Big Conversation gimmick you could make a start by getting a grip on your own party bureaucracy.

On Monday last week I found out from a right-wing Labour blogger that my Constituency Labour Party had submitted a resolution to Annual Conference. It was a resolution which whipped up a bit of anti-Iranian sentiment before plunging into a fawning piece of nonsense congratulating the government for renewing its commitment to nuclear weapons and Trident renewal.

This surprised me for two reasons. Why do I find this out from a blog? Why has this resolution been submitted in our name when I have no recollection of Trident renewal ever being discussed at our CLP (which is probably disgrace enough in itself). Looking through the minutes of Constituency Executive meetings it had not even railroaded passed through there.

So, I raised the matter at our CLP Meeting last Friday. In reply the Secretary mumbled something about it was a late item, we had been asked by the Labour Party regional office to submit it in opposition to a resolution from another CLP, and because of the timescales the resolution had been agreed by the CLP Officers. This came as quite a surprise because I had spoken to the CLP Chair on his holidays in Spain, and he knew nothing about it and said had done he would have voted against it.

The shocking thing to me was the other CLP delegates in the room complacently accepted this despicable piece of shoddy anti-democratic behaviour with barely a whimper. I have been sitting through dreadfully boring CLP meetings now for over 25 years in this constituency. Last week was the first time I ever asked myself, why bother? Nobody even cares.

So there we have it. A resolution submitted to Annual Conference BY THE LABOUR PARTY MACHINERY ITSELF in direct opposition to an anti-Trident resolution which had been submitted by another CLP (presumably using the proper democratic and constitutional methods). In the Labour Party today it appears there is not even an attempt to engage with Labour Party activists, never mind Party members, so you can forget about your pipe-dreams of engaging on a regular basis with all sections of the community until you have sorted out your own back yard

So Gordon, if as you say, you want more debate, more discussion, less old-time politics that has turned off so many from political parties, then good for you.

Me, I will believe it when I see it.

Your humble servant,

Councillor Bob Piper

If anyone wants the link I will let them have it.

 

[tbaldwin]

I trust this is ironic, given that Labour's 'achievements' list only looks good if you start in may 45 and stop in, ooh, 1951...

Do you really think that the 1945 government was any better than Blair?
Why ?

I think that given there was a massive swing against the Tories and a mood of wanting massive social change. The 1945 government was probably one of the worse governments ever!
They fucked up Nationalisation, big time.
Some of the things they did Internationally were shameful.

In 1945. People were talking about a "land fit for heroes" It is my impression that the mood for doing away with privellege in 1945 was far greater than now or in 1997.

 

[butchersapron]

I think that given there was a massive swing against the Tories and a mood of wanting massive social change. The 1945 government was probably one of the worse governments ever!
They fucked up Nationalisation, big time.
Some of the things they did Internationally were shameful.

Go on then.

 

[tbaldwin]

Go on then.

At work now. Not exactly got time to write up a book chapter or 7 on what was wrong with the 1945 govt. Sure you know it already butchers.
Bit suprised if Red Jezza still thinks that Old Labour were so much better than Blair and Brown.

 

[glenquagmire]

No spam please. esp not from Owen Jones.

Having seen plenty of political spam on here from various left groups I assumed there was no policy against it.

And I'm not Owen, but thanks. Do you know him?

 

[butchersapron]

I can wait.

 

[butchersapron]

Having seen plenty of political spam on here from various left groups I assumed there was no policy against it.

And I'm not Owen, but thanks. Do you know him?

A better chest-prodding student leftie i've not come across for some time.

 

[glenquagmire]

Ah right. I never knew him as a student so am in no position to disagree personally.

 

[tbaldwin]

I can wait.

Look at the compensation paid to owners for nationalisation. Look at the financial implications of the agreements with the USA. Look at what a pile of shite Nationalisation was. ( Not exactly workers control was it)
Look at how they got voted out of power (albeit with more votes than the Tories)
Margaret Thatcher was apparently an admirer of Clement Attlees.
That government could have done so much more than bring about a bastardised form of Socialism from above, which was easily discredited.

 

[butchersapron]

Look at the compensation paid to owners for nationalisation. Look at the financial implications of the agreements with the USA. Look at what a pile of shite Nationalisation was. ( Not exactly workers control was it)
Look at how they got voted out of power (albeit with more votes than the Tories)
Margaret Thatcher was apparently an admirer of Clement Attlees.
That government could have done so much more than bring about a bastardised form of Socialism from above, which was easily discredited.

What are they? What was the international stuff? Just the US? What were the implications?

What do you think they should have done?

 

[tbaldwin]

What are they? What was the international stuff? Just the US? What were the implications?

What do you think they should have done?

Bleedin heck Butchers wot is this the Anarchist Inquisition.....What do you think of the 1945 govt? A great crusading socialist success............
Im going home.

 

[Demosthenes]

I reckon the answer to what to do about the labour party moving to the right, is this:

There's a tension between whether the labour party now is "labour" or "new labour". Although the media generally calls them new labour, I think i'm right in saying that officially they're still the labour party, and that's how they'll be described on the ballot paper.

So I reckon the answer is for all the people who are pissed off with the labour party being more or less the same as the Tories, to get together, start a new party, and call it new labour, - If they did that, that would seriously piss the leadership of the labour party off, because, if it came to an election, and there were candidates for both labour and New Labour on the card, then the likelihood is that loads of voters who weren't very informed wouldn't know who was who, and so this could split the vote down the middle. But trying to inform people about it wouldn't be that desirable either, because it would draw their attention to just the tension that they don't want people to think about.

Possibly they'd try to take the case to court, and argue that no party should be allowed to call itself new labour, as they already own that name, - I don't know what kind of a case they have, but I think it's arguable that if they want to stake out ownership of the name new labour, then they should be officially called new labour, - - so the splitters could very well say, fine, if you want to claim you're new labour, change your name to new labour, and we;ll be the labour party, - which would create just the same problem.

Basically the strategy is to end up in a position where you can worry the labour leadership so much about splitting their vote, that they have to do a deal with you, so that you don't put up candidates, - e.g. restore the power of conference, agree to a leadership contest, - whatever.

And if they won't do a deal, - do your utmost to split the vote, - so the Tories get in, What of it,? If Brown prefers that to doing a deal with the left, then there's nothing lost anyway.

I'm not an expert on the law surrounding this idea, so I don't know for certain if it's viable. But. I have read a fair amount of the rules on creation of political parties, and nothing I've read so far, indicated that there is any reason to suppose that the labour party would have any case against allowing a new political party called new labour to be on the ballot paper.

 

[Demosthenes]

It really doesn't take many people or a lot of money to register a new political party.

Why not try it? At the very least it should be fun.

 

[biff curtains]

The electoral commision would not allow a new party to be called New Labour. Or New Conservatives or whatever.

Other than that it's a shit idea anyway.

 

[tbaldwin]

It really doesn't take many people or a lot of money to register a new political party.

Why not try it? At the very least it should be fun.

Like Biff Curtains said though the name is a bad idea.
But a new party might not be such a bad idea.
Perhaps one that believed in extending democracy rather than controlling it,would be good.
The Progressive Democrats,anyone?

 

[biff curtains]

There's already a party called the Progressive Democrats in the UK, they are against abortion, and that's all I know about them.

 

[Das Uberdog]

They sound both progressive and democratic...

 

[tbaldwin]

There's already a party called the Progressive Democrats in the UK, they are against abortion, and that's all I know about them.

OK. What about the Democratic Socialist Party?