Socialist Party Gains 2 Councillors

[articul8]

The point is that to dismiss labour as just another capitalist party no different to the lib dems is to abandon its 190,000 or so members and affiliated unions to the right wing leadership.

But for quite some time prior to the setting up of the Labour party, the trade unions had substantial ties to the Liberals. This, however, did not make the Liberal party a capitalist *workers* party.
The continuation of the Labour link is largely down to the bureaucratic manoeuvrings of the union bureaucracy rather than any rank and file pressure to maintain it. The internal channels which existed for workers to exert pressure on the leadership (historically limited at the best of times) have been completely and utterly blocked. The overwhelming orientation over the last 2 decades at least has been to purge itself of any serious working class influence from below in order that its leadership can have a totally free hand to pursue neoliberal attacks. There has been a major shift in class composition of the labour party's now decimated membership - in place of class conscious working class local activisits is a block of passive upwardly mobile middle-class credit card donors.

Yes the Suttons defected to the Socialist Party in this circumstance even after their refusal to form a united front with him against the fascists.[...]
I don't think the SP's "third period" sectarianism should be overlooked either.

Anologies with the 1930's are completely and utterly spurious. For a start, there was an imminent threat of fascist seizing state power, a substantial body of reactionaries capable of exerting serious force on the streets etc.
Plus, there were MASS organisations of the working class. None of this exists today! Tactics have to be weighed according to the circumstances. At this stage the BNP has isolated pockets of support but is nowhere near taking hold of a parish council, let alone the British state. (which is not to take the threat lightly, by any means - but this is a simple recognition of the balance of forces today).

In these circumstances, the *most urgent* task is to raise the banner of socialism as an alternative. By contrast an 'anti-fascist' politics which involves a lowest common denominator politics so as not to scare off bourgeois politicians (an approach with significant echoes of Stalinist "popular frontism") will only help to perpetuate the myth that the BNP is the only radical alternative to the status quo.

But as has been pointed out to Fisher Gate - whilst the SP points out rightly that the parties share a common inability to solve the urgent social problems faced by the working class - this DOES NOT mean that a vote for Labour is the same as a vote for the BNP. It is precisely by engaging and discussing sensitively with those historically inclined to vote Labour (and, yes, sympathising with the view that to do so is a necessary evil to keep out the nazis - a perfectly understandable, although tactically mistaken view) that support for a socialist alternative can be built.

The Stoke example is encouraging as it shows that - even if short term results of a more principled approach are very limited (or worse!) - then such campaigns can nevertheless lay the groundwork for positive future developments.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

But for quite some time prior to the setting up of the Labour party, the trade unions had substantial ties to the Liberals. This, however, did not make the Liberal party a capitalist *workers* party.
The continuation of the Labour link is largely down to the bureaucratic manoeuvrings of the union bureaucracy rather than any rank and file pressure to maintain it. The internal channels which existed for workers to exert pressure on the leadership (historically limited at the best of times) have been completely and utterly blocked. The overwhelming orientation over the last 2 decades at least has been to purge itself of any serious working class influence from below in order that its leadership can have a totally free hand to pursue neoliberal attacks. There has been a major shift in class composition of the labour party's now decimated membership - in place of class conscious working class local activisits is a block of passive upwardly mobile middle-class credit card donors.



Anologies with the 1930's are completely and utterly spurious. For a start, there was an imminent threat of fascist seizing state power, a substantial body of reactionaries capable of exerting serious force on the streets etc.
Plus, there were MASS organisations of the working class. None of this exists today! Tactics have to be weighed according to the circumstances. At this stage the BNP has isolated pockets of support but is nowhere near taking hold of a parish council, let alone the British state. (which is not to take the threat lightly, by any means - but this is a simple recognition of the balance of forces today).

In these circumstances, the *most urgent* task is to raise the banner of socialism as an alternative. By contrast an 'anti-fascist' politics which involves a lowest common denominator politics so as not to scare off bourgeois politicians (an approach with significant echoes of Stalinist "popular frontism") will only help to perpetuate the myth that the BNP is the only radical alternative to the status quo.

But as has been pointed out to Fisher Gate - whilst the SP points out rightly that the parties share a common inability to solve the urgent social problems faced by the working class - this DOES NOT mean that a vote for Labour is the same as a vote for the BNP. It is precisely by engaging and discussing sensitively with those historically inclined to vote Labour (and, yes, sympathising with the view that to do so is a necessary evil to keep out the nazis - a perfectly understandable, although tactically mistaken view) that support for a socialist alternative can be built.

The Stoke example is encouraging as it shows that - even if short term results of a more principled approach are very limited (or worse!) - then such campaigns can nevertheless lay the groundwork for positive future developments.

You are mistaken in your view that the early ties of some in the labour movement to the Liberals were the same as those to Labour today. This was a political leadership issue that had little organisational expression - the trade unions did not affiliate to the Liberals and had no say within its ranks.

I agree with your analysis about what has happened at the base of the Labour Party, though it remains the fact that the vast majority of class conscious workers still vote Labour, mainly because there is no organised or credible national alternative. In those (few) areas where socialists have managed to create an alternative there have been some (limited) successes - and I include SSP, Respect, SP, CAP etc in that.

There is no specific comparison of today with the 1930s - the tactic of the united front, particularly in opposition to fascism, was devised in an earlier era but had particular urgency then. As socialists we should not cease to remind the class that it was the sectarian failure of the leadership of the workers movement to unite and fight that led to the horrors of nazism and the holocaust, not the triumph of fascist ideology.

And there is a blatantly practical side - I'd far rather have a decent left wing councillor, as the Suttons obviously were, even if part of the Labour Party, than a fascist elected in my area. I don't see anything wrong with that and it was obviously true that the most class conscious workers supported that in Stoke.

 

[articul8]

You are mistaken in your view that the early ties of some in the labour movement to the Liberals were the same as those to Labour today. This was a political leadership issue that had little organisational expression - the trade unions did not affiliate to the Liberals and had no say within its ranks.

I didn't say the two situations were identical. But I don't think its clear that trade unionists exerted less linfluence on the 1890-1914 Liberals than they do on today's Labour party. Trade union leaders at that time warned Keir Hardie etc. that they were jeopardising TU influence in the Liberals by their attempt to establish independent representation for workers.

And there is a blatantly practical side - I'd far rather have a decent left wing councillor, as the Suttons obviously were, even if part of the Labour Party, than a fascist elected in my area. I don't see anything wrong with that and it was obviously true that the most class conscious workers supported that in Stoke.

But the Stoke example shows that even if workers vote Labour with the intention of getting a decent left wing councillor - and succeed in the short-term - the nature of today's Labour party means that said councillor is more than likely to face deselection or boundary rigging etc. So, the medium/long term outcome of the vote you seem to endorse is the situation: right wing Blair clone (or identikit Libdem/Tory) vs. BNP. And that can only benefit the latter.

 

[JoePolitix]

I didn't say the two situations were identical. But I don't think its clear that trade unionists exerted less linfluence on the 1890-1914 Liberals than they do on today's Labour party. Trade union leaders at that time warned Keir Hardie etc. that they were jeopardising TU influence in the Liberals by their attempt to establish independent representation for workers.



But the Stoke example shows that even if workers vote Labour with the intention of getting a decent left wing councillor - and succeed in the short-term - the nature of today's Labour party means that said councillor is more than likely to face deselection or boundary rigging etc. So, the medium/long term outcome of the vote you seem to endorse is the situation: right wing Blair clone (or identikit Libdem/Tory) vs. BNP. And that can only benefit the latter.

There are two seperate points here.

The first concerns the right tactical approach to elections. Clearly in 2003 the SP had insufficient resorces and experience in Abby Green to mount a decent electoral campiagn. On top of that the BNP was expected to do very well and had a decent change of taking the seat. The only thing the SP campiagn could have pratically achieved (had it been a tad more succesful) was to allow the Nazi candidate to take the seet (and here lies the very minor comparison with the 1930's).

Secondly there is the issue of the relationship to the labour party. Given that the LP has councillors like the Suttons who are clearly socialists I think the idea that the LP is sociologically and politically no different from the bourgeois liberal parties is misguided. When the LP devours it's children that's when the the independent socialists (eg Respect, the SP) should step in.

Before such an eventuality I believe the united front policy is a better policy to persue than standing in elections and loosing hard earned deposits.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

You are mistaken in your view that the early ties of some in the labour movement to the Liberals were the same as those to Labour today. This was a political leadership issue that had little organisational expression - the trade unions did not affiliate to the Liberals and had no say within its ranks.

I won't repeat articul8's points, which I think have dealt with most of the meat of this discussion, but it is worth pointing out that this last point above is spurious. It is quite obvious that having the backing of trade unions doesn't make a party into a workers party, as examples as wide ranging as the US Democrats and the old Liberal Party show. New Labour apologists on the left are therefore left arguing, as Fisher_Gate does above that having trade union affiliations is what makes New Labour different.

In fact it is very common internationally for capitalist parties to have trade union affiliates - the Belgian Christian Democrats are an obvious example. The fact that New Labour has trade union affiliation does not by itself make it any kind of workers party any more than such affiliations make those other capitalist parties into workers parties. It just puts the issue of breaking the link on to our agenda. As for having "no say within its ranks", well that rather adequately sums up the trade union position within New Labour.

I don't want to discourage JoePolitix from making contributions longer than his customary idiotic one liners, but his views on the Labour rank and file owe more to wishful thinking than anything else. There simply is no significant Labour left left, it's isolated individuals, blinking, looking bewildered and wondering where everyone else went. It's main remaining institutions, the Campaign Group and the LRC, can get no more than a couple of hundred people to their open conferences. The CLP delegates at New Labour conferences customarily vote against any remotely progressive policy - on issue after issue, like the war, they reveal themselves to be to the right of the mass of the British population.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Before such an eventuality I believe the united front policy is a better policy to persue than standing in elections and loosing hard earned deposits.

Except of course that if the Socialist Party hadn't done the previous groundwork, which included the poor first electoral showing, then the much better second showing which cut across the general rise in the BNP vote in the city probably wouldn't have happened either. And if the SP hadn't shown that they were serious about putting forward an alternative, which again included standing against Labour, then it is very unlikely that the Sutton's would have joined. A tough opposition to New Labour is in my view more rather than less likely to attract those Labour leftists who remain.

 

[JoePolitix]

I don't want to discourage JoePolitix from making contributions longer than his customary idiotic one liners, but his views on the Labour rank and file owe more to wishful thinking than anything else. There simply is no significant Labour left left, it's isolated individuals, blinking, looking bewildered and wondering where everyone else went. It's main remaining institutions, the Campaign Group and the LRC, can get no more than a couple of hundred people to their open conferences. The CLP delegates at New Labour conferences customarily vote against any remotely progressive policy - on issue after issue, like the war, they reveal themselves to be to the right of the mass of the British population.

The labour left are insignificant but not quite as insignificant as the tiny left groupescules like the SP sadly.

(dam it your put down has reduced me back to idiotic one liners again!)

 

[dennisr]

Here's an interesting question for Fisher and Joe to answer:
Given the combined vote of the Paul Sutton and the Socialist Party in this ward was 842 + 61 votes (on the previous to last election you mentioned), then - using your logic - the Labour Party should not split the vote by standing against Paul Sutton at the next election and letthe Socialist Party have a clear run, surely?

What do you think about this for a 'united front' tactic?

 

[Azrael23]

SOCIALISM IS THE ROAD TO SLAVERY

don`t buy it.
don`t ever give self empowerment away.
What does the nanny state mean in reality?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

I won't repeat articul8's points, which I think have dealt with most of the meat of this discussion, but it is worth pointing out that this last point above is spurious. It is quite obvious that having the backing of trade unions doesn't make a party into a workers party, as examples as wide ranging as the US Democrats and the old Liberal Party show. New Labour apologists on the left are therefore left arguing, as Fisher_Gate does above that having trade union affiliations is what makes New Labour different.

In fact it is very common internationally for capitalist parties to have trade union affiliates - the Belgian Christian Democrats are an obvious example. The fact that New Labour has trade union affiliation does not by itself make it any kind of workers party any more than such affiliations make those other capitalist parties into workers parties. It just puts the issue of breaking the link on to our agenda. As for having "no say within its ranks", well that rather adequately sums up the trade union position within New Labour.

I don't want to discourage JoePolitix from making contributions longer than his customary idiotic one liners, but his views on the Labour rank and file owe more to wishful thinking than anything else. There simply is no significant Labour left left, it's isolated individuals, blinking, looking bewildered and wondering where everyone else went. It's main remaining institutions, the Campaign Group and the LRC, can get no more than a couple of hundred people to their open conferences. The CLP delegates at New Labour conferences customarily vote against any remotely progressive policy - on issue after issue, like the war, they reveal themselves to
be to the right of the mass of the British population.

I didn't talk about backing of trade unions (usually the leadership) I talked about affiliation, quite different, and yes it does make the character of the british labour party different to other social democratic parties. And those countries where bourgeois parties have trade union 'affiliations' are usually where there is a trade union movement divided on political grounds - not a unitary one like britain.

You need to be careful here. If you carry on on this vein you are going to undermine the whole basis of 40 years of Militant's history - not to mention being against Lenin's position in the dispute within the british communist movement on the Labour Party (and do please remember that Lenin's position was opposed by a large element of the Brits - probably the majority, though his personal authority meant it was narrowly carried at the CPGB congress and by the SLP). It's terrifically easy to be ultra left on the Labour Party as I was reminded on innumerable occasions by Militant comrades, before their current phase of leftist verbiage.

I don't disagree that there is not a Labour Left organised on a serious scale, but there are still plenty of good individuals in my view who it would be wrong to be sectarian towards.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Here's an interesting question for Fisher and Joe to answer:
Given the combined vote of the Paul Sutton and the Socialist Party in this ward was 842 + 61 votes (on the previous to last election you mentioned), then - using your logic - the Labour Party should not split the vote by standing against Paul Sutton at the next election and letthe Socialist Party have a clear run, surely?

What do you think about this for a 'united front' tactic?

It's a good argument - should be put out in SP election literature. As is the argument that by deselecting Paul Sutton for opposing job losses in the council the local Labour Party were going against labour and trade union policies. A 'Council Workers against Job Cuts' group should be formed to support his re-election.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Except of course that if the Socialist Party hadn't done the previous groundwork, which included the poor first electoral showing, then the much better second showing which cut across the general rise in the BNP vote in the city probably wouldn't have happened either. And if the SP hadn't shown that they were serious about putting forward an alternative, which again included standing against Labour, then it is very unlikely that the Sutton's would have joined. A tough opposition to New Labour is in my view more rather than less likely to attract those Labour leftists who remain.

This is a good argument - one made by the IMG in the 1979 election when it said "For a Labour government - but vote socialist unity". Militant of course voted Labour everywhere, even where there rotten Labour candidates and good socialists standing against them.

On balance given the threat of the BNP taking the seat, I think in this particular circumstance the tactic of standing was not correct, but it's a tactical rather than fundamental distinction. What was more fundamentally wrong was the failure to draw a distinction between BNP and Labour in the SP election literature and to describe them as the same.

 

[BarryB]

Is it correct that outside Lewisham the Socialist Party will not be putting up any candidates in the May 2006 elections in London? Thats what I understand to be the case. The reason being that they are so fearful of losing their seats in Lewisham.

BarryB

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Is it correct that outside Lewisham the Socialist Party will not be putting up any candidates in the May 2006 elections in London? Thats what I understand to be the case. The reason being that they are so fearful of losing their seats in Lewisham.

BarryB

Given the extremely limited resources of the SP and their seeming inability to engage wider forces in their electoral and other campaigns, this would appear to be a wise course of action.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Is it correct that outside Lewisham the Socialist Party will not be putting up any candidates in the May 2006 elections in London? Thats what I understand to be the case. The reason being that they are so fearful of losing their seats in Lewisham.

BarryB

I was checking the SP website and noticed it claims:

We've won elections in Coventry, London and Preston, and currently have four Socialist Party councillors.
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/CampaignsOurRecord.htm

This is untrue - the SP have never won an election in Preston - an independent joined them briefly but gave up his seat due to boundary changes. He stood in a different ward in a subsequent election as SP candidate but lost. No other SP member has ever stood in any election in Preston since.

As far as I know the SP have only won two wards in the country - one in Coventry (St Michaels ward) where they have two councillors in a three person ward and the same in Lewisham (Telegrah Hill ward). The two Stoke defections take the current complement to 6. Both Lewisham councillors are up for election this May, along with one of the defecting Stoke councillors (Paul Sutton). The two Coventry councillors are up for election in 2007 and 2008 (Nellist).

 

[Nigel Irritable]

As far as I know the SP have only won two wards in the country

This is correct.

The two Stoke defections take the current complement to 6.

As I understand it there are currently 7 councillors. Someone who was elected as an SLP councillor defected somewhere in the Midlands too, over the issue of Stalinism.

Is it correct that outside Lewisham the Socialist Party will not be putting up any candidates in the May 2006 elections in London?

I have no idea, not being involved in such discussions in London as I live in a different country. It is certainly true that the Socialist Party's main priority in London will be holding our seats in Lewisham, which as is always the case for small parties cannot be taken for granted. Our priorities elsewhere will include trying to get rid of the last Labour councillor in St Michaels in Coventry, trying to hold our seat in Stoke and trying to overhaul Labour in a couple of the wards where we have a record of strong showings, including one in Newcastle and one in Merseyside.

 

[BarryB]

This is correct.



As I understand it there are currently 7 councillors. Someone who was elected as an SLP councillor defected somewhere in the Midlands too, over the issue of Stalinism.



I have no idea, not being involved in such discussions in London as I live in a different country. It is certainly true that the Socialist Party's main priority in London will be holding our seats in Lewisham, which as is always the case for small parties cannot be taken for granted. Our priorities elsewhere will include trying to get rid of the last Labour councillor in St Michaels in Coventry, trying to hold our seat in Stoke and trying to overhaul Labour in a couple of the wards where we have a record of strong showings, including one in Newcastle and one in Merseyside.

The SLP councillor may have been in Scunthorpe. The 2 wards in Newcastle and Merseyside where the SP made a good showing were Byker in Newcastle with 20% and in Netherton and Orrell ward in Bootle with 32%.

BarryB

 

[dennisr]

Stoke Socialist Party PRESS RELEASE

The Independent Socialist Group Councillors, Paul Sutton and Dave Sutton are to put an alternative budget for consideration by Stoke-on-Trent City Council. A budget which if agreed would stop the planned cuts in jobs, services and a further hike in council tax. The budget planning meeting will take place on Monday 6th March at the Civic Centre at 2.30pm.

This alternative budget is as follows;

Independent Socialist Group City Council Budget Proposal for year 2006 to 2007

Blair's New Labour government has continued Tory policies. It has slashed the money given to local councils to provide jobs and services which our communities desperately need. Increasingly strings are also attached to the money received which force councils to privatize more services. This has left councils like Stoke-on-Trent with a choice. They can sack workers and cut services or increase the council tax - or a mixture of all three. New Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, Independent and BNP councillors have consistently voted for these cuts budgets so that we now have worse services and less jobs but pay ever more council tax.

But there is an alternative

For the financial year 2006 to 2007 the city council should agree a No Cuts – No Privatisation Budget which guarantees;

No cuts in jobs – and an end to the freeze on job replacements
No cuts in services
No more privatization of our services
No increases in council tax

A No Cuts - No Privatisation Budget this year will temporarily protect jobs and services but of course will not solve the long term financial problems faced by the City Council. Therefore, during this financial year 2006 to 2007 the city council should, in consultation with trade unions and community organisations, work out a Needs Budget for the next financial year (2007 to 2008) based on how much money we need to maintain our much needed jobs and services. And, as a key part of this process, the City Council should immediately launch a widespread campaign to demand that the government returns the millions of pounds stolen from the city by years of cuts.

 

[JimPage]

firstly, congradulations to the 2 new councillors. the election this year when one of them is up for re-election is an ideal opportunity for socialists to drop the popular fron anti-fascist nonsense and get behind the campaign to re-elect a SP Councillor. in the long run, its only by engaging bnp voters and winning them from fascism by putting over better ideas which will undercut their support in the community. i would suggest that rather than poncing about on UAF type leaflet drops- a good place to put a stop to fascism is this may in stoke

 

[mutley]

firstly, congradulations to the 2 new councillors. the election this year when one of them is up for re-election is an ideal opportunity for socialists to drop the popular fron anti-fascist nonsense and get behind the campaign to re-elect a SP Councillor. in the long run, its only by engaging bnp voters and winning them from fascism by putting over better ideas which will undercut their support in the community. i would suggest that rather than poncing about on UAF type leaflet drops- a good place to put a stop to fascism is this may in stoke

Ok, so what will stop the bnp in the Black country, the North West etc is the possible election of two sp councillors in Stoke.

Oh and is the homophobia ('poncing') obligatory or is it an optional extra?

The cruder spers are sounding more and more third period..

(added during edit) The 'long run' strategy of building a radical alternative is of course the only way. But there is that small matter of the short run..

 

[dennisr]

The cruder spers are sounding more and more third period..
(added during edit) The 'long run' strategy of building a radical alternative is of course the only way. But there is that small matter of the short run..

I get the impression that Mr Page is an anti-fascist - not a member of the SP. i think you are barking up the wrong tree - and making a vicious slur in the process

I wouldn't disagree with the other qouted point - completely different conclusions drawn as to what the tasks in the short term are though. The activity leading to the two councillors joining the SP - after the SP was forced into a position of putting forward a clear socialist alternative contradict your unstated implication (given your membership of the SWP) completely...

 

[mutley]

I get the impression that Mr Page is an anti-fascist - not a member of the SP. i think you are barking up the wrong tree - and making a vicious slur in the process

I wouldn't disagree with the other qouted point - completely different conclusions drawn as to what the tasks in the short term are though. The activity leading to the two councillors joining the SP - after the SP was forced into a position of putting forward a clear socialist alternative contradict your unstated implication (given your membership of the SWP) completely...

I'd hardly call it vicious, he made a homophobic remark, you dissociated yourself from it and don't reckon he's sp. Fair enough. Maybe he'll have something to say for himself..

 

[dennisr]

I'd hardly call it vicious, he made a homophobic remark, you dissociated yourself from it and don't reckon he's sp. Fair enough. Maybe he'll have something to say for himself..

i hardly think the use of a word commonly used without knowledge of its implications/origin gives you the right to resort to "third period" insinuations about the SP - very false and very wrong.

Added - so what do you think the lessons about these two councillors joining the SP - for anti-fascist strategies, long and short term?

 

[socialistsuzy]

Originally Posted by BarryB
Is it correct that outside Lewisham the Socialist Party will not be putting up any candidates in the May 2006 elections in London?


I have no idea, not being involved in such discussions in London as I live in a different country. It is certainly true that the Socialist Party's main priority in London will be holding our seats in Lewisham, which as is always the case for small parties cannot be taken for granted. Our priorities elsewhere will include trying to get rid of the last Labour councillor in St Michaels in Coventry, trying to hold our seat in Stoke and trying to overhaul Labour in a couple of the wards where we have a record of strong showings, including one in Newcastle and one in Merseyside.

we are standing a candidate in the 3rd seat in the ward where we currently have two councillors in lewisham as well as re-standing those two. we are also 99.9% standing in southwark because of the work we having been doing there over the sell of of council housing. we may also stand in walthamstow but thats not decided. the reason we are only stand so few in london where we actually have a lot of branches that would like to stand candidates is because running a some good campaigns wouldn't seem so good if we lost our concillors and because of resourses we do have to throw ourselves into lewisham where we have a strong potential of winning a third seat.
we also have a good change of the stoke guy winning his seat and winning a seat in huddersfield from the NHS campaign there, as well as the 3rd seat in lewisham. i'm not sure where else we are standing but if i hear any more i'll let u guys know.

ps. mr page is a member of the SP and is an anti-facist. i didn't know the origins of the word until recently either. you cannot take one word out of context like that then make completely unjustified statement like that as to accuse mr page of homophobia. especially as you are in the SWP and thus i presume RESPECT, all you have to do is look at RESPECT's biggest financial backer last year to know their oppinion on homophobia. the SP also has a LGBT caucas whereas RESPECT does not.

 

[audiotech]

ponce n. 1. A man who is pretentious in an effeminite manner. Ponces (quite often referred to using the phrase perfume ponce) tend to grown their hair quite long and talk loudly into their mobile phone while sitting at the traffic lights in their convertible Porsche. Describing a place as "poncy" would imply that these sorts of punters made up the bulk of its clientele. 2. To scrounge - i.e. "can I ponce a cigarette off you?". I'm told that the word originally meant living off the earnings of prostitution.

Homophobic? A bit far from the mark methinks.

 

[mutley]

i hardly think the use of a word commonly used without knowledge of its implications/origin gives you the right to resort to "third period" insinuations about the SP - very false and very wrong

The third period was more referring to the 'vote sp in stoke and smash fascism in one go' tone, rather than the homophobic comment.

Mind you if these two guys do get more votes but not enough and the BNP get in, you lot are gonna have a job on ur hands explaining it. And don't say that outcome ain't possible..

 

[dennisr]

... i'm not sure where else we are standing but if i hear any more i'll let u guys know.

Barry is only interesting in legimimising his belief in his continued presence in a Labour Party (that is attacking working class people local and nationally when it is not murdering thousands in iraq and sowing the seeds of a civil war nightmare scenario to defend its oil supplies etc etc etc..) as the 'only real alternative' on offer. He couldn't care less were a left opposition candidate is standing and is even less interested in giving it any genuine credit for the reasons for this opposition to New labour as for as i can tell, Suzy

 

[socialistsuzy]

Barry is only interesting in legimimising his belief in his continued presence in a Labour Party (that is attacking working class people local and nationally when it is not murdering thousands in iraq and sowing the seeds of a civil war nightmare scenario to defend its oil supplies etc etc etc..) as the 'only real alternative' on offer. He couldn't care less were a left opposition candidate is standing and is even less interested in giving it any genuine credit for the reasons for this opposition to New labour as for as i can tell, Suzy

lol.

Mind you if these two guys do get more votes but not enough and the BNP get in, you lot are gonna have a job on ur hands explaining it. And don't say that outcome ain't possible..

hmmm... so you advocate the 'vote anyone but the BNP idea' without putting forward an alternative as we are. yes....makes sense.

 

[dennisr]

The third period was more referring to the 'vote sp in stoke and smash fascism in one go' tone, rather than the homophobic comment.

Mind you if these two guys do get more votes but not enough and the BNP get in, you lot are gonna have a job on ur hands explaining it. And don't say that outcome ain't possible..

Surely Labour should be standing down - so as to avoid splitting the anti-fascist vote? (using your criteria mate...)

I imagine the SP will be damned if it does win and damned if it doesn't - from cerain quarters. Nothing new there though. Lets wait until we get the results ...

You are definatly reading far too much into jp's comments - but it seems you are right about his support. Why don't you take up the meat of his arguement rather than skate around the edges?

(ps thanks MC5 - "I'm told that the word originally meant living off the earnings of prostitution." - thats what i thought as well - but its not that important, I've heard it used in a homophobic manner as well)

 

[mutley]

hmmm... so you advocate the 'vote anyone but the BNP idea' without putting forward an alternative as we are. yes....makes sense.

Don't put words in my mouth. I am for working with other forces in organisations like UAF to stop the BNP. That can cause problems with what you can call for a vote for, cos some will support labour, some respect, some green etc. However I am still in favour of that kind of work.

I'm also, obviously, in favour of an alternative, which is why i support (very actively) Respect. What I think is dangerous is standing alternative candidates in a situation where you could let the BNP in.

What do you think sp supporters who don't live in areas where you're standing should do suzy? Get on buses to Stoke etc? The BNP got 20,000 votes in Brum in 2004. They're standing in every seat. The sp here is tiny. Would you work with the UAF in that situation or just abandon a city of 1 million and go to Stoke?