Socialist Party Gains 2 Councillors

[articul8]

Homophobic? A bit far from the mark methinks.

Yes - actually - as Alan Sinfield has shown - the identification between effiminacy and homosexuality is an invention of the late nineteenth century.

 

[BarryB]

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

Why dont you stand for election in May? Be interesting to see how many people take you seriously.

BarryB

 

[articul8]

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?

so the choice as you see it is to support UAF's call to 'vote to keep out the BNP'....

But in almost all cases, in areas where the BNP are likely to get in, the only forces with the electoral clout to beat them at the moment are one of the big three capitalist parties (Respect's support is overwhelmingly not in the kind of areas the BNP would even stand in). So concretely this means voting *New Labour*, *Tory* or *LibDem*

How does this help people alienated enough to consider voting BNP? Doesn't it discredit socialist forces as being part of the corrupt lash up which keeps (usually Labour) councillors in cushy jobs in perpetuity?

 

[dennisr]

Why dont you stand for election in May? Be interesting to see how many people take you seriously.

BarryB

Aye, right Bazza - thats me told - you standing?

 

[mutley]

so the choice as you see it is to support UAF's call to 'vote to keep out the BNP'....

But in almost all cases, in areas where the BNP are likely to get in, the only forces with the electoral clout to beat them at the moment are one of the big three capitalist parties (Respect's support is overwhelmingly not in the kind of areas the BNP would even stand in). So concretely this means voting *New Labour*, *Tory* or *LibDem*

How does this help people alienated enough to consider voting BNP? Doesn't it discredit socialist forces as being part of the corrupt lash up which keeps (usually Labour) councillors in cushy jobs in perpetuity?

If a vote for Labour is what will keep the BNP out, then yes I'm for a vote for Labour. If the BNP break through to the next level in the way that the french fn have, it will be bloody disastrous. I've already got muslim mates who've told me that at times they seriously think where else they might move to if things here get any worse.

As far as maintaining the corrupt lash-up goes, obviously we need to build an alternative with as high a profile as possible in each area, and that's how we'll change that situation. But to be neutral between labour and the bnp (which is what you are actually proposing) is not an option.

 

[dennisr]

If a vote for Labour is what will keep the BNP out, then yes I'm for a vote for Labour. If the BNP break through to the next level in the way that the french fn have, it will be bloody disastrous. I've already got muslim mates who've told me that at times they seriously think where else they might move to if things here get any worse.

As far as maintaining the corrupt lash-up goes, obviously we need to build an alternative with as high a profile as possible in each area, and that's how we'll change that situation. But to be neutral between labour and the bnp (which is what you are actually proposing) is not an option.

You are sliding around those 'options' you mentioned that are open too us - again. We all agree on the dangers of a BNP breakthrough. You are not the only person with muslim friends (in fact, i can trump you and raise you an asian partner. imagine the concern I have for my partner... but i shouldn't really have to say such superficial rubbish should ?). This adds nothin to your arguement except, maybe, filling a space where your arguement should be mutley..?

in an area where the BNP have already built 15-25%+ results across the city (30% in some wards...). Where Labour is the group in power - implimenting cuts - pushing some into the hands of the BNP in desperation - what is your option??? how do you build this alternative??? - in effect you seem to be saying - correct me if i am wrong - vote respect in areas where repect can win (where the BNP have no hope anyway) and Labout, Lib or Tory (anything but not the BNP) elsewhere (ie anywhere the BNP are gaining an electoral base on the basis of these same parties cuts etc). Are you honestly trying to convine everyone that this is the option available???. You see you are saying vote Labour in Stoke (in effect) - but you are going to end up with the BNP. The irony is that it seems to be you and your options that are deserting whole working class areas to the fash

The SP stood and got derisory votes, the SP stood again and its votes went up by 500% It was the one ward in the city were the BNPs vote did not go up as it did across the rest of the city - now decent labour councillors with a long history in the area have joined the SP in the same area. How is that neutral?? Stoke is one small place - but it puts an important marker down - in the same way Respect is able to put its marker down (in its own perculiar and imo somewhat opportunist way...) in Tower Hamlets

Added: Mutley do you see Labour as akin the pre-war German Socvial Democrats? They are not you know... and even if they were it does not excuse the joke position on the other bourg parties - have you ever read that bookmarks reprint of Trotsky on the United Front tactic in Germany

 

[mutley]

You are sliding around those 'options' you mentioned that are open too us - again. We all agree on the dangers of a BNP breakthrough. You are not the only person with muslim friends (in fact, i can trump you and raise you an asian partner. imagine the concern I have for my partner... but i shouldn't really have to say such superficial rubbish should ?). Snap.. you ain't trumped me there..

This adds nothin to your arguement except, maybe, filling a space where your arguement should be mutley..?

in an area where the BNP have already built 15-25%+ results across the city (30% in some wards...). Where Labour is the group in power - implimenting cuts - pushing some into the hands of the BNP in desperation - what is your option??? how do you build this alternative??? - in effect you seem to be saying - correct me if i am wrong - vote respect in areas where repect can win (where the BNP have no hope anyway) and Labout, Lib or Tory (anything but not the BNP) elsewhere (ie anywhere the BNP are gaining an electoral base on the basis of these same parties cuts etc). Are you honestly trying to convine everyone that this is the option available???. You see you are saying vote Labour in Stoke (in effect) - but you are going to end up with the BNP. The irony is that it seems to be you and your options that are deserting whole working class areas to the fash

The way i am willing to formulate it is 'use your vote to stop the BNP'. An expicit call for a labour vote is not an option, because there are many in UAF who aren't labour. Tbh I'd probably grudgingly back a libdem with my own vote if the electoral arithmetic indicated that that was what was needed to stop a bnp councillor.

The SP stood and got derisory votes, the SP stood again and its votes went up by 500% It was the one ward in the city were the BNPs vote did not go up as it did across the rest of the city - now decent labour councillors with a long history in the area have joined the SP in the same area. How is that neutral?? Stoke is one small place - but it puts an important marker down - in the same way Respect is able to put its marker down (in its own perculiar and imo somewhat opportunist way...) in Tower Hamlets

And where there is no marker being set down just now, what do you tell peole to do? Stay at home on election day? I understand that many BNP voters are looking to give a v sign to the establishment, but that doesn't mean that you don't argue with people that a BNP vote is not the bleedin' answer in any sense (I know u agree with that but what does it mean concretely when there's no alternative on the ballot paper)

Added: Mutley do you see Labour as akin the pre-war German Socvial Democrats? They are not you know... and even if they were it does not excuse the joke position on the other bourg parties - have you ever read that bookmarks reprint of Trotsky on the United Front tactic in Germany

Labour has not changed fundamentally from the organisation that brought the IMF in to begin the process that Thatcher continued, used the troops against the FBU etc. And the SDP in Germany were the Party that murdered Rosa Luxemburg, set up the freikorp, was willing to attack workers in the 30's in order to stabilise capitalism etc etc. That was the party that Trotsky, quite rightly, argued that the CP should unite with against the nazis. (yes i've read the book). The same logic works now.

 

[JoePolitix]

Added: Mutley do you see Labour as akin the pre-war German Socvial Democrats?

I guess at least New Labour haven't yet been involved in the bloody suppression of a worker socialist uprising. That's probably the nicest thing you could say about them.

edit - Mutley beat me to it!

 

[articul8]

I've already got muslim mates who've told me that at times they seriously think where else they might move to if things here get any worse.

This raises an important question. Whilst there has been an undoubted rise in racism and islamophobia post 9/11, ironically not only the BNP, but also more prominent politicians like David Blunkett, Charles Clark and Ann Cryer have been seeking to exploit racial tensions (to a point) with their talk about compulsory citizenship tests and an obligation to speak english etc.
ie. in many cases labour figures have been making the climate more conducive to open expressions of racism - which the BNP might benefit from in the future.

It's certainly not a question of neutrality. It's a question of recognising that the best way to undermine support for racist and fascist ideas is to build an independent working class alternative as a matter of priority.

 

[BarryB]

Aye, right Bazza - thats me told - you standing?

Yes.

BarryB

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Yes.

BarryB

Surprise candidate for Mayor of Hackney?

 

[mutley]

This raises an important question. Whilst there has been an undoubted rise in racism and islamophobia post 9/11, ironically not only the BNP, but also more prominent politicians like David Blunkett, Charles Clark and Ann Cryer have been seeking to exploit racial tensions (to a point) with their talk about compulsory citizenship tests and an obligation to speak english etc.
ie. in many cases labour figures have been making the climate more conducive to open expressions of racism - which the BNP might benefit from in the future.

It's certainly not a question of neutrality. It's a question of recognising that the best way to undermine support for racist and fascist ideas is to build an independent working class alternative as a matter of priority.

It's the best way but not the only way..

Even if the SP became a huge thriving mass workers party that got every issue spot on, you'd still have situations where you need to engage in united fronts with reformists.

'Use Kerensky as a prop, better to shoot at Kornilov. Then later we will deal with Kerensky'

That's me done for the night..

 

[articul8]

It's the best way but not the only way..

Even if the SP became a huge thriving mass workers party that got every issue spot on, you'd still have situations where you need to engage in united fronts with reformists.

'Use Kerensky as a prop, better to shoot at Kornilov. Then later we will deal with Kerensky'

That's me done for the night..

I don't think the SP expect a mass workers party to emerge organically throught its own steady growth. ANy new party would involve revolutionaries working with forces with whom substantial political differences were involved. If you like, this would already be a united front of sorts.

And the Labour party is not a reformist party any more - that implies attempting to introduce piecemeal reforms to turn capitalism into a different kind of society. Labour is now more than happy to embrace the "dynamism of the market" and the "rigours of competition" (in its own constitution).

 

[dennisr]

I don't think the SP expect a mass workers party to emerge organically throught its own steady growth. ANy new party would involve revolutionaries working with forces with whom substantial political differences were involved. If you like, this would already be a united front of sorts.

And the Labour party is not a reformist party any more - that implies attempting to introduce piecemeal reforms to turn capitalism into a different kind of society. Labour is now more than happy to embrace the "dynamism of the market" and the "rigours of competition" (in its own constitution).

And the other parties the UAF conceeds too are even less reformist parties - making the stategy you propose a popular front of the very worst kind.

 

[dennisr]

Yes.

BarryB

So Barry as a candidate - can i expect a statement from you opposing the splitting of the anti-fascist vote in Stoke by Labour? (let alone an anti-cuts platform)

 

[Streathamite]

so, umm, given that these two councillors were elected as Labour, and have now resigned from that slate, can we assume that they will now also resign heir seats and submit themselves forthwith for re-elction?
and if not, why not?

 

[mutley]

And the other parties the UAF conceeds too are even less reformist parties - making the stategy you propose a popular front of the very worst kind.

A popular front is a broad political alliance around a programme for government in which bourgeois interests predominate. At least that's my understanding. So the French and Spanish poular front govts included bourgeois parties, which the CP's tailed along with at best (France) and led in a counter revolution at worst (Spain).

UAF is a single issue campaign, whose supporters come overwhelmingly from the ranks of the many trade unions that back it. Some of those supporters are labour, some are not. I'm sure there's a few maverick liberals and the odd confused tory in there as well, but the essential character of the organisation is that it is part of the labour movement. Mackney, Serwotka and oh look, Janice Godrich are on the list of supporters. Isn't she one of yours?
I'm looking hard but I can't see a serious block of bourgeois interests in there.

Are you seriously suggesting that the start and the finish of anti-fascist politics is to build a socialist organisation?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I'm looking hard but I can't see a serious block of bourgeois interests in there.

There wasn't one in the Spanish popular front either, the point was that politically the socialists within it subordinated their own politics to trying to reconcile the supposedly progressive elements of the capitalist class. Much as the "socialists" who run UAF oppose that organisation doing anything which would scare away the vicars and liberals.

It is correct, fortunately, that UAF is not a popular front in the sense of an alliance for government, but it is perfectly in line with the popular frontist strategy to defeat fascism which the Stalinists favoured after the end of the Third Period. Except even more ineffectual. UAF has as far as I can see to this point done fuck all of any interest or use anywhere.

Are you seriously suggesting that the start and the finish of anti-fascist politics is to build a socialist organisation?

Of course not. But in current circumstances, where there is a crisis of working class political representation which provides opportunities for the fascists, the main strategic goal of anti-fascists has to be the rebuilding of working class organisation.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

so, umm, given that these two councillors were elected as Labour, and have now resigned from that slate, can we assume that they will now also resign heir seats and submit themselves forthwith for re-elction?
and if not, why not?

In the case of Paul Sutton - it's irrelevant. He's up for election on 4 May and by law no by-election can be called if the period of office left to run is less than 6 months.

The other is up for election in 2007, which is not far away. He could resign and fight the seat as part of a two seat election this May, but if successful (actually if he came second) he would then be elected for only one year and would still have to fight the seat again in 2007 (if he came first he would be elected for four years but the candidate who comes second would be elected for just 12 months - might just be worth considering by the SP as the momentum could be built around making the election a referendum on the council cuts budget).

The normal practice among all the parties is to wait it out - not to mention the fact that 'orchestrated' by-elections cost the council considerable monies. And I think it is perfectly fair for the SP to fight the seats when the term of office is up and seek a renewed mandate then.

In this instance, the councillors can also argue that they have not changed their policies from those on which they were elected.

 

[Streathamite]

see your point about sutton, but NOT about 'the normal practice...". it is STILL wrong, if he doesn't resubmit to the elctorate now he marches under a different banner. His mandate is, indisputably, spent. and Who decides, amongst 'all' parties, what the 'normal practice' is; are the SP (and RESPECT, who also failed tio do the honest thing) just the same as Tories, libdem and labour then? i thought the whole point was to be different and more principled. by same token it is NOT 'fair' for them to wait until the end of their term - it is deeply dishonest. and the excuse over costs just won't wash. that's desperate.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

see your point about sutton, but NOT about 'the normal practice...". it is STILL wrong, if he doesn't resubmit to the elctorate now he marches under a different banner. His mandate is, indisputably, spent. and Who decides, amongst 'all' parties, what the 'normal practice' is; are the SP (and RESPECT, who also failed tio do the honest thing) just the same as Tories, libdem and labour then? i thought the whole point was to be different and more principled. by same token it is NOT 'fair' for them to wait until the end of their term - it is deeply dishonest. and the excuse over costs just won't wash. that's desperate.

I was saying that there was a window (for about a week or so) where the SP could stand down now and fight an election over the issue of cuts in council budget without incurring costs for the council. That would also have the merit of two candidates fighting simultaneously in two wards around the same very topical issue - council cuts - and creating more attention. Pressure could also be put on Labour to only stand one candidate in the seat.

If it was Respect, I would urge serious consideration to doing that. However I also accept the SP has the right to choose when its councillors resign. If the resignation is not timed perfectly you end up with two elections within a week or two of each other, which everyone hates - not least the voters!

 

[Streathamite]

I'd agree that trying to rustle up voter interest for councuil elections is like trying to push water uphill....

 

[mutley]

It is correct, fortunately, that UAF is not a popular front in the sense of an alliance for government, but it is perfectly in line with the popular frontist strategy to defeat fascism which the Stalinists favoured after the end of the Third Period. Except even more ineffectual. UAF has as far as I can see to this point done fuck all of any interest or use anywhere.

.

I think that to actually establish whether that last sentence is true would take a serious study of what UAF have done in the Black Country, Oldham and Burnley, and other areas. From what I heard Griffin was expecting to get a council seat in Oldham in 2004, and many people thought that they'd get a North-West Euro seat.
I don't have the detailed facts to back up an argument that the UAF played a key role in blocking them, but I'm sure as hell that the people who would happily come on here and argue the opposite are just asserting what they want to think is the case.

 

[Streathamite]

If you don't have the detailed facts, why are you so

sure as hell that the people who would happily come on here and argue the opposite are just asserting what they want to think is the case.

??

 

[mutley]

If you don't have the detailed facts, why are you so
??

Cos its what i want to think is the case..

No seriously I have not seen any serious attempt to assess the experience of UAF stuff over the last few years, and it's been going for what 5 years now?
(maybe the evidence is out there in some article, but i've not seen it).

There have been numerous council elections, the general election and the Euros. If someone out their wanted to..
(a) study the voting patterns in detail and also..
(b) get out there and talk to people - potential BNP supporters, others in target areas etc
..I'm sure there there'd be enough for a PhD...

What i'd want to know is -

1) When the UAF have campaigned -
have turnouts gone up?
have people voted tactically to stop the BNP?
Have BNP votes gone down?

2) and if there are areas where UAF have not been there, or run weak campaigns does the evidence confirm any pattern found in 1)?

From what I've seen, I think UAF have done good stuff in Oldham for example - but I would think that wouldn't I. Nigel doesn't rate it, but he wouldn't would he...

Anyone got any facts (as opposed to anecdotal or partisan assersions)?

 

[Streathamite]

from what i've seen their campaigning in LB Lewisham had stuff all effect. no stats on that tho'.

 

[mutley]

.

It is correct, fortunately, that UAF is not a popular front in the sense of an alliance for government, but it is perfectly in line with the popular frontist strategy to defeat fascism which the Stalinists favoured after the end of the Third Period. Except even more ineffectual. UAF has as far as I can see to this point done fuck all of any interest or use anywhere.

.

http://www.uaf.org.uk/resources/0507ELelectionanalysis.pdf

The section about the campaign in Oldham in this UAF report certainly indicates that something of use happened there.

Overall. the BNP vote seems to have gone up such a lot since pre 2001 (9/11 and Northern riots) that UAF effectiveness elsewhere is in the area of preventing it being as bad as it might have been - a mighty difficult thing to prove..

 

[JimPage]

firstlty on my use of the word "ponce" its one of my general terms of abuse for timewaters- especially in political terms. no offence meant. not an sp member incidentally- supporter of SSP

What i'd want to know is -

1) When the UAF have campaigned -
have turnouts gone up?
in rare occasions yes- such as millwall in 1994. more recently if it has gone up- i would hazard a guess its by the bnp engaging non voters to vote for them- rather than mainstream parties engaging no voters to vote for anyone but bnp

have people voted tactically to stop the BNP?
yes- like at the at the goresbrook by election, where there was a formal labour/liberal/green electoral past. for the odd byelection is a solid ward-
its fine- but what at other elections- where these populatr front tactics will not be tenable

Have BNP votes gone down?
in most places no. look at the last geenral election - the highest far right general election vote ever- up from 5 saved deposits to 34. up from 4.6% to 13.1% in dewsbury, 4.7 to 9.9% in dudley north, 5.0 to 16.9% in barking etc
the only places they went down was oldham. everywhere else the vote was up- where there was a comparable contest

their mebership has incrased form 2,300 to 7,800 in the same period


.............From what I've seen, I think UAF have done good stuff in Oldham for example -
the problem with oldham was that the huge bnp vote there in 2001- was on the tail end of a really vicious riot in town two weeks before polling day. the post bnp election analysis in 2001 was quite honest about this- they recognised it was a huge vote in special circumstances.

 

[mutley]

.............the problem with oldham was that the huge bnp vote there in 2001- was on the tail end of a really vicious riot in town two weeks before polling day. the post bnp election analysis in 2001 was quite honest about this- they recognised it was a huge vote in special circumstances.

Hang on, it sounds like you'll take any reason that the bnp give for their votes before conceding that UAF's very large campaign might have effected things. The 'problem' in saying that the UAF reduced the BNP vote is that the BNP vote was previously huge? Isn't that exactly when the UAF do what they do, and with the aim of reducing such huge votes?

What if the UAF hadn't bothered - would the BNP vote still have gone down?

Sounds like the UAF will never be able to convince u that they've made a difference no matter what the evidence.

 

[mutley]

(After a bit more thought...)

firstlty on my use of the word "ponce" its one of my general terms of abuse for timewaters- especially in political terms. no offence meant. not an sp member incidentally- supporter of SSP

Fair enough. Issue closed.

What i'd want to know is -

1) When the UAF have campaigned -
have turnouts gone up?
in rare occasions yes- such as millwall in 1994. more recently if it has gone up- i would hazard a guess its by the bnp engaging non voters to vote for them- rather than mainstream parties engaging no voters to vote for anyone but bnp

Again, your 'guess' seems to be prejudiced against any explanation that reflects well on the UAF. And why should a tactic that worked in '94 suddenly cease working?

have people voted tactically to stop the BNP?
yes- like at the at the goresbrook by election, where there was a formal labour/liberal/green electoral past. for the odd byelection is a solid ward-
its fine- but what at other elections- where these populatr front tactics will not be tenable

OK, so you might not like it or approve but it's happened. What conditions do you think might make it untenable?

Have BNP votes gone down?
in most places no. look at the last geenral election - the highest far right general election vote ever- up from 5 saved deposits to 34. up from 4.6% to 13.1% in dewsbury, 4.7 to 9.9% in dudley north, 5.0 to 16.9% in barking etc
the only places they went down was oldham. everywhere else the vote was up- where there was a comparable contest

.

To me it seems that the UAF tactic of getting people to 'use their vote to stop the BNP' has worked in a number of places. People may want to argue about the implicit support for 'establishment' parties and criticise the tactic, but it certainly seems to be happening.

However it does seem that instances of the BNP actually losing votes in real terms are rare - a depressing thought.. Are there other examoples apart from Oldham where the actual number of BNP votes has been reduced?