Socialist Unity | Debate & analysis for activists & trade unionists

christian h. on 15 December, 2010 at 4:19 pm said:

Or in short: “it’s all the SWP’s fault”. I predict a year or two from now we’re going to have SP comrades here reminding everyone how “the SWP blew up” the NSSN. Just like with the SA. The disdain the SP clearly holds for non-aligned activists is quite breathtaking.

Anonymous on 15 December, 2010 at 4:19 pm said:

Why cant the SWP and SP work in harmony in the manner their Scottish Comrades do, working apart the are undermining in in a small way the hopes and aspirations of Trade unionists throughout England and Wales whereas united they can fuck the movement completely.

Henry on 15 December, 2010 at 4:21 pm said:

Dear Andy
I hope you now consider this argument with a balanced mind. The Socialist Party have acted democratically and wants unity but not unity of the grave yard.

Henry on 15 December, 2010 at 4:22 pm said:

#2 Read the above – the SP didn’t cause this!

christian h. on 15 December, 2010 at 4:24 pm said:

Uhm Henry, that document reads like it’s straight out of Workers Vanguard. The SP are clearly losing it.

Neil on 15 December, 2010 at 4:31 pm said:

#1 “The disdain the SP clearly holds for non-aligned activists is quite breathtaking.”
Hardly.

In any case I think all this talk of a split is premature and very rash. No actual decision to set up an anti cuts group has been made. The vote was about putting a proposal to the conference. This will be a decision for the conference. If people do not agree with this proposal they should get themselves delegated to the conference and make the case there.

The Socialist Party is not afraid of open debate, as I fear many tendencies on the left are. We see debate over strategy, tactics and program as the life blood of our movement. You will certainly not see any such open debate at the CoR or most definitely not at the Right to Work conferences.

So come one come all to the NSSN conference on 22nd of January. Lets put an end to this tiresome procedure of listening to 20 something top table speakers of the great and good and have a real democratic debate about the best way forward for the anti-cuts movement.

Lessons not learnt on 15 December, 2010 at 4:39 pm said:

What this missive fails to appreciate is that most people on the left in Britain do not want to work under the hegemony of either the SWP or the SP. We’ve seen enough of their failed political methods even if we can value those positive contributions they have made. The Coalition of Resistance was obviously going to more attractive for a lot of people precisely because it is not so clearly a party front. Whether the Counterfire leadership, who are the people who blew Respect, are able to operate in a different and more constructive way remains an open question – though I am not optimistic. What is not open, is that these frontist illusions are being shattered in the face of a generational austerity onslaught and of even the modest development of a genuine movement to resist it.

I do find the rolling out of the litany of SWP crimes in this statement quite revealing. It suggest a circling of the wagons to create a groupthink among their members and closest supporters. The SWP, of course, did exactly the same with George Galloway – “the more extreme Muslims”, the earnings, and so on. It buys some time in such organisations. But sooner or later the disconnect between a wild line and political reality catches up with a bang.

One thing that seems pretty likely in the immediacy is that the electoral cooperation, such as it was and such that it achieved, between the SP and the SWP in TUSC cannot surely last beyond the second of the two conferences on 22 January. Meanwhile I hear that Respect is doing rather well in the byelection in Tower Hamlets, where voters go to the polls tomorrow. Before anyone jumps the gun, I don’t believe anyone is saying that Respect is in a position to give a political/electoral expression to the anti-austerity feeling across the UK. But it is a durable part of the picture. The SP are extremely unlikely to cooperate with it; in fact it is impossible given during its current turn. But the SWP might want to reconsider its relations, including in Scotland.

Neil on 15 December, 2010 at 4:48 pm said:

#7 Why do you think the SP are unlikely to co-operate with Respect? In the 2004 GLA elections we called for a vote for Respect and even stood a joint list with them in Lewisham. In any case there is no electoral cross over between the SP and Respect but if Respect were to approach the SP for discussions of course we would be open to them.

titch mirch on 15 December, 2010 at 4:54 pm said:

the key is to build for the TUC national demo-the widest possible campaign and mobilisation involving students, union members, BME people, disabled people, people on benefits, pensioners etc-the TU’s will be crucial

River on 15 December, 2010 at 4:56 pm said:

Clear, factual, principled, great reply.

Here’s my message to Labour’s ‘reluctant’ axemen:

http://riversstream.blogspot.com/2010/12/to-labours-reluctant-axemen.html

Lessons not learnt on 15 December, 2010 at 5:00 pm said:

@8 I think it is unlikely because the Socialist Party has generally seen Respect as compromising on class politics and erring towards “communalism”; because the Socialist Party’s position was the Respect was putting itself outside the movement by not coming under the TUSC rubric (and we know what results that achieved); because the SP has shown zero interest in the elections in Tower Hamlets, where a left of Labour candidate could well win tomorrow; because Respect does not see the Labour Party is just a Tory party and consequently adopts very different tactics from the SP; and lastly because the SP is looking to summon up anti-cuts candidates without any serious engagement with those who already in the electoral field – and more successfully so than itself.

Let me ask you this: do you think George Galloway can win 15,000 votes across Glasgow in the list section for the Scottish parliament in May? Do you think he is better placed to do so than TUSC or the SSP and in the absence, if it be so, of Tommy Sheridan? Do you think the SP should welcome the fact that he is standing and get behind the campaign which has a very good chance of delivering a victory for the left?

history tells us things on 15 December, 2010 at 5:01 pm said:

When you mean ‘fighting the cuts’, which cuts do you all mean, certainly not cuts in housing benefit, disability benefits, independent Living Fund, etc if that was the case the sects would have supported and yes attended all the various welfare protests today, so very selective then, up the workers!

history tells us things on 15 December, 2010 at 5:02 pm said:

@9, but they could have supported todays welfare protests, couldn’t they?

chjh on 15 December, 2010 at 5:07 pm said:

Do the SP have anything to say to the 13 non-SWP members who signed the letter?

Dave Parks on 15 December, 2010 at 5:08 pm said:

The SP are implicictly saying that Dave Chapple is in league with the SWP. This is hilarious!

This crap may wash with brain dead SP activists but it is going to fool no one else.

If any anti-cuts movement is to be succesful then one of its tasks will to be throw off the attempt by sects like the Sp to impose leadership. Leadership of a genuine vibrant movment has to be run – it can not be bureacratically imposed by the antics of cultish groups like the SP. The SP are incapabale of undestanding this – movements to them are like commodties from which surplus value (sect converts) can be extracted – those who own and control the biggest and most prestigous fronts get to extract the most profit.

The workers in struggle need to organise themselves to free themselves from the parasitic capitalistic behaviour of groups like the SP.

Dave Parks on 15 December, 2010 at 5:09 pm said:

Correction, should read: Leadership of a genuine vibrant movment has to be won …

The Undertaker on 15 December, 2010 at 5:10 pm said:

#8 the SP put out a leaflet attacking Respect as a ‘communalist’ organisation in 2005
The statement from the SP actually reads like an obituary for the NSSN to accuse Dave Chapple of being a liar is pretty strong stuff and unlikely to lead to any healing of the rift
To spend so much time on quite ludicrous attacks on the SWP is very informative.
There was nothing ‘sectarian ‘ about SWP firefighters critising the FBU leadership or do the SP now say we should never critiise union leaders for fear of being accused of sectarianism ?
We critisised the British Jobs for british workers slogan in the first Lindsey dispute we were right to do so and the SP were wrong to fudge the issue and worse issue leaflets thats referred to ‘Local jobs for local workers ‘
We were right to critiise the pension deal in the PCS even though Mark Sewotka supported it ,why ? because it cemented a division between new starters and existing staff
As for repeating the right wing crap about the ACAS talks, perhaps the SP can tell us what marvellous deal the SWP scuppered ,would it be the one that the BA workers have just rejected by any chance
The whole letter smacks of delusions of grandeur,no one single organisation including CoR ( which hardly exists outside of London) can claim to be THE anti cuts organisation yet the SP pushed through a vote on a committee they have a majority to move to set up an organisation grandly titled NSSN All Britain Anti Cuts Campaign ( for once they forgot to add the word Youth !)
All the SP have ensured is that the conference on the 22nd will be a massive bun fight I wonder what would happen if they lost the vote ,perhaps what happened in the Socialist Alliance or various union left caucuses they would simply walk out and re found another organisation
It’ll all end in tears for the SP I’m afraid

fflp on 15 December, 2010 at 5:12 pm said:

What has the SWP’s position on the FBU dispute got to do with building anti cuts alliances or with the SP isolating itself from all non SP activists in NSSN leadership?

and as for

“What workers are interested in is a fighting programme to defend ALL jobs and services. No other campaign other than NSSN has such a programme.”

You cannot be serious. This is textbook sectarianism.

wake up

Neil on 15 December, 2010 at 5:13 pm said:

#11 I honestly don’t know how Galloway is going to do in Glasgow. If you believe he can get that vote I am in no position to contradict you. As a veteran of SP elections, both victorious and not in Britain and Ireland I know that electoral politics can be a cruel business, so I tend to take electoral predictions with a pinch of salt.

As for co-operating with Respect in Glasgow I would advise you to approach the CWI comrades in Scotland. I am sure they will be more than happy to discuss with Respect in Scotland. I know the RMT has been trying to bang heads together up in Scotland to bring about united left candidates. Has Galloway or Respect approached them? That would be an excellent opportunity to bring the different left currents together.

As for Tower Hamlets I am not aware of any call that has been put out by Respect asking for other groups to assist them in their election campaign. Can you direct me towards such a request?

Neil on 15 December, 2010 at 5:15 pm said:

#14 Sure it does. Come along to the conference and lets debate the way forward.

Neil on 15 December, 2010 at 5:22 pm said:

#18 “What has the SWP’s position on the FBU dispute got to do with building anti cuts alliances or with the SP isolating itself from all non SP activists in NSSN leadership?”

Actually there is a considerable number or SC members who haven’t taken a position one way or the other so it’s not correct to say the SP is isolated from all the members on the SC. The FBU reference is important because the London FBU leadership thanked the NSSN for their role in the dispute. This was thanks in a large part to the role the SP played in the network and in contradistinction to the attack of the SWP on lay union reps (the London FBU exec), some of the people who are supposedly trying to “save” the NSSN.

The Undertaker on 15 December, 2010 at 5:22 pm said:

#20 great answer Neil says it all really

Roy on 15 December, 2010 at 5:24 pm said:

While some may what to act in a destructive manner and settle old scores on this forum – I would like the narrow majority (SP) in the non secretarian NSSN to relook at their perspectives and realise they perhaps they have misjudged the situation and mood in respect of juxtaposing NSSN against COR as a broad anti cuts movement and instead concentrate on the job in hand i.e. building the fighting NSSN and workers movement. The RTW group is clearly not the same as COR.
In respect of candidates at the elections – John McDonnell speaking at the COR conference seem to indicate the right position and this was if a candidate does not agree to oppose the cuts then anti cuts campaigners should consider standing against them.
Lets not forget the sins of the last Labour Government against the working class and pretend like some on this forum are doing that the sheet of paper is clear for these people or use them (LP MP’s and Councillors) in some ultra left game of exposing them so people can flock to the revolutionary party? At least the SP are more honest then that.
I have not seen any opposition to Labour speakers in the anti cuts movement from the SP instead it has been a position of opposition to the popular frontism put forward by some.
The SP have the right to promote their belief that the cuts movement and trade unions should be fielding candidates the problem is, I think is it is a bit of a cart before the horse situation – if they were in COR at least they would have a platform nevertheless to argue for this belief – that you never know may be the correct position at the right time.

Mike on 15 December, 2010 at 5:32 pm said:

Is this statement designed to develop the NSSN or kill it? It is indeed the equivalent of John Rees “going nuclear” over Respect and convincing precisely nobody.

“Linda Taaffe
Rob Williams
Bill Mullins
NSSN officers, representing the majority of the steering committee all of whom are in the SP and against the opposition of everyone else who are now revealed to be liars or in the pockets of the SWP and their sectarian crimes against the movement”

Fixed it for you.

Jota on 15 December, 2010 at 5:42 pm said:

COR, RTW, NSSN etc – doesn’t really matter yet. Local groups will power this movement. Any sort of national structures at this stage are likely to be talking shops for competitng groups or organising committees for those long ‘inspiring’ (boring!) rallies of speeches by various ‘figures’. COR have the network of worthies in place from the StW set-up, but if the anti-cut thing will not be a re-run of massive London demos, a few vigils etc and little else. Can’t see that the SP has done anything wrong except excercising their right to out-vote a minority – perhaps not tactically astute, but you wouldn’t really expect them to wind up the NSSN in favour of SWP-led or Counterfire-led fronts, which lack democratic structures (or does the RtW have democratic structures? I dunno)?

Certainly, the eagerness which people leap to attack the SP for daring to not agree with their view is dull. ‘Group think”brain dead’ etc. zzzzzz

Lessons not learnt on 15 December, 2010 at 5:45 pm said:

Neil – Respect in Tower Hamlets asked everyone in the borough who wanted a left of Labour win to help in the election. I don’t think they had much hope of the SP turning up as they didn’t when they said they were supporting the campaign in May. But your organisation is entitled to set its own priorities – no one is questioning that.

Perhaps Respect’s success, should that transpire tomorrow, will find its way into the pages of the Socialist, or Socialist Worker for that matter (something I am more hopeful of).

It doesn’t have to be this way, you know. I’m sure there are all sorts of problems with the approaches of the SWP and the SP in Ireland (and I mean something more serious and fundamental than the mutual accusations that doubtless have been hurled). But from the admittedly very limited knowledge I have, the recent initiative by them and others to project a united left in the struggles over austerity and at the ballot box is commendable. Whether it breaks out of a far left space remains to be seen, but it is certainly something positive on the European left. I don’t think it would have been possible if either side had engaged in the invective shown in this statement or by the SWP during the last year of Respect. Doubtless there are individuals involved in the united project in Ireland who have done precisely that in the past. But they appear to have put that behind them. Let’s hope for good. That goes for all of us.

Christ on a bike on 15 December, 2010 at 5:52 pm said:

Yay! CIVIL WAR!

Jim L. on 15 December, 2010 at 5:53 pm said:

Jota is right in the sense that local groups will, and should drive the process towards national organisation – but they key difference between the NSSN initiative and those of the CoR and RtW is that they are simply hosting a conference to enable local groups to unite, rather than insisting that any national alliance be subordinated to, or part of the NSSN. The NSSN initiative is far more open and non-sectarian. I find some of the hostility directed towards the SP extremely distasteful, and Dave Chapple in particular is in the south west for attention seeking and a preexisting hatred of the SP, a view he holds for no discernable reason except sectarianism.

Calvin on 15 December, 2010 at 6:06 pm said:

I read, or rather tried to read, this collection of incomprehensible acronyms stuck together with weird leftist jargon and considered forwarding it to the campaign for plain English. On the basis of this gobbledegook it’s impossible for any normal human being to have a stab at what the heck it’s all about, let alone come to a view about who might be right or wrong, or why anyone should care one way or the other.

Now, there may be very important issues tucked away in there somewhere. But until people on the left learn to communicate in a normal way that resonates with real people, they will remain on the margins of society and deservedly so.

Ian Croft on 15 December, 2010 at 6:06 pm said:

To be fair to the SP they are simply playing the same game as the SWP in RTW and the NotSWP in the CoR.

Both of the latter were setup to try and put their respective vanguards at the head of the anti-cuts movement. The SP are just following suit.

Of course the NSSN is itself a split off from the Trades Councils since the SP was making no real progress in them.

Dave Parks on 15 December, 2010 at 6:07 pm said:

#25 Workers and activists put in years of labour into various organisations such as the NSSN (cf. Socialist Alliance & SWP or Respect & SWP). We give our labour in order to build something for the class as a whole – to further the prospects of building a movement that can challenge the capitalist system. Parasitic groups like the SP extratyc this labour in order to atttempt to grow themselves at the expense of the movement. However – with the dwindling rate of profit the sects inevitable decide that there are bigger profits to be extracted elsewhere. Suddenly at a whim they use their muscle to close down their *property* in favour of better investment opportunities elsewhere.

Yes – the sects can use their weight of numbers to do what they choose in the SA, Respect, NSSN etc. In a formal sense they are merely exercising their democratic right. The rest of the working class needs to learn the lesson that the sects are by their nature incpabale of being anything other than self-serving and an obstacle to socialist change.

Roy on 15 December, 2010 at 6:07 pm said:

“rather than insisting that any national alliance be subordinated to, or part of the NSSN.” Could you explain how the first part of your sentence applies to COR – with evidence not conjectual please.
And who are insisting NSSN be part of COR?

I just think personally that a more united struggle with Independent groups working together in COR is better in the face of a determined enemy.

Rev9 on 15 December, 2010 at 6:08 pm said:

!

This ‘response’ is astonishing! I have never been impressed by the SP’s capacity to articulate ideas or formulate strategy with any real degree of acumen or subtlety, but this really takes the biscuit (not aided by the poor writing and grammar).

NOT ONCE do they address any of the key issues raised over and over again by critics both within and without the NSSN. They don’t even consider wondering whether a ‘democratic majority’ formed entirely of SP members against an entirety of non-SP members is at all problematic. In fact they pretend the problem doesn’t exist, not referring to themselves as the SP members but as ‘representing the majority of the steering cmte’!?!?! I mean you couldn’t make it up!!

All the points they – at length – go on to make are next to irrelevant. Their list of SWP ‘crimes’ are more than contentious, clearly one can imagine people in the movement taking both sides of the argument around issues such as the recent FBU dispute or the Lindsey strike. Nevermind, as we’ve all said, more out of disbelief than anything, that anything to do with the SWP is absolutely nothing to do with the complaints against them made.

And their churlish charge that RtW and CoR ‘split’ from NSSN. NSSN never had a clear leadership over the movement, let alone the fact that the (until now) stated role of NSSN was quite distinct to that of RtW and CoR.

I’m almost lost for words at the arrogance and blindness of the SP’s attitude and wording here. They are only lucky that, unlike, as others have noted, John Rees et al, they are not in so serious a position of responsibility or influence.

Neil on 15 December, 2010 at 6:32 pm said:

#26 Some interesting points there Lnl.

Your points about Ireland raise some pertinent issues. Firstly there was some, I wouldn’t call it invective, but definitely straight talking, between the Irish SP and the SWP. Clarity of thought and action has always been our method, this is often mistaken, some times deliberately, sometimes not, as sectarianism. Despite these frank words from the Irish Socialist Party there were not a bar to the creation of the United Left Alliance.

The basis of the ULA has been an agreed minimum program, the most important components being opposition to all cuts and a clear rejection of coalition agreements with pro-cuts parties.
This is is an example on what the England and Wales Socialist Party means when it says it is in favour of unity in action. The problem with CoR and RtW is that they are ambiguous about whether they oppose parties or individuals who implement cuts. One of the reasons we think it is necessary for the NSSN to enter into the anti-cuts movement as a distinct organisation is because we do not believe that CoR or RtW are offering a program that is unambiguously opposed to all cuts.

We are at the early stage of the anti cuts movement. Different methods of different organisations will be tried out and tested. Bear in mind at the beginning of the Poll Tax battle there were many different anti Poll Tax campaigns. For example you had the Labour Party Campaign ‘Stop It’, who’s first signatory was Neil Kinnock. Now I ask you can anyone see the Poll Tax being defeated if we’d all united around a campaign led by that serial loser Kinnock? The Scottish TUC organised the first anti-poll tax demo. I believe the CP were prominent in a group called Campaign Against Poll Tax. The key difference between them and what went on to become the All Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation was that the latter advocated an unambiguous program of non payment, something the SWP for example said was not possible.

No one could tell for certain which organisation would be successful in defeating the Poll Tax, the different methods and programs of those organisations had to be tested out in the living struggle. The same applies even more so with the anti cuts movement. Once again I say to people who are sceptical; come to the NSSN conference on the 22nd of January and debate the way forward, lets test out those different ideas and methods in an open discussion.

Mike on 15 December, 2010 at 6:44 pm said:

What’s the incentive to come to the NSSN conference when the decision has already been made?

Under the title “All-Britain Anti-Cuts Campaign to be launched” The Socialist states “the NSSN steering committee agreed that the conference will launch the ‘NSSN All-Britain Anti-Cuts Campaign'”. They seem rather confident of the outcome of the real democratic debate about the best way forward for the anti-cuts movement.

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/650/10764/08-12-2010/all-britain-anti-cuts-campaign-to-be-launched

prianikoff on 15 December, 2010 at 6:44 pm said:

#23 “Lets not forget the sins of the last Labour Government against the working class and pretend like some on this forum are doing that the sheet of paper is clear for these people or use them (LP MP’s and Councillors) in some ultra left game of exposing them so people can flock to the revolutionary party? At least the SP are more honest then that.”

So what’s new?
Labour Governments have been committing “sins” ever since the first one was elected.
The argument was never about voting for, or seeking to be part of the L.P *because* of its leadership, but *despite* its leadership.
The argument was that such tactics had to be applied to Labour because it remained the majority party of the working class.
Which, whether you like it or not, is still true.

Of course there will be a few independent MP’s and councillors elected to the Left of Labour.
Respect might win something in Tower Hamlets tomorrow, for example.
But there’s no chance of any party to Labour’s left being able to replace the Lib-Dem coalitions in the near future.
So basing a political strategy on that notion boils down to an expression of moral outrage, rather than sound political tactics.

If Labour councillors or MP’s *say* that want to oppose the Tories, they needed to be included in an anti-cuts movement & put to the test.
What matters is the practical support they can give to such a movement, within the limits of their powers.

At this point, I’d like people to consider something that’s going on right in front of their noses, now.

The attempt to force the resignation of Aaron Porter as President of NUS.

See: –
http://counterfire.org/index.php/articles/38-opinion/8829-why-were-right-to-oust-aaron-porter-a-reply-to-sunny-hundal-
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/12/no-confidence.html
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=7368

No one is suggesting the formation of a break away union from the N.U.S.
It would be “ultra-leftist” to do so.
It’s always proven to be disastrous when such unions are set up.
This is because minority unions that group together only militants don’t appeal to the mass of members.
They’re ineffective.

But attempting to remove someone like Porter from the leadership of a union, by a vote of no confidence at a special conference, is an example of union democracy at work.

The question is, why don’t the same arguments apply to the Labour Party?
Wouldn’t the best way to deal with pro-cuts councillors and the New Labour elements in the Labour Party, be to apply the same tactics?
To seek to pass motions of no-confidence in them and replace them?
If not, why not?

What started out in the student movement as a widespread wave of disillusionment with the Liberals on the basis of their broken promises, is now spilling over into an attack on their union leadership.
But it’s quite possible that this approach could spill over into the Labour Party too.

See my post @ 92 in the thread
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=7362

Jim L. on 15 December, 2010 at 6:46 pm said:

#32 – I was not suggesting that anyone was suggesting that the NSSN be part of COR. And what I mean by the part you quoted is that the COR just set itself up and said ‘affiliate to us’. The NSSN, in contrast, is hosting a conference where local groups themselves can together found a national organisation, a national organisation that would not be part of the structures of the NSSN, but independent of them.

Lessons not learnt on 15 December, 2010 at 6:53 pm said:

@34 Thanks for the response, Neil. This point keeps cropping up “we are not convinced/do not believe that CoR or RtW are… unambiguously opposed to all cuts”. But is there any solid ground for this lack of belief? Everything I have seen suggests that that CoR, RtW, the SWP and others are opposed to all cuts. You may have differences with them over tactics, organisational forms, relating to the Labour Party and so on. But I don’t think it is helpful to claim there is this fundamental difference. I just don’t see that it is true, as the statement above claims, that only the NSSN is opposed to all cuts.

Secondly, I think there is a problem in the thinking about what is meant by “the cuts”. The above statement, and the responses from SP members on this thread, seem predicated on only the experience of local government cuts – which Labour councillors, in their majority, are likely to vote through given the prevailing political realities. But there will be the same Labour councillors and MPs voicing opposition to university cuts, FE cuts, the further marketisation and cuts to the NHS, the privatisation of the post office, the raising of the retirement age, the attack on people with disabilities, bootcamps for the young, and so on. This is not about a one year bad settlement for local government. It is about a major restructuring of British society in the interests of capital – something which the labour movement, including much if not most of the Labour Party, will be against or say they are against. How strategically do you relate to that? Starting at one possible end of the process rather than where we in act are is not the way to do it.

Lastly, your point about the anti poll tax campaign doesn’t, I think, prove what you want it to. During that successful campaign your organisation was in the Labour Party, in the party of the councils – Labour ran most of them then unlike now – which were jailing people for non-payment. You were in the party of Roy Hattersley, who as deputy leader called for exemplary sentences for those who resisted the police in Trafalgar Square. Your organisation, absolutely rightly, did not prevent Labour councillors who were implementing the poll tax from participating in the campaign against it.

These are lessons it is worth relearning.

Neil on 15 December, 2010 at 6:56 pm said:

On the issue of the SP voting together I think it should be noted that the SP does not have an absolute majority on the NSSN Steering Committee. If all members of the SC turned up then the SP would be in a minority. The SP is however the largest organised group on the SC.

Secondly the SC was elected at the last Conference on a voluntary basis, so it’s not like the SP packed the conference to get the most SC members. The reason the SP is the largest group on the SC is because it is the group that has taken the NSSN seriously from the start. There has never been an impediment to other groups or individuals putting forward their members to be on the SC at the conference.

Now it seems to me they hysteria that has been whipped up in some quarters is because the SP members on the SC voted together for it’s own proposal. The word proposal is important as it means no irrevocable decision has taken place. Now if the SP had used the SC to say, close down the NSSN or affiliate it to TUSC or the CNWP with no right of appeal I would entirely agree with the complaints that the SP is unfairly abusing its authority. This has not happened. We have put forward a proposal that will be debated in an open and democratic manner for a whole day on January 22nd.

The reason why there is little mention of the non Right to Work or CoR members who signed the letter is because I believe there is two trends who are opposed to the proposal to set up an anti cuts body. On the one hand you have people like the syndicalists who genuinely do not believe there is a role for the NSSN in the anti-cuts movement, or at least not in setting up a body using it’s authority. There is no problem with this position. We do not agree with you but we hope to have a full debate before as many genuine anti-cuts activists as possible at the conference where the actual decision will be made.

However the other trend is grouped around the SWP and Right to Work who quite simply want to wreck the NSSN and make sure it does not put forward it’s own distinct program into the anti-cuts movement. That is why it is important to put forward their record in the statement.

Roy on 15 December, 2010 at 6:56 pm said:

#36 – what we need to see is mass industrial and community action not a policy of pushing pushing Joe Bloggs from the neo liberalist Labour Party into the leadership of the movement – People like John McDonell and a handful of other people should be supported not the rest of them – get out of the 1980’s, the LP is now barren of decent people. Cynically what they want to do is ride on the backs of the anti cuts campaign back into power and all the SWP are doing is giving in reality them this chance.

christian h. on 15 December, 2010 at 7:01 pm said:

Keep digging, comrades…

Neil on 15 December, 2010 at 7:01 pm said:

#35 “They seem rather confident of the outcome of the real democratic debate about the best way forward for the anti-cuts movement.”

Of course we’re confident about the outcome, like I’ve always said we are not afraid of open, genuine debate with other tendencies or ideas, we relish it in fact because we think those ideas and debates can play a crucial role in arming the working class with a strategy to defeat the attacks of the bosses.

It would be a bit weird if we went round proposing things we had no confidence in.

Lessons not learnt on 15 December, 2010 at 7:05 pm said:

@39 Oh Neil – we don’t have an absolute majority = we have in effect a majority because we know that others do not turn up as a disciplined bloc and our members will because they are part of an organisation that works that way; it’s only a proposal, it will also be decided democratically at the conference = we are confident of a majority at the conference because of (see above) and additionally we control the apparatus.

Forgive me – but many of us who comment on this site have been through this movie before, several times and with different principals. It’s not picking on the SP. It’s just experience of this failed political method from different protagonists. Similarly overblown claims that only we have a principled position and our opponents are soft when it comes t: opposing all cuts, class politics, fighting all oppression, (insert appropriate straw man).

Roy on 15 December, 2010 at 7:08 pm said:

#37 COR caught the mood of a whole range of people concerned about the cuts in their communitys – helped by respected people ike Tony Benn and Caroline Lucas urging action – if NSSN had set up a broad anti cuts group then it could now be in the same situation as COR is now.
Both the National Shop Stewards Network and for that matter the The Right To Work campaign are poorly named for the task needed at the time.

prianikoff on 15 December, 2010 at 7:15 pm said:

#39 “Cynically what they want to do is ride on the backs of the anti cuts campaign back into power and all the SWP are doing is giving in reality them this chance.”

Labour will ride back into power whether we like it or not and the SWP won’t have much to do with it.
The main alternative is likely to be a strengthened and increasingly right-wing Tory Party, which has been pushing their Liberal fall-guys into prominent positions when it comes to announcing their dirty work, thereby shielding their own, far more influential role in destroying all the social gains of the welfare state.

But that will only happen if Miliband is too pathetic to build on the gains Labour has made in recent months. For example if he offers a centrist coalition with the Lib-Dems, rather than splitting them and getting the best Liberals to cross the floor and take the Labour whip.

I think the argument that the Labour Party is “barren of decent people” is just stupid.
How do you know?
Are you saying that all those people who joined recently aren’t “decent people”?

As to the description of the “neo-Liberalist” Labour Party, what exactly does this term mean nowadays?
Brown clearly reversed a whole decade of neo-Liberal ideology when he took over Northern Rock and a majority share in Lloyds-RBS.
That was a whole new ball game, which the Tories will do all in the power to unravel by breaking up the banks into smaller units.

EMA, which the students are fighting for now, was entirely a product of Labour legislation – something most working class students rely on to travel to college and eat! It’s the Tories and Liberals who are scrapping it.

It’s just not true to say that their social policies are identical.
What’s important is to make sure that “New Labour” is put away for good.

Ian Croft on 15 December, 2010 at 7:17 pm said:

Neil your colleagues in the SP would do themselves alot of good if they followed your calm and reasoned method of debate. Their press release is borderline hysterical – it is so bad it could have been written by the SWP

A Very Public Sociologist on 15 December, 2010 at 7:18 pm said:

What exactly is stopping the NSSN as is from participating in anti-cuts campaigns? Why is *ANOTHER* campaign needed?

Mike on 15 December, 2010 at 7:20 pm said:

But do you not think it’s just a wee bit preemptive to announce that the conference *will* launch the campaign before it’s voted on?

Run some arguments past me that you would put to my vibrant and lively anti-cuts group full of people who can think for themselves about why we should send delegates to a conference where the outcome has already been announced by the main constituent organisation which got nobody else to agree with them on the steering committee? Right now they’d laugh at you.

Andy Newman on 15 December, 2010 at 7:21 pm said:

#28

Dave Chapple in particular is in the south west for attention seeking and a preexisting hatred of the SP, a view he holds for no discernable reason except sectarianism.

mmm. I know Dave quite well, and I have never heard him speak an ill word about the Socialist party, and has certainly been much more prepared than me to give them the benefit of the doubt in the NSSN

I am perplexed to read that Dave is involved in “attention seeking”, Perhaps you mean that he attended NSSN meetings? something that Socialist party members clearly did not.

Jim Lowe, and his dad, Doug lowe, in particular have never lifted a finger to do anything at all for the NSSN in the West Country. they have never been in touch, never attended a meeting. It is rich for them to blame people who did work hard to build the NSSN.

Honestly tis is a classic pattern of behaviour for a cult, once an ally has outlived their usefulnes, you turn on them.

Neil on 15 December, 2010 at 7:30 pm said:

#44 “it is so bad it could have been written by the SWP”
Ooof, a cruel blow sir!

#45 C’mon Phil, haven’t you read any of my posts? Having one anti cuts body is effective only if it has the correct, strategy and program, that will only be arrived at over time where many organisations and formations, strategies and tactics are tried out. To repeat my question, do you think the Poll Tax would have been defeated if we’d all united around Kinnock?

Neil on 15 December, 2010 at 7:35 pm said:

#47 “I am perplexed to read that Dave is involved in “attention seeking”, Perhaps you mean that he attended NSSN meetings? something that Socialist party members clearly did not.”

Can you give us some details of these meeting the SP failed to show up at? Also you made some accusations on the other NSSN thread. Can you give us a bit more details on how precisely the SP obstructed work in the SW NSSN?

Neil on 15 December, 2010 at 7:43 pm said:

“Honestly tis is a classic pattern of behaviour for a cult, once an ally has outlived their usefulnes, you turn on them.”

I think you’ll find it’s Dave Chappel who’s turned on us. If you’ll recall he started the round of letter writing with accusations that are demonstratively untrue, like the accusation the SP has blocked attempts to co-operate with other cuts groups.
Nevertheless we are happy to let bygones be bygones if it means unity can be achieved toward practical action. After all if we turned on people who criticised us all the time we’d have fallen out with the SWP in the PCS Broad Left years ago, given all the criticism they’ve thrown our way.

Mike on 15 December, 2010 at 7:43 pm said:

It kinda strikes me that it doesn’t matter who is at ‘fault’ – whether it’s everyone or no-one, and I’m not going to wade in on these issues. This sniping between different sections of the left, each focussing on what they say are the others mistakes, IS the problem. I dont give a rat’s toss which line is doctrinally purer – it’s the outcome that matters – that there is no united anti cuts campaign that covers the country.

If we can’t unite ourselves, how can we possibly unite a wider movement and mount a successful campaign? Why can’t everyone step back and try to move organisationally closer, instead of looking for reasons to divide from the other lot? It’s one thing to be a big fish, but the pool has got to be at least big enough to survive in.

GT on 15 December, 2010 at 7:47 pm said:

The SP is not Militant of the Anti-Poll tax period and really hasnt enough weight to start dictating to anybody that they (through the NSSN)lead a national Anti-Cuts Campaign. They are deluded to think they can pull off such an initiative. The NSSN should stick to its original purpose.

Hopefully some comrades in the SP will start to recognise the organisation’s sectarian methods are no way to build a movement to defeat the Tories/capitalists.

Andy Newman on 15 December, 2010 at 7:51 pm said:

Neil

The socialist party have been almost completely absent from NSSN in the South West. They turned up at the launch meeting, and hardly ever since.

They can give their own account of why, but when the NSSN had monthly meetings, they said it was because NSSN clashed with SP branch meeting.

On one occassion we made a push for a regional meeting in bristol, which was attended by a number of people from Barnstable, Bridgewater, Swindon, Bath and Bristol. only one SP member came (from bristol), had a superior attitude and left early.

Certainly my expereince is that no-one in the Socialst Party in the West Country has been remotely interested in building the NSSN.

Lessons not learnt on 15 December, 2010 at 7:56 pm said:

Andy: could you rescue my comment from the spam filter please? Unless you think that’s where it belongs, in which case fair enough.

Neil on 15 December, 2010 at 7:58 pm said:

#53 Hmm that’s odd, considering there was a big anti cuts march organised by the NSSN, among others, in Bristol on October 23rd. It was quite a successful demo by all accounts with the SP playing a big role in pushing the NSSN. How do you think they managed that if they hadn’t been involved in the NSSN?

By the way was there any attempts to have NSSN meetings at times that didn’t clash with the SP branch meetings? That does seem like a rather curious decision to have the meetings at times that would clash with one of the key component parts of the network.

Andy Newman on 15 December, 2010 at 8:09 pm said:

#57

It was “organised by the NSSN” ???

Interesting. How did it manage to do that while bypassing the structures of the NSSN, and bypassing the people involved with the NSSN, in the South West?

Wasn’t in fact that demo organised by the Bristol and district anti-cuts alliance, and supported primarily by the PCS? Can you explain how the NSSN was involved in building it? certainly as a branch affiliated to the NSSN, and one of the leading and most proactive left union branches in the West Country, we were sent no invitation to an NSSN meeting to discuss the march.

Do you in fact mean that the SP wore an NSSN hat for the day? while you advertised a London meeting?

Organising meetings with active trade unionists is difficult, as people have very full diaries of branch meetings, trades councils, etc. Given that no-one in the SP showed any interest in the NSSN, it seems odd that we shoudl have been expected to chase them!

faultylpgic on 15 December, 2010 at 8:23 pm said:

The Bristol demo cited by the SP member at #57 was not organised or called by NSSN. To claim that it was is to deny reality.

alibi on 15 December, 2010 at 8:40 pm said:

As a non-aligned admirer of the Socialist Party and ex-SSP voter (and currently a floating voter) I find this totally depressing and pretty disappointing. The SP have totally misjudged their relevance in all of this.

Anonymous on 15 December, 2010 at 8:50 pm said:

#45 “Brown clearly reversed a whole decade of neo-Liberal ideology when he took over Northern Rock and a majority share in Lloyds-RBS.”

That’s turning reality on it’s head. The idea that the banks bailout was anything to do with a left (or non neo-liberal if you prefer) perspective, which I assume is implied by the comment, is nonsense. That act was about defending the city and it’s interests and was not in the interests of the mass of the people living in this country. Socialism for the rich as has been said – and the cause of the massive public spending cuts that all the main parties objectively support.

A Very Public Sociologist on 15 December, 2010 at 8:53 pm said:

Sorry Neil, that doesn’t wash. Saying existing organisations aren’t good enough therefore justifies the formation of a separate outfit is a recipe for sectarian splitting. As the original article by Rob Jones and contributions from others in this and the other thread have made clear, the NSSN was talking to other groups anyway about joined-up campaigning. So why is a separate NSSN-sponsored group (with the most clumsy-sounding name ever to have existed in working class politics) needed when the NSSN is already “collaborating” with other groups and is involved in local campaigns?

From the standpoint of the fighting the cuts, I cannot see any reason at all. But from the standpoint of the SP, considering the NSSN only had life in a lot of localities depending on the amount SP branches were prepared to breathe into it, the NSSNABACC will allow them to organise their own party-building anti-cuts activities and public meetings under the banner of a campaign the SP controls. What this means for places where SP branches already work with trades councils and other anti-cuts groups remains to be seen, but I can hazard a guess where the majority of their energies will be going.

As for the Kinnock comparison, are you being serious? CoR has its problems, but what other anti-cuts campaign has a national figure at the forefront of the student protests? What other anti-cuts campaign got 1,300 people at a founding conference, most of whom were the *fresh layers* the SP has longingly banged on about? Which anti-cuts campaign has the greatest media exposure at present? This represents a good beginning for a coordinated nationwide movement and an opportunity to build unity in action. But all this is beyond your leadership, for whom a sectarian vehicle based around SP shibboleths is what the situation demands.

Lessons not learnt on 15 December, 2010 at 9:22 pm said:

I think you put that very well AVPS. I hope it doesn’t sound too detached – after all we are all object and wouldbe subjects in this vicious process – but the current offensive, and in response the first stirrings of a social response, are challenging everyone’s political assumptions and traditions, as well as secondarily their ideologies. Rigidity and a presumption of vindication are very dangerous in such circumstances, and also, I’d venture, rather un-Marxist. It would be easy for some of us to observe this with a knowing, wan smile bordering on schadenfreude. The more difficult issues are how do we avoid the same mentality; how are we genuinely effective; and how do we work with and learn from others to rescue the broader tradition from these kinds of pathologies?

I don’t have an easy answer to those questions. But I am not too tolerant of those who don’t recognise their pertinence at moments like this.

Andy Newman on 15 December, 2010 at 9:22 pm said:

#57

Neil,

generally, there is a problem of sense of entitlement here from you.

The SP is invisible in trades councils in the south west, non-existent on the SW TUC, and to take one example, the only SP led union branch near me is also the only local UNISON branch to play no role in local trades councils, to do no networking with other activists and and offer no support with other unions, has done no work against the BNP, it is one of the only branches not to cooperate with sending people to Tolpuddle, etc, etc. but the chair did stand for no2eu for european parliament!

So why should we defer to your *leadership* when you haven’t done the work, and extablished any contacts, and haven’t established any credibility?

take it from me, the SP have shown absolutely no interst in the NSSN. To take the example of Doug Lowe, whose son cropped up earlier with a personal attack on dave Chapple. Doug Lowe has done absolutely nothing to support NSSN, even down to not getting in touch. yet he comes onto blogs and criticises those who are involved.

Your ludicrous claim that the NSSN was instrumental in the Bristol anti-cuts march just undermines your credibility. perhaps the SP comrades in Bristol have been stringing you a line.

Jim L. on 15 December, 2010 at 9:23 pm said:

A number of points to respond to.

#49 – Once again, Newman resorts to personal attacks and red herrings. What me and Doug have or haven’t done in the NSSN is an irrelevance. In our defence, attempts to drum up interest in North Devon about the NSSN foundered, largely in part because the small pool of trade union activists in North Devon constitute something of an informal network already. The NSSN is most effective where it can bring together TUists who have previously worked apart, but this is not the case in North Devon.

As for Dave Chapple’s attention seeking, his meddling in the internal affairs of other unions is notorious, and he can hardly be regarded a shrinking violet when it comes to self-promotion. Comrades in Exeter have experienced his hostility to the SP, regardless of what he tells you.

As for all the stuff about cults, I don’t really understand what you mean. We work with many people from different organisations and perspectives perfectly well, your bile is showing through.

#54 Arguing for points you believe to be correct, and winning other people over to this perspective (which given that we are generally in the minority in anti-cuts groups and the NSSN) is not ‘dictating’ to anyone. If anything, tying the hands of the anti-cuts movement by this obsession with involving people who are pro-cuts will damage the movement.

#55 First of all, you can at least spell the name of our town correctly – it’s Barnstaple. Quite simple. Secondly, a regional meeting was organised in Bristol at short notice. Many people have committments, personal, work and political, and Bristol is a considerably difficult place to get to from North Devon and other places in the SW (why not Exeter or Plymouth for a south west meeting?), particularly if you have to travel by public transport as I do.

#62 You are completely misrepresenting what the NSSN initiative represents, and how it differs from the RTW and COR. From its inception, the local anti-cuts group I am a part of has been hostile to the idea of the unilateral establishment of a national campaign which then says to individuals and groups: “we are the national campaign, join us” – and this is what COR and RTW. By way of contrast, the NSSN initiative involves the coming together of local campaign groups to form a national alliance, which will be organisationally separate from the structures of the NSSN.

To not understand why that is a more attractive option is to not get that many local campaign groups believe, as I do, that only through the coming together of local groups can a natural national alliance be forged. NSSN are playing the midwife here. As a SP member already in a thriving local anti-cuts group, I see this as an excellent initiative that will enable vital links to be forged between all the myriad local groups.

Jim L. on 15 December, 2010 at 9:25 pm said:

#63 The point you make about Doug not getting in touch about NSSN is just a flat out lie.

And by the way, have you ever considered that we don’t get heavily involved in SW TUC is because in general, it’s a pointless talking shop with endless light refreshments? I can see why you like it, but we have better uses for our time.

Andy Newman on 15 December, 2010 at 9:28 pm said:

#64

“Secondly, a regional meeting was organised in Bristol at short notice. Many people have committments, personal, work and political, and Bristol is a considerably difficult place to get to from North Devon and other places in the SW ”

so why couldn’t SP members from Bristol make it?

As for you arguments about North Devon, at any time we would have scheduled a meeting in N Devon. You never contacted us to ask, so you gave up after a few half arsed conversations of your own, rather than working or collaborating with other activists already in the network. well done.

Jim L. on 15 December, 2010 at 9:31 pm said:

#66 There was nothing half-arsed about it, there was a concerted effort. And if we’re going to have a meeting in North Devon, if there had been enough interest in a formal network, we are perfectly capable of organising ourselves. We don’t need the big boys from Bristol to do it for us. Once again you repeat the lie about not getting in touch. If we didn’t get in touch, why is Doug on Chapple’s email list? Stop talking crap from a position of ignorance (if you did take this advice then you would have to stop producing this blog of course, but I’m sure we’ll all survive).

Jim L. on 15 December, 2010 at 9:36 pm said:

Also, can I add that the NSSN is a means to an end – that end being to forge links between TU activists in order to aid struggles on industrial and political planes. There is little objective need for that in North Devon, given the extensive informal links in an area with comparatively fewer TUists. What matters is what use these links are put to, be they more formal (NSSN) or less so. In North Devon we have a vigorous anti-cuts movement? What have you been doing, aside from looking forward to the tuna sandwiches at the next SW TUC meeting?

Bob on 15 December, 2010 at 9:48 pm said:

If it is the case that the only ones who voted with the SP were all SP members then whether the SP is right or is really beside the point. To proceed under the banner of such tactics is bad for business. It is the epitome of sectarianism and arrogance and a political dead end. Rather than asserting their righteousness, the SP should back track and encourage a new round of discussion.

It may have happened that the vote just unfolded that way but surely whatever the SP hopes to achieve can be slowed down and adjusted given that this leaves them so open to attack…

Jim L. on 15 December, 2010 at 9:50 pm said:

#69 There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss the way forward at the conference on the 22nd.

Jim L. on 15 December, 2010 at 9:51 pm said:

And either way, whatever we do, there are elements on the left (including the host of this blog) who will attack the SP whatever is done.

faultylpgic on 15 December, 2010 at 9:54 pm said:

JIM, Why does the SP claim that NSSN called the Bristol demo when this is not true.

Andy Newman on 15 December, 2010 at 9:59 pm said:

#68

So the limit of your vision of a trade union network is North Devon?

And you can see no potential for the NSSN, becasue the activist already know each other.

unbelievable.

Jim L. on 15 December, 2010 at 10:01 pm said:

#73 I don’t know who called the Bristol demo, but it’s not a particularly important point. The fact that the NSSN was heavily promoted by the demo is more important.

Andy Newman on 15 December, 2010 at 10:02 pm said:

#65

Jim Lowe:
“As for Dave Chapple’s attention seeking, his meddling in the internal affairs of other unions is notorious, and he can hardly be regarded a shrinking violet when it comes to self-promotion. “

Well, i have my many disagreements with dave. But his involvement in the TU movment is an asset.

It is interesting that an SP member voices excatly the same criticism of dave that the right wing witchhunters in the region do.

Jim L. on 15 December, 2010 at 10:05 pm said:

#74 I am stating that as a factor as to why the idea of the NSSN did not gain much traction. And the point I was making about us organising our own meeting if there had been interest was in response to your patronising suggestion that the supermen of Bristol and Swindon would intervene to do what the uncivilised natives couldn’t.

Jim L. on 15 December, 2010 at 10:08 pm said:

#76 There is a considerable difference between offering support and solidarity to members of other trade unions, and the abject meddling and interfering Chapple engages in.

Alan Gibbons on 15 December, 2010 at 10:10 pm said:

This discussion should start with the political context. A relatively weak, but very combative and ideological Government alliance is moving quickly to dismantle the Welfare State. It is using ‘localism’ to pass the blame for cuts from national to local government. Labour is uncertain, unconfident and wedded to neo-liberatlism. Two and a half million people are out of work. Youth unemployment is soaring to record levels. The students have demonstrated an admirable will to fight. There have been some encouraging demonstrations by trade unions and communities, but nothing on the scale of the student revolt and the TUC’s demonstration is desperately late, taking place towards the end of March.
All this adds up to an urgent need for a single, united, non-sectarian anti-cuts movement. The Coalition of Resistance held a hugely successful conference, but other bodies such as the Right to Work and the NSSN have forces that can be brought into play. We need the various bodies who want to resist the cuts and the ConDem offensive to negotiate at the very least a ‘non-aggression’ pact and a genuine desire to cooperate. I have no problems with principled arguments, but when the various Popes of the Left start yelling edicts at one another I feel like knocking their heads together.
If we fail to achieve united action, the UK could be unrecognisable within four years. Does anyone on the Left really want to bear responsibility for allowing a defeat of historic proportions?

Andy Newman on 15 December, 2010 at 10:10 pm said:

#78

It is interesting that an SP member voices excatly the same criticism of dave that the right wing witchhunters in the region do.

Andy Newman on 15 December, 2010 at 10:11 pm said:

#68

“If we didn’t get in touch, why is Doug on Chapple’s email list? “

I passed Doug’s details on to Dave C IIRC

Jim L. on 15 December, 2010 at 10:15 pm said:

#79 – it means there needs to be a successful anti-cuts movement. A couple of minor anti-cuts groups which have dwindled due to an ineffective tactical stance would not hinder a mass campaign that has grown because it has the correct programme to fight the cuts. I believe the tactics advocated by the SP (maximum unity of all those prepared to fight the cuts) are correct, they may prove not to be, but I suspect that they will prevail. This does not mean that we will not work with people or groups with differing perspectives, we always have and always will.

#80 Andy, you’re repeating yourself dear, time to take a lie down.

Jim L. on 15 December, 2010 at 10:16 pm said:

#81 That doesn’t mean that you aren’t lying through your teeth about Doug getting in touch about the NSSN in the SW. If you keep lying like this, Santa won’t bring the Trabant you asked for.

faultylpgic on 15 December, 2010 at 10:20 pm said:

So Jim the SP told a pack of lies about the Bristol demo…shameful.

Vicky on 15 December, 2010 at 10:24 pm said:

#62 ‘CoR has its problems,but what other anti cuts campaign has a figure at the forefront of the student protests’
Well done Clare Solomon but well done to Mark Bergen who has stood his ground on the NUS exec so lets not pretend the CoR is the main organisation driving the student rebellion
Incidently it could be put ‘what other anti cuts campaign has put a couple of witchunting right wing UNISON bureaucrats on its platform,neither of whom has lifted a finger to support the students’ Not much resistance there I’m afraid

Jim L. on 15 December, 2010 at 10:27 pm said:

#84 I don’t know about the Bristol demo. Maybe it was organised by the Bristol Anti-Cuts Alliance but just supported by the NSSN. If this is the case then Neil, who like me is not based in Bristol, has made a mistake, but this does not constitute ‘a pack of lies’. Firstly it is one thing, and not a pack, and secondly, a lie is a deliberate (not an inadvertant) mistruth. Contrast that to Newman, who knows full well that Doug did contact NSSN-SW, and yet persists in saying that no contact was made. This is not the first time Newman has made this false claim, it is something he likes to pull out of the bag when he needs a red herring because he is badly losing the argument.

faultylpgic on 15 December, 2010 at 11:02 pm said:

#86 Its just a bit worrying to claim an organisation was responsible for demo when it was not responsible.It is this sort of thing that gives the SP a bad name. I understand it was the Bristol anti-cuts alliance called the demo. I am of the view that this is a broad based campaign and not a front for the SP. It obviously going to annoy lots of people that the SP is going round claiming its behind things which it isn’t. This shows why the SP’s attempt at another national anti cuts organisation is sectarian folly.

Jim L. on 15 December, 2010 at 11:10 pm said:

#87 You really are making a big deal out of nothing. If it was the Bristol Anti-Cuts Alliance, then Neil made a mistake, but it was a genuine one in the middle of a load of other points he wanted to make, from a comrade not based in Bristol. It is certainly not “the SP going round claiming things”.

As for your final sentence, you have me a little worried that I am being kept out of the loop on something, a misplaced email perhaps. I am not aware of the Socialist Party setting up a national anti-cuts organisation.

What I am aware of, however, is that the National Shop Stewards Network (which was set up by the RMT, with most of the participants not members of the SP) are hosting a conference with the aim of bringing together local anti-cuts groups into a national alliance.

mint on 15 December, 2010 at 11:21 pm said:

I just read through all these comments. I am so fucking glad I’m not a trot anymore! (If I was though, I’d be considering the SP to have lost this little fight)

If the working class is ever going to defeat these cuts, it’ll be despite not because of you.

All your energies are directed into trying to take leadership of the movement against austerity. Well, if the student movement’s any indication, we’re not going to let ourselves be led by you or anyone!
I’m a working class person, and myself and a whole group of friends and others got involved with anti-Iraq War stuff just before leaving school. A few joined the SWP, as it was their front group who had control of that movement, sucking it of all its value and strength. A couple then joined other trotskyist groups or front groups. With only one exception, they have all become utterly disillusioned with left wing politics. And rightly so, the official Left is a nasty controlling swarm of viciously sectarian groups competing to lead the working class (only capable of a trade-union consciousness, of course 😉 ).

In some ways I’m pleased you’re so sectarian and divided. If you were working togather well, you really could create a national body that could control working class anger into the ‘right’ channels, like getting a Labour government elected or something else which takes power away from the working class into so-called representatives of the working class.

Not sure why I wrote this tbh, I haven’t read something like this in a few years, and it got me thinking…
For a working class in control of its own strugglesl! For communism!

mint on 15 December, 2010 at 11:28 pm said:

Also, I saw it mentioned by someone else some way up on this page that the Left should organise within Labour and try challenge the leadership, using the Aaron Porter, NUS thing as an example.
It shows how totally the Left has misjudged and underestimated us in the student movement if you think we give a shit about the NUS anymore. It’s redundant and dead, good riddance.

How many people was it who turned up to their candlelight vigil on the 9th again?

Jim L. on 15 December, 2010 at 11:38 pm said:

Mint – the major tactical difference that underpins these arguments is about the Labour Party. The likes of Newman, the Coalition of Resistance and the Right to Work campaign think the activities of the anti-cuts movement should have to work around getting Labour candidates elected, even if they are for the cuts, or vote for them in the council chamber. The Socialist Party on the other hand, seeks maximum unity of all those opposed to the cuts, and who are prepared to act on this. We have no interest in getting Labour into power so they can administer their brand of cuts, or orientate ourselves to spineless (his words to describe himself) opportunists like Aaron Porter.

Neither the NSSN or any proposed national anti-cuts groups will be fronts, but that doesn’t mean the Socialist Party will not shrink from arguing what we believe to be the correct tactics. We will work with anyone to defeat the cuts, in an open and cooperative way. We are doing now, up and down the country. But any unity has be on a principled basis to oppose all the cuts, and we shouldn’t kowtow to those who might speak against the cuts, but are not prepared to translate those words into action by voting against cuts in Parliament or councils – to accept these two-faced careerists into the movement would be a big mistake, and would hobble the anti-cuts movement.

The NSSN initiated conference is aimed at helping local groups to form a national alliance. I hope, and expect this will result in national coordination but local control, in stark contrast to the top-down approaches of the national campaigns that just set themselves up and then asked people and groups to join. If you can, try and make it to the conference on the 22nd January, I think you will be more than slightly surprised that we are not the monsters that many portray us to be, but committed activists who want to work with anyone on a principled basis to fight the cuts.

The Undertaker on 15 December, 2010 at 11:44 pm said:

‘For Communism’ how charming and how irrelevent bit like the sooper dooper anarchists who denounce all leaders except themselves maaaaan
Its a pity you are so cynical and at apparently such a young age
The SWP ‘front gropu’ you speak of wasn’t the Stop the War Coalition by any chance was it ,you know the one that organised that 2 milion strong demo back in 2003,shit if only the likes of yourself had thought of it first we’d have had no need to spend all those Trot hours booking coaches ,doing ring rounds raising money etc it would have all happened as Tommy Cooper used to say Just Like that’
Who needs ideas or organisation when we can just join the throng then slag off those who organise it
Somehow think its past your bed time nite nite

The Undertaker on 15 December, 2010 at 11:52 pm said:

# Dear Jim you might have forgotten the days when your organisation spent most of its time tramping the streets trying to get Labour Councillors elected but I haven’t
Perhaps you can enlighten us with when and where the RTW have said the ‘activites of the anti cuts movement should have to work around getting Labour Councillors elected even if they are for the cuts’
Or is such crazy statement more an indication that the SP has finally lost it ,with politics as honest as yours is it any wonder you have wrecked the NSSN
I might just go on the 22nd to see the last rites being read
You never know one day you might end up back in the ‘mass party of the working class’
How’s Degsy these days ?

mint on 16 December, 2010 at 12:03 am said:

The Undertaker:
I’m charmed by your concern thanks. I’m in my mid-20s now, but yes I am young.
You are correct: it was Stop the War Coalition. I take it you’re SWP. Your argument is a joke. Why do you think I am opposed to ideas and organisation (I think both are vital)?! I don’t merely slag off those who organise! I’m active organising and in national and local organisations, as it happens.
I have spent quite a lot of time in the last few weeks organising coaches for protests myself, and appreciate it’s pretty dull and you probably put a lot of work into it. I
I think the student protests in the last few weeks have been more powerful than the 2million strong mobilisations in London, though they were impressive numerically. But after that thousands got involved, and thousands dropped out of the coalition, the SWP, and the Left.
I think a much more interesting response to the war was one truck driver who refused to carry weapons which were going to be used for the war. That’s a different discussion though.

As for “those sooper dooper anarchists who denounce all leaders except themselves maaaaan”, I am a class struggle anarchist, but I hate anti-organisationals, hippies and individualists, so that stereotype doesn’t work I’m afraid The point of denouncing the concept of leadership is that instead we all make decisions directly, and mandate a delegate to take forward our decision (y’know, workers’ councils and that?).

mint on 16 December, 2010 at 12:08 am said:

Btw, the ‘For Communism’ thing was tongue-in-cheek you lovelies – I felt that I’d bring a little light and passion into your debate.
It’s not like either of us is going to change the others’ mind unfortunately, I’m just providing you with some light cannon fodder and me with some (very) mild entertainment

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 12:09 am said:

can we have some clarification.

Jim Lowe, a socialist party member has repeated the smears used against Dave Chapple by the right wing in the Labour movement. Dave Chapple is a great bloke, with whom I have profound disagreements about many things, but is an undoubted asset to the movement. he does however occassionaly suffer from a whispering campiagn from right wingers, the whispers which Jim has just repeated.

No other Socialist Party member has sought to distance themselves from that; is it now Ok to try to damage the repuation of other militants is there is a tactical falling out wth them?

Why was the SP prepared to happily work with dave Chaple, and then as soon as there is a tactical disagreemtn with him, SP members are spreafing right wng innuendos against dave on the blogs.

Incidently, Neil was full of shit saying that the NSSN had been a backer of the Bristol anti-cuts demo, but he acheived his purpose of defelcting attention away from the almost total lack of interest in the NSSN from socialist party members in the South West.

Neil on 16 December, 2010 at 12:17 am said:

Bloody hell I go away for a few hours and I find a tempest in a tea cup in place of rational debate! I didn’t say the NSSN called the Bristol demo. I said it played a role among others.

Desperate stuff Andy.

Neil on 16 December, 2010 at 12:22 am said:

By the way Andy you are not doing yourself any favours by claiming I am “full of shit”. Number one it’s a very crude way of expressiong yourself when you know you can do better. Number two I may be mistaken on things but I do not lie. I think you should tone down the aggression a wee bit.

Que? on 16 December, 2010 at 12:24 am said:

Unbelievable. So the objections to CoR are that they want people to join an umbrella national group, so the alternative is to set up a conference (at the end of January!) to tell people to join an umbrella national group that happens to be dominated by yourselves. This coincidentally on the same day as your next way electoral lash-up conference. And you don’t want to spend your time getting Labour councillors elected – ? – no-one at CoR has any plans for CoR to do this but plans to support any local group, individual, councillor etc. who stands against the cuts – if you’d come to the conference you might have seen this. I’d like everyone to work together but suspect the anti-cuts movement will do better to leave this irrelevant sectarian bickering behind. Fiddling while the welfare state burns.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 12:34 am said:

#98

Fair point. You have conducted your self with great restarint, and I shoudl not have used insulting language referring to you. sorry

In mitigation, I am a bit cross about Jim’s repeating of the right wing innuendos which are used against Dave Chapple by people who are no friends of the left, Dave is a friend as well as a comrade. And I am slghtly concerned that no-one from the SP has distanced themselves from that line of attack. Hence my slightly aggressive attitude.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 12:35 am said:

#97

” I said it played a role among others.”

what role did it play?

Neil on 16 December, 2010 at 12:36 am said:

#99 Eh? Nobody in the SP is objecting to the CoR setting up their group. More power to their elbow I say. What we disagree on is your refusal to take a clear position on all political parties and councils who implement cuts. Where we agree on things, like building for the March TUC demo we can work together. Where we don’t agree, such Labour council’s implementing cuts we will have to work separately. Simples.

And where has this idea that TUSC are having their conference on the same day as the NSSN come from? (Your not the first person to come up with this rumour)
If folks are going to make stuff up you could at least make it credible. Why would we want to have two conference going at the same time? See, it makes no sense.
I presume you are referring to a TUSC meeting on the day afterwards? That is not an open delegate conference like the NSSN. It is a meeting of reps from the component organisations plus reps from the last election campaigns to discuss the upcoming local and regional elections.

Jim L. on 16 December, 2010 at 12:38 am said:

#96 – I have no knowledge of any right-wing whispering campaign against Dave Chapple, I am simply expressing my own views (and those of other trade union activists in North Devon who have shared their views on Chapple, and who are most definately of the left) as to his conduct.

I have held these views long before he set out to attack the Socialist Party, and I think it is relevant to point out such things to those not familiar with Chapple, and who may be under the false impression that he may be uncomfortable in drawing attention to himself.

By the way Andy, I do admire your ability to juggle two things at once. In post #96 you have managed to combine hammy, dramatic pomposity with base insult. You also seem to believe that A. the Socialist Party has an iron, totalitarian grip on the workings of the NSSN and B. That we are not interested in it and barely involved. It takes an unusual mind to resolve what seems to my lesser, mortal mind, to be a stark raving contradiction.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 12:40 am said:

#102

And where has this idea that TUSC are having their conference on the same day as the NSSN come from? (Your not the first person to come up with this rumour)

this would make a cat weep. Look at the TUSC website, and the NSSN websites. Aren’t you in the loop Neil?

NSSN conference

from the NSSN website
http://www.shopstewards.net/

, conference is at

South Camden Community School, Charrington Street 22nd January, 12 noon to 4:00 pm

quote from the TUSC website:

http://www.tusc.org.uk/bulletin2.php

TUSC calls election campaign conference for Saturday, 22 January 2011 in London – 3.30pm to 6.00pm
TUSC will be standing candidates in the May 2011 local council elections that are taking place in every area of England except London. TUSC is also involved in discussions to organise an election challenge for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections…

The conference is scheduled to follow the NSSN conference against the cuts also being held on 22 January 2011: http://www.shopstewards.net/

If we are to beleive the advertised timings, they are not only in the same venue, but they overlap for 30 minutes!

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 12:42 am said:

#103

. You also seem to believe that A. the Socialist Party has an iron, totalitarian grip on the workings of the NSSN and B. That we are not interested in it and barely involved.

yes you have sought to keep an firm grip on the national structures, while in the West Country you have shown no interest in building it as a real network involving the difficult long term work with lay union activists who have their own ideas far away from the SP’s politics.

i.e you want to keep contrl, and where you are not in control (as in the West Country) you don’t really want it to succeed, and pull out.

rule or ruin, we have seen it so many times before.

Jim L. on 16 December, 2010 at 12:48 am said:

#105 But as I have said before, the NSSN is a network that works in certain circumstances, but not necessarily in others. It is a means to the end of the cooperation and coordination of trade union activists in an area, and in some places, where there is a small pool of trade union activists, informal contacts and networks suffice to the extent that it was not practical to establish a NSSN group that would have just been formalised meetings of people who meet up and know each other anyway. I know that’s anathema to someone with bureaucratised politics such as yours, but it is the case I’m afraid.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 12:52 am said:

#106

Jim

Trade union struggle needs networks of solidarity, and political contacts well beyond the confines of the north part of a rural county. Your disdain for operating through the official structures reveals that you have a bit of an anarcho-syndicalist streak in you.
Anyone who has worked with me will laugh at your beleif that I am bureaucratic, I am Mr informal networks personified; but I also understand the value of working with the official structures. There are some things you need to get done that way, there are some things you get done by informal networking.

Neil on 16 December, 2010 at 12:52 am said:

#101 My understanding is that it did play a role. I was not in Bristol so it may be that I am wrong, in which case I will retract it.

#97 I don’t know anything about a whispering campaign against Dave Chappel, but the SP has always fought against and opposed witch hunts in the labour movement. I do know he has gone behind the back of the NSSN and published an attack on the SP that contains blatant untruths.

I think Dave and the signatories of this letter have made an error in publishing it on the eve of the TUSG meeting when there is still time to have an open and fair debate at the conference. I don’t think any one will deny that NSSN conference have been the most open and participatory of their kind. There has never been any hint of manipulation, packing or skull-duggery at any of the NSSN conferences. This is why it’s such a slap in the face that Dave has turned around and done what he has done and worse opened the door to people who want to destroy the NSSN. If the SP had manipulated the SC meeting then it would be a different story but it has not.
Dave, and the signatories are of course perfectly entitled to air their views publicly but I wish they had put their confidence in the conference rather than attack people who have worked along side them for years. The fact that he has said things that are just not true has also been a huge blunder.
Nevertheless all is not lost. One positive thing about the letter is that the debate about whether the NSSN should participate in the anti cuts movement is out in the open. Everyone has put their cards on the table. I just hope Dave and the rest of the signatories put as much energy into building the conference as they have into planning this attack.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 12:53 am said:

any reply from Neil about the “rumour” that NSSN and TUSC conferences are on the same day, which Neil denies, even though the TUSC website says they are on the same day.

Jim L. on 16 December, 2010 at 12:54 am said:

#105 you have mischievously added the last two lines after posting that. Anyone without the crazed sectarian hatred of the SP that can only come from your dislike of our critical position on the Labour Party, will realise that the SP works in many campaigns and groups where we do not constitute the majority. We work in the NSSN to advance our own ideas concerning tactics or whatever – what is wrong with that? Are we to be deemed ‘controlling’ because many of the activists happen to agree with us, and so approve of the things that we propose and vote for SP members to be on the steering committee?

I can’t speak for comrades in other areas, and given your mendacity in other respects I cannot take you on your word about SP non-involvement in other areas, but as I have explained at length, our decision in North Devon to spend our time in other ways apart from the NSSN has nothing to do with whether we ‘control’ the NSSN in the SW.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 12:57 am said:

#110

ahh, so you admit that Socialist Party members in Devon have not been involved in the NSSN.

Can you now clarify why SP members in Bristol and Wiltshire have not been involved in the NSSN either?

Neil on 16 December, 2010 at 12:57 am said:

#104 Fair enough, I got my dates mixed up.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 12:59 am said:

#112
Well don’t you think it is a bit crass, having them in the same venue, one after the other.

Ae you unaware of the dificulties this may create for some people in UNISON and some GMB regions who might want to attend?

Jim L. on 16 December, 2010 at 12:59 am said:

#108 If there is a right-wing whispering campaign, the whispers are very quiet indeed, because I am not aware of it, and nor are others. There is discontent however, from many on the left of the trade union movement in the SW, at some of Dave Chapple’s actions over the last few years, which I do not put here in case there is a right-wing campaign against him brewing, which I do not want to provide ammunition for.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 1:01 am said:

#114

“which I do not want to provide ammunition for.”

bit bloody late.

Perhaps if you didn’t have the haughty disdain that you have shown for working through the official regional structures of the union movement then you wouldn’t be ignorant of the politics that goes on there.

You have admitted that the SP has no interest in working with other left trad eunionists throug the SW TUC structures, and then act suprised that there are political currents in those structures that you are unaware of.

Jim L. on 16 December, 2010 at 1:01 am said:

#110 I said North Devon, not Devon, and I have stated several times on this thread about the attempts to establish a NSSN group in North Devon, and the reasons why that may have failed. I cannot speak for the rest of Devon or the South West. You will forgive me for not believing what you say in this regard, given your record of lying about the SP and SP members.

Neil on 16 December, 2010 at 1:02 am said:

#112 Not really, bear in mind it saves people having to shuttle down constantly to London.
Are you telling me GMB would witch hunt members because they were in the same building as a TUSC meeting!?!

Jim L. on 16 December, 2010 at 1:03 am said:

#115 Criticising someone is not providing ammunition. Providing the examples would be, which is why I’m not doing it.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 1:05 am said:

#117

I wouldn’t say any such thing, especialy as it would be outside GMB rules to make any such suggestion.

The linkeage between the NSSN and TUSC that this combnaton of conferences provides would be interpreted as evidence for those who want to see it that the NSSN is hostile to the Labour Party, which would make it harder to win support for the NSSN in many GMB branches and committees.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 1:06 am said:

#116

“You will forgive me for not believing what you say in this regard, given your record of lying about the SP and SP members.”

Jim

I don’t lie.

Jim L. on 16 December, 2010 at 1:09 am said:

#120 Another lie. You said that Doug did not contact NSSN-SW. That is a lie. Unless you are genuinely mistaken, but given that you have made this allegation previously and been put right, I suspect you are just outright lying.

The Undertaker on 16 December, 2010 at 1:17 am said:

#65 Dave Chapple took a very principled position on the vicious witchunt against SWP and SP members in UNISON by making it clear such attacks were an issue for every trade unionist regardless of whether they are in UNISON or not.
Is that what you mean by ‘meddling in the internal affairs of other unions’ and if so not only should you hang your head in shame but I suspect some of your own comrades in the SP who have been witchunted may well find your comments as vile as I do
On this issue I ( choke) find myself in 100% agreement with Andy ( sorry Andy)

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 1:18 am said:

well Jim

Readers of this blog will simply have to meaure my reputation for truthfulness against yours.

You admit youself that Doug took no part in any NSSN SW activities.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 1:20 am said:

#122

“On this issue I ( choke) find myself in 100% agreement with Andy ( sorry Andy)”

I am as shocked as you t find we agree. Perhaps it wil be like one of those Mills and Boon romances, and we will end up being wonderfully happy together despite initial frcition.

Jim L. on 16 December, 2010 at 1:23 am said:

#122 That is not what I regard as meddling, no. I do not regard solidarity and support to be meddling, that is not it at all. To elaborate further would be unwise.

#123 In terms of regional events, no he hasn’t. But that was in part because he received no response to his emails. I am annoyed that you continued to riff on your false claim, and have used it to provide a red herring for the genuine arguments.

The Undertaker on 16 December, 2010 at 1:34 am said:

Steady on Andy where would be the fun in that !
The plain fact is the SP has fucked up big style and has painted itself into a corner.
It is the logical conclusion of its crazy contention that the Labour Party is no different from the Tories line
Maybe they could hook up with the RCG they do a good line in cretinous anti Labourism

Jim L. on 16 December, 2010 at 1:41 am said:

#126 The Labour line is different from the Tory line by a matter of degrees, not fundamentally different. That said, there are many genuine Labour activists who want to fight the cuts and we work happily with these.

I will clarify that I am not aware of any right-wing witchhunt against Dave Chapple, and would stand in solidarity with Dave Chapple in the event of such a witchhunt. This does not mean I have to forfeit the right to criticise him. I applaud him for his role in opposing the witchhunt in UNISON, and in no way criticise anyone who steps into the fray in another union with the support of rank-and-file members in that union. That is not what I am criticising him for.

I’m sure you understand my reticence in outlining my (and others) precise grievance, because if there is indeed a right-wing campaign against him, I have no desire to help that.

In future please do not jump to false conclusions and then denounce people based on them. To think I would criticise Chapple for standing against the UNISON witchhunt is bizarre and not a little insulting.

Ray on 16 December, 2010 at 2:34 am said:

It’s interesting that Neil and Jim seem to think that it’s a minor indiscretion to blatantly lie about who is actually organising demos and other activity. In their world it appears that the people doing the donkey work are merely disposable grunts who don’t deserve credit. The fallout of this mess will be a tiny NSSN rump controlled by the SP who fail to build any resistance while the rest of us get on with doing all the work as usual. As for the right wing Chappel smears by the SP – desperate people resort to desperate measures.

Memory of the class on 16 December, 2010 at 4:57 am said:

Yes, Ray, sometimes desperate people do desperate and despicable things, such as alienate all their allies, take an ultra left turn, use right Wong smears against those they have fallen out with, accuse respected trade unionists of (ballot-rigging, wasn’t it), and denounce those who disagree with them ad witch-hunters all the time pleading that they are being democratic because they are stitching up a conference.

This behaviour is always contemptible, whoever does it.

Next Left on 16 December, 2010 at 5:02 am said:

‘Crimes’

‘Unholy alliance’

‘For a principled active intervention in the coming battles!’

I think Chris Morris is working on a satire of the far left and this statement forms part of his production strategy.

Anonymous on 16 December, 2010 at 8:23 am said:

#131 Next Left you obviously hang out with the wrong kind of shop stewards, i hear “for a principled active intervention in the coming battles” all the time. Just ask Gerry Downing, oh i forgot he isn’t a shop steward and is masquerading as one on the NSSN

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 8:31 am said:

#77

Jim Lowe

“And the point I was making about us organising our own meeting if there had been interest was in response to your patronising suggestion that the supermen of Bristol and Swindon would intervene to do what the uncivilised natives couldn’t.”

This is a fundamanetal misrepresentation of the argument, and also reveals Jim’s sectarian mindset.

A number of activisst from across the weast Country were involved in NSSN, and we democratically decided that the most effective way to organise was on a regaional basis, to build the networks of contacts and solidarity that would be hellpful to us, and to building shop steward capacity in the movement.

the Socialist party in general decided not to bother.

In the particular case of North Devon, I have said we would willingly hav e had the regional meetng in Devon if that would help people participate; that is not the same as saying we would come an tel them what to do.

Incidently, at least one and I think two NSSN meetings were in Bridgewater. Not that far.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 9:04 am said:

Incidently, Jim Lowe still leaves up this looming vague accsuation that Dave C is well known for interfering in other unions.

One might think that as Jim admits to having zero knowlwdge of trade union politics in the West Country, (abusing those many lay trades council reps who take part in SW TUC activities as only doing it for the light refreshments), then he might hold back in smearing other left wing trades unionists, reckless of whether it is helping the right wing.

But Jim, having given credibility to the right wing whispering campaign, then refuses to withdraw the accusation and apologise, instead he says that he simply won’t gve details. Implying that there is some substance to the rumours.

No, Dave Chapple has stood in solidarity with activist. like Tony Staunton but also Nigel Behan in UNISON; and he recently worked very hard behind the scenes to resolve tensions around Plymouth TUC.

But I think the big dark secret that Jim is referring to is the shock revelation that Dave Chapple openly suported Jerry Hicks as general secretary candidate for UNITE.

It is easy for Neil here to say that the Socialist party is totally opposed to witchhunts; but Jim Lowe is a SP member, and he is giving credibility to the rumours put around by the witchunters. yet no one from the SP has criticised Jim for that here, or distanced themselves from it.

John T Chance on 16 December, 2010 at 9:12 am said:

The SWP bashing in the SP reply is so irrevelant to the matter in hand it makes me wonder if the SP is circling the wagons too but I have to say I don’t really understand the strategy behind their position either. Theres no chance of a breakthough for the left of labour in May but extra-parliamentary struggles that weakens the coalition and makes it impossible to enact their full austerity programme will lead to rifts that could cause the fall of the government. That would be a massive step forward the left, the trade unions and would be a warning to Labour to steer to the left or be disiplined by the movement itself. The best thing that all the left groups can do is ask their comrades to constructively build broad anticuts groups in their areas – thankfully in my area the SWP, SP, Greens and Labour members are doing this together.

Phil on 16 December, 2010 at 9:13 am said:

I’m afraid this is one for the annals of party degeneration & cultic organisational pathologies (which is a damn shame – I thought the SP was in better shape than that). Two quotes:

it was the SWP who launched the sectarian attack on the fire-fighters at the end of their recent dispute. As RTW, they also invaded the ACAS talks in the BA dispute, and were widely criticised by rank and file Unite members. In a similar sectarian fashion they attacked the Lindsey strikers, as well as the left-led PCS leadership – particularly its general secretary Mark Serwotka over the alleged pension “sell-out” (in 2005). It is they who set up RTW 18 months ago as a rival to the NSSN. In the London Student Assembly this week, they actually voted against supporting the January NSSN Conference but now say they want to build for it to ’save’ the NSSN!

Dave Chapple also accuses us of not wanting unity. This is a lie.

“How dare they say we’re not open to principled co-operation with other groups! We’re a damn sight more open to principled co-operation with other groups than any of those bastards!”

Senga on 16 December, 2010 at 9:24 am said:

I will be attending the NSSN conference on 22nd January as I, like many others I work alongside, are very concerned about the attacks that are coming to our jobs, pensions and redundancy rights. To my knowledge, none of the other anti cuts groups are putting anything effective forward in terms of fighting the cuts.
At least the NSSN is rooted in the trade unions and is putting forward a no to ANY cuts policy (which by the way is the same position as the PCS union).
Many of the students I’ve been talking to on demos have been asking where the trade unions are in all of this – having a body like the NSSN cuts across all the heavy bureaucratic methods that organisations like the TUC adopt to hold back workers (the instruction to call a national demo against youth unemployment by the end of this year is a good example).
I can’t see what the problem is about them organising a conference on 22nd Jan and please refrain from directing any sort of mental ranting in my direction – I am entitled to my opinin and it makes you look pathetic.
I’m looking forward to 2011 when we’ll hopefully see more normal, ordinary people coming into the movement which will sweep away all the out dated posturing and develop a genuine movement capable of defeating these cuts.

P.S am new to all this blogging stuff.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 9:26 am said:

#135

I am indeed at a loss to undersatdn the relevence of the SWP to the issue at hand at all.

There is a dispute over the nature and future of the NSSN mainly from non-aligned activists.

The opposition to the SP’s position does not come from the SWP at all.

That is sadly one of the indicatotrs of cult mindset; as is the immediate response of an SP members to start spreading gossip about Dave Chapple.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 9:31 am said:

#136

“a no to ANY cuts policy (which by the way is the same position as the PCS union).”

well let us see how that works out in practice.
Surely the PCS’s position is ultimately going to be the same as most Labour councils, they are opposed to the uts in principle, but have to negotiate the best deal they can.

I wouold be very suprised if PCS don’t agree any deals that include redundancy accross the whole civil service.

Rorschach on 16 December, 2010 at 9:42 am said:

#135 – nice one Phil. Whenever I hope that ritualized mutual denunciation among zit-sized socialist organizations is easing up a bit, we get an outbreak like this. I sometimes think the entire anti-capitalist left needs a good horse-whipping (not by the state of course). In the great scheme of things, we all fail all the time and puffed-up tub-thumping of this kind just looks pathetic. Collectively, we all have much to be humble about and left unity would be much easier if we all recognized the need for political humility.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 9:43 am said:

#1

Right at the top of the thread, Christian H had this on the money:

Or in short: “it’s all the SWP’s fault”. I predict a year or two from now we’re going to have SP comrades here reminding everyone how “the SWP blew up” the NSSN. Just like with the SA. The disdain the SP clearly holds for non-aligned activists is quite breathtaking.p>

If we recall the issue that the SP walked out of the Socialist Alaince over, it was becasue they favourded a federal constitution that priviliged the left groups, and where individual non-aligned activists would have had no influence. Their walk out was what created the imbalance where the SWP was numerically dominant.

The non participation of the Socialist Party in the West Country in the NSSN is very revealling. In other regions they have set up NSSN groups that rotated around an inbuilt SP a majority, where the SP set the agenda; and so any non-aligned activists were subordinate to them, even though formal democracyu may have been followed.

In the West Country they were faced with an NSSN structure including Paul Dyer, myself, Glen Burrows, Dave Chapple, where their politics wouldn’t have been dominant. So they simply walked away from it.

Disdain is exactly the right word to descibe the atttiude of the one SP comrade who did occassionally attend NSSN meetings

Senga on 16 December, 2010 at 9:45 am said:

#138 – no, the PCS position is not to accept that some cuts are necessary. See http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/campaign-resources/there-is-an-alternative-the-case-against-cuts-in-public-spending.cfm

What PCS is saying is that cuts ARENT necessary – collect in the £120 Billion tax avaded and avoided by the wealthy and big business every year, nationalise the banks and financial institutions, end the war in Afghanistan etc etc.

What these demands do is question the way things are and puts forward alternatives that can lift the confidence of workers to fight. Something the TUC isn’t doing – that’s why I welcome the NSSN conference on 29 Jan and hearing from geniune trade unionists about their experiences in fighting battles and to develop a coherent and serious strategy going forward – I know thats what members in my area are looking for.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 9:58 am said:

#141

I agree. The PCS position is that cuts are unneceesary. However, where managament are making cuts, you will find that the PCS will in practice negotiate redundancies, and losses of service. They will have no choice.

Perhaps Socialist Party membners can clarify the position here. they are castigating Labour councils for passing on cuts due to the reduction in their fincial settlement from central government, a reduction that they oppose.

The PCS is a union where the SP has influence. Are SP members on the CPS exec going to be consistent and refuse to sanction any deal involving redunadancies or cuts in service?

Or are they going to be as pragmatic as the Labour councils when faced with the real world power relations?

Many Labour councils also believe that the cuts are unnecessary, and are being imposed upon them by the government.

This is very funny from senga:

What PCS is saying is that cuts ARENT necessary – collect in the £120 Billion tax avaded and avoided by the wealthy and big business every year, nationalise the banks and financial institutions, end the war in Afghanistan etc etc.

So the PCS go int negotiations with government, and the civil service, make this eloquent speach. What happens next?

i) The government says, “oh sorry we hadn’t thought of that, we won’t make any cuts”
ii) the government refuses to listen, so the PCS wins a national strike ballot for every civil servant to go on strike until all plans for job cuts are abandoned; or
iii) the PCS negotiates the best deal it can get

Senga on 16 December, 2010 at 10:07 am said:

You’re very cynical Andy and didn’t at all understand what I was saying in my previous post. The point to the alternatives to the cuts is to raise the confidence of workers/members to fight. Something which is a key ingredient to arm negotiaters with when they go into talks with the employer (union strength?)

Why do you keep turning it round to attacking the SP all the time? Just out of interest more than anything – My experience of them has been very positive. I have to say, it does make you, and the all the others who’re engaging in this, sound rather bitter and twisted.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 10:16 am said:

#143

yes, presenting alternatives is a very important part of raising confidence to fight, however, we are a long long way from that argument being won among union members.

In reality, the PCS will make deals for redundancies and cuts in services, and will get the best deal they can.

Are you seriously suggesting that PCS members are going to fight to refuse all redundancies?

The argument about the SP and PCS is merely to point out a contradiction, that the PCS exec will in practice have to reluctantly accept cuts, in a similar that labour councillors will. But labour councillores are being castigated as collaborators in the cuts.

Senga on 16 December, 2010 at 10:21 am said:

In any negotiaton, a judgement has to be made about the ability/will/mood of members to fight, that’s what influences negs in my view and is ultimately up to the members to decide.
Also, your comparison isnt accurate – the NEC on trade unions don’t have control over finances in these matters – labour councillors do and can refuse to implement the cuts.

paulm on 16 December, 2010 at 10:25 am said:

I’ve just picked up on the debate at 73 and passim as ‘who called’ the Bristol Demo.

It was called by the Anti Cuts Alliance, however, at the beginning of September there was some resistance within the (incipient) ACA to the idea of calling a Bristol Demo prior to the TUC making a decision on whether they were calling a national demonstration in the Autumn.

It was an NSSN meeting at the beginning of September (on the 6th I think) which agreed to push the ACA to organise a Demo as soon as possible and IF the ACA did not agree to this, to push the key left unions in the region (PCS and NUT) to call a regional demo in Bristol.
Fortunately the view of NSSN prevailed in the ACA and this was not necessary. However it was SP and other NSSN activists who played a key role in organising the demo, especially in mobising 50 TUstewards who played a key role in protecting the march and rally against police attacks.

So I think it is undoubtedly the case that without the NSSN (especially but not exclusively SP members) there would not have been a march in Bristol, and neither Jim or Neil have misled anyone — though as people outside Bristol they may not have been aware of the full picture.

This also suggests that Andy’s assertion that the ‘non participation of the Socialist Party in the West Country in the NSSN is very revealling’ is one of the more, but by no means the most, ridiculous, assertions in this thread.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 10:25 am said:

#145
Coucils neither control their finances sufficiently to make cuts unnecessary, nor do they have the option to set a deficict budget.

If a local council tries to set a deficit budget, then central government sends in administrators.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 10:30 am said:

#146

It was an NSSN meeting at the beginning of September (on the 6th I think) which agreed to push the ACA to organise a Demo as soon as possible and IF the ACA did not agree to this, to push the key left unions in the region (PCS and NUT) to call a regional demo in Bristol.

well certainly I received no notification of such an NSSN meeting, we are an affiliated branch, and indeed have been one of the mainstays of the NSSN in the SW.

why do you think that was?

paulm on 16 December, 2010 at 10:41 am said:

It was Bristol NSSN meeting Andy and widely advertised in the Bristol labour movement,

Dave was informed of it and chose not to circulate it on the regional email list on the grounds that NSSN should not be organising local meetings in areas where there are established trades councils.

Does your branch have members in Bristol? If so we’ll make sure that you are informed of future meetings.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 10:42 am said:

#146

I have checked all the e-mail invites. The last advertised meeting of the SW NSSN was a Saturday conference in Bridgewater on 2ist August (I didn’t go, as I was in Scilly Isles on holiday)

No meeting of the SW NSSN was advertised for September this year.

Now obvioulsy, SW NSSN has not been meeting regularly for over a year, and this is an issue I have had with its priorities, where I have argued fr more regular meetings.

However, as an affiliated branch, why were we not invited to a meeting? I have spoken to other nSSN activists, for example the treasurer Paul Dyer, several times, and he has never mentioned a meeting being called in September.

Can paulm explain how socialist party members who have not been participating in the NSSN structures managed to hold an NSSN meeting without contacting affiliated union branches, nor inviting non-SP members who are involved in the NSSN?

Anonymous on 16 December, 2010 at 10:46 am said:

‘Socialist Unity’ Andy? By the way you have been blogging I strongly suggest you re-name the site as the name does not correspond to the content or your approach and behaviour.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 10:51 am said:

#149

“Dave was informed of it and chose not to circulate it on the regional email list on the grounds that NSSN should not be organising local meetings in areas where there are established trades councils. ”

So you set up a meeting to counterpose yourself to the local Bristol TUC, and you admit you did it outside the structures of the SW NSSN.

Dave’ position is standing policy of the SW NSSN, that we are not seeking to undermine the local TUCs, and where they exist we work through them.

Clearly, this was the Socialist Party – who have not been involved in the NSSN West Country structures – just using the NSSN’s name, for what was effectively an extended SP meeting.

Incidently, paulm’s position is transparenty sectarian and manipulative in intent; as the anti cuts alliance purposefully constitutes itself as the “Bristol, AND DISTRICT anti-cuts alaince” to make it clear that all west country anti-cuts activists are welcome; while the Socialist Party held a Bristol only NSSN meeting – outwith the existing NSSN strctures – which would exclude NSSN activists from outside Bristol – who just happen to be the ones not in the SP!

So where confident articulate trade unionists are running NSSN with an agenda not dictated by the Socialist party, you choose not t be involved; and when you do set up an NSSN meeting, you do it outside the existing structures in such a way as to exclude the key non-SP activists in the NSSN

rule or ruin.

faultylpgic on 16 December, 2010 at 10:58 am said:

The SP have been caught out again. Its time to stop digging that hole comrades!!!

Vanya on 16 December, 2010 at 11:13 am said:

Andy’s description of the events around the Bristol demo ring entirely true with me as this is exactly the kind of behaviour exhibited by the SP’s forerunner Militant in anti-poll tax and anti-racist work in the 90’s(witnessed by myself at first hand). The sad thing is that I had believed that they had moved beyond this kind of behaviour.

But like their cousins of the SWP they are clearly reverting to type.

Leninism- developed by stalinism and copied by trotskyists, fucking useless.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 11:14 am said:

Let us be clear what paulm is saying.

Socialist Party members in Bristol, who have never attended meetings of the West Country NSSN, even though it met in Bristol; have now set up their own Bristol NSSN, which excludes all the non-SP NSSN activists in the West Country.

They did not argue the position for a Bristol NSSN within the Sw NSSN official structures, which has a standing policy of not organising as an alternative to Trades Councils. They simply used the NSSN name to badge a meeting of SP members, and to use that as a counterweight to the Bristol TUC, where they feared their arguments might not prevail.

rule or ruin.

Andrew Coates on 16 December, 2010 at 11:35 am said:

It is clear to everyone that is an attempt at Party-Building through Fronts.

The model, which SOP members have been repeating verbally for months,is the anti-Poll Tax Campaign. Understood is their leadership – or claims to this – of that movement.

As said above, “All-Britain Anti-Cuts Campaign to be launched” The Socialist states “the NSSN steering committee agreed that the conference will launch the ‘NSSN All-Britain Anti-Cuts Campaign’

All signs of a classic SP front manoeuvre.

The fact is, as #54 says, they don’t have the weight to carry out this operation.

The active masses are aware of CoR. They have rarely heard of The Socialist Party. They have never heard of the NSSN.

They are not interested in the NSSN All-Britain Anti-Cuts Campaign, No2EU Yes-to-Democracy, Anti-Cuts Election Candidates, Youth-Against-the-Cuts’.

Which probably accounts, as noted by others, for the desperate blame-the-SWP reply.

BTW: anyone else noticed yesterday’s European Day of Action against Austerity. I found a video of a few people in Brussels….

Entdinglichung on 16 December, 2010 at 11:51 am said:

always worth reading: Militant: what went wrong?

David Ellis on 16 December, 2010 at 12:17 pm said:

#152 `So where confident articulate trade unionists are running NSSN with an agenda not dictated by the Socialist party, you choose not t be involved; and when you do set up an NSSN meeting, you do it outside the existing structures in such a way as to exclude the key non-SP activists in the NSSN

rule or ruin.’

Rule or ruin, divide and rule and so on, all are good descriptions of the actions of the self-serving activities of the bureaucratised centrist sects who are little more than a `left’ add on to the official labour and trade union bureaucracy. Of course their Machavellian maneouverings look amateur and transparent compared to the official leaders in the trade unions and New Labour where rank-and-file participation is a distant memory and virtually everybody involved is part of the machine but it is no less desctructive as it was to escape bureaucratic fiat and apolitical control and a healthy reaction to it that drove many good young comrades into the arms of the centrists in the first place. Political cynicism is rampant in the left sects that consolidated and became conservative during the long apolitical boom of the Cold War. The Communist Party pioneered these kinds of techniques long ago for example when a group joins one of their various fronts and threatens its hegemony within it they simply split their branches and give themselves extra votes to expel the unwanted competition without ever having to engage in discussion or politics.

We should not forget that bureaucratism and sectarianism are dangers that face every organisation and movement in class society from left to extreme right to religious to aethiest to conservative to liberal and socialist. The way to avoid these problems is openess and politics.

chjh on 16 December, 2010 at 1:02 pm said:

Neil’s assertion that “the other trend [ie not the syndicalists] is grouped around the SWP and Right to Work who quite simply want to wreck the NSSN” will come as news to the two Hackney-based UNISON SC members I know, neither of whom would regard themselves as “grouped” around the SWP.

Incidentally, if that’s the SWP’s aim, why would the NSSN choose an SWP member as Vice-Chair?

Robert P. Williams on 16 December, 2010 at 1:46 pm said:

The most important thing is that we get as many people fighting the cuts as possible.
The students have lots of organisations, but they communicate with each other and turn out together on the day. If we tried to shoe-horn all the students into one single campaign then it is possible that many could be alienated.

Whether we have one, two, three or ten campaigns isn’t the point. The point is to draw together as many different groups and sections of society into the struggle as possible. Maybe they won’t be able to rub along in the same single campaign, but can never-the-less come together and fight in a coordinated way where they agree.

The SP have a position about not giving a platform to councillors that support the cuts (whatever party they happen to be in).
If the NSSN conference votes to go along with that, and votes to launch a campaign on that basis, then that will allow for the mass participation of those that agree with that position.

I think the real unity we should be thinking about, is the unity of the mass of ordinarry people who don’t usually pay attention to politics or even go to union meetings.

I live next door to Neath-Port Talbot and I have friends and family working there.
I for one don’t want to be a part of a anti-cuts campaign that admits councillors that hand out 90 day redundancy notices and gives them a platform to justify themseves.

I’m a working class person and I hope the NSSN anti-cuts campaign proposal happens… because then I will be able to take part in it.

I will not take part in a campaign that gives a platform to those labour council B$%&%$%* from NPT…
…end of.

Anonymous on 16 December, 2010 at 1:56 pm said:

I don’t believe what I’m reading from Andy. Let’s get it clear – the first anti-cuts march in Bristol which was a succesful event (I know, I attended); which was widley advertised throughout the south west inside and outside the labour movement; an event that was badly needed to show there was a fightback; an event well attended by all the major trade unions in the area (RMT, PCS, Unison); attended by various poltical groups (including his beloved Labour Party); a march in the pouring rain attended by the ordinary people of Bristol and all he can do is complain he didn’t get a personal invite? Are you for real? Do you realise how silly you look? And then you spew out bile at the Socialist Party members and others for getting things going. You are ridiculous and I think this is a smoke screen for your poltical position about the cuts and Labour which is you’d rather break the poor than the law.

faultylpgic on 16 December, 2010 at 2:52 pm said:

As far as I am concerned the issue is the SP running round claiming that NSSN called a demo. When the fact is it did no such thing. It is typical of the SP, complete bull and claim credit for anything good. Lets be clear the SP position is not one of refusing to work with cllr’s who support the cuts but with any cllr’s stating they won’t agree with the SP. So the SP refuse or argue against labour cllr’s being involved even when the council is not Labour and is run by the tories or lib dems!!!! It is another attempt by the SP to get local anti cuts alliances under their control. It won’t wash and if this is the great strategy of the SP then its crap.

The Undertaker on 16 December, 2010 at 3:05 pm said:

The Real problem here is that the SP have not grasped the point that the anti cuts movement is so large and growing at such rate involving all types of people and groups that no one organisation can claim to be THE anti cuts campaign not RTW not CoR for all its big pretentions and conference and certainly not a slightly modified version of the Anti Poll Tax Federation run by a organisation with considerably less than 1,000 members
At this stage to alienate those non SP members who up until this time had worked in the NSSN ,indeed to effectively slander the chair Dave Chapple as they have done means the SP are destined to be completetly marginal to the fight back. As they get mote isolated so they will get even more sectarian and crazy in their rhetoric see they now claim no body but they oppose ALL cuts and that groups like RTW are only interested in getting pro cuts Laboutr Councillors elected. Such nonesense will not wash with anyone other than their own membership
In the 80’s they used to talk of taking control of the Labour Party and of having a daily paper how sad their demise must seem to their older members but that is the price you pay for retreating into the sectarian ghetto

Doug on 16 December, 2010 at 3:27 pm said:

The utter bankrupcy of Newman, Chapple and his ilk is there for all to see. It obviously doesn’t sink in with some people who are either wilfully ignoring what’s been said or just plain thick. So here goes again. The NSSH was started by the RMT. It is not and never has been a ‘SP front’. SP members do not form a majority in it. January’s conference has been organised by the NSSH to enable all anti cuts groups to get together and hopefully then form some sort of national body, WHICH WILL NOT BE RUN BY THE NSSH.

Chapple and his mates were shocked by the December 4th decision because it was definitely not what they wanted and was actually a result of a democratic vote -that sort of thing doesn’t go on in the RTW and COR conferences of course. Chapple then used a SW NSSN group email to whinge about the decision with various other malcontents – utterly disgraceful. I know this because i was on the email list BECAUSE I HAD CONTACTED CHAPPLE PREVIOUSLY ABOUT THE NSSH, Mr Newman.

One of the key reasons why Chapple and pals threw a wobbly was of course because they think it’s perfectly OK for Labour councils and Labour councillors to utter weasel words about the cuts then vote for them. That’s why clowns like Newman and AVPS are backing them and throwing abuse, lies and half truths at the SP, who don’t think it”s acceptable and argue as such.

Tell you what, let’s have our differing viewpoints tested by all the new people getting involved in anti-cuts groups. Question – should we allow councillors voting for cuts to join anti-cuts groups. A perfectly reasonable question – let’s see what the majority responses are going to be. utcome of the NSSN conference on December 4th. There was a democratic vote, which Chapple and others lost, didn’t like, then used official NSSH communication networks to bitch about it. Utterly disgraceful.

I’ve also read Newman’s earlier comments on this thread about me and the NSSN. In future, Newman check your facts before shooting your mouth off about things you know very little about. I have nothingg to learn about socialism, activism or militancy from the likes of you who think it’s of such value to the labour movement crawling into the Labour Party, attending SWTUC meetings with your trade union bureaucrat chums.

‘Daddy, what did you do to fight the cuts?’
‘Not much. I spent most of my time attacking others fighting the cuts and providing pathetic excuses for Labour councillors’

redbedhead on 16 December, 2010 at 3:33 pm said:

I’m a bit confused, the SP will only work with people who will fight ALL the cuts, yet they attack the SWP (who, as has been pointed out, aren’t behind the upset in NSSN in any case) for criticizing the FBU leadership. But the criticism was exactly that the FBU accepted a concession – shifting to 13 hour night and 11 hour day shifts, from the old 15 and 9. This was better than 12 and 12 but it was not an outright victory. Now, you can say this was necessary or not but there’s no avoiding the fact that it was to call for acceptance of a cost cutting measure. And the SP attacks the SWP over the PCS pensions dispute from a few years ago – but, again, this was about whether it was necessary to accept a cost-cutting measure in that given context, given the level of combativity of the membership, etc.
So, when the SP accepts cuts – and recommends them to the membership in their role as union executives, this is ok. However, when Labour councillors who oppose the Tory cuts, will help organize mobilizations against the Tory cuts, will speak out against the Tory cuts, etc, don’t feel they have the backing (combativity, confidence, organization) to break the law and face imprisonment – the SP will refuse to work with them and think that the movement should do likewise. There seems to be a delusional belief that this is still the 1980s and they are reliving the Liverpool council (which, in any case, did accept the need to retreat since it did hand out redundancy warning notices to 30,000 staff). But this isn’t 1985, the context is different and slogans from another era are not much when they are out of synch with where the movement is at.

The Undertaker on 16 December, 2010 at 3:38 pm said:

#164 Doug that’s the worst obituary I’ve ever read but you have confirmed its time to wave bye bye to the SP . You were funnier when you were deeply entered into the bowels of the Labour Party ….but only just

redbedhead on 16 December, 2010 at 3:40 pm said:

Chapple and his mates were shocked by the December 4th decision because it was definitely not what they wanted and was actually a result of a democratic vote -that sort of thing doesn’t go on in the RTW and COR conferences of course.

Socialist Worker, February 10, 2010:

The conference elected a new steering committee of 25. Supporting organisations will also have representatives. These include the Labour Representation Committee, National Shop Stewards Network, National Pensioners Convention, Stop the War Coalition, Unite Against Fascism and the Unemployed Workers Union.

Coalition of Resistance conference report:

In the final plenary, Tony Benn was elected Honorary President of the Coalition of Resistance, and 122 people volunteered to serve on the National Council. The Council will meet at least four times a year, and at its first meeting it will elect a Steering Committee to administer the Coalition on a week-by-week basis.

Andrew Coates on 16 December, 2010 at 4:05 pm said:

The Socialist Party can asserts its ‘leadership’ of a pure anti-cuts movement as much as it likes.

Their front-orgnaisation will seem just one of many.I am not in principle against having many flowers bloom, but it is not on the face of it, a helpful move.

In the meantime I am curious how they will – from a position as a minority amongst the minority that is active on the issue of cuts – assert the principle that “the SP will only work with people who will fight ALL the cuts.”

In Ipswich the Suffolk Coalition for Public Services, contains a number of Labour Party members (apart from being very broadly based in the unions, not all of whom are that on the left). Not least the Coalition includes the leader of the Labour Group, Sandy Martin, on Suffolk County Council.

Will the two SP members, not elected to any muncipal authority, and members of a party that does not advocate voting Labour, demand that Sandy follows their line?

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 4:05 pm said:

#161

The comment from “anonymous” is a fantastic example of group think when a sect has decided to circle the waggons, and retreat into seige mentality.

The Socialist Party can beat its breast about getting things done, but if this is at the expense of abusing democratic processes, and breaking relationships of trust then all they have acheived is a pryrrhic victory.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 4:07 pm said:

#168

Their front-orgnaisation will seem just one of many.I am not in principle against having many flowers bloom, but it is not on the face of it, a helpful move.

But let us not lose sight of the fact that the NSSN does still have a significant layer of actvists that still beleive that there is merit in its original purpose, and who oppse the NSSN being relegated to an SP front.

This is what makes the SP’s behaviour so utterly destructive and self-defeating. they have burnt their bridges with a layer of good TU activists just so that they can dispaose of the NSSN as they wish

Vanya on 16 December, 2010 at 4:09 pm said:

#165 Yes but the difference for the SP is that the trade unions are part of the working class moevement whereas the Labour Party no longer is.

This is why the Socialist Party supported the candidate in the Unite GS election who had the hardest position on Labour Party funding and affiliation…Oh, sorry no they didn’t did they?

The problem is that for both the SWP and SP, the primary concern is not the movement or the campaign (whatever it may be) but the perceived need to build their own party. This is entirely genuine on their parts because they genuinely believe that the working class need them. For that reason they believe that whatever they do has to be predicated on the interests of their organisation and that everything can be justified on that basis (to themselves- they make up all sorts of bullshit to justify it to everyone else).

The roots of this are a model of organisation drawn up over 100 years ago by a long-dead Russian operating in exile from a semi-feudal police state.

Btw the SP are right about the SWP but you are right about them. You can choose your friends…

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 4:12 pm said:

#164

Doug

The facts are that even at your own admission the maximum involvement you had with the NSSN SW organisation was managing to get on Dave Chapple’s e-mail list.

You decided that thr NSSN strategy was redundant to you becasue you have a seemingly quasi-syndicalist aproach that the only relationship with other trade unionists you are interersted in are those in the very immediate geographic area of rural Devon you are in.

Actually, if we want to get a very serious turn out to the TUC demo on 26th March, ther key will be working with the TU regional secretaries and trades council activists in the SW TUC, who can mobilise their members.

The Undertaker on 16 December, 2010 at 4:51 pm said:

#171 Vanya dear Uncle Vanya forever picking at the bones of someone elses’s dispute never contributing anything of value a one person band no organisation no clout no influence
Whatever a long dead Russian may be accused of it certainly wasn’t being all talk and no trousers ,somehow I doubt that even if anyone knew anyone would know who you were no one would care, so spare us the bile get back under your rock this is a discussion for adults ..you know the ones that work and are in those things called Unions.

Back in the real world or not so real world as it happens I predict the January conference will see the NSSN split become permanent ,the personal abuse being thrown at Dave Chapple by SP members would indicate there is unlikely to be any reconciliation
The attempt to build a national shop stewards network was a laudible one but never likely to succeed unless it reached out to the majority of shop stewards who like it or not are mostly Labour party members or supporters. To say to them as the SP does that they are members of a capitalist party indistinguishable from the Tories was never going to win them .
What I find so difficult is how a group which was without doubt the most slavish in their attachement to the Labour Party ( who rejected the description of the Labour Party as being a bourgeiose workers party) of all the entryist groups,who used to openly state that there was NO possibility of building anything outside of the Labour Party and which in truth took some very right wing ( in revolutionary terms) positions on issues such as the Falklands War ( ‘The die is cast ‘ wrote Grant when saying why Militant would not be campaigning to recall the fleet a position which put Militant to the right of Tony Benn) or Gay rights which they called a bourgeiose middle class deviation or Ireland and which has never put forward the need for a revolutionary party as opposed to a ‘new workers party ,can suddenly proclaim itself the leftist of the left,especially as a number of people on here have pointed out that that is clearly at odds with their practice in most unions in particular the PCS
It doesn’t need a professional cynic like Auntie Vanya to see that they are in big trouble

Vanya on 16 December, 2010 at 5:14 pm said:

“I doubt that even if anyone knew anyone would know who you were no one would care, so spare us the bile get back under your rock this is a discussion for adults ..you know the ones that work and are in those things called Unions.”

Sorry, does that mean you do know who I am or that you don’t?

Given some of what you say about me personally is utterly innacurate you are either making assumptions far off the mark or you are a liar. That’s the problem with posting under a pseudonym. I mean I may be wrong about you- you may have a great personality and not be an obnoxious dickhead.

As for bile, you have to be one of the worst offenders on this blog. But of course as you are a member of the revolutionary vanguard party that the poor workers need because otherwise they can only achieve trade union consciousness different rules apply to you don’t they?

Ray on 16 December, 2010 at 5:23 pm said:

“‘Daddy, what did you do to fight the cuts?’”

“My party, the SP, squandered our contribution because we united the whole of the left against us with our sectarian attacks on the rest of the left.”

Ray on 16 December, 2010 at 5:26 pm said:

“This behaviour is always contemptible, whoever does it.”

And you should know because you are the chief shit stirrer. But don’t let the truth get in the way of your lies. What else do you have to dine out on?

The Undertaker on 16 December, 2010 at 5:41 pm said:

Dear Uncle Vanya

My apologises for not replying sooner as I’ve been working to keep the likes of you in the style you are accustomed to ,I do hope they didn’t look too hard at your last expenses claim we don’t want another scandal do we?
Sorry If I haven’t been clearer but I’m not sure what you do or what you represent all you seem to do these days is vent your spline at those who work hard to do the things you never could
If you knew the real me you would be deeply ashamed of your ways, but uncle dear uncle don’t change we love you just the way you are, a hopeless nonentity
xxx The Undertaker

Ray on 16 December, 2010 at 6:07 pm said:

“Given some of what you say about me personally is utterly innacurate you are either making assumptions far off the mark or you are a liar. That’s the problem with posting under a pseudonym. I mean I may be wrong about you- you may have a great personality and not be an obnoxious dickhead.”

Oooh, that hurt didn’t it? Your predictable red baiting disguised as concern for “the class” is touching if unsophisticated. If you were truly concerned about the anti-cuts campaign instead of engaging in cynical Trot bashing you’d have something constructive to contribute. You’re a mirror image of the SP who condemn the LP but in your case you condemn the organised left outside of Labour. Two wrongs don’t make a right so rather than sowing the seeds of disunity why not join the theme of this thread which is about encouraging the SP to work as part of a broad based campaign.

Roy on 16 December, 2010 at 6:15 pm said:

2010 is not 1985 (the organised left in the Labour Party was much stronger) now we are left with a relative handful of left people on councils – but clearly no Councillor voting for cuts should be on any platform of an anti cuts campaign and in particular a national anti cuts campaign.which surprised me was this happen in Coventry recently where the Labour Leader of the City Council was allowed to speak. Maybe comrades its not so simple after all to dictate this to local groups who speaks? I think this issue needs further discussion in the anti cuts movement.
As someone pointed out Kinnock was one of the first people to be against the Poll Tax and then supporting his councils imprisoning people who could not afford to pay the Poll Tax.

custard on 16 December, 2010 at 6:38 pm said:

Its a dreadful mistake of the SP to be “Outside the movement” lol Oh the abuse they have dished out with their sanctimonious twaddle in the past. Anyway chickens are coming home to roost.
Seriously, their infantile behaviour may appeal to a small fringe- anarchists and the like but few others. They have no idea of the united front. The SP have to be in control or else they do a runner. If you think of the STWC-what role did the SP play in this campaign..zero. Pathetic, but then anti imperialism was never their strong point was it. Or gay rights, anti racism etc

ecolefty on 16 December, 2010 at 7:06 pm said:

I’m afraid the SP have to be held responsible for this one, whatever may have gone on in the past.

Kathy Earnshaw on 16 December, 2010 at 7:13 pm said:

Excellent, Ray and the Undertaker manage to bring the SWP defeat from the jaws of sectarian victory. I was worried for a moment.

Vanya’s point about the conduct of Leninist organizations is absolutely right. If you disagree, argue your position and stop being pathetic and abusive. We all know that you do not know who (s)he is and we also know that you would never be so abusive to the face as you know where it would end. Armchair hardmen as usual.

history tells us things on 16 December, 2010 at 7:28 pm said:

‘We need the various bodies who want to resist the cuts and the ConDem offensive to negotiate at the very least a ‘non-aggression’ pact and a genuine desire to cooperate. I have no problems with principled arguments, but when the various Popes of the Left start yelling edicts at one another I feel like knocking their heads together.
If we fail to achieve united action, the UK could be unrecognisable within four years. Does anyone on the Left really want to bear responsibility for allowing a defeat of historic proportions?’

Can I echo this, its just incredible how the far Left can act so irresponsibly like this at time of yes national crisis where the elites want to completely destroy the welfare state..

River on 16 December, 2010 at 7:43 pm said:

Every single Labour councillor in Preston today voted against Michael Lavalette’s Trades Council-backed anti-cuts motion.

Preston Labour has a left tradition, we were recently represented by Campaign Group MP Audrey Wise. None of that proud tradition was evident in the council chamber today.

This puts the Socialist Party’s call for the standing of anti-cuts candidates well onto the agenda – what use to working class people are spineless councillors who will not take the lead against cuts?

These are the real issues of this discussion, not the gossip and tittle tattle in the various emails.

http://riversstream.blogspot.com/2010/12/preston-labour-vote-down-anti-cuts.html

christian h. on 16 December, 2010 at 7:49 pm said:

Kathy, generally it’s a good idea to avoid being abusive while calling on others to stop being abusive. I don’t think the SWP are claiming “victory” here in any way – what on earth did they win? Nothing. I’m afraid you are operating under the stunningly sectarian assumption that this mistake by the SP somehow means other groups “win”. Not so. Everybody loses.

For those who complain about the behaviour of groups organized along democratic centralist lines – usually I suspect members or supporter of the Labour party – I advise a long look into the mirror. A mirror where you might find any number of expulsions, witch-hunts, imposition of candidates on local part of your organization etc. It’s also a look those of us supporting democratic centralist organization should take ourselves as well, of course.

christian h. on 16 December, 2010 at 7:50 pm said:

“Everyone else is acting irresponsibly” is not a very responsible or mature position to take. Just saying.

paulm on 16 December, 2010 at 7:53 pm said:

Andy @ 155 is again factually incorrect:

155.Let us be clear what paulm is saying.

Socialist Party members in Bristol, who have never attended meetings of the West Country NSSN, even though it met in Bristol; have now set up their own Bristol NSSN, which excludes all the non-SP NSSN activists in the West Country.

They did not argue the position for a Bristol NSSN within the Sw NSSN official structures, which has a standing policy of not organising as an alternative to Trades Councils. They simply used the NSSN name to badge a meeting of SP members, and to use that as a counterweight to the Bristol TUC, where they feared their arguments might not prevail.

rule or ruin

1) The Bristol NSSN meeting was not just called by or attended by the the SP, but by a number of TU activists.

2) It is not true that it was organised as an ‘alternative’ or ‘counterweight’ to the Bristol TUC — in fact the same position as was passed at the NSSN meeting was passed at the Bristol TUC in the same month.

3) SP members did attend the ‘NSSN SW conference’ called by Dave Chapple at less than two weeks notice in the middle of August, as we have done many other NSSN meetings held in the SW I suspect that SP members have attended more of the NSSN SW meetings than Andy.

4) NSSN members in Bristol do not need the permission of Andy or anyone elsse to hold meetings. This is a point on which Dave Chapple agrees with us and disagrees with Andy as he made clear in his closing speech at the last NSSN conference. Where he said (I paraphrase) ‘Go out and organise activities, NSSN is not a top down organisation, it will be build on local initiatives’.

Vanya on 16 December, 2010 at 8:04 pm said:

#182 Well put.

#185 For the record I am not a member of the Labour Party.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 8:22 pm said:

#187

paulm

You have lost the argument here, you should stop digging.

It is transparent that the Socialist party chose to initiate an NSSN meeting in Bristol in order to use the NSSN name to give credibility to what was really an SP event, the fact that not everyone there as actially a member of SP doesn’t change the fundamental character of that.

The nature of the NSSN is that we have sought support from union branches, and sought non-aligned union activists to associate with the NSSN. that means that those branches and individuals have to feel that they have some input and ownerrship of the project.

If the SP “build a local initiative” using the NSSN name that has not referenced the existing activists who are associated with the NSSN, and against standing NSSN SW policy not to build local groups in areas where there is already an active trades council, then you are obvioulsy acting in a high-handed way as a self appointed leadership. And those activists who have invested some of their own authority and repuation with the NSSN need to be consulted, not taken for granted by a self important group of trots.

No organisation involving ordinary lay trade union activist can ever be built if a Leniist cult is involved that thinks it has a priviliged leadership position.

When Dave Chappel said go and build local initiatives, I am sure he did not mean it was Ok for people to counterpose those new initiatives to already existing structures and networks.

What you don’t seem to understand is that the Socialst Party has royaly fucked up here, and burnt bridges with a lot of non-aligned trade union left activists. It is the sense of entitlement that you have which pisses people off.

Observer on 16 December, 2010 at 8:32 pm said:

.180 – Socialist Party of course participated in Stop The War but with SWP desperate to avoid mention of Socialist ideas as an answer to war, the SP were blocked from many platforms. And SWP came up with the tactic of appealing to Muslims through their petit bourgeois ‘community leaders’ accidentally anyway – it came together by pure chance for them in Preston wherupon they adopted it nationwide – short term gains, long term losses, and a chance to popularise socialist ideas amongst Muslims was lost. Just look at SWP slogan ‘Don’t attack Iraq’ compared with SP ‘No Blood For Oil’ – one rhymes, the other puts forward a socialist explanation.

redbedhead on 16 December, 2010 at 8:42 pm said:

189 – the validity or not of your arguments aside, this present argument viz the NSSN isn’t about the SWP vs the SP, so it is bizarre that SP supporters keep arguing as though it is. It suggests a rather paranoid and sectarian mindset.

redbedhead on 16 December, 2010 at 8:45 pm said:

As for “Don’t Attack Iraq” vs “No Blood for Oil” your claim that one has more socialist content than the other is ridiculous. Don’t attack Iraq was a tactical slogan when the core focus of the movement was stopping the attack on Iraq. It was what united people in the StWC under a large umbrella but it was also different than the slogan that the SWP had on their placards.

paulm on 16 December, 2010 at 8:55 pm said:

Andy, the crude and interperate tone of your language:

‘What you don’t seem to understand is that the Socialst Party has royaly fucked up here, and burnt bridges with a lot of non-aligned trade union left activists. It is the sense of entitlement that you have which pisses people off.’

Suggest to me that you are person who is in hole and should stop digging:

1) The Bristol NSSN meetins was open to, and , by any Bristol Trade Unionists, and participated in by SP members, non-aligned trade unionists and members of other parties it was not an alternative to, or ‘countereight’ to the TUC or any other TU body in the city, it drew up a resolution which was subsequently passed by the PCS regional ctte, the Bristol TUC and the Bristol NUT and which provided the basis for organising the 2-3,000 strong anti-cuts demo were those bodies and the people who attended the demo in some way manipulated by a ‘high handed’ ‘self-appointed leadership’?

I’m beginning to think that what this really boils down to is that you feel you and Dave Chapel have some right to veto the activities of NSSN activists in Bristol (that rather than the fact that we took the intiative in calling a meeting which played a key role in building a successful demonstation betokens a ‘sense of entitlement’)

And can I gently remind you that you are not ‘non-aligned’ you lost the right to claim that status when you joined the party of Blair, Brown and Miliband….

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 8:57 pm said:

#189

” Just look at SWP slogan ‘Don’t attack Iraq’ compared with SP ‘No Blood For Oil’ “

These Socialist Party members are comedy gold, do they do panto?

To appreciate how funny it is, look at this picture:p>

paulm on 16 December, 2010 at 9:01 pm said:

190, well the SWP is the largest political organisation represented amongst the NSSN Steering Committe minority statement, and has given significant publicity to the statement — if all of the comments on here by SP members had been directed at the SWP then that might be a valid criticism, however very few have been…..

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 9:16 pm said:

#192

Paulm

It is about building and sustaining long term relationships.

The reason it was inappropriate for the Socialist party to appropriate the name NSSN in bristol is that there was already a pre-existing NSSN structure that you by-passed.

No one is disputing your right to hold a meeting and argue for a demonstration, i woudl have gone on the demo myself ,except my GMB branch had an activists mobilisation that day for a key by-election campaign in Swindon.

However, what is not so clear is why you felt it necessary to use the NSSN name, when NSSN activity in the West Country area is already mainly associated with other people, who you bypassed and excluded.

People are not interested in putting time energy and emotional investment into joint work around a project, if the Socialist party wil simply by-pass the pre-existing structures, policies and relationships on a whim.

You have very seriously burnt bridges regarding relationships with other left union activists. Now you may fool yourself that it doesn’t matter, as you will meet fresh new faces to compensate, but trade union politics does rely on long-term patient work, networking, and having some allies in the official structures.

BTW, it is very amusing that both you and Neil have got in a huff about my swearing, but neither of you have criticised Jim Lowe for spreading right wing rumours about dave Chapple thus giving credibility to criticism of Dave by right wingers in the movement.

johng on 16 December, 2010 at 9:22 pm said:

“For those who complain about the behaviour of groups organized along democratic centralist lines – usually I suspect members or supporter of the Labour party – I advise a long look into the mirror. A mirror where you might find any number of expulsions, witch-hunts, imposition of candidates on local part of your organization etc. It’s also a look those of us supporting democratic centralist organization should take ourselves as well, of course”

Amen to that Christian. Also worth pointing out that Andy’s tirades about the incompatibility of those with Leninist ideas with the building of rank and file organisations involving lay officials and rank and file militants flys in the face of much of British trade union history. The Communist Party having played more then a minor role in such initiatives of varying success from the 1920s onwards.

This is obviously a fuckup. It would be good if the SP admitted it, or failing that, tried to mend a few fences. If not its a shame.

redbedhead on 16 December, 2010 at 9:27 pm said:

“if all of the comments on here by SP members had been directed at the SWP…”

1) the statement didn’t originate with the SWP
2) the response posted above and to which the comments relate is focused almost exclusively on attacking the SWP’s “crimes”, suggesting an attempt to polarize the debate as either you’re with the SWP or you’re with the SP.
3) I haven’t counted the percentage of comments that attack the SWP but the fact that the method is primarily to avoid the substance of the argument – a) a meeting where everyone not in the SP votes against a proposal and yet the SP pushes forward is bad, destructive form b) that the tactic is wrong given several already pre-existing organizations and the supposed role of the NSSN as a grouping of shop stewards – is significant.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 9:37 pm said:

#196

Also worth pointing out that Andy’s tirades about the incompatibility of those with Leninist ideas with the building of rank and file organisations involving lay officials and rank and file militants flys in the face of much of British trade union history. The Communist Party having played more then a minor role in such initiatives of varying success from the 1920s onwards.

Yes that is a reasonable point. I think the issue is complex, and perhaps the problem is also related to democratic centralism applied to small group parties.

Where mass parties have operated as democratic centralist, the meaning of the term has been much more permeable and permissive in order to accomodate the heterogentity and broad social base of the party. This would certainly be true, for example of the PCI and PCF in Europe.

Comparisons with small left groups and the Labour Party are besides the point as the Labour party is a broad organisation that is itself an arena of political struggle between socialists and non-socialists – in some ways similar to trade unions politics.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 9:40 pm said:

#196

“This is obviously a fuckup. It would be good if the SP admitted it, or failing that, tried to mend a few fences.”

Quite so, and they are now locked into a regressive problem shift, where they are making things worse rather than admit a mistake.

the incompatibility between the pragmatic approach they make to steelments in unions where they have some influence, and their zealot demand for Labour Councillors to make no compromise also cannot last. It will have to be resolved at some stage, especially as the PCS simply wont be able to avoid making some deals that accept cuts and redundancies.

paulm on 16 December, 2010 at 9:48 pm said:

Andy no one was bypassed or excluded (except to the extent that Dave refused to circulate information about the meeting)

As for Doug’s comments I fail to see how they in any way support any ‘witchunt’.

Doug pointed out that Dave had been high handed the tone in which he posed it made it sound like a personal criticism. I think that was a mistake. Because I don’t think the primary reason for Dave’s high handedness is his personality, but his political ideas, ideas which you to a large extent share, as shown by your high handed attitude to the trade unionsists who attended the Bristol meeting, who apparently required your permission to hold the meeting.

I’ve not read all of the posts in great detail so if you feel that Doug has accused Dave of anything else, then please point this out and I’ll respond, however I proabably won’t have time to be on here for a while.

Kathy Earnshaw on 16 December, 2010 at 9:50 pm said:

Strange that as just about all the commentators on this thread that are arguing against the Leninist organizational structure and group think are not in the Labour Party. The exception is Andy.

Your notion that vanguardism is about mirroring capitalist state power is an arrogant delusion. Most of you cannot give out placards let alone guns.

Democratic centralism creates an elite mentality that psychologically, politically and organizationally isolates you from working class people, who invariably view you as thoroughly cult-like.

If you want to see a whole series of demonstrations of this statement, I suggest you read the appalling history of the early Communist Parties in many countries. They all took the Third International at its word and the result was isolation in country after country with embarrassing episodes such as the U.S experience to combine with the horrific such as Germany.

It makes me laugh when you take the Lessons of October as your bible in the ‘missing party’ theory, given that Trotsky learns none of the right lessons from the Russian Revolution about how to organize.

icepick on 16 December, 2010 at 10:09 pm said:

Yes it’s another bad case of the Trots.

Andy Newman on 16 December, 2010 at 11:38 pm said:

#200

paulm

The concept of the NSSN was a network of lay actvists who hold elected office in the trade union movement; by its very nature it is a long term trust and relationship building exercise.

The accusation levelled against the Socialist Party is that they just see the NSSN as a brand of conveneince to label their trade union work with; something amply borne out by your approach here.

You have not shown any interest in building long term relationships with the other well established activists who were supportive of the NSSN in the West Country, but then called an NSSN meeting without any reference to those activists, when you felt that the NSSN name was an asset that the SP could simply use at your own convenience.

Indeed, you have burnt your bridges with a number of left trade union activists, in order to do so.

it is simply disingenuous for you to claim that Jim Lowe has not circulated the same rumours about Dave Chapple that the right wingers do, because people can read for themselves that he has right here on this thread.

tony collins on 16 December, 2010 at 11:49 pm said:

This seems as good a place as anywhere to let people know that Respect has just won a council by-election in Tower Hamlets. We got 55% of the vote. Interestingly, the Lib Dems could only muster 2.2%

prinkipo exile on 16 December, 2010 at 11:51 pm said:

Respect have won the Spitalfields by election gaining the council seat from Labour. Lib Dems collapsed.

paulm on 16 December, 2010 at 11:58 pm said:

Sorry Andy there are 197 posts on this thread I don’t have time to read them all, the only one I’ve seen to your accusation of witch hunting was (I thought) by Doug and, I felt a bit personalised but not downright abusive like the language you directed at me.

Can you at least point me in the direction of the post number? I can’t dissociate myself from something I don’t think I’ve read on your mere say-so that it repeats (unspecified) allegations from (unnamed) right wingers — I don’t think there’s anything disengenuous about that.

Ecolefty on 17 December, 2010 at 12:22 am said:

Congrats to Respect!
Good to see anyone left of Labour winning and good to see lib dems collapse.

paulm on 17 December, 2010 at 12:28 am said:

OK then, I’ve spent 20 minute when I should be in bed re-reading this and established that this ‘repetition’ of ‘right wing whispering campaigns’ is that Jim referred to Dave ‘meddling’in the affairs of other unions.

I’m not aware of Dave ‘meddling’ in the affairs of any union, though his conduct has on ocassions (like calling regional meetings at very short notice which SP members did still attend) has struck me as high-handed on occasions.

But the use of one inappropriate particple hardly amounts to a witch hunt and I can’t really find it any more offensive than you swearing at me Andy. Now I’ve distanced myself from Jim’s comments perhaps you’ll calm down and apologise for your language?

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 12:32 am said:

#206

These are exactly the whispers that the right wing in the west country use against Dave.

#28 amd #78

Indeed I think I know both who has told Jim this

It is not something that a socialist shoud be saying about another socialist trade union activist

paulm on 17 December, 2010 at 12:34 am said:

some of the other comments on here are frankly fatuous to give a prime example this from 201:

‘Democratic centralism creates an elite mentality that psychologically, politically and organizationally isolates you from working class people’

Democratic centralism is only the extension of the old trade union principle of ‘one out all out’ — accepting the decision of the majority — to political organisation how on earth can that be elitist?

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 12:42 am said:

#208

“But the use of one inappropriate particple hardly amounts to a witch hunt and I can’t really find it any more offensive than you swearing at me Andy. “

i/e paulm, you are not actually distancing yourself from i t at all, you are seeking to minimise what was done.

The accsation that Dave meddles in the affairs of other unions is an unnuendo used against him by right wingers in the trade unions. To repeat it is to give crdibility to it. Dave is a controversial figure precisey becasue he has stuck his nose in – for example – to internal affairs in UNISON, and has been publicly critical of full time officers who have acted against Tony Staunton. This has made him unpopular with a number of people who are not friends of the left in the unions.

A member of your organisation has circulated malicious rumours about a prominent left trade union activist, the same malicious rumours that are used by the right wing.

You think this is no different to me saying that the Scialist Party have fucked up, which is a political criticism, and I am amazed that you are so prudish to take umbrage at the F word being used on a blog!

Frankly, there is a difefrence between giving credibility t a right wng whispering campaign against a prominent left actovist, and someone useing heated language when a trot-cult yet again puts their sorry institutional self-interest ahead of the intrests of the wider movement

LETSMOVEON on 17 December, 2010 at 12:44 am said:

The result from TH is very interesting. I am not in RESPECT, I am in the SWP. This shold give delight to all on the left. The Lib Dem vote is excellent lol, what did they get last time in this seat?

Ray on 17 December, 2010 at 2:01 am said:

“Excellent, Ray and the Undertaker manage to bring the SWP defeat from the jaws of sectarian victory. I was worried for a moment.

Vanya’s point about the conduct of Leninist organizations is absolutely right. If you disagree, argue your position and stop being pathetic and abusive. We all know that you do not know who (s)he is and we also know that you would never be so abusive to the face as you know where it would end. Armchair hardmen as usual.”

So says the armchair hardwoman resorting to abuse and threats just like a Stalinist apparatchik. Your red baiting chum is not interested in debate. That’s hardly his or her style as is obviously the case with you. Nonetheless, an attempt was made to point out quite clearly that Vanya (nor you) are contributing to unity on the left by making up nonsense about the conduct of the so-called “Leninist” left.
In the case of the SP I think they have made a mistake in this case but at least they have a presence among workers. I would rather work with them than a red baiter like you.

christian h. on 17 December, 2010 at 2:03 am said:

Congrats to Respect, excellent result. As for Kathy, I find it rather amusing that the opponents of democratic centralist organizing (btw I agree with Andy that this is a complex issue, even though I obviously don’t share his conclusions and emphasis) joke about how it is based on something Russians did a 100 years ago etc., but then bring up Comintern CP’s as an example of democratic centralism gone wrong…

On a more constructive note, democratic centralist organizations do exist and will continue to play an important role in the movements, whether people here like it or not. So it seems to me it would pay to spend energy thinking about how organizational structures and (more importantly) practice can be found that avoid the very real problems associated with having a democratic centralist group operating alongside activists that are either not aligned or not in the same way subject to party or group discipline. I believe this is important for all involved.

Ray on 17 December, 2010 at 2:24 am said:

“Socialist Party of course participated in Stop The War but with SWP desperate to avoid mention of Socialist ideas as an answer to war, the SP were blocked from many platforms. And SWP came up with the tactic of appealing to Muslims through their petit bourgeois ‘community leaders’ accidentally anyway – it came together by pure chance for them in Preston wherupon they adopted it nationwide – short term gains, long term losses, and a chance to popularise socialist ideas amongst Muslims was lost. Just look at SWP slogan ‘Don’t attack Iraq’ compared with SP ‘No Blood For Oil’ – one rhymes, the other puts forward a socialist explanation.”

This is exactly the abstract position that we are challenging the SP over. To claim that the stop the war campaign shouldn’t have worked with the Muslim community, which includes its community leaders, is as absurd as their position now over working with the LP against the cuts. It would be absolute suicide for the anti-cuts campaign if it followed the purism advocated by the SP. It’s almost as absurd as Vanya and Kathy’s red baiting attacks on the left outside of Labour. This kind of sectarianism should be rejected and a campaign that builds links between the different groups that are involved in the anti-cuts movement is vital.

It’s the politics of the SP and Vanya/Kathy that are wrong and ironically mirror each other. So unless Vanya/Kathy are their own Leninist organisation then having shit politics is not exclusive to one type of political organisation.

Well done to Respect for winning in TH. I’d be interested to know if the LibDems took a hammering compared to the last election.

custard on 17 December, 2010 at 4:43 am said:

The SP have really lost the plot. I have espect for them in some of the work they do but it is totally undermined by their sectarianism. The notion that the SP fully participated in the STWC is pure fantasy. They never got involved and the reason has to do with their inability of having it under their control. The STWC I think has a steering cttee of about 50 and I think has 3 or 4 members of the SWP on it. So the SP’s claim it is controlled by the SWP is of course utter rubbish. It seems that the SP fail to understand how to both work alongside others in a common campaign and at the same time argue for its own politics. I am not saying the SWP always gets it right!! We have made many mistakes for sure, however in relation to the present anti cuts campaign I am in total support of the view no single party/organisation can claim hegemony.It needs to be broad based and seek maximum mobbilisations. Yes this will involve those who disagree with a lot of what I believe but we can agree on this simple fact- we do not want to see the welfare state dismantled. In the course of this campaign there will be major differnces but the SP tactic/strategy to simply walk away is to leave the field open to the right.
The SP seem incapable of understanding the basic tenants of the united front.Shame as they have some good militants in their ranks.

paulm on 17 December, 2010 at 7:59 am said:

Andy, the problem is that ALL you are referring to is a participle.

Jim MAY be retailing something he’s heard from right wingers. In which case he’s wrong and i disagree with him. But frankly I doubt it.

I think it is far more likely to spring from his personal experience of Dave’s tendency towards high-handed organisational measures.

For instance, as pointed out earlier, Dave agreed at the NSSN national conference in June to contact people to agree a time and place for an NSSN regional meeting, and accepted my suggestion that a leaflet be produced to advertise this at Tolpuddle.

Nothing then happened until 8th August when he circulated a notice convening a ‘South West Regional Conference’ on 21st August, as faras I know, without consulting anyone else about the appropriateness of the date (including, I surmise from the fact that you were in the Scily Isles, yourself!)

At that meeting he then attempted to exercise a veto on the decision by SP members and other NSSN memebers in Bristol to organise a meeting on the grounds that there was Trades Council in the city (a rationale which would, I suspect, prevent 90% of the NSSN groups inthe country from ever having been set UP!)

You then chose to justify this on the basis of the fact that SP members ‘refuse to work with’ a ‘widespread network of non-aligned Trade Unionists’ Unfotunately when you list this widespread network of non-aligned Trade Unionists it turns out to consist of Dave, his partner yourself (a Labour Party member) and Paul Dyer (a member of the CP — with whom we have actually worked very effectively, for instance in No 2 EU campaign, and who has not, as far as I’m aware signalled his agreement to being included in this ‘conspiracy of third parties!)

There seems to be a consistent pattern here, and it strikes me that actually it is politcal rather than personal — refusal to accept the norms of democracy, as soon as you and Dave find yourselves in a minority you throw your toys out of the pram!

The repeated use of swear words by someone who normally takes care to present his arguments in reasoned language is, I think symptomatic of this. You’ve not just used the ‘the F word’ but also said we are ‘pissing you off’ and accused Neil of being ‘full of shit’.

As I said earlier, I really think that it’s you that’s ‘in a hole’ and should ‘stop digging’. The only crime you’ve really accused the SP of is playing a significant role in building the Bristol demonstration through the NSSN, a crime we are happy to have played a part in!

In contrast you felt you should absent yourself from this demonstration in order to campagin for the Labour Party to be elected in a Swindon bye-election.

Of course if Labour win control of Swindon council in May and then go on to resist the cuts and defend public services and jobs in Swindon, your choice may be justified. However, the record of New Labour in Swindon suggest to me that the workers of that city would be well advised to treat your advice with great caution.

This is the nub of the matter, faced with the worst class attack since Thatcher quite happy to hold up a Kinnockite ‘dented shield’ in the face of the coalition’s cuts the SP, on the other hand prefer to continue in the fighting traditions of the Liverpool workign class and the anti-poll tax movement.

Dave A on 17 December, 2010 at 8:36 am said:

@ paulm 218

The nub of the matter is that the SP are simply blustering about continning the fighting traditions of the working class and the anti-poll tax movement which unfortunately isn’t yet happening and won’t be built by that kind of bluster.

They compound this by implying that all of us who disagree with their sectarian stance towards Labour councillors and the significant section of they working class who support these councillors of simply relying on a Kinnockite dented shield policy.

On top of that, the centrepiece of the SP defence of what they have been up to in the NSSN is to slander an independent activist as a liar and a dupe of the SWP. Even those SP supporters such as yourselves who have been forced to retreat from these absurd charges do so with weasel words laying fresh accusations.

I have no idea whether the accusations which Jim made came originallly from a right wing bureaucrat. But they are precisely the sorts of things right wing bureaucrats always claim against any left winger who is disturbing their cosy routines. Now you chime in with a variation on the same theme.

It is to be hoped that the SP will draw back from the position they have put themselves in. To continue with this defence of the indefensible is to face the danger of degenerating from a sect into a cult.

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 8:43 am said:

#218

“The only crime you’ve really accused the SP of is playing a significant role in building the Bristol demonstration through the NSSN, a crime we are happy to have played a part in! “

oh spare us the Militant style mock-heroic victimhood.

“ALL you are referring to is a participle.”

I have no idea at all what you man by this.

participle, defiition: “•a word derived from a verb and used as an adjective or a noun”

Jim Lowe is a young man who either is or has until recently been a student, so I very much doubt he has personal expereince of trade union work with Dave Chapple.

The fact remains that he has been recycling the type of whispering cristicsm of Dave used by right wingers. Your utter lack of principle, and essential sectarianism is shown by the fact that you judge this on whether or not he has heard this from right wingers; not on whether circulating these rumours objectively weakenens the left.

You don’t mind if Jim’s actions objectiovley give credibility to right wing whispering campsigns, becasue Dave Chapple is now someone you see as an obstacle not an ally

“the SP, on the other hand prefer to continue in the fighting traditions of the Liverpool workign class and the anti-poll tax movement.”

yawn. can’t you move on from this childlike rhetoric? who do you think it convinces?

custard on 17 December, 2010 at 8:54 am said:

“the SP, on the other hand prefer to continue in the fighting traditions of the Liverpool workign class and the anti-poll tax movement.”

Of course the first one lost and the second ended in a brilliant demo in which the Militant/SP went on TV shat themselves and said they would publish names of the troublemakers and were totally discredited in the process. Can you imagine a left organisation doing that to student protesters well x that by 10. The SP crow about Liverpool and Hatton and well should we say anymore.

paulm on 17 December, 2010 at 9:04 am said:

therefore…..’meddling’ is the present participle of the verb ‘to meddle’….

Whether Dave attempting to dictate to NSSN members in Bristol whether or not they can hold a meeting is meddling or merely high handed is a matter of judgement. As is whether what weakens the left are Dave’s actions or Jim’s objection to them.

Jim was a student until 3 or 4 years ago, he has been a member of the NUT and is now member of Unison (and I believe a steward, although I may be wrong on that). I’m surprised that you think that his youth, rather than the fact that he has been an active socialist in the South West for the best part of decade should be the criterion judging his competence to have an opinion!

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 9:06 am said:

#218

“to continue in the fighting traditions of … the anti-poll tax movement.”

Yes what exactly was that “fighting tradition” in Bristol?

The militant put almost all their effort into dominating the Bristol Fed meetings, delegating Millie members from fictitius anti-poll tax unions that ony existed on paper.

If you look at where there were large poll tax uions rooted in workign class communities: e.g. St werburgh, Southville, st George, the milies were nowhere to be seen.
You concentrated on control of the structures, not on joint collaborative work with other people. You had a very poor record on turning peopple out for the protests at the courts, or on demonstrations. You were not the driving force on the 5000 strong demo outside the Council House when the rate was set; and you were not the ones running the advice line for non-payers from the office.

Remember that embarassing public meeting you had at the Malcolm X centre, where 30 people turned up despite mobilising from right across the West Country, and the only non-Milies were a bunch of anarchists who said they hated you and walked out; and three SWp members; and your speaker spent almost the entire time talking about Pilkingtons and other crimes of the SWP!

basically you did elaboprate a correct strategy of non-payment, but the poll tax revolt was an organic movement that involved a spontaneous revolt, which you didn’t “lead”, you rode the wave concincing no-one but yourselves.

And you didn’t understand or support the wave of riot and mayhem on the streets, which was equaly important as non-payment in beating the Tories.

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 9:11 am said:

#218

Unfotunately when you list this widespread network of non-aligned Trade Unionists it turns out to consist of Dave, his partner yourself (a Labour Party member) and Paul Dyer (a member of the CP

That is a list of names i wouldn’t want to antagonise. Four long standing activists that hold influential positions in some of the most significant left union branches in the West Country; that have a wide network of contacts, through the trades councils and years of solidarity work; who participate in four active trades coucils, and who are politically diverse among themselves and recognised not to have any “party building” agenda.

If the socialist party cannot take with them the key left activists in their region who are interested in the NSSN, then what are you building?

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 9:16 am said:

What about the many working class people and students who no longer feel a sense of connection with the labour party… What about the youth who absolutely hate the Labour party for Iraq and Afghanistan and want nothing to do with them?

Vast numbers of youth today see no conection between the labour party and the working class. They don’t need the SP to tell them that the Labour party isn’t a workers party anymore as they have never known it as one.

The most divisive and sectarian group in the UK at the moment, the party that really undermines our efforts towards socialism is the labour party.
Let’s not allow ourselves to be played for fools by right wing oppourtunists hiding under a left cover. If there are some good elements in the labour party, great! I can work with that….
…but let them demonstrate their sincerity in deeds, not just words.

There are, of course, some decent people left in the labour party. I can tolerate labour if they really oppose cuts, in deeds as well as just words, but when they hand out redundancy notices and then come out with bleeding heart stories it just makes me sick. We have to sort the wheat from the chaff, the decent labour people from the oppourtunists who actually want to undermine the left.

It’s great to have unity among activists…. but what about unity among the ordinarry people who are losing their jobs?
If we can’t even tell them that we are fighting for all of them to keep their jobs… then what?

This isn’t about trying to find the best tactic for party building, it’s about finding the best tactic for SAVING PEOPLES JOBS!

mattg on 17 December, 2010 at 9:35 am said:

redbedhead, before you carry on lets look at #165 – it’s interesting the hear that you think the FBU are making cuts to the fire service in the same way that Labour councillors in power are, councillors who are setting barebone budgets and voting for cuts, when it is perfectly legal for them to do otherwise. What a crude slander! You don’t understand at all that the SP is not asking anyone to break the law. The Militant councillors set a deficit budget and won a victory by getting the extra money, they were later surcharged for not setting the rate which is a different issue – it is perfectly possible to set needs-budgets and not vote for cuts, and still be totally within the law, and even if that were not the case, the rules about surcharging have been changed since 1985 so no councillor will be facing a prison sentence or personal fine anyway. You can’t be surcharged anymore! Whatever local councillor or party CC(or perhaps central committee?) you’ve spoke to has certain fed you a pack of lies about to justify their own cowardice – but then you know as much about 1985 as you do about 2010 so it can’t be too hard.

Senga on 17 December, 2010 at 9:41 am said:

Robert P Willions comments are the most sense I’ve read on this blog! All this slagging off of SP is making you all look bitter and twisted.

paulm on 17 December, 2010 at 9:44 am said:

224
I’m not seeking to antagonise anyone, I’m just pointing out that you have created a phantom army which is neither ‘widespread’, not particularly ‘non-aligned’. I’m actually trying to inject some realism into this debate, and return it to political basics, I’m not the one ranting and swearing I’m sure that the SP will continue work in a comradely spirit with those 4 individauls (two of whom have not expressed themselves in this debate) however that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t call a spade a spade and point out it out when two of them are acting in petulent and undemocratic manner.

225

Well we could swap ’embarrasing’ stories about the poll tax till the cows come home. I wasn’t in Bristol during the poll tax, so don’t know what did or didn’t happen the Malcolm X centre. But I am aware that one of the strongest anti-poll-tax unions in the city, Windmill Hill, was built by members of Militant tendency after the SWP had unilaterally closed it down after deciding that non-payment ‘couldn’t work’.

I’m sure in your time you’ve organised meetings which were poorly attended, and felt embarrassed by them, as I’m sure the Militant comrades were if the meeting was anythign like you describe. But the key point is the politics put across in it, it may may seem a little unfair to tax you with the errors of the SWP as you left them some time back, but you’ve obviously not left behind their political ‘method’, combining opportunist accommodation to reformism with quite barking ultra-leftism: ‘the wave of riot and mayhem on the streets, which was equaly important as non-payment in beating the Tories’

paulm on 17 December, 2010 at 9:46 am said:

ps I look forward to you persuading Swindon Labour Party to advocate a policy of ‘riot and mayhem onthe streets’ to beat the cuts….

Andrew Coates on 17 December, 2010 at 10:07 am said:

#238 That is exactly what I and many others heard about the Poll Tax ‘unions’ – though I was not involved in that campaign.

Re: Bristol. The SP have a long history of making ambitious claims.

They claimed that Youth Against Racism in Europe was part of a massive Europe-wide movement created by a huge Brussels demo that their comrades in the country led.

Very very few people in Belgium have heard of the CWI’s small (a few hundred at most) group in their land, then, and now. Or indeed their role in this demo, or indeed its importance.

I can’t remember it’s name even though I looked at its material a few weeks ago.

faultylpgic on 17 December, 2010 at 10:11 am said:

223
One of the things about the Militant is they try to rewrite history. Lets be honest and as they put it “call a spade a spade” they scabbed on the anti poll tax riot. The Militant scabbed on those who “Dared to fight”. I get fed up of them banging on about the poll tax. Lets be honest they were well known for excluding those anti poll tax unions not to their liking. They refused delegates to the conferences from union branches if they knew they were competitors on the left. All this wouldn’t matter but then they go and scab on the movement. They claimed at thee time that Liverpool was the inspiration for the township revolt in South Africa!!! yes thats right Derek Hatton and his Armani suits at £500 a throw really got the soweto YUFF going. I wouldn’t,t trust these chancers to run an anti cuts campaignn as it would reduce itself to a front for the SP. No doubt we would get to hear about Pilkingtons all over again.

faultylpgic on 17 December, 2010 at 10:15 am said:

230
they used to claim it was the LPYS that stopped the NF in the 1970’s… I kid you not. Of course some of us will remember their cowardice over the Falklands war. They were opposed to the demand to stop the task force sailing and has an article which argued for a labour govt to prosecute thee war by socialist means!!! Oh yes the Militant have a rotten history of being soft on British imperialism.

paulm on 17 December, 2010 at 10:16 am said:

Andrew, I don’t think we have made ‘ambitious’ claims about the Bristol demonstration:

Neil said:

‘Hmm that’s odd, considering there was a big anti cuts march organised by the NSSN, among others, in Bristol on October 23rd. It was quite a successful demo by all accounts with the SP playing a big role in pushing the NSSN. How do you think they managed that if they hadn’t been involved in the NSSN?’

And in response to a suggestion that Neil had claimed the NSSN had organised the demonstration (which hadn’t)I added the following information:

‘It was called by the Anti Cuts Alliance, however, at the beginning of September there was some resistance within the (incipient) ACA to the idea of calling a Bristol Demo prior to the TUC making a decision on whether they were calling a national demonstration in the Autumn.

It was an NSSN meeting at the beginning of September (on the 6th I think) which agreed to push the ACA to organise a Demo as soon as possible and IF the ACA did not agree to this, to push the key left unions in the region (PCS and NUT) to call a regional demo in Bristol.
Fortunately the view of NSSN prevailed in the ACA and this was not necessary. However it was SP and other NSSN activists who played a key role in organising the demo, especially in mobising 50 TUstewards who played a key role in protecting the march and rally against police attacks.

So I think it is undoubtedly the case that without the NSSN (especially but not exclusively SP members) there would not have been a march in Bristol, and neither Jim or Neil have misled anyone — though as people outside Bristol they may not have been aware of the full picture.

This also suggests that Andy’s assertion that the ‘non participation of the Socialist Party in the West Country in the NSSN is very revealling’ is one of the more, but by no means the most, ridiculous, assertions in this thread.’

All rather modest I would have thought… Any other ‘claims’ exist only in the imaginations of our opponents….

John T Chance on 17 December, 2010 at 10:18 am said:

Is it SP policy to react to aany criticism from whatever quarter, sensible or otherwise, with furious denunciations of the SWP?

faultylpgic on 17 December, 2010 at 10:33 am said:

234
Or of course once the decision of the TUC to not call a demo in the Autumn had been taken then a local demo would have been called. Its simple really once again the SP have been caught with their pants down. Its always the same,bullshit.Perhaps the SP think a TUC demo should not be supported as they have links with the Labour Party and are part of the pro cuts organisations which we should not dirty our hands with.

faultylpgic on 17 December, 2010 at 10:35 am said:

in answer to 234.Yes and the more exotic the claims about the SWP the better. Do it in a Liverpudlian accent and sound like a mix of lady gaga and John Lennon for genuine effect.

paulm on 17 December, 2010 at 10:39 am said:

234 John, I don’t think that’s what’s happened. Andy made some observations based on his experience of the Poll Tax campaing AS A MEMBER OF THE SWP (and by implication suggesting that their role in that campaign was in some way superior to that of the Militant).

Not only did I ACTUALLY CONCEED that it might be a little unfair to tax him with their errors given that he was no longer a member of that party, but my central critique was of the CONTINUITY between his politics then and now….

It may be more challenging to actually read my posts, but it could help generate light rather than heat….

R2W SWP on 17 December, 2010 at 10:42 am said:

What I don’t understand is why the SWP and R2W are at times insisting that Labour Party politicians with a history of voting for cuts and in the past sending non-payers of the poll tax to prison should speak at anti-cuts rallies. Look at history and its full of mistakes by the SWP – they were against non-payment of the poll tax remember!

Any anti-cuts organisation has to be set up and run on a principle of NO to ALL cuts – surely even the middle class liberals in the SWP & R2W can see that????

paulm on 17 December, 2010 at 10:42 am said:

235 and your logic would presumably be that IF the TUC had called an Autumn demo one should NOT be called in Bristol?

I have to congratulate you on the appropriateness of you ‘nom de plume’….

faultylpgic on 17 December, 2010 at 11:02 am said:

240
No dimwit but it might affect the date doh

faultylpgic on 17 December, 2010 at 11:11 am said:

239
Ahhh at last the old Middle Class SWP…………..Wondering how long this would take to come out of the woodwork. Of course no reply about Militant scabbing on the poll tax demo..all gone quiet on that front.

Now in Mili land it is thought that middle class equals reading books and discussing political ideas beyond the rich are bastards. I was once told by a Militant member that the SWP were all middle class tossers as we had a “Theoretical journal” and they were working class because they didn’t.
Interestingly the SP don’t seem to be handing out leaflets calling students middle class wankers at the moment. lol

Other united fronts that passed them by…section 28.. oh but that was about gay and lesbian rights and the Militant didn’t do that..middle class you see. What about asylum seekers..argh a bit sticky on that one as its not popular so best avoid that issue. iSLAMAPHOBIA..Umm won’t really get involved in arguing against that one..wait a minute what about defend the NHS that really is a hard issue so we will do stuff around that but none of that middle class stuff about racism and homohobia.

Andrew Coates on 17 December, 2010 at 11:14 am said:

Meanwhile, while the SP builds the Proletarian Party (according to James Cannon rules) Unite against Fascism reports (and many of us are blogging about), the EDL is rebranding itself as a squadist counter-revolutionary group prepared to attack anti-fees and no doubt anti-cuts protesters.

christian h. on 17 December, 2010 at 11:16 am said:

Just to be clear about what the statement at the top does: (a) it slags off Dave Chapple and (b) it attacks the SWP. In effect, the SP (masquerading as the “majority of the NSSN steering committee”) asserts that all of the 13 non-SWP SC members who signed the original letter are stooges of either Dave or the SWP. Whatever happened in Bristol, or in the eighties, this is simply outrageous. It would remain outrageous even if the outlandish accusations made against Chapple and the SWP were correct.

One more point: the SP’s claim that councillors can set a deficit budget is quite simply false for all practical purposes. Councils in the UK have no statuatory authority to raise debt. If a deficit budget was passed and the government somehow didn’t manage to install administrators the council in question would simply be unable to meet payroll. I’m sure workers would really appreciate that – maybe the SP could pay them instead.

faultylpgic on 17 December, 2010 at 11:17 am said:

Militant on the Miners Strike..oppose the right wings demand for a ballot with the miners but then the defeat and suddenly join the right wing attacking the NUM for not doing what Kinnock wanted. Oh yes singing songs about a part of Thatchers anatomy and asking women to “Get their tits out for the lads” on the 1984 Mansfield demo. Militant think being working class is to be sexist, and talk about football. Pathetic , and patronising about the best of the workers movement
You want to do crimes of the last 30 years then fucking hell the Militant have a fucking sack load.

Would love a reply about the scabbing on the anti poll tax movement.

The Undertaker on 17 December, 2010 at 11:26 am said:

The present SP lurch into an even crazier sectarian ghetto on the issue of the relationship the anti cuts movement should have to the Labour Party bears out the fact that the SP/ Militant has never understood reformism or how ‘revolutionarires relate to reformists.
Andy is a reformist ,mistaken but sincere this leads himto all kinds of muddled conclusions.However in the fight against the cuts the starting point must be lets work together as we havea common enemy,it is not ‘you are in a party that is part of the problem we denounce your party and so should you as a condition of working with us’ which appears to be the new SP position.Not dissimilar to the loons of the RCG
However the SP has taken this to new heights of madness now they denounce someone who is NOT a Labour Party member ( Dave Chapple) and an organisation that is outside the Labour Party (SWP) as being part of a conspiracy to destroy the NSSN because these people want to give left cover to Labour councillors carrying out the cuts !!!
It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry
#225 I hate to tell you this Rob but I’ve run across quite a few ‘Youth’who’ve joined the Labour Party recently the idea that ‘Youth’ somehow have by passed reformist consciousness and hate the Labour Party is just fantasy
I just love the ‘the party that really undermines our efforts towards socialism is the labour party’
I suppose this is a new phenomena is it because thats not what the SP used to say for example
‘A transformation of the Labour Party to the left will in turn stimulate an influx of mass membership to the Labour Party.
Under these circumstances ,all the attempts to compromise between left and right wings of the Labour Party,particularly under the pressure of the right wing trade union leaders,will not succeed
There is not the slightest future or hope for the right wing.It is doomed in spite of all its frantic efforts to maintain its position,on the basis of decades of domination of the Labour Party and the trade unions.
The irresistable tide of history is against the ideas of the right wing.The right would be defeated and the Labour Party would begin to renew itself and to march in the direction of radical politics more than at any time in its history
The ideas of Marxism will gain enormous support.Active trade union members will participate in the Labour Party on a far greater scale’

Militant British Perspectives 1979

Fantasy then fantasy now

R2W SWP on 17 December, 2010 at 11:39 am said:

~245 “Would love a reply about the scabbing on the anti poll tax movement.”

This will be the anti-poll tax movement which was led by the Militant you’re talking about?!!? Good jo0b no-one listened to the SWP and paid up!!!!

Let’s face it what quite a few on this forum are worried about is the SP leading something – I guess it will all come out in the wash and those supporting politicians who are making cuts will be exposed.

johng on 17 December, 2010 at 11:46 am said:

In terms of the discussion between myself and Andy: one of the crazier things about the SP statement is the attempt to refer to differences amongst trade unionists during disputes as tantamount to treachery of some kind: crazy because of course any shopstewards network worth its salt would occassionally find itself in such a position. But beneath all the sound and fury about ‘Leninism’ Andy and the SP seem to be as one on this question. In many ways debates about these questions go back to debates inside the CP from the 1920s onwards. Essentially the broad left tradition as it came to be known tended to confine its independent action to those unions were the leadership was not under its control, whilst other traditions tended to focus on building self activity of the rank and file more universally. A constant tension within movements of this type, although in practice they co-existed.

But if I were a supporter of the SP I’d just find a way of engineering a quiet retreat. I have a terrible sense of deja vu (as do others I’m sure).

The Undertaker on 17 December, 2010 at 11:56 am said:

#247 Like Beccy Palmer paid up ?
She of course as I’m sure you’re aware was the first woman to be jailed for non payment ofthe Poll Tax in England oh and did I forget to mention a member of the ….I’ll let R2W SWP fill in the blanks
The scabbing of course refers to the statement made on national Tv by Wally Kennedy that the Anti Poll Tax Federeation would ‘name names’ by which he was referring to the so called ‘anarchists’ the Militant claimed caused the violence
I recall on the same night Pat Stack on behalf of the SWP accsuing the Police of causing the violence and refusing to codemn the violence of the demonstrators
I remember a prominent Militant supporter making the absurd claim to justify this position in his report back to the regional Federation I sat on that ‘he had a knife held to his throat by an anrchist on the plinth at Trafalgar square’ needless to say his contribution went down like a lead ballon. Its possible in fact to date the SP/Militants terminal decline from that point

Uncle Albert on 17 December, 2010 at 12:04 pm said:

What a cracking set-to! A Sealed Knot-style bun-fight in the best of sectarian traditions. It’s more entertaining than xmas day tv – let’s hope it continues. And to think, between them, these clowns are jockeying for control of the anti-cuts movement.

Evan Pritchard on 17 December, 2010 at 12:12 pm said:

#247

The anti-poll tax movement was only led by the Militant in the sense that they used every beauracratic method they could (as described by Andy) to ensure that they controlled the All Britain Federation.

People were going to refuse to pay in their millions whether Militant or anyone told them not to or otherwise.

That is not to say that they didn’t play a generally positve role, but the bullshit annoys me as I witnessed at first hand some of their sectarian tactics.

And you cannot deny what was said about grassing people up to the Police. I know it didn’t end up happening, and I am prepared to believe that this was a tactic to expose Police agents provocateurs who were undoubtedly at work on the Trafalgar Square demo, but it was at best stupid and ddemoralising.

Importantly, your new position on the nature of the Labour Party was rooted in the move at the time towards new community activists who were not interested in the LP and who you could recruit at the time in large numbers, as much as any actual analysis of how Labour was developing.

And the SWP did not carry on with their stupid “there’s no point in a non-payment campaign, it’s all about workers taking industrial action, the working class exists at the point of production not comunities” line for that long, once they saw the error of their ways. They were wrong but they did correct their position and went on to play a generally positive role in the struggle.

Of course, had they taken the whole thing seriously from the outset we would probably have had an SWP led and separate Milie led federation both claiming to be the leadership of millions of people.

Eammon McCann made an interesting point about a rent strike in Derry in 1972 in “War And An Irish Town” which always rings true when I look back at the Poll tax movement.

Evan Pritchard on 17 December, 2010 at 12:21 pm said:

#251 I remember that 3 people were jailed by Trafford Magistrates for non-payument (I attended Court to support them) one was a colleague from work, a supporter at the time of Militant. Of the other 2 one was SWP and the 3rd either SWP or Militant.

So much as I agree with the slagging off of Leninist methods it can’t be said that people aren’t prepared to walk the walk as well as talk the talk, and work together practically some of the time.

Any comments Vanya?

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 12:32 pm said:

#246 The Labour party has changed a lot since 79. To suggest otherwise is unrealistic.

Seems like the youth you have in mind are the ones who have joined the labour party. But a lot more youth have not joined the labour party…
Most of them don’t want to be in any political party at all, mostly because they are sick to the guts of being taken for a ride by all the main parties…

Well… at least ‘Red Ed’ isn’t making any promises he cant keep…. Whoopie do!

Lawrence Shaw on 17 December, 2010 at 12:34 pm said:

Seems the root of the whole schism here, away from the usual internecine hatred, is the attitude to take towards Labour Party representatives – whether to either tolerate and try to educate them, or simply isolate and denounce. Some are in favour of trying to sway Labour representatives over a long-period of time, others want to rid the anti-cuts movement of them entirely from day one.

Let’s follow the logic for what the NSSN/SP seem to want – which is that all Labour councillors should vote against cuts and, in effect, “do a Liverpool”.

Dave and Gideon already have the hatchet men ready to go in and take over councils and enact the cuts. So the cuts would still happen and probably be even worse as an unelected official acting on Gideons orders would be far more brutal. “Look Mr Osborne, I’ve managed to save even more by closing another care home!” “Well done, have a peerage Rupert”

The Tories are also threatening to fine the councillors who don’t carry out cuts. I know this is legally untested, but I know this threat has scared quite a few councillors who don’t have much money.

“Ah”, I hear you say, “those councillors should now resign and stand for re-election on a no-cuts platform.”

Some would be re-elected as Labour, some would be re-elected as independent anti-cuts, and some would not be re-elected and a host of others would get in instead – Tories, Libs, BNP, UKIP, Green, Loony…whatever.

Either way, the Labour party at local authority level would be wiped out, which is clearly what the SP and others want as they see Labour as more of an “obstacle to socialism” than anything else including the Tories – as has been stated on here plainly.

The question is, would the collapse of Labour that is being wished for then lead to this much heralded new workers party which is surely the only aim they have?

I’m afraid I just can’t see it.

As evidenced on here, the left-of-labour forces are utterly and completely incapable of working together. The massive window for the new workers party opened when Blair got into bed with the most right-wing US President in history and closed around the time that the Tories got into government. The best opportunity in a generation was squandered and its no good trying to run around fixing those mistakes now.

The enemy are not disorientated Labour councillors. There are plenty I know who simply do not see a viable alternative to cutting – and they would rather they do the best of a bad job than let the hatchet man do it. They do not feel confident of public support enough, at this stage, to mount an “alternative budget strategy”. I know the picture that the left is trying to paint of Labour councillors happily in cahoots with the Tories, rubbing their hands with glee and laughing as they cut jobs, but its just not true. My view is that there is a long game here and many councillors who vote through cuts initially will see what damage they have done, and then turn against them later – don’t forget this is just stage one of a far bigger plan from the Tories.

It is tactically wrong to tell those people who could come over to a far larger anti-cuts strategy that they are our enemy when the real enemy are the bankers, the tax-dodgers, the royals and, above all, the Tory scum who ARE enjoying carrying out cuts.

I would say that Militant were right at the time on the Poll Tax, and largely had it right in Liverpool, although obviously I wasn’t there at the time.

But to basically try to replicate those exact events again in 2010 Britain is mistaken. We are in a totally different scenario with a far weaker and less-confident trade union movement and a far more atomised and divided working class. We badly need a large, united anti-cuts campaign for people to turn to at the moment – people are confused and unsure where to channel their anger precisely because of the plethora of different umbrellas. As I have said elsewhere, when friends ask me what they can do to fight the cuts, I have to send them about five different links to different campaigns and events. This is, in effect, already diffusing and killing off the anger that exists.

To sacrifice the ideals of unity on the alter of sectarianism in a misguided and infantile attempt to kill off the Labour party for narrow sectarian gain and satisfaction, as is happening here, is plain wrong.

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 12:40 pm said:

#254 The SP wan’t to rid the anti-cuts movements of those Labour members who are unwilling to put their money where their mouth is and actually do something to fight cuts.
The SP actively encourages the involvement of Labour Party members that will fight cuts, and will support and fight with them.

Lawrence Shaw on 17 December, 2010 at 12:53 pm said:

#255 – I understand this. My point is that the motive BEHIND the approach is to kill off the Labour party as an entity presumably meaning there is space for a “new workers party”. I don’t believe killing off the Labour party, at this stage, will lead to this “new workers party” being set up.

I also repeat my point that there are lots of people “on the fence” who, a bit further down the line, will certainly come over to a direct anti-cuts position. To denounce and isolate them now for not currently holding the “correct” position will do nothing to grow the anti-cuts movement.

Vanya on 17 December, 2010 at 12:55 pm said:

#255 THe problem is that some Labour councillors will oppose a lot of cuts but not all, as will millions of working class people. The specific campaigns and struggles against specific cuts are what’s key.

A position of opposition to all cuts (apart from the ones we agree with like trident) is based on a political programme, which has to be put across by political organisations and parties. And winning a front organisation to your programme proves nothing.

#252- yes I probably have come accross as a bit too negative.

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 1:26 pm said:

incidently, I was recently on a GMB course with a woman who is a meber of both the Labour Party and the Socialist Party; and who the GMB is interested in pushing to be a Labour councillor.

This might suggest that conscious rejection is not quite so clear cut even among the SP’s own periphery.

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 1:37 pm said:

#256+257

The labour party isn’t a workers party anymore.

Don’t you think there is a difference between growing a ‘movement’ and growing an ‘anti-cuts movement?’

The main concern isn’t to win over labour councillors…
it is to win over the mass of ordinary workers who (believe it or not) don’t want to hear that some of their jobs aren’t worth defending.

This struggle will be won by mass action led by trade unions. It is the RANK AND FILE WORKERS that must be won over, it is working class unity rather than unity between politicians that must be the first consideration. Make unity of the mass of ordinary workers is a prerequisite for anything.
This is a practical point… why would a worker support an anti-cuts movement that doesn’t support them back? If the anti-cuts movement gives a platform to people who want to carry out cuts on a broadly similar level to the condems… well … it’s not very inspiring?

Maybe some labour councillors will be won over, but if they are allowed to hand out redundancies in the morning and stand on the anti-cuts platform in the afternoon… come on! We need the carrot and the stick. Why should they be won over if we invite them onto our platform after doing that, and cheer them for all the good work they’ve done?

You think the labour councillors that bring in cuts will ‘see the damage that they’ve done’ and come on board later… is this a joke?
You saying they don’t know what these cuts are going to do? You think the regret will just be too much for them?

… In the meantime, just dust off the old dented shield… well, when I’m scraping chewing gum off the floor, just so I can get my benefits, I’ll be thinking of those labour councillors, and feeling a warm glow inside that they are crying themselves to sleep every night because of what those nasty condems forced them to do.

Fines…. the working class and the trade unions will pay their fines.. they did before.

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 1:45 pm said:

And by the way, the NSSN is not a front group for the SP. It was set up by the RMT.

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 1:48 pm said:

#228

I wasn’t in Bristol during the poll tax, so don’t know what did or didn’t happen the Malcolm X centre. But I am aware that one of the strongest anti-poll-tax unions in the city, Windmill Hill, was built by members of Militant tendency after the SWP had unilaterally closed it down after deciding that non-payment ‘couldn’t work’.

I’m sure in your time you’ve organised meetings which were poorly attended, and felt embarrassed by them, as I’m sure the Militant comrades were if the meeting was anythign like you describe. But the key point is the politics put across in it,

The relevance of the poll tax, is that you are makig some claim to political authority based upon the record of your “leadership” of that campaign.

The meeting you descrbe was not consdiered an embarrasment by Militant comrades, I remember Pete Brown being very pleased with the turn out, as usualy in Bristol at that time their ublic meetings had about 12 people.

My point is that a public meeting organised to celebrate the victory of the poll tax revealled almost complete political isolation of the Militant in Bristol, at a point, where had they really led a mass movement, they should have been riding high. Indeed, they wwere so derided by many anti-poll tax protesters, that a group of anarchist women specificaly attanded just to say how much they hated the millies for not supporting the Trafalgar square defence campaign.

Was the SWP’s record better? yes and no. To be honest, even after the line changed about non-payment, most SWP members failed to engage with the anti-poll tax movement, however a minority of SWP members were extremely actively involved. remember an SWP member was sent to prison for non payment in Bristol, and a Labour councillor resigned from Labour and joined the SWP over the issue of the poll-tax. Was the SWP “the leadership”? no; but neither was the Militant. Did the SWP wind people up? we sure did, Alex Gordon still can’t stand me after all these years! However, the SWP’s involvement was much more localy focussed on our own local APTUs, and not on the Bristol Fed meetings.

The story about Windmill Hill is transparently not true, as the SWP never wound up any APTU, the line on non-payment had changed to support long before APTUs started being set up in Bristol; and even when we did not think it was a viable strategy we were still keen on APTUs being sustained.

Indeed, wasn’t Tony Staunton also in the Windmill Hill APTU? He never went to prison, but at one stage it looked like he would be.

In fact the Militant’s record on the poll tax has been hyped out of all reality. Remember that the realy big protests outside council chambers on the days that poll tax was set were rarely if ever organised by the Millies; some of the biggest were in towns where there was no organised left at all; and they were sontaneoulsy organised by local people.

That is not to say that your role was not generaly creditable, but you did not “lead it”, except in the formal sense that you held a stiffling stranglehold on a largely irrelevent national Fed committee

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 1:49 pm said:

#258 a member of the labour party and the SP… is that what she told you? She sounds confused to me.

Are you sure it wasn’t the Labour party and the Tories? … they have more common ground on policy.

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 1:59 pm said:

#260

“And by the way, the NSSN is not a front group for the SP. It was set up by the RMT.”

Ahh bless, an argument is sent out by the cult leadership by e-mail, and the sheep all go BaaaaH!

The RMT took an original initiative (correct me if I am wrong, was this not actually originally initiated within the RMT by branch activists that you are now slagging off?); but whether or not the NSSN is a front for the SP depends upon what the SP does, and living dyanmics within the NSSN.

Clearly, the NSSN has alweays had the inherent danger within it of bcoming a front for the SP; but has also had participation from a number of other trade union reps who did not want that to happen, and hasd their own views on the NSSN’s direction.

What is happening now is that the SP are seeking to so fundamentaly alter the nature of the NSSN is that all those activist not aligned with the SP will be pushed out the way.

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 2:03 pm said:

#262

She is one of your members, perhaps you can tell her yourself that you think she is an idiot

personaly,. I have a lot of time for her.

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 2:14 pm said:

#263 Nup… it’s called debate…

Just on a point of interest? Have the reformists managed to figure out why boom and bust hasn’t been ended yet?

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 2:17 pm said:

#265

blimey, is your intellectual vocabulary realy so cripplingly and embarrasingly impoverished, as that?

Do you think that socialist politics and economics is only understood by self proclaimed r-r-r-revolutionaries?

faultylpgic on 17 December, 2010 at 2:28 pm said:

The SP clearly hhave no idea about contradictory class conciousness. Its either you are for us or against us.
My recollection of the SWP re the Poll Tax was that we made a mistake which was rectified but it was a mistake from a rather mechanical formulation/premise re:power of workers in the workplace. etc.
The SWP did not cross any class lines. Unlike the Militant scabbing on the poll tax protesters.
In my town following the demo the Militant were rounded on by activists. The local FED condemned the Militant for failing to support the protesters. Compare that to Pat Stack being interviewed by Frank Bough inn the blue peter garden lol SUPPORTED THEE PROTESTERS AND CONDEMNED THE POLICE. Thankfully the SP have no support from the students as they may grass them up to knacker of the yard as well.

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 2:31 pm said:

#266 I never said that… I’m sure you’re a bright chap…
The point isn’t what you understand… it’s what are you going to do about it?

R-R-Reformism doesn’t seem to have worked… and the Labour Party are not even reformists anyway… they abandoned any ideas of bringing about socialism a long time ago.

The labour party is not a workers party anymore reformist or otherwise, face facts.

faultylpgic on 17 December, 2010 at 2:38 pm said:

Robert- whether the Labour party is a bourgeois workers party (you seem to have a choice of workers party or not which has nothing to do with Marxism)is not about its programme but its social aspect..ie membership/support etc. Its basically set out by Lenin..there goes the SWP middle class tossers and there reading books again..sorry!!

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 2:39 pm said:

The reason we are having these cuts is because capitalist parties across the world, carried out capitalist policies, and are now seeking capitalist solutions.

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 2:43 pm said:

The labour party has changed… it is an out and out capitalist party. The Tory party gets working class supporters, so do the lib-dems, so do the BNP. Does that make them workers parties?

paulm on 17 December, 2010 at 2:48 pm said:

Actually you’re probaly correct that the SWP didn’t ‘wind up’ an APTU (as you correctly state the chronology is wrong) but Tony Staunton did hand to Militant the address list for an anti-poll tax campaign that they had launched and then abandoned in response to the latest ideological flip-flop, which formed the basis for what subsequently became the Windmill Hill APTU — which Tony re-joined in response to the next flip flop.

Interesting that you now accept that the SWP didn’t play a role in the federation, earlier on you were claiming to have been the ones answering the phones in the office. Bristol SP members actually recall you personally grandstanding outside the magistrates courts whilst they were acting as ‘McKenzies friends; inside who was acting as a ‘leaders’ depends upon how you define ‘leadership’ I suppose…..

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 2:48 pm said:

#270

People can join two parties, unaware that it is not allowed. Not everyone is politically clued up.
I raise the issue just to point out that even some close to the SP do not have a black and white view on the Labour Party.

I love it when you lot accuse me of lying, because I never lie, and it just makes you look silly when the truth comes out later.

The Undertaker on 17 December, 2010 at 2:53 pm said:

I find it bizarre that the SP line is so utterly bonkers
Of course MOST ‘youth’ haven’t joined the Labour Party but to deny that there has been an increase in Labour Party membership ( albeit no where near the numbers that have left in recent years) would suggest either Rob lives in a bubble or that he has no contact with reality
Are all these people who joined little different from Tories ? have they joined because they see the Labour Party as the vehicle to push through the cuts ?
As for this bonkers about some golden age when the Labour Party was some kind of mass workers party full to the brim of horny handed sons of toil and was committed to socialism red in tooth and claw ,Rob you clearly have no understanding or knowledge of what the Labour Party was or is.
That quote from the Militant Persepctives states quite clearly ‘There is not the slightest future or hope for the right wing.It is doomed in spite of all its frantic efforts to maintain its position’
Was that right or wrong ? And I hate to raise this but in what way could that absolute statement be considered ‘dialetic’Surely Taffe et al didn’t seriously believe what they had wrote unless they thought Britain was on the verge of Revolution ( in 1979 !!!)
Here’s another bit of that document
‘Changes will take place in the Trade Unions as a consequence of the struggles of the working class against the measures the Tories are trying to implement.In the course of these struggles the working class will find industrial action is not enough to solve their problems,and that political action is necessary.
Once they take the road of political action ,there is only one way in which they can go,and that is to try to change the organisation which was built up by the unions,to move into the Labour Party with the purpose of transforming it to meet their needs’

Now according to the SP the Labour Party was a ‘workers’ party in 1979 yet what is said would ( not even might) happen did not , a brief surge in Labour Party membership around the time of Benns challenge for the Deputy Leadership apart Labour Party membership dropped throughout the 1980’s. The Right far from being ‘doomed’ expelled the Militant leadership in 1983 and Kinnock eventually led to Blair
But why was the Labour Party then a workers party in the 1980’s but not now ?
The Labour Party Rob was in government from 1974-79 during which if I’m not mistaken they pushed through some massive cuts ,at the behest of the IMF, they broke strikes,imposed a wage freeze,introduced virginity tests for Asian women at heathrow airport etc etc
They were a party of cutters then ,yet Militant could write the above
I’ve yet to read any SP explaination of precisely how and when the Labour Party ceased to be a right wing social democratic party and became a fully fledged capitalist party

Lets face it the SP has pressed the self destruct button just at a time when real possibilites are opening up

faultylpgic on 17 December, 2010 at 2:53 pm said:

Robert
None of the other parties are funded by the trade unions, on my branch exec out of the average attendance of 15 I would say 4 or 5 are labour party members. NNone are Tories, BNP or Lib dem. This gets to the heart of the matter. You cannot fathom why 70,000 people have joined the Labour party since the election. At the local anti cuts protests I have seen labour party banners but none from the Tories, lib dems or thank god BNP.
The SP have clearly broken with Lenin on this question What is interesting is that the logic is that ion the old days of Wilson and Callaghan the bankers man the SP clearly believe the labour party was a “Workers party”. Its two sides of the same coin ultra leftism and opportunism.
If you think that labour party members are the same as tory party members then you really have no idea. Simply banning the labour party will not get rid of reformism. Hence the need for a united front.

faultylpgic on 17 December, 2010 at 2:56 pm said:

SP are fucking idiots and bonkers to boot lol fare thee well.

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 2:56 pm said:

Well if she’s not ‘politically clued up’ why does it matter? She’ll find out soon enough I’m sure.

I don’t think we have a black and white view of the labour party… ‘Labour Party’ is just a label for an organisation made up of a changing membership with changing ideas. Lenin’s analysis was correct when he made it… but come on… look again.

R2W SWP on 17 December, 2010 at 3:00 pm said:

Just to be clear – no one is talking about banning LP members from anti-cuts campaigns, its just people who carry out cuts that are not welcome (what party they belong to is irrelevant)

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 3:01 pm said:

#277 the unions and the TUC used to affiliate to the liberals at one time… were they a workers party? NO

Workers recognised this and took the brave and difficult step of building a new workers party… the LRC/Labour Party.

The character of the labour party has changed and the right has consolidated its position. We need to start again with a new workers party… I wish it wasn’t so… but it is.

Vanya on 17 December, 2010 at 3:06 pm said:

#259 Some cuts won’t involve job losses, some will. Some that do will be dealt with by voluntary redundancy that some workers will be happy to take (which is why the PCS for instance is making such a big deal -correctly- about protecting redundnacy payments).

Some job losses will not evoke a great deal of widespread sympathy, others will gnerate widespread anger. The same goes for services.

And many councillors will reflect this.

I’m not suggesting that anyone should justify any cuts to jobs and services, but the position of no cuts at all is at the level of political power, which none of us hold at the moment. And the job of putting accross a political programme that shows that cuts and austerity are not necessary is separate from (although clearly parallel with) the job of fighting cuts on the ground.

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 3:11 pm said:

#283 power is in the hands of the working class and the trade unionists if we can use this struggle to build consciousness among them.

Steve on 17 December, 2010 at 3:16 pm said:

The reason that we are having these cuts is not because of ‘capitalist parties’, but the system of capitalism. The BNP, Lib-Dems and Tories may well get working class support at times, however they do not have any trade union affiliations. You know, the organs of the working class.

When did the LP become an out and out capitalist party and what was the process? It doesn’t seem to hold up much in terms of a Marxist analysis.

faultylpgic on 17 December, 2010 at 3:17 pm said:

So the right wing had got control.unlike in the callaghan govt..oh yes its was in control then . The poverty of the SP’s argument is that it is based on half baked assertions and anecdotal evidence and not on social/class relations.I have never believed the Labour party was a workers party you did. No wonder you are so disappointed. Its like a lover who has been dumped. It was Taffe et el who rambled on about Labour being a workers party.Those who are joining the Labour party for example are doing so because they hate the Tories.Work it out…they don’t want the welfare state to be disbanded. But the mass party that is the SP have the idea that they can ban the labour party from anti cuts alliances!!!

Anyway back to the poll tax…why did the Militant scab on the protesters? given that record should they be allowed in anti cuts alliances… the SP should give a guarantee that they won’t grass anyone up to the coppers…or wear £500 armani suits or sack thousands of workers like they did in Liverpool…oh hang on sacking workers by the Militant council was not a cut in fantasy Taffe Island.

Steve on 17 December, 2010 at 3:22 pm said:

Not what I said at all! I merely asked when the LP became an out and out capitalist party and by what process. Can you help me out here with a Marxist analysis?

Vanya on 17 December, 2010 at 3:23 pm said:

“I’ve yet to read any SP explaination of precisely how and when the Labour Party ceased to be a right wing social democratic party and became a fully fledged capitalist party ”

I think at the time the SP was formed there was a very clear indication that the LP was in the process of becoming a fully fledged bougreois party with the abandonment of Clause 4 and wholesale attacks on the union link.

I felt at the time that Scargill for all his faults had a good analysis of this which is why I was a founder member of the SLP and remained for a couple of years.

I think what has clearly happened is that the outright Blair programme was slowed down to the extent that this transformation has still not been completed and that there has been a slight reverse. Obviously the financial crisis played a role here.

But The Undertaker is right, I don’t think the SP have ever fully analysed what’s going on here.I agree with 251 above and think this is because their whole rationale for abandoing the LP was that they wanted to tap into fresh layers of recruits from people who wanted nothing to do with the LP and who they were picking up in the anti-poll tax campaign. Obviously the fact that the witchunt (linked to their anti-poll tax work) was deepening had a big role as well.

In other words their “turn” was based on factional advantage rather than on any serious analysis. THey have burned their bridges and so they are stuck with this (now) 3rd Period Stalinist position, which they need to find some way of abandoning pdq.

Vanya on 17 December, 2010 at 3:26 pm said:

#289 Scargill pointed out that Blair was banging on at the time about the “tragic split in progressive politics” at the turn of the 19th / 20th Centuries- meaning the very foundation of the LP and split from the Liberals by the unions.

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 3:29 pm said:

The SP are not banning labour from anti-cuts groups… That’s rubbish. But the policy of the labour party is to have cuts. If LP members disagree with their party, and mean what they say, then come aboard.

What I don’t want to see is the massive amount of work by all parties that goes into organising and building anti-cuts groups etc., to simply be used by the labour party to get ‘Red Ed’ re-elected, a man who is also in favour of eye-watering cuts and is promising nothing.

Get a grip.

faultylpgic on 17 December, 2010 at 3:30 pm said:

287
The issue of the trade union connection which clearly the SP think is a minor issue is not one of does the union give any money but how central is that funding, the social make up of its membership and supporters and it relationship to the wider working class. Now have thinks shifted and changed over the last 15 years.. of course. Has there been a qualitative change in the class nature of the Labour party then I would say no. Workers by and large still have some idea that the Labour party should represent them, Blair is often seen as an outside..”Not a proper labour person” etc. But look at Callaghan is that a qualitative difference? But then the Militant were hysterical against those outside the labour party. It did fuck all in the anti Vietnam war, anti racist struggles or industrial upturn except dig away in CLP’s. It was done over by the right and in part the Militant just could not work with others on the left inside the labour party at the time. This latest spat is I am afraid to say very typical of your method. It is moralistic, sanctimonious and arrogant. The SP have no feel for the struggle, no nous and offer slogans as insights and lets face it bor the pants of everyone.
What theoretical breakthroughs or ideas have the Militant ever come up with. This historical change of the Labour party..where is the definitive work, the evidence and analyses. There is nothing except slogans.Not good enough.

johng on 17 December, 2010 at 3:32 pm said:

Does anyone know if sheila mcgregor’s fraternal critique of the politics of the militant from ’86 is available on-line anywhere?

The Undertaker on 17 December, 2010 at 3:34 pm said:

Once upon a time the Militant aka the Revolutionary Socialist League took a tactical decision to practice the entryist tactic advocated by Trotsky to his small band of supporters in France and Spain ( and later Britain) For Trotsky this was short term tactic made at a time when the social democratic parties were moving rapidly to the left and when operation in the CPs was impossible
For Trotsky it was imperitive for the revolutionaries not drop their revolutionary beliefs and accomodate to the reformism of the organisations they joined
Militant not only dropped their revolutionary politics as the quotes above show they completely sold the pup that the Labour Party was THE only party for workers
Now I will accept that maybe Rob hasn’t been around very long or hasn’t read much as seems clear by the paucity of his posts but surely the SP can come up with a better explanation than #281
I also love the upside down logic of #282 but perhaps propertidy can provide us with one single example of when Dave Chapple( remember him? ) or the SWP have ever said they ‘condone cuts made by Labour ?
If that is how you are going to apply your new RCG perspective then you will be alughed out of every campaign meeting you attend,though perhaps that explains why you are setting up your own. Maybe next Taffe wil be telling us the SP is the ‘mass party of the working class’

The Undertaker on 17 December, 2010 at 3:35 pm said:

#293 its in ISJ 33

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 3:46 pm said:

#273

Actually you’re probally correct that the SWP didn’t ‘wind up’ an APTU (as you correctly state the chronology is wrong) but Tony Staunton did hand to Militant the address list for an anti-poll tax campaign that they had launched and then abandoned in response to the latest ideological flip-flop, which formed the basis for what subsequently became the Windmill Hill APTU — which Tony re-joined in response to the next flip flop.

So you have an utterly schematic view of what happened. Firstly there were no “flip-flops”, the SWP’s position was untenable, and many of us through good class instincts backed non-payment from the start, and never deviated from that position, Tony included. The SWP leadership quietly changed their position to match what many SWP members were doing anyway.

However, you will recall that because the Poll Tax was introduced a year earlier in Scotland, there were attempts to set up APTUs in anticipation in England, several months befoe people became politically conscious of the issue. The SWP sought to set up poll-tax unions in Ashley and Bedminster (Windmill Hill), and Millies Roger and Christine Thomas (IIRC, but may be wrong) tried to set one up in North Bristol, initial meetings were held, and names collected, but we were much too early, and these APTUs ran out of steam.

A few months later, these groups were resurrected or new groups started, often around new activists who had not been involved in the first launches. So what you are saying is that Tony was involved in setting up a group, it was too early, when the conditions became more favourable, he fed the names and addresses into the new group, which was being formed at the time that the poll tax was taking off to be a mass campaign.

“Interesting that you now accept that the SWP didn’t play a role in the federation, earlier on you were claiming to have been the ones answering the phones in the office.”

No you are distorting what I said there. The SWP were regularly involved in the Fed meetings, Marcus Coyte from St George, myself from Werburghs, and a comrades called Paul (can’t remember his surname, a gashead with curly hair) from Southville regularly attanded most Fed meetings; Tony Staunton attended some of them.

True, many SWP members were not really active; but many Millies despite being regular attenders at the Fed were not active in real APTUs. There were paper poll tax unions sending delegates that only existed in the Militant’s imagination.

“you were claiming to have been the ones answering the phones in the office.”

Actually I never claimed that the SWP were the ones in the office, buit it wasn’t the MIllies either. It is part of your method here to reduce the polituics to a sort of turf war between left groups, which makes sense if you really think you led it. In fact the campaign involved hundreds and hundreds of people ithout any previous political affiliation acting semi-spontaneously; and some great and innovative political stuff was done by them, like the anti-poll tax Xmas panto that the St George group put on.

Actually IIRC the heavy lifting in the office was done by Cllr Anne Thomas and Phil Smith, and other activists not aligned to any of the left groups.

I did however also have my home phone number advertised as an advice line, which went to every home in Werburghs, and then Ashley Ward Labour Party advertised it to every house in Pauls and Montpelier as well. Myself and my wife took literally hundreds of advice calls, about non-payment, the rights of bailiffs, court procedure, etc.

as you say, whether this was us “acting as ‘leaders’ depends upon how you define ‘leadership’ I suppose…..”

You recollection of the court incident is risible and reveals the apolitical celebration of dullardism that you hide behind.

The council, in folly, summonsed all non payers from Ashley ward on the same day; the Werburghs APTU included not only myself and my wife, but also Alex Gordon (now President of RMT), Bern Kennedy (later to join the SLP) , former members of Class War and a number of politically non-aligned activists. We did a tremendous amount of work in advance of the court summons, and about 1000 people turned up to court.

The whole point of the McKenzies friend strategy was to empower peopole with confidence to go to court and clog up the court system; so with 1000 people there, the issue became completely different, as people were already cnfident due to numbers, and not everyone’s case could be heard anyway, the court was already cloggeed, and it was clear most peoples’ cases would not be heard. I am not dissing the efforts of those comrades being McKenzies friends, but on the day that wasn’t the issue; we needed to prevent the crowd from dissipating, and keep people inspired and involved.

Incidently, Tommy Sheridan was doing a bit of grandstanding of his own during the poll tax, so even the Militant see the need for rousing public speaking.

The other thing you omit from you account, bogged down as it is with celebration of the dull routinism, is that the Iraq war had just broken out; so the politcal mood was very much heightened. There were about 300 people in the lobby of the courts, I was askd to speak for Werburghs APTU and gave a tub-thumping talk about the links between the war on the poor at home, and the war for oil abroad. Sorry if that was too grandstanding for your “one issue at a time” approach.

During the speach, the police intervened to stop me, threatening to arrest me if I didn’t stop. I continued, and asked the audiecne whether I shoud stop, and whether the police should be alowed to arrest me. I then loudly told the police they had lost the viote and they couldn’t arrest me, and they went away. Yes, I call that leadership. Yes I think that empowered people facing court with some confidence.

On a day like that I find it incredible that there were other socialists not involved in the crowd, but sitting in court a few feet away acting as McKenszies friends. I suppose it does depend what you call leadership.

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 3:48 pm said:

#294 You’re right, I haven’t been around long… I’m sure I’ve got more to learn. I’n not even a shop steward. I’m an ordinary member of the working class. I’m not an intellectual. But I know when I’ve been shafted.

I just don’t want to lose my job folks. The Labour party supports cuts and have handed out redundancy notices to people I know.

I can’t give you a marxist analysis.. I’m sorry… I don’t have the brains.

All I know is that I don’t want to be in an anti-cuts meeting and listen to npt councilors spouting off… So what’s your solution to that?

faultylpgic on 17 December, 2010 at 3:51 pm said:

Fuck off rob with the I am a poor thick worker routine.I doesn’t wash.

paulm on 17 December, 2010 at 3:54 pm said:

294. Both Dave and the SWP have argued very vociferously that whilst they are ‘personally opposed to all cuts’ in order to involve the Labour Party in the anti-cuts movment it would be a mistake to argue for a position of ‘No Cuts and Job Losses’.

In Dave’s case he specifically criticised a leaflet drawn up by Chris More of the Socialist Party for the Gloucesterhire Against the Cuts deomonstration on these grounds.

If this isn’t condoning cuts made by Labour I don’t know what is.

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 3:57 pm said:

#276

“If she is an LP member she would have been informed that she is unable to join any other party that stands candidates in elections. She will not be unaware”

idiot. People are not infored of that when they join the LP.

More to the point, she joined the SP while already a LP member, I believe. People don’t necessraily know all this stuff.

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 4:00 pm said:

#299

Yes in Glouscester the trouble is sectarian twits in the Socialist Party in danger of wrecking a newly formed Trades Council, through polarising politics over the relationship with the Labour Party.

The SP are acting with total insensitivity to the political heterogenity of the trade union movement.

Steve on 17 December, 2010 at 4:01 pm said:

Rob – you still made a bold statement that the LP is an out and out capitalist party and that we need a new workers party. If you believe this then there must be some kind of analysis of why this is the case and as part of an organisation that professes to be Marxist then that would be the basis of the analysis.

I accept that you may be new to the movement, that is fair enough. But the statements you have made need to be backed up with some kind of concrete analysis, otherwise they are empty phrases.

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 4:01 pm said:

#297

“I’n not even a shop steward. ”

I hope you aren’t coming to NSSN meetings then, as you are constitutionaly excluded.

the whole point of the NSSN was to set an antry requirement that people are elected lay reps, to try to keep it focussed on TU issues.

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 4:02 pm said:

298. Thanks a bunch. I never said I was thick… I said I was new… But I am poor.
You offer nothing but insults. Thanks comrade.

The Undertaker on 17 December, 2010 at 4:10 pm said:

You don’t need to be an intellectual to read books
Sorry but when you say you know when you’ve been shafted you do know its the ConDems pushing the cuts don’t you,because from the way you have put it it seems your main anger is directed at the Labour Party.
I used to have to put up with being in many meetings with Militant members telling me and others to join the Labour Party so I would suggest you do what I did and say that they are wrong ,try to win the meeting.
Thats got to be better than what you seem to be advocating which is to abstain from taking on Councillors who push through the cuts
If you applied the logic of your argument you would also not attend your union meetings as they would most likely have in them full time bureaucrats ‘spouting off’ and most probably Labour Party members who try to defend the position of Labour Councils who they say have no alternative but to implement the cuts.
If we took your line we would effectively give up our unions and the anti cust groups to the Labour Party.
Simply saying we will set up pristine pure anti cuts groups will not resolve the fact that the ‘official ‘ anti cuts groups will attract large numbers of people we need to win to a total opposition to the cuts
Your position of virtual abstention is the flip side of how Militant used to accomodate totally to labourism
In short you need to be in another organisation which is of course…..!

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 4:12 pm said:

Well, I’ve read the SP stuff and it makes sense to me… They dropped clause 4. They’ve done nothing about the anti-trade union laws and there has been more privitisation and PFI schemes. It also comes from my life experience and the dissapointment in the labour party.
I can remember Thatcher being in power. She was nuts… we really expected Labour to change things when they came in
Well I don’t think they did. I’m sure there are people who could give a much better explanation than me. But when I hear what the SP say compared to the Labour party it just resonates much more with what I have experienced. I just don’t believe in the labour party anymore. I really can’t stand them. I’m willing to believe some of them might be ok, but the ones I have met just sound like tories to me.

Andy… no, I won’t be going to the NSSN.

The Undertaker on 17 December, 2010 at 4:15 pm said:

#294 when and where have the SWP ‘argued vociferously’ for this position
I knew the SP had gone nuts but openly making things up and lying is realy scrapping the barrel. If you are what passes for SP cadre they really are stuffed

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 4:19 pm said:

Paulm

The NSSN meeting in Bristol in Seot that you have referred to.

Can you confirm whether that was a meetig of elected lay office holders in TUC affilated unions, or was it an open meeting?

The Undertaker on 17 December, 2010 at 4:26 pm said:

I look forward to the headline in the Socialist ‘STOP THE LABOUR CUTS’ it’ll sell like hot cakes I’m sure

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 4:30 pm said:

#304 If labour had won the general election, that is exactly what 50000 students would have been chanting.

redbedhead on 17 December, 2010 at 4:49 pm said:

#305 – Labour didn’t win the election. That’s called reality not “what if…” which isn’t a very useful basis to organize around.

Vanya on 17 December, 2010 at 4:51 pm said:

Robert- Unfortunately the nature of this blog is that people are not always very polite to each other (to put it mildly).

In one sense it may not matter what label you put on the Labour Party, but I do think it is important to be able to explain how it came about (and when) that the LP went from being part of the working class movement to being a bosses party no different to the Tories and Lib Dems.

That’s a big difference as I am sure you will agree.

Obviously the LP has always had a tendency to side with the bosses and the state, but this, in the eyes of most socialists, was always set against the fact that as a party it had the affiliation of millions of trade unionists and a nominally socialist (or social democratic) programme, and that there was room to use it to achieve some progessive aims and that there was always the possibility of winnining it to a more left wing position.

So if none of that is the case anymore, when did it change and how? You belong to a party that was committed to being in the Labour Party until around 15 years ago, condemning those who would not join as sectarians, and now they describe it as another bosses party. That’s a big difference.

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 4:53 pm said:

#306 Hey, good come back… Labour’s off the hook then… phew!

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 4:57 pm said:

#307 http://www.cnwp.org.uk/Declaration.htm

redbedhead on 17 December, 2010 at 4:58 pm said:

But, again, none of the SP members on here are able to clarify why it’s OK for their TU executive members to support and argue for the acceptance of cuts (PCS pensions, FBU hours – or layoffs during the Liverpool Council days) but it is unacceptable for anyone else to feel caught in the same conundrum.
The point is that this isn’t about “exposing” individual councillors, its about winning people to a better strategy for fighting the cuts than electoralism. If a Labour councillor says that they are anti-cuts, allows the use of their office resources, contact lists etc. but says that they have to vote the whip because of a whole series of reasons noted above, it rather exposes the idea that change can happen through electoral means alone.
But it is throwing the baby out with the bath water to refuse to permit Labour councillors and their supporters to be involved because they don’t accept the entire programme. Not only does this mean no access to those councillors’ resources, more importantly it means excluding Labour supporters on a utopian basis since there is no mood at present for mass, illegal defiance of budget laws (never mind that there is the matter of where deficit money would come from since councils don’t have the authority to raise capital through debt). Never mind the fact that it is not at all clear that the majority of people are against “all the cuts”, as opposed to what is patently obvious: that they are mobilizing in opposition to the ConDem cuts.
What the SP are arguing for – and risking breaking the NSSN over – is a united front from below: “we will work with Labour Party members but not with their leaders.” Except that they are their leaders in significant part because their leadership is accepted by the mass membership of the party.

Vanya on 17 December, 2010 at 5:01 pm said:

#301 THe thing is that people have had experience of being shafted by Labour governments in the past. Some positive reforms combined with a lot of shafting (the ballance between the 2 varying at various times).

Blair’s government also brought in the minimum wage, legislation to protect LGBTs at work, the EMA which the Condems are scrapping and other reforms (all as nothing when compared with all the bad stuff I agree).

So, again, why exactly have things changed fundamentally, rather than by degrees?

redbedhead on 17 December, 2010 at 5:02 pm said:

#308 – “#306 Hey, good come back… Labour’s off the hook then… phew!”

Where did anyone say that? But it is rather other-worldly to attack Labour for cuts that don’t originate with Labour… None of which implies that one must be silent about Labour playing the role of hatchet for the central government cuts. But this isn’t a moral argument – it’s an argument about how best to stop the cuts. Is it by having Labour councils or a Labour government or is it by mobilizing people against the cuts – starting with that which is agitating and mobilizing them and then generalizing from there. Excluding them a priori if they don’t accept your analysis of neo-liberalism and the failures of Labourism is to act as a block on the radicalization and to push people exactly into the arms of the Labour leaders who would like nothing more than to avoid having to work with radicals with a broader analysis of the reasons for the cuts and how to fight them.

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 5:13 pm said:

I am also confused by the Socialist Party’s attitude to unions more generally.

UNITE, UNISON and GMB are already in talks with councils the length and breadth of the land, seeking to mitigate job losses.

Only this week I had conscultations with the local Labour Group leader over their manifesto for the may elections.

Because even if the budgets are cut by 30%, there are multiple levels of response by the unions: i) outright opposition to the spending cuts; ii) alternative proposals about how the budget can be met in a way least disadvantageous ot staff and service users. iii) even where there is a fight, some sections of workers are more confident/powerful, some services are politically easier to defend.

BUt ultimately, even if the cuts go ahead, there will be a negotiation, and where were are not strong enough to defeat the cuts outright, there will be a process where the unions work with management depite the cuts.

Are the SP saying that people should leave the unions, because the unions will be prepared to make agreements that involce some cuts?

Are they proposing that their NSSN front becomes a new “red TUC”, that will fight against all cuts?

How could that possibly be achieved?

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 5:44 pm said:

The left must work with the trade unions, and at the same time respect what is possible and what the members want. It isn’t always possible to win everything you would like. Arguing for a fighting position and helping to link those struggles for the need for effective political representation is sometimes slow work. We MUST win over the trade unions, they are the heavy battalions of the working class. These are the people we get involved in all this stuff for.

But the labour party ain’t a trade union. It pupports to represent them politically.
Does it? Can it? Or does it hinder the trade union movement, neutralising its potential power?

Who are the labour party and in who’s interests do they act? When it comes to a choice between bailing out bankers or helping working people… who’s side are they on?
Look at what they did before the election, and the cuts they were planning had they won.

Everybody is entitled to their own position on this, answer it for yourselves… nothing is ever 100% black or white I know. But I think the working class deserves so much better. You must be able to see that?

Is the labour party going to support workers when they move into struggle? I’m not going to hold my breath…. but if you want to hold yours, have at it.

jimp on 17 December, 2010 at 5:47 pm said:

Looks like the SP have been studying the method of Gerry Healy…

The Undertaker on 17 December, 2010 at 6:05 pm said:

I’m afraid that if Rob represents the new breed of SP supporter then the SP is going to make the WRP seem like the Fabians.
It sounds like the lady bird book of socialism apparently unless we agree with the SP we clearly don’t see that the working class deserve better.
Again Rob I would urge you to do a little bit of reading on the history of the Labour Party perhaps you should start with Lenin on Left Wing Communism an Infantile Disorder
christ ! never thought I would suggest that as reading to a member of a group who lived and breathed the slogan ‘Labour to Power on a Socialist Programme’back in the day
That Taffe has a lot to answer for and I’d wish he’d get a suit to fit for a change ( I thought they’d shut Greenwoods when Stalinism went tits up )

christian h. on 17 December, 2010 at 6:14 pm said:

Rob: Everybody is entitled to their own position on this

But this is precisely not what the SP argues.

The Undertaker on 17 December, 2010 at 6:31 pm said:

Next stop ‘social fascism’

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 6:40 pm said:

326. ?? Am I screaming for revolution… I don’t think so? Have I said to abandon the trade unions.. I don’t think so?

Anyway, thanks for the suggestion. I’ve dipped into that book a little but haven’t read properly yet. I didn’t realise this blog was only for fully trained marxist theoreticians. I’m just chucking in my opinions. If it’s bo%$ox, you can just ignore me.

I didn’t say that unless you agree with the SP then you don’t think the working class deserve better. But I think we can be grown ups and have a debate and learn from that debate. In the end, the approach that best brings the working class together will be proven in the coming months and years.

I’m not the official spokesperson for the SP (as I said, I’m still learning!) I’ve read some of that book, and as far as I remember lenin was quite flexible in his approach, using compromise when it was prudent… but also not compromising when it wasn’t.
There is no single answer and these sort of decisions are made my weighing things up. (or maybe I’m wrong… I’m still trying to understand all this stuff)

The SP has done it’s weighing up and have taken their position. Perhaps things will not develop as they expect, perhaps they will. I think their position, on balance, will appeal to most ordinary workers. That’s my sense.

I’m really wondering if the Labour party will support workers when they move into action to oppose the cuts? What position will labour supporters adopt re: strike action?
(It will be interesting to see how the situation develops with regard to that)

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 6:50 pm said:

317.. well if you don’t agree with the SP there are other parties and groups that you can agree with. The SP are being accused of trying to form ‘the’ anti-cuts movement… but this isn’t true… they haven’t called for the end of the CoR or RtW, or said they wouldn’t work with them. So long as we don’t try to cut accross each others actions and support each other as much as we can… then what’s the problem?

If there is no such thing as ‘the’ anti-cuts movement, then why all this objection to the NSSN setting one up? If the NSSN decide (democratically) to do this and put another perspective before workers… really, what is the real objection?

In the local anti-cuts group where I live, we have SWP, SP, Labour, greens, CPB, CPGB all coming together. They don’t agree on everything, but we can have the debate, and generally get on pretty well.

christian h. on 17 December, 2010 at 7:17 pm said:

The SP demands that nobody involved in the anti-cuts movement work with Labour officials, and in local anti-cuts groups where they are in control they implement this policy. When those who disagree then go ahead and form their own group that will work with broader forces, the SP comrades come onto this blog and accuse them of “splitting the movement”. You really couldn’t make it up.

paulm on 17 December, 2010 at 7:26 pm said:

@ 316 (and faultylogic passim and ad nauseum ) there’s no pleasing some people: Derek Hatton’s suits were too posh which was wrong and Peter Taaffe’s don’t fit which is apparently as bad……

Steve on 17 December, 2010 at 7:31 pm said:

‘What position will labour supporters adopt re: strike action?’

I would imagine that many of them will be those who are taking the strike action.

Henry on 17 December, 2010 at 7:31 pm said:

#320 “The SP demands that nobody involved in the anti-cuts movement work with Labour officials, and in local anti-cuts groups where they are in control they implement this policy.”

Christian H – everyone on this blog knows this is not the position of the SP, putting lies like this just makes you sound like a fool. GROW UP SON!

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 7:38 pm said:

paulm

As you are back, perhaps you would reply to the issues of the poll tax I address at #291, where I refute the nonsense you wrote earlier about the poll-tax campaign in Bristol.

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 7:43 pm said:

320: ‘you really couldn’t make it up’ …. you sure?

The SP will work with anybody in the labour party that wants to fight the cuts. There is no ban on labour party members.

The SP are proposing this approach of fighting all cuts for the NSSN, and the majority of the NSSN agree. They do this so that they are not tied in knots when trade unions affiliated to the NSSN want to take strike action.

What if ‘Red Ed’ doesn’t think a strike action is ‘responsible’?

From the NSSN statement above:
“Matt Wrack General Secretary FBU pointed out that campaigns like NSSN, freed from any bureaucratic obstacles, are well placed to react quickly and effectively in conjunction with fighting trade unions to fight the cuts. An anti-cuts committee, democratically elected at the conference but linked to our NSSN steering committee, will make us even more able to intervene effectively in this movement at this volatile time.”

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 7:57 pm said:

Red ed standing up for the unions:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/10/07/ed-miliband-warns-unions-against-pension-reform-strikes-115875-22615690/

paulm on 17 December, 2010 at 8:50 pm said:

324, Andy, I’ve been back an hour, I’m making my tea, and it’s Friday night. I haven’t time to analyse all the points in your contribution. I didn’t issue demands that you respond to my points within set timescales (and you actually took about as long as I have) and had I done so, I would have at least had the politeness not to describe your points as ‘nonsense’ it is possible to disagree sharply without being personally derogatory.

I guess the fundamental political point of difference is that you underestimate the importance role that that there WERE McKenzie’s Friends in court played in ensuring that there was a mass turn out at court. Mass struggle doesn’t emerge from no-where, strikes for instance take place because workers have confidence in their union, not just through the impassioned speeches of the AJ Cookes of this world, but the fact that shop stewards have fought over sickness absences and the state of the toilets, that too is part of leadership. Yes Tommy Sheridan, and hundreds of other Militant comrades gave powerful speeches in the Poll Tax struggle, but we walked the walk as well as talking the talk. You assert that you also ‘walked the walk’ and I’ve no reason to disbelieve you. Certainly in Hackney where I was at the time of the Poll Tax that was not true of your comrades in the SWP,who on the day that summonses were issued in Stamford Hill left panicked messages on the answerphone of the PTF secretary asking ‘what should we do’?

You appear to still carry from your days in the SWP the illusion that mass struggle can turned on and off by brave speeches (even merely wished into existence). I suspect that is the fact that that so often proves impossible that’s led you into attempting the equally vain task of breathing life into social democracy — long extinct beast.

redbedhead on 17 December, 2010 at 8:57 pm said:

“You appear to still carry from your days in the SWP the illusion that mass struggle can turned on and off by brave speeches (even merely wished into existence).”

Interesting to believe that the SWP (or Andy) is guilty of voluntarism when it is the SP that is pushing through a resolution at the NSSN SC that has no support beyond itself, as though having the “correct position” is enough to win a struggle. Ditto the attitude to the Labour Party in anti-cuts committees. The SWP is, at least, arguing the need to patiently work with all those who say that they want to build a fight against the ConDem cuts because winning the whole argument for opposing all capitalist austerity is not won by proclamation (or brave speeches, if you like).

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 9:05 pm said:

#327

“You appear to still carry from your days in the SWP the illusion that mass struggle can turned on and off by brave speeches”

Well that clearly isnt true, as I have already mentioned the preparatory work in the area done to ensure a big turn out in court: street meetings, canvassing door to door, several leaflets, jumble sales, cake stalls, posters in people’s windows; providing a local telephone help line.

As you say this was walking the walk.

the difference is that I have acknowledged that the Militant played a positive role, and I have admitted the deficiencies of the SWP’s approach. i have also stressed the crucial role played by the semi-spontaneous activity of huindreds of activists with no connection to any of the left groups.

you in contrast stick with a narrative of the Militant being the leaders, the SWP being absent fro the struggle, and the working class beig a stage army with empty heads waiting for the wisdom of your leadership.

Answer me this. If the SWP were so cra0p in Bristol over the Poll tax, and the Militant so great. Why did labour councillor Anne Thmas resign from the Labour Party making a public anouncement to 5000 people outside the Councl House on the day the poll tax was set, and publicly announce she was joining the SWP.

According to your narrative it is inexplicable that she didn’t join the Millies instead.

leona on 17 December, 2010 at 9:14 pm said:

paulm hits the nail on the head when she mentions ‘ the role militant played by acting as McKenzie’s Friends’ up and down the country. in the city im from there were 2 areas where the swp ran the anti poll tax fed, not one of them ever turned up to courts to help defend those summoned, and what is funny, it seems no swp member was ever summoned, which begs a another question?
militant were prepared not only to ask people not to pay the tax but go the whole hog and defend them through and through. the poll tax struggle didnt end the day it was scrapped, it ended after years of defending ordinary people through the courts.
the swp and others on the left seem to think if we ask really really nicely maybe labour cllrs wont make cuts, and if we are patient they will form the next government and it wont be as bad.
none of you are prepared to defend the working class against these attacks. if you accept one cut, you accept that working people should pay for this crisis.
so by all means wait around wishing a mass movement might develop, but us in the sp will do are best to build a movement that can defeat these cuts not just moan about them.

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 9:17 pm said:

#327

“I guess the fundamental political point of difference is that you underestimate the importance role that that there WERE McKenzie’s Friends in court played in ensuring that there was a mass turn out at court. ”

The provision of Mackenzie’s friends is a fetishisation on your part.

i didn’t recall there being any controversy at all about the issue at the time in bristol. the main dividing lines in bristol were:

i) some opposition from the more active poll tax unions about whether there was any need for the bristol Fed (the SWP agreed with the Millies that there was a need for a Fed)
ii) widespread distruct of the fact that so many Militant members on the Fed were delegates from poll tax unions that did not exist
iii) annoyance that one Militant delegate to the Fed actually lived in the Ashley area, and was not involved in his local APTU (Werburghs) or any other APTU
iv) A difference over the importance of the Trafalgar Square Defence campiagn
v) a difference over the importnace of Bristol wide demonstrations (where SWP and some labour party members supported mode demos; the MIlitant and some of the active APTUs favoursed localism)

I don’t recall there being any dispute or contentiousness about McKenzies friends at all.

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 9:18 pm said:

#330

“if you accept one cut, you accept that working people should pay for this crisis.”

Will Socialsit Party members on the PCS executive refuse to accept even one cut?

Are you saying they will not accept any deals that involve compromise and redundancies?

redbedhead on 17 December, 2010 at 9:50 pm said:

“none of you are prepared to defend the working class against these attacks.”

Good lord, this stuff is straight out of the Sparts – “everyone else are class traitors but us who are the real communists!” Absolutely other-worldly stuff that won’t impress anyone outside of a cult.

The Undertaker on 17 December, 2010 at 9:55 pm said:

Funny not one of the SP people on here has even attempted to address the issue of Wally Kennedy and the ‘naming names’after the police riot at the Poll Tax demo
#331 leona its odd that in my area not one militant supporter was jailed for non payment but of the two sent down 1 was SWP.
I incidently had an attachment of wages served on me
And the inane and pathetic comment ‘none of you are prepared to defend the working class against these attacks’ is a new low
Who the fuck do you think you are and what struggles have you led apart from the struggle to string two coherent ideas together. No doubt next we’ll be told by this drone that Dave Chapple what the fuck has he ever done
And Rob you really are as thick as you suggest ‘what position will labour supporters adopt re strike action ‘ are you serious or do you really live in some kind of SP dream world
Are the SP now so bonkers they cannot distinguish between Labour members ,Labour councillors and Labour Mps. Do we take it now that the SP regard everyone who voted labour as supporters of the cuts
I earlier quoted some of the crazy perspectives of the Militant in 1979 in retrospect the present rump called the SP make those perspectives seem positively sane
Again if this is the calibre of the SP membership and its level of debate they are fucked

The Undertaker on 17 December, 2010 at 10:08 pm said:

334# at least the Sparts had the excuse that they were in the pay of the CIA this lot do it for free

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 10:20 pm said:

334. You know perfectly well that is not what i meant. If your argument comes down to calling people thick and playing with semantics then you’ve lost the argument.

You haven’t addressed the point in 325. If we don’t oppose all cuts, then how can we support all trade union action to oppose them?

Red Ed doesn’t like strikes very much, I gave an example (one of many to chose from) at 326. Will the labour party members, in the anti-cuts campaigns that give platforms to LP members that accept some cuts, be able to respond quickly to and fully support unions that go into struggle? People like Matt Wrack recognise the potential for getting caught up in bureaucracy and discussions.

If the cuts are defeated, it will be by the trade unions ultimately, not by Red Ed. So our position regarding supporting workers with the action they decide to take is really important. All the campaigns must have a clear position on this.

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 10:22 pm said:

#327

The most important issue, paulm, is not some long dead detailed and arcane argument about how importnat mackenzies freiends were or were not (and I imagine people reading this thinking WTF are they talking about)

the issue is that I do not mythologise the poll tax revolt, and you do mythologise it, in order to make ridiculous claims for your current political authority.

the Militant played an at times brilliant role in the poll tax fight, sometimes a much less creditable role. You made some good strategic and tactical calls; the work around the courts was good. On the other hand you were undemocratic and manipulative, you offered to grass people to the police, and you did not support the Trafalgar Square defence campaign.

the SWP also played a very credible role in the poll tax, despite some early ultra-leftism, and very poor strategic grasp at the outset. the SWP’s involvement was al;so very patchy and many remained uninvolved, but in some areas combined good locally rooted non-payment capiagns with a sort of dynamic imaginative street politics that the Millies were not so good at; the SWP were better at sustaining relationships with other activists (probably because we were playing catch up, so we were on best behaviour)

However, you delusions about the Militant leading the struggle remain delusions because most people who didnt pay had no contact with the Militant, or knowledge about the campaign; many didn’t pay because they just couldn’t afford to. most people who went to court had no mackenzies friend; the biggest protests outside council chambers had no militant involvement, and were in towns where the far left didn’t exist.

The scale and militancy of riot at Trafalgar Square, the non-payment campaign, and the Newbury by-election win for the Lib-Dems were all vital components of thatcher’s defeat – not just the non-payment that you helped publicise.

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 10:24 pm said:

#336

“If we don’t oppose all cuts, then how can we support all trade union action to oppose them?”

the trade unions are not going to have action to oppose all cuts. As it stands there is no mood for that, and many of our members still accept the basic economic case that cuts are necessary.

Unless the march 26th demo is of a game-changing size and militancy, any action wil be partial and sectional.

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 10:25 pm said:

338… but when they DO take action… will they be supported?!!

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 10:32 pm said:

Whether we are talking about partial and sectional strikes, or whether we have a general stike… will the unions be supported?

The labour party has been pretty unsupportive to strikes recently…

We need campaigns that can encourage and support the unions. Not tie them up in knots.

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 10:33 pm said:

#339

that is a futile question,

For example, even if the Socialist party won control of a council they would still be the employer, and might not always agree with the unions on every issue.

The Labour paty has never been a party that supports strikes, the unions seek to influence the party in the realms of policy and implementation; we don’t expect them to lose elections to support us; when we can win things industrailly by the strength of our own organisation

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 10:34 pm said:

#340

“The labour party has been pretty unsupportive to strikes recently…”

yes it has been unsupportive of strikes since 1903, but when did the Socilist party come to this revelatory conclsuion?

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 10:36 pm said:

I’ll take that as a no.

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 10:47 pm said:

So… what will happen in the CoR and the RtW when labour party members on their platform who support some cuts are confronted by strike action against cuts that the labour party supports?

I think Matt Wrack is right on this one. There could be a danger of these campaigns being bogged down.

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 10:50 pm said:

#344

Do you honestly thjin these isues are new? The unions will agree to differ with the Labour Party while remaining friends. And the unions will prosecute the strikes to win aganst labour councils as well as Tory ones.

River on 17 December, 2010 at 10:51 pm said:

Have a look at the debate on this Preston’s local newspaper thread. It sums up the attitude of the ‘Reluctant’ Labour councillor and the ‘Responsible’ Labour councillor perfectly. Together they make a great team, implementing sugared cuts on behalf of their Tory bosses: http://www.lep.co.uk/community/local_services_2_1889/council-contacts/action_plan_launched_to_tackle_savage_cuts_1_2864414

River on 17 December, 2010 at 10:56 pm said:

In that thread ‘TJ’ and the remarkably self-aware ‘FatB@stard’ are both Labour councillors. ‘River’ is me: River.

The Undertaker on 17 December, 2010 at 10:59 pm said:

The Labour Party didn’t support strikes when the SP were buried deep inside it,what Rob is having difficulty in understanding is that there is a difference between the Labour Party and its leadership who are and always have been essentially in favour of capitalism albeit at times with a more social democratic /statist approach and Labour party members .
Given the SP has just spent the UNITE Gen sec election campaigning for a LABOUR PARTY member Len McCluskey you would think Rob might just have grasped the nuance
Is the SWP opposed to ALL cuts yes do we start with a position of insisting all those we work with hold the same position No do we try to win them to our position Yes is that easier if we don’t denounce them first YES

Sorry if some of this is how can I put it ABC stuff but how else can it be put
The Socialist Party of Great Britain ( no relation …yet) have a maximailist position they denounce strikes because strikes do not oppose the wages system .They are are have been existence since 1903 and have ossified into a cult but at least they have been consistent unlike our friends in the SP
Anyone ( and I take it you haven’t Rob) who has been involved in trade union activity and had to negotiate knows this side of a revolution there is always some form of compromise what determines the winner is the level of organisation and combativity of our side.
If we took your bonkers approach we would go into every meeting with management and say ‘we want socialism and we want it now anything less would be a betrayal of the working class’ I suspect the workers you represent would send you packing pretty quickly

Funny really then that the SP backed the London FBU deal which fell well short of what they were originally demanding then the SP attacked the SWP( and its Firefighters) for critising the FBU leadership for not fighting for more. Who’s the sell out now then ?

The Undertaker on 17 December, 2010 at 11:03 pm said:

#345 If I can make any sense from that which Labour Party members on which RTW platform are you referring to ?
Will the SP denounce Matt Wrack for the compromise deal that undermines his members previous conditions or will it continue to attack the SWP for saying more could have been won ?

The Undertaker on 17 December, 2010 at 11:09 pm said:

Rob I suggest you read the link provided by River you will of course note that Micheal Lavlette proposed a motion opposing ALL cuts perhaps you or some of your better read comrades could enlighten us as to which organisation he belongs to ..here’s a clue its not the SP

River on 17 December, 2010 at 11:16 pm said:

And because he is opposing all cuts, the SP in Lancashire is backing his stand. You could call it ‘the unity of the deed’.

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 11:24 pm said:

348… I’m talking about trying to have unity around supporting strikes when the unions decide to take them… I don’t preach to the unions and tell them they must strike. But if they do… I think any anti-cuts campaign worth its salt must be right there alongside them.

Are you trying to say that ONLY the LP leadership support some cuts? Come on..

Many of those ‘social democratic/statist’ members that you mention are still supporting some cuts. You are not seriously saying that all members of the labour party apart from the leadership are against all cuts?

If being against ‘some cuts’ is all it takes to be on the CoR/RtW platform… then the following scenario is likely to occur….

There will surely be some strikes against the cuts in the near future (don’t you think?)…
… and some of those strikes will be opposed by some labour party members (pretty likely)…. if the CoR and Rtw have labour party members who support those particular cuts on their platform (quite possible)… what happens if workers strike against those particular cuts that those members support?

This isn’t some weird ultra-left position I’m advocating… I’m not putting any position as such with this question…. I’m just describing a likely scenario and wondering how it will play out in those campaigns.

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 11:26 pm said:

351.. I support anybody who is against the cuts. If he’s LP, SWP,SP or monster raving loony party… it’s all fine by me.

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 11:31 pm said:

The SP supports Matt Wrack… He did what his members supported him in doing.

Individual labour party councillors don’t need to win a ballot in order to make their own minds up against cuts. They can each decide this for themselves.

The Undertaker on 17 December, 2010 at 11:32 pm said:

No you are not Rob you are talking bollocks I think politics is not for you though clearly that is now an advantage in the SP
As for the mighty Lancashire SP ( what no Preston,Wigan,Burnley,Blackburn etc etc Branch) backing Micheal I’m sure he’ll be chuffed ,perhaps at the next election they might even go as far as campaigning for him ,wouldn’t that be nice

Andy Newman on 17 December, 2010 at 11:36 pm said:

#354

“SP or monster raving loony party”

Is that the new party name?

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 11:38 pm said:

356.. Oh yes we are!… oh no your not!… oh yes you are!…. look behind you!

Yes, it is possible that the SP would consider campaigning for him.

Robert P. Williams on 17 December, 2010 at 11:40 pm said:

357…

Prinkipo Exile on 18 December, 2010 at 12:01 am said:

There’s another irony in the Preston situation. One of the councillors who voted against Lavalette’s motion is a former member of Militant from the time when they led Liverpool City Council that they seem to think somehow has relevance to their claim to be able to lead the anti-cuts campaign 25 years later. Lavalette himself is a former member of the Labour Party from the same period of course.

And The Undertaker is correct that the SP in Lancashire have never lifted a finger to support Lavalette’s election campaigns, even when he stood as Socialist Alliance. The main comment that the SP made about Respect’s election successes is that it was based on and “opportunist appeal to muslims”. At least Lavlette is still a councillor, able to propose principled motions, run public campaigns and with a good chance of re-election, even though he would be standing under a third different label, unlike the SP’s sole one time encounter with a fly-by-night Preston city councillor nearly ten years ago.

River on 18 December, 2010 at 12:11 am said:

There’s a lot for us all to learn from current events in Preston, to his credit, Lavalette is learning a lot. The SP has stuff to learn too. Theory is grey, but ever green is the great golden tree of life, and in Preston that great golden tree is dropping fruit that will nourish all of us, if we’re ready to digest it properly.

Robert P. Williams on 18 December, 2010 at 12:34 am said:

I think we all have stuff to learn all the time. I certainly do.
The world is always changing. To take one position and keep to it for ever and always would be a mistake. Everything is changing all the time.

I’ve come to distrust the Labour Party, but that doesn’t mean I think they are all bad.

The SP has made mistakes in the past I’m sure.

There are many decent people in the SWP… we really have more similarities than differences, so the differences we do have on tactics are often magnified.

I’m sure that what is happening now and in the next few years will be a steep learning curve for all of us.

The Undertaker on 18 December, 2010 at 12:59 am said:

Fine sentiments Rob but I think the latest zigzag by the SP will be a twist too far,there are great battles ahead having an uncritical position of the left trade union bureaucracy as the SP does ie Wrack,McCluskey etc will prove very costly as will the position of sectarian denounciation of the Labour Party.
The SP this week I fear has burnt its bridges with too many people ,its retreat into a small sectarian ghetto will make it little more thana bigger version of the more crazy sects such as the RCG.
The better LP people can be won to revolutionary politics as can SP members but the way your organisation is going at the moment will only end in the SP shrinking even further

Robert P. Williams on 18 December, 2010 at 1:11 am said:

Well see.

Robert P. Williams on 18 December, 2010 at 11:03 am said:

I think some comparisons can be drawn with the poll tax era though: It was the non-payment campaign and blocking up the courts that really made the policy unworkable. The protests were important too, but it was people’s willingness to defy the law that really won it. Thatcher saw the mass of workers turning against the state… something that terrifies the Labour Party too.

The labour party councils prosecuted and jailed non-payers. In Scotland the SWP called on their own members to pay.

Labour are sitting back now and just expecting the next election to fall into their lap.
But following the massive poll tax victory, it was still the Tories that won the next general election. Seven years of John Major followed.

People remembered what Labours attitude was, and so despite gaining votes, they didnt win. In the following years labour continued to attack the left, for showing the people what could be done by real socialists, and drove socialism out of the party.

The Labour Party will be happy to pick up votes by appearing to take part in the anti-cuts movement, but these seasoned labour councillors (who are well practiced in carrying out cuts)are just playing politics. They will have the axe in one hand and the anti-cuts placard in the other… a placard given to them by the SWP.

The SWP must get real about this: they really think they can win over a significant number of labour councillors to the no-cuts position in deeds as well as words? I don’t think they even believe that themselves really.

If labour councillors come to support the anti-cuts movement, it will be to save their own skins, so why make it easy for them. Why hand them the placard when they are still holding the axe?

E on 18 December, 2010 at 1:17 pm said:

I agree with the SP in that I oppose all cuts, and I will support serious candidates to the left of Labour.

However, I think their current position in relation to the NSSN is wrong and dangerous for several reasons:

1) A shop stewards network will reflect a range of political opinions. If the SP wants to set up an anti-cuts coalition to reflect their particular political programme, they should do so in their own name. Packing a meeting to use the NSSN brand to launch it, despite failing to persuade a single person beyond their ranks, means destroying the NSSN, which would be a loss to the movement. To proceed on this course AFTER all the non-SP members of the NSSN Steering Committee have warned that this would mean they saw no point in further participation is reckless in the extreme.

2) The SP approach to “broad unity” in the anti-cuts movement seems to consist of the SP deciding up front who is worthy to participate. “Cuts” is a sufficiently wide topic that there will be millions of workers (never mind Labour councillors) with contradictory positions. Some may play a great role in defending one service, while falling for Con-Dem lies over cuts in another area or believe some cuts are necessary. To win them over to a position against all cuts, isn’t it better to involve them alongside us than exclude them?

3) The SP seem to think that most workers share their position in relation to Labour. Whether or not the SP’s position is right, recent election results would tend to suggest that most workers do not share that view. This is classic ultra-leftism – deciding your tactics based on what you think the situation ought to be, rather than what it is. Dismissing Labour’s local leaders, and writing off with them huge swathes of the working class who (sadly) look to them.

4) The SP are justifying setting up (yet another) national anti-cuts coalition on two main grounds. Firstly, they argue that the NSSN should be active against the cuts. This appears to be a complete red-herring – it already is, and the statement from the non-SP members of the NSSN Steering Committee makes clear that they agree it should continue to be. Secondly, they highlight weaknesses in the other existing organisations – some real and some imagined. Central to this is the idea that RTW or COR can’t be relied upon to oppose cuts imposed by Labour. I can’t see any compelling evidence to support this view. In any case, the policies of whichever group or groups play a serious role in the anti-cuts movement will be shaped by that movement – any organisation operating in an area with a Labour council that failed to oppose its cuts would fail to build on the ground and become irrelevant. What I find more worrying on this score is the SP’s conception of how to avoid the movement having the “wrong” politics. They propose a very narrow steering committee (10 elected, plus chair & sec of NSSN). I understand that at the Steering Committee meeting, Linda Taffe of the SP was arguing this should be composed of “the sort of people who can get things done” and gave as examples Billy Hayes and various other union full time officials. The irony is that such people are far LESS likely to be consistent in their opposition to all cuts or Labour cuts than ordinary activists from the unions and anti-cuts movement itself. The argument that only an NSSN All-Britain Anti-Cuts Campaign could be relied on to support workers’ action against cuts seems the opposite of the truth. Would such a body be more or less likely to support unofficial action than the NSSN, RTW or COR?

In conclusion, I think the SP stands at a fork in the road. It can get credit from pulling back, work with others in the NSSN to play an important part in the anti-cuts movement, arguing its distinctive position within the movement and attempting to lead it in the direction it believes is most likely to be successful. Or it can press on, using the packing of meetings as a substitute for the winning of arguments and building of genuine alliances, alienate the rest of the movement, destroy the NSSN that it has played such an important part in building, and consign itself to a longer or shorter period of being largely irrelevant to the anti-cuts movement. Choose well comrades…

Andy Newman on 18 December, 2010 at 1:23 pm said:

#366

I think that is a good and fair summary of the situation.

bill j on 18 December, 2010 at 2:12 pm said:

What it misses out is the essential symmetry between the two main protagonists the SWP and SP. This is basically an inter-bureaucratic faction fight between two rival apparatuses, who both, for the same albeit counter posed reason want to control the anti-cuts movement.
To put it crudely, they need recruits to pay their wages and dream of “influence”.
So the SP denounce the “crimes” of the SWP. Some are real crimes some are weird imaginings, some are plain bad prose writing almost unique to that organisation.
The SWP denounce the “crimes” of the SP. Some are real crimes, some are weird imaginings, while they use RTW to split the anti-cuts movement up and down the country.
And we as by standers are asked to choose between the protagonists.
Of course the only real choice is to reject both. Whatever formal differences between them do not effect their essential symmetry, pursuing a bankrupt bureaucratic method that has failed the left in the past and which will, it it triumphs, destroy this nascent movement too.
To quote Zammo from the Grange Hill Gang “just say no!”

David Ellis on 18 December, 2010 at 2:15 pm said:

#366 Yes an excellent summary. Would that I were one tenth as articulate and intelligent I would have summed it up that way. As I am not I can only endorse.

#363 Also a comment that tells it like it is.

Andy Newman on 18 December, 2010 at 2:18 pm said:

#368

except Bill, that the SP/SWP spat is less important than the fact there were non-aligned TU lay sctivists in NSSN who have been swept aside by SP bureaucratic arrogance

E on 18 December, 2010 at 2:32 pm said:

@bill j #368

I missed that out because I don’t share the view that this debate is to any significant extent about the “crimes of the SWP”, real or imagined. In the debate, SP comrades have sometimes appeared to be trying to reduce “the other camp” to Dave Chapple + the SWP, which is patently not the case, and then to attack them both rather than dealing with the actual arguments. I’m sure we all have our views about every organisation in the movement, but I think debates are more constructive, more likely to lead to united action, if we focus on the issues in hand rather than treating every disagreement as an opportunity to sling mud around at anyone we disagree with.

I only generally see any point in engaging in debate if it’s either going to result in me learning something, or me persuading someone else to do something. I’d like to persuade the comrades in the SP to reconsider their position. It appears that you would like to persuade people in the movement to “reject” both the SP and SWP. Fine. But while slagging off other left groups seems to be a major feature of what passes for debate here, it’s not really likely to change the minds of people in or around those organisations. Given that they constitute a fairly large chunk of the left, I would have thought it worth everyone engaging constructively with these comrades, regardless of whatever disagreements there might be. That’s what the non-aligned people on the NSSN Steering Committee have done up to now. What’s changed is that the SP are currently creating a situation where this would no longer be possible. If you want to see greater unity in the movement against the cuts, this should seriously worry you and you should be trying to discourage it by engaging constructively in the debate. If you don’t want to see greater unity against the cuts, few people will be inclined to pay a great deal of attention to your advice on how to achieve it.

Andy Newman on 18 December, 2010 at 2:41 pm said:

#371

exactly so.

One of the more bizarre aspects of this whole affair is that when faced with legitimate political cristism, mainly from non-aligned activists the Socialist party has responded by kicking the SWP.

i actualy think that this is part of a systemic failing in the SP’s politics, for example their approach to the Socialist Alliance was that it shoudl be a formal federation between left groups, which leaves no space for non-aligned activists.

It is still not too late for the SP to step back from the trajectory they have embarked upon.

bill j on 18 December, 2010 at 2:54 pm said:

I agree its not about the crimes of the SWP or about the crimes of the SP for that matter.
I agree that the opposition was not primarily lead or motivated by the SWP. In fact they had very little to do with it, but went along for the ride as far as I know. But like all these disputes, once these organisations become involved then the particular issue is not so important but is simply a stick with which the rival apparats beat each other.
Its no accident that Dave Chapple’s letter is prominently featured on the RTW website for example.
All of these disagreements need to be seen through the prism of bureaucratic advantage.
Basically both sides are the same even when they disagree with each other. There is a necessary rivalry and conflict between them implicit in the fact that they lead separate organisations.
The essential purpose of the leaderships of these two organisations is to enlarge their membership and influence. There’s both a direct economic reason for that and an indirect ideological one. Its what pays their wages and what validates their existence.
If on a given occasion that bureaucratc interest coincides with that of the working class then so much the better. If it doesn’t then so much the worse. That isn’t to say of course that the leadership/bureaucracy/apparat is identical with the memberships of these organisations, although of course that doesn’t stop the leadership/bureaucracy/apparat taking credit for the work of their membership in the name of the “organisations”, far from it, in fat they’re parasitical on the membership, but it is a unmentioned fact that all of these “political” disputes are in fact inter-bureaucratic ones in as much as they are promoted by the rival bureaucracies.
OK so Andy Newman a trade union bureaucrat, is blind to bureaucracy too. Well there’s a surprise huh?

E on 18 December, 2010 at 3:16 pm said:

@bill j #373
You imply that it’s a bad thing that important debates in the movement get turned into arguments between SP & SWP. So why use your comments to actually encourage the very misconception you are complaining about? Instead of going on about the SP & SWP, why not actually engage in the debate about what would be best for the NSSN and the wider anti-cuts movement? If you are a shop steward who isn’t in either organisation, why not contact Dave Chapple and add your name to the statement, helping to prevent this becoming just another SP v SWP spat? You say “All of these disagreements need to be seen through the prism of bureaucratic advantage” – why not try looking at them through the prism of working class advantage instead? Why not do something to influence the situation in a positive direction? Otherwise you’re playing a less constructive role than either the SP or the SWP who you are so quick to criticise.

The debate about the politics, direction and organisational forms of the anti-cuts movement and the trade union rank-and-file is an important one. I can’t agree with you that this issue is less important than its role as a “stick for rival apparats to beat each other with”. Perhaps it’s that difference between our political priorities that explains the different focus of our posts?

The Undertaker on 18 December, 2010 at 3:31 pm said:

Just a little correction at this stage
At no point did the SWP ever tell its members in Scotland to pay the Poll Tax
And I have to say again if Rob is seriously saying that the SWP strategy is to seek to win Labour Councillors who ‘ have the axe in one hand and a placard ib the other…given to them by the SWP he is even more stupid than he claimed earlier

billj what on earth are you on about? you clearly have no idea about what the key issue is here but have only one rather bizarre agenda the belief that the mighty ‘leadership/bureaucracy/apparatus ‘ of the SWP is only interested in having their wages paid by the membership. Are you mad or just stupid as you clearly have no idea of what ‘wages ‘ are paid by the SWP to its ‘Leadership/Bureaucracy/Apparatus’ because if you did you would realise how stupid you sound.Here’s a tip find a dark room go into it and emerge when this is all over
Oh and being a branch secretaryis not the same as being a trade union bureaucrat

On a far more sensible level E has made a number of excellent points
I find it interesting that Linda Taffe would mention Billy Hayes ,Billy is undoubtably well to the left of the Labour Leadership but I may be mistaken here but he has overseen a process in Royal Mail that has seen large numbers of jobs go. Now I’m not saying he wanted that but if the SP are now dealing in absolutes as Rob seem to indicate then how can the SP work with a Union leader and a Labour Party member to boot who has NOT opposed all cuts.
It doesn’t mean you have to be an apologist for Labour to point out the fact clearly known to any class conscious worker that the cuts being forced onto Councils are TORY CUTS.
If the starting point is to attack the Labour Party as the SPs clearly is ,then they will destroy their organisation ,their better members will be isolated and ridiculed at work and in the unions and their membership will either vanish or degenerate into a cult.
Today I was out in the freezing cold selling Socialist Worker the response on the streets was brilliant and as anyone who has doen any serious anti-cuts petitioning will tell you there is a real anger out there. The only people who attacked Labour first was a someone who then went on to say how it was all the fault of Asylum seekers let in by Labour and a Lib Dem supporter ( there are some left !)needless to say neither signed the petition in support of the Students or the TUC demo
If the SP think the first instinct of working class people is to attack Labour they are either stupid or insane or both
We have to be neither

bill j on 18 December, 2010 at 3:57 pm said:

Of course I support Dave Chapple, my good friend George B moved the defeated amendments to try to improve the NSSN statement.
But inasmuch as this debate has been taken up by the SWP (see undertaker above) then this becomes simply an inter-bureaucratic spat. Another key aspect of this is the venom directed towards the rival organisation “stupid, insane or both” etc. this is a key method through which the apparat (and their tools) insulate their respective members from people who are, let’s face it, in their overwhelming majority good socialists on both sides.
The reason I think the SP and SWP aspect is so important to this discussion is that it is a worked example of how real political differences are manipulated for bureaucratic advantage. Inasmuch as the SWP (in this instance) promote “correct” politics it is only to score advantage over their bureaucratic rival and vice versa.
The only way forward from all this is to consciously fight the rule of these rival bureaucracies throughout the movement on both sides. Neither is fundamentally different one from the other. Which is of course why Dave C is obviously on the right side.

The Undertaker on 18 December, 2010 at 4:09 pm said:

Your good friend George is of course in an organisation which would also be part of your crazy world view were it big enough
‘the rule of these rival bureaucracies throughout the movement’ what a fucking clown you are pal.
Both organisations ( as your ‘friend George’ ) have had some of their best militants witchunted and expelled from UNISON by the REAL bureaucracy which rules the movement a fate unlikely to befall a dick like you
Here’s another tip joina union become a rep and fight the boss and the trade union bureaucracy ,when you’ve done that come back on here and your ‘lone nut ‘ viwe might be worth something until then just lie down and shut the fuck up
( hope I’ve not been too impolite)

Andy Newman on 18 December, 2010 at 4:15 pm said:

#375

“Today I was out in the freezing cold selling Socialist Worker the response on the streets was brilliant and as anyone who has doen any serious anti-cuts petitioning will tell you there is a real anger out there. “

I was out leafleting today for the new Swindon anti-cuts group, with activists from GMB, UNISON and NUT. The resposnse was good, though I think “real anger” would be hyperbole, and what interested me was that there were a number of people who genuinely thought the cuts are necessary, but were very open to being persuaded otherwise by debate and discussion.

Anonymous on 18 December, 2010 at 4:16 pm said:

At the 4 March Scottish Unity conference, where all the regions of the anti-poll tax campaign came together, the SWP opposed mass non-payment and argued that without the backing of the trade union leadership the campaign could not succeed!

Andy Newman on 18 December, 2010 at 4:22 pm said:

#379

The SWP admitted that it took an ultra-left position in Scotland at the begining, and the Glasgow organiser was sacked. Indeed I remember Cliff saying “people tell me there is no RCP in Scotland, that is bloody rubbish, in Scotland they spell RCP like this S W P.”

However you are still wrong, and repeating sectarian “atrocity stories” as part of a mytholigisation of what really happened.

the SWP did oppose the non-payment strategy as a strategy for the movement, but they did not tell their individual members to pay. Having lost the argument, they went along with the Militant’s strategy, because that was the democratric decision of the majority

To suggest otherwise is just part of your alternative reality.

christian h. on 18 December, 2010 at 4:28 pm said:

Who is this E? He or she should post here more often

redbedhead on 18 December, 2010 at 4:30 pm said:

I remember Cliff saying “people tell me there is no RCP in Scotland, that is bloody rubbish, in Scotland they spell RCP like this S W P.”

Ah, Cliff… He had a way with words.

Brian the Dog on 18 December, 2010 at 4:43 pm said:

#375 “Today I was out in the freezing cold selling Socialist Worker” mate most people think you are just a old saddo!!

How many did you have to buy and how many did you give away, i mean sell?

The real anger must be in your head as, as Andy says a lot of people still think the cuts are necessary and still need to be convinced otherwise.

All the main posts on here at the moment expose the delusion, opportunism and sectarianism of the SP and SWP and what happens when they try hijack things or organisations for their own narrow agenda.

No wonder the majority of the organised working class in the TU’s holds them in such comtempt.

E on 18 December, 2010 at 5:01 pm said:

@Brian the Dog #383
My experience is that there’s a lot of anger, but also a lot of confusion, a lack of hope, a lack of organisation and a lack of action.

As Andy commented in #378:
“there were a number of people who genuinely thought the cuts are necessry, but were very open to being persuaded otherwise by debate and discussion”

The highlight of recent weeks for me has been the student revolt. The numbers involved far exceeded expectations, as did the level of anger and militancy. The impact of the protests on the working class was far greater than from many past student protests for a number of reasons I believe it is important to grasp. Firstly, it lifted the spirits of all those who oppose the cuts, as this was the first real mass action against them, and hinted at what is possible. Secondly, because the protests included school and FE students as well as university students, its social composition was more working class than many past student movements, and it was more rooted in local communities.

The protests have not yet succeeded in stopping the cuts, but they have shifted the political debate significantly. Now there is more debate about whether cuts are a good idea, rather than just about the timing, level and choice of cuts. They showed that a determined protest movement could begin to split the coalition, undermining the dangerous misconception that this shower as as strong, united, confident and determined as in the 1980s. The protests demonstrated how quickly anger can sweep past a truly appalling NUS leadership.

If we want to encourage and shape resistance to the cuts, I think rather than quibbling with each other about which adjectives to use to describe the level of anger, we need to try to encouage support for the student movement from within the working class movement, and to try to make as many links as possible to use the energy of the student movement to inspire and raise the confidence of workers. Organised workers have far more power than students, but we are (to put it mildly) a bit rusty at this “fighting back” business. The pace and scale of the attacks from the Con-Dems makes it vital and urgent that we get on a war footing, but also provides opportunities to build union and community organisation and resistance – if activists can pause from knocking lumps out of each other long enough to focus on that.

To come back to the core issue of this thread – we need the many capable comrades in the SP working as part of the anti-cuts movement, not destroying the NSSN and wandering off to set up yet another anti-cuts coalition, probably weaker, narrower and more irrelevant than the ones we’ve already got, which certainly have their own weaknesses to overcome.

Brian the Dog on 18 December, 2010 at 5:05 pm said:

#384 Agreed

Andy Newman on 18 December, 2010 at 5:11 pm said:

#384

Yes, lots of good points there.

But one other area we must understand is that many people opposing the cuts will see voting labour as part of their fight back – almost regardless of what the Labour Party are actually saying or doing; and electoral victories in councils in May for Labour can feed into the crisis of the government, and also give confidence for people to oppose the cuts on thr streets and by industrial means.

This is a very fluid and complex situation, where the scale of the anti-cuts movement will also be felt in the labour party, and expressed by labour voting. It is the job of the left to ensure that this strengthens the fightback, rather than diffuses it.

The Undertaker on 18 December, 2010 at 5:38 pm said:

Brian the pussy cat whilst you were busy pissing your sad life away or shopping with mummy yes I was out selling Socialist Worker and we sold quite a few as it happens,however regardless or how many or how few we sold we were doing more than bar room anarchist like you,though I note you now feel qualified to speak on behalf of the organised working class,amazing !!Odd thing is the ‘organised working class ‘ had a nasty habit of electing and re-electing me as their branch secretary in my large work place.
The closest you are likely to come to the organised working class is when you are rescued from the gutter pissed by an ambulance worker ona saturday night

Andy there was indeed anger expressed by many people over the whole gamut of the Tory cuts ,of course contradictions in this but it is clear the mood has shifted considerably in the last month and in no small part thanks to the students

I have no problem working with comrades in the SP on a range of issues,including being part of the NSSN.The problem now is that instead of focusing on building the resistance the issue has become the Labour Party,or rather the SP’s caricature of it.
I do find it ironic that after being the subject of mountains of abuse at Militant meetings in the 80’s I had the misfortune of having to ‘intervene’ in ,because I stood by the position that the Labour Party was not a vehicle for socialism the same tendency now see themselves ( and it looks like only themselves) as THE alternative to Labour.

Brian the Dog on 18 December, 2010 at 5:54 pm said:

#387 The Undertaker you have an unnerving ability time and time again to portray anyone who does not agree with your ultra left sectarian cultist beliefs as having a drinking problem or being an alcoholic.

I don’t know why, maybe you are projecting your own situation on to others, what ever it is its really pathetic.

I know you like to make out you are really hard and butch but your rants and the thought of you standing in the snow this morning pushing his socialist worker rag randomly to passers by just makes you a big old saddo.

christian h. on 18 December, 2010 at 6:11 pm said:

How Brian aka Doh! can possibly pretend he agree with comment 384. is beyond me. How about leading by example?

Brian the Dog on 18 December, 2010 at 6:16 pm said:

#389 Who is doh? And why can’t i agree with comment 384? It appeared perfectly sensible to me.

redbedhead on 18 December, 2010 at 6:30 pm said:

electoral victories in councils in May for Labour can feed into the crisis of the government, and also give confidence for people to oppose the cuts on thr streets and by industrial means.

Andy makes an important point that, I don’t think, anyone previously raised in the conversation – a Labour landslide in May, despite the intentions of the Labour leadership and councillors viz opposing the cuts within council chambers, will deepen the crisis for the government and give confidence to the anti-cuts sentiment. If the Lib Dems are wiped out, all the better.

Anonymous on 18 December, 2010 at 6:35 pm said:

Then there will be even more Labour councils pushing through cuts… fantastic!

redbedhead on 18 December, 2010 at 6:44 pm said:

#392 – talk about missing the point. It’s not about waiting for Labour councils to stop the cuts. It’s about raising the confidence of our side and weakening the confidence of the government. And, like it or not, the vast majority of workers read elections as being an important means to effect government.
Whether Labour pushes through the cuts or cuts are defeated will depend on mobilizations, strikes, etc. Confidence is obviously a big part of whether those are possible.

David Ellis on 18 December, 2010 at 6:47 pm said:

The purpose of the marxist left is to develop an holistic understanding of events, especially of the current crisis, and to convert this understanding into political advocacy. Advocacy on behalf of the immediate and historical interests of the working class culminating in a flexible program aimed at socialist revolution.

It is not the purpose of marxism to be or to declare itself to be the movement itself. That would be substitutionism and that is what we have here with this decision. But behind substitutionism is a self-serving bureaucratic ethic whereby the means has become far more important than the ends. The `party’ more important than the revolution. This comic decision by the SP to push through their decision to turn a shop stewards network into the all britain anti-cuts organisation reflects this self-serving and sectarian methodology.

But when you look at the politics, not one of the three fronts, NSSN, RTW, CoR, has a program or even an understanding that goes beyond that of the confused wish list of the left reformist usual suspects they hope to persuade onto their platforms and into their talking shops. There is a division of labour here based not on political differences, and it is always right to keep your politics up front and break with those who oppose them, but on bureaucratic prestige and pre-agreed spheres of influence and position. These fronts are not offering a political alternative to that offered by New Labour (in opposition anybody can be anti-cuts obliged as they are to do nothing) but an apolitical organising machine established for their own self promotion.

Let’s face it, even the necessary organisational work of mobilising let alone the task of developing the politics of the mobilised is being done at grass roots level by young people who’ve never heard of any of these groupings or set ups. The actual membership of the SP and the SWP should remember how they first became politicized and attracted to Marxist politics and should reflect on how ever since joining their particular grouping they have been removed from politics and become the molded instruments of something or somebody else. Of course a marxist party must have discipline as well as democracy and it must be active in a way that comfortable, complacent, smug bourgeois outfits never are but above all it must be political and its members must fight for both themselves and their organisation to remain political and therefore vital and relevant in the way originally intended.

SP rank and file need to question this decision and the entire methodology of how they intend to enter into the anti-cuts movement and what analysis and program they intend to present or I fear, like the SWP after their failed attempt to wreck Respect, they will end up splitting or shrinking into irrelevance and a lot of good comrades will once again be lost to Marxist politics. A marxist political program could be incredibly attractive at the moment the problem is nobody is presenting one least of all the marxists.

Anonymous on 18 December, 2010 at 9:47 pm said:

The point made at …365 is worth remembering.

“Labour are sitting back now and just expecting the next election to fall into their lap.
But following the massive poll tax victory, it was still the Tories that won the next general election. Seven years of John Major followed.

People remembered what Labours attitude was, and so despite gaining votes, they didnt win. In the following years labour continued to attack the left, for showing the people what could be done by real socialists, and drove socialism out of the party.”

E on 18 December, 2010 at 10:52 pm said:

@David #394
I think you confuse the role of parties and campaign groups.

While a party (of the relatively politically homogenous type that the various Lenninists want to build) is likely to have a coherent world view and (if so inclined) a programme, these are surely unhelpful attributes for a broad campaigning group such as RTW, COR, NSSN or indeed a trade union. Such organisations should seek to unite the widest possible forces on the basis of whatever it is they are campaigning about, and not put in place artificial or irrelevant barriers to such unity, which insisting on adherence to an overall world-view or programme surely would.

The position outlined by the SP above is a variation on this mistake. They want the NSSN to take sharp positions on various contentious questions upon which militant shop stewards are divided, such as whether to support anti-cuts candidates or Labour, or the politics and organisation of the anti-cuts movement. Addressing such issues through a broad grouping such as the NSSN would guarantee division and destruction of the NSSN, whereas addressing them through the SP itself would allow an honest debate of the issues on their own merits, through which they might hope to win over wider and wider layers of shop stewards.

David Ellis on 19 December, 2010 at 8:24 am said:

#396 `I think you confuse the role of parties and campaign groups.’

I think it is the sects that do this and it begs the question whether revolutionary socialists should be building these apolitical fronts. I think it is perfectly reasonable to fight for a political position within a campaign or a political front provided it is done in exemplary fashion. This SP decision around NSSN is apolitical and bureaucratically realised and makes little sense to the SP outsider and probably most SP members (and let us face it the `labour is finished’ line is not politics but the avoidance of it). Marxists should not be hiding their politics to please others but neither should they be arbitrarily throwing their weight around. As you said previously the SP could have set up their own anti-cuts front, a mistake in the circumstances I think but their prerogative if they want to do it, without involving the NSSN, a shop steward committee for goodness sake. THe SWP could have simply left Respect sighting political differences but were determined to destroy what was left behind as an unwanted competitor in an arena they claimed for themselves and with a show of entitlement worthy of a monarch. The whole thing appeared completely arbitrary to those who were not privy to the internal machinations of the SWP CC and because it was approached apolitically it was based on lies and slander for justification.

Personally as a front the fate of the NSSN is a matter of indifference to me particularly if taking an anti-cuts position will cause in it a rift. This is not a fighting united front but a rejection of such a thing for political expediency and position. The apolitical approach of the anti-cuts fronts makes them little more than left extensions of the bureaucracy.

Generally I think the approach which suggests there is no problem with capitalism and there is no need for any cuts in capitalist terms is an apolitical bureaucratic approach to the current crisis. The story goes if the taxes are collected and the `ideologically motivated’ tories were replaced by a non ideological government there would be no need for cuts. This is the approach of the bureaucrat in denial who fears social transformation. It might well lead to a successful struggle against cuts but that would be its problem as it doesn’t offer society a way out of the crisis and can only result in economic ruin in general and a massive backlash from a desparate petty bourgeoisie with no way out. Socialists must oppose the cuts and those who would make them but at the same time it must offer a political alternative to that offered by New Labour and the labour and tu bureaucracy in general.

This is a rushed and rambling comment and really I would like to do a properly thought through and structured reply to your comment E as while I don’t agree with it fully I think it addresses the heart of the matter in hand.

David Ellis on 19 December, 2010 at 8:31 am said:

#395 Yes indeed Robert makes an excellent point I believe. If New Labour think they can sit back whilst the working class is eviscerated, criminalised and reduced to penury and servility by this government and its cuts and then simply waltz back into power they are cynically mistaken and criminally complicit in the Coalition’s work. Any leadership of the labour movement should be mobilising for a fight back and the immediate fall of this illegitimate coalition before the movement is destroyed not demanding restraint. Afterwards will be to late not just for the working class but for the economy as a whole and any thought of progressive politics in Britain can finally be put to bed.

E on 19 December, 2010 at 9:11 am said:

Andy #386 and Anonymous #395 make interesting, different but not incompatible points.

Clearly many people, rightly or wrongly, will see electoral punishment of the Liberals as an important part of the campaign against the cuts, and will see Labour as the best vehicle for this. Even though Labour in office is little different to the Con-Dems, this fact means that Labour and its supporters ARE different to the Con-Dems, something which the SP don’t appear to fully grasp. The political consequence of this is that there will be millions of people willing to fight the cuts but who look to Labour electorally, even while Labour where in office is implementing the cuts. Electoral successes for the left (whether Labour, left-of-Labour or anti-cuts candidates) can help raise the confidence of those fighting the cuts.

But as anonymous points out, it is by no means automatic that Labour remains the main beneficiary of anger against the cuts, or indeed that this brings about electoral change sufficient to stop the cuts. It is also possible that in the absence of a strong and united movement in workplaces, communities and on the streets, the anger could be diverted against scapegoats, for example along racist or fascist grounds. For this reason the approach of some in the Labour Party and the union hierarchy of trying to channel all the anger in an electoral direction is extremely dangerous.

Given the many comparisions people draw with the economic situation in the 1930s, we should learn from that history that such periods of turmoil lead to political polarisation, not necessarily always to the benefit of the left. Those who in the 1930s saw gains of the left as inevitable politically disarmed the movement thus making it easier for fascism to triumph. We must not make the same mistake again.

Finally @Dave #397 points out that the NSSN is not a “fighting united front”. As a Shop Stewards Network I agree that those words aren’t a precise description. However, I think my basic political point stands – that an organisation formed for one purpose (networking of militant shop stewards to promote stronger organisation and a fightback) would be seriously harmed by the SP tying it to particular contentious positions (on electoral tactics, political and organisational approaches to the anti-cuts movement) which seriously divide its supporters and potential audience. However, as you say “the fate of the NSSN is a matter of indifference to me”, you make it clear that you aren’t concerned whether that harms the NSSN or not. For those of us who see the value of better networks between militant shop stewards, the fate of the NSSN does matter and is worth arguing for.

Andrew Coates on 19 December, 2010 at 12:22 pm said:

Whoever E is, he speaks for a lot of us.

Keep going!

David Ellis on 19 December, 2010 at 1:22 pm said:

E: you are arguing for political opportunism as if one’s politics are negotiable for the sake of unity (you single out political polarisation as the greatest danger). Unity must be built on practical agreements for specific ends not political opportunism. Standing up for your politics is not 1930s `third periodism’. Third periodism is when the revolutionary movement refuses to connect with the base of the reformist leaders for their own sectarian and self-serving reasons as the SP is doing now. That is not politics. In actual fact the more sectarian and divisive the third period stalinists became the more their actual program aped that of the social chauvinists they were condemning. As for the NSSN it is an apolitical front for the SP. The non SP members must be terribly naive if they thought they were there as anything other than decoration. Of course yes to a rank and file or shop stewards movement in the trades unions coming together for specific campaigns but no to these fronts that are designed by the sects to exclude politics and secure them a place at the table from the outset.

I would say to those who support CoR that it has the option of becoming either an alternative political rallying point for the anti-cuts movement to that of New Labour or become an adjunct of the left bureaucracy offering opportunities for self promotion and backroom plotting but little else.

E on 19 December, 2010 at 2:19 pm said:

@David #401
I think you are confusing what individuals (or parties) should do with what coalitions should do.

If you or I (or any political party claiming to have a coherent politics) were to duck contentious questions such as electoral tactics or the best political and organisational approach for the anti-cuts movement – that would be opportunism.

If I refuse to work alongside SP comrades or other militant shop stewards to build organisation and encourage a fightback because we have different views on electoral tactics or the best political and organisational approach for the anti-cuts movement – that would be sectarianism.

If the SP goes ahead and creates a situation where people feel they can only participate in the NSSN if they agree with the SP line on various questions – that would be vandalism as well as sectarianism.

I find it hard to understand why so many people on the left struggle to get the difference between what is right for an individual or a relatively politically homogenous organisation (like a Lenninist party) and what is right for a movement or coalition. The more politically narrow an organisation is, the harder it is for that organisation to be large. Prioritising political purity over size could (at times) be a legitimate choice for a political party to make. It can’t seriously be a wise choice for a mass movement trying to overthrow a government and stop the cuts, or for a shop stewards network.

Perhaps the best example to show what I mean is to think about workplace organisation. In most times & places, if you build workplace organisation based on a particular political outlook (e.g. your own brand of socialism), that might give you a useful small group, but it could only hope to impact on the exploitative relationship between the employer and workers to the extent that it related to an organisation with a much wider political breadth, like a union. Strong union organisation, with high membership density, inevitably includes some workers who vote Liberal or Tory. I’m most definitely not advocating “lower common denominator” apolotical trade unionism, but if you’re seriously trying to build in a workplace you have to continually try to strike the right balance where there is political tension with some of the more backward right-wing ideas amongst the workforce, but also a primary emphasis on the class-interest that unites us. Though most workplace activists don’t theorise this, I do think most “get it” at some instinctive level.

So no, I don’t accept that wanting the NSSN to be an organisation that includes people who disagree with me is opportunist. I want to work with those people on our common ground, and to be free to argue with them in a comradely way about our differences. That’s why I want the SP to pull back from destroying the NSSN, and to play a constructive part along with the rest of us in the anti-cuts movement, rather than wandering off on their own.

River on 19 December, 2010 at 7:30 pm said:

The Coalistion of Resistance are advertising the NSSN conference on their website:

http://www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk/2010/12/nssn-conference-fight-public-sector-cuts/

Can I suggest that talk of splits has been grossly exaggerated, that those engaged in opposing the cuts understand the concept of unity in action, unlike the stirrers and gossipers on the sidelines. Activists in HSSN and COR will work out ways of synergising their efforts, just as the NSSN conference will enable rank and file trade unionists and student activists to synergise their efforts.

Anonymous on 20 December, 2010 at 11:12 am said:

#403 – I hope everyone has calmed down now. I can’t believe all the fuss which was so over-the-top. We all need to pull together to fight this government and their rotten system. I recognise there are different campaigns with different slants, the NSSN being one of them. The Socialist Party have pushed in the NSSN to invite RTW & CoR to co-ordinate and this needs to be on a regular basis with concrete outcomes so events don’t clash, such as the recent PCS youth rally organised for 29 January demo in Manchester and then later a London student rally be called for the sameday. That’s daft and shouldn’t have happened as bringing young workers and students together is so clearly a positive step forward.

Andy Newman on 20 December, 2010 at 11:14 am said:

#403 and #404

You have both entirely missed the point.

The controversy over the NSSN is the use by the SP of a block vote to fundemantally change ther nature of the NSSN, and to ditch its original purpose.

Anonymous on 20 December, 2010 at 12:30 pm said:

#405 You are deliberately trying to cause division – move on. There’s enough room for all anti-cuts movements. They just need to co-operate. NSSN has every right to organise fight backs and you know it. Try being objective.

Andy Newman on 20 December, 2010 at 12:36 pm said:

#406

You see this sort of concern trolling from Socialist Party supporters is very disingenuous. they are hoping to reframe the terms of the debate as being about whether or not there are fight backs against the Tory cuts, and thereofre paint those of us who disagree with their tactical judgements as splitters.

However, this doesn’t avoid the question that the original prupose of the NSSN was to create a network of elected lay actvists throughout the trade union movement.

Repositioning it as the centre of an anti-cuts moveemnt, especially one aligned with the idiosyncratic politics that the SP is touting today undermines that original purpose.

chjh on 20 December, 2010 at 3:00 pm said:

This is in part a mis-application of the lessons of the movement against the poll tax. The national anti-poll tax organisation came out of the growth and development of local organisations that then came together in a national conference. Fort all the criticisms that can be made of the way the Militant handled that process, it was a coming together of a grass-roots movement.

There’s a grass-roots movement now, but it is not coming together at the NSSN conference. If my local anti-cuts alliance sends delegates, it will probably be with a mandate to oppose the SP proposal, and I think the same will likely be true of most London alliances.

If the SP proposal goes through, and we do get a national co-ordination without any local groups, what then? Setting up ‘real’ anti-cuts alliances?

Lawrence Shaw on 20 December, 2010 at 3:58 pm said:

It is worrying when you compare the far left responses to the cuts to the responses to the Iraq war.

The Stop the War Coalition was imperfect (and obviously didn’t succeed in actually stopping the war) but represented one of the better examples of the far left pulling together at a critical time to bring together the biggest political demonstration in British history.

It is, therefore, a real shame that a similar broad anti-cuts movement appears to have died before it is even born with a three way division in umbrella groups that is, in my mind, the result of competing bureaucracies.

I can understand the SP position of needing to portray Labour as an enemy at least as big (if not bigger) than the Tories, as that has been the party position for some years and was when I was a member. It is just a shame that this consideration appears to have now overtaken the pragmatism that initially drew me to the SP.

Whether we like it or not, when looked at in the whole, there was a quantifiable difference even between New Labour and the Tories. Blair was forced to enact union friendly legislation such as statutory recognition and right to be accompanied that have totally transformed the landscape for many workers, and union activists in particular. The minimum wage was, again, a gamechanger for many. I totally accept it was not enough and these actions are small compared to the huge amount done for the rich and powerful. “Crumbs from the table” is I think the accepted line. But, crumbs they may be, they are the sort of actions that a Tory government would not even countenance.

I think at the height of post-911 Blairism many people on the left, myself included, saw the example in Scotland and thought it held the key to the way forward and even saw some trade union branches start to affiliate to it. When the then SSP collapsed so spectacularly in a sectarian quagmire, along with the various failures of the Socialist Alliance, then Respect, I think it really affected the confidence of many union members and left-leaning voters in supporting a new formation and this has been borne out with the poor electoral results for recent attempts at electoral alternatives, along with the fact there has been no consistent electoral banner – a huge factor in public recognition terms that is always hugely played down by the sects who seem to prefer to jump from campaign to campaign rather than recognise that you must build up trust with voters over a long period of time.

Understanding and acknowledging these factors is crucial to understanding why, right now, there is no appetite amongst most trade unionists to setting up an alternative to Labour. Whilst it is true that many union members are angry about a lot of what Blair did, many are also astute enough to recognise the difference and know that the best way to BEGIN to stop all this is to get shot of the Tories.

It is a shame the new workers party line has become such a shibboleth to the extent that it requires many to spout the lie that Labour is now “dead” as a party and that workers “hate it” with a vengeance. The polls, the election results and the evidence in front of us today simply does not support this assertion. Like it or not, many thousands of young people have joined the Labour party since the Lib Dem betrayal in the hope of changing things and stopping this shitty charade, and the ultra-Blairites were subsequently dealt a blow to their control by trade union voters in the leadership election. Small steps I grant you, but infinitely bigger and more quantifiable steps than any achieved by the non-Labour left in the UK since 1997.

bill j on 20 December, 2010 at 5:13 pm said:

CJHJ is dead right. The local anti-cuts groups are not coming together in the NSSN. But then again they’re not coming together in RTW either are they? Its a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Henry on 20 December, 2010 at 5:15 pm said:

#407

Andy – yes the NSSN was set up to sit around and do bugger all to public spending cuts! Come on Andy, your interventions read like ‘Red Scare’ tatics which wouldn’t be out of place in tabloid newspapers. There’s enough room for more than one campaign – they just need to co-operate.

Andy Newman on 20 December, 2010 at 5:47 pm said:

#411

But the idiosyncratic positions of the Socialist Party around the anti-cuts movement are not shared by other activists in the NSSN.

So in seeking to use the NSSN as the vehicle for an anti-cuts movement following the SP’s own politcs the SP have had to jetison the other activists in the NSSN, and use bureaucratic methods to acheive their pyrhhic victory,

Now you can blow smoke out you arse trying to paint other people in the NSSN who dn’t agree with you are being unwilling to oppose the cuts; but that argument is nothing more red meat to feed the Socialist Party’s own sectarians , it won’t wash with anyone else.

A Very Public Sociologist on 20 December, 2010 at 5:51 pm said:

Will the NSSN conference be open only to NSSN members (i.e. shop stewards) or can any old Joe turn up and have a vote?

Henry on 20 December, 2010 at 5:55 pm said:

Anyone can come from a trade union, anti-cuts group etc

Brian the Dog on 20 December, 2010 at 6:03 pm said:

413 Well Gerry Downing is not a shop steward and he not only turns up but sits on the NSSN steering committee, so i suppose any old joe or leon can roll up.

Andy Newman on 20 December, 2010 at 6:29 pm said:

#414

Who will have voting rights?

Just elected lay trade union activists? or every woman and her hamster?

E on 20 December, 2010 at 6:48 pm said:

#404 Anonymous says
“The Socialist Party have pushed in the NSSN to invite RTW & CoR to co-ordinate”

Now you’ve got to be having a laugh. SP members on the Steering Committee voted down the motion for cooperation at the most recent meeting, but previously voted down proposals at a previous Steering Committee to write to them and propose cooperation, and opposed participation in the 5th December coordination meeting hosted by RTW until the last few days when it became clear that it would be a significant meeting.

On present form it appears there are only two ways the SP will countenance NSSN involvement in coordination with national anti-cuts groups:
1) Everyone operates on the SP’s terms
2) If it’s clear that everyone else is coordinating anyway, and it’s the only way the SP would get a seat at the table

Not only would continuing on the current path be damaging to the anti-cuts movement and the SP, it makes the destruction of the NSSN a very likely prospect. When all the other forces in the NSSN Steering Committee (with a huge range of political and industrial differences) have said they would see no point in further participation if the SP presses on, I think it would be wiser for SP comrades to take stock and step back than to whistle cheerfully and look the other way like #403, #404 and #406.

Henry on 20 December, 2010 at 8:06 pm said:

#412
Andy – I can smell your mendacity. The penny has dropped with me as far as your position over this whole afair, which is fundamentally ideological. You support Labour. Labour have a cuts agenda, which you are uncomfortable with, thus your emotional resort to expletives against the Socialist Party . You support so-called ‘dented shield’ approach to Labour Councils implementing public spending cuts, who oh so conveniently blame the Con-Dems. This ironically puts you in the same bed as the SWP (does that make you ultra-left Andy, a term of abuse you over use?). The Socialist Party and others oppose that position as utopian and the politics on no-hope. You (and others) therefore are using all your might and venom to bash the Socialist Party but dress it up as opposing naughty ultras and their so-called manovering, when all we want is a fight back via the NSSN, which it has every right to do . Andy, this is ideological on your part. Your social democratic ideology. Be honest, please.

Andy Newman on 20 December, 2010 at 8:12 pm said:

#417

I must have had a lot of foreseight to get involved in the NSSN at the outset, and to spend time building it as a network of elected lay activists, just so I could use defence of the NSSN some years later as a weapon in the fight for social democracy. what a load of tosh you write.

let there be no doubt:

i) I oppose the cuts
ii) I am an active trade unionist
iii) I beleive in the value of a network of lay actists in the unions, following the original objectves of the NSSN

Can you answer the question. Who will have voting rights at the 22nd januray NSSN conference?

Incidenty,. if you think you can build a fight back agaist the cuts witout including left social democrats in the unions, you are living in a fanstasy world

Icepick on 20 December, 2010 at 8:24 pm said:

Yes it’s another bad case of the Trots. If the Tories knew about this they’d be having a good laugh.

Steve on 20 December, 2010 at 10:35 pm said:

How will the NSSN be able to check who is able to vote at the conference? Not all those involved in anti-cuts campaigns are shop stewards. Some are not in trade unions.

The SP demise began with their involvement in the disasterous NO2EU and since then they seem to be determined to follow the path of terminal decline. I used to have a lot of time for them – I still do for many of their activists – but this latest turn is pure stupidity. Surely they can see that?

If the SP plans go ahead then it will be the end of the NSSN and will damage the credibility of the SP. Tevez and Rooney have both recently made u-turns. It’s not too late for the SP to do the same.

Andy Newman on 21 December, 2010 at 12:24 am said:

#421

“How will the NSSN be able to check who is able to vote at the conference? Not all those involved in anti-cuts campaigns are shop stewards. Some are not in trade unions.”

this couold be quite easy, if there was a will to do it. Just issue voting cards only to those registering who provide details of their office held in a trade union. This is how unions distinguish between visitors and delegates at conferences.

Anyone saying they were eligible to vote who wasn’t would be taking a bif political risk

Steve on 21 December, 2010 at 8:12 am said:

Agreed Andy, however it does not appear that this will be happening. We already have Henry saying that voting will be open to pretty much anybody that attends, rep or otherwise.

The worrying thing is that those defending the actions of the SP on here use the term SP interchangeably with the NSSN. Of course if they get their way, then the SP and NSSN will be one and the same thing as they alienate any non-SP activists from involvement.

Andy Newman on 21 December, 2010 at 9:00 am said:

#423

No one from the Socialist Party has explicitly said who wil be able to vote yet though.

I assume that Dave Chapple will be in the chair, what if he makes a ruling that only NSSN members can (i.e elected lay TU activists) can vote?

jimp on 21 December, 2010 at 3:58 pm said:

#288 Did anyone reply to this?

jimp on 21 December, 2010 at 6:16 pm said:

#288 ie – Is the article on “The History and Politics of Militant” on-line?

jimp on 21 December, 2010 at 10:00 pm said:

?

susan p on 19 January, 2011 at 4:41 pm said:

1. 296 #299
I gave up reading this “debate” some time ago and really have little appetite for defending myself for “crimes” that haven’t been committed, but I was told Andy N (# 296) had referred to SoP “sectarian twits” endangering the Gloucester trades counciI. I don’t know what “source” Andy relies on but we’ve never met him and he’s not attended a single TC mtg in Glos. Otherwise he’d know the TC is thriving , we work together well, differing views are discussed in a comradely manner and the SP has played an active and positive role. There has been no debate about the Labour Party other than when an FBU regional officer raised the idea of the TUs fielding anti cuts candidates (he’d come second as an independent in local elections ). Nigel Costley from South West TUC interjected to say “it is “illegal (sic) for trade unions to support any candidates other than Labour”. The only comment from a SP member was “unfortunately it’s not illegal for Labour Party candidates not to the support the trade unions”, which was rebuked by an NUT member as “stating the obvious”. A PCS rep said they were NOT obliged to support the LP and were looking at alternatives. The RMT added we aren’t affiliated either., the FBU “neither are we” and an NUT rep pointed out that his union was also not affiliated and was pleased to worked closely with the PCS. Perhaps comrade Costley thought they were SP members – none of them are. Andy N. mentioned “SP insensitivity to the political heterogenity of the trade union movement “ – actually we respect the existence of diverse views within the movement, we do not have to agree with them. Evidently we share this view with our brothers and sisters from the above-mentioned trade unions.

auto transport on 5 December, 2011 at 3:58 am said:

Heya i’m for the first time here. I came across this board and I to find It really helpful & it helped me out much. I’m hoping to offer something again and aid others such as you helped me.

Posted by SU Editorial Team on 15 December, 2010

Category

NSSN, Socialist Party, Trade Unions

Related posts

from Socialist Unity

429 comments on “Nssn – the Socialist Party Replies”