Socialist Party on No2EU

Posted by Phil BC on 20 March, 2009

elections, RMT, Socialist Party

The European elections and working-class representation

IN AN important move, the Rail, Maritime and Transport workers’ union (RMT) has announced its support for an electoral alliance to contest the forthcoming European elections in June.

A ‘political party’ has been registered – as required under electoral law to contest elections – under the name No2EU-Yes to Democracy, with the RMT general secretary, Bob Crow, as the official leader. Its platform includes opposition to the European Union (EU) constitution (now re-packaged as the Lisbon treaty), the EU’s pro-privatisation directives, and the anti-trade union and ‘social dumping’ rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The platform takes a necessary stand against the racist far-right British National Party (BNP), and in defence of international workers’ solidarity.

At present funds are in place for No2EU-Yes to Democracy candidate lists to appear on the ballot paper in a minimum of six of Britain’s eleven electoral ‘regions’, including Scotland and Wales, but more may well be contested.

This is an electoral coalition, with initial support from the RMT, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party of Britain (publishers of the Morning Star), Solidarity – Scotland’s Socialist Movement, and a number of trades union councils. Respect is still considering its involvement; the Socialist Party, for its part, would favour the broadest participation of all left and working class organisations.

No2EU-Yes to Democracy is a temporary platform for the European elections only, with the RMT representatives at the inaugural meeting stressing, unfortunately, that they were not launching a new workers’ party. But that does not negate its significance as the first electoral challenge to New Labour initiated by a national trade union, the RMT, the most militant industrial union in Britain.

The European elections might not loom large in workers’ thinking, as the economic crisis intensifies. But the EU’s neo-liberal directives and rulings, enthusiastically implemented by the New Labour government, are linked to the avalanche of job losses, wage cuts and continued privatisation.

Nowhere was this more clearly revealed than in the Lindsey oil refinery construction workers’ dispute earlier this year. It was under the EU ‘posted workers directive’ and subsequent ECJ rulings that the Italian-registered company, IREM, was able to employ workers not covered by the union-enforced national construction industry agreements. The part-privatisation of the Royal Mail, the first step to its complete sell-off, is also linked to EU directives to introduce a deregulated postal services market.

The No2EU-Yes to Democracy campaign can expose the reality of the EU’s neo-liberal agenda to millions of workers, while arguing the case for a workers’ alternative to pro-market politicians – whether in Brussels or Westminster! And June’s Euro-poll will be the first national electoral expression of the enormous anger accumulating at the devastating consequences of the capitalist crisis.

But where will that anger go? The 2004 European elections, in a completely different economic climate, still saw a big protest vote, which primarily went to UKIP, the UK Independence Party. Labour could well register an even worse result than its disastrous performance then, when it at least enjoyed opinion poll leads as the most ‘economically competent’ party.

UKIP, meanwhile, is likely to suffer a big loss of support. Promoting themselves as having been elected to ‘take on the corrupt Eurocrats’, two of its MEPs were soon implicated in benefit and EU fraud investigations, the egomaniacal Kilroy-Silk departed, and membership and donations have slumped. The Tories can expect to make big gains but there is a real threat that the far-right BNP could win seats in June.

This fear has also been a powerful impulse behind the RMT’s move to organise an electoral challenge. As Bob Crow reported to the inaugural meeting, RMT members had already been contacting the union asking who the national officers thought they should vote for in June. The only alternative to backing a union-initiated electoral coalition would be to urge a vote, as anti-fascist groups like Searchlight advocate, for ‘the mainstream parties’ to stop the BNP.

Another factor behind the RMT’s decision was the lessons of the Lindsey dispute. Firstly, it brought to wide attention in a way not done before in Britain, the role of the EU’s anti-worker directives.

The RMT is currently balloting, or has taken strike action, in nine separate disputes over job losses and privatisation proposals. Is it so hard to imagine the RMT facing ‘barges in the Thames’ of sub-contracted EU ‘posted rail workers’ – as the IREM workers are being billeted in Grimsby docks – as the New Labour government, or an incoming Tory government, under the impulsion of the crisis, looks to confront one of the most powerfully organised sections of the working class?

Lindsey also highlighted another aspect of the situation now existing in Britain. As previous reports in The Socialist have shown, Lindsey was a victory for the working class. But it took the conscious intervention of the strike leadership, including Socialist Party members, to cut across any national or racial divisions that could have derailed the movement.

The same burning need for a clear lead is true on the political plane. That’s why the RMT’s electoral initiative, despite any weaknesses it may have, is so important.

In response to Labour’s 2004 Euro-elections debacle the leaders of the Labour-affiliated trade unions issued another round of verbal broadsides and threats to withdraw funding.

At the Unison public sector workers’ union 2004 conference, for example, the general secretary Dave Prentis promised not to “keep our heads down, gobs shut for Labour, if this government continues to put forward rightwing policies” (The Guardian, 23 June, 2004). And yet, of course, that is precisely what has happened – with the union leaders continuing to pour their members’ money into Labour’s coffers.

The RMT, on the other hand, has moved. There are, inevitably, potential difficulties. Because of the constitutional bar on union officials holding parliamentary seats, and its view that Brussels is ‘a fake parliament’, the RMT is insisting that victorious No2EU-Yes to Democracy candidates will not sit in the European parliament – although they would still campaign, alongside any other European workers’ representatives who are elected in June, against EU attacks on the working class. And a convention of the forces involved in the campaign would be held to work out exactly how to proceed.

Most importantly, socialists could not participate in an electoral block or coalition which made concessions to racist or nationalist prejudices. But that is not the case with the proposals agreed so far around the RMT’s electoral initiative which, while its programme is limited, is at bottom a pro-worker block.

There is no easy or straightforward path to re-build working class political representation. The German party, ‘Election Alternative – Jobs and Social Justice’ (WASG), the initial dynamic component of what is now the Left Party, was not formed, back in 2004, with a fully developed programme or democratic structures. But it broke the logjam.

And so, potentially, could the RMT’s electoral initiative. The train is moving. The task of socialists, while not holding back from arguing for our ideas on the way out of the economic crisis, is to lend a helping hand.

169 thoughts on “Socialist Party on No2EU”

JimPage on 20 March, 2009 at 10:02 am said:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/761/farleft.html

“Whilst this is a very broad campaign, SWP, AWL, Weekly Worker and other ultra-left groups have not been considered eligible, these having sharply criticised the Lindsey strike movement”

Am delighted not to be “considered eligible” to support this campaign , led by the Stalinist Loons of the CPB

JimPageQuote text Reply
Anonymous on 20 March, 2009 at 10:13 am said:

Really pathetic stuff- I note that the CWI have gone from from pushing scottish nationalism to pushing british
nationalism in one easy jump.

No theory- only excuses and bluff

what a bunch of chancers

Is the initial charter still the proposed platform or has its british
nationalism been toned down in order to provide some left cover? Is this slate still calling for the defense of British manufacturing?

The CWIs advocacy of an independent capitalist Scotland was a break from marxism and a disgrace

However for “marxists” to call for british independence is really getting down
into the gutter

from a scratch to gangrene without any doubt

an example of some of the nationalist rubbish that this slate is pushing see
below

sandy

“The answer is to regain the right to self-determination, national independence
and democracy. Most problems in the world stem from one nation-state interfering
in the internal affairs of another. We in Britain can only contribute to solving
some of these problems by having a government which stands by these fundamental
principles and clamps big capital.
The time has come to further discuss and implement the best ways and means of
forming a popular front to regain these fundamental principles. In this the
labour and trade union movement forms a key element. The EU is the antithesis of
all forms of democracy and national independence. An initial step for the
immediate future is to withdraw Britain from the EU. This does not prevent
trade or co-operation on a whole range of matters between current EU Member
States and many more countries in the rest of the world.”

AnonymousQuote text Reply
Phil BC on 20 March, 2009 at 10:17 am said:

Sandy, reading your contribution the words ‘wood’ and ‘trees’ spring to mind.

Phil BCQuote text Reply
Andrw Coates on 20 March, 2009 at 10:27 am said:

I’d have thought the way forward was trying to organise something that might resemble the Dublin and French union-based protests.

This one is a non-starter, apart from its dodgy ‘anti’ EU (what about being anti-capitalist and not pro ‘sovereign’ states) politics. And who is ‘against’ democracy in any case. Nobody will get the silly sounding name anyway – sounds like Nicey and Smashy trying to be ‘hip’.

A few months to organise, an amateurish approach apart from anything else. The French left lists have been up and running already for months and have held massive meetings, such as the Front de Gauche’s 7,000 strong one recently, and the NPA will do better I’m sure.

What a joke.

Andrw CoatesQuote text Reply
Anonymous on 20 March, 2009 at 10:37 am said:

Phil

if what you are trying to say is that NO2EU has some progressive pro working class dynamic please think again

It is a project of a section of the labour and trade union bureaucracy and it will not permit any democratic control. The Stalinists have a long history of promoting this kind of nationalist rubbish.

It is an appeal for support for “british sovereignty” Rather than counter British nationalist sentiment in tends to reinforce such sentiment

The socialist response to this crisis is not to call for british independence but to call for the unity of the working class in struggle against capital. The main enemy is here at “home” and not in Brussels. We need unity of the working class in the struggle against british Capital. we need the growth of british nationalism like we need a hole in the head

What is needed is a platform calling for international working class unity, against nationalism and for a united socialist Europe. A platform that calls for the rejection of the “british national interest” and instead fights for the interests of all workers. An explicitly socialist platform calling for a socialist europe and the rejection of national protectionism and nationalism

sandy

AnonymousQuote text Reply
Phil BC on 20 March, 2009 at 11:02 am said:

All I can say is both you comrades are going to be waiting a long time for a perfect movement to come along …

Phil BCQuote text Reply
paul fauvet on 20 March, 2009 at 11:02 am said:

It’s sad that so much of the left is still fighting the 1975 common market referendum.

We lost that one, comrades. And we deserved to lose it. We (and I include myself in this) lined up with all kinds of Little England reactionaries, and thoroughly misread the mood of the public.

The EU is here to stay, and the left would be better off designing cross border alliances of progressive parties and trade unions, rather than banging the hopeless drum of withdrawal.

The left should, of course, also seek to improve conditions within the EU for British workers. And the best way to do that would be to campaign to drop the antiquated and increasingly unstable Bitish currency, and adopt the euro instead.

paul fauvetQuote text Reply
John Haylett on 20 March, 2009 at 11:04 am said:

An important correction to the SP statement. The Communist Party of Britain does not publish the Morning Star. The paper is owned and published by a readers co-operative, the People’s Press Printing Society Ltd. Its editorial line is, in line with decisions of the PPPS shareholders at successive annual general meetings, based on the party’s political programme, Britain’s Road to Socialism.

That said, the involvement of individuals and organisations from different socialist traditions in this project is an essential means of laying bare the reality of a centralising, unaccountable, supranational, neoliberal EU while presenting an internationalist working class alternative to the racism and xenophobia of right-wing and far-right opponents of the EU.

John HaylettQuote text Reply
YCLer on 20 March, 2009 at 11:11 am said:

A fantastic initiative. This is just the type of trade union and progressive slate that will provide an outlet for the anger that ordinary working class people have for the boss’s European Union.

Even better no ultra-leftist nutters are going to be on the project, messing it up from the inside. If some of these sad cases will be complaining that the programme isn’t the whacky-revolutionary enough-calling for the workers to be armed etc.. then all the better.

Many ordinary people know the EU is a corrupt mess and its only interest is privatisation and driving down wages, removing our sovereignty-the ability to legislate well funded, publically owned, railways, healthcare, education etc.. Looking at past elections, all the protest votes went to the hard right UKIP, in this election, with the real prospect of a BNP breakthrough, a trade union and progressive led anti-EU alliance is exactly what is needed to vent frustration at the Boss’s European Union and prevent this anger turning into votes for fascist parties.

I hope everyone on the left who is interested in doing this, help organise local No to EU Yes to Democracy groups to organise meetings and canvass support for the campaign. This could be the only chance to keep the fascists out of europe-imagine the PR victory for the BNP if they won MEP’s- we need to stop this now.

YCLerQuote text Reply
Andrew Coates on 20 March, 2009 at 11:34 am said:

Is 9 YCLer one of thsoe old-style YCLers (or ‘young’ Socialists) who’s pushing forty?

Anyone with even a toe in the political water knows that the market for foaming anti-EU lists by well-short-of-the Euro obessives, is crowded. Take the much better funded and organised Libertas: http://www.libertas.eu/

The problem now is not competing with a disintegrating UKIP but the BNP. That’s getting support nto ebcause of its view on the EU Commission but because it channels discontent to hatred against migrant workers. Getting voters worked up more against ‘Brussels’ will get the reply: sure, we’re against them, that’s why will vote BNP and may be they’ll stir things up. No-one’s heard of you lot.

Or maybe some people are so inspired by the French strike that they’re taking their desires for reality.

Andrew CoatesQuote text Reply
swp member on 20 March, 2009 at 11:43 am said:

‘I hope everyone on the left who is interested in doing this, help organise local No to EU Yes to Democracy groups to organise meetings and canvass support for the campaign’

I will be very interested to see how many actually get set up, without the involvement of the largest organised group of socialists outside the LP.
Please keep us informed.

swp memberQuote text Reply
YCLer on 20 March, 2009 at 11:49 am said:

There appears to be a fixation on my age. I have had this several times, im 19 years old.
Check out our facebook page to see how many young people are in the young communist league.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=2249144682&ref=ts

1) it is apparent there is a lot of anger towards the European Union, for reasons we all know

2) It certainly is crowded with Anti European union candidates, however, they are all very right wing- their anti EU stance comes from their chauvinism, not their opposition to privtisation, stamping on workers rights etc

3) No to Eu provides a left anti-privatisation, anti-Boss EU angle, which I think is just what is needed.

How old are you andrew, by the way? (as it really matters)

YCLerQuote text Reply
Andrew Coates on 20 March, 2009 at 12:00 pm said:

YCLer, I am as old as the Hills. Your lot are over the Hill.

Andrew CoatesQuote text Reply
Crikey! on 20 March, 2009 at 12:27 pm said:

“im 19 years old. Check out our facebook page to see how many young people are in the young communist league.”

When do you graduate from the league and get issued with your own personal icepick?

Crikey!Quote text Reply
JimPage on 20 March, 2009 at 12:44 pm said:

I will be very interested to see how many actually get set up, without the involvement of the largest organised group of socialists outside the LP.
Please keep us informed.

Comment by swp member — 20 March, 2009 @ 11:43 am

They will be as successful at the last time the tankies stood for election,namely the UPS list in London in May 2008.

JimPageQuote text Reply
JimPage on 20 March, 2009 at 12:45 pm said:

When do you graduate from the league and get issued with your own personal icepick?

Comment by Crikey! — 20 March, 2009 @ 12:27 pm

Move with the times, its now an interactibve game on x-box where they they can pretent to shoot Trots in Catalonia…..

JimPageQuote text Reply
Francis King on 20 March, 2009 at 12:58 pm said:

This initiative focuses on precisely the area that should concern all of us – the crying lack of democracy and accountability at the heart of the EU, and the fact that the entire EU agenda is set by the boss classes. No2EU certainly isn’t a UKIP mark 2. There is no necessary contradiction between outright hostility towards the EU project as conceived by its ruling elites, and trying to bring Europe’s left forces together. As capital becomes globalised, so must the resistance to capital. And the EU, as presently constituted, is far more effective as a vehicle for transnational capital than for transnational labour. Whether the EU is in principle democratisable, I don’t know. No2EU clearly believes it isn’t – it may be right. Making the EU’s institutions transparent and accountable to its citizens is a pretty tall order. And insofar as the state is a site of struggle, the left, the labour movements of Europe are woefully underrepresented in the EU’s corridors of power, which is why neo-liberal economics has become official EU policy with barely a peep of protest. The left should be up in arms about what is going on. If we surrender the democratic high ground to the xenophobic right, we will only have ourselves to blame when they reap the benefits.

Francis KingQuote text Reply
Adamski on 20 March, 2009 at 1:14 pm said:

I followed the news of this initiative with some vague interest. Given the dead-lock on the far left, I though this kind of electoral challenge could have offered some way forward to make propaganda against the system in the face of the recession.

The trouble with a party called ‘No2EU, Yes to Democracy’ is that it is very ambiguous name that doesn’t make it clear whether this is a left wing outfit with clear class politics. One can imagine right wing mavericks forming a party with exactly the same name. Many people sympathetic to the right might see this on their ballot box and vote for it, many people sympathetic to the politics of the left might think that it is a right wing outfit.

In fact, given the sponsorship of a major trade union, an exciting opportunity to stand a party on a more robust programme that poses the question that workers are paying for the bosses economic crisis.

I’d prefer something like ‘Bail out Workers Not Banks – Public Services Not Private Profit’ or ‘We Won’t Pay for Their Crisis’ if we were having some populist name.

The Lindsey strike movement was clearly ambiguous & has unleashed a wave of people targetting foreign workers not bosses, for example on Question Time last night someone attacked Tessa Jowell from the floor ‘cos EU and Migrant Workers were doing the work at the Olympics not British workers.

In West Wales, shockingly, a leading member of the BNP was even invited to address a strike rally, I’ve seen footage from Straythorpe of people marching behind trade union banners chanting ‘What do we want? Foreign workers out! When do we want it? now!’

So I’m not sure why uncritically supporting this should be some sort of criteria for admission.

Sad to see the CPB referring to the SWP, a party – that for all its faults – has a far more credible contemporary record of building social movements & working class struggle from below as ‘ultra-left’

AdamskiQuote text Reply
Anonymous on 20 March, 2009 at 1:29 pm said:

This initiative focuses on precisely the area that should concern all of us – the crying lack of democracy and accountability at the heart of the EU, and the fact that the entire EU agenda is set by the boss classes.
Francis King

And who sets the agenda in the UK? I suggest it is set by our main enemy- the British boss class. And since when has the UK been democratic. (the monarchy – house of lords etc). The main enemy of the working class in Britain is the british ruling class.

In truth the defense of “british sovereignty” is short hand for the defense of the british boss class and the capitalist system.

No unity with any section of the british ruling class- For workers unity and the fight for a socialist Europe

sandy

AnonymousQuote text Reply
George W on 20 March, 2009 at 2:22 pm said:

#17 spot on.

I wonder what these ultraleftist pisstakers are interested in contributing anything to any real project instead of just throwing bile from the sidelines.

I guess if you don’t actually contribute to anything then its easy to perputually be on the higher moral ground. It is a terribel way to go about politics just looking through the history books and picking out anyone connected to a ‘baddie’ however lossely, and refuse to ever get involved with that group.

I don’t see any ‘Kill-all-the-Stalinists-tradeunionbureaucrats-anyone-who-isn’t-Pure-100%-rabid-ultraleftist-everyone-is-going-to-sell-you-out’ ticket for the EU elections.

The average voter is a lot more interested in how the EU affects them in their everyday life. How the EU without any kind of democratic accountability forces policies of privatisation, drives down wages,undermines trade unions and our sovereignty-I.E- the ability to properly fund healthcare, education, transport.

As you lot seem to be fixated on dead russians, heres what lenin said

(Communists) “have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.”

Stop trying to hold everyone accountable to your own morals and conception of complete purity and most Perfect ideals. You are setting yourself apart from the ordinary people, going down this line means that the right can step in.
We must provide a political programme that corresponds with common problems people have with the European Union and gives an alternative to the Right who have capitalised big time on this issue in the past.

No to EU, Yes to Democracy is an attempt to do this, it is not some front organisation for one party, it is comprised of different left parties and Trade unionists from many unions.

I hope as many people as possible get involved to provide a progressive attack on the EU, and prevent the right from mopping up yet again.

George WQuote text Reply
a very public sociologist on 20 March, 2009 at 2:43 pm said:

Adamski, it is a shame the SWP are excluded from this initiative, but IMHO not entirely surprising given its behaviour these last 18 months. I do hope SWP comrades still get involved with the various No2EU groups that will come together for this election. If anything they present an opportunity to repair the damage done to its reputation.

a very public sociologistQuote text Reply
Anonymous on 20 March, 2009 at 2:47 pm said:

One good thing about leaving the EU would be that all those Poles and Latvians etc could not come to our country and take our jobs. Should the platform not spell this out or do comrades think it is better to be diplomatic and just go on about “recovering national sovereignty” I think the electorate will know what we mean anyhow.

Is the demand for “British jobs for British workers” going to be an explicit part of the platform. Why not? Are we embarrassed or something.

I think we should adopt the union jack as our symbolic flag for the campaign

After all why leave British nationalism to the BNP?

sandy

AnonymousQuote text Reply
Crikey! on 20 March, 2009 at 2:48 pm said:

Adamski: “In West Wales, shockingly, a leading member of the BNP was even invited to address a strike rally, I’ve seen footage from Straythorpe of people marching behind trade union banners chanting ‘What do we want? Foreign workers out! When do we want it? now!’”

Did you not hear that the SP won the protests to left wing demands? This stuff never happened. Stop being such an ultra left.

Crikey!Quote text Reply
Pete on 20 March, 2009 at 2:49 pm said:

Reject the Lisbon Treaty
No to EU directives that privatise our public services
Defend and develop manufacturing, agriculture and fishing industries in Britain
Repeal anti-trade union ECJ rulings and EU rules promoting social dumping
No to racism and fascism, Yes to international solidarity of working people
No to EU militarisation
Repatriate democratic powers to EU member states
Replace unequal EU trade deals with fair trade that benefits developing nations
Scrap EU rules designed to stop member states from implementing independent economic policies
Keep Britain out of the eurozone

Here are the policies of the slate. They’re not perfect socialist, anti-capitalist demands and are limited in that sense but as an alternative to the neo-liberal parties and the BNP, I’d suggest that all on the left get behind this. For what it’s worth both John McDonnell and Tony Benn are supporting this. And none of you seem to realise the significance of the SP working with the CPBG here – particularly with the SP being Trotskyist and having their Unison Defend the 4 members attacked by the Unison leadership with no help from the CPBGers in the union.

The nationalism in here is purely being wished into it by those who unfortunately wish this to fail. It calls for the development of industry in Britain – on the basis that industry in Europe as a whole has been decimated by neo-liberal capitalism and capitalist globalisation. That democracy should return, initially, back down the chain to each country, not a central European parliament. These are transition steps that highlight the undemocratic nature of the bosses’ EU. That is our starting point. It is a foundation to build upon. It’s not perfect, but as someone else has already pointed out, we’d be waiting all eternity for the perfect new workers’ party to appear. WE NEED TO UNITE AND BUILD IT OURSELVES!

On the anti-nationalist aspect: Unite Against Fascism and groups like the SWP only have the policy of voting for anyone other than the BNP. Well, if that means voting Labour instead, doesn’t that simply fuel the conditions that are pushing people into the hands of the right? The BNP threat should be taken seriously and an electoral block like No2EU is exactly what we all need to get behind to oppose both capitalism and fascism. We don’t want another Germany 1930s situation with socialists and communists fighting amongst ourselves and each other and ignoring the fascist threat. Have we not learnt our lessons?

Finally, we need to get other unions to join this. The CWU, PCS, FBU, NUJ, Unite, etc whether on a local branch level or even national level. This will help to stop any centralist top-down dictatorship and help build a democratic base. I know political funding is tricky but that should not stop local groups involving members from all trade unions helping to build something and being part of the democratic debate.

This is an historic moment. Socialists need to get involved and develop this further, democratically, to make this a real new workers’ party fighting for internationalism and all workers’ rights!

PeteQuote text Reply
Anonymous on 20 March, 2009 at 3:00 pm said:

“Defend and develop manufacturing, agriculture and fishing industries in Britain”

Defend from whom? the EU? How are we to defend british industry? wage cuts? import controls? Should we unite with the British bosses to defend British industry from foreign competition?

If you mean defend industry etc by workers control and socialist planning should that not be European wide. Should we not be calling for a united socialist Europe

why defend national sovereignty? how does that promote working class unity? surely it just promotes British nationalism?

sandy

AnonymousQuote text Reply
MichaelC on 20 March, 2009 at 3:05 pm said:

What vote does this slate expect to get? It’s relatively late in the day to launch, it presumably has little in the way of activists on the ground in most regions. There will be a squeeze with the tactical anti-BNP vote, and the anti EU field is congested.

A poor vote would be a shot in the arm for Labour link supporters who argue that a new workers’ party is not viable. Sure that won’t happen?

MichaelCQuote text Reply
Duncan on 20 March, 2009 at 3:48 pm said:

Crikey!,

Did you not hear that the SP won the protests to left wing demands? This stuff never happened. Stop being such an ultra left.

Yup, the Socialist Party completely denies there was a racist element in the Staythorpe protests. That is a balanced, accurate assessment of our intervention.

This is from one of the latest reports:

Disturbingly, a small minority of workers at the front of the march had chanted “Foreigners out!”

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/7020

DuncanQuote text Reply
christian h. on 20 March, 2009 at 4:02 pm said:

avps, (#21.): Oh dear. Do you not read things before you post them? Could you sound any more condescending? You’ll allow comrades to work off their debts to the Class, a.k.a., you, huh? Cut the crap. This is nothing like WASG, who did not keep any tendency out. (I guess that’s why CWI tried to sabotage the formation of the Left Party, or were you afraid it might actually be successful?).

christian h.Quote text Reply
a very public sociologist on 20 March, 2009 at 4:11 pm said:

Christian, why do you think the SWP have been excluded? Irrational hatred? Come off it.

a very public sociologistQuote text Reply
christian h. on 20 March, 2009 at 4:58 pm said:

CWI-typical sectarianism comes to mind? I know your party has never made any mistake, will never make one blah blah blah. Those who’ve had the misfortune to work “with” CWI sections know better. Nevertheless, I’d never advocate excluding them from a joint effort; it’s simply counter- productive. For example, I believe the Berlin Linkspartei made a mistake not admitting CWI members now, based on their previous ultra-left behavior.

christian h.Quote text Reply
Doug on 20 March, 2009 at 5:00 pm said:

No 24. Pete, it’s the CPB, not the CPGB.

DougQuote text Reply
Redskin on 20 March, 2009 at 5:13 pm said:

And if you can’t see the irony in a British ‘anti-EU’ party aspiring/pretending to become the new Die Linke then…

RedskinQuote text Reply
Neil on 20 March, 2009 at 5:15 pm said:

Now, now christian don’t be like that. I think you are under the illusion this is a wholly owned subsidiary of the CWI. It is not. We have our own opinions about this campaign as well you know.

I think you might be a little bit upset since you seem to have missed this:

“the Socialist Party, for its part, would favour the broadest participation of all left and working class organisations.”

The SWP have not, as far as I am aware, actually asked if they wish to be part of this initiative. They think there is no room for a left of Labour electoral challange do they not? You are more of an expert on the politics of the SWP so perhaps I am wrong on that?

NeilQuote text Reply
Jota on 20 March, 2009 at 5:30 pm said:

Reject the Lisbon Treaty
No to EU directives that privatise our public services
Defend and develop manufacturing, agriculture and fishing industries in Britain
Repeal anti-trade union ECJ rulings and EU rules promoting social dumping
No to racism and fascism, Yes to international solidarity of working people
No to EU militarisation
Repatriate democratic powers to EU member states
Replace unequal EU trade deals with fair trade that benefits developing nations
Scrap EU rules designed to stop member states from implementing independent economic policies
Keep Britain out of the eurozone

Not a perfect slogan but miles ahead of what else is on offer. More importantly it represents a section of the TU movement entering the electoral plane against New Labour. This is potentially hugely important. The SP is not perfect. The CPB is not perfect. Bob Crow is not perfect.. SO WHAT! This is still hugely important.

‘I bet it’ll be rubbish without the SWP’ – then get involved in setting up local groups. ‘I bet the local groups will be rubbish’ – then try to do something about it, by making them better. ‘I don’t think the programme is revolutionary enough..’ – what, not a ready made revolutionary party? ‘I don’t like the protectionis of the programme’ – the Tony Benn was protectionist when he stood for Deputy Leader of the LP – but only ultraleft idiots decided he wasn’t worth supporting for the potential of what he represented.

I hope that Respect will get on board – make this work, and help make sure that something lasting comes out of it. The SLP failed, the SA failed, the CNWP isn’t going anywhere on its own, RESPECT is not the finished article – but writting this off as a failure already is self-defeating.

I look forward to hearing local details so I can get involved – even if it means sitting with a roomful of SPers and noone else – I’m not ready to give up on working class representation.

JotaQuote text Reply
Phil Brighton on 20 March, 2009 at 5:42 pm said:

What an odd discussion this is.

Can we actually deal with realities then we may get somewhere.

A major militant union has launched an electoral challenge, to ignore it would be lunacy for those who wish to build a left of Labour workers party.

Whatever the CPB’s involvement it seems to have got the thing rolling in someway, but they are hardly major political players, and are likely, if the initiative continues, to be inconsequential. Certainly throwing nonsense about shooting trots is not relevant or helpful. The Socialist Party is willing to work alongside them even as they take part in expelling SP militants from Unison. Hardly sectarian from the SP.

The Socialist Party has clearly said it wants the as much of the left involved as possible. We want the SWP! Despite the history we are serious about are politics and are trying to make this thing viable.

The demands are pretty poor, the democracy so far is shady. But a working class alternative is been offered, backed by trade unionists, socialists and an industrial union that has broken with the war mongering, privatising, capitalist Labour Party to the electorate. Can you seriously say you won’t support and call for a vote for this?

Phil BrightonQuote text Reply
prianikoff on 20 March, 2009 at 6:05 pm said:

As someone who has worked very amicably with the SP in the course of union activities, I find the arguments their supporters are putting forward for participation in this campaign quite persuasive.

Essentially, that there is a justifiable oppositional movement backed by a large union and despite it having some questionable slogans, it is the duty of internationalist socialists to get in amongst them and provide leadership.

That to me, is a continuation of what happened in the Lindsey strike into the political arena. I happen to think the SP are being unrealistic in their constant expectation that every single one of these union sponsored campaigns will lead to the formation of a “new Workers Party”. (I seem to remember the CATPee campaign during the London elections was supported along the same lines by the SP)

I’m also unhappy with the counterpositon of “democracy” in the abstract to Europe, which is an awful position. Something counterposing a Socialist Europe to the Europe of the multinationals would be far better.

It’s also the case that the unions are lagging behind their French and Irish comrades in organising mass protests against unemployment.
I was thinking of going on the March 28th demonstration. But when I looked at the organisations taking part, the slogans and the religious services, I decided to boycott this godawful Oxfam Jamboree.

If the socialist left can’t get it together to organise something better than this steaming pile of crap, they should consider going into the catering business. In competition with Heston Blumenthal’s lame “Fat Duck”.

prianikoffQuote text Reply
Karl on 20 March, 2009 at 6:07 pm said:

So Crow kept his powder dry all this time for what. A crypto Stalinist frankenstein launched weeks before an expensive difficult to fight euro election. Based around British jobs anti eu sentiment.

This project makes the launch of respect look open and democratic.

What the hell are the SP doing?

KarlQuote text Reply
youehwhat on 20 March, 2009 at 6:09 pm said:

when are you middle class twangers going to STOP speaking on my behalf you ain’t working class. See the vids of students, my god you look so funny with your arab scarves on. I’m sure you will look back one day and cringe.

youehwhatQuote text Reply
christian h. on 20 March, 2009 at 6:13 pm said:

Neil: I’m glad to hear the SP wants broad involvement. So I suppose then that the SWP and others have not been explicitly excluded, and that’s misinformation? I’m asking because your comrade seems to defend that exclusion… which you claim doesn’t exist.

Jota: exactly, nobody is perfect. It would be preferable if everyone could acknowledge that about their organizations and move on to work together. Sadly, excluding an organization isn’t doing that – it says the opposite. And “what’s the problem, members can still get involved” is clearly bullshit. Nobody is going to be convinced by being told “your organization is horrible, but we’d still like you involved”. To quote PhilBC, “come off it”.

christian h.Quote text Reply
Marvin on 20 March, 2009 at 6:24 pm said:

christian h. – this is not a Socialist Party-led initiative, they were invited to take part along with the CPB by members of the RMT.

I think it’s perfectly possible for SP members to give an opinion on why the RMT may have chosen to not invite SWP, which I think is to an extent understandable, whilst also calling for a broader coalition of left groups – including the SWP. Just as the SP have made some criticism of this slate itself whilst working together with it, I don’t see the contradiction in SP members criticising the way SWP have acted previously whilst being willing to work together with them in something like this.

Again, it’s not the SP’s baby, they are taking part but have raised concerns and criticism in their public statement about the demands, the decision not to take seats and the decision not to invite more groups to take part, which rather goes against the idea of the SP being exclusive and sectarian.

MarvinQuote text Reply
christian h. on 20 March, 2009 at 6:37 pm said:

So it’s merely that the SP is perfectly happy to work with an initiative that is exclusive and sectarian (which exclusion they defend by reference to…. alleged sectarian behavior of the excluded). Fine. Personally, I am depressed that this kind of behavior seems to be a main “point of unity” on the left. (Obligatory disclaimer: I understand there are political differences, and they should not be papered over. This initiative, for example, could decide that these differences are too large to bridge – although given it looks like a one-time thing this would be passing strange. What I object to is to instead justify the exclusionary nature of the enterprise on fundamentally apolitical grounds, along the lines of “these guys don’t play well with others, so there!”)

christian h.Quote text Reply
James on 20 March, 2009 at 6:41 pm said:

Seems a shame a Green endorsement couldn’t have been arranged instead. Still, you’ll split the fanatic right-wing anti-European vote, and could hamper both UKIP and the BNP into the bargain.

JamesQuote text Reply
Neil on 20 March, 2009 at 6:49 pm said:

“Neil: I’m glad to hear the SP wants broad involvement. So I suppose then that the SWP and others have not been explicitly excluded, and that’s misinformation? I’m asking because your comrade seems to defend that exclusion… which you claim doesn’t exist.”

Be fair Christian I didn’t say that and I don’t think SP members are defending exclusion either.

The SP position has been stated twice already in regards to other left groups.

On the SWP I think the comrades are trying to point out to you and other SWP comrades that things like opposing coming to an agreement between the Socialist Alliance and the Campaign Against Tube Privatisation, smashing up the Socialist Alliance, the behaviour in the Respect split, the attitude taken to the Gerry Hicks campaign and yes the stance on Lyndsey have not gone unnoticed in the broader labour movement and have had real negative consequences for the SWP in terms of other forces being prepared to trust them and work with them.

Now comrades may think the SWP’s behaviour in all of the above was correct which is fine, I don’t want to start a bun fight around those issues again so let’s just agree to disagree on them?
But what is true is that other people, not just the CWI, have very different views on the decisions taken then and so this has led to a certain mistrust of the SWP but particularly of their leadership, past and present.

A new workers party is a very tender plant and in the current erratic behaviour by the SWP in the unions (ultra left in the PCS, backing right wing candidates in Amicus, co-operating in Unison) not to mention the attitude to Lindsey, it is not unreasonable for people like Bob Crow to be somewhat wary of involving themselves again with them.

A good analogy would be the stance taken by the SWP comrades in Germany in Berlin Die Linke. As far as I am aware they are opposed to the exclusion of the CWI but this does not mean they will not support Die Linke or leave it does it? This to me seems to be the same position the SP has adopted in this initiative.

NeilQuote text Reply
Marvin on 20 March, 2009 at 6:50 pm said:

christian h said:
“So it’s merely that the SP is perfectly happy to work with an initiative that is exclusive and sectarian (which exclusion they defend by reference to…. alleged sectarian behavior of the excluded”

Again to clarify, the official SP line is:

“the Socialist Party, for its part, would favour the broadest participation of all left and working class organisations.”

that’s not the same as being ‘perfectly happy’ with sectarianism. What you’re taking issue with is merely the personal opinion of a couple of SP members who have suggested that it’s not that suprising that the RMT wouldn’t want to work with the SWP (which whether wrong or right is hardly going to be a view exclusively held by SP members, and neither is it something that the SP mention at all in their statement over this).

As has been pointed out, the SP are working with the CPB on this, who currently refuse to defend SP members in Unison who have been victims of a witch hunt. If they’re willing to get behind this alongside them currently, then there’s no chance they’d be calling to exclude the SWP.

MarvinQuote text Reply
Marvin on 20 March, 2009 at 6:52 pm said:

I think Neil expressed things better.

MarvinQuote text Reply
Roy on 20 March, 2009 at 7:51 pm said:

It is an interesting and hopefully positive development, perhaps not unexpected that some of the left (wrongly I think could not support the Green Party – still have a lot to learn about the Green Movement and its appeal in working class areas) but any way wish the exercise well.

The no2eu campaign has a lot of work to do over the workers unity issue to cut across the BNP -I guess that the lessons of the Lindsey dispute will be tried to be replicated.

I hope that the intervention of the no2eu does not cost the Green Party its very good MEP’s in London,the South East and possible gains in other parts of the country such as the north west and the West Midlands.

Some groups on the left need to step back rationally and perhaps re look at the new situation.

RoyQuote text Reply
Henry on 20 March, 2009 at 7:52 pm said:

This is a very important step forward in trying to build a workers political movement in the absence of a mass workers party. It’s not perfect by any means but it’s a step in the right direction and should be supported.
The RMT don’t like the SWP because of their ‘Rule or Ruin’ approach (e.g. Socialist Alliance, StWC, Respect, UAF etc). I don’t think the SWP can be surprised at the RMT attitude towards them bearing in mind their sectarian political behaviour over the years.

HenryQuote text Reply
attila on 20 March, 2009 at 11:50 pm said:

This is utterly reactionary. We should try to unite with the other European peoples against the corporate oligarchy not campaign for sovereignty. A country the size of Britain cannot be sovereign in any meaningful sense. If the UK left Europe it would be even more at the mercy of global capital than it is already. Look at Iceland.

The problem is how to make the EU democratic so that it can stand up for the people and not the banksters. A reformed EU could look the US or China in the eye as an equal when it came to negotiating on trade, global finance or global warming. Britain on its own would simply have to adjust to decisions taken elsewhere.

The road to workers rights leads through Brussels.

attilaQuote text Reply
Francis King on 21 March, 2009 at 12:51 am said:

#48 attila is quite right: “The problem is how to make the EU democratic”. Because at the moment, it isn’t. Democracy requires accountability and transparency in decision-making. It requires that ordinary people understand where power lies and how they can exert pressure and influence. It requires that, as far as reasonably possible, power is devolved to people on the ground. It requires that every powerful figure should be able to answer Tony Benn’s five questions: “What power have you got? Who gave it to you? In whose interests do you use it? To whom are you accountable? How do we get rid of you?” Now – how you would go about reforming the EU to make it genuinely democratic is a very interesting question, especially if you avoid blithe and trite formulations such as “workers’ united states of Europe”. I quite take the point that “sovereignty” in the modern world is a dubious concept, even if the comparison between Britain (population 60 million) and Iceland (population 300,000) is a little disingenuous. But if you are serious about democracy (even “bourgeois” democracy), then you cannot escape the fact that the EU as currently constituted is profoundly unsatisfactory. The underlying assumption of No2EU is that the EU is unreformable. If you think they are wrong – which they may be – then you should show how it can be reformed, and by whom.

Francis KingQuote text Reply
Neil on 21 March, 2009 at 1:21 am said:

I think perhaps people need to calm down a little bit.

At no point has the platform of No2EU called for Britain to leave the EU and persue an isolationist or nationalist course.

People should watch this interview with Bob Crow on the Daily Politics Show: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/7952812.stm

Bob Crow explicitly rejects the charge put to him by Andrew Neil that he is anti-european. He says “we want a workers Europe, not a bosses Europe”.

The key point genuine leftists need to ask themselves is this: Is this initiative a step towards independent politcal representation for working people or not? If not does this mean you will abstain from voting for a campaign backed by the leadership of the most militant union in Britain or even vote for Labour or some other party?

On what basis?

On the idea that it is not left enough?

NeilQuote text Reply
Pauli on 21 March, 2009 at 10:34 am said:

Neil,

Surely the name does what it says on the tin, No2EU? I mean, I wouldn’t want to plunge Comrade Crow into any existential angst or anything, but the snappy title rather suggests withdrawal rather than reform.

The platform is wholly reticent on how it could work with other European workers’ interests on the continent to pursue its aims of scaling back the bosses’ Europe. Or would that smack too much of boarding the gravy train? Best lose a few deposits this side of the channel to make a point.

No2EU’s policies are entirely similar to the Greens’ on the EU, in fact they’re identical. That and when you consider the crowded anti-EU lists in June, voters turned off by the Labour and the Lib Dems are going to have a hard time picking between the anti-EU left of the Greens and No2EU and the anti-EU left of the Tories, BNP, Libertas and Ukip.

PauliQuote text Reply
Pauli on 21 March, 2009 at 10:35 am said:

“anti-EU right” latterly, even.

PauliQuote text Reply
Anonymous on 21 March, 2009 at 10:54 am said:

This is an initiative from a section of the trade union bureaucracy and from CPB
It is not a mass movement and will not become one. There is no democratic control of the slate and there will be no democratic control of the campaign during its short life. The mass of the RMT membership were not involved in any discussion re its launch. Its politics are backward looking British sovereigntist and British nationalist. It is certainly not a socialist response to the present world crisis of capitalism. If it gained support it would tend to increase british nationalist sentiment among the general public. It is a step backward not forward and will gain little support.

A small aside

The politics of Stalinism need to put in the bin. Stalinism is (and was) an anti working class nationalist barrier to communism. It lives on in britain through the life of a few small anti democratic satellites of the labour and trade union bureaucracy. The working class will never actively support Stalinism and for good reason. We have to clean the Stalinist muck off our red flag before we will succeed in remaking a mass socialist movement

sandy

AnonymousQuote text Reply
Communist suspect on 21 March, 2009 at 11:26 am said:

Sandy’s ‘small aside’ (#53) is anti-Communist, anti-left unity, Cold War-style poison.
There are different ideological standpoints in the working class and socialist movement in Britain and internationally. What Sandy so simplistically brands as ‘Stalinism’ is one of them, and a rather large one at that.
Indeed, as he includes the RMT leadership on his charge-sheet, one wonders where the list should end. No doubt it already includes anyone on the left or in the labour movement who supports the Morning Star (so that would include Derek Wall, Gregor Gall, Keith Flett, Colin Fox, the Alliance for Green Socialism, Tony Benn, left Plaid Cymru leaders like Leanne Wood, obviously all the hated ‘trade union bureaucrats’ etc. etc.). Sniff out those ‘Stalinists’, Sandy!
Meanwhile, other socialists from different traditions on the left will continue to look for ways to co-operate where common ground exists, to debate different positions in a more tolerant and constructive way, and even to rethink some of them.
Meanwhile you keep banging your outdated anti-Communist drum, Sandy, and see who lines up behind you. The rest of us will get on with the difficult but important and potentially fruitful work of building unity on the left.

Communist suspectQuote text Reply
Jeff on 21 March, 2009 at 11:29 am said:

just how well did a “New Workers Party” do in Scotland

remind me

and remind me where they are now ???

Militant (Socialist Party) lost support once it left the broader established left party, the Labour party

so need no lessons from Socialist Party

JeffQuote text Reply
Simon on 21 March, 2009 at 11:40 am said:

The SWP the largest left group outside the Labour party ????

I doubt this very much

apart from the issue of the Greens

Given SWP has halved and if you look at weekly SWP listings you can now see extent of down sizing of SWP, membership has halved in last two years

It is now likely that Respect is the largest grouping, then the SWP in free fall and a rising Socialist Party

even the CPB is growing even if slowly,

and even Labour is showing signs of moving forward

SimonQuote text Reply
Anonymous on 21 March, 2009 at 12:00 pm said:

Re 54

Any programmatic or electoral unity with those who hold up the Stalinist nightmare as something progressive is ruled out for authentic communists. Stalinism was an anti working class and anti communist phenomenon. Any movement that equivocates on the anti communist and anti human nature of Stalinism will fail to gain mass support and does not deserve to gain mass support.

The type of left unity that the Morning Star and the CPB promotes is left unity against the working class and against the potential for communism. It is the voice of a section of the labour bureaucracy and it will never be anything else. As to the real history of the morning Star- check it out if you have a strong stomach. In truth it has a history of being one of the most effective anti communists newspaper in Britain.

sandy

AnonymousQuote text Reply
Communist suspect on 21 March, 2009 at 12:05 pm said:

Blimey, all that Morning Star support for strikes, for mass campaigns against imperialist war and nuclear weapons, for the liberation movements in Vietnam and South Africa, for women’s rights, for the fight against racism and fascism, all those attacks on big business … all in the service of the ruling class!

Communist suspectQuote text Reply
Anonymous on 21 March, 2009 at 12:40 pm said:

The Morning Star and its predecessor- the Daily Worker were the creatures of the Stalinist bureaucracy. The anti working class Soviet bureaucracy provided the majority of the funding. I dont have time to list all the anti working class crimes of the Stalinist bureaucracy. Safe to say the Stalinist bureaucracy and its parties were the most effective anti communist force of the 20th century. And bye the way the ANC and the NLF were both (and are still both) anti working class and anti communist nationalist organizations. As to its opposition to nuclear weapons that again was depended on who held the weapons. In fact the CPGB supported the use of the bomb against the “Japs”

“The CP of course approved the international policies agreed between Churchill and Stalin; in particular they endorsed the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima. On 14 August 1945 the Worker actually criticised the Allied Powers for being too soft, under the heading ‘Japs still trying to haggle’. (The semi-racialist term ‘Japs’ was used almost invariably in the Worker at this time)

sandy

AnonymousQuote text Reply
Francis King on 21 March, 2009 at 1:09 pm said:

#59 Sandy-Anonymous, you’ve got me intrigued now. If the communist parties were the most effective anti-communist force in the 20th century, who, in your opinion, were the most effective communist forces? And in what did their effectiveness consist?

Francis KingQuote text Reply
Anonymous on 21 March, 2009 at 1:23 pm said:

The British union of fascists were certainly the most effective force fighting for the conditions for communism.

Think about it, that anti-working class Communist party with their alies in the left of the labour party fought for a welfare state, NHS etc-sapping the workers desire for revolution.

At this point in time we should support the BNP, as communism will only be built after the workers revolt against fascism.

No stalinist bosses!
No to the Morning star and the CPB- they are the most anti-communist forces in Birtish politics today!

Sandy

AnonymousQuote text Reply
Anonymous on 21 March, 2009 at 1:29 pm said:

Francis- that would involved a long answer and i am going into town now

but here goes- the non stalinist communist left ( the left opposition etc) were the most effective upholders of the communist tradition against the Stalinist nightmare of the 20th century. And the dominance and material strength of Stalinism meant the authentic communist tradition was largely kept to the social margins and was itself distorted and politically weakened by the period of working class defeat following on from the victory of Stalinism in 1920s. With the demise or near demise of Stalinism the possibility of a mass communist movement is again on the agenda. But it will take time to reemerge given the scale of defeat inflicted by the Stalinists on the political consciousness of the working class of the world and the disorientation caused by the most potent form of anti communism “successfully” masquerading as communist

sandy

AnonymousQuote text Reply
Anonymous on 21 March, 2009 at 1:32 pm said:

just to add that comment 61 is not from me but is probably from some stalinist idiot trying to muddy the water

sandy

AnonymousQuote text Reply
David Ellis on 21 March, 2009 at 2:57 pm said:

The name is crap, the platform is confused, the organisation is ad hoc at best, foolishly seats will not be taken up and its got the dead hand of the CPB written all over it but this is still well worthy of support because it has the potential to break the logjam as somebody said.

It is absolutely necessary to get the left-anti EU position out there. Most of the contributors who are against it are espousing some kind of bourgeois cosmopolitanism not inter nationalism or are taking a reformist approach to an unreformable institution. The EU is a series of explicitly neo-liberal treaties between the ruling classes of Europe designed to stich up the working classes. It is what it is.

The initiative should have been called `No2EU yes to socialism’ or the platform should at least have concluded with a call for a united socialist states of Europe. I’m glad the `reflation’ nonsense seems to have gone and would like to see something practical instead of the demand against racism and fascism like an amnesty for illegals who have worked hard for us during the boom in services and the NHS for instance and who the economy needs. They should be given passports. Apart from that there must be no more importing of unemployment from the EU or stealing workers from other countries to ruin them and avoid investment in the education and training of the people who are already here or to undermine union agreements.

The ruling class say that the EU is the only thing preventing war in Europe. In fact, the EU is permanent war where each tries to ruin the other. When the strategic issues of the separate capitalist classes and their political servants are involved EU directives are totally ignored, the only time they are in agreement is when they are demanding privatisation and public spending cuts.

David EllisQuote text Reply
Georgew on 21 March, 2009 at 3:37 pm said:

Nothing is perfect, and as david has said some of the reasons given for being against NO to EU yes to democracy are very questionable.

This sort of campaing will really sort out the men from the boys in terms of who is going to get behind a trade union and Left campaign highlighting the corrupt Boss’s EU, and who are just going to throw bile from their armchairs.

GeorgewQuote text Reply
Neil on 21 March, 2009 at 4:15 pm said:

For a bit more insight into the thinking of actual members of the RMT leadership you can watch this video from the Socialist Party conference from last weekend.

Part of the clip is the speach of Alex Gordon to the conference:

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/vids/SPCong2009intro.wmv

NeilQuote text Reply
Andrew Coates on 21 March, 2009 at 4:20 pm said:

Tendance Coatesy official statement on this:

http://www.putpeoplefirst.org.uk/

Incidentally I spent the morning at an Ipswich Town centre stall for the Jobs, Justcie, Climate (28th March) demo. No-one mentioned the EU.

Andrew CoatesQuote text Reply
Andrew Coates on 21 March, 2009 at 4:22 pm said:

Official Coatesite Statement is here:

http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/no2eu-egg-on-the-dead/

Andrew CoatesQuote text Reply
Roy on 22 March, 2009 at 12:12 am said:

The name does need amending to no2eu – Yes to workers unity or workers rights – this would enable it to sound less like UKIP.

RoyQuote text Reply
Roy on 22 March, 2009 at 12:15 am said:

I will be campaigning for and voting Green but that does not mean that I think people should not recognise this interesting development.

RoyQuote text Reply
christian h. on 22 March, 2009 at 4:23 pm said:

Neil (#43): I don’t want to start a bun fight around those issues again so let’s just agree to disagree on them?

Fair enough.

Neil (still 43): A new workers party is a very tender plant and in the current erratic behaviour by the SWP in the unions (ultra left in the PCS, backing right wing candidates in Amicus, co-operating in Unison) not to mention the attitude to Lindsey, it is not unreasonable for people like Bob Crow to be somewhat wary of involving themselves again with them.

That didn’t last long, did it? Seriously, SWP may have different positions from the SP in some unions, but couldn’t you just say that? Jeez. We all get you think your party is always right, and that’s okay – so do members of different groups. But this constant aggressive expression of those convictions makes you look insecure.

christian h.Quote text Reply
Phil BC on 22 March, 2009 at 4:43 pm said:

Why so defensive, Christian? No one is saying the SP is perfect. All Neil was pointing out were the reasons why he thinks Bob Crow isn’t too keen on the SWP. Why do you think he isn’t?

Phil BCQuote text Reply
christian h. on 22 March, 2009 at 5:20 pm said:

PhilBC: No one is saying the SP is perfect.

No, it simply so happens that while I have seen many SWP comrades criticize their own party’s positions past and present, I have somehow never happened upon any instance of an SP comrade admitting any mistake their party might ever have made. Anyway, I understand people think their own party is correct, and I don’t see anything wrong with it.

It is, however, ironic if a person says “I don’t want to start a bun fight on these issues again” – and then proceeds in the same breath to do exactly that. Then again, I guess irony might be considered petty bourgeois by the SP so I understand why you can’t admit its existence.

As for Bob Crow, I’d guess his problems with the SWP might be similar to those of the UNISON leadership with the SP – an refusal to follow orders from on high. It’s somewhat sad that the SP would support him in that, though.

Look, I think that excluding significant forces on the left from an attempt to build an electoral force, not on political grounds but because of personality issues (ie “the behavior of the [insert group here] leadership”) is doomed, and may in fact be counterproductive.

christian h.Quote text Reply
Paul Hunt on 22 March, 2009 at 5:55 pm said:

hi christian and all

i must admit i am finding this all very interesting, particularly given the attitude of the SWP towards the RMT initiative, compared to its attitude towards Respect, Socialist Alliance etc.

this bit is amazing, frankly
‘As for Bob Crow, I’d guess his problems with the SWP might be similar to those of the UNISON leadership with the SP – an refusal to follow orders from on high. It’s somewhat sad that the SP would support him in that, though.’

so the SWP are not engaging (so it appears at the moment) because you don’t want to ‘follow orders from on high’. you are setting up the straw man comrade. you make it sound like we are supporting Bob Crow in keeping you out of this?!

can you show how you are being excluded from this initiative? it sounds like the creating of a myth (like all the anti witchunt nonsense around your falling out with Galloway and others in Respect)

i can see it now. evil stalinist bob crow keeps the SWP out supported by the SP!!

any interested person can look at the differing and contrasting attitude taken by both the SWP and SP towards the building of new formations, SLP, Socialist Alliance and Respect and see the completely different approaches.

PH
Coventry

Paul HuntQuote text Reply
Neil on 22 March, 2009 at 6:42 pm said:

Christian, you may not be a member of the SWP but their method of political debate is stamped all over you.

You have compleetly failed to engage with what I have said and instead launched an ad hominem attack on my supposed mental states (not for the first time in the blogshpere).

Now I made the point that I thought that the SWP’s behaviour was erratic in the unions, which was why Bob Crow and the RMT exec were not keen to get involved with them. I would not make such a point unless I had specific cases to point to. This also makes it easier for you to rebut by the way, if you are able to, rather than a vague statement about being erratic.

Your absurd statement comparing Bob Crow and the RMT leadership to the Unison leadership demonstrates you have very little understanding of what is going on in the RMT or Unison. Are you actually saying that the SP’s participation in an elctoral bloc is the same as hounding union activists out of a job?

“Look, I think that excluding significant forces on the left from an attempt to build an electoral force, not on political grounds but because of personality issues (ie “the behavior of the [insert group here] leadership”) is doomed, and may in fact be counterproductive.”

This statement is very telling. This is liberalism pure and simple, the idea that political difference flow from clashes of personalities. The break up of the SA, the election of Jerry Hicks, the controversy around the PCS pay dispute were not controversial because of the behaviour of individuals. Rather it was a clash of different political perspectives, programs and methods.

It is the false methods of the SWP that has landed them in their curent position. Not the mental states of Bob Crow or the RMT exec.

So to be clear;
Do you think the behaviour of the SWP in the unions has been erratic?
Do you think this has played a role in the isolation of the SWP?
Does the SWP even want to be part of this anyway given they have said they do not think there is room for an elctoral chalange?
Do you think this is a correct political perspective?

NeilQuote text Reply
Jota on 22 March, 2009 at 7:34 pm said:

Taking rhe point that it wasn’t the SR who excluded the SWP, and the point that the SWP leaders aren’t blameless in the causes for their exclusion – I think the SP should clearly state that they call for the inclusion and participation of all left groups.

I think the SWP should strive to get involved at a local level – answer the mistrust they are clearly held in by being the best campaigners. I certainly hope that individual SWP members will get involved, regardless of the hurt pride of the CC.

Still no news from Respect?

JotaQuote text Reply
Neil on 22 March, 2009 at 9:42 pm said:

“the Socialist Party, for its part, would favour the broadest participation of all left and working class organisations.”

NeilQuote text Reply
TLC on 22 March, 2009 at 10:37 pm said:

Jota – I’m afraid you are going to have to wait for Respect’s next National Council (4th April I believe) for a decision. No one has the authority to give Respect’s national backing to this except the NC or a annual conference. However, in the North West Respect constituency, Greater Manchester Respect have decided to call for a vote for the Green Party. This has been discussed at the NC.

Kay Phillips, Respect National Chair, outlines the NW position here http://www.gmrespect.org.uk/articles2009/Kay_210309.htm

TLCQuote text Reply
Anonymous on 23 March, 2009 at 11:56 am said:

This is from the web site of the no2eu- yes to democracy website. We must protect “home industries” it would seem. Does not refer to protecting simply “british” industries anymore. Is this a concession to the scottish nationalism of the CWI and Solidarity?

and ditto it also refers to defending the “peoples” of Britain.

Were the RMT membership involved in the decision to launch this nationalist
rubbish or was it all arranged behind closed doors by the union bureaucrats and
the Stalinists of the CPB

Yes to democracy indeed!

sandy

The economic crisis and the EU

In efforts to resolve the finanical crisis a recapitalisation of banks has taken
place in EU Member States using taxpayers’ money. The Hungarian government has
been helped out by the IMF to the tune of £11.2 billion.

EU member states in eastern and central Europe are in dire economic
circumstances. Latvia now has an IMF loan of £1.7 billion. Ireland, Greece,
Portugal and other member states have economic problems and in all these
eurozone countries there is growing unemployment and related social problems.

All this is opposite to the criteria and rules of the EU Growth and Stability
Pact. Hungary and Latvia were not helped by the euro. All this shows that the
Pact has been shredded and the euro system has failed.

The euro is controlled by the European Central Bank (ECB) which dictates
interest and exchange rates. These are two key levers which should instead be
used by national governments to control their economies. Britain is in the
penultimate stage to join the euro and has also carried out the criteria.

By obeying the strict criteria of the euro considerable damage has been done to
the public sector. Control of economies in the eurozone is exercised by the EU
Commission, Council of Ministers and ECB directly over national interests. The
crisis is being used as an excuse to press for complete ratification of the
Lisbon Treaty which would impose the euro on all member states.

Leading Europhiles like Denis MacShane and others claim that Britain should join
the euro to help resolve the fiscal crisis. Ireland is being pressed to ratify
the EU Constitution.
Cuts in public sector spending and the forcing down of wages continues and will
worsen in any recession and be used to resolve the problems of bankers whilst
workers are asked to tighten their belts.

Nation states with the right to self-determination and their governments are the
only institutions that can control the movement of big capital and clip the
wings of the trans-national corporations and banks. This means democratic
control of the major banks, including the Bank of England, and full public
ownership and democratic accountability of railways, postal services, NHS, and
the energy industry.

To revitalise the economy, Britain must return to creating wealth based
especially in manufacturing, hi-tech and trade across the world.

An end must be made to the dependence on service industries especially the
financial sector. To return to an economy based on manufacturing requires
massive investment and where appropriate protection of home industries. It is
the only way to ensure jobs and a decent safe future for the peoples of Britain.

AnonymousQuote text Reply
Sean on 23 March, 2009 at 12:40 pm said:

Trots
telephone box
come to mind

meanwhile in the real world Bob Crow and the RMT are marching forward

unlike other so called left Gen Secs

PCS leadership shouts a lot about solidarity and joint action but we are increasingly unable to deliever on our home turf in the Civil Service,

This is unlike Crow and RMT who, at least recently has spent his time organising his own union to ensure it can deliver rather than winning some kind of left beauty contest

I only wish we could in PCS deliever, for our members, regardless of being Socialist, Liberals, Green, nationalist and even Tories members of the union

we should aim to be a great union not a political party of the revolutionary vanguard as some would have us

SeanQuote text Reply
Prinkipo Exile on 23 March, 2009 at 1:26 pm said:

“the Socialist Party, for its part, would favour the broadest participation of all left and working class organisations.”

Comment by Neil — 22 March, 2009 @ 9:42 pm

Neil – it has been said that the SP insisted that the SWP were excluded from No2EU because of their position on the Lindsey strike.

Is that true?

If it is then that is sectarian; there would have been countless occasions in the last few decades when either the CPB or Militant/SP could have been excluded from broader formations because of their positions on particular industrial issues (the Militant’s position on Nalgo’s support for the black worker’s caucus on Liverpool City Council springs to mind as a particularly despicable line).

I don’t see how you can preach unity on the one hand and then behind the scenes ensure that certain groups are excluded?

I don’t have any great love for the SWP given their antics in Respect 18 months ago, but I think it is wrong in principle to exclude groups. If the SWP want to get involved in No2EU as an attempt to build a genuine united movement, and I am not clear whether it is, that should be up to them.

Perhaps SP members can also clarify that since the CWI section in Scotland presumably supports the same general line as the SP in EW, and since the CWI support Solidarity as do the SWP, if the CWI get Solidarity involved can SWP members be involved and even be selected as candidates for No2EU in Scotland despite their position on Lindsey?

Prinkipo ExileQuote text Reply
Duncan on 23 March, 2009 at 1:34 pm said:

Prinkipo Exile,

it has been said that the SP insisted that the SWP were excluded from No2EU because of their position on the Lindsey strike.

By who exactly?

This is the statement of the Socialist Party on the issue:

the Socialist Party, for its part, would favour the broadest participation of all left and working class organisations.

http://socialistparty.org.uk/issue/571/7070

Couldn’t be more obvious as far as I can see.

That said, I’ve not seen any statement from the SWP about NO2EU so it may be that they don’t want to be involved.

DuncanQuote text Reply
KrisS on 23 March, 2009 at 1:38 pm said:

Yeah, PE, I think the most that has been said here is that if we have been excluded then it might be because of differences such as that over BJFBW or some other positions we have taken on various issues in various unions recently.

I’d be careful about translating that into anything more than it is.

KrisSQuote text Reply
Green Socialist on 23 March, 2009 at 1:46 pm said:

I fear this could be a distraction from the re-election of Green MEP Jean Lambert who has struggled for Trade Union rights!
NO2EU may just be fishing in the same pond as UKIP and Veritas as far as voters can see, not that this is their aim of course.

Green SocialistQuote text Reply
Andy Newman on 23 March, 2009 at 1:51 pm said:

#81

My understanding is that the exclusion of the SWP came from RMT not from any of the left groups involved.

Andy NewmanQuote text Reply
christian h. on 23 March, 2009 at 2:34 pm said:

Neil (75.), it’s clear you are, as usual, only interested in sectarian point scoring. You are completely unable to even entertain the notion that somebody else may have different positions from yours. Ever think that maybe it’s the SP’s behavior in the unions that’s erratic? You are like the drunk driver unaware of his condition concluding that everyone else is driving erratically since he must be, after all, going straight.

christian h.Quote text Reply
christian h. on 23 March, 2009 at 2:36 pm said:

By the way, Neil, it’s also clear your claim you don’t want to fight the same old debates again was a straight-out lie. This is, in fact, the only thing you are interested in. Pathetic.

christian h.Quote text Reply
Anonymous on 23 March, 2009 at 3:12 pm said:

The SSP would often claim in the debates on the left in respect of their call for scottish independence that the call for the break up of Britain was anti imperialist and that Scottish independence would benefit the oppressed of the world since imperialism would be greatly weakened by the British states national fragmentation. Admittedly this claim was not made in election material or in any material directed at the general public. Rather in material aimed at the “masses” there was instead “down to earth” populist pro independence guff about Scotland being a rich country which was being robbed by Westminster and that if we kept the oil money for ourselves we would all be better off etc. Anti imperialist rhetoric was kept for use in internal left debates in an attempt to provide a left cover or excuse for the SSPs subservience to the blatantly anti working class independence project led by a section of the Scottish establishment.

Will No2EU- Yes to democracy try to follow suit and play the anti imperialist card in discussions on this project in the left? Will they claim that the national break up of the European “superstate” is a blow against world imperialism and thus a step forward for the oppressed of the world? I can nothing re this yet but i await its inevitable emergence in amused anticipation.

UKIP (and the BNP?) will then become objectively anti imperialist fighters for British sovereignty and national liberation against international finance capital.

maybe the CWI should consider this old saying from Walter Scott

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!

sandy

AnonymousQuote text Reply
Marvin on 23 March, 2009 at 3:34 pm said:

christian h

so instead of addressing perfectly reasonable points (whether you agree with them or not, Neil put his views accross in a perfectly reasonable fashion) you just stoop to vague personal attacks that at best, just seem ignorant.

If you disagree with Neil, why not address those points? If you think the SP are erratic in the unions, why not explain why as Neil did for his views on the SWP?

Debate on different methods and views is crucial, it’s not sectarian point-scoring. Unfortunately it is you that comes accross badly here.

MarvinQuote text Reply
MichaelC on 23 March, 2009 at 3:51 pm said:

No-one has yet answered my earlier question – what kind of vote would this new slate count as a success? What are the realistic objectives? Isn’t there a danger that a derisory vote would reinforce the Labour-link defenders as “proof” that stuff outside Labour is a dead end electorally?

MichaelCQuote text Reply
christian h. on 23 March, 2009 at 4:08 pm said:

Marvin, if you think Neil’s inquisitorial tone is “reasonable” that’s your choice. Maybe demanding answers as if in a show trial is the usual style in the SP – people with self-respect ignore such demands. In addition, I for one do not want to rehash the same old arguments that have been had here before over and over again. You and Neil will just have to argue with yourselves about that – I’m sure you’ve seen enough of them to play both sides and put on a little play?

I did address, repeatedly, the one point I find of importance in relation to the issue at hand: I am against exclusion, and I don’t make excuses for it. I do not have any understanding for those that exclude CWI comrades in Berlin from the Left Party. Regarding this question of exclusion, I don’t give a shit how those CWI comrades behaved previously, excluding them is wrong. Similarly, in this case, it isn’t relevant whether the SWP was right or wrong in their union work or in the Respect split or whichever other charge you might have against them. In fact, it matters less: the Left Party in Germany is a permanent formation. This little Britisher exercise of yours is a one-time exercise.

christian h.Quote text Reply
Marvin on 23 March, 2009 at 4:13 pm said:

I have no partiular involvement in NO2EU as of yet.

We know nothing about the ‘exclusion’ of particular groups, including the SWP as no official statement as been made by the organisers of NO2EU.

All we know so far on the SP side of things is that in their public statement they have called for the broadest participation of all working class and left groups. How is that supporting exclusion in any way?

Also, as has been said, the SWP’s official line currently is they would not support an electoral campaign is it not?

MarvinQuote text Reply
Green Socialist on 23 March, 2009 at 4:18 pm said:

I guess that they might damage UKIP’s vote which won’t be a bad thing!

Green SocialistQuote text Reply
KrisS on 23 March, 2009 at 4:22 pm said:

the SWP’s official line currently is they would not support an electoral campaign is it not?

No, it’s not.

KrisSQuote text Reply
rotten element on 23 March, 2009 at 4:25 pm said:

Over at the rotten elements we think Bob might have a chance in this one. Either way, it’s just so refreshing to see for the first time in god knows how long the British Left getting up off their fat arses and doing the hard yards. And what’s more with a really radical and NEW political agenda. Well done Bob!!!

rotten elementQuote text Reply
Steve on 23 March, 2009 at 4:46 pm said:

Christian h – stating that asking relevant questions amounts to a show trial is pretty standard SWP bluster, just like the witchhunt nonsense over Respect.

SteveQuote text Reply
KrisS on 23 March, 2009 at 4:59 pm said:

Maybe he should join the SWP then.

KrisSQuote text Reply
Francis King on 23 March, 2009 at 5:32 pm said:

#90 MichaelC: Your very reasonable questions seem to have got buried in a Trotskyite cat-fight. That is the fate of a lot of reasonable questions on this site, alas…

I would say that if this campaign succeeds in highlighting the EU’s democratic deficit, and making it an issue that gets taken up, then it will have played a useful role. It is not going to be the kernel of a new workers’ party, it is not going to get the UK to leave the EU, it is not going to prise the other large unions away from Labour. But it is raising an issue that needs to be raised, at a time when it is more likely to get noticed. Whether there could be a better way of doing it, I don’t know.

Francis KingQuote text Reply
Karl Stewart on 23 March, 2009 at 6:46 pm said:

I agree with much of what Francis has said at (98). There certainly seem to be more potential positives than negatives here.
On the plus side, an important trade union is heading an initiative aimed at winning working-class voters toward a left-wing and anti-neo-liberal stance. It is also a big plus that the Communist Party and Socialist Party are working together on this.
But the apparent non-involvement of the SWP is disappointing and leaves out an important party of the working-class left – probably still the single largest despite its recent difficulties.
However, until there is some clarity as to whether the SWP has been excluded or whether it has declined to become involved, it is difficult to draw conclusions over this, or to suggest remedies.
Others have raised concerns that the initiative could be perceived, at first glance, as being anti-foreigner, but I would argue that, once potential voters take a look at the list of policies, these concerns would quickly be answered.
As has been said already, it is not the Workers Party that our class needs, but it could represent an important step in that direction.

Karl StewartQuote text Reply
MichaelC on 24 March, 2009 at 12:35 pm said:

Hi Francis – thanks for having a go at answering. I’m not saying there aren’t issues that the platform could usefully raise. I just wonder whether this way of doing it doesn’t seem a bit national-chauvinist and a kind of left-UKIP vibe. Plus, there’s the tactical question about whether fielding another left slate with little popular appeal (like the SWP’s Left List at the GLAs) is a good way of furthering a project for some new left grouping.

Tailending the CPB doesn’t seem any more wise of the SP than tailending Galloway was for Respect.

MichaelCQuote text Reply
JimPage on 24 March, 2009 at 12:47 pm said:

Am surprised people are still bringing up whether the SWP were excluded, or are not taking part. As the WW article I linked to earlier in this threas sattes, it was clear exclusion by name at the behest of the Stlainist CPB

And why are poeple referring to this as an “RMT” slate. Its a CPB slate. Please try to be hoenst about this

JimPageQuote text Reply
Prinkipo Exile on 24 March, 2009 at 12:55 pm said:

In terms of totting up the positives and negatives, and I agree with a lot of the approach of Karl, an important negative he missed is the refusal to take up seats if elected. To pledge to take only a worker’s wage would be one thing, that would probably be regarded very positively at present especially after the revelations over the weekend about MPs claiming allowances for houses a few miles away. But to refuse to take up a seat if elected is absolutely lunatic and will only marginalise the campaign. Rescinding this policy should be a clear commitment of any new forces declaring support.

I am not in favour of Respect supporting the initiative unconditionally if it confirms that it intends to stand in the North West; that would jeopardise previous agreements in my view. That does not rule out calling for a vote elsewhere, but might rule out participating on a full basis.

Prinkipo ExileQuote text Reply
Graham Day on 24 March, 2009 at 1:34 pm said:

Comment #98 seems spot on to me. The campaign may be useful in galvanising opposition to the EU, but it’s hard to see any potential long-term effect other than that.

Does anyone else think it indicates a real problem that this thread quickly degenerated into a left-sectarian bunfight?

Graham DayQuote text Reply
Francis King on 24 March, 2009 at 3:23 pm said:

Problem? No, not really, Graham. I have always assumed that the title of this weblog is a rather witty ironic joke…

Francis KingQuote text Reply
christian h. on 24 March, 2009 at 3:46 pm said:

Steve (96.): Oh dear. Neil repeatedly demanded I answer for/ explain/ take a position on SWP policies in the unions, in an increasingly aggressive tone. For various reasons – because it misses the point, because I’m not even in the SWP and hence can’t speak for them, because every single one of these issues has been discussed on this blog ad nauseam already – I won’t answer. I’m happy that it has been pointed out to me the SP supports broadest possible participation, but I’m disappointed comrades would make excuses for exclusion. I’ll leave it at that.

christian h.Quote text Reply
Andy Newman on 24 March, 2009 at 4:28 pm said:

#103

Graham, I always think that people get a little too excited about RMT. They are a small union, and although it is very impressive the way they have grown under Bob’s leadership, the growth in both absolute and percentage terms is only the same as the growth in membership of GMB southern region.

What is important though is that some unions are starting to think more about directly involving themselves in politics, and for that reason the RMT decision is significant.

Andy NewmanQuote text Reply
Andy Newman on 24 March, 2009 at 4:29 pm said:

“the title of this weblog is a rather witty ironic joke”

Actually the name is for historical reasons, that I never had any say in. As Colin Fox has observed there is nothing so divisive as an appeal to unity.

Andy NewmanQuote text Reply
Steve on 24 March, 2009 at 4:47 pm said:

Christian h – I don’t think that Neil became particularly aggressive. In fact he was at pains to point out the SP is for inclusion of the SWP, not exclusion – as I am also.

The point he was making was that the reason for the RMT possibly not wanting the SWP involved – if that is the case – is hardly surprising considering the SWP behaviour over the last 18 months and possibly over the stance they took over the Lindsey strikes. Also they had been highly critical of Bob Crow in the past as well, may have something to do with it.

Anyway, the SWP I wouldn’t think want to be involved

SteveQuote text Reply
Question on 24 March, 2009 at 5:17 pm said:

`Anyway, the SWP I wouldn’t think want to be involved.’

Just to help things along, what is the SWP position on the EU?

QuestionQuote text Reply
Duncan on 24 March, 2009 at 5:20 pm said:

I think the SWP and the SP have a very similar position on the EU. Both parties signed the statement of the European anti-capitalist left on the elections:
http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1634

DuncanQuote text Reply
friendly lefty on 24 March, 2009 at 5:46 pm said:

I would assume if the SWP have not been involved in this it is probably due to the RMT rather than any other forces. The SWP and Bob Crow have never seemed to have a particularly good relationship (probably lots of reasons which I am too young to know). I think the SWP’s position on it is they would like to be involved as it is a trade union getting involved in politics but not especially keen on the actual political basis on which it is happening. (Possibly classic sectarian posture I’m not sure)

More generally the SWP doesn’t really have a line on the elections other than on the importance of antifascism at the moment or seem to care about them beyond antifascism although I could be quite wrong on this. This NO2EU group will presumably fail to get noticed and very possibly not actually get round to fielding any candidates. I can’t really see there being new groups formed around it other than possibly in London and places the SP are doing moderately ok.

The SWP is opposed to the new EU treaty obviously and presumably also does support leaving the EU but does not prioritise this as only forces arguing for it are right wingers. Just as the SWP does not support Scottish independence but is willing to take part in coalitions that do as it is not a important issue in the SWP’s eyes.

friendly leftyQuote text Reply
Neil on 24 March, 2009 at 6:35 pm said:

98: “Your very reasonable questions seem to have got buried in a Trotskyite cat-fight. That is the fate of a lot of reasonable questions on this site, alas…”

Now, now Franky, no need to be like that. You should check out the debate over the Morning Star strike. The debate between comrades from the, er, “actually existing socialism” tradition certainly showed us trots don’t always win hands down in a cat fight.

As for Michael C’s “very reasonable question” the reason no one has responded concretely to him is that it would be unreasonable to expect any sort of honest answer given the newness of this formation, the lack of resources etc.

If you were to ask me what sort of vote the SP would get in a Lewisham or Coventry election I might be able to give you some sort of reasonable answer based of years of door knocking, canvassing in the run up to the election, past voting patterns and so on.
A Euro election is a completely different kettle of fish, even for the main parties. No one saw Labour’s poor performance in 1999 coming for example. The same goes for UKIP’s performance in 2004.

Think about it. Euro constituencies are gigantic. The London region alone covers a voting population almost the same size as the Republic of Ireland. Clearly there will not be a great deal of door knocking done that could give an accurate figure to voting intentions. Even where that happens it will be a drop in the ocean given the numbers involved.
We do not even have past voting records to go on.
In reality the only way someone could answer your question in any way objectively (rather than simply giving one’s own uninformed opinion based on bias or preference depending on how you see this initiative) would be to conduct a series of polls over a period of weeks.

What we can say concretely is that there is a big constituency out there that is anti-EU as it currently is constituted, and that constituency is not simply BNP or UKIP fodder. We can also say that Euro elections more than any other tends to be seen as a vehicle for protest votes against the three main establishment parties. As a socialist I would also add that there is an objective vacuum in UK politics from the lack of political representation for the working class which no party, Greens, Labour, UKIP, BNP are filling at the present time.

These are the political conditions that No2EU is operating in and its success or otherwise will be dictated by it’s ability to tap into and give voice to people who are unhappy with them.

In that sense Euro elections are more similar to publicity campaigns than elections as we would understand them at local, regional or national level. That’s why things like having debates in the workplaces and union branches, street activity, public meetings and targeted media work will be key in this campaign.
as we understand them on a local, regional or national sense.

NeilQuote text Reply
Neil on 24 March, 2009 at 6:40 pm said:

Ignore the last sentence please, forgot to delete it!

NeilQuote text Reply
anticapitalista on 24 March, 2009 at 6:47 pm said:

#110 The Greek sister organisation of the SP doesn’t support the statement of the European anti-capitalist left as it supports the SYRIZA coalition. (It didn’t sign the statement as the links clearly shows)

anticapitalistaQuote text Reply
Neil on 24 March, 2009 at 7:03 pm said:

Just re-read Michael C’s post and there is one part I could reasonably answer:

“Isn’t there a danger that a derisory vote would reinforce the Labour-link defenders as “proof” that stuff outside Labour is a dead end electorally?”

Yes there is but the fact of the matter is that conversation already happens in the unions except that instead the union bureaucracy will point to the faiure of the SLP, the implosion of the SSP and the fallout over Respect. If the No2EU gets a small vote this will probably be less damaging than the sight of socialist’s colluding with Rupert Murdoch or fairy tails about witch hunts etc.

So yes a bad vote will on the one hand make it more difficult. However much this helps the bureaucracy it will still not solve the objective problem for them that the Labour Party has moved to the right and no longer represents the working class.

The only thing that can resolve this question decisively is either a new workers party, backed by a significant section of the labour movement or the Labour party returns to being a workers party at the base.

Which do comrades think is more likely?

NeilQuote text Reply
Duncan on 24 March, 2009 at 7:56 pm said:

Any word from the PCS on this Neil?

We discussed NO2EU at branch last night and this aspect was raised.

DuncanQuote text Reply
MichaelC on 24 March, 2009 at 8:42 pm said:

Neil – “The only thing that can resolve this question decisively is either a new workers party, backed by a significant section of the labour movement or the Labour party returns to being a workers party at the base.”

Sadly neither is likely to happen any time soon. So what we do in the meantime needs to be considered carefully – I don’t see how this latest venture will lead to the breakthrough you want. In fact, it is more likely to reinforce the idea that projects to Labour’s left are dead ends.

I think we need to concentrate on those objectives that might be lead to a different kind of politics, and that don’t divide Labour lefts/Greens/other socialists. eg. we all stand to be in a better position if there is a different kind of electoral system used for General and local elections – that kind of demand could unite everyone from Cruddas through Derek Wall to the Respect and the CNWP. So why do we concentrate on running competing slates rather than campaigning on concrete demands that unite us?

MichaelCQuote text Reply
Communist suspect on 25 March, 2009 at 8:56 am said:

#101 Jim Page must be the only person on Planet Earth who could cite the Weekly Worker as a source of information.
The No2EU initiative began entirely within the RMT, without any prior prompting from the CPB. In fact, CPB plans to contest three or four Euro constituencies were already quite well advanced when the RMT initiative came to light – as almost every CPB member who reads the party’s monthly Political Letter or attends party meetings would know. After some discussion, the CPB decided to drop its own plans and join in with the RMT and others.
As for the Weekly Worker, the extent of its reliability can be judged by one incident that I know personally about, when I used to live in South Wales. About 8 or 9 years ago, after a meeting in Cathays, Cardiff, Rob Griffiths told one of his well-rehearsed jokes in the pub aimed at paranoia among Stalin and his confederates (Beria etc.), relating to the pre-war purge of army generals. A Weekly Worker supporter was present, who later moved to (I think) Manchester.
In recent weeks, this incident has been mentioned at least twice in the Weekly Worker, but told as if it was happening today at Griffiths’ “local” pub in Cathays (from where he moved before I left Cardiff about 6 years ago). And instead of an anti-Beria/Stalin joke, it has turned into a pro-Stalin speech in favour of the army purges! All in order to try and embarrass the Socialist Party for getting into bed with “Stalinists”. Utterly dishonest, and truly pathetic.

Communist suspectQuote text Reply
Union organiser on 25 March, 2009 at 11:08 am said:

Hello Communist suspect (No. 118 above) – I think I can work out who you are!

Is the Rob Griffiths of whom you speak the “part-time General Secretary” of the CPB who also hangs on to a lecturing job in Pontypridd, according to the Weekly Wanker?

The only problem is that Rob Griffiths, Senior Lecturer in Sport and Leisure at the University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd, is not the same person at all.

Still, the WW never let facts get in the way of a good smear.

Union organiserQuote text Reply
Karl Stewart on 25 March, 2009 at 1:24 pm said:

This is from Socialist Worker – doesn’t seem hostile to the initiative, albeit they voice some reservations – but nothing about being excluded by Jim Page’s “dastardly Stalinists”

No To EU – RMT launches election campaign
The RMT transport union has initiated a challenge in June’s European elections, to oppose the dominant neoliberal policies of the European Union.

No to EU–Yes to Democracy candidates will stand in at least six of Britain’s Euro constituencies.

They will stand on a platform which stresses opposition to the Lisbon Treaty – the repackaged EU constitution thrown out by Irish, French and Dutch voters that aims to increase privatisation of services across Europe and to dilute workers rights.

No to EU also takes a clear stand against the fascist BNP.

The fact that a major union is prepared to back an election challenge to New Labour and the Tories is to be welcomed.

But there are some concerns that the campaign nods too far in support of arguments that led to the slogan “British jobs for British workers,” by attacking free movement of labour.

Yet in the coming months European trade unions are launching co-ordinated protest action over the recession.

If “No to EU–Yes to Dem-ocracy” can link with this Europe-wide resistance it can provide a welcome break with a debate in Britain over the EU, which centres solely on preserving “our” sovereignty and “our” pound.

——————————————————————————–

The National Steering Committee (NSC) of Solidarity, Scotland’s Socialist Movement, decided last Saturday to “support and participate” in the No to EU–Yes to Democracy campaign.

The Solidarity statement described the initiative as an “historic and courageous attempt by a union… to offer a working class alternative”.

Concern was voiced by some delegates about aspects of some of the policies of No to EU.

The Solidarity NSC expreressed a worry that the campaign has stated that, if elected, it would not take up any seats because they “will not board the notorious EU gravy train”.

Although the organisation has been put together very quickly, with little chance for extensive debate, Solidarity has agreed to put forward candidates, including Tommy Sheridan, for the Scottish No to EU list.

Karl StewartQuote text Reply
Anonymous on 25 March, 2009 at 1:48 pm said:

“The Solidarity NSC expreressed a worry that the campaign has stated that, if
elected, it would not take up any seats because they “will not board the
notorious EU gravy train”.

Yes – the resistance to boarding the notorious EU gravy must be fought.

Indeed it would seem that resistance to joining this gravy train is the major
failing of the no 2 EU campaign. The old refrain re Scotlands national
oppression by the British state has been put away for another day. That is now yesterdays opportunism. Now we must fight to save the pound and British industry etc

Can i take this opportunity to remind all would be careerists that the Brussels
gravy train is far more lucrative than the Scottish parliamentary one. It would
be madness to shun it if you have the chance to jump on board. Admittedly not much of a chance!

good luck with your new populist project- you will need it

sandy

AnonymousQuote text Reply
Nick on 25 March, 2009 at 1:55 pm said:

Surely the refusing to take seats thing will be a bit of a moot point anyway. Does anyone see there being any chance of No2EU candidates actually winning any seats?

NickQuote text Reply
Steve on 25 March, 2009 at 2:27 pm said:

We can not rule out that NO2EU will not win any seats. There is even a chance that if Dave Nellist stands in the West Midlands that he could possibly win. I think the RMT stance in these elections now is that they will take the name MEP but they will not go to the European parliament. So they will sort of take their seats so if the BNP have come second to the NO2EU they wont be able to take the seat.

SteveQuote text Reply
Anonymous on 25 March, 2009 at 2:32 pm said:

From the archives- Demo on Calton hill

The next speaker, Ian Hamilton QC, said “every fibre of my being has been geared towards today and the declaration of a Scottish republic”.

“Farewell Britannia and advance Scotland,” he said.

Barbara Scott then sang Caledonia and the crowd fell silent.

Saltires fluttered in the breeze as she sang Caledonia was everything she’d ever had.

An activist broke from the crowd holding a Union flag soaked in petrol.

As he lit the flag, the wind gathered pace and those close by dashed for cover as the flames licked their feet.

The heat from the embers gave those close enough a welcome shot of warmth.

Another speaker, expelled Scottish National Party member Campbell Martin, asked the crowd how they felt about being freedom fighters.

“MI5 even fear you,” he said as everyone laughed.

MSP Rosie Kane writes on a protester’s hand

The alternative ceremony needed an injection of sobriety and it was provided by Tommy Sheridan.

He thundered his way through the ills of the Scottish Parliament and how devolution had failed to tackle poverty and scrap nuclear weapons.

“You provide hope for a new Scotland, where people are no longer subjects to a diseased establishment but are citizens in an independent Scotland,” he said.

“We don’t want to debate dog poo or the height of hedges. We want freedom.

“Do we belong to a British nation?”

“No,” the crowd shouted as one.

“Or are we a Scottish nation?”

“Yessss…,” they said.

AnonymousQuote text Reply
Gerry Downing on 26 March, 2009 at 8:23 pm said:

Well done Sandy, you have fought a principled campaign here against this anti-internationalist British nationalist rubbish which so foolishly thinks that by aping the BNP it can win votes off the UKIP. As that great socialist Will Podmore said in yesterday’s morning star, ‘British jobs for British workers has nothing to do with the BNP slogan of put British workers first’ – workers of the world piss off the CPB, Crow, the SP and Sheridan are telling us all. Shame on you, you opportunist shower.

Gerry DowningQuote text Reply
YCLer on 27 March, 2009 at 2:51 pm said:

Yeah, well done Sandy,

I mean no to the Lisbon Treaty?
No to EU directives that privatise our public services?
Defend and develop manufacturing, agriculture and fishing industries in Britain?
Repeal anti-trade union ECJ rulings and EU rules promoting social dumping?
No to racism and fascism, Yes to international solidarity of working people?
No to EU militarisation?
Repatriate democratic powers to EU member states?
Replace unequal EU trade deals with fair trade that benefits developing nations?
Scrap EU rules designed to stop member states from implementing independent economic policies?
Keep Britain out of the eurozone?

Sounds like a lot of nationalist Bollocks to me!
I’d rather do nothing and talk about how crap everyone else’s programme is, while dreaming of some Utopian, completely unachievable, concept that fits in with your ideals of pure revolutionary sloganising.

The fact is:

1)Many working class people are pissed off at the EU, for reasons we have talked about.
2)Up till now there has been no progressive, trade unionist campaign against the corrupt Neo-Liberal EU. So ultra rightwing parties like UKIP and the fascist BNP have been able to capitalise on this Anti-EU sentiment.

If you are going to insist that a programme is not truely internationalist until it declares ‘NO BORDERS!’-then you are not going to get very far.
To oppose the NO2EU campaign on this ultraleftist basis-that NO2EU it is just as bad as the fascists-has got to be the most idiotic, deluded position in the history of the Labour movement.

It is reminiscent of the ‘class-against-class’, Social democrats are ‘social-fascists’ sectarian politics of Third period Stalinism, that had disasterous consequences for the workers of countries like Germany.

I urge you to vote, if not for NO2EU, then at least the Greens, to prevent the very real threat that the BNP are going to get an MEP elected. Don’t let your competition to shout the most far-left slogans stop you from participating in the progressive fight against the Far-Right.

YCLerQuote text Reply
Jim on 27 March, 2009 at 10:28 pm said:

YCLer, “stalinism”? What you on about? Are you a eurocom? A Martin Jacques type? You certainly sound like one. And you are simply wrong to say that “Up till now there has been no progressive, trade unionist campaign against the corrupt Neo-Liberal EU”. Even if your talking on an electoral basis. The Socialist Labour Party has stood in Westminster, Scottish Parliamentary and Welsh Assembly and European elections since 1997 with the issue of the EU at the very top of their manifesto.

The real danger of fascism come from the state, Georgi Dimitrov made that point way back. The failed strategy – several times over – of the electoral “alliance” is a blind alley. NO2EU is a distraction from the real issues facing working people. It’s a unity of the graveyard.

JimQuote text Reply
Anonymous on 28 March, 2009 at 1:18 pm said:

Defend british sovereignty say Scotlands freedom fighters

Of course when the Scottish nationalist left were on the up and up they opposed
a united left challenge in the British general election of 2001. The workers
unity tendency motion to the SSP conference calling for a joint british wide
slate with the socialist alliance in England and Wales was opposed by the SSP
leadership. The socialist alliance platform ( people before profit) was
inadequate but it was far better than the British sovereigntist rubbish of the
No2 EU slate and it had for more active supporters than no 2 EU will have. We
are still paying the price for the failure by the SSP to use its one time considerable strength to promote a british wide socialist organisation. The SSP leadership choose to promote populist nationalist guff rather than stand on socialist principle. Solidarity are continuing that tradition but in an even more poisonous form.

sandy

Solidarity step towards Left Unity

Solidarity, Scotland’s Socialist Movement have taken further steps towards
united left electoral projects by joining the No2Eu/Yes to Democracy platform
for the EU elections and engaging in the fast growing movement towards ‘left
forums’ around the country. Solidarity’s Management Committee are also
discussing further projects for the Westminster elections with leading trade
unionists in Scotland.

At a meeting of the party’s National Steering Committee (NSC) last week,
Solidarity agreed to offer candidates and full support to the RMT led euro
campaign, joining the Communist Party of Britain (CPB) and others.

Co-Convenor Tommy Sheridan called on the SSP, and others, to get involved. He
said:

“Despite our bitter relations with The SSP leadership I believe we should
appeal to them and all other left and progressive groups and unions to join this
Platform and campaign in a united fashion to maximise the left and progressive
vote in Scotland at the Euro election on June 4th.”

For the full Solidarity satement click ‘read more’ below.

Solidarity Statement on No2EU – Yes to Democracy

Solidarity welcomes the launch of the No2EU-Yes to Democracy electoral alliance
led by the RMT union.

The initiative is a historic and courageous attempt by a union in the front line
of resisting attacks on their members pay, conditions and jobs to offer voters a
working class alternative to the pro big business agenda of the main parties or
the xenophobia, racism and hate peddled by the far right BNP.

This is the first time a national trade union has taken the decision to stand in
a national election to the left of Labour and it could have huge implications
for the emergence of a genuine mass working class party at a later stage.

Solidarity renews its commitment to our December 2008 National Steering Group
decision to where possible seek left unity and to maximise left votes during
elections. We believe this initiative gives us the opportunity to see left unity
in action at the European Elections.

We realise that these initial attempts to achieve left electoral unity will
result in some level of disagreement between the groups involved. We have
differences with certain aspects of this initiative including the name of the
alliance, a lack of clear Scottish autonomy and the proposal not to fully
participate in the European parliament if elected.

We welcome the movement that has taken place thus far on the question of not
taking seats up if elected and believe this indicates that the No2EU-Yes to
Democracy Steering Committee has been prepared to listen to constructive
argument from partner organisations. Solidarity will continue to argue that in
the circumstance of successfully seeing a No2EU-Yes to Democracy candidate
elected in Scotland, we should not boycott the parliament but instead be
prepared to attend where necessary and that MEP’s representing working class
people should take no more than a skilled worker’s wage.

The Solidarity NSC therefore agrees to support and participate in the No2EU
campaign, attend the steering committee, offer candidates from Solidarity for
the Scottish no2EU list and work with affiliated organisations, groups and
individuals on a Scottish Steering Committee once it is established.

Solidarity Co-Convenor Tommy Sheridan said;

“Despite our bitter relations with The SSP leadership I believe we should
appeal to them and all other left and progressive groups and unions to join this
Platform and campaign in a united fashion to maximise the left and progressive
vote in Scotland at the Euro election on June 4th.

“This initiative is led and financed by an important industrial union. It could
lead to something bigger and broader able to bring the left and progressive
unions, parties, campaigns and individuals together in Scotland and throughout
England and Wales. In the interests of the working class of Scotland, who are
currently denied a credible and united left alternative to the free market mince
of the main stream parties, we have a duty to try and make this initiative work.

“We appeal to the SLP, the SSP, the CPS, Trades Councils and all left trade
unions and branches to sign up in support of this courageous initiative led by
the RMT.

This is an important left unity project and it deserves our support and support
from all on the left.”

AnonymousQuote text Reply
Anonymous on 28 March, 2009 at 2:09 pm said:

Solidarity step towards Left Unity

“Solidarity, Scotland’s Socialist Movement have taken further steps towards
united left electoral projects by joining the No2Eu/Yes to Democracy platform
for the EU elections and engaging in the fast growing movement towards ‘left
forums’ around the country.”

These “fast growing left forums” exist where? Are they for open debate? If so
they are to welcomed. Are they going to be democratically controlled? Are they
only based in Scotland or throughout britain? Who is involved in them? What
organisations? Are they separate from the NO2 EU campaign? Will they organise
open debates on the way forward for the socialist left? If so- they are to be
welcomed since open debate is the lifeblood of any serious working class
fightback. But I have to say that from my experience Solidarity, CWI, SWP, the
SSP, the CPB and the RMT leadership shun open debate on political matters.They
much prefer Rallys and controlled shows. Indeed they shun open debate like the
mythical vampire shuns day light

sandy

AnonymousQuote text Reply
Eddie Truman on 28 March, 2009 at 5:51 pm said:

The Scottish Socialist Party will stand candidates in the June 2009 European elections.
The decision was taken at the party’s annual conference, this year being held on the island of Arran.
Delegates voted 2-1 to put forward a Scottish Socialist Party list for the European Parliament election on June 4th.
SSP co-spokesperson Colin Fox said;
“The Scottish Socialist Party will contest the European elections on our unique anti-capitalist programme, as we have done in all elections in the 10 years of our existence.
“The SSP looks forward to our part in a European wide protest by the left, socialist and anti capitalist parties at the terrible consequences for working class people of the financial catastrophe that the banks and big business have brought upon us.
“In the forthcoming European elections the SSP will be once again ask voters to mark their cross beside the SSP, for socialism, independence and internationalism.”
http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/

Eddie TrumanQuote text Reply
Prinkipo Exile on 30 March, 2009 at 8:14 pm said:

The presence of Brian Denny of No2EU and the RMT on the platform of this Saturday’s AGM of the ‘Campaign for an Independent Britain’ (CIB) alongside former Tory MP Teddy Taylor is disastrous. Guess what the headline of the newsletter of the CIB advertising the meeting is? Yes – “BRITISH JOBS FOR BRITISH WORKERS?”!!!

http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/freebritain/freebritainmarch2009-5.pdf

The newsletter is full of other crap from the right including support for former tories Norman Tebbit and Sir Nicholas Bonsor, and quoting approvingly from the ‘Chairman of the Freedom Association’ (remember them and their anti-TU antics!) Tory MEP Roger Helmer.

What on earth is the RMT doing associating itself with this motley bunch of right wing nationalist cranks????

If this is the shape of how the No2EU campaign is going to pan out, then the left should not touch it with a very long bargepole.

Prinkipo ExileQuote text Reply
Gavin on 30 March, 2009 at 8:35 pm said:

This is protectionism with a left veneer. The worst elements of the British left jumping on the reactions of a section of its working class. The EU is far from perfect, but is the British state more progressive. We should fight to change European structures and build a strong left in Europe. Having an anti-EU policy will just strengthen the nationalism and pro-Americanism in the UK, a policy for which you’ll find many friends in the establishment. Pandering to reaction is not the way forward for the left.

GavinQuote text Reply
james A on 30 March, 2009 at 8:54 pm said:

127# The Socialist who party? Okay perhaps if you count the Scargil ego trip crew.
Im sorry for using the word ‘Stalinism’- I happen to think that Stalin did some terrible things, you don’t agree Jim?

Where the hell did this concept of being anti-EU is pro-establishment?
what are you people smoking?

Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the Labour party-im sure noone will disagree that they represent the wishes of big business they are all pro-EU

go figure

james AQuote text Reply
Jim Denham on 9 May, 2009 at 12:02 am said:

There is no principled basis for supporting the reactionary shite of “No2EU”: where the hell has Crow got his mandate for wasting his members’ subs on this nationalist nonsense? It’s a Stalinist disgrace and genuine socialists should not just oppose it, but denounce it.

Jim DenhamQuote text Reply
Neil on 9 May, 2009 at 3:21 pm said:

Sandy, and the other Comrades. Thanks very much,all these years thinking I was a Communist and I wasn’t!
Enlightment at last.Thanks again for pointing that out!

NeilQuote text Reply
KrisS on 9 May, 2009 at 3:26 pm said:

So, does anyone have any reports on how the election campaign is going?

KrisSQuote text Reply
A Very Public Sociologist on 9 May, 2009 at 3:44 pm said:

Just keep an eye on my blog KrisS, there’ll be regular updates from my neck of the woods.

A Very Public SociologistQuote text Reply
KrisS on 9 May, 2009 at 4:01 pm said:

Will do. Your neck is Stoke-ish, right?

KrisSQuote text Reply
paulm on 9 May, 2009 at 6:02 pm said:

Full (and in my view impressive) list of candidates at

http://no2eu.com/candidates.html

paulmQuote text Reply
KrisS on 9 May, 2009 at 7:39 pm said:

Yeah I think the list of candidates is a decent one.

KrisSQuote text Reply
A Very Public Sociologist on 9 May, 2009 at 10:11 pm said:

That’s right KrisS, will have something new go up over the next day or so about a meeting we had last night and a leafleting session today.

There’ll also be a big No2EU presence on Unite’s March for Jobs in Birmingham next weekend. If you’re coming along feel free to have a natter with any of the comrades about how the campaign’s going in their areas.

A Very Public SociologistQuote text Reply
Chris S on 10 May, 2009 at 2:35 am said:

If anyone was in any doubt about the nature of this campaign have a look at who SPEW members have been canvassing on Facebook. Would it be the far right, xenophobes and nationalists?

http://communiststudents.org.uk/2009/05/no-2-eu-looks-to-far-right-for-votes/

Chris SQuote text Reply
anti-ChrisS on 10 May, 2009 at 7:23 am said:

ChrisS, from the WW student organisation invents a new – truly hilarious and very clever – acronym for the Socialist Party.
Having discovered that the initials, when “EW” for England and Wales are added, spell out the word “spew” (..geddit!).
What an extremely funny student jape ChrisS, is WW run by infantile morons like yourself now?

anti-ChrisSQuote text Reply
anti-ChrisS on 10 May, 2009 at 8:04 am said:

ChrisS, the truly sad thing about all this is that there are serious political criticisms to be made about NO2EU, which could, if done in a constructive manner, actually aid the process of building working class political representation.
There are also serious political points to be made within StWC about the need to oppose the Iranian regime.
But sadly, WW’s obsession with its “we have to always frame our politics within the most peurile and childish abuse” method, means that you just lose your audience immediately.
Your deliberate – studiously deliberate – infantile method gains you nothing – no one is hurt or damaged by your pathetic schoolyard abuse – and loses you everything – it just makes people laugh at you.

anti-ChrisSQuote text Reply
Party hack on 10 May, 2009 at 8:19 am said:

Please don’t credit “Chris S” with any original thought. The rib-cracking SPEW acronym was thought up by one of his handlers in the Weekly “Worker” (nice proletarian touch, that) quite some time ago.
Chris is a poor little parrot who merely repeats what he hears.
The story itself shows the desperate lengths that the CPGB-MI5 go to smear every force of any significance on the left. With all due respect to Andrew Ballard, I have just contacted a friend of mine who has been active on the left in Cardiff for more than 30 years, who thought he knew all of the SP’s “leading cadre” members there by name and face. He tells me has never heard of or seen “leading cadre” Andrew Ballard.
This is not to deny that Andrew exists, or that he might be an excellent young comrade, but “leading cadre”? More lies from the Weekly “Worker” mob, I suspect. But then, that’s what they’re paid for.

Party hackQuote text Reply
anti-ChrisS on 10 May, 2009 at 8:47 am said:

I really don’t think ChrisS is MI5 Party Hack. Surely state agents would be secretive and professional.
To paraphrase “Brian’s” mum, he’s not a spy, he’s just a naughty boy!

anti-ChrisSQuote text Reply
Chris S on 10 May, 2009 at 12:57 pm said:

SPEW was not thought up by me or by the WW, it has been in use for a very long time. I use SPEW instead of SP because of thE existence of the SPGB. Who trumps the SPEW in terms age.

There are serious underlining political criticisms within the post on the CS site – what kind of politics would you go to nationalists, xenophobes and members of the BNP with? A) Socialism and international working class solidarity or B) Nationalist and anti immigrant slogans? I choose A, it is pretty obvious when looking at the platform, the things CPB members have been saying/ writing and where No2EU is being pushed online which one the the SPEW, CPB and RMT bureaucrats are going for option B.

Party Hack, you are very odd, must be a wonderful world you live in where those to the Left of you are just MI5 agents.

Chris SQuote text Reply
KrisS on 10 May, 2009 at 1:13 pm said:

I use SPEW instead of SP because of thE existence of the SPGB.

No you don’t, you use it as a childish piece of abuse.

KrisSQuote text Reply
Chris S on 10 May, 2009 at 1:21 pm said:

It is not abuse, it is the initials of the group. Pretty simple.

Chris SQuote text Reply
Charlie Pottins on 10 May, 2009 at 5:55 pm said:

It’s a pity the chance to support a socialist alternative to Labour has once more been blown. (First was when the Socialist Alliance was run down and ditched by those who were leading it).
There are issues with the EU, like the recent court decisions trampling on union rights in the name of free competition. (and those upset over the ‘British jobs’ issue might pay attention to the way non-EU people are being discriminated against). But it is nonsense to blame everything on the EU when it is British bosses and government that have been to the fore in privatising, and resisting any legislation that might benefit workers (working hours directive etc). Not to mention backing US-led wars.
I’m not surprised the CPB looks for a patriotic answer, having known them of old, for their union jack waving, but it is a pity they have diverted Bob Crow and the RMT from a class challenge. Incidentally, I was at a meeting at the weekend of trade unionists discussing how to stop the BNP, several of us blamed New Labour and said we needed a positive answer,but nobody thought of mentioning No2EU, though Morning Star supporters were there, perhaps they have not all got the line yet.
I’d still like to vote for some of the candidates standing, but wonder why No2EU is also standing in Scotland, where it will split the Scottish Socialist Party vote – is that deliberate?
Also, will No2EU MEPs – should abny be elected – join the European Left bloc? I could not see any mention on the website of linking with socialists in Europe. Surely if asking for votes you need to give people some perspective that assumes you might get in?

Charlie PottinsQuote text Reply
Nick Wright on 10 May, 2009 at 7:14 pm said:

150 Charlie Pottins
“There are issues with the EU” must be the understatement of the year.

The EU is the highest expression of the collective and predatory imperial interests of European capitalism. No one is ‘blaming everything on the EU’. Rather No2EU is focussing attention on the role of EU institutions in policing and making Europe -wide the measures adopted by big business, the banks and monopolies.

Of course each capitalist European power is the location of the decisive sections of capital. The point is that the EU is the collective expression of their common interests. Does Charlie Pottins not understand that when New Labour and the British ruling elite introduce privatisation measures that their reliance on EU directives is precisely the mechanism they need to place the possibility of change even further away from our grasp.

Charlie Pottins ‘innocence’ on these questions is mirrored by some elements in the European Left Bloc of which he speaks, most disgracefully the Greek Syrizia.

That the EU might contain contradictory interests, or find contradictions with US capital does not make it benign. Contradictions within the capitalist are what might be termed a strategic reserve for the working class. But only if utilised

Nick WrightQuote text Reply
anti-ChrisS on 10 May, 2009 at 7:29 pm said:

ChrisS, not only is your repeated use of the “spew” acronym at (147) utterly infantile (again) but your pathetic attempt to justify it is totally dishonest too.
The use of the tiresome and puerile acronym is entirely the creation of WW, which remains the only organisation to use it. It is simply lying to pretend otherwise and you know it.
But then, given that your whole organisation exists on the basis of a lie, then that is not surprising.
No, I don’t think WW is on the state payroll, but I am in a minority on the left with that opinion and the fact remains that, whether you’re MI5 agents or just idiots, no-one outside your tiny ranks gives you any credibility whatsoever.

With your dishonest and infantile method, which simply leaves you and your WW comrades open to ridicule, is it any wonder that may users of this site cannot tell the difference between you – the real ChrisS – and the other idiot who posts under your name and calls Bob Crow a “nazi.”

(P.S. here’s another jolly jape for you children to shock mummy and daddy, typing 5318008 and reading it upside down can look a bit like the word ” boobies”! Almost as hilarious as the “spew” joke and a bit more sophisticated.)

Seriously ChrisS, grow up and seriously or fuck off!

anti-ChrisSQuote text Reply
anti-ChrisS on 10 May, 2009 at 7:29 pm said:

ChrisS, not only is your repeated use of the “spew” acronym at (147) utterly infantile (again) but your pathetic attempt to justify it is totally dishonest too.
The use of the tiresome and puerile acronym is entirely the creation of WW, which remains the only organisation to use it. It is simply lying to pretend otherwise and you know it.
But then, given that your whole organisation exists on the basis of a lie, then that is not surprising.
No, I don’t think WW is on the state payroll, but I am in a minority on the left with that opinion and the fact remains that, whether you’re MI5 agents or just idiots, no-one outside your tiny ranks gives you any credibility whatsoever.

With your dishonest and infantile method, which simply leaves you and your WW comrades open to ridicule, is it any wonder that may users of this site cannot tell the difference between you – the real ChrisS – and the other idiot who posts under your name and calls Bob Crow a “nazi.”

(P.S. here’s another jolly jape for you children to shock mummy and daddy, typing 5318008 and reading it upside down can look a bit like the word ” boobies”! Almost as hilarious as the “spew” joke and a bit more sophisticated.)

Seriously ChrisS, grow up or fuck off!

anti-ChrisSQuote text Reply
Stal1ngrad on 10 May, 2009 at 7:37 pm said:

such wonderful analysis of the substantive points Chris S makes on his excellent blog. With amazingly eloquent cadres like ant Chris S, the SP is sure to win the battle for the working class…well the tiny minority who are reactionary nationalists that is.

Stal1ngradQuote text Reply
Chris S on 10 May, 2009 at 7:53 pm said:

Seriously odd accusation that we have somehow concocted SPEW, just because he sounds funny. As far as I know the group in question is the *S*ocialist *P*arty of *E*ngland and *W*ales. How is it it infantile to use the acronym of the organisation?

Maybe you can get to the politics instead of of trying to make out that we invented the SPEW acronym:

“There are serious underlining political criticisms within the post on the CS site – what kind of politics would you go to nationalists, xenophobes and members of the BNP with? A) Socialism and international working class solidarity or B) Nationalist and anti immigrant slogans? I choose A, it is pretty obvious when looking at the platform, the things CPB members have been saying/ writing and where No2EU is being pushed online which one the the SPEW, CPB and RMT bureaucrats are going for option B.”

Is it A or B for you?

Chris SQuote text Reply
anti-ChrisS on 10 May, 2009 at 7:55 pm said:

Hey Stalin, your mate needs to stop being childish, that’s a point that needs to be made – repeatedly apparently.
On his substantive points, there is of course an argument to be had over the politics of NO2EU and NO2EU needs to listen to and respond to serious political criticisms, so let’s have that argument by all means – say something serious for fucks sake!
But WW and ChrisS need also to address the critisms made of their method.
This is a problem for WW, whose leaders – Fischer and Conrad/Bridge – argue that such infantilism is correct as a method.
And this is why WW has alienated everyone else on the left and has remained a tiny organisation, despite its having existed for longer than either the Socialist Party, CPB or Respect.

anti-ChrisSQuote text Reply
Adamksi on 10 May, 2009 at 7:55 pm said:

Agree that No2EU is extremely dodgy, but I have to take issue with comment 142

I live in the same city as the guy described as a leading member of the Socialist Party , am fairly active in left wing politics, know the SP comrades fairly well & I’ve never ever heard of the guy or come across him, so I seriously doubt whether he is a leading member of SPEW as described

AdamksiQuote text Reply
anti-ChrisS on 10 May, 2009 at 8:07 pm said:

Hey Chris, NO2EU is pro-working class and internationalist and does not put forward anti-immigrant slogans.

Who will you vote for in the EU elections?

As far as I know, the Socialist Party could not care less which acronym you use – they don’t notice you.

I only raise it to illustrate the sheer pointlessness of your method – and the damage the habit does to your own organisation.

Maybe you can explain why the WW leaders think that infantilism as a method is useful for you?

Where is the evidence that the method of causing offence purely for the sake of causing offence and for no other purpose has helped your organisation to grow, or has damaged any other organisation?

My point is that the method is simply crass stupidity.

anti-ChrisSQuote text Reply
Graham_S on 10 May, 2009 at 8:09 pm said:

Anti-Chris says “And this is why WW has alienated everyone else on the left and has remained a tiny organisation, despite its having existed for longer than either the Socialist Party, CPB or Respect.”
Im not a member of supporter of the WW or CPGB but isnt this just a little bit dishonest really, ok its changed its name a few times but the SP/Militant has existed since the late 60s and incidentally as you mention size as a snipe at Chris, the SP now is a shadow of Militant at its peak, a reflection of the left as a whole more than just Militant/SP as it happens.

Graham_SQuote text Reply
Chris S on 10 May, 2009 at 8:31 pm said:

anti-ChrisS, It does wonders for my ego that I have someone defining themslves against me. Why not come on out from under my name and let us see who you really are?

You say “there is of course an argument to be had over the politics of NO2EU” yet still do not answer what I asked you. Why is that? Instead of trying to switch the subject by odd accusations of making up acronyms or what the CPGB does just answer the question.

On the CPGB method, unsurprisingly I think it is correct. Our method is not infantile, a ceaseless war against opportunism, reformism etc is a perfectly acceptable (and needed!). It is also correct because we cannot rebuild the Left and the workers movement through cutting corners, quick fixes, popular frontism or ignoring the rest of the Left. Obviously this should be taken up more, I am always happy to listen and discuss criticisms of the CPGB with others in the movement.

No2EU does put forward anti immigrant slogans “against the free movement of labour” is one that should stick in your head. If the SPEW don’t are what acronym I use then why do you?

Chris SQuote text Reply
anti-ChrisS on 10 May, 2009 at 8:34 pm said:

Graham,
WW came from the Leninist, which formed in 1981.
Leninist came from NCP, which formed in 1977.
CPB launched in 1988, and came from CCG, which formed in 1985.

WW has existed longer and is less than one-tenth of CPB.

The Respect Party launched in 2004 and is about 50 times bigger than WW.

Fair point about Militant, which the Socialist Party came from.

Anyway, what about WW’s method? It’s defended by both Fischer and Conrad in the current WW. Has it helped you? Has it harmed anyone else? Or does it just open you to ridicule?

Anyone??????

anti-ChrisSQuote text Reply
anti-ChrisS on 10 May, 2009 at 8:45 pm said:

No ChrisS,
I’m not referring to aims, but method. No-one will disagree with an aim of fighting opportunism and fighting for democracy – apple pie stuff mate.
If the Socialist Party want to complain to you, that’s up to them, my hunch is they couldn’t care less and they don’t notice you.
I raise the question of your method because I think it damages you and does no harm to anyone else.
In the current WW, Fischer and Conrad both defend the method of attempting to cause offence for the sake of causing offence.
How has this method helped your organisation Chris?

anti-ChrisSQuote text Reply
anti Chris S and anti anti Chris S on 10 May, 2009 at 8:47 pm said:

Chris S, anti Chris S, who gives a poop

anti Chris S and anti anti Chris SQuote text Reply
Chris S on 10 May, 2009 at 8:57 pm said:

It is not for the “sake of causing offence” – some people will get upset when we criticise them sharply. I am not for intentionally hurting or offending anyone, no one in the CPGB is, but I don’t think it is helpful for comrades in or outside the CPGB to hold their tongue. Not because I like having a row, but It is important to have clarity in political discussion.

The method has helped my organisation, groups our size struggle to get out a monthly magazine let alone a weekly paper that has a wide readership who support the paper very well and have done over many years. In the wonderful world of student politics we have been making modest gains through working in CS and working working with others in anti war campaign etc. Our method of slowly discussing and working with comrades to win them will work in the long run for a group our size I think. Obviously we would like to be in a Communist Party or even a large group and we would happily sit in such organisations with comrades who we do sharply criticise and may sharply criticise in the future – I think our work in the SA proves that.

Now option A or B?

Chris SQuote text Reply
anti-ChrisS on 10 May, 2009 at 9:10 pm said:

Re-read Conrad’s letter and Fischer’s HOPI piece in the current WW and then try to think for yourself Chris.

anti-ChrisSQuote text Reply
Chris S on 10 May, 2009 at 9:19 pm said:

Conrad’s letter was sparked by mine and other comrades criticisms of the terrible front cover for May Day, I agree 100% with Mark Fischer’s article. Maybe you could answer my question now?

Chris SQuote text Reply
Anonymous on 10 May, 2009 at 9:45 pm said:

There are two ways in which a tiny organisation divorced from reality and the working class movement can make an impact. It can do something useful and win a measure of respect or it can become a parasite specialising in gossip, intrique and provocation.
The best thing everyone else can do is ignore them and refuse to respond to their provocations.

AnonymousQuote text Reply
Aunti Gertie on 8 June, 2009 at 12:59 am said:

I think its very disappointing that groups like yours are taking away our chances to get as much political representation on the left as is possible in the current system. Yours and Scargills grouping total votes would have boosted the Greens against Labour and helped against the BNP . I cant see the point of what you are doing. What are you trying to build? Why don’t you join or intervene in the Greens or whatever and argue your politics in that arena. After all they are a wee bit more democratic than the Labour Party. You are helping to keep people who believe in progressive politics disenfranchised, and building what exactly? The hard left really needs to face up to its failures, and look at what alliances can actually achieve a better place to fight from. Doing this wouldn’t stop you working in the Unions, defending members rights. In fact if you were campaigning for putting the money that was poured into the not really nationalised banks, into a massive social housing programme, green technology green housing improvements etc etc you could make a real difference.

Aunti GertieQuote text Reply
Stephen on 8 June, 2009 at 10:38 am said:

It’s tragic to do the sums and see that you polled 23,000 votes whilst the Greens trailed the BNP by 5,000 votes and so Nick Griffin is now an MEP for the North West. Given that one of your main intentions was to make a “necessary stand against the racist far-right British National Party (BNP)” it pretty much seems to have backfired. On such an important issue as this I would have thought that No2EU could have puts its resources behind the GP and ensured that the poison of the BNP was not allowed to achieve the platform is now has. A bad day indeed.

StephenQuote text Reply

Posted by Phil BC on 20 March, 2009

Category

elections, RMT, Socialist Party

169 thoughts on “Socialist Party on No2EU”