New Left of Labour Political Party?
- This topic has 106 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 5 days, 20 hours ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Again, more people trying to set up novel groups and with no interest in applying to us.
They know about us, but no doubt regard us as a museum curiosity behind glass, not a living viable organism.
Meanwhile the Greens have elected an obvious political careerist (he started off as a LibDem candidate) as their new Leader, but one who has gone on record as claiming that the Green Party is a socialist party. More recently he has described himself as an “eco-populist”. Which seems about right.
Here is he is saying that the Green Party is a socialist party:
‘I agree with the majority of socialist principles’, Zack Polanski tells campaign launch rally
and, earlier, here:
Here’s the passage where Polanski reveals his opportunism (not that we really mind him not calling himself a socialist “in public”; in fact we welcome it since he isn’t one). He is clearly still the snake oil salesman the media are reporting that he was at an earlier period of his life:
“One member asked whether Polanski thought the Green Party was “explicitly a socialist party”. His response was, “On a personal level I agree with the majority of socialist principles”, and said that, “we are a left wing, left of centre party”. But he also clarified, “The reason why I wouldn’t say explicitly, yes, we’re a socialist party kind of in public and as a slogan is I think that’s going to unnecessarily put people off”.”
Went to a meeting of the YP yesterday evening. As it was in an area of London dominated by the LibDems (who control 3 of the 4 councils and have 6 MPs), and as members who had been to similar meetings in other parts of the country had reported attendances of only about 40, I only took about 60 leaflets. When I got there I found a theatre full with twice that number.
The meeting opened with a showing on a screen of Jeremy Corbyn calling for “peace and justice” and saying the founding conference would be held towards the end of November. This was followed by speeches by local campaign groups (Palestine, anti-racism, climate change, a strike of cleaners at a local hospital). Then the audience was broken down into small groups to discuss what the new party’s policy priorities show be. When they reported back the main ideas were support for Palestine, less wealth and income inequality, better public services, more money for the nhs, support for refugees, and people before profit.
The Trots would have been there but they didn’t reveal themselves though I presumed the speaker from Stand Up To Racism would have been SWP and the person who called for the new party to be based on the trade unions would have been SPEW. They were probably wise to keep a low profile as their praise for Lenin and Trotsky and the Russian revolution won’t get them very far.
Half way through and not advertised Zarah Sultana turned up. In her speech she said that the new party’s aim was to “materially improve people’s lives” by taxing the rich to improve public services. The Labour Party, she said, had betrayed its past principles and was “dead”; Starmer should be sent to the Hague for trial as a war criminal; she wasn’t interested in the contest for deputy leader of the Labour Party as the candidates had all supported the government’s policy. She was in fact surprisingly radical for someone elected as a Labour MP, calling for the new party to support demonstrations and strikes outside parliament as well as to get MPs and councillors elected. She favoured the new party being called “The Left” and said it should be organised democratically with provisions for One Member One Vote. It should also be “proudly socialist” She mentioned the S word three times which was three times more than anybody else at the meeting had.
A former deputy leader of the Workers Party said he was defecting to the new party (the new party and Galloway’s will be competing for the Muslim vote). The leader of the Independents’ group on Kingston Council said his group would be joining too. Maybe this new reformist party will do better than previous breakaways from Labour. Next year’s local elections will be a test.
Absurd suggestion from SPEW:
“Better surely that the Green Party is invited to affiliate to ‘Your Party’, as part of a federal structure that allows for the affiliation of trade union bodies, other representative community organisations and political parties, like the Socialist Party?”
The Green Party won’t do that and the new party won’t allow SPEW to.
SPEW is the Trot group likely to lose most from the formation of the new party. For a start, all their non-members who stand for TUSC will defect and they won’t be able politically to stand as TUSC, ie contest elections. They must be panicking.
A relevant article:
The Tribune Group: Organised Hypocrisy by Robert Barltrop https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1975/no-853-september-1975/the-tribune-group-organized-hypocrisy/
Best parts:
‘The group called for a wealth tax to achieve a “fundamental and irreversible shift of wealth and power in favour of working people”. It is difficult to visualize a mind which can put such twaddle into lofty-sounding words. Does it mean the rich are to go on making riches so that they can be taken away? If so, how can they make riches without exploiting the workers who must therefore be kept poor? Or is it to be transferred from one address to another, so that we all have a turn at being rich and being taxed and then being poor again? [LOL]’
‘As for a “fundamental shift of power in favour of working people’’, the Tribunites either do not comprehend or are happy to misrepresent the nature of political power. It means the control of the state, and while capitalism exists that can only be to conserve the class ownership of the means of production and distribution. The working class can and one day will take control of the powers of government — to replace capitalist ownership with common ownership; but it can do that only when the majority have become conscious of the need for Socialism. To speak of redistributing power as a social reform under capitalism is absurd.’
London branch also covered the Your Party rally in Brixton, but didn’t go in. Unlike the one in South West London, the various Trot groups were all there with their literature tables. One of them was the RCG (“Revolutionary Communist Group” who publish Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism!) which, to be fair, is saying that it won’t be infiltrating the new party, and criticising its rivals who say they are going to:
The proposed new party has announced that the delegates to its founding conference will be chosen by “sortition” (lot):
“In an email to supporters, the party said it would open membership applications by the end of September, ahead of the conference two months later.
But it did not give precise dates for the conference, saying only that it would see ‘thousands’ of delegates ‘chosen by lottery to ensure a fair balance of gender, region and background’.”That will dish the Trotskyists and other infiltrators as choosing delegates by lot will reflect a representative cross-section of the membership. As the Trotskyists will only be about 2 percent of the membership the law of averages will give them that only about 40 out if there are 2000 delegates (and of course they would notoriously not be a single bloc).
I don’t know who thought that up but it’s a clever way of dealing with the problem. To give them their due, the party’s organisers seem to be committed to democratic organisation. But of course with most if not all of the members being reformists, a democratic structure will result in the party’s policies being reformist too.
Ed Griffiths seems to be the one who first launched the idea of choosing delegates to the founding conference by lot in this article:
They have split even before they have been formed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkn3v1e7g3o.amp
Legal advice ! Looks as if it’s going the same way as Respect.
Here’s the election statement of a candidate supporting the proposed new party in a local election in Leamington yesterday. I’m guessing it will be typical of the views of those who signed up:
https://whocanivotefor.co.uk/person/123083/megan-lucy-clarke
It is something normal among leftists; they always disagree before making any agreement, and then they form several splits
The split wasn’t even about policy but over who controls the party machine and the money. The matter seems to have been resolved for the time being but our advice of “don’t follow leaders (not even co-leaders)” is confirmed and remains valid.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.