SSP statement on Sheridan conviction for perjury

From the SSP website :

SSP statement on Sheridan conviction for perjury
23-12-2010

Tommy Sheridan’s conviction today for perjury was inevitable.

Six years ago, as leader of the Scottish Socialist Party, he proposed to sue a tabloid newspaper over stories he knew to be true and demanded that our party went along with his lies. All his closest friends and political allies of 20 years urged him not to take such a reckless course of action.

He will now be dealt with by the judge. We have no desire for vengeance.

What is more important is that all those who have been falsely denounced by him and his allies as liars, plotters, perjurers and forgers have been cleared.

The idea that there was a conspiracy involving Rupert Murdoch, Lothian and Borders Police and the SSP is nonsense and yet this is the narrative that Tommy Sheridan’s supporters publicly promoted for the past 4 years.

By his actions over six years, Tommy Sheridan has disgraced himself and negated his political contribution to the socialist cause over 25 years. History will now record that he did more harm to the socialist cause in Scotland than any good he ever did it.

That astonishing conclusion would not have been thought possible at the height of the poll tax struggle he led so well, or during his early period in the Scottish Socialist Party and Scottish Parliament.

The SSP reaffirms that its aim is to defend the interests of working people, the millions against the millionaires and to fight for a socialist transformation of society in the interests of the majority.

We now draw a line under this sorry saga and move on. The Scottish Socialist Party has been tested to the limit over the past six years and has proven it is a party of principles and integrity.

In this time of savage attacks by the rich against the poor, Scotland more than ever needs a strong left wing socialist party that can be trusted.

The fall of Tommy Sheridan - cross post

Cross posted from Dave's blog :

THAT Tommy Sheridan was the most charismatic and gifted revolutionary socialist politician of recent decades is beyond serious dispute, and I always used to admire him for that. I still do, I suppose.

In a period where leftwing ideas failed to find a widespread hearing, he alone proved capable of building a substantial electoral base for basic class struggle ideas. Without him, the Scottish Socialist Party would not have achieved the measure of success it did achieve, and the credit for this can never be taken away from him.

That he used the fame that inevitably ensued to his personal sexual advantage is not an issue that should be of pressing concern to anyone other than himself and those with whom he slept. No one should cast judgement on the consensual relationships or others, be they gay, straight, marital, adulterous, based on auto-erotic asphyxiation, or participated in by however many can squeeze into a bed in a cheap hotel room.

At the time the News of the World published details of his visits to a swingers’ club in Manchester, Sheridan had sufficient popularity North of the Border to take exactly that stance. A dignified ‘no comment’ or a rigid ‘none of your business’ line, and he would have rode out the publicity, in much the same way as any other married politician caught playing away by the red tops.

There are enough broadminded adults out there to ensure that nookie with someone other than the missus is not the automatic end of a political career, as figures from Shagger Norris to Paddy Pantsdown can testify.

I cannot imagine what drove Sheridan to sue for libel instead. In a country where religious feelings are more widespread than in England, perhaps he felt that the revelations were electorally damaging. Perhaps he saw a one-off opportunity to make some serious cash. One day his memoirs will presumably tell us.

But what was inadmissible right from the start was his expectation that his comrades were somehow duty bound to stand up in the dock and commit the criminal offence of perjury in his support.

Sheridan’s supporters have argued all along that it is the elementary responsibility of socialists to defend other socialists against the Murdoch press, at all times and in all circumstances, and at any degree of jeopardy. The reality is that everything depends on the political issues at stake. Where there is sufficient cause for such a risk, then the correct course would naturally be to take it.

But unlike, say, John Maclean or the leadership of the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1926, Sheridan was not before the court on charges of sedition. Unlike Jock Haston, Roy Tearse, Heaton Lee and Ann Keen, he did not stand in front of a jury for his support for unofficial industrial action. Unlike Ricky Tomlinson, Des Warren or the Pentonville Five, the issue at hand was not his conduct on the picket line.

Sheridan’s conviction today flows entirely from his insane determination to lie about his inability to keep it in his trousers. As a result, he has destroyed everything he spent the first half of his life building up, just at a time when a party premised on militant opposition to coalition austerity could truly have hit the big time. However sorry one has to feel for the family, the biggest tragedy about what has happened is the setback this represents for the far left as a whole.

Agree wholeheartedly . I also want to send my support to all the SSP comrades who were put in a terrible position because of the ego and stupidity of Sheridan in pursuing this .

Another post to check out is this one , from Scottish Socialist Youth.

Don't forget Bradley Manning

Assange has had his high profile supporters , backing him with money and publicity, but what about Bradley Manning ?

Anyone seen Bianca Jagger or Jemina Khan speak up for him ? Has Assange said anything ? I may have missed it, and do please let me know in the comments if they have .

The Independent reports :

The harsh prison detention conditions endured by Bradley Manning – the US soldier who is alleged to have supplied classified government documents to WikiLeaks – have emerged.

For the last seven months, Private Manning, 23, has been kept in a cell six feet wide and 12 feet long, in solitary confinement at a maximum security military jail at Quantico, Virginia.

A typical day for Private Manning begins with being woken at 5am in the cell, which has a drinking fountain and a toilet. He is then allowed to put on his clothes, which he surrendered on going to bed the night before.

Under the rules, Private Manning is not allowed to sleep at any time between 5am and 8pm; if he does so, he is made to sit up or stand by the guards. He is allowed just one hour of exercise a day, even then not in the fresh air, but an empty room where he can walk in figures of eight. Any attempt by him to keep himself busy by, for example, doing press-ups, or sit-ups, is forbidden.

He is not allowed to associate with his fellow inmates and has never seen them, although he does occasionally hear their voices.

Private Manning is allowed to watch local television channels, for up to three hours on weekdays; sometimes more at weekends. But he does not have access to wider news coverage. He is allowed one book and one magazine at a time, from an approved list of 15, and is allowed approved visitors at prescribed times. Lt Col Coombes said the guards have, at all times, behaved correctly towards Private Manning. But, under the regulations, their conversations with him must be minimal.

While the left get all excited about their latest male hero, lets hope they do not forget Bradley .

Some thoughts on all the protesting malarkey , positive ones as well !

I have been a bit quiet with the blogging,doing temp work is very unpredictable. I tend to be rung up first thing and asked to go asap to a job. I have done some very long two day shifts recently and all in all found it hard to get my head into the right place to do a post.Lots have been going on and I wish I had been able to go on some of the demos, but paying the mortgage and bills comes first I'm afraid. Here though are some thoughts on the last week or so.

A little while back I did what was perhaps a bit of a jaded post re the students demos . My concern was that the protests around education should be part of a wider movement around the cuts to the public sector and should involve those who have or are at risk of losing their jobs as well as those who rely on the services they provide . With regard to the last group this needs to be done sensitively , not always a trait of the left . At the moment there is much anxiety and also expectations being dashed for them.

Over the last decade , people have been encouraged to be more independent and have more control over the support they receive. Older people have been helped to live in their own homes or extra care housing where they have a flat and not just a room . People with learning disabilities have moved out of long stay hospitals and many now live in their own flats , some of which are shared ownership or housing association, rather than large homes. Same with others , such as those with long term mental health issues .

The old ways of people being expected to be happy with day centres , separate from the rest of the community , have been being eroded . People with learning disabilities, for example, have been moving from only having the option of day centres to being more part of their community . Many have chosen to do training , voluntary work or paid work. In this climate that is becoming less likely. The cuts mean that these improvements , that people can live like the rest of us , could be coming to an end. I know of a number of areas that are looking backwards to residential care as a 'cheaper' option . The chances of people getting into the employment market is less likely now, the day centre beckons. Expectations raised are now dashed . Anxiety increases with all the uncertainty. Having choice, control and independence for people who need support will be seen as a 'luxury' when the cuts are made . It will be a return to the old ways and the cheapest .

OK, gone round the houses a bit here . My point though is cuts to public services are not just about jobs, they are about the day to day quality of life for people . That will diminish and we will start to go backwards . There are a number of strong advocacy groups nationally, as well as local ones. They need to be part of campaigns and that will mean the left listening to their concerns and experiences and not trying to lead .

As an old cynic I must now admit I am becoming more positive with recent developments . The energy and determination of the student and schoolchildren movement is encouraging and it seems quite infectious. As is so often the case in the NUS, and unions in general, the members have been more radical than the leadership. The actions and pressure of the students have forced the NUS President to back them and admit the NUS had been spineless and too cautious. TUC take note.

I haven't been on the blogs much, I hope to do a bit of a round up of reporting on the demos in the next day or two, but I did notice Phil has written about the storming of Lewisham Town hall against the Council making cuts . Very heartening to see the direct action being taken to the Town Halls and against the cuts in services. I have also seen that students joined the RMT picket lines this week, that's what is needed , united against all cuts . It also seems that the Coalition of Resistance conference was both well attended and not dull in the extreme , pretty good going when faced with many speakers and a long day. Liam , who lets just say can be a tad cynical as well, even went as far as to call it 'exhilarating.' High praise indeed .

Now I'm not naive enough to think this is 68 again, that the revolution is on its way or that the left will be united , but hey its not a bad start is it ?

Pic: Eddie and Cat's Dawg . Totally unrelated to the post, but couldn't resist!

The left fails Muslim women

To get some thinking and discussing going, and to liven up the blog in these trying times, I'm cross-posting an article from Workers' Liberty, the original of which is here.

Muslim women fighting for women’s rights have been largely abandoned by the left, by human rights organisations, and by anti-racist campaigners.

That sums up the basic argument put forward by Gita Sahgal at a meeting held in Glasgow on 28 October as part of Black History Month 2010.

Sahgal left her post of Head of Gender Unit at Amnesty International earlier this year after Amnesty had ignored her complaints about the organisation’s collaboration with Islamists (specifically, Moazamm Begg and his “Cageprisoners” organisation).

Sahgal began her talk with excerpts from a documentary which she had helped make about war crimes committed by the Islamic-fundamentalist Jamaat-e-Islami in Bangladesh during its war of independence in the early 1970s. Members of the organisation massacred hundreds of thousands and committed mass rape.

Bangladesh achieved its independence. As a result of the growing influence of Islamism, it falls well short of being a fully secular state. But there is now an ongoing popular campaign to secularise Bangladesh, spearheaded by women and youth.

It was therefore wrong, concluded Sahgal, to see secularism as something imposed on other countries by the West.

From Bangladesh in the early 1970s Sahgal moved on to Britain in the late 1980s, dealing with the attempts to ban Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, and the campaigning work undertaken by women in the Muslim community, such as Women Against Fundamentalism, in opposition to the increasing influence of Islamism.

Jamaat-e-Islami provided the link.

British Islamists who called for an extension of the blasphemy laws and for Satanic Verses to be banned included Bangladeshi Jamaat-e-Islami members who had migrated to Britain. The Islamist campaign against Satanic Verses also gave rise to the later emergence of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), in which Jamaat-e-Islami supporters continue to occupy leading positions.

Excerpts from documentaries which Sahgal had made at the time showed women from the Muslim community staging counter-demonstrations against the Islamist anti-Rushdie demonstrations, and also organising demonstrations in protest at domestic violence.

Their slogan was “Here to Doubt, Here to Fight”. This was an adaptation of the anti-racist slogan of the 1970s, “Here to Stay, Here to Fight”. It meant that women in the Muslim community were not prepared to surrender their right to question the social “orthodoxies” which the increasingly vociferous Islamists were wanting to impose on them.

But the excerpts from her documentaries also showed the start of a different political response to the reactionary Islamist mobilisation around Satanic Verses: a readiness by politicians to accept the Islamist leaders as genuine representatives of their communities, and a willingness to accommodate to their demands.

Both Labour and Tory MPs, for example, put their names to a Bill which sought to extend the blasphemy laws to cover Islam as well as Christianity. (By contrast, the late socialist Labour MP Eric Heffer was shown calling for the abolition of all blasphemy laws.)

This failure to confront Islamism and this accommodation to its political demands was described by Sahgal as “one of the most remarkable and saddest aspects of politics since the Rushdie Affair, or since 9/11 in 2001.”

Organisations like the MCB had been boosted and funded as government partners, supposedly providing a conduit into the Muslim community. As Sahgal pointed out, this was a continuation of an old colonial policy: to allow some self-appointed leaders to rule over their followers as they wished, provided that they kept them from rebelling against the colonial power itself.

In Afghanistan and Iraq the West had espoused the cause of women’s rights. But it had not hesitated to abandon the same cause by appeasing and forming alliances with Islamists. There could therefore be no reliance on Western governments to promote women’s rights.

On the left, organisations such as the Stop the War Coalition had boosted the Muslim Association of Britain (the British “section” of the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood) while the political party “Respect” was effectively an alliance between sections of the left and Jamaat-e-Islami supporters.

The MCB was not even prepared to recognise Ahmaddiya Muslims as Muslims, still less represent them (or, Sahgal might have added, defend them against the murderous attacks of Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan).

The Islamic Human Rights Commission, another Islamist organisation popular with the left, was concerned only with what it defined as the breaches of human rights of Muslims committed by Western governments (and Turkey) but did not lift a finger to defend the human rights of those oppressed by Islamist regimes such as Iran.

And yet, in the name of “anti-racism”, the bulk of the left and the bulk of the anti-racist movement had shrunk back from confronting the threat posed by the rise of Islamism as a political movement.

Nor was there any reason to suppose that the situation was going to improve in the immediate future as more funding was being made available for “faith-based” groups to fill the gap left by cutbacks in local-authority social services.

This would provide an opportunity for Islamist organisations not only to secure more funding from the government but also — as the holders of the purse-strings for local social expenditure — to exercise a greater degree of influence and control in Muslim communities.

Some of what Sahgal said was open to criticism. But it was refreshing to hear a spirited denunciation of Islamism and the threat it poses to women’s rights in particular.

It would have been better to have heard such a denunciation in a socialist meeting or in a trade union meeting rather than in the Glasgow Centre for Contemporary Arts.

But the venue for Sahgal’s talk underlined the point she was making: the bulk of the left, having accommodated to political Islam at the expense of women’s rights, would not be prepared to hold such a meeting.

What about where there is no socialist candidate?

"The likelihood is that a Tory government will make earlier and deeper cuts in public spending than a New Labour one. A Labour government may also be more vulnerable to trade union pressure not to outlaw industrial action in 'essential' services."

I agree with this statement. It is enough to warrant voting Labour where there is no credible socialist protest candidate, despite New Labour's appalling anti-working-class record in office.

Who made this statement? The Trade Union and Socialist Coalition, as part of its founding statement of policy.

I would vote for a TUSC candidate if there were one in my constituency (unless there were an exceptional reason not to vote for that particular candidate), and I would hope that TUSC supporters would, by the logic of TUSC's own statement above, vote Labour in constituencies where neither they nor another socialist candidate is standing.

But will they? The SWP says it will, though it whispers rather than shouts the fact. One TUSC candidate has put his name to the Socialist Campaign to Stop the Tories and Fascists, which advocates a Labour vote. But the Socialist Party will not, apparently. I have even heard of their members saying they would advise people not to vote in Barking, where Nick Griffin in standing, although I have not seen that as the official Party line.

What the SP does say is "There is no fundamental difference between the attacks that a Tory government will inflict on us and the attacks a New Labour government will make", which seems to contradict the TUSC statement at the start of this post.

Cross post - After Bolton: tactical choices for anti-fascists

Some feel we should be blogging 24/7. Yes you, fuckwit in residence Anon. Well we all have lives outside the internet. You know, work, life , stuff to deal with. Sometimes I blog lots, other times I struggle to find time. I had planned to do a round up on the demo in Bolton, might still find some time . In the meantime I have cross posted Dave's post here, to kickstart a discussion about what the left needs to do re the rise of the far right .


OVER the top comparisons with the streets of Italy during the Bienno Rosso thankfully remain alarmist nonsense. But it is the case that the fascist right now has an established street thug presence in Britain for the first time since the 1970s, and has even started to intimidate leftwing meetings.
Broadly there are two potential responses from the left. The first is to attempt physical confrontation, as happened in the face-off between the English Defence League and Socialist Workers’ Party-led Unite Against Fascism campaign in Bolton yesterday.
There are conflicting reports about what happened. Socialist Worker was quick to proclaim the day ‘a huge success’. Sure. What else could it possibly have been, comrades? But even discounting the perennial police tendency to downplay the numbers on leftwing mobilisations, most media accounts suggest that the EDL had significantly more support.
If matters had come to a serious scrap, there is little doubt as to which side would have got a pasting. For all the streetfighting man belligerence of the UAF leadership – and two key SWP figures were arrested on the Bolton demo – there is a real question as to whether or not the far left is actually capable of putting a tough guy strategy into practice.
Trying to do so may be counterproductive, anyway. Rather than bus white student lefties into northern mill towns en masse, the real task at hand is to get local people to turn up in large numbers wherever the EDL decides to march. Many people will understandably not show their faces if violence is virtually guaranteed.
And of course, the EDL, which includes all too many seasoned football hooligans, is absolutely up for a ruck. The promise of a spot of bit of a barney on the day will only come as an added attraction to the layers it seeks to influence.
The second approach, typified by Searchlight-sponsored Hope Not Hate, centres on such comparatively unglamorous tactics as the organisation of anti-racist pop concerts, and the hard graft of canvassing in areas where the British National Party has a good chance of securing local government or even Westminster representation.
Sections of the far left criticise HnH as ineffectual at best and craven cowardice at worst. But at least it is not being distracted by an outfit that remains – for now, at least – thankfully a sideshow. It is also quite clear which of the two campaigns is having the greater impact.
This is not an either/or choice. Clearly, there could be times ahead when reruns of Cable Street or Lewisham will be on the order of the day. Progressive organisations will probably have to reconsider their security measures. But in the meantime, my donation ahead of the election will going to HnH.

Previous posts related to this, found here.

SWP Split

Ok, far be it from Stroppyblog to provoke the ire of our readers by ignoring serious developments in politics. So I guess we can't leave unmentioned the mass resignations from the SWP. This letter spells out why John Rees, Chris Nineham, Guy Taylor and various others are jumping ship - something about Lindsey German not being allowed to go to a meeting, apparently.

I'm still at a loss to tell the political difference between the leadership and the 'Left Platform'. I suspect there is very little difference, and that the factional split has more to do with the SWP's failure to account politically for the Respect disaster, therefore allowing personal resentments to shape the party's line-up. Moreover, there is, of course, the SWP's notoriously intolerant internal regime, and it is little surprise that the trigger for the split has something to do with Newcastle, where their local regime is notoriously awful.

The comments box is yours ...

Islam, Islamophobia, Islamism: what should the left say? Workers' Liberty debates Islamophobia Watch

Via Facebook :

Workers' Liberty will be debating Bob Pitt of Islamophobia Watch
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com

With both anti-Muslim bigotry - 'Islamophobia' - and reactionary political Islam on the rise, how should the left respond? Have many socialists capitulated ideologically to political Islam, as Workers' Liberty believes, or does our sharp condemnation of political Islam mean collapsing in the face of racism?

All welcome. Plenty of time for debate and discussion.

Thursday , 18th February 2010. 19.30-21.15. The Calthorpe Arms, 252 Grays Inn Road, London.

Should be , ahem, lively .

Convention of the Left and LRC events

As last year, the LRC is supporting the Convention of the Left conference :

Saturday 26th September 2009
10:30am to 5:00pm

The 2009 Convention of the Left will be held at the Brighthelm Centre, North Road, Brighton, BN1 1YD.

This is a free one-day conference, with contributors including Jeremy Corbyn MP, Robert Griffiths (Communist Party of Britain), John Haylett (Morning Star), Caroline Lucas MEP (Green Party), John Maguire (Unite Belfast Visteon Convenor), John McDonnell MP (LRC), Pete Murray (NUJ), Kay Phillips (Respect), Martin Smith (SWP), Matt Wrack (FBU) to discuss how we make the green, left, socialist and radical alternative a reality.

See www.conventionoftheleft.org for more details. Download the Convention of the Left 2009 flyer.

Last year the Convention ran successfully as the alternative to New Labour’s conference in Manchester. This year’s Convention event will continue the debates on the crisis of capitalism and Westminster politics and develop our ideas in response.

The wealth exists in society to pay for our essential needs - and the way the governments of the UK, EU and US have found trillions of Pounds, Dollars and Euros at the drop of a hat for the bankers proves what we have been saying all along.

And, as the continuing bloodshed in Afghanistan shows, there is still a limitless coffer for war and destruction.

The trouble is that our rulers want to use the wealth in society to prop up capitalism - which will inevitably lead to the same results all over again. They are buying themselves out of their crisis, but expecting the rest of us pay the price.

Recessions lead scape-goating, racism and the rise of the far right. The election of two BNP members to the European Parliament should be warning to us all.

Don’t blame the victims. The poor should not be punished for the crisis of capitalism. We must provide the alternative. We look forward to seeing you in Brighton on September 26th to discuss how we make the green, left, socialist and radical alternative a reality.

I plan to be there and probably report back. I have to admit I'm not sure what it will has achieved since last year , but those involved do please comment and let me know . I do think left unity is needed, so perhaps this has helped ?

LRC events during conference :

Sun 27 Sep: A coalition of trade unions and pressure groups – so far including PCS, UCU, NUT, NUJ, Right to Work, Stop the War and Unite Against Fascism – have teamed up to lobby the Labour Party conference on Sunday 27 September and call for a change in direction over proposals to cut public expenditure. Assemble at Madeira Drive, Brighton seafront (east of Palace Pier) from 12:30pm. For more details, see the PCS website.

I am assuming this is part of the Rage against Labour demo? Or is this one where we tut a lot and are miffed ?

And in the evening, everyone is welcome at the Labour Against the War fringe meeting: War - New Labour’s legacy at Friends Meeting House, Ship Street, Brighton from 7pm.

Mon 28 Sep: The LRC is hosting a fringe meeting – open to all socialists – Not the Labour Party Conference at the Ramada Jarvis Hotel, Kings Road, Brighton from 7pm til late. Speakers include: Tony Benn, Katy Clark MP, Jeremy Corbyn MP, John McDonnell MP, Mark Serwotka (PCS). There will also be live entertainment, including from Steve Gribbin.

CWU members are also organising a rally outside conference on Tue 29 Sep. Check the LRC website for details soon.

Oops they did it again - Left Disunity?

This appeared in my inbox tonight - no doubt some one causing trouble internally in the No2EU pact in Scotland - the Socialist Party's sister organisation (CWI) in Scotland seem to be in a tizzy about tactics and strategy, anyway don't know who the author is but I think it comes from the Socialist Party grouping in Scotland. Some good points and analysis however is fundamentally flawed by focussing primarly on the No 2 candidate. Its a bit like Waldorf and Stanley from the Muppets, always complaining but still suppotting their folly.

"Statement about No2EU

As comrades will be aware the No2EU list for Scotland has been decided with John Foster of the Communist Party of Britain top Tommy second and Leah Ganley third. There was a concerted campaign to keep Tommy off the list altogether by the CPB in the main. However, a combination of the Socialist Party, Solidarity, Bob Crow and a few others at the National Steering Committee of No2EU ensured he was on the list - albeit second. Since then some Solidarity members have intensified their opposition to Solidarity’s involvement in No2EU.. Some comrades feel this is justified by the opposition to Tommy by the CPB and the general hostility by the CPB to Solidarity. Other comrades have insisted that the idea of No2EU MEP’s not attending the European parliament if elected be a line in the sand. There is likely to be resolutions to Solidarity’s NSC that 1. Propose that Solidarity withdraw from No2EU and/or 2.That Solidarity should come out and make clear our intention of taking part in the parliament if elected which would have the effect of publicly splitting the No2EU and throwing it into a crisis, at least in Scotland.

Some comrades are clearly unhappy about No2EU because they have political disagreements with No2EU in the first place – which of course is their right. Others are understandably angry about the way Tommy and Solidarity is being treated by one part of the coalition namely the CPB – who were defeated in their attempts to keep Tommy off the list. The comrades who fall into the first category are not bringing out their primary political objections and are instead concentrating on important but secondary issues mainly around the tactics over taking seats and the methods of the CPB in general.

It is important that in taking part in these debates we emphasise first and foremost the historic step taken by the RMT in fronting a left list that is essentially a pro worker, pro trade union bloc that represents an important potential step forward in the struggle to build working class representation, albeit with limitations on its name, structures and programme. The fact that those standing for No2EU across Britain includes Visteon workers, leaders of the Lindsay Oil struggle, leading Unison members, NUT members and CWU members as well as Bob Crow and four other RMT EC members means that it has the potential to be a pole of attraction for workers facing cuts and job losses and those looking for an anti-capitalist alternative. There is no other electoral alternative for the Euro elections that comes anywhere close to this type of broad working class representation. Particularly as it involves workers who have taken part in real life struggles including those in Visteon and Lindsey Oil.

We have never hidden our opposition to the boycott tactic being proposed by the RMT leaders which Solidarity correctly believes will weaken the appeal of No2EU. The current position is for a convention of No2EU to discuss what happens after the elections in the event of anyone being elected which would give Solidarity and the Socialist Party, among others, the opportunity to argue for limited participation in the European parliament and for MEP’s to live on workers wage as the best answer to the EU gravy train. We will oppose any attempts to water down the commitment to a convention. However, even if a refusal to attend the parliament continued to be the position of No2EU it would be wrong to turn our back on No2EU, because it wants to boycott the EU parliament. This would leave Solidarity with a policy of effective abstentionism for the June elections. This is doubly the case as it would leave the field open to parties like the BNP to go unchallenged by a genuine left alternative.

What overrides the disagreements over the proposal to boycott the parliament is the urgent need for a pro working class anti neo liberal alternative in these elections. Moreover, the political importance of a national left union launching an electoral challenge to the left of Labour for the first time in 100 years, given the crisis of political representation, can have huge repercussions for the next period which will see an acceleration in moves towards new workers organisations and parties. For any socialist organisation to turn its back on such an important development, warts and all, under these circumstances would leave us open to the criticisms of being incapable of facing up to the political challenges of this period and showing itself to be irrelevant to the needs of the working class. Our attitude to this development has certain analogies with the Lindsay Oil strike. Lindsay was not a chemically pure struggle. There were even reactionary and backward ideas present, especially at the start of the strike.

The use of “British Jobs for British Workers” posters by a minority was enough for some sections of the left to attack this movement as reactionary. However the Socialist Party (CWI) did participate putting forward a fighting programme which, because SP members were propelled into the leadership, helped cut across the dangers of nationalism and xenophobia. It also led to an important victory for workers rights and against the race to the bottom by the European bosses.

Now clearly No2EU is a left initiative from the start and does not, even in its limited programme, make concessions to xenophobic ideas. It is anti privatisation, pro workers rights and calls for international solidarity of the European working class. There are weaknesses and problems which we all recognise. However to stand aside and condemn this initiative not for its strengths and potential but only for its problems and limitations would be a major error. An error that would damage Solidarity’s reputation particularly among those workers who are looking for a left alternative against the impact of the capitalist crisis. This is especially the case if we turned our back on this on the basis of the secondary issue of whether any possible elected No2EU MEP would sit in the Brussels or Strasbourg parliament.

They would still be MEP’s and would still fight to defend working class communities in whatever region or country they were elected from. Perhaps it is the case that some members of Solidarity oppose No2EU because frankly they believe that the EU plays a certain progressive role and do not fully accept the vicious pro capitalist and anti working class character of the bosses European project. If so that should be discussed openly in a comradely way. But to call for Solidarity to turn its back because we oppose the tactic of not attending the parliament or because of the actions of the CPB is wrong headed in the extreme. It is a case of cutting of our nose to spite our face and ironically would leave the CPB laughing up their sleeves while representing a kick in the teeth to those comrades like Bob Crow, the Socialist Party and others who fought to ensure that Tommy and Solidarity were fully included in the No2EU Scottish list.

Solidarity can gain significantly through its participation in this platform and strengthen its position as the main left party in Scotland in the process. Despite the fact the Tommy is at number 2 on the list it is already clear that the press and media will be more inclined to go to him for quotes and copy during the campaign. He can very quickly become the main point of reference for the No2EU campaign in Scotland - if we approach it in a determined and energetic way. Even if there are problems with the CPB in Scotland in attempting to cut Solidarity out from the campaign, which some comrades may fear, we can and should ensure that Solidarity press statements and material focuses on calling for support for No2EU and the main issues of the economic crisis, the jobs slaughter, workers rights etc. We can run a campaign around Tommy to build support for No2EU and ensure he is seen as a key figurehead for the campaign. At the same time we will participate fully in the No2EU steering committee and aim to get agreement on the best and most effective way of running the campaign in Scotland.

The fact that Tommy and Leah are 2nd and 3rd on the list will make it very difficult for anyone who is politically hostile to exclude them from the No2EU rallies, meetings and press events during the campaign. And while building support for this temporary platform we can also help to strengthen the profile of Solidarity as well. No2EU despite all of its weaknesses is a living embodiment of the process of “left unity” in action. It is of course a process but it can potentially represent the breaking of the logjam that has existed in the urgent task of building real political representation for the working class in Scotland and across Britain. Solidarity should participate fully in the forthcoming No2EU election campaign while continuing to argue our opposition to the boycott of the Euro parliament. You only have to pose the question does the No2EU coalition represent a step forward from what we have at present to find the answer. And that answer is yes, despite its limitations. Solidarity should grasp this opportunity with both hands."

Alice Mahon leaves the Labour Party

In her resignation letter she states :

"It is not a party I recognise - I have lost faith with it," she told the BBC. "I am very very sad, the Labour party has been my life."

Mrs Mahon said it had taken "months of agonising to reach my decision."

She said the final push came after the recent scandal surrounding emails sent by Mr Brown's special adviser, Damian McBride, who sent emails proposing unfounded slurs about senior Tories.

Mrs Mahon is also angry at the government's Welfare Reform Bill saying it was "an assault on people with disabilities and the poor" and that it was remarkable it was being inflicted "in the middle of a recession".

...........................................

"There is bewilderment… that as a government we have not taken on the bankers, who are still doing as they please and taking large bonuses," she said.

"I have reached the conclusion that there is not any avenue left in the structure of the Labour party for people like me.

"Any threat from anybody marginally from the left and… the party machine comes down on them like a ton of bricks."

Can't argue with that, but can the left outside the LP and those who leave find a way to build a new Party that won't just descend into sectarian fights . The Labour Party is a lost cause , but recent history does not bode well for the left to work together and build a mass party .

Susan has posted on this with more background.

Guest Post from Mod : Unfulfilled relationships.

Below is a guest post from Mod. If anyone else fancies doing one then get in touch.

Unfulfilled Relationships

Don't you hate it when a relationship doesn't work? Or you have a string of unfulfilled encounters? Doesn't it leave you thinking about your own habits? What you do wrong? and how your interaction with your partner(s) doesn't always work?

Remember the heady days when you first met, that trip to the pub, how you walked hand-in-hand, and eventually consummated your relationship, only to have it fail soon after?

Sound familiar?

I was reading an article at Dave's and it struck me how some Public-school lefties have a problem understanding the significance of Obama's win to African-Americans and the working classes. And how such a problem might have deeper roots.

On one level, there is a small degree of abstract understanding to Obama's win, but deep down there is no genuine connection with the history of African-Americans' experiences in the United States, their aspirations to be treated as more than just chattel, their desire to have a say, to be listened to.

Of course, on one level it would be very easy to be critical of Obama's election, as the candidate of big business, etc, but that completely misses the very real connection between Obama and his constituents, and why they celebrated.

And connections are what relationships are about, if you can't connect deep down to your partner, and empathise with their problems, support them when they need it then they are very unlikely to ever reciprocate, it becomes a cold mechanical relationship.

Still worse, if you ignore their feelings, their aspirations and seek to lecture them, then in all probability they will leave you, and you'll be stuck on your own until you can find someone who likes being dominated, but that's not a real relationship of equals.

A fulfilling relationship is where both parties learn from each other and enrich each other's lives.

All fairly obvious? But what does this have to do with politics?

Well, if you sit back and ponder the matter, that could be very similar to the working classes' experience with the British Left over the past 40 years, an unsatisfactory relationship.

We've been hectored, told we must do this or that, rarely listened to, and eventually we've mostly switched off.

True enough, some of the working class does belong to the Left, but a very small part, probably counted in tens of thousands, not millions as it should be.

And if you are really concerned about the situation you have to ask why?

It struck me that Punchie's attitude at Dave's, although very stark, isn't terribly removed from a lot of the British Left's leader's attitudes.

Granted not all of them are Public-school wombats but their detachment from reality, from the working classes, seems to stem from some dominant middle-class traits, where their views are important and the working classes are only fit as fodder for demonstrations or to storm the barricades, but rarely ever treated as equal partners.

I wonder if you could analyse the background to the leadership of the Left over the past 40 years, would you find predominantly Public-school/grammar school, University educated white middle-class types or something else?

It shouldn't really matter, but I think being educated at Public-school can often traumatize individuals at a deep level, and they bring that trauma with them into work, relationships and political attitudes.

After all WHY did the British ruling classes create and develop the British Public school system?

To create leaders, subalterns and administrators for the Empire

So being soft, cuddly and empathic to the feeling's of the poor, disenfranchised, etc are not high on the list of required attributes.

Instead an aloof, detachment is required to implement the policies of the Empire, to do what you are told and do it well.

So I'll bet that required coldness, inculcated at an early age and reinforced at Public school, is hard to shake off.

It doesn't help when you wish to relate to real people's existences, and if you don't try to relate and connect, then no one will want to connect to you.

There's probably a lot more to it, but those are a few of my entirely subjective thoughts on the matter.

Finally, I am NOT saying this happens 100% of the time, and I don't think that it is all of the story, but if you can't relate to people in one area then that will often limit your effectiveness in another.

I suspect that this is just one of many factors, and I am still left wondering why the British Left are so unsuccessful when across in Europe things seem a bit better? What is it about the British Left that makes it so?

could it be a "Wham Bam Thank You Mam" attitude?

Rees and German resign from “left alternative” leadership ?

From David Broder :

Today’s ‘left alternative’ members’ bulletin announces the resignation of socialist workers’ party leaders john rees and lindsey german from the national committee of the swp’s post-respect electoral front. no political explanation has been given for this move, although it is clearly part of the fallout from their electoral debacle in may and their attempt to shift in direction.

....................

“Left Alternative Members Bulletin 10th September 2008 “1. Statement from Left Alternative officers
“The officers of the Left Alternative are sad to have to inform our members of the resignations of John Rees and Lindsey German from the officers group and National Council. However, they remain members of the Left Alternative.
“John and Lindsey have been tireless members of the officers group and National Council since the inception of Respect. As National Secretary, John has provided consistent judgment and direction in the most difficult political circumstances, while Lindsey has been our inspirational Mayoral candidate in the GLA elections in both 2004 and 2008.
“The National Council, at its meeting on 6th September, agreed a unanimous vote of thanks to John and Lindsey for everything they have done for our organisation. We are proud to have them as members of the Left Alternative and look forward to continuing to work with them in campaigns from Stop the War to the People before Profit Charter.”

Pushed or jumped ? True ?

Hmmm, now what ?

Workers' Liberty vs Weekly Worker: debate goes nuclear

I return from my week in Dorset to find that the proverbial has well and truly hit the fan about Sean Matgamna's discussion piece on the prospect of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. There is a lively debate on Workers' Liberty's own website, and over on Shiraz Socialist, they are going at it hammer and tongs.

Personally, I think there are grounds to criticise Sean's article, and am inclined to broadly support David Broder's response to it. More on that later. However, far more shocking and appalling than anything that Sean wrote is the response from some sections of the 'left'.

You know when opposition is desperate and groundless when it resorts to simply making stuff up. So the Weekly Worker chose not to bother with a rational critique of Sean's views, but simply invented a story that he supports Israel nuking Iran. I'm not going to dissect their ridiculous coverage, as the very fact that they put a blatant fiction on their front page tells you all you need to know. Didn't I say something before about the Weekly Worker's sad disregard for the truth?

(BTW, I know there is a tenuous justification from the WW that because nuclear installations can apparently only be destroyed by nuclear weapons (not sure what science that is based on), and that Sean does not condemn (let's leave aside for now that neither does he support) an Israeli attack designed to knock out Iran's nuclear capacity, therefore he is, and therefore the AWL is, in favour of Israel nuking Iran. This is the equivalent of me saying "I wish someone would turn down my neighbour's loud music", and someone claiming that my neighbour's music system does not have a volume switch or an off switch, and he has sworn that he would protect it with his life, and thus concluding that my entire family advocates the brutal murder of my neighbour. In other words, it is pants posing as an 'argument'.)

Along with this comes all sorts of cant about driving the AWL out of the labour movement. For starters, you might notice that the labour movement is not in the habit of taking orders from the Weekly Worker. I wouldn't boast a massive influence for the AWL either, but the WW's is tiny, if that, and its pretence to be able to demand another group's exclusion implies a self-aggrandising delusion that is no surprise from a group which claims to be the Communist Party.

For seconds, their low level of involvement in the labour movement should not excuse their ignorance of that movement's tradition that debate is tolerated, even welcomed. We don't drive people or groups out for their views. The only group that should be 'driven out' of the labour movement is a fascist group.

For thirds, I don't recall - though I may be wrong, given that I don't read the Weekly Worker very often, life being too short - the WW demanding any other left group be treated as persona non grata, no matter what their thought-crimes. So link-ups with religious reactionaries, association with dictators, dumping of abortion rights and LGBT rights, selling out on pensions, apologism for war criminals, ... none of these things have warranted a fatwa from the Weekly Worker when groups other than the AWL (or WW) have done them. Oh no.

Next up, we have one Chris Stafford, commenting on Shiraz Socialist, Sean is very clear on which side he and his merry band are on: 'But if the Israeli airforce attempts to stop Iran developing the capacity to wipe it out with a nuclear bomb, in the name of what alternative would we condemn Israel?' Excuse me, but how on earth can you make clear what side you are on simply by asking a question?! A straightforwardly rhetorical question can indeed make your position clear - eg. "What the bloody hell do you think you are doing voting for Respect?" - but Sean's question is not of that kind: it is a question looking to discuss answers.

It seems to me that all the shrill blusterous denunciation of the AWL because of Sean's article throws up a convenient smokescreen to avoid answering that question. The attempt to address this question is the strength of Sean's article - the left has for too long settled for being against things without troubling itself about the grounds. Just as there were bad as well as good grounds for opposing the invasion of Iraq (eg. the far-right view that Britain shouldn't waste its time and money on foreigners), there are bad as well as good grounds for opposing an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear capacity - an example of 'bad grounds' would include asserting that Iran has the 'right' to nuclear weapons, or that Iran nuking Israel wouldn't be so bad. I shudder to think what some on the left will come out with, and it is right to challenge and discuss this in advance.

Anyone who is going to screamingly denounce Sean's article should actually address these questions: Is it OK for Iran to have nuclear weapons? Does Israel, and do Israelis, have genuine grounds to fear being nuked by Iran? And if so, what are they entitled to do about it?

I should at this point emphasise that Sean's opinion is Sean's opinion, and that AWL policy is to "oppose military action (whether invasion or air strikes, bombing raids etc) or economic sanctions against Iran ... We characterise any realistically likely military conflict between the US and Iran as one between two imperialisms: an imperialist superpower and a regional 'sub-imperialism'. A conflict between Iran and Israel would constitute war between two sub-imperialisms, with one most likely backed by the American superpower."

Sean's article has many weaknesses. I personally dislike his style of writing, which I think creates confusion rather than clarity. George Orwell put together a good set of rules for clear political writing, and Sean breaks most of them in most things he writes. It takes a little effort to tease out what is unhelpful writing style and what is political mistake, and there is overlap between the two. David Broder makes several worthy points, and I'll add a handful. Sean's article:

• does not explicitly oppose an Israeli attack on Iran, as AWL's Sacha Ismail rightly argues. 'Not support', 'not take responsibility for', etc, is not good enough;
  
• does not engage with the uncertainty as to whether Iran is actually developing nuclear weaponry;
  
• addresses the issue from the point of view of what the Israeli state does and does not have the right to do, rather than how the Israeli, Iranian and Arab working classes can stop the warmongers;
  
• does not consider Israel's aggressive and oppressive actions and intentions in the region - I'm not sure the article would be any different if written about a peace-loving, non-aggressive state (if such a thing could exist) feeling threatened by a nearby state;
  
• rightly opposes the idea that socialists should not be 'unconditional pacifists', but skips over the idea that we should be generally anti-war. We are not pacifists because we do not oppose every single war in every single circumstance, but we are anti-war and anti-militarist; in fact, exposing the inbuilt drive to war is part of the socialist critique of capitalism.

Sean's article concludes by hoping for a calm debate. Given the left's habitual ways of arguing, that may be a triumph of optimism over experience, but he is right to hope for it. But if Sean had wanted a calm debate, he should have written a more balanced and calm article. Instead, he launched a flame-thrower, and got himself a flame war.

And finally ... I don't find gratuitous abuse in political debates, particular referring to mental health, in the least bit helpful, whether it be someone from Permanent Revolution calling Sean a nutcase or any similar comments coming in the other direction. And Jim Denham should probably avoid joining in debates, even on his own blog, when he has just come home from the pub. Other commenters on Shiraz, such as Alan Laurence, show that patient, reasoned argument get you a lot further than Jim's late-night intemperate style.

The rise of the BNP and the left's reaction

London Richard Barnbrook drew 69,710 first preference votes and 128,609 second ones in the Mayoral election in May. He then went on to gain the first BNP seat on the London Assembly.

The BNP are gaining respectability and are successfully capitalising on the disillusionment with New Labour amongst core working class voters , which is what the left is failing to do. Its no good shouting fash or nazi when The Independent give spreads to Barnbrook, we need to think tactically and cleverer. We need a united campaign, putting aside sectarian squabbles. Surely the May elections were a wake up call ?

So the SWP, through the front organisation of UAF call a demo. One that walks miles through deserted streets, at one point passing through a tunnel which seems to have no light at the end of it , a metaphor for the left commented Dave to me.

I looked around me and saw a mix of old trots and students, mainly white. Many of the usual suspects were not present. Respect had a banner and a few members such as Liam.The Socialist Party were there as were the Sparts. Yes there were lots of unions banners but I'm not clear how much real backing there was.

It was noisy in parts, especially when going through said tunnel. But the streets were mainly quiet and it was nowhere near the upcoming by elections being contested by the BNP in Chadwell Heath (Barking & Dagenham) and South Hornchurch (Havering).

It seems the repercussions of the Respect split are still being felt and many did not want to build for what was seen as an SWP event . The SWP have their demo, others go leafletting and both take pops at each other over at Liam's in the comments. There seems to be a little glee from some commentators at the fact the SWP did not pull off a successful demo . The SWP meanwhile seem to be incapable of learning any lessons and seem to be in full on denial mode. Yep its a running joke that the SWP double the figures for marches, but to state :

Up to 10,000 people took to the streets of London today to join the national march against the fascist British National Party

is pure fantasy . 2,000 is much more like it and I wish it had been more. To state up to 10,000 is just stupid and fooling no one.

Over at Liam's, in what was a good post on the demo and ways forward, the SWP and Respect lot snarl at each other like a couple after a nasty divorce and the left are a bit like the kids, caught in the cross fire and suffering from the bitterness all around.

If the BNP wanders over to some of the left blogs and read this they will be laughing. They have got their act together whilst we snipe.

This shouldn't be about building the Party, paper selling or fighting each other. Its the BNP we should be fighting and we owe it to those who will suffer the most as they gain seats and credibility while we lose ours.

Pic courtesy of Paddy the Puritan.

Guest post - Following May Day debacle the coffee smells strong

A specially commissioned guest post for Stroppyblog from George Binette Peterson, variously known to some as the cleverest man on the left and the real gorgeous George ...

After weeks (in some cases months) of furious tapping at keyboards by the denizens of the blogosphere spewing vitriol and insight in unequal measures, the results of the English and Welsh local elections are finally in. At a general level it would be difficult to dissent from the mainstream media’s pundits: Thursday’s polls were an undeniable disaster for Gordon Brown and New Labour, while providing the strongest indication yet that David Cameron is the most likely occupant of 10 Downing Street in two years time.

I would, however, suggest two caveats: the Labour Party’s overall performance was only marginally worse than in 2004 (projected national share of the vote at 24% as opposed to 26% in 2004 when the Iraq war admittedly had far greater electoral salience) and in a number of London constituencies there was actually a substantial swing to Labour on an increased turnout that reached 45% London-wide. Still, Gordon Brown’s premiership is in deep trouble as his replacement of Tony Blair has done nothing to revive generally flagging fortunes and even in one-time Welsh fortresses Labour’s vote plummeted with the Tories making gains. Under Brown Labour’s malaise has worsened, as the new administration clings to its neo-liberal fundamentals, while general anxiety about the economy post-credit crunch, compounded by the reality of sharply rising costs for utilities and basic foodstuffs, has exacerbated the erosion of Labour’s electoral base. For some, the axing of the 10p tax rate was simply the final straw.

Of course, for most leftists and consistent social liberals, Friday night had an especially unhappy ending with Boris Johnson’s clear-cut victory in the London mayoral contest and the announcement of the BNP achieving long-standing aim of a seat on the Greater London Assembly (GLA). These developments warrant a separate analysis beyond the available space, but it is clearly the case that among white voters there is a substantial core vote for the fascist right in a ring that stretches from Havering & Redbridge in the north east through Barking & Dagenham, and southwards into Bexley & Bromley and even Greenwich & Lewisham. In the latter the candidate for the National Front (an organisation that today barely registers on the radar of those of us who aren’t deemed anti-fascist anoraks) garnered over 5% of the vote.

For those on the left waging electoral campaigns against Labour the results from Thursday offered a few crumbs of comfort (a council seat for Respect Renewal in Birmingham Sparkbrook, 37% of the vote in one Preston ward for a Left List candidate and 23% in Sheffield’s Burngreave), but it remains to be seen whether they also provide a remedy to self-delusion. The stark reality is that the elections signaled a rightward move within the electorate and a handful of mildly encouraging results cannot disguise this.

In London the fragments of the Respect project, the SWP-dominated Left List and the admittedly indefatigable George Galloway’s Respect Renewal managed a combined total of 3.35% of the list vote, notably below the Respect tally in 2004 and two percentage points behind the BNP’s tally. The Left List contested all 14 of the GLA constituency seats, gaining over 3% in just two of them – North East (3.04%) and Enfield & Haringey (3.48%). Elsewhere, the tallies were frequently below 1% of votes cast.

These Left List results were notably worse than what Respect scored in 2004, while in the one GLA seat where Respect Renewal stood (City & East, comprised of the borough of Tower Hamlets, Newham and Barking & Dagenham, as well as the sparsely populated City of London) it saw a slight increase in its share of the popular vote from last time to 14% and easily eclipsed the vote of Left List candidate, the victimised local trade unionist, Michael Gavan. While Respect Renewal supporters have evidently found solace in that result the organisation’s post-election statement peddled a very distorted picture of the situation in East London: “The local roots Respect has established in East London checked the forward march of the BNP. Without Respect East London could have begun to look like the 1970s with the BNP pushing into third place.Instead, Respect is one of the two major parties along with Labour inparts of Tower Hamlets and Newham, we beat the BNP on the list vote and pushed the Liberal Democrats into fifth place.”

Certainly, Respect Renewal’s Hanif Abdulmuhit did beat the BNP candidate by five percentage points, but this ignores the dramatic demographic changes that have taken place across the boroughs over the last three decades. The reality is that the Galloway-led version of Respect has established a foothold within the Bangladeshi and to a lesser degree other South Asian communities in Tower Hamlets and Newham. It has not progressed beyond those sections of the electorate. Meanwhile, the BNP garnered more than 9% of the vote in the same constituency and given the overall make-up of the electorate across the three boroughs it must have gained more than 20%-25% among white voters in a number of wards, mainly in Barking & Dagenham.Under the election label Socialist Alternative the Socialist Party retained a contested seat in St Michael’s ward in Coventry as voters returned Dave Nellist for still another term, but its lone GLA candidate barely exceeded 1% of the vote in Greenwich & Lewisham, finishing behind even the abysmal tally for the Left List candidate. Thus far, I have not been able to find any other results for Socialist Alternative candidates, but there is precious little evidence to suggest that the Socialist Party or the allied project of the Campaign for a New Workers Party is going from strength to strength.

To me these results demonstrate that a decade or more of attempts, both honest and disingenuous, to construct broad parties to Labour’s left, based on programmes of more or less radical reform, have yielded little or no fruit. Indeed, they have now reached an impasse. Surely, the dreadful drubbing of Rifondazione Comunista in Italy last month should at least give pause for reflection, given the fact it supposedly exemplified the broad party to which many claimed to aspire.

The abject failures in Britain have many causes, not least the frequent and seemingly incurable sectarianism of various tendencies, but more fundamentally there have been consistent underestimations of both the lingering impact on the structure and consciousness of the working class across Britain of nearly two decades of Thatcherism and the quiescent effect of a real if contradictory economic upswing, which has now come to an end. Leaving aside the tragicomedy of the history of the Scottish Socialist Party and then Tommy Sheridan’s Solidarity, the Socialist Labour Party, the Socialist Alliance (to me the most promising in England and Wales), Respect and now the divided halves of it have all shown that there is little to be gained, even in electoral terms, from diluting one’s politics and pretending to be a rebranded party of reform.

None of this is to deny the potential virtues of contesting elections against Labour, but to echo a letter from John Nicholson published in the “Morning Star” on Friday 2 May, there is a need for a new clarity about the purpose of any such candidacies. In the context of a first past the post system that still prevails in almost all English elections, the prospect for any kind of electoral breakthrough seems especially remote. But in the event of a surprise win at the polls what are the mechanisms for holding to account representatives in councils or parliament (the Galloway question, in short)? Alternatively, how important are candidacies in advancing an overarching political (dare I say revolutionary?) programme to a wider audience?

To state the obvious, there are no easy answers in the short term, but there is a need for a genuine honesty and humility that has also too often been absent in the posturing between tendencies and the unceasing promotion of wildly optimistic perspectives that cannot withstand exposure to objective realities. I hardly expect that many (any?) comrades are about to ditch their current project in the here and now, though reading between the lines of the Left List I drew the conclusion that the SWP leadership now sees its shelf-life as very limited.

Meanwhile, where does the Labour Representation Committee fit in following the disastrous results of 1 May? A number of more or less plausible scenarios emerge, including another leadership challenge by John McDonnell, but for the time being I think that unlikely along with the short-term prospect of the LRC leading a break from Labour itself. While it does have affiliations from a handful of important trade unions, it currently lacks the essential activist base in the unions and communities that the left organisations outside of Labour still possess to a greater or lesser extent.

Perhaps the Convention of the Left in Manchester, coinciding with the Labour Party conference in late September, will start providing some answers or will at least clarify where the “far left” can indeed work effectively together whether in the unions through the National Shop Stewards Network, combating state racism, defending abortion rights or developing serious and sustained initiatives against climate change.