# 14th November Movement for Left Unity



## chilango (Mar 27, 2013)

This is cropping up in other threads now and I figure it merits a thread of it's own.

They claim to have over 5,000 people signed up and 35 groups. Of course, this is likely to be Facebook numbers, with potentially significantly lower numbers "on the ground". But if it's even remotely true it's certainly an impressive starting point for the latest "new workers' party".

Naturally it begs a lot of questions. But my initial gut feeling is that this is really reminiscent of the first days of the SLP. Some of you may remember the genuine enthusiasm that it's founding created.

Has this got legs? And where has it come from?


----------



## chilango (Mar 27, 2013)

Has anyone here signed up?

Even Ian Bone says he might've done!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 27, 2013)

Has anyone seen any real sign of this thing on the ground? ie not on the internet?


----------



## treelover (Mar 27, 2013)

apparently meetings already happening, flyers printed, events planned,

maybe the logjam(swp) being shifted a bit has empowered people combined with the truly awful economy/cuts, etc

think its a work in progress, name, logo, all maybe changed

for me, a significant change would be signalled if those who called for the party: Burgin, etc, are not on the committee/head honchos, etc when it gets going..


----------



## treelover (Mar 27, 2013)

chilango said:


> This is cropping up in other threads now and I figure it merits a thread of it's own.
> 
> They claim to have over 5,000 people signed up and 35 groups. Of course, this is likely to be Facebook numbers, with potentially significantly lower numbers "on the ground". But if it's even remotely true it's certainly an impressive starting point for the latest "new workers' party".
> 
> ...


 

Yes, it was my first big political meeting for sometime, as a student I remember going to the first one here when Scargill spoke, etc, surprised to see my lecturers, etc there, AWL were very present, wasn't massive though..


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 27, 2013)

treelover said:


> apparently meetings already happening, flyers printed, events planned


 
Well, yes, but "apparently" is a pretty important word there. What I'm curious about is the extent to which people here have actually, personally, noticed a visible presence offline of this initiative whether at anti-cuts meetings or on demonstrations or whatever else. I'm aware that there's been quite a lot of noise about it on left wing bits of the internet, but as I'm not in Britain I have no idea to what extent that reflects a movement (however small) on the ground. I'm not saying it's a facebook phenomenon or anything similarly dismissive. I'm asking.


----------



## treelover (Mar 27, 2013)

it only started a week ago, the call from Ken Loach that is, it seems to have 'exploded' after the Guardian piece, which may not be a good sign..


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2013)

L/U are now claiming 40 groups set up in just five days, 1000* hits a day to the site(it has crashed more than once) and 6,000 replies to Ken's appeal, many ex LP members, activists, ILP 2?

I like the fact they have a sense of humour, with the memes and the growing numbers indicated by party balloons..

*just read that the 17000 hits, were in just one day, how does that stack up, seems a hell of a lot...


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2013)

"Bianca Todd is the new Left Unity organiser in Northampton - she writes:
I am the grand-daughter of Ron Todd, former General Secretary of the TGWU [now UNITE] and am passionate about the principles of social justice, fairness and equality."


Ron Todd's grand-daughter is to be the organiser for Northhampton, "let me take you out of your misery Brother"

not being snark, but Blair could have claimed the above values, LU is going to a be a very diverse party indeed.


----------



## chilango (Mar 28, 2013)

There's a lot of "homeless" lefties out there, and with the exception of the SP, no groups for them to join.

This could easily gather together a few thousand people into the "biggest" group on the Left for a few years.

Doesn't mean it'll acheive anything though, or even that it's a good idea, just that it could be a viable project. 

Wonder what TUSC and Respect make of it?


----------



## chilango (Mar 28, 2013)

It has a better name and "look" than its precursors too.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 28, 2013)

treelover said:


> "Bianca Todd is the new Left Unity organiser in Northampton - she writes:
> I am the grand-daughter of Ron Todd, former General Secretary of the TGWU [now UNITE] and am passionate about the principles of social justice, fairness and equality."
> 
> 
> ...


 
Northampton is my local group. I might pop along and see what it's all about.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 28, 2013)

chilango said:


> There's a lot of "homeless" lefties out there, and with the exception of the SP, no groups for them to join.
> 
> This could easily gather together a few thousand people into the "biggest" group on the Left for a few years.
> 
> ...


 
You're right you know. Before I looked into it I thought it was just another left party. But they seem to better at the Facebook stuff, and targetting young people. That's just an initial thought though. I've tried to get in contact with my local organiser so if I found out any more I'll post it up.


----------



## chilango (Mar 28, 2013)

Against all my better judgement I may stick my name on the list to see how this starts to pan out. Somebody dissuade me before curiosity kills the cat!


----------



## where to (Mar 28, 2013)

All this facebook.numbers stuff is great but the proof in the pudding is when you sit in a room with them all and hear the range of lunatic views they have (or don't have).

Then the arguments over tommy Sheridan, George Galloway, assange, rioters etc etc. All the usual stuff the.left falls out over.

If the excitement is just a result of ignoring this stuff its pretty daft.

Btw imo the easy way around this in the medium term is saying to the most divisive figures, sorry not this time, and then focusing only on economics. 

Get a severe policy on conspiracists too (ie, fuck off).


----------



## mk12 (Mar 28, 2013)

Based on my very quick research, the local organiser in my area isn't a familiar face and doesn't appear to be a "usual suspect." She is a local youth worker who has initiated schemes aimed at ex-offenders and "socially excluded individuals."

She is part of the "Community Court Yard" which has run campaigns such aimed at "reducing re-offending, anti-social behaviour & crime. Tackling social inequality, through the creation of social change. Increase in young people in education, training & employment."


----------



## mk12 (Mar 28, 2013)

where to said:


> All this facebook.numbers stuff is great but the proof in the pudding is when you sit in a room with them all and hear the range of lunatic views they have (or don't have).
> 
> Then the arguments over tommy Sheridan, George Galloway, assange, rioters etc etc. All the usual stuff the.left falls out over.
> 
> ...


 
The only way this will work if the "usual suspects" keep their hands off it, or at least remain an insignificant minority within it. Galloway, Assange, Sheridan, SWP rapes and all that stuff should _not be an issue_ for this initiative. The focus should be on issues that affect local communities.


----------



## chilango (Mar 28, 2013)

where to said:


> Btw imo the easy way around this in the medium term is saying to the most divisive figures, sorry not this time, and then focusing only on economics.
> 
> Get a severe policy on conspiracists too (ie, fuck off).



Yep.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 28, 2013)

I can't imagine the SWP will be able to dominate this one, not with what has happened.


----------



## chilango (Mar 28, 2013)

As with all these things it'll only work if it gets out of hand.

Local communities etc. using it as a vehicle for their own interests not those of the cliched lefty activist.

It might happen, if the lefty activists accept that is a positive thing and that LU should just be a loose umbrella to give grassroots stuff wider "oomph".

If (or more likely, when) people start raising "position questions" it's fucked.

We'll see.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 28, 2013)

Indeed. I'm open minded though!


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2013)

where to said:


> All this facebook.numbers stuff is great but the proof in the pudding is when you sit in a room with them all and hear the range of lunatic views they have (or don't have).
> 
> Then the arguments over tommy Sheridan, George Galloway, assange, rioters etc etc. All the usual stuff the.left falls out over.
> 
> ...


 
"The May 4th, The Big One" which is getting a lot of attention seems to be linked to conspiraloons, seems more youth orientated as well..


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2013)

Its noticeable a fair few anarchist types are getting involved, one is posting from North East Anarchists, it clearly has a libertarian bent..


----------



## mk12 (Mar 28, 2013)

I don't think it "clearly" does at all. It seems to be pretty broad ideologically. The Milton Keynes organiser has always voted Labour, the Northampton organiser is involved in local, community work, the Lambeth organiser is a 16 year old...


----------



## Random (Mar 28, 2013)

chilango said:


> Against all my better judgement I may stick my name on the list to see how this starts to pan out. Somebody dissuade me before curiosity kills the cat!


Your sacrifice is one I'm willing to make. Let us know how it goes


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2013)

mk12 said:


> I can't imagine the SWP will be able to dominate this one, not with what has happened.


not once word gets round of the extracurricular activities of some of their senior members.


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2013)

mk12 said:


> I don't think it "clearly" does at all. It seems to be pretty broad ideologically. The Milton Keynes organiser has always voted Labour, the Northampton organiser is involved in local, community work, the Lambeth organiser is a 16 year old...


 
I meant in its widest organisational sense: open, plural, possibly non hierarchical,

16 year old, blimey, can't accuse the call outer's of wanting to control then..


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> not once word gets round of the extracurricular activities of some of their senior members.


 
maybe helped along on the blogs...


----------



## chilango (Mar 28, 2013)

Well, I've spent the last half an hour trawling their blog and FB page. It's enough to cure me of any daft ideas. 

There a lot of familiar names and even more familiar tropes repeated.

It doesn't seem to have any "new" content or ideas, but rather its the SLP, SA again, only watered down with the realisation that they need to be pretty open/broad to get the numbers required to give this a go.

It really does not look like my cup of tea. Sorry. So someone else will have to sign up for information purposes.

Will still watch carefully with an open mind however.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 28, 2013)

From the FB page, it's far too focused on Trade Union only issues, activism for the sake of activism, summit hopping and all that malarkey. It might be different at a local level though.


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2013)

Who like?, lots of new faces, imo..


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2013)

mk12 said:


> From the FB page, it's far too focused on Trade Union only issues, activism for the sake of activism, summit hopping and all that malarkey.* It might be different at a local level though.[/*quote]
> 
> I thinks that's key...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 28, 2013)

chilango said:


> Against all my better judgement I may stick my name on the list to see how this starts to pan out. Somebody dissuade me before curiosity kills the cat!


fool me once, shame on you etc


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2013)

ffs, why isn't the quotes working for me..


----------



## chilango (Mar 28, 2013)

treelover said:


> Who like?, lots of new faces, imo..



Nick Wrack, Keith Flett, Andrew Burgin, Alan Thornett....


----------



## chilango (Mar 28, 2013)

Good luck to 'em though.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 28, 2013)

chilango said:


> Nick Wrack, Keith Flett, Andrew Burgin, Alan Thornett....


 
It is going to be impossible keeping this type of person out of any new left initiative. As I said, they need to remain an isolated minority.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2013)

chilango said:


> Nick Wrack, *Keith Flett, Andrew Burgin*, Alan Thornett....


keith and andrew are ok, if more than a little set in their ways.


----------



## chilango (Mar 28, 2013)

I' m not saying they're "bad people".

It's just an indicator of where the politics of he group are at the moment.

Like I said, good luck to them, but I'd have too many disagreements at this point to make it worthwhile.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> keith and andrew are ok, if more than a little set in their ways.


 
Their meetings will be in good pubs


----------



## belboid (Mar 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> keith and andrew are ok, if more than a little set in their ways.


is this a different Keith Flett?  he is still in the SWP isnt he?


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2013)

Alton Chetromnd said:


> It's an absolutely nailed on guarantee that if this takes off (in its own small way), the usual thing will happen and it will peter out into a whole load of nothingness. Just like the SA, just like the SLP and just like the Respect abomination. It's one of life's mysteries how otherwise reasonably intelligent people can fail to grasp that history has passed their politics by, for good or ill. That's why there will never be 'left unity,' and never could be: lacking the remotest chance of power, or even small victories, what else is there to do but bicker and maneouvre? If you can't get one over on capitalism, you might as well try and get one over on a rival political grouping. Micropolitics played out in a dead-end street. In the post-socialist era it's inevitable and inescapable.
> 
> The current SWP fiasco is the final nail in the coffin of Britain's radical left. It won't be replaced, just as when the old CP collapsed it wasn't replaced. And just like twenty years ago, nothing will arise sponteneously. All it means is that this country will have fewer people actively opposing capitalism (for all their faults.)


 
Welcome


to the new LLETSA


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2013)

treelover said:


> Welcome
> 
> 
> to the new LLETSA


miserablism alive and well


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 28, 2013)

Not even trying any more


----------



## JimW (Mar 28, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Not even trying any more


If you think about it, if you didn't keep banning him he wouldn't have to keep coming back under different log-ins.

ETA: Free the (forget which bit of Manc-land he lives in) One!


----------



## mk12 (Mar 28, 2013)

Jim Jepps is the Camden organiser. I recognise the name...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 28, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Jim Jepps is the Camden organiser. I recognise the name...


 
ex Green Party


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2013)

Most of the local organisers seem 'unknowns' certainly the sixteen year old is...


----------



## where to (Mar 28, 2013)

the have a link to an anti-green energy website, http://www.repealtheact.org.uk/ which itself links to James Delingpole's Telegraph blog and the association of British drivers. 

they also then link to pro-green website http://climatejusticecollective.org/ in the same section.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 28, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Jim Jepps is the Camden organiser. I recognise the name...


 
He was the one that collated all the links on the SWP scandal http://www.jimjepps.net/?p=273


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2013)

"Warren Draper is the contact for Left Unity in Doncaster. Please contact Warren at Doncaster@leftunity.org"



Blimey, if that is who I think it is, L/U there is going to be pretty robust...

the speed this thing is growing by is crazy, I expect it to grow even more as people use holiday time to get involved, read up on it, etc..


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2013)

Bristol contact is from the  GreenLeft.

What speed? How and on what are you judging its speed of growth?


----------



## J Ed (Mar 28, 2013)

Is this L/U thing being set up in Sheffield?


----------



## mk12 (Mar 28, 2013)

There's no news of one yet, no.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 28, 2013)

I'm not sure if this has been posted yet: http://leftunity.org/please-include-us-anarchists/



> Many anarchists continue to reject any political party that claims to work for the good of the people but a number of us are willing to support movements such as yours. We may be labeled as false anarchists but it is a small price to pay for real political change. This is why I ask of you to remember that there are anarchists out there who would support this cause with great enthusiasm and who are willing to donate time and effort to this great cause. Please don’t make the mistakes of the past and alienate us!


 
I didn't realise you'd signed up Butchers?


----------



## JimW (Mar 28, 2013)

I expect any grouping starting with a calendar date to have an armed wing and release communiques in berets sat behind a trestle table with obscure flag hung behind.


----------



## Zabo (Mar 28, 2013)

Like one or two others I'll sit and wait. Too many self appointed organisers here and there.

They've not yet harnessed Twitter with only 873 following. I'm not surprised because Speak HQ send out a tweet every few seconds with all manner of links without descriptions.


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Is this L/U thing being set up in Sheffield?


 
You could be the contact


----------



## where to (Mar 28, 2013)

a sense of humour is a pretty good start:
http://leftunity.org/dont-say-this-comrade/


----------



## sihhi (Mar 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> keith and andrew are ok, if more than a little set in their ways.


 
doesn't andrew burgin already have one of these initiative coalitions - namely the Coalition of Resistance.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 28, 2013)

Ian Bone's take on the various factions involved in this Left Unity thing

http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/why-i-support-left-unity/



> *WHY I SUPPORT ‘LEFT UNITY’*
> 
> Couple of legit questions………so here’s my version
> Trade Unions finance Peoples Assembly Against Austerity as way of forcing Labour leftwards. Unite main founder but every other leftie bureacrat joins in – old style leftie mix of ‘make the TUC call a general strike’ and ‘make the union leaders fight etc etc.
> ...


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> Nick Wrack, Keith Flett, Andrew Burgin, Alan Thornett....


Might have the correct line on beards then.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 29, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Might have the correct line on beards then.


Paul always insisted on a complete ban on facial hair in class war. But this may not have been official cw policy.


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2013)

sihhi said:


> doesn't andrew burgin already have one of these initiative coalitions - namely the Coalition of Resistance.


 
he collects them, bit like his extensive record collection...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 29, 2013)

treelover said:


> "Warren Draper is the contact for Left Unity in Doncaster. Please contact Warren at Doncaster@leftunity.org"
> 
> 
> 
> Blimey, if that is who I think it is, L/U there is going to be pretty robust...


 
One of Moazez's mates and serial joiner


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2013)

“Nope, no march has even been floated. That report is just factually wrong.” Owen Jones commenting on John Rees interview in the Independent today. Rees has gicven the game away on the undemocrartic decisions he and German have taken – there will be a march on October 26th except no one but Rees and German know it yet.He has probably not told Owen that he has written the final declaration either. Better ask him Owen."

Bloody hell, I was right about the PA, rally in late June, then a mass march in late October, nothing but predictable.

you do have to wonder if Rees is a stooge...


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2013)

apart from Jim Jepps, not really the usual suspects

London contacts...

btw, wonder what SU are making of it all...


----------



## mk12 (Mar 29, 2013)

The FB group just posted a by election result for Lewisham Evelyn Ward where 'Lewisham People before profit' came second, beating UKIP, the Tories and the Lib Dems.


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2013)

Straw in the wind or just local factors?


----------



## 123bpm (Mar 29, 2013)

Liverpool organiser seems to be a former Lib Dem councillor (lost seat in 2011) whose most recent campaign was in support of a local celebrity hairdresser becoming mayor. The campaign was halted as it had become "too political".

123bpm


----------



## ska invita (Mar 29, 2013)

i dont know much about Die Linke or Syriza but as far as i understand they are coalitions of pre-existing left parties/groups.  Left Unity has been talked about as a UK form of the same, but at the moment far from uniting existing groups it seems to be off on its own trajectory, and possibly pissing off certain groups (and egos) as a result. I wonder how much left unity will arise from this, or if it will instead be its own beast.  ??


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 29, 2013)

It is what it says -Left Unity aka 2013 version of Beyond The Fragments . First stop on a medium haul flight to soft left Labour.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 29, 2013)

If I was still capable of enthusiasm I would be enthusiastic about this. As it is I am quite impressed, but concerned it will become crushed by the weight of past failure.


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2013)

I see a lot of the fledging groups are meeting up in places linked to Uni's etc, hope this is not indicative of the social/economic make up of the new formations..

the manchester organiser seems a bit of a loose cannon as well..

but early days...


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2013)

Maybe they need more like this guy, hell we all need more people like this!


----------



## love detective (Mar 29, 2013)

treelover said:


> Straw in the wind or just local factors?


 
they've been consistently getting around 10%-20% in local by elections here for the last few years - and these have all been largrly in the mainly white working class wards in the south of the borough which is a bit out of their natural comfort zone

If it wasn't for the presence of a strong green party I could see them getting at least 2 to 3 times that vote in any contest in the more leafer more middle class wards in the north of the borough. I think they are seen as a bit too middle class in the south of lewisham and a bit too working class in the north

they've done some good things (taking possession of empty council houses in lewisham and bringing them up to liveable standards and then offering them to families on the council waiting list) but they've also done some horrendous things (i.e. one of their leaders is an estate agent who setup a lefty type cafe in the area which then went on to victimise and sack workers for union organising there, he also looked to replace them with workfare workers)


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2013)

treelover said:


> Maybe they need more like this guy, hell we all need more people like this!


Just don't make him treasurer.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> Good luck to 'em though.


 
Best of British


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 29, 2013)

treelover said:


> "Warren Draper is the contact for Left Unity in Doncaster. Please contact Warren at Doncaster@leftunity.org"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Could be viral by the time the Easter egg hunt finishes Easter Sunday


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Just don't make him treasurer.


 
oh dear, did he do a runner with the membership fees?


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Could be viral by the time the Easter egg hunt finishes Easter Sunday


 
not getting involved then I take it...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2013)

treelover said:


> not getting involved then I take it...


He did a runner to russia on massive IWW fronted bail money, leaving a lot of lesser known faces in the shit. OT i know.


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2013)

sad really...


----------



## ska invita (Mar 29, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> 2013 version of Beyond The Fragments


sorry dont know what this means, could you explain.



treelover said:


> I see a lot of the fledging groups are meeting up in places linked to Uni's etc, hope this is not indicative of the social/economic make up of the new formations..
> 
> the manchester organiser seems a bit of a loose cannon as well..
> 
> but early days...


 
its pretty 'anarchist' (non-centralised) in that respect in that if you want to be the coordinator for the Nether-Wopping region the job is yours - I dont think there's much of  a vetting process going on


----------



## chilango (Mar 29, 2013)

It's not anarchist in the slightest.

It's the tyranny of structurelessness.



Ok. Not really. But it is both this efforts biggest weakness and it's main strength.

It is open for anyone to grab it and run with it.

That could be a bunch of ordinary pissed off folk, or it could be homeless Trots.

My money's on the latter.

But if things get out hand, spiral out of control etc. it could be quite interesting.

I'm still watching closely in case there's a chance for my one man autonomist entrism tactic to be deployed!


----------



## ska invita (Mar 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> It's not anarchist in the slightest.
> 
> It's the tyranny of structurelessness.
> 
> ...


oh yeah i agree, hence the "" marks. 



chilango said:


> I'm still watching closely in case there's a chance for my one man autonomist entrism tactic to be deployed!


 
i think there definitely is! I think this is what Ian Bone is getting at with his support - he's saying the door is open for anarchists (or anyone else for that matter) to get on board and make of it what they can. I think that's true for now, and from what I can tell most of the usual SWPies and ex-SWPies who tend to dominate have already pinned their colours to different masts, so for a good time, a year at the very least, they won't be around to takeover. Remaining homeless Trots are a lot better than landed gentry trots IYSWIM.

Im sure before too long it will start to take on a more recognisable structure, but i dont think its there yet.

^^all impressions


----------



## chilango (Mar 29, 2013)

Aye.

At the moment it "looks" full of unreconstructed lefties, old and new. Who will hop from issue to issue with a megaphone, a trestle table and a bunch of Palestinian scarves.

But I might be wrong, very wrong, about that.

As yet it isn't passing my "would I introduce my mates to them in the pub" test.

(Again, just impressions)


----------



## sihhi (Mar 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> As yet it isn't passing my "would I introduce my mates to them in the pub" test.


 
I find this an odd idea, unless I'm misreading you - surely people should introduce them to mates so they - the _lefties with a programme_ as I think of them - at least start to snap out of their condescending behaviour?


----------



## chilango (Mar 29, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I find this an odd idea, unless I'm misreading you - surely people should introduce them to mates so they - the _lefties with a programme_ as I think of them - at least start to snap out of their condescending behaviour?



I don't get many evenings down the pub. I can't waste them with awkward/embarrassing "meet the Trots" scenarios!


----------



## ska invita (Mar 29, 2013)

its hard to talk to anyone about this yet as its hard enough to work out what it is - or more importantly wants to be. UKIP for the left isnt the best rallying cry, but its the most concrete thing ive heard about it. Im sure all will become clearer soon.


----------



## chilango (Mar 29, 2013)

...and on a more serious note.

Too many people involved in the left/activism are "wierdoes". People who seem to lack social skills. In the same boat as "Bible Bashers", trainspotters and so on. There'll never be a mass left org whilst this remains the case.

* that said, some of the loveliest people I've met are leftie activists who passed the "mates down the pub test" with flying colours.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> ...and on a more serious note.
> 
> Too many people involved in the left/activism are "wierdoes". People who seem to lack social skills. In the same boat as "Bible Bashers", trainspotters and so on. There'll never be a mass left org whilst this remains the case.
> 
> * that said, some of the loveliest people I've met are leftie activists who passed the "mates down the pub test" with flying colours.


 
The more these apparent "weirdoes" don't engage with and hence fail to even hear people outside of their common targets (existing trade union members, university students and public sector high professionals) the worse this problem will become.

If people lack social skills outside these areas, exposure can only be positive, but yes, might not be applicable in all situations.

I agree that some of the hype for Left Unity seems crazy plus some belief that Cameron can be brought down like Thatcher was in 1990 - one their facebook page.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 29, 2013)

ska invita said:


> sorry dont know what this means, could you explain.
> 
> 
> 
> its pretty 'anarchist' (non-centralised) in that respect in that if you want to be the coordinator for the Nether-Wopping region the job is yours - I dont think there's much of a vetting process going on


 
I am using beyond The Fragments as an analogy for what is pretty much a project which is an alternative to the orthodox revolutionary left. However it was  one that didn't  take class analysis as its starting point but as one of many starting points along with racism, patriarchy and any  other isms that appended to be around. It was based on loose alliances between the isms and between the orthodox revo left and the orthodox reformist left. Although BTF started as a project mainly outside the Labour Party many of its members found a perfect niche in the relative ideological autonomy of the soft Labour left in the 1980s whilst ironically being wedded to the dead hand of the Labour Party.

This will go the same way.

Btw I wouldn't confuse non centralised with 'anarchist' the EDL was non centralised and also based on social media.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> ...and on a more serious note.
> 
> Too many people involved in the left/activism are "wierdoes". People who seem to lack social skills. In the same boat as "Bible Bashers", trainspotters and so on. There'll never be a mass left org whilst this remains the case.
> 
> * that said, some of the loveliest people I've met are leftie activists who passed the "mates down the pub test" with flying colours.


 
I think lots of people lack or seem to lack social skills tbh (myself included, at times ) however surely the problem isnt whether someone lacks social skills or not but is prepared to learn them, or sees anything wrong with what they're doing.For example somebody who just goes on and on about the same bollocks (SOCIALISM!) etc without realising that the other person hasn't got a clue what they're on about.

i know i lack social skills some of the time coz i'm quite shy and i've got mental health problems and a lot of the time i worry too much about how i'm coming across so i don't tend to say a great deal, and when i do say stuff i think it often comes across as a bit awkward coz im not relaxed, i only tend to relax when i'm around groups of people i really like or, often, where alcohol is involved. so yeah i'm quite prepared to know that that criticism does apply to me, and to try and take it on board. I suppose the problem would be with somebody who's an annoying prick and doesn't even realise it or try and change it at all.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

And I've got mates who aren't involved in left wing politics at all. It really depends whether you've got me on a good or bad day though as to whether i come across like a complete freak or not tho i suppose.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 29, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Although BTF started as a project mainly outside the Labour Party many of its members found a perfect niche in the relative ideological autonomy of the soft Labour left in the 1980s whilst ironically being wedded to the dead hand of the Labour Party.
> 
> This will go the same way.


 
The problem with this is that there isn't a Labour left any more to accommodate them.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 29, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The problem with this is that there isn't a Labour left any more to accommodate them.


And the revolutionary left is immensely weaker than it was in 1980


----------



## J Ed (Mar 29, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I think lots of people lack or seem to lack social skills tbh (myself included, at times ) however surely the problem isnt whether someone lacks social skills or not but is prepared to learn them, or sees anything wrong with what they're doing.For example somebody who just goes on and on about the same bollocks (SOCIALISM!) etc without realising that the other person hasn't got a clue what they're on about.
> 
> i know i lack social skills some of the time coz i'm quite shy and i've got mental health problems and a lot of the time i worry too much about how i'm coming across so i don't tend to say a great deal, and when i do say stuff i think it often comes across as a bit awkward coz im not relaxed, i only tend to relax when i'm around groups of people i really like or, often, where alcohol is involved. so yeah i'm quite prepared to know that that criticism does apply to me, and to try and take it on board. I suppose the problem would be with somebody who's an annoying prick and doesn't even realise it or try and change it at all.


 
I think that the big problem is when some people on the left have both awful social skills and a complete lack of self-awareness, which is how you get people moralising and patronising people who couldn't care less over and over while people roll their eyes 

I'm far from convinced that that is a real feature of the left any more than it is a feature of human beings in general now I think about it


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 29, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The problem with this is that there isn't a Labour left any more to accommodate them.



They will accommodate to the Labour Party very quickly precisely because of ' the broad church' mentality. Most attracted to ' left unity'  do do because they have more in common with other leftist s than they do with the working class.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 29, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I think that the big problem is when some people on the left have both awful social skills and a complete lack of self-awareness, which is how you get people moralising and patronising people who couldn't care less over and over while people roll their eyes
> 
> I'm far from convinced that that is a real feature of the left any more than it is a feature of human beings in general now I think about it


To be fair Pickmans has improved over the years either that or I have got more mellow


----------



## ska invita (Mar 29, 2013)

Time for Anarchists to join the Party?
bristol | protests | feature Friday March 29, 2013 18:44 by Michele Di Piedi 
http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/727168

Whatever your ideological opposition to the British political system, not using the tools that everyone else is using is a bit like trying to organise a demonstration without using 'corporate' social media. Self defeating.

I'm not saying that mass anarchists and insurrectionary anarchists should start standing for parliament. I am saying that we should vote, encourage others to vote, and join a party. In that party, our ideas will also be talked about, tested, amended and adopted by others in a mass working class movement. This alone should be reason enough for any anarchist serious about making revolutionary change.

A Left Unity party is already being set up. In London. By middle class intellectuals, defeated unions, and 'Old Left' political groups. And the Labour Party. At some point a Bristol branch will appear. It will be immediately dominated by old men from the Old Left who will expect the young bucks to do street theatre and get arrested at demos while they write the rules, impose the order, and make the same strategic mistakes they have been making for the last 40 years.

It doesn't have to be this way. Occupy, anti-fascism, direct actions, demonstrations, uprisings, football tournaments, bookfairs, bookshops, social centres, squats – pound for pound, per capita, Bristol anarchists have shown they have nothing to learn from London, or the Old Left, when it comes to organising in the interests of the 99%.

Libcom: Why we should reject Left Unity http://libcom.org/blog/“-real-enemy”-why-we-should-reject-left-unity-concept-17022013

Ian Bone: Why I support Left Unity http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/why-i-support-left-unity/


----------



## chilango (Mar 29, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I think lots of people lack or seem to lack social skills tbh (myself included, at times ) however surely the problem isnt whether someone lacks social skills or not but is prepared to learn them, or sees anything wrong with what they're doing.For example somebody who just goes on and on about the same bollocks (SOCIALISM!) etc without realising that the other person hasn't got a clue what they're on about.
> 
> i know i lack social skills some of the time coz i'm quite shy and i've got mental health problems and a lot of the time i worry too much about how i'm coming across so i don't tend to say a great deal, and when i do say stuff i think it often comes across as a bit awkward coz im not relaxed, i only tend to relax when i'm around groups of people i really like or, often, where alcohol is involved. so yeah i'm quite prepared to know that that criticism does apply to me, and to try and take it on board. I suppose the problem would be with somebody who's an annoying prick and doesn't even realise it or try and change it at all.



Yeah.

I'm a miserable git irl. Misanthropic to the point of making LLETSA look like a Children's TV presenter! so I'm aware of the irony in branding others as lacking in social skills.

But if we are serious about building any kind of "movement", whether it's this "Left Unity" or something else we need to address it.


----------



## steeplejack (Mar 29, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I think lots of people lack or seem to lack social skills tbh (myself included, at times ) however surely the problem isnt whether someone lacks social skills or not but is prepared to learn them, or sees anything wrong with what they're doing... the problem would be with somebody who's an annoying prick and doesn't even realise it or try and change it at all.


 
Yes, like the Socialist Alliance campaigner outside Tesco's in Cardiff around ten years ago, a crumbling shambles of a man dressed in clothes that seemed largely to be falling apart, glasses skwee-wiff, and Michael Foot hair. He was actively driving foil away by running about with a petition clipboard and shouting SIGNNNSSSSSSSSOCIASLLLLLLLLSTLAAAAAYYYBAENNAITCHESSCUUUUTTZZZZZ.

He came across as a total nutcase and people were crossing the street to avoid him. More worryingly, his SA colleagues either couldnt or didnt want to do anything about it.


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2013)

Its the 'paranoia' that got to me in past


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

treelover said:


> Its the 'paranoia' that got to me in past


 
what do you mean?


----------



## ska invita (Mar 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> But if we are serious about building any kind of "movement", whether it's this "Left Unity" or something else we need to address it.


How can it be addressed? Political movements are composed of the people that support them, and that's that. One of the reasons charasmatic leaders come to have so much importance is to distract from some of the less than charismatic characters in the background (springing to mind is the Tory party here, who are still a sight to behold at conference).


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> what do you mean?


 
a lot of people in radical politics have 'issues' imo, more than the general population(NOT INC URBS) one witnessed many aggressive outbursts and accusations of 'your're a spy, etc*

*in light of recent events, maybe with some justification...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 29, 2013)

steeplejack said:


> Yes, like the Socialist Alliance campaigner outside Tesco's in Cardiff around ten years ago, a crumbling shambles of a man dressed in clothes that seemed largely to be falling apart, glasses skwee-wiff, and Michael Foot hair. He was actively driving foil away by running about with a petition clipboard and shouting SIGNNNSSSSSSSSOCIASLLLLLLLLSTLAAAAAYYYBAENNAITCHESSCUUUUTTZZZZZ.
> 
> He came across as a total nutcase and people were crossing the street to avoid him. More worryingly, his SA colleagues either couldnt or didnt want to do anything about it.


 
Think we already established that was Neprimye


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 29, 2013)

ska invita said:


> It doesn't have to be this way. Occupy, anti-fascism, direct actions, demonstrations, uprisings, football tournaments, bookfairs, bookshops, social centres, squats – pound for pound, per capita, Bristol anarchists have shown they have nothing to learn from London, or the Old Left, when it comes to organising in the interests of the 99%.


 
No but they obviously have a lot to learn full stop.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

treelover said:


> a lot of people in radical politics have 'issues' imo, more than the general population(NOT INC URBS) one witnessed many aggressive outbursts and accusations of 'your're a spy, etc*
> 
> in light of recent events, maybe with somen justification...


 
aye.

i think a lot of people have "issues" full stop though.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 29, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> No but they obviously have a lot to learn full stop.


just to say that wasnt me who said that - dont know why the quote has my name on it  that was chilango i think


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 30, 2013)

ska invita said:


> Libcom: Why we should reject Left Unity http://libcom.org/blog/“-real-enemy”-why-we-should-reject-left-unity-concept-17022013


 
Probably the least mad thing on Libcom for ages, I disagree with a lot of its assumptions but the basic message is sound - left unity is a shit idea and the only right approach is "class unity" which is a completely different idea.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 30, 2013)

I may just being an ignorant emigrant here but how does this group differ from the People's Assemblies stiff, UKuncut, etc?

I mean I'm somewhat confused that if your focus is Left Unity why you want to set up yet another grouplet.


----------



## where to (Mar 30, 2013)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> I may just being an ignorant emigrant here but how does this group differ from the People's Assemblies stiff, UKuncut, etc?
> 
> I mean I'm somewhat confused that if your focus is Left Unity why you want to set up yet another grouplet.



People's assembly is an attempt at a big tent, all inclusive left movement, including labour left, but NOT a political party. 

Left unity is an attempt at a new left party with a slightly smaller tent which would sit outside and ultimately fight against Labour.

On your second question, well indeed. I imagine they would say that none of these have succeeded, and argue that this one will be different because it is not being led by a large existing organised grouping/ party.


----------



## kenny g (Mar 30, 2013)

This could be highly amusing, especially if used as a means to put a bit of a kick into politics.


----------



## chilango (Mar 30, 2013)

ska invita said:


> just to say that wasnt me who said that - dont know why the quote has my name on it  that was chilango i think



Wasn't me.


----------



## chilango (Mar 30, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Think we already established that was Neprimye



Nah.

He never had Michael Foot hair.


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2013)

Sheffield now has a 'leader' mature student disabled(his def) wonder how the hard core SWP will respond?

lots of media/actors etc, Kate Henry, Birkenhead(Adrian Henry's daughter?), fair few declaring them socialists..


----------



## ska invita (Mar 30, 2013)

chilango said:


> Wasn't me.


 sorry yeah it was from the bristol indymedia thing - very exhausted at the moment, can barely see straight!


----------



## ska invita (Mar 30, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> I may just being an ignorant emigrant here but how does this group differ from the People's Assemblies stiff, UKuncut, etc?
> 
> I mean I'm somewhat confused that if your focus is Left Unity why you want to set up yet another grouplet.


Although ian bones thing doesnt particularly make me want to join up (though im broadly supportive of it so far) it does explain what the lay of the land is - worth a read squirrel
http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/why-i-support-left-unity/


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 30, 2013)

I "liked" on Facebook to have a look. No one come forward for my neck of the woods, which I believe historically had the strongest SWP branch in London...


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 30, 2013)

The thing is if enough people join it, new people not just trots lost in the wilderness, then it's a whole different matter. The people involved in setting it up, Rees and Burgin and co, they're irrelevant if 20 or 30 thousand people end up getting involved - it can be taken off them no problem if thats how many people join - like bone says here "burgin cant believe it – he’s giving the franchise to wqhoever turns up.". It might just develop a momentum of it's own, because of the timing, the decline of the SWP, a small peak in class consciousness as the cuts start to bite, etc. It's encouraging I suppose that it's actually got such a positive reaction on facebook, certainly shows there's some interest in a regroupment of some kind, but I can't quite suspend my inherent cynicism just yet based on facebook likes.

The People's Assembly is neither here nor there because it's something that will end up in the Labour sphere of influence, a bit of a vanity project and busywork for a load of left-wing worthies and celebs and their fanclubs.


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2013)

Read Ian Bone's blog, apparently Burgin was doing the usual, trying to structure, control, etc, saw the incredible enthusiasm and passion from hundreds who were besieging him with emails , phone calls and said fuck it, let a thousand flowers bloom, or words to that effect, I think he means it this time...


----------



## treelover (Apr 1, 2013)

"April 1st 2013 - we are on a war footing now. If anyone thinks we're waiting a for a soppy Labour government in May 2015 then think again."


getting a bit ambitious?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 1, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> The thing is if enough people join it, new people not just trots lost in the wilderness, then it's a whole different matter. The people involved in setting it up, Rees and Burgin and co, they're irrelevant if 20 or 30 thousand people end up getting involved


 
I don't think that the Rees mob are significantly involved in this thing, although they may possibly have signed up. Their energies are going on the People's Assembly, which they hope will effectively install them as the national leadership of the anti-cuts movement with the permission of various trade union bureaucrats. In so far as I've seen any of them even mention the LU thing, it's been to counterpose the PA's to it.


----------



## treelover (Apr 1, 2013)

"Their energies are going on the People's Assembly, *which they hope will effectively install them as the national leadership of the anti-cuts movement with the permission of various trade union bureaucrats*. In so far as I've seen any of them"


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 1, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I think that the big problem is when some people on the left have both awful social skills and a complete lack of self-awareness, which is how you get people moralising and patronising people who couldn't care less over and over while people roll their eyes
> 
> I'm far from convinced that that is a real feature of the left any more than it is a feature of human beings in general now I think about it


 
and theres the issue of how its their little club so to speak . The only place were they actually are _someone_ . Good dose of the cheka wouldnt go amiss


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 1, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't think that the Rees mob are significantly involved in this thing, although they may possibly have signed up. Their energies are going on the People's Assembly, which they hope will effectively install them as the national leadership of the anti-cuts movement with the permission of various trade union bureaucrats. In so far as I've seen any of them even mention the LU thing, it's been to counterpose the PA's to it.


 
Yep the steering committee of the Peoples Assembly is essentially controlled by Counterfire and Unite


----------



## treelover (Apr 1, 2013)

One of the guys in Norwich LU has Ho Chi Minh and Tito on his FB page!

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/...240?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed


btw Morning Star has a go at LU


----------



## treelover (Apr 1, 2013)

No mention by the article's author from Left Futures on the Workfare vote, plenty on the PA, you can see where that is going, why does Ree's and co continually give the LP left cover?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 2, 2013)

The article does make a reasonable point in that a) there seems to be a new'left unity' project for every election b) building these things takes time


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 2, 2013)

treelover said:


> One of the guys in Norwich LU has Ho Chi Minh and Tito on his FB page!
> 
> http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/...240?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
> 
> ...


But then the Tankies stood on the side of the state during the protests/turmoil of 1968.

I'm hardly surprised. They can't be the vanguard and they're pissed off.


----------



## treelover (Apr 2, 2013)

Still wanna know where are all these socialists coming from?, 7000 plus signed up now, not in my home town...


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 3, 2013)

Why? Do you think the figures have been doctored? Why shouldn't 7,000 socialists sign up to LU? What are you trying to say, tl?



> not in my home town.


 
Maybe your hometown is full of numpties.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 3, 2013)

treelover said:


> Still wanna know where are all these socialists coming from?, 7000 plus signed up now, not in my home town...


 
Doesn't seem that remarkable to me. I mean the Labour Party has lost 200,000+ members since 1997...


----------



## treelover (Apr 3, 2013)

I should have said 'active' socialists...


----------



## treelover (Apr 3, 2013)

Lots more people coming forward as organisers:, many young, NHS workers, youth workers, mature students, pensioners, people with disabilities, a fair few animal rights activists which is slighty worrying, not a few actors as well...


----------



## brogdale (Apr 3, 2013)

treelover said:


> Lots more people coming forward as organisers:, many young, NHS workers, youth workers, mature students, pensioners, people with disabilities, a fair few animal rights activists which is slighty worrying, not a few actors as well...


 
Are you getting this off the website/FB?


----------



## treelover (Apr 4, 2013)

http://www.facebook.com/The14thNovemberMovementLeftPartyUk?ref=ts&fref=ts

Its the FB page, used to avoid it like the plague, but the lack of cynicism, righteous anger and action on many of the new sites is heartening and addictive...

btw, just read on there that LP abstained on the vote to remove Union rights, how can the Unions still back them?

Time for John Mcdonnell and others to leave?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 4, 2013)

Ideal opportunity for this group to test the water in the South Shields by election.


----------



## treelover (Apr 9, 2013)

> *There is an urgent need for a new mass movement for people on the left*
> 
> April 9, 2013
> 
> ...


 


Ex National Health Party candidate joins LU, former RN doctor, this is really taking off now, but i'm not sure it was how they envisaged it, it seem quite bourgeois and moderate, many of the contacts are middle class(though many from W/C backgrounds/L/P familes), but they seem great people with strong convictions, there are a significant amount who are disabled, I will stick my neck out, I think it will be a significant threat to the LP.

They need people like Brenda Nixon, Sheila Coleman, etc to get involved, stand as candidates


----------



## dennisr (Apr 9, 2013)

treelover said:


> Ex National Health Party candidate joins LU, former RN doctor, this is really taking off now, but i'm not sure it was how they envisaged it, it seem quite bourgeois and moderate, many of the contacts are middle class(though may from WC backgrounds/L/P familes), but they seem great people with strong convictions, there are a significant amount who are disabled, I will stick my neck out, I think it will be a significant threat to the LP.


 
yet to be convinced myself - but, yep, you some good points/sentiment in that post


----------



## treelover (Apr 9, 2013)

> "The electorate are becoming impervious to campaigning based on leafleting and canvassing. Social media are important but exclude large swathes of society. Realistically the only way to advance radical politics is through large-scale, non-violent direct action, e.g. occupations, major industrial action etc. Anger needs to replace apathy. Scenes reminiscent of the Miners’ Strike need to be hitting our news-screens every day. We need to be prepared to get hurt, get arrested, …even go to jail. The working class vastly outnumber the ruling class – the achievement of socialism should in theory be a walkover. But the challenge is mobilising and organising the ’99%’, which does require the infrastructure and unifying identity of a political party"


 

Wow, did I say moderate!


----------



## ska invita (Apr 9, 2013)

treelover said:


> Wow, did I say moderate!


wheres that quote from tl?


----------



## treelover (Apr 9, 2013)

Its from the retired ex RN doctor mentioned above in my post!

Its reminding me a lot of the ILP, who had major involvement in the National Unemployed Workers Movement.


----------



## Random (Apr 9, 2013)

treelover said:


> Its from the retired ex RN doctor mentioned above in my post!
> 
> Its reminding me a lot of the ILP, who had major involvement in the National Unemployed Workers Movement.


It's the 1910s in slow motion!


----------



## treelover (Apr 9, 2013)

80 Left Unity groups across the Uk have now been formed, in space of ten days!


----------



## treelover (Apr 10, 2013)

http://leftunity.org/?doing_wp_cron=1365598412.2771248817443847656250


Oh dear, I suspect the political manouvering by the committed Marxists to capture the emergent movement/party is beginning: the front page now has a dry economic article on marxist economics and a critical review of the 45 reforms, Nick Wrack bringing out the old "reform vs revolution" argument in all the btl spaces, etc. IMO; most of the new membership come across as left libertarians, or even the old ILP, however the old school marxists have the staying power to ramble on and on, people just don't want this: I can't know for certain but I suspect most people joined to defend/work alongside the most vulnerable, and challenge austerity, not have long winded debates which the population would be baffled by..


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://leftunity.org/?doing_wp_cron=1365598412.2771248817443847656250
> 
> 
> Oh dear, I suspect the political manouvering by the committed Marxists to capture the emergent movement/party is beginning: the front page now has a dry economic article on marxist economics and a critical review of the 45 reforms, Nick Wrack bringing out the old 'reform vs revolution argument i all the btl spaces, etc. IMO; most of the new membership come across as left libertarians, or even the old ILP, however the old school marxists have the staying power to ramble on and on, people just don't want this: I can't know for certain but I suspect most people joined to defend/work alongside the most vulnerable, and challenge austerity, not have long winded debates which the population would be baffled by..


 
Unusually I'm going to say I totally agree with you here - this is the strangling of any potential it might have had.


----------



## chilango (Apr 10, 2013)

I just had a quick check back on the FB page.



The same old Lefty stuff.

Really not for me, or for anyone I know.

But for all the those ex Labour Lefts, ex Trots, etc. left adrift and alone with the collapse of the Left in the UK it might well prove to be a comfortable new home.


----------



## treelover (Apr 10, 2013)

But the membership aren't, have a read of their posts, there is a libertarian impulse..

and read the ex RM doctors article, he is certainly not looking for a 'comfortable home'


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 10, 2013)

All that is solid melts into air


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> I will stick my neck out, I think it will be a significant threat to the LP.


 
So presumably you think there is a significant section in society who identify as 'left', recognise that there is a need for some sort of movement led by 'celeb' lefts, have been waiting for this type of formation and that the 7,000 people who have liked LU on Facebook will want a play an active role?

How long do you think LU will need before it becomes a signifcant threat the the Labour Party? And amongst which class do you think it gain support?


----------



## chilango (Apr 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> But the membership aren't, have a read of their posts, there is a libertarian impulse..
> 
> and read the ex RM doctors article, he is certainly not looking for a 'comfortable home'



Course there is.

But the overwhelming tone is pretty much the usual stuff you'd expect from people who could be lazily dismissed as "middle class guardian reading liberals".

Whilst it would be a mistake to make such a lazy dismissal, as you say there is more to it than that, it is still largely appearing to be the same old.

But as I've said above, good luck to em and I continue to watch for developments that prove me wrong.


----------



## treelover (Apr 11, 2013)

> Brighton Left Unity first meeting - with students and lecturers from the recent occupation


 

interesting, so its not the SWP who will get the 'dividend'


----------



## treelover (Apr 12, 2013)

Been reading that the SWP and to a lesser extent, the SP intend to "get involved' with LU and have already attended various groups initial meetings, in terms of the SWP, the kiss of death , imo...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2013)

We've had your three weeks flame now we have the thirty years ashes then?


----------



## fiannanahalba (Apr 13, 2013)

This is going to be very big, in fact it could be massive.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 13, 2013)

TBH the FB page is hardly popping, they all seem to go to bed pretty early and the comments section on their website seems to be like just the boring bits of P&P, no trolls, no bunfights, etc.

Be nice if it worked but I'm not going to get too excited about it tbh.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 13, 2013)

fiannanahalba said:


> This is going to be very big, in fact it could be massive.


 
What makes you say that?


----------



## fiannanahalba (Apr 14, 2013)

Increasingly the centre of political gravity in England is moving to the right with Labour chasing the Tories there at every step. The vacuum is great and the number of politically homeless socialists of all types is great. Will Owen Jones network idea in and out of Labour capture this effort? Possible. Then its a damp squib yet again.  The weakness of the revolutionary left in England means that a project like this wont be destroyed by sectarian attentions as easily as previous failed left unity projects. Of course its quite possible it will be so diverse and politically broad that it fails to gain electoral traction but then thats not everything.


----------



## treelover (Apr 14, 2013)

85 groups set up now, some in quite small towns, etc...


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 14, 2013)

treelover said:


> 85 groups set up now, some in quite small towns, etc...


 
8,000 have signed up for it now http://leftunity.org/appeal/

Will add my thoughts on this in detail another time.


----------



## treelover (Apr 14, 2013)

The enthusiasm is quite amazing, in some cities, the whole of SWSS seems to be involved, lots of public sector workers, but even small business people, but how they deal with the SWP will be crucial, the SP a bit less...

One thing seems a unifying factor, the desperate desire not to have 57 varieties of left sects arguing with one another, my assertion that the SWP question must be taken up asap may seem counter-intuitive but if they don't, they, the SWP, will ultimately undermine the project..


----------



## ska invita (Apr 14, 2013)

Surely the SWP arent going to try (or be allowed ) to take this one over... i think theyve got enough on their plates. If LU get big enough I wouldve thought the SWP would happily ride in the slipstream rather than be sidelined.


----------



## treelover (Apr 14, 2013)

I would rather they had no involvement at all, they are not a benign force...

btw, some of the organisers in the localities are actively inviting SWP cadres as they think unity is so important and central to success, while some are new and naïve some seem to be fellow travellers..


----------



## ska invita (Apr 14, 2013)

it would be impossible to ban anyone with SWP connections and I think as its stands theres enough history (between key LU people and the SWP) and difference in strategy to keep the SWP at bay from this...cheer up, might never appen!


----------



## treelover (Apr 14, 2013)

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2013/03/27/left-unity-must-be-linked-real-action

AWL respond to LU


----------



## treelover (Apr 14, 2013)

ska invita said:


> it would be impossible to ban anyone with SWP connections and I think as its stands theres enough history (between key LU people and the SWP) and difference in strategy to keep the SWP at bay from this...cheer up, might never appen!


 
but are the former SWP members who clearly are going to join en masse any different? bad habits die hard..


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 14, 2013)

en masse? That's a debasement of the term if I ever heard one


----------



## treelover (Apr 14, 2013)

well,  they will join as a group, which imo, could be a big problem, importing an ideology/ways of doing things into what is in essence a new entity...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 14, 2013)

treelover said:


> well, they will join as a group, which imo, could be a big problem, importing an ideology/ways of doing things into what is in essence a new entity...


 
If LU has the weight you seem to think it does I can't see the 150 or so real members of the ISN being able to do that much


----------



## treelover (Apr 14, 2013)

It only needs two or three very confident young ISN members in a local branch to swing policy, one example would be (bit late now)a vote for Jerry Hicks rather than Len...


----------



## chilango (Apr 14, 2013)

Either the LU project will evolve in new, unexpected ways that the likes of the SWP won't be able to get their heads around and thus end leaving alone or unable to get any sort of handle on (as happened with the antiCJA and Eco protests).

Or it'll be working in ways more familiar and comfortable to the SWP in which case it's doomed anyways..

So I don't think, in this case, the SWP are cause for concern.


----------



## belboid (Apr 14, 2013)

treelover said:


> It only needs two or three very confident young ISN members in a local branch to swing policy, one example would be (bit late now)a vote for Jerry Hicks rather than Len...


It would have to be a rather shit branch, and even then one branch couldnt change national policy.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 14, 2013)

treelover said:


> but are the former SWP members who clearly are going to join en masse any different? bad habits die hard..


that i dont know but my impressions is that SWP members on the whole aren't anywhere as dogmatic about vanguardist control freakery and tireless interpretation and following of the russian revolution playbook - its the CC who call those shots and set that agenda


----------



## treelover (Apr 14, 2013)

There is an organising meeting on the 14th May to decide the way forward, elect a new 'committee, 2 members from each group allowed (I think.) What is to stop groups packing the meetings which decide which delegates?, they have the experience to do this..


----------



## treelover (Apr 14, 2013)

> *Merry Cross: *I’m a long time socialist and one of those who founded the Disabled People’s movement in the 80s. Previously though I never signed up to a political party, primarily because I never felt represented by them or welcomed by them, either as a woman or as a disabled person. This is where I believe Left Unity could make a significant breakthrough. So all my political activity has been restricted to disability issues in the past and I am still active in this arena today. Certainly I see helping Left Unity to become truly inclusive (recognising *intersectionality*) as my main role on the organising committee.


 
first usage of this term I have seen from the groups...


----------



## neprimerimye (Apr 15, 2013)

chilango said:


> Nah.
> 
> He never had Michael Foot hair.


 
LOL. Still has all his hair check the dire photo on the LU site for evidence.

You in London these days chillango? If so lets get pissed!

And was never in the Welsh Socialist Alliance.


----------



## chilango (Apr 15, 2013)

neprimerimye said:


> LOL. Still has all his hair check the dire photo on the LU site for evidence.
> 
> You in London these days chillango? If so lets get pissed!
> 
> And was never in the Welsh Socialist Alliance.



Heh. 

You handed out election flyers for them though I think? I was sticking those stupid pink anti election stickers up at the same time iirc?

Not in London. In Reading for my sins (quite literally)...and I don't drink these days. But I'm sure we can meet up for a pint at some point!


----------



## chilango (Apr 15, 2013)

neprimerimye that you at the west London meeting?


----------



## neprimerimye (Apr 15, 2013)

chilango said:


> Heh.
> 
> You handed out election flyers for them though I think? I was sticking those stupid pink anti election stickers up at the same time iirc?
> 
> Not in London. In Reading for my sins (quite literally)...and I don't drink these days. But I'm sure we can meet up for a pint at some point!


 
Nor do I not with a five year old at home!


----------



## chilango (Apr 15, 2013)

5 already? Wow, time flies. Mine is past one now...


----------



## neprimerimye (Apr 15, 2013)

chilango said:


> neprimerimye that you at the west London meeting?


 
Yeah man! LoL. Out of 16 people a third were former SWPers!


----------



## chilango (Apr 15, 2013)

Very J.

(The hair, obvs, not the exSWPers)


----------



## treelover (Apr 15, 2013)

th


neprimerimye said:


> Yeah man! LoL. Out of 16 people a third were former SWPers!


 
That will change, at the moment its just people in the loop, they need to harness the anger of the thousands on facebook, at bedroom tax protests etc who are going ballistic and frightened at the same time..


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2013)

treelover said:


> th
> 
> 
> That will change, at the moment its just people in the loop, they need to harness the anger of the thousands on facebook, at bedroom tax protests etc who are going ballistic and frightened at the same time..


How will it change? What is the process by which these loop people get anywhere?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 15, 2013)

Cracking comment on the LU site:



> More boring, predictable twaddle from the same old people. How many times will we attempt to weld together the sects, ‘independent’ sectarians and vegan priestly quaker ‘green’ vague lefty Liberals into some ‘new’ formation from which the working class will run shrieking in horror?


----------



## treelover (Apr 15, 2013)

there are plenty of working class people involved, all you seem to get on here is buckets of cynicism, its dispiriting...


----------



## treelover (Apr 15, 2013)

neprimerimye said:


> Yeah man! LoL. Out of 16 people a third were former SWPers!


 
what are your views on the meeting, outcomes?


----------



## chilango (Apr 15, 2013)

treelover said:


> there are plenty of working class people involved, all you seem to get on here is buckets of cynicism, its dispiriting...


 
less dispiriting than repeatedly running into trainwrecks with wide-eyed enthusiasm.

over and over and over again.

That's dispiriting.

...for everyone.


----------



## chilango (Apr 15, 2013)

treelover said:


> they need to harness the anger of the thousands on facebook, at bedroom tax protests etc who are going ballistic and frightened at the same time..


 
No!

No, no, no.

No.

That's the _last_ thing they need to do.

Anger should not be harnessed.

It should be fuelled.


----------



## treelover (Apr 15, 2013)

why not just train a critical eye over it? that's fair, not the 39th Step/Spanky overkill..


----------



## treelover (Apr 15, 2013)

chilango said:


> No!
> 
> No, no, no.
> 
> ...


 
I mean get them involved...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2013)

treelover said:


> why not just train a critical eye over it? that's fair, not the 39th Step/Spanky overkill..


I just did, and got ignored. Again. Here's another go:




			
				you said:
			
		

> That will change, at the moment its just people in the loop, they need to harness the anger of the thousands on facebook, at bedroom tax protests etc who are going ballistic and frightened at the same time..


 
How will it change? What is the process by which these loop people get anywhere?


----------



## chilango (Apr 15, 2013)

treelover said:


> I mean get them involved...


 
How? Why? and in What?


----------



## chilango (Apr 15, 2013)

treelover said:


> why not just train a critical eye over it? that's fair, not the 39th Step/Spanky overkill..


 
That's what we're doing, no?

Though "fairness" isn't relevant.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 15, 2013)

The cynicism doesn't come out of nowhere though


----------



## chilango (Apr 15, 2013)

...and it's not like we're rocking up to the meetings and telling people it's not worth bothering.

I do really hope I'm wrong on this one.


----------



## neprimerimye (Apr 15, 2013)

treelover said:


> what are your views on the meeting, outcomes?


 Well there were no head bangers in the room which was nice. An eagerness for activity and a bit of a lack of direction. We now have events planned for the next couple of months and a growing contact list. Naturally I expect it to end in tears when they reject my proposal to refound the Fourth International and elect me chairperson. Otherwise I'm cautiously optimisitic but big changes are needed in order toa accomodate very wide differences of opinion. Which is no bad thing.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2013)

chilango said:


> ...and it's not like we're rocking up to the meetings and telling people it's not worth bothering.
> 
> I do really hope I'm wrong on this one.


That's what you hoped on all the other ones to be fair.


----------



## chilango (Apr 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's what you hoped on all the other ones to be fair.



Yeah.

Hope springs eternal and all that.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 15, 2013)

I think I may have seen some outside M&S with a paste table but it was a bit unclear, at least the flag looked based on their triangle thingy. Presumably they had no signs out because of the rain but still, if I didn't already know what their logo's looked like I would never have even suspected who it was.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 16, 2013)

chilango said:


> ...and it's not like we're rocking up to the meetings and telling people it's not worth bothering.
> 
> I do really hope I'm wrong on this one.


----------



## treelover (Apr 16, 2013)

> Peter Burrows
> April 15, 2013 at 10:20 pm
> Anything new that intends to fill a political void on the radical left will at its outset attempt to lay down core basic principles & values that will embrace & indeed sometimes overlap with other viewpoints from other people/organisations .
> Where i believe Left Unity can map out a vision/strategy is by rooting itself distinctly as radical decentralist movement that empowers its membership with bottom up power base that works with tenants groups.community groups,youth organisations ,womens groups etc . Sets its politics in & around its respective local people welcoming those who join LU & working alongside those who choose not to take that political step ,which will give a true sense of localism .
> ...


 

Just wondered can anyone disagree with this?


----------



## treelover (Apr 19, 2013)

> Brighton Left Unity held its first meeting on the evening of the 18th April in central Brighton. Around sixty people showed up, a lively and exciting mix of experienced activists, students from the Sussex occupation, other students, trades union members and local people of all ages and backgrounds. It was immediately clear that this was not a single campaign group, nor a meeting only for seasoned party workers, but a very open, hospitable environment in which everyone was encouraged to share their thoughts and views regardless whether they had any experience of activism or political work. There were no dominant voices and no members from already existing political groups tried to steer discussion down narrow partisan channels. Lots of people in the room contributed to the conversation and everyone was heard with respect.
> 
> http://leftunity.org/left-unity-has-to-be-fun-if-it-is-going-to-be-serious/


 
Sixty people attended the first Brighton Left Unity meeting inc some of the key Occupy Sussex students


----------



## treelover (Apr 19, 2013)

> The meeting heard from members of Unison (the union that represents 90% of the workers at Sussex who are directly affected by the outsourcing plans) who complained bitterly that their reps at the university are apparently attempting to prevent strike action by refusing to issue an indicative ballot and instead sending out a large, confusing “survey” of members’ opinions.


 

Unison members were there from the University who are not happy with the Reps there..


----------



## treelover (Apr 19, 2013)

> Lots of people who already belong to a party or other political group said how exciting it is that Left Unity has already managed to attract such large numbers of people, and suggested various actions and campaigns that the group might like to consider supporting


 
I wonder which campaigns?

theirs...


----------



## belboid (Apr 29, 2013)

The Sheffield first meeting was a massive success.  The main organiser didn't turn up


----------



## treelover (Apr 30, 2013)

Waiting for reports before I attend, hope there is a libertarian bias


----------



## treelover (Apr 30, 2013)

belboid said:


> The Sheffield first meeting was a massive success. The main organiser didn't turn up


 
http://leftunity.org/left-unity-is-...e-your-left-unity-group-is-accessible-to-all/


I think he is disabled and may not be able to be consistent, there is a good article here on the whole range of issues that may have to be considered, things are going to have be very very different than in the past, maybe even mattresses for those who just cannot sit for too long, understanding people may be very nervous, overwhelmed even..


----------



## treelover (May 1, 2013)

> Darren Cogavin is the Left Uinty organiser for Basildon. Please contact Darren at Basildon@leftunity.org
> I've been involved in the left for over ten years
> now. I joined the Socialist Party in 2003 and resigned, in amicable circumstances, th...ree years later following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. I joined Workers Power
> in 2007, impressed by their analysis of Ireland and national question. I lived and studied in Amsterdam for a year too and was active in the broad Socialist Party's youth wing Rood. I was very active in student politics in Dublin and have been
> ...


 


Blimey, Basildon, the home of the working class tory has a left unity group now..

btw, Denis, do you know the guy?


----------



## Plastic Red (May 3, 2013)

I went to my local Left unity meeting last night. My first political meeting for about twenty years. It was small but quite varied and lively.


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2013)

Plastic Red said:


> I went to my local Left unity meeting last night. My first political meeting for about twenty years. It was small but quite varied and lively.


 
small town?


----------



## Plastic Red (May 3, 2013)

Hackney and East London. But several people were attending another meeting and a few others couldn't make it who had previously. Still working out which groups cover what areas. So some people who apparently came to the just Hackney meeting from Stoke Newington weren't there.


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2013)

its very patchy, 60 turned up in Brighton, 27 in Sheffield, all with lots of apologies.


----------



## Plastic Red (May 3, 2013)

It was obviously very early days. No organisation set up yet. But I think it's promising. Very good atmosphere and everyne seemed to be able to leave their preconceived ideas aside. I would expect more people once some basic principles have been established and some actual work starts.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 11, 2013)

This thing had its first national meeting today. Sounds like there was a lot of self-important waffling about whether they should deign to allow existing groups to partake in the blessed unity. Did anyone go?


----------



## dominion (May 11, 2013)

There's a rumour (or should I say one post) on Socialist Unity that Dave Nellist of the SP was refused entry to the LU National meeting. Is this correct?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 11, 2013)

Apparently Ken Loach invited him, as chair of TUSC. He turned up. They wouldn't let him in.


----------



## chilango (May 11, 2013)

Why not?


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2013)

Because he wasn't an elected delegate from a local LU group - at least that's what the defenders of the action are saying.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 11, 2013)

Of course, according to the Nick Wrack and ACI motion, lots of people there weren't elected delegates. Which rather undermines that particular excuse.

Anti-sectarianism of sectarians.


----------



## dominion (May 11, 2013)

Had another look at that SR Piece:
_Both the ACI and the IS Network attended the conference and gave greetings to it. They were very positive toward a three-way regroupment. Kate Hudson (one of the convenors) also brought greetings from Left Unity and welcomed SR’s involvement in it. Regarding far left unity the mood of the conference was summed up by one comrade who said that if we still exist in a years time we will have failed._
_Since the conference things have moved on further with the first meeting to discuss regroupment proposed for May 12th – the day after the first national meeting of Left Unity._
_All this reflects a profound change which is taking place on the far left in England, the extent of which is not yet clear. *What is clear, however, is that by this time next year things are likely to look very different on the far-left. (my emphasis)*_

That means a new name for groups of people shuffling around the far left. No progress there. Happens decade after decade.

Dave Nellist says they "changed their minds" see: https://twitter.com/davenellist


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 11, 2013)

I've seen pretty much nothing about the big meeting on twitter, on blogs, on facebook. Other than a few references to the Nellist exclusion thing. I'd assumed beforehand that they'd all be burbling with excitement.


----------



## barney_pig (May 11, 2013)

The reading inaugural meeting happened this week, I know because it w in the local free sheet. However they forgot to tell those who had signed up on the national web site and been added to the local list


----------



## treelover (May 12, 2013)

Lots of these errors being made, will iron itself out.


----------



## chilango (May 12, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> The reading inaugural meeting happened this week, I know because it w in the local free sheet. However they forgot to tell those who had signed up on the national web site and been added to the local list



Oh.

I might've gone if I'd known.

Oh well.


----------



## barney_pig (May 12, 2013)

chilango said:


> Oh.
> 
> I might've gone if I'd known.
> 
> Oh well.


Me too.


----------



## chilango (May 12, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Me too.



Oh well.

If you hear anything PM me.


----------



## articul8 (May 12, 2013)

dominion said:


> _ *What is clear, however, is that by this time next year things are likely to look very different on the far-left. (my emphasis)*_


They really aren't - and Left unity is a total misnomer.  It's more like an alliance of socialist independents - I'm sure Simon Hardy, Richard Seymour and Kate Hudson are awfully excited about their "three-way regroupment" (sounds kinky) but really, what does it amount to? 

And excluding Nellist


----------



## ska invita (May 12, 2013)

Worth saying that Left Unity hasn't officially been launched yet and theres still debate as to what shape and structure can be agreed on 



articul8 said:


> Left unity is a total misnomer. It's more like an alliance of socialist independents


At best this is what it will be - a coalition of the non-aligned! Which could look very different (okay, maybe not very, but different) from anything else out there.


----------



## articul8 (May 12, 2013)

ska invita said:


> At best this is what it will be - a coalition of the non-aligned! Which could look very different (okay, maybe not very, but different) from anything else out there.


Well that may or may not be worth doing - but achieving that is not the same as "left unity" - and will not mean the left as a whole looks very different - just that there's a grouping of people most of whom have fallen out of bigger groupings. People lkike Nick Wrack and Dave Church were involved in something similar inside the Socialist Alliance if I recall.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Well that may or may not be worth doing - but achieving that is not the same as "left unity" - and will not mean the left as a whole looks very different - just that there's a grouping of people most of whom have fallen out of bigger groupings. People lkike Nick Wrack and Dave Church were involved in something similar inside the Socialist Alliance if I recall.


Anti-semitism from labour - again.


----------



## articul8 (May 12, 2013)

butchersapron you what?!


----------



## chilango (May 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> butchersapron you what?!



Ha ha.


----------



## ska invita (May 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Well that may or may not be worth doing - but achieving that is not the same as "left unity" - and will not mean the left as a whole looks very different - just that there's a grouping of people most of whom have fallen out of bigger groupings.


the amount of people who have "dropped out" is a majority of the population - people aren't stupid, they know mainstream political parties are all similar shades of shite, and those who have come in contact with the organised left are often equally put off. This is being billed as the UKIP of the left remember  ... nuances aside UKIP's strength is also based on "drop outs" I think its fair to say. 

Agree Left Unity is a misnomer. Though if this becomes a genuine popular/peoples type party (for which the potential at least is there) then maybe other groupings would come under the umbrella eventually - but that all seems a long way down the line.


----------



## barney_pig (May 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> They really aren't - and Left unity is a total misnomer.  It's more like an alliance of socialist independents - I'm sure Simon Hardy, Richard Seymour and Kate Hudson are awfully excited about their "three-way regroupment" (sounds kinky) but really, what does it amount to?
> 
> And excluding Nellist


What this? On the Reading left unity Facebook? A advert for red pepper?


----------



## articul8 (May 12, 2013)

Most of the population haven't dropped out of Trot groups or fronts though?  But this is the majority of people involved in LU at the moment


----------



## articul8 (May 12, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> What this? On the Reading left unity Facebook? A advert for red pepper?


Some RP people are more optimistic about this than me.  But I don't mean to be dismissive, just realistic.


----------



## articul8 (May 12, 2013)

chilango said:


> Ha ha.


Oh I see, it was a "joke"?


----------



## chilango (May 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Oh I see, it was a "joke"?



Yes.


----------



## Trealover (May 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This thing had its first national meeting today. Sounds like there was a lot of self-important waffling about whether they should deign to allow existing groups to partake in the blessed unity. Did anyone go?


 
Self-important waffling is hardly new on the left. But you can hardly blame them for at least debating the wisdom of it becoming just the latest version of the unstable alliance of competing Trot and Stalinoid groups. Who are all basically shit.


----------



## Trealover (May 12, 2013)

ska invita said:


> At best this is what it will be - a coalition of the non-aligned! Which could look very different (okay, maybe not very, but different) from anything else out there.


 

It will look like the existing far-left groups without their uniforms on.


----------



## treelover (May 12, 2013)

> _This meeting resolves not to take any votes on any of the statements, resolutions or amendments except for those, or those parts, which deal with 1) the election of the new national co-ordinating group [to be dissolved and replaced with a properly elected body at the first conference] 2) the process of debate and discussion 3) the dates of the next national meeting and the founding conference and 4) the principle that the new organisation should be based on ‘one member, one vote’._
> This passed by majority vote, and, to my mind, was a heartening start to the whole project. We would not start out by pretending to represent more people than we really did, we would not take any decisions out of the hands of future or indeed present members of the local groups, and the new party would be based on individual membership, with every member having equal power over decision-making. These last two points were especially important in assuaging fears about takeovers or undue influence and interference from existing groups and sects. A member of a left sect in the meeting moved that the new committee should invite observers from all existing left groups; others argued that existing groups should be allowed some kind of affiliation or group membership. On the basis of past experience, such notions were rejected by an overwhelming majority of those present. Members of existing groups would be welcomed as individuals, and their views would be treated with respect and given due consideration. Invasions by groups and parties with agendas of their own would not be.
> The debate on this question and the subsequent voting got at times fairly heated, and, in the absence of previously agreed structures and mechanisms, pretty chaotic. It even perhaps teetered on the brink of disaster. But this was in itself pretty inspiring stuff. It’s what real democracy is like: it ain’t always pretty, it can sometimes descend into aggression and frustration, and it can be very hard work. But the results are worth it: a decision is eventually reached that satisfies most people if not everyone, and that has authority on that basis. After a debate and a vote like that, there is a certain quiet satisfaction in a job well done if the vote goes your way; a humble acceptance if it doesn’t. At least there should be.
> 
> http://leftunity.org/left-unitys-first-national-meeting-a-report/


 
Actually it sounds promising, one person one vote, sects proposals for observers, struck down, no group affiliation, new committee to stand down immediately founding conference is held. massive arguments but no one left and things were resolved, reps from 55 groups uk wide,

oh and Ken got everyone to chill out...


----------



## Trealover (May 12, 2013)

treelover said:


> Actually it sounds promising, one person one vote, sects proposals for observers, struck down, no group affiliation, new committee to stand down immediately founding conference is held. massive arguments but no one left and things were resolved, reps from 55 groups uk wide,
> 
> oh and Ken got everyone to chill out...


 

I hpe it won't be as boring and worthy as the average Ken Loach film.


----------



## treelover (May 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Well that may or may not be worth doing - but achieving that is not the same as "left unity" - and will not mean the left as a whole looks very different - just that there's a grouping of people most of whom have fallen out of bigger groupings. People lkike Nick Wrack and Dave Church were involved in something similar inside the Socialist Alliance if I recall.


 
As a LP supporter not surprised at your view on LU, reports though differ, there are many many people getting involved who are joining out of necessity, they need allies to help fight he bedroom tax, atos, etc, this group will at last genuninely support and work with disabled people for instance.


----------



## treelover (May 12, 2013)

Trealover said:


> I hpe it won't be as boring and worthy as the average Ken Loach film.


 
Name usurper, anyway time for a name change methinks..


----------



## chilango (May 12, 2013)

Trealover said:


> I hpe it won't be as boring and worthy as the average Ken Loach film.



I dunno about his "average films" but he has made at least two or three truly superb films.


----------



## Trealover (May 12, 2013)

chilango said:


> I dunno about his "average films" but he has made at least two or three truly superb films.


 
It's sometimes possible to create a superb example of something boring and worthy.


----------



## treelover (May 12, 2013)

Land and Freedom, Kes, Cathy Come Home

bit worried though, doesn't Ken support some of the U.S's enemies?


----------



## chilango (May 12, 2013)

Trealover said:


> It's sometimes possible to create a superb example of something boring and worthy.



Yes. Isn't it?

Who the fuck are you anyway?


----------



## chilango (May 12, 2013)

treelover said:


> Land and Freedom, Kes, Cathy Come Home
> 
> bit worried though, doesn't Ken support some of the U.S's enemies?



Looking for Eric

Wind that shakes the barley


----------



## Trealover (May 12, 2013)

chilango said:


> Looking for Eric
> 
> Wind that shakes the barley


 

Both boring and worthy.


----------



## chilango (May 12, 2013)

Trealover said:


> Both boring and worthy.



Bye bye...


----------



## Trealover (May 12, 2013)

treelover said:


> Land and Freedom, Kes, Cathy Come Home


 
Worthy. Boring.


----------



## Trealover (May 12, 2013)

chilango said:


> Bye bye...


 

Boring, worthy and only watched by middle class liberals.


----------



## treelover (May 12, 2013)

please change your name, see FAQ


----------



## Trealover (May 12, 2013)

treelover said:


> please change your name, see FAQ


 

Don't worry, I'll be gone soon.


----------



## frogwoman (May 12, 2013)

chilango said:


> Ha ha.


----------



## Trealover (May 12, 2013)

treelover said:


> please change your name, see FAQ


 

How do you do it? I can't seem to find how to do it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 12, 2013)

treelover said:


> Actually it sounds promising, one person one vote, sects proposals for observers, struck down, no group affiliation, new committee to stand down immediately founding conference is held. massive arguments but no one left and things were resolved, reps from 55 groups uk wide,


 
The "55 groups" thing, like the claim that there are "200 participants in Brighton", is self deception.

The self regarding idiocy of banning observers from other organisations or group affiliations, while at the same time inviting their members to join as individuals, is simply hilarious. If any largish group on the socialist left actually decide to take them up on that offer, they'll go through these clowns like a wire through cheese. Federalism is a restraint on organised groups simply bloc voting to their heart's content.


----------



## treelover (May 12, 2013)

> Those elected (in alphabetical order) are: Andrew Burgin (M), Terry Conway (F), Merry Cross (F), Felicity Dowling (F), Guy Harper (M), Kate Hudson (F), Chris Hurley (F), Salman Shaheen (M), Bianca Todd (F), Tom Walker (M).


 

Really getting you riled all this, anyway 60% of new committee are women and 50% of future delegates must be women, what do people think of this?

btw, Tom Walker, ex SWP is on committee, they basically re-endorsed the acting one


----------



## treelover (May 12, 2013)

> The self regarding idiocy of banning observers from other organisations or group affiliations, while at the same time inviting their members to join as individuals, is simply hilarious. If any largish group on the socialist left actually decide to take them up on that offer, they'll go through these clowns like a wire through cheese. Federalism is a restraint on organised groups simply bloc voting to their heart's content.


 

What a strange thing to say, you seem to relish it to satiate your anger, so they will put ideology above defending the interests of the many thousands of people who need effective broad based organisations to help them


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 12, 2013)

treelover said:


> What a strange thing to say, you seem to relish it to satiate your anger, so they will put ideology above defending the interests of the many thousands of people who need effective broad based organisations to help them


 
What on earth are you talking about now?


----------



## redsquirrel (May 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Apparently Ken Loach invited him, as chair of TUSC. He turned up. They wouldn't let him in.


Pathetic


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 13, 2013)

right, so received this email from the organisers of Lambeth LU, wasn't able to go to the meeting due to being post operatively laid up, but does anyone have any thoughts on the proposed motions?

"!
Dear comrades, 
Hi Nathan and everyone. 
here is a motion for the Left Unity meeting on Saturday I would like to put to the meeting tonight. I will bring some hard copies along with me. If anyone else needs any photocopying doing if you send it to me - say by 4.00 pm I can do it in the Workers Power office in Camberwell

I assume our agenda will include the national meeting on Saturday- election of delegates, the plans for LU building in Lambeth and future meetings, the NHS demo on 18th May and any local events,  organisation of the group, etc. 

See you all at 6.30 pm

Dave Stockton

Motion to Left Unity national meeting 11 May  2013


Left Unity - as an organisation laying the foundations of a new party - cannot remain inactive and without policies till it has agreed the complete strategy (programme) that a party needs. It order to recruit and consolidate members and participate in ongoing struggles and forums with a clear and distinct message it needs a more limited platform which addresses to the burning issues which face us in 2013-14. 

Consequently it fights to:

Halt the privatisation and destruction of the welfare state - the NHS, public education, social services and pensions - by all means necessary including direct action, occupations, coordinated political strikes.

Unite the rival anticuts campaigns at a national level and unite the different local campaigns into committees of delegates that can plan and execute united action. Together we must formulate a national plan of action. 

Supports the call for a huge demonstration of February 15 2003 proportions as a lunch pad for mass direct action to force out the Tory Lib Dem coalition.

Supports the building of networks of rank and activists in the unions to fight for democracy and militant policies, with the union leaders if possible but without them where necessary.

Fights against racism including  islamophobia and antsemitism, against sexism homophobia and support movements by the unemployed, youth, women and all victims of racism against their oppression

Fights against the capitalist destruction of the environment.

Opposes all the imperialist wars, interventions  and occupations and state repression of civil rights at home in the name of the 'war on terror' or of delivering 'humanitarian aid'.

Supports the Arab revolutions and the fight of the Palestinians to a state and their refugees to return to their homeland.

Supports calls for Europe-wide actions in solidarity with all those fighting the cuts in Greece, Cyprus, Spain, and Eastern European countries like Slovenia and Bulgaria. 

A New Left party should aim to unite all these struggles with a struggle by the working class to put an end to crisis-wracked capitalism and replace it with a democratically planned, ecologically sustainable, socialist system. 

What means are necessary to achieve this goal - whether by a social revolution or by a process of social reform – what sort of government could carry them through - will have to be democratically debated and discussed by the members of the new party before being embodied in a new programme.

"


----------



## love detective (May 13, 2013)

usual building castles in the air stuff isn't it, and this (if i'm reading it correctly).....

_



			Left Unity - as an organisation laying the foundations of a new party - cannot remain inactive and without policies till it has agreed the complete strategy (programme) that a party needs
		
Click to expand...

_...... is total arse about tit in the usual top down lefty assumption that nothing can, or should, be done until the '_complete strategy that a party needs_' has been agreed/decided in advance (not to mention the fact that the phrase used is almost illogical to read_ 'cannot remain inactive until it has....'(?_?). pretty much a snapshot of everything that's wrong about the left and left top down a priori attempts to do something

also amusing that it then argues for a '_more limited platform_' and then goes on to list every single lefty cliche bingo buzz policy under the sun - without any kind of awareness that until the left in this country achieve any kind of credibility, attraction and influence in their own backyard in relation to the day to day dogshit then they are never going to be in a position or carry the weight that enables them to even think about being able to have any influence in relation to any of the things listed on that list

it then shoehorns democracy in at the very end when it comes to talking about the means to achieve the ends but the ends are given in the usual top down a priori way without so much as a recognition that both the ends, and the means to achieve them, should arise out of the process, not be top down inputs into or starting points of the process


----------



## treelover (May 13, 2013)

Don't worry, I don't think that pile of 19 C Left crap was accepted, in fact they are learning and no motions like these manifestos were accepted.

btw, el-ah, unless you were chosen as a delegate, you couldn't have gone anyway, L/U are not doing things in the same old same old way...


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> Supports the call for a huge demonstration of February 15 2003 proportions as a lunch pad for mass direct action to force out the Tory Lib Dem coalition.


 
Firebox getting a bit ahead of themselves here.


----------



## treelover (May 13, 2013)

ah...


----------



## treelover (May 13, 2013)

> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/left-unity-a-critical-appraisal


 
The (tiny) Communists view on LU


----------



## Pickman's model (May 13, 2013)

i'm sure i can't be the only person to read the title of this thread as '14th november movement for lunacy'


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 13, 2013)

love detective said:


> usual building castles in the air stuff isn't it, and this (if i'm reading it correctly).....
> 
> 
> ...... is total arse about tit in the usual top down lefty assumption that nothing can, or should, be done until the '_complete strategy that a party needs_' has been agreed/decided in advance (not to mention the fact that the phrase used is almost illogical to read_ 'cannot remain inactive until it has....'(?_?). pretty much a snapshot of everything that's wrong about the left and left top down a priori attempts to do something
> ...


I think you have misunderstood the statement "cannot remain inactive" to mean must be inactive. That is the opposite of what it said. This is why you think it is the wrong way around.


----------



## love detective (May 13, 2013)

you're right i did read it incorrectly

I had to re-read that phrase about a million times until I got it though!

the criticism still stands though about the 'more limited platform' and democratising of ends & means


----------



## treelover (May 13, 2013)

> The call out from Ken Loach, was refreshing, the use of media to reach the masses, without hesitation I signed up, excited about the potential for the debate about a party that at its’ heart was as passionate about the survival of the welfare state and the working class as I am.
> Hoping that someone else would step forward to take the lead in Northampton, was a pipe dream, so I reached out and I now am the organiser for Northants. Having had five showings of the Spirit of ’45 and over 300 people joining me to see the film, several informal meetings to begin the debate and a first “official” branch meeting connecting Northants imminent; I feel excited about the prospect about meeting each person and sharing the experience of the first national meeting.
> 
> Bianca Todd
> ...


 
There are a few Urbanites in Northampton, maybe the above sounds positive.


----------



## audiotech (May 13, 2013)

Report on first national meeting posted.


----------



## barney_pig (May 13, 2013)

treelover said:


> There are a few Urbanites in Northampton, maybe the above sounds positive.


Watched a loach film 5 times! Talk about Commitment to a cause


----------



## The39thStep (May 14, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Report on first national meeting posted.


 
You involved in this?


----------



## treelover (May 14, 2013)

http://leftunity.org/a-critical-view-of-saturdays-meeting-anti-sectarian-sectarianism/#comment-6580

Dreadful article by Weekly Worker's, Tina Becker, this is not what people were hoping to join, they, the 19c let, really don't get it...


----------



## existentialist (May 14, 2013)

I've just got in touch with the South Wales co-ordinator to see whether it's something I could be a part of. I'm really not particularly political, but it grieves my conscience to stand idly by as the entire political establishment lurches ever-further to the right, and seems to be dragging the unthinking hordes into a kind of underclass-hating frenzy of Thatcheresque self-servingness: I feel I have to do something.


----------



## articul8 (May 14, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://leftunity.org/a-critical-view-of-saturdays-meeting-anti-sectarian-sectarianism/#comment-6580
> 
> Dreadful article by Weekly Worker's, Tina Becker, this is not what people were hoping to join, they, the 19c let, really don't get it...


What is awful about her article?  Seems like the weaknesses she identifies are real enough (whether the CPGB is part of correcting them is another question altogether).


----------



## Pickman's model (May 14, 2013)

articul8 said:


> What is awful about her article? Seems like the weaknesses she identifies are real enough (whether the CPGB is part of correcting them is another question altogether).


it's lletsa  don't worry about it


----------



## existentialist (May 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> it's lletsa  don't worry about it


Treelover == LLETSA?

This is worse than soap opera!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 14, 2013)

Far be it from me to agree with articul8, but Becker's article seems broadly correct in most of its assessments. That treelover is appalled by it only provides further support.

(A small, snide, part of me also enjoyed the horrified responses in the comments to a bit of bracing polemic).


----------



## existentialist (May 14, 2013)

I just found all the Comrade This, Comrade That a bit Animal Farm.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 14, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I just found all the Comrade This, Comrade That a bit Animal Farm.


 
I've been reading the Weekly Worker long enough that I don't even notice that particular affectation.

Which is a depressing thought.


----------



## belboid (May 14, 2013)

treelover said:


> , this is not what people were hoping to join, .


You'd really know about that wouldn't you, considering your own involvement has been... Absolutely zero. You know nothing about what anyone other than you hoped for.


----------



## chilango (May 14, 2013)

It still isn't "anything" yet.


----------



## audiotech (May 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> You involved in this?


 
No, after a CT scan and due now for a MRI scan to confirm that I've a "large cyst" on my brain to be operated on, so literally other things my mind presently. Ain't life shit.


----------



## The39thStep (May 14, 2013)

audiotech said:


> No, after a CT scan and due now for a MRI scan to confirm that I've a "large cyst" on my brain to be operated on, so literally other things my mind presently. Ain't life shit.


 
Sorry to hear that.Take care.


----------



## existentialist (May 14, 2013)

audiotech said:


> No, after a CT scan and due now for a MRI scan to confirm that I've a "large cyst" on my brain to be operated on, so literally other things my mind presently. Ain't life shit.


Ulp. Kind thoughts - good luck.


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2013)

audiotech said:


> No, after a CT scan and due now for a MRI scan to confirm that I've a "large cyst" on my brain to be operated on, so literally other things my mind presently. Ain't life shit.


Told you. Best of and keep us informed as best can


----------



## audiotech (May 15, 2013)

Thanks.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 15, 2013)

audiotech said:


> No, after a CT scan and due now for a MRI scan to confirm that I've a "large cyst" on my brain to be operated on, so literally other things my mind presently. Ain't life shit.


Fuck, best wishes AT


----------



## discokermit (May 15, 2013)

best of luck audiotech.


----------



## audiotech (May 15, 2013)

If it turns out terminal I could take out Ian Duncan Smith with a head-but, with Cameron and Osbourne maimed for life in the ensuing melee, as collateral damage.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 15, 2013)

audiotech said:


> No, after a CT scan and due now for a MRI scan to confirm that I've a "large cyst" on my brain to be operated on, so literally other things my mind presently. Ain't life shit.


 
All the best, they are pretty good at this stuff and I am sure you will soon fighting fit again.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 15, 2013)

Shit to hear. Get well soon.


----------



## butchersapron (May 15, 2013)

audiotech said:


> If it turns out terminal I could take out Ian Duncan Smith with a head-but, with Cameron and Osbourne maimed for life in the ensuing melee, as collateral damage.


You're being held to this.


----------



## treelover (May 15, 2013)

> I’m not a member of any political party. I suppose I’m at the watching stage where Left Unity is concerned. I’m what might be called a disaffected Labour voter. Off I go to the polling booth to do my civic duty. Once there I vote for the Labour Party, even though they don’t have a socialist agenda and perhaps, never really did. I vote for them on the basis that they are best of a bad lot, or the least worse option among the large parliamentary parties. I wouldn’t dream of joining or voting for: “SWP, SP, TUSC, AWL, CPGB, WP, ACI, ISN or any other collection of letters in the alphabet.” That would be an even bigger waste of my time and my vote. Also I am not taken in by entryist, opportunist or those theoretist types,I won’t be listening because I do not have the time. I’m too busy trying cope on a low income; I’m in family with just one earner: blue-collar.
> Its about time people on the Left, broadly, got over the crisis of adulthood, you know the one, where you believe that theories can explain things, and instead started to respect grass-roots working people. I’m not interested in chattering classes theorising about me, but never serving me and my kind. Some of the Left need to cogitate upon the meaning of the servant-leader.
> What is required now is some real social activism in the shape of social service in real neighbourhoods like the one seen the other night in Channel 4′s ‘Skint.’ Help people, open a socialist food bank or canteen in competition with the Trussell Trust. Work. Actions peak louder than words. If the Left had worked rather than talked then perhaps ‘Skint’s’ Dean would still have his job at the steel-works, or at least he wouldn’t have to feed his family on knock-off meat bought from the boot of a car.
> I like “One Member One Vote.” Block votes lost Labour a great deal of credibilty, But don’t assume I’m anti-Trade Unions. Far from it. But I know trade union membership is now alien to many people because there is no union in their work=place or they were conned by Thatcher and some on the Far Left into believing that unions were sights of revolutionary intent.
> ...


 
I think this is great

hope it works out audio...


----------



## audiotech (May 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You're being held to this.


 
The pleasure is all mine:


----------



## barney_pig (May 19, 2013)

Yesterday on the way to work there was a stall in the town centre from the reading trades council. I went over, but having organised a stall, they seemed to have no idea what to do with it. There was no campaigning literature, no leaflets, nothing but a few tuc pamphlets, and a whole pile of back issues of communist review.
 The men on the stal weren't particularly forthcoming either, but at least nobody tried to sell me a morning star.
They got quite peed off when I asked about left unity.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 20, 2013)

audiotech said:


> No, after a CT scan and due now for a MRI scan to confirm that I've a "large cyst" on my brain to be operated on, so literally other things my mind presently. Ain't life shit.


 
sorry to hear this


----------



## nino_savatte (May 20, 2013)

I went to a LU meeting last week. There were only 10 of us. Early days though and this is the YBF Tory-controlled London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham after all.


----------



## audiotech (May 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You're being held to this.


 
On second thoughts I realise class revenge is not Marxist in any real sense, or there would be blood running through the streets and that would serve no purpose whatsoever. However, dealing with fascists is another matter. The Italian partisans for example took a disciplined stance towards Mussolini et al. The execution was carried out by Italian Communist members under the command of senior officers and was neither slow, nor depraved. The hanging from the petrol station was done post-mortem and should be seen in the context of atrocities committed against the Italian population in a vicious partisan war. Similarly, the execution of his inner circle elsewhere was also carried out in a disciplined manner.

Ian Duncan Smith et al will be stripped of all titles, their wealth and homes distributed to the people. Then they will be sent on a work program and will have a three year benefit sanction imposed if they refuse. For all other unemployed workers, this modern form of slavery will be repealed by an elected workers committee, voted in by their peers. A three day working week will be proposed immediately, with what is now the average weekly wage, so no one will ever again suffer (except the above) the indignation of "signing on" for a pittance no one can expect to live on in dignity.


----------



## audiotech (May 20, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> I went to a LU meeting last week. There were only 10 of us. Early days though and this is the YBF Tory-controlled London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham after all.


 
It would be surreal to see you as an elected MP in the House of Commons. If on your arrival to take your seat, will you be reading the oath to the Queen and what will you be basing your maiden speech on?


----------



## nino_savatte (May 21, 2013)

audiotech said:


> It would be surreal to see you as an elected MP in the House of Commons. If on your arrival to take your seat, will you be reading the oath to the Queen and what will you be basing your maiden speech on?


I'd do a Tony Banks and cross my fingers. In my maiden speech, I'd call for an end to the monarchy.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 23, 2013)

There already seem to be some quite significant disagreements between people amongst the core of "Left Unity", particularly over whether or not the new organisation should be socialist in character. On the "socialist" side there are people like Ken Loach and Nick Wrack, on the "of course I'm a socialist but..." side there's Socialist Resistance, Kate Hudson etc.

Nick Wrack:
http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/?p=2148

Terry Conway (of SR):
http://socialistresistance.org/5214/thoughts-from-the-first-national-meeting-of-left-unity

Conway's line of argument is essentially that of the SWP back in the Respect days.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2013)

Of course i'm  stalinist but.

So, fake up a potemkin party then enter it as some non-declared socialist faction.

What is the point - if people want a socialist party there will be one. The creeping around and infecting people by your presence (opposite effect if history is any judge model is dead.


----------



## articul8 (May 24, 2013)

Have you ever heard "Down the Line" with Gary Bellamy on Radio 4 (spoof radio phone-in)?  You are like the asian guy who whatever the topic phones in and says "what is point"?


----------



## treelover (May 28, 2013)

I was think of that programme when my local radio station had a phone in on racism and was asking if there was a caller who was prepared to say he or she had an issue with skin colour,

no one rang

yes, it was a great show, 'down the line' that is.


----------



## Nefarious Moose (Jun 2, 2013)

I've been generally impressed with the Left Unity Leeds group. I've not been politically active in years, 25 years since my student flirtation with the SWP but the anger has reached a point where spoiling my ballot every few years in disgust just ain't cutting it any more. Came across Left Unity just in time to get to their first official public meeting in Leeds mid-April, been to all the fortnightly planning meetings since.

We had the official Leeds launch May 22nd, the report on that's up on Left Unity main site here. Turn-out of around 90, all backgrounds / traditions, aligned and non-aligned alike. Alan Gibbons main speaker really fired everyone up with some straight, plain talking about the failings of the left in recent years that could barely be argued with, he was fucking great. Still waiting for the video of his main speech to come back from editing, this is him wrapping up at the end of the night following around 90 minutes of wide discussion from the floor on the back of his opening speech. Gives a good flavour of why I found him so inspiring, made me sure this was something I wanted to be involved with and make an attempt at. If we fail, we fail but it's gotta be tried. Otherwise we're fucked, these cunts in power will take every last bit of what the labour movement has fought to win over decades, whoever gets in next time, the existing left groups as they are are not a sufficiently united force to challenge it.

Remains to be seen what comes of the launch for us locally. The proof will be in how many of those 90 turn up at meetings in future or out on campaigns on the ground, but there's promise already. One of the guys is an organiser for KONP in Leeds. He usually has 5-6 out on a Saturday leafletting off his stall in town, 15-16 turned out for them last weekend. We have links with Hands Off our Homes, some of their activists have been turning out to our meetings, we'll reciprocate for theirs and have already for their demos. We have various trades union activists onboard, ex and current members of the usual suspects on the revolutionary left that will help us forge links there. We've turned out to the anti-EDL demos recently standing under our Left Unity banner. Some would have done that anyways through other groups they're involved with, some like me wouldn't have so in a small way we've already added to the ranks standing against them. 

There are tensions, different traditions and approaches that we will have to reconcile or agree to put to one side so we can work together but we're working well together so far and have achieved a good bit in a very short time frame with no bloody budget on the launch. I'm quietly optimistic we can take this forward. Nationally, who knows?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 2, 2013)

Some people think that Left Unity is the finished product. It's still early days.


----------



## Nefarious Moose (Jun 2, 2013)

Finished product? Fuckin' 'ell, give us chance people! For most of us it's only a few weeks old locally, nationally the 'party' exists only as a temporary steering committee formally, it doesn't even have members, as such. Not the card-carrying, subs-paying kind, we're more a coalition of the willing trying to build it, networking organically through unity in action on the ground. The 'product', whatever it is, is a work in progress we've barely even begun. That's precisely the point isn't it: we can all have a role in shaping a new, bottom-up, democratic party of the left. So long as we get involved, and stay involved. Democracy from below in action.


----------



## treelover (Jun 2, 2013)

good post, but can I ask why you haven't ben politically active for over 25 years?, some pretty bad things have happened in that time


----------



## treelover (Jun 2, 2013)

> *Left Unity: An Open Letter To The Left*
> This is an invitation to all working class and socialist organisations to participate in the official launch of Sheffield Left Unity on Saturday 29 June. The event will take place at the Central United Reformed Church (S1 2JB) at 1pm.
> 
> 
> http://leftunity.org/sheffield-left-unity-open-letter/


 

The Sheffield one seems to be about reconstructing the elements of the left and at present is dominated by Trotskyists and Communists, no Left Libertarian input and with little new thinking(though it is early days) it doesn't seem at present to be involving the sort of people like yourself who are immersing themselves in other LU groups across the UK.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 2, 2013)

Miseryguts.


----------



## treelover (Jun 2, 2013)

fuck off, I want it to succeed, but it has to be more open, don't shoot the messenger


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 2, 2013)

treelover said:


> fuck off,* I want it to succeed, but it has to be more open, don't shoot the messenge*r


 
Do you really? That's not what it looks like. From where I'm standing, it looks like you're hoping for a stillbirth.


----------



## treelover (Jun 2, 2013)

what I have posted is a fair representation, look at the flyer, don't shoot the messenger


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 2, 2013)

treelover said:


> what I have posted is a fair representation, look at the flyer, don't shoot the messenger


 
Eh? Maybe in your mind, it's a "fair representation" but it looks like abject pessimism.


----------



## treelover (Jun 2, 2013)

I really don't care what you think, until non aligned people get more involved here, it will be the same old same old...


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 2, 2013)

Yeah, I know you don't care. I mean, how many LU groups are you aware of? You seem to be basing your view on the example of one group. Is that fair or reasonable? No, it isn't.


----------



## treelover (Jun 2, 2013)

Read it again! I was describing as fair as I could one local group, much more optimistic nationally


----------



## Nefarious Moose (Jun 2, 2013)

treelover said:


> good post, but can I ask why you haven't ben politically active for over 25 years?, some pretty bad things have happened in that time


 
No shit!?  Good question Treelover. I was pretty indisposed most of the 90s, up to about 2001, neither use nor ornament to anyone for reasons I won't go into at this stage. And I'd kinda trusted that once Labour had finally taken power back they'd undo some of the Tory's worst excesses and we'd see some real radicalism from them. Yup, I was _that_ naive. What a dumbass! Thoroughly disabused of that by the end of Blair's first term of course.

Thought about getting involved with Labour to fight from the inside, decided that was a dead end under Blair with the huge shift to the right pursuing the Middle England vote, PLP / front bench seemingly entirely disconnected from the bulk of the activist party members as I saw it, verging contemptuous of them even as far as direction went. Thought about getting involved with StWC to see where that went, but felt that doomed to fail and also wary of what I saw as an SWP front I wasn't sure I wanted to be involved with too much anyways once we'd gone to war, as seemed inevitable. No disrespect to good SWPers everywhere but I think their approach, and that of similar parties on the revolutionary left is doomed to fail, in the short to medium term certainly, possibly forever. It does not have mass appeal for the vast bulk of the working class they claim to represent, not in this country, such is the completely atomised working class in the main these days. That didn't seem to leave too many options not being in the kind of work conducive to trade union activism either. And then personal problems reared their head again similar to those that had left me neither use nor ornament to anyone previously. So that was that.

Like I said earlier, the anger is finally there enough to get me off my arse and attempt something, I can't not fight back against what this Govt are doing somehow. It may be too late to do anything much about it but this ruthless assault on the poor has to be fought. LU seems as good a vehicle as any at the moment to try and do that, better placed than some perhaps because it is new and trying to break with the past to a large extent I think.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 3, 2013)

treelover said:


> good post, but can I ask why you haven't ben politically active for over 25 years?, some pretty bad things have happened in that time


 
I can't speak for anyone else, but your question probably applies to me, and maybe my answer will have some bearing on other people's motivation.

I've been fairly resolutely apolitical throughout my adult life, mainly because every political organisation I've looked at has been pretty comprehensively off-target from my personal philosophies - the naked greed of the Tory right is just as offensive to me as the (to me) extravagant idealism of the leftist groups. Where I have voted for a mainstream party in the past, it's usually been Liberals or Libdem, but even there I've been metaphorically holding my nose as I have done so, and the debacle of the Coalition has made me realise that I was probably only voting that way so as to ensure I was voting for a party that would never have the opportunity to let me down by actually getting into power. I guess, to most politically active types, I would probably be seen as enormously (politically) naive!

Looking at my views from a non-party-political perspective, I am definitely a small-s socialist, and an equally small-l liberal, and I care very much about the idea that government should, somehow, represent ALL of the people, not just a particular section of it. Left Unity at least holds the potential, given that it is unformed as yet, to be something that could be less representative of a "workers'" or a "bosses'" faction and more capable of sustaining an ideology that isn't essentially politically motivated. Of course, I could be looking back on this a year or more hence and bitterly regretting my idealism, but right now it seems about the only active force that stands a chance of not being hidebound by some kind of political ideology.

On top of that is a feeling that, unless I can say to myself that I at least tried something, I'm not really qualified to bitch about what we do end up with. At the moment, that looks like a Conservative party that has spent three decades fighting itself in order to find a balance between hard-right free-market capitalism (which is anathema to me) and some kind of electorally less suicidal moderate figleaf, a Labour Party which would like to claim that it is somehow representative of ordinary people, but seems to be having the same struggle not to end up in the pockets of those who seem to see society as a resource to be exploited wherever it's possible to get away with it.

I don't know if LU will become that. I think it is probably unlikely, given the prevalence of a lot of ideologically-driven groups within it already, but maybe the difference will be people like me getting involved who can help drive it towards an agenda that's less about ideology and more about people (and society).

Our local group (South West Wales) seems to be very inactive, and somewhat demoralised - I spoke to the local organiser who seemed despondent that the group had only 11 members, but bereft of ideas as to what to do about that. I think I could get quite a few people with a similar outlook to mine to join up, but I wonder if I would be better recruiting them to the existing group, or pushing my own ideas instead. I guess I'll at least try to gee things up a bit in the current group before I make any decisions on that score...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 5, 2013)

Apparently the left unity tweeted a link to this petition which seems to want to make it illegal for social services to take at risk children into care unless their parents have already been convicted with a criminal offence. I hope that's some kind of mistake, otherwise I think they may be taking this 'UKIP of the left' thing a little bit too seriously.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 6, 2013)

treelover said:


> Read it again! I was describing as fair as I could one local group, much more optimistic nationally


 

I've read it and I'm still not convinced.


----------



## treelover (Jun 6, 2013)

your problem, we need a decent left of centre party to oppose NL, in my home town, it isn't looking serious, I want it to get more than .04 of the vote.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 6, 2013)

treelover said:


> your problem, we need a decent left of centre party to oppose NL, in my home town, it isn't looking serious, I want it to get more than .04 of the vote.


 
No, it isn't my "problem", it' your problem and it's also the problem of those whose self-defeatism and tribalism prevents any real progress. I take it you've come across the phrase "self-fulfilling prophecy"? Do you really thinking you can build a mass movement in the blink of an eye? Think on.


----------



## mk12 (Jun 6, 2013)

Is the SWP involved in this?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 6, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Apparently the left unity tweeted a link to this petition which seems to want to make it illegal for social services to take at risk children into care unless their parents have already been convicted with a criminal offence. I hope that's some kind of mistake, otherwise I think they may be taking this 'UKIP of the left' thing a little bit too seriously.


 
Yeah, the key word here is "apparently".


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 6, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Is the SWP involved in this?


 
In my wee group of 10, there are 2 ex-SWP, 1 ex-SLP, a former French tankie, 2 SP members. The rest (including myself) are non-aligned.


----------



## treelover (Jun 6, 2013)

eh,


nino_savatte said:


> No, it isn't my "problem", it' your problem and it's also the problem of those whose self-defeatism and tribalism prevents any real progress. I take it you've come across the phrase "self-fulfilling prophecy"? Do you really thinking you can build a mass movement in the blink of an eye? Think on.


 
Eh, that's my whole point, we can't do the same old same old, as these remnants of failed 19th C ideologies seem to want to do, it will be a long hard slog, though they seem to want to jump on the 'sexy' issues.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 6, 2013)

treelover said:


> eh,
> 
> 
> Eh, that's my whole point, we can't do the same old same old, as these remnants of failed 19th C ideologies seem to want to do, it will be a long hard slog, *though they seem to want to jump on the 'sexy' issues.*


 
That's a generalisation.


----------



## treelover (Jun 6, 2013)

I'm talking about one branch, others seem very innovative


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 6, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Yeah, the key word here is "apparently".


 
I said apparently because I hadn't seen the tweet with my own eyes but the person who told me about it wasn't likely to have made it up - if he was I wouldn't have posted without checking first.

And what would you know? He wasn't making it up. So is the key word still apparently nino?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 6, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I said apparently because I hadn't seen the tweet with my own eyes but the person who told me about it wasn't likely to have made it up - if he was I wouldn't have posted without checking first.
> 
> And what would you know? He wasn't making it up. So is the key word still apparently nino?


 
People often tweet or retweet stuff they don't agree with or endorse. Eh, norm?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 6, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> People often tweet or retweet stuff they don't agree with or endorse. Eh, norm?


 
Come on, that's feeble.




*Left Unity* ‏@*LeftUnityUK* 
EU Parliament: Abolish Adoptions without Parental Consent http://fb.me/Wvs2fYUO 


 *Reply* 
 *Retweet* 
 *Favorite*
*They're quite clearly putting it out there for people to sign. It's not a retweet, they're tweeting it.*

As I said, I hope it's a mistake. It's not really for me to request that it's taken down as I'm not involved in LU but if I was I'd be concerned about it and I'd want to find out why it happened. Your dismissive attitude towards this seems pretty irresponsible.

I wonder what you'd be saying if the IWCA or someone else that offends your liberal sensibilities had posted it.


----------



## belboid (Jun 6, 2013)

treelover said:


> your problem, we need a decent left of centre party to oppose NL, in my home town, it isn't looking serious, I want it to get more than .04 of the vote.


the Socialist Alliance - full of all those old trots and commies you hate - got more than 300 times .04% last time we stood here. So your 'analysis' seems rather...shite. As does your desire for a 'left of centre' party - we have several of those already. Join the Greens, that's what you want after all.


----------



## belboid (Jun 6, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> *They're quite clearly putting it out there for people to sign. It's not a retweet, they're tweeting it.*


it looks like there is one person for whom this is THE issue, and she has the ear of.....well, whoever controls the LU twitter account at least. That is part of the problem of not having any firm policy and a non-hierarchical 'anyone can post anything' - some right old shite gets out their amidst the decent stuff.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 6, 2013)

That tweet seems pretty ill-considered to me.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 6, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Come on, that's feeble.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 



> As I said, I hope it's a mistake. It's not really for me to request that it's taken down as I'm not involved in LU but if I was I'd be concerned about it and I'd want to find out why it happened. Your dismissive attitude towards this seems pretty irresponsible.


 
Oh? It's interesting how that tweet doesn't appear on the timeline on the website.
http://leftunity.org/



> I wonder what you'd be saying if the IWCA or someone else that offends your liberal sensibilities had posted it.


 
Oh, I'm a "liberal" because I disagree with you or ask questions about the IWCA? Now that really is feeble... and lazy.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 6, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Oh? It's interesting how that tweet doesn't appear on the timeline on the website.
> http://leftunity.org/
> 
> 
> ...


 
No, you're a liberal because, well, you're a liberal. I disagree with the IWCA on plenty of things, I ask questions about the IWCA. I mentioned them to try and make you think about how it looks to those of us on the outside and to those who don't just try and come up with knee-jerk rationalisations for this kind of stuff.

Thankfully there are grownups on this site too and one of them has answered my question sensibly and honestly.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 6, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> No, you're a liberal because, well, you're a liberal. I disagree with the IWCA on plenty of things, I ask questions about the IWCA. I mentioned them to try and make you think about how it looks to those of us on the outside and to those who don't just try and come up with knee-jerk rationalisations for this kind of stuff.


 
Rubbish. You don't even know me IRL. What you're actually saying is that anyone who doesn't support the IWCA's position is a "liberal". Yeah, that's really weak. You've sort of taken our disagreement personally. Haven't you? 



> Thankfully there are grownups on this site too and one of them has answered my question sensibly and honestly.


 
Yeah, that's right, use the old "grown ups" line. Says a lot about your debating skills.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 6, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Rubbish. You don't even know me IRL. What you're actually saying is that anyone who doesn't support the IWCA's position is a "liberal". Yeah, that's really weak. You've sort of taken our disagreement personally. Haven't you?


 
Not really no, why would I take it personally? You're pretty much the dictionary definition of a wet liberal though - your politics is all about wishful thinking and denying anything inconvenient. It's a classic case.





nino_savatte said:


> Yeah, that's right, use the old "grown ups" line. Says a lot about your debating skills.


 
Well it does seem a bit childish to first deny what had happened happened, then to claim they tweeted it, without any kind of critical comment, because they disagree with it. Then to continue to try and avoid explaining it. Belboid just gave a straight answer. I don't really understand why you couldn't have done that, or if you didn't know why just say so. It's just a bit childish.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 6, 2013)

belboid said:


> it looks like there is one person for whom this is THE issue, and she has the ear of.....well, whoever controls the LU twitter account at least. That is part of the problem of not having any firm policy and a non-hierarchical 'anyone can post anything' - some right old shite gets out their amidst the decent stuff.


yeah, ive a lot of experience of working with simliarly not too structured places and this kind of thing happens all the time - you have to let it slide... the logical conclusion of an Official Line being put to the test at every turn means you end up with a Pravda model - either that or have a concensus achieving meeting before anyone does anything.


----------



## belboid (Jun 6, 2013)

well, the twitter account has had a couple of complaints about that tweet now, lets see if owt comes of it (or if they just think Sheffield is full of social services loving liberals, or summat).

Cant help but think of 'Ladybird, Ladybird' and its attitude to social workers (that caused some really cracking debate in the SWP between the social workers and.. well, everyone else), and I wonder of that has anything to do with why anyone might have thought said tweet was a good idea in the first place.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 6, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Not really no, why would I take it personally? You're pretty much the dictionary definition of a wet liberal though - your politics is all about wishful thinking and denying anything inconvenient. It's a classic case.


 
Really? That's breathtaking stuff coming from someone I've never met and who's never met me. Don't give up the day job, norm.



> Well it does seem a bit childish to first deny what had happened happened, then to claim they tweeted it, without any kind of critical comment, because they disagree with it. Then to continue to try and avoid explaining it. Belboid just gave a straight answer. I don't really understand why you couldn't have done that, or if you didn't know why just say so. It's just a bit childish.


 
Your imagination is working overtime here. But did you ask me a direct question about the tweet? Well, you didn't. The question you asked was " So is the key word still apparently nino"?  It's interesting how the tweet in question doesn't actually appear on the website's timeline.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 6, 2013)

Oh and for the record, how is the IWCA thread related to this one?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 6, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Really? That's breathtaking stuff coming from someone I've never met and who's never met me. Don't give up the day job, norm.
> 
> 
> 
> Your imagination is working overtime here. But did you ask me a direct question about the tweet? Well, you didn't. The question you asked was " So is the key word still apparently nino"? It's interesting how the tweet in question doesn't actually appear on the website's timeline.


 

You really do need to grow up.



nino_savatte said:


> Oh and for the record, how is the IWCA thread related to this one?


 
It isn't. Nobody said it was. I wanted you to consider what you'd think about it if it were a group you don't approve of that had posted it - the only person who has mentioned the IWCA thread is you so maybe you should be asking that question of yourself.

Anyway, I've got better things to do than help you ruin this thread so that's it from me.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 6, 2013)

belboid said:


> Cant help but think of 'Ladybird, Ladybird' and its attitude to social workers (that caused some really cracking debate in the SWP between the social workers and.. well, everyone else), and I wonder of that has anything to do with why anyone might have thought said tweet was a good idea in the first place.


 
What was ladybird ladybird?


----------



## belboid (Jun 6, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> What was ladybird ladybird?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladybird,_Ladybird_(film)

Christ, its twenty years old!  A great film, Loach at his peak. About a woman and her struggle with social services to get her kids back.  At one point she does walk into a door, and I'm sure you can guess the consequences.

I'm not doing it justice, one of Kens best.


----------



## mk12 (Jun 6, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> In my wee group of 10, there are 2 ex-SWP, 1 ex-SLP, a former French tankie, 2 SP members. The rest (including myself) are non-aligned.


 
OK, cheers. Do you have a local SWP?

Is there a national 'line' on Left Unity amongst the party?


----------



## treelover (Jun 6, 2013)

thinking of getting involved, you would be welcomed.


----------



## Nefarious Moose (Jun 6, 2013)

Missed my first meeting last night of the Leeds group but had the minutes through this morning and a quick chat with one of the core members. Thirty-two in attendance plus three apologies for absence makes it our biggest planning meeting so far with a few new faces, some thought to have come forward from the public launch meeting, some apparently finding their way to it after conversations with members out campaigning on the ground, anti-EDL demo we attended last weekend for instance. Continues to bode well, I'm encouraged by it. It's all baby steps at the minute as we find our feet and we've got to work at retaining those whose curiosity gets them to their first meeting but I'd call that a positive development at this stage. Onwards and upwards. 

I would strongly encourage anyone who hasn't yet to get to their local group meetings. What can it hurt? I would rather try and fail than never try at all. Never even making the beginning is a guarantee of failure, if it doesn't come off we only have ourselves to blame for not making it happen.


----------



## caleb (Jun 6, 2013)

Nefarious Moose said:


> I would strongly encourage anyone who hasn't yet to get to their local group meetings. What can it hurt? I would rather try and fail than never try at all. Never even making the beginning is a guarantee of failure, if it doesn't come off we only have ourselves to blame for not making it happen.


 
Yeah, but the issue isn't 'trying' but trying the same thing and failing in the same way. Endlessly.


----------



## treelover (Jun 6, 2013)

Watch it, you will get shouted down...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 6, 2013)

treelover said:


> Watch it, you will get shouted down...


 
Can't you change the record? I have as many criticisms of the trad left and how they played a part in their own downfall as you - but your incessant whining doesn't help outline or address them in any way. Nor does your ridiculous flip side that LU has changed the face of the left and a definitive recomposition has now taken place boosterism. Think about how you behave on here - as you have counseled so many others to do.


----------



## treelover (Jun 10, 2013)

First appearance on T.V of someone representing Left Unity: member Salman Shaheen debates the thoroughly unpleasant Dan Hodges on Millibands welfare speech


----------



## ayatollah (Jun 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> First appearance on T.V of someone representing Left Unity: member Salman Shaheen debates the thoroughly unpleasant Dan Hodges on Millibands welfare speech[/quote
> 
> As a Left Unity Supporter I was a wee bit embarrassed by Salman's performance I  have to admit. Sincerity alone wont cut it in "managed" TV "debate". Hopefully the next Left Unity spokesperson, or even Salman after some appropriate "media training" , won't be almost paralysed with stagefright when putting over the message !   Setting aside his GIGANTIC character flaws and utterly crap politics, Left Unity will need someone with the unflappable self confidence and glib grasp of key arguments,  of a George Galloway (but NOT George , PLEEEESE) to make any headway against the effortless Tory  popular ideology bullshitting of Dan Hodges and his ilk ,and the built in biase of the usual anchorman/woman "shaping the debate".  Notice how the TV anchorman deliberately talked right across the Left Unity spokesperson's crucial point pinning  the austerity crisis on the banking crisis  rather than welfare spending. Nice suit and tie  though !


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> First appearance on T.V of someone representing Left Unity: member Salman Shaheen debates the thoroughly unpleasant Dan Hodges on Millibands welfare speech




Was he on the weakest link as a rep of Left Unity?


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> thinking of getting involved, you would be welcomed.


 
The last timeMatt was involved in any thing was Milton Keynes Respect until two posters on here hacked their bulletin board


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 10, 2013)

coochie coo


----------



## mk12 (Jun 12, 2013)

I'm tempted to go along to a local meeting and see what this is about, but their Facebook page seems to suggest they will focus on the usual lefty stuff. They're advertising demonstrations against the EDL, in support of the Turkish people etc. Nothing on working within the local community on issues that directly affect them.


----------



## treelover (Jun 12, 2013)

http://leftunity.org/


yes, I've notice just over the last couple of weeks the move to the usual, but have you looked on the website, its a bit more concrete, the members and organisers appear to have lots of experience of working on campaigns, housing, NHS, benefits, etc.


----------



## mk12 (Jun 12, 2013)

Hmmm. Even skimming through that link confirms my fears. Hopefully I'm wrong.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 12, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Hmmm. Even skimming through that link confirms my fears. Hopefully I'm wrong.


 
From the comment section on the IWCA site:

“It speaks volumes that in a period of a prolonged capitalist crisis that it speaks to and for only itself.” Paul B

DD: "Watching the development of LU is instructive. As the name suggests it once again sees left unity as the solution even though it has repeatedly been demonstrated, adding one former trot to another former trot does not make for prescience. But once more they have rallied around unity rather than an analysis, much less a strategy. The siren voices, as the majority see, or will see it, calling for some type of IWCA lite approach will be silenced if they haven’t already been.
For the loudest voces the starting point is as usual all about ‘we must _be_’ (‘internationalist’…tick…)rather than than look at the situation objectively first, and then declare ‘what we must _do_’ and let the political programme follow from that. Instead they are starting with the checklist, so regardless of the intentions of at least some to learn from the past blunders, the box ticking will lead them right back to where they started."


----------



## treelover (Jun 12, 2013)

post on the site, they need to know these criticisms.


----------



## chilango (Jun 12, 2013)

treelover said:


> post on the site, they need to know these criticisms.



They've already heard, and dismissed, them.


----------



## treelover (Jun 12, 2013)

Joe Reilly said:


> From the comment section on the IWCA site:
> 
> “It speaks volumes that in a period of a prolonged capitalist crisis that it speaks to and for only itself.” Paul B
> 
> ...


 
only online by a few prolific posters on the site, but yes, cries of 'racist' 'xenophobe' would go up.


----------



## treelover (Jun 12, 2013)

chilango said:


> They've already heard, and dismissed, them.


 
only the few have


----------



## chilango (Jun 12, 2013)

treelover said:


> only the few have



The "few" who are setting the tone/agenda etc.


----------



## mk12 (Jun 12, 2013)

Joe Reilly said:


> From the comment section on the IWCA site:
> 
> “It speaks volumes that in a period of a prolonged capitalist crisis that it speaks to and for only itself.” Paul B
> 
> ...


 
Christ that pretty much sums up exactly what I'm thinking. I can't complain though; I should go along to a meeting and see for myself. Maybe there are others there who would advocate an "IWCA lite" approach that I think would be more worthwhile.


----------



## mk12 (Jun 12, 2013)

chilango said:


> The "few" who are setting the tone/agenda etc.


 
The "here we go again" moment happened when I read that Loach thinks Left Unity should declare itself as explicitly socialist. The fact that this is even discussed as relevant at this point is disheartening.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 12, 2013)

mk12 said:


> The "here we go again" moment happened when I read that Loach thinks Left Unity should declare itself as explicitly socialist. The fact that this is even discussed as relevant at this point is disheartening.


can you explain that a bit more please


----------



## belboid (Jun 12, 2013)

mk12 said:


> The "here we go again" moment happened when I read that Loach thinks Left Unity should declare itself as explicitly socialist. The fact that this is even discussed as relevant at this point is disheartening.


but without that, it'd just be another Greens at best, or Respect at worst. No?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jun 12, 2013)

belboid said:


> but without that, it'd just be another Greens at best, or Respect at worst. No?


Being "explicitly socialist" isn't going to change the actual character of the organisation either way, is it?


----------



## belboid (Jun 12, 2013)

No, not really.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 12, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> Being "explicitly socialist" isn't going to change the actual character of the organisation either way, is it?


the character of the organisation is still being formed - from what I hear there's real debates going on there over that.


----------



## ayatollah (Jun 12, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Christ that pretty much sums up exactly what I'm thinking. I can't complain though; I should go along to a meeting and see for myself. Maybe there are others there who would advocate an "IWCA lite" approach that I think would be more worthwhile.


 
So what exactly is this , highly euphemistic,  "IWCA lite" approach you are advocating Left Unity adopt, in a little more specific  policy detail , Mk 12 ? It implies  a bit more  than simply  "getting out on the landings" on working class estates now doesn't it, let's be honest ? Left Unity's various component groups are doing that all over the UK already in a host of campaigns. And, yes, we've already had the dodgy suggestions about supporting immigration controls made . Didn't go down well.

The overwhelming majority of Left Unity supporters who have responded to the Ken Loach Appeal to form a new radical Left party to replace  Labour are socialists, of one stripe or another, revolutionery, radical, or reformist.  This was quite overwhelmingly clear from the views expressed at the 11th May London delegate meeting, and are  therefore intrinsically, against immigration controls under capitalism, thoroughly internationalist in outlook  in seeking to build solidarity action with workers all over the world, and perfectly comfortable with our multicultural society (in its conventionally understood meaning - rather than the special IWCA "its all a state conspiracy to undermine working class consciousness"  interpretation).

It is therefore difficult to see how the avowedly non socialist ( indeed consistently , abusively, rabidly, anti-Left), pro immigration controls, dodgily positioned on "multiculturalism",  failed old  IWCA project , with its peculiarly  restrictive, entirely localist, self help within capitalism , solely  unskilled  manual  white working class,  focus, actually has any potential political or philosophical "point of contact" with any of the key objectives of the majority of Left Unity's supporter base.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 12, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> It is therefore difficult to see how the avowedly non socialist ( indeed consistently , abusively, rabidly, anti-Left), pro immigration controls, dodgily positioned on "multiculturalism", failed old IWCA project , with its peculiarly restrictive, entirely localist, self help within capitalism , solely unskilled manual white working class, focus, actually has any potential political or philosophical "point of contact" with any of the key objectives of the majority of Left Unity's supporter base.


 
Always thought you were a thick mental old cunt, now you've just proved it


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> So what exactly is this , highly euphemistic, "IWCA lite" approach you are advocating Left Unity adopt, in a little more specific policy detail , Mk 12 ? It implies a bit more than simply "getting out on the landings" on working class estates now doesn't it, let's be honest ? Left Unity's various component groups are doing that all over the UK already in a host of campaigns. And, yes, we've already had the dodgy suggestions about supporting immigration controls made . Didn't go down well.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of Left Unity supporters who have responded to the Ken Loach Appeal to form a new radical Left party to replace Labour are socialists, of one stripe or another, revolutionery, radical, or reformist. This was quite overwhelmingly clear from the views expressed at the 11th May London delegate meeting, and are therefore intrinsically, against immigration controls under capitalism, thoroughly internationalist in outlook in seeking to build solidarity action with workers all over the world, and perfectly comfortable with our multicultural society (in its conventionally understood meaning - rather than the special IWCA "its all a state conspiracy to undermine working class consciousness" interpretation).


 
Is the second paragraph supposed to be an example of the sort of  "specific policy detail" that you demand in the first? A series of well-worn platitudes?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 12, 2013)

The IWCA haven't actually ever called for immigration controls have they?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> The IWCA haven't actually ever called for immigration controls have they?


 
They didn't exclusively organise white working class unskilled workers either


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2013)

Nor are they strasserites. I think we can see where ayatollah is coming from here can't we?


----------



## sihhi (Jun 12, 2013)

Nor did the IWCA say immigration is a state conspiracy but suggested it was something closer to an inevitability in modern Western capitalism. Hence the 'Migrants Welcome' style slogans, without demands to actively press the interests of both sections of the w/c were not likely to be very productive.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 13, 2013)

mk12 said:


> The "here we go again" moment happened when I read that Loach thinks Left Unity should declare itself as explicitly socialist. The fact that this is even discussed as relevant at this point is disheartening.


 
Another comment from IWCA site that is even more 'disheartening' though that depends on how you look at it.

Huejack Says:
26 May 2013 at 9:38 pm
Jacob,
Hard to tell at this stage. Although the fact that they [LU] appear to be struggling to agree on how to address the working class/’working people’ suggests they have a fair bit to go. They also seem unduly excited by the 8,000 likes they got following their call to arms. However what does that translate to on the ground – say, maybe at best, 800 activists? Which is not ordinarily to be sneezed at. But then UKIP are approaching the 30,000 actually membership, while EDL scored over 60,000 Facebook likes the other day. The point being that if any sort of impact is to be made is has to be done against prevailing political winds, which makes access to resources even more relevant. Big boys games big boys rules.

All that before you mention strategy and tactics. And the inevitable fall-out from that. As I understand it some within are calling for the adoption of the IWCA strategy without probably fully understanding that this will require more than simply orientating toward the historic constituency. It also requires policies, at a macro and micro level, to be calibrated accordingly. For example the Left as whole are currently trapped behind the 8 ball on identity politics. Treating everyone the same is something the working class understand. Sub-dividing working class forces on the grounds of colour; a house being constantly divided against itself, is understandably a harder sell. So good luck with that.
2) Are the IWCA still active ‘on the ground’? If so, have they abandoned the electoral arena for now?

The IWCA has demonstrated how very very easy it is, on even the flimsiest budget, to fill the vacuum in working class areas. Though they are attention grabbers, having elected Cllrs are not in themselves the name of the game, especially given the limitations of the councils themselves. But what putting up candidates proves is how well or badly the core task of of reconnecting with the working class has been implemented in _between_ the elections. So in that sense having done the pioneering bit we are waiting for the second foot to fall.

Sometimes, as in any other walk of life, you simply have to be patient.


----------



## treelover (Jun 18, 2013)

http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/?p=2256


First big committee meeting, lots of work done and it looks like a serious project, but I get the impression it will go for a open borders position, and Islington LU put forward a proposal, accepted, to focus on anti-racism(in itself laudible, but where are the resources?) hardly anything on austerity, nothing on working class orientation(as opposed to abstractions about w/c) appearing in many ways a bourgeois party, (early days of the French SP, rather than the Dutch SP) I would reckon they are looking at maximum of 4% of vote at present stage


----------



## caleb (Jun 18, 2013)

> Edgar Holyroyd-Doveton presented a proposal on behalf of Percival Films to make a film documentary of Left Unity as it initially developed, with footage from national meetings/conferences and local branches. This was agreed, as long as the NCG had agreed the content before publication




Hahahaha, you what?


----------



## ska invita (Jun 18, 2013)

isnt percival films ken loaches (co-op?) company?


----------



## belboid (Jun 18, 2013)

caleb said:


> Hahahaha, you what?


sounds a bit dull, but what's actually funny?

Holyroyd-Doveton is a councillor in Huddersfield.


----------



## belboid (Jun 18, 2013)

ska invita said:


> isnt percival films ken loaches (co-op?) company?


naah, they're a new small company, also in Huddersfield

e2a:  also, it's Percival*e*, not Percival.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

ska invita said:


> isnt percival films ken loaches (co-op?) company?


 
Nope. That 16 films.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 18, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/?p=2256
> 
> 
> First big committee meeting, lots of work done and it looks like a serious project, but I get the impression it will go for a open borders position, and Islington LU put forward a proposal, accepted, to focus on anti-racism(in itself laudible, but where are the resources?) hardly anything on austerity, nothing on working class orientation(as opposed to abstractions about w/c) appearing in many ways a bourgeois party, (early days of the French SP, rather than the Dutch SP) I would reckon they are looking at maximum of 4% of vote at present stage


 
Bit harsh that I think - there's
"The Policy Commission areas to include the economy, environment, energy, housing, transport, rights, equalities, immigration, welfare, education, health, foreign policy, war, solidarity, international relations, party structures and internal democracy"
im sure austerity/economics and all will be central to everything they are about

The Islington proposal was an addition to something missing from what was discussed, and what with whats been going on the last month would've been an oversite not to include for sure.

Not sure why im defending LU so much on this thread - Im not involved but I do know someone in one of the local groups and I trust his opinion that it has potential and that there's things worth fighting for within it at this stage


butchersapron said:


> Nope. That 16 films.


ah right. 16 suggests it was a name taken from Sweet 16, i thought the coop goes right back to the beginning of his career? Doesnt really matter...


----------



## treelover (Jun 18, 2013)

fair enough, good reply, but I still stand on the fact an open borders position will massively limit support while doing absolutely nothing concrete for people.


----------



## chilango (Jun 18, 2013)

I think the open borders position is a symptom not a cause of the type of people involved.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 18, 2013)

what does open borders mean please


----------



## belboid (Jun 18, 2013)

treelover said:


> fair enough, good reply, but I still stand on the fact an open borders position will massively limit support while doing absolutely nothing concrete for people.


It doesn't actually have an open borders position tho, that's just something you pulled out of thin air.  So far there is nothing concrete to indicate it will.  Sounds like you are just getting your excuses in early.



ska invita said:


> what does open borders mean please


Opposition to immigration controls. For the right of labour to be able to move as freely as capital.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> It doesn't actually have an open borders position tho, that's just something you pulled out of thin air. So far there is nothing concrete to indicate it will. Sounds like you are just getting your excuses in early.
> 
> 
> Opposition to immigration controls. For the right of labour to be able to move as freely as capital.


ah right, of course - thanks.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> Holyroyd-Doveton is a councillor in Huddersfield.


 
Seems alright going by his annual report for 2011-2012


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> For the right of labour to be able to move as freely as capital.


 
'For the right of labour to be able to move as freely as capital' - _in the wake of capital, as a compliment to capital, and at the behest of capital._


----------



## treelover (Jun 18, 2013)

http://leftunity.org/the-left-whats-the-point/

Report from Mark Perryman on Lewes LU meeting, very different and criticism already


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 19, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://leftunity.org/the-left-whats-the-point/
> 
> Report from Mark Perryman on Lewes LU meeting, very different and criticism already


 
Criticism posted by you by any chance? I detect similarities in writing style and monomaniac obsessions and assumptions


----------



## mk12 (Jun 19, 2013)

treelover said:


> fair enough, good reply, but I still stand on the fact an open borders position will massively limit support while doing absolutely nothing concrete for people.


 
Not only will it limit support, it is a completely unrealistic and ridiculous demand by a tiny, newly-formed party. This is the sort of thing I was worried about.


----------



## mk12 (Jun 19, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://leftunity.org/the-left-whats-the-point/
> 
> Report from Mark Perryman on Lewes LU meeting, very different and criticism already


 
Judging by the report, that meeting is far too inward looking. Why are they talking about "the left"? No-one, apart from themselves and Nigel Irritable, give a shit.


----------



## treelover (Jun 19, 2013)

Mk. be great if more people posted these criticisms on their site.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 19, 2013)

It would be great if people wasted their time on talking to an organisation they think are irrelevant about why they think their talking to irrelevant people is irrelevant?


----------



## treelover (Jun 19, 2013)

lots of time to waste,


you?


----------



## belboid (Jun 19, 2013)

why are people in an organisation called left Unity talking about the possibilities of uniting left organisations?  hmm, let me think....

The SLP, the SA and even Respect all came out of a real movement.  They had a base from which to recruit members beyond the sects (even if, ultimately, they didnt do so).  LU doesn't even have that.  Which is why it is dominated by people from, or ex-members of, left groups in the vast majority of areas. Brighton is different, for what should be fairly obvious reasons, but elsewhere...

And what other policies should members disregard their own opinions on?  If we shouldn't vote for our beliefs in migration because they might not be popular, there must be other such policies?  And isn't that normally called substitutionism?


----------



## treelover (Jun 19, 2013)

No one is saying you can't have and argue for your own beliefs, etc, of course you can, open borders is a perfectly valid if idealistic position, it is that this group has only just started and already it seems to be attempting to tie down its membership to a strict set of policies, that is my understanding of what is happening

I really hope they abandon the term 'unity', its makes it all about them, insular, navel gazing, etc.


----------



## belboid (Jun 19, 2013)

Well, so far no one has actually brought up the question of having a no borders policy - except you.  So perhaps you are jumping the gun a tad


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> why are people in an organisation called left Unity talking about the possibilities of uniting left organisations? hmm, let me think....
> 
> The SLP, the SA and even Respect all came out of a real movement. They had a base from which to recruit members beyond the sects (even if, ultimately, they didnt do so). LU doesn't even have that. Which is why it is dominated by people from, or ex-members of, left groups in the vast majority of areas. Brighton is different, for what should be fairly obvious reasons, but elsewhere...
> 
> And what other policies should members disregard their own opinions on? If we shouldn't vote for our beliefs in migration because they might not be popular, there must be other such policies? And isn't that normally called substitutionism?


 

History? What is the history of 'left unity' as a strategy rather than an organisation - the bringing together of the fragments - as a means transforming society? What are the histories of those fragments; are they characterised by success or failure, by location in the working class or distance from it?

If the answers to the above aren't that hopeful, then perhaps the first stages of any left unity project would involve a big dose of humility, intellect and soul searching, and going to the working class where they live and where they work to find out what they think is going wrong.

Then the left might be in a better place to start helping put right those wrongs with solutions which build equality, solidarity and freedom.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## ayatollah (Jun 19, 2013)

treelover said:


> fair enough, good reply, but I still stand on the fact an open borders position will massively limit support while doing absolutely nothing concrete for people.


 
Talk about being clinically obsessed with "immigration" ! Dearie me treelover (AKA, "*********"we've got to have immigration controls" poster ,on the LU site ?), so because Left Unity isn’t likely to embrace support for the entirely divisive and politically distracting (and completely unachievable under capitalism) policy of demanding immigration controls (and why would a radical Left party aimed at uniting all sections of the working class ever do so ?) you have already written the LU project off as ” a bourgeois style party similar to the early French Socialist Party” ! Immigration controls are certainly an absolutely key issue for you !

It is in reality perfectly possible for a party of the Left to work fruitfully on bedroom tax, anti cuts, pensions, hospital closure, anti redundancy and working conditions, campaigns, with people who have a range of racist or semi racist ideas, without having to make concessions to the distracting ideology which “blames the immigrants” – rather than the true cause – capitalism. Getting people with some confused racist ideas involved in joint anti austerity campaigns with people from ethnic minorities is the best way to fight racism – NOT making concessions to anti immigrant prejudices.

You are seriously mistaken in believing that embracing the anti immigration bandwagon wont be surrendering to the hysteria of the capitalist press. The entire historical experience of making “concessions” to anti immigrant sentiment right across Europe , as the “mainstream parties” have done in Greece for years now as an example, is that this simply legitimises the even more extreme racism of the Far Right. What starts as verbal concessions on a limited front – say, against EU migrants – is immediately outflanked by the ever greater , esentially unlimited, racist demands of the fascists. Witness the explosive growth of the Greek, Golden Dawn Nazis, or on a much lesser scale – the rise of UKIP here , riding the wave of irrational anti EU immigrant hysteria whipped up by the popular press, and “outflanking” the relatively petty racism of the Tories and New Labour.

Pandering to the irrational Islamophobia and anti immigrant prejudices present in some sections of the White Working class is simply a recipe for ever greater division within the working class – and a major distraction from fighting , across ethnic divisions, the austerity offensive on its various fronts. For a party of the radical Left to embrace a demand for immigration controls is political suicide. Standing up for the rights of ethnic minorities, women, gays, isn’t actually that slippery and euphemistic term “identity politics” , its basic civilised behaviour – and a core principle of socialism.


----------



## belboid (Jun 19, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> History? What is the history of 'left unity' as a strategy rather than an organisation - the bringing together of the fragments - as a means transforming society? What are the histories of those fragments; are they characterised by success or failure, by location in the working class or distance from it?


what is the history of any organisation seeking to transform society? other than one, it's failure. and, as i am sure you are well aware, most of the mass 'workers organisations' actually came about from the mergers of smaller groups (albeit nowt like as small as the ones involved here).

I dont actually advocate it as a way of creating a mass workers party, but it is hardly surprising that it _is_ being talked about by some of those in LU. Especially as this is a crap time to launch such an initiative. 



> If the answers to the above aren't that hopeful, then perhaps the first stages of any left unity project would involve a big dose of humility, intellect and soul searching, and going to the working class where they live and where they work to find out what they think is going wrong.


 
Many of us do just that in our day to day lives already.  It isn't a massive mystery. And the response is a mixture of national issues, local issues, some are 'progressive' some not.


----------



## likesfish (Jun 19, 2013)

Theres nothing wrong with disliking political islam.
 Open borders is a stupid plan.
   Given the chaos  of the immigration service that seems unwilling or unable to process applications in any timely manner and has been unable to do so for forever.
  Actually thinking about immigration not banning it or making it a free for all.
  But actually thinking about it, who wants to come?
why do they want to come here?
What is the uk going to do with them if they come?
Where are they going to live?
What services are they going to need the cost of these services?
What added value do they bring?
 Immigrants arent a  swan eating evil horde niether are they the best thing since slice bread.
They bring advantages and they bring problems. 
So of the problems are real some are imginary.
  Not listening instead responding with your a racist means people vote BNP

Ayatollah left partys in the uk dont get elected without power your political beliefs are worthless


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Talk about being clinically obsessed with "immigration" ! Dearie me treelover (AKA, "*********"


Note: It is against the FAQ to use real names (unless the poster has his/her name as their user name).


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> *(1)* *what is the history of any organisation seeking to transform society? other than one, it's failure.* and, as i am sure you are well aware, most of the mass 'workers organisations' actually came about from the mergers of smaller groups (albeit nowt like as small as the ones involved here).
> 
> *(2) I dont actually advocate it as a way of creating a mass workers party*, but it is hardly surprising that it _is_ being talked about by some of those in LU. Especially as this is a crap time to launch such an initiative.
> 
> ...


 
1. Success can be a relative measure; how do the histories of the current LU participants (I'm thinking here organisationally rather than individually) measure up to the past experience of, for example, the NUWM, anti-poll tax unions or the NUM? I could have asked about the post war Labour government; I could have gone further back and further away to Spain, Russia or Paris, but that feels like over egging the pudding.

2. Then why are you seeming to defend it? Or am I just reading you wrong?

3. In the report from the Lewes meeting, there is not a hint of the self criticism and the turn outward from the fragments and their texts, which I'm suggesting needs to be a starting point; rather the opposite in fact.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## treelover (Jun 19, 2013)

> *Film: The Condition of the Working Class*
> 
> June 19, 2013
> 
> ...


----------



## treelover (Jun 19, 2013)

This sounds interesting and I imagine a fair few LU groups will show it, only thing is the participants were largely self referred and a number are SWP, hope we don't get lectures, and most are uni educated and not from the worse parts of Salford, etc.


----------



## belboid (Jun 19, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> 1. Success can be a relative measure; how do the histories of the current LU participants (I'm thinking here organisationally rather than individually) measure up to the past experience of, for example, the NUWM, anti-poll tax unions or the NUM? I could have asked about the post war Labour government; I could have gone further back and further away to Spain, Russia or Paris, but that feels like over egging the pudding.


well, quite. This is why I said (in the next bit) that I thought this was a rubbish time for such an initiative to be launched. They all grew organically from real campaigns and mass struggles.  This is being launched following a film. It's hardly the most auspicious start.  Brighton is the only place something interesting might really spring up, given the disillusion with the other soft left alternative to Labour.



> 2. Then why are you seeming to defend it? Or am I just reading you wrong?


I'm unemployed at the mo, fuck all better to do (actually, i lie! i do have to go and sign on in twenty minutes). My point is, given the fact that it isn't coming on the back of any real mass movement, it isnt _surprising_ that it starts from an inward-looking perspective.



> 3. In the report from the Lewes meeting, there is not a hint of the self criticism and the turn outward from the fragments and their texts, which I'm suggesting needs to be a starting point; rather the opposite in fact.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


I think you're being a _tiny bit_ harsh on that report, but only a bit. It's straight out of the old Marxism Today politics, pretty much going 'we had it right all along.'  Some of the comments, if read without knowing exactly where Perryman is coming from already, can be read in a more open way than you (or I) are doing.

In one of his comments he writes the more promising:
It is absolutely vital we explore the reasons why so many who consider themselves on the Left or thereabouts belong to no organisation, let alone a party, and don’t find the cult of activism appealing either.

Shame he rather spoils it by then adding 'But for the sake of providing some space, time and participation we could actually get it right this time' - which makes it sound like he wants it to be a talking shop for a good while yet.  (Although being a talking shop might be a slightly less bad scenario than the rushing into being an electoral body standing in next years Euro's that some want it to be)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> I'm unemployed at the mo, fuck all better to do (actually, i lie! i do have to go and sign on in twenty minutes).


 
Sorry to hear that


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 19, 2013)

ska invita said:


> what does open borders mean please


 
Providing political support for 'for the right of labour to be able to move as freely as capital' - in the wake of capital, as a compliment to capital, and at the behest of capital.


----------



## belboid (Jun 19, 2013)

Joe Reilly said:


> Providing political support for 'for the right of labour to be able to move as freely as capital' - in the wake of capital, as a compliment to capital, and at the behest of capital.


We heard you the first time, joe. If you want to start a thread on your preferred pro-working class migration controls, go right ahead.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> We heard you the first time, joe. If you want to start a thread on your preferred pro-working class migration controls, go right ahead.


 
Deal with what I posted not what you wish i'd posted.


----------



## belboid (Jun 19, 2013)

Joe Reilly said:


> Deal with what I posted not what you wish i'd posted.


we've just had this discussion on another thread, I dont see the point in rehashing it again on another one.  If you want to discuss it, start another thread.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> we've just had this discussion on another thread, I dont see the point in rehashing it again on another one. If you want to discuss it, start another thread.


 
Someone asked a question. You answered it in one way. And I expanded on it. If you didn't feel sufficiently confident to discuss it further you shouldn't post the type of answer that invites clarification.


----------



## caleb (Jun 19, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://leftunity.org/the-left-whats-the-point/
> 
> Report from Mark Perryman on Lewes LU meeting, very different and criticism already


 
Whole new level of shite, this, from the attempt at channelling Marx (and Bragg, LOL) to the 'four principles'. Favourite bit might just be this:



> Today’s inspirations: Caroline Lucas, Glenda Jackson’s speech on Thatcher’s death, Margaret Hodge on taxation, Salma Yaqoob. All women!


Two Labour MPs and a Green scab as inspirations? and does *"all women!"* include Thatcher?


----------



## caleb (Jun 19, 2013)

I hate the way it's framed as a "questioning" of the left, the left's purpose, etc. while simultaneously reinforcing everything shite about left.


----------



## belboid (Jun 21, 2013)

Joe Reilly said:


> Someone asked a question. You answered it in one way. And I expanded on it. If you didn't feel sufficiently confident to discuss it further you shouldn't post the type of answer that invites clarification.


I'm perfectly confident in answering your rather simplistic and partial argument, its not as if its one that hasnt been made and dealt with a thousand times before over the years. I just dont see the point on doing so on every thread. If you want to start a thread on the problem with no borders and what you would do instead, please, go right ahead.

For the purposes of this thread, the way the argument is directly relevant is through the wider argument (within LU) about whether it should be an immediately electoral body, and particularly whether it should stand in next years Euros. Because if it does stand it will obviously need some policies to stand on, and that will include a policy on migration rights, particularly for those from the new accession countries. To simply put an argument about the role migration plays In modern capital wouldn't be good enough at all. That's fine for an abstract propaganda society, but if you are standing for election, you have to say what you would actually _do._

The irony, for LU, is that the people who are pushing for such an electoralist strategy are also the people who would least want it to have a no borders policy. But given the current make up of the organisation, if they do push it to a vote, they'll probably lose.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 21, 2013)

standing in the Euros next year would be suicide for LU.
 Obviously contesting elections should be a key part of their strategy long term if they have a future but they need to build some bases first - this isn't Italy.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> I'm perfectly confident in answering your rather simplistic and partial argument, its not as if its one that hasnt been made and dealt with a thousand times before over the years. I just dont see the point on doing so on every thread. If you want to start a thread on the problem with no borders and what you would do instead, please, go right ahead.
> 
> For the purposes of this thread, the way the argument is directly relevant is through the wider argument (within LU) about whether it should be an immediately electoral body, and particularly whether it should stand in next years Euros. Because if it does stand it will obviously need some policies to stand on, and that will include a policy on migration rights, particularly for those from the new accession countries. To simply put an argument about the role migration plays In modern capital wouldn't be good enough at all. That's fine for an abstract propaganda society, but if you are standing for election, you have to say what you would actually _do._
> 
> The irony, for LU, is that the people who are pushing for such an electoralist strategy are also the people who would least want it to have a no borders policy. But given the current make up of the organisation, if they do push it to a vote, they'll probably lose.


 
You can try and assume the air of effortless superiority if you want but you had your arse kicked on the threads to which you refer. What's more it was you when on the IWCA thread on UKIP who tried to badger someone who isn't in the IWCA to fess up to an IWCA policy on immigration controls that dosen't exist - by using his apparent lack of enthusiastic political support for 'Open Borders' as proof positive of opportunist backsliding/or proto Strasserism as your fellow traveller Ayatollah would have it. 

And when this fictious policy was introduced within LU it was denounced with a moralising flourish and a maximum of self-righteousness. Naturally.

Nice to see the old traditions living on in even the newest formations.

PS: Also amusing too to see your constant self-conscious employment of the term 'migrant'. You may think of this as being uber PC (and a harmless little code word to set you apart) but for me it brings to mind the way 'coloured' was habitually used by racists in 70's.


----------



## belboid (Jun 21, 2013)

Joe Reilly said:


> You can try and assume the air of effortless superiority if you want but you had your arse kicked on the threads to which you refer. What's more it was you when on the IWCA thread on UKIP who tried to badger someone who isn't in the IWCA to fess up to an IWCA policy on immigration controls that dosen't exist - by using his apparent lack of enthusiastic political support for 'Open Borders' as proof positive of opportunist backsliding/or proto Strasserism as your fellow traveller Ayatollah would have it.
> 
> And when this fictious policy was introduced within LU it was denounced with a moralising flourish and a maximum of self-righteousness. Naturally.
> 
> Nice to see the old traditions living on in even the newest formations.


All guff meaning nothing. You would think I had my arse kicked, wouldnt you? No matter what the actual outcome. Likewise you can try and put other peoples words into my mouth, but its a bit rich when you are accusing me of doing the same.

And I didnt 'accuse' the IWCA of having any policy, I said what follows logically from your, Joe Reilly's, argument is....

And it is, I'm afraid, true. Tho you refused to be drawn, when it comes to immigration policy there are only two basic positions, you either have open borders or (at least partially) closed borders. There is no third way. And if you are so vehemently opposed to no borders, you must support some kind of controls. Show where I'm wrong.



> PS: Also amusing too to see your constant self-conscious employment of the term 'migrant'. You may think of this as being uber PC (and a harmless little code word to set you apart) but for me it brings to mind the way 'coloured' was habitually used by racists in 70's.


it may do to you, but that's cos you're obsessed.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> standing in the Euros next year would be suicide for LU.
> Obviously contesting elections should be a key part of their strategy long term if they have a future but they need to build some bases first - this isn't Italy.


 
Lets face it LU is essentially a lingering death


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 21, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Lets face it LU is essentially a lingering death


 
born undead


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 21, 2013)

complications


----------



## audiotech (Jun 22, 2013)

Going by the claimed 8,000 figure registered LU will have some mileage. To where is Keynesianism without Keynes and to quote the old fella in reply to Spanky Longhorn's missive: "In the long run we are all dead". What he meant by that and pointed out in the article linked to is that rather than waiting till the storm is over and the sea flat something can be said in the middle of the storm to be able to weather what's actually happening. "Head in the sand", "can being kicked down the road" is leading nowhere and may exacerbate the situation to where this corrupt, decaying body ends up floating into one hell of a rough storm to catastrophe. 'Hooray' I hear, don't kid yourselves, it won't be sweet. Cynicism from the sidelines and waiting for some Clapham Omnibus to turn up is all very well, but I'm afraid that's likely to make you the undead too, or even worse perhaps? Have you some dacha stuck away in the Icelandic hinterland to escape to? It's not the left that's a joke here it's what's left of the left - casualties from past defeats. And before someone jumps down my throat I include myself in that category.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 22, 2013)

I'll let you off as this is clearly 4.25am drivel.

What you essentially seem to be saying is that critics of LU are simply carping from the sidelines.

Which you know by now isn't the case.


----------



## treelover (Jun 22, 2013)

> It's not the left that's a joke here it's* what's left of the left* - casualties from past defeats.


 
good to see WILOTL taking off as a phrase


----------



## audiotech (Jun 23, 2013)

You see your one off remark, "undead" as not drivel I take it? Nevermind LU, it's carping full stop about the "left" building any initiative to cuts and austerity. It's mindnumbingly tedious, arrogant and actual real drivel, at whatever time of day you choose to post this bollocks. Meanwhile, 4,000 at the people's assembly held yesterday. Oh look, I can see workers.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 23, 2013)

This must have been a key moment of bringing key campaigns tigether



> Social movements such as Occupy have recently brought alternative models of decision making and an anti-systemic critique into the public eye. As a complement to resisting cuts, privatisations and all out attacks on the welfare state this sub-assembly will examine how the People's Assembly might develop a programme of demands to fix our political system while also building a participatory alternative. Its format will be a combination of brief presentations on key reforms and a more participatory discussion about how to take forward a democracy reform programme and building local People's Assemblies.
> Featuring: Mark Barrett (Peoples' Assembly Network), Natalie Bennett (Green Party), Loz Kaye (Pirate Party UK), Richard Bagley (Morning Star), Naomi Colvin (City Reform Group), Corinna Lotz (Agreement of the People, Campaign for a 21st Century Constitution), Bill Greenshields (People's Charter)


----------



## discokermit (Jun 23, 2013)

Joe Reilly said:


> Providing political support for 'for the right of labour to be able to move as freely as capital' - in the wake of capital, as a compliment to capital, and at the behest of capital.


laws against working class people, to help working class people. riiiiiight......


----------



## audiotech (Jun 23, 2013)

The key moment will be if that lot featured, along with a core constituency at a community and workplace level achieve a result, with an alternative to the present austerity measures, that is supported by the vast majority of the British public and the present con dem shambles is no more surely?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 23, 2013)

discokermit said:


> laws against working class people, to help working class people. riiiiiight......


 
like the closed shop you mean?


----------



## ayatollah (Jun 23, 2013)

Joe Reilly said:


> like the closed shop you mean?


 
Advocating campaigning for immigration controls (with its implicit , hugely diversionery, assumption that it is fellow  workers ,rather than the capitalist class and their capitalist system that are responsible for mass unemployment, housing shortages, low wages, welfare cuts) , is hardly a direct parallel to supporting the "closed shop" now is it, let's be honest. There's rather a lot of poisonous  extra "political and ideological baggage" attached to demands for immigration controls, compared to support for trades union imposed "job entry restriction" structures. (Not that many features of "entry restrictive" trades unionism ,particularly Craft Unionism, have historically been particularly progressive, in terms of building politically conscious class solidarity, across occupations, and genders, and ethnicities). Socialists have always had a somewhat ambivalent attitude to "entry restriction" dependent trades unionism - basically because it is divisive of the overall class, and though undoubtedly often effective in securing better wages and conditions for craft unionists, it actually reinforces the idea of the perpetuity of capitalism as a system - within which different sections of the working class just have to forever struggle to "grab their share" , even at the expense of other , perhaps less skilled, or simply less well organised, workers. Rather than working together to replace the entire corrupt system.


It also  always strikes me as peculiar that the claim that restrictions on immigration can be "pro-working class" totally ignores the literally hundreds of thousands of UK workers making a very good living working overseas every year - who would stand to lose their livelihoods if "tit for tat" controls were imposed on their free movement. In addition, it definitely isn't only the bosses who benefit from free labour movement in all circumstances. Anyone cared for in hospital by a "foreign" nurse or doctor, or using the services of a Polish plumber  or dentist or builder can attest to the benefits well beyond the capitalist class. 

 We can approach the fight against the power of capitalist "globalisation" in a number of ways. One route is towards various  kinds of "national autarky" - restricting jobs to "our own folks" (but who's in, and who's out - very dodgy, divisive,  territory in a multi ethnic society), eg, see the programmes of most nationalist Far Right movements. The other route is the socialist one - having a vision of a better society beyond capitalism , and trying to build solidarity in struggle , across all the multitudinous divisions in the broad working class, and building solidarity with workers overseas too - with the aim of replacing the capitalist system with a democratic socialist one based on workers control.


----------



## discokermit (Jun 23, 2013)

Joe Reilly said:


> like the closed shop you mean?


hardly.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 23, 2013)

discokermit said:


> hardly.


 
Anti-fascism then?


----------



## audiotech (Jun 23, 2013)

Race relations law is little used and if brought before the courts can expect a fine in most cases. Racially aggravated assault is another matter.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 23, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Advocating campaigning for immigration controls (with its implicit , hugely diversionery, assumption that it is fellow workers ,rather than the capitalist class and their capitalist system that are responsible for mass unemployment, housing shortages, low wages, welfare cuts) , is hardly a direct parallel to supporting the "closed shop" now is it, let's be honest. There's rather a lot of poisonous extra "political and ideological baggage" attached to demands for immigration controls, compared to support for trades union imposed "job entry restriction" structures. (Not that many features of "entry restrictive" trades unionism ,particularly Craft Unionism, have historically been particularly progressive, in terms of building politically conscious class solidarity, across occupations, and genders, and ethnicities). Socialists have always had a somewhat ambivalent attitude to "entry restriction" dependent trades unionism - basically because it is divisive of the overall class, and though undoubtedly often effective in securing better wages and conditions for craft unionists, it actually reinforces the idea of the perpetuity of capitalism as a system - within which different sections of the working class just have to forever struggle to "grab their share" , even at the expense of other , perhaps less skilled, or simply less well organised, workers. Rather than working together to replace the entire corrupt system.
> 
> 
> It also always strikes me as peculiar that the claim that restrictions on immigration can be "pro-working class" totally ignores the literally hundreds of thousands of UK workers making a very good living working overseas every year - who would stand to lose their livelihoods if "tit for tat" controls were imposed on their free movement. In addition, it definitely isn't only the bosses who benefit from free labour movement in all circumstances. Anyone cared for in hospital by a "foreign" nurse or doctor, or using the services of a Polish plumber or dentist or builder can attest to the benefits well beyond the capitalist class.
> ...


 
First I haven't seen anyone campaign for immigration controls on here. Secondly the closed shop was not restricted to craft unions. It was a hallmark of any industry where the working class were organised. Moreover contrary to the notion that they were exclusive - they were inclusive. Either you joined or you didn't get the job. Apart from the bosses, the other section of society that definitely benefits from the Polish plumber, or the Latvian nanny is of course the middle class - who have the same relationship to immigration as they do to multiculturalism - which is that of 'the consumer'.


----------



## discokermit (Jun 24, 2013)

Joe Reilly said:


> Anti-fascism then?


even less so.


----------



## treelover (Jul 1, 2013)

> Why Labour risks a challenge from the left
> The dispute in Falkirk with Unite shows the potential for disillusioned Labour supporters running for office under a different banner
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/01/labour-risks-challenge-from-left


 

Article in the Guardian, never a better time for left unity?

btw, the big meeting here, wasn't, only about 30 people all day, they had a mike but had to be pressured to use it, downstairs was locked so couldn't use lift...

btw, its not a good article, bigging up UKIP


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 1, 2013)

treelover said:


> btw, its not a good article, bigging up UKIP


 
It's a fucking terrible article. What is Bob Crow's Socialist Party when it's at home? It doesn't go anywhere near the details of the Unite/Progress in-fighting either.

Unite aren't leaving the Labour party. It's not gonna happen.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 2, 2013)

Unite are fighting today in falkirk - that's the limit of their plans and their fight, getting tame union tied labour MPs elected. Nothing else.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 2, 2013)

Len will be happy with that article but what loads of bollocks - and don't be fooled by the Unite - Progress fight that is not a real fight, Progress are more close to Unite than any of the other big unions and there are full time officers who are close to McClusky and are Progress supporters.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 2, 2013)

> Progress are more close to Unite than any of the other big unions


evidence?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> evidence?


 
It's there if you look for it - look at all the recent Progress candidates adopted or nominated recently for selection - either backed by Unite, Community, or Usdaw...

I'm not saying Unite's leadership is in bed with them or owt but there are a lot of Progress types who realise that the most effective union at getting candidates selected is Unite so they tend to join it and seek it's backing.

Close is the wrong word, more like organised in or with.


----------



## treelover (Jul 2, 2013)

http://leftunity.org/where-is-the-radical-left-in-britain-heading-and-where-should-it-go/


Interesting essay here by Sophie Katz, formatting is rubbish though


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 2, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's there if you look for it - look at all the recent Progress candidates adopted or nominated recently for selection - either backed by Unite, Community, or Usdaw...
> 
> I'm not saying Unite's leadership is in bed with them or owt but there are a lot of Progress types who realise that the most effective union at getting candidates selected is Unite so they tend to join it and seek it's backing.
> 
> Close is the wrong word, more like organised in or with.


 
There's loads who join a union of some kind, no matter how right wing they are or how much they hate union influence in the Labour party (or want it to be reduced to a nominal role) it's useful to join one, if only just so they can deflect accusations of being anti-union. Luke Akehurst is a Unite member. Dan Hodges is GMB. None of these people give a fuck about unions in the Labour party. There's a long history of right-wing scum in the union movement anyway, even people like John Golding was a leader member of the Post Office Engineering Union, the forerunner to the CWU, (as was arch blairite Alan Johnson as it goes) and they weren't just doing it to deflect criticism they represent a genuine right-wing tendency in the trade union movement.


----------



## chilango (Jul 2, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://leftunity.org/where-is-the-radical-left-in-britain-heading-and-where-should-it-go/
> 
> 
> Interesting essay here by Sophie Katz, formatting is rubbish though




Hmmm. Didn't think much of it myself. Very flawed in many many ways.


----------



## treelover (Jul 2, 2013)

I can't post much in reply but do expand, it was a bit 'dense' for me.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 2, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> There's loads who join a union of some kind, no matter how right wing they are or how much they hate union influence in the Labour party (or want it to be reduced to a nominal role) it's useful to join one, if only just so they can deflect accusations of being anti-union. Luke Akehurst is a Unite member. Dan Hodges is GMB. None of these people give a fuck about unions in the Labour party. There's a long history of right-wing scum in the union movement anyway, even people like John Golding was a leader member of the Post Office Engineering Union, the forerunner to the CWU, (as was arch blairite Alan Johnson as it goes) and they weren't just doing it to deflect criticism they represent a genuine right-wing tendency in the trade union movement.


 
I know, well done for knowing that though, pat on the head for you


----------



## chilango (Jul 2, 2013)

treelover said:


> I can't post much in reply but do expand, it was a bit 'dense' for me.



It seemed very narrow in its focus. Ignored the Socialist Alliance and pretty much every extra parliamentary movement. Didn't seem to say anything new or even restate old points with any clarity.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 2, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://leftunity.org/where-is-the-radical-left-in-britain-heading-and-where-should-it-go/
> 
> 
> Interesting essay here by Sophie Katz, formatting is rubbish though


 
Obviously has too much time on her hands


----------



## dominion (Jul 2, 2013)

Bad formatting? Unreadable I'm afraid.


----------



## ayatollah (Jul 2, 2013)

dominion said:


> Bad formatting? Unreadable I'm afraid.


 

My comment on Katz's completely incomprehensible article:

This long article seems to me to take a long time to say very little, and then repeats it – but still remains opaque !
If I’ve understood it correctly though Sophie is recognising that the era of Labour Party-type “social democratic” politics is historically over, and the fight against Austerity and capitalism will have to be carried on by new radical political and social campaigning formations. I think Sophie is therefore generally in favour of the Left Unity project to build a new political Party, but I have to admit that I’m not sure even about that critical point – even after rereading the article three times ! .

One things for certain, trying to establish “anti-Austerity blocs” around individual MPs expressing general “opposition to Austerity” around the next 2015 General election , will achieve little but give a bit of “radical gloss” to a few of the “usual suspects” in Westminster – from Caroline Lucas, to the odd Labour Leftie, to George Galloway. In reality any serious political regroupment now is too late to have any impact on the 2015 General Election. Any significant national political restructuring on the radical Left – hopefully around Left Unity, will happen during what will undoubtedly be a deeply depressingly right wing new Labour government after 2015. To build a serious electoral and socially much wider campaigning radical Party and movement of mass opposition to Austerity will require the focus and discipline of a proper, membership-based, political party. “Electoral blocs” just won’t do it – or loose , unstructured, roaming anti Austerity “roadshow” initiatives to promote a few “leftie stars” ,like the Peoples Assemblies.

Lastly , as an anti-stalinist radical socialist I have to say that unlike Sophie who , in a number of posts, has referred to the supposed:

“terrible ideological hangover produced by the collapse of the USSR ”

I would strongly suggest that the huge ,persisting, damage that was done to the cause and reputation of socialism as a political philosophy of human liberation in the eyes of the mass of working class people worldwide, was not the consequence of the COLLAPSE of the Soviet Union – but in the actual historical record/experience of the murderous tyranny of Stalinism in the Soviet Union ( plus China, N. Korea, Eastern Europe) ! The population of the Soviet Union itself was only too happy to see that baleful corrupt system of oppression collapse – not lifting a finger as the Russian mafioso oligarchs, often sourced from the very ranks of the old “communist” elite, stole all the state’s assets to create their new conventional bourgeois capitalist state.
One of the key things a new party of the Radical Left will need to do, is not assume that the crimes of the old Stalinist regimes are now conveniently slipping from popular memory – they haven’t. Instead the radical Left has to robustly denounce the travesty of socialism that the stalinist “state capitalist” tyrannies represented. We must make it clear that the democratic socialist society we see as holding out the promise of a better, fairer, more prosperous future for the majority, will be a fundamentally democratic one with more civil liberties for the majority, not less.


----------



## greenman (Jul 2, 2013)

Amen to that, Ayatollah


----------



## JHE (Jul 2, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Lastly , as an anti-stalinist radical socialist I have to say that unlike Sophie who , in a number of posts, has referred to the supposed:
> 
> “terrible ideological hangover produced by the collapse of the USSR ”
> 
> ...


 

You are half-right.

Yes, the grim putatively socialist tyrannies discredited socialism.

It is _also_ true that the _collapse_ of those regimes discredited socialism. There were people - I was one and perhaps you were another - who hoped and to some extent expected the collapse of the eastern European regimes to lead to some sort of democratic socialism. How naive we were!

While those grim dictatorships and their actually existing socialism existed, many people, including critics of the undemocratic and illiberal nature of those regimes, could believe that there was a feasible alternative to capitalism. The critics thought it would work so much better with a bit more democracy or a bit more freedom, or less 'bureaucracy' or a different bunch of politicians in charge or if the leaders were Trots or whatever.

If fact, as it became increasingly clear that (i) the failures that led to the collapse - I mean the most important of the failures - were economic failures, (ii) the peoples who had lived actually existing socialism tended to vote for anti-socialist parties, either blood-and-soil or all-hail-private-property-and-markets and (iii) most of the other people in the ex-USSR, the people who wanted something more socialist, wanted to return to the old tyranny and in fact in many cases thought Joe Stalin was the dog's bollocks, it became harder and harder to believe there was or is a credible socialist alternative to capitalism.

Until the remnants of the left acknowledge that... um... we really don't know... we thought we knew, but we don't know... it is unlikely that the left will produce a credible model of a desirable and feasible socialist future.

Instead the remnants will just busy themselves with nostalgia, PC arsery and, worst of all, sucking up to resurgent bloody Islam.

To be fair, they can also join others in protesting against austerity, but without an alternative, the protests will just be protests.


----------



## greenman (Jul 2, 2013)

JHE said:


> You are half-right.
> 
> Yes, the grim putatively socialist tyrannies discredited socialism.
> 
> ...


 
Hence Left Unity trying to build around the _popular_ myth of 1945 rather than the _unpopular_ myth of 1917 beloved of the sects.  (And no, I don't think the myth of 1945 is sufficient, but at least it nods to a political movement that might be slightly more attuned to things that might seem relevant/positive to its' intended audience, regardless of the fact that it might also have to confront harsh realities about the current balance of forces in comparison to those that allowed the concessions of 1945)


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jul 5, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> One of the key things a new party of the Radical Left will need to do, is not assume that the crimes of the old Stalinist regimes are now conveniently slipping from popular memory – they haven’t. Instead the radical Left has to robustly denounce the travesty of socialism that the stalinist “state capitalist” tyrannies represented. We must make it clear that the democratic socialist society we see as holding out the promise of a better, fairer, more prosperous future for the majority, will be a fundamentally democratic one with more civil liberties for the majority, not less.


 
Denouncing Stalinism dosen't quite cut it does it? Especially when 'Stalinism' is identified with the 'old regimes' and _only_ the old regimes.

Because what is 'conveniently omitted from memory' is that it wasn't Stalin that gutted Bolshevism of all forms of working class democracy.

It wasn't him that did the heavy lifting theory wise.

It wasn't him that assumed that the Marx phrase 'dictatorship of the proleteriat' allowed for, or insisted on a dictatorship in the traditional sense; transforming working class rule into it's opposite.

All of this was beyond was way beyond above his pay grade and capability.

Instead he was merely the beneficiary of the bastardisation.

So to condemn Stalinism is extremely convenient, because it implies the finger-pointer is denouncing not just the 'old regimes' but the _methods_ of old regimes as well.

But a lot of the time reality is opposite.

For example the character assasination of Trotsky preceded his actual assasination, but weren't the SWP avowedly anti-Stalinist when they denounced the squadists as 'racists' prior to expulsion and AFA as 'anti-working class' with aim of silencing the militant message?

And how is any of that different from someone who can denounce Stalinism and in one breath and screech '_Strasserite!'_ at any passing supporter of the iWCa strategy with the next?

In simple terms any 'new Radical party of the left' that carries over that anti-democratic germ, no matter how promising the external conditions might appear to be, is going no where.

Outlawing stalinite _methods_ is the first critical hurdle, which by the sounds of it, LU is yet to pass.


----------



## treelover (Jul 5, 2013)

> And how is this different from someone who can denounce Stalinism and in one breath and screech '_Strasserite!'_ at a supporter of the iWCa strategy with the next?


 

Who could you mean?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jul 9, 2013)

chilango said:


> This is cropping up in other threads now and I figure it merits a thread of it's own.
> 
> They claim to have over 5,000 people signed up and 35 groups. Of course, this is likely to be Facebook numbers, with potentially significantly lower numbers "on the ground". But if it's even remotely true it's certainly an impressive starting point for the latest "new workers' party".
> 
> ...


 
Left Unity are the bunch of impotent and incompetent cunts at the head of my union. They are an absolute waste of space.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Left Unity are the bunch of impotent and incompetent cunts at the head of my union. They are an absolute waste of space.


 
No they are not, as you have been told at least once before. They have nothing whatsoever to do with PCS Left Unity.


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2013)

totally different entitity

think that has been mentioned before


----------



## treelover (Jul 10, 2013)

> *Welcome to Left Unity’s Policy Commission on internal democracy, party structure and constitution*
> 
> You don't have permission to access this material
> 
> July 9, 2013


 
couldn't make it up,

you have to register to see the content, but what an ironic own goal


----------



## belboid (Jul 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> couldn't make it up,
> 
> you have to register to see the content, but what an ironic own goal


possibly something to do with how they let absolutely anyone vote on the name of the LU publication.  Which ended up with it being called 'Cactus'

Once bitten...


----------



## treelover (Jul 10, 2013)

you mean ISN publication?


----------



## belboid (Jul 10, 2013)

d'oh! Yes, I do


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> couldn't make it up,
> 
> you have to register to see the content, but what an ironic own goal


That's probably because there is _no_ content. Policy is still at the discussion stage but I guess you were hoping that all of this would be in place within 5 minutes of Ken Loach's appeal.


----------



## treelover (Jul 10, 2013)

actually its because you have to log in, personally I don't think LU should rush anything...


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 11, 2013)

treelover said:


> actually its because you have to log in, personally I don't think LU should rush anything...


If you think LU "shouldn't rush anything" then why the impatience?

You don't have to log in. Below is the message I got when I accessed the same page.


> If you would like to participate in the discussions around internal democracy, party structure and constitution please email commissions@leftunity.org


 
That page doesn't ask you to log-in. It asks you to_ email them_ if you want to participate in a discussion. Big difference.

Same link
http://leftunity.org/welcome-to-lef...l-democracy-party-structure-and-constitution/


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2013)

have you contributed your thoughts, for balance like...


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 11, 2013)

I could ask you the same question.


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2013)

Oh, I have, I have...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 11, 2013)

treelover said:


> couldn't make it up,
> 
> you have to register to see the content, but what an ironic own goal


 
it would be undemocratic to not have it private for members only


----------



## mk12 (Jul 12, 2013)

So do the ISN now support Left Unity?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 12, 2013)

mk12 said:


> So do the ISN now support Left Unity?


The Independent Socialist Network does. The other ISN - the SWP splinter - doesn't.


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> The Independent Socialist Network does. The other ISN - the SWP splinter - doesn't.


I think it does - unless you mean the Scottish one.


----------



## treelover (Jul 26, 2013)

http://leftunity.org/detailed-consideration-of-draft-constitution-working-document-3


hey have a draft constitution, though you must register to see it/comment on it


----------



## JHE (Jul 26, 2013)

> b) to win a mandate to govern and introduce radical and fundamental changes in British society based on our belief in the benefits of cooperation and community ownership instead of the chaotic competition of capitalism; universal human rights, internationalism and peace; social, political and economic equality for all in the fullest sense, without which true democracy and mutual respect cannot flourish; a democratically planned economy that is environmentally sustainable, within which all enterprises, whether privately owned, cooperatives or under public ownership operate in ways that promote the needs of the people and wider society; an inclusive welfare state which meets the needs of all and within which each contributes according to their ability


 
OK, fair play to them: they are trying to define the socialism which the party will stand for and I'm sure it's not an easy task. Also, writing by committee is difficult. Still...

1. It definitely needs some editing to make it more readable and to eliminate some of the tedious pleonasm: "radical and fundamental", "the people and wider society"

2. Is "community ownership" intended as a catch-all term including all forms of social ownership, including nationalisation, or is it some local form of social ownership? The term is not clear. Does it mean something different from "public ownership", which is also used in the same paragraph? If the new party is going to be in favour of nationalisation, municipal ownership and other forms, it would be better to spell these things out and indicate more about which organisations will be taken into which forms of social ownership.

3. It's great that the new party wants a "democratically planned economy". Unfortunately, it is not at all clear what a "democratically planned economy" would be and how it would work. This needs (some) spelling out. After the failures of (inadequately democratic) planned economies, it is important to say how democracy and economic planning can be combined and why we should expect a "democratically planned economy" to be successful enough to provide the prosperity and security which people want, unlike the failed 20th century planned economies.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jul 26, 2013)

JHE said:


> OK, fair play to them: they are trying to define the socialism which the party will stand for and I'm sure it's not an easy task. Also, writing by committee is difficult. Still...


 
Have Laurie Penny give it a make over perhaps.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 26, 2013)

I hate this notion that capitalism is totally unplanned, chaotic in their terms, like it just magically happens. It implicitly accepts one of their assumptions, that capitalism is just the natural default state of society, where via the magic of the market needs are fulfilled spontaneously without any conscious plan. It's total bullshit, a totally disembedded market society that operates like Adam Smith abstract theories is impossible anyway, it'sa dogma but it's a dogma we all too often buy into.

We already live in a planned economy, an economy planned around the needs and interests of capital, the aim is to create a democratically planned and colletively owned economy, extend those principles of democracy into the economic sphere, rather than treat economics as some magic zero-sum game totally apart from politics or society that operates via some abstract model that no-one can ever infringe on. At least they've written "democratically planned economy" I suppose that's a concession but otherwise their definition of socialism is pretty trotty.


----------



## ayatollah (Jul 26, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I hate this notion that capitalism is totally unplanned, chaotic in their terms, like it just magically happens. It implicitly accepts one of their assumptions, that capitalism is just the natural default state of society, where via the magic of the market needs are fulfilled spontaneously without any conscious plan. It's total bullshit, a totally disembedded market society that operates like Adam Smith abstract theories is impossible anyway, it'sa dogma but it's a dogma we all too often buy into.
> 
> We already live in a planned economy, an economy planned around the needs and interests of capital, the aim is to create a democratically planned and colletively owned economy, extend those principles of democracy into the economic sphere, rather than treat economics as some magic zero-sum game totally apart from politics or society that operates via some abstract model that no-one can ever infringe on. At least they've written "democratically planned economy" I suppose that's a concession but otherwise their definition of socialism is pretty trotty.


 
You are of course correct, Delroy, that capitalism contains huge amounts of high level and low level planning - from the planning done by multinational firms, to the planning done by national governments. The fact remains though - graphically demonstrated by the 2008 Crash and its aftermath , that at a global level capitalism is fundamentally chaotic, ie, unplanned, and fundamentally unplannable at a system level ,( Bretton Woods, GATT ,  and other temporarily "successful" international agreements,  notwithstanding), given the  competitive , greed driven, dynamic at its core ,  with unpredictable slumps and booms, including periods of completely irrational  speculative frenzy ,not fully understood by anyone at any single point in time, and definitely not at a system level under anyone's full control - not even the infamous 1%. That doesn't assume capitalism is a "natural, preordained, state of economic and social life" at all. You are reading FAR too much "backstory" into the word "chaotic", Delroy, surely ? The word "chaotic" is simply  a good shorthand description of capitalism as a fundamentally flawed system, run for profit not general  human benefit.

The reference to "community ownership" is indeed just a "catch-all" term for all possible forms of social ownership, from nationalisation to community enterprises. And yes, of course it all needs "spelling out" in much more detail , and connected to concrete policies, ie, a manifesto .  Maybe LU can borrow Syriza's old "Policy Portfolio, because they don't seem to have any use for all that irresponsible radical stuff any more  , if reports of the latest Syriza party conference are accurate ! Not a good  sign - given the inspiration Syriza has been to many of LU's founders !


----------



## caleb (Jul 29, 2013)

I transcribed this from Andrew Kliman's talk at that Platypus event because for me it perfectly encapsulates the approach of Left Unity people:



> If you think the masses need you to lead them step by step to a more advance consciousness [...] how they understand the crisis isn't important - you'll supply the understanding, but how you understand it is not important at this point either because you can't lead people around until you have their allegiance, so that becomes the all important task, winning the allegiance of people, appealing to them on the basis of where there at now, so you don't engage in rational argument and discussion but you try to inspire people, provide soundbites and illusions to social and economic problems, and you demonise 'the other': Wall Street, neoliberalism, the 1%.
> 
> So ... rational argument and discussion are not important. Indeed, they're counter-productive from this vantage point because they lead to disagreement, disunity and inaction. So the watchword is, 'keep your opinions to yourself, let's unite on the basis of actions and lowest common denominator beliefs and aspirations'.


----------



## treelover (Jul 29, 2013)

please expand, I think you will find L/U has very robust discussion and debate, at least at present.


----------



## caleb (Jul 29, 2013)

I take a look at the Left Unity site if I want a laugh, I really think the level of 'debate and discussion' is that atrocious. See all the hand-wringing and upset over whether they _openly _call themselves a 'socialist party' or not. That in itself is just one example of_ 'keep your opinions to yourself, ... unite on the basis of actions and lowest common denominator beliefs and aspirations'._

But also the involvement of 'revolutionary socialists', etc. in Left Unity, which seems to wish to recreate a post-war social-democratic Labour Party, seems to be based entirely on the notion that the working class need to be won over, to have their consciousness raised, before they can be led to victory by a revolutionary party. Or something. I really can't see any reason why anybody but welfare state nostalgists would involved themselves in Left Unity, certainly not anybody who wants to end capitalism.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 29, 2013)

treelover said:


> please expand, I think you will find L/U has very robust discussion and debate, at least at present.


 
The point is about how they approach that debate, what are the assumptions that it is based on - not how much of it there is or how robust it is. Having either loads or none, politely or aggressively -  doesn't effect those assumptions.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 29, 2013)

caleb said:


> I take a look at the Left Unity site if I want a laugh, I really think the level of 'debate and discussion' is that atrocious. See all the hand-wringing and upset over whether they _openly _call themselves a 'socialist party' or not. That in itself is just one example of_ 'keep your opinions to yourself, ... unite on the basis of actions and lowest common denominator beliefs and aspirations'._
> 
> But also the involvement of 'revolutionary socialists', etc. in Left Unity, which seems to wish to recreate a post-war social-democratic Labour Party, seems to be based entirely on the notion that the working class need to be won over, to have their consciousness raised, before they can be led to victory by a revolutionary party. Or something. I really can't see any reason why anybody but welfare state nostalgists would involved themselves in Left Unity, certainly not anybody who wants to end capitalism.


 

If they only say they want to nationalise 5 monopolies then it's reformist but if they want to nationalise 1000 then it's ultra-left.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 29, 2013)

caleb said:


> I take a look at the Left Unity site if I want a laugh, I really think the level of 'debate and discussion' is that atrocious. See all the hand-wringing and upset over whether they _openly _call themselves a 'socialist party' or not. That in itself is just one example of_ 'keep your opinions to yourself, ... unite on the basis of actions and lowest common denominator beliefs and aspirations'._
> 
> But also the involvement of 'revolutionary socialists', etc. in Left Unity, which seems to wish to recreate a post-war social-democratic Labour Party, seems to be based entirely on the notion that the working class need to be won over, to have their consciousness raised, before they can be led to victory by a revolutionary party. Or something. I really can't see any reason why anybody but welfare state nostalgists would involved themselves in Left Unity, certainly not anybody who wants to end capitalism.


 

yeah, working class people only understand slogans like "greedy bankers" and "tax the rich".


----------



## JHE (Jul 29, 2013)

caleb said:


> I take a look at the Left Unity site if I want a laugh, I really think the level of 'debate and discussion' is that atrocious. See all the hand-wringing and upset over whether they _openly _call themselves a 'socialist party' or not. That in itself is just one example of_ 'keep your opinions to yourself, ... unite on the basis of actions and lowest common denominator beliefs and aspirations'._
> 
> But also the involvement of 'revolutionary socialists', etc. in Left Unity, which seems to wish to recreate a post-war social-democratic Labour Party, seems to be based entirely on the notion that the working class need to be won over, to have their consciousness raised, before they can be led to victory by a revolutionary party. Or something. I really can't see any reason why anybody but welfare state nostalgists would involved themselves in Left Unity, certainly not anybody who wants to end capitalism.


 

I'm really not optimistic about Left Unity or the prospects of the left in general, but I do feel you are being a bit harsh here. The intentions of the people who are trying to set up the new party are pretty clear, aren't they? I don't mean that their programme is sorted out. It definitely isn't. I mean that the people involved or nearly all of them share two aims:

1. They want a party that will oppose the current austerity measures.
2. They want a party that will propose and campaign for a socialist programme.

It is entirely normal that left-wingers should try to combine these two things. In other words people see _both_ the urgency of politics _and_ want (and see the need, as some would say) to replace capitalism. To put the same thing another way: they don't want to be a new SPGB and they also don't want to just shout 'Stop the cuts!' and then later (a little more quietly) 'Vote Labour!'

You can call opponents of the austerity measures 'welfare state nostalgists' if you like, but a movement that cannot defend existing gains is unlikely to be able to turn the world upside down! And I expect you'll agree that it's really no good just telling people in dire circumstances to wait for the revolution.

If I understand you correctly you dislike the notion that socialists (or 'revolutionaries' or 'Marxists' or Whatevers or Anarcho-Thingameewotsits) have to raise the people's consciousness before we can have a new world. I don't particularly like that language and I dislike the arrogance of some sects and leftists. (Also, if we really have to talk of 'consciousness', why does it always have to be 'raised', rather than widened or deepened?) Nevertheless, the core idea is obviously true: people have to be persuaded that there is a feasible and desirable alternative to capitalism. People are not going to make a socialist revolution of any sort unless they believe in it. People who are _currently_ socialists (like you, I guess) obviously have a role to play in persuading others. Well, either that or... you might as well give up.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 29, 2013)

It also seems to constantly implied that the left (in general) should have to raise class consciousness, ie preach to the unconverted, rather than to be part of, responding to, a reflection of, class consciousness? It should be the other way around, surely? To be the political vehicle to express an already existing class consciousness. Sure all socialists and anarchists have an obligation to educate and raise consciousness, and to counter the effects of the media and other ideological controls, but it's not our job to invent or create class consciousness. That should come as a result of the material everyday needs and interests faced by working class people, individually and collectively, and if it doesn't then perhaps you should reconsider your theory rather than berate them for not getting with the program?

And like you said JHE the vocabulary we so often hear (raised being a perfect example) gives away this kind of attitude, where the the enlightened vanguard will go out to teach the proles (who hiterto are only capable of crude reformist Labourist trade union consciousness) how to unlock the Full Revolutionary Class Consciousness Xbox achievement. It's deeply condescending. The fact that we still talk in these terms after the failure of Marxist-Leninsm really shows how deep the trot rot is. Even if a lot of people might not be trots these idea's are still the currency people deal in, even Anarcho-Thingameewotsits who should know better. I blame the SWP, they helped socialise condition and educate a lot of people into thinking in this way and even people who abandoned the politics years ago still use the same words.



> 1. They want a party that will oppose the current austerity measures.
> 2. They want a party that will propose and campaign for a socialist programme.


 
Coming back to this for a moment, I think the decision to base what they're doing around the welfare state, social democratic _Spirit of 1945_ is actually quite sensible when you think about the objectives they're trying to accomplish. Not only because the welfare state is currently under attack, but because this "welfare state nostalgia" has a much wider degree of support than revolutionary left in the country. In short I'd rather be a 1945 general election re-enactment society than a 1917 revolution one. What class consciousness there is in Britain right now is overwhelmingly associated with that tradition. And that's been the case for a very long time. It's important as well to try and challenge the Labourist hegemony over the democratic socialist left ( and I mean democratic socialist in its broadest sense ie Not Stalinism) and its heritage. We have a fucking great working-class political tradition in this country and it's tied to the Labour party and it needs to be set free, people can identify politically a lot easier with these chapters from our own history than by reading _Gramsci for Proles_ by Comrade X.

Of course that's not necessarily a good thing in the long term. There's loads of problems with welfare state and we need to have more imagination that simply "defend the NHS" or "renationalise the X monopolies" because the conditions that led to the post-war social democratic compromise that lasted until the mid 70's no longer exist. And furthermore that kind of society was not in any sense a socialist society, it was capitalism with a few socialist-inspired welfare measures and high trade union membership, all of which were fully integrated into a American led post-war capitalism. Looking to these idea's as solutions for future political schisms is a waste of time, so by all means defend what gains we made but don't let it be a straightjacket.

And ayatollah I'll reply to your post soon as I can spare some more time.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 29, 2013)

Delroy Booth caleb i also think trots etc (including me tbh, although i'm not a trot any more) should look at their _own_ class consciousness before trying to tell people what to do. so many times in the sp i'd hear phrases like "when we're in government we'll do x." and people thinking that a 24 hour general strike would be the best we could hope for despite being told by people we spoke to on stalls, etc, that it wouldn't be enough. surely it's not you that will be in power, but the working class lol. (sorry for the leftist cliche)


----------



## caleb (Jul 29, 2013)

> I'm really not optimistic about Left Unity or the prospects of the left in general, but I do feel you are being a bit harsh here. The intentions of the people who are trying to set up the new party are pretty clear, aren't they? I don't mean that their programme is sorted out. It definitely isn't. I mean that the people involved or nearly all of them share two aims:
> 
> 1. They want a party that will oppose the current austerity measures.
> 2. They want a party that will propose and campaign for a socialist programme.
> ...


 
I think the idea of forming a party that will contest elections, come into power and enact a social-democratic programme, which is what I imagine Left Unity people want, is flawed on two counts. First this party has not - will not - emerged from a mass movement, or indeed any movement, but some disaffected leftists, some Trots and Stalinoids vying for influence, and some old people who miss nice Mr. Bevan coming together. We've seen how these left-wing formations have done in the past, there's no reason to imagine it will be any different this time. Second, it seems to me to be based on an entirely flawed understanding of how the capitalist state works, and the social conditions that made social-democracy possible the first time around but which don't exist now. Somebody like Ken Loach is aware of this to an extent, and says:



> But the Labour Government were social-democrats, not socialists. The reforms were popular, but they were largely accepted at the top as a way of helping capital to make money. The nationalised industries and public services created a better framework for capitalism at the time. They weren’t seen as an end in themselves, so you didn’t get investment in the state-owned industries or any kind of workers’ democracy inside them.
> Because of that structure, they fell into disrepair. By Thatcher’s time, it was possible to make privatisation look like the progressive thing to do. This fitted with the fact that capitalism was in a long-term downward spiral. The profits were not there. The squeeze was on. The space for social-democratic reform had disappeared.


 
... which leads him to the conclusion that:



> There is no middle way. A sort of compromise was possible after the war, but not now. Capitalism is out to destroy the welfare state.


 
[his response when asked 'how do we save the welfare state?']

The implication is that we need to go beyond capitalism to save the welfare state... something which only has any meaning within capitalist society; doesn't he realise the contradictions at the heart of what he is saying?



> If I understand you correctly you dislike the notion that socialists (or 'revolutionaries' or 'Marxists' or Whatevers or Anarcho-Thingameewotsits) have to raise the people's consciousness before we can have a new world. I don't particularly like that language and I dislike the arrogance of some sects and leftists. (Also, if we really have to talk of 'consciousness', why does it always have to be 'raised', rather than widened or deepened?) Nevertheless, the core idea is obviously true: people have to be persuaded that there is a feasible and desirable alternative to capitalism. People are not going to make a socialist revolution of any sort unless they believe in it. People who are _currently_ socialists (like you, I guess) obviously have a role to play in persuading others. Well, either that or... you might as well give up.


 
People didn't dream of a "feasible or desirable" alternative to feudalism in the form of capitalism though, did they? And I'd be interested to know how many Russian/German/Spanish/Hungarian/etc. workers had a clear conception of what they were struggling _for._ People don't fight because they have some picture of a perfect socialism in their heads, but because it's in their self-interest.

I think it's quite obvious that in our everyday lives, whether consciously or not we come into conflict with capital, even in the most minute ways. I know from personal experience, even in conservative workplaces with staff very loyal to management, people will do all they can to cut corners, waste time, extend their breaks and lighten their workload, they'll cooperate with each other to get this done. The point of this isn't that those acts are revolutionary, but that the potential for struggle is immanent to capitalist society, regardless of what people may think. Where we go from here, I'm not sure, but I'm confident that the seeds of a future society lie here, not in any recipes for future soup kitchens, or dreams of Nye and Clem.

As well as being unnecessary, I'm unsure how possible it is to talk of a "feasible and desirable alternative to capitalism". By that I mean, capital dominates our every day lives to such an extent that to imagine social relations without it is very difficult, if not impossible. If you offer an "alternative to capitalism" that's simply a more even distribution of wages and commodities, you haven't offered an alternative to capitalism, for example. What I think is far more liberating than imagining some distant alternative is realising that the categories that dominate our lives in capitalist society are historically transient: they haven't existed for the majority of human existence, and needn't exist for the rest of it. This for me says far more than any anarchoid blueprints for a federation of self-managed factories, or trot/stalinoid workers state:



> In its mystified form, dialectic became the fashion in Germany, because it seemed to transfigure and to glorify the existing state of things. In its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors, because it includes in its comprehension and affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence; because it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary.


 
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm


----------



## JHE (Jul 29, 2013)

caleb said:


> People didn't dream of a "feasible or desirable" alternative to feudalism in the form of capitalism though, did they? And I'd be interested to know how many Russian/German/Spanish/Hungarian/etc. workers had a clear conception of what they were struggling _for._ People don't fight because they have some picture of a perfect socialism in their heads, but because it's in their self-interest.


 
Feasible _*and*_ desirable, please. Either without the other is not enough.

I'm not sure how relevant the comparison - or contrast - with the transition from feudalism to capitalism is, but it's certainly interesting. People obviously did develop ideas about the advantages of markets and private property and the disadvantages of feudal restrictions and privileges. On the other hand, there is also an enormous difference. Socialism, if we ever get it, is surely the point at which human beings become, or begin to become, able consciously to manage their common life for the benefit of the species. That was not (is not) the case with capitalism.

Certainly many many Spanish workers had for decades talked about and (from those Marxists and Anarchists) learned about ideas of a different life. There was widespread belief in an alternative to capitalism. Sadly, there isn't now.

People don't "fight" because of a "some picture of a perfect socialism", whatever that may be, but they definitely abstain from 'fighting' for or by other means trying to create a new society if they don't think there is any prospect of better society.



> I think it's quite obvious that in our everyday lives, whether consciously or not we come into conflict with capital, even in the most minute ways. I know from personal experience, even in conservative workplaces with staff very loyal to management, people will do all they can to cut corners, waste time, extend their breaks and lighten their workload, they'll cooperate with each other to get this done. The point of this isn't that those acts are revolutionary, but that the potential for struggle is immanent to capitalist society, regardless of what people may think. Where we go from here, I'm not sure, but I'm confident that the seeds of a future society lie here, not in any recipes for future soup kitchens, or dreams of Nye and Clem.


 
Struggle is endemic to capitalism. (It may be endemic to other societies too, but OK we're talking about capitalism.) You are confident that the "seeds of a future society" lie in this conflict between capital and workers. OK, but if we can't see beyond the current society, we are not going to move beyond it.

Socialism is not going to be made by accident, is it? The question tag there is not intended rhetorically. I'm interested in whether that is in fact what you believe: that socialism will come about despite people not intending it.



> As well as being unnecessary, I'm unsure how possible it is to talk of a "feasible and desirable alternative to capitalism". By that I mean, capital dominates our every day lives to such an extent that to imagine social relations without it is very difficult, if not impossible.


 

You have not shown that it is unnecessary and frankly I think you are clutching at straws. You seem to think we can't even think about a post-capitalist world, but somehow we are going to achieve it because workers will one way or another resist some of the pressure from their employers.

There is another famous passage from Marx, which I have not got time to look up at the moment. I can't remember where it is from, but I expect you know it. Certainly, you'll like it. The gist of it is that it does not matter what the opinion of this or that worker is. What matters is what the working class _is_ and how it will be forced to act by the development of capitalism. (I paraphrase grossly.)

Two points about it:

a) I doubt Marx meant that it wouldn't matter _at any point_ what workers think. I think he meant just that the development of capitalism and the struggle between workers and capital would drive people to socialist conclusions.
b) If I'm wrong about that and he was really claiming that it didn't ever matter what workers thought, (i) his political activity is difficult to understand and (ii) he was obviously wrong.

Socialism and in particular the expropriation of the means of production, the creation of new non-market means of organising production and distribution and via those means the subordination of the economic to democracy are not going to happen behind our backs. They can't. These are conscious acts or they are nothing.


----------



## caleb (Jul 30, 2013)

> You have not shown that it is unnecessary and frankly I think you are clutching at straws. You seem to think we can't even think about a post-capitalist world, but somehow we are going to achieve it because workers will one way or another resist some of the pressure from their employers.


 
I don't think I am, I wouldn't have made the point unless I believed it to be true, if it seemed I was simply grasping at straws I just didn't argue my case well enough.

My point is simply that it's very hard to offer a "feasible *and* desirable" alternative to capitalism that isn't simply an alternative _within _capitalism. So yes, the Spanish workers had (confused) ideas about what a post-capitalist society would look like - self-management, federalism, mutual aid - but it never entirely went beyond capitalist social relations. Similarly many people see an alternative to capitalism in some sort of generalised welfare state, with co-ops, nationalised industry, a state that strongly regulates finance, full employment, etc. That's fine, but it's not an alternative to capitalism.

I don't necessarily think we "can't even think about a post-capitalist world", but that we can only think and talk of it in a negative sense: what it _won't _be, what _won't _exist - wage labour, money, markets, etc. We can speculate about what this society may look like - Kropotkin and William Morris certainly did, but that's only speculation.

It's not so much that I believe a post-capitalist world will be achieved solely by workers resisting pressure from their employer, rather I think much of the left neglects this conflict exists at all. The collapse of the organised left, the attacks on the class, etc. have left the left in a position of discomfort and confusion, and they feel the need to start from scratch, to rebuild what once was and go from there, as if this fire ceased to burn without them stoking it. I think this passage from As We See It is instructive:



> Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others - even by those allegedly acting on their behalf.


We should work with what exists and give that shape, rather than endlessly harking back to failed projects of the past or remaining trapped in the ghetto of the left. This is also a task that requires not just 'doing something', but actually considering the past, present and future deeply and critically. It means actually understanding what capitalism is, rather than having the crude 'oh it's all neoliberalism, thatcher and blair' analysis that the left seems to have fallen into. It's the argument and discussion that Kliman was talking about, as opposed to unity based on "action and lowest common denominator beliefs and aspirations" of many leftists.

(I think that's a start, really. Personally I'm in my early 20s and very pessimistic about the future, and feel completely alienated by the left in its Trotskyist, Leninist, social democratic and even anarchist form. I'm still finding out what I believe tbh, so it's good being able to collect my thoughts.)


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 31, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Delroy Booth caleb i also think trots etc (including me tbh, although i'm not a trot any more) should look at their _own_ class consciousness before trying to tell people what to do. so many times in the sp i'd hear phrases like "when we're in government we'll do x." and people thinking that a 24 hour general strike would be the best we could hope for despite being told by people we spoke to on stalls, etc, that it wouldn't be enough. surely it's not you that will be in power, but the working class lol. (sorry for the leftist cliche)


 
"24 hour general strike NOW" was a demand of Militant. Nothing changes. 

Now a 7 day general strike... that's much better.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 31, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> "24 hour general strike NOW" was a demand of Militant. Nothing changes.
> 
> Now a 7 day general strike... that's much better.


 

One day strikes, One hour withdrawals of labour etc are pointless apart from giving the impression that you can protest in this blue and peasant land.
If every worker saved one days wage into a self administered strike fund for ten months then if co-ordinated, some time next year the entire workforce of the country could strike for two weeks.
Chaos ensues.


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 31, 2013)

My first political memory is of being lectured in the early 1980s by Trotskyists about the tokenism and ineffectiveness of 1 day, one hour or other such tuc days of action.
 The same people today trumpet a single days strike by selected members of a single public sector union as one step off the July days.


----------



## treelover (Jul 31, 2013)

Just found out that of the many 'policy commissions' that L/U is set up, there is not one for benefits/social security/welfare, due to no one offering to convene it, this is unbelievable and I hope it gets rectified soon.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 31, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> My first political memory is of being lectured in the early 1980s by Trotskyists about the tokenism and ineffectiveness of 1 day, one hour or other such tuc days of action.
> The same people today trumpet a single days strike by selected members of a single public sector union as one step off the July days.


 
Situationists once described unions as "whorehouses". There is some truth to that.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 31, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Situationists once described unions as "whorehouses". There is some truth to that.


 
What have you got against 6 million working class British people?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2013)

They didn't anyway.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They didn't anyway.


 
They may have but probably not with the same meaning that Ninny is imbuing it with


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2013)

They didn't full stop


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They didn't full stop


 
I find it hard to imagine Ninny would make summat up or get summat wrong??


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 1, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> They may have but probably not with the same meaning that Ninny is imbuing it with


 

Eh? 

Oh and please refrain from referring to me as "Ninny".


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 1, 2013)

Making it up am I?


> Labor unions are whorehouses.


http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/graffiti.htm


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 1, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What have you got against 6 million working class British people?


 
How did you work that out, Spankhorn?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Making it up am I?
> 
> http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/graffiti.htm


 
Have you a link to a situationist writing it?


----------



## barney_pig (Aug 1, 2013)

They misspelled labour too


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2013)

And _rape_ is good apparently.


----------



## treelover (Aug 1, 2013)

http://leftunity.org/socialist-platform-statement-of-aims-and-principles/#comment-26754


The Trots, CPGB, etc have launched a platform, is it going to be the same old same old?


----------



## treelover (Aug 1, 2013)

http://internationalsocialistnetwor...ft-unity-the-case-for-the-left-party-platform


Tom Walker(ISN) replies here, some good points, imo.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 1, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> How did you work that out, Spankhorn?


 
Describing them as occupants of whorehouses ninny


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 2, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What have you got against 6 million working class British people?


 
I was being slightly tongue in cheek btw. This is indicated by the 

Then I thought of Unison under the leadership of Dave Prentis and how he's sold out his members. But you can't see that. Can you, Longy Spankhorn (keep spanking that horn) nor are you capable of understanding irony either, so it seems.

I guess you weren't around when NALGO (one of Unison's constituent parts) was referred to as "*N*ot *a* *l*ot *g*oing *o*n" by its own members?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 2, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> They misspelled labour too


 
American spelling innit?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 2, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> American spelling innit?


 

We're supposed to use American spellings as well as nonsense like 'people of colour' or is that 'color'?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 2, 2013)

J Ed said:


> We're supposed to use American spellings as well as nonsense like 'people of colour' or is that 'color'?


 
I took the quote from a website (C&P'ed it). The Australians also spell it without a "u".


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 2, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Longy Spankhorn


 
great stuff ninny


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 2, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> I was being slightly tongue in cheek btw. This is indicated by the
> 
> Then I thought of Unison under the leadership of Dave Prentis and how he's sold out his members. But you can't see that. Can you, Longy Spankhorn (keep spanking that horn) nor are you capable of understanding irony either, so it seems.
> 
> I guess you weren't around when NALGO (one of Unison's constituent parts) was referred to as "*N*ot *a* *l*ot *g*oing *o*n" by its own members?


 
Sorry for being younger than you prof

What has the failures of leadership both real and percieved got to do with whether union members are whores or their customers though?


----------



## treelover (Aug 3, 2013)

http://leftunity.org/the-class-struggle-platform/


call for workers defence squads....


----------



## belboid (Aug 3, 2013)

good old Workers Power, they can always be relied on for a laugh.


----------



## dominion (Aug 3, 2013)

Three "platforms" or by their true name FACTIONS set up by self interested trot groups and their like before the party has even been founded formally?

Won't be much left "unity" with all that going on. The working class can rest easy in their beds tonight, no danger of being called up for the workers militia time for another pint!

As for Workers Power, my arse as that fella on TV says.....


----------



## JHE (Aug 3, 2013)

If you ban factions you end up with a sect like the Social Workers and/or secret factions. If you allow factions, there will be open factions. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

There have been various attempts to set up a left-wing party by gathering existing left-wing groups and individuals. Maybe this new attempt will end up like the poor old Socialist Labour Party, but not necessarily, since it is not dominated by a character like Arthur Scargill. On the other hand, there is also the rather better experience of the Scottish Socialist Party (before Big Tommy's disastrous insistence on suing the News of the Screws).

I wouldn't bet on Left Unity going well, but it's not settled yet. Some leftovers crawling from the rubble of the Workers' Power implosion still blathering about 'defending Muslims' from imaginary 'pogroms' is neither here nor there.


----------



## barney_pig (Aug 3, 2013)

JHE said:


> If you ban factions you end up with a sect like the Social Workers and/or secret factions. If you allow factions, there will be open factions. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
> 
> There have been various attempts to set up a left-wing party by gathering existing left-wing groups and individuals. Maybe this new attempt will end up like the poor old Socialist Labour Party, but not necessarily, since it is not dominated by a character like Arthur Scargill. On the other hand, there is also the rather better experience of the Scottish Socialist Party (before Big Tommy's disastrous insistence on suing the News of the Screws).
> 
> I wouldn't bet on Left Unity going well, but it's not settled yet. Some leftovers crawling from the rubble of the Workers' Power implosion still blathering about 'defending Muslims' from imaginary 'pograms' is neither here nor there.


We all need protecting from the imaginary program's of the trots


----------



## J Ed (Aug 3, 2013)

http://leftunity.org/solidarity-not-charity-the-case-for-mutual-aid/ this is well worth reading and tallies with the conclusions that a lot of people here have drawn in the past following discussions of what the attitude of leftists should be to food banks.


----------



## Coolfonz (Aug 4, 2013)

i like the sound of N14. lefties slagging off other lefties is so sickening and stupid...


----------



## JHE (Aug 4, 2013)

Coolfonz said:


> i like the sound of N14. lefties slagging off other lefties is so sickening and stupid...


 

Some pessimistic people think Left Unity is just going to be a new opportunity for the various factions to slag each other off.  Of course it's true that having 'unity' in the name doesn't guarantee unity.  A lot depends on the attitude of the people involved and what they really want.  If enough want to unite around things they agree on and have their arguments in a comradely way, it might work.  Time will tell.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Aug 5, 2013)

JHE said:


> If enough want to unite around things they agree on and have their arguments in a comradely way, it might work. Time will tell.


 
Good excuse to post this.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 5, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Good excuse to post this.


the browser im using isnt letting me post things this is just a test sorry


----------



## treelover (Aug 13, 2013)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/12/left-unity-alternative


mini relaunch for LU, Ken is in the Guardian again, now with Michael Rosen and Roger Lloyd Pack

if new people who may be interested go on the LU site, they will probably be put off, its largely unreconstructed trots arguing over the minutae..


----------



## JHE (Aug 13, 2013)

I had to look up who Roger Lloyd-Pack is.  I'd like to think he always calls Ken Loach 'Dave', but I don't suppose he does.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 13, 2013)

I'm sure a letter in the Guardian will have an effect on recruitment figures.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2013)

what adverts are next to the letter?

JOY



> Jack Monroe, who writes the blog A Girl Called Jack, discusses how she became a popular austerity cook and food blogger while living below the poverty line, and demonstrates how to cook one of her signature dishes: the carrot, cumin and kidney bean burger. A selection of recipes fromA Girl Called Jack are to be published next year in a book of the same name


 
Austerity Cook.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2013)

I think you need to have a bit more of a dig on her and what she's doing and why. Or watch the bloody video.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2013)

And her hair is great.


----------



## benedict (Aug 13, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/12/left-unity-alternative
> 
> 
> mini relaunch for LU, Ken is in the Guardian again, now with Michael Rosen and Roger Lloyd Pack
> ...



This is going to end badly.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think you need to have a bit more of a dig on her and what she's doing and why. Or watch the bloody video.


 
Not watched the video but if it's who I think it is she is great.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 13, 2013)

benedict said:


> This is going to end badly.


 
It's already over


----------



## Joe Reilly (Aug 13, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's already over


 
Spoiler Alert!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 13, 2013)

oops sorry


----------



## benedict (Aug 13, 2013)

Like a Hollywood blockbuster: sequel after sequel and always the same storyline.


----------



## treelover (Aug 29, 2013)

Masses of articles and posts on LU about Syria , calls for this, calls for that, they are not even a party yet...


----------



## JHE (Aug 29, 2013)

That's fair enough, isn't it?  I mean if the government of your country is planning to go to war (again) and you are a political person, you are very likely to have something to say about it.


----------



## mk12 (Aug 30, 2013)

treelover said:


> Masses of articles and posts on LU about Syria , calls for this, calls for that, they are not even a party yet...


 
My local branch is focusing on setting up a student organisation, potentially doing some activity over the Syria debacle, and urging people to 'like' the Left Unity page on Facebook.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 31, 2013)

Pssst! I'm actually an entryist... but don't tell anyone.


----------



## JHE (Aug 31, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Pssst! I'm actually an entryist... but don't tell anyone.


 

ETA's little mole, bless him.

As part of his attempt to persuade them to go back to bombing and shooting, Ninotxi offered himself to ETA as a mascot. Out of kindness, they considered his offer, but in the end they decided to get a dog instead, reasoning that it would be just as loyal, but less barking.


----------



## steeplejack (Aug 31, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/12/left-unity-alternative
> 
> 
> mini relaunch for LU, Ken is in the Guardian again, now with Michael Rosen and Roger Lloyd Pack
> ...


 






 (all over again, sadly)


----------



## steeplejack (Aug 31, 2013)

That letter in full:


This summer will be remembered for Labour's final betrayal of the working-class people it was founded to represent. Not content with signing up to Conservative austerity measures that are dragging Britain's most vulnerable people deeper into poverty, Ed Miliband has turned his back on the union members who supported his leadership bid.

*fuck, Labour's "final betrayal"? where have you been since 1994? Oh, that's right. "Voting Labour without illusions".*

Austerity has not fixed the economy, while the poor pay the social cost. Labour has failed to make the argument that it was not welfare spending that wrecked the British economy, but a crisis of unfettered capitalism. Miliband cannot even promise to reverse the brutally unfair bedroom tax, which has already claimed its first life with Stephanie Bottrill (Comment, 31 May).

We urgently need a new party of the left.

*Why? Has "The Left" fixed anything much since, well, 1951?*

Labour will not provide the opposition to coalition policies that the situation demands. We need to provide a genuine alternative to the austerity policies which the three main parties support. A party that is socialist, environmentalist, feminist and opposed to all forms of discrimination.

*See also RESPECT, the Socialist Alliance, umpteen different Communist parties, etc. The names should be familiar as you lot were involved in most of them, which failed to take off from the runway, crashing in a great fireball of political inconsequence* _*in the trees at the end.*_

Since we launched our appeal in March to discuss founding such a party, more than 9,000 people have signed up (*to what, exactly? Membership, or have they just signed a petition somewhere and are now, SWP style, being counted as full supporters?)* and more than 100 local groups have been established across the country. As Left Unity moves towards its founding conference on 30 November at the *Royal National hotel*  in London, we call on all those who are sick of austerity and war, who want to defend the NHS and our public services, and want to see a fairer Britain, to join us.

*That would be a great many people. What hasn't been explained is how empty sloganeering and tactics from four decades ago will provide any kind of reasonable analysis of the current situation, let alone prove capable to be effective in tackling it.*

_*"The Left" are a total irrelevance and it should be no surprise that, other than the usual suspects who have been involved in every other failed popular front /left unity vehicle in the last two decades, the electorate remain abidingly indifferent to your efforts. It seems astonishing that clearly intelligent people seem consumingly obsessed with repeating, again and again, the same old tactics and mouthing the same cliche ridden jargon to steadily declining audiences. *_

_*Eyes In for the latest Trot bingo!*_

*Gilbert Achcar, Jean Alain Roussel, Alan Gibbons, Zita Holbourne, Kate Hudson, Roger Lloyd Pack, Ken Loach, China Miéville, Michael Rosen*

 * *


----------



## ayatollah (Aug 31, 2013)

Yeh,  Leftie waaaaankerrrrs......just as well you guys have been around  to stop the bosses' austerity offensive in it's tracks with your manifestly superior alternative strategy.


----------



## seventh bullet (Aug 31, 2013)

Yes, you're a wanker.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2013)

mk12 said:


> My local branch is focusing on setting up a student organisation, potentially doing some activity over the Syria debacle, and urging people to 'like' the Left Unity page on Facebook.


 
the syria debacle? the continuing bloody civil war or the rather less sanguinary parliamentary fiasco?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Yeh,  Leftie waaaaankerrrrs......just as well you guys have been around  to stop the bosses' austerity offensive in it's tracks with your manifestly superior alternative strategy.


For about the tenth time, can you outline your strategy that other people must come up with an alternative to?


----------



## treelover (Sep 18, 2013)

> *The left doesn't need a new party. It needs some new ideas*
> The creation of Left Unity misses the point. Labour's inertia comes down to the left no longer knowing what it stands for
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/16/left-new-party-ideas?commentpage=1


 

L/U getting a lot of media coverage, largely down to Salman Shaheen who seems to be pretty good at PR, this article is by James Bloodworth who comes across quite Blairite.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 18, 2013)

Shaheen's rebuttal to Bloodworth's article.


> As I’ve previously argued, New Labour has done far more to entrench a Thatcherite consensus in this country than John Major ever could. By transforming Labour from a party that represented working class people into a party that represented free-market interests, Tony Blair ensured there could be no opposition to the neoliberal policies that spectacularly wrecked the global economy and plunged those Labour was founded to speak up for deeper into poverty.
> 
> 
> When Ed Miliband won the Labour leadership with the support of the trade unions, there was a glimmer of hope that we could see the return of a genuine Labour party that could provide genuine opposition to Tory policies. Not only would this be good for the poorest sections of British society, it would be good for democracy. Voters need a choice.
> ...


----------



## treelover (Oct 18, 2013)

> The political economy of housing and Left Unity: A note on the policy commission
> 
> http://leftunity.org/the-political-...d-left-unity-a-note-on-the-policy-commission/


 



> The factors behind the widespread acknowledgement that housing is in crisis in Britain are easy to recognise. For the whole New Labour era falling stocks of council housing have combined with house prices rocketing away from stagnant incomes (excepting the mini-crash of prices in 2007-8). This has produced much overcrowding and homelessness, and many people finding themselves trapped paying high rents without security in often dilapidated conditions. The rapid increase in private renting and fall in home ownership has troubled even some Tories2, and threatens to make renting privately the only option for most working class and some middle class households. To illustrate the scale of potential discontent, as few as 2% of respondents told the Joseph Rowntree Federation they wanted to rent privately3 yet the number of households in this position stands at 17% and rising fast. Under-35s are now far more likely to be private renters than homeowners, a sharp reversal of the position only 10 years ago4.


 



> Housing is a terrain where we can demonstrate the value of socialist ideas like solidarity, self-organisation and participatory democracy. We can link the struggles of tenants with efforts to radicalize and expand the trade unions of workers in council housing and benefits. This would be a sharp departure from what most of the left has practised in recent years, and suggests the possibility of a principled but non-dogmatic party that can (over time) become an important section of working class political action.


 


Very detailed and promising policy submission on housing by a LU member, examining such issues as the massive rise in the PRS, and makes explicit links between council housing and working class  identity.


----------



## treelover (Oct 18, 2013)

Btw, I think it is by an Urbanite!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 18, 2013)

It's not a bad article by any means and certainly one of the best written and researched on the LU site, a few more members like him making contributions and they might start being of use in some way.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 19, 2013)

The heirachy of PCS stood as a LU slate, then have proceeded to sell us out on pay, pensions and conditions. Useless bunch of cunts.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> The heirachy of PCS stood as a LU slate, then have proceeded to sell us out on pay, pensions and conditions. Useless bunch of cunts.


You have been told three times now by me and on other occasions by others that you are talking about totally different Left Unities. You are now into openly lying territory.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 19, 2013)

treelover said:


> Very detailed and promising policy submission on housing by a LU member, examining such issues as the massive rise in the PRS, and makes explicit links between council housing and working class  identity.



Promoting division.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2013)

You have the wrong group ffs!!! Can someone else tell the fool please?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 19, 2013)

assuming have butchers on ignore sass- there are two different left unities. The one you are on about is not the subject of this thread


----------



## treelover (Oct 19, 2013)




----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 19, 2013)

Hang on do some people not have the lying tory fuckwit on ignore?


----------



## treelover (Nov 30, 2013)

http://leftunity.org/founding-conference-live-video-steam/


Conference/Party Launch, over 600 people there apparently, Liz Davies chairing.

looks like democracy is messy.

Tom Walker(ISN) has the floor


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 30, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://leftunity.org/founding-conference-live-video-steam/
> 
> 
> Conference/Party Launch, over 600 people there apparently, Liz Davies chairing.
> ...



I've been living outside Britain for 8 years now and it's kind of depressing that despite that passage of time I'm still able to recognise so many of the speakers.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2013)

Just had a quick look and was immediately barked at by Liz davies about some ridiculous long winded motion or something.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2013)

Looks like they're sticking with using the google play logo as well.


----------



## treelover (Nov 30, 2013)

Left Party Platform passed, whatever that means.


----------



## belboid (Nov 30, 2013)

No one called to support the socialist platform, apparently. Suspicions of a stitch up already circulating.


----------



## treelover (Nov 30, 2013)

Not sure why this 'platform' notion developed, imo, the best thing is to work out how you are going to take on the big issues, housing, benefits, etc.


----------



## treelover (Nov 30, 2013)

Is this guy speaking now, ex SWP?, he looks familiar, lots of arm waving as well.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 30, 2013)

Decent attendance (not 600 though - more like 400).  All taken up with tedious internal left attempts at building factional platforms​


----------



## belboid (Nov 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Decent attendance (not 600 though - more like 400).  All taken up with tedious internal left attempts at building factional platforms​


there was a, what, one hour, debate about platforms.  Hardly unreasonable. 

Not a great turnout tho.  Not terrible, but no better than anything that went before.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 30, 2013)

First platforms + now tedious constitutional debate going on interminably...


----------



## belboid (Nov 30, 2013)

Shocking! A new organisation trying to decide what its constitution should be. How bloody ridiculous.

(campaign priorities are the last of the three things on the agenda, so it should get more interesting then. A little)


----------



## belboid (Nov 30, 2013)

A bold decision has been taken!

They're going to call themselves....

(can you bear the tension?)



Left Unity


----------



## treelover (Nov 30, 2013)

disaster, too internal looking

and will be the constant butt of 'Peoples Judean Front' jokes


----------



## mk12 (Nov 30, 2013)

treelover said:


> disaster, too internal looking


 
What's a disaster? The name?


----------



## treelover (Nov 30, 2013)

yes


----------



## treelover (Nov 30, 2013)

> Russell Brand, Ed Miliband and the search for a popular left
> 
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/2fbfa6ba-5813-11e3-82fc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2m4K9PiHA



Northhampton Left Unity in the F/T, part of a wider article on 'wither the left'


----------



## treelover (Nov 30, 2013)

> High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/2fbfa6ba-5813-11e3-82fc-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2m9KQrWs7Yet, within a few minutes of the meeting starting, a familiar division emerges. There are 10 people around the table, including Todd, her partner, her mother and her father (her grandfather was general secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union).* The latter has a problem with David Smith, another attendee, who is accused of being insufficiently working class (he went to university.)* The mood quickly darkens. If Northampton _is _indicative of Left Unity’s future then, according to one attendee, “it could dissolve on the basis of what happened at Kronstadt”.



Dear me, I hope that's not right...


----------



## mk12 (Nov 30, 2013)

That's my local branch (see my post about the email that went round).


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 30, 2013)

mk12 said:


> That's my local branch (see my post about the email that went round).


Quote it please?


----------



## mk12 (Nov 30, 2013)

It was in another thread actually. 



> I received an odd email from my local Left Unity group today. They asked if recipients of the emails minded the fact 'left' language was used, such as 'comrade' and 'solidarity'. Apparently the sender had received complaints from some for her persistence in using these words.
> 
> On the one hand this seems fair enough, as moving beyond the old left (it's strategy as well as it's culture) is necessary. I can't help feel this is just surface-level change though. Changing the language, without changing the methods, structure and even aims of the left, will not make much difference. If it's the same old people, organising in the same old way, debating about the same old things, then Left Unity will go nowhere.


----------



## love detective (Nov 30, 2013)

treelover said:


> Northhampton Left Unity in the F/T, part of a wider article on 'wither the left'



Bit of an odd article I thought (front page of the life & arts weekend supplement with a big cringe inducing picture of Owen Jones and Laura Bates)


Most telling part (in relation to left unity's thinking) I thought was when Salman Shaheen said left unity wanted to be the 'UKIP of the left'. At first I thought, interesting, might be something in this, until the next paragraph went on to explain that this was a metaphor that expresses the need for a 'gravitational pull on labour from the left, similar to how UKIP moves tories to the right'

Even the FT journalist pulled up this bollocks for what it is, pulling on the work of others he points out this metaphor is misguided (on both sides), that lefty unity has no grounding in popular sentiment, and most importantly that far from the idea that an effective far left and ukip have different audiences, they shouldn't, and that UKIP is 'the most working class party in Britain'

Yet here we have the brightest and best minds on the conservative left pushing the lie that UKIP represent nothing more than a home for disaffected right wing tories. Was pointed out far back in this thread that once more we have a project rallied around unity rather than an analysis, much less a strategy, and that it's all about a starting point of what 'we must be' rather than looking at the situation objectively first, looking at what they 'must do' and let the political programme flow from that. But, no. Dead in the water, box ticking.


----------



## kenny g (Nov 30, 2013)

That meeting looked terrible. The standing orders person at the front was clueless about what was going on so I can't imagine what anyone else was supposed to think.


----------



## rekil (Nov 30, 2013)

Owen's jumper has 3 shoulder pips. That means he's a captain. A captain of the Left. Duties involve reading the papers on Sky and gazing wistfully into the middle distance.


----------



## treelover (Dec 1, 2013)

Photo by Peter Marshall


Owen Jones lookalike sitting next to Ken, who unlike Rees and others clearly has no intention of dominating his new party.


----------



## treelover (Dec 1, 2013)

The other co-founder of LU: Andrew Burgin, again content to be just part of the team and the audience, hopefully, a good sign...


----------



## JHE (Dec 1, 2013)

The few pictures I've seen of it and the 20 mins or so I watched live yesterday suggest that the founding conference was not exactly overburdened with young people.  Does this new party have any prospect of being much more than the re-heating some middle-aged lefty-overs?


----------



## J Ed (Dec 1, 2013)

JHE said:


> The few pictures I've seen of it and the 20 mins or so I watched live yesterday suggest that the founding conference was not exactly overburdened with young people.  Does this new party have any prospect of being much more than the re-heating some middle-aged lefty-overs?



They probably can't afford to get to London, the ones in London are probably writing about how some pop star or another needs to check her privilege or something


----------



## Awesome Wells (Dec 2, 2013)

JHE said:


> The few pictures I've seen of it and the 20 mins or so I watched live yesterday suggest that the founding conference was not exactly overburdened with young people.  Does this new party have any prospect of being much more than the re-heating some middle-aged lefty-overs?


It better have something. I don't know how much more of these capitalist toff wankers I can take!


----------



## belboid (Dec 2, 2013)

the most positive report I've seen comes from....Ian Bone!

http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/left-unity-a-positive-start/


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 2, 2013)

Who's Ian Bone?


----------



## belboid (Dec 2, 2013)

Class War


----------



## mk12 (Dec 2, 2013)

> For the first time an organisation to the left of Labour has been set up WITHOUT the involvement of the SWP and the SP


 
Long may it continue (the SWP anyway). If Left Unity takes off they'll definitely get involved, though with their ever-decreasing numbers perhaps they won't be able to dominate it...

Out of interest, why aren't the SP involved in this?


----------



## belboid (Dec 2, 2013)

TUSC (and they dont think it has a hope, I guess)


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2013)

It's got the swp reserve team involved hasn't it?


----------



## mk12 (Dec 2, 2013)

belboid said:


> TUSC (and they dont think it has a hope, I guess)


 
Ah yes. Forgot about that.

butchersapron Yeah the ISN or whatever they're called are in Left Unity.


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 2, 2013)

Is counterfire involved? Apart from offering to do the catering?


----------



## treelover (Dec 2, 2013)

> The individuals prominent in setting LU took on a self effacing role, not sitting up front but in the audience and not stitching – or seeking to – every vote in advance. The common sense prevailed and the platforms of the micro-sects were all defeated decisively. The predominant and genuine cry was ‘we want to look forward not back’.
> 
> from the bone blog


 
yes, it does seem that way, Salman Shaheen seems to be prominent, but only as a PR position, and he is very good.


----------



## treelover (Dec 2, 2013)

Bone Blog

OT, but does anyone know what this woman is doing now?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2013)

treelover said:


> Out of interest, why aren't the SP involved in this?


 
I would have thought because it gives every impression of being a lot of ex-sectarians looking to build a home in which they feel comfortable, and where they can all get along famously, rather than immediately engaging wider forces.

I'd have criticisms of TUSC, but feel closer to that than to "left unity".


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I would have thought because it gives every impression of being a lot of ex-sectarians looking to build a home in which they feel comfortable, and where they can all get along famously, rather than immediately engaging wider forces.
> 
> I'd have criticisms of TUSC, but feel closer to that than to "left unity".


This is not the Syriza you were looking for. 

That you think TUSC might be is just bizarre though.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2013)

I'm not expecting anything much from TUSC.  But *if* any left alternative is to get of the ground, it's going to need to spend more time engaging with the interests and views of people who live outside the small leftist subculture than the flotsam and jetsam already inside it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I'm not expecting anything much from TUSC.  But *if* any left alternative is to get of the ground, it's going to need to spend more time engaging with the interests and views of people who live outside the small leftist subculture than the flotsam and jetsam already inside it.


Why trot out that banality though? To not be shit things must not be shit. Great.

And why assume one initiative that seems less populated by the usual suspects it more likely to achieve it than one totally dominated by the usual suspects? (You may need to be open about what bureaucratic RMT connections you have at this point).


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I'm not expecting anything much from TUSC.  But *if* any left alternative is to get of the ground, it's going to need to spend more time engaging with the interests and views of people who live outside the small leftist subculture than the flotsam and jetsam already inside it.



TUSC doesn't seem to have succeeded in even engaging with RMT members at this point


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 2, 2013)

belboid said:


> TUSC (and they dont think it has a hope, I guess)



More the latter than the former, I'd guess. I have no idea what discussions the SP over there has had about Left Unity, so this is just an opinion from afar and shouldn't be taken as representing their views, but from where I'm sitting this looks like an elephants graveyard.

(I'm a bit curious about a definition of "usual suspects" that doesn't include Loach, Burgin, Felicity Dowling, Tom Walker, Kate Hudson, Alan Thornett, Liam McUaid , Nick Wrack and just about everyone else prominently involved. Also a little baffled at the surprise over leading figures sitting with the plebs. Do people here think that John Rees used to preside over SWP conference from a throne of skulls?)


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 2, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Is counterfire involved? Apart from offering to do the catering?



No.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> More the latter than the former, I'd guess. I have no idea what discussions the SP over there has had about Left Unity, so this is just an opinion from afar and shouldn't be taken as representing their views, but from where I'm sitting this looks like an elephants graveyard.
> 
> (I'm also curious as to a definition of "usual suspects" that doesn't include Loach, Burgin, Felicity Dowling, Tom Walker, Kate whatshername, Alan Thornett, Liam McUaid , Nick Wrack and just about everyone else prominently involved)


I said less populated not 'didn't include' - and these people are on the whole not tied to any organisations - or ones incapable of the normal trot attempts at domination.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I said less populated not 'didn't include' - and these people are on the whole not tied to any organisations - or ones incapable of the normal tory attempts at domination.



I'd say that it's about as populated by the "usual suspects" as anything can reasonably be, with a membership at the top, an oppositional current and a rank and file all made up of people who've been around the left for donkeys years. The main difference is that they are mostly grey haired ex members of this or that or current members of particularly ineffectual sects, clustered together for shelter.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'd say that it's about as populated by the "usual suspects" as anything can reasonably be, with a membership at the top, an oppositional current and a rank and file all made up of people who've been around the left for donkeys years. The main difference is that they are mostly grey haired ex members of this or that or current members of particularly ineffectual sects, clustered together for shelter.


Saying that's it's less populated by the usual suspects means just that - less of them. And my point was that it's not the _organisational _usual suspects, those who an and do dominate that are here - it's mostly individuals (without their usual suspect organisational back ups, the ones they are used to fronting for - key point) here who are usual suspects.


----------



## chilango (Dec 2, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'd say that it's about as populated by the "usual suspects" as anything can reasonably be, with a membership at the top, an oppositional current and a rank and file all made up of people who've been around the left for donkeys years. The main difference is that they are mostly grey haired ex members of this or that or current members of particularly ineffectual sects, clustered together for shelter.



That's certainly what the cynic in me sees...

...time will tell. And fairly quickly I would've thought.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2013)

The problem is not (per se) that LU contains the types above, but that it's priorities and methods are determined by what kind of an organisation *they* want to create for themselves, not what kind of an organisation the people they are trying to reach might want.


----------



## chilango (Dec 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> The problem is not (per se) that LU contains the types above, but that it's priorities and methods are determined by what kind of an organisation *they* want to create for themselves, not what kind of an organisation the people they are trying to reach might want.



That they, or you, think in terms of "reaching people" really illustrates the fundamental problem with much of the British Left.

It's a very, very, telling turn of phrase.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2013)

_Reach 'em teach', we might as well preach 'em as we're here._


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2013)

It signifies there is a measure of distance between the left and the class in whose name it pertains to speak.  This is not a claim as much as a measurable fact.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> It signifies there is a measure of distance between the left and the class in whose name it pertains to speak.  This is not a claim as much as a measurable fact.


I thought 9 million people voted for your left last time?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2013)

We were talking about the left outside Labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> We were talking about the left outside Labour.


But those nine million votes are what attract you to labour and keep you there. Why are you talking about LUP or TUSC as being attractive to you?


----------



## chilango (Dec 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> It signifies there is a measure of distance between the left and the class in whose name it pertains to speak.  This is not a claim as much as a measurable fact.



There isn't .

The Left just thinks there is.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> But those nine million votes are what attract you to labour and keep you there. Why are you talking about LUP or TUSC as being attractive to you?


I was saying LU was not in the least attractive.  If I was inclined to think a new left party was viable at this stage, I would be less put off by TUSC.  But I don't.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> The problem is not (per se) that LU contains the types above, but that it's priorities and methods are determined by what kind of an organisation *they* want to create for themselves, not what kind of an organisation the people they are trying to reach might want.


You're an apologist for the Labour Party, aren't you?


----------



## mk12 (Dec 2, 2013)

chilango said:


> There isn't .
> 
> The Left just thinks there is.


 
Please expand...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I was saying LU was not in the least attractive.  If I was inclined to think a new left party was viable at this stage, I would be less put off by TUSC.  But I don't.


So that's it basically, you'd prefer one failure that you - as someone bureaucratically linked - to rather than another. Nothing else. No reaching out.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> You're an apologist for the Labour Party, aren't you?


No!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> You're an apologist for the Labour Party, aren't you?


He's like a right wing dan hodges.


----------



## chilango (Dec 2, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Please expand...



The majority of Left activists are part if the w/c.

They're already in, and of, the class.

They're just rubbish at, to paraphrase Ferris Bueller, stopping and taking a look aound themselves once in a while.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He's like a right wing dan hodges.


shouldn't that be a left wing dan hodges?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> shouldn't that be a left wing dan hodges?


Is there no end to your self obsession?

 And no. Oddly enough, i manged to write what i wanted to.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I said less populated not 'didn't include' - and these people are on the whole not tied to any organisations - or ones incapable of the normal tory attempts at domination.



I think you are wrong about the less populated by part. As far as I can see its entirely populated by them, or near enough.

It looks just like what's sometimes called the Teachers Club left in Dublin. Grey haired ex members of this group or that group, sprinkled with a few thirty something ex members of groups. Always looking for something broad, always at meetings in the Teachers Club. Nice people by and large, but not people who are going to build anything and people who are entirely of the existing left, just more ineffectual than most. I could be wrong about LU, but it all smells very familiar to me.

You are right about organisational domination, in that groups like SR are simply too feeble to pull off anything like that if they were so inclined in the first place. But then again the old hands in the lead don't need to be that crude when broader/shallower/less radical is the shared common sense of most of the rank and file too.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2013)

priceless 


> Oddly enough, i manged to write what i wanted to.


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 2, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> More the latter than the former, I'd guess. I have no idea what discussions the SP over there has had about Left Unity, so this is just an opinion from afar and shouldn't be taken as representing their views, but from where I'm sitting this looks like an elephants graveyard.
> 
> (I'm a bit curious about a definition of "usual suspects" that doesn't include Loach, Burgin, Felicity Dowling, Tom Walker, Kate Hudson, Alan Thornett, Liam McUaid , Nick Wrack and just about everyone else prominently involved. Also a little baffled at the surprise over leading figures sitting with the plebs. *Do people here think that John Rees used to preside over SWP conference from a throne of skulls?*)



No,  he used to preside over SWP conference from a throne of unsold copies of Socialist Worker? Or was that Bambery?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Dec 3, 2013)

Is there a danger of Ledt Unity splitting the labour vote?

This wouldn't bother me, but it is paramount to get the tories out and LU won't do this alone if they stand in two years (assuming they plan to).


----------



## belboid (Dec 3, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> Is there a danger of Ledt Unity splitting the labour vote?


No


----------



## chilango (Dec 3, 2013)




----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> Is there a danger of Ledt Unity splitting the labour vote?
> 
> This wouldn't bother me, but it is paramount to get the tories out and LU won't do this alone if they stand in two years (assuming they plan to).


It would bother you - this fantasy scene - and you explain why.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2013)

I really don't see why getting labour in would be any better. Red Ed has already said he won't reverse any of the cuts. Its just lube.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I really don't see why getting labour in would be any better. Red Ed has already said he won't reverse any of the cuts. Its just lube.


People keep saying this - it's not true, there are loads of stuff they have _pledged _to reverse (they are very unlikely to though). They're not total idiots and do know what's need to win/keep certain support - and which ones are nice and cheap to make as well.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> People keep saying this - it's not true, there are loads of stuff they have _pledged _to reverse (they are very unlikely to though). They're not total idiots and do know what's need to win/keep certain support - and which ones are nice and cheap to make as well.




Pledges are worth fuck all though


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2013)

You can guarantee there will be no sure start centres re-funded and re opened for one, despite the likes of Chuka preaching big about them


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Pledges are worth fuck all though


Of course, but it doesn't mean that he/they are going around saying what you're saying that they are. They're not.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> You can guarantee there will be no sure start centres ref-funded and re opened for one, despite the likes of Chuka preaching big about them


Irrelevant - if you're going to attack them then do it right - make the argument that their pledges are worthless based on a b and c - not that they don't exist. The pledges exist to stop you doing that, saying they don't exist allows them to sidestep you and fob off the questions.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Of course, but it doesn't mean that he/they are going around saying what you're saying that they are. They're not.




no its not what they are saying openly. but it has been said. At the moment they are just doing very little save a bit of posturing cos they have an open goal next GE


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Irrelevant - if you're going to attack them then do it right - make the argument that their pledges are worthless based on a b and c - not that they don't exist. The pledges exist to stop you doing that, saying they don't exist allows them to sidestep you and fob off the questions.




Demonstrating that pledges are worthless should be enough of an argument backed by the ltany of ones failed to be honoured


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> no its not what they are saying openly. but it has been said. At the moment they are just doing very little save a bit of posturing cos they have an open goal next GE


What's not being said openly? What has been said? 

If there's an open goal, why insist on hitting the corner flag. Why  help them?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Demonstrating that pledges are worthless should be enough of an argument backed by the ltany of ones failed to be honoured


What did i just say that you should do? As opposed to what you've been doing which is saying not only that pledges don't exist, but that if they do they say the exact opposite of what they actually do. They love people coming at them with that stuff. Attack them on what they say will do backed up by what they have done - not made up shit or they will make mince meat out of you.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2013)

> Mr Miliband said Labour must face up to the "hard reality" that it will not be able to reverse spending cuts scheduled by the coalition for 2015-16.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What did i just say that you should do? As opposed to what you've been doing which is saying not only that pledges don't exist, but that if they do they say the exact opposite of what they actually do. They love people coming at them with that stuff. Attack them on what they say will do backed up by what they have done - not made up shit or they will make mince meat out of you.



Is a pledge not something they say they will do then? We know its lies, but its what they said they would do.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

Miliband pledges to reverse corporation tax cut
Miliband pledges to reverse social housing changes

The key is that he plays both sides - he says he won't reverse all cuts, but he will reverse some. as i said in my first post:

 They're not total idiots and do know what's need to win/keep certain support - and which ones are nice and cheap to make as well.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2013)

oh wait I just got your line of reasoning-- yeah OK I can see that. but I still think its worth highlighting the lies .


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Is a pledge not something they say they will do then? We know its lies, but its what they said they would do.


Oh ffs:

This:




			
				you said:
			
		

> Red Ed has already said he won't reverse any of the cuts.



is not true. Attacking them for this will allow them to point to cuts they have said they will reverse. You're better off attacking the idea that they will reverse any due to ideology history and opportunism - that's it. I'm saying attack them better. Not that their pledges are worth anything.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2013)

the feeble and picayune cut reversals will be mockery materiel in itself though- It's not game of thrones. Labour say they will reduce x by z percent! While not touching the core cuts. That alone is stick enough for beating purposes


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> the feeble and picayune cut reversals will be mockery materiel in itself though- It's not game of thrones. Labour say they will reduce x by z percent! While not touching the core cuts. That alone is stick enough for beating purposes


But that's not the stick that you have chosen to pick up though. I've been urging you to do so.


----------



## treelover (Dec 3, 2013)

> Perhaps the most telling moments in the conference concerned the resolution of the new organisation’s gender politics.  The practical questions were these: should there be “at least 50%” representation for women in any leadership, and should the organisation have caucuses and sections for oppressed groups?
> Not all participants acquitted themselves admirably on this question.  One man complained that “at least 50%” representation for women would result in women being numerically dominant most of the time.  He indicated that he thought this was “nonsense,” but didn’t seem to be able to say why.  Others suggested that to have a quota would result in people not being selected on the basis of their politics.  This seemed to carry the implication that the present over-representation of men is in some sense politically meritocratic.
> 
> However, these delegates were fighting a steep uphill battle.  They had lost before the debate began.  Conference gave the most heartfelt and animated reception to those who spoke for feminism, and voted by mountainous majorities for “at least 50%” and for caucuses and sections.  These may seem like baby steps.  Of course they are.  But the signal sent by this conference is clear: the culture of the Left is changing and feminism is winning the argument.
> ...



Report by SEYMOUR!

Looks like Feminism, Intersectionality, Equality/liberation politics will play a key part in LU, fair enough, but will this mean they marginalise basic issues?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 3, 2013)

was it intentional that their colour scheme and logo bears a passing resemblance to the palestinian flag?


----------



## treelover (Dec 3, 2013)

> For the first time, the polite etiquette in the room of clapping speakers from alternate platforms, or with slightly differing views disappeared, I was the ONLY person who applauded him. I looked around and saw the fear and awkwardness in the eyes of men and women who probably agreed with him, but were too nervous about going against the dominant status quo in the room.



This was part of a comment made btl, discussing when a guy stood up and opposed female quotas, not very edifying if true.


----------



## chilango (Dec 3, 2013)

treelover said:


> but will this mean they marginalise basic issues?



The issues will marginalise Left Unity.


----------



## mk12 (Dec 3, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> was it intentional that their colour scheme and logo bears a passing resemblance to the palestinian flag?


 
I'm not sure, but I think it's to represent the red of socialism, the green of environmentalism, and the black of...I don't know. Not anarchism, surely?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

It's google play. With a bit of IB.


----------



## rekil (Dec 3, 2013)

mk12 said:


> and the black of...I don't know.


Space and whatever is out there (ie aliens).


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 3, 2013)

copliker said:


> Space and whatever is out there (ie aliens).



If Posadas could see us now.


----------



## belboid (Dec 3, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> was it intentional that their colour scheme and logo bears a passing resemblance to the palestinian flag?


its exactly the same as the Afghan National Army emblem!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

belboid said:


> its exactly the same as the Afghan National Army emblem!


It flipping is isn't it!


----------



## chilango (Dec 3, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> If Posadas could see us now.



Whaddya me "if"?

Course he can, and is. Something about a comet's tail or something I think.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> If Posadas could see us now.


----------



## chilango (Dec 3, 2013)

belboid said:


> its exactly the same as the Afghan National Army emblem!












Brilliant!!!


----------



## belboid (Dec 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It flipping is isn't it!


okay, minus the squiggles


----------



## treelover (Dec 3, 2013)

someone had better inform them.


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 3, 2013)

treelover said:


> someone had better inform them.



they already know


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 3, 2013)

On Tony Greensteins blog it makes a reference to http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/left-unity-conference.html



> What was even more confusing was that the Chair couldn’t decide whether the Aims and Objectives were part of the constitution.  He ruled against but the agenda stated differently.  If so, then we have a party that is committed to the mixed i.e. private and public, economy.  A great start for a unified socialist party, which is probably why the term ‘left’ rather than ‘socialist’ was the order of the day.  There were 4 platforms – Class Struggle, Socialist, Communist and Left Platform.  The latter won out with a ¾ majority.



So aside from the questions over quotas and stuff, what about this? mixed economy? That's a bit wet isn't it? I accept that presenting it in the language of reformism, and trying to situate yourself as an alternative to Labour after 2015, has a bit more tactical scope to it than "nationalise the top 200 companies" or something like that, but are the actually even trying to have a new radical socialist party or a new SDP?

Is that what they think society is asking for? That some moderate Labourism is the solution to the specific problems we face? It's so strange that their lesson from the last 5-6 years of crisis and austerity has been to move away from class at a time when society itself seems to be engaged in a very fierce class-based struggle, but that might be because they're taking their lessons from their experiences in the political left bubble not by earnestly looking at changes taking place outside the trot bunker. The SWP refugee's have taken with them quite different poltical lessons from their experiences, and as the largest organised faction that will dominate the path of the organisation in the future, effectively tying Left Unity to the SWP so that it can be a place where oppositionists and other SWP remnants achieve their vindication, not something that's orientated towards the millions of people outside of the political left who are alienated, marginalised and under attack from austerity.

Seymour makes some points here http://www.newleftproject.org/index...t_unity_a_report_from_the_founding_conference



> Whereas crises arose for European social democratic parties upon taking office and administering neoliberalism, no such crisis arose for Labour.  Anyone still a member of the party or voting for it had few expectations of Blair as a radical reformer.  When Blair’s record was worse than expected, members and voters withdrew from activity rather than join anything new, their demoralisation stronger than their outrage.  Even Stop the War, one of the few movements to genuinely merit the adjective ‘mass’, could only prise away one Labour MP.  That was George Galloway.  He did not want to leave, but was forced out, and did not bring a significant detachment with him.  The highlights and lowlights of his subsequent career are well known.



No mention of the SWP's role in fucking up the Stop the War movement. And saying that there's been "no crisis for Labour" well I'm not so sure myself, there's still plenty of time for that happen after 2015



> This is the problem that Left Unity faces.  The UK has no significant communist or far left parties equivalent to those in Greece, France or Portugal.  It is therefore impossible to do what Left Unity wants to do unless there is a realignment in which a sizeable chunk of the Labour Party, including MPs and councillors, splits.  Moreover, Left Unity is not coming up on the back of some great social movement, and the wider left in which it operates is historically weak.  To all appearances, it has emerged at a most inopportune moment.



2 things here stand out. Firstly that it's very Labour orientated in both it's own policies (and I include the intersectional/identity politics in that) and it's strategy. he says "collaborate effectively with those who continue to be in the Labour Party whether through the People’s Assemblies or more localised campaigns" which we can translate as "please allow me to be your bagcarrier of choice Mr McCluskey not John and Lindsay" and then "define a viable left politics that doesn’t simply speak in the idiom of forgotten eras of radicalism." which can be translated more honestly by the comment by Sheila Richards "The day was dominated by the tired traditional left wing language which I had hoped we had grown out of; ‘class war’, ‘class struggle’, ‘communism’, ‘smash the EDF’, ‘working class’ (copious use of that)." Indeed Richards, fuck the working class, it's not like we're living through a major class struggle at the moment. When are you going to grow up, abandon your tired old notions of socialism, and instead reduce your politics to a liberal platitude of "make the changes needed to bring fairness and justice to this country." oooh fairness and justice sounds lovely. Smash the EDF!

And secondly the UK has no significant communist or far-left parties equivalent to those in Greece and Portugal etc but it does have "the smallest mass party in the world" and it's from there, not from any mass formation, that the largest faction within Left Unity seems to come from. Rather than looking at it as a potential Syriza then, which was after all derived from a semi-mass communist party, perhaps it's better to think of it as a British _Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste _? A party formed and created not be a response to changing conditions in wider society but by crises and fallouts within the irrelevant trotskyite sects?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 3, 2013)

isnt tony greenstein supposed to be a bit of a loose cannon?


----------



## discokermit (Dec 3, 2013)

belboid said:


> okay, minus the squiggles


and rotated 60 degrees anti clockwise.


----------



## belboid (Dec 3, 2013)

discokermit said:


> and rotated 60 degrees anti clockwise.


120 degrees clockwise - but, yeah


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2013)

PD does better agit prop *picture of a fist*


----------



## caleb (Dec 3, 2013)

1. Wasn't it always clear that Left Unity was about building a party that would advocate social-democratic, "mixed economy" style policies anyway? That's no surprise. What do self-professed revolutionaries see in this though? Is it seriously the very cynical view that the proles need to be lead to see that a moderate, parliamentary party like this can only go so far, in order to be won over to supporting revolutionary politics? I don't get it.

2. How is this a period of "major class struggle"? Do you mean from above or something? Because it very clearly isn't in any other respect.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 3, 2013)

caleb said:


> 1. Wasn't it always clear that Left Unity was about building a party that would advocate social-democratic, "mixed economy" style policies anyway? That's no surprise. What do self-professed revolutionaries see in this though? Is it seriously the very cynical view that the proles need to be lead to see that a moderate, parliamentary party like this can only go so far, in order to be won over to supporting revolutionary politics? I don't get it.



I figured that might still be up for grabs though, that enough people not already part of the political scene might've participated in it for it to have some new ideas, rather than what looks to me like quite a cynical positioning. And it's a real dead end too - Left Unity social democratic tamed capitalism will fare no better than Labour party tamed capitalism. And what's worse is these people know it.

I think it reflects a lack of imagination personally, and also the fact that Left Unity for all it's promise really hasn't had any kind of appeal beyond meeting fetishists looking for a new hobby. If it had been something that could draw in even a small number of people outside that mileu, then the arguments we'd have seen at that conference would've been very different. As it is the arguments centred around issues of contention between various ex-sectarians, rather than reflecting the concerns of the those outside that bubble who are suffering the brunt of austerity it was the priorities of the ex-SWP lot that won the day.



caleb said:


> 2. How is this a period of "major class struggle"? Do you mean from above or something? Because it very clearly isn't in any other respect.



Of course it is, what do you think austerity is? Yes it is from above, it's class politics red in tooth and claw. People talk about the "decline of class consciousness" and so on referring to the working class but they overlook the fact the government and capital is more class conscious than ever. They act as a class in pursuit of a class interest and they do it very well. They never abandoned class politics, and it's not doing them any harm.

It's very hard to understand what this current Tory government is doing without some understand of the class forces at work. There's been a slight increase in class consciousness on the part of working class people too I would say, infact noticeably more than when I was growing up in the New Labour 90's, but not much by way of effective organisation, partly because the left groups have little or no relationship to the working class and are often instinctively hostile to them (which is a more complex topic needs special attention)


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2013)

I just don't know what the real answer is except maybe we can come up with one if everyone is armed. hashtag:l.unity


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

What's class consciousness delroy? Do you mean people explicitly talking and thinking in terms of class and joining things like left unity? If not, what?


----------



## discokermit (Dec 3, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Of course it is, what do you think austerity is?


a walkover, not a struggle.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Dec 3, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I really don't see why getting labour in would be any better. Red Ed has already said he won't reverse any of the cuts. Its just lube.


It isn't just about being better. God knows Miliband is a goofy pasty faced corporate stooge.

It sends a message to the tories who think labour are all socialist lefty idiots.

It also gets them out of office which is the most important thing right now.

I would rather labour took over than another term of this coalition or, god fucking forbid, a tory majority.

The alternative is a repeat of the outcome of the last election: a hung parliament and another coalition which means Labour, if they get the majority, going into bed with the libdems. They daren't go it alone as a minority because the tories and libdems will tear them to shreds.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What's class consciousness delroy? Do you mean people explicitly talking and thinking in terms of class and joining things like left unity? If not, what?


 
if you're looking for class consciousness i'm not convinced you'll necessarily find it in things like left unity.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 4, 2013)

Don't talk about class, it's divisive maaaan!


----------



## treelover (Dec 4, 2013)

> How I learned to stop worrying and love Left Unity
> 
> When I first heard about Left Unity, I signed up immediately, but was sceptical and nervous. Whose stitch-up was this? Behind the façade of starting a national conversation about the kind of party we need, who was preparing the answers for us, to be swallowed whole on delivery? I signed up, and helped get our local group started. I was in. But like everyone else who came along to our group, I kept darting nervous glances towards the exit.
> 
> ...



One activist's experience.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 4, 2013)

That's Stuart Watkins ex-SPGB sometimes ultra-leftist is it?


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's Stuart Watkins ex-SPGB sometimes ultra-leftist is it?



The very man. Lovely bloke.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 6, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> assuming have butchers on ignore sass- there are two different left unities. The one you are on about is not the subject of this thread



What was that about left wing cohesion again?


----------



## belboid (Dec 6, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> What was that about left wing cohesion again?


You're not very bright, are you?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 6, 2013)

herding cats ennit


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> What was that about left wing cohesion again?


One is a union group. One is a party. Go back to sleep. On my dollar.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 7, 2013)

One more time... Sas, this is a different Left Unity or do you have some kind of blind spot when you see those words?


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 16, 2013)

Would be good to get more people on the LU discussion forums, talking about policy etc...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 16, 2013)

Have they split yet?


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 17, 2013)

Nope, still going...
http://forum.leftunity.org/main/viewforum.php?f=13


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 17, 2013)

Coolfonz said:


> Would be good to get more people on the LU discussion forums, talking about policy etc...



Can you give treelover his elipses back please?


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 17, 2013)

I'm looking directly at the sun right now and i can't see any sign of an elipse.


----------



## caleb (Dec 17, 2013)

Fucking hell, looking at that forum you get a real sense of what a mess this shit is.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2013)

agriculture, food and animal commission as the first forum on the list?

*avoids joke about visiting corn fields and grain production up by 5%*


----------



## ska invita (Dec 17, 2013)

caleb said:


> Fucking hell, looking at that forum you get a real sense of what a mess this shit is.


Im surprised its as busy as it is - its hard to get people to engage with forums in this day and age


----------



## rekil (Dec 17, 2013)

PD needs something like that, with hot PD topics, but just a big jpg instead of an actual forum which would be silly.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

Believe it or not, within those many many sub-forums, there are also ones with their own set of sprawling sub-forums - and, within those sub-sub-forums further sub-forums - i'm not kidding. The amount of duplication and spread is astonishing and really needs to get sorted


----------



## ska invita (Dec 17, 2013)

i think the idea of creating policy via a publicly accessible forum is commendable. how much of an influence the boards will have on any final manifesto is another matter.


----------



## caleb (Dec 17, 2013)

I love the simplistic worldview of some of Left Unity - the left has been held back by using certain words or talking about certain things. Don't use those words or talk about those things and _the people_ shall flock to us. Oh to be so naive.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 17, 2013)

caleb said:


> I love the simplistic worldview of some of Left Unity - the left has been held back by using certain words or talking about certain things. Don't use those words or talk about those things and _the people_ shall flock to us. Oh to be so naive.


There does seem to be an element of that, which i tend to support in general terms. Not addressing  prospective voters as The Proletariat is one thing, but how this plays out in policy is another...where will the line be drawn between idealism and pragmatism, in the name of electability.


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 17, 2013)

caleb said:


> I love the simplistic worldview of some of Left Unity - the left has been held back by using certain words or talking about certain things. Don't use those words or talk about those things and _the people_ shall flock to us. Oh to be so naive.


Well why don't you come and say so? If you think peppering materials with words like `capitalism`, `multiculturalism`, `diversity` and so on would encourage people to vote LU then stand it up. Personally I think that's naive.
And no one I've seen says anyone will `flock` to LU as a result, sadly. It's more about trying to communicate without tiresome lefty jargon so people might actually listen. Hope that's clear...


----------



## ska invita (Dec 17, 2013)

Whats your feeling about the way policy will be formulated coolfonz? What are the limits? 
For example, republicanism isn't particularly popular at the moment (royal family approval ratings have bounced back in recent years to a relative high), but I'd imagine it is supported by the majority of LU. Has there been any discussion of reigning in policy for the sake of popularity?


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 17, 2013)

Yes definitely there has, well from me anyway. The idea is to actually be a political party as I understand (and I'm not central to LU's planning) and that does require people who aren't career leftys to vote for LU. So from my pov it will need a big dose of reality-checking...

Hence the need to speak clearly without jargon and so on.

As for how policy will be made. A conference is planned I believe. Early days etc. Would like to see more communication from LU myself though...


----------



## chilango (Dec 17, 2013)

Again it's all about missionary work innit?


----------



## ska invita (Dec 17, 2013)

Coolfonz said:


> Would like to see more communication from LU myself though...


 
you mean the founding mothers and fathers?
i think the apparent hands off approach from them is what is giving me faith (and unnerving others)


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 17, 2013)

true, could be a good sign...


----------



## caleb (Dec 17, 2013)

ska invita said:


> There does seem to be an element of that, which i tend to support in general terms. Not addressing  prospective voters as The Proletariat is one thing, but how this plays out in policy is another...where will the line be drawn between idealism and pragmatism, in the name of electability.



The "idealists" are precisely those who think that the secret to solving the left's isolation and poverty is in formulating a new language, discarding or hiding ideas. They can refine their language all they want, Left Unity will still never amount to anything.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 17, 2013)

caleb said:


> The "idealists" are precisely those who think that the secret to solving the left's isolation and poverty is in formulating a new language, discarding or hiding ideas. They can refine their language all they want, Left Unity will still never amount to anything.


I think that's a simplistic account of what is happening with LU - the language is just one element of the differences that are being implemented. if it was the only one then your point would hold.
For example I think Im right in saying it was passed that there will be “at least 50%” representation for women in any leadership positions - perhaps someone can confirm that.

Its not exactly a risky claim to say it wont amount to anything, but i see more reasons for optimism here than i do most anywhere else right now


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 17, 2013)

50pc women is right yeah. And yeah it's a small chance it might do something but it's better than nothing...


----------



## articul8 (Jan 16, 2014)

Trigger RIP


----------



## teqniq (Jan 16, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Trigger RIP


Well yes fair enough. But what has this got to do with LU? Is is supposed to be some cunning oblique reference to something along the lines of 'well only fools and horses would back LU'?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2014)

teqniq said:


> Well yes fair enough. But what has this got to do with LU? Is is supposed to be some cunning oblique reference to something along the lines of 'well only fools and horses would back LU'?


RLP was a big LU supporter.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 16, 2014)

Ah ok


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2014)

A report from the Left Unity national committee:
http://www.independentsocialistnetw...ction_type_map=["og.likes"]&action_ref_map=[]

Short version: Nobody does sectarianism like "anti-sectarian" reformist burnouts. Is there a single person mentioned who isn't an ex-member of some left group or other?

(My favourite comment is from the ever-bewildered Tom Walker: Left Unity isn't about uniting the left.)


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> (My favourite comment is from the ever-bewildered Tom Walker: Left Unity isn't about uniting the left.)


Technically he is boringly right - it's the ISN.SR.ACI.WP lash up that is uniting 'the left'

Pete M is also wrong that all the officers come from the same platform, there's at least one that doesn't (tho not many more than that)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> Technically he is boringly right - it's the ISN.SR.ACI.WP lash up that is uniting 'the left'



He's mostly just accidentally pointing out the inaccuracy of the Left Unity name and rhetoric. I suppose Burnt Out Political Refugees Unity doesn't have the same ring, to be fair. The whole thing just smells of the Teachers Club left here in Dublin. There seems to be a similar milieu in every large city.

As for the "lash up", Socialist Resistance must be shaking their Zimmer frames in frustration as the talking goes nowhere much.


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> He's mostly just accidentally pointing out the inaccuracy of the Left Unity name and rhetoric. I suppose Burnt Out Political Refugees Unity doesn't have the same ring, to be fair.
> 
> The whole thing just smells of the Teachers Club left here in Dublin. There seems to be a similar milieu in every large city.


But it's not just BOPRs, there are new people! New, honest guv. Not just people TW doesn't recognise cos they refused to work with the SWP/ the SWP refused to work with them previously.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> But it's not just BOPRs, there are new people! New, honest guv. Not just people TW doesn't recognise cos they refused to work with the SWP/ the SWP refused to work with them previously.



I'm sure there must be a few somewhere, but that NC meeting was old lags to a man or woman and the founding conference had a slippers and boiled sweets demographic judging by the photos.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 17, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm sure there must be a few somewhere, but that NC meeting was old lags to a man or woman and the founding conference had a slippers and boiled sweets demographic judging by the photos.



werthers originals?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 17, 2014)

Good news to see LU slowly self destructing


----------



## J Ed (Jan 17, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Good news to see LU slowly self destructing



Why?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> A report from the Left Unity national committee:
> http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/?p=2700&fb_action_ids=10152155317893258&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=[579182722168412]&action_type_map=["og.likes"]&action_ref_map=[]
> 
> Short version: Nobody does sectarianism like "anti-sectarian" reformist burnouts. Is there a single person mentioned who isn't an ex-member of some left group or other?
> ...






> We must not be like TUSC and stand everywhere.  TUSC is even opposing Caroline Lucas



Those bastards in TUSC, how dare they stand against a scab.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2014)

They have less than 10 grand in the bank but they plan to employ an admin worker?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Those bastards in TUSC, how dare they stand against a scab.


How is she a scab?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 18, 2014)

[URL="http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/that-wonderfully-progressive-greens-party-is-about-to-bring-in-scab-labour.311238/page-3#post-12324330"]That wonderfully progressive Greens Party is about to bring in scab labour[/URL]


----------



## J Ed (Jan 18, 2014)

According to her she was just picking something up and putting it next to the rest of the rubbish rather than litter picking or whatever. AFAIK unlike the council Green Party she supported the strike.

It does seem a bit weird for TUSC, which has limited resources, to target Caroline Lucas.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2014)

J Ed said:


> It does seem a bit weird for TUSC, which has limited resources, to target Caroline Lucas.


You forget that TUSC are fucking idiots


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2014)

...and also, that is going to be one of labour top targets, they are going to pour money and resources into it.


----------



## treelover (Jan 18, 2014)

Loach was on Going Underground today(RT) second time in a  fortnight L/U have featured

btw, they voted to prioritise benefit cuts, etc at the latest meeting.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 18, 2014)

J Ed said:


> According to her she was just picking something up and putting it next to the rest of the rubbish rather than litter picking or whatever. AFAIK unlike the council Green Party she supported the strike.
> 
> It does seem a bit weird for TUSC, which has limited resources, to target Caroline Lucas.


Bugger, raining on my Lucas hate parade. 

It does seem a silly seat to target, but then are there any good targets for TUSC?


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Bugger, raining on my Lucas hate parade.
> 
> It does seem a silly seat to target, but then are there any good targets for TUSC?


0.2% of the vote would've a good target


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 18, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Bugger, raining on my Lucas hate parade.



Don't worry mate, I'm on your side.

(that thread's in dire need of bumping by the way, gonna have to find some green shitness later for that purpose - shouldn't be too hard!)


----------



## stuff_it (Jan 18, 2014)

emanymton said:


> They have less than 10 grand in the bank but they plan to employ an admin worker?


Where does it say that?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 18, 2014)

stuff_it said:


> Where does it say that?


Right at the end



> *FINANCE REPORT*
> 
> _Andrew Burgin _reported, covering the period 9th May 2013 to 2nd January 2014. Copies were distributed to delegates so that branches could receive a full report.  There was at present a balance of £9,267.  He confirmed that 20% of membership income would go to branches once they had bank accounts.  He suggested LU now needed to employ an admin worker.
> 
> ...


----------



## stuff_it (Jan 18, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Right at the end


Hah, was hoping for a job ad, lol.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 18, 2014)

stuff_it said:


> Hah, was hoping for a job ad, lol.


Thinking of applying?


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2014)

Presumably a few of those 1250 (up 50 since the conference!) members are on a direct debit, so they'd have some money for a worker. Tho not quite enough to stand in all the seats they want to.


----------



## stuff_it (Jan 18, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Thinking of applying?


I've worked worse places, I suspect.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> Presumably a few of those 1250 (up 50 since the conference!) members are on a direct debit, so they'd have some money for a worker. Tho not quite enough to stand in all the seats they want to.


Just seems to me that it will eat up a huge amount of their income, especially as they also say they will have to sort out office space, which means rent  and then there is equipment as well. If you only have one part time worker, why can't they just work from home? 

They are only asking for £2 per month membership.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2014)

Would you want all a national party's paperwork, finances and people cluttering up your home? A part timer and an office should be doable on a grand a month. Whichshouldntb e beyond there means considering how successful they are going to be. I mean, are already.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> You forget that TUSC are fucking idiots


Why is that?

Everyone seems to be either a scab, fucking idiots, class traitors, or a cunt.

FFS.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> Would you want all a national party's paperwork, finances and people cluttering up your home? A part timer and an office should be doable on a grand a month. Whichshouldntb e beyond there means considering how successful they are going to be. I mean, are already.


Just seems a big investment to me. But I suppose if they need it, they need it.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

emanymton said:


> That wonderfully progressive Greens Party is about to bring in scab labour


That's a link to a link to a tweet in which she says she's - very controversially admittedly - clearing some nappies up during a binmen strike.

"Personally, don't think picking dirty nappies from street & putting in bag on side of road undermines importance of strike"


----------



## chilango (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Why is that?
> 
> Everyone seems to be either a scab, fucking idiots, class traitors, or a cunt.
> 
> FFS.



No, not everyone.

Just people who's hobby is far-left political groups.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Why is that?
> 
> Everyone seems to be either a scab, fucking idiots, class traitors, or a cunt.
> 
> FFS.


Oh please, TUSC has failed completely and utterly.  it gets derisory votes and it's aim to standing 625 seats is just moronic.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> That's a link to a link to a tweet in which she says she's - very controversially admittedly - clearing some nappies up during a binmen strike.
> 
> "Personally, don't think picking dirty nappies from street & putting in bag on side of road undermines importance of strike"


Doing the work of people on strike is the definition of scab, surely?

Although see J Ed's post after mine.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> Oh please, TUSC has failed completely and utterly.  it gets derisory votes and it's aim to standing 625 seats is just moronic.


What should they do then?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Doing the work of people on strike is the definition of scab, surely?
> 
> Although see J Ed's post after mine.


Was that what she was doing?

Sounds to me that she was just picking up some shit and putting it in a bag to be collected. Perhaps the bag had been vandalised or chewed up by foxes or something. I think, given the particulars, that isn't unreasonable. It's not the same as driving the bin lorry and collecting it yourself and would probably make the binmen's job easier when they have to go back and pick up all the shit that's spilled onto the streets in the meantime.

Am I wrong?


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> What should they do then?


Stop pretending. Admit that that tactic has failed and summary new needs trying. But no, they'll carry on regardless getting embarrassingly tiny votes and pretending they're successes.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Was that what she was doing?
> 
> Sounds to me that she was just picking up some shit and putting it in a bag to be collected. Perhaps the bag had been vandalised or chewed up by foxes or something. I think, given the particulars, that isn't unreasonable. It's not the same as driving the bin lorry and collecting it yourself and would probably make the binmen's job easier when they have to go back and pick up all the shit that's spilled onto the streets in the meantime.
> 
> Am I wrong?


In pretty much everything you post - yes.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> No, not everyone.
> 
> Just people who's hobby is far-left political groups.


I don't even know what this means.

This all seems entirely self destructive.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> Stop pretending. Admit that that tactic has failed and summary new needs trying. But no, they'll carry on regardless getting embarrassingly tiny votes and pretending they're successes.



I don' t know if they are pretending they're successes. I do know that they have an uphill struggle: they don't get a platform in the media (look at how much time is given to Ukip ffs), they operate in a fucked up democracy in a capitalist system. The odds are totally against them. Now maybe they are on a hiding to nowhere, in which case, again, what do they do?


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2014)

Dump the shit name, say no to the truly truly awful No2EU rubbish, stand in far fewer seats. Would be a start.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I don' t know if they are pretending they're successes. I do know that they have an uphill struggle: they don't get a platform in the media (look at how much time is given to Ukip ffs), they operate in a fucked up democracy in a capitalist system. The odds are totally against them. Now maybe they are on a hiding to nowhere, in which case, again, what do they do?


If they are on a 'hiding to nowhere'(     ) then why defend repeating the action that lead to the hiding? You seem to want to want it every which way - how on earth do you square this series of posts about TUSC and the greens with your plea for people to vote labour? Incoherent.


----------



## chilango (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I don't even know what this means.
> 
> This all seems entirely self destructive.



It means a number of things.

Initiatives such as Left Unity occur every few years with numbing regularity.

By and large it's exactly the same people, having exactly the same discussions/arguments every single time.

And every time they do exactly the same things with exactly the same results.

Yet they carry on regardless.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2014)

_And so they should! 

_


----------



## chilango (Jan 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> _And so they should!
> _



Kinda like quarantine y'mean?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I don' t know if they are pretending they're successes. I do know that they have an uphill struggle: they don't get a platform in the media (look at how much time is given to Ukip ffs), they operate in a fucked up democracy in a capitalist system. The odds are totally against them. Now maybe they are on a hiding to nowhere, in which case, again, what do they do?


UKIP have 13 MEPs many councillors and poll solidly in the medium to high teens. The comparison with TUSC is miles off. What is this media obsession as well?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> It means a number of things.
> 
> Initiatives such as Left Unity occur every few years with numbing regularity.
> 
> ...



I'm not aware of other attempts. All i know is that the left seems hell bent on self destruction while the soceity is torn to shit by right wingers racists, bigots, corporations and cunts. It'd be nice to have some answers.

In next years vote the only choices on my ballot paper will be either Tory, who recently took over from the Libdems, who have traditionally held sway here. Labour won't get a look in, but are the only real chance of ousting this nighmare even though they aren't up to much. The rest are independent candidates, like Katie Hopkins, or BNP (if they stand - or some other England for teh English party) or UKip.

No left choice at all. Something needs to change, but it seems noone wants that to happen; either, as you say, through self destruction, or through sniping from the sidelines. Open season for the right wing gutter press.


----------



## chilango (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I'm not aware of other attempts.



It'd be worth your while doing a bit of "background reading" then. Might help answer some of your questions.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> Dump the shit name, say no to the truly truly awful No2EU rubbish, stand in far fewer seats. Would be a start.


Surely then they'll be seen as pro-EU lefy commie types? They can't win.

In the local elections last year Radio Bristol had a 'discussion' with the candidates. Even ukip got invited. Tusc only got a mention as 'tusc are also standing'. Noone was invited to speak from them nor was their cause even explained. They were relegated to the same platform as the Monster Raving party.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> It'd be worth your while doing a bit of "background reading" then. Might help answer some of your questions.


What do you recommend? 

I can't know the polticis of every person in every part of the country.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Surely then they'll be seen as pro-EU lefy commie types? They can't win.


eh?  no, its just another shit platform, that gets the alternatives totally wrong



> They were relegated to the same platform as the Monster Raving party.


because they get even fewer votes. Thats what happens


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

So how do they break thorugh if they can't even get invited to a discussion to at least put their point across?

Seems unfair to criticise them for the system they have to operate in.


----------



## chilango (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I can't know the polticis of every person in every part of the country.



No. But if you're gonna complain about the far-left being unable to mount any sort of serious electoral challenge and moan at posters' cynicism it'd be sensible to do a little bit of research into the recent history of the electoral far left, no?

It's easy enough to find this stuff out too.

Some previous projects you can look up include: Respect, no2EU, Socialist Alliance and the Socialist Labour Party. A quick glance at Wikipedia or something ought to be enough for you to see the basic common threads.

You can then start to think about why the same pattern gets repeated again and again.

There's a tonne of threads on here about each these too where you can read posters' takes on the matter.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> So how do they break thorugh if they can't even get invited to a discussion to at least put their point across?


UKIP didnt get invited till they started winning. Same with Respect.



> Seems unfair to criticise them for the system they have to operate in.


I'm not doing. I'm criticising them for being shit and refusing to recognise the fact


----------



## chilango (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> So how do they break thorugh if they can't even get invited to a discussion to at least put their point across?
> 
> Seems unfair to criticise them for the system they have to operate in.



They don't have a mandate to be invited onto any platform. Their votes show a complete lack of popular support.

However, other tiny parties have forced their way in...the Greens, the BNP and UKIP are all examples. It takes time, perseverance, and a willingness to engage in "dogshit politics" on the doorstep though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Surely then they'll be seen as pro-EU lefy commie types? They can't win.
> 
> In the local elections last year Radio Bristol had a 'discussion' with the candidates. Even ukip got invited. Tusc only got a mention as 'tusc are also standing'. Noone was invited to speak from them nor was their cause even explained. They were relegated to the same platform as the Monster Raving party.


TUSC have been on radio bristol many times.

You seem to be arguing for some from of non-political politics - one with no disagreements, or positions or principles. Or one where they are least hidden away from view. Very odd.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I'm not aware of other attempts. All i know is that the left seems hell bent on self destruction while the soceity is torn to shit by right wingers racists, bigots, corporations and cunts. It'd be nice to have some answers.
> 
> In next years vote the only choices on my ballot paper will be either Tory, who recently took over from the Libdems, who have traditionally held sway here. Labour won't get a look in, but are the only real chance of ousting this nighmare even though they aren't up to much. The rest are independent candidates, like Katie Hopkins, or BNP (if they stand - or some other England for teh English party) or UKip.
> 
> No left choice at all. Something needs to change, but it seems noone wants that to happen; either, as you say, through self destruction, or through sniping from the sidelines. Open season for the right wing gutter press.


You had a green candidate in your seat. He got 1.3% of the vote. Presumably you voted for him and would today argue that doing so is the winning ticket and if people disagree they should just shut their mouths and stop sniping and being sectarian? As for disagreeing with his politics, again, keep it zipped or he won't get on the radio.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> No. But if you're gonna complain about the far-left being unable to mount any sort of serious electoral challenge and moan at posters' cynicism it'd be sensible to do a little bit of research into the recent history of the electoral far left, no?
> 
> It's easy enough to find this stuff out too.
> 
> ...



Do you know of any specific sites or articles to recommend?

The use of the word 'moan' is facile. We want answers we want to see something that will work. That won't be achieved by slagging everything off.

Ian Bone sat outside the People's Assembly big meeting last June. What did he achieve standing outside the tent pissing in? That's not to say the PA aren't deserving of criticism (and I have been critical, particularly to them on Twitter), but people are just not going to respond to a wall of negativity when all they see is 'this is shit, they're shit' (and not all those attending the PA are politically expert).


----------



## chilango (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Do you know of any specific sites or articles to recommend?



Here? 

Do a search of past threads about those groups.

It'll save a lot of people being asked to repeat themselves!

Just read the Wikipedia entries on the groups too. It'll give enough of a flavour.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> They don't have a mandate to be invited onto any platform. Their votes show a complete lack of popular support.
> 
> However, other tiny parties have forced their way in...the Greens, the BNP and UKIP are all examples. It takes time, perseverance, and a willingness to engage in "dogshit politics" on the doorstep though.


Maybe, but they were standing and so surely the BBC of all people ought to do more than mention them in mere passing.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> Here?
> 
> Do a search of past threads about those groups.
> 
> ...


 I just wondered if you knew of any sites that might have articles worth reading. People repeat themselves all the time, it's not much of an imposition is it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Maybe, but they were standing and so surely the BBC of all people ought to do more than mention them in mere passing.


They did - i heard it - and more than once. 

And why on earth should simply standing mean you should get in depth coverage?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I'm not wading through hundreds of pages of threads, comments (informed or otherwise - how woudl i know?), bias, abuse, and jokes. I just wondered if you knew of any sites that might have articles worth reading. People repeat themselves all the time, it's not much of an imposition is it.


Jesus christ - and he's moaning about people moaning and sniping!


----------



## chilango (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I just wondered if you knew of any sites that might have articles worth reading. People repeat themselves all the time, it's not much of an imposition is it.



Start with wiki. Then search here. In all honesty the debates on here will cover most everything you need.


----------



## chilango (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Maybe, but they were standing and so surely the BBC of all people ought to do more than mention them in mere passing.



Why? Why should they?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> Why? Why should they?


They are paid by the people. I personally think if you're going to cover a local election then you should give some airtime to everyone who's name is on the ballot paper, if only so voters can make more of an informed choice. That seems to me entirely proper for the BBC.

Of course they don't because they are not interested in socialism or left wing politics.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> Start with wiki. Then search here. In all honesty the debates on here will cover most everything you need.


Indeed, but you do realise that would be like looking for a needle in a very large haystack. One made of other needles.


----------



## chilango (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Indeed, but you do realise that would be like looking for a needle in a very large haystack. One made of other needles.



If you can't be bothered just say so. I wouldn't blame you. But you oughta accept that plenty of people here have been bothered to do their research (or in many cases have actually been personally involved) so you might wanna rein in the criticism of the people who have.


----------



## inva (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Indeed, but you do realise that would be like looking for a needle in a very large haystack. One made of other needles.


try this one:
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-socialist-alliance.215581/


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> They are paid by the people. I personally think if you're going to cover a local election then you should give some airtime to everyone who's name is on the ballot paper, if only so voters can make more of an informed choice. That seems to me entirely proper for the BBC.
> 
> Of course they don't because they are not interested in socialism or left wing politics.


They did. I heard it. As i believe i've said already.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2014)

Can anyone source the claim about the BBC in this tusc piece?



> Next May there will be elections in England for over 4,000 councillors in local authorities across the country. To get what the BBC calls 'balanced media coverage', parties need to contest 15% of the seats up for election - that means 625 TUSC candidates.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Can anyone source the claim about the BBC in this tusc piece?


hmm, pretty much the only place the phrase appears on the BBC website is about, uhh, the Scottish Premier League


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 18, 2014)

inva said:


> try this one:
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-socialist-alliance.215581/



an excellent and well debated thread on the whole, hardly any flaming or rages.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Can anyone source the claim about the BBC in this tusc piece?


actually, I think its this:

Other registered parties should qualify for a PEB if they are contesting one sixth or more of the seats up for election in the case of first-past-the-post, multi-constituency elections such as a General Election.

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03354.pdf


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> actually, I think its this:
> 
> Other registered parties should qualify for a PEB if they are contesting one sixth or more of the seats up for election in the case of first-past-the-post, multi-constituency elections such as a General Election.
> 
> http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03354.pdf


Cheers. So it's specifically concerning election broadcasts rather than just general coverage.


----------



## inva (Jan 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> actually, I think its this:
> 
> Other registered parties should qualify for a PEB if they are contesting one sixth or more of the seats up for election in the case of first-past-the-post, multi-constituency elections such as a General Election.
> 
> http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03354.pdf


was just about to post a link to the BBC guidance thing which I think is the same thing:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/peb-2013-3-20


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Cheers. So it's specifically concerning election broadcasts rather than just general coverage.


I'd have to assume so. Even if they stand in enough seats they wont get much coverage, because they have, what is it, two councillors? And very very rarely get more than 5% of the vote


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> If you can't be bothered just say so. I wouldn't blame you. But you oughta accept that plenty of people here have been bothered to do their research (or in many cases have actually been personally involved) so you might wanna rein in the criticism of the people who have.


Depends how big the thread is. I'm not going to read through hundreds and hundreds of pages. 

I also haven't criticised people that have. I have criticised the attitude of 'this that and the other is shit' because that's all i'm hearing. It doesn't matter how well informed the person behind that is if that's all he's saying. How are things to improve from that persopective?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2014)

[reposted from the SWP squabbles thread as it's more relevant here]

I was at a meeting in the Teachers Club in Dublin a few weeks ago, held by the Left Forum on the subject of the need for a united left party. I was at a meeting in the same venue five years ago, held by the Campaign for an Independent Left on the subject of the need for a united left party. I was at an Irish Socialist Alliance meeting in the same venue a dozen years ago on the need for a united left party.

12 years ago, I was in the youngest 20% of the audience. Five years ago I was in the youngest 20% of the audience. A few weeks ago I was in the youngest 20% of the audience.

This is a demographic of nice, well meaning, decent people who are, unfortunately, incapable of learning. It's also a demographic hostile to the existing groups (or at least endlessly patronising about their "sectarianism") yet both created by those groups and permanently stuck in their world. Even when they self-consciously try to get around the existing groups, they end up producing just another such group but with the added ineffectuality and political softness characteristic of the milieu - like Left Unity.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Depends how big the thread is. I'm not going to read through hundreds and hundreds of pages.



It's only 7 pages.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's only 7 pages.


That was a general comment. I'm reading that thread as we speak.

Far as I can tell it just seems to be a case of 'my gang's better than yours'. Who knows who's right?


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Who knows who's right?


I was


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2014)

To expand on the part about the demographic above while horribly mixing some metaphors:

The plankton soup of ex-group member independents is getting smaller and older, slowly but surely, as the number of primary sources of sustenance goes down - ie the number of well organised groups with an ability to recruit and an orientation towards the general public rather than "the left". That negatively impacts on the parasitic groups, and in turn on the number of "independents".

There has been an infusion of new blood into that milieu in Britain, due to the SWP's disaster, but in the longer run the SWP's slow death will cut off one of the few remaining arteries. There has been a much smaller recent boost in Dublin from the WSM hitting the rocks and from a half dozen people leaving the SP, but not nearly enough to balance out the ageing of the milieu as a whole.

It's the combination of an ageing demographic with timeless repetition of naive formulas for unity based on soft lowest common denominator politics and cynical burn-out hostility to the existing groups that makes dealing with that milieu for a prologed period of time so depressing.

In Ireland, much of the hostility to the existing groups boils down to a desire for the SP (and also the SWP at a pinch) to build them a political home, providing the resources and infrastructure and the young activists but crucially not providing the politics. A refusal to build them that home is "sectarianism". Any group insisting on arguing its politics rather than soft left unity platitudes is "sectarianism", as while admissible in theory actually arguing your particular politics is in practice deemed unhelpful and dogmatic. Anything that enables a group to actually recruit in the first place is sectarianism. And of course pointing any of this out is particularly rabid sectarianism. 

In Britain, Left Unity represents a decision not to wait around moaning, but it also ends up as the worst of all worlds, with the negative features of the existing groups and the ineffectuality and political softness of the plankton soup.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 18, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> [reposted from the SWP squabbles thread as it's more relevant here]
> 
> I was at a meeting in the Teachers Club in Dublin a few weeks ago, held by the Left Forum on the subject of the need for a united left party. I was at a meeting in the same venue five years ago, held by the Campaign for an Independent Left on the subject of the need for a united left party. I was at an Irish Socialist Alliance meeting in the same venue a dozen years ago on the need for a united left party.
> 
> ...



As with the SWP, I wonder how much the existence and participation of these people ensures that no new ways are found of organising and actually building a successful leftist party. As you say, they are doing the same thing over and over and their participation in anything new ensures that it will continue to be the same thing over and over with a few bells and whistles (like 'intersectionality' now) to make it seem new.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

So there's just no hope for the left, it seems, beyond squabbling and making the same mistakes over and over. Anyone that tries to point out something becomes a lone voice in the wilderness it seems. I find this all incredibly depressing, actually.


----------



## treelover (Jan 18, 2014)

> The rest are independent candidates, like Katie Hopkins




Hopkins is standing as an MP, seriously? , where is this?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> So there's just no hope for the left, it seems, beyond squabbling and making the same mistakes over and over. Anyone that tries to point out something becomes a lone voice in the wilderness it seems. I find this all incredibly depressing, actually.



I don't think that's what other posters are saying, what they are saying is that new initiatives which are mostly identical to old initiatives are not likely to be successful which seems pretty self evident. Of course, people have different ideas on which new stuff should be tried and what should be discarded. In my view groups like Left Unity seem to be discarding a lot of what is good about some existing left-wing groups, like links with organised labour and recognising the importance of trade unions, and is mostly concerned with things that I find nauseating and alienating like endless debates over etiquette between tiny groups of activists.

Personally what I think would be pretty useful for a leftist group would be successful use of new media. There are some examples of really good use of new media on the left but I cannot think of any in Britain. Why is there no British equivalent of Democracy Now or Richard D Wolff's economic analysis? I think that if we had something like that, and it was linked to some sort of political grouping, then that could work quite well. But who has the time to make a regular video or podcast when they're still on the street selling fucking newspapers?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

treelover said:


> Hopkins is standing as an MP, seriously? , where is this?


It _was _during either the last local election or general election. Our local elections seem to be on the cusp of the general (this year should be the next). I think she gave up her dreams of being the next Mrs T after getting nowhere. She stood as an independent. I'm surprised Ukip hasn't snapped her up.


----------



## chilango (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> So there's just no hope for the left, it seems, beyond squabbling and making the same mistakes over and over. Anyone that tries to point out something becomes a lone voice in the wilderness it seems. I find this all incredibly depressing, actually.



Who's trying to point out what to who?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 18, 2014)

There's probably no hope for the current left, that doesn't mean there's no hope in general.

And as Nigel says organizations that try to orientate themselves to 'the left' / activist circles as opposed to the general public are basically doomed


----------



## chilango (Jan 18, 2014)

There is no cavalry.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

Isn't the People's Assembly trying to appeal to the general public?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Isn't the People's Assembly trying to appeal to the general public?



Is it fuck


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> So there's just no hope for the left, it seems, beyond squabbling and making the same mistakes over and over. Anyone that tries to point out something becomes a lone voice in the wilderness it seems. I find this all incredibly depressing, actually.



I don't think that there's no hope for the left. I just don't think that there's much hope for "unity" schemes, either of the cobble the groups together variety or of the ex-member plankton soup variety.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Is it fuck



I think it is trying. But it's efforts are strongly shaped by sub cultural assumptions and, of course, the politics of the Rees/German outfit. There's a big gap between trying and succeeding.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 18, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I think it is trying. But it's efforts are strongly shaped by sub cultural assumptions and, of course, the politics of the Rees/German outfit. There's a big gap between trying and succeeding.


What is wrong with their politics?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> It _was _during either the last local election or general election. Our local elections seem to be on the cusp of the general (this year should be the next). I think she gave up her dreams of being the next Mrs T after getting nowhere. She stood as an independent. I'm surprised Ukip hasn't snapped her up.


No it wasn't, it was the 2009 european elections.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 18, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I think it is trying. But it's efforts are strongly shaped by sub cultural assumptions and, of course, the politics of the Rees/German outfit. There's a big gap between trying and succeeding.



That and watering down their demands/politics to accommodate labour councilors and the like (in Sheffield strikebreaking councilor and all round bad egg Jack Scott was uncritically put on the platform for their biggest meeting, with no speakers from the floor so no chance to criticise whatsoever, and audience members were denounced by the chair for daring to heckle him).

Theirs is another strategy aimed at uniting 'the left' - only difference is their definition of left is broadened to include the labour party.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> What is wrong with their politics?



They are the current incarnation of the SWP at its most "movementist", which means a lot of emphasis on top table manouevering and grandstanding, watered down political demands, and uncritical alliances with left, labour and union worthies. 

And while they do try to appeal to a wider audience, the way they go about it, based on a repetition of the StW formula without the same conditions, is still so strongly shaped by leftist subculture that they actually can only speak to quite a narrow section of society.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> So there's just no hope for the left, it seems, beyond squabbling and making the same mistakes over and over. Anyone that tries to point out something becomes a lone voice in the wilderness it seems. I find this all incredibly depressing, actually.



Who gives a shit about the left? 

There's whole wide world out there, with loads of people doing good stuff in their own way and thinking about how to make things better without identifying with the far left/anarchism etc. 

Anything new will I would imagine emerge out of the intersection (lol) between them and the wider working class deciding that they do actually have the power to improve things for themselves.


----------



## treelover (Jan 20, 2014)

They seem to be growing, and I get the impression a fair few(probably not the usual suspects) are waiting to see what happens next.


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2014)

treelover said:


> They seem to be growing,


what makes you think that?  Membership certainly isnt growing


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2014)

treelover said:


> They seem to be growing, and I get the impression a fair few(probably not the usual suspects) are waiting to see what happens next.


Who?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 20, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Who gives a shit about the left?
> 
> There's whole wide world out there, with loads of people doing good stuff in their own way and thinking about how to make things better without identifying with the far left/anarchism etc.
> 
> Anything new will I would imagine emerge out of the intersection (lol) between them and the wider working class deciding that they do actually have the power to improve things for themselves.




This


----------



## chilango (Jan 20, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> This



Aye. the left was only ever the means, never the end.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 21, 2014)

In brighton the trades council or whatever the fuck its called was completetly taken over by militant everybody else realised the whole thing was stiched up before hand so its now ignored by one and all.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2014)

Here's something for moanning wells:

Shipwreck of dreams: Daniel Harvey looks at the lessons of the Socialist Alliance for today


----------



## articul8 (Jan 24, 2014)

not very enlightening


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2014)

articul8 said:


> not very enlightening


Might stop him moaning that no one will tell him anything and he can't be bothered to look for himself.


----------



## treelover (Jan 26, 2014)

> Merry Cross, a member of Disabled People against the Cuts and Reading Left Unity looks at the need for the left to support disabled people:
> 
> 
> Left Unity supporters agreed to prioritise campaigning alongside disabled people who are being savaged by austerity measures at its national meeting in Birmingham in January. This is probably unprecedented in the history of political parties, let alone newly founded ones.
> ...





More on LU prioritising benefit issues and challenging the myths of 'Benefits Street. Though this is written from a 'disabled activist' view, not benefits as a whole.

btw,. the site now has plenty of interesting articles to read


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 26, 2014)

chilango said:


> Aye. the left was only ever the means, never the end.



Aye.  So what is the end?


----------



## chilango (Jan 26, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Aye.  So what is the end?



A better world / social revolution / full communism.

Take yer pick.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 26, 2014)

chilango said:


> A better world / social revolution / full communism.
> 
> Take yer pick.



I'll take the lot please.

But the abolition of capitalism is the precondition for all of them.

Therefore we should forget this quibbling about who is on the "left" and who is on the "right."  These are silly words.  The only thing we should care about is who is pro-capitalist and who is anti-capitalist.


----------



## chilango (Jan 26, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I'll take the lot please.
> 
> But the abolition of capitalism is the precondition for all of them.
> 
> Therefore we should forget this quibbling about who is on the "left" and who is on the "right."  These are silly words.  The only thing we should care about is who is pro-capitalist and who is anti-capitalist.



*shakes head and walks away*

Sorry Phil. I'm not gonna indulge you on this.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 26, 2014)

chilango said:


> *shakes head and walks away*
> 
> Sorry Phil. I'm not gonna indulge you on this.



Suit yourself.  I was assuming from this that you were also starting to think beyond the Left/Right terminology:



chilango said:


> Aye. the left was only ever the means, never the end.



And tbh I can't really see what else you might have meant.  But maybe there is something I've missed.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 26, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Suit yourself.  I was assuming from this that you were also starting to think beyond the Left/Right terminology



What does this actually mean? What terminology do you think would be more useful and for what purpose?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 26, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> What does this actually mean? What terminology do you think would be more useful and for what purpose?



As I say, I think pro- or anti-capitalist would be better, as it would identify the truly significant ideological and political division more accurately than the C18th spatial metaphor.

One problem with the Left/Right terminology is that it allows subsiduary matters to obscure the main issue.  I think the "Left's" involvement in identity politics has caused all sorts of problems in this regard.  We can see it all over these boards, and all over every similar discussion group or political movement: everyone furiously scrutinizing each other's words for some verbal slip-up that might reveal them as "really" on the "right" because of some secret or unconscious prejudice or other.  And pretty soon we're in a situation where "Left-wing" just means "tolerant" or "nice" or "decent" (as people here tend to put it).  The term loses all significance.

The real problem is capital.  Nothing else will be solved until that is solved.  So I think we should concentrate on the real problem.  And the Left/Right metaphor is a distraction from that.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 26, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> As I say, I think pro- or anti-capitalist would be better, as it would identify the truly significant ideological and political division more accurately than the C18th spatial metaphor.
> 
> One problem with the Left/Right terminology is that it allows subsiduary matters to obscure the main issue.  I think the "Left's" involvement in identity politics has caused all sorts of problems in this regard.  We can see it all over these boards, and all over every similar discussion group or political movement: everyone furiously scrutinizing each other's words for some verbal slip-up that might reveal them as "really" on the "right" because of some secret or unconscious prejudice or other.  And pretty soon we're in a situation where "Left-wing" just means "tolerant" or "nice" or "decent" (as people here tend to put it).  The term loses all significance.
> 
> The real problem is capital.  Nothing else will be solved until that is solved.  So I think we should concentrate on the real problem.  And the Left/Right metaphor is a distraction from that.



What do you mean nothing else will be solved until capital is?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 26, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> As I say, I think pro- or anti-capitalist would be better, as it would identify the truly significant ideological and political division more accurately than the C18th spatial metaphor.
> 
> One problem with the Left/Right terminology is that it allows subsiduary matters to obscure the main issue.  I think the "Left's" involvement in identity politics has caused all sorts of problems in this regard.  We can see it all over these boards, and all over every similar discussion group or political movement: everyone furiously scrutinizing each other's words for some verbal slip-up that might reveal them as "really" on the "right" because of some secret or unconscious prejudice or other.  And pretty soon we're in a situation where "Left-wing" just means "tolerant" or "nice" or "decent" (as people here tend to put it).  The term loses all significance.
> 
> The real problem is capital.  Nothing else will be solved until that is solved.  So I think we should concentrate on the real problem.  And the Left/Right metaphor is a distraction from that.


You know there's plenty of Nazis who'd put themselves down as anti-capitalist, right? (Not to mention all the communist anti-capitalists who would cheerfully have the likes of me shot as soon as they'd finished with capitalism, or sooner should the need arise, oh and the anti-capitalist who just think everything will be fine if we turn all the important companies into state capitalist enterprises)


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 26, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What do you mean nothing else will be solved until capital is?



At the most obvious level, I suspect capital will soon make the world uninhabitable by human beings unless it is stopped.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 26, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> You know there's plenty of Nazis who'd put themselves down as anti-capitalist, right? (Not to mention all the communist anti-capitalists who would cheerfully have the likes of me shot as soon as they'd finished with capitalism, or sooner should the need arise, oh and the anti-capitalist who just think everything will be fine if we turn all the important companies into state capitalist enterprises)



But these are reasons to focus on their attitudes to capital, and to identify what is truly anti-capitalist and what is not.

For example, I don't believe racists can be genuine anti-capitalists because they misidentify the causes of the problems to which they react.  I don't think state capitalists can be genuine anti-capitalists because they merely replace the boss with the state.  And so on.

The point is that the crux of the debate should be how capital can most effectively be opposed.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 26, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> But these are reasons to focus on their attitudes to capital, and to identify what is truly anti-capitalist and what is not.
> 
> For example, I don't believe racists can be genuine anti-capitalists because they misidentify the causes of the problems to which they react.  I don't think state capitalists can be genuine anti-capitalists because they merely replace the boss with the state.  And so on.
> 
> The point is that the crux of the debate should be how capital can most effectively be opposed.


Right so. This is a dwindling alliance, isn't it? I mean the Labour Party and the Leninists are gone. We're left with the unaligned & the anarchists essentially.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 26, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> We're left with the unaligned & the anarchists essentially.



Obviously we've got to purge the anarchists.


----------



## chilango (Jan 26, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Suit yourself.  I was assuming from this that you were also starting to think beyond the Left/Right terminology:.



No.

I'm talking more about "the left" being a vehicle to achieve certain goals. I think that, unfortunately, it is no longer seen that way by many of those within it, but that it (or it's maintenance) has become a goal in and of itself.

I don't go along with your "beyond left and right" stuff.

At all. 

Though clearly it's neither the Cold War nor 18th c France anymore so of course a simple binary cannot express the political spectrum. However this terminology is not an area or issue I have any real interest in discussing, I don't find it particularly important, and past experience has shown most people spouting the "beyond left and right" stuff to be dodgy fuckers. 

But, yeah, others may wish to argue the toss with you on this, I haven't the energy or inclination. Sorry.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 26, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> At the most obvious level, I suspect capital will soon make the world uninhabitable by human beings unless it is stopped.


Really? And what makes you think that?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 26, 2014)

Well all I can say it that there is an obvious contradiction between this:



chilango said:


> I'm talking more about "the left" being a vehicle to achieve certain goals. I think that, unfortunately, it is no longer seen that way by many of those within it, but that it (or it's maintenance) has become a goal in and of itself.



And this:



chilango said:


> I don't go along with your "beyond left and right" stuff.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 27, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Really? And what makes you think that?



Capitalism requires exponential growth in a world of finite resources.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 27, 2014)

Define growth, define resources, and define finite.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 27, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> [reposted from the SWP squabbles thread as it's more relevant here]
> 
> 
> 
> 12 years ago, I was in the youngest 20% of the audience. Five years ago I was in the youngest 20% of the audience. A few weeks ago I was in the youngest 20% of the audience.



Classic population profile of catastrophic defeat.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 27, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Define growth, define resources, and define finite.



You first.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 27, 2014)

Edited double justification


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 27, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> You first.



You're the one making an assertion, I'm asking you to provide some structure to it so I can judge whether it is worth engaging in further enquiry


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 27, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> You're the one making an assertion, I'm asking you to provide some structure to it so I can judge whether it is worth engaging in further enquiry



OK, it's just that it seems a bit obvious.

Growth: increase in value.
Resources: the world.
Finite: the world cannot expand indefinitely as value can.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> You're the one making an assertion, I'm asking you to provide some structure to it so I can judge whether it is worth engaging in further enquiry


it's dwyer so it's not


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 27, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> OK, it's just that it seems a bit obvious.
> 
> Growth: increase in value.
> Resources: the world.
> Finite: the world cannot expand indefinitely as value can.


Ah you're a materialist then?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 27, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Ah you're a materialist then?



You're going to have to walk me through your logic with regard to this one.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Ah you're a materialist gobshite then?


corrected for you


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 27, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it's dwyer so it's not



Down boy.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 27, 2014)

Oh dear, i seem to have missed a history in this matter.  Anti cap leftist, over and out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Down boy.


you seem to be labouring under the delusion you're some top debater. you're not. you're a tosser.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 27, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you seem to be labouring under the delusion you're some top debater. you're not. you're a tosser.



Shut up, fool.  We're trying to have a discussion here.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 27, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> You're going to have to walk me through your logic with regard to this one.


Resources-the world?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 27, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> OK, it's just that it seems a bit obvious.
> 
> Growth: increase in value.
> Resources: the world.
> Finite: the world cannot expand indefinitely as value can.



How are you defining value and what is its relationship with 'resources'?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 27, 2014)

Actually, fuck it I can't be arsed


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Shut up, fool.  We're trying to have a discussion here.


you're trying: & failing


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 27, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Resources-the world?



How does that make me a materialist?


----------



## treelover (Feb 13, 2014)

200 people a month now joining L/U, I think this will soon mean they are bigger than the SWP, fwiw...


----------



## chilango (Feb 13, 2014)

treelover said:


> 200 people a month now joining L/U, I think this will soon mean they are bigger than the SWP, fwiw...



Have you joined?

For how many months has this monthly figure of 200 applied for?

What does "joining" mean?


----------



## treelover (Feb 13, 2014)

Paid up members, various fees, noted by FB site

I don't join things without very careful consideration, so will see how it goes.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2014)

treelover said:


> Paid up members, various fees, noted by FB site
> 
> I don't join things without very careful consideration, so will see how it goes.


You're an idiot.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2014)

treelover said:


> Paid up members, various fees, noted by FB site
> 
> I don't join things without very careful consideration, so will see how it goes.


This stuff. Link to it.


----------



## belboid (Feb 13, 2014)

There were 1200 registered members at the time of the conference, up to 1250 by mid-january. No idea where this '200 a month' comes from (I can't see any such mention on the LU site), but it sounds like rubbish.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 13, 2014)

But if is true, and if they can sustain that level of growth LU will be larger than the Labour Party by about 2097*. 



*assuming the Labour party stays roughly the same size


----------



## exiledinwales (Feb 14, 2014)

Any interest in the Communist Platform within Left Unity?

http://communistplatform.org.uk/?p=30


----------



## chilango (Feb 14, 2014)

exiledinwales said:


> Any interest in the Communist Platform within Left Unity?
> 
> http://communistplatform.org.uk/?p=30



I doubt it.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 14, 2014)

exiledinwales said:


> Any interest in the Communist Platform within Left Unity?
> 
> http://communistplatform.org.uk/?p=30


 
no.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 14, 2014)

How many platforms is that now? Is it more than london st pancras yet?


----------



## belboid (Feb 14, 2014)

I think its only three, in fact.  The left party one dissolved when it took over almost every position within the grouplet. Socialist Platform exists on paper, but hasn't shown any signs of life. The Republican Platform no doubt still exists, its just so tiny you'd miss it even if the meetings were held in a phone box.


----------



## exiledinwales (Feb 14, 2014)

chilango said:


> I doubt it.



Let me rephrase the question then. Any interest in Left Unity? (Also to frogwoman)


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 14, 2014)

not really.


----------



## chilango (Feb 14, 2014)

exiledinwales said:


> Let me rephrase the question then. Any interest in Left Unity? (Also to frogwoman)



Had the initial potential to be at least mildly interesting. This vanished within days though.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2014)

is it me, or is this a bit


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2014)

"britain needs our new party"

1) errr ... does it? really?

2) bit of an unintentional connotation there


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 17, 2014)

surely thats not real?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2014)

Yes  it is


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 17, 2014)




----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2014)

L/U has absolutely nothing to do with the far right, mosleyites, etc, they are trying out all sorts of graphics, straplines , etc, best inform them froggie, if you think it is suspect.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2014)

treelover said:


> L/U has absolutely nothing to do with the far right, mosleyites, etc, they are trying out all sorts of graphics, straplines , etc, best inform them froggie, if you think it is suspect.



I don't think it's suspect, I just thought it was amusing


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2014)

Ok.


----------



## mk12 (Feb 18, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> is it me, or is this a bit


Left Unity members are aware that there are alternatives to MS paint, aren't they?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 18, 2014)

mk12 said:


> Left Unity members are aware that there are alternatives to MS paint, aren't they?


 
It's fucking awful


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

mk12 said:


> Left Unity members are aware that there are alternatives to MS paint, aren't they?


Whip up one of your specials matt.


----------



## mk12 (Feb 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Whip up one of your specials matt.


Thing is butchers, I could do much better. They just haven't used Paint to its full potential. There's no use of spray can for example.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

mk12 said:


> Thing is butchers, I could do much better. They just haven't used Paint to its full potential. There's no use of spray can for example.


Wasted opportunity. For shame.


----------



## revol68 (Feb 18, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> is it me, or is this a bit



Yeah it sounds pretty bad...


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 18, 2014)

A party of Action! etc


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 18, 2014)

mk12 said:


> Thing is butchers, I could do much better. They just haven't used Paint to its full potential. There's no use of spray can for example.




Maybe they need a New Paint Programme


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 18, 2014)

No to misshapen polygons - nationalise the top 100 squiggly lines


----------



## chilango (Feb 18, 2014)

Also...why so much green?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 18, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> No to misshapen polygons - nationalise the top 100 squiggly lines




transitional demands leading to FULL PHOTOSHOP


----------



## chilango (Feb 18, 2014)

Layers.


----------



## rekil (Feb 18, 2014)

The logo is essentially a pyramid viewed from quite high up. Nice try illuminati.


----------



## chilango (Feb 18, 2014)

Is it worth reminding ourselves that is the Afghan Army emblem?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 18, 2014)

copliker said:


> The logo is essentially a pyramid viewed from quite high up. Nice try illuminati.




AND A TRIANGLE BASED PYRAMID - THE WORST KIND!!! 

STOP BEING A SHEEPLE SHILL FOR THE ILLUMINATI AND INVESTIGATE WTC BUILDING 7, THAT'S WHERE ALL THIS BS STARTED!!

STAND UP TO THE NWO, DON'T BELIEVE THE LIES OF THE ZIONIST MEDIA!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 18, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> A party of Action! etc



...a STRONG movement!  A POWERFUL movement!

Vote Ex-Lax!!!


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 18, 2014)

received this.  thought urbanites might like to comment:

"
*Motion for Policy Conference*
This conference believes:
1. That the Europe-wide capitalist crisis requires a Europe-wide working-class response.

 2. That we should no more oppose European capitalist integration than we would oppose the merger of two companies, even though the bosses use mergers as an excuse to attempt job cuts and other attacks. When Britain plc merges into Europe plc, the answer is to link up with other European workers in solidarity and struggle.

 3. That demanding withdrawal from the EU, or opposing British entry into the European single currency, is a British nationalist position which misidentifies the enemy as "Europe" rather than the ruling class. 

 4. The road to a Socialist United Europe is the road of responding to European capitalist unification by organising for cross-European workers' and socialist struggle. We advocate the following program for this struggle:
- Oppose all cuts; level up wages, services, pensions and workers' rights to the best across Europe;
- Tax the rich and expropriate the banks, Europe-wide;
- Scrap the EU's bureaucratic structures; for a European constituent assembly;
- Against a European defense force; for a Europe without standing armies or nuclear weapons;
- For a European workers' government.

 5. In a referendum on British entry to the Euro, our position will be to advocate an active abstention and our slogans will be along the lines of "In or out, the fight goes on"; "Single currency - not at our expense"; and "For a Workers' Europe".
6. The upcoming European elections will be dominated by nationalist rhetoric around Europe, including attacks on migrant workers's rights and calls for harsher immigration controls. The left and labour movement must stand against this attempt to divide the working class, by fighting back against anti-migrant prejudice.
This conference resolves:
1. To organise public meetings promoting solidarity with workers and social movements across Europe
2. To organise meetings and actions in solidarity with Romanian, Bulgarian and other migrant workers.
3. To initiate a short statement setting out this position and circulate it around Britain and Europe for signatories.
4. To produce articles, pamphlets and leaflets setting out this position ahead of the European election.
"


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

Pro-eu. That's that then.


----------



## chilango (Feb 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Pro-eu. That's that then.




I think it was over long before this tbh.

Their position on Europe makes no difference either way.

The language used, issues identified and action proposed in this motion are far more damning than their being "pro-EU".

I note it's a motion, who from?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 18, 2014)

Point 4 is problematic and hyperbolic. How are you going to get rid of euro bureaucrats. And the EU operates through NATO or UN directive, militarily. It'd take some big potatoes to change that, cos currently NATO is what capital uses when the UN is deadlocked by non agreement.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

I don't know.

I'm just depressed by the above.


----------



## chilango (Feb 18, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Point 4 is problematic and hyperbolic. How are you going to get rid of euro bureaucrats. And the EU operates through NATO or UN directive, militarily. It'd take some big potatoes to change that, cos currently NATO is what capital uses when the UN is deadlocked by non agreement.



All 6 points are a load of shite frankly.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

Can we stop having 'motions' - this outdated nonsense is a gift for bureaucrats and an attack on wider participation.


----------



## chilango (Feb 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Can we stop having 'motions' - this outdated nonsense is a gift for bureaucrats and wider participation.



It shows that they've learnt nothing.


----------



## mk12 (Feb 18, 2014)

It's just a motion though, isn't it? It doesn't necessarily represent the views of the conference, let alone the wider membership?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 18, 2014)

mk12 said:


> It's just a motion though, isn't it? It doesn't necessarily represent the views of the conference, let alone the wider membership?




i second this post


----------



## chilango (Feb 18, 2014)

mk12 said:


> It's just a motion though, isn't it? It doesn't necessarily represent the views of the conference, let alone the wider membership?



Nope.

But that they're having a conference, with motions, of this nature is telling enough.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 18, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> is it me, or is this a bit



It does seem a tad retro.


----------



## belboid (Feb 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Can we stop having 'motions' - this outdated nonsense is a gift for bureaucrats and an attack on wider participation.


what, like Blair did with Labour, you mean?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> what, like Blair did with Labour, you mean?


Oh for gods sake.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> All 6 points are a load of shite frankly.




What's wrong with point one? other than 'aim for the moon, might hit the top of a lampost'?


----------



## chilango (Feb 18, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> What's wrong with point one? other than 'aim for the moon, might hit the top of a lampost'?



Why specify Europe? Really?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> Why specify Europe? Really?


Because to differentiate from the anti-eu tusc - already relating to and focusing on other tiny left groups.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> Why specify Europe? Really?



that had not occurred to me. Widen it to workers of the world and you have...nothing new except a laudable aim.


----------



## chilango (Feb 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Because to differentiate from the anti-eu tusc - already relating to and focusing on other tiny left groups.



Indeed.

Point 1 is already about "framing".

*yawns*

Fucking useless jokers.


----------



## belboid (Feb 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Oh for gods sake.


what's your point, caller?  Doing away with 'motions' in no way broadens involvement (altho that is precisely what Blair claimed it would do), it actually narrows involvement, and makes it even more in the hands of cliques (elected or self-selecting)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> what's your point, caller?  Doing away with 'motions' in no way broadens involvement (altho that is precisely what Blair claimed it would do), it actually narrows involvement, and makes it even more in the hands of cliques (elected or self-selecting)


Don't do this.

Getting rid of motions means doing way with the union-based structure of groups begging a top table to do something - the relentless and alienating way of doing things. It doesn't mean doing way with either popular participation (which this motion model ensures does not happen) or membership control. What's the model that you have for motion removment? The labour party? So that's it? No other way to do things ever? Never?

Seriously, if you substitute motions for democratic involvement then you're missing both the capture of those groups by boring cunts via the motion haggling long winded guff and the lack of anything else happening in the wider group.

Please don't post this filth at me again or special privileges will be revoked.


----------



## belboid (Feb 18, 2014)

Where is your evidence _motions _alienate people? Sounds like rubbish to me. They are not the be all and end all of discussion, but they are, or can be, an important part of it. In order to make decisions a motion _will_ be laid, whether formally or informally. It is far better for it to be open, and so more democratic and involving, enabling people to know what is actually going to be discussed.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> Where is your evidence _motions _alienate people? Sounds like rubbish to me. They are not the be all and end all of discussion, but they are, or can be, an important part of it. In order to make decisions a motion _will_ be laid, whether formally or informally. It is far better for it to be open, and so more democratic and involving, enabling people to know what is actually going to be discussed.


27% union membership. Turnout at local groups. 0.1%.

Don't tell me how motions work - it's irrelevant. Look at that waffle above. What would my mum think of that?


----------



## belboid (Feb 18, 2014)

So, there's nothing to back up your assertion. You're failing to see the wood for the trees (or something), and just flailing.


----------



## chilango (Feb 18, 2014)

People hate meetings, and they hate the bullshit jargon and rituals that go along with it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> So, there's nothing to back up your assertion. You're failing to see the wood for the trees (or something), and just flailing.


Well there was the best sort of evidence that you can get.


----------



## belboid (Feb 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> People hate meetings, and they hate the bullshit jargon and rituals that go along with it.


So how do we make them better? You need to actually propose something better.  How does a group make a decision on how to act without there being some kind of motion? And if there is a motion, it should be known in advance, rather than cobbled together at the last minute.  The problem is not having motions, its having motions that are irrelevant to people lives, and/or which have zero chance of being implemented.


----------



## belboid (Feb 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Well there was the best sort of evidence that you can get.


naah. btw, you know your 'fanclub' are posting this lot up on twitter


----------



## chilango (Feb 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> So how do we make them better? You need to actually propose something better.  How does a group make a decision on how to act without there being some kind of motion? And if there is a motion, it should be known in advance, rather than cobbled together at the last minute.  The problem is not having motions, its having motions that are irrelevant to people lives, and/or which have zero chance of being implemented.



How do groups usually make decisions? What pub to go to? Whose round is it? Shall we take the kids to the park? Etc etc.

The problem is more than just irrelevant and unrealistic motions (though they exacerbate it) it's political organising that mimics the form of work rather than of play. That is above and beyond everyday life.

People organise as groups, successfully, all the time, without even thinking of it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> naah. btw, you know your 'fanclub' are posting this lot up on twitter



27% membership - no involvement. That's pretty telling. And the the rigmarole of motions has no role to play.

Don't know what to do about them any more mate - ignoring = tried, letting people know what they're doing = tried. Grassing them up thus making ern get sacked and his wife leave him, him being struck off the state school register, losing house, kids etc = not tried


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

I am the sword of Damocles for that middle class freak basically.


----------



## belboid (Feb 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> How do groups usually make decisions? What pub to go to? Whose round is it? Shall we take the kids to the park? Etc etc.


all of which usually involve someone making a proposal (aka, a motion) and then it being discussed and decided upon. And such informality is great with a group of mates, but when everyone doesnt know each other fairly initimately, something more formal is required.



> The problem is more than just irrelevant and unrealistic motions (though they exacerbate it) it's political organising that mimics the form of work rather than of play. That is above and beyond everyday life.


Motions and discussion are rarely a part of work, tho. There we get instruction and are simply told what to do.  I do agree with the general point, but still dont think 'motions' are playing the role you are saying.


----------



## belboid (Feb 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> 27% membership - no involvement. That's pretty telling. And the the rigmarole of motions has no role to play.


motions are shit because the wide grouping is shit, not the other way round tho. Cart/horse



> Don't know what to do about them any more mate - ignoring = tried, letting people know what they're doing = tried. Grassing them up thus making ern get sacked and his wife leave him, him being struck off the state school register, losing house, kids etc = not tried


well, pretty much everyone does know I guess, subtlety is not exactly their strong point.


----------



## chilango (Feb 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> all of which usually involve someone making a proposal (aka, a motion) and then it being discussed and decided upon. And such informality is great with a group of mates, but when everyone doesnt know each other fairly initimately, something more formal is required.



We need to get to the point where political organising Is done amongst groups of mates, informally. Not much point in making a big fuss about adopting positions on big (inter)national issues till we're at that point frankly.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> motions are shit because the wide grouping is shit, not the other way round tho. Cart/horse



No, you're looking at the content and saying well if there were better content the process and what it produces would be fine. But the process is putting people off so much that there is no content beyond what the tireless bureaucrats produce. That is the cart and horse problem. Plus, there is neither a cart nor horse.


----------



## chilango (Feb 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> Motions and discussion are rarely a part of work, tho. There we get instruction and are simply told what to do.  I do agree with the general point, but still dont think 'motions' are playing the role you are saying.



"Modern" workplaces tend to involve a lot of faked participation in the decision making process. 

...but anyway. A slight digression perhaps.

I think motions are a symptom, not a cause, of a left that knows no other way of operating other than the one it learned in the NUS. And too many people have a vested interest in keeping it working in this way. The groups who fill their their schedules with building this, and winning that. 

Corpses in their mouths. The lot of 'em.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> well, pretty much everyone does know I guess, subtlety is not exactly their strong point.


They don't though. Easy if they did.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> So how do we make them better? You need to actually propose something better.  How does a group make a decision on how to act without there being some kind of motion? And if there is a motion, it should be known in advance, rather than cobbled together at the last minute.  The problem is not having motions, its having motions that are irrelevant to people lives, and/or which have zero chance of being implemented.


You could have a system were you have a discussion about something then 3 people get nominated to write up a little report about the discussion then everyone votes if they thing it is an accurate account. Oh hang on...


----------



## belboid (Feb 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> We need to get to the point where political organising Is done amongst groups of mates, informally. Not much point in making a big fuss about adopting positions on big (inter)national issues till we're at that point frankly.


I choose my mates, I dont choose my work colleagues, or other people who join any organisation I belong to. That'd be a _club_.


----------



## belboid (Feb 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No, you're looking at the content and saying well if there were better content the process and what it produces would be fine. But the process is putting people off so much that there is no content beyond what the tireless bureaucrats produce. That is the cart and horse problem. Plus, there is neither a cart nor horse.


No, it isn't simply the content (altho that can/does make matters worse), it's the lack of ability to implement any motion.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> I choose my mates, I dont choose my work colleagues, or other people who join any organisation I belong to. That'd be a _club_.


Let's get 0.1 % of them involved because, shit, that's just the way we do things round here. Yee hah!


----------



## belboid (Feb 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Let's get 0.1 % of them involved because, shit, that's just the way we do things round here. Yee hah!


you've still failed to actually answer any point or propose any alternative.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> No, it isn't simply the content (altho that can/does make matters worse), it's the lack of ability to implement any motion.


So you have neither horse nor cart. But someone who thinks they're both horse and cart substituting themselves. Look at that drivel motion above. Politically it's worth nothing. It's worth the same as me typing these words. But i only took 30 seconds.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> you've still failed to actually answer any point or propose any alternative.



I have not failed to answer any point - i've responded to every post of yours. What's not been answered is why there is -  in such a such a harsh climate - 27% union membership and no membership involvement? 

Proposals as to getting rid of rigid things that alienate people - ask them why they alienate them and how they would like things to change? Make people aware that there are other ways of doing things? Stop pretending that motions = control from below?


----------



## belboid (Feb 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I have not failed to answer any point - i've responded to every post of yours. What's not been answered is why there is -  in such a such a harsh climate - 27% union membership and no membership involvement?
> 
> Proposals as to getting rid of rigid things that alienate people - ask them why they alienate them and how they would like things to change? Make people aware that there are other ways of doing things? Stop pretending that motions = control from below?


Just quoting membership figures is not an answer, its just quoting a symptom. And do you not think that those questions have already been asked?  They have. And the answer people give is nothing to do with there being motions, its about the meetings being powerless, motions or not. There is no pretence that motions are control from below, stop introducing straw men. They are just a bit more democratic than most of the alternatives (tho obviously not the ones you haven't mentioned yet).

Soz butch, but you've said nothing to back your claim up so far, nor come up with any alternative.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> Just quoting membership figures is not an answer, its just quoting a symptom. And do you not think that those questions have already been asked?  They have. And the answer people give is nothing to do with there being motions, its about the meetings being powerless, motions or not. There is no pretence that motions are control from below, stop introducing straw men. They are just a bit more democratic than most of the alternatives (tho obviously not the ones you haven't mentioned yet).


You've missed the point  - 27% is good. 0.1% is good. I'm talking about participation rates within that 27%. It doesn't matter if your motion to support palestine has nay power if there's only the normal 3 people there. And there _are _the normal three people there because of the utterly alienating way that unions are run - and that LU mirrors. Explain the gap otherwise? The on,ly other option is that it'll turn good when things change. Not really good enough given that they're supposed to be part of that change.


----------



## belboid (Feb 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You've missed the point  - 27% is good. 0.1% is good. I'm talking about participation rates within that 27%. It doesn't matter if your motion to support palestine has nay power if there's only the normal 3 people there. And there _are _the normal three people there because of the utterly alienating way that unions are run - and that LU mirrors. Explain the gap otherwise? The on,ly other option is that it'll turn good when things change. Not really good enough given that they're supposed to be part of that change.


the only reason people dont go to meetings is cos of how they are run??!!  What utter, utter, anti-materialist drivel.

People dont go to meetings cos they dont think they will achieve anything, because unions have been emasculated.  And that didnt happen because they had too many motions. Fer gawds sake man, when did you become such an idealist?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> the only reason people dont go to meetings is cos of how they are run??!!  What utter, utter, anti-materialist drivel.
> 
> People dont go to meetings cos they dont think they will achieve anything, because unions have been emasculated.  And that didnt happen because they had too many motions. Fer gawds sake man, when did you become such an idealist?


And because of the people who do go, what they do and the culture that they have built up. Shouting our day will come isn't really an answer to how this gap arose and what sustains it.


----------



## belboid (Feb 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Shouting our day will come isn't really an answer to how this gap arose and what sustains it.


good thing no one is saying that


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> good thing no one is saying that


You argued the spaces and problemns will fill out once the processes and motion have power - didn't you?

Me go chippy/watch football now - back half time.


----------



## belboid (Feb 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You argued the spaces and problemns will fill out once the processes and motion have power - didn't you?
> 
> Me go chippy/watch football now - back half time.


once the [relevant organisation] has power, not the motions.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> I note it's a motion, who from?


 
I would* guess* from Kate Hudson, who recently put out these books







> West European social democracy has started to face growing electoral challenge from a new European left--regaining and expanding a political space occupied previously by communist parties. This book argues that no analysis of the pattern of European politics into the new millennium can be complete without taking this developing force into account. It charts the re-emergence and transformation of communist and former communist parties in Europe since 1989.


and this




More clues:
Reconfiguring the European Left: Where do Britain and Ireland come into the picture?
Speakers: Kate Hudson and Andrew Burgin of Left Unity

Info: http://leftforum.net/







chilango said:


> Why specify Europe? Really?


Again a *total guess*, but maybe either a policy to throw around at the forthcoming EU elections (though I doubt LU are putting forward MEPs), or in anticipation of the 2017 EU referendum? Or just in recognition of the resurgent left in europe and tying in whats in those books


----------



## J Ed (Feb 18, 2014)

ska invita said:


> I would* guess* from Kate Hudson, who recently put out these books
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I find it all very strange since at least the Izquierda Unida seems to be moving towards a more Eurosceptic position and although this is anecdotal most left-wing people in Spain that I've spoken to about the subject are increasingly anti-EU for obvious reasons. Aren't the Front de Gauche anti-EU as well?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

ska invita said:


> I would* guess* from Kate Hudson, who recently put out these books
> 
> 
> 
> ...


She's a fucking tankie. It's important to known who these people are. And as noted earlier, it's simply a shit across TUSC's bows. Pathetic.

edit: and there is no 2017 eu referendum. If there were and LU are concentrating on it at all - never mind in 2014 - then fucking hell.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> once the [relevant organisation] has power, not the motions.


Eh?

Barca are boring boring


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 18, 2014)

It looks like a "Communist Platform", ie CPGB/Weekly Worker, motion to me. The language is too left wing to belong to the fluffy leadership.


----------



## rekil (Feb 18, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> AND A TRIANGLE BASED PYRAMID - THE WORST KIND!!!
> 
> STOP BEING A SHEEPLE SHILL FOR THE ILLUMINATI AND INVESTIGATE WTC BUILDING 7, THAT'S WHERE ALL THIS BS STARTED!!
> 
> STAND UP TO THE NWO, DON'T BELIEVE THE LIES OF THE ZIONIST MEDIA!


For the proper effect, you need a sig with a huge pic and loads of links and Ron Paul quotes and BUY BITCOIN!!!


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> the only reason people dont go to meetings is cos of how they are run??!!  What utter, utter, anti-materialist drivel.


I certainly think that the fact that they never start/finish on time, don't get to the point quick enough and just generally are not very well run doesn't help.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 18, 2014)

Also, meetings sort of remind people of work


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 18, 2014)

Interminable jargon about motions rather than active participation tends to really put me off tbh


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Interminable jargon about motions rather than active participation tends to really put me off tbh


Fuck off, it's just because they mean nothing. NOTHING.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 18, 2014)

Also why does it have to be one or the other why people don't go. I remember sitting in various SP/union type things and being bored to tears. People could both think they are boring and interminable and think they're ineffective?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

Or that the latter might be a cause of the former and vice versa.


----------



## chilango (Feb 18, 2014)

It's the same as when we did jazz hands innit?

Liturgical ritual to keep the priests in control.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> It's the same as when we did jazz hands innit?
> 
> Liturgical ritual to keep the priests in control.


And the pagans out  - or they came come in through a process that the priests control - oh for a vernacular bible in these times


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2014)

chilango said:


> It's the same as when we did jazz hands innit?
> 
> Liturgical ritual to keep the priests in control.


Don't 'we' me please here mate!


----------



## chilango (Feb 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Don't 'we' me please here mate!



Heh.

I meant "did" as in discussed.

Even I never actually did them.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 19, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Also, meetings sort of remind people of work


That is the second time this has been said and I don't get it at all, it is nothing like work. 

I don't really think the use of motions or not is an issue. Let's be honest does anyone think people would suddenly be beating a path to the unions and the left if they abandoned motions?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2014)

emanymton said:


> That is the second time this has been said and I don't get it at all, it is nothing like work.
> 
> I don't really think the use of motions or not is an issue. Let's be honest does anyone think people would suddenly be beating a path to the unions and the left if they abandoned motions?


Wtf?


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 19, 2014)

emanymton said:


> That is the second time this has been said and I don't get it at all, it is nothing like work.



I disagree. chilango's point that it's more like work than play is really interesting. Generally, I reckon that's a pretty good measure of whether something comes from above or below.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 19, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I disagree. chilango's point that it's more like work than play is really interesting. Generally, I reckon that's a pretty good measure of whether something comes from above or below.


Some of you must have very different jobs to me then. Although I get the point about if feeling lonely keep a bit of a choir, but it is nothing like work in my opinion.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Wtf?


Which bit?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Which bit?


The bit after let's be honest...


----------



## belboid (Feb 19, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I disagree. chilango's point that it's more like work than play is really interesting. Generally, I reckon that's a pretty good measure of whether something comes from above or below.


that's a pretty silly measure. Unions were set up from below, the form the meetings took were a reflection of how things worked at _that time_, and of the importance workers placed upon them. Therefore they were formal, and often 'businesslike' - because people wanted to get things done. It doesn't mean they ere 'top down'


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 19, 2014)

belboid said:


> that's a pretty silly measure. Unions were set up from below, the form the meetings took were a reflection of how things worked at _that time_, and of the importance workers placed upon them. Therefore they were formal, and often 'businesslike' - because people wanted to get things done. It doesn't mean they ere 'top down'



Silly old me.

I was talking about from above or below in the sense of what is happening right now in the meeting, not whether an organisation could be said to have been from below or above historically, or why those processes developed. Perhaps there is always a top down-ess that is created when processes become formalised.


----------



## chilango (Feb 19, 2014)

Unions *might* have to maintain a certain degree of formal proceduralism given the role they play in capitalism at the moment. Whether that role is the right one is open to debate. However it doesn't follow that a formation such as LU should mimic such proceduralism.


----------



## belboid (Feb 19, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> Silly old me.
> 
> I was talking about from above or below in the sense of what is happening right now in the meeting, not whether an organisation could be said to have been from below or above historically, or why those processes developed. Perhaps there is always a top down-ess that is created when processes become formalised.


meaningless


----------



## belboid (Feb 19, 2014)

The IWW have the most bureaucratic procedures of any union I've come across, the way they operate in meetings doesn't seem to have changed one iota since they were founded. Motions have to go through a very particular process.  And yet, they get around 50% attending meetings. So it's obviously nothing to do with 'motions'


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2014)

belboid said:


> The IWW have the most bureaucratic procedures of any union I've come across, the way they operate in meetings doesn't seem to have changed one iota since they were founded. Motions have to go through a very particular process.  And yet, they get around 50% attending meetings. So it's obviously nothing to do with 'motions'


I think that you've just proven the point haven't you? That without a highly politically motivated membership (in fact the IWW comparison is crazy as it's effectively a party or ginger group not a union - and so 50% turnout is appalling) no one turns up. No one gets involved. No one does anything - beyond the same self perpetuating group who then use that very alienation to write themselves into the structures. And round we go again.

edit: so again, why the gap between the 27% membership and fuck all participation? Any answers that flatly reject the idea that bureaucratic union culture is alienating and the ways that culture operates are not welcome.


----------



## belboid (Feb 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I think that you've just proven the point haven't you? That without a highly politically motivated membership (in fact the IWW comparison is crazy as it's effectively a party or ginger group not a union - and so 50% turnout is appalling) no one turns up. No one gets involved. No one does anything - beyond the same self perpetuating group who then use that very alienation to write themselves into the structures. And round we go again.
> 
> edit: so again, why the gap between the 27% membership and fuck all participation? Any answers that flatly reject the idea that bureaucratic union culture is alienating and the ways that culture operates are not welcome.


Still no actual alternative from you I notice.

The IWW has a high turnout because meetings can effect what happens, its that simple.  Your contention that its all about 'motions' is clear nonsense.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2014)

belboid said:


> Still no actual alternative from you I notice.
> 
> The IWW has a high turnout because meetings can effect what happens, its that simple.  Your contention that its all about 'motions' is clear nonsense.


Yes, because it's not actually a union. It only has politically motivated members - the comparison is a joke - and when it _did _operate as a union, as a very effective union, it most certainly did not operate on these boring bureaucratic lets composite shite motions rubbish. It was direct shop-floor hands in the air right now basis.

(and the iww turnout in reality can only really effect IWW policy - which is why this group is there in the first place - fuck all else)

An alternative to what? Are you recognising that there's a problem that i need to provide an alternative to then?


----------



## belboid (Feb 19, 2014)

[quote="butchersapron, post: 12942354, member: 366"An alternative to what? Are you recognising that there's a problem that i need to provide an alternative to then?[/quote]
no, I dont think there's any problems within the union movement, its the best time ever to be a trade unionist, etc etc etc.  

And go back and reread your wobbly history if you think it was all 'shopfloor' politics, it wasnt. how do you think there conferences worked?  They had bloody motions.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2014)

belboid said:


> butchersapron said:
> 
> 
> > An alternative to what? Are you recognising that there's a problem that i need to provide an alternative to then?
> ...


So, there is a problem. Is the stuff i identify - a bureaucratic culture easily monopolised by a motivated few that alienates wider membership - part of it? If not then wtf? If so, then wtf are you shouting at me for?

Please don't reduce my point down to motions alone - i have clearly said that i was using them as an example of that bureaucratic culture  - see the guff linked to above. Now, a living breathing movement (the histotical IWW) based on exactly the lack of long-winded crap but direct shop floor decisions such as the above motion produces clear unambiguous motions without any of the crap about things they can't effect and full of things that they can . Like the few proper IWW conventions pre-ww1 (the first few of these actually involved getting rid of the windbags) and the rest were full of the same guff about whether to help form the CPUSA. Oddly enough membership and participation started to drop off at this point of heightened class struggle.

Btw: just going to ignore the points about the daftness of the comparison and what can actually be effected or are you going to argue why it is apt and fitting?


----------



## belboid (Feb 19, 2014)

Because I dont think it is the bureaucratic culture that puts most people off being involved. It doesn't help, but its not the main problem. Its no use just harking back to the days of (comparatively) direct workplace democracy, simply altering the formal structures of an organisation wont brnig them back.

And those early IWW conferences were full of 'windbags,' who remained in it (except DeLeon).


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 19, 2014)

belboid said:


> meaningless



Thing is I'm not coming at this from recent political experience and I'm not really interested in expressing myself in such terms. I'm coming at it from observing my own children and their friends and the way in which they create their own cultures, and also my work with children with mental health problems, children who struggle to play, so thinking about play (free-activity) and what enables it and inhibits it is something I do a lot of. For me, it's not a huge stretch to then think about what kinds of group culture encourage creativity (play) and inquiry and which cultures inhibit it by being too reliant on direction and procedure.


----------



## chilango (Feb 19, 2014)

My recent experience of Union meetings (the CGIL in Italy with a high % of attendance, I've yet to attend an NUT meeting here) is of turgid droning that people sit through (albeit chatting, doodling, fiddling with phones etc.) under duress. They (we) know it's important, but detest the dull proceduralism that inhibits any sort of participatory engagement, or organic discussion. 

Whilst this may, in part, be shaped by the Union's role in negotiating equally turgid contractural and legal stuff, a formation like Left Unity does not play this role. 

I'd argue that workplace organisation shouldn't be bound to thus role either, but that's a harder fish to fry. 

A new formation, who's initial momentum and appeal came from bypassing old structures and a focus on using social media to enable/empower participation "from below", has absolutely no need to ape TU procedure.

That it does is at best lazy. At worst cynical power grabbing manoeuvres.

But, yeah, I might be wrong. People might really dig this shit.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 20, 2014)

i'm enjoying reading Left Unity's unity collapsing via their email list.  at least, the lambeth one is.  here's a wonderful quote from someone who objects to someone insisting that Left Unity nead a left-wing class analysis.

"
Let me take a different tack. I think we have conflated unhelpfully "middle class" with "bourgeois" and something evil. What is being middle class, if not access to quality housing, and education, and health care? Surely we want to _expand the middle class? _I can hear wails of outrage already. We want all of those things for all people don't we, whatever their heritage or the nature of their labour? If there is something I don't understand here, please explain to me. Can we at least say that a well-functioning society has a healthy middle class, and that we are not ignoring them or calling for their demise? Is a middle class part of the hierarchy, and we are attempting to create a classless society that is somehow also working class? 
"


----------



## rekil (Feb 20, 2014)

Good news. A new initiative has just been launched here.


----------



## treelover (Feb 20, 2014)

Where?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 20, 2014)

treelover said:


> Where?


 
over there


----------



## treelover (Feb 20, 2014)

a little mouse with clogs on..


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 20, 2014)

treelover said:


> Where?



Ireland.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 20, 2014)

I expect it will got as well as the ULA...


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 24, 2014)

"1. I am finding all this class pigeon holing extremely difficult. Should we not be looking to *change* the factors which drive us apart as a society? Instead of propogating them? This appears to be just the kind of retoric that would please the "powers that be" (divide and conquer) as we are limiting the people we claim to represent, dividing our group opinion, and in that context making our arguments weaker. 

Clearly mistakes have been made by Labour. But Socialist parties have typically lost traction with the public by their exclusive policies and I think there is a danger of LU falling into this category. Do we really blame individuals for class differences rather than governement? Shouldn't we allow all people to correct their mistakes (perhaps) and begin doing things in a better way? Do we really want to shun a section of society just based on historical context?

2. Also, there seems to be a large discrepancy between what people of LU think to be "working class" and what I, and to my assumption most people would identify as working class. I have always thought of working class as someone who uses manual labor to earn money; so a gardener would be labelled as working class, but a garden designer would be middle class. From the last branch meeting it was expained to me that the meaning of working class as used here is someone who simply works for a living, rather than living off investments or heritage. I would say that the latter is upper class, rather than middle and am confused as to how we can come to an universal understanding of these conflciting definitions.

I find this anger at the "non-working class" to be unfounded and unprogressive. In the same way as I would say not to blame people working in banks for the recession, but instead those who relaxed regulations and created policies which over looked warning signs. It is not the fault of the middle class that inequality exists.

I would support Davids 99% 1% deinition as I believe this to be more realistic and valuable. "

it looks like the liberals within Left Unity are winning.  the Left Unity that they want is a left-liberalism where we're all pretending to be middle class and therefore acting in the interests of the middle classes.  funny that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 24, 2014)

courting the trot trap of 'we must win the p/b'


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 24, 2014)

> I have always thought of working class as someone who uses manual labor to earn money; so a gardener would be labelled as working class, but a garden designer would be middle class



incisive.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> courting the trot trap of 'we must win the p/b'


There's no trap there (never mind winning) - there is just confusion (and obv it was part of a wider motion/debate). Confusion about these things and how to deal with them is politics - at least part of an internal politics. There's no shame in this.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> courting the trot trap of 'we must win the p/b'


Also, what trot trap? Seriously? Trots say concentrate solely on the w/c the remnants of the p/b to be lead by the resulting leadership.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 24, 2014)

no class.

that makes no sense now.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> There's no trap there (never mind winning) - there is just confusion (and obv it was part of a wider motion/debate). Confusion about these things and how to deal with them is politics - at least part of an internal politics. There's no shame in this.




you'd think that a movement for left unity just might have the werewithal to distinguish between a self employed gardener who has his own van and gear and the employee of a landscape garderning corp who get countrywide contracts. I'm not saying these debates/confusions/questions are entirely pointless but come the fuck on. A movement for left unity discussing the nature of class- rome burns.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 24, 2014)

in context, it seems to be that the wider debate is whether the group identify as left-wing organisation with socialist policies, or as a liberal group with a left-wing name.   it looks like the liberals are unsatisfied by some of the proposals going through.  from what i've read there hasn't been any attacks on idividuals for being middle-class, there has been a class analysis which identifies class as part of the problems.  however, this has caused a lot of upset, as middle class lefties (or those that aspire to middle-classdom) don't think that it's fair.  the middle-classes don't want an end to the class system, they want a party that will take from the bankers, make the trains cheaper, and perhaps do something about the house prices somehow. 

and so the beginning of the end happens.  each side will blame the other for lack of unity, unable to believe that those bastards won't get behind their perfectly reasonable list of demands and act against their own class interests.  as per usual.

and who can blame them.  i'm not going to sign up to spend my time working towards a parliamentary party that seeks to make capitalism a bit nicer, so why should i expect others to act against their class interests.  it was always going to be this way.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 24, 2014)

well how the fuck do you begin to explain unity to people for whom being w/c poor is cause du jour rather than day in day out life?


----------



## chilango (Feb 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> There's no trap there (never mind winning) - there is just confusion (and obv it was part of a wider motion/debate). Confusion about these things and how to deal with them is politics - at least part of an internal politics. There's no shame in this.



Absolutely.

It's a positive thing, for now, that LU members are coming out with stuff like this rather than all having joined with solidified Marxist ideas about class.

It shows that at least some of their members are not old Trots looking for a new home.

However, it also shows pretty clearly where LU are getting their members from. Which isn't so positive.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 24, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I expect it will got as well as the ULA...



Well, the SWP aren't involved.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Feb 24, 2014)

I sort of appreciate what people are saying about how they're actually having a real discussion about class, and although to our weary jaded eyes it can be easy to knock but I'm sure these definitions of class are widely believed by people so it's kind of healthy they're having a discussion about this.

But at the same time, if they self-consciously aiming at being so liberal why even start a new party of the left, especially if this new party of the left isn't actually all that left wing? If you're after what they're after, piss weak social democracy, they could just join Labour surely? What distinguishes them from Labour? What's their unique selling point?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 24, 2014)

whilst the left unifies the left movement.........


----------



## chilango (Feb 24, 2014)

It reminds me a bit of some of the stuff the old CP did in the immediate aftermath of '91. 0verly inclusive, overly liberal stuff to add heft to an essentially failed project.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 25, 2014)

well, apparently the next branch meeting will be a discussion on class and what it means.  so maybe i was a little hasty...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 25, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> well, apparently the next branch meeting will be a discussion on class and what it means.  so maybe i was a little hasty...



You should do a PD intervention at that, arguing that you're only w/c if you have to wear blue overalls at work (white or brown ones are m/c)


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 25, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> You should do a PD intervention at that, arguing that you're only w/c if you have to wear blue overalls at work (white or brown ones are m/c)


 
Brown overalls are fash surely?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 25, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> You should do a PD intervention at that, arguing that you're only w/c if you have to wear blue overalls at work (white or brown ones are m/c)


 
i would but i have already become disillusioned with Left Unity and withdrawn my interests.  i just don't know how to unsubscribe from their emails.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 25, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> You should do a PD intervention at that, arguing that you're only w/c if you have to wear blue overalls at work (white or brown ones are m/c)




Hardhats or its just soft-handed non work.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 25, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Brown overalls are fash surely?




like all those fascist friars and mendicant preachers of the medieval period


----------



## Balbi (Feb 25, 2014)

I always thought Riefenstahls follow up to Triumph of The Will was a far better film.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 25, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Brown overalls are fash surely?



I'm thinking open all hours here (or was that a frock coat or summat) - petty bourgeois innit


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 25, 2014)

No pasaran to the brown-overalled mob


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 25, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm thinking open all hours here (or was that a frock coat or summat) - petty bourgeois innit




fourthriech handles!


----------



## Balbi (Feb 25, 2014)

G-g--ggggggoebbels!


----------



## Balbi (Mar 11, 2014)

I find the rise of Bianca Todd as Left Unity go to for quotes fascinating. She couldn't get re-admitted to her local Labour party last year, despite repeated attempts including going through to a tribunal about it. I can't provide more detail, but from the locals I hear she's quite a character.


----------



## treelover (Mar 11, 2014)

I've seen her speak, she seems very honest and compassionate, enough for me.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 11, 2014)

Balbi said:


> I find the rise of Bianca Todd as Left Unity go to for quotes fascinating. She couldn't get re-admitted to her local Labour party last year, despite repeated attempts including going through to a tribunal about it. I can't provide more detail, but from the locals I hear she's quite a character.


Why did she leave or get chucked out in the first place?


----------



## belboid (Mar 11, 2014)

National Council nominations are out now. It appears all the officer posts & regional reps will be uncontested (with some spare regional spots). About 40 standing for the 15 seat national slate - including what looks like the entire CPGB.

http://leftunity.org/internal-elections-2014/

e2a: 15 'Communist Platform' candidates out of 44 in all. It's almost as if they don't really want to be elected.


----------



## treelover (Mar 11, 2014)

*Felicity Dowling*

One of 'the 47' and still very militant?

I'd vote for Salman Shaheen,

if I was a member.


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2014)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/bbctwo/live


Principal speaker Salman Shaheen on Daily Politics, actually more Oxbridge than I thought.(from 12.26)


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2014)

You mean this? 





> Oxbridge is being unfairly criticised for discriminating against minority students in the same way it is often unfairly criticised for discriminating against working class students.


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2014)

no, he went to Cambridge and he sounds posher than I thought he would

positions himself on the 'moderate' wing of LU as well


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 28, 2014)

treelover said:


> no, he went to Cambridge and he sounds posher than I thought he would
> 
> positions himself on the 'moderate' wing of LU as well


I once had a scrap with him on Liberal Conspiracy. He described himself as a Marxist and I laughed.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Mar 28, 2014)

"
Lee Jasper, a quite well known Lambeth resident who was involved in that protest against the MOPAC meeting a few weeks ago, has expressed an interest in standing in the local council elections on 22 May and was interested to know if he could stand under the Left Unity banner.
The key issue he wants to stand on is racism in the borough, including the police, but also the deselection of a popular local Black woman by the Labour Party and her replacement by a white candidate (in a majority black ward) which has caused some shock waves through the local Labour party. 
Lee is going to meet with a couple of us on Monday to talk more about his idea, since I thought it was at least an opportunity that we should consider, though I know we agreed not to stand any candidates. This is because Lee Jasper has a profile and some local support so he could get a credible vote.
We can discuss it at the next branch meeting on the 3rd April (venue TBC) and make a decision there.
"

oh dear.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2014)

> Lee is going to meet with a couple of us on Monday to talk more about his idea, since I thought it was at least an opportunity that we should consider, though I know we agreed not to stand any candidates. This is because Lee Jasper has a profile and some local support so he could get a credible vote.



i.e Because jasper wants to and you're so tied to the past and the need not to rock boats that you cant say no to this multiple failed candidate. Pathetic.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Mar 28, 2014)

nothing involved with jee jasper is credible.  you'd have to be out of your mind to think that lee jasper appeals to anyone.  except himself.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 28, 2014)

Didn't Jasper stand unsuccessfully for Respect AFTER Galloway's bad sexual etiquette comments?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2014)

Yes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 28, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Didn't Jasper stand unsuccessfully for Respect AFTER Galloway's bad sexual etiquette comments?




the best thing to come out of that debacle was a hilarious jasper & george radio advert talking over cheesy beats

still on the web:  



http://soundcloud.com/lee-jasper3/george-galloway-lee-jasper


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 28, 2014)

According to the WW and Pete McLaren reports numbers of branch reps showing up to national steering committee meetings are rapidly falling, while some detached from reality types are blathering about needing 5,000 members by the end of the year.

Mid-sized left sect thinking its a mass party = recipe for disaster


----------



## ska invita (Mar 28, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> "
> Lee Jasper, a quite well known Lambeth resident who was involved in that protest against the MOPAC meeting a few weeks ago, has expressed an interest in standing in the local council elections on 22 May and was interested to know if he could stand under the Left Unity banner.
> The key issue he wants to stand on is racism in the borough, including the police, but also the deselection of a popular local Black woman by the Labour Party and her replacement by a white candidate (in a majority black ward) which has caused some shock waves through the local Labour party.
> Lee is going to meet with a couple of us on Monday to talk more about his idea, since I thought it was at least an opportunity that we should consider, though I know we agreed not to stand any candidates. This is because Lee Jasper has a profile and some local support so he could get a credible vote.
> ...


who said that?

isnt it too late now any way? internal elections have closed last week, and the democratic structures make it impossible to just fly in a candidate without members voting them in.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2014)

Unless it's jasper -then there are no rules, and the LU sec decides.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Unless it's jasper -then there are no rules, and the LU sec decides.


i cant see it - so far the commitment to democracy has been tight.
And I might be wrong but I think Andrew Burgin and Kate Hudson both left Respect because of the GG bad sexual conduct thing, which doesnt stand Jasper well in their eyes (youd have thought )


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2014)

Read the thing quoted above._ We've already agreed but lee is special so let's quietly change it._


----------



## belboid (Mar 28, 2014)

ska invita said:


> who said that?
> 
> isnt it too late now any way? internal elections have closed last week, and the democratic structures make it impossible to just fly in a candidate without members voting them in.


he doesn't want to stand internally tho - too much like hard work. he justs wants to stand for council


----------



## ska invita (Mar 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Read the thing quoted above._ We've already agreed but lee is special so let's quietly change it._


depends who said it though


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2014)

ska invita said:


> depends who said it though


Who has authority to send round stuff like that?


----------



## ska invita (Mar 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Who has authority to send round stuff like that?


i'll wait to get more context , but it sounds like it was sent around the lambeth local branch. ive no idea who is in that or what size it is, but a lot of the local branches are small groups of people, none of whom necessarily have any authority other than as memebrs


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2014)

ska invita said:


> i'll wait to get more context , but it sounds like it was sent around the lambeth local branch. ive no idea who is in that or what size it is, but a lot of the local branches are small groups of people, none of whom necessarily have any authority other than as memebrs


Whoever sent it is doing a bit more than just circulating info.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 28, 2014)

belboid said:


> he doesn't want to stand internally tho - too much like hard work. he justs wants to stand for council


Thanks, ive read it more carefully now
As far as my understanding of it the whole point of the democratic model is so this kind of thing doesn't happen - if anything it will be a good test of that.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2014)

You'll have a candidate and no credibility very soon.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You'll have a candidate and no credibility very soon.


you're not enjoying this are you?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2014)

Eh?


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 28, 2014)

According to my Facebook timeline a couple of Left Unity members are standing as Class War candidates in the Midlands.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Mar 28, 2014)

ska invita said:


> who said that?
> 
> isnt it too late now any way? internal elections have closed last week, and the democratic structures make it impossible to just fly in a candidate without members voting them in.



it was an email that went round on the lambeth left unity email list.  any more i don't know.  i just thought that it was interesting that this proposition has come up.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Mar 28, 2014)

just to state what i hope is obvious: i'm not in left unity nor am i connected to anyone involved beyond this: i just signed up in the early days out of curiosity to see if they had any new ideas that i could get behind.  anything i post on this thread is from the emails i receive with any comment i see fit to add!


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2014)

Lots of people at the conference.


----------



## belboid (Mar 29, 2014)

Conference live stream - a sign of things to come?

http://leftunity.org/manchester-conference-video-live-stream/


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> According to the WW and Pete McLaren reports numbers of branch reps showing up to national steering committee meetings are rapidly falling, while some detached from reality types are blathering about needing 5,000 members by the end of the year.
> 
> Mid-sized left sect thinking its a mass party = recipe for disaster




175 people joined yesterday after the new Loach article, most joining now are basically old labour supporters who can't stomach the LP anymore, especially after the welfare cap vote, its not a traditional sect and I don't think the new members are 'wreckers'

and I'm not a member.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2014)

Why not?


----------



## belboid (Mar 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> 175 people joined yesterday after the new Loach article, most joining now are basically old labour supporters who can't stomach the LP anymore, especially after the welfare cap vote, its not a traditional sect


that's what they said, but they would, wouldn't they?  I suspect they were an awful lot of existing far-lefties who joined just in time to vote in the conference.


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2014)




----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2014)

treelover said:


>


Why haven't you joined treelover?


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2014)

I want left groups to be successful, doesn't mean you have to join them, very cautious after experiences.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> I want left groups to be successful, doesn't mean you have to join them, very cautious after experiences.


Why haven't you joined?


----------



## belboid (Mar 29, 2014)

21 hour working week motion defeated. lots of talk of needing to ensure 'sellability' apparently. Must be radical, but not too radical.


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2014)

what about the 'arming the people' motion

not too radical?


----------



## belboid (Mar 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> what about the 'arming the people' motion
> 
> not too radical?


it wont pass, will it? 

Conference has just voted to....Keep the NHS public!  phew


Streams working now, tho its unwatchable and hard to listen to (both for technical rather than political reasons)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> 175 people joined yesterday after the new Loach article, most joining now are basically old labour supporters who can't stomach the LP anymore, especially after the welfare cap vote, its not a traditional sect and I don't think the new members are 'wreckers'
> 
> and I'm not a member.



The SWP have been known to sign up that many over a couple of freshers fairs. Probably a higher percentage of people who will end up doing something too.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> Lots of people at the conference.


I see they are attracting the youth.


----------



## belboid (Mar 29, 2014)

200 in attendance, apparently.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 29, 2014)

belboid said:


> 200 in attendance, apparently.



Down from what at the first conference?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 29, 2014)

emanymton said:


> I see they are attracting the youth.



There were some people in their thirties in another crowd shot!


----------



## belboid (Mar 29, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Down from what at the first conference?


500 I think


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 29, 2014)

And the traditional left unity votes down motion for left unity moment. Close though, the leadership nearly lost.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 29, 2014)

belboid said:


> 500 I think



Not very encouraging, although some of the drop is presumably caused by the move from London


----------



## emanymton (Mar 29, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Not very encouraging, although some of the drop is presumably caused by the move from London


Why was in Manchaster, any idea? Is it just to move it around the country rather than having everything in London?


----------



## belboid (Mar 29, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Is it just to move it around the country rather than having everything in London?


That's the one.

Registration desk is apparently claiming 350 attending, but the votes reported have all been less than 200 in all.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 29, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Why was in Manchaster, any idea? Is it just to move it around the country rather than having everything in London?



Yes, the usual self-defeating whining about always having national meetings in the, erm, national transport hub.


----------



## belboid (Mar 29, 2014)

My god!  A photo of the delegation from Northampton shows...three people under 30!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 29, 2014)

I've been entertaining myself by chatting with (bating?) some of them on the twitter stream. The ex-SWP types in particular are all rah-rah onwards and upwards, we're not part of the left ghetto unlike the other left groups, how dare you suggest that this is a room full of old lags, etc.

I'm actually a bit surprised by their lack of self awareness. Tom Walker actually quoted the paper membership figure at me, as if that proved something!


----------



## andysays (Mar 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> 175 people joined yesterday after the new Loach article, most joining now are basically *old labour supporters who can't stomach the LP anymore, especially after the welfare cap vote*, its not a traditional sect and I don't think the new members are 'wreckers'
> 
> and I'm not a member.



So they were OK with the junking of Clause 4, the Iraq war and all Blair's other New Labourisms but failure to vote against the welfare cap was the final straw? Are you sure?


----------



## ska invita (Mar 29, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> And the traditional left unity votes down motion for left unity moment. Close though, the leadership nearly lost.


whats the "left unity moment"? in fact whats "traditional left unity"?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 29, 2014)

ska invita said:


> whats the "left unity moment"? in fact whats "traditional left unity"?



Try it with punctuation. The traditional "left unity votes down motion for left unity" moment.


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I've been entertaining myself by chatting with (bating?) some of them on the twitter stream. The ex-SWP types in particular are all rah-rah onwards and upwards, we're not part of the left ghetto unlike the other left groups, how dare you suggest that this is a room full of old lags, etc.
> 
> I'm actually a bit surprised by their lack of self awareness. Tom Walker actually quoted the paper membership figure at me, as if that proved something!



Why are you 'baiting' them, jesus, whats the fucking point of it, people trying to do good things, they are not slagging your outfit off, so why do it?


----------



## ska invita (Mar 29, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Try it with punctuation. The traditional "left unity votes down motion for left unity" moment.


 hah i see!


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Not very encouraging, although some of the drop is presumably caused by the move from London



I think LU has quite a significant number of disabled members who basically can't get to such meetings very easily, the London effect is probably palpable as well


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2014)

> We've just joined Left Unity because we believe that none of the mainstream parties represent our individual philosophies and politics. Both of us are sick and tired of being told that we must vote Labour because they'll be nice to us once they're in power! As a couple with strong socialist beliefs, one of whom is a blind person who works in the public sector and the other who is a teacher, we feel that Left Unity is calling to us. We live in Gateshead and wonder if there are any organised meetings or Branches in the Tyneside area?






> I just discovered Left Unity this morning - I'm in Milton Keynes. Is there a branch here, and if not, how do we go about organising one? I've become increasingly frustrated with the state of things in the UK, and have felt for years, that there is no substantial difference anymore, between Labour and the Tories. As for the LibDems, they seem to go wherever the wind blows, in their desperate hopes to be elected and their desire to feel relevant. This morning, I actually feel excited to have found a party that I believe could be the start of something better!



Some reasons for joining.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Mar 29, 2014)

why are you desperately shilling a group you won't join?  i don't understand you treelover.


----------



## Coolfonz (Mar 30, 2014)

I'm in Left Unity as I've said before on this thread (I think). My basic motivation for joining was that they would stand in elections and present some kind of opposition to power on that level. It may well turn out to be a misplaced hope, I'm well aware of that.
A lot of the language and imagery seems completely out of kilter with what I would like to see, even the name, Unity is much better. But sadly they haven't chosen me as their dictator-leader 

But I have to say it's a bit sad to see people on U75 slating them, many people who would probably make LU a better outfit if they joined up. I mean, "baiting" LU people on Twitter? What for?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Mar 30, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> why are you desperately shilling a group you won't join?  i don't understand you treelover.



no answer to this?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> I'm in Left Unity as I've said before on this thread (I think). My basic motivation for joining was that they would stand in elections and present some kind of opposition to power on that level. It may well turn out to be a misplaced hope, I'm well aware of that.
> A lot of the language and imagery seems completely out of kilter with what I would like to see, even the name, Unity is much better. But sadly they haven't chosen me as their dictator-leader
> 
> But I have to say it's a bit sad to see people on U75 slating them, many people who would probably make LU a better outfit if they joined up. I mean, "baiting" LU people on Twitter? What for?


We'd make the tory party better if we joined. Is that an argument for joining the tory party? For muting criticisms of the tory party?


----------



## Coolfonz (Mar 30, 2014)

I don't think you can compare the Conservatives and LU. And yes criticisms of LU are fine. What are your main ones?  I've got a few and I'm a member.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 30, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> no answer to this?


treelover does not have to answer, treelover only demands


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 30, 2014)

Don't see much wrong with 'baiting' them tbh. It's often conducive to them developing some kind of self-awareness. IME in the SWP and SP the most reality-detached hacks are those who've not had to endure 'baiting' and the ones with useful and often constructively critical things to say about their own organisations tend to be the ones who've been 'victims' of 'baiting'.

And to say that they've not 'baited' other orgs - the SP included - is nonsense too. They do it all the time, I've amusingly been subjected to it once, though it wasn't repeated because the outcome was the opposite to what I think they'd imagined it would have been. And implicit in everything they say is the idea that the 'old' left (as in left proper - cares about and takes as its starting point class and actually has an analysis of society beyond 'let's all be nicer') needs to die and be replaced by their far more vibrant (whatever the fuck that means) organisation whose lies about membership are more to do with naivete than cynicism.

I take it on the chin from anarchists - they're arguing from a position of credibility on these issues - but I won't take it on the chin from a group that just replaces the dead Russians of the SP/SWP with the 'spirit of 45', Attlee and Bevan and retains, in an incredibly dishonest way, the other failings from which those groups suffer.


----------



## Coolfonz (Mar 30, 2014)

Crikey. I think you've over thought that one. Liars, not real lefties (obviously unlike your opinion of yourself), who bait other organisations are "incredibly dishonest" and who use the word `vibrant`. 
As opposed to a small group trying to possibly stand in elections and even to get some votes.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 30, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> Crikey. I think you've over thought that one. Liars, not real lefties (obviously unlike your opinion of yourself), who bait other organisations are "incredibly dishonest" and who use the word `vibrant`.
> As opposed to a small group trying to possibly stand in elections and even to get some votes.



Have I?

How's about you actually refute the comments rather than projecting whatever's in your head onto me and taking comments out of context (eg. it's the denial/playing down of class and watering their politics down to 'let's be nicer' that makes them not proper
left I disagree with the ICC, AFED, individual anarchists and all kinds of other people but I wouldn't say that about them - there's a reason why).

Nowhere did I call them liars - I said they were as dishonest about membership as everyone else is - something the more grounded lu supporters appear to agree about.

The baiting stuff was in response to 'hurrah for left unity' posts upthread that didn't just imply but openly state that lu shouldn't be 'baited'. My point being that they do it themselves and ought to use it as a tool for improving their self-awareness since the most effective baiting is always grounded in truth.

How's about you go through and answer the points raised rather than resorting to the kind of knee jerk reactions you'd expect from the worst kind of SP or SWP hack?


----------



## Coolfonz (Mar 30, 2014)

Did you raise any points? I didn't get them. Anyway...no worries. Carry on using Twitter to bait fake leftys mate


----------



## articul8 (Mar 30, 2014)

Two bald men baiting each other on Twitter about a comb


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 31, 2014)

And a third bald man turns up and baits them on Urban


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> As opposed to a small group trying to possibly stand in elections and even to get some votes.



LU isn't standing in any elections though is it?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 31, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> Did you raise any points? I didn't get them. Anyway...no worries. Carry on using Twitter to bait fake leftys mate


well yes I did, though sadly I'm not surprised they were lost on you. fuck knows what the twitter  comment is all about, I only ever done about 20 tweets and they were nearly all expressing my displeasure about being called unpleasant and untrue things by Laurie penny.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 31, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> And a third bald man turns up and baits them on Urban


to be fair though, Im the only one who acknowledges and embraces my baldness - I went for political hair the clippers and got a rhetorical number 1. A8 went for the unconvincing hair piece that is the labour party and coolfonz keeps hold of the comb because the vibrancy of lu means its just a high fringe. 

see that ^? that's metaphors and poetry and stuff. maybe I'm thinking outside the box and being vibrant like lu? for the hard of thinking (looking at you fonzie) it means I'm the only one not in self denial when it comes to admitting ones own political irrelevance.


----------



## Coolfonz (Mar 31, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> LU isn't standing in any elections though is it?



As I understand it that is the main point of the party. From there I think LU says the EU elections are too soon - personally I'm not sure why but... - and after that they are going to field candidates. If you are correct and they say they aren't going to, I'm outta here/there...

One other not very encouraging thing about LU is their use of the internet. Two days after its conference and basically fuck all to show for it outside some vote results on their site.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Mar 31, 2014)

from the weekends left unity mailing list emails, it looks like a few of lambeth's lu types aren't very happy with the idea of having lee jaspar shipped in for them.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> As I understand it that is the main point of the party. From there I think LU says the EU elections are too soon - personally I'm not sure why but... - and after that they are going to field candidates. If you are correct and they say they aren't going to, I'm outta here/there...


They have a great big banner on the the site saying "coming soon to a ballot paper near you". But some of the membership seem to think this means they have decided not to stand in elections  - whilst also thinking this decision doesn't apply to special people like Lee Jasper.


----------



## Coolfonz (Mar 31, 2014)

Butchers - I'm not quite with you there but like i say, me personally i think there should be a party of the left that people can vote for. It's that basic. Yeah Lee Jasper - and i've never met him - seems to be a career weirdo who made up some shit about anarchists if i recall, and would likely not be a good choice for candidate. But again I don't really care about him, I'd just like to see a left party on a ballot paper in the UK in the way the FdG is in France, or the cats in Spain whose name i've forgot.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> As I understand it that is the main point of the party. From there I think LU says the EU elections are too soon - personally I'm not sure why but... - and after that they are going to field candidates. If you are correct and they say they aren't going to, I'm outta here/there...
> 
> One other not very encouraging thing about LU is their use of the internet. Two days after its conference and basically fuck all to show for it outside some vote results on their site.



I know, but if they're not going to stand candidates now, then that puts it off until a general election. Then the options are 1) focus on council seats and get ignored because the GE is going on or 2) stand as many candidates in the GE as LU can afford (how many would that be exactly?) having never stood any LU candidates before and probably lose all said deposits. Which makes 3) put it off for another year suddenly quite attractive. 



el-ahrairah said:


> from the weekends left unity mailing list emails, it looks like a few of lambeth's lu types aren't very happy with the idea of having lee jaspar shipped in for them.



Not happy with Lee Jasper? But he has a local profile and an excellent record as an anti-racist Respect muppeteer. HOW CAN THIS BE?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> Butchers - I'm not quite with you there but like i say, me personally i think there should be a party of the left that people can vote for. It's that basic. Yeah Lee Jasper - and i've never met him - seems to be a career weirdo who made up some shit about anarchists if i recall, and would likely not be a good choice for candidate. But again I don't really care about him, I'd just like to see a left party on a ballot paper in the UK in the way the FdG is in France, or the cats in Spain whose name i've forgot.


My point is that the party appears to be all over the shop as regards elections with the site clearly saying they will be standing in elections, with some people thinking they have decided against it and  those same people who think you've agreed not to stand thinking they should be able to just ignore what they think is decided policy on the whims of a few individuals and substitute themselves for the party/branch.


----------



## Coolfonz (Mar 31, 2014)

Butchers - Yes that wouldn't be  good way to run a party I agree. I hope it turns out better than that.
Spackle - Personally I think LU should run at least one or two candidates in the Euros. Ken Loach for example, anyone else vaguely famous would be good  There will be by-elections and then the `GE` and I take your points as valid, but I refer you to my earlier point about having a left party to vote for...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> Butchers - Yes that wouldn't be  good way to run a party I agree. I hope it turns out better than that.
> Spackle - Personally I think LU should run at least one or two candidates in the Euros. Ken Loach for example, anyone else vaguely famous would be good  There will be by-elections and then the `GE` and I take your points as valid, but I refer you to my earlier point about having a left party to vote for...



You don't count TUSC as that then?


----------



## Coolfonz (Mar 31, 2014)

Sprackle - Yeah good for them, it's all gravy. They are running in London right? I mean in my eyes all these parties should merge. Everyone should merge and form one party. Would be nice if they could avoiding words like Left Trades Union Socialist when they do etc but whaddyagonnado...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> Sprackle - Yeah good for them, it's all gravy. They are running in London right? I mean in my eyes all these parties should merge. Everyone should merge and form one party. Would be nice if they could avoiding words like Left Trades Union Socialist when they do etc but whaddyagonnado...



Aiming to stand 625 candidates nationally in the locals - biggest left of labour challenge since 1945


----------



## Coolfonz (Mar 31, 2014)

Excellent news. I just say go Team LUTUSC  . Seriously, all good.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

Standing innumerable hopeless candidates and being an electoral party which doesn't contest elections seem equally absurd.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Standing innumerable hopeless candidates and being an electoral party which doesn't contest elections seem equally absurd.



Aye. Nowhere near as absurd as claiming to be a socialist working inside the Labour Party though, eh?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Aye. Nowhere near as absurd as claiming to be a socialist working inside the Labour Party though, eh?


 
If the groups to the left of Labour had shown even the merest hint of organisational competence and credibility maybe there wouldn't be such a fatalism towards having no alternative but to fight a losing battle inside Labour?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2014)

That would make them worthy of you would it?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> If the groups to the left of Labour had shown even the merest hint of organisational competence and credibility maybe there wouldn't be such a fatalism towards having no alternative but to fight a losing battle inside Labour?



Maybe you just need to stop wasting your time on what you consider to be losing battles?


----------



## chilango (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> If the groups to the left of Labour had shown even the merest hint of organisational competence and credibility maybe there wouldn't be such a fatalism towards having no alternative but to fight a losing battle inside Labour?





If the groups making up the left of Labour had shown even the merest hint of organisational competence and credibility maybe there wouldn't be such a fatalism towards having no alternative but to fight a losing battle outside Labour?


See? This is easy.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

The left of the Labour party had enough competence to exert pressure for the creation of the NHS, the extension of the welfare state, etc. etc - Ken Loach certainly seems to think so anyway.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 31, 2014)

I don't know how people within Labour can carry the bags of people who, if they believe a word they say, they must despise. It must be soul destroying unless they are deluded to North Korean levels.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> The left of the Labour party had enough competence to exert pressure for the creation of the NHS, the extension of the welfare state, etc. etc - Ken Loach certainly seems to think so anyway.



Your argument for socialists working within the Labour Party is the makeup of the party during the Atlee government...


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

No, just that the left inside the party has not always been without influence.  That's one reason why people aren't ready to bail out for projects which show absolutely no semblance of meaning anything to anyone.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No, just that the left inside the party has not always been without influence.  That's one reason why people aren't ready to bail out for projects which show absolutely no semblance of meaning anything to anyone.


You literally just offered the argument that the creation of the welfare state 60 years ago is reason enough to stay in labour. Then two minutes later deny this is what you said. The argument is crass enough - but why do you have to twist so blatantly? Why say something then deny saying it?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

I didn't say it was "reason enough" - I said people could reasonably point to evidence of the Labour left acting effectively.


----------



## dennisr (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I said people could reasonably point to evidence of the Labour left acting effectively.



Lets say in the last 20 years then - any major successes within this timeframe?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I didn't say it was "reason enough" - I said people could reasonably point to evidence of the Labour left acting effectively.


Yes, 60 years ago (and you ignore the utterly different conditions that existed then - in terms of the class struggle, in terms of the political representation of the working class, in terms of the needs of capital and the effects of competition and so on- this is why the point is so crass) but then immediately say _no the crowning glory of my parties tradition, the thing i'm pointing to as an example of success, i don't really mean that at all. _Why on earth can you just write straightforwardly instead of this politicians weaseling all the bloody time? Why must you always put something forward then retreat from it, deny you said, circle it around with defensive tricks?


----------



## dennisr (Mar 31, 2014)

anything at all in this timeframe?


----------



## dennisr (Mar 31, 2014)

one thing - just one single thing?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

dennisr said:


> anything at all in this timeframe?


 
Very little since 1981 in all honesty.   NMW and Sure Start were both good ideas (although limited).  There's a case that the left's opposition to Iraq war helped prevent them from supporting invasion of Syria.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2014)

You're claiming that now are you? 

Shameless.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

But I'm not making some confident prediction of left advances within the Labour party.  Far from it.  It's just that the pretty shambolic state of the left outside means the vestigial memories of a bygone age are enough to keep people where they are.


----------



## dennisr (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There's a case that the left's opposition to Iraq war helped prevent them from supporting invasion of Syria.



And even thats pushing it.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> The left of the Labour party had enough competence to exert pressure for the creation of the NHS, the extension of the welfare state, etc. etc - Ken Loach certainly seems to think so anyway.


 
had, yes.  back when the labour party was full of left-wingers.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> But I'm not making some confident prediction of left advances within the Labour party.  Far from it.  It's just that the pretty shambolic state of the left outside means the vestigial memories of a bygone age are enough to keep people where they are.


Oh, now you're back to saying what you said then denying that you said are you? This is more frustrating than the actual content of your warmed up leftism - that you defend it in such a manner.

What about the relationship of the working class to the labour party in all this? Their alienation from and rejection of labour in all but the least challenging and easiest to do aspects?Their almost total lack of participation in your party? Does this mean anything at all to you or your left?


----------



## dennisr (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> But I'm not making some confident prediction of left advances within the Labour party.  Far from it.  It's just that the pretty shambolic state of the left outside means the vestigial memories of a bygone age are enough to keep people where they are.



I've moved out of London now article8 - what surprises me - where I have moved too - is the vacum that exists in basic trade union organisation. This is an an area with a strong left/ labour movement history. There is no link left between the labour movement and the labour party - beyond the occasional glad-handing of labour politicians at historical/im memorium events (such as the opening of new rmt office previously sequestrated after lost seafarers dispute and 30 years after the miners strike events). On the ground that vacuam is beginning to be filled by local trade union activists. Guess what political background those re-founding activists have? - in effect we are running the trade councils by default through activists in PCS, RMT, NUT, Unite and UNISON - but we are already filling those previously moribund organisations with newer tu activists through practical activity - for example stopping the closure of 12 surestart centres alongside local parents (a small thing - but better than the nothing or 'vote for me in the future that the labour party career types occasionally pop up to offer those parents) - most of whom have either no political affiliation or their only experience is of ourselves providing the only backbone visible in a number of community and up-coming tu disputes and punching way above our weight to do so. That situation will grow as attacks on local government and basic social provision grows (not because i flogged someone a paper - because people feel they have no choice... and we are the only visible presence...). It will eventually be reflected electorally - and then your words will come and bite you on the bum...

This is my prediction - and i will raise a glass to that bum bitten time anyway when it arrives even if you do not have the humility to buy me a pint by way of an apology


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> .
> What about the relationship of the working class to the labour party in all this? Their alienation from and rejection of labour in all but the least challenging and easiest to do aspects?Their almost total lack of participation in your party? Does this mean anything at all to you or your left?


 
The working class in large parts retains the folk memory of Labour as a vehicle for something worthwhile even as a they reject and resent the actions of New Labour politicians. (something that Loach registers).  It's not as simple as a wholesale rejection - and it's also not true to speak of its "total lack of participation" - the problem is that the contribution of the trade union membership is mediated and controlled by the bureaucracy.

I don't want to paint a rosy picture of the left inside the party. But the fact that neither TUSC nor LU appear with the slightest credibility as an alternative is keeping people rooted to the spot.


----------



## dennisr (Mar 31, 2014)

its a bloody distant memory around here... and will lead to further electoral demoralisation and disorientation (for example in the form of farage's lot). All of which ignores what has to happen outside of increasingly irrelevant-to-ordinary-peoples-lives electoral politics.

Then what?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

dennisr said:


> It will eventually be reflected electorally -


 
Ah, the old get out - "eventually" - like "at a certain point", "5, 10, 15 years..", ....

I'm not saying there will never be alternative to Labour.  It's just that I see no sign of either TUSC or Left Unity becoming the basis of one.  

Community activism and local trades councils do seem to be a far more suitable vehicle to work in than formal party circles.  Maybe where I live is different, but there is a small core of local LP members who are very actively engaged with union and community struggles, as well as opposing most of what the Labour council and leadership says and does.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> The working class in large parts retains the folk memory of Labour as a vehicle for something worthwhile even as a they reject and resent the actions of New Labour politicians. (something that Loach registers).  It's not as simple as a wholesale rejection - and it's also not true to speak of its "total lack of participation" - the problem is that the contribution of the trade union membership is mediated and controlled by the bureaucracy.
> 
> I don't want to paint a rosy picture of the left inside the party. But the fact that neither TUSC nor LU appear with the slightest credibility as an alternative is keeping people rooted to the spot.


You might not want to paint a rosy picture of the left in the party but you certainly do try to paint a false picture of their potential and their relationship with the working class. One that doesn't appear to have any understanding of the developments over the last decades. No, the working class don't retain that folk memory - the left that you are a part of do, and you are substituting this for the reality of the situation - and you go onto to an second substitution of the unions for the working class. Your picture is the one mediated by the bureaucracy and you paint a picture that i don't think anyone outside of that milieu would recognise as accurate today. But, of course, we now reach the point we always do where you tell me that it's the tusc being shit not labour being sit that's the problem and thereby ducking all the points about your outdated labourism. You can only see things through a party perspective now - the class only seems to figure when as some secondary (at best) thing.


----------



## dennisr (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Ah, the old get out - "eventually"


As opposed to the old get out - "folk memory"?

It is already reflected in the "fuck em all vote".


----------



## mk12 (Mar 31, 2014)

dennisr said:


> Lets say in the last 20 years then - any major successes within this timeframe?


 
Have the far-left had any major successes in the last 150 years in Britain?


----------



## dennisr (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Community activism and local trades councils do seem to be a far more suitable vehicle to work in than formal party circles.  Maybe where I live is different, but there is a small core of local LP members who are very actively engaged with union and community struggles, as well as opposing most of what the Labour council and leadership says and does.



Maybe it is because there is hardly anyone in the local labour party questioning the orders sent down to them from on high that we have virtually know activists represented by labour party members around here.

There is one labour councillor - he's presently discussing joining TUSC.


----------



## dennisr (Mar 31, 2014)

mk12 said:


> Have the far-left had any major successes in the last 150 years in Britain?



demoralising a twat like you?


----------



## mk12 (Mar 31, 2014)

Your defensiveness suggests not.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

there is a fuck em all vote (especially at elections seens as inconsequential) but (and despite Ed Balls' best efforts to erode every last scrap of difference between the parties) at the next GE it will nevertheless be the case that
1) A Labour vote is the only way of getting rid of a venal and vicious Tory government (and their equally guilty LD sidekicks)
2) People will still see Labour as a party that would for eg. get rid of the Bedroom Tax, as opposed to being the party that introduced it.

If Labour are in power delivering austerity measures then we may have a different space opening up.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2014)

_If? W_hat colour is the sky in your world? 

And you lot say this before every single labour victory. Then after every singe defeat it's back to only labour blah blah but if blah blah


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> there is a fuck em all vote (especially at elections seens as inconsequential) but (and despite Ed Balls' best efforts to erode every last scrap of difference between the parties) at the next GE it will nevertheless be the case that
> 1) A Labour vote is the only way of getting rid of a venal and vicious Tory government (and their equally guilty LD sidekicks)
> 2) People will still see Labour as a party that would for eg. get rid of the Bedroom Tax, as opposed to being the party that introduced it.
> 
> If Labour are in power delivering austerity measures then we may have a different space opening up.



Which is exactly what is going to happen. Now ask yourself this - who is attempting to prepare for that point and who is dicking about speculating?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> _If? W_hat colour is the sky in your world?
> 
> And you lot say this before every single labour victory. Then after every singe defeat it's back to only labour blah blah but if blah blah


 
There's a real chance Miliband won't get in so it's not certain - hence "if"


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Which is exactly what is going to happen. Now ask yourself this - who is attempting to prepare for that point and who is dicking about speculating?


catastrophic results being wonderful preparation...?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There's a real chance Miliband won't get in so it's not certain - hence "if"


Lord, it gets even worse. So you recognise that a labour victory will bring in a labour-austerity govt. And you think this is what people should concentrate on achieving.  I do not know what world you live in.


----------



## dennisr (Mar 31, 2014)

mk12 said:


> Your defensiveness suggests not.


Your vacuity alongside your cynicism suggests a typical product of the socialist worker's party. Not defence more "cannot be arsed" 

(hey, at least i gave you some attention)


----------



## dennisr (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> catastrophic results being wonderful preparation...?


as opposed to securing the catastrophic results for the working class of a labour 'victory' ?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

dennisr said:


> as opposed to securing the catastrophic results for the working class of a labour 'victory' ?


 
A Labour victory would be less catastrophic than a Tory victory.  Being organised inside and outside the LP maximises the chances of limiting how bad it might be.   Potential triggers for the left to split from Labour exist eg
1) the termination of the link (union votes at conference/NEC attacked, state funding)
2) Labour agreeing to form some kind of national government or grand coalition (even a coalition with the LDs could help to precipitate a split, but it wouldn't happen overnight)


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2014)

And you think this has anything _at all_ to do with you and your left?


----------



## dennisr (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> A Labour victory would be less catastrophic than a Tory victory.



Would it. Really?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> A Labour victory would be less catastrophic than a Tory victory.


 
it's the difference between being mugged at knifepoint by a laughing toff, and being mugged at knifepoint by the laughing toff's apologetic butler.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> A Labour victory would be less catastrophic than a Tory victory.  Being organised inside and outside the LP maximises the chances of limiting how bad it might be.   Potential triggers for the left to split from Labour exist eg
> 1) the termination of the link (union votes at conference/NEC attacked, state funding)
> 2) Labour agreeing to form some kind of national government or grand coalition (even a coalition with the LDs could help to precipitate a split, but it wouldn't happen overnight)



Let's get this straight then - you actively want and work towards something catastrophic for the working class to happen and you want everyone else to stop trying to stop the catastrophe and join in with you in making the catastrophe happen?  I think we've got a strategist here folks.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Let's get this straight then - you actively want and work towards something catastrophic for the working class to happen
> and you want everyone else to stop trying to stop the catastrophe and join in with you in making the catastrophe happen?  I think we've got a strategist here folks.


 
I want to stop the catastrophe that is a) the ongoing austerity attack and b) the election of a Tory government committed to a further intenfication of planned austerity.

The priority has to be building the most effective movement against austerity - especially at a community and workplace level.  But at the same time, insofar as it's possible to limit the Labour leadership's room for maneouvre and elect a government which is able to reverse some of the worst aspects of the ConDem coalition attacks this seems worth doing *in the absence of any meaningul alternative at an electoral level*.

It does *not* mean telling people to shut up and vote Labour.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

dennisr said:


> Would it. Really?


 yes, marginally at least, and the more the left can resist the neoliberal direction of the leadership, the more of a difference it would make.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2014)

the strategist said:
			
		

> insofar as it's possible to limit the Labour leadership's room for maneouvre and elect a government which is able to reverse some of the worst aspects of the ConDem coalition attacks



You haven't noticed that you don't have an army have you? What there was has deserted or mutinied and ai dare say some would quite like to frag a few of the would-be officers telling them they need to get back in line and march towards the sound of the guns. You do not matter to the people who run the labour party. Not even slightly.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> catastrophic results being wonderful preparation...?



I didn't say wonderful preparation - why can't you respond to anything honestly you little fuckwit?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

you are "attempting to prepare" but failing to do so competently, let alone credibly.  In fact you are arguably making the task harder not easier.


----------



## chilango (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> A Labour victory would be less catastrophic than a Tory victory.  Being organised inside and outside the LP maximises the chances of limiting how bad it might be.   Potential triggers for the left to split from Labour exist eg
> 1) the termination of the link (union votes at conference/NEC attacked, state funding)
> 2) Labour agreeing to form some kind of national government or grand coalition (even a coalition with the LDs could help to precipitate a split, but it wouldn't happen overnight)



what?!?



fucking hell a8.


----------



## treelover (Mar 31, 2014)

Plenty of people on here have said they will be voting Labour, there's a thread on it, tbh, I was very surprised at how many.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

chilango said:


> what?!?


what - are you really saying that you would be perfectly happy to see another term of Tory government? And you think this is a view widely shared by the working class?


----------



## chilango (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> what - are you really saying that you would be perfectly happy to see another term of Tory government? And you think this is a view widely shared by the working class?



it wasn't your first sentence that left me so aghast.

it was the fantasy that followed.


----------



## chilango (Mar 31, 2014)

treelover said:


> Plenty of people on here have said they will be voting Labour, there's a thread on it, tbh, I was very surprised at how many.



and?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

chilango said:


> it was the fantasy that followed.


I said they were *potential* triggers - ie. they won't necessarily happen, and if they did this won't necessarily need to a split.  But they could and it might.


----------



## chilango (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I said they were *potential* triggers - ie. they won't necessarily happen, and if they did this won't necessarily need to a split.  But they could and it might.



what?

triggers?

wtf?

who's splitting where?

utter fantasy.

seriously.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

Strikes me that both Left Unity and TUSC are predicated upon there being some further split to the left in Labour (at least in its electoral base) - or else what was the point of picketing the Special Conference about the Collins reforms?


----------



## chilango (Mar 31, 2014)

seriously articul8 there is no left of any consequence in the Labour Party.

 ...and the handful of individuals that would self-define as the Labour Left ain't going anywhere. 

Even if they did, lets just go along with fantasy for a moment, where would they go? what would they do? would anyone even notice?

fucks sake.

just crack on and enjoy hanging out at Westminster and stuff and stop kidding yerself.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

the handful of lefts that include - for example - people in the leadership of Britain's biggest trade union (for example)?  At least a dozen MPs (a dozen more than any putative left group will have the other side of the election).   And a fair percentage of the membership given the last NEC election results...

So, whilst it would be wrong to argue that the left is anywhere near running the show, it's not as minimal or marginalised as all that.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 31, 2014)

I think that one thing that we can be sure of is that Labour will be worse on welfare than the Tories, they have promised that over and over.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> the handful of lefts that include - for example - people in the leadership of Britain's biggest trade union (for example)?  At least a dozen MPs (a dozen more than any putative left group will have the other side of the election).   And a fair percentage of the membership given the last NEC election results...
> 
> So, whilst it would be wrong to argue that the left is anywhere near running the show, it's not as minimal or marginalised as all that.



So you reckon there's "at least a dozen MP's" ready to jump ship to a new party? What the fuck are they waiting for then?


----------



## chilango (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> the handful of lefts that include - for example - people in the leadership of Britain's biggest trade union (for example)?  At least a dozen MPs (a dozen more than any putative left group will have the other side of the election).   And a fair percentage of the membership given the last NEC election results...
> 
> So, whilst it would be wrong to argue that the left is anywhere near running the show, it's not as minimal or marginalised as all that.



You're being pretty generous in how you're defining the Labour Left there aren't you?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

no - I mean there's at least a dozen MPs who could play a useful role in any future left formation.  But to jump now would be consign themselves to almost inevitable defeat.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

chilango said:


> You're being pretty generous in how you're defining the Labour Left there aren't you?


yes


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> no - I mean there's at least a dozen MPs who could play a useful role in any future left formation.  But to jump now would be consign themselves to almost inevitable defeat.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 31, 2014)

Send in the imaginary battalions


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

let's stand as many hopeless candidates as we can, to make this the most hopeless attempt to stand against Labour since 1945!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> So you reckon there's "at least a dozen MP's" ready to jump ship to a new party? What the fuck are they waiting for then?



I just love the idea that in your mind, John McDonnell et al have been on standby for the last 15 years saying "Steady now...wait for it...not yet, or we'll be defeated."


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> let's stand as many hopeless candidates as we can, to make this the most hopeless attempt to stand against Labour since 1945!



Lets abando hope and consign ourselves to begging Labour to be merciful.


----------



## chilango (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> yes



Too generous.

Labour Left is rendered meaningless (for our purposes) under your terms. You may as well talk about the Lib Dem Left.


----------



## chilango (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> let's stand as many hopeless candidates as we can, to make this the most hopeless attempt to stand against Labour since 1945!



It's more honest at least.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

chilango said:


> It's more honest at least.


 desperate is what it is.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 31, 2014)

The Charge of the Left Brigade

Onward onward rode the er twelve or so, cannons to the right of them...


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2014)

However, as if to demonstrate that idiocy is not only found outside the party, here comes a very poor sociologist:



> Labour is less a "(bourgeois) workers' party" of Leninist providence and more a _proletarian_ party, embracing everyone dependent on selling their labour power for a living - be they the salt-of-the-earth or the nice professional with a nice salary


 
http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/left-unity-and-labour-movement.html?spref=fb


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> However, as if to demonstrate that idiocy is not only found outside the party, here comes a very poor sociologist:
> 
> 
> 
> http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/left-unity-and-labour-movement.html?spref=fb


No, he's spot on: " Labour refracts the sectional interests and differential advantages of its base, which explains why Labourism as a set of ideas is notoriously pragmatic, cautious, and compromised.". His general defence of the labour party is pretty much the same as yours? Do you consider your defence of the same to be 'very poor?


----------



## chilango (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> desperate is what it is.



Nah.

TUSC is many things. Few of them particularly impressive.

But it is not "desperate".


----------



## Coolfonz (Mar 31, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Very little since 1981 in all honesty.   NMW and Sure Start were both good ideas (although limited).  There's a case that the left's opposition to Iraq war helped prevent them from supporting invasion of Syria.


Crikey old chap that is a bit rich. Not that you would say such a thing of course.


----------



## Coolfonz (Mar 31, 2014)

Also there is principle sometimes. There are quite a lot more war criminals in Labour than LU afaik. 
I mean the bedroom tax is bad enough but Labour taxed Iraqi bedrooms by helping fly a fuckload load of explosives through the window and blowing your kids up. Plus a bit of the old torture, rendition, making shit up...they're fucking sewer dwellers.

Personally I don't see it as taking votes from Labour, or indeed anything to do with Labour, I just see that there is no effective left wing party in the UK. Zip, nowt etc. And so LU or TUSC or MFI, KFC, TLC etc basically anyone else should aim to take votes from the right. That includes Labour. They are a party of the right and that's it. That bit isn't complicated. It's the making a political party that is.


----------



## dennisr (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> desperate is what it is.


desperate is what you are doing here to try and legitimise your own position.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

dennisr said:


> desperate is what you are doing here to try and legitimise your own position.


No, I'm realistic about the limitations and prospects of work within the LP.  But I don't see any alternative on the electoral level now, and am pretty unimpressed by TUSC's apparent desire to fall flat on its face (however well motivated it might be).  I won't taken any satisfaction in being proved right.  I will be exasperated.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

God, if you mistake this fantasy world that you've constructed for being pretty realistic I don't want to see what you come up with when you cut loose. You are so cut off its laughable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No, I'm realistic about the limitations and prospects of work within the LP.  But I don't see any alternative on the electoral level now, and am pretty unimpressed by TUSC's apparent desire to fall flat on its face (however well motivated it might be).  I won't taken any satisfaction in being proved right.  I will be exasperated.


but you won't be proved right, you'll be proven a wanker's wanker time and time and time and time again.

it's often said principled people left the cp after hungary '56. you've had your hungary moments and you fluffed them all. when the labour government bombed yugoslavia, precipitating the kosovo crisis. when the labour government went into afghanistan. when the labour government went into iraq. not to mention all the shit things they did at home. for example, you were doubtless up in arms at the student fees in 2010. but who introduced tuition fees? was it not the er labour party?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

And, oddly, he claims political descent from those who left in 56.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And, oddly, he claims political descent from those who left in 56.


yet he's been an ardent supporter of the party which brought in great limits on protest, such as the prohibition on demonstrating near parliament - more severe than the auld sessional orders. he's what auld tankies refer to as a right-wing shit


----------



## Coolfonz (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No, I'm realistic about the limitations and prospects of work within the LP.  But I don't see any alternative on the electoral level now, and am pretty unimpressed by TUSC's apparent desire to fall flat on its face (however well motivated it might be).  I won't taken any satisfaction in being proved right.  I will be exasperated.



If you want to hang out with/vote for the Bombers then fine. Hang out with them. But why waste your time on this thread telling other people they can't do X or Y? Is that one of your things? Telling people you don't know what they can/can't do? Bit creepy-weird.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And, oddly, he claims political descent from those who left in 56.





Pickman's model said:


> yet he's been an ardent supporter of the party which brought in great limits on protest, such as the prohibition on demonstrating near parliament - more severe than the auld sessional orders. he's what auld tankies refer to as a right-wing shit



Well the Labour Representation Committee has groups in it like the New Communist Party and Socialist Action which still venerate capitalist China and Russia. Has anyone considered that they might just really, really like authority?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> If you want to hang out with/vote for the Bombers then fine. Hang out with them. But why waste your time on this thread telling other people they can't do X or Y? Is that one of your things? Telling people you don't know what they can/can't do? Bit creepy-weird.


he makes out he's a good _old labour_ sort of guy. but he's just a run of the mill twat.


----------



## Coolfonz (Apr 1, 2014)

Ah, he's after his subsidy/pay out/final salary pension. Ker-ching!!


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you've had your hungary moments and you fluffed them all. when the labour government bombed yugoslavia, precipitating the kosovo crisis. when the labour government went into afghanistan. when the labour government went into iraq.


As a matter of fact I left the party and backed the Socialist Alliance in 2000 - and wasn't in the party at the time of invasion of Afghanistan/Iraq - both of which I opposed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> As a matter of fact I left the party and backed the Socialist Alliance in 2000 - and wasn't in the party at the time of invasion of Afghanistan/Iraq - both of which I opposed.


which makes it worse that you see nothing wrong with being a member of the party now, after everything they've done. when did you rejoin the party?


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> the handful of lefts that include - for example - people in the leadership of Britain's biggest trade union (for example)?  At least a dozen MPs (a dozen more than any putative left group will have the other side of the election).   And a fair percentage of the membership given the last NEC election results...
> 
> So, whilst it would be wrong to argue that the left is anywhere near running the show, it's not as minimal or marginalised as all that.


Yes and they suffer from a form of Stockholm syndrome. A dozen MPs is not an impressive number given Labour's total number of MPs. In fact,that just shows how marginalised the Left is within Labour. Kinnock witch-hunted most of the socialists out of the party and those left-wing MPs who were left behind are ineffective.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> which makes it worse that you see nothing wrong with being a member of the party now, after everything they've done. when did you rejoin the party?


 
When?  Would be 2007 I think - when Blair left - to support John Mc in his leadership bid.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

Well done. (Got a job out of it as well didn't you? And look at what it's helped do to you). In what way does joining in 2007 mean that you didn't join the party that had done all these poisonous things?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> those left-wing MPs who were left behind are ineffective.


 compared to TUSC?


----------



## treelover (Apr 1, 2014)

> *The root of Todd’s problems *
> “From an early age, my grandfather instilled in me one key value: never, ever forget your roots,” Bianca Todd announced in _The Guardian_ newspaper earlier this month, as she accused Ed Miliband of forgetting his.
> In the 1980s, her grandfather, Ron Todd, was the most powerful trade unionist in the land, the general-secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, whose massive block vote was the principle obstacle in the path of Neil Kinnock’s efforts to steer Labour into the centre ground. Todd’s granddaughter is a leading light in the Unite union and of Left Unity, which seeks to pull together the disparate groups left of the Labour Party.
> An employment tribunal last week awarded three former staff of a Leicestershire youth organisation, Children: Homes, Advice and Teaching Ltd (C:HAT Room), more than £2,000 in unpaid wages and other monies owed to them. They had worked for C:HAT Room for about six months without being given contracts. The company’s head of service is Bianca Todd – she who never, ever forgets her roots.
> ...



Hope this is just muckraking by the Blairite McSmith, but Bianca will have to answer this


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Well done. (Got a job out of it as well didn't you? And look at what it's helped do to you). In what way does joining in 2007 mean that you didn't join the party that had done all these poisonous things?


 
There has never a time in Labour's history when it was possible to endorse the overall character of its politics.  Just as previous entryists have joined to try to advance the case for an entirely different politics altogether, there is still a case for it.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> compared to TUSC?


No, on their own terms.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

Well, the left in general is ineffective in it's own terms.  That is a reflection of the period we've been going through.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There has never a time in Labour's history when it was possible to endorse the overall character of its politics.  Just as previous entryists have joined to try to advance the case for an entirely different politics altogether, there is still a case for it.


yes. but you're not making it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Well, the left in general is ineffective in it's own terms.  That is a reflection of the period we've been going through.


so you thought that your politics were best served by trying to do something with the labour party which isn't even left.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There has never a time in Labour's history when it was possible to endorse the overall character of its politics.  Just as previous entryists have joined to try to advance the case for an entirely different politics altogether, there is still a case for it.


Such sense of _responsibility_. All the good things (where's your list) = me, all the bad things =you (_and anyway i joined after they happened and my role in the continuing existence of the party that wil allow them to do further bad things at a future date is irrelevant_). Just pathetic politicians weaseling. You now mock the entryists for their failure and where its led them whilst pretending that your even more pathetic isolated entryism is actually going to be really different this time - despite the objective conditions it takes place in being incomparably worse and the subjective political composition of the party and wider society being even less welcoming to such nonsense. You are a fantasist as much any workers power cadre droning on about workers defence squads.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Well, the left in general is ineffective in it's own terms.  That is a reflection of the period we've been going through.


This is marvelous stuff, you're now arguing that we should put out shoulders to the wheel of an ineffective group of labour MPS because they will bring catastrophic conditions for the working class. Don't you think things through before replying? I would expect a grandmaster of strategy like yourself to think a few steps ahead at the very least? 

Btw, why 10 years after you argued that the handful of left labour mps were mere cover for the actions of the leadership - powerless window dressing - what has changed to convince you that the opposite is now the case?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

All you're doing a8 ,is regurgitating the arguments that you have read that others made at various times in the labour parties history - most obviously in the Bevan/Gaitskill confrontations and the non-labour lefts reasons for entryism at that point, and the same debates around Bennism of the late 70s to mid-80s. These were living issues at that point due to a number of factors that no  longer apply (mass working class membership and participation most obviously). Which is why regurgitation is all you have left - and you're too busy doing that to notice that most of the actors have left this particular stage. Come into the modern world.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

I "mock the entryists for their failure" - where?!  As for the "fantasist" stuff I've acknowledged that prospects for success are very limited in the short term.  I spend very little time campaigning with/for Labour, and far more time campaigning with local anti-cuts group, community housing campaign, and fast food workers campaign.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I "mock the entryists for their failure" - where?!  As for the "fantasist" stuff I've acknowledged that prospects for success are very limited in the short term.  I spend very little time campaigning with/for Labour, and far more time campaigning with local anti-cuts group, community housing campaign, and fast food workers campaign.


What was my full sentence? Stop being a politician weasel.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> compared to TUSC?


The left-wing prisoners of the former party of Labour are delusional. I think TUSC knows where it stands.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> . These were living issues at that point due to a number of factors that no  longer apply (mass working class membership and participation most obviously). Which is why regurgitation is all you have left - and you're too busy doing that to notice that most of the actors have left this particular stage. Come into the modern world.


 
a significant % of the w/c will STILL (in 2015!) look to the election of a Labour government as the only way of kicking out the Tories/LDs and punishing them for the austerity they have inflicted (even if they recognise that what Labour is offering is a slightly ameliorated version of much the same thing).

But even those, possibly especially those, really pissed off with what Labour is offering are alienated *precisely because* they are judging it in relation to the efforts of the 45 government - like Loach.  So they have to answer how it's more possible for a new formation to begin from scratch (without the institutional support of a major section organised Labour movement, the financial/political advantages that provides, and the degree of established public profile it enjoys) and make what is essentially a re-formed Labour party work where the orginal hasn't....


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> The left-wing prisoners of the former party of Labour are delusional. I think TUSC knows where it stands.


TUSC knows it's utterly fucked?  Well that's some kind of insight I guess


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> TUSC knows it's utterly fucked?  Well that's some kind of insight I guess



What?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

No they're not. The only 45 obsessed people are people like you. For God's sake this the working class really love and yearn for my party, they just don't fully realise it stuff is possibly your worst yet. You do not live in the real world. Again, the only people who need to ask themselves such a question are people like you. Everyone else has gone home.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> a significant % of the w/c will STILL (in 2015!) look to the election of a Labour government as the only way of kicking out the Tories/LDs and punishing them for the austerity they have inflicted (even if they recognise that what Labour is offering is a slightly ameliorated version of much the same thing).
> 
> But even those, possibly especially those, really pissed off with what Labour is offering are alienated *precisely because* they are judging it in relation to the efforts of the 45 government - like Loach.  So they have to answer how it's more possible for a new formation to begin from scratch (without the institutional support of a major section organised Labour movement, the financial/political advantages that provides, and the degree of established public profile it enjoys) and make what is essentially a re-formed Labour party work where the orginal hasn't....


if this is what passes for politics in the labour party then its no wonder that people aren't voting FOR it but AGAINST the opposition. it's this sort of facile and shallow analysis which saw the labour party act as the biggest recruiting sergeant for the bnp in the 00's.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

The real world is a world of people distressed at having the welfare state smashed to pieces, their NHS privatised and at breaking point, their local services taken away etc.   Yes New Labour has been complicit in that - but people remember what a radical (reformist) Labour government can achieve.  Now, of course the 45 government operated in an entirely different context, and the social basis of the party was different, the weight of the trade union moment was different etc.  Neither the Labour left, nor the electoral left outside Labour aiming at a "phoenix from the flames Labour Party Mk II" has really got to grips with what that means I acknowledge that.   But to say that Labour is irrelevant or present only as a hostile force in working class lives is one-sided to say the least.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> The real world is a world of people distressed at having the welfare state smashed to pieces, their NHS privatised and at breaking point, their local services taken away etc.   Yes New Labour has been complicit in that - but people remember what a radical (reformist) Labour government can achieve.  Now, of course the 45 government operated in an entirely different context, and the social basis of the party was different, the weight of the trade union moment was different etc.  Neither the Labour left, nor the electoral left outside Labour aiming at a "phoenix from the flames Labour Party Mk II" has really got to grips with what that means I acknowledge that.   But to say that Labour is irrelevant or present only as a hostile force in working class lives is one-sided to say the least.


people don't give a fuck about the '45 gov outside your little bubble. people give a fuck about the here and now. are you too thick to understand that? i think you are.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 1, 2014)

*coughs* Stockholm Syndrome *coughs*


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> The real world is a world of people distressed at having the welfare state smashed to pieces, their NHS privatised and at breaking point, their local services taken away etc.   Yes New Labour has been complicit in that - but people remember what a radical (reformist) Labour government can achieve.  Now, of course the 45 government operated in an entirely different context, and the social basis of the party was different, the weight of the trade union moment was different etc.  Neither the Labour left, nor the electoral left outside Labour aiming at a "phoenix from the flames Labour Party Mk II" has really got to grips with what that means I acknowledge that.   But to say that Labour is irrelevant or present only as a hostile force in working class lives is one-sided to say the least.


My god, let go of that moustache on Attlee's chin.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> people don't give a fuck about the '45 gov outside your little bubble. people give a fuck about the here and now. are you too thick to understand that? i think you are.


 d'oh  the here and now is the effects of unwinding the 45 settlement


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> d'oh  the here and now is the effects of unwinding the 45 settlement


excuse me, you were pissing on about the 45 government and now you seem to be talking about something else. there never was a settlement in 1945. so please don't embarrass yourself by continuing to pretend there was.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> there never was a settlement in 1945. so please don't embarrass yourself by continuing to pretend there was.


you what?  What is the crisis of austerity other than the an intensification of the attack on the social wage and unwinding of the welfare state/public service model of capitalism (the post 45 settlement) that began after 73?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> you what?  What is the crisis of austerity other than the an intensification of the attack on the social wage and unwinding of the welfare state/public service model of capitalism that began after 73?


so what was the settlement of 1945? pls point me to a contemporary source.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

there was a post-45 settlement, under the ausipices of the Atlee government - but which came to be accepted as irreversible by the Tories - which effectively held until 73 when it started to come under attack with monetarist, and neoliberal, attacks driven forward by the IMF.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 1, 2014)

What message do Labour have to offer the former Labour voters who are turning to UKIP? For that matter, what message do Labour have to offer anyone other than career advancement for aspiring politicians with no conscience?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> there was a post-45 settlement, under the ausipices of the Atlee government - but which came to be accepted as irreversible by the Tories - which effectively held until 73 when it started to come under attack with monetarist, and neoliberal, attacks driven forward by the IMF.


no, not the "post-45 settlement" - whatever that may be - tell me more about the 45 settlement of post 1238.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> compared to TUSC?


I am no huge fan of TUSC or LU, but your main argument seems to be that they have no MPs and are therefore crap, and that they and the left in general have achieved nothing. 

First have do you expect TUSC/LU to grow if they do not stand? Won't any new party have to do the donkey work of standing and losing in order to build up its level of support, as the greens have done? 

Second, even if TUSC had done literally nothing it will have still done more for the working class than labour has for decades, as labour has been actively making things worse. So rather than support a party that , in you view, infectivity campaigns for the working class you would rather support one that actively attacks the working class simply because it is bigger and has more MPs? 

Which is another point, you seem to base your entire judgment of the parties on just electoral terms, when what happens outside Westminster is far more important. Just like your view that a strong labour left is the only way to make Labour tack left. When in reality what happens outside of the Labour Party will determine if and to what extent in tacks leftwards. 

As for the left achieving nothing, it is true that there are relatively few concrete victory to point to. But that does not mean the left is pointless or infective. I think we can agree that the left is very week and there has been a sustained attack on the working class for decades, in essence we are losing. In those circumstances why should we expect any victories? In a very real sense surviving and keeping alive pro working class politics is a victory. There are left activists around the country keeping campaign groups, union branches, trade councils going. These are victories, small ones but victories still. Things change, and the more we hold together now, the stronger position we will be in if there is a shift to the left.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 the simple point is you can't even describe what you mean when asked a direct question to do so. if the nationalisation and welfare policies of the 1945-50 labour govt were so resonant with voters today, don't you think that the labour party might have adopted regaining those achievements as their policies? and as they haven't, don't you think you've wasted your life over the past several years?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> no, not the "post-45 settlement" - whatever that may be - tell me more about the 45 settlement of post 1238.


FFS, talk about pedantry


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> FFS, talk about pedantry


you're full of fail as i point out in post 1246. you started talking about the 1945 labour government. then you start talking about the 1945 settlement. then you start talking about the post-1945 settlement. which is it? do you know? you can't explain what you're talking about. your natural home does actually seem to be the labour party: but for no reasons which do you credit. i don't know why you think you're anything more than a slightly-angsty twat with a walter mitty notion that he's in fact a socialist intellectual.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

emanymton said:


> I am no huge fan of TUSC or LU, but your main argument seems to be that they have no MPs and are therefore crap, and that they and the left in general have achieved nothing.


Firstly, I *don't* think electoral politics is the be all and end all of left interventions, it most certainly isn't.  Which is why as I've said I spend far more time on non-electoral political work than canavassing on the fucking #labourdoorstep

But equally electoral interventions are significant - it's significant when good left MPs are elected (a rare occurrence) and it's significant when the extra-Labour left performs credibly.  What is not significant is where new formations present themselves as offering some credible challenge, but in reality only confirm their own spectacular irrelevance.

It's a bit early to say whether that will be true of LU - although being an electoral party that abstains from electoral interventions seems odd - but, being charitable, perhaps they are taking their time to think through a decent targeting strategy.   THe best thing they could do would be to concentrate on targetting a small number of symbolic targets - like Ed Balls, Rachel Reeves and Tristram Hunt. 

I have every respect for groups like the independent campaign running a grassroots community candidate in a neighbouring ward to me - all the best of luck to them.  I will work with them to shift the position of the local Labour party irrespective of whether they choose to join the party or continue to act outside of it.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you're full of fail as i point out in post 1246. you started talking about the 1945 labour government. then you start talking about the 1945 settlement. then you start talking about the post-1945 settlement. which is it? do you know? you can't explain what you're talking about. your natural home does actually seem to be the labour party: but for no reasons which do you credit. i don't know why you think you're anything more than a slightly-angsty twat with a walter mitty notion that he's in fact a socialist intellectual.


 
FFS - I've been talking about the post-45 settlement as inaugurated by the Labour government elected in 1945.   Is that clear enough for you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> FFS - I've been talking about the post-45 settlement as inaugurated by the Labour government elected in 1945.   Is that clear enough for you?


this would be the thing i asked you about but you couldn't say what it was, then.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I have every respect for groups like the independent campaign running a grassroots community candidate in a neighbouring ward to me - all the best of luck to them.  I will work with them to shift the position of the local Labour party irrespective of whether they choose to join the party or continue to act outside of it.


Or you will argue that they shouldn't stand against labour - again. Note it all revolves around labour in this perspective.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

Pickmans, if you aren't capable of asking coherent questions, don't blame me for not answering them


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Or you will argue that they shouldn't stand against labour - again. Note it all revolves around labour in this perspective.


 
I probably wouldn't support them if they decided to stand in the GE, no.   I would continue to work with them, but think that would be a tactical mistake.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so what was the settlement of 1945? pls point me to a contemporary source.





articul8 said:


> there was a post-45 settlement, under the ausipices of the Atlee government - but which came to be accepted as irreversible by the Tories - which effectively held until 73 when it started to come under attack with monetarist, and neoliberal, attacks driven forward by the IMF.





articul8 said:


> Pickmans, if you aren't capable of asking coherent questions, don't blame me for not answering them


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

the old retrospective edit, eh.  How clever


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I probably wouldn't support them if they decided to stand in the GE, no.   I would continue to work with them, but think that would be a tactical mistake.


What on earth makes you think they'd want to work with you and the baggage you bring? But anyway, we finally get to it.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> the old retrospective edit, eh.  How clever


All edits are retrospective. Think before you type.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I probably wouldn't support them if they decided to stand in the GE, no.   I would continue to work with them, but think that would be a tactical mistake.


You would do something and continue to do something that you think is a tactical mistake?

Or the tactical mistake would be you supporting a non-labour party candidate in a general election? Why, how many divisions do you have?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You would do something and continue to do something that you think is a tactical mistake?
> 
> Or the tactical mistake would you supporting a non-labour party candidate in a general election? Why, how many divisions do you have?


he's rather fragmented.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> All edits are retrospective. Think before you type.


another one for pedants corner.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> another one for pedants corner.


pedants'


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You would do something and continue to do something that you think is a tactical mistake?
> 
> Or the tactical mistake would you supporting a non-labour party candidate in a general election? Why, how many divisions do you have?


No - I would work with them on community campaigns - at a non-electoral level.  But would still call for a Labour vote if they decided stand at a GE.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No - I would work with them on community campaigns - at a non-electoral level.  But would still call for a Labour vote if they decided stand at a GE.


why do you think they should support labour? what's in it for them?


----------



## J Ed (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No - I would work with them on community campaigns - at a non-electoral level.  But would still call for a Labour vote if they decided stand at a GE.



So you would support a member of Progress over an actual socialist?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2014)

J Ed said:


> So you would support a member of Progress over an actual socialist?


he *is* a member of the labour party after all


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

J Ed said:


> So you would support a member of Progress over an actual socialist?


thankfully that isn't the case.  if it were I'd understand the logic of standing against them.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> why do you think they should support labour? what's in it for them?


 Not having a lib dem MP for a start


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Not having a lib dem MP for a start


that's a very limited change to their lives through a labour vote. what positive things would a labour government do for people iyo?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> thankfully that isn't the case.  if it were I'd understand the logic of standing against them.



So, weasel, in all areas without a progress candidate you wouldn't argue against non-labour party candidate involved in some form of anti-austerity activity standing against labour?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Not having a lib dem MP for a start


You would prefer a lib-dem to a tory MP though.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> that's a very limited change to their lives through a labour vote. what positive things would a labour government do for people iyo?


 they would get rid of the bedroom tax.  This is a start


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So, weasel, in all areas without a progress candidate you wouldn't argue against non-labour party candidate involved in some form of anti-austerity activity standing against labour?


 
you mean in all areas *with* a Progress candidate?  Where an anti-austerity campaign can be mobilised credibly and effectively, and it was unlikely to seriously risk the election of Tory/LD MP I wouldn't argue against it.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

Well, are all areas without a progress candidate made up of solid-ex-mining working class MP or candidiates (yes, readers, he does believe it's possible to be a working class MP)?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

where did I say that?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> they would get rid of the bedroom tax.  This is a start


 
anything else?  renationalise the post office?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> where did I say that?


What that it's possible to be a working class MP? Or that outwith the handful of areas with progress sponsored candidates you'll be supporting any and every labour candidate and opposing every candidate against labour? On the latter, above earlier today - on the former, are you denying it?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

I didn't say that every candidate other than Progress ones are all working class MPs of ex-mining stock!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I didn't say that every candidate other than Progress ones are all working class MPs of ex-mining stock!


Nor did i say that you did. At least that would be some basis for your support of them - but no, you highlight that you will support them on an even flimsier basis.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

the prime basis for supporting them is as the only mechanicsm through which to kick out the Tories and LDs and punish them for their peformance in office.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> the prime basis for supporting them is as the only mechanicsm through which to kick out the Tories and LDs and punish them for their peformance in office.


Yes, we know, _vote labour, join labour, don't join anyone else, don't vote for anyone else._


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

When it comes to electoral interventions, if you are going to stand against Labour, choose your target well and only do so if you can expect to be seen as credible.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> When it comes to electoral interventions, if you are going to stand against Labour, choose your target well and only do so if you can expect to be seen as credible.



Or what, you'll wag your finger whilst waffling on about your participation in activity outside of labour? You'll give them the enormous benefit of your tactical role in winning AV?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> As a matter of fact I left the party and backed the Socialist Alliance in 2000 - and wasn't in the party at the time of invasion of Afghanistan/Iraq - both of which I opposed.



But joined after. Kind of like bolshiebhoy joining the SWP after the Delta affair only even less honest.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Or what, you'll wag your finger whilst waffling on about your participation in activity outside of labour? You'll give them the enormous benefit of your tactical role in winning AV?


 or what?  or they'll confirm their own irrelevance and fail even in their own terms.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> or what?  or they'll confirm their own irrelevance and fail even in their own terms.


There is no 'or what'? You're the one who thinks you're playing chess here.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> But joined after. Kind of like bolshiebhoy joining the SWP after the Delta affair only even less honest.


except I don't act as an apologist for the leadership, I joined precisely to challenge the leadership


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> except I don't act as an apologist for the leadership, I joined precisely to challenge the leadership


Cracking job you're doing. They don't even know that you exist.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

the local council leader certainly does - when we occupied the council chamber, forced the suspension of the full council meeting and got on the front page of the local rag protesting about charging council tax to JSA/ESA claimants


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

That wasn't your labour left you enclosing prat.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> the local council leader certainly does - when we occupied the council chamber, forced the suspension of the full council meeting and got on the front page of the local rag protesting about charging council tax to JSA/ESA claimants



a) was that really the 'labour left'? (It wasn't was it? This is like the councilors who get a photo-opp claiming credit for what a proper local campaign has won.

b) have they abandoned that policy?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

the guy who got carried out of the building was LRC.  Unite community which supported it are affiliated to Labour.  Yes there were others involved.  But it will those of us in the party that will be making the case internally.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> a) was that really the 'labour left'? (It wasn't was it? This is like the councilors who get a photo-opp claiming credit for what a proper local campaign has won.
> 
> b) have they abandoned that policy?


 
a) yes, but not exclusively so
b) they've extended the exemptions to take some categories out of paying council tax, but no we've not overturned it yet.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> the guy who got carried out of the building was LRC.  Unite community which supported it are affiliated to Labour.  Yes there were others involved.  But it will those of us in the party that will be making the case internally.


Because you're the only people in the party. How else would you expect people outside of the party to make their case internally? Look at this thieving arrogance - no one else counts, just the people who can make the case with the labour councillors internally (for stuff that your party were doing right?). Only they/you count. Disgusting shit.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Firstly, I *don't* think electoral politics is the be all and end all of left interventions, it most certainly isn't.  Which is why as I've said I spend far more time on non-electoral political work than canavassing on the fucking #labourdoorstep
> 
> But equally electoral interventions are significant - it's significant when good left MPs are elected (a rare occurrence) and it's significant when the extra-Labour left performs credibly.  What is not significant is where new formations present themselves as offering some credible challenge, but in reality only confirm their own spectacular irrelevance.
> 
> ...


 
What makes you think that TUSC is presented as a "credible challenge" as opposed to an attempt to build a credible challenge and popularise the idea of standing anti-cuts candidates against Labour?

Do you think you could build a "credible challenge" purely by standing symbolically against a few safe seat shadow cabinet members?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

outside of at best one of two examples (perhaps Coventry or Lewisham), the results will be uniformly dire.  How will this help build a credible challenge?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Because you're the only people in the party. How else would you expect people outside of the party to make their case internally? Look at this thieving arrogance - no one else counts, just the people who can make the case with the labour councillors internally (for stuff that your party were doing right?). Only they/you count. Disgusting shit.


 it's not to discout work outside the party - but it's to take up the fight on every possible front, including into the councillors' own backyards.  They don't like it.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> it's not to discout work outside the party - but it's to take up the fight on every possible front, including into the councillors' own backyards.  They don't like it.



I completely agree - fight on every possible front. So if you fail to bring your "internal influence" to bear, will you threaten to stand against the Labour councillors in your area?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> it's not to discout work outside the party - but it's to take up the fight on every possible front, including into the councillors' own backyards.  They don't like it.


You just said to us all that people taking action of the labour party don't matter - that's you're prepared to parasite on their work and present it as a) yours b) only concerned with how it effects your party - anti-austerity actions that you are involved in just become yours and labours. You didn't mention that it was your own party doing these horrible things either did you?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I completely agree - fight on every possible front. So if you fail to bring your "internal influence" to bear, will you threaten to stand against the Labour councillors in your area?


Some TUSC candidates are standing, some independents, and a Green (who is a good left, ex-Big Flame).  Those of us on the left in the party won't be actively campaigning against them.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

Look, he's handing out blessings now - the 'good left'. ffs.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You just said to us all that people taking action of the labour party don't matter - that's you're prepared to parasite on their work and present it as a) yours b) only concerned with how it effects your party - anti-austerity actions that you are involved in just become yours and labours. You didn't mention that it was your own party doing these horrible things either did you?


 
it's not "parasiting" on anyone's work.  It just happens that the Labour left is a key component of community activism where we are - not the whole of it is true.  Nevertheless we play a leading role.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> it's not "parasiting" on anyone's work.  It just happens that the Labour left is a key component of community activism where we are - not the whole of it is true.  Nevertheless we play a leading role.


How wonderful - you do the nasty stuff and you do the nice stuff. No need for anyone else at all really. Certainly not candidates. Back to _responsibility _really isn't it?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Some TUSC candidates are standing, some independents, and a Green (who is a good left, ex-Big Flame).  Those of us on the left in the party won't be actively campaigning against them.


 
You won't campaign against them? How generous. Will you vote against them?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> You won't campaign against them? How generous. Will you vote against them?


it is of course a secret ballot.  We will vote as we see fit


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Some TUSC candidates are standing, some independents, and a Green (who is a good left, ex-Big Flame).  Those of us on the left in the party won't be actively campaigning against them.


Your party, those who really matter and decide things will be though. And so will you if you'e honest. You're doing it already - a year ahead of time.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Your party, those who really matter and decide things will be though. And so will you if you'e honest. You're doing it already - a year ahead of time.


 
I'm talking about at the local elections.  Yes when it comes to the GE I won't be disguising my anger at the failure of the council to resist the cuts and the leadership's damaging commitment to continued austerity.  But do I want to see the Lib Dems booted out, so I will give critical support to Labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

Ooh _his anger - and critical support_. There is no such thing - there is just support.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 1, 2014)

Are there really many Labour PPC candidates that are not affiliated  to Progress in some way? Even people who aren't obvious Progress candidates receive some backing from them, it seems difficult to be a Labour MP and have no links to Progress.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

all that would happen if we walked from Labour is that the council and the parliamentary candidate would feel less pressure from the left.  What good would that do?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Are there really many Labour PPC candidates that are not affiliated  to Progress in some way? Even people who aren't obvious Progress candidates receive some backing from them, it seems difficult to be a Labour MP and have no links to Progress.


There are.  Progress try to get their own people selected, and ingratiate themselves with others selected as PPCs.  But the other main "route" to selection is via the unions.  People in this category are much less likely to have links to Progress.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> all that would happen if we walked from Labour is that the council and the parliamentary candidate would feel less pressure from the left.  What good would that do?


We? What fucking good do you do now btw?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> all that would happen if we walked from Labour is that the council and the parliamentary candidate would feel less pressure from the left.  What good would that do?


This, in itself, is an indication of just how ineffective and pointless _you _are isn't it? O_Oh help i'm being pressured from the left - they had a pic in the paper of something that was little to do with them. However can i recover - oh yeah, with the support of the vast majority of the party and the entire support of the leadership.
_
Note again, all revolves around labour and its internal politics  - not the working class.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This, in itself, is an indication of just how ineffective and pointless _you _are isn't it?


 not really, no.  It's an indication of what the left can do in electoral terms at this point in time.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> We? What fucking good do you do now btw?


"we" ie the local labour left - are starting to shift the centre of gravity in the CLP - eg. by deselecting the Blairite former council leader and her lickspittle who decided to shut down half the borough's libraries.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> not really, no.  It's an indication of what the left can do in electoral terms at this point in time.


_We can't do anything, we mean nothing_ is not an indication that you're shit and can't do anything?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> "we" ie the local labour left - are starting to shift the centre of gravity in the CLP - eg. by deselecting the Blairite former council leader and her lickspittle who decided to shut down half the borough's libraries.


Fucking hell, shaking up the CLP. What next - new plans for the WI?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

I didn't say that - I said walking out of the LP wouldn't achieve any greater influence than we have already by virtue of campaigning in the community.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> "we" ie the local labour left - are starting to shift the centre of gravity in the CLP - eg. by deselecting the Blairite former council leader and her lickspittle who decided to shut down half the borough's libraries.


All revolves around labour. All you can see is labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I didn't say that - I said walking out of the LP wouldn't achieve any greater influence than we have already by virtue of campaigning in the community.


Who is this we? You're right it wouldn't - the result would be the same either way - no influence.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

We - the LRC members in the CLP.  Community campaigns can have no influence?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> We - the LRC members in the CLP.  Community campaigns can have no influence?


Can you remember what you write a few secs ago  - you wrote that you would have no extra influence outside the labour party (note the key thing - his groups influence and what extra it can grab). I agree. I said that you have none in the labour party.

Why weasel that politician style into me saying that "Community campaigns can have no influence"?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

I said we would have no greater influence by leaving the party.  You said we still have none, assuming that we cannot currently have influence via community campaigning, because we are in the Labour party.  This is not true.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I said we would have no greater influence by leaving the party.  You said we still have none, assuming that we cannot currently have influence via community campaigning, because we are in the Labour party.  This is not true.


Community campaigns against labour that are  labour led - potemkin villages. You have zero influence in the labour party - you literally mean nothing in the leadership calculations. 
Can you tell me why this lead you to say that i believe that "Community campaigns can have no influence"?


----------



## chilango (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 why don't you (and your fellow travellers) join UKIP?

You could have a very real chance of influence there, a very real chance of helping boot out Tories and Lib Dems.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

You were implying we currently had no influence via our work in community campaigns.  We do, and have a measure of influence at local level in the CLP.  We don't have much influence nationally, no.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

chilango said:


> articul8 why don't you (and your fellow travellers) join UKIP?
> 
> You could have a very real chance of influence there, a very real chance of helping boot out Tories and Lib Dems.


UKIP has no direct connection to the organised Labour movement, wasn't set up by workers with the aim of representing working class interests, and hasn't helped to bring about significant advances like the NHS, the extension of the welfare state and the national minimum wage, - amongst other things


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> You were implying we currently had no influence via our work in community campaigns.  We do, and have a measure of influence at local level in the CLP.  We don't have much influence nationally, no.


No, i was openly saying that within the labour party you have no influence. None. You're not even on the relevance radar. I didn't mention community campaigns beyond your parasiting on one in particular to argue that all that work doesn't matter - or if it matters, it's only because only labour member can win the argument in the labour party.

Your CLP eh? How you planning to scale that up to national level then?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> UKIP has no direct connection to the organised Labour movement, wasn't set up by workers with the aim of representing working class interests, and hasn't helped to bring about significant advances like the NHS, the extension of the welfare state and the national minimum wage, - amongst other things


It's a more w/c party than yours.


----------



## chilango (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> UKIP has no direct connection to the organised Labour movement, wasn't set up by workers with the aim of representing working class interests, and hasn't helped to bring about significant advances like the NHS, the extension of the welfare state and the national minimum wage, - amongst other things



What's that got to do with your stated aims and strategy?


----------



## chilango (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's a more w/c party than yours.



It's a more pro-w/c party too.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

we are not parasiting on anything - mind you, the fact we have a certain influence on the GC might have something to do with the reason London regional office has stepped in to cancel all GC meetings for 6 months


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's a more w/c party than yours.


how?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> we are not parasiting on anything - mind you, the fact we have a certain influence on the GC might have something to do with the reason London regional office has stepped in to cancel all GC meetings for 6 months


Oh no the GC and the regional office. How relevant to the class.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> how?


By composition.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> By composition.


composition of what?  Membership?  Voting base?  I'd like to see some evidence for this


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> composition of what?  Membership?  Voting base?  I'd like to see some evidence for this


Both. I suggest that you have a read of The new Mathhew Goodwin et al book on the UKIP revolt on the right - i'm sure that you have access to some house of commons or union or wankers library you can get it from.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> composition of what?  Membership?  Voting base?  I'd like to see some evidence for this


You are really so far into yet another bubble that you really don't know do you?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You are really so far into yet another bubble that you really don't know do you?


 they have some working class support - but the claim that exceeds that of Labour is not born out by council election results, and it won't be born out by General Election results either.  Euro's are a different matter.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> they have some working class support - but the claim that exceeds that of Labour is not born out by council election results, and it won't be born out by General Election results either.  Euro's are a different matter.


Not borne out by council election results? Go on then disabuse me of the notion with facts and figures.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

your claim - you stand it up.  More working class people are voting for UKIP than for Labour...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> your claim - you stand it up.  More working class people are voting for UKIP than for Labour...


No it was your claim that local election results show the lie to the claim - give me facts and figures. Only someone not following the last 6 months local election results could post so lazily.


----------



## chilango (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> they have some working class support - but the claim that exceeds that of Labour is not born out by council election results, and it won't be born out by General Election results either.  Euro's are a different matter.



At present UKIP will be more influenced by w/c concerns, and more open to influence by w/c members than the LP will be. It will also be less in the pocket of capital.

This may well change.

But hardly reflects well on your beloved Party and your claims about its relationship with the class does it?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No it was your claim that local election results show the lie to the claim - give me facts and figures. Only someone not following the last 6 months local election results could post so lazily.


 
There's no doubt that UKIP is picking up support in w/c areas.  But your claim was that it exceeds the support for Labour in these areas.  Big difference.

eg from last couple of weeks:
St Anne’s Ward, Sunderland MBC. Lab hold. Lab 945 (48.1%), UKIP 555 (28.2%)

Stone Ward, Dartford BC. Lab hold. Lab 426 (37.7%),  UKIP 307 (27.2%)

Farley Ward, Luton UA. Lab hold. Lab 1232 (72.5%), UKIP 226 (13.3%,),

...


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

chilango said:


> At present UKIP will be more influenced by w/c concerns, and more open to influence by w/c members than the LP will be. It will also be less in the pocket of capital.


 How do you think UKIP is funded?  Who writes its policy?  On what grounds do you believe it is "open to influence by w/c members"?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There's no doubt that UKIP is picking up support in w/c areas.  But your claim was that it exceeds the support for Labour in these areas.  Big difference.
> 
> eg from last couple of weeks:
> St Anne’s Ward, Sunderland MBC. Lab hold. Lab 945 (48.1%), UKIP 555 (28.2%)
> ...


You've run the class wand over the areas and the votes have you - let's see your results then please.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

These are middle class wards are they?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> These are middle class wards are they?


What sort of wards are they? You think middle class people don't vote labour?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

can you offer any evidence for your claim that UKIP enjoy more w/c support than Labour?


----------



## chilango (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> How do you think UKIP is funded?  Who writes its policy?  On what grounds do you believe it is "open to influence by w/c members"?



Oh I'm not claiming it's not ultimately a party of capital. 

But, as a far less "institutionalised" Party, still small and disorganised in comparison, still somewhat an outsider, still taking shape really,  it is, of course, far more open to influence than the Labour Party - which is an entrenched and sewn up instrument of capital.

It also has seen the gap in w/c representation and is making something of a grab for a bit of this in the short term at least.


----------



## Coolfonz (Apr 1, 2014)

weeeeeeeeeeee BOOOM weeee BOOM BOOM BOOM


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

being cynically willing to tap into anti-immigration prejudice to pick up disaffected supporters is being "open to w/c influence".  What a patronising thing to say!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> can you offer any evidence for your claim that UKIP enjoy more w/c support than Labour?


Was that a yes, i do assume all labour returning wards are w/c? But without asking why?

Of course, Goodwins book -  as  % accross the board it's the most working class party since your party died in the early 80s


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> being cynically willing to tap into anti-immigration prejudice to pick up disaffected supporters is not being "open to w/c influence".  What a patronising thing to say!


What rotters would do that? 

*British jobs for British workers*


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What rotters would do that?
> 
> *British jobs for British workers*


 according to chilango logic that would show Labour is open to w/c influence


----------



## Coolfonz (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> can you offer any evidence for your claim that UKIP enjoy more w/c support than Labour?



What the fuck do Labour and evidence have to do with each other you right wing twat?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

"right wing"


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> according to chilango logic that would show Labour is open to w/c influence


What? Maybe he drawing a comparison between you two or something all clever like you love.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> UKIP has no direct connection to the organised Labour movement, wasn't set up by workers with the aim of representing working class interests, and hasn't helped to bring about significant advances like the NHS, the extension of the welfare state and the national minimum wage, - amongst other things



It has a much better record on imperialism and standing up to neoliberal Brussels bureaucrats too..


----------



## chilango (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> being cynically willing to tap into anti-immigration prejudice to pick up disaffected supporters is not being "open to w/c influence".  What a patronising thing to say!


----------



## Coolfonz (Apr 1, 2014)

Right wing child-killing torturing ATOS-loving police state scum. At least the Tories are honest, everyone knows they are cunts.


----------



## chilango (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> according to chilango logic that would show Labour is open to w/c influence



Eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What rotters would do that?
> 
> *British jobs for British workers*





articul8 said:


> according to chilango logic that would show Labour is open to w/c influence


Did you leave the party over british jobs for british workers btw?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

No, but I didn't exactly whoop with joy about it


----------



## chilango (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> being cynically willing to tap into anti-immigration prejudice to pick up disaffected supporters is being "open to w/c influence".  What a patronising thing to say!



You left out a very important part of what I said.



chilango said:


> At present UKIP will be _more_ influenced by w/c concerns, and _more_ open to influence by w/c members _than the LP will be_.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No, but I didn't exactly whoop with joy about it


Again, another well done, is there a tapestry of the pathetic defeats you've swallowed hanging on a town hall ran by your party who are killing people right now anywhere? I'd like to come and burn it.


----------



## Coolfonz (Apr 1, 2014)

He's a good recruiter for LU and the other folks though. 

"What did you do when Labour were blowing kids to bits."
"I didn't exactly whoop with joy about it"

Bitch.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No, but I didn't exactly whoop with joy about it


 
you know, without action, principals are nothing.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

How did UKIP do in Wyntheshaw and Sale East btw - people might have agreed with the leaflet above (nb spelling the black guy's name wrong - but he's probably from Bongo Bongo land so who cares eh?) but did they vote UKIP?  Or is that not a working class area either?


----------



## chilango (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> - but he's probably from Bongo Bongo land so who cares eh?



Fucking hell.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

chilango said:


> Fucking hell.


 that is the attitude of UKIP you dope


----------



## J Ed (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> that is the attitude of UKIP you dope



What's the Labour attitude to brown people sitting on top of oil?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> that is the attitude of UKIP you dope


No it's not you dope.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No it's not you dope.


How many black people vote UKIP?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> How many black people vote UKIP?


Tell me.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> How many black people vote UKIP?



How many Iraqis are UKIP responsible for killing?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

Short course: you are in such a labour bubble you can't see the real world anymore. Like the last time you were in a bubble and couldn't see the real world anymore. Just with fewer people giving you a break.


----------



## chilango (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> that is the attitude of UKIP you dope



Nope. It's _an_ attitude, from _a_ member.

I suspect you could find a Labour Party member to say something similar if you looked.

But my reaction was towards your casual chucking around of a piece of racist abuse.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Tell me.


only those prepared to overlook bigotry about "bongo bongo land" etc.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

chilango said:


> But my reaction was towards your casual chucking around of a piece of racist abuse.


 
It wasn't casual, it was calculated to clash with your picture of what kind of w/c influence UKIP believe they're opening themselves up to.


----------



## chilango (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> It wasn't casual, it was calculated to clash with your picture of what kind of w/c influence UKIP believe they're opening themselves up to.



What?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> only those prepared to overlook bigotry about "bongo bongo land" etc.


Who does that entail then? Bongo bongo land is the equivalent of british jobs for british workers. What did you do? Nothing. Did you make a move? No? Did you redign in disgust -no? You're going to give other people lessons?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Who does that entail then? Bongo bongo land is the equivalent of british jobs for british workers. What did you do? Nothing. Did you make a move? No? Did you redign in disgust -no? You're going to give other people lessons?


 
What opposition have you seen to the "bongo bongo land" rhetoric from within UKIP, other than a belated apology from Nige when it was getting them a bit of flak from the media and stopping him getting his more subtle racism across?

We certainly did criticise Brown's "british jobs for british workers" bollocks, because that was alien to the best traditions of the British labour movement.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

This person has no idea of social reality. Therefore no political reality. Their bubblesation is due to their work - it was licking lib-dems arses, now it's all i may get selected at as a losing candidate i n the labour bubble. It's all bubble shit. You reek articul8. I mean really fucking stink.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> What opposition have you seen to the "bongo bongo land" rhetoric from within UKIP, other than a belated apology from Nige when it was getting them a bit of flak from the media and stopping him getting his more subtle racism across?
> 
> We certainly did criticise Brown's "british jobs for british workers" bollocks, because that was alien to the best traditions of the British labour movement.


We? Fuck off. You mean nothing. You have a party who put forward those arguments and you meant nothing. Zero.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> What opposition have you seen to the "bongo bongo land" rhetoric from within UKIP, other than a belated apology from Nige when it was getting them a bit of flak from the media and stopping him getting his more subtle racism across?
> 
> We certainly did criticise Brown's "british jobs for british workers" bollocks, because that was alien to the best traditions of the British labour movement.


And expelling him. What did you manage to do?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This person has no idea of social reality.


UKIP will do very well at the Euro elections, but when the debate all focuses down on who you want (or would hate least) in government they will start to fade again - perhaps Falange himself might get a seat, and the odd celeb if they stand one.  But the idea that they are about to carry off mass w/c support is a delusion, and it's those arguing it's likely are cut adrift frm reality.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> UKIP will do very well at the Euro elections, but when the debate all focuses down on who you want (or would hate least) in government they will start to fade again - perhaps Falange himself might get a seat, and the odd celeb if they stand one.  But the idea that they are about to carry off mass w/c support is a delusion, and it's those arguing it's likely are cut adrift frm reality.


Who presented such a scenario?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

UKIP has more w/c support than Labour, is more open to w/c influence, is less immediately in the pocket of capital etc. etc.  It has a measure of support, which is currently growing, but the foregoing bollocks is just that.  (incidentally if you think I kissed lib dem arse your mind is playing tricks on you).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> UKIP has more w/c support than Labour, is more open to w/c influence, is less immediately in the pocket of capital etc. etc.  It has a measure of support, which is currently growing, but the foregoing bollocks is just that.  (incidentally if you think I kissed lib dem arse your mind is playing tricks on you).


Someone's mind is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> they would get rid of the bedroom tax.  This is a start


what was that you were saying about 1945?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> UKIP has more w/c support than Labour, is more open to w/c influence, is less immediately in the pocket of capital etc. etc.  It has a measure of support, which is currently growing, but the foregoing bollocks is just that.  (incidentally if you think I kissed lib dem arse your mind is playing tricks on you).


you've been out in the sun too long


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ooh _his anger - and critical support_. There is no such thing - there is just support.



_Without illusions_!


----------



## chilango (Apr 1, 2014)

chilango said:


> You left out a very important part of what I said.



Did you not see this post of mine articul8 ?


----------



## chilango (Apr 1, 2014)

Also, in case anyone has missed the subtleties here, my somewhat tongue in cheek suggestion that articul8 should join UKIP is really not an endorsement of UKIP  Far from it.


----------



## chilango (Apr 1, 2014)

chilango said:


> Also, in case anyone has missed the subtleties here, my somewhat tongue in cheek suggestion that articul8 should join UKIP is really not an endorsement of UKIP  Far from it.



In fact, at the risk of dragging things back towards the topic, I brought UKIP in as articul8 's main sticks to beat Left Unity with, and thus to defend his Labour Party activism, were iirc:


The Labour Left can influence the wider Party
Labour are a Party that can stop the Tories (and Lib Dems) from winning elections
Pressed for clarification there was some waffle about 1945 too though in fairness.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Short course: you are in such a labour bubble you can't see the real world anymore.



You're a broken record. You were calling articul8 this when I joined and for god knows how many years before.

If I were to go to North Korea for several years and come back, after having no contact with the outside world, I'd bet my life you and him would be having the same argument calling each other the same names and in the process going fucking nowhere fast however many years later.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

chilango said:


> Also, in case anyone has missed the subtleties here, my somewhat tongue in cheek suggestion that articul8 should join UKIP is really not an endorsement of UKIP  Far from it.


Odd how thing don't change in a whole two and a half years isn't it?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 1, 2014)

Delroy Booth said:


> You're a broken record. You were calling articul8 this when I joined and for god knows how many years before.
> 
> If I were to go to North Korea for several years and come back, after having no contact with the outside world, I'd bet my life you and him would be having the same argument calling each other the same names and in the process going fucking nowhere fast however many years later.



And I bet you'd still be making lonely pilgrimages to monuments to dead luddites you loon


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

Funny how specialist bourgeois academic commentators on the far right don't exist in a bubble when their arguments suit your purpose.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 1, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> And I bet you'd still be making lonely pilgrimages to monuments to dead luddites you loon



There there spanky, butchers is a big boy I'm sure he doesn't need you gallantly riding to his aid whenever I give him a bit of a well-earned criticism every once in a while.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> the guy who got carried out of the building was LRC.  Unite community which supported it are affiliated to Labour.  Yes there were others involved.  But it will those of us in the party that will be making the case internally.



So now you're claiming Unite Community stuff as labour? You really can get to fuck with that one.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

it is part of unite, an affiliate to Labour.  That is a fact not a claim.  (yes it includes non party members and members of other parties - it is one of very few examples of any dynamic which might generate scope for an alternative to Labour in time).


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> it is part of unite, an affiliate to Labour.  That is a fact not a claim.  (yes it includes non party members and members of other parties - it is one of very few examples of any dynamic which might generate scope for an alternative to Labour in time).



You're fucking desperate. Its members are almost universally hostile to the labour party in every single region where it exists as a real organisation rather than just a couple of Elly Mae type fulltimers droning on about UKuncut umbrellas. And labour and unite want to be very fucking careful with this kind of shit because it wouldn't take much more Mcluskey collaboration for us to tell unite to get to fuck and either find better backers (I dare say a couple of the smaller but better unions wouldn't mind the kudos and support for industrial actions they'd get from us) or go it alone. We get fuck all resources from Unite apart from the odd bit of printing and one decent fulltimer who's spread so thinly across the whole of yorkshire and the north east that he can't do much of use so what's to lose? Then your tenuous 'they're members of a section of a union that's affiliated to labour and therefore we can enclose them - call them ours' bullshit wouldn't even have the tenuous basis in fact it has now.

IME people join Unite Community consciously in opposition to labour - as a means of opposing what labour are doing to them and damaging that party. Quit this dishonest shit now.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> it is part of unite, an affiliate to Labour.  That is a fact not a claim.  (yes it includes non party members and members of other parties - it is one of very few examples of any dynamic which might generate scope for an alternative to Labour in time).



What about this idea of a "trade union party" within Labour along the lines of the co-op party is that idea still being floated around?

Notice Len had a meeting with the press today talking, big story on the bbc (not elsewhere). Your thoughts?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26832994


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> your claim - you stand it up.  More working class people are voting for UKIP than for Labour...


Christ, you're such a dishonest prick. That wasn't BA's claim and you know it.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2014)

Heard this before from Lenny but where was he when it came to resisting Collins?  That sets a very bad precedent


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Heard this before from Lenny but where was he when it came to resisting Collins?  That sets a very bad precedent


Your own claim is that the unions  represent the working class - and so pressuring the unions leaders to pressure the labour leaders in this pointless merryground means that the w/c are directly represented by  the labour party. It's nonsense. Drivel.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Heard this before from Lenny but where was he when it came to resisting Collins?  That sets a very bad precedent


Bad things = not me Good things = def me.

You shameless cunt.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 1, 2014)

Delroy Booth said:


> There there spanky, butchers is a big boy I'm sure he doesn't need you gallantly riding to his aid whenever I give him a bit of a well-earned criticism every once in a while.



I'm hardly defending butchers - more pointing out the glasshouse you live in.


----------



## dennisr (Apr 2, 2014)

Delroy Booth said:


> Notice Len had a meeting with the press today talking, big story on the bbc (not elsewhere). Your thoughts?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26832994




Independant is running with this story now. A lot of hot air and piss from McKluskey - nethertheless.... :
*Unite union boss Len McCluskey threatens to launch party to rival Labour *

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-to-launch-party-to-rival-labour-9231266.html


----------



## treelover (Apr 2, 2014)

I wonder if he will be allowed to talk about it from the stage at the Labour, sorry TUC Rally, for better wages in October?


----------



## treelover (Apr 2, 2014)

> Mr McCluskey implied that a newly formed Workers’ Party would then join the Liberal Democrats and others in campaigning for MPs to be elected under a system of proportional representation (PR), to give the new party a better chance of gaining a toehold in Parliament.
> “I’ve always taken the traditional position of being opposed to PR,” Mr McCluskey said. “That’s because I thought that Labour would never get into power [under PR] and we’d never get a socialist Valhalla.
> “I’ve given up on my socialist Valhalla, so I’m now rethinking my position on PR. If a new party emerged, a new Workers’ Party, then you may well find that I’m in favour of PR.”



Whats wrong with that?, log jam maybe finally breaking up, PR is a prequisite for advancement of progressive parties, though it could also mean UKIP, even an EDL type party getting seats.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2014)

Nice of the lord to provide.

And yes, we are now on the verge of PR - the log-jam is breaking. After all, there was that very successful AV referendum to build on. 

Jesus, haven't you already enough straws to grasp that you need to shove PR in thee too?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2014)

reform of the electoral system remains critical if there's ever going to be any movement beyond Labourism on the British left.	Remains the case.  Problem is it's an empty threat, when there was a chance to stand up to Miliband he backed down.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 2, 2014)

Every single Western European democracy that operates PR has essentially the same political patterns as the UK, alternating between centre left and centre right governments. For instance, all post-WW2 elected German Chancellors have been SPD or CDU


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> reform of the electoral system remains critical if there's ever going to be any movement beyond Labourism on the British left.	Remains the case.  Problem is it's an empty threat, when there was a chance to stand up to Miliband he backed down.


No it's not. PR is the opium of the lib-dem-labour-lefty-think-tank-researcher class.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2014)

it's necessary but not sufficient


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> it's necessary but not sufficient


It's not necessary. It's just another of your bubbles hobby horses.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Every single Western European democracy that operates PR has essentially the same political patterns as the UK, alternating between centre left and centre right governments. For instance, all post-WW2 elected German Chancellors have been SPD or CDU


 there isn't a total vacuum in quite the same way - at last you have European left parties like Die Linke in countries with better electoral systems


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> there isn't a total vacuum in quite the same way - at last you have European left parties like Die Linke in countries with better electoral systems


With what result? Are greek workers happy now? Are the german workers screwed to the floor happy? What result?


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 2, 2014)

PR Ireland is of course a bastion of progressive left-wing politics.


Oh.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2014)

Also, Delroy may have seen something similar that was posted two and a half years ago - don't bring him down by repeating yourself.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> there isn't a total vacuum in quite the same way - at last you have European left parties like Die Linke in countries with better electoral systems


There is, it just functions in a different way. In Germany governments have been formed and policies made by the same parties of centre left and centre right for about 70 years now. I could point to pretty similar patterns in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Austria and Belgium, with slight national variations.


----------



## treelover (Apr 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No it's not. PR is the opium of the lib-dem-labour-lefty-think-tank-researcher class.




Can you explain how a progressive left party could get a substantial vote in a general election with FPTP?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> PR Ireland is of course a bastion of progressive left-wing politics.


 they have some socialist TDs and MEPs at least - doing better than we are


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2014)

treelover said:


> Can you explain how a progressive left party could get a substantial vote in a general election with FPTP?


It won't get a substantial vote in a general election with PR or FPTP. Can you explain  to me why i have to explain this to you? Or, failing that (as if you would not answer a question!) tell me why PR might help a a progressive left party  get a substantial vote in a general election please. And one more, what won't you join left-unity?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> they have some socialist TDs and MEPs at least - doing better than we are


What evidence have you got that political representation for left-wingers in parliament improves ... well... anything? (There's at least as many socialists in the House of Commons btw, just not independent ones)


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> With what result? Are greek workers happy now? Are the german workers screwed to the floor happy? What result?


 as i said, not sufficient... but would either want to swap for our system?  I doubt it.  Historically majoritarian systems have been supported by people like Mussolini's fascists or the orangmen in Ulster who have sought to manipulate popular representation to suppress any challenge from the left.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> What evidence have you got that political representation for left-wingers in parliament improves ... well... anything? (There's at least as many socialists in the House of Commons btw, just not independent ones)


Nye Bevan achieved a thing or two


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Nye Bevan achieved a thing or two


Don't forget 1945 articul8. _Always in our hearts._


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Nye Bevan achieved a thing or two


Errr... yes... as a left-wing member of a dominant centre left party elected under FPTP.

(I'd take apart your whole "spirit of '45" bullshit too, but we're not on that right now)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> as i said, not sufficient... but would either want to swap for our system?  I doubt it.  Historically majoritarian systems have been supported by people like Mussolini's fascists or the orangmen in Ulster who have sought to manipulate popular representation to suppress any challenge from the left.


Is _not sufficient_ a synonym for being shit? And here we go - if you don't share the lib-dem-labour-lefty-think-tank-researcher class' obsession then you're almost a fascist. Hey, you get your PR and the w/c get what? Weasel politician.

And btw, if the other element of your not-sufficient scenario was present then it wouldn't  matter at all if we had PR or FPTP or +1 or anything.

Oh yeah, this, if you're not with us then you're a fascist stuff is why you were so embarrassingly trounced in the AV vote. Isolated, cut off bubble shit.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> as i said, not sufficient... but would either want to swap for our system?  I doubt it.  Historically majoritarian systems have been supported by people like Mussolini's fascists or the orangmen in Ulster who have sought to manipulate popular representation to suppress any challenge from the left.



A proportional system didn't stop the election of a far-right government in the Second Spanish Republic or the Weimar Republic.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2014)

J Ed said:


> A proportional system didn't stop the election of a far-right government in the Second Spanish Republic or the Weimar Republic.


He's just a simple fascist organeman. Don't confuse him.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 2, 2014)

J Ed said:


> A proportional system didn't stop the election of a far-right government in the Second Spanish Republic or the Weimar Republic.



The CIA-backed Italian Right were pretty keen on PR as a means of containing the PCI (then at the height of its popularity)


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2014)

J Ed said:


> A proportional system didn't stop the election of a far-right government in the Second Spanish Republic or the Weimar Republic.


 where did I say it was some kind of magic formula for success ( btw if Weimar had a FPTP system the Nazis could have come to power a couple of years ealier)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> where did I say it was some kind of magic formula for success ( btw if Weimar had a FPTP system the Nazis could have come to power a couple of years ealier)


No they couldn't. ffs Tell us when. What year?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> why you were so embarrassingly trounced in the AV vote. Isolated, cut off bubble shit.


 I notice your confident predictions of a NO vote leading opening a path towards an early split between the coalition parties has come to pass..


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I notice your confident predictions of a NO vote leading opening a path towards an early split between the coalition parties has come to pass..


The prediction that never happened? Desperate dishonest stuff.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No they couldn't. ffs


well, in electoral terms they could have formed a majority
well in 32 anyway


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> well, in electoral terms they could have formed a majority
> well in 32 anyway


No they couldn't. What daft historical ignorance.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The prediction that never happened? Desperate dishonest stuff.


 it was certainly implied it - I said it would bind the LDs to Cameron for the full term.  I was right in that.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> it was certainly implied it - I said it would bind the LDs to Cameron for the full term.  I was right in that.


It's great stuff this - in a few seconds you've gone from my 'confident prediction' to me not actually predicting it at all. 

And no, i have said from day one that the lib-dems were tied to the tories for the full term. Have another crack.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No they couldn't. What daft historical ignorance.


How so, they polled 37% which is enough for a majority under a majoritarian system (true it would have been disproportionately concentrated in Bavaria etc), and in any case in 32 the bourgeois parties wouldn't have been ready to accommodate them.  Still, it's more feasible than the argument that the Nazi's wouldnt have come to power without PR (not saying anyone on here is arguing that, but stilll)


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> said from day one that the lib-dems were tied to the tories for the full term. Have another crack.


 you quite clearly argued a NO vote would do more to damage the coalition.  You were wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> How so, they polled 37% which is enough for a majority under a majoritarian system (true it would have been disproportionately concentrated in Bavaria etc), and in any case in 32 the bourgeois parties wouldn't have been ready to accommodate them.  Still, it's more feasible than the argument that the Nazi's wouldnt have come to power without PR (not saying anyone on here is arguing that, but stilll)


Let's see your figures for  translating this 37% into majority  govt. Did the tories with 36% in 2010 get to form a majority govt? This is a particularly fruitless road for you to start down. But i guess that's what happens when you accuse people who don't share your bubbles obsessions of being pro-fascism.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> you quite clearly argued a NO vote would do more to damage the coalition.  You were wrong.


Now, from 'clear prediction' to didn't predict it at all back to clearly argued. Keep it straight for a few minutes politician. I argued that a no vote was the only vote that contained any potential to damage to the coalition. I was right. You, on the lib-dem side of your paymasters, argued that a YES vote could. You were wrong. You are always wrong because you live in a bubble. You wrote a piece in your mag under a fake name admitting that i was right and that you were wrong. Desperate.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Let's see your figures for  translating this 37% into majority  govt. Did the tories with 36% in 2010 get to form a majority govt? This is a particularly fruitless road for you to start down. But i guess that's what happens when you accuse people who don't share your bubbles obsessions of being pro-fascism.


it wouldn't automatically have given them control but it *could* have - that was my claim.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> it wouldn't automatically have given them control but it *could* have - that was my claim.



They could have come to power under PR a few years earlier if you're going to play that stupid game. Don't make historical comparisons that you're not equipped to defend.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I notice your confident predictions of a NO vote leading opening a path towards an early split between the coalition parties has come to pass..


I'd like you to have a look at this claim again and either take it back or support it please.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Desperate.


You were right in some of your criticisms of the campaign, but wrong to claim/imply/infer whatever) that a No vote would somehow accelerate divisions within the coalition.  In any case AV was only ever a very weak and inadequate form of electoral reform, which I was clear about at the time.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I'd like you to have a look at this claim again and either take it back or support it please.


 Ok it wasn't quite as definitive as this - but that was the direction you were pointing in


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> You were right in some of your criticisms of the campaign, but wrong to claim/imply/infer whatever) that a No vote would somehow accelerate divisions within the coalition.  In any case AV was only ever a very weak and inadequate form of electoral reform, which I was clear about at the time.


Why have you cut off the bit about your fake name piece? 

And no, you weren't clear in that at all - you shilled and shilled like you shill now.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Ok it wasn't quite as definitive as this - but that was the direction you were pointing in


Is that you taking it back or you supporting the claim?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2014)

The piece had to be written pseudonymously for contractual reasons - my thoughts on AV and the nature of the campaign were shared directly internally both at the time and in the aftermath.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> The piece had to be written pseudonymously for contractual reasons - my thoughts on AV and the nature of the campaign were shared directly internally both at the time and in the aftermath.


Bollocks.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 2, 2014)

Bit of a rubbish counterfactual all round the whole Nazis thing. In the 1920s the Nazis ranged from being the fourth most popular right-wing party to sixth most popular. It's highly unlikely under FPTP that they'd have sustained the requisite level of support in order to enjoy a post-depression surge.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Is that you taking it back or you supporting the claim?


reformulating it


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2014)

articul8 said:


> reformulating it


More bollocks. Politician.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 3, 2014)

Conference report including policy decisions now posted http://leftunity.org/a-raft-of-solid-left-wing-policy-conference-report/
havent read it yet


----------



## treelover (Apr 3, 2014)

I see the Ex Workers Power (lecturers) contingent appear to have won the conference to open borders.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 3, 2014)

I dont know, but just in case anyone was thinking its for some kind of anarchist open borders, its just support for the current EU open borders - well thats what i understood it as from the write up


----------



## ska invita (Apr 3, 2014)

dp.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 3, 2014)

So not actually open borders at all?


----------



## ska invita (Apr 3, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> So not actually open borders at all?


no, unless you think EU open borders means open borders. personally i think EU freedom of movement is a good thing, though im aware of the effect on wage supression etc.
ive no idea what tree lover understood by it, maybe he'll tell us

its  a pro-migrant position re the EU thats been agreed on


----------



## belboid (Apr 4, 2014)

No, it does go further - it was in the Europe section but the policy does affirm that:




			
				Left Unity said:
			
		

> Left Unity believes that immigration controls are inherently unjust and racist.  They are part of the *global *management of labour along racist lines which inevitably brutalise the poorest workers while in fact weakening the collective interests and bargaining power of workers.  As such, we are opposed to immigration control, as we are opposed to any laws which make people illegal because of who they are, where they or their parents were born, the colour of their skin, or what language they speak.  And we insist that it is in the interests of the working class as a whole, migrant and non-migrant, in Britain and internationally, to have equal rights to move across borders, to settle in other countries, and to bring their families with them if they choose to do so. Insofar as these rights exist, however imperfectly, in the EU states as a result of binding international agreements, we defend them trenchantly and without equivocation.




Quite where the idea that it was won by the 'Ex Workers Power (lecturers) contingent' is a fiction of treelover's, that indicates a complete lack of understanding about how both LU and WP work, but what's new?


----------



## ska invita (Apr 4, 2014)

But arent the first two lines just abstract preamble - the key thing is "insofar as these rights exist, however imperfectly, in the EU states as a result of binding international agreements, we defend them trenchantly and without equivocation." isnt it?
The policy isnt to allow unchecked migration from any country in the world right?


----------



## belboid (Apr 4, 2014)

It's essentially only firmly committing to opposing any new immigration controls, but within a general framework of not wanting any. They'd probably get around to abolishng the ot about the same time they abolish VAT.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 4, 2014)

but VAT will be abolished "immediately"


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 4, 2014)

Defend the workers EU from Powerful UKIP, blah blah blah...

I find it sickening, incidentally, that LU has decided not to stand candidates this year but has received airtime on the daily politics and print space in the New Shitesman, while in four years of standing candidates TUSC has had nothing. I know I should expect it, I don't even know why I'm annoyed in a way since I'd expect nothing less, but it speaks volumes about both the media and LU imo.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 4, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Defend the workers EU from Powerful UKIP, blah blah blah...
> 
> I find it sickening, incidentally, that LU has decided not to stand candidates this year but has received airtime on the daily politics and print space in the New Shitesman, while in four years of standing candidates TUSC has had nothing. I know I should expect it, I don't even know why I'm annoyed in a way since I'd expect nothing less, but it speaks volumes about both the media and LU imo.


why do you think it is? how did they get on tv?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 4, 2014)

ska invita said:


> why do you think it is? how did they get on tv?



Although Ken Loach seems to have taken a bit of a back seat, I suspect that they have a couple of media connections they've been able to use. In addition, I don't think-and I say this because they are in effect adopting a strategy of talking amongst existing lefties about what the party should be and doing zero campaigning as a party-that they will develop at all, and as such they are "safe" to cover.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 4, 2014)

my thoughts are
- if they have media connections then good luck to them (i say them, ive signed up, so, er good luck to us )
- the process right now is still forming the party, and Im glad it is being done slowly and with high levels of democracy - all the campaigning, electioneering and hopefully not-writing-a-paper is bound to come, but its only right to get to that once all the grassroots members have agreed what the party really stands for. its too soon to do anything else. one conference rattling through policies wasnt enough to finish that work
-are they getting coverage because LU is safe whilst TUSC is hardcore? Maybe...I dont think so though. I went through a phase of watching Daily Politics every day on iplayer and I might be wrong but i swear Ive seen someone from TUSC on before - they do have a big range of people on that show - its a lot of airtime to fill


----------



## ska invita (Apr 4, 2014)

here we go, Dave Nellist has been on (at least) once:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8637620.stm
Bob Crow was on a few times


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 4, 2014)

ska invita said:


> here we go, Dave Nellist has been on (at least) once:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8637620.stm
> Bob Crow was on a few times



Yep, Nellist got about a minute. Bob Crow was on QT once or twice.

It's a nice idea, this 'build the perfect party' schtick, but I think it's pretty obvious that people with very little experience of standing in elections trying to create this party isn't working out. If you think you need to sort out your political position on the UN and EU Migration Caps before you stand for a local council seat, chances are you're in trouble. Have they considered when they wrote their very nice political position on the EU and migration for example, how they would actually communicate that on the doorstep? 

"Well, I'm not a racist but I wonder if we can cope with all these immigrants."

"Right, well, we defend the steps towards open borders which the EU represents."

"I see."

It's all backwards - a bit like learning to swim without getting in the water.


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 4, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yep, Nellist got about a minute. Bob Crow was on QT once or twice.
> 
> It's a nice idea, this 'build the perfect party' schtick, but I think it's pretty obvious that people with very little experience of standing in elections trying to create this party isn't working out. If you think you need to sort out your political position on the UN and EU Migration Caps before you stand for a local council seat, chances are you're in trouble. Have they considered when they wrote their very nice political position on the EU and migration for example, how they would actually communicate that on the doorstep?
> 
> ...


They aren't campaigning, so they don't have to defend it on the doorstep, and there's the problem in a nutshell.
Lu is a project which places itself firmly in a reformist tradition. It's conference rejected utopian motions in favour of realistic goals ( no 21 hour week etc.),
And yet it has rejected any involvement in the electoral struggle, 'this year' and so it's practical political arena is on the demo, protest,petition circuit historically claimed by the Trotskyist groups.
They have room there because of the collapse of the SWPs hegemony, they have no serious rival for the wooly liberal left audience, an ageing and shrinking grouping(it is no accident that, among the plethora of caucus representing the various minority groups within lu, the latest newsletter appeals for people willing to set up black, Asian and youth caucuses- LU is predominately white and middle aged).
  This audience rarely steps out of it own bubble where the bbc (hated by the Tories) is wonderful, the EU (hated by the Tories) is smashing, and social services are a career ladder rather than a broken lifeline.
Genuine concern for the plight of the poor is an altruistic philanthropic pursuit, not a shared act of solidarity.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 4, 2014)

treelover said:


> I see the Ex Workers Power (lecturers) contingent appear to have won the conference to open borders.


One of your hobby horses. No? Open borders, blah, blah, blah...


----------



## J Ed (Apr 4, 2014)

Open borders is a stupid position, I wouldn't vote for anyone who advocated it if I thought they had any chance of coming to power nor would 99% of people. It's hard to think of a more alienating political policy.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 4, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> It's a nice idea, this 'build the perfect party' schtick, but I think it's pretty obvious that people with very little experience of standing in elections trying to create this party isn't working out. If you think you need to sort out your political position on the UN and EU Migration Caps before you stand for a local council seat, chances are you're in trouble. Have they considered when they wrote their very nice political position on the EU and migration for example, how they would actually communicate that on the doorstep?


The key thing for me about LU is the grassroots democracy that is hard wired into the party structure. The point of such bottom up democracy is not to "build the perfect party", direct democracy still can come to bad decisions, but the point is when things need to change the members will be able to act on it, and wont be locked out of the process by their leaders/vanguard.

If you want to build a party structure democratically it takes time. As W Bush said ''If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier".  What has kept me out of political parties in the past is distrust in the leadership/hierarchy, and thats a structural issue. Whatever else people may think about LU I think that should be applauded.

Inevitably once LU get out there it will become a feedback loop, and the democratic structure will allow that feedback to evolve the party much better than a traditional vanguard model would. 


barney_pig said:


> This audience rarely steps out of it own bubble where the bbc (hated by the Tories) is wonderful, the EU (hated by the Tories) is smashing, and social services are a career ladder rather than a broken lifeline.
> Genuine concern for the plight of the poor is an altruistic philanthropic pursuit, not a shared act of solidarity.


Harsh - cant see how you are able to know the views of all these hundreds of members so well, ive barely any idea who is in the party yet.  If anyone sees social services as a career ladder its Tusc. "Genuine concern for the plight of the poor is an altruistic philanthropic pursuit, not a shared act of solidarity" <why do you say that? Based on what? 

Whoever the "early adopters" of the party are at the moment isnt to me the point (currently includes people from groups i would normally stay well clear of) - the point is the party has the potential to be entered and steered by whoever wants in - which if does manage to break out of the existing left bubble would make it a possibly really interesting entity. It is the potential of the party that interests me, rather than its current state...


----------



## belboid (Apr 4, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yep, Nellist got about a minute. Bob Crow was on QT once or twice.
> 
> It's a nice idea, this 'build the perfect party' schtick, but I think it's pretty obvious that people with very little experience of standing in elections trying to create this party isn't working out. If you think you need to sort out your political position on the UN and EU Migration Caps before you stand for a local council seat, chances are you're in trouble. Have they considered when they wrote their very nice political position on the EU and migration for example, how they would actually communicate that on the doorstep?
> 
> ...


You're aware that no borders is actually the SP position as well?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 4, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Open borders is a stupid position, I wouldn't vote for anyone who advocated it if I thought they had any chance of coming to power nor would 99% of people. It's hard to think of a more alienating political policy.


Amazing really that the basic human right to free movement and settlement is the "most alienating political policy" you can think of.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 4, 2014)

Where both TUSC and lu have it wrong IMO - and the reason they'll both fail (well, one of the reasons anyway) is that they're obsessed with finding a platform around which they can unite 'the left' - lu do it with faux-democracy, TUSC do it via more honest stitch ups - but what neither have recognised thus far is that what's needed is a progressive platform to unite the working class. Until there's a realisation that the program or whatever you call it has to be built around the working class's self-identified needs - at the level of the council ward if necessary - nobody will get anywhere (IWCA came closest and I'd love to have a discussion about the reasons behind its successes _and _failure to spread but we've not managed that yet really). But this would involve the admission that 'the left' is essentially irrelevant these days. (Which means both the obsession with uniting it and with blaming it for all the world's ills is the mark of a fuckwit and it would mean a crisis of identity for a lot of people).

The two things I will say in defence of TUSC - even though I think it's a strategy doomed to failure and have said as much internally and externally (unlike articul8 if I think something's bullshit I won't just say it internally, or pretend I did afterwards, I'll be honest about it to everyone) - is that I'd rather we were standing - how ever badly - and offering some kind of left alternative than leaving UKIP as the only protest vote and I'm glad the nuance of no _racist _immigration controls is in there. 1) because if you're a party with no chance of getting beyond a couple of council seats and maybe if there's a miracle an MP it doesn't fucking matter what your line is on immigration so you might as well phrase it in a way that doesn't alienate and 2) if they ever did get further - into government - they would either have to impose very strict border controls or be completely unable to deliver anything they've promised and remain in government for about the same amount of time as it takes me to do a fart - I'll give some credit though - I mean one of my really long farts, the ones that last about 20 seconds and scare the dog.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 4, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Amazing really that the basic human right to free movement and settlement is the "most alienating political policy" you can think of.



Open borders isn't free movement and settlement it's movement and settlement at the behest of capital. And while it might not be alienating to you (and it isn't alienating to me really) unless the people down the pub, the lads at the football and the lads at work are a unique case open borders is pretty alienating for them. I know cos I used to try and argue it and ended up giving up cos they just took the piss and it was making them less likely to take me seriously on stuff where they did agree.


----------



## belboid (Apr 4, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Open borders isn't free movement and settlement it's movement and settlement at the behest of capital.


No, it's free movement of people. People who can make their own minds up. Just cos at the moment it suits capital as well is irrelevant. The football, the pub and work are all things done 'at the behest of capital' as well, since we live in a capitalist society.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 4, 2014)

belboid said:


> No, it's free movement of people. People who can make their own minds up. Just cos at the moment it suits capital as well is irrelevant.



No it's not. It's totally relevant.

We don't have "free" movement of labour we have the movement of labour as a result of people following labour market imperatives and pressures. It doesn't just suit capital, it's an intrinsic part of modern capitalism. Why do you think there's so many Poles in England, the nice weather and cuisine or the fact there's a possibility work of here at comparatively decent wages? Did you read The Grapes of Wrath and assume it was a nice midwestern family going on a vacation to California?

We want to create a society where people aren't compelled to travel accross the world to have the chance of a half decent life, firstly by getting rid of vast global economic inequality, and by having a socialist society. Only once those conditions are met will people be free to choose where they want to live and work, rather than be compelled to by the demands of the market.


----------



## treelover (Apr 4, 2014)

barney_pig said:


> They aren't campaigning, so they don't have to defend it on the doorstep, and there's the problem in a nutshell.
> Lu is a project which places itself firmly in a reformist tradition. It's conference rejected utopian motions in favour of realistic goals ( no 21 hour week etc.),
> And yet it has rejected any involvement in the electoral struggle, 'this year' and so it's practical political arena is on the demo, protest,petition circuit historically claimed by the Trotskyist groups.
> They have room there because of the collapse of the SWPs hegemony, they have no serious rival for the wooly liberal left audience, an ageing and shrinking grouping(it is no accident that, among the plethora of caucus representing the various minority groups within lu, the latest newsletter appeals for people willing to set up black, Asian and youth caucuses- LU is predominately white and middle aged).
> ...




How do you know, have you met them? unless they are lying 250 people joined on Friday after the Loach article, are these all the usual suspects?, read the FB page, something very new is happening and I don't think it is Socialist Alliance Mk2, lots of ex LP members are joining, many who joined after Milliband was elected, the welfare cap being the last straw. I have my doubts about their abstract policies on migration,etc, though I'm pleased they will defend migrants form the right and the gutter press. I am not joining them, not in a position to, can't even get to Unite Community meetings which i fully endorse, but would vote for them.

and Nino, as for hobby horses, you don't have any?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 4, 2014)

belboid said:


> No, it's free movement of people. People who can make their own minds up. Just cos at the moment it suits capital as well is irrelevant. The football, the pub and work are all things done 'at the behest of capital' as well, since we live in a capitalist society.



I know, I've oversimplified there and I apologise - basically agree except that this 'freedom' is severely restricted - I can't just fuck off to Germany tomorrow because I can't afford to go and I wouldn't find work - and in some cases its more like coercion than freedom. I go to the football cos I enjoy it, there's no coercion beyond my irrational love for a shit football team. The Poles I know came to England because they were dirt poor and could be a bit less dirt poor here - they have some agency of course but there are constraints and these constraints are put there by capital. One of the Poles I know from the unemployed workers centre said he wanted to live in Poland but couldn't provide for his family if he did - if that's as close to movement at the behest of capital as you're gonna get without some kind of Australia/New Caledonia style transportation policy. I'm not saying close the borders - I'm saying be honest about what 'free' movement within the EU really means.

I also think it's not that simple a question as to what position we take - under capitalism I think we should argue against all state restrictions on the movement of people (and probably in favour of restrictions on the movement of capital but I've not thought that part through) but if we got a socialist or whatever government elected there would have to be restrictions, pretty strict ones at that.

It's a very complicated question - much more complicated than the 'close the borders British workers will be better off' brigade and the 'open borders ra ra ra!' types like to present it as. And it's one I don't think we should be concerning ourselves with too much until such a time as what we think about it has some chance gaining some kind of influence.

Edit: This is a question on which I still haven't clarified my own thoughts that much - it's really not that simple - so feel free to pick holes in this - if it's discussed in the right way (ie. based on the assumption that nobody's a racist - looking at you here nino - and we're all arguing for policies that favour the w/c as a whole) this could be a productive discussion. If it's not it will be another bunfight.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 4, 2014)

treelover said:


> How do you know, have you met them? unless they are lying 250 people joined on Friday after the Loach article, are these all the usual suspects?



Well to be fair it's 250 people who join a political party _after reading a Ken Loach article in the Guardian...._

what was it Nigel Irritable called it? Teachers club?


One of my old teachers was involved in setting it up iirc. He was a right prick to me, used to send me out if I was more than a few minutes late, even though I lived 90 mins and 2 bus journey's away and he lived within a brief walk of the place. I did try pointing out that this was him enforcing capitalist labour discipline and labour-time and all that EP Thompson stuff but he still had the attitude of an angry calvinist mill-owner circa 1830 every time I came in late.

In fairness I was an awful, awful student and a bastard in practically every aspect so I can't hold it against him. I feel bad for any teacher that had to deal with an 18 year old me. I wouldn't want to join his political party though....


----------



## dennisr (Apr 4, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Edit: This is a question on which I still haven't clarified my own thoughts that much - it's really not that simple - so feel free to pick holes in this - if it's discussed in the right way (ie. based on the assumption that nobody's a racist - looking at you here nino - and we're all arguing for policies that favour the w/c as a whole) this could be a productive discussion. If it's not it will be another bunfight.



Its Urban, Spiney - I predict it'll be a bunfight


----------



## treelover (Apr 4, 2014)

plenty of working class people read the Guardian, I began reading in the mid 80's while I was on schemes, etc.


----------



## belboid (Apr 4, 2014)

Delroy Booth said:


> No it's not. It's totally relevant.
> 
> We don't have "free" movement of labour we have the movement of labour as a result of people following labour market imperatives and pressures. It doesn't just suit capital, it's an intrinsic part of modern capitalism. Why do you think there's so many Poles in England, the nice weather and cuisine or the fact there's a possibility work of here at comparatively decent wages? Did you read The Grapes of Wrath and assume it was a nice midwestern family going on a vacation to California?
> 
> We want to create a society where people aren't compelled to travel accross the world to have the chance of a half decent life, firstly by getting rid of vast global economic inequality, and by having a socialist society. Only once those conditions are met will people be free to choose where they want to live and work, rather than be compelled to by the demands of the market.


so your only problem is with the use of the word 'free'?  As we live under capitalism, nothing is truly 'freely' done (as I already said) so hould we never ever use the word?  The rest of your post is just blather to cover for the fact that, at the end of the day, you support 'free' movement of labour, but dont want to say it too loudly in case people think you're mad.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 4, 2014)

treelover said:


> and Nino, as for hobby horses, you don't have any?



You're rather obsessed with immigration, though. No?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 4, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> You're rather obsessed with immigration, though. No?



Give it a fucking rest.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 4, 2014)

dennisr said:


> Its Urban, Spiney - I predict it'll be a bunfight


that's the song the kaiser chiefs should have written - 'i predict a bunfight'


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 4, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Give it a fucking rest.


What's it to you? Treelover _is_ obsessed with immigration.

Besides... and in case this had escaped your attention, I was replying to treelover, not you.


----------



## treelover (Apr 4, 2014)

not really, just the inanities some of the far left expound on it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 4, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Give it a fucking rest.


this is urban. it is a point of pride with us that we never give it a rest. we will flog dead horses till the cows come home.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 4, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Amazing really that the basic human right to free movement and settlement is the "most alienating political policy" you can think of.



Okay, that's fair. I should have said _the most alienating political policy I would expeect Left Unity to come up with_.

I'm not against the idea of free movement of people after the transition to a fairer economic system but pressing for open borders, or more open borders, under worsening neoliberal conditions is going to alienate a lot of people while they are still subject to increasingly intense competition for less and less resources.

In any case, even the freedom of movement within the EU is an absolute sham. France is free to implement racist mass deportations of Roma, Merkel is proposing to kick out 'unproductive' EU migrants and Tories are salivating at the chance of doing the same.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 4, 2014)

treelover said:


> not really, just the inanities some of the far left expound on it.


Could you try that again in English, please?


----------



## J Ed (Apr 4, 2014)

What's freedom of movement in the EU really? The freedom to force young Spanish people to have to move to Germany to find work and then kick them out again when the German company lays them off. That isn't a freedom or a political project worth defending.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 4, 2014)

belboid said:


> so your only problem is with the use of the word 'free'?



No. Try actually replying to what I put. Use your brain. 

It's inaccurate to describe people migrating in accordance to the demands of the globalised capitalist labour market as free, as it implies there's absolutely no pressure or coercion involved in any of these processes. It's downright dishonest, and a smear imo, to say that Spiney is against the "free" movement of human beings because he's against the current way in which immigration in a neo-liberal society takes place.

By all means let's build a society where people can choose where they want to live and work with total freedom, but don't mistake that goal for the current set up which is nothing of the sort. Where people are _compelled_ to move to other countries _even when they don't necessarily want to_ because of the demands the labour market imposes on them, demands which themselves exist because of entrenched global inequality.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 4, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> What's it to you? Treelover _is_ obsessed with immigration.



And so are you, just from the opposite direction with your pro-EU open borders anyone who disagrees is a racist (which is the obvious implication wrt treelover - who I also often disagree with but is most definitely no racist).

Didn't realised you had to be replying to me for me to be allowed to respond btw


----------



## belboid (Apr 4, 2014)

Delroy Booth said:


> No. Try actually replying to what I put. Use your brain.
> 
> It's inaccurate to describe people migrating in accordance to the demands of the globalised capitalist labour market as free, as it implies there's absolutely no pressure or coercion involved in any of these processes. It's downright dishonest, and a smear imo, to say that Spiney is against the "free" movement of human beings because he's against the current way in which immigration in a neo-liberal society takes place.
> 
> By all means let's build a society where people can choose where they want to live and work with total freedom, but don't mistake that goal for the current set up which is nothing of the sort. Where people are _compelled_ to move to other countries _even when they don't necessarily want to_ because of the demands the labour market imposes on them, demands which themselves exist because of entrenched global inequality.


so you agree with me - your only problem is the use of the word 'free'.  But you want to create a fog to hide the fact that you actually support workers rights to go to whatever country they (are forced to) choose.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 4, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Open borders isn't free movement and settlement it's movement and settlement at the behest of capital. And while it might not be alienating to you (and it isn't alienating to me really) unless the people down the pub, the lads at the football and the lads at work are a unique case open borders is pretty alienating for them. I know cos I used to try and argue it and ended up giving up cos they just took the piss and it was making them less likely to take me seriously on stuff where they did agree.


I'll happily acknowledge that it's difficult to have conversations about immigration, and that some sectors of capital benefit from access to a freer labour market. 

But, if you look closely what you'll find we have _now_ is effectively open borders _on capital's terms_. There is no question whatsoever of this government or any future government cutting off British capital's access to a global labour market. The only effect that present border controls have is the harassment and marginalisation of the people caught up in the immigration process, and the creation of divisions. So what on Earth is the point of defending them? Particularly when the effect of a bigger labour market is pretty marginal compared to the various other forces that have degraded workers' rights and social service provision over the past few decades.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 4, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Okay, that's fair. I should have said _the most alienating political policy I would expeect Left Unity to come up with_.
> 
> I'm not against the idea of free movement of people after the transition to a fairer economic system but pressing for open borders, or more open borders, under worsening neoliberal conditions is going to alienate a lot of people while they are still subject to increasingly intense competition for less and less resources.
> 
> In any case, even the freedom of movement within the EU is an absolute sham. France is free to implement racist mass deportations of Roma, Merkel is proposing to kick out 'unproductive' EU migrants and Tories are salivating at the chance of doing the same.


I'd say that the intense competition for less and less resources is going to happen regardless, immigration is a pretty minor factor in it, and borders that are managed in the interests of capital are liable to make that competition more rather than less intense.

I agree that "open borders" as a policy is unattractive to many people in the current climate. That said, what do you expect LU (who I have little time for) to do? They're mainly internationalists and socialists, passing anything else would be pure populism.


----------



## treelover (Apr 4, 2014)

J Ed said:


> What's freedom of movement in the EU really? The freedom to force young Spanish people to have to move to Germany to find work and then kick them out again when the German company lays them off. That isn't a freedom or a political project worth defending.




Not only that, its acting as a pressure valve, many of the young people leaving southern Europe are the sort of people who in other circumstances would be agitating for social change in their own countries, etc.

btw, the open borders debate is a legitimate one and is being discussed on the L/U F/B page, if people are shouted down L/U will not grow.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 4, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> I'll happily acknowledge that it's difficult to have conversations about immigration, and that some sectors of capital benefit from access to a freer labour market.
> 
> But, if you look closely what you'll find we have _now_ is effectively open borders _on capital's terms_. There is no question whatsoever of this government or any future government cutting off British capital's access to a global labour market. The only effect that present border controls have is the harassment and marginalisation of the people caught up in the immigration process, and the creation of divisions. So what on Earth is the point of defending them? Particularly when the effect of a bigger labour market is pretty marginal compared to the various other forces that have degraded workers' rights and social service provision over the past few decades.



I agree with all of that and I'm not defending them.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 4, 2014)

belboid said:


> so you agree with me - your only problem is the use of the word 'free'.  But you want to create a fog to hide the fact that you actually support workers rights to go to whatever country they (are forced to) choose.



It's not my only problem, and I've had to say this three times now so I hope that should be enough, but it's the most dishonest thing you wrote.

Likewise the idea that because immigrants are "People who can make their own minds up" (who said otherwise btw?) they must somehow be exempt from the labour market, that's another thing. I can make my own mind up too, but it hasn't stopped me from being ruthlessly exploited in a number of shit jobs for the last few years, presumably that's ok then?

and you also claimed that "just cos at the moment it suits capital as well is irrelevant" which is unbelievably stupid, it's extremely relevant and the system has been deliberately set up in such a way as to bolster capitalism, to strengthen it and to weaken labour.

Your comparisons to "the football, the pub and work are all things done 'at the behest of capital' as well" I don't think are very helpful, as all human social interactions do not take place at the behest of capital (unless you're a total free market zealot) nor are they structured in a legalistic way to serve the interests of capital. You do not get arrested by the state for being in the wrong pub. You do not socialise purely to provide capital with a means by which to produce cheaper commodoties. This example certainly doesn't do anything to attempt to place the importance of the transnational labour market and the immigration system in this particular type of neo-liberal captialism into any sort of political context - it just reads as someone defending EU labour-market policy without even the slightest interest in what that policy is and what objectives the policy is designed to accomplish.

So there's 3, maybe 4, issues there alongside your dishonest usage of the term "free" and so hopefully you'll not require me to post again explaining this to you as it's already getting quite tedious and I'm boring myself.

And yes of course I would support workers the right to go whatever country they need to go to, I am very hesitant to advocate state backed immigration limits because you have to weigh all this against the fact free movement is a pretty fundamental human right, but I'm not going to end up slipping into this naive and apolitical defence of current EU immigration policy because I frankly don't support it.


----------



## belboid (Apr 4, 2014)

Delroy Booth said:


> It's not my only problem, and I've had to say this three times now so I hope that should be enough, but it's the most dishonest thing you wrote.
> 
> Likewise the idea that because immigrants are "People who can make their own minds up" (who said otherwise btw?) they must somehow be exempt from the labour market, that's another thing. I can make my own mind up too, but it hasn't stopped me from being ruthlessly exploited in a number of shit jobs for the last few years, presumably that's ok then?
> 
> ...


who has given a 'naive and apolitical defence of current EU immigration policy'?  If you are going to try to climb on your high horse over someone else's supposed dishonesty, making things up yourself isnt very bright.

The rest of your quote is just blather. you complain that ' You do not socialise purely to provide capital with a means by which to produce cheaper commodoties.' - which leaves the clear implication that migrants DO migrate 'purely to provide capital with a means by which to produce cheaper commodoties' - ie they are blind and simple automatons who do everything at the behest of capital. 

So, it is in fact absolutely true that support for the _principle _of 'free' movement of labour is completely and utterly independent of whether capital currently wants free movement, or if it wants to limit movements. Hence the particular demands of capital at a specific point in time are irrelevant as to what our principles are.  

That a discussion of migration doesnt cover every aspect of capitalism is just a statement of the bleeding obvious, but it doesnt alter the fundamentals.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 4, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm saying be honest about what 'free' movement within the EU really means.


The way I understand it is the EU projects overall aim is to create an equal market across the zone (whether you believe this is possible or not is not the point). Free movement in the medium turn means lots of economic migration of the poorest looking to find work abroad. But at the other end of the spectrum theres is movement not for economic reason, such as Brits who can afford it going to Spain to retire.  Not everyone is compelled Delroy.

But of course the policy was created with the intention that people would move for work in the way they are doing. It definitely has a negative effect on wage suppression in the UK, particularly in certain industries - but I agree with Belboid in as much as that the two positions here are not mutually exclusive, and have sometimes contradictory pros and cons. On balance for me the pros outweigh the cons.

A little anecdote: Ive driven across the East German Polish border with older Polish people who burst in to tears crossing the border with no stopping - they never thought such a thing would be possible in their lifetimes. Living on this island gives a different perspective to that of the mainland I think.


J Ed said:


> In any case, even the freedom of movement within the EU is an absolute sham. France is free to implement racist mass deportations of Roma, Merkel is proposing to kick out 'unproductive' EU migrants and Tories are salivating at the chance of doing the same.


Good point, and as you say deepening austerity policies and pressure from the right really turn this into a cauldron of shit. Someone was telling me about a new UK law which means even your spouse cant come to the UK unless they are earning some high threshold of money (id like to find out more about that)


----------



## ska invita (Apr 4, 2014)

treelover said:


> Not only that, its acting as a pressure valve, many of the young people leaving southern Europe are the sort of people who in other circumstances would be agitating for social change in their own countries, etc.


true in theory but in practice Spain and Greece not to mention other countries have plenty agitation going on despite the freedom of movement.


----------



## belboid (Apr 4, 2014)

ska invita said:


> true in theory but in practice Spain and Greece not to mention other countries have plenty agitation going on despite the freedom of movement.


<doh, misread your post>


----------



## Coolfonz (Apr 4, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Defend the workers EU from Powerful UKIP, blah blah blah...
> 
> I find it sickening, incidentally, that LU has decided not to stand candidates this year but has received airtime on the daily politics and print space in the New Shitesman, while in four years of standing candidates TUSC has had nothing. I know I should expect it, I don't even know why I'm annoyed in a way since I'd expect nothing less, but it speaks volumes about both the media and LU imo.



That isn't the fault of LU, the media attention. It's a small but good thing.
I do think LU should stand some candidates in the EU elections though. Momentum etc...

As for open borders an immigration: there are left wing points to put about immigration and it can be done without alienating everyone.

Immigration barely brings down wages (1-3pc avg) and when it does the effect is temporary, it often affects the poorest - who should be specifically helped out - and those are often other immigrants, wage suppression is more about the 35 year old deliberate move to create spare capacity in the labour market and is very often industry specific. Wages are also being hit by the biggest economic down turn since (take your pick) 1929 to 1945...

There is a thread on this with links, not difficult to find `Immigration a socialist viewpoint`.

As for today, now, what is anyone suggesting? That Spanish/Italian kids kick back and relax rather than move to London/Munich/Berlin to find work?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 4, 2014)

belboid said:


> who has given a 'naive and apolitical defence of current EU immigration policy'?  If you are going to try to climb on your high horse over someone else's supposed dishonesty, making things up yourself isnt very bright.



You did and continue to.



belboid said:


> The rest of your quote is just blather. you complain that ' You do not socialise purely to provide capital with a means by which to produce cheaper commodoties.' - which leaves the clear implication that migrants DO migrate 'purely to provide capital with a means by which to produce cheaper commodoties'



Migrants do migrate to provide capital with a cheap source of labour that can be used to produced commodities. That's the driving force behind mass immigration - economics. Global inequality. Money. Do you dispute this? Which is why I said to in the very first post - people don't migrate to England for the weather and the food, they do it for good wages, even if they hate the place and would rather be with their families. There's a huge degree of coercion involved that you've overlooked (presumably because you're ok with it)

The Joads didn't jump on the back of an old jalopy in the Grapes of Wrath because they wanted a holiday in California, they were compelled to by the economic system.

Four different times I've had to explain this.



belboid said:


> - ie they are blind and simple automatons who do everything at the behest of capital.



Nope, I never said anything of the sort. I believe they are fully self-aware and intelligent rational human beings who migrate overwhelmingly for rational economic reasons, as a response to labour market pressures and imperatives. Now that sort of racist disgusting condescending attitude towards immigrants might be what you believe, but it's not what I believe, and they're certainly not the sort of terms I'd use to describe immigrants with, so please don't falsely draw those sorts of conclusions from what I've put, don't put those words that I've never used at any point in the discussion in my mouth, and once again please try to respond to things i've actually said rather than things you've maliciously insinuated.



belboid said:


> So, it is in fact absolutely true that support for the _principle _of 'free' movement of labour is completely and utterly independent of whether capital currently wants free movement, or if it wants to limit movements. Hence the particular demands of capital at a specific point in time are irrelevant as to what our principles are.
> 
> That a discussion of migration doesnt cover every aspect of capitalism is just a statement of the bleeding obvious, but it doesnt alter the fundamentals.



What I'm saying is you have to measure and weigh the right of people to travel with the cold hard reality of the sort of labour market that exists within global capitalism, what interests that labour market serves, and what that labour market is based on. That's what I'm saying, it's not complicated, and you're either a very stupid person who needs things explaining 3 or 4 times before they sink in or you're deliberately on the windup. Or maybe deep down you're just a liberal who's perfectly at ease with neo-liberalism when push comes to shove?

The recognition that in a capitalist society mass immigrations exists for certain purposes, and that in this context it's by no means a progressive let alone socialist policy, and that actually mass immigration is itself a product of huge global inequality of wealth that compells people to travel and in many cases suffer horrendously as a result, and therefore shouldn't be celebrated as some sort of fantastic human right when it's way, way more complicated than that, these are all things that have gone flying over your head.

The task is to create a society where it's no longer necessary for people to do that on a large scale, and where migration can then be what it should always have been, which is people choosing to move somewhere not because they have to but because they want to, not because they're coerced by the market but because they're in a position of power over their own lives. I hate to break it to you y'know but it was a matter of people's free choice, and nothing at all to do with the labour market and economic necessity, I don't think hundreds of thousands of people would coming to fucking Britain of all places!


----------



## belboid (Apr 4, 2014)

Delroy Booth said:


> Four different times I've had to explain this.


you haven't had to explain it once, I immediately agreed with the bast majority of it. Its an absolute basic.  But it is not the be all and end all. 

It is, tho overly simplistic - people migrate to specific places for all sorts of reasons.  Economic ones are primary, but not the only ones. If you say they are the only causes, you are, I'm afraid, treating people like simple cattle. 

All your long winded blather seems to be is a way of avoiding giving a straight clear answer to the question - what immigration controls do you support?  Saying 'I want a socialist society' is not an answer.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 4, 2014)

I haven't read anyone else's posts on the matter but here are my thoughts anyway 

The left has to tackle the issue of migration as a whole - not immigration, not "open borders" or free movement or closed borders and certainly not " immigration and the working class " as a single subject.

We have to recognise that migration exists on a mass scale and is probably only going to increase due to technological change and economic and ecological pressures, and we have to be honest and talk about the positive and negative impacts of mass migration whether it is Filipino nurses leaving a skills shortage in their home country to plug one cheaply here, or Eastern European workers being exploited in the agricultural industry ( and adding to downwards pressure on wages) or British migrants in Spain moving into new towns and villages and placing strain on water supplies.

We have to talk about how migrants contribute to the running of our public services, but also the pressures they bring on school places and housing.

And we have to provide practical solutions in the here and now to dealing with these issues, at the same time as promoting working class solidarity between and across communities.

We also have an equally immediate task to counter the constant stream of negative stories about immigrants as a group; not with statistics but with positive, human stories about people.

By dealing with migration as a subject we can challenge the 'othering' of immigrants and create a more cohesive narrative of migration.

Having abstract demands for 'no borders' doesn't address the real problems and does not create class unity.

I would go further as well and say that in any imaginary post revolutionary utopia I wouldn't want to see open borders or freedom of movement per se but instead freedom of association combined with community control of resources.


----------



## Coolfonz (Apr 4, 2014)

*Migrants do migrate to provide capital with a cheap source of labour that can be used to produced commodities. That's the driving force behind mass immigration - economics. Global inequality. Money. Do you dispute this? *

Yes. You do not need migration to do this. Spare capacity in different labour markets exist for many different reasons. It started in earnest in 1979 and was "a price well worth paying." Immigrants do not set wage levels. Employers set wage levels.

*Which is why I said to in the very first post - people don't migrate to England for the weather and the food, they do it for good wages, even if they hate the place and would rather be with their families.*

Wrong. They do it _because there is work_. Not for the wage levels, over which they have zero control. People migrate to places where there is work and if there is a half decent education and health system as well, great. Two million Ukrainians in Poland for example.

*There's a huge degree of coercion involved that you've overlooked (presumably because you're ok with it)*

Certainly when there are no jobs in Spain, Italy, Poland that is a form of coercion. But would you rather they stayed there and chilled out?

If you want to end large scale movements of people within the EU the best thing is to sort out the basket case southern economies. Ditto from outside the EU as well...


----------



## J Ed (Apr 4, 2014)

ska invita said:


> Good point, and as you say deepening austerity policies and pressure from the right really turn this into a cauldron of shit. Someone was telling me about a new UK law which means even your spouse cant come to the UK unless they are earning some high threshold of money (id like to find out more about that)



It's £18,000 a year or £52,500 in savings. These requirements have caused a lot of misery for a lot of people http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/09/uk-australia-spouse-visa


----------



## belboid (Apr 4, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The left has to tackle the issue of migration as a whole - not immigration, not "open borders" or free movement or closed borders and certainly not " immigration and the working class " as a single subject.


agreed. You need to be arguing for strong workers organisations in the 'receiving' country to fight against attempts to use migrants to drive down labour costs, for example. You need to argue for a programme of mass house building.  etc etc (as you pretty much say)



> Filipino nurses leaving a skills shortage in their home country


it's actually debatable whether that has happened - mostly the lack of nurses in the phillipines seems to be down to the government not paying for them rather than a lack of supply (nursing colleges are now cutting places because of graduate unemployment levels)



> By dealing with migration as a subject we can challenge the* 'othering'* of immigrants and create a more cohesive narrative of migration.


oooh - careful now, that's a little bit intersectionalist. 



> Having abstract demands for 'no borders' doesn't address the real problems and does not create class unity.


I'd agree that it is a policy you don't immediately go out and proclaim from the rooftops, rather like the demand for a workers militia, but when asked directly 'what immigration controls do you support?' you have to give the answer 'none'



> I would go further as well and say that in any imaginary post revolutionary utopia I wouldn't want to see open borders or freedom of movement per se but instead freedom of association combined with community control of resources.


there wont be nations in a post revolutionary utopia, so there'll be no borders by default.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 4, 2014)

belboid said:


> All your long winded blather seems to be is a way of avoiding giving a straight clear answer to the question - what immigration controls do you support?  Saying 'I want a socialist society' is not an answer.



Does acknowledging the undeniable fact that immigration is used by capital to advance its interests and that EU migration policy is a major part of this necessarily mean you have to be in favour of immigration controls? I don't think it does.

But what I do think is important is that we differentiate between economically coerced migration and genuine freedom of movement. If we allow the liberals to set the terms of the debate - by agreeing that EU policy represents freedom of movement - when a hell of a lot of people only experience, or perceive, the negative side of this, then all you're doing is making it harder to make the case for genuine freedom of movement.

And I think that when either you or ska invita (can't remember which one of you it was) suggests lowering of wages is an incidental by-product of EU migration policy, I think you've got the cart before the horse. The freedom for British pensioners to move to Spain is an incidental by product of a policy designed to empower capital and increase profits  by lowering wages.

I'm not in favour of any state restrictions on movement of labour under capitalism - they'd be formulated in such a way as to perpetuate the race to the bottom. But nor do I think economic migration is an unambiguous social good. I think we should be honest that it's not great for any workers as it stands but that the only way to change that is to organise migrant and local labour - and organise internationally - rather than request from the capitalist state some imaginary magic bullet migration policy (ie migration controls) that will solve any or all these problems.

Only it seems to me that we only discuss migration in a context in which it doesn't matter that much - where we all agree that it's gonna be used as a tool of capital however it's managed. What we don't discuss is what we'd do if we were in a position to define policy so that it advances the interests of the working class rather than capital.

It doesn;t really matter what migration policy me, you or Delroy may or may not support because a) we're an irrelevance and b) whatever form it takes it's gonna be used by capital in one way or another to facilitate a race to the bottom - whether it's no movement at all or open borders. So let me flip it on its head - suspend disbelief for a second and imagine me you and Delroy are relevant - that after a protracted period of class struggle we've got into a position where we can elect a socialist government that has the necessary real social backing from the working class. What migration policy would you then support, assuming socialism didn't magically arise everywhere at once?

Edit: Only we're not going to go from neoliberal capitalism to post-revolutionary utopia over night. If it happens (and my faith in this has almost disappeared I'm sorry to say) there will be non-utopias run along broadly socialist lines for a while and this will be uneven - they will coexist with capitalist states and institutions elsewhere. So this answer is more of a cop out than what you're accusing Delroy of: 



belboid said:


> there wont be nations in a post revolutionary utopia, so there'll be no borders by default.


----------



## belboid (Apr 4, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Does acknowledging the undeniable fact that immigration is used by capital to advance its interests and that EU migration policy is a major part of this necessarily mean you have to be in favour of immigration controls? I don't think it does.


of course it doesn't. My point was simply that the current requirements of capital do not lead to a change in what is, or should be, a principle.



> It doesn;t really matter what migration policy me, you or Delroy may or may not support because a) we're an irrelevance and b) whatever form it takes it's gonna be used by capital in one way or another to facilitate a race to the bottom - whether it's no movement at all or open borders. So let me flip it on its head - suspend disbelief for a second and imagine me you and Delroy are relevant - that after a protracted period of class struggle we've got into a position where we can elect a socialist government that has the necessary real social backing from the working class. What migration policy would you then support, assuming socialism didn't magically arise everywhere at once?


is this during or after the inevitable civil war?

If we're talking of some fictional far-left reformist government that hadn't yet brought about the full revolution (and thus will be doomed anyway...) then I'm for no immigration controls and raft of laws that ensure migrants cant just be brought over to lower wages etc.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 4, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> *Migrants do migrate to provide capital with a cheap source of labour that can be used to produced commodities. That's the driving force behind mass immigration - economics. Global inequality. Money. Do you dispute this? *
> 
> Yes. You do not need migration to do this. Spare capacity in different labour markets exist for many different reasons. It started in earnest in 1979 and was "a price well worth paying." Immigrants do not set wage levels. Employers set wage levels.



Utter nonsense. Employers aren't free to set whatever wage levels tehy want. The working class has agency. They can only set them at a rate people will expect. So they want 'spare capacity in labour markets'. If this spare capacity is domestic you have to support it - keep it alive with benefits etc. If it's in Greece or Eastern Europe you don't - you can just advertise for them to come when they're needed.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 4, 2014)

belboid said:


> is this during or after the inevitable civil war?



How's about you take other peoples posts as seriously as you want others to take yours?



belboid said:


> If we're talking of some fictional far-left reformist government that hadn't yet brought about the full revolution (and thus will be doomed anyway...) then I'm for no immigration controls and raft of laws that ensure migrants cant just be brought over to lower wages etc.


I'm not talking about a left reformist government that hasn't yet brought about the full revolution (governments don't bring about the revolutions, the working class does) I'm talking about a socialist government brought to power off the back of a working class revolution.

The transition to socialism probably won't ever happen. I'm coming closer to the lletsa thesis every day - I think we're probably fucked.

But it definitely won't happen everywhere at once. What are you going to do about that? A socialist society would, I'd hope, provide a good minimum standard of living for everyone in that society. That would be attractive to everyone in the world at the shitty end of the stick. If they all came we'd not be able to provide that minimum - like it or not resources aren;t super-abundant - and it would collapse. I'd rather we restricted migration according to limits dictated by resources and obviously would have a very liberal (small l) asylum policy and the way we'd help the world;s poor would be by assisting them in struggles in their own countries, so we could get world socialism.

Also how would this 'raft of laws that ensure migrants cant just be brought over to lower wages' differ from migration controls?

I admit this is a meaningless abstract discussion though and apologise for starting it


----------



## ska invita (Apr 4, 2014)

J Ed said:


> It's £18,000 a year or £52,500 in savings. These requirements have caused a lot of misery for a lot of people http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/09/uk-australia-spouse-visa


thanks...a terrible situation


----------



## belboid (Apr 4, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> But it definitely won't happen everywhere at once. What are you going to do about that? And how would this 'raft of laws that ensure migrants cant just be brought over to lower wages' differ from migration controls?


because they're laws which affect all people, around such things as the basic minimum rates of pay, removing the reasons why capital would want to bring migrants over.

If we're talking about a socialist society (your talk of it being elected confuses things - elected or brought in by revolution?), then it does all depend. Saying there might well be a war like situation is quite possible, uk blockaded by foreign powers etc. In which case its _them_ effectively imposing border controls. But if, by some bizarre turn of events, every other country goes 'oh well, lets seew what happens there', then, yup, no immigration controls.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 4, 2014)

belboid said:


> because they're laws which affect all people, around such things as the basic minimum rates of pay, removing the reasons why capital would want to bring migrants over.
> 
> If we're talking about a socialist society (your talk of it being elected confuses things - elected or brought in by revolution?), then it does all depend.



Yeah agree I wasn't clear on that - clarified here:



SpineyNorman said:


> I'm not talking about a left reformist government that hasn't yet brought about the full revolution (governments don't bring about the revolutions, the working class does) I'm talking about a socialist government brought to power off the back of a working class revolution.





belboid said:


> Saying there might well be a war like situation is quite possible, uk blockaded by foreign powers etc. In which case its _them[/] effectively imposing border controls. But if, by some bizarre turn of events, every other country goes 'oh well, lets seew what happens there', then, yup, no immigration controls._



I think I agree to an extent but sorry, I edited since while you were posting that reply - what's your take on this bit?



SpineyNorman said:


> A socialist society would, I'd hope, provide a what we in the UK would consider a good standard of living for everyone in that society. That would be attractive to everyone in the world at the shitty end of the stick. If they all came we'd not be able to provide that minimum - like it or not resources aren;t super-abundant - and it would collapse. I'd rather we restricted migration according to limits dictated by resources and obviously would have a very liberal (small l) asylum policy and the way we'd help the world's poor would be by assisting them in struggles in their own countries, so we could get world socialism - which would be the only way we'd be able to sustain it anyway.



I admit this is a meaningless abstract discussion though and apologise for starting it


----------



## belboid (Apr 4, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think I agree to an extent but sorry, I edited since while you were posting that reply - what's your take on this bit?
> 
> I admit this is a meaningless abstract discussion though and apologise for starting it


it's barely any more abstract than the idea of their being a Left Unity government that could inititate the policies tht kicked this discussion off!

As for the main bit, mmm... it really is quite hard to say really, because of the multitude of factors to take into account. How many people have fled the country?  Some of them would have been doing necessary work, so they'd need replacing. An immediate house building programme - are their enough decent builders in the UK any more, considering how the industry has been fucked over? I don't know.  Would people be flocking here? I'm not so sure. 

For sure, the key task will be to support struggles around the world so that there isn't only one socialist country. Beyond that, I refer you back to my previous 'mmm'


----------



## Coolfonz (Apr 4, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Utter nonsense. Employers aren't free to set whatever wage levels tehy want. The working class has agency. They can only set them at a rate people will expect. So they want 'spare capacity in labour markets'. If this spare capacity is domestic you have to support it - keep it alive with benefits etc. If it's in Greece or Eastern Europe you don't - you can just advertise for them to come when they're needed.


No you're wrong. Employers set wages. They can even set them so low the state has to top them up. Why not read some of the many reports written on the impact of immigration on wages. It isn't that hard.

I mean. Who is lowering wages in Spain? Who is lowering wages in Greece? Who is lowering wages in France? Immigration?

Try reading some of this below - and many other studies - instead of bouncing basic nationalist rhetoric around about wages and immigration.

Focusing on the period 1997-2005 when the UK experienced significant labour immigration (see our briefing
‘Migrants in the Labour Market’), Dustmann, Frattini and Preston (2013) find that an increase in the number of
migrants corresponding to 1% of the UK-born working-age population resulted in an *increase *in average wages of
0.1 to 0.3%. Another study, for the period 2000-2007, found that a 1% increase in the share of migrants in the
UK’s working-age population *lowers the average wage by 0.3%* (Reed and Latorre 2009). These studies, which
relate to different time periods, thus reach opposing conclusions but they agree that *the effects of immigration on 
averages wages are relatively small.*
The effects of immigration on workers within specific wage ranges or in specific occupations are more significant.
The greatest wage effects are found for low-waged workers. Dustmann et al (2013) find that each 1% increase in
the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population leads to a 0.6% decline in the wages of the 5% lowest
paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers. Similarly, another study focusing on wage
effects at the occupational level during 1992 and 2006, found that, in the unskilled and semi-skilled service sector,
a 1% rise in the share of migrants reduced average wages in that occupation by 0.5% (Nickell and Salaheen 2008).
The available research further shows that any adverse wage effects of immigration are likely to be greatest for
resident workers who are themselves migrants. This is because the skills of new migrants are likely to be closer
substitutes for the skills of migrants already employed in the UK than for those of UK-born workers. Manacorda,
Manning and Wadsworth (2012) analyse data from 1975-2005 and conclude that the main impact of increased
immigration is on the wages of migrants already in the UK.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox....ng - Labour Market Effects of Immigration.pdf


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 4, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> No you're wrong. Employers set wages. They can even set them so low the state has to top them up. Why not read some of the many reports written on the impact of immigration on wages. It isn't that hard.
> 
> I mean. Who is lowering wages in Spain? Who is lowering wages in Greece? Who is lowering wages in France? Immigration?
> 
> ...



For fuck's sake


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 4, 2014)

Employers can pay whatever they want. That's why they're currently paying a penny an hour. And obviously really did say immigration was the only thing that affected wages. That's actually what I said, almost word for word. Greece etc don't have low wages cos there's a fucking massive reserve army of labour (one of the functions of EU migration for the British economy) and so employers can get away with it - they just have low wages cos the employers who set them are much more evil than the ones here.

And clearly average wages tell us everything we need to know, because obviously EU migrants doing low paid manual labour will affect the wages of the whole workforce in a uniform way. (The studies you yourself presented bare this out by the way - and note that for most of them the period under study was 2000-5, when the economy was somewhat healthier - in fact that latest data is for 2007. What might have happened to wages without migration? All comparisons depend on a counterfactual - yours is that wages would otherwise have remained the same - but that's obviously not actually the case.

It's knee-jerk reactions like yours that push people into the arms of the far right, not people like me who actually try and objectively understand what's going on in order to try and come up with progressive answers.

PS - call me a nationalist, again, or even imply that I'm making nationalist arguments, and I'll hunt you down and feed your balls to rats.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 4, 2014)

The key to successful immigration policy for me is to ensure that there is absolutely no way of immigrant labour undercutting the local wage levels for that level of work, so no swedish derogations for agency workers, no charging for a bunk bed and taking it from their wages, no loopholes at all, and proper enforcement with multi million pound maximum fines and prison for those responsible for serious breaches. And that's take home pay for the workers after agency fees, so the agency would have to be paid on top of the wage levels, which in turn would make the use of agencies much less attractive.

Also ban the practice of agencies being able to advertise for workers only in the immigrants home country (actually, I'd prefer to ban agency scum entirely, though they potentially do have a use in supplying short term labour for seasonal peaks or similar).

At least that has to be the baseline minimum for it, even with that it's still likely that mass immigration would hold down local wages levels, but it'd at least be a start to improving the situation.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 5, 2014)

belboid said:


> You're aware that no borders is actually the SP position as well?



It definitely isnt Belboid.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 5, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> That isn't the fault of LU, the media attention. It's a small but good thing.
> I do think LU should stand some candidates in the EU elections though. Momentum etc...
> 
> As for open borders an immigration: there are left wing points to put about immigration and it can be done without alienating everyone.
> ...



Where did you get that 1-3% stat from out of interest? No, nobody is saying they just "chill out" but its pretty clear the EU open borders/free movement policy is increasing the rate of exploitation. Look at Gama or Lindsey.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 5, 2014)

ska invita said:


> The key thing for me about LU is the grassroots democracy that is hard wired into the party structure. The point of such bottom up democracy is not to "build the perfect party", direct democracy still can come to bad decisions, but the point is when things need to change the members will be able to act on it, and wont be locked out of the process by their leaders/vanguard.
> 
> If you want to build a party structure democratically it takes time. As W Bush said ''If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier".  What has kept me out of political parties in the past is distrust in the leadership/hierarchy, and thats a structural issue. Whatever else people may think about LU I think that should be applauded.
> 
> ...



This is hilarious. Do you do stand up?


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 5, 2014)

For someone who would need a 7% pay rise to match the living wage even a marginal fall will fuck us up. Koolaids sneering class snobbery shows itself most clearly with his "only affects the poorest" shite


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 5, 2014)

I see left unity is going well, as usual.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 5, 2014)

barney_pig said:


> For someone who would need a 7% pay rise to match the living wage even a marginal fall will fuck us up. Koolaids sneering class snobbery shows itself most clearly with his "only affects the poorest" shite



like the non-vegan wing of the green party


----------



## treelover (Apr 5, 2014)

> I've just joined too. After years of being a Labour voter I've become disillusioned with their inability to be who they should be. Instead of representing the ordinary person they have become obsessed with gaining the middle ground. The Tories are true to their ideology, they look after the rich and shaft the poor and it seems that Labour won't do much to reverse that if they win the next election..it seems like the Labour Party, very much like the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm have realised that all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others and that they are only concerned with looking after themselves! I really hope that this movement takes off as the normal people of this county really need a voice. Look at the support Farage has gained...there is far more support for Socialism out there than for UKIP - we just need a credible voice to fight our corner!
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/The14thNovemberMovementLeftPartyUk



Read the comments about why people are joining on the FB page, quite heartening, very little about ideology, lots about empathy and compassion.

btw, its absolutely certain that if they do have any electoral success, the media, etc will start calling it, 'The 14th Of November Movement For Left Unity' now not used, but to them sounds more sinister/foreign.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 5, 2014)

free spirit said:


> The key to successful immigration policy for me is to ensure that there is absolutely no way of immigrant labour undercutting the local wage levels for that level of work, so no swedish derogations for agency workers, no charging for a bunk bed and taking it from their wages, no loopholes at all, and proper enforcement with multi million pound maximum fines and prison for those responsible for serious breaches. And that's take home pay for the workers after agency fees, so the agency would have to be paid on top of the wage levels, which in turn would make the use of agencies much less attractive.
> 
> Also ban the practice of agencies being able to advertise for workers only in the immigrants home country (actually, I'd prefer to ban agency scum entirely, though they potentially do have a use in supplying short term labour for seasonal peaks or similar).
> 
> At least that has to be the baseline minimum for it, even with that it's still likely that mass immigration would hold down local wages levels, but it'd at least be a start to improving the situation.



Quite like that.

Maybe if we're being a bit more ambitious we could replace the agencies with a nationalised agency linked to the job centre, like the labour exchanges only good.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 5, 2014)

treelover said:


> Read the comments about why people are joining on the FB page, quite heartening, very little about ideology, lots about empathy and compassion.



I was more making a comment about unity on the left as a whole.  I mean look at this thread 'I'm more in favour of immigration than you are. I think people immigrate for slightly different reasons than you do so let's have an argument about it' it's fucking boring. I'd say that sort of shit is partly to blame as to why people are driven to the arms of the right. People like UKIP will say 'your problems are caused by immigration allowed by the EU' and people look around them and think 'oh yeah there is lots of immigrants around that must be a problem' and there ya go ukip has a supporter. There's something tangible for people to get behind, wrong as it may be, whereas the left, as I is often the case, just endlessly bicker, bicker, bicker over the smallest, smallest details and there's nothing coherent and tangible to get behind so people don't wanna know.

I fear the movement for the left party will descend in to the same farce.


----------



## treelover (Apr 5, 2014)

Only group I have ever had issues with really are the SWP, who were admittedly at one time a pretty big (and aggressive) group, your point is as old as the hills or Monty Python.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 5, 2014)

treelover said:


> Only group I have ever had issues with really are the SWP, who were admittedly at one time a pretty big (and aggressive) group, your point is as old as the hills or Monty Python.



Of course it's as old as the hills because the same issues are still present whereas parties like ukip get an ever increasing platform and support base.


----------



## belboid (Apr 5, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> It definitely isnt Belboid.


Wrong again. But tell me, which immigration controls you believe the sp support.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 5, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I was more making a comment about unity on the left as a whole.  I mean look at this thread 'I'm more in favour of immigration than you are. I think people immigrate for slightly different reasons than you do so let's have an argument about it' it's fucking boring. .



I know isn't it ridiculous people having a political discussion on an obscure political messageboard!?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 5, 2014)

treelover said:


> Only group I have ever had issues with really are the SWP, who were admittedly at one time a pretty big (and aggressive) group, your point is as old as the hills or Monty Python.


oh dear


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 5, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I know isn't it ridiculous people having a political discussion on an obscure political messageboard!?


or trying to and then treelover comes along


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 5, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I know isn't it ridiculous people having a political discussion on an obscure political messageboard!?



Going over the same topics repeatedly, veering off the original topic, never reaching any form of consensus and sneering at those who aren't quite as wadical as they are? Yeah, sounds pretty fucking ridiculous to me.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 5, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Going over the same topics repeatedly, veering off the original topic, never reaching any form of consensus and sneering at those who aren't quite as wadical as they are? Yeah, sounds pretty fucking ridiculous to me.


That's what urban75 is all about you div


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 5, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> That's what urban75 is all about you div



I wasn't talking about just urban75 I was talking about the left as a whole in my original post.


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 5, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I wasn't talking about just urban75 I was talking about the left as a whole in my original post.



So... you're suggesting that a good strategy for facing up to all the very serious social problems that we experience is to create an illusion of oneness in which people agree all the time on highly complex issues about how we live and what we should do about it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 5, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I wasn't talking about just urban75 I was talking about the left as a whole in my original post.



You're talking rubbish anyway - clearly you haven't either read this thread properly or indeed listened to debates on the left recently on this subject as your understanding of them seems very poor.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 5, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> So... you're suggesting that a good strategy for facing up to all the very serious social problems that we experience is to create an illusion of oneness in which people agree all the time on highly complex issues about how we live and what we should do about it.



Nope, just lashing out in frustration tbf. 



Spanky Longhorn said:


> You're talking rubbish anyway - clearly you haven't either read this thread properly or indeed listened to debates on the left recently on this subject as your understanding of them seems very poor.



Yeah probably. I haven't read the thread, no I was just responding to the immigration debate that seems to have sprung up for the umpteenth time.  

What are these debates? Who's having them and where? Perhaps I'm missing something but things I've seen recently, like people's assembly discussions, seem to be 'austerity, cuts, cuts, austerity' yeah we get that bit what we gonna do about it? 'Errrm....' 

Forgive me for my negativity but in a week where I've seen Nigel fucking Farage been given an even wider platform by the BBC it kind of pisses me off that there's no decent challenge to that.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 5, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> *
> 
> Yeah probably. I haven't read the thread*, no I was just responding to the immigration debate that seems to have sprung up for the umpteenth time.
> 
> What are these debates? Who's having them and where? Perhaps I'm missing something but things I've seen recently, like people's assembly discussions, seem to be 'austerity, cuts, cuts, austerity' yeah we get that bit what we gonna do about it? 'Errrm....'



There you go then!

For what it's worth I'm not defending the rubbish political left, especially not Left Unity - I think they're a waste of space frankly as is the People's Assembly.

Here's two cool things though:

http://fastfoodrights.wordpress.com/

http://www.acornbristol.org.uk/


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 5, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Nope, just lashing out in frustration tbf.



It is frustrating but..

This idea that the left ought to be united or that there's a better one out there waiting to emerge is another way of putting the answers outside of ourselves. It also involves a view of conflict as an obstacle rather than as part of creative work whereas I think conflict is a normal part of working things out, solving problems, deciding what to do, it's part of working together and would be part of living in a more democratic and autonomous community.

I don't know what to do politically, I feel quite stuck for something to be involved in, but I'm more and more convinced it has to be organisation within communities with people working on small-scale tangible and practical problems.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 6, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> And so are you, just from the opposite direction with your pro-EU open borders anyone who disagrees is a racist (which is the obvious implication wrt treelover - who I also often disagree with but is most definitely no racist).
> 
> Didn't realised you had to be replying to me for me to be allowed to respond btw


Now it's my turn: give it a rest.

Oh and where did I say treelover was a racist? Hmmmm? Perhaps you need to find yourself a remedial reading course. Just a thought.

As for 'open borders'. There are no 'open borders'. That's pure melodrama.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 6, 2014)

One more thing: these so-called 'debates' on the subject of immigration invariably raise questions of national identity and ethnicity.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 6, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Now it's my turn: give it a rest.
> 
> Oh and where did I say treelover was a racist? Hmmmm? Perhaps you need to find yourself a remedial reading course. Just a thought.
> 
> As for 'open borders'. There are no 'open borders'. That's pure melodrama.



1) I've already said - on this very thread - that EU migration policy is not open borders.

2) How can you deny the implication that anyone with concerns over immigration is racist and then go on to say:



nino_savatte said:


> One more thing: these so-called 'debates' on the subject of immigration invariably raise questions of national identity and ethnicity.



I'm already quite well rested but thanks for the concern. Why do they 'invariably' raise questions about national identity and ethnicity and how? Can you point to where they've raised these questions on this thread? If they invariably do then they must have. And if they really do raise these questions doesn't that imply that those who have concerns over the consequences of economic migration are racist? If not how do they raise these questions and what are the implications thereof? 

And why the scare quotes around 'debate' and why 'so-called'? I'd call the discussion I had with belboid on this thread a debate - and quite an interesting one, for me at least - in that it's helped me clarify my own position and to better understand where he's coming from. Why is it a "so called 'debate'" and not a debate or discussion? There's obviously some reason why you termed it a so-called 'debate' - I'm wondering what that might be.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 6, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I was more making a comment about unity on the left as a whole.  I mean look at this thread 'I'm more in favour of immigration than you are. I think people immigrate for slightly different reasons than you do so let's have an argument about it' it's fucking boring. I'd say that sort of shit is partly to blame as to why people are driven to the arms of the right. People like UKIP will say 'your problems are caused by immigration allowed by the EU' and people look around them and think 'oh yeah there is lots of immigrants around that must be a problem' and there ya go ukip has a supporter. There's something tangible for people to get behind, wrong as it may be, whereas the left, as I is often the case, just endlessly bicker, bicker, bicker over the smallest, smallest details and there's nothing coherent and tangible to get behind so people don't wanna know.
> 
> I fear the movement for the left party will descend in to the same farce.



I agree with this - I think there's far too much so-called 'debate' on the left and what we really need is to have a single, clearly defined and unquestioned line on everything so the proles can understand it and get behind it rather than having an open debate in which they themselves can have some input. I suggest the best way to do this would be for everyone to agree with me and do what I think we should do.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 6, 2014)

Edit: Can't be arsed.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 6, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Edit: Can't be arsed.



Good.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 6, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Good.


----------



## Coolfonz (Apr 6, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Employers can pay whatever they want. That's why they're currently paying a penny an hour. And obviously really did say immigration was the only thing that affected wages. That's actually what I said, almost word for word. Greece etc don't have low wages cos there's a fucking massive reserve army of labour (one of the functions of EU migration for the British economy) and so employers can get away with it - they just have low wages cos the employers who set them are much more evil than the ones here.
> 
> And clearly average wages tell us everything we need to know, because obviously EU migrants doing low paid manual labour will affect the wages of the whole workforce in a uniform way. (The studies you yourself presented bare this out by the way - and note that for most of them the period under study was 2000-5, when the economy was somewhat healthier - in fact that latest data is for 2007. What might have happened to wages without migration? All comparisons depend on a counterfactual - yours is that wages would otherwise have remained the same - but that's obviously not actually the case.
> 
> ...



I pay good money for the balls-rats thing I'll have you know.

Yes no doubt if all EU citizens went to live in Belgium to wait tables it would bring down wages of table waiters. And yes it can hit - and does - the poorest.

The rest however has huge variants. Industry specific, regional, the length of time wages are affected and loads more...and the longer term you look at it the less  impact immigration has. Everywhere.

So the secondary thing immigration can hit is resources. Like the state resources of an ageing nation which have been underfunded for 35 years. Including any state aid to people most hit by any temporary changes in wages.

But the two things which are hitting wages for the poorest 25pc of the UK right now are 1. 35 years of neo-liberalism and it's structures and 2. the worst economic downturn in 75 odd years screwing internal demand.

Immigration is a side show. A symptom of citizens chasing the centralisation of power and wealth.

No problem with folks not agreeing but i think you get the point.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 7, 2014)

Dont think this has been posted (havent kept up with thread) but Weekly Worker have an analysis of the policy conference, including some observations as to who was there...
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/1004/left-unity-moderate-party-takes-shape
Obviously a piece with its own bias, but worth a look.
Naturally it is the already committed (entrenched!) left who have most made the trip to Manchester...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 7, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> I pay good money for the balls-rats thing I'll have you know.
> 
> Yes no doubt if all EU citizens went to live in Belgium to wait tables it would bring down wages of table waiters. And yes it can hit - and does - the poorest.
> 
> ...



I doubt anyone here disagrees with any of that - I certainly don't. But the fact remains that a lot of people, and especially the low paid workers whose terms and conditions are affected - consider immigration an issue. And they have every right to. 

Seems to me we can do one of two things (alright, probably more than that but you know what I mean). We can refuse to discuss economic immigration at all/say it's an unmitigated 'good thing'/call anyone raising these concerns a racist/deny any negative impact.

Or we can be honest - tell the truth that it has had a negative affect on a lot of low paid workers while pointing out that migration limits or whatever are no solution and point to the progressive solution (ie. organising)_. _Then when you talk about the other stuff, which I agree is more important - neoliberalism, concentration of wealth, deliberate destruction of industry and attacks on public services etc - you're doing so from a position of credibility because you've not denied peoples concerns, you've been honest about what is a sensitive subject and they're more likely to listen.

Instead of downplaying the impact on low wage workers (and if you're one of the ones affected it's not just a side issue, as I think seventh bullet put pretty well) and extolling the positive impact it has on other parts of the economy and the wages of the middle class, I prefer to acknowldge there's some truth to the economic concerns and instead focus on solutions, pointing out why migration controls won't help and discussing what might, offering my preferred solution which is organising everyone together - but it is a two way discussion and it's worth remembering that.

It's an important discussion IMO not because we disagree on migration controls and all the rest - I don't think we do - but rather because it's something a hell of a lot of people - w/c people in particular - have concerns with and we need to work out how we're going to answer these concerns. I've found that the above works much better than going on about curry, how good it is for capitalist growth (migration that is, not curry lol), denying any negative impact or, as some on the left do, screaming racist.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 7, 2014)

PS You can get the rats/balls thing for free - just sit behind a bakery where the bins are at night with no trousers on and it'll happen soon enough


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I haven't read anyone else's posts on the matter but here are my thoughts anyway
> 
> The left has to tackle the issue of migration as a whole - not immigration, not "open borders" or free movement or closed borders and certainly not " immigration and the working class " as a single subject.


 Agreed, getting obsessed by 'open borders' is just a total and utter fucking waste of time. No left wing group is going to be in any sort of position to do anything about the UK's (or Australia, France wherever) immigration policy.

What does need to be thought about and addressed is how to deal with the day-to-day consequences of immigration on working-class communities, and how we can organise around them to improve the situation both for immigrants and non-immigrants.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 7, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> What does need to be thought about and addressed is how to deal with the day-to-day consequences of immigration on working-class communities, and how we can organise around them to improve the situation both for immigrants and non-immigrants.


Definitely - but there are no silver bullets in regards that one.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 8, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> But the two things which are hitting wages for the poorest 25pc of the UK right now are 1. 35 years of neo-liberalism and it's structures and 2. the worst economic downturn in 75 odd years screwing internal demand.



Instead of just chucking the word in, why not think about neoliberalism means? One of the central planks is "wage restraint", or, well, forcing down wages. That's not achieved simply by the ruling class declaring that wages will be lowered-labour is "disciplined" by a variety of factors, such as privatisation, outsourcing, welfare cutbacks etc. The "reserve army of labour", and the rapid expansion of that labour through migration and free movement laws, is a massive, massive part of that. 

If you're still not convinced, answer this question for me: if free movement of labour within the EU isn't having any significant effect on driving down wages, then why is the European ruling class so determined to maintain the free movement of labour in the face of sometimes quite aggressive opposition?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 8, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Instead of just chucking the word in, why not think about neoliberalism means? One of the central planks is "wage restraint", or, well, forcing down wages. That's not achieved simply by the ruling class declaring that wages will be lowered-labour is "disciplined" by a variety of factors, such as privatisation, outsourcing, welfare cutbacks etc. The "reserve army of labour", and the rapid expansion of that labour through migration and free movement laws, is a massive, massive part of that.
> 
> If you're still not convinced, answer this question for me: if free movement of labour within the EU isn't having any significant effect on driving down wages, then why is the European ruling class so determined to maintain the free movement of labour in the face of sometimes quite aggressive opposition?



Free movement of labour within the EU is a pretty minor part of the general drive to deregulate labour markets over the past 35 years, and it's only one of many factors pushing wage restraint. Given that there's no prospect of putting any of the other protective barriers in place, stricter immigration controls would make very little difference. In any case, there's no way that a capitalist government is going to restrict capital's access to labour markets, it simply isn't going to happen.

For now, in the real world, there are two choices here, free movement of labour in which workers can move freely and are entitled to the same rights in any country they settle in or regulated immigration and a two-tier workforce with some rights reserved for native-born workers. Of the two, which do you think capital wants?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 8, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Free movement of labour within the EU is a pretty minor part of the general drive to deregulate labour markets over the past 35 years, and it's only one of many factors pushing wage restraint.



I'm sorry I just don't agree with this, it's not "minor" at all it's an essential part of labour market discipline, not the only factor by any means but definitely one of the most important. As SpackeFrog says, why else would the European ruling class fight so hard to defend it in the face of such overwhelming and virulent opposition? (Notwithstanding the fact that in some cases, as SpineyNorman mention, nation-states do cave into political pressure and introduce various limitations and restrictions)



Lo Siento. said:


> For now, in the real world, there are two choices here, free movement of labour in which workers can move freely and are entitled to the same rights in any country they settle in or regulated immigration and a two-tier workforce with some rights reserved for native-born workers. Of the two, which do you think capital wants?



There's that word _free_ again....


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 8, 2014)

Delroy Booth said:


> I'm sorry I just don't agree with this, it's not "minor" at all it's an essential part of labour market discipline, not the only factor by any means but definitely one of the most important. As SpackeFrog says, why else would the European ruling class fight so hard to defend it in the face of such overwhelming and virulent opposition? (Notwithstanding the fact that in some cases, as SpineyNorman mention, nation-states do cave into political pressure and introduce various limitations and restrictions)



Britain sustained quite high levels of immigration throughout the 1950s and 1960s without it having a significant effect on labour market competition. In fact Britain has more or less uncontrolled Commonwealth immigration until 1962. The major shift in labour market discipline happens in the 1970s & 1980s and is about increased business competition, de-unionisation, deindustrialisation and monetarism. What it _doesn't_ coincide with is increased access to EU labour markets.

I'd dispute that the ruling class fights hard to defend free movement of labour. I'd say some fractions of capital fight hard to maintain free access to a supply of marginalised workers, something that existing immigration controls and public discussion of immigration aids them in doing.



> There's that word _free_ again....



Yeah, free, as in you can move between countries looking for work without climbing over this (that's the Spanish/Morroccan border btw)






What we have now is _not_ freedom of movement. We have a two-tier workforce on capital's terms. The answer is abolishing that, not adding to the restrictions.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 8, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Britain sustained quite high levels of immigration throughout the 1950s and 1960s without it having a significant effect on labour market competition. In fact Britain has more or less uncontrolled Commonwealth immigration until 1962.



Well firstly the levels of immigration from the 1950's and 1960's were very very small compared to the levels of immigration that we've experienced in the last few years. Between 1955-1962 the Home Office estimated that the net intake of immigrants (both Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth) was in the region of 472,500. To put this in perspective in the year 2009 alone there was a net intake of 196,000, and according to the 1991-2001 census 4,900,000 people had settled in Britain from abroad (although their exact immigration status is not counted, I think that should illustrate clearly that we're living through a period of much higher overall immigration now than back then)

This graph here from wikipedia I think shows quite clearly that we're living through a period of increased immigration, and furthermore this graph ends in 2001 and before some of the EU freedom of movement laws came into being.

And secondly there's a context which, astonishingly, you've not mentioned, which is in the immediate aftermath of the second world war there was a massive shortage of labour in the UK as a result loss of manpower during the war. Therefore immigration at the rates at which it was taking place would have a very different impact on the labour market than on contemporary society. This is not the case today, we do not have a massive labour shortage like that we faced in the immediate aftermath of world war 2 in contemporary Britain, infact we have a huge surplus of labour deemed un-necessary and persistently high unemployment rates along with it, thanks in part to neo-liberalism. We're also in a long term period of wage repression, which again was not the case in the immediate aftermath of WW2, and so the effect of immigration is likely to be very different.

As a result making a like-for-like comparisons between these two periods of time without mentioning these important differences is a little bit misleading.




Lo Siento. said:


> Yeah, free, as in you can move between countries looking for work without climbing over this (that's the Spanish/Morroccan border btw)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well firstly I'm not advocating increased restrictions on migration, I suspect we're probably in agreement on this, so please don't suggest that I'm in some way in favour of building giant 12ft fences to keep out the foreigns. I'm interesting in changing society in such a way so that millions of people don't feel it necessary to have to endure that kind of hardship just for the slim hope of a sub-minimum wage job. What I think we should be doing is dropping some of the naive preconceptions that current EU labour market policy is based on liberating workers and defending their freedom when it's actually a process that involves many coercive pressures and plays a hugely significant role in a wider neo-liberal attempt to lower wages and undermine collective bargaining and all the other things that've been mentioned on this thread. I don't think immigration limits would actually do anything to resolve the root cause of this process, which is a) massive global inequality and b) people having to sell their labour to survive so I don't advocate them, plus I'm uneasy with the very notion that the state has a right to chain a human being to their country of birth against their wishes, or that only people of a certain ethnicity have a right to live in a certain chunk of land. I just think we should start off a debate on immigration with no illusions about what purposes that immigration serves.

After all, by this logic I'm also free to choose who I work for, and in the last 3 years I've worked at a number of places where I've been bullied, attacked, paid £4 an hour, denied any kind of union representation, put in unsafe conditions, denied breaks and holidays, had wages withheld, allsorts of bullshit. And yet I _freely_ chose to work there. Would you defend that state of affairs? I would rather not have the freedom to be exploited in that way quite frankly. Does opposing this sort of economy and these kinds of labour market pressures mean i'm opposed to my own freedom?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 8, 2014)

Worth bearing in mind as well that in the post war boom it was possible for wages to be much higher without putting any serious pressure on the profits of the capitalists. Neoliberalism arose as a response to the fact that that was no longer the case.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 8, 2014)

Delroy Booth said:


> Well firstly the levels of immigration from the 1950's and 1960's were very very small compared to the levels of immigration that we've experienced in the last few years. Between 1955-1962 the Home Office estimated that the net intake of immigrants (both Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth) was in the region of 472,500. To put this in perspective in the year 2009 alone there was a net intake of 196,000, and according to the 1991-2001 census 4,900,000 people had settled in Britain from abroad (although their exact immigration status is not counted, I think that should illustrate clearly that we're living through a period of much higher overall immigration now than back then)
> 
> This graph here from wikipedia I think shows quite clearly that we're living through a period of increased immigration, and furthermore this graph ends in 2001 and before some of the EU freedom of movement laws came into being.
> 
> ...



The context was the precise point I was making. Substantial levels of immigration and liberal immigration rules don't inherently in themselves affect job security, employment levels or job competition. Immigrants aren't the principle tool for weakening working class resistance. 



> Well firstly I'm not advocating increased restrictions on migration, I suspect we're probably in agreement on this, so please don't suggest that I'm in some way in favour of building giant 12ft fences to keep out the foreigns. I'm interesting in changing society in such a way so that millions of people don't feel it necessary to have to endure that kind of hardship just for the slim hope of a sub-minimum wage job. What I think we should be doing is dropping some of the naive preconceptions that current EU labour market policy is based on liberating workers and defending their freedom when it's actually a process that involves many coercive pressures and plays a hugely significant role in a wider neo-liberal attempt to lower wages and undermine collective bargaining and all the other things that've been mentioned on this thread. I don't think immigration limits would actually do anything to resolve the root cause of this process, which is a) massive global inequality and b) people having to sell their labour to survive so I don't advocate them, plus I'm uneasy with the very notion that the state has a right to chain a human being to their country of birth against their wishes, or that only people of a certain ethnicity have a right to live in a certain chunk of land. I just think we should start off a debate on immigration with no illusions about what purposes that immigration serves.
> 
> After all, by this logic I'm also free to choose who I work for, and in the last 3 years I've worked at a number of places where I've been bullied, attacked, paid £4 an hour, denied any kind of union representation, put in unsafe conditions, denied breaks and holidays, had wages withheld, allsorts of bullshit. And yet I _freely_ chose to work there. Would you defend that state of affairs? I would rather not have the freedom to be exploited in that way quite frankly. Does opposing this sort of economy and these kinds of labour market pressures mean i'm opposed to my own freedom?



Aside from disagreeing with the significance you're putting on immigration as a cause, I don't disagree with much of that. But (a) try formulating any of that as a coherent policy for a party platform and (b) not keeping people out means "open borders"


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 8, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Worth bearing in mind as well that in the post war boom it was possible for wages to be much higher without putting any serious pressure on the profits of the capitalists. Neoliberalism arose as a response to the fact that that was no longer the case.


Well quite. If we build a wall round the country and shut all the airports, would that cease to be the case?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 8, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> The context was the precise point I was making. Substantial levels of immigration and liberal immigration rules don't inherently in themselves affect job security, employment levels or job competition. Immigrants aren't the principle tool for weakening working class resistance.



I appreciate that, fair enough, although I never claimed it was the principle tool for weakning working class resistance, just one of many different processes that should be viewed in context.




Lo Siento. said:


> Aside from disagreeing with the significance you're putting on immigration as a cause, I don't disagree with much of that. But (a) try formulating any of that as a coherent policy for a party platform and (b) not keeping people out means "open borders"



Well again this is the hard bit, how do you turn a well intentioned platitude about "changing society in such a way as to negate this process" into something concrete? I almost feel embarassed saying it because it's so close to "well comrade after the revolution all this will be sorted.... by SOCIALISM!" and that's just not good enough.

But there are a number of a concete policy steps that even a midly social democratic government could undertake to deal with rampant global inequality. Cancelling third world debt? Not pandering to criminal oligarchs who loot their own treasuries by giving them tax havens to hide their loot in? Not saying any of these would be a magic panacea that would deal with this in one fell swoop but it would be a start if nothing else.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 8, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Well quite. If we build a wall round the country and shut all the airports, would that cease to be the case?



Either point me to where on this thread anybody has suggested we build a wall around the country and shut all the airports or stop hiding behind straw men.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 8, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Either point me to where on this thread anybody has suggested we build a wall around the country and shut all the airports or stop hiding behind straw men.





> The "reserve army of labour", and the rapid expansion of that labour through migration and free movement laws, is a massive, massive part of that.



The logic of this statement is that if you cut off access to the larger global reserve army of labour by stopping migration and curtailing freedom of movement, then that would have a "massive, massive" effect on neo-liberal wage suppression.  

I'm not arguing with a straw man, I'm taking the argument to its logical conclusion.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 8, 2014)

Delroy Booth said:


> I appreciate that, fair enough, although I never claimed it was the principle tool for weakning working class resistance, just one of many different processes that should be viewed in context.


Yeah, I appreciate that. I just think its importance in the greater scheme of things can be overstated. 



> Well again this is the hard bit, how do you turn a well intentioned platitude about "changing society in such a way as to negate this process" into something concrete? I almost feel embarassed saying it because it's so close to "well comrade after the revolution all this will be sorted.... by SOCIALISM!" and that's just not good enough.
> 
> But there are a number of a concete policy steps that even a midly social democratic government could undertake to deal with rampant global inequality. Cancelling third world debt? Not pandering to criminal oligarchs who loot their own treasuries by giving them tax havens to hide their loot in? Not saying any of these would be a magic panacea that would deal with this in one fell swoop but it would be a start if nothing else.


Trouble is, unless you're already a socialist revolutionary "This government will sort out all the problems caused by capitalism around the world, meaning no one will be forced into economic exile, but instead will only migrate out of personal choice" doesn't look any more plausible than Open Borders

You should see the state of this debate in Spain, by the way. On the one hand you've got people on the Left complaining that the state of the country has forced hundreds of thousands of young Spanish people into "economic exile", on the other the Right arguing that they're about to be invaded by thousands of Africans. It is by no means a good thing that people are forced to move around against their will because Capitalism suddenly changed the rules on them.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2014)

Back to LU - there's an interesting facebook debate going on between where SEYMOUR! is attacked for depressing the troops by Paul Mackney (beardy ex-TU gen sec).   Can't decide whose side I'm on - neither probably.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 8, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> I'm not arguing with a straw man, I'm taking the argument to its logical conclusion.



Are you bollocks. You're only taking it to its logical conclusion if the logical process through which you're moving involves introducing a wide range of additional and completely unjustifiable assumptions. You're constructing a strawman - and it's not a very convincing one either - it's got wonky legs and everything.

Another incredibly important means by which the labour force has been disciplined is via technological innovations - in particular more flexible and adaptable productive technologies, whereby the same tool can be programmed to do several different jobs and build several different components - heavily facilitated by IT developments that mean CAD drawings in electronic format can be fed into a machine and you'll get the component at the other end - leading to reduced labour requirements numerically and in terms of skill, increasing the power of the reserve army's wage restraining function in two mutually reinforcing ways.

I recognise this fact so your 'logical' process of deductions would probably lead you to conclude that I'm some kind of neo-luddite (I know Delroy, I know - I'm using it rhetoricaly, you don't have to recite chapter 14 of the making of the english working class). But I'm not and would oppose the destruction of this technology - for what ought to be blindingly fucking obvious reasons.

The two are perfectly compatible, as are recognising the impact of 'open borders' policies under current arrangements and opposing migration controls.

You appear to be implying that the acknowlement of unpalatable facts logically entails the adoption of unpalatable politics. I reject this implication completely.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 8, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Are you bollocks. You're only taking it to its logical conclusion if the logical process through which you're moving involves introducing a wide range of additional and completely unjustifiable assumptions. You're constructing a strawman - and it's not a very convincing one either - it's got wonky legs and everything.
> 
> Another incredibly important means by which the labour force has been disciplined is via technological innovations - in particular more flexible and adaptable productive technologies, whereby the same tool can be programmed to do several different jobs and build several different components - heavily facilitated by IT developments that mean CAD drawings in electronic format can be fed into a machine and you'll get the component at the other end - leading to reduced labour requirements numerically and in terms of skill, increasing the power of the reserve army's wage restraining function in two mutually reinforcing ways.
> 
> ...



It seems like a pretty direct and logical assumption to me. Someone argues that mass immigration constitutes a "massive, massive" part of neo-liberal wage suppression, why wouldn't we expect
curtailing it to have a substantial effect? I'm not saying that you or SpackleFrog have argued for that _at all_.

As to the impact of technology, I think the fact that technological innovations do displace and deskill workers _does_ imply a certain form of political opposition, a form of neo-luddism, where we advocate democratic control of technology and technological change. Where does that leave you if you apply the same thinking to immigration? Democratic control of immigration? By who? And how?

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to imply that anyone is advocating closing the borders or anything like that, and don't think anyone on this thread has "unpalatable politics". I just think you're wrong about the significance of immigration in the processes we're describing.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 8, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> It seems like a pretty direct and logical assumption to me. Someone argues that mass immigration constitutes a "massive, massive" part of neo-liberal wage suppression, why wouldn't we expect
> curtailing it to have a substantial effect? I'm not saying that you or SpackleFrog have argued for that _at all_.
> 
> As to the impact of technology, I think the fact that technological innovations do displace and deskill workers _does_ imply a certain form of political opposition, a form of neo-luddism, where we advocate democratic control of technology and technological change. Where does that leave you if you apply the same thinking to immigration? Democratic control of immigration? By who? And how?
> ...



I'd probably disagree with the term 'massive' here too but it is an integral and arguably essential element.

Agree on the technology too - this is where I think the autonomists and other have it spot on in emphasising the importance of technology as in class struggle. And I'd agree its application, like everything else in the economy/workplace should be under democratic (workers) control. And its use to undermine wages should be resisted in the short term as well. Not necessarily by opposing its implementation full stop but by insisting that if it is applied we should get at least some of the benefits - shortened working day on the same money so jobs aren't lost, that kind of thing - the result (if it wasn't defeat) might be that the tech isn't introduced cos the boss won't benefit but I don't think that makes it a form of neo-luddism - the aim isn't to stop it being introduced but to at least stop it being  introduced _to our detriment _at at best have it introduced so it benefits us. Because despite the much needed revisionism  the luddites weren't _just _about retaining control of the labour process IMO - they were also trying to defend a dying craft (which I can understand - I'm a craftsman with great pride in my craft, even though I can't perform it any more for reasons I can't be arsed to go into and I'd hate to see my craft die and the skills I have get lost). Maybe neo-luddism is better defined than I'm aware of and does take into account that kind of thing, I dunno.

In a roundabout/indirect way I think there should be democratic control over economic migration too, but not movement of people. Not got it fully worked out but I think in a socialist (as opposed to proper communist) society we'd have democratic workers institutions - like unions only not the left wing of capital (lol) type ones we have now - which would decide how work is allocated. And this doesn't have to be a 'wait for socialism' solution either - it's been done (albeit imperfectly) before - I think the US dockers union used to control the allocation of work. That way you get solve core of the problem without needing to resort to policing borders and stopping people going wherever the fuck they want, which I'm in favour of as a cast iron principle.

Because unless you're a racist (and most of the people I know with concerns about migration are not) it's the economic impact that matters, not having too many foreigners here per se, or its impact on culture or whatever. If they didn;t perceive it to be being used to undermine their pay and conditions I don't think any of the people I know with these concerns would have a problem with it.

I guess this would have to be organised as internationally as possible to prevent it leading in potentially nationalist directions (British unions only overtime to British workers when others need the work - there's various potential problems that I'm sure we can all have a good go at identifying) but I reckon something could be worked out. Cos this is the crux of it IMO - both immigration controls and 'open borders' under capitalism, like everything else the capitalist state does, will be used to benefit capital (though the extent to which this happens depends on class struggle - I don't think they've got free rein before I'm accused of denying w/c agency). Who controls it is what really matters, just like with the technology.

But the point I've been trying to get across - clumsily it appears - is that regardless of how important you or I think it is (and tbh I think we largely agree) a hell of a lot of people - a majority if those I know are anything to go by - do think immigration is a big part of the reason why pay and conditions have worsened. I'm not saying indulge these people's IMO wrong ideas or anything like that - I'm just saying it's pointless and counterproductive to deny that it's been used this way, just as the tech has - because it has been. Instead, as well as pointing out the other causes of these problems, I prefer to be honest about it and say yes, it has been used in this way. But to then say why I don't think border controls are any kind of solution - for workers in the UK or anywhere else. And to advocate instead, in the short term, organising migrant and, for want of a better term, native workers together so it can't be used in that way and in the long term, to mimic ayatollah, SOCIALISM (ie democratic control of the means of production).

I'm being dead long winded and probably not that coherent cos I'm knackered and a bit stoned but I hope I'm getting the point across.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 8, 2014)

Anecdotally one area where work and wages seems to have been negatively effected is building work, and ive no reason to doubt that...
You mentioned a US dockers union controlling the allocation of work... can you explain how this might work in regards to building contracts? Or any other possible ways of patching the problem? I cant picture it


----------



## dennisr (Apr 9, 2014)

ska invita said:


> Anecdotally one area where work and wages seems to have been negatively effected is building work, and ive no reason to doubt that...
> You mentioned a US dockers union controlling the allocation of work... can you explain how this might work in regards to building contracts? Or any other possible ways of patching the problem? I cant picture it



maybe something from the history of the BLF - the Australian Building Labourers Federation?

At this moment in the UK - getting workers on the cards in the issue. Its an issue most would have said was impossible to achieve a few months ago:

From recent NSSN email
Unrest Wednesday is in Full Swing - 37 Agency Electricians walked off a job at AWE Aldermaston today (April 2) over the new self-employed legislation. It is a Shepherds Engineering Services job.

They are demanding to be taken on the cards direct by Shepherds. Shepherds have agreed to a meeting to discuss the possibility. A Unite Construction officer is meeting the workers and Shepherds first thing tomorrow morning.

There was also reported unrest on many other sites across the UK as payroll companies finally get to informing workers of how they are to be paid from Monday onwards. Being told that they will have to pay Employers NI and their own holiday has outraged thousands of Agency workers across the whole UK. If you are working for a JIB Company through an agency then you should be on the cards with that JIB Company.

There are strong rumours that two other large jobs may walk tomorrow in the South East region over this very issue.
FIRST THING tomorrow morning, have a meeting amongst yourselves on site, demand to be taken on the cards, call the Unite Construction Officer for your region

Last Friday (April 4), 30 agency workers downed tools at a NG Bailey job at Three Bridges, demanding to be employed directly for the duration of the job…..and won. They are now on the cards with full JIB terms and conditions.

See article on Unite website: New government measures on bogus self-employment (4 April) here http://www.unitetheunion.org/how-we...government-measures-on-false-self-employment/
See article on Siteworker blog: The Fight for PAYE here
http://siteworker.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-fight-for-paye.html


----------



## Coolfonz (Apr 9, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Instead of just chucking the word in, why not think about neoliberalism means? One of the central planks is "wage restraint", or, well, forcing down wages. That's not achieved simply by the ruling class declaring that wages will be lowered-labour is "disciplined" by a variety of factors, such as privatisation, outsourcing, welfare cutbacks etc. The "reserve army of labour", and the rapid expansion of that labour through migration and free movement laws, is a massive, massive part of that.
> 
> If you're still not convinced, answer this question for me: if free movement of labour within the EU isn't having any significant effect on driving down wages, then why is the European ruling class so determined to maintain the free movement of labour in the face of sometimes quite aggressive opposition?



And to Spiney as well - immigration has virtually no long term hit on wages. You can see that in the building trade in London for example, lots of immigration into the trade, lots of work, lots of people earning north of £75k etc, more. When the overall economy in housing wasn't as buoyant it appeared to have short term effects, but they were about the state of the industry itself. I would say to Spackle if you have the free movement of capital you have to have free movement of labour. If you want an even bigger example, the US. Biggest economy in the world, based on immigration. (I'm not ignoring all the bad things before anyone starts...just the economics). The effects are temporary.

What about the six million Brits who work outside the UK? Are they suppressing wages? Is there a balance? And so on...

Basically the neo-liberalism came first. The immigration aspect is secondary. It doesn't make people who are confused about it racists. I also think the statement about `open borders` is meaningless at best and bad judgement at worst. No country can have 7bn people coming to live in it.

So if I were to talk to a room full of UKIP voters (I'd like to):

1. Are you worried about resources? Health services stretched? Schools? Social workers and so on? You are right to be worried about that. Your concerns are not racist. But these concerns come because we have had a political establishment which has underfunded those services for 35 years. They underfunded these services and made disastrous choices (pull out the £6bn wasted on a singe computer system here...etc etc) and rather than take the blame for this they are trying to shift it onto people who come here to work. We must have better resourced public services regardless...and so on...

2. Have you seen your wages fall or stagnate? Immigration can temporarily hit wages for the very poorest - you know those are often other in situ immigrants - that is true, and the poor should be protected against that (scrap zero hours contracts, better rights for employees, stop subsidising corporations to pay British people zip etc etc etc). But wages have been attacked for decades now. You will have heard the term `wage restraint`. You will remember at the start of the 1980s unemployment going from 720,000 people to over 3mn people creating a vast over supply of labour, lowering wages. The political establishment has ignored this for 35 years, profited from it even, and once again tries to say it isn't their fault it's that Polish bloke down the road who works as a carpenter. And so on...

3. Are you worried that some people stay on benefits as it doesn't make sense for them to take jobs? You are right about that, you should be concerned. It's because you care about British people and you know a life shut away on benefits, just about existing, is no way to run an economy. And how does that happen in the UK when the countries with the highest benefit levels are Germany and the Scandinavians? How do they pay such decent benefits levels and have such relatively buoyant economies? It is because all the UK governments of the last 35 years have driven down wages at any opportunity, in public pay deals - remember the firemen's strikes, nurses disputes - and in a relentless drive in the private sector to pay us the very least they can get away with. It is not that benefits are too high, it is that wages are too low and those wages are not set by workers, immigrants, British or Martian. They are set by employers, many of whom are corporations who we subsidise with our tax payments to pay British workers yada yada (zero hours etc etc etc etc)

I'm going to do this...I'm going to write an open letter to UKIP voters and see if I can get it on the LU site...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 9, 2014)

Please don't.


----------



## JHE (Apr 9, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> I'm going to write an open letter to UKIP voters and see if I can get it on the LU site...



Do many UKIPers read the LU site?  I doubt it!  

I'm sure you could find better places.  It's not difficult to find places that UKIPers use.


----------



## tony.c (Apr 9, 2014)

ska invita said:


> Anecdotally one area where work and wages seems to have been negatively effected is building work, and ive no reason to doubt that...
> You mentioned a US dockers union controlling the allocation of work... can you explain how this might work in regards to building contracts? Or any other possible ways of patching the problem? I cant picture it


A friend of mine, a painter and decorator, emigrated to Canada in the mid 70s. At the time work on sites was allocated by the relevant union. Employers wanting labour would notify the local union branch who would send people registered with them. The unions also provided a pension scheme.
I doubt that with neoliberal reforms this still happens now though.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 9, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'd probably disagree with the term 'massive' here too but it is an integral and arguably essential element.



I wouldn't say "essential" either. I think if immigration was substantially reduced, I don't think there would be a substantial enough shortage of workers to tip the balance in labour's favour, particularly given the weakness of the unions.



> Agree on the technology too - this is where I think the autonomists and other have it spot on in emphasising the importance of technology as in class struggle. And I'd agree its application, like everything else in the economy/workplace should be under democratic (workers) control. And its use to undermine wages should be resisted in the short term as well. Not necessarily by opposing its implementation full stop but by insisting that if it is applied we should get at least some of the benefits - shortened working day on the same money so jobs aren't lost, that kind of thing - the result (if it wasn't defeat) might be that the tech isn't introduced cos the boss won't benefit but I don't think that makes it a form of neo-luddism - the aim isn't to stop it being introduced but to at least stop it being  introduced _to our detriment _at at best have it introduced so it benefits us. Because despite the much needed revisionism  the luddites weren't _just _about retaining control of the labour process IMO - they were also trying to defend a dying craft (which I can understand - I'm a craftsman with great pride in my craft, even though I can't perform it any more for reasons I can't be arsed to go into and I'd hate to see my craft die and the skills I have get lost). Maybe neo-luddism is better defined than I'm aware of and does take into account that kind of thing, I dunno.



The Luddites were many things, some wanted control, some wanted state regulation, others wanted to defend their historic craft by whatever means they could (of course, they didn't have the hindsight of 200 year of capitalist development as a guide to action, so it's understandable). Incidentally, if you look at the introduction of technology in heavily unionised sectors in the 1970s, for all the guff about "restrictive practices", the right to negotiate and get some of the benefit is essentially what people fought for (and often got). Virtually no incidents of workers fighting new tech wholesale.  



> In a roundabout/indirect way I think there should be democratic control over economic migration too, but not movement of people. Not got it fully worked out but I think in a socialist (as opposed to proper communist) society we'd have democratic workers institutions - like unions only not the left wing of capital (lol) type ones we have now - which would decide how work is allocated. And this doesn't have to be a 'wait for socialism' solution either - it's been done (albeit imperfectly) before - I think the US dockers union used to control the allocation of work. That way you get solve core of the problem without needing to resort to policing borders and stopping people going wherever the fuck they want, which I'm in favour of as a cast iron principle.
> 
> Because unless you're a racist (and most of the people I know with concerns about migration are not) it's the economic impact that matters, not having too many foreigners here per se, or its impact on culture or whatever. If they didn;t perceive it to be being used to undermine their pay and conditions I don't think any of the people I know with these concerns would have a problem with it.
> 
> I guess this would have to be organised as internationally as possible to prevent it leading in potentially nationalist directions (British unions only overtime to British workers when others need the work - there's various potential problems that I'm sure we can all have a good go at identifying) but I reckon something could be worked out. Cos this is the crux of it IMO - both immigration controls and 'open borders' under capitalism, like everything else the capitalist state does, will be used to benefit capital (though the extent to which this happens depends on class struggle - I don't think they've got free rein before I'm accused of denying w/c agency). Who controls it is what really matters, just like with the technology.



Well this was effectively what the old Dock Labour Scheme did here in the UK. You could only work at a registered port if you were on the list, and the list was regulated by the Dock Labour Board (which was tripartite management-union-state). It's very difficult to design such a thing in a way that doesn't privilege the rights of one group of workers over another, tbh. The effect of the scheme was that access to the list was basically kinship based, which of course de facto excluded most immigrants (amongst others). Very difficult to avoid it going in nationalist directions unless, like you say, it's an internationalised structure. By the by, I also don't think that workplace competition is the main friction here. Those dockers were able to regulate access to their work, but some London dockers did organise a Pro-Powell demonstration in 1968, which was largely due to tension over social resources (especially housing supply). For me, a firm pledge to match social spending and housing provision (esp. council housing) to population numbers at local level would be far more worthwhile. 



> But the point I've been trying to get across - clumsily it appears - is that regardless of how important you or I think it is (and tbh I think we largely agree) a hell of a lot of people - a majority if those I know are anything to go by - do think immigration is a big part of the reason why pay and conditions have worsened. I'm not saying indulge these people's IMO wrong ideas or anything like that - I'm just saying it's pointless and counterproductive to deny that it's been used this way, just as the tech has - because it has been. Instead, as well as pointing out the other causes of these problems, I prefer to be honest about it and say yes, it has been used in this way. But to then say why I don't think border controls are any kind of solution - for workers in the UK or anywhere else. And to advocate instead, in the short term, organising migrant and, for want of a better term, native workers together so it can't be used in that way and in the long term, to mimic ayatollah, SOCIALISM (ie democratic control of the means of production).


No massive disagreement with that, although I think I'd always argue that restricting capitalism's access to all the labour it wants is as unrealistic a demand as anything a socialist revolutionary would make, it simply isn't going to happen. Rich countries are going to hoover up whoever they need to do the work cheaply, whether people like it or not. The question isn't whether that's going to happen, it's what happens to people when they get here. Will we let them be marginalised and exploited? Or all fight together for better treatment?



> I'm being dead long winded and probably not that coherent cos I'm knackered and a bit stoned but I hope I'm getting the point across.


Wish I was that coherent when high.


----------



## treelover (Apr 9, 2014)

https://www.facebook.com/The14thNovemberMovementLeftPartyUk


L/U is in lots of media today:, Express, Herald, Al Jazeera, they cancelled a 'Maria must go' demo at No 10 this morning, but the media team at L/U is top notch and is still getting interviews, etc.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 9, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> I wouldn't say "essential" either. I think if immigration was substantially reduced, I don't think there would be a substantial enough shortage of workers to tip the balance in labour's favour, particularly given the weakness of the unions.



Depends IMO - I think it would make a substantial difference in some sectors of the economy. I'm thinking (very unappealing) seasonal agricultural work. I grew up in Peterborough and a lot of the lads I grew up with used to do it, it was organised as 'ganging' and very well paid indeed - because if it wasn't most people would rather be on the dole than do it. Now they can get eastern Europeans to do it for minimum wage and take most of that off them for accommodation. I don't think that's a reason to do it but it's there. I actually said on the thread about a socialist position on migration (can't remember exactly what it was called) that migration is a social fact now and border controls would just result on the one hand in companies taking the work to where labour is cheaper and on the other increased human trafficking resulting in an even more easily exploited section of the workforce with no rights whatsoever, putting even greater pressure on wages (which is what I was getting at when I said restrictions would be used to undermine wages in exactly the same way as legal migration is - to use a Marxism by numbers expression it's ultimately about the balance of class forces). It's an argument that in my experience works better (and is more honest) than the 'migration doesn't make any difference' one (which is IMO not completely true). 





Lo Siento. said:


> The Luddites were many things, some wanted control, some wanted state regulation, others wanted to defend their historic craft by whatever means they could (of course, they didn't have the hindsight of 200 year of capitalist development as a guide to action, so it's understandable). Incidentally, if you look at the introduction of technology in heavily unionised sectors in the 1970s, for all the guff about "restrictive practices", the right to negotiate and get some of the benefit is essentially what people fought for (and often got). Virtually no incidents of workers fighting new tech wholesale.



Yeah - I wasn't suggesting that was what happened (in the 70s) I remember from in a documentary about the miners strike (Strike! when britain went to war - bit shit but worth a watch for some revealing comments by coppers and a few other interesting bits) that twat Kelvin Mackenzie moaning about it with the print unions - probably exaggerated but he basically says they were demanding extra money to operate computers and assurances that no jobs would be lost. Problem is that the new tech is generally easier to train people on than it is to train someone in a craft, which makes replacing staff easier and therefore makes union busting easier and maintaining a high degree of organization more difficult - not sure where I'm going with this, just putting some thoughts out there. (got fuck all to do with migration mind you)





Lo Siento. said:


> Well this was effectively what the old Dock Labour Scheme did here in the UK. You could only work at a registered port if you were on the list, and the list was regulated by the Dock Labour Board (which was tripartite management-union-state). It's very difficult to design such a thing in a way that doesn't privilege the rights of one group of workers over another, tbh. The effect of the scheme was that access to the list was basically kinship based, which of course de facto excluded most immigrants (amongst others). Very difficult to avoid it going in nationalist directions unless, like you say, it's an internationalised structure. By the by, I also don't think that workplace competition is the main friction here. Those dockers were able to regulate access to their work, but some London dockers did organise a Pro-Powell demonstration in 1968, which was largely due to tension over social resources (especially housing supply). For me, a firm pledge to match social spending and housing provision (esp. council housing) to population numbers at local level would be far more worthwhile.



Good point re: housing provision - as I said it's not a fully thought through solution, just a vague idea of what might work - I don't see any reason why union allocation of work couldn't work alongside that kind of pledge. And I'd rather it be union allocation than tripartite.



Lo Siento. said:


> No massive disagreement with that, although I think I'd always argue that restricting capitalism's access to all the labour it wants is as unrealistic a demand as anything a socialist revolutionary would make, it simply isn't going to happen. Rich countries are going to hoover up whoever they need to do the work cheaply, whether people like it or not. The question isn't whether that's going to happen, it's what happens to people when they get here. Will we let them be marginalised and exploited? Or all fight together for better treatment?



Completely agree, and that's a point I've argued on other threads myself. But it's about the starting point for me - which is to accept that EU migration has been used as part of a policy mix that pushed down wages and conditions rather than trying to deny it - and to work from there. To accept that legal migration has been used in this way is not to say border controls that criminalise migration wouldn't also, nor is it to say it wouldn't make it even worse. (think your last two sentences are a more articulate way of phrasing what I meant in the last sentence of the passage the above quote was a response to)


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 9, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> It seems like a pretty direct and logical assumption to me. Someone argues that mass immigration constitutes a "massive, massive" part of neo-liberal wage suppression, why wouldn't we expect
> curtailing it to have a substantial effect? I'm not saying that you or SpackleFrog have argued for that _at all_.
> 
> As to the impact of technology, I think the fact that technological innovations do displace and deskill workers _does_ imply a certain form of political opposition, a form of neo-luddism, where we advocate democratic control of technology and technological change. Where does that leave you if you apply the same thinking to immigration? Democratic control of immigration? By who? And how?
> ...



"Massive" was an overstatement, fair enough. Got carried away. But the global economy isn't like a series of switches - now that there is an existing trend of economic migration playing a role in wage suppression simply stopping immigration wouldn't lead to an increase in wages. Indeed, if anything it could potentially increase outsourcing. Pretty much the only thing that ever significantly increases wages is class struggle.



Coolfonz said:


> immigration has virtually no long term hit on wages. You can see that in the building trade in London for example, lots of immigration into the trade, lots of work, lots of people earning north of £75k etc, more.
> 
> What about the six million Brits who work outside the UK? Are they suppressing wages? Is there a balance? And so on...
> 
> ...



I agree with a lot of what you've said there but I've quoted stuff I don't agree with. Talking about people in the building trade in London earning upwards of £75k is all well and good but it just isn't the full picture - do you think agency construction workers or migrant labourers are on that kind of money?

You're right, neoliberalism did come first, and it's suppressed wages for over 30 years. Within that broader process I'm not sure where you get stats that can show immigration isn't having an effect on wages - what can you compare it to? In any case I would agree that middle class professions haven't seen an impact but that low wage low skill jobs have and it is more pronounced and long term than you give it credit for.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 9, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I actually said on the thread about a socialist position on migration (can't remember exactly what it was called) that migration is a social fact now and border controls would just result on the one hand in companies taking the work to where labour is cheaper and on the other increased human trafficking resulting in an even more easily exploited section of the workforce with no rights whatsoever, putting even greater pressure on wages (which is what I was getting at when I said restrictions would be used to undermine wages in exactly the same way as legal migration is - to use a Marxism by numbers expression it's ultimately about the balance of class forces). It's an argument that in my experience works better (and is more honest) than the 'migration doesn't make any difference' one (which is IMO not completely true).



Exactly. It's not about being pro or anti immigration any more than it's about being against the weather - it's just material reality and you need to be able to respond to it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 9, 2014)

I don't want to be that prick who moans about thread drift, but I'm going to be.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 9, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't want to be that prick who moans about thread drift, but I'm going to be.



Shame though because it is a fairly decent debate for an emotive topic which can so often descend into the worst kind of shitflinging (and yes I accept I'm just as guilty of that as anyone when the mood overcomes me)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 9, 2014)

Delroy Booth said:


> Shame though because it is a fairly decent debate for an emotive topic which can so often descend into the worst kind of shitflinging (and yes I accept I'm just as guilty of that as anyone when the mood overcomes me)



It is a good discussion, but it would be better on its own thread.


----------



## treelover (Apr 9, 2014)

They have started a petition to stop Miller getting the 17'000, quick off the mark but I think she has now donated to charity.


----------



## belboid (Apr 9, 2014)

treelover said:


> They have started a petition to stop Miller getting the 17'000, quick off the mark but I think she has now donated to charity.


yup, it shows as a success on the change.org page - mark it up as the first victory all down to LU!


----------



## belboid (Apr 9, 2014)

on another note....I started writing up a piece on LU's short and medium term chances of success.  I got bored of writing 'Left of Labour' so decided to abbreviate it.

And then rapidly decided I better keep writing it out longhand.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 9, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It is a good discussion, but it would be better on its own thread.



Oh, c'mon, it's better than talking about left unity voting against left unity.


----------



## belboid (Apr 9, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Oh, c'mon, it's better than talking about left unity voting against left unity.


Do you know the outcome on agreeingto a non-aggression pact with other left groups in elections?  I thought it had been completely rejected, but then was told tonight that a pact with TUSC, but no one else, had been agreed.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 10, 2014)

belboid said:


> Do you know the outcome on agreeingto a non-aggression pact with other left groups in elections?  I thought it had been completely rejected, but then was told tonight that a pact with TUSC, but no one else, had been agreed.



Not really sure - we've asked for talks, non-aggression, etc. Nobody involved in LU has suggested to me that they would stand against TUSC, and they agree if I bring it up that it would be ludicrous to stand against each other. But then LU aren't standing any candidates for a while at least so it depends on what happens with TUSC in the locals this year. That said, apart from LR, MH and maybe OC I have no idea who or what LU In Sheffield is so I'm probably not clued in.


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

OC?  Oc, OC,OC...I dont think they'd know either! No plans to stand at all this year, hopefully not next either (well, maybe in one ward where TUSC are currently standing...)


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 10, 2014)

belboid said:


> OC?  Oc, OC,OC...I dont think they'd know either! No plans to stand at all this year, hopefully not next either (well, maybe in one ward where TUSC are currently standing...)



How involved are the ISN in LU? Or is it sort of personal preference?


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> How involved are the ISN in LU? Or is it sort of personal preference?


ish


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 10, 2014)

I was moaning about LU getting coverage earlier on the thread but Nellist is on the Daily Politics at noon today. Lets see if he gets more than a minute this time.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 10, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> 1) I've already said - on this very thread - that EU migration policy is not open borders.
> 
> 2) How can you deny the implication that anyone with concerns over immigration is racist and then go on to say:



Quite easily. I'm old enough to remember the 1970s and the 'debate' then was exactly the same as it is now. Nothing has changed.



> I'm already quite well rested but thanks for the concern. Why do they 'invariably' raise questions about national identity and ethnicity and how? Can you point to where they've raised these questions on this thread? If they invariably do then they must have. And if they really do raise these questions doesn't that imply that those who have concerns over the consequences of economic migration are racist? If not how do they raise these questions and what are the implications thereof?



My point is a more general one. Who are you referring to when you say "they"? treelover? treelover _is_ obsessed with immigration and the notion of "open borders". Even the word "migration" is used misleadingly. People migrate all the time. They migrate within national borders and they emigrate to other countries. I've even migrated within London. Interestingly, those who whine about immigration never once mention those who've left the country (emigrated). This is especially the case with Migration Watch UK (who have close ties to the Francis Galton Society).



> *And why the scare quotes around 'debate' and why 'so-called'? *I'd call the discussion I had with belboid on this thread a debate - and quite an interesting one, for me at least - in that it's helped me clarify my own position and to better understand where he's coming from. Why is it a "so called 'debate'" and not a debate or discussion? There's obviously some reason why you termed it a so-called 'debate' - I'm wondering what that might be.



As I indicated already, this 'debate' is more or less the same as it was in the 70s. The agenda on immigration has been set by the right. Then there's the Labour Party, which has appropriated the Tory rhetoric on the issue (qv. Yvette Cooper's use of language). This debate, discussion, call it what you will, on immigration always produces circular, dead-end, arguments. Those who adopt an anti-immigration position will not change their position for anything. Likewise those who take the opposite view.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 10, 2014)

And there we have it - it's not up for discussion. You're either pro or anti immigration (the latter always implying some form of racism since it's inevitably all about race/national identity in your weird binary world) - no room for nuance - and that's how you'll stay. We can't have a debate, only a 'debate' in which the terms are set by the right. (Even though we've been having IMO a good discussion on this very thread in which the terms are most definitely set by solid left/pro-working class principles - which you must have just completely ignored in order to post the above drivel).

The final two lines are utter bullshit as well. Maybe you've never managed to persuade anyone - and I'm not surprised given the way you approach the subject - but that's not the case for all of us.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 10, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> And there we have it - it's not up for discussion. You're either pro or anti immigration (the latter always implying some form of racism since it's inevitably all about race/national identity in your weird binary world) - no room for nuance - and that's how you'll stay. We can't have a debate, only a 'debate' in which the terms are set by the right. (Even though we've been having IMO a good discussion on this very thread in which the terms are most definitely set by solid left/pro-working class principles - which you must have just completely ignored in order to post the above drivel).
> 
> The final two lines are utter bullshit as well. Maybe you've never managed to persuade anyone - and I'm not surprised given the way you approach the subject - but that's not the case for all of us.


Do you feel better now? You talk of "nuances". Where are these nuances? Do you honestly think you can convince a Kipper to change their position on immigration? Good luck with that, buddy.

What you also fail to grasp is the fact that any discussion on immigration has not only been colonised by the right but has also been poisoned by their rhetoric/views on national identity.

But what you appear to be suggesting is that the issues of ethnicity and national identity are not present in these discussions. You're either hopelessly naive or a complete liar.

And all you can say is that my last two lines are "utter bullshit". Laughable.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 10, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Do you honestly think you can convince a Kipper to change their position on immigration? Good luck with that, buddy.



You're fucking laughable - do you think people are born with their political views or something? That they are nothing to do with the influences around them? If you genuinely believe this shit why are you even discussing it?


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 10, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> You're fucking laughable - *do you think people are born with their political views or something? *That they are nothing to do with the influences around them? If you genuinely believe this shit why are you even discussing it?


What the fuck are you talking about?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 10, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Do you honestly think you can convince a Kipper to change their position on immigration?



yes.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 10, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Those who adopt an anti-immigration position will not change their position for anything. Likewise those who take the opposite view.



I'm talking about what you said. Political views are fixed and immovable, apparently. People adopt a position (presumably not because of anything anyone else says because nobody can change anyone's mind in your bizarre world) and NOTHING can alter it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 10, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Do you feel better now? You talk of "nuances". Where are these nuances?



Maybe reading the thread would be a good start?



nino_savatte said:


> Do you honestly think you can convince a Kipper to change their position on immigration? Good luck with that, buddy.



It's all about 'kippers' and 'migration watch' for you isn't it? What about normal people? The bloke down the pub? People at work? I don't need to speculate on whether I can persuade people - I can and have - and I've learned from this process as well.



nino_savatte said:


> What you also fail to grasp is the fact that any discussion on immigration has not only been colonised by the right but has also been poisoned by their rhetoric/views on national identity.



Can you point to where, say, the discussion between me and lo siento has been colonised by the right and poisoned by their rhetoric/views on national identity? Should be pretty easy if what you say is true.



nino_savatte said:


> But what you appear to be suggesting is that the issues of ethnicity and national identity are not present in these discussions. You're either hopelessly naive or a complete liar.



Depends which discussions really - of course some (most even?) are, especially in the media and establishment circles that you appear to believe dictate the terms on which any of us can discuss the issue. Not all of them though - and as often as not in my experience what's behind concerns about migration among normal people has nothing to do with race or national identity and everything to do with economic uncertainty.



nino_savatte said:


> And all you can say is that my last two lines are "utter bullshit". Laughable.



Well they are. look at them again. You're saying nobody will ever change their minds on this issue. It's utter nonsense.



> Those who adopt an anti-immigration position will not change their position for anything. Likewise those who take the opposite view.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 10, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Those who adopt an anti-immigration position will not change their position for anything. Likewise those who take the opposite view.



I know people who have changed their views on immigration, some starting out as being more in favour of restricted immigration and others more in favour of open immigration. I'm sure that others have too, I can't be an anomaly on that.

It's not like it's a dichotomy anyway though, no one here is advocating the end of all immigration. As far as I can see people are just arguing that the left should not prioritise an alienating no borders position under neoliberalism and instead should highlight the abuses of the current system (G4S run detention centres, state harassment of refugees etc) and work towards a better one.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 10, 2014)

Something something UKIP something migration watch Daily mail Richard littlejohn. Buddy.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 10, 2014)

Isn't the whole point of the debate we were having here to try and talk about immigration in the context of neo-liberalism, inequality, globalisation and so on instead of being based on a paranoid xenophobic right-wing framework? That's what I was going for, not being anti-immigration at all but to start the debate on a footing which can get away from this poisonous discourse which, thanks largely to the right-wing media, it has become?

In my experience people are far more receptive to these ideas that you give them credit to, people aren't daft they know that immigration is just a part of a wider process, but there's no public conversation going on that talks about this process instead it's "they're coming here to colonise us! Steal our jobs! Introduce Sharia Law! White genocide! Repel the invaders!!!" so it's our job to frame the debate on immigration in such a way so it can get away from this tinfoil hat stuff into the realm of the real.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 10, 2014)

BTW for those who are pro-EU, looks like you've got an emboldened ally...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...on-voters-extremist-anti-eu-message-elections



> David Cameron will warn voters not to fall for the "extremist" message of those who want to leave the European Union – like Ukip and many within his own party – as he launches the Conservative manifesto for next month's European elections on Thursday afternoon.


----------



## treelover (Apr 13, 2014)

> *Joyce Sheppard: Who represents the working class?*
> _
> Joyce Sheppard was a member of Women Against Pit Closures during the 1984-5 miners’ strike. Her husband was a striking miner. Here she explains why she has given up on the Labour party._
> 
> ...



Good article on the L/U site from a former Women against Pit Closures activist who is now joining L/U, read her story, puts the Intersectionalista's into perspective.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 13, 2014)

treelover said:


> Good article on the L/U site from a former Women against Pit Closures activist who is now joining L/U, read her story, puts the Intersectionalista's into perspective.


winston churchill didn't send troops anywhere in the 1930s. he was famously out of office. i think she must mean 1910s, tonypandy and that.


----------



## Coolfonz (Apr 13, 2014)

The website has been de-fisted. http://leftunity.org/


----------



## Welsh lad (Apr 13, 2014)

I hope 'leftunity' can be a success as a political party. The time for a true left-wing alternative to the barely centre-left Labour party is long overdue.


----------



## tufty79 (Apr 13, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> The website has been de-fisted. http://leftunity.org/


slowly and gently, I hope
(((website)))


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 13, 2014)

treelover said:


> Good article on the L/U site from a former Women against Pit Closures activist who is now joining L/U, read her story, puts the Intersectionalista's into perspective.



She's standing for TUSC in Doncaster.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 15, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm talking about what you said. Political views are fixed and immovable, apparently. People adopt a position (presumably not because of anything anyone else says because nobody can change anyone's mind in your bizarre world) and NOTHING can alter it.


Again, you seem to be replying to a post that's in your head.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 15, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Something something UKIP something migration watch Daily mail Richard littlejohn. Buddy.


Blah, blah, blah. Feel better now, you smug fucker?


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 15, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Maybe reading the thread would be a good start?



The last time I checked this thread was about Left Unity. Btw, I don't have the time to spend on Urban as you clearly do. I actually have a life outside this site.



> It's all about 'kippers' and 'migration watch' for you isn't it? What about normal people? The bloke down the pub? People at work? I don't need to speculate on whether I can persuade people - I can and have - and I've learned from this process as well.



Are you suggesting that the Right hasn't dominated the agenda? How naive. But normal people? What does "normal" mean? People like you?  Tell me, what have you learnt that you didn't know before?



> Can you point to where, say, the discussion between me and lo siento has been colonised by the right and poisoned by their rhetoric/views on national identity? Should be pretty easy if what you say is true.


##

Where did I indicate that? You're making it up... again.




> Depends which discussions really - of course some (most even?) are, especially in the media and establishment circles that you appear to believe dictate the terms on which any of us can discuss the issue. Not all of them though - and as often as not in my experience what's behind concerns about migration among normal people has nothing to do with race or national identity and everything to do with economic uncertainty.



Who are "normal people"? But you say that national identity doesn't figure in the immigration discussion? Really? Have you been living on Mars? Btw, this whole immigration debate began with Michael Howard and Lynton Crosby in 2003. Furthermore, racism also operates economically or did you think it was entirely related to social exclusion and discriminatory practices?




> Well they are. look at them again. You're saying nobody will ever change their minds on this issue. It's utter nonsense.



I'm saying that not everyone is going to be swayed by your arguments. Is that so hard to understand?

You weren't around in the 70s, were you?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 15, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> The last time I checked this thread was about Left Unity. Btw, I don't have the time to spend on Urban as you clearly do. I actually have a life outside this site.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, fuck off you muppet.


----------



## belboid (Apr 16, 2014)

despite conference voting against standing candidates immediately, a few branches are doing anyway.  Norwich are about to put a couple in, at least one in Barnet. Lee Jasper has been told to fuck off tho


----------



## treelover (Apr 16, 2014)

belboid said:


> despite conference voting against standing candidates immediately, a few branches are doing anyway.  Norwich are about to put a couple in, at least one in Barnet. *Lee Jasper has been told to fuck off tho*


----------



## treelover (Apr 16, 2014)

> *My great grandfather was one of Labour’s founders – now the working class needs a new choice once again*
> April 16, 2014
> 
> 
> ...



Looks like many descended from the 'aristocracy of labour' are joining L/U, I'm sure the labour party though will be glad to see the historical 'baggage' take their leave, new new labour.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 16, 2014)

Ah the dynastic approach


----------



## benedict (Apr 17, 2014)

Andrew Burgin says on FB that they're standing candidates in Norwich, Exeter, Barnet and Wigan.


----------



## treelover (Apr 17, 2014)

Barnet, isn't that the Easy' Council?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 17, 2014)

I'm quite looking forward to the results


----------



## J Ed (Apr 17, 2014)

This sounds positive

http://leftunity.org/left-unitys-first-candidates/



> Left Unity has confirmed its first local election candidates: our Wigan branch is standing in seven council seats. Left Unity Wigan has been an important part of the movement against fracking locally, and one of the candidates is a ‘Barton Moss protector’ from the anti-fracking camp there. *There are also current and former workers from the Hovis factory, the site of an important victory against zero-hours contracts*.


----------



## treelover (Apr 17, 2014)

Too soon, imo, they were growing nicely, without too many tensions, etc that any election exposes.

Won't very low votes dent morale, for instance?


Btw, I see L/U are making campaigning against the EU/US Free Trade Agreement, the 'Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership'(TTIP)  a priority, it will be a disaster if it goes through.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 17, 2014)

treelover said:


> Too soon, imo, they were growing nicely, without too many tensions, etc that any election exposes.
> 
> Won't very low votes dent morale, for instance?
> 
> ...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 17, 2014)

J Ed said:


> This sounds positive
> 
> http://leftunity.org/left-unitys-first-candidates/



That is a good move, I'm impressed. Do they mean that there are Hovis workers involved, or just that they live there?


----------



## treelover (Apr 17, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


>




Do expand?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 17, 2014)

Sigh... Ok, but please try to listen, I don't mind helping but I don't want to waste my time.

Yes, elections do expose "tensions". You equally say campaigning work of any kind will expose "tensions". Or that doing nothing will expose "tensions".

Nobody likes getting no votes, but nobody with half a clue expects to come out of nowhere with no name recognition and get anything other than very low votes. If you want to get somewhere in electoral politics, you have to stand. Standing candidates is basically the difference between electoral organisations and overly formalised social networks in this context.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 17, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> That is a good move, I'm impressed. Do they mean that there are Hovis workers involved, or just that they live there?



Good point, it does sound like they are candidates or helping candidates but it isn't clear.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 17, 2014)

Is a bit annoying they won't stand as TUSC-LU as was offered though, could get us to the 625 mark  As it is we might be just short.


----------



## belboid (Apr 17, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Is a bit annoying they won't stand as TUSC-LU as was offered though, could get us to the 625 mark  As it is we might be just short.


there's no such party as 'TUSC-LU' tho, so it would be legally impossible (I think they did look into it for other places).

I'm surprised you picked that bit to pick up on in treelover's post tho. For sure, any party campaigning on a basis of opposition to the government and saying that 'Labour isnt good enough' must put their words to the test and stand in elections.  But there's a time and a place. And doing so on the basis of bugger all work under the name Left Unity in the localities being stood in is just daft. The Wigan lot have stood a couple of times (under a different name) in one ward in Wigan, but Norwich have done nowt so far, dunno about the other places. I think there is at least one actual Hovis worker standing.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 17, 2014)

only way to actually start to get anywhere as a political party is to start to stand in elections when the come. If not now when people are crying out for a real left wing alternative, then when?


----------



## belboid (Apr 17, 2014)

tbh, managing to restrict it to four councils isn't bad going


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> there's no such party as 'TUSC-LU' tho, so it would be legally impossible (I think they did look into it for other places).
> 
> I'm surprised you picked that bit to pick up on in treelover's post tho. For sure, any party campaigning on a basis of opposition to the government and saying that 'Labour isnt good enough' must put their words to the test and stand in elections.  But there's a time and a place. And doing so on the basis of bugger all work under the name Left Unity in the localities being stood in is just daft. The Wigan lot have stood a couple of times (under a different name) in one ward in Wigan, but Norwich have done nowt so far, dunno about the other places. I think there is at least one actual Hovis worker standing.



Of course but - and forgive me for being cynical - if they didn't stand this year I doubt they'd have done much work by next year.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 17, 2014)

IMO it should be possible for a new left party to make some significant impact, possibly even get someone elected at this moment in time, as there's so much dissilusionment with all 3 main parties, all of which have lost a huge proportion of their active supporter base in recent years.

A small but dedicated team with a decent network of support locally, and some actual belief that they're actually going to do it should be able to win a council seat.

Most left wing parties campaigns are doomed to failure due to their lack of believe, and lack of commitment IME, the ones I've seen at least have been a complete farce, and rarely even target anything beyond getting their deposit back. I hope these are approaching this differently.


----------



## belboid (Apr 17, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Of course but - and forgive me for being cynical - if they didn't stand this year I doubt they'd have done much work by next year.


it'll be pointless to stand next year too. That's the same day as the general election, and we saw what happened to pretty much every left candidate standing last time. And that was under a Labour government! When 'the key thing' is to get the tories out, no left candidate has a chance of getting anything other than paltry


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> it'll be pointless to stand next year too. That's the same day as the general election, and we saw what happened to pretty much every left candidate standing last time. And that was under a Labour government! When 'the key thing' is to get the tories out, no left candidate has a chance of getting anything other than paltry


Pathetic


----------



## belboid (Apr 17, 2014)

barney_pig said:


> Pathetic


your ability for critical thought?


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 17, 2014)

It's a hundred years of your Leninism, and this is the sum of it? Can't stand against labour, not in an election year. All the analysis and internet critique and sharp Marxist invective comes down to ... Rolling over and voting labour (without illusions).
Pathetic.


----------



## belboid (Apr 18, 2014)

it's reality. it is what will happen. at the last election - when labour was still being a bastard in power - nearly every left councillor lost their seat. when labour is in opposition,is will 100% happen again. disillusionment with labour has grown minimally since te last election, and you'd be blind not to see it.

when you play the electoral game, you have to understand how it works, or you just look daft.


----------



## benedict (Apr 18, 2014)

Thing is, it's precisely what other left lash-ups have been doing for 15 years or so - pop-up electoral politics in the absence of ground work that actually builds a solid base. It offers the possibility of raising their profile but not much else in my view. In fact, the energy expended on deposit-losing endeavors is likely actively harmful to broader goals. I'd love to be proven wrong with Left Unity but there seems to be no good reason to think now the time is ripe for this approach.


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> it's reality. it is what will happen. at the last election - when labour was still being a bastard in power - nearly every left councillor lost their seat. when labour is in opposition,is will 100% happen again. disillusionment with labour has grown minimally since te last election, and you'd be blind not to see it.
> 
> when you play the electoral game, you have to understand how it works, or you just look daft.


You can't win when labour are in power you can't win when labour are in opposition.
 Then what is the point of you?


----------



## belboid (Apr 18, 2014)

barney_pig said:


> You can't win when labour are in power you can't win when labour are in opposition.
> Then what is the point of you?


are you really this dim?

When labour were in office, but clearly about to lose it, lefties had no chance.  why do you think it would be any different when labour are in opposition?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 18, 2014)

LU call for Green vote in the NW Euro Election. 

http://leftunity.org/vote-green-to-beat-racism-left-unity-backs-peter-cranie-in-european-election/


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> are you really this dim?
> 
> When labour were in office, but clearly about to lose it, lefties had no chance.  why do you think it would be any different when labour are in opposition?



That was four years ago, this is four years hence. The world has been turning. That rule may have served in the past but I'm not so sure it holds now. In any case, we need to lay down the groundwork now for when (if) Labour get into power.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> IMO it should be possible for a new left party to make some significant impact, possibly even get someone elected at this moment in time, as there's so much dissilusionment with all 3 main parties, all of which have lost a huge proportion of their active supporter base in recent years.
> 
> A small but dedicated team with a decent network of support locally, and some actual belief that they're actually going to do it should be able to win a council seat.
> 
> Most left wing parties campaigns are doomed to failure due to their lack of believe, and lack of commitment IME, the ones I've seen at least have been a complete farce, and rarely even target anything beyond getting their deposit back. I hope these are approaching this differently.



Yes people are very angry, but that tends to result in not voting more often than voting for a radical alternative they've never heard of. It's really not easy. With commitment and a bit of confidence you can achieve a lot but it's a longer term process to build a base. We stood in a local by election earlier in the year; we had over 30 people actively involved in canvassing and leafleting, we had a small network of supporters through anti-bedroom tax campaigning in the ward and we came 4th out of 8 with 8% of the vote. Would have beaten the Tories if there hadn't been a small storm on the day itself which definitely put off pedestrian voters (they got 8 more votes than us), and I think we did pretty well considering Labour called it in the middle of winter with the shortest possible campaigning time, but regardless I think it shows that its very rare to come from nowhere to bust through the 15% barrier. If Socialist candidates do that, it's a sign of a trend in that area of people consciously identifying with socialist ideas and not simply down to the campaign itself. When you hear things like "I know UKIP are just posh Tories but at least they hate the EU" or "The Greens are quite left wing though aren't they?" on the doorstep, to me it suggests that while there is anger, it's expressed in a very uneven way.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 18, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> LU call for Green vote in the NW Euro Election.
> 
> http://leftunity.org/vote-green-to-beat-racism-left-unity-backs-peter-cranie-in-european-election/



What a load of wank. Griffin has already lost his seat, and it'll go to UKIP, not the Greens.


----------



## treelover (Apr 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> IMO it should be possible for a new left party to make some significant impact, possibly even get someone elected at this moment in time, as there's so much dissilusionment with all 3 main parties, all of which have lost a huge proportion of their active supporter base in recent years.
> 
> A small but dedicated team with a decent network of support locally, and some actual belief that they're actually going to do it should be able to win a council seat.
> 
> Most left wing parties campaigns are doomed to failure due to their lack of believe, and lack of commitment IME, the ones I've seen at least have been a complete farce, and rarely even target anything beyond getting their deposit back. I hope these are approaching this differently.




There was no lack of commitment here when here a local guy, from a family with suffragette history, stood for the Socialist Alliance in a past G/E, massive resources poured in, leafleting every day, etc, vote was still derisory.


----------



## treelover (Apr 18, 2014)

> Somewhere between 200 and 250 comrades attended - around half the number that came to the November meeting in London. Former members of various left groups,* plus those from the right-moving detritus of recent splits* from the Socialist Workers Party and Workers Power, not to mention established rightwing Trotskyists like those from Socialist Resistance, made up a large bulk of those present
> http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/1004/left-unity-moderate-party-takes-shape




Very comradely?


----------



## tony.c (Apr 18, 2014)

treelover said:


> There was no lack of commitment here when here a local guy, from a family with suffragette history, stood for the Socialist Alliance in a past G/E, massive resources poured in, leafleting every day, etc, vote was still derisory.


Same in my area, but I think the 'lack of commitment' means an ongoing commitment. They just appear at election time, and aren't seen before or after.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 18, 2014)

treelover said:


> There was no lack of commitment here when here a local guy, from a family with suffragette history, stood for the Socialist Alliance in a past G/E, massive resources poured in, leafleting every day, etc, vote was still derisory.



Which G/E?


----------



## treelover (Apr 18, 2014)

2001


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 18, 2014)

treelover said:


> 2001



That was 13 years ago - a lot has happened since then, the Iraq war and the global economic crisis for a start. That's not to say it necessarily would be different now but its a hell of a lot easier to campaign against Labour from the left now and certainly easier to get people to agree with you. The biggest challenge is to get people to agree with you _and then go out and vote for you._ I think those who had illusions in New Labour in 2001 are not the same as those who vote New Labour in 2014 because they see no alternative.


----------



## treelover (Apr 18, 2014)

fair enough.



https://www.facebook.com/999CallForTheNhs






btw, bit op, but this sounds very positive, a group of mums are organising a national march to save the NHS, it seems to be taking off with lots of people registering to march.

Though August isn't the best time publicity wise, it is school hols though.


----------



## belboid (Apr 18, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> That was 13 years ago - a lot has happened since then, the Iraq war and the global economic crisis for a start. That's not to say it necessarily would be different now but its a hell of a lot easier to campaign against Labour from the left now and certainly easier to get people to agree with you. The biggest challenge is to get people to agree with you _and then go out and vote for you._ I think those who had illusions in New Labour in 2001 are not the same as those who vote New Labour in 2014 because they see no alternative.


A lot has happened, and the left vote certainly went up each year after that, getting well into the 10-20% mark for a while. Straight back too a derisory vote when the GE happened. Same time as the SP lost at least one councillor in Coventry, iirr. Concentrate your forces on where you can make a difference, or whee you might be able to make a difference at least. You lot are spreading yourself too thin.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 18, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yes people are very angry, but that tends to result in not voting more often than voting for a radical alternative they've never heard of. It's really not easy. With commitment and a bit of confidence you can achieve a lot but it's a longer term process to build a base. We stood in a local by election earlier in the year; we had over 30 people actively involved in canvassing and leafleting, we had a small network of supporters through anti-bedroom tax campaigning in the ward and we came 4th out of 8 with 8% of the vote. Would have beaten the Tories if there hadn't been a small storm on the day itself which definitely put off pedestrian voters (they got 8 more votes than us), and I think we did pretty well considering Labour called it in the middle of winter with the shortest possible campaigning time, but regardless I think it shows that its very rare to come from nowhere to bust through the 15% barrier. If Socialist candidates do that, it's a sign of a trend in that area of people consciously identifying with socialist ideas and not simply down to the campaign itself. When you hear things like "I know UKIP are just posh Tories but at least they hate the EU" or "The Greens are quite left wing though aren't they?" on the doorstep, to me it suggests that while there is anger, it's expressed in a very uneven way.



Good to hear, are you standing again? Have you spent time working out how to do it better next time etc?

FWIW My background includes over a decade of club and event promotion work, effectively doing the equivalent of several election campaigns a month for a decade, and frankly in comparison the vast majority of election campaigns I've seen by any vaguely left wing parties give the impression of being run by well meaning amateurs, but never give the impression of actually standing a chance of winning anything. I've also been peripherally involved in 2 piss poor green party election campaigns run by a few clueless people without any concept of how to actually run a decent campaign or any belief in the potential of actually winning, 2 lib dem campaigns (against the tories), the latter of which really did blanket the area in campaign material and won a huge majority on a largely anti-tory ticket (which obviously proved to be a false ticket, but that's another story)

Winning a seat on an anti-tory ticket is all down to the perception in the minds of the general public of the area about the ubiquity of the campaign, leafleting and canvassing are all vital ingredients, but in perception terms IMO it's the posters that do it in terms of giving people a feel for who's the most realistic anti-tory ticket. For that landslide lib dem campaign I reckon they had as many or more posters out around the area as all other parties combined, and it was relentless, with a 2 man team out for 5-6 weeks solid beforehand banging in the staked boards in supporters gardens, window posters out, and in the run up to the election there were 3 car loads out 2 nights in a row for 6 hours a night sticking hundreds of posterboards up to ensure the entire area was blanketed the day before the election and election day itself.

By comparison the local left wing campaigners (alliance for green socialism) just seemed to have gone through the motions of sticking a few boards up, with probably 100 posters in total across the area whereas the lib dems probably put 500 boards out on the 2 nights before the election alone to top up the hundreds that were already out there.

This was all achieved by a a core active team of maybe a dozen people, supported by another 15-20 or so in the immediate build up to the election, so in numbers terms it shouldn't be that difficult for the likes of Left Unity to pull in that level of active support in an area. The key difference IMO being campaigners who're determined to do what it takes to win, vs campaigners who's primary goal seems to be to avoid losing the deposit, and be able to say that they made a token effort. Obviously the national level exposure makes a major difference, but particularly at local elections it should be possible to overcome that by being seen to be the most active actually on the ground in the area.

Just my opinion of course, but if you don't set out with the goal of actually winning, then you've basically guaranteed that you never will. Start off with that goal then work out the plan of campaign needed to achieve it, and recruit the support needed to make it happen, and actually have that supporter base going out there telling people that they're seriously aiming to win it, and left wing grouplets might just surprise themselves. I doubt there's been a better time to make that sort of breakthrough in my lifetime than right now, the level of anger at all 3 parties is astonishing, and extends across a huge swathe of the population. For starters there's a good 10-15% of the vote made up of former left of centre lib dem voters up for grabs, significantly more in areas where they'd previously done well on an anti-tory ticket.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 18, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> That was 13 years ago - a lot has happened since then, the Iraq war and the global economic crisis for a start. That's not to say it necessarily would be different now but its a hell of a lot easier to campaign against Labour from the left now and certainly easier to get people to agree with you. The biggest challenge is to get people to agree with you _and then go out and vote for you._ I think those who had illusions in New Labour in 2001 are not the same as those who vote New Labour in 2014 because they see no alternative.


exactly.

campaigning from the left against a government that had introduced the minimum wage, was riding the crest of an economic wave etc is a hell of a lot different to the situation now, and not just from a labour perspective, but also because the lib dems were (rightly or wrongly) perceived by many as being a relatively left of centre social democratic party back then, which really doesn't apply now.


----------



## belboid (Apr 18, 2014)

Actually,by 2001 it wasn't that hard at all. Livingstone had beaten wotsisname rom Labour for the London mayor, Blair had stopped doing anything radical, the space had opened up.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 18, 2014)

Respect, bradford east. Don't think they'll keep it at the next GE though.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 18, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Respect, bradford east. Don't think they'll keep it at the next GE though.



True but someone who wasn't a total self serving and opportunist wanker could have built on that mandate.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> Actually,by 2001 it wasn't that hard at all. Livingstone had beaten wotsisname rom Labour for the London mayor, Blair had stopped doing anything radical, the space had opened up.


opened up for what though, a few percent extra dissilusioned labour voters?

the opinion polls now are showing double the vote for 'others' as in 2001, and the lib dems have lost the support of around 12% of the electorate, mostly from the social democratic / left of centre supporters.

The urge to vote labour on a stop the tory ticket may well apply at the general elections, but not really at a local council election level, and if council elections are fought well and won, then a general election win in that area shouldn't be discounted if the party can portray itself as being in with a serious chance of winning as the leading anti-tory ticket.

I think the radical left was probably a hell of a lot more active in 2001, but the population as a whole is IMO in a state where they're likely to be a lot more receptive to supporting a left wing candidate with a credible well run campaign now than they were in 2001. If not now after the longest recession period in UK history, then when?


----------



## free spirit (Apr 18, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Respect, bradford east. Don't think they'll keep it at the next GE though.


that, and the greens in Brighton, plus maybe some of the scottish socialist party campaigns would be may main examples of campaigns that really went about their campaigns with a determination to win, and managed to mobilise significant local support and really make their presence felt in the area to the point where there could be little doubt that they had the potential to win the elections there.

One of the things that Galloway does best from what I've seen (from the outside) is instilling the belief in the local campaigners that they actually are fighting to win that election, and to get them to really put the extra effort in to achieving it, recruiting the wider community to join / support the campaign etc.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 18, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> What a load of wank. Griffin has already lost his seat, and it'll go to UKIP, not the Greens.



I agree that focussing on Griffin is a mistake, but I'm not in LU. UKIP will certainly get 2 seats, being closer to that even last time than the greens were to 1. But the real question is wether the greens will beat the LDs for the last one.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 18, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I agree that focussing on Griffin is a mistake, but I'm not in LU. UKIP will certainly get 2 seats, being closer to that even last time than the greens were to 1. But the real question is wether the greens will beat the LDs for the last one.



Good point. But with a lot of people voting BNP last time, won't a fair portion of that support go to UKIP? I can't see it going to the Greens.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Good to hear, are you standing again? Have you spent time working out how to do it better next time etc?
> 
> FWIW My background includes over a decade of club and event promotion work, effectively doing the equivalent of several election campaigns a month for a decade, and frankly in comparison the vast majority of election campaigns I've seen by any vaguely left wing parties give the impression of being run by well meaning amateurs, but never give the impression of actually standing a chance of winning anything. I've also been peripherally involved in 2 piss poor green party election campaigns run by a few clueless people without any concept of how to actually run a decent campaign or any belief in the potential of actually winning, 2 lib dem campaigns (against the tories), the latter of which really did blanket the area in campaign material and won a huge majority on a largely anti-tory ticket (which obviously proved to be a false ticket, but that's another story)
> 
> ...



Yes, and we know what we're doing-thank you letters to supporters, regular campaign stalls, and its a priority ward for us so we're canvassing thoroughly. Our candidate is a local bloke who a lot of people know and who's active in the TARA. The main issue is money-our black and white leaflets look a bit amateurish to be honest. But our homemade election posters have stayed up in the ward without being defaced for months which is more than can be said for any other party!


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 18, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Good point. But with a lot of people voting BNP last time, won't a fair portion of that support go to UKIP? I can't see it going to the Greens.



UKIP were very close to taking a 2nd seat. So it would take a vast amount of former BNP and others to push them to a 3rd seat this time. It's not out of the realms but unlikely in my guestimate according to how D Hondt works. Greens would more likely be seeking those who'd normally plump for Labour or LDs in a general.


----------



## belboid (Apr 18, 2014)

Greens & Galloway are fair enough calls. 

The greens made it on the back of twenty years plus hard work.  She will retain her seat I think. Galloway made it off the back of being a pain in the arse Labour MP, and then the war. He's a one off. Unless someone else splits from labour, which I can't see anyone doing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 18, 2014)

in his last win GG was more than helped by labour forwarding a candidate with a reputation for cronyism. iirc.


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 18, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> in his last win GG was more than helped by labour forwarding a candidate with a reputation for cronyism. iirc.


The corruption and cronyism of Bradford city politics meant gorgeous george felt right at home.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 22, 2014)

Lee Jasper sent on his way by Lambeth LU:

"
Dear Lee,

So the conclusion of our branch was that we did not want to run an election candidate at this time, the reasons were similar to the ones I explained to you when we met, namely that the branch didn't feel ready to undertake such work seriously and with only 5 weeks to go we didn't want to do a botch job. We were also concerned that we would have to deprioritise our campaigning work, around housing, the college and the Ritzy living wage strike, to focus everything on the election which we thought would not be a good idea.
In terms of you standing as a candidate, many members of the branch only knew you by name, and didn't feel that the local branch had built up enough of a relationship with you to make a decision to back you in an election.  Having said that people were keen for you to join Left Unity so that we can make a more informed decision next time, based on you as a member who has helped to build the branch and already identified as a supporter of Left Unity before an election.

 We are having an AGM coming up in May that it would be great if you attended and people could get to know you better, hear your views on how we can build a left alternative to Labour and how we can win support from the Black community in Lambeth. "


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 22, 2014)

he's a bit gallowayish isn't he?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2014)

2012 elections he turned up on RESPECT's doorstep last minute  demanding selection as a candidate in the coydon seat, lost his deposit. Beaten by even the lib-dems.


----------



## treelover (Apr 22, 2014)

Lambeth shouldn't touch him with a barge pole.


----------



## Plumdaff (Apr 22, 2014)

treelover said:


> Lambeth shouldn't touch him with a barge pole.



Do you think Lambeth LU actually think he will join and help build the branch? It's a very polite way of not touching him with a bargepole.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 22, 2014)

Plumdaff said:


> Do you think Lambeth LU actually think he will join and help build the branch? It's a very polite way of not touching him with a bargepole.



Yep it's the most sensible reply they could give anything more negative and who knows what he might have alleged.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 24, 2014)

The candidates standing in Wigan, Norwich and Barnet
http://leftunity.org/meet-left-unitys-local-election-candidates/


----------



## free spirit (Apr 24, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> Lee Jasper sent on his way by Lambeth LU:
> 
> "
> Dear Lee,
> ...



That's actually a really mature response. Bodes well.


----------



## Coolfonz (Jun 8, 2014)

fyi `Anarchists` in Left Unity and discussion of Podemos on front page of site www.leftunity.org


----------



## ska invita (Jun 8, 2014)

havent heard of Podemos - i found this interesting:
"The second and most important example of how Podemos achieved popular empowerment was the creation of so-called “Circles”, local spaces of debate and action where everybody can attend no matter his or her political affiliations. Today there are around 400 Circles spread over the Spanish State and anywhere else where its citizens have had to exile since the crisis started for economic reasons (London, Berlin, Brussels, etc). The motto “all power to the circles” represents a dose of democracy to the regime and an unprecedented tool of popular empowerment."

Anyone had any experience of these - direct or second hand? Favelado, have you come across these?


----------



## Favelado (Jun 9, 2014)

ska invita said:


> havent heard of Podemos - i found this interesting:
> "The second and most important example of how Podemos achieved popular empowerment was the creation of so-called “Circles”, local spaces of debate and action where everybody can attend no matter his or her political affiliations. Today there are around 400 Circles spread over the Spanish State and anywhere else where its citizens have had to exile since the crisis started for economic reasons (London, Berlin, Brussels, etc). The motto “all power to the circles” represents a dose of democracy to the regime and an unprecedented tool of popular empowerment."
> 
> Anyone had any experience of these - direct or second hand? Favelado, have you come across these?



Hi Ska.

I have read about them post-election. Podemos completely passed me by until I saw a sticker for them two days before the Euros. I have hardly watched TV in the past few months, and Pablo Iglesias seems to have largely built his appeal by appearing on Spain's La Sexta channel, in conjunction with these circles. I live in the most famously left-wing area of the city - my street is heavily plastered in communist, anarchist and anticapitalist graffiti and propaganda, but nothng more than a single 10 cm square sticker from Podemos. Izquerda Unida spent lots of money on official billboard space before the euros but, again, nothing from Podemos. Their TV strategy and their grassroots activism passed me by completely.The two big mainstream papers El Pais and El Mundo gave them very little attention either. The left-wing paper Publico must have been writing about them though, and it's my fault that I haven't read it much recently. 

I feel embarrassed that I managed to miss such a big phenomenon when I profess to be interested in politics. Given where I live (e2a Iglesias grew up round here!), there must be one of these circles going on right on my doorstep. Podemos are now being talked about everywhere since their incredible election results. The mainstream TV and papers are not ignoring them anymore. Formed in March 2014 I believe, and winning 1 million votes 10 weeks later in May. Extraordinary stuff.

I note that Podemos won a seat in the Rivas suburb of Madrid, where some of my best friends live. I'll ask them if they've been to any of the meetings. Anything that you would specifically like to know or just general curiosity?


----------



## treelover (Jun 9, 2014)

The article talks about how the activists there would discuss how militant, etc, Greece was and the success of Syriza, but that "it couldn't happen here", then look what happened! It says there is a lesson for here in the U.K, but here the new progressive grouping is still called Left Unity which whether or not by design means inwardly focussing on  'uniting the left', (though I think they are looking much wider now), further could a new progressive formation here get anywhere near 1 million votes ten weeks after forming?

btw, who is voting for Podemos, and is its leader going to be a possible Galloway, etc?


----------



## ska invita (Jun 9, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Anything that you would specifically like to know or just general curiosity?


What it looks like, how often it happens, whats being discussed (is it bringing in new people or is it an echo chamber for the converted), the mood, how is it chaired, that kind of thing....


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 9, 2014)

LU hold a read-in of American literature at the DfE in protest over Gove's decision to remove American literature from the curriculum.There's a vid somewhere. I'll try and find it.


> Protesters, reading out loud from American books, have staged a short demonstration at the Department for Education (DfE) in central London.
> 
> The group, part of newly-formed Left Unity, read excerpts from Of Mice and Men, To Kill a Mockingbird and The Crucible.
> 
> ...


----------



## Favelado (Jun 9, 2014)

treelover said:


> btw, who is voting for Podemos, and is its leader going to be a possible Galloway, etc?



It's a lot of people who were "indignados". I saw a Podemos poster in the street today that had the slogan "Turn your indignation into change." They will have a lot of young voters, a lot of public sector workers, but also a lot of non-unionised left-leaning voters and at a guess they'll be taking votes off PSOE and IU.

No signs of Galloway-esque behaviour yet but I'm learning about him now really.




ska invita said:


> What it looks like, how often it happens, whats being discussed (is it bringing in new people or is it an echo chamber for the converted), the mood, how is it chaired, that kind of thing....



I'll go to one and report back. Best way to find out really.


----------



## Coolfonz (Jun 9, 2014)

Urbanites: check out what someone just posted about me on Unity's site. Proper bonkers Wolfie Smith scenes cuz!
"you are ideologically a radical liberal reformist, Coolfonz, not a socialist. Dislike the “label ” if you like – but that is what your politics are. Nevertheless , you are very welcome in our broad radical left party. Just don’t delude yourself..."


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 9, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> Urbanites: check out what someone just posted about me on Unity's site. Proper bonkers Wolfie Smith scenes cuz!
> "you are ideologically a radical liberal reformist, Coolfonz, not a socialist. Dislike the “label ” if you like – but that is what your politics are. Nevertheless , you are very welcome in our broad radical left party. Just don’t delude yourself..."



You'd have thought someone who thought left unity was a _broad _radical left party might keep quiet about the question of delusion


----------



## Coolfonz (Jun 9, 2014)

Fancy calling me a radical liberal reformist when it's well known they were just splitters from the liberal reformist radicals. The bastards.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 9, 2014)

None of them are willing to demand nuclear anihilation as a step towards communism so they're all fucking liberals if you ask me


----------



## Coolfonz (Jun 9, 2014)

If everyone from Urban joined Unity...it would be a much better - and likely drunker/higher - party.

Anyone fancy forming a cell? I've always wanted to be in a cell. As opposed to made of loads of them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 9, 2014)

PD entryist faction?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 9, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> If everyone from Urban joined Unity...it would be a much better - and likely drunker/higher - party.
> 
> Anyone fancy forming a cell? I've always wanted to be in a cell. As opposed to made of loads of them.



It's much less fun now than when you used to be able to smoke in them tbh


----------



## Coolfonz (Jun 9, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> PD entryist faction?


Are you making a pass at me?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 9, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> Are you making a pass at me?




that would require PD's love poem division:



			
				Athos said:
			
		

> When we kiss, I feel the sparks,
> You're the Engels to my Marx.
> How I long for us to tryst,
> My beautiful Lenninist.
> ...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 9, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> PD entryist faction?



I would definitely do that


----------



## yield (Jun 11, 2014)

French left go for Syriza effect
Counterpunch June 11, 2014
A Red-Rose-Green Alliance


> And around what common platform? “The fight against austerity, the establishment of a Sixth Republic, the defence of public services, the fight against transatlantic trade treaty, establish a policies for nationalization or state participation in the capital of large industrial enterprises,” said the afflicted Liem Hoang-Ngoc, who was optimistic that a genuinely progressive and politically powerful coalition could be forged. “When we want to unite, we can do it.”


France too.


----------



## treelover (Jun 11, 2014)

> Pascal Durand, former national secretary of the greens (EEV) urged everyone to “go beyond the old references the nineteenth and twentieth centuries” that founded France’s existing parties.




Mmm, what are the French Greens like?


----------



## belboid (Jun 11, 2014)

treelover said:


> Mmm, what are the French Greens like?


Which ones? They split into left and right factions a few years back.


----------



## treelover (Jun 12, 2014)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=575558232565402&set=pcb.575558342565391&type=1


Left Unity protest about the 'homeless spikes',Tesco removed them soon after


----------



## belboid (Jun 12, 2014)

treelover said:


> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=575558232565402&set=pcb.575558342565391&type=1
> 
> 
> Left Unity protest about the 'homeless spikes',Tesco removed them soon after


soon before even! Tesco were removing them as the protest arrived


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 13, 2014)

belboid said:


> soon before even! Tesco were removing them as the protest arrived



Left Unity are brilliant a massive victory and all down to them, homeless people can huddle on the streets again!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jun 13, 2014)

treelover said:


> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=575558232565402&set=pcb.575558342565391&type=1
> 
> 
> Left Unity protest about the 'homeless spikes',Tesco removed them soon after



Nobody else did or said anything about the homeless spikes. It was all the work of Left Unity, and Left Unity alone.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 15, 2014)

This isn't specifically a dig at left unity so much as the state of the left more generally, but how depressing it is that it's now seen as a victory when homeless people don't have to give up sleeping in doorways


----------



## treelover (Jun 15, 2014)

Doesn't look like the People's Assembly 'March/Festival Against austerity in London next week is going to make a splash either.

go back to sleep England*


----------



## Coolfonz (Aug 19, 2014)

We now have the spectacle of a guy calling for Left Unity to support ISIS/IS as he sees the movement undermining the old colonial nations.

I mean, you _really_ can't make this shit up. What the fuck is up with these people?

http://leftunity.org/arabia-the-dem...n=arabia-the-demise-of-the-old-colonial-order

After several months now, no online forum - instead this nonsense is displayed on the front page of the LU site - no recognisable policies, an invisible group of speakers, the usual banners/leaflets and people banging on about `comrades`. Jesus fucking christ. Do we really have to wait for all these people to die out before we are allowed a left wing party which is even vaguely in step with the rest of the population?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2014)

An overwhelming majority commenters don't appear to agree with him. John Tummon is the only one.


----------



## Coolfonz (Aug 19, 2014)

Yeah I realise that. But just suppose it was a Ukip discussion page. Everyone would be going `get me a slice of these fruitcakes!`.


----------



## treelover (Aug 19, 2014)

Workers Power seem to have a lot of influence as well, especially on open borders, etc.

btw, as if LU endorsing anyone makes any concrete difference.


----------



## treelover (Aug 19, 2014)

> AUSTERITY WRECKS LIVES DEMO - MANCHESTER - SATURDAY 6th SEPTEMBER - LATEST NEWS:
> https://www.facebook.com/leftunity





this is a bit more practical


----------



## Coolfonz (Aug 19, 2014)

To quote most English batsmen over the last few years, I'm out.


----------



## belboid (Aug 19, 2014)

treelover said:


> Workers Power seem to have a lot of influence as well, especially on open borders, etc.


They have precisely zero influence.  Stop trying to pretend that 'open borders' isn't widely supported, just because you dont like it


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 19, 2014)

Left Unity still exists?


----------



## treelover (Aug 19, 2014)

belboid said:


> They have precisely zero influence.  Stop trying to pretend that 'open borders' isn't widely supported, just because you dont like it




Supported by whom?


----------



## belboid (Aug 19, 2014)

treelover said:


> Supported by whom?


Well, for starters, the overwhelming majority of LU members who voted - which includes about 2 WP members


----------



## Coolfonz (Aug 20, 2014)

The overwhelming majority of people who could actually make it to a conference in Manchester you mean. Simple stuff like promises of an online section of LU for its members never materialised - I know running member only forums is pretty tricky  . `Open borders` is a ridiculous idea - even its name seems designed to make its proponents seems like air heads - and it ends up doing nothing to address the complexities of modern people movements across borders. It's like reverse Ukip, simplistic nonsense.
Too many times in my life I see these opportunities - large or small - chucked away by the same types of groups of `activists`. Who speak in language which seems designed to alienate large sections of the population. Who are good at attacking the ills of society - austerity etc - but provide no concrete alternatives, ways out. Who confuse laudable political goals - "end privatisation in the NHS" - with any actual policies on how you achieve this. Where foreign policy seems to be about one region - Israel-Palestine - while ignoring most other places in the world where similar/greater atrocities are carrying on. And so much talk about Marx, self-defining "socialists" and folks who call themselves "radicals". Etcetera etcetera...

Somewhat frustrating...again...


----------



## treelover (Aug 20, 2014)

Great post Fonz, summed up what a fair few are thinking, another missed opportunity.

I wish they had put as much effort into the 999 for the NHS events as they have for Palestine, etc.


----------



## Coolfonz (Aug 20, 2014)

Speaking broadly and without any academic rigour...

We need a 'new left'. As in a left which is actually left and not a cover for the right, Tony Blair or Bono. 
We need it to run in elections so we can vote for it, right now, because at the moment that is the way things work.
We need it to grasp the complexities of domestic and foreign policy and not nail its hands to causes which turn out to be dead weights, Saddam Hussein or Bono.
It needs to talk in basic English not some inferior version of Richard Beckinsale in 'Rising Damp'.
It needs to have an economic policy which wouldn't bankrupt the country in 20 minutes, sadly we are prisoners of 'markets' right now and waving banners won't change that.
And rather oddly, or perhaps not, the only place I see its tiny little beginnings is here on Urban 75. 
Can someone smart please do something about this? Mike? Butchers? The other smart people?


----------



## chilango (Aug 20, 2014)

Coolfonz no.

The left doesn't start here.

It starts in working class communities.

...and before that it starts in the re-building of working class communities.

...and before that it starts with figuring out what the hell terms like "working class" and "community " actually mean here and now and why exactly they're so important for any sort of notion of change.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 20, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> Speaking broadly and without any academic rigour...
> 
> We need a 'new left'. As in a left which is actually left and not a cover for the right, Tony Blair or Bono.
> We need it to run in elections so we can vote for it, right now, because at the moment that is the way things work.
> ...


Who is Mike and why is he one of the smart people?


----------



## treelover (Aug 20, 2014)

> And rather oddly, or perhaps not, the only place I see its tiny little beginnings is here on Urban 75.




Too much vitriol on here, socialism starts with the person next to you, irl or even online.


----------



## Belushi (Aug 20, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Who is Mike and why is he one of the smart people?


----------



## belboid (Aug 21, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> The overwhelming majority of people who could actually make it to a conference in Manchester you mean.


of course thats what I mean,  The people who could be arsed to attend. The people who, overwhelmingly, voted to support that particular motion. The same people who also voted to reject Workers Power motions and a variety of other 'far left' proposals. Which proves that, despite what the dishonest idiot treelover says, WP hold no sway over the organisation.

If you dont like it, get involved, otherwise your objections are just sideline whining.


----------



## Coolfonz (Aug 21, 2014)

Yeah amazingly not everyone could be at that conference on that specific day with no other means of voting. What was it 300 out of 2000 members? Even on the now-abandoned forum some folks with disabilities said they could not attend. What about people with no jobs/low pay are they supposed to travel? Online voting systems I don't think are that hard to set up. Anyway...


----------



## Coolfonz (Aug 21, 2014)

chilango said:


> Coolfonz no.
> 
> The left doesn't start here.
> 
> ...



If one doesn't know what the terms one is using actually mean, then they aren't much use in electoral politics I would say.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 21, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> Yeah amazingly not everyone could be at that conference on that specific day with no other means of voting. What was it 300 out of 2000 members? Even on the now-abandoned forum some folks with disabilities said they could not attend. What about people with no jobs/low pay are they supposed to travel? Online voting systems I don't think are that hard to set up. Anyway...


And shift workers and retail workers, healthcare workers, firefighters, and others who have to work weekends - none of them could be arsed? yet more evidence that Left Unity is a typical UK trot get together


----------



## chilango (Aug 21, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> If one doesn't know what the terms one is using actually mean, then they aren't much use in electoral politics I would say.



Depends whether you're interested in actually changing anything or not I guess. If you are it's worth stopping and thinking for a while.


----------



## belboid (Aug 21, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> Yeah amazingly not everyone could be at that conference on that specific day with no other means of voting. What was it 300 out of 2000 members? Even on the now-abandoned forum some folks with disabilities said they could not attend. What about people with no jobs/low pay are they supposed to travel? Online voting systems I don't think are that hard to set up. Anyway...


The idea that online forums are more democratic is a joke. Pay £2, sit on your arse, don't listen to or partake in any debate (still less action) and have your say! If that were implemented then the fucking CPGB motions would probBly have been passed. And then you'd be whining even more. 

When (if) LU gets bigger, it will need a better, elected, and delegate subsidised conference. But for now, actual people actually turning up, talking and voting is more than reasonable.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 22, 2014)

In Spain the Podemos party includes online voting in their internal elections and they are polling as a very comfortable (for them, not the centre left) third force in Spanish politics. Might be worth taking some lessons from them...

They are also very successfully using the website reddit to debate policy, win over followers and disseminate information.

Of course, Podemos is run by people with a successful history of getting a progressive message across in both traditional and new forms of media whereas Left Unity is full of people who, err, don't have that history...


----------



## belboid (Aug 22, 2014)

Po demos are big. LU isn't. As I already said. And they don't have to deal with turds like the AWL.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 23, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> And shift workers and retail workers, healthcare workers, firefighters, and others who have to work weekends - none of them could be arsed? yet more evidence that Left Unity is a typical UK trot get together



Hang on-LU is shit, yeah, but are you saying they're shit cos they had a conference when people might be at work? How does that make them Trotskyist?


----------



## JHE (Aug 23, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> We now have the spectacle of a guy calling for Left Unity to support ISIS/IS as he sees the movement undermining the old colonial nations.
> 
> I mean, you _really_ can't make this shit up. What the fuck is up with these people?
> 
> http://leftunity.org/arabia-the-dem...n=arabia-the-demise-of-the-old-colonial-order



Does he also recommend cancer as a way of losing weight?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 23, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Hang on-LU is shit, yeah, but are you saying they're shit cos they had a conference when people might be at work? How does that make them Trotskyist?


That's not what I said


----------



## Coolfonz (Aug 23, 2014)

belboid said:


> The idea that online forums are more democratic is a joke. Pay £2, sit on your arse, don't listen to or partake in any debate (still less action) and have your say! If that were implemented then the fucking CPGB motions would probBly have been passed. And then you'd be whining even more.
> 
> When (if) LU gets bigger, it will need a better, elected, and delegate subsidised conference. But for now, actual people actually turning up, talking and voting is more than reasonable.


How is participating in an online debate/vote _not_ participation? Doing something like that is about _trying_ to include the majority of Left Unity members, rather than a minority. Considering the name of the party that's also a bit dismissive of the party's non-attending members..."sit on your arse, don't listen to or partake in any debate..."
And what has £2 got to do with it? That was the figure set by Left Unity.
I think you are confusing whining with frustration.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 23, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> That's not what I said



Fair enough, sorry, only just rejoined the debate.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 23, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> How is participating in an online debate/vote _not_ participation? Doing something like that is about _trying_ to include the majority of Left Unity members, rather than a minority.



There is a qualitative difference between the kind of participation you can do sat at home in your pants and the kind of participation you can do when you're actually in the same physical space as other people.


----------



## Coolfonz (Aug 23, 2014)

Yes, sure it isn't exactly the same thing, but it's better than nothing at all if one is interested in including more people in the process etc. See Podemos etc...
After all you use it to debate with people you don't know about politics, why can't LU members?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 24, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> Yes, sure it isn't exactly the same thing, but it's better than nothing at all if one is interested in including more people in the process etc. See Podemos etc...
> After all you use it to debate with people you don't know about politics, why can't LU members?



I quite like urban because you get a variety of different politics with often a high level of debate. I don't want to build a political organisation with people on urban I fundamentally disagree with. That doesnt mean I dont want to be in a political org with a lot of urban types; I just dont wish to build one based on these discussions.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 24, 2014)

The problem with LU and it's conferences means their policies are decided by the sort of lefty bubble oddballs that can be bothered, or have the time and money to attend political conferences on their Saturdays in cities many miles away from where they live. That excludes by its very nature a huge % of people, particularly low income, disabled people and women. 

But the bigger problem with that approach is that it leads to discussion and debate focused around the hobby horses of some of the least successful political tendencies in British history.

2000 hobbyists coming up with a detailed range of policies and a massive steering group based purely on very internally focused conversations, rather than carrying out serious qualitative and quantitative research on what the people they want to support the organisation want (research that could be carried out face to face and possibly online) means it is bound to repeat the sins of the long list of broken initiatives those 2000 or so people have previously been involved in.

I agree that online forums would not solve the problems with LU - in fact they would magnify them at the moment, but facing outwards and talking to the great unwashed before developing a range of policies and procedures may have helped. 

Too late now though.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 24, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The problem with LU and it's conferences means their policies are decided by the sort of lefty bubble oddballs that can be bothered, or have the time and money to attend political conferences on their Saturdays in cities many miles away from where they live. That excludes by its very nature a huge % of people, particularly low income, disabled people and women.
> 
> But the bigger problem with that approach is that it leads to discussion and debate focused around the hobby horses of some of the least successful political tendencies in British history.
> 
> ...



Thats fair enough-IMO the way that LU is trying to build a program before beginning any campaigning is back to front.


----------



## Coolfonz (Aug 24, 2014)

I think casting the net wider - including via any form of popular participation - is exactly what a left party needs. Including online. We need the people who have not been active because the ones that have been, are failures. They have failed.
Podemos isn't an exact replica. But it was formed after Left Unity. It has a much more open style, primaries, online debate etc. It stood its most famous folk - roughly - at the Euro elections and ended up with 5 MEPs. Left Unity could have stood Ken Loach in the Euros, and even if he did not get elected gained some momentum.
Instead we get endless debates that start with people saying `comrade...` and the perverse sight of people on Left Unity's site deriding Podemos' methods and saying they are a flash in the pan.
I have loads of mates who are generally left wing - i showed them Left Unity and they just laughed. And its not my mates who are out of step with the mainstream.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 24, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> I think casting the net wider - including via any form of popular participation - is exactly what a left party needs. Including online. We need the people who have not been active because the ones that have been, are failures. They have failed.
> Podemos isn't an exact replica. But it was formed after Left Unity. It has a much more open style, primaries, online debate etc. It stood its most famous folk - roughly - at the Euro elections and ended up with 5 MEPs. Left Unity could have stood Ken Loach in the Euros, and even if he did not get elected gained some momentum.
> Instead we get endless debates that start with people saying `comrade...` and the perverse sight of people on Left Unity's site deriding Podemos' methods and saying they are a flash in the pan.
> I have loads of mates who are generally left wing - i showed them Left Unity and they just laughed. And its not my mates who are out of step with the mainstream.



If you think internet discussion forums are what LU needs you are mad.


----------



## Coolfonz (Aug 24, 2014)

What a well reasoned response.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 24, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> I think casting the net wider - including via any form of popular participation - is exactly what a left party needs. Including online. We need the people who have not been active because the ones that have been, are failures. They have failed.
> Podemos isn't an exact replica. But it was formed after Left Unity. It has a much more open style, primaries, online debate etc. It stood its most famous folk - roughly - at the Euro elections and ended up with 5 MEPs. Left Unity could have stood Ken Loach in the Euros, and even if he did not get elected gained some momentum.
> Instead we get endless debates that start with people saying `comrade...` and the perverse sight of people on Left Unity's site deriding Podemos' methods and saying they are a flash in the pan.
> I have loads of mates who are generally left wing - i showed them Left Unity and they just laughed. And its not my mates who are out of step with the mainstream.



Online forums are definitely part of what needs to be provided by any effective progressive movement, certainly they would be more useful than selling papers and doing petitions on Gaza on a Saturday morning high street like a nutjob. 

But the question of who participates and why is key - you can't put the cart before the horse, and for LU to put much faith in online discussion before it's engaged with normal people in a meaningful way, would be as pointless as having a conference of the self funded.

If LU had a forum and you showed it to your mates they would still laugh at it. It would be full of threads by Steve Freeman demanding English support for a Scottish socialist republic and AWLers winding ISNers up about Israel. 

Podemos have used tools like Loomio very effectively and that's a really positive thing, we can also learn a lot from M5S in Italy - however they were engaging with an already extent base who believed they had something to gain from supporting them - LU does not have that, and will not get it. There was possibly a five minute window when they could have used their initial momentum to speak with people but they blew it, which was probably an inevitable outcome given who they were...


----------



## Coolfonz (Aug 25, 2014)

I was actually originally talking about LU members having the ability to vote on motions and also to propose them. Not just a forum for members to spout off. 
It appears as if LU thinks 300 members out of 2000 voting on motions - and proposing them - is preferable to all 2000 voting. The conference etc etc.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 25, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> I was actually originally talking about LU members having the ability to vote on motions and also to propose them. Not just a forum for members to spout off.
> It appears as if LU thinks 300 members out of 2000 voting on motions - and proposing them - is preferable to all 2000 voting. The conference etc etc.



Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't at least half of those 2000 members never attended a single LU event, even locally, and in fact have never demonstrated any commitment to LU beyond signing some call for a new party?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 25, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't at least half of those 2000 members never attended a single LU event, even locally, and in fact have never demonstrated any commitment to LU beyond signing some call for a new party?


How should LU engage with them?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 25, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> How should LU engage with them?



I don't think they should, I think most of the leadership of LU should lock themselves in padded cells for everybody's safety. 

Why do you think people who are happy to put their name to something on the internet but who aren't actively engaged in any campaigning at all, not even in their own workplaces, are the key constituency LU should be looking to engage with?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 25, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I don't think they should, I think most of the leadership of LU should lock themselves in padded cells for everybody's safety.
> 
> Why do you think people who are happy to put their name to something on the internet but who aren't actively engaged in any campaigning at all, not even in their own workplaces, are the key constituency LU should be looking to engage with?


The key constituency LU should be engaging with (or should have when they had the chance) didn't even sign up to it let alone attend any events or actions


----------



## treelover (Aug 25, 2014)

Some posters may not be aware Burgin (after a discussion with Bone) let a thousand flowers bloom when L/U first started, anyone could be a local contact, etc, its not his fault that it was the usual suspects who then took over at the Conferences.


----------



## chilango (Aug 25, 2014)

treelover said:


> Some posters may not be aware Burgin (after a discussion with Bone) let a thousand flowers bloom when L/U first started, anyone could be a local contact, etc, its not his fault that it was the usual suspects who then took over at the Conferences.



It doesn't matter now.

They had the briefest of brief moments to step outside.

They didn't, they couldn't. 

Nobody's "fault". But until people let go of their "role" of left-wing activist and all the rituals and catechisms that flow on from that then this will always, always, always happen.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 25, 2014)

chilango said:


> until people let go of their "role" of left-wing activist and all the rituals and catechisms that flow on from that then this will always, always, always happen.



They'd need to let go of their shit politics as well.


----------



## chilango (Aug 25, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> They'd need to let go of their shit politics as well.



Yeah.

But the politics flows from the role they are playing. Activists need to be "active". Left-winger activists need to be active on "Left-wing" issues. Hence standing on high streets waving petitions about Palestine.

Not that there's necessarily anything "wrong" with doing that but it's at best a bit of volunteering, at worst a hobby. 

Either way, it's not the way to transform society.


----------



## Coolfonz (Aug 29, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't at least half of those 2000 members never attended a single LU event, even locally, and in fact have never demonstrated any commitment to LU beyond signing some call for a new party?



So even if you are actually a paid up member of any organisation you should be stopped from voting on motions - or proposing any - because you can't physically attend meetings? Even corporations' AGMs have more inclusivity, even UK elections allow postal votes...
`Left Unity wants to transform society, but you cant use the internet as it's a bit weird and the members might vote for something` is a good campaigning slogan...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 29, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> So even if you are Even corporations' AGMs have more inclusivity



Not if you don't attend.



Coolfonz said:


> even UK elections allow postal votes...
> /QUOTE]
> 
> Er...


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 29, 2014)

socialism without the working class


----------



## chilango (Aug 29, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> socialism without the working class



...or the Socialism


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 29, 2014)

In the UK socialism is without the working class and it has been for sometime...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 29, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> So even if you are actually a paid up member of any organisation you should be stopped from voting on motions - or proposing any - because you can't physically attend meetings? Even corporations' AGMs have more inclusivity, even UK elections allow postal votes...
> `Left Unity wants to transform society, but you cant use the internet as it's a bit weird and the members might vote for something` is a good campaigning slogan...



I'm pretty sure you were allowed to propose motions for LU's conferences even if you couldn't attend?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 30, 2014)

It's all getting a bit daft now...

http://leftunity.org/call-for-an-english-republic-yes-tendency-and-a-no2uk-campaign/


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 30, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> It's all getting a bit daft now...
> 
> http://leftunity.org/call-for-an-english-republic-yes-tendency-and-a-no2uk-campaign/


It isn't LU policy. It's just a blog and if you look at the comments there are a number of detractors.

That reminds me, I'm a republican.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 16, 2014)

the LU meeting with Podemos, Syriza and so on is live streaming from 6.30pm http://leftunity.us3.list-manage2.c...4fe0b7017dd1b277de&id=92e6a3e949&e=cb9d30b207


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> An overwhelming majority commenters don't appear to agree with him. John Tummon is the only one.


This bloke is now calling for LU to support ISIS' caliphate.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 15, 2014)

You could not make this shit up.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2014)

teqniq said:


> You could not make this shit up.


I doubt it will attract very much - or any - support. But you know..._fucking hell._


----------



## J Ed (Nov 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I doubt it will attract very much - or any - support. But you know..._fucking hell._



The fact that he hasn't already been hounded out of the group speaks volumes


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2014)

J Ed said:


> The fact that he hasn't already been hounded out of the group speaks volumes


This bloke used to work for the old Institute of Race relations as well. The labour party also appointed him head of Oldham Race Equality Partnership after the 2001 riots. He calls himself an anti-fascist. For real.


----------



## weseethroughyou (Nov 15, 2014)

maidan nazis organising meet at the cenotaph tommorow in london and a concert afterwards at the london school of economics


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2014)

J Ed said:


> The fact that he hasn't already been hounded out of the group speaks volumes


And the motion is seconded by Mark Anthony France - who is standing for Class War in Bromsgrove. Marvelous.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 15, 2014)

Isn't he the one who posted pics of Kate Hudson in her swimsuit up on Facebook?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Isn't he the one who posted pics of Kate Hudson in her swimsuit up on Facebook?


He's called for a militarisation of the green party (they later expelled him). Not sure i would like middle class UDI in Brighton, Norwich and the posh parts of bristol.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 15, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Isn't he the one who posted pics of Kate Hudson in her swimsuit up on Facebook?



Spreading images of female immodesty and promoting the caliphate at the same time. Someone wants to have their cake and eat it...


----------



## J Ed (Nov 15, 2014)

Prepare the hummus cannon


----------



## tufty79 (Nov 15, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Prepare the hummus cannon


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2014)

Has he ever posted on here ?


----------



## weseethroughyou (Nov 15, 2014)

LEFT UNITY NEEDS TO BE SEEN TOMMOROW
 The estab are more than likely behind this nazi march in london tommorow and the ukrainians are being used again to serve these nazis who are now dying to come out into the open


----------



## weseethroughyou (Nov 15, 2014)

butchers apron will you be wearing your apron tommorow


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2014)

*ignore button deployed until the inevitable banning*


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 15, 2014)

chilango said:


> *ignore button deployed until the inevitable banning*


just done the same thing can't be arsed


----------



## weseethroughyou (Nov 15, 2014)

Tommorow in london they will be a march of people who wish to celebrate ALL ukrainian dead in wars. Unfortunatly it includes the fashcist forces who carried out some of the worst crimes in the whole of ww2 which included the rape torture and murder of women and children in lviv and kiev.
Similar to the crimes that were carried out in odessa and are being made in the donbass at the moment like injecting building foam uinto peoples arseholes and blowing up there intestines as a form of torture organised and payed for by you know who no doubt.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 15, 2014)

J Ed said:


> The fact that he hasn't already been hounded out of the group speaks volumes


seems unfair...if anything it speaks volumes as to how their democratic model takes longer in removing the eccentrics than a traditional hierarchical model - its not as if its taking time because the other members are busy deliberating on the issue


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2014)

ska invita said:


> seems unfair...if anything it speaks volumes as to how their democratic model takes longer in removing the eccentrics than a traditional hierarchical model - its not as if its taking time because the other members are busy deliberating on the issue


He's no eccentric - he's quite central to it the north-west. And the point is about the loons it attracts, holds and promotes (or elects) anyway. And that table of motions and proposed amendments and how to deal with them is exactly the same as any other union or left-wing party set-up. It's neither more nor less democratic than any of them.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He's no eccentric - he's quite central to it the north-west.


he sounds eccentric to me (i know what you mean of course). i guess until the party grows there'll be some small ponds that allow stranger fish the room to swim. i'll have to take your word on the rest of your post but my impression of internal democracy within the party is that its a healthy model and geared to avoid too much centralisation of power. I haven't got the time and energy to test and compare but i think the commitment to principle of bottom up democracy is there


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He's no eccentric - he's quite central to it the north-west. And the point is about the loons it attracts, holds and promotes (or elects) anyway. And that table of motions and proposed amendments and how to deal with them is exactly the same as any other union or left-wing party set-up. It's neither more nor less democratic than any of them.



And this (both points - the loons and the ritualistic proceduralism) were highlighted early on in the thread as reasons why LU would fail.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 15, 2014)

every party has loons - its not until membership grows to be more representative that the loons can be sidelined. all the major parties continue to have them, never mind the smaller groups. politics attracts outsiders

i missed it - why describe it as  ritualistic proceduralism? whats wrong with good procedures?


----------



## weseethroughyou (Nov 15, 2014)

left unity sounds to me like something being set up by the russel brands of this world and a few armchair bedroom boyz the unity is there and it never went away the days of the politician are over the people are awake and all the chemtrails and electronic pystronic control will do nothing and they cant shoot us all they are losing out on the global scale as well asthe domestic front many countries are no longer under control of the zionists to name a few BRAZIL INDONESIA ARGENTINA A REUNITED KOREA SOON BOLIVIA VENUZUELA FRANCE(DOON TO BREAK FREE)MOST OF AFRICA LATIN AMERICA MOST OF ASIA EVEN JAPAN WILL BREAK FREE SOON


----------



## belboid (Nov 15, 2014)

weseethroughyou said:


> left unity sounds to me like something being set up by the russel brands of this world and a few armchair bedroom boyz the unity is there and it never went away the days of the politician are over the people are awake and all the chemtrails and electronic pystronic control will do nothing and they cant shoot us all they are losing out on the global scale as well asthe domestic front many countries are no longer under control of the zionists to name a few BRAZIL INDONESIA ARGENTINA A REUNITED KOREA SOON BOLIVIA VENUZUELA FRANCE(DOON TO BREAK FREE)MOST OF AFRICA LATIN AMERICA MOST OF ASIA EVEN JAPAN WILL BREAK FREE SOON


Oh do fuck off you moron


----------



## chilango (Nov 15, 2014)

ska invita said:


> every party has loons - its not until membership grows to be more representative that the loons can be sidelined. all the major parties continue to have them, never mind the smaller groups. politics attracts outsiders
> 
> i missed it - why describe it as  ritualistic proceduralism? whats wrong with good procedures?


I'm talking about the need to "move motions" and all that entails.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> Oh do fuck off you moron


He's only saying what we all/casually red think.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 16, 2014)

So - did the pro-Caliphate motion pass ?


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 16, 2014)

articul8 said:


> So - did the pro-Caliphate motion pass ?


Don't be daft. It was overwhelmingly defeated.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 17, 2014)

Lol


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2014)

Wholly fuck,what a vibrant democratic shambles. What a difference from the stale old left. Do watch/listen.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 18, 2014)

Is that what democracy looks like?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Is that what democracy looks like?


You can fuck off and all you composite behind closed  doors _on the members - they'll never know - tab_ labour cunt.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 18, 2014)

To be fair it's a serious question - how you can get democratic procedures right without being proceduralist.  The Campaign for Labour Democracy, whilst worthy, gets bogged down in internal wrangling over constitutional rules without really addressing the big picture.   The LRC tries to be a democratic membership organisation, but that's getting abused and overrun by sectarian elements.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2014)

articul8 said:


> To be fair it's a serious question - how you can get democratic procedures right without being proceduralist.  The Campaign for Labour Democracy, whilst worthy, gets bogged down in internal wrangling over constitutional rules without really addressing the big picture.   The LRC tries to be a democratic membership organisation, but that's getting abused and overrun by sectarian elements.


To be fair my criticism were serious. You take money off RMT members. Where is their say in this?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 18, 2014)

Say in what?  Left Unity?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Say in what?  Left Unity?


In your position. Talk me about democracy. Yeah. Parasite.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 18, 2014)

I am working to the direction of the elected officers - nothing undemocratic about that.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I am working to the direction of the elected officers - nothing undemocratic about that.


Like the house of lords. Or democratic fuedalism. Do you really want to ask what democracy is? Do you really want to support the answer you want?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2014)

...and then he went quiet - how can _other people_ be democratic. Is that what you really meant?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Wholly fuck,what a vibrant democratic shambles. What a difference from the stale old left. Do watch/listen.



 Fucking hell, I'd rather sit through some old labour conference arrangements committee stitch up than that shit.  Makes the anarcho-hippy-shake hands thing look efficient.


----------



## treelover (Nov 18, 2014)

Apparently Podemos circles are much more er, robust' than that and they are now polling top in some polls in Spain.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2014)

treelover said:


> Apparently Podemos circles are much more er, robust' than that and they are now polling top in some polls in Spain.


Based on what? What does robust mean here? Just say what you mean ffs.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Like the house of lords. Or democratic fuedalism. Do you really want to ask what democracy is? Do you really want to support the answer you want?


how am I defending the House of Lords?  FFS


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2014)

articul8 said:


> how am I defending the House of Lords?  FFS


Can someone help him here please?


----------



## treelover (Nov 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Based on what? What does robust mean here? Just say what you mean ffs.



Chaotic, lots of shouting, etc.


----------



## treelover (Nov 18, 2014)




----------



## Wilf (Nov 18, 2014)

treelover said:


>


 Phoenix Nights?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 18, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Phoenix Nights?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 18, 2014)

Every single person in that clip from the LU conference has been around the block, nearly all of them are recognisable from other lefty things. Where are the new forces treelover et al promised us?


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 18, 2014)

The fact that this debate has mentioned on the Fortean Times message board pretty much sums up where the cobweb is tbh


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 18, 2014)

*runs off to FT to dust off login*


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Every single person in that clip from the LU conference has been around the block, nearly all of them are recognisable from other lefty things. Where are the new forces treelover et al promised us?


They've all gone to fight for ISIS.


----------



## Coolfonz (Nov 18, 2014)

I joined LU as i thought it might have a moment of opportunity to do something. it didn't. i was of course, wrong. when i left as a result of this a few months ago the person from the political party i was leaving who answered my email, said oh well they didn't think you cd change much with electoral politics anyway. for real. 

and we mentioned this guy and ISIS before on the thread...conkers bonkers.

and other people who slagged off Podemos (210,000 members, and 5 MEPs) as a flash in the pan against Left Unity (fuck all and a couple of biscuits).


----------



## Wilf (Nov 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They've all gone to fight for ISIS.


So Called Left Unity.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This bloke is now calling for LU to support ISIS' caliphate.


As is this woman from the labour party/LRC. She is a genuine non-messing posadist as well.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> As is this woman from the labour party/LRC. She is a genuine non-messing posadist as well.



I think the single best thing about real Posadists, and there are many wonderful features to choose from, is their dedication to Labour Party entryism.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> As is this woman from the labour party/LRC. She is a genuine non-messing posadist as well.


I thing she is the lone Posadist in Britain now.  In fairness, she doesn't actually argue in support of ISIS there, although she argues for not supporting the Kurds in Kobane (but on the grounds that Assad is some kind of secular anti-imperialist).   It's a wrong position, but it's not the same as supporting a caliphate.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I thing she is the lone Posadist in Britain now.  In fairness, she doesn't actually argue in support of ISIS there, although she argues for not supporting the Kurds in Kobane (but on the grounds that Assad is some kind of secular anti-imperialist).   It's a wrong position, but it's not the same as supporting a caliphate.


Yeah it is. And she in the same group as you. Not the labour party, the LRC.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah it is. And she in the same group as you. Not the labour party, the LRC.


Not really.   The LRC has a mad fringe sectarian element in it, which does it no favours.  But she isn't supporting ISIS or their ideas, however wrong she might be on the situation in general.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 8, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Not really.   The LRC has a mad fringe sectarian element in it, which does it no favours.  But she isn't supporting ISIS or their ideas, however wrong she might be on the situation in general.


That post isn't as bad as Socialist Fight's defence of the Woolwich Axe killers, who were apparently making an anti-imperialist gesture.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Not really.   The LRC has a mad fringe sectarian element in it, which does it no favours.  But she isn't supporting ISIS or their ideas, however wrong she might be on the situation in general.


No she is, like she supported the Russian fascists.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2014)

articul8 said:


> That post isn't as bad as Socialist Fight's defence of the Woolwich Axe killers, who were apparently making an anti-imperialist gesture.


It's the same.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's the same.


Not quite - she is not saying ISIS are anti-imperialists.  She is saying that imperialists back the Kurds, who are fighting Assad, who resists the ambitions of imperialism.  She isn't saying anything directly about ISIS, except that the Kurds shouldn't be armed to fight them.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Not quite - she is not saying ISIS are anti-imperialists.  She is saying that imperialists back the Kurds, who are fighting Assad, who resists the ambitions of imperialism.  She isn't saying anything directly about ISIS, except that the Kurds shouldn't be armed to fight them.


She's saying support ISIS you goon. Someone in your little group. 

Why don't you kick her out?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 8, 2014)

No, she isn't (however much I disagree with what she IS saying).   She's not the front of the queue as far as expulsions are concerned!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No, she isn't (however much I disagree with what she IS saying).   She's not the front of the queue as far as expulsions are concerned!


Yeah she is. I see why you can't admit it though.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah she is. I see why you can't admit it though.


She just isn't saying that *here*, although I can believe she's daft enough to (and she's not her on own sadly).


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She just isn't saying that *here*, although I can believe she's daft enough to (and she's not her on own sadly).


She's saying it out load and proud and as a part of your group.The one you elect to be a member of, Yet there are even worse oddballs that you think you have to deal with before reaching this one.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> She's saying it out load and proud and as a part of your group.The one you elect to be a member of, Yet there are even worse oddballs that you think you have to deal with before reaching this one.


where is she saying "support ISIS"?  Can you provide a quote to that effect?  You don't have to try hard to point to the limits of the LRC, so I don't see why you are making shit up.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2014)

articul8 said:


> where is she saying "support ISIS"?  Can you provide a quote to that effect?  You don't have to try hard to point to the limits of the LRC, so I don't see why you are making shit up.


Seriously, you can type loads of shit on RMT members wages whilst sitting in parliament and you can't read a text from a fucking goon right?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Seriously, you can type loads of shit on RMT members wages whilst sitting in parliament and you can't read a text from a fucking goon right?


I am not sitting in Parliament, and I can read very well thankyou.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 8, 2014)

To be honest I found her screed barely comprehensible, I am not sure it said support Isis but I have little idea what it did say


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No, she isn't (however much I disagree with what she IS saying).   She's not the front of the queue as far as expulsions are concerned!


This person isn't even the nuttiest  in your group?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This person isn't even the nuttiest  in your group?


depends how you measure it, but not necessarily


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2014)

articul8 said:


> depends how you measure it, but not necessarily


Join labour and then the LRC. You're the nuttiest right?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 8, 2014)

Serious question - why haven't the labour leadership done a Kinnock with the posadists etc and expelled them? Is it because most people don't know about them because they are so irrelevant and therefore the lp can't be arsed, or do they not know of their existence? Or perhaps it's because expelling them would just cause more embarrassment as more people became aware of their existence?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 8, 2014)

There's an understandable aversion to expelling people on the basis of their particular interepretation of socialist ideas.  We aren't a Leninist section with a single line.  For the most part the wackier fringe has been harmless enough.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Serious question - why haven't the labour leadership done a Kinnock with the posadists etc and expelled them? Is it because most people don't know about them because they are so irrelevant and therefore the lp can't be arsed, or do they not know of their existence? Or perhaps it's because expelling them would just cause more embarrassment as more people became aware of their existence?



The Labour Party expels groups if they are seen as a threat or as disruptive or if they provide a useful target for some reason. They don't expel non threatening fruit loops. Like the Posadists or Socialist Appeal.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The Labour Party expels groups if they are seen as a threat or as disruptive or if they provide a useful target for some reason. They don't expel non threatening fruit loops.


Hence LRC.


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 8, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No, she isn't (however much I disagree with what she IS saying).   She's not the front of the queue as far as expulsions are concerned!


If she was a Muslim in a hijab she would be.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There's an understandable aversion to expelling people on the basis of their particular interepretation of socialist ideas.  We aren't a Leninist section with a single line.  For the most part the wackier fringe has been harmless enough.


You have no power to expel anyone. Note in this case you decide to say _we _rather than _they_.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 8, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There's an understandable aversion to expelling people on the basis of their particular interepretation of socialist ideas.  We aren't a Leninist section with a single line.  For the most part the wackier fringe has been harmless enough.



People in the LRC back North Korea. People would be horrified if anyone knew who they were.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 8, 2014)

Let's all carry Blairite bags in accordance with Socialist Lifestyle


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 8, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The Labour Party expels groups if they are seen as a threat or as disruptive or if they provide a useful target for some reason. They don't expel non threatening fruit loops. Like the Posadists or Socialist Appeal.



If the ideas of some of the people in the LRC (ie supporting Isis) became public knowledge wouldn't it seriously damage the party though?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> If the ideas of some of the people in the LRC (ie supporting Isis) became public knowledge wouldn't it seriously damage the party though?


I don't think she does support ISIS


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I don't think she does support ISIS


She supports ISIS like she supports the USSR, like she supports assad, like she supports labour.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 9, 2014)

simply asserting something without evidence doesn't make it any more convincing.  Where specifically in what she wrote there does she defend, promote or support ISIS?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I don't think she does support ISIS


Why this baseless assertion?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2014)

articul8 said:


> simply asserting something without evidence doesn't make it any more convincing.  Where specifically in what she wrote there does she defend, promote or support ISIS?


Here - explicitly and directly, in the very first thing i quoted - and not only in support of ISIS but also in support of assad:



> ISIS will remain a difficult nut to crack as long as that corridor is not finalised.



So this nutjob, is she representative of your little labour grouping or meaningless. You have argued she is far from the worst in your group- if your tiny group is full of people like this and worse then what non earth are you playing at? Why don't you kick them out?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 9, 2014)

I have no grounds whatsoever for believing she does.  It makes no sense to ask for evidence to disprove what you've no grounds for suspecting (see the later Wittgenstein )


----------



## articul8 (Dec 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Here - explicitly and directly, in the very first thing i quoted - and not only in support of ISIS but also in support of assad:


She refers to ISIS as a nut to be cracked - where is the support in that?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I have no grounds whatsoever for believing she does.  It makes no sense to ask for evidence to disprove what you've no grounds for suspecting (see the later Wittgenstein )


Apart from the thing that she says in support of the outcome that ISIS want and the wider perspective that supports the same. Someone in your tiny grouo supports ISIS, you think there's nuttioer people in your little band yet you will do nothing. Looking real good.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She refers to ISIS as a nut to be cracked - where is the support in that?


You haven't read it have you you lazy prat. I think that just about sums it up. You've been defending something that you haven't bothered to read. The fucking dripping arrogance.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Apart from the thing that she says in support of the outcome that ISIS want and the wider perspective that supports the same. Someone in your tiny grouo supports ISIS, you think there's nuttioer people in your little band yet you will do nothing. Looking real good.


She is arguing, wrongly, in favour of Assad.  How does that make her a supporter of ISIS?  I mean, why make stuff up?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She is arguing, wrongly, in favour of Assad.  How does that make her a supporter of ISIS?  I mean, why make stuff up?


She is arguing that defending assad is the key thing right now and so the YPG beating ISIS would be a defeat in this key battle therefore the YPG have to lose therefore ISIS must win. It's quite simple to people who aren't hacks who have to make up stuff to defend their group.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2014)

I bet you really hoped man u lost last night but not to southampton.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> She is arguing that defending assad is the key thing right now and so the YPG beating ISIS would be a defeat in this key battle therefore the YPG have to lose therefore ISIS must win. It's quite simple to people who aren't hacks who have to make up stuff to defend their group.


I'm quite prepared to admit their are people in the LRC whose ideas are bonkers, including her!  It's just that it's not correct to say she is supporting ISIS, she isn't, she's arguing what she sees as imperialist support for the Kurds in Syria.   This really isn't the same thing at all, although the implication in the immediate context of Kobane would be an ISIS victory.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I'm quite prepared to admit their are people in the LRC whose ideas are bonkers, including her!  It's just that it's not correct to say she is supporting ISIS, she isn't, she's arguing what she sees as imperialist support for the Kurds in Syria.   This really isn't the same thing at all, although the implication in the immediate context of Kobane would be an ISIS victory.


No,she is saying ISIS must win and their victory will be ours.

The immediate context eh? The thing that she wants to see happen that you argue she doesn't want to see happen.

What's it like to be in a small group where people argue this? One where they aren't the worst? Why don't you move to get her kicked out?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No,she is saying ISIS must win and their victory will be ours.
> The immediate context eh? The thing that she wants to see happen that you argue she doesn't want to see happen.
> What's it like to be in group where people argue this? One where they aren't the worst? Why don't you move to get her kicked out?



She is talking about the "national sovereignty" of Syria under Assad and the imperialist motivations for western intervention.  She does not argue that it should be conquered and folded in to some Islamic caliphate as ISIS want.  Therefore she is not "supporting ISIS" as you claim.   She is however supporting a dictator who has previously been happy to cut deals with western imperialist powers.  So she's not exactly on strong ground.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She is talking about the "national sovereignty" of Syria under Assad and the imperialist motivations for western intervention.  She does not argue that it should be conquered and folded in to some Islamic caliphate as ISIS want.  Therefore she is not "supporting ISIS" as you claim.   She is however supporting a dictator who has previously been happy to cut deals with western imperialist powers.  So she's not exactly on strong ground.


She arguing ISIS must beat the YPG. It'[s that simple. And it being that simple means she supports ISIS. Whether she's arguing she then wants someone else to beat them is irrelevant. She supports ISIS. She supports the military defeat of the YPG. She is in your group. Do something mr principles.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 9, 2014)

She is arguing that the YPG is a greater threat to Assad than is ISIS.  That doesn't mean she supports ISIS.   Frankly I'm not at all happy politically with what she IS arguing.  But I'm not sure disagreeing with me should be an expellable offence.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She is arguing that the YPG is a greater threat to Assad than is ISIS.  That doesn't mean she supports ISIS.   Frankly I'm not at all happy politically with what she IS arguing.  But I'm not sure disagreeing with me should be an expellable offence.


She is arguing full support for ISIS in their current campaign of murder slavery and extermination. She's not just _disagreeing with you_. And what sort of filthy group attracts people who think like this?  She's in your group (and you say she's not even the worse). Take steps to get rid of her.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2014)

Nice party this eh - from emily 'it's just a pic of a house' thornberry to marie 'it's just a bit of slavery' Lynam.  A broad church but no pew-room for principles.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> She is arguing full support for ISIS in their current campaign of murder slavery and extermination.


Where does she say this, or anything like it?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Where does she say this, or anything like it?


In the piece i linked to and quoted. The one that you said _yeah but she's only doing it in support of mass murderer assad_ about - as if that helped in any way.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Where does she say this, or anything like it?


But it wouldn't matter if she said it in terms that even a willfully blind bastard like you could see would it? Because all it amounts to is _disagreeing with you._


----------



## articul8 (Dec 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> In the piece i linked to and quoted. The one that you said _yeah but she's only doing it in support of mass murderer assad_ about - as if that helped in any way.


She is absolutely and fundamentally wrong in what she is saying.  But she is not directly supporting ISIS.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> But it wouldn't matter if she said it in terms that even a willfully blind bastard like you could see would it? Because all it amounts to is _disagreeing with you._


Acutally this does bear on debates in the LRC in the sense that political disagreement is not grounds for expulsion (as long as those beliefs are consistent with a socialist organisation).  But wilfully misrepresenting what people you disagree with are arguing is something else.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She is absolutely and fundamentally wrong in what she is saying.  But she is not directly supporting ISIS.


Yes she is. In the ways i have outlined above. And only someone committed to  a defence of her as a proxy for defence of their own group regardless of political principle (and i ask again, what sort of group attracts this filth?) could pretend otherwise.

She does rather  sound like you actually:



> Comrades must not support the “courageous resistance of the Kurdish people against ISIS”. The courageous resistance must be here, against a Labour and Union apparatchik entirely enmeshed in the imperialist function of the country, preventing the planning of the economy for need.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Acutally this does bear on debates in the LRC in the sense that political disagreement is not grounds for expulsion (as long as those beliefs are consistent with a socialist organisation).  But wilfully misrepresenting what people you disagree with are arguing is something else.


What about willfully pretending they didn't say it in order to not have to  do anything at all?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Acutally this does bear on debates in the LRC in the sense that political disagreement is not grounds for expulsion (as long as those beliefs are consistent with a socialist organisation).  But wilfully misrepresenting what people you disagree with are arguing is something else.


What part of wishing for an ISIS victory against the YPG in order to defend assad is consistent with a socialist organisation exactly? When did the LRC turn into the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What part of wishing for an ISIS victory against the YPG in order to defend assad is consistent with a socialist organisation exactly? When did the LRC turn into the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party?


 
I fundamentally disagree with her - it's part of an extremely crude understanding of anti-imperialism which is a hangover from Stalin.  Insofar as these ideas are raised in the LRC they are overwhelmingly defeated.  She doesn't speak for anyone.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I fundamentally disagree with her - it's part of an extremely crude understanding of anti-imperialism which is a hangover from Stalin.  Insofar as these ideas are raised in the LRC they are overwhelmingly defeated.  She doesn't speak for anyone.


You said she is free to think what she wants as long as it isn't against socialist organisation -_ what part of what she has argued is not against socialist organisation exactly?_ Don't just tell me you disagree with her - that's neither here nor there.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I fundamentally disagree with her - it's part of an extremely crude understanding of anti-imperialism which is a hangover from Stalin.  Insofar as these ideas are raised in the LRC they are overwhelmingly defeated.  She doesn't speak for anyone.


And to actually put this down to stalin is the really crude understanding here you great man of history buffoon.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 9, 2014)

Stalinism not just Stalin


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Stalinism not just Stalin


Ah so when you said stalin you didn't mean stalin. And no, that's just as crude and simplistic.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2014)

Labour party marxists eh? Fucking hell.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Labour party marxists eh? Fucking hell.


He's harmless


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2014)

articul8 said:


> He's harmless


Don't smiley me you rat. Do something about this woman in your group.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 16, 2014)

Whose the merriest band of muppeteers then? LRC or LU?

I see they're making good progress and Kate Hudson is having plenty of friendly chats with that nice Natalie Bennett.

http://www.independentsocialistnetw...t-debating-whether-to-oppose-the-green-party/


----------



## belboid (Dec 16, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Whose the merriest band of muppeteers then? LRC or LU?
> 
> I see they're making good progress and Kate Hudson is having plenty of friendly chats with that nice Natalie Bennett.
> 
> http://www.independentsocialistnetw...t-debating-whether-to-oppose-the-green-party/


Love the bit about the two clearly contradictory Bristol West motions both being passed.  I wonder why, when they're so keen on the LU-TUSC joint candidatures (well, two of them) they aren't insisting that Mark Anthony France doesn't stand as LU-Class War ion Bromsgrove.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

> Felicity Dowling moved that the NC endorsed Terry Stewart in Hackney South but asked the Bristol branch to conduct a questionnaire in the Constituency to gauge whether voters would support a LU candidate rather than a Green.



Need i say anything?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 16, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Whose the merriest band of muppeteers then? LRC or LU?
> 
> I see they're making good progress and Kate Hudson is having plenty of friendly chats with that nice Natalie Bennett.
> 
> http://www.independentsocialistnetw...t-debating-whether-to-oppose-the-green-party/


The LRC tried to recruit me on Twitter the other day. Their main pitch was that I didn't _have to_ join the Labour Party if I didn't want to.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> The LRC tried to recruit me on Twitter the other day. Their main pitch was that I didn't _have to_ join the Labour Party if I didn't want to.


You do _have _to join ISIS though.


----------



## belboid (Dec 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You do _have _to join ISIS though.


same position as Class Wars candidate


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

belboid said:


> same position as Class Wars candidate


I mentioned him first!


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2014)

belboid said:


> same position as Class Wars candidate



Why CW are letting him stand under their banner is beyond me.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You do _have _to join ISIS though.


Yawn - Marie is wrong, very wrong, but not a supporter of ISIS.


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2014)

L/U's FB page is getting very active, some reasonable 'debates'


----------



## emanymton (Dec 16, 2014)

belboid said:


> Love the bit about the two clearly contradictory Bristol West motions both being passed.  I wonder why, when they're so keen on the LU-TUSC joint candidatures (well, two of them) they aren't insisting that Mark Anthony France doesn't stand as LU-Class War ion Bromsgrove.


This is my favourite bit


> It was also agreed that structures needed to be put in place to make sure resolutions agreed were then implemented


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 16, 2014)

treelover said:


> L/U's FB page is getting very active, some reasonable 'debates'



About what? The UN? The need for structures to oversee the structures? What Kate Hudson and Natalie Bennett are doing at the weekend?


----------



## ska invita (Feb 12, 2015)

> Today Left Unity makes an appeal for an alliance against austerity –
> "We will support any candidate, whether they are from the Greens, the Labour left or a smaller party committed to equality, who states clearly that they will never vote for austerity and whose record leads us to believe that they are sincere.
> Not only will we not be standing against these candidates, we will actively campaign for them where possible.
> We will make every effort to negotiate with other parties who are prepared to enter into democratic discussion, with the aim of uniting around one anti-austerity candidate in each constituency. We call on the whole left to do likewise."


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 12, 2015)

That looks like a statement of support for TUSC candidates that explicitly doesn't mention TUSC.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 13, 2015)

What about a constituency where there's an anti-cuts Labour candidate and a TUSC candidate?


----------



## andysays (Feb 13, 2015)

articul8 said:


> What about a constituency where there's an anti-cuts Labour candidate and a TUSC candidate?



An anti-cuts Labour candidate is a contradiction in terms


----------



## articul8 (Feb 13, 2015)

andysays said:


> An anti-cuts Labour candidate is a contradiction in terms


Not really - there are a number of MPs and candidates who oppose austerity and have no record of voting for it


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Not really - there are a number of MPs and candidates who oppose austerity and have no record of voting for it


is it a big number or is it a little number?


----------



## andysays (Feb 13, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Not really - there are a number of MPs and candidates who oppose austerity and have no record of voting for it



The Labour party is committed to austerity, and any successful LP candidate will be hoping to be part of a Labour or Labour-led government which will be imposing policies of further austerity.

If a handful of Labour MPs claim to "oppose austerity" and think that by merely not voting to impose specific measures that they are somehow absolved of any responsibility, I regard that as nonsense.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 13, 2015)

articul8 said:


> What about a constituency where there's an anti-cuts Labour candidate and a TUSC candidate?



There a tiny number of labour MP's who would oppose austerity (McDonnell, Corbyn etc) and TUSC doesn't stand against those.

Corbyn spoke at our conference today-I asked him why trade unionists should vote Labour and he refused to comment on whether they should or not.


----------



## chilango (Feb 13, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Not really - there are a number of MPs and candidates who oppose austerity and have no record of voting for it



 Fuck Off.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 13, 2015)

TUSC is standing in a marginal - Lancaster and Fleetwood - against a lefty and former researcher to Corbyn.  Between them and, more seriously, the Greens they could hand that seat to the Tories.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 13, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> is it a big number or is it a little number?


Relatively modest, but still....


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 13, 2015)

articul8 said:


> TUSC is standing in a marginal - Lancaster and Fleetwood - against a lefty and former researcher to Corbyn.  Between them and, more seriously, the Greens they could hand that seat to the Tories.



Oh NO! Against one of Corbyn's work experience grunts? What a tragedy for the class! I'll contact the steering committee immediately and demand we withdraw.

Fuck off you stupid twat.


----------



## chilango (Feb 13, 2015)

articul8 said:


> TUSC is standing in a marginal - Lancaster and Fleetwood - against a lefty and former researcher to Corbyn.  Between them and, more seriously, the Greens they could hand that seat to the Tories.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 13, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Oh NO! Against one of Corbyn's work experience grunts? What a tragedy for the class! I'll contact the steering committee immediately and demand we withdraw.
> 
> Fuck off you stupid twat.


You fuck off - it's stupidity of that sort which saw the SP stand against McDonnell.  RMT will be pulling the plug soon I expect.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2015)

articul8 said:


> TUSC is standing in a marginal - Lancaster and Fleetwood - against a lefty and former researcher to Corbyn.  Between them and, more seriously, the Greens they could hand that seat to the Tories.


And the labour candidate just happens to be a mate of yours.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 13, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> And the labour candidate just happens to be a mate of yours.


Yes.  She is. Hopefully she'll get in despite these daft antics.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Relatively modest, but still....


is it fewer than the number of fingers you have?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Yes.  She is. Hopefully she'll get in despite these daft antics.


This is partly how they do it people. Never mention the networks, the connections.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2015)

Since when have you been a doctor btw articul8?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 13, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Since when have you been a doctor btw articul8?


About 10 years ago, why do you ask?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 13, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> This is partly how they do it people. Never mention the networks, the connections.


Didn't exactly try to conceal anything.  Hardly a shock


----------



## andysays (Feb 13, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Yes.  She is. Hopefully she'll get in despite these daft antics.



So assuming that she does, and assuming that that we end up with a Labour-led government, how is her opposing austerity likely to manifest itself, in ways which actually making a flying fuck's worth of difference to those subject to another five years of austerity, albeit done up in red packaging rather than blue and orange?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 14, 2015)

articul8 said:


> About 10 years ago, why do you ask?


I've had a pain in my neck for a while do you think you could look at it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2015)




----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2015)

andysays said:


> So assuming that she does, and assuming that that we end up with a Labour-led government, how is her opposing austerity likely to manifest itself, in ways which actually making a flying fuck's worth of difference to those subject to another five years of austerity, albeit done up in red packaging rather than blue and orange?


so it makes no difference whether voters elect someone who will use their voice to promote austerity policies, or to oppose them?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I've had a pain in my neck for a while do you think you could look at it?


not that kind I'd be earning a whole lot more if I was


----------



## andysays (Feb 14, 2015)

articul8 said:


> so it makes no difference whether voters elect someone who will use their voice to promote austerity policies, or to oppose them?



So the only difference you can point to is that your mate and the handful of other Labour MPs who adopt this position will "use their voice" to say, in effect




			
				articul8's mate said:
			
		

> although I am an MP elected under the banner of the Labour party which, now that it's in government, will follow the policies of austerity and cuts which they have made no secret of, I personally oppose austerity and by abstaining or opposing in particular votes which implement these policies, I want to absolve myself of all responsibility for any of the nasty things the party I'm an MP for might do



Sounds legit...


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2015)

Especially in a hung parliament situation a small number of votes could be critical in blocking particular measures which would otherwise have a devastating effect on people's lives.  In this context having a Tory rather than a socialist as your MP matters.


----------



## andysays (Feb 14, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Especially in a hung parliament situation a small number of votes could be critical in blocking particular measures which would otherwise have a devastating effect on people's lives.  In this context having a Tory rather than a socialist as your MP matters.



Except that any hung parliament will contain a huge majority of MPs representing parties in favour of cuts and austerity, even if they might quibble about some of the detail, so the idea that a handful of "socialist" Labour MPs will make a difference to the outcome of individual votes is nonsense 

It's just a way for these "socialist" Labour MPs to claim they personally have clean hands, it will be no consolation to those, including their own constituents, who have to bear the brunt of the Labour imposed austerity.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2015)

[E="articul8, post: 13721830, member: 17514"]You fuck off - it's stupidity of that sort which saw the SP stand against McDonnell.  RMT will be pulling the plug soon I expect.[/QUOTE]

We'll see won't we?

How long do you think the still-loyal sections of the union bureaucracy can keep that Labour-union link in tact? Or what's left of it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 14, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> [E="articul8, post: 13721830, member: 17514"]You fuck off - it's stupidity of that sort which saw the SP stand against McDonnell.  RMT will be pulling the plug soon I expect.





> We'll see won't we?
> 
> How long do you think the still-loyal sections of the union bureaucracy can keep that Labour-union link in tact? Or what's left of it.



Until a plausible more centre left alternative comes about, might get Unite then. Still wouldn't get the rest though.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2015)

[TE="Spanky Longhorn, post: 13723832, member: 47277"]Until a plausible more centre left alternative comes about, might get Unite then. Still wouldn't get the rest though.[/QUOTE]

I'm not talking about 'getting' Unite or anyone else. It doesn't neccessarily follow that any union that breaks its links with Labour would support anyone else. But the link is incredibly fragile right now-a Labour govt (minority or otherwise) carrying out cuts and provokijg strikes could shatter it totally.


----------



## treelover (Feb 14, 2015)

Lost any interest in L/U, they seem obsessed with identity politics, the ex Workers Power lot seem to be very embedded as well.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 14, 2015)

treelover said:


> Lost any interest in L/U, they seem obsessed with identity politics, the ex Workers Power lot seem to be very embedded as well.



Have you finally learnt your lesson this time?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 14, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm not talking about 'getting' Unite or anyone else. It doesn't neccessarily follow that any union that breaks its links with Labour would support anyone else. But the link is incredibly fragile right now-a Labour govt (minority or otherwise) carrying out cuts and provokijg strikes could shatter it totally.



Depends how they leaven austerity with other stuff - it's not very likely. However lets not forget over a million workers are in unaffiliated unions anyway... ad yet many of the staff and elected leaders of those unafilliated unions are Labour party members


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 16, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Depends how they leaven austerity with other stuff - it's not very likely. However lets not forget over a million workers are in unaffiliated unions anyway... ad yet many of the staff and elected leaders of those unafilliated unions are Labour party members



Just been at SP national conference - the Unite caucus reporting that Unite are now discussing internally what a non-Labour affiliated Unite the Union would look like and do, and even hypothesising about a sort of liberal left Peoples Assembly type party.

The union link has endured for a long time, sometimes surprisingly. It's understandable that people are therefore sceptical that it could ever be broken. It's worth remembering nothing is permanent, and that now that we're in a more turbulent period in Britain generally there is a very real possibility it could be broken totally in the next few years.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 16, 2015)

treelover said:


> Lost any interest in L/U, they seem obsessed with identity politics, the ex Workers Power lot seem to be very embedded as well.


Really? That's not my experience. But then, you're the one who's always complaining that every left party is "open borders".


----------



## belboid (Mar 25, 2015)

Steve Freeman is up for expulsion - for insisting on standing against the official TUSC/LU candidate, ex-Labourite Kinglesy Abrahams.

Of course Comrade Freeman is standing on THE key issue of this election:

2. I will be explaining to the people of Bermondsey the political significance of the forty five percent who voted ‘Yes’ in the Scottish referendum and why we must follow the lead of the Scottish people in taking the path of democratic revolution.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 25, 2015)

articul8 said:


> TUSC is standing in a marginal - Lancaster and Fleetwood - against a lefty and former researcher to Corbyn.  Between them and, more seriously, the Greens they could hand that seat to the Tories.



Well spotted, comrade. We don't want Mr. Jones the farmer to come back, do we?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 25, 2015)

? ^ I gather sense has prevailed in any case


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 26, 2015)

belboid said:


> Steve Freeman up for expulsion - for insisting on standing againsdt the official TUSC/LU candidate, ex-Labourite Kinglesy Abrahams.
> 
> Of course Comrade Freeman is standing on THE key issue of this election:
> 
> 2. I will be explaining to the people of Bermondsey the political significance of the forty five percent who voted ‘Yes’ in the Scottish referendum and why we must follow the lead of the Scottish people in taking the path of democratic revolution.



Somebody just posted this on my wall. What on earth is this guy thinking?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 26, 2015)

Not entirely sure it's a good thing to stand any candidate there if it makes Hughes's life any easier - although Kingsley's a decent enough sort (we tried to get him adopted as our local Labour candidate but he didn't get shortlisted).


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 26, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Somebody just posted this on my wall. What on earth is this guy thinking?



He's been the leader of a sect of, well, maybe half a dozen originally but one now, for three decades. This is par for the course.


----------



## belboid (Mar 26, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Somebody just posted this on my wall. What on earth is this guy thinking?


We must complete the bourgeois revolution, and destroy our undemocratic state before we can move on to socialism. He's been making the same (one) argument for the last thirty years, at least.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 26, 2015)

Full marks for bloody minded persistence though.


----------



## belboid (Mar 26, 2015)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Full marks for bloody minded persistence though.


well, as long as you dont have to be in the same room.

It was vaguely amusing when he first came to ISN meetings.  Most people there (other han me, Andy W, and Hazel C) hadn't heard him before and were quite impressed by his coherent, and (in context) relatively sane argument.  It was only around the third meeting, when he made the same speech and shoehorned it into any discussion (the state of the working-class, intersectionalism) that pennies started dropping.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 27, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Not entirely sure it's a good thing to stand any candidate there if it makes Hughes's life any easier - although Kingsley's a decent enough sort (we tried to get him adopted as our local Labour candidate but he didn't get shortlisted).



Oh, he's a decent enough sort is he, the councillor your party just expelled for opposing cuts?

Fuck off.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 27, 2015)

belboid said:


> We must complete the bourgeois revolution, and destroy our undemocratic state before we can move on to socialism. He's been making the same (one) argument for the last thirty years, at least.



Reheated Stalinism FTW.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 27, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Oh, he's a decent enough sort is he, the councillor your party just expelled for opposing cuts?
> 
> Fuck off.


He didn't get expelled, he resigned because he wasn't longlisted for Edmonton...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 27, 2015)

articul8 said:


> He didn't get expelled, he resigned because he wasn't longlisted for Edmonton...



Oh, I am sorry. Not expelled; suspended three times for campaigning and voting against cuts.


----------



## belboid (Mar 27, 2015)

Election results out - http://leftunity.org/internal-elections-2015-results/

Jack Conrad's reports of the national council will be highly incisive, no doubt.


----------



## chilango (Mar 27, 2015)

"Doing politics differently" with some tedious bureaucratic ritual packed with names that have been kicking around the scene for decades.

How exactly are Left Unity "doing politics differently"? Cos all I can see is a regroupment of homeless lefties. 

Nowt wrong with that, but it is what it is.

* shrugs, sighs and wanders off*


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 27, 2015)

Why were a bunch of candidates disqualified (as mentioned in the "notes" link after links to some of the counts)?


----------



## cutandsplice (Mar 30, 2015)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Why were a bunch of candidates disqualified (as mentioned in the "notes" link after links to some of the counts)?


Wrong sort of left unity.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 30, 2015)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Why were a bunch of candidates disqualified (as mentioned in the "notes" link after links to some of the counts)?


It looks like they were standing for several offices simultaneously and took the first one they were elected to thereby disqualifying themselves from the others - which seems legit.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 30, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It looks like they were standing for several offices simultaneously and took the first one they were elected to thereby disqualifying themselves from the others - which seems legit.



Not the people I was asking about. You are right that a number of candidates were removed from various races because they were elected by another route to another position on the leadership. But there were also others who were disqualified without being elected to another position. They seem to mostly be CPGB/WW people, although not all CPGB/WW people were disqualified.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2015)

I don't think you are allowed to be nominated by a single person any more, which 'Peter Manson' has done a couple times. Tina Becker also got nominated by Sheffield (her own branch), and I wonder if that has been questioned, as the CPGB have driven everyone else out of said branch.  I dont know tho


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2015)

belboid said:


> I don't think you are allowed to be nominated by a single person any more, which 'Peter Manson' has done a couple times. Tina Becker also got nominated by Sheffield (her own branch), and I wonder if that has been questioned, as the CPGB have driven everyone else out of said branch.  I dont know tho



Who is Tina Becker? How many Sheffield members do the CPGB have? Why have I only met LR?


----------



## belboid (Apr 1, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Who is Tina Becker? How many Sheffield members do the CPGB have? Why have I only met LR?


She's LR's partner, amongst other things, not a bad person. L has actually left the party now.  They have two other members, I believe.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 1, 2015)

I was asked to be the token anarchist at a uni Left Forum election hustings the other day - which was me, a Green, a Left Unity member & a member of the Socialist Campaign for Labour Victory. The Left Unity (Workers' Power) speaker's main pitch consisted (aside from criticising other groups) of telling us all how now was a brilliant moment to join LU because they're only 2 years old and haven't had the major discussions about where the party was going yet. 

"Join us because we're don't know what the fuck we're for" was a certainly new one for me...


----------



## belboid (Apr 1, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Socialist Campaign for Labour Victory.


aah, bless


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 1, 2015)

belboid said:


> aah, bless


Was inclined to think that about all 3 of them, but then that raised some pointed questions about my own participation so I left it...


----------



## brixtonscot (Apr 1, 2015)

Steve Freeman - another England is possible - interviewed by the taxi driver


----------



## belboid (Apr 2, 2015)

Turns out TB had her nomination refused because she said she was proposed by Sheffield LU, when they hadn't done so.  Oops


----------

