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 - 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?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?
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
yesYou're being pretty generous in how you're defining the Labour Left there aren't you?
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.
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?
let's stand as many hopeless candidates as we can, to make this the most hopeless attempt to stand against Labour since 1945!
let's stand as many hopeless candidates as we can, to make this the most hopeless attempt to stand against Labour since 1945!
desperate is what it is.It's more honest at least.
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
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?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
desperate is what it is.
Crikey old chap that is a bit rich. Not that you would say such a thing of course.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.