Crisis in Working Class Representation

[Nigel Irritable]

So let me get this straight. Those Socialist Party bastards stitched up a conference that they didn't organise and weren't chairing and managed to stop all of the other left groups from speaking. Except for the Communist Party of Britain, Socialist Alliance, Socialist Workers Party, United Socialist Party, Socialist Resistance, Alliance for Green Socialism and Labour Representation Committee all of which spoke.

Machiavellian!

 

[dennisr]

So let me get this straight. Those Socialist Party bastards stitched up a conference that they didn't organise and weren't chairing and managed to stop all of the other left groups from speaking. Except for the Communist Party of Britain, Socialist Alliance, Socialist Workers Party, United Socialist Party, Socialist Resistance, Alliance for Green Socialism and Labour Representation Committee all of which spoke.

Machiavellian!

typical trot machinations

 

[treelover]

I've also been told that the principal representative of the SWP had his hand in the air for the whole conference but was not called to speak.

God, that must have nearly destroyed him or her, he must have been near exploding with frustration..

 

[nightbreed]

I've also been told that the principal representative of the SWP had his hand in the air for the whole conference but was not called to speak.

 

[Silver_Fox]

So let me get this straight. Those Socialist Party bastards stitched up a conference that they didn't organise and weren't chairing and managed to stop all of the other left groups from speaking. Except for the Communist Party of Britain, Socialist Alliance, Socialist Workers Party, United Socialist Party, Socialist Resistance, Alliance for Green Socialism and Labour Representation Committee all of which spoke.

Machiavellian!

Who has said this? Or anything like this?

What has been said is that the coalition was decided before the conference behind closed doors. That the conference was dull and the only way you could get involved afterwards was through an email address while the programme, name and make up will be decided by more closed door meetings. That people weren't randomly picked from the floor (as was suggested was the case by the chair) but from a list. That all in all it was a dire meeting.

Now the Socialist Party might not have organised this but the new coalition could not happen without them and their members on the ground, so I imagine they must have some kind of influence. Yet although a lot of the speakers (possibly a majority if you include floor speakers) were from the SP not a single on criticised the lack of democracy or the way things had been done.

What was noticeable was the total lack of RMT members.

 

[TopCat]

In that case they shouldnt have thrown millions of pounds (more than five million in the case of the CWU alone since 97) at the Labour Party. Lets face it, given the incredible weakness of the party finances - which are now (and have been for some time) almost totally reliant on the union contributions - the unions have done an especially shit job of using that influence to change policy.

Agreed. Not often I agree with agricola but there you go.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

God, that must have nearly destroyed him or her, he must have been near exploding with frustration..

However, and to be fair, one of the SWP reps was called to speak - Tom Woodcock from Cambridge.

 

[The39thStep]

Why?

Do you really want to wait for the latest version of the Socialist Alliance?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Who has said this? Or anything like this?

What has been said is that the coalition was decided before the conference behind closed doors. That the conference was dull and the only way you could get involved afterwards was through an email address while the programme, name and make up will be decided by more closed door meetings. That people weren't randomly picked from the floor (as was suggested was the case by the chair) but from a list. That all in all it was a dire meeting.

Now the Socialist Party might not have organised this but the new coalition could not happen without them and their members on the ground, so I imagine they must have some kind of influence. Yet although a lot of the speakers (possibly a majority if you include floor speakers) were from the SP not a single on criticised the lack of democracy or the way things had been done.

I haven't heard such disengenuous drivel since the heyday of cockney rebel's contributions to this forum. There is nothing "undemocratic" about a group of organizations meeting and discussing whether to take am initiative together without first asking for the dubious benefit of the advice of Spartoids.

There may well be political or strategic reasons to criticize the new alliance but this is obviously self serving gibberish

What was noticeable was the total lack of RMT members.[/QUOTE]

 

[Silver_Fox]

How can it be self-serving? I'm not in an organisation. I presume you must be in the Socialist Party.

I went along to this with one other person, we were both independents and in his case it was the first left wing event he had been to. At the end of it he felt much the same way as me, and the event failed to engage with people outside of the far left. Unfortunately he is now far less likely to go to such an event again. Every single contributor to this thread, other than people who seem to be in the socialist party, has said the event was terrible. Surely this says something to you?

The problem with this event was there was no way to engage with it. You left a stage managed event with nothing more than an email to write to. I imagine, knowing how the far left usually operates, that we will be presented with a manifesto, leadership and candidates with no say from anyone outside the already set up clique.

Now that's fine if you want to build another failed attempt following on from god knows how many other attempts, as someone said above, yet another socialist alliance or even worse an extension of No2EU.

But if you want something more than this then it needs to engage a far wider audience. And I would think independent trade union reps would be the kind of people you should be aiming this at.

 

[JimPage]

I haven't heard such disengenuous drivel since the heyday of cockney rebel's contributions to this forum. There is nothing "undemocratic" about a group of organizations meeting and discussing whether to take am initiative together without first asking for the dubious benefit of the advice of Spartoids.

Actually, think it is a positive thing the the SP/AGS/CPB can agree on something, and yes, someone has to make the effort to organise a meeting and decide on speakers.

Its where people go with this from here- and especially if you take up the SWP`s offer to talk or not.

 

[Manzil]

Who really thinks the constituent parts of No2EU, or the prospective founding organisations of whatever new left-wing unity coalition is (hopefully) established before the next general election, want to exclude other groups?

Even considering the ongoing divisions amongst socialists in England, it's in the self-interest of groups like the Socialist Party or the Communist Party to make a new workers' party as big and successful as possible. The far left may be small, but it punches above its weight in terms of activism, and the more people who are politically active get involved, the better our chance at overcoming the weaknesses which would beset a new left.

As the SWP experience of the Left List shows, basing a broad left on a single group just doesn't work. Tony Benn's old phrase about 'too many socialist parties, not enough socialists' is true enough - but parallel to the task of coordinating our organisational resources within one movement, is the necessity of getting as much basic support for a common platform as possible. A socialist party without any socialists won't work either.

 

[Silver_Fox]

Who really thinks the constituent parts of No2EU, or the prospective founding organisations of whatever new left-wing unity coalition is (hopefully) established before the next general election, want to exclude other groups?

Who knows but they've done a great job of doing just that so far and more importantly it's not just about other groups but the vast majority of union and community activists who aren't in any group. At the moment there is no way of getting involved at all.

As for your point about groups no olive branch was given at the conference to the SWP who are the biggest left organisation.

By the way even Bob Crow and the Socialist Party aren't claiming this will be a new workers party.

It seems a shame that although everyone on this thread who isn't in the Socialist Party, and they all seem independents as far as I can see, is saying that the event was dire and off putting, no-one from the SP wants to engage with that or acknowledge it.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

How can it be self-serving? I'm not in an organisation.

Which group did you receive your political training in?

Ex-Workers Power?

At the moment there is no way of getting involved at all.

That's because at the moment there is nothing to get involved in. The organisations which were discussing launching something have only just, finally, agreed to actually take an initiative (and it still has to go to the RMT executive).

As was explicitly stated, now that agreement has been reached, it is intended to ask other groups and individuals to get involved and to create structures to allow for their involvement.

By the way even Bob Crow and the Socialist Party aren't claiming this will be a new workers party.

Indeed they don't, for the very good reason that it is beyond the powers of the Socialist Party or of the RMT to wish one into existence. This initiative is seen as a step along that road.

 

[JimPage]

See Respect Conference thread- Respect definatly will not be joining this-and the ferociousness of Galloways attacks on son of No2Eu suggest that even a non aggression pact with Respect would be rejected by them

 

[Silver_Fox]

I'm pretty sure I've answered you before. I'm not in a group and haven't been.

Indeed they don't, for the very good reason that it is beyond the powers of the Socialist Party or of the RMT to wish one into existence. This initiative is seen as a step along that road.

I agree. I was saying that in a response to a Socialist Party member just to clarify.

That's because at the moment there is nothing to get involved in. The organisations which were discussing launching something have only just, finally, agreed to actually take an initiative (and it still has to go to the RMT executive).

But that's not true. The leaflet given out on the day clearly said they want people to email in to get involved. But the extent you could get involved was just that, emailing in. Surely they could hold a series of meetings around the country to get involved in the setting up and ideas for the basis of the new alliance.

Also why not invite the SWP and other groups to get involved with the discussions and preperations?

Whatever is or isn't happening the conference was obviously very poor. Everyone on here who isn't in the Socialist Party has said that, and everyone I know who went on the day has said that (and none of them are in groups). Now you can ignore this if you want, but the conference was obviously off putting and didn't engage people.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

See Respect Conference thread- Respect definatly will not be joining this-and the ferociousness of Galloways attacks on son of No2Eu suggest that even a non aggression pact with Respect would be rejected by them

No that's not true - Respect has left the door open to working with any broader left formation and making "non aggression pacts". But Respect will argue that any non-aggression pact should include left wing Green and Labour candidates too - such as Caroline Lucas and John McDonnell, who those involved in No2EU in a fit of lunatic sectarianism have stood against in the past.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

...
...
Also why not invite the SWP and other groups to get involved with the discussions and preperations?
....

THE question from which we get a deafening silence from the SP and its new found friends.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

....

As was explicitly stated, now that agreement has been reached, it is intended to ask other groups and individuals to get involved and to create structures to allow for their involvement.
...

Intended by who? There are no details and no explicit statement that this will be allowed.

Socialist Resistance wrote to No2EU asking to affiliate and didn't even get a reply. Is this going to change this time round?

 

[JimPage]

No that's not true - Respect has left the door open to working with any broader left formation and making "non aggression pacts". But Respect will argue that any non-aggression pact should include left wing Green and Labour candidates too - such as Caroline Lucas and John McDonnell, who those involved in No2EU in a fit of lunatic sectarianism have stood against in the past.

I just dont see how in reality they hope to reach formal agrements with Labour- whose response would be no. At best the left can agree among itself not to stand against McDonnell.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I'm pretty sure I've answered you before. I'm not in a group and haven't been.

You know what? I don't believe you.

But that's not true. The leaflet given out on the day clearly said they want people to email in to get involved. But the extent you could get involved was just that, emailing in.

Yes, because the decision to definitely have an initiative had only been made and no further decisions had yet been taken. The next thing on the agenda will be precisely how to best go about opening up the initiative to wider forces This will involve talking to other organisations, holding local meetings and the like.

Also why not invite the SWP and other groups to get involved with the discussions and preperations?

The Socialist Party has been on the record as favouring including other groups and currents since long before the European elections. However, our first priority was in ensuring that our existing allies, and in particular the RMT, were willing to continue and further develop the experiment of standing against Labour.

There is absolutely no possibility - none whatsoever - that the RMT or CPB would have agreed to participate in a sectarian circus involving every lunatic Spartoid group and neither wanted the SWP (who are not, by the way, lunatic Spartoids) there either. Part of the point of having preliminary discussions is to establish a solid foundation and a solid commitment from the core forces and to win the argument with them for greater broadness. That, as I understand it, has now been achieved.

Everyone on here who isn't in the Socialist Party has said that,

Fortunately, the weight I attach to the opinions of most of the people who have posted in this thread isn't much of a burden.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Socialist Resistance wrote to No2EU asking to affiliate and didn't even get a reply. Is this going to change this time round?

I can hardly imagine caring less, however, my understanding is that yes indeed the intention is to throw open involvement to the wider left.

 

[Silver_Fox]

You know what? I don't believe you.

You are strange. You ask a question and then just say I don't believe you. Anyway, it matters little.

Yes, because the decision to definitely have an initiative had only been made and no further decisions had yet been taken. The next thing on the agenda will be precisely how to best go about opening up the initiative to wider forces This will involve talking to other organisations, holding local meetings and the like.

Well I guess this is the crucial question. But given what happened with No2EU and the fact that other organisations could have been consulted long ago I don't hold much hope. And the vast majority of people who aren't in any groups will have an even harder time getting involved.

The Socialist Party has been on the record as favouring including other groups and currents since long before the European elections. However, our first priority was in ensuring that our existing allies, and in particular the RMT, were willing to continue and further develop the experiment of standing against Labour.

There is absolutely no possibility - none whatsoever - that the RMT or CPB would have agreed to participate in a sectarian circus involving every lunatic Spartoid group and neither wanted the SWP (who are not, by the way, lunatic Spartoids) there either. Part of the point of having preliminary discussions is to establish a solid foundation and a solid commitment from the core forces and to win the argument with them for greater broadness. That, as I understand it, has now been achieved.

Spartoid groups? You've lost me.

Anyway the point is that the SWP weren't involved and there are no signs of them being involved. This alliance simply couldn't happen without the SP yet there seems little sign of your influence. This broadness is totally failing to materialise, yet you seem to say otherwise. We shall see and if you are right at least that is something positive. I imagine at some point there should be a conference that is something more than a rally.

Fortunately, the weight I attach to the opinions of most of the people who have posted in this thread isn't much of a burden.

OK but it seems to me that independents who went to the conference seemed to think it was dire. I've yet to find anyone outside the so called core groups who have had anything much good to say about it. But if you're not bothered by what independent activists think then that's a shame.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

I just dont see how in reality they hope to reach formal agrements with Labour- whose response would be no. At best the left can agree among itself not to stand against McDonnell.

Yes that's correct - the intention should be not to debate with the Labour Party itself, but to encourage groups like the LRC, who were represented on the platform of the conference, to identify supporters of left policies standing as Labour candidates and who will campaign publicly for left policies against the New Labour manifesto, and to get all the left groups to agree not to stand against them and indeed to positively support a vote for them.

Interestingly, Bob Crow explicitly identifies with this approach and said he would support McDonnell at the conference, but the SP who stood against McDonnell in 2001 do not. In the 2005 General Election. the SP implicitly said not to vote for the likes of McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn, because they are candidates of one of the presumably indistinguishable "three main parties", nor indeed not to vote for left wing Green candidates:

The Socialist 28 April 2005

Who do you vote for?

...

None of the three main parties - that's for sure.

In some other constituencies small radical parties are standing to the left of the establishment parties.

But for the most part, at a national level, this is a no choice election."

It remains to be seen whether it is the electoral ultra leftism of the SP, or the pragmatism of Bob Crow that will become dominant in this new coalition.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

I can hardly imagine caring less, however, my understanding is that yes indeed the intention is to throw open involvement to the wider left.

"involvement" is one thing - it could be like No2EU "you can distribute our materials and support our agreed line, but you have no right to have a say yourselves in what we do"; or it could be genuine pluralism, democratic participation in key decisions, and engagement. It remains to be seen what will be rolled out.

 

[glenquagmire]

Yes that's correct - the intention should be not to debate with the Labour Party itself, but to encourage groups like the LRC, who were represented on the platform of the conference, to identify supporters of left policies standing as Labour candidates and who will campaign publicly for left policies against the New Labour manifesto, and to get all the left groups to agree not to stand against them and indeed to positively support a vote for them.

The LRC should be publishing some kind of list before the election of MPs which are receiving LRC support. Whether or not other groups agree with the decision to support those candidates or not remains to be seen...