SWP expulsions and squabbles
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
they've made similar threats for at least two decades. They've never amounted to anything
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Which is odd, as it's exactly what you have been arguing for the last few years. That you're now even dropping this mad idea once you're on the inside shows that what we predicted would happen to you is actually happening.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
She's SWP/Solidarity and that facebook page had linked to the socialist unity post where they called the hecklers scabs. No idea whether she was even there at the Glasgow thing herself though.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
and their percentage vote at the conference has been reduced over the years
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Empty threats then - fair enough.
Interesting, I wonder when she joined the party..
Who you talking about here out of interest?
tenniselbow
Active Member
Wondering if anyone has a sense of what's happening with the ISN since the break? A friend of mine who's in it described a range of views stretching from staunch Cliffites who effectively want a reconstituted SWP and have argued required doctrine for membership of the network (e.g. holding to the "tradition") to a much more vague positions feeling for a way forward.
It seems unlikely to me that the ISN will ally with any other far-left group en masse, given the kind of hostility the SWP seems to inculcate internally, so what are the options? A prolonged discussion group that peters out after time? Or another SWP-splintered groupuscule continuing with more or less the same politics? I felt like the post on "the social project strategy" (unfortunately ridiculed by BB as "Firebox with handouts") was one small positive sign of a rethink among the network. Genuinely interested to hear others views and insights on this.
It seems unlikely to me that the ISN will ally with any other far-left group en masse, given the kind of hostility the SWP seems to inculcate internally, so what are the options? A prolonged discussion group that peters out after time? Or another SWP-splintered groupuscule continuing with more or less the same politics? I felt like the post on "the social project strategy" (unfortunately ridiculed by BB as "Firebox with handouts") was one small positive sign of a rethink among the network. Genuinely interested to hear others views and insights on this.
tenniselbow
Active Member
Also, I noticed that the SWP is promoting the People's Assembly and urging members to register at Rees and German's outfit. Is this normal or an acknowledgement of their isolation? It seems surprising to me. They also want to "be part of" the Left Unity discussions. Is any of this indicative or just more opportunities "to win people to an argument"?
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
Joyce Drummond is said nurse, she's also a deeply unpleasant individual.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
I'm not saying I wouldn't like it to happen, I'm saying I'm more sceptical about the extent to which it is already happening (and perhaps to an extent whether it is capable of happening). In 5-10 years time either Labour will be a very different sort of party, or I won't be a member of it, having joined whatever new left formation emerges to contest that space.
Scribbling S
Active Member
Maybe Callinicos article is a bit overoptimistic, but he is describing something real - but surely the absolutely gob-smacking thing about Callinicos SW article is, if this is his analysis, he has done everything he can to make it difficult for the SWP to relate to all that . He does refer to "the internal troubles the Socialist Workers Party has been suffering" (first mention in Socialist Worker?) - in the passive voice - as if these "internal troubles" were a bit of tummy ache of mysterious cause.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
The only way that Labour will be a very different sort of party in 5 years time, is if the unions try and haul them leftwards. This is extremely unlikely, as is any new left formation as nothing has stepped into that vacuum in the past 20 + years. I predict in 5 years time you'll still be trying to change the party from within.
To be fair Unite actually are trying to do this. It's been a long time since a union affiliated to Labour tried throwing it's weight around in this way. I'm not holding my breath for anything especially radical to come of it - some new type of Labourism where the unions have a more influential role, and can set about the long-term task of rebuilding their movement from the defeats of the 80's (first step being getting rid of the anti-trade union laws) is where it's heading.
After 2015 it's going to be a mess inside the Labour party. Blood on the carpet time again as a weak leader is battered by these factions whilst presiding over the same cuts as the Tories.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
It's interesting to see what they're doing with community organising and trades councils. I just wonder whether they'll actually go as far as de-affiliating or if it's an empty threat as Belboid thinks. The TUs have got difficult times ahead once the implications of the Employment Tribunal reforms start sinking in with their membership, that's for sure.
it's an empty threat
Oh yeah it's an empty threat, don't lose sight of that. They're not going to back a general strike either. McCluskey and that whole organisation is wedded to the Labour party - they would have to implode like PASOK before they considered leaving.
They don't really need to seriously considered dis-affiliation because of a couple of things that give them a bit of clout 1st there's a weak leader in Ed Miliband, who they backed, who they backed because he was the most likely they'd be able to bully into giving them some political concessions. That weak leader needs Unite's money desperately if he wants to stand a chance of matching the Tories at the general election in2015. Ed Miliband can say what he wants but everyone knows he needs to keep Len happy or who's gonna pay for that campaign? The private sector?
All it would take for the Tories to win the next election is to cap trade union funding at £50k a union and Labour's in big trouble....
There's also nothing outside of Labour that they could jump ship to that isn't awful - a viable non Labour left-leaning political party with a mass membership would need to exist before they'd even consider it. Don't need to be a historian to know there's not many of them in British history.
They have realise though they need to start making a fight and stop being so passive, because if they don't increase density and if they don't get the anti-trade laws repealed their political priviliges are gone forever.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Milliband isn't trapped by the unions financial clout, the unions are trapped by labour. They have nowhere else to go on the national political level and labour knows this very well.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
What political advantage does McCluskey gain from this bluster?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
They will get some Warwick type agreement *after* the election and an informal promise that they will be consulted. I.e that they will be able to keep their feet under the table.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
He gets re-elected to his GS post and his fat salary
Trapped isn't the word I'd use to describe it, but there's no alternative donor Labour has lined up to replace the millions the trade union movement can be relied upon to give them. It'd be a huge blow if they lost that money - the Tories outspent them heavily at the last election and they will at the next one too.
The point I'm making really here is for the next couple of years you'll be hearing a lot of sabre-rattling about money to Labour because it's just about all the unions have left to exert influence.
This is true, and Labour doesn't need the unions as much as the unions need Labour, and your right to point it out because it actually shows how empty a lot of the rhetoric about witholding money really is. Labour will be in trouble without that union money, but it could survive. Without the Labour party the unions have fuck all influence - declining membership, legally castrated, no political platform. They'd be in existential trouble.
There's not been much of a national alternative to Labour throughout the last 100 years butchers, but this hasn't been a problem when they had mass membership, high density and a solid grip in the Labour party. They could bargain for power with the state then, they were well incorporated into the political process. But today it's different, they'd been stripped of much of that power, and without a mass membership outside Labour that can bring pressure that, those once powerful union barons are in a tight spot.
They will fight to try and retain that relatively priviliged position for as long as possible, and some of the more far-sighted unions are aware of the urgency of their situation and that's a part of it too.
The anti-trade union laws is what they're after. Doesn't matter about any agreements they might get, there's no way they're going to be able to "keep their feet under their under the table" if the legal restrictions on trade unions are still in place and if the overall density of trade union membership is under 30%. They can spend as much money as they want bankrolling Labour it will amount to nothing unless they can actually rebuild to movement to an extent and start increasing density in certain key areas.
Judge how successsful the Unite political strategy has been by what type of form the trade unions laws in Britain are in by the time McCluskey leaves.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Of course they will be able to able maintain their current position without repeal of the union laws - they've been able to do for for last 30 years and with steady declines in union density. That's why they managed to get the warwick agreements (and please don't think that i'm suggesting this meant anything beyond labour saying yes, you are still important and going to be consulted).
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Which is exactly why they are trapped. It's all they have and it can only be played within and for the labour party.
oskarsdrum
Active Member
Delroy that makes a lot of sense, look at US unions still funding the Democrats! it can get much, much worse....
Tenniselbow, the ISN question is probably one to return to after their meeting in a couple of weeks, might draw some common themes from the current varied thinking...you'd think Seymour's view would be quite influential given e.g. the tentativeness of most IS blog posts.
I'd see the SWP moves on left unity as a rather desperate straining for relevance, which at least suggests they realise they're in a bad mess! Nigel predicted a period of outward hyperactivity which is looking like a good insight. Could be interesting if they're forced into an unprecedenced humility with respect to the rest of the left!
Tenniselbow, the ISN question is probably one to return to after their meeting in a couple of weeks, might draw some common themes from the current varied thinking...you'd think Seymour's view would be quite influential given e.g. the tentativeness of most IS blog posts.
I'd see the SWP moves on left unity as a rather desperate straining for relevance, which at least suggests they realise they're in a bad mess! Nigel predicted a period of outward hyperactivity which is looking like a good insight. Could be interesting if they're forced into an unprecedenced humility with respect to the rest of the left!
Similar threads
