SWP expulsions and squabbles

[laptop]

Is that taking unsold copies of Socialist Worker for recycling?

I thought it was full of discarded positions.










Same thing, really?

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Will this see the return of voting "without illusions" though?

 

[Bakunin]

I thought it was full of discarded positions.










Same thing, really?

True.

The Central Committee's dealt out more 'lines' than Pablo Escobar.

 

[chilango]

So there's no Parliamentary road, then they hooked up with Gorgeous George and Wespect which implies that there indeed might have been a Parliamentary road, and now with that all having gone up in smoke there's no Parliamentary road again.

Has anyone told them to check their political satnav because it seems to be on the blink.

Bear right.

Left turn ahead.

Sharp right.

Turn around where possible

 

[Bakunin]

The new SWP logo, yesterday:

 

[imposs1904]

The new SWP logo, yesterday:

I initially read that as Discretion.

 

[Trappist]

He's pretty friendly with SP types so I'm sure its the same with ex and current SWP - many of whom he'll know through StW/CoR/PA etc. He's hardly gonna be discouraging support is he?

What I was trying to say was that whilst he's got history with a lot of campaigns he's not going to let his campaign get derailed through formal involvement of left groups. Nor do I think that said left groups would wish to embarrass him by, say, instructing members to sign up and vote for him.

Not sure why you use the phrase gritted teeth

This was more my take on Corbynmania. It's really heartening to see socialist ideas getting a hearing and so much support that the entire mainstream media feels they have to be rubbished at every turn. The reason for gritting my teeth is I remember the whole post-1979 rise and fall of the Labour left from being a serious, well organised movement through to the less impressive Chesterfield Conferences. Yet even in the late stages the Labour left was, in my view, much more resilient than the support JC is having to rely on, in contrast the PLP is both unaccountable and overwhelmingly Blairite. I really can't see a good outcome.

- most SWP members I know are saying they've registered to vote for him. The Control Committee may be concerned about losing members but that aside, no big deal.

After 40 years of paying the political levy I can see a case for handing over another £3 to get a vote, but I won't be wasting my money. Not that I wouldn't enjoy it, but I'm sure I'd be disqualified on account of being known to some senior Labour apparatchiks.

 

[DotCommunist]

So there's no Parliamentary road, then they hooked up with Gorgeous George and Wespect which implies that there indeed might have been a Parliamentary road, and now with that all having gone up in smoke there's no Parliamentary road again.

Has anyone told them to check their political satnav because it seems to be on the blink.

multidunious positionism cmrd

 

[Bakunin]

multidunious positionism cmrd

Sounds like a political version of the Kama Sutra.

 

[SpackleFrog]

as union supporters maybe, not as actual LP members, surely? The members that are left wont leave until Lenin returns and tells them to

The ones that are left are easily excited/distracted.

 

[SpackleFrog]

What I was trying to say was that whilst he's got history with a lot of campaigns he's not going to let his campaign get derailed through formal involvement of left groups. Nor do I think that said left groups would wish to embarrass him by, say, instructing members to sign up and vote for him.



This was more my take on Corbynmania. It's really heartening to see socialist ideas getting a hearing and so much support that the entire mainstream media feels they have to be rubbished at every turn. The reason for gritting my teeth is I remember the whole post-1979 rise and fall of the Labour left from being a serious, well organised movement through to the less impressive Chesterfield Conferences. Yet even in the late stages the Labour left was, in my view, much more resilient than the support JC is having to rely on, in contrast the PLP is both unaccountable and overwhelmingly Blairite. I really can't see a good outcome.



After 40 years of paying the political levy I can see a case for handing over another £3 to get a vote, but I won't be wasting my money. Not that I wouldn't enjoy it, but I'm sure I'd be disqualified on account of being known to some senior Labour apparatchiks.

As you rightly point out, he may need left groups very soon. Not too sure why you suggest left groups would definitely derail his campaign?

 

[Trappist]

As you rightly point out, he may need left groups very soon. Not too sure why you suggest left groups would definitely derail his campaign?

I was thinking actual evidence of left infiltration of the Labour Party, as opposed to rumour and speculation, might damage his campaign. But then I remembered witch-hunts don't need facts, rumour and speculation are enough.

That aside, this might be interesting - http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventrys-dave-nellist-could-seek-9884461

Not sure if Dave Nellist's demand for reinstatement of clause IV as a condition of TUSC joining the Labour Party has been cleared with the other constituents of TUSC.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I was thinking actual evidence of left infiltration of the Labour Party, as opposed to rumour and speculation, might damage his campaign. But then I remembered witch-hunts don't need facts, rumour and speculation are enough.

That aside, this might be interesting - http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventrys-dave-nellist-could-seek-9884461

Not sure if Dave Nellist's demand for reinstatement of clause IV as a condition of TUSC joining the Labour Party has been cleared with the other constituents of TUSC.

This is what he actually said:

If those things were to happen [including the reinstatement of clause IV], I would be prepared to go to the TUSC conference in September and say TUSC should be part of that debate.
​

Which is rather different from what you were implying.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[SpackleFrog]

It's really annoying when people deliberately misquote articles. Please don't do it Trappist.

 

[belboid]

Clause fucking Four. Yes, reinstating a shit, tokenistic, paragraph is really central to changing the Labour Party

 

[imposs1904]

Clause fucking Four. Yes, reinstating a shit, tokenistic, paragraph is really central to changing the Labour Party

Wasn't it Sidney Webb who drafted Clause 4? That guy had such a high opinion of rank and file members and supporters of the Labour Party:

" . . .that the constituency parties were frequently unrepresentative groups of nonentities dominated by fanatics and cranks, and extremists, and that if the block votes of the trade unions were eliminated it would be impracticable to continue to vest the control of policy in Labour Party Conferences."​

From here. Old Labour.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Clause fucking Four. Yes, reinstating a shit, tokenistic, paragraph is really central to changing the Labour Party

If the LP were to be changed/reclaimed/whatever, presumably you wouldn't actively object to the aims and objectives of the party being rewritten and redefined to include a commitment to workers control and ownership of major sectors of the economy?

 

[belboid]

If the LP were to be changed/reclaimed/whatever, presumably you wouldn't actively object to the aims and objectives of the party being rewritten and redefined to include a commitment to workers control and ownership of major sectors of the economy?

Yes. So not Clause 4 then. I have no desire to recreate Old Labour, and neither should you. Create something better, dont hark back to a fictitious past

 

[SpackleFrog]

Yes. So not Clause 4 then. I have no desire to recreate Old Labour, and neither should you. Create something better, dont hark back to a fictitious past

Clause 4 could be interpreted as meaning that. Could also be interpreted in other ways of course.

I'm not saying I want Clause 4 reinstated exactly as it was, or even a contemporary update of it - just trying to understand your interjection here.

 

[belboid]

Clause 4 could be interpreted as meaning that. Could also be interpreted in other ways of course.

I'm not saying I want Clause 4 reinstated exactly as it was, or even a contemporary update of it - just trying to understand your interjection here.

That Nellist's insisting on the 're-instatement' of clause 4 is stupid, and would say next to nothing about what Labour should be. Pure tokenism. Still, it is almost an admission that TUSC is dead, so that's something.

 

[Trappist]

It's really annoying when people deliberately misquote articles. Please don't do it Trappist.

In my defence:

"Mr Nellist said he would also insist that ‘Clause Four’, viewed as a symbol of the party’s commitment to socialism, was reinstated after it was controversially changed by Mr Blair in 1995." [my emphasis] So not actually a misquote.

You're right though, it was naughty of me to imply Dave might have proposed a merger(?) without consultation . Sloppy too, I should have re-read the whole thing before commenting.

On the general question of Clause IV, my recollection is that it was a cynical ploy to undercut the revolutionary mood at the end of WW1 and then became an important means of tying the left to the party. As can be seen in the idea that it somehow symbolised a commitment to socialism that Labour never had.

Er, which kind of means I agree with Belboid's comment. Whatever next?

 

[SpackleFrog]

That Nellist's insisting on the 're-instatement' of clause 4 is stupid, and would say next to nothing about what Labour should be. Pure tokenism. Still, it is almost an admission that TUSC is dead, so that's something.

The article claims DN would insist on that but doesn't quote him directly as saying that. I don't believe he would say something so rigid and foolish; what would be the point? The substantive points that Dave makes are that Corbyn would have to reverse most of what Blair did, hence the picking up on Clause 4, but bringing back party democracy, the union link, CLP powers etc are the meat of what he's saying. Obviously he's not demanding the exact text of Clause 4 but a return to the commitment to public ownership, or better still a clear commitment to socialist transformation, could and should happen alongside that.

It's in no way an admission that TUSC is dead, I don't know why you would read it as such. Other than the fact that you desperately want that to be the case, obviously.

 

[belboid]

The article claims DN would insist on that but doesn't quote him directly as saying that. I don't believe he would say something so rigid and foolish; what would be the point? The substantive points that Dave makes are that Corbyn would have to reverse most of what Blair did, hence the picking up on Clause 4, but bringing back party democracy, the union link, CLP powers etc are the meat of what he's saying. Obviously he's not demanding the exact text of Clause 4 but a return to the commitment to public ownership, or better still a clear commitment to socialist transformation, could and should happen alongside that.

It's in no way an admission that TUSC is dead, I don't know why you would read it as such. Other than the fact that you desperately want that to be the case, obviously.

lol

If he hadn't said, directly, that he wanted C4 reinstated, then there is very very very little chance the journo would have reported it as such. You just dont want to believe it. Tho, if you know the journo got it wrong, I'm sure you can point out the real quote, or the response denying he ever said such a thing.

 

[SpackleFrog]

lol

If he hadn't said, directly, that he wanted C4 reinstated, then there is very very very little chance the journo would have reported it as such. You just dont want to believe it. Tho, if you know the journo got it wrong, I'm sure you can point out the real quote, or the response denying he ever said such a thing.

My reasoning for being skeptical is the amount of misquotes, whether accidental or deliberate, which have appeared in the national papers over the last month or so. They're easy to spot because we put our press releases online.

I don't know the journo got it wrong (neither am I denying he said it by the way, if you won't read the article at least read my responses to you) but I think it's fair to say Dave is pretty on message, and the general message is not that we would 'insist' on Clause 4 being reinstated but that we would want the question of Clause 4 and what happened in 1995 revisited and the aims and values of the Labour Party to be re-written. A commitment to public ownership and control would be acceptable. A commitment to socialist transformation would be better. I don't really understand your fascination with this; do you honestly read this as Dave saying he won't play unless Clause 4 is resurrected word for word?

 

[belboid]

My reasoning for being skeptical is the amount of misquotes, whether accidental or deliberate, which have appeared in the national papers over the last month or so. They're easy to spot because we put our press releases online.

I don't know the journo got it wrong (neither am I denying he said it by the way, if you won't read the article at least read my responses to you) but I think it's fair to say Dave is pretty on message, and the general message is not that we would 'insist' on Clause 4 being reinstated but that we would want the question of Clause 4 and what happened in 1995 revisited and the aims and values of the Labour Party to be re-written. A commitment to public ownership and control would be acceptable. A commitment to socialist transformation would be better. I don't really understand your fascination with this; do you honestly read this as Dave saying he won't play unless Clause 4 is resurrected word for word?

I've read the article and your comments, my comments are perfectly consistent with both. The actual quote used - "I hope Jeremy does well..." doesn't appear to be directly from a TUSC press release, so maybe they actually spoke, I dont know. But I think it is perfectly plausible that he would call for the re-instatement of Clause 4, as part of a list of demands, it fits perfectly well with his previous rhetoric.

 

[treelover]

Yes. So not Clause 4 then. I have no desire to recreate Old Labour, and neither should you. Create something better, dont hark back to a fictitious past

I like JC's commitment to support Co-Ops, etc, though they could go the way of the Edinburgh Bicycle Co-oP.

 

[Das Uberdog]

Clause IV isn't tokenistic, it's a concrete commitment to the collectivisation of social resources... an actual committed statement on an economic methodology (if nothing too specific). Nothing to be pooh-poohed at, even if it won't in and of itself solve anything... but its reinstatement would be an important marker of the concrete commitment to collectivist economics that the new Corbyn lead party would be heralding.

 

[belboid]

Clause IV isn't tokenistic, it's a concrete commitment to the collectivisation of social resources... an actual committed statement on an economic methodology (if nothing too specific). Nothing to be pooh-poohed at, even if it won't in and of itself solve anything... but its reinstatement would be an important marker of the concrete commitment to collectivist economics that the new Corbyn lead party would be heralding.

i take it this is meant to be a joke

 

[Das Uberdog]

you're a joke, and no it isn't

 

[emanymton]

Because the Labour party did wonderful stuff before they got rid of clause 4.