The Socialist Party

[audiotech]

Hatton was not a representative of Militant when this book was written. This book was never ever endosed by that organisation.

For christ sake - do we have to go through the entire history of the Liverpool struggle for the enth time to please some tedious idiot who despite their clawing devotion to their old organisation are not even willing to actually act on the ideas they defend and claim to believe (and probably have not done for a bloody long time)? At least your comrades in Liverpool had the guts and gall to stand up and say that in Liverpool (even if members of Militant had to interveine to stop them being ripped apart physically when they came out with such rubbish by the very workers who had fought tooth and nail to build for a strike... Including me the 'sectarian with a heart' I suppose?)

I said earlier that - at this time and in the present vacuam the cynical voices of those who have always stood on the sidelines waiting to condemn every attempt that has been made (with their preconcieved excuse for remaining inactive and doing jack shite in practice) with their inaine shout of 'sellout' sound louder. I also mentioned that their presence is largely felt only on bulletin boards rather than in real life. And you come along MC5 to do prove the point.

In your fantasy world - along with the SWP - you would have had your 'stage army' out on strike as a minority and they were going to bring out the majority who had voted against the strike - beating the mass media, government and loyal opposition in thr process. Unfortunately we were working with REAL people and REAL events rather than your fantasy ones... (recogniseing "that it is the practical activity of people changing the world which is the condition and source of knowledge" and all that...)

As usual you break wind and consider it a political intervention with your irrelevent side issues and insinuations - if only a bad smell could improve real peoples lives. Unfortunatly it cant

I was in Liverpool at the time and no-one attempted to 'rip me apart physically', although one Militant supporter attempted to intimidate me. When he realised I was not about to be intimidated, by raising the very fact that the working class of Liverpool had been sold out, he fucked off. In fact Socialist Worker went down well on the day I was selling it outside a local hospital.

I act on my revolutionary political ideas everyday. Politics that include the understanding of showing a lead even if you are in a minority position. I'm also a hard working active union rep, who would consider sending redundancy notices as a fucking sell out now and did then.

As per usual you show up the short-comings of your particular politics and come across as boorish and by your own admission 'sectarian', but apparently 'with a heart'.

No wonder the left in this country are seen as a fucking joke.

 

[dennisr]

Which was published in 1988?

All I can say is you have a strange idea of "long after".

Fair enough point. All I can say was it was treated with more than one raised eyebrow. Hatton was still being hounded, the councillors were still being hounded (so of course folk were not going to lambast the book) and I'll beat that was not all that was being said in the bit you quoted from.

Hatton represented Hatton in that book not the Militants

 

[audiotech]

thankyou *doffs cap*

A marxist does not take some mindlessly small personal experience and blow this up into an analysis of an entire trend/force/group. MC5 does. Come on, admit it the only 'non-passive' thing you do is typing irelevent crap on bulletin boards, man

Nothing mindless about it.

The individal experience (and others I could mention) was and is a symptom of crap politics.

 

[audiotech]

I'm off out now.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Fair enough point. All I can say was it was treated with more than one raised eyebrow. Hatton was still being hounded, the councillors were still being hounded (so of course folk were not going to lambast the book) and I'll beat that was not all that was being said in the bit you quoted from.

Hatton represented Hatton in that book not the Militants

Yeah I'd also agree with the "Hatton was an egotistical plonker all along" line.

But it was never said by Militant during all the years I spent in Liverpool from "long after" these events (ie I moved there in 1988 and was a member of the Broad Left until it collapsed). In fact I would say Hatton was broadly representative of most the Liverpool Broad Left, in all its egotistical plonker glory. Which is not to say I was hostile to supporting the stuggle at all ... I was just rather more critical of the limitations of the individuals and their organisations. It wasn't a glorious period of pure heroic struggle at all ... many mistakes were made.

 

[dennisr]

I was in Liverpool at the time and no-one attempted to 'rip me apart physically', although one Militant supporter attempted to intimidate me. When he realised I was not about to be intimidated, by raising the very fact that the working class of Liverpool had been sold out, he fucked off. In fact Socialist Worker went down well on the day I was selling it outside a local hospital.

I'll bet. So was I - had to physically stop some bin men from lamping some SW seller. Another one of your anecdotal stories MC5. If you were in Liverpool at the time explain the role of your party - how it influenced the struggle going on in the city? explain how you were going to bring that militant minority out, let alone the rest of the class?

And, while you are at it try and answer the political reply that was made to your point about 'sell outs' (ie try and avoid another personal anecdote from the old days when you 'did things')

I act on my revolutionary political ideas everyday. Politics that include the understanding of showing a lead even if you are in a minority position. I'm also a hard working active union rep, who would consider sending redundancy notices as a fucking sell out now and did then.

There's a surprise - a smear in lieu of an explaination. For the enth time (not you you will remember the next time you raise this again...) - the redundancy notices were bits of meaningless paper a tactical decision decided on by the JSSC (the when basis of a future workers council - involving thousands of Liverpool workers - and, remind me again, how many members of the SWP - those leaders of the class?) as a way of getting and extra two months paid (due to some bureaucratic clause) given the immediate likelihood of a general strike situation in the city of Liverpool. But hey, don't let me stop you the 'revolutionary' siding with the likes of Kinnokio with your mutual smears... (more empiricism?)

So what do you do as an 'active' trade union rep then MC5 - apart from the smearing of other lefts?

As per usual you show up the short-comings of your particular politics and come across as boorish and by your own admission 'sectarian', but apparently 'with a heart'.

oh, irony (something obviously lost on you) - can I remind you who started the crap...

No wonder the left in this country are seen as a fucking joke.

You should know - you are a representative part of it... (and the trade union movement as well apparently...)

 

[dennisr]

Yeah I'd also agree with the "Hatton was an egotistical plonker all along" line.

I would agree that mistakes were made (they tend to in real events sometimes...). I'd also defend Hatton for what he supported at the time and has stood up for ever since. I would point out the vicious years long campaign against both him and the other councillors afterwards for the 'crime' to forcing extra money out of the government (that the government had stolen in the first place from the likes of Liverpool). His personal failings I can only judge from the book and what I knew of him - I don't think that is of much relevance to what that individual did at the time circumstances demanded such of him.

My impression of you is that you are a bit of a plonker - but thats only based on the internet persona I meet here. I don't know how representative that is of your organisation or the real you. (Although i may well know you FG - from Liverpool... and i was trying to think if MC5 reminded me of any of the swappies I knew from the time)

Which is not to say I was hostile to supporting the stuggle at all ... I was just rather more critical of the limitations of the individuals and their organisations.

But that sums up your lifes work doesn't it FG - being 'critical' as a form of 'support'. Oh, well...

 

[urbanrevolt]

That comment is at best disingenouous (christ, my spelling...), revolt. Given the lead taken by the Militants in Liverpool, in Scotland and with the first socialist councillors to stand against and defeat new labour in england/wales. I think your version of what you were fully aware was a tactical position due to previous entrist work - to be able to then build an organisation capable of interveining in real events (something you folk have yet to do I am afraid...) is the 'misleading' bit.

I actually have a lot more time for the tiny but generally sincere WP and (maybe more so... having listened to the less savory more shouty young guns of the 'new' WP in these boards...) its split PR than for certain other groups. I wonder though how its members keep going without ever stepping back and questioning why they remain so small in size and influence after quite a long period and despite their view of their 'revolutionary purity'? Surely you want want to influence real events and that means interveining within the more significent forces on the left - either the SP or the SWP (ie getting your hands dirty...)?

Hi dennisr

I'm not at all sure what you mean by this post. Could you explain?
Of course we want to influence real events and to a very small extent have- for example our work in the sukula campaign contributing to a campaign which stopped section 9 of the asylum and immigration act being rolled out nationally (that would have meant thousands of children being taken away from failed asylum seekers). There are other examples as well. Yes it's very small but it's real and I don't think in any sense being open about being a revolutionary compromised any of that work- of course we in united fronts make compromises for example if we lose a vote on no immigration controls we'd stay with the campaign (actually we won the vote but the point remains)

anyway I am genuinely interested in your points so please can you explain them more?

 

[Zeppo]

Have nothing against the SP but the state of the left in this country is pathetic.

If shouting revolutionary slogans in a desert is your bag, fine. Why can not all groups on the left come together bury their differences to achieve progress for those if us beaten down?

I went to a meeting of the Campaign for a New Workers Party but got the impression it was a long haul with a five year target. We want action now.

The big capaitalists must be laughing. Come on lefties get your shit together.

 

[housey]

Hello, I don't have time to get really involved in this debate but do know the following:
1) When the Suttons were members of the SP they said they were revolutionary socialists; I met them at a meeting in Brum. They obviously don't claim that now - whether they changed their minds or anything else I won't speculate.
2) Stoke SP wanted to stand this year but there was a problem with the paperwork. I'm sure several people will enjoy this victory of the bureaucratic bourgeois election procedures over us.

 

[urbanrevolt]

I sympathise with Zeppo's frustration. Indeed why cannot all groups come together and unite in action to achieve results?

It is partly I think becuase of mutual suspicion and possibly sectarianism and it is partly different ideas of how we can achieve things. Just as importantly though we need to attract new people to the left.

A lot of the difficulties are to with the way in which the left has shrunk and workers' cynicism about whta we can do to change things. In this different ideas and new ideas are clearly needed. That's why I'd say Zeppo is wrong to say we should 'bury' our differences.

We need to work together and be open about our differences without letting it get in the way of working together but having open discussion about what is needed to win in campaigns.

 

[dennisr]

I sympathise with Zeppo's frustration. Indeed why cannot all groups come together and unite in action to achieve results?

It is partly I think becuase of mutual suspicion and possibly sectarianism and it is partly different ideas of how we can achieve things. Just as importantly though we need to attract new people to the left.

A lot of the difficulties are to with the way in which the left has shrunk and workers' cynicism about whta we can do to change things. In this different ideas and new ideas are clearly needed. That's why I'd say Zeppo is wrong to say we should 'bury' our differences.

We need to work together and be open about our differences without letting it get in the way of working together but having open discussion about what is needed to win in campaigns.

Yep, urban makes good points.

Discussions on bulletin boards like this also distort what decent work goes on in practice. Its not the best example of people working together in practice!

And its not just understandable cynicism but a lack of confidence - after all if your trade union leaders show they aren't going to support those who do want to stand up and stop what is happening to them then those folk are understandably less willing to stick their necks up above the parapet. The recent RMT success against Metronet shows whats possible with a decent leadership but it also remains an exception to the rule at this moment.

Its not that the anger at what is happening to peoples lives and conditions and opposition is not there - its that there is rarely decent leadership. The left are too small to counter that except in localised struggles with decent local leaderships (in the case of the SP their tu members role in recent NHS disputes)

The left will only really be changed (and become more capable of playing and effective role) buy wider movements of working class people - one of the main battles is the work inside the trade union movement. That is when ideas are tested and either taken up or dropped.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

...
But that sums up your lifes work doesn't it FG - being 'critical' as a form of 'support'. Oh, well...

Well the SP are opposed to voting Labour, even critically, so in Hayes and Harlington constituency at the last general election they would have said something along the lines of

"Don't vote for fake lefty John McDonnell, spoil your ballot paper and write 'New Workers Party'" across it" or similar.

A more stupid piece of sectarianism I cannot imagine.

I would have "supported" McDonnell by actually calling for people to vote for him, even though I don't agree with him on every thing.

I think you confuse critical debate, which is vital for a genuine democratic united left, with anyone who says any thing against mindless cheerleading for your leaders' stupid tactics.

And no, I am probably not in slightest bit representative of the membership of Respect - which goes to show that at least there is some diversity of views inside that organisation.

 

[dennisr]

Well the SP are opposed to voting Labour, even critically, so in Hayes and Harlington constituency at the last general election they would have said something along the lines of "Don't vote for fake lefty John McDonnell, spoil your ballot paper and write 'New Workers Party'" across it" or similar. A more stupid piece of sectarianism I cannot imagine.

Usual distortion/innuendo/implication by creating words never ever said (delete as appropriate)

mindless cheerleading .. stupid tactics.

Usual throwaway Usual distortion/innuendo/implication by creating words never ever said (delete as appropriate)

And no, I am probably not in slightest bit representative of the membership of Respect - which goes to show that at least there is some diversity of views inside that organisation.

Thats nice. I hear they like 'diversity'. Good luck.

Its not really worth trying to converse with you FG. Its all spit and bile - so lets not bother...

 

[Zeppo]

Agree with urbanrevolt -ok let us park our differences. Anything to move issues to an area where the left can unite.

 

[audiotech]

I'll bet. So was I - had to physically stop some bin men from lamping some SW seller. Another one of your anecdotal stories MC5. If you were in Liverpool at the time explain the role of your party - how it influenced the struggle going on in the city? explain how you were going to bring that militant minority out, let alone the rest of the class?

And, while you are at it try and answer the political reply that was made to your point about 'sell outs' (ie try and avoid another personal anecdote from the old days when you 'did things')

There's a surprise - a smear in lieu of an explaination. For the enth time (not you you will remember the next time you raise this again...) - the redundancy notices were bits of meaningless paper a tactical decision decided on by the JSSC (the when basis of a future workers council - involving thousands of Liverpool workers - and, remind me again, how many members of the SWP - those leaders of the class?) as a way of getting and extra two months paid (due to some bureaucratic clause) given the immediate likelihood of a general strike situation in the city of Liverpool. But hey, don't let me stop you the 'revolutionary' siding with the likes of Kinnokio with your mutual smears... (more empiricism?)

So what do you do as an 'active' trade union rep then MC5 - apart from the smearing of other lefts?

oh, irony (something obviously lost on you) - can I remind you who started the crap...

You should know - you are a representative part of it... (and the trade union movement as well apparently...)

I'm back.

Rather than bureaucratic manouvres in council chambers, the SWP made calls to the working class across the city for all out action to support Liverpool council.

That was not meant as a "smear", or to invite physical intimidation, but rather it was a call to the working class to action that could win. Militant had other ideas, whose outcome the working class of Liverpool can judge for themselves.

As for what I do as a 'active' trade union rep? I do what I do.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Usual distortion/innuendo/implication by creating words never ever said (delete as appropriate)
...

So what would/did the Socialist Party have said/say in Hayes and Harlington constituency in 2005? (Labour candidate: John McDonnell).

You had a candidate in 2001 who got a few hundred votes, so you must have had something to say to them when you weren't standing, surely? [otherwise you'd be treated as the 'here for your vote today, gone tomorrow, couldn't give a f***' party?

It's important because the main reason you left the Socialist Alliance was because they were opposed to the SP standing in that seat in 2001 and the SP claimed that as a point of principle it was an unfair interference in their right to stand wherever and whenever they chose.

The person who started this thread asking (genuinely I think) about the positions of the Socialist Party deserves answers, whatever you think about my positions.

 

[marcvallee]

You had a candidate in 2001 who got a few hundred votes,

Just so you know some of the history.

I think you will find that Wally Kennedy the Socialist Party candidate (one of the leaders of the anti poll tax campaign) got 648 votes in the 2001 General Election. He was a Labour councillor in 1990 and again in 1994 and he was expelled from the Labour Party in 1994 and won his seat. Wally stood as a Socialist Party candidate in the Botwell by-election in March 2000 and gained over 17% of the vote.

And if you want to go down the road off attacking the record of Wally Kennedy let me be very clear that you are on very thin ice indeed.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Just so you know some of the history.

I think you will find that Wally Kennedy the Socialist Party candidate (one of the leaders of the anti poll tax campaign) got 648 votes in the 2001 General Election. He was a Labour councillor in 1990 and again in 1994 and he was expelled from the Labour Party in 1994 and won his seat. Wally stood as a Socialist Party candidate in the Botwell by-election in March 2000 and gained over 17% of the vote.

And if you want to go down the road off attacking the record of Wally Kennedy let me be very clear that you are on very thin ice indeed.

I am not attacking Wally Kennedy personally, though I think he and the SP were mistaken in challenging one of the few Labour lefts with any record at all (John McDonnell, who supported illegality while a GLC member and refused to capitulate).

What I am asking is what was the SP saying those 648 who voted Wally Kennedy in 2001 should vote in 2005, when Wally did not stand?

I cannot read the SP's position as anything other than that voters in Hayes and Harlington should abstain from voting/spoil their ballot, as John McDonnell was standing as the Labour Party candidate and therefore (according to the SP) can never be supported. I am saying that in practice that is taking criticism to ludicrously sectarian lengths. I may have a sharp tongue for criticism, but I do not allow that to blind me to the need to support the left, and would personally call for voting McDonnell (and I believe that was Respect's position too).

 

[nightbreed]

Just so you know some of the history.

I think you will find that Wally Kennedy the Socialist Party candidate (one of the leaders of the anti poll tax campaign) got 648 votes in the 2001 General Election. He was a Labour councillor in 1990 and again in 1994 and he was expelled from the Labour Party in 1994 and won his seat. Wally stood as a Socialist Party candidate in the Botwell by-election in March 2000 and gained over 17% of the vote.

And if you want to go down the road off attacking the record of Wally Kennedy let me be very clear that you are on very thin ice indeed.

I think Marc you may recall that the SP put John McDonnell firmly in the camp of new labour during the election campaign. I will find the link and post it.

That is skating on thin ice!!

 

[dennisr]

I'm back.

Good morning MC5 - I'll keep this short because going over Liverpool again for the enth time with you is about as much value as discussing owt with FG

Rather than bureaucratic manouvres in council chambers, the SWP made calls to the working class across the city for all out action to support Liverpool council. That was not meant as a "smear", or to invite physical intimidation, but rather it was a call to the working class to action that could win. Militant had other ideas, whose outcome the working class of Liverpool can judge for themselves.

The basis of the Militants support was in the JSSC - with hundreds of council workers (representing thousands) making decisions. Not "bureaucratic manouvres" - the JSSC committie controlled the councilors and made final decisions, part of the reason that Liverpool went as far as it did. The importance of that organisation seems to be lost on you - but then your organisation was irrelevant to that battle having no base of support anywhere despite the years leading up the events. Ironically, when you said 'sold down the mersey', it was not the Militant organisation you were attacking it was the JSSC that made decisions (not always in line with my own organisations) - but you do not seem to get that simple point blinded as you seem to be by your hatred of the Militants.

People judge concrete results. Here is a list of concrete results:
* 6,300 families rehoused from tenements, flats and maisonettes
* 2, 873 tenement flats demolished
* 1,315 walk-up flats demolished
* 2,086 flats/maisonettes demolished
* 4,800 houses and bungalows built
* 7,400 houses and flats improved
* 600 houses/bungalows created by ‘top-downing’ 1,315 walk-up flats
* 25 new Housing Action Areas being developed
* 6 new nursery classes built and open
* 17 Community Comprehensive Schools established following a massive re-organisation
* £10million spent on school improvements
* Five new sports centres, one with a leisure pool attached, built and open
* Two thousand additional jobs provided for in Liverpool City Council Budget
* Ten thousand people per year employed on Council’s Capital Programme
* Three new parks built
* Rents frozen for five years

from: http://www.liverpool47.org

More council houses than the rest of the UK put together is dismissed by you as "bureaucratic manouveres" - thats why no one listened to you or your organisation because you were talking out of your behinds. Thats why your 'revolutionary' party was utterly irrelevent to the whole process nowt to do with any fained 'intimidation'. But don't bother questioning why your party played such an utterly ineffective role - you just keep warming yourself with your bitterness mate. Your 'stage army' did not follow your instructions and you don't seem to begin to ask yourself why

As for what I do as a 'active' trade union rep? I do what I do.

I am genuinely glad you are still doing stuff like that. I just hope your political confusion about what the real priorities are for working people does not effect your effectivness in the workplace to drasticly

 

[nightbreed]

Here is the SP article. It doesnt call J McD a blairite as I originally said put certainly in my view see J McD as the 'class enemy'.
Mind you I sympathise with Wally for being victimised by right wing union bureaucrats. Did J McD have anything to do with this?

The Socialist 20 April 2001 [Top] [Home] [News] [The Socialist] [Join] For all the news subscribe to The Socialist


Socialist Party fight right-wing smear campaign
SOCIALIST PARTY general election candidate Wally Kennedy has become the victim of a disgraceful smear campaign.

It is led by right-wing members of the Transport and General Workers' Union (TGWU).

Wally is himself a member of the TGWU and, since he has announced he is standing against local Hayes and Harlington Labour MP John McDonnell, a small unrepresentative group in the union have been attempting to sling mud on Wally's record in the union.

Wally and Socialist Party members in the area immediately sent out a full response to the local paper demanding that they print it and give it the same prominence as the original article.

In the same issue of the local paper that carried the attack there was an extensive selection of letters supporting Wally and defending him from previous attacks that had been made by New Labour members.

We carry below the text of the reply sent by Socialist Party members and Wally Kennedy to the Hayes and Harlington Gazette.

Wally's reply to the Hayes and Harlington Gazette
THE REPORT alleging that I am to face a union cash probe will have been met with astonishment by local people who know my record in the Labour and trade union movement. Indeed the crude attempts to play fast and loose with the facts of what happened and smear myself, and by implication the Socialist Party, will backfire on those who instigated them.

Certainly, Socialist Party members have encountered many people who were disgusted at the publication of these smears and at the people in New Labour who were behind them.

Many have also said that they will not be voting for John McDonnell and will instead be voting for the Socialist Party in Hayes and Harlington.

It is disappointing also that some of John McDonnell's leading supporters should stoop to such desperate levels and that our MP does not disassociate himself from such disgraceful attacks.

This unrepresentative group who have made these attacks have known my political history for many years and have worked with me on many occasions throughout this time. They never once raised their 'new' allegations with me from 1983 when the events that are alleged took place to the present time - a period of 18 years!

During this time I was elected as a Labour councillor in 1990 and again in 1994 when they did not dredge up these smears. When I worked alongside John McDonnell, Peter McDonald and others during the general election in 1992 - not a word.

What has changed? Could it be that when I stood as a Socialist Party candidate in the Botwell by-election in March 2000 we gained over 17% of the vote. Is it because I am now standing as a Socialist candidate against New Labour's John McDonnell and as a workers' MP on a worker's wage?

Why do this group of mudslingers feel so threatened? Perhaps it is because for years they have presided over the worsening of conditions for working-class people in Hayes, who now know their true record.

In desperation these people are now resorting to smears and innuendoes which they have not substantiated because they know they would face legal action if they did so.

I have nothing to hide. The events of 18 years ago implicitly referred to in these smears are in fact a matter of record inside the Transport and General Workers' Union. There was never any suggestion of impropriety and the matters involved were resolved to everyone's satisfaction at the time.

Following this episode I had the full support of my union members who elected me Branch Minute secretary, then shop steward and subsequently the region trained me as a union organiser. Then, in October 1993 after a detailed examination of my record and character, and after my involvement in the anti-poll tax campaign which brought down Thatcher, I was appointed by the national union as a parliamentary A-list candidate.

It was only after I was expelled from Labour in 1994, because of my involvement in fighting Thatcher's hated poll tax, that there was an unsuccessful political attempt to bar me from holding union office - unbelievably on the grounds that I had joined the Socialist Party.

Indeed, it was the same group of people who are behind the current allegations that attempted this authoritarian measure against me at that time. Their banning attempt was never carried out, however, because regional union officials did not back their undemocratic action.

I am sure that the people of Hayes and Harlington will not be swayed by this attempted character assassination. They will also be disgusted that supporters of John McDonnell MP have stooped to such tactics and will wonder why the MP has not disassociated himself from this disgraceful behaviour.

John McDonnell should immediately repudiate these attacks on another candidate. Also, I would challenge him to publicly debate with me and other candidates where he can try to defend the record of Blair's New Labour, which has resulted in a million more people now living in poverty than in 1997.

Wally Kennedy, 12 April 2001

 

[dennisr]

The person who started this thread asking (genuinely I think) about the positions of the Socialist Party deserves answers, whatever you think about my positions.

And instead of answers the OP gets: Liverpool (we sold out, apparently - though that was more MC5 than you - I know you were active in Liverpool afterwards), Hayes and Harlington (we were guilty for standing against the unquestionable McDonnell - as opposed to standing against new labour which was what we actually did) and Stoke (we were apparently responsible for the BNP vote - i mean, New labour had nowt to do with this at all apparently) and the apparent failings on the SPs position on John McDonnell campaign.

Aye, I will bet thats what they really wanted to know about ...

 

[dennisr]

Here is the SP article. It doesnt call J McD a blairite as I originally said put certainly in my view see J McD as the 'class enemy'.
Mind you I sympathise with Wally for being victimised by right wing union bureaucrats. Did J McD have anything to do with this?

Did McDonnell repudiate those attacks against a good socialist? or did he shut up and stand for New Labour?

You know the answer to that nightbreed. As you say - McDonnell was not called a Blairite. He did though, unfortunately and no matter how unwittingly, play his role in putting the SP into the position we were forced into and are now being 'blamed' for. What choice was on offer - do you think Wally should have simply rolled over and played dead like a good little doggy?

We have carried a page interview with McDonnell and about the campaign in a recent copy of the Socialist.

 

[nightbreed]

The Socialist got the chance to ask John McD here

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2006/464/index.html?id=pp21.htm

Why didnt they use the opportunity in asking J McD in condemning and repudiating the attacks on Wally?

 

[nightbreed]

For all you election result fans out there , here is the result of the 2001 election from the BBC website.

Name Party Votes % +/- %

John McDonnell Labour 21,279 65.7 +3.7
Robert McLean Conservative 7,813 24.1 -3.1
Nahid Boethe Liberal Democrat 1,958 6.0 -1.4
Gary Burch BNP 705 2.2
Walter Kennedy Socialist Alt 648 2.0

 

[dennisr]

anyway I am genuinely interested in your points so please can you explain them more?

Sorry urban - got sidetracked by the ongoing desire of MC5 and FG to mull over the entire history of the Militant 'critically' as we do everytime the SP gets mentioned. I'll try and explain thins better when I get a bit more time free

My comment was not intended to dismiss everything you folk have done. The sukula campaign has been genuinely impressive. I have worked with your comrades (mostly the tu members who are now PR) before now in anti fascist activity and know of the trade union work done by a few (now) PR members. It was more a general comment on the question we all face - how do we, the left, build our influence and a dialogue with the wider class?

I think - whatever the SPs failings (real or apparent - and we can rely on FG to go through them with a fine tooth comb), one of its strengths has been to constantly attempt to apply its ideas in practice - aim its work towards and alongside the widest possible section of working class people - and in the process have its ideas tested (and therefore developed). That work is reflected in its resulting trade union base and role, the SPs activity and visibility in local campaigns and the small electoral base it has managed to maintain and develop - well beyond the organisations physical size.

 

[dennisr]

The Socialist got the chance to ask John McD here

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2006/464/index.html?id=pp21.htm

Why didnt they use the opportunity in asking J McD in condemning and repudiating the attacks on Wally?

I imagine that both the SP and McDonnell think events and times have moved on since 2001 (was it?) - and there are more pressing things to be doing

(I wish some of the folk on these boards would see that as well... - I'm all for learning historical lessons, but the stuff here is learning nothing - simply entrenched positions being reiterated on either side often derailing what is actually going on in the here and now - a bit like the constant refrain of 'what about kronstat?' when ever someone mentions socialism)

 

[nightbreed]

I imagine that both the SP and McDonnell think events and times have moved on since 2001 (was it?) - and there are more pressing things to be doing

(I wish some of the folk on these boards would see that as well... - I'm all for learning historical lessons, but the stuff here is learning nothing - simply entrenched positions being reiterated on either side often derailing what is actually going on in the here and now)

I do agree but events from the past will always be dug up as per factional requirements. It is the same for the SP as it is for any other left group.

Saying that I think the SP has a lot that it can be proud of in its history.

Not the same unfortunately can be said of other organisations.

 

[dennisr]

I do agree but events from the past will always be dug up as per factional requirements. It is the same for the SP as it is for any other left group.

I sometimes worry that i'm going to become one of those folk who spends to much time on bulletin boards (excuse being the nature of my job - which reminds me - better get on with some real work after this final post for a while, gulp...) as a replacement for real activity.

Boards like this are heaven for the dedicated internet 'faction' fighters. I imagine it makes the 'left' look bananas to folk looking on from the 'outside'. Hopefully folk realise this is not 'real life'.