The Socialist Party

[nightbreed]

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 or 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'.

Yep

 

[audiotech]

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



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



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

'Political confusion'? 'Hate Militants'? 'Bitter'?

I recognise the proud acheivements that organisation made in Liverpool. Others, also.

I'm referring to specific events outside of those acheivements though when I talk about 'bureaucratic manouvres'. It's Important to look these things straight in't eye and learn some. History will not forgive those that don't.

Hope that helps.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

On Hayes and Harlington two issues have got blurred.

My question was that in 2005, when the SP did not have a candidate, was their line for boycotting the poll/spoiling their ballot paper on the grounds that John McDonnell was the Labour candidate and therefore not worthy of support against Tory/LibDem?

The candidates and votes in 2005 were:

J.M. McDonnell Lab 19,009 58.7
R.G. Worrall C 8,162 25.2
J.T.A. Ball L Dem 3,174 9.8
T.L. Hazel BNP 830 2.5
M.A. Haley UKIP 552 1.7
B.A. Outten GP 442 1.4
P.F. Goddard Ind 220 0.7

I believe that the SP's position would have been to boycot the poll, which I would characterise as taking criticism to a ludicrously sectarian extent. Their editorial in May 2005 clearly stated:

Who do you vote for?

Who do you vote for if you are opposed to private companies making profits out of our health service, education system and other public services?

Who do you vote for if you want to end low pay, increase pensions and want the interests of ordinary working people to come before those of big business and the rich?

Or if you are opposed to war in Iraq and think the money should be spent on services rather than killing innocent Iraqis?

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

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2005/390/np1.htm

Because the SP had a candidate in 2001, then I would argue that they have a responsibility to give a lead to those people who voted positively for their candidate in an election they weren't contesting. Anyone buying the Socialist in Hayes and Harlington would assume they should not support McDonnell and since there was no 'socialist alternative' or other left candidate, then that means boycott/spoil your ballot paper.

I have been accused of just being critical rather than doing anything positive. In fact the opposite is the case. Less than two years later, with no fundamental change in the political situation, the SP make a statement saying:

"...those in affiliated trade unions should support John McDonnell's campaign for the leadership.

McDonnell may be the only candidate other than Brown the Blairite, and is certainly the only candidate who stands on a programme that is in the interests of trade union members, in that it is against cuts, low pay and privatisation.

If McDonnell gets enough support to get on the ballot paper, we will call on those trade unionists that have a vote in the election to vote for him. "

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

So it's okay to call for a vote for McDonnell as Labour Party leader by trade unionists, but by opposing John McDonnell in a real election with real issues at stake, the SP have turned criticism into an art form (with surrealist intent).

The issue of why they stood a candidate in 2001 is of secondary importance (though not irrelevant).

 

[Philbc03]

http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2007/04/abbey-green.html

Feast well my sectarian hearties.

 

[belboid]

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'.

you making things up again MC5, like on the other thread (you know the one you've suddenly disappeared from once your lies have been pointed out)?? you make a bit of a habit of doing this dont you porkie.

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

naah, thats just you that is.

 

[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.

Coming back on this while i take a breather from work - absolutely right. I think the problem the SP faces is that the actions and ideas of those who love to regugitate the factional differences have rarely if ever been tested.

Generally the professional critics ideas are all hot air and fantasy.

I suppose if one does not do anything then one is unlikely to do anything that can be called a mistake. And thats a big difference between the genuine lefts and the 'talk about it' lefts, imo. The 'risk' of critisism is one i'm happy to take.

 

[audiotech]

you making things up again MC5, like on the other thread (you know the one you've suddenly disappeared from once your lies have been pointed out)?? you make a bit of a habit of doing this dont you porkie.


naah, thats just you that is.

Don't talk like a twat. Everything I've stated happened. If you don't want to believe it - tough shit.

Which thread are you talking about? Do you mean the SWP /RESPECT leader is aristocrat! bollocks thread? Where you wrote:

thats bullshit, MC5, complete bullshit. you're just making it up!

I replied:

I can assure you I'm not making any of it up. Which part specifically btw? Then I could elaborate for you a bit more?

Now, it's you whose been caught out as the lying, porkie fuck.

 

[belboid]

then get back and answer than points, oh shouty one. The ones I elaborated upon, following which you retired from the thread.

 

[audiotech]

then get back and answer than points, oh shouty one. The ones I elaborated upon, following which you retired from the thread.

WHICH POINTS?

Oh, those points. I've addressed them on t'other thread.

Give me a break ffs, you can't expect me to spot every post that's replied to. I have to work you know and everything in between.