Blog

on 8th February 2012 at 10:27, Brian Lynch said:

I simply cannot see how the Labour Party can hope to win back the thousands of ex members, and rely on the left spectrum for support financially and morally. Yesterday we had Yvette Cooper and Hazel Blears more or less calling for the return of control orders. A system that was fought against by Amnesty, Liberty and David Davies of the tories, and scrapped in law by the coalition. For its anti civil liberty and undemocratic stance, which affected every UK citizen. We are starting to see in opposition policies slowly developing that are NewLabour in all but name. With the message that is clearly Blairite ie we are the real conservatives and centre right political party. The credibility and legacy of NewLabour in government for socialists was shameful, and i personally do not wish to see this repeated. The question for all socialists/social democrats is can this labour party be moved back to the left?
Or is it a lost cause and a new left of centre party be created for all left spectrum and green supporters to unite behind. My view is the latter as politically i have absolutely nothing in common with the views of Ms Blears and Cooper, or the majority PLP.

on 8th February 2012 at 13:22, Michael Chewter said:

It is certainly difficult to know Brian how the Labour Left can express its politics in a party dominated by feuding neoliberal factions.

I first joined the Labour Party in 1950. I left to join the ILP in the middle sixties and discoved that they were hotly debating whether or not to return to the Labour Party, which they eventually did, of course, but I was back some years before them. I left again a few years into the Blair era, but returned again when I found that there was little outside to interestme me. I joined the LRC when it was formed, hoping that this would lead to a rebirth of the Labour Left. Post-Miliband, I am wondering just where we are going now ? New Labour are still dominant. Just what is our strategy ?

on 8th February 2012 at 14:08, Brian Lynch said:

As the LRC has trade union affiliation seperate from the labour party, logically the LRC and unions need to take a lead. Germany has proved that politically it is possible to start a brand new left spectrum and green party. TUC backing and left spectrum groups could make this happen also in the UK. I’m an LRC member but refuse to join the official labour party, how many others are they like this? How about the thousands of disaffected grass roots and ex members who cannot trust ex NewLabour leaders. The critical question is, how long do we campaign to change the current labour party? or give up and start again?

on 8th February 2012 at 15:00, Michael Chewter said:

It is not my intention to leave the Labour Party again. However, I do want to see a campaign within it to reverse the continued anti-socialist domination of New Labour. I am aware that some members of the LRC are not themselves Labour Party members. There are ambiguities in this situation. Can somebody please tell me what the policy and strategy of the LRC is in terms of the promotion of socialist politics inside our Party ?

on 23rd February 2012 at 12:38, Marie Lynam said:

Hello Micheal
The solution, indeed, is not to leave the Labour Party. Although many forces are now gathering outside of it, and Labour will not be able to ignore them as it ignored its own supporters. From within the Party, as you mention, the question of the promotion of socialist politics inside the Labour Party is crucial. And I do not see much of that going on.
The simple reason for that is that there is no tendency in the Party, and particularly in the LRC, that is unanimous about what socialist politics are.
And the reason for that is that socialist politics is an abstraction, whilst the situation of every day - of the world and of the country - demands daily analysis.
There is no such analysis because the comrades do not meet objectively. They meet in caucuses or around a subjective unconditionality of support for Labour, whilst the leadership that is bound to arise, from the Labour/Trade Union nexus (so to say) will be anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist, or Labour will continue to attack the working class, by the side of the Tories.
Milleband is vaguely aware of this, when he calls for the Tories ‘to drop the (Welfare) bill’. He realises that not to oppose that bill means to start attacking the British working class openly, something which is already started with the Worfare nightmare. Workfare is a way to cancel the minimum wage and to smash the workers’ wage. It is a war against the working class. Bus drivers are presented with new contracts, and if they fail to sign them, they are sacked. If they sign, their pay is reduced, along with all entitlements won over decades.
Here we go. Labour will sprout socialist tendencies, or it will become a subsidiary of the Tories, which is already the case.
I should imagine that such a subject would attract the attention of the LRC leadership; but perhaps there is not one, not really.
Comradely greetings to all those who have contributed here. The banks will have to be tackled, never fear, and either Labour will do it, or someone else, and a revolutionary situation will ensue demanding a socialist leadership from the British working class.
Marie Lynam

on 13th March 2012 at 13:24, Michael Chewter said:

Those who believe that Labour cannot be reclaimed for its original purpose need to outline their alternative. A thousand leftish fractions ? Labour cannot be left in the hands of people who are effectively neocons, otherwise there is little substantive alternative to the present government. Do we really want to see Blairites and Brownites in power again ? More privatisation, more wars ? Continuing the path of the Con Dems. The Labour Party must be won back and its possibility can only be demonstrated by actually doing it. Don’t hang around, at 77 I don’t have time to waste.

on 14th March 2012 at 13:46, Michael Chewter said:

I appreciate that the LRC is doing things to try to shift the Labour Party in a socialist direction. It seems to me that as long as the parliamentary party is in the hands of New Labour this is doomed to failure. New Labour need to be taken on at an organisational level, as well as a policy level. We need more socialist MPs. Beyond rhetoric, there is little of substance between the three major British parties.

on 14th March 2012 at 14:18, Lesley Whiting said:

Michael, my own view, for what it’s worth, is that the idea there are two distinct factions within the LP, called Brownite’s and Blairite’s, and that siding with this or that side will bring about change is not the best way to look at things.
In my view, the idea that there are two distinct factions with competing policies was simply a re-branding exercise to convince the electorate and different elements of the party faithfull, that there was a “new improved LP” (after all Brown was very much part of the NL project).  Of course we all know that there was acrimony between Blair and Brown, but that was more about personal ambition than policy differences. In believe that the LP leadership created the illusion of Blair/Brown factions for electoral reasons. It allowed Brown to divert blame away from himself to Blair, and convince the electorate/elements of the party faithfull that Blair was a thing of the past, while Blair could blame Brown, and convince a different bunch of party faithfulls that Brown was to blame, and that it was just a question of getting back on track.
In my view therefore, the problem remains how to get the LP back to a left of centre democratic party (the LP was never purely socialist). I don’t pretend to have all the answers to this (and I think there are many), but think the main obstacle to this is the way the LP are funded. I think it would be helpful if the LRC campaigned to end private donations to all political parties (it has to be all or nothing, or else it would put the LP at a disadvantage), and the LRC should work to have an influence on TU policy. Hopefully then, if Labour was completely dependent on membership subscriptions, merchandising, and Union funding, it would be less reliant/in cahoots with big business - as they say, he who pays the piper, calls the tune.
While posting I would just like to remind Lee and Brian that the LRC constitution states that the LRC are committed to returning a Labour Government; are committed to changing the LP from within; and that members cannot belong to Parties that stand against the LP. So, with respect, if they feel the LP is beyond redemption, and wish to establish a party in opposition to the LP, this means they do not accept LRC constitution and perhaps should do the honourable thing.

on 14th March 2012 at 16:02, Michael Chewter said:

Lesley: Of course, I agree that the distinction between the Blairites and Brownites is personal rather than political. That is the point. Together they are New Labour. The number of MPs in the Socialist Campaign Group, including LRC members, is declining over time. There are likely to be even fewer after the next General Election.In order to reverse this trend the Labour Left generally have to oppose New Labour at an organisational as well as a policy level. That is what I am saying.We badly need more socialist MPs.

on 14th March 2012 at 20:28, Lesley Whiting said:

Union contributions to the LP have fallen from around 78% of the LP’s income in 1988, to around only 30% today. The shortfall is now made up by private donations and borrowing, so it’s no wonder that the LP have increasingly cosied up to big business, and have been offering itself to the highest bidder (does anyone remember cash for questions, and honours, or is it just me). Ending this dependence on business donations is perfectly possible, and would release the LP form the clutches of big business (it would also have a much greater impact on the Tories, because they are more dependent on private funding than the LP).
Michael I think what we need are more socialist MP’s within the LP. The problem is in getting them selected in the first place, and then getting them elected. Thats why it’s so important for people to rejoin the LP, because otherwise there’s nobody to work to that end.
Those who suggest that the LRC should set up a party in opposition to the LP, or who want the LRC to pass ridiculous resolutions, serve only to make the possibility of more socialist MP’s within the LP more remote.

on 15th March 2012 at 14:11, Lesley Whiting said:

Lee in answer to your questions:
(1) Ending the LP’s dependence on business donations could be achieved by the LRC campaigning amongst the TU’s to restore funding to the LP (on the understanding that the LP no longer, crawl into bed with the City). I know that the TU’s are short of cash, and some are loath to give cash to NL, but it’s a chicken and egg situation I’m afraid. Without funding the LP have to get cash from somewhere, and this pushes them further to the right.

(2)The person who has suggested that the LRC take the lead in setting up an alternative party is Brian Lynch. I have copied his comments on my blog if you are interested.

(3)Yep I think that motions which seek to regulate prostitution and pornograpy, are very bad for the LRC. Prostitution isn’t actually illegal anyway (when carried out from private premises), it’s soliciting, and kerb crawling that are illegal. So in passing this ridiculous motion the LRC have committed themselves to decriminalising street walking and kerb crawling. Given that this activity is a highly dangerous activity for women, and many women end up raped, assaulted and murdered, it is ludicrous that the LRC support it. Furthermore, studies have shown that a very large percentage of women (some as young as 15 years old), go into prostitution because it is the only way they can get enough money to feed their drug addiction. Do you seriously think the LRC should decriminalise street walking, when that will allow some disgusting old man to abuse a 15 year old drug addict with impunity?
Also, as a socialist, I’m less concerned with the wants of individuals, than the effect that giving them what they want will have on society. As a society, we should not condone the abuse of one individual by another.
In any case the idea that prostitutes are just trying to earn a living, and therefore shouldn’t be criminalised just doesn’t hold water. After all, many young men get involved in burglary to feed a drug habit, or because they are unemployed. Do you think the LRC should call for burglary to be decriminalised?
(4) I reason I know that certain policies weaken LRC’s prospects is because I have seen academic evidence, and have considerable experience.
Firstly, you should know that I have three degrees (Politics, Law, and an MA in International relations), and so my knowledge of voter attitudes and behaviour (in this Country and elsewhere), is fairly advanced. Secondly, I have worked in the Charity sector for over 25 years and this has put me in touch with some of the poorest people in this Country and abroad, and I can tell you that most poor people (particularly asian people), have a very high moral standard /family values etc, and would not have any truck with an organisation that wanted to legalise prostition.
Thirdly, I have been a member of the LP for thirty three years, and during that time have done a lot of campaigning and some voluntary casework for a couple of MP’s, so I’m aware of attitudes and the sort of thing that worries people.
Consequently, if you want to challenge me about my beliefs, and insist that I provide evidence for every statement I make that’s fine, but be prepared to do a lot of research yourself, because I will also be on your case.