Could Boris Johnson be PM one day??

Could Boris Johnson be PM one day?? A terrifying thought no doubt too many of you but today I believe Boris Johnson took his first steps towards this ambition of his. Today Boris announced that he will look to find a seat to stand in for the 2015 general election currently scheduled for next year. This follows years of speculation of if he’d return to Westminster or not. So now we know he will do will just becoming a MP be enough? I suspect not. For a long time now Boris has had this oar around him which has protected him from the criticism levelled at any other Tory. He is just like David Cameron a former Etonian and was good friends with David Cameron during their public schooling days. But would Boris throw all that friendship away to become Tory party leader with a chance of prime minister? I think he would. I think he is a very driven man with lots of ambition and charisma. Let me be honest and lay my cards on the table I hate the Tories and all that they stand for. I cannot stand this current ConDem coalition government and want rid of them ASAP. But I also take an interest in politics in general and have always done so as this blog can testify. But as a bit of a passing interest I do look at what is going on on the other side such as the Tories and the ruling class. As I do feel you got to know your enemy to know how they work as to develop an idea how to defeat them once and for all. So could Boris one day be tory party leader and PM? Why not we do live in exceptional times and despite all the cuts he has pushed through in London he has still managed to regain power and was re elected in 2012 all be it on a reduced majority. He has something which most if not all current tories do not that ability to win when your party brand is toxic and even hindering you. Boris can get away with lots I believe and am a dangerous individual for the working class as a result. Due to his ability to come across as a bafoon to be frank a bit of a clown and is a little entertaining people who would ordinarily be turned off by the views he claims to stand by. But being Boris he can carry it off. I would compare this to the Nigel farage factor that has very little in the way of principles and beliefs but gets away with so much due to being very media savvy and a projecting himself as a guy you could have a reasonable conversation with in your local pub. Of course both Nigel’s and Bore’s politics are not to be supported many that are maybe not tuned in to politics can be won over to their popularism. For Boris this will become increasingly difficult if he is to fulfil his ambition of becoming PM as he will have to agree with things he may have already opposed before as London Mayor. For example if he does which is expected to stand for the Uxbrige and South Rieslip seat which is up for grabs next year he will have to balance his views of opposing a Heathrow expansion with a mixed feeling in the area who more of less are pro expansion due to the fact it provides jobs and a lifeline for the area. Before as London Mayor he was standing for all Londoners if Boris goes for this seat he will have a smaller area of people to stand up for meaning his previous policies may clash with others in this seat. So Boris Johnson will be an interesting figure to watch in the coming years. But most of all we must learn how to expose him far better. Just being a clown may show most people are politically apathetic understandably but we do need to fully explain to people the role of these dangerous people with dangerous ideas which affect us very much in a real way. Boris could become PM one day and this scares me greatly while his image of a funny guy and a likeable chap seems ok now just think what he could do with powers to destroy the NHS and our public services all because we took our eye off the ball thinking he is just a funny guy and we will vote for him because we like his personality. How this will fit with old school conservatives who believed in the traditions of the family and the old days. Boris who has a love child and various mistresses doesn’t really fit in to the old view of the conservative many of their activist base do. But maybe they will look past all that as its Boris who can win for them during troubled times. I am no fan of personality politics but you can’t help commenting on it and recent developments under line that sadly. Let’s do away with personality politics once and for all I say.

Is the Green party a left wing party and should the left support them?

Is the Green party a left wing party and should the left support them? I like the Green party know a fair few of their members and all seem genuine to me. A fair few are what I’d even describe as socialist and left wing. But are the greens a party that the left could rally behind and more to the point are they even left wing at all? All very interesting questions. I would say personally from my experience they’re on the left without a doubt where you place them after that becomes a big debate. I’d almost compare their politics today as almost old labour style politics of public ownership and higher tax’s on the rich as a basis to go forward. I see the greens as an interesting party with lots of variety and some very forward thinking individuals including their on single MP in Caroline Lucas who I like a lot and have heard speak on a number of occasions. I think she is independent and speaks out on things she believes in and is not tied to a party line like many MP’s are. Whether you are in favour of parliamentary politics or not you cannot fail to notice the green party of late having taken control all be it in a minority fashion in Bright and Hove. Yes the ruling group fronted by the greens have passed on cuts and no amount of hand ringing can get away from this fact for me. Having been a socialist party member and previously stood for TUSC this did not go down well in the anti cuts movement when the green lead council in Brighton passed on the cuts and look to again this year too. But do we therefore right off the greens as a party and a wider movement all because of Brighton city council? Maybe if you are a dogmatic sort I suppose. I tend to look at things a bit more rationally these days in a sense. Those of us outside the party often point to the record of the Greens in Germany, where the party joined a neo-liberal coalition and voted for the Afghanistan war, and in Ireland, where they joined a right wing government and cut healthcare and benefits while saying it was OK because they were creating new cycling schemes. Against this we are told that the Green Party of England and Wales is different – the most left wing Green Party in Europe, even. Does this all stand up ? Well the Brighton council thing does not want to go away it seems and the greens will be judged on this their claims to the contrary. Of course that is not the whole story of the Green council in Brighton. As you might expect, it has been pursuing many sustainability initiatives. More significantly, it has just declared that no Brighton council tenants will be evicted if they cannot afford their rent because of the bedroom tax. And councilors have been active in supporting all sorts of other local campaigns. But when it comes to the key issue of fighting austerity, there is scarcely even a cigarette paper between the Greens’ “fairer” cuts and Labour’s. The bogeyman of Eric Pickles’ administrators coming in and making the cuts is used to justify… making the cuts. Spotting the pattern After the first Brighton budget, the Greens held a vote at their conference on whether it was the right to make the cuts. It wasn’t even close – two thirds backed the Brighton councilors. It was at this point that Joseph Healy, one of the founders of internal left wing grouping Green Left, quit the party on principle. As he noted “A few days later at the party’s national conference, despite vigorous objections from Green Left, the party voted to support the Brighton decision. Pragmatism had defeated principle, realpolitik triumphed over radicalism. While the Green Party has many good socialist members, and some radical policies, it is not a party of the left – deliberately so. It has always included different wings of the green movement. Quite a large element of the membership are devoted to an agenda of ‘cycling and recycling’, with a narrow focus simply on environmental issues. While there are many who see themselves as part of the left, they are happy to work alongside those who use the phrase “neither left nor right” with a straight face. Open expressions of leftism are widely seen as a turn-off to voters, and class is generally not thought relevant. The party just voted to put a commitment to “social justice” in its constitution, but that’s as far as it is willing to go. The consequences of this are that Green politicians’ positions can be all over the map. I l have a lot of time for the greens but are they ultimately the answer. I am not sure. I do think they have much to offer and have some very good genuine members but I’m just not sure managing the left side of capitalism is a goal worth fighting for. . Of course we’ll all work with Greens in the battles we face against austerity – and with the many people in Labour, too, who want to oppose the Tories’ destruction of everything we’ve worked for. There is too much at stake not to. But the Green Party offers no solution to the problem of working class representation, or a left alternative to the mainstream consensus. After all, if the Greens are the answer, then why are so many crying out for something new?

The brilliance of ideas

For me I’ve always been a deep thinker questioning everything where I can. This has lead me to all sorts of troubles in the past where I’ve questioned things I may not have been right to do so but I do not regret that now. I think people with ideas are brilliant being critical of things is important in this day and age of rolling news and so much information at the tips of our fingers we should be very careful what we believe and what we don’t more than ever before. I would maybe say my political ideas are somewhat cynical now and this is mainly born out through experience of various ideas and experiences I’ve been through. Having experienced being in a mass political party in the labour party and also a much smaller party in the socialist party I’ve found that party politics whilst have their merits in terms of collective thinking and the mix of ideas I do think ultimately these can be undemocratic in their outlook and their practices. So I now am not in any political party but I do still pay close attention to the former parties I was in and watch with interest as they look to improve things. I do think however political parties are not ideal for a number of reasons and for me the arena to question and think critically of things being frowned upon does not help them develop and adapt to new situations. For example labour and the socialist party is still banging on with the same tired worn out slogans which appeal to very little people or if they do they are communicated wrongly in the wrong format or medium. I think the biggest thing to remember is that we are all still learning and even when we are older and seemingly know a lot there is always more we can learn from each other and ourselves. I think questioning things and questioning ourselves in particular is a key ingredient to becoming an outward thinking person being able to reflect on what has been and what is required in a positive yet critical fashion can prove very useful in time. Politics is a funny business. Many people just don’t get it and feel turned off by it and I can’t blame them at all in fact I’ve been turned off mainstream politics the stuff you see on television for some time. But for me what we see on TV at Westminster is not politics. Politics or political thinking is all around us. The shopping we buy every week, the newspapers we may read, the conversations we have with our friends and where we work is all political everything can be political if you choose to see it that way. I think our lives are shaped by how we see the world if we wish to affect change we can do so. Things are not static and are constantly evolving all the time. We are in affect a cog in a giant wheel where we can decide to change things if we wish to. Having a idea is a brilliant thing if it is shared by others is not the point if you wish to see how far it can go you can be challenged and tested to see if your idea has any legs by this we can tweak our thinking and come to a much more rounded out way of thinking that helps us understand the world around us much more. I should really take up critical thinking with the Open University or something as there must be something I can do with my deep thinking that can benefit others. But lastly I would just say to people don’t just accept what your being told question everything and keep on doing so. The day we stop thinking is the day we stop living.

Happy New Year

So its now 2014 and I’d like to wish you all a happy new year with greetings to all who have been kind enough to red my blog over the last year and shared with their friends. Last year was a bit of a up and down one for me politically I came out of it thinking political parties are the problem rather than the answer and that democracy and solidarity are just words to some people. The level of bullying I received when I was a member of the socialist party shocked me and eventually leads to my resignation last September. The lengths some will go to to silence you speaking out are incredible too. I will always think independently and for myself and perhaps the party form never suited me in this sense. I do not like to be told what to think I’d like to make up my own mind. One of the big things I can take out of 2013 is that we are best when we do not rely on a central committee to think for us and we are best when we act and think for ourselves at all times. Socially I have made some good friends over the last year some who came to the surface recently who I didn’t know before but all who have stood by me I thank you for that and is much appreciated. I hope for change in 2014 with austerity looking set to deepen and the cuts biting hard I look forward to bigger and more focused fight backs. I will continue to support workers in action and communities standing up and fighting back. There is much to look forward to this year and much to be aware of. Ultimately the fight against capitalism continues and is something more will join as the year goes on. Our common solidarity with our fellow workers of men and women, black or white or any ethnic background is key to uniting the fight back. Lastly we are all on a journey mine has taken me from the labour party to a Trotskyist organisation and now to a point where I’m wondering what it is all about. I will continue to look into new ideas and learn for myself what is best route to take. As Karl Marx once said it is for the workers themselves to change society I believe that I do not believe anymore a party has the working class’s best interests at heart only their own self interests of the party. I think this is wholey undemocratic and not what is necessary any longer. I think autonomous struggles will develop from below as those at the bottom of the pile feel they have nothing left but to stand up and make a stand. We are a long way from changing society but each day in our small day to day actions we can have an impact building and organising are key ingredients to making something happen. We should not rely on our so called leaders of our movement and political figures be them of a party form or of a union to do it for us their role is different to ours ours is to remove all forms of power and structured power all together. We do not want political power but to do away with it in all senses. The hierarchy of structures like political parties and unions are not helpful a lot of the time but they do exist and we must recognise them for what they are there to safeguard dissent and to moderate how far radicals can go. To go beyond this and break out of the traditional modes has got to be our target in the coming period in my opinion Thank you for reading I wish all a happy new year and keep safe and strong.

Power and hierarchy

In my view power creates hierarchy and hierarchy creates power the two are very inter changeable and are negative ideas in my opinion on the workers movement. I don’t think creating power or hierarchy even if with the best intentions should be our aim. We don’t want to create a movement in the image of the e existing one we should be looking to replace it with non hierarchical structures if possible. Take the NUS the National Union of Students in the UK for example. The National Union of Students (NUS) is designed to filter, control, pacify and compromise the student movement. It is a way of disempowering students trying to fight together for radical social change and for defending and extending the right to knowledge and education for all. Within the union, energy has been directed at struggling against right-wing bureaucrats for control of the union, instead of organising as students to fight the battles we need to win. The union’s hierarchical structures divide and alienate us, thereby stopping us from being an effective force for change. What happens when you run for an election? Either you win, and are set apart from your comrades, have your time wasted in pointless meetings, and through your position of authority inevitably become an obstacle for students to overcome, or you lose and continue to have no voice. The union’s democratic centralist structure means that we spend more time trying to make something ‘policy’ than actually organising around our real experiences and needs. The recent governance review proposals, and their unwavering support from the NUS elite, are an unsurprising attack on the ‘democracy’ of NUS [see http://resource.nusonline.co.uk/media/resource/NUS_New_Governance.pdf for details]. These illustrate the extent to which the union is controlled by those who do not see its role as being to facilitate a militant collective student movement. However, the problem is deeper than just the control of the union by careerist right-wingers. These latest changes are not particularly significant in themselves, but they simply offer us an opportunity to draw attention to the inherent problems with the structures of the union. Indeed, if the union was controlled by the radical left it would still be a structure to organise the student struggle from outside of the actual experiences and struggles of us as students and, as in increasingly the case, simultaneously as workers. The very existence of the union is fundamentally in opposition to a real collective mass movement based on our real needs. Within NUS, left-wingers have attempted to push the union to fight for some of our needs as students/workers. For example, Education Not for Sale, a left-wing faction, has argued for NUS to resume its commitment to free education and grants for all funded by taxation of the rich. They have not been very successful due to the current stronghold of the right in NUS. However, even if they had been/will be successful on this issue, as long as the power and organisation continues to takes place in the hierarchies, conference halls and offices of the union it will not actually be based on our real needs and we will not have power in deciding our own course of action. Hierarchy is a systematic, organised division of people in a ranked way, so that they are divided into superiors and subordinates. These are INSTITUTIONAL ROLES, where it is the job of some to give orders, and of others to take they (whilst perhaps giving them to others further down the chain). There is a hierarchy between bosses and workers, because bosses give the orders, and workers take them. It’s just the same as the state, there is a hierarchy between the state and its subjects, because the government makes the laws, and the subjects obey them. If you want to stay within the area of the workplace, you have to take orders from above. If you want to stay within the area of the state, you have to do the same. Now, compare this to a democratic workplace assembly. Sure, sometimes a minority get outvoted on an issue, and have to decide between quitting, striking or going along with the majority. Other times it will be a different minority. But they all have an equal say. There is no institutional division between order givers and takers, managers and executants etc. Now, you are right in one sense of the word to say that there is always hierarchy, in that there is always some people who don't get there way, and may have to do something they don't like, or else face some sanction, even if just non-cooperation (which can be just as coercive in its effects). But when classical anarchists talk about hierarchy, they talk about an institutional structures which I think is spot on in my experience you see it in all political parties and trade unions today and reflected in society as a result. Now, it doesn't take a genius to tell the difference between hierarchical and horizontal social structures. HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE: Organised in a pyramid. It is the institutional role and exclusive right of those at the top to give orders to those lower down Boss | V Upper Management | V Lower management | V Manual Workers (The | and V is supposed to look like an arrow) Those further down the chain take orders from those higher up, and have no institutional influence on the decisions of those further up. Now compare this to a workplace ran by a democratic assembly of all who work there (lets not get into side issues of feasibility or efficiency right now). Everyone has a say, everyone has a vote, no one has any more power, and there is no systematic division into those whose job it is to command and those whose job it is to obey. For me hierarchy and power are tied up within the capitalist system and its order of things to remove capitalism we must look to bring about the end of power and all forms f hierarchy in my opinion. They are both corrupting influences and not beneficial to anti capitalists who wish to change society. We do not lead to be lead all the time we can and should act and think for ourselves in conclusion.

Is the party over?

Political party membership is on the decline and has been for some time but I wanted to look at the possible reasons why this could be. Is it simply people don’t feel engaged by politics anymore or is it simply the political parties on offer simply are too similar and do not represent people. One of the central facts of recent British politics has been the decline of the political party. Fewer people are voting for them, memberships have collapsed, and strength of attachment has fallen away. The only party currently prospering, UKIP, is doing so because it has successfully exploited the prevailing ‘none of the above’ sentiment. Why has this decline happened? Does it matter? And what, if anything, might be done about it? It is easier to see why it has happened than it is to frame a coherent response. The great motors of the modern party system—class and ideology—has ceased to function in the way they once did. For much of the twentieth century, politics in Britain was organised on the basis of a struggle between socialism and anti-socialism (however defined) and this structured the two-party dominance of the post-1945 world. That era has now ended, and with it the leading role of the main protagonists. If politics is conducted on broadly similar terrain then it is inevitable that much of the old motive power that fuelled party adherence is diminished. For some, new passions fill the gap (getting Britain out of the EU, getting Scotland out of Britain), but for most there is a turning away from party politics of the traditional kind. It was once a source of cultural identity and pride for millions of British people. But at just over 1% of the population - low by European standards - party membership is fast becoming a minority pursuit. There are more members of the Caravan Club, or the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, than of all Britain's political parties put together. There are many theories as to why this has happened. The public have grown cynical and disillusioned with politicians. We live in a more individualistic age (Why rely on political leaders to speak for you when you can do it yourself on Twitter or Facebook?). Politics itself has become too boring and managerial - the ideological red meat loved by the "party faithful" is in short supply. There have also been profound changes in the way Britons spend their spare time, since the days when the local Labour, Conservative or Liberal club was at the heart of the community. "Most people don't use politics for socialising in the way they might have done in the fifties and sixties, when you had a realistic chance of meeting your future husband or wife at a party dinner or or dance. PARTY MEMBERSHIP • 1951 Conservative 2.9m - Labour 876,000 • 1971 Conservative 1.3m - Labour 700,000 • 1981 Conservative 1.2m - Labour 277,000 • 1991 Conservative 1m to 0.5m - Labour 261,000 - Lib Dem 91,000 • 2001 Conservative 311,000 - Labour 272,000 - Lib Dem 73,000 • 2011 Conservative 177,000 - Labour 190,000 - Lib Dem - 66,000 (Source: Estimates based on party reports and House of Commons L Many people hold an anti politics and an anti party feeling out there including more and more myself. I'm not anti political but increasingly anti party. The main 3 parties Tories, lib dems and labour do largely stand for the same thing and all look to defend and promote capitalism. Most of the voters out there are far to the left of all major political parties which means many would be happy to see public ownership of our railways and energy sector for example which currently no political party would dare to put forward in fear of the reaction of the "market" In years gone by you would grow up with a tribal instinct to supporting a certain political party so for example if your parents had always voted labour you war more likely to carry on the tradition of voting for the labour party. Today there is a real drop off of people voting in their 20's it picks up a bit when people reach their 30's but I don’t think this is any coincidence as those in the bracket of the 20's who are the most hit in terms of austerity being the younger ages which over 1 million young people are out of work and struggling to pay tuition fees and have huge debt around their necks. It is clear that that many in this age group do not feel politics is for them and that also they blame politics for the plight they find themselves in and with good reason too I would suggest. SO why don’t this younger generation join a political party? Well just the thought alone can give you an answer. They don’t feel it is for them quite simply. For many who grew up under a labour government who took us to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan despite huge opposition on the streets people feel disenchanted with the so called democratic process in this country The cost involved in joining a political party is a turn off to I think with recent findings showing • Labour - £41 standard, £20.50 unwaged and pensioners, £1 youth, £20.50 (union or affiliate group member) • Conservatives - £25 standard, £5 (under 23) • Lib Dem - £12 standard, £6 students and unwaged I would conclude by saying that the days of the mass political party may indeed be over but this does not mean politics itself is in decline in fact more people are interested in political ideas than ever before but do not associate themselves with a party. For me it is absolutely fine to be political without being in a party and with many benefits for example like myself I can think and act for myself without having to uphold a party line all the time. I am not tied to supporting a party dogmatically so I don’t have to defend everything it says and does. I am perfectly happy to admit when others out there have good ideas that we shouldn’t ignore just as we are in a different party this is the start of a sectarian agenda of putting your own party above the interests of those you are looking to represent. Only time will tell if political parties have had their day for good but what is sure we will not be going back to 80% turnouts in elections and mass membership parties again anytime soon I’d suggest.

Let’s act and think for ourselves

Over the last week I’ve been coming to the conclusion that only by acting and thinking for ourselves can we get anywhere. Watching political conference after political conference drowns on and on in a misty haze of awfulness I’m struck by the thought of anger at these so called leaders looking to act on our behalf. It wound me up the other week with the TUC conference so called union leaders who earn far more a year than most of us do in a decade pontifying over what needs to happen just makes my skin crawl. I am no longer a member of any political party and can’t see myself getting involved in one again for some time at least if at all. The bitchy comments and backstabbing is unreal. No wonder so many young people are turned off from politics if all they see is MP's and so called representatives of all sides tearing chunks out of each other and arguing about things which matter little to them. Politics is quite widely seen now in Britain that it is something ordinary people just don’t do. We get a vote but many don’t use it and why would they? Voting for a lesser evil every so often is still evil. We seem as far away from a new workers party than ever too. Even if we were to see a new workers party come about what is to say they will be any better? Being sucked into the system, playing by the capitalist rules to conform. Clearly no political party as I see it today as we speak is fit for purpose to change things for the better. I have no faith in any party, MP or political grouping out there right now. The left is split in so many factions and groupings it’s hard to think they can have an impact in the coming period. Any chance of a unity project or getting together regularly ends in splits and fallings out. The left simply are too fractioned to move forward right now. The two main projects on the left electorally anyway are currently TUSC and Left Unity and while both will claim to be in their infancy past experiences do not fill you with confidence that they will get off the ground in any meaningful sense. I do think we can be political without being in a party. We don’t need a political party to be political I’ve always thought. I've been in a few parties and got on well with those not in one. Now I’m free of a party I feel a lot freer to think and be critical of where I feel things are slipping and what could be better. Having the freedom to criticize is important. Not to criticize for criticisms sake but to point out flawed strategies and point an alternative out. I do think we all have the potential to think and act for ourselves. We don’t need to be told what to think. The working class is not stupid and I don’t think it needs leading by the nose. Allowing people to think and explore their own political ideas is key to developing any political idea. Testing it against others having the freedom to be wrong and make mistakes as we all do from time to time. Being attacked or abused for speaking out against something you don’t agree with with people does not encourage free thinking. So now I’m free, independent for now I will think and act as I like. I was told my blog posts of late have been far more interesting since I’ve left the socialist party. Whilst I’m still a socialist and believe in socialism I found a fair few of the SP's organisational methods stifling at times where a pre determined party line decided by a leadership who I apparently endorsed without knowing much about their records in action or what their personal day to day work was like. This being due to the fact leadership meetings like NC and EC meetings minutes were not made available. How are you supposed to know who plays what role and who is better or not when coming to vote for a pre determined slate which you can challenge of course but again who do you replace them with if you don’t know what is said nor goes on in NC meetings and above? All this and other aspects of a lack of democracy worried me. While more democracy doesn’t lead to socialism necessarily I do think it’s something as socialists and those who oppose the current system should always try and promote and call out when you don’t feel there is enough. As I’ve always said its workers who have the power to change society and I still believe this. Allowing people to think for themselves is a key part of this though. Freedom of thought and speech does have its boundaries of course where we would oppose such things as racism, sexism and discrimination and so on but the ability to think politically without fear of retribution is a must in today’s society. We are not in 1920's Russia people should have the freedom to express disagreements, criticisms and not be isolated or punished for this.

The decline of social democratic parties

I was listening to Novara the other die and the guys were focusing on the decline of social democracy parties who has now moved over to becoming fully fledged capitalist parties as I’ve outlined before. This is a very interesting development which was an ideological shift since the fall of the Stalinist Soviet Union in 89 onwards. We see today that Pasoc in Greece formally a mass workers party now sitting on as low as 6 % washed up and seemingly finished in Greece. Also looking at Spain the Socialist party there is mired in scandal for many years now and has lost that base in fact you can look right across western Europe including Italy now with the coming to power of the grand coalition of left and right now with the PD who have been tarnished now for many years will now loose further support for joining this crisis coalition almost a national government if you like. Interestingly a piece I read in the Guardian the other day from an Italian commentator it is similar to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie now looking to hold itself up and appear a credible government to protect the ruling class’s interests which of course they will hope to do. All this add’s to the question of what happens here back in Britain with the Labour party now a openly capitalist party of course no doubt will try and raise its dwindling support in hope and ride to power in 2015 if indeed it can manage it as I still do believe it is not being backed passionately rather it’s a reaction against the Tories they are the nearest lot to go for who can hurt the Tories not that this shows any great enthusiasm for the labour party. Much like in France with Francois Holland who last year rode to power on a wave of anti austerity to now fin himself as one of the most unpopular presidents France has ever had. Why is this? Well for a start France’s unemployment figures are shocking and continue to rise. Holland’s hope and optimism of tackling austerity has faded as he’s come up against the markets and has had to row back in his rhetoric and play ball with the rest of the EU and the IMF. This could be a glimpse into the future for the labour party who if they gain power in 2015 will almost be despite of themselves will soon end up disappointing many who have backed it there is no doubt about that. Labour is likely to carry out the cuts and be seen as a safe pair of hands for British capitalism. Ed Miliband is making al sorts of odd noises he wants to do this he wants to do that. But ultimately labour is wedded to the market system and the capitalist mode of production and has no ambition to change this. This will lead them to being dictated to by the markets any borrowing he tries will be hit heavy by the levels of our bond markets and this will spook young Ed to behaving and staying in line with austerity all be it at a slower pace perhaps . But what is clear from the mass numbers involved in these mass parties take the labour party in the 50’s had over a million members today you’ll be lucky if its 150 thousand who are actively members of a party in Britain this goes for the right to by the way there hasn’t been a surge of membership in right wing parties either this is a political party crisis as much as a crisis of social democracy. How this will develop its hard to tell clearly working class people and even middle class people are disenfranchised and have little option of who to vote for let alone to join so it leaves a big anti establishment feeling out there in the wider public it will be interesting to see how these parties react to this or will they like the others before like Pasoc end up beached smashed against the rocks finished for good replaced with another alternative party system or different structures entirely. We certainly live in interesting times.

The delusions of Ed Miliband and the labour party

The local elections just gone were not an endorsement of the labour party or of its leader Ed Miliband. Ed described the results of labour reconnecting with the voting public. This couldn’t be further from the truth if he tried.

Take Harlow where Ed Miliband visited to proclaim a labour victory and to have a pop at the Tories the local labour vote could only muster a win out of 30% of people who bothered to vote. Over 71% of people registered to vote in Harlow did not bother to come out of their homes to vote for labour or any of the major captivity parties either.

It is an absolute fabrication of labour to spin this as a vote for labour and a big wave of people supporting them again. Quite frankly it is further evidence of the disengagement of politicians with ordinary people and who can blame people with a all parties standing for cuts reluctant cuts, slower cuts or fairer cuts all amount to the same thing at the end of the day cuts to jobs and services however much hand ringing they do they are still making cuts. Cuts we as Marxists do not feel are necessary at all.

We are at one with unions such as the PCS and the RMT who have planned out an alternative a reformist position against the cuts and yes the money is there to cover the need to make any cuts to jobs or services. We feel this argument will be born out in time and we are on the right side of the argument.

But it’s all about convincing people it’s about reaching that 71% of people who did not vote or felt the need to vote. They will be being affected now swell but do not feel voting can change anything. We agree to an extent but a vote for someone like TUSC can make a difference we can be that voice on the inside for you offering that working class socialist alterative. Correct we cannot bring about socialism simply by standing in elections but we can certainly use them as a platform to get our ideas across to a wider audience than otherwise we could.


But for labour and Ed Miliband to claim this as a victory for labour in the local elections is way far wide of the mark with such low turnouts apathy was the real winner and for any political party to claim a victory with such low turnouts is pretty poor in stretching reality.

With Ed Milibands approval rating currently sitting at minus 41% and the other major parties leaders at a similar level he can hardly claim he is winning people over and convincing people labour is a real alterative. It simply is not but hey what would be the point if a politician didn’t spin things for their own advantage.

People simply do not believe a politician in a suit any longer they think they are all the same and largely they are. The fact that Ed Miliband is now saying he wont be making any promises in the fear he may break them says it all quite frankly a lack of confidence in his own policies and his own ability to convey them to people.

As Marxists we do not have this problem we are bold in our ideas as we know that we stand on a class basis not looking to run ahead of the class or tag along from behind we look to lead if we can and provide a beacon of hope to those struggling to get by be that in work or not. We are all working class if you have to work to get by. Ed Miliband doesn’t get the idea of class he is afraid of using terms like working class or socialism as they have lost their working class base. People may still vote labour for now but how they can claim to be a workers party any longer is beyond me. There is no working class base in the labour party any longer with the trade union link still there but barely noticed and to be honest the labour leadership only see it as a pot of money they can dig into to fund their election campaigns not to use it to fight for working class interests.

Just this last week we had a fantastic strike by half a million public sector workers with many more in support of them but where were labour ? They could not bring themselves to support this strike and haven’t been able to for a very long time.

TUSC supports workers in struggle and is keen to be there wherever it can lend support. It is time a new workers party was formed and built lets drop any illusions we may have in the labour party but holding a friendly door open to those good comrades still plugging away in the labour party. We think you’re wasting your time and effort and you’d be better working with us in trying to form a new workers party with democracy and trade union and socialist value sat its core.

What's in a name ?

With todays labour party quite clearly not supporting workers or working class people at all i wondered should they be forced or even not think about dropping the name labour ?

To me a young person involved in politics i have only known a pro market, pro privatisation, pro imperialist war labour party and for them to rest on their past success's if you can call them that is a insult to ordinary working people.

It is a fraud to be quite honest for the labour party today who no longer has a working class base like it used to. lenin was right labour was never a socialist party yes but it always had a duel complection having a workers base with a bourgeois leadership. Even in Militant we realised this for those who thought we were reformist for working inside the labour party. But today how anyone can seriously suggest labour represents ordinary working people or is vaguely socialist at all is living in cloud cookoo land to be quite honest.

The likes of the LRC and other good socialists point to the fact the labour party still have the trades union link. This is all very well if this hadnt been severaly hampered by many many anti trade union laws incidentily not repealed by a labour government in power for 13 years.

Small cabals - who have no connection with the radical and heroic periods of Labour - run a machine totally alien to working class people. Any socialist - inside or outside the Labour Party, and it is mostly the latter - is bound to come into collision with them.

This does not preclude "heated debate", not just with the Con-Dems but also with and against Labour councillors and the majority of Labour MPs who are doing the dirty work of the government in justifying cuts and carrying them out at local level.

It is unrealistic to think that workers who are losing their jobs - some of them never to work again - and many seeing vital services destroyed should engage in polite exchanges with 'Labour... Yes Labour councils and councillors'. It is legitimate to express anger and, yes, rage - not just against the Tories and Liberals - but against a Labour caste at local level which is inflicting terrible punishment on working people.

It is also necessary to forcefully take up and oppose those who seek to excuse Labour sell-outs. Some on the left refused to endorse the Socialist Party's implacable opposition to 'all cuts'. But we were at one with those like Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the PCS civil servants union and Bob Crow, leader of the RMT transport workers union. Those who are prepared to accept 'some cuts' are acting as a left flank, apologists for Labour councillors and councils who are betraying everything which the Labour Party originally stood for.

For instance, Waltham Forest council - controlled by Labour - has inflicted £3 million of cuts to wages and conditions of its workers yet £18 million has been paid to 'consultants' whose main job is to make these cuts to jobs and services! And this is as typical of 'Labour' councils as Tory or Lib Dem.

Will local government emerge at the end of the 'cuts programme' in the absurd position of the NHS where "in 2006, Accountancy Age reported that the NHS was spending more on consultants than all Britain's manufacturers put together"?

This scandal was pushed through by the likes of New Labour health ministers Alan Milburn and Patricia Hewitt, who then got cushy, well-paid jobs in the health private sector!

However much of the debate in the labour movement at present is on the character of the Labour Party at present and whether is it possible to reclaim it in the future. We can never say never where politics are concerned. Nor is it theoretically excluded that if a mass workers' party is not urgently built, the impulse for a new party could come from within even a bourgeois party.

Such is the depth of the present economic and social crisis that, in time, this can find an expression even in such a party leading to a left split, out of which could come the basis of a radical or even a new mass workers' party.

Something like this happened in Greece where the 'left-wing' of the liberal capitalist party the Centre Union - led by the late Andreas Papandreou - came out of that party following the overthrow of the Greek military junta in 1974.

Such was the sweep of the revolution in the post-1974 period and the colossal changes in consciousness which this evoked that the objective basis for the new mass socialist party Pasok was created. The present 'Pasok' is a million miles removed from its socialist origins.

But we do not think that it is likely that Labour could be transformed in Britain in the next period. We cannot just 'wait' for future events to hopefully change the Labour Party, while in the meantime the working class goes to hell in a handcart.

We have to seek to exert pressure now through a new workers' party, no matter how small initially. The Labour party has been transformed under the New Labour counter-revolution carried out first by Blair, then by Brown and today by Miliband into a capitalist formation.

In fact, Tony Blair recognised this when he declared that New Labour was an entirely 'new party'. Conversely if Labour is to be 'transformed', as some still hope, then this would effectively mean setting up a new party, which by standing on clear socialist policies would represent a clear break.

Labour's current policies are a continuation of Blair's pro-capitalist agenda. This is expressed in terms of policy; witness Miliband's completely pro-capitalist assault on the trade unions at the TUC. It is reflected also in the internal organisation and character of the Labour Party which is fundamentally different from what existed in the past.

The old Labour Party, of which we were a significant force (through Militant - now the Socialist Party), involved the participation of the working class and the trade unions. It was a 'bourgeois workers' party' - with a pro-capitalist leadership at the top but a base among workers below. But it was also very open and democratic, and the leadership was forced to take account of the rank-and-file and its views.

Those who seek to argue that 'nothing has fundamentally changed' in the character of the Labour Party are mistaken. Compare the present situation in the Labour Party to the 1960s. Harold Wilson, supported by Barbara Castle the Labour minister at the time, tried to push through anti-union legislation.

This was massively opposed by the rank-and-file of the party and the majority of the National Executive Committee. If Wilson had not retreated he would have been compelled to resign. Neither could he militarily support US imperialism on the Vietnam War- despite the urgings of the then US President Johnson - for the same reason.

Tony Blair, however, got the support of Labour's conference delegates - who in the past were solidly to the left of the leadership - for the obscene and criminal Iraq war.

Some object that to describe New Labour as 'capitalist' is an 'exaggeration', because workers are still voting Labour. This, it is argued, indicates that Labour - 'warts and all' - is 'different' from the other two capitalist parties.

Yes, Labour is 'different', in the same way as the Democratic Party in the US differs from the right-wing Republican Party. The Democrats are more 'liberal' but are still a pronounced capitalist party.

So also was the Liberal Party in the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century. Sections of the working class and the trade unions in Britain saw it as an alternative until mighty events - the decline of British imperialism and its inability to continue to grant concessions to the working class - undermined this. This prepared the way for the rise of the Labour Party itself as a mass political expression of the trade unions.

Those who furnished the mass basis for the Labour Party were the sons and daughters of workers who previously voted Liberal. This will happen with the building of a new party. Those who have voted Labour and still do can be won to a new mass workers' party.

Even to those who hope that Labour can be changed, we pose the questions: 'What do we do now in the political and electoral arenas? How does the labour movement exert pressure on Labour in order to defeat and change its present craven capitulation to big business, which is disheartening its former and present supporters? By propaganda or vague hopes for the future alone? The bureaucratic caste which dominates Labour is totally impervious to this.


So i would suggest all that are serious about a new workers party should suggest that any new workers party in the future which i'm confident will happen should not include the name labour as it has been shamefully wrecked by the current party which claims to stand for working people but clearly does not.