Can we change society via the ballot box

I am less and less convinced by the week. As various left projects to stand in elections have come and gonea nd political representation for workers is still absent from todays offerings i thought i'd take a look at where we go from here and the lessons we can possibly learn. I dont claim or even pretend to have all the answers i dont believe anyone does. I am not keen on those boasting to have all the answers and a ready made blueprint to change. Those who think we just need better leaders miss teh point in my view now it is the leaders as their role in mediating struggle which are the issue not who are the leaders as such. Much like with Trade uUnions political parties be them of workers organisations or not are there to over see struggle not to transform society as such. A excellent article i have read over at the Communea fantastic blog i've strumbled across gives a good analysis of electoral politics and its limits. what follows is Dave Spencer's excellent analysis of the failure of socialist electoral coalitions over the past decade and why organisation from below has far more to offer than vanguardism. The most striking feature of British politics over the last decade has to be the disenfranchisement of the working class. The working class has little or no voice at national, regional or local level. Our task is to be part of the reversal of this situation. But this reversal has to come from below, from the linking and networking of the campaigns and struggles of the working class itself. Unfortunately the organised left does not see it this way. As convinced vanguardists and elitists they see themselves as providing the leadership with all the answers that the workers must follow. They have had a decade in which to show leadership, but have failed dismally to build a broad united movement to fill the vacuum to the left of New Labour. It is not as though material conditions have been unfavourable, given the biggest economic crisis for over 100 years; global warming which threatens the very existence of the planet; two unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; and MPs and bankers being shown to be on the take.But there have been attempts to build an organisation. In 1996 we had the birth of the Socialist Labour Party (SLP), the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) and the Socialist Alliance (SA) “ all before the 1997 General Election which New Labour was expected to win. The SLP started well with a mass meeting of over a thousand in Camden Town Hall. Arthur Scargill addressed meetings of 300 to 400 in the large cities. In the 1997 general election the SLP stood 64 candidates and got just under 2% of the vote. The SSP stood 18 candidates and gained about the same percentage. The Socialist Party threw its weight behind the Socialist Alliance, mainly to form an alternative to the SLP which they saw as a serious rival.Clearly there was potential in these attempts, given that workers were voting New Labour to get the Tories out and nobody knew quite what a rat Blair was to become. Given 14 years to the general election of 2010 surely some solid progress should have been made. What happened? Scargill insisted that joining the SLP meant you left every other organisation. There was no scope for factions in the SLP. Worse still Scargills bureaucratic approach was demonstrated at the post-election SLP Conference when it came to light that a Mr Hardman was sitting in the conference with 3,000 votes – more than the rest of the delegates put together and using those votes to get through Scargills policies and also to get Scargills men on to the National Committee. People seized the microphone, led by comrades from Cardiff who had achieved the best SLP vote in the election. Why bother to have a secret ballot? they demanded. Why not ask Mr Hardman which policies he supports and be done with it? In fact why bother to have a Conference at all? Over half the Conference walked out. The SSP also made a good start and drew in a wide variety of enthusiastic members. In contrast to the SLP they quite rightly allowed minority factions. Both the SP and SWP joined as platforms of the SSP. However when Tommy Sheridan dragged the party into the courts, both the SP and SWP supported him and undoubtedly advised him to split the SSP. In my view this was no matter of principle, but a cynical manoeuvre on their part to wreck the SSP, which they saw as a rival. Left groups cannot stand competition.The same political approach of narrow sectarianism based on an elitist vanguardist view of the party was used by both the SP and SWP in the Socialist Alliance. At the general election of 2001 the SA fielded 98 candidates and the SSP 72 candidates. This was ambitious but shows the potential to build a broad movement. The SP insisted on a federal structure for the SA which meant that decisions were taken by contacting the National Committees of the various left groups involved and individual SA members had no say. The SP left in a huff when the SA decided against federalism; they refused to stay in and fight their corner. That left the SWP in charge. In February 2005 the SWP closed down the SA in order to concentrate on Respect. What a depressing sight to see SWP members, sheep-like, queuing up to join the SA at the conference, only to use their new membership cards to close down the SA which some of us had been members of for 13 years!What can we learn from this pitiful history? The first thing is that back-room deals by leaderships are not the way forward. There has to be democracy and accountability and nothing less. And the working class must be involved. And we have to have a healthy distrust of left groups. Some SSP members now argue that they should never have let the SWP and SP join as platforms. I think they are right. They had no intention of building a broad movement in which they could play an important role. They were there to sell their papers and recruit anybody new to their own organisations. Any dealings with any British left group must now contain the health warning Watch your back!This week in a large local residents meeting where I live, called to protest about cuts in bus routes, one resident stated, The cuts are going to get worse. After the election there’s going to be a slaughterhouse! Nobody disagreed. Every day in our local paper there are photographs of groups of people protesting about something. This is a new phenomenon brought about by the economic crisis. Some means of linking these struggles and grassroots organising must be found as a matter of urgency at local and national level. Some of these links already exist.As Chair of the residents’ group mentioned above I have had to learn very quickly about the transport system and how it works in order to propose our petition of protest to the Council. A few months ago we had a protest petition about a proposed PFI waste incinerator in our area. We had to find out about that. To learn about the workings of local government and their various operations is an eye-opener, believe me. All this information needs to be shared and we need to build up expertise on specific subjects like health, education, climate change etc.In the course of defending public services and jobs we should start debates within the campaigns on how these services should properly be run with the workers concerned and with the public. How would it be under communism?The questions of democratic workers’ control and self-management and accountability should be raised. After all some members of the public will argue that some public services are crap – which they are. Nationalisation is not the complete answer “ we need democratic control and accountability by workers and the public. Informed debates within protest campaigns has to be one method of building from below. It is a question of dialogue with the people involved, not of preaching from the rostrum.The last decade saw the working class sidelined. Those claiming to stand for workers rights failed because they started by insisting that they knew the answers and the workers had to follow. The new decade must be one of focussing on building communism from below.

Miliband, The labour party and the left

As a result of the Falkirk west nonsense over the labour party and Unite Ed Miliband is looking to weaken the trade union influence in teh labour party even more. In this weeks socialist there is a editorial on the whole matter and where as the socialist party we see things heading and what we feel is necessary to give workers a voice. Tonight at the Harlow Socialist party branch we will be discussing political representation, the labour party and where does the left go next. Ed Miliband's decision to rush through the end of trade union bloc affiliation to the Labour Party at a special conference next spring has all the symbolism of Tony Blair's 'Clause Four moment' in 1995. That was when Blair organised a special conference to abolish Labour's historic commitment, in Clause Four, Part 1V of the party's rules, to "the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange". It is not only symbolism that is involved in Miliband's move, however, but the content that is also the same; to continue (in fact, to complete) the process of transforming Labour into just another capitalist party. Clause Four summarised the collective interest of the working class in fighting for a new form of society, socialism, in opposition to the capitalist market system. Trade union affiliation (when democratically exercised by union members) enshrined the ability of the working class through the unions to control its political representatives. It was these characteristics that defined the Labour Party in the past as a 'capitalist workers party', with a leadership at the top which invariably reflected the policy of the capitalist class, but with a socialistic ideological basis to the party and a structure through which workers could move to challenge the leadership and threaten the capitalists' interests. Details have yet to emerge of the proposals being considered by a review led by former Labour Party general secretary Lord Collins to go to the special conference. But the central idea, to replace bloc affiliation in favour of trade unionists joining Labour as 'affiliated' or 'associate' individual members, would finally end the remnants of the affiliated trade unions' collective political voice within the party. The Falkirk affair, the ostensible reason for the changes, shows how far in fact this process has already gone. What happened in Falkirk - with Unite officials recruiting union members to become individual members of the constituency Labour Party (CLP) - actually had no connection with the union's affiliated status. In the past trade union branches would send delegates to constituency Labour parties (CLPs), alongside ward party representatives, to select a parliamentary candidate. This was the way, for example, that the Militant MPs Dave Nellist (now chair of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition - TUSC), and the late Terry Fields and Pat Wall, won their selection as Labour candidates in the 1980s. Democratic structure That democratic structure, which meant that healthy mass participation Labour parties like in Liverpool and Coventry were effectively local 'parliaments of the labour movement', was overturned in 1994 by the introduction of 'one member, one vote' (OMOV) rules for selecting candidates. Those changes, promoting passive membership over representative democracy (some OMOV selections have been decided by postal ballots, with prospective candidates having no chance to speak to members) were accurately described by John Prescott as being more important in changing Labour than the abolition of Clause Four. In Falkirk Unite members were being recruited as individuals to take part in a future OMOV ballot with no certainty, of course, as to how they would vote. But even that pale reflection of 'union influence' has been seized by Miliband as a chance to complete the job of effectively ending the union link. The Socialist Party believes that the Labour Party has already been qualitatively transformed from its roots as a capitalist workers' party, which is why we argue that a new workers' party is necessary. We support TUSC as a precursor of a new mass party that could unite together trade unionists, unorganised workers, socialists, young people, oppressed groups and community campaigners, as the only way to ensure that the working class today can achieve an independent political voice. But social formations can retain many of their old forms - even as their new content predominates - and residues of the past position of the unions in the Labour Party still remain. Affiliated unions have 30 votes out of 144 in Labour's National Policy Forum (NPF) for example (which will now be examined by the Collins review), and are directly represented on the national executive committee. And while the affiliated unions' 49% share of conference votes has been reduced from the 90% share in the past, if they rejected Miliband's proposals, which they should, it is not guaranteed that he could push them through the special conference. But unfortunately the Unite leadership in particular are not signalling opposition to Miliband's plans and in doing so are using arguments that are undermining the very idea of independent working class political representation. Unite general secretary Len McCluskey, for example, has argued that he could not go "in front of TV cameras and pretend to speak on behalf of a million Unite members" since many of them do not vote Labour. That's true, they don't; but when Len speaks he is representing Unite's democratically agreed policies against cuts and privatisation, for repeal of the anti-union laws etc. In negotiating with employers, union representatives speak for the decision reached collectively by the union members, even though a minority may not have supported the finally agreed position. So why shouldn't the union be represented collectively in the political arena too? More power? Len McCluskey has also suggested that Unite could actually have more power by making its donations conditional on Labour's support for specific policies. But how would this be different to the position of the US unions, reduced to being just another lobbying group alongside corporate donors, giving millions of dollars to buy some alleged 'friends of labour' in the Democratic Party? Or for that matter the 19th century 'Lib-Labism' of unions before the formation of the Labour Party, seeking support for particular policies and parliamentary representatives within a capitalist party? Not the least danger of such an approach is that it reinforces the idea that the attacks of capitalism on workers' living conditions, jobs etc could be met by a few policy changes or reforms rather than an alternative programme for government - which requires an alternative party. Ultimately the only effective control over workers' political representatives is that exercised by workers' organisations through their collective decision-making structures. In Britain today that means the trade unions drawing the lessons of Miliband's 'Clause Four moment' and taking the necessary steps to set up a new workers' party.

Why unite should disaffiliate from the labour party

Unite who pays millions into labour every year and are by far labours biggest donor who have been caught up in the latest debacle in Falkirk west. Its time for unite to disaffiliate I believe. For many years the unions have paid into labour hoping for better this day has never come. Now unite has finally started to punch its weight in the labour party it’s found itself caught out and demonised. This should tell Len and all those in the leadership of our union that this strategy of “reclaiming labour” is flawed and will end up wasting millions of member’s money and ultimately loose us jobs and valuable time in building an alternative... I am a unite member and am proud to be so I am less proud of our unions political campaigning its weak at best pathetic at worst. Millions of our hard earned pounds go to the labour party without us having a say. The political fund should be opened up and democratised as a first step. Why should a select few who are labour party members decide what the unions political fun is spent on this is hugely undemocratic and must be brought to an end as soon as possible. As a member of the socialist party who campaign within TUSC I cannot understand why unite who apparently is moving to the left I’m far from convinced given they are still giving discounts and vouchers to use in marks and Spencer who still use workfare well played comrades looking out for those young low paid workers I see there !. There is no logical reason why unite and all unions for that matter would fund the labour party those who oppose breaking the link cannot even use well there is no alternative anymore as there clearly is. TUSC may not be a party but it is ready and waiting for bigger unions to take it up and get involved and mould it to represent ordinary workers at all levels in a union. I wont stop paying my political fund levee with unite as ridiculously if you stop paying this all of your political fund is stopped which is not what we are arguing for. We as Marxists argue the political fund should be democratised at the very least and at most broke totally with labour and we should be backing each candidate on merit if a labour party member is against the cuts which a few have been then that’s fine as long as they agree to unites position of opposition to all cuts to jobs and services I have no problem with that. The thing is this would quickly come to a head as those who do oppose the cuts in labour are in a minority bringing the need for a question on political representation for workers firmly back on to the agenda. Labour claim they want more working class candidates this is code for more working class candidates who agree with our line of slower cuts. This is not good enough and unite should not be bounced into supporting union backed pro austerity candidates even if they are so called working class. Its time for those in unite who are serious about fighting the cuts to make up their minds do we go on funding labour for ever and a day or do we make a clean break and start a fresh. I say we opt for the later.

Reclaiming the labour party, was it ever really ours?

Many on the left now to fill their vacuum of ideas and principles are now calling to reclaim the labour party including Unite general secretary Len McCluskey who says we must all join labour to reclaim the party for us. He claims it is our party, working people’s party. I am a member of the socialist party and am of the view this is a non starter the democratic structures for reclaiming the party are no longer there plus there is no mass enthusiasm for going into labour to have a big battle to change it. But as the argument is back again I thought I’d look at if the party was ever really “ours” to reclaim. As Lenin described at the time the labour party was a bourgeois workers party with a conservative pro market leadership with a working class mass base. Those who wish to try and argue as the likes of the SWP do that the labour party has stayed the same only have to take a look at where labours mass workers base has gone. It’s been hollowed out. Yes the party still has the trade union link and those like left wing celebrity Owen Jones argue that it’s still tied to the working class and is still a worker’s party due to that link. I disagree; the Democrats in America have a trade union link yet are still an out and out capitalist party much like the labour party today. To understand why today we say the labour party is a fully capitalist party we must understand the transition and factors which have lead to this point. From its very inception it’s been a battle of ideas, of principles and factions. One hundred years ago, on 27 February, 1900, a conference of trade unionists and socialist organizations met to establish the Labour Representation Committee, the forerunner of the Labour Party. This was to be a culminating step in a long struggle by workers in Britain to break with the Liberal Party and establish their own party. The Labour Party was from its inception a bourgeois workers party. At its head were the 'liberal' leaders such as Ramsay Macdonald and Philip Snowden, through whom the pro-capitalist ideology of the ruling class could be transmitted to the working class below. In parliament those leaders succumbed to opportunism, following the lead of the Liberal Party which they had separated from organisationally but not ideologically. But at the same time the party had its roots in the working class, with its working class base acting as a certain counter-weight to its bourgeois tops. One hundred years later, however, in the wake of the collapse of Stalinism and the boom of the 1980s, the pro-capitalist leadership is now completely dominant. The channels through which the working-class base of the Labour Party could hold the leadership in check have been cut off, and the party has made the transition to an openly bourgeois party. The historic task of building an independent mass workers' party is posed once again. But not under the same conditions. Despite the lowering of socialist consciousness generally in society over the past decade, a capitalist workers' party has been in existence for almost a century and that experience will influence the character of a new workers' party, especially in its early stages. In addition, the leadership of the trade unions today is more integrated into the capitalist state than it was at the end of the 19th century. That too will affect the process towards a new workers' party, making it much less likely that the leadership of large national unions would move to embrace a new party as they did in the past. Nevertheless, as in the 1880s and early 1890s, it will be mass struggle arising from economic, social and political crisis which will create the conditions for a new mass workers' party to emerge. And, as then, the intervention of revolutionary socialists in that process will be crucial. Socialists paved the way for an independent workers' party through their propaganda and involvement in the day to day struggles of the working class. But however determined they were to see a new party come into being, they could not transcend the limits of the objective situation. It was the interplay between mass struggle and socialist propaganda and activity which created the conditions under which they could take concrete initiatives to create an independent party of the working class. We believe that, without a major influx of workers into the Labour Party any campaign for rank-and-file control will be ineffective but, as the LRC discovered when it attempted to launch a recruitment drive in the anti-war movement, workers and young people entering struggle have no interest in joining the party they are fighting against. But reclaiming the Labour Party for the working class would require a mass influx of workers, organised around a campaign to remove the Blairites and recreate the party's democratic structures. A socialist programme would need to be adopted, including opposition to all cuts. The Socialist Party has concluded that this is not possible - and that instead what is required is the creation of a new mass party of the working class. If such a party stood on Unite's programme of opposing and reversing all the cuts, abolishing the anti-union laws, etc, it would provide a positive pole of attraction for all those millions of people opposed to the Con-Dems' austerity. The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition is an attempt to build a bridge to such a party. Plans to build it should be stepped up, including holding meetings and debates on the issue of political representation and developing supporters groups inside the unions. With e extracts from Christine Thomas’s excellent article in socialism today on the history of the labour party

Where my union heads next, a look into unites internal workings

As you may or may not know I’m a member of Unite the Union a critical member at best you could say Unite I would like to say has done really nothing for me yet I continue supporting it with my subs each year and those subs continue to go to the capitalist labour party against my wish’s and my protests to the union over countless email protests yet nothing has been done on that front.

We have just seen the end of Unites political policy conference where they once again over rode the membership and voted to remain backing financially and politically the labour party. This goes against Unites policy I must point out Unite clearly opposes all cuts in its policy agreed last year in 2011 I blogged heavily about this as I felt this was a major step forward. How wrong was I since then Unite backed Labour party MP’s and councillors have continued to pass on and support the tory cuts handed to them. Not even a whimper at all has come from these not even a cry for help just a complete silence and acceptance that the cuts are necessary. Which as readers of this blog will rightly know is not the case.

So why do these Labour MP’s and Cllr’s continue to accept the need for cuts ?

Well they do not see any alternative any fight back is not in their remit they see their job as keeping a balanced budget and making sure numbers add up. Not even stopping to think what their cuts not Tory cuts their cuts at a local level as despite what Labour councillors tell you their budget is cut yes I accept that bit but its them who choose what to cut if at all. They could and its not out of their reach to oppose all cuts and turn around and say we were not elected to vote for cuts which they weren’t I accept and to say we will not make your cuts. If the Tories wish to make cuts let them and be it on their heads. But as a party if Labour is ever to regain any credibility at all they must reject all cuts as a starting policy for workers to ever engage with them ever again. Bottling it and say we have no choice or we’ll have our budget taken overhand imposed from central Gov by the likes of Eric Pickles is a complete and utter cop out. This has never even been tried not even in Liverpool when 47 brave socialist councillors stood up to the Tories and said NO and stood by this in defence of the people who elected the in to defend services. There eyes an alternative if your prepared to fight for it. Liverpool city council won a big bonus of 60 million pounds plus extra through funding for housing and local development a defiance of the government who wanted them to make cuts put them in the firing lien and unlike other Labour councils today decided to stay and fight. It is not always about doing the right thing but it’s about doing the right thing for your class and the people who elected you. I.e. the working class in this case!


By unite having a official policy to oppose cuts which in my view they do not enforce at all and backing Labour candidates who stand on a manifesto however left they claim to be accept the need for cuts which unite and the socialist party witch I’m a member of completely reject.
For unite to break from this consensus which is a labour dominated one I firmly believe they should break with the labour party and back anti cuts candidates including the likes of TUSC. Not only is this the right thing to do it is the moral thing to do why back candidates in the labour party time after time if they only turn around and attack our comrades in Unite ?? It’s just barmy and Unite as Labours biggest donor this is no more pressing than this.


For me Unite speak a good game and often back up their members for example with the bus workers strike in London which I’ll come on to but so so often they are there but are so often coming in with support too little too late such is the example with the Coryton oil refinery workers. Which Unite backed don’t get me wrong and the full time officials were genuine but were far too slow off the mark and sat on that dispute for months were instead they could have been building solidarity and links within the industry and with other unions involved in oil refinery in a bigger attempt to save the Coryton workers jobs.
With the Bus drivers dispute in London this represents opportunity for Unite but more importantly the rank-and-file members to reclaim their union and light a flame to the militancy developing within a section of workers today.

The socialist party as ever was supporting this strike by London bus workers last week and will be again on this coming Thursday the 5th and the 24th of July when further bus strikes have been called. Keep an eye on my blog and the socialist party website for more updates
www.socialistparty.org.uk

The sleeping giant has woken up - on 22 June 20,000 London bus workers came out on strike over payments for extra pressure during the Olympics. The big turnout on the picket lines reflected the enthusiasm for this display of strength. In 1982 London bus workers struck in support of the nurses but the last strike you can compare was probably 1958.
Transport for London said 85% of drivers were on strike but claimed a third of routes were operating. But most Londoners didn't bother waiting for the few overcrowded buses driven by supervisors, agency staff and a minority of new drivers on probation who had been personally warned by management. These buses were mainly for show.
Leyton bus workers took part in the 22 June 2012 London-wide bus strike, to)
Unite the Union wrote to London Mayor Boris Johnson last September and tried to talk to the bus companies. But the bosses would not talk. Just before the strike Boris found £8.3 million towards a settlement and called on the private operating companies to make up the difference (another £5.7 million according to Unite.) Three firms obtained court injunctions to temporarily stop the action.
Other passenger transport workers are getting a bonus for the Olympics. We are determined to get ours. But it's not just about the £500. It's about standing up at last against a bullying management and privatisation.


Supervisors, controllers and office staff have been overwhelmingly sympathetic to the bus drivers. That is despite - partly because of - the fact some were forced to drive buses on strike day. Nearly all of them were drivers in the past and are relieved to be out of it. They see management's bullying methods much more than drivers do. They see decent, hardworking drivers, some with a lifetime's service, treated poorly.
The strike has been a big push. But the £500 bonus is still to be won. More importantly an active branch urgently needs to be built in every garage.
Bus workers - especially young bus workers - must consciously reclaim the leadership of our union. The regional officials have helped initiate this campaign but only bus workers can win it.

Picket line reports
London Socialist Party members
100 strikers picketed the Lea Interchange bus depot, next door to the Olympic site in east London. Construction workers at the Olympic site beeped support as they passed. Of the 800 workers based at the depot, only four had gone in. The workers were determined to win this struggle but also wanted to talk about the Tories, the cuts, trade unions and the Labour Party.
The picket at Hackney central at lunchtime was really good - no buses on the road and a great atmosphere. "We've been waiting for this strike for ages" said pickets at Bow bus garage. "It's not just the Olympic bonus but last year they slashed our pay, we don't get overtime we won't be paid for breaks now. Some people have lost £3,400 a year."
One of the bus drivers explained how he had completed a test run for the Olympics on his route and it had taken an hour longer than it should. This is before all the extra traffic that is expected!
In south London 50 workers formed an angry picket line at Catford bus garage. Hardly any buses went out. The passing public gave loads of support; endless beeping horns were greeted by cheers from the pickets.
In the solid strike in Bromley, pickets jeered at the very few scab buses. Committee member Steve said: "What we need is all the unions out on the same day".
You could hear the main picket line at New Cross bus garage - they were singing local football team Millwall's old chant "No one likes us, we don't care". There were about 80 on the picket lines, of all ages, sexes and countries of origin. They got great public backing. Lorry, van and car drivers tooted support, largely disproving the words the pickets were singing!
One picket told us: "The basic salary of bus drivers is £24,000 which is nothing for London prices. Yet we're frontline workers when the Olympics come. Tube workers get more than us because they fight for it and because the tube has been publicly owned while our money goes to shareholders."
Another picket explained that private bus companies like Go Ahead are still making big profits. "But," said another driver, "what about us donkeys that work hard to make their money? We get a small carrot on a long stick and we have to kick hard to get any of it."
The information screens at Croydon bus stops indicated no bus arrivals and illustrated that the strike has been a resounding success.

Full reports at http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/14751/22-06-2012


All this neds to be taken forward putting pressure on the union leadership and officials to push for more action and more concentrated action with a plan to re take the union on behalf of the members and the rank-and-file and to clear out all labour party links and anti worker sentiment and the bureaucracy which put a block on workers struggles winning and gaining momentum.

Unite is our union and should speak for us not the labour party who endorses capitalism it is time to fight for a union that is ours, Ours that the members can feel proud of and lives up to its name. United in the working class!

Was the Labour party ever a socialist party ?

Many people growing up today would think absolutely not and they’d be right but has the Labour party which was once seen as the workers party not a full workers party in the way we see it but advanced workers interests slightly on a capitalist basisis over time.
To most people today, the phrase 'Labour politician' brings to mind a well paid career polititian .
But that was not the way the Labour Party started out. For at least the first half of its life the Labour Party was built and maintained by dedicated self-sacrificing volunteers, collecting the pennies and halfpennies of working people to keep going.

But from its foundation, Labour was a battleground between people with a vision of a socialist future and those who believed only in ameliorating the worst evils of an 'unchallengable' capitalist system.
In February 1900 a conference called by the Trades Union Congress in the Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street, London, founded the Labour Representation Committee (its name changed to Labour Party in 1906). But this founding conference only came about after 20 years of struggle for an independent political voice for the working class, a struggle in which the main opposition came from within the trade union movement itself.
At the turn of the 20th century, two national political parties, Liberals and Tories, vied for power in Parliament. Both were parties of the ruling class although Tories tended towards 'old money', the landowning aristocracy, and Liberals towards 'new money', factory owners and businessmen.

It was quite possible for politicians such as Winston Churchill to pass easily from one to the other and back. The working class had no independent representation.
ions had been built among skilled workers. The leaders of these unions (particularly the engineers and the South Wales Miners) did not believe that independent 'labour' candidates could defeat the established parties. They saw their best hope for workers' interests, in acting as the loyal junior voice of organised labour in the Liberal Party.
They negotiated with the Liberals to be allowed to stand a number of workers' candidates with Liberal support in working class constituencies.
At the 1885 election, 10 'Lib-Lab' MPs were elected including officials of the South Wales Miners, the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners and the general secretary of the TUC. These MPs loyally supported Liberal policies.
They gained support from the Fabian Society founded in 1884, an organisation of middle class intellectuals espousing an 'English' socialism, opposing Marxist ideas of class struggle and dedicated to peacefully and gradually 'permeating' the ruling class via the Liberal Party.

semi-socialist groupings, of which the most important was the Social Democratic Federation (SDF). This was founded in 1883 and took its inspiration from Marxist ideas.
The SDF comprised a mixture of trade unionists, leaders of new 'general' unions which were springing up, like Tom Mann and John Burns, and intellectuals like William Morris. In the same period, an independent socialist, Robert Blatchford, set up a paper, the Clarion, to put forward socialist ideas, which soon gained a weekly circulation of 30,000.
But the major force inspiring the development of socialist ideas was the rising tide of working class struggle.
There was a succession of economic slumps in 1875, 1880 and 1884, each followed by a very feeble 'stabilisation'. The effect was the destitution of unskilled and casual workers, particularly in London. Mass demonstrations of the unemployed became common.
In 1886 the government was so scared of an impending demonstration in Trafalgar Square that four leaders of the SDF were arrested and charged with sedition. In 1887, on 'Bloody Sunday', the police smashed a workers' demonstration organised by the SDF, with many injured.
At the same time, shunned by the older 'craft unions', workers in their thousands were flocking to join new general unions with leaders untouched by ideas of conciliation with the bosses.
In 1889, London dockers struck for "the dockers' tanner" - a basic hourly wage of sixpence (equivalent to under £2 an hour today). Led by Ben Tillett, John Burns and Tom Mann (with Eleanor Marx secretary to the strike committee) they scored a victory after a bitter struggle, gaining support from around the world.
These battles led socialists to realise the importance of unity. In 1893 a conference in Bradford set up a new organisation, the Independent Labour Party. Of the 115 delegates, 91 were from already existing groups, including the Scottish Socialist Party.
The others came from other political organisations including the Fabians and the SDF (neither of which agreed to support the new party which was too socialist for the Fabians and not socialist enough for the SDF).
Nevertheless, the ILP soon developed into a party of some tens of thousand members under the leadership of Keir Hardie, who had become an Independent Labour MP for West Ham South in 1892.
At the same time, the debate within the TUC on independent representation for workers was finally being won, with the fact that the Liberal government had reneged on all the promises made to Lib-Lab MPs having a powerful effect.
Finally, in 1900, the TUC convened the founding conference of the Labour Representation Committee. This conference comprised delegates from 12 trade unions and 10 cooperative organisations, together with the ILP, the SDF and the Fabians.
The schism which was to mark the Labour Party throughout its existence was clear at the day of its birth. Socialists (particularly the ILP and representatives of the new trade unions) wanted labour representatives to be:
"...a distinct party based upon a recognition of the class war and having for its ultimate object the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange".
On the other hand, the older union leaders merely wanted: "Men sympathetic with the aims and demands of the labour movement". (Quotes from conference minutes in The History of the Labour Party, edited by Herbert Tracey, Caxton 1948).

accepted by the conference, proposed by Keir Hardie. It proposed the standing of Labour candidates who would form a group in parliament with their own agreed policies independent of any other party, but dropped any mention of socialism. Unwilling to accept this compromise, the SDF walked out and eventually split into tiny warring sects.
The history of the Labour Party for the next eight decades was one of continuous battles. The Labour Party was never a socialist party but an uneasy compromise. At times of heightened class struggle, socialists made gains.
In 1918 in the shadow of the World War and the Bolshevik revolution, a new party constitution was agreed.
This included the famous Clause IV: "To secure for the workers by hand and by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service".

(In 1995 the clause was removed and hence any pretence that the Labour Party was socialist).
But at the same time, party chairman Arthur Henderson moved to allow people who were not trade unionists or members of socialist societies to become members. Henderson, supporting the war, had accepted a minor post in the Liberal war cabinet in 1915.
His aim was to swamp the ILP (which had steadfastly opposed the war) with hundreds of 'safe' delegates from Labour Parties with no roots in the labour movement. For a time this succeeded.
Later, however, local Labour Parties became a strong left wing force which necessitated regular purges of 'dangerous marxists' through to the 1990s.
The Labour Party was born on a wave of working-class struggle at the beginning of the twentieth century. There are many parallels with the present day. In the 1890s the Lib-Lab trade union leaders put their trust in false Liberal Party promises. In the 1990s, Labour Party promises made to trade union leaders were discarded once 'New Labour' got power.
On the left, many of the same arguments over political compromises are heard today. One thing is certain, British workers facing a desperate crisis of jobs, homes and living standards will once again move to gain a political voice independent of compromised trade union leaders and big business backers.

So in conclusion the Labour party has never been a fully fledged socialist party but has contained socialists . For workers to fully realise our potential and to build a new society based on the many not just the few we need our own mass workers party with marxist ideas at its core.


With extracts taken from www.socialistparty.org.uk

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.

Labour gain in local elections but will they stand up to Tories against the cuts?

Last nights elections results showed a swing to labour from Tories and the lib dems. Labour has taken control of lots of new councils. But to me this is more of a vote against the Tories and the government than a vote for labours slow cuts policy to be honest.

You only have to look at the appalling turnout figures across the country typically between 20 and 30 percent. That is dreadful and says much for the current state of our democracy or excuse for a democracy in this country when so few people can be bothered to vote I think the time is nearly up for the major political parties out there offering you the same old crap served up with a different shade of tie on.

So will labour mount a stronger fight back at a local level against cuts ? I personally can’t see it more councillors and more labor run councils means nothing. When up till now all labour councils have happily passed on all Tory cuts handed to them without as much as a whimper there’s nothing to suggest this trend won’t continue. Of course I’d over it if a labour ran council did refuse to make the cuts but from those councillors who have already one has found himself expelled for daring to vote against the labour group and the other is still under investigation. So if any do and I really hope some do they will be in for a severe ticking off. The only voice for anti cuts will be TUSC still who unfortunately did not poll hugely or win big, but we weren’t expecting to. With a disgraceful media blackout of our campaigns we received reasonable votes in places unfortunately loosing out to the fact people who did vote largely voted for labour to give the Tories a kicking, this was their choice as at the moment they are still seen as the only opposition to the Tories wrongly in my view but there we go those illusions still hold strong in a lot of areas. But as the cuts begin to bite harder and harder and no fight back from labour councils is forthcoming parties like TUSC can get a better hearing I’d have thought with people finally seeing that labour when it comes down to it would do very little different to the Tories in power.

TUSC is well placed to expose labour for its hypocrisy and outright lies that it defends ordinary people TUSC rejects all cuts whoever is making them but when labour makes the cuts people will see the true face of the labour party and will be looking for an alternative.

Our ideas did get a good reception on the doorstep but unfortunately much like last year that isn’t translating into votes. That doesn’t mean to say we don’t have the support it just mans people are not yet rushing to the polling stations to affect change. They don’t believe in the system and well neither do we but we do at least offer an alternative to the cuts agenda of the main 3 parties.

Labour will not face up to the Tories and reject all the cuts for the simple reason as they do not see an alternative. They could be looking to tax the rich and collect the 120 billion which goes evaded and avoided every eyar but do we hear labour shouting about the rich ? No we don’t we hear them joining in with bashing the poor rhetoric and anti worker sentiment. Even last night on BBC question time Hariot Harman the deputy leader of the labour party could not even support public sector workers going on strike she said she hopes there isn’t a strike, well so do we and the government backs down but they wont so strike action is necessary and will be important to building the fight back again against the government and this rotten capitalist system where the poor aware being made to pay for a crisis not of their making.

These local elections results tell you something though that 68% of people are not voting and that those can be won over to voting for an alternative, a socialist alternative in years to come. As Marxists we see everything as a process and constantly changing. TUSC will stand again and again and again building our roots in the working class so next time people will know us and know our record of opposing all cuts and defending working class people wherever we can. Labour will be exposed mark my words their idea of slow cuts will do nothing to ease the pain on ordinary people at the bottom of society and one day all capitalist parties and ideas will be rejected once and for all.

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.

Fed up with the labour party selling you out, come to the TUSC conference this weekend

This weekend the 28th of january we will be making the short trip down to london to visit the conference for the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition. With recent mfurther moves to the right by the labour party even more to the right than they already were accepting al the cuts and saying they cannot reverse any of the tories cuts which is absolute nonsense of course they can if they wanted to.
The poll tax was made law and was still defeated and later reversed by mass civil disobedience .
So if you are fed up with the labour party and on the look out for a alternative to this mad system of greed before need please join us this saturday
TUSC Election campaign Conference Saturday 28 January 2012,
11:00am – 4:00pm, University of London Union, Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HY
11-00am to 1-30pm: How can local councillors fight the cuts?
Cllr Dave Nellist , Michael Lavalette and Nick Wrack to speak for ten minutes each, followed by a ‘Question Time’ format discussion, to try and answer the many questions that are continually raised around this issue and introduce the draft local elections policy platform (appended below).

2-00pm to 4-00pm: Organising an election campaign
Maxine Bowler, Hannah Sell, and Pete McClaren to speak for ten minutes each, followed by a general discussion from the floor – but also giving people a chance to ask any direct ‘electoral law’ type questions that they may have.

Last week we got a phone call from a woman in east London…She had picked up one of the TUSC ‘where will your vote go?’ postcards from a street stall. She wanted more information about what we were and what we stood for. She was desperate that the Labour Party had ‘let her down so badly’. We sent her the TUSC leaflet setting out our policies and she sent a text the day she received it: ‘I have read the TUSC flyer and it lifted me. If only the policies could come to fruition.’ She hopes to come to the conference on 28 January and has asked us to send material to a friend who was also interested.

Which is excellent news. More and more will be looking for an alternative as events change peoples contiousness. A grand speech can win some over but you will never win over everyone but as events unfold in the coming period and capitalism fails to deal with its inner contradictions people will start to ask the question, is a different society possible ?

and we will say yes it is! a socialist planned economy based on peoples needs.

But firstly we need more than ever a new workers party. It is vital that TUSC starts offering that alternative right away even if very small initially it will provide that pole of attraction for workers desperate as the lady above clearly was.

I saw a statistic that the labour party has lost hundreds of members since Ed Miliband and Ed bals have squared their arguements and agreed fully with the tories. We would say they did anyway they only disagreed with the speed but a lot of people still felt labour was against the cuts to some degree. Now they are found wanting people will come out with anger, confusion, frustration and panic in some cases as people will feel no one is there to fight for them againt the brutal onslaught of the cuts.

We saw last night the labour party voting with the tories to support a cap to benifits and this is just the start of labours route to regaining so called credibility . If by credibility they mean attacking the poor, trade unions and working people well the trade unions and working people and any good socialist in labour would be better off out of that party.

Its time to pose the question what do we do now.

Saturday will hopefully see a good turnout and a few questions being answered by our comrades hopefully growing support for this years coming local and London GLA elections which we may see some interesting results.

Political representation on and beyond N30

So as we near the biggest strike in decades next wednesday workers wil be wondering who do we have to vote for ? who can we rely on to speak up for us apart from our unions ?

The very same question cross's my mind regularly and i do not think it is the labour party any longer. Despite what some of their more left wing members say they cannot disguise the fact their leadership have been silent on the strikes and the public sector pensions dispute till now. On June the 30th Ed Miliband was quoted as saying these strikes are wrong while negotiations are still going on. Of course there were no negotiations going on Ed and his condemnation of the strikes angered many ordinary working people.

There is a change going on and if Ed fails to support next wednesdays action where up to 4 million workers could be downing tools and striking he will loose all credibility he ever had in the labour movement. He'll be a dead force and have no respect left.
So then who will support workers you ask. I think TUSC although a small force at the moment can gain hugely if we place ourselves on the picket lines offering an alternative to the big 3 pro capitalist parties putting greed before workers need everytime.

TUSC - Trade Union and Socialist Coalition were formed a year or two ago and stands against all cuts and no privatisation a stark contrast to labours pathetic too far too fast line to cuts.

It is interesting to note Unite the Union are operating a completely opposing policy to the labour leadership now and oppose labours too far too fast line. We dont believe there should be a single cut made and a explicit no to all cuts stance is needed. Afterall what is a fair cut ?

to us in the socialist party there is no such thing as a fair cut. Why should we dictate who looses their job over another. Why should we decide who is a more important worker. We shouldnt be and that is another reason why i'm against all cuts.

There is plenty money in our society plenty of money at the top of society. 14 billion in bankers bonus's alone last year and you tell me there is no money left to keep local youth centres open, keep our valuable libraries open for all to enjoy and benifit from ?

Nonsense and if you hear labour tell you we need to make the cuts there is no alternative tll them to look up Liverpool city council in the 80's where the Militant influenced council refused to make any cuts and had great success in building 5000 new affordable social housing, new sports centres, pulled down old delaperdated areas and invested in construction and new jobs. Not a single worker lost their job back then despite what people say and that is the route all labour councils shuld be at leas c onsidering. If one labour council refused to pass on the cuts it would have a huge affect on the movement. But just like this year i do not see this happening. Not on a mass scale anyhow. Maybe one or two labour councillors who still have principles may vote against the cuts. But understand they will be expelled for going against labour party policy. What does that say about a Labour Party who expells their own members and councillors who dare to fight for the working class ? absolutely shocking.

So it is essential TUSC is put forward on N30 as a alternative to the capitalist parties and we stand strong against all cuts as we must be providing a beacon to workers who are looking for an alternative to labour who sell them out time after time.

In stevenage this year we stood candidates in every ward and recieved a very good vote. Granted we did not get anyone elected yet but if we compare the Labour party's figures back when they first formed they were getting 1%'s and the like back then and some still supported the liberals for a time . So we need a new break from the pro capitalist parties and i believe TUSC is that force and can be built on and broadened out to bring in all workers in struggle, all anti cuts groups and anyone who opposes this rotten capitalist system.

To find out more about TUSC and how you can support us please visit
www.TUSC.org.uk

Is a new workers party possible, What is next for TUSC ?

So in my previous post of this two part series we looked at the possibilities of the Labour party being regained by the workers and the chances for a workers representation on a mass scale in politics.

We drew the conclusions that at the moment regaining the labour party would be difficult but not impossible but also very unlikely.

SO you ask what should we do instead. As working class people still have no voice on the political stage while they are being hit by cut after cut day by day.

So we in the socialist party support the idea of a new workers party. Much similar to how the labour party was started. By trade unions forming a alternative to what was the status quo back in the early 1900's with just tories and liberals to choose from.

Both these parties at the time were thought to be the same much like we have today with the 3 main political parties tories, lib dems and labour are all very similar.

There is currently no one standing up for the working class hense why these cuts are going through so easily so far. With some resistance from trade unions doing the best they can with limited room for action with the hrshest anti trade union laws in europe constantly hovering over them.

This year TUSC not a new workers party i must stress is a umbrella which is funded by individual trade unionists backed by Bob Crow and his union the RMT. We stood nearly 200 candidates across the country in the last local elections in may polled over 25000 votes across the country. Given this was only our first 18 months in existence and we have practically no profile at all this was very encouraging.

This saturday is a conference in London to bring together all who stood in this years elections under the banner of TUSC- against all cuts i might add where no other party did. To come together to discuss the way forward for TUSC and the possibility of a new workers party.

Conference of TUSC candidates and campaign organisers, Saturday 16 July, 11am-4pm, ULU, Malet Street, WC1E 7HY, Registration fee £5 waged/£3 unwaged.

The Socialist Party participates in the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC www.tusc.org.uk) an electoral alliance involving leading militant trade unionists from the RMT, PCS and NUT.

TUSC plays an important role, enabling trade unionists, community campaigners and socialists to stand candidates against the pro-austerity consensus of the capitalist parties.

For the Socialist Party TUSC is also part of a campaign, which we have waged for well over a decade, for the trade unions to stop funding Labour and to begin to build a new party that stands in the interests of working class people. Both the objective need and potential for such a party has never been greater than it is today.

At the 30 June London strike rally Mary Bousted, the general secretary of the ATL, the most 'moderate' union to take part in the strike, attacked the Labour leadership which is "laughingly called an opposition". She called on trade unionists to 'do it for themselves' (see pages 8 and 9), receiving the biggest cheer of the whole rally.

If any platform speaker had argued for trade unionists to do it for themselves - by striking but also by standing in elections on a clear anti-cuts programme, it would have had a huge response.

This year's PCS conference agreed that, within the next twelve months, a full membership ballot would be held "to decide whether the union could stand or support candidates in national elections".

If that ballot is passed it will be a major step forward for the trade union movement and would open the possibility of a trade union based electoral alternative on a wider scale.


All TUSC candidates have signed up to the following local election platform:
Oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions - we reject the claim that 'some cuts' are necessary to our services.
Reject above inflation increases in council tax, rent and service charges to compensate for government cuts.
Vote against the privatisation of council services, or the transfer of council services to 'social enterprises' or 'arms-length' management organisations, which are first steps to privatisation.
Use all the legal powers available to councils, including powers to refer local NHS decisions, initiate referenda and organise public commissions and consultations, to oppose both the cuts and government polices which centrally impose the transfer of public services to private bodies.
When faced with government cuts to council funding, councils should refuse to implement the cuts. We will support councils which in the first instance use their reserves and prudential borrowing powers to avoid passing government cuts on - while arguing that the best way to mobilise the mass campaign that is necessary to defeat the cuts is to set a budget that meets the needs of the local community and demands that the government makes up the shortfall.

The list of TUSC sponsors continues to grow, reflecting the enthusiasm of many workers that, at last, there is a prospect of a trade union rooted challenge to the 'savage cuts' pro-capitalist consensus of all the establishment parties.

Many trade union leaders, however, still clinging to New Labour, don't see the situation in that way. This, of course, will have an effect amongst some rank and file trade unionists also, who are increasingly apprehensive about the unlikely prospect of the Labour party fighting for their cause following the 30th June strike by 4 public sector unions. The NUT, UCU, ATL and the PCS.

Surely in this situation, the argument goes, trade unionists should back the 'lesser evil'?


This is a strong arguement often in workers minds when voting. This was one of the main reasons why TUSC may not have polled so well as we thought it might in may of this year. Workers still feeling that clinging to labour is still better than letting the tories in. Thisis a sad reality of workers contiousness at the moment and something we must deal with as we go on.

The Socialist Party believes that the Labour Party has now been totally transformed into New Labour, which bases itself completely on the brutal logic of capitalism. Previously, as a 'capitalist workers' party' (a party with pro-capitalist leaders but with democratic structures that allowed the working class to fight for its interests), the Labour Party always had the potential to act at least as a check on the capitalists. The consequences of radicalising the Labour Party's working class base was always a factor the ruling class had to take into account.

Now the situation is completely different. Without the re-establishment of at least the basis of independent working class political representation, the capitalists will feel less constrained in imposing their austerity policies.

TUSC will not fully provide the necessary alternative but it is still an important step forward. Above all, by drawing in the most combative sections of the working class in defence of jobs, public services and workers' rights, it can help to prepare the necessary forces to take forward the argument for a new political vehicle for workers in the post-election period. Not to do everything possible to help that process is a mistake.


TUSC has attracted support from many RMT members but has also sharpened political debate in the union. No doubt New Labour apparatchiks are looking on for any opportunity there may be to undermine a militant trade union leadership, in the same way they aided the Blairite candidate who unseated the left wing general secretary of the Aslef train drivers' union in 2003. In this context, the enthusiastic participation in TUSC in a personal capacity by leading trade unionists - in the RMT and other unions also - is highly significant. It is a clear signal that 'non-political' trade unionism will increasingly be seen as 'not an option' when the axe men are coming.

Role of trade unions
A new mass political vehicle for workers, a new workers' party which could fill the present vacuum, will not necessarily develop through the official structures of the unions. It is certainly unlikely that a majority of the larger unions, at least nationally, would initially embrace a new party - in the same way that the biggest unions remained wedded to the Liberal Party in the early days of the Labour Representation Committee (the forerunner of the Labour Party).

But big events loom, as the next phase of 'the great recession' unfolds, which will relentlessly pose before trade unionists in struggle that there must be an alternative. TUSC can play a critical role in developing this consciousness.

Trade unions are still the basic organisations of the working class, which gives them enormous social weight. It is not for nothing, for example during the British Airways dispute or the postal workers' strikes, that the capitalist media routinely denigrate the unions as 'holding the public to ransom' or 'crippling the economy'. For long periods, it is true, the formal structures in some unions can atrophy, with limited participation by rank and file members, but even these unions still possess social reserves.

For the Socialist Party the importance of TUSC lies above all in its potential as a catalyst in the trade unions, both in the structures and below, for the idea of working class political representation. It can also play a role in drawing together anti-cuts campaigns, environmental campaigners, anti-racist groups etc. It is, however, only secondarily a vehicle for developing 'left unity', in other words, of socialist organisations collaborating for specific goals, or 'left regroupment', the bringing together of different socialist groups into one organisation.


TUSC HAS been established as a federal 'umbrella' coalition, with an agreed core policy statement but with participating candidates and organisations accountable for their own campaigns. The steering committee welcomed the support of a number of socialist groups, including the Walsall-based Democratic Labour Party and its councillor, Peter Smith. Amongst the first tranche of TUSC candidates approved, are members of four different socialist organisations, including Socialist Resistance and the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).

The admission of the SWP to the coalition was not automatic, however. TUSC is a federal coalition but each component, its candidates and participating organisations, will be scrutinised, certainly by New Labour opponents inside the trade unions. With this in mind the record of the SWP was questioned and will be continued to be i feel.

THE FOUNDING of the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) in February 1900 was greeted by The Clarion, a popular socialist newspaper of the time, as "a little cloud, no bigger than a man's fist, which may grow into a United Labour Party".

TUSC is certainly not a new LRC, which itself was not pre-ordained to develop into a mass party. It contested just 15 seats in the 1900 general election and affiliated union membership halved in its first year.

But the capitalists' offensive then against the workers' movement, typified in the Taff Vale court decision to open up the railway workers' union funds for strike damages, compelled the unions onto the political plane.

The period ahead will be no less turbulent than then, in fact more so. The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition is today just a modest step on the road to establishing independent working class political representation but its potential role, as it fills out or as a precursor to future developments, could be immense.

So to conclude i feel that TUSC as a umbrella for further developments towards a new workers party is just one step. A modest one at the moment but certainly has raised workers contiousness that we have spoken to in stevenage at least. This has not automatically transfered into votes first time out but we have created a base now. A base to build on and contacts to work on.

I as others dont believe TUSC is the new workers party but is certainly a good step towards such a idea. When we have a labour party today not worthy of its name carrying out big savage cuts at a local level doing the tories dirty work for them.