The revolutionary organisation

I'm like so many others out there becoming less and less convinced by political parties and their self appointed leaders. Democracy means a lot to me and runs deep in my political ideas. Without democracy we don’t have a movement in my view. Even so called socialist party's I’m loosing belief that they can n ever really break out of their sect like behavior being so fragmented and divided. They are no threat to the ruling class as we speak so what needs to change or be different? 'The emancipation of the workers must be brought about by the workers themselves.' Declaration of the First International. I too believe that the power is in workers hands. Encouraging workers to think for themselves not to blindly follow a self appointed leader of a movement is key. All workers can think for themselves and we must not patronize them by thinking they can only ever develop "trade union consciousness" as Lenin once said. Workers can go further and will go further if allowed to think and act for themselves. Many revolutionaries do not believe in the working class being able to bring about change for them so need a party to do it for them to lead them by the nose. I am not convinced by this approach it sounds like we are saying the workers have no brains and am simply drones who can be influenced and lead along to support us while we go off and carry out the revolution. The work of revolutionaries over many years to clarify and co-ordinate struggles in the working class greatly helps the revolutionary process. Working class spontaneity is the ability of that class to take direct action on its own behalf and to develop new forms of struggle and organisation. This happens in every great revolutionary upsurge where working people have formed committees and councils independent of "vanguards". In this country the flying picket and mass picketing were developed as weapons of struggle. ‘Pit commandos’ emerged during the 1984-85 Miners Strike. Road blockades and reclaiming the streets are all forms of struggle developed independently from the Revolutionary Party (whichever one that happens to be). The activities of the working class have taken place regardless of and sometimes against the urgings of the revolutionary elite due to circumstances that require it. I do think organisation is still important though but a different organisation and way of organising is needed though a break from the way revolutionaries have organised before perhaps as the left today is struggling to break out and become a mass force. Each kind of organisation has its own purpose enabling people to accomplish what they cannot individually, harnessing energy and resources in productive ways. However organisations are not pure rational constructs. They have their own culture, often obscured by formal structures. Strip away the theoretical organisation of states, corporations and political parties and you reveal the hierarchy, authority, fear and greed that are true organisation in a capitalist society. To create effective organisations we must know our own and other’s minds, therefore there must be a high degree of communication, of sharing. We must set about creating aspiration, setting achievable targets, celebrating success, rededicating ourselves again and again to the reasons why we have formed or participate in the organisation. And because organisation is a mutual, sharing activity these things cannot be contained within one mind or merely thought but acted out and given a tangible existence through words and actions. At the same time, we must remain individuals, capable of independent and objective appraisal not cogs in some vast machine. What then is the purpose of ‘revolutionary organisation’? Can it be described? Given that the need for revolution already exists, revolutionary organisation must increase the demand for revolution. It must increase the measurable ‘weight’ or ‘force’ of the resources joined to demand revolution. The structure must increase the ability of the organization to perpetuate itself while its ends remain unrealised. It must increase the ability of the organisation to resist attack, by increasing the determination and solidarity of members and by so arranging itself that damage caused to it (from external attacks, defections, internal conflicts and so on) are minimised. It must be flexible, be able to absorb or deflect change or challenges to it, have the ability to change or cease as circumstances dictate and the self-knowledge to initiate change when change is required. High levels of positive communication, mutual respect and celebration, shared aspirations and solidarity all describe the revolutionary organisation. A powerful revolutionary organisation will not come about by people simply agreeing with each other. Only through the dynamics of working together can we achieve the unity of activity and theory necessary to bring about a free and equal society. Let us put it quite bluntly: the errors committed by a truly revolutionary workers movement are historically far more fruitful and valuable than the infallibility of even the best central committees. Rosa Luxembourg, Organisational Questions of Russian Social Democracy. The experiences of working class life constantly lead to ideas and actions that question the established order. This leads to "working class consciousness" but different sections of the working class may reach different degrees of consciousness. At the same time, the ruling class seeks to keep the working class divided, undermining solidarity based on culture and common experience through its control of the media and education and by perpetuating racism and sexism. The working class is never wholly atomised nor, at the moment, solid and united, conscious of itself and its power. The organisation must always be part of the working class. This creates a tension. While on the one hand it’s consciousness is more developed ("in advance"), it’s ability to develop and extend its influence in the class depends on not being too far in advance. If it is, it will fall into the trap of ignoring or rejecting the new forms of struggle and organisation which, as we have said, can benefit other workers and which workers everywhere must learn. There are dangers in this contradiction and the revolutionary organisation needs to develop ways of acting based on an awareness of the contradiction. We must always be ready to learn from the class and constantly revise our tactics with the unfolding situation. The revolutionary organisation is transformed as the working class is transformed in the revolutionary process. Theory and practice must be rooted in concrete conditions. Accepting that the revolution can only be made by the self-activity of the working class, the revolutionary organisation still has a number of tasks to perform. It must act as a propaganda grouping, untiringly putting over the message that the working class must destroy capitalism and establish a democratic socialist society. It must also show how this can be done by giving examples of self-activity. It must search out the history of past struggles and share the lessons to be learned with the rest of the class as part of the development of class-consciousness. When important developments occur, the revolutionary organisation must spread the news through its links with organisations in other countries. But the organisation is not just a propaganda group: above all it must actively work in all grassroots organisations of the working class such as rank and file groups, tenants associations, squatters and unemployed groups as well as women’s, black and gay groups. It must try to link unionised and non-unionised workers, building a movement at the base.

Interesting developments on Britain’s far right

"Tommy Robinson has sensationally quit the English Defence League, saying he can no longer control the extremist elements within the organisation. "I have been considering this move for a long time because I recognise that, though street demonstrations have brought us to this point, they are no longer productive," Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Lennon, said in a short statement to the Quilliam Foundation. "I acknowledge the dangers of far-right extremism and the ongoing need to counter Islamist ideology not with violence but with better, democratic ideas.” robinson" Stephen Lennon aka Tommy Robinson, leader of the English Defence League Kevin Caroll, Robinson's deputy, has also quit the organisation. Just one week ago, Robinson was accused of "stalkerish and bizarre" behaviour by an anti-English Defence League campaign group, for taking pictures outside what he believed was the group co-ordinator's place of work. EDL News Editor Gary Moon told Huffington Post UK he had "serious concerns," about the EDL leader "going around picking names out of a phone book." Robinson had been looking in the phone book for Moon's address and came across a Garry Moon – a man totally unconnected to the website. On Wednesday this week he then sent the site a tweet, apparently of a photo outside the property of the wrong man. Even this week, Robinson has tweeted about "sharia legalising paedophilia" and accused Muslims of "creating Islamophobia themselves". The anti-extremism organisation Quilliam who i have to confess i know very little about but i understand they are a dubious organisation themselves has claimed credit for the shock departure, saying they hope "to help Tommy invest his energy and commitment in countering extremism of all kinds, supporting the efforts to bring along his former followers and encouraging his critique of Islamism as well as his concern with far-right extremism." "We call all of Tommy’s former colleagues in the EDL to follow in his footsteps and also call on Islamist extremist leaders to follow this example and leave their respective groups. Tommy and Kevin believe the voice they have created can be channelled in a positive direction. Quilliam stands ready to facilitate such moves across the spectrum," the group said in a statement. Quilliam Chairman and Co-Founder Maajid Nawaz said: “As well as being a very positive change for the United Kingdom, this is a very proud moment for Quilliam. This represents not a change but a continuation for us, as challenging extremism of all kinds forms the basis of our work. "We have been able to show that Britain stands together against extremism regardless of political views and hope to continue supporting Tommy and Kevin in their " All this is deeply concerning as to what Tommy and his followers do now. No doubt some on the anti fascist left will be claming this as a victory I already has seen a few tweets from UAF supporters calming this as a victory. This is no such thing only the other day Robinson was a far right racist I can’t see how his views have changed that much since. I’ve always thought that any future fascist movement in Britain will pose itself as anti fascist it makes sense on many levels to gain credibility. I think this latest move should be treated with skepticism and concern. This reconfirms the need for a strong militant anti fascist organization and movement in Britain offering a physical and political resistance to the far right in any shape or form on the streets and beyond. Whatever Tommy and his followers go next we are sure to not like it so let’s not drop our guard or think we’ve won anything here as we have not. With article above with extracts from http://huff.to/17iLG5Y

The sad demise of the Royal Mail

So next week those who have brought shares and you have to have brought 750 pounds worth of them at least ill float on the stock exchange. This sees the end of an era for publically owned mail services. No longer will the Royal Mail be publically owned but owned and accountable only to its shareholders. The Royal Mail has delivered post and parcels for a long time now and as with a lot of things people wont realize what they had until it is gone much like the NHS which is to be privatized soon too with devastating effects. This is a disgrace and should never have been allowed to happen but it has. The last labour government tried before with peter Mandelson facing opposition yet this time it seems like it’s gone though straight away with nothing but a peep out of the unions. As for the Trade Unions whatever happened to those ballots over privatization all gone a bit quiet hasn’t it? The CWU the communication workers union who is headed up by labour fanatic Billy Hayes have lead numerous sell outs over the years including the one most recently in 2009 where a defeat for the workers was sold as a victory shamefully despite workers being willing to take further action. The CWU has form when it comes to diffusing members’ anger and selling disputes short. As with all unions, there will inevitably come a point when what counts as a victory for the officials will clash with the interests of the workers, and as long as the bureaucrats maintain control of the dispute they will get their way. So how can we fight privatisation if the likes of the CWU are n not willing to fightback as I hope won’t be the case of course. "Privatisation should be fought as it is always pushed as a way to benefit shareholders and private profit over workers and service users. But, as civil servants and public sector workers will be all too aware right now, a boss is a boss is a boss. Our struggles may force nationalisation, and this may be a short or long term benefit depending on the terms, but we don’t need this as a demand for it to be the outcome. “Public” ownership is no automatic panacea and it is no substitute for genuine workers’ self-management. That being said, how do we fight against privatisation? Strikes and other industrial action by the workers affected are obviously one of the best forms of action, but this doesn’t mean that lacking a unionised workforce – or with a union unwilling to fight – then the sell off is inevitable. Likewise, alongside solidarity on the picket lines, the wider class can utilise direct action as part of the fight. There are a number of forms this could take. The "I won't pay" movement in Greece is one example that can be deployed when what’s at stake is a service where fees are being introduced, or significantly hiked, as a result of private sector involvement. This can also galvanise an awful lot of people given how extra costs can impact particularly on those already struggling to make their income meet their outgoings. Another potential form of direct action is the kind of pickets that the anti-workfare campaign has used to force providers out of the government’s work for benefits schemes. After all, a sell off requires a buyer, and if we can find out who is bidding for the contract then a hit on their profits and customers turning away can potentially persuade them to pull out of the deal. There are also occupations and economic blockades. As with the threat of a service being shut down altogether, users taking it over in opposition can be a powerful show of defiance and cause the kind of disruption that can make the whole process too much of a headache. Likewise, since the person doing the selling is the government, hitting the economy as a whole by blocking roads (or bridges) can have a similar disruptive impact. None of these actions are on their own going to stop privatisation. Nor are they all going to be equally useful in every circumstance. But they should be seen as a starting point that we can build on and utilise where possible. When privatisation is threatened, whether the detrimental effect is purely for the workers facing it or for broader sections of the working class, we should fight it. But all the petitions in the world won’t force the state and the bosses to change their mind. They can safely ignore us too if all we do is March from point A to point B and listen to speeches. Don’t petition – organise! " With quotes and extracts from http://libcom.org/blog/how-do-we-fight-privatisation-20092013

The role of trade unions under capitalism

Trade unions are very important to capitalism and the upkeep of responsible workers. Their role as unions is to act as a mediator in disputes and to keep things within the boundaries of capitalism at all times. If your only exposure to labour issues is through the torn and tattered pages of a greasy tabloid, you might be forgiven if you believe the TUC actually encourages workplace militancy. Full of contributions from beleaguered CEOs, scare-mongering columnists, condescending politicians and even tough-talking officials, you might even believe trade unions are an irrepressible engine of class struggle. For those us in trade unions, we know reality paints a far different picture. Far from encouraging and even organising industrial action, more often than not, trade unions leave militants feeling sold out, disempowered and sidelined. Unions officials are expected to be 'responsible leaders'. This includes ensuring workers ‘stick to their half of the bargain’, follow the union-negotiated collective agreement, and stay within the bounds of labour legislation. If they fail do these things, the leaders’ privileged role (which, on the national level, includes six-figure salaries) as ‘representatives of organized labour’ is compromised. Union assets will be frozen, leaders could be jailed, and the bosses—with whom the ‘social partnership’ has been struck—will have no incentive to continue to recognize or negotiate with the union. When workers ask, “why don't the unions fight this?” The answer is that it isn't worth their jobs and their positions. The government knows that - “capital and government are very aware the division between the union officialdom and the rank-and-file.” Thus, all the union tops can do is meekly protest the attacks, hoping that things don't get worse again. Union officials are therefore a policeman of the labour movement keeping worker unrest to a minimum and selling a defeat as a victory as a step forward and so on. From time to time or more frequently these days whilst capitalism is in crisis the aim of the periodic threats of union busting is to get the trade unions to tighten up their role as keepers of industrial peace. In recent years the TUC and various trade unions leaders even those claiming to be on the left have done this very well keeping days lost to strike action down to a new low. "Take striking for example. First, it's a struggle to get a ballot. When the ballot is secured, it passes, but the union does nothing to effectively prepare for what amounts to nothing more than a symbolic one-day strike. In fact, other unions in the same workplace send out notices instructing their members to work on the day of the strike. At the last minute the bosses challenge the ballot on technical grounds. The union caves and calls off the strike. Management then presents a marginally improved offer which the union accepts with little or no consultation from the membership. Any chance of actual struggle is squashed by the same leaders who are supposed to be looking after our interests. In the worst case scenario, the bosses and the union come after shop floor militants who agitate against the settlement or who push for independent action. The question is simple: why is the scenario outlined above (and countless ones like it) repeated again and again in every country around the world throughout the history of the labour movement? Is it a case of conservative, or even corrupt, leaders who sell the movement? Or is it something deeper? ------------------------ Trade unions have long been subjected to critiques that seek to explain how and why “our” leaders act against the interests of their members. However, instead of simply analysing the structural reasons that unions are integrated into the management of industrial capitalism, we shall examine the words and arguments of the ruling class itself. In doing so we can come to understand to just what extent the bosses are conscious of—and consciously encourage—this process of integration and co-optation. " It’s quite clear why governments of all capitalist colours prefer to talk to union officials than a rank-and-file movement as Of a quote from a South African industrialist describing why he chose to recognise the union in his factory: “Have you ever tried negotiating with a football field full of militant angry workers?” Union’s officials and leaders have far more in common with the boss's as their salary reflects this with their privileges of officialdom suggests. Expenses covered and facility time out of the workplace to help the boss’s avoids disputes. "Trade unions are mediators of struggle. Workers go to the union representative when they have a problem at work—be it legal or contractual—and the role of the rep is to see it rectified. The union is the bargaining agent with whom the boss sits down with to resolve grievances or sign a new collective agreement. Likewise, when industrial action occurs, it is done through the union and the union takes responsibility for balloting and ensuring all legal procedures are followed. In theory, this doesn’t sound too bad. However, to be able to effectively do the tasks outlined above, the union must be able to 'speak' on behalf of the workforce and ensure that what it says of its membership will happen. For example, if workers vote to take industrial action, but the court grants an injunction against striking, the union must ensure workers don't take action. If the workers do strike, it is legally held responsible for the workers’ actions. Beyond the legal imperative to control their members, the ability to turn off struggle is necessary if the union negotiators are to maintain credibility with the employer. So if the workers have voted to strike, but the officials feel management's new position constitutes an improved offer, the union officials must be able to guarantee the strike won't happen. If it does, management has no incentive to continue to negotiate with the union. All of this is a way of saying that in order to mediate struggle, unions must be able to control struggle. And that’s the problem." All this shows the clear need for accountable, democratic fighting rank-and-file organisations to fight from the bottom up not sewing illusions in so called leaders from above. With quotes and extracts from http://libcom.org/library/better-we-know-ourselves-ruling-class-view-trade-unions

Work till you drop

Today people are having to work longer and longer hours and harder still. Those who are lucky enough to be in work anyway are facing incredible hardship which I’m sure some will say oh well at least they have a job well yes but not many stop and think how tough that job is and how tat job may have changed with a employer looking to get more flesh for their pound so to speak. As many companies struggle on and instead of employing new staff and the costs of training new staff up the existing workforce are forced into longer days and asked to do a lot more for less. You see this now in London where the rush hour which used to tail off around 7 pm is now going way on to 8 and beyond in some case’s. People have to work longer and harder than ever before just to make ends meet it would seem. The untold stress and knock on affects of this on workers in Britain and beyond is very sharp with family life becoming difficult and also time for yourself to relax and enjoy your life becomes less and less. This post may seem like a stating the obvious but quite often we are talking about unemployment and all the rest of it but those who are still in work are often over looked. We must not forget them. Due to capitalism’s inability to solve the low rate of profit it is trying all sorts of counter tendencies including lengthening the working day and cutting wages where it can all in a bid to restore the rate of profit for various companies sectors and ultimately economies. Clearly workers are at the sharp end of capitalisms problems and are feeling its affects the worst as they are bearing the brunt of the crisis without a doubt. The idea of working hard which was pushed a lot at last weeks Tory party conference is the key to a happy life is clearly not quite the reality it is made outdo be on the ground. Many struggles to put food on their tables s it is with loan take outs and pay day loans shooting up in the last year or so as wages are squeezed again and again. Clearly there is a cost of living crisis which capitalism cannot solve as its main motivation is making profit workers feelings and lives are not important ultimately as long as they are making surplus value and profit as a result for the capitalist there is no concern. We have to be honest working dam hard and getting ill and stressed out due to work is no way to live and we should be making the case against work and for a change of society which doesn’t base life on work and the ability to work being the be all and end all. Pushing communist and socialist ideas can make sense to many right now all is it many are so tired and stressed to think anything than where we are is possible at all now. It must feel like you’re on a giant hamster wheel where you cannot get off being a cog in a giant system of money making which you barely benefit from if at all. Take tonight on the radio I heard a plumber ring in to a phone in show claiming he works till 11 or 12 at night only to have to be back in work the next day at 7.30 am now that is no life for anyone surely. Its also no point blaming migrant workers as I am sure some out there will as ok they may work harder but they are not getting any more for it in fact their lives are no better than British workers for doing the same. Migrant or British worker our problems and issues at work are the same. This is a class problem not an us or them one. The only we and they there is is us the workers and the capitalists. It wouldn’t surprise me if in a few years time we don’t see people dieing through stress and over working as this capitalist system grinds workers into the groundin pursuit of its own goals which is greater and greater profit. Quite frankly this system does not benefit the majority of people and it simply has got to go. Whilst I say that we are still a long long ay of major system change as it stands today but things can and do change as we have seen in the past. Providing works with confidence to organise in their workplaces must be a revolutionaries mission in life here and now to provide the means and the ideas to fight back against their employer to win small battles at first but to know that fighting back can get you wins. Much like the Hovis workers who defeated 0 hours contracts the other week which got no real media coverage but can be a beacon to workers up and down the land facing stress and the daily grind of this exploitative system.

The various fronts of the left

Now we’ve all seen them and come across them the front organisation on the left is numerous. There is a long long list of them right down the years. I’ve come across many in my short space of time on the left some more well known ones include UAF- unite against fascism, Right to work, Youth fight for jobs, NSSN, Unite the resistance, Stop the war coalition, Coalition of resistance and the list goes on and on and on. Many have come and gone and others are only taken up at certain times. Left-wing front organisations, such as the Socialist Party's "Youth Fight for Jobs," are a way to monopolise movements and demobilising genuinely radical action in favour of recruitment and paper-selling sadly. Quite often a front is something for a left sect to grab hold of and gain control of a movement. The Left and its many fronts In the world of organised crime, mobsters have respectable businesses as fronts to disguise their illegal activities. In the world of political activism, parties and organisations form single-issue groups as fronts in order to lure people in on the basis of a single issue whilst hiding their broader ideology so that they can recruit people who may not agree with it. This is particularly prevalent on the Leninist / Trotskyist left. A prime example of this is the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) in Britain. Their front organisations include Right to Work, the Stop the War Coalition, Unite Against Fascism, Love Music Hate Racism, Campaign Against Climate Change, Globalise Resistance, and Defend Council Housing. Whilst they have the most fronts, however, they are not the only Trotskyist party to have them. The Socialist Party has the Youth Fight for Jobs Campaign, and has previously stood candidates in elections under the guise of “No2EU” and the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition. The Alliance for Workers’ Liberty has Education not for Sale, Feminist Fightback, Workers Climate Action and No Sweat. So it goes on. The sects get tinier and more mental, and their fronts more obscure, but the formula remains the same. Take an issue people are concerned about, form a front group for it, mask any other politics you may have, and monopolise the movement by declaring anybody who cares about the subject but doesn’t side with yourselves to be “sectarian.” The likely result is that the most radical action you can muster is a liberal and entirely passive protest, whilst those who want to do something effective will be demobilised and disenfranchised from above. But hey, you’ll sell a lot of papers. Admittedly, the extent to which this is true varies. AWL and SP fronts, for instance, are often less apolitical and more direct with their message than SWP ones; take Workers Climate Action declaring that “climate is a class issue,” say, compared to UAF’s unwillingness to address the class issues that surround antifascism. But the formula roughly holds true in all cases. Sadly a lot of those who do want to fight back rather than cherry pic for new recruits for their organisation are often marginalised and often isolated and feel like their ideas are not listened to. I’ve experienced this too and have seen many a good activist driven away from getting involved as they feel over whelmmed with the various left sect getting involved and looking to dominate. We should encourage militant workers to join these organisations but look to remain independent and to continue to think criticlly at all times. If they feel something is wrong or being handled poorly then they must be allowed the democratic right and freedom to speak out without being threatened or isolated out of activity. All in all a lot of the left groups do not practice the concept of the united front very well at all and end up running it for their own ends shrinking its influence the longer it goes on due to their authoritarian nature of controlling from above and not allowing views and movements from below todevelop . This is all something which will continue but we do need to combat any forms of buraucracy that looks to hold a movement back by its small C conservatism that seems rooted in many of these left wing front organisations.

TUSC and its future direction

I’ve felt for some time now even when I was still a member of the socialist party which in all honesty runs TUSC politically for the most party along with a few key trade unionists on the left anyway. I have felt TUSC has stagnated and failed to develop as I was told at the start that it would start to. Now I’m not inpatient or unrealistic to think we’d have a fully working mass new workers party in4 years of TUS being around but the general lack of debate, discussion on the project seems concerning for someone who would like to see the left get its act together sooner rather than later. For me when I was standing for TUSC it felt like a banner and not much else there is very little in the way of an organisation as such. The idea that TUSC can be the new workers party is very hard to believe at this stage. I constantly read in the socialist and tweets by various SP members that we need to build TUSC but I don’t see anyone even talking about building TUSC let alone actually trying to do so. For me it seems like a half way house in many ways a whole reformist platform which trade union figures and leaders can feel comfortable with. It is designed with the idea to try and entice trade union leaders like the Len McCklusky’s and Billy Hayes’s of the world over from backing the labour party. They have created a mirror of the early labour party and if various big 3 trade union leaders came over to TUSC one day they would be the ones in control not the workers and any ordinary member if there would be a membership by then. This is all hypothetical of course as TUSC and its steering group as its interestingly called as there is not much steering that goes on I must say has blocked attempts for TUSC to develop into anything bigger blocking off attempts for new groups to get involved such as Socialist resistance. Whilst I am no fan of their politics it seems foolish to not allow them in. Talking of membership it always is a thorny issue with TUSC being hugely opposed to any form of membership system at this stage they say. When the time is right I was always told while never given a time or a situation where membership may become necessary. Presumably no time soon I assumed. TUSC independent or the ISN as they call themselves have all but abandoned TUSC not for good but for now as they do not feel TUSC is growing, developing or even wanting to. They have tried their luck with Left Unity which at least has a membership system all be it a little odd and skewed at this point as its all before the30th November founding conference where we will start to see more about Left Unity develop. It is a crying shame that TUSC seems to be just an election front for the likes of the socialist party and the RMT it could be so much more if it opened up and reached out to groups like UK Uncut, boycott workfare and so on. There are enough people angry with the system today out there to start to form something on the ground. Talking of on the ground TUSC regularly complains about a lack of media coverage I’ve suggested a press officer in the past to contact various local and national media outlets to drum up support for TUSC yet I’m not sure if there is any movement on this proposal at all at this point. I was constantly told TUSC is a working progress and is not the finished article but for me the frustrating part was and still is to be honest the lack of any will to move it forward and try and build it. It felt like we were constantly waiting for the bigger unions like Unite and others to come join in then we could have our new workers party. Labour mark 2 if you like. As that is how it felt we were holding out an olive branch to the union bureaucracy constantly and not looking to go too far in front of them constantly. In reality TUSC consists of just the socialist party, a half-hearted Socialist Workers Party and a handful of others. The union leaders The Socialist party talks about are mainly Socialist party members, and Bob Crow is not exactly confident his union will agree to back it in future election as at a national TUSC meeting last year where it was told this wasn’t a voting conference the RMT representative Alex Gordon at the time said they may not stick with TUSC forever and a day waiting and waiting. This is reflected in TUSC’s basic and rather reformist programme to be honest. It’s vaguely social democratic with a few radical sounding ideas thrown in but it’s very sparse and basic and low on the details. Maybe for good reason I don’t know again to appease various union leaders I imagine to not scare them off but the socialist party claims to be Marxist and for a socialist society yet all it push’s for within TUSC is mild reforms to capitalism and a bit of nationalisation thrown in for good measure. All very uninspiring if we are honest. While it is true TUSC’s results in elections have been poor on the whole and dismal in others there has been a few decent results like Tony Mulhearn in Liverpool mayoral election got 5000 odd votes and Mary Jackson in Doncaster got about 2000 odd but most results are 1% to 9% and the odd one a bit higher clearly having no national profile or any way of getting through to people this is not going to change anytime soon I’m afraid. As for next years prospects I feel ill at the thought that TUSC or certain parts of TUSC are again putting their weight behind the No to EU banner once again playing into UKIP’s hands with a nationalist rhetoric that ill be hard to separate on the doorsteps where next year I would expect UKIP to do very well next year in the European elections if not win them out right actually. But what kind of workers’ party does the Socialist party want? Something pretty similar to what comrade Rob Griffiths of the old Morning Star CPB favours: i.e., a Labour Party marks two. The SWP is all for halfway houses too, but does not think the Socialist party trajectory is realistic. No meaningful layer of trade union bureaucrats is about to abandon Labour in order to set up another version of it this side of the 2015 general election. I would say TUSC has a long way to go and may not be the answer long term but please we do not need another labour party the one we got at the momentous bad enough making a safe space for various union bureaucrats is not my idea of a new workers party and I think workers need a party of their own still which they do not have.