M-TH: Workers Power on the London Elections (1)
*Workers Power* (March 2000) pp.2 & 14. Who having called for a vote for Labour in 1997 admit: 'Parliamentary and council politics are, at the best of times, a sham. The GLA will have fewer powers than most parish councils. Which seems to be contradicted by: 'Workers Power will make the GLA a focus of struggle' 'Global capitalism means a return to "old Labour" is impossible: capitalism can no longer afford the reforms it once delivered'. We need a working class party 'that fights election in the knowledge that the real power does not lie in parliament or the town hall.' JW - they also have a whole page feature on the lesson for the LSA from Lenin and the Duma. This article makes no sense as the situation in Russia was so different to that in present day Britain. As the article argues the Bolshevics used their election as a platform on which to avoid arrest and to prevent comrades being imprisoned or exiled. Russia had not even managed to attain a stable parliamentary system and therefore the tactics are not comparable to a local election for an assembly which few would argue is under threat of constantly being disolved. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Socialist Outlook on the London Election
*Socialist Outlook* May, p.3 'A Livingstone victory will be a key defeat for Blairism' 'Combined by a serious vote for the London Socialist Allaince' 'LSA supporter should be pleased so long as it establishes itself as the clear fifth force in this election' [the fifth! - jw] 'Support for Livingstone - a difficult task given his failure to take a lead, or even produce basic campaign material' His 'disgraceful statement that he intends to appoint a repesentative from each of the four (sic) main parties as his Deputy' 'He must be forced to withdraw' his clear statement to choose Tories and Liberal Democrats as partners [so partnership Labour (Blairites) is OK! - jw] 'He has made noises that he may not mount a full frontal challenge to the government' on the key-issue of tube privatisation. They call on him to build a huge mass movement campaign for a massive demonstration in the autumn. JW - So Livingstone is against Blairism (but not Labourism!); he is unlikely to lead, organise or possible even support any mass campaign for improving the condition of the working class in London; he is more interested in an alliance with Tories and Liberals than to even acknowlege the demands of his own socialist supporters and would like to rejoin the always-has-been-always-will-be Labour Party. And yet they are going to call on the people of London to vote for him. So when he does betray the fact that his 'Red Ken' credential are merely a façade and the people in London begin to suffer under his administration the those people will turn to the Left and say 'well you told us to vote for him!' This could possibilly, if linked to other developments in London, lead them into the hands of the fascists and the anarchist who have maintained a consistent opposition. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Workers Power on the London Elections (2)
*Workers Power*, May, p.15 Quoting Livingstone's biographer Carvel, that in the great battles of the GLC he did 'not mobilise the people who were most effected by the Lord's judgement [on cheap travel fares]: the poor, the unemployed and the housebound.' 'He refused to call for industrial action of transport workers even though the unions and workers were keen.' They tell of his betrayal of the Miners and of other councils trying to withstand Tory cuts. 'Without an actual break by the Labour-affiliated unions the existing reformist party, a new mini-reformist party would be a joke' '100 years of Labour history show that a reformist, parliamentary party never defends workers and always subordinates the workers' interest to electorial victory' And then quite incredibly they say, 'As far a affiliation to Labour is concerned, we don't say "disaffiliate now". That would concede ground to Blair without a battle. Unions should maintain their affiliation, in order to fight inside Labour against the Blair leadership.' [! - jw] Assistant Editor information Rylands IRS division JRULM e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 275 3741 fax: 275 7207 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Morning Star on London Elections
They are not supporting the LSA but their position though more bizaar is still similar in struggling to react to the situation. *Morning Star* 29.3.2000. - the CPB opposes mayors - wanted Livingstone to stay in the Labour Party - the CPB supports a vote for Ken Livingstone as Mayor 'Socialist and Trad Unionists in the Labour Party should not fragment the left in the Party.' A vote for Ken would 'deal a bloody nose to Blair' [big deal! - jw] 'A vote for the Communist and progressive list will be a vote for the working class and democratic policies against big business' 'A vote for Labour in the constituencies will be a vote for the mass electorial party of the organised Labour movement, which must be won back to progressive policies' ['won back' - it never was progressive! - JW] --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: London Election - Left in a mess
Dear comrades, I have been quietly reading the Left press in relation to the London Election and Ken Livingstone London's Mayoral candidate which is happening today. A large section of the Trotskyist Left and the Marxist Leninist CPGB are backing Ken Livingstone and have gathered themselves together into the London Socialist Alliance and will stand for the Greater London Authority (where if they are lucky they may win just one seat!). As someone who leans more towards the position of William Morris and the Socialist League of the 1880s (I haven't yet found a parliamentary or council election where I would actually vote - though I'm not actually opposed in principle) I find their positions untenable. They call for a break from Blair but this leave completely the nature of the Labour Party itself and how far they rely on Old Labour and the Labour Left. In my opinion Blair does is not a aberration in the Labour party but constant with its very founding ethos of Keir Hardy, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Snowden, MacDonald, etc... He just says openly what the Labour party has always done in practice. For a flavour of the debate I have trawled through a small sample and quote them in the following emails [with my own comments in square brackets or as JW - ]. I'm I the only one who cannot make any sense of what on earth they think their up to and their inability to come to a coherent position. John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Socialist Outlook on the London Election
I just read, all four of your posts on Red Ken and the Mayoralty race. Bollocks!~!!! If the "Bolsheviks" in the UK, want to pretend that their strategic entrism into the Labour Party, to deliver a blow to Blairite "Third Way" Neo-Liberalism, is a Leninist policy, I say let their more naive rank and filers believe that. I think anyone with any experiernce, on the Brit Left, is hoping and working to makesure, Ken, wins, this platform. The powers he will have, will be constrained, in any case, so those "betrayals" that abstentionist ultra-leftists, like Walker worries about, will stand a better chance of being resisted the stronger the vote and the extra-parliamentary movement, inside and outside, the Labour Party. If Walker, has sometype of insurrectionary strategy or dredging up the "Vanguard Party", well then, I guess he inhabits some other zone of reality. (Unless he is an anarchist or council communist, that I can respect more!) Michael Pugliese - Original Message - From: J.WALKER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 8:20 AM Subject: M-TH: Socialist Outlook on the London Election > *Socialist Outlook* May, p.3 > > 'A Livingstone victory will be a key defeat for Blairism' > 'Combined by a serious vote for the London Socialist Allaince' > 'LSA supporter should be pleased so long as it establishes itself as > the clear fifth force in this election' [the fifth! - jw] 'Support for > Livingstone - a difficult task given his failure to take a lead, or > even produce basic campaign material' His 'disgraceful statement that > he intends to appoint a repesentative from each of the four (sic) main > parties as his Deputy' 'He must be forced to withdraw' his clear > statement to choose Tories and Liberal Democrats as partners [so > partnership Labour (Blairites) is OK! - jw] 'He has made noises that > he may not mount a full frontal challenge to the government' on the > key-issue of tube privatisation. They call on him to build a huge mass > movement campaign for a massive demonstration in the autumn. > > JW - So Livingstone is against Blairism (but not Labourism!); he is > unlikely to lead, organise or possible even support any mass campaign > for improving the condition of the working class in London; he is more > interested in an alliance with Tories and Liberals than to even > acknowlege the demands of his own socialist supporters and would like > to rejoin the always-has-been-always-will-be Labour Party. And yet > they are going to call on the people of London to vote for him. So > when he does betray the fact that his 'Red Ken' credential are merely > a façade and the people in London begin to suffer under his > administration the those people will turn to the Left and say 'well > you told us to vote for him!' This could possibilly, if linked to > other developments in London, lead them into the hands of the fascists > and the anarchist who have maintained a consistent opposition. > > > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
