http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/en-EUMokoFeed10http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/http://data5.blog.de/design/preview/26/2d175ce40a566b7ac57dd24a76339d_160x200.jpghttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/05/17/the_ervine_controversy~808401/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2006-05-17:/2006/05/17/the_ervine_controversy~808401/Wed, 17 May 2006 23:58:55 +0200 <p>A huge row has erupted as David Ervine, leader of the Progressive Unionist Party, has decided to join the Ulster Unionist group on the Northern Ireland assembly. I think that this is a terrible move on the part of Mr Ervine, however most of the criticism that he has recieved has been hypocritical to say the least.</p> <p>Many Unionists in Northern Ireland seem unable to stomach the idea of someone with connections to terrorists (in this case the UVF) joining a mainstream unionist party such as the UUP. For them, support for the "rule of law" is paramount. However, many of these same people are content to whip up sectarian hostility towards Catholics on a regular basis, only for them to then hypocriticaly condemn the acts of violence against Catholics that then happen as a result, whether they are carried out by paramilitaries or by ordinary Protestant mobs (such as happpened recently in Ballymena). They also never condemned the many acts of violence committed by the security forces during the troubles.</p> <p>The PUP has never had the same relationship with the UVF as Sinn Fein does with the IRA. Although some of the PUP's members are ex-UVF men such as Ervine himself, they were not set up to be the UVF's political front. Rather they were approached by the UVF to help them negotiate a ceasefire in the 1990s and have retained a link with them ever since, even as the UVF has descended into feuding and petty criminality. This is quite different from Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness sitting on the ruling body of the IRA. </p> <p>The PUP does seem to have lost it's way in recent years as devolution has stalled and the UVF have abandoned their ceasefire. Marxists like myself have never been able to support the PUP because they are a comunalist party that only represent Protestant workers. However, I always viewed the emergence of a left wing, working class Loyalist party as a potentialy progressiv development in Ulster politics.</p> <p>Now it seems that they are going to merge with the once great bourgeois unionist party, the UUP. This would be a shame but is perhaps logical as in recent years the party has retreated more and more towards conventional unionist politics as they havelost ground to the DUP. I also think that they would be better off ditching the link with the UVF.</p> <p>There are many angry UUP members out there at the moment but I would like to hear what rank-and-file PUP members think of this, particularly if they think that it is a mistake like I do. Maybe I could convince you that class politics are a better way forward for Protestant workers than "Unionism" and "Loyalism", no matter how progressive? </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/05/17/the_ervine_controversy~808401/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>loyalismpuppoliticsdavid-ervineunionismhttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/05/17/the_ervine_controversy~808401/#commentshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/05/13/fortunes_always_hiding~797489/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2006-05-13:/2006/05/13/fortunes_always_hiding~797489/Sat, 13 May 2006 22:12:41 +0200 <p>I've just watched West Ham lose the FA Cup on penalties after coming really close to winning. All the players were fantastic (even Scaloni and Dailly) and didn't deserve to lose. They can all be proud of themselves.</p> <p>If we had won then it may have given the whole area a boost in the wake of the BNP victories recently. Perhaps people would've reflected on how, despite all the hype about West Ham being an "English" team, most of the players are either foreigners or from an immigrant background.</p> <p>Instead the BNP and the racists who support them will probably try and find a way to blame immigrants and ethnic minorities for the defeat. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/05/13/fortunes_always_hiding~797489/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>anti-racismbnpfootballwest-hamunitedpoliticshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/05/13/fortunes_always_hiding~797489/#commentshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/05/06/barking_mad~779006/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2006-05-05:/2006/05/06/barking_mad~779006/Sat, 06 May 2006 00:07:58 +0200 <p>Sorry I haven't posted for a while. I have been away for a bit & had some techinical probs.</p> <p>Here is the report that many of you have been expecting, the sorry tale of the emergence of a fascist stronghold on the Essex/East London border. Most of you will now know that the BNP won an amazing 11 seats on Barking and Dagenham council. But it's worse than that, the fascists have also won seats in Redbridge, Epping Forest and in my home council of Havering. </p> <p>Why has this happened? Well, of course issues like housing and general disgust at the sleazy government of Tony Blair play their part, but these are issues that are relevant right across London and not just in this area. The main reason is, put simply, that most white people in this part of the world are racist to some extent or another and some are very racist indeed.</p> <p>If you listen to or watch the vox pops that have taken place around the area then you will know that race is the common theme. Some people try and weave things around issues such as housing and health but it is clear that race is the real issue. For example, one woman seemed convinced that the asian woman who worked at her local doctor's surgery would only allow asians to get an appointment!</p> <p>Surprisingly, the Searchlight campaign in B & D did seem to work insofar as the Labour vote locally actually held up quite well. The only problem was that turnout almost doubled as thousands of people who wouldn't normally have voted came out specifically to vote for the BNP.</p> <p>What can we do? In short, nothing. It would be nice if an active left could oppose the fascist but one simply does not exist in the area and I simply don't have the time and the energy to run around four different boroughs trying to create one. One idea might be to organise an American style "day without Immigrants" in the area. Then all the racists would have to make do with the putrid cockney cuisine of "pie and mash" as all the chippies, take aways and curry houses in the area closed down for the day.</p> <p>Dan N </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/05/06/barking_mad~779006/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>labourdagenhambnpbarkingpoliticsanti-racismhttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/05/06/barking_mad~779006/#commentshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/03/31/sprigtime_for_the_class_struggle~688820/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2006-03-31:/2006/03/31/sprigtime_for_the_class_struggle~688820/Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:07:54 +0200 <p>Just when you think that nothing can surprise you anymore, class struggle suddenly becomes the flavour of the month on both sides of the channel. France could be on the verge of revolution and Britain has just seen it's biggest industrial action since the general strike. </p> <p>It just goes to show how uneven the life of a Marxist activist can be. You spend months and sometimes even years on end sittting around getting depressed, thinking that things are only ever going to get worse, then people start taking direct action to confront the system.</p> <p>Of course, these struggles have a long way to go before they can be regarded as being sucessfull. In particular, I feel that the French struggle will probably need to directly challenge the power of capital before it can force DeVillepin to back down. Probably the best way to do this would be for French workers to occupy factories and other workplace as they did in both 1936 and 1968. That would really remind everyone of the indispensible role of workers in the production of wealth. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/03/31/sprigtime_for_the_class_struggle~688820/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>strikesbritainfrancecpepoliticshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/03/31/sprigtime_for_the_class_struggle~688820/#commentshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/03/23/unison_suspends_support_for_labour~669424/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2006-03-23:/2006/03/23/unison_suspends_support_for_labour~669424/Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:10:34 +0100 <p>This announcement came through from UNISON today:</p> <p><em>"Unison Labour Link", the structure by which the giant public services union Unison deals with its relations with the Labour Party, has suspended its support for Labour. Its statement reads:</p> <p>In the circumstances of the union taking national industrial action against the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, named as Regulator and decision maker regarding the LGPS, in is felt that it is not appropriate or politically sensible to be organising, on one hand, for industrial action by the union while sending out letters and leaflets to many of the same members asking them to vote Labour.</p> <p>The decision has been taken to suspend our election campaigning work for Labour in the May elections while the industrial action is going on.</p> <p>Labour Link will not be giving any further donations or support to the campaign until we reach a solution to the present LGPS issue.</p> <p>This is a decision that affects our work for Labour’s election campaign in May nationally and locally.</em></p> <p>This is very significant. UNISON has around a million members and if they aren't getting their usual leaflets and brochures then it may make a significant dent in their vote at the forthcoming local elections. More assertive action like this by other trade unions would be very welcome.</p> <p>Blair is looking even more like Charles I sice he was caught relying on secret loans from his cronies as the unions are increasingly reluctant to make big donations and members continue to haemorrage from the party. Charles similarly had to rely on loans from supporters when his parliament refused to vote him money. Now these loans have been stopped, many politicians seem intent on forcing through state funding of political parties in order to keep the unions out of party politics.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/03/23/unison_suspends_support_for_labour~669424/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>politicslabourunisontony-blaircharles-ihttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/03/23/unison_suspends_support_for_labour~669424/#commentshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/03/13/the_end_of_slobba~638620/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2006-03-13:/2006/03/13/the_end_of_slobba~638620/Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:36:27 +0100 <p>The man who set the Balkans aflame in the 90s died on Saturday. The autopsy reports that Slobodan Milosevic died of a heart attack but his cohorts maintain that it was poisoning. Whatever the truth is, the world probably won't mourn the passing of a horrid racist but will regret that his trial never came to a conclusion. </p> <p>Milosevic's death has caused me to reflect on the SWP's disgraceful role in the Kosovan war of 1999, the conflict that led eventually to Milosevic's downfall. The SWP led (along with various Stalinists) the anti-war campaign in Britain at that time and pioneered the approach they use today of making excuses for and explaining away the crimes of various dictarors and reactionaries. Milosevic was described as "the Serbian equivalent of Norman Tebbit". Now, as horrible and reactionary as Tebbit is, he has (as a fellow AWL member said at the time) never tried to ethnicaly cleanse Wales, which would be the British equivalent of what Milosevic did in 1999. Even Noam Chomsky tried to smear the Kosovan resistance by playing up the Islamist element amongst them (something that he never does with the Palestinians).</p> <p>Unfortunately, this sort of politics now dominate thinking on the left. It's roots are in Stalinism, which automaticaly branded as progressive anything that opposed US interests whilst smearing anything that stood against it's totalitarian juggernaut. If we don't want the ghost of Stalinist reperession to return to haunt us then we should completely abandon it's methods. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/03/13/the_end_of_slobba~638620/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>noam-chomskyslobodan-milosevicstalinismpoliitcsswphttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/03/13/the_end_of_slobba~638620/#commentshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/03/05/resign_the_whip~615797/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2006-03-05:/2006/03/05/resign_the_whip~615797/Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:10:36 +0100 <p>During a rally in Westminster on Thursday against the government's Education Bill, the left-wing Labour MP John McDonnell said the government would become a de facto coalition with the Tories if it relied on their support to pass the legislation. He then said that if that happened the government would forefeit any right to his support.</p> <p>The implication of this statement is that McDonnell (and possibly other left wing Labour MPs) would resign the Labour whip in the event of government relying on Tory support to pass it's education reform. I think that this would be a good idea. If a group of Labour MPs were working together to represent the real concerns of the labour movement then it would put the union leaders on the spot for continuing to support a clearly anti-working class government when there is a better alternative on offer. </p> <p>Of course, it remains to be seen wether or not McDonnell and his comrades will actually do this but if they do I will back them to the hilt. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/03/05/resign_the_whip~615797/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>john-mc-donnelllabour-partypoliitcshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/03/05/resign_the_whip~615797/#commentshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/02/27/defend_secularism_and_freedom_of_speech~597410/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2006-02-27:/2006/02/27/defend_secularism_and_freedom_of_speech~597410/Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:35:50 +0100 <p>Well, I'm back from New Zealand and I feel that I must make further comment on the furore over the Muhammad cartoons. These were also a big issue in New Zealand as they were published in two Kiwi newspapers as well. There has also been a, in my view, defining clash on the British left over the cartoons. My group (the AWL) published the cartoons whilst the SWP seem to have started a campaign to get such images banned by the state. </p> <p>To me this is a definative moment for the left. Faced with the growth of radical Islam around the world, and the growing influence of religion in our government (with crypto-papist Tony Blair and Opus Dei associate Ruth Kelly pushing for more of our schools to be run by faith groups) do we stand to defend the gains of the English, French and American revolutions or do we kow tow to the clerics in the hope of picking up votes from the faithfull?</p> <p>The risks in appeasing religion are shown by another event in New Zealand where the Catholic Church are up in arms over an episode of "South Park" where the Virgin Mary is shown menstruating. Now, I've been to Florence and seen many religious artworks and most of them seem to feature Christ bleeding conspicuously whilst being crucified so I don't see what problems the papists have with this. It would seem that haemoraging deities are only to be used in the service of idolatory. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/02/27/defend_secularism_and_freedom_of_speech~597410/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>awlislamswpreligionpoliticscatholicismhttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/02/27/defend_secularism_and_freedom_of_speech~597410/#commentshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/02/04/off_to_new_zealand~534547/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2006-02-04:/2006/02/04/off_to_new_zealand~534547/Sat, 04 Feb 2006 19:44:47 +0100 <p>...tomorrow, so I may not be updating this blog as frequently as usual. A word on the Mohammed cartoons before I go. Whilst I think that some of the cartoons were gratuitous, I have been even more concerned by the demonstrations against the cartoons. Many have been violent and the one in London yesterday was clearly led by people who support terrorism. Freedom of speech sometimes means the freedom to offend, and I do despair of the prospects for intergration of muslims in the west if so much offence is caused by the mere graphical representation of a historical figure. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/02/04/off_to_new_zealand~534547/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>islammohammednew-zealandpoliticshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/02/04/off_to_new_zealand~534547/#commentshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/01/27/new_model_union~511413/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2006-01-27:/2006/01/27/new_model_union~511413/Fri, 27 Jan 2006 17:46:08 +0100 <p>One of the recent news stories that you may have missed is the idea of a Police Federation style "union" for rank-and-file members of the armed forces. A real union (with the power to organise industrial action) would, of course, be illegal under the Queen's regulations.</p> <p>However, I feel that a real, TUC affiliated, trade union would be entirely appropriate for members of the armed forces. They are expected to disobey orders that controvene the Geneva Convention and to stand up to the parade ground bullies but don't have the support of any independent organisation that can represent them. Indeed, I can think of no circumstance that could warrant industrial action more than an officer (or politician) ordering soldiers, sailors or airmen to do something that would clearly constitute a war crime. </p> <p>Indeed, it's arguable that British soldiers invented modern trade unions when rank-and-file members of the New Model Army elected "agitators" to represent their views at Army Council. These agitators went on to become powerful advocates for greater democracy in the country, especially at the famous "Putney debates". Maybe that's why John Reid is so cool on the idea. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/01/27/new_model_union~511413/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>trade-unionspoliticsarmed-forcesenglish-civil-warnew-model-armyhttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/01/27/new_model_union~511413/#commentshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/01/26/he_s_a_scumbag_don_t_you_know~507545/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2006-01-26:/2006/01/26/he_s_a_scumbag_don_t_you_know~507545/Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:35:14 +0100 <p>Well, it's now official, George Galloway is now the most hated person in Britain according to any radio/tv station, website or newspaper you care to refer to (apart from <em>Socialist Worker</em>). </p> <p>His fall from grace has been astounding. It was only a few weeks ago that he was seen as a loveable rogue who could stand up to the US neo cons and his party, Respect, was on course to make major gains at the local government elections in May. Now he is a complete laughing stock, more famous for impersonating a cat than for meeting despots.</p> <p>It's certainly been a great experience for those of us who have long opposed the veneration that GG receives on the left. However, I do find it a bit deperssing that his backstabbing of Michael Barrymore and Rula Lenska (appaling as it was) than his grovelling in front of leading Ba'athists in Iraq who were responsible for mass murder and torture. It seems that we really do live in a world where what happens on "reality" TV attracts more interest than the reality of the suffering of millions in the Middle East and elsewhere. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/01/26/he_s_a_scumbag_don_t_you_know~507545/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>celebrity-big-brotherrespectgeorge-gallowaypoliticshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/01/26/he_s_a_scumbag_don_t_you_know~507545/#commentshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/01/20/book_review_take_over_the_city_by_richar~488819/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2006-01-20:/2006/01/20/book_review_take_over_the_city_by_richar~488819/Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:28:49 +0100 <p>I've got a late book review for everyone, and when I say late I mean 24 years late! I picked up this book second hand in the famous Porcupine book cellar of Housman's book shop on the Pentonville Road in London. It's called <em>Take Over The City</em> and it's by an economist called Richard Minns.</p> <p>In the book, Minns makes the case for the complete nationalisation of most of the UK's major financial institutions: clearing banks, merchant banks, insurance companies and building societies. Minns' case rests on the simple fact that workers in the UK have little control over how their pension funds and saving are invested by the city's, ahem, merchant bankers. Minns points out that, during the high unemployment early 80's when he was writing, many workers actualy ended up investing in their own unemployment as the big city funds demanded that the UK's firms cut their costs in order to pay off their short term loans and raise their share dividends. </p> <p>Of course, nowadays it would be unthinkable for any major political party to advocate such a radical measure. We now have a situation where the private sector is taking over the public sector, rather than the other way around. We also have a labour movement which is a shadow of it's former self. However, Minns' book is a reminder that, in the debate arourd the future of pensions, we should be much more willing to question how and in whose interests our money is being invested.</p> <p>Minns' also seems supremely unaware of the consequneces of the radical action that he proposes. He seems to think that a Labour government would be able to nationalise high finance by a stroke of the Queen's pen. He also sees the measure as being "transistional" in that they would be part of a gradual transistion to socialism. Whilst it is true that no government could ever introduce socialism overnight, the fact is that the workers would have to smash the bourgeois state in order to stop them from using their control of the police and the army to defend capital and prevent the workers' government from taking the necessary steps to establish control of the economy, and the nationalisation of finance would be probably the first of those steps. As the old maxim goes, real change can only come from below.</p> <p>Still, Minns is admirably anti-bureaucraric within the limits of his reformist viewpoint. He sees the plans of workers themselves as being a key part of any socialist investment stratergy and (mostly) rejects the old, para-capitalist forms of running nationalised industries. We need more people like Minns today to question the pro-capitalist/market concensus on how to run the world's economy. Indeed, maybe Minns himself would like to return to the subject as he is still, to the best of my knowledge, publishing research. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/01/20/book_review_take_over_the_city_by_richar~488819/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>richard-minnseconomicssocialismpoliticsthe-cityhttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/01/20/book_review_take_over_the_city_by_richar~488819/#commentshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/01/09/2006_a_crucial_year_for_britain_s_left~454405/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2006-01-09:/2006/01/09/2006_a_crucial_year_for_britain_s_left~454405/Mon, 09 Jan 2006 13:01:07 +0100 <p>It looks like 2006 will be a make-or-break year for anyone who wants to stop the juggernaut of British neo-liberalism. The year has already got off to a bad start with the coup in the Lib Dems and now it appears that Cameron has decided that tuition fees will now stay under a Conservative government. </p> <p>Two events will, I feel, be crucial. Firstly, there will be a leadership election in the Liberal Democrats. If Menzies Campbell (the favored candidate of the Lib Dem right) or Mark Oaten (a younger right winger)were to win then this may lead to an exodus of members and voters, disgusted at the way that the right wing Westminster MPs have junked both their leader and possibly many of their policies. Secondly, I feel that the government's education reform bill will be a crucial litmus test for Blair's authority in the Labour party. Unfortunately, Cameron's support for the bill means that it will probably get through, even with a huge rebellion. However, if dozens of Labour MPs rebel despite the expected (but probably quite minor) concessions that government will make it will seriously call into question Blair's authority as leader and may even lead to MPs starting to question the whole Blair/Brown neo-liberal project.</p> <p>If things go badly in both the Labour party and the Lib Dems then I think that the idea of creating a new party will become relevant again. The last attempt to set up a party to the left of Labour was the Socialist Alliance which broke apart after the SWP went off to form a fan club for George Galloway (see elsewhere on the blog). However, I feel that a broader party may become feasible as dissent is squeezed even further in both the Labour party and the Lib Dems. I have always thought that a new party would come from the trade unions but with the advent of larger, even more bureaucratic trade unions, I don't think that they will move untill they see a better alternative. That certainly is the experience of people who have tried similar initiatives in New Zealand, Australia and the US.</p> <p>The new party should be set up on five basic principles in order to keep it as broad as possible. These should be:</p> <p>1.) Defending and extending state provision of public services financed by progressive taxation.</p> <p>2.) Opposition to US unilateralism and support for a democratic foreign policy.</p> <p>3.) A fairer electoral system.</p> <p>4.) Defence of civil rights and secularism.</p> <p>5.) More rights for workers and trade unions.</p> <p>A good name for this party would be Commonwealth, the name of both the left wing party that stood against the Tories during the war and the English republic in the time of Cromwell. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/01/09/2006_a_crucial_year_for_britain_s_left~454405/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>politicslib-demslabourhttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/01/09/2006_a_crucial_year_for_britain_s_left~454405/#commentshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/01/06/gorgeous_george_champagne_charlie_and_th~445505/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2006-01-06:/2006/01/06/gorgeous_george_champagne_charlie_and_th~445505/Fri, 06 Jan 2006 12:58:41 +0100 <p>Yesterday was probably the most surreal day ever for British politics. First Charles Kennedy announces that he's an alcoholic and calls a leadership election, then George Galloway enters the Celebrity Big Brother house!</p> <p>So what does this all mean? Well, the subtext underneath the controversy around Kennedy's leadership of the Lib Dems is the battle between the neo-liberal "Orange Book" MPs in Westminster and the more left wing rank-and-file members in the country. If the MPs win, as they probably will eventually, then the gap between the three main parties will narrow even further and it will become even more difficult for critics of the neo-liberal concensus to make themselves heard in mainstream politics. </p> <p>As for Galloway, his move into the BB house shows just what a money grubbing scumbag he really is. His excuse for not showing up at the important anti-terror votes was that he needed to raise money to pay for his election campaign, but how much is he getting paid for this? Everyone knows that the contestants in celebrity reality shows get paid hefty fees, and what "charity" will benefit from his phone vote money and any prize funds that he might win? One can only hope that Respect will have it's image severely tarnished by George's antics, but I think that the SWP will continue to make excuses for him.</p> <p>It would be nice to think that the Labour left will benefit from the decline of these supposedly left wing paties but I'm not holding my breath. Still, I intend to get right behind champion heckler Walter Wolfgang in his campaign to get elected to the LP NEC. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/01/06/gorgeous_george_champagne_charlie_and_th~445505/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>celebrity-big-brotherwalter-wolfgangpoliticscharles-kennedygeorge-gallowayhttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2006/01/06/gorgeous_george_champagne_charlie_and_th~445505/#commentshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/12/23/tory_story~410352/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2005-12-23:/2005/12/23/tory_story~410352/Fri, 23 Dec 2005 12:56:29 +0100 <p>So, now the Tories have (on paper, at least) committed themselves to wealth redistribution (see <em>the Telegraph</em> for more details). Will wonders never cease. The Labour Party now seem ever more stranded out to the right of British politics. Of course, this is probably just a ruse to grab today's headlines but then so are most Labour policy announcements. Anyway, Merry Xmas everyone! Maybe Oliver Letwin will come down your Chimney tomorrow with some extra dosh for you from his rich mates in the city. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/12/23/tory_story~410352/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>oliver-letwinlabourtorieshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/12/23/tory_story~410352/#commentshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/12/14/dealing_with_dave~386034/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2005-12-14:/2005/12/14/dealing_with_dave~386034/Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:26:28 +0100 <p>So, David Cameron has once again used Prime Minister's questions to chide Tony Blair about how close together they are on the government's Education White Paper. This just goes to show how much Britain's politics have degenerated in recent years. The policy differences between the two parties are so few that we now are reduced to our leaders trying to out-smile eachother on GMTV whilst uttering buzz words like "choice" and "diversity".</p> <p>We desperately need the left to re-assert itself in British politics. We need to bring buzz words such as "equality", "rational planning" and "solidarity" back in to our politics. I think that the only way to do this is by the unions getting tough with Blair and refusing to fund the party if it doesn't start putting forward progressive policies. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/12/14/dealing_with_dave~386034/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>socialismtony-blairlabour-partydavid-cameronhttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/12/14/dealing_with_dave~386034/#commentshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/12/14/dicanio_s_at_it_again~385527/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2005-12-14:/2005/12/14/dicanio_s_at_it_again~385527/Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:20:11 +0100 <p>It seems that ex-Hammer Paolo DiCanio has made another Nazi salute during a tense game against Livorno last weekend. Read bellaciao's report and my comment on her blog. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/12/14/dicanio_s_at_it_again~385527/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>italywest-ham-unitedanti-racismhttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/12/14/dicanio_s_at_it_again~385527/#commentshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/12/06/the_commodification_of_the_world~364547/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2005-12-06:/2005/12/06/the_commodification_of_the_world~364547/Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:59:53 +0100 <p>I've recently been reading <em>NHS plc</em> by Allyson Pollack. It's a revealing account of the creeping privatisation/marketisation of the NHS in recent years. The main point of the book seems to be that the gradual introduction of market and para-market structures since the 80's has been the main factor in the worsening crisis in the NHS over recent years. Underfunding has also been a problem, but whereas the NHS has in the past been able to compensate for this by having extremely low running costs, but now the internal market, the PFI's and "capital charges" mean that the organisation now has much bigger overheads, and isn't run on the basis of rational planning for clinical need. This has also led to the "postcode lottery" as regional inequalities havr grown under the new system.</p> <p>All this got me thinking about how almost every aspect of our lives have been commodified and marketised. The idea that we can get together to plan collectively what we want has now been almost entirely sacrificed in favour of individuals choosing what they want based on the needs of only themselves and their immediate families. Of course, exactly how much choice you can have in these situations is also usualy related to your income. </p> <p>I'm a socialist, so I obviously think that this is a bad thing. However, it's increasingly difficult for anybody to get the case for rational, democratic planning heard in the era after the collapse of Stalinism and the triumph of neo-liberalism. Does anyone have any ideas on how socialists can get their voice heard in these difficult times? </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/12/06/the_commodification_of_the_world~364547/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>socialismpoliticsnhshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/12/06/the_commodification_of_the_world~364547/#commentshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/11/28/report_on_my_clp_egm~343709/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2005-11-28:/2005/11/28/report_on_my_clp_egm~343709/Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:05:11 +0100 <p>My local Labour Party had an interesting EGM on Thursday night. It would appear that our membership has declined from over 400 in 1997 to around 180 now. Unsurprisingly, most of the members seem to have left immediately after the Iraq war/tuition fees period. This seems to have left us with quite a right wing rump of memebers, certainly compared to what the CLP (Constituency Labour Party) used to be like in the 80s and 90s. Most people at the meeting were remarkably uncritical both of Tony Blair and of the local Labour councillors, who recently voted with the Tories to get rid of all the council's old peoples' homes.</p> <p>Still, the meeting was quite small (only 10 turned up) and they hope to organise more political discussions at which hopefully more people (including maybe some more left wing people) will turn up. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/11/28/report_on_my_clp_egm~343709/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>politicslabour-partyhttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/11/28/report_on_my_clp_egm~343709/#commentshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/11/24/pardew_slams_racist_hammers_fans~333760/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2005-11-24:/2005/11/24/pardew_slams_racist_hammers_fans~333760/Thu, 24 Nov 2005 13:18:22 +0100 <p>It was good to hear Alan Pardew apologise for and condemn the racist abuse that some West Ham fans directed towards the Spurs striker Mido at last Sunday's game. Just as I was hoping that the addition of Israeli Yossi Benayoun to West Ham's squad might help us to shake off the horribly anti-semitic element of our support, up jumps a bunch of idiots with a line in anti-Muslim bigotry. I can only hope that West Ham and Spurs will co-operate to get these people banned from football grounds across the country. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/11/24/pardew_slams_racist_hammers_fans~333760/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>footballwest-ham-unitedanti-racismhttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/11/24/pardew_slams_racist_hammers_fans~333760/#commentshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/11/21/swp_shuns_iraqi_workers_movement~325191/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2005-11-21:/2005/11/21/swp_shuns_iraqi_workers_movement~325191/Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:47:35 +0100 <p>Below is an article from <a href="http://www.workersliberty.org.">www.workersliberty.org.</a></p> <p><em>An amendment personally signed by leading SWPers for the Respect conference inveighs against any idea of a working-class "third pole" in Iraq, between the US/UK forces and the Islamist/ neo-Ba'thist/ Sunni-supremacist "resistance". </p> <p>It calls for deleting points 3 and 4 of a motion submitted by Cambridge Respect and inserting: </p> <p>3) Respect calls for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. We recognise that the main enemy in the regions is US and British imperialism and we are on the side of the 82% of Iraqis who in a recent opinion poll called for the troops to go. We do not accepts the notion of a third pole between the occupation and those resisting it in Iraq. </p> <p>4) We do not equate Islamism with imperialism We defend Iran against the threat of imperialist attack </p> <p>5) We support those campaigning to bring troops out. We support groups like the national foundation conference, which unites religious and secular forces, and trade unions, parties and other organisations which are trying to achieve and end to imperialist rule. We do not make our support conditional on those groups being secular, but recognise that there will be a whole range of religious and political forces campaigning to this end. </p> <p>6) We support the International Peace Conference called by Stop The War Coalition on December 10th 2005 as a means of getting this range of voices heard </p> <p>Amendment proposed by Coventry and the following people; Lindsey German, Ghada Razuki, Linda Smith, Murtaza ali Shah, Mohammed Bani, Carmela Ozzi, Rachel Eborall, Andrew Burgin, Yuri Prasad, John Hextall, John Fitzgerald, Sanna Hafez, Chris Bambery, Simon Basketter, Grace Lally, Diana Swingler, Suzie Wylie, Sean Vernell, Suzanne Jeffrey, Alison Woodward, Julie Bundy, Pat Boyle, Beccy Palmer, Narriman Massom. </p> <p>The amendment is to a motion from Cambridge Respect, apparently inspired by local SWPers, and somewhat incoherent from any point of view, but with a clear wish to support Iraqi trade unionists and feminists. </p> <p>Respect notes with approval the nascent Iraqi trade unions and women's groups that, in spite of the terrible occupation, have sprung up since the overthrow of the despicable Ba'athist regime. </p> <p>Respect notes that, as of yet, only one trade union federation, the IFTU, is officially recognised within Iraq. Respect notes this is a contravention of ILO standards, and calls for all ILO standards to be upheld in Iraq. Furthermore, Respect condemns "order 875", issued by the Iraqi government in August, that requires all trade union funds to be handed over to the state. </p> <p>Respect reaffirms its call for an end to the occupation, noting that an immediate withdrawal of occupying forces has been consistently demanded by three organisations in particular: the Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq [OWFI], the Union of the Unemployed and the General Union of Oil Employees [GUOE] - whose elected General Secretary has spoken on Stop the War Platforms. </p> <p>In order to support the aforementioned groups, Respect resolves to publicise them politically, both to counter claims that 'progressive' Iraqis support the continued occupation, as well as to raise much needed funds for their continued campaigning against the occupation, privatisation of Iraq's natural resources by MNCs and in defence of civil liberties and trade union rights.</em></p> <p>Respect conference happened last Saturday (the 19th) and the amendment must have been passed, given that so many prominent SWPers have supported it. Surely this is further proof of the SWP's gradual conversion from Marxism to reactionary populism? </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/11/21/swp_shuns_iraqi_workers_movement~325191/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>iraqtrade-unionsswppoliticshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/11/21/swp_shuns_iraqi_workers_movement~325191/#commentshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/11/17/never_forget_take_that~314617/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2005-11-17:/2005/11/17/never_forget_take_that~314617/Thu, 17 Nov 2005 11:23:09 +0100 <p>I watched ITV1's <em>Take That</em> documentary last night and it got me thinking as to how our popular culture has changed during the past five years. I thought that there probably won't be another band as big as TT again as our culture has fragmented so much in recent years. There was only one sattelite music channel in the UK when TT started out in 1990, and only three by the time they split up in 1996. Now there are over a dozen. There are also a lot more radio stations and the internet. This has meant that a far broader range of people, catering for ever narrower audiences, now decide what we both watch and listen. </p> <p>Therefore, I believe that it is no longer possible for a single band to so dominate our airwaves. It's a lot more difficult to get the key opinion formers on your side (becuase there are so many of them) and audiences are better placed to "flick" within a few seconds of seeing or hearing a new group if they don't like the look/sound of them.</p> <p>In a lot of ways this is a good thing, because it means that we don't have to put up with mediocrity so much but, thinking more politicaly, it also stymies the formation of the sort of mass movements needed for radical social change. As our culture becomes more fragmented, it may become less and less possible for workers to feel that they have enough in common with each other in order to band together in the classic Marxist sense. What do you all think? </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/11/17/never_forget_take_that~314617/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/11/17/never_forget_take_that~314617/#commentshttp://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/11/16/contrasting_fortunes~313959/tag:leftbehind.blog.co.uk,2005-11-16:/2005/11/16/contrasting_fortunes~313959/Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:57:47 +0100 <p>Two contrasting tales from my local labour movements:</p> <p>1.) A huge picket outside Barking College for the NATFHE strike. About twenty people were there, six outside the main entrance and a further twelve outside the car park. They were trying to turn away veichles and actualy succeded with an educational supplies truck.</p> <p>2.) I received a letter from my local Labour party. They are having an EGM next Thursday to try and stop the party from folding due to a lack of activists. This is hardly surprising considering the way the party has gone under Blair. What is worse though is how our local Labour councilors have voted for things like the selling off of old peoples' homes. I hope they realise that the main problem is political and not organisational.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/11/16/contrasting_fortunes~313959/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>http://leftbehind.blog.co.uk/2005/11/16/contrasting_fortunes~313959/#comments