The Left, the General Election and the Labour Party
- This topic has 33 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 5 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
George Galloway said his party was going to put up 500 candidates. In the event there are only about 150. TUSC too had dreams of putting up enough candidates to be in a position to form the next government. They are only putting up 40, less than half the number they did at the last general election they contested, in 2015 (in 2019 they stood aside for Labour Party under Corbyn).
This means that in at least 400 of the 650 constituencies there will be no left of Labour candidate. Which presents the Leftwing groups with the problem of what to recommend workers in these places to do with their vote.
If you take the position of the Weekly Worker of:
“Vote left where you can (and that includes the few left Labourites who are being allowed to stand), vote Labour where you must (ie, mainstream Labour)’.”
that means urging most workers to vote for the Party of Business, the Party of the Bomb, the Party of NATO. In other words, to use the weapon that is the vote to cut their own throat by voting for political power to continue to be held by the capitalist class via a pro-capitalist party.
Our position of course is clear: outside the 2 constituencies where we are standing, if you want socialism, cast a write-in vote for this by writing “SOCIALISM” on your ballot paper.
The Revolutionary Communist Party (formerly known as Socialist Appeal) are putting up a candidate in Stratford and Bow in the East End of London.
Their candidate, Fiona Lali, is listed as an independent but that’s only because they probably didn’t register in time as a political party with the electoral commission:
https://communist.red/this-election-punish-the-warmongers-vote-for-the-rcp/
Their candidate was recently in the news when she debated the issue of Palestine with Suella Braverman on GB News:
I see TUSC and the Workers Party are going head to head in Southgate & Wood Green:
https://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2024/06/the-far-left-and-2024-general-election.html
This list includes ‘left independents’
Labour is promising/threatening to create 20,00 prison places. Since bolsheviks have always been dead keen on imprisoning undesirables political or otherwise, this is another good reason for Jock Conrad and the Comrades (sounds like a skiffle group) to vote Labour.
I suppose this sort of policy is what Jock would call a ‘substantive idea’.It is certainly a ‘concrete demand’ as the building of more prisons should lead to an increase in the demand for concrete.
I dunno, call it pious wishful thinking, but I guess I’ll stick with the SPGB and it’s ‘soggy abstractions’ (we have been having a lot of rain lately), at least no one gets themselves locked up.Useful but not entirely reliable. For instance, Karl Vidol in Southgate and Wood Green is listed twice, once as Independent and once as TUSC. By coincidence, a link to the Statement of Persons Nominated for that constituency is given in an earlier post on this thread. He is clearly TUSC.
I don’t think Lefties will use the tactic of standing as independents again as they will suffer the fate that all little-known independents do — just getting the votes of friends and family, without getting over what you are standing for across: you just appear on the ballot paper as “Independent” with no emblem. You could be anybody standing for anything. Whats the point of that?
I see the author takes a potshot at us for standing against all of them if they happen to be standing. But then we are standing for socialism and nothing but while they are standing for anything but socialism. In fact when they do mention socialism they mean state capitalism.
The only one on that list who does say they are standing for an alternative society to capitalism that is recognisably more or less the same as what we mean by socialism is the Communist Future candidate in Manchester Central, but even they have a list of desirable reforms — and are accused by the others of being “reminiscent of the SPGB”. See their manifesto here:
Phil BC (A Very Public Sociologist) just resigned his Labour Party membership after 14/15 years:
https://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2024/06/leaving-labour.html
I remember him originally when he was in the CPGB/Weekly Worker group – he wrote a short piece on the SPGB in 2004 wittily entitled ‘100 Years of Solitude’ – and was, I believe, a member of SPEW for a couple of years after CPGB/Weekly Worker before eventually joining the Labour Party.
I wonder where he will go next?
In case anyone wants to read it, the 2004 Weekly Worker article to which imposs1904 refers is here: https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/533/100-years-of-solitude
This bears recording separately. It’s the election statement of the TUSC candidate in Folkestone and Hythe.
“As a familiar face with extensive local knowledge, I was particularly saddened by the closure of our Grace Hill library, where I spent countless hours studying as a teenager and reading to my children as a mother.
As a local resident and a teacher, I understand the grievances of our local community well, as they are my grievances too. We face long GP waiting times, the inability to get appointments when needed, a shortage of affordable rental accommodation, and a lack of quality council homes. Our secondary schools struggle with providing a high standard of education, and we endure the unacceptable issue of sewage being discharged onto our beaches. If elected, I will ensure these critical issues are brought to the forefront of government discussions.
I am standing for the marginalised and young people of this beautiful town. For far too long, we have been ignored by the political elite and mislead to believe the choice is between the two. It is the political underdogs who drive real change. I stand firmly against the genocide being committed in Gaza with the blessing of the powerful. I demand an immediate end to this violent campaign. We do not have to accept the status quo. Let’s work together to challenge the present power structure.
As a TUSC candidate, I am anti-war and anti-austerity. I am committed to improving the lives of the marginalised and the young in our community. Together, we can build a brighter future for Folkestone & Hythe.”
Local voter Ronnie O’Sullivan has just endorsed Faiza Shaheen in Chingford & Woodford:
https://x.com/faizashaheen/status/1802723206328959402
That’s sorted out next month’s Action Replay column, then.
Another left-of-Labour candidate whose election manifesto can hardly be described as radical. This from the Workers Party candidate in Battersea in London;
Of course it is a good thing that these opportunistic reformists don’t mention socialism.
Came across another wishy washy Workers Party candidate’s manifesto. This one from Lewisham West and Dulwich East (where I have a proxy vote for a comrade in Australia):
Note the pledges to give preference to veterans and small businesses.
He won’t be getting our comrade’s vote.
To check whether or not all WPB candidates were in effect standing as well-known local independents, I looked up that of Heiko Khoo, a long-time Hyde Park orator advocating Militant Tendency Trotskyism from his platform, who is standing for them in Putney.
His manifesto is more what you would call leftwing, but note the hints of conspiracy theories about vaccination and abolishing cash:
With regards to Corbyn standing as a left of Labour candidate (or, rather, the Labour Party left him) in his Islington patch, it looks like his Labour opponent, Praful Nargund, is avoiding all the local hustings meetings.
Can Young Master Smeet confirm this is the case?
Talking about Karl Vidol, the TUSC candidate in Southgate and Wood Green (above), a comrade who is an elector there has sent him the following email;
Dear Karl Vidol.
I am writing in response to your Election communication.
It says “VOTE SOCIALIST”, but nowhere is that term, or socialism, defined (see below). It seems to be treated as a word to describe a political flavouring, rather than a revolutionary concept. The term socialism has, unfortunately, has had many associations, most of them unpleasant, although the left usually haven’t shied away from them. You would think that if you were seeking a “socialist” vote you would offer the voters a concise definition to focus on, rather than the usual cat’s-lick-and-a-promise presented by capitalist parties.
You appear rather coy in referring to the working class, but use “working-class people” instead. The gap between rich (capitalist) class and the rest increasing is predicated on the accumulation of wealth by the capitalist class, so there’s nothing new there. The rich get richer because we—the working class—allow them to do so, not because they keep us in physical chains or deny us the vote.
Most political parties vie with each other to administer capitalism. Some, like the left, claim they are doing it in working-class interests, some are blatantly capitalist. The result is the same, unless a complete change is contemplated, capitalism will continue to roll on as usual. Of course, there may be good times, but capitalism offers no certainty. Meanwhile we are cursed with war, poverty, and worse, destitution, environmental degradation, dictatorships, and we know some of the latter the left supported in the past.
If you want to rid the world of the evils that capitalism visits upon it, then offering the working class reforms that may or may not improve their situation, and could be taken away is not the answer.
Why have you picked on Gaza for your outrage, when there are many other conflicts happening round the world?
I have never been let down by the governing parties, recognizing that their role is to run capitalism for the benefit of those who own most of the world—the capitalist class. Governments may try to persuade you that they run the country in the interests of all, but that is not their function. That doesn’t mean that some politicians may believe that they are serving the interests of all. All it means is that they have absorbed the capitalist ideology (false consciousness) that only lets you see the world as it seems, not as it is.
You say, “…a new way of running the economy to benefit the majority, not just the billionaires.” So, billionaires will still exist in your “socialist” society? This seems to be the fact, because you talk about “For real workers’ rights”, implying that the capitalist class will still be around. You also talk in national terms, but socialism can only be achieved on a worldwide basis, a world of common ownership and democratic control of the means of production, without state control. A society introduced by a majority vote of the working class, not imposed upon them by an all-knowing elite.
The only way for “every possible improvement for working-class people” is to introduce a society where the term working class would have no meaning.
“If the system can’t afford that, we need to change the system.” What change?
J. V. (Wood Green)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.