In an attempt to be controversial, but more likely done to retain his readership, Guido Fawkes has condemned the suggestion by Bob Crow that trade unionists and activists should engage in direct action to oppose this government (see http://order-order.com/ - “The Loony Left is back”).
In a rather feeble attempt at humour, he accuses Crow of calling for a general strike – an interesting idea, but what Bob was arguing for was something far more necessary – the engagement of all workers within the political system. Now surely, if Fawkes is the democrat he purports to be, he will not object to the politicisation of the masses?
Admittedly one of Crows’ suggestions did include the notion of general strikes, but realistically that cannot happen until the majority of working people have combined under the banners of the trade union movement. So Fawkes can at least relax over his blueberry muffin, the revolution isn’t going to start outside Woolworth’s at 3pm this afternoon!
Membership of trade unions was at its highest in the 1970s when it reached over half the workforce, but post-Thatcher this has declined to approximately 25%.
A number of reasons explain this level of apathy/ disenchantment:
• There has been a general decline in manufacturing industry in the UK. Most union organisers would agree that trade union activity is often easier in factories where there are large numbers of people on one site compared to retailing. In any one store there may be relatively few staff – a factor that has made arranging meetings of employees more difficult.
• Over the last thirty years there has been an increased trend by managers to deal with employees on an individual basis and move away from collective bargaining.
• Since Thatcher there has been an increased participation of women in the economy due, in part, to the growth of the service sector as well as the growth of part time and temporary employment opportunities; these are not traditionally strongly unionised sectors and unions have found it hard to recruit within them.
• Courtesy of Thatcher, legislation in the 1980s reduced union power.
So, if the working class are to ‘man the barricades’ as Fawkes fears, the first job will to be educate and inform them about the key issues. Some will be immediately obvious – rising unemployment, higher levels of poverty and increased homelessness. But what many will not recognise is the link between these scourges on our society and the actions of the Tories and their Liberal lapdogs.
Crow was right when he spoke to the RMT union congress and said, “We cannot sit back and wait while a generation is consigned to the scrap heap and made to pay the price for the mess left behind by the zombie capitalists who dragged the country over the cliff”. He may not like the term ‘zombie’ but what are they, if not a rabid, blood-sucking curse on modern society.
Perhaps Fawkes would prefer it if members of the left gather around in polite little circles, gently applauding the more moderate aspects of new policy emerging from the coalition. Maybe then he would not be so offended when David Miliband stands up and demands a 50% tax rate for the higher paid. Fawkes had better start facing facts – the ‘Loony’ left as he calls them not only are back, they never went away ... and now that the New Labour project is history we will continue to grow.
If this is the best Fawkes can do, he might find himself better suited amongst the Liberal Democrats.
Showing posts with label left. Show all posts
Showing posts with label left. Show all posts
Thursday, 1 July 2010
Thursday, 27 May 2010
The way forward for Labour
The candidates for the leadership of the Labour Party continue to vie for nominations and one can only hope John McDonnell manages to secure the 33 necessary votes to place him on the ballot paper. Unfortunately, there is a real danger Diane Abbott’s entry into the race might split the left vote and leave them both sidelined.
The tragic part of this is both candidates are supremely loyal socialists who, if elected, would radicalise the Labour Party in a way not seen since the days of Keir Hardie, Tom Mann, Ben Tillett, Stafford Cripps or Aneurin Bevan. In fact, there is a strong argument that either Diane or John would take the party on a left-wing path that Labour has never truly accepted. After all, when it comes to the election of a leader, the party has a history full of missed opportunities – take for example Hugh Gaitskell against Harold Wilson (who was then a left-winger), Jim Callaghan against Tony Benn, or even Neil Kinnock against Eric Heffer. Even Michael Foot, with all his allegiances to CND and the Tribune Group proved to be a disappointment to many on the left.
Of course, the reality is that, once again, the party will probably adopt a safer route and select an ‘Ed’ or a ‘David’, rather than take the risk of being true to its conscience. Consequently, as committed as he may be, John McDonnell is unlikely to gain sufficient votes to get through to a second round, much less gain the reins of leadership. But this shouldn’t be enough to stop people voting and fighting for John or joining his campaign. A solid left vote for an LRC endorsed candidate would send a resounding message to any new leader that there is an urgent need to push aside the ideas of the New Labour project.
Many of the problems Labour now face stem from a false belief that Tony Blair, Lord Mandelson and Alastair Campbell could be the salvation to all the party’s ills. This right-wing triumvirate convinced members that abolishing Clause IV, changing the rules surrounding conference procedure and restructuring the party would bring electoral success. It was a mythology that kept them at the heart of government for many years, whilst dedicated party members resigned in droves.
The Labour party won the 1997 election for a number of reasons – in part because the electorate were sick and tired of the Tories, in part because the party offered some very real radical programmes, but also, Tony Blair presented as a charismatic, affable politician in whom the electorate could believe; making him a key vote winner. Unfortunately, by 2001 voters were starting to see through the ‘spin’ and Labour started to lose votes. This spiral was gaining momentum by 2005, but because Labour had established a substantial majority in 1997, it allowed the party some leeway. By then the Labour majority in the house of Commons had reduced from 179 to 66. and when Gordon Brown took over as leader in 2007 it was, in many respects, ‘all change’.
By 2007, the UK had lived through 10 years of Blairism, along with the Iraq war and conflict in Afghanistan. The electorate were starting to see through the media hype of the Third Way, Communitarianism and the New Labour project, and like a plumber trying to block the leaks with his finger, Brown struggled to stay in power. All the polls were sending a clear message that voters were unhappy with the Labour government and they wanted change.
At the same time, Clegg and Cameron were being put onto centre stage as clean faced, bushy tailed young men with new ideas that could cure the ills of the country. Of course, everyone knew we had been through a recession and that we would all have to draw our belts in, but unfortunately, in the 2010 election, the party was unable to expose the underlying right-wing nature of modern Toryism and Liberalism.
So now we have to fight back the right to be considered reputable and worthy of the right to govern this country. We have to show the country and the people in it we can still bring equality and fairness to everyone. And we have to remind electors that once Labour brought to this country an exciting programme of nationalisation, alongside a planned economy and a welfare state where no-one was allowed to fall by the wayside. Labour needs to show that it is a party that brought a national health service where anyone could have free medical care at the point of need, regardless of their background, their upbringing, or their wealth.
If Labour can do that, Conservatives, Liberals and all their wealthy hangers-on will quake with fear and a roller coaster of left-wing ideas will engulf this country, destroying the Con-Dems and pushing them back into the pit of iniquity from which they came.
Tacitus
The tragic part of this is both candidates are supremely loyal socialists who, if elected, would radicalise the Labour Party in a way not seen since the days of Keir Hardie, Tom Mann, Ben Tillett, Stafford Cripps or Aneurin Bevan. In fact, there is a strong argument that either Diane or John would take the party on a left-wing path that Labour has never truly accepted. After all, when it comes to the election of a leader, the party has a history full of missed opportunities – take for example Hugh Gaitskell against Harold Wilson (who was then a left-winger), Jim Callaghan against Tony Benn, or even Neil Kinnock against Eric Heffer. Even Michael Foot, with all his allegiances to CND and the Tribune Group proved to be a disappointment to many on the left.
Of course, the reality is that, once again, the party will probably adopt a safer route and select an ‘Ed’ or a ‘David’, rather than take the risk of being true to its conscience. Consequently, as committed as he may be, John McDonnell is unlikely to gain sufficient votes to get through to a second round, much less gain the reins of leadership. But this shouldn’t be enough to stop people voting and fighting for John or joining his campaign. A solid left vote for an LRC endorsed candidate would send a resounding message to any new leader that there is an urgent need to push aside the ideas of the New Labour project.
Many of the problems Labour now face stem from a false belief that Tony Blair, Lord Mandelson and Alastair Campbell could be the salvation to all the party’s ills. This right-wing triumvirate convinced members that abolishing Clause IV, changing the rules surrounding conference procedure and restructuring the party would bring electoral success. It was a mythology that kept them at the heart of government for many years, whilst dedicated party members resigned in droves.
The Labour party won the 1997 election for a number of reasons – in part because the electorate were sick and tired of the Tories, in part because the party offered some very real radical programmes, but also, Tony Blair presented as a charismatic, affable politician in whom the electorate could believe; making him a key vote winner. Unfortunately, by 2001 voters were starting to see through the ‘spin’ and Labour started to lose votes. This spiral was gaining momentum by 2005, but because Labour had established a substantial majority in 1997, it allowed the party some leeway. By then the Labour majority in the house of Commons had reduced from 179 to 66. and when Gordon Brown took over as leader in 2007 it was, in many respects, ‘all change’.
By 2007, the UK had lived through 10 years of Blairism, along with the Iraq war and conflict in Afghanistan. The electorate were starting to see through the media hype of the Third Way, Communitarianism and the New Labour project, and like a plumber trying to block the leaks with his finger, Brown struggled to stay in power. All the polls were sending a clear message that voters were unhappy with the Labour government and they wanted change.
At the same time, Clegg and Cameron were being put onto centre stage as clean faced, bushy tailed young men with new ideas that could cure the ills of the country. Of course, everyone knew we had been through a recession and that we would all have to draw our belts in, but unfortunately, in the 2010 election, the party was unable to expose the underlying right-wing nature of modern Toryism and Liberalism.
So now we have to fight back the right to be considered reputable and worthy of the right to govern this country. We have to show the country and the people in it we can still bring equality and fairness to everyone. And we have to remind electors that once Labour brought to this country an exciting programme of nationalisation, alongside a planned economy and a welfare state where no-one was allowed to fall by the wayside. Labour needs to show that it is a party that brought a national health service where anyone could have free medical care at the point of need, regardless of their background, their upbringing, or their wealth.
If Labour can do that, Conservatives, Liberals and all their wealthy hangers-on will quake with fear and a roller coaster of left-wing ideas will engulf this country, destroying the Con-Dems and pushing them back into the pit of iniquity from which they came.
Tacitus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
