There is a report on the Socialist Unity Blog and the CWI socialistworld web site wich should be in this weeks edition of the Socialist. Bob Crow calls on unions to consider the formation of a political alternative to new labour among other things. the meeting clashed with SWP jamboree probably a good thing. There was a session at Marxism on thiere Fighting Unions Respect front or whatever it is.

Indeed there is a report on the SU blog, and a good debate:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=607

At a time when the most important task facing trade unions is the simple recruitment and robust representation of workers (particular the almost-entire generation that have emerged into the workplace with no grounding in a unionised culture), I can't help thinking that big long arguments about forming new parties (again!) isn't going to enthuse outsiders greatly.

One of the more unfortunate side-effects of the recent rows over Israel motions in UCU, the NUJ and elsewhere has been that it's given the Right a chance to fly their old line that unions are more interested in "political posturing" than the workplace concerns of their members. Now I'd argue against that, obviously, and also defend absolutely the right of unions to take "political positions" of solidarity on wider issues of national and international concern, but we do have to recognise where we are now (at or near the bottom) and what most pressingly needs to be done.

I read an account on the Socialist Party blog which mentioned Bob Crow's position on the Labour Party. Which is fundamentally wrong. To actively be encouraging left-wing MPs like John McDonnell and thousands of activists still with Labour to leave the Party and found some ill-fated "alternative" is not a position i have much time for. In fact, you could say it makes me incandescent with rage.Jumping off a cliff en masse and finally handing the Party over to the right is not, in my view, a solution to anything.It's just self-indulgent crap.Sorry, but it makes me really angry. All the more so as i have a lot of time for Bob C.

That's alright Susan, your own willingness to encourage to people to stay in the Labour Party for a futile battle which has already been lost and lost and lost again makies me really angry. It's not in my view a solution to anything. It's just self-indulgent crap. etc etc.

Getting back to the point, and away from pointless exchanges with the bewildered remnants of Labour leftism, the event seems to me to have been very promising. 190 delegates from union bodies and stewards is a useful starting point (the rest of the attendance were observers).

Apart from anything else Susan, a few remarks by Brother Crow during his closing speech to the conference seem to be for you the defining issue - this was a conference to establish an industrial network, not a political party. The fact that very few trade unionist there took exception to Crow's remarks tell you something.

And heaven forbid that you should hand the party over to the right. Sorry - in what way is the party not already in the possession of the right?

"Getting back to the point, and away from pointless exchanges with the bewildered remnants of Labour leftism"

We have about 30 MPs, dozens of councillors, thousands of activists, a strong base within the unions and provide the parliamentary representation for even non-affiliated unions such as the FBU and RMT.

What have you got?

As Tom, East London points out, union bosses and activists should be concentrating all their energies on recruitment and reinvigorating trade union appeal. Unions are clearly finding it hard to keep pace with a changing world economy. They still have a fundamental role to play, but there seem to be disagreements over what that role exactly is. I don't think mass union membership will be brought about by unions being associated with splits over boycotting Israel and Bob Crow wanting to set up yet another Socialist Alliance, Respect Coalition, New Workers Party, or whatever.

What the Labour left has is an ever diminishing group of ageing MPs, none of which it can replace as each retires or gives up. It has some councillors certainly. Although your recent McDonnell catastophe rather destroyed your fantasy that you have thousands of activists - a few hundred is more accurate.

What they don't have is the slightest fucking clue. So they just sit there and decompose, occasionally rousing themselves long enough to sit up, blink and look bewildered.

But this, as Andy pointed out, is rather beside the point. The National Shop Steward Network is not an attempt to found a new political organisation, but is instead an industrial body. If our Labour left friends want to continue posting on this thread perhaps they might share their opinions on it, rather than boring us all with their delusions about the Labour Party.

"Although your recent McDonnell catastophe rather destroyed your fantasy that you have thousands of activists - a few hundred is more accurate."

Evidence for that assertion? Are you assuming that anyone who didn't attend a John4Leader rally in London isn't a leftist?

"What they don't have is the slightest fucking clue. So they just sit there and decompose, occasionally rousing themselves long enough to sit up, blink and look bewildered."

Wonderful bit of unsolicited abuse which I'm itching to return but won't for now.

"But this, as Andy pointed out, is rather beside the point. The National Shop Steward Network is not an attempt to found a new political organisation, but is instead an industrial body. If our Labour left friends want to continue posting on this thread perhaps they might share their opinions on it, rather than boring us all with their delusions about the Labour Party."

I've no problem with it at all and went to the launch conference last year. The problem is if it is used, as seemed to be implied by Bob Crow, to undermine the Labour Party and its union links. That would be the end of parliamentary socialist politics in the UK IMO.

Mark P, "190 delegates is a useful starting-point." Indeed. I'm expecting roughly that for an event in September which is being organised in my constituency by local Labour Party members of the Labour Representation Committee. No-one here is "decomposing." No-one here has delusions either. But I'm having no problems at all getting people to sign up - indeed I expect to have to turn people away as we won't have room for them all.
I might point out a significant number who have expressed an interest in this REGIONAL event are well under 25. Plenty to fight on when we are dead.....
The Shop Stewards Network is an excellent idea. I wish it well.
The Labour Govt is undoubtedly right-wing. Much of the Labour Party is not. As Owen said, 30 MPs, hundreds of councillors and thousands of trade unionists and activists.

"What the Labour left has is an ever diminishing group of ageing MPs, none of which it can replace as each retires or gives up."

Left Labour MPs elected in the Blair era:

Jon Trickett - elected in byelection in 1996.

John McDonnell and Mike Wood (his campaign manager) were both elected in 1997. Other left MPs elected in 1997 were David Drew, Ann Cryer, John Cryer (he lost his seat at the last election but is likely to return at the next), Ian Gibson, Kelvin Hopkins, David Taylor, Martin Caton and Bob Marshall-Andrews.

At the 2001 election, David Heyes and David Hamilton were elected.

At the 2005 general election, Linda Riordan, Katy Clark and Nia Griffith were elected.

"It has some councillors certainly. Although your recent McDonnell catastophe rather destroyed your fantasy that you have thousands of activists - a few hundred is more accurate."

No, the conclusions to be drawn from the John4Leader episode were to do with the make-up of the PLP and not to do with the composition of the Labour Party. For example, a recent YouGov poll revealed overwhelming support in the party and affiliated unions for progressive policies - from tax to Iraq to anti-privatisation to Trident. At the last elections to the NEC, party members elected 4 leftwingers to the 6 places. So yes, we do have thousands of activists as well as dozens of socialist councillors (as opposed to the derisory number the extra-LP left have).

"What they don't have is the slightest fucking clue. So they just sit there and decompose, occasionally rousing themselves long enough to sit up, blink and look bewildered."

No, it's you who doesn't have a clue. The extra-Labour Left has never got anywhere. Its achievements are effectively zilch. Attempts at left splits from the Labour party - whether the ILP or SLP or Militant - simply led to those factions withering into total obscurity and losing whatever political influence they once had. The extra-Labour Left has no base in the labour movement or the working class more broadly. And yet you continue to stand candidates that get about 1% of the vote while squabbling amongst yourselves about the correct position to take on Malawi whilst pompously lecturing the Labour Left about its supposed irrelevance.

Sorry to sound immature but take a look in the mirror...

"If our Labour left friends want to continue posting on this thread perhaps they might share their opinions on it, rather than boring us all with their delusions about the Labour Party."

As opposed to the entirely realistic aspirations of the extra-Labour Left that are so grounded in history.

Jeff asks for my evidence for my assertion that there are hundreds rather than thousands of Labour left activists. Owen prefers his usual semi-religious bluster. I've answered much the same question from our friends on the rump Labour left before here, and my answer hasn't changed:

The actual number of socialist or left activists in the Labour Party can be easily and relatively accurately assessed by looking at the real numbers which the Labour left can gather on the ground in its organisations, at its events, and in wider campaigns and struggles.

It is certainly true that the Labour left once could muster tens of thousands of activists. Now it's main open, public conferences organised by its last remaining institutuions (like the Campaign Group and the LRC) can gather a maximum of 300 or so people. Including everyone which the remaining entryist grouplets can scrape together. This is, of course, quite a lot less than the larger extra-Labour Party socialist groups can gather.

The attempt by the LRC, by far the most widely supported remaining element of the Labour left, to found a youth wing managed to pull together a little over a hundred people, not all of whom were particularly active. And again that included all of the various entryists. This is the kind of scale which the youth fronts of the mid-tier Trotskyist groups operate at, something like the Alliance for Workers Liberty's Education Not for Sale or Workers Power's Revolution. It would be regarded as a disaster by the SWP, the Socialist Party or the pre-split SSP.

The McDonnell campaign itself provides another illustration of the numbers of actual left activists still in the Labour Party. It represented the most unified and organised action by the combined Labour left in a long time. And it's most notable feature was its small scale in terms of bodies on the ground as activists. Even taking into account all of the entryist groups, the retired revolutionaries, the people who rejoined to help out, the number of people who actively got involved in the campaign can be measured in the hundreds rather than the thousands.

In terms of wider campaigns, the anti-war movement was by far the largest campaign going in the last period and again one of its most notable features was the low profile of Labour left activists on the ground. The remaining Labour left MPs were on the platforms, but for the first time in a century the marches were practically devoid of Labour banners with a range of extra-Labour socialist groups individually having a higher profile than the entire Labour left. The local anti-war groups told a similar story, with Labour activists significantly outnumbered pretty much everywhere.

When I hear these arguments about the size of the Labour left, I am reminded of nothing so much as medieval scholastic debates about the numbers of angels who can dance on the head of a pin. Where are these thousands of activists? Are they hiding under a rock somewhere in Scunthorpe? Or is it that they are simply figments of your imagination?

What use are "Labour left activists" who we can't see or hear or touch or smell? Who do nothing, have no impact and leave no evidence of their existence? This is the stuff of religion, not of politics. Much the same can be said of claims that Labour is a party of the working class because Lenin said it was a capitalist workers party in 1920, as it was in the beginning, so shall it be in the end, amen.

(I apologise for contributing further to the thread derail by the way, and shall try to avoid any further exchanges with our Labour left friends on this thread).

Has anyone on the extra Labour left got any sort of practical plan for how any of their various group(lets) could come to close to the level of representation and impact currently provided by the Labour Left?

I'd be genuinely interested.

"The McDonnell campaign itself provides another illustration of the numbers of actual left activists still in the Labour Party. It represented the most unified and organised action by the combined Labour left in a long time. And it's most notable feature was its small scale in terms of bodies on the ground as activists."

Still no evidence for this assertion?

"In terms of wider campaigns, the anti-war movement was by far the largest campaign going in the last period and again one of its most notable features was the low profile of Labour left activists on the ground."

It's pointless to compare an intra-party campaign like the McDonnell one with a huge society-wide one over an issue of global concern. Of course, the latter will be bigger than the former. But I do think the anti-war campaign (vital as it was and is) has become over-venerated, become seen as proof of some huge radical leftward swing in British society when, frankly, it wasn't. Did the many and various Lib Dems, "tea drinkers against the war", socially conservative religious groups involved in the anti-war campaigns all return home from the marches and start Building For Socialism? Mostly, they did not.

Which brings us back to rebuilding trade unionism and workplace democracy. Because until we do that, arguing over what parties are worth supporting is just gonna seem like pointless bitchslapping. Though the fact that none of the left-of-labour alternatives formed since 1994 have got anywhere is certainly worth taking into consideration

Wot Owen & Tom said.

The non-Labour Left is a joke. It has not achieved anything of note in my lifetime, it has no popular support and no sense of where the UK is really at in 2007. It's basically just an ever-shrinking group of middle-aged wastrels and gullible students. I bet I could come back to this blog in 10 years and find a slightly smaller, slightly more bitter group of basically the same people, just further back even compared to the miniscule level of influence they have now.

How many times have we had this discussion before?

It might be permissible of it were new people making points but its the same names (including mine) and even some of the comments are cut and pasted from before.

I agree with Mark P but Owen etc won't be changing their minds anytime soon. Only developments (if they happen) will change minds (in either direction).

Does anyone have anything new to say - how we can work together, get out of this very big hole?

Have a major war maybe, that always shakes things up.

I bet I could come back to this blog in 10 years and find a slightly smaller, slightly more bitter group of basically the same people, just further back even compared to the miniscule level of influence they have now.

I'm sure your 'comrades' outside the party feel exactly the same about the Labour left.

Eighteen years ago, when I was involved in the Socialist Society, I wrote this defining our approach:

In 1980 the END Appeal urged us "to act as if a united, neutral and pacific Europe already exist[ed]"; two years later, the founders of the Socialist Society expressed similar views with regard to the British Left. Their argument was that if we are to organise as socialists, without either devoting our efforts to transforming the Labour Party or ostentatiously turning our backs on it, the time to start is now.

I still think that's the approach that's needed - party chauvinism (on either side) will get us nowhere. Which is why the NSSN looks like such a hopeful development, even if there are people within it who take unpalatable positions on the Party Question.

I must repeat that the NSSN has no aspiration to found a political organisation, and were such a position advanced within it there are several members of the steering committee who would oppose it.

It just strikes me as paranoia that the labout lefts on the thread have pounced on a relataviely off the cuff remark from Bob Crow. Even then Crow was talking about what the RMT might do, not what he was proposing for the NSSN. This is your obsession not ours - we want a shop stewards network, not a squabbling playground for political hacks.

Crow was not even a delegate to the conference but a guest/observer, as unions full time officers could not be delegates.

The issue is that militant trade unionists can't ignore the Labour Party. The strategy has to be one thing or the other. Either organise to get the unions to destabilise the existing link by fighting against the Brown neo-liberal parliamentary elite and for working class policies within the labour/union structures, or alternatively, press for disaffiliation and getting the unions to set up a new party to compete with labour.

Bob Crow's 'strategy' is neither one nor the other, it is pure piss and wind.

I'm told that Bob has been lecturing John Mc Donnell along the lines that the outcome of the leadership election means that his strategy has failed. What Bob doesn't understand is that at least Mc Donnell has a strategy.

Getting the RMT to be 'disaffiliated' by the Labour Party for backing the SSP was a pure stunt. It allowed Bob to 'talk the talk' at lefty events, but meanwhile do nothing in practice to build a political alternative that would challenge Brown's hegemony over the political labour movement. In practice it makes the RMT less of a vehicle for working class representation in politics than those unions like TGWU or CWU for instance that remain affilaited and fight on issues like trade union rights.

I'm told there is a growing realisation among RMT activists that the union should try and get back in the labour Party. That would be a step forward, but Bob's ego would find it a hard step to make.

The strategy has to be one thing or the other.

That, to my mind, is precisely the strategy that's always failed. We should find ways to work together inside and outside the Labour Party - I can't believe there aren't any.

Jack:; I'm told there is a growing realisation among RMT activists that the union should try and get back in the labour Party.

Really - who told you that? No RMT branch has ever submitted a motion calling for re-entry. And the RMT has grown from some 50000 members to some 75000 members during the yars of Crow's leadership. Of the 29 MPs that backed McD 22 were sponsored by the RMT, which has one of the most active parleimentary trade union groups.

Jack: The strategy has to be one thing or the other.

Is that the full poverty of your imagination?

Tom P wrote:

"Wot Owen & Tom said.

The non-Labour Left is a joke. It has not achieved anything of note in my lifetime, it has no popular support and no sense of where the UK is really at in 2007. It's basically just an ever-shrinking group of middle-aged wastrels and gullible students. I bet I could come back to this blog in 10 years and find a slightly smaller, slightly more bitter group of basically the same people, just further back even compared to the miniscule level of influence they have now."

Dave,

does Tom P get a prize for using the term "wastrel"? Nothing like a (old) new insult to whet the blogging palate.

More please.

"does Tom P get a prize for using the term "wastrel"? Nothing like a (old) new insult to whet the blogging palate."

haha, yeah I was hoping someone would mention that! I'm sure Marx uses it somewhere?

but back to the subject - what really annoys me is the waste of time and effort politically motivated people on the Left put into these irrelevant splinter groups. We have a Labour government - there ARE opportunities to push things forward. But the impression I get from many non-Labour lefties is that they will be happier when Labour finally gets booted out so they can write an essay about the great betrayal and how it was historically inevitable, rather than actually do anything positive.

I also disagree with the idea that the reason that people aren't flocking to the unions is because they aren't militant enough. Clearly in some companies it is important that the union is seen as "strong", but in others people want the union to help them get on, not fight the bosses. The RMT is in a pretty unique position in that they can still inflict a lot of damage through strike action, I'm not so sure others can, or that their members want them to.

"I'm sure your 'comrades' outside the party feel exactly the same about the Labour left."

You're probably right, but who cares? They are politically irrelevant.

" The non-Labour Left is a joke. It has not achieved anything of note in my lifetime "

Huh? The Vietnam Solidarity campaign, probably helped achieve withdrawal a bit and certainly meant it was harder for Harold Wilson to give British support to the Lyndon Johnson's stupid reactionary war.
The ANL, stopped the growth of the NF.
Organising the National Abortion campaign. Didn't that help women's rights a bit?
The Stop the War Coalition? - largest demo in British history.

The anti-Poll tax campaign wasn't exactly organised by Kinnock either, and did the Labour leadership say, well done lads and lasses, you helped topple Thatcher (which was supposed to be their job)?

No they bloody well didn't, they slung 'em out the party and elected a leader who proceeded to prevent anything being done to reverse Thatcher's rampage through union rights and destruction of manufacturing industry in the UK.

Which goes some way to explaining why the Labour left has become so ineffectual in the intervening years, I'd suggest.

I realise that Owen is a young chap - though he seems to have have had enough experience of the way Bob Pitt operates enough to enlighten him of the way Livinstone's henchemen operate. See his stand on McDonnell.

I would just point out that, since he is in Haringey, that the left once controlled the council. Friends and close comrades, such as Adelaide's husband, Peter - Head of Planning - were involved. It was a favourite target of the Evening Standard. Not to mention the Sun - Headline, Her Name is Mud - about Tottenham Councillor Mandy Mud. Or the campaign against Dave Palmer's bookshop in Wood Green (I'm told he's now a Liberal Democrat voter btw).

All gone. Utterly gone.

And the left lost its last remaining local councillor, in Bounds Green (where I grew up), in the last local elections.

Where we have some remaining strength is in the unions - not that it counts for much. Though I would back the RMT campaign - better than that crooked SWP Front orga (can't remember its name).

Some comedian said a short while ago: all that's left of socialism is a few powerless unions and the Co-Op. Not too wrong.

Alex

Vietnam was before my time.
What did the ANL really achieve? The BNP are far more successful politically than the NF ever were.
The Tories won in 1992 despite the Poll Tax campaign.
And Stop The War didn't stop the war.

the Left (Labour or otherwise) needs to focus on what really causes working people grief in their lives. too often, in my view, non-Labour lefties seem to see working people as the means to achieve their political ends, rather than seeing working people's interests as the reason for being in politics in the first place. recent twattery in the unions about boycotts of Israel being a rather glaring example.

"recent twattery in the unions about boycotts of Israel being a rather glaring example."

Recent 'twattery' in the unions has nothing to do with this so stop changing the subject. If anything, it is aimed (though possibly not successfully) at improving the lives of working people in Palestine.

Back on the subject.

Tom, I agree with a good deal of what you say but don't fall for all this "recent twattery about Israel" stuff. This stuff has all been deliberately blown out of proportion by the right (in and outside unions) in an attempt to portray them, misleadingly, as more concerned with "token gestures" than their members' concerns. This simply isn't true. Don't fall for it.

But anyway, Alex, you list an impressive array of single-issue campaigns, but that's precisely what they are - single-issue campaigns. You can't compare them to a whole political party, or a faction within a party. And the fact is, impressive though those campaigns were in many ways, the left-of-labour parties involved in many of them do not, currently, possess much strength, popularity or potential to progress much.

We need to get over all this stuff and remember that we are ALL in a pretty weak position, which is why rebuilding trade unionism (not as a vehicle for any particular party or political perspective, but as an empowering and radical tool for working people) is the absolute priority here. And this conference seemed like a decent start.

Is it possible to debate anything on Osler's blog without it turing into the same futile argument about whether or not people should be in the Labour party.

The blame for which in this thread lies with the obsession of the Labour "left" in whether or not Crow is intending an electoral alternative to Labour.

It seems to me that the Labour left see nothing in the unions except a cash cow, and foot soldiers for their own campaigns within the Labour party.

The quiuestion should be - What are the Labour left doing to help organiswed labour, not the other way round.

If all you see from the NSSN is a threat to the marginal toehold you retain in thr Lbaour Party, then we will draw our own conclusions.See you on the piuicket lines "comrades", we'll be the ones on the side of the worlers, you'll be the ones in the same political party as the bosses.

"It seems to me that the Labour left see nothing in the unions except a cash cow, and foot soldiers for their own campaigns within the Labour party."

No we don't. See my previous post. So anyway, what is the relative industrial strength of various people's here's unions? What've you got going on at the moment?

"It seems to me that the Labour left see nothing in the unions except a cash cow, and foot soldiers for their own campaigns within the Labour party."

Then you're a fooking div.

Sorry, but there's no way around it.

I was on the picket line this morning bringing a message of support from our CLP.

"If all you see from the NSSN is a threat to the marginal toehold you retain in thr Lbaour Party, then we will draw our own conclusions.See you on the piuicket lines "comrades", we'll be the ones on the side of the worlers, you'll be the ones in the same political party as the bosses."

No, that arose because of Bob Crow AT THE NSSN talking about it. EVERYONE from the Labour Left on this thread has said they have NO PROBLEM with the NSSN. CAN YOU READ?

The idea that obscure left sects speak for the workers is one of the most laughable things ever.

Apologies to Dave and everyone else for sinking to Andy's level of debate/insults.

PS I'm a shop steward and active in our union's Young Members section. And see what unions are for every day of the week. So bollocks to you and your "the Labour left see nothing in the unions except a cash cow".

"It seems to me that the Labour left see nothing in the unions except a cash cow, and foot soldiers for their own campaigns within the Labour party."

That is simply not true. Our main priority is to get the unions to actually use their influence to support progressive policies and the left within the party.

Given the energy we put in to representing the unions in Parliament and occasionally having to drag them kicking and screaming to actually stand up for their policies in the political arena I don't really think this is a fair criticism.

I support the NSSN as a very positive, healthy development that should be encouraged and developed. There is a separate issue here - and that is a) the fact that the RMT has lost most of its political influence by disaffiliating from the Labour party, and only retains its political influence through a parliamentary group of Labour MPs; and b) elements within the RMT leadership are apparently preparing to stand candidates in the forthcoming London Assembly elections in an act of futile ultra-left adventurism.

The extra-LP far left mocks us for "only" getting 29 MPs to nominate John McDonnell in the leadership election. This smacks a little bit of chutzpah given the highest number of MPs the far left has ever got at any one time is 2 - i.e. the Communist Party in the unique circumstances of 1945 (note that the CP ironically got more by standing as Labour candidates in the 20s). When there have been left splits from the Labour party - the ILP, Militant and the SLP - they have always and without exception declined in to total obscurity and irrelevance.

It's a little bit amusing that irrelevant sectarians such as Mark P have the audacity to dismiss the Labour Left as irrelevant - but above all it smacks of an embarrassing lack of self-awareness.

If the left were to abandon the Labour Party, this is what would happen:

1) We would lose the 30 or so socialist MPs that we currently have, and no longer have parliamentary spokesmen for the labour movement such as John McDonnell;

2) We would lose our base within the unions and the wider labour movement;

3) We would lose dozens of socialist councillors right across the country;

4) We would lose contact with less politically conscious but still progressively minded activists;

5) Non-affiliated unions such as the RMT, FBU and PCS would lose their parliamentary representation;

6) We'd be left with only the irrelevant sects on the fringes of the labour movement for company, engaged in life-or-death struggles over pressing issues as whether we should have a workers' or a popular militia and over which side we should give critical military support to in the Angolan civil war.

That's what happened to the ILP and Militant when they left the party. The first time history repeats itself it's a tragedy, the second (or third or fourth) time it's a farce. Fortunately there's no prospect of such total lunacy happening, no matter how much towering giants of the labour movement such as Mark P describe us as decomposing or irrelevant.

"We need to get over all this stuff and remember that we are ALL in a pretty weak position, which is why rebuilding trade unionism (not as a vehicle for any particular party or political perspective, but as an empowering and radical tool for working people) is the absolute priority here."

exactly.

but let's also be clear that a lot of non-unionised workers are put off by militant rhetoric and posturing on foreign policy.

Anybody read Raising Lazarus by the former head of economics at the TUC? Most of you will hate it, but it talks a lot of sense in my opinion.

http://fabians.org.uk/publications/ideas/coats-unions-05/

Owen:

I support the NSSN as a very positive, healthy development that should be encouraged and developed. There is a separate issue here

...which you then address at great length, saying nothing more about the NSSN. It's irrelevant, it's provocative, it's counter-productive and it's getting rather boring.

I honestly don't understand this mentality (and some non-Labour socialists are just as bad). If we're going to get anywhere, we surely need to accept that other socialists have the 'wrong' line on the party question and work with them anyway. The interesting (and productive) questions are all about how we do that.

re "twattery", I think a more careful examination of the issue would show that it the organised "extra-Labour left" are not the main motivation behind the recent motions in the unions.

re. Single issue campaigns. I agree that just adding them up doesn't not a party make, nevertheless they are achievements and it was not the Labour left who generally instigated them (unless you count Militant)

The thing is that I fully support attempts to make LP representatives accountable to the unions they represent and which sponsor them.

I've certainly spent time at the Commons with both my local MP, who supported us on strike, then moved towards being a Blairite sell-out and various and lobbying various LP big-wigs, who were always sell outs.

How nice it would be it we were all one big happy family and conference motions were abide with and all that....

Apart from John McDonell, there has been silence from the ‘labour left’ and indeed all the left on the Welfare Reform Act: An draconian act which will see disabled people threatened with significant loss of benefits and forced into unsuitable work or even medical interventions. An ever more intrusive and brutal welfare regime and the threat of losing homes as housing benefit in the private rented sector is replaced by a fixed rate allowance for each city

This is very disappointing, I would hope that they and whats left of the left start to take such welfare issues seriously.Perhaps by taking on these concerns of ordinary people instead of obssessing over often abstract international issues and the minutae of internal left tensions, they may get somewhere.

OK Frenetic, point taken ... do me a guest post, please.

OK Frenetic, point taken. And I admit I don't have much expertise on this one. Fancy doing a guest post?

Been an interesting thread,

I'll chip in my two pence worth, another reason that the Left (in or out of the Labour Party) does so poorly, is that it does not appear very relevant to the working-class

let's not forget that trade union membership is appallingly low (about 1 in 3), so having a few large demos may make people feel good, but that's about it, much like a social function for Guardian readers (instead of Ascot?), what do they achieve in the long-term?

issues of real importance to the working classes, such as welfare "reform", privatisation/return to public ownership, public housing are hardly on the radar

and it shouldn't be too hard to work out why such issues not of great concern to many Lefties, they are boring and a bit too earthy for some

the class composition of the Left is one of its greatest impediments, and until it is seen (or can make itself seen) as relevant to the working-class, then the support in the working class will be decidedly limited or restricted to bureaucratic sleight of hand (getting a few Lefties elected to a union position) and that don't really deal with the underlying problems

I think I agree with pretty much all of that - particularly the bit about activists finding the important issues boring.

I used to do a lot of work on pensions in the unions. People found pensions dead boring until the shit hit the fan about 5 years ago. Most of the political campaigning was on the state pension, not occupational schemes. As a result we got totally overwhelmed and suffer a massive defeat in the private sector. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the collapse of good occupational schemes in the private sector is the biggest defeat the labour movement has suffered for years, it is effectively a significant pay cut for millions of working people. But because pensions is still often seen as a dull issue the scope of the defeat often goes unrecognied.

The discussion is about what political strategy militant shop stewards should press for their unions to adopt.

The fundamental weakness with the lsabour left has always been its class character and the fact that it has pretty poor roots in the unions - if any roots at all. The left outside the LP aren't any better.

I personally don't give a flying fuck about the union supporting labour left causes.What I care about is the unions fighting politically for their own policies. Issues like building council houses again, equal rights for agency workers, repealing the ban on solidarity strike action. That requires starting a proper fight with the leaderhip of the labour party. Rather than bottling out as for instance the non LP left leadership of PCS did over pensions. When we had the spectacle of a marxist leadership of a union - - yes a Marxist leadership - going round telling members to vote for a deal which kicked away the ladder and locked the young generation of workers out of the pension scheme.

As a Labour leftwinger on the UNISON NEC I am very bored with the debate about whether or not we should be in the Labour Party.

Good socialist comrades in the trade unions need to cooperate to make our unions more effective and an exclusive focus on this divisive question is hardly helpful!

I missed the NSSN Conference because I couldn't be there but I very much hope that it develops further as what it should be, a mechanism to coordinate rank and file militancy.

I think we need to kick the party question in England to one side -- to a degree, I mean, its not going to go away. The NSSM *isn't* about electoral politics, nor should it be.

There's a question about, well, should there be a continued financial link to the party from the unions.

If there's nothing better than the few dozen labour left MPs, it may be better to go the way of giving backing to those people who are for building the unions and helping working people rather than giving it to the central party.

But i will say this -- labour might survive as a party of government in Wales and Scotland if those national parties can accept that the process of devolution is leading to national independence -- but I think the future is bleak in england.

I've been in the Labour Party for 26 years but have not been very active because I think the real struggle against capitalism is in the workplace.
And the forum where we can all work together - whether we are Labourists, socialists, Troskyists, communists, anarchists, or Engelists - is in the unions where we all support strikes and campaigns.
Anything that tries to bring us together is good - so I welcome the National Shop Stewards Network and Organise for Fighting Unions.
I've only been to meetings of the latter because they have organised events in Manchester.
We should use these networks to build support for each other's struggles at a local level,
We should also make an effort to get left people onto the trades union councils which exist in every town, have generally small meetings, and give us some control of the official movement in our localities.
Even union full-timers and regional officers are well to the left of the Labour Party. The North West TUC conference - for example - was unanimous in condemning academies, PFI, and other new Labour nonsense.
I think we need to use these networks of official and unofficial union activity to take trade unionism into the private sector.
We could pick an industrial estate in each town and make a commitment to regular trade union stalls, leafleting, and contact with the workers.
Recruiting members, taking up their concerns, fighting for recognition for whichever is the most relevent union.
We need to make enough of a stir for people to notice.
Bob Crow, Mark Sewotka, Matt Wrack, Jeremey Dear - or whoever - could be invited to speak at meetings either on or near the site to tell people why they need unions.
We need to cut out the media and take the message direct to the workers.

Yep, agree with all that, particularly the last part. Much of our work has to be about that basic point - explaining to people (particularly that entire generation that's come into the workplace not aware or inculcated into the ways of trade unionism) just WHY they need unions. And you don't need high-falutin' class language to do so - just that it's about workplace democracy, about having a say in your own pay and conditions, in your destiny. The rest can follow from that.

I also think unions should be linking themselves to other community campaigns and to service users (call them 'consumers' if we must) - over housing, welfare, local amenities etc - so that we're not just seen as protecting 'vested interests'. The work done with TELCO in east London is a good (though not perfect) example of this, as is the NUJ's Journalism Matters campaign, which is about broadening the struggle against low pay and job cuts into explaining why these have such a negative effect on our democracy and on the standard of journalistic product delivered to the public.

To Frentic and Dave again - please this is very important. One of my closest comrades is the co-ordinator of a Community Resource Centre. And she tells me of this threat. The fear that many disabled, a very broad category which affects the lives of many of those living in dire straits, (not to mention people in 'care in the community') have.

There was a comrade here involved in the Direct Action Disabled movement but he's now back in South London. So we've lost touch a bit with the campaign.

If you can supply us with information I will raise it at our forthcoming Trades Council, and through that it will go to the TUC-JCC. Or, thought of writing for the Briefing or Chartist etc?

Louise has posted a few peieces about the Welfare Reform bill on thr SU blog:

http://www.socialistunity.com/?cat=90
http://www.socialistunity.com/?cat=128

Andrew, Dave, this is all very strange, why haven't the left picked up on all this? it is the biggest piece of welfare legislation since the war, yet it has slipped in almost unnoticed. What is also significant is the the select committee which oversaw these ruthless changes is of course, labour dominated, kate humble is on it and the chair is terry rooney. labour party members may want to ask what were they doing, some disabled people will lose up to 40 pounds a week.The DWP is out of control: claimants are harrassed, spyed on,
DWP doctors routinely lie about medical results, etc, benefits are now minimal with much conditionality, and yet it is going to get worse, much worse.

btw dave I will certainly do a guest post, do you have any guidelines, the issues are complex and need a fair bit of space.

I will send you some info,

have a look on sheffield welfare action networks
website, www.swansheffield.org.uk

Btw, excellent post Tom, Unions have to think outside the box, building links and support in the wider community, an easy start is sponsoring campaigns, community festivals, etc...

I also think unions should be linking themselves to other community campaigns and to service users (call them 'consumers' if we must) - over housing, welfare, local amenities etc - so that we're not just seen as protecting 'vested interests'.

Posted by Tom, east London | 16:21, 14 July 2007

Frenetic: Yeah, Terry Rooney is utterly unbelievable. He chaired the meeting organised by the PCS re: Freud Review. I still can't quite understand why the PCS decided to have that joker to chair as right at the end he gave the a positive endorsement of Freud....!!!! Serwotka et al all looked bemused to say the least. So, why the PCS got him to chair knowing his position on Freud and the Welfare Reform Act is beyond me.

I think the language being used in the Freud Review etc. is based upon the market and Jim Murphy and the John Hutton referred to "consumers". And all this guff about being a "citizen" and being given "choices" etc. etc.

And it will get worse with conditionality tests and claimants being transferred over to this new benefit will be a bureaucratic nightmare. And it will be the powerless who will lose out. I am sure Workfare is on the cards.

I have written posts on Welfare Reform Act and Freud on both the Socialist Unity Blog and Union Future Blog. And articles in Labour Briefing.

But Frenetic, I agree with you, these attacks have not really appeared on the radar of the Left, same with the changes to the Mental Health Act, which is one draconian and authoritarian piece of legislation.

Hi Louise

I did try to post links here to the articles you had written on this subject but they dissappeared into Osler's black whole of moderation for comments with more than one link in them.

Yes, and the right wing Orange Book L/D David Laws has just been on the politics show, signalling a shift to the right including a voucher scheme for schools and pertinent to this discussion, cutting Incapacity Benefit down to JSA level, 54.00 a week, how do they think chronically ill people for instance who may need extra laundry, etc can live on that? It seems like all parties are racing to attack the livelihoods of disabled people, where is the left?

Louise wrote:

these attacks have not really appeared on the radar of the Left, same with the changes to the Mental Health Act,

what else would you expect from a middle class dominated Left? it ain't their problem

after all many of them are probably engrossed in the utterances of the chattering classes or intoxicated reading the Guardian's latest tipbits

popping along to a few demonstrations is a lot more sexy than dealing with the real issues that affect the disabled or the working classes

While I take you general point about the left being relativley quiet on these issues, i think it is unfair to ascribe this to class position.

It is more to do with the fact that the left both inside and outsdie nthe LP is utterely marginal and almost unable to infuence events. So what would their opposition entail, a couple of articles in papers no-one reads?

On other issues, like the Remploy closures, the movement is far from silent, becasue the issues affect people at work - and it is the unions who have potential muscle and influence not the left groups or Labour left

I think this is nonsense, for example, what ever I think of the anti-war movement, it became very significant, this was not ordained, it is because the left in all its varieties got behind it. To me, there is a 'hierarachy of oppression on the left and in wider civil society and people on welfare, etc are at the bottom of it. For at least two years, there were conferences and national demos organised by disability action groups against the Welfare Reform BIll, there was even one at the L/P conference last year, yet the left was no where to be seen and here we are talking about people who will usually march at the drop of a hat. The left is indeed, largely ineffectual, but it can still get issues on the agenda, raise the profile. Imo, what it chooses to prioritise speaks volumes about its current nature and purpose.

'It is more to do with the fact that the left both inside and outsdie nthe LP is utterely marginal and almost unable to infuence events. So what would their opposition entail, a couple of articles in papers no-one reads?'

Frenetic - you have an absurd over-estimation of th ability of the left to shape the political agenda.

I am not knocking the efforts of those who do write about this and publicise it - that is useful For example Lousie Whittle's artciels have been good and useful. perhaps even you when you are not too cowardly to use your real name, publicise the issue usefully.

But the left simply cannot set the polictical agenda - look at the 2005 general election, neiether the left inside or outsedie the LP made any appreciable difference on the main issues that the election was fought over.

It is simply beyond the current resources and influence of the left to summon a campaign about welfare benefits into existance.

Er, there was one, see above, it was called Campaign Against the Welfare Reform Bill, set up by amongst others, the United Kingdom's Disabled People's Council (UKDPC)and Sheffield Welfare Action Network) here is the link for our protest against the WRB at the LP conf*, as i say it was largely untroubled by the left. We needed support and solidarity, not being led, organised, etc, we didn't get it.I will say again, echoing Louise, poverty, inequality seems to have gone off the left's radar

*http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/10/352351.html

btw, i have very good reasons for being anonymous

It is simply beyond the current resources and influence of the left to summon a campaign about welfare benefits into existance.

Frenetic: btw, i have very good reasons for being anonymous

yeah, yeah, but the trouble is that when people use psedonyms it means we cannot judge whether or not they have standing to make the remarks they make. If my doctor told me I needed surgery i would take his advice, if a bloke in the pub said it I wouldn't.

I am not sure wat you think the left could have done, given how weak and small it is. Indeed one of its weaknesses is that the organised left doesn't usually mobilise for events it doesn't initiate itself - in which case you are only in the same boat as everyone else.

BTW - the disagreement I have with you is only that you seem to think that the left are failing your campaign and on this issue, whereas i think you are not recognising how weak the left is.

So there was a campaign against the bill, good. So what is your complaint, that no-one came and sold you socialist papers?

That campaign never contacted my trade union branch, or the local trades council etc. There was no launch meeting of that campaign by disability activists in my town, so how are we as labour movement activists supposed to show solidarity? What exactly was the failing?

In any event I note that some trade unions do have policy against the Welfare Reform bill. And the MOrning Star did report the campaign.

AN wrote:

whether or not they have standing to make the remarks they make.

so what is the Left now ? a branch of the Freemasons? a private club? or does everyone need to go to an Oxbridge University to qualify?

what a load of rubbish,

if Frenetic chooses to remain anonymous that is her/his choice, there may be many very good reasons, of which you don't know or wouldn't appreciate

so deal with the political issues that Frenetic argues, and leave the rest out

"modrnity"

This is bollocks.

Given that we don't know what "Frenetic" herself/himself has done to raise the issue of disability rights, and given that we don't know what she/he has done to raise the issue with the left, and given that we don't know what positions she/he holds in the movement, then we are unable to assess what she/he means by the failure of the left to take up these issues.

These are very concrete issues, if i am told by someone on the regional council of my union that such and such was done or said by the regional secretary, then I would think that she/he had good standing to make that remark, especially as if it were not true it would reflect on their own reputation.

If someone using a ridiculous pseudonym makes the same comment then I have no way f knowing whether she/he has any basis for knowing that information, and if it is wring then there is no damage to the reputation of the real person hiding behind the silly mask.

And yes - in my book identifiable comrades who have been elected to actual positions in the movement, meaning that they have a reputation to protect/defend, and who are prepared to say what they think publicaly, and have to convince other people of it, have more weight than people who snipe from a position of anonymity. That is a principle of democracy surely?

I appreciate that some people some times have reasons for using pseudonyms, but when so doing they should be aware that their coments are taken less seriously than from someone who is actually traceable back to a real person.

You personally "Modernity" have hid behing a ridiculous pseudonym while implying that clearly identificable real people with positions in the labour movememnt, and who have excellent and traceable track records of opposing racism, are moved by anti-semitism. pesonnaly I find that distasteful. if you have accusations to make you should make them in your own name so that people can answr their accusers - shit or get off the pot.

In this case, the accusation that "the left" don't care about disability rights and poverty, is a very broad brush attack, and it isn't clear what it even means. After all the T&G are clearly part of the left, and their conference voted against the Freud review. The Morning Star are clearly part of the left, and they have reported against the Freud review. On the other hand the labour Party, who many on this blog tells us are part of the legf are actually introducing the welfare reform.

We can reasonably ask - and Frenetic's standing within the disability rights campaign is relevent here as to her or his credibility to answer - is what did the campiagn do to raise its profile with the organised left? Or are the SP and SWP et al being criticised for not being psychic?

andy newman wrote:

given that we don't know what she/he has done to raise the issue with the left, and given that we don't know what positions she/he holds in the movement,

so essentially you're suggesting that Frenetic's views are given some credence by his or her "position" in the movement??

you really should re-read your own typing?

what an elitist pile of rubbish

frenetic's observations stand on their own or they fall, not because of the person's "position", or numerous degrees from Oxbridge, but on if those observations and opinions are true or not

that's fairly basic logic

so either the Left has taken the disability issues seriously or it hasn't, if the latter then it would be constructive to say "what can we do better? " or "how with our limited resources can we help you?"

but instead, your instinctive middle-class mannerisms popout, you attack Frenetic when you should be listening

you are part of the reason why the Left is so small, you'd put anyone off, you have a stupid attitude, which is inbred in many middle-class pushy types (not that they'd notice, as they take it for granted)

so answer Frenetic's point or don't, your choice

PS: I am happy to continue any other part of the conversation on my blog or Shiraz socialist, but I don't particularly wish to fill up Dave's blog with your bitter rantings

As a Labour leftist myself I have to say that I didn't find Crow's remarks particularly surprising or bothersome really. Crow has consistently avoided creating a new organisation - even though he has had multiple opportunities. I don't think that's what Crow wants.

If he were to do so of course that new organisation would have to be judged on its merits but my impression of the SSN so far has been generally a very positive one. It seems to involve not just far leftists but rank and filers as well (and let's not forget there are plenty of far leftists who ARE rank and filers!) They enlarged their leadership body to include more representation and the debate from all reports was comradely and non-confrontational.

I think Jon Rogers hits the nail on the head - we can use these initiatives to move the labour movement forward both inside and outside of the Labour Party.

Here's my own thoughts about why we should fight in the Labour party rather than abandon it for the sects:

http://laboursfightback.blogspot.com/2007/07/why-labour_15.html

we can use these initiatives to move the labour movement forward both inside and outside of the Labour Party

Yes, yes, but are we going to use these initiatives to move the labour movement forward both inside and outside of the Labour Party from inside the Labour Party or from outside? That's the real question. (Either that or it's an irrelevant distraction, I forget.)

But Modernity

Part of our assesment of whether we believe something is true or not is based upon the credibility of the person reporting it.

In this case Frenetic (who has not clarified what she/he means) has said that the left have failed to campaign for disabled workers.

Given that both the T&G and PCS are opposed to Freud review, and the GMB and T&G are both campaiging to stop 43 Remploy factory closures, and the GMB prevented 19 Remploy factory closures in 1999. And given that the Welfare reform act has been opposed and reportd by the Morning Star, then is it true that the left are not concerned about poverty and disability rights?

I don't know about other unions, but the GMB has a disablity forum, and the Remploy workers have a national consortium of lay reps, and I think the union generally does well over disability issues.

Now if Frenetic knows different then she/he should say so. And we can judge whether or not that is justified based upon the eveidence she/he puts forward. I am far from convinced because freentis has argued that the anti-war cmapaign was a product of the left groups acting together, which seems a ludicrous over-estimation of the infleunce of the far leftt, and a massive underestimation of the degree to which liberal public opinion, led by for example the Daily mirror and Independent were instrumental.

If the complaint is that the left groups have not camaigned over disability issues, then this may be more true, but given that they are relatively small and ineffectual organisations, then how have the disabity rights campiagners sought to involve them?

generally it is true that the far left is a lot less clear on the need to campaign on identity and discrimination issues than it used to be 20 years ago. But the question is what conclusion do you draw from that? That they are all middle class tossers - which seesm to be yours and frentetics rather unfounded position. Or that there has been a general ideological, political and organisational retreat due to factors largely outwith the left's control.

If you believe that the left should be doing more over disablity and poverty issues, then argue what they should be doing, argue the importance of identity and anti-discrimination politics. Seek to involve them. Only when you have tried that and failed do you have evidence that they aren't interested.

But don't just hide behind a ridiculous anonymity and moan.

AN wrote:

Part of our assesment of whether we believe something is true or not is based upon the credibility of the person reporting it.

utterly astonishing, a science graduate without an idea of what is a fact or not

your statement is subjective nonsense

something can be true, irrespective of the person saying it, there is a detachment between the utterances of the individual (the facts) and the individual themselves

eg. if Stalin said "Moscow is in Russia" that would be objectively true, irrespective of our view of Stalin and if Mahatma Gandhi said "London is the capital of the Soviet Union" would be false, even if we had a high opinion of Gandhi

that's basic reasoning skills

concerning Frenetic's points, you had essentially two methods of approaching this, to constructively engage with him/her and clarify some of the issues, or to become defensive, abusive and belligerent

you chose the latter, so I wouldn't be surprised if when Frenetic is asked by some disabled about the Left's attitude on these issues, then s/he might reply "I tried to raise the issue, but was attacked for my troubles"

great going Andy, your marvellous diplomat for the Left

I'm not a science graduate "Modernity"- I am an engineer.

BUt that aside.

yes yes, the existance or otherwise of a fact is someting that exists independent of our knowledge if it.

Except you seem to have a poor idea about how science is constructed. Science is not knowledge of all the facts, it is a series of hypotheses that are our best effort at explaining the facts. When deciding between competing theories the relaiabilit of the evidence, and the coherence wof the new theory with other mature theories are certainly taken into account.

In engineering and medicine, the reliability of someone reporting evidence is also factored in. Becasue we cannot just accept that something observed is actually a "fact", as people order what they have seen to fit their own misconceptions.

So the "facts" are also often a question of dispute.

In this case we are not dealing with a "fact" anyway we are dealing with an opinion or rather a series of opinions about what the left could have done better.

In this case I would point out that apart from my exasperated and perhaps unnecessary use of the word cowadrly with regard to Frenetic using a psedonym (and in most cases, people using pseudonyms on the internet is unnecessary) the atmosphere was not abusive etc, until you started making an issue about annoymity, and you usual cod attempts at showing that people are not arguing to you exalted standards.

We will however remember that you personally repeatedly hint that named individual are anti-Semites while hiding behind your ludicrous pseudonym. And we also note that you essentially troll any discussion about Palestine, trying to turn the issue onto a bizarre discussion about people's hidden motives.

andy newman wrote:

Except you seem to have a poor idea about how science is constructed.

that's as maybe, I was poorly schooled :)

but your previous argument ("Frenetic's standing within the disability rights campaign is relevent here as to her or his credibility to answer ") was essentially an appeal to authority and indicative your middle-class elitist mentality

can I suggest next time, when someone like Frenetic makes a point that you go against everything that you hold true, and try, for once, to answer his or her points constructively?

that will be hard for you, but try it

PS: I'm curious why nearly every exchange with you seems to descend into a petty battle of past recrimination? if you wish to win over the working classes it would be far better if you subjugated your Oxbridge upbringing and try to talk to people as equals, go on, break the habit of a lifetime.

If you wish to continue this banter I am on the Shiraz Socialist blog, anytime :)

I am limited to what i can write, but in reply to Andy, i will say that on the WRB specifically, we invited the left, unions to attend the protest by CAWRB outside the LP conference, we emailed them, wrote to them, publicised it, etc. they didn't attend, so what else could we do.Many disability groups are small, isolated, it shouldn't always be up to them to contact everyone, whatever happened to networking,passing the word on. Further, grass roots campaigners don't always have 'reputations' etc or even contacts, they just see something is wrong and act on it. My criticism of the left is that they do get involved in a variety of campaigns but some are more popular than others, a hierarchy of oppresion' surely this must change?

I say again, I use a pseudonym for very good reasons, but the group I am involved in is called
Sheffield Welfare Action Network
www.swansheffield.org.uk
sheffieldwelfare_an@yahoo.co.uk

Frenetic,

I can suggest a few things, and you might have tried them, so apologies for the repetition of stating the obvious.

1. if you organise an event, agree a schedule for contacting the organisations who like to participate 8-10 weeks beforehand

2. deal with specific individuals in those organisations, not just a general switchboard or e-mail address

3. in advance, think how you like them to participate in what did like them to do and then discuss if that fits in with them

4. ask each organisation if they have a person or committee that deals specifically with the area that you're interested, contact them by phone preferably, follow-up with an e-mail and them meet face-to-face, if you can

5. compile a list of *all* organisations which might want to participate (large local trade unions, trade councils, community groups, etc) and slowly work thru that list, work to the bottom and start again

6. nearer the event (do another call around 6 week, then 3 week, and once a week)

7. provide maps and detailed descriptions for the location of any event (people might be coming from outside the area and find it difficult to navigate there)

8. have a prominent phone number on your publicity (with an answering machine out of hours) and email.

9. if organisation show any interest but can't participate, then follow-up next time with phone, email and brochure leaflet (to be put on bulletin boards)

10. keep a web page for each event and update daily with news (name of possible participants)

I hope that helps

I should have added

11. Bear in mind that each organisation will probably have their own way of participating, some may be able to provide expertise, others have activists, some might offer office facilities (useful for sending out leaflets or e-mails) and others may provide funds, each should be dealt with in slightly different ways, some of them may have no money, no activists but could have contacts that you might find useful

Mark p said 'The National Shop Steward Network is not an attempt to found a new political organisation, but is instead an industrial body'. The first claim is only indirectly true, most there did want to found a new workers party and thought that the labour party is no longer a bourgeois workers party so had contempt for their activists, as we have seen in the above posts and for the seconfd point we have to ask what kind of industrial body? In what way does it differ from the LCDTU in its adulation of left union bureaucrats, Crow et al. as that body did worshipped Jones and Scanlon who led that movement to disaster?

Crucially the SP and other committee members defend to the last (in the unreported workshops) clause three which precludes interfering in the internal affairs of TUs or the 'function of the TUC'. It cannot be an independent industrial organisation representing rank-and-file workers when it cannot, for instance, repudiate Woodley's betrayal of Gate Gourmet and seek to gain enough influence to over-ride them in breaking the anti-union laws.

This was far more of a rally than a conference, if fact it did remind me of the old WRP's ATUA. There was no pre-conference posting even to sponsoring union branches, no votes, no motions, no amendments allowed to anything, no plans for regional or local groups and no report backs from the workshops. And yes the SP are rowing in with Crow and it was clear from the level of support he got in his speech about the new workers party that he intended to use this as the vehicle for that project. It will alienate all those sincere leftist within the Labour party where they will find its total lack of any democratic decision making process even worse than Balir has imposed on them. I do not say this was a useless event, it does have potential and is sorely needed but it cannot proceed like this - we can surely do better than a Gerry Heley Kevin Halpin view of what the working class deserves. There were critical leaflets from Workers Power, who's proposed amendments were 'remitted', from Permanent Revolution, from the Campaign for a New Marxist Party but very few others seemed to notice the almost total absence of workers democracy, the life-blood of any revived movement. Did anyone else spot this?

Gerry Downing

OK, I don't want to intrude on anybody's private grief. I have no time for the far left (surprise, surprise) and yet I have a lot of sympathy with its calls for the Labour hard left to join it (as, as Owen and others say, it will be the death of the hard left). but enough already of that.

What about trade unionism? Sadly it is dying on its feet - an era of rising employment, especially in the public sector, and yet trade union membership is at best static.

Is all we have to offer on this a revival of Communist Party ideas of the 1920s (namely a NSSN)? That's pathetic.

Trade unions have to be culturally relevant to people's lives today. That means they have to, at the very least, recognise that the 1950s are with us. A bit more consumer orientation so that people might feel it is relevant to them in their lives.

When i worked in the public sector the union was strong (and I was a branch official for more than a few years). But now I am in the private sector in a workplace where no union is recognised (but there is no anti-union agitation), people think i am mad to pay a subscription - that's because nobody has ever told them why being in a union is a basic piece of common sense for someone who works for a living - instead they hear endless "all out for ever" tripe from the likes of Crowe.

It's enough to make you want to weep.

"culturally relevant?"

What new bollocks is this?

I notice there is no concrete criticism of Crow as a union leader, only the worry that negative coverage of him in the Evening Standard might put private sector workers off joining a trade union.