Dear Dave

As a paid up Labour Party member, have you visited the CommentonThis facility setting out all six latest Labour Party policy documents in an easy to comment and amend format?

With collective endeavour we could rewrite them all by 20 June - the deadline for amendments, prior to the next National Policy Forum at the end of July.

There is a link on the Save the Labour Party website at:

http://www.savethelabourparty.org

I thought the name Left List was quite good actually - a million times better than the name Respect.

I don't think the name was the problem but the fact that after thirty thirty years of trying the central driving force behind the project has been unable to build any significant influence or recognition among working class people.

Jim,

but the SWP have a huge profile, most people who know I'm a socialist eventually say they think I'm involved with Socialist Worker - everyone has heard of it, and I'd bet they'd perform better if they stood under that name.

The problem is, Left Lists revolutionary platform included Routemaster buses and bus conductors and park keepers - it's the sub-lib-dem reformism that that led peopel to ask why bother? After all, they polled only a little more in Lambeth & Southwark than the SPGB did on a straight up revolutionary platform.

Finally, I'll add with SPGBitis, the workers get the government they want, thy vote for it, lets assume they actually do want, generally, the policies they vote for. Its forgetting that has been the bane of the left...

I sometimes wonder if one of the (many) problems with recent years' left-of-labour electoral groupings is that they exude transiency and expediency, and voters sense that, sense that they're not around for the long haul. Look at the names - Socialist ALLIANCE, Respect COALITION, Left LIST - the impression that these are just groupings of convenience, cobbled together to make a gesture at election time, but not likely to stick around and form the basis of something more permanent and sustainable. As we have seen. Voters sense this, I reckon. I'll stick a tenner on there being no such entity as "Left List" in four years' time.

"You cannot appeal to a class consciousness that is no longer there."

Class consciousness needs to be brought out, and as we all know it doesnt always correspond to the objective long term condition of the class.

Thats why there needs to be consistent class based politics, and independent class politics, not the class colaborationism of the labour party, or the temporary jamming together of sects with no plan beyond old labour style reformism.

In short, we need a communist party with revolutionary marxism and internationalism at its heart. Stuff like 'no borders' only becomes comprehenisble, nay, possible at all, within this framework. Like you say, in the context of fudged old labourism a call for open borders is ridiculous.

''You cannot appeal to a class consciousness that is no longer there''.

That just about sums up the problem unfortunately.

Mike.
I am old enough to remember when class consciousness was very high in the early 70's, but I don't remember the Communist Party gaining politically, its always the Labour Party who gain because of its links with the Unions.

"Strong class consciousness" has never equated to "desire for a revolution", though, which might also be one of the reasons.

Don't remember the CP being particularly revolutionary, did I miss something? After I left it and joined the LP, my CLP was a lot more left wing than the CP ever was during my few years in it.

I don't blame people for not turning to the Left - there's a generation that's grown up not knowing what the Left is. The Labour Party of the 1970s was a massively important resource for the maintenance and transmission of socialist values, just as the CP had been before it; the defeat of the LP Left was a disaster for the broader Left. For a while it looked as if the SWP was going to take up the slack - a member on every union exec, placards on every demo - but they never quite got out of the downturn.

The youngest people voting on 1st May were born in 1990. If you'd done most of your growing-up under Blair, what would 'Left' mean to you - Bob Marshall-Andrews? Where the Left has had a voice has been on foreign policy - anti-imperialism and No Global are a large part of what it means to be radical, these days. But this kind of radicalism doesn't have a 'left' label and it doesn't have a lot to do with voting in elections.

George Galloway writes in his Daily Record column that:

"SEX And The City...

...

Journalists sometimes ask which of them would do it for me.

The honest answer is all four of them, but it's too dangerous to admit that.

There's the sweet one - great marriage material.

The lawyerly red-head - sexy and motherly. Or the voracious man-eating vamp, ankles behind her ears.

But if I had to choose just one, it would have to be the eponymous Carrie Bradshaw.

She's not the prettiest, the sexiest or the cleverest. But she would be, quite simply, the most fun."

I think the country could go either way at the moment, there is a space for decent social democratic policies: on the NHS, Post Offices, fair wages, taxes, a fair but robust immigration policy, etc, care for the elderly, pensions, limiting bosses excesses, etc etc, as long the left doesn't dwell on those issues which matter to it but not the wider public. any new left wing project needs to stop fetishing Iraq, , identity politics, all the obsessions of the far left and the sects, etc, etc and focus on the defence of the welfare state, something which is under attack from all sides. I am sorry but the bourgeois obsession with things it can do little about is contributing to the helplessness many
people are feeling in the UK.

Like many I marched against the war, fought the far right, tried to save the planet, but now its time to go back to basics: housing, rising prices, welfare, the NHS, violent crime, inequality in the UK, etc.

However, on the right there is definitely a shift to the further edges of the right as it were and a fair bit of the wider electorate could if times get harder embrace parts of its aganda. Just look at this article in the DT by the odious Simon Heffer, about how the welfare state causes youth crime, ho hum , but is the comments below that really deserve a bashing, one is printed below, plenty more like that, they read like Der Sturmer..

many more people like Bossrat are going to come out of the woodwork as the Tories ascend and people feel free of 'PC'

'one vile comment from the Telegraph

'Until some of the feral scum, are exterminated like they were in south America the rest of us tax paying citizens will not be able to sleep safe at night' 'We must detach ourselves from the misguided belief that all human life be sacred. Human vermin exists; if we should find ourselves overcome by rats, we should know the solution. The state has been responsible for the misdirection of these poor souls (and way before NuLab), but their extermination is our only salvation. When the numbers have been drastically reduced, then we might consider social help, such as national service or flogging, but sheer numbers prevent such a course at present. Posted by bossrat on May 28, 2008 8:12 ' '

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/28/do2801.xml&posted=true&_requestid=337467
Edit/Delete Message

"how come they are showing it by turning to the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives or even the British National Party?"

Because there's no-one else to voter for. If you're against immigration controls, you're a joke; and even the Greens don't give a clear message on this.

Also, how many of the largely very right wing East European immigrants have the option of voting in council elections? I'm not clear on the rules about that, but it strikes me that, for instance, an influx of a million new Roman Catholic Polish voters - i.e. anti-socialist, anti-gay, anti-abortion etc), young ones who really don't know much about what the parties stand for, and are susceptible to quick impressions gleaned from the media - is bound to shift the balance to the right.

Ignoring the hyperbole (Dave wouldn’t be able to mention just one Left group who have mentioned the age of consent on election material and there is nothing wrong in campaigning on policies beyond your potential remit anyway - Livingstone always had a ‘foreign policy’) the central question is a good one. Why so little support for Left political groups.

I don’t think this is linked to why the Tories are rising but not those left of Labour.
It’s not often that the poor switch to vote Tory. It’s those suburbanites – those with middle of the road politics - that Labour attracted and who may now return back to the Tories (Croydon man, not Clapton man, took Boris Johnson to victory). Whilst some workers in a place like Dagenham may switch to the BNP, I reckon many just don’t (or stop) voting.

I also don’t buy that class consciousness has disappeared. Sure people may not use such a term but how much you are paid, the money you pay to a parasite landlord, the amount of money you pay to the energy companies and to the supermarkets and the amazing profits that they make from you must cross the mind of any sentient being.

We also discussed the fundamental question above in my article a few posts back. Why did the Left List do so badly? Why did they not even achieve the traditional (1.5, 2 %?) far Left vote?

I would imagine the Socialist Party campaign in Greenwich and Lewisham for a place on the GLA was competently undertaken, mentioned local issues and concentrated on what you thought would be popular socialist policies - wages houses, transport and not what some may see as esoteric (abroad!) or the unpopular (immigration). The SP also has a base there with some councillors. They performed as badly as the Left List. Why?

I’m damned if I know the answer to either.

But I do agree with Dave’s conclusion - the petty squabbling amongst the far Left is a reckless luxury. The Left (of Labour) needs to unify or maybe die. I think this is very obvious, indeed even one of our political enemies (a Labour party member) is telling us this.

"So ... why aren't voters turning to the left, comrades?"

short answer: irrelevance

the Left do not appear relevant to people's existence

above people have made many good points, frentic, e10 and SSP

the perception of the Left is not good, a largely white middle-class London centric dominance doesn't help that either

there still is class consciousness about, but he plays against the Left, they are often seen as middle-class ex-students who only come on a council estate when the election are close

I think we are watching the death throes of what remains of the Leninist Left in Britain, the rigidity which was helpful in holding things together is also a disadvantage, because the Left doesn't look at itself and say "how do the working class view us?", "what's wrong with our approach?" or importantly "how can we do things better?"

introspection is not high on the Left's list of qualities, whereas the scumbag fascists are constantly trying to work out new methods to appeal to people, outright popularism with a touch of working-class sentiment to drum up support

the Left in Britain is stuck in the mud but doesn't realise it

John Sullivan dealt with many of these issue 20 years ago in As Soon As This Pub Closes and not much has improved since then:

"Curiously, members of Marxist groups are particularly incensed that the Marxist criterion that social existence determines consciousness should be applied to themselves. If, for example, you are a social worker in Hackney you will almost certainly number SWP members among your friends, but if you are a canteen assistant in Scunthorpe that would be most unlikely. If existence determines consciousness, will that not have an effect on the left group? Yet left group members argue that their ideas must be examined on their own. They will accept that the social composition of their group does limit its influence, but they believe it has no significance whatever in explaining its ideas, strategy and tactics."

"The truth is that the far left remains dominated by inveterate sectarian hacks who have repeatedly revealed themselves incapable of co-operating with others inside a pluralist and democratic formation that they cannot control."

Please accept a fuckoff load of points for this excellently curt argument.

If the voters want to go back to a social democratic future, how come they are showing it by turning to the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives or even the British National Party?

I think it's the "campaigning" thing. But seriously, there is only one party in parliament that supports greater equality and opposes government authoritarianism; and it ain't Workers Liberty.

I haven't always agreed with modernity on this blog in the past, but his post there makes excellent points.

And if SPP sees a socialist like Dave as a "political enemy" then there's the far-left's problems, in a nutshell, right there. Still, I'm sure with such an attitude Left List will be up to the magic 0.88 per cent next time round,

My 2p's worth is that I think the far left is fundamentally an irreversibly fuct in its current form and anyone who is even half-awake knows this.

It no longer articulates the experience of those on whose behalf it claims to speak. It is primarily composed of people who don't even come from the working class. And far far too many people on the far lefty are wordy and/or nerdy. It's a social club/hobby more than anything else, let's be honest.

I don't think the Left in general has really got over the rise of the New Right and the collapse of communism. Centre-Left parties have basically reached an accomadation with neo-liberalism rather that really challenging it. The far Left seems to be content to pretend that nothing has fundamentally changed in the past 20 years. It's all pretty grim.

Future wise I think we have to accept markets having a role in society, and do our best to figure out how to make them work for the benefit of the public, and where they should be limited. It's not much to cling to but I think the Left ought to claim behavioural economics as its territory, since it is a real and deep-rooted challenge to neo-liberalism.

"It is primarily composed of people who don't even come from the working class."

I'm as workerist as the next blogger but this sort of stuff is just plain daftness.

The left has always got itself in a twist over the issue of class 'cos it mistakenly took the view that the working class only happened to be blokes who worked in factories, docks and mines and who made stuff, shifted stuff or excavated stuff. (If the left were especially mistaken, they further assumed that the working class had a spanner sticking out of one back pocket and a copy of Trotsky's 'The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International'.)

The working class are still with us and, yes, some of them even happen to be in vanguardist parties. It's just unfortunate that they and others mistake a collar, tie and cubicle as some sort of elevation and escape out of working class.

Class remains central to socialist politics. It's still about them and us.

"And far far too many people on the far lefty are wordy and/or nerdy."

Just clicked on your blog. Pot meet kettle. Kettle met blog. Only joking. ;-)

"but I think the Left ought to claim behavioural economics as its territory . . . "

OK. Maybe I'm half-joking.

The Torygraph comments Frenetic linked to are pure comedy gold - those poor frightened little bunnies! This one had me in stitches:

"the welfare state IS A CRIME!
This once great and lovely country is now governed by idiots who could no more run a small or MSE if their lives depended on it. Rewarding fecklessness and despising individuals they have forced 2 million decent British people to flee this overtaced dangerous hell hole and replaced them with CLIENTS from foreign parts. Either this country will have a revolution and turn the clock back to the time when the interests of the British people came first - or it will continue its descent into the hell of a Marxist Godless abortionists and perverts paradise."

Hi darren

I didn't make any characterisation of what working class people are like these days, merely that they don't crop up in numbers on the far left. This is so obvious does it really need repeating? In any case how many SWP members do you think work in call centres (expect perhaps in the holidays when uni is shut)?

I agree that my particular area of interest is geeky (though I don't think I'm a nerd!). I think I can fairly say I'm about the only lefty blogger in the UK who has covered private equity (albeit rather crappily) in any detail for example. But given that this has been a major issue for unions globally isn't that a bit surprising/worrying? Actual real-life proles (some of them in factories!) face pressure on wages and conditions because of buyout activity, it surely ought to be something the Left attempts to understand and respond to.

I'm absolutely serious about behavioural economics though. Because it undermines assumptions made about economic behaviour it potentially presents an area where the Left can build a proper understanding of markets, and how to challenge them. It's flimsy but it's a start.

Tom, the point of Darren's contribution as I understood it is that if you use a correct Marxist definition of class, rather than "what people talk and dress like", then the vast majority of people I know involved with leftwing politics are working class and come from the working class.

Your contention (in your first post) that the left "is primarily composed of people who don't even come from the working class" is rooted in a misconception of what class is. It does not exclude people who have been to university, speak with received pronunciation and wear a suit to work, as long as they survive by selling their labour and do not enjoy the full fruits of it.

What Rory said.

good points, Tom

it needs to be a back to basics if socialist ideas are to gain a real hold, again, articulating something that is relevant to people's existence and experiences.

"a correct Marxist definition of class"

who says it's 'correct'? it's one framework for interpeting class but not the only one. the proposed definition of class (selling your labour/not enjoying the full fruits of it) is so broad it could include directors of listed companies (since 'profits' are distributed to shareholders, who are the owners, when they could be spent on directors' remuneration).

Wasn't it Wittgenstein who said that knowledge is based on acknowledgement? Can we not even admit to ourselves that lefties are not by and large representative of those they claim to speak for? If we can't even acknowledge these basic facts it will be a long road back to power.

exactly Tom

the sooner parts of the Left get out of the Humpty Dumpty** way of thinking the better

funny enough, parts of the working class may have what they perceive as sufficient class consciousness but that's doesn't necessary tally with a textbook Marxist definition, and unless some strange lefties propose lecturing on 'the meaning of class' from on high then the working class will just get on with its business, oblivious of what they are being told they should think by people that they tend to ignore in the first place.

much as it is now, and the Left will still be in the shit, just a shame that more people don't read and digest Sullivan's stuff

--
** "When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' "

""a correct Marxist definition of class"

who says it's 'correct'? it's one framework for interpeting class but not the only one. the proposed definition of class (selling your labour/not enjoying the full fruits of it) is so broad it could include directors of listed companies (since 'profits' are distributed to shareholders, who are the owners, when they could be spent on directors' remuneration)."

Tom,

as someone from a Marxian socialist background, I would definitely agree with the suggestion that the 'working class' includes a far greater section of society than previously assumed. As I said in a previous comment, the left always got itself in a twist over the issue of class. It associated it with a particular section of society, and now that most of those particular jobs have disappeared? Its left floundering not knowing where it's pre-packed 'historical agent' has gone. (China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Vietnam and elsewhere, comrades ;-)

"Can we not even admit to ourselves that lefties are not by and large representative of those they claim to speak for?"

Do you claim to speak for anyone, Tom? I don't. Speaking personally, I think we need to carve out independent working class socialist politics that includes breaking from this notion of leaders and led. I think it's a fault of both social democracy and vanguardism that they have this top down notion of their day to day politics. 'We know what's best for you, boys and girls' type mentality.

I know there's only part of our current problems, but surely that mindset of leaders and led should be an anathema to socialist politics and practice?

As Tom Voltaire once said, 'Working class socialist politics will be reborn when the last Labour Party think tank member is strangled with the entrails of the last Trot Central Committee member.'

cheers

Joe, we may laugh, but soon many of these people or their representatives may be in power, though of course some DT readers, etc already are.

'The Torygraph comments Frenetic linked to are pure comedy gold - those poor frightened little bunnies! This one had me in stitches:'

I hear ya frenetic but if I don't laugh I cry.

Tom,

in fact, Uncle Charley, in Capital III, IIRC, does discuss the directors of companies as salaried employees. The fact that they are employees causes capitalists problems, hence why they nowadays give them share options, to help them have an interest aligned to the owners - but not all MDs/CEOs get that treatment - economists claim this is to avoid moral hazard.

The point is, waged and salaried workers run capitalism from top to bottom, but they do so in the interest of a largely abvsentee capitalist class that enforces its rule through the state - that's what makes the possibility of a democratic and peaceful revolution possible.

RD wrote:

"The point is, waged and salaried workers run capitalism from top to bottom"

that is as may be, but it doesn't detract from the point that using Marxist terminology to define the "class" composition of political parties is largely bogus and self referencing because it doesn't take into account how the working classes actually perceive class under capitalism, and more importantly why in Britain the working class are not drawn in large numbers towards the Left?

modernity wrote: using Marxist terminology to define the "class" composition of political parties is largely bogus and self referencing because it doesn't take into account how the working classes actually perceive class under capitalism, and more importantly why in Britain the working class are not drawn in large numbers towards the Left?

Well, in the SPGB view (held by Darren et al) it does, because the Left offers the working class at most the prospect of all, instead of some, working for the state instead of for private employers. The working class quite rightly doesn't see this prospect as inviting. This is one reason why out and out wage-slavery abolitionists can get vote totals no tinier than those of the vanguard parties, and could probably get more if there were more abolitionists and fewer vanguardists.

Mod.,

well, it does in that we can therefore say that a large number of working class people vote Tory adn Lib Dem.

I recently commented on anotehr blog - the slaves of the roman emporer owned great silver dishes and could cheak senators in public, house slaves of antiquity were relatively well cared for, slaves on the latifundia were worked to death. Doubtless each of them saw their interest lying in different ways, often identifying with the interests of their masters.

They were still all slaves.

If this was radio land I would say something akin to "hi dave, long time listener, first time caller". I don't know what the blogger analogy is.
I felt I needed to write something after watching the recent london mayors question time. All the while the labour party reps in the assembly posed queries as to boris's allocation of deputy and planning, aswell as welcomes etc. The BNP Barnbrook went straight in with a class based dig at the eton toff followed by how it is not the rail workers job to police behaviour on the rail follwing his alcohol ban and could put employees in danger. I point this out not because i have any time for fascists but that he repeated nearly verbatim what "awkward squad" bob crow and the rmt had warned earlier in the month. For young, unalligned, less class conscious workers this is confusing, no?
As some comments point out if you were born in 1990 ( i would go so far as to say even 1980 as I was) these generations grew up in a world where trade union activity is at an all time low, communism is taught in schools as something associated with post WW2 GCSE 20th century history, politics is issued based rather than class based. I was watching the fucking Thundercats and pat sharpes fun house while the soviet union and eastern bloc were crumbling. Even the cultural events like raves and the M25 scene, with a back drop of poll tax rioting and insurgency over the criminal justice bill were way passed my bedtime in thatchers/major's early 90's britain.
This is not to say that the 'yoot' are apathetic. I just feel people in general are turning away from the traditional class related red/blue politics of old. Radicalism has been replaced by some fuzzy coalition politics with a large enough umbrella to accomodate everybody. The anti globalisation movement from its inception in seattle has included protesting public servants, turtle men, anti imperialists, korean trotskyist farmers, christians, debt ridden students, internationalists, indigenous peoples, third world peasants, socialists,enviromentalists, marxists,anarchists, etc. none of these groups can individually tackle capitalism single handedly. And aren't able as a group to come up with a solution which everyone can agree on because most politcal activism is single issue/pressure group politcs. The class analysis is consistently sidelined, ignored or worse absent entirely.
I do believe the working class still exist, and agree with darren, some may suffer from some 'false consciosness' that because they work in an office we're all middle class now. Bollocks to my eyes the majority are still off to the coal face of computer screens, photocopiers, cold calls and hot desks.
the new spate of leftist parties have all galvanised around a singlr issue i.e the war(s)
they have chopped and changed and are consistently inconsistenti.e socilast alliance, respect, respect renewal, left list, etc. you must build around the litany of problems facing people today. Huge economic polarisation, short term contracts no job security, no pensions. When this is pointed out workers like those described above my percieve themselves differntly and in the historical sense working class. consistency is how you build a rank and file organisation not by band wagoning.
Sorry waffling now. this is my first ever post ever and not as clear as i would like to be. I'm better face to face over a pint me thinks.

Welcome aboard Skyhook. Please feel free to comment, same goes for other lurkers.

"The fact that they are employees causes capitalists problems, hence why they nowadays give them share options, to help them have an interest aligned to the owners - but not all MDs/CEOs get that treatment - economists claim this is to avoid moral hazard."

absolutely, it's the classic principal-agent problem. though the 'owners' aren't wealthy individuals by and large, they are institutions investing other people's money.

I'll be honest, I'm not sure I know who the "capitalists" are any more. It might make more sense to think in terms of a financial class than a capitalist class. Investment banks, asset managers etc don't use their own money, so they aren't really 'owners', but they certainly do assume the influence that comes from deploying huge pools of capital, even though it isn't theirs.

Indeed RD, and if we wanted to play with words as in

"use a correct Marxist definition of class, rather than "what people talk and dress like", then the vast majority of people I know involved with leftwing politics are working class and come from the working class."

I suppose you could equally applied that to the Tory party, some left groups or the Liberals, and what you end up coming out with, is probably, by that definition that the liberal party is mostly comprised of the working-class?

which really doesn't ring true, as I have suggested class perceptions are internal to the working-class they can't be imposed by quoting Marx at them from on high

so all of that means that the working-class still has forms of consciousness, but they apply it to all political parties and bodies

when it comes down to it recent Left groupings don't really seem much different from the Liberals (you would probably see the same Oxbridge educated individuals scattered across the leadership) and it is how the Left is seen by the working-class that is important, as suggested above parts of the Left are often seen as transient and shifty

" . . .class perceptions are internal to the working-class"

Not really sure what that means, tbh. Internal to us as a group or as individuals? I knew I was working class before I ever became a socialist. In my case, it contributed to me becoming a socialist. (I know, I'm a novelty in that regard.)

". . . they can't be imposed by quoting Marx at them from on high."

I guess you must live on farm, mod, what with all the straw you need to construct your straw man arguments. ;-)

Who's lecturing from on high? Whose seeking to impose on someone else? A couple of us on this thread are simply taking the view that the working class hasn't disappeared and that's it has always been the case that the working class is far greater in numbers than previously supposed.

"when it comes down to it recent Left groupings don't really seem much different from the Liberals (you would probably see the same Oxbridge educated individuals scattered across the leadership)"

As you appear to have a real bee in your blogging bonnet about this supposed takeover of left politics by the Oxbridge mob, why don't you at least acknowledge that it isn't a recent phenomenon? FFS, look at the history of the Labour Party. It's always bent its knee at the bloody Oxbridge crowd.

Attlee, Strachey, Dalton, Gaitskell, Wilson, Crossman, Crosland, Healey, Castle, Jenkins, Wedgewood-Benn, Foot and that's just the ones off the top of my head.

Daft thing is you're the person on this thread that seems to get chippy about the matter of class whereas a couple of us see it more as a starting point for socialist politics.

And the gibe about Marx?

Newsflash: you can be both working class and have books in your house. They are not mutually exclusive. Some of those books might have been authored by Karl Marx, some might have been authored by Denise Mina.

Just cause someone has been known to read or quote Marx, that doesn't mean they're pre-determined to lecture from high about him and his works. There's a democratic content to his works - the emancipation of the working class is the work (and all that jazz) - which is as much about the future as it is about the past.

darren

the daft thing is that you seem to want to sell a line rather than engage with any of the varied points above, or make an effort to understand them

and no I don't have a bee in my bonnet about the Oxbridge takeover of the Left,

the middle classes have always led, as the proto-Officer class, that's what they do or have done, but that doesn't necessarily mean that in an age where the working-class are capable as, and are educated, as many Oxbridge rejects, that we have to put up with most left-wing organisations being run by sub-par Oxbridge types

my view is based on evidence, pick for example, the SWP's Central committee and what percentage do you suppose wouldn't have been to university or come from a middle-class background? I'll bet it is less then 20%

my point is that British politics on the Left is largely dominated by Oxbridge types, and they are pretty useless at politics (as shown by the past 30 years), mostly concerned about their own political vanity and have little connection to the working class

thus, I would argue that it is part (not the total, but part) of the reason for the Left failure in Britain, recently

but Darren if, however, you can put forward a cogent evidence based thesis as to why the Left in Britain is so useless (bearing in mind John Sullivan's points written over 20 years ago) then I am happy to hear it

as a book loving working-class autodidactic I enjoy reading lucid arguments, so please at least try to put one forward, after you've engaged with the essence of the problem

and remember that bickering is a very lower middle class pursuit :)

Like skylark I'm a lurker on this site and this is my first post.

I've been waiting and working for the great leap forward for years (in my middle age now). I've stood in elections, campaigned, picketed, argued and sold papers all for the cause. And I despair these days. It's not that I percieve things as being that much worse than when I first started out on the road to socialism, its just that I kinda feel there is something inevitable about the next failed socialist/left alliance/list or whatever. I've seen more come and go than I care to remember. They all look to a greater or lesser degree transient, bandwagon-hoping and divide against themselves. The biggest obstacle to the left's electoral success, it seems to me, is the all too numerous sects - like Heinz: 57 varieties all swimming around in a same red sauce.

There is no serious electoral alternative to the left of Labour today and little prospect of it, not because the opportunity and necessity doesn't exist, but because the left and its organisations are shit!

In his book 'Labour & Society in Britain 1918-1979' James Cronin discusses why much of the organised working class broke with liberalism and came to found and support the Labour Party at the beginning of the 20th century.

He observes that before the British working class organised politically, it was already organised for other purposes.

In other words, there existed a dense network of economic and cultural institutions in and through which large sections of the working class came to identify themselves as a distinct group. As such they engaged in distinct ways of life and held distinct needs and interests that stood at some distance from those of the Tory and Liberal political and economic elites that governed them and sought their support.

The class distance between workers and their Liberal leaders was given concrete expression by the involvement of many leading Liberal employers in lock-outs against unions in many urban areas prior to and immediately after WW1.

The erosion of class-specific modes of self-organisation (particularly after WW2) has gradually dissolved the working class subcultures that are essential to the development of oppositional ideologies and forms of political activity.

The foundations for the emergence of a class-based politics to the left of Labour are simply absent. A depressing conclusion, but true.

Mod.,

you're right that its hard to differentiate leftists from liberals, they all hone that fione art of the political opportunism, pragmatism and oppositionalism - after all, Left-list stood on a platform of bus conductors and park keepers, the lib-dems could do that.

They do so by excluding ay talk of the defining key feature of the working class - the wages system, the buying and selling of labour power. tehy assume that as an eternal given, so after that, all they've got is the administration of capitalism as it exists.