Labouring in vain

According to New Statesman Labour leadership contenders had a hustings at the Fabian society, and were asked whether they were socialists.

I'll leave you to read the article directly, but will simply draw your attention to this paragraph

That hint of disdain for the usefulness of ideological speculation may be a rather more authentic Labourist tradition than any theory of Socialism has ever been (The trade unions would never have founded the party if it had really wanted to be a Socialist one).

The Fabian intellectual GDH Cole had written, somewhat approvingly, of Labour having a "socialism so undefined in its doctrinal basis as to make recruits readily among people of different types".

Labour is not, and never has been a socialist party, it does not stand for socialism, but is trade unionism carried on into politics, it is the use of political power to defend and advance the interests of working people within capitalism. Just like a trade union, it has to tack, turn and sometimes cut a bad deal for its members.

Socialism is not sticking up for the bottom dog, it is using the organised power (and, yes, wealth) of the workers to completely overturn the economic system to one which is permanently run in our interests. It is political action that can do that.

No Leaders

I should say that I a a member of Unison - currently undergoing a General Secretary election. Now, first, some points. Unison's rulebook explicitly states that it is a member lead organisation, there is no reference in the rulebook to a leader, or a leadership, so in essence, the General Secretary is a secretary, not a general.

In reality, the public image is that he is the leader. Currently, the post is held by a member of a bizarre entryist cult called the Labour Party, that puts their organisation first and foremost while pretending to put members first. They are being challenged by Militant. Dave Prentice is being challenged by Paul Holmes, and Roger Bannister. Now, the only issue at hand should be experience of the union, and capacity to carry out conference instructions, but they are all vying to be a leader.

I think, on due reflection, I'm going to wipe my arse on my ballot paper when it arrive. We have no leader, we are all leaders.

Fantasy reformism

OK, back to fantasy reformism, again. I have two.

1) Recall - much in the news at the moment. Now, I've said before that I prefer frequent periodic election to recall, because the question of the trigger is a pesky one (set too low, political gridlock, too high and the measure becomes all but worthless). I was reading, though, the Wikipedia article on Constructive votes of no confidence. The idea being, you don't vote the incumbant out until there is a replacement candidate (i.e. you vote the new one in rather than the old one out). This sets the bar quite well, because a candidate wouldn't run unless they thought they were in with a chance of winning.

2) War!!!! - following Isaac Asimov's idea that war represents a failure of politics, herein a suggested new rule - the way a government declares war is by the Prime Minister making a statement admitting their failure, and resigning from office. A nice simple test, if they really think war is necessary, they should signal it by making a sacrifice themself.

Any suggestions out there for fantasy reformism?

And they're off!

Our European election address has been approved, and we're going to contest the London region list in the Euros. Vaux Populi is back up and running, expect exciting commentary on delivering leaflets in the rain, again.

On a personal note, this will be my first ever opportunity to vote for a socialist party candidate, I'm so happy.

Vote early

Well, this morning I voted. I voted in the Kentish Town "Arizona by-election" - caused by the Lib-Dem councillor who thought he could represent an inner London ward from Arizona (he went there to get a Phd.).

Given the unrelenting lies of the Lib-Dems - including the dodgiest of bar charts (not to scale, using the last election but one, putting a text box over the bars to disguise where the zero line was, etc. - all to try and make their real challengers in the ward, the Greens, seem less of a threat) - I was sorely tempted to vote to try and get them out.

In the end, though, Party discipline prevailed, and I spoilt my ballot by writing "World Socialism: SPGB" across my ballot paper.

My way of explaining this strategy, this days, is by likening it to strike action. By consciously applying a political picket line, which says: "We are not going to express priorities and preferences, unless and until this great issue of class is sorted out." They need our votes, our input.

Sometimes it might hurts us a little, as all strike action does, but the final goal is clear.

Getting the vote out...

It is instructive, not to say intriguing, to hear about ballot access in the states. Looking over at the web page of the so-called Socialist Party USA candidate for president, we see how few states they have their name on the ballot paper (eight in all, including Florida and Ohio, so they're playing for swing state voters). On a few more they have "official write-in status" presumably that means if someone write in a name resembling theirs they will get the vote.

As this post illustrates, they are facing official obstructions from officials keeping them off the ballot. You have to wonder, if officials can attempt to manipulate the election by making getting on the ballot at all prohibitively hard for small party candidates, no wonder they are tempted to try it for the main contenders.

The fact is, America's democracy has always been rough and ready, gerrymandering (a word invented state side) has always been there, you could call it corruption by consent, in as much as the powers that be do what they think they can get away with. After all, a bit of voter fraud when you have a landslide anyway is neither here nor there, it only comes out when races are close.

Of course, what this does is enforce the two party system, constraining rational choice.

Really, running for president shouldn't be an option, the SPUSA admit their aim is to influence the big parties. Unless and until you hold a few congressional seats and maybe control one state legislature they shouldn't even bother.

The rout?

Now, this time last year, I was toying with placing a bet on the next election. My bet was - Tories as biggest party in a hung parliament.

I'm begining to be glad I didn't squander the £50, now.

My reasoning was, although the Tories were climbing in the polls, they needed a disproportionately large swing even to be the largest party, about 8% - their vote is very clumpy, and in their south eastern heartlands, they need about 20,000 per seat to get elected, whereas Labour takes northern seats with about 10,000 votes (some less, terrible turnouts up there).

We are heading for Tory government now, cheifly, the thing I've noticed over the last few ballots, is the Fib-Dems are starting to spiral down again, Yellow Tories are now voting Blue Tory because of Cameron's "progressive coalition" - played for and got,he's pulled some Fib-Dem voters to him.

What can Labour do? Their gradual slide down in the polls has become a rout: a give away budget hasn't stemmed the tide; Brown lacks charm, charisma or the famous vision he promised us - just more and more dull technocratic nonsense that's been blown away with the loss of his competence talisman. A lurch to the left seems unlikely. All they have left is events, dear boy, events.

Labour in Harmany

Well, it's Harman, I must have been one of those transfers from Cruddas to Harman that got her through past Johnson.

That she won by speaking left more or less only on individual members' votes doesn't bode well for Brown's plan to neuter the unions at conference.

It also shows why he was perhaps right - in his own terms, - not to put his premiership to the vote - it wiould have been unlikely that he could have even got the thumping win his mentor Smith got in '92.
Teh fight is clearly on - I am intrigued to find out what he has in mind when he talks of Citizen's Juries, and how far he'll take the concept.

To butcher a metaphor, we've lost thousands of hours of our lives fighting to move the front a millimetre to the left - but it is a millimetre and we've won it.

How I voted this morning

Well, the Labour Deputy Leadership election. So, it's run under the Alternative Vote so we get to rank all candidates in order of preference from 1st to 2nd, etc. with the option of giving no preference at all. I ranked four of the six candidates.

Realistically, there is no need to rank all candidates, certainly not the last (Candidates -1 rankings are the maximum that can take effect, if we got to a fifth round without a candidate getting the quota (50% +1 of the vote) then the last candidate would be elected by elimination). I think it's an outside chance that there will be many rounds of transfering, I think at most three.

Anyway, here's my list:

Preference	Candidate
1st	Cruddas
2nd	Harman
3rd	Benn
4th	Johnson

So, why these choices? Well, Cruddas has talked left, walked left and has the serious left recommending him, his focus on council housing, opposition to Trident and the Union Freedom Bill are welcome - of course, sicne he wants to remove the Deputy Leader from government it could all be a cunning ploy to disarm the post, but despite that I don't think he will win, I think its worth sending the message that his policies are popular with members - he should get a big first preference vote, but not many transfers in.

Harman, erm, well, I was impressed by her at the hustings, she admitted on the PM programme that ashe would describe herself as a Socialist, is committed to equality of outcome, and I agree that the prospect of a woman in the post would be welcome, in that sense I'm voting the balanced ticket, especially as I'm not going to give any preference to Blears.

Benn, well, he is certainly a competent speaker, deals with journalists very well, and could well be the candidate to pick up support from all wings of the party, so he's my tip for likely winner. Although his Hustings was very much big picture global poverty stuff, i think it would be hard for him not to bring some of that to a central government post that he would expect for the DL.

Johnson was a sort of surprise to myself, I was thinking of stopping at three preferences, butr I agree with Luke Akehurst that my Union's (UNISON) nomination means something, and in elections it's often who you are voting with ratehr than what you are voting for that counts - I don't trust him, but I prefer him to the last two, and so have given him my grudge vote.

i don't trust Hain and I mislike Blears, while I think she talks some sense and has a place in any sort of left progressive movement, I think pragmatism can only get you so far, and certainly isn't a campaigning platform - that comes afterwards.

Votail Pairti an Lucht Oibre

No, I don't know how to pronounce that, nor if it's grammatically correct.

Anyway, I just didn't want to repeat a header. Election day in Ireland, Britains nearest neighbour (you know, the only country we have a land border with) - it'd be hard to know it, compared with the acres of comment about our other neighbour, France's recent election.

Here's how the Irish Independent is calling it:

Fianna Fail	38%
Fine Gael	26%
Labour	11%
Sinn Fein	9%
Greens	6%
Progressive Democrats	3%
Independents	7%

Bearing in mind that at least 1 "Independent" is the CWI member of the Dail, that makes for a left vote of roughly 2% Labour + Sinn Fein) - although Sinn Fein are being given pariah treatment by all other parties. The centre right (Fianna Fail and Fine Gael + PDs) make up 67%, so it's clear that there's not going to be a red revolution in Ireland any time soon.

Labour has been happy, due to the breakdown in teh votes and the rivalry between the two right parties, to enter into coalition with eitehr of them. The fact that Sinn Fein are outcast provides an interesting pioint for discussion, relevent to elft debates over here - indside or outside Labour? In reality, the two party system is a series of coalitions, labour being made up of some Christian Democrats (like Blair), Social democrats (Brown), and Socialists. Inside the coalition, you have influence, but also blame and gult by association. You also have collective discipline which works for the dominant forces. Outside, though, you have long years in the wilderness, and difficulty getting your message across.

Now, Sinn Fein talk like they want a sniff of government, but if they join a coalition they will have to abandon chunks of their programme - maybe by staying out (being kept out) they can become seen as a true opposition, and their vote will grow over the years until they are a major rather than a minor party.

Either way, it's something of a shame the left vote is as split as the right, for all the radicalism of Sinn Fein a Labour group with that sort of clout backed up by the militancy of Irelands unions could get a lot of work done (their nurses have just finished yet another strike).

I think Fianna Fail are canny enough to cling onto power, possibly without Bertie Ahern. The PDs are doomed, the point of interest, then, is will Sinn Fein be let in?

Here endeth the ramble.

Vale Blair

27th June it all ends.

Lets briefly look back. Despite whopping majorities, Blair always realised his grip on power was slender, and was based on distortions of the electoral system. Michael Foot planned the '83 election on the premise that a radical left could win with a fraction of the vote if teh SPD syphoned enouh votes off the Tories. Blair took the opposite view, he pursued a hegemonic strategy - Labour was always going to be a weak government, but persistance would leader to greater changes, eventually.

In the North, Labour has massive percentile margins of victory, with handfuls of votes (the Tories are derisory). In the south, Labour loses seats after taking over twentyb thousands votes - the Tory heartlands held.

Trimming a centrist line, even with overwhelming parliamentary majorities was thus his strategy. Despite that, public spending has increased, the welfare state protected, and the use-value provided by the state extended through the (thoroughly dubious) means of PFI.

As far as the hegemonic strategy goes, it is clear from the persistance of the existence of the awkward squad that they epresent a real phenomena, a measurement of the labour left in the electorate and parliament, a left vote is too weak to sustain a long-term left-wing government.

The question is, has Labour simply accomodated to the centre right electorate or has it shaped the electorate to the left. What's for certain is that the map of the great and the good has be re-written.

The true effects will be seen after Brown - my predictions on that score another time.

Vote Labour?

Over in ireland, they're having elections this month as well.

Their Labour Party has launched its manifesto today (here).

Now, just a couple of paragraphs:

To be a socialist is to recognise in each of us, the common humanity that binds all of us. The Nobel prize-winning philosopher-economist, Amartya Sen wrote that ‘a common characteristic of virtually all the approaches to the ethics of social arrangements that have stood the test of time is to want equality of something’. To do otherwise, is to place one person on a different level to another – it is to deny our common humanity.

In the Fair Society, the talents and potential of all are equally valued, and society is structured so as to allow for the development of that immense human potential. As Richard Tawney wrote: ‘A society is free in so far and only so far… as its institutions and policies are such as to enable all members to grow to their full stature’. It is the task of government to confront the arbitrary interests and the concentrations of power which hold people back, and through positive measures ensure that all have the opportunity to fulfil their potential – to bridge the gap between our circumstances, and what is within us to become.

Labour is the authentic Irish expression of the great European socialist and social democratic movement. For a century, our movement has worked to improve the lives of hard working families and to protect the vulnerable in our society. Our values of democracy, equality, community and solidarity are unchanging. In common with our sister parties across Europe,we constantly debate and reassess the best means and policies through which our values can be given expression in a rapidly changing world.

Yes, I know, motherhood and apple pie, but quoting great thinkers? Putting flesh on values? Using the S word? Committing to Continuing to enhance the adequacy of social welfare payments? How unlike over here.

I know, the Irish labour Party is reformism warmed up, and they keep (bizarrely) getting into bed with the formerly fascist Fine Gael, but it does show how altering the mood music can make something of a difference. Of course, the main differene is Labour in Ireland are not going to be the main party of government any time soon, they need their coalition.

Update: Just to show I haven't gone totally soft, here's some Rrrrrrevolutionary pictures

Vote Labour

...well, vote, anyway. If you're in Wales, or Scotland, or in a local authority up for election. Vote. And by that, I mean anything that involves you turning up and being counted. Spoil your ballot (cock alone knows I've advocated and done that for years). Vote for the party of your choice - yes, even the BNP, if you're a viscious fascist I want to know it by you sticking your neck out and voting your colours. I'd rather you weren't a viscious fascist, so stop it, then you won't have to prove you're a fascist coz you won't be. If you see what I eman. But I suspect most of my readers aren't fascists. I hope.

To continue vote - Tory or Lib-Dem (although, Lib-fucking-dems, I mean, come on, what are you thinking? Remember, they sup of the devil's jism). But were I you, in your shoes, able to vote this time round, I'd give it to Labour. Volte face, I know, but hear me out.

Capitalism isn't going away soon. The no matter who you vote for,l the government gets in. Voting shouldn't and can't be about a quid pro-quo gift relationship where you swap your vote for political favours (as Shaw put it, the party that promises to rob Peter to pay Paul can count on the support of Paul). It is about who rules, the inclinations, affiliations and accesses. Governments must make cuts, they don't have a choice, but would you rather have a government for whom cuts are easy, or dificult?

Put another way, the social wage is part of the class struggle, we defend it all we can, and until something comes along to promote democracy and abolish the quckery of government, a vote for Labour is a slight defence against the worst. I've lived under two councils that fell to the Yellow Tories in alliance with the blue, t'ain't pretty. You can stop it.

Last of the big spenders

Now, whilst some people like to put a punt on politicalbetting.com the really serious gamblers prefer to play the high stakes game of - donating to their preferred political party.

Almost invariably, the party that spends the most money wins the election, in the UK. This isn't just because they spend more, it is also because likely winners attract donors - people like to back a winner and maybe see a decent return on their investment (David Sainsbury got a peerage and a ministerial post not unconnected to his family business, the corrupt little fucker, for instance).

The BBC seems to be indicating the smart money is now on a Tory victory at the next election.

I agree, my current prediction still remains on a Con/Lib-Dem administration after the next election.

Then, then, we could sit back and wonder at how Three terms Tony managed to turn the most commanding position ever held by Labour, into so much fluff.

Lords reform

Well, the White Paper is out. A new upper house 50% elected, 30% political appointees, 20% non-political appointees (clever, all the changes in proportion come out of the political appointees section.

Point to note is the determination that no one party should be able to dominate the house.

Some lame arguments are wheeled out against unjicameralism - hat big countries are too complex to go unicameral. This is backed up by showing how single chamber parliaments tend to occur in small countries. What they, I suspect, miss, is that those Parliaments tend to be quite small themselves, and that a suitable sized single chamber could well handle the complexities of British legislation.

Essentially, then, the new upper house as designed will be a useful sinecure for hacks and remain a nice piece of choice patronage for party leaders.

The tone of the White paper is technocratic - how can a legislature be managed - the point of high principle, that no-one should have a right to pass a law over me without me being able to do something to rid myself of them, is missing. Slipped into technocratic speak about legitimacy and acceptance of the institutions.

Voting in Kentish Tahn.

Siân Rebecca Berry	Green	812
Samuel Eric McBratney	Labour	808
Richard James Merrin	Conservative	198
Ralph Scott	Liberal Democrat	1093

Well, there we go then, fun over - all the Lib-Dem treasure thrown into taking the seat seems to have paid off. I got at least four mailshots from the Liberals - maybe they just targetted known voters (they were personally addressed to me).

That's not a bad turnout for a by-election - and it doesn't really change the balance on the council. What it does do is indicate how badly stuffed Labour are, coming third in what used to be their turf.

A creditable show for the Greens - Darren asks whether I was tempted by Siân - however I oppose the Greens and their outlook generally, which reifies Nature and essentially seeks a form of hyper scarcity economics, so I didn't realy even consider them.

This is the end of my firstadventure in political independence, and I'm not sure if it's clarifed anything. Make me miserable living under the Lib-Dem jack-boot, though.