On Partyism

A light reply to Edmund Griffiths essaylette on building a New Left Party (https://www.edmundgriffiths.com/newparmounlab.html) Possibly not in contradiction. I just want to go back to basics on the importance of partyism (as opposed to cadrism, spontaneism, actionism, syndicalism etc.) 

So, what is a party? At heart, it is a participant in a process: a legal term (“The party of the first part”). A party has an interest in the process (drawing up a contract, disputing in court, winning a vote). Interest here means more than intellectual engagement, it means being subject to the material outcomes of the process. 

The working class is a party to the political process: the ongoing contest over who and in whose interest decisions are taken in society. Likewise, socialists and communists are parties to this process, merely through the articulation of their desires and objects. The working class party, or the communist party is the broad category that covers any agency that promotes, pursues or articulates these interests. 

A Political Party, proper, is the corporate expression of this agency. In UK law, this corporation attracts privileges (name and logo protection) and obligations (reporting on donations and spending). This corporate body is mostly what people mean when they talk about a new left/working class party. The left party exists in any case, but how is it best to be championed (or does it need a champion at all?). The incorporated agent provides essential services to the party: it can formalise position, exclude (disclaim) some positions and actions, and provides authority: who can and cannot speak on behalf of the party. This is a blessing and a curse, since power will seek to recuperate this authority and turn it against the broader movement. The corporate body provides continuity beyond the individuals. 

The Labour Party’s clause 1.2 is an excellent and elegant expression of this: “[The Labour Party’s] purpose is to organise and maintain in Parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.” (and of course, Clause 4 defines the purpose of that party). As it stands, its officials and members do an excellent job at meeting those objects. 

So, I wind to my point: Alastair Cambell used to write OST on people’s papers: Objective, Strategy, Tactics. Objective shapes strategy, strategy shapes tactics. A new incorporation of the left needs a laser like focus on the shared objective. The mess of Sultana/Corbyn situation stems in part because the implicit objective is to forge a parliamentary alliance from existing MPs with different electoral bases. The unclarity of objectives and structures itself is derived from the necessity of the object of welding together existing political teams and individuals: the court politics then follows that set up, and is coupled by the recuperation by a media that itself is built around court politics.

How I voted in the Labour Leadership Election

I'm going to have words with my Unison's branch's membership secretary - I could have sworn I filled in a form to opt out of the political fund. Yet, yesterday, I received my Unison Labour Leadership ballot paper.

I agonised over what to do with it.

To have it even count you have to tick a box affirming "I support the policies and principles of the Labour Party, and am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it and pay a political subscription to the body that issued this website."

So, technically, I should have just binned it. But, the urge was upon me. Reader, I lied, I ticked the box.

So, how did I vote?

I wrote: "No Leaders WORLD SOCIALISM" across it, and ticked the box so they would have to count it as a valid spoilt ballot. At the least I've cost the Labour Party a bit of money. At best, thousands of people doing the same could send a message. If your union includes you, go for it mes braves.

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.

Back to politics

OK, so, a round up-cum-linkage of three web stories.

Firstly, Dave Osler, passim making the case that there's nowt to the left of Labour. All well and good, and true. In fact, as Luke Akehurst has been banging on about for weeks, and now Jonathon Feedland has joined in with - the race isn't run, yet. There are still months to the election, and the incumbants have all the power and publicity position brings them.

Which brings us to the Queen's speech (Gawd bless 'er - incidentally, a Labour candidate is being disciplined for being rude about the Queen: telling the truthYes, it is a 'values' programme, more about the tone than detail; but what tone.

A national care service for the elderly, restrictions on bankers bonuses - Labour forced into little errosions of the market.

Yes, millions still support Labour, and the electoral advantage, thanks to the distribution of votes, gives them a strong hand. That means millions support capitalism; but the give aways Labour will try to use to stay in power offer some prospect of a space for socialists to criticise and say "not enough".

Socialism doesn't grow out of despair, but of hope. The midst of a recession doesn't build for revolution, but the start of growth, when there is a prospect for renewal and "never again" maybe, we'll have a chance.

With the SWP going into meltdown, maybe a clear run for socialism will be had - although I suspect it's the Millies who'll end up last man standing, creating an SSP redux.

oh, well.

The Shettlestonians...

Labour stuffed in Glasgow. Are we facing a Canada 1993 with Labour facing utter wipeout? Will that finally lead to the realignment Blair wanted (after all, the liberals would fill the gap, and a good chunk of Labour would desert the old union based organisation).

The big question is, Gordon Brown, what will he do, go, and go now, or cling on - perhaps pursuing a scorched Earth policy? A series of give away budgets?

Stay tuned, to this bat channel!

Labour and the unions

Young Master Osler has a wee defence of the Labour/Union link Here.

I reproduce a letter the SPGB sent to the Fire Brigades Union some while ago, when they disafiliated:

A letter to the Fire Brigades' Union:

Dear General Secretary,

At its meeting of 3rd July 2004 our Executive Committee asked me to write to you to express our welcome of your union's recent decision to reverse your historic mistake of affiliating to the Labour Party.

For nearly 100 years the Socialist Party has held a clear and consistent position that trade unions and political parties need to remain separate. We have considered it bizarre that trade unionists in public sector unions should hand over their dues money to their, effective, political employers. Feeding the hand that beat them.

We have observed that trade unions need freedom to manoeuvre and represent the interests of the membership – distinct groups within the working class. This freedom of manoeuvre means getting the best deal for their members within capitalism, often as against the general policy of a political party, which has to at least attempt to represent the general interest of its constituency. Political parties and trade unions only harm each other by shackling themselves to one another.

In the case of the Labour Party in Britain, it is clear that there have been numerous clashes between themselves and the Unions. The Attlee government used troops to smash a dock-workers strike. Wilson's government floundered over the refusal of the unions to accept the 'In Place of Strife' income controls policy. Your own union members were branded traitors and threatened with legislation to deprive them of their freedom to strike in your recent dispute.

This is not caused by individual wickedness of Labour ministers, but by the hard logic of administering capitalism. The same hard logic that saw Labour governments tear up railways and close down more pits than the Tories ever did. Capitalism is founded on the principle of no profit no production, and if a government is to keep capitalism running, it must obey this hard and fast law.

We thus wish to express our hope that your union will not seek to affiliate with any other political party, and most specifically, not try to recreate the Old Labour disaster that has blighted the workers movement for more than a hundred years. We hope you will use all your union's resources and funds to defend your members' interests, rather than those of your political employers.

We further hope that your members will come to understand that any resolution of a pay-deal within capitalism means their continued exploitation by the tiny capitalist class, and that their best interest lies in joining their fellow workers in a movement with the express and single aim of "the abolition of the wages system" and its replacement with common ownership and the free association of producers.

And append this sample of a form:

Cut out the coupon below and send it to your work’s wages office. You can send a copy to your union’s HQ.

POLITICAL FUND EXEMPTION NOTICE

I hereby give notice that I object to contributing to the Political Fund of the union and am in consequence exempt, in the manner provided by Chapter 6 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (consolidation) Act 1992, from contributing to that fund.

Name.......................................................

Union Membership No........................................

Address....................................................

...........................................................

Branch.....................................................

Signature..................................................

Date.......................................................

From the IWW


I think that's answer enough.

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.

From the comments...

It may be a half remembered anecdote - and thus embellished beyond recognition - but i seem to remember reading that the Glasgow ILPers who were part of the 1922 Parliamentary intake - Maxton, Wheatley, Kirkwood, Stephen etc - did more than chide themselves because they were convinced in later years that it was their votes that swung the leadership contest MacDonald's way against Clynes in '22.

If what they felt was true, then they contributed far more to Labour in Government then MacDonald ever thought imaginable.

Quoth the Ingrate in t'comments.

Yes, interestingly, reading about MacDonald for a talk I gave somewhere (Ramsay MacDonald: Bastard - was the title, for obvious reasons) I discovered that he came to power as the left-wing candidate. In 1914 he resigned the Labour leadership in order to oppose World War I. He was villified throughout, to the extent that John Bull magazine publicly revealled his bastardy.

In 1917, at a meeting in Leeds, MacDonald moved a resolution calling for the establishment of Workers' & Soldiers councils in the UK - MacDonald was calling for Soviets! Indeed, in his biography, Lloyd George called MacDonald "the British Kerensky."* Without a doubt, had Red Clydeside and the revolts of 1919 gone anywhere, MacDonald, would have come to head up a revolutionary government as a part of the left.

So, that's a moustacheod Scottish MP, who opposed a war coming to the forefront of the British left, only to cause mayhem by his tendency to renegadism. Where have I heard that one before?

Update Tsk! I forgot my own footnote.

*Intriguingly Alexander Kerensky, according to Wikipedia, is himself buried in Putney Vale cemetary, apparently, no Russian orthodox cemetaries in the US (where he died) would have him, blaming him for the Russian revolution.

Why I (re)joined the Socialist Party(*)

I suppose I never really blogged on my adventures into reformism. Partly, I think, because some of the issues were background personal ones rather than political theoretical. Partly because I don't think it involved that much of a change of position for me. That much. Anyway, here goes to try and explain my reversion of the masthead of this blog, and my re-application to join the Socialist Party.

OK, my basic political principles are that I am a democrat, and believe that the minimum requirement is to "just get involved" - the mere involvement of millions changes politics. That's important. Involvement plus objective circumstance is what makes things move.

As a democrat, I have to accept when I am outvoted, and argue to change the view of the majority. What difference, thinks I, does it make if I do that from within or without the Labour Party, recognising, as a basic, that it is a part of the workers' movement, and that it does contain socialists (albeit ones of a different tradition). Either way, I will be outvoted.

I suppose, what I missed, or underestimated, was the role of a political party in reinforcing ideology/identity in an organised and communal sense. I tried joining various strands of Labour organisation, but tended to find that unless you were prepared to be a hyperactivist who won your spurs through performative acts of loyalty (leafletting and phone canvassing), you were going to get no-where. How, though, could I canvass when I was profoundly at odds with the thrust of the party's policies (though believing that, at worst, they were better than the Tory/Liberal alternatives).

To stretch an anology, early on, Labour surrendered to the symbollic hegemonic conservative values on entering their first period in office, they won their spurs by demonstrating a loyalty to the existing ordering (including Ruritanian privy council costumes). They pegged for small wins, without overly rocking the boat.

My still small voice was as drowned in the Labour party as it is without it. Except, the problem of politics is how to square the big picture with the day-to-day. Ramsay MacDonald - who can be described as the real ideological founder of the Labour Party, much as he is reviled as its great traitor - Oedipus Rex, anyone? - proposed a tripartite structure - Trade Unions, Parliamentary Labour Party, Independent Labour Party. The latter was to function as an almost purely propaganda vehicle for Socialism, leaving day to day legislation to the PLP, workplace struggles to the Unions. He would chide the ILP for getting too involved in government policy, rather than promoting socialism.

The reality is, that, for many in the Labour Party, there isn't time for a big picture, they hae councils to run and opponents to chivvy and chide. Big politics is scary and a gift to the opposition. But we need the big picture.

Except, for much of the left, the big picture has been a sort of fantastic support, a utopia which make the present possible and bearable - the lunatic derangement of the impossiblist is to think the fantasy can somehow become real and thus pursues it. We're trying to climb up to our castles in the air. But, this willful, instranigent belief in faerie tales breaks the Labour compact, the idea that taking care of the pennies now will win us pounds in heaven.

So, we return to the other vexing question, what does the revolutionary minority do in a time of class peace and majority support for capitalism? They get outvoted, and get themselves seen to be outvoted.

(*)If they'll have me, that is.

Brother, can you spare a billion?

Just a quick list:

MacDonald Wealth at death
£21,501 18s. 5d.: confirmation, 12 March 1938

Attlee Wealth at death
£7295: probate, 4 Jan 1968

Wilson Wealth at death
£490,992: probate, 17 Oct 1995

Callaghan died to recently for me to find him, but the list, I think, makes the point. MacDonald was directly corrupted (being loaned a Roller, being taken to country houses, etc.) and yet he died with a relatively modest estate for a former Prime Minister. Attlee must have worn hair shirts all his life, or something.

Tony Blair has made £5 million (alleged) from his memoirs, and its gettign Millions of Dollars per year for consultancies with multinational firms such as Zurich and JP Morgan.

The genius of this is that in capitalist terms it is't corruption, not quid pro quo payments for services rendered. It is indirect corruption, the implicit statement that any Prime Minister will find a place in the trough, if they keep their nose suitably clean first.

The vast inequality in wealth and access to wealth implicitly corrupts the entire political system. There is no way of fixing this, only social equality can deliver genuine democracy.

Workers' councils

I've always said - the revolution will be boring. I've probably even begun a blog post here with that line before. I've spent hours this week - on my union branch committee and at the local Labour branch GLC as a co-op party delegate - sitting in meetings. I've even been mugginsed into being my Co-op Party branch treasurer/membership secretary.

I've argued in the past that the Labour party is precisely what workers' councils under capitalism would look like - anything other than a succesful revolution will lead to them being incorporated into everyday life. That, in essence, is the part of the Labour Party that is worth supporting. Parliament and the executive should be seen in institutional not party terms - i.e. the Prime Minister is an autonomous position which is essencially distinct from the party.

At the meeting we had, at least, a brief report from Frank Dobson on some of his doings, including his response to a resolution we'd previously sent him. Workers' democracy in action?

Anyway, a bit of a debacle: a debate on Palestine was cancelled becuase Labour Friends of Israel's speakers pulled out over a cock up as to whether the meeting was open to the public or not. Maybe I should change my motto to "the revolution will be slightly crap, and is very sorry for it."

That cigarrette paper, again

The indefatigable Theo Blackwell continues to chart the assualt of the Lib-Dem(Majority)/Tory council in Camden - with the news that they have disbanded the council's Voluntary Sector Unit as part of their drive to hold council tax down, and be seen to be a low tax administration.

Further, he reports of swingeing cuts to mental health care services up in Highgate.

My sources have it, that, in fact, the Tories are leading the administration, and are the real political and intellectual quality of the regime - their major partner is just a bunch of puppets - so I hear.

What this is is an assault on soft targets - probably frequented by non-voters - from the council budget. Not care homes or schools or the sorts of things that might animate non-users of such services, but which do provide a great deal of what makes a community decent - and which you don't really miss till you try to use it and its not there.

This is the cigarrette paper between the mainstream parties, this tiny bit of difference that makes all the difference. Tories and Lib-Dems, for the strong, against the weak, against the vountary sector, against civil society - barricade yourselves up and spend your tax savings on home defence. Cut the social wage, and let the rest sink.

Fuehrer principle

Over at Theo Blackwell's, he's giggling away at the spat in the Greens over abolishing the position of Principle Speaker - as a good Labour Leader Wannabe he obvious backs the move for the Greens to get themselves a leader, with glee and gusto. I think its a sad state of affairs when a leader is seen as a necessity of a political party - there was a time when there was a widespread movement to strip leaders of powers and instill collegiate decision making.

I heard Caroline Lucas and Derek Wall tearing lumps out of each other over this issue on the radio - it strikes me that some prominent members of the Green Party may well have ambitions in the leadership direction. The simple question is, is the leadership principle compoatable with democratic organisation. The short answer is "No!".

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.

"Hi, I'm Harriet Harman"

She said, as she swooped on the person in the row in front of me - I had a trashy vampire novel to ward of prospective networking deputy leadership candidates, last night at the palatial London Irish Centre. they prowled the room butting into people's conversations and letter everyone know they were there.

We were being husted.

The first I noticed was Hilary Benn, gadzooks he has a loud booming voice - the sort I'd normally associate with puiblic schooling, but he went to his local comp. He did some sort of interview for Channel Four news, earpiece on, staring to camera - I couldn't hear the questions but it sounded a confident combatative performance.

Harman, Hain, Blears and Johnson all had leaflets flying about - as an affectionada of leaflets I have to say I think Hain's was badly deigned - nicely produced but badly designed. Johnson wasn't present himself, having an unmovable prior arrangement.

The hustings themselves were chaired by affable Lancastrian MP Shahid Malik, and were interesting enough. All of the candidates banged the equality drum - Harman and Cruddas almost explicitly mean equality of outcome (Harman claimed you cannot have equality of opportunbity while you have unequal distribution of wealth, which I'd agree with, but is unusual from this Labour government to hear, and I think I saw one or two bemused faces in the crowd).

Cruddas claimed that all the candidates were going to have to support the Fourth Option on council housing - so presumably they've all taken flak over that - plus they all acknowledged that housing is a big issue round here.

Hain was competent, and wants to have a big seat at the cabinet, to give the DL clout. Benn seemed to think much the same way, stating he thought party organisation should be the Chair's job. Blears wanted a full-time campaigning DL, as did Cruddas.

They were all fine speakers, Cruddas was mateyand informal, Benn highly oratorical, eschewing the fine detail of the otehrs' speeches to talk big politics (even using a stunt I've used on the stump often enough of waving a bottle of water around because kids in Africa are dying from the want of the same).

Harman was the surprise for me, she seemed energeic, committed, and may have bumped up a few placed in my estimation.

Brown Zedong

Well, to answer Darren's question, below, I would have voted McDonnell - I can't say I agree with him on everything, but at least he tried and he seems a nice personable gadgee.

But, to the ongoing debate - I got some literature from the Brown campaign through my door last night (who paid for that?). It reads like some of the interminable job applications I have to occasionally go through "I have decided to stand as leader of the Labour Party because I want to make a cotnribution to meeting the challenges ahead. I am capable of working under my own initiative and as a member of a team." OK, so I embellished the quote a little, but you get my drift.

The big question is, what sort of historical illiterates are running his campaign, see this picture here:

Look familiar? Well, it ought to, because it is reminiscent of quite a famous photo indeed:


That's right, brutal, tyranous murderous dictator Mao Zedong making himself seem all cuddly and smiley with lots of happy children, of course, he always secured 90% of the votes of the Chinese communist party as well. Maybe Brown really is a sixties child "If you go copying pictures of Chairman Maooo..."

My thoughts on how I will vote, a little later.

p.s. my initial private ey-ish title for this post was "Gordon Brown in paedophila shocker"...

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.