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.

More fools

From the comments below on "BNP Fools":

I don't think the university graduates of the SWP understood the system either. Their Left List put out a leaflet saying: "The proportional representation system means the only way to stop a minor party like the BNP getting elected is to vote for a progressive, left alternative. Under the PR system just piling up voted for New Labour will not block the BNP. But voting for the Left List can stop the fascists getting a seat on the London Assembly". I think I'm right in saying that this is just not true. The D'Hondt system favours the bigger parties, so piling up votes for New Labour, the Tories, the Liberals or the Greens would precisely have been the way to have blocked the BNP. In this respect a vote for the SWP/Left List or any other very minor party would have been a wasted vote. Am I right or do you need a Ph D in statistics to understand all this?

London Socialist is right.

In a sense what they are suggesting has some basis. In a PR system, every vote cast for a candidate other than the BNP does increase the chance of that party getting the seat instead of the BNP.

Further, with the 5% threshold, every vote cast changes absolutely the number of votes they would require in order to enter the assembly.

But, the d'Hondt system is superproportional for larger parties, and simply voting to big up the Labour vote would be more likely to help them snatch the seat to prevent the BNP from filling it.

The only way what the SWP were suggesting could work would be if there were large scale transfers from Labour to the Left List - this would be to take advantage of the additional member system, but if this had happened thoroughly, the SWP/Left List would have gained 8 seats with 650,000 votes, and the BNP would still have got in. Likewise, if the left did manage to pull of such a stunt, it's likely that the BNP would have been able to pull votes off the Tories.

As it is, the votes for the also rans (Christian Peoples Party, English Democrats, UKIP, Respect, Left List, One London) come to 228,214 - that represents about two seats, and probably represents, more or less, the super proportionality of the larger parties. The majority of these are right wing votes, and so would otherwise have fallen to the Tories. But, then, the aim is to keep the BNP out, so better Tories than fascists?

Mind, an extra 95,000 votes for Labour would have taken a seat off the Tories, which would in most terms mean a reduction in the potential voting weight of the BNP, since it would make it harder for them to act as the pivot on which a Tory majority could hang.

If you're going to play these games, at least play them right.

The joy of sects (again)

Anyway, outside Kentish Tahn co-op Respect were holding a petion/stall (I think the WRP had just finished their shift, it's a regular political marketplace outside Kentish Tahn co-op). I couldn't resist - I asked if they were going to defect to the Tories if elected. The respectoid laughed, and said she's only just heard of the story herself - she tried to pass it off as the swings and roundabouts of electoral politics - she knew the *other* three councillors, and they are sound - so that's allright then. But from the SWP to the Tories? not since Hyndman - that's a hell of a record to be breaking.

Anyway, the Ingrate links to the greatest peice of trainspottery for somewhile: Mark Steel has left the SWP (according to Derek Wall).

I've been surprised by the resiliance of SWP members, and the fact that the party hasn't gone into meltdown after the failure and ructions of Respect - maybe this has begun, now.

How significant would this be? Well, their profile is enormous. My friends always thought I was out selling Socialist Worker and in the Socialist Workers Party - now matter how often I'd try to correct them. Basically, the far left peopel on street corners were Socialist Worker, and you'd have to be a trainspotter to know any different. Everyone has heard of them, especially if they've been through university.

I won't rehash their record in trashing the Socialist Alliance, Scottish Socialist Party and, bizarrely, Respect, but it's well known. Mind, I've been predicting the WRPisation of the SWP since Tony Cliff died, so what do i know...

Update: When I posted this, I had a sneaking suspicion I was repeating a joke: it turns out I posted an article with an identical title almost exactly two years ago (The joy of sects). Should I be worried? Or glad? Anyway, compre and contrast, comrades.

Idle bugger

I've been full of cold - that's my excuse.

Anyway, I'll try and fit in some posts about Venzuela and Pakistan in the next week or so (there, I've committed myself, I have to do it).

But first, given that it seems that the SWP are going to be holding the "constitutionally convened" Respect conference, and Galoway's mob are holding a rival one (because they lost the packing war) I take it that means that, all importantly, the SWP is going to be able to retain the respect brand, and - vitally - the registration with the Electoral Commission.

They can add it to their collection, because they currently own the registration for Socialist Alliance (the last front they trashed). I wonder whether, when they split with Tommy Sheridan they will keep the Solidarity registration? Perhaps they collect them? Are the SWP scalp hunters?

I'm surprised, to be frank, that no one is running round accusing the SWP of being an MI5 front, after all, they ahve systematically trashed everything on the left for years and years. No one has, and that would be absurd, because, everyone knows that, like the scorpion in the story, it's what they do.

Their baleful influence illustrates clearly that we all need to learn a lesson, that open, democratic movements that are impervious to their conspiratorial take over techniques.

p.s.

Unrelated, but fascinating article over at Socialist Unity about Cuba's (enforced) post oil economy.