Warning Ballot paper enclosed in "The Voice"

[nottadrone]

Which candidates voted for, or were in cabinet pushing for, the part privatisation of RM?
Then there's the minimum wage. Set so low that no-one can live on it.
Oh, and thanks to their fiscal policies this country is near bankrupt.
Once a candidate steps forward who will truly look after the people, then I'll vote for them. But this time around all I see are ex ministers. I see no change.

[Harry_Perkins]

Which candidates voted for, or were in cabinet pushing for, the part privatisation of RM?
Then there's the minimum wage. Set so low that no-one can live on it.
Oh, and thanks to their fiscal policies this country is near bankrupt.
Once a candidate steps forward who will truly look after the people, then I'll vote for them. But this time around all I see are ex ministers. I see no change.

Errr... one of the candidates has always opposed privatisation, voted against it (or signed the EDMs, as it never got that far) and has never been a minister.

The minimum wage is nothing that radical but it is worth bearing in mind that the Tories fought hard against its introduction at the time. Michael Howard said it would cost two million jobs. He was only two million out. So yeah, it is so low you can hardly live on it but if it wasn't there do you doubt some employers wouldn't be paying less? They have been campaigning to get rid of it of late, with the help of their backbench Tory MP mates (they grouped together to put an amendment on some bill to make the minimum wage 'voluntary' for employers) so I wouldn't even be sure this little reform will survive much longer. And certainly don't expect any increases.

I remember my first job circa 1998 was on about 3.05 an hour. A year before the minimum wage came in at about 3.60. I did a 44 hour week and got about 105.00 after tax. There were no tax credits to bump it up. That was it. Effectively I earned 2.38 an hour after tax. So yeah, New Labour were shite but lets not ever pretend these lot are ever going to be any better.

[Harry_Perkins]

I don't endorse the Trots that wrote this but it is a pretty sensible analysis of the election: http://www.workersliberty.org/story/201 ... anise-left" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ballot papers for the Labour Party’s leadership election were sent out on Wednesday 1 September. As the contest reached its last stages, Tony Blair, while promoting his memoirs, intervened to defend (his) New Labour record and implicitly to back David Miliband over his brother Ed. Blair fears that Labour in opposition could be pushed to the left. He thinks David Miliband becoming leader could stop that. For once Tony Blair is not wrong.

If David Miliband becomes leader it will galvanise those suited careerists in the Labour party and unions who think with fondness about New Labour political “success story” under Blair. They think that notwithstanding such things as Blair’s thoroughly discredited role over the Iraq war; they would just prefer, as David Miliband said “to put that behind us”.

What political strength these people have matters. They are, for example, the Labour council leaders who are pushing through cuts.

David Miliband’s election, as seems likely, would be a disaster. His affinity with New Labour’s past is made clear by the £350,000 he has received in donations — £50,000 from public relations millionaire Anthony Bailey (top client BAE Systems).

In our view maximising the vote for Diane Abbott would put down a marker against David Miliband. Abbott is likely to be the third placed candidate. Transfer votes from Abbott to Ed Miliband, the only candidate that could beat David Miliband, could also help do that. By the same token this could encourage those people in the labour movement who genuinely want to see the back of “New Labour”, who want a more combatative, more “anti-Tory”, and more open and democratic labour movement.

Neither Abbott or Ed Miliband are the candidates class struggle socialists would have wanted to stand in this election. Not by some distance! But anyone in the unions and Labour who is paying attention to the contest, who despaired at New Labour’s neo-liberalism, will want to be well-disposed to Diane Abbott and, even Ed Miliband! We care what those people think and the choices they make. They are the sort of people who could be brought into a campaign to reshape of the labour movement for the better.

In general we care a great deal about important labour movement elections. If we can back candidates, however inadequate, without contradicting our basic principles, we should do so. We make the best actual choices in any given circumstances. But our basic job here is not so much calling for a vote, but mapping a struggle for something better. We say to people who are voting for Abbott or Ed Miliband — your choice makes some sense, but if you want to realise your aspirations for Labour you need to be part of a fight to open up Labour and trade union policy-making structures and to commit the labour movement to opposing the Lib-Con cuts.

We back Diane Abbott as she is the only candidate who had ever gone “against the grain” while New Labour was in power — on such issues as trade union rights and the invasion of Iraq. That differentiated her from all of the other candidates. In the candidate hustings her performance was weak. But she has won some support in Labour’s constituency parties. That is something that could be built on.

Ed Miliband’s left stance didn’t stand up to any close analysis — but he did construct a position which took account of more left wing views in the party and unions. At the end, he was talking about New Labour becoming “fixated” on markets, leading it to become “the party of bankers’ bonuses”. On 28 August he said “Britain’s big question of the next decade is whether we head towards an increasingly US-style capitalism — more unequal, more brutish, more unjust — or can we build a different model, a capitalism that
works for people and not the other way around”.

Ed Miliband has the standard-issue “centre-left” reform capitalism (but not too much) policies of the Labour think tank/campaign Compass: keep the top rate of income tax, yes to a graduate tax, for a living wage and high pay commission. It’s impact over the last years has been in peddling “progressive” policies and advocating “progressive alliances” between Labour and the Liberals.

What makes Ed Miliband’s campaign anything other than only mildly different from that of his brother is the fact he was nominated by the big three unions — Unite, Unison and the GMB. The big unions rightly fear the elder Miliband, as opposed to the younger Miliband, will assume greater and more bureaucratic control over the Labour Party’s organisational structures. That is important. It is a positive reason for union activists to cast a vote for Ed Miliband.

The union leadership’s method of fighting against the “threat” from David Miliband is categorically not that of the union militants. They have probably tied up some sort of deal with Ed Miliband on the future role of the unions in shaping the Labour Party’s policy. That is one possible interpretation behind the GMB’s Paul Kenny grumbling to the Times (27 August) about the how the unions would have to reassess their relationship with Labour if David Miliband gets elected.

Whatever happens, certainly even if Ed Miliband does get elected, the democratic decision making structures for Labour’s members and affiliated unions will not improve as we want them to unless union activists are able to mount a fight. And the fact both Milibands offered an Obama-style apolitical campaigning approach for New Labour (“Change to win” was Ed’s message) — bringing in many more members, (e.g. at cut price subs), and turning them into foot soldiers for Labour, serves to underline our point here.

The fact is ordinary union members know nothing about any “behind the scenes” negotiations by the union leaders and that, beyond the ability to vote in this election (and reportedly 9-10% voted in the 2007 Deputy Leadership election) are uninvolved in the political activity of their trade unions. A campaign to open up democracy in the big unions so that, among other things, political debate is open and transparent, is long overdue.

The differentiation between Ed Miliband and his brother is only a little more than language differences… for now. New political currents may take shape in the labour movement generated by the political turmoil of the biggest attacks on working-class people for decades. Ed Miliband may, or indeed may not, be part of those developments. That’s all in the future. But right now Ed Miliband’s commitment to involving the unions in Labour’s fortunes — in a very general sense — is a positive shift.

Without putting aside any criticism, being aware that we have a lousy set of candidates, and emphasising our key concern here - pushing the unions to actively campaign for the full restoration of democratic decision-making in Labour - we favour a vote for Diane Abbott and a transfer vote to Ed Miliband.

[nottadrone]

Harry, I stand corrected about the candidates. I agree with your points about the Tories and the minimum wage.
Personally speaking, I cannot vote for any of them. My 40 odd years have shown me that most modern politicians care only for themselves or big corporations. The genuine ones get sidelined.
Imho it is not party leaders, or parties that we need to change, but the entire system.

[Harry_Perkins]

Harry, I stand corrected about the candidates. I agree with your points about the Tories and the minimum wage.
Personally speaking, I cannot vote for any of them. My 40 odd years have shown me that most modern politicians care only for themselves or big corporations. The genuine ones get sidelined.
Imho it is not party leaders, or parties that we need to change, but the entire system.

What you say is understandable but it isn't true that the pro-big business and careerist types always win the day. Labour backbenchers gave the government a torrid time on Royal Mail privatisation. They were not sidelined. If they didn't care then they wouldn't have bothered to oppose it. One of them was Diane Abbott.

I agree on changing the system but do you not think if we're gonna change the whole system we could at least stop someone like David Milliband along the way? Not much to ask really, is it? It could be the start of something. But if he wins, it just cements the belief that we can't change anything and so there is no point voting etc.

[nottadrone]

I agree about Milibairn, sorry, Miliband. I notice that there's an electoral college system for this election, with the total number of votes allocated as follows:
1/3 to Labour MPs and MEPs (300+), 1/3 to party members (1,000s), and 1/3 to affiliates (10,000s). (Page 14 of the candidate booklet)
This strikes me as unbalanced and undemocratic. Surely omov is better for a democratic party?

[DirtyHarry]

Perhaps you disagree with the minimum wage then..Its attitide like that which kept the party out of power for 18 years...

Errr, minimum wage.......Not much of a list of achievements, is it?

Like your style Keep the peasants alive and grateful Minimum wage w*****s, be I ever so umbel

It's an attitude I will mock until my dying day, that we should all be grateful for the smallest of crumbs that are tossed our way.
Well, I'm not, nor will I ever be, not until something is done to reverse this "rich get richer, poor get poorer", crap.
Honestly, New Labour, the working man/woman would be mad to have to depend on them.
"Get back to work", was the terse comment made by the last New Labour PM to us, as we fought against the sort of tyrannical, dishonest, exploitative, excrement, that the Labour party was founded to protect us against.
Vote for New Labour, or vote in any of it's sham elections, I'd sooner spend eternity trying to figure out what the hell that programme,"The Prisoner", was about!

[BELIAL]

Hat's off to Harry Perkins Nice to read some thoughtful and intelligent stuff
Question is Harry ,given that our present system of party politics is so patently open to corruption and abuse have you had any thoughts about a radical and progressive alternative?

[Harry_Perkins]

Hat's off to Harry Perkins Nice to read some thoughtful and intelligent stuff
Question is Harry ,given that our present system of party politics is so patently open to corruption and abuse have you had any thoughts about a radical and progressive alternative?

Do you mean a party to the left of Labour? The Socialist Party have been running a campaign for a good few years now for a 'new workers party'. My problem with this is: what exactly is there to stop this new formation from eventually going exactly the same way as the Labour Party now, under the same circumstances? They of course argue that all elected officials should be on a 'workers wage' and this would be protection against this but there is really nothing stopping the thing degenerating in the same way. It just seems to me that they came up with the idea as after leaving Labour they needed a new party to work in.

And of course there have been loads of other attempts by the likes of SWP, the various Communist Parties and numerous others that make up the alphabet soup to challenge Labour. And they've all failed because workers still have a tribal attachment to Labour and they don't want to split the vote and let the Tories in.

[Big Daz]

But with PR (a proper PR not AV) the wory of letting Tories in fades and it might buck ideas up in Labour if voters are then embolden to vote for who they like rather than vote Labour to keep Tories out.

[Big Daz]

http://petergkenyon.typepad.com/peterkenyon/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good Stuff this blog,

[MinisterofCucumber]

This 'you need to capture the middle ground' argument is a load of crap. There are only two classes of people, those who get shafted and those who are doing the shafting.

People in this country have wised up to New Labour and realise that 'middle class' doesn't really mean anything outside of whether or not you do your shopping in Marks and Spencers. I am listening to all the support for the tube strikers on the radio at the moment and I get the feeling that people will not put up with governments that ask the poor to pay for mistakes made by the rich.

[BELIAL]

Hat's off to Harry Perkins Nice to read some thoughtful and intelligent stuff
Question is Harry ,given that our present system of party politics is so patently open to corruption and abuse have you had any thoughts about a radical and progressive alternative?

The Socialist Party have been running a campaign for a good few years now for a 'new workers party'. My problem with this is: what exactly is there to stop this new formation from eventually going exactly the same way as the Labour Party now, under the same circumstances? They of course argue that all elected officials should be on a 'workers wage' and this would be protection against this but there is really nothing stopping the thing degenerating in the same way. It just seems to me that they came up with the idea as after leaving Labour they needed a new party to work in.

And of course there have been loads of other attempts by the likes of SWP, the various Communist Parties and numerous others that make up the alphabet soup to challenge Labour. And they've all failed because workers still have a tribal attachment to Labour and they don't want to split the vote and let the Tories in.

To be fair to the Socialist party Harry ,they did not 'come up' with the idea of a "workers MP on a workers wage" after leaving the Labour party, in fact Nelist and Mulhearn only ever drew the average wage of their constituents with the excess salary being returned to the labour movement. Wonder why they got expelled from the labour party?

Back to the main point though

Do you mean a party to the left of Labour?

No.
forget "party",forget Lib LAB Con flip flop , forget crumbs and cuts. Think bigger and better

[Big Daz]

To be fair to the Socialist party Harry ,they did not 'come up' with the idea of a "workers MP on a workers wage" after leaving the Labour party, in fact Nelist and Mulhearn only ever drew the average wage of their constituents with the excess salary being returned to the labour movement. Wonder why they got expelled from the labour party?

The Labour candidiate for Peterborough in the GE stood on that platform of returning the excess to the Labour movement, yet Pbor resident still voted for the twat Jackson.

[Harry_Perkins]

To be fair to the Socialist party Harry ,they did not 'come up' with the idea of a "workers MP on a workers wage" after leaving the Labour party, in fact Nelist and Mulhearn only ever drew the average wage of their constituents with the excess salary being returned to the labour movement. Wonder why they got expelled from the labour party?

No, I knew about the three Militant MPs. I was talking about the campaign for a new workers party. They remain of the view that you can't just stand in elections on your 'full programme' (ie, as the Socialist Party - even though they do in some limited circumstances. Usually where they have name recognition with someone like Dave Nellist) - you have to work in a reformist party first. So after they left Labour and then the Socialist Alliance, they needed a new party to work in. Hence the Campaign for a New Workers Party. I've noted some acceptance from the SP after the election, after the risible results the TUSC got and No2EU before that, that they may have been wrong about Labour, and workers attitudes to it, over all these years. Not sure where this leaves them as I can't see them rejoining but you never know. They always said when they left that they still believed in entryism and it would only be a temporary move and they would eventually return to the party. Indeed, a minority of Militant stayed and are still there. Even though I have no time for Leninist parties, I would welcome them back. I agree with Tony Benn when he says we would be better off with less socialist parties and more socialists in the Labour Party!

No.
forget "party",forget Lib LAB Con flip flop , forget crumbs and cuts. Think bigger and better

Yeah, I just wanted to check as most people when they talk about a 'radicial alternative to Labour' mean some party to the left of Labour. So you are basically talking about new institutions to replace the ones we have? Well, yes. I would like to see workers self-management instead of Taylorism, for example. Economic democracy. But this will obviously have to come from below and can't be done through parliament or via a 'vanguard party' storming the winter palace, a la the Bolsheviks. Quite honestly though, this is all a bit utopian at the moment when we haven't even got a properly funded NHS etc.