29.10.2009

Looking to 2010

Mohsen Sabbagh reports discussions on the Labour Party, postal workers, and students

The October 25 CPGB aggregate featured debates on the 2010 general election, the postal workers’ strike and Communist Students. Whilst neither the Communication Workers Union dispute nor CS provoked great controversy, the debate on next year’s election saw comrades once again talk about the importance of flexible tactics, not least in relation to the Labour Party.

Comrade John Bridge opened the discussion by questioning the common sense approach that the Labour Party faces a devastating defeat in the next general election. It is too early to tell. There could be a Labour pre-poll recovery. On the other hand an attempt to crush the Communication Workers Union could split Labour.

With news that we are now in the longest recession since records began, he went to say that we need to challenge the logic of ‘whatever is bad for capitalism is good for us’ by pointing out that no left sect has been boasting of dramatic increases in membership applications, and if anything the left organisations are getting still weaker.

In the next general election the mainstream choice is going to be between three parties which are all agreed on cuts. People are therefore simply being given the chance to choose the butcher. We cannot recommend one over another. As for the left, the Socialist Workers Party has made noises about a united left response, but unfortunately is seems to be nothing more than noises - when the CPGB asked to meet the comrades to discuss their proposal, we were met with a studious silence. The general election might see ‘son of No2EU’ - the RMT union, the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain and Socialist Party in England and Wales - plus various other groups contesting, but by all accounts such a challenge will be extremely limited.

We would recommend a vote for any such left candidates, said comrade Bridge. However, we should first and foremost be for a conditional vote for Labour. We should vote for any Labour candidate who has adopted an explicit stance against the proposed cuts in government spending which adversely effect the working class. We should produce a list of candidates that we believe are supportable according to these criteria.

The Labour Party remains a vital site for struggle and it would be a major strategic mistake to abandon engagement with it. What we would be offering is a critical vote, using the same method employed in the 2005 general election when we called for a vote to any Labour candidate who was for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

We emphatically reject the call made by Unite Against Fascism for a vote for anyone but the BNP. Unlike the SWP, which seems happy enough to be part of a popular frontist consensus that stretches all the way to the UK Independence Party, we are for independent working class politics.

Comrade Mike Macnair expanded on the recommendation of the PCC, arguing that we cannot fall into the trap of voting for the Green Party; it is a petty bourgeois party, financed by green businesses and quite prepared to enter cutting coalitions with the Tories. We should call for a class vote and in many places that meant Labour.

James Turley and Peter Manson disagreed, arguing that if in the last instance we vote Labour then that contradicts the idea of conditional support. The very point of conditions is that they have to met. Comrade Manson reasoned that circumstances in 2010 are significantly different from the June European elections, when the MPs’ expenses scandal was in full swing and “anti-politics politics” was at its height. We were also presented with lists, not individual candidates.

In response to these and other criticisms comrade Macnair said that he was not insisting on a Labour vote as the lesser evil. A spoilt ballot is a sign of weakness, but it might be the necessary thing to do in the 2010 election. He pointed out that the conditions we will put on Labour Party candidates will have to be indirect, as none of them will say yes to the “real question”, ‘Will you vote against a cuts budget?’

Exploring the nature and application of conditions that could be put on Labour candidates, comrade Nick Rogers argued that cuts are going to be the crucial issue in the upcoming election, but determining who was pro-cuts in the Labour Party was not going to be easy - very few would admit to it. He also argued that ‘troops out of Afghanistan’ and open borders were important questions that could be included in any conditions put to Labour candidates. Comrade Yassamine Mather agreed that defining who was pro-cuts was going to be a difficult task, and said as the political climate might change between now and May 2010, the conditions we place on Labour candidates might also change.

Comrade Ben Lewis argued that if we include too many conditions then we get to the point that no-one fulfils them all and then we end up simply calling for a spoilt ballot. He said we should make propaganda for what is needed and “go onto the ideological offensive”.

Comrade Anne Mc Shane raised the idea of the CPGB itself standing in the election in order to raise the communist banner. Mark Fischer pointed out that we are not allowed to stand as Communist Party of Great Britain, as the electoral commission has ruled this would ‘cause confusion’ for voters, who are allegedly unable to tell the difference between ourselves and the CPB. In summing up, comrade Bridge said that the key tactic must remain one of going through the existing left - which includes attempting to win them to a principled stance on the Labour Party.

In the second session comrade Macnair opened the discussion on the current postal workers’ dispute, saying that if it goes ahead it could be of historic importance, with the Labour Party seemingly out to smash one of its own affiliated trade unions. Comrade Macnair argued that our immediate tasks in relation to the postal strikes meant not only getting CWU speakers to meetings, organising collections and promoting solidarity. We also need to address the politics of the dispute, explaining the character and the class contradictions behind it.

Comrades Bridge and Jim Moody addressed the issue of scabs, pointing out how essential it was for student comrades in particular to argue against taking temporary work with Royal Mail.

The final session was on Communist Students and James Turley reported on the success enjoyed by CS over the freshers period, especially in Manchester, London and Oxford. James argued that what is unique about CS is its focus on the centrality of programme and method.

Following on, Dave Isaacson and Cat Rylance reported on CS activities in Oxford and Manchester respectively. John Bridge argued that, due to the failure of the student left, it was often not possible for CS to direct its work through the rest of the left in the way the CPGB aims to, but rather attempt to build a viable alternative. In order to do this it is not only important to educate ourselves and others, but also to be active and vocal, with a consistent presence on campus.