Democracy and the future: Who represents us socialists?

SocialistAC Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 01:23:31 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

In my opinion, an issue we all need to consider very strongly within the party and Labour movement. Although arguably the Labour Party itself has never really been a socialist party, it has been the only political and parliamentary mass representation that socialists and social-democrats have ever had access to, and success with in terms of implementation of ideas.



Now, I don't wish to sound like someone with a persecution complex, but I feel that socialists are increasingly being marginalised in the party. Example: Brown feels free to appoint individuals from avowedly anti-socialist parties (Tories and LibDems) yet makes no concessions to anyone from the soft left. Trade unions - flawed yet necessary instruments for giving workers a voice - are going to be even less empowered. From the unswervingly Tory-lite rhetoric of senior Labour MPs, many people like myself, who consider themselves very moderate Leftists, feel very uncomfortable within the party, and many others unwilling to (re)join and participate politically.  

 This does not mean I expect or demand the party to move sharply leftwards. What I mean is that, as the only voice for socialists and as an organisation that owes much to the efforts and toil of socialists, Labour should give us a chance, a channel, to be heard and provide constructive ideas, to be represented. If only for the sake of democracy: many Britons with any vaguely progressive (let alone socialist) set of convictions from all walks of life really do need a sign from somewhere that politics is not just for the elite, and is something they can have a say in.



tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Democracy and the future: Who represents us socialists? | 5 comments (5 topical)

More (#1)

by SocialistAC on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 01:29:36 AM GMT

Basically, in a nutshell, as Labour is unquestionably the only politically viable party to represent socialists/social-democrats, I feel that it should actually represent left-leaning people, because otherwise, many people will be disenfranchised and frozen out of political participation.


Re: Who represents us socialists? (#2)

by Radford Mann on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:16:41 AM GMT

Yep, I agree absolutely. The problem is in deciding what to do about it. The leadership has been very successful at marginalising ordinary members and its policy choices have resulted in many more comrades either leaving the party or lapsing into inactivity.


However, I really do think we are approaching a critical juncture very soon and we have to ask ourselves what are we going to do. It is the activists that tend to be in many constituencies more to the left of the broader membership, and it is the activists who are expected to do the work to get Labour candidates elected, candidates often to the right of activists but selected by the wider membership who then go back home. I think we have to ask ourselves very seriously if another term of Labour government is worth the effort. Given that so many of our policies are Tory policies why put in the effort? A hung parliament might be a good thing, especially if it leads to PR. Then the imperative of politicians rushing to the centre is weakened and space is created for social democratic and socialist ideas. The alternative of course is to wait until we're in opposition and regroup. However, we must avoid the bad blood that we created in the late '70s early '80s.


But, of course we will turn out and get Labour candidates elected because that's what we do; it's in the genes almost. My own constituency of Nottingham South is an interesting case. One activist told me that if the candidate selected to replace Alan Simpson is on the right of the party then they wouldn't lift a finger to help her get elected. Now, that was said to me in a pub past the point at which the Chief Medical Officer would call it 'binge drinking', and when push comes to shove I expect to see this comrade on the streets for whoever is selected. But the risk is there that people won't give up as much time as they did for Alan and, combined with the loss of his personal vote, we might get a strange result come election night.


Re: Who represents us socialists? (#3)

by doctordunc on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:27:50 PM GMT

I was really disappointed that Alan stood down.

It shouldn't all be about parliamentary representation, but of course our party democracy is hugely skewed towards the PLP, so it is inevitably of enormous importance.  So many MPs on the left are standing down this time, it's very important to ensure that left-wingers replace them where possible.


[ Parent ]

Re: Who represents us socialists? (#4)

by JM on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 12:36:07 AM GMT

I think it's skewed towards the PLP only when we're in government. When we're not, the party has a huge amount of power.


[ Parent ]

Re: Who represents us socialists? (#5)

by doctordunc on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 06:33:10 PM GMT

Internal democracy is skewed towards the PLP full-stop really (their 'third' of any electoral college represents a massive tranche of the vote when you bear in mind how few of them there are compared with party and union members).  Of course there's a logical argument to say that it needs to be skewed in that way as ours is a party that creates policies to be put before parliament, and elects leaders to lead a parliamentary party.  But ours is also a party which began outside parliament and I do worry that there is far too much of a parliamentary focus at the present time.


[ Parent ]

Democracy and the future: Who represents us socialists? | 5 comments (5 topical)