Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 17:37:45 +0000
From: Nick Holden & Kate Ahrens <glengate-AT-foobar.co.uk>
Subject: Re: M-I: Re: The Welfare State


Rob Schaap wrote:
> 
> Nick wrote:
> 'In Australia, I guess, you have to do the sums. Is the Australian Labour
> Party organically linked in any meaningful way to the working class (not
> 'do the workers' run it?', but 'is there a link')? If there is, then I
> think you should stay in there and fight for your perspective amongst the
> membership. If there ain't, then you get out and fight to build a mass
> working class party.'
> 
> [Yep - many unions, and the majority of the big ones, are affiliated with
> the ALP.  The ALP offers union execs cozy career paths in our corporatised
> milieu, and the execs offered the ALP govt (1983-96) seven consecutive
> 'accords' which kept wages below inflation and profits.  You're quite
> right, I think, if we can't get some union interest, our aims and functions
> will have to be fatally modest.  I don't know how bad the control by head
> office over branches is in your Labour Party - here it is complete.
> Branches can't pick their candidates and have no hand in policy
> development.  I actually like my local ALP branch - it's just that there's
> nought it can do while the New South Wales Right (Blair's mentors in all
> things but his sickly smile) stays in charge - and it seems you just can't
> get rid of these bastards - even after the landslide humiliation they
> effectively authored.  I do what I do because I can't think of anything
> else just now - I hope, nay suspect, there are quite a few like me 'round
> these parts.]

For what it is worth, given my position in the LP here, I have spent much of the last year trying to get 
ordinary members of the constituency (i.e. branch) to do things. Almost every one of them has cited 
disillusionment with the Blairites as a key factor in their lack of activity.

Now that does not mean that my Labour Party has 350 revolutionaries in it. Nor does it mean that these people 
will leap off their arses as soon as anything happens and rush to the barricades. But it does mean that there 
are 300+ people, mostly who see themselves as working-class, who are politically motivated enough to join the 
Labour Party (may not seem like much, but consider the alternative of not joining anything, which is what most 
people do), and who are sensible enough to be pissed off by Blair.

I figure that gives us something to work on. We have some leeway over local policies (see my post re. Korea 
yesterday), and constituencies do pick their own candidates (altho they have to be 'endorsed' by the NEC). The 
problem with union involvement is that nationally the leaderships of the unions are as crooked as that of the 
LP, and locally, the membership is as depressed as that of the LP, often for the same reasons.


> 
> Nick goes on:  'I'm not sure that the nature of the electoral system makes
> a massive difference until you get to the grey areas ... In the UK, at
> least as is, you would still have to stay in the Labour Party and fight to
> transform the movement, although you might be more flexible about electoral
> sorties, and not necessarily say, "Vote Labour everywhere." If Blair wins
> the election and begins dismantling the Labour Party's links to the unions,
> then fairly soon it will be time to leave (or force a split or drive Blair
> out (best option!)) even if we still have first past the post.
> 
> [I sincerely wish you luck, comrade!

Cheers, mate.

Nick




     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---