It says it all really.

They would be more honest if they didn't pretend to be two different parties.

Labour, Tory both the same
Puppets in the bosses game

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8yf2Sl2eSo

Best you and your mates try and infiltrate one of them

I am inclined to think that the Labour Party which I belonged to and which campaigned for social ownership, opposed war and corruption is actually different from the Labour Party which exists now and has reversed those policies.

I remember when workers engaged in struggle would use the local GMC as their first port of call to seek support. Now they are more likely to be the general staff of the enemy.

Whereas I am inclined to think and say that the Labour Party has always been in opposition and power a capitalist party.
Given this, and the indisputably paranoid ideology and confused practice of you Trots, why should I trust your judgement and analysis now?

If I am *indisputably* paranoid and confused you must have a lot of fun debating me


I think inviting Thatcher was a calculated insult to the miners in particular and trade unionists in general and a growing number of trade unionists are drawing the conclusion that the union's political funds should not be used to support political parties but to pursue the policies of the union and the interests of its members.

That is the likelihood of the establishment of a political fund by the NUT for example. A move which actually has the backing of Steve Sinnott who is notoriously soft on Brown and soft on the causes of Brown.

Why Browns behaviour towards organised Labour should surprise anyone is a mystery to me.

Look at his new Cabinet of all talents, Consevatives, liberal dems, hedge fund managers, it only requires the ghost of Nixon to finish the job, everyone gets to whack the donkey except Trade Unionists, and those given to the Socialist mind-set. But twas ever so. the hope for a representative Parliament and Media is, in many respects yesterdays cause, and that is a lesson many need to learn.

I can hardly say I was surprised.

However, every union member who draws the same conclusion tips the balance towards unions pursuing their own political objectives. An example would be setting up political funds not tied to any political party but used to pursue the political aspirations of the members.

Did the labour Party oppose the second world war? I don't remember that! Or the Falklands war? Or Korea? Did it make a principled stance over Vietnam? Which war did the Labour Party in power EVER do ANYTHING about stopping?

No corruption in the old Labour Party? Did you really write those words? It was riddled with corruption at every level, particularly local government. Did you seriously not know this Derek?

You seem to paint the old Labour Party almost as an evangelical whirlwind of campaigns and progressive activity; a fresh and vibrant force in British politics and COMPLETELY different to how it is now. It was nothing of the sort. Its leadership was always dominated by the Conservative establishment, as it is now, it's just a question of degree. That you mistake that 'degree' as a fundamental and irreversible shift is shoddy beyond belief.

Since the fall of Communism, and therefore the perceived notion that there is no alternative to Capitalism, there has been a major shift to the right in most of the traditional left of centre parties facilitated by the ensuing political inertia on the one hand, and on a continuing economic boom on the other. This has now come to an inglorious end. Whereas a whole generation gave up looking for any meaningful alternative to the rampant free market, the coming period will see many young workers groping for political solutions. Some will come face to face with their own Trade Union leadership who, as Capital's Labour lieutenants, will try and stem the flow of industrial action. It is but one small step from there to the ranks of the Labour Party which I predict will see an increase in workers membership particularly when Cameron reveals his true agenda.

But Derek has a major problem here in that he HAS to paint Labour as dead and buried because his party, the Socialist Party, has invested every last crumb of its credibility on the premise that there has been a "fundamental change"; that it is totally and utterly incapable of attracting new workers to its ranks and only they, the Socialist Party, can now lead the masses to the promised land. They can never admit that Labour may once again become a focus for many workers who, given the impending political tornados, may look there first for a solution and would be easily drawn to a radical vibrant and far seeing socialist/Marxist organisation. If there's one there to recruit them!

The strategists of Capital want nothing better than to see the Labour Movement dissipated, its memory wiped clear and its party permanently sanitised so as to never become a serious threat whenever it gets elected. They want two major parties (one ever so slightly to the left of the other) but both passionately supporting the principles of the Free Market.

A bonus would be if a left wing group or faction could assist in that process by setting up a smaller, weaker alternative to Labour. Just enough that it splits the unions and the working class; just enough that it removes what’s left of the left from the Labour Party, and just enough that neither will ever gain any control!

Great strategy Derek!

...ah, the American model! Reminds me of the famous statement by Henry Ford, when he said his customers could choose any color Model-T they wanted, as long as it was black.