The Future of TUSC

I am writing this blog not to speculate about what the future holds, but to propose what its supporters should do. Will everyone agree with me immediately? I very much doubt it. Indeed I don’t think I’ll be able to do more than reveal the tip of the iceberg of what I think TUSC should be doing. Until I’ve set out my stall I anticipate lots of criticisms from a variety of positions, from TUSC supporters and socialists belonging to different parties and none. I’ll be happy to answer questions from interested parties/individuals and weigh up the merits of constructive criticism. I’ll take on board all such criticisms I deem valuable and if I don’t agree will try to explain myself better. Either way, let’s keep debate civil. Let’s rely on verifiable facts and logic. Let’s try to persuade the maximum numbers of socialists to unite. And I think the way to do that is for every socialist in the UK to join TUSC, and for all small left wing organizations to affiliate to TUSC rather than to stand under a variety of different banners. Those who disagree are more than welcome to leave a comment explaining why they disagree.

This blog post can only be the first part of a series of such posts. Since May’s local elections I have tweeted virtually non stop offering suggestions about the way forward for the left. I’ve had a few RTs and Likes, but it’s obvious only a tiny percentage of socialists know what I think and of those who do many have been vocal in taking me to task over some points. That’s fine. I’ve tried to respond to criticisms with respect but in the case of one individual who is not a fan of TUSC, I had to mute the comrade since I was subject to a constant stream of abuse. That’s not the way for socialists to unite. By all means let’s be free to make our case, but persuasion requires respect and listening to each other, not putting words into each other’s mouths. That’s sectarianism which cripples the left.

My ambition for TUSC is higher than anyone else I know. Others may share my optimism but if they do I’ve yet to locate them on Twitter or anywhere else. What do I expect? Firstly, the big test for us comes in 18 months time. This gives socialists plenty of time to prepare. What we achieve depends on many factors, some within our control but others beyond it. If we don’t put a foot wrong then I see no reason why it’s impossible for TUSC to capture a 20% share of the vote. I know many will dismiss this as pie in the sky but let’s weigh up the pros and cons.

Firstly, if TUSC makes many mistakes then 20% of the vote will be ruled out. Secondly, even if we get everything right that still doesn’t mean that due to factors beyond our control our share could be significantly less than this. However, I don’t think we should get less than a 10% share if we mop up the resources waiting for us in terms of 100,000s of Jeremy Corbyn activists currently in exile from Keir Starmer’s party. They should be ours but they won’t work for, or even vote for, TUSC if we respond to them in a sectarian manner. We need to convince them we want them as members, activists, as democratically elected candidates and democratically elected officials. We want good people to represent us on radio and television. We want them all to participate in drawing up an election manifesto. We want them to carry TUSC banners on marches, pickets, and to cheer our speakers at mass rallies which should be live-streamed on the internet. All of this is possible provided we reach out to these people. If we assume they can’t be won round then they’ll either vote tactically for capitalist parties who will screw all of us or else they’ll not bother to vote, condemning TUSC to unnecessarily lost deposits. The choice is ours.

While I expect between 10% and 20% of the vote provided TUSC gets everything right, that still condemns us, under first-past-the-post to a few handfuls of MPs, if we’re lucky; can’t even be ruled out that we’d not get any MP elected. However, key for socialists has to be share of the vote, not the size of our parliamentary contingent.

How can TUSC get 10% of the vote, never mind 20% if we go into the general election admitting such a vote could lead to few if any MPs being elected? This isn’t an easy argument to make, but it’s possible. There are those who’d rather abstain than vote for Keir Starmer’s Tories or Rishi Sunak’s or Ed Davies or Nigel Farage’s. A significant section of those want to register rejection of all of the above by going to the polling booth to spoil their ballot papers. I predict a healthy percentage of such people will happily offer TUSC a protest vote to wipe the smile of all the capitalist parties, including Keir Starmer’s, maybe even intent on damaging him more than any of the others. Would such an approach help the Tories? No. Not in my opinion although obviously that’s what Starmer and co will accuse us of.

Rishi Sunak’s party faces extinction at the next general election, not because of what Keir Starmer’s done but in spite of that. Starmer’s done nothing to incentivize Labour voters to cast a vote for him; on the contrary, by pitching his tent deeper and deeper into true Blue Tory territory he’s alienated his party’s core vote. Those voters are up for grabs. If TUSC wants them, they’re ours. But we won’t get them if we express indifference to them or if TUSC poses as just one of a large number of ‘left’ alternatives.

PAL parties must be spoken to and each encouraged to affiliate to TUSC. When PAL was initiated I expected every party to present the electorate with a single banner come polling day. Maybe I didn’t read the small print. While I got plenty of retweets including the #PAL hashtag during its first outing in a parliamentary by election, not even members of PAL parties used that hashtag as far as I’m aware. This led to a great candidate ending up with 3% of the vote with PAL’s second by-election leading to a mere 0.3% of the vote, coming 14th out of 15 candidates. No lessons had been learned. By May’s local elections still no lessons had been learned. Socialists can’t win when we present a cacophony of of names, messages, visions, policies. If we can’t unite ourselves, our potential voters don’t see why we should unite them. By every left group affiliating to TUSC this problem vanishes overnight. Anyone spotting a flaw in my reasoning is welcome to leave a critical comment explaining what I’m missing. I look forward to constructive debate.

And no, this isn’t all I have to say. This is just part one in what I expect will be a long series of blog posts on my vision for the future of TUSC.

Workers’ Government or lost deposits?

What will the general election bring for socialists? That depends on what we do. If we do the right thing the sky’s the limit. If we screw it up we’ll get, and deserve, nothing but lost deposits apart from the reelection of Jeremy Corbyn and other SCG MPs expelled by Keir Starmer. Prior to George Galloway’s election in Rochdale I assumed we were heading for catastrophe. That’s no longer the case.

George Galloway’s success proves the potential for socialists if we do the right thing. Focusing on one extremely popular international issue – one that’s galvanized mass demonstrations for months, and exposing the vulnerability of both main party leaders – is a breath of fresh air; previous left candidates in by elections have not done that, preferring to ignore issues that interest voters beyond the constituency.

If Galloway was only interested in his personal agenda that would be a problem for the left. However, he’s called on Jeremy Corbyn to lead an alliance of all socialists in the UK to offer an electoral challenge, promising to agree to JC becoming the leader. This could not be more important.

#TUSC, #TransformPolitics and other tiny left groups intending to stand in the general election would without question accept Jeremy Corbyn to be this socialist alliance’s Prime Ministerial candidate, meaning the #JC4PM hashtag may start trending again.

And when GG called on JC to lead an alliance of all socialists in the UK that must mean the fusion of all existing groups into one party, even if existing party names can remain options should any group of socialists get expelled or fall out with the majority of the new party. And does it need to be a new party with a new name? I don’t think so.

Galloway may not have intended for Jeremy Corbyn to become leader of the Workers Party of Britain, but that’s definitely one legitimate interpretation of what he said. If GG would accept that then the rest of what he said implies that all members of existing socialist groups, such as TUSC and TransformPolitics should join the Workers Party of Britain, at least in the sense that that is the name that each candidate will have on every ballot paper where the left stands. Both TUSC and TransformPolitics leadership, and individual members, should weigh up the pros and cons. And they need to reach a decision long before Rishi Sunak calls the election.

If we agree to what I’m proposing I’d further suggest our united alliance of socialists, or Workers Party of Britain, with Corbyn as our interim leader – the first among equals of a collective leadership which should, imho, invite Zarah Sultana and Richard Burgon to join too – should contest at least 50% of seats plus one. Doing that makes it theoretically possible the left could form the next government, even a majority government, a workers’ government, one that rejects the capitalist agenda of both the Tory Party and Labour under Keir Starmer. Furthermore, this capitalist agenda is followed by the Lib Dems, by Nigel Farage, by the Greens and SNP, even if the last two parties have allowed genuine socialists to join, at least now and then.

Could Jeremy Corbyn become Prime Minister as head of a government after the general election? The prospect of that looks rather low. But in politics often what is theoretically possible matters even when it looks unlikely. This theoretical possibility allows voters to see what could be done if the govt wasn’t wearing a straitjacket made by the capitalist class. And that is the message all our elected representatives will make in parliament once elected and, much more importantly, on radio and television programs every single day until the election after the next one. That’s what could happen. But it can only if we are ambitious and strategically sophisticated; it can only happen if socialists don’t stand a long list of groups none of which has more than 0% in the national polls. If that’s what happens our potential voters will, rightly, dismiss us as a wasted vote dustbin.

#VoteTUSC

In case you hadn’t worked it out, this blog post is going to make the case for why socialists should vote for socialist candidates and, in particular, #TUSC.

I do have the general election in mind and want the maximum share of the vote then, but at this stage I don’t realistically expect any TUSC MP to be elected, thanks to the first past the post system in combination with current national polls. However, while the former can’t be changed by anything TUSC does, the latter remains at least in part in our hands. Polls can change for two reasons.

TUSC can exploit by elections between now and the general election which could be a year away, and many by elections could happen in that time. If TUSC exploits such by elections carefully, while it may not capture a single seat it could cannibalize a massive share of Labour’s vote. This is possible because to the extent Keir Starmer has succeeded in attracting Tory voters he has made himself personally and his entire Parliamentary Labour Party, front and back benchers, repulsive to Labour voters. Those socialists don’t want to touch Starmer with a bargepole. If they see no positive repository of a protest vote they’ll sit on their hands at polling day or, perhaps, go to the polling booth just to spoil their ballot paper. This massive constituency is key to the future of TUSC.

While I don’t expect all Jeremy Corbyn enthusiasts to switch to TUSC in one go, as soon as a significant section does others will be inspired to follow. For a variety of reasons not all Corbyn voters will automatically switch to TUSC by the general election, but huge numbers can in a variety of by elections when parliamentary arithmetic won’t discourage Corbyn voters casting the biggest possible protest against Keir Starmer, doing so for a long list of excellent reasons.

In my opinion well over 50% of Labour voters already would like to vote for a socialist alternative to Keir Starmer. A large number should already be in the bag for TUSC, but recent by election results and polls suggest that’s not the case. What is holding them back? And what can be done to address this problem? I have ideas, but will postpone that for another blog post. I’ve too much to say and know readers patience isn’t inexhaustable. Part 2 of this blog post will turn up soon. Comments on Part 1 will be carefully considered and dealt with respectfully if you want to challenge anything I’ve argued here.

Open Letter to Diane Abbott

Dear Diane,

Although I think your prospects of getting the Labour whip back are as slender as Jeremy Corbyn’s, so long as you fight for this I’ll back you. While you wouldn’t endorse Jeremy standing against Labour as an independent in a recent televised interview, you did predict he’d win. I agree and assume you will be equally successful. This may lead to Keir Starmer thinking twice provided he thinks one or both of you will be reelected as independents. But I am not holding out much hope of this. However, let’s discuss how best to restore the whip to you. I’ve a few ideas you may be interested in. Here goes….

Firstly, I’m delighted with your statement retracting everything you said in your Observer letter and apologized unequivocally for the offense caused. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and let he who has never made an incorrect statement condemn you for making one. But your critics have other weapons up their sleeves and you need to address them when you face an inquiry or kangaroo court. What do you need to add to what you’ve already said? Most obviously you need to explain why you made the mistake you made. All your critics think this is something you can’t answer. I think they’re wrong.

If I was you I’d explain that your letter was clumsy due in part to the limited space you expected to be allowed. You cut corners, assuming context would be assumed, assumptions you now recognize were based on false reasoning. Let’s take the Jewish question first. That’s the one that Keir Starmer thinks will crucify you.

What I assume you did was provide a description of the different kinds of prejudice faced by Black people such as yourself and Jews in the UK today. It didn’t occur to you, I assume, that anyone could think you don’t consider Hitler’s genocide was based on anything other than racism. The fact that Antisemitism is anti-Jewish racism is key to defending Jews who have been expelled by Keir Starmer for disagreeing with him about the state of Israel, Jeremy Corbyn or anything else. Each individual Jew can make their own minds up. When some Jewish organizations claiming to speak on behalf of all Jews insist that opposition to Israel, or parts of its policy, is antisemitic, they give an excuse to non Jews such as Keir Starmer expelling Jews for antisemitism. That is a sick joke. Non Jews expelling Jews for antisemitism is genuinely Kafkaesque.

While some levels of antisemitism do still exist in the UK and US today, a large proportion of Jews aren’t targeted by antisemites because Jews can’t be identified as such, at least not to the naked eye. Clearly some can, just as some Muslims can be identified as Muslims, probably most Sikh males can be identified and those Catholics wearing a crucifix can. But unless you carry a stereotypical impression of what Jewish facial features look like your antisemitism will get you nowhere. Maybe discovering someone’s name could help in some cases, but even that doesn’t always work. This invisibility to the racists doesn’t apply to Blacks. At least it doesn’t apply to most Blacks.

In the past some Blacks chose to ‘pass’ as white to avoid discrimination despite one or both parents being obviously Black. But typically if you’re Black you can’t hide who you are: racists can see you and will discriminate against you on that basis, which is a fact borne out by statistics, such as how many Jews as opposed to Blacks are searched by the police, convictions etc.

I assume it is this difference between the prejudice faced by Blacks and Jews, as well as The Irish (who are no longer, imho, victims of racism in the UK or the US) that lead to your taking shortcuts, expressing yourself in a way that led to such unfortunate confusion.

Maybe you can come up with a different set of explanations. But I hope there are a few ideas here you may want to consider to get the whip back. Either way, I wish you well, and will support you getting reelected either as a Labour MP or as an independent or possibly even as a candidate for a new left wing political party.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Delargy

Elon Musk Day. RIP Twitter.

Today is the first day of Twitter’s death. I call it Elon Musk Day. So called ‘free speech’ has been bought by the world’s richest man for $44 Billion. Thanks to inflation that is the new ‘thirty pieces of silver’.

Do I begrudge those Twitter executives who sold their soul? To cut a long story short, yes, I do. Will never forgive some of them. However, a few may get together to use their ill gotten gains to rebuild what Twitter once was and the rest of us can migrate there, taking our Twitter archives with us. The tech knowledge won’t be prohibitively expensive.

While Elon Musk’s bots are insisting the rest of us are scared of free speech the reality is we thrive on it. Evil Mask, probably backed financially by individuals already banned for life from Twitter: Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin’s ultra rich backers, won’t tolerate free speech for his critics. How long it will take him to expose himself as a one man dictator remains in doubt, although the sacking of Twitter executives who banned Donald Trump for life suggests we’ll find out soon how long the rest of us have got.

Until a new Twitter rises Phoenix-like from the ashes we’ll need to find alternatives. Our individual blogs will be part of that process. And that is why I’ve dusted down this blog and posted something for the first time in ages. Looking forward to reading and exchanging views with the rest of Evil Mask’s critics.

Tragically, #Wakefield has no socialist candidate

Two days ago I wrote a blog criticizing #PAL’s interventions in #Wakefield and #Erdington. Despite being a seven minute read, according to another blog, I had a lot more to add and intended to do that almost immediately. However, since #PAL’s candidate set up a Twitter account, I’ve been forced to totally reassess my attitude to #Wakefield specifically and to #PAL in general.

To be perfectly frank, if I lived in #Wakefield I’d feel forced to spoil my ballot paper rather than cast a vote for the #PAL member who dares not speak its name. I knew nothing about him prior to his setting up a Twitter account in the second half of the by-election, and it turns out that no one else knew anything about him. Had #PAL’s members known his politics I very much doubt many would have deemed him a legitimate candidate, a candidate likely to inspire Jeremy Corbyn enthusiasts. Why do I say this? How much time have you got?

#PAL’s #Wakefield candidate’s twitter account looks to me like it’s intended as a pisstake, a parody account. While that’s probably not the case, he’ll definitely lose his deposit; he’ll probably not even scrape 1% of the vote, damaging the real left in the event that #PAL doesn’t disassociate themselves from him. If they don’t do that – and I am not sure whether or not they will do that – then #PAL itself will have committed political suicide. If he’s acceptable to #PAL then #PAL isn’t acceptable to me: that’s not to suggest all #PAL members are beyond the pale; obviously many, hopefully most, will play a key role in rebuilding the left. But if #PAL as a whole doesn’t accept this candidate should never have represented them in a by election, then they’re their own worst enemy.

Obviously I need to get specific about what offends me about #PAL’s #Wakefield candidate. There is so much to say and so little time. Firstly, why on earth was a candidate chosen who had no twitter account? Twitter is, for socialists, the broadcast equivalent of universal suffrage. Via its #hashtags, candidates and rank and file members of socialist parties can reach out to ALL voters; radio and television mainstream media ‘journalists’ and editors lose their stranglehold on public debate. Socialists could have got up to speed about who this candidate is and then decide if he’s the sort of individual we want to represent us in parliament. He’s certainly alienated me and will have alienated other if he’d only had the decency to tell us what he thinks before someone – and we still have no idea who that is – selected him to represent what remains of #PAL, post-#TUSC.

The Twitter account is named @Chris4Wakefield. And how does he make his case for electing him MP? In his twitter bio we learn only two things, and neither are among what socialists would emphasize.

If Chris had space in his Twitter bio to list one thousand things, he may have felt able to squeeze in the fact he’s proud of being the father of two towards the end. But it turns out to be one of just two reasons he offers for voting for him. Why should anyone care how many children he’s got? If another candidate has three or more children should they be even more deserving of being elected? Obviously not. The only possible reason Chris could have for telling us to vote for him because he has two children is it’s a bid for the red blooded heterosexual vote: proof he can’t be gay as he’s had sex with women at least twice, unless they’re twins which would still prove he’s had sex with a woman at least once. But this argument for voting for #PAL’s candidate pales into insignificance when set against the other vote catching reason Chris comes up with.

In his Twitter bio, Chris only mentions one job he’s ever had: 12 years in the army. Possibly the fact he volunteered to serve Queen and Country explains why he’s still not tweeted #AbolishTheMonarchy which has been trending for weeks, a hashtag every socialist identifies with.

Secondly, #PAL’s candidate attacks the Tories and Lib Dems for cuts in military spending. That’s odd coming from a socialist. Doesn’t Chris realize that a popular demand of socialists is Welfare, not Warfare? Only those to Boris Johnson’s right complain that not enough is spent on killing foreigners. Troops, btw, are also deployed to break strikes. Chris can hardly tell us about his trade union activity if the only job he’s ever had is in the army which denies soldiers the right to join trade unions or take industrial action. Occasionally soldiers do collectively mutiny, but only during revolutions and there’s not been one in Britain for hundreds of years prior to #PAL’s candidate joining the army. This couldn’t be more depressing. Could it?

Our Imaginary #PAL

As I was walking down the stair

I met a #PAL who wasn’t there

He wasn’t there again today

Voters can’t wait to make us pay

Voters won’t vote for an invisible ‘alliance’. They proved that in Erdington. After our candidate, and his entire organization, got what they wanted – the unchallenged left franchise in our first by-election, a franchise that, due to the way the campaign was run, rewarded them with yet another lost deposit, TUSC walked away, preferring to form a new electoral pact against PAL, an electoral pact with the notorious egotist George Galloway, the Tory-voting, anti-abortion, Stalinist, Union Jack waving transphobe. George Galloway’s crimes against the left pads out a very long list indeed, but isn’t that enough to be going on with?

I’m sorry about losing TUSC. While I fear some #PAL supporters may not want them to return, I definitely do. I’d welcome them back with open arms, but obviously without the toxic Tory-voting egotist by their side.

What lessons did the rest of #PAL, those who didn’t run away, learn from the disaster that was Erdington? Nothing as far as I can see. Our second candidate and his party is repeating the mistakes TUSC made with the first. Last time, while it was obvious to me we were badly screwing up our first by-election outing, I bit my tongue. I didn’t want to be blamed for PAL supporters vociferously disagreeing with each other in public during the campaign. I knew we were heading for disaster but had no idea how to get comrades back onto the right track.

What about Wakefield?

I don’t know how to convince #PAL to change tack, although this blog post is an attempt to do that. In most, although hopefully not all, respects it’s already far too late. Unless there’s a radical change in tack, for a variety of reasons I think our candidate this time will fare even worse than did Dave Nellist, probably a lot worse.

At least Dave was on Twitter, and had been for years. Additionally, a new Twitter account was set up by someone specifically to focus TUSC’s Twitter intervention during the campaign. Unfortunately, whoever ran the account (I can guess who it was but won’t say until I find out for sure) didn’t do a very good job; at least not in my opinion. I wanted to RT most of what that account sent out. But I didn’t like a high proportion of it, and blame #TUSC’s use of Twitter as much as I now blame our new candidate’s failure to even be on Twitter.

#PAL needs Twitter. This should not even be open for debate. At any rate, the left needs Twitter until Elon Musk imposes his unlimited control of the social media platform he bought with a spare $44 Billion to kick off anyone and everyone who doesn’t like his definition of ‘free speech’; and he’s made it his top priority to attack, on Twitter, the so called ‘far left’, and anyone who isn’t convinced the world should be controlled by billionaire Donald Trump supporters like him. I assumed every member would understand why #PAL’s candidates have to be on Twitter, but clearly that is not the case.

There is a tendency for some socialist activists to overplay criticism of ‘keyboard warriors’. Obviously socialists should definitely not confine ourselves to social media intervention in the class struggle. Not all socialists will be equally confident in doing battle in every one of arenas open to us, or exploiting every kind of technology that’s available. That’s okay. One excellent thing about our socialist movement is we don’t insist everyone has to have the same abilities; we proudly help each other, cooperating with any comrade who needs our help. We need to do lots of different things, and if someone is a great orator, the fact they may not be the best writer doesn’t mean we don’t value them for what they can do. Rather than dismiss them for what they can’t we make use of what they can contribute to our joint struggle. Some comrades are excellent organizers and can get things done, meetings organized, rallies set up, pickets coordinated; these comrades may be excellent at delegating responsibilities without unnecessarily alienating others. Other comrades don’t even pretend to be able to organize a piss up in a brewery but still have a lot to contribute in many other ways. Let a thousand flowers blossom.

In the real world there has to be a division of labour for the left. If the best candidate in Wakefield has never explored the potential of Twitter then something should have been done by his PAL comrades to help him use this technology while he got on with other things. Voters definitely need to know that tweets sent out in a candidate’s name were tweeted with his approval. Even so, it’s not absolutely necessary for all tweets to be drafted initially by him/her.

Voters aren’t outraged that some of the best orators make use of speech writers. For the same reason, they won’t be too angry if some candidate had help in drafting a few tweets. But whether drafted by the candidate or by someone he trusts, someone has to send those tweets out; and that’s not been happening in the case of Wakefield. Does it matter? Alas, it does. Here’s why….

Twitter is key for the left in by-elections, which are themselves key for building #PAL, assuming that is our alliance lasts beyond our next lost deposit, and that remains an open question now. For as long as I’ve used Twitter for political purposes, I’ve compared it to the broadcast equivalent of universal suffrage. Socialists no longer need to rely on msm ‘journalists’ vetting what we say before we reach the eyes and ears of vast numbers of voters. Many on the left are often very badly informed about just how radical many voters are, at least on some issues. This fact has been proven during the last few weeks thanks to the #AbolishTheMonarchy hashtag trending in defiance of the entire broadcast media with its fawning coverage of the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee.

The reason for despair on the part of some socialists is attachment to opinion polls which are clearly manipulated by the establishment, those who own the means of production, distribution and exchange working overtime to ensure they get the answers they want. Additionally, and with greater justification, many on the left are in despair at how working class people vote. Far too many on the left attack voters for how they vote, but this is a misguided strategy. It is a strategy cutting us off from those we need to win in the future. Behave in a sectarian manner towards the exploited and/or oppressed section of voters – that is the overwhelming majority – and we’ll lose their ear. Why would they waste their valuable time listening to those who abuse them, even when from their own personal experience they now regret some of their past voting decisions? If socialists do repel voters by insulting them, instead of being won over by us, they’ll look to another establishment party, hoping this time they’ll not be let down, which they definitely will be.

Socialists have to break this cycle and we can only do that by not insulting our potential electorate. We should stop thinking of being better than others who have in the recent past wasted their votes on truly awful candidates; we need to think of ourselves as being luckier. We’ve managed to cut through the bullshit earlier than the rest, possibly thanks to socialist parents, or school pals who had socialist parents, or experiences at college or when we join trade unions. But if we do find out the truth before other working class voters, that places greater responsibility on us to help our brothers and sisters wake up too; and we can only do that by engaging constructively with them, not descending into sectarianism, not abusing them by promoting a noisy monologue. The way forward for #PAL has to be a protracted and constructive dialogue. So how do we get that?

During Erdington’s campaign I received hundreds of retweets explaining that Dave Nellist could only succeed by identifying where our votes would come from and prioritizing this electorate, explaining how we can persuade them to vote for him. Unfortunately, it looks like many who retweeted my tweets didn’t understand the points I was trying to make, which could be my own fault for being too subtle. Essentially I was making the case for working to get television and radio interviews so voters could hear Dave Nellist take on the msm’s most professional hit-men and women. Their editors knew how good Dave was and assumed it was in their interests to deny him and the rest of #PAL any opportunity to reach out to voters. Some #PAL, as well as ex-PAL #TUSC supporters, keep telling me there’s nothing we can do to force the msm’s hands. But that is simply not true. There is something we can do, a lot of somethings. But we may need to begin by piling up a significant percentage of votes prior to getting any msm interviews. That’s more difficult, but not impossible.

The msm can’t keep #PAL off #bbcqt #bbcaq and the rest of the telly and radio broadcast media indefinitely provided we start to secure a substantial share of the vote; we don’t even need to win seats, although that would be best, obviously. If we can eat into a large share of Keir Starmer’s vote, hopefully outpolling Labour, that will be a game changer. And we can’t ignore the Greens neither. At the moment, until Jeremy Corbyn’s voters get our act together, that is where anti-Tories will go in order to punish Keir Starmer, but that’s not good enough. There are more than enough reasons to work to lower the Greens vote vis-a-vis the real left. But both of these parties need to be identified as the pool from which #PAL can bathe. If the msm won’t touch us with a barge-pole, try to get local trade union organizations to sponsor hustings for their members; then let’s wipe the floor with both of them.

But let’s get back to twitter. Voters need to see our candidates can think on their feet. Live televised interviews will get the job done. But if we can’t rely on them, yet, we can still use Twitter to do the same job. And if we’re successful enough at that we’ll mobilize tens of thousands of Jeremy Corbyn supporters on Twitter who would help us get #VotePAL trending alongside the name of a by-constituency. Then the same socialists who use #SocialistSunday every week will be ours. Forever. If we can get #VotePAL trending throughout a by-election campaign, it could be very costly for the msm to risk censoring us; if a socialist gets a large percentage vote without any acknowledgement from the msm that we’re in the race, then voters will laugh at the msm, and punish them in other ways.

The msm’s credibility with large sections of the electorate will face a further collapse if they boycott an electorally successful #PAL. And it is out of fear of that prospect that could lead to a fragmenting of different msm networks, with a handful of broadcasters actually wanting to hear what we’ve got to say since their own viewers/listeners tell them daily that we deserve airtime. Editors won’t want us on. But a few could select some broadcaster they think will be hostile to us, someone they assume will have the ability to crush us. Bring it on. We need to ensure that our candidates can stand up to such pressure. We should debate strategy and tactics and see to it that our msm enemies don’t exploit the inevitable differences that exists within #PAL today, ones that can’t be magicked away any time soon.

PAL+SCG? Or Life of Brian Part137?

Are Richard and Jeremy our PALs?

In the early hours of this morning I got into a Twitter spat with a comrade I don’t remember disagreeing with before. I won’t identify him but he criticized me in a way I wasn’t expecting. Our sharp difference of opinion related to the potential of the likes of Richard Burgon and a handful of other MPs being welcomed with open arms into the People’s Alliance of the Left as soon as possible, preferably before May’s local elections.

This disagreement was based on misunderstandings, possibly on both sides. This is too important a debate to brush under the carpet. All Dave Nellist’s supporters in the Erdington by-election and further afield must consider the pros and cons.

This is not a debate we can afford to postpone simply because we’re not all singing from the same hymn sheet, at least not yet. Agreeing to differ in a comradely manner is fine so long as that’s the best we can get: it’s a sign of maturity for the left. However, since settling tactical and strategic questions helps PAL attract new forces, boost our votes and polls, why the hell wouldn’t we strive towards unity as fast as possible?

What I tweeted that seems to have exasperated one comrade was making a strong case for PAL welcoming maybe as many as a dozen existing MPs, all currently Labour MPs as well as, obviously, Jeremy Corbyn himself. In reality I only named four MPs, including Jeremy, because I’ve never been an indiscriminate fan of every SCG MP, skepticism borne out by the loss of a third to a half of them to Clive Lewis’s so-called ‘soft left’ grouping, led by the man who sabotaged the struggle to get rid of Trident Nuclear missiles, a man who never ceases to share platforms with the Liberal Democrat bastards who took money to keep David Cameron’s Tory government in power for five whole years. I’m not sure all those remaining in the SCG are recruitable, but some definitely are. At any rate these MPs will become recruitable so long as PAL makes it crystal clear to them that they would be made welcome.

So, do we or do we not want the likes of Richard Burgon? Come on, comrades. Let’s think through the consequences of telling Richard that he’s no better than the rest of Keir Starmer’s MPs. Let’s think through the consequences of telling him that if he finds himself without the Labour whip, just like Jeremy Corbyn, PAL wouldn’t think twice about telling him to get lost, proudly selecting a candidate to stand against him to oust him from parliament at the earliest opportunity. Such a sectarian attitude would be a godsend to the Tory candidate and to Starmer’s. Is that serious politics, comrades? Not in my ‘humble’ opinion.

The Tories, all Keir Starmer’s MPs, the CBI, arms manufacturers, every racist, the mainstream media, every member of the House of Lords, Her Majesty’s Loyal Unelected Rapists Extended Family, Special Branch undercover cops, MI5, GCHQ etc, etc, etc…. Every last one of them are praying that Richard Burgon is given no alternative by PAL but to stand as an independent or for some as yet non-existent left group. Daring Richard and his SCG co-thinkers to opt for such a project that would completely invalidate the historic electoral non-aggression pact so painfully negotiated by TUSC, Left Unity, Northern Independence Party and the Breakthrough Party. We don’t want to foment further electoral splits on the left; on the contrary, we need to commit ourselves to doing everything in our power to build a home for all socialists.

So let’s tread very carefully when criticizing Zarah and the others. Even when they do or say something we dislike, let’s not overreact. Zarah felt under pressure in Erdington from Keir Starmer and his front bench, then made the worst miscalculations in her political career so far. But which socialist, which human being, has never made a mistake? We are friends. And friends tell each other when they’ve made one, rather than declaring war against them.

Zarah’s future lies with PAL whether she realizes that or not. Same goes for Richard, for Jon Trickett and Jeremy Corbyn. None of them have a future in Keir Starmer’s party and I find it hard to believe any seriously hasn’t woken up to that fact despite none being keen on nailing their colours to the mast of any specific alternative future. However, with the recruitment of such excellent MPs, PAL would exponentially accelerate not just the disaffiliation of all trade unions from ‘Labour’, but the positive transition of funds and activists directly to PAL.

Let’s fraternally debate how to move forward rather than creating more problems for ourselves by alienating MPs who are rapidly running out of options. Extend the hand of friendship to our PALs already in parliament.

#Dave4Erdington?

Has #Dave4Erdington been used as a Twitter hashtag yet? Not sure. If not, then it’s high time it was. Here’s why….

Once upon, not that long ago, by-elections were a really big thing in the United Kingdom. Voters – at any rate political anoraks of which there used to be a lot – were glued to our television screens into the wee hours desperately anticipating the result. There seemed to be a hell of a lot at stake although everyone knew in advance that the parliamentary arithmetic wouldn’t change in any substantial way, most of the time.

So why were by-elections deemed so important? They were political barometers, capable not just of telling us what is going on beneath the surface of the Westminster bubble, but of actually contributing to a change in the political weather. If sufficient voters grasped this opportunity to register a protest vote, then they would force MPs from the party against whom we were voting to shift direction, even to make a 180 degree about u-turn.

Nigel Farage may never have won a seat in parliament, and hopefully never will, but his exploitation of protest votes in by-elections brought about changes within David Cameron’s Conservative Party, unleash a referendum on membership of the European Union, and we all know how that ended up.

Over a period of many years, the mainstream media pulled out all the stops to fan the flames of Nigel Farage’s xenophobia, precisely in order to ensure the fully justified protest vote against Tory Prime Ministers pushed the political climate in a right wing direction. This wasn’t accidental. The British establishment were at the time anticipating voters shifting leftward, so they clutched Nigel Farage’s ultra right wing UKIP to their bosom to ensure that never happened. While they succeeded last time, this time it’s different. And the Erdington by-election could establish beyond all doubt that the future belongs to the left. And that is why socialists, including every Jeremy Corbyn supporter regardless of whether they’ve not been expelled (or quit in disgust), does everything we can to help Dave Nellist get back into parliament where we all know he belongs. Getting #Dave4Erdington trending on Twitter isn’t the only way to contribute to getting him elected, but it certainly couldn’t hurt. Or am I wrong about that?

Starmer, Savile, and Loyalist Death Squads Part 2

This is a follow up to my last blog entry: https://derekthomas2010.wordpress.com/2022/02/08/jimmy-savile-keir-starmer-loyalist-death-squads/

Issues raised by Boris Johnson’s allegation that Keir Starmer spent most of his time as Director of Public Prosecutions prosecuting journalists and not prosecuting Jimmy Savile are many, and complex. Disentangling everything isn’t at all simple. But we have to start somewhere, and this may not be the last time I return to this subject.

The demonstration against Keir Starmer that led to arrests, and will inevitably lead to prosecutions, damaged the Prime Minister personally: opinion polls hold him responsible for the illegality, which the entire mainstream media and most Tory MPs dislike intensely. This helps Labour’s leader, at least in the short term, and some have even suggested it could be a put up job by Johnson’s left wing critics, as if the police are in the pocket of socialists, and as if we want to help Keir Starmer. Right wing conspiracy theorists won’t save Johnson over this.

Let’s be clear that the genuine left has never embraced Tommy Robinson style lynch mobs. Everyone, bastard or not, deserves a fair trial, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, with legal representation if there is a case to answer; and these rights even extends to Keir Starmer. The left is hardly targeting him on this issue, and we deplore this trial by the media and, even more so, pig ignorant lynch mobs.

Unfortunately, this demonstration helped the mainstream media and all reactionary MPs. It isn’t just Boris Johnson’s growing band of critics on his own backbenches, but the so called ‘opposition’ benches too. With only a few handfuls of exceptions, the so called ‘opposition’ MPs are not the slightest better than Boris Johnson.

All radio and television broadcasters are now enthusiastically demanding that demonstrations against MPs can never ever be tolerated. Those of us calling for such demonstrations are all as bad as each other regardless of what we are protesting against. In the short term, the msm’s outrageous propaganda will find an echo among large sections of voters; but not for long.

There is no shortage of excellent reasons to protest against MPs, including Keir Starmer. In fact, there are very few MPs who aren’t piling up legitimate reasons for their constituents protesting against them. I expect some socialists will disagree with my rhetoric, and that’s fine by me, but most Members of Parliament are – in what I consider to be the well chosen phrase of Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, before issuing a grovelling apology to her boss, and to Boris Johnson himself – ‘Tory scum’.

And you hardly need to be a fully paid up member of the Conservative Party to qualify as ‘Tory Scum’. All Liberal Democrat MPs, those who accepted bribes from corrupt David Cameron to prop up his government for five years; they too are Tory Scum.

All those who formed an electoral alliance with the Lib Dems to split the anti-Tory vote, promoting David Cameron’s cabinet colleagues who insisted that – regardless of how few voted for them – they’d see to it that Jeremy Corbyn could never enter 10 Downing Street, guaranteeing Johnson stole the last general election,…. They also are no better than Keir Starmer. They too are, in my humble opinion, also Tory Scum

The msm are not going to intimidate the victims of Tory Scum MPs from protesting whenever it is justified. And every MP who helped Boris Johnson decriminalize the assassination of civil rights lawyers like Pat Finucane should prepare themselves for perfectly legitimate, fully democratic demonstrations.

When the British state and its craven mainstream media close ranks to legalize extra judicial killing; when they sanction entrapment by police spies and perjury by those police spies; when they turn a blind eye to the protection of undercover cop sex offenders having unlawful sex with the victims of their spying; when television and radio broadcasters are up to their eyeballs in this filth, then democracy is very much in peril. And if demonstrations against MPs voting for this criminality are the only way to safeguard the tiniest modicum of democracy and justice, then that’s exactly what the msm and Westminister politicians can look forward to. The ball is very much in your court.