Mediaboss Marketing

Socialist Party statement

Not just booted out. The Tories have been crushed. The electorate has punished them for fourteen years of austerity, attacks on the working class, lies and corruption. Less than seven million people went out and voted for the Tory Party, its lowest vote in a century. Ten cabinet ministers and 250 Tory MPs have lost their seats, the biggest losses ever suffered by an outgoing government in Britain. Rishi Sunaks only achievement is that there is still a Tory MP in his constituency alone among the constituencies of the last five Tory prime ministers. Over breakfast on 5 July, millions got to enjoy seeing ex-prime minister Liz Truss booted out as MP for South West Norfolk a seat which previously had a 24,180 majority.

The result, in terms of the number of seats, is a Labour landslide, just shy of Tony Blairs New Labour victory in 1997. But enthusiasm for Keir Starmers Labour was absent from this general election. The absolute vote for Labour was 9.6 million, lower than the 10.2 million vote Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour got in 2019, never mind the 12.8 million he got in 2017. Labours vote share, at around 34%, is the lowest ever for a general election victor, whereas in 2017 Corbyn got 40% of the vote, the biggest jump for a national party in one election since 1945.

The absolute vote for Labour was 9.6 million, lower than the 10.2 million vote Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour got in 2019, never mind the 12.8 million he got in 2017

The turnout, at less than 60%, was at least as low as 2001, and perhaps the lowest ever in a general election. None of this, of course, has stopped spokespeople for Labour, echoed by the capitalist media, spending election night endlessly repeating how it was only Starmers successful change in the party (in reality into pro-capitalist New Labour) that had allowed them to go from the allegedly worst election result since 1935 in 2019 to victory in 2024.

In reality, voters picked up whichever they saw as the most effective weapon they could find to defeat a government which has presided over a massive fall in living standards. In 2022/23 the government faced the biggest strike wave since the 1980s: now came the electoral follow through. In Scotland that also meant using Labour to punish the SNP Scottish government, but in England it was the Tories that were the governmental enemy. As a result, while Labours vote share in England was no higher than in 2019, many Tory seats had swings to Labour but, in seats Labour already held record numbers stayed at home or voted for other parties. In Wales the process was similar, although Labours vote share actually fell from 2019, reflecting anger at the austerity that has also been inflicted by the Labour-led Senedd: the Welsh parliament.

In other seats, particularly in the so-called Surrey stockbroker belt and the south west of England, it was the Liberal Democrats who were seen as the best means to defeat the Tories. As a result they gained an extra 63 seats, while only increasing their overall share of the vote by 0.6%.

However, for many trade unionists and socialists, the most concerning thing about the election result will be the support for Nigel Farages right-populist Reform Party. Reform won four MPs, but its absolute vote was just over four million, half-a-million higher than the Liberal Democrats. This is a warning for the future, and the danger of right-populist, racist forces stepping into the vacuum as anger with the incoming Labour government grows. Nonetheless, at this stage Reforms vote was not the breakthrough that the capitalist media are suggesting. The direct predecessor of Reform, the Brexit Party, got more than five million votes in the 2019 European elections, and its incarnation before that UKIP got close to four million votes in the 2015 general election.

Reforms vote was just over 4 million. Its predecessor the Brexit Party got more than 5 million votes in the 2019 European elections, and its incarnation before that UKIP got close to 4 million votes in the 2015 general election

What has changed in 2024 is the complete collapse of the Tory vote. Historically this was the most successful capitalist party on the planet. In the 1950s it had almost three million members, now it has been reduced to little more than a few rats fighting in a sack. Without doubt, in the aftermath of the election, there will be further battles in and around the Tory party, as the more serious representatives of capitalism fight with the Tory populist right for control of the wreckage of their party.

However, ultimately the Tories unpopularity stems from their acting in the interests of British capitalism, which has presided over falling real wages, rising living costs, and collapsing public services. Today, on 5 July, 2024, the mood of millions has been lifted by the successful eviction of the Tories, but unfortunately the incoming government has promised, in essence, a continuation of Tory policies. Sticking by the Tories fiscal rules, as Starmer has pledged to do, would mean if growth averages 1.1% per year, as it has since 2008 a black hole in the public finances of around 60 billion. In other words Starmers Labour, acting in the interests of British capitalism, is set to oversee a new era of yet more austerity, including tax rises and attacks on the living conditions of the working-class majority. That is why the Sun, the Sunday Times, The Economist and the Financial Times all supported Starmer, reflecting the majority of the capitalist classes preference for a Labour government, something unimaginable when Jeremy Corbyn was leader.

What conclusion does the workers movement need to draw from this? Not that nothing will change, but that we will have to be prepared to fight for things to change. One YouGov poll in the week of the election found that only 2% of Labour voters expect the incoming Labour to cut public services. That shows that, despite all of Starmers attempts to dampen workers expectations about how very little change he will actually deliver, it is inevitable that some hopes are raised by the Tories exit. Starmer, however, has made clear that he does not intend to restore the 40% of government funding cut from councils, or make up for the 10% plus real-terms pay cut suffered since 2010 by teachers, nurses, civil servants, doctors and other public sector workers. Nor has he pledged to renationalise steel, mail, water, or other privatised utilities.

The strike wave against the Tory government demonstrated graphically how collective action can win results, but now the trade union movement needs to prepare to fight for workers interests under Starmers Labour, rejecting the inevitable attempts of some trade union leaders to try and act as a cover for Labour when it attacks workers interests. A Starmer administration would not be the first capitalist government to, for example, increase public sector pay or to make concessions to students facing poverty and huge debts. None of this will be achieved by asking nicely, however, but will require mass workers struggle.

And the workers movement also needs to create a political voice, to fight for the interests of the working class in parliament, giving voice to the struggles in our workplaces and communities. In the run up to this election the Socialist Party fought for a workers list of candidates, arguing that even a small bloc of workers MPs in the next parliament would put pressure on Starmer from the left, and prepare the ground for the building of a mass workers party under the next parliament. Some, justifying a Labour vote, argued that the first-past-the-post system made it impossible to stand outside the major establishment parties, and that electing a handful of MPs could make no difference. Yet the election of just four MPs for both the Greens and Reform has already created waves, and gives a glimpse of what a bloc of workers MPs could have achieved.

Imagine if when, at the height of the strike wave, Enough is Enough was launched by prominent trade union leaders, and half a million people joined, it had been a new political party fighting for the working class, rather than a nebulous campaign. It certainly could have got a bloc of MPs elected. It would also have been the best means to start to cut across the Reform vote. Remember that, in 2017, more than a million UKIP voters switched to Corbyn, demonstrating the potential to win workers voting for the right populists to an anti-austerity programme.

Of course, that is not how events unfolded. The Socialist Party participates in the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC), an electoral coalition which aims to enable trade unionists, community campaigners and socialists who are fighting for a new mass workers party to stand candidates against pro-austerity, pro-war, establishment politicians under a clear banner. TUSC strove to bring together different forces under one umbrella but, while TUSC stood forty candidates on a fighting socialist programme, many others stood as independents or under other banners. As a result, rather than a clear workers list in this election, we had a kaleidoscope of different independent and left candidates, which, while some got good votes, made a limited impact.

However, almost two million people voted for the Green Party, which stood on a Corbynite programme, indicating the search for a left alternative in this election. However, unfortunately the Greens are not a workers party, with no democratic rights for trade unions within it. And while there are socialists in the Green Party, they have made clear they are not a socialist party. For all they won votes by adopting aspects of Jeremy Corbyns programme, they also stood against him in Islington North. Despite this, he won his seat as an independent, offering an opportunity to begin building a left bloc in parliament that, for example, can voice the demands of the public sector trade unions and the Tata Steel workers in the coming weeks and months. If the four new Green MPs are willing to act as part of that bloc, that will, of course, be very welcome, and would allow the Greens to play a positive role in the fight for a mass party of the working class.

In addition to Jeremy Corbyn and the Greens, there were other candidates who were elected by voters who wanted to protest to the left. Across the country, Labours vote fell markedly in areas with large numbers of voters from a Muslim background, reflecting the deep anger with Starmers support for the Israeli onslaught on Gaza. Despite our differences with him, it is unfortunate that George Galloway, standing for the Workers Party, narrowly lost Rochdale, the seat he had won in the by-election a few months earlier. However, in four seats independent candidates standing against the onslaught on Gaza won victories: Leicester South, Birmingham Perry Barr, Blackburn and Dewsbury. Arch-New Labourite Wes Streeting in Ilford North was also nearly ejected by an anti-war independent. The four independent victories are welcome, but if they are to be a step towards building a workers bloc in parliament it is important that the new MPs combine a battle on Gaza with all the other issues facing the working class in Britain, seeing themselves as representatives of the whole working class rather than just one section of it.

The crisis of British capitalism is increasingly being reflected in the volatility of politics. Labour have been swept to power in a landslide, but so was Boris Johnson at the head of the Tories five years ago. At the time we said it would be a pyrrhic victory, but the same will also be true for Starmers Labour. Any capitalist government will face mass opposition because capitalism is offering only endless austerity for the working-class majority. Therefore, discussions on how the working class can build its own party, armed with a socialist programme, are being posed increasingly urgently.

The Socialist Party will argue for such a party to fight for the socialist transformation of society: for the nationalisation, under democratic workers control, of the major monopolies and banks that dominate the economy, with compensation paid only on the basis of proven need. This is a vital step to breaking the stranglehold of the capitalist class, and laying the basis for the development of a socialist plan of production, where all the science and technique created by capitalism could be harnessed and developed to meet the needs of all.

If you want to take part in the fight for socialism, join us today.

See more here:
Tories smashed - build the socialist opposition - Socialist Party

I would describe myself as a socialist. I describe myself as a progressive. These were Labour leader Keir Starmers words in May 2024 shortly after his first speech of the election campaign. Labours constitution defines it as a democratic socialist party. So, in theory, Starmer is a socialist.

But what is socialism? One concept of socialism characterises it as being about collective ownership in pursuit of the public good, over private ownership for profit.

Some see a commitment to economic equality as what distinguishes socialism from other ideologies. Others specify co-operation and community reigning over individualism as defining socialism. Or, socialism can be seen as a movement for, or of, the working class.

Whichever it is, democratic socialism is about building a society beyond capitalism.

The day after Starmer proclaimed himself a socialist, his shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves was asked about his statement and responded that she was a social democrat. Social democracy is about socialism, but within capitalism rather than beyond it.

Reeves definition of social democracy in terms of equal opportunities, good public services, and secure work that pays (very much in tune with Starmers platform) does not go as far as socialism within capitalism. Others across the political spectrum could agree with the values she outlined.

Starmer was active in socialist politics in his youth. But we should decide where he stands by what he says and does now. Labours purges of socialists in the party have led some to conclude that Starmer wants rid of those who might try to hold him to socialist principles.

What do Starmers statements of values and principles tell us? In 2020 he argued for moral socialism, so an approach that is based on values as much as structures.

He highlighted injustice especially, but also inequality. Theres a left-of-centre or even socialist tone to the moral socialism he advocated then. But was he just trying to win over Corbynite members for his party leadership bid?

In a 2021 pamphlet on his philosophy as leader Starmer shifted to values of security and opportunity, which he has since continued to put centre stage. He said class holds people back, stressed community over individualism, and active government over the free market.

You dont have to be a socialist to believe in security and opportunity. However, class inequality, community, and active government have left-of-centre or socialist connotations.

But the proof of a philosophy is in the practice. Labour will set up Great British Energy, a publicly owned company to invest in renewables. Starmer says he will bring passenger train services in-house, and facilitate municipal insourcing and ownership, and more co-ops.

These are small steps to more collective ownership in the economy and public services. But social ownership could be much more widespread, especially given public support for it, including for the energy utilities, water supply and the Royal Mail.

Starmer talks about the tackling the class ceiling for working class people and about inequality, especially in policies (or intentions) on education and the new deal for working people. But the emphasis is on equal or minimum opportunities for all rather than a more economically equal society.

He will fund policies by clamping down on tax breaks for the privileged and a windfall tax on energy utilities. But significant redistributional changes to the tax structure, on income or wealth, arent proposed.

Starmer expresses sentiments of community and co-operation over individualism. But these tend to be used in relation to policies on security, devolution, localities, a more active state, or partnership with business, rather than institutions of a more specifically socialist sort.

In fact, Starmers perspective on community has metamorphosed into advocacy of a contribution society. This is used to mean varying things, such as that people and business should contribute rather than being individualistic, and that their contribution should be rewarded decently. This is about responsibility and reward as much as community in a socialist sense.

If socialism on the definitions Ive outlined isnt being proposed by Starmer, it could be that hes redefining socialism for modern Britain. If this involves new means for pursuing socialism, hes not propounding this.

If its redefining socialism as something beyond collective ownership, equality, and co-operation, thats not rethinking socialism for a new era. Its dropping what makes socialism distinctive.

If it involves a more intersectional socialism, Starmer is proposing measures on race equality and violence against women, but these match his self-description as progressive more than being socialist.

Starmer could be putting forward limited policies for the general election, only to then come out as more leftist in office. Active government could be extended to wider social ownership; opportunities for the working class expanded to a more equal structure to society, a foundation also for greater community. Starmer is not advocating such a route. But down it, he could just have a case for calling himself a socialist.

Read this article:
Is Keir Starmer a socialist? - The Conversation Indonesia

Photo: IMAGO / Frank Sorge

As you pass Schneberg on the Ring, the Gasometer towers above you. This round 78-metre-tall steel skeleton once held coal gas, and is currently being converted into an office building. The Gasometer marks the entrance to a sectioned-off neighbourhood known as the Rote Insel, or Red Island just like the Argonath, the enormous twin statues at the gates of Gondor.

This triangular part of Schneberg, marked by the S-Bahn stations Schneberg, Sdkreuz and Gleisdreieck, is called an island because it is completely cut off from the rest of the district by the train tracks enclosing it. All the way back in 1838, the Berlin-Potsdam rail line (todays S1) was built through empty fields next to what was then the village of Schneberg. In 1841, the Berlin-Anhalt line (todays S2 and S25) opened a few hundred metres to the east, creating a wedge shape. When the first part of the Ringbahn was built in 1871, the triangle was enclosed. At the time, no one but a few farmers took notice, who must have cursed when they had to cross train tracks to reach their fields.

The only way in or out involved bridges or tunnels across the tracks

As Schneberg grew explosively during the Grnderzeit era in the late 19th century from less than 5,000 people in 1871 to over 60,000 before the end of the century this cheap farmland on the wrong side of the tracks was snatched up to build cheap housing. The narrow blocks were filled with tenements, and by 1905, 30,000 people were crammed together on what became known as the Island. The only way in or out then as now involved bridges or tunnels across the tracks. To get a feeling for just how crowded it once was, today some 10,000 live in more or less the same buildings.

But why is the Island red? Thats less obvious. One theory goes back to 1878: after the 81-year-old Kaiser Wilhelm I survived an attempt on his life during an open-carriage ride along Unter den Linden, a beer distributor on Sedanstrae (todays Leberstrae) hung a red flag from his window, defying the new Anti-Socialist-Laws. This man was sent into exile, but he established the neighbourhoods reputation for redness. The Island was indeed a socialist stronghold not as red as proletarian districts like Moabit, Wedding or Neuklln, but red by the standards of otherwise bourgeois, liberal Schneberg. In 1903, some 70% of the Islands residents voted for the SPD.

But red might refer to something much more literal. At the end of the 19th century, the red-bricked barracks of General-Pape-Strae were built just across the tracks, east of the Island, where the military had enormous parade grounds. These buildings housed, among other things, the Prussian Railway Regiments who built tracks for transporting troops and weapons. Those railways proved their value in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, in World War I and in colonial expeditions in Namibia, then Deutsch Sdwest-Afrika. This was also the site of early military experiments with airships. The Railway Regiments were dissolved in 1919, but many of their buildings still stand, and have been used for a mishmash of small businesses since.

After the soldiers left, the Island was rocked by new forms of fighting. In the early 1930s, Sedanstrae was full of red flags, while just one block over, Naumannstrae was dominated by swastikas: a contrast that would soon make the neighbourhood red in another way entirely.

On September 6, 1929, up to 100 uniformed Nazis burst into a bar on Sedanstrae, demolishing the furniture and injuring numerous customers. This was no isolated incident; Nazis often violently attacked Communists as part of a strategy of tension, creating tumult on the streets and then telling the ruling class that theyd help them quell the violence. Local bartender Emil Potratzs Kneipe was the main Communist hangout on the Island. After the riot, a dozen or so Nazis were arrested, some with illegal firearms, but not one was convicted. Weimar Germanys justice system was blind in its right eye, so workers felt compelled to make their own justice. In the 10 days after the attack, 14 Nazis were injured on the Red Island.

The Nazis needed extreme measures to pacify the Red Island

The NSDAP could never establish much of a stronghold on the Island; the train tracks made it into something of a fortress. Even after the Nazis had seized power in 1933, a member of the Sturmabteilung (SA), or Nazi paramilitary force, was shot and killed on Torgauer Strae, right past a bridge to enter the neighbourhood. For a dozen years, the red Sedanstrae was officially named after that Nazi, before it was renamed Leberstrae.

The most famous daughter of the Red Island, honoured by two different historical plaques, is Marlene Dietrich, who was born in the building that is todays Leberstrae 65 and later left Nazi Germany, becoming a US citizen in 1939 and renouncing her German citizenship. Asked whether she would return to her Heimat after 1945, the actress famously answered, Germany? Never again!

The Nazis needed extreme measures to pacify the Red Island. The SA set up a concentration camp in one of the red-brick buildings of the Papestrae barracks, just across the tracks. Hundreds of people were imprisoned and tortured there in early 1933. After the war, many people claimed they had no idea about the Nazis crimes, but the prison was and is surrounded by apartments. Since 2011, the basement has been a public memorial, the SA-Gefngnis Papestrae.

Just across the tracks, at Naumannstrae 78, the expressionist poet Paul Zech was trying to write down what he was experiencing in the first months of the Nazi dictatorship. Zech wrote what he called a factual novel, looking at how different social layers on the Red Island adapted to fascism, or tried to resist. He wrote the first part of his novel at home but soon fled to Argentina, where he finished his tome, for which he never found a publisher. Rediscovered in an archive, Zechs Deutschland, dein Tnzer ist der Tod (Germany, your dancer is death) was finally published in 1981 in East Germany.

After many of the old Communists had been imprisoned or killed, a new resident of the Island took up the antifascist struggle. Julius Leber, once a Social Democratic leader in Lbeck, had spent several years in prison. After he was released in 1937, he took over a coal depot on Torgauer Strae, next to the train tracks. While delivering coal all over Berlin, Leber also held secret meetings with leaders of different resistance groups. His shack was a real conspirators den, in the words of Theodor Heuss, later the Federal President.

Leber, now the namesake of one of the bridges leading out of the Red Island, coordinated with both Communists and the aristocratic officers who tried to assassinate Hitler on July 20, 1944. A Nazi judge denounced him as the Lenin of the German workers movement, and Leber was executed in early 1945. Lebers wife, Annelore, kept the coal business running after the war while publishing books about the resistance. A version of the shack is still standing and is supposed to become a memorial soon.

The Red Island was almost destroyed twice. The first attempt was made by architect Albert Speer, Hitlers general building inspector tasked with creating the World Capital Germania. Speer envisioned a massive road, the so-called North-South Axis, for military parades, lined with monumental government buildings. The southern end would be marked by the worlds largest triumphal arch.

To test if it was possible to build such a colossus on Berlins sandy ground, the Nazis put up a concrete cylinder: the Schwerbelastungskrper, or Heavy Load-Bearing Body. Speers engineers began the work of demolishing the neighbourhood, starting by moving graves at the Old St. Matthew Cemetery at the north end of the Red Island. Fortunately, they didnt get very far. Today, the cemetery is the resting place of the Brothers Grimm, the punk rocker Rio Reiser and the Afro-German poet May Ayim.

The Red Island was almost destroyed twice

After the war, post-fascist city planners continued with some of Speers ideas, hoping to build a six-lane highway from Schneberg to Moabit. The Sdtangente (Southern Tangential Road) would have cut right through the Island. But in 1974, young socialists started organising to save the Cheruskerpark, and after several decades, the plans for an inner-city Autobahn were abandoned. A freeway crossing to nowhere, the Autobahnkreuz Schneberg, is all that remains.

The most famous monument to the Red Island today is actually outside the neighbourhood. Go through the tunnel at S-Bahnhof Yorckstrae to Mansteinstrae, and youll see a graffiti-coloured apartment building also known as Rote Insel. This was occupied in early 1981 the first squat in Schneberg and has been used by leftists ever since. Standing next to fancy new apartment buildings, its a reminder that the Red Island, Berlins only fortified Kiez, has always been very different from its surroundings.

See the original post:
Assassinations, socialism and conspirators dens: Inside Berlins Rote Insel - The Berliner

Socialist Equality Party general election candidate Tom Scripps spoke at a hustings on Monday evening in Londons Holborn and St Pancras constituency. Scripps is challenging Labour leader and warmonger Sir Keir Starmer in the seat.

The hustings was organised by the Camden Abu Dis Friendship Association (CADFA) at the Caf Palestina. CADFAs mission is to promote awareness about the human rights situation inPalestine. It was established after 2003 when a group in Camden made links with people in Abu Dis, a town in the Jerusalem suburb.

All 12 candidates were invited to the hustings. The genocide defender Starmer predictably chose not to attend. But in an affront to the basic democratic right to allow the electorate to hear different political views, none of the candidates of the other main parliamentary parties, or several standing as Independents, participated.

Scripps therefore debated Andrew Feinstein, a former African National Congress MP and campaigner against corruption and the arms trade. Feinstein is standing as an Independent but is a supporter of the Collective group formed last month by supporters of former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, which bases itself on the five demands of Corbyns Peace and Justice Project: a pay rise for all, green new deal with public ownership, housing for all, tax the rich to save the NHS and welcome refugees in a world free from war.

Describing the bloodbath of the Palestinians, Scripps explained, This is a genocide; it is a second Nakba.

The fascist Israeli governments intention is to turn Gaza into a military-run wastelandand they are using massacres, extrajudicial murder, torture, forced removals, starvation. Netanyahu and the IDF also seek the dispossession and removal of as many Palestinians in the West Bank as possible, under conditions of a permanent and barbaric occupationin alliance with far-right settlers.

Scripps warned of a regional war, with plans for a major assault on Lebanon and also against Iraq and Syriaultimately targeting Iran

All of this is backed to the hilt by the imperialist powers, with the UK government in the front rank, who are ruling against the will of their populations who they are slandering as antisemites and threatening with arrest and imprisonment for using their democratic rights to oppose war crimes.

Scripps explained the connection between the war of extermination in Gaza and NATOs war against Russia, stating that the involvement of the imperialist powers is closely bound up with the spiral towards a world conflict between the imperialist camp led by the US and its chief rivals, Russia and China, to which Iran is a stepping stone.

He said of the mass opposition to war which had erupted in response to the genocide in Gaza that what was a required was a reckoning with the leadership of the protests, who are leading them into a dead end of moral appeals to the government and the Labour Party. This avoids the necessary total break with Labour, including the so-called left flank of the Labour Party, which is out now campaigning for a Starmer victory.

These forces seek to create either a protest vote, as a pressure tool, or at best a sort of lobby group in parliament which will act as Labours conscience.

Much of this is summed up in the figure of Jeremy Corbyn, whose retreats before the antisemitism slanders of his supporters and before the Blairite warmongers paved the way for the Zionist slander campaign now being mounted against millions of protesters

Were standing to fight for a different, socialist strategyone that is based on mobilising the international working class in a struggle against war and the imperialist powers.

Whereas Scripps identified himself with the SEP and a revolutionary socialist programme, Feinstein put himself forward always as an individual crusader for social justice, against racism, and in defence of the Palestinians. He stressed his opposition to apartheid in South Africa but did not identify with his groups call for a new Corbynite party. His was a commitment to the people of Camden and an opposition to parties telling said people what to do.

Scripps insisted that Trotskys theory of Permanent Revolution was the essential theoretical and programmatic basis for ending the oppression of the Palestinians, as part of the struggle for world socialism and the overthrow of capitalism.

He warned that NATO is speaking repeatedly about its readiness to use nuclear weapons. Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary General, just gave an interview today to the Telegraph talking about how more missiles were being brought out of storage and being prepared for use.

There are fundamental interests at stake for these powers in the conflict with Russia, which they encouraged, which they provoked, which they want. Because they want to use it as a way of grinding down the Putin governmentwhich we oppose entirely from a socialist standpointas a way of collapsing the Russian Federation and ensuring a very lucrative process of regime change. Thats essential for what they see as the fundamental conflict of this eraand they use these termswhich is the conflict between US imperialism and China.

The SEP was standing against Starmer to use this as a platform to raise the alarm, to raise these questions among politically concerned individuals like yourselves and say, youve got to start taking your stand on these major questions and world issues.

Feinsteins response to Scripps exposition of the crisis of the capitalist system as the source of war, and Trotskyism as the only perspective offering the working class a viable revolutionary perspective, was to descend into sophistry:

Tom and I, while we probably have certain theoretical and analytical differences, certain slightly different opinions about certain individuals, the role of the trade unions and their functioning over the recent times, where I think were probably very close to each other is that we see the root of all of these problems is the transnational system. Of late neo-liberal capitalism and the imperialism that is the inevitable accompaniment of that.

So Im not going to go into that sort of theoretical and analytical base. Simply to say that I do feel the only way that were going to reform our politics is by fundamental structural change to the nature and functioning of our society and our politics.

What this translates to is that Feinstein supports Corbyns bankrupt programme of minimal reforms, defends the trade union bureaucracy, and is opposed to the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and division of the world into rival nation states, which twice plunged the world into a catastrophe in the 20th centuryand threatens to do so again.

This was confirmed in the opposed responses of Scripps and Feinstein to a member of the audience who asked for a practical strategy and ways forward given the situation were likely to be in in three weeks time of a Starmer-led Labour government.

Feinstein kept his reply largely to the confines of Camden and said that if elected he would be accountable to the local electorate.

Scripps urged the building of a revolutionary party. He explained that Corbyns refusal to fight the Blairites played out in how the antisemitism campaign witch-hunt was allowed to run right through the Labour Party, played out in retreats made by Corbyn and the leadership over the Trident weapon system, membership of NATO, and by the order to Labour councils to impose austerity measures The antisemitism witch-hunt is an example of what happens when you do not stand on principles and wage a political fight against your opponents.

The issue facing millions was not a lack of determination to fight but that workers dont have their own socialist party. He noted of the strike wave that erupted in Britain in 2022-23, That shows there is a sentiment for a fight in the British working class, but these strikes were betrayed by the trade union bureaucracya downpayment on the part of the trade union leaderships for the partnership they would like to run with a Starmer Labour government.

There have to be rank-and-file organisations formed in neighbourhoods to oppose austerity measures and the cutting of services, in workplaces to organise strike activity, not just nationally, but internationally, because we confront transnational organisations, to prevent this continuous erosion of living standards. A working class movement had to be built to oppose genocide in Gaza and the danger of regional wars and a world at war

What is the thread that ties all of that together? It is a revolutionary party. A genuinely socialist party.

You have to have educated and engaged workers and young people. In every sphere of life, you can wage a fight for a clear and common world programme that is resolutely anti-imperialist, so that the working class can take on and overthrow these absolute criminals.

You can follow and support the Socialist Equality Partys campaign at socialism2024.org.uk

Sign up for the WSWS email newsletter

Here is the original post:
Socialist Equality Party candidate Tom Scripps speaks at London hustings - WSWS

LABOUR's plot for a 20-year rule must be stopped or Britain risks a generation of socialism, the Tories have warned.

Cabinet Minister Mark Harper this morning insisted Labour wants to manipulate the electoral system in their favour.

2

2

He urged voters not to "get it wrong" in this election.

It is the latest of a series of warnings over the prospect of Sir Keir Starmer enjoying "unchecked" power if the polls prove to be right on July 4.

The Tories argue Labour could stay in power for two decades if the party sweeps to a "supermajority" fuelled by Tory voters turning to Nigel Farage's Reform Party.

On the same day Reform launched its manifesto, a Tory spokesman said: Labour are already planning to lower the voting age to 16, and we can expect votes for migrants, EU citizens and prisoners to follow.

So a vote for Reform wont mean five years of Labour, it would mean a generation. If youre thinking about voting for Reform, and a generation under Labour scares you, theres only one way to prevent it - vote Conservative.

Reiterating the comments today, Mr Harper told Times Radio: There are people out there who have serious concerns about what a Labour government will do, about how they will tax working people up and down the country and, of course, how if we get a Labour government they could be there for a very long time.

Watch The Sun's DAILY Never Mind the Ballots Election Countdown show on our YouTube channelhere.

Every weekday Sun Political EditorHarry Colebrings you the latest news and analysis from the election campaign trail.

Because of course they will change the voting system, they will make sure that they give votes to 16-year-olds, they have talked about giving votes to foreign nationals, to EU nationals We could end up with a Labour government for 20 years if we get this wrong at this general election.

That is why we are out there fighting for every single vote right up to polling day.

Sir Keir has pledged to give voting rights to 16-year-olds but has ruled out extending the franchise to EU nationals and foreign nationals.

The Tories also claimed Labour would scrap inheritance tax exemptions for farmers who wanted to pass their land onto their children, warning that this could put Britains food security in danger.

They also attacked Labours position on council tax after two Shadow Cabinet Ministers contradicted themselves on it.

Jonathan Ashworth told Sky News that were not doing council tax re-banding" but later Darren Jones, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said the party had no plan to change council tax rates.

Labour slammed the Tory claims as a hysterical, desperate attempt from a Conservative campaign in chaos to distract from holes in their tax cut plans.

By Ryan Sabey, Deputy Political Editor

Labour winning a 'super majority' at the election is giving the Tory party nightmares.

Sir Keir Starmer could be heading back to the Commons with a majority of 416 seats if a one-weekend poll is to be believed.

Defence Secretary Grant Shapps says he fears there could be a real lack of accountability from other parties if they are destroyed.

The Tories have described this as a "blank cheque" approach which would allow Labour to pass whatever legislation they want.

Polling has shown the Tories could win less than 100 seats and this could mean they won't be an effective opposition.

There could not be enough people to fill all the shadow positions for the next Tory leader.

Miriam Cates says Labour may even create "constitutional vandalism" by being given such a majority.

She fears a new Labour government would take even more power out of the hands of Westminster and give it to technocrats and the civil service if given the chance.

The talk of a super majority also speaks to another predicament the Tories find themselves in.

Concern is growing within Tory circles that they will receive an almighty hiding from the electorate on July 4.

Look at how the language has changed in recent weeks.

Rishi Sunak told The Sun at the start of the campaign that he was eyeing up an election win and England would win the Euros.

That now seems like a pipedream.

Defence Secretary Grant Shapps has been touring the TV and radio stations this morning telling voters not to hand Sir Keir Starmer a "blank cheque".

He told the public that Labour shouldn't be given "unchecked" power especially when their plans are vague.

He put on a brave face telling Times Radio saying there was still "everything to fight for".

The seats both parties have been visiting tell their own story.

On Monday, I visited Horsham in West Sussex, which has a 21,000 Tory majority.

Sir Keir Starmer has visited Monmouthshire which features way down the list of Labour target seats.

For Labour are on the attack and for the Tories, it appears to be a damage limitation exercise.

Read the original:
UK risks generation of socialism if you vote Reform, Tories say as they warn Labour will change rules to... - The US Sun