I love the smell of Blairites crying in the morning...

Brown contracts deadly Vietnam Syndrome

A Doctor Writes:

First he had to worry about Foot and Mouth, but now Gordon Brown seems to have caught the highly contagious 'Vietnam Syndrome', almost certainly off known sufferer George W Bush, who he met last month. This is a very worrying development indeed for British politics, as the disease seems to have infected the likes of apparently previously healthy politicians like David Miliband as well. It is not known if the whole of the Cabinet is now infected or not - though some members like Jack Straw are well known long term sufferers, having contracted the disease off Tony Blair.

If left unchecked, Vietnam Syndrome becomes highly dangerous - with severe consequences for the mental health of the patient. In an advanced state of the disease, the patient can become quite, quite unhinged. The classic case here is known among Doctors as the 'Christopher Hitchens', though there are other examples such as the 'Denis Macshane' and the 'Nick Cohen'. When the patient reaches such a state, then unfortunately there is little anyone can do. The afflicted person badly needs to be put out of their misery, and in some situations a quick workers' tribunal followed by a firing squad is probably the kindest thing that can happen. Unfortunately, instead of recieving this admittedly rather extreme form of treatment, in the case of Hitchens, Macshane and Cohen the patients are still cruelly mocked by all and sundry, repeatedly given column inches in national papers in which to fill as best they can.

If the disease is detected in time, a swift treatment known as AITW (Advocating Immediate Troop Withdrawal) can have some impact in stopping the disease from speading, though there is always a danger of relapse. Ideally, vaccination against the disease would be administered widely - the vaccination required is known as EFP (Ethical Foreign Policy). In 1997, Robin Cook tried to administer EFP to the British Labour Party - but the side effects of injecting EFP into the Labour Party at such a late stage in the Party's development were quite devastating - and possibly contributed to Blair going down with full blown Vietnam Syndrome almost immediately. Robin Cook himself tragically also succumbed to Vietnam Syndrome.

Other well-known sufferers in Britain include Johann Hari. It has long been feared by some that in Hari's case, shooting by firing squad may be the kindest thing, though others remain hopeful he might still recover as he has shown signs of apparent recovery in the past. With Hari, the thing is touch and go to be honest whether Vietnam Syndrome will reach Hitchensesque levels or not. What clearly is most unfair in Hari's case is that he remains a newspaper columnist - he should be relieved of this duty as soon as possible if there is to be any chance of stopping the disease developing.

Of apologists and apologies

A slave ship - today marks the 200th anniversary of the British abolition of the slave trade

The British intellectual James Boswell, (1740-1795) when remembered at all, is best known for being the biographer of Samuel Johnson, who was inventor of the Dictionary among other things. Indeed, Boswell's 1791 Life of Samuel Johnson is regarded by some as the best biography ever written. Less well known about - indeed there is currently no mention of it whatsoever on his Wikipedia entry (something that I may well get round to fixing at some point) is his defence of the barbaric Atlantic slave trade and slavery. Indeed, in 1791, the same year as his celebrated biography of Johnson came out, he wrote a poem entitled 'No abolition of slavery, or the universal empire of love'. Ostensibly a love poem, its first lines are:

Most pleasing of thy sex,
Born to delight and never vex;
Whose kindness gently can controul
My wayward turbulence of soul.

Yet what follows is really a rant at those abolitionists trying to end the barbarism of the slave trade, as the title suggested. Other passages note:

Let COURTENAY sneer, and gibe, and hack,
We know Ham's sons are always black;
On sceptick themes he wildly raves,
Yet Africk's sons were always slaves;

And:

But should our Wrongheads have their will,
Should Parliament approve their bill,
Pernicious as th' effect would be,
T' abolish negro slavery,
Such partial freedom would be vain,
Since Love's strong empire must remain.

A poem that is ostensibly about the 'empire of love' turns out to be actually about a love of empire. It ends:

My charming friend! it is full time
To close this argument in rhime;
The rhapsody must now be ended,
My proposition I've defended;
For, Slavery there must ever be,
While we have Mistresses like thee!

It is not known whether the one for whom this 'love poem' was intended was impressed by such racist doggerel, but in any case in his Life of Johnson Boswell spelled out his argument in more depth:

'The wild and dangerous attempt which has for some time been persisted in order to obtain an act of our legislature, to abolish so very important and necessary branch of commercial interest, must have been crushed at once, had not the insignificance of the zealots who vainly took the lead in it, made the vast body of Planters, Merchants, and others, whose immense properties are involved in that trade, reasonably enough suppose that there could be no danger. The encouragement which the attempt has received excites my wonder and indignation; and though some men of superior abilities have supported it, whether from a love of temporary popularity, when prosperous; or a love of general mischief, when desperate, my opinion is unshaken. To abolish a status which in all ages GOD has sanctioned, and man has continued, would not only be robbery to an innumerable class of our fellow-subjects; but it would be extreme cruelty to the African Savages, a portion of whom it saves from massacre, or intolerable bondage in their own country, and introduces into a much happier state of life; especially now when their passage to the West Indies and their treatment there is humanely regulated. To abolish that trade would be to shut the gates of mercy on mankind.'

Today, such past apologetics for the slave trade and slavery are quietly hushed up - the complicity of the whole British ruling class in the affair - the worst crime in British history - is distinctly embarrassing. 'Stop apologising!' screams the Tory commentator Simon Jenkins, describing how he 'cheered when a descendent of the Bristol slaver, Pinney, refused to apologise for the deeds of his forefathers'. What conservatives of all stripes want us to do is forget the whole affair - they know above all that 'Great' Britain, or their green and pleasant land of England, might be tarnished or complicated by such unpleasant and brutal realities. Nationalism is an ideology which has to be constantly produced and reproduced to survive - it depends on myths, on the ideal of national unity - despite that fact that nations are always imagined communities designed to help our rulers shore up hierachical divisions of race, class and power.

Yet we have plenty of modern equivalents of Boswell today, opportunist intellectuals prepared to prostrate themselves before the rich and powerful, even if it means defending the indefensible in the process. In 2003, the Blairite warmonger Denis Macshane argued that 'It is time for the elected and community leaders of the British Muslims to make a choice – the British way, based on political dialogue and non-violent protests, or the way of the terrorists, against which the whole democratic world is uniting.'

The reason why we should remember the horrors of colonial slavery and the barbarism of the slave trade it seems to me - and the reason why the heads of states, and heads of institutions and corporations who profited hugely from the trade should be made to apologise - is precisely because without such collective memories the most pernicious and racist ideals of nationalism can take hold and spread, encouraged by New Labour scum like Macshane. 'The British way' as experienced by millions of Africans and people of African descent for generations was not one of 'dialogue', 'democracy' and 'non-violence' but one of suffering under regimes of state terror. The British Empire was one of the greatest instruments of tyranny and oppression ever - and it was an historic victory for democracy when it was finally brought down. Those who resisted this Empire were demonised as 'terrorists' - and I am sure had Macshane been around in 1819 to hear the son of a Jamaican slave, Robert Wedderburn defend the moral right of slaves to murder their masters to cheers from a British working class audience, he would have defended those who sent Wedderburn to jail for sedition in 1820. Had Macshane witnessed another Jamaican son of a slave, William Davidson, help organise the Cato Street Conspiracy to try to put Wedderburn's ideas into practice, he would have been to the fore in cheering him, along with the countless unknown other slaves who rebelled against slavery, to the gallows to be hung.

Davidson's speech in court was superb, and his words ring down the ages to us today with all their power:

'It is an ancient custom to resist tyranny... And our history goes on further to say, that when another of their Majesties the Kings of England tried to infringe upon those rights, the people armed, and told him that if he did not give them the privileges of Englishmen, they would compel him by the point of the sword... Would you not rather govern a country of spirited men, than cowards?'

It is not too difficult to imagine how today's Blairites might answer that one.

Some further reading on slave trade abolition

The revolt against slavery - an excellent Socialist Worker supplement featuring articles by Adam Hochschild, Charlie Kimber, Yuri Prasad and Marika Sherwood.
Slaves and Slavery 1807-2007 by Marika Sherwood.
CLR James and The Black Jacobins by David Renton
Why I am saying sorry for London's role by Ken Livingstone.
Man's unconquerable mind by Paul Foot
Anti Slavery International on the slave trade
A Free Man - Toussaint L'Ouverture by Laurent Dubois


My past posts on the topic

Who abolished the slave trade?
On remembering Toussaint L'Ouverture
Winston Churchill on the benefits of slavery
Blair and the anniversary of abolition
Eric Williams on Emancipation

R.I.P. The Labour Left (1906-2006)

I suppose I should start this piece by admitting that I am not now a member of the British Labour Party, and I never have been a member of the Labour Party. But I now know something else - I never am going to be a member of the Labour Party. Let me explain why.

Once upon a time, back in 1906 when the Labour Party was formed it stood against 'wars fought to make the rich richer,' while 'underfed schoolchildren are still neglected'

Last night, there was a vote in Parliament to set up a committee of inquiry made up of seven members of the privy council to examine what went so wrong with British foreign policy with respect to Iraq. This in itself was newsworthy - as it was about the first time in two years that the war had been debated and members of Parliament had had the chance to vote on it. This is how the BBC reported the outcome:

'An attempt to force the government to hold an inquiry into the Iraq war has failed in the House of Commons. A Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru motion for an immediate probe was opposed by a majority of 25 despite support from 12 rebel Labour MPs...Plaid Cymru's Adam Price said of the motion: "The issue at its heart is far bigger than party politics - it's about accountability, it's about the monumental catastrophe of the Iraq war - the worst foreign policy disaster certainly since Suez, possibly since Munich and it's about the morass in which we regrettably still find ourselves." The government was supported by 298 MPs and opposed by 273. Twelve Labour MPs rebelled.'

The key figures to note are these:

Firstly, 298 MPs (almost all Labour) voted against the idea that there should be any sort of inquiry into the Iraq war. These 298 MPs are utter utter utter scum - careerists of the lowest order. As Respect MP George Galloway noted, 'The House of Commons today had the chance to begin to redeem itself after the vote for this disastrous war three years ago. The fact that so many armchair generals on the labour benches voted with the Government in refusing even to hold an enquiry into the decision to go to war, shows how far removed this place has become from being a genuine parliament. The conclusions we must draw are profound. We need to redouble our efforts outside of parliament and at the ballot box against these "misrepresentatives"'. Hear, hear.

Yet more shockingly, only 12 Labour MPs rebelled. Twelve! Only twelve Labour MPs put their principles before their careers and voted to hold Blair - a war criminal - to account for his crimes. I am dumbfounded. Why so few? Why did even less than those who voted against military action in 2003 now support the government?

One of these former rebels, Ian Lucas told the house: 'I cannot support this opportunistic, cynical motion ... We see the nationalists in a constant campaign to assail the integrity of the prime minister, attack the Labour government and make political capital for cheap political ends.'

But Blair - the Prime Minister - doesn't have any integrity left to assail! One wonders if Lucas isn't making some cheap political capital with the likes of Gordon Brown by voting against the idea of an inquiry which can only damage the Glorious leader in waiting.

David Blunkett, the former home secretary, said the Tories were hypocrites for turning on the government after backing the war. 'There are those who haven't changed their minds but can't miss an opportunity to have a go at this government and our prime minister, whatever the consequences in terms of demoralisation and the difficulty it causes for our troops.' But as Galloway pointed out, 'To those who claim that holding an inquiry will "demoralise" the armed forces: we got a pretty good estimation of the morale of the armed forces after the head of the British army spoke a truth that has so rarely been heard in this chamber, that the presence of British forces in Iraq is exacerbating the dangers this country faces. That was before the US suffered over 100 dead this month; before the report in the Lancet that the most likely number of people to have been killed in Iraq since the war is 655,000.'

Denis MacShane, the rabidly pro-imperialist former Foreign Office minister, admitted that 'we have not got it strategically or tactically right' in Iraq - an understatement - but described calls for an inquiry as 'part of a cheap anti-American crusade'. Clearly a cheap anti-American crusade that holds a liar and a warmonger to account for his crimes is something everyone should oppose. An expensive pro-American crusade that costs the lives of thousands of people in Iraq on the other hand - yeah, I'll buy that for a dollar!

Only 12 MPs. This surely signals the end of the road for the Labour Left. Had just 25 more Labour MPs dug deep enough and discovered their consciences then Blair would have lost the vote - and possibly be on his way out of office. The Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs are supposed to be 25 strong - less than half of them voted for an inquiry! As for the hopes some on the Left still have that John McDonnell -chair of the Socialist Campaign Group - can even make it onto the ballot sheet to stand against Brown for Labour Leader - forget it. Surely any hopes of any Labour Left challenger to Blair and Brown getting onto the ballot paper must have been snuffed out now.

John McDonnell himself tries to put a brave face on the vote last night - arguing 'rather than despair it is critical that the campaign for withdrawal goes on and the campaigning to restore the Labour Party as a party of peace continues with increased commitment and vigour' but he must know its over now. What matters now is campaigning on the streets against the war - and drawing into the anti-war movement more disillusioned Labour Party members who must know now that the idea that the Labour Party can be restored to being 'a party of peace' is over now - if indeed it ever was a 'party of peace'.

It is the Stop the War Coalition in Britain that remains central to any rebirth of the Left in Britain at the moment. The Iranian socialist Ardeshir Mehrdad recently asked Alex Callinicos about this:

Q: 'How do you see the anti war movement? By its powerful appearance in the prelude to the Iraq war it raised hopes in a huge way. You reflected those hopes in your excellent book The New Mandarins and American Power, which came out that same year. Yet a few years later, not only did this movement not grow and spread, but we have indeed witnessed its downturn. Why? In your view can we be optimistic for a resurgence of this movement? How and in what direction?'

Alex Callinicos: 'It is a common error to use the gigantic protests of early 2003 to proclaim the death of the anti-war movement. One of our greatest achievements is used to hang us! The 2003 protests were on such a scale that they could only go forward by bringing down governments - which did in fact happen in Spain in March 2004, albeit in an indirect and complex way. The failure to achieve such an outcome on a broader scale - and therefore prevent or end the Iraq war - did lead to a certain ebbing of the anti-war movement relative to the high point of 15 February 2003, but the extent varied enormously depending on national conditions. Thus in the US the mainstream of the anti-war movement (including figures as principled as Chomsky) made the fatal error of putting their efforts in defeating Bush in 2004 by backing the pro-war Democrats under John Kerry, a mistake from which they are only beginning to recover.

By contrast, I think it is completely wrong to describe the condition of the anti-war movement in Britain as one of ‘downturn’. The Stop the War Coalition has been able to sustain an astonishingly high level of mass mobilization for the past five years - a succession of big demonstrations, usually twice a year, all very big by historic standards, if not on the scale of 15 February 2003 - and to gain very deep roots in British society. This is reflected in its ability to mount two large marches against the Lebanon War at very short notice and at the height of the summer holidays. More generally, his central role in engineering the Iraq War fatally damaged Tony Blair’s government and his complicity in the destruction of Lebanon is helping to end his premiership.

This contrast suggests that the fate of the anti-war movement has varied according to the state of the left in different countries. In the US the left has been crippled by its dependence on the Democrats. The British anti-war movement has been led by forces of the radical left that have been able to sustain it in a way that has combined consistent opposition to imperialism with an emphasis on building on a broad and inclusive basis. Elsewhere the pattern is confirmed by, for example, the decline of the Italian anti-war movement, which in 2001-4 mobilized on even a bigger scale than in Britain, but which has been very negatively affected by the entry of Rifondazione Comunista into a centre-left coalition government that is sending troops to Afghanistan and Lebanon.

The international anti-war movement in any case faces a very big challenge. The Lebanon War confirms that the Bush administration is telling the truth when it says that it is waging a global war. Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon are all fronts in this war. Iran may be the next one. The involvement of European troops in both Afghanistan and Lebanon requires a response for the left throughout the EU. Let us hope that this very threatening situation will produce an upsurge of anti-war activity, not just in Europe but globally.'

It is this movement that has to built - and from that movement new parties of the Left - like Respect in Britain - that challenge neo-liberalism and imperialism can emerge.

Strictly business

The knives are out for Don Blairino. He knows that when his enemies come, they will come as his friends, with smiles on their faces. That is why loyal lieutenant 'Jack the knife' had to go, that is why 'Fungus the Bogeyman' Clarke had to go. And that is why the man who would be Don, Gordonio, looks so bloody miserable the whole time - if he smiled, well, that would be the last time we heard of him too...

Yet the reason why no one has yet stuck the knife into Blairino is not so clear. Many suspect it is because he has one last trick up his bloody sleave - one 'secret weapon' with an intellect so overpowering, and the mere mention of whose name strikes fear into all who cross his path, the man known to the wider world as 'Denis MacShane'. Denis is just about the only backbench MP left who still shows Tony any respect, and he thinks other should do the same. As Denis the Enforcer puts it, rather euphamistically, 'A little loyalty and a few more zipped mouths would be welcome.'

For those Labour MPs who continue to take sides against 'the family', Denis has three ways of making them show 'a little loyalty'.

For those who are basically loyal, but prone to listening to 'voices' telling them that it is time to renew New Labour by replacing Blairino with Gordonio, Denis just gently suggests to them that they might be losing their grip on reality. In the nicest possible way, of course. 'Have my fellow Labour MPs lost their senses?' he quietly suggests. He tells them how the local elections, rather than being any sort of disaster, were a wonderful vindication of Blairism's popularity: 'In the local elections on Thursday, Labour lost 300 councillors...Compared with the Tory tsunamis that won every major city in 1968, Blair has done well.' Ah yes, of course, losing 300 councillors and getting the worst results since 1982 is 'doing well'. After all, we all remember the 'Tory tsunamis of 1968' like they were yesterday...

Secondly, for more retiscent Labour types who seem to be turning against Blair, Denis warns them that Tony believes in God and God is on Tony's side: 'Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make into Labour MPs...'

Thirdly and finally, for those whose detestation of Blairino has reached the point of no return, Denis warns them that if they bring Blairino down then then things will get violent. 'Whoever pours poison into the wells of Labour's citadels with the kind of briefings in every paper this weekend will inherit a witches' brew... Attempting to end Blairino's reign will mean 'the mutually assured destruction of the collective achievement of this reforming government'.

So what happens now? Will Don Blairino manage to make Gordonio yet another 'offer he can't refuse' and so hang on to power? How long will it be until Gordonio tells Tony that 'its nothing personal' as he stabs him in the back? We can only be sure of one thing. While John Prescott may like sleeping around, politically speaking it will not be long before Tony Blairino sleeps with the fishes.

Return of the Mac...

Blairite Denis Macshane has written down his thoughts on George Galloway on Big Brother for the Independent No doubt he is being paid handsomely for it, but what is MacShane's special insight?

'George Galloway demeans Parliament, shames politics, abuses democracy, and his latest cavorting in the soft-porn sleazy bedrooms of Big Brother will destroy for ever what standing he has with British Muslims.'

Yeah, I can just see them flocking back to vote for Blair, who really does demean Parliament, shame politics, abuse democracy and, oh yes, also kills Iraqi Muslims...

'How has this come about? What has happened to one of the most gifted orators on the post-war left that he elects to become a modern-day Harold Davidson, the Vicar of Stiffkey. The latter was a noted church preacher of the early 20th century who ended his days performing in a lion's cage, such was his craving for headlines and notoriety. A lion ate him in 1932 and that was the end of the Vicar of Stiffkey.'

Actually - a lion ate Stiffkey in 1937, but who cares about accuracy? Certainly not Macshane. Still, as someone who once heard Denis Macshane speak, I can safely say that no-one will ever describe him as 'one of the most gifted orators of the post-war left' - that is for sure.

'Galloway's fate will be decided by the sensible voters of east London who must be asking themselves why they lost the services and hard-working brilliance of the Jewish-African-American, Oona King, for someone who has been denounced in the Commons as Saddam Hussein's "Lord Haw-Haw".'

Hmm - I wonder who it was who denounced Galloway as 'Saddam Hussein's "Lord Haw-Haw"'? Oh, I remember now...

'MPs have a special privilege which comes with election. It is not the money or allowances, nor the ephemeral chance to slide up the greasy pole of ministerial ambition - a pole which seems far better at allowing "here today and gone tomorrow" ministers to crash to the bottom. It is the raw pleasure of using Parliament as a tribune to advance big or small causes.'

My jaw drops at this. Macshane - a careerist who supported the war so he could 'silde up the greasy pole of ministerial ambition' - attacks Galloway who was witchunted out of the Party because he put his campaigning principles before his ambition... And then he tells George, oh, if you are an MP you can use your position to advance wider causes as well - as if Galloway has done nothing else since being elected as a Respect MP!

'Two hundred years ago William Wilberforce used Parliament to abolish slavery. When Galloway was a baby, an MP called Sydney Silverman did the same to abolish hanging. Tony Banks drove ministers mad over abolishing fox hunting, but he got his way. Galloway is one of the most polished Parliamentarians in the business. Yet he rarely, if ever, appears in the Commons to make his case.'

One suspects this might be because by appearing in the Commons too often raises your chances of accidently coming accross hypocritical egotistical barefaced apologists for imperial power like MacShane...

'After two decades in Parliament and 10 years before that as a leading Scottish politician and then head of War on Want, what does Galloway stand for? He claims to support the cause of Muslims worldwide. Yet he opposed Tony Blair and Robin Cook when they organised the war in Kosovo which stopped the mass murder of European Muslims by the Serb thug Milosevic.'

...but led to more mass murder by the American thug Clinton and the British thug Blair...

'The biggest mass murderer of Muslims in modern history, with the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iranian, Kuwaiti and his fellow Iraqi Muslims on his hands, is Saddam Hussein. When I worked in Geneva in the Nineties the most feared individual there was Saddam's brother who organised the terror and assassin networks that killed Saddam's opponents all over Europe and the Middle East.'

Thank goodness that George Bush and Tony Blair could never be accused of having the blood of hundreds of thousands of Muslims on their hands...

'Yet in one of the most bizarre conversions ever seen in politics, Galloway decided that the democratic Western powers were a bigger enemy to everything he as a socialist and democrat stood for than the evil of the Iraqi dictator.'

A view shared by most other socialists and democrats in Britain - like say, Tony Benn whose 'bizarre conversion' here is not touched upon by Macshane for some reason.

'From his speech of praise to Saddam's face to donning pyjamas in a television freak show, this is the fastest descent of talent, ability and burning desire to change the world into the nothingness of modern mass media exploitation.'

Oh, thank goodness that if there is one thing New Labour are never guilty of it is trying to exploit the modern mass media.

'Poor George. He came to make the world a better place. He has made himself a joke figure. What a waste.'

Poor Denis. He wrote this comment piece to try and impress his masters in Downing Street. He has made himself into even more of a joke figure than he was already. What a waste of money paying him to write it was.

Edited to add: Article spotted here

Denis Macshane cries wolf...

Denis MacShane MP for Rotheram and a former Foreign Office minister has compared George Galloway to infamous British Nazi sympathiser Lord Haw Law. Galloway apparently "employs very expensive libel lawyers to stop any press investigation into his role as Lord Haw-Haw for one of the worst tyrants in the world's history" - Saddam Hussain. Macshane called for a joint committee of the Commons and the US Congress to investigate the claims against him.

Leave aside the fact that the recent smears against Galloway coincide rather too conveniently with the fact that the number of US troops dead in Iraq has now reached 2,000. Leave aside Galloway's record of opposition to Saddam Hussain. Even leave aside previous New Labour comparisons of Galloway to British Union of Fascists leader Oswald Mosley during the General Election campaign - because, er, he had a moustache and was a former Labour MP...

No, what interests me is the way that Denis Macshane seems unable to comment on anything without bringing up Nazis and Fascists. After the appalling Al Qaida bombings in Madrid, Macshane
argued that 'the time has come to unite against terrorism - the new fascism of the 21st century'. Of course, 'uniting against terrorism' meant supporting Bush and Blair's disasterous wars on Afghanistan and Iraq - something Macshane has been to the fore in doing. The notion that the reason Spain might have got bombed was less to do with fascism and more to do with then President Aznar's warmongering escaped Macshane.

To recap then - in Macshane's world - Saddam Hussain is now Adolf Hitler and Al Qaida are fascists - and we all need to unite behind Bush and Blair because they are fighting fascism. Anyone who doesn't agree - like George Galloway - is therefore 'objectively pro-fascist' and can be smeared accordingly.

Macshane's hatred of Galloway stems back at least as far as the General Election in May this year - which saw Respect make its breakthrough onto the political landscape. Respect's success in Britain was part of the birth of a new Left in Europe. Yet for Macshane, this New Left, as he put it in an article for the New Statesman in June, was not a healthy development. Indeed, the rejection of the neo-liberalism seen in recent Euro referendums in France and Holland means - you guessed it - 'we may be witnessing the slow "Weimar-isation" of Europe, a slide back towards the fatal interwar years when fascism was given its opportunity.'

'In France today, an alliance of populists and protectionists has just shattered the Socialist Party of Francois Mitterrand and Jacques Delors. In Germany, the former Social Democratic leader Oskar Lafontaine has formed a breakaway group in a clear echo of the disastrous splits in the 1920s. In Italy, too, the left is hopelessly at odds with itself, with Francesco Rutelli's Margherita (Daisy Party) refusing to submit to the renamed Partito dei Comunisti Italiani in the Ulivo coalition, and the Rifondazione Comunista denouncing its erstwhile comrades as reformists...The European left today is as incoherent as it was during the Weimar years...unless the democratic left starts to think and act together, it risks ushering in a long period of right-wing domination, ugly nationalism and the disintegration of the EU - a new Weimar Europe.'

Yet where did this New Left come from? A decade ago, weren't most people happy to see the election of Labour and Social Democratic parties across the heartland of Europe after years of Conservative Governments? The New Left did not come out of the blue - it was born out of the failures of those traditional social democratic parties in power to represent the interests of the labour movement against the steady rise of corporate power ('Globalisation') - coupled with most of those Governments craven support for Bush's 'war on terror'. In short they were born out of the massive anti-war and anti-capitalist movements of the last few years.

However, social democratic betrayals do not automatically lead people to look to the Left and socialist ideas. Indeed those Governments relentless attack on the rights of asylum ('Fortress Europe')and demonisation of Muslims has boosted racism. In Britain, for example, New Labour's betrayal of millions of working class people that has created a political vacuum that has allowed the real British Nazi Party to start to have the confidence to think about taking to the streets again for the first time in a decade. Given the menace of real fascists in our midst - for Macshane to start comparing others on the Left to Nazis is surely the thing that threatens to split 'left unity' against fascism? It is as irresponsible as his attacks on the British Muslim community after the July 7th bombings - where he criticised Muslim leaders for failing to condemn terrorism enough, as if they had done little else since September 11th.

Lets all unite against [real] fascism in Britain in November, but then work to give people a real decent alternative to New Labour's war-mongering and profit-mongering to vote for in the local council elections next May. Macshane will doubtless carry on crying wolf - comparing George Galloway and Muslims - and anyone else he doesn't like - to fascists - but I doubt if many people will continue to listen.

Edited to add SW article on 'Coleman-balls' v. Galloway.