A left field point (surprise, surprise). You mention George Galloway... what I find curious is his current interest in ancient civilization on Mars. Just a minor element I noticed. To me I wonder if he's so distraught by Gaza that he's starting to wonder about "end times"... even if he wasn't an Xtian. Personally I wouldn't get distraught; I'd be dispassionate, human society remains "tooth and claw" and "might is right"... and support or hate the West, the fact is bad stuff brings money and everybody get a little bit of that... obviously the powers-that-be mint up. So even workers parties could be argued as having blood on their hands. To my mind, "tooth and claw" needs to be addressed at the lower levels too... if a workers party looks into themselves, then I'd be fine with it... see the beast within and I'm good with you... but I dislike the "holier than thou" moralizing (I'm not referring to you here).
I suspect that you are misinformed on George and Mars … it is Elon who is obsessed with Mars and the stars. George is, in my experience, far more down to earth. Fortunately I can always rely on you for left field stuff. Your radical libertarian view is respected though not one that works well with the politics of the WPB :-)
Another point... To me this workers party is more of the same. We need to make this nation profitable. It's absolutely not fit for purpose in terms of what is all around us: technology.
Also in my view, all this workers stuff is nonsense. "Workers" is absolutely the wrong word; it will keep Britain skint... we don't want workers; they are archaic now.
We need to lead by embracing technology… everybody uses it, smartphones in particular… BUT few even consider the underlying code and the type of thinking needed in programming. Sadly this applies to young people too.
So many are playing video games, yet remain consumers… should we not be encouraging young people to take control of the tech they use, and be aware of privacy, security and encryption?
Rather than all this "workers" 1980s neo-ludditism, could we revive Britain by putting a lot more into educating young and old alike into actually being able to properly use the systems they use daily (arguably mindlessly)?
For example, The Bank of England did their white paper on central bank digital currencies… for my sins I read it… and I thought it was excellent. Yes, I use the privacy coin Monero, as well as Bitcoin, et al. And I recognise the conspiracy contingent rail against CBDCs… I can see how it could be used to control people in Draconian ways. BUT the Bank of England addressed that adequately… in truth it would be politicians that potentially would pose the problem. This workers party could possibly take us forwards by encouraging debates on technology in general and get into CBDCs and crypto and blockchains.
Even though tech is now totally pervasive in our society, politicians seem oblivious… save to say how dangerous Telegram Messenger is… I use Telegram daily! Yes, it's somewhat outlaw, but it's superior to WhatsApp and all the “data stealers”.
I contend that politicians in general aren't fit for purpose, the technology debate is critical… for me AI was a huge “godsend” as was the internet itself… the internet made me in many respects… haha, a lot of people would say right there is a good reason the internet should have been banned from the outset!
How can Britain move forwards with the idea of "workers"? That whole notion is archaic now. People need to be encouraged to empower themselves... to me the talk should be about privacy and security - use Signal Messenger not Facebook... "workers" staring at their phones means they are fodder... which is fine by me... EXCEPT that won't make a profitable nation. Profits mean a better standard of living for people ... ability with technology means they will be less easily exploited and might well gain a better share of the profits... especially if they use privacy coin Monero a lot... the tax authorities will freak out and in the end concessions will come. But old style workers parties seems crazy to me.
Well, it is what it says on the tin - a workers party - but (f you look at the Manifesto) is not Luddite or anti-technological. It just wants technology at the service of the people. So, for example, the cashless society is all very well but it does not take account of the needs of more vulnerable people who cannot easily use digital means and, of course, non-digital is Plan B against digital controls exercised by bad states or collapses in the system. All those things that you mention about ‘taking control of tech’ are precisely the direction that the WPB would most likely go in.
I will read the Manifesto. I probably shouldn't have commented without doing so. Mostly I wanted to get your opinion. Really I want everyday people... better not say "normies"... actually understanding security and privacy... most people have no idea about the underlying code and so on, not control at all. I'd sooner see people empower themselves, from there sensible regulations are a given... we don't want dependency and people wanting leaders to sort things out. Do it ourselves.
With vulnerable people, I agree... and I can be over harsh to the point of Ragnor Redbeard and Uncle Anton... but then again I say to a lot of people "install Linux", okay a learning curve at first, but you will have security and be in control... and "know your phones". But then again I suppose I'm a tech libertarian (if the truth be known) so it's exciting to me, but not to most.
Technology is a middle class concern, about 4 million people in Britain are struggling below poverty line, couple of years ago the Left in London run a campaign to not pay your bills? This only echoed with people paying their bills most poor working people stopped using gas years ago they sit through winters under blankets
I think the piece was long enough. The issue of the Union requires an article on its own account. I may do just this later in the year. However, for the record, the WPB is a Unionist Party (as it was also a Brexit Party) but, frankly, this is one of the few areas where it may be a little intellectually confused, with slightly contradictory policies on Ireland and the mainland British Union which need to be resolved in due course. Constitutional issues are, however, not a priority (these are more of a concern to middle class liberals in general) compared to its commitment to socio-economic and cultural working class politics regardless of nationalist identity. I do know that Welsh members of the WPB have been pressing for greater recognition of their distinctive situation, that, in fact, there are friendly contacts with socialists in Scotland who take a more nationalist line and loose contact is maintained with working class Unionists in Northern Ireland alongside the generally pro-republican position of many of its core members. The 'national question' is a live one on the ruling NMC and it may come up at the next Party Congress which is expected to take place in the Spring of next year. What it needs though is more thought because any policy has to take account of a) the significant changes that have taken place in Europe since 2016 and b) how various local nationalisms actually relate to the working class interest and to the political reality of new and increasingly well organised post-imperial political communities emerging in all the cities of the United Kingdom (indeed, of Europe). Personally, I am also interested in how the populist Right in Europe has been thinking about ethnicity since the work of De Benoist and GRECE (which was not racist despite polemical claims to the contrary) and how the socialist Left can respond in line with its own core values rather than those of an exploitative neo-liberalism but this is a personal project and has nothing to do with the WPB.
Thanks for your response. Would be good to facilitate some discussions on this. I'm sure Craig Murray would love to be involved too. The campaign group for Welsh Independence, YesCymru, was kickstarted in response to both the failed Scottish referendum and the Brexit vote in 2016. The campaign scaled across the Pandemic as Mark Drakeford was perceived to have done a better job than Boris Johnson (not only was this a low bar, but there also wasn't much truth in it). In response it was heavily infiltrated in 2021 (am writing something on this at the moment), which resulted in a big pushback to regain control (something which hasn't really fully happened). I think we can all learn from each other as the same dynamics were seen this summer to stop George Galloway retaining his seat, and Halima Kahn and Jody McIntyre gaining seats (as well as also targeting a number of the Muslim independents and Craig Murray). In Wales the principal threat to Plaid Cymru gaining from Labour's demise are Reform, so I share your concern on that front.
Very useful. The machinery for trying to break the spine of political dissent is sophisticated. The way that the anti-EDF operation was mobilised in the context of the recent riots was indicative but unclear as to the precise machinery in play - what was ostensibly something the Left might all agree was necessary, with the usual nod to Cable Street, actually appeared to give cover to the State exceeding its moral authority to impose draconian measures that one day might be directed at the Left as much as the Right. A lot of attention seems to be given to trying to create maximum tension between the two 'street' level oppositions to the centrist system by promoting more divisive than necessary narratives. There are also people working very hard to drive a vicious call-and-response approach between the Jewish and Muslim communities so that the State can appear always to be the 'moderator' and 'in control' when it comes down on one side or the other. The game seems to be to set off one set of protests against the other when the reality is that, for all their fundamental differences, both sets of protests, once detached from negativer communal obsessions, have related very much to a material worsening in the condition of both the working and lower middle classes. Targeting George with falsehoods was clearly essential as is trying (wholly falsely) to position the WPB as 'right wing' when it is precisely the opposite. The game appears to be to fragment all class opposition to neo-liberalism which is something that needs to be taken account of in our analyses of small nation nationalisms. We need somehow (and I do not yet have the answer to this) to find a way to respond to the nationalities question (including the neglected 'Protestant' working class in Northern Ireland) and yet maintain the unity of the trans-national ('these islands') working class. We also need to understand the Far Right better in order to find the language to counter it on our terms rather than terms dictated by dodgy people in London.
Not sure if you listened in this morning, but there was a good segment with Hos from WPGB on the Crispin Flintoff show about the recent by-election. He also interviewed the Green candidate and vote splitting was a topic of discussion. Hopefully he will repost that on Youtube in case you or others missed it.
The WPB hadn’t really registered for me during the election and it’s good to broaden my knowledge and dispel a few misconceptions about the party and its platform. It’s good to see some genuinely alternative policy proposals around wealth redistribution and foreign policy.
The focus on ‘workers’ seems completely outdated and unattractive, stuck in some past as an inherently contradictory term by which people defined themselves by their role in a capitalist industrial model that they purported to disagree with. While organised labour had (and has) a role to play in addressing injustices, people no longer see themselves as workers (and it’s not clear why should they have ever accepted this grossly reductionist mischaracterisation of their individuality and agency).
Indeed one WPB policy rightly supports worker owned businesses: but the workers at such a business are no longer merely workers, they are also partners or owners.
So the name is incongruous and will need changing.
On the environment, and how we produce and consume energy and resources, the manifesto is a complete let down that is out of step with public opinion and reality, incongruous with the party’s focus on workers and with its redistributive principles (leaving very little to distinguish policy from Reform).
I always find it such a shame to see those on the intellectual left rubbishing the impact the fossil fuel-driven energy binge of the past century and more - driven as it has been by the interests of wealthy land and business owners - has had on people (and, indeed, on workers) and again, in incongruous and contradictory fashion, harks back to the apparent good old days when workers were real workers slaving away in dirty factories producing stuff for affluent people to buy that they didn’t really need and broke quickly, littering and polluting the environment they and their kids have to live in; resource-driven wars; apparently all a good thing because it earned you a steady wage!
The oil age itself is a product of capitalist exploitation (of people and resources and life on this planet in general) foisted undemocratically on an unaware public primarily to enrich the resources owners.
It’s contradictory to want a better lot for ‘workers’ but deny economic and ecological overshoot and the impact it’s having on their and their descendants’ health and well-being (whether through impacts on food production, food and energy price inflation, loss of biodiversity and migration) and it’s out of step with public opinion that sees this as a problem.
But being out of step with reality is the bigger problem.
“Climate change is constantly taking place. It has done so for thousands of years. We follow the science when it is clear but we understand just how much science can be socially constructed in a society dominated by the interests of Profit and not People”. Many people would describe this as crank populist right conspiracy theory, about an imaginary world where politicians are corrupted by climate scientists who are corrupted by research grants, but magically never by fossil fuel lobbies whose interests have dominated for too long.
Anyhow the science is clear that the pace of climate change and biodiversity loss is unprecedented in the history of human civilisation. Referencing the end of the ice age or when an asteroid ended the dinosaurs is irrelevant.
There is nothing wrong with “rational debate centred on democratically aligned outcomes” so let’s have it :-
There is nothing favourable for people (workers or otherwise) in polluting their environment, or destroying the biological heritage of their descendants.
So ensuring that the transition of our energy systems does not allow profiteering by business at the expense of the public is right.
And taking into consideration the “affordability” of measures on vulnerable groups is necessary, but the policy should be to ensure they are supported where necessary.
Eg. Rather than outright opposing ULEZ schemes “because of the costs they impose on working households and small businesses” - thereby imposing air pollution-driven health costs on much the same groups (including many ‘workers’ who don’t drive cars) - instead invest in clean public transport, or stand by your redistribution principles and assist people with the costs, rather than so dispiritingly tell them they should be proud to accept their diesel-driving neighbours (esp. those who can’t afford to tune their engines) spewing CO and particulates into the air they breath.
A truly redistributive or socialist party should address these policy shortfalls, not pit one vulnerable group (people who can’t afford a new car) against another (people who can’t afford to breath polluted air).
You are not alone in that 'concern' about the branding as 'workers' but the party will stick with it because it mobilises our activist base, does represent the third non-negotiable in the platform (socialism, anti-imperialism and the working class interest), helps in our building links with the trades unions and gives us the space to redefine worker to include many of the lower middle class and in micro-businesses who are being proletarianised by neo-liberalism. The WPB is playing a long game here so there is ample opportunity for political education to change the terms of debate. The name will not be changed. The Party is also positioned strongly against the Greens and that is just how it is. It simply has a different analysis of the situation.
I don't see any information on local branches on Workers party website? Why is this? Is there a hierarchical organisation? I can see no mention of how it's organised
Members get regular newsletters directing them to events and campaigns as they arise. New members are passed on to Branch Secretaries where they exist and included in branch Telegram Channels which are open for debate. Branches emerge where there is a critical mass of members, where a local Branch Secretary can be appointed and then elected and are not 'top down'. For example there are branches for West and East Kent in Kent but Hastings & Rother and fir Brighton as well as Crawley in Sussex because critical mass exists in these constituencies. This pattern is repeated across the country, initially a region or sub-region and then a constituency is organised. The branches are being built from the ground up. The members will also have their Congress at some stage in the first half of next year and elect the members of the ruling National Members Council to which the Officers and, indeed, the Leaders answer between Congresses. The Officers and Leaders represent a more day to day administration but take into account NMC and branch opinion supplied through Telegram Channels. Open debate within the framework of the Ten Point Programme and comradely discourse is encouraged but the Party is not 'anarchist' but rather seeks a healthy transmission belt of effective political education up and down tbe system and the ability to mobilise swiftly for action rather than get lost in intellectual debate. It is a political project designed to acquire power and not an exercise in activist hobby-horsing or intra-Left squabbling on how many proletarians can dance on a pin head. Anyone who shares the values expressed in the Ten Point Programme is welcome to join and will be regarded as equal to all other members in a common cause.
A left field point (surprise, surprise). You mention George Galloway... what I find curious is his current interest in ancient civilization on Mars. Just a minor element I noticed. To me I wonder if he's so distraught by Gaza that he's starting to wonder about "end times"... even if he wasn't an Xtian. Personally I wouldn't get distraught; I'd be dispassionate, human society remains "tooth and claw" and "might is right"... and support or hate the West, the fact is bad stuff brings money and everybody get a little bit of that... obviously the powers-that-be mint up. So even workers parties could be argued as having blood on their hands. To my mind, "tooth and claw" needs to be addressed at the lower levels too... if a workers party looks into themselves, then I'd be fine with it... see the beast within and I'm good with you... but I dislike the "holier than thou" moralizing (I'm not referring to you here).
I suspect that you are misinformed on George and Mars … it is Elon who is obsessed with Mars and the stars. George is, in my experience, far more down to earth. Fortunately I can always rely on you for left field stuff. Your radical libertarian view is respected though not one that works well with the politics of the WPB :-)
No, no, watch near the end. George himself. I found it odd. I've always liked George's hats, thus an inveterate libertarian is good with him, haha.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fy48MoazWU
Another point... To me this workers party is more of the same. We need to make this nation profitable. It's absolutely not fit for purpose in terms of what is all around us: technology.
Also in my view, all this workers stuff is nonsense. "Workers" is absolutely the wrong word; it will keep Britain skint... we don't want workers; they are archaic now.
We need to lead by embracing technology… everybody uses it, smartphones in particular… BUT few even consider the underlying code and the type of thinking needed in programming. Sadly this applies to young people too.
So many are playing video games, yet remain consumers… should we not be encouraging young people to take control of the tech they use, and be aware of privacy, security and encryption?
Rather than all this "workers" 1980s neo-ludditism, could we revive Britain by putting a lot more into educating young and old alike into actually being able to properly use the systems they use daily (arguably mindlessly)?
For example, The Bank of England did their white paper on central bank digital currencies… for my sins I read it… and I thought it was excellent. Yes, I use the privacy coin Monero, as well as Bitcoin, et al. And I recognise the conspiracy contingent rail against CBDCs… I can see how it could be used to control people in Draconian ways. BUT the Bank of England addressed that adequately… in truth it would be politicians that potentially would pose the problem. This workers party could possibly take us forwards by encouraging debates on technology in general and get into CBDCs and crypto and blockchains.
Even though tech is now totally pervasive in our society, politicians seem oblivious… save to say how dangerous Telegram Messenger is… I use Telegram daily! Yes, it's somewhat outlaw, but it's superior to WhatsApp and all the “data stealers”.
I contend that politicians in general aren't fit for purpose, the technology debate is critical… for me AI was a huge “godsend” as was the internet itself… the internet made me in many respects… haha, a lot of people would say right there is a good reason the internet should have been banned from the outset!
How can Britain move forwards with the idea of "workers"? That whole notion is archaic now. People need to be encouraged to empower themselves... to me the talk should be about privacy and security - use Signal Messenger not Facebook... "workers" staring at their phones means they are fodder... which is fine by me... EXCEPT that won't make a profitable nation. Profits mean a better standard of living for people ... ability with technology means they will be less easily exploited and might well gain a better share of the profits... especially if they use privacy coin Monero a lot... the tax authorities will freak out and in the end concessions will come. But old style workers parties seems crazy to me.
Well, it is what it says on the tin - a workers party - but (f you look at the Manifesto) is not Luddite or anti-technological. It just wants technology at the service of the people. So, for example, the cashless society is all very well but it does not take account of the needs of more vulnerable people who cannot easily use digital means and, of course, non-digital is Plan B against digital controls exercised by bad states or collapses in the system. All those things that you mention about ‘taking control of tech’ are precisely the direction that the WPB would most likely go in.
I will read the Manifesto. I probably shouldn't have commented without doing so. Mostly I wanted to get your opinion. Really I want everyday people... better not say "normies"... actually understanding security and privacy... most people have no idea about the underlying code and so on, not control at all. I'd sooner see people empower themselves, from there sensible regulations are a given... we don't want dependency and people wanting leaders to sort things out. Do it ourselves.
With vulnerable people, I agree... and I can be over harsh to the point of Ragnor Redbeard and Uncle Anton... but then again I say to a lot of people "install Linux", okay a learning curve at first, but you will have security and be in control... and "know your phones". But then again I suppose I'm a tech libertarian (if the truth be known) so it's exciting to me, but not to most.
There are some good points there.
Technology is a middle class concern, about 4 million people in Britain are struggling below poverty line, couple of years ago the Left in London run a campaign to not pay your bills? This only echoed with people paying their bills most poor working people stopped using gas years ago they sit through winters under blankets
Interesting analysis, but sad to see Scotland and Wales overlooked. What's the Workers Party GB position on Welsh and Scottish independence?
I think the piece was long enough. The issue of the Union requires an article on its own account. I may do just this later in the year. However, for the record, the WPB is a Unionist Party (as it was also a Brexit Party) but, frankly, this is one of the few areas where it may be a little intellectually confused, with slightly contradictory policies on Ireland and the mainland British Union which need to be resolved in due course. Constitutional issues are, however, not a priority (these are more of a concern to middle class liberals in general) compared to its commitment to socio-economic and cultural working class politics regardless of nationalist identity. I do know that Welsh members of the WPB have been pressing for greater recognition of their distinctive situation, that, in fact, there are friendly contacts with socialists in Scotland who take a more nationalist line and loose contact is maintained with working class Unionists in Northern Ireland alongside the generally pro-republican position of many of its core members. The 'national question' is a live one on the ruling NMC and it may come up at the next Party Congress which is expected to take place in the Spring of next year. What it needs though is more thought because any policy has to take account of a) the significant changes that have taken place in Europe since 2016 and b) how various local nationalisms actually relate to the working class interest and to the political reality of new and increasingly well organised post-imperial political communities emerging in all the cities of the United Kingdom (indeed, of Europe). Personally, I am also interested in how the populist Right in Europe has been thinking about ethnicity since the work of De Benoist and GRECE (which was not racist despite polemical claims to the contrary) and how the socialist Left can respond in line with its own core values rather than those of an exploitative neo-liberalism but this is a personal project and has nothing to do with the WPB.
Thanks for your response. Would be good to facilitate some discussions on this. I'm sure Craig Murray would love to be involved too. The campaign group for Welsh Independence, YesCymru, was kickstarted in response to both the failed Scottish referendum and the Brexit vote in 2016. The campaign scaled across the Pandemic as Mark Drakeford was perceived to have done a better job than Boris Johnson (not only was this a low bar, but there also wasn't much truth in it). In response it was heavily infiltrated in 2021 (am writing something on this at the moment), which resulted in a big pushback to regain control (something which hasn't really fully happened). I think we can all learn from each other as the same dynamics were seen this summer to stop George Galloway retaining his seat, and Halima Kahn and Jody McIntyre gaining seats (as well as also targeting a number of the Muslim independents and Craig Murray). In Wales the principal threat to Plaid Cymru gaining from Labour's demise are Reform, so I share your concern on that front.
Very useful. The machinery for trying to break the spine of political dissent is sophisticated. The way that the anti-EDF operation was mobilised in the context of the recent riots was indicative but unclear as to the precise machinery in play - what was ostensibly something the Left might all agree was necessary, with the usual nod to Cable Street, actually appeared to give cover to the State exceeding its moral authority to impose draconian measures that one day might be directed at the Left as much as the Right. A lot of attention seems to be given to trying to create maximum tension between the two 'street' level oppositions to the centrist system by promoting more divisive than necessary narratives. There are also people working very hard to drive a vicious call-and-response approach between the Jewish and Muslim communities so that the State can appear always to be the 'moderator' and 'in control' when it comes down on one side or the other. The game seems to be to set off one set of protests against the other when the reality is that, for all their fundamental differences, both sets of protests, once detached from negativer communal obsessions, have related very much to a material worsening in the condition of both the working and lower middle classes. Targeting George with falsehoods was clearly essential as is trying (wholly falsely) to position the WPB as 'right wing' when it is precisely the opposite. The game appears to be to fragment all class opposition to neo-liberalism which is something that needs to be taken account of in our analyses of small nation nationalisms. We need somehow (and I do not yet have the answer to this) to find a way to respond to the nationalities question (including the neglected 'Protestant' working class in Northern Ireland) and yet maintain the unity of the trans-national ('these islands') working class. We also need to understand the Far Right better in order to find the language to counter it on our terms rather than terms dictated by dodgy people in London.
Not sure if you listened in this morning, but there was a good segment with Hos from WPGB on the Crispin Flintoff show about the recent by-election. He also interviewed the Green candidate and vote splitting was a topic of discussion. Hopefully he will repost that on Youtube in case you or others missed it.
Thanks ... Hoz is a fantastic soldier in the cause!
Perhaps support community not states or nationalism
The WPB hadn’t really registered for me during the election and it’s good to broaden my knowledge and dispel a few misconceptions about the party and its platform. It’s good to see some genuinely alternative policy proposals around wealth redistribution and foreign policy.
The focus on ‘workers’ seems completely outdated and unattractive, stuck in some past as an inherently contradictory term by which people defined themselves by their role in a capitalist industrial model that they purported to disagree with. While organised labour had (and has) a role to play in addressing injustices, people no longer see themselves as workers (and it’s not clear why should they have ever accepted this grossly reductionist mischaracterisation of their individuality and agency).
Indeed one WPB policy rightly supports worker owned businesses: but the workers at such a business are no longer merely workers, they are also partners or owners.
So the name is incongruous and will need changing.
On the environment, and how we produce and consume energy and resources, the manifesto is a complete let down that is out of step with public opinion and reality, incongruous with the party’s focus on workers and with its redistributive principles (leaving very little to distinguish policy from Reform).
I always find it such a shame to see those on the intellectual left rubbishing the impact the fossil fuel-driven energy binge of the past century and more - driven as it has been by the interests of wealthy land and business owners - has had on people (and, indeed, on workers) and again, in incongruous and contradictory fashion, harks back to the apparent good old days when workers were real workers slaving away in dirty factories producing stuff for affluent people to buy that they didn’t really need and broke quickly, littering and polluting the environment they and their kids have to live in; resource-driven wars; apparently all a good thing because it earned you a steady wage!
The oil age itself is a product of capitalist exploitation (of people and resources and life on this planet in general) foisted undemocratically on an unaware public primarily to enrich the resources owners.
It’s contradictory to want a better lot for ‘workers’ but deny economic and ecological overshoot and the impact it’s having on their and their descendants’ health and well-being (whether through impacts on food production, food and energy price inflation, loss of biodiversity and migration) and it’s out of step with public opinion that sees this as a problem.
But being out of step with reality is the bigger problem.
“Climate change is constantly taking place. It has done so for thousands of years. We follow the science when it is clear but we understand just how much science can be socially constructed in a society dominated by the interests of Profit and not People”. Many people would describe this as crank populist right conspiracy theory, about an imaginary world where politicians are corrupted by climate scientists who are corrupted by research grants, but magically never by fossil fuel lobbies whose interests have dominated for too long.
Anyhow the science is clear that the pace of climate change and biodiversity loss is unprecedented in the history of human civilisation. Referencing the end of the ice age or when an asteroid ended the dinosaurs is irrelevant.
There is nothing wrong with “rational debate centred on democratically aligned outcomes” so let’s have it :-
There is nothing favourable for people (workers or otherwise) in polluting their environment, or destroying the biological heritage of their descendants.
So ensuring that the transition of our energy systems does not allow profiteering by business at the expense of the public is right.
And taking into consideration the “affordability” of measures on vulnerable groups is necessary, but the policy should be to ensure they are supported where necessary.
Eg. Rather than outright opposing ULEZ schemes “because of the costs they impose on working households and small businesses” - thereby imposing air pollution-driven health costs on much the same groups (including many ‘workers’ who don’t drive cars) - instead invest in clean public transport, or stand by your redistribution principles and assist people with the costs, rather than so dispiritingly tell them they should be proud to accept their diesel-driving neighbours (esp. those who can’t afford to tune their engines) spewing CO and particulates into the air they breath.
A truly redistributive or socialist party should address these policy shortfalls, not pit one vulnerable group (people who can’t afford a new car) against another (people who can’t afford to breath polluted air).
You are not alone in that 'concern' about the branding as 'workers' but the party will stick with it because it mobilises our activist base, does represent the third non-negotiable in the platform (socialism, anti-imperialism and the working class interest), helps in our building links with the trades unions and gives us the space to redefine worker to include many of the lower middle class and in micro-businesses who are being proletarianised by neo-liberalism. The WPB is playing a long game here so there is ample opportunity for political education to change the terms of debate. The name will not be changed. The Party is also positioned strongly against the Greens and that is just how it is. It simply has a different analysis of the situation.
I don't see any information on local branches on Workers party website? Why is this? Is there a hierarchical organisation? I can see no mention of how it's organised
Members get regular newsletters directing them to events and campaigns as they arise. New members are passed on to Branch Secretaries where they exist and included in branch Telegram Channels which are open for debate. Branches emerge where there is a critical mass of members, where a local Branch Secretary can be appointed and then elected and are not 'top down'. For example there are branches for West and East Kent in Kent but Hastings & Rother and fir Brighton as well as Crawley in Sussex because critical mass exists in these constituencies. This pattern is repeated across the country, initially a region or sub-region and then a constituency is organised. The branches are being built from the ground up. The members will also have their Congress at some stage in the first half of next year and elect the members of the ruling National Members Council to which the Officers and, indeed, the Leaders answer between Congresses. The Officers and Leaders represent a more day to day administration but take into account NMC and branch opinion supplied through Telegram Channels. Open debate within the framework of the Ten Point Programme and comradely discourse is encouraged but the Party is not 'anarchist' but rather seeks a healthy transmission belt of effective political education up and down tbe system and the ability to mobilise swiftly for action rather than get lost in intellectual debate. It is a political project designed to acquire power and not an exercise in activist hobby-horsing or intra-Left squabbling on how many proletarians can dance on a pin head. Anyone who shares the values expressed in the Ten Point Programme is welcome to join and will be regarded as equal to all other members in a common cause.