I am in favour of working with Compass and its base and I have said so. My problem is that Compass, whilst gearing up for single-issue campaigns, has no broad-ranging critique that properly orientates it towards the long-term struggle. On the part of its members, this is substituted by an almost uncritical favouritism towards Jon Cruddas, and an almost hyper-critical revulsion over the LRC.

The other thing is that while I favour working with Compass activists, many Compass activists worry me – in style, tone and content. Some of them seem increasingly desperate, following the collapse of New Labour, to seize the centre ground. And many of them seem worryingly blasé about the behaviour of their so-called parliamentary group.

It doesn’t bode well for a future Compass-led Labour government.

On the subject of local campaigns which we can win, yes of course I can. In Northern Ireland, the water taxes campaign. So successful was it that the four major parties capitulated their earlier support for the water taxes and the direct rule ministers were forced to call a moratorium on its introduction.

If you prefer English examples, Richard Taylor’s campaign – which tied in minority parties and all sorts – is an example. This campaign isn’t as activist orientated as I would like – but there are other promising means of campaigning, such as Trades Union-led attempts to secure better terms and conditions for immigrant workers and the actions of various minority parties and pressure groups on the deportation of individuals to countries where their safety will be endangered.

Finally in this regard, I would add that I’m advocating tying all these groups together because it’s not done enough, and it is one of the major tactical deficiencies of the Left in my view. I’m speaking from local experience, having witnessed English towns with and without district trades councils, with and without a major political activist base etc.

These are reasons why at the last election Oxford bucked the national trend, with a major slice of the working class vote returning to Labour and throwing IWCA councillors out.

Lastly but not least, on the subjects of a “Left-wing” Melanie Phillips, I think we operate from two different premises. I am of the belief that we must achieve everything inspite of the Press. Populist Left nonsense from the old Mirror or even the old Sun didn’t prevent the great swing towards the Right.

We don’t need to reach people via the media; the media is how activists and the politically conscious talk to each other. We can reach people via what we do, what we achieve. We can have branches in every work-place. Community groups in every neighbourhood. Political meetings in every town and city. The Right can’t do this because the political motivations of the right run perpendicular to the interests of the working class.

Ours don’t.

But this is precisely my point – no it doesn’t. In fact most of the anti-war marches I went to after the big one, as well the ones afterwards like the Lebanon and then the Gaza marches were overrun by the SWP types rather than Trade unions and other groups.

I’m actually saying that the Labour-left did very little to capture and galvanise that anger out of the war, and on foreign policy. The SWP have taken full advantage, and nearly built an electoral vehicle out of it too.

I don’t think what I’m saying is particularly controversial.

I was referring to the voting patterns of Cruddas, Trickett and others who consider themselves affiliated to the ‘Compass’ parliamentary group.

Well, voting isn’t the only way to judge an MP. Cruddas says a lot outside of the voting patterns that suggests he isn’t buying Nu Labour drivel. Trickets resigned over 42 days of course. And Compass itself is generally on track even if the affiliated MPs don’t vote with the activists.

Which means that you could still work with the Compass group and its base, while ignoring the fact that its MPs don’t vote with you, until you build a significantly big enough block of activists. No?

Local trades unionists, single-issue activists, even people one meets on the doorstep – if we tie these groups together we can build the sort of resource pool that could fight local issues and win.

Can you point me to some successful examples?

Are you really saying we should recruit someone who spew the same badly-reasoned, jingoistic crap in the other direction?

I’m saying if you can’t convince ordinary people who don’t spend a lot of time reading politics of your ideas, what hope do you have? Mark Thomas is perhaps the person best personified by this. But he votes Green. You need more people like that. People like Billy Bragg. People who can connect. Not just those who can ride 5000 word essays. That is a serious problem for the left.

If you insist on seeing the leadership of the Stop the War Coalition as the only means whereby we can assess the content of the march, well, at that time, the steering committee had representatives from groups way beyond the SWP and whatever group we might dub Islamists. I was on the Lebanon march in 2006, and I had a lot of friends on the big wahoonie in 2003 – they were of completely different consistency, though called by the same people.

The reach of the later was fairly short. If you’re saying I’m trying to usurp the anti-war movement for the Labour Left, I’m not. On the Left there is no dominant group, and I’ve been trying to hammer that point home now for a long, long time. But there’s a difference between building alliances between those of us on the Left – in or out of Labour – and trying to co-opt someone who has supported the New Labour agenda for years. Alan Johnson isn’t remotely different from his colleagues.

On the subject of who supports what, I read Compass material all the time. I was referring to the voting patterns of Cruddas, Trickett and others who consider themselves affiliated to the ‘Compass’ parliamentary group. My point was that the LRC generally vote how their activists want them to; Compass don’t. I’m sure that if there’s a leadership competition, and Cruddas runs, the LRC may tentatively endorse him – but we shouldn’t expect great things for a variety of reasons, which I’ve expounded upon at length.

As for the sort of alliances, we should be considering, why do you immediately run towards trades unions? A paragraph of my article above suggests that this approach is doomed because trades union leadership are just as jaded as New Labour.

Local trades unionists, single-issue activists, even people one meets on the doorstep – if we tie these groups together we can build the sort of resource pool that could fight local issues and win. Fighting from the Left, not from the opportunist position of New Labour, who want to be against hospital closures with one hand and to close them with the other.

The whole ‘personalities’ thing will never work for the Left; for multiple reasons. First of all, the media is right-wing and chooses its commentariat darlings accordingly. The witterings of people like Melanie Phillips often logically contradicts itself within the same page – but editors don’t care about quality, they care about bile. And the right has plenty of it.

Are you really saying we should recruit someone who spew the same badly-reasoned, jingoistic crap in the other direction?

Although I do think it can go too far. Right now I wish Labour MPs were more ruthless and got rid of Brown. But they refuse to be as ruthless as the Tories and we’re stuck with a lame-duck.

apologies for not replying earlier. So here is my reply:

These are the sort of alliances we should be considering, rather than the stale manoeuvring between MPs of different stripe.

I’m all for building alliances with Trade Unions, and by extension working with trade unions to build a stronger left within Labour. Not sure how that negates my point, though Trade Unions would no doubt argue that it makes more sense for them to be closer to govt than take an antagonistic approach that basically makes their life more difficult.

The anti-terrorism laws; the ID cards; even such basic things as an elected second chamber of Parliament. In no sense can Compass realistically be seen as an alternative.

Well, you do know that Compass is generally against most of these, icnluding Trident. Neal Lawson signed the letter against 42 days that I published in the Guardian. They’ve been against most of the anti-terrorism legislation and are now pushing for PR and an elected chamber etc. Do you even read Compass material?

Sunny goes on to say that of course he would want more Labour MPs to rebel, but the fault is ours (’we’ being the secular Left) for not organising pressure that Labour MPs would respond to. This is a valid point, except rather hamfistedly made, including reference to how the anti-war movement was largely “SWP and Islamist friends” – a notion which is pure unadulterated bunkum. The mass movement that was built over the war was built by NGOs, other minor political parties and had the full backing of the trades union movement. In Belfast at least, the march had nothing to do with Islamists and was overwhelmingly white – and what I saw of the other regional demoes was the same.

I’m afraid this is rather rubbish. Perhaps outside London this may be true. But most of the rallies in London were SWP organised.

Why is George Galloway always speaking at these events? Why were the most popular banners at the anti-war march, and more recently the Gaza march, all SWP or Muslim Association of Britain (Islamist org) banners?

This isn’t HP rhetoric since they go completely overboard. It is a fact that the StWC is primarily SWP organised, with a few Trade Unions helping out. It is not a Labour left driven movement.

Most recently, only the Put People First march was. But that should have been a brand started years ago.

You don’t even want an alliance with the Alan Johnson types because he proposes some degree of marketisation of the NHS. That is a separate issue, but this is my point about you not being open to any sort of compromise

Alliances with such people would therefore be worse than useless. It may now be down to years of patient work, and network building, to establish an alternative to Labour; this work needs to grow deep social roots rather than taking the quick route of allying with groups that have marginally better policies than New Labour and the benefits of a media profile.

Yes yes, great words etc. But you have to realise that most people in the country are not as leftwing as you. They don’t speak the language that you do. Even the far left is split into different movements and parties, let alone being able to offer a big challenge to the centre-left.

Let me put it this way. If you want to be an election winning coalition then you have to put together a whole range of alliances that will cobble together enough votes to win.

You could build a strong far-left alliance, but if that’s not electorally significant then all you do is ensure in keeping the Labour party very left and thus out of power.

Over the longer term, the only way I envisage your vision happening is if you build a strong far left coalition and then work with the centre-left to take over Labour and win an election. Once in power you’ll have to find a person charismatic enough to frame the debate so that leftwing positions are slowly bought by the public and the country shifts leftwards.

I guess the best example is Ronald Reagan, and how the conservatives built a strong coalition outside the Republican party, did their take-over, and then got their man to frame the debates in such a way that America moved right-wards.

So my point isnt that your ideas are bad. My point is that your strategy to get them into practice is bad. Merely relying on the Trade Unions isn’t enough. You have to find the language so ordinary people will also buy those ideas. Again, the right has people like Jon Gaunt, that guy from Top Gear, Richard Littlejohn, Melanie Phillips and such idiots who are able to convince a big enough section of the population with their crap.

Basically you need leftwing versions of that, in addition to the organisation offered by the Trade Unions. That is the only way you can flex some muscle and ensure the Labour party stays on side. Otherwise you’re just ranting from the sides.

Perhaps we should discuss this all over some coffee or something when you’re in London next

In turn, I don’t think this is a difference that can simply be left floating, as though it’s a mere accident. I think the difference in inflection between the LRC and Compass is a result of different orientations and compositions; ours is to and of the working class. Compass is mixed, both the think-tank and the parliamentary group.

As for your remark that if our campaign is open and activist led, it’s all for naught unless we win, I have two things to say. Firstly, if history has taught us anything it’s that if victory is achieved without those things, victory proves to be hollow. That is as much true for the Soviets as for New Labour.

Secondly this: “No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”

I think Charlie Marks basically has us v. well described, at least, he’s described my personal view as a Compass activist. Should imagine that most others feel very much the same.

The result of this is that Compass is highly likely to take a very different attitude to the leadership question this time round. The question is, will the LRC?

I meant ‘eludes’ not ‘alludes’ of course.

I get absolutely what you are trying to say.

It’s hardly as though you are the first person to raise the notion that someone who considers himself to be on the left should leave the Labour party.

What you display, though, Sam, is a very narrow view of what the Labour party is.

Please thrrefore do try reading and ‘getting’ what I said above before insulting my intelligence.

I’ve commented on Dave’s site previously that the choice between ‘exit’ and ‘voice’ is one that I take seriously, and at the moment my voice, and that of many within a Labour party that is far more complex than you appear to appreciate, is starting to grow, and may soon be heard. As I’ve noted, even James Purnell is taking notice(though I appreciate that that is contentious).

I know you will it as some form of ‘cop out’, and there’s nothing I can do about that, but I don’t engage in multiple, increasingly vitriolic back-and-forths via comment boards, so I won’t be back to respond to your next barrage of abuse.