Building a Left Electoral Insurgency

Rare are the occasions where parties and candidates to the left of Labour do well out of a general election. Despite having some scepticism regarding the Greens' four for '24 strategy, the concentration of their resources, a bit of tactical and split voting in the Tory seats they took, and a manifesto that was about consolidating a leftist base paid off. One of the few moments when I get things wrong but happy to admit it. As expected, though it didn't seem like it at the time, Jeremy Corbyn trounced the private health profiteer Labour imposed as his opponent. Elsewhere, five other independents were elected off the back of the political establishment's support for the endless massacre of the Palestinians, four of whom could be described as being broadly left wing. And there were other very good results for left independents and, if you must, candidates for George Galloway's Workers' Party.

Thinking back to a forecast given in an academic paper three years ago, before Party Gate, Liz Truss, and the other horrors of the last few years of Tory rule, I argued that the next election (i.e. the one just gone) might have a morphological similarity to what we saw in 2017 and 2019. I.e. Thanks to a soft electoral polarisation, victory depends on mobilising bases and turning out as many votes as possible. This was on the understanding the centre ground, as previously understood, was bifurcated by Brexit and with it the age/class cohort divisions often noted on this blog. It came with a warning. If Keir Starmer was to move Labour to the right, it wouldn't be the case of trading votes in super safe seats for support in the marginals because the people he risked alienating - the new base Labour pulled together in 2017 and largely hung on to in 2019 - existed across the country. If the election was going to be a test of who could get their vote out, putting off our people in the marginals didn't seem terribly wise.

As we know, politics didn't turn out quite like that. Boris Johnson was always going to do himself in, I suppose. And given the composition of the Tory membership, his successor was always likely to be Liz Truss and with it the calamities that were hinted at during the 2022 Tory leadership contest. This changed the shape of the 2024 election. The old triangulation strategy beloved of the Blair years could only work because the Conservatives' position disintegrated. The Tories fought their campaign as if it was a turnout-based election to prevent its base scattering to the four winds. This could not and did not stymie the momentum toward their worst ever defeat. As for Labour, despite getting fewer votes than Jeremy Corbyn's Labour at its lowest the right wing positioning ensured the most benign media environment a Labour leader has ever operated in, married to mass tactical voting - thanks to a tacit understanding with the Liberal Democrats - and the very helpful intervention from Nigel Farage.

This came not without cost. No more Thangham Debbonaire. Adios Jonathan Ashworth. So long Khalid Mahmood. Three big Labour names taken out because, as forecast, pursuing policies and lines that put off one's normal backers has political consequences. The result is a thumping majority in the Commons supported by a historically thin mandate in the country. Evidently, Labour did believe it could trade safe seat votes for swing seat support, and the gamble paid off. Two shadow cabinet members, one prominent MP, a backbencher, and the safe return of Corbyn in Islington for the complete dominance of the Commons was a trade no centrist Labour leader would have passed over. But Labour was lucky. Had Farage not re-entered the fray, the effect of Reform would not have proven so potent. And with a smaller majority, questions might already have been asked about Starmer's leadership.

What the original article sketched out was a logic of vote decay, and the general election confirmed it. Labour cannot repeat the same trick again now it's in government, and holding on depends on building campaign infrastructure and embedding its scores of new MPs. But politics matters, and with the Tories unlikely to bounce back quickly, there is room for the Lib Dems and Greens to capitalise on Labour's difficulties and the general long-term decline of right wing politics (as presently constituted). But what of the extra Labour left?

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the falling of parliamentary by-elections could see a seat taken by a rooted left wing independent. Or Galloway's outfit. Especially as Labour's continued disregard of black and Muslim communities is not likely to change, if recent behaviour is anything to go by. "Independence", of course, means many things to many people. Not attaching a party label, especially a left wing party label, can in some circumstances improve one's chances. Consider Fiona Lali's 1,791 votes (4.1%) in Stratford and Bow. Would she have done anywhere near as well if she had faced the electorate as the Revolutionary Communist Party candidate? The results for TUSC and the Communist Party of Britain suggest not. Independence typically allows for the projection of all sorts of anti-politics, anti-party, single issue, and localist peccadilloes on to a candidate. Good for saving deposits, but for party building projects? For building something long lasting?

Time for the left independents to pool their resources and call for a new party, a la the perspective long pushed by our comrades in the Socialist Party? Helpfully, Corbyn himself has weighed in on this. Drawing on the lessons of his campaign, he rightly argues it's his community rootedness that saw him safely back into the Commons. This wasn't on the basis of door knocking sessions centred on voter ID, which is the Labour way, but decades of living among his constituents, helping them, being present at community events, campaigning on their issues. Corbyn has attracted, condensed, and become the repository of collective aspirations and gratitude. This is what he tried to get Labour to adopt during his time, and which was immediately axed in Starmer's counter revolution. He's also right. When the parties of the left outside the Greens and Galloway's club have zero recognition and even less of a presence, how to build the left up as a contender? This won't be welcome news to most of the organisations that stood in the election. They are committed to top-down models of party building in which everything is instrumentalised, and whose work fits around the reproduction of their respective organisations. There is certainly mileage in a link organisation that can take on weight and link up community campaigns but, to be honest, if Corbyn simply sets up a new party I doubt he fancies adjudicating between the 57 varieties and the numerous liabilities who attach themselves to the left.

We live at a rare moment in Britain's political history. The Tories and with it, the most reactionary sections of capital have suffered a historic political defeat. Labour's right turn is opening space to the left, and out of the decomposition of the coalition Corbyn's leadership brought about under the party's auspices there are, yes, promising signs that something new could be built. It's not the best time to be a socialist, but it's certainly an interesting one.