A Conference for a Party that has won its second highest seat tally ever should be an occasion for celebration. But the partying mood appeared absent from Labour’s annual gathering. The week-long feeding frenzy on ‘freebiegate’ would have come as a shock to Keir Starmer supporters who bought into the ‘Mr Rules/grown-up-in-the-room’ image that has been crafted for him. It would have sent a shiver down the dozens of backs of newly minted MPs in marginal constituencies, whose success lies partly in painting their defeated Tory opponents as corrupt and incompetent.
But there are other worries too. The thinness of Labour’s vote demonstrates the shallow relationship ‘Starmerism’ has with the country at large, a level of indifference that saw Labour’s support dip beneath 10 million votes for the first time since 2015. What should be a moment of supreme confidence is shot through with unease.
This is not helped by the results mustered by challenges to Labour’s left. The returning of four MPs – one at Labour’s expense – and almost two million votes suggest the Greens are poised to be a serious problem for Labour during this Parliament. It’s doubtful the Turning the Green tide event at Conference last Sunday would have calmed many jitters coming from this direction.
But what could amount to a bigger and possibly existential problem is the possibility of a viable left alternative. The victory of Jeremy Corbyn and the unexpected wins by four more anti-war Independents, plus very strong results in some places for other left-wing indies and George Galloway’s Workers’ Party could be a foretaste of difficulties to come. The suspension of seven Labour MPs for going against the whip on lifting the Child Benefit cap also creates an (on paper) parliamentary nucleus around which a new united left party could be built. Are the stars aligning for a viable left alternative?
The space is there, so it behoves the extra-Labour left to make the move. Which is what will be debated at the upcoming series of Party Time? public discussions about left strategy under Keir Starmer’s Labour. But it’s not as simple as simply declaring a party, as the last 25 years of left electoral experiments have taught us. The central question for any new party project has to be ‘What is it for?’
The answer for some of the left is straightforward: a combat party capable of taking on the capitalist class and building working class capacities to the point where a revolutionary crisis breaks out, which the party can then prosecute to victory. For others, it’s the creation of a broader party that is simply about challenging Labour from the left. But here, there are issues around whether it should exist to ultimately displace Labour, or act as a pressure group to keep it honest. These are the three strategic positions likely to dominate debate in a new formation and could easily cause it to fall apart in short order, or bring about an unsatisfying fudge that could enshrine permanent factionalism.
Then there are questions about how it should be built. Jeremy Corbyn has argued for a community-focused orientation. He says the sinking of deep roots across Britain is the prerequisite for building something lasting. The truth of this, he suggests, was shown in his own victory against the Labour machine.
The problem is that while this would be ideal, it overlooks how Corbyn’s example is based on his being the MP for Islington North for 41 years, and hamstrings any effort to make the most of the opportunity now in front of the left. The alternative is some central direction, by someone or a collective with a national profile to take the lead. The seven suspended Labour MPs are best placed to do this. Their views are more in tune with public opinion than the Labour leadership’s, and it’s unlikely most will get the whip back soon.
But this too comes with problems. How many, if any, want to take this lead? Do they think their political priorities are better served by remaining left Labour MPs, and therefore seeking readmission to the PLP? And if any do want to take this role on, does this not replicate the priority Labourism accords MPs over the rest of the party, no matter how formally democratic this left alternative sets out to be? And if this is the case, what role in an electoralist party for those who are involved but are committed to a revolutionary project of some sort?
There are no easy answers to these questions, but they have to be grasped, debated, and decided upon, if the extra-Labour left want to build a new party. The gap in Britain’s political ecology is open, and the left have an opportunity to fill it. But the moment is time-sensitive and if it doesn’t, the Greens almost certainly will. What’s it going to be?
7 comments:
To be perfectly honest, I think you've just outlined the ineffective old left baggage that means the Greens will likely be more effective if left to seize the current opportunity than any new left party would be. As well as deserving to be the central cohering issue for the anti-capitalist politics of our time, climate crisis is just a far more concrete and coherent unifying princple than any "unifying" princple rooted in some variation of anti-capitalist politics. It's not like the manifestos would look very different.
I'd also say that potential community-rooted left candidates will likely fare better as independents anyway, and any revival in explicitly small-l labour political power would be best directed through the trade unions in the first instance.
If there's one thing the UK could do without, it's an influx of sleekly earnest Green politicians freshly elevated into Parliament with their fluencies merging a climate change politics principally concerned with ensuring the costs of urgent measures are borne by workers and the kind of support for imperialist wars or adventurism that only the best CIA money - I mean, vital grants to research democracy - can buy. As someone directly affected by Germany's current government, in which the Greens hold significant power (Foreign and Economic portfolios are held by the rebarbative Annalena Baerbock and the simply twattish Robert Habeck), I can only say that there are few things worse than Keir Starmer's adenoidal genuflections to tough choices, public service, Arsenal FC, and rabid Zionism- but the German Greens come close. They are certainly the most racist German party not called AfD!
"Who's going to fund it to get any attention from any real voters" is another question which I'm sure will be burning in your minds.
Taking the Tsar's Ruble (plus the ill-gotten spoils of Surplus Elites grown closer to home) obviously can work quite well for moron protest parties. Less so when you need to win conscious voters.
I don't know enough to say any more, but the German Greens are a different party, shaped by a different electoral system and support base.
Part of my point to Phil is that he does a truly outstanding job of articulating the spontaneity of the left outlook of the relevant sections of younger generations that are central to the current opportunity left politics has, but that he doesn't seem to fully apply that understanding to what is and isn't still effective regarding the proclivities of the old left.
You can't unify and radicalise people as workers if they have very little sense of self that relates to their job and their outlook is already spontaneously radical.
I get that those who have waited a lifetime for this kind of consciousness within the population have a strong instinct to shape it to the precise kind of consciousness they imagined taking hold, but the consciousness that actually exists has to be the starting point. Another problem regarding a new left party that Phil has previously touched on is the influence the most domineeringly dogmatic aspects of the old left might exert. My point is that any point of view which starts with old left dogma is misguided. Indeed, the typical antipathy towards the Greens from those with such points of view is another reason the Greens would likely be more effective than any new left party.
The issues that Phil outlines are common for any group that is built around ideology or principles. People who have strong view inevitably disagree, and factions form. It isn't unique to the left. What keeps the 'big' parties together is pragmatism. But one that is entirely focused on attaining power. So, the pragmatism of electoral success. To achieve this they need funding. Who has plenty of money to throw at politicians? Not the average person.
The process by which parties are steered towards serving the interests of capital is like a combination of gravity and light. The gravity is the wealth that pulls them relentlessly. The light is the need for power, and so to offer or espouse what they think is most likely to achieve that. Between the two of them, they twist and shape the party until it loses all sense of why it began, and what it was for. They may start out with other aims, but soon the two arguments - "better to be inside reforming than outside criticising" - and "nothing can be done unless elected" - corrupt and distort. The truth is, plenty can be done when not in office. Governments rarely lead, and mostly follow. So who sets the course? Those who speak out and define the narrative. What begins as heterodox can quickly become received wisdom, if pushed enough , or if it fits the zeitgeist. Outsiders can challenge the orthodoxy, especially when the staus quo is clearly failing. Labour have made the rookie error of thinking that they have to follow, no matter how off piste they are being taken.
Hi Phil, how important do you think the coalescing around a particular party/methods etc are in comparison to something else - money? I got out on the streets for Corbyn during his leadership but I don't have that availability now, but I do have money. I'm no billionaire but I could try my best to provide to those who will advance the cause. Do you think a wealthy party can overcome an activist party?
I recall a moment which was enthusing at the time and depressing in hindsight - both us Labour lot and the Tories turned up to canvass the same estate in the 2019 election, there were over 50 labour activists and about 5 Tories, but obviously they still won - is it because money is all you need?
If so, can we all just agree which party needs our money?
Excellent points by Anonymous here, IMO.
Now that Labour appears to have finally, irrevocably renounced its leftist credentials, and the new wave of potential left voters are relative young 'uns who don't fit into the old identity divisions, the left of the political spectrum seems fated to either coalesce around the Green Party, or to exit mainstream politics altogether.
I propose that the point of any new leftist party must therefore be to enable the Green party. Its job is to appeal to leftists who won't vote green, for whatever reason, and have nowhere else credible to go. Then come GE time, to make a non-competition pact with the greens, so that both parties can maximise the number of seats that they get.
Nu Nu Labour can't be pressured from the left, because there will soon be no true socialists left in it, only careerist shills who have sold themselves to either or both of neoliberalism and Zionism - and who will scorched-earth the party before they countenance any leftward movement of the Overton Window (as indeed they are already doing right now). The new wave of left leaning voters have seen starkly demonstrated since 2015 what they can expect from it. This shambling political corpse can only be opposed and controlled, and its voters drained away to a new political center of gravity just as Toad has done to the Tories.
Post a Comment