Who doesn't like moments of collective joy? Here's one I was looking forward to: the launch of the membership of Your Party. Seeing the numbers shoot skyward like a SpaceX rocket, what we didn't want was an unscheduled rapid disassembly. But that is exactly what we got with last week's farce. And now, after things have settled a little bit and some calm has prevailed, YP is back on the pad and has blasted off again. Jeremy Corbyn took to the socials on Monday lunch time to launch his political moonshot. Yet instead of excitement, the buzz online has been downbeat, cynical, and gives off going-through-the-motions vibes. What a contrast to how things were a couple of months ago, and what could have been.
Matters weren't helped by the manner of this launch. Though the video accompanying Corbyn's announcement featured library footage of Zarah Sultana, featuring her as well might have undone some of the damage. Making matters murkier is the small print on the party website, which says the membership is operated by Your Party UK Ltd, in turn owned by the Peace and Justice project. Where is MOU Operations Ltd, the outfit that has the mailing list and recruited 20k members last week? What happened to the prior agreement between the two legal entities? We don't know and will have to wait for the memoirs, because it's all hush-hush: the very antithesis of an open and democratic way of proceeding.
Another unasked for feature of the recruitment is the barring of other parties. The sign-up page says that "you cannot be a member of another political party". I'm sorry, that is a decision for the party to make and not for friends-of-Jeremy to decide. Neither is it clear what parties are considered "political parties" here. Obviously the Greens, who do allow for dual membership, are out owing to their being registered as such. But what about the SWP, whose branches have variously organised YP meetings up and down the country? Or the Socialist Party? The YP project has made generous use of Dave Nellist's time in convening and chairing gatherings. Are they allowed? And if their comrades ignore the bar, are Karie Murphy and Pamela Fitzpatrick going to deck themselves out in witch-hunter garb? This is both an unserious approach to political differences and an unwelcome power grab that, I hope, the membership will undo at the first opportunity. And that's before we get on to the involvement of the other Independent Alliance MPs. No problems collaborating on an issue-by-issue basis, but giving them leading roles in this project, even if they are only "facilitating", is a dubious decision at best.
Yes, this should be something to celebrate. An episode of a new political movement rising to prominence, while making its opponents and enemies shake as masses and masses of people take on membership. Instead, the secrecy and petty power plays have tarnished its leading figure and, for many, whipped the rug from under them. Unfortunately, the ranks of reluctant Corbynism have swelled because of recent disappointments. And nearly all of them will head over to the membership portal and sign up out of duty, not enthusiasm.
Image Credit
I'm not a Reform supporter, but I have a friend who is acquainted with Farage, who tells me Farage deliberately constituted Reform as a limited company to stop it being hijacked by the cranks who would immediately force the project off the rails. Now, regardless of what anyone thinks of Farage personally, if they're serious about political science, they'll recognise he is a competent operator at building political projects. Why is this relevant to YP? Well, it's not a secret there's a malign crew of tankies, trots, Islamists and other nutjobs lining up their entryist strategies, so incorporating via a limited company is a sensible way of retaining some control before you let the cranks run free. However, competing limited companies, and a lack of cohesion amongst the founders suggests a lack of competence, and perhaps as I suggested in a previous comment, a problem with mutually incompatible interests within the faction.
ReplyDelete"it's not a secret there's a malign crew of tankies, trots, Islamists and other nutjobs lining up their entryist strategies"
DeleteSuch as who ? Name names, or else folks won't know who to look out for, and try to provide more information than the standard alphabet salad of far left groups so those of us not in the know can keep up.
Don't worry I'm sure Magic Grampa will know who these people are, even if nobody knows what they're calling themselves this week. And I'm sure those working the Islamist ticket will be able to work out which 'campaigns' are getting a bung from Riyhad or more likely their bus fare paid by Tehran.
DeleteEvery word.
ReplyDeleteI just had the passing thought, "I suppose I don't *have* to sign up... I could wait a bit and see how things go..." and it was practically a literal weight off my shoulders. Which, considering I had almost exactly the same thought a year or so ago about continuing my Labour Party membership, is not a good sign.
Exclusions of the sects seems nasty, BUT having , during over 50 years of intermittent political activism, seen or directly experienced the always utterly destructive activities of innumerable Far Left political sects in attempted large scale radical reformist political projects, I can sadly very well understand the decision to ban dual party/sect membership in Your Party.
ReplyDeleteI well remember the tiny grouplet, the CPGB, totally disrupting the conferences of Left Unity with their frankly bonkers demand that it should adopt the policy of the abolition of the standing army , and creation of workers militias ! This in an utterly non revolutionary situation FFS ! The fact that the umpteen sects have already created bogus "Your Party " proto branches in towns where they have some members simply illustrates their profoundly parasitic nature. I was a member of the IS/SWP from 1971 to 1981, so I've been there, got the T shirt.
Unfortunately the policy bundle which I think will inevitably emerge in the top down manipulated process which is clearly going to be the Your Party structure, will differ little from that of the Greens and will have little traction outside the metropolitan radical middle class. The Left are being foolishly over excited by the 800,000 odd folks who signed up for more information, NOT party membership. That is prior to any policy pronouncements. Once the policy creation process leads to actually declaring policies , the actual sign ups, and subscription payers, will fall away to a mere fraction of this misleading figure. At present people signing up simply for more information are simply ascribing their own preferred policy bundle to this proto party. About 20,000 people expressed online interest in Ken Loach's Left Unity initiative - but the party never had more than a few thousand members, most not active, and they were the "usual suspects", some who I knew from 1971 to 74 Manchester University student Far Left days !
Is that the CPGB-ML ?
DeleteIt was the tiny CPGB sect who currently produce Weekly Worker. I suspect the CPGB-ML are probably an even smaller Maoist sect ? Hard to keep track . I notice a new RCP (revolutionary Communist Party) sect in name at least has recently been reborn. The original hugely, madly, ultraleft (and allegedly state actors all along ) RCP morphed into the extraordinarily Libertarian extreme neoliberal outfit around today's Spiked Online ! My favourite , in the 1970's were the Posadists, followers of Latin American Trotskyist guru, JJ Posadis , and very keen on demanding that the Soviet Union initiate all out thermonuclear war to facilitate socialism, and socialist space aliens ( no, I'm not jesting). Just the sort of folk one would want in a serious new mass party. Evoking fond memories of your own time in the RSL (aka, Militant) eh Phil ?
ReplyDelete"CPGB-ML are probably an even smaller Maoist sect ?"
DeleteNo, it's Marxist-Leninist. It was briefly associated with WPB.
"I notice a new RCP"
Is that the same group that woman was running as a candidate for last GE against the Worker Party's Halima Khan ?
"Libertarian extreme neoliberal outfit around today's Spiked Online"
What is it with these former trots ending up as right wingers ? I notice that Spiked crowd can't shut up about 'woke '. They claim the left is obsessed with identity politics, but seem unable to talk about anything else. I also notice a similar trend amongst those terminally online 'post-leftists'.
@Anon 20:20, being unable to shut up about "woke" and "identity politics" is typically code for "we grudgingly tolerated the L, G, and B, but everything after that is too much for our brains to handle". Except that on the reactionary left they actually mean that - whereas among the "thought(sic) leadership" of the reactionary right, it's mostly a cynical ploy driven by an understanding of how to manipulate their mass base into voting against their own interests.
DeleteIn any case, it's a terrible path for any leftist group nowadays, because they're playing on the far right's turf and will have rings summarily run around them.
"...nearly all of them will head over to the membership portal and sign up out of duty, not enthusiasm."
ReplyDeleteI suspect many will decide it's not worth the bother, that the people in charge of YP can't be trusted to have basic competence and avoid petty squabbles, and that therefore their time and money would be better directed elsewhere.
It seems sadly inevitable that there will be another post like this in a few weeks saying "Yes Mark Serwotka has been put in charge of the conference arrangement commitee but members can still fight this..." and then a few weeks after that "Yes all the motions in support of trans rights, criticising landlords and calling for mandatory reselection have been blocked but members can still fight this..." and then after the conference "Your Party's platform in favour of progressive landlordism and separate but equal spaces for trans people are still better than Labour so we must rally behind this..."
ReplyDeleteYou very obviously do not know me.
DeleteSo you haven't been encouraging people to ignore the regressive politics of the Independent Alliance MPs "as long as they get the class part right" since last year?
Deletehttps://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2024/12/on-road-to-somewhere.html
Well in that case I look forward to your break with Your Party in the near future.
"Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas" unfortunately applies to Corbyn as much as to anyone else.
DeleteAnd a conspicuous lack of fleas was 99% of the appeal that he had for so many in the first place.
That very piece talks about how building a new party is contingent on overcoming their politics.
DeleteBut you are right about one thing. If we get a Respect-style outfit that throws trans people and any other section of our class under the bus for "unity", I will not be wasting my time.
Lamentably Awake offers an incisive and depressingly plausible prediction for the path by which The Return of Corbyn might consign itself rapidly to irrelevance.
DeleteBut it's not so insightful w.r.t the author of this blog! Phil - more than perhaps anyone - should be forced to recognise that a diet of watered-down social-reactionary rentierism is poison to any leftist movement in the age of immaterial labour. Starmer's cabaret of lesser evils would probably be polling a lot better otherwise (unless you attribute its lack of poll performance entirely to its cosiness with Israel, which is a stretch too far IMO).
Jeremy Corbyn is not a politican, in the sense that being a politician is a profession that entials articulating, negotiating, compromising, agreeing, having discipline, in order to build a coalition that can aspire to govern with coherent policies. Corbyn is a self-indulgent hobbyist who just does what he likes when he feels like, who can't be bothered with issues that aren't at the top of his list. As a politician, McDonnell is far better.
ReplyDeleteDespite being shocked by the idiocy of their public spat, I have hope that if the structure pans out, there should be plenty of opportunity to both phase out the capitalist tendencies of the independent alliance MPs, and with a large enough member cohort, a regression to the mean of left policy positions. But in discussing, I seem to be in the minority to think this way. Isn't the democratic structure the control against all this going either authoritarian, or "ridiculous left"?
ReplyDelete