Thoughts on what we can get out of election work
As Left Unity prepares to discuss our approach to elections at out 2014 National Conference, Simon Hardy (Lambeth branch) outlines some key points for debate.
These are some initial thoughts on our election work and strategy.
1. Left Unity is standing in elections to offer the electorate an alternative to the mainstream parties that is radical, progressive and anticapitalist. We are not an electoralist party that orientates only to winning votes, we are a campaigning party that also stands in elections.
2. We are not at a stage where we are aiming to win any seats in local councils or in parliament. Any candidates standing should expect a low vote – but for us the actual number of votes is not the barometer of success at this point. We can measure the success of an election campaign by whether we have made an “impact”. We can measure impact using the following criteria:
- Did we meet new people who are interested in Left Unity’s politics?
- Did we get in touch with people locally we hadn’t met before, did we get a better understanding of their local issues and concerns?
- Did we speak at more meetings in the area?
- Did people join Left Unity?
- Could we say that our standing has improved in the local community?
- Did we get a reasonable vote?
Impact can be all of those criteria, some of them or only one of them. Ultimately impact is when you can see some tangible gain for the branch – a few new members, a large public meeting, a significant increase in your mailing list.
3. Left Unity should not expect a big electoral breakthrough in 2015 for two main reasons. Firstly many people will be voting Labour to get rid of the coalition government. Whilst it is true that Labour has basically the same line on austerity as the Tories and will inevitably betray some of its election promises once elected, people will still prefer them to the coalition. This reduces the scope for a sizeable left of Labour vote. This means standing in a Labour swing seat is probably going to lead to a very low vote (as it did in Barnet in 2014) Second of all, Left Unity is a very new party and it takes a long time to build up people’s trust to vote for you – after all they have seen left parties come and go in the elections (Socialist Labour Party, Socialist Alliance, Respect, Respect Renewal, Left List, TUSC, the list goes on). We have to prove to them in practice that we are not a here-today-gone-tomorrow party, but are serious about doing long term work and building sizeable branches across the country.
4. Socialists should view votes as a by product of their local campaigning work and success in getting their message across throughout the year, not just in the 3 months leading up to elections. In fact most of the electorate (over 90%) has made up its mind 3 months prior to the election who to vote for, so all of the leaflets and door knocking and postering and public meetings after February will only shift a few people to vote for you. Nevertheless, people will hear about Left Unity, think about our policies, have some sympathy with them, but then probably vote Labour just to stop the Tories. It means that when they see us campaigning months after the election or organising a public meeting on an issue, they will be more likely to come, as we aren’t strangers who have just shown up. In other words it is worth standing simply to raise your profile – so long as you can justify it by doing the political work after the May elections.
5. A branch that is standing candidate(s) in the elections should be working from November through to February focussing on doing as much campaigning work in the area locally as possible. The branch will need to decide a local manifesto of around 5 important demands to use alongside the national manifesto. Ideally each branch should also issue at least two local newsletters, delivering them door to door in important wards and areas. A lot of focus needs to go into getting it into the local press, possibly by doing a political stunt in the area and making sure the press cover it. Regular branch meetings are essential, and every activists should be briefed with clear points to get across in any discussions with the public. Contact local trade union branches and see if they will let the candidate speak at a meeting, or invite them to a specific discussion on Left Unity’s support for working class struggles. If there is a particularly large minority community in your target ward or constituency make sure you have some election material in that language. All through the campaign there should be a focus on collecting peoples contact details, emails and phone numbers. Putting them on a local email out so that they can keep up to date with the work of the party can create a network of potential supporters who might become members in the future.
6. Finances is crucial – and it is something that the left is often very bad at. A bank account with an accountable treasurer and a steady stream of money coming in is crucial to running a campaign that looks professional. Branches should also organise a specific local fund-raising drive, involving socials and fun activities, to help pay for all this extra campaigning work. Every street activity the branch does should have a fundraising component to it. As Tesco say, every little helps!
6. When most new left parties in Europe have stood their initial vote was very small – take the example of Syriza in Greece. Before Syriza (Coalition of the Radical Left) was launched in 2004, the Left and Progress Coalition (a grouping of several parties) was getting a declining vote, from 13% in 1989 down to just 2.9% in 1993 and 3.2% in 2000. When Syriza was launched in 2004 they new coalition party got 241,714 votes or 3.3 percent. Dogged and determined work in various social movements and protests saw them consolidate support and present a coherent left alternative to not only the mainstream but also the Greek Community Party (KKE) who behaved in a very sectarian and ultra left fashion, but had far more support in the trade union movement. In 2007 it went up to 5.4%, down in 2009 to 4.6% as the social crisis began then surged to 16.79%, only 1% behind the winning party Pasok (only 130,000 votes between them) and 52 MPs, becoming the official opposition. Another election was called a few weeks later when New Democracy couldn’t form a unity government, which saw Syriza get the 26% and 71 MPs. Clearly, Syriza’s huge surge from 5% to 16% was due to the social break down in Greece as a result of the economic crisis – but the point is that Syriza put the work into building up a left party over many years to be there when the time came and society polarised between left and right.
7. Financially, Left Unity probably could not sustain more than 10-12 parliamentary candidates. The cost of an election per candidate, including deposit and leaflet mailshot would be at least £2000, and that is before any extras are added (room bookings, printing broadsheets, etc) So it should pick target seats where it has a branch that can capitalise on the election work and make a tangible impact.
7 comments
7 responses to “Thoughts on what we can get out of election work”
Left Unity is active in movements and campaigns across the left, working to create an alternative to the main political parties.
About Left Unity
Read our manifesto
Left Unity is a member of the European Left Party. 
Read the European Left Manifesto
ACTIVIST CALENDAR
Events and protests from around the movement, and local Left Unity meetings.
ongoing
Just Stop Oil – Slow Marches
Slow marches are still legal (so LOW RISK of arrest), and are extremely effective. The plan is to keep up the pressure on this ecocidal government to stop all new fossil fuel licences.
Saturday 27th April: national march for Palestine
National demonstration.
Ceasefire NOW! Stop the Genocide in Gaza: Assemble 12 noon Central London
Full details to follow
More events »
GET UPDATES
Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.
CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS
Get the latest Left Unity resources.
I agree with Simon’s sceptical approach to LU electoral work, especially since today’s news, reported by Nick Wrack on Facebook:
“The Socialist Alliance has been the beneficiary of a large bequest and has decided to donate £500 to 100 TUSC candidates in the 2015 General Election. £500 is the cost of the deposit for a parliamentary seat. In addition, the Socialist Alliance has decided to donate £5,000 to TUSC to pay for the production of a professionally produced parliamentary broadcast for the TV. This means that the TUSC campaign is truly up and running. We now need to get the candidates and the local campaigns begun. There will definitely now be a serious socialist challenge to the pro-austerity politics of the establishment parties at the General Election next year. Get involved”.
That means that any LU electoral effort will be drowned out not just by the noise of the mainstream parties and their agendas, but also, on the Left, by both the Greens and TUSC.
That spells marginalisation and will make us look like a sect.
I have worried about the electoralism that seemed implicit in Left Unity at its inception, but joined because it was not yet clearly the point of the party. I want our activity to focus instead on engaging people with our ideas away from election times, so I agree with Simon about taking our message to people from November onwards; I differ in that I would wind this down during the weeks of frenetic election activity.
Just look at the Left’s record in UK FPTP elections:
The CPGB stood in elections throughout its early history, got 3 candidates elected between the wars and got hundreds of thousands of votes in the late 1940s. After the highpoint of working class strugle in the 1960s & 70s, half of British Trotskyism entered the Labour Party, including significant sections of the IMG but not until after the IMG had first set up the ‘Socialist Unity’ electoral front in 1979 (which Big Flame joined). The WRP fielded 101 candidates in parliamentary elections between 1974 and 1981; all lost their deposit. The Greens fielded 133 candidates in the 1987 General Election and lost their deposit in every seat. Since the millennium, Left electoralism has become a regular feature and the reason is clear to me – this comes out of the long decades of defeat, the change in composition of the working class, the triumph of neoliberalism and the inability of theory and strategy to adjust; an increasing electoralism has been the response.
And where does this leave us? In the 2010 General Election the highest vote share recorded by any of the 44 Trotskyist candidates in England and Wales was 3.67 per cent (Socialist Party, Coventry North East & largely a personal vote for Dave Nellist). Only eight of the 44 candidates obtained more than one per cent of the vote and the median vote share for all Trotskyist candidates combined was just 0.45 per cent. Trotskyist vote shares were just 1.11 per cent in EU elections in 2004 and 0.98 per cent in 2008(source http://www.psa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/conference/papers/2014/Paper.Trotskyists%20and%20elections%20PSA%202014_0.pdf).
If LU follows the post-millennium Trotskyist rush to electoralism, what basis is there on which to expect that our results will be above ONE PERCENT and what will that achieve in terms of LU’s broader goals? Now that TUSC are determined to be THE electoral voice to the Left of Labour and, along with the Greens, have the funding and resources to
The basic reason for my electoral scepticism is that this pathetic track record arises because of the nature of the British political system, which is still a means of the rich and powerful negotiating their differences – that’s what it is for and, since the mass media grew in size and influence, it is also a way of talking at the people, presenting the oligarchy’s views and decisions to the people. That is why there are strict rules on which parties can have a Party Political Broadcast; it is why political parties are privately funded.
But I also have deeper misgivings – there is no theory of electoralism on the socialist Left, just a habit. Neither is there a coherent Marxist theory of democracy – what it means or what is should mean – that is shared widely on the Left, even though Marx and Engles were fierce advocates of genuine grassroots democracy, as evidenced in the Paris Commune and Marx’s belief that it showed the way forward to the political forms socialism could take. No Socialist theory has built on this since, which is one reason why the Left is so rudderless, utilitarian and opportunistic about participation in elections. Lenin closed down the Russian National Assembly and the Soviets sharpish once power was gained in 1917 and it is still not clear whether Trotskyists want to retain pre-revolutionary representative democratic forms or use direct democracy, based on workers’ councils.
The anarchist left, by contrast, continued to develop its theory on democracy; anarchists are for federations of self-managed groups. This means that the membership of such organisations decide policy directly at open meetings. Anyone delegated from that group to do specified tasks or to attend a federal meeting are given a strict and binding mandate. Failure to implement that agreed mandate means that the delegate is instantly replaced. In this way power remains in the hands of all, no permanent political class is created and decisions flow from the bottom up. Anyone placed into a position of responsibility is held accountable to the membership and any attempt to usurp power from the grassroots is stopped.
I support this part of anarchism – I believe that we should organise in ways that prefigure the kind of society we want and that only freedom can be the school for freedom, that we only become capable of managing society if we make our own decisions and directly manage our own struggles and organisations today.
Unless and until we debate and decide this fundamental issue of what kind of democracy we want, we will remain rudderless, following the social democratic strategy without saying or knowing why.
In every General Election, the media decide who is credible and the public then get swamped with the parties they, the media, choose; UKIP had no seats and were nothing until the media started to talk endlessly about them; the BBC even highlighted an increase in Rumanian immigration at 6 pm on voting day, before most employed people vote! In our TV era, for most people, things are only real and of significance if the media highlight them. UKIP therefore became a realistic alternative; we are not, in the media’s eyes, and therefore will not be promoted in the same way, ever. UKIP were seen as having a chance; we were not. It will always be this way for the left unless and until we painfully build up a constituency of support over years of consistent grassroots activity; no shortcuts exist for us like they do for the populist right.
The message we were giving out in our June EU leafleting all over the country was lost in the noise of electioneering and the media’s take on it. Our views will always be drowned out by TV politics at election time. We cannot raise socio-economic issues like austerity, wealth inequality etc in a climate in which a potent nationalism is being taken forward in heated electioneering campaigns. We are then basically saying to people – “you don’t know it, but this is what you should really be concerned about!”, wishing their nationalism away, pretending it is not there.
The money being given to TUSC is essentially being flushed down the drain – if any long term political party formation is hoped to emerge from all the work and propaganda that the TUSC front grouping will put out during the General Election campaign. That’s the fundamental problem with TUSC (and its name of course), its basically a “pop-up electoral front” dominated by the Socialist Party. It can’t build a long term support base as TUSC in localities – so once the periodic frenetic election campaigning is over it disappears until the next election. A hopeless way to build a credible radical Left alternative movement and party. Of course that actually isn’t is purpose – its simply a broad recruitment funnel mechanism for its sponsors, the Socialist Party of England and Wales (SPEW)and to a lesser extent the SWP.
Your impatience and fundamental doubts about systematic electoral participation by Left Unity is seriously wrong, John. Nothing wrong with a long term building in communities and workplaces and broad campaigning work strategy. We need to do that. But , regardless of the overwhelming cacophony of racist, nationalist, and generally pro-capitalist propaganda being churned out by so many parties around election times, as a radical (but avowedly non revolutionary) socialist party to the Left of Labour we potentially have a message and appeal (if we can convey it properly) that should have resonance with a wide spectrum of left-leaning working class Labour and ex-Labour voters – who have not been deluded into believing UKIP, the SNP, or Plaid’s petty nationalist divisive messages. If we, as Left Unity don’t set out our “political stall” for judgement at the electoral hustings we are simply leaving the field open to all the pro-capitalist parties (including the Greens).
Now is not the time to retreat into a solely parochial local community campaigning mode. Labour as a party (particularly in the light of its growing collapse in Scotland, and the post DevoMax constitutional implications which are likely to seriously damage its Westminster MP total in future years, is increasingly en route to a slow, but ever accelerating, political death. The logjam of British politics is definitely shifting, and not in a progressive direction. But out of the restructurings that will result from the splitting and reordering of the political party forms across Britain, there will be an ever greater political space for a genuinely radical Left Socialist Party. And in a bourgeois democracy – the electoral contest at all levels , is an essential means to propagandise, build support, and gain a permanent following.
Like you John, during the 70’s and 80’s , as a purist revolutionary socialist, I never engaged in electoralism. The end result – the endless campaigns and trade union/workplace, anti-fascist activism, etc, never built any sort of permanent working class base for the long term for us “revolutionary purists” – because we ignored the critical role of electoral campaigning as part of this mix. We were also simply wasting our time with our hectoring “General Strike Now – overthrow capitalism” propaganda rhetoric. We need to build via a wide spectrum of activity- and just because the electoral arena is a time-consuming and in the early days of a new party, often heartbreakingly unproductive – doesn’t mean that it isn’t a vital element in building a broadly based party of the Left.
I’m actually much more concerned that Left Unity is, in its repeatedly Far Left “kneejerk” policy rhetoric , constantly alienating itself from the potential mass of left leaning working class people – who are simply looking for a serious party to fight for the NHS and against Austerity generally – but are simply bemused with Far Left obsessions with issues like Israel/Palestine, or US Imperialism – or Ireland, which all too often colour and shape our public pronouncements and put off ordinary people from joining us on very “bread and butter” issues.
As usual, JP I agree with the broad thrust of your comments but i am a bit concerned by your comments on Palestine or US imperialism. While those issues should not be allowed to crowd out “bread and butter” issues, I think that many people will actually be attracted to us if we have a principled position.
Now I agree that we do not need to agree on a detailed analysis re Palestine, for example, but not to have a basic position of solidarity with the Palestinian people with regard to Boycott etc would be an opportunity missed to recruit people horrified by what they see on their TV screens and the utterly inadequate response from “Labour”. I hope you agree.
I feel so sad and angry that you John and LU have taken such a sectarian view of TUSC. This is NOT what Ken Loach had thought LU would be. You are so sectarian it frightens me. You so hate the SWP and Socialist Party you are prepared to fight TUSC where it stands.
Please, please reconsider. Unity is about people on the ground and not some decision from the top table of LU. Indeed, I follow LU here, elsewhere and on weekly worker and all the factionalism is in Left Unity – not n the Socialist Party or SWP.
Please, please think about real unity on the ground: TUSC and LU must not fight the same elections in May 2015.
If not, no one anywhere in these islands will consider LU has anything to do with unity. Indeed, you’ll be the sectarians – the vary organisation you set up to oppose
This is just not true. There are massive problems with TUSC, which I won’t go into here, and it is clear that it would be unprincipled to form a coalition with them. *However*, despite the nonsense that is spread by some people who should know better on this issue, Left Unity already has policy not to clash with TUSC candidates. TUSC and LU will not be fighting each other in the elections: this I can promise you.
Of course there is no factionalism in the SWP or Socialist Party – it is forbidden!!!!
Simon’s thoughts are welcome as they are the first sign of LU beginning to engage seriously with the problem of elections.
In terms of scouting out the battlefield, there’s little I can disagree with – none of us are expecting to save our deposits. I think Simon’s criteria for assessing results are also broadly correct, although there are some more worth thinking about – contact with the labour movement is one, as well as shifting the parameters of debate in a meaningful way, and also how much damage we managed to inflict on the capitalist parties (whether or not this translates into positive support for us).
Point 5 gets it mostly right about building a solid base for electoral campaigning, and making sure that no-one sees us on the ballot paper without having heard of us previously. I would go a bit further and say that the aim should be for every household to get 3 items of propaganda, as it seems to be on the third contact that the recognition starts to stick. After that point, door-knocking and more meaningful contact becomes useful. How we deliver literature to people is also worth thinking about – in my campaign in May, it was striking how many times I was met with blank faces on second or third visits to student households because one or other of their housemates had diligently thrown my leaflet straight in the recycling bin before they had even seen it.
Which leads me onto another point: know your electorate. Who votes? The old – and they usually do it by post. You can bet that the dominant party in your area will know exactly when people start to get their postal vote, and will be knocking on doors to persuade them quickly to fill it out and get it in the post box. If we’re not there, we’ve lost those votes.
Who doesn’t vote? Students. Typical responses are “Oh, it’s not our house, we just rent it”, or “I don’t know if I’m registered to vote”, or “I think I might be registered where my parents live”. Make it your job to a) impress upon them the importance of voting, and b) make sure they actually know how to do it. Give them registration and postal ballot forms – maybe hold meetings on campus where LU activists help them register. Postal ballots sent well in advance are a wonderful cure for the phenomenon of not voting due to exams or hangovers (!). Make contact with any and all leftist student societies, and see if you can get anyone involved in leaflet-posting (if only for an afternoon), and buy them a drink afterwards. Friendly contact means future recruits. Give out contact details to anyone who seems vaguely interested in our ideas (and of course details of LU branch meetings).
Simon is also right about trade union branches – I would just add that there’s a lot of scope here for maximising all opportunities. Find out which local unions are not affiliated to Labour, or have ‘democratised’ their political fund. Get yourself along to branch meetings, and find out if there’s an active Trades Council locally (if not, consider setting one up). If they seem reluctant to donate serious cash, ask for a nominal donation, or other assistance e.g. use of their printing facilities / meeting space. See who you can find who’s sick of Labourism.
Point 7 is something we need to discuss more. I am in favour of standing more widely (and in co-operation with other socialists) than is currently planned. However, if 12 is really the figure at which the party arrives after a sustained debate about our capacity to stand (but also about what we could achieve from trying to leap the gap and push ourselves), then of course that is how it will have to be. Of course, there will still be plenty of opportunities for LU members to involve themselves with other socialist parliamentary candidates, and this is all to the good.