All the recent left initiatives at building a new party of the left have failed…
Nick Long who works with the successful Lewisham People Before Profit party and who is now linked with Left Unity outlines his proposals for the new party.
All the recent left initiatives at building a new party of the left have failed or only been a limited success. This latest initiative may perhaps be the last and possibly final occasion it may be possible to muster a sufficient body of people interested in yet another attempt. However, more by luck than design, all the portents appear to be in favour of the project on this occasion.
Some harsh lessons and conclusions as to why attempts up until now, have only had limited and partial success need however to be drawn. Embarking on a task of building a new party of the left with support from a layer in society will only, as with all the other initiatives, only have a limited chance of success.
The absence, or rather the limited availability of PR is a real inhibiting factor in the British electoral system. The initial success of the Scottish Socialist Party demonstrates how a proportial voting system helps. However using the European elections in 2014 as a springboard, along with the next GLA elections in 2016 may help. Annual local elections in many towns and cities may be useful in gaining experience in building support and putting across a socialist message. The experience of the independent socialists in Rugby TUSC shows the value of consistent activity and persistent work.
There is no quick fix to building a new party of the left. Local activity and campaigning is the key. After more than 4 years of struggle, leafleting, occupations and marches, the Lewisham based People Before Profit gained almost 7000 votes in the GLA elections in 2012 (5%) and recently almost 24% in a local by-election. There is a space on the left for a new party, breaking into that space is the difficulty.
Let’s not get hung-up on the trade union question. Fewer than 6m workers out of 30m belong to a trade union. Getting support and funding from a number of left trade unions would be great. However what is more important is the support and active involvement of trade unionists. TUSC has gained the support of a number of trade union tops but very few trade unionists outside the few hundred revolutionary activists.
We will need to address the issue of Scotland and Wales early on. Do we seek to organise in these countries. Bash heads together in Scotland and unite organisations under our umbrella or back the SSP and suggest they affiliate?
How do we view the more left wing nationalists Plaid Cymru in Wales ? Do we organise independently? Or perhaps we should leave these decisions to separate conferences of comrades in the capitals of these countries.
How do we view and relate to local established local parties in different parts of the country? The Walsall Democratic Labour Party, the Leeds based Alliance for Green Socialism, the Peoples Socialist Party in Barrow and the Lewisham based People Before Profit? All these parties have years of activity and a profile in their local communities.
1) Many on left will be determined to see our organisation ‘strangled at birth’. This will be the view of both the left and right in the Labour Party but also many of the established far left groups.
The cheer leaders of the Labour left will include the Communist Party of Britain and the Morning Star who have made no public statement on Ken Loach’s call and ran negative articles in the Morning Star. Surprisingly the Socialist Party who have not even mentioned the 7,000 people supporting the call for a new left party, despite calling for a new workers party itself! The SP are likely to call for a federal structure. This call must be resisted at all costs and individual membership must be the way forward, but a limited level of federalism could be considered in allowing supportive parties a single vote on any steering committee, provided the sect groups are in a small minority.. The SWP are backing Owen Jones and the Labour Left, hopefully they will play no part in our party. The SWP wrecked the Socialist Alliance and REPECT.
How do we relate to the Greens?
They will perhaps be alarmed at their tentative and fragile gains being put at risk. We should seek an early meeting with them to put them at ease once the party is established and seek to avoid clashes where we can. The Green’s however are not socialist and in Brighton have implement savage cuts.
The some of the sectarian left groups will seek to join our party with the sole aim of conducting a ‘raiding party’- joining to try and recruit a few members then seeking to destroy it. Seeing the emergence of any new left party as a threat to their own tiny organisation. This is to be expected. The Socialist Labour Party saw this on a sustained scale. The SLP was not big enough to sake off these attacks, hopefully our organisation will be a lot larger.
2) Most of the left initiatives have not been built from the ground up but suddenly announced and declared from above. Local branches must be established and be the building blocks of the organisation. The annual party conference should be open to all individual members where policy is decided and agreed.
3) The organisation should not be built around charismatic individuals (Sheridian, Scargill, Galloway) but based on local work, campaining and activity.
4) Lets avoid having an established great leader. If we must have a leader, as required by the Election Commission, let them hold office for only one year and have no real power.
A steering committee elected at conference should guide the work of the organisation.
5) The name of the party is important but let’s avoid the term. ‘worker’, ‘socialist’ or ‘trade unionist’ in the title, Let’s avoid the word party completely as this often has negative associations with many people. Why not call ourselves ‘The Left’ this allows all who are progressive and agree with our socialist politics to join. You don’t have to be a trade unionists, or socialist to be a member, although we should strongly encourage members to join a trade union.
Let’s go for a broad inclusive party with a low membership fee. Those in well paid employment can contribute more. We need people to volunteer their work and be involved in the party to build a large and thriving membership, not a Leninist vanguardist sect.
6) The organisation should be open and inclusive. All should be welcome if they want to be part of building the organisation, rather than simply intending to engage in a ‘smash and grab’ raid. However let’s not have a ‘federal lash up’ but an organisation built on individual membership, one member one vote. Sympathetic organisations should be eligible to affiliate in an open and transparent way and have a single voice on any steering committee. Membership of an existing organised left or socialist party or group should not be a barr to membership, but this should be declared on the application form. All groups, currents and fractions should be free to sell their papers and journals and to argue for their politics and seek elected office.
7) The organisation should be green and feminist, placing the environment and women’s oppression at the heart of our programme and work.
8) All the omens at this particular time are in our favour. The one nation Labour Party has shown itself not to be up to the task of defending the welfare state. It has joined the anti immigrant rhetoric band wagon. It has showed its true colours in supporting work fare and is unlikely to rescind the bedroom tax and much of the attacks on the welfare state and the NHS. It continues to promote PFI as the way to fund education and the NHS. It refuses to repeal the anti trade union laws.
9) The established far left parties and Galloway’s Respect are thankfully engaged in other tasks and difficulties. The SWP are haemorrhaging members and are facing a loss of reputation. The Socialist Party’s TUSC initiative , especially after Eastleigh has been shown to have very limited prospects. Their latest venture in standing in the County Council elections is also likely to produce poor votes. This will hopefully encourage the RMT to think again about supporting TUSC.
Moving quickly to sustain the energy and enthusiasm of those who have indicated they want to see a new party of the left is vital. Calling a conference in early Autumn should be the aim. Adopting a name and constitution will be the relatively easy part. The hard and difficult task of building and sustaining the party over the next few years will be the demanding task. Out of these local struggles and campaigns new leaders will emerge. It is essential for all of our futures that this work begins in earnest.
21 comments
21 responses to “All the recent left initiatives at building a new party of the left have failed…”
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.
Wednesday 17th September: Trump not Welcome
National Demonstration against Trump’s state visit
More events »
GET UPDATES
Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.
CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS
Get the latest Left Unity resources.
The left needs to stop the infighting, but i prepared to unite with the it ANYTHING TO GET THESE BLUE BLOODS! OUT!.
A lot of easily, broadly, understandable points and issues. Thank you.
I’d like to take the “no workers, socialist, trade unionist” theme and “The Left” points. I think that for practical, votes getting and continued strength, historical references should be avoided if possible. “To the Left” as a statement of intention from where we are, not “of the Left”, necessitating references to 57 varieties of socialism. As with any party, internal and external forces will pull on the tiller as to how far left and how fast at any time. The new system puts those earning under £49,999 into the “Universal Credit” class, so I like the “ordinary people” tag. LeftUnity needs an easy “hook” for those who will benefit from a better society – and right now “Universal Credit Class” seems as good as any unifier to me.
The name “Left Unity” seems to me at odds with what it hopes to achieve? It might never happen as summarised in some of the points made in this article, sadly. The first time I saw the name, I immediately thought of Tom Wintringham’s (“The English Captain”) and his 1945 “Common Wealth” Party. That summed up what it was all about- a Common Wealth for all! It would cheer me up to see such a name, but it is not that important really. Just a name. What is important is right action to provide, as Paul Robeson once said, “Dignity and abundance for all”. Best of Luck!
Love the new Left Unity logo at the bottom of this article- it is bright, positive and modern. The sooner that replaces the existing masthead the better.
Rob
I’ve been doodling that image for years, I have even used it on art work I have made! Quite uncanny. A good sign methinks – very womanly.
A good summary of the many difficult issues facing an attempt to break out of the Far Left Sect dead end. On the “Scotland” and “Wales” issue, I suggest it should be at least until “the water is tested”, the opening intent to go for a Left Unity Party (or national sections) right across the UK. The likes of the Welsh Nats may have a Left posture now, but I wouldn’t take that as a permanent position, any more than the SNP’s current “to the left of Labour” posture on a range of issues. I’d leave it up to people on the ground to decide whether there is a real political gap in Sctotland and Wales for a new radical socialist party aiming to break out of the small sect politics of the established tiny ranks of the Far Left.
One thing I would suggest is a priority soon if Left Unity is to grow further, is the establishmernt of a very basic “What we stand for” statement. this shouldn’t even attempt to cover all the political bases, but should be an attractive “proposition” which draws people seeking to participate in the anti austerity fightback and build a radical Left alternative to New Labour , to the organisation – rather than alienating people with all the jargon we on the Left are so guilty of.
On point 5: Why avoid these terms? Why must the left fear its own names, its own language, and in a way thereby distance itself from its own history? Surely part of the class struggle is over the meaning of these very words; the negative associations are those created by the self-identified enemies of the left, should we capitulate to them on this?
I take it that the point is more pragmatic, in which case I wonder if winning a secure base for the left is worth it if from the outset it presents itself to the majority of the electorate as something other than it is. It will be a workers party, or at least a party concerned with class struggle, so why not say so?
On the notion of calling a party “the Left”, there is a reason why this is generally not done- linguistically it conveys the kind of “we are the True Party, the True Faction that organisationally one seeks to avoid.
To go a little further, and forgive me my naivety, but to renounce ourselves in our language, and so to a degree in the public form of our thought, wouldn’t that be, properly, renounce ourselves tout court. This is an attempt at unity, at the production of a coherent collectivity that can speak through a party form, why from the outset remove the very terms that we do actually agree on, those such as “worker”?
I wonder if this coyness, which I think might be a current running through much of the left as such- ultra/hard/parliamentary/whatever- that is somehow ashamed of itself. A researcher into shame, Brené Brown has spoken about the idea that people who are ashamed are those who do not feel that they are worthy. Maybe this is why the left has been so in love with its tragic history, its romantic failures, and why at the call for the creation of a new party we are all quick to rush to the failure of recent attempts- not as a tactical reminder, but as a kind of obsessive utterance, an OCD mantra- is something to do with such a shame. We don’t have a revolutionary party, and struggle so often to maintain movements, because we don’t really feel we deserve one?
Excuse me for rambling, I can’t help but think by writing- I’m the kind of person who requires the possibility of real people responding to be able to think at all.
Great article reflecting real political experience and a successful local intervention. You are absolutely right about the importance of building individual membership with local branches. The problem with Respect and TUSC is that they don’t have a national network of branches working on the ground steadily building up support between elections. Like too your approach to internal democracy and general functioning. Lack of democracy and dubious great leaders have tropedoed a lot of promising left initiatives. I think there are some ideas even from Beppe Grillo’s M5S movement we could copy – limiting any elected representatives to two terms of office, big reduction in public elected salaries, imaginative use of the internet, use of culture to interest and mobilise people…
//The name of the party is important but let’s avoid the term. ‘worker’, ‘socialist’ or ‘trade unionist’ in the title\\ – I agree, because of the negative connotations in today’s World.
I have just started floating the idea of using the word ‘humanism’, (on Facebook political groups incl my local LP) because it isn’t tainted and it is suggestive of what we are all looking for – a World run by us, not minority interests. The downside?
@Terry: ‘humanism’has many problems as a term.
In the current conjuncture it is quite heavily associated with either a) old fashioned, grammar school educated English teachers, with a penchant for highbrow culture; or b) with the nasty, islamophobic, neoconservative ideology of people like Christopher Hitchens and his fellow travellers.
Beyond this, it is very wishy-washy and sounds New Age: “We’re the Party of the Human species, man!”
Like the point about Tom Wingringham, should be added to those who from history inspire LU today!
Nick raises a very important point in his piece. The success of a wide variety of highly localied left electoral initiatives. Part of the LU process should be about a dialogue with these, at the very least learning from there, and if that is a fruitful process seeing a relationship with an open-ended commitment to what that might mean.
I hope LU will be highly localised, with a low-maintenance mainly horizontal natioonal structure.
Mark P
I agree with most of this but there were some points that I disgreed with. I agreed that:
1. The experience of previous left projects that have aimed to unite and contest elections is negative. What we need to do is learn the lessons of the failures and make sure that they are not repeated – but this requires honest appraisal – not simply blaming one person or organisation.
2. I do agree that the Left sometimes gets hung up on the trade unions. Im a union rep and have been over the years a union branch officer. As a socialist, I think TUs are really important. But we need some perspective. Only 25% of workers are in a union. Less than 20% of private sector workers are in a union. Electorally, candidates whose background is predominantly TU tend to badly. In 2003, 2 months after the massive anti-war demo there was a by election in Brent East. The socialist alliance candidate was the chair of the local Brent Unison branch. Among union activists he was well known and respected. The SA vote was poor and the Lib Dems picked up the seat on the back of the anti-war vote. My view is that local candidates need to be rooted and active in the local community where they stand.
BUT:
1. If we are called Left Unity (at least for the time being) we have to work with or include other people on the Left. And that can’t be done on the basis of favouritism or bias. We can’t say SP members can join but we don’t want SWP members or some groups can have a place on a steering committee but others cannot.
2. If the figure of 7,000 is correct then the SWP or the SP pose no real threat. The SWP claims a membership of 6,000 but at their last conference stated only a third pay subs making a membership of 2,000. of those only about half are active leaving a realisitc figure of 1,000. This figure matches the attedance at the “aggregate meetings” the SWP held before their recent conference. Even if all 1,000 joined (which is highly unlikely – look at the Respect membership figures 2004-07 – a large chunk of the SWP never joined)that would mean the SWP would represent less than 15% of the membership of LU. The simple solution is individual membership – being a member of the SWP or SP doesn’t equal membership of LU. Membership should be on the basis of individuals filling in a form and paying a membership fee.
3. “The SWP are backing Owen Jones and the Labour Left” – I don’t know where Nick has got this from. The SWP are not big fans of Jones – because of the fact he is in the Labour party and I’ve had arguments with SWP members about their negative attitudes towards him. Personally, I think he’s a positive thing for the Left and we should look to work with members of the Labour left in anti-cuts work e.g. the Peoples Assembly.
4. “The SWP wrecked the Socialist Alliance and RESPECT.” This a crude and simplistic assertion that was certainly not my experience in West London where neither would have existed without the SWP. I think the role of the SP in the SA should be considered and clearly the behaviour of Galloway has on 2 occasions (going on BB in 2006 and his comments on rape in 2012) scuppered the possibilities of Respect making progress. I don’t want to start a pointless sectarian argument that goes nowhere but simply laying the blame at the door of one organisation doesn’t help. This is especially important as a number of SWP members have recently left and are keen to get involved in LU. there are also good socialists in the SWP as it stands now who may at some point choose to join – they should be welcome to do so – as should SP and CPB members.
Lastly, can Nick confirm that a member of his organisation recently used the phrase “ethnic mafia” in relation to a Black candidate being elected in a local by election? Language like this is at best, badly chosen; at worst, likely to do us damage. We need to be anti-racist in every sense – in what we do and what we say.
Jerry Taylor
Bolton N.E. Labour party 1992-94. SWP 1994-2010 (York and West London districts). Now live in South Norwood, South London.
Lots of points but I want to run with this one:
“As a socialist, I think TUs are really important. But we need some perspective. Only 25% of workers are in a union. Less than 20% of private sector workers are in a union. Electorally, candidates whose background is predominantly TU tend to badly.”
On the basis of your arguments here, I agree that we need some perspective, but disagree that this should lead us to sideline the importance of Trade Unions. Your statistics seem to show is that a majority of workers are not politically unorganised, and point to a crisis of Trade Unionism that should be linked to the weakness of the Left in the current moment. For me, this crisis of Trade Unions is linked to the crisis of capitalism: in short, the unions are unable to wring concessions from the capitalists, since the struggle of the capitalists to valorise capital has led to an increasing disjunction between increases in productivity and wage gains since the late 1960s. Where unions were well organised and persisted in pushing their demands – e.g. UK industry – this latter was destroyed. Now the UK workforce is incredibly fragmented in all sorts of professional and sub-professional wage labour, and unions have been serially unable to organise these workers. Meanwhile, vast swathes are unemployed.
It seems to me that an organisation which was able to create a new revolutionary union movement aimed at organising ‘casualised’ and ‘precarious’ labour, as well as the unemployed, whilst also bringing this out onto the political field by attempting to build a parliamentary party, could really go far. Whether or not Left Unity could become such an organisation, however, remains unclear.
An interesting discussion, but I think that MANY of the issues that Nick raises above are FAR more important than his views on the question of the name ( for a party?)
I do differ from some colleagues on the emphasis they seem to put on the question of LU ( or its future name) running in elections. Yes, running on elections can be ONE tactic, but I would see it as only one tactic of many that we must use.
For example, we may all despise Cameron, Osborne, Clegg and co. as much as Al Pillay obviously does above. But I think we would be making a big mistake if we adopt the attitude ” ANYTHING TO GET THESE BLUE BLOODS! OUT!” that Al suggests.
In the current state of political affairs in the UK, the Left does not have a chance in hell of winning a national election. The most likely winner of the next election in 2015 — if the Tories are not returned — will be the Labour Party.
That would certainly get ‘these blue bloods out’. But so what? Labour ain’t left, it ain’t socialist, and its main objective is to maintain the current oppressive system …. with a slightly softer sheen.
But even that isn’t true ( e.g. the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan). Was any one else as angry as I was when Miliband said the other day that Thatcher was right about the Falklands? Or about the show of British imperial military might that will be on display next week during Thatcher’s funeral?
Many Green voters in Brighton must be very disillusioned today with what their local electoral victory has wrought. In the same vein, many Labour voters were very bitter — quite understandably — after Blair brought us a Labour government in 1997 that ended the Thatcher (and Major)era.
There is a lot more to say in this, of course, but the main thing is this:
we must definitely appreciate that we will be ‘playing the long game’ for many years to come. Of this we should be under no illusions.
It is going to take a lot more than an electoral victory to overcome class power in the UK and prevent its return, as did NOT happen in Chile after the brief Allende years of the early 1970’s.
If there is any doubt about this, one place to start would be to look at Ralph Miliband’s (Ed’s father) 1969 book, The State in Capitalist Society. The book has its problems, I think, but certainly worth a read.
I too, like the “ordinary people” or ordinary working people tag. However, I am not so certain that we should be deceitful and bury our links with Trade Unionism nor deny that we are at heart socialists. We are what we are and we need to win the “ordinary people” over with sound political analysis and the premise of proper engagement and inclusion in the decision making that affects them directly. Power over pone’s own destiny needs to be devolved out to each and every member such that it can be preserved and decided upon collectively. We should ditch this “democratic centralist” model which stifles ideas from the floor, as it were, and organise ourselves in a proper democratic way that promotes the upward flow of ideas and/or decisions.
This brings me to the call for a conference of Left Unity in the autumn, why is it being called with limits? Why is it restricted to only representatives of local groups? I say, let’s invite anyone that wants to debate the “Left Unity” project and if a large enough hall cannot be found, let’s organise the weather and go and sit outside in Hyde Park and debate our future and the future of the world. Let us not go down the same bland alleys that we have trodden previously, we are not, as I see it, trying to re-create the Labour Party of 1946 but to replace completely the Labour Party, the SWP, the SP et al of 2013. I believe that we want a Peoples’ party that allows the people to represent themselves. Let us continue to be the pioneers that we have started out as…..
Ally
Wit and Ally: Apologies. I overstated my case – I wasn’t trying to sideline unions or say they aren’t important. I think they are really important. I’ve been a union rep for 13 years and was for many years a local branch officer, committee member, conference delegate, etc etc. The point I was making (and perhaps I wasn’t toally clear on this)is that an electoral left project that is fixated or hung up on unions will not succeed. Sadly, only 25% of workers are in a union. Only a very small number of union members are active – perhaps 1%-2% and of that figure many will be committed to Labour. And those that aren’t may be drawn to other parties. If we only go for a union vote then we are doomed. And I do believe I am right when I say that when the SA, Respect, etc stood candidates who’s key profile was TU-based they did poorly; whereas candidates who did local community work did much better.
Unions will be vital for building anti-cuts campaigns and its crucial that LU works closely with the TUs. I suspect the vast majority of LU members are trade unionists. If LU takes off as a project i think we should make it part of our work to unionise non-unionised workers – something a large chunk of the left have failed to do over recent decades.
I also think it is vital that LU is not just an electoral body. It needs to be an active campaigning organisation between elections and the unions will be crucial to this.
Jerry
This is a really interesting debate and there are lots of points I could make – but (for the moment!) I’ll just make these:
1. The issue about Trade Unions is an important but not crucial one. As a lifetime TU activist, I’m all too aware of the gap between the activists and the members, who often join as an insurance policy rather than out of any real sense of solidarity. However, unions provide a useful way of putting our case to their members, given the hostility of the media and may be a significant source of funds in the future.
2. I do agree about avoiding the use of terms that we may understand and be proud of, but the general public isn’t. Whether we like it or not, the fact is that terms such as “socialism” are widely misunderstood and often associated with the Soviet Union or China. Sad but true! Not using these sort of terms in the name or on leaflets doesn’t mean we’ve sold out: it’s an issue of PR not policy.
3. My inclination at the moment is to ban all affiliations from parties, factions or groups, while welcoming their members as individuals – if they’re prepared to leave the past behind and help us build the future. LU must be about looking forward rather than back: the old left parties have completely failed to make any sort of breakthrough and never will. It’s up to their members if they want to join LU, but that mustn’t be on the basis of trying to dominate or recruiting LU members into something else.
4. Please, please, please don’t use political jargon or incomprehensible political phrases. They are rarely if ever necessary and can always be expressed in plain English if you think about it first! Jargon has the effect of excluding people and we are going to have to be very inclusive if this is going to work.
All for now, Mike
Very interesting piece, clearly articulating the need for the presence of a genuinely viable leftist alternative to the mainstream political parties. It may be worth taking a look at the Irish People Before Profit movement which, it seems to me, has tried to implement many of the points raised in the article in an Irish context.
Any links to the negative articles in the Morning Star? I read it every day and dont remember seeing any.
” The Greens are not socialist and in Brighton have implemented savage cuts ”
Too right , in which case they are the enemy and must be exposed and destroyed ….