Why Left Unity MUST stand in elections and as soon as practically possible!!!*

18 comments

18 responses to “Why Left Unity MUST stand in elections and as soon as practically possible!!!*”

1. ASmith says:

   July 30, 2013 at 11:42 pm

   Hi Neil,

   I have stood as a TUSC candidate twice in my local area and I can state that, while your enthusiasm and willingness to stand by your convictions in such a forward facing manner is admirable, it is perhaps unwise to jump straight into an electoral position.

   TUSC, for all its faults, and there are many, already has an established plan and has been around for a lot longer than most people recognise in the fairly foolishly named No 2EU Yes to Democracy. Within that, there are some clearly marked out policies, regarding trade unionism and socialism that have been decided already. We are simply not in the same position in Left Unity as it stands.

   We are not meeting until November to even become a party and if anything is clear from the comments on this page and others, it is that Left Unity has a long way to go to create some clarity as to what it stands for. Which will reflect on the doorstep. It is not enough for each person to go and talk to people, saying what Left Unity stands for, when it is not clear what Left Unity stands for. It would create a discontinuous idea and would create a fragmented idea of what Left Unity is.

   We must have at least some discussions before we go charging onto the doorsteps and into the ballot box. You are right though, there is a lot to be learned from TUSC. Firstly, I would not recommend standing anyone anywhere who cannot run a properly funded campaign without at least 10 committed and experienced activists who are willing to give up evenings and weekends campaigning, for at least two months around the elections. In a small residential area, we would need to do at least one leaflet per household for each seat contested. Paper candidates do not act to encourage faith in a party, they suggest a total lack of seriousness.

   I would also hasten to add that a clarity of message is absolutely required. If Left Unity is to be a broad church, then some basics for campaigning must be agreed on first. Some core principles, goals, aims, policies, promises etc. etc. before we go out and deliver a message that could be as individualised as each person delivering that message on the street. For instance, I note that you are calling for a Socialist Party but it is not clear that Left Unity is going to be a Socialist Party. I don’t want to get into that particular argument again on this thread but it would not be a broad church were it to restrict itself to one political ideology of the left. If we have even districts delivering different promises, different ideological insights and different campaign promises, this could potentially prove dangerous in the long run.

   I think the 2020 date is a little pessimistic but at the same time, I don’t think it should be automatically ruled out either. It is better to get these things right straight away, than get them wrong and risk ridicule. It is not as if there is not plenty of work done, as you suggest in dealing with what we can see outside of our windows but if you think that a purely electoral response is going to alter anything you see outside of your window, you are mistaken. What is the old saying? ‘If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal’.

   TUSC exists in many areas as a front for various organisations, the Socialist Party being the most prominent. They utilise TUSC as a recruitment vessel and Left Unity should avoid that for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is almost entirely disingenuous, secondly it is irritating and thirdly it means that the aim of the campaign is not to win votes. If we are to stand and soon, then we should surely be aiming to win seats and not simply promote an idea that we could promote in a number of other ways and save ourselves the expense of developing separate leaflets? It is worth noting that not all of TUSC use it as a recruitment vessel either and from what I have seen, it is in those areas that better votes can be expected and a more permanent presence(as opposed to popping back into existence the month before the ballot), which are, I am sure, interdependent facts.

   If the idea is to get candidates standing to put the wind up Labour and force them left, then I would criticise that position fairly heavily. I realise that there has been much talk in Left Unity about doing for Labour what UKIP did for the tories, in bringing Labour back to the left. The problem I have with that particularly position is that Labour wouldn’t know the way left if you tattooed directions on the inside of their eyelids. It is an almost entirely fallacious claim that Labour has ever been properly left and as the political situation in Europe changes, real left (or at least significantly more left than have existed in recent times) parties are beginning to emerge as newly defined things. Left Unity simply must seek to be something different from Labour. Something new and not co-dependently defined by what Labour is not. If we focus too heavily on what Labour is not, we are going to miss the opportunity to understand what Left Unity is and can be. Surely?

   Andy Smith

   • John Penney says:

     July 31, 2013 at 10:54 am

     A lot of very solid points. ASmith – and from other posters too. As other posters say, we are a long way currently from even agreeing a “What We Stand For” as even a minimal statement, never mind having any sort of Manifesto to offer to voters at any electoral level. I don’t even think we’ll be ready by the 2015 General Election , but I would bet that we will probably run candidates anyway.

     Left Unity’s “era of struggle” will really start during the next Parliament – possibly fighting a viciously right wing Labour Government – or possibly not, given their identical policies to the Tories – and continued toxic attached blame for the 2008 banking crash in voters eyes.

     Which ever “party brand” of pro capitalist , pro austerity government it is post 2015 , by then the UK Austerity Offensive will REALLY be hurting masses of people, and the world economic crisis will be even worse. There will be very little “wiggle room” for soft reformist politics to actually deliver any alleviation of the deepening economic hardship by then – local government in particular will be financially pretty much buggered. The strategy of Left Unity at local government level will therefore have to be a highly confrontationally political one, ie, opposing further cuts with an absolute unconditional commitment – as a tactic to raise the political temperature of the struggle and widen and build the struggle far beyond the local arena.

     Another , directly related, key feature of Left Unity in this era of the Austerity Offensive ,as a party with an electoral dimension to its work , ,which hasn’t been tackled yet at all , is the behaviour we would expect from our elected representatives specifically. By this I mean that Left Unity needs at all costs to avoid the Green’s “Brighton fiasco” in which the party’s radical credibility is immediately shot to hell as soon as it is in a position of local decision making – by attempts to “act responsibly” and “manage” Austerity – rather than opposing it on all occasions – as a matter of basic principle. This means opposing becoming grudgingly co-opted elected local ” quislings” for the austerity agenda, even if it requires “doing a 1970’s Clay Cross or a “1980’s Liverpool” and ending up being chucked out as councillors, or replaced by Central Government appointees.

     In fact to make headway against the Austerity Offensive” we need dozens of Councils simply refusing to implement the cuts – and to link this struggle to mass struggle in the streets and the Labour Movement. The required level of personal commitment from Party members serving as local councillors would therefore be a significantly harder, more radical one, than that expected of the overwhelming majority of people standing as councillors.

     We are a long way yet from building a party which could demand this level of personal commitment from its electoral candidates . Yet if we don’t achieve this level of radicalism and political hardness we will simply fall into the Greens collaborationist practices in Brighton and Bristol as soon as we achieve modest local electoral “success” – and hence immediately blow away our credibility with voters won via our radical promises.

     A long way to go yet before we are credible electorally. And one thing is crystal clear, those current supporters of the “Left Unity concept” who don’t hold to a radical socialist political, perspective, will never possess the required vision and political hardness to persevere against the myriad temptations to “go with the flow” and administer Austerity (whilst weeping copious regretful tears) for the bosses, as the Greens and countless supposedly “Left” labour Councillors have done in recent years.

     • pete b says:

       July 31, 2013 at 10:23 pm

       i agree. we have had enough examples of supporting candidates and then see them make fools of people. brighton greens, galloway, mcclusky. i dont think left unity can get anyone elected in brum. but i wouldnt want to support someone to see them capitulate. bourgeois elections dont allow recall provision of elected representatives.
       lets see. i wont agree with a vote for no2eu though! how many would with its little englander, bordering nationalist stance.
       its title alone stinks no2 eu. anyone could think its a ukip offshoot and put a cross by mistake!
       peteb

2. Salman Shaheen says:

   July 30, 2013 at 11:53 pm

   I agree. I think next year’s Euros would be a bad call, but I would support standing in the 2015 general election and council elections before then if possible.

3. jonno says:

   July 31, 2013 at 1:52 am

   If L/U is to stand in elections in the near future, 20014, etc then I would urge them to ensure they have a viable and robust position on benefits and social security, I find it alarming and yes, dispiriting that there is no ‘welfare’ policy commission due to lack of a convenor, etc. This is just not credible: these issues affect millions and need to be addressed by L/U. Yesterday the BBC Trust criticised the John Humphreys authored programme, The Future Of the Welfare State( a disgusting biased stitch up of a programme, imo) LU could have used this to get its message across on the media, if it had been ready.

4. Dave Parks says:

   July 31, 2013 at 2:34 am

   As I see it the purpose of a new [Left Unity] Party is to politically challenge the current status quo and put forward an alternative. Standing in elections is a small part of that. The truth of the matter is that we are not going to get earth shattering electoral results when we first stand. It takes time for parties to become established. If we wait for the glorious day when we can guarantee to get “respectable results” then we will never stand candidates except in exceptional local circumstances. Also we will be bitterly disappointed because we will fail because we have done the years of ground work necessary. We have to start now – not several years down the road.

   It has taken the Green Party nearly 30 years to get to the point where most people are conscious of the option of voting “green” and for one MP to be elected and a small number of Councillors and some MEPs. The longer we delay having an electoral presence for fear of bad results the longer it will be before we start achieving good results. Worse still – what is the point of posing an alternative if no-one knows about us?

   We have to take a long term perspective and that means having a realistic view of elections. We will probably initially get around 1-2% of the vote in most elections when we start and we have to build on that. It is difficult under first past the post for a new party to do any better than this. In reality paper candidates will likely get as many votes as most hard working campaigns in the early phase.

   It will take years of work to get successful results with most of it having to be done in between elections – we need to prove ourselves not just arrive out of the blue at election time and declare ourselves as saviours. Crucially we need to be saying something distinctive – offering a genuine way out from the economic and climate crisis. Also we will not get votes unless people get to know who we are and what we stand for – if we don’t stand as many candidates as possible then it will take longer for people to even hear of us. This is a long term struggle, the Left is not used to thinking in terms of years. There will be many people who will only vote for us once they have seen us on repeatedly on the ballot paper. I reject the argument that people will be put off by previous small votes – building familiarity and becoming a part of the fixtures and fittings of electoral politics is what we need to achieve. Then people will start knowing what we stand for and start thinking – “hey yes” these people are right and it is worth voting for them.

   Our supporters should have the *right* to vote for us rather than have the privilege of voting for us in seats where we can sustain a big campaign. We need to offer an alternative where ever we can. We may get derisory votes – but the point is looking forward to the future. This is a long term process – we are aiming in my view not to achieve office but to change the political agenda and build a political alternative. That means being embedded in the working class and its day to day struggles – that is potentially “boring” struggles like housing and benefit issues which are hugely important to individual working class people but less exciting to the “revolutionary Left”. It may seem contradictory but as I see it we will not get significant break-throughs in votes unless we treat elections as a tiny proportion of what we do. Ideally we should have surgeries that help ordinary working class people to deal with day to day issues – we should be seen as the people fighting to build solidarity and support within communities. It is that kind of long term work that will bring in the good electoral results. As I see it elections should be a tiny fraction of our work – yet we should stand in as many election as possible!

   Think of it this way – you stand a full slate in local elections in your area every year for, say, 5 years running. Alternatively you stand just 2 candidates in target wards. With the first approach there is nothing stopping you targeting particular wards as a long term strategy – but over the years you have a far greater presence just from being on the ballot paper. After 10 years – voting for the [Left Unity] party will become a voting habit for some and people move around! Also having a nominal presence in some wards that cant currently be worked properly – lays foundations for later when the party is bigger and can spread out. Also if we want votes in elections with larger constituencies such as parliamentary elections then we need people to be thinking about voting us this time round not for the first time.

5. Paul Swift says:

   July 31, 2013 at 6:32 am

   Interesting debate. In my view whether to stand in elections is a tactical decision which is best continually assessed on the basis of a number of factors including the strength of local forces, existing profile in the local area and others standing (e.g. would we want stand against good labour left, green or TUSC candidates?). However, much needs to be done before we are in a position to even consider standing candidates, e.g. launching a new party, agreeing key policy messages and having a beter name than “Left Unity” to operate with. I wouldn’t rule out standing some candidates in 2014 but much would need to be done first.

   • ASmith says:

     July 31, 2013 at 12:17 pm

     I think that is another interesting point Paul. Who would we stand against? In Leeds there is an excellent Green candidate but if elected, he would be subject to a party line like everyone else. I think there are some excellent TUSC activists, Dave Nellist being an obvious choice. Though as you and others say, he did the work to get there for many years and still Labour put a ridiculous amount of money to get his seat the last time around. However, I don’t think we should write off standing against anyone. With the OMOV system, it could be applied locally as well to weigh up circumstances.

     Also, there is a fairly good argument that actually Labour left if such a creature exists actually serves to create faith in a being that simply does not exist. If we cannot convince local Labour activists to see that, then they are participating to a much wider beast that is responsible for privatisation of hospital services, schools, education etc. etc. etc. which, for me, is unforgivable to the point where we should stand against Labour on principle. Preferably in their traditional strongholds, where we are now seeing a rise in racist politics. Though I still think we need a particularly solid base and to make sure of at least some semblance of success before we start.

6. Hoom says:

   July 31, 2013 at 8:11 am

   Galloway isn’t that useful as a case study. Love him or hate him, he already had a notable public profile before Respect were even formed. Ok, possibly Ken Loach has that, but nobody else within LU. (And Respect also show the dangers inherent in largely building your organisation round one ‘celebrity’).

   A more interesting example is the IWCA. I know that, for some people on here, the IWCA seem to get a reaction much like you get when you wave kryptonite at Superman. But suffice it to say, we don’t have to agree with every single strand of their policies to learn from their example. It does show that hard work can lead to some success electorally, at least at a local level. I’d suggest that we should do that hard work before standing for election in an area, not after or during.

7. Baton Rouge says:

   July 31, 2013 at 10:14 am

   I agree with Neil. LU should be looking to stand in the 2014 Euro elections. There is no chance of winning but there is a chance to get your programme out there and build momentum behind it. The reason TUSC doesn’t get any bigger than the usual 2% is that it has no programme that reflects objective necessity and the interests of the working class. Every time it stands it is as if it is standing afresh with only propaganda to offer. Respect was well branded as the anti-war, anti-Islamaphobia, pro-Palestinian, pro-minority communities party which it developed and built on over time. The objective situation opened up the possibilities (war in Iraq, discrediting of New Labour in minority communities) and they took it.

   LU has the opportunity to stand in the Euros on a programmatic position unique to it. Avoiding the Europhobia and chauvinism of TUSC and NO2EU and the slavish capitulation to neo-liberalism of New Labour it can stand on a platform for the renegotiation of the founding treaties of the EU in accordance with socialist principles stressing that it is the neo-liberal underpinnings of the EU that are tearing it apart and will tear it apart. This way you appeal to the progressive pro Europe people and the progressive anti-neo-liberals which is probably the majority of the population and in the Euros there is no problem with `stopping labour’ because nobody believes these elections matter for much.

   What might the socialist principles that we want to negotiate be: EU-wide full employment; EU-wide trade union living wage to end the misery of poverty and mass economic migration; end of the Brussels gravy train; EU-wide financial system issuing currency to agreed levels to sovereign national banks each with a monopoly of credit so that private financiers can never rip off the whole of Europe again. The ECB and national banks to facilitate social investment in accordance with a democratic and sustainable plan. We must stress, and this is important I think, that in power whilst seeking to renegotiate we would not enact any anti-working class edicts of the EU. We must debate this further and quickly to get it spot on.

   There is a very real sense in which the EU has already ceased to function with the governments outside the Euro at least doing whatever they want without worrying about the rules (Cameron handed BT £1 Billion the other day) unless it suits them (privatisation of the NHS). Europe appears once again to be splitting into some kind of axis, allies arrangement. Only socialism can stop this.

   LU will do well if it stands on this principled platform and can build some momentum from there if it develops its domestic programme/manifesto and starts to win workers to it. Be different from the sects! Have a programme that you believe in and will fight tooth and nail for both directly and via united fronts not by horse-trading or substitutionism.

8. Lloyd Edwards says:

   July 31, 2013 at 11:30 am

   All good points from many different perspectives.
   The neo-liberal ‘manual’ was 1980, ‘Thatherissima’ 1983. With almost unlimited resources they are here in 33 years (and from a big base).
   They have a long plan, and can act & react quickly as the big decisions are done.
   LU doesn’t even have an agreed narrative yet. LU should be based on human physiology – not the hoodoo voodoo of the neo-liberals who see their beliefs as real, and people abstracts to be fitted into it. The Taxpayers Alliance massively outnumbers LU currently, and has massive resources and international clout. They don’t think they are capable of becoming an electoral party – and they already have a narrative. Face reality – work with and through experienced set-ups, or be as relevant as Marxism is in the USA!

9. SuzanneG says:

   July 31, 2013 at 3:30 pm

   Hi Neil and everyone who’s replied to this post. We’ve set up a Policy Commission Electoral Strategy on the main discussion forum at http://forum.leftunity.org/ It would be great if you could bring your contributions to that, joining this policy commission and getting meaningful discussion about this very important topic off the ground.

10. Andrew Crystall says:

    July 31, 2013 at 4:22 pm

    It’s about building the brand. By standing in the local elections – and I strongly support doing so wherever we can – we start building a brand awareness among the population.

    If we wait for 2020, the damage really will have been done.

    (disclaimer – it’s likely as the only current active LU member in the local area, I’d have to be the one standing in the local elections here.)

11. Ben McCall says:

    July 31, 2013 at 6:59 pm

    As the person who Neil quotes above, I welcome the chance to respond.
    Groundhog day – we have had similar arguments many times before on this site, starting with http://leftunity.org/local-elections-prospects-for-the-left/

    BUT, Andy Smith’s post above is a gem: “…if you think that a purely electoral response is going to alter anything you see outside of your window, you are mistaken” – exactly. It is not “ridicule” I or we should fear, but the utter pointlessness and counter-productive waste of effort of not being supported by the ‘working class’. The fixation with rushing to stand in elections, I agree, shows at best a touching faith in electoral politics from “radical socialists”, at worst a dishonesty about why ‘we’ stand, which unsurprisingly is treated with the contempt it deserves by voters.

    Andy’s last point is absolutely right. As others have also said on other threads, this is a long term process that we need to get right. Yes it is urgent to resist, defend and oppose; but in the context of developing something new, practically and intellectually inspiring, that will draw-in many people looking for a political ‘home’; people who are sick of the left reacting to the right’s agenda and want to be part of a struggle FOR things like peace, equality and sustainability.

    If we did this right: at the right time, with a track record and momentum from local and national campaigning, with a programme developed in creative dialogue with the people ‘in struggle’ (bottom up), not devised by a few hundred of us in rushed, chaotic – and with the best of intentions (?) exclusive – Policy Commissions (top down); we could link participatory campaigns and action with electoral activity in a genuinely new way (for England anyway) that would attempt to inspire the 50-90% of people who currently do not vote, to vote for us.

    This will not happen in a hurry. 2020 is the earliest we can possibly expect to achieve this. Before then the patient and determined work of developing mass action, to defend people under attack and campaign on what we are for, is what we should be concentrating on.

12. julian cohen says:

    July 31, 2013 at 10:34 pm

    great article I don’t want to be sat in meeting deliberating and discussing theories.We need to be positive and ambitious. I don’t care what TUSC and or Respect have or have not done. Lets get going on the simple things because we will have no NHS left to support. We can mobilise support from those who do not vote and that in effect will evoke a radical change.LU needs to be bold.

13. SeanT says:

    August 2, 2013 at 5:47 pm

    While I broadly agree with Neil, I think that there are two key points that we should inform our approach to standing in elections.

    The first is that, as a rule of thumb, we (the non-Labour Left that is) don’t build a political base by winning elections; we win elections by building a local base. Neil points out that while TUSC’s results have been excruciatingly piss poor in most areas, in a few they have done pretty well and in some, very well. When one looks at the areas in where TUSC has won, or nearly won, Preston, Walsall and Coventry, the candidates concerned all have long established local political bases, in all cases built long before TUSC came into existence.

    We should recognise that we need to put in the long term work necessary to build a base of support in local communities by proving ourselves the most stalwart, consistent and trustworthy defenders of them and within them. Only then should we hope to achieve election results that don’t embarrass and demoralise our supporters. Of course, it may be that those conditions already exist in some communities and I’m all for local branches experimenting in particular wards or communities where we think we have the beginnings of some real support. But we have to realise that for the time being at least, we should regard electoral work as being the icing on the cake as far as building a popular party of the left is concerned.

    The second point we should remember is that elections drink resources. Baton Rouge suggests that we should stand in the Euro election next May. Leaving aside the fact that we will not even ‘officially’ exist for another three months, that the election will then be only six months away, we will not have debated our position on the EU (on which we are almost certain to be divided) and that we will have no candidates nor even a mechanism for selecting them, the costs of such an adventure would be crippling for a fledgling party. The deposit (which would only be returnable on getting 2.5% of the vote) is £5,000, but that would be only the start. In the 2009 election, the Green Party spent almost £370,000, the BNP spent £283,000 and even the wholly ineffective No2EU campaign cost £118,000. If we were to have anything like that sort of money next May, I for one would not be in favour of using it to embarrass ourselves, but would want to use it for building our base in local communities.

    Together, these two points should be telling us that we should try walking for a bit before we start running.

14. Robboh says:

    August 2, 2013 at 6:08 pm

    I cannot believe that there is an actual “debate” whether Left Unity should stand in elections? If it doesn’t what is the point of Left Unity what is it going to do? The Tories must be quaking in their boots. This is just hopeless isn’t it.

    • Ray G says:

      August 3, 2013 at 2:43 am

      The debate is not so much whether we stand in elections, but on what basis: as a culmination of good local campaigning work and building a base in local communities or as an isolated left activist beamed down from planet Zog to demand that people vote for them,even though most people have no idea who they are or where they have been for the past few years.