I'm curious to know what "national" means and what 'local' elections in 2026 mean? Is this England only ... or are there really utterly stupid attempts by those in England to have something that is wider?
"In every serious challenge made by the socialist left in Holyrood elections, it has been on the basis of a pro-independence position. Yet part of the current impetus for socialist realignment in Scotland is prompted by processes taking place in England following the defeat of the Corbyn project in Labour. With the SWP and various ex-Corbynistas and trade union officials jockeying for position in big rallies in London, we can (as ever) expect little understanding of the specifics of the context in Scotland, Wales and Ireland from such processes.
It’s a basic question, but one that must be asked when considering how “broad” an alliance is being considered: will it have a clear position on independence? The appeals we have seen so far have made little mention of it. This is despite the fact that one of the forces pushing such appeals (the Socialist Workers’ Party) has also spent the last decade organising All Under One Banner marches with some of the most nationalist (as well as transphobic and conspiracist) sections of the independence movement, and has put itself on to platforms trying to claim status as leaders of that movement. It seems that this has become yet another item for the SWP tactical memory hole. For the SWP, Scottish nationalists were just another set of rubes to be used to organise big demos, claim influence and sell papers. They are, as ever, crap comrades.
Unfortunately for those searching for a new British Road to Socialism, Scotland is never going back in its box. Somewhere around half of Scotland supports independence, and this is clearly a bedrock that has endured give or take for a decade now. The days when Scottish and Welsh issues can be fobbed off by all-UK socialist organisations saying the relevant local sections will have a degree of autonomy are long gone."
It's practically an article of faith that, unlike, say, a new right-wing party, any new left-wing party will come immediately under fire from several different directions:
- the center-right and right, for obvious reasons;
- hardcore left factions, who believe any attempt to create left momentum outside their direct command is a theft from them;
- political, dug-in opportunists; who want to wield the -potential- of such an organization existing without the toil and struggle of building one.
As a result, (again, unlike any such thing on the right), the moment where such a new left party first sticks its head up is crucial; and many political people believe it must be "managed" + "fireproofed" to the utmost degree.
To a point, this is both slightly true and very unfortunate; being as spontaneity can be a powerfully left-coded weapon in politics. There's also the hazard of saboteurs being salted into the ranks by other actors; people who will poison the public's perception of the effort any way they can. Capital is never shy about using (+ often compensating) such saboteurs in these efforts. This is also the conundrum of "organizing democratically"; as it provides the opportunity for sub rosa hostile actors to infiltrate.
This comment is already too long, but the most successful effort might be best built as small groups on the ground, with plans to suddenly "coalesce" at a given point in the near-term future. Who "leads" should be chosen last, + viewed solely as an instrument of the new party's will, rather than dictating that will.
The only true "new politics" would be a turning away from "personality politics", where the party is perceived as both the bus and the driver.
Poaching Labour MPs doesn’t automatically make this Labour 2.0, as long as it excludes the current crop of centrists. Many are as right-leaning as ever. A leader like Corbyn, who openly opposes the direction Labour has taken, could work. Not just for his large support base, but for his stance against the party’s current model.
I'm curious to know what "national" means and what 'local' elections in 2026 mean? Is this England only ... or are there really utterly stupid attempts by those in England to have something that is wider?
Good article on Heckle.scot here: https://heckle.scot/2025/05/no-line-of-least-resistance-the-left-in-the-2026-holyrood-elections/
"In every serious challenge made by the socialist left in Holyrood elections, it has been on the basis of a pro-independence position. Yet part of the current impetus for socialist realignment in Scotland is prompted by processes taking place in England following the defeat of the Corbyn project in Labour. With the SWP and various ex-Corbynistas and trade union officials jockeying for position in big rallies in London, we can (as ever) expect little understanding of the specifics of the context in Scotland, Wales and Ireland from such processes.
It’s a basic question, but one that must be asked when considering how “broad” an alliance is being considered: will it have a clear position on independence? The appeals we have seen so far have made little mention of it. This is despite the fact that one of the forces pushing such appeals (the Socialist Workers’ Party) has also spent the last decade organising All Under One Banner marches with some of the most nationalist (as well as transphobic and conspiracist) sections of the independence movement, and has put itself on to platforms trying to claim status as leaders of that movement. It seems that this has become yet another item for the SWP tactical memory hole. For the SWP, Scottish nationalists were just another set of rubes to be used to organise big demos, claim influence and sell papers. They are, as ever, crap comrades.
Unfortunately for those searching for a new British Road to Socialism, Scotland is never going back in its box. Somewhere around half of Scotland supports independence, and this is clearly a bedrock that has endured give or take for a decade now. The days when Scottish and Welsh issues can be fobbed off by all-UK socialist organisations saying the relevant local sections will have a degree of autonomy are long gone."
It's practically an article of faith that, unlike, say, a new right-wing party, any new left-wing party will come immediately under fire from several different directions:
- the center-right and right, for obvious reasons;
- hardcore left factions, who believe any attempt to create left momentum outside their direct command is a theft from them;
- political, dug-in opportunists; who want to wield the -potential- of such an organization existing without the toil and struggle of building one.
As a result, (again, unlike any such thing on the right), the moment where such a new left party first sticks its head up is crucial; and many political people believe it must be "managed" + "fireproofed" to the utmost degree.
To a point, this is both slightly true and very unfortunate; being as spontaneity can be a powerfully left-coded weapon in politics. There's also the hazard of saboteurs being salted into the ranks by other actors; people who will poison the public's perception of the effort any way they can. Capital is never shy about using (+ often compensating) such saboteurs in these efforts. This is also the conundrum of "organizing democratically"; as it provides the opportunity for sub rosa hostile actors to infiltrate.
This comment is already too long, but the most successful effort might be best built as small groups on the ground, with plans to suddenly "coalesce" at a given point in the near-term future. Who "leads" should be chosen last, + viewed solely as an instrument of the new party's will, rather than dictating that will.
The only true "new politics" would be a turning away from "personality politics", where the party is perceived as both the bus and the driver.
"As well as transphobic and conspiracist"
Can you explain what you mean by either of these points?
Chris: Can you tell me where those words are used? Alan
Poaching Labour MPs doesn’t automatically make this Labour 2.0, as long as it excludes the current crop of centrists. Many are as right-leaning as ever. A leader like Corbyn, who openly opposes the direction Labour has taken, could work. Not just for his large support base, but for his stance against the party’s current model.