Do Jeremy a favour
Don't pressure Corbyn to lead a new socialist party he is not in favour of creating
By Alan Story
Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn had been billed as the headline speaker for Thursday night’s session of a series debating whether we need a new socialist party in the UK. (See the ad below promoting the 24 October event.)
In fact, Corbyn did not show for PARTY TIME? session #3. No harm done and I am sure he had his reasons.
In any event, the East London session carried on for almost two hours of passionate debate among a crowd of almost 200 people - encouragingly, with an average age of about 30 - around the many, often complex, questions that need to be taken up as more and more progressives are realising that Labour is “a no hoper” under Keir Starmer.
We do urgently need an alternative. Palestinians would also appreciate one less Western country supplying bombs and assorted weaponry to the genocidal Israeli regime.
Corbyn’s non-attendance Thursday evening did, however, prompt the question: is his participation a key ingredient in the creation and building of a new left-of-Labour party?
The leaders of a small group called The Collective clearly think it is. Corbyn was the inspirational “kick off” speaker at a secret meeting they organised on 15 September to discuss forming some type of new, rather amorphous political formation. Some are calling it an “organisation” and some “a left party.”
GOT UP CORBYN’S NOSE
What happened next really got up Corbyn’s nose, several acquaintances of Corbyn have told THE LEFT LANE. Without informing him, organisers with The Collective leaked details of the meeting - and Corbyn’s participation in that session - to THE GUARDIAN.
Its 16 September edition featured a news story headed : “Jeremy Corbyn addresses meeting on formation of new leftwing party. Exclusive: Ex-Labour leader gives speech at event where organisers say they aim to start party named Collective. “
Significantly, most rank and file members of a number of the groups and small parties which attended the session first learned that their own group had taken part from THE GUARDIAN as well.
If some unknown leftie - or, at least, not a household name such as Corbyn - had been the featured speaker on 15 September, the story might not even have made it into Labour List, the Monday-to-Friday online publication focused exclusively on Labour Party news and comment.
But the name of expelled former party leader Corbyn, who was elected as an independent MP on 4 July and who still has broad support in many progressive and working class circles all across the UK, is political ”box office” .
If you want a new political formation on the left to get profile, link it to Corbyn. The leaders of The Collective, many of whom are or were long-time Labour Party members, know this. Better still, why not make Corbyn leader… or at least its figure head?
I’m certain I am not the only socialist who thinks that manoeuvring the political props at a few closed door meetings so that Corbyn becomes the de facto leader of a new left political formation is definitely NOT the way to create an alternative to Labour.
The fact is that Corbyn does not favour the creation of a new left party any time soon. Now aged 75, he joined Labour as a teenager and has been a Labour MP since 1983. He has a difficult time conceiving of the idea of a new left party. For Corbyn, it is a “maybe” item for the future.
Moreover, if he had really wanted to form a new party, Corbyn could have done so numerous times over the past four years. It was in this very week in October 2020 that then relatively new Labour leader Starmer suspended Corbyn from Labour’s ranks. It was an early sign of the authoritarianism and pro-establishment views that have become Starmer’s trade mark. Since then, Corbyn has sat in Parliament as an independent.
I’m sure I am not the only socialist who thinks that no single individual or tiny group should have trumping power over whether we need a socialist party OR a national organisation group doing work at the “group roots.” ( We need both, but that is the subject for another substack.)
BURNED BY THE COLLECTIVE
Why Corbyn did not attend Thursday’s PARTY TIME? session is not really that important. The speculation I heard from insiders is that, after being burned by The Collective six weeks ago, Corbyn does not want his name linked with further “new left party” talk at a public meeting of 200 progressives. That makes sense.
The Collective is set to meet again soon. What also makes sense is that this group consider what was written in Sun Tzu’s fifth-century BC Chinese treatise on the art of war.
“All men can see the tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.”
Can I suggest that the group behind this new political formation/ party is without a serious political strategy to lead us in the “war” we will need to wage against late capitalism in the months and years ahead if we want to be victorious?
Pressuring Corbyn to lead such a party is a tactic that will make it only your insular party and not our mass party. It will lead to the type of old-style top-downism that Starmer, Reeves and company will certainly not fear.
NOTE: The Thursday evening session was held at the innovative Pelican House, a social centre for worker organising, movement building, and experimental arts. Check it out for other upcoming events and read more about it here.
++++
Edited by Alan Story, THE LEFT LANE is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber: http://theleftlane2024.substack.com/subscribe
You can reach us at: theleftlanepolitics@gmail.com
You can read all previous columns of THE LEFT LANE here
Follow us on our new THE LEFT LANE Instagram
If I'm not mistaken, Alan, this is the third piece you have written of late sharply criticising The Collective's efforts to form a new mass party of the Left. Heaven knows, we need one in some form or other, and I don't think that is controversial as such. And we all agree that the way it’s done is important; it would be possible to create a new party in such a bad form that it could be more hindrance than help, as some feel about the Workers Party of Britain! But you are starting to sound like the Harry Enfield character in the now-ancient sketch, whose catchphrase was "Oh no, you don't want to do it like that! You want to do it like this!"
Everyone wants a new party but too many think that must happen by their own idea of a correct process, must have the structure they want and/ or must start from political positions they regard as non-negotiable. Hence attempts since the original Socialist Alliance in 1992 have proved fruitless. Having been part of many of these efforts, I feel the main lesson has been that we need to make something happen now, not endlessly debate the perfect way for it to happen. The present situation is rotten-ripe for a new party if we seize the initiative. And so long as we have a democratic structure, we can work towards dealing with imperfections afterwards. Here’s what The Collective’s core principles say in relation to structure (quoting from a report to TUSC’s committee members). It sounds like a pretty good starting point to me:
“The aim should be an effective balance struck between affording autonomy and devolved power to members organising at constituency level and a leadership/executive that is both enabled and properly accountable. A ‘broad church’ philosophy should guide policy development, recognising the importance of both building consensus and unity around a set of defined political positions, as well as accommodating some margin of difference and debate around them. Values concerning democratic participation and healthy political debate both internally and externally should be enshrined in a governance constitution with an emphasis on tolerance, inclusivity and solidarity.”