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.”
John: 1) Thanks for your message. 2) I need to be brief as it is now 6:00 a.m. and I have a long "must do" list for next few hours. 3) Yes, I have written a lot on this Collective project in the past few weeks ... and THE LEFT LANE also published this statement from the 3 October Socialist Group ( of now 18 people): https://theleftlane2024.substack.com/p/the-fatal-flaws-behind-the-collectives 4) I think it is FAR PREFERABLE to get news on this project from the horse's mouth rather than quoting from TUSC. 5) I have asked to speak with the Collective three times and issued this formal invitation to dialogue with activists outside the Collective. It was refused; see part 2 here: https://theleftlane2024.substack.com/p/a-good-news-story-and-a-bad-news 6) I am glad we agree 100% we need a new socialist party. 7) My question remains since 15 Sept. when the news leaked in THE GUARDIAN: Does the Collective want such a party? I went from Norwich to London for a 10 October meeting to hear Andrew Feinstein, a big player in the Collective, say "maybe." More later.
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.”
John: 1) Thanks for your message. 2) I need to be brief as it is now 6:00 a.m. and I have a long "must do" list for next few hours. 3) Yes, I have written a lot on this Collective project in the past few weeks ... and THE LEFT LANE also published this statement from the 3 October Socialist Group ( of now 18 people): https://theleftlane2024.substack.com/p/the-fatal-flaws-behind-the-collectives 4) I think it is FAR PREFERABLE to get news on this project from the horse's mouth rather than quoting from TUSC. 5) I have asked to speak with the Collective three times and issued this formal invitation to dialogue with activists outside the Collective. It was refused; see part 2 here: https://theleftlane2024.substack.com/p/a-good-news-story-and-a-bad-news 6) I am glad we agree 100% we need a new socialist party. 7) My question remains since 15 Sept. when the news leaked in THE GUARDIAN: Does the Collective want such a party? I went from Norwich to London for a 10 October meeting to hear Andrew Feinstein, a big player in the Collective, say "maybe." More later.