A comment in a Facebook group ( Formerly Labour Party Forum) about this piece: "Generally i feel that this article is too pessimistic about the method and thew likely success of a New Left Party.
The second election of JC saw the potential financial power which could be counted on behind a successful launch. Those who wished to vote but had been 'timed out' by McNicol's machinations saw £4.5 Million at £25 per vote being poured into the Party.
Setting up a viable alternative would bring in a great deal more than that.
Expecting there to be 100,000 members is, i believe, a vast underestimate of what could be expected when Labour evicted or otherwise lost some 250,000 members and every year sees a larger tranche of younger voters than the natural loss at the other end of the age range.
So policies are going to be important and those we had in 2017 were obviously popular and would have been so in 2019 had it not been for the Albatross of a Brexit Deal being offered by Boris Johnson tied to two years of the 171 et al campaigning against Jeremy with it weaponisation of Anti-Semitism as covered in the Forde Report.
Ensuring that the Unions are on board would also help immeasurably as would the necessary acceptance of some of the existing Left groups that they would have to merge for the benefit of the people even if that meant working with other who had a slightly different stress on how to do things and who would be important in the pParty's presentation.
We all know that this is what is needed and we all know that with more intent this could have been achieved for the last GE. Perhaps the first move should come from the MPs who have lost the Whip and if they could see a way to bringing in others from the other Left biased MPs in Westminster then the Banner would be readily recognisable. We also have many other former Labour people who have joined other Parties of groups and they have also pools of supporters.
We are waiting and would love to invest in the future!"
- The secrecy of the first meeting can be explained by the idea that there are at least two other "major" parties, as well as several other factions on right and left, who would earnestly desire that this project never get off the ground.
They will certainly attempt to divert, disrupt, etc. starting at the very moment the project becomes "open". It's important, therefore, to posit and possibly agree upon "norms" and/or light rules of factional conflict among potential participants of stature *before* the tricksters, would-be hijackers, and grifters descend. And the best way to do that is in secret session.
The left doesn't need lessons on what to fight over, ideologically, so much as norms of _how_ to fight over things, internally. Not having those has wrecked scores of left factions with growth potential over the last 50 years.
The writer cited some in the article above. Presumably, many of the figures in attendance at the meeting have that history written on their CVs; so they may want to go a different road this time.
-The 'hard-left' has a bad habit of trying to recruit by "discipleship" to its specific tendencies, an approach which has proven wanting repeatedly at creating a "mass left" over multiple decades and cultural "moments" in my lifetime. A "soft" or "light" left has not been able to exist as its own thing without being seen as clay for harder-left factions to bash their own shapes into, and often from. And yet, any left party big enough to be a "mass" will be predominantly "light" left, bc its new adherents will be not far removed from being spit out by Labour and capitalism.
No one becomes a Marxist in a day. That said, a new left party should be a fairly loose coalition of factions of various tendencies, orbiting a larger mass of such "light" adherents, where each has its own agency to stick in or stand aloof as its interests + integrity demand, without sanction or exile.
Agency is key, it's absolutely crucial; it prevents the whole from being contended over as a tool or prize by those who seek the power to steer it where they will. Because those will certainly flock to try.
Anyhow, all this involves doing "politics", on a scale that few modern people have ever seen. But with that politics comes real, actual agency; the way politics can be in its best incarnations. This is also what the powerful fear us having the most.
Shaggy: 1) Do you think it is right that members of constituent groups ( e.g. TRANSFORM) had no idea the 15 Sept. meet was going to occur? 2) A different road? This seems to me a very similar road ( as pointed out in Harry Holmes article) ; 3) Why do you think a real reluctance by some ( eg. Corbyn, Driscoll and Feinstein) do set up a party? 4) Do we need a "Labour Party Mark 2" in the UK today?
4) Yes, you do. Just like my country needs an actual party also, to house the agency of the growing left.
The present regime of "Labour", just like the present regime of the US "Democratic" Party; actively seeks to contain, exploit, and exhaust our agency, without conceding any of the power that our efforts might earn.
Both major parties' relationship towards the left is primarily obstructive + abusive; and that cannot continue. The younger generations + those yet to come of age deserve better.
Hi, Alan. I appreciate greatly your writing on these topics, as it's direly needed + few others will even try.
I'll give these my best shot:
1) That might have been more a tactical decision than a "right" or "wrong" one; as the meeting seemed more about bruiting the party concept about than anything ideological.
Perhaps the plan is to solicit the involvement of TRANSFORM at a later stage, it's early days yet.
2) One of the points of the meeting might presumably be to not repeat the mistakes of past movements, such as the one I cited. Hence a "different road". Yes, it's largely surmise; but why not give the benefit of the doubt at this stage?
3)Corbyn, et al. have probably (wisely) decided not to put themselves at the head of this effort; because the instant they did, all the actors who want such an effort thwarted would immediately focus attack lines to make it about them as persons, rather than the validity or need for the left to have its own party. Personal attacks are easier to make, harder to defend against; and can (often unjustly) tar an entire project with a cynical brush. The left cannot afford to have such an effort be seen + dismissed as a "vanity project" by one figure or another. However, a figure or two (like Corbyn) is necessary, as any movement started by heretofore unknown/obscure people is too easily ignored and smothered by media indifference before it can progress.
A comment in a Facebook group ( Formerly Labour Party Forum) about this piece: "Generally i feel that this article is too pessimistic about the method and thew likely success of a New Left Party.
The second election of JC saw the potential financial power which could be counted on behind a successful launch. Those who wished to vote but had been 'timed out' by McNicol's machinations saw £4.5 Million at £25 per vote being poured into the Party.
Setting up a viable alternative would bring in a great deal more than that.
Expecting there to be 100,000 members is, i believe, a vast underestimate of what could be expected when Labour evicted or otherwise lost some 250,000 members and every year sees a larger tranche of younger voters than the natural loss at the other end of the age range.
So policies are going to be important and those we had in 2017 were obviously popular and would have been so in 2019 had it not been for the Albatross of a Brexit Deal being offered by Boris Johnson tied to two years of the 171 et al campaigning against Jeremy with it weaponisation of Anti-Semitism as covered in the Forde Report.
Ensuring that the Unions are on board would also help immeasurably as would the necessary acceptance of some of the existing Left groups that they would have to merge for the benefit of the people even if that meant working with other who had a slightly different stress on how to do things and who would be important in the pParty's presentation.
We all know that this is what is needed and we all know that with more intent this could have been achieved for the last GE. Perhaps the first move should come from the MPs who have lost the Whip and if they could see a way to bringing in others from the other Left biased MPs in Westminster then the Banner would be readily recognisable. We also have many other former Labour people who have joined other Parties of groups and they have also pools of supporters.
We are waiting and would love to invest in the future!"
A follow up article yesterday ( 26 Sept.) in THE WEEKLY WORKER: https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1508/hidden-divisions-in-collective
These are useful developments. A few thoughts:
- The secrecy of the first meeting can be explained by the idea that there are at least two other "major" parties, as well as several other factions on right and left, who would earnestly desire that this project never get off the ground.
They will certainly attempt to divert, disrupt, etc. starting at the very moment the project becomes "open". It's important, therefore, to posit and possibly agree upon "norms" and/or light rules of factional conflict among potential participants of stature *before* the tricksters, would-be hijackers, and grifters descend. And the best way to do that is in secret session.
The left doesn't need lessons on what to fight over, ideologically, so much as norms of _how_ to fight over things, internally. Not having those has wrecked scores of left factions with growth potential over the last 50 years.
The writer cited some in the article above. Presumably, many of the figures in attendance at the meeting have that history written on their CVs; so they may want to go a different road this time.
-The 'hard-left' has a bad habit of trying to recruit by "discipleship" to its specific tendencies, an approach which has proven wanting repeatedly at creating a "mass left" over multiple decades and cultural "moments" in my lifetime. A "soft" or "light" left has not been able to exist as its own thing without being seen as clay for harder-left factions to bash their own shapes into, and often from. And yet, any left party big enough to be a "mass" will be predominantly "light" left, bc its new adherents will be not far removed from being spit out by Labour and capitalism.
No one becomes a Marxist in a day. That said, a new left party should be a fairly loose coalition of factions of various tendencies, orbiting a larger mass of such "light" adherents, where each has its own agency to stick in or stand aloof as its interests + integrity demand, without sanction or exile.
Agency is key, it's absolutely crucial; it prevents the whole from being contended over as a tool or prize by those who seek the power to steer it where they will. Because those will certainly flock to try.
Anyhow, all this involves doing "politics", on a scale that few modern people have ever seen. But with that politics comes real, actual agency; the way politics can be in its best incarnations. This is also what the powerful fear us having the most.
Shaggy: 1) Do you think it is right that members of constituent groups ( e.g. TRANSFORM) had no idea the 15 Sept. meet was going to occur? 2) A different road? This seems to me a very similar road ( as pointed out in Harry Holmes article) ; 3) Why do you think a real reluctance by some ( eg. Corbyn, Driscoll and Feinstein) do set up a party? 4) Do we need a "Labour Party Mark 2" in the UK today?
Crap, I forgot 4.
4) Yes, you do. Just like my country needs an actual party also, to house the agency of the growing left.
The present regime of "Labour", just like the present regime of the US "Democratic" Party; actively seeks to contain, exploit, and exhaust our agency, without conceding any of the power that our efforts might earn.
Both major parties' relationship towards the left is primarily obstructive + abusive; and that cannot continue. The younger generations + those yet to come of age deserve better.
Thanks Shaggy. Taking a few days off. Perhaps we can arrange a Zoom call next week. Email me. Alan
Hi, Alan. I appreciate greatly your writing on these topics, as it's direly needed + few others will even try.
I'll give these my best shot:
1) That might have been more a tactical decision than a "right" or "wrong" one; as the meeting seemed more about bruiting the party concept about than anything ideological.
Perhaps the plan is to solicit the involvement of TRANSFORM at a later stage, it's early days yet.
2) One of the points of the meeting might presumably be to not repeat the mistakes of past movements, such as the one I cited. Hence a "different road". Yes, it's largely surmise; but why not give the benefit of the doubt at this stage?
3)Corbyn, et al. have probably (wisely) decided not to put themselves at the head of this effort; because the instant they did, all the actors who want such an effort thwarted would immediately focus attack lines to make it about them as persons, rather than the validity or need for the left to have its own party. Personal attacks are easier to make, harder to defend against; and can (often unjustly) tar an entire project with a cynical brush. The left cannot afford to have such an effort be seen + dismissed as a "vanity project" by one figure or another. However, a figure or two (like Corbyn) is necessary, as any movement started by heretofore unknown/obscure people is too easily ignored and smothered by media indifference before it can progress.