The fatal flaws behind The Collective's proposed new left organisation.

A group of socialists list its political failings…and suggest the type of new socialist party we need. We cannot afford another flop.

Oct 17, 2024

Statement from “The 3 October Socialist Group”

On 3 October, a group of socialists engaged in an invigorating discussion about the recent closed-door meeting of The Collective. A report leaked to The Guardian indicated Jeremy Corbyn was involved and stated the meeting discussed potentially forming a new political party to the left of Labour.

Our discussion circle, named “The 3 October Socialist Group” and now with 16 members, examined a series of questions related to this potential political formation which could have significant ramifications for the progressive movement. As no serious party can be built without open debate we have decided to share our initial responses here in THE LEFT LANE and welcome your feedback. Additionally, we will share our views with The Collective. It will hold its next “by invitation only” meeting in Birmingham in a few weeks.

1) Do we need a new party of the left?

Overwhelmingly agreed, yes we do.

* The Labour Party claims to be democratic and socialist but we believe it falls far short of both those criteria. Furthermore there is no way it can be transformed into a party that is democratic and socialist. Those are the two key features we want in a new party.

* There is a significant groundswell of opinion for a new party within the UK. Many activists want a new left party. Many feel there is a gaping void and are dispirited. Existing organisations are not providing the necessary leadership over the issue of building a new party.

* A mass UK-wide party created for the long term could be a far stronger voice than campaign groups based on single issues which often have a short shelf-life.

* Most of the independent parliamentary candidates who ran on 4 July did not run on an explicitly socialist platform. A socialist party would provide such a manifesto and could get our message across far more widely and consistently.

2) Why the reluctance from some high-profile electoral figures to create a new party now?

Some left politicians linked to this project, such as Jeremy Corbyn, Jamie Driscoll and Andrew Feinstein, seem reluctant to endorse the need for a new socialist party. A number of possible explanations were put forward:

* Corbyn was burned by his experience leading the Labour Party. He seems reluctant to take up another leadership role. In any event, should he be asked and would he be the best leader of a new socialist party?

* Some may favour building local movements because they pose fewer threats to their personal authority than would occur in a democratically-run national party.

* They are only interested in forming a party if they believe it has a viable chance of achieving a decisive general election vote in the near future, whereas we are happy to start with lower expectations and a long-term strategy. Were they at all confident of immediately challenging for more parliamentary seats and far greater influence they would go ahead and help launch a new socialist party along with other socialists.

* Some in The Collective and related groups have not intellectually split from the Labour Party and are still - either consciously or unconsciously- trying to influence what Labour does rather than explicitly building an alternative to Labour. Perhaps they are only trying to influence Labour Party policy and have no real desire to make a decisive break from it. Or is this merely a move to put pressure on Starmer?

* Re-joining / readmission to the Labour Party might be the longer term goal of these left politicians in the same way as Ken Livingstone undertook in 2004.

The bottom line: we should be guided by what is in the overall interests of both socialists and the working class.

3) Where do People’s Assemblies, community groups, national campaigns etc. factor in the development of a new party?

* The numbers involved in the pro-Palestine and anti-Israeli genocide movement are immense and we salute their work. But the great majority of those involved in this movement are not participating in informal discussions about a new party, let alone at a formal level.

* There is also support within the grass-roots of groups involved in housing, anti-fascist, anti-racist, etc. work. It is not really clear what those people want. We need more discussions to enable their voices to be adequately represented.

* Local community organising and party building go hand in hand and feed into each other rather than one being a precondition to the success of the other.

Conclusion: Socialists need to both build a party and contribute to mass movements.

4) What do we think about the overall functioning of The Collective discussions, including their secrecy?

Everybody present expressed scepticism and wariness about The Collective for numerous reasons.

* Those invited to attend were self-selected from a group of prominent individuals such as Jamie Driscoll, Len McCluskey and Ken Loach. There were representatives from some small groupings, but the wider movement was not represented at this gathering. We want discussions to be as transparent, diverse, democratic, and inclusive as possible. There is beauty in diversity. As things stand now, this will be just a re-grouping of the usual suspects.

* In order to inject some new thinking, the leadership of a new party needs to draw on a breadth of experience and from wider layers that are not represented in the current composition of The Collective.

* With the marginalisation of the activist base, much of the predicted success of the Collective project (e.g. 100,000 members by the end of 2025) appears contingent upon Corbyn’s public profile. Should Corbyn decline that leading role then the underlying flimsiness of the project will be exposed.

The bottom line: The Collective has no popular mandate to set up a new party and may not be up to the task as currently constituted.

5) Is this a good time to set up a party?

A majority agree it is, but we have some reservations:

* Labour won on July 4th with fewer than 10 million votes, about a third of all votes cast. Clearly there is already an appetite for something different.

* There are large communities who have broken with Labour e.g. the Muslim community and young people.

* There still needs to be a thorough critique of Corbyn’s period as Labour leader and the left’s role within it. And these lessons need to be absorbed

* There are numerous examples from the past of mass movements in response to capitalist crisis which have instigated a decisive shift in consciousness toward the formation of a new party. It could happen again in the coming months under favourable circumstances.

6) What do we believe a new party should look like?

* It should be openly democratic and socialist. We don’t need or want Labour 2.0.

* Initially it should have a minimalist programme; we all agree we are anti-capitalist, post-Labour, eco-socialist, pro-socialist, pro-democratic accountability. We agree to contribute to building the party, and can work out more details as we proceed.

* A new party should actively campaign for proportional representation both for reasons of overall democracy and to give the left a fair chance in elections.

* The working class is very disparate. There are differentiations based on ethnicity, religion, age, gender, occupation, geographical region etc. We want it to be represented in all its diversity

* We should set about building a party, rather than focusing on its mere launch. Building implies a process that is democratic and organic. Effective strategies should be determined through being put to the test and improved by experimentation.

* A new party should play a dual role, linking parliamentary representation with extra-parliamentary campaigning. There are serious limits to electoralism.

* A new party must be international in its outlook.

Conclusion: we need a radically different type of party than existing parties.

7) What lessons should be learned from previous attempts to create a new party such as Scottish Socialist Party, Socialist Alliance, and Respect?

* We need a democratic structure that can hold leading figures to account.

* We need there to be regular discussion of issues, involving the widest possible number of people

* Will adding together a number of small organisations - TUSC, Transform, Left Unity, Social Justice Party etc. - necessarily lead to a successful party? We doubt it.

* The role of charismatic and unaccountable leadership figures (e.g. Tommy Sheridan, Arthur Scargill, George Galloway) has been detrimental to party success in the past. For example, Galloway makes up party policy himself on his YouTube channel rather than consulting with his party. There is a lot to be said for having a national leadership committee rather than individual leaders.

Conclusion: there are many lessons to learn which The Collective should be discussing

THE 3 OCTOBER SOCIALIST GROUP

Date: 17 October 2024.

Contact us at: October3rdgroup@gmail.com

++++++++++++++

A 26 September article in THE LEFT LANE titled “On creating and building a socialist alternative to Labour” gives a few more details on this project and lists some of its actors.

We again invite responses from anyone within The Collective or from anyone else who wants to work towards building a socialist alternative to Labour. Write: theleftlanepolitics@gmail.com

+++++++++

CHECK THIS OUT

The final discussion in the “Party Time?” series occurs on Thursday, 24 October at 6:00 for 7:00. The location is Pelican House: 44 Cambridge Heath Rd, Bethnal Green, London E1 5QJ ( THE LEFT LANE’s report on the second session is here).

Write your MP about stopping UK arms sales to Israel

Late on 16 October Left Foot Forward reported that 51 MPs are backing a call for the UK to end its arms sales to Israel and to ban imports from illegal Israeli settlements.

Check if your MPs name is on the list. If it is not, consider writing to your MP.

The bills keep piling up for the Green Party

Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay are co-leaders of the Green Party

Since May 2024 we have covered no story in more detail than the increasingly toxic atmosphere inside the Green Party; you can find more than five, often lengthy, pieces here.

The stories focus on the expulsion or suspension of more than 20 gender-critical GP activists, the party’s wretched Orwellian disciplinary processes, various legal cases and the overall democratic deficit within the party. As one leading former member wrote in his resignation letter, the governance of the Greens is “morally corrupt.” Identity politics is in the driving seat and the party is controlled by cliques elected by less than 10% of its members.

Now its legal costs are mounting as well. This week Politics Home reported that “The Green Party has spent £1m over four years fighting legal battles against its own members, as divisions over gender continue to threaten the party’s finances.” More cases are in the legal pipeline.

A regular reader of THE LEFT LANE and a Greenie did point out to us that “there has only been one case ( of the four cases mentioned) going to court so far which was about discrimination on the grounds of the belief that sex is biological and immutable…Other cases were not about gender, but probably about race; but we can never be sure as they settled out of court.”

Yet spending over one million pounds and losing discrimination cases is “extremely bad news anyway. The most virtuous are usually the worse hypocrites,” the email concluded.

The next round may occur at the Greens annual general meeting on 9 November. The Greens in Exile campaign group properly sees this as a moment to get some answers. THE LEFT LANE will be reporting.

As SquirrelSoShiny wrote on Mumsnet 48 hours ago: “ You would nearly think that the Greens don't actually care about the environment and really need to go back to basics...”

++++++++

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