Your Party, My Party, Their Party

Hopes for a new party of the Left in Britain appear to have broken down as splits appear just as they attempt to launch.

One simple element of disagreement is the very nature of the project and its structures. How democratic should it be and how should it be organised? Some groups, such as the Independent Alliance, (the MPs who have been working together around Palestine) and Pamela Fitzpatrick who is the Director of the Peace and Justice Project, want a more formal MP-led, approach to starting Your Party. It’s based on the old-school Labour and Trade Union Movement models of organising. In contrast, groups around Zara Sultana would rather have a more grassroots, organic and spontaneous form of organising. If you want a detailed breakdown of all the factions and groups they are painstakingly laid out here. 

There is also the question of what, and who the party is for. Jim Slaven here [Orwell’s Canaries In Corbyn’s Mine] argues against the gate-keeping of the party:

“This is a political party with no name, no structure, no branches, no members, no programme, no strategy. But it does have a clique at the top deciding what groups/identities it will ‘centre’ and what issues are verboten. This focus on difference, as being central to political life, is fatal for left organising. It assumes any social movement (or in this case political party) will be born fully formed. It demands that all those wishing to participate accept these top down, set in stone, social and cultural diktats. Period, as Sultana says.”

“Focusing on individuality and identity, on the Self, undercuts class solidarity. It does not threaten the system. It operates within the neoliberal order and logic. A left that is not rooted in the working class is useless to the working class. It is the left of neoliberalism. Organising a broad-based movement is near impossible if the starting position is that difference is what is central to the politics of that movement. Thereby guaranteeing various ‘most marginalised’ groups (or more accurately, normally the most privileged individuals within that interest group) compete to get ‘centred’. It becomes a bourgeois parlour game.”

There is then a contradiction here between a faction such as Zultana’s which argues for a grassroots structure in name, but also has a purity entry test. There are cultural and ideological questions at play here, but also, crippingly, organised left factions behind this which will destroy and fledgling party. There are also dividing issues that break down generationally and will be very difficult to resolve.

Learning how to navigate division and come to resolution at a speed and scale that is required is a perennial organising issue, and one that needs to be resolved for the party to have any chance of success.

Politically, much is unclear. So much of the infighting has been over process. But Archie Woodrow has written:

“The political and constitutional basis of the new party remains almost totally unclear. The only official statement so far is from Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana’s joint announcement, which contained some basic social democratic economic policies, as well as a statement of solidarity with Palestine. The substantive commitments mentioned are:

• A mass redistribution of wealth and power.
• Taxing the very richest in society.
• An NHS free of privatisation.
• Bringing energy, water, rail and mail into public ownership.
• Investing in a massive council-house building programme.
• Standing up to fossil fuel giants.
• Defending the right to protest for Palestine.
• An end to all arms sales to Israel.
• Campaigning for a free and independent Palestine.

Beyond that, everything seems completely up in the air. There is no mention of constitutional or democratic questions, of solidarity with oppressed groups like migrants, LGBT people, or disabled people, and no mention of foreign policy beyond Palestine.”

From a Scottish perspective, the question of structure is acutely political and the absence of anything substantive about the National Question means that many people won’t engage.

Here, the New Statesman breaks down the factions …

Some people remain hopeful that this can all be worked through and a coherent new party can emerge. I have my doubts.