The left and the coming general election
JVL Introduction
There is an almost universal consensus that the left in general can expect virtuyally nothing from a Starmerite Labour government, committed to austerity and law and order at home, and a patriotic anti-refugee, pro-imperialist foreign policy.
As a result there are all kinds of calls abroad for candidates to stand against Labour in the general election: whether as part of a national alternative; to emulate Galloway in Rochdale: as independents hoping to win where local circumstances permit; as spoilers hoping to bring down some of Labour’s more vulnerable right-wingers; or just to “build the movement”.
Here Edmund Griffiths looks at the variety of socialist candidates that have run against Labour in the past, assesses what they have achieved and poses helpful questions as to just what the left might be able to achieve, both this time round and building for the future.
RK
This article was originally published by the Weekly Worker on Thu 7 Mar 2024. Read the original here.
How we should contest
While Corbynism has produced little more than demoralisation, Tusc’s approach to elections has been a complete failure. Edmund Griffiths offers a contribution aimed at leaving behind puny goals and statistically irrelevant votes
Loading article text…
I think Edmund Griffiths rather misses the mark of our political moment with both Labour and Conservatives veering ever rightwards.
As shown in Parliament of late, Britain is suffering from a significant lack of democracy. Disruptive, different voices are what I think is most needed from the soft to hard left. We can all carry on not bringing the Greens into the conversation, for example, and not even mention the national parties of Wales and Scotland, or new possible Independents from say The Muslim Vote – but all these might well create the very political spaces from which a strong but small socialist base can hope to grow. Political differences don’t need to play out in a battle over votes. We can all help each other build a movement of change.
Griffiths rightly points out our penchant for mistaking our social media echo chamber for wider support. Undoubtedly, the mass of traditional Labour voters will vote Labour in spite of Starmer’s total absence of charisma and Labour’s repeated policy reversals. For them, and for (probably millions) of uncommitted voters the important consideration will be to dump the Tories. The fight will come after.
I think Edmund Griffiths misses the main point which is the political mood of the electorate.
Several political commentators have pointed out that a “1945 atmosphere” exists in the country. 15 years of Tory asset stripping: excess profits with real poverty among the people; breakdown of most of the public services; disgust over the state of rivers and beaches; a unique majority of the people demanding widespread nationalisation of railways. buses, water, energy companies , a ‘public only’ NHS, etc ; never-before-seen demos against government complicity in genocide by settler/colonisation and open racialism-etc etc.
ALL of which is supported by coup-captured Labour Party which offers no alternative policies. People are dying for a change. Some sort of left wing coalition is needed. I think Starmer may lose his seat to ex-ANC MP Andrew Feinstein. Corbyn is still popular and his themes of Peace and Justice more topical and relevant and popular than ever. A majority of the British population supports the pro-Palestine Marches but no political party does. Many ex-Labour MPs and councillors are standing against the LP already. They just need organising. For this coming general election I would like to see Corbyn leading a Peace and Justice standing in all Parliamentary seats. with a wide ranging comprehensive socialist investment oriented alternative. I am sure it would be successful .
Far left? Why use such terminology? Tony Benn never described himself as far left, nor would anyone with any sense. Brecht’s poem “In praise of communism” expressed this well (this translation is by my old friend Jack Mitchell).
It is reasonable. You can grasp it. It’s simple.
You’re no exploiter, so you’ll understand.
It is good for you. Look into it.
Stupid men call it stupid, and the dirty call it dirty.
It is against dirt and against stupidity.
The exploiters call it a crime.
But we know:
It is the end of all crime.
It is not madness but
The end of madness.
It is not chaos,
But order.
It is the simple thing
That’s hard to do.
Nobody gives a toss about the internecine strife generated by the hard left or whether one is loyal to Trotsky, Stalin or Mao (I’m talking about the sectarian bigots of the SWP, AWL etc.). Why talk about the far left when we should be talking about common sense – public ownership of essential services, universal cheap/free childcare, safe streets, peace not war and so on- these are popular notions that are held by the majority of the population, but which have been trashed by the two party duopoly under which people suffer.
This is why the Workers Party 10 point programme is so relatable to the mass of people. It never mentions the words socialism or communism but its implications are clear to anyone who follows them through to their logical conclusion. Otherwise we are in Monty Python territory “the only people I hate more than the Romans are the Popular Front for the liberation of Judea.” (1 of 2)
(2 of 2) Our writer is far too hard on Galloway. George has offered the hand of friendship to Corbyn and pledged to follow him should he choose to lead a new party. He has also pledged to support those independents who have a decent chance of denting Labour hegemony, in Bethnal Green and Bow, Ilford N, Liverpool Garston, Kensington & for the North East mayoralty for example. There are also Green Party candidates worthy of support such as Joe Bird in Wirral. Andrew Feinstein’s candidature in Holborn and St. Pancras will be a beacon to many, as would Claudia Webbe’s in Leicester.
Many people are “social conservatives” (I qualify as that to some extent) and we would do well not to write them off in building a viable coalition; the Workers Party has seen this and sent Reform UK to the scrap heap in Rochdale as a result.
What’s in a name? Quite a lot in my opinion. Casting around my mind I came up with New Jewel, Shining Path and Economic Freedom Fighters as names that eschew the words “socialist” and “party” yet encapsulate optimism and hope for the future (regardless of their programmes, which I don’t necessarily support). SPEW is not such a name!
Any new movement or coalition would do well to keep sectarian micro-sects at arms length (failure to do so was to some degree the death knell for Respect). This is important also because after the next election, should Labour win a sufficient majority and Starmer continue on his current path, there are a number of sitting MPs who may consider crossing the floor and helping to form the rump of a new parliamentary bloc with Galloway and other independents, which will aid further progress at the ballot box.
None of this is sufficient without the day in, day out mobilising/activism at a local level 365 days a year, regardless of election cycles, providing practical comfort to those who suffer most. You may not have much time for Hamas, but this is how they emerged victorious in the 2006 Palestine parliamentary elections.
I’m disappointed to read that believing a complete change in politics is possible is misguided. I believed wholeheartedly in Jeremy Corbyn’s vision and still do. More so after Gaza and Starmer. Also the cynical ignoring of the majority of residents in local elections. The triumphalism of mayors appointed on a 20 per cent turnout because they kept the election quiet on purpose. Hackney’s current mayor didn’t even attend hustings and so avoided difficult questions on council policy and has become a continuity mayor.
Slogans seem to win elections. I think Jeremy Corbyn attempted to explain too much. Most people didn’t listen or didn’t follow his arguments. We felt his integrity though. The challenge is getting that truthfulness and integrity into the fewest words possible. Only speak in quotable quotes so the media cannot mangle the message for their own nefarious ends. Everyone on message and backstabbers eliminated immediately.
Tories out by means of Starmer in means Tories in. We must have a decisive win. And a strong socialist alternative to the current horror.
Edmund Griffiths, is wide of the mark, offering ifs, buts, what-ifs and maybe’s. A comrade has posted about the mood of the electorate and organising at grassroots level. As progressives, we have to focus on specific seats [like Andrew Feinstein is doing]. Collectively, the “left” doesn’t have the financial or human resources to organise mass electoral campaigns. The “Left” must recognise its limitations and fight targeted seats. The key to that is unity: building community support over national and local issues. The Muslim Community, Pro-Palestinians, Socialists, Anti-Zionists and others need to organise their voices as one. Corbyn is history. It’s Socialism and progressive politics which are important. If there isn’t an independent candidate, vote Green. We have relearned from the marches for Palestine: Unity is strength. The left has a fractious history, which is the hand-brake on progress. We have to bury our differences and support candidates like Joe Bird and Andrew Feinstein, amongst others. That’s the only way forward.
A Corbyn, Feinstein, Galloway alliance could be a useful start.
Re – Neil G. I wholeheartedly agree about supporting Jo Bird and Andrew Feinstein. But less that ‘we have to bury our differences’ in order to do so. Being alive to difference is perhaps more strategic and democratic?
For example: When they were at the top of the LP, Corbyn and John McDonnell changed the discourse on austerity, saying it was a political choice not an economic necessity. This was very much in response to Theresa May’s Government. They were answering back to a very different and hugely dominant narrative at the time.
Political differences (even grievous ones) shouldn’t mark the end of a conversation but the start.
For the left to have to quash its plurality in order to make political gains, will surely only build secret resentments? Might not more open discussions and genuine debate – on the socialist merits of a smaller party like the Greens – make for a less fractious response to those who then chose to support Jo Bird?
Re – A Amos.
I wasn’t referencing burying our differences, but more about campaigning together. What’s the point if the Socialist Party, The CPGB, The Socialist Trades Union Alliance, The Workers Party [and others] fight their own limited campaigns, each espousing their virtues as the only true leaders of the working class? For too long, the left has appeared as an academic common room debating society. We can have our differences on tactics, but if the strategy involves effectively challenging those pillars of the establishment [like Starmer and the Labour Party] and the Zionist lobby, we have to unite. I’m not suggesting we dilute our own principles and ideas, but the irony is, before many were expelled or resigned, that’s exactly what we were doing in the Labour Party. We have to unite with the grassroots and with each other. If we decide to support Jo Bird or the Independents in the Wirral, we don’t need pre-conditions about which supporters of other groups we work with to campaign for a particular candidate. I’ve experienced too much sectarianism and factionalism over the decades, and we know it only weakens us and divides us.
At this moment, the most important thing is to break the duopoly. The only hope for the next election is a nationwide swing to independent candidates – and at this stage a unified third-party is not possible or arguably even desirable.
Re – Neil G
A disclaimer. I do not have your obvious campaigning experience but precisely that left-wing, academic background. I’ve closely followed Labour Party politics for years but was only a member for a short time and have no involvement or inside knowledge of the small socialist parties of which you write. Perhaps I misled with my irritable use of ‘we,’ in my first comment, after reading that long piece by Edmund Griffiths. Nevertheless, I meant only to encourage.
In any case, I agree with the gist of what you say. Left-wing sectarianism and factionalism is of paramount concern. If the LP do get in, people could well turn to the far-right in disappointment. Meanwhile it would only frustrate – to see (I’m sure in some cases, needling) political differences on the left play out in a battle over votes come May.
Part of the blame for the eclipse of the Left in the Labour Party lies with those Corbyn supporters who, after Corbyn stood down as leader, chose to drop out of the party rather than remain as a potent presence. Their sheer numerical strength wd have made Starmer think twice about launching such an uncompromising witch-hunt as he did.