Editorial: Your Party – the egos have landed

The worst feature of the public spat between the two ‘co-leaders’ of the new party of the left (‘Your Party’) is the fact that a handful of egos have dashed the hopes of tens of thousands of genuine socialists and activists who were expecting something better. More than 800,000 signed up to express an interest in the formation of the new party and tens of thousands have attended meetings in towns and cities up and down the country.

As we described in our recent editorial, there has always been a mis-match between the energy and enthusiasm at grassroots level and the apparent intertia at the top. But less than week after that editorial was posted, the gap between top and bottom became a yawning gulf.

It has always been apparent that there are different views at the top about what kind of party was desired, but it is really astonishing and, we might add, something of a disgrace, that different organising groups seem to be working against one another, and all behind closed doors, away from the gaze of their would-be members. It is an approach to party building that we would expect from the right wing of the labour movement, but certainly not from the left. (Some of the grimmer details of all the intrigue can be found here).

It has been clear all along that there are some who want a more or less ‘proper’ political party, with members and branches electing delegates to a national conference. The view of this group is that the members would decide on the party name, on its policies and elect its leadership.

But there is another trend of opinion that is looking for a broader and very loose ‘umbrella’ of left, or ‘semi-left’ groups, in a sort of federal arrangement. Presumably, that arrangement would still require there to be some kind of national ‘badge’ or identifier – at least a name for a national party.

Debates over policy and programme

There is another important division, although the two sides of this argument do not necessarily correspond to the two sides of the debate over organisational structure. It is over the most important issue of all…policy. One group favours a politically loose association, which means that under the guise of “inclusivity”, it would effectively incorporate some of those who are opposed to Starmer’s Labour Party from more of a liberal than a socialist standpoint. They do not want the new party to be overtly socialist or even aligned with the working class.

Most left activists, however, believe the party should be explicitly socialist, with a programme and policy that is anti-capitalist. This group would take the 2017 and 2019 Labour manifestos, under Corbyn, as their starting point.

For the record, those supporters of Left Horizons who have been expelled or left the Labour Party, and who are involved in helping to organise local meetings of Your Party, are in favour of a party with branches and delegates elected to a conference. They also would argue for socialist policies to tackle the issues that face working class people: the lack of affordable housing, the collapse of public services and the NHS and the failure of pay to keep up wih the costs of living, and so on.

A recent article in the Guardian explained that since their privatisation, public utilities and services have channelled over £200bn from what would have been public money into the bank accounts of private companies. It should be elementary that a new party of the left would seek to reverse that transfer of money, not by only taxing wealth, but by expropriating the utilities and services handed over at knockdown prices by Thatcher several decades ago.

Sultana: frozen out of decisions by “a sexist boys’ club”

The current spat was sparked by the invitation sent out by email by Zarah Sultana for activists to join the new party and pay a subscription. As many as 20,000 may have done so almost immediately. There was a very quick response Jeremy Corbyn and four other independent MPs, describing Sultana’s email as “unauthorised” and saying that legal advice was being taken. “If any direct debits have been set up”, it said, “they should be immediately cancelled”.

Zara Sultana responded with a second email, explaining the rationale for her first and alleging that she was being frozen out of decision-making at the top. “I have been subjected”, she wrote, “to what can only be described as a sexist boys’ club.”

The immediate impact of this public row has been dismay and disappointment among the tens of thousands of supporters of the new party. It is appalling that a handful of egos have been able to dash the hopes and aspirations of so many good socialists who have put in so much work to organise local meetings and rallies to build for the new party.

As we expected, as a result of the falling out at the tops of Your Party there was a surge of new members joining the Greens. The latter may now be seen by many as a more viable alternative, especially since the election of a left-winger, Zack Polasnski, as leader.

It is clear that no new party can be built as long as there are two irreconcilable factions, one apparently controlling the database of possible members, and the other controlling the bank account, both jealously guarding their separate degrees of influence and control. Although Zarah Sultana, has again reached out to the Corbyn camp in an attempt to bridge the divide, there is no certainty that that can succeed in the long run.

Corbyn’s reputation is tarnished more than Sultana’s

What will happen now? No one can be sure, but the political authority of the two main MPs involved – ‘co-leaders’ Sultana and Corbyn – have both been damaged. Zarah Sultana has been impatient and not very tactically adroit in calling on supporters to sign up as members (and pay subs), when she must have been aware that this had not been authorised by the Corbyn team.

But at least she is trying to move things along. It is Jeremy Corbyn whose reputation and stature will be the most tarnished by these shenanigans. He seems to put too much faith in his small parliamentary group of ‘independent’ MPs, who were elected on the basis of supporting Gaza, but who on most social issues, like women’s rights, LBGT and trans rights, are often on the right. On the other hand, he allows the side-lining of Sultana, who as an MP has a track record which few can match as an outspoken voice of the left.

When Corbyn was Leader of the Opposition, he was always far too ready to appease his critics on the right – over antisemitism, Brext and Open Selection, for example – and, once again, he has been shown to be weak. He seems unwilling to disregard the advice of some of those around him whose destructive manoeuvring could undermine the whole project.

The latest news is that it seems a conference will go ahead in November and that some form of compromise, or at least a ‘truce’ has been agreed. According to the report in the Guardian, the two co-leaders “believe this second more low-profile, low-stakes membership launch will help the movement move on from the party’s chaotic start”. It is not at all reassuring to learn that membership will be “low-stakes” or “low profile”. Does that mean they will be unable to elect delegates or decide policy? We shall see.

As Left Horizons argued in the last editorial, the “surge of activity around Your Party has brought many local activists into direct contact with each other, it is a hugely positive development and something to be welcomed”.  One can only hope that these activists are not demoralised by the antics at the top of the incipient party, and that they continue to meet, to organise and to campaign in their locality until such time as the wrangles at the top come to an end.