Whilst I was initially taking aback by the level of support that Your Party attracted, now the dust has settled on the initial launch it is easy to see why. A few months ago, my youngest son came rushing home from his friends house, it was the middle of the day, he told me that a man was drunk and being rude. I pressed him on what was said and I will stay with me forever.
The
friend he was playing with just happened to be of Arabic descent, she
would have be roughly 11 years old at the time along with her younger
sister who I believe would be around 6 years old. Eventually I was able
to get some sense from my son, the man had been shouting at the two
young girls along with their mother in their own front garden, calling
them filthy c*** that should go back to their own country! I rushed
around their without a thought, by the time I had got there though, it
was all over.
Sadly, this story is far from unique, nor is it
new, what is new though, is the frequency that things are happening,
that there are those who feel so emboldened, that its acceptable to hurl
vile abuse at small children, that its acceptable to protest outside
hotels housing asylum seekers to intimidate them, that in my own
community, after reports of children being followed, this quickly turned
into a search for black men out at night. There are people openly
saying, without any sense of compassion, they hope people fleeing
persecution drown in the English channel.
The normalisation of
this behaviour, is in part down to the rise of Reform, but this only
tells part of the story. Reform have risen not in isolation, they have
risen to prominence first under the Conservative government, because
Labour offered no opposition of worth, then further under a Labour
government as they simply acted as a continuation of the tories. Not
only did they continue to implement further austerity, they more
importantly continued the narrative that immigration was the problem and
they would act hard on immigration. A sick and twisted political move
on the part of the Labour right wing, but even if you remove the moral
element out of it, not a particularly good tactical move, if you
acknowledge immigration is the problem and pledge to address it, you
will never do as good a job at addressing it as reform, so they are
asking people to vote reform.
The rise of Reform on the electoral
field, coupled with the demonstrations all over the country with larger
numbers that previously possible, including a demonstration in London
with an estimated 150,000, alongside the general change in attitude in
society, has happened not by accident. This is a direct result of a
vacuum on the political left, Labour do not even nominally hold this
space any longer.
Of course the scapegoating of migrants and the
associated racism are not the only factors which explain the immediate
support for Your Party. One of the first acts of the Labour government
was to go after the most vulnerable and attack disability benefits, Food
banks were normalised in the sixth richest country in the world under
the decade and a half that the conservatives were in power but continue
to be equally necessary under Labour, austerity continues unabated, the
world is watching on with a televised genocide in Gaza, and the Labour
government is not only complicit but has criminalised those protesting
against this and we are sleepwalking into an irreversible climate
catastrophe.
So in retrospect, I can see why I was wrong and Your
Party attracted the numbers it did. Not only that there is huge
enthusiasm from a huge variety of people, those who have been in labour
at one time or another, those from disparate left groups, those
completely unaligned like myself, and those who are entirely new to
politics in anyway. With local groups springing up organically all over
the country.
They honeymoon didn't last long at all and it seemed
that it had all come crashing down, though in the days that have
followed it looks like things are somewhat back on track, but this is
where I think I diverge from the dominant opinion, or at least the
opinion of what appears to be the loudest voices.
The dominant view of all onlookers appears to be either 'they just need to get along' or 'they are both as bad as each other' or some combination of those views. This take on events is understandable to a certain degree, the left does have a very deserved reputation of splitting over meaningless things, however disputes are not always meaningless, and I don't think this one is either.
Whilst neither side at the top of Your Party
has acted well in the last few days and for that both the Sultana and
Corbyn camps should be held to account. Its important to also look
beyond the immediate actions that took place and what was the motivation
behind their actions.
A bit of background is required to
explain this, I don't think a Your Party without Corbyn would have been
possible, he retains is mass appeal and support from a huge section of
society from his time as Labour leader, it was a freak accident that he
was able to become leader, Nevertheless Corbyn was a breath of fresh
air, a principled fighter for ordinary people, one of the very few
opposition voices all throughout the New Labour years. Many joined or
rejoined Labour during his leadership, he was able to hold a mass
audience that no other politician could. He gained a higher real vote
than labour leaders either side of him as a result, but it also went so
badly. That was largely down to Corbyn's own weakness, despite his
steadfast commitment, he does not like to rock the boat, he was
unwilling to combat his critics, backed down on mandatory re-selection,
which could have transformed Labour for the better, he was ineffective
at best in combating the slurs of antisemitism. In short he was (and
is) just too meek and mild mannered.
That analysis of Corbyn is
important, because it takes us to where we are currently. There is a lot
that I like most people, do not know the details of, but it appears
that discussions for a new party have been going on behind the scenes
for quite some time, to the point for a lot of people, including myself,
the eventual announcement of a new party, was no longer a surprise as so
much had happened leading up to it. However it does seem like a distant
memory now, but the announcement of Your Party was sped up by leaked
announcements for Zarah Sultana.
This was also the main feature
of the latest spat, Zarah Sultana and those in her immediate circle
acted to roll out the membership structures immediately, Corbyn's camp
seemed hesitant to hand over the reigns before so much was sown up, this
is where the meek and mild Corbyn, comes into his worst, because it
appears he is prioritising an alliance with the MP's of the Independant Alliance, ahead of a member led party, scandalous in reality, not
simply for the democratic reasons, but also many of those MP's are not
really that left hence the problems.
What followed was farcical,
Corbyn's camp reported a data breech, and Sultana responded with legal
threats, both sides acted reprehensibly in this instance, neither came
out looking even reasonable, and both should withdraw their respect
complaints immediately. At the time of writing Sultana has announced she
will no longer be pursing legal action, I am unable to verify if Corbyn
has done the same.
Zarah's Sultana's immediate reaction to
pursue a legal route to resolve this in my view, shows a huge political
weakness on her part, it is good to see she has now been talked down
from this avenue. Whilst both sides acted appallingly, I do not think it
right to equate these as equally bad. Sultana was attempting to open up
the party to the membership, has since signed and shared a position
which argues from just that. Corbyn was trying to slow this process
down. So when we we look at the issues at hand and put aside the methods
being used, Zarah was right all along.
For many the dispute at the top came as a complete surprise, but for many others, disputes like this were obvious, even if the methods utilised were not anticipated. Some have been put off from being involved in Your Party as a result, though from what I can see, that seems largely to be those on the periphery who are likely to return in the future, those who have begun to organise in the proto-groups have largely carried on, though now with a greater understanding on the need to take ownership of the fledgling party, to engage in the debates, to shape the party now.
For me, whilst not in ideal circumstances, the events that took place have resulted in a net positive effect, it has brought the differences out into the open to varying degrees, it has shown the need for a member led party and increased the view that we should engage in the ideas that will shape the type of organisation we build. I was recently at a local Your Party meeting we a very prominent participant stated "There is more that unites us than divides as and we shouldn't focus on what divides us" Now whilst it is certainly true there is more that unites us ideologically than that which divides us, but it is precisely because of the events that happened subsequently, that at times we do need to discuss what we disagree on.
We have a chance now though, to create a culture where it is perfectly valid and acceptable to disagree, let's normalise this, Create a culture of discussion, debate & disagreement, as this will help us build a mass party of struggle.
Should we all just get along? Absolutely not, let's discuss and debate our differences openly, only this approach will allow us to build a mass party of struggle to combat, racism, austerity, genocide and climate catastrophe. We should co-exist, getting along is desirable but not necessary. Though of course there are some political lines in the sand so to speak. Pretending we do not have differences or those differences are meaningless will in reality be crippling, it will stop of building a party of resistance and we will not be successful, but as Zarah Sultana and Jeremy Corbyn both said - There is no other choice.
