"There is no other choice" means so much more

 

I suppose this article is a sequel to this article, but it can be read as a standalone piece too. 

The dust has now settled on the events of the last couple of weeks at the top of Your Party we saw a public separation between Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana and we also so there reconcile in public as well. Though when I say reconcile, I would say it was more akin when siblings mid argument are made to apologise by their parents, nothing was resolved and one person got their way despite peace being declared.

It was left solely to Zarah Sultana to hold out the olive branch, in fact all reports suggest that Corbyn's camp was unwilling to talk. It begs the question why did this situation arise in the first place?

In my previous article I mentioned how Your Party could not have been launched with the support Corbyn gained over his time as Labour leader, whilst this is true, had he launched a party with the Independent alliance MP's and not Sultana, would it have had the immediately popularity it did? Absolutely not, in reality both figures needed each other to drive the initial call. Without each other the call would have been hollow. 

The understanding that neither could launch without the other is key to understanding what took place next, it also justifies the drive by Sultana to open up the membership with speed. What she did next though was of course a huge tactical blunder! Despite attempts a peace talks, when the membership was eventually rolled out for the second time, it was done in such a farcical manner, no mention at first of those who joined the first time round like myself. Then a ban on members of a political party, then changed to members of a national political party, both wrong moves, both without a mandate and both without any clear definition.

I still have no real idea of my membership status, I think I am a member, but am I? and even if all the data is transferred offered? When does this exclude me from anything between now and then? The details are non existent.

Then we come to the details of the parties formation, firstly four policy documents should be produced and circulated. To members, am I one? or to everyone who signed up? At the time of writing with only a few hours left in September I haven't received them. These documents will be discussed and regional assemblies, where amendments can be proposed and they will go to conference.

Under normal circumstances a conference would be the place to debate out policy in a democratic manner, don't get me wrong, there are different types of conference, some more democratic than another. But the proposal for this conference is far from democratic, there is very little anyone could say to argue that it is. 

There will be 13,000 delegate spread across two days, meaning each delegate gets to attend one day, Whilst the agenda has not yet been announced, You can assume accounting for breaks the conference is likely to run for a maximum of seven hours per day. Being extremely generous and assuming there is no speeches from the platform, no conference organising announcements, no votes to count etc. This would give each delegate 4.2 seconds each to speak. A conference of that size over that time space would always be a farcical event, a rubber stamp exercise with no intention of discussing the details, no minor details, but every important details of how the party will live and breath.

That's before we even begin to talk of the method of election for conference. Sortition is a sham! It has the veneer of being a quirky and democratic process akin to jury service selection, it is however nothing of the sort. If you were to take a random 13,000 people from 800,000 though adjusting for geography, gender, ethnicity and age what do you loose? You loose all of the collective discussions from the proto branches of Your Party, indeed its statistically possible for not a single person who has been involved in the proto-branches to be elected a delegate this way, rendering everything done so far meaningless. It means those connected to grassroots struggle, in community campaigns, in trade unions, environmental campaign's and those organising against genocide, are less likely to be delegates. It means branches cannot collectively agree on delegates who best represent their views. It means democracy is a word and not an aspiration.

It shows the real intention at the top, from Corbyn's side along with the Independent Alliance, the intention is not a member led democratic party and the conference, framed as democratic is there to rubber stamp what is presented.

Various groupings have arisen in some form or another to demand democracy is brought to the fore, the overwhelming majority of these are genuine, a real coming together of these forces is essential going forward, but are all calls for democracy genuine?

No, is the answer to that. In Wales for example, the unofficial leadership have positioned themselves as the bringers of democracy, they place demands on the UK leadership that everyone wants, to release the membership data, and general calls for a member led democratic party, but these calls are hollow because behind the words there is no action.

What role have the unofficial Welsh leadership of Your Party actually played when you strip back the nice words spoken? Took me awhile to think what to write for this section, I felt though the need to expand beyond 'nothing' They have organised an All Wales meeting for the 25th October, the details announced are vague though, its not a conference, but its more than a rally is what we have been told. The reality though, is this is one of the regional assemblies that have been organised, so the reality is, the meeting they organised, what agreed at UK level and they have simply carried out the bare minimum of democracy possible. With again very little information of how it will be formatted, discussing the four documents produced would be thoroughly insufficient, it also needs to deal with the organisational structure for a nation.

Though beyond what has been announced from the unofficial Welsh leadership, more importantly is what they have not done, there is no prospect, certainly from anything I have heard, of electing a leadership, even a temporary one which should be favoured until we have build up official structures, yet without any democratic accountability, they demand all membership data and resources are handed over to them? They may walk the walk, but they show no evidence of being able to talk at all.

Its clear from my interactions in person and online, that whilst there is a general theme, we have all joined Your Party for different reasons, we are not going to get everything we want, but without democracy we will get nothing, so we must demand, demand and demand again.

We should also be sceptical, sceptical of those who say nothing, or those who come forth with hollow words of democracy, but their are no democratic actions to follow.

Despite all of this, which is less than delightful, Zarah Sultana was absolutely right, there is no other choice, the rise of reform, 150,000 far right marchers on the streets, rising austerity and an ongoing genocide means there simply is no choice, we have to build a radical socialist fightback, but that can't happen without a democratic party build from the ground up.

We have no other choice but to organise within Your Party and fight against the erosion of democracy it has even begun, demanded and every stage democratic participation and all those committed to building a genuine democratic party need to work together and confront any barriers that exist to this at every level. There is no other choice.

Oh Jessica, Goodbye

 I have known Jessica for over 15 years. I am not sure if I am qualified to write this. Normally there are two types of obituaries, those written about famous people from any walk of life, anyone can write those. |Then there are those written about ordinary people, but you have to be really close to write those don't you? In that I feel inadequate. So I will write it, but who will read it? Does that matter, not really...

There were times that we were really close and would talk every single day, but there were equally times that we would not speak for long periods of time, even a year, it was never that we fell out, we just didn't pick the conversation back up, but each time we spoke we carried on again like there hadn't been a gap.

Jessica led a difficult life,, born into a world that did not understand her, and she struggled to understand herself, she struggled often with self destruction, there were times she pleaded with me to put bets on, after banning herself from registering on gambling sites, I know i definitely wasn't the only way. Mentally she had a way of convincing me it was a good idea, though i never could bring myself to enabling it.

 One of the ways in which she was self destructive, was that she was an arsehole to people around her, it's not the done thing, to say in an obituary, we sugarcoat people in death, I understand why. I don't understand why. Being an arsehole, was legitimately a part of who she was, sometimes justified, sometimes not, sometimes entertaining.

 A big part of Jessica's identity was that she was a trans woman, something she struggled with herself, not that she was ever in denial, but she struggled with both her sexuality and gender identity more because she didn't always fit in neat boxes. After writing the last sentence I felt of deleting, but then I remained one one occasion someone asking her about her gender identity at the time, the response she gave was "Oh, I don't fucking know" That was the Jessica I knew.

Her difficulties, with her sexuality, gender identity and the addictions all played a part in forming the Jessica you will likely hear of in an other obituary. She was kind compassionate, trebled amd every injustice and would not take any prisoners, sometimes clinical, sometimes knee jerk but always complete and often at her own expense.

She had become more than comfortable with the person she had become, but always craved acceptance from others, her family and her political allies, and when she didn't get it, she tried to hide it, not always successfully.

We spoke about so many different things at length, but not all the time, in fact it been 10 months since we last spoke and I found of your passing as I was about to message you. I wanted to ask you as a trans woman, how to approach trans rights in your party, you would understand the importance of both, I regret that conversation we never had.

We had other conversations about trans rights and the left, I always felt inadequate in those discussions, how could I have anything of worth to add both to your lived experience and your meticulous research? Though i will fondly remember the laughter I gave you when I coined the phrase "transphobia is the last refuge of the bigot" something you enjoyed. 

Is this the definitive truth of your life? No, probably not, but it is how I knew you.

Like so many in the trans community, you life ended way sooner than it should have, the irony being is you are the one I would have asked for the stats on that. 

Trans lives matter, but this one a little more, Rest in Power (with sparkles)

Your Party - Should we all just get along?

The announcement of the formation of Your Party on the 24th July was met with a huge rush of support, a rush of support that far outweighed the expectations of a lot of people including myself. Like many I signed up almost as soon as I heard the announcement. As it currently stands between 750,000-800,000 people have signed up to the mailing list. It would be ridiculous for anyone to suggest that all who signed up here will join officially, however what is clear when it is formally launched it will be a sizeable political force.

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.