ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Two London Branch members went to a meeting of a Lambeth pre-branch of the proposed new party. We were surprised to see that most of the 70 or so others there were of pension age. The main speaker was an ex-Trotskyist who had joined Labour when Corbyn became Labour leader only to be expelled in the purge of Corbyn supporters after he resigned.
In his speech two things were of interest. He said he hoped that the new party would be “anti-capitalist” but would still stay in if it was only a Left party. He also referred to a rival Lambeth pre-branch set up by the SWP. He hoped the two would eventually merge.
If this happens, it promises a struggle for offices between the SWP and Anti-Capitalist Resistance, the Trotsky group active in the pre-branch meeting we went to.
This needs to be entered into the black book of the current Labour government’s record — a change that will make life more worrisome and insecure for a section of the working class here, made just to garner some xenophobic votes:
https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/article/labour-guilty-being-reforms-handmaidens-says-polanski
It looks like the Greens have stolen the new party’s clothes even before it has been founded. The same policies and the same rhetoric.
Since Tuesday “Your Party” is a political party registered with the Electoral Commission under that name. It can change this later. Corbyn is the registered Leader. Some see this as a sinister plot to dish Sultana but there is no provision to register more than one Leader (nor, unfortunately, not to register one at all):
https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP18172
I have to confess that after listening to Hallam’s contribution here he wasn’t as bad — or as mad — as I expected. He is basically defending the idea of selecting by lot the delegates to the founding conference of the new party; which of course is precisely what the group behind the discussion (the Weekly Worker group who have decided to enter the new party) don’t want as it deprives them of the chance to manipulate things so as to get a delegate or two.
At one point Hallam said that “sortition equals socialism” on the grounds that it would increase “working class” representation in parliament to align with their proportion of the total population.
Actually, lot is one way of choosing decision-makers in socialism. After all, we use it to chose the “Leader” that the law says we must appoint to register with the Electoral Commission as a political party.
Apparently Roger Hallam has been let out of jail and is planning to join the new party. I wonder what havoc he will wreak there, given his undemocratic view that, expressed and put into practice when he was in XR and Just Stop Oil (and which got him jailed), that society could be changed by the actions of a mere 3.5% of the population. Or maybe he’s changed his mind on that.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2025/08/what-roger-hallam-learned-in-prison
Report of what Sultana said at a meeting in Sheffield yesterday:
“At a meeting in Sheffield on the evening of September 24, Zarah Sultana said: “Yes of course we must get rid of the monarchy, I am a republican.” Later she stressed that, “the main difference between us and the Greens is that we are a class-based party, we recognise the power of the working class. We identity as a socialist party and proudly so.”
The trouble is that she doesn’t define what she means by socialism. She seems to mean by “socialist” simply a party committed to improving conditions for workers under capitalism rather than one committed to replacing capitalism by socialism. In other words, a reformist party. Which we all know it will be.
You can now join the new party (again). It says you can’t be a member of another political party. So no SWP, SPEW or RCP members allowed in — as if that will stop them.
This is quite a good article about the left and leaders:
The New Party Fallout Shows That Hero-Worship Gets Us Nowhere
Actually that’s all conventional politics is these days and gets headline news as if we’re supposed to be interested.
The split wasn’t even about policy but over who controls the party machine and the money. The matter seems to have been resolved for the time being but our advice of “don’t follow leaders (not even co-leaders)” is confirmed and remains valid.
Here’s the election statement of a candidate supporting the proposed new party in a local election in Leamington yesterday. I’m guessing it will be typical of the views of those who signed up:
https://whocanivotefor.co.uk/person/123083/megan-lucy-clarke
They have split even before they have been formed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgkn3v1e7g3o.amp
Legal advice ! Looks as if it’s going the same way as Respect.
Ed Griffiths seems to be the one who first launched the idea of choosing delegates to the founding conference by lot in this article:
The proposed new party has announced that the delegates to its founding conference will be chosen by “sortition” (lot):
“In an email to supporters, the party said it would open membership applications by the end of September, ahead of the conference two months later.
But it did not give precise dates for the conference, saying only that it would see ‘thousands’ of delegates ‘chosen by lottery to ensure a fair balance of gender, region and background’.”That will dish the Trotskyists and other infiltrators as choosing delegates by lot will reflect a representative cross-section of the membership. As the Trotskyists will only be about 2 percent of the membership the law of averages will give them that only about 40 out if there are 2000 delegates (and of course they would notoriously not be a single bloc).
I don’t know who thought that up but it’s a clever way of dealing with the problem. To give them their due, the party’s organisers seem to be committed to democratic organisation. But of course with most if not all of the members being reformists, a democratic structure will result in the party’s policies being reformist too.
