While the urge to quit the party may be understandable for some on the left, now is not the time to abandon ship, says JOHN CUNNISON. Here he makes the case for holding firm and casts a critical eye over the ‘progressive’ alternatives.
For many members on the centre and left of the Labour Party, the temptation to leave has rarely felt stronger. I understand it. After years of disappointment, crossed red lines, and a leadership that too often appears indifferent – or hostile – to the party’s traditions and values, walking away can feel like an act of self-preservation.
For some comrades, particularly those protecting their mental health, leaving is entirely understandable. But with at least two years until the next general election, and a possible leadership contest, now is not the time for the left to abandon ship.
It is easy to despair at the travails of the current Labour government with its narrow focus and central control, its seemingly unshakable habit of making dreadful mistakes, and its lack of a strong vision of the future let alone a clear programme for how to get there.
But let’s put things in context.
Thatcherism came to a shuddering halt and crashed in 2008 along with its neoliberal dogma. The Blairite third way, which had dominated Labour thinking, also expired with the financial crisis.
All that is left, it often seems, is the bland, ingrained orthodoxy of the conservative and liberal establishments. Without new ideas, it’s easy to think Keir Starmer’s Labour has merely ushered in a new phase of austerity dosed with the occasional performative cruelty of blaming the unemployed, the disabled, the vulnerable and refugees.
It’s tempting to throw our hands up and walk away, to find a new political home, but it’s now, more than ever, that the left needs to take the lead in developing that strong vision, not just a plan for government but a programme to move society in a progressive direction towards something we might describe as socialism.
In the ILP’s view, for any such left programme to have any purchase or chance of success it needs to work through a broad-based social democratic party. To quote the ILP’s statement, ‘Our Politics’: “In Britain, that means we have to engage with the Labour Party… This view isn’t dependent on who is party leader at any given time but is based on our assessment of how radical change can be promoted in a British political context. It is why the ILP rejoined the Labour Party (as Independent Labour Publications) in 1975.”
Broad church
In a nutshell, Labour has been, for more than a century, the most successful and enduring coalition on the left in Britain. It is unique in its historic and structural relationship with the trade union movement. It was founded as – and should again become – the political wing of organised labour.
It is only our party, with its broad church and diverse streams of thought – from Marxian to social democratic – that can develop and implement a programme to deliver radical social change.
The left’s job is to push it towards accepting and adopting such a programme. That will not happen if the left walks away. It took many decades for the party to take shape and actively influence national change. It is this sort of timescale that should be borne in mind when you start to think the grass is greener somewhere else. It rarely is.
Take the Liberal Democrats. Some progressives drift towards the Lib Dems, especially those who define themselves more by social liberalism than socialism. But in reality, the Lib Dems are not a progressive party in any meaningful structural sense.
In the north, they often function as a softer version of Labour; in the south, as gentler Conservatives. Opportunism, rather than principle, is their defining feature.
They are an unrepentantly capitalist party with a progressive gloss, one that disappears the moment power is within reach. Their coalition with the Conservatives in 2010 and enthusiastic participation in austerity should have settled the question. When principles become inconvenient, they are swiftly discarded.
Then there’s the Greens who have undoubtedly changed in recent years, particularly with their new influx of socialists. Even so, they remain, at best, a social democratic party with deep internal contradictions. When theory meets practice, the results have often been disappointing – their time running Brighton council is a frequently cited example, while their experience in coalition with the SNP in Scotland should bring pause for thought.
Before their recent growth, the Greens resembled the Liberal Democrats in being effectively two parties: left-leaning in some places, distinctly conservative in others. Environmentalism alone is not a guarantee of socialism; even parts of the right accept the need to tackle climate change and environmental threats.
Leaving Labour for the Greens plays directly into the hands of those on the Labour right who would prefer the left to disappear entirely. While figures such as Jamie Driscoll may be electable under a Green banner, it is worth remembering that one does not need to join the Green Party to vote for a green candidate.
Factional war
Your Party may be the one genuinely national party explicitly committed to socialism but it is currently paralysed by an unresolved factional war. It is unclear whether it will emerge as a Corbyn-style Labour Mark II or as a broader, radical republican movement with collective leadership involving figures such as Zarah Sultana.
There seems to be a real risk of further splits if one faction cannot accept another. It remains a distinctly uncertain vehicle for change.
In Wales, Plaid Cymru is an explicitly socialist party and may well form part of a Welsh government in the near future. But it is not an option outside Wales, nor is it rooted in the trade union movement in the way Labour is. While it has made local gains, it remains untested at assembly level.
The SNP, meanwhile, is a nationalist party wearing social democratic clothing. That they remain more popular in Scotland than Labour – despite serious failures in areas such as education and homelessness – says more about Labour’s current state under Starmer and Anas Sarwar than it does about the SNP’s success.
Both Plaid and the SNP prioritise nationalism over internationalism and appear willing to repeat the mistakes of Brexit by tearing their nations out of a larger political and economic union, with predictable consequences for working people.
Of course, there are no shortage of small parties on the left: TUSC, Transform, Breakthrough, the Socialist Party, various Communist Parties, the SWP, and others. Most share broadly similar programmes and occasionally stand candidates in local elections. The more revolutionary among them tend towards sectarianism, regarding themselves as the vanguard and refusing meaningful cooperation.
While such parties can provide ideological comfort and like-minded comrades, their real-world influence is minimal. They produce unrealistic manifestos read by few and achieve little beyond internal debate and, often, splinter groups.
For some, the final option is simply to disengage from politics altogether. This leads, more often than not, to frustration and irrelevance: shouting at the television; reminiscing about past struggles; having no meaningful say in policy, candidates, or direction. Outside organised politics, most people’s political influence is largely reduced to casting a vote every few years and writing the occasional letter to an MP.
So, by all means, step back. Reduce your activity, pay your subs, skip meetings if you need to, protect your energy. But stay in the Labour fold. The point of joining the Labour is never to sit comfortably on the sidelines; it’s to be on the playing field.
—-
John Cunnison is a member of the area activists’ committee of Unite the Union and currently vice president of North Staffordshire Trades Council.
See also: ‘Labour’s Internal Divides’ by John Cunnison.
