Tag: labour-party

An Opportunity Squandered: Why Your Party Failed

~ freerein61 ~ Leave a comment

History seldom provides the left with clear moments. Usually, it appears as a haze filled with contradictions, crises, and uncertain possibilities. However, occasionally, these contradictions become clearer, the fog clears, and a political opportunity emerges—short-lived, obvious, and highly promising. The launch of Your Party was one such occasion.

It appeared after the Corbyn movement was dismantled, during a period when millions of workers, young people, and politically aware individuals were looking for a way to oppose the worsening brutality of British capitalism. The Starmer leadership had turned Labour into a party aligned with the state, security forces, and corporate interests. As a result, the working class found itself without a political home.

Your Party emerged into this vacuum, earning an enthusiastic response: within days, hundreds of thousands expressed interest. This strong reaction was not media exaggeration but a real sign of political radicalisation, indicating that the working class was ready to move away from Labourism and explore new avenues. However, Your Party’s leadership was unprepared for the moment; in fact, they feared it. They were afraid of the working class, of mass participation, and of the consequences of their rhetoric. As a result, they missed the opportunity.

The Labourist Reflex: Bureaucracy as Instinct

Your Party’s tragedy lies in being undermined not by outside foes, but by internally reproduced Labourist habits. The leadership group—self-selected, unaccountable, and cautious—acted from the beginning more like minor officials of a parliamentary system than rebels striving to create a new movement. Their natural inclinations were bureaucratic rather than revolutionary.

They built a party structure aimed at shielding the leadership from the members rather than empowering them. Decisions were taken in private WhatsApp groups, and policies were developed through secret discussions with advisers and consultants. The membership was viewed not as the party’s ultimate authority but as a possible challenge to the leadership’s dominance.

This bureaucratic instinct resulted in several harmful actions: decision-making that was opaque and secretive, factional tactics such as leaking information to adversarial media, pre-emptive expulsions of socialists before democratic structures were in place, legal threats targeting internal critics as a distorted form of “new politics,” and a refusal to develop democratic processes, which left members feeling powerless and confused.

These actions were deliberate, revealing a leadership with a limited political outlook centred on Westminster. They feared popular involvement because they feared the working class. Your Party was effectively doomed at birth because its leaders feared the very force that could have invigorated it.

The Sabotage of the Rank and File

The strongest criticism of Your Party’s leadership is that they never focused on building a party. Instead, they aimed to create a brand. Local branches emerged spontaneously across the country. Volunteers arranged meetings, designed leaflets, and tried to establish local structures on their own—without guidance, resources, or support from the leadership. Rather than assistance, they faced silence, obstruction, and disdain.

The leadership declined to supply funds, materials, organisational guidance, political education, or democratic mechanisms. Branches disintegrated, activists lost interest, and initial enthusiasm vanished. What once could have mobilised tens of thousands turned into a hollow entity, unable to contest elections or influence political discourse. This was not mere incompetence but deliberate political sabotage.

The leadership was concerned that a strong grassroots organisation could threaten their authority. They worried that an informed membership might seek clarity, accountability, and a departure from Labourism. They feared the party could evolve into something beyond their control. Consequently, they deprived it of resources.

The Ideological Vacuum: A Party Without a Programme

Your Party never clearly defined its main purpose: What is the party meant to achieve? Two opposing visions coexist uneasily. One, the Grassroots Socialist Current—anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, rooted in working-class struggles—sought to build a large movement capable of challenging the state and breaking definitively from Labourism. It saw capitalism’s crises as requiring a revolutionary response. The other, the Parliamentary Moralist faction—centred around the Peace and Justice group—favoured a modest, respectable NGO-style organisation, more of a pressure group than a political party, emphasising morality over strategy. They believed politics was mainly about tone, civility, and moral influence, not class struggle. The leadership’s inability to choose between these visions left the organisation paralysed. Instead of defining a clear program, Your Party drifted into empty slogans, identity-politics moralism, and electoral fantasies. A party without a clear program is not truly a party; it is merely a logo.

The Collapse: A Predictable Catastrophe

The results were immediate and catastrophic: polling showed 0% support. Membership remained stagnant at a small fraction of the original sign-ups. The party’s public credibility was shattered. Internal conflicts became its only visible activity. Leaders attributed this to “media hostility” and “growing pains,” but in truth, they engineered the movement’s suppression, fearing its potential for genuine change. The party’s collapse stemmed from leaders’ inability to envision politics beyond limited parliamentary reform.

Your Party’s failure is part of a long, tragic pattern: after 1932, the ILP; post-1956, the CPGB; the Bennite movement; Respect; Left Unity; Momentum; and now Your Party. Every effort to establish a left alternative within the limits of parliamentary reformism collapses due to internal contradictions. The Labour left does not serve as a vessel for socialist politics; it acts as a graveyard for such aspirations. The clear lesson is that the working class cannot be truly emancipated through organisations that fear its power.

The Verdict: A Failure of Nerve, Vision, and Class Politics

Your Party’s failure stemmed from its leadership’s refusal to depart from Labourism. They perpetuated the bureaucratic culture, factionalism, timidity, and disdain for the rank and file that have long characterised the Labour left. The opportunity was genuine, and the moment was historic, but the failure was self-inflicted. Your Party could have been a powerful tool for the working class; instead, it became a symbol of political cowardice. Its decline is not only organisational but also ideological, showing that the Labour left cannot and will not forge a socialist alternative. The challenge remains: to build a party rooted in the working class, unwavering in its principles, ready to confront the capitalist state fearlessly. Your Party was not that; the next must be.

The Right Wing Counter Revolution Is Advancing — And Labour Is One of Its Engines

~ freerein61 ~ Leave a comment

Andy Beckett’s recent article in The Guardian highlights the political crisis facing Britain’s liberal intellectuals. It describes the growth of a reactionary movement opposed to immigration and equality, but fails to explain why it emerged or how to combat it. The article is a lament from a social class that has lost direction, still holding onto outdated beliefs about a political system that is no longer relevant.[1]

Beckett’s depiction of a “right-wing counter-revolution” actually reflects a capitalist system in deep crisis. However, since he refuses to recognise the class roots of this crisis, he replaces analytical understanding with moral outrage. The article considers the rise of the right wing primarily as a cultural anomaly rather than a class problem. Beckett explains that opposition from Reform UK, the Conservatives under Badenoch, and far-right street groups is driven by resistance to “multiculturalism” and “equality.” He references Nigel Farage’s claim that “anti-whiteness is institutionalised into every aspect of public life’ and notes the Conservatives’ pledge to abolish the public sector equality duty.

He sees these shifts as the result of bad ideas spreading or a small elite manipulating public discourse. This is a common misconception among liberals. The growth of the far right is not mainly due to “culture wars.” Instead, it’s fuelled by years of austerity that have impoverished millions, caused real wages to fall, hollowed out public services, intensified imperialist conflicts, and a political elite—Labour included—that fails to provide progressive solutions to the capitalist crisis.

Under these conditions, the ruling class resorts to authoritarianism, nationalism, and xenophobia to redirect social unrest away from itself. The far right is not an external menace but a weapon used by the political establishment. Beckett cannot recognise this because doing so would amount to criticising the entire political system he endorses.

When addressing Becket’s assertion, it’s important to see that Labour isn’t ignoring the right; instead, it’s actively backing it. Becket portrays Labour under Keir Starmer as hesitant, misguided, or excessively cautious. He claims that Labour’s sporadic opposition and overall appeasement have been ineffective, and points out that the party has shown Union flags and adopted stricter immigration policies.

This is a significant distortion. Labour isn’t merely trying to appease the right; it is actively part of the right-wing agenda. Starmer has adopted nationalism and militarism, promised to strengthen borders, supported austerity measures, endorsed the government’s foreign policies—including its alignment with US militarism—and has overseen crackdowns on protests and dissent. Labour even considers reactionary grievances, such as the false notion of a surge in immigration, as legitimate. This isn’t just a strategic mistake—it reflects the party’s fundamental political stance.

Labour’s purpose is to diminish left-wing ideas among the working class and direct dissatisfaction into safe, nationalist, pro-capitalist outlets. The far right advances because Labour has disconnected from the working class. Beckett cannot admit this, as it would mean recognising that Labour is not a defender against reaction but one of its creators.

Beckett’s suggested approach is to revive the spirit of Ken Livingstone’s Greater London Council (1981–86) and imitate Sadiq Khan’s rhetorical stance on diversity. His nostalgia for the GLC and Khan reflects a liberal fantasy and leans toward political escapism. The GLC’s campaigns—like the poster stating “Black people do not cause slums… They are forced to live in them”—were rhetorically striking but primarily focused on municipal reform. They did not challenge the underlying capitalist property relations. Thatcher’s swift abolition of the GLC was because it posed no real threat to the ruling class. Livingstone himself later became a loyal Labour figure, presiding over a London transformed into a playground for finance capital.

Today, Khan’s London stands as one of the most unequal cities globally. While he lauds diversity, the city is primarily driven by global finance, leading to the displacement of working-class areas, the demolition of public housing, and rising social inequality. Reform UK’s poor performance in London does not signify Khan’s success; rather, it highlights the city’s social stratification—its professional-managerial class is deeply connected to global capitalism and shows limited concern for Farage’s economic nationalism. Beckett’s narrow view of London reflects a liberal middle-class perspective that mistakes its social reality for a political strategy.

Certainly, the so-called “right-wing counter-revolution” exists, but Beckett misidentifies what it targets. He cautions that the backlash “rarely stops,” which is true. However, he misunderstands what is being reversed. The actual counter-revolution isn’t directed at “multiculturalism” or the 2010 Equality Act. Instead, it opposes the social advancements achieved by the working class after the war, including the NHS, social housing, free education, secure jobs, trade union rights, and the welfare state.

Both Conservative and Labour administrations have consistently eroded these advances. The Equality Act, lauded by Beckett as a major achievement, was enacted under a Labour government that also engaged in imperialist wars and broadened surveillance. The liberal emphasis on “diversity” masks the underlying class issues: the working class—regardless of ethnicity—is being pushed into poverty, instability, and political exclusion.

Britain is not facing a sudden “backlash” against equality or multiculturalism. Instead, it is experiencing the deliberate creation of reaction by a ruling class that has exhausted all democratic and reformist options for addressing the capitalist crisis. The far right is not an outsider insurgent threatening the political system; rather, it is a distorted mirror of the establishment, created to divert public anger away from the true causes of social suffering.

For over ten years, since the Brexit referendum exposed the contradictions within British capitalism, the political elite has increasingly turned to nationalism, xenophobia, and authoritarian measures. Reform UK, the Conservative right, the billionaire media, and various online reactionaries are not separate entities. They serve as the ideological fighters for a system that no longer maintains power through consent.

Nigel Farage’s claim that Britain is a “two-tier state against white people” goes beyond fringe rhetoric and illustrates a wider political strategy: directing anger over declining living standards, overburdened public services, and ongoing conflicts towards minority groups like immigrants, Muslims, and the idea of “wokeness.” The Conservatives’ plans to abolish even the modest public sector equality duty support this approach. Overall, the ruling elite is systematically removing legal and ideological barriers to openly adopt racialised nationalism as official policy.

The small number of Britons holding these opinions is not important. Historically, reactionary minorities have often influenced a fearful bourgeoisie, supported by the media, and they dominate the national debate. Meanwhile, the liberal middle class becomes passive, and the working class faces political marginalisation.

The liberal perspective argues that Labour under Keir Starmer is too timid, too cautious, and excessively eager to appease the right. However, this is a comforting illusion. Labour’s embrace of Union-flag nationalism, tough immigration policies, condemnations of protests, and its proximity to the security forces are not just mistakes but fundamental elements of the party’s identity.

Labour functions as the party representing the interests of the capitalist state. Its main purpose is to quash left-wing movements within the working class and channel social discontent into socially acceptable channels, such as nationalism and pro-imperialist policies. Starmer’s emphasis on “strong borders” and “restoring order” isn’t a right-wing concession but rather the core ideological basis of his administration. This leads to a foreseeable outcome: socially conservative voters, who favour genuine right-wing nationalism, dislike Labour, and liberals, sensing the party’s superficiality, abandon it—meanwhile, the far right gains influence because Labour has inadvertently validated its fundamental ideas.

The right-wing counter-revolution primarily targets the social advances secured by the working class in the 20th century, such as the NHS, social housing, free education, secure jobs, trade union rights, and the welfare state. These achievements have been gradually weakened over decades by both Conservative and Labour governments. The reactionary push now aims to finalise this process by dismantling the political and social structures that have allowed the working class to resist.

Beckett’s optimistic view—that Labour, possibly allied with other “progressive” parties, might stop the right-wing surge—is the last illusion of a political trend that has run its course. The right-wing counter-revolution cannot be halted through better messaging, more confident liberal leaders, or a resurgence of 1980s municipal radicalism.

It requires independent political action by the working class, united internationally around an anti-capitalist, anti-system platform aimed at overthrowing capitalism itself. This crisis is systemic. The far right is merely a symptom, Labour is complicit, and liberalism has run its course. The goal now is to develop revolutionary leadership capable of uniting workers from diverse backgrounds in the fight for socialism.

[1] The right-wing counter-revolution is gaining ground – and Labour’s softly-softly approach won’t stop it- http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/17/the-rightwing-counter-revolution-labour-multiculturalism-equality-london 

Your Party: The Return of the Left by Oliver Eagleton, editor, £8.99 Verso Paperback 2025

~ freerein61 ~ Leave a comment

This book from the Pabloite Verso publications has been rushed out to justify the need for a new reformist type party under conditions of a global crisis of capitalism, a fascist in the White House and the temporary replacement of the Labour Party as the favourite Party of the British bourgeoisie. While the need for a new party is palpable, this is not the one the working class needs.

The book consists of a collection of interviews edited by Oliver Eagleton, of Zarah Sultana MP, Leanne Mohamad, Stop the War co-founder Andrew Murray, Our Bloc author James Schneider, Andrew Feinstein, and former Corbyn speechwriter Alex Nunns.

Oliver Eagleton is an associate editor at the New Left Review (NLR), a Pseudo-Left publication that promotes a middle-class, reformist, and ultimately pro-capitalist perspective. Like all the people interviewed in the book, Eagleton, through his writing, seeks to channel left-wing sentiment into reformist, dead-end political projects like “Your Party” and the Labour Party establishment.

According to the World Socialist Website (WSWS), Eagleton promotes the illusion that genuine social change can be achieved through the parliamentary system and within the framework of the capitalist state, rather than through an independent, international socialist movement of the working class. He is a specialist in obfuscating class Issues by promoting “left-populism” to obscure fundamental class divisions and the necessity of a precise class analysis of society.

Eagleton’s first interview is with Corbyn’s second-in-command, Zarah Sultana. She is a Pseudo-Left “figurehead. Her “socialist” or “anti-fascist” rhetoric is merely a cover for a reformist agenda that ultimately serves capitalist interests. The feud that broke out between her and Corbyn was more about factionalism and a lack of Principles on both sides. It was also over who controls the not inconsiderable £800,000 membership fund, which is still growing.

Like other pseudo-Lefts, she presents her “rotten and spineless Labour ‘left’ colleagues as part of a fighting socialist alternative to Starmer”. Despite her use of rhetoric such as  “class war”, her focus remains within the limits of parliamentary politics and nationalistic frameworks.

Leanne Mohamad has no differences whatsoever with Corbyn or Sultana and has spoken on Pseudo-Left Platforms. She spoke at Jeremy Corbyn’s Peace and Justice Project conference. Like other interviewees, she seeks to subordinate genuine working-class anger into reformist and nationalistic channels. The  WSWS has noted reports of a “bitter rift” within her campaign team, specifically with the Redbridge Community Action Group (RCAG), as evidence of the unprincipled and factional character it attributes to this political current.

Perhaps Corbyn’s most useful ally in this coalition of frauds is Andrew Murray. Murray has used his influence as a leader in the Communist Party of Britain, the Stop the War Coalition (STWC), and the Unite trade union to keep the working class tied to the Labour Party. Murray is a Stalinist and has a long history in the Communist Party of Britain. He has been a long-standing adviser in the Corbyn leadership.

James Schneider, a key figure of the British “left”, co-founder of the grassroots movement Momentum, and former Director of Strategic Communications for Jeremy Corbyn.  Schneider was a founder member of “Your Party. His Momentum movement was instrumental in facilitating Labour’s purge of left-wing members under Corbyn and in helping contain it within the confines of the Labour Party bureaucracy.

Andrew Feinstein’s politics are based on an appeal for a “more moral government” and “human values,” which explicitly rejects a class analysis of society and obscures the fundamental class antagonisms inherent in a capitalist system.

Lastly, Alex Nunns is an author and apologist for Corbynism: Nunns is the author of The Candidate: Jeremy Corbyn’s Improbable Path to Power and the forthcoming Sabotage: The Inside Hit Job That Brought Down Jeremy Corbyn. These books are part of a veritable “cottage industry” of “pseudo-left” post-mortems that fail to provide a genuine class analysis of the movement’s failure,

Eagleton’s fellow pseudo-left organisations and every political scoundrel under the sun have welcomed Your Party. Probably the biggest of these political scoundrels is Tariq Ali. Ali has been intimately involved in the development of “Your Party” and has now joined it, marking the first time he has been a member of a political organisation since 1981. Ali will feel at home in this anti-working-class party. At 81, he still feels he has one more revolutionary movement to betray. He is also still a darling of the pseudo-left media. Recently, he was asked What do you think are the prospects for the left today?

He wrote, “Starmer is dreadful. I’m in no doubt that his policies will create a space that, at the moment, the far right will try to fill. We need to respond. But we can’t simply do what we did in the past the same way. In the 1970s, the Anti-Nazi League and Rock Against Racism were vital, but the world has changed, the situation is different, and we need appropriate responses. It won’t be easy, but you know it wasn’t always easy in the 1960s and 1970s. It took time to build the anti-Vietnam War movement. We were constantly under surveillance and harassment from the state.

Over the last few decades, we have witnessed the growth of dynamic movements such as Stop the War. Today, the struggle around Palestine has brought large numbers into action. The horrors of Gaza, the complicity of the Western governments in the slaughter, and the scale of the resistance movement on the streets will shape a generation. But we need to think about organisational outcomes, establishing networks and rebuilding a progressive political alternative. For the left, the Labour Party is finished. We should encourage the small number of Labour MPS (especially those who had the whip removed) to work with the Independent MPS to offer an alternative vision and voice for the future. We need some home, not necessarily a formal political party, for the 200,000 who left Labour when Corbyn was marginalised and kicked out; a home to those from the Palestine and anti-imperialist movements; a home for the old and new left. I think we face a long rebuilding period; there is no quick fix. But if we sit back and do nothing, things will only get worse.”[1]

Ali, like other pseudo-lefts, has argued that the new Your Party should be like other left-wing populist movements across Europe, such as Podemos, Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s La France Insoumise and Syriza (Greece). However, all these organisations have, in one form or another, betrayed the working class. Syriza (Greece), a coalition of the Radical Left, came to power and subsequently implemented austerity measures. Podemos (Spain) was a political trap for the working class, built by professional pseudo-left activists and academics. La France Insoumise (France): a movement led by Jean-Luc Mélenchon explicitly rejects a class analysis of society, instead relying on populist theories that pit “the working class against the French ruling elite. It obscures fundamental class antagonisms, thereby serving capitalist interests. Despite anti-establishment rhetoric, the LFI ultimately defends the French capitalist state, including its police forces and military. Mélenchon has called for increased military spending and supported French imperialist wars. Die Linke (The Left Party) (Germany) is essentially a capitalist party that functions as a loyal opposition and ultimately supports the German state’s foreign policy.

One person missing from the book is Jeremy Corbyn. But his politics dominate Your Party. Corbyn and his acolytes are not leading a genuine socialist struggle but are preparing a political trap for the working class. Corbyn’s goal all along has been to subordinate the struggles of the working class to the Labour Party and the existing political establishment. He has always been pro-capitalist and nationalist. His closeness to the Stalinist British Communist Party and his agreement with its anti-working-class British Road to Socialism in his early political career have kept him in good standing.

His new party will act as a safety valve for working-class anger and work to prevent a genuine break from the pro-capitalist Labour Party. It is seen as a “Labour Party Mark II” that advocates only limited reforms to be pursued through parliament. The recent feud between Corbyn and his number two, Zarah Sultana, is evidence of its unprincipled, opportunistic nature.

Corbyn’s platform, which includes campaigning on issues like “peace” and “social justice” but avoids explicit class analysis, is dismissed by the WSWS as “studied vagueness” designed to obscure fundamental class divisions. The WSWS also criticises Corbyn’s reliance on and work with the trade union bureaucracy, which it characterises as having spent the last 40 years “shifting power and wealth away from the working class to the corporations and the state”.

Your Party is not the party the working class needs. Workers and young people should reject Corbyn’s new party. They should look for a genuine socialist alternative on the World Socialist Website.

Notes

Corbyn’s New Left Party: What It Is And What It Isn’t £3.00-mehringbooks.co.uk/product/corbyns-new-left-party-what-it-is-and-what-it-isnt/

[1] www.counterfire.org/article/tariq-ali-memories-of-the-struggle-reloaded/