Nigel Smith
Looking at the new left formation, Collective’s website, one could be excused for thinking this is a forlorn initiative doomed to failure. There are brief general statements about what Collective stands for, who it is allied with and a plea to become a member. It talks about building a new political party and references the successes and betrayals of the Corbyn period. Its website describes Collective as emerging from a “spontaneous coming together of left independent candidates, groups and activists across the country that began late in 2023 and has since established a broad network.” Its ‘directors’ are Pamela Fitzpatrick and Karie Murphy. Murphy was previously an advisor to Jeremy Corbyn, as executive director of the leader of the opposition’s office from 2016 to 2020. Fitzpatrick was a long-standing Labour member until being pushed out of the Party for supporting Corbyn. Fitzpatrick stood in West Harrow as an independent during the last general election. The initial meetings of Collective were carried out by a small cohort of lefts. This group included: Fitzpatrick, Murphy, Len McCluskey (ex-general secretary of UNITE), film maker Ken Loach, Academic, Andrew Feinstein and others. Feinstein stood against Keir Starmer in the last parliamentary election.
The initial lack of openness of Collective has been a concern for the Left. The initial meetings involved about forty people and were by invitation only. Corbyn attended as an interested observer but failed to endorse the new project openly and is spending his energies on bringing together a group of left and independent MPs in a Parliamentary coalition. The fact that many of the core team are from a Labour background is also a concern for those who went through the effective policing of the left under Momentum. Organisations such as the Socialist Party were side-lined because of their revolutionary political philosophy, but the most radical and experienced left Labour activists were also side-lined or expelled from the Party, to be usurped by often inexperienced Labour Party members who were prepared to obediently stay on message and not offer a critical analysis of the Corbyn surges’ obvious failings.
Recently there has been an opening up of Collective with various organisations being invited to a conference held in Birmingham on 9th November. On its website Collective boasts working with: Aspire, Transform, Reliance, Assemble & Just Stop Oil, The Muslim Vote, TUSC, TWT, For the Many, Liverpool Community Independents and similar independent parties and groups from across the UK. TUSC (Trades Unionist and Socialist Coalition) probably the most widespread and coherent attendee has had a guarded response to Collective. There is concern that Collective, in trying to set up a new party before the local elections in May 2025, is rather ambitions and it would be a more successful strategy to favour a more systematic approach of building across regions. TUSC, “strongly welcomed the fact that the discussion has begun” and agreed that TUSC should “seek to continue its positive-but-not-uncritical engagement in the Collective network”.
The main debate within Collective is the pace of development as a new party. There are those who would like to see a building of the organisation across the regions prior to the announcement of a new party and others who would favour setting up a new party and building more broadly at the same time. There are others who point out that a party would need a political programme, code of conduct, statutes etc in order to be credible and look after the needs of its members. A rush to setting up a party without safeguarding measures in place, for example, would risk problems arising if complaints of bullying or harassment are made. It could well be that unsympathetic forces could enter the party and attempt to derail its success via disruptive means. A code of conduct would be some protection against this.
There is also a lack of experience in the complexities of the project. This is an attempt to set up a national party and therefore needs to recognise that there will be a lot to learn in doing so. How meetings are conducted and how new voices are heard is already proving to be a challenge. Drawing into its orbit many diverse groups, means that the old methods of discussion and debate espoused by the Labour Party and trade unions will not necessarily apply. There will, inevitable be a period where the organisation is a crucible of diverse discourse, with individuals and organisations joining and leaving the group as the political direction and democratic processes are worked through. This turbulence should be acknowledged and welcomed not avoided by over bureaucratic structures and top-down leadership. Collective, it is hoped, will be tapping into the broad experiences of thousands across the movement. There are parties, such as the Social Justice Party from Scarborough who have recently gone through a period of formation into a political party. TUSC has been through the process on a national level. Collective should be open to tapping into their expertise as well as the expertise of others, in a collaborative and dynamic way.
In April this year, The Morning Star seemed to welcome Collective because of the need for a new political party of the left: “Whatever organisational forms and leading figures emerge out of this crucible, one thing is essential: we on the left need to emerge from our bubbles and connect with the world beyond.” This strongly suggests a need for a new formation and hints at there being a potential for such a development coming out of the descent into neo-liberalism of the Labour Party. Andy Becketts recent piece in the Guardian 15.11.24, also seemed to welcome the Collective, finishing his piece with “we live in a time when centrists’ predictions often prove foolishly complacent, while rebels thrive against expectations. At the least, the left’s talk of starting afresh shows that Labour is alienating many socialists. Sooner or later, this dissatisfaction will bring Labour’s century-old dominance of our left-of-centre politics to an end.”
At the current time Collective appears to be a broad church politically. Most people drawn to it would describe themselves as socialists but there will be inevitably social democratic and liberal democratic voices present in the discussions, at least in the early stages. Collective need to avoid confusion around what socialism is and resist pressure towards a social democratic or liberal democratic agenda. There need to be a clear line in the sand drawn, which rejects the old compromises with and capitulations to the British state which characterised the Labour Party. Collective needs to be a radical alternative and work through its programme conscious of the dangers of a right-ward shift characterised by other new left formations across Europe. Collective has the benefit of establishing itself at a time when it can learn the lessons of the recent past and not repeat the mistakes made by Syriza, Podemos and others. It should build locally as well as nationally and it is encouraging that many local groups are looking towards it. It should hold face-to-face conferences as well as meet on-line and should openly use radical language and enthusiastically embrace socialist ideas.
