20.02.2025
Dead-end politics
Secret conclaves, weird local campaigns, self-appointed gatekeepers and a complete lack of democracy. Carla Roberts takes a look at yet another broad-frontist party in the making
How could we not compare the democratic practice of the communist fusion process to the secret shenanigans currently taking place, which might or might not lead to the launch of the Collective party (which might or might not be called ‘Fightback’ and might or might not include a certain Jeremy Corbyn in a position of some sort).
In the last eight months or so, there have been regular Zoom meetings between the groups involved, as well as three real-life ‘organising’ meetings - the last one was on January 25 in London. Around 70 people were in attendance at that one, we hear, and every group involved was allowed to send a maximum of two delegates - ie, there were far more groups present than are currently listed on the Collective website,1 including, for example, the all-new Revolutionary Communist Party (aka Socialist Appeal) and a number of weird and wonderful local campaigns. Judging by a recent editorial in the Morning Star2, it looks like the Communist Party of Britain might also jump on board (while not quite giving up its Labourism):
Support for [Starmer’s] agenda is unconscionable for socialists … There is always the alternative argument of ‘stay and fight’ within the Labour Party. Raising the questions of whether it is possible to both stay and fight, or if a choice is required; and how those who wish to stay and fight can make common cause with those who leave or are excluded.
Without naming Collective, the editorial raises the possibility of a number of ‘left’ MPs joining up to a new “alternative” - the main reason being that they will, in all likelihood, not be allowed back into the Labour Party (despite their best efforts):
Four of the seven suspended from the parliamentary party for opposing the two-child benefit cap have been readmitted. Three remain outside. John McDonnell hopes to be readmitted once the Metropolitan Police have conceded there is no case to charge him - and Jeremy Corbyn - for participating in the delegation to the BBC at the end of the last protest for Palestine. He may be erring on the side of overoptimism.
The other two - Zarah Sultana and Apsana Begum - “clearly have little chance of being readmitted”, the article states, probably correctly - though it goes on to claim, rather stupidly, that the reason for that is “even were they to agree to mute themselves entirely … they would still remain guilty of being Muslim women”. Is it racism and misogyny that led to Corbyn’s expulsion? Obviously not. Sultana and Begum are, like him, broadly on the left, which is why they are in Starmer’s crosshairs, not because they are “Muslim women”. In any case, they have certainly done their best to remain as ‘mute’, unobjectionable and useless as possible.
Overoptimism
Showing that the editor, Ben Chacko, could likewise be charged with “overoptimism”, he goes on to also count “the five MPs of the Independent Alliance - Corbyn and four pro-Gaza MPs elected in constituencies with a substantial Muslim vote”. According to the Morning Star, “their only misstep has been in supporting (Corbyn excepted) the Tories in opposition to VAT on private schools on religious grounds”. There is a big fat ‘yet’ missing, clearly. All five voted against the assisted dying bill - for (slightly) different reasons, I suspect. But, as soon as a ‘social’ issue like the right of a woman to choose an abortion comes before parliament, the political difference between those five will become very obvious. Corbyn, despite all his faults, is a socialist of sorts. The other four represent essentially petty-bourgeois class interests.
It is entirely possible to have partial and temporary unity with those four (and many other) MPs over this and that issue - but they are unlikely to want to join up with a bunch of leftie socialists in Collective, even though they are doing their absolute best to disguise their politics.
In any case, it looks like Collective will indeed launch some time soon - but even people who have attended the strictly ‘by invitation only’ meetings and are part of the WhatsApp group do not know when or how it will happen. Despite the ever-growing number of participating groups, there is not a single meeting report to be found anywhere. No minutes. No explanation of what is happening and when.
As usually happens with such undemocratic proceedings, there are, however, plenty of rumours and even more leaks. We hear, for example, that Corbyn briefly showed up to the January 25 event, making a rambling speech that was entirely unconnected to the party question. When somebody dared to ask him about his actual involvement, they were immediately shut down by chair Pamela Fitzpatrick, who admonished them for “putting Jeremy on the spot”, leaving participants none the wiser. Perhaps a bit wiser, actually: had Corbyn’s answer been a resounding ‘yes’, no doubt she would have been happy to let him clarify that. He is content to be associated with Collective, just as he is content to be associated with the Stop the War Coalition and other such ‘worthy broad fronts’.
We are told that Fitzpatrick and the well-connected Karie Murphy (formerly Corbyn’s right-hand woman, while he was leader of the Labour Party, and partner of former Unite leader Len McCluskey) have set up “working groups on everything under the sun: admin, finance, media” - but that there is not even an attempt to discuss what kind of political programme this maybe-party will have. That is apparently for the future membership/leadership to discuss/decide. There is not even a short platform that would clarify what Collective actually wants to achieve. The website still only features the five mini-platitudes of Corbyn’s Peace and Justice Project (“Real pay rise for the many”; “Green new deal”, “Housing for the many”; “Tax the rich to save the NHS”; “Welcome refugees” and “World free from war”), plus “a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and an end to decades of Israeli impunity”. Without any idea of how to get, for example to a “world free from war”.
One thing is for sure: judging by the interim constitution leaked by the blog, Left Lane, it will almost certainly be entirely undemocratic.3 It refers to the (as yet unwritten) ‘aims and objectives’ of the organisation, which all groups which want to be part of have to “agree to” and “abide by” - in that case the “interim leadership” would “consider them constituent groups”. The interim leadership does the “day-to-day-running”, can approve new members (or not), will draft the constitution, can change it and dissolve Collective, “until such time as the leadership structure is decided for the full constitution”.
Oh and who is on this interim leadership, you ask? And how could it be challenged or changed? That is where things get decidedly murky. All it says is that it will be made up of “the Collective secretariat, the Collective Scotland secretariat and the Collective Cymru/Wales secretariat” - with, presumably, all three secretariats chosen by appointment and overseen by Fitzpatrick and Murphy. There is no talk about elections or, for that matter, accountability or democracy. A bureaucratic nightmare, designed to assure tight control and keep out troublemakers.
Talking of which, we understand the Socialist Workers Party applied to join Collective a few months ago, but was told in no uncertain words to get lost. No surprise really, considering that it is still incredibly tarnished - especially among young people - by trying to brush the rape allegations against Martin Smith under the carpet.
Palestinian flags
It has also acquired a whole set of new critics by continuing to insist that its front, Stand Up to Racism, cannot possibly stop Zionists (ie, racists) from attending its events or demonstrations, because that would put off its trade union affiliates. We understand things recently boiled over, when Ben Jamal, leader of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, was asked to take down any Palestine flags and symbols before speaking at a SUtR meeting - a move which was hotly debated at the February 1 PSC AGM in London’s Conway Hall.
So as to not miss out on the Collective fun, the SWP has reached into its (not very deep) toolbox and has decided to set up yet another front organisation: ‘We Demand Change’ launches on March 29 with a rally in London. Its name is as unoriginal as its politics:
We call on all trade unionists, campaigners and activists to begin to construct - through debate and discussion - a network of activists across campaigns and unions to turn the tide on despair. A network that can deliver solidarity to those who are taking action to protect their living standards and with those who are building the movements to free Palestine, end the drive to a war economy, stop the far right and prevent the further deterioration of our planet.
It adds: “Where there are multifaceted crises impacting on people’s lives simultaneously, we will need to campaign on all. Each of the different crises impacts the other. Success on the political campaigns feeds into our ability to fight on the economic issues that confront us and vice versa.”
In other words, a ‘motherhood and apple pie’ campaign that sounds and looks exactly like Collective and, for that matter, pretty much all the groups involved in it: Transform, For the Many Network, Tusc, etc. That is, of course, the point. And the fact that Jeremy Corbyn is among the speakers on March 29 gives it its official seal of approval - so perhaps the SWP will now be allowed to sneak into Collective under the guise of We Demand Change. Who knows.
Other speakers on March 29 include SWP member Weyman Bennett, former SWP members Lindsey German and James Meadway (both now Counterfire), Yanis Varoufakis, Grace Blakely, Andrew Feinstein and turncoat Owen Jones, whose campaign is called, somewhat confusingly, ‘We Demand Better’. Perhaps they could unite to form ‘We Demand Better Change’! - we certainly do, but not the sort of change much of the left is currently advocating.