Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Creating "Lexit": What is to be done?

I'm not immediately familiar with the Millwall reference...
Well it's quite a long saga with all the details, but essentially Millwall council issued a compulsory purchase order on the football club ground for a new 'development', with the land to be sold off to a private developer with personnel links to the council.
Under the proposed scheme Lewisham council planned to seize Millwall’s land, evict the club’s prized community trust and sell the land on to an offshore-registered developer called Renewal. As first reported in the Guardian, Renewal was founded by two former Lewisham council officers, one of them the previous Labour mayor. The developers are ultimately owned and administered behind a veil of secrecy in the British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Man.
Thankfully the whole thing seems to have collapsed (and for once the Guardian have to be giving some credit, Barney Ronay pursued this one and didn't let it lie) and the mayor seems to be up shit creek without a paddle.

Incidentally, AFAIK not a single Labour bod said anything - local MPs, Corbyn, McDonnell, Khan - all kept schtum.
 
The trouble with an economic plan that neoliberal parties find easy to support is that it may not be worth supporting.
They'd first have to abandon austerity to support it - which considering that we're talking about a regional plan isn't that unlikely as support for austerity policies among councils of all political stripes is very low as they've had to be the ones doing a lot of the implementation of it and taking the shit for it for 7 years.

If they do support it then it would make the chances of actually getting it implemented far higher, if they don't then we get to challenge them on it directly at the elections and potentially gain a mandate for it that way. SNP, Pirate Party, Podemos, Syriza have all been successful with the latter approach, so personally I'd be more up for that model, but with vast numbers of likely supporters of this sort of approach having adopted the labour party in the last couple of years the situation is a bit different.

It wouldn't be a neoliberal approach, it'd be a green keynesian social democratic approach, and if we're out of the EU then hopefully we'd be able to give preference to local companies for the work, supporting UK and regional steel industry etc. (though if we're still in the WTO there may still be barriers to this). My preference would be for it to result in publicly owned infrastructure (local rail / underground network, council housing, energy generation, carbon capture networks, flood defences etc) rather than just handing it all over to the private sector to operate and profit from.
 
Initially, I'd echo redsquirrel's response, and add that the Greens have to be very careful with their "progressive alliance" strategy. Jumping into bed with Labour and the LibDems means abandoning the vacuum to the populist right and throwing your lot with the "old order" as it were....
My take on it is that if we're to do it then it needs to be on a case by case basis where we stand aside for MPs / candidates who're on the left of those parties, but not for the neoliberal rump.

As an example of how this could work, the Green Party are planning to make Hillary Benn's Leeds Central constituency a national target seat for 2020, which doesn't look like a party that's entirely throwing their lot in with the old order. This continues a strategy from the last election that for example helped remove the architect of Labour's austerity light position Ed Balls (albeit he was replaced by a tory, but hopefully a left candidate can win it back in 2020 now balls has been deposed).
 
Right so it's a plan by a number of activists in a minor party, which aims to "[bring] other parties and campaign groups on board to support it on a regional basis." to get money from the government to be given to local authorities, the same authorities that are currently enforcing cuts. And the way to enact this is to get involved in local elections. (my emphasis on the bring)

I've no idea about the OP but IMO that's exactly the type of thing that isn't useful. A bunch of people presenting the community with a blueprint that solves "their" problems by insisting they vote for parties that have spent 30 years attacking them.
That's not how I envisage it working pretty much for the reasons you've stated.

My hope would be that the initial proposals would then be taken out for discussion and to be improved at local community meetings hosted by local Green Party's and other organisations who decide to get behind the plan.

If other parties decide to ditch neoliberalism and austerity and get on board with supporting the plan then fair enough, if not then there are all out council elections in 2018 with the new boundaries so there's an opportunity to replace the existing order at local government level on one go in many of the councils in this region. Being realistic the Green Party is unlikely to manage that all by itself though, nor just with the support of even more minor parties to the left of it. Either we'd need other parties on board from the start, or we'd need to aim to get a controlling minority in enough of the councils in the region to be able to push support for the bulk of the plan through.

It's absolutely not dependent upon persuading the current status quo to support it, as far as I can see they're largely ideologically bankrupt, with no clue how to do anything beyond managing economic and social decline and drastic cuts to services. They're ripe for being wiped out if there were to be a credible alternative on the table in the same way the SNP did in Scotland. But in doing so we need to pick our battles and not fight those with similar political outlooks but who happen to be in other parties and could be allies if we can help take out their more neoliberal (local) leadership.

Anyway that's my rough take on it. We'll see in coming months whether the rest of the regional Green Parties and others think it's something worth supporting.
 
I don't believe it will happen for one second, but if brexit did lead to the collapse of the City of London as a global financial services centre, that would be a big tick in the Lexit column.

Truth is that, however it is done, brexit will be done in a way that pleases the City. That fact in itself is pretty daunting.
 
I've posted this article, by Kenan Malik, elsewhere. But the points relative to this thread are these:

First:

"As in much of the Western world, the political fault lines in Britain have transformed. The key division is not between left and right, but between those who embrace the new globalized, technocratic world, and those who feel dispossessed and voiceless."

Therefore what has to be supported is their voice (rather than attempts to deliver a proxy voice).

Point two:

"In other countries, this new fault line has found institutional form through the rise of populist parties and leaders, from Marine Le Pen to Donald J. Trump. In Britain, it was clearly visible in the Brexit result. In parliamentary elections, however, the old mold has yet to be fully broken. Instead, what we see is disaffection with all the parties, insurgent or not."

This is a strength and an opportunity.
 
Whilst I certainly wouldn't advocate free spirit's plan. I suspect were I too look at it, I'd oppose it. It is at least a "plan", an attempt at responding to the new challenges and so certainly valid for discussion here, even if that is a rejection of this plan.

If that makes sense.

Initially, I'd echo redsquirrel's response, and add that the Greens have to be very careful with their "progressive alliance" strategy. Jumping into bed with Labour and the LibDems means abandoning the vacuum to the populist right and throwing your lot with the "old order" as it were....

Judging by the handful of Green Party supporters I know irl and what I've seen of them on social media, Labour would have to get rid of Corbyn before they could adopt this strategy. Liberal fury at Brexiteer Corbyn is so strong that these people will never be willing to back a Corbyn led Labour Party.

For Greens and Lib Dems, Corbyn has become one of the personifications of the only issue in British politics that they care about anymore. They have become whipped into a state of total hysteria.
 

I don't believe it will happen for one second, but if brexit did lead to the collapse of the City of London as a global financial services centre, that would be a big tick in the Lexit column.

Not convinced it'll happen either because of serving the interests and might of capital, but Jeff's link is precisely an example of why, at least from an political/ideological perspective, I won't be too upset at the potential for destabilising banking/finance…

Guardian said:
Douglas Flint, the chairman of HSBC, Britain’s biggest bank, said common regulation needed to be agreed with the remaining 27 EU members once Brexit talks got under way or there was a risk of sparking turbulence in the financial system.

“One of the critical pieces is the ecosystem that exists, which effectively connects the fund managers to the risk managers to the liquidity providers to the insurance providers and the credit providers … it all benefits from all the other pieces being there,” Flint said.

Of course, from a practical standpoint, I realise this stuff has consequences beyond banking/finance and very real effects on everyone.

However, destabilising of banking/finance and trying to dent capital was once a pretty strong objective for the anti-capitalist left, which many posters on here were involved in those movements.

Which picking up this bit of free spirit's post…

It wouldn't be a neoliberal approach, it'd be a green keynesian social democratic approach, and if we're out of the EU then hopefully we'd be able to give preference to local companies for the work, supporting UK and regional steel industry etc.

I'm rather unconvinced that re-hashing Keynesian economics is going to help other than some minor re-positioning of some aspects of capital, and I don't see why it would be in opposition to neoliberalism. Keynesian economics was essentially pro-capital/anti-working class despite his critiques of the inefficiencies of private business and the role of government/public sector to address that through fiscal policy. In short, propping up capital still.
 
Last edited:
Not convinced it'll happen either because of serving the interests and might of capital, but Jeff's link is precisely an example of why, at least from an political/ideological perspective, I won't be too upset at the potential for destabilising banking/finance…



Of course, from a practical standpoint, I realise this stuff has consequences beyond banking/finance and very real effects on everyone.

However, destabilising of banking/finance and trying to dent capital was once a pretty strong objective for the anti-capitalist left, which many posters on here were involved in those movements.

Which picking up this bit of free spirit's post…



I'm rather unconvinced that re-hashing Keynesian economics is going to help other than some minor re-positioning of some aspects of capital, and I don't see why it would be in opposition to neoliberalism. Keynesian economics was essentially pro-capital/anti-working class despite his critiques of the inefficiencies of private business and the role of government/public sector to address that through fiscal policy. In short, propping up capital still.
Maintaining the City's ability to function as a key lever of neoliberal/oligarchic power & wealth defence was pretty much the key motivation for the Atlanticist Brexiteers.
 
It wouldn't be a neoliberal approach, it'd be a green keynesian social democratic approach, and if we're out of the EU then hopefully we'd be able to give preference to local companies for the work, supporting UK and regional steel industry etc. (though if we're still in the WTO there may still be barriers to this). My preference would be for it to result in publicly owned infrastructure (local rail / underground network, council housing, energy generation, carbon capture networks, flood defences etc) rather than just handing it all over to the private sector to operate and profit from.
Like I said above, the trouble with looking for consensus on a Keynsian approach from neoliberal is that they won't support interventions that go against what they think of as "sensible" or "modern". If there are to be interventions, they'll prefer to 'add weights' to what they see as pre-existing market mechanisms. So they'll favour "incentivising" over public control.

Public ownership and control of rail, utilities, the Royal Mail etc is something that already has majority public support, even amongst Tory voters. But no mainstream party wants to deliver it on behalf of voters. Neoliberalism (and increasingly just liberals) favours "experts" (including judicial expertise) over democracy. They don't care what the public want: they aren't to be trusted. In the neoliberal (and increasingly, merely liberal) view, democracy is only possible where middle class dominance can assure "stability". (That much is more than palpable in the liberal reaction to Brexit).

So, while public ownership of rail etc might well be worth pursuing (especially along with public control), it would only be relinquished where the balance of power between the elite and the masses were in question. Public demands have been fought for and won in the past, but past compromises between labour (small l) and capital have occurred only when the elite has been in a position of weakness.

There might be such an opportunity at the moment, but capital's weakness is not currently being challenged by labour's (small l) strength. There is discontent but it is not directional.
 
Like I said above, the trouble with looking for consensus on a Keynsian approach from neoliberal is that they won't support interventions that go against what they think of as "sensible" or "modern". If there are to be interventions, they'll prefer to 'add weights' to what they see as pre-existing market mechanisms. So they'll favour "incentivising" over public control.

Public ownership and control of rail, utilities, the Royal Mail etc is something that already has majority public support, even amongst Tory voters. But no mainstream party wants to deliver it on behalf of voters. Neoliberalism (and increasingly just liberals) favours "experts" (including judicial expertise) over democracy. They don't care what the public want: they aren't to be trusted. In the neoliberal (and increasingly, merely liberal) view, democracy is only possible where middle class dominance can assure "stability". (That much is more than palpable in the liberal reaction to Brexit).

So, while public ownership of rail etc might well be worth pursuing (especially along with public control), it would only be relinquished where the balance of power between the elite and the masses were in question. Public demands have been fought for and won in the past, but past compromises between labour (small l) and capital have occurred only when the elite has been in a position of weakness.

There might be such an opportunity at the moment, but capital's weakness is not currently being challenged by labour's (small l) strength. There is discontent but it is not directional.
Agree with much of this Danny, but I think it's important to acknowledge the role and power of financialised capital, particularly in the guise of the bond markets. Even if the electorate's desire for public ownership of the natural monopolies translated into a pro-nationalisation administration it would, effectively only be able to enact what the markets permitted. If, inevitably, fincap regarded nationalisation as a threat to their accumulation they'd push bond yields higher and higher until the administration 'thought again'.

Agree totally about neoliberalism's rejection of democratic accountability; with the power of 'capital strike' over the debt states, they don't have to care what the electorate think. But IMO advanced neoliberalism has also dispensed with the notion of technocratic 'expertise' as a substitute for democratic government; fincap now sees any intervention into the functioning of market 'justice' as an un-necessary hinderance. Hence Brexit/Trump's demonisation of 'experts' and any apparatus capable of co-ordinating supra-national responses to their accumulation, tax-dodging and wealth defence.

We're up against the fundamentalists now.
 
I agree with this: "Even if the electorate's desire for public ownership of the natural monopolies translated into a pro-nationalisation administration it would, effectively only be able to enact what the markets permitted", brogdale. I wasn't postulating any such "pro-nationalisation administration", only that such change would only come when a pragmatic administration recognises the need for a compromise, like a controlled steam emission from a pressure value. And there is no such build up of pressure.
 
I agree with this: "Even if the electorate's desire for public ownership of the natural monopolies translated into a pro-nationalisation administration it would, effectively only be able to enact what the markets permitted". I wasn't postulating any such "pro-nationalisation administration", only that such change would only come when a pragmatic administration recognises the need for a compromise, like a controlled steam emission from a pressure value. And there is no such build up of pressure.
I can't see the LP ever coming clean with the electorate about the reality of advanced neoliberalism; their very existence depends on the continued infantilisation of the electorate with the notion that voting can challenge this juggernaut.
This is why I keep banging on about the importance of the educate within the old...

upload_2017-2-25_10-55-27.png

Maybe when we get our 'Syriza' that will be a key role?
 
brogdale As some of you know, I was for years a WEA tutor (and those of you who didn't are probably going "aaaahh!" right now), so I have a strong emotional attachment to self-run working class self-education. But those structures were weakened in a number of ways (that I don't propose to go into now, but which I could at length). However I want to mention just one thing that comes to mind: I have an excellent book by Emile Burns called "General Strike: trades councils in action", which consists of an analysis of the activities of the Councils of Action during the 1926 general strike. (My edition is from 1976 and includes some updates and reminiscences). Those networks were still there (in to some extent vestigial form) in the 1980s in my area. During the miners' strike and the anti poll tax campaign, this network was active and useful. Now it's completely gone.
 
I meant to add, but didn't, the destruction of these networks was the aim and point of many of Thatcherism's attacks. And the Labour Party, throughout that period and since, not only didn't oppose the attacks, but supported and continue to support them (the attacks). That Labour MPs and members will still call anyone bemoaning those losses "old fashioned" is illustration enough.

They don't want strong working class networks. And the electorate is perfectly aware of that, hence their disillusion.
 
I meant to add, but didn't, the destruction of these networks was the aim and point of many of Thatcherism's attacks. And the Labour Party, throughout that period and since, not only didn't oppose the attacks, but supported and continue to support them (the attacks). That Labour MPs and members will still call anyone bemoaning those losses "old fashioned" is illustration enough.

They don't want strong working class networks. And the electorate is perfectly aware of that, hence their disillusion.
Indeed, and some of us are old enough to remember the election of, what turned out to be, the first truly neoliberal, consolidator administration in October 1974. Elected as social democrats they ended up implementing cuts in public expenditure determined from 19th Street, N.W., Washington as part of a structural adjustment programme.
 
Lol
Months after advocating a vote the buffoons are like "fuck what do we do("but not one question us for being so clueless)"

Welcome to the grown ups world.
You voted to put the Tory right in charge of the country. Suck it up and stop fantasising you will have any influence.

so who was 'in charge' before then, the unelected, unnaccountable ( except to MEP's elected on tiny turnouts) bureaucrats of the EU ? ( thought that was just UKIP propaganda ?)
 
so who was 'in charge' before then, the unelected, unnaccountable ( except to MEP's elected on tiny turnouts) bureaucrats of the EU ? ( thought that was just UKIP propaganda ?)
The greatest lie of the campaign was the notion that any particular sub-set of professional political functionaries were "in charge".
 
DiEM25 is about the only thing to make me feel optimistic right now. At least they have some sort of plan. You can read a summary of their plan for a European New Deal here:

https://diem25.org/diem25-unveils-its-european-new-deal-an-economic-agenda-for-european-recovery

edit: I made a summary of their 6 main policies for those who don't want to read the link, mixture of my own words and some copy pasting. Seems pretty good to me.

1- Taming finance and establishing a new public digital payments platform that ends the monopoly of banks over Europe’s payments.

Creation of a public digital payments system based on smart phone apps and debit cards issued by the state. This will allow for multi-lateral cancellation of arrears between the state and private sector, make it easier for states to borrow directly from citizens, create new sources of investment funding and reduce denomination costs in the event of bank closures or the euro's disintegration.

The goal is to democratise the financial system and take back control from the private banking system and "independent" central banks.

2 - Green investment-led recovery: Linking central banking with public investment vehicles and the new public digital payments platforms

Public investment to create jobs with a priority based on green technology, financed by public bonds issued by a European public investment bank, and investment funding at the national level sourced from the digital payments system.

3 - Backing the maintainers in their own communities to stem forced migration

Anti-poverty program - a common European fund for poverty relief, based initially on state issued debit cards for nutrition assistance, and later extended to unemployment insurance and topping up low pensions.

Housing program - A multi-lateral agreement among all European countries to fund and guarantee decent housing, and restore the social housing model. Additionally, protection against eviction - people foreclosed upon will be allowed to stay in their homes at rents set by the local authority, which will incentivise lenders to renegotiate mortgages rather than foreclose.

Jobs guarantee program - A multi-lateral agreement among European countries to fund and guarantee jobs for all citizens. They would be created in the public and non-profit sectors and paid at a common living wage set on a national scale and local authorities should provide a job to anyone who requests one. The net cost will be funded by a special tax (to be introduced across Europe on the basis of the multilateral agreement between EU and non-EU countries) on the market value of land used by corporations (except agriculture) that is a decreasing function of the corporation’s waged employees – i.e. a tax to be paid primarily by firms occupying large, expensive buildings in which few workers are employed.

These 3 planks of the anti-poverty program will also be funded by the accumulating seignorage profits of Europe's central banks, the fiscal space made available by the public digital payments program, and a carbon emissions tax. Free movement between EU countries will be dependent on each country having accepted its obligation to provide decent housing and employment for its citizens, e.g. someone from Poland can enjoy free movement only if the Polish government is fulfilling its own obligations.

4- Dealing with the Eurozone crisis: A plan to save the Eurozone that simultaneously civilises the euro and minimises the cost of its disintegration

Policy 1 – The digital public payment system
- See above

Policy 2 - Case by case bank program
- Banks in need of recapitalisation from the EU’s ‘bailout’ fund (the European Stability Mechanism – ESM) can be turned over to the ESM directly – instead of having the national government borrow on the bank’s behalf. The ESM, and not the national government, would then restructure, recapitalise and resolve the failing banks.

Policy 3 - Limited debt conversion program -
The ECB will offer member-states the opportunity of a debt conversion for their Maastricht Compliant Debt (MCD), while the national shares of the converted debt would continue to be serviced separately by each member state. In effect, the ECB would orchestrate a conversion servicing loan for the MCD, for the purposes of redeeming those bonds upon maturity.

Policy 4 - Investment led convergence and recovery program
- A pan-Eurozone investment led recovery equal to 5% of the Eurozone's GDP. The European Investment Bank will focus on large infrastructural projects, and the European Investment Fund will focus on start ups, innovative firms, SMEs, green technology research etc. The EIB and EIF will issue bonds to cover the project in its totality, and the ECB steps in as a secondary market to ensure the bonds do not suffer from high yields.

Policy 5 - Emergency social solidarity program to combat poverty
- See above

5- Coordination between Eurozone and non-Eurozone monetary and fiscal policies to maximise Europe’s recovery

Europe’s central banks, government and the European Commission must coordinate fiscal, monetary and social policy so as to optimise the economic and social outcomes across Europe.

6- Planning for a post-capitalist, authentically open and liberal Europe: the role of a Universal Basic Dividend and the democratisation of the economic sphere

DiEM25 rejects the idea of a universal minimum income as long as it is to be funded by taxes. A tax-funded UBI would undermine the existing welfare state and sow the seeds of antagonism between the working poor and the unemployed. However, DiEM25 is proposing a different scheme – a universal basic dividend which encapsulates the following three propositions: taxes cannot be a legitimate source of financing for such schemes; the rise of machines must be embraced; and a basic unearned payment is a contributor to basic freedom. But if the scheme is not funded by taxation, how should it be funded? The answer is: From the returns to capital.

A common myth is that capital is created by capitalists who then have a right to its returns. This was never true. It is far less so today. Every time one of us looks something up on Google, she or he contributes to Google’s capital. Yet it is only Google’s shareholders that have a right to claim the returns to this, largely socially produced, capital. Moreover, automation, digitisation and the role played in capital formation by government grants and community contributions to the stock of knowledge make it impossible to know which part of a corporation’s capital was created by its owners and which by the public at large. DiEM25 proposes a simple policy: That legislation be enacted requiring that a percentage of capital stock (shares) from every initial public offering (IPO) be channelled into a Commons Capital Depository, with the associated dividends funding a universal basic dividend (UBD). This UBD should, and can be, entirely independent of welfare payments, unemployment insurance, and so forth, thus ameliorating the concern that it would replace the welfare state, which embodies the concept of reciprocity between waged workers and the unemployed. For Europe to embrace the rise of the machines, but ensure that they contribute to shared prosperity, it must grant every citizen property rights over the monetary returns they produce, thus yielding a UBD.

A universal basic dividend allows for new understandings of liberty and equality that bridge hitherto irreconcilable political blocs, while stabilising society and reinvigorating the notion of shared prosperity in the face of otherwise destabilising technological innovation. Disagreements of course will continue; but they will be about issues such as the proportion of company shares that should go to the Depository, how much welfare support and unemployment insurance should be layered on top of the UBD, and the content of labour contracts. Page 22 of 26 Additionally, DiEM25 proposes that, in good time, the governance of financial institutions (especially those backed by taxpayers) and other corporations be democratised, with increasing participation in their boards of directors of representatives of local, regional and national communities.
 
Last edited:
I think one thing to do is not get too hung up on what "the left" is doing. Depending on exactly what it means "the left" is either irrelevant or outright part of the problem.

I think the spaces for action danny mentions above are very likely going to be something that isn't based around the usual suspects.

Don't agree with this at all, political consciousness and a willingness to be politically active are important. People with these traits who aren't right wingers are by definition "the left" and the "usual suspects" you refer to. If you're expecting things to emerge spontaneously without any input from people who are politically active, then you're just going to see things slide further and further towards the far right who aren't shying away from pushing a political agenda, or at the very best you can hope to see a repeat of the 2011 riots.

edit: I'm not having a go at you personally redsquirrel, but I'm just taking this post as a cue to have a rant about something I've noticed on "the left." There is a big problem of a lingering and unconscious Christian morality which treats poverty and ignorance as virtues in and of themselves rather than as something to overcome. There is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of in doing something so middle class as reading and being politically engaged. In Marxist theory (and, I believe, reality) a class overthrows another not when it becomes so wretched that it has no choice but to rebel, but when it becomes powerful enough to challenge the hegemony of that class. This is why there have been tens of thousands of peasant uprisings that failed to make any change, but it wasn't until the bourgeois led French Revolution (and English Civil War) that the end of aristocratic hegemony was in sight. In a similar vein, skilled workers have always been at the forefront of the labour movement, and I think "the left" would do well to stop being so ashamed of itself for not being salt of the earth enough. It is just more of an inward-looking obsession with identity - actual concrete solutions, plans, and proposals are far more important. If you have some education, skills, or even social capital you should not be ashamed of them, but instead think of how to use them to undermine and ultimately destroy the power of capital.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure that Diem25 stuff is universally rubbish, but I do like the time devoted to the notion that everything can be fixed by basically making sure everyone has a PayPal account.
 
I'm not sure that Diem25 stuff is universally rubbish, but I do like the time devoted to the notion that everything can be fixed by basically making sure everyone has a PayPal account.

I don't fully understand what they are getting at with that either, and I don't pretend to be an economist, but it seems at least they are serious about the question "What is to be done?" and aren't just opposing things/hoping that the right direction will magically become clear if we protest enough/wishing to return to social democratic post-war consensus with no regard to how things have changed/navel-gazing about identity/retreating into historical reenactment societies and fantasy worlds/hoping that the working class will spontaneously create socialism without needing to come up with any conscious politics.
 
Aye, it's at least the start of a conversation.

I'm not an economist either but it seems to me that both retail banking and state financing are the least broken bits of the entire picture, so I don't know why they focus so much on its reform. Overall it seems only mildly reformist.

But then I suppose proposing any kind of tangible reform at all puts quite a lot of distance between them and the EU as it stands.
 
How do they plan implementing this agenda? Who's going to do it?

You can follow the link for the full time frame, short term goals are those that can be implemented in individual states, mid term and long term goals require more multi-lateralism between different countries. Over the last year (their first anniversary was a few weeks ago I think) they have been quite successful at building up a network across every Europe with organised groups in every country - it seems they hope existing left wing parties will affiliate to their project, or else establish completely new parties. Caroline Lucas and John McDonnell are affiliated if I recall correctly.
 
Back
Top Bottom