What is the best way to combat a populist right victory in next GE?

[oryx]

How is it to be achieved and what would it look like?

In the popular fronts of the 30s socialist groups were able to bring in such numbers that they had some weight in the front. Whatever the flaws of those popular fronts groups who organised on a class struggle basis had some level of power in them.
I'm unconvinced by the evoking of a popular front in France today but the LFI does have some weight in the NPF.
That's not going to be possible in the UK in 2025, any attempt to create a popular front here means little more than throwing one's lot in with Labour. So more of the same politics that have got us to this position - and that brings us back to the conflicting politics.

I'm not talking about the Labour party or anything which involves them - more the sort of alternative Eric Jarvis is talking about.

ETA with a start being to get people registered to vote (lack of voter registration and ID disproportionately affects the 99%) and work to attract young people and people in the gig economy, private renters, people on benefits, the low paid, and all the people who are being shafted and don't have a voice in parliament to represent them apart from the campaign group, some independents and some Greens/SNP.

 

[seventh bullet]

no. farage has been fairly successful at forming a 'respectable face of far right' party for people who might have sympathised with some of what the NF and BNP said but thought they were too lower class...

People (liberals) saw the racist pogroms of the summer just gone as a green light to parade their class-based bigotry. It isn't just the lumpenised (I use this term but still have problems with it) working class. Such views, such behaviour, are not just a feature of one section of society. We have the likes of Douglas Murray peddling racist pseudoscience in the mainstream media for years. But he's 'educated,' so that's okay.

 

[Eric Jarvis]

Some of that sounds OK, I mean depending on a few things obviously. So, where are these groups then, in what towns and areas? Do they have a common name, activity focus or platform?

What are the problems identified that have caused similar projects to fail before, and how is this project going to avoid them

In the North East there is Jamie Driscoll's group Majority. There's the Social Justice Party mostly active in North Yorkshire. Enfield Community Action Group. The groups around Leane Mohamed, Tanushka Marah, Sean Halsall and Nandita Lal and their independent Parliamentary campaigns at the general election. On a national basis Transform, The Collective, OCISA. Assemble, and even TUSC. All communicating, meeting, and now working out the next steps. No common name yet. Focus and activities vary. What is different so far is that the big egos are largely standing aside for the moment. The important thing to avoid is going ahead without a proper democratic decision making structure in place first. Lots happening in London, the North East, Liverpool and the East Midlands. My main focus is currently working out how to create a web site that can be used as a central point of communication and contact so that there's a single place to inform everybody of what is happening they can get involved in. That's going to require some fundraising to make it operate to a decent standard rather than being cobbled together by a couple of volunteers in the usual fashion leading to something unusable that keeps falling over. I'm looking for any input into how that should work from as far afield as possible, and it is my main task for the next month or so.

 

[hitmouse]

On a national basis Transform, The Collective, OCISA. Assemble, and even TUSC.

 

[chilango]

In the North East there is Jamie Driscoll's group Majority. There's the Social Justice Party mostly active in North Yorkshire. Enfield Community Action Group. The groups around Leane Mohamed, Tanushka Marah, Sean Halsall and Nandita Lal and their independent Parliamentary campaigns at the general election. On a national basis Transform, The Collective, OCISA. Assemble, and even TUSC. All communicating, meeting, and now working out the next steps. No common name yet. Focus and activities vary. What is different so far is that the big egos are largely standing aside for the moment. The important thing to avoid is going ahead without a proper democratic decision making structure in place first. Lots happening in London, the North East, Liverpool and the East Midlands. My main focus is currently working out how to create a web site that can be used as a central point of communication and contact so that there's a single place to inform everybody of what is happening they can get involved in. That's going to require some fundraising to make it operate to a decent standard rather than being cobbled together by a couple of volunteers in the usual fashion leading to something unusable that keeps falling over. I'm looking for any input into how that should work from as far afield as possible, and it is my main task for the next month or so.

I mean, more power to your elbow and all that. (Genuinely). ..

...but, the key question remains:

What's different this time?

 

[emanymton]

I mean, more power to your elbow and all that. (Genuinely). ..

...but, the key question remains:

What's different this time?

Any attempt to set and a build a bottom up grassroots organisation from scratch seems to doomed to faliure to me it kind of has to come about on its own or it is neither bottom up ir grassroots. Any group that sets put to be the "next big thing" will ultimately fall apart as it won't be that. People need to start setting their sights a bit lower.

To go full on pessimist, the fight for what replaces the old neo-liberal order is over and we lost. The fight against climate change is over and we have lost that one as well. If we keep trying to fight the last battle the next one is lost as well.

I'm not even sure preventing a populist government winning the next election matters all that much the worldwide trend is in that direction regardless

But for the record I do think Reform will do quite badly in the next election as much of their support switches to a more populist Tory party who I think will win outright and I don't think there is much if anything "we" csn do about it. The Labour government maybe could, although I have doubts about that. It always possible something kicks of in the next few years that changes the maths fundermentaly. But as it stands at the moment I expect the left's impact on the next election to amount to fuck all.

 

[redsquirrel]

I'm not talking about the Labour party or anything which involves them - more the sort of alternative Eric Jarvis is talking about.

Well no offence but it if does not involve Labour I don't really see how it can be a popular front. I don't like it but they are the largest liberal anti-populist political group.

If you're excluding Labour (and the LibDems, Greens etc?) and arguing for something similar to the Socialist Alliance or TUSC, well good luck with that. I do hope it succeeds. But I'm skeptical of such and personally I'd rather put my efforts into organising in my workplace.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We have seen meaningfully left groups achieving representational success and challenging for power in the likes of France and Spain, with LFI and Sumar respectively. In Spain, they are in government and have made some difference.

Here, it is hard to see how this kind of thing can happen due to the undemocratic electoral system. We're stuck in this particular regard.

 

[Eivets Rednow]

The downwardly mobile 'middle classes' (lingering self-conceptions of social status haven't caught up with the reality of decades of increased proletarianisation) will potentially see more fascist support. These days it doesn't come in the form of paramilitaries in colour-coded shirts.

Not sure that’s true? You have colour coded Fred Perry being worn, and red baseball caps. In fact, clothing seems bigger than ever signifier of support for various causes. Everyone is wearing their hearts on their sleeves. Well, not everyone, but it does seem like a significant mode of communication and how people perceive themselves in relation to others.

 

[hitmouse]

To expand on my criticisms a bit and be less catty: I think organising in your local area is a good thing and it's something that I put effort into doing. As emanymton alludes to above, I'm extremely skeptical of any attempt to impose a national structure which doesn't emerge organically from the groups themselves, and frankly the stuff about "people like Jamie Driscoll, Leane Mohamed, Pamela Fitzpatrick, Sean Halsall, Ian Hodson, Jabu Nana-Hartley"... "groups around Leane Mohamed, Tanushka Marah, Sean Halsall and Nandita Lal" makes it sound a bit like you're trying to do the "big name" model just without having any actual big names.
Suppose it's that old catch-22 where anything worth doing is likely to involve slow patient work that isn't likely to show big results on the scale that we really want it to, and any attempt to skip the hard bits and go straight to an effective national org or whatever is likely to show...even less results, usually.

 

[Eivets Rednow]

To expand on my criticisms a bit and be less catty: I think organising in your local area is a good thing and it's something that I put effort into doing. As emanymton alludes to above, I'm extremely skeptical of any attempt to impose a national structure which doesn't emerge organically from the groups themselves, and frankly the stuff about "people like Jamie Driscoll, Leane Mohamed, Pamela Fitzpatrick, Sean Halsall, Ian Hodson, Jabu Nana-Hartley"... "groups around Leane Mohamed, Tanushka Marah, Sean Halsall and Nandita Lal" makes it sound a bit like you're trying to do the "big name" model just without having any actual big names.
Suppose it's that old catch-22 where anything worth doing is likely to involve slow patient work that isn't likely to show big results on the scale that we really want it to, and any attempt to skip the hard bits and go straight to an effective national org or whatever is likely to show...even less results, usually.

The slow, patient work is something I am trying to work on right now. It’s not always as boring as it sounds. The slower you take to do these things, the more you unravel, the results can be much, much better than just trying to fix everything all at once. We need to add value and longevity to our side of the game.

 

[emanymton]

To expand on my criticisms a bit and be less catty: I think organising in your local area is a good thing and it's something that I put effort into doing. As emanymton alludes to above, I'm extremely skeptical of any attempt to impose a national structure which doesn't emerge organically from the groups themselves, and frankly the stuff about "people like Jamie Driscoll, Leane Mohamed, Pamela Fitzpatrick, Sean Halsall, Ian Hodson, Jabu Nana-Hartley"... "groups around Leane Mohamed, Tanushka Marah, Sean Halsall and Nandita Lal" makes it sound a bit like you're trying to do the "big name" model just without having any actual big names.
Suppose it's that old catch-22 where anything worth doing is likely to involve slow patient work that isn't likely to show big results on the scale that we really want it to, and any attempt to skip the hard bits and go straight to an effective national org or whatever is likely to show...even less results, usually.

My very simple opinion is if you declare yourself a bottom up grassroots organisation you probably aren't. And if you are it won't survive any attempt to scale up.

 

[seventh bullet]

Not sure that’s true? You have colour coded Fred Perry being worn, and red baseball caps. In fact, clothing seems bigger than ever signifier of support for various causes. Everyone is wearing their hearts on their sleeves. Well, not everyone, but it does seem like a significant mode of communication and how people perceive themselves in relation to others.

I was meaning more than just surface-level clothing signifiers. Fascism in the contemporary world doesn't just involve a coherent street movement.

 

[hitmouse]

I was meaning more than just surface-level clothing signifiers. Fascism in the contemporary world doesn't just involve a coherent street movement.

And I'd add that the Proud Boys MAGA hat costume thing is very much a US thing, when far-right street movements have taken off here they may have had something of a recognisable aesthetic, but nothing like the actual uniforms of the PBs/SA etc.

 

[krink]

Organise a mass exodus of everyone who isn't a bigoted old cunt somewhere with more hope. Leave the rest to fester in their little miserable shit hole of a country.

 

[mojo pixy]

Organise a mass exodus of everyone who isn't a bigoted old cunt somewhere with more hope. Leave the rest to fester in their little miserable shit hole of a country.

tbf we've been doing that for 400-odd years, what we've got now is what we're left with after all that

 

[oryx]

Well no offence but it if does not involve Labour I don't really see how it can be a popular front. I don't like it but they are the largest liberal anti-populist political group.

If you're excluding Labour (and the LibDems, Greens etc?) and arguing for something similar to the Socialist Alliance or TUSC, well good luck with that. I do hope it succeeds. But I'm skeptical of such and personally I'd rather put my efforts into organising in my workplace.

I mean something way bigger than TUSC, who only got a handful of council seats, and beyond thinking 'do I know that name?' I know nothing about Socialist Alliance.

There is a large group of people who now no longer believe in Labour as a progressive force and are voting tactically, for independents or not voting at all. Look at all the thousands who have exited Labour. It has been the case for years that many ordinary people no longer feel represented by Labour.

The nearest I can think of is Respect (but absolutely minus George Galloway and the SWP who AFAIK were big factors but would put a lot of people off nowadays!). They got at least one MP. Or, like I said, the machinations in progress mentioned by Eric Jarvis which I'm vaguely aware of but know little about. There was huge interest in Enough Is Enough (people not being able to get into meetings, meetings standing room only etc.) but it fizzled out and I don't know why - not for lack of enthusiasm among those who would like a viable left alternative. LFI are possibly the best example, but as has been acknowledged the parliamentary system in France is different.

It irks me no end that the most successful new party by far has been UKIP/Reform, but it proves that new parties aren't necessarily consigned to the dustbin of history like Respect.

 

[Cloo]

Another thing that hugely bolsters the right is that every party seems determined to stick with their (incredibly flawed) narrative rather than challenging it:

• Immigration is causing all our problems
• Benefit fraud costs huge amounts
• We spend too much on out-of-work benefits and need to be 'tougher' on them
• Trans people are a big, scary problem

Whereas to me what needs to be said by people with the power to change it is:

• We have an ageing population, immigration is never going to stop so we need policies that make immigration work for us and help get the skills and the Treasury receipts we need, not just 'stop the boats'
• We need to go after corporate and megarich tax evasion, not benefit fraud - this utterly eclipses the cost of benefit fraud
• Benefits need to be fair, rather than wasting money on punitive schemes that are shown time and again to be expensive and have no effect on people's ability to find work. People are in a better position to find work if they are not scrabbling to survive.
• Trans healthcare should be a matter for trans people and their healthcare professionals, not MPs or newspaper columnists and they are about 0.1% of the population so why in God's name are they an electoral issue, that's fucked up

Again, no party would say that because our media is run by mega-rich tax evaders who want everyone to look the other way, and be distracted by boats, benefits and trans people.

 

[LDC]

For me there's a big (and often ignored) question that underlies much/all of the 'new political party' type activity mentioned by some above, and that is whether there is some realistic parliamentary route to socialism/whatever. If not then all the MP focused activity (Labour, independent, new left party, etc.) is a complete waste of time at best, and at worst a displacement for more realistic stuff. It also is the case that much extra-parliamentary stuff (community groups etc.) that has one eye on elections slowly but surely turns focus to canvassing and election related activity the closer they get, giving up on other stuff and then usually collapsing post-election defeat.

Look at all the excitement about the independent MPs at the last election. What power do they have in parliament? None. What difference would another few make?

If people are sure that the parliamentary route is the most realistic one there is then I'd like to know their reasoning and explain the actual processes by which this could happen.

 

[chilango]

For me there's a big (and often ignored) question that underlies much/all of the 'new political party' type activity mentioned by some above, and that is whether there is some realistic parliamentary route to socialism/whatever. If not then all the MP focused activity (Labour, independent, new left party, etc.) is a complete waste of time at best, and at worst a displacement for more realistic stuff. It also is the case that much extra-parliamentary stuff (community groups etc.) that has one eye on elections slowly but surely turns focus to canvassing and election related activity the closer they get, giving up on other stuff and then usually collapsing post-election defeat.

Look at all the excitement about the independent MPs at the last election. What power do they have in parliament? None. What difference would another few make?

If people are sure that the parliamentary route is the most realistic one there is then I'd like to know their reasoning and explain the actual processes by which this could happen.

Personally, I don't think there is a viable or sustainable parliamentary route, but I do think there are some examples worth looking at for scope:

Sinn Fein
UKIP
SNP

All can be seen as successes, all can also be seen as failures. But in the British system they're the "blueprint".

 

[Eric Jarvis]

To expand on my criticisms a bit and be less catty: I think organising in your local area is a good thing and it's something that I put effort into doing. As emanymton alludes to above, I'm extremely skeptical of any attempt to impose a national structure which doesn't emerge organically from the groups themselves, and frankly the stuff about "people like Jamie Driscoll, Leane Mohamed, Pamela Fitzpatrick, Sean Halsall, Ian Hodson, Jabu Nana-Hartley"... "groups around Leane Mohamed, Tanushka Marah, Sean Halsall and Nandita Lal" makes it sound a bit like you're trying to do the "big name" model just without having any actual big names.
Suppose it's that old catch-22 where anything worth doing is likely to involve slow patient work that isn't likely to show big results on the scale that we really want it to, and any attempt to skip the hard bits and go straight to an effective national org or whatever is likely to show...even less results, usually.

Pretty much exactly this. I am actually pointing out the "small name model". People who have real support mostly from meeting people face to face and are building that into local activist groups. People who have been doing real on the ground work for years and are now being pushed, in some cases reluctantly, into looking at turning their community actions into electoral politics, and some with local/regional support, looking for ways to connect nationally. It's nothing like how Respect, TUSC, Workers Party etc started out, and way more like what happened at the end of the 19th century that led to a multitude of groups coalescing over two decades and becoming the Labour Party. Hopefully this time around it can be done in a quarter of the time. However it is essential not to skip the boring difficult stuff. Somebody has to slog through drafting an effective democratic constitution and rule book (that plugs the loopholes that destroyed the Labour Party) or the whole thing gets either hijacked by a clique or simply falls apart because decisions don't get made. Fortunately there are a few rules geeks around who perversely actually enjoy doing that stuff. There are also a few of us who for no good reason actually get off on creating organisational structures and such. Maybe a few dozen people in the entire country give a damn about this boring stuff, but a good few have been working at it fir a while and boring other people to tears by asking what they think of it (usually getting a reaction of "yeah seems fair, can't see much wrong with it, but who do you think is going to win Great Big Fat Strictly I'm A Celebrity Drag Off Island).

 

[LDC]

Maybe a few dozen people in the entire country give a damn about this boring stuff, but a good few have been working at it fir a while and boring other people to tears by asking what they think of it (usually getting a reaction of "yeah seems fair, can't see much wrong with it, but who do you think is going to win Great Big Fat Strictly I'm A Celebrity Drag Off Island).

Nice attitude to people there...

Anyway if you think some rule book or constitution will prevent these problems then I suggest you have a closer look at similar projects.

 

[LDC]

Personally, I don't think there is a viable or sustainable parliamentary route, but I do think there are some examples worth looking at for scope:

Sinn Fein
UKIP
SNP

All can be seen as successes, all can also be seen as failures. But in the British system they're the "blueprint".

Yeah I think there's lots of interesting and useful things to look at and lessons from for sure, especially extra-parliamentary groups and organisations of both the left, right and religious, as well as what happens and has happened during and after upsurges in social unrest/other upheavals.

 

[Eric Jarvis]

For me there's a big (and often ignored) question that underlies much/all of the 'new political party' type activity mentioned by some above, and that is whether there is some realistic parliamentary route to socialism/whatever. If not then all the MP focused activity (Labour, independent, new left party, etc.) is a complete waste of time at best, and at worst a displacement for more realistic stuff. It also is the case that much extra-parliamentary stuff (community groups etc.) that has one eye on elections slowly but surely turns focus to canvassing and election related activity the closer they get, giving up on other stuff and then usually collapsing post-election defeat.

Look at all the excitement about the independent MPs at the last election. What power do they have in parliament? None. What difference would another few make?

If people are sure that the parliamentary route is the most realistic one there is then I'd like to know their reasoning and explain the actual processes by which this could happen.

Look at the history from the end of the 19th century into the early 20th. It takes about 20-30 MPs to have a useful bloc in Parliament. If the left of Labour MPs, the independent left MPs and the Green MPs actually worked together (which I don't think they will) that bloc would nearly be there.

Another thing that hugely bolsters the right is that every party seems determined to stick with their (incredibly flawed) narrative rather than challenging it:

• Immigration is causing all our problems
• Benefit fraud costs huge amounts
• We spend too much on out-of-work benefits and need to be 'tougher' on them
• Trans people are a big, scary problem

Whereas to me what needs to be said by people with the power to change it is:

• We have an ageing population, immigration is never going to stop so we need policies that make immigration work for us and help get the skills and the Treasury receipts we need, not just 'stop the boats'
• We need to go after corporate and megarich tax evasion, not benefit fraud - this utterly eclipses the cost of benefit fraud
• Benefits need to be fair, rather than wasting money on punitive schemes that are shown time and again to be expensive and have no effect on people's ability to find work. People are in a better position to find work if they are not scrabbling to survive.
• Trans healthcare should be a matter for trans people and their healthcare professionals, not MPs or newspaper columnists and they are about 0.1% of the population so why in God's name are they an electoral issue, that's fucked up

Again, no party would say that because our media is run by mega-rich tax evaders who want everyone to look the other way, and be distracted by boats, benefits and trans people.

This is precisely why there is no way of doing anything useful purely by relying on mainstream media, and social media is of very limited use (as the same elite control the algorithms). Change has to happen from street level. If you don't get out there and get involved you won't see it.

 

[emanymton]

For me there's a big (and often ignored) question that underlies much/all of the 'new political party' type activity mentioned by some above, and that is whether there is some realistic parliamentary route to socialism/whatever. If not then all the MP focused activity (Labour, independent, new left party, etc.) is a complete waste of time at best, and at worst a displacement for more realistic stuff. It also is the case that much extra-parliamentary stuff (community groups etc.) that has one eye on elections slowly but surely turns focus to canvassing and election related activity the closer they get, giving up on other stuff and then usually collapsing post-election defeat.

Look at all the excitement about the independent MPs at the last election. What power do they have in parliament? None. What difference would another few make?

If people are sure that the parliamentary route is the most realistic one there is then I'd like to know their reasoning and explain the actual processes by which this could happen.

While this is all true, I also don't think you can ignore elections. Any political force that hopes to.be taking seriously will need to engage in elections at some point.

While MPs in their own don't have much power they have more political access than anyone else.

And elections are the time when the majority of people consciously engage with politics it is a mistake to disengage at that point.

Edit- Not that I think you were suggesting they should be ignored.

 

[Eric Jarvis]

I mean something way bigger than TUSC, who only got a handful of council seats, and beyond thinking 'do I know that name?' I know nothing about Socialist Alliance.

There is a large group of people who now no longer believe in Labour as a progressive force and are voting tactically, for independents or not voting at all. Look at all the thousands who have exited Labour. It has been the case for years that many ordinary people no longer feel represented by Labour.

The nearest I can think of is Respect (but absolutely minus George Galloway and the SWP who AFAIK were big factors but would put a lot of people off nowadays!). They got at least one MP. Or, like I said, the machinations in progress mentioned by Eric Jarvis which I'm vaguely aware of but know little about. There was huge interest in Enough Is Enough (people not being able to get into meetings, meetings standing room only etc.) but it fizzled out and I don't know why - not for lack of enthusiasm among those who would like a viable left alternative. LFI are possibly the best example, but as has been acknowledged the parliamentary system in France is different.

It irks me no end that the most successful new party by far has been UKIP/Reform, but it proves that new parties aren't necessarily consigned to the dustbin of history like Respect.

Enough is Enough never really had a long term strategy as far as I am aware.

 

[Eric Jarvis]

We have seen meaningfully left groups achieving representational success and challenging for power in the likes of France and Spain, with LFI and Sumar respectively. In Spain, they are in government and have made some difference.

Here, it is hard to see how this kind of thing can happen due to the undemocratic electoral system. We're stuck in this particular regard.

Actually FPTP is a weakness for the establishment. With turnouts plummeting and a lot of places where the majority of people feel betrayed by the established parties it is far easier to win surprise election results with "maverick candidates" than it would be with any form of PR. The important thing is to just have one left anti-establishment candidate in each seat. Of course that may not be possible. In some places we managed it at the last general election, but in many others we very much didn't.

 

[Eric Jarvis]

Yeah I think there's lots of interesting and useful things to look at and lessons from for sure, especially extra-parliamentary groups and organisations of both the left, right and religious, as well as what happens and has happened during and after upsurges in social unrest/other upheavals.

I'm particularly interested in some of the things happening on the left in Latin America.

 

[LDC]

While this is all true, I also don't think you can ignore elections. Any political force that hopes to.be taking seriously will need to engage in elections at some point.

While MPs in their own don't have much power they have more political access than anyone else.

And elections are the time when the majority of people consciously engage with politics it is a mistake to disengage at that point.

Edit- Not that I think you were suggesting they should be ignored.

I think one of the good things about the broader radical left being in such a weak position currently is that much of what we need to do is pretty much the same no matter our broader position on elections/the end goals/etc. And that is to build class and community power where we live and work, and that will take slightly different forms depending on where we are.

TBH I think arguably the logical and understandable position is to give up and turn into some kind of prepper, or maybe to work for very limited goals (wilderness defence, worker/housing rights) will no hope or goal of wider change.

 

[chilango]

TBH I think arguably the logical and understandable position is to give up and turn into some kind of prepper, or maybe to work for very limited goals (wilderness defence, worker/housing rights) will no hope or goal of wider change.

Yeah, that's pretty much where I'm at right now.

I still have hope though. I haven't lost that yet