The Future of the British Left

(C) D.M.

The recent split in the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), with party giant Lindsey German and 50 supporters leaving the party, continues a predictable pattern for the Left. Swiftly following the division of Respect into the mainstream Galloway/Yaqoob group and the SWP bloc, by now any leftist can write the expected follow-up in their sleep. “Why must we focus so on theoretical purity, rather than practical unity?… An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory!… [Obligatory call to arms]!”

What is striking about the split is precisely that it does not represent a crisis for the Left, either ideological or practical. It is fashionable to dislike the SWP despite their sterling campaigning work. What progressive can deny the value of Right to Work, Campaign against Climate Change or Unite against Fascism? Rather, the reason why neither this split, nor the absence of any leftist parliamentary parties represents a crisis, is because ‘the Left’ cannot be considered a parliamentary project.

I do not mean to assert that the ‘real’ Left, should be revolutionary, not reformist. The Left should be keenly focused on our political institutions, but it should recognise the current impossibility of achieving progress within them. Trying to win the parliamentary game on behalf of the majority of society is a currently impossible task, but agitating to shift the game in favour of the majority is a vital, achievable project.

No genuinely progressive, even anti-establishment force, can make itself heard in parliament. The Left cannot make significant gains here not because the Left is in crisis, but because our democracy is. Given the current state of our ‘two and a bit’ party, First-Past-The-Post system, there is no left-of-centre game in town. Even the election of the odd Cruddas or Galloway can have no impact on the Commons. Any view even slightly outside the mainstream is, in each seat, necessarily denied representation.

Consider: around 80% of Britons think the environment should be an urgent priority, yet not one of the major parties stands for this. Beyond the formal political structure, the situation is even more dire with the political field so intertwined with big business, social privilege and the corporate media that it must be considered a vehicle for reproduction and repression, not representation.

The Left in 21st Century Britain cannot rest its hopes on an ideally pure democracy however, for the social problems we aim to tackle pervade, rather than merely exclude, mainstream society, as a glance at the Daily Mail will affirm.

It is true that Britain is a far more left-wing and liberal society than our parliamentary representatives or media’s representations allow. The majority of Britons think the free market needs more reform and regulation and more think capitalism “fatally flawed” than think it “works well as it is.” 40% think the state should be more active in controlling industry compared to 30% calling for less and 67% believe the government should do more to redistribute wealth. Aggregate British public opinion and you get a view somewhere between the most left, Lib Dem and Respect.

Sunny Hundal makes much of how the public is actually left-liberal. While valid, this is insufficient. The strength of the Left lies not in comporting with current majority preferences, but the fact that Leftism supports the interests of the majority.

Polling reveals that the public is regularly misled about factual states of affairs. Popular conceptions over-estimate the costs and extent of immigration, teenage pregnancies, government spending… and this is before we get into even slightly controversial questions of value. Most people believe they would suffer from redistributive taxation, where in fact, the shape of our wealth distribution and (regressive taxation regime) implies that the majority stand to benefit.

That Leftist action is required is obvious. Where income inequality is vast and growing (as bad as the 1930s), wealth owned by a tiny minority, social mobility a myth and this pattern of social privilege and disadvantage interlaced with the myriad disadvantages of race, gender and sexuality, the need is clearly urgent.

Intellectually, the Left has won the argument on these issues (usually by default). There should be no question that phenomena such as teenage pregnancy, youth delinquency and educational underachievement are consequences of specific social deprivations, not the loss of ‘traditional values’ or too much state involvement.

So, granted that only the Left can advance the interests of the majority and that the establishment is structured to preclude this, what does the future hold for the Leftist project? The notion of “insurgency” campaigning has value here: recognition that the system is stacked against progressive ends, seeking to undermine unjust structures rather than be vindicated by them.

This realisation should not lead to rejection of the democratic process, but a recognition that democratic-capitalism is intrinsically a game biased towards capital (of all kinds). Leftist campaigning must focus on the structural elements that undermine democracy rather than hoping to outgun them with enough facts or better rhetoric.

Revealing the way that majority interests are excluded from the establishment should form an integral part of the Leftist project and can sow common ground between the politicised ‘vanguard’ and depoliticised majority. Experiments with deliberative and direct democracy, such as power2010, are an important part of this grassroots politicisation.

This effort serves as both direct campaigning, but also consciousness-raising for a society that is sold gossip or worse in place of real politics (e.g. support for British nationalisms, whether racist, anti-immigration or anti-EU). Such vehicles as voteforachange and Boris Keep Your Promise, offer a model for progressives to wield influence. There is no way to plant properly progressive MPs in parliament, rather broad political campaigning can only hope to  affect certain issues by highlighting them.

Such campaigns can have no impact if they remain confined to the ‘Leftist base’ and not for want of numbers. Precisely because politicised, the Left is taken for granted electorally; it’s undecided voters that decide elections. Two aims are key: i) bringing the non-political majority into contact with substantive issues and ii) encouraging conscious coalition between supporters of isolated campaigns.

Individual campaigns, from welovetheNHS to 10:10 attract divergent groups of supporters and appeal to the a(nti)political mainstream. Encouraging awareness of the assonance between such diverse issues as gay rights, Oxbridge admissions, expenses and PFI, can broaden support for the wider Left. To do this, there is no alternative for continuing to advance arguments which explain these connections. Clearly such progress will continue to be inhibited by the social conditions mentioned earlier. Here we can only hope that slight progress in social change on the ground- furthered by the “left hand of the state”- will contribute to progress in the political sphere by resisting disadvantage in related social fields.

We must not forget that though the system is necessarily weighted against progressive, majority interests, past struggles for welfare and representation continue to be felt and embodied in our political system. The playing field might be distinctly uneven, but the goal is still within reach.