For some considerable time discussions about the formation of a new left-wing party have been taking place behind closed doors – in the shadows, not in the light of day. However, in a Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) Zoom meeting on the 21 July 2025, called under the title Trade Unionists for a New Party, Jeremy Corbyn spoke about the prospects of a new party. TUSC is a Socialist Party (SP) initiative, and its control of TUSC was apparent in the way that this meeting was run.
Jeremy said he was consulting. But consulting who about what? There was no political clarity. What did Jeremy have in mind for the formationof a new party? Jeremy did not advocate a democratic founding conference for members with the right to formulate policy, strategy and programme. Nor did he argue for factional rights and representation for minorities on leading committees.
What he did say was less specific. The new organisation would be a voice for the left, a voice for trade unions and a voice for communities. But, outside this vague rhetoric, what exactly did he have in mind? It is difficult to say. He used the word ‘umbrella’ and the phrase ‘common umbrella’. So he probably has in mind a loose electoral alliance or network of independent MP’s, independent local groups, trade unions, somewhere in the mix the political left.
Dave Nellist, a leader of the SP who was the Labour MP for Coventry South East from 1983-92, chaired the meeting. He selected what he described as a wide range of trade union to speak. But they were mostly leading Socialist Party trade unionists. They did not inform the meeting of their political affiliation, nor that they were speaking in a personal capacity. The SP line was, in the words of April Ashley, that a trade union party was a vital necessity. The logic of the SP speakers was Labour is not Labour anymore so a new Labour trade union party was required.
The SP speakers dominated the speaking time, preventing people from the floor from getting the chance to speak. But Dave Nellist, eventually allowed Zarah Sultana to speak. She was the only speaker to stress the urgency of creating a proud socialist organisation given the threat from authoritarians and fascists. She raised the issue of a founding conference of a new party of the left. She was crystal clear that the Labour party was dead to working-class representation. She was not for waiting for the trade unions to take the lead in forming a new party.
Dave Nellist said to the RMT speaker that in the historic version oif his union, railway workers had put forward a motion to create a Labour party. But these workers were ILP members. They put forward Keir Hardie’s half-trade union half-political party federation as an alternative to a socialist party. Arthur Henderson reorganised this loose federation into a tightly centralised national interest parliamentary party in 1918. It was the ILP who initiated the Labour party not the trade unions.
History does not repeat itself except as farce. The SP attempt to replicate the formation of the Labour Party is futile and uninspired. A trade union party or born-again Labourism, rather than a socialist party which aims to abolish capitalism, would take us back to the failures of the past and not carry us forward to a socialist future.
We need a mass democratic socialist party not a half-way house alternative.
Socialist party member or supporter, William Mullins, made the TUSC aim clear in comments on Facebook in response to my view of the recent TUSC zoom meeting with Jeremy Corbyn. The aim was to rebuild what the early pioneers of the Labour party had built. This would be a step forward for the trade unions. What was required was a federal structure for the new organisation not a fully fledged party. He pointed to the SLP as an example of how a factional party will only fail. he said we have to walk before we can run.
In response Alan Brooke said the left, including the Socialist party was only crawling along with anachronistic dogma. ( recreating the Labour Party) I made the point that we dont want to imitate the early ILP which was not possible in the current political context. In the SLP the problem was Scargill’s refusal to allow open debate and discussion of Socialist ideas.
Mark Copestake, asserts the country hates the left who talk about Marx in Coffee shops. Alan Brook responded by saying that kind of stereotype creates hate. I responded by saying while I had never discussed Marx in a Coffee shop I had discussed Marx in many pubs. I think people in Britain,in general, don’t hate socialist ideas, they dislike the religious attitude towards Lenin and Trotsky of the groups.
But, back to the TUSC meeting. Pete Firmin made the point that the meeting was a TUSC rally rather than a meeting to seriously discuss how the unions could be involved in a new mass Socialist Party. Problems in the Unions were not even recognised let alone discussed. The left has just lost its majority on the NEC in UNISON. Sharon Graham is not a supporter of Corbyn. And so on.
I attended the meeting. I didn’t know that the union speakers were all Socialist Party Members. How did Barry know? Zara Sultanna was the only speaker who moved me. She always has done and this is why I signed up for the meeting. I was once involved with TUSC as a member of TUSC independents but TUSC was only active during elections. It lacked relevance when Jeremy Corbyn was leading Labour. One good thing about TUSC was its no cuts position regarding local council budgets. This showed courage. I am not sure what the position is now. The Birmingham Bin workers are leading the call exposing how bereft of principles Labour Councils have become. The fact that so many people signed up shows the time is right to end the relationship with Labour and break with its pro Capitalist and Imperialist aspirations.
Hi Kate.
How did I know most of the speakers called by Dave Nellist were Socilaist party members? I know them from my long involement in far left politics. I also know how Dave Nellist operates so when he refused to take speakers from the floor and by sheer chance had a list of speakers or a wide range of trade unionists to call ignoring non Socialist trade unionists I knew they would be Socialist Party speakers. However, I was not absolutely sure about two of the speakers The RMT speaker and the speaker from Wales. That why I wrote the word most. But comrades who used the internet for information confirmed all 8 Trade union speakers were S.P
Only one speaker was named as SP and her surname was Taaffe so impossible to pretend she was not SP. None of the TU speakers revealed their SP membership. Only one the RMT speaker said he was speaking in a personal capacity. Although Marion Lloyd who once tried to recruit me to the SP did admit her motion had little chance of success. I used to be in the same UNISON branch as April Ashley. Anyway, think about how much time and energy went into manipulating this meeting to exclude debate and discussion or alternatives to Dave Nellists views. If you look at my facebook page you will see debates in which the SP members are unable to relate to debate and discussion, and only have SP loyalty to offer.
The SP membership are insulted from alternative Socialist views. This is one of the reasons why they do not want the new party to be a membership organisation with local branches. The leadership would be worried that the members would be exposed to alternative Socialist views. But their strategy is for an electoral alliance. They are the party so they dont want a rival party.
In the TAS meeting you thought that SP coud do both. Support a membership organisation and a electoral alliance. But if a member of SP is in a new Party branch and the Branch decides on a policy or candidate and then the local SP branch votes for a different policy and candidate,where does the SP member put her loyalty? Practically its one or the other. Electoral alliance or membership party.
Hi Barry, I would li,ke to know more about your perspective.
Do you advocate socialists join this new “ Corbyn initiative”?
Do you think a really socialist party can get into power through parliament?
Do you think there is a need to smash the current structures of power and replace them with new, proletarian organs?
Do you think that something akin to Soviets are required or were they merely a “ Russian” phenomenon?
In the case that you do not see a parliamentary road to socialism, what, if any, use can socialists make of it?
What o you see as the ruling organ during the transition to socialism? Parliament? The ( mass or otherwise) party? Something like a congress of workers councils/ Soviets, perhaps territorial rather than workplace based? Something else?
Do you think that the ideas set out by Lenin in State and Revolution remain valid, particularly emphasis on recallable delegates as opposed to the MP representative for years on end?
And any other light you may cast on the matter.
Hi Ant
Lenin did not discover Marx’s anti state views until 1917. His famous book the state and Revolution remained an aspiration and did not have much practical influence on Bolshevik politics after 1917. Indeed the Bolshevik state and the party apparatus became the site of counter revolution as the the process of the retreat from Soviet democracy unfolded.
The day after the revolution Lenin located power in the Bolshevik ministries of the old Tsarist bureacracy not the Soviets. As Rosa Luxemberg said in 1918, the Bolshevik dictatorship was a bourgeois dictatorship of a handful of politicians. The Substitution of the party for the working class led to a dictatorship over workers. This counter revolutionary development was not all down to adverse circumstances, but undemocratic political choices, particularly in 1921 and after.
So the failure of the Russian Revolution was in part a failure to smash the Tsasist state and govern with the help of the old Tsarist bureacracy. The Kronstadt revolt and the Strikes in petrograd in 1921 demanded a return to Soviet democracy. A return to Socialism from below. In every working class revolution or revolutionary situation, workers have created organs of working class democracy from below. The names have changed and been different and no doubt there will be different names in the future. So Soviets, (Russia) Councils of action, (Britain) cordons, (Chile) workers committees (Spain) Factory councils (Hungary) And so on.
There is no parliamentary road to Socialism. Capitalist Parliaments are hollowed out in Capitalist crisis,or there are constitutional loopholes to allow Authoritarians to take centre stage. or a back door in parliament can allow a Hitler to emerge. As Trotsky said of the parliament of the weimar Republic 1920s 1930s it could not absorb the tentions of the capitalist crisis. So Communists should not support parliamentary democracy against the fascists but defend their own organisations and freedom to organise and speak.
Hi Ant
Over 500,000 people have applied to join the new left party. As Communists we cannot stand aside from this mass interest in left politics . The emergence of the upsurge in left Social democracy provides us with an opportunity to win people over to Communist politics and add strength to our feeble political presence. So we should join and campagn to build a democratic branch structure rooted in the fight in the working class against all the horrors of rising gas and electricity prices, cuts in child benefit and pensioner provisions, genocide in Gaza and so on. We would fight against an exclusive electioneering focus and keep our red banner high or not fudge or pull our punches in advocating our politics.
Kate: I am a journo on THE LEFT LANE. I researched every speaker. Send an email to: theleftlanepolitics@gmail.com ….. and I will send research / article to you. Alan Story
Alan can you make it clear on this site that all the TU speakers apart from the leader of the Bakers union was SP. Your research confirms that the meeting was rigged to exclude non SP trade union speakers from the floor. Thanks.