The left – the broad church left – has universally welcomed Zarah Sultana’s 3 July statement to resign from Labour and to co-lead the formation of a new party. The numbers (over 60,000 at the time of writing) that have signed up to support the project clearly reflect the widespread despair and anger at Starmer’s Labour.
Should socialists and communists welcome a possible new left of Labour party? Even though there are a myriad of unanswered questions. And it may never happen. Even though its conception has been clandestine and its pre-launch ‘launch’ chaotic.
After years of false starts, however, it does seem to have momentum (sic). Sultana’s call to arms may have exposed tensions in the Collective camp but it was well timed – a year since Starmer became PM, increasing outrages in Gaza and the West Bank, the proscription of Palestine Action, the debacle over the proposed cuts to disability benefits.
So let’s start with the positives: a new party on the left should open up discussion and debate around socialist ideas; it will challenge the worst Labour government in living memory; and it presents a left alternative to Reform, which Starmer not only has failed to do but with his attempts to win over Reform voters has given this shambles of a far right party more credibility every time he opens his mouth.
But…what exactly are we talking about here?
Those on the left who have signed up to support Zarah Sultana’s project have done so even though they are signing up to something which has no programme, no structure and, up to now, has been discussed behind closed doors. It doesn’t even have any concrete proposals – at least in public – for the period from now to a new party being launched. And no timetable set for that to happen – late July, October, April 2026, never?
How many of the groups involved in Collective (about 60 of them) have had any real influence in the regular zoom meetings they take part in on the formation of a party? We don’t even know exactly who is on the main organising committee.
It’s clear that Sultana’s declaration was not met by joy by some of those on ‘the inside’ around Corbyn. There was silence from Corbyn for 18 hours after Sultana’s statement and Corbyn’s own statement was carefully worded – he ignored ‘her co-lead’ reference and instead said, ‘I am delighted she will help us build a real alternative’.
The denial or downplaying of any rifts from many enthusiastic supporters of a new party does no-one any favours. The two statements led inevitably to rumours in the media about rifts between allies of Corbyn and those around Sultana.
What did the lead players expect given the lack of transparency in their project? Andrew Burgin, a founding member and national officer of Left Unity, tells a somewhat different story in a Morning Star article to the Sunday Times article (paywall) by Gabriel Pogrund with the leaked What’s App messages.
A mass socialist party (even a mass social democrat party) should have openness and democracy at its core. The frustration over the lack of democratic participation from some groups involved in Collective in the discussions over a new party has been followed by warnings that from now on the project has to be open and democrat.
Whether that will happen is so far an open question. But the omens aren’t great. The excuses for the silence so far aren’t convincing – like Andrew Feinstein’s that the negotiations had to be done in private to protect high profile figures. I assume he meant Sultana. The process so far whiffs of elitism and Labour’s history of back room deals. Or perhaps it reflects a lack of leadership and purpose as Archie Woodrow argues in this Prometheus article. Either way (or it could be both) how can the left trust it will now change – though Sultana’s statement may provide some window of hope?
No-one is suggesting that the people behind this proposed party should have presented its potential supporters with the party fully formed – that would be worse than what has happened, but the debate about different models, about its politics, its objectives, should have happened publicly – inviting the broader left to participate in its formation through open discussion nationally, in communities, in existing left parties, in trade unions and in campaigning and activist groups. What was there to hide
So we have got to the stage – probably due to Sultana’s frustration at the lack of progress – where there is the announcement that there will be a left alternative to Labour being launched but there is nothing at all about how a new party will function. Or even whether it will be the national party that Sultana talks about or a plethora of local campaigns and independents which will fight the 2026 local elections under a collective umbrella. Is that what Corbyn favours – at least in the short term? How would a party based on local initiatives function? Where is the accountability to members; who decides on candidates for elections; whether there should be local alliances with other parties; and how can a loosely based coalition shape and move politics to the left? Would it even have a programme?
If a national party is to the outcome then how will it be structured internally? Again we don’t know but we do know that different models are being promoted – for example, a party that recognises factions which can work within the party framework and fight for their ideas to gain majority approval? How will the leader(s) be elected? How will policy be formulated and decided? If communist and socialist parties are able to affiliate, is it realistic to think they can exert any real ideological influence? An open debate on the left that may be about to happen should have been there from the start.
And critically importantly for socialists: what will its politics be? In the immediate noise around Sultana’s announcement there has been little about policy, hardly any mention even of socialism or a programme – beyond listing a few bland principles.
The supporters of a new party are widely based – for some (perhaps the majority) the Labour 2017 and 2019 manifestos are their blueprint, despite their lack of ambition. The 2019 manifesto especially was a list of desirable policies with little coherence or clear underlying ideology. The leaders of the project are all associated in some way with the Labour Party when Corbyn was leader. Do they want to bring back Corbynism but with a slightly more left agenda, such as withdrawal from NATO and abandoning Trident?
The Sultana declaration is now beginning to generate some thinking about what a new left party should be based on and how it should be structured to ensure democratic and dynamic politics. But so far – and, of course it’s early days – it is largely lacking in new ideas. There are exceptions – Max Shanly’s article Towards a New Model Left Party, for example, critiques what he says are “two, competing trends that have arisen out of the private discussions over the past couple of years. Both parliamentary in character and focus”. He also (somewhat controversially) looks to the Democratic Socialists of America for ideas about how to ensure a new party is democratic.
It is too early to judge whether this new party – if there is a new party – will fail or succeed. And what are the criteria for success? Would it be around 20 to 30 new left wing MPs elected at the next election? What would that achieve if the politics and the nature of the state remain unchanged? Perhaps a change in the electoral system. But though that would be desirable democratically it isn’t going to transform society. We can perhaps understand more what failure would look like. There are many precedents on the left such as Podemos and Syriza and a myriad of unity-type groups and parties here.
What is essential is that the debates about the nature of a new left party need to be based on honesty – crucially, about the fatal deficiencies of the Corbyn project itself – the failure to build a movement, the capitulation to the antisemitic smear campaign, the lukewarm policy agenda. Surely socialists can agree on that at least.