21 June 2024
For over a century, the British Labour Party has been the chief obstacle to transforming the workers’ movement into a fighting force that can overthrow capitalism. This is true whether it is led by Ramsay MacDonald or Clement Atlee, Harold Wilson or Tony Blair, Jeremy Corbyn or Keir Starmer, although the inherent contradictions of what Lenin called a “bourgeois workers’ party” mean that at different times different tactics are required to break working people from the hold of Labourism. In the 2017 and 2019 elections, the International Bolshevik Tendency called for a vote for the Corbyn-led Labour Party in order to put to the test claims made by Corbyn himself and many thousands of his followers that the interests of workers could be served through the election of a Labour government with a programme of reforms (see “Put Labour to the Test! Antisemitism, smears & social-democracy”, 1917 No.42).
Few retain these illusions in Labour after a vicious (and ongoing) witch hunt deposed Corbyn from the leadership and expelled or repelled most of his supporters (see “The Corbyn Project: A case study in social democracy”, 1917 No.43). Working people in 2024 are not voting for Labour because they are under the impression their lives would be substantially better as a result (as was the case in 2019) but because they see little alternative. Calling for a vote to Labour amounts to an endorsement of the reserve team of the establishment and its plans for anti-worker austerity—Starmer has made no pretence of being anything else. Rishi Sunak says he will reduce immigration; Starmer says “me too!” His Labour Party seeks to out-Tory the Tories in sucking up to big business, the monarchy and the arms industry supplying Israel and Ukraine. The key message to workers in this election must be: No vote to Labour!
As usual, the leaders of most trade unions are lining up for a Labour government and have endorsed the party’s manifesto, although the paucity of Labour’s offering for their membership means some are being more cautious with their money and attempting to impose conditions for their support.
Most of the British left have historically tended to switch to autopilot and declare “vote Labour” at every election, and a few still do, seemingly without embarrassment (Workers Power: “Vote Labour to kick out the hated Tories.
Organise to fight the Labour government.” or, more enthusiastically, Workers Liberty’s exhortation to “vote Labour everywhere”). But Starmer’s failure to provide any semblance of an alternative to the Tories over Gaza, immigration, austerity or almost anything else means that most are resorting to a fudged position of favouring a Labour vote while carefully avoiding the words “Vote Labour!”
“Kick out the Tories, don’t trust Starmer” (Socialist Workers Party)
“Tories out—but Starmer’s Labour doesn’t stand for us!” (Socialist Party)
“The Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) says: get the Tories out. But we also say: no trust in a Starmer government!” (RCP)
“Vote communist wherever you can on July 4 2024—and vote to kick the Tories out.” (Communist Party of Britain/Young Communist League)
This is an esoteric code designed to avoid an argument with their supporters and even members, who range from committed Labour voters to those repelled by the very idea. But how else can we “get the Tories out”? These headlines replace revolutionary leadership with acquiescence to the inevitability of a Labour government, which they all declare they will fight—beginning on the morning of 5 July. But the time to fight Labour is now. It is necessary to carry out a complete break with Labour and unambiguously oppose any support in this election.
Naturally the small print aims to be more sophisticated. These organisations make positive calls to vote for a selection of left-of-Labour candidates, including some of their own members, in a minority of the 650 constituencies. And yet, in the remaining seats, organisations professing to stand for a revolutionary road to workers’ power cannot bring themselves to suggest that “none of the above” is a valid choice.
The tone of the RCP’s materials changed somewhat after a sudden decision to stand Fiona Lali as an independent candidate in east London, riding on her impressive verbal duel with Suella Braverman on GB News: “For those in Stratford & Bow, we urge you to vote for RCP comrade Fiona Lali on 4 July. For those elsewhere in the country, we call on you to support her campaign, and help boost the pro-Palestine vote in this election” (The Communist, 6 June 2024). That leaves most of their followers none the wiser on the RCP’s electoral strategy. Does “the pro-Palestine vote” include the Labour left, such as Diane Abbott and others in the Campaign Group who have expressed support for Palestine? While there was outrage in the RCP press about Abbott’s poor treatment by Starmer, at the time of writing we could find no guidance on whether to vote for her and her allies.
The RCP are not alone on the left in celebrating Starmer’s eleventh-hour approval of Abbott’s candidacy after a protracted investigation of supposed antisemitism, the now-standard charge used to silence Labour’s left critics. But when the electoral maths is done, a vote for the Labour left Campaign Group (Abbott, John McDonnell, Zarah Sultana, etc.) does not register as a protest against Abbott’s treatment or expose their soft-left politics; rather, it is a vote for a Starmer premiership. He will lead a party in which this “left” is more sidelined than ever, using their parliamentary votes to keep Labour in power in the hope of pushing it just a little bit to the left. No vote to any Labour candidate!
It is undeniable that Palestine is a factor in this election. During the campaign, hundreds of thousands continue to demonstrate against Israel’s attack on Gaza, week after week. Despite a tiny number of renegade candidates, Labour’s position is (as on so much else) indistinguishable from that of the Tories—vague talk of peace, concern for Israel’s security and the need for aid in Gaza, without acknowledging the ongoing genocide and Britain’s role in arming Israel, which will no doubt continue under a Labour government. George Galloway’s recent success in the Rochdale by-election was at least in part due to his forthright defence of Gaza. Candidates from his Workers Party and various independents are being endorsed by an ad hoc organisation called “The Muslim Vote” on the strength of their position on Palestine. Labour are said to be concerned about a drop in support in constituencies with a high Muslim population.
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which has been behind many of the demonstrations, has launched a drive to “Vote Palestine”, organising local hustings and recommending questions to pose to candidates, all the while claiming to be politically neutral. There can be no neutrality in the face of this genocide, which is firmly backed by the British establishment, whether Labour or Tory. Without a denunciation of Labour’s role, the “Vote Palestine” campaign is an endorsement of illusions in the Labour left as part of a Labour government and even opens the door to supporting individual Greens or Lib-Dems. Only independent working-class action can defeat the Israeli onslaught against Palestine, through joint struggle and solidarity between workers in Palestine, Israel and its imperialist sponsors such as here in Britain (see “Stop the Gaza Genocide! Marxism & the Struggle for Palestinian Liberation”).
Some 2019 Labour voters will move to the Green Party, which calls for the suspension of arms sales to Israel and professes positions to the left of Labour on issues such as transport, housing and childcare. But the Greens are a capitalist party possessing a wide spectrum of political views and no connection to independent working-class politics. If the parliamentary numbers require it, they would have no hesitation getting into bed with Starmer. The same can be said for the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and (it goes without saying) the Liberal Democrats.
Others will turn to Galloway’s misnamed Workers Party, which utilised defence of Palestine so successfully in Rochdale, but this alone does not make an electoral programme. Anyone on the left inclined to support Workers Party candidates on this basis would be well advised to examine Galloway’s prejudiced views on matters from trans rights to immigration, such as his complaint that the British state is not doing enough to prevent migrants crossing the channel: “The Royal Navy's principal purpose and duty is to defend the shores of His Majesty's realm, but they're not doing so. They're in every sea except our own sea" (GBNews, 19 June 2024).
His organisation stretches outside the workers’ movement to alliances with local business people and further—some candidates have far-right connections, including Lou Dickins in Richmond and Northallerton and former UKIP candidate Harry Boota in Bradford South. Nor should we forget about Galloway’s endorsement, during the May 2019 European elections, of the Brexit Party, led by none other than Nigel Farage, now heading up the Reform Party as the Tories’ main threat from the right. A real workers’ party would defend the interests not only of wage-earners but of all the oppressed; indeed, no true defenders of workers would mock the marginalised while flirting with the nationalist far right.
Some seeking to oppose Labour from the left will look to the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC), standing 40 candidates, a drop from previous efforts after a two-election break to avoid opposing Labour under Corbyn. Although TUSC claims to provide an “umbrella” for “trade union, socialist and anti-austerity candidates”, it is in reality a vehicle for the Socialist Party, supplemented by a handful of other trade unionists and community activists.
The TUSC programme is in many ways a traditional left-reformist election platform, supporting public ownership of “major companies and banks”, advocating for public services, trade unions and the environment, and proposing various measures to counter poverty and inequality. It also claims to oppose “imperialist wars”, defends Palestine and calls for “a democratic socialist society run in the interests of people not millionaires”.
While there is much to agree with here, there is no hint of a revolutionary challenge to the capitalist state. And hidden away, almost as an afterthought, is the oddly specific demand “Reinstate full trade union rights to prison officers”. For the Socialist Party and TUSC leadership, this is in fact far from an afterthought. Although they were recently given the opportunity to rectify this shameful support for enforcers of the capitalist state and “justice” system, they instead doubled down. This chance was presented to them by the newly anti-sectarian Spartacist League, who applied for and were accepted into membership of TUSC earlier this year, intending to run a general election candidate in its name. Not only did a TUSC conference vote down a Spartacist motion to remove the noxious provision welcoming screws into the workers’ movement, only days before nominations closed the Spartacist candidate was rejected by the TUSC steering committee on the grounds of her opposition to this anti-worker position.
This explicit re-assertion of the traditional Socialist Party “workers in uniform” position, which extends to cops as well as screws, should be anathema to any class-conscious worker. In a mass workers’ party such illusions would be the subject of a passionate fight, but TUSC is clearly not the arena for this struggle, and there is no particular reason to vote for a small, screw-loving front group. The Spartacists congratulated themselves on exposing TUSC and the Socialist Party on this issue, but they immediately declared that they will campaign for TUSC anyway. They are also backing the Workers Party (minus “some dodgy candidates” that the readers of Workers Hammer must identify on their own) and have been seen campaigning in Hayes and Harlington behind a red, white and blue table with posters declaring “Britain Deserves Better” (photo: WPGB video).
Also supported by the Spartacists and other left groups are Jeremy Corbyn and Andrew Feinstein, leading lights in a list of “independent” flotsam and jetsam floating to the left of Labour with interlocked connections to each other through mutual endorsements and various degrees of detachment from the Labour mothership.
Much to the frustration of his supporters, Corbyn held out as long as possible before announcing his independent candidacy in Islington North, where he has been MP since 1983—presumably in the vain hope that Starmer would come around, restore the Labour whip and allow him to stand as the official Labour candidate. In the meantime, he formed the explicitly non-party NGO-like Peace & Justice Project (PJP), which serves only to weaken and divert working-class political organisation outside Labour. With his palpable desire to get back in the Labourite fold, Corbyn represents far less now than he did five years ago as the leader of a leftward-moving Labour Party. Any minor glitch a Corbyn win might cause in the expected resounding Labour victory would be despite his own intentions, and in parliament he would no doubt collaborate closely with ostensibly left Labour MPs, whose politics are indistinguishable from his own.
Corbyn is backed by the Collective, which is supporting an extremely heterogeneous list of candidates based on five demands first put forward by the PJP. These demands (real pay rise for all; green new deal; housing for the many; tax the rich to save the NHS; welcome refugees and a world free from war) don’t even scratch the surface of what is needed in Britain or the world today. The Collective was initiated by Feinstein, who has gained significant publicity and support due to his history as a dissident ANC MP in South Africa and the fact he is standing directly against Starmer in Holborn and St Pancras. Others on the Collective list are former Labour MPs and councillors or are running propaganda campaigns on behalf of ostensibly revolutionary organisations, including Lali of the RCP, Maxine Bowler of the SWP and Michael Lavalette of Counterfire.
The Socialist Party is listed as one of the endorsers of the Collective, and the TUSC website declares that Corbyn is “leading a band of anti-war and anti-austerity candidates including those from the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition”. The Workers Party has observer status on the TUSC steering committee, and TUSC has chosen not to stand against the Campaign Group. The convoluted connections are highlighted by TUSC’s discussions about what to do in “a ‘multi-alternative candidate’ situation” (tusc.org.uk, 22 May 2024). The Collective is also publicising a second list of candidates, described as those who don’t stand on the five demands but who nonetheless have “left values”. This claim is as dubious as it is vague, considering the inclusion of selected Greens, Workers Party and “most Labour candidates in the Socialist Campaign Group”.
There is a common view on the left that those who are organisationally or politically “independent” of Starmer somehow, merely by that “independence”, represent a political advance. This illusion has been expressed clearly by Counterfire:
“The re-election of the likes of Jeremy Corbyn, a former Labour leader, expelled from the party, would send a major signal that there is an appetite for a new left political project. The more independent left candidates win or have strong showings, whether or not they historically come from the Labour party, the bigger the spur that would be to the extra-parliamentary movement.”
—counterfire.org, 6 June 2024
Candidates on the Collective list have very different individual profiles and can in no way be seen to represent a “movement” or even less any progress towards a revolutionary workers’ party. Most of these “independent” candidates either endorse the Labour left, make a point not to stand against them and/or call for “Tories out” as a code for a Labour vote without making too much noise about it.
Voting for a fragmented patchwork of small organisations and isolated independents does nothing to advance the task of breaking the hold of Labourism on the British working class and building a viable alternative. With a few exceptions, these candidates are unlikely to poll well, and most will fail to get anywhere near the five percent threshold needed to regain their £500 deposit. There are often multiple “left” choices in any given constituency, with overall no sense of movement towards organisational coherence or political clarity. And, for the most part, working people will simply ignore them.
There is no parliamentary road to socialism, but Marxists seek to take advantage of the political spectacle and programmatic sorting that occurs as part of the electoral process (see “Marxism & Bourgeois Elections”, 1917 No.42). On 4 July, we must send the clearest possible message that what is on offer in this election is not what we need—we can do this not by scattered protest votes or by staying home, but by turning up at the polling booth and spoiling our ballots.
The political interests of classes and social layers are defended by political parties. Under Starmer, Labour best represents a section of the working class that sees itself as linked to the interests of the bourgeoisie, and this must be fought with a clear organisational and political rupture. Half-hearted criticism of Labour with back-handed support or lone voices in the wilderness are really no break at all. The Marxist call to split the working class away from Labour is premised on the need to build an alternative party, a weapon of class struggle that can mobilise independently around class interests. At a minimum, this party needs a programme built and fought for by an active membership, and it will be judged by the working class on the basis of that programme. Such testing in practice of parties and programmes is a necessary step in the building of a revolutionary workers’ party that can lead the class to overthrow capitalism.
Ultimately, this election is a distraction diverting energy from the ongoing class struggle. Workers in Britain face rising costs, lowering living standards, disintegrating public services, increasingly privatised education and healthcare, institutional racism, state violence and erosion of LGBTQ and women’s rights. The British state is arming, financing and waging war around the globe in pursuit of wealth and power for the very few.
None of this will change whatever the result of this election. None of this will change until we get rid of the profit system that sustains it, taking ownership and control of production and distribution into the hands of the working class and extending our support to workers and the oppressed around the world. The ruling class will fight to the bitter end to prevent this from happening, and they will use the full force of the capitalist state to impose their will on the majority of the population. The working class therefore requires not simply a new party but one armed with the understanding that only the revolutionary overturn of the capitalist state and the creation of organs of working-class rule can open a road to socialism—the task of our lives.
Related articles
The Corbyn Project: A case study in social democracy 1917 No.43)
Put Labour to the Test! Antisemitism, smears & social-democracy (1917 No.42)
Marxism & Bourgeois Elections (1917 No.42)
Stop the Gaza Genocide! Marxism & the Struggle for Palestinian Liberation (27 November 2023)