The Tory Downfall

With Rishi Sunak calling a general election for July 4th – a date unexpected to most of his party, except for the ones betting on it – the British public goes to the polls with a very different political landscape than that of December 2019. The Conservative Party is on its third prime minister since, and the Labour Party has not only had a new leader, but a significant shift in its ideological and political outlook.

With the election fast approaching, this article will look at the political landscape as it stands, why the Tories have collapsed, how Labour has changed, and most importantly, look at what the socialist left has to offer, and discuss what is next for the communist movement after an almost certain Labour landslide.

On December 13th 2019, Jeremy Corbyn resigned from his position as leader of the Labour Party. The socialist left had its illusions shattered in front of their eyes, and dismay and apathy started to set in almost instantly. The Conservatives won a landslide of 365 seats; a commanding majority of 80 seats.

With the new parliament barely getting started, the Covid–19 pandemic shook the world. This had an interesting effect on the polls, where there was a ‘rally around the flag’ poll bounce for the Tories. However, this could only last so long. The scandal involving Dominic Cummings, the chief adviser to Boris Johnson, dealt a blow to the Tory party’s credibility and reputation. Their hypocrisy (in this case visiting a castle to “test eyesight”) surrounding the pandemic began to show, clearly for everyone to see.

Despite this blow to the Tories reputation and poll numbers, the very fast vaccine rollout (which should not be credited to the Conservatives, but instead to scientists creating it, logistics workers distributing it, and healthcare workers administering it) created a considerable poll bounce for the government.

The public, for the most part, did their bit to lessen the effects of the Covid–19 pandemic, many had to say goodbye to loved ones through video calls, and not seeing friends and family for months on end. The Tories, however, decided this did not apply to them. First with the Matt Hancock kiss scandal (so much for social distancing!), and then in even greater contradiction to their own rules, the massive ‘partygate’ scandal. On the 12th april 2022, Johnson and Sunak were fined for breaking Covid rules. The cost of living crisis was also beginning to truly take hold of the country, damaging Johnson further. And finally there was the Chris Pincher scandal, where Johnson had appointed Pincher as chief whip despite knowing of allegations that he had been told about in 2019.[1]

Next was the ‘49 days of chaos’ under Liz Truss, with the death of the queen, and the disastrous ‘mini–budget’ which dealt a blow to the UK economy, and permanently damaged the Tories reputation as a result. After the 7 week bender with the economy, the Tories popularity cratered and hasn’t recovered since.

Now here we are, with a general election fast approaching, and with Rishi Sunak the new leader of the country. The Tories could face electoral wipe out, and some polls – note that these are outliers and not realistic, but are worth looking at – show the Tories being the third party!

With current projections from various polling companies tending to show the Tories to be under 200 seats, there will be some serious questions going on within the Conservative Party.[2]

A labour rise

With Jeremy Corbyn out of the Parliamentary Labour Party, and Kier Starmer’s leadership–contest victory, Labour began a transformation into the pitiful option presented before voters today. Left wing MPs have been been barred from reselection. Some left wing members, including many Jewish members, have been kicked out the party, accused of antisemitism. Meanwhile members in line with the Starmerite wing are allowed to say disgusting, antisemitic comments against Jewish people, just because they have the ‘wrong’ opinion on Israel. Weaponising such bigotry for factional purposes is wrong and shows how the Starmer–aligned right of the party care more about power than combating antisemitism, and other types of bigotry. Welcoming former Conservative Party members with abhorrent views on immigrants is fine, as long as you help them win. Or being a committed transphobe, or racist, or antisemite, or Islamophobe as long as you help ‘new new Labour’ win.

With a firm rightward shift in the Labour Party realised, the right wing of the Party gleefully points to the chasm of 20 points between Labour and the Conservatives in the polls, claiming it shows that the centre ground is the guarantor of victory, and the ‘loony left’ is irrelevant in the British political landscape. However, we communists would surely argue that this is not necessarily true. Whilst it is true that Labour have taken many of the voters who hang around the centre ground, this wasn’t the true guarantor of victory. Tory incompetence had already sliced their poll numbers considerably, and many people just want to see “change” and get rid of the Conservatives. There is another problem with this thesis; whilst the centre vote has been mopped up by Labour, the collapse of the Tories has led to a massive surge for Reform UK, a hard right party with many far right connections. It is reported that 1 in 10 Reform candidates are Facebook friends with Gary Raikes[3], the leader of the fascist New British Union. By giving up its more radical policies to the country’s problems, Labour has allowed the far–right to take the narrative, as the Tory vote collapses. The right of the Tory Party is pushing even further right, due to the increasing legitimacy given to Reform through media coverage and right wing Conservative MPs trying to placate them.

If you look at a lot of recent polling, most people do indeed prefer the idea of a Labour government to a Conservative one; not an unreasonable opinion to have, with how thoroughly dismantled public services have become, and the dire economic outlook. However if you ask the public why they want to vote for Labour, its far from a belief that the Labour Party will vastly improve Britain and bring the change it needs. Yougov polling shows that 48% of Labour voters are voting primarily to kick the Tories out, rather than get Labour in.[4] 13% just want “change”, which is vague enough to double as ‘get the Tories out’. This could prove to be quite the problem for this neo–Blairite version of the party, and should the Tories regain some sense of competence, or, God forbid, reform become the ‘unofficial’ opposition, then Starmer may end up as a one term prime minster.

What about Corbyn?

In spite of what Labour members wanted, Jeremy Corbyn was denied the opportunity to be the Labour candidate for Islington North. He has decided to stand as an independent, which is an interesting development.

It is a definite possibility that Corbyn could win this seat (although not without great difficulty, as he is currently behind as suggested by a recent Survation constituency poll[5]), and some would see this as a victory for the socialist left. However, it is only really a victory for Jeremy Corbyn himself, not for the entirety of the socialist left in Britain. Without a party, it is near impossible for socialism to be put to the masses. Corbyn will be advocating for his brand of democratic socialism, but being an independent, he will only be one voice in a big parliament, and his ability to advocate on a national scale will be minimal.

Being an independent is an incredible limit on how much impact he can have on British politics, as a party machine is required to rally a large amount of people.

The Gaza vote

Across Britain, there are many more independent campaigns which put a very heavy emphasis on the war and genocide in Gaza, and the horrific oppression faced by the Palestinian people. Whilst these campaigns are welcome in that they bring to light this horrific situation, strategically they border on nonsensical. As they all operate as independents, there is no central body to coordinate them, nor advocate for concrete policies. The lack of a party creates this strange case where there is a tangible ‘movement’, but one which is completely atomised, and as a result means there is no political programme to unite them.

Another issue that arrives with independents, is that some candidates may have political or personal views that are abhorrent, and then as a result, these views may get associated with the rest of the movement. As there is no party machine to investigate these candidates, the movement can be seen as not serious and bigoted.

In many constituencies, there are multiple independent ‘pro–Palestine’ candidates running, which creates an unnecessary split in the vote. Again this shows the lack of discipline created by independent campaigning, and the need for a party to provide unity around this cause.

The final issue is that whilst campaigning for Gaza is a commendable cause, it is only a temporary measure. It is highly unlikely any of these independents will be elected (as is true for many other single issue candidates), and so there will be no more (or perhaps even fewer) voices for Palestine in parliament. A party committed to demanding a permanent ceasefire and the recognition of Palestine will be able to take that advocacy past just one election, and have a much better chance of defending Palestine in parliament.

The Green Party

No doubt many leftists, particularly those disaffected by the complete defeat of Corbynism, fantasied about the Greens becoming a surrogate for the Labour–left project – obviously minus the link to the trade unions. Whilst never a serious alternative for socialists, some on the soft left saw the Greens as a conscionable voting substitute during the May (local) elections as a result of a number of its candidates supporting a pro–Gaza position.

The current election has, however, provided a much needed reality–check for these comrades. Whilst the Green Party is committed to building much more social housing, spending more on welfare, and maintains a very firm commitment to net zero and the environment (obviously), it is also claiming to be more ‘sensible’ and less radical than ever. Despite this, and unlike Labour, the Greens are still advocating a sort of ‘tax and spend’ strategy. To those attracted to the Greens, this seems like a decent ‘social–democratic’ manifesto; however, for socialists, it collapses spectacularly under the weight of its own contradictions.

First, despite being the supposedly most environmentalist party, they are inconsistent and naive in their environmentalism. Most obviously they are not an anti–capitalist party, and any serious environmental party should be. Continued profit–based exploitation of the planet is not compatible with its inhabitability. This brings us to the issue of nuclear power. It is clear that any attempt to even come close to net–zero carbon emissions will require huge infrastructure undertakings and a mass mobilisation of the state(s). Whilst the question of nuclear power continues to divide the left, it is the position of this author that the building of nuclear plants will be needed as part of a green strategy and that the Green’s commitment to phase out nuclear energy is a ridiculous proposal for a party supposedly focused on tackling the climate crisis.

Continuing on nuclear topics, despite its anti–nuclear tradition, the Green Party pledges its full support for NATO unconditionally, saying it plays “an important role in ensuring the ability of its member states to respond to threats to their security.”[6] They fail to mention ‘ability to respond’ is raining nuclear hellfire and killing potentially billions in a matter of hours. They commit to not using weapons first – how reassuring!

A somewhat less apocalyptic contradiction lies in its complete lack of ambition to endorse projects such as HS2. Although there is rail nationalisation on the agenda, some pro–HS2 greens claimed that the manifesto not arguing against the project was a victory for them. The fact of the matter is plainly that despite the massive long–term benefits HS2 would bring in terms of lowering carbon emissions, the vast majority of the party’s supporters are more concerned with plain green, aesthetically pleasing fields (many of which are damaging to the ecosystem!) than removing thousands and thousands of gas–guzzling lorries off the roads through extra freight capacity. Without a doubt the petty–bourgeois NIMBYism of the Greens still rules roost.

Of course, it is not our place to tell bourgeois parties how they should be running capitalism. In this case we simply take solace in the fact that the Green Party more or less discredits itself to all but those on the soft–left who were already completely disorientated by the Corbyn disaster.

The ‘Workers’ Party

The Workers Party of Britain (WPB) has had very little coverage at this election, and it looks like it will not win a single seat, with some polling showing Galloway possibly losing his seat. The Workers Party is suffering from many of the problems discussed in the Independents section of this article, through acting primarily as a pro–Palestine vote. The Workers Party does have other policies, and is an actual party (somewhat), but its main focus is on the one issue. One of the most important issues in the world, granted, but it is not being presented as part of a programme to make the world a better place.

Another glaring issue with Galloway’s party is its social conservatism, born partly of personal beliefs of Mr Galloway, but also in part due to the opportunism built into most of his political projects, including this one. In a recent Novara Media interview, Galloway said that he didn’t want his children taught “that gay relationships are exactly the same and as normal as a mum, a dad, and kids.”[7][8] Elsewhere in his party, Jody McIntyre – the WPB candidate for Birmingham Yardley – allegedly described the Trans community as a “danger to society”, which is a disgusting statement about some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

The strategic idea of appealing to the economically left, but socially conservative, is nonsensical. Without the Palestine policies and vote, WPB is essentially Reform but with some vaguely social democratic economic policies thrown in. The modern left is predominantly young, and very socially progressive. Appealing to the much more ‘niche’ demographic of social conservative socialists is no way to actually bring socialism to the masses. You are turning away the people who need socialism the most, those who are discriminated against the most.

The Socialist Left

Let’s be honest, the offering from the socialist left is best described as pathetic. Various sects engage in the election, with no real strategy for actually winning seats, nor getting the public talking about socialism. Their existence as sects requires them to not actually pursue a solid strategy.

This lack of strategy shows itself first with the tactic of trying to run as many candidates as possible, perhaps at cost of actually winnable seats. Running for election is incredibly costly, at £500 minimum per seat. Multiply this by many seats, dozens in the case of TUSC[9] and CPB[10], and you have spent a lot of money that you likely won’t get back (you require 5% of the vote to get your deposit back), that may have been better spent. A smaller amount of seats allows for more activists to canvass there, and more money to be spent there. It also allows that money to be better spent on advocating socialism outside of a six week campaign.

Furthermore, the sects are not working on establishing any sort of ‘base’ other than those who already consider themselves ardent Marxists. This is not to say we are ready to go straight to the working class at large, but those who consider themselves on the left (Corbyn supporters, many green voters) are the people who Marxist politics are primed to appeal to. Stickering lampposts does not count as socialist campaigning. There is a definite potential for a socialist ‘base’ in Britain, which a united Marxist party needs to cultivate and use as a vehicle to get in the public eye. Many individual policies which can be described as ‘socialist’ are incredibly popular, such as state control of major public utilities, and the Marxist movement can build upon these with further political demands that are more radical, showing how they all fit together. The younger demographics are incredibly socially and economically progressive, and they are increasingly becoming a larger proportion of the working class as they age in to it. A party united around a genuine socialist programme, advocating for politics which appeal to these people, has great potential. However, starting off small, amongst the already politically engaged, and working 24/7, not just throwing money to try and get 0.4% of the vote in a few dozen constituencies, is the path we should choose.

The sects have largely abandoned their strategy of building upon local work such as successful strikes and community actions. The socialist movement needs to be united, not separate from, renters unions, workers unions, LGBT activists, anti–racism activists, but has to be careful to not to come across as ‘taking over’ these movements. With the atomisation and de–politicisation of being a worker, it is up to the socialist movement to link workplace struggles (and also to advocate within their own workplaces, telling fellow workers not to accept their current conditions) to class struggle and capitalism. Much the same with other movements, we need a coherent message, and a Party to drive it, that links many individual problems together. This is not to advocate for economism, like many of the sects. We should not dismiss these struggles in favour of chasing a purely economic solution.

When it comes to local elections and government, there are debates to be had for whether we should pursue ‘municipal socialism’ when possible, or only work in hard opposition. This is beyond the scope of this article, but it is surely something that this journal will no doubt cover in the future.

Many of the sects are, as mentioned, spreading themselves too thin. In the current framework, electoral strategy should be focused more on tactically standing in fewer seats, and being careful not to overlap with other independent socialists, and should take care to make sure we as socialists are already imbedded in the working class communities in these areas.

We need a movement, or rather, a party, that unifies all of these struggles under one banner. This is why we need a communist party. We need the young, the queer community, people of colour, the working class, and people who suffer prejudice of any kind to have a party that speaks for them, and fights for them both in elections and out of them. A party which can unify all of these disjointed activists, socialists, trade unionists, all around a programme which serves a basis of unity, will be a party that can advocate socialism to the masses.

What Next?

That concludes this analysis of the current political landscape heading towards this general election on July 4th. In the next article I will talk about what is likely to happen under a Labour government, the rise of Reform, and ways the socialist left can pursue a viable electoral strategy in Britain.

Image attribution: Composite image. Rwendland, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons; UK Prime Minister, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Photo: Sergeant Tom Robinson RLC/MOD, OGL v1.0OGL v1.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Latest articles

Communism and People’s Democracy in India

Reading Langston Hughes on 4 July

What Fell in Kerala — Lessons for the Global Left

Learning from Cabral: lessons for the left

A General Election With No Socialist Left – Part I: How we got here