The 'Your Party' project part 3: The Challenges: The Greens

 I was originally going to write up something about how I see the various challenges for the new party, how it tackles the Labour Party, Reform UK, Gaza, but Zack Polanski's election as leader of the Green Party decided me on focusing on the relationship of the new party and the Greens. I think it presents both challenges and opportunities, it could be said that the announcement of Your Party stole some of Polanski's thunder just as he was working his campaign to become leader of the Greens, and it is also probably true that, by becoming leader, he returns the favour, gaining the media headlines for at least a short while.

Historically, certainly for well over a decade, some people in the Green Party have tried to present it as a socialist party. However, it has been a far more heterogeneous alliance of the centre and the left, sort of eco-socialists alongside environmentally committed LibDems and therefore, like Tony Benn said of the Labour Party, not a socialist party, but a party with some socialists in it. 

I must admit to having been quite dubious regarding Polanski, his previous career and political trajectory are a trifle odd, but he seems to have integrity, passion and intelligence, he's definitely of the left, but I'm not entirely sure how left, nevertheless, his election marks a leftward shift for the Greens and maybe they will become the green socialist party that had been claimed of it by its left wing.

I saw a Facebook friend posting that there should be a coalition of the two parties - I think that when the new party hasn't even been formed it is terribly premature to suggest such a thing, it may never be appropriate, however it would also be wrong to have the two parties oppose each other needlessly to the benefit of the right. We need to see the actual shape (and the name!) of the new party, its membership, leadership and policies, before any substantial alliance can be formed, we need to see how they stand in relation to each other and also need to remember a very important lesson from the 1980s.

The Social Democratic Party is mostly forgotten now, and probably not much lamented, but it was formed from dissident centrists within the Labour Party when Michael Foot was leader, they contended that Labour had lurched too far, unacceptably so, towards the left, the initial 'gang of four' Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams, David Owen and Bill Rogers, were soon joined by other Labour MPs and enjoyed some electoral success. They formed an alliance with the Liberal Party and were seen as a moderating influence within British politics when Labour was portrayed as extreme and the Tories actually were extreme. However, by 1987, they had lost most of their seats and merged with the Liberals to form the Lib Dems in 1989. (See the wikipedia entry here for the full sordid story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_(UK))

A too close alliance between two parties can lead to one being absorbed by the other, and while that's not always a bad thing, the distinctiveness of each party may be lost. If it should happen, it needs to be on the basis of creating something new and bigger, which in any case is exactly what the new party is becoming from the various small groups and parties who are the founding elements of the organisation. 

If at all possible, there does need to be some kind of collaboration between the two parties, and certainly a 'non-aggression pact' over seats that could be won by one or the other party. But, and it is very important to state this, such initiatives must, must, must come from the members, not just the leadership. If a party is genuinely about a participatory democracy it needs to be generated by the members, not just a stitch-up from a leadership looking for their advantage. It does look as if both parties are genuinely oriented towards real participation and bottom-up politics (I think we need a different phrase for that!) in which case parties might find what they have in common at grassroots level.

The 'Your Party' project Part 2: The leaders and the members

 With over 800,000 people signing up for the new party, we have to wonder how many will actually join and become fee-paying members. I suppose that this partly depends on what the fees are and how seriously many of these signees that their initial enthusiasm. However, even if only one in four of them actually become members of the party when it is founded, that would still be a membership of 200,000 thousand, which is still pretty huge, and if only one in twenty of them become activists, that is 10,000 of them across the country.

Of course, the whole thing can still go tits up before the founding conference, and after that, factional infighting might bring things to a standstill and we could see all the energy and enthusiasm bleed away. But let's assume that at first, at any rate, nothing like that happens, and maybe, the longer nothing like that happens it could be less and less likely to happen. You can see I'm trying to temper my optimism here.

So, you have a membership and a leadership, on what basis does one have a leader or leaders and what is the role of the party membership in defining what the leaders do? Transform, as an example, frequently send questionnaires asking to vote on party policies. Think about this, a party membership who can vote on policies, not just at an annual conference, but as an aspect of regular party activity. And if the elected leaders act on what the membership have voted for, that's a massive step forward in terms of party democracy. We can compare this to the Labour Party, which, a few years ago, voted by quite a majority I seem to remember, for proportional representation. This is actually Labour Party policy, but not, as far as I can see, government policy. Apparently, the leadership can ignore its own party policies. How is that democratic? It's certainly very top-down rather than bottom-up, an established elite who use the membership for their own pursuit of power.

Of course, a bottom-up, membership led party isn't without problems, but if the new party manages this, it will be interesting to see how it overcomes these problems as time goes on.

Then the leaders, so the only people who have been mentioned so far are Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana. Both splendid people I'd say, but they present a few problems along the way.

1. Nobody else has been mentioned, nobody else is likely to be able to present a coherent platform in time for the founding conference. This makes it look like a done deal.

2. Corbyn is now 76, by the next general election he will be nearly 80. The performance of octogenarians in political leadership hasn't been glorious. Would anybody regard him as a potential prime minister by then? He also has a bit of a reputation as a ditherer, I honestly do not know if this is justified, it could be either a rumour from the Labour right or the result of his endlessly having been in conflict with the right while leader, trying to find an acceptable compromise, I don't know.

3. Sultana is the only other MP with substantial experience, at least so far. We may yet see other disillusioned Labour MPs joining. She is obviously intelligent, energetic, principled and she projects herself very well. The way she announced the new party suggests she could be a bit of a wild card, only time will tell. Her greatest disadvantages with some of the public are things that never should be, that she's a woman and a Moslem. Of course, they will act as advantages with others, so that may balance out.

In terms of operating within Westminster, it is both inevitable and proper that Corbyn should be their leader in the House of Commons and Sultana, if you like, an understudy, ready to take over when needed. But there's no need for either of them to be the party's national leader, in fact it might not need one, other forms of leadership are possible, I'm not going to worry about this just now, simply indicating that there are other possibilities to having a single, central, party leader. We'll have to see what options are put forward in the founding conference, and what is voted for.

A last thought on the members. many of the people who have signed up to the project were Labour supporters under Corbyn, it seems that many others have no previous political affiliations, I have no sources for this offhand, I read it somewhere, I'll try to check later and incorporate the information, if you have any confirmation - or evidence to the contrary - I'd greatly appreciate it.

Thoughts on the 'Your Party' project: Part 1.

Will anybody tell me that this isn't much to do with surrealism? Well, it is, at best tangential, but it is of interest to me and it gets me posting again after a long absence from this blog. There's actually a number of unfinished posts, some of which are best left unfinished, but this seems more urgent than any of them just now.

Although I have often commented on politics, I'm not really what one would call a political commentator, but this series of blog posts is me trying to make sense of a recent political phenomenon in which I am enmeshed. These posts are rough drafts that, when and if people make comments, and as situations develop, I can revise and add to.

The new party project, most often referred to as the "Corbyn-Sultana Party" but more properly as "Your Party" has attracted a great deal of media attention, often hostile, and frequently ill-informed, even on the left. It didn't just appear out of nothing, so it's worthwhile asking how it came about. 

Certainly, when Zarah Sultana announced the new party imminent arrival, it came as a surprise to many, her announcement surprised me, but not because the new party came out of the blue, but rather the timing and mode of its announcement. I'll give some numbered points to lay out what I know of the prehistory of this project.

1. There was an established project, an effort on the part of a number of left-wing groups, including Left Unity, Transform party and many more local groups, to create a new left-wing party. It had, as far as I know, its immediate origins in the aftermath of the Labour victory in July 2024, but talks had been going on long before that.

2. I would be surprised if Jeremy Corbyn didn't know about these discussions and he may well have lent friendly support to them. He was not necessarily integral to these discussions, I don't know. As a member of Transform I was kept informed of the general direction of the discussions, but not the details. While many of the main bodies and persons involved were known, others were kept confidential for the time being. 

3. The idea was that during this year negotiations would bring the new party into being in time for the local elections in 2026. There was, apparently a sense of urgency, especially after the results of 2025's local election results, but this didn't seem to translate into any rapid decision that would produce the new party until...

4. Zarah Sultana's announcement seemed to just come out of nowhere for many, I rather assumed she did so with the blessing of the negotiators of the new party, but they seemed a little taken aback as well. As for Jeremy Corbyn, wherever he was placed within or alongside the negotiations, he also does seem to have been surprised by the timing. I do suspect that the negotiations had become very protracted and her announcement of a new party forced everybody's hand.

5. Sultana claimed that she and Corbyn would lead the formation of a new party. This is clearly not the same as being leaders of the new party. If they had been appointed as caretaker leaders until the founding conference, that would make perfect sense and be acceptable to most of the people involved. However, I am not at all sure this is quite how it was, although it seems to have become how it is, and the majority of stakeholders in the new party seem quite happy with the new arrangement.

6 As far as I know, all the stakeholders in the new party are happy enough with the situation, it does seem to have been messy and uncoordinated at the beginning, but everybody rallied sufficiently, and sufficiently rapidly to overcome this impression of being disorganised.

7. Everything now depends on the founding conference being a success. The new party, whatever the final name will have a large membership, at least half a dozen MPs and a number of councillors as well. That's a pretty good start and, given that Reform UK started with less, but a hell of a lot of money behind them as well as the complicity of the media, who knows what is possible?

The answer is, we don't know what is possible even less what is likely, but the future for this new party, the "Your Party" project, we know the rough, approximate shape, but not who will be prominent or leaders within it, (except Corbyn and Sultana) the name of the party or what size the membership will be. (We can assume that not everybody who has signed up for Your Party will become fee-paying members when the party is actually founded). 

I am cautiously optimistic. This is the biggest shift on the left in the UK for a century and it could become as important as the founding of the Labour Party in 1900, or it could be a massive damp squib, or anywhere between, we just don't know, but at least there is an opening, a possibility, a hope for the future, and for the rest, we shall see.

I'll post several other posts on this subject, looking at the various aspects of the new party, its membership and leadership, likely policies, media hostility, electoral possibilities and so on.

Here is a link to the Your Party statement: https://www.yourparty.uk/statement

Reposting: Surrealism Against War - Ceasefire Now!

 I decided to repost Jay Blackwood's short, but to the point, and wholly valid, call for a ceasefire in Gaza. Jay posted this in November, what has changed, except that things have got worse and politicians have revealed a lack od spine and a lack of principle?

Surrealism Against War - Ceasefire Now!

https://rustofdreams.blogspot.com/2023/11/surrealism-against-war-ceasefire-now.html?fbclid=IwAR3fjBEWSkpJlZlxG3hhSK5WYS_9YEOU9KA7XXPmQWjR5cTh4Z7g__fLxd0

POEM UNLOST (FRAGMENTA)

 I don't usually explain my poems, you may not understand them, but the explanation is almost always redundant. However, this is one of the odd ones out.

Years ago I got rid of all my early work, deliberately losing at least ten years of poems and then, by accident, lost some more. The other week, thinking back on some of these poems, I thought that, perhaps, I could recover something in a slightly less ghoulish way than Dante Gabriel Rossetti recovered his poems from Lizzie Siddal's grave. I found words and phrases and lines bubble up, but mixed with my concern over the increasingly psychotic nature of the public realm. I jotted as much as possible down and then, unexpectedly had a crisis in my health that nearly killed me. 

A week later, at home I assembled the fragments in some kind of order. The word 'unlost' rang a bell and I think that a translator of Paul Celan used it, but am at this time unsure. It seemed better than 'rediscovered'. Anyway, there are fragments here of very old work, held together by faulty memory along with fresh yammerings of an uneasy mind. You may still not understand this poem, but that is the context.

Poem Unlost (Fragmenta)

Between these parallel lines

I can neither live nor breathe

The squeezed space

Matters not

The crossing is infinite

Alternations of black and white light

                       *

Great Pearl-of-Light

Fallen

fallen

Into the Place-of-Shells

And our burning world

Locked in a skull

                   *

Opacity

Your hidden face

Your lost face

Gone and gone

In the frazzled glass

Broken

              *

The great evil of little men

Grotesque dazzle

Of the burning world

Broken

            *      

Terrae of lost words

Within submergence and abandonment

The long crawl to terrestrial paradise

And the cthonic urge

Where the tongue is a desert          

TWO MANIFESTATIONS OF 'BRITISH SURREALISM'

 I recently paid a visit to the Victoria Gallery in Bath to see the exhibition "When Dreams Confront Reality: Surrealism in Britain". (  https://www.victoriagal.org.uk/event/when-dreams-confront-reality-surrealism-britain) The works are mostly from the collection of the late Jeffrey Sherwin, a doctor and local tory politician in Leeds, so when the exhibition blurb claims that one will "Experience the magical visions of Surrealism – but from an unusual perspective" that may well be true.

Some of the works are indeed excellent, but the general feel of the exhibition is of nostalgia for the 30s, a surrealism largely shorn of its greater purpose, those nasty men, Breton and Mesens demanding poor artists to be more than whimsical fantasists. It is often as challenging as a nice cup of tea. (Such as that held by the figure in F.E. McWilliams' rather spiffing sculpture, above).

This cosy impression of the first half of the show is rather punctured by an awareness of the backdrop of the Spanish Civil War and a small leaflet on display seemed horribly contemporary:

The second half of the show had for me a note of personal nostalgia, with works by Conroy Maddox, Toni del Renzio and Tony Earnshaw, all of whom were friends. Toni del Renzio even joined the London Surrealist Group in 2005, making him by far the oldest member at 90, the youngest at that time being 16! The home video of Sherwin's visit to Conroy's flat was oddly familiar, very much like my own visit, seeing some of the same things. It also featured both Toni and Tony and Conroy's partner, Des Mogg. 

I don't want to overdo this impression of something old, warm and comfy, several works, back in the day, provoked severe reactions and demands that they should be destroyed, presumably from Daily Mail readers or their equivalent, and plenty of them still have a subversive charge and the power to disconcert, but the context of this exhibition gave me the sense that they'd been wrapped in cotton wool, the sharp edges all blunted. It's all rather nice...even when a tad naughty (Conroy's nuns etc.) 

At the same time that surrealism's past has been evoked in Bath, in Lancaster a possible future of surrealism has appeared in the form of the Lancaster Surrealist Group and their magazine "Vile Bird". 

https://lancastersurrealistgroup.wordpress.com/

 The group developed, as far as I can make out, from student societies at Lancaster University and improbable amounts of Pinot Grigio, somehow developed into an understanding of surrealism and thus to self-identify as surrealists and seek the surrealist adventure in the streets of Lancaster. The magazine is already sold out, although I think one might get electronic copies if you ask nicely.

When somebody is drawn to the orbit of surrealism, they are not there as a subordinate to the elders* of the movement, such a hierarchy is properly anathema and we meet on an equal footing. Caution on both sides is understandable, "Oh, I'm a surrealist" can mean so many things to different people and have very little to do with surrealism, so it's a bit premature to get too excited about a new group, although any new manifestation is more than welcome, and potentially something to get excited about. However, Vile Bird attracted a number of contributors outside the group, including myself, people who felt this is a worthwhile venture that we can support with some enthusiasm. I have seen so much that is so much worse than what the Lancaster group has manifested so far, and if I find that manifestation still not wholly matured or realised, I can't condescend (no, I really can't! let me finish!) given my own earliest attempts at surrealist activity and the number of people who were, nevertheless, willing to take me seriously.

My point is that we have here an activity in its early stages and that has already shown some real awareness of what surrealism is, has managed to get out there and relate to other surrealists, demonstrated knowledge and understanding and that is all rather exciting. I do feel the need to ring a note of caution, it is a new activity and in many ways still unproven and undeveloped, but their sense of rebellion is strong and their activity is growing. Given that I sometimes tend to get lost in deep deliberation on theoretical matters, I also find it refreshing to see a manifestation of surrealism that's fun! 

* Sorry, we don't have elders!

Accepting Or Refusing Atrocity

 This seems to be quite difficult to write, not least because each time I consider it, I become so overwhelmed by a fiercely depressive mood, but mostly because it should be so easy as to not require explanation and not even need to be said, it should be obvious to all but the most warped psychopaths, but genocide is always wrong, whoever commits it.

The context is, of course, the conflict between Israel and Palestine and it fills the news as well as online comment like a baleful cloud, obscuring all reasonable debate. No doubt much of this is down to cowardice, if Israel's bombing of  Gaza were committed by any other country, it would be condemned on all sides of the Commons for instance, but the utter spinelessness of our political leaders on this matter leaves me in no doubt that they are afraid to stick to anything resembling a principle.

While really putting yourself out there, taking real risks to life and limb does take great courage, simply speaking up against genocide,wherever it occurs, while at a safe distance from the action, should be a simple matter of decency. It's simple at this level, denounce the atrocities of Hamas, denounce the retaliations of the Israeli military against the citizens of Gaza. But a campaign of intimidation is underway to prevent any such decency prevailing. A friend of mine who has done no more than speak against the revenge killings perpetrated by Israel has been told by at least a couple of people he'd considered friends that they had screen-shot his posts and "passed them on", to whom he has no idea. It's worth pointing out that he is Jewish, something I'd not normally mention with regard to him as it rarely comes up. In any case, he was not intimidated, but understandably found their attitude distasteful and upsetting.

A more serious case of intimidation occurred with the sacking of Artforum editor David Velasco for publishing an open letter supporting Palestine. The list of signatories of this letter is considerable and frequently eminent. Articles concerning the case can be found here: https://hyperallergic.com/853300/artforum-editor-in-chief-david-velasco-fired-after-gaza-ceasefire-letter/

and here: https://artreview.com/artforum-sacks-editor-in-chief-david-velasco-following-open-letter-on-palestine/

and the letter is at this link: https://www.e-flux.com/notes/571447/open-letter-from-the-art-community-to-cultural-organisations

While there's a very large number of signatories, some apparently went on to have second thoughts: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/art-world-divided-by-middle-east-petitions-2383877

I'll return to this in a moment. Not everybody felt so intimidated by the backlash: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67246847

It's ridiculous, but it seems necessary to mention that criticisms of the actions of the government of Israel is not anti-semitism. I repeat, criticisms of the actions of the government of Israel is NOT anti-semitism. To claim it is is either very stupid or very disingenuous and only serves to create cover for genuine anti-semitism. Let's not doubt that anti-semitism does really exist, it is foul and needs to be exposed, but we should not privilege anti-semitism above other kinds of racism. Both hatred of jews and hatred of arabs is of the same fabric as any other kind of racism, especially in its most extreme and humanity-denying manifestations. The many thousands of people in the streets of London (and, I'm gratified to see, Edinburgh, and no doubt many other cities, are certainly not guilty of jew-hatred, no doubt many are jews.

I wanted to make a point about that open letter. The very first name on the list of signatories is Nan Goldin, who is, of course, Jewish and many other names, some familiar, some not so, are also obviously Jewish. I refuse to believe that they are all somehow not sufficiently Jewish, or "self-hating jews" - surely they must be sufficiently self-aware to know that some people will condemn them for what is, after all, primarily a call to our common humanity?

Perhaps it would have been wise to include a condemnation of Hamas in that letter, make it clear that Hamas is not the whole of the Palestinian people, especially the children who, we are told make up a half of the population of Gaza. Similarly, the murderous, far-right government of Netanyahu is not all of Israel, far less all jews. (It isn't so long since Netanyahu was regarded as a dangerous extremist everywhere, somebody who should never be allowed anywhere near power.) But regarding Bibi Netanyahu and Hamas, read this article in Haaretz: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-20/ty-article-opinion/.premium/a-brief-history-of-the-netanyahu-hamas-alliance/0000018b-47d9-d242-abef-57ff1be90000

I do realise that finding any kind of real solution in the Middle East is very difficult, very complex and fraught with all sorts of problems that are monstrously intractable. There's hatred and a complete lack of trust on both sides. I don't have any answers, except for one. that both sides remember the other is also human and that the only alternatives to finding a reasoned and reasonable solution are either perpetual war or that one side or the other is wholly exterminated, which to any remotely normal person should be unthinkable.

 

(Image: Peter Kennard)