The right have differences of opinion too, but are much better at coming together when it matters
Post-election, we’ve seen the inevitable flurry of analysis from left-leaning political pundits, politicians and commentators about why the Labour Party drastically failed to win a majority.
What went wrong, why the party failed to engage voters, and vague suggestions of what to do about it, mainly centred on the need for reflection and new leadership.
Electing the right opposition leader to present a real challenge to the Tories is certainly a priority. But what of civil society?
The community groups, trade associations, charities, NGOs, social enterprises, think tanks, and individuals who don’t agree with Tory cuts that are increasing poverty in the UK, who marched against austerity last weekend to demand an alternative, who want to see a fairer society for all.
What are they doing to improve the chances of power being in the hands of a more progressive government? Unsurprisingly, there are lots of individuals and groups calling for change and action, as well as some actually doing something about it, but not in a joined up way. And herein lies the problem.
Journalist Sunny Hundal published a piece on Labour List last week called, ‘Why the left keeps crashing and burning, and what to do about it‘, claiming that activists on the left tend to lose momentum and let their campaigns fizzle out because of a lack of strategy and planning beyond protests, leading to in-fighting, poor timing and weak implementation.
Hundal makes three simple suggestions for what to do:
1. Build infrastructure and fundraise
2. Avoid clichéd and lazy messaging (a la UKIP) that alienates potential supporters
3. Get young people voting
All good suggestions. So how do we get there? When I tweeted Sunny to ask when he was organising an event or discussion to decide how to put his words into action, he half- jokingly suggested someone else should do the work. But who?
Though Twitter is alive with debate, I haven’t seen a show of hands to take this forward.
Beyond protests – which certainly have their value – we need someone to grab activists by the scruff of the neck, sit them down and facilitate a structured and clear conversation designed to generate a broad agreement on why the movement is failing, what can be done about it, who can do it, and how.
Many of us are familiar with this process when mobilising campaigns and movements, so it seems crazy that we can’t get it together for ‘the left’ as a whole.
From what I’ve gathered, the main problem is that no one is really sure who exactly the ‘left’ is or should be, and don’t feel they have the energy, money or time to tackle the differences that have divided people in the past.
But I think this is where the ‘right’ have always had us. They know the left is divided, poorly funded and thus badly organised. They feed off it.
They also have differences of opinion, as we can clearly see amongst front and backbenchers of the Conservatives and with the rise of UKIP, but when it comes to crunch time i.e. an election, they pool together and unify their messages, presenting a stronger face to the voters.
We cannot let this go on. Mass mobilisation isn’t easy, but with so many savvy digitalists, campaigners, thinkers and organisers around, it shouldn’t be impossible. We just need to take the first step. A discussion: a room, some tables, pens and paper, the internet and a few laptops.
I’m in, and willing to help organise. Who’s with me?
Natasha Dyer is head of the London office, DHA Communications. Follow her on Twitter
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
29 Responses to “Why can’t the left get unified?”
JohnRich
And in particular by the impact of uncontrolled immigraton !!!
Bret R
I only used ‘Lib Dem’ as an example it wasn’t really revelant to my point, I am not, never have been and will never be a Liberal, Democratic or otherwise.
The point I was trying to make is that the disagreements on the left are real and trying to deny that by claiming people are being ‘righteous’ is just daft. Attempts at forced conformity have been tried before and they didn’t go well. We have to acknowledge that there is a wide divergence of views on the left and areas where we can work together will, naturally, be limited to areas where we can “agree”.
What does this mean? Well for a start notions like the “mass party” or the “mass movement” are probably relics of that past. I don’t “like it” any more than anyone else but I don’t see what we can do about it without shutting down peoples right to their own beliefs, conscience and protest which would be a very dangerous road to go down.
Bret R
Don’t agree. Sounds too much like a division of Labour. If you can’t ‘Do’ then learn how. If you don’t understand theory, then ‘Learn some’. If you don’t know how to organise, then for god’s sake learn or you’ll be someone else’s lackie.
You can’t remake a society premised on the Divison of Labour by organising along the lines of a Division of Labour. Doing things this way is how you end up with remote, professional politicians who listen to remote, barking mad academics who both see the Do’ers as another species good for nothing but delivering leaflets, putting an X in the box and doing as they’re blood well told.
AlanGiles
The problem is “the broad church”. The Blairites, both in the PLP and outside throw vitriol at Jeremy Corbyn and those who support him, and the Cooperites, Burnhamites and Kendallites can’t even see that you cant get a sheet of Bronco between them, in real terms, and if you dare admit to bei ng a Green, then you get abuse from all of them. Take a look at LabourList to see what I mean
AlanGiles
This is Britain you idiot. If you are going to spam the board at least adapt dollars for sterling