The People’s Voice

David Lindsay

The next General Election will certainly result in another hung Parliament. That is now inevitable when a General Election is held across the three polities of England and Wales, of Scotland, and of Northern Ireland.

What matters, then, is to hold the balance of power.

The People’s Voice is in the process of registration as a political party. Look out for any funny business from the powers that be. In order to be up and running for a General Election this year, it will initially be organised on the Leader and supporters model of the Brexit Party. But it will become democratic as quickly as possible.

The People’s Voice has its roots in the 2015 campaign to elect Jeremy Corbyn as Leader of the Labour Party, in the 2016 referendum vote to Leave the European Union, in the campaign to re-elect Corbyn later that year, in the vastly better than expected Labour result at the 2017 General Election, and in the triumph of the Brexit Party at the 2019 European Elections.

It is a party for those who reject the neoliberal economic policy, the identitarian social policy, the neoconservative foreign policy, and yet also the anti-industrial Malthusianism, that most Labour MPs simply take for granted.

The People’s Voice stands for economic equality and for international peace through the democratic political control of the means to those ends.

That yearning made and kept Corbyn Leader, swung the votes of the areas that decided the EU referendum, deprived Theresa May of her overall majority, and gave the Brexit Party the scale of its victory.

Corbyn has opened up the debate on economic and foreign policy for the first time in a generation. Before the summer of 2015, Britain had an unquestionable State ideology in international affairs and in relation to the architecture of the economy. It was occasionally possible to make a small and probably jocular criticism of the Government. But it was effectively forbidden to criticise the State.

Corbyn has brought onto the platform the voices of opposition in principle to politically chosen austerity and to wars of political choice.

Nevertheless, Corbyn has overlooked his supporters by appointing his enemies to frontbench and other positions. He has permitted a free vote on Syria. He has whipped an abstention on Trident. He has never brought the arming of the Saudi war in Yemen back to the floor of the House of Commons for another vote. His housing and transport policies go nowhere near far enough. He supports gender self-identification, and he sides with neoliberal capitalism on the issues of drugs and prostitution.

He has allowed, and even caused, the dissipation of his initial following among the young male victims of anti-industrial economic policy and of belligerent foreign policy. He wants a Customs Union with the European Union, possibly even at the price of accepting its State Aid rules. He has accepted some of the Government’s baseless and collapsed claims about Salisbury, Amesbury, and Douma.

Corbyn has acted against the social and ethnic cleansing of Labour Haringey, but he has failed to secure justice for the 472 Teaching Assistants in Labour Durham. He has reacted wrongly to the provocative extension of a State Visit to President Trump.

He has accepted a deeply flawed definition of anti-Semitism, and he has failed to prevent the expulsion of distinguished black activists from the Labour Party on trumped-up charges using that definition. He has failed to point out that Pete Willsman had been stating the facts about Israeli Embassy interference, as had been captured on film between Shai Masot and Joan Ryan. He has failed to defend either Chris Williamson or Kelvin Hopkins.

And he has failed to insist that Julian Assange not be extradited to anywhere under any circumstance, which is the wedge issue that is being used to define a pantomime Left that would be acceptable to the official media for the purposes of pretended balance.

The same or similar criticisms may and must be made of such figures as Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and it is increasingly clear also Tulsi Gabbard.

Meanwhile, the Brexit Party’s General Election manifesto will have to be acceptable to Nigel Farage. On point after point, such as the privatisation of the National Health Service, that will make it unacceptable to the people who looked up our communities’ wealth and power as midnight struck between 1972 and 1973, who then looked at our own poverty and powerlessness today, and who duly voted first for Brexit and then for the Brexit Party.

The Brexit Party topped the poll in every local authority area here in the North East. A General Election manifesto acceptable to Farage will not do so. The People’s Voice is what is needed instead.

The People’s Voice will contest this constituency of North West Durham, where my candidacy would, at a 2022 General Election, have been 30 years in the making, and where the sitting MP is an identitarian and environmentalist advocate of neoliberal “free movement” and of a second referendum leading to a vote to Remain; she has not said a word in support of Chris Williamson.

The People’s Voice would support the candidacy of George Galloway at Birmingham Yardley, in a city that was made for him and against an opponent who was made for him.

The People’s Voice would support the candidacy of Marc Wadsworth or Jackie Walker at Barking against Margaret Hodge, whose recent claim that the only acceptable racism in Britain today was against Jews was the most racist statement by a mainstream British politician in a very long time.

The People’s Voice would, of course, support the re-election of Chris Williamson at Derby North. And while having no affinity with the SDP’s split from the Labour Party in 1981, we would not be minded to stand candidates against it in its present form, so long as that compliment were returned. Of course, this list need not be exhaustive.

Anyone interested, do please contact [email protected]. Very many thanks.