The Workers Party result in particular returns a question raised in comment threads on this article: was the July 2025 moment a missed opportunity for a unified party-for-power, suppressed by those who wanted something lesser, or was it demand for somewhere to land that was always going to disperse into multiple vehicles given the consciousness of the people signing up? The 7 May results do not settle the dispute. They do show that the demand for non-Labour electoral expression was real, has found multiple homes, and is not currently consolidating into anything resembling a single vehicle. Whether a different intent in 2025 could have produced a different outcome in 2026 is an empirical claim that cannot be tested. What can be tested is what the convention does now with the dispersed reality.
I think that this a helpful contribution Funcan. It made me think about formations like Falkirk For All as one of the type of defensive formations thst might fit the bill. What do you think?
Falkirk For All is exactly the kind of formation we need. The Cladhan Hotel work and the escorting of asylum seekers home from the mosque during Ramadan is the practical face of what the article calls the connected fronts: anti-racism and migrant solidarity and anti-fascism and community defence operating as a single project rather than as separate campaigns. The Le Monde piece captured this well. The historical examples I named (Lewisham 1977, the miners' support groups) emerged from similar conditions: a specific threat in a specific place, with comrades from multiple political traditions pulling together because leaving the targeted community to face the threat alone was not an option. Falkirk For All is one of the contemporary versions of that form. The wider convention conversation needs to know about it. If you have time to write about Falkirk For All for Red Mole, the readership would benefit. If not, I would be interested in talking with someone from the formation when the timing works for you all.
The Workers Party result in particular returns a question raised in comment threads on this article: was the July 2025 moment a missed opportunity for a unified party-for-power, suppressed by those who wanted something lesser, or was it demand for somewhere to land that was always going to disperse into multiple vehicles given the consciousness of the people signing up? The 7 May results do not settle the dispute. They do show that the demand for non-Labour electoral expression was real, has found multiple homes, and is not currently consolidating into anything resembling a single vehicle. Whether a different intent in 2025 could have produced a different outcome in 2026 is an empirical claim that cannot be tested. What can be tested is what the convention does now with the dispersed reality.
I think that this a helpful contribution Funcan. It made me think about formations like Falkirk For All as one of the type of defensive formations thst might fit the bill. What do you think?
Apologies Duncan not Funcan
Funcan on the weekend :)
Falkirk For All is exactly the kind of formation we need. The Cladhan Hotel work and the escorting of asylum seekers home from the mosque during Ramadan is the practical face of what the article calls the connected fronts: anti-racism and migrant solidarity and anti-fascism and community defence operating as a single project rather than as separate campaigns. The Le Monde piece captured this well. The historical examples I named (Lewisham 1977, the miners' support groups) emerged from similar conditions: a specific threat in a specific place, with comrades from multiple political traditions pulling together because leaving the targeted community to face the threat alone was not an option. Falkirk For All is one of the contemporary versions of that form. The wider convention conversation needs to know about it. If you have time to write about Falkirk For All for Red Mole, the readership would benefit. If not, I would be interested in talking with someone from the formation when the timing works for you all.