Sue Goss and Luke Hurst explain the thinking behind the quest for a new radical realism
The crisis facing Labour is profound. The party is unpopular and our leaders distrusted. Across the country, people are disillusioned and increasingly desperate. Many feel so disconnected from mainstream politics that they are prepared to turn to Reform out of sheer frustration. Reform is poised to exploit this, and Chartist has developed a sobering analysis of the scale of the threat.
Labour’s 2024 campaign was, in a narrow sense, effective. We positioned ourselves against austerity, corruption, incompetence and cruelty towards the most vulnerable, but we said far less about what we were for. Our messaging revolved around vague concepts such as nationalism, economic growth and change. These slogans suggested managerial competence but revealed no deeper moral vision.
Insufficient serious work was done to prepare for government; there was too little understanding of the structural weaknesses of UK governance. Instead, we offered scattered ideas with no coherent architecture to connect them. There were references to devolution but no sustained commitment and no challenge to the centralising instincts of Whitehall and Westminster. We failed to outline a more open style of government that could have helped rebuild trust.
Our electoral system compounds this weakness. Labour won 33.7% of the vote at the last election, but this obscures a deeper problem. Only 29 million people voted – just 59.7% of the registered electorate and the second lowest turnout since universal suffrage. When unregistered adults are included turnout falls to 52% of the adult population. Of that population, only 17% voted Labour. Our mandate is dangerously thin.
Because our support rested on such fragile foundations, the early misjudgements, the foolishness and the casual cruelty of stopgap budget decisions were met with anger. There was no reservoir of goodwill, no understanding of the trade-offs involved and no core of supporters willing to defend the government’s actions.
The mistake was believing that Labour could win without building a movement. The left wins only when hope defeats fear. Yet at the centre our party seemed embarrassed by Labour’s moral inheritance, reluctant to speak of the values that have always shaped us, keen to divide, rather than unite. After dealing with the hard left, some were keen to marginalise the soft left, excluding those capable of offering honest and experienced judgement. They overlooked the insights of the four nations, the experience of councillors and mayors and the wisdom of Labour MPs and peers. They undervalued the work of civil society organisations, charities, trade unions and academics who had been developing practical solutions.
The answer is not to create a left that mirrors the factionalism and intolerance of the right. Instead, we must reconnect the leadership with the membership and hold together the varied traditions that make up Labour’s identity. We need to rebuild an emotional connection with the public based on widely shared values and a vision of a decent, tolerant and inclusive society capable of defeating Reform. We must also show how that vision can be delivered through realistic, practical policies.
This is why we established Mainstream. It is not a faction or the creation of one politician. It aims to model the inclusive politics Labour needs. We call ourselves radical realists because we believe that methods matter as much as outcomes.
Mainstream is both a connecting and an organising space. We are creating networks of councillors, CLP organisers, local groups, MPs and peers so that every part of the party has somewhere to debate, learn and build. It is a space where the majority can reclaim its voice and where democratic practice is demonstrated, not merely discussed. We will organise around elections to the NEC and other bodies, to help build an inclusive party.
Mainstream offers a space for the exploratory thinking that the party has squeezed out, identifying the issues that require long-term campaigning and drawing on the wide expertise needed for credible radical realism. We want a language that resonates with the public and the solid policy groundwork to make change believable. This means developing answers to questions such as how to return water to public ownership without bankrupting the state, how to design a viable basic income, how to create a fairer tax system, how rent controls could work, how to reach net zero without punishing the poorest, how to introduce a shorter working week and better parental leave, and how to reform the voting system through practical steps.
In all this, we see clear parallels between Mainstream and Chartist. Both recognise that Labour can only succeed if it unites moral purpose with practical competence and rebuilds a broad, generous movement rooted in the everyday concerns of the British people.
Sue Goss and Luke Hurst, Mainstream. This piece is based on a speech given to the Chartist AGM, on 29 November, by Sue Goss, a member of Mainstream’s Interim Council.