This is written by me, Kit Leary - in a strictly personal capacity, as this entire blog is. Not SYN. Not AWL. Just so you know.
Owen Jones has posted an article on his personal blog (he and Marsha seem to contribute to more blogs than I have mobile phones) about how political work outside the Labour Party is seemingly futile. I suppose this goes to the crux of my political differences with Owen and Marsha and their current approach to how socialists should operate, not just in the Labour Party but outside as well. So indulge me. It might make things a bit clearer as to why we seem to butt heads often.
(Post continues after the cut…)
Socialism, or at least socialism as I envisage it, is about working class power, and how the working class can attain, and how they should wield, political power. Owen and I agree there, so there should be no problem, right? Owen describes himself as a Trotskyist (he has to me on many occations), as do I. And there is nothing unusual about Trotskyists working inside the Labour Party - as Owen rightly points out, the Militant did it, Socialist Appeal still do, and I’m sure many people around the Labour Left Briefing would also describe themselves as Trotskyists.
But it takes an unusual kind of Trotskyist to deny the need for an independent revolutionary organisation. When I am asked to describe my politics in a phase, or indeed what fundamental political principle I adhere to, I say “independent working class action”. So yeah, I stole it from the SWP’s “Where We Stand” column (the statement which passes for the SWP’s political programme), but if 98% of what they say is utter bollocks, that must mean that the remaining 2% isn’t at least utter bollocks.
But what does “independent working class action” mean? Let me work through it backwards.
Action, because we cannot be passive - we’re not gonna change the world by sitting on our butts. Owen doesn’t disagree with this. I could accuse Owen of a lot of things (nudge wink) but inactivity isn’t one of them. Nowhere close.
Working class, because only the organised working class, organised into a single party, has the interest in, and the capability to, overthrow capitalism. Again, not a point of difference between me and Owen.
Where it falls down is “independent”. What do I mean by independent?
Trotskyists do not see the Labour Party as a workers’ party. The formulation from Lenin - which I still believe to hold today, is that it is a bourgeois, or capitalist, workers’ party - not because I’m dogmatic about theory, but because the fundamental nature of the Labour Part - that it is a party with a leadership committed to retaining capitalism but slightly tweaked to make it slightly more nice (if that’s actually possible - Trotskyists hold that it is impossible) for working people.
Entryism, for want of a better word, was only ever a tactic for revolutionaries. Lenin said that the incipient British communists should advocate support for Labour like “a rope supports a hanging man” - better known by it’s for-public-consumption slogan “join Labour and fight” and put them to the test of office, in the hopes that workers’ hopes will be dashed.
Indeed, Lenin only recommended Labour entryism in Left Wing Communism because of the federal nature of the Labour Party. Entryism into the German Social Democratic Party was possible because of the size of the SPD, and it had a genuinely mass base amongst the German working class. In France, the supporters of the anti-war Zimmerwald conference gained a majority in the SFIO (as the Parti Socialiste was called then) and formed the monolithic French Communist Party. But in Spain, the Communist Party (to the best of my knowledge) never involved itself in the Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE). Lenin’s advice to the British communists was only ever intended for the British communists at the time he was writing, in 1920. It was because there was the opportunity for the communists to gain a hearing amongst the workers, and for a real fight.
It was a tactic.
When such an attutide turns into a principle, it turns into a disaster. Militant and their ideological heirs, Socialist Appeal, are an example of this. Ted Grant saw Labour entryism as a principle, and when the witch hunters in the grotesque shape of Neil Kinnock came along, they were paralised. They built their base of support on a platform of “Labour to power on a socialist programme.” No Marxist would be against that. But the problem is that it is impossible.
We cannot subvert our principles to tactics. When short term tactics become invioble principles, then the problems start.
Take our attitudes to Compass Youth, for example. I and Sofie Buckland produced a fairly contraversial document about the COFUP! campaign recently launched which contained a fairly mild critique of Compass over living wage campaigning. I put this on the SYN list:
But let’s face facts. CY have talked and talked about having a living wage campaign. They have said (read their blog) that they will launch a campaign, that they’ve gotten USDAW (not the greatest of unions if their behaviour at Tesco is anything to go by) on board, but then nothing. Compass talk. They don’t seem to be very good on the doing - indeed, it took SYN to get them into action. Owen and Marsha put the work in to set up the meeting… So I stand by the critisism I made in the original document. I don’t want to see this campaign stuck on things like lobbies and letter writing… but to take firm, radical action…
Owen claims that I upset Compass people at the launch event. My offer to discuss the matter…
If any Compass member disagrees with me, then they are more than welcome to email me - indeed my email address was on the leaflet - so if they take issue with the leaflet then they should get in touch with me.
… still hasn’t been taken up. Sam Tarry - the Compass Youth speaker on the platform at the lauch meeting - has been in touch but to ask me what I thought of his speech. (By the way, for any Compassites do want to take me to task for what I say about them, you are still free to get in touch - the offer stands - I’ll even publish it here if you like. I’m mature enough to say that I’m open to being convinced.)
Does that mean I don’t want Compass Youth to get involved in COFUP? I’m just glad that they have got off their arses finally - and Compass Youth members I’ve spoken to agree with me on this. I’m all for unity within the Labour movement and working together in united fronts like COFUP (which is the closest thing to a united front, as described by Lenin, in a long time) but Trotskyists do not drop their critisisms of social democrats even in united fronts - again, to quote from Lenin, the aim of the united front is to “march seperatly, strike together.” Something about disdaining to hide our views.
Now, perhaps I made a hash of our intervention with our programmatic statement (yeah, I make mistakes) but I was critisised for attacking Compass at the launch event. I’m weary that I’ve quoted myself twice now, but, as I said before…
But that really isn’t the subject - it was crass in the extreme to put out a leaflet attacking compass when they are on the platform supporting our campaign.
Now we all have issues with compass but are we not adult enough to deal with these in debate and discussion rather than snidely sniping at them?*
SYN wasn’t - me and Sofie were. It’s not as if the entire thing was one big go at Compass - it was two lines, in order to contrast with the aims of the document. I believe the critisism, given the context, was not snipey or crass, but entirely justified - see my original email. I wouldn’t expect either you or Owen to attack Compass given the situation, but I don’t see why I shouldn’t be allowed to make a genuine critique in order to support my argument.
(* This was said by Marsha - but I believe that Owen felt the same way - but I might be corrected on this. In any case - isn’t a leaflet “discussion and debate”?)
Owen and Marsha want to build bridges. As do I. But I want to retain my critical faculties and my capability to critisise politics which I believe will only be a dead end. I know that Owen is fundamentally opposed to Compass’ programme. But you know what? So do Compass! They’re not stupid. They know that they and the LRC/SYN have different politics from themselves. And I’m sure they’re all big boys and girls now who can handle a little critisism.
The trouble with Owen is that he sees everything in the sphere of the Labour Party. He’s more than happy to slag off the left (which, to be fair, makes itself an easy target) but when he talks of the “sect’s” greatest successes being the Scottish Socialist Party, alarm bells ring.
The SSP did not crash (it would be a lie to say it’s burned) but Owen says…
The great recent recent hope of the sects was the Scottish Socialist Party. Though initially helped by an electoral system based on proportional representation and relatively good political conditions, the SSP predictably imploded and lost all its seats at the last election. Fortunately three socialist MSPs remain - that is, members of the Scottish Labour Party Campaign for Socialism: most notably, John McDonnell supporter Elaine Smith.
Was it simply PR? You can’t deny it had an effect. But the SSP combined radical policies and a commitment to socialism (despite that socialism distorted by left nationalism) with clear, radical flagship parliamentary policies - free school meals, free public transport - which both a) cut against the neo-liberal consensus, and b) have legs in terms of parliamentary activity.
As Owen says, we still have three socialist MSPs. But would it not be better if we had seven - three plus four SSP MSPs?
The SSP has many problems and is not perfect. But it was not the involvement of the ’sects’ (does Owen include AWL supporters in SSP in this?) that wounded the SSP (I still have hope and faith in SSP members to rebuild the party, learning from the mistakes) but the actions of Tommy Sheridan, and the disgusting behaviour of the SWP and CWI.
I suppose the real test will come when Bob Crow follows through on his promise to support anti Tube priviatisation candidates against Labour. What is Owen going to do then?
A good polemic there Kit. Social being conditions consciousness. If I was in Owen’s position, spending all day running around parliament, going from Labour party meeting to Labour party meeting, I too would be tempted to think that life outside Labour is both unthinkable and irrelevant.
Phil - nice try but no cigar. I’m a former member of the Socialist Alliance and Respect. I know from first-hand experience that all there is out there is a bunch of squabbling irrelevant sects, none of whom have anything even approaching to a base in the labour movement or working class more broadly. Yes I work in Parliament - but for the political pariahs of the PLP. Having to deal with the PLP on a daily basis is hardly going to deepen my supposed Labourism - pretty much the exact opposite. People outside the Westminster Bubble take it for granted that the PLP is pretty pants - but there’s nothing more disillusioning than having to deal with the left of the PLP.
Now, to respond to a few of Kit’s points. Firstly, I’m not a “Trotskyist”. I’m profoundly influenced by Trotsky - and particularly strongly sympathise with the struggle of Trotsky and his comrades against the tyranny of Stalinism. I agree with his analysis of imperialism and Stalinism (as for the latter - I believe he was vindicated by the manner in which Stalinism collapsed which has to rank as one of the greatest catastrophes in modern history). Ironically, these latter two reasons are entirely rejected by the AWL - who, to be frank, I don’t really think can be described as a Trotskyist group. (To be honest, given their position on imperialism - i.e. the modern form of capitalism - I don’t actually think they’re a revolutionary group either). But anyway, I think that the Trotskyist movement (with a few exceptions where it actually developed a mass base - such as Sri Lanka, Vietnam and Bolivia) is a sectarian mistake with little (if anything) to show for itself.
I’d also agree that the fundamental political principle that I adhere to is “independent working class action”. But this is precisely where, I believe, I have clashed with you and other members of small sects. In my opinion, the focus on the left needs to be on recruiting working-class militants, not middle-class students with transient radical politics. I don’t want a left dominated by people who went to Oxford (like me, for example) but by working class leaders - as we both know, the emancipation of the working class can only be done by the class itself. When I see leading sectarian figures who went to expensive private schools standing up and spouting r-r-revolutionary rhetoric, to be honest I start losing the will to live.
I’ve set out my position on the Labour party in the blog piece that Kit is responding to. However, I’ll quickly to respond to his reference to Lenin’s position on the LP. The 20th Century has proved that the LP is unique when compared to European social-democratic parties precisely because of its trade union base (after all, the LP was founded by the trade unions). Because of this, it has survived all splits from the left and the right - all of which have declined into irrelevance as soon as they have been cut off from the oxygen of the labour movement. There is an alternative to the Labour party - it’s called political oblivion.
Yes, the SSP achieved a brief relative success because of the Scottish electoral system and relatively favourable local political conditions. The fact that it fell apart over the earth-shaking issue of Tommy Sheridan’s penis shows just how fragile the SSP actually was
As for the RMT - well, I’ve partly represented the RMT in Parliament over the past two years (John McDonnell’s office runs the union’s parliamentary group) and obviously worked with them in the LRC. However, for the RMT to stand its own candidates in the next election will be an act of suicidal political adventurism. If they’re lucky, they’ll get a few thousand votes (which will be spun as a success by various tiny sects - along the lines of “imagine all of these people joined a socialist party” - yes, just imagine). All this insanity will prove to people is that there is no alternative to fighting in the Labour party, no matter how frustrated we are with the state of that struggle.
To be honest, it’s time for comrades to make up their mind. Either they’re fighting in the Labour party for socialism or they’re fighting outside. You can’t actually do both. Make your mind up time…
Owen,
I certainly recall you describing yourself as a Trotskyist to me - perhaps in the same way that Marx said “if the SDF represents Marxism, then I am not a Marxist” - but if you haven’t, then I apologise.
Certainly I want a working class movement lead by working class people, and certainly one of the many critisisms I have is that the left is too dominated by middle class do-gooders who’s vision of socialism doesn’t match my own. Hence why I didn’t say anything about it; I think it’s a fairly good point (my only disagreement is how you go about it - which I did talk about. Students is another kettle of fish - not all students are middle class, I certainly wasn’t, and it doesn’t mean that their struggles aren’t progressive and aren’t worth the bother.)
But anyway. You say:
The 20th Century has proved that the LP is unique when compared to European social-democratic parties precisely because of its trade union base (after all, the LP was founded by the trade unions). Because of this, it has survived all splits from the left and the right - all of which have declined into irrelevance as soon as they have been cut off from the oxygen of the labour movement. There is an alternative to the Labour party - it’s called political oblivion.
Well, the Communist Party tried it and were knocked back five or so times (I believe they last tried in 1945). The Militant were expelled in 1989/1990 (you’ll have to forgive me; I was 4/5 at the time). Socialist Appeal don’t kick up too much of a fuss; most of their revolutionary agitation happens outside of CLP meetings (their big thing at the moment being Hands Off Venezuela) and Socialist Action quite possibly created Tony Blair in John Ross’ bedroom by hacking into the CIA mainframe, a la Weird Science, so they’re pritty safe.
The space for revolutionaries to operate inside the Labour Party is quite small. You have to watch what you say, who you sell papers to, and sometimes, Luke Akehurst really is watching you. (Now that’s a scary thought.) Militant got expelled, as did Socialist Organiser (proto-AWL). For what? For being irritable Trots, that’s why! The Labour Party is a broad church, but it’s not exactly welcoming for us ‘heretics’ who dare to organise to challenge the leadership. We’re “parties within a party” - but so is the Fabian Society, but they’re OK, right?
You can’t fight for socialism inside and outside the Labour Party? I very much think you can. Fighting for socialism and socialist ideas is not something that is either abstract or only for the enlightened view. The masses aren’t in the Labour Party, and by just focusing upon it, you actaully end up preaching to the very middle class figures you proclaim to want to clear out of the leadership of the labour movement. OK, so perhaps I’ve been in some middle class CLPs (previously Chipping Barnet, then Twickenham, and now Woking CLP when I move) but, Owen, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, the masses of working class people at CLP meetings are highly conspicious by their absence. If they’re anywhere political, they’ll be at the local demonstration to save their hospital, or in the union branches. The masses of radicalised youth in the Labour Party vanished when LPYS was shut down. Ho hum.
I’ll save SSP stuff for later (different post) but humans are amazing creatures. Socialist humans are even more amazing - believe it or not, we can do two things at once. It is political oblivion - not to mentioned down right mad - not to do otherwise.
It depends what you mean by “a base in the class”, Owen.
For instance, the SP and SWP are microscopic in the grand scheme of things. But you can hardly say they’re isolated from the labour movement. Each contain comrades who have serious weight in their workplaces. Some hold union positions at lay and official level. Others have a base in community activism, etc and so on. By any measure, you cannot say these comrades are “outside the labour movement”, when you have Labour councillors and “activists” (if you can call them that) whose sole connection to the movement is through a once-monthly CLP meeting of four or five people.
As you’ve said yourself, if the 30 MPs, 100s of councillors, etc of the Labour left departed from the Labour party, most would be wiped out electorally. This very fact by itself indicates the Labour left have few roots of their own. My own soft-left Labour MP (Mark Fisher) doesn’t get returned because he’s got progressive politics, he gets returned because of the residual identification with the Labour party. He’s the recipient of passive support, which explains why Oona King’s keen on having his seat if he retires before the next election.
Comrades on both sides of the Labour party divide need to be honest about their strengths and weaknesses. None of us are in a strong position, so we should be trying to work together wherever possible and not bother wasting our limited energies fighting over if we should be in or out. The NSSN looks like a good place to begin.
Kit,
I think we share a belief that the working class movement should be led by working class people - but to be honest I don’t think this vision is shared by most of the sects. Take the CPGB(PCC)/Weekly Worker - a particularly pompous middle-class intellectual paper whose strategy for the left is essentially post-Marxist: that is, the working class is substituted for rootless eccentric petty-bourgeois sects they’d like to merge and call a ‘Communist Party’. Rather than trying to relate to the working class (something they effectively dismiss as “economistic”), they - for want of a better description - disappear halfway up their own arse by the time you turn to page 3.
The CP obviously had their request for affiliation rejected in the 1920s (though they phrased it pretty much to ensure that would happen) - but frankly the Communists got more MPs elected as Labour MPs than they got CP MPs elected in 1945 (i.e. 2). Indeed the most MPs that the extra-LP far left have ever won is 2 in the exceptional post-war conditions of 1945 - compare that to the 3 MPs the Militant had at the high water mark of Thatcherism in the 80s.
Technically Socialist Organiser and Militant were banned (or rather they weren’t accepted on to the register of organised groups). But actually Militant (for example) wasn’t expelled per see. There were a couple of hundred expulsions at most - out of 8,000 active members and thousands more sympathisers. My own father, for example, was an alternate member of the Central Committee in the 1980s and didn’t face expulsion. In actual fact, Militant left of its own accord in 1992 as part of an ultra-left turn; its successor organisation is a pretty pale shadow of what once was. Leaving the Labour party was basically an act of retreat during a period of reaction - and it’s a retreat with nothing to show for itself.
I empathise with your point about the Fabian Society - but groups like the AWL hardly help us when they affiliate to dead-end groups like the ‘Socialist Green Unity Coalition’ (yeah, cos that’s going to end up with a mass working class base isn’t it) which end up getting about 0.5% of the vote. Such pointless ultra-left lunacy just helps to play into the hands of those who want to drive the left from the Labour party.
The reason we’re in the LP is because of its trade union base which links it (albeit bureaucratically) to millions of organised workers in this country. The issue with the link is that the trade unions could use it to fight for socialist policies that benefit working class people - but they don’t. If we can’t get them to back a candidate who actually backs their policies (like John McDonnell), what hope of getting them to back a new party?
As for the lack of working-class activists in the current rump of the Labour party - well, all I’d say is that while 200,000 party members have left over the past decade, almost none of them have joined some of the alternative sects whose membership has continued to slide.
The fact is, there has never been a mass party to the left of the LP. I stand by my assertion that the SSP only enjoyed a brief relative success because of a) the electoral system and b) relatively favourable local political conditions. What was interesting about the SSP is that they didn’t particularly dent the Labour vote - they won thousands of working-class SNP voters (many of whom have now defected back again).
I’ve read repeated fairly arrogant lectures from extra-LP sectarians who argue that the left is wasting its time in the party. All well and good but what achievements do the extra-LP have to show for themselves? Indeed, what have the extra-LP left ever achieved as the extra-LP left - that is, not including various campaigns they effectively provide a bureaucracy for which attracts a variety of political persuasions (e.g. Stop The War Coalition)?
As I keep saying, there are two alternatives - the Labour party or political oblivion and irrelevance. Tragically I think some comrades are going to have to find out the hard way what history presents as a fairly obvious fact.
This is a serious discussion meriting long, considered contributions, so sorry for this little aside …
Owen, your claim that you “partially represent the RMT in Parliament” is both breathtakingly arrogant and egotistical, and shows a complete misunderstanding of the democratic core of the verb ‘represent’. Representatives, you will note, are elected and accountable, or else they are not representatives.
Ello as I said i’ll respond over here
my problem wasn’t with the rest of your post (regardless of content we can argue that a different time)
It is your opening sentance that I have the problem with “Owen Jones has posted an article on his personal blog (he and Marsha seem to contribute to more blogs than I have mobile phones) about how political work outside the Labour Party is seemingly futile. I suppose this goes to the crux of my political differences with Owen and Marsha and their current approach to how socialists should operate,”
Now for all you know I could agree with everyword or I could disagree with every word owen wrote - yet you assume that i agree?
You state this is from Owens personal blog - so how then does it go to the crux of your political differences with me? I am not the same person as Owen and hold views widely different to his on many subjects.
Would that assumption work the other way around - are you going to post a critique of something from Union Futures as both mine and Owens view?
Its not as if this was wrote on the blog that owen and myself contribute to but his own personal one.
When you move on down the post to things ive actually said then fine - but the introduction was clearly about Owens post and I dont like you linking that to what we both think it is patronising and with a hint of sexism - i dont think thats a totally unfair comment
In fact I only came on to see it because someone else (not owen) pointed it out to me - (stopped lookin at your blog cos u not updating it now you got a proper job)
Owen is (generally) clearly right on saying that the far left has achieved little outside the LP (numerous exceptions include the SSP and claims - wrongly or rightly - by e.g. Militant that they finished of the Poll Tax or by the CPGB that they did likewise to Barbara’ Castle’s ‘In Place of Strife’).
So I accept that bit of his argument.
But it’s only half an argument, isn’t it?
Even if you don’t seek revolution what have socialists achieved in the LP that would make all the shit done there worthwhile? Do the minor reforms e.g. a nationalised transport system as opposed to a national transport system free, or at cost, to the user; make the compromises worthwhile?
Horrible as he may consider it, I would guess that the political views of Owen are closer to the SP’s, and even mine, than even the most Left members of the Labour cabinet (are there any?).
His politics will never be that of Labour in power but they conceivably could be of those that have/had reasonable parliamentary representation e.g. SSP, German Left Party, Dutch Socialist Party, ILP.
As you write - “what achievements do the extra-LP have to show for themselves? Indeed, what have the extra-LP left ever achieved as the extra-LP left”?
Yes, the far left is very effective - acknowledged - but then so were the Bolsheviks 100 years ago.
But try answering the question implied in the phrase you write before “I’ve read repeated fairly arrogant lectures from extra-LP sectarians who argue that the left is wasting its time in the party.”
How is it not wasting your time?
Why work in a beast that will either crush or corrupt you?
Marsha, I’m sorry that you feel that I’ve either been sexist or patronising. However I don’t think I have.
You are right in that I was wrong to say that it goes to the crux of our political differences full stop. Let me elaborate on that - it goes to the crux of our political differences on this question.
If you think that I’ve misrepresented your positions in any way, then let me know. I’ll publish a full retraction. However, on the main question that I discussed - on whether political work outside of the Labour Party is futile - I have good reason to believe that you do.
For example, there is this from HangBitch.com:
Thompson joined the Labour party about 14 months ago, ‘mainly because of my work with the unions. I started getting involved in union work at a regional level and I found that there were a lot more people in the Labour party (at Unison regional level) and they were working to try and change the party.’
Conversations we’ve had also lead me to believe that you do.
The quote from the SYN list email is a good example. That was your quote, and I said that I believed Owen was in agreement with it though I did say I was (and am) willing to be corrected on it. Owen’s posted here twice now and not denied it. So it works both ways.
i don’t think that there is any contradiction between supporting the work of socialists in the Labour Party and also wishing good luck to other socialists doing other things
you are so wrong to think that I am opposed to the work of socialists outside the Labour Party - I may think that there are better things they could be doing but I am not necessarily against what they are doing
you really should not assume that I have the views of a male comrade just because they are a close friend
I may forgive you for this if you apologise and buy me a drink (or three) at the next bloggers piss up (that’s in addition to the one you owe me already of course…
The sex of either you or Owen had nothing to do with it. Neither does your friendship. There are people who, while being politically close to them, I can’t stand personally and would be more than willing to smack them in the face. There are also people who I have numerous political disagreements with, but find them nice, amicable people who I get along with great and love nothing more than to go for a pint with - like you, Owen, Stroppy, Tami, George B, etc. I don’t - never have done, never will do - judge people’s politics by the friends they keep. I judge them on what they say and what they do. Nothing else.
Even so, you and Owen form a coherent leadership of SYN. I believe that there is significant convergence on both your and Owen’s vision of what SYN is and what it should be doing, which is important when it comes to this question. Am I wrong? Is that unfair?
While you say that you wish people good luck for doing stuff outside the LP structures, that’s not quite the same as seeing that both work inside and outside the LP is both possible, and nessecary. Would you be willing to support a labour movement candidate who stands against a right wing Blairite - but official - Labour candidate? Like Bob Crow’s much-promised anti Tube privatisation candidates? Would have urged people to vote for Janine when she stood for Hackney Council? Indeed, would you have gone out and canvassed for her? Do you believe that candidacies such as Janine’s are worthwhile and nessecary for building a labour movement and help the fight for a workers’ government? Or do you believe them all to be a sectarian sidestep and that we must always vote, canvass and support all Labour candidates?
That’s the core of the question. That’s the demarcation. I believe that such activity outside the LP not only has the potential but, alongside building a left inside the Labour Party and the unions, is a nessecary part of building a fighting socialist, labour movement. Owen believes that such work is sectarian and futile. He’s eloquantly put the argument, and I’ve responded against it.
I think that this is a nessecary debate that SYN needs to have. I’m keen on having it.
Agree with your criticisms of CY and don’t believe that you have to be a Trotskyist to do so.
Hopefully things will look up now that we’ve got an actual exec and more links to civil society groups.
largely the problem with CY is that everyone is always working and we started from a small cluster of individuals; so it has taken this long for things to take shape. Onwards and upwards.