25.09.2014
Preparing for 2015
The LU national council agreed that there should be no electoral coalition with Tusc. NC member and Communist Platform supporter Yassamine Mather reports
The second meeting of Left Unity’s national council took place on Saturday September 20. The 40-45 NC members present had before them an agenda that required a lot more time, but, given the distances travelled by some comrades, it would have been difficult to extend the five-hour meeting in Birmingham by very much.
A variety of issues were addressed and the following is not a report about every item discussed, but hopefully will summarise what was a useful meeting, despite some negative interpretations reported on social media. Talking of which, let me start with the issue of openness. Left Unity officers seem at times concerned about the reporting of branch and national meetings in the leftwing press. However, the reality is that we live in the 21st century and even before some NC members had returned home, accurate and inaccurate reports of what was discussed in the meeting were available both on social media and in emails posted by various comrades to their branches, which were then distributed further by those receiving them.
Rather than worrying about such reports, the national council should encourage open access to its proceedings - this could involve allowing an audio recording of the entire proceedings to go online soon after the meeting (perhaps with the proviso that the discussion of specific items dealing with individuals, or internal reports regarding budget details, for example, should be excluded.)
One of the first issues raised at the meeting was approval of the minutes of the last NC and the two subsequent executive committee meetings. I am not a member of the EC and I was not present at the committee’s meeting in July. However, I questioned one of the items listed in the minutes of the July EC meeting, which were presented for NC ratification: “to consider implications where party members refuse individually or collectively to comply with DC [disputes committee] and party processes”.
Inevitably the NC is not in a position to discuss specific disputes. However, some of the phrasing used in connection with the disputes committee is rather worrying. As I said in the meeting, the term “collective culpability”, which was used in relation to such processes, is out of place. For a young party to apparently threaten bureaucratic, disciplinarian action against an unknown group of people is heavy-handed and inappropriate. Who will decide on such “collective culpability” and how? How will it determine all those responsible? This could be used against any political tendency or individual branch. However, no-one responded to my comments and the minutes were accepted.
Early in the meeting Independent Socialist Network comrades raised their concerns about the timetable in the run-up to the November 15-16 national conference. The deadline for motions is October 7 and, according to ISN comrades, this does not give sufficient time for branches to discuss and submit their proposals. The officers reported that the relevant document was emailed to all branch secretaries on September 7 and that this gave sufficient notice. I find it ironic that such a complaint should be put forward by the same ISN comrades who last year gave members of Left Unity’s (now defunct) Socialist Platform just a couple of days to submit amendments to the SP’s proposed platform and then told us at a conference convened to discuss their own draft that it could not be changed and that the amendments submitted would be subject only to an “indicative vote”. It is often easier to teach others lessons about democratic procedure than follow it yourself.
Main discussion
In his introduction on the current political situation, national treasurer Andrew Burgin stated that, as a new organisation, Left Unity had made an impact in Gaza demonstrations, in anti-Nato protests in Wales, on the national march to save the NHS, etc. On next year’s general election, he talked about the advances made by European left parties, and hoped that in the UK we could also begin to move forward, armed with the policy adopted at our March 2014 conference, based on the coordination of electoral strategy with other left parties.
On other matters, he noted the energy shown in the Scottish referendum, and the impact of the Radical Independence Campaign. However, referring to the “reactionary times” in British politics, he said that LU was right to call for an abstention in the referendum, although we should welcome the political awareness it brought, and the opportunity to discuss economic and constitutional issues throughout the UK.
In this connection there was an emergency motion by supporters of the RIC, which would have overturned the conference decision regarding LU’s neutrality in the referendum. A number of comrades objected, and the chair ruled that three points in the proposed motion would amount to a reversal of a conference decision and were therefore out of order (although, had the whole motion been put to a vote, I am sure it would have been defeated in any case). But the NC did decide to set up a policy commission to discuss the UK constitution, including the monarchy, House of Lords, federalism, etc.
Regarding the 2015 elections, the decision of the March conference was clear: “Left Unity should open discussions with other left groups, coalitions and parties to avoid electoral clashes and move towards electoral pacts - with the aim of creating the largest ever left challenge in the 2015 general election.” Subsequently the EC issued guidelines, which stated: “We should try to avoid clashes with other parties of the left … and discussions with all these parties should be held to make sure we are not just one of a long list of left parties on the ballot paper.”
However negotiations with the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition have not been straightforward. Tusc made its position clear in correspondence sent to LU earlier this month and circulated to the NC:
The Tusc national steering committee … welcomed your commitment to “have discussions with other left organisations which plan to stand in the elections, so that we avoid standing in the same place where possible”. However, the meeting also expressed its disappointment that, in your message, you stated that Left Unity “are not planning to enter into any electoral coalitions”. We believe that this would be to miss an opportunity to build the broadest possible united anti-austerity alternative to the establishment parties. For our part, we confirm that we would very much welcome Left Unity’s participation in the Tusc coalition on the same basis as its existing constituent organisations - or, if it was felt necessary, the creation of a new umbrella coalition - and that we look forward to the earliest possible meeting with you.
Andrew Burgin, responding to this, has written on the LU website:
The separate organisations [in Tusc] have, to give just one example, different positions on Europe and the EU. The Socialist Party and the RMT are for withdrawal from the EU and also for immigration controls, whereas the other organisations, while opposing the EU, have a different position. Thus in order to stand in the Euro elections last May the Socialist Party and the RMT stood as No2EU, a separate coalition with the Communist Party of Britain. Tusc did not stand in those elections as it has no policy on Europe.
In the 2015 general election, which will be dominated by the European question and the rise of Ukip, the inability of Tusc to speak on this question will cause problems. Left Unity has policy that, while it opposes all aspects of a neoliberal Europe, also “opposes all programmes and demands for a British withdrawal from the European Union”. Should Left Unity seek to include our policy on Europe in the Tusc manifesto that would not be possible because of the right of veto held by individual organisations within Tusc.1
Supporters of the Communist Platform voted for the motions accepted by LU conference on the European Union and immigration. Both issues will be high on the agenda in the 2015 elections. If we were to either join Tusc or form a “new umbrella coalition” with it, how would we reconcile such major differences? At best we would have to be silent about two important policies that distinguish Left Unity from the rest of the left.
ISN comrades told the meeting that if we joined a coalition with Tusc we would probably reach the magic number of general election candidates entitling us to a party political broadcast. I really do not see how a three-minute TV broadcast would compensate for the degree of compromise necessary to attempt to reconcile such diametrically opposed views.
On the Greens I agree with comrade Burgin’s assertion that the Green Party cannot be considered a party of the left: “Their collective political history is littered with examples of their capitulation to the power of capital. In Brighton, where they have control of the council, they are engaged in cuts and more recently even the privatisation of services.”2
On Labour, the consensus seems to be to avoid standing against its few leftwing candidates, the obvious cases being Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and, if I understood it correctly, Diane Abbott.
The meeting had before it a report containing the views of 14 branches, while those of a further four or five were aired during the NC itself. It seems the majority of branches have decided to put up candidates in the local elections, and a number of Westminster seats are also being considered. Later in the meeting a budget was agreed in support of LU’s election challenge.
I voted for Lambeth’s proposal for a policy conference to draw up an election manifesto, on the basis that it would allow further discussions about policies mentioned in the manifesto, but this motion was defeated. The NC meeting in December will draw up the manifesto, based on policies passed at our national conferences.
Witch-hunt?
Another motion from Lambeth seemed to me like a witch-hunt. This one emanated from another ISN - this time the International Socialist Network. It is unfortunate that comrades who are now part of a culture that is liable to refer to the expression of political opinions different from their own as ‘bullying’ have submitted a critical motion to the NC targeted at one named comrade, one of LU’s four ‘principal speakers’. If, as Simon Hardy suggested, the issue is not about individuals, but a general matter of the accountability of officers, the motion should have been worded differently. As it was, they appeared vindictive against one individual and Lambeth withdrew it.
Let me end with a couple of general observations. It is important that those attending NC meetings should familiarise themselves with the papers sent out beforehand. At every NC a considerable amount of time is wasted explaining details of procedure and the agenda. It would also be a good idea for NC proceedings to be tidied up, so that all motions presented to the NC should be reviewed before the meeting and those that (a) are beyond the remit of the NC, (b) seek to overturn conference decisions or (c) claim to be ‘emergency motions’ but are clearly not urgent can be removed from the agenda to save time.
Secondly, the November 14-15 Left Unity conference should concentrate on policy documents, and motions to strengthen those documents, rather than get embroiled in petty squabbles about individuals or the merits of electoral coalitions with forces whose positions on immigration or Europe will only discredit the left.
Our Communist Platform motions on war and imperialism, foreign policy, a federal republic, a workers’ militia, etc would present a radical alternative in this period of war, uncertainty and reactionary politics. If we can present convincing political arguments in defence of those policies we can win allies in Left Unity and beyond.
yassamine.mather@weeklyworker.co.uk
Notes
1. http://leftunity.org/left-unity-and-elections-some-brief-thoughts.