22.02.1996

SLP comes to Glasgow

150 people turned up to the T&G Halls in Glasgow on Saturday to hear Arthur Scargill and Bob Crow (assistant general secretary, RMT) put forward the case for the Socialist Labour Party.

In his contribution, Crow touched on the many attacks made on the working class movement in recent years, especially through the anti-trade union laws, which the Labour Party has condoned by refusing to consider repealing them when next in government. He also pointed out the witch-hunting role Labour Party loyalists in his union are playing, by trying to flush out SLP members and supporters who hold positions within the RMT (this union has seen half of its national executive give support to the SLP).

Scargill explained what he saw as the qualitative change in the Labour Party under the Blair leadership - the dropping of clause four and its political consensus with the Tories:

“There is no fundamental difference between conservatives, Liberal and Labour: they all embrace capitalism. At the next election, Labour Party candidates will be standing on a platform that bears no resemblance to the policy decisions taken at the last Labour Party conference in October 1995.”

On why he and others took the initiative to establish an alternative organisation, he said:

“Organisations on the left have played a role but none of them have made a breakthrough in attracting a mass movement. The SLP is a party that can appeal to an ordinary man and woman in the labour and trade union movement in Britain.”

When the meeting was opened for general discussion, the main contributions centred on what attitude the SLP would take to the recently established Scottish Socialist Alliance. The key point was that while the SSA would actively be encouraging the SLP and its members to get involved with the Alliance, the draft constitution of the SLP excludes its members being involved in other political organisations.

The SLP was accused of attempting to bypass the existing SSA and of damaging unity by calling on other organisations to dissolve themselves. On another point, the SWP thought there was a contradiction between the SLP standing in elections and getting involved in mass campaigns and struggles (have SWP members never read Bolsheviks in the Tsarist Duma, a book republished by the SWP in 1987?).

In replying to questions and points raised, Scargill failed to give a direct answer on the SSA. However he dismissed the charge of parliamentarianism by explicitly stating that

“the SLP is not an electoral machine, but it will fight elections wherever and whenever possible depending on resources and finances. However it would be involved in mass campaigns and struggles. On anti-trade union legislation, if the only way to deal with it is to defy it and if it means going to jail, then so be it”.

So while there is confusion over the SLP’s attitude to the SSA and as to whether the SLP’s constitution/rule book is just a draft, it is clear the intervention of revolutionaries still has potential to influence the type of party it becomes.

Nick Clarke