07.03.1996

Slippery slope

The setting up of the SLP has thrown many left organisations into a state of panic in deciding how they should respond. One of the most confused is Workers Power.

From the very start it got it wrong when it predicted: “Arthur Scargill’s much-publicised threat to leave Labour is a step he is unlikely to take on his own, and nobody else in the PLP or union bureaucracy supports his suggestion” (Workers Power November 1995).

In December 1995 when the SLP was clearly going to happen, its form still to be fought over and decided upon, Workers Power now took a very healthy view in welcoming Arthur Scargill’s call for discussions on the left to consider the establishment of a Socialist Labour Party: “We will participate fully in the process on consultation and debate ... The key question for this debate is, what kind of party should socialists be aiming to establish in May?”

Workers Power also took a view of Labour that was a bit to the left of its usual stance: “The call for the establishment of an SLP provides workers with an opportunity to settle accounts not only with Blairism, but with the entire reformist legacy that has brought Labour to its present state.” Now we are really talking!

And Workers Power intended to get fully stuck in: “Workers Power will be arguing for a structure based on maximum democracy and debate, and maximum unity in action once decisions are taken.” Of course it was accepted that “The road to a revolutionary socialist working class party in Britain is not easy.”

By the January edition some concerns are now creeping in. But WP was “ready to unite with Militant Labour to fight for an open, democratic discussion about what sort of party the SLP should be”. It still recognised that “The SLP provides the chance to rally working class forces to the fight for a revolutionary party.”

And then by February it all goes horribly wrong. “The SLP has already been launched with a constitution, a structure, policies, a leadership and a membership card too.” According to Workers Power, everything had been decided upon: “Scargill has created a miniature left reformist party. The SLP will either sink rapidly into obscurity or become a confusing obstacle in the way of socialists who want to really get rid of capitalism.” Only at the very end of a lengthy article writing off the SLP is there just the slightest of fudges in case another line change is required: “The SLP has been so far a squandered opportunity; part of the workers’ movement’s past, not its future” [my emphasis].

Workers Power said that it is not easy, but it also said it would fight for its policies, etc. Unfortunately it has accepted Scargill’s view of what the SLP should be. Its members have not gone into the SLP, where the real debate about its very nature has only just begun. But then maybe the March edition of Workers Power will see yet a further shift. Watch this space!

Lee Yates