27.06.1996

Sikorski’s letter

Comrade Pat Sikorski’s June 11 letter - to “all branch, constituency and regional secretaries, all NEC members” - reproduced in the last issue of the Weekly Worker is, to say the least, a rather worrying development. Not only has the National Executive Committee turned the Scargill draft Constitution/rule book into binding law. It has now bestowed upon itself enormous and surely unprecedented powers to enforce what ought to be still up for debate. The membership has neither discussed nor voted for any constitution. Yet by NEC decree we are expected to ‘accept’ and obey the Scargill draft.

The Scargill Constitution/rule book means that the Socialist Labour Party is intended to be a federal party. However, though there has not yet been a single affiliation, there is already in place an implicit ban on affiliation by the Communist Party of Great Britain - copying Ramsay MacDonald’s post-1925 Labour Party.

Anti-communism, congenital or convenient, inevitably carries a high price. In order to exclude Militant Labour, the Socialist Workers Party, the CPGB, etc, the Scargill Constitution/rule book is compelled to formally prohibit the whole range of leftwing editorial boards, educational associations, protest groups, migrant centres, rank and file trade union organisations, etc. Such bodies in the workers’ movement do after all usually have something like “their own programme, principles and policies, distinctive and separate propaganda” - offences which at present make them “ineligible for affiliation” to the SLP (Constitution/rule book clause 2, subsection 3).

There is a frightful logic at play here. The next subsection announces that SLPers are “automatically ... ineligible” to “remain a member” if they join or support “a political organisation other than the party” (Ibid clause 2, subsection 4). Hence presumably those who support a political journal such as Capital and class or join Unison’s broad left put themselves outside the Scargill draft Constitution/rule book.

Perhaps I am being alarmist? But, looking down the general secretary’s letter we find the following paragraph:

“Any member of a political organisation other than the SLP who has been treated as a member of the SLP, is entitled to the return of any subscription paid by them because their ineligibility for SLP membership means that they have never been an SLP member” (Weekly Worker June 20 1996).

Doubtless the idea of repaying subs is the result of clever legal advice from comrade John Hendy QC. If unchallenged it means members of the SLP charged with the ‘crime’ of joining or supporting “a political organisation other than the party” are deemed guilty and immediately excluded. The NEC has set itself up as prosecution, judge, jury and executioner. There is no trial before one’s peers nor right of appeal. A bald note will be issued: ‘You are not and have never been an SLP member.’

Though “failure to abide by any part of the constitution by any member automatically renders invalid the membership of the individual concerned”, there are countless exceptions. I will cite two examples. One sinister. The other totally innocent.

As is by now well known, at the top of the SLP operates the secret Fourth International Supporters Caucus - Brian Heron, Pat and Carolyn Sikorski are members/supporters. This group/organisation constitutes the McCarthyite wing of the NEC. Comrade Arthur Scargill craftily chooses for his own reasons to ignore their blundering violation of his constitution - of course, thereby making his own membership technically “invalid” in the process.

The activities of Socialist Courier are almost diametrically opposite to Fisc’s. Well intentioned and ineffective, it does nevertheless have its “own programme, principles and policies, distinctive and separate propaganda” - and it is as a result unconstitutional for SLP members to join it or lend their support. In spite of that the little ‘socialist monthly’ is promoted and sold openly by comrade John Hayball, a member of the West London SLP - Brian Heron and Pat Sikorski have brought copies and even given patronising encouragement.

Roll on the day when there are no bans or proscriptions in the SLP. When from high to low all partisans of the working class can be open and honest about the views they hold. That means opposing witch hunting in all its forms and supporting the right of members to publish and to form themselves into tendencies and groupings. The working class does not need a Labour Party mark II. It needs a democratic and revolutionary SLP.

Elections and Militant Labour

SLP members will find an interesting article in the June 14 edition of Militant by Mike Waddington. Readers of this paper will recall our analysis of the May 18 meeting of the SLP’s NEC and how branches were informed by comrade Pat Sikorski, among others, that there would be no electoral agreements - especially with Militant Labour.

The reason for turning down a united electoral front was the supposed fact that ML arrogantly presented the SLP with a ‘take it or leave it’ list of constituencies where it intended to fight. The SLP was simply told to stay clear - or so it was claimed.

Frankly I doubted this version of events from the beginning and said so in these pages. Either Militant Labour were being completely stupid or someone in our ranks was not telling the truth.

Comrade Waddington unashamedly puts it on the record that ML listed 23 seats in England and Wales which it was “considering”. However this was no “fait accompli”. What he says was being suggested was a “discussion to avoid the two socialist organisations standing against one another”. Waddington emphasises that ML’s original appeal stated quite explicitly that “some compromises” are necessary and that ML is prepared to negotiate “the allocation of seats”.

ML has written again to our NEC. It repeats the proposal for discussion of the general election and the division of seats. Given reports that Militant Labour is being dishonestly presented as the obstacle to unity, its letter of June 5 makes crystal clear that “some compromises are always necessary”. It is in “all our interests”, concludes ML, “that the socialist vote is maximised and needless contests between socialists are avoided”.

Waddington himself quotes that terrible analogy comrade Scargill still uses to justify bans on both communists and joint work: ‘You can’t play for Manchester United and Newcastle on the same pitch.’ With good effect Waddington replies by saying ML wants “the expansion of the team - Socialist United - for the polling day match!”

Socialist News

Fisc does not appear to be getting things all its own way. Besides pouring ice cold water over the NEC’s target of 100 candidates for the forthcoming general election, comrade Pat Sikorski has often been overheard making disparaging remarks concerning the idea of the SLP having its own paper. It would be a “financial black hole”, he has emphatically declared. Our general secretary recollects his days selling and raising money for Socialist Outlook with no affection.

The June 22 meeting in Conway Hall, advertised in Socialist Labour information, the members’ free sheet, was therefore a welcome development. Its remit was to “examine proposals for launching a party newspaper”.

Comrade Arthur Scargill had clearly already made up his mind. Instead of a discussion about the advisability of a paper he announced in true autocratic style that the SLP would have a monthly twelve-pager from September called Socialist News. There will be a print run of 6,000 and a cover price of 50p. Money will come primarily not from sales, but the membership; though there is a notion that trade union branches could help out by taking bulk orders. The meeting was expected to fill in the remaining details.

Without a paper the SLP will come to nothing. The Scargill edict is therefore good and bad. Getting a paper is altogether positive. The method though is appalling and in itself damaging. Another cause for concern which flows from the SLP’s presidential regime is the paper’s likely content. Comrade Scargill wants a popular tabloid. No bad thing. He waved around the Weekly Worker as an example to be copied and not to be copied. Its existence is regarded with jealousy. But Scargill has no desire to emulate the Weekly Worker journalistically. Not only does it on occasion have whole pages of unbroken print - resembling literature for grown-ups. It carries extensive debate and disagreement.

Though obviously an avid reader of the Weekly Worker - not least because of its unrivalled coverage of the SLP - comrade Scargill does not want Socialist News to be anything like that. Everyone will be expected to toe the party line.

That will be safe for the NEC. But, like the old ‘official communist’ press, it will make dull and deadly reading - even with umpteen pictures.

SL Kenning