10.10.1996

Alliances miss opportunity

Coventry meeting produces ‘do-nothing’ day

About 70 people attended a national liaison meeting of Socialist Alliances last Saturday in Coventry. Representatives were present from Kent, Manchester, Coventry, Hillingdon, Brent, Liverpool and Scotland, as well as members of the Democratic Labour Party, the Walsall Council split. Political organisations represented were Workers Power, Socialist Outlook, Militant Labour, the Socialist Labour Party and the CPGB.

The day began with reports from the various SAs. Liverpool stressed the fact that it is promoting a platform of socialist candidates in the general election. It is gaining cooperation from the SLP on the ground despite the official line of the party’s leadership and hopes to have a slate of three ML and two SLP candidates in Merseyside.

Others like Hillingdon, initially one of the most successful Alliances in England, confessed that they did not know where they were going and what to do next.

There appeared to be an unevenness in development and direction. Kent in particular, as reported by Revolutionary Democratic Group supporter Chris Weller, was not interested in being anything more than a semi-anarchist local campaign group and Weller himself wanted nothing to do with elections, as he is a member of “an anti-election alliance” - something his organisation should perhaps pursue with him.

Unfortunately, as the day developed, the majority of the meeting allowed these localists to set the agenda. There was a clear threat that Kent could walk out if things did not go their way. They were not, in the words of one of their members, “going to be told what to do by anybody.” The influence of their sectarian belligerence produced a ‘do nothing’ day.

The three main themes which dominated discussion were the role of the SAs in building a workers’ party, the national question in Scotland and the need for a national leadership.

There was clearly a pro-party and anti-party camp, with ML, CPGB and some SLPers in the former and Kent leading the latter.

Stan Keable (Brent SA and SLP) stressed the positive experience of bringing the left together to discuss theory and the need for us all to be in the same centralised party.

Dave Nellist, leading ML member, argued that the Alliances provided the opportunity to begin some serious work towards the creation of a mass workers’ party. He is one of the leading proponents of the Coventry SA which was the first to be set up nationally, following the coalescing of the left around his election campaign in 1992.

However, despite the positive attitude of Nellist and some others, ML had quite a contradictory attitude towards the building of the Alliances. No advert for the meeting had appeared in the previous edition of Militant. This is strange, given that the Alliances in England and Wales were mainly set up by ML and it had a number of leading members present on the day.

It seems that ML now does not know what to do with the SAs and even perhaps would prefer to play them down. Given that there are currently also discussions around moves to relaunch ML as the ‘Socialist Party’ in a bid for electoral success, there are almost certainly tensions within the organisation about the prospect of involvement in broader platforms.

This was exhibited when I put forward a proposal for the election of an interim national steering committee. ML comrades from Coventry were in general agreement with me. Although worried that it may be premature, they agreed something should be set up. A Manchester ML comrade, however, was far more hesitant and said that he could not possibly agree to anything there and then. Others stayed quiet or spoke hesitantly.

Naturally Kent was against the formation of any national leadership and unfortunately its anarchist backwardness won out. A creeping paralysis spread over a meeting which appeared at the outset to have some possibility of effective united action. The day ended with the majority agreeing not to set anything up and wait until a further conference in January to make any decisions.

The most controversial issue of the day was the question of the relationship of Scotland to the rest of the movement. As part of the CPGB’s proposal on national leadership, I put forward the need for Scotland to be part of the same organisation as SAs in England and Wales. An audible gasp of horror spread around the room.

Alan Green from the Scottish SA sprang up immediately and made it very clear that Scotland was not going to be part of any Britain-wide organisation.

In fact, as far as he was concerned, Scotland already has a national structure and is looking forward to a sovereign Scottish parliament where the left can have a strong voice through proportional representation. England could do as it wanted - Scotland had already made up its mind.

Scotland is clearly the advanced section of the SAs. The fact that it is intent on going its own way is a great loss for the movement. It is not because we are pro-British state that we argue for unity, but for precisely the opposite reason. The maxim is ‘One state, one party’. It should be a single workers’ party confronting the United Kingdom state. For us to divide our forces is to pander to localism or nationalism. We dilute our potential to win.

Furthermore, as I pointed out, the question of Scottish self-determination is a question for the working class in Britain as a whole, not just our comrades north of the border. We can win democratic rights for the people of Scotland and Wales far more effectively if we are in the same organisation.

Despite our differences comrades in Scotland had a fraternal and open approach to discussion on the question. This was in marked contrast to the majority of comrades from England who said nothing and appeared to be positively embarrassed that I had raised the matter. But not to confront Scottish separatism in the movement is to capitulate to opportunism.

Not surprisingly therefore, ML comrades kept their mouths tightly shut. The fact that its national leadership has allowed its Scottish part to become effectively a separate organisation shows the depth of its opportunism in this matter. It has given in to the nationalism of its Scottish comrades in order to avoid the inevitable conflict which would result from fighting it out.

However, this clearly disarms them now in fighting any other form of localism and rightism within the party. If Scotland can have organisational and financial autonomy, why not everywhere else? It is a logic that leads to disintegration.

Finally, despite many criticisms of the day I still believe that the SAs can play an important role in the coming together of the left. SLP, Socialist Workers Party and all other organisations must be encouraged to join, play an active part and promote the open debate vital to our movement.

Anne Murphy