14.11.1996

‘If you want to see the building of bridges don’t occupy the bridge yourself’

Anne Murphy spoke to Dave Nellist, a leading Militant Labour member, about his attitude to regroupment and the Socialist Alliances

How was Coventry Socialist Alliance formed and why do you see it as important?

It was set up after the 1992 general election and has been going for about four years with about 350 people on its mailing list. It involved those who were active in two challenges to Labour in 1992; with myself in Coventry South East and John Hughes in Coventry North East. The aim of the alliance was to hold together the 127 people who were expelled or suspended from Coventry Labour Party around 1992.

At the national meeting of the Alliances in Coventry you spoke about their importance in building a working class party. How and why do you think they can be important?

Now that we have seen that New Labour has abandoned even any pretence of being for socialism a vacuum has opened up to the left of it. There is no automatic guarantee that that vacuum will be filled by progressive or left forces. The fact that the National Front gained 119,000 votes in European elections in London in the 1970s is an illustration of the right being able to fill the space. And it is possible after the general election to see a resurgence to the right from within the Tory Party led by Portillo, Lilley, Redwood and that lot. There could be all sorts of nasty elements pushed into sight. It is not an automatic process.

However there is a big vacuum to the left and there is an opportunity to build a new independent class struggle-based party of the working class. SAs are stronger in Scotland for a number of reasons, including the national question. But also because of the further development of socialist forces in Scotland, as compared with England and Wales.

I think they could grow in the post-election period. In other areas you could quite easily talk about the possibility of splits from the Labour Party, including MPs - either on a local basis like Walsall or on a national basis around individuals. I am not going to name them because it would put them on the spot, but there are one or two prime candidates who cannot stand Labour much longer.

You can see trade unions moving into more oppositional positions. The FBU have already passed resolutions this Easter deciding to investigate the possibility of backing socialist candidates outside the Labour Party. I have spoken to my own union, MSF, along the lines of ‘we shouldn’t put all our eggs in the one basket’ and emphasising that what Labour has done in Coventry it has also done elsewhere. How can we say that our political fund is to go solely to the Labour Party when they are the ones attacking our members?

So I think the SAs in the areas where they have been established can be useful vehicles. I think what we need is some kind of a national coalition: a framework, a federation - something to bring people together.

This is what I hoped Arthur Scargill would do with the Socialist Labour Party at the end of last year. If he had called a conference of that character he would have filled the Albert Hall, but he didn’t. He wanted something more exclusive, organised from the top down rather than blossoming from the bottom up. That is why the SLP will only be a component, a player in negotiations for a new party, but it won’t be the important force it could have been, given its political direction.

One of the remarks I have made of ML is that it has gone from being the driving force behind the SAs to going cool on them. I think perhaps the move to relaunch yourselves as the Socialist Party has replaced your initial enthusiasm for the Alliances.

To try to put it into chronological order: the SA in Scotland has been 18 months or more in the gestation. It came to fruition in the spring with its launch conference. We are fully in support and fully involved in that process. But there is the fear that ML could swamp it, as we are bigger than all of the other groups put together.

The fact is if you want to see the building of bridges, don’t occupy the bridge yourself, otherwise nobody else can get across. So in that sense we restricted the numbers that went to the meeting of the SAs and asked our comrades from the particular areas to ensure that all the legitimate strands of opinion within the Alliances were represented. We wanted people to feel it was their meeting, not that it was dominated by one political viewpoint.

Rather than it being ambivalence towards the Alliances, you want to keep a finger in every pie?

If you want to bring people towards you, you have to be sensitive to the fact that they don’t necessarily want to join your organisation. A lot of the influence in and around the formation of Alliances last year was the SLP. But the monolithic way the SLP developed meant that for us some areas of the Alliances were not pushed. Particularly now when we have campaigns against the Jobseekers Allowance, the Shell campaign, the Campaign Against Domestic Violence, the roads protests and others. So where there are SAs existing we will be involved in them but it’s not something we are arguing to be set up for the sake of it.

So are you saying that you saw the alliances as essentially connected with the formation of the SLP and now that has gone in a different direction they are not so important?

It is literally not a line that has been followed up and down the county. The Coventry Alliance was formed four years ago, but not actually by ML supporters. Scotland came from a number of forces coming together around the poll tax and the water campaign. We were an important component in that but not the main driving force. In one or two areas we have set them up directly.

It’s not like we were rushing around the country setting them up and now we are backing off. There were lots of Alliance meetings at the beginning of this year because the SLP provided the catalyst for thinking in that direction. The most important thing between now and the general election is to hold things together and try to get some exchange of policies.

Are the rumours true that ML is going to vote to change its name to Socialist Party at the end of November?

Well there is a discussion going on and a decision is due to be taken over the next two or three weeks.  We have had about four documents whereby everyone in the organisation was able to put their view and all of these have been circulated throughout the membership. Internationally our comrades have also been informed of what is going on. The discussion will culminate in the conference where the decision will be taken.

Can you tell me what your point of view is on the name change?

Well, I’m on the national committee and I will be happy to abide by the decision of the conference. We actually discussed this two years ago, but when the SLP was mooted in November of last year we dropped our discussion because we hoped that it would provide a focus for regroupment.

We relaunched our magazine as a monthly in September of last year as Socialism Today and our youth organisation is called Young Socialist Resistance. It was important to incorporate the word ‘socialist’, the more anti-socialist the Blair Labour Party became.

One of my other criticisms of the Coventry meeting was of the reluctance of the SSA comrades to become part of any all-Britain organisation. I was also critical of ML’s softness on the nationalism within your own organisation in Scotland, reflected in the fact that you are allowing SML to grow ever more distant without any apparent criticism.

It is difficult in a wide ranging interview primarily about building coalitions to say anything meaningful on the national question. But, as I understand it, what was said on the day in Coventry was that the SSA considers itself an autonomous organisation which is more than happy to cooperate and work with SAs in England and Wales, including coming to the meeting on the day. I do not think they are against a network or framework that draws us all together whilst retaining their right to organise themselves in their own area. The Alliances are not a party and a federation of autonomous organisations is what is best suited. The SSA’s attitude is really no different to that of Liverpool or other Alliances in England.

Also I do not see the autonomy of SML as a problem of nationalism within our organisation. Partly it is a question of choices as regards the national question in Scotland. For example the SML needs its own newspaper to reflect the particular situation in Scotland.

Up to now they have had the front pages, but now we can make the technological advance for them to have their own newspaper. It is a sign of strength. But I have no worries whatsoever that somehow Tommy Sheridan is going to declare UDI and we are going to have a separation of our organisation at national level.

So do you agree with the idea of ‘one party, one state’?

There are lots of campaigns and issues going on throughout Britain where we want to give our branches the freedom to develop. But the specific historical national question of Scotland is obviously on a higher plane. But I do not see separation on our national committee, where now Scottish representatives sit with all others and take a full part in discussions on all national issues. There is no split like that at all.

I have heard you talk several times of an 80/20 form of Alliance. What do you mean by that?

I think it is something that is appropriate for the current phase of regroupment. We need to concentrate on the 80% of overlapping issues that we agree on rather than allowing the 20% on which we differ to keep us apart. For instance our organisations have a disagreement on Ireland which should not prevent us from working together. We should clarify and discuss our differences, but not allow them to keep us apart. Particular historical questions regarding the nature of the Soviet Union which separated us in the past do not exist today.

Some in the Coventry Socialist Alliance thought you were over-critical of the national meeting of Alliances, especially the way that you criticised Kent SA. Our aim in Coventry was to concentrate on the 80%, while you highlighted too much of the 20%. I think most people went away thinking for a first meeting it was harmonious and not a bad first attempt. We will see how the January meeting goes, but I think we should judge the direction the SAs are taking after three or four more of these, not after the very first one.