28.11.1996

SLP branch reports

Leicester

SLP members may be aware that Militant Labour and the SLP are both standing in the North Braunstone ward council by-election in Leicester.

This paper has reported the worrying creeping sectarianism of elements in the SLP leadership who have told branches to have nothing to do with the Socialist Alliances or electoral agreements with other groups.

Some have justified this approach by saying, “You can’t play for two football teams” and suggested that working class organisations should brawl and compete with each other like football fans. Hardly the most advanced example of working class organisation. We have also pointed out that many football players from rival clubs play in the same England team.

With the general election approaching it is important that a strong socialist voice is heard. All rank and file SLP members should be fighting vigorously for discussion with other socialist organisations (of which the Labour Party is not one) to see if we can mount a united challenge to the hegemony of capitalist propaganda.

Unfortunately many SLP members who have left other left wing organisations to join the SLP seem to have taken their past sectarianism with them. This virus is effecting not only the leadership, but elements of the rank and file.

The Leicester branch contains many comrades who have left organisations, such as the Workers Power group. The candidate for the by-election, Dave Roberts, was once in the International Leninist Workers Party.

He told us that ML only decided to stand after the SLP put him up as their candidate. However he made it clear that he was against any discussions with ML. He claimed they had an entirely different perspective on elections to the SLP. Whereas the SLP wanted to use the elections as a platform, ML was just interested in single issue campaigns - such as the anti-poll tax and Jobseekers Allowance campaigns.

Dave assured us two socialist candidates standing was not a problem as twice as many people would be raising socialist propaganda on the doorstep. The actual votes won by socialist candidates were not important for him.

Though he did not rule out individual ML members being part of the SLP at some point, he was clear that the SLP is “not about getting married to lots of left groups”. This should be avoided in order to go straight to the class and build the SLP, since Trotskyist groups have disrupted every revolutionary movement in history”, according to our Dave.

He admitted that ML had asked the SLP to come to an electoral agreement. This had been dismissed because ML was a “thoroughly opportunist, reformist” organisation with nothing to offer the revolutionary movement and because they had apparently made an electoral agreement with the Green Party.

Dave agreed that some SLP policies were also reformist, but justified ignoring ML on the basis that the SLP has a bigger audience than ML. (What was that about opportunism?)

Curiously, comrade Roberts claims he wants a Communist Party and says the SLP is not it and never will be it. Rather, we should not organise the left in the SLP, but only argue revolutionary politics amongst the mass (ie, not amongst the advanced section in other leftwing groups or indeed the SLP itself).

Taking this view to its logical conclusion, he argued the SLP constitution was not an issue as it cannot force individuals “to leave their politics at the front door. Organisation is a secondary question.”

Dave’s views may seem curious, but the idea that revolutionaries should only work as atomised individuals is a popular one amongst sections of the left in the SLP. It stems from a long history of bureaucratic and sectarian organisation that has long dogged our movement for so long. Ideas need to be organised openly for all to evaluate if they are to take our class towards the science necessary to transform the whole of society.

Dave Roberts is keen that the SLP stand in all three Leicester constituencies at the general election. A bold aim, but he says ML will be irrelevant to the decisions on which seats it contests.

In the by-election ML plans to stand as Militant Labour, the Socialist Party. An element of opportunistic, unhealthy working class competition seems to be implied. ML’s conference this weekend is to discuss changing its name to the Socialist Party. We asked its candidate in Leicester, Steve Score, to give his views on the by-election

It is very unfortunate that there are two socialist candidates in the same ward. It is the first time we have actually found ourselves in this situation with the SLP.

Since the SLP branch was established we have been to meetings and written to the branch twice to suggest joint campaign work and discussions on the elections. We have received no reply from them on the elections and have not seen the SLP in any of the campaigns in the area.

ML has a history of work in the area, which was explained to the SLP and we supported their candidate in the Abbey council ward by-election in October.

The North Braunstone ward is a very poor estate with high unemployment and racist elements. We will be fighting on national issues against low pay, Project Work (the pilot has been extended to Leicester) and the JSA, as well as local issues of poverty and lack of repair and modernisation of the estate. We will also be raising the need for a new party of the working class.

We clearly have political differences with the SLP but we are both socialist candidates and ML hopes this situation will not occur again and that the SLP will engage in discussion.

Leicester SLP believes ML should dissolve and its members join the SLP, but asking us simply to give up all we have worked for throughout our history at the drop of a hat is asking too much.

Building a Socialist Alliance has been difficult in Leicester, given the attitude of the SLP and the Socialist Workers Party. The SWP seems to have shrunk considerably in this area and is not supporting either candidate.

I am in favour of the left being in one party, but unfortunately that process seems to have been set back now.

East London

After an energetic and successful by-election campaign in Forest Gate, the SLP candidate, Anne Brooks, won 20.7% of the vote, coming second to Labour. This is the party’s first election campaign in the area and is a very promising start for the SLP.

However, it is not all good news in East London, since a similar sectarian attitude to that in Leicester is being taken towards other left groups.

ML sent this letter to Brian Heron:

Electoral agreement

As you are aware, a number of by-elections are pending in the London Borough of Newham. We believe that the voters in all these elections deserve the opportunity of voting for socialist candidates. To this end Militant Labour is considering standing in Forest Gate and one other ward.

However, we wish to avoid standing in a ward which is also being contested by the SLP. In order to maximise the socialist challenge to New Labour, we would like to propose an electoral agreement between our two parties, including a mutual endorsement of each other’s candidates.

We look forward to an early reply so that these issues can be discussed.

Comradely,

Keith Pattenden,
Branch secretary

Brian Heron declined to be involved in any discussions and ML sent an open letter to the branch:

Open letter to the SLP

Militant Labour were considering standing in Forest Gate and either Little Ilford or Central, and have written to the local SLP branch asking what their intentions were.

We have since been told by Brian Heron that electoral pacts between our two parties are out of the question and that we will probably not receive a reply to our letter.

Despite this uncomradely attitude, we have taken the decision not to stand in Forest Gate, and to endorse your candidate to ensure the maximum vote for the left.

When the dates of the outstanding by-elections are known, we will again propose an electoral agreement with you.

We believe that you, the ordinary members, will be willing to ensure that the SLP and ML work in tandem and not against one another.

Keith Pattenden

At an SLP branch meeting members proposed that ML be invited in to discuss this letter. Chair Bob Crow moved next business, which won by one vote in a branch narrowly controlled by Fiscites such as Carolyn Sikorski and Brian Heron.

Forest Gate election