19.12.1996

Assessing Barnsley East

SL Kenning looks at latest developments in the Socialist Labour Party

For Socialist Labour the result of the Barnsley East by-election on December 12 should be sobering. In February, well before the SLP was officially launched, Brenda Nixon secured 1,193 votes, or 5.4% of the total, in nearby Hems-worth. Ten eventful and hard working months later Ken Capstick got just 949 votes or 5.3%.

Those amongst our leadership who dogmatically insist that nothing can stop the SLP making a mass breakthrough ought to think again. Those who use simple minded football analogies to dismiss the need for a united SLP-Scottish Socialist Alliance-Militant Labour-CPGB-SWP electoral bloc ought to think again. Those who foolishly want to press ahead with the damaging and disorganising anti-communist witch hunt ought to think again.

Barnsley East is the nearest thing to ideal territory for the SLP. It is solidly working class and a traditionally militant mining area. The candidate was also near ideal in terms of background. Comrade Capstick was till recently vice-president of Yorkshire NUM. Born just a mile away from the local Grimethorpe colliery, undoubtedly he is well respected for his “outstanding role in the fight to save pits, jobs and communities throughout the British coalfields, and particularly in the Barnsley East constituency” (Socialist News December 1996). As a “common sense” supporter of Tony Blair, Labour’s successful candidate, Jeff Ennis could not have presented a bigger contrast.

Barnsley East is Labour heartland. Terry Patchett, the former MP, made it Labour’s third or fourth safest seat. The chances of a Labour defeat were remote indeed. The by-election was in essence a contest between New Labour and Socialist Labour, a test of strength between new-old pro-capitalist liberalism and old-new left reformism. Hence for Blair and co trouncing the SLP was certainly the main question.

Let us be brutally honest, the SLP should have done much better in Barnsley East than Hemsworth. I am sure it is no secret, but comrade Nixon was no first choice. She was in fact the third person approached to stand.

Comrade Scargill originally asked a certain Ken Capstick. He was the Hemsworth Constituency Labour Party’s prospective candidate and had been selected by a sizeable majority. Walworth Road had however overruled Hems-worth CLP and imposed its own man. A leftwinger fighting a high publicity by-election is not something tolerated in Blair’s New Labour. Unfortunately at the time comrade Capstick was unwilling to break with the Labour Party. He joined the SLP in April.

Not surprisingly comrade Capstick looked forward in Barnsley East not only to saving his deposit, like comrade Nixon, but, as he told the Weekly Worker, getting “double figures in percentage terms” (December 12 1996). On the face of it there was every reason for his brimming confidence. Nationally we are now firmly established with some 120 branches. Blair continues to steer his party to the right and provide us with enthusiastic recruits. Socialist News reported that “SLP members from around Britain ... poured into Barnsley East to help the campaign”. Nor were we cash-strapped. Comrades Scargill and John Hendy made substantial donations (the latter £5,000, I am told).

After the count comrades Capstick and Scargill were determinedly putting on a brave face. Again and again they limply pleaded that the SLP has “maintained” its vote in Barnsley East compared with Hems-worth. Our president sophisticatedly argued that if such a vote was repeated across the country under PR then the SLP would have 30 MPs. Frankly we need a serious assessment, not inept spin doctoring.

The SLP is committed to standing 100 candidates in the forthcoming general election. General elections are not by-elections. For the SLP Barnsley East is a high point. Constituencies do not come better for us and in a by-election we could concentrate everything on one seat. As a small party in the general election our resources will be stretched to the limit. Moreover we can expect our vote to be squeezed even in such an area. Therefore in all likelihood no SLP candidates will retain their deposits. This is of course more a matter of electoral status rather than a financial consideration. Retaining our deposit no matter how narrowly symbolically shows that we are in the running and not simply standing for propaganda purposes.

There are some worrying problems for the SLP revealed by the Barnsley East campaign. Comrade Scargill is a huge asset for the SLP. Nevertheless no one should forget the saying about a prophet in his own country. Whole swathes of voters in South Yorkshire are anti-Scargill. Anyone who actually canvassed in Barnsley East will tell you that. Because of the media, their own experiences or whatever, the fact of the matter is that they blame him for the defeats of 1984-5 and 1992. A personality cult identification of the SLP as comrade Scargill’s party is as a matter of principle wrong. It is also bad tactics.

Then there is the division of labour. Comrades who are given responsibilities must be trusted to carry them out. The sight of our Barnsley East agent and comrade Scargill having a public slanging match in the middle of the street was unedifying, to say the least.

Finally there is organisation. Readers will be all too aware that I have on numerous occasions criticised Tony Goss politically. The acting London agent has a shameful record to live down. Yet the comrade does understand elections. He openly says he was “appalled” by Barnsley East. That the SLP’s office in Barnsley remained closed the Sunday before polling day is cited as an example of rank amateurism. Having been a Labour councillor and Harriet Harman’s agent, comrade Goss knows that a part-time approach to politics is mercilessly punished.

Leicester alloy

Leicester council’s North Braunston ward saw a by-election on December 5. There were two leftwing candidates. Steve Score, standing for Militant Labour’s Socialist Party polled 150 votes, or 12.4%. Dave Roberts of the SLP got 101 votes, or 8.5%. The split on the left was more than a pity. It is the direct result of the sectarianism of our National Executive Committee meeting the sectarianism of Leicester Socialist Labour Party.

Militant Labour approached our Leicester branch on numerous occasions asking for discussions with the object of standing a joint candidate (ML backed the SLP candidate in Abbey ward in October). It was rebuffed. None of its letters were even deigned with a reply (see Weekly Worker November 28 1996).

Leicester SLP is a strange alloy of political forces. One element consists of those who “read” Workers Power, “respect” its “arguments”, “ideas” and “record” (Workers Power October 1996).

Workers Power automatically says, “vote Labour”. Except in the most extreme circumstances it opposes the SLP, ML, the CPGB or any other left-wing challenge to Labour. In Hemsworth these allies of Tony Blair proudly campaigned against Brenda Nixon. Its fellow thinkers also call for a Labour vote. The only difference being an internal SLP tactical caveat. They say vote Labour ... where the SLP is not standing. Naturally the comrades retain their hostility to Militant Labour, the CPGB, etc. That is what unites them with the other base element of Leicester SLP.

By that I mean the followers of the incondite Economic and Philosophical Science Review. The antecedents of this funny cut, paste-and-duplicate sheet lie in the Workers Party, a small split from Gerry Healy’s Workers Revolutionary Party in the early 1980s (liking grand titles, they later renamed themselves the International Leninist Workers Party - it had a Stockport postbox number).

Ideologically what remains of this grouplet is highly unstable and therefore prone to sudden 180% about-turns. Although they began as as self-proclaimed Trotskyites, nowadays the term is used by them as a vitriolic insult (along with those against homosexuals). When the SLP was formed, it was contemptuously dismissed as “an utterly doomed enterprise”. Now they pose as Scargill loyalists. Three months ago Royston Bull, their editor-founder, applied for CPGB membership. Now he witch hunts purported CPGB members.

However, in terms of prejudice and method there exists a definite continuity. They admire dictators, state power and what they imagine to be the mechanical unfolding of a predetermined history. They loathe working class self-activity and leftists. That is why the opportunity of standing their comrade, Dave Roberts, against Militant Labour was relished. Unfortunately the sectarian politics of Workers Power too easily dove-tailed with those of the EPSR andthe possibility of a united left challenge to Blairism was thrown away.

May congress

According to the statutes of the Scargill ‘constitution’ the SLP is committed to a congress “between May 1-31” 1997. General secretary Patrick Sikorski has already informed branches that only constituency SLPs will be recognised for the purposes of the congress. That means delegates and resolutions, and amendments to our so-called ‘constitution’.

In effect the May 1997 congress will be the founding congress of the SLP. May 4 1996 did not, despite the lying claims of comrades Sikorski and Scargill, discuss, let alone vote on, a ‘constitution’. The Scargill draft has been undemocratically and bureaucratically imposed on us.

There are many important and vital areas which the SLP should debate. Immigration controls, the European Union, the results of the general election, etc. However, branches of “up to but not exceeding 1,000 members” only get one opportunity at the congress under the Scargill ‘constitution’ (clause 6, paragraphs 7 and 11). That means one motion or one constitutional amendment.

It should also be pointed out that the Scargill ‘constitution’ demands that all motions “be in the hands of the party secretary not later than 14 weeks prior to the date of the party congress” (clause 6, paragraph 14). That means, if the congress is on the weekend of May 3-4 1997, motions must be in the hands of Patrick Sikorski by January 25 (send motions recorded delivery or get a personal written receipt). In other words branches need to organise their pre-congress meetings now.              

Given the witch hunt, the atmosphere of fear that pervades the SLP, the complete lack of free and open discussion, we must use the opportunity to submit a resolution to the 1997 congress with the utmost care. There exist elements within the leadership who will not think twice about resorting to gerrymandering, talking motions off the agenda and divide and rule. Fisc in particular is renowned for its cynicism and contempt for democracy.

Therefore it is essential that democrats in the SLP unite behind one constitutional amendment. Anything else is a criminal diversion. The target must be the witch hunting paragraphs in clause 2 of the Scargill constitution. If we manage to change that then everything in the SLP will change.

The most widely supported and agreed amendment amongst democrats within the SLP calls for paragraphs four and five of clause 2 to be deleted. Also an addition should be made to clause 2, paragraph 3. Clause 2, paragraph 3c would read: “Any socialist, working class and/or progressive organisations, subject to congress decision.”

This amendment must be supported by the maximum number of branches. Remember that changing the imposed Scargill constitution requires a two-thirds congress vote.