16.01.1997

Another lost opportunity

The national meeting of Socialist Alliances in Manchester last Saturday ended as the previous meeting - in a fudge.

Although it was agreed to hold a conference/rally after the general election to bring forces together for left unity, no committee was set up to begin the work towards that process. Instead the organisers of this meeting will call yet another national meeting in April and put off decisions until then. Given the fact that there were only half the numbers at Saturday’s meeting compared to the time before, this lack of leadership does not bode well.

Given that formally most people at the meeting would agree that the SAs contain potential to bring together forces towards the creation of a working class party, why was there such reluctance to seriously begin that work? From my perception of the day there were two main reasons.

Most important was the attitude of Militant Labour. Despite Mike Waddington’s promise that its change of name to Socialist Party would not make any difference to its commitment to the Alliances, in reality this did not seem to be the case. Various spurious reasons were put forward by its representatives as to why it wanted to have a conference, but not a committee to organise it. My idea of taking volunteers on the day for an interim committee was criticised for vagueness, but no alternatives were put except to put off decisions until April.

Afterwards one ML comrade more honestly told us that his organisation was not sure what to do about the Alliances. They had been set up around the time of the SLP but now, given the attitude of the SLP leadership and ML’s own change of name, the organisation did not want to submerge itself into them.

While it is quite correct not to hold onto something which is going nowhere, I think ML could have been more honest in its approach at the meeting, rather than stand in the way of genuine attempts to move forward. However, on the positive side the comrade also suggested that our organisations should talk about where we go from here with the Alliances.

The other reason for the lack of decisiveness was, I believe, a lack of political courage and a softness on localism on the part of the organisers. Although most were agreed at the beginning of the meeting that Kent SA’s antipathy towards a nationally coordinated programme and action should not hold the majority back, by the end the chair was reminding us that we should not take decisions without Kent being there, despite knowing that those comrades do not want a national leadership.

Allowing localism to set the agenda in this way will not develop the Alliance project in any positive direction and will result in them simply fading away. They may not represent much at the moment except their potential, and even that may well be lost because of a failure to act nationally.

Of course this is with the exception of Scotland, which has its own momentum. The SSA had put forward a motion calling for the Alliances to support in the general election the right of Scotland and Wales to self-determination. The debate around this question was certainly the most interesting of the day.

Kent SA did not turn up but sent its comments on this and other questions. True to form they were against any common political programmes at this stage. But also, astoundingly, Chris Weller on behalf of the KSA informed us that although “we agree with self-determination of Scotland and Wales ... it is certainly not an issue for the working class of Kent” (extract from letter to national meeting). This kind of statement can leave no doubt about the dangers of localism - about putting your own little part of England first. For those who call themselves revolutionaries or communists to refuse to fight for such a fundamental democratic demand on the basis that it is outside Gravesend simply leaves one speechless. Chris Weller needs to make his position clear on this question and not ally himself with such churlish and chauvinist ‘little Kentism’, if he personally has a different view.

The meeting did agree however that a debate would begin on the proposals for a common programme put forward by Coventry SA. Hopefully the vital debate around these questions will continue and the Alliances in England and Wales will not fall prey to localism and political inertial.

Anne Murphy