27.02.1997

Scargill skirts the issues

Socialist Labour Party

Around 70 activists from the London area crowded into Conway Hall earlier this week as part of the build-up to the Socialist Labour Party’s general election campaign.

Arthur Scargill reported that the party had now selected 56 candidates and he was still aiming for the original 100 target. Again he brought up the question of state funding for political parties. Aware that some might view acceptance of such cash as a compromise with capitalism, he said: “I don’t know; I’m not interested.” Nevertheless he was “advised” that the 100 figure, combined with a minimum of five percent of votes, would be the likely qualification.

Arthur announced that 15% of the candidates so far were black, and hoped that this figure would rise to perhaps 25%, if more constituencies were prepared to put up candidates. He named Birmingham and Bristol as examples of major cities where comrades had been very reluctant to do so - either because they did not want to split the Labour vote or because they felt unable to raise the deposit.

Amazingly, comrade Scargill claimed that the SLP was now the fourth largest party in Britain (What about the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru, not to mention the SWP?) and - “this may leak out to other papers: I hope so” - it now had its first trade union affiliate. He did not however enlighten his audience as to which particular union had joined.

Replying to criticism from the floor regarding his announcement in the Morning Star that the SLP “has never intended to contest” Ken Livingstone’s Brent East seat, Scargill said: “We don’t go around saying, ‘If we’re not standing, vote for somebody else.’ We don’t get involved in that nonsense.” Although in rejecting New Labour “we are turning our back on a party, not on individuals”, the SLP was against voting for Blair’s party, no matter who was the candidate.

However, regarding the question of Stan Keable, Brent East CSLP’s proposed candidate, the general secretary added: “I am not interested in dealing with politics on a personalised basis.” As the candidate was “not a member”, he said, skirting skilfully around the fact that comrade Keable has served on the branch executive of West London SLP for the past year, “what else am I supposed to do?”

Several comrades expressed grave concern at the ‘voiding’ of Barry Biddulph and the calling into question of the ‘constitutionality’ of Vauxhall CSLP, the comrade’s branch. At first NEC member Brian Heron, who chaired the meeting, tried to deflect the meeting from such matters: “Arthur probably doesn’t know about the position in a certain branch - he’s not in a position to respond.” However, when it was pointed out that he himself had personally signed lettrrs regarding both matters, comrade Scargill intervened.

Reluctant though he was to get involved in “internal wranglings”, he alleged that Vauxhall was attempting to “adopt a manifesto contrary to SLP policy” through issuing draft discussion documents which supported “arming people on picket lines”. However, it was not clear why the raising of such a demand by one comrade should cause the party leader to threaten the existence of the branch.

Stressing that a “common election address ought to be essential”, he said the party has “got to have discipline, and put forward policies agreed by all”. In fact only five policy areas were discussed by the membership at the 1996 founding conference.

In this context, Scargill agreed with a speaker from the floor who criticised the election address of Patrick Sikorski, SLP candidate for Hornsey and Wood Green. Sikorski, who again preferred to put union business before his party and was absent in order to attend an RMT executive meeting, had called for voluntary retirement “on a full pension, linked to pay”, when the party policy was for “voluntary retirement at 55 on full pay”.

But comrade Scargill refused to be drawn into discussion around comrade Biddulph: “I have no intention of discussing an individual constitutional matter” - even one which called into question the rights of the entire membership, it seems.

He then turned on those who were concerned with those rights:

“For god’s sake, we have already heard some wonderful contributions from our candidates. The last thing we do in a war is start having debates. It is a matter of grave concern that people are using this meeting to air such issues when they know nothing about the constitution”.

Craig Wilson