13.11.1997
Learning the lessons of Paisley South
Simon Harvey of the SLP
The Paisley South by-election came and went last Thursday. Douglas Alexander, the Labour candidate, was returned to Westminster, but the majority was reduced from 12,750 to 2,761. The SNP vote was also down to 7,615. The drop in votes for the two main contenders and the low turnout of 43% reflected increasing disillusionment with mainstream bourgeois politics.
As we all know, there were two left candidates in Paisley. Both the SLP’s Chris Herriott and the Scottish Socialist Alliance’s Frances Curran presented themselves as fighting alternatives. The fact that two candidates proclaiming socialism stood against each other can only encourage sectarianism and promote cynicism about politics in general.
Chris Herriott received 153 votes (0.6%), as opposed to the 797 (2.18%) he got in Motherwell in the general election. This mainly reflects the fact that the SLP has no local members and has done no work in the lead-up to the election. The SSA has also had no “opportunity to make its mark in mass movements in the town” (Scottish Socialist Voice November 7 1997), but it had the advantage of been able to mobilise reasonably effective forces on the ground.
Scottish Militant Labour member Frances Curran - on a ‘fighting corruption’ ticket - received 306 votes (1.3%) for the SSA. This was up from May 1, when the SSA’s Sean Clerkin received 146 votes (0.3%).
This points again to the lost opportunity of May 1996, when the SLP could have been formed as a British-wide party incorporating all those socialist activists now in the SSA. What a difference we could make with united socialist campaigns in elections such as Paisley South.
Both candidates expressed their disappointment at there being two socialists standing. However, Chris Herriott made a very pertinent point when he noted that the real strength of the SLP is that it is organised on an all-Britain basis, unlike the SSA. ‘One state, one party’ must be our goal. The nationalist turn of SML and the SSA majority is no strength, but a weakening of our need to unite our class across all national boundaries.
Despite what SML claimed, there was very little difference between the two candidates. Both platforms were, in essence, left reformist. SML claimed that comrade Curran could be distinguished in that, if elected, she was committed to accepting only the average wage of a Paisley worker (see Scottish Socialist Voice October 24). I have been told that this matter was not even discussed by the SLP campaign organisers, but that the candidate for one has no objection to such a policy.
Just how the SLP will analyse the result is yet to be seen. With our party leadership continuing its obstinate sectarianism opposing electoral blocs with other left forces, we risk permanently gaining the derisory vote that has been a feature of most left contests. Significantly, Paisley South is the first time the SLP has received less than SML/Socialist Party in a Westminster poll.
Quite rightly, SML has to put a positive ‘spin’ on the SSA vote. Revolutionaries must aim for the maximum possible and judge our success by the quality and quantity of results from our point of departure. To do otherwise can only generate pessimism and not reflect our true development.
But it is a question of how this is done. Claiming a political space is one thing, claiming that “a common remark on the streets” during the campaign was: “She is the only one who spoke the truth, that talked sense” (Richie Venton Scottish Socialist Voice November 7) is a spin too far.
I probably would have voted for the SSA if I was in Paisley. I certainly would have done so if our party had not been standing, although my vote for the SSA would have been critical. The culture in the SSA, while no bed of roses and not devoid of bureaucratic tendencies, allows some space for open political debate. This is in contrast to the internal regime in the SLP. But what is really necessary, as comrade Herriot correctly states, is working class organisation on an all-Britain basis. An all-Britain Socialist Alliance would not only counteract the drift towards even more virulent Scottish nationalism, but would be a step in the direction of a mass workers’ party. The fight to overcome the tendency to appease nationalism is not just the property of Scottish comrades. It is an all-Britain struggle and heavy responsibilities fall on comrades in England and Wales.
SLP Republicans
Last week I reported that republicans had joined the SLP. I was told that the vice chair of ‘Republic’ had joined. Republic is the main campaigning body for a British republic which is supported by, among others, Tony Benn MP, Tony Banks MP, and lawyer Mike Mansfield. I have been trying to find out more. One of my contacts tells me that the republicans are not in fact new recruits, but include at least one who participated in the SLP’s republican constitution working group in the lead-up to last year’s founding conference. Their report was presented for last year’s meeting. The document was supported, with amendments, by South London SLP. It called for a federal republic of England, Scotland and Wales.
After a certain amount of jiggery-pokery by Brian Heron, and some protest from the authors and NEC member Terry Dunn, it ended up last but one item on a crowded agenda (just before animal rights). It was not reached and was not voted on. In retrospect that was a political mistake, given the very confused position SLP comrades adopted on the question of Scottish and Welsh self-determination in the recent referenda. The question of the UK constitution should not be left to the ruling class.
Ireland
Another important issue that goes right to the heart of the UK constitution is that of Ireland. At our founding conference the SLP adopted a principled position, recognising the right of self-determination for the Irish people and calling for immediate British withdrawal.
There are two amendments to this policy in the draft agenda documents for congress in December. One is from Islington North CSLP, the other from Blackpool North CSLP. Though couched in very different terms, they dovetail in behind support for British imperialism.
The resolution from Blackpool is more obviously pro-imperialist. It states that our present policy “mirrors IRA demands for British withdrawal and forced unification of the divided island through unilateral abrogation of long-standing treaty obligations”. It states further that “conference declares that any change to UK status ... must be based on the principle of consent of a clear majority of the people of Northern Ireland”. This is, in effect, a loyalist protestant veto to Irish self-determination.
Blackpool’s resolution concludes:
“Conference affirms its belief in sustaining and developing unity and strength of the UK in the face of political pressure of European integration of independent sovereign states. Conference notes with concern the Irish Republic’s constitutional claim, in the absence of international legality, of territorial sovereignty over Northern Ireland ... and instructs the NEC to take all steps toward eliminating this illegal demand.”
This is naked support for British imperialism expressed in terms of bourgeois legalism.
The resolution from Islington North, sponsored by the Marxist Bulletin of former members of the International Bolshevik Tendency, at least has the nous to come dressed in some form of militant verbiage. It supports the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Britain from Northern Ireland. It recognises British imperialism, it recognises the oppression of the catholic minority in the northern statelet. But it too lends support to the very loyalist protestant veto which lies at the heart of the resolution from Blackpool.
Islington North’s motion states: “We are opposed to the creation of a united capitalist Ireland against the wishes of the protestant community.”
Such a position is unashamed imperialist economism, to use VI Lenin’s apt term. Despite its subjective intentions - and the fact that it comes dressed up in high-falutin Marxist terminology - it objectively lines up behind the status quo of British occupation. It fails to recognise ‘self-determination’ for the Irish people as a whole and accepts the imperialist partition which flagrantly prevents it being exercised.
Such motions - or policies - should have no place in a workers’ party. I will be voting against both.