11.06.1998

Broader or greener?

Nick Long, the coordinator of Lewisham Socialist Alliance and a member of the Socialist Democracy Group, responds to the CPGB’s John Bridge (see Weekly Worker May 28)

John Bridge is correct in stating that the London Socialist Alliance is at a crossroads. Following the London SA election meeting on May 3 it has become clear to a majority of activists supporting the SA project that, following the local elections, the London ad-hoc committee needs to be urgently put on a delegated formal footing if it is going to be able to tackle the immediate political task it faces and be taken seriously by other political forces on the left.

Our performance in the May local elections has clearly demonstrated that if we are going to make a credible impact across London we need to pull in more supporters and orientate our political approach to the trade union movement and organisations of the working class, seeking to fracture the dwindling socialists from the LP and draw in socialist greens and working class militants. It is significant that the first election gains for the greens in London were made in Hackney. An opportunity was missed, as voters were looking for a radical alternative to the corruption and cronyism of the LP locally, but rejected the politics of the CPGB in Anne Murphy’s candidature in North Defoe ward. The future orientation of the London SA needs to be resolved urgently and is in danger of collapse unless wider political forces can be drawn into the orbit of the London alliance.

The outcome of the local election results and the recent decision of the SWP to contest elections make the tasks of building a mass alternative to the LP even harder. The narrow space that was open for socialists to gain a toehold has been closed down even further if, as many socialist believe, the electoral intervention of the SWP is likely to be driven by a sectarian desire to block any election breakthrough by the SP, SLP, SAs and greens. The SWP is likely to find the Euro elections in 1999 in London far more inviting than the Scottish parliament elections. Thirty-four percent of all SWP branches are based in London, only 6% in Scotland. The £10,000 needed to make a minimum election intervention in London would mean the 57 SWP branches in London raising only £175. The SWP has obviously only recently found a calculator!

The London SA faces a short period from now until March of next year, prior to the 1999 Euro elections, to thrash out an agreed founding statement, agree its essential principles and orientation, register as a political party, agree its policies and manifesto for the election, enter into discussions with others about the prospects for a joint slate, select and rank our candidates and seek to tackle the urgent task of placing the London Alliance on a limited financial footing, allowing it to fund its electoral intervention and pay the £5,000 deposit necessary to get our candidates’ names onto the ballot paper.

If we miss the opportunity of making a limited electoral intervention, either independently or with others next year, the task of building a mass socialist alternative to the LP will be set back further. These are all huge tasks and need to be carried out in a fraternal and non-sectarian fashion. They cannot be carried out by members of an organisation with ongoing delusions in the ability of the SLP moving beyond anything more than a refounded communist-Labour party (influential and significant as it is likely to become within a number of industrial trade unions). These tasks need to be driven by a London SA leadership that is clearly committed to its orientation, and not ambivalent about the need to give mass political expression to the working class as it becomes increasingly disillusioned with New Labour.

It would appear that the SP has resolved its political ambiguity towards the SA, and is likely to put more resources into building local alliances and into attending the proposed London-wide general meeting. The Movement for Socialism is also considering fuller involvement. Socialist Outlook and the AWL are also likely to give more support to building SAs. The Marxist Party and Socialist Movement have also been active in SAs in other parts of the country.

Proposals to base the London-wide steering committee on a delegate basis from borough Socialist Alliances are being discussed and the general meeting will have an opportunity to discuss and debate these and no doubt other proposals to retain directly affiliated supportive groups. Personally I would place less emphasis on direct affiliation because it allows organisations off the hook of hard practical work in building local alliances and the luxury simply of political comment. The London SA committee needs to become a product of its constituent parts: borough socialist alliances and the representative to the national steering committee elected from the steering committee and accountable to it.

The plurality and diversity of local socialist alliances could be reflected in each borough alliance having more than one delegate to the London-wide steering committee - perhaps two or three. The London steering committee should however not be seen as a central committee. Its role should simply be one of coordinating and developing the tasks outlined above and involving local socialist alliances in London-wide events, fundraising, publicity and dissemination of information. The focus of political work needs to be centred within the autonomous borough SAs. The discussion of political orientation needs to take place locally in the face of local industrial struggles, practical work and campaigns.

The accountability of the vast majority of delegates to the steering committee should be open, not confined to closed political parties and tendencies. The experience of direct affiliation within the SLP should serve as a reminder of the dangers. Building local alliances would avoid the bureaucratic complexities of juggling the political balance of different constituent parties, groups, fractions, campaigns and supportive journals.

The CPGB and Anne Murphy in particular have played an important initial role in helping to get the London SA committee off the ground. The move to formalise the London-wide committee is not part of some Manchester/London axis plot, merely the fruit of the hard work of comrades who have been working on the London ad-hoc committee and the need to address the urgent tasks we face. Developing an SA founded on its constituent parts would avoid any political horse trading and ‘bureaucratic deals’.

The development of the SA in London is taking on a different character and need not mirror the structure in other cities. Supporters of political groups would have to prove themselves in political tasks and the nuts and bolts of building local alliances. It would appear that after more than two years of activity in Manchester a broad spectrum of socialists found the work, activity, methods of working and contribution of comrades from the CPGB wanting. From my experience of the CPGB within the SLP, the London ad-hoc committee and the Lewisham SA it is likely that the CPGB will continue to play a role within the SA.