03.12.1998

Splitting the pack?

Party notes

Socialist Worker of November 28 has at last officially announced the Socialist Workers Party’s intention to stand Paul Foot in the London mayoral elections in 2000 if the candidacy of Ken Livingstone is blocked by Blair. Previously, the London left had been kept abreast of developments through the pages of The Guardian or Radio Four. At least any ambiguities around Foot’s intentions have been removed, although new problems are raised.

Despite the fact that this report quotes Livingstone’s effective endorsement of Blairism - “I agree with 95% of what this government is doing” - the SWP is explicit that it will unconditionally support him in the (unlikely) event that he stands, “because [ordinary people] see him as a leftwing opponent of Blair’s pro-big business policies”.

Last week, we noted that all of this has been foisted on the London left without open debate or consultation. Despite negotiations around the formation of united slate for the European elections next year, the SWP has simply informed other organisations of its intention to stand the “socialist candidate”, Paul Foot, in the event of Livingstone’s bid being blocked. The SWP now further announces that Paul Foot is actually “part of a slate of socialist candidates for the London assembly” - a “united socialist list”.

Although there appear to have been some backroom haggling over such a slate, the SWP is in effect pre-empting any open, properly constituted discussion of a united left challenge in the London elections in 2000 by this announcement.

What are we to make of this move? We seem to be seeing an attempt to cut free of the pack in the field of electoral contest. As the largest organisation on the left at present, the SWP may be attempting to monopolise the field of opposition to Blair’s Labour, given the pretty parlous state of the rest. Its nearest rival - the Socialist Party in England and Wales - is in a state of near-terminal collapse and may indeed be grateful to be taken under the SWP’s wing. Other rivals, such as the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, Socialist Outlook or the Communist Party, may have influence here and there, but even combined come nowhere near the numerical strength or political weight of the SWP.

Thus, if this is indeed an attempt to impose itself as the opposition, there are those who might say - as a friend of mine on the periphery of the SWP did - “who can blame them?” It would be perfectly understandable - all of us belong to a particular political organisation because of what we believe are its unique qualities, its superiority to others. Nobody should therefore begrudge the SWP’s move in this sense - if we were its size, we might very well do the same. The question is whether such a hegemonic move is attempted in a sectarian way - totally excluding other forces representing different viewpoints - or in a genuinely incorporative manner.

Whether the SWP is in the process of abjuring sectarianism must be extremely debatable, given everything we know about its history and contemporary practice. This is not a foregone conclusion, however. Other left forces in London must join with the Communist Party to press for inclusion, not exclusion.

Mark Fischer
National organiser