10.12.1998

Step forward

Party notes

The Independent Labour Network-sponsored national meeting in Doncaster on December 5 brought together about 70 comrades from a wide variety of political backgrounds. Despite problems with an over crowded agenda, it represented a step forward for the left in establishing a united national challenge to Blair’s Labour in the place where, as Ken Coates MEP correctly pointed out, it can really be hurt - the ballot box.

As well as groups of disgruntled Labour Party members (and those about to become ex-members) who had been drawn to the ILN, the meeting also had the participation of the Socialist Workers Party, the Communist Party of Great Britain, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, Socialist Perspectives, the Socialist Party in England and Wales and representatives of the Liaison Group of the Network of Socialist Alliances. While the agenda precluded a full debate, a particularly useful part of the meeting was the reports from ILN sympathisers from around the country, and the contributions from the representatives of the national organisations.

These underlined that our movement still functions at a very low level. Dave Nellist from Coventry - representing probably the largest and most successful of the Socialist Alliances so far - described the 400-odd names the organisation holds as “primarily a mailing list”, with a “couple of dozen at meetings”. Similarly, Toby Abse of the London ILN reported his organisation formally had 120 members, with 15-20 activists coming to committee meetings.

Tediously, the SWP thought it worthwhile prefacing its remarks - it too “welcomed” the meeting and pledged cooperation - with the information that it was currently “an organisation of 10,000”. Of course, while the SWP is qualitatively larger than its rivals on the left, its mass influence and base is almost non-existent. In comparison with what is needed by the workers’ movement, the political organisations of the working class are pathetic. All of them, SWP comrades.

That said, as well as this unfortunate truth, the Doncaster meeting also contained the possibility that some positive lessons are being drawn from the fragmented and ineffectual state of the left.

First, the need to seek higher levels of unity. While we should all be clear that the present negotiations have a narrow focus on the coming rounds of elections, more is needed. It was encouraging that a number of comrades spoke of the need for “a new workers’ party”. This was a refrain coming not simply from SPers - who have formally held this position for a few years - but also comrades currently still members or at least in the orbit of the Labour Party.

Second, the recognition that the need for an inclusive, democratic approach is not an optional extra. The cohesion of the project remains tentative, despite the palpable desire to build something serious. Thus, it was refreshing to see the ILN convenors defer to majority votes on proposed names for this united bloc and emphasise that, while they intended to adopt a “background paper”, participating regions would have full autonomy to stand on the platforms agreed through local negotiation and debate.

Interestingly, the most contentious part of the agenda concerned the joint name to be adopted. Essentially, the debate was divided between those who urged the meeting to avoid “narrow class politics”, and “maximise votes” by avoiding words like ‘socialist’, ‘workers’ or even ‘left’. This approach - reflecting the pressure of the period of reaction we continue to live under - had already been anticipated in the notes circulated by the meeting’s convenors, which urged that we “avoid inviting caricature or using names with (justifiable or otherwise) negative vibes”, such as ‘revolutionary’, ‘peoples’ or ‘workers’. This was overwhelmingly rejected, with proposed names like ‘Left Alliance’ and ‘Socialist Alliance’ topping the poll.

Aside from the technical difficulties associated with clearing the hurdles of the new Registration of Political Parties Act, the involved discussion around a name reflected political tensions. Essentially, these flow from differing orientations. On the one side, there is the attempt of the ILN to constitute itself as a ‘Labour left in exile’ - neatly encapsulated in the background notes by the chair, Mike Davies, when he wrote: “We are the real Labour Party. Tony Blair is a Tory.” On the other, there are those who - whatever their formal definition of the Labour Party - are moving towards the need for a new workers’ party, a comprehensive challenge for the loyalty of the class.

The difference is essentially between those who look forward to taking Blair’s working class voters away from him forever and those who want to hold them hostage in exchange for better behaviour.

This tension is likely to resurface in a variety of forms, but must be no barrier to principled, inclusive cooperation of the left in an electoral challenge to Blair’s party. In that spirit, the Doncaster meeting was a useful gathering and its organisers are to be thanked.

Mark Fischer
national organiser