04.02.1999

ILN split danger

CPGB call for left unity

Developments in the Independent Labour Network have placed London - and for that matter all-Britain - negotiations for a united left slate to contest the June European elections in real jeopardy.

Mike Davies - the Leeds-based secretary of the ILN - has attempted to circumvent the London ILN as presently constituted because of its ‘lefty’ composition and the “sectarian”, “ultra-left” platform it has agreed with others under the banner of the United Socialists. Comrade Davies told me that he regards this platform as “not viable”. He has “some concern that no one would vote for it”.

He is confident however that this is a “solvable problem” and that the platform can be “renegotiated”. Indeed, he assured me that he would be “surprised if the London ILN didn’t agree” to this. But I can confirm that comrades in the capital have rejected his clumsy move and reconfirmed their commitment to the unity slate at a meeting on Wednesday evening.

However, despite a fog of rumour and counter-rumour, this only seems to be part of the story. London ILN is awash with tales of an ‘alternative’ ILN being established around Dave Palmer, a comrade with a long history on the ‘soft-Trot’ left. Comrade Palmer has angrily stormed out of ILN meetings in the past and seems to regard the organisation in London as dominated by political flotsam. His project - which he appears to have convinced Mike Davies at least of - is for a shift to a borough-based London ILN to replace its current city-wide form. This task, he suggests, would be “quite easy”, although he seems to have had little success so far in his in his native Haringey.

Clearly, the assumption is that these imaginary borough ILNs would be composed more of the naive, raw social material that leading ILNers believe must be cohered around their project - pensioners, green campaigners, students and the like. City-wide organisation encourages the domination of ‘lefties’.

Of course, this is a re-run of the argument in the London Socialist Alliance between communists and advocates of ‘local alliances first’. Localism actually conceals a non-political agenda. It is not without irony then that some of the same individuals who used these arguments against the Communist Party now seem to be finding themselves targeted by the ILN right - which is using exactly the same philistine logic against them.

If the attempt to tear up the agreed US platform fails, as now seems likely, there is even talk of a rival Davies/Palmer list of tame celebrities such as Tariq Ali. Red Pepper has already mooted such an idea and would be in a better position to gather possible participants. However, the magazine’s editor, Hilary Wainwright, assured me that she firmly believes that “two lists would be damaging. The left should do everything it can to stand together on a joint list.”

Of course, it is already too late to prevent two lists. In the last few days, John Hendy of the Socialist Labour Party has confirmed that Scargill’s crisis-wracked shell intends to stand a full London slate - probably with Hendy at the head of the list. Further fragmentation of the forces of the left would be disastrous.

Leading ILNers in London are angry at what they see as a reneging on the agreement to “autonomy” for ILN regions in working out what platforms they stand on and the electoral agreements they come to. The anger is perfectly legitimate. The actions of Mike Davies do indeed violate the approach agreed at the December 5 ILN-convened meeting in Doncaster: ie, that the ‘national’ ILN would adopt a “background” position paper with “participating regions [having] full autonomy to stand on platforms agreed through local negotiation and debate” (Weekly Worker December 10 1998).

There are conflicting reports of the position of Ken Coates MEP on all of this. One ILN comrade assured me he was encouraging comrade Davies’s activities. Others - probably better placed to know - were adamant that he had repudiated any attempt to impose a platform rewrite on London and is down on paper to this effect. Furthermore, Mike Davies seems to have been warned to “stay out” of the capital.

However, this pressure on London may have the desired effect without any split being necessary.

A meeting took place between Mike Davies and Dave Packer of Socialist Outlook and Nick Long of the Socialist Democracy Group on Monday February 1. Comrade Packer in particular was described as “panicked” by the prospect of the withdrawal of the ILN and anxious to maintain the “broad” nature of the US - even if this means further concessions on a programme that is already deeply flawed from the point of view of working class politics.

This reflects something quite profound about the formal nature of the revolutionism of Socialist Outlook and the like. At the very first US meeting attended by the CPGB, representatives voted and agreed the platform of the US, primarily drafted by the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (Weekly Worker January 14). Obviously, because our organisation had no opportunity to take part in the presentations and arguments around it, we abstained. The CPGB regards the platform as rightist, economistic and therefore totally inadequate. However, in the interests of unity, we are prepared to critically accept it.

At the last meeting of the US on January 5, the discussion of the political basis of the bloc took an interesting twist. Comrades from Workers Power presented a draft election manifesto to the meeting. While it has many formulations that we would regard as wrong, it is a revolutionary document and clearly superior to anything yet produced by the US.

Interestingly, during the perfunctory discussion around WP’s contribution, comrades from ostensibly revolutionary organisations were at pains to emphasise that they “preferred” many of its formulations, yet in order to preserve a “broad” slate, they had to keep it rightwing. (Discussion revealed that five organisations had been involved in drawing up the present US platform - the SP, SWP, Socialist Outlook, the AWL and the ILN). In other words, to accommodate the Potemkin-village London ILN, the revolutionary majority of the US was prepared to bow before its social democratic shibboleths.

This is a useful insight into the method of the contemporary revolutionary left. Its principles are reserved for internal consumption: in its practical work, it caves in to the right (even if it has to invent a phantom right wing).

Peter Brown, Hugh Kerr’s right-hand man, confirmed that more behind-the-scenes negotiations are on the cards: “Ken Coates, Hugh Kerr and I have discussed these problems,” he admitted.

“We are agreed that there should be only one left list for London, and we should try to reach some understanding on the programme that goes forward. I do think that the platform should be reconsidered. Important constituent elements of the US have approached me and asked if I can broker a discussion with them, Ken and Hugh, so the differences can be aired. I am trying to do this. I hope people take this on.”

The Communist Party opposes any moves to rip up the platform that has been agreed so far - at least, when they come from the right. We already believe that what we have in front of us is not a socialist platform in substance. The CPGB will press for principled politics when drafting of the actual election manifesto begins. Furthermore, we believe that the debate on this vital question for the entire left should no longer be conducted in ‘smoke-filled rooms’. We will fight to make it open and transparent so that all comrades can contribute.

Mark Fischer