04.02.1999

United Socialists north west launch

Reports of the infant death of a United Socialists challenge in the North West of England constituency in the forthcoming European parliament elections appear to have been greatly exaggerated.

The January edition of Action for Solidarity, paper of the Welfare State Network, an organisation led by the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, contained a report of a meeting held in Preston, on January 9, which, it said, was attended by representatives of the AWL, Socialist Outlook, the Socialist Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the ex-SP ‘Mersey Socialists’, the Greater Manchester Socialist Alliance and the Radical Preston Alliance. The report now turns out to be highly inaccurate.

The Action piece definitively reported that the Preston meeting had rejected a unity challenge in the European poll, but had agreed upon further non-electoral cooperation. Yet, when I spoke to Tony Reid, convenor of the Radical Preston Alliance, the organisation which had initiated the meeting, he was unequivocal. A decision has not yet been made and, indeed, a second meeting on the subject is to take place in Manchester on February 13. The organisations present at the first meeting were to come back with their views, and with statements on their willingness to commit the necessary resources - money and people. Manchester AWL comrades confirmed comrade Reid’s report and admitted that the Action article was incorrect. They could offer no explanation of this rather serious inaccuracy.

The CPGB was not invited to the Preston meeting. When told of its participation in the London United Socialists project and its commitment to building united slates in as many other regions as possible, comrade Reid expressed regret at the exclusion, which had not been intentional on his part, he assured me. The comrade has had no hesitation in inviting CPGB representatives to attend the February 13 meeting. I have no doubt at all, however, that further down the line of communication there was no such lack of intent in the failure to inform the CPGB. An authoritative source confirms that details of the Preston event were announced at the previous meeting of the steering committee of Greater Manchester Socialist Alliance. Those GMSA affiliates who hold steering committee seats, and whose representatives were present, were thus informed of the meeting. But my source does not recall any mention being made at the steering committee of the need to advise those affiliated organisations who have been excluded from a place on the committee. Indeed, GMSA convenor John Nicholson did not inform the major excluded organisation, the CPGB. A strange oversight, when comrade Nicholson is very well aware of the CPGB’s keen advocacy of electoral intervention and of socialist unity slates.

By all accounts, the majority of representatives at the Preston meeting - the SP, AWL, SO and GMSA - were rather unenthusiastic at the idea of a north west United Socialists slate. Several reasons were proffered - the difficulty of raising the £5,000 electoral deposit; pessimism at the prospects for mobilising sufficient numbers of people to mount an effective campaign; the splitting of the left and radical vote arising from the intention of the Green Party and the Socialist Labour Party to mount separate challenges in this constituency.

It must be stated, however, that these same organisations’ representatives have consistently opposed electoral unity initiatives within the GMSA, for the last two years, and - in the case of the AWL and SO - have argued, and continue to argue, that the time has not yet arrived to issue a general call to the working class to break with the Labour Party. These comrades seem to be lagging behind the slow, but important, movement that their organisations have been displaying nationally and in London with respect to the United Socialists project. The reasons for this disparity have not yet become totally clear. It may be down to provincial conservatism. Alternatively, it may be that these organisations are engaged in a limited experiment in London that they are reluctant to see expanded.

The issue of the election deposit can be easily resolved. Firstly, it amounts to just £500 per candidate if a full 10-member slate is put forward. This should be an easily achievable sum if the candidacies are shared between the organisations participating in the slate. It goes without saying that the united forces should work flat out to save the deposit. Whatever comrades’ reservations about the ‘closed list’ system, it offers an opportunity for socialist organisations to begin to make joint decisions in a democratic and representative way.

Socialist unity should not be discouraged by the potential for vote-splitting brought about by the sectarian refusal of Arthur Scargill to countenance any form of cooperation. His actions must be vigorously exposed before the working class. It is he who is the splitter and his methods are damaging the interests of the working class. He cannot be allowed to prosper. The SLP campaign itself, of course, will be based upon a far grander splitting mission, the inane call for Britain to “get out of Europe”. The United Socialists can counter this shabby, little England national socialism with a manifesto for all-European working class integration. As to the Greens, they are a non-socialist force. Theirs is not a working class platform. In many respects it is likely to be reactionary and anti-human. We can sharpen our political thrust by contrasting a programme which wants humanity to go on the retreat with a platform for our class.

Worries over mobilising sufficient comrades to work for an effective campaign are most probably just a sign of the hesitancy and uncertainly that is bound to exist in such a stage. These fears can be overcome in only one way - by starting to work together. I can think of no better slogan than that of five fingers making a fist. When we all start punching with our full weight, we will inspire and rally support.

In the early days of the London United Socialists project, passivity and reticence was widespread. It seems this phenomenon is now being dispelled. It is no surprise that such moods should also have attended the first attempt to bring together those same parties in the north west of England. The largest organisation on the left, the SWP, was, for instance, represented at Preston by just one person, who played a minor role in the meeting. Socialist Worker has not exactly prioritised coverage of the unity initiatives. Many of its members will be unsure of just what their leadership’s position is, and what the reasons were for the volte-face - from backing to opposing New Labour in the ballot box. Driving forward the unity project will be the surest way to force onto the agendas of the constituent organisations the discussion that is so necessary for clarification of the way forward.

Only the Mersey Socialists and the Radical Preston Alliance, were reportedly for a united slate created in the North West. At the very least, they will be joined at the February 13 Manchester meeting by the CPGB. Individual comrades within the other participating organisations should argue vigorously for a positive approach. And we must be ready to push ahead with the regional slate, so vital to the building of an all-Britain challenge - with its free TV broadcast - even if some of the London participants decide that they will be non-runners in the North West contest.

John Pearson