11.03.1999

North West to stand

Socialist Alliances

The meeting to discuss a united socialist slate for the North West European parliamentary elections, held in Liverpool on March 6, can be considered a success. Hosted by the Merseyside Socialist Alliance (MSA), the gathering was attended by 23 comrades, including representatives from the Socialist Workers Party, Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, Communist Party of Great Britain, Greater Manchester Socialist Alliance, Socialist Party in England and Wales, the International Socialist League, the Radical Preston Alliance and the Hillsborough Justice Campaign. Invites had been sent to the SLP and the Green Party, neither organisation seeing fit to attend. Another notable absentee was John Nicholson, convenor of GMSA, and a national coordinator of the Network of Socialist Alliances.

The event had been built by the Merseyside comrades on the principles of inclusion, and Peter Dunne chaired the meeting skilfully and democratically, making sure that the views of all organisations and individuals were heard. The agenda proposed by the MSA (and adopted by the participants) consisted of a number of simple questions: “Should the Socialist Alliances stand a list in the European elections? Do you wish to be part of a Socialist Alliance list? What candidates would you put forward? What can your group contribute in terms of resources?” The utilisation of such an agenda made for a businesslike discussion.

A decision was taken at the end of the meeting that there would be a united socialist challenge in the North West region European parliamentary elections. There was unequivocal commitment from the SWP, MSA and CPGB to fund and stand at least one candidate each (£500 for each organisation/candidate). John Pearson of the CPGB had earlier made the clarification that a ‘Socialist Alliance’ for the European elections would be an open one, considerably beyond the scope of the Network of Socialist Alliances, as presently constituted. The provisional participants in the North West list will use their agreement as a springboard to gain further candidates and finance, with a recall meeting on March 21.

None of the organisations present, not even the AWL, came out against the idea of standing against the Labour Party. Nevertheless, although agreeing in principle to the logic of a united slate, there was a distinct reticence in terms of solid commitment from a number of groupings.

Margaret Manning of the GMSA/SPEW was very hesitant in terms of a practical pledge, seemingly keen to question the feasibility of the project. Comrade Manning was highly ambiguous on the resources/activists that GMSA/SPEW could provide, leading to some confusion as to her exact representative status. According to her, the GMSA steering committee was keeping an ‘open mind’ regarding a left alternative to Blairism, unsure whether the political space existed for another slate in the European elections. Manning’s ‘big’ practical idea was to approach the SLP and the Green Party with a view to finding out if they would put some of our (unspecified) ideas in their electoral programme.

Tony Reid of the Radical Preston Alliance was also downbeat, questioning the advisability of a confrontation with the SLP and Green Party lists. A ‘Socialist Alliance’ slate would only produce derisory votes and lost deposits, he said. However, to be fair, once the decision to stand was taken, comrade Reid became more enthusiastic, stating that it would be easier to win practical support in Preston now that he had something concrete to represent.

The proposal that any reliance could be put on the Green Party for cooperation was sharply rebuffed by Bill Hunter of the ISL (backed by comrades from the CPGB and AWL) who argued the Greens were fundamentally amorphous in political character, containing both reactionary and progressive environmentalists. Put quite simply, the Green Party are not the natural constituency of the socialist left, as evidenced by their non-attendance at this and many other socialist forums.

CPGB members also questioned the advisability of tailing Scargill’s SLP. The organisation is in the throes of internal crisis and its continued viability must be up for question. In the meantime Scargill bans its shrinking membership from any electoral pacts or alliances. Any elements inside the SLP wishing to reach agreement with the rest of the left would be quickly under threat of expulsion. In any case the only way in which the SLP and the Green Party can be moved is if they see a concrete electoral opposition forming. Tailist projects to get them to endorse minor political details of an imaginary political platform can only fuel their sectarian appetite.

The intervention of the AWL undoubtedly had its positive moments. As reported in previous issues of the Weekly Worker, Manchester AWL has been distinctly lukewarm toward the idea of a united left campaign, in direct contradiction to their London comrades. However, Nick Bairstow admitted that the comrades had changed their position, offering finance and activists in the event of a unity slate being formed. As is always the case with the AWL, no sooner had their collective feet pressed the accelerator pedal than the brakes were rapidly applied. Comrade Bairstow cast some doubt on the AWL’s ability to provide a public face in the election campaign, as it needed to ‘protect’ (or perhaps pander to) their sympathisers in New Labour. Eventually, Bruce Robinson declared that the AWL could not offer unequivocal commitment until the united slate had the involvement of ‘real’ labour movement figures and campaigns.

Kathy Wilson of the MSA pointed clearly to the innate conservatism of such arguments. She reasoned that the meeting had the attendance of comrades who had given their lives to the working class movement. Such a gathering should certainly be ‘real’ enough for the launch of the proposed list. Phil Watson of the CPGB argued that in order to win individual Liverpool dockers or Tameside careworkers to back the slate, a concrete initiative would have to be presented. In other words something more than a ‘maybe’ would be needed in order to garner such support. The AWL’s aid in gaining this would be extremely valuable.

The contributions of the ISL were also a mixture of positive and negative. Martin Ralph stated that the cost of £500 for an ISL candidate on the joint list would provide his organisation with ‘problems’. ISL comrades continually returned to the theme of fighting against cuts in public services, correctly stating the need for this to be fused with the election campaign. However, their ultimate reluctance to insist on a candidate suggests that an economistic division between ‘campaigns’ and ‘politics’ still exists in the collective reasoning of the ISL.

As stated above, the SWP - alongside the MSA and CPGB - had made an unequivocal commitment to stand at least one candidate each and the finance to boot. Like the AWL, the comrades from the SWP preferred ‘star’ labour movement candidates, but did not make their own involvement conditional on being able to attract such figures. This is the all-new SWP, and a very refreshing one too. However, for those who prefer a variety of flavour, the old one was also very much in evidence. The SWP’s Brian McDonald made it quite clear that the thought of deciding an electoral platform through a joint aggregate of participating organisations filled him with the utmost dread. The pale-pink programme of the Socialist Alliance slate in London would do “fine”.

Comrade McDonald made it crystal clear he did not want any SWP (or SWP-sponsored) candidates at the top of the list, as it was not SWP policy for such comrades to take up an MEP position in the event of being elected (the candidate at the top of the joint list would of course have the best chance of winning a seat). Obviously the SWP’s activists are still attempting to square the ditching of auto-Labourism with their old cultural tenets of sectarianism and anarcho-economism. The reason the SWP gives for not wanting the top spot is fairly lame. Most likely, the SWP is concerned about internal morale. A low vote with the SWP in a ‘supporting’ role will be easier to sell than a low vote with the SWP taking the lead.

The preference for the Socialist Alliance electoral programme agreed in London (at a time when the CPGB was deliberately excluded) was not confined to the SWP. The AWL and the MSA also appeared to back it. In response to a draft electoral platform circulated by the CPGB, Lesley Mahmood (the MSA’s proposed candidate) voiced her agreement with the majority of the text. However, she was in favour of “80-20” alliances - we should stand on the 80% that unites us. Comrades from the CPGB and the ISL voiced the proposal that differing organisations should be free to critically support whatever electoral platform was subsequently agreed, with the right to produce and use their own supplementary propaganda material. This appeared to gain the consensus of the meeting and the CPGB will be pushing for a formal agreement on this vital point.

Margaret Manning made a last-ditch attempt to fudge a decision on the united slate. There are clear differences in SPEW’s attitude, depending on who is representing the organisation and in which part of the country. This no doubt reflects the deeper divisions that remain even after the loss of most of Merseyside, whose comrades now form the backbone of the MSA. The firm pledges of the SWP, MSA and CPGB were not enough for comrade Manning. Representatives of the three organisations called for participants to declare their intentions now. On this basis it would be possible to lobby for wider support and candidacy from the working class movement.

CPGB comrades had argued earlier that those groupings/individuals who are ambiguous about a joint electoral intervention should not have the right to veto or stall those who are unambiguous. It was this logic that won in Liverpool. In no way should this be read as an exclusion order on comrades from the AWL, GMSA, SPEW or the Preston Radical Alliance (or on any other interested parties). Indeed it was made explicit that the door is being left wide open for those organisations to join the unity slate.

The European elections offer a window through which our class can advance. To waver in the vain hope that a combination of ‘star’ names, Green activists and Arthur Scargill will take the lead for unity would be fatal. If we do not act ourselves, the necessary advance will never be made.

Phil Watson