25.03.1999

Bull and Fisc still in

Simon Harvey of the SLP

Last Saturday’s meeting of Socialist Labour’s national executive, widely expected to rubber-stamp the expulsion of Roy Bull and give general secretary Arthur Scargill the go-ahead to continue moves to oust the Appeal Four, in fact drew back on both counts.

For over a month comrade Bull, the editor of the ranting Economic and Philosophic Science Review who was elected to the vice-presidency at the November 1998 special congress, has been telling the world he has been expelled. That was certainly the decision of the complaints committee, headed by Scargill himself acting as prosecutor-in-chief. The committee ‘tried’ Bull for “non-compliance with an NEC resolution” - he had the audacity to actually “comment on the affairs of the SLP” in the pages of the EPSR. However, only the NEC can implement the complaints committee’s recommendation.

Bull can be excused for believing that his expulsion would go through on the nod. But Scargill ran into a little local difficulty - the overwhelming legalistic case made by lawyers Imran Khan and Mike Mansfield in defence of the Appeal Four - comrades Brian Heron, Carolyn Sikorski, Terry Dunn and Helen Drummond. They were also charged with “non-compliance” when they refused to withdraw their ‘Appeal for a special conference’, despite Scargill’s instruction to do so, backed up by the December NEC. The December executive also banned the circulation within the SLP of any document whatsoever - a ban that has been conspicuously ignored not only by the four, but by their allies, comrades John Mulrenan and Ann Brook (see Weekly Worker March 4), and by comrade Chris Jones (see Weekly Worker March 18).

While the Appeal Four’s legal team made telling points on the interpretation of the SLP constitution - Mansfield had helped draw it up of course - the killing argument was the one presented by comrade Khan at the aborted hearing of the ‘accused’ in February. He pointed out then that the complaints procedure could not be followed, as no panel had been elected to hear any subsequent appeal. The procedure lays down that the 15-strong appeals panel must be voted in at annual congress, a ‘minor detail’ overlooked by Scargill in his haste to cancel the 1998 full party gathering and replace it with the November special congress.

Since the hearing comrades Scargill and Khan have exchanged convoluted correspondence on the validity of a procedure which cannot be followed through to an appeal. It goes without saying that the general secretary is no match for the Lawrence family solicitor when it comes to such legal niceties. So, with the question unresolved, Scargill merely asked the March 20 NEC to postpone its considerations for another month. In the meantime the case against the Appeal Four is in abeyance, and Royston Bull remains a party member.

But this unexpected turn could well produce unfortunate consequences from Scargill’s point of view. Readers will recall that, in a bid to ward off the disciplinary attacks, Bull had written to Scargill, stating:

“If what you are saying with this complaints procedure is that such a prominent EPSR link as myself is an uncomfortable problem in the leadership of the SLP, then I would prefer to offer my resignation [from the vice-presidency] herewith, rather than haggle with the complaints committee over the finer points of interpretation of what each clause in the constitution actually means, etc” (Weekly Worker March 4).

Bull correctly pointed out that the controversy over the expression of his views while holding national office in the SLP should be viewed “as a political question, not a disciplinary matter”. He requested that his statement offering to resign should go “immediately to all members of the NEC for their decision”.

However, far from placing it before his executive, Scargill refused point blank to allow the January NEC to see the statement. He could not even be persuaded to read out the relevant parts. Instead he announced comrade Bull’s resignation from the vice-presidency as a fact, and subsequently informed the membership that it had been “accepted” (SLP Information Bulletin February - see Weekly Worker March 4). This clearly ignores the fact that only the NEC, not the general secretary alone, is in a position to accept an offer to resign. And Bull’s offer was conditional not only on the “decision” of the NEC; it was clearly made in exchange for the dropping of complaints committee charges.

As neither condition was met and the NEC has yet to consider the vice-president’s status, it seems to me that, since he remains a member, he is fully entitled to withdraw his resignation offer and resume his duties as elected vice-president. At least that will save Scargill the expense of changing his letterheads.

Meanwhile, the general secretary has made fresh complaints against the Appeal Four. Following the publication of details of correspondence between them and Scargill in the Weekly Worker, he has accused them of “unauthorised disclosure” - something declared to be “detrimental to the SLP” at the foot of each and every missive the general secretary issues. Obviously Scargill would prefer it if as little as possible of his unsavoury behaviour ever saw the light of day, but with rival party factions trying to do each other down, it is hardly surprising that leaks occur - including from some completely unexpected and trusted sources.

Apart from the Scargill loyalists, there are three other main factions. Firstly, those around the Fourth International Supporters Caucus, whose leaders are no less than comrades Brian Heron and Carolyn Sikorski - along with Patrick Sikorski, the former vice-president, who was ousted by Bull. Royston’s EPSR gained a foothold, despite its small size, when Arthur fell out with Fisc last autumn. And now the ultra-Stalinites around comrade Harpal Brar have gained ground at Fisc’s expense, taking over the women’s section, thanks to a fine piece of Scargillite gerrymandering. But, with Scargill’s disgraceful attacks driving more and more members to quit in despair and disillusionment, the party is crumbling before his eyes.

Euro elections

Despite the sorry state of our party, the general secretary’s decision to head the Socialist Labour list in London for the European elections appears to have thrown some into disarray (see front page - ed). Of course the few anti-sectarian democrats remaining in the SLP have continued to call on the party to cooperate in a united slate, but Scargill has contemptuously rejected any such suggestion. Why should he have to compromise with anyone? His position - once echoed by the likes of comrade Heron - has been that everyone else should simply disband their organisations, close down their publications and join ‘his’ party as atomised individuals.

Any decision by the Socialist Alliance to compromise will play into Scargill’s hands and further weaken the position of SLP anti-sectarians. It would simply confirm Scargill’s view that the left is spineless and only a dictator like himself can provide leadership.

Subcommandante

If Scargill was given a clear run by the left (a big if, in view of the CPGB’s, AWL’s and SPEW’s determination to contest), one person who would no doubt celebrate such a coup would be a certain Delphi, whose letter appeared in last week’s Weekly Worker (March 18).

By his own admission our friend would be “quite happy to see Arthur expel” all the “factionalists - be they CPGB, the Bullites or ‘Fisc’” (note the devious use of quotation marks around ‘Fisc’). The catastrophic membership loss, caused by Scargill’s dictatorial rule and resulting in the party virtually grinding to a halt, is of no concern to Delphi - just “teething troubles”, you see.

The comrade certainly has an inflated sense of his own importance, likening himself to “subcommandante Marcos”. Delphi is apparently beavering away from his jungle hideyhole in the cause of “liberation”. Our ‘Fiscite’ even provided the Weekly Worker with his own personal logo - a mysterious design composed of the Greek letters, delta and phi. Sorry, Delphi, but you are no “NUMist” or “Scargill ‘loyalist’”, despite your adamant insistence. I know who you are ... and so does Arthur.