25.03.1999

Progress on NW slate

Socialist Alliances

Two more organisations have joined the Socialist Alliance slate to fight June’s European election in the North West of England.

At the second full organising meeting, on March 21, the delegation from the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty declared its unconditional decision to put forward a candidate for the 10-place slate and to raise a proportionate share of the electoral deposit and agreed campaign costs. It reaffirmed its desire to involve “the wider labour movement - eg, the sacked Liverpool dockers and Tameside careworkers - in the campaign”. A representative of the Socialist Party reported that it was “almost certain to want a candidate in the North West list”. A final decision was due to be taken by the SP at a meeting on March 25.

These early announcements lifted a meeting which had suffered an initial discouragement caused by the non-attendance of representatives from the Socialist Workers Party - now deep in crisis. At the inaugural meeting the SWP, the CPGB, and the ex-SP Merseyside Socialists had declared their commitment to the united slate in the North West and their intention to stand candidates (see Weekly Worker March 11).

Progress reports were then received from the other organisations which had been represented at the inaugural meeting. The International Socialist League confirmed that it wished to support the united campaign, but that it would not be putting forward a candidate and would have great difficulty in raising finance. The ISL was to prioritise its support for the Tameside careworkers, six of whom were to contest May’s local council elections as ‘Defend Public Services’ candidates.

Comrade Tony Reid, who had attended the previous meeting representing the Radical Preston Alliance, reported that he had failed to persuade the RPA to either join or support the slate. He explained that Labour Party members, and those opposed to all electoral participation, had rallied to raise up a majority against him. He had therefore, with a number of contacts from the Lancaster and Morecambe area, now formed the Lancashire Socialist Alliance, and was, he told us, more hopeful of winning some level of commitment to the project from this new formation.

The Greater Manchester Socialist Alliance had been represented at the inaugural meeting by the SP’s Margaret Manning. Comrade Manning had been the main conservative voice at that gathering. As the Weekly Worker hasreported, she had articulated the GMSA’s position of “keeping an open mind” regarding a left alternative to Blairism, and its uncertainty as to whether the political space existed at this time for another slate in the European elections. She had outlined a possible alternative approach of seeking the agreement of Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party and the Green Party to putting “some of our ideas” in their electoral programmes.

At this second meeting, comrade Manning’s place as spokesperson of the GMSA had passed to its convenor, John Nicholson. As he began to speak, a copy of the latest edition of the SLP’s Socialist News was passing around the table, showing its headline, “Put us in to get us out!”, making the SLP’s intentions more than clear. It was unsurprising that comrade Nicholson indicated a shift in the GMSA position. Whilst he reasserted the continued desirability of “talking to Scargill”, he nevertheless reported that GMSA now held a position of “conditional interest and conditional support for the North West Socialist Alliance slate, whilst continuing to question how realistic the project is”.

Comrade Nicholson did offer some elaboration as to the nature of GMSA’s doubts in the realism of the alliance. The emphasis here had shifted from the ‘political space’ argument to worries over resources and the political commitment of some organisations, such as the SWP. However, on the rather substantive matter of what were the GMSA’s conditions, governing not only whether it will support the alliance, but whether it has any interest in the project, the comrade remained characteristically cryptic. It became clear though, from comrade Nicholson’s later interventions, that it was the issue of “accountability” of the candidates to be put forward by the participating organisations that would have to be resolved to his satisfaction before GMSA would come on board. As the meeting progressed, this conditionally interested observer showed a more than conditional interest in seizing the tiller. 

John Pearson of the CPGB, who is also a member of the Independent Labour Network, read a letter he had received from Ken Coates, MEP, the co-founder of the ILN. This expressed the latter’s views on “efforts to put together a socialist challenge in the North West. I am sure that this is a good thing to do, and I am very pleased that you are going to try to create an inclusive movement … the need for a challenge becomes more obvious every day, and I think that it is very important to go ahead!” Comrade Pearson reminded the meeting that the ILN is a full participant in the Socialist Alliance in London and he expressed the hope that it could become so in the North West. To this end he had arranged with comrade Coates to convene a meeting of the ILN’s North West members to discuss a response to the formation of the alliance.

This report brought forward an immediate response from Nicholson: “Comrade chair, we will need to come back on that one. The ILN doesn’t really exist. The two dozen people on its North West list are on every mailing list going. They only want to receive correspondence.” The Weekly Worker (March 4) had exposed Nicholson’s political dalliance with Mike Davies of the Leeds ILN, aimed at superseding the locally determined electoral platforms in London and the West Midlands, and setting up a rival national platform with centralised control of the alliance electoral campaign. Since comrade Davies’s activities brought forward the wrath of John Rothery and Pete McClaren, leaders of the West Midlands Socialist Alliance, one of the power bases of the Network of Socialist Alliances, of which comrade Nicholson is the convenor, the latter has moved rapidly through becoming a stern critic to personifying the nemesis of the Independent Labour Network.

Discussion then moved on to how to respond to the SLP’s decision to stand a separate slate in the election. CPGB comrades drew attention to the rebellion of the SLP’s Merseyside Regional Committee against Scargill’s move to disband it (see Weekly Worker March 18). In an open letter, comrade Chris Jones, secretary of Merseyside SLP, has savaged the undemocratic and authoritarian methods of Scargill. Comrade Pearson argued that, in declaring a separate slate whilst refusing to first enter into negotiation with the alliance organisations, Scargill was acting against the interests of the working class. His SLP was responsible for splitting the class and, as such it would be legitimate for the alliance organisations to encourage rebellions within the SLP. Comrade Jones and the Merseyside SLP, together with SLP branches that had shown an interest in joint electoral work, such as Hackney and now Sheffield, should be approached directly and asked to join the alliance for the European elections. Cathy Wilson of the Merseyside Socialists expressed support for this proposal and it was agreed that the organisations present will endeavour to engage with appropriate SLP comrades to this end.

Several organisational steps forward were made. A sub-committee has been set up to negotiate the electoral platform. This will look at the platforms already negotiated in London and the West Midlands, as well as submissions from the participating organisations, and will report back to the next full meeting on March 8. Comrade Bruce Robinson of the AWL reminded all that the first meeting had agreed that participating organisations will be permitted to put forward their own propaganda, including critical support for the agreed platform. He urged that the platform be short and punchy. Comrade Sean Matgamna, also of the AWL, argued that the platform should focus on the “central issue” of the current disfranchisement of the working class. The CPGB was in a minority of one, in proposing that the sub-committee be comprised of the five organisations which had committed themselves to standing candidates, with the door being left open as more organisations were recruited to this level of participation. The majority agreed to grant seats on the sub-committee to the ISL, to the ‘pre-in’ Lancashire Socialist Alliance, and even to the conditionally interested and doubt-ridden GMSA. A similar formula was adopted for a finance sub-committee.

A debate began on the issue of ranking the candidates within the ‘closed list’ system imposed for this election by Blair. The Merseyside Socialists opened, through Cathy Wilson, in declaring support for the principle that any industrial movement leaders, such as ex-Liverpool dockers, who could be recruited to stand, should be automatically granted top rankings on the list, “to show the working class that the alliance had support beyond the ranks of the allied socialist and communist organisations”. This idea had been floated at the first meeting by both the SWP and the AWL. With comrade Nicholson now in the chair (having taken over from the Merseyside Socialists’ Ann Bannister, who ‘needed a rest’), and sniffing out ‘consensus’, it looked as if this issue was going to be summarily determined in the same manner as that of the composition of the sub-committees. But then comrade Ralph Parkinson of the SP declared his surprise at his agreement with the CPGB position that the converse priority - political organisation before industrial ‘tokenism’ - should apply.

This precipitated the closure of the meeting with the item being assigned to the next meeting’s agenda. The scene is set for a crucial and important debate within this fast growing movement in the North West.

John Pearson