03.02.2000

Socialist Party fudges on unity

The Lewisham and Greenwich Socialist Alliance has upheld the selection of Ian Page of the Socialist Party as its local candidate for the May 4 elections to the Greater London Authority, despite the SP's decision to back the Campaign Against Tube Privatisation all-London slate in preference to that of the London Socialist Alliance.

On January 31, at a well attended meeting, 30 comrades from the Socialist Workers Party, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party of Great Britain, the Alliance for Workers' Liberty, the almost defunct Independent Labour Network (comrade Toby Abse), and non-aligned comrades sought to thrash out important political issues. The largest single grouping was that of the SP with around 10 comrades, while the SWP, reluctant to flood the meeting with its 40 or so local supporters, had only eight comrades present. The chair of the meeting was Nick Long, ex-Labour Party, ex-Socialist Labour Party and now a Democratic Left affiliate and currently the leading figure in the Socialist Democracy Group.

The SP's decision "not to participate in the LSA slate", as its prepared statement to the LSA on January 18 put it, has left comrade Page - originally elected as a Labour Party councillor in Pepys ward and last year re-elected for the SP (standing as Socialist Alternative), not to mention a fortnightly columnist in The Mercury, the local free paper - in a very awkward position.

Members of the LSA will be pounding the streets of Greenwich and Lewisham doing all they can to get comrade Page elected in the first-past-the-post constituency election. However, thanks to the latest decree issued by Peter Taaffe and his wing in the SP leadership, comrade Page and his Lewisham-based comrades are at odds with the LSA as a whole.

It became immediately clear at the meeting that the SP comrades wanted to steam ahead with the preset agenda, as laid down by comrade Long, which was essentially an intimate discussion of the nuts and bolts of the local election campaign. The comrades were markedly reluctant though to confront the political orientation of the Lewisham and Greenwich SA - for or against the LSA slate? For or against the CATP slate? What about the maverick 'London Alliance' slate? Imitating ostriches, the SP comrades wanted those in attendance to likewise blindly accept nominations to the election committee (agenda point six) without a discussion of political perspectives and programme.

This attempt to railroad the meeting along SP lines was resisted by comrades from the SWP, CPGB, and AWL. Comrade Marcus Larsen of the CPGB emphasised how important it was to clarify the relationship of comrade Page and the SP to the LSA and its PR slate. Comrade Larsen reminded the SP comrades that it was important to use our resources to the maximum - and that requires unity. Which in turn requires open political debate and argument. Comrade Guy Taylor of the SWP lent his support to these sentiments. Open political discussion was absolutely "vital to the campaign", said the comrade. Refreshing words. He added that the 'CATP versus the LSA' issue "has to be resolved" - at the beginning of the election campaign, not midway through.

The SP comrades seemed rattled by such arguments. Comrade Mick Sutter asked us to "listen to what unites us", evoking the limp Dave Nellist 80-20 formula. In the name of 'unity' let us stifle or endeavour to obscure real political differences - even when such differences obviously affect the whole orientation of the campaign around which we are supposed to unite.

Comrade Sutter told the meeting that "the party" position on the CATP dictated that it was more important than the LSA because it represents "trade unions and workers" standing against New Labour - as opposed, we presume, to 'mere' left groups and organisations. It was "difficult" for the LSA to stand against tubeworkers, suggested comrade Sutter. Thus his intervention only served to highlight the question - should the Greenwich and Lewisham SA support the CATP or the LSA in the all-London PR elections?

To fudge this central issue borders on the criminal. As comrade Larsen pointed out, under the PR electoral system it was possible to get a left candidate into the GLA with only five percent of the vote - as Tommy Sheridan of the Scottish Socialist Party has demonstrated. Disunity will sabotage the left's chance to make a real difference in all-London and hence national politics.

As the Deptford meeting made clear, the SP comrades are in thrall to an almost fanatical localism - which has been inflamed by Ian Page's recent by-election success. The 'socialism in one city' project of Liverpool may have failed, but there is still a chance that Lewisham voters may yet enjoy a 'red Pepys'. Thus, succeeding in the PR elections (not to mention the politically significant possibility of the LSA saving its deposit through gaining 2.5% London-wide) is frittered away in favour of the fantastically slim chance of winning the first-past-the-post election in a local constituency. According to comrade Martin Powell-Davies of the SP, the election of Ian Page makes the SP "unique" among the left in London - and therefore, was the implication, of unrivalled authority.

Duncan Morrison of the AWL lamented the situation which has resulted in the SP comrades tying themselves to the CATP campaign. As the comrade said, it is not as if the CATP is particularly representative of tubeworkers - the SP would be making a "grave mistake" if it continued with its anti-LSA, pro-CATP stance. After all, the AWL should know. It played a key role in the setting up of the CATP. Comrade Morrison highlighted the fact that the CATP is now primarily a project for the self-aggrandisement of Pat Sikorski and his band of Fiscite cohorts ... and it was "sad" that the SP had fallen for it. In the opinion of the comrade, the SP would be far better advised to help and support the LSA and not "the strange Sikorski detour". He added that the SP "should make a clear stand" on this question.

However, and regrettably, this "clear stand" never materialised. Nick Long, as chair, was keen that the meeting listen to Ian Page. He proposed that the call by the SWP-CPGB-AWL bloc to thrash out the fundamental political lines of demarcation be relegated to item number 7 - after the nominations to the election committee. His suggestion was carried. But the essential absurdity of this position was soon recognised by the meeting and after protests it was agreed that 'the politics question' would be discussed before nominations. Comrade Long used this opportunity to express his desire for a "democratic" and "inclusive" electoral campaign.

Comrade Page attempted to steer clear of controversy - defensively emphasising the SP's dire localism. There was "enormous potential in local community groups". The way forward was to concentrate on "specific community issues". It was important that the Greenwich and Lewisham SA use "the strength of the unions" to launch the election campaign. We need "joint trade union meetings" between activists in both Lewisham and Greenwich. While such support from the unions - if it happened - would be more than positive, it is hardly a substitute for a political programme.

This combination of localism and syndicalism was backed up by other SP comrades. Paula Mitchell, while paying tribute to the left groups in the LSA, put forward the opinion that the comrades have not realised the significance of the CATP. Sure, it was a single-issue-based campaign and hence a bit narrow ... but it represented workers and trade unionists. She made the topsy-turvy comment that "it was wrong of the LSA to stand against the CATP" - when in reality it was the CATP which stubbornly refused to come to any sort of principled agreement or pact with the LSA.

Full of official optimism, she told the meeting that the Greenwich and Lewisham SA could have an "extraordinarily good campaign in Lewisham" because of Ian Page's high profile. Summing up the position of the SP as a whole, the comrade said it was "not necessary to support one slate or another - no commitment is necessary". Finally, she assured the meeting that the SP "has always been part of the LSA" - though the record shows a very arms-length engagement. Her fellow comrade, Mick Sutter, was also at pains to emphasise that he and the SP "are not going to put any demands on people to vote for this or that slate" in the GLA elections.

Comrade Dave Watts of the SWP rightly attacked the localist SP line. The events in Seattle and the outcry against "institutionalised racism" proves that there is a "clear shift to the left" in society. The crisis in the health service, low pay, police racism, etc. can only be tackled on an all-London basis [we would say all-Britain, as our main enemy is the UK state]. Socialist unity at this important juncture in British politics was paramount, said comrade Watts - the LSA was the best vehicle to articulate and promote this "clear shift to the left". As he and other SWP comrades ventured, the CATP is "not a serious organisation".

Comrade Toby Abse of the ILN was also unsure about how deep-rooted the CATP was, mentioning in passing that only six people attended the last CATP meeting. He pledged his loyalty to the LSA (though interestingly did not once vote with the SWP-CPGB-AWL bloc - preferring diplomatically to abstain).

Comrade Larsen supported the comments made by comrade Watts of the SWP - though he did think it more the case that there was "a vacuum on the left" rather than a swing to the left in British society. The LSA can help to fill that vacuum. Comrade Larsen said the May 4 elections were not just a Lewisham and Greenwich campaign, or even about how London is run. They are first and foremost about the working class in Britain and its response to Blairism. That is their significance and the left must organise accordingly.

"Socialists have been living in separate feudal fiefdoms for decades," continued comrade Larsen. Comrade Ian Page's stance has everything to do with obeying Peter Taaffe's factional decrees and nothing to do with promoting the wider interests of the working class.

Faced with such criticism, it dawned on comrade Page that "some people have come to focus on disagreements", while fellow SP comrade Powell-Davies pleaded like an apolitical philistine that differences should not be allowed to dominate: "They are not important on the doorstep" - housing, low pay, etc. were.

During the meeting the CPGB proposed the following motion: "That the candidate of the Lewisham and Greenwich constituency for the GLA elections work in cooperation with the SA slate for London as a whole to maximise the socialist vote on May 4."

Nick Long described the motion as "disruptive and divisive". Ian Page had "serious concerns" about it. The SP argued that the motion be "remitted" until the next meeting. However, we insisted that the local alliance should state its view clearly on this fundamental issue. When put to the vote, the motion was defeated by 19 to 11. Having done this, however, the meeting - with the increasingly disorientated SP at the centre of the majority bloc - then, contradictorily, voted to leave it 'on the table' nevertheless. Apparently this was meant as a gesture to unity - leaving open the door for yet another switch.

Comrades from the SP were elected as press officer and election agent, while Nick Long was made treasurer. It was agreed to postpone the appointment of the election committee.