10.02.2000

Stress unity, not difference

LSA secretary outlines his views Greg Tucker is a candidate on the London Socialist Alliance slate to contest May's elections to the GLA. A member of the International Socialist Group (British section of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International), he spoke to Peter Manson

What is your record in the trade union and labour movement?

I was a Labour councillor in Lambeth until I was expelled from the party in 1993 for opposing cuts. I am a former national executive member of the RMT, and I was the left candidate who stood against sitting rightwinger Jimmy Knapp in last year's election for the union's general secretary, winning 34% of members' votes.

How do you view the formation of the LSA?

Clearly it's a positive step. It's nice to see the left working together in a positive fashion, gaining each other's trust. And that extends beyond the leadership level to practical cooperation on the ground.

Will it be possible to take the whole project further?

I'm not one to rush these things. Every organisation has its own views on how far to go. There are those who say it's just an electoral alliance, while others see in it the seeds of a mass workers' party. They are the two extremes. Personally I want to see it develop - we ought not to push it beyond its natural pace. Unity is something to be worked at.

What do you think has made the LSA possible?

The collapse of the Stalinist states made a difference - a lot of people have been re-evaluating their views. And there is the political climate of course - the international capitalist offensive. What to me is useful and significant is the way the left has reacted internationally. For example, our comrades in the LCR joined forces with Lutte OuvriÅ re in last year's elections in France. And our comrades in Portugal are also involved in a left alliance.

You must be disappointed that your fellow RMT members in the Campaign Against Tube Privatisation are insisting that the CATP will also stand and are refusing to work for a joint challenge.

There is still time for a change of heart and I'm still hopeful we won't miss out on a great opportunity. I can understand their way of thinking: they are looking at it from a fairly narrow perspective - how it relates to their own members.

But we are not dealing here with naive syndicalists, are we? Comrades like Pat Sikorski claim to be socialists with a broader vision.

The views of one individual are not important. The CATP represents a lot of tubeworkers - we aren't talking about thousands, but there is a core of 100 or so people - and it's the collective decision that counts at the end of the day. The CATP is dominated by around 20 RMT branches, and so there are at least 100 people who are fundamental to the campaign. However imperfectly, they have come to a decision.

These views seem entrenched, but, if the LSA can show them a real campaign on the ground, then, as time goes by, we have a chance of unity. To be honest, there could be all sorts of developments around Livingstone, so nothing is fixed.

What are your own priorities in the campaign?

A priority for me personally is the question of privatisation - the underground obviously, but also as it affects the health service. Then there is the question of the police - not only racism, but its more general role.

Council housing too is very important. For example, in Lambeth the council is talking about selling off all its property. Also they're getting tough on tenants. It's quite horrific - they're talking of evicting tenants who are found guilty of any arrestable offence.

What is your opinion on the LSA's agreed platform?

Well, no-one's happy with everything in it. But it is a collective agreement, and it works well enough at that level. The role it plays is that it allows everyone to work together. It is sufficient in addressing the needs of Londoners - we can all go and work with it. The thing is, it's aimed at being a mobilising tool - supporting the campaigns of working people.

Our own criticisms have been mainly in terms of what is not said. There is no mention of the big democratic questions: the need to abolish the monarchy, or self-determination for Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

I'm not sure I would want to have those questions included in terms of the London Assembly. There are issues regarding democracy. The GLA itself is fundamentally undemocratic - there is a democratic deficit. But there are existing campaigns on the ground, concentrating on practical things, like racism in the Metropolitan Police or defence of council housing, which could soon become a thing of the past.

Are you saying we should only take up local questions?

No - we can't avoid a more general political viewpoint. But, given the state of where we are, there are bound to be some issues we can't agree on. There is a potential for big differences over Ireland, for example - historically people's views on the north of Ireland have differed considerably. I don't want to make the question of the Irish peace process a fundamental block on working together.

But isn't it a weakness that, unlike all the bourgeois parties, the LSA is seen not to take a view on such a major question?

We're an alliance, not a party, so we won't have a position on Ireland. Differences should not be a problem for us, but we shouldn't make an issue to divide ourselves over.

Do you think the left could have come together earlier - for the 1997 general election for instance, instead of voting Labour?

I don't think it's useful to speculate - we could always have done things differently. There's not much point in analysing what went wrong in the past - it's not worthwhile to dwell on things. The danger is that we'll find differences to disagree over.

Surely we should have our differences out in the open. By doing so we learn from our mistakes and can build a deeper unity.

Yes, we learn from our mistakes, but we couldn't have done it at some other point. We didn't do it.

I'm trying to get to the difference between the general election and today. Perhaps voting Labour then was a mistake.

We were right in 1997 when we voted Labour. The difference is that then we had a Conservative government - people had no experience of what Labour would be like.