29.03.2000

Page supports LSA PR slate

SP candidate opposes Taaffe-Mullins line Ian Page, Socialist Party councillor in Lewisham and a member of the SP's London executive, is standing as a Socialist Alliance candidate in Lewisham and Greenwich on May 4. Peter Manson spoke to him for the Weekly Worker

What is your record in the working class movement?

As a Nalgo activist within the Greater London Council and Inner London Education Authority in the 80s, I was chair of the Nalgo Broad Left.

I was a Militant member and a Labour councillor in Lewisham from 1990 to 1995, when I was expelled from the Labour Party for opposing cuts to the council's Direct Team works department, and for supporting Militant Labour's campaign against the cuts.

In 1998 I stood for re-election in Pepys ward for the Socialist Party and, although I was defeated, I won 38% of the vote. Later I contested a by-election in Grinling Gibbons ward and came third behind Labour and the Greens, but ahead of the Tories and the Liberals, with around 13%. People were so disillusioned that the turnout dropped to about 10%. It was one of the few times when Labour got less than 30% in the Deptford area of Lewisham.

Last year, when I stood again in a by-election in Pepys ward and won, it was the first time Labour failed to win a Deptford seat since the war.

What is your view of the development of the socialist alliances, and in particular the London Socialist Alliance?

Socialist alliances are an important step we need to be taking. In Lewisham and Greenwich both the Socialist Party and others on the left have worked hard to get a functioning SA. We have been relatively successful in working with the Alliance for Workers' Liberty, the CPGB and individuals. We have taken part in political work together, campaigning in Lewisham on racism, housing and even in elections. In Lewisham it is nothing spectacular, but it is relatively successful. The Socialist Party has played a part in this - as we did in Scotland.

All this needs to be taken into account by the LSA. People saw all their painstaking work threatened by what was seen as bulldozing by the Socialist Workers Party, who appeared to want to take control of everything. However, now things are working more positively. There are still problems, but slowly there is a recognition that you can't just impose your policies, because people will just walk away.

Last week the LSA asked for statements from candidates to be published on local LSA leaflets. But they wanted to remove one sentence where I said there was a need for a new workers' party. Now it seems it will be reinstated. I hope this kind of thing will stop and we can now start to work together.

The previous attempts to build a London Socialist Alliance have not necessarily been that successful. But the important thing to recognise is that the LSA is not just for one election. I hope it will develop as an umbrella organisation, bringing together people on the left and those disillusioned with Labour and politics in general - especially those looking for a revolutionary alternative. Such an alliance could attract people who have become disillusioned.

Surely the main disagreement in Lewisham and Greenwich has been over whether the campaign to back you will be part of the London-wide LSA effort? For example, a Greenwich and Lewisham SA flyer advertising the March 29 public meeting in Woolwich describes you as the "candidate of the local socialist alliance" and doesn't mention the LSA at all.

We are in a bit of a flux situation. The Lewisham and Greenwich SA had met on various occasions previously. The perception had always been that we were part of the all-London alliance, but shouldn't be dominated by it. What we have seen is a reaction to events. We had a relatively healthy SA, but at the recent meeting we got swamped by SWP members.

In practice it is becoming more of a London-wide campaign - I've spoken on LSA platforms and an additional LSA speaker was invited to speak at the Woolwich public meeting. The Socialist Party and other members of the Lewisham and Greenwich SA felt there was an opportunity for the LSA to support the campaign of tubeworkers breaking from the Labour Party. But we never closed the door on supporting the full LSA list. The Socialist Party has not opposed the LSA list. We are not opposed to the LSA in any way.

But if you either come out in favour of the Campaign Against Tube Privatisation or refuse to choose between the LSA and CATP, then you can hardly be said to be backing the LSA. If workers put you on the spot, what will you say?

I will be supporting the LSA for the PR seats because people are starting to recognise LSA candidates as a real force. As I say, I have spoken on LSA platforms. But I can understand people supporting the tubeworkers. This election is about encouraging an alternative to Labour. As far as I am aware, there has been no campaign by tubeworkers in Lewisham and Greenwich. Therefore I would encourage them to support socialist candidates. If there was a strong campaign in other parts of London, then it would not be wrong to back the tubeworkers.

Surely there is only one London constituency for the PR seats and there ought to be a consistent approach across London?

I'm not referring just to the elections. I've not been involved, but if the tubeworkers had a strong presence elsewhere, we should not be seen to be opposing them. We should use this election to support and encourage the move away from Labour.

Rather than a spontaneous movement of "tubeworkers", aren't we dealing with people like Pat Sikorski, Oliver New, Davie Lyons and the SP's Arwyn Thomas - all with a long record of belonging to left groups? Sikorski is notorious for his sectarianism, yet now is standing on a platform without any working class content.

I'm aware of the weaknesses and the sectarianism of some CATP candidates. But their campaign does encourage the rank and file to break from Labour. As for the lack of working class politics, much the same can be said about Ken Livingstone: we support him despite the fact he is not standing on any kind of socialist platform.

Can I ask you about the Socialist Party itself? While you have had electoral successes recently, the SP and Committee for a Workers International have also seen failure in the shape of splits and loss of membership. Obviously I'm thinking about Merseyside, Scotland, the US and now South Africa.

These are difficult times for left organisations generally, and it's been difficult for the Socialist Party too. But a lot of 'crises' have been exaggerated. All our differences have been debated openly in the organisation. If people on that basis feel they can't support the party any more, then we can't stop them leaving. To a great extent that is what has happened.

But it is not the case that we are in 'constant crisis'. Admittedly we have had our problems, but our recent aggregate in London had a large attendance and was very successful.

These splits - whether it be the Merseyside Socialists or the Scottish Socialist Party - seem to have a rightwing orientation. For example, the SSP is being criticised in those terms by the Dundee comrades. Do you think there is a lesson there for the SP itself?

It was reported in our paper and public knowledge that our party disagreed with Scottish Militant Labour over the SSP. But they are still in the CWI and Tommy Sheridan is still speaking at Socialist Party meetings. As for Merseyside, it's been a tough time for Liverpool in particular - it's difficult to keep your perspectives in such a period. It's inevitable there will be differences, but the CWI is still functioning in Scotland - none of which is to dismiss the difficulties.

You say that differences have been debated openly, but I understand that the Harry Paterson document - a criticism from the left - was banned from circulation.

What! The Harry Paterson document was circulated - copies were placed on the table for discussion in our branch.

I heard it was banned from the Members Bulletin and circulated unofficially.

It was not put around as a member's document, but it was discussed - at the level appropriate. It was not removed from discussion.

The comrade has been expelled despite his long-standing membership of Militant and the SP.

Quite obviously Harry Paterson supports the ideas of the CPGB. What can you do in such a case? He supports the theoretical and practical line of another party - he should join them.

You have been unhappy with statements about you previously published in the Weekly Worker. What do you think has been inaccurate?

I'm glad you've given me the opportunity to answer that. I've got no problem with your paper criticising our organisation, although I sometimes think you exaggerate. I was quoted as being "seething with anger and embarrassment", or something along those lines, in relation to the Socialist Party's position on the CATP, when in fact I supported that position. It was a lie.

I would hope your paper would report more accurately regarding the Socialist Party. You carry regular headlines - either on the front page or the back page - that the Socialist Party is about to split. It makes it difficult to take seriously what you're saying.

Finally, on a more positive note, I would like to return to the question of the LSA. We need to come out of these elections with democratically functioning SAs across London - only in this way will they have real meaning. This election should be used by the groups to work towards that aim as well.