17.05.2000

Pat Strong of the Socialist Party

Hold Taaffe to account

Now that the dust has settled on the recent electoral battles fought by the London Socialist Alliance, its component parts have been reviewing the progress made and reflecting on the lessons learned.

The post-Cliff Socialist Workers Party, for instance, at their recent party council gathering held over the weekend of May 13-14, used the opportunity to attack what it sees as the unhelpful sectarianism still latent in some of its branches. The leadership are determined to press ahead with plans to broaden and deepen the unity established around the LSA campaign. Thus the party council was told that the "turn" must be consistently applied throughout the organisation and those branches still hostile to left unity must be brought on board.

Particularly vocal on this question was comrade Chris Bambery, who clearly reflected the mood of the majority with his sharp intervention which, refreshingly, was self-critical and sincere in his insistence that the way forward for the SWP and the wider left was greater unity. Interestingly, and encouragingly, delegates spoke of a new spirit of greater tolerance for political differences that has grown throughout the LSA campaign. Exposure to other trends and their ideas is inevitable when different groups work together, and the willingness to discuss each other's ideas can only bring strength to unity initiatives.

Sadly, this approach stands in stark contrast to the behaviour of the Socialist Party leadership. Of course, we have reason to celebrate our electoral success in Coventry. But after our embarrassing contortions during the Greater London Assembly campaign I had hoped that the leadership would draw the correct conclusions and conduct a frank and sober assessment of our approach and the isolated position we now find ourselves in. It seems I will be disappointed. Disgracefully, the results achieved by the LSA were used by comrade Jim Horton to justify our original position of support for the Campaign Against Tube Privatisation. Apparently, "Comrade Horton suggested that the smaller vote for the LSA list in comparison with our [LSA] average for the constituency candidates justified this stance" (Weekly Worker May 11).

Presumably we will now receive a statement from the leadership that standing Lesley Mahmood under the banner of Real Labour, during the height of Kinnock's witch hunt, was an error. Or that comrade Nellist's failure to be re-elected to the House of Commons provides concrete proof that we were mistaken in mounting an election campaign in Coventry. Of course this is utter nonsense. Marxists do not determine the success or failure of an electoral intervention solely by weighing up the votes for and the votes against our candidates.

What I was hoping for was an admission of mistakes and some honest self-criticism concerning our tactics and approach to the LSA. After all, the door is still very much open to our party and, given our greater experience and indeed greater success in the field of electoral work, we should be playing a positive role in the LSA - perhaps even providing leadership. Instead, our spoiling tactics have earned us the disrespect and contempt of the movement. If the SWP have "hijacked" the leading role in the LSA, then we only have ourselves to blame. What is disorienting our activists is the lip service paid to the perspective of building a new mass workers' party. This clashes with the reality of our sectarian actions, which amount to no less than sabotage. The leadership needs to come clean and openly and frankly admit its errors at once. Failing that, we must call it to account and demand its immediate recall.

What then are we to make of the dishonesty found in The Socialist (May 12)? In a centre page article entitled 'Labour's meltdown is left's opportunity', my comrade Judy Beishon loyally serves Peter Taaffe, our general secreatry, by providing a so-called analysis of the current condition of the British body politic. Writing about the GLA elections, the comrade tells us: "The London Socialist Alliance also received 2.93% in the constituencies (46,530 votes) with Socialist Party member Ian Page receiving 3,981 of those votes in Greenwich and Lewisham. These are good votes for the left at this stage, but they strongly reinforce the argument of the Socialist Party for a united left list. A united list and a well-organised campaign would have achieved a vote greater than that of the fascist BNP (who received 2.87%) and would have achieved the 5% needed to gain an assembly seat" (my emphasis).

I cannot believe that our leaders are still trying to peddle the lie that the reason for failure to achieve a completely united slate lies with the LSA. It beggars belief that we have comrade Beishon attempting to piously drape our leadership in the raiments of left unity when, as has been consistently documented, well known individuals around the Taaffe-Mullins faction have attempted to wreck the LSA. Linda Taaffe, Glen Kelly, Peter Dickenson et al. We even had Arwyn Thomas standing against the LSA for CATP. Clearly, this leadership is never going to learn. Fortunately, the London rank and file are not stupid: nor are factional leaders like Tommy Sheridan and Alan McCombes in Scotland, nor is Dave Nellist in Coventry or Harry Paterson in Nottingham. They are able to observe these gyrations and are not fooled by loyalist apologetics. The danger is that instead of these elements coordinating a united rebellion, the Socialist Party will simply fragment.

At the aforementioned SWP gathering there were a number of recently resigned SPers, repelled by the sectarianism of our current stance, who have simply jumped ship and joined the SWP. It seems many are attracted by the SWP's recent opening up. Of course it is easy to sneer at the SWP zig-zags, as Peter Taaffe does on a regular basis, not least in his bitter and snide article in the recent edition of Socialism Today. But that is simply the pot calling the kettle black. The fact remains however that the correct response for SPers is to stay in the SP and fight for a correct orientation.

We should be sincerely working inside Socialist Alliance unity initiatives, doing our utmost to see that the SWP maintains its current course. We should be openly arguing - majority and minorities - at every stage for our ideas and engaging in debate to ensure that the strongest possible alternative to Blairism is on offer to our class.

With a general election fast approaching, the LSA has provided an impetus towards the exciting and very real possibility of an all-UK left challenge. What will be the reaction of our leadership towards such a formation? If it is anything other than enthusiastic support and active involvement, then our much trumpeted commitment to the creation of a new party of our class will be exposed as the hollow posturing that many of our non-loyalist members are coming to believe it is.

Comrades, it is not too late. We can still, at this late stage, play a leading role in the creation of a new left formation. Let us own up to our recent disasters, get ourselves a new, genuinely representative leadership, and join in a comradely fashion with those who are intent on building a real alternative to Blairism, not only in words but deeds. We have in the past - the poll tax, Kinnock's witch hunt, in Liverpool - shown our mettle. Let us not throw away our legacy and disappear into self-imposed sectarianism.

The choice is clear: principled unity or oblivion.