WeeklyWorker

07.06.2000

Simon Harvey of the SLP

Dead in the water Scargill's disorganised organisation

At last the Socialist Labour Party's national executive has been forced to admit - at least implicitly - what has been common knowledge amongst what remains of our active membership: our numbers are continuing to decline and our 'organisation' is in disarray.

The May 13 NEC - the first since February - agreed that "effective, efficient organisation/administration at every level must be a priority" (SLP Information Bulletin May-June). If you read on, you soon discover the reason why, as examples of a chronic lack of communication are outlined: "There is nothing more frustrating than learning second-hand that SLP members are involved in struggle (of whatever kind) and haven't let the party know first and foremost."

Even worse, the leadership had not been informed of the outcome of an action that ought to have been planned and coordinated well in advance: "At the time of the meeting, the NEC was not in a position, nor is it yet as this bulletin is being prepared, to present a proper report of the May 4 local election results which had been available at election counts."

Let us be clear what is being said here: more than a week after the elections in England, the NEC has no idea of our results. Clearly communication from branch to region and from region to centre is practically non-existent. The anonymous writer - but presumably Scargill himself - laments the fact that only "results from one region, Yorkshire, had been received prior to the NEC".

Obviously neither Constituency SLPs nor regions have got their act together. But why was it not possible for executive members to spend a couple of hours ringing around to find out the results for themselves? Well, the answer is that in all likelihood the NEC did not have the complete picture of the areas in which we were standing candidates to begin with. Be that as it may, in the absence of any details, we are blandly assured that "SLP comrades achieved some impressive results".

One city where the details were available was of course London, whose results were published in the national press. The report comments that the SLP returns of "nearly one percent" were "disappointing", compared with the 1.8% obtained in the 1999 EU elections in the capital. This is put down to the fact that, apart from the lack of a broadcast and free delivery of the election address to voters' homes, "we were competing with three other organisations for the 'left' vote".

This unfortunate state of affairs is passed over without further comment. The writer certainly does not inform members that the London Socialist Alliance - which achieved double our vote for the PR seats and did even better in the constituencies - made repeated attempts to draw together a common slate, but was studiously ignored by our party.

I too am not in possession of all Socialist Labour's results. But from those I have seen, with one or two exceptions our returns were nothing to write home about. For instance, we stood four candidates for the metropolitan council of Kirklees, West Yorkshire, which includes Huddersfield and neighbouring Colne Valley. All of them received between 2.0% and 2.6%. As I say, hardly "impressive".

But what was unusual about our challenge in Kirklees was the fact that, although our comrades appeared on the ballot paper as "Socialist Labour", they were actually an integral part of Huddersfield Socialist Alliance, which also included a candidate from the Socialist Party and two from Kirklees Council Watch (the four SLP comrades were also listed as members of KCW). A Huddersfield Socialist Alliance election leaflet made clear that the alliance was "supporting the candidature" of all seven, referring to them throughout as "our candidates". Interestingly, two of the SLPers are coopted members of NEC standing committees, and both are on record as supporting cooperation with other left organisations. Graham Hellawell (113 votes in Birkby ward) put forward a motion at our final annual congress last November calling for agreements to be struck for socialists "not to stand against each other", and for "a comradely dialogue with other on the left". Such talk is anathema for Arthur Scargill, and our general secretary saw to it that the motion was resoundingly defeated.

Alan Brooke (76 votes in Paddock) proposed that the SLP avoid "sectarian ideas and methods in dealing with fellow socialists [like the SP] and democratic and progressive forces [like KCW] both inside and outside the party". Needless to say, his motion was also overwhelmingly voted down - with a little help from the 3,000 block votes of the North West, Cheshire and Cumbria Miners Association, which swamped the votes of the 290 individual members represented.

Undoubtedly large sections of the membership have shown a consistent non-sectarian instinct over the years, and Scargill has had his work cut out in trying to snuff it out. Comrades like those in Huddersfield and Colne Valley are to be commended for putting the broader interests of the working class before the personal ambitions of our general secretary, even if for the moment their principled stand did not reap much reward by way of votes.

It is patently obvious that the way ahead lies through such cooperation. Recent elections, particularly in London and Scotland, have shown that the go-it-alone approach is now dead in the water.

King Canute

The inability of our party to coordinate over the local elections is actually symptomatic of a wider malaise. Organisation and administration has been hit by the catastrophic membership loss we have suffered since 1997. And now the NEC has finally admitted that all is not well with the internal publication of a survey of lapsed members, 'Looking after our party's membership' (see left).

The report does not (of course) give any hard figures - either for the total of lapsed members or for those surveyed - but clearly the very fact that we are talking in terms of percentages indicates a rather large number. Obviously this gives the lie to Scargill's pathetic claims of uninterrupted membership growth year on year. As readers can see, 31% of lapsed members were simply neglected. I suspect there is a certain overlap here with the further 29% who admitted to a "loss of interest and/or disillusionment". But the problem is not simply organisational, as Scargill seems to think.

Overwhelmingly the "disillusionment" of comrades has been political - not least in respect to discontent over the internal regime. This has been the root cause of the "loss of interest"- in addition to the complaints of "leadership interference" and "outright hostility".

It does not seem to have occurred to Scargill that those who are now hostile or weary of his own heavy-handedness have become so as a result of their own experiences in the SLP. For him such comrades, and those who left because of "infighting", can largely be dismissed as "members of other political parties/organisations". The remarks in the survey's conclusion concerning the London region seem to indicate that he now regards the former leadership in the capital as falling under that category.

He is referring to comrades Patrick Sikorski, Brian Heron and Carolyn Sikorski, who ran the London region until they ignominiously crawled out of the party last year. All were leading founder-members. Patrick Sikorski was the first general secretary and later vice-president. Collectively they were known as the Fourth International Supporters Caucus (Fisc), a name they adopted when they were supporters of the United Secretariat of the 'Fourth International'. In the SLP they acted in unison and coordinated their agreed stance on all party questions, including their 1998 'Appeal for a special conference'.

What is wrong with that? Nothing - except that they themselves were in the forefront of the witch hunt against alleged members and supporters of "other political parties" (primarily people branded as CPGB) all the while denying that Fisc existed. And Scargill ignored all protests at this hypocrisy. He did the same over the supporters of the Economic and Philosophic Science Review, whose homophobic editor, Royston Bull, was elected vice-president as part of Scargill's move against Fisc. They too were dubbed 'members of another party' when their usefulness as leadership sycophants no longer suited.

Today Scargill's main allies in London are the tiny band of ultra-Stalinites who follow Harpal Brar, the regional president. Comrade Brar was previously a leading figure in both the Association of Communist Workers and the Association of Indian Communists - organisations which amalgamated to become the Association of Communists prior to 'dissolving' themselves in order to join the SLP in 1997.

Ironically, it was comrade Brar at the May NEC who "reported that there was work to be done in regenerating the party in London following the serious damage caused by people (no longer members) who had previously controlled the organisation". Brar should consider the fact that, like himself, Fisc had once been assiduously promoted by Scargill.

Unless there is a fundamental change of course, we cannot hope to halt the defections, let alone 'regenerate' the party. Without such a turn, away from the disastrous sectarianism and internal dictatorship that has wrecked our structure, Scargill, for all his appeals for efficiency, will be as powerless as King Canute to stem the tide.

The SLP Information Bulletin (May-June) contains this damning survey of decline. Scargill's 'conclusion' banks on "winning back" those who have left

SLP North West regional secretary Ian Johnson, together with a couple of other comrades, carried out an exercise last year on party membership, designed to discover the reasons why people who took a decision to join the SLP had not remained members.

Ian has produced a very useful and revealing survey based on the proportion of lapsed members he contacted. He found that:

Conclusion

It should be a priority for our party to undertake the task of winning back into membership the 31% which Ian Johnson discovered left the SLP because of feeling isolated - or due to the party's oversight in not re-signing them. It should also be possible to win back a majority - if not all - of the 29% which left the SLP due to a loss of interest or a sense of disillusionment with lack of the party's progress. Add these percentages, and 60% of those surveyed by Ian are still at the very least potential supporters of our party who could and should be won back into membership.

It is likely that the 17% who left because of "infighting" and "leadership interference" includes some people who were all the time members of other political parties or organisations; we know that this has certainly been the case in the London region.

The nine percent who left due to policy disagreements, particularly in respect of Ireland and immigration, obviously found themselves in fundamental conflict over principle.

The five percent who left because of outright hostility to the SLP most certainly includes members of other political parties/organisations, and admissions to this effect have been made at public meetings in London, Wales and Yorkshire.

Ian Johnson should be congratulated for analysing the results of work he undertook on behalf of the national party: it indicates the organisational challenge that our regions and CSLPs must meet in order to consolidate the party's base, which in turn is essential for our development and growth.

It must be a priority for regions, working together with CSLPs, to maintain contact with everyone who joins the Socialist Labour Party and to seek to win back all those who have left due to feelings of isolation and/or lack of involvement.