05.07.2000

London Socialist Alliance

Mountain to climb

The newly elected and expanded steering committee of the London Socialist Alliance had its first meeting on Tuesday July 4. In a mood of surprising and encouraging consensus the committee got down to the serious tasks confronting us in the lead-up to the general election which could be as early as May 2001.

While there was little room on the agenda for extensive debate, a number of underlying political issues that we will need to face over the coming months emerged. These are principally around our attitude to Labour left candidates, the scope of our national campaign and whether this should be English, English-Welsh, all-Britain, or all-UK.

The committee was expanded by one, as the application to affiliate by Red Action was accepted - with only one dissenting vote. Of the 35 members of the committee, 25 were present, with three apologies.

The main business of the meeting was given over to discussing our recent success in the Tottenham by-election, where the LSA retained its deposit. This discussion was strengthened by a paper from Mike Marqusee on future electoral work. Comrade Marqusee laid out the tasks before us to get a real campaign machine up and running.

"All I can say is we've got a mountain to climb," said comrade Marqusee, focusing the minds of the committee members. To be effective for a May election we need to have structures in place by October. Fundamentally, he continued, the socialist alliance project is on trial. Our immediate goal in terms of electoral results is to win deposits and to continue campaigning, to raise the profile of alliances in the process of fighting the general election: "The real prizes will come later - in by-elections, the 2002 council elections and the 2003 European elections."

Comrade Marqusee's paper was welcomed by the committee, with comrades supporting his suggested approach. Speaking against any temptation to lower our horizons to localism, John Bulaitis of the London Socialist Solidarity Network said: "We need to think in a party sense, not just in a local sense - building in pockets were we are strong."

While the best candidates have already built up a track record in the local community (as had Weyman Bennett), by selecting candidates now we can build their credibility through campaigning from now until the election itself. For that reason, there is a great urgency to establish borough socialist alliances and pre-select candidates as soon as possible. That process will begin over the next few weeks, with the contacts made during the GLA election being visited and local meetings booked. Primarily, this will rely on the initiative of the LSA's constituent organisations. While many individuals are becoming attracted to the LSA, a lot of that support remains passive. It is our responsibility to tap into that potential to make the local organisations a living reality. They will be the backbone of our election campaigning and essential for raising the minimum £4,000 per seat needed to run an effective campaign.

Pointing out the fact that as socialists we still have a way to move up the learning curve to run elections, comrade Marqusee also suggested a day school in October/November on elections. This was supported by comrade Greg Tucker, LSA secretary, who suggested inviting comrades from Coventry who have been successful in winning council seats as socialists.

All of this will, of course, need serious money. And this will involve extending our reach, especially into the trade unions. Kate Ford of Workers Power said that the time was ripe for this as the union-link to the Labour Party was becoming "politically hot". She mentioned the CWU conference threatening to withdraw financial support from Labour if it privatises the Post Office; and the fact that CWU delegates censured the national treasurer for freezing the funds of the North West London branch which wanted to give money to the LSA for the GLA elections.

A discussion around local organisation concluded that there needs to be one officer and sub-committee to be responsible for membership and borough coordination and one officer and sub-committee to be responsible for election coordination.

Dave Osler, an independent member of the committee, agreed that the left was relearning how to engage in serious political activity. He said that throughout the 1990s "since the poll tax" the left had an "inability to intersect with the mainstream political agenda". To do this effectively, we would need a structure, a permanent office, full-time staff, a thought-through budget.

Such eagerness to overcome our amateurism is just what we need to push the alliance project forward. But it will also need to be wed to an equally professional approach to politics and programmatic debate. Technical expertise will not be enough to become a serious pole of attraction.

In the context of our perspectives discussion, the CPGB presented a motion calling on the LSA to work towards an all-UK conference for a united socialist election campaign. The purpose of the motion is to initiate discussions and negotiations with different socialist alliances, organisations and forces in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There was minimal debate on the motion, and it was laid on the table to act as a contribution to an ongoing discussion. This will become particularly relevant on Saturday July 15 when the liaison committee of the Socialist Alliance network (England) meets in London. Greg Tucker, or another LSA officer, will represent the LSA at the meeting.

To stand in a London election, the LSA could get away with a minimalist, economistic platform - although this was woefully inadequate. But in a Westminster election, issues such as the House of Lords, the monarchy and self-determination for Ireland, Scotland and Wales will be impossible to avoid.

Martin Thomas of the Alliance for Workers' Liberty presented a motion which sought to include the strapline 'a workers' voice' on all LSA propaganda. This hobbyhorse of the AWL was rejected as being overly prescriptive, not allowing the LSA to react concretely to concrete developments.

Part of the AWL motion was laid on the table. This specifically refers to our tactical approach to Labour candidates. It states: "The LSA should issue a statement offering full and active electoral support to all Labour and independent Labour election candidates who are prepared to commit themselves publicly to supporting all workers' struggles and specifically championing: rebuilding a proper, comprehensive welfare state by taxing the rich; ending PFI in the NHS and privatisation of education; full trade union rights; repeal of the Asylum and Immigration Act."

This was not debated. However, the approach is broadly correct. We cannot give Labour lefts a blank cheque. We must approach them with some minimal platform of working class defence. If they support such a platform, we could legitimately consider supporting them. If not, we can hardly ask the working class to vote for a candidate that will not defend them.

Given that the International Socialist Group - Greg Tucker, Dave Packer, etc - wants to give the Labour lefts a public endorsement without any dialogue in front of the class, and others, such as Red Action, will have no truck with any vote for Labour, the discussion will have informative programmatic lessons.

Other tasks set by conference were taken up. The LSA will apply to affiliate to the Campaign to Defend Asylum-Seekers. Dot Gibson will be our representative. We will also affiliate to the committee organising the lobby of the next Labour Party conference. Only Red Action opposed. And a comrade will be representing the LSA on the committee organising the demonstrations against the IMF in Prague in September.

A motion from the Socialist Party "assessing the strengths of the LSA after the June 11 conference" was passed. This calls for details of union and political affiliation, as well as the geographical spread of our activists, to be analysed, with a view to determining "how those forces could be mobilised in future campaigns". The motion also calls upon the LSA to "ask the affiliated political organisations to provide" information of their members at conference. Of course, this cannot be binding on organisations.

The SP comrades there were more positive than of late, although you could not help feeling they were not yet quite there in the same spirit as others.

Officers and committees were elected at the end of the meeting. Greg Tucker was re-elected secretary, while Marcus Larsen (CPGB) remains chair. Rob Hoveman (SWP) was re-elected treasurer and John Rees (also SWP) retained the press officer post. Mike Marqusee is now elections coordinator. Mark Hoskisson (WP) was elected union coordinator and Dave Packer is membership coordinator.

Backward step

This contribution appeared on the International Socialist tendency opposition internet list

I am not in London, so I get my news about the London Socialist Alliance second and third hand. But there are some things I am very concerned about in its current direction.

I think the comrades who object to its 'reformist' character are missing the point a little. The creation of a serious pole of attraction to the left of the Labour Party, even a reformist one, would be a real victory for revolutionaries in this country, provided a couple of provisos were met. The first would be that the LSA began to secure real support from the labour movement (ie, it did not simply degenerate into yet another recombination of the tired and disillusioned forces that have basically given up on the class struggle at least once already), and the second would be that the formation ensured democratic internal functioning and allowed space for the revolutionaries within it to advocate, and organise for, the building of a genuine mass revolutionary party (and for whatever other demands they want to advocate, as well). That is, it is not necessary for the LSA itself to be a revolutionary organisation, any more than we should insist on particular unions advocating 'revolutionary' positions - we work within the mass labour movement as it is, and try to bring it into action even while it retains its reformist character; we do not abstain from the task of building the labour movement because it is not yet sufficiently revolutionary.

However, the LSA conference (or whatever it was) a couple of weeks ago took a couple of decisions which I think were a mistake in this respect. Candidates of the LSA are no longer to be permitted to inform the electorate whose votes they are soliciting which constituent part of the LSA they are a member of. Secondly, and alongside this, activists canvassing for support for the LSA are not permitted to sell or give out their own organisation's publications, supplementary leaflets or whatever.

This is an approach put forward by a number of the 'independent' activists within the LSA. That makes some sense, although it is a step backwards in terms of democracy (the sale of left material whilst canvassing for Labour Party candidates was permitted for about the first 90 years of the LP's existence; the LSA has banned it within 12 months of formation). But the proposals were supported strongly by the Socialist Workers Party! As a result they were carried, against the votes of other revolutionary groups present, such as the Alliance for Workers' Liberty and the CPGB, both of whom argued - correctly, I think - that to hide the individual groups under the banner of the LSA made us look shady and dishonest, as well as weakened the ability of the alliance to withstand internal disagreements about issues. If only the approved publicity can be distributed, what happens when people diagree with the LSA on a particular issue? Majority rule? Rights for space in publications for minorities? Nothing is very clear.

Could someone who is in the SWP explain why the SWP voted and argued for this position, which seems to be bad for the LSA - but particularly bad for the revolutionaries within the LSA?

To subscribe to the ISO/SWP opposition list, contact
interim.iso@list.bot.com