WeeklyWorker

19.07.2000

100 plus

The socialist and revolutionary left in Britain is in the strongest position it has been in for years to mount an ambitious and united campaign in the forthcoming general election, which could come as early as May. Nevertheless, obstacles of amateurishness, sectarianism, economism, a tendency to lower horizons, and concessions to nationalism need to be overcome for the left to forcefully put itself back on the political map. It is time to re-establish the left on a solid footing - and we can do so in part through contesting elections.

With the government this week starting to set out its election stall, the liaison committee of the Socialist Alliance network (England) met in London on July 15 to begin mapping out our strategy. In a four-hour meeting, comrades representing eight political organisations plus a smattering of socialist alliances across England committed the network to contest the United Kingdom's next general election.

September 30 was set as the date for a conference in Coventry to concretise our plans. Different approaches will be debated and a common strategy decided upon. At the London meeting two main approaches emerged. One was broadly maximalist: aiming to fight the biggest number of seats practicable with the highest achievable national profile. The other was minimalist: limiting the number of seats to be contested to those with the "best chance of demonstrable electoral gain" (according to the document presented by national officer John Nicholson).

There are further differences. The 'minimalists' argued for a more centrally directed campaign. Comrade Nicholson's document, which opened our discussion, laid down a number of "conditions" to be "fulfilled" before a seat could be considered.

In short, Nicholson's position (backed by the Socialist Workers Party and the International Socialist Group) declares that those intending to contest a seat must:

The logic of this is to stand in very few seats. Comrade Greg Tucker of the ISG, the London Socialist Alliance secretary, put forward the figure of 20 or 30 constituencies. Correctly, comrade Toby Abse of the Independent Labour Network said that such a figure was "below the level of visibility".

The whole minimalist approach was to present technical problems first before considering a strategy. Our approach needs to be the other way around. We need to fight for what is politically necessary in order to re-establish a socialist pole of attraction at an all-UK level, and then discuss what technical and political barriers stand in our way. Undoubtedly there will be obstacles. But overcoming them needs to become part of our strategy.

The 'maximalist' position, as argued by the Communist Party of Great Britain and the Socialist Party in England and Wales, is to fight for the highest possible number of candidates through the unity of the groups and individuals under the banner of the Socialist Alliance. This implies a coordinating and enabling role for the network, not the setting of a priori proscriptions as to whether a campaign is feasible. That is best judged on the ground as events unfold.

Comrade Nicholson suggested that the intervention of the Socialist Labour Party in the 1997 general election made "little impact" and that the success of the London Socialist Alliance in retaining its deposit in its first Westminster intervention was "unprecedented". Both are untrue. First of all, in the SLP's first by-election it retained its deposit. While most of the lessons we can learn from the SLP are of a negative nature, the ambitious approach of comrade Scargill meant that the SLP established itself as the main left electoral force for a brief time. This was before his paranoid sectarianism killed the thing.

The SLP established itself in an election where the main impulse of an atomised working class was to 'get the Tories out'. So to have retained four deposits in the 1997 general election was a good achievement. Much of this was down to Scargill's brave call for 100 candidates across Britain. The SLP contested 68 constituencies in the end. While the forthcoming election might be more difficult than the GLA election, where we were able, to some extent, to ride on the Livingstone bandwagon, and more difficult than the Tottenham by-election, it will certainly be easier than the 1997 election, where there was a much smaller layer of those disillusioned with New Labour.

We should be aiming to reach far beyond the achievements of the SLP's intervention by uniting the left across the whole of the UK. While an election broadcast is not the be-all-and-end-all, it is certainly achievable, and, as the SLP showed, can make a real impact. The Scottish Socialist Party is aiming to contest 70 seats: that is, every constituency in Scotland. Here is a real lead ... together we could surely make big advances.

This calls for the widest possible challenge - not just in England, but across the UK. Such unity would be given a big boost if, for example, comrades from SSP branches, the Welsh Socialist Alliance, and socialist forces in Northern Ireland were to attend the Coventry conference.

For the SWP to be in the minimalist camp is a disappointment. Lindsay German said that we ought to be "quite cautious". Clearly, the SWP has not learnt the lessons of the London elections. Part of the reason for our modest but significant success was that we presented a London-wide alternative. We stood everywhere, not just places where we had local activists, a candidate with a long local record, etc. In Redbridge we began with four supporters. However, the SWP is not united on this issue: there are those who support a more ambitious approach. Either way, it is possible for revolutionaries to achieve an excellent propaganda impact with a small core of committed activists at the start of the campaign.

Revolutionaries stand in elections principally for this purpose. Of course, the result is important, because it is a snapshot of those who support socialist ideas. As Lenin said, because contesting elections is the lowest form of struggle it can take on greater importance in periods of low-level class struggle, such as now. Getting ideas across is the main task, and for that creating a national pole of attraction is crucial.

The left seems paralysed by the success of the Greens and the growing impact of the British National Party: 'Just how do they do it?' One thing is certain: neither has 150 activists wherever they stand.

A truly national campaign will allow us to emphasise our key strength. Our socialist vision provides a universal answer. This is the strength of the Greens: they present a global response to current society, albeit often in a reactionary direction.

Where the economistic left could get away with steering clear of high politics in by-elections and even in the GLA, this will be virtually impossible in a general election. Self-determination for Scotland and Wales; abolition of the monarchy and the house of lords; proportional representation; annual parliaments; freedom of information: these and many other democratic issues will need to be championed by Socialist Alliance candidates.

The officers of the Socialist Alliance will be preparing a discussion document on our general election platform for Coventry. (Organisations are encouraged to contribute documents to the September 30 conference, although no vote on the platform is envisaged until February.) September will also see the election of two vice-chairs "to redress some gender and geographical imbalance among elected officers". Rob Hoveman of the SWP was nominated by Marcus Larsen as a temporary vice-chair. The main imbalance being redressed was, of course, political.

A willingness to work together was evident at the liaison committee meeting. Nevertheless, there are underlying tensions, particularly between the SWP and SP. Dave Griffiths of Coventry Socialist Party played the positive role of clearing the air. He criticised John Nicholson for having a "grand plan" that was about burying the identities of the individual components of the alliance. In contrast he argued for a coordinating role.

Backing up comrade Larsen's call for any agreed platform to be acceptable to the SA components (rather than needing agreement), comrade Griffiths emphasised the right of organisations to put forward their own propaganda. He highlighted some "unresolved issues", such as Workers Power sitting on the steering committee of the LSA, while it had previously called for a Labour vote against Dave Nellist. He asked: "What is the real agenda of the different organisations?" In comments directed at the SWP, he questioned whether groups that had recently joined the alliance project had an ongoing commitment. There were suspicions and, he said, it takes time to build trust. Pointedly, he repeated concerns raised at 'Marxism' by former Labour NEC member Liz Davies as to whether the SWP were on a 'raiding party' in the SA.

To underline the SP approach, comrade Hannah Sell presented a motion which described the Socialist Alliance not as "a party, but a federal network that aims to cooperate on a consensual basis".

Certainly for organisations to display a full commitment to the project they must have a stake. The CPGB is hardly going to empty its coffers if we have no candidates. There needs to be agreement reached at the top about this, otherwise the election campaign as an inclusive project - as it was in London - is just not going to happen. It will collapse into an SWP front.

Recognising past suspicions, Lindsay German assured the meeting that the SWP would not swamp the Coventry meeting. She also tried to assure comrades that the SWP did have a commitment for the foreseeable future. What that means is unclear. And here is a central problem for the project. The SWP, which still thinks of itself as the party, has no theorised approach to the socialist alliances. The Taaffe/Mullins wing of the SP - bitten by their Scotland experience - see the alliances as potential rivals to their 'small mass party' approach. The Alliance for Workers' Liberty and Workers Power seem to have entered the project on a purely empirical basis.

London, for the CPGB, provides the model. It is based on the coming together of the revolutionary organisations. We must use our unity as a means of revolutionary rapprochement around a Partyist project.

Another issue raised at the meeting was our attitude to marginal seats and Labour Party left candidates. Dave Packer of the ISG presented an amendment to John Nicholson's strategy document calling for a blanket ban on opposing Labour lefts and for an abstention in marginal seats.

The issue of marginals was quickly hit on the head. Dave Nellist remarked that his own seat was marginal. And John Bridge of the CPGB pointed out that it was Dave Nellist himself who had made it so. We must realise that, when we become successful in challenging Labour, we make seats marginal by our activity. Comrades should remember that Labour lost the Camden and Barnet GLA seat by less than the vote for the LSA's Candy Udwin.

To move the process forward, all motions were withdrawn. The officers will now consult with affiliates and other forces. This will involve declarations of intent as to how many candidates organisations will be standing. Given the SSP's 70, the fact that the SP stood 29 in the last general election, and with the CPGB considering a number of seats, there is potential to set our sights on 100 plus.

The stage is now set. An ambitious, all-UK campaign under the Socialist Alliance banner, with, as a minimum, the number of candidates necessary to secure a TV broadcast, is what is required. Socialists from across Britain should attend the September 30 Coventry conference to make this a reality.

Marcus Larsen