02.08.2000

Inclusive approach

Socialist Alliances look to Coventry

The Weekly Worker (May 25) carried my report of an open meeting in Manchester on May 20, organised by the Greater Manchester Socialist Alliance, on the theme, 'Should socialists participate in electoral alliances?'

This meeting, which took place in the wake of the successful London Socialist Alliance campaign in the Greater London Assembly elections, was attended by representatives of all of the major organisations that had come together in the LSA, with the exception of the Socialist Party in England and Wales. It was overwhelmingly enthusiastic at the prospect of a Socialist Alliance challenge in Manchester at the next parliamentary general election. But I warned that, before serious progress could be made in furtherance of this mood for unity and action, the GMSA would have to be transformed: "Its present exclusivist organisation and closed culture will be a major obstacle to the building of a genuine alliance of socialist organisations."

The GMSA is led by a group of political 'independents', comprised mainly of a number of former Manchester city councillors and a few middle class feminists, headed by John Nicholson, who is also the joint convenor of the Socialist Alliance network (England). At the July 15 meeting of the network's liaison committee he took the lead, on behalf of the officers of the network, in presenting the report on the Socialist Alliance and the general election.

It soon emerged that he had the support of the alliance's largest organisation, the Socialist Workers Party, in articulating a minimalist and centrally directed approach, driven by technical, resource factors, in opposition to a maximalist tactic, driven by the political necessity of fighting the biggest number of seats practicable, with the highest achievable national profile (see Weekly Worker July 20). This conservative turn by the leadership of the SWP, which is very clearly an organisation in flux, is disappointing. It is a turn that makes Manchester very important at this stage of the Socialist Alliance's development.

The observation made at the July 15 network liaison committee meeting by Dave Griffiths - of SPEW and Coventry and Warwickshire SA - that comrade Nicholson has a "grand plan" that is about burying the identities of the individual components of the alliance is of course quite true. Originally GMSA allowed for automatic representation on its steering committee for all its affiliates, which included the CPGB, SPEW, the Alliance for Workers' Liberty and the International Socialist Group. But this was rescinded in 1998, when the AGM itself elected the steering committee. 'Undesirable' elements were excluded. The first victim being the CPGB.

By the time of the 1999 AGM, SPEW in Manchester had collapsed in a rightwing liquidation led by Margaret Manning, GMSA's chair. A further constitutional change was carried, whereby the steering committee was reduced in number to the five officer positions only. The only elected officer with any political affiliation was now Chris Jones of the ISG. In addition affiliation and re-affiliation, together with individual membership applications, were subject to approval by the steering committee. Clearly GMSA has ceased to be an alliance in any real sense.

But Nicholson's grand plan had to be adjusted following the seismic changes in the SWP - an organisation which had of course previously declined to participate in GMSA. The adjustment was revealed at a GMSA members' meeting which took place on July 20. Billed as an "update" on progress since the May 20 gathering, and attended by representatives of all affiliates, as well as the 'independents', it received the minutes of a steering committee meeting held two days earlier, together with Nicholson's report on the SA network liaison committee meeting. The first revelation was the existence of a previously unknown plasticity in the officers-only steering committee. Recorded in the attendance list was the fact of the co-option to the committee of no less than three representatives of the SWP. Also back in the fold was Mark Catterall of the AWL.

It goes without saying that the presence of these two organisations is desirable. However, they ought to be represented by right, not through fiat - as should all affiliates. Yet the steering committee has been informed by Nicholson that he will be proposing a formal change to its composition at the forthcoming AGM, which is to take place on September 2. If approved, this would be that five officers and five other seats would be elected by the AGM, with a proviso that no more than 30% of the committee seats could be held by any one organisation. This is of course nothing more than a return to the 1998 formula, with a three-seat SWP replacing the then identically placed SPEW. The principle of inclusivity - ie, automatic representation of all affiliated organisations - would not be reinstated.

Nicholson clearly foresees principled opposition to this reworking of the exclusivist edifice coming only from the CPGB. He must be proven wrong. The cause of political unity will not be served, but obstructed, by this type of bureaucratic manoeuvring. The denial of representational rights to affiliates negates the very meaning of an alliance.

The CPGB will be proposing an alternative structure based upon a steering committee comprised of an equal number of recallable delegates from all affiliated political organisations, from local socialist alliances, and from other working class organisations affiliating to the regional alliance, which, before too long, will hopefully include trade union bodies. The committee would itself appoint any functional officers it deemed necessary. In other words, we will be advocating an alliance of the organised working class. The domination of independents, accountable only to themselves, or to their cliques, must end.

The next to useless value of GMSA's current exclusivist structure was amply demonstrated when the July 20 meeting received the leadership's report on prospects for the general election. What is being proposed is that just one seat in Greater Manchester, the unremarkable city constituency of Withington, be contested. My sources on the steering committee reliably inform me of an unminuted understanding that the candidate will be ... John Nicholson! The rationale adopted in arriving at this recommendation was the resource allocation measurement proposed by the Nicholson-SWP axis at the July 15 national liaison committee: ie, the requirement for about 150 local activists and funding of £4,000 per seat contested.

But this technically driven decision was immediately contradicted by another which is purely politically and aspirationally driven. The SWP, quite correctly, wants a contest in home secretary Jack Straw's Blackburn constituency. A challenge here holds the potential of raising the high political issues of who rules Britain and how. But, in Blackburn, and indeed central Lancashire as a whole, one would be hard pushed to find 20 left-of-Labour political activists, let alone 150!

An ambitious, high-profile, truly national general election campaign is needed in order to take the next major step in realising the potential of the socialist alliances as an arena for the party-building process. This will require far more than one seat to be fought in Manchester. It will also be aided by an early selection of candidates and a start to campaigning in their constituencies. This is the effective way to achieve the merger of electoral and campaigning work, which have been too often counterposed in more than one alliance.

The fetters so markedly crystallised in the Greater Manchester Socialist Alliance have to be decisively broken through to clear the way for such a step forward.

Uneven East

The latest round of meetings held by the Eastern Region Socialist Alliance has shown some promising, though limited, progress.

The alliance is developing in an uneven way, as reports made earlier this week to the steering committee illustrated. A meeting in Ipswich decided that the Socialist Alliance would contest elections (what type of elections was not decided), while in Peterborough the SA has not yet agreed its structure. The notable feature of the meeting in Peterborough was the cautious approach taken by the comrade from Cambridge SWP - indicative of the fact that some sections of the membership have yet to catch up with the election turn.

In Harlow there has been no formal decision to affiliate to the regional body, with some comrades preferring to build locally then affiliating straight to the national body - though the Harlow SWP is listed as an affiliate organisation. In Colchester, where the SA is at an embryonic stage there are nevertheless moves to establish a newsletter.

All this demonstrates the problems that can arise through relying exclusively on a 'bottom-up' approach. This, combined with uneven development, means that in theory ERSA could decide not to participate in elections, even though one of its constituent parts has already decided that it will.

The Eastern Region must take the initiative to establish a more coordinated approach. The nature of the region means that simply relying on local areas is too hit and miss, given the patchy presence of left groups. None of which is to rule out flexibility. However, in Cambridgeshire, for example, it has been proposed by the CPGB that the two areas where there is left organisation - Peterborough and Cambridge itself - should not leave the Fens up in the air, but should operate as part of a Cambridgeshire SA, in turn operating as a constituent part of ERSA.

The steering committee meeting received a report of the July 15 national gathering. The SWP criteria for standing (150 activists, etc) would most likely rule out any ERSA candidates, something that did not seem to unduly trouble most comrades. In my opinion it is completely unacceptable to exclude a whole region, if the Socialist Alliance wants to be considered a serious political force.

The flip side of this is that if the current state of affairs continues then local areas could do pretty much as they please. The caution of both the SWP and Socialist Party was noticeable in this respect, with the idea being raised that standing may be "premature". This is reinforced by those who do not see the need to make elections our main focus in this period.

The national conference on September 30 in Coventry will go a long way to addressing these issues, although how the steering committee of ERSA will relate to this has yet to be resolved. It is likely that the national event will have an impact on ERSA's conference, which is scheduled for October 28.

The arrangements and structures for this will be discussed in more detail at the next meeting of the steering committee.

London waits

Everyone is now awaiting the outcome of the September 30 Socialist Alliance conference in Coventry. That was evident at last Tuesday's London Socialist Alliance steering committee meeting and it perhaps explains why most leading SWPers were absent (holidays after Marxism 2000 might also be a factor). In view of this, there was no clarification about their ongoing negotiations with the Scottish Socialist Party.

Most of the business came in the form of details from sub-committees, report-backs and discussion around building the membership of borough Socialist Alliances. A number of local SAs have been having (re)establish-ment meetings - Southwark, Lambeth, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Havering.

In reporting on the meeting of the liaison committee of the Socialist Alliance (England), LSA secretary Greg Tucker and chair Marcus Larsen reminded comrades that in order to have voting rights at Coventry individuals must sign up as members to the Socialist Alliance.

The committee decided to work towards the establishment of a youth committee, and, in response to a suggestion from the London Socialist Solidarity Network, agreed to support a campaign against anti-abortion group Precious Life. Other discussions included our attitude to labour lefts (moved by the AWL) and immigration controls (moved by Red Action).

One other theme was the lack of formal representation of borough alliances on the committee. Comrades from both the CPGB and the Socialist Party - and ex-SPer, now independent, Nick Wrack - pointed out that this remained a glaring anomaly in the structure of the alliance.

All developments await the outcome of the Coventry meeting. It is there where comrades from around the UK who wish to take on Blair in the ballot box in the next election should congregate to hammer out an ambitious, UK-wide campaign of 100 candidates and more. Given that the SSP is aiming for all 72 seats in Scotland, we can collectively reach that - and move beyond to put socialism back on the political agenda.