18.01.2001

Socialist Alliance

Cambridgeshire SP censured

Fallout from Saturday's Liaison Committee dominated our January 16 meeting. On the table was a resolution from the CPGB that sought to correct some of the damage done by the Liaison Committee acceptance of the deal struck between the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Party over the 14 disputed constituencies in which the Socialist Party unilaterally declared its candidates, cocking a snook at the Coventry protocol and the democratic selection process locally.

The motion condemned this and called for all SP candidates to immediately submit themselves to a selection meeting in the long-term interests of the alliance project. Many would be selected anyway, as they were the most credible, but democracy is not to be considered a formality or an optional extra : it is an integral part of building trust within the alliance between the different component parts and therefore vital to the long-term health of the project.

Although the motion acknowledged the fact that the Liaison Committee decision, taken on January 13, was well intentioned, it felt that it was "ultimately wrong". Consequently, while recognising that it was not desirable for nomination papers, issued by the SA at the weekend, to be withdrawn from candidates who had not been selected locally, it called for the Liaison Committee to acknowledge it was incorrect and to formally censure the Socialist Party for actions that were "contrary to the interests of the alliance project and the working class as a whole".

Moving the motion, Darrell Goodliffe, who had been the Cambridgeshire delegate to the Liaison meeting, acknowledged that he himself had been wrong to vote for this deal. He felt that "the unity that now existed was false". The main opposition to the motion came from SWP members.

Whilst being annoyed at the conduct of the Socialist Party, whose Cambridge branch has refused to give any practical assistance and has yet to attend an SA meeting, public or otherwise, they felt that this was not a way to build an alliance "that went beyond the existing organisations".

Comrade Liz also questioned whether the Liaison Committee had the time for continued debate on this question. However, the situation has wide-ranging implications for the future of the project and so is not to be brushed aside. It was pointed out that the sort of alliance the SWP wants cannot be built by meekly accepting the self-proclaimed right of one organisation to dictate to other comrades, whether or not they are members of supporting organisations. Non-aligned comrades in those areas which have had candidates imposed on them will certainly feel disenfranchised.

The main difference is therefore not on principle, but whether the motion on the table constituted the best way to deal with this issue. The feeling that this was a line in the sand was advanced by proponents of the motion. The danger is that one mistake could escalate and have serious effects on the long-term health of the alliance if it is not acknowledged. Making unprincipled concessions cannot ensure that there will be no SP walkout. On the contrary, it undermines the SA's integrity and gives strength to those comrades within the SP who are hostile to the alliance. Their threat to break up the SA has seen the majority cave in.

When the final vote was taken it was two comrades that are not members of any political organisation who tilted the balance decisively in favour of the motion. Overall five votes were cast in favour, which included two CPGB, a comrade from the AWL who was attending for the first time, and the two non-aligned comrades. The two SWP comrades voted against, along with one non-aligned comrade. There were four abstentions: two from the Socialist Workers Students Society and two other non-aligned comrades. This motion will now be circulated to all local alliances.

Darrell Goodliffe

Greater Manchester
Debate eclipsed

Greater Manchester Socialist Alliance's monthly membership meeting on January 9 was, quite literally, gripped by lunacy.

Twice, the chair, rightwing independent Norma Turner, led exits from the meeting for the purpose of gazing at the eclipse. What occurred the first time though, as an agreed and disciplined 10 minutes adjournment, was repeated 45 minutes later as a meeting-wrecking farce.

Comrade Turner had proposed to close the meeting after just one hour and 10 minutes of business, with the previously agreed discussion on red versus green politics to be deferred for a month. When this move was rejected, proceedings continued until the moment when the comrade delegated to introduce the discussion, Margaret Manning, was called upon to commence. Comrade Turner immediately explained that she was excusing herself in order to review the celestial phenomenon, but suggested that the meeting continue in her absence. Her egress was quickly followed by that of comrade Manning herself and then all bar two of the Socialist Workers Party members who formed the gathering's largest contingent group. The meeting was left in a state of irrecoverable disarray.

To his credit, GMSA convenor and joint convenor of the Socialist Alliance network, John Nicholson, did not support the walkout. He remained in his seat, looking decidedly embarrassed. Contrarily, the behaviour of the SWP comrades calls into question that organisation's claim to be the committed leadership of a permanent project aimed at constructing a working class alternative to Tony Blair's New Labour. The SWP's childishness was no doubt, in the first instance occasioned by its failure for the first time since it came on board to turn out a majority for the general meeting, the sovereign body of the GMSA.

The second and deciding factor in prompting the wrecking move, I believe, was the muscle-flexing which we witnessed from the revolutionary left, which is at last starting to show some signs of political coalescence. Comrades of the CPGB, the Alliance for Workers' Liberty, the International Socialist League and Workers Power, together with two non-aligned left revolutionaries, constituted half of the 22-strong meeting. The SWP had eight members present and the balance was held by three officers, comrades Nicholson, Manning and Turner.

Controversy had first surfaced with criticism of the crass reformist content of propaganda leaflets produced by the SWP for use in the two Manchester constituencies which have so far been chosen for general election contests, Withington and Blackley. The draft of the Withington leaflet had already been challenged, at the previous general meeting. This was because, although it contained the 'bullet points' list of demands agreed at the AGM, crucially the following sentence had been omitted: "These are our immediate priorities. We recognise that, to build a society where the enormous wealth that exists is used for the benefit of all, it will be necessary to overthrow our current system based on profit and greed and replace it with an international one based on cooperation and meeting human need."

The omission had been explained as an error at the previous meeting. However, it now fell to comrade Ann Robertson, leading the SWP group in the absence of John Baxter, who had tendered his apologies, to explain why not only the Withington leaflet, but now also a new one for the Blackley seat, had both been printed with the same omission. The uncorrected printer's plate must have been wrongly used, ventured Ann, unconvincingly.

The leaflets make no mention at all of the fight for socialism and the necessity of the revolutionary self-emancipation of the working class. This is clearly no accident, but represents a conscious political approach by the SWP, which has decided that this is the way to win the imagined hordes of dissident but dyed-in-the-wool social democrats, whose company they crave. The method was vociferously attacked by an ex-Socialist Party comrade, Steve Wallis, who rightly counterposed a strategy of winning workers simultaneously to the Socialist Alliance and to revolutionary politics. Comrade Robertson countered that we first need to engage presently non-revolutionary workers, before we can gain a hearing for revolutionary politics.

Unfortunately, the left's coalescence has not progressed far enough yet for it to resist the closing down intervention that came from Norma 'I am not having a debate on this item' Turner. The AWL for instance had, only recently, unanimously voted for the SWP-backed candidate in the Withington selection, the reformist independent, John Clegg, against Workers Power's Bill Jefferies, who had stood on an explicitly revolutionary platform. Criticisms of the SWP's reformism, and of its manipulative bureaucratism, are still tempered by a reticence arising from fears that they might clear off and leave us all high and dry.

A more definitive, albeit temporary, victory was won by the left, when John Nicholson proposed the suspension, after February, of general meetings in favour of ad hoc meetings in the selected constituencies. This would of course leave the non-inclusive steering committee with unchallengeable executive power for the whole of the pre-election period. Ironically at last September's AGM the sovereign power of the general meeting, where all the groups are represented, was used to argue that there was no need for automatic seats for all political groups on the steering committee. A constitution enshrining this was forced through by the SWP majority. Protests against comrade Nicholson's move, led by John Pearson of the CPGB and Pete Money of the ISL, prompted comrade Turner to rule that the motion could not be put to a vote on the grounds that it had not been tabled in advance of the meeting.

Nobody except the incurably naive can have supposed that the long elusive prize of unity of the left would be a bed of roses. There should be no recriminations amongst the comrades in Manchester over the farcical episode that was our first gathering of 2001.

Rather there should be a shared resolve to strive for thorough and unrestricted debate; freedom of criticism; openness and accountability of comrades carrying out delegated duties; and an ever strengthening unity in action.

John Pearson

London
Moving up a gear

In its first meeting of 2001, on January 16, the steering committee of the London Socialist Alliance resolved to tighten up its working procedures, to henceforth ensure that more decisions reached in committee are actually implemented. As correctly pointed out by a Workers Power representative, a list of things the committee had resolved to do placed alongside the things that had actually got done would make pretty embarrassing reading.

The criticism of this amateur, ad hoc manner of functioning was made during an agenda item on the role of the committee during the looming general election. This huge challenge helped to focus minds on the task in hand.

A report-back from the national liaison meeting did briefly air the compromise controversy with the Socialist Party - with Mark Fischer for the Communist Party making clear his leadership's position on the vote - but this caused no new outbreak of hostilities. Indeed, the meeting dissolved at this point into a sort of collective giggle of relief, with everyone from the Socialist Workers Party to - oddly enough - the Socialist Party, rushing to assure each other that it was a rotten, unprincipled deal that trampled over the democracy of the movement and what had been achieved at Coventry.

We registering our Party leadership's attitude to the deal, but no real rancour ensued. The mood of the meeting was one of palpable relief and a determination to 'get on with it' after the uncertainty of the preceding period. This at least is positive.

Greg Tucker opened the discussion on the role of the steering committee in the coming period of intense work. He pointed out that as the local alliances begin to take responsibility for their own campaigns, much of the current work of the committee would devolve downwards. However, the need for London-wide coordination and organisation would remain. Specifically, we would need a 'rapid response unit'; a sort of rent-a-demo to organise action as relevant news items broke. We also need London-wide organisation of stunts and our major rallies. Comrade Tucker aired the possibility of a smaller team that would possibly meet daily in the latter stage of the campaign.

The general feeling of the meeting was that while organisational flexibility was needed in establishing sub-groups, any tendency to downplay the role of the steering committee was wrong. John Rees of the SWP pointed to the positive role the committee had played both as a political "clearing house" and as an initiator of action. The consensus of the meeting was that the steering committee retained a key role during the course of the campaign, but that its functioning needed to be dramatically improved.

With this in mind, it was agreed that the officers of the committee - Marcus Larsen (CPGB), Greg Tucker (International Socialist Group) and Rob Hoveman (SWP) - plus John Rees (SWP) form an 'executive' to prepare material more rigorously and to step up coordination.

A suggestion from comrade John Bulaitis was taken up. Tommy Sheridan is in London on February 23 for a Bookmarks launch of his book, Imagine, authored jointly with Alan McCombes. This will now be bent in the direction of a half-launch for the LSA's campaign, although it was recognised that a 'proper' launch would be needed, roughly one month later.

So far only nine candidates have been selected in the capital, although we expect more than twice that number to be chosen in the coming weeks. A CPGB representative underlined the urgency of this task, notwithstanding the need for negotiations to ensure political balance, as agreed in Coventry.

A reflection of how much serious work still needs to be done was indicated by the very brief financial report. Just £500 is in the bank. Decisions taken at this meeting for the production of materials will quickly see the back of that - this is a vital issue that must be addressed very soon.

On the positive side, local reports from London and elsewhere in the country indicate that when the question is approached seriously, people feel inspired enough by the challenge being mounted by the SA nationally to dig deep. Seemingly formidable financial hurdles look as if they will be overcome quite quickly, given the enthusiasm being generated.

Mark Fischer