11.04.2001

New way of working

Louise Christian is the Socialist Alliance's prospective parliamentary candidate for Hornsey and Wood Green. Peter Manson spoke to her for the Weekly Worker

Can you tell me about your time in the Labour Party?

I was a member from about 1976 until 1996. I was a delegate to annual conference three times, and during the 1980s I was a member of the London regional executive and chair of the London region's policy committee - one of the most influential and important committees. In 1987 I stood for parliament in Hendon South.

I supported the manifesto on which we stood in 1987. It was too long-winded, but it did contain commitments to unilateral disarmament, increasing public investment and substantial increases in pensions and benefits - all these things were in the manifesto, which is very different from what Labour now proposes. The abandonment of nuclear disarmament was one of the reasons I resigned from the party. Because of that I left earlier than a lot of people who are leaving now.

How did you view the Labour Party then? Were you seeking to transform it or were you happy with it as it was?

Clearly I was on the left of the party. I've always considered myself a socialist, but I'm not a revolutionary. I've always believed in electoral politics. People fought very hard for the right to vote. The present electoral system is very undemocratic and needs reform, but it is wrong to dismiss the possibility of changing things through elections.

In the 1980s there was a divide between the leadership and the members - including many people who have now completely forgotten what they once believed in. But the Labour Party was much more democratic. It was possible to feel you could make some input and say what you were thinking. Now real democratic debate has been excluded.

What do you understand by socialism?

The redistribution of wealth and social justice. My own particular concerns are civil liberties, human rights, the respect for the dignity of others. Everybody must have equal opportunity. I don't believe in absolute equality - there will always be differences. But for Blair it means equal opportunity within the capitalist system, where you have a few very rich and the extremes of poverty. That is not equal opportunity at all.

When you left New Labour, you joined the Socialist Labour Party. Can you tell me about your experience in the SLP?

I was only a member for a few months. I left because I didn't want to get involved in the sectarian arguments that were going on. I am unaligned. The Socialist Alliance has agreed to stop these sectarian arguments, and everyone can agree on 90%.

How did you get drawn towards the Socialist Alliance?

I voted Socialist Alliance during the GLA elections and supported them then. I was approached by people in the SA who asked me to stand in the general election. I thought they should get someone better - someone from the ethnic minorities - to oppose Barbara Roche in Hornsey and Wood Green. But when they couldn't find anyone else I agreed to stand.

What issues will you be highlighting during the campaign?

One of the main reasons why I want to stand is my disgust at the way asylum-seekers are treated. Then there is the question of civil liberties. We must oppose the assault on the right to trial by jury, and the Terrorism Act with its proposals to ban 21 different groups, including, for example, the PKK. Criminal justice is becoming more and more authoritarian.

I am also obviously opposed to the ever increasing spread of privatisation - particularly the tube and air traffic control - through private-public partnerships and the private finance initiative. My experience working with victims of disasters on the privatised railway has brought home to me the central importance of this issue.

But the litmus test of any government is their attitude to people's dignity. That is why I want to highlight the plight of refugees. It's not that the government is 'not doing enough'. They are actually doing things that the Tories wouldn't do. The Turkish government asked the Tories to ban the PKK, but they refused. And it's Labour that has introduced the dispersal scheme, the use of vouchers, and so on, for refugees. It's all about treating people as human beings who are entitled to their dignity.

I have read comments you have made concerning the freedom of capital to move across frontiers - in contradiction to the rights of people.

The Socialist Alliance manifesto policy is for the abolition of all immigration controls. However, I tend to focus less on that than on the specific plight of people who are already here or are being refused access. In the long term though the case for abolition is unarguable. It will be impossible to build walls around a particular country when everything is going global. If the rich countries tried to 'protect' themselves against the third world, that could only lead to more repression, more people being locked up.

The nonsense of the whole thing is shown by the fact that we need immigrants to come here - this country depends on them. The expression 'economic immigrants' has been used as a term of abuse. But often they are highly motivated people who want to get on. They ought to be viewed as potentially valued members of society.

I was struck by the hypocrisy of prosecuting the Chinese interpreter who was to have been the contact for the 58 illegal immigrants who suffocated to death in a sealed truck.

The situation is very hypocritical. The only way for many to come here is illegally, so it is difficult to draw the line between people who are trying to help them and people who just want to make money. But these migrants are desperate - they hide on the undercarriage of aeroplanes, or under trains, or use unsafe boats and run the risk of drowning.

The legislation provides a demonstration of how you can get caught on the sidelines. A legal advisor could be charged with aiding and abetting illegal immigration, just for meeting someone at the airport. Similarly you could conceivably be prosecuted for representing or advising the PKK. The law makes it difficult to assist anyone and know where you stand. You could be prosecuted for helping someone being tortured abroad to come here illegally.

Can we turn now to the SA itself? How do you view the alliance?

Well, the London Socialist Alliance got a lot of support during the GLA elections and this time I expect we will get more. We are not hung up on labels or constitutions, and the whole idea is to reach out to people who don't want to argue about those things, but who want to support policies to the left of the main parties. So I don't view the alliance as a temporary thing.

I'm not particularly bothered by the question of whether the SA should remain a loose alliance or become a party. The only stage at which it would start to bother me is if all the sectarian arguments came back in.

I'm not quite clear what you mean by 'sectarian'. The way you are using it seems to imply that we should not express our differences.

No, not at all. There's nothing wrong with differences, although right now we should be concentrating on the campaign. After the election we can sort out our differences in a constructive way - not in a way that creates needless splits. I'm not opposed to constructive discussion, but everyone on the left is tired of meaningless disagreements over things that don't matter very much. Other people may have disagreements with me over immigration controls, and that would be a real discussion. I hate people telling me what to think and I would not be in any organisation that did that.

I agree that the left has behaved in a sectarian way in putting their own organisations before the needs of the working class. That has usually meant clamping down on the public expression of disagreements. But surely the logic of the SA is the creation of a new party that would not behave in the old way?

You may be right - a party would not be a bad thing and would not create any problems for me. So long as no-one is telling me what to do or say. I have consistently spoken against the danger of being too fixed and rigid in your ideas: you must accept that people will disagree and must be allowed to speak.

Tatchell lends his support

Gay rights activist Peter Tatchell has endorsed Louise Christian's general election campaign against home office minister and sitting MP Barbara Roche.

Peter Tatchell, who stood against the London Socialist Alliance in last year's Greater London Authority elections, said: "Louise Christian is one of Britain's most respected human rights lawyers. For over 20 years, she has fought against all kinds of injustice and discrimination. Louise will fight for local people with the same passion and determination. She'd make a brilliant MP. If I still lived in Hornsey and Wood Green, Louise would get my vote."