25.04.2001

Simon Harvey of the SLP

Bureaucracy and disarray

As the general election approaches, more and more opportunities for publicity will present themselves for the left to highlight its views. There were two such opportunities for the Socialist Labour Party over the last few days.

The first one was the April 20 edition of Radio Four's Any questions? which featured Arthur Scargill, SLP general secretary. Now SLP spokespersons, particularly Scargill himself and Harpal Brar, president of the London region, are forever blaming the 'capitalist media blackout' for Socialist Labour's poor election results over the last few years. But it must be said that Scargill has appeared on this programme on a reasonably regular basis. Of course, if we had an enthusiastic, focused membership, we would make our own media opportunities, forcing them to take notice.

But I have to say that Scargill was in a strangely subdued mood on last Friday's Any questions? Possibly he was feeling under the weather or perhaps it was just that the questions raised did not suit him. The only topic that seemed to engender a modicum of passion in him - and mark him out from the other politicians - concerned the demand by the National Union of Teachers for a 35-hour week. While the other guests expressed 'sympathy' for teachers struggling to cope with unruly pupils and a heavy workload, they also insisted that they must act like 'responsible professionals'. Scargill, on the other hand, said in a brief reply that the SLP was "completely in support" of the 35-hour week - and not just for teachers, but for all workers.

However, he could hardly be said to have differentiated himself from the other panellists - Rhodri Morgan for Labour, Tim Yeo for the Tories and Susan Kramer for the Liberal Democrats - in the rest of his answers. Take the Commission for Racial Equality and its call on all candidates to sign a pledge not to 'play the race card' in the general election. True, Yeo dithered in his attempt to back William Hague for signing the pledge, while not wanting to be seen to oppose Michael Portillo for refusing. He also contented himself with describing John Townend, the Tory MP who bemoaned the threat posed to Britain's "Anglo-Saxon culture" by immigration, as an "eccentric individual".

But both Morgan and Kramer fell over themselves to condemn the Tories, and Scargill did not depart in any way from the official bourgeois anti-racist consensus. He referred to the fact that the programme was being broadcast from a church, implying that we should all extol Christian morality. "No self-respecting human being" would refuse to sign, he said. If any of his party's 115 candidates did so, he would "ask them to leave this party".

Of course we must combat all forms of racism. But why permit the impeccably bourgeois CRE to dictate the terms? Socialist candidates must be free to say exactly what they wish and not allow such bodies to set the agenda. Our anti-racism must be internationalist and working class - not nationalistic, pro-British and respectably mainstream.

Similarly, on the lack of a 'tick box' for those who wish to describe themselves as Welsh in the current census, Scargill had little to say. Mind you, he is an agnostic at the best of times when it comes to the national question in Britain. Finally, as an afterthought, he recommended that people who did not find a suitable self-description on the census form should write across it, "I'm a member of the human race."

The second opportunity for the SLP to be heard on national radio was on the PM programme of April 24. The particular news item was a feature on the Socialist Alliance. The Radio Four reporter noted that the SLP had refused "fraternal negotiations" with the SA, and had been invited to participate in the programme. But, he noted, Socialist Labour had "simply ignored" all telephone, fax and e-mail messages.

That is par for the course for our party, I'm afraid. Instead of welcoming the conversion of the majority of the left to opposing Labour at the ballot box and the striving for working class unity, Scargill disgracefully, as a matter of policy, refuses to reply to all SA requests even for discussions. But, from Scargill's point of view, why not take up the invitation so as to repeat the well-worn line? - 'We need a party, not an alliance.' 'The rest of the left had the opportunity to unite when I formed the SLP, but they wouldn't join.'

Perhaps it was just habit. Or perhaps Scargill does not believe his own propaganda - that line may be all well and good for internal consumption, but it is a different question when it comes to a wider audience. Or it could be that Scargill himself was unavailable - and of course he just does not trust anyone else to speak for his party. Come to think of it, who else in the SLP has anyone at all heard of? That is not the case with the SA. At least some sections of the population have heard of Mark Steel, Jeremy Hardy, Paul Foot and Liz Davies - who appeared on the PM slot, along with Janine Booth. More likely there was no one in the office - the SLP is indeed something of the 'Marie-Céleste'.

The Morning Star's Communist Party of Britain had no such difficulty about stating its views. For the CPB, to quote the words of the reporter, the election poses a "straightforward choice" - Labour or Tory. Actually the CPB is set to stand seven candidates - as against the SA's 100. John Haylett, editor of the Morning Star, dismissed the SA as a body of squabbling groups, dominated by the Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Party, which would "fall apart immediately after the election".

It truly is remarkable that the SLP, with its tiny membership and non-existent structure, can find the funds to finance over 100 candidates. Maybe some contests will fall by the wayside, but there is no doubt that there will be a large number standing. Yet, in addition to the £500 deposit per candidate, Scargill is planning a glossy election address whose printing will cost at least that much again. I have already pointed out that membership subscriptions can only cover a fraction of the minimum of £150,000 he will need, yet he had not even bothered to make a public appeal for funds.

Not until the March 31 executive meeting, that is. No doubt stung by to my previous observations, Scargill has - for form's sake presumably - decided to issue "an appeal to individual members" (SLP Information Bulletin April). Hardly a sense of urgency - it has not happened yet. Supposedly the SLP is "lacking ... the millionaire backers sustaining other organisations". Nevertheless Scargill is getting his funds from somewhere or someone.

So he has the cash, but what about the cadre necessary for an efficient campaign? The truth is, there will be no campaign to speak of. He cannot even muster the journalistic raw material to put out the SLP 'bimonthly' paper Socialist News. In a letter to branches dated April 12, Scargill announces that issue 29, due originally on April 4, and then postponed to April 18, will not now be printed until May 9.

All Scargill's circulars show up one thing: a bureaucratically centralised, top-down organisation but with next to nothing at the bottom. The April SLP Information Bulletin makes it clear that the national party will take responsibility for the arrangements and cost of printing the election address almost everywhere, while only in a minority of regions, where there is some pretence of organisation, will the gathering of material be devolved.

Scargill continues to issue frantic reminders to those comrades he has persuaded to stand - send in a photograph, let us have your curriculum vitae. Why haven't the regions collated the information yet? It is all very well issuing commands but a working class party needs more than resources: also essential are energy, political debate and some sort of following at the bottom.

However, as I have repeatedly pointed out, this disarray does not mean that the SLP is no threat to left unity. In a number of constituencies where there is a clash Scargill's name alone will mean that he will take many votes from the Socialist Alliance candidate. The problem is that, while the left - thanks largely to the Weekly Worker - is fully aware of the man's monocratic sectarianism, many workers still remember him only as the militant leader of the miners' Great Strike despite the fact that it ended in defeat 16 years ago.

Scargill may ignore all appeals for left unity, but the left cannot afford to ignore Scargill. And Scargillism can only be defeated politically, not by hoping it will go away.