02.05.2001

Greenwich and Woolwich

Left unity ?one day?

Scargill?s Socialist Labour Party was put on the spot at the April 27 hustings meeting for Greenwich and Woolwich general election candidates organised by Greenwich Unison.

Only two candidates attended: our Socialist Alliance candidate, Kirstie Paton (Workers Power), and the SLP?s Hardev Dhillon, candidate for the neighbouring seat of Erith and Bexley. The SLP preferred to send comrade Dhillon to speak instead of Greenwich and Woolwich candidate Margaret Sharkey. While the Liberal Democrat sent an apology, nothing was heard from New Labour or the Tories.

Unison had given each candidate a list of questions - unsurprisingly limited to trade union concerns. This did not prevent speakers from raising questions of high politics, but both restricted themselves to questions of cuts, privatisation and so on. Comrade Dhillon?s contribution was rather lacklustre but reasonably well received, while comrade Paton?s was better and received a good round of applause.

During questions, one Unison steward pointed out that both candidates had made a good case against New Labour, but why not a united socialist campaign?

The steward stated that one of the first things you learn in a union is ?United we stand, divided we fall?. Why had the SLP not joined the Socialist Alliance so we could have a united working class campaign? This provoked applause and cheers amongst the Unison membership.

Comrade Dhillon replied rather lamely that there were ?differences? between the SLP and the SA, but he hoped that ?one day? there would be a single socialist party. For the SLP?s general secretary, Arthur Scargill, that, of course, could only come about through all the other groups disbanding their own organisations, closing down their papers and joining his tiny sect. Comrade Paton retorted that the alliance was an open and inclusive project consisting of many socialist and other groups, along with non-aligned members. The door was open to all organisations willing to enter it.

Meanwhile, the previous day?s scheduled political discussion within Greenwich and Woolwich SA - this time on racism - was again deferred, on this occasion as a result of a significant proportion of Socialist Workers Party comrades attending its meeting on the Zapatistas on the same evening.

Alan Stevens (CPGB) argued that we needed to conduct our affairs in a more businesslike fashion, coordinating our disjointed activities and involving more comrades, and proposed that we elect a secretary at the next meeting. This met with general approval and was quickly agreed in principle. Several other comrades contributed ideas for further organisational improvements.

Since the political discussion was cancelled, debate turned quickly to reports on local developments, including the council?s turn to private finance initiative and ?best value? schemes and their effects on staff and service users. Several comrades spoke of the difficulty of obtaining accurate and sufficient information: many large firms notorious for their health and safety records are lodging bids in disguise, using smaller, unknown companies; information from the council is also scant and spin-ridden.

This prompted a discussion on the anti-democratic nature of these schemes - all driven forward by unelected and unaccountable ?inspectors?, ?working parties? and ?pilots?, with unions and service users totally sidelined and fobbed off with sham consultation exercises and spin.

Alan Stevens