01.08.2001

Socialist Alliance prepares next stage

Liaison Committee debates way ahead

All eyes now on December 1. That is when the Socialist Alliance will meet in London to decide on the organisation necessary for the next stage of our collective development. Meeting last weekend in the hot and stuffy hall of the British Legion Club in Birmingham, the SA Liaison Committee set the time and place for all Socialist Alliance members to convene, debate and decide on how to overhaul our creaking structures.

Around 100 comrades (about half were voting delegates, representing local alliances and supporting organisations) gathered to discuss a full agenda at the first Liaison Committee since the general election. After dealing with various officers? reports, we set out the timetable to decide our structure. We also rushed through three ill-thought-out resolutions: one on anti-fascism and two on Genoa.

Opening the discussion on the general election, SA vice-chair Rob Hoveman of the Socialist Workers Party highlighted the contradictory results. While our vote was disappointing in many ways, there was a gap between the response we got on the street and doorstep and support in the ballot box. The real strength in our campaign was the establishing of a united socialist presence in many parts of England and Wales. The election campaign has transformed the Socialist Alliance from a disparate band of supporting organisations and local groups into an organisation with an emerging national profile. There is consensus that our structures need to change to reflect this positive development.

In the discussion about the campaign, John Bridge of the CPGB argued that our main weakness had been in relation to our attitude towards Labour - still a bourgeois workers? party. The SA as a body was silent on how we should approach Labour candidates. Instead, it was left to local alliances and other campaigners to weigh up the relative merit of this or that Labour candidate. In Hackney, the alliance did not campaign for Diane Abbott - despite her public backing for the SA priority pledges. In future, said comrade Bridge, we must adopt a more interventionist approach to the Labour Party and its candidates if we are to build a mass class base.

Pete Radcliff of the Alliance for Workers? Liberty said that the SA campaign lacked definition. He argued that the Liberal Democrats had made the running in the case for increased taxation for better public services. His comrade, Mark Sandell, made an unusually apposite intervention, pointing out the need to engage with those in the Labour Party on the basis of working class politics, though he did not define what these were outside the need for ?working class political representation?.

Sal from Brighton pointed out the successes of the Green Party. She said that in Brighton they had ?stolen? the SA?s local campaigning priorities in the election. I agreed with comrade Radcliff. The SA needed to develop cutting edge working class politics in the future. ?Tax the rich? is not enough. If the Green Party can take our policies, it shows they are not sufficiently grounded in the needs of our class.

Clive Heemskerk of the Socialist Party pointed out that the drop in Blair?s vote from 1997 was 2.8 million. The SA received around 57,000. Rather than locating the answer in the unity of the left in one party, comrade Heemskerk rather unconvincingly called for more Kidderminsters: ie, non-class, non-socialist politics.

The tensions facing the Socialist Party comrades told. Their organisation is deeply divided over the Socialist Alliance. Bluntly Peter Taaffe wants an excuse to go. Dave Nellist wants to stay with the SP and SA. Normally calmly in control, our national chair, comrade Nellist, appeared distinctly rattled at times. And comrade Heemskerk, who normally seems to enjoy close quarter factional combat, was uncharacteristically shaky in voice and argument.

As those loyal to Taaffe pursue an increasingly go-it-alone perspective, standing against SA candidates for instance, those around Dave Nellist are trying to buy time to allow them to straddle both alliance and sect. This is what was behind the motion from Coventry and Warwickshire SA (comrade Nellist?s base) calling on our December conference to be regarded as merely the first stage in determining the structure of the SA. Tellingly, the SP did not officially support this motion, with comrade Hannah Sell saying that the Socialist Party would prefer clear structures to the current situation.

While the momentum towards a party-type organisation and a more professional approach is gathering pace, there are still worrying elements of conservatism and backwardness. In discussing our financial situation, some comrades seemed almost paralysed in the face of debts amounting to a mere ?12,000. There was a suggestion that we should close our national office. Fortunately this was thrown out, with the recommendation that the six principal supporting organisations stump up the cash until the December conference. However, we can expect that the SP will not contribute - its comrades voted against the recommendation. And Mark Sandell of the AWL cried poor. However, the office will remain open, with the CPGB, ISG, SWP and WP all stating their willingness to contribute.

Reporting back from informal discussions on the SA?s trade union coordination, Mark Hoskisson said that the SA should not commit itself to a campaign seeking union disaffiliation from the Labour Party, but rather should campaign to open up the political funds to other forces.

This was backed up by Matt Wrack, a member of the Fire Brigades Union. Comrade Wrack said that the FBU left had originally been divided over which way to campaign, but the ?free the funds? approach prevailed. He also pointed out that from now on, the FBU would not give Labour candidates carte blanche. A set of minimum demands will be put to Labour candidates by FBU activists. If the candidates cannot support the demands, then they get no FBU backing.

This simple tactic has so far escaped our allies in the Socialist Alliance, although the CPGB has advocated such an approach for years. Let us hope that sense will now prevail and it will be generalised as part of our electoral weaponry. Further discussion on this question was earmarked for the October 5 Liaison Committee meeting.

The discussions last weekend confirmed the fact that there are three main blocs in the alliance on the question of structure. There are the federalists: a collection of anarchistic, self-avowed ?provincialists? and localists, together with the Socialist Party and, it seems, the AWL. Then there is the SWP, which is apparently unclear which way to move.

However, a growing number want to move towards a party formation. They include ourselves in the CPGB and a range of independents - Mike Marqusee, Nick Wrack, Dave Church, etc. Together we need to do all we can to ensure a pro-party outcome on December 1. While our approaches are different at times, we all want to see an end to the sects as soon as possible, to be replaced by platforms within a united SA party. With this in mind, the CPGB?s organisational proposals would end guaranteed or automatic representation for the supporting groups on the executive and other committees. Instead we call for a moral approach, which would see the right of minorities to representation maintained through consensus with the help of  a recommended list, rather than a fixed constitutional provision. Workers Power is also for an SA party, although it is still wedded to a semi-federal structure.

The process of discussion for December 1 will, it was agreed, take place in local Socialist Alliances ?between September and November?. Fortunately, there was a successful amendment from the Socialist Party, which states that at such meetings, all strands of opinion should be invited to speak. The SWP voted against. A members? bulletin containing the different suggestions from the principal supporting organisations will be prepared by the end of September.

With a jammed full agenda, the meeting rushed through a number of resolutions. This was a pity. We did not have time to debate the politics out and hence passed some poorly worded resolutions.

Workers Power moved a motion on anti-racism and anti-fascism. Apart from its knee-jerk ?no platform for fascists? position, the motion was excellent. However, the SWP decided to gut it of any implicitly revolutionary politics. Brian Butterworth moved to delete the following: ?We oppose any calls on the police or the home secretary to ban fascist marches. Every ban imposed by the state is used against the left and the anti-racists?; and ?Build labour movement support for organised community self-defence against fascist, racist and police attacks.?

Why the Socialist Alliance should not have such a principled position is beyond me. Comrade Butterworth argued that these were fine in a revolutionary party, but not in an alliance! What rubbish. I would want a trade union to adopt such a position. So, principled politics for the sect, watered down reformist nostrums for the mass of the working class. That is the SWP?s current ?clever? realpolitik. The continuing and growing gap between, on the one hand, what the alliance needs in order to break with the failed old politics of the past and relate to those newly entering struggle and, on the other, the SWP?s insistence on bankrupt old Labour reformism will continue to cause contradictions. Not least within the SWP itself. As the majority, it has the responsibility to fight for principles. Instead, it abandons them to pursue an opportunist old Labour strategy in election work.

The amendment went through - 21 for, 18 against. The CPGB then abstained on this motion.

Two motions were also passed on Genoa. No discussion was possible. The first motion, also from Workers Power, had perfectly supportable action points: ?Defend the right to protest. Release those imprisoned in Italy and Sweden, Drop the charges against all protesters. Bring those who murdered Carlo Giuliani to justice.?

However, the motion also says: ?We refuse to condemn the protestors in any way whatsoever.? This leads us to tail the irresponsible antics of the anarchist black bloc. And indeed it is not true. Both the Weekly Worker and Socialist Worker have already criticised them. I started to make this point, and Mark Hoskisson, who presented the motion, was prepared to remit it to the executive, but the SWP pushed it through regardless.

The final motion on Genoa was a statement from the ATTAC in France. Its content, and our passing of it, just shows how ridiculous it is to agree such things without considering them properly. Passed on July 28, the resolution commits us to gather on July 24 at the rue du Back metro station in Paris and to further demonstrate on July 26 on the Montparnasse. It may suit the SWP in its desire to cuddle up to the ATTAC movement, but it is daft for the SA to seriously vote for such nonsense.

Finally, the Socialist Alliance committed itself to standing in next year?s local elections and the 2003 European elections. The Liaison Committee extended the life of the executive until the December conference .

Marcus Larsen
SA executive committee