WeeklyWorker

22.11.2001

SA executive committee

Pre-conference tension

The final executive committee meeting of the Socialist Alliance before our December 1 structure conference was a haphazard affair. There is much to play for - the future of the alliance is at stake. Yet in some ways, the executive did not nail the main issues facing us. Most left with a sour taste in their mouths.

The meeting at times became acrimonious, with different narrow interests - particularly those of the Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Party - affecting the direction of the debate. The SWP is holding back from the necessary process of building the SA as an effective and democratic organisation - a process whose logic is pulling it towards a party form. Meanwhile the SP is threatening to walk out of the alliance if the constitution passed on December 1 is not to its liking. As a result, everything seems to be on hold until conference.

After dealing with officers? reports and minutes we moved on to the main business of the day - conference preparation. Before that, there had been some controversy over our affiliation to the Stop the War Coalition. Dave Nellist complained that he had not been the automatic representative on the coalition pending approval of the executive committee. It had been essential, he argued, that the SA had immediate representation on the STWC as it prepared for the November 18 demonstration. It was agreed that comrade Nellist be our representative and should be a platform speaker.

However, at this point John Rees of the SWP asked the Socialist Party directly whether it intended remaining within the alliance, whatever the outcome of the December 1 conference. He questioned the wisdom of having comrade Nellist represent us if there was a possibility of the Socialist Party, of which he is a leading member, withdrawing. Clive Heemskerk of the SP said that it seemed as though the SWP had been specifically stopping SP speakers appearing on STWC platforms. Clearly this altercation was really all about the two largest groups laying out their stall prior to December 1.

The organisation of the conference dominated the rest of the meeting. In short, we needed to decide:

We have the opportunity to take a real step forward on December 1, and yet there is also the danger of the alliance process stalling. The worst-case scenario would arise if the SA came to be viewed as just another SWP front in the event of the Socialist Party walking out. Dave Church explicitly warned against the danger of the SA becoming ?another Anti-Nazi League?.

Unfortunately, however, the SWP comrades do not seem as aware of this as they should be. My proposal for an electoral preparations committee bizarrely fell off the agenda, even though it was one of the few previously distributed motions. There is a danger that the incoming executive, if formed from the SWP?s nominated slate, will be seen as the SWP?s creature. Nominations from a more neutral body would be better both in form and content.

The executive agreed that the conference will also constitute our AGM, with six votes in favour, four against, and four abstentions. The conference itself will decide whether to debate the war. 

It is proposed that the method by which our ?stem? constitution will be chosen as the basis for discussion and amendment will be by an alternative vote system.

Subscriptions for 2002 will be set at ?24 a year for waged comrades, ?6 a year for unwaged.

Finally, Martin Thomas of the Alliance for Workers? Liberty moved a motion regarding the exclusion of an Iranian comrade from the October 29 Birmingham anti-war meeting. The sentence referring to the specific incident was removed, but the following was passed: ?We call on all SA representatives and members in the anti-war movement to work to ensure that the movement operates in an inclusive and pluralist manner, which includes recognising the right of socialists who want to criticise the politics of islamic fundamentalism openly and publicly to get a fair hearing in the movement?.

Marcus Larsen