17.01.2002

Clarity on Labour needed

The rail crisis in England and Scotland, trade union work and the May local government elections were the main items on the agenda of the January 12 executive committee meeting of the Socialist Alliance. There was a fairly high level of agreement with most differences described as "non-antagonistic contradictions" by Martin Thomas of the Alliance for Workers' Liberty. However, our main underlying division at present seems to be our strategic approach to the Labour Party. EC members recognised the need for the Socialist Alliance to react quickly and dynamically to the crisis on Britain's railways. With the recent flurry of media attention for the SA and with leading alliance activists and other socialists at the heart of the RMT campaigns, we have an unprecedented opportunity to build support. The executive called on local Socialist Alliances to organise meetings on the rail crisis across England. Given the restrictions of the anti-trade union laws, we can push the campaign wider than RMT activists are currently able to do. We can complement RMT activity through providing a political lead. I was slightly concerned at the approach of some executive members, who suggested we should ask the RMT leadership how we could best help. While we need to consult with our members who are experienced and active in the RMT, to imply that we ought to take a political lead from the RMT leadership is wrong. We need to be winning rank-and-file RMTers and the working class itself to support a militant socialist policy on transport and the trade union laws. Alternative tactics were discussed. All agreed that the building of confidence was vital for the union movement as whole. Victory for the RMT is crucial for this. While labour law in this country makes secondary (ie, solidarity) strikes illegal and restricts industrial action within very narrow boundaries, socialists need to make the case for the smashing of the anti-trade union laws, a fight against industrial sectionalism, a freeze on fares, for integrated transport and nationalisation of the railways under workers' and users' control. These are the issues at the political core of the transport dispute. The potential of 'fare-free days' - where union members turn up to work but fares are not collected - was also broached. Activists are being urged to link support for the RMT with our March 16 conference - 'The political fund - where should it go? Stopping privatisation and job cuts'. It was also agreed to produce a pamphlet entitled The socialist case for transport. We will be approaching the Scottish Socialist Party to issue a joint statement on the state of the railways. Like so many other issues, is an all-Britain phenomenon. Possible passenger action was also discussed. Consumer groups have proposed a boycott of the railways on March 1. Executive officers are investigating whether or not to participate. Comrade John Rees made the good point that, while some behind the proposed consumer action may favour a 'pox on both their houses' approach to the employers and unions, we should not rule out winning passenger solidarity action with the RMT. Otherwise we risk allowing passenger groups coming under the influence of the right. While comrades were more or less united on our approach to the rail crisis, our perspectives for the local government elections brought forward differences - some of emphasis; others of a more political nature. A written report on the recent Ipswich by-election, where the Socialist Alliance did poorly, led to discussion on our by-election strategy. Lesley Mahmood emphasised a need to take by-elections on a case-by-case basis, arguing that one single overall strategy was difficult to develop. John Nicholson, in his final executive meeting before moving overseas, said that in addition we should be highlighting election activity in Scotland by the SSP and in Wales by the Welsh Socialist Alliance. For comrade Nicholson by-elections create a certain tension between national political priorities and local autonomy in the selection of candidates and deciding which elections to fight. We agreed to support the WSA in any manner we could in its campaign for the Ogmore by-election, which is expected on February 14. Debate on the local elections in England centred on how widely we attempt to stand, our attitude to Labour and some of the political priorities we set. There was unanimity on the need to concentrate resources on certain wards to maximise results. However, I argued that this could be complemented by local Socialist Alliances standing across an entire borough or city council. This is particularly true in London or other areas where there is more than one council seat per ward. One candidate in each ward projects a serious campaigning opposition to the council, with every elector in the borough or city having the opportunity to vote socialist. Just two or three candidates per council makes us appear an electoralist ginger group. Importantly, standing across a borough or city is not in contradiction to concentrating work in selected wards. We also have the possibility of an election broadcast. We may need to stand extra candidates to achieve this, depending on the threshold set by the television companies and the electoral commission. We reached a compromise formulation for the statement which will go out to members. Local alliances need to take into account the twin priorities of building themselves and raising the profile of the SA in general when deciding their tactics locally. The executive agreed that they should be given free rein on this. The main differences on the committee revolved around our attitude to the Labour Party. As we have noted before, many comrades have switched from auto-Labourism to an auto-anti-Labourism stance. Overcoming Labourism and the electoral stranglehold of the Labour Party on the working class remains one of our strategic objectives. 'Never vote for a Labour candidate' is just as bad as the Trotskyist left's mantra of 'Vote Labour, but "¦' Central to our success will be our ability to engage with the electoral base of Labourism. It is not the individual politicians we are trying to convince - whether a Tony Benn, Ken Livingstone or Diane Abbot. Deciding whether to contest seats against Labour lefts should not be left to the committee room - it must be a process we decide on in front of the working class through political struggle. Labour lefts should not be given a blank cheque. We should not automatically agree to stand down for them. But neither should we oppose them all without politically engaging their working class support. It was in this spirit I moved the following: "The Socialist Alliance favours the most united working class challenge to Blairism possible. The upcoming local government elections in England in May 2002 provide the Socialist Alliance opportunities to win new layers to socialism through campaigning, propaganda and cooperation with other socialist forces to promote the ideas of working class independence against capitalism. Crucially, in a period of relatively low working class political and industrial militancy, we will be able to confront the New Labour machine where it lives: in the ballot box. "In order to build the largest vote possible for socialism in these local government elections the Socialist Alliance will stand its own candidates under the People before profit manifesto with political priorities set by the February 16 national council meeting. As well as calling for a vote for Socialist Alliance candidates, the Socialist Alliance will also call for a vote for Labour, socialist and progressive candidates who support a minimum platform of working class defence of local government services and conditions. This platform should be finalised by the February national council meeting." Comrades Dave Church and Steve Godward argued that so long as people stood on a New Labour manifesto, they were open season for socialists. Dave Church asked why we should support Labour candidates - even if they did support a minimum platform - when they would not publicly support our candidates. I argued that it was a central weakness in our electoral strategy for us to have nothing to say on the Labour Party. All of the supporting organisations present - SWP, Workers Power, AWL, ISG, CPGB - have something to say on the Labour Party come election time, so why not the Socialist Alliance itself? John Rees of the SWP said that it would be "inappropriate" for the alliance to endorse any other candidates without really explaining why. He does not hold this position for his sect, however. It is likely that the SWP will tell the working class, 'Vote socialist where you can; vote Labour where you must'. Why not try to win the SA to this if it is correct? Comrade Mark Hoskisson of Workers Power also voted against, making common cause with the SWP in holding to one line on Labour for his sect, another line for the alliance. Comrade Mahmood was hesitant to back a 'minimum platform' and instead suggested we formulate "three key questions" for Labour candidates where there is no socialist standing. This approach was supported by Mandy Baker. I had no objection to this formulation, but only five comrades supported the motion, with 11 in opposition. Those supporting the motion were: Marcus Larsen, Will McMahon, Declan O'Neill, Tony Reid and Martin Thomas. No doubt this matter will resurface again and again. We did agree that SAs should contact local representatives of the Socialist Party, Socialist Labour Party and other organisations to avoid head-to-head clashes. Also, SAs should seek to encourage local trade union support, financial or other, for our candidates and take a flexible approach to any independent or 'campaigning' anti-cuts candidates. Additionally the February national council will debate two documents on the local government elections: one on technical guidance and tactics, the other on our policy priorities. On our priorities, almost all comrades emphasised the need to argue for democracy at the top of our agenda. A step forward from the almost entirely economic priorities highlighted for the general election. However, comrades failed to see the link between local government democracy and overarching democratic questions, such as the entire constitutional monarchy system, of which local government is a constituent part. Speaking in support of highlighting our republicanism, John Nicholson stated that he "always thought the SWP had been soft of the monarchy". I proposed a draft policy priority document with these main points: 1. Democracy, 2. Budgets, 3. Privatisation, 4. Housing, 5. Racism, 6. Law and order, 7. War and capitalism. Our discussion on the March 16 trade union conference again raised a difference on Labour. Mark Hoskisson, our new trade union officer, moved a resolution on our attitude to the political fund which included the formulation: "While we are not calling for disaffiliation by unions from the Labour Party ..." Nick Wrack moved that this be removed, as it was "too defensive". However, as the vote on this matter at the FBU conference last year determined, we are against going further than calling for the democratisation of unions' political funds, not least because there is as yet no alternative mass organisation of the working class. There had originally been a motion - supported by the SWP - in favour of disaffiliation. But it was later accepted that in current circumstances this could lead to syndicalist and apolitical conclusions. Despite this, only three comrades (myself, Martin Thomas and Mark Hoskisson) voted for the retention of the phrase. Fifteen voted against. A further vote on calling on affiliated unions to fight for union policy within Labour structures was carried (seven for, three against, four abstentions). And a vote warning unions off funding Liberal Democrat and other non-working class candidates was also won (seven for, five against with two abstentions). The final resolution reads: "The Socialist Alliance welcomes the debate that is currently taking place in the labour movement over the allocation of the political fund and other forms of political support by unions to New Labour. We believe that this debate is taking place because many union members are angry at New Labour's pro-big business policies. "The Socialist Alliance supports all measures in the unions that ensure the political fund and other forms of support for political parties are under the democratic control of rank and file union members and reflect their wishes. And we support efforts within the unions to compel union leaders to use the remaining union representation in New Labour structures in line with union policy and working class interests. "We fully support the right of unions to allocate their money and support to other working class political parties and organisations that they consider supportive of their union policies. The fund and any other aspects of political support should not be automatically monopolised by the Labour Party. This is already the position of the FBU and is under consideration by Unison. "This policy will give rank and file trade unionists the opportunity to decide for themselves who they wish their union to politically support. At the same time, we argue for the framework principle of independent working class political representation, and therefore against a pick-and-mix policy which would have unions sponsoring Lib-Dems, SNP, or similar candidates who appear to be 'friends of Labour'." During this agenda item we were informed that the Communist Party of Britain-backed Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions has organised a conference on the same day to discuss, among other things, the "Tory" (sic) anti-trade union laws. My guess is that this is a spoiler and may point to differences of opinion within the Morning Star's CPB over cooperation with the Socialist Alliance. My motion for a working class republican campaign against the jubilee celebrations fell off the agenda, but will be taken at the February 16 national council. Clearly democratic issues are not prioritised by the Socialist Alliance majority at present. It is vital that the SA takes a lead in building opposition to the deluge of monarchist propaganda over the coming months. My resolution calling for a united European Union socialist election campaign in the June 2004 EU elections will be taken at the March executive. The executive has recognised a constitutional anomaly in that supporting organisations, which formerly were entitled to attend Liaison Committee meetings, do not have representation on the national council. We will therefore extend an invitation to attend national council meetings with speaking rights to the Green Socialist Network and other supporting organisations. We elected the following officers: Chair: Liz Davies; vice-chairs: Lesley Mahmood, Steve Godward; secretary: Rob Hoveman; treasurer: Tess McMahon; nominating officer: Dave Church; membership secretary: Will McMahon; press officer: John Rees; black officer: Weyman Bennett; women's officers: Margaret Manning, Lesley Mahmood; trade union officer: Mark Hoskisson; publications officer: Nick Wrack. Liz Davies will be our representative on the Stop the War Coalition. Our next executive meeting will appoint spokespersons on policy issues. Marcus Larsen SA executive committee member