31.01.2002

Socialist Party quits

The January 24 meeting of Tyneside Socialist Alliance brought together over 40 comrades from the Socialist Workers Party, Alliance for Workers' Liberty, International Socialist Group, Socialist Party, Communist Party of Great Britain and a handful of non-aligned individuals. The meeting was the first since the Socialist Alliance's December 1 constitutional conference and had been specifically convened to discuss the implications of that conference and the withdrawal of the Socialist Party, as well as plan future work. Tyneside SA has had a colourful past, hosting some impressive meetings and events. It developed from its origins as Tyneside Socialist Forum into a comparatively large unit of the national organisation, with four branches. The North Tyneside, Sunderland, West End and Gateshead branches are at various stages of development and in reality only West End and North Tyneside have existed in any meaningful sense. In the past, the local Socialist Party was supportive of the project and worked well in its ranks. Its departure was a real loss. Indeed, it underlines the fact that Peter Taaffe has been able to execute an orderly withdrawal from the SA, keeping his organisation intact. The Tyneside SPers were very pro the SA, yet they to have loyally followed the national line. The SP leadership must be satisfied with its success in avoiding a split with such elements. Dave Wilson of the SWP and SA national office gave an upbeat general appraisal of the work of the alliance so far and the significance of the constitution conference. He admitted that there had been a marked "dip in profile and activity" after the election. Nevertheless, he believed that the prospects were good for the organisation in the local elections in May and thought we should aim to increase our vote - something of the order of a 3-4% average was possible, he believed. The chair then called on Bill Hopwood of the local SP to respond from the floor. Comrade Hopwood spoke of the supposedly healthy '80-20' tradition - alliance partners unite on the 80% that we apparently hold in common, and agree to differ on the remaining 20%. Now, the comrade complained, the new constitution would mean that constituent organisations would be forced to espouse politics imposed by a majority they did not agree with - ie, the SWP. Familiar enough stuff of course. In truth, in the lead-up to December 1, the SP comrades argued for a minority veto on the work of the alliance - a genuinely undemocratic measure, thankfully rejected decisively by our conference. While the SP comrade said nothing new, he was clearly regretful that it had come to a split. He urged the meeting to reject the new national arrangements and continue with the federal structure that had characterised the alliance thus far. The meeting correctly dismissed this, but it must be said that the tone of leading SWPers was unhelpful. In particular, comrade Yunus Bakhsh manifested an impatient and dismissive attitude to the SPers, telling them "the vote has been taken: it's time to move on". The comrade seemed to believe that the whole meeting was a waste of time. They should be talking about the next campaign, the next picket or the next demo - typical breathless SWP activity-hopping. After his intervention, comrade Geoff from the SP told the meeting that he had arrived at the start of the evening thinking the SP decision to quit the organisation was a mistake. Interventions such as comrade Bakhsh's had actually helped convince him that it had been correct after all. To reiterate - the SP leadership's job of ensuring unity during and after the split will be made much easier if SWPers display this sort of curmudgeon and sectarian behaviour. Having said that, the SP is not going out of its way to win friends either. Bill Hopwood informed the meeting that he was to stand as a Socialist Alternative (the electoral name of the SP) candidate in the forthcoming elections. Certainly, comrade Hopwood, who scored 17% in a local election several years ago, has established a name for himself through consistent campaigning on a variety of issues. However, he simply announced his intention to stand. No negotiations seemed to be on offer. This caused understandable umbrage. A discussion was broached on an SA paper and a local newsletter. Comrade Paul Wilcox from the ISG commented on the decision to produce a local SA publication - unfortunately, nothing has come of it, he pointed out. This is a serious weakness that exacerbates the 'stop-start' nature of SA work. Tyneside displays many of the weaknesses and strengths as the national organisation. Only consistent work and a democratic, inclusive ethos will take us forward. Thomas Kay