14.03.2002
Progress and five options
Our executive committee met in Birmingham on March 9 - just eight weeks away from local government elections across England. As well as discussions around our campaigning up to polling day, we heard a comprehensive report from Mark Hoskisson, trade union officer, on the March 16 Socialist Alliance conference on the union political funds. 'The political fund: where should it go?' is set to be a big success for the alliance. By the end of last week over 850 people had already registered for the 1,000-capacity Camden Centre. More than 25% have come from trade unionists who are not members of the Socialist Alliance. The SA is well placed to take advantage of the crisis of Labourism. The debate around the political fund is dynamite for the Labour Party. While it may be the case that Blair would love to break the union link and move to state funding of political parties in his crusade to rebuild Great British liberalism, he wants to do so on his agenda, not as a result of a rebellion from below. This debate has New Labour rattled. Andy Gilchrist, the pro-Labour general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, has been given a column in The Guardian. The Communication Workers Union under Billy Hayes, another Labour-loyal leftwinger, has called a national demonstration for this Saturday against the privatisation of the post office. The executive of the CWU only endorsed this action two weeks previously. When was the last time a trade union called a national demonstration with only two weeks' notice? We hear that brother Hayes has been phoning round CWU activists, telling them to choose between "their union and this conference". The Socialist Party has been making mischief, absurdly calling for the conference to be cancelled in favour of the CWU demonstration. SP members used the name of Unison United Left to make such a call without consultation with other political currents that have come together in UUL. Obviously we were having none of it. The Socialist Alliance banner will be on the CWU event - strangely called at a time that makes it difficult for delivery workers to attend, given the time their shifts end on a Saturday. We are calling on CWU activists to come to the conference afterwards. The executive endorsed a written report from comrade Hoskisson, which called for the maintenance of the conference organising committee. This committee will now act as our trade union working group - a welcome move which should be seen as a first, though very modest, step towards the professionalisation of the left's intervention in the unions. It was therefore disappointing that the executive laid on the table a motion I moved which calls for organised SA fraction work in the unions. I accepted an amendment from Martin Thomas of the Alliance for Workers' Liberty that said such fraction work was intended "to work with and within the existing left or rank-and-file caucuses in those unions, rather than competing with them". The strange aspect of the discussion was that those saying we should lay the motion on the table argued that the organisation of SA fractions was, in effect, what we were doing anyway. The conference organising committee has appointed a convenor for each union to lead workshops at Saturday's conference. However, the Socialist Workers Party's John Rees envisages that these sub-groups will only work on the issue of the union political funds, rather than as the nuclei of Socialist Alliance fraction work. Comrade John Fisher thought that it would be unfortunate to put such a resolution in writing as this would "send the wrong signals". I hardly think people will be surprised if we actually started to organise our members in the unions. It is a necessity. It is no good allowing old forms of work to continue unquestioned. The fact that, for example, the SWP prints its Post Worker, while the AWL publishes Postal Worker, is a joke and a sure sign of our amateurishness. We will need to revisit this matter in the immediate future. The Socialist Alliance will also use the occasion of the conference to launch our new pamphlet Whose money is it anyway? Written by Matt Wrack of the FBU, a member of the Socialist Party, it outlines the arguments for democratising the political fund. Rob Hoveman of the SWP, our national secretary, gave the report on our local election campaign. We are set to contest over 100 wards in London and more than 300 across the whole of England. The EC agreed that we should urge local branches of the alliance to discard the overly cautious approach to standing candidates. Our discussion on elections was positive and united. We touched upon issues of the legality of standing council employees as candidates, flyposting restrictions, placarding and finalising our manifesto. Nick Wrack, publications officer, reported that no work had been done towards producing a national four-page tabloid 'campaigning' newsletter, originally intended for use in the local election campaign. He will report on proposals for such a newsletter after the May elections. Comrade Liz Davies, our chair, reported on developments in the Stop the War Coalition. We decided to try to put flesh on Tony Benn's call for civil disobedience and an hour's work stoppage when the US/UK attack Iraq. We agreed to prepare a leaflet to issue when and if this imperialist action starts. A number of items were dealt with: the executive endorsed a verbal report from me on preparations for a republican event against the queen's jubilee; we will assist preparations for a demonstration against Henry Kissinger on April 27; we are sponsoring a unity tour by the Movement in India for Nuclear Disarmament and the Citizens Peace Movement (Pakistan) from April 17-24; we are also participating in the Free the Weed demonstration and festival on May 5 in London. Reports from Tess McMahon on finance and Will McMahon on membership show how far we have to go in organising our infrastructure. Both McMahons have made a start on this work and earned the thanks of the executive. At present, more than 40 people a week are signing up as members of the Socialist Alliance. It was agreed that we need to fill the position of national fundraiser as soon as possible. The most contentious and drawn out agenda item concerned the dispute in Bedfordshire Socialist Alliance. Membership secretary Will McMahon presented his report on the meeting, which took place in Luton on January 27, and he outlined subsequent discussions between both factions in Beds SA. The written report, from comrade McMahon and Liz Davies, outlined five options: (1) attempt to mediate on local standing orders; (2) recognise the officers elected by the SWP et al group (who were the majority at the January 27 meeting); (3) recognise the 2001 officers who closed the January 27 meeting down at 3pm and walked out; (4) appoint another group to investigate matters; or (5) acknowledge the dispute, recognise neither side as the officers group and hold a fresh meeting under the auspices of the national executive committee (chaired by Liz Davies, with the membership secretary approving voting members). Martin Thomas moved a further option: recognising the 2001 officers group and holding a fresh AGM meeting to elect an officers group, to be chaired by Sarah Lawlor of the Beds SA and observed by the national executive. John Rees argued for option two. Under the fig leaf of inclusivity, comrade Rees said that the SWP and its supporters in Beds SA had elected an executive on January 27 that included members of the outgoing executive - what the SWP calls the 'minority'. (Supporters of the 2001 executive were a minority on January 27. However, this was only after the SWP pulled out all the stops to bring 'its people' to the meeting - normal SWP attendance at Beds SA events being five.) Of course, the SWP does not want to include comrades Danny Thompson, Eryk Karas or Jane Clarke - the preferred representatives of the 'minority' Beds SA activists. The SWP preferred position was defeated by five votes to eight with one abstention (voting in favour were John Rees, Rob Hoveman, Nick Wrack, John Fisher and Mark Hoskisson). Comrade Hoskisson, a member of Workers Power, said that he would not countenance meetings being closed down when officers lose a vote - the situation in Beds which led to the election of a rival executive. I have some sympathy with this position. Only Martin Thomas and Dave Church wanted to recognise the 2001 executive. I abstained. Option five was adopted. I moved the following amendment, which was defeated: "We recommend that the incoming Beds SA executive include the preferred representatives of the groups in dispute in proportion to those in attendance." I received the support of Celia Foote, Martin Thomas and Lesley Mahmood. The motion was passed - eight for, five against. I abstained, unable to support it without my amendment. Martin Thomas asserts that my amendment called for guaranteed representation on Bedfordshire's executive committee (see pp6-7). This is not the case, as an honest reading of my amendment will show. I suggested that we recommend proportionality on the incoming executive, not guarantee it by bureaucratic rule. This is completely in line with the Socialist Alliance constitution, which states: "We also recognise the desirability of balance and inclusiveness for political trends within the Socialist Alliance at all levels of the organisation. All local Socialist Alliances as well as individual members attending national conferences are encouraged to take this into account in electing officers, steering committees and selecting candidates." One of the central problems in Bedfordshire seems to be that because of long historical animosity against certain individuals - with political roots in the SWP itself - the SWP is refusing to accept comrades Thompson, Karas and Clarke onto the executive (all former members of the SWP). That these people are the preferred representatives of the 2001 officers group and their supporters is ignored by the SWP. In a factional dispute, the January 27 majority around the SWP is telling the 2001 officers group who their representatives should be on the new executive. This is fundamentally against the spirit of the constitution of the Socialist Alliance. The SWP should think again and act in the inclusive spirit demanded by the Socialist Alliance project. Obviously, the dispute in Beds SA is far from over. There is wild talk from the supporters of the 2001 executive of boycotting what they call the 'nationalised' Beds SA and holding a picket at any subsequent meeting held by the national executive. This is irresponsible. Howling against the behemoth of SWP bureaucratism may make one feel self-righteous, but refusing to abide by democracy - both local and national - hardly serves the interests of socialism and the working class. Both sides bear responsibility for this dispute. I hope that through common efforts and a willingness to compromise on both sides, that unity will prevail. Marcus Ström executive committee member
Worker