21.03.2002

Democratise the political funds

Last weekend's Socialist Alliance-sponsored trade union conference marked a clear step forward - both for the SA itself and for the building of a fighting movement within the unions. The March 16 conference - 'The political fund - where should it go?' - was attended by almost 1,000 trade unionists - most, but not all, members or supporters of the alliance. The biggest single grouping, inevitably, consisted of Socialist Workers Party comrades, but speakers from all the principal supporting SA organisations were heard from the conference floor. The event was significant in cementing the excellent position adopted by the SA - democratising the unions' political fund and ending subsidies to Labour Party candidates who refuse to support union policies. It was, however, equally important in taking the first steps in the formation of SA union fractions. Indeed both railworkers and PCSU members, meeting in separate workshops, decided that such fractions should be set up for their own industries, while other groupings agreed to exchange email contacts and meet again. It is true that the event was, for the most part, more of a rally than a conference. With few exceptions the 'delegates' represented nobody but themselves. But that does not lead us to characterise the occasion as a "complete waste of time", as did one comrade from the Alliance for Workers' Liberty, writing on the Socialist Alliance discussion e-list (Jim Denham, March 19). In no small measure thanks to the efforts of Matt Wrack of the Fire Brigades Union, the SA has pulled back from making the premature and adventurist call for the unions to 'break the link' with the Labour Party - a position previously voiced by the SWP. If the unions simply broke their affiliation and cut off all funding right now, in the absence of a working class party, that would in all probability simply result in their depoliticisation. This position now seems to be widely understood and accepted in the alliance. Comrade Wrack, a member of the Socialist Party - no longer an SA supporting organisation - was the first to address the Camden Centre gathering. In a measured speech, he outlined some of the points contained in his new SA pamphlet Whose money is it anyway? Quite simply, he said, the party "traditionally supported by working class people is now attacking those working class people". Yet they still need political representation. The answer, then, did not lie in the trade unions "walking away from politics". Instead of automatically writing a blank cheque for the New Labour privatisers, they should seek out their own 'best value' for the political fund. It was a good thing, he went on, that unions should assert their right to stop funds going to Millbank and end the automatic backing of New Labour candidates in elections. But they should also be able to redirect funding and support to organisations and candidates who were willing to support union policy, including the Socialist Alliance. Greg Tucker, perhaps the best known SA trade union activist as a result of his role in recent RMT disputes, spoke of what is now a common reaction on the picket line, when workers in struggle find they are coming up against the government as well as their direct employer: 'Why are we paying money to Labour?' Comrade Tucker, a member of the International Socialist Group, referred to the "change of mood" amongst trade unionists, as witnessed by the election of Bob Crow and Mark Serwotka. He pointed out that comrade Crow - who was unable to attend the conference, but sent his apologies - was elected on a platform which included a commitment to review the RMT's funding of its sponsored MPs - a policy he was now implementing. Comrade Tucker stressed that there was "no basis" for fearing that democratised union funds would go in the direction of the Liberal Democrats or Greens. SWP member Yunus Bakhsh, a former candidate for general secretary of Unison and a member of its NEC, gave a trenchant speech. The current campaign, he pointed out, was not about the setting up of a "rival political fund". It was about "engaging in debate with the millions of workers who support Labour". Absolutely correct. And even more pertinent was his assertion of what was really needed: "a political organisation of the working class that fights for working people". Another speaker was comrade Serwotka himself, who, like comrade Tucker, was "rapidly becoming one of the most dangerous men in the country". He was down to speak on 'Supporting the strikes, stopping privatisation', but he too had strong views on funding the Labour Party from union funds: "It is absolute madness that a single penny should go to a party and government that attacks working people," he said. More than 100 comrades put in a speaker's slip, but only around 15 in total were called to give their three-minute contributions in the two sessions either side of the workshops. However, with Mark Hoskisson of Workers Power primarily responsible for arranging the order of speeches, a representative selection was ensured, and comrades from the CPGB, AWL and WP all made useful points in the short time available to them. Alison Higgins from WP emphasised that democratisation was necessary in order to open up the political fund to "our control" - ie, that of the rank and file. However, a parallel task for the SA was the setting up of a political alternative to Labour - "the Socialist Alliance is not just an electoral front". Lee Rock of the CPGB made specific points regarding our long-term strategy of breaking workers from Labour and winning them over to a genuine party of the class. Hand in hand with the insistence that Labour should earn its money by accepting union policies was the need to place demands on the party's candidates at election time. Just as the unions should agree to recommend a Labour vote if its candidates met certain conditions, so the SA itself should offer to stand down in their favour if they dare accept a minimum platform of pro-working class demands. That was how, in comrade Bakhsh's words, we could 'engage in debate' with Labour voters. Comrade Rock, London regional organiser of the PCSU, also called on the alliance to "organise SA members in the unions". The unity we had built up in contesting elections should be extended into other fields, not least through the "establishment of SA fractions in each separate union and industry". These should not in any way cut across the work of existing broad lefts and rank and file groupings, he said. Indeed SA fractions would strengthen that work. His fellow CPGB comrade, Peter Grant, chair of Manchester Piccadilly Aslef, also insisted on "Socialist Alliance organisation in the unions". SA fractions would not only give extra bite to current industrial struggles, but would be able to lead a movement to defy the anti-union laws and provide an alternative political pole of attraction. Janine Booth (AWL) stressed that the election of Bob Crow to the position of general secretary of the RMT was a vote for militancy. However, she said, "even left trade union leaders can let you down". That is why we must organise ourselves. While the SA could play a useful role in that, rank and file organisation within the unions must go beyond the alliance, she said. Richie Venton of the Scottish Socialist Party addressed the conference on behalf of his party's executive. While he backed up the call to democratise the fund, comrade Venton also inadvertently exposed the weakness of the SSP's 'Make the break' campaign, which calls on the unions to disaffiliate immediately from the Labour Party. This can apparently be justified, since the "political situations in Scotland and the rest of Britain are substantially different" (SSP leaflet: 'Make the break from Blair's New Tories'). Therefore the SSP calls for union political funds to be available to "a multiple choice of parties", with "autonomy for each branch of the union". It also calls on union organisations such as stewards committees to "directly affiliate to the SSP". All this is based on the belief of the SSP leadership majority, shared with their former comrades of the Socialist Party in England and Wales, that New Labour is now a "nakedly capitalist party" - ie, it has ceased to be a bourgeois party of the working class. Because both the SSP and SPEW hold that Labour is no longer a workers' party of any kind, they completely fail to understand the need for a sophisticated strategy to win over Labour workers by the million; instead they stand on the basis of a blanket ultimatum: either vote for us or you are with the bosses. Nevertheless, it was useful to hear the point of view of our SSP comrades. The organisers seemed to have no clear purpose in mind in breaking conference up into workshops based on industrial union groupings - apart from the vague notion that it would be a good idea if comrades got together for an hour. The CPGB's proposal for the establishment of union fractions had been overwhelmingly rejected by the SA national executive. However, it seemed perfectly obvious to most comrades that, since they were all in the same room exchanging views and making plans, they ought to take the opportunity to organise too So, almost despite itself, the SWP has been drawn into the logic of SA fractions. All in all, the conference can certainly be regarded as a success. There is almost unanimity within the SA on our approach to the political fund and this augurs well for continued campaigning on the question. And the small step taken towards the establishment of SA industrial and trade union fractions has boosted the development of the Socialist Alliance in a partyist direction. Peter Manson