21.11.2002
No witch-hunts, no expulsions
On Saturday November 16 the Socialist Alliance executive considered a motion from Bedfordshire SA to ban two founder-members from future meetings and to seek their expulsion from the SA. Coming after the exit of the Socialist Party, the resignations of first Dave Church and more recently Liz Davies, this represents a very worrying development. Far from uniting the left, the beginning of expulsions is a sure signal that the SA is failing. Whether the expulsions are carried out or not will tell us a great deal about how far the SA has begun to follow the path of Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour Party. The Socialist Workers Party-promoted BSA motion for banning and expelling the two comrades is the clearest and most public expression of a witch-hunt. By this we mean a politically motivated attempt to silence an opponent by banning, sacking or expelling them from the workplace, trade union or party. The method is to find a pretext for action and then whip up an irrational level of fear and hostility against the intended victims. The targets of a witch-hunt are then demonised. Normally it is only ruthless employers who are skilled at using this method. The SWP is opposed to the political views of the comrades they are seeking to expel. But instead of dealing with these issues politically, the SWP has sought to denigrate and smear them. In Luton the SWP has a long and rotten tradition of smears, bans and expulsions of comrades who do not politically agree with them. Now the SWP are starting to bring this into the SA. But not according to the SA national secretary, Rob Hoveman of the SWP. It is no witch-hunt: it is just an ordinary expulsion. In reply to a query, he cites two issues mentioned in the BSA motion. He says: "My understanding of the events relating to the Beds SA accounts is rather different from yours. Jane was replaced as treasurer months ago and despite numerous requests refused to hand over the accounts because 'she didn't trust the new officers'." The second point made by Rob is to assure us that "the motion [of expulsion], which is not primarily moved by SWP members but whose movers include two independents who are at the end of their tether, is motivated by comrades being sick of constant verbally and physically aggressive behaviour by the two named individuals". Both the motion and Rob are factually inaccurate. There has never been a refusal to transfer funds. There is both correspondence and motions passed by the platform and the BSA to that effect. Collectively all of the ex-officers had simply demanded certain safeguards because they did not trust the SWP. These safeguards were demanded for two reasons. First, because of the slanders being spread by SWP members against Jane Clarke that she was "untrustworthy". Comrade Clarke is a regional treasurer for the Fire Brigades Union. This character assassination was and is unwarranted and without foundation. It was being made irresponsibly as a provocative 'wind-up' without regard to the wider context of the class struggle in which such slanders could be used to undermine the left in the FBU. Secondly it is because the current officers did not appear to have any financial probity - there was no bank account details forthcoming. None of them knew what to do - that is, apart from the secretary saying that any cheque should be made payable to himself personally! The non-issue of finances has, as agreed by all concerned, now been transferred upwards to involve the national treasurer, comrade Tess McMahon. Second, the motion implies that these two supporters of the Democratic and Republican Platform "totally prevented the discussion of important business". In fact it was the BSA officers that prevented us discussing struggles around the firefighters and Iraq. The BSA officers planned the agenda and chaired the meeting. When a DR Platform member moved next business during the meeting so we could get on to important issues, the SWP opposed this. It was the DR Platform that called for a special meeting to discuss the firefighters and Iraq. It was the BSA officers that opposed this. Sadly the BSA has done no 'public activity' since these current officers took charge on April 1, apart from the ill-fated local election campaign where the SWP literally went off and did their own thing. Third, the claims of "appalling verbally abusive behaviour" is emotive and demagogic. Certainly comrades on both sides became angry and raised their voices. But even if we were to call this "verbally abusive behaviour" this was not confined to one side or these two comrades. SWP members were not passive. They actively led the exchanges, beginning with Ged Peck, who then felt it necessary to apologise to the meeting for his outrageous behaviour. Finally, the motion refers to "threats of physical violence made towards SA members, as witnessed by many comrades". First there was no physical violence. Nor was there any prospect of such violence. So the real question is what do these words mean? Who said what to whom? Who is accusing whom of what? Swamping As to the implication that the move to expel comrades came from 'independents', this case illustrates only too clearly how the SWP uses the independents. It perhaps is also worth pointing out that as well as all of the ex-officers resigning following the farce of the SWP swamping the 'AGM' with all their 'flotsam and jetsam' - people who had been seen neither before nor since - and the national sanction for this, the SWP still have just three nominal 'indies' on their side. Because of the scarcity of independents supporting the SWP, they have had to incorporate all of them onto their officers group to give it a democratic veneer. In the BSA officers group the secretary, Keith Woods, is an SWP member. Comrade Mustaq A is a workplace ally and close friend of Ged Peck, who has set himself up as witch-finder general. Although comrade Vince C shares a house with SWP comrades, we have always considered him as the only genuine independent on the officers group. He refused to support the motion for banning and expulsion. Finally Tina B was an SWP-sponsored chair of the BSA. The real game is given away by the behaviour of Tina B. Although elected chair, Tina has not yet chaired a single BSA meeting and, as far as we can tell, has not attended any officers' meetings. Most significantly she was not at the meeting where the events referred to in the motion are supposed to have occurred. But she still signed the motion as if she was a witness to events. The BSA chair should be someone all sides trust, because she is supposedly the chair for all members. Any democratic labour movement would expect that much from their chair. When she heard of the allegations, she should have contacted the accused and asked for their side of the story. Instead of doing that, she simply let her name be added to the motion. She has failed to carry out any of her responsibilities as chair. This was pointed out to her at the meeting and in a letter from comrade Eryk K, but she still voted for it. Despite what Rob Hoveman tries to imply, it was an SWP-motivated motion with an attempt to use the indies a cover. Fortunately the camouflage is simply not good enough. The main movers of the motion and its main advocates at the meeting were the SWP's Keith Woods, the SWP's Ged Peck and the local SWP organiser, Viv Smith. The implication of the latter is quite clear for anybody who understands the SWP's 'democratic centralism'. SWP full-timers do not act off their own bat. They act in such matters under the instructions of an SWP central committee member. Perhaps the central committee forgot to tell Rob! We need only contrast the misconduct by an SA worker in the national office, which prompted Liz Davies' resignation. This event prompted an investigation and no doubt the opportunity for this comrade to put his side of the story. As far as we know, no action was taken against this comrade. But we hear that office procedures are to be tightened up in relation to signing cheques. (We are certainly not calling for this comrade to be expelled.) Contrast this with the two comrades in the Bedfordshire SA who the SWP voted to ban from meetings and seek to expel. What did these comrades do? Nothing apart from participate in a heated meeting, which was debating what to do with the funds and whether democratic BSA decisions had been carried out or not. Surely just another case for tightening up on chairing procedures? In the first case it was a slap on the wrist and a tightening up of office procedures. In the second we have the SWP seeking an arbitrary ban and an attempt to secure expulsion. No prizes for guessing that the first case involves an SWP member and the second are those who oppose the politics of the SWP. This is why we call it a witch-hunt. Such a wide variety in treatment is explained by political motives of those who currently have the real power in the SA. The arguments in the BSA about who said what to whom reflects a clash of definite politics. We can make no sense of what is going on without understanding that there is a political battle in the BSA about the future direction of the organisation. The two comrades threatened with expulsion just happen to be leading advocates of one side. Following the events in December 2001 when the SWP ousted its main rival and counter-weight, the Socialist Party, the SWP moved to take over the BSA. In April 2002, after a three-month struggle, the SWP took control. A new officers group was elected at a meeting called by the national executive, which was attended only by the SWP and their supporters. All the ex-officers and their supporters, who had set up the BSA, formed themselves into the BSA Democratic and Republican Platform. The fundamental issues which had divided the BSA did not disappear. On the contrary they began to take different forms. The Democratic and Republican Platform believes that the SA must win the working class and the socialist movement to break from Labour. This could not be achieved by just preaching old 'Labourist' politics and trying to become a substitute Labour Party. On the contrary we had to win the working class to a democratic and republican programme. People before profit, the SA programme, is formally a republican socialist programme. But the SWP, the dominant group in the SA, more or less ignores this. In our view this is a major political error. Republicanism is one of the main weapons for an assault on the bastions of New Labour. Labourism versus republicanism is not the only issue dividing the BSA. The DR Platform proclaims: "We seek to defend and promote the independence and unity of the alliance. We are opposed to narrowing down of the SA so that it becomes a periphery or support organisation for any one party. To strengthen the independence of the SA, we must (i) adopt the aim of becoming an independent working class party, and (ii) launch a weekly Socialist Alliance paper." The platform says that in order "to build the unity of the SA we need a democratic, federal constitution to ensure openness of ideas and the inclusion of all political trends". In practical terms, supporters of the platform had proposed a new constitution for the BSA after the December 2001 conference, which included provisions to ensure that any affiliated organisations would have a seat on the BSA executive. Outraged The SWP opposes the platform on all these issues. They are against a national SA paper and the aim of becoming a party. The SWP views the SA as a united front with a narrow perspective of electoral work. Shortly after taking control of the BSA, the SWP secured the appointment of an SWP member as candidate for the Challney ward in Luton. Many, if not all, independent members were outraged because there was no proper or democratic process whatsoever for either deciding whether to stand a candidate or selecting the candidate - this poor comrade was imposed behind closed doors. The predictable result was 18 votes and a large debt. Here is the beginning of the battle over the BSA funds. The SWP failed to prepare for the election or raise any funds. But they thought there was a pot of gold raised by the former officers and became focused, to the exclusion of all else, on getting their hands on the loot. They seemed to think that the way to expedite matters was to accuse the ex-treasurer of being "untrustworthy". The minutes of September 2002 record that, "In response to a letter from the officers group mandated by members at the previous meeting (6/8/02) ex-officers replied requesting a meeting with the current officers before statements, accounts closure confirmation and monies could be provided due to slanderous statements by members [later amended to read "Steve Coglan", an SWP member]." A motion was passed dealing with the transfer of the accounts at the same meeting which both sides agreed to. But the new officers failed to carry it out. The new treasurer failed to turn up at the planned meeting, the chair was unaware that the meeting had been arranged and the transfer did not take place. After the heated meeting of all members in October, the following motion was passed unanimously by the DR Platform. It was sent to the BSA officers for actioning and put on the BSA elist. The motion said as follows: "1. This meeting recognises the vital importance to the working class movement of the threat of war against the Iraqi people and the struggle of the firefighters and emergency fire control operators for their justifiable pay claim. 2. We call for a special meeting of the BSA to be held within the next two weeks to discuss these vital issues and what role the BSA can play. 3. It should also be noted that we are not prepared to discuss the issue of BSA finances at this meeting since experience shows that this is counterproductive. 4. We (the ex-officers) are prepared to settle the issue of finances: (i) If the motion passed by the September BSA meeting is strictly adhered to in the letter and spirit of that motion; or (ii) If the SA national treasurer/executive meets with the ex-officers of the BSA so that a full account can be given and the necessary transfer can take place." The majority of officers and the SWP - which in many respects is one and the same thing - responded by calling for bans and expulsions. At the November all-members meeting, the motion (sorry, Rob, you were wrong) was proposed only by SWP members Smith, Woods and Peck, assisted by the treasurer, who informed the meeting that he was not feeling well, but - true to form - despite there being no specific charges, no investigation whatsoever by anyone, the SWP all, sheep-like, voted for it. Fortunately the SA executive has pulled back from banning the comrades from BSA meetings. The ban has been lifted and the executive will send a representative to future meetings until these matters are resolved. We believe that this is a very sensible action. It is also correct from a democratic point of view. The other side of this faction fight was on display in Luton town centre last weekend. The SWP were out campaigning for the firefighters as the SWP, not as part of the SA. We can and do applaud their activity. But it was not SA activity. The three SA independents who attached themselves to the SWP were nowhere to be seen. There is nothing for them to do until another election comes round. Supporters of the platform were at the other end of the town collecting money and petitioning in the name of the SA, alongside and with Bedfordshire FBU non-SA members. Despite these latest SWP efforts to get rid off any real political opposition to the way in which the SWP continue to mismanage the BSA, these two comrades, along with the Democratic and Republican Platform, will not simply walk away or shut up. We will continue to fight to build a bigger, better, broad and inclusive, non-sectarian Socialist Alliance in Bedfordshire - despite the efforts of the witch-hunters. Danny Thompson Beds SA Democratic and Republican Platform
Worker