05.12.2002

Wider malaise

I hope comrades will understand why I am not able to go into detail about the immediate events that precipitated my resignation. Suffice it to say that the financial malpractice to which I objected involved a sustained act of deception which posed a variety of potential dangers to the Socialist Alliance and individuals involved in it. It is up to the executive to publish a fuller account - and I hope members will demand one. However, I would like to comment on the decisions of the executive and the political context. Marcus Ström was asked by the executive to investigate the issues that led to my resignation and to produce a report. I have seen a draft of this report, which I understand was agreed without substantial amendment at the executive on November 16. The report is apparently due to be presented in some form to the national council on December 14. In my opinion, the report is a whitewash and a cover-up. There has been a clear failure to investigate any of the three key questions arising from the events relating to my resignation: 1. How had the "practice" (the word used in the executive report to describe what occurred) first developed? 2. Why had there been no attempt to inform the relevant people concerned (principally myself and the treasurer but potentially also others) of the "practice"? (ie, why was it concealed for so long?) 3. Which officers were aware of the practice, and when did they become aware of it? The report is based entirely on written statements submitted by four of the individuals concerned - one of whom was me. No further information or documentation was solicited. No effort was made to investigate or analyse the glaring contradictions and inconsistencies not only between statements from different individuals, but even between different accounts given at different times by the same individuals. No one was interviewed or cross-examined - either in person or in writing or via email. The inquiry simply received the statements and made no effort to collect or scrutinise evidence, to ascertain the truth or allocate responsibility. Comrades will recall that, whilst carrying out this inquiry, Marcus was also writing his view of the events leading up to and subsequent to my resignation in the Weekly Worker and on email. He had drawn and published conclusions before he'd even gathered the basic evidence - something the executive should have taken up with him when he submitted his report, but did not. Marcus went on record, even as he was supposed to be conducting the investigation, saying that what he calls "technical details" are "secondary, if not irrelevant to the politics". The inadequacies of the report are hardly surprising, given Marcus's openly dismissive attitude to fundamental breaches of accountability and of trust, between officers and to the members of the Socialist Alliance. When I first discovered the "practice" and raised it with other officers, I was pressed by leading members of the SWP and others to cover it up. When I refused, I was bullied and threatened. At the executive meeting on October 13, all but a few members took the view that the "practice" was of little importance and refused to agree to the most basic measures to deal with it. As a result of the dismissive view of the executive, and the attempts made to bully me and others into a cover-up, I felt that I had no alternative but to resign. I have been reinforced in that conclusion by the inadequacies of the report, which does indeed amount to the cover-up that some desired. Unfortunately, this whole episode was symptomatic of a wider malaise, as I made clear to the executive. Since I was elected chair of the SA, I have spent a great deal of time trying to ensure that the priorities of the SA, as expressed at the executive and national council, were implemented by the office. In general, attempts to place the SA on a sound footing as an autonomous and proactive body were met with obstruction by the office and in particular the national secretary. SA priorities which were not particularly priorities of the Socialist Workers Party were either not implemented or were implemented slowly and inefficiently. On the other hand, when the SWP decided to prioritise an event (such as the planned protest when Manchester city council announced that Mardi Gras would be banned), the office immediately swung into action and worked efficiently. Examples of initiatives that were not progressed include the production and publication of the local government manifesto and the agreed Socialist Alliance input into the unity tour (speakers from India and Pakistan in April 2002). Most strikingly, the SA's national media operation - highly proactive during the general election - was effectively killed off once John Rees became the national press officer: in the last year, the SA has put out only a handful of press releases. This matter was raised both privately and at the executive, but neither explanation nor change in behaviour were forthcoming. Most crucially, there has been a persistent refusal by the SWP to build the SA in and through the anti-war movement. The office was repeatedly asked to ensure SA material was distributed at anti-war meetings, but [they failed to] respond. Other parties - the Greens, the Labour left, the SWP itself - had a presence at anti-war meetings (including speakers), but not the SA. This concern was raised by myself and others repeatedly over the last year. We were rebuffed. Attempts to organise a major London public meeting against the war in the name of the SA in the run-up to the demo on September 28 appear to have been sabotaged by the office. For the whole of 2002 there appears to have been little interest from the SWP in promoting the Socialist Alliance. There are reports from around the country of SWP members only bothering to attend SA meetings, or engage in SA activity, at election time, and barely even then. And other campaigning activities, such as support for industrial struggles, seem to be launched by the SWP with never a thought for a specific Socialist Alliance input or presence. Again, this problem was raised with the SWP leadership, but they refused to respond constructively. Similarly, at the European Social Forum there was hardly any Socialist Alliance presence. I understand that a few [members went], but there were no speakers and no profile. Attempts to organise a Socialist Alliance-SSP presence at the forum were blocked by the SWP (both behind the scenes within the Socialist Alliance and openly at the organising committee). One of the largest meetings of the forum was on the subject of the role of political parties in the movement. It was addressed by Fausto Bertinotti, leader of the PRC in Italy, and by Olivier Besancenot from the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire. The LCR had previously been approached and agreed that the Socialist Alliance should also take part. However, this had been blocked by the SWP. The British speaker at this major meeting was Chris Nineham, representing Globalise Resistance, who spoke about GR and the Stop the War Coalition as representing the "movement" in the Britain. He made no mention of either the Socialist Alliance or the SSP. His sole reference to the role of political parties was to declare that there was a role for a "revolutionary political party" within the movement. From his speech, you would not know that the Socialist Alliance or the SSP existed, let alone that the SSP had an elected representative in the Scottish parliament and is hoping to gain more seats in 2003. I have read a report of proceedings at the SWP conference on October19-20. In this report, SWP leaders are quoted as arguing that 'reformists' should remain inside the Labour Party - quite a different perspective from what was put to me by these same people when they asked me to join in 2000 and 2001. Then it was clearly stated that the SA would be built as a broad socialist home for all those alienated by New Labour. I was told it would be built as a long-term, independent organisation specifically, not as an occasional front for occasional electoral activities. It seems to me that the SWP have had a change of direction since their enthusiastic commitment to the Socialist Alliance in 2000. All the signs are that they will continue to downplay the Socialist Alliance, and to treat it as their own creature, rather than as a democratic and autonomous organisation. I profoundly disagree with what appears to be the SWP's current analysis. The need to fill the political gap to the left of New Labour is just as pressing as it was two years ago (indeed, given the New Labour-Tory consensus over war, even more so). However, assuming that the SWP has now changed its attitude towards the Socialist Alliance, the question of how the Socialist Alliance can be built is a very difficult one. The Socialist Alliance is not, of course, solely a creature of the SWP, but it is certainly a difficult task to try to build an electoral alternative to New Labour without the active participation - in good faith - of the largest organised group on the British left. Finally and most importantly, a viable left alternative to New Labour can only be built on the basis of accountability and probity in the conduct of our affairs. The casual disregard for these requirements by the SWP leadership and others on the left remains a huge problem for all of us.