26.02.2004

Show electors some respect

Socialist Alliance

Will the Socialist Alliance stand any candidates in the local elections on June 10? That was the main question that exercised members of the SA executive committee, meeting in London on February 21. If those in the central leadership group have their way, the SA will effectively be liquidated in all but name at our annual conference on March 13. The intention of the Socialist Workers Party is for the SA to stand no candidates at all. This is strongly supported by national chair Nick Wrack and Alan Thornett of the International Socialist Group, the SWP’s closest supporters on the executive.

Given that the Socialist Alliance was formed in part to achieve leftwing electoral unity, to stand no candidates on ‘super Thursday’ June 10, is effectively to shut up shop. This will complete the process of liquidation begun immediately after the 2001 general election and which markedly accelerated with the UK-US war on Iraq in 2003. The SWP is clearing the ground for the formal winding up ceremony at the SA annual conference in the autumn. Even in Preston, where the SA had its one success story with the election of SWPer Michael Lavalette, it is proposed that a Respect candidate stands in the neighbouring ward.

The motion put forward by the SA task group - the small committee entrusted with the SA’s ‘left unity’ initiative which led to the formation of Respect - reads: “Conference agrees that, given the Socialist Alliance’s support for Respect - the Unity Coalition, it would be inappropriate to stand Socialist Alliance candidates in any of the aforementioned elections [European, Greater London or local] and the Socialist Alliance will, therefore, not stand any candidates in these elections.” This is despite the fact that Respect has no intention of contesting local elections itself as of yet. Its January 25 convention agreed: “We will begin by standing in the elections to the European parliament and to the Greater London Assembly.”

While the task group motion concedes the possibility of standing socialist candidates, it wants them to stand under the Respect banner. It proposes a procedure for the effective adoption or veto of any Socialist Alliance candidates by the Respect executive. This is SWP control-freakery gone mad. It has brought protests from many quarters - and not just from the SA’s usual ‘awkward squad’, but also from within the SWP itself.

The main discussion on local candidates was kicked off by a report from the SWP’s John Rees, national secretary of Respect. He claimed that the coalition’s public meetings were showing that a high proportion of activists in the Stop the War Coalition were supporting Respect. Further, he stated that the formation of Respect was impacting on the unions. Comrade Rees and George Galloway met with Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT, just before the union’s February 6 special conference in Glasgow that reaffirmed the Scottish region’s affiliation to the Scottish Socialist Party and subsequent expulsion from Labour.

Comrade Rees said that there were motions before a number of RMT branches in England, including the London regional committee, calling for support to Respect. In addition, firefighters supporting Respect were organising to win a democratisation motion at the FBU conference in May and would then push ahead to win support for Respect in their branches. Obviously the London region is the key for Respect when it comes to union support.

Comrade Rees reported that no electoral arrangement had been made with the Greens for the European elections, but he said that there were divisions at the very top level of the Green Party on this matter. He expected the Greens to reflect this division on the ground in the lead-up to the June 10 elections.

I asked if there had been any agreement with the Socialist Party for them to stand councillor Ian Page in the first-past-the-post GLA constituency of Greenwich and Lewisham in return for them calling for a vote for Respect in the GLA and European elections. Comrades Rees and Wrack said that neither they nor the Respect committee had been approached on this matter by the Socialist Party, though comrade Rees said there was an unopened email in his in box that morning from the Socialist Party. I have not found out the content of that email, as we go to press. John Rees said that he expected that negotiations with the SP would see the re-emergence of the same problems which plagued relations during its time in the Socialist Alliance.

Martin Thomas of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty asked a series of questions regarding recent reports in The Guardian about funding for George Galloway’s political charities. Comrade Rees said that he had nothing more to add to what had already been stated in a letter to the newspaper from Galloway.

Matthew Caygill (Leeds independent), Will McMahon (SA office worker) and Andy Newman (Swindon SWP) - all supporters of Respect - pointed out problems in dictating to Socialist Alliance branches whether or not they could stand in local elections. They argued that there were many sincere members who were sceptical about Respect and by effectively banning candidates there was a danger of driving them into the camp of those openly hostile to the coalition.

Comrade McMahon said that we should not “ignore genuine SA loyalists”, while comrade Newman said that in Swindon there were “serious people sceptical of Respect”. He said that the SA should not “push them into the arms of our opponents”. Andy Newman is not the only SWP member expressing differences with the task group line. As nominating officer I have received requests - pleas almost - from SWP members in the SA wishing to stand candidates in the local elections. Simon Joyce, another SWP member on the executive, said that people would approach Respect at different speeds and that it was the role of the SA leadership to win local organisations through persuasion.

Comrade Wrack said that, while Respect had been established to stand in the European and London elections, he was now more open to the idea of contesting local elections. Comrade Thornett was more forthright. He said it was the “desirable thing” to stand as Respect in the local elections.

In his summary, John Rees said that we should not get in a knot about this: most people were enthusiastic for Respect. The most strategic aspect of the campaign was the proportional representation elections, so local contests were less important. In typical SWP speak, he said that we should “give a heavy steer” on this matter; meaning that we should make sure what we want happens. For him, whether or not Respect candidates stand in local elections should be judged on whether it adds to or subtracts from the main strategic aim of the best possible PR campaigns.

I agreed with comrades McMahon, Newman and Caygill that local Socialist Alliances should be allowed to stand candidates for council elections if they wish. Of course, this would not detract from the right of the majority in the SA from trying to persuade them one way or the other. But to ban them was certain to be counterproductive. A number of amendments are expected to the task group motion at SA conference.

Lowestoft Socialist Alliance, led by the local SWP, is not alone in wanting to stand candidates. Its argument is that, as it has stood in three previous local elections, to withdraw from the field now would display a lack of serious commitment. The Socialist Alliance needs to show the electorate and the working class some respect.

Martin Thomas argued that the task group motion violated the constitution. He pointed to a minute of the October 2003 national council that “the NEC accepts the constitutional position that local SAs can decide on whether or not to run in local elections. That any advice the NEC might have should be given prior to the meeting of the local SA that decides whether or not to stand.”

However, the SA constitution states: “E1: The local Socialist Alliance will have the responsibility for all elections contested by the Socialist Alliance within its area … and for all arrangements regarding local candidate, agent, treasurer, in line with Socialist Alliance requirements nationally” (my emphasis). It goes on: “E3: The steering committee of the local Socialist Alliance or a relevant regional body or the national executive, in consultation with one another, may nominate the Socialist Alliance candidate to stand in a particular election in exceptional circumstances. The final decision will lie with the nominating officer who is accountable to the national executive” (my emphasis).

In his report of the meeting, posted on the AWL website, comrade Thomas said: “The situation thus remains unclear. Much will depend on the personal fortitude of the nominating officer, but that is Marcus Ström, who made it clear in the debate that he has no stomach for a conflict with the SA leadership on this.” Constitutionally I have no right to defy the executive on these matters, irrespective of my fortitude. And even if I did, I would be immediately replaced in what is a purely functional position. I think my record has shown I have plenty of “stomach” for conflict with others on the SA leadership. However, I have no stomach for pointless gestures.

While we are clearing matters up, comrade Thomas claims that I said: “If Respect emerges as a genuine force in elections, then the SA should be wound up.” What I actually said was a repetition of my statement at the January national council, that, to the extent the Respect coalition emerges as a genuine socialist alternative, the SA should be wound up.

The SWP is clearly throwing all it can into building Respect, something it did not do for the Socialist Alliance. Nick Wrack, as a practised attorney for the SWP, called for all of us to “give Respect a chance”. A pity the SWP did not offer the SA the same opportunity.

I had tabled a motion noting the absence of any report of previous executive meetings of Respect, either to Respect members or the general public. The motion also called on SA members on Respect’s leadership to report within 48 hours of a Respect executive meeting to the SA NEC. Comrades said they did not want this to be the first motion passed by the SA executive since the formation of Respect and asked me to withdraw it if its spirit was accepted.

I agreed to lay it on the table. Perhaps a mistake: the Respect executive met on February 22 and, as I write (February 25), there has been no report of its decisions. In response to my request for feedback on the SA executive mail list, Rob Hoveman (SA national secretary and SWP member) said: “The sentiment, as opposed to decision, of the Socialist Alliance executive was that we would communicate to the Respect executive the desirability of more communication if possible. Not that minutes of meetings should be produced to comply with the Weekly Worker’s deadlines.” Not a good sign. Was this desirability communicated? What was the response? We are left in the dark.

Fiona Prior, SWP member and RMT activist, gave a report of the Convention of the Trade Union Left. She said that of the 700 who attended 350 were delegated by union bodies. Over 130 trade union branches formally supported the convention.

I said that in our approach to the unions, we could not just skip over the historical grip of the Labour Party on the organised working class. We should be taking the fight for working class representation into the Labour Party, as well as building electoral possibilities outside it. For that reason, we should not just call for disaffiliation. At the FBU conference we should oppose disaffiliation motions.

It was reported that Camden No3 branch of the RMT was discussing the possibility of backing Respect for the Camden and Barnett GLA constituency. There will be some conflict here, as the RMT council of executives has already endorsed Lucy Anderson, the Labour Party candidate, after she agreed to the four-point minimum platform of the RMT: for renationalisation of the railways, opposition to privatisation of the tube, defence of the shipping industry and repeal of the anti-union laws.

Comrade Hoveman answered this by simply dismissing Lucy Anderson as a Blairite. A funny sort of Blairite that openly supports the RMT’s minimum platform. Attempts to build a working class alternative will be doomed if we are unable to relate tactically to the Labour Party.

Finally we received the annual accounts of the Socialist Alliance from SA treasurer Shelly Margetson and dealt with organisation for the March 13 special conference. Nick Wrack, Mandy Baker, Simon Joyce, Rob Hoveman, Will McMahon and myself were appointed to the conference arrangements committee.