04.03.2004

Looking forward to success

European Social Forum

There was a businesslike atmosphere at the February 29 organising committee. There is also growing confidence. The 2004 European Social Forum will be held in London and we expect it to be a resounding success: that will be the message going out to next weekend’s European assembly.

It looks likely that the main venue - to be held over three days in mid-October - will be Alexandra Palace (with the possibility of overflow sites in Bloomsbury and/or Haringey). Chris Nineham of Globalise Resistance and the Socialist Workers Party described it as a “very non-corporate and sympathetic space”, situated in Haringey, with its large Turkish and Cypriot communities.

The Alexandra Palace building itself could cater for 20,000 people, but a considerably larger number could be accommodated through the use of marquees, etc in its grounds. However, Dave Hillman of the Tobin Tax Network stressed that we had to raise at least £1 million, and that required a “solid business plan”. Redmond O’Neill, the Greater London Authority’s director of public affairs and transport, elaborated on this: the bottom line of 20,000 people at Alexandra Palace would cost £1.2 million, rising to an estimated £1.58 million for 40,000 people.

The additional cost would arise mainly from the provision of marquees. However, at the meeting of the smaller coordinating committee on March 3, comrade O’Neill reported that the venue “is even better than we thought”: four more potential meeting rooms had been “discovered”. This means we will have to hire fewer marquees and can accommodate more people in the main venue.

The clear consensus from the February 29 meeting was that we should aim to exceed the 52,000 visitors at last year’s ESF in Paris: Alex Callinicos of Project K (and, of course, the SWP) said, considering “the breadth of the movement” in Britain, 50,000 was hardly an unrealistic aim. He reminded comrades that the organisers of the first ESF in Florence planned for 10,000 and got five times as many. Dave Timms from the World Development Movement NGO, suggested that the more ambitious we were, the more sponsorship we would get, since the extra plenaries and seminars would mean more speakers’ slots could be allocated to sponsoring organisations.

Comrade O’Neill pointed out that, while he too hoped for large numbers attending, “When it comes to money, pessimism is the order of the day.” It was pretty clear that a good deal of cash could be raised from advance bookings, but it was very difficult to persuade potential backers, particularly from the trade unions, to help finance it on that basis. The TUC had asked for “market research” on the expected numbers, but that was not exactly easy to provide. For example, in Paris over 70% of ESF visitors had paid on the day.

That is why, from the point of view of raising finance, it was better to err on the cautious side, said comrade O’Neill, and draw up our plans accordingly. After all, somebody was going to be “legally liable” and the GLA would not put in any money unless it was clear there would be sufficient from elsewhere.

In that respect the £50,000 agreed by London Unison is very welcome, but, as Fred Leplat from the union’s regional committee stated, it only amounted to three percent of what is necessary. Nevertheless, Alex Gordon of the RMT was confident that the TUC would give its backing, and that would “unlock funds from other unions”.

A major source of finance would come from registration fees collected from those attending the event, but Paris was not an example to follow, said comrade O’Neill. It introduced a complicated sliding scale of fees and on average just over €10 was charged per person, which brought in the equivalent of only £300,000. It was “out of the question” that London would charge so little. The overall proposal to be put to the European assembly must include a “realistic” registration charge.

SWP comrades in particular (around two dozen out of the 80 people present were SWP members) pushed strongly for substantial registration charges. However, a small minority demanded the fixing of token fees for unwaged people, especially refugees and asylum-seekers. An Iraqi comrade suggested £4 was the most they could be expected to pay, while Mariangela from Manchester SF claimed that high fees would not allow “space for networks” and were “not in the spirit of the ESF”.

A young refugee worker started to shout down other speakers and stood on her chair demanding rock-bottom charges for people like those she worked with. Eventually she stomped out in disgust. But Elaine Heffernan, an SWP comrade who also works with refugees, argued that there was no need for such low charges across the board. Refugees had proved they are perfectly capable of fundraising and what was needed was to integrate them into the class, not treat them as charity cases. She argued that there should be a solidarity fund to subsidise people with no income, but to call for an amount such as £4 for all students, pensioners, single parents, etc would be to make the whole project unviable.

As there was clearly no consensus on this question, the chair called for a “straw poll” (voting is not permitted in ESF bodies, but in this case we were asked to raise our hands). The overwhelming majority were in favour of comparatively high registration charges and comparatively small reductions for unwaged people. The standard fee that will be suggested to the European assembly will be £40 for three days, with £30 for unwaged. In addition delegations will pay £60 each.

However, the aim will be to raise as much cash as possible in advance, and so the above charges will all attract a £10 discount if booked beforehand. A commercially run website will be set up as soon as possible in order to facilitate this. However, Redmond O’Neill told the March 3 coordinating committee that, even if the chosen company started work on Monday morning after the assembly gives the go-ahead, “as it stands, the earliest finishing date would be May 5”. As an interim solution, a temporary website will be put up by the GLA within the next few days.

A percentage of all registration fees will be set aside for the solidarity fund and there will also be a rate of £15 (£10 unwaged) for one day’s attendance.

The same division was apparent over the question of affiliation fees - another source of necessary income. The same comrades who championed heavy subsidies for everybody on low income wanted the same treatment for themselves and were horrified at being asked to pay a minimum of £250 (for organisations with under 1,000 members). However, it was agreed that the organising committee can allow lower rates “if necessary” and comrade O’Neill suggested that the minutes should read: “No-one will be turned away.”

Once again SWP comrades were to the fore in urging, in the words of comrade Callinicos, a “significant commitment” from affiliates. And it must be said that they seem to be putting their money where their mouth is - several SWPers stated that they were speaking for an affiliated union branch or other organisation.

Clearly, in the words of comrade Gordon, we are moving towards the position where the London ESF will be “getting the green light”. As Jonathan Neale of the SWP said, “We’ve had months and months of wrangling with each other. Now it’s going to happen.”

Programme

Another area of broad agreement was on the need for the ESF to host genuine debate rather than a whole series of set-piece speeches. Comrade Callinicos said (rather ironically, I felt, coming from an SWP leader): “We don’t want platform speakers just saying how awful the world is.” Comrade O’Neill was in favour of a “robust exchange of views” and cited one area of disagreement that he hoped would be brought out into the open - the ban on the hijab in France, over which many of our comrades across the Channel have such “backward” views.

Comrade Timms, reporting from the programme working group, proposed that there should be a much smaller number of platform speakers than we saw in Paris and Florence. There should be no platforms made up entirely of academics and neither should speakers be allocated purely and simply according to their country, as had occurred in 2003. In the programme group, comrade Timms has been arguing for a hybrid solution, where 50% of speakers would be selected according to a national quota and 50% by an international ESF programme group. His suggestion might be too complicated to be practical. However, in my view it is quite correct to insist that, while platforms should be representative in terms of nationality, it is absolutely essential that speakers should be chosen first and foremost in order to facilitate “robust debate”.

The same consideration should also apply to the gender of speakers. Comrade Timms’s proposal - that no plenary without at least one woman speaker would be permitted - was pretty minimalist, it is true, but comrade O’Neill’s suggestion that 50-50 gender representation must be a requirement seemed rather at odds with the proposal to reduce the impact of quotas for participating countries. Of course we should aim for a roughly equal balance, but to enforce it smacks of bureaucratic formalism.

There was also general agreement that there should be a greater proportion of seminars vis-à-vis plenaries compared to previous ESFs. There should also be fewer platform speakers to allow more interventions from the floor.

Anne Mc Shane from the CPGB stressed the centrality of workshops, which should be held on site if at all possible. But comrade O’Neill said that booking rooms for workshops was “out of the question” - their organisers would have to do that themselves. However, several speakers argued that this was impractical: would we really be asking an environmental campaign from Poland or an anti-war group from Greece to arrange their own room in ULU or Friends House? Comrade Nineham said there was no choice but to book workshop sites centrally - “We book the spaces; the groups pay.” In the coordinating committee he said that it would be “impossible” to host the workshops on site at Ally Pally: “There won’t even be enough space for all the seminars.” Various venues in Bloomsbury, as well as in Haringey, would have to be further investigated to provide “overflow capacity”.

Another “straw poll” was taken over the question of the precise dates for the three days of the ESF. Should it be over the Thursday, Friday and Saturday of October 14-16? This would allow people from Europe to travel home on the Sunday. Alternatively Friday, Saturday and Sunday would be more likely to attract greater numbers of day visitors from Britain. The latter won the “poll” and seems likely to be declared the ‘consensus’ of the UK organising committee.

Richard Brenner of Workers Power emphasised the importance of allowing space for the Assembly of Social Movements. He pointed to the absurdity of the World Social Forum ban on decision-making, which meant that exactly the same organisations were forced to meet under a different name - the ASM - in order to agree to act. It was the assembly, not the ESF itself, that set the date for the historic international demonstrations against the invasion of Iraq on February 15 2003.

However, comrade Redmond pointed out that the TUC did not agree with last year’s ASM statement. Therefore, if we wanted TUC funding, the assembly would have to be kept separate from the ESF itself. Nevertheless, the organising committee accepted that a space would be made for the ASM. At previous ESFs, the ASM took place on the Sunday morning. If our ESF lasts from Friday to Sunday, the obvious question is - when will the ASM take place? On Monday morning? Thursday night? In either case, the effect would be to sideline the ASM, which will not go down well with our European comrades. It was further agreed that a space would be kept for a demonstration on the Saturday.

SWP comrades proposed that the central slogan of the ESF, ‘Against war and neoliberalism’, should be changed to something “more accessible”: ie, ‘Against war, privatisation and cuts’. They were also unhappy with ‘Another Europe is possible’, which they said sounded Eurocentric. They proposed ‘Another world is possible’.

While, of course, we aim to change the world, we urgently need to organise concretely - here in Europe, against the European Union of the bosses. When the EU of capital adopts a constitution, incorporate new members and begins to take on state forms, how should we respond? By opting out? Surely, as well as demonstrating our commitment to global change in the interest of the working class and oppressed, our slogans must also reflect the tasks of the European left?

Weekly Worker

While, in contrast to previous meetings, the atmosphere at the organising committee was one of toleration (no enforcement of a predetermined agenda by the chair) and greater transparency (“Every affiliate should be entitled to minutes of all committees,” said comrade O’Neill), there still seems to be something of a phobia when it comes to open reporting.

During his presentation on finance Redmond alleged that unspecified “inaccurate reports, particularly in the Weekly Worker, have put some unions off”. In response Anne Mc Shane said that the Weekly Worker was widely read, including by union officials, because it was often the only way people were kept informed. If we make mistakes, she said, they could easily be corrected.

Maureen O’Mara from Natfhe rejected this: “The TUC has held back to a watching brief because of those inaccuracies - on more than one occasion they were about to walk away.” She also blamed the non-appearance of unnamed NGOs on our  paper: “It’s not good enough to say, ‘We can apologise later.’ You shouldn’t do it in the first place.”

This is the first time we have heard such allegations and they are very serious indeed. We have contacted Maureen to find out which organisations are supposedly not taking part in the process because of Weekly Worker coverage and what exactly they and the TUC have found so unacceptable. As we go to press, we have not had a reply from the comrade.

After the organising committee meeting I asked comrade O’Neill which Weekly Worker “inaccuracies” had jeopardised the London ESF. He did not elaborate on comrade O’Mara’s remarks about the TUC, but told me that he had been emailed by a worried Alexandra Palace representative, wanting to know whether it was true there was “still no money in sight”, apart from London Unison’s £50,000, to pay for the booking (Weekly Worker February 19). A link to that edition was provided by the Ally Pally rep.

Taken out of context, it is “inaccurate” to say that there is no money “in sight”. But our reports have always made clear the substantial financial offer coming from the GLA and the likelihood that several big unions, and the TUC itself, would provide funds in the near future. So in reality our reports have been spot on.

Of course, it is not alleged “inaccuracies”, but our exposure of control-freakery and the danger that the ESF could be turned into a Livingstone jamboree that annoys comrade O’Neill and causes him acute embarrassment. Nor presumably does he like his political affiliations discussed. Certainly the SWP hates our coverage of its somewhat dubious role. But the anti-capitalist movement ought to know all about these things … just like it ought to know about what is going on in the UN and between governments.

Comrade O’Neill was at pains to deny that he wanted to suppress criticism. He told me that meetings such as those of the organising committee should not be reported at all, since they were “work in progress”. And, though censorship and bans has been rejected by all the ESF committees, comrade O’Neill - as self-appointed judge and jury - informed me that if the Weekly Worker continued to ‘endanger’ the ESF, “we’ll exclude you”. In truth it is not the Weekly Worker, but such bureaucratic shenanigans and high-handed threats that endanger the ESF. After all, if they get rid of the Weekly Worker who will be next?

The ESF is not a conspiracy. There should be nothing to hide, nothing to be ashamed of. Only those who are conspiring to use the ESF for their own narrow purposes, only those who have something to hide, only those who have something to be ashamed of fear publicity.