11.03.2004

Reject SWP control-freakery

This weekend’s special conference of the Socialist Alliance looks like being something of a sad affair. The majority based upon the Socialist Workers Party favours winding the alliance up and merging it into Respect. Whereas previous conferences - debating motions on all manner of subjects and hearing speakers from fraternal organisations across Europe - at least had the appearance of an organisation reaching upwards and outwards, Saturday’s gathering will be more like a wake (with all the normal haggling, bickering and even the walkouts).

It will debate two agenda items: our collective attitude to Respect; and methods of election to the SA executive committee. The former obviously has much more of an air of reality to it than the latter (it is unlikely there will be another executive committee after October).

Discussion on Respect is in four sections: first; our general attitude to the coalition; second, what the SA does within it; third, SA work in the new circumstances; and four, other considerations. There will be a report from our chair, Nick Wrack, followed by 45 minutes of open discussion. Conference will then move to motions.

The main debate will be around the issue of candidates in the local elections. The executive’s ‘task group’ on left unity is proposing a motion that effectively bans SA branches from contesting the June 10 local elections in the SA’s name. Where local alliances insist on standing, the motion lays down a process whereby SA candidates could be endorsed by the Respect executive committee … and stand as Respect candidates.

Opposition is widespread. Not only from those openly hostile to any involvement in Respect; it also comes from quarters normally compliant with the SWP line. Indeed, Andy Newman, an SWPer from Swindon SA and a national executive member, is backing an amendment opposing any blanket ban.

Alan Thornett of the International Socialist Group, increasingly losing all class bearings, is perhaps the most vociferous supporter of the ban on SA candidates. It is also backed by Nick Wrack, who now doubles as chair of Respect too, of course. But this motion is control-freakery gone ballistic. What is the problem with SA candidates? If everyone does not jump instantly to follow the new line, so what? All of a sudden, the SWP wants to treat the alliance like a centralist organisation - albeit a bureaucratic, not a democratic, one.

There are three amendments to the task group motion. One, from the CPGB, while calling on SA members to join Respect and recognising that the alliance will not contest the European or GLA elections, argues against clashes between the SA and Respect in the local elections, but leaves the decision on whether to stand entirely in the hands of local alliances.

The amendment from Will McMahon et al recommends, rather than instructs, the task group procedure of seeking Respect endorsement of local candidates. It also instructs any SA candidates in local elections to explain on election material that they support Respect in the European and GLA elections. The amendment from the Democracy Platform deletes all reference to support for or joining Respect, but lets local alliances determine what to do for themselves.

If we are to have any chance of overturning the worst parts of the task group motion, we will need to find a way for supporters of all three amendments to vote together. However, this seems unlikely at this stage.

The alternative motion on Respect - from Stockport SA and the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty - completely opposes any involvement. The only amendment is, according to the conference arrangements committee, out of order, as it is considered to be hostile to the substantive motion. I would expect this motion to fall and the task group motion to pass - perhaps after amendment, depending on the size of any SWP rebellion.

The Democracy Platform comrades are then due to walk, as the rest of conference breaks for lunch. Some are leaving the SA altogether, others just for the day. A futile gesture, as far as I am concerned.

The second section of the Respect item is on what SA members should do within the unity coalition. There are seven motions here. Motion one calls on SA members to campaign for a workers’ party within Respect. Clearly it should be supported. Motion two calls on any SA member who stands for another organisation to do so only if ‘Socialist Alliance’ appears on the ballot paper. Apart from being a little unrealistic, it may be in breach of electoral law.

Motions three, four and five are from the CPGB. They call on SA members within Respect to accept a worker’s wage if elected (donating the rest of their MEP or GLA salary to the movement), to support a policy of open borders and to fight for republican aims within Respect. Obviously, they should all be supported. It will be interesting to see if the SWP is prepared to back them - after all, it has only opposed these points previously on the grounds that it would be wrong to force them on Respect as a whole.

Motion six is from Dave Landau and concerns the BNP. While its motivation is sincere, its approach is wrong. It views the BNP as the main enemy in these elections and regards ‘no platform’ as a principle rather than a possible tactic.

Motion seven, from the Revolutionary Democratic Group, is unsupportable. It is all part of Steve Freeman’s current odyssey to rediscover the good bits in the ‘official communist’ programme, the British road to socialism: ie, the broad democratic alliance. Apparently everything in the Respect coalition would have been okay if it had adopted the formal goal of a republic. Hmmm.

Section three contains five motions. They are all essentially neutral on Respect, but call for the SA to continue. They should be supported. Motion three in this section, from the RDG, while abstractly correct, is a pious wish for things to be as they were in the good old days. To call for an SA paper now is surely to waste your breath.

The fourth part contains only one motion - again from the RDG - identifying economism and sectarianism as the source of the SWP’s rejection of republicanism. The conference arrangements committee has ruled this out of order. As a CAC member, I opposed this ruling. But even if conference overturns this decision, Steve Freeman will not be in the conference to move it, having walked out at lunch time.

Executive committee

There are four alternative methods proposed for electing the SA executive committee: the AWL calls for a single transferable vote, while Alan Thornett is for a take-it-or-leave-it slate system (amended so as to establish an elections preparation committee, which is charged with drawing up a recommended slate from nominations received three weeks before conference).

The CPGB motion also favours a recommended list drawn up by an elections preparation committee (appointed by and responsible to conference). We want a first-past-the-post system that would allow separate votes for each candidate rather than a whole slate. Members would thereby be allowed to freely pick and mix - an anathema to all control-freaks. The other proposal, from Sue Blackwell, is overly complicated and would fail to guarantee the minority representation it desires.