13.10.2004

Lewisham & Greenwich: Predictable fix

The October 10 Lewisham and Greenwich Respect pre-conference meeting was a depressingly predictable event - the Socialist Workers Party, which has a two-thirds majority, faithfully applied what must have been a top priority edict to exclude from the Respect conference by any means CPGB delegates and resolutions. The SWP is not prepared to tolerate any criticism from the left. This does not augur well for the future.

We got off to a good start, as the new acting secretary, Michael Coulston (non-aligned), seems to be very efficient and well organised. A full list of members was available, as were all submitted motions.
However, the proceedings were severely hampered by incredibly bad chairing by Rita Carter (SWP). The poor comrade just had no idea what was going on - this was worse than having no chair at all! She opened the meeting by looking forward to a conference where Respect will “become a party with policy and democracy”.

But the manner in which the SWP comrades subsequently drove proceedings clearly revealed the constraints they wish to impose on policy and democracy. Paradoxically it also revealed the weakness and vulnerability of the SWP.

The first half of the meeting was taken up with a discussion of various local and national events and campaigns, future activities and our approach to local elections. This discussion went on for far too long with the result that we became pressed for time: we had 11 delegates to elect and 12 motions to consider.

By now individuals were guiding the chair and one sensible SWP comrade suggested changing the order of business to take motions first, so we could weigh up the positions of the candidates standing for delegate in the prior debate. From the point of view of CPGB comrades all the motions, in addition to our own four, were supportable, albeit with some reservations. Discussion and amendment proceeded in a straightforward manner.

The whole character of the meeting changed, though, when our motions came up. Here the SWP went into opposition overdrive.

This happened earlier than expected when comrade Helen (SWP) suggested that her own motion in defence of existing abortion rights be taken alongside the CPGB motion, which sought also to extend them.

In contrast to the meeting in Hackney, however, where the same SWP motion was presented (see left), here the comrades proposed an amendment - “and we defend a woman’s right to choose”. Excellent! An opportunity to composite, you might have thought, but it turned out this did not mean what it said, since the comrades insisted that defence of the status quo was all we should fight for - as if the authorisation of two doctors, and only up to the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, already represented a woman’s right to choose.

The anti-CPGB overdrive was unstoppable. Fighting to extend abortion rights, as opposed to defending what exists, would be too divisive. The whole thrust - and it was repeated throughout the meeting - was that distinctive ideas and firm principles are, for the SWP, inadvisable, since they serve to exclude people.

For the SWP inclusiveness means being so loose and non-committal - and if necessary voting down your own principles - that people can sign up on their own individual terms and read into policy whatever they like.

The CPGB motion on the constitution and the fight for democracy was, in the words of a succession of SWPers, “abstract”, “not a real issue” and “not an actual campaign”. The call for a democratic republic, disestablishment of the church, abolition of the House of Lords, etc was the equivalent of “an impossible demand”. It was, in the SWP mindset, too narrow and precise - if your policy is loose, not binding and open to a multitude of interpretations, everyone can agree. For the SWP inclusiveness means directionless populism.

One clause in this last motion - and there was a separate, more detailed resolution later - was on the question of elected representatives accepting only a skilled worker’s wage. Astonishingly, comrade Moira (SWP) objected on the basis that if this applied to her she would have to take a pay cut. First she invented what she thought was an average skilled worker’s wage of £22,000 and then contrasted this to her teacher’s wage of £40,000.

Indeed she informed us she could not survive on less than £40,000. Perhaps we should not ask middle class people like herself to take a pay cut. Inevitably, the motion was voted down.

The same fate was also to befall the CPGB motion on immigration controls. We said that the only way we could rationally defend migrants and asylum-seekers was through arguing for the free movement of people and open borders - anything less would amount to special-case pleading. But ‘ordinary people’ just would not accept this, the SWP comrades responded.

However, they got a bit lost when comrade Coulston proposed omitting reference to “immigration controls”. I accepted the amendment, as the same idea was still included in a different form of words: “Respect stands by the right of people to enter or leave Britain. Capital is free to move about the globe. Human beings must have the same right”.

Some of the more astute SWP members were wise to this - but not all. After the initial confusion SWP members dutifully voted against the motion, as amended. However, for the first time, we had the support of non-SWPers.

We were now well over time and still had the election of delegates to conference. Comrade Moira proposed a slate of 10 candidates and she had come up with a careful balance of “talents, experience and background” and a spread of geographical location throughout the two boroughs.

At this stage there were five candidates who were not on her ‘recommended list’ - but of those present only myself and a new SWP member, an asylum-seeker from eastern Europe, were excluded.
Comrade Monica Axson (SWP) said that people were free to propose an alternative slate, but we pointed out that national standing orders provided only for an individual vote. Out went the slate system.
I remarked that, as I did not know all the candidates, it would be useful to hear who they all were. It was agreed that candidates would introduce themselves, and comrade Moira would say something about those not present.

During this process it became apparent that there were fewer candidates than we had thought, as certain individuals had declined for one reason or another. Then our acting secretary, comrade Coulston, offered to withdraw and go as an observer - to the consternation of the SWP. Even worse, comrade Coulston announced that, with the new members who had signed up on the night, we were entitled to 11, not 10, delegates: we now had 11 candidates for 11 places! “Oh good, they can all go,” said comrade Coulston.

Comrade Moira now expressed doubt that we were actually entitled to 11 and suggested we only elect 10. “No, we are entitled to 11,” the acting secretary informed us. “Well, maybe we should elect 10 and one as a back-up just in case,” suggested comrade Moira. Comrade Coulston was insistent: “No, I’ve checked the figures. We are definitely entitled to 11.” The awful prospect now faced the SWP majority - one of the 11 would be from the CPGB! Then, miraculously, comrade Axson discovered a missing 12th candidate, who just happened to be sitting right beside her.

The hapless chair, oblivious to this tactical manoeuvre, had a sudden, fleeting fit of competency, believing that it was too late to start adding to the nominations: “We already went through all the names”. But the chair was ignored and a 12th candidate was added. I received only the two CPGB votes and one other.

Respect is supposed to help redress the democratic deficit that exists in society. Unfortunately, the SWP bureaucratically imposes a deficit of its own within the organisation itself.