27.10.2004

Electoral cooperation plus

On Sunday October 24 a meeting of representatives of several left groups was held in London to discuss the possibility of cooperation for the general election likely to take place in 2005, and of wider cooperation. This is a pretty unambitious project in its present form. However, Respect increasingly clearly appears as a bureaucratically-controlled front for the Socialist Workers Party, and the Respect executive committee is recommending to Respect’s conference a pretty limited, “targeted” campaign for the general election. As a result, the October 24 initiative may turn out more significant than at present appears.

This was a delegate meeting called by the Alliance for Green Socialism (AGS), Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (AWL), Socialist Party in England and Wales (SPEW) and Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform (SADP). These groups had two delegates each. One delegate each came from the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB), Revolutionary Democratic Group (RDG), Socialist Unity Network (SUN), Workers Power (WP) and Workers International (WI). Apologies were received from the International Socialist League and the ‘Liverpool 47’ surcharged councillors. Among other invitees, the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain declined the invitation, while the embryo United Socialist Party (USP, to be launched next month by the Liverpool sacked dockers) did not reply.

None of those present had power to commit their organisations to anything. The meeting was thus exploratory: its outcome would be reported back before anything went any further.

The meeting was chaired by Mike Davies of the AGS, who had also drafted the agenda. This had two parts. First was a discussion of cooperation of the groups represented in the forthcoming general election. Second was a discussion of the possibility of wider forms of cooperation.

General election
We began by discussing who intends to stand candidates and how many. The AGS proposes to contest around five seats; SPEW between 20 and 30; the AWL one (possibly two or three); and the SADP perhaps six. None of the other groups was willing to commit to standing candidates, at least in their own names. Both CPGB and SUN indicated that we were very likely to support Respect candidates, but were fighting for Respect to adopt a unitary approach to other left candidates and might well ourselves support other socialist candidates. WI is likely to support the USP. WP regards the general election as “a low priority”.

The next phase was for the meeting to work through a list of forms of cooperation, starting with the minimum (avoiding clashes) and working up through a series of levels - agreement on target seats, common ‘badging’ in literature, a joint launch, mutual web links, mutual promotion of candidates, joint ‘policy bullet points’, use of each other’s facilities, joint press releases, joint literature, joint appeals for support to trade unions, etc, a joint web site, members working for each other, joint publicity stunts or events, common negotiations with ‘competitors’ (ie, Respect) and with potential allies (local independent left electoral campaigns), a joint ballot paper description, to the maximum - a joint manifesto.

At each level the question was not one of concrete proposals, but whether those present would be willing in abstract to engage in this form of cooperation. The only level actually ruled out by anyone in the meeting was a joint manifesto: most of those who contributed on the point thought that this was ruled out by the timescale, Mike Davies saying bluntly that in the AGS’s view this was “not a goer”; though Pete Radcliff (AWL) made the point that the Socialist Alliance’s 2001 manifesto could be used as a starting point. SPEW had the most reservations on earlier points: in general it was unwilling, for example, to engage in mutual web-links or mutual promotion of candidates until the election campaign was actually started, and expected to concentrate its members nationally on its own target constituencies rather than telling them to support local ‘cooperation’ candidates.

The question next posed was how to carry forward the abstract agreement which had been reached. The AGS’s proposal was for an election liaison committee composed of one representative from each group which was standing candidates - thus, at present, the AGS, AWL, SADP and SPEW. Pete McLaren (SADP) argued that there should also be a committee of those willing to participate in the cooperation, though they would be supporting rather than standing candidates, and I supported this proposal both on the grounds that such groups would need to decide whether the policy ‘bullet points’ adopted formed a basis for supporting the candidates and because the SADP was not a centralised group like the AWL or SPEW and would have difficulty with ‘representation’ by a single delegate.
However, the meeting reached a ‘consensus’ - ie, a large majority view without a formal vote - for an election liaison committee of those groups standing candidates. It was said that if other groups (such as the Walsall group, which has most recently stood under the SADP banner) decided to stand candidates, they could join the election liaison committee.

Broader cooperation
The final part of the meeting was a discussion of the possibilities of wider cooperation between the groups represented. The meeting decided only that another meeting of all those organisations willing to participate should take place in January to explore the possibilities of wider cooperation. Pete McLaren of the SADP agreed to convene this meeting. The discussion was, however, of some interest as showing the different views of the groups (or, at least, those of their members present) in regard to the possibilities for unity.

It was kicked off by statements from the AGS, SADP, AWL and SPEW. The most negative of these was the AWL. Pete Radcliff argued that there was not a vacuum on the left, simply a difference of views. The idea of a ‘new workers’ party’ posed the question of what sort of party: the only actual alternatives were a mass workers’ party based on the trade unions and a cadre revolutionary party (ie, something like the existing groups). The existence of the groups reflected real political differences, and the most that could be hoped for was limited electoral collaboration and a clarification of the differences between the groups.

SPEW’s letter replying to the AGS’s proposal of this meeting has suggested that this would also be their line. Unexpectedly, Clive Heemskirk for SPEW was somewhat more positive. He argued that there was a vacuum to the left of Labour. The groups present could not fill it by an act of will by ‘declaring’ a new party, but cooperation could go beyond elections: we should explore what was possible in relation to the PCS dispute and the Unison general secretary election. To achieve cooperation in those areas where there was agreement, we needed a structure which reflected the existence of disagreement and allowed differences to exist. The fundamental lesson of the Socialist Alliance was that this implied a federalist structure.

This last point was also a strong element in the presentation of Mike Davies for the AGS. Mike argued that the SA had failed for two reasons: because it lacked constitutional guarantees against an SWP takeover, and because the lack of balance between large groups, small groups and individuals made it ineffective. He argued that the road to a broader organisation - in the AGS view, a red-green party - lay through practical collaboration and the creation at this stage of a joint committee or network of organisations.

Pete McLaren agreed broadly on the issue of federalism. The majority view of the SADP was, he said, not to announce a new workers’ party - the question was how to go about getting a broader organisation. He argued that since the electoral initiative would wish to encourage groups who were not themselves standing to put in resources, it was desirable to have a broader liaison committee.
Stuart King (WP) argued the meeting was putting the cart before the horse. We stood in the wreckage of the SA, and there was no prospect of a serious electoral intervention - we had to wait for Respect to fail. It was more urgent that there was currently a “ferment” in the trade unions. What was needed was to work in the unions, particularly at local and regional rather than national level, to confront the need for a new workers’ party.

The apparent consensus on federal structures as the solution was criticised from slightly different angles by myself, Jim Jepps (SUN) and Bob Archer (WI). My own point was that ‘constitutional guarantees’ are largely illusory in protecting against a large bureaucratic centralist organisation which was determined to put its sect interests before the interests of the whole. The SWP had a majority in the SA in 2001, and if it had not got its way would simply have pulled its forces out; others would still have been ‘sleeping with an elephant’ - this time SPEW. The underlying problem was the false conception of the majority of the organised groups of what counted as a ‘revolutionary’ party, which was the real ground of their separation. It was true that we could not proclaim a new workers’ party, but fighting for a party was not a matter of waiting for the trade unions to move: both the Labour Party and in particular the ‘official’ Communist Party had emerged at least in part through initiatives by the small organised socialist groups.

Jim argued that the SWP would not have walked out of the SA, but simply reduced its efforts (which it did anyhow) and operated behind the scenes. What was needed was a genuine commitment to cooperation. Successful initiatives by the far left could set in motion a dynamic: thus the success of the Scottish Socialist Party had led to RMT support for SSP candidates, which led to the RMT’s expulsion from the Labour Party, which helped in the FBU’s decision to disaffiliate. Successful practical initiatives could create a dynamic of cooperation, as opposed to a formalistic liaison agreement.

Bob Archer agreed with both Stuart, on the ferment in the unions, and myself, on the historical role of initiatives by the groups in the formation of a party, particularly the CPGB. The groups had to be willing to put aside organising round their particular shibboleths, since their views would only prove their value (or not) in the context of a real workers’ party. He had a great deal of respect for SPEW members, but the Liverpool dockers/USP were fundamentally right, he said, to insist on the dissolution of organised groups if the groups were to participate in the formation of a new party.

Steve Freeman (RDG) argued that there were four fundamental features of the situation. There was a crisis of democracy in Britain, made clear by the war, which required a democratic programme. There was a vacuum to the left of Labour. The trade unions were increasingly alienated from Labour. And the Socialist Alliance had failed and the movement had become fragmented. We cannot create a party by wishing for one, but need a conscious process of fighting for one. In this context he would propose that this group take initiatives both towards Respect and towards the USP.

Replying to earlier arguments, Steve Radford (AGS) said that the AGS’s position was in general similar to SPEW’s: it would not accept any organisational form which was not federal. He was sceptical about work in the unions, since in his view the process of corruption and decay of the unions had now often reached down to the base: for example, shop stewards appointed by management.

Cooperation had to be on practical issues: through this we could build trust. Hannah Sell (SPEW) said that on the question of a new workers’ party most comrades seemed to have come round to the SPEW line. We had a role in the development of such a party, but it was primarily an objective process. Differences about trade union policy and affiliation probably meant that a united campaign in the unions was not possible. What was required in any new formation was a consensus approach and a consensus constitution. The first step was to build the capacity to work together in practical initiatives.
The final contributor in the general discussion, Dave Church (SADP), said that as usual he was profoundly unhappy with the discussion. As far as the elections were concerned, the issue was how to survive what would be another disastrous result for the left in 2005 and prepare for the election after next: at that point New Labour would be in deep crisis, the Tories would be on the way back and, once they got in, Labour would posture to the left again. For this purpose a common name was absolutely fundamental: without a common name nobody outside would take the project seriously. What was in question in working together was not ‘trust’ but agreeing some ground rules that we all agree to work under.

The electoral problem and the unity problem
If the proposed electoral cooperation gets off the ground and the groups involved are able to agree a worthwhile set of ‘policy points’ and a common name, it will be a strongly positive initiative. As I said at the beginning of the article, it now looks as through Respect will pursue a small, ‘targeted’ election campaign. In this context between 30 and 40 candidates on a common platform is less than the Socialist Alliance could have achieved if the SWP had not smashed it up, but nonetheless a valuable attempt to contest the Labourites’ implicit claim that ‘there is no alternative’.

That is, of course, as long as the new electoral cooperation does not wind up contesting the same seats as Respect. In this case it will merely re-emphasise the disunity of the left. It is therefore important that the new cooperation should make a serious attempt to negotiate with Respect for, at a minimum, an agreement to avoid clashes. The October 24 initiative equally needs to be about fighting for a socialist alternative to New Labour, not a socialist alternative to Respect. On the other side, the SUN has proposed a resolution to the Respect conference calling for the unity coalition to take a unitary approach to other socialist electoral campaigners: it is of the highest importance that delegates to the Respect conference should support it.

The larger unity problem is more intractable. The blunt fact is that ‘consensus’ does not prevent bureaucratic manipulation. The experience of the European Social Forum should be the clearest demonstration of that. It merely creates lowest common denominator politics.

What we need for unity at the end of the day is what Dave Church called “ground rules”. That is, willingness - both on the part of larger and smaller groups and individuals - to be in a minority. Those who have refused to join Respect, and the SP and AGS who split from the SA because they were in minority positions, need to consider how far this is consistent with the aim of unity.

The converse is willingness on the part of majorities to accept that without the existence of the annoying minorities and their participation in discussion and decision-making, there can be no real unity. Supporters of Respect - which is precisely designed by the SWP to exclude annoying minorities - are equally obliged to think seriously about how far this is consistent with the aim of unity.