23.03.2006

Wrong thoughts

When questions were raised about a response I wrote to an article in Socialist Review by Duncan Hallas in 1994, I knew there was a problem brewing. He had argued that the fight for reforms was a key part of revolutionary politics. My response was simply to say that I agreed, but what consequences did that have for the question of political reform?

Shortly after sending that in to SR, I became aware that I was under investigation and I was called to a series of meetings. At these, it was actually very unclear what I was being charged with, what misdemeanour I was being accused of. I had been a Fire Brigades Union official until the year before, so I was very suspicious that this new hostile attitude to me was related to my 'diminished' importance in the movement!

At the initial stages, a number of different allegations were made. I was told that I was a disruptive influence in my branch, for example; I simply went to my branch, reported this and got their support. Once I had countered it, that allegation simply disappeared from the 'charge sheet'. From then on, it was never really clear what I was supposed to have done.

In short, I think it was that I had maintained contact with comrades in the Revolutionary Democratic Group, who had been expelled  from the organisation for their political views already. This was said in the background, but it was never actually put to me as a formal allegation.

I was expelled, and then went through the process of a full appeal. This was a remarkable procedure, in which witnesses were heard without either myself or my representative being present. So the person against whom allegations are being made never gets to even hear them - so you can't even attempt to defend yourself. It is a process that contradicts all the basic elements of what would be needed for a just outcome. Anyone expelled from the SWP will be very lucky to get anything like a fair hearing, from my experience.

The strong implication I picked up was that I was being expelled because I held certain political views which were similar to opinions held by the RDG. Therefore - by definition - this meant that I would be in a position of 'permanent opposition' and that this was contrary to the rules of the party.

In other words, I was out not because of anything I had done, but because of what I thought.