07.06.2006

Martin Smith's 'appeal' fiasco

Comrade Simon was expelled from the Socialist Workers Party in a completely arbitrary manner. He was simply informed by telephone by national organiser Martin Smith: 'You're out of the party'

The appeal turned out to be a kangaroo court. It was only when I said I would appeal that they presented me with the charges. These were: bringing the party into disrepute; leaking internal party documents; factionalism; and non-payment of dues. There were no specifics on the 'charge sheet', so I was still in the dark when I turned up for the hearing.

The appeal took place in Oxford House in Bethnal Green. Those present were comrade Smith and industrial organiser Moira Nolan, plus Pat Stack and Monica Axson from the disputes committee. Comrades Smith and Nolan were to present the case against me, while comrades Stack and Axson made up the panel.

Comrade Stack told me the appeal would begin with comrades Smith and Nolan presenting the accusations against me. Moira Nolan reminded me that when I had spoken out against the climate change motion at last year's Respect conference she had given me a 'yellow card' for breaking the "principles of democratic centralism". The SWP had met the night before to discuss the conference and had decided the party line on all the motions. But I had been unable to make it and didn't know they had taken a hard-and-fast position. Perhaps only those who had been to the caucus were allowed to speak - you tell me. There was no circular explaining the importance of the pre-conference caucus.

After my speech at conference, comrade Nolan hadn't actually mentioned the caucus. She just told me I should apologise to the proposer of the climate change motion for "offending" her. In fact, SWP members in Tower Hamlets, where I was a member, hadn't had our own caucus to discuss the agenda and I felt justified in pointing out that the motion was badly thought out, confused and disjointed.

This wasn't part of the actual charge, so I don't know what specifically it related to. Perhaps it brings the SWP into disrepute when members publicly express differences over the effects of climate change and the way to combat them. But there hadn't even been a proper discussion on all the issues within the SWP. For example, there had been a couple of letters on nuclear power in Socialist Review and Socialist Worker that seemed to be just opening up the debate. Yet it was just cut off when it came to Respect - we are against nuclear power and that is that.

It seems this was decided at a short meeting in a pub for SWP Respect delegates where there wasn't even enough time for a debate (when I first joined I was told that meetings in smoke-filled pubs were a thing of the past). Are all SWP members committed by what was agreed - or, more likely, announced - at the caucus?

Then it was Martin Smith's turn. He had a laptop connected to the internet, which he turned round to show me a web page. He asked, "Is this your blog?" - someone must have been surfing around to find out what was being written about Respect and had come up with my blog. He said I had been "disrespectful" to the SWP because I had "defamed" John Rees and Chris Nineham in what was basically a verbatim report of a Tower Hamlets Respect meeting.

I wasn't going to deny it was my blog - I'm not covering up anything. We have to communicate to the movement and tell people what's happening. SWP and Respect members themselves - perhaps those who couldn't get to the meeting - want to find out what's going on.

Comrade Smith pointed to this report and said it had brought the SWP into disrepute. As far as I was concerned, it was a faithful rendition of what was said, and who said it, at the meeting to select Respect candidates for the local elections in Tower Hamlets. But he didn't mention any specifics. He didn't say, 'This sentence defames John Rees.' He said that "this sort of thing" is "disrespectful".

You just can't answer a charge of disrepute without the specifics. It was just left vague and by that time I knew there was no point in arguing. You have reported the experience of other comrades - for example, Matt Kidd - who also found out that any display of independent thinking within the SWP is frowned upon.

There was nothing in my blog report that portrayed John Rees as a villain, claimed he was having a secret affair or was an alcoholic. It was a factual report of what happened at the meeting. If this is "disrepute", then the SWP's leading cadre don't have very thick skins. These comrades have been in the movement 20 or 30 years - they ought to be used to criticism, let alone just having their comments reported. They've had to deal with the press, with rightwingers, with the Nazis, even other leftwingers.

If you look at the Conservative or Labour parties, or any party you care to name, comment is perfectly normal, not the subject of disciplinary action. What sort of organisation are they running that arbitrarily expels people for having a different view?

No other charges were brought up. I had previously told them I had not stopped paying my dues - there had been some mix-up with my bank account - so perhaps they decided to drop this charge. And they didn't mention factionalism either. So I will never know who I was supposed to have been factionalising with and around what platform. As for the charge that I had leaked internal documents to the Weekly Worker, again comrade Smith did not speak to that at all. I still do not know what I am supposed to have handed over.

My only other concrete 'crime' was to have asked a comrade outside my own borough as well as my own branch secretary if they could arrange for me to attend SWP conference as a visitor. Apparently talking to someone outside your own area is not on - perhaps this in itself implies 'factionalism'.

Pat Stack asked me if I wished to reply and I indicated I wanted to read out the statements I had prepared. But Martin Smith said, "No, I don't want to listen to this." So comrades Nolan and Smith left and I then read out my statements to the 'panel'.

It was clear that, whatever I said, it would make no difference. Even though the comrades didn't bring any evidence of what I had done, I tried in my statements to answer the charges as best as I could. In my presentation I made it clear that they had failed to make a specific case against me. I said I had no idea how exactly I had "brought the SWP into disrepute". I know my 'mistake' can't be anything like as damming as that of Sue Bond's over the pension deal. She is a leading party member and PCSU comrade and shares responsibility for ensuring that thousands of new workers will have to work until they are 65 and not 60. Scandalous - and yet she is still in the party. Actions like these bring the SWP into disrepute.

I said I had never handed over documents to the Weekly Worker (although I gave comrade Stack a number of quotes from half-a-dozen different sources to show how commonplace SWP leaks are). However, I do read the Weekly Worker, along with a host of other leftwing papers, and I find the open polemical way information is presented refreshing. I think debate and criticism should be openly conducted within the party and, most importantly, in front of the working class.

Sadly this just does not happen in the SWP. The leadership has its disagreements and debates, but they are always hidden, always in private, never in the open. Tony Cliff himself quoted Lenin on this subject in his introduction to Badayev's book on the role of Bolsheviks in the tsarist duma. He said the revolutionary party must be strong enough "openly to criticise itself" and call a mistake and a weakness "by their proper names". Democracy cannot live in a climate where mistakes and weaknesses are never admitted. Where there is no truth and no openness there can be no democracy.

I said I had never been in an organised faction in the SWP at any time. But I admitted disagreeing with the clause in the SWP constitution that allows temporary factions only around specific questions. When a decision on "the disputed question" is reached, factions must be closed down. While this remains the position of the SWP, there can be no serious or thorough debate.

For democratic structures to work a party must have a democratic culture. This means encouraging critical thought - and conducting the subsequent argument openly in front of the working class movement, as well as the membership. This is how the Bolsheviks operated, under much more restrictive circumstances than ours, with one factional battle after another. This did not weaken them: it trained them as revolutionaries and educated those who read their press. Such a democratic culture is not easy to achieve, but providing space for vigorous debate in Socialist Worker and allowing full factional rights would be a start.

I concluded by stating that real debate in the SWP is confined to the central committee. Conference exists to affirm the political victory of the dominant grouping, not to thrash out the arguments, let alone reconsider or change the line. Speaker after speaker gets up to agree with the main rapporteur and their chosen message. This is inevitable while factions are effectively outlawed and differences on the central committee remain a closed book to the membership. Democracy is carefully managed and gutted of any real content. The SWP agrees with freedom of expression in theory, but denies it in practice.

When I had finished, Pat Stack said, by way of response, "Do you really want to be in the SWP?" I said, yes, I do, I want to work within it. The gist of what I said was that there is hope for the SWP - hope that it can become a democratic organisation. I made the comparison with Tony Benn and his romantic ideas about the Labour Party. In the SWP I would hope to put my points across and try to change things slowly and perhaps work with others to make it a more democratic organisation. But I suppose working with others would be an example of 'factionalism'.

They said what I had read out was "irrelevant" and my arguments were just "sophistry". I was deliberately using my membership to bring the SWP into disrepute. They accused me of going into print in the Weekly Worker to explain what happened when Martin Smith expelled me by telephone. This proved that I couldn't be trusted.

I asked them if they wouldn't be frustrated if they were expelled in such a manner. I had been a hard-working member for three years, yet I hadn't been given any reason why I was expelled, let alone a proper hearing. I asked them if they wouldn't want to expose such obvious injustice if it happened to them. At that time I thought I was being expelled for speaking out of turn at an internal SWP meeting. I viewed it as my duty to inform other SWP members and let the movement know how I was being treated.

They didn't have anything to say in response to that. After all, this 'offence' of going to the Weekly Worker had been committed after I was no longer a member. But it was interesting that they should say the fact I complained about my expulsion in itself proved they had been right to kick me out.

Monica indicated she was in a hurry to finish, as she had another appointment, and so Pat Stack said abruptly: "Simon, you're expelled." They didn't even go through the motions of 'considering their decision' or pretending to consult each other. He just announced it. I don't suppose Martin Smith rushed back after I left to ask whether my appeal had been successful.

The next week, I had noticed there was an SWP public meeting on Respect in Camden, so I dropped in, as it was on my way home from work. Candy Udwin was the main speaker and there were about half-a-dozen other people there. They didn't know I had just been expelled and Candy had no idea who I was. I joined in the general discussion, making constructive suggestions about Respect campaigning.

The next day, I had a message on my answerphone from Martin Smith, saying he had heard I had gone to the meeting. "You're not allowed to go to any SWP events," he told me. The message also said he had written to the Tower Hamlets organiser to let them know. I texted him back saying that it was advertised as an SWP public meeting and surely, as a member of the public, I was entitled to go. I got a response that read: "When you are expelled from the party, that means you are not allowed to attend any SWP event, public meeting, Marxism, period."

I also had a message from comrade Udwin saying she was "surprised" that I had come to the Camden event and that I was "not welcome at our meetings". After several weeks I got a letter from comrade Smith confirming I was persona non grata.

What are they so afraid of? It is not as though I am likely to violently disrupt SWP events. Are they scared I might bring up questions they can't answer or are they ashamed of their own actions? Either way, it says a lot about the SWP's lack of confidence when they refuse to engage openly with anyone they have fallen out with in advertised public events.

It is all quite hard to take. After all, over three years of paper sales, meetings and so on, you build up comradeship and friendship with lots of people in the party. In those days it didn't enter my head that there was no democracy in the organisation. I found out the hard way.