13.11.2008

Expensive absurdity

Left Alternative has held its first (and last?) annual conference. Peter Manson reports on an electoral front that does not contest elections

What is the Left Alternative for? That is the question that must at least have crossed the mind of the 80-90 comrades (the majority Socialist Workers Party members) who attended its first annual conference on November 8.

LA is, of course, what remains of the anti-Galloway split from Respect, and Respect itself was designed to be the SWP’s electoral front. But now the SWP has decreed that contesting elections is a non-starter, following the disastrous Left List campaign and meagre vote in the May London assembly elections. That resulted in the dumping of John Rees, who as SWP leader during the Respect/Left List era clearly bore prime responsibility for the humiliation. Yet strangely LA has been allowed to continue as a shell, despite being deliberately run down by the SWP.

John Rees was, of course, nowhere to be seen at the conference. Chris Bambery, who, like him, has been removed by the central committee from the Left Alternative national council, dutifully gave the opening speech - and then retired from the platform and played no further role. Lindsey German, who stood down from the NC in solidarity with comrade Rees, was also absent. While Shaun Doherty (LA national convenor) and Elaine Graham-Leigh (national organiser) are to act as the SWP central committee dogsbodies from now on, overseeing them on the new national council will be Martin Smith, Charlie Kimber and John Molyneux (now back in favour in the SWP, after several years as a loyal oppositionist), aided and abetted by Preston councillor Michael Lavalette.

The new national council was expanded to 29 members, so as to make an election unnecessary. Of these, 12 are well known SWP members and at least another eight are very close supporters (if they are not members too). The new chair is victimised Unison activist Michael Gavan, who, if not yet an SWPer, for all the world appears to be one. Comrades Doherty and Graham-Leigh were elected separately (also unopposed) and will sit on the NC in addition to all the above SWP comrades.

Holding operation

Comrade Bambery gave the SWP line on the prospects for the left. Marx is back, he said, and we should expect an anti-capitalist wave that will be much stronger than after Seattle. However, the opportunity for a “radical election challenge” is “more modest than ever”, so the task of socialists is to mount a kind of “holding operation” (such as getting lots of people to sign the ever so inspiring People Before Profit Charter) and await “better opportunities”. Comrade Bambery was certain that “the lack of representation for working class people” was going to come back on the agenda - but not until after the next general election.

I get the feeling that one of the few non-SWPers that are still around, Explo Nani-Kofi, a London assembly candidate in May and an NC member, will not be there for much longer, judging by his long series of moans about the shortcomings of the election campaign: standing with a new name that had been adopted just six weeks beforehand was a mistake, the campaign had not recruited anyone, there had been no assessment of the results, nobody had turned up to meetings … He concluded, somewhat cryptically, with the assertion that “any leadership that does not defend its positions” is an example of “cowardice and opportunism”.

Toby Abse, also newly elected to the NC, was the only comrade who spoke against the SWP line that standing in elections would not produce results in current circumstances. In view of the economic crisis, he wanted to know, how could it be true that there was no space for an electoral alternative? We cannot wait until after the general election before we consider standing - it would be “crazy” to contest only half a dozen seats.

What is more, the left “cannot afford to be split” and should get together, as it had in 2001. Then the Socialist Alliance had stood 98 candidates - before the invasion of Iraq and in the absence of any financial crisis, in which the shortcomings of the capitalist system are there for all to see. We should “try to bury our differences” (we might even work with the Respect “splitters”) and build a “broad organisation”, just like in France and Germany. We should make a start with the EU elections in June 2009, he said.

Comrade Abse is right about contesting elections - what a pity about the political platform he advocates. On that he is at one with the SWP - and, for that matter, George Galloway. They all agree that what we need to do is declare ourselves to be the true inheritors of old Labour - as if social democratic policies could offer an escape for the working class from the current crisis.

It fell to John Molyneux to re-emphasise the SWP line. He caricatured the speeches of comrades Abse and Nani-Kofi as being “subjectivist” - they thought it was all down to willpower and we should “just try a bit harder”. Didn’t they realise that there was no electoral space for the left? True, “what we say is very popular”, but “we don’t have much credibility as an electoral alternative”. Simply getting together with Respect and the Socialist Party would not resolve this. By contrast, Obama “didn’t say much”, but he was credible. The reason for the London assembly failure was that the Left List was also lacking on that score.

One could ask, in that case, why on earth did the SWP insist on standing last May? And where has been the criticism of the hopelessly overblown claims beforehand? Lindsey German would have a real chance of getting elected, remember? Despite the demotion of Rees, the main architect of the Respect/Left List disaster, where has been the accounting for the whole sorry episode?

Comrade Molyneux was, of course, correct about the lack of credibility of the Left List/Left Alternative. But his argument that somehow there is objectively no electoral space for socialists right now just does not stand up. At a time when the systemic failings of capitalism have been virtually universally acknowledged, we should not even attempt to put forward an alternative? Not even at election time, when people tend to be more open than usual about new ideas?

But, no, “the idea of contesting the European elections is just mad”, said comrade Molyneux. We have “no resources” for such “impossible campaigns” (unlike four years ago, presumably, when the bank accounts of the left were overflowing with cash, I suppose). Instead the Left Alternative should “hold impressive meetings every so often” (when members are not dashing around gathering signatures for the People Before Profit Charter). That’s leadership.

Michael Lavalette asked comrades to take a look around them: “We have gone from a big hall to a small lecture room - that’s where we are.” He said that LA has debts of £20,000 and that sum is increasing by £600 a month. The likes of comrade Abse should just be “humble and realistic”.

Later Jackie Turner (SWP), the national treasurer, repeated these details when giving her report. She actually sounded genuinely worried: “We really need to think how we’re going to resolve this.” I have a suggestion. How about getting rid of the office with its paid staff? How about dumping the whole, totally pointless, electoral front that does not contest elections?

Get out there!

In amongst all of this a series of motions were put and every one of them was passed unanimously. One of the recurring themes was - yes - the People Before Profit Charter and how it was just the ticket (even though its shopping lists of modest demands was drawn up before the financial crisis had hit). Comrade Graham-Leigh, in her short period as an SWP member, has learnt the ropes pretty quickly: “Get everyone to sign the charter,” she urged. “Get out there!” We have “got time to build”, so let’s just “be realistic about where we are now”.

SWPer Tony Dowling did not “want to mention the ‘R’ word or the ‘G’ word”, but could not resist the temptation. People “were never going to come on board” Respect because of George Galloway and “what he represented”, he asserted. No-one contradicted him. The implication of comrade Dowling’s comment was that LA is actually better placed than the pre-split Respect. Hmm.

Comrades Kimber and Smith made just one intervention each. Kimber came to the microphone to oppose a couple of sections in one of the few motions that did not emanate from the SWP. But at this conference there was no need for amendments - comrade Kimber simply proposed voting on the motion (on rail transport) section by section, the mover agreed and this too was unanimously passed.

Bizarrely Martin Smith was introduced by comrade Gavan as “another guest speaker” - he was supposed to be addressing the conference on behalf of Unite Against Fascism. In a surreal moment, he began his speech by saying, “Thank you for inviting me to speak” - this from the man who is effectively the SWP number one on the LA national committee!

Comrade Smith gave one of his most macho performances in his rant against the British National Party. He denounced anyone who might consider the BNP to be no longer fascist: “Nick Griffin sends his people onto the streets to beat up blacks and trade unionists.” So the answer is “not elections”, said comrade Smith. He warned Griffin: “If you march we will have to stop you.” That got his comrades cheering all right.

Another remarkable feature of Left Alternative is the promotion by the SWP of left liberal economist Graham Turner, author of The credit crunch and now an LA member. He spoke after comrade Bambery’s opening speech and put forward his own version of Keynesianism as a solution that “we” (ie, Britain) should adopt. The problem was, he said, that Brown and Darling are not “true” Keynesians, since their borrowing remedies are actually anti-Keynesian. Turner explained that there is only a limited pool of credit capital available for borrowing and if it is loaned to the government there will be less for the big corporations.

Instead of the current “reckless” means of increasing state spending, the government should “print money” - the equivalent of borrowing from the central bank, said Turner, who also favoured full nationalisation of the banks (no doubt the clincher for the SWP). He did have the decency to admit, however, that there was “no guarantee” that the “radical Keynesian” policies he had outlined would work. “A brilliant analysis,” remarked Michael Gavan from the chair, as Turner sat down.

Then there was Obama. Comrade Bambery’s suggestion on that score was reasonably measured: the forces that backed the president-elect “represent ammunition for a new movement, a new left in the USA”. He also pointed out that “everyone” is celebrating his victory and we have to “deal with” that. By contrast comrade Doherty, speaking in his new role as national convenor, wanted to join in the celebrations - he had become quite emotional when listening to the victory speech, he told us.

Michael Gavan concluded proceedings by attempting to reassure everyone how the conference “clearly shows we are a vibrant movement”. Somewhat feebly he added: “We can grow when we get stronger.”

As the assembled SWP comrades began their journeys home, I wonder what they were thinking? Something along the lines of ‘At least we won’t have to do that for another year!’