Socialist Alliances -
Socialists must say no to Leeds purge of SWP
Alan Thornett, (for International Socialist Group)
The development of the Socialist Alliances in England since the Coventry conference, which agreed to launch a major campaign for the forthcoming General Election campaign, has been impressive.
In most major cities where the Socialist Alliance has not previously existed, well attended launch rallies have been held, while in places where there was previous organisation activists are getting down to deciding constituencies and candidates for the challenge.
Within this very positive move forward, however, there have been some problems particularly with the attitude of the Socialist Party (SP)which has sought to put its own sectarian interests before that of the Alliances as a whole.
In addition there has been a major problem within the Leeds Left Alliance, a formation which developed in parallel to the first round of Socialist Alliances, and was created by a group of people mainly expelled from Leeds North East CLP by Blairite witch-hunters.
Witch hunt
Now they are conducting their own witch hunt against the SWP in a tone reminiscent of the late Woodrow Wyatt, and his notorious anti-communist rantings in his Sunday Mirror column.
It all started with a proposal by the executive to reduce members of the SWP from full membership to 'associate' membership, thus explicitly denying them the right to vote in meetings or to hold elected office in the LLA.
This was 'justified' on the basis that the SWP supposedly packed the Socialist Alliance conference in Coventry and so pushed through an over-centralised structure against the will of the majority of the rest.
This outrageous proposal was never put to a vote at full meeting: instead a postal ballot was held. Neil Kinnock should be proud of them.
The witch hunting tone of both the Executive resolution and an accompanying letter from the executive combined with the sheer volume of misinformation and downright lies involved ensured that they would win the vote.
The SWP were allowed to make a statement which went out with the ballot paper, but this could easily be dismissed on the basis of "they would say that wouldn't they?" Others whose defence of the SWP would have been much more effective were not allowed a statement.
Rigged ballot
Even the questions on ballot paper were rigged. Voters were not asked to vote for or against the Executive proposals, but to vote for or against 'the decision of the executive of the LLA to safeguard the group against take-over by the SWP'.
The idea that SWP packed the Coventry conference flies in the face of both simple arithmetic and a half rational assessment of its decisions.
In fact the biggest single delegation was the Socialist Party, with about 150 present. Of the rest, the SWP had about 120, there were about 50 from other far left groups. The remaining 100 were either from other campaigns or individual activists.
This make up was demonstrated by the fact that no single organisation could win anything without support. The SWP lost some resolutions it saw as crucial; the SP won some it believed vital.
This most obvious example was on the controversial issue of the make-up of the election committee, where the SWP and SP had different positions, and that of the SP was agreed.
Further the structure adopted was not highly centralised, but a decentralised, flexible one specifically designed to accommodate groups like the LLA which might want to keep their own name or run a distinctive campaign, but as a part of the Alliances.
Of course it is a matter of political judgement what is centralised and what is not. Everything is relative, as they say.
Certainly the Socialist Party who are opposed to the Alliances being a politically cohesive initiative with any real form of national direction have criticised Coventry along these same lines. They want the loosest possible arrangement in order to stand their own candidates irrespective of the wishes of others in a locality.
For the International Socialist Group on the other hand, the way to build the most effective alternative to Blairism and get the best result in the election is to build the broadest possible unity. For us the decisions of the Coventry conference are the minimum necessary for a serious and coherent General Election challenge.
Found out
In Leeds itself the SWP have never packed a meeting of the LLA. It would have been counter-productive for them to have done so. The only meeting in which they ever had a majority was after the Executive had adopted its resolution, and the SWP had found out about it - although not from the EC itself.
By relying on a report of a meeting that most members of the LLA were not at, the Executive were able to whip up fear and paranoia.
The Executive won the ballot to exclude the SWP by 38 votes to 34. This was not surprising given the extreme bias in the 'information' made available. But the whole exercise had dealt a heavy blow to the cause of left unity in Leeds.
So what are the politics behind this bureaucratic manoeuvre using the methods of the right?
There seems to be knee-jerk resentment that the SWP have come into the Alliances late and are encroaching on 'our patch'. There is a complete inability to recognise when organisations like the SWP break out of their traditional isolationism and join with the rest of the left to build an alternative to Blairism, it is to be welcomed.
Yes, the SWP has acted in a sectarian way in the past, and most of us have suffered from it. But to doggedly refuse to recognise change when it is taking place is just as sectarian.
The Executive of the LLA may not believe the SWP when they say that they want to be a part of a broad alternative. But they only way to test this is to work with the SWP, not to conduct witch hunts against them - the only beneficiary of that will be Blairism itself.
But there is much more to this than sectarianism, prejudice, or an irrational gut hatred of the SWP.
The letter which was sent out celebrating the 'victory' was highly revealing. Its main thrust was to quote Socialist Worker as calling for "Revolution and not Reform". The letter also states "The SWP is a Trotskyist party", and it has a central committee which runs it as an organisation.
Revolutionaries
But the SWP has never claimed to be anything else than a revolutionary organisation! Nor has the International Socialist Group, or Workers Power, or the Socialist Party, or the AWL, or the CPGB.
The venom displayed against the SWP is in fact a hatred of all far left organisations, but directed against the SWP because of the internal politics of the LLA Executive. In other circumstances such sectarianism could be expressed against any of the far left organisations in the Alliances.
The socialist alliances have precisely been, and are, an alliance between revolutionary and non revolutionary (reformist) organisations and individuals. This is the strength of the alliances, a broad alliance of the left building an alternative to Blairism.
Any attempt to drive revolutionaries out of the Alliances would be disastrous. This was the first of Arthur Scargill's many mistakes in attempting to build the SLP. It became an irrelevant rump and the Socialist Alliances would go that way as well.
Of course the revolutionary organisations have a responsibility as well a responsibility not to seek to impose their own revolutionary perspectives onto the Socialist Alliances in an arbitrary way. But that has not happened, either nationally or within Leeds.
All this raises the question of the role of the Socialist Party in the events in Leeds, particularly since it has a member on the Executive of the LLA, and the letters and statements from the Executive repeatedly stress that all its decisions were unanimous.
Notable omission
It is also significant that a statement adopted by the Executive of the Socialist Alliances nationally, strongly objecting to the moves against the SWP was signed by all the officers except Dave Nellist.
The current edition of the Socialist (November 3) is mealy mouthed about the developments in Leeds, to say the least.
Whilst it says that the decision of the ballot was unfortunate, and that the measures involved were opposed by SP members, it goes on to politically justify the ballot and the result.
It argues that the result highlights the mistrust that exists over the methods and motives of the SWP and a fear of the alliance being swamped.
It goes on to attack the SWP for (allegedly) not being prepared to accept a voting restriction in order to avoid the action which has been taken.
If the role of the SP in the decisions of the Executive of the LLA to move against the SWP remains unclear, the actions of the SP in the period since the ballot leave little room for misunderstanding.
Candidate
Since the ballot result was announced and the SWP excluded, the LLA has met once - and that was to adopt a General Election candidate.
The SP member of the LLA Executive, Dave Jones, was adopted as the candidate - and will now stand for the LLA in the general election. This shows the SP is in practice going along with the exclusion of the SWP and will not do much to try to reverse it
There has been a move from within the LLA to challenge all this, but it does not include the SP. It is a letter signed by Garth Frankland, an important individual activist and long standing Labour councillor in Leeds, and Mike Fenwick from the AWL.
It pledges to "continue to seek to challenge the current ban on the SWP in the interests of democracy and the future".
The Socialist Party are playing a dangerous game in taking an ambivalent attitude to the witch hunt in Leeds. This could threaten the unity of the Alliances nationally.
It is also unfortunately only the worst example of the Socialist Party's attitude in a number of localities . However it should be stressed, it is by no means the case in all Alliances where SP members are working.
In many areas there is a good working relationship between all the organisations involved including the SP and the SWP.
Its is these latter experiences which need to be built on, as the significant turn out for meetings remind us once again that we have the best opportunity for a long time to build a real alternative to New Labour's Tory policies, on the streets, in our workplaces and at the ballot box. Don't let sectarianism throw away this opportunity.