Socialist Alliances liaison committee
A rotten but necessary compromise
The Liaison Committee of the Socialist Alliance - the main body with authority to organise the election campaign took place on January 13 in London.
This meeting was a big step foward for the Alliance and its General Election campaign. It took a number of crucial organisational decisions which put us on the road for an impressive showing.
The Alliance will have in the region of 50 candidates in England, running serious local campaigns within an overall national framework.
Combined with the SSP and the Welsh Socialist Alliance, this will be the most serious challenge from forces to the left of Labour since the war.
There was however a highly contentious matter to be dealt with - a joint statement from the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Socialist Party (SP) on the allocation of candidates in a number of contested seats for the General Election.
Overriding
The statement overrode the democracy of the local alliances in the areas it covered, and imposed candidates by national decision - in contradiction to the "Coventry protocol" agreed by the Alliances national conference last autumn.
Ironically the SP had presented themselves as the champions of local democracy and autonomy and opposed important decisions being taken nationally. They did not want strong, authoritative national structures. They argued that the protocol agreed at Coventry was far too centralised, while saying they would abide by it.
But this new agreement actually gives the Alliance centrally much more power than envisaged through the Coventry protocol!
The clear responsibility for this state of affairs lay with the Socialist Party. They define a number of areas of the country as their "patch" - essentially on the basis that they have previously stood candidates in their own name (or, more accurately, as 'Socialist Alternative' - as they are not allowed by the state to stand as the Socialist Party).
They also refused to agree that selection meetings take place in these areas where a candidate could be democratically decided on by all Alliance supporters. In some places they announced their candidature to the local press without any consultation with other forces in the local Alliance.
What became increasingly clear is that, despite having been involved in the National Network of Socialist Alliances since the beginning, today the Socialist Party is not at all enthusiastic about building local Alliances.
In several areas where they are the strongest force and have some record of standing candidates, no local alliance exists, and they have no plans to set one up.
As a result of these problems destructive guerrilla warfare was taking place on the ground - which threatened the potential success of the Alliance, and possibly even its survival
That is why the Liaison Executive in December asked the SP and the SWP ( who the SP clearly see as its main competitor) to meet together and see if they could trash out a joint agreement.
The statement was a result of these discussions. In fact what it represented was an ultimatum from the Socialist Party.
Subsequently the Socialist Party have attempted to convince the restof us that the statement represented equal compromise on both sides.
This just does not hold water. All they conceeded was their right to control a couple of seats. What the rest of us gave up were issues of principle.
The Liaison Committee was faced with the same problem that presumably the SWP had encountered in their own discussions with the Socialist Party. Either accept their demands or face the possiblity that they would split the Alliances.
Problem
It would clearly have been a major problem for the Alliance if the SP were to walk out - as has looked possible at various points, including at the December meeting.
Everyone recognises that the potential success of the Alliance depends on our being able to begin to combat the deep sectarianism on the British left. The divisions on the left have alienated many working class people who agree with socialist ideas but do not see the point of getting involved when the left spend as much time fighting amongst themselves as working towards defeating the class enemy.
Therefore effectively the Socialist Party had got the Alliance over a barrel - either we had to give them what they wanted or face the very real threat that they would walk out, leaving the Alliance immeasurably weaker.
Consequently the overwhelming majority of the Liaison Committee voted for the statement while making clear our hostility to being put in such a position - and determination that nothing like this would happen again.
In agreeing that the SP takes the candidate and control of the campaign in 12 seats the Liaison Committee went over the heads of local alliances. This is why I initially moved an amendment that nomination papers should only be issued either where the local alliance agreed or where none exists.
Unity
In the end I withdrew it because it was clear from the debate that while many others agreed with the sentiment, the overwhelming majority believed it was necessary to pass the motion un-amended for the sake of unity.
While the principle at stake here is unacceptable, in practice it may not cause that many difficulties on the ground. SP candidates have already been selected in the two Coventry seats and in Deptford. In Leicester the Alliance is in agreement with the proposal. In Hull and North Tyneside and probably Wakefield, the SP nominee is genuinely the most appropriate person. (Though the SP candidate has subsequently withdrawn in North Tyneside - see page 5)
Birmingham Northfield is not a target seat for the local Alliance and in Bristol the seat might well not have been contested by the local alliance otherwise. In Stevenage there is as far as I know no Alliance. What the reaction on the ground in Bootle and Southampton will be, I can't tell.
Clause 3 alludes to the fact that the SP can - and in practice more or less definitely will - stand in their own name in Hayes and Walthamstow. The reason they will not get the support of the Alliance is that the respective Labour MPs there are John McDonnell and Neil Gerrard, both strong members of the Campaign Group.
The majority of those in the Alliance, including ISG members, would strongly oppose such a challenge, and made this clear. This part of the statement - which is simply a statement of fact - should not have been voted on. However in the climate that existed, it was impossible to raise this.
Clauses 4 and 5 make clear that the SP will control the campaign where they have the candidate. They make a small concession that at least œ500 of their allowance can be used for propaganda that other forces want.
However what the existence of these points make clear is that on the key debate about how to build the alliances, the Socialist Party retain their sectarian position.
This clause, as far as I understand it was the basis on which Workers Power voted against the resolution. They were right to think this was a major problem - although no more a matter of principle than the issues contained elsewhere in the statement.
It was also a problem that one of their comrades, together with a number of others, had indicated that they wished to move amendments but were not called to speak. While Dave Nellist of the Socialist Party, in the chair, rightly stressed the need to get to other urgent items on the agenda, this is no reason to trample on democracy.
Unhappy
However while Workers Power, like the rest of us, had every reason to be hostile to the developments taking place, they were in the end wrong to vote against the resolution. It is also regrettable that the CPGB, whose comrades voted for the statement, have since argued in their paper that it should not have been agreed.
The Alliance is well on the way to becoming the most significant development on the British left for many decades. But it is too fragile, too untested as yet to withstand a walk out of one of its major components. For that reason, it was necessary to vote through the statement despite its major problems.
The statement voted through by the Liaison Committee is a rotten compromise - but a necessary one in the circumstances. Given that, ISG delegates took the view that it was necessary to vote for it while making the political points that the Liaison Committee were being put in this position by the SP problems.
They have put what they perceive as their own narrow party interests before the need to build a broad Alliance against Blairism - and trampled over the most elementary democracy in the process.
Our hope is that it will be possible through the election campaign itself and other work in building the Alliance to convince the SP to change their attitude.
Split
Subsequent to the Liaison Committee the majority of Scottish supporters of the international organisation to which the Socialist Party belongs , the Committee for a Workers' International (CWI) have left that organisation. (see p 19).
It is already clear in some parts of England that members of the Socialist Party have more sympathy for their erstwhile comrades in Scotland than with Taffite loyalists who put their own sectarian interests above those of the class struggle.
From this point of view, as well as the fact that the Alliance will be a more tested instrument after the general election, that will be the right time to stand up to any further bullying. For now the main priority must be to build the best campaign for the General Election the majority of us have seen in our lifetime.