Socialist Alliance UK
Democracy Platform
website

Reflections on the SA conference of March 13th

From Pete Radcliff
From Martin Thomas
From Steve Freeman
From Steve Godward
From Steve Wheeler
From Manny Neira
From Stuart Crosthwaite

From Pete Radcliff

The SA conference voted by a majority of 2 to 1 to effectively liquidate the Socialist Alliance in favour of the SWP-created coalition RESPECT despite admission by Nick Wrack speaking in support of the Task Group that 'RESPECT may well fall flat on its face'.

All amendments proposing the continuation of Socialist Alliance electoral challenges in one form or another were defeated. It is generally agreed that apart from a handful, it was the SWP, plus the ISG, versus everyone else.

We walked out of the conference at that point for a successful fringe meeting attended by 45 people. As many speakers said at that meeting, we have not left the Socialist Alliance, the SWP-run SA has left us.

The SA conference afternoon session concluded an hour and a half early. The SWP had done their job in closing down the SA in the morning and clearly didn't want to waste their time discussing the other political items on the conference paper.

We will discuss on April 3rd how we carry the SA project forward outside of the rump SWP-controlled Socialist Alliance.

We welcome contact with other socialists who share that objective.

Go to top

From Workers liberty website

Go to top

Bad day for the SA. But well done to all for the intervention yesterday - it was excellent. We won a victory (lost all the votes) - a moral victory - a phryric victory no doubt- but a victory nevertheless. It was proven by getting the largest vote for our motion opposing the task group..

We fought like cats in a bag before conference, but then closed ranks just before the enemy arrived. It was right to argue about Lesley's support for the other motion, but correct that she moved ours. The final confirmation of our success was Dots sandwiches (thanks) and a united meeting.

Great to think that because we left all our motions, including a few RDG ones fell, and the conference fell flat on its face.

Go to top

On Saturday the 13 March 2004 the RUC, political wing of the StW coalition removed the right of SA members to stand in the local elections leaving the electorate with a choice of Fascism or Capitalism at the ballot box in the June local elections.

In what must be a political first we saw the Leader of both the RUC and SA, Nick Wrack, chair a meeting that brought about the end of the SA for the benefit of the RUC. A political alliance destroyed for the benefit a political party, voted through by a SWP/ISG cabal. This was not only un-constitutional, but a betrayal of SA members rights.

It should be noted that all the speakers in favour of destruction were all SWP/ISG full-timers, with Rees, Thornett and Bambery actually on the RUC steering committee. The sight of Chris Bambery berating the SA that if the RUC fails it's "your fault" caused much hilarity amongst the membership. This changed to anger when they realised that Bambery, a professional revolutionary, had not been involved at any level within the SA, let alone speak at any previous SA conference. Members of North Birmingham SA saw B'ham SA/SWP members present who have not been active at all in building a grass-roots base, but were wheeled out to destroy our right to stand in the June local elections. The hacks won the day.

Chris Bambery (photo from Weekly Worker)

The message was quite clear, you Independent Socialists are there only as our foot soldiers, you will do what we say, on behalf of who we want, when we say. Bollocks to that, I and my comrades have not got the sect nose ring which allows the "two legs" to dictate our lives and pull us in their chosen direction.

As a Trade Unionist, I demand Democratisation of the Political Funds of the Trade Union movement. However, if this means the likes of the SWP-RUC receiving Trade Unionists money for organisations that have no democratic or accountable structure, we must proceed with care. We must ensure that our money is not used by those who only see the trade union movement as a cash cow for them to dip into for their organisations advantage and not the benefit of the Trade Union movement.

When I joined the SA in 2001, after being love bombed by the SWP, in true sect style. I believed that the Socialist Alliance was a vehicle to a workers party where the working class could organise, educate and agitate for socialism, so we would take power for the class. An Alliance made sense to create RESPECT, trust and establish democratic and accountable structures. I now realise after serving on the SA exec and living in Brum, (where the anti-democratic methods of working within the SA was started and honed by the SWP), that the working class ain't getting a Leadership but Leaders. The class doesn't matter a jot to the cabal, it's POWER over the class they want.

I believed that we would challenge the establishment. Take on the Trade Union bureaucracy which manages the class on behalf of their political masters. Push Socialism as the answer against the Barbarism of war. Even take on the BNP using socialist analysis and answers. However, I now believe that the decision on the 13th March shows the cabal are part of the establishment. They will allow Capital to exploit and subjugate the working class with their decision to surrender the local elections to the BNP and the Labour Party. They've shafted the class - again.

When Julie Waterson, SWP CC member, stated at the 2003 SA AGM that the BNP vote was down "to the Tory vote and the scum on the estates" I first thought Julie was off on one again. However, the development of the RUC and how it is selling itself, made me think that she was in fact stating the SWP CC's analysis. The working class has been dumped for middle England's swing vote. In the cities, the estates will be ignored in favour of working with organised communities (yes, often working class) along religious lines. To achieve this they will dump even the most basic elements of socialism.

The spectacle of Alan Thornett telling West Midlands SA members "I don't know what is meant by a workers rep on a workers wage", will remain with me forever. It confirmed the Galloway for any principle way the SA was going. This is why I joined the SADP.

I like many other members of the SADP and NBSA feel liberated since the 13th March. We have not left the SA, the SA is being taken from us, but we demonstrated in a democratic and disciplined way that we are not prepared to be abused by our "betters".

I now look forward, (now the RUC is a political party), to seeing the SWP and ISG wrap up shop and all join en masse. Why do they need their organisations if a political party now exists that they are 100% behind to the exclusion of all other politics?

Finally, I was asked if I would be voting for the RUC in the European elections. We had already been told by Salma Yaqoob in a Guardian article that John Rees was standing in the West Midlands before the pesky selection meeting, democracy, it's so yesterday. This was confirmed by the loyal recently. My answer then was "I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it than for what I don't want and get that." My answer now is a straight NO.

Go to top

From Steve Wheeler

Notes on SA Conference & SADP Meeting 13/03/04

Having joined the Socialist Alliance only one year ago, previously being an Independent Socialist by nature, this was the first full Conference I had attended. It appears it may have been the last, too.

I had been off the circuit for about 3 months due to illness, and returned to find that the establishment of something called Respect was in full swing. The previous Saturday I had attended a Respect launch meeting in Birmingham to find out what they were about. They did not tell me.

The speakers at that meeting included John Rees and Salma Yaqoob + George Galloway on a video. I met all of these several times last year on anti-war actions, and on that issue am in total agreement with them. It did not occur to me at any stage that there was the slightest possibility that I could act with any of them in a party or alliance covering the spectrum of political issues; I am a Socialist, they are not. Respect does not have a manifesto or policy statement, seeming to rely on its acronym, and I would wager that many of its supporters, if asked what the 'S' in RESPECT stood for, would say 'Stop the War'. That's great, but why not join the Stop the War Coalition, from which I have no intention of resigning. A short piece about Respect in my local newspaper lat week was headlined 'Anti-war party to fight elections.' Exactly.

Because Respect is clearly not a Socialist party, at first I could scarcely credit that their group could pose a serious threat to the Alliance. Surely our members could see that their populist appeal is largely rooted in a single issue on which the SA agrees with them, is likely to be ephemeral in nature, and relies on the fact that 'some people will join anything'. If there was a terrorist outrage in Britain similar to the terrible events in Spain on Friday, I could see those who are now painting 'Stop the War' on their heads calling for a revival of capital punishment, and even...... this is not what politics is about.

Alas I was too naive.

So by the time I realised that the largest faction within the Alliance had, for their own reasons, espoused the cause of Respect, and although it seemed fairly clear in advance what would happen at Conference, it was still a shock. I feel that I have missed a year in my own political life, and have to start again.

The Conference started very badly. One of the party with whom I had travelled had been deliberately and heinously 'set up' by an an alleged comrade, who had assured him that certain difficulties regarding his registration had been resolved. This, as the man knew, was a blatent lie; it was an unsatisfactory outcome that the Registration people allowed the comrade to attend as an observer, but I think they sensed there might have been bloodshed without this concession.

There was little fraternal atmosphere in the hall, other than in small pockets such as ours. There was not even great tension, urgency or expectation, as might reasonably have been expected; there was more an air of inevitability and resignation in some quarters.

Speakers for and against the main motion and its amendments lacked passion, with one or two exceptions; this points up the need for us to select speakers who have the quality to inspire. Reasons for this may have been:

1) The accurate assumption that whtever on said was not going to change the outcome of the subsequent vote.

2) A poor PA system. It was OK on the stage but not on the floor. Why could the speakers not have been invited on to the platform ? I wonder....

3) The poor inflexion and voice projection of many speakers. If one is going to speak regularly in public one need to be trained in such matters. All mainstream politicians have had it. Notable exception were Comrade Blackwell, who is an English lecturer, and Mr Wrack, who had no doubt had such training as part of his job, and who was enunciating very clearly as he declared that Respect might well fall flat on its face....

I do not agree that the paucity of time allocated to each speaker is a valid reason for 'failing to grip'. Media interviews frequently last for only 1-2 minutes, and if a speaker does not command attention in his first 10 seconds, he is not going to. Winston Churchill once made a speech of nine words, and received a standing ovation from several thousand people (tell me what the nine words were and I'll post a nice Churchill joke).

I confess that I got a bit lost on the amendments to the Task Group's Motion (apart from Comrade Mahmood's which I understood), making sure I could see a comrade of similar opinions to make sure I got it right when voting, but the outcome was as predicted - the motion was carried without amendment. My saddest moment was when I saw a former comrade, and whose then comradeship was one of the reasons for my decision to join the SA, voting the opposite way to me.

I could scarcely believe that the alliance to which I had nailed my colours after many years of independence, and under whose auspices I had hoped to make a small contribution to the fight for the establishment of a Socialist society, had reneged on me and in effect didn't want me as a comrade any more unless I joined Respect. And I'm not going to. Also, as far as I could see, it had contravened the conditions of its own Constitution by acting in this way.

Time to go home ?

Well no, actually. There's more than one hall where you can hold a meeting, yer know.

From out of the darkness there came a great light....

The Conference motion was carried by a majority of two thirds. So one third, one person in three, was now in the same position as myself. We established ourselves in a nearby hall, appointed Comrade Godward as our Chair (Steve seems to be able to keep perfect order without banging a microphone every few minutes, must be his natural charisma), and got down to looking into the future.

And what a change of atmosphere ! For the first time that day I felt as though I was completely among a fraternal brotherhood of Socialist comrades, one of whom fed us. Present were nearly all those of the one third of SA members who had voted against Motion 1 at the Conference, most of whom are members of the SA Democratic Platform.

More than half those at the meeting spoke, with outstanding contributions from Comrades Pearson, Gibson, Freeman, Greenstein & Radcliff + some whose names I have forgotten. One must mention Comrade Church particularly; Dave has succesfully resisted infiltration bythe SWP of his own group in Walsall over the years and his passion is an example to us all. Comrade, thou art as wise as thou art beautiful (Shakespeare).

The meeting was in complete agreement that for the time being we should continue to meet in our existing SA groups, as the Conference actually stopped short of dissolving the Alliance and abolishing the name. We need to establish our presence among the working class and in Trades Unions, campaign over important political issues as well as just electorally when the time comes, and to cooperate with other Socialists - real ones, that is. Those who support 'People before Profit'. A new democratic alliance of Socialists is necessary, and it will become clear in a short time exactly what form this is to take, and what banner we shall be marching under in the future. Speaking of banners, Comrade Gibson has offered to make an SADP one for the anti-war march next week. I'm only sorry I can't make it that day, will someone take pix, please. Comrade Blackwell suggested that we mount a legal challenge to the decisions of Conference, and opinion seems to be divided as to the advisability of this.

We decided that it was not the occasion on which to pass policy resolutions, but comrades are compiling a policy statement based on the consensus of opinion expressed at this meeting. Our next important meeting is on Saturday April 3rd at Carrs Lane Church Centre, Birmingham, at 1.30. For those who don't know Brum, this is a few minutes' walk from New Street Station, near M & S. The no. 50 bus stops at the door. Any comrade who comes from a distance and misses the last train can stay with me & Danny (no, he's not my partner, he's my dog).

So this was my introduction to Socialist Alliance proceedings, a bit of a baptism by fire, really. But I left London in an uplifted frame of mind. I am a member of a group, many of whom I know personally now, who will fight for Socialism and for what is for now the Democratic Platform of the Socialist Alliance.

Some of you know that in my life and work I am closely involved in environmental concerns and a future based on sustainable living. I am particularly interested in pointing up this aspect of life within Socialist groups and their campaigning activities.

The day ended with my return to the railway station to find that my car had been vandalised. If there had been a BNP member around, he would probably have tried to recruit me. This is a joke.

See you on April 3rd, Comrades.

Go to top

From Weekly Worker 520

Go to top

From Stuart Crosthwaite

The End?

This special conference was called to discuss only 2 issues: the relationship between the SA and Respect and different proposed methods of electing the SA NEC. All were aware, however, that the result of the SA/Respect discussion could make the NEC discussion an academic one. This was a discussion about whether the SA had an independent future.

Conference was open to all SA members and 189 went there to South Camden Community School. At the entrance, next to the registration desk, there were stalls from Bookmarks and Respect. Inside was a Columbian Solidarity Campaign stall, but no SA campaigning materials were displayed. Not one SA poster decorated the walls or speakers' table.

The report of the Conference Arrangements Committee was presented by Rob Hoveman and challenged on the grounds that it was unconstitutional by Martin Thomas. He argued that in the SA constitution only local SA's could decide whether to stand election candididates and that this conference could not overide that position. This challenge lost by about 2-1 and set the pattern for the important votes of the day. A member of the SA Democracy Platform (the main grouping of those SA members who want the continued independent existence of the SA) argued to extend the time given to proposers of motions from 4 minutes to 7. This was again rejected (there was "not enough time") and Nick Wrack (Chair of the SA AND of Respect!) embarked on a 15 minute delivery from the top table.

Wrack's theme was that there were only 2 choices: admit that the SA had failed to build a left alternative to Labour and dissolve ourselves into Respect OR "abstain" from Respect. Respect was "a mosaic of working class life" with "socialism at its heart" and those critical of Respect were refusing to "work with broader forces". Interestingly he raised the possibility that Respect could "fall flat on its face" but drew no conclusions.

The 30 minute general discussion that followed revealed a mosaic of opinions and tactics towards Respect and electoral work in general. The issue of whether the SA should stand candidates in the local elections quickly became the focus of the debate about whether the SA had a future. Pete McLaren, Margaret Manning, John Nicholson and Toby Abse saw no contradiction between Respect Euro-election candidates and local council SA ones. Why throw away the publicity gained by the SA by standing for years before in wards? There were criticisms that the SA's electoral work had not been matched by activity between elections- and that Respect was about to make the same mistake, but with watered-down politics.

For SWP and other pro-Respect speakers no talk of the SA's "critical engagement" with, or tactics towards, Respect would do. Respect was "the only game in town" (John Fisher) and it was "sectarian" to do anything but have zero SA local election activity and fully support Respect. For these speakers there was no point in arguing why the SA had not become the focal point for left of Labour votes- or why the SA had not significantly grown during the anti-war protests. When Toby Abse asked if that was because the SA's component groups had built themselves rather than the SA during the protests he was not answered. Only SWPer John Molyneux attempted any explanation at all: "objective conditions" meant that "too few" LP members and TUists had joined us- surely a description rather than (heaven forbid) any SWP self-criticism?

There were 2 motions on the SA and Respect: the first from the "Task Group", selected from the SA exec, to recommend that SA members "support", "join" and "finance" Respect. It argued that the SA would not stand in the Euro or GLA elections (since Respect was standing) and laid down a procedure for standing "socialist candidates" in the local elections. This procedure would involve getting the agreement of the local Respect branch, the SA NEC and the Executive of Respect- ie probably the SWP with 3 different hats on. Even if these 3 obstacles were overcome the candidate would stand as a Respect one, not openly SA. I think it would be fair to say that the movers of Motion 1 were not too keen on any SA local election profile. Go to the national SA website: socialistalliance.org for the full text as I can't be arsed typing it all out.

There were three amendments, from the "soft" SA opposition, CPGB and Democracy Platform, to this resolution. These tried, in essence, to say that the SA wouldn't contest the Euro or GLA elections but that local SA branches could stand candidates in the council elections if they saw fit (after various degrees of consultation with local Respect organisations).

Alan Thornett spoke for the Task Group motion describing 2 of the 3 amendments as "a rearguard action against Respect". A low-key and rather flat contribution from John Rees argued against any SA election candidates, saying that national Respect publicity meant that there should be local Respect candidates. Chris Bamberry refused to answer the question as to whether he had emailed all SWP members before the Feb 15th anti-war demo telling them to boycott SA activity for the day (possibly a factor in the low SA profile that day?) and made an aggressive contribution which caused some of the SWP's allies in the International Socialist Group to boo, wince and abstain on the vote. If Respect failed to get elected by 1 or 2 percent it would be the fault of those in the SA who had reservations about it he claimed, establishing an early alibi.

Those seeking to amend the motion explained that they were not necessarily opposed to Respect but sought to develop tactics towards it while continuing to build on (admitedly limited) SA electoral and local work. Lesley Mahmood, from Liverpool explained that we couldn't "turn working class votes and campaigns on and off" (lots of baffled SWP faces). I was surprised that the SWP didn't take the chance to support the amendment from the "soft" SA opposition since it argued that SA candidates would advertise their support for Respect and "recommended" the Task Group procedure on selecting candidates. Lee Rock of the CPGB argued that Respect was not either nationally established or socialist and that there should be both Respect and SA candidates. Sue Blackwell said what most of the conference was thinking when she asked the SWP comrades in the hall if their real intention was to simply limit local SA election candidates or if they should "be honest and bring a resolution to wind the Socialist Alliance up".

All 3 of the amendments to the SWP-backed motion were lost with between 46-63 for and about twice as many against each time. The amendments calling for support to Respect as well as SA local election candidates attracted the opposition of both the SWP and those in the SA Democratic Platform who want nothing to do with Respect.

The main Task Group motion was passed with 121 for, 64 against and 4 abstentions. The second motion, opposing Respect, therefore fell. At this point there was a lunch break. Most of those opposing the de facto liquidation of the SA left the conference for a SA Democracy Platform meeting and distributed a leaflet explaining why they were leaving the conference but not the SA itself. I will post a report of this meeting later.

I returned to the depleted and rather sad afternoon session to attempt to move a resolution arguing that the SA should continue to exist (!) and stand local election candidates as the SA. This was deemed by Nick Wrack to contradict what had been passed in the morning. At least here was some honesty from those whose real agenda was not local election tactics but the total dissolution of the SA. Other motions on proposals for SA activity fell, since the movers had left the conference, although how we could cease to exist as an organisation but propose activities for ourselves was not clear to me. The conference ambled on for another hour discussing different ways to elect an NEC. Why, if we no longer exist? Before I left the conference I scanned the half-empty room- it had the atmosphere of a funeral but one attended by many people who never really knew (or wanted to know) the deceased.

Go to top