Join the Socialist Party Join us today!

Printable version Printable version

Facebook   Twitter

Link to this page: https://secure.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/232/9262

From The Socialist newspaper, 30 November 2001

Socialist Alliance Conference: The Issues At Stake

THE SOCIALIST Alliance (SA) meets this weekend for a critical conference to discuss its future structure. SA executive member CLIVE HEEMSKERK answers questions about the Socialist Party's constitutional proposals.

Q. Hasn't the SA reached the limits of its effectiveness as a federal Alliance?

We agree completely that the SA needs to develop its structures but it can do so while still retaining its federal character, its ability to bring together different socialist organisations, individuals, community campaigners and trade unionists, without them having to give up their own independent organisations, activities and views.

There has been a smokescreen put up in the debate, counterposing this federal approach to the idea that the SA should be a 'party'. Yet internationally, organisations with incomparably greater social weight than the SA, such as the Italian Rifondazione Communista, the Portuguese Left Bloc or the Spanish Izquierda Unida, have been able to retain different degrees of 'federalism' in their structures.

The early Labour Party also was a federation - until 1918 individuals had to join via one of the affiliated organisations - yet are people really saying it wasn't a 'party'?

On electoral activity, in fact, the early Labour Party had the approach that the affiliated organisations were to be "left free to select their own candidates without let or hindrance, the one condition being that, when returned to parliament, the candidate should agree to form one of the Labour Group there". We're not proposing that minimalist structure but are going well beyond it in our constitution.

Q. So you don't agree with the Socialist Workers' Party (SWP) when they say in their conference submission that the SA's federal approach was revealed as having 'major weaknesses' in the general election campaign?

The SA's relatively modest election performance, confirmed in the Ipswich by-election, was primarily due to objective factors, the level of consciousness at this stage, rather than subjective weaknesses, least of all its federal approach. In fact, its inclusive approach was its 'major strength' - the fact that it could allow different forces to stand under one umbrella, to contest 98 seats in England and Wales.

'Federalism' also worked electorally. The Socialist Party, for example, contributed a higher percentage of SA votes (15.5%) than it did candidates (12%), while other organisations, such as the SWP, contributed a higher share of candidates than votes. Are those who criticise the SA's election campaign really saying that it would have been better if the Socialist Party wasn't on board?

But again, our proposals go beyond what happened in the general election. In fact, our controversial 'consensus rule' for local alliances is an attempt to compel the different parts of the SA, including ourselves, to reach agreement, making principled compromises where necessary to reach an outcome which, if not what everyone wants, is at least acceptable to everyone.

Q. But doesn't the 'consensus rule' deny democratic rights to individual members, who are not members of the component political organisations of the SA, such as the Socialist Party and the SWP?

Our constitution actually enhances the rights of individual members. For example, we are proposing a section on the national executive to be elected by individual members only, so they can choose their own representatives and not have them chosen for them by the political organisations.

Locally the 'consensus rule' that we're proposing is effectively an 'electoral college', where agreement has to be reached between those political organisations with significant support in a locality plus the majority of individual members. That's real power for the individual members over the political organisations.

Q. But under your consensus rule won't six people be able to veto decisions made by an SA of 200 members?

Another smoke-screen. Firstly, let's not exaggerate how many members of the SA there are. There are 1,690 members nationally (with at most an additional 1,000 or so who are local SA members only) organised in 60 or so local SAs - there can't be, and there aren't, that many local SAs with 200 members!

The figure of six (or 10% of the SA membership, whichever is the greater), which a 'Members Platform' needs in a constituency before it can invoke the consensus rule, relates to the minimum membership requirement we're proposing before a constituency or borough Alliance can be formally recognised.

We're proposing that this should be ten, so a Members Platform of six would constitute 60% of its membership! In fact, if today there were SAs up and down the country with memberships of 200, 300 or 400, there currently wouldn't be that many 'Members Platforms' that would be big enough to invoke the consensus rule.

Ultimately though, all constitutions involve a 'veto'. In the existing situation where the SWP have a numerical majority, 'one member, one vote', (OMOV) gives them, the majority, a 'veto' over what minorities can do. That contrasts with our consensus rule where no one organisation can dominate.

Q. But are the SWP really intending to turn the SA into a new Anti Nazi League-type front organisation?

Unfortunately, it appears so - and that's why our constitution has attracted support from many independents, such as Steve Godward, an FBU official and chair of Birmingham SA, the Preston Independent Labour councillors group, and the Leeds Left Alliance.

Of course, there's no easy answer to the central problem the SA faces of how to conciliate the rights of different groups and individual members. We didn't claim that our proposals were the only answer - we looked forward to discussing any alternative proposals that came forward.

Yet, while we've made it completely clear all along that the SWP's 'majority-takes-all' approach, summed up in their constitution, was unacceptable to us, the SWP have made no effort to discuss this with us.

For example, if there had been genuine concerns that the threshold we proposed (before a 'Members Platform' could invoke the consensus rule) was too low - at six members or 10% of the SA membership, whichever is the greater - why couldn't they have proposed another figure? Yet they have said nothing about the rights of the political organisations at local level, promising only a non-binding 'protocol' for national executive elections to ensure a 'balanced' 'leadership slate'.

This is typical of their top-down approach - they actually say in their conference submission that powers to resolve local problems over candidates, boundaries etc "should in the first instance reside with the national executive". But it also seriously misses the point. Their 'protocol' is just another pledge that, with their majority position in the SA, they will use their 'veto' over everybody else 'responsibly'. We don't want 'wise rulers', we want democratic rights.

We want to participate in an alliance of equals, with the right to conduct our own activity with our own ideas and methods, while working in common where we can.

We believe that the new forces that will emerge to fill the vacuum created by the crisis of working class political representation - community campaigners, trade unionists fighting privatisation etc - will also wish to preserve their autonomy, while working with others. But that means we need an Alliance, with a federal constitution, and not a structure that allows the domination of any one organisation.

By-Elections Test For Socialist Alliance

THE SOCIALIST Alliance's biggest electoral test since June took place on 22 November in the Ipswich parliamentary by-election and two council by-elections in Burnley.

With turnout in Ipswich down to 40%, Labour's total vote fell by over 8,000 compared to the general election. Yet the Socialist Alliance (SA) candidate, the SWP's Peter Leech, also lost support, polling 152 votes (0.55%) compared to the 522 votes (1.34%) the SA and the Socialist Labour Party together had polled in June (this time the SA was the only socialist option on the ballot paper). The Greens, in their first parliamentary campaign in Ipswich, polled 255 votes and the Legalise Cannabis Alliance, 236.

In the Burnley council by-elections the SA candidates polled 50 votes in Trinity ward and 32 in Lowerhouse. Although Burnley is one of only four councils with a Socialist Alliance councillor (along with Coventry, Lewisham and Preston, where the Socialist Party has SA councillors), the higher than normal profile for the SA didn't stop its vote being squeezed by the call to 'vote Labour to stop the BNP' - the neo-Nazi British National Party who had polled over 4,000 votes in Burnley at the general election. The BNP failed to make a breakthrough, although they came second in Trinity ward with 181 votes (18.9%) and polled 283 votes (23%) in Lowerhouse.

Overall, the by-elections show that a sense of proportion is necessary when discussing the prospects for the Socialist Alliance. There is still no authoritative force yet in existence capable of pulling together those disenchanted with New Labour - trade unionists, public services users, environmental campaigners and young people - into a mass alternative, a new workers' party, to represent their interests.

Donate to the Socialist Party

Coronavirus crisis - Finance appeal

The coronavirus crisis has laid bare the class character of society in numerous ways. It is making clear to many that it is the working class that keeps society running, not the CEOs of major corporations.

The results of austerity have been graphically demonstrated as public services strain to cope with the crisis.

The government has now ripped up its 'austerity' mantra and turned to policies that not long ago were denounced as socialist. But after the corona crisis, it will try to make the working class pay for it, by trying to claw back what has been given.

  • The Socialist Party's material is more vital than ever, so we can continue to report from workers who are fighting for better health and safety measures, against layoffs, for adequate staffing levels, etc.
  • Our 'fighting coronavirus workers' charter', outlines a programme to combat the virus and protect workers' living conditions.
  • When the health crisis subsides, we must be ready for the stormy events ahead and the need to arm workers' movements with a socialist programme - one which puts the health and needs of humanity before the profits of a few.
Inevitably, during the crisis we have not been able to sell the Socialist and raise funds in the ways we normally would.
We therefore urgently appeal to all our viewers to donate to our special coronavirus appeal.

Please donate here.

All payments are made through a secure server.

My donation

 

Your message: 

 


In The Socialist 30 November 2001:

War... Recession... We Won't Pay The Price!

Fighting For Jobs And Services

Afghanistan 'Endgame': Not The End Of The 'Game'

Western War Coalition: Buying Friends And Influence

World Aids Day: Warning: Drug Giants Can Seriously Damage Your Health

Anti-Privatisation Conference: 'We're Determined To Fight Back And Win'

Israel/Palestine: Imperialism's Bitter Fruit

Socialist Alliance Conference: The Issues At Stake


 

Home   |   The Socialist 30 November 2001   |   Join the Socialist Party

Subscribe   |   Donate  




Related links:

Socialist Alliance:

triangleAttitude to the Labour Party and the Left

Socialist:

triangleMick Cotter 21-9-57 to 20-5-20

triangleSocialism the Podcast: 2020 episodes

triangleSocialism the Podcast: 2018 episodes

triangleHackney, Waltham Forest & East London Socialist Party branches: Johnson's 'back to school' plan is not safe

SWP:

triangleOpinion: socialists must link climate struggle to power of organised workers

trianglePCS Left Unity must unite on pay and elections

triangleWhy we support Chris Baugh for re-election as assistant general secretary

The Socialist:

triangleListen and watch: Podcasts & Videos

triangleYour donations can keep the Socialist going

Election:

triangleSabotage - the inner workings of Labour's political machine exposed

Labour:

triangleCrisis in council services: Labour must fight or stand aside

News and socialist analysis

News and socialist analysis

22/5/20

Coronavirus

Black and Asian Covid-19 deaths: an indictment of capitalist inequality

20/5/20

Coronavirus

Johnson's reckless 'back to school' plans threaten everyone's safety

20/5/20

Coronavirus

Confidence plummets in Tory strategy for Covid-19

20/5/20

Benefits

Universal Basic Income: not a solution to insecurity and poverty under capitalism

20/5/20

Covid

Furlough cut-off could force millions back to unsafe workplaces

20/5/20

Council

Crisis in council services: Labour must fight or stand aside

20/5/20

Rich

Rich get handouts - workers get pay cuts

19/5/20

Coronavirus

Transport workers and passengers mustn't pay the price

13/5/20

Coronavirus

Pandemic shortages caused by capitalist market - socialist planning is the alternative

13/5/20

Coronavirus

Tories put profit before lives - unions must stand firm on workplace safety

13/5/20

Coronavirus

Stay alert to bosses putting profit before safety

12/5/20

Coronavirus

Furlough scheme extended - workers need 100% of wages

11/5/20

Coronavirus

Dispatches from the front: bosses prepare fresh attacks on NHS

7/5/20

Welsh Government

Social partnership is an attempt to shackle trade unions and prevent industrial action

6/5/20

Homelessness

Homeless left on streets during pandemic

triangleMore News and socialist analysis articles...


Join the Socialist Party
Subscribe to Socialist Party publications
Donate to the Socialist Party
Socialist Party Facebook page
Socialist Party on Twitter
Visit us on Youtube

LATEST POSTS

CONTACT US

Phone our national office on 020 8988 8777

Email: info@socialistparty.org.uk

Locate your nearest Socialist Party branch Text your name and postcode to 07761 818 206

Regional Socialist Party organisers:

Eastern: 079 8202 1969

East Mids: 077 3797 8057

London: 07748 534 891

North East: 078 4114 4890

North West 079 5437 6096

South West: 077 5979 6478

Southern: 078 3368 1910

Wales: 079 3539 1947

West Mids: 024 7655 5620

Yorkshire: 077 0671 0041

ABOUT US

ARCHIVE

Alphabetical listing


May 2020

April 2020

March 2020

February 2020

January 2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999