Socialist Party (UK)

[nwnm]

there are huge problems with this dennisr -

One of the main problems with the french left re - the anti war movement, was the way it equated terrorist attacks with the war, and taking terrorism as the starting point, thereby alienating a large section of the Muslim and immigrant communities who were baring the brunt of an anti 'terrorost' (read anyone with brown skin) backlash. Our approachas a revolutionary party and in building the Stop the War Coalition was slightly different. Here are our statements both on 9/11 and the London bombings -
http://www.swp.org.uk/swp_archive.php?article_id=6878

http://www.swp.org.uk/bombing.php

http://www.swp.org.uk/aftermath.php

"That is why the french section of the CWi, (including its large non-white membership, of course) was actually able to interviene in the events mentioned in france as it had previously in the sans-papier campaigns " You are not alone in this, So did the LCR. The difference being that they are beginning to gapple towards greater left unity - similar to developments in other parts of europe (and the UK). There is a report of their recent conference here -
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8164

"Historically the LPYS and Militant had a large black and asian membership and it was a supporter of Militant who was the first black LP nec member (as LPYS rep on the labout nec). Later there was the activity around Panther against the BNP hq in welling were hundreds of militant black youth were mobilised alongside other folk." There are all sorts of problems with this also.
When Blacks in the Labour party tried to organise as a group Militant opposed the setting up of Labour Party Black Sections, effectivelly taking the same side as the Kinnockite wing of the Party against the rest of the left. Then, when you leave Labour you effectively set up your own black section. "Panther UK"; Which eventually has its own 'parting of the ways', breaks away and relaunches as 'independent Panther UK'.

 

[dennisr]

There are all sorts of problems with this also.
When Blacks in the Labour party tried to organise as a group Militant opposed the setting up of Labour Party Black Sections, effectivelly taking the same side as the Kinnockite wing of the Party against the rest of the left. Then, when you leave Labour you effectively set up your own black section. "Panther UK"; Which eventually has its own 'parting of the ways', breaks away and relaunches as 'independent Panther UK'.

In the interests of remaining fraternal and all that - i'll not reply to the first points - i think folk can look at the links you have posted and decide for themselves.

I do want to clarify some elements of your final statement though. i would argue that the Militant did not side with the right over black sections anymore than our mutual opposition to the bosses EU means we would both therefore be 'on the same side' as right wing, nationalistic opponents of the EU.

The approach of the seperate black sections (formation of seperate sections and reserved positions for black people on selection panels, committees etc) was opposed for very different reasons than those of the labour bureaucracy. At the centre of this debate was the issue of black people's representation in the labour party of the time. The militants were opposed to token approach and argued that the way to involve more black people in membership and therefore the structures of the LP was a clear commitment on the issues effecting black and all working people - a clear socialist programme of change of which opposition to racism and discrimination wa an integral part. We argued that the problem was a political question - not an organisational one. A programme of action that united people in action.

The later activity of the Panther reflected the need to engage a radicalised layer of black youths who had clearly broken with any idea that the LP could change things and were moving in a seperatist direction after years of defeats for the organised WC, and little chance of the intergration via work and the trade unions that had been open to earlier generations. Tactics reflect times.

Hope that clears that up

 

[nwnm]

"The approach of the seperate black sections (formation of seperate sections and reserved positions for black people on selection panels, committees etc) was opposed for very different reasons than those of the labour bureaucracy. At the centre of this debate was the issue of black people's representation in the labour party of the time. The militants were opposed to token approach and argued that the way to involve more black people in membership and therefore the structures of the LP was a clear commitment on the issues effecting black and all working people - a clear socialist programme of change of which opposition to racism and discrimination wa an integral part. We argued that the problem was a political question - not an organisational one. A programme of action that united people in action" But the rise of the Black Sections argument wasn't just organisational, it was political as well. It was objecting ro the fact that Labour as an electoral organisation was quite capable of giving ground ro racism to win votes. It was also the case that it also led to a layer of black people who up until then had been community activists to join Labour 'to try to change it' (most of us of a certain age have fallen for that one at some time or another). Whilst I agree with many of your criticisms of the LPBS, wouldn't it have been better to side with the right of an oppressed group to organise first and then raise your criticisms from the same side of the barricades? It would certainly have made it more difficult for some of the shit stirred up by the Liverpool Black Caucus around the Sam Bond affair to stick. (I would side with Militant on that one, from what I can remember - its a long time ago....)

 

[dennisr]

Whilst I agree with many of your criticisms of the LPBS, wouldn't it have been better to side with the right of an oppressed group to organise first and then raise your criticisms from the same side of the barricades?

There were plenty of black activists in the LPYS who's reaction was complete opposition to what they saw as token manouvres. They were, formally, on the same side of the barricades.

Funnily enough i remember discussions on this at the LPYS conferences - which were huge around the early/mid eighties. The room was full of loads of young WC black (and there are all the questions around definitions of black as well of course) members of the party - the vast majority opposed. Usually a few liberal do-gooder types (inveriably white, by any definition) and some plumby, middle-class black bloke speaking for black sections and clearly wanting to develop his 'political career' with a leg up. In practice we could have 'taken them over' by weight of numbers but we wanted to actually challenge the racism of the LP rather than give them a fig leaf or a leg up to a few careerists.

It would certainly have made it more difficult for some of the shit stirred up by the Liverpool Black Caucus around the Sam Bond affair to stick. (I would side with Militant on that one, from what I can remember - its a long time ago....)

The Sam Bond thing was very different - an unholy alliance of careerists and genuine lowlife (without any irony..) cheered on by the likes of the daily mail (or was it the express) who did thier best to divide the struggle in Liverpool in any way they could. Ironically in the original selection process for Sam's job a majority of the people who voted for him were later the big-wigs of the caucus. They wanted a few token 'race-relations' jobs and were willing to smear the stuggle of a united WC in Liverpool to do this. One of the other ironies about the accusations of racism is that 80% of the new housing was actually built in Liverpool 8, a huge percentage of the jobs created went to folk from Liverpool 8 - no tokenism on the part of the council simply the previously hardest hit areas getting the resources. I personally think Sam Bond, one of the founding members of the original NMP, had a harder time from the media than Hatton got - he and his family were hounded by the press. If only they gave the same coverage to griffin and co.

added: I should say i lived in Liverpool 8 at the time - the Militant had many black activists at the time. Many are no longer active, but still close friends while others are now, for example, leading activists in UNISON (the old NALGO leadership being replaced by Militants a few years later). None of these people wanted token gestures - they wanted to be treated equally and hated career types - that was regardless of any party line on the matter.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

You are right - that was crude overemphesis on my part as part of a sentence about something a little more fundamental which i was replying to in a hurry. The entire party was in effect closed down by the central party and folk had to in effect re-apply. You were obviously deemed safe. The left were forced to stand against the imposed candidates - because thier right to support policies that opposed tory cuts was 'banned' by the national party. So ... in effect...

..

There is quote a collapsing of chronology here. The first suspension of the DLP was in November 1985. The officers of the DLP were expelled in July 1986. The 47 were disqualified by the courts in March 1987.

I joined the Liverpool Party in 1990 (I was in the Knowsley party in 1989 before that, but moved house). I don't know when the 'closing down' and re-registration took place but it must have been before that presumably after the DLP officers expulsion in July 1986. The district party was suspended at the time, but was reconvened a short-time after. My ward was run by Militant and selected a Militant supporter as candidate winning the seat in 1990. It functioned perfectly legitimately as a Militant dominated ward at the time. No members were expelled during this period though councillors were 'suspended' from the Labour group - a routine event for left wing councillors breaking the whip at that time elsewhere too.

The candidates who stood against Labour were in the May 1991 elections. In six wards candidates were stood as 'Ward Labour' against the candidate selected by the bureaucracy. Five of these won. Militant actually stood back from these selections, as they were not enthusiastic about standing against officially endorsed Labour candidates (this having been the mantra for the previous 30 years). None of the five who won were supporters of Militant; those most keen on standing were independent members of the Broad Left, such as George Knibb one time chair of housing.

However after the five won and joined the Broad Left Group to take it to around 25 members, Militant switched. They came all out for challenging Labour electorally. They talked about winning control of the council as the Broad Left rather than as part of the Labour Party. The by-election in Liverpool Walton had been called for 27 May (following the death of Eric Heffer). Peter Kilfoyle had already been legitimately selected as the Labour candidate for the general election (due in 1992) defeating Lesley Mahmood, then a councillor, perfectly fairly. Militant decided to stand Mahmood as 'Real Labour' and portrayed her as a victim of a witch-hunt when in fact she was a functioning member of the Labour Party who was not prevented from participating in Labour Party activity. Mahmood lost, winning only 6.5% of the vote. The right wing then moved against all those who had supported either the 6 'ward labour' candidates or Mahmood in the by-election. Militant began its exit from the Labour Party over that period.

One question is whether there was an alternative course of action. I actually spoke from the floor at a big Broad Left meeting (c400 people) after the council elections in May 1991. I argued that the victory of the five had given the left wing legitimacy inside the Labour Party. The Broad Left should demand their reinstatement as members of the Labour Group and take their fight into the Labour Party, I said. Militant were going in the opposite direction - out of the Labour Party, prematurely in my view. Standing Mahmood was the signal to invite the expulsion of Militant completely from the Liverpool Labour Party. It was this, rather than the fall of the Berlin Wall or the defeat of the miners, that precipitated the long term decimation of Militant in Liverpool.

All this was some 5 years after the original expulsion of the DLP officers and the first moves to disqualify the 47.

 

[nwnm]

“There were plenty of black activists in the LPYS who's reaction was complete opposition to what they saw as token manouvres. They were, formally, on the same side of the barricades” I’m certainly not going to try and engage in an almighty row here, because what we’ve had so far is an honest and fraternal exchange of views. But, this debate went a lot further than the LPYS. (not dissing that either - I was a member once) As I said earlier, the debates around Black sections drew a layer of black people into labour (mainly working class btw) who had been community activists, who experience led them to believe that the Labour party (at that time) represented the best opportunity to change (i.e. reform) the system. For example, the people who founded the Black Alliance in S Wales in the 1960’s drifted into the Labour Party in the 1980’s. [a similar situation enveloped the feminist/women’s liberation movement under Thatcher]. There were also the likes of Bernie Grant involved in Black Sections, who instinctively sided with the dispossessed of Broadwater Farm, when they were attacked by the police and fought back. Whilst you may put yourselves as ‘formally’ on the same side of the barricades (my reading of this is ‘in the abstract’), concretely, in the labour party at large, you would have been voting with Kinnock - rather than voting with the oppressed, (i.e. siding with them concretely), and then arguing with them about the nature of the beast they were trying to reform. In a similar way to how A Sivanandan wrote about the rise of the ‘race relations industry’ which happened with the decline of real liberation movements.


“Militant decided to stand Mahmood as 'Real Labour' and portrayed her as a victim of a witch-hunt when in fact she was a functioning member of the Labour Party who was not prevented from participating in Labour Party activity. Mahmood lost, winning only 6.5% of the vote. The right wing then moved against all those who had supported either the 6 'ward labour' candidates or Mahmood in the by-election. Militant began its exit from the Labour Party over that period. One question is whether there was an alternative course of action. I actually spoke from the floor at a big Broad Left meeting (c400 people) after the council elections in May 1991. I argued that the victory of the five had given the left wing legitimacy inside the Labour Party. The Broad Left should demand their reinstatement as members of the Labour Group and take their fight into the Labour Party, I said”

Sorry Fisher Gate - I can’t agree with you on this one.

1) the Broad Left would have been witch hunted out of the Labour Party regardless of whether there was a Real Labour candidate or not. That is how the labour machine worked - then and now.
2) 6.5 % was a bloody good result for someone taking on the LP machine. I think Lesley herself (having seen her speak at the time) and possibly her Militant comrades were over optimistic - predicting victory etc, when the election could have focussed more on the council strike at the time.
3) I actually spent a couple of days in Liverpool at the time, (yes the SWP actually went around campaigning for people to vote for the [militant] Real Labour candidate!) and the scale of the Labour machines witch hunt was incredible. I remember being out with other SWP comrades and being photographed by the bastards. We quickly told them that they couldn’t expel us as we weren’t in their fucking party - and photographed them back!
4) I don’t think it signalled militants exit from the party - it was more of a knee jerk reaction to some right wing bastard who wasn’t fit to clean Eric Heffer’s shoes potentially taking his seat. Clive Heemskerk’s coverage of Walton in the MIR talked about ‘raising the banner of socialism’ in the election to take people back into the Labour Party to fight at some point in the future. I think Militants exit from Labour was quite muddled and very messy on occasions. But it wasn’t a wrong one.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Correct me if I'm wrong ... I did not think there was a Socialist Party (UK) implied by the title of the thread ....

As I understand it there is a Socialist Party England & Wales (confusingly called the 'CWI in Britain' on the web), there is the International Socialists in Scotland which is a platform of the Scottish Socialist Party, there is a Socialist Party in Ireland which has a "Northern Region" and a "Southern Ireland" section (presumably the Northern Region is based on the six county statelet that is part of the UK and the "Southern Ireland" section is based on the 26 county state of the 'Republic of Ireland - though it is a common pub quiz type answer to know that the northern-most part of the island of Ireland is actually in the 'southern' state of the 'Republic of Ireland).
See:
http://www.socialistworld.net/index2.html?/area/britain.html
http://www.socialistworld.net/index2.html?/area/scotland.html
http://www.socialistworld.net/index2.html?/area/irelandnorth.html
http://www.socialistworld.net/index2.html?/area/irelandsouth.html

And to cap it all none of these are to be confused with the Socialist Party of Great Britain founded in 1904,, which is the legally registered user of the name 'Socialist Party' for UK elections (and hence the reason why the SP (EW) use the name 'Socialist Alternative' instead).

fiddly details for the few people who actually care about such things:

1) The Irish and English and Welsh Socialist Parties are just called the "Socialist Party", the country description is not part of their names. Both are sections (ie local affiliates) of the Committee for a Workers International.

2) The English and Welsh Socialist Party is divided into 12 regions (or maybe 11). The Irish Socialist Party has 2 regions, basically Northern Ireland and the Republic.

3) The Committee for a Workers International section in Scotland is called the International Socialists, and it is a "platform" of the Scottish Socialist Party.

4) There are two parties called the "Socialist Party of Great Britain", neither of which are in any way related to the organisations above.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Now that I've got the above pedantry out of my system:

Crake - if you are interested in the Socialist Party, the best thing to do is go along to a local branch meeting and check it out for yourself. If you don't know where your local branch meets you can contact them through the national website.

As for urbanites views of the Socialist Party, they would range from "who?" to "I'm a member".