Workers' Liberty

"VIRTUAL" PRE-CONFERENCE DISCUSSION, 15/05/07

RENAMING THE PAPER

Duncan: What was agreed about Stan's amendment?
Martin: Nothing has been agreed yet. I think EC will probably support referring it to incoming NC. In this week's paper we will experiment with the business of two different - Solidarity and Workers' Liberty (WL small) on front - Solidarity and Workers' Liberty (WL big) on back. I talked to Stan about this in Glasgow at the weekend, but he was dismissive.

LABOUR PARTY

Ed: Is anyone in agreement with any of Maria's motion?
Martin: Well, as Tom U said in the Sheffield meeting, there are some things in it (e.g. opposing disaffiliation) which no-one would object to. And e.g. Caroline spoke in the Sheffield to say that we should be careful about educating ourselves about the importance of the LP, and that we should be systematically taking up TU delegacies to GCs where we can (something that is not written in Maria's motion but which I know Maria is keen on). But no-one has yet spoken in any of the pre-conference meetings in favour of the whole motion.
Ed: I do have some concerns on supporting SP. It does raise some of the same points as the Green Party. I.e. we don't argue for joining the SP to influence their politics. But they are socialists... I didn't get expelled from my ward or CLP for nominating a SP candidate, and I could have supported them without nominating. I'm debating with myself really.
Martin: Blairites have got slack about expelling people these days because they think the CLPs are "safe". In your position, I wouldn't nominate the SP. They can get other people to do that. And you want to be involved in APF.
Ed: Part of not supporting Green Tatchell is because it would surely mean arguing that we should join Green Party. We are not arguing join SP.
Martin: No, but we are arguing with SP to form a coalition with us - SGUC - and for other socialists to join that coalition. You could reasonably say that the coalition is pretty feeble. But there is a qualitative difference between that and our relations with the Green Party. We did after all agree a common outline manifesto with the SP.
Ed: Maria's point is SP are sectarian.
Duncan: SP politics are, whatever their failings, general socialist propaganda in elections. Duncan: Don't think that's true of Greens. SP have councillors in Lewisham. I can't see how we would be different in practice if we had councillors. I can see how we would be different in practice from the Green councillors in Lewisham, like we wouldn't vote for cuts in education.
Ed: I was really just trying to start the discussion. It was something we discussed at our branch. I think I was right to support SP, but in practice it was very different to SA.
Mickey C: I can't see why the SP being sectarian means we could not support their candidatures. LO are sectarian, but we would be happy to endorse their candidates.
Ed: OK. What about affiliation to LP? I think it may make sense to argue for reaffiliation of FBU or RMT because they have not done anything more political since they disaffiliated. But perhaps it's different for NUT or PCS in the present climate?
Martin: Well, NUT and PCS comrades tend to say that you would just get puzzled looks if you advanced affiliation in present conditions. Pete R developed an argument in UCU to call for support to McD, and affiliation to LP if McD wins. If some union were mounting a real fight in the LP, you could argue for affiliation to join that union's battle in the LP for class policies. E.g. in Australia CPSU (rough equivalent of Unison) has recently voted to affiliate to ALP explicitly on the grounds of joining the unions' fight to get ALP committed on anti-union laws and workers' rights (not that the unions' fight is very strong).
Ed: I think arguing for affiliated in unions never affiliated without some cause to fight for in it would be difficult. But RMT or FBU could perhaps have a debate about reaffiliating to try to fight say over TU freedom bill or for McDonnell?
Mickey C: Would the Labour leadership ever allow a union with that programme to affiliate?
Ed: If they didn't it would probably be worth applying to force the issue.. ASLEF is affiliated and supports both those things.
Martin: It would be hard for British LP to refuse affiliation from PCS if it voted for it (though mind you, to suppose PCS voting to affiliate you have to assume a lot of things have already changed). Australian LP is pretty right-wing, though not structurally transformed as British LP has been. and there's no question of them refusing CPSU affiliation.
Ed: It must be about priorities of our time and what impact it is likely to have. In PCS and NUT joint unity on pay campaign is more possible and affiliation this year would seem a distraction.
Martin: We've argued in RMT to reaffiliate, but there is, as the Militant used to say, no "resonance" to it. I think you have to have at least some visible sign of forces already affiliated to LP making a fight, in order to raise argument for affiliation to join that fight. Otherwise the call for affiliation "reads" just like a call to support Blair and Brown. If you do not have conditions for unions affiliated to LP making at least some fight, then you are not likely to have conditions for winning an affiliation vote in unaffiliated unions. We could argue reaffiliation in FBU if we had people there. However, as far as I know, even the Labour leftists in the FBU like Mick Shaw have decided the issue is best left for the time being, rather than isolating themselves by banging away now.
Ed: Are there any other lines of Maria's that are specifically wrong? Most of it is emphasis except for opposing standing candidates against Labour
Martin: The overall thing is that everything should be reassessed and subordinated to an orientation to CLPs. That makes no sense to me when the CLPs are mostly quite dead; and those that are more lively have very little grip on anything else - e.g. for all practical purposes have no chance of ever getting a motion to LP conference
Mickey C: I still cannot see the value of joining Labour as individual members. Like you say, CLPs are not useful forums.
Martin: 1. If you are in Unison or Amicus, it enables you to take part in the union's political structure. You can't otherwise. 2. You can check out where there is life.
Mickey C: But I'm in BECTU, where I don't have to be in LP to take part in the union's political life. And only a minority of our members are in Unison or Amicus. As regards 2: 2. There is very little life. You have said so yourself.
Martin: Yes, but you might change jobs and then be in Unison or Amicus.
Ed: I think perhaps the McDonnell stuff has created a small amount of buzz, which is now worth orienting towards, but it hasn't made CLPs recover en masse.
Duncan: Holding a membership card, checking out what is going on, when things kick off, it's hardly submerging yourself. CLPs are supposed to have nomination meetings, once the MPs' vote goes through. If McDonnell is on paper it will be useful to go..
Martin: "You could join then"? At present it's quite easy to join. Known AWL members can join. The Blairites can't be bothered to be constantly purging CLPs which anyway are "safe". But suppose even a slight revival in the LP. E.g. Brown loses general election badly. Some Hain/ Cruddas type wins the leadership. Much recrimination. A slight swing back to "old Labour". It could happen. Happened in NZ after the Lange years (very right wing Labour government, many unions disaffiliated, most vaguely left wing LP members split away)...
Mickey C: If there is an improvement in the life of the LP, if there is a practical benefit to membership, why could we not join then?
Martin: Because then they won't be so free and easy about letting people join then. Admittedly, they may have a list of Trots they have allowed to join. And they could expel them as soon as life revives. But they're not 100% efficient. The other thing is, there's stuff now worth at least checking out.
Duncan: Expulsion is harder than not admitting to membership.
Mickey C: But presumably if we were at the centre of a fight, we would be expelled.
Martin: Caroline went to her ward (so she reported at Sheffield pre-conference meeting) and found that the whole Sheffield LP is against Academies. Her ward, quite strongly so. It's worth just knowing that. The ward members are not left wing - just against Academies. If Caroline got to be the centre of a fight against Academies, she would be expelled? Maybe But she would first have got to the centre of the fight... And the Blairites would worry about the effect of expelling her on LP members who thought that Caroline was too left-wing but appreciated her activity on Academies. It's true the fact that you can now be expelled just by them sending a letter (before Blair, it was much harder to expel) makes a difference But it doesn't mean you are automatically expelled before you even get to square one.
Ed: LP wards can sometimes contain union members from unions where we have no contacts. It's possible that in some places it's a forum to meet other TUists... but unless you join you couldn't go in the room. And if you were a GC delegate with some others from your union branch, it may make they rally round you politically and encourage them to discuss our politics further, if you were expelled or threatened.
Mickey C: Trades Council seems more effective place to meet other TUists.
Martin: I doubt you meet lots of good TUists these days in GCs (though you used to, even when LP was far from bubbling). But you do meet some.
Ed: Only three old CPers go to my TC and every CLP has on paper at least six delegates from Unison. LP membership doesn't mean going automatically to every meeting, but it creates an option, and in local government there are good motions or struggles you could take to CLPs.
Mickey C: In Sheffield, TC is by no means great, but is real.
Martin: That's unusual. But wasn't it worth Caroline finding out that the Sheffield LP opposes Academies? Won't it be worth her getting a GC delegacy from her Unison branch? And seeing if she can develop anything on the anti-Academies front? I wouldn't exaggerate the possibilities. But then getting the delegacy doesn't detract from anything else. And Caroline would still be able to exercise judgement on when to go to GC meetings and when to give them a miss. If it meant cancelling out our independent AWL profile I'd be against it, and that's a reason why I'm against Maria's motion. But it does not always or automatically mean cancelling out.
Ed: In some areas we may say that being an AWL organiser is more important that TU branch meetings, but we would have TU membership and keep an eye on meetings and what was discussed and turn up when we could...
Martin: Won't it be worth Caroline going to GC where they discuss Labour leadership nominations? Assuming, of course, that McD gets on the ballot paper. But it looks a reasonable chance that he will, and that in itself is a sign of some life there. Limited life.
Ed: Looking very dubious right now with only 27 nominations. Only 43 Labour MPs have not nominated, and we need 18 of them to support McDonnell.
Martin: Part of the point about holding LP cards is that we don't know everything. There may be things out there we don't know. Things may go differently from how we think; and, if you can with minimal cost, it's best to be prepared for the possibility that you are wrong.
Ed: I couldn't have really spoken to the two MPs I'm lobbying today if I wasn't a LP member and hadn't discussed McDonnell with them at the Unison Labour Link conference.
Mickey C: There seems limited value in lobbying Sheffield LP leaders. The McD campaign all agreed no hope of persuading any local MPs; as far as I know, haven't managed to convince any councillors either.
Nick H: But, Mickey, the point about the Labour Party is the members, not the crust.
Martin: Would it still not be worth exploring what can be done to mobilise Sheffield LP on Academies issue? If we even had a paper vote by Sheffield DLP to condemn Academies. it would be a good thing. Not exactly decisive, but good.
Mickey C: But meetings are not lively.
Martin: But maybe occasionally some are (we are not all-knowing). And even an unlively meeting which produced a Sheffield DLP decision against Academies might be worth going for.
Mickey C: To me, prospect of a Sheffield DLP decision against Academies seems unlikely.
Martin: Well, Caroline's report was that the majority of the Sheffield LP is against Academies (remember, you don't have to be left wing to oppose Academies).
Duncan: Just after 1997 I went to a very unlively LP ward and got a motion passed (much to my surprise) unanimously condemning Blair for bombing Iraq.
Mickey C: The DLPs etc seem to have very little power. Would a paper motion from them have much effect?
Duncan: Surely the process of getting people to support the motion is important.
Martin: Suppose Caroline goes to her Unison branch and says I want to be a delegate to LP in order to oppose Academies, and then reports back. That would be useful, wouldn't it? Sure, DLP doesn't have power. It's a strictly enforced rule now that DLPs can't instruct council Labour groups. (It used to be different, e.g. in Islington in 1993 we got a nursery closure reversed by virtue of getting enough wards to vote for reopening and eventually forcing a mandate on the Labour group). But a paper motion would help campaigners in putting pressure on the councillors. After all, local anti-Academies campaign committees generally don't have much "power" either.
Mickey C: But if it is right wingers opposing academies for their own reasons, with no intention of taking things further?
Martin: There may well be local activists politically not very left wing but just riled up about Academies. Same as you can get right wing workers riled up about wage cuts. We try to build on anything like that we can get. Obviously Sheffield DLP members passing a motion against Academies is not as good as workers going on strike for higher wages, but we don't have strikes every day, or to order. The other thing is, LP members (even when at a low ebb) are by definition better places to put pressure on LP councillors than random activists. It is possible for not very left wing and not very lively LP wards which are nevertheless riled up on an issue to put pressure on councillors. One of the clearest indicators of how low things generally are in the LP is that you see virtually no councillors these days pushed into rebellion. But that doesn't mean there can't be exceptions. Shifting an individual local councillor is not like shifting the Government or even shifting the council leadership. It's not necessarily beyond our reach everywhere even now. I don't know whether it can be done in Sheffield, but it's not beyond imagining.
Mickey C: Academies are a bigger issue in Sheffield now. Council are planning to merge two schools into one new Academy. Focus of campaign has been the extra distance kids will have to travel to school. SWP have had some involvement; Lib Dems have taken opportunity; Green Party also involved. Schools are on opposite side of the city to where AWL members are, so we've so far had limited involvement, and need to investigate.