"Resignations" from Left Alternative officers group: SWP palace coup afoot?

JOHN REES SACKED AND LINDESY GERMAN QUITS AS “LEFT ALTERNATIVE” OFFICERS
Filed under: SWP — Andy Newman @ 6:44 pm

Sorry I have been a bit slow on confirming this news. My e-mail access has been restricted due to a server problem.

The “Left Alternative” is the brand name of the SWP dominated part of Respect that split away from George Galloway, Salma Yaqoob and most of the councillors last year.

Since then the Left Alternative has fared disastrously. Gaining just 0.68% across London in the mayoral election in May, since then one of their councillors has joined the Conservatives, three have joined the Labour Party, and one of their GLA list candidates has joined the Lib Dems.

What is more, the dispute in Respect could have been handled in a professional and civil manner to facilitate an amicable divorce and minimise the damage to the left, but at every stage John Rees and Lindsey German escalated tension and sought to damage Respect, once it became clear they couldn’t control it. At every throw of the dice the personal prestige of John Rees was prioritised over either the interests of the movement, or indeed even the interests of the SWP

They failed.

Although weaker than it was in some ways, Respect has survived, George Galloway continues as a barnstrorming and principled MP, and we are working for success in the next General Election.

The Left Alternative national executive has sacked John Rees, the author of the debacle. It is not clear at this time whether Lindsey - his partner - has resigned in sympathy or also been sacked.

The SWP’s Party Notes sent out the Left Alternative statement as an appendix on Monday, and suggests that the Left Alternative will be playing a more modest role in the SWP’s political operations. It is not yet clear whether John and Lindsey retain their positions on the SWP’s Central Committee, but even if they do they have diminished authority

This is excellent news. There are very many capable and principled socialists within the SWP, many of whom have real achievements to their credit in the workers movement. The antics over the last year or so have hindered the SWP from playing the constructive role it can achieve. It has also diminished the authority of some of its best militants by association with the Rees circus.

It is time for everyone involved in the Respect split to move on, work together where we can; work separately where we must; but all of us doing our utmost to spread the influence and effectiveness of left policies and ideals. The demise of John Rees will make that task easier.

The above post - taken from socialistunity.com - has now been removed! So, either there are some (or many) inaccuracies in the post or someone thought better. Who knows?

According to comments on the socialistunity.com blog, the SWP Central Committee passed a resolution removing Rees and German from responsibility for electoral work, replacing them with Martin Smith (National Organiser) and Charlie Kimber (Industrial Organiser). The SWP membership was informed of this change.

Now, I don't imagine that Rees and German are too happy about this - but how will they fight it? If they wanted to stage a fight, what channels are open to them?

Can they go to the party press and demand space to put their political case to the whole membership? No.
Can they use the SWP internal discussion list to raise their differences and debate the issues? No such list exists.
Can they form a faction? Not outside of the pre-conference period?
Can they 'go public' with their grievances in any way, shape or form? If they do, they could be expelled.
If the details of this 'coup' are correct, Rees and German have been the 'victims' of the anti-democratic, commandist party structures they've nestled on for years. Even if they did protest, I doubt anyone would sympathise with them.

But what could all this mean for the SWP? Is it possible that the ditching of Rees and German will spark a turn towards a different political course? For this to be the case, more rubbish will have to be chucked out. The antics of the SWP are not the product of particular personalities within the party but of a political method.

As long as they continue to operate on the basis of an 'apparatus Marxism', where they fit their analysis to a pre-determined (and organisationally optimal) goal, we can expect more of the same.

In the meantime, SWP members should demand a full explanation of events, minutes of the CC meeting in question and the right to hold their leaders to account. This could be the start of a major crisis for the SWP - if Rees and German stage a fight, if those with lingering doubts decide to jump ship with Hoveman and co. and if the 'loyalists' resist, we could see the SWP split three ways.

All of this is speculation - the next few days should make the situation clearer.

from socialistunity.com

There has been some confusion about the Left Alternative since its National Council meeting on Saturday. To help clarify matters we are circulating the attached document, which was approved by the Central Committee prior to the Left Alternative meeting. It will be discussed at the SWP National Committee on Sunday.
The Left Alternative

1) The potential for a left alternative to Labour has rarely been greater. Recession and inflation are undermining the claim that the market is the solution to economic problems, and more and more people are aware of the shortcomings of New Labour. Privatisation is utterly discredited, while the rising wealth of the elite is bitterly resented.

The level of trade union struggle is on the rise, and union conferences are discussing whether or not to continue supporting Labour. Many union conferences and political meetings see people crying out for a radical electoral alternative.

The events in Georgia have underlined the fragility of the world order, the potential for great power clashes, and the way imperialist violence is structured into the system.

But no force has filled the gap to the left of Labour.

Respect achieved real gains, but it has been wrecked by the Galloway-inspired split. And sadly the Left List could not make a breakthrough. It does not have wide support outside the party.

2) Moreover the subjective factors are not so good. There seems little hope of any national figure breaking away from the Labour Party to help create a radical alternative.

Warwick Two demonstrated that the major unions have little stomach to challenge Brown. Even the leaders of the smaller unions seem unprepared to take a lead at the moment, and launch a political project to the left of Labour.

This doesn’t mean all is well between New Labour and the union bureaucracy. Anger over pay is increasing. And even if there is no stomach for a fight with Brown, there is little or no enthusiasm for him. These tensions promise openings for the future, but we can’t base our short-term electoral perspective on this prospect.

The Left Alternative is not strong enough to create a broad alternative at the moment – but can play a role in helping realign the forces on the left so long as it does not claim to be the answer.

Therefore for the time being we are likely to find ourselves working around a number of different initiatives.

The obvious ones are:
· Public Services not Private Profit – as Mark Serwotka said at Marxism this year and at his meeting with Charlie and me [Martin Smith], he was hoping that PSNPP would stand or support candidates on the left in the near future.
· Also we are seeing small groups of councillors in the North West alongside local unions (FBU/NUT and trades councils) wanting to see greater co-operation between the left and left independents and discuss creating an electoral pact.
· None of these are a panacea for the growth of a new left. We do not need to choose one route. We should use the space between now and any election for real discussion, joint working and debate.
· In the present period we may see more Convention of the Left type conferences as organisations jostle for position. For instance the Socialist Party claims that it is going to re-launch the Campaign for New Workers Party stating that they have a wider platform which includes
– McDonnell / Serwotka / Crow and Wrack (we may have to intervene in this conference) .

3) Where next for the Left Alternative?

We want to avoid if possible any bruising election contests. We should only decide to stand on a case by case basis.
The Left Alternative should push its supporters into arenas like the Charter, PSNPP and support left candidates in their campaigns.
It should be reduced to minimal, but still existing, role.

This needs to be reviewed regularly because this situation could change very quickly.

4) The role of the office LA structures
a) If we agree to the general picture outlined then certain organisational changes need to take place.
b) LA cannot operate on anything like the level it has done previously.
c) We should continue to have an elected national body to oversee the LA. This should meet monthly for the moment and play the role mainly of co-ordinating the limited number of bases we still have.
d) The office should produce a monthly e-mail newsletter, and direct activists into arenas such as the Charter, Public Services Not Private Profit, and supporting election campaigns if and when they arise.
e) Occasional propaganda should be produced and the website should be updated regularly.
f) The office must also play a role in clearing the debts that the Left List / Left Alternative has accumulated.
g) The LA staff will be reduced to 1 full time post: [reference to individuals removed.]
h) We should look into the possibility of finding smaller/cheaper premises.

5) Transition

a) Chris B to remain on the steering committee until the October conference.
b) Charlie K and Martin S to go onto the LA steering committee at the conference.
c) In the run up to October conference the CC should discuss who should oversee the LA work after the conference. In the meantime, Chris, Charlie and Martin can both oversee the work and be the CC point of contact.
d) Alex or Chris H will introduce caucus on the Friday before the NC.

Martin Smith
Approved by Central Committee 27 August 2008

Best way forward I think is for left forums such as the one in Cardiff and in manchester around Convention of the Left for Marxist and socialist discussion whilst planning and co-ordinating united fornt campaigning action. That's the best way to rebuild the workers' movement and socialism within it I think.

It's clear that the SWP are re-orienting, following the decisive failure of the Respect project and the death of LA, its relic. It seems logical enough that there would be a reshuffle of positions within the CC to reflect a new strategic course. It's good that the (at best) left-populism of the Respect turn is over, and that implies a turn back to the labour movement, which is also positive. I shouldn't think that there would be a serious faction fight, with Rees/German loyalists fighting a rearguard action - I really don't think there would be a serious political basis for such a split. But on the other hand, will this CC reshuffle be matched by a reshuffle of organisers lower down in the Party? And what would the reaction to a broader reshuffle like that be?

It has been suggested that this is a palace coup by Martin Smith. I have no idea whether that's fair, or whether Martin Smith is taking it upon himself to organise the transition to a new course on behalf of the whole CC. Either way, what do we know about Martin Smith's politics as distinct from R/G?

In terms of the SWP's new direction, that's unclear. But this passage is significant (or ominous...):
"· In the present period we may see more Convention of the Left type conferences as organisations jostle for position. For instance the Socialist Party claims that it is going to re-launch the Campaign for New Workers Party stating that they have a wider platform which includes
– McDonnell / Serwotka / Crow and Wrack (we may have to intervene in this conference) ."
What kind of intervention? What would its character be? "Rule or ruin"? An attempt to win it to a Rees/German-style soft-populist position? Or something more serious and positive?

More importantly, if the SWP CC's summary of the CNWP is correct, and if (as I understand is underway in some places), regional CNWP committees were being set up with a view to doing something meaningful (I imagine these committees hoping to function something like the local committees for the French NPA), surely we in the AWL would ourselves have to have a serious discussion about our orientation to the CNWP?

There's really no evidence that the CNWP is other than we described it at the outset. The idea of local CNWP committees being other than SP fronts (plus the odd Workers' Power person and Pete McLaren for window-dressing) is remote. I don't in the least blame the SP for trying to establish an attractive "front", but let's not fool ourselves.

The more plausible place for something wider is the "Trade Union Coordinating Group" set up by McDonnell and the left union leaders at the TUC this week. What that will come to, we will have to see.

The problem with the "TU Coordinating Group" is that it seems to be focused on how the unions can organise their relationships with MPs better - fine in itself, but not the same as goal of gaining organised working-class representation in society, starting outside Parliament.

Daniel Randall, who was a TUC Congress delegate and attended the meeting, will I'm sure at some point give a report.

Sacha

Has McDonnell himself written anything about this? I understand that Serwotka sees the TU Co-ordinating Group as a means by which unionists can whip up a vote for any mainstream MP from whichever party who seems to be sympathetic to union demands. Surely not everyone at the top of this sees it the same way? And how does this link in with the fight to get the RMT to stand candidates?