Socialist Labour Party "severely injured"

Submitted by Anon on 13 January, 1998 - 1:20

The second conference — excuse me, Congress — of Arthur Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party proved it to be just that, Arthur Scargill’s party.

The conference, held at Conway Hall in London over the weekend of 13-14 December, descended into chaos as the block vote wielded by one affiliate — referred to by some as Lancashire NUM, but in fact the North-West, Cheshire and Cumbria Miners’ Association, a retired miners’ welfare society; there aren’t any working pits in Lancashire — made the votes of the rest of the conference irrelevant.

Terry Burns, who was the SLP’s general election candidate in Cardiff Central and polled the second highest vote nationally for a non-Labour socialist candidate, said: “Arthur didn’t quite kill the party at the conference but he certainly severely injured it. Instead of a conference it was a farce. Individual members of the SLP have more freedom in bourgeois Britain than they do in the SLP.

“I intend to remain in the party and still think that, while it will now be reduced to something of a rump, the party has the potential to grow and be a pole of attraction for people looking for an alternative to Labour. However, I believe that as long as the SLP has its present constitution — more rigid than even the Labour Party’s — it is going to be a top down party rather than a bottom up party, and one that reflects Scargill’s own views about politics, which are still locked in the era of Stalinism.”

With the “Lancashire NUM” block vote three men wielded 3000 votes, while the rest of the conference — 114 local SLP groups were represented, with a total of fewer than 1,000 members — had fewer than 1,000 votes (one per paper member represented.)
About a third of the delegates did not come back for the second day — including most of the Cardiff branch, who led a small walkout and resigned their membership on the Saturday.

Amazingly, there was no discussion whatsoever of the general political situation or of the various political changes of the two years since the SLP’s last conference — such as the change of government, for example.

Terry Burns said: “There was no real relationship between what was going on in the outside world and what was going on in the conference hall.”

The subjects that were up for debate — mainly the SLP’s own constitution — were not really debated: two speeches for each motion were allowed before moving onto the next motion; there were no speeches against or general discussion. (Some debate was allowed on the Sunday, apparently, though the Chair was quite “selective” in choosing speakers.) There was some mention from the platform of “our successes in the general election” in passing, but no real analysis of either the election or the SLP’s performance in it. The SLP’s big forthcoming project, participating in the Reclaim our Rights conference for free trade unions in March, along with the Free Trade Unions Campaign, was mentioned only in passing.

The platform alleged the membership of the SLP to be 5,000, fast approaching 6,000. Scargill claimed the SLP to be the fourth largest party in Britain, and the fastest growing. Both are patently untrue.

SLP dissidents — a number of whom have already resigned their membership — are due to meet in Reading on 10 January to discuss the way forward. Undoubtedly the SLP has attracted some serious comrades. (About a third of the conference voted for left candidates for the NEC.) Hopefully those comrades will now rethink.

I hope they will get involved in a serious fight back against the Labour Government, by uniting in organisations like the Welfare State Network (as a number of SLP members have already done), and making a serious fight to defend working class political representation. The SLP is no alternative to a movement of the type of a Labour Representation Committee which will, in the first place, defend the Labour-union link, but also look to building a new, open labour-movement based party if we need to. I think the “Labour Representation” orientation is more relevant to translating politically the militancy that will in time be unleashed against New Labour.

Signs from some are not encouraging. Martin Blum, in the 18 December post-conference edition of the Weekly Worker, wrote: “If the class was combative, if we were moving forward, the SLP would be swamped by workers who would simply not put up with the bureaucratic shenanigans of the leadership.”

Even if this were not so very unlikely, to attempt to channel the upsurge in working class activity into a neo-Stalinist sect would be a grave mistake for socialists. (The facts in this article were taken from discussions with various SLP members and from the conference report in the Weekly Worker. The article does not reflect the views of any member of the SLP).

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.