Coalition of Resistance conference: potential, but too much hot air

Submitted by AWL on 28 November, 2010 - 10:48 Author: Daniel Randall

The immediate fact of the Coalition of Resistance conference was that over 1,000 people, some of them young, attended a (mostly) radical anti-cuts conference where they heard many speeches that communicated militant class-struggle politics. In the context of an upturn in struggle – led by student direct action – the conference may well have been an inspiring experience for some. That should be welcomed. For those not used to the sectarian manoeuvring so common on the left, the conference's worse elements will have been harder to spot and many attendees will have gone away feeling part of a large, significant movement; even those of us who can see through to some of what was going on behind the scenes have no business in pouring too much cold water on that. People are right to feel enthusiastic, inspired and upbeat. They are right to want to build. If the majority of the newer activists who attended the conference left it with that feeling then its net result will have been a positive one.

But it would be disingenuous not to point out some very significant political problems and frustrations that will need to be discussed and overcome if CoR is to achieve its aim of becoming a central coordinating force for the anti-cuts left.

The conference was massively dominated by top-table speakers. The opening and closing plenary comprised 22 advertised speakers (two of whom – Salma Yaqoob of Respect and senior Unison bureaucrat Heather Wakefield – were unable to attend). Some of the speeches, like that by John McDonnell and French rail worker Christian Mahieux, were excellent and genuinely inspiring. Others, like that by Rachel Newton of People’s Charter, were stultifying dull recitations of lowest-common denominator truisms. But despite CoR’s pretence in the run-up to the conference of being the open, democratic and participatory alternative to Right to Work and NSSN (seen as narrow party fronts for the SWP and SP respectively), it was clear that the emphasis on participation was a posture. The key dynamic of the event was one of being talked at by movement celebrities. We had, in short, all been there before.

Some of the speeches contained interesting nuggets. Bob Crow dropped his characteristic anti-Labour Party demagogy and called for a fight against “the right wing in the Labour Party” rather than the Labour Party itself. Len McCluskey, the general secretary-elect of Unite (Britain’s biggest trade union) sent profoundly mixed signals; by choosing to make his first public engagement since his election an appearance at a far-left event – and by quoting Frederick Engels in his speech – he tacked left. But by questioning why British workers – who had “saved Europe from fascism and won the rights other European workers enjoy for them” – had “worse rights than German, Italian and Spanish workers”, he exhibited some of the xenophobia that has poisoned elements of labour movement politics in the last period.

Despite a great deal of anti-sectarian and pro-unity rhetoric, Workers’ Liberty members soon found that the anti-sectarian impulses of Counterfire (the SWP split-off who animate CoR) only went so far. We were only permitted to participate fully in the democracy of the conference (stand for the Committee and submit amendments) if we provided a written statement expressing support for the CoR founding statement (which we did). I do not think it particularly paranoid to wonder if others were subjected to similar demands.

The student and youth session was… well, fine. It called on education workers to join student workers and endorsed the ongoing process of building student assemblies and co-ordinations. However, it did not make any explicit commitment to working with the NCAFC, which seemed bizarre given that CoR supporters have already been working within the NCAFC and NCAFC supporter John Bowden was chairing the session. On a personal note, I seemed to have contracted a chronic case of invisible arm syndrome for the duration of the session.

The second session I attended, on climate change, was unspeakably dull. It combined lifestylism (“people need to install solar panels on their house” from a Green Party member) with popular frontism (“we need to get people like Tim Yeo on board” from platform-speaker Peter Robinson) and lowest-common-denominator waffle from Jonathan Neale and Chris Baugh (SWP and Socialist Party respectively). The inclusion of the session on the agenda seemed frankly tokenistic.

At the beginning of the closing plenary, which was supposed to discuss amendments to the conference declaration and elections to the National Council, we were asked by Andrew Burgin from the chair whether we would mind terribly if in fact we did neither of these things and if we might choose instead to co-opt all 122 (unnamed) nominees onto the Council and remit all amendments to the first Council meeting. This was because, surprise surprise, there were a lot of top-table speakers to get through and there simply wasn’t time for the bothersome exigencies of…y’know…democracy. Burgin also informed us that a proposal from the Women Against Cuts workshop (that demanded a 50% quota of women on the Committee) had been withdrawn, with its authors agreeing to merely have it read to the conference (but not voted on). This turned out to be wrong; they had in fact wanted the proposal to be put. An honest breakdown of communication, or something worse? The vote in favour of Burgin’s proposals was met by prolonged and stormy applause. Without the conference being given any meaningful control over the direction of the campaign, power remains with the existing Steering Committee (elected when, and by whom? Certainly not at a conference of 1,300 people).

One political signal of note in the closing speeches was the stark contrast between the tone struck by Chris Bambery (of the SWP and Right To Work) and John Rees (of Counterfire and the Coalition of Resistance). Bambery emphasised the need for unity and stated that "no one organisation can claim to lead the movement". This rhetoric is somewhat at odds with the actions of his organisation on the ground (SWPers have an irritating habit of setting up Right To Work groups as rivals to existing local anti-cuts committees), but the fact that he felt the need to adopt this stance was illuminating. Rees, on the other hand, was having none of it. He was on the attack. "This is the movement", he announced. "This is the conference. There is no other conference down the road." Clearly not trying too hard to cosy up to his former associates, then...

I left halfway through the final plenary. I had heard enough. I hope sincerely that CoR groups will be more open and democratic (particularly locally) than, say, RTW groups. Probably CoR will organise some good actions; I hope it does and I look forward to participating in and building them. But if the attitude to democracy and bottom-up control displayed at its founding conference (which could be described as dismissive at best) is continued, CoR will remain a top-heavy platform for figures who are rather too fond of the sound of their own voices anyway to posture and perform from. There is potential here, but my abiding impression of the conference was that it was rather too much hot air on a very cold day.

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.