The SLP has not had a good year. Disappointing election results, a low media profile and a lack of national campaigning have all contributed to a seepage of members. Some of the best trade union militants, including virtually all the Bristol branch, and many of their former Labour councillors have left in recent months. “The SLP is a shambles,” one activist told LLB. Another claimed the situation worsened dramatically after Pat Sikorski was sidelined and replaced by Arthur Scargill as General Secretary. Internal information dried up and a more centralised regime was imposed.
In June, a number of SLP branches and individuals sent a statement to the party’s national executive. It argued that the party needed to draw on the experience and creativity of the working class and provide political leadership on the basis of democratic discussion and joint work alongside others. “Regrettably,” the statement argues, “the NEC has acted as if it were an authoritative leadership based on a long-standing political programme. The methods employed by the NEC threaten the future prospects of our new party. Fundamentally their approach is a top-down one, profoundly undemocratic.”
The statement identifies five key problems with the SLP. Firstly, there was no discussion among the membership on electoral strategy, despite requests for one. The NEC decided to seek 100 candidates to run in the general election and some of these apparently were imposed against the wishes of local activists. A second concern is that branches have been instructed to set up constituency SLPs in electorally defined areas, “on the basis of a constitution that the members have neither discussed nor voted on”. Thirdly, the NEC seems to have decided that the SLP’s policy is for withdrawal from the European Union. This occurred without a discussion within the membership as a whole. Fourthly, the leadership decided to rush through without consultation the decision to produce a party newspaper. Many people feel the bland and irregular Socialist News competes poorly alongside other red-banner newspapers.
The most worrying accusation is that a number of members have been effectively expelled by the leadership, without being given a hearing or the right to answer specific charges. Such unrestricted power threatens “to strangle our party democracy and create a climate of fear.” The authors end by calling for a national discussion bulletin and a membership discussion on policy decisions, the constitution and disciplinary procedures.
The statement was endorsed by several branches of the SLP and a number of prominent individuals, including party officers and parliamentary candidates. The response from SLP General Secretary Arthur Scargill, however, was uncompromising, describing the document as aimed at undermining the party’s structures and policies.
It rebutted point by point the issues raised, describing each as “an insult”, “a lie” or “completely untrue”. It concluded ominously that “factionalism” would not be tolerated, a point echoed in a public declaration from Scargill that appeared in Socialist News: “Conferences and meetings have been convened with the clear aim of co-ordinating campaigns to challenge the party’s constitution. Such meetings will not be tolerated by the party. Any member who attends such meetings or becomes involved with those co-ordinating these meetings/ campaigns against the SLP must understand they are acting in violation of the party’s constitution and will be dealt with accordingly.”
Activists confirm that some far left groupings have started factional operations within the SLP. But they are disheartened that any criticism, however constructive and merited, may be branded as simply disloyal. So what now? Since the summer many more branches and individuals have signed the opposition statement. But with Scargill in confrontational mood, the December party “Congress” could well be make or break — not just for the SLP’s development but its very survival.