frontline vol. 2 issue 4.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Gregor Gall, Professor of Industrial Relations, University of Hertfordshire, and an active member of Edinburgh North SSP gives a personal view of the lessons of the last year for the SSP. Following Gregor’s article is a response from SSP national secretary Pam Currie.

The perspective of ‘being prepared for the worst, hoping for something a bit better’ for the 3 May 2007 was cruelly shattered by the late afternoon of the following day, confirming that the best opportunity in a generation for a credible and sizeable left of labour socialist project in Scotland was just about to finally disappear down the vortex of the plughole. The sense of loss is so abjectly stark that, in terms of the task of now rebuilding, it might have been better not to have had the high of 2003 because what the SSP used to be, compared to what it now is, will haunt us for a long time to come in the minds of the public.

The wipe out on 3 May was predictable: predictable by the polls, the unspoken feeling inside those that remained active and from the poor turnout from ‘ordinary’ members for election activity. But the most sensible opinion never expected the SSP would be beaten not just by Solidarity in all the regions, but by the BNP in all regions and by the SLP in nearly all regions. From achieving, 6.7% (128,026 votes) of the list vote and 6.2% (118,764 votes) of the constituency vote in 2003, the SSP flatlined at 0.66% in 2007 where it stood in the list vote. The SSP got 12,572 votes (and Solidarity 31,047 or 1.62%). The total number of votes the SSP gained across Scotland in 2007 was less than it got in the Lothians alone in 2003 (where the SSP won an MSP by less than 100 votes) and shockingly just 10% of what it got in 2003. This takes the left unity project embodied in the SSP and its predecessor, the SSA, back ten years at least in electoral and public credibility terms. And the staggeringly poor performance of the SSP must indicate that the SSP took far more of the hit for allegedly ‘doing Tommy in’ than Solidarity did for splitting the left.

We can ruminate on what was and was not under our control and influence. On the one hand, there were a number of external aspects, where the conditions in the approach to May 2007 were poorer than those in the approach to May 2003. So in 2003, the SSP was able to be part of and benefit from the vibrant and rising anti-war and anti-globalisation movements as well as key prolonged industrial disputes like those of the firefighters and the beginning of that by the nursery nurses. This time round the anti-war and anti-globalisation movements were shadows of their former selves, having lost battles and suffering from a lack of purpose and direction, while the major industrial disputes like those over pensions and job losses in the civil service were not of the same sustained, more salient for Scottish politics nature as the firefighters’ and the nursery nurses’ disputes had been. The independence ‘movement’ is not one that exists as such and was unable to make major headway because of the de facto ownership of independence by the SNP in the run up to May 2007.

On the other hand, we then had our own internal aspects which piled on the pressure further. Even before 9 November 2004, we had problems due to the relative demobilisation of members after gaining six MSPs and the poor European election result. The impact of the resignation of Sheridan as national convenor and the 2005 election result merely increased this. But the court case and the split were gargantuan blows to the SSP’s credibility, standing and coherence. In essence, what has happened was that the 2007 election was the catch up of the real standing of the SSP in the public’s mind just as the overall political situation just as 2003 was the electoral catch up of the risen standing of the SSP and the overall political situation. So this time round, any agreement on SSP policies was torpedoed by the lack of credibility of the SSP as a political party.

It is the last wretched refuge of the vanquished to proclaim, as Solidarity and its SWP and CWI affiliates did, that it is now the biggest force on the left in. Being the biggest electoral force amongst the two components of the pre-2006 SSP which fought on almost identical political platforms and together got only 34% of the SSP’s votes in 2003 is no victory whatsoever. The only way you can see that being the biggest on the left and getting 24% of what the SSP got in 2003 as some kind of victory is if you are of a sectarian mentality which thinks that a setback of ten years or a generation is just one of those things that can be brushed off with the sterile and trite proclamation: ‘We will rebuild’. This reeks of political irresponsibility and political immaturity. Now socialists in Scotland are on a par with socialists in England and Wales – a cataclysmic levelling down!

The Crying Game: The Crying Shame

The single worst aspect of the 3 May result is that socialists in Scotland are now in no significant position to influence the nature of new political landscape in Scotland and Britain. Without the SSP leadership debacle, the court case and the split and their attendant effects, it might have been possible to return a couple of MSPs as was the case with the Greens. In other words, the opportunities of greater political space for the left over the next few years will remain as just remote and rhetorical opportunities and not actualities. The likelihood is that a socialist voice in Parliament would have been able to attack the SNP more effectively on its pro-business policies as well as given sustenance to extra-Parliamentary struggles directed towards Holyrood or Westminster. The same basic point is true with regard to colouring the progressive anti-Labour mood as Brown becomes PM and as the faltering trajectory towards independence moves up a gear.

Where Now?

There is one obvious route forward for the left in Scotland: based on inbred sectarianism and ultra-left super-optimistic perspectives (which were only temporally and marginally dented by the experience of the SSP prior to 2006), it would be for the SSP and Solidarity to try to slog it out until only one is left standing. This could take an unspecified length of time as both have enough activists to maintain themselves as barebones organisations for sometime to come. Both would seek to prove they were the best by growing out of the wreckage, but it is seriously doubtful whether this is possible for either or at all (even in their own terms). Major turning points along the way for each would surely be the reporting of the police perjury investigation (thought to be late summer/early autumn 2007), any subsequent perjury trial, and the News of the World appeal (originally scheduled to start 4 December 2007).

This is the obvious route but it is also the wrong route. There is no room for two serious socialist parties in Scotland. Here, the SLP is put aside in this equation as a basket case with no tangible membership base. Sheridan claimed that in the run up to its launch that Solidarity would gain the votes of those who do not vote to justify the existence of two socialist parties in Scotland (Herald 2 September 2006). This was and is patent non-sense for those disillusioned with electoral politics did not make a return to the ballot box in May 2007 – the overall turnout was only just up to 51.7% in the constituency vote and 52.4% on the list vote from both being 49.4% in 2003 - and they have always been the hardest to mobilise in these terms.

A divided far left is a non-sense: it weakens the left and helps the neo-liberals. Most importantly, a divided left cannot grow substantially from where we are now because the far left (SSP and Solidarity) lack credibility. Regaining credibility with sympathetic milieus is the most urgent task and that requires that there is a united left. People at large are just not interested in a divided left; they despise a disunited left. So, the need for a united far left is now more pressing than ever. None of the twists and turns of the last two and a half years negate or obviate the principle of a united socialist party in Scotland. Former Labour MP and MSP and now SSP member John McAllion made this point before and after the 3 May (see, for example, Morning Star 31 May 2007) and represents a more substantial call for reunification than that from former SSP and now Solidarity member John Dennis of Dumfries (Herald 7 May 2007).

So if unity and reunification are the order of the day, the question is on what basis? There is no way that even the most sensible elements in Solidarity will rejoin the SSP as there is no way that the most sensible elements in the SSP will join Solidarity. By ‘sensible’, it is meant those in Solidarity who are independent minded, not members of the CWI or SWP and not ultra-left. In the SSP, ‘sensible’ means those that are neither ultra-left nor fixated with internal party issues as well as being open to new means of operating. The civil war and split were too bitter for a straightforward re-fusion to happen and these differences that exist on those issues may never be reconciled. Furthermore, the SSP will forever be remembered by many as the party ‘that did Tommy in’ while Solidarity will continue to be seen as ‘Tommy’s outfit’. Both these associations are albatrosses around the neck of the far left in Scotland.

This means that the order of the day is a new left unity party, and one that starts with a blank sheet about what it should look like, what it should do and how it should do it, drawing on a balance sheet of the pluses and minuses in our recent collective experience. It means putting much of the past baggage of the left behind it in order to create a future for the left. However, the same principles on which the SSP was established are still relevant: a broad, pluralist organisation based on ‘struggle, solidarity and socialism’ and ‘independence and internationalism’. The issues for discussion would concern the types and priorities of orientations on different social movements, community campaigns and organisational building (see below).

Anyone prepared to enter this project must leave their notions of ‘truth’ and ‘betrayal’ at the door before entering. For this reason, for example, Tommy Sheridan cannot play a role in the new left unity project. We cannot afford to go back over this old ground: not because there are not principles at stake and live differences but because no forward progress can be made while we continue to engage in retrospection. Again, for this reason, Sheridan cannot play a role in this new left unity project because he is no longer a figure for left unity but a figure for left division. Furthermore, the left cannot afford to take the risk again of relying so much on one key figure again. It is too risky and too distorting no matter how attractive it seems in the short- and medium-terms.

The SSP must be in as strong a position to work for a new left unity project. Being starkly honest, that Sheridan was not re-elected makes the prospect of a new left unity project that bit more achievable (although still very difficult). If Sheridan had been re-elected, Solidarity would have been in a stronger position to stake it claim to being the principal socialist force in Scotland. Incidentally, George Galloway’s constant overtures to unite the left around a Respect in Scotland (see, for example, Edinburgh Evening News 5 June 2007) are stillborn attempts.

The other side of the coin to a new united left organisation is that it cannot be a party building organisation. Initially, it will be too weakened and lacking in credibility to entertain recruiting significant numbers of new entrants. The initial purposes will be, on the one hand, to work in communities on community issues and, on the other hand, to organise internal debate and education to develop cadres that have robust, rounded perspectives as well as knowledge of salient national and international issues.

Community campaigns, as opposed to just campaigning in the communities on national issues, potentially allow the left to engage with new people on issues that are manifestly important to these people. Such campaigns may concern bus routes, mobile phone masts, closure of leisure facilities and the like rather than the high ideals of socialism and the open class struggle. For the left, it would provide grounding in what the concerns of ordinary people are and how the left must then seek to patiently win people’s respect at a time when levels of political disengagement are at an all time high. For socialists, these cannot be ‘hit and run’ raids where the point is to recruit or sell papers. The purpose is to build links, credibility and influence (for the left) as well as wider mobilising capacity (of people). Only then, and on that basis, can we hope to make real headway on the bigger issues.

Here the idea is to sink deep roots in the way the Communist Party did in its industrial work between 1945 and 1979. Internal education and debate are needed of the scale and kind that led Militant in Scotland to form the open organisation, Scottish Militant Labour, and SML and others to form the SSA and then SSP. This is needed not just to create this new left unity party but to have the measured orientation and perspective outline previously. Part of this must be to understand the huge challenges facing us and the lessened ability we now have to meet these.

The need for internal party education on basic questions for socialists, ranging from war and imperialism to women’s rights and state and capital are desperately needed to stabilise and replenish the hardcore of party activists. In this period of retreat for socialists in Scotland, the need for ideological sustenance and understanding are even more acute than ever, and such socialists need also to be able to both relax their exclusive focus on Scotland and inform it more broadly with knowledge and understanding of world events and, for example, Latin America in particular.

Towards Reunification and Rebuilding

If reunification is the order of the day, how can this come about? The work towards reunification needs to start now and must consist of two types of activities. The first, on the part of both the sensible elements of the SSP and Solidarity, is outward, campaigning activity in unions, campaigns and communities which seeks to reconnect with those that (recently) entertained socialists and socialism and those that have been involved in some form of progressive campaigning. It goes without saying that on the part of the two organisations, members must carry out this work in a cooperative and non-sectarian manner. It should also go without saying that there should be a concentration of building the forces of resistance and opposition rather than organisational-cum-party building. The point of this type of activity is not just to generate rebuilding and cooperation but to generate rebuilding through cooperation and vice-versa because the end point is to create a strong and credible left. To this extent the outward campaigning wok is a vital but indirect route to reunification. The second must be informal discussions between the sensible activists within and between the two organisations which lay the ground for future formal negotiations. If this seems pie-in-the-sky, people must identify what the roadblocks to re-unification are and remove or ameliorate them. The timetable for reunification could then be around two years on from May 2007.

So underlying these two activities is the necessity of a balanced, measured perspective on what is possible for the two organisations and their successor re-unified organisation. Although there is widespread recognition of the electoral catastrophe, there is still as yet no widespread willingness to reassess expectations, much less act upon the resultant conclusions. We can talk endlessly about the forthcoming and potential opportunities we have but unless these are closely aligned or matched to the scale of the resources we can call upon, that is, the quantity and quality of activists either has, we will be setting ourselves up for failure, demoralisation and worse. Inside the SSP, there is still unfortunately a sense of ‘business as usual’ and ‘carry on as usual’ rather than a step change in the ways and means of operating. Alan McCombes expounded this view where if we hold tight, things will come back our way (Scottish Socialist Voice 10 May 2007) as did the Scottish Socialist Voice (10 May 2007).

But for the SSP in itself (and as a prime mover in a reunification project which can carry this into that project) to regain momentum and credibility, it needs to fundamentally rethink the way it campaigns and outwardly operates in terms of the aims, objectives and means for the standard work of stalls, leafleting selling papers, using petitions and the like are not capable of delivering the degree of embeddedness and influence that we seek either per se or in the current context. We need a new politics of engagement. For example, the stalls we do must continue for the purposes of public visibility but we need to be less reliant on them and more reliant upon building influence through working relations with others – this is a much more open-ended and less defined way of operating. So our members need help and training in how to work on their own and outside branch structures. Another example is that we must be less concerned about our activities always being funnelled through the branches because we must involve ourselves much more in external networks and campaigns where we will need our own coordinations. A further issue is that we need to have ‘market intelligence’ and cease our dependence on anecdote: not the commissioning of opinion polls but SSP members doing non-election canvassing to find out what the concerns are and what we can act on. A white knight of a new poll tax is unlikely to ride into town. These points are all the apposite now that we now have fewer paid staff and no full-time staff – greater self-reliance and self-initiative are the currency.

We need look no further for guidance on some of these issues than some of the campaigns SSP members have been involved in recent years. The experience and lessons of these campaigns needs to be taken writ large across the SSP and transferred through workshops and practical activities like going out canvassing with an experienced hand.

What was laid out above for a new left unity project – an influencing, not party, building operation, with an emphasis on community campaigns and internal party education is also needed for the SSP in order to stabilise the SSP and prefigure a new left unity project in order to create that new left unity project. This work will be as important as the work the SSP undertakes to try to push forward on its policies that were contained in its 2007 election manifesto.

Conclusion

Those in the SSP must be bold enough to recognise that the SSP as presently constituted is not the best or most ideal vehicle for socialism in Scotland. It is not a ‘rump’ as some suggest but it is very far from what it once was. But the SSP as presently constituted has a vital role to play in creating a reunified, reconfigured and reinvigorated united left party for Scotland. Reunification means reunification with the better elements of Solidarity, reconfiguration means approaching old questions in new ways and reinvigoration means expanding influence and contact outwards into new milieus. If this path is not taken, the possibility of building a substantial united left party in Scotland will recede again for another decade or more.