BNP IN TURMOIL?
30th August 2000
Rumours are rife of splits and expulsions within the highest ranks of the BNP. As reported by Anti-Fascist Action this week, Bruce Cowd (South West organiser) appears to have resigned, and there are also reports that Steve and Sharron Edwards (key figures in the West Midlands), Michael Newlands (treasurer), Eddie Butler, and Tony Lecomber have also jumped or been pushed.
An entry appeared yesterday in the NF guestbook purporting to be a forwarded account, written by Lecomber, of a BNP Advisory Council meeting at which Newland and the Edward's were expelled. Whether this is genuine or malicious is unclear. It is reproduced below as a typical example of the rumours currently circulating amongst the far-right.
As mentioned by AFA, several faces have recently dissappeared from the 'Meet The BNP' page on their website. However, today the entire page has dissappeared along with the Branch Contacts page, suggesting at the very least that a significant reorganisation is taking place.
AFA News Reports
BNP Organiser Resigns - August 23rd 2000
Reliable sources inform us that Bruce Cowd, leading BNP organiser in the South West of England, has resigned from the BNP. Rumours are circulating that his resignation has been caused by certain 'financial irregularities' involving a very senior member of the BNP leadership.
BNP leadership crisis - August 29th 2000
Further developments in the current BNP leadership crisis continue to unfold. It now appears that Steve and Sharron Edwards, the driving force behind the West Midlands campaign that saw the BNP get 23.7% of the vote in Tipton Green in May, have been expelled by Griffin. Although no official statement has been released by the BNP it also appears that Michael Newland, the BNP treasurer, has resigned, and perhaps most significantly Tony Lecomber, with Eddy Butler the power behind Griffin's throne, has been removed from the 'Meet the BNP' leadership line-up on their website.
NF Guestbook Entry
Name: :)
NF member?: Did not respond
Sent: 16:40 GMT on 29 August
Dear racial comrade,
There have been a lot of rumours over the last few weeks and not a little shit-stirring over suggestions that our party Chairman has been robbing us blind from the Trafalgar Club account. It was always the case that this matter would be brought out into the open at the BNP's Advisory Council meeting of Saturday August 26th and it was. While I'm sure that you'll receive a members' bulletin about it in due course etc, I thought you might find it valuable in the meantime to read this personal account of the meeting. It may also help calm things down and clear up the rumour factory.
Anthony Lecomber, Group Development & Regulation.
Here follows... At the Advisory Council (AC) meeting - the Trafalgar Club accounts affair - for weeks, the subject of some speculation and heat - was fully aired. At the meeting, the receipts which the party's former treasurer Mike Newland had alleged were missing were accounted for and two sympathetic professionals - a barrister and a Chartered Accountant - both furnished independent analyses of the figures. Nick Griffin was completely exonerated of any suggestion of theft of party money which had been the motivating force behind the campaign waged by Mike and Sharron Edwards of disruption against the BNP.
Having heard the treasurer’s report; produced the complete set of Trafalgar Club accounts and the supporting receipts and answered questions on them from both Mike, Sharron and others at some length (some four hours or so - and you will have no idea of just how tediously boring this was), Party Chairman Nick Griffin dismissed Mike Newland from his post of National Press Officer and suspended his membership for three months for disciplinary offences. These were:
1) Giving out details of the party’s financial affairs to non-AC members;
2) Spreading deliberately misleading and inaccurate accounting records, designed to spread alarm about the party’s financial status and to lend credence to a malicious and groundless campaign of character assassination directed against the National Chairman;
3) Cutting off the party’s mobile telephone advertised as dealing with travel arrangements for the Red-White-and-Blue.
At this point, everyone expected that Steve and Sharron Edwards would be sacked for the same general shit-stirring and sabotage. However, they were expelled for the additional offence of stealing the party membership list.
The offences by Sharron were: 1) Spreading unfounded rumours attacking the National Chairman and encouraging a boycott of the Red-White-and-Blue Summer festival;
2) Sending out a disruptive, unconstitutional and alarmist petition, and attempting to call a non-official Advisory Council meeting as well as an unconstitutional Organiser’s meeting and;
3) Stealing the party’s membership list.
The offences by her husband, Steve Edwards were: 1) Spreading unfounded rumours attacking the National Chairman and encouraging a boycott of the Red-White-and-Blue Summer festival and;
2) Stealing the party’s membership list.
As you can imagine, this was pretty startling stuff. No one had expected that Steve and Sharron had taken the party’s membership list - by photocopying every sheet of the labels supplied for the party’s December Members' bulletin (which they had undertaken to stuff and mail out) and then laboriously enter the names and addresses onto a computer database. Steve and Sharron looked stunned - they clearly didn’t know that they had been rumbled. This most important charge wasn't denied.
Personally speaking, I could see the breakdown of the working relationship between Nick and Sharron & Mike as it was happening and there was little I could do about it, although I did try. We then experienced some terrible mistrust and suspicion stirred up by Sharron, Steve and Mike until we had outright sabotage by them of the Red-White-and-Blue, such as cutting off the phone and telling various people to boycott it.
It was clear that there was going to be a crunch and I was personally expecting a sacking or two. After all, Mike had already been dismissed as treasurer for not doing his job properly by issuing inaccurate accounts and for refusing to write cheques for normal party expenses such as the printer’s bill for the August Freedom (which is always paid in cash on collection), which he told us should come out after the RWB! Similarly, Sharron had gone way beyond her brief as Deputy Chairman in trying to call unofficial AC and Organisers’ meetings and issuing a wholly unconstitutional and irresponsible petition clearly designed to imply that Nick Griffin had stolen party funds. Sharron denies implying this, but that's the way everyone took it and the fact is that you don't try and call a national Organisers' meeting where the main item on the agenda is 'the serious allegations of financial mismanagement and discrepancies regarding accurate book-keeping at a high level within the party' if all that's at issue is a couple of lost/missing invoices. It was quite implicit that Nick Griffin was, to put it in Black Country parlance, "on the rob."
What tipped it for me though was the shock revelation that Steve & Sharron had stolen the party’s membership list as long ago as December of last year. There can be no possible excuse for that, no extenuating circumstances — it was behaviour revolting beyond belief. The only possible reason for this disgusting behaviour was for a future faction fight already being planned by the two of them last year. For this reason alone, the expulsions were fully justified.
Significantly, BNP Internet whizz, Simon Darby supported the party Chairman in this affair and not his long-time friends, Steve & Sharron. In the beginning, he had no reason not to believe the allegations laid by Mike Newland against the party Chairman but, over time, some things didn’t add up: an attempt to get his name removed from the W. Mids. Bank account, followed by Sharron asking for a four figure sum to be transferred from the Black Country & cyber accounts to that same W. Mids. Bank account; Steve paying for various friends’ membership out of branch money and, of course, as a trusted friend, he had the best opportunity to see just what was going on in this affair. The fact that Simon, who has known Steve & Sharron Edwards longer than anyone else, has stayed loyal to the party and its constitution should tell everyone everything they need to know about where the right in this matter lies.
After his expulsion — when his theft and betrayal of the party and its members came to light — Steve Edwards pointed to his long-time friend Simon Darby and accused Simon of betraying him!
I fear, from his attitude and comments as he left the meeting, red-faced and furious, that we may see an even dirtier smear campaign against Nick and others than has already been run.
Steve's parting shout was that he and his wife were well respected within the BNP and that the party Chairman had made a big mistake in expelling him. Clearly, Steve thinks that he’s bigger than the party, that the constitution doesn’t apply to him or his wife and that the theft of the party’s membership list for factional purposes can be overlooked because he and his wife are ‘well respected’.
As one of the party's longest standing members, I suggest that people who throw unfounded allegations of theft against the party’s elected chairman in an attempt to destabilise then take over the party by responding to a popular clamour (which they would have created), and who steal the party’s membership list and betray its members by so doing won’t be respected for very long. From what I’ve seen and heard over the last few weeks in general and at the AC meeting in particular, the expulsions were completely justified, and indeed were vital to nip an incipient faction fight in the bud before real lasting damage could occurr. In so doing, Nick Griffin has done the party a real service and at the same time displayed real leadership.
Ends.
SOHO BOMBING - AN UNRAVELLING THREAD?
August 26th 2000
One of the people injured in the Soho pub bombing last year has taken the first steps towards bringing a High Court case against the owner of the Admiral Duncan for failing to warn it's customers of the risk of an explosion, according to a report in The Independent on August 23.
"Gerard Whetaley 49, who as a result of the attack "sustained burns, burst eardrums that left him partially deaf, broken bones and extensive cuts and bruises" is
pursuing a case against the Scottish And Newcastle brewery, the owners of the London pub.
"After the attack, it emerged that the Metropolitan Police had warned that an extreme right-wing bomber was targeting minority groups and that gay haunts could be at risk." "The Admiral Duncan is ", The Independent went on, "believed to have received a specific warning of the dangers."
Now the Copeland trial was one of the most high profile criminal cases in the last couple of years. Acres of newsprint were devoted to the criminal and political implications. Live debates were conducted on TV, Panorama ran a 'special', and a hardcover book 'Mr Evil' has been in the shops for months. The focus, not forgetting the trial itself, has been intense. Given all that, why then does a journalist, considering that Copeland has been found guilty and 'lifted off', walk on eggshells as if the case was sub-judice?
In her article the journalist Kate Watson-Smyth, comments that it is "believed" the Admiral Duncan received a specific warning. What she means by 'believed' is that despite all the brouhaha, answers to two of the key questions are yet to be established. Did the Admiral Duncan get a specific warning? And why did the Admiral Duncan get a specific warning? The reasons she is not sure, is because uncertainty, despite (or because of ) the book, the Panorama programme, and the in-depth analysis, still surrounds these outstanding questions. Key questions which rather curiously were never asked by anyone; not the defence or prosecution, the media, or the likes of the ANL or Searchlight who regard the Copeland conviction as 'an anti-fascist victory' .
As Anti-Fascist Action representatives warned sections of the media in negotiations prior to the trial : 'the real story will only emerge afterwards'. Implicit in the statement was that in time the concoction of 'Copelandgate' would slowly begin to unravel itself.
The case brought against the brewers represents confirmation that the AFA prediction is beginning to materialise.
For full background see...'COPELAND FACE OF THE FUTURE?'
ARE REFUGEES WELCOME HERE?
24th August 2000
Text of Glasgow AFA leaftet distributed at a 'Refugees Welcome Here' meeting/picket organised by the Anti-Nazi League earlier this month. ( A report on the meeting is also included below.)
The question we raise here, although not popular within both liberal and left wing circles, must be asked if any campaign to help refugees cope with the position they find themselves in is to be successful and have any longevity. It has been obvious that to some they are not welcome and by placing the blame on Tory or Labour asylum policies, it is the importance of community politics that is ignored.
Most of the initial statements by locals in the areas where refugees have been placed claim that they didn’t have enough to get by on yet were being asked to share.
"For the past year I have been fighting to get benefits for me and my children. But these people come over and get a furnished house, benefits sorted out straight away, social work help, everything"(David, unemployed)
"I have got an invalid husband who has brain damage and all we can hope for is 55p a week interest in our pension. We don’t get income support because I have a pension from my work" (Jeanette, pensioner)
Are these racist statements or is it anger from working class communities already suffering from welfare and service slashes, unemployment and poor housing.
With the expected £30 million shortfall in reimbursement to local councils these sentiments will only be hardened and further any divide between host community and refugees.
If local services were seen to improve as a result of the arrival of refugees then it is hard to imagine any great support for the far right and Tory line currently being peddled.
The recent Greater London Assembly result gives an indication of the reality of the situation. Where the London Socialist Alliance clashed direct with the BNP (in the top up lists) the LSA, who carry as policy Refugees Welcome Here took 27,073 votes against the BNP who took 46,670.
Currently the Tories, while placing themselves as far right as possible are beginning to play second fiddle to the BNP in working class communities. This is not 1979 when the playing of the race card bore fruit for the Tories. As Nick Griffin BNP leader said "Its been quite fun to watch government ministers and Tories play the race card in far cruder terms than we would ever use, but pretend not to. This issue legitimises us"
Recently they came second in a South London council election in front of the Tories with 26% of the vote.
The challenge for any activist must be to develop strong roots and areas of influence in working class communities thus avoiding the current situation. The reason for the reactionary views exhibited by many people in these areas lies in the failure by anyone on the left being willing to commit themselves or their organisations to establishing any sort of base within working class areas. In most areas there is minimal political investment by those involved in this campaign so if it appears that the main interest of any campaign is not in the interest of the host community then the support being sought will not be as forthcoming.
Again we can examine the picture elsewhere where the BNP are carrying out successful community work. In Tipton they received 23.7% of the vote with a further 16% been gained in the adjoining ward where no work had been carried out.
This is not to say these voters are racist or anti-refugee.
They are working class people who now have no one willing and able to represent them, as is the case in the majority of estates and housing schemes. If the BNP is the organisation that is willing to address working class interests - for there own benefit - for many there appears to be no alternative. It is the failure to build strong Pro-working class groups that will endanger the integration of refugees.
While currently based on moral responsibilities, unless this campaign begins to recognise political realities then Refugees Are Not Welcome Here could be a statement, which carries more resonance in the working class areas in which refugees live.
Tactics and strategies born from Political realities now, may avoid further conflict in these areas later.
Report on Meeting
Organisers were questioned regarding their campaign statement/petition :
"....74% increase in reported racist attacks in Strathclyde over the last year.It is no coincidence that this rise should come alongside the racist campaign in sections of the Scottish press"
- that if they failed to mention the other main reasons and addressed them, they could not expect to get to the base of the racist problem.The initial response was that they could only put so much in the statement.When pushed further, that it seemed that it was packaged as support for their argument only, the response was that it had been agreed upon previously. This then brought others into the argument (out with AFA) who asked when decisions had been taken, as they had attended all meetings yet knew nothing about them. It then became apparent that the Chair (temporary for this meeting) didn't know when it had been decided and those supporters present could only say that it was initiated by the National Union of Journalists.The point had been raised and the Chair was quoted as saying "I thought this would be a quiet meeting" , obviously used to no discussion or democracy.
The refugees then spoke. The first man was from Afghanistan who described the conditions imposed on him within the YMCA in which he has been placed. They are subject to strict visiting hours, poor quality/unsuitable food and extreme hassle in the distribution of food, i.e. all requirements must be signed for and are passed days in advance with no provisions for storing bread etc, so food was not lasting for the period required. They then introduced a Nigerian man who stated the same but when asked about his life in Nigeria said he was a former bank manager who went on to have his own business. Does this then make it harder for him to stay in working class areas????? They also described the race attacks and abuse they suffered. AFA stated our position about the use of violence. The chair went on to say "that this campaign would not associate itself with violence". We were attacked on this by people saying that a meeting to ask the locals to control the attacking youth would be more suitable. AFA argued by pointing out that this showed a lack of understanding about how youths on estates normally acted. Eventually one person (who had brought some of the refugees to the meeting) asked that we changed the subject so that "the night could end on a happy note".
Afterwards the refugees introduced themselves to AFA and a discussion took place regards the effectiveness of these actions. Contact details were exchanged. An ex-refugee correctly analyzed the situation about ignoring the host community and said the problem was about class not race.
LOYALISM AT WAR!
21st August 2000
As this report is drafted, offices of the Ulster Democratic Party (UDP) have been raked by gunfire, while in retaliation the Progressive Unionist Party (PUP) offices, are on fire. The fire-setters come not from within the ranks of dissident republicanism, but from within pro and anti-peace process elements within the heartlands of working class loyalism. Earlier today, Monday 21 August, two leading loyalist were shot dead outside a bookies by the UVF. Over the weekend the Rex bar, a UVF hangout, was twice attacked by UFF elements with shots fired on both occasions. On Saturday icon of loyalism, and former UVF assassin Gusty Spence, the inspiration behind the politics of the PUP, was manhandled from his bungalow, before it too was torched. In all of it it is clear that the UFF, with Johnny Adair as the inspiration, are the primary protagonists.
Adair a former National Front supporter whom Charlie Sargent of C18 once alleged was 'an ally' is on licence from a sixteen year sentence for "directing terrorism", but seems hell bent on stretching the conditions of his release to the limit. Not only is he orchestrating events behind the scenes, but was to the forefront of the attack on the Rex. As well, though this time masked, his bulky figure was all too easily distinguishable among the UFF gunmen who fired a volley of shots from the stage at a loyalist 'festival' on Saturday. All so far with impunity.
Billy Hutchinson the PUP leader, has attacked the RUC for inaction. This passivity is he claims, what led directly to the UVF retaliation today. Peter Mandelson describes it as 'turf war' as if the motivations and consequences were entirely apolitical. This is eye wash. A major part in the antagonisms within loyalism is the conflicting strategies and objectives of the mainstream paramilitaries. PUP/UVF have a political analysis that rejects the classless unionism of old. Partly as a consequence it supports, despite doubts, the peace process. It has elected members of the assembly and favours a political solution as an alternative to holy war with nationalism. Holy war is precisely what the UFF and their Portadown allies in the UVF breakaway the LVF, hanker after most. By comparison, and not insignificantly, the political wing of the UFF, the UDP, has little or no political representation on any level, as a result of the absence of a serious political analysis. Moreover as a result of the absence of credible UDP political support on the ground, the PUP has increasingly taken the lead in tackling the drugs issue in loyalist working class communities. By all accounts a progressive one at that. The UFF with Adair at the helm, are as Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly said on Question Time recently "up to their necks in it!" Another another obvious source of conflict.
Now Adair might indeed be the 'Mad Dog' he is nicknamed, but on the other hand, it is not at all implausible, that he is acting under the protection of a section of the 'securocrats', who are as determined as he is to collapse the Good Friday Agreement. (Traditionally the UFF have, in Belfast anyway, always been from a 'spook' point of view, the more malleable of the main loyalist factions.) For this stratagem to work effectively, loyalism would need to be made unitary and whole once more. Meaning that the pro-peace agreement loyalists such as the UVF/PUP, would need to be politically or physically purged from the heartlands of east Belfast and Portadown in particular.
In 1994 when the IRA declared it's ceasefire, the cries from the British and Irish Left were of 'sell-out'. Loyalism briefly concurred, with UFF graffiti going up on the Shankill 'accepting the surrender of the IRA'. But far from sell-out, one of the key components of the republican strategy was to break Unionism from the British. Once that division became apparent, the outcome was the inevitable fragmentation of unionism itself. The evidence is now there for all to see. Six years ago, it was Gusty Spence, who on behalf of the Combined Loyalist Military Command declared 'the loyalist war over'. Now it is he who is driven from his home as if he was a paedophile. From icon to renegade over one weekend. Not only is working class loyalism split, apparently irrevocably on paramilitary levels, it is also hopelessly divided against itself on every other conceivable political level as well. A community used to being represented by the Ulster Unionist Party for over half a century, now has the choice of DUP, UDP, PUP, UKIP and UUP. All of whom harbour hatreds for each other, that can on occasion displace even their hatred of republicans, which is saying something! Trimble's UUP is moreover in effect two parties, under the same tent. One faction led by Trimble falteringly pro-peace, the other resolutely anti-GFA. So whatever the outcome of the face-off in east Belfast, what is undoubted is that loylalism will emerge significantly the weaker. Ironically, murderous feuds were what was planned by unionism and the securocrats for republicanism. And contrary to all Brit Left predictions, both north and south republicanism is going from strength to strength.
Of course the republicans renegades have not entirely 'gone away you know'. Coincidentally they choose Saturday (with typical sensitivity almost the anniversary date of the Omagh bomb) to stage a social in West Belfast. The 32 County Sovereignty Committee made pointed remarks against an individual who had lost a son in the bombing. A picket of the event by relatives was according to the IRISH NEWS "haughtily" ordered to leave the area. The IRISH NEWS went on to make the point that Adair has displayed "precisely the same sense of arrogance" in his dealings with his respective community. "As a result of their own conduct, they deserve to be regarded as blood brothers".
At the time of the Omagh bomb, (which incidentally was politically directed not against the British, but against Republicanism as Sinn Fein were the biggest party on the local council) and more recently there have been well founded suspicions that the dissidents may be controlled by the Brits in the same way as they previously controlled the UFF. It is conspicuous for instance that the Irish security forces are remarkably more diligent that the British in running the dissidents to ground. It is also more than a little curious, that the most supposedly hardline physical force republicans, and the most reactionary and fascistic elements of loyalism now share a common political goal: the destruction of an accord between working class communities on either side of the divide. Mad dogs they may well be, but with one suspects, the one political master.
REPUBLICAN NEWS EDITORIAL ON ASYLUM SEEKERS
18th August 2000
Last weeks Republican News editorial gave comment to an event in Dublin, that is typical of middle class hypocrisy on left and right surrounding the refugee issue in Britain. It appears that the Dublin government had planned to site a reception centre for refugees in the plush area of Ballsbridge. Immediately a residents group launched a High Court action to challenge government proposals. While there was legitimacy to the arguments in relation to planning permission and so on, a letter signed by a member of the residents association explained the motivation behind the move. Circulated earlier this year the letter stated that the impeccably middle class Dublin 4 was "becoming saturated with unwanted elements who are a threat to the community". Last week the government capitulated to the residents demands and now ,according to Republican News, other residents groups are seeking help from the "fellow travellers" in Ballsbridge. "So, where inquired RN are these asylum seekers to go?"
As the editorial pointed out "the answer is all too predictable". So it supplied the answer itself. Working class areas. "Working class areas, especially those ravaged by drugs, poverty, and a whole myriad of related social problems, end up having to cater for people many of whom have even more social problems. They haven't got barristers chairing the local residents association, nor have they the time to create fictitious problems when confronted with so many real ones."
In the summing up the message was straightforward:"the government must take the lead in ensuring refugees and immigrants are given fair opportunities and that they are housed according to the facilities available and not according to the ease with which the well-heeled cappuccino mob can secure a Nimby decision."
Sinn Fein is the only progressive party in Europe with a working class membership and base. Can that be the reason, compared to say the British Left, that it speaks sense on the issue, or is that just coincidence?
RED ACTION ADDRESS COMMUNIST UNIVERSITY
10th August 2000
On August 9, following an invitation by the organisers, the CPGB, Red Action addressed a meeting of the 'Communist University' at Brunel College in Uxbridge. The title of the speech was "Official anti-racism and the white working class". The speech which addressed the comprehensive nature of the left's strategical failures in regard to multiculturalism, equal opportunities and more recently refugees, took the best part of an hour to deliver. It was then followed by a question and answer session and general discussion. Among the issues raised, was the inadequacy of posters - "the worst form of communication" to convey a complex message, as on immigration. As the furore around refugees and the rise of the BNP showed, the left was not even holdings it's own in the argument and were in many cases simply "laying down welcome mats" for the BNP. The entire approach of the mainstream left was, it was argued, dangerously "self-defeating". Anti-fascism too was in danger of "being assimilated into a state strategy and used for reactionary purposes."
The political threat of a "rejuvenated BNP" was also stressed. The point was made that despite the vainglorious claim of the ANL only last October, that 'the war is over and we won it', the BNP took almost 80,000 votes in the GLA election, (the best vote for the far-right in the capital since 1977) a little over six months later. Another major theme of the speech was the vital importance of not falling into the trap of 'counter posing' the rights of minorities against an already seriously beleaguered working class majority. On top of that the evidence of "anti-racism increasingly being used by liberalism as a camouflage was anti-working class elitism" was undeniable. It was suggested that if the "pattern of defeat" suffered by the 'old left' when confronted by the 'new right' across Europe was to be broken in Britain, then the likes of the LSA would have to seriously begin to "decommission what up to now was the custom and practice of it's sponsors".
The speaker went into further detail on why such a comprehensive review of tactics and strategies was necessary but also, and most importantly, presented an outline of how, beginning with the issue of refugees, this might be done. The discussion that followed, naturally focused on the most controversial aspects of the root and branch overhaul, it was forcefully argued, was absolutely necessary if the left was "to return to winning ways".
Overall the speech, which at 6,000 words long is both comprehensive and hard-hitting, will it is expected, be the beginning of this vitally important debate amongst the Left - not the end of it.
The full text of the speech will be produced in next Red Action bulletin due out on September 1. The most contentious points are also likely to be addressed within the Weekly Worker.
REPORT ON LSA STEERING COMMITEE MEETING
1st August 2000
Following the Red Action National Meeting at the end of May it was decided that London Red Action should, in line with current perspectives, apply for affiliation to the London Socialist Alliance. The affiliation was duly accepted and Red Action were allotted one delegate on the London Steering Committee.
At the London Steering Committee meeting on August 1 the London Red Action delegate submitted the following proposal: "In light of the 80,000 votes for the BNP in May; the doubling of recorded racial incidents; the overt hostility encountered by some LSA canvassers in Haringey, plus the Tories, despite playing the race card themselves, being knocked into third place by the BNP in the Bexley by-election, this meeting recognises that the left is not winning the argument on the issue of race and immigration, and the LSA support for current tactics and strategies are in need of urgent review."
The meeting agreed that this was an important topic for discussion, and will be one of the three items to be debated at the next London Steering Committee meeting on September 5.
In regard to the next general election, the Alliance for Workers Liberty submitted the following resolution:
"The LSA should issue (if possible in common with Socialist Alliances elsewhere) a statement offering full and active electoral support to Labour and independent Labour election candidates who are prepared to commit themselves publicly to supporting all workers struggles and specifically championing:
- rebuilding a proper comprehensive welfare state by taxing the rich;
- ending and reversing PFI in the Health Service, privatisation of education, transport and other public services;
- full trade union rights and the repeal of the anti-trade union laws';
- repeal of the Asylum and Immigration Acts".
The proposer added that this was not to try and "gloss over" the record of the " Labour government". Spokespersons for the Socialist Party, the CPGB and others pointed out that the 'tacit understanding of the LSA itself was that nothing substantial could now be built within the Labour Party, but only outside of it and opposed to it'.
The Red Action delegate commented: "The problem was not just with the record of the Labour government but the record of the Labour Party itself. The working class has deserted Labour - so should the Left. Furthermore an independent working class position is critical to the political credibility of the LSA. To pursue the course of action suggested, would be to politically shoot yourself in both feet with both barrels - and reload!"
The resolution was withdrawn subject to amendments.
On August 9 Red Action will be addressing the Communist University under the title "Official anti-racism and the white working class."
30th August 2000
Rumours are rife of splits and expulsions within the highest ranks of the BNP. As reported by Anti-Fascist Action this week, Bruce Cowd (South West organiser) appears to have resigned, and there are also reports that Steve and Sharron Edwards (key figures in the West Midlands), Michael Newlands (treasurer), Eddie Butler, and Tony Lecomber have also jumped or been pushed.
An entry appeared yesterday in the NF guestbook purporting to be a forwarded account, written by Lecomber, of a BNP Advisory Council meeting at which Newland and the Edward's were expelled. Whether this is genuine or malicious is unclear. It is reproduced below as a typical example of the rumours currently circulating amongst the far-right.
As mentioned by AFA, several faces have recently dissappeared from the 'Meet The BNP' page on their website. However, today the entire page has dissappeared along with the Branch Contacts page, suggesting at the very least that a significant reorganisation is taking place.
AFA News Reports
BNP Organiser Resigns - August 23rd 2000
Reliable sources inform us that Bruce Cowd, leading BNP organiser in the South West of England, has resigned from the BNP. Rumours are circulating that his resignation has been caused by certain 'financial irregularities' involving a very senior member of the BNP leadership.
BNP leadership crisis - August 29th 2000
Further developments in the current BNP leadership crisis continue to unfold. It now appears that Steve and Sharron Edwards, the driving force behind the West Midlands campaign that saw the BNP get 23.7% of the vote in Tipton Green in May, have been expelled by Griffin. Although no official statement has been released by the BNP it also appears that Michael Newland, the BNP treasurer, has resigned, and perhaps most significantly Tony Lecomber, with Eddy Butler the power behind Griffin's throne, has been removed from the 'Meet the BNP' leadership line-up on their website.
NF Guestbook Entry
Name: :)
NF member?: Did not respond
Sent: 16:40 GMT on 29 August
Dear racial comrade,
There have been a lot of rumours over the last few weeks and not a little shit-stirring over suggestions that our party Chairman has been robbing us blind from the Trafalgar Club account. It was always the case that this matter would be brought out into the open at the BNP's Advisory Council meeting of Saturday August 26th and it was. While I'm sure that you'll receive a members' bulletin about it in due course etc, I thought you might find it valuable in the meantime to read this personal account of the meeting. It may also help calm things down and clear up the rumour factory.
Anthony Lecomber, Group Development & Regulation.
Here follows... At the Advisory Council (AC) meeting - the Trafalgar Club accounts affair - for weeks, the subject of some speculation and heat - was fully aired. At the meeting, the receipts which the party's former treasurer Mike Newland had alleged were missing were accounted for and two sympathetic professionals - a barrister and a Chartered Accountant - both furnished independent analyses of the figures. Nick Griffin was completely exonerated of any suggestion of theft of party money which had been the motivating force behind the campaign waged by Mike and Sharron Edwards of disruption against the BNP.
Having heard the treasurer’s report; produced the complete set of Trafalgar Club accounts and the supporting receipts and answered questions on them from both Mike, Sharron and others at some length (some four hours or so - and you will have no idea of just how tediously boring this was), Party Chairman Nick Griffin dismissed Mike Newland from his post of National Press Officer and suspended his membership for three months for disciplinary offences. These were:
1) Giving out details of the party’s financial affairs to non-AC members;
2) Spreading deliberately misleading and inaccurate accounting records, designed to spread alarm about the party’s financial status and to lend credence to a malicious and groundless campaign of character assassination directed against the National Chairman;
3) Cutting off the party’s mobile telephone advertised as dealing with travel arrangements for the Red-White-and-Blue.
At this point, everyone expected that Steve and Sharron Edwards would be sacked for the same general shit-stirring and sabotage. However, they were expelled for the additional offence of stealing the party membership list.
The offences by Sharron were: 1) Spreading unfounded rumours attacking the National Chairman and encouraging a boycott of the Red-White-and-Blue Summer festival;
2) Sending out a disruptive, unconstitutional and alarmist petition, and attempting to call a non-official Advisory Council meeting as well as an unconstitutional Organiser’s meeting and;
3) Stealing the party’s membership list.
The offences by her husband, Steve Edwards were: 1) Spreading unfounded rumours attacking the National Chairman and encouraging a boycott of the Red-White-and-Blue Summer festival and;
2) Stealing the party’s membership list.
As you can imagine, this was pretty startling stuff. No one had expected that Steve and Sharron had taken the party’s membership list - by photocopying every sheet of the labels supplied for the party’s December Members' bulletin (which they had undertaken to stuff and mail out) and then laboriously enter the names and addresses onto a computer database. Steve and Sharron looked stunned - they clearly didn’t know that they had been rumbled. This most important charge wasn't denied.
Personally speaking, I could see the breakdown of the working relationship between Nick and Sharron & Mike as it was happening and there was little I could do about it, although I did try. We then experienced some terrible mistrust and suspicion stirred up by Sharron, Steve and Mike until we had outright sabotage by them of the Red-White-and-Blue, such as cutting off the phone and telling various people to boycott it.
It was clear that there was going to be a crunch and I was personally expecting a sacking or two. After all, Mike had already been dismissed as treasurer for not doing his job properly by issuing inaccurate accounts and for refusing to write cheques for normal party expenses such as the printer’s bill for the August Freedom (which is always paid in cash on collection), which he told us should come out after the RWB! Similarly, Sharron had gone way beyond her brief as Deputy Chairman in trying to call unofficial AC and Organisers’ meetings and issuing a wholly unconstitutional and irresponsible petition clearly designed to imply that Nick Griffin had stolen party funds. Sharron denies implying this, but that's the way everyone took it and the fact is that you don't try and call a national Organisers' meeting where the main item on the agenda is 'the serious allegations of financial mismanagement and discrepancies regarding accurate book-keeping at a high level within the party' if all that's at issue is a couple of lost/missing invoices. It was quite implicit that Nick Griffin was, to put it in Black Country parlance, "on the rob."
What tipped it for me though was the shock revelation that Steve & Sharron had stolen the party’s membership list as long ago as December of last year. There can be no possible excuse for that, no extenuating circumstances — it was behaviour revolting beyond belief. The only possible reason for this disgusting behaviour was for a future faction fight already being planned by the two of them last year. For this reason alone, the expulsions were fully justified.
Significantly, BNP Internet whizz, Simon Darby supported the party Chairman in this affair and not his long-time friends, Steve & Sharron. In the beginning, he had no reason not to believe the allegations laid by Mike Newland against the party Chairman but, over time, some things didn’t add up: an attempt to get his name removed from the W. Mids. Bank account, followed by Sharron asking for a four figure sum to be transferred from the Black Country & cyber accounts to that same W. Mids. Bank account; Steve paying for various friends’ membership out of branch money and, of course, as a trusted friend, he had the best opportunity to see just what was going on in this affair. The fact that Simon, who has known Steve & Sharron Edwards longer than anyone else, has stayed loyal to the party and its constitution should tell everyone everything they need to know about where the right in this matter lies.
After his expulsion — when his theft and betrayal of the party and its members came to light — Steve Edwards pointed to his long-time friend Simon Darby and accused Simon of betraying him!
I fear, from his attitude and comments as he left the meeting, red-faced and furious, that we may see an even dirtier smear campaign against Nick and others than has already been run.
Steve's parting shout was that he and his wife were well respected within the BNP and that the party Chairman had made a big mistake in expelling him. Clearly, Steve thinks that he’s bigger than the party, that the constitution doesn’t apply to him or his wife and that the theft of the party’s membership list for factional purposes can be overlooked because he and his wife are ‘well respected’.
As one of the party's longest standing members, I suggest that people who throw unfounded allegations of theft against the party’s elected chairman in an attempt to destabilise then take over the party by responding to a popular clamour (which they would have created), and who steal the party’s membership list and betray its members by so doing won’t be respected for very long. From what I’ve seen and heard over the last few weeks in general and at the AC meeting in particular, the expulsions were completely justified, and indeed were vital to nip an incipient faction fight in the bud before real lasting damage could occurr. In so doing, Nick Griffin has done the party a real service and at the same time displayed real leadership.
Ends.
SOHO BOMBING - AN UNRAVELLING THREAD?
August 26th 2000
One of the people injured in the Soho pub bombing last year has taken the first steps towards bringing a High Court case against the owner of the Admiral Duncan for failing to warn it's customers of the risk of an explosion, according to a report in The Independent on August 23.
"Gerard Whetaley 49, who as a result of the attack "sustained burns, burst eardrums that left him partially deaf, broken bones and extensive cuts and bruises" is
pursuing a case against the Scottish And Newcastle brewery, the owners of the London pub.
"After the attack, it emerged that the Metropolitan Police had warned that an extreme right-wing bomber was targeting minority groups and that gay haunts could be at risk." "The Admiral Duncan is ", The Independent went on, "believed to have received a specific warning of the dangers."
Now the Copeland trial was one of the most high profile criminal cases in the last couple of years. Acres of newsprint were devoted to the criminal and political implications. Live debates were conducted on TV, Panorama ran a 'special', and a hardcover book 'Mr Evil' has been in the shops for months. The focus, not forgetting the trial itself, has been intense. Given all that, why then does a journalist, considering that Copeland has been found guilty and 'lifted off', walk on eggshells as if the case was sub-judice?
In her article the journalist Kate Watson-Smyth, comments that it is "believed" the Admiral Duncan received a specific warning. What she means by 'believed' is that despite all the brouhaha, answers to two of the key questions are yet to be established. Did the Admiral Duncan get a specific warning? And why did the Admiral Duncan get a specific warning? The reasons she is not sure, is because uncertainty, despite (or because of ) the book, the Panorama programme, and the in-depth analysis, still surrounds these outstanding questions. Key questions which rather curiously were never asked by anyone; not the defence or prosecution, the media, or the likes of the ANL or Searchlight who regard the Copeland conviction as 'an anti-fascist victory' .
As Anti-Fascist Action representatives warned sections of the media in negotiations prior to the trial : 'the real story will only emerge afterwards'. Implicit in the statement was that in time the concoction of 'Copelandgate' would slowly begin to unravel itself.
The case brought against the brewers represents confirmation that the AFA prediction is beginning to materialise.
For full background see...'COPELAND FACE OF THE FUTURE?'
ARE REFUGEES WELCOME HERE?
24th August 2000
Text of Glasgow AFA leaftet distributed at a 'Refugees Welcome Here' meeting/picket organised by the Anti-Nazi League earlier this month. ( A report on the meeting is also included below.)
The question we raise here, although not popular within both liberal and left wing circles, must be asked if any campaign to help refugees cope with the position they find themselves in is to be successful and have any longevity. It has been obvious that to some they are not welcome and by placing the blame on Tory or Labour asylum policies, it is the importance of community politics that is ignored.
Most of the initial statements by locals in the areas where refugees have been placed claim that they didn’t have enough to get by on yet were being asked to share.
"For the past year I have been fighting to get benefits for me and my children. But these people come over and get a furnished house, benefits sorted out straight away, social work help, everything"(David, unemployed)
"I have got an invalid husband who has brain damage and all we can hope for is 55p a week interest in our pension. We don’t get income support because I have a pension from my work" (Jeanette, pensioner)
Are these racist statements or is it anger from working class communities already suffering from welfare and service slashes, unemployment and poor housing.
With the expected £30 million shortfall in reimbursement to local councils these sentiments will only be hardened and further any divide between host community and refugees.
If local services were seen to improve as a result of the arrival of refugees then it is hard to imagine any great support for the far right and Tory line currently being peddled.
The recent Greater London Assembly result gives an indication of the reality of the situation. Where the London Socialist Alliance clashed direct with the BNP (in the top up lists) the LSA, who carry as policy Refugees Welcome Here took 27,073 votes against the BNP who took 46,670.
Currently the Tories, while placing themselves as far right as possible are beginning to play second fiddle to the BNP in working class communities. This is not 1979 when the playing of the race card bore fruit for the Tories. As Nick Griffin BNP leader said "Its been quite fun to watch government ministers and Tories play the race card in far cruder terms than we would ever use, but pretend not to. This issue legitimises us"
Recently they came second in a South London council election in front of the Tories with 26% of the vote.
The challenge for any activist must be to develop strong roots and areas of influence in working class communities thus avoiding the current situation. The reason for the reactionary views exhibited by many people in these areas lies in the failure by anyone on the left being willing to commit themselves or their organisations to establishing any sort of base within working class areas. In most areas there is minimal political investment by those involved in this campaign so if it appears that the main interest of any campaign is not in the interest of the host community then the support being sought will not be as forthcoming.
Again we can examine the picture elsewhere where the BNP are carrying out successful community work. In Tipton they received 23.7% of the vote with a further 16% been gained in the adjoining ward where no work had been carried out.
This is not to say these voters are racist or anti-refugee.
They are working class people who now have no one willing and able to represent them, as is the case in the majority of estates and housing schemes. If the BNP is the organisation that is willing to address working class interests - for there own benefit - for many there appears to be no alternative. It is the failure to build strong Pro-working class groups that will endanger the integration of refugees.
While currently based on moral responsibilities, unless this campaign begins to recognise political realities then Refugees Are Not Welcome Here could be a statement, which carries more resonance in the working class areas in which refugees live.
Tactics and strategies born from Political realities now, may avoid further conflict in these areas later.
Report on Meeting
Organisers were questioned regarding their campaign statement/petition :
"....74% increase in reported racist attacks in Strathclyde over the last year.It is no coincidence that this rise should come alongside the racist campaign in sections of the Scottish press"
- that if they failed to mention the other main reasons and addressed them, they could not expect to get to the base of the racist problem.The initial response was that they could only put so much in the statement.When pushed further, that it seemed that it was packaged as support for their argument only, the response was that it had been agreed upon previously. This then brought others into the argument (out with AFA) who asked when decisions had been taken, as they had attended all meetings yet knew nothing about them. It then became apparent that the Chair (temporary for this meeting) didn't know when it had been decided and those supporters present could only say that it was initiated by the National Union of Journalists.The point had been raised and the Chair was quoted as saying "I thought this would be a quiet meeting" , obviously used to no discussion or democracy.
The refugees then spoke. The first man was from Afghanistan who described the conditions imposed on him within the YMCA in which he has been placed. They are subject to strict visiting hours, poor quality/unsuitable food and extreme hassle in the distribution of food, i.e. all requirements must be signed for and are passed days in advance with no provisions for storing bread etc, so food was not lasting for the period required. They then introduced a Nigerian man who stated the same but when asked about his life in Nigeria said he was a former bank manager who went on to have his own business. Does this then make it harder for him to stay in working class areas????? They also described the race attacks and abuse they suffered. AFA stated our position about the use of violence. The chair went on to say "that this campaign would not associate itself with violence". We were attacked on this by people saying that a meeting to ask the locals to control the attacking youth would be more suitable. AFA argued by pointing out that this showed a lack of understanding about how youths on estates normally acted. Eventually one person (who had brought some of the refugees to the meeting) asked that we changed the subject so that "the night could end on a happy note".
Afterwards the refugees introduced themselves to AFA and a discussion took place regards the effectiveness of these actions. Contact details were exchanged. An ex-refugee correctly analyzed the situation about ignoring the host community and said the problem was about class not race.
LOYALISM AT WAR!
21st August 2000
As this report is drafted, offices of the Ulster Democratic Party (UDP) have been raked by gunfire, while in retaliation the Progressive Unionist Party (PUP) offices, are on fire. The fire-setters come not from within the ranks of dissident republicanism, but from within pro and anti-peace process elements within the heartlands of working class loyalism. Earlier today, Monday 21 August, two leading loyalist were shot dead outside a bookies by the UVF. Over the weekend the Rex bar, a UVF hangout, was twice attacked by UFF elements with shots fired on both occasions. On Saturday icon of loyalism, and former UVF assassin Gusty Spence, the inspiration behind the politics of the PUP, was manhandled from his bungalow, before it too was torched. In all of it it is clear that the UFF, with Johnny Adair as the inspiration, are the primary protagonists.
Adair a former National Front supporter whom Charlie Sargent of C18 once alleged was 'an ally' is on licence from a sixteen year sentence for "directing terrorism", but seems hell bent on stretching the conditions of his release to the limit. Not only is he orchestrating events behind the scenes, but was to the forefront of the attack on the Rex. As well, though this time masked, his bulky figure was all too easily distinguishable among the UFF gunmen who fired a volley of shots from the stage at a loyalist 'festival' on Saturday. All so far with impunity.
Billy Hutchinson the PUP leader, has attacked the RUC for inaction. This passivity is he claims, what led directly to the UVF retaliation today. Peter Mandelson describes it as 'turf war' as if the motivations and consequences were entirely apolitical. This is eye wash. A major part in the antagonisms within loyalism is the conflicting strategies and objectives of the mainstream paramilitaries. PUP/UVF have a political analysis that rejects the classless unionism of old. Partly as a consequence it supports, despite doubts, the peace process. It has elected members of the assembly and favours a political solution as an alternative to holy war with nationalism. Holy war is precisely what the UFF and their Portadown allies in the UVF breakaway the LVF, hanker after most. By comparison, and not insignificantly, the political wing of the UFF, the UDP, has little or no political representation on any level, as a result of the absence of a serious political analysis. Moreover as a result of the absence of credible UDP political support on the ground, the PUP has increasingly taken the lead in tackling the drugs issue in loyalist working class communities. By all accounts a progressive one at that. The UFF with Adair at the helm, are as Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly said on Question Time recently "up to their necks in it!" Another another obvious source of conflict.
Now Adair might indeed be the 'Mad Dog' he is nicknamed, but on the other hand, it is not at all implausible, that he is acting under the protection of a section of the 'securocrats', who are as determined as he is to collapse the Good Friday Agreement. (Traditionally the UFF have, in Belfast anyway, always been from a 'spook' point of view, the more malleable of the main loyalist factions.) For this stratagem to work effectively, loyalism would need to be made unitary and whole once more. Meaning that the pro-peace agreement loyalists such as the UVF/PUP, would need to be politically or physically purged from the heartlands of east Belfast and Portadown in particular.
In 1994 when the IRA declared it's ceasefire, the cries from the British and Irish Left were of 'sell-out'. Loyalism briefly concurred, with UFF graffiti going up on the Shankill 'accepting the surrender of the IRA'. But far from sell-out, one of the key components of the republican strategy was to break Unionism from the British. Once that division became apparent, the outcome was the inevitable fragmentation of unionism itself. The evidence is now there for all to see. Six years ago, it was Gusty Spence, who on behalf of the Combined Loyalist Military Command declared 'the loyalist war over'. Now it is he who is driven from his home as if he was a paedophile. From icon to renegade over one weekend. Not only is working class loyalism split, apparently irrevocably on paramilitary levels, it is also hopelessly divided against itself on every other conceivable political level as well. A community used to being represented by the Ulster Unionist Party for over half a century, now has the choice of DUP, UDP, PUP, UKIP and UUP. All of whom harbour hatreds for each other, that can on occasion displace even their hatred of republicans, which is saying something! Trimble's UUP is moreover in effect two parties, under the same tent. One faction led by Trimble falteringly pro-peace, the other resolutely anti-GFA. So whatever the outcome of the face-off in east Belfast, what is undoubted is that loylalism will emerge significantly the weaker. Ironically, murderous feuds were what was planned by unionism and the securocrats for republicanism. And contrary to all Brit Left predictions, both north and south republicanism is going from strength to strength.
Of course the republicans renegades have not entirely 'gone away you know'. Coincidentally they choose Saturday (with typical sensitivity almost the anniversary date of the Omagh bomb) to stage a social in West Belfast. The 32 County Sovereignty Committee made pointed remarks against an individual who had lost a son in the bombing. A picket of the event by relatives was according to the IRISH NEWS "haughtily" ordered to leave the area. The IRISH NEWS went on to make the point that Adair has displayed "precisely the same sense of arrogance" in his dealings with his respective community. "As a result of their own conduct, they deserve to be regarded as blood brothers".
At the time of the Omagh bomb, (which incidentally was politically directed not against the British, but against Republicanism as Sinn Fein were the biggest party on the local council) and more recently there have been well founded suspicions that the dissidents may be controlled by the Brits in the same way as they previously controlled the UFF. It is conspicuous for instance that the Irish security forces are remarkably more diligent that the British in running the dissidents to ground. It is also more than a little curious, that the most supposedly hardline physical force republicans, and the most reactionary and fascistic elements of loyalism now share a common political goal: the destruction of an accord between working class communities on either side of the divide. Mad dogs they may well be, but with one suspects, the one political master.
REPUBLICAN NEWS EDITORIAL ON ASYLUM SEEKERS
18th August 2000
Last weeks Republican News editorial gave comment to an event in Dublin, that is typical of middle class hypocrisy on left and right surrounding the refugee issue in Britain. It appears that the Dublin government had planned to site a reception centre for refugees in the plush area of Ballsbridge. Immediately a residents group launched a High Court action to challenge government proposals. While there was legitimacy to the arguments in relation to planning permission and so on, a letter signed by a member of the residents association explained the motivation behind the move. Circulated earlier this year the letter stated that the impeccably middle class Dublin 4 was "becoming saturated with unwanted elements who are a threat to the community". Last week the government capitulated to the residents demands and now ,according to Republican News, other residents groups are seeking help from the "fellow travellers" in Ballsbridge. "So, where inquired RN are these asylum seekers to go?"
As the editorial pointed out "the answer is all too predictable". So it supplied the answer itself. Working class areas. "Working class areas, especially those ravaged by drugs, poverty, and a whole myriad of related social problems, end up having to cater for people many of whom have even more social problems. They haven't got barristers chairing the local residents association, nor have they the time to create fictitious problems when confronted with so many real ones."
In the summing up the message was straightforward:"the government must take the lead in ensuring refugees and immigrants are given fair opportunities and that they are housed according to the facilities available and not according to the ease with which the well-heeled cappuccino mob can secure a Nimby decision."
Sinn Fein is the only progressive party in Europe with a working class membership and base. Can that be the reason, compared to say the British Left, that it speaks sense on the issue, or is that just coincidence?
RED ACTION ADDRESS COMMUNIST UNIVERSITY
10th August 2000
On August 9, following an invitation by the organisers, the CPGB, Red Action addressed a meeting of the 'Communist University' at Brunel College in Uxbridge. The title of the speech was "Official anti-racism and the white working class". The speech which addressed the comprehensive nature of the left's strategical failures in regard to multiculturalism, equal opportunities and more recently refugees, took the best part of an hour to deliver. It was then followed by a question and answer session and general discussion. Among the issues raised, was the inadequacy of posters - "the worst form of communication" to convey a complex message, as on immigration. As the furore around refugees and the rise of the BNP showed, the left was not even holdings it's own in the argument and were in many cases simply "laying down welcome mats" for the BNP. The entire approach of the mainstream left was, it was argued, dangerously "self-defeating". Anti-fascism too was in danger of "being assimilated into a state strategy and used for reactionary purposes."
The political threat of a "rejuvenated BNP" was also stressed. The point was made that despite the vainglorious claim of the ANL only last October, that 'the war is over and we won it', the BNP took almost 80,000 votes in the GLA election, (the best vote for the far-right in the capital since 1977) a little over six months later. Another major theme of the speech was the vital importance of not falling into the trap of 'counter posing' the rights of minorities against an already seriously beleaguered working class majority. On top of that the evidence of "anti-racism increasingly being used by liberalism as a camouflage was anti-working class elitism" was undeniable. It was suggested that if the "pattern of defeat" suffered by the 'old left' when confronted by the 'new right' across Europe was to be broken in Britain, then the likes of the LSA would have to seriously begin to "decommission what up to now was the custom and practice of it's sponsors".
The speaker went into further detail on why such a comprehensive review of tactics and strategies was necessary but also, and most importantly, presented an outline of how, beginning with the issue of refugees, this might be done. The discussion that followed, naturally focused on the most controversial aspects of the root and branch overhaul, it was forcefully argued, was absolutely necessary if the left was "to return to winning ways".
Overall the speech, which at 6,000 words long is both comprehensive and hard-hitting, will it is expected, be the beginning of this vitally important debate amongst the Left - not the end of it.
The full text of the speech will be produced in next Red Action bulletin due out on September 1. The most contentious points are also likely to be addressed within the Weekly Worker.
REPORT ON LSA STEERING COMMITEE MEETING
1st August 2000
Following the Red Action National Meeting at the end of May it was decided that London Red Action should, in line with current perspectives, apply for affiliation to the London Socialist Alliance. The affiliation was duly accepted and Red Action were allotted one delegate on the London Steering Committee.
At the London Steering Committee meeting on August 1 the London Red Action delegate submitted the following proposal: "In light of the 80,000 votes for the BNP in May; the doubling of recorded racial incidents; the overt hostility encountered by some LSA canvassers in Haringey, plus the Tories, despite playing the race card themselves, being knocked into third place by the BNP in the Bexley by-election, this meeting recognises that the left is not winning the argument on the issue of race and immigration, and the LSA support for current tactics and strategies are in need of urgent review."
The meeting agreed that this was an important topic for discussion, and will be one of the three items to be debated at the next London Steering Committee meeting on September 5.
In regard to the next general election, the Alliance for Workers Liberty submitted the following resolution:
"The LSA should issue (if possible in common with Socialist Alliances elsewhere) a statement offering full and active electoral support to Labour and independent Labour election candidates who are prepared to commit themselves publicly to supporting all workers struggles and specifically championing:
- rebuilding a proper comprehensive welfare state by taxing the rich;
- ending and reversing PFI in the Health Service, privatisation of education, transport and other public services;
- full trade union rights and the repeal of the anti-trade union laws';
- repeal of the Asylum and Immigration Acts".
The proposer added that this was not to try and "gloss over" the record of the " Labour government". Spokespersons for the Socialist Party, the CPGB and others pointed out that the 'tacit understanding of the LSA itself was that nothing substantial could now be built within the Labour Party, but only outside of it and opposed to it'.
The Red Action delegate commented: "The problem was not just with the record of the Labour government but the record of the Labour Party itself. The working class has deserted Labour - so should the Left. Furthermore an independent working class position is critical to the political credibility of the LSA. To pursue the course of action suggested, would be to politically shoot yourself in both feet with both barrels - and reload!"
The resolution was withdrawn subject to amendments.
On August 9 Red Action will be addressing the Communist University under the title "Official anti-racism and the white working class."
