Defend democracy in CLPD

Scan page 13

.. So far as we are concerned, the AGM votes on registration... on the Manchester/Withington proposals... on the Regional Key Persons' EC membership... on the freedom to have one's views circulated... on keeping to constitutional channels to bring about change... are votes of confidence. It would also be quite impossible for us to work together with an EC, the majority of which would be opposed to these policies. If the AGM effectively rejects the policy advocated by the majority of the retiring EC, our resignation would become not only justified but the honest thing to do. We feel we owe it to all our supporters to make our "Vladimir Derer, Victor Schonfield, Pete Willsman". position clear.

THIS statement by three of the leading officers of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy of intent to split if they lose certain votes at the campaign's AGM has just appeared in the December issue of the CLPD Bulletin.

It makes the continued existence of the CLPD in its present form probably the major issue at the AGM, in just over two weeks' time.

The kind of organisation that the three officers are now proposing is summed up in their description of the procedure they object to: 'Having secured the control of the AGM and the EC, all that needs to be done is to order those officers on whose contribution CLPD work depends to carry out majority decisions'.

The officers referred to are, of course, themselves, and their complaint is that they will be asked to carry out majority decisions if they lose at the AGM. Labour Party conference might be 'sovereign' , but for them the conference of the CLPD certainly shouldn't be.

The idea of the officers of the Campaign being bound by majority decisions is portrayed not as democracy but as bureaucratic dictation, treating "CLPD officers" as "a-political paid staff". The similarity is striking between this argument and those used by MPs and the Party establishment against the democratic reforms championed by the CLPD.

Resign The three also threaten to resign if resolutions are passed which call for an end to the use of CLPD mailings to circulate personal attacks and personal views in a way that makes it seem that they are semi-official statements of the campaign.

On 'key persons', what they are threatening to resign over is a proposal to change a system which allows for unlimited co-option of voting members onto the EC.

And what of those who criticise? "Of course it is perfectly legitimate for some (!) socialists to oppose from outside what CLPD stands for... " (emphasis added).

The three officers, in the name of 'the CLPD EC majority" , present all this as 'basic questions of strategy and tactics and the kind of organisation CLPD is — or, more precisely, John Bloxam what it should become"

A split in CLPD would be severely damaging, and a boon to the right wing and the Party establishment. It would threaten to wreck the work of the CLPD as the major organisation with widespread support fighting for democracy in the Party. And it would be criminal, because it is not necessary.

There aré important political differences in the CLPD. But everyone acThe statement by Vladimir Derer, V ctor Schonfield™ and Pete Willsman is presented in an exaggerated and sensational way as a 'Reply to Anonymous Critics' , the better to support their picture of 'the EC majority' defending itself against clandestine and unscrupulous plotting.

It makes a good story, but unfortunately the truth was easy to discover - and not so dramatic. The 'anonymous appeal' was, in fact, a draft shown by myself to a few other members of the CLPD executive as a possible response to the threats cepts that the most contentious item at present -whether CLPD should register - is tactical, whatever importance we attach to it.

And opposition to the new EC implementing the decisions of the AGM would not be a good basis to split to form a new campaign for democracy!

What is labelled 'the EC minority" will be arguing a different case: That the CLPD should remain in the forefront of from the three officers in the previous bulletin to split the campaign. It was never circulated, as far as I know.

The widespread opposition to the methods represented by the threats has been expressed in four resolutions to the AGM, including one from the campaign's president, Joa Maynard.

No sensation, alas, but there is one useful result. Thanks are due to Vladimir, Victor and Pete for now widely circulating my original draft.

the fight for democracy and democratic rights in the Labour Party; that it would be a serious and very damaging mistake to split the CLPD; that the present differences are containable in a united and effective CLPD; and that democracy within the campaign is absolutely necessary. Majority decisions must be loyally implemented by those responsible; 'the rights of minority viewpoints must be respected.

Should the NEC persist with disciplinary measures or disaffiliations, we give notice that will not recognise any such actions. We will not expel, nor recognise the expulsion of any Labour Party member group of members arising from political disagreements with i NEC.

The aim and importance of the advert is to indicate publicly and clearly to the right wing the extent of resistance to any expul sions. This is a message that also needs to be sent to any waverers in the trade The mailing also invites delegates to the next LAW National Council meeting on Saturday. February 12 in County Hall, London SE1.

JOIN LAW Affiliation to LAW entitles CLPs to a delegate at the Membership open to CLPs. trade unions, Labour Party affiliates and individuals. Name of Organisation:.....

CLP/Union/LPYS/ Women's Section/society/ OTHER (specify)..

Address for correspondence Fee enclosed (CLPs & unions £10, wards £5, individuals & other organisations £3).

Scan page 14

no.115 1983 Page