Don’t Pay UK is in Disarray and Without A Strategy but they Won’t Admit It

 When I suggested that DPUK needed to democratise I was cancelled & removed from its WhatsApp groups

Last June, with dire predictions of massive rises in the energy cap, Don’t Pay UK suddenly appeared on the scene. Where it came from was always a bit of a mystery and how they were able to finance large amounts of leaflets and a slick website, to say nothing of premises/phones/ admin etc. was even more a mystery.

But like most people I was more concerned with mobilizing against the energy price rises than questioning where DPUK had come from. The fight against  the Tories and neo-liberalism was the priority not navel gazing. And if a benevolent capitalist had provided seed money so what?

All this occurred in the midst of political paralysis as the government was convulsed over Boris Johnson’s future as Prime Minister. In essence we had no government for nearly 3 months.

Not only was the rise in energy prices forecast as hitting £3,800 in October, £5,000 in January 2023 and up to £7,000 by April 2023 but the Tory party was engaging in a fantasy contest between two lunatic right-wingers who were competing as to who would hammer the poor most.

I was among a number of those in the labour and trade union movement who were arguing that we had to consider a Can’t Pay Won’t Pay campaign and look carefully at and learn the lessons of the battle against the Poll Tax 30 years ago. Not that the two struggles were the same.  On the contrary there were important differences which DPUK has never seemed to understand

On the socialist left there had already been a vigorous debate about the merits of not paying energy bills and there was an important constituency who said that not paying would not work.  Groups such as Disabled People Against the Cuts were particularly vociferous in arguing that disabled people couldn’t take part in such a campaign.  A position I disagreed with but which many people supported.

Some us had begun to set up a Can’t Pay Won’t Pay campaign in Brighton with the aim of campaigning for a mass refusal to pay.  However we were all aware of the differences between 30 years ago and now and the difficulties we faced.

Brighton & Hove Can't Pay Won't Pay/DPUK Meeting August 30

The Crispin Flintoft Show, which is a twice weekly Zoom show consisting of mainly expelled and suspended Labour Party members as well as those who have managed to cling on despite Starmer, has regular attendances of around 500.  In May the featured speaker was Tommy Sheridan, the leader of the campaign against the Poll Tax who warned of the differences between the Poll Tax campaign in 1989/90 and the battle against the energy prices today.

On June 24, the Socialist Labour Network held a meeting with Tommy Sheridan, Ian Hodson, President of the Bakers Union and Paula Peters of DPAC on the theme of Can’t Pay Won’t Pay.

In Brighton we decided to hold an inaugural meeting of Can’t Pay Won’t Pay and I was approached by Andrew Farrar, an anarchist associated with DPUK, to work jointly together. CPWP agreed to hold a joint public meeting on August 30.

Brighton & Hove Can't Pay Won't Pay/DPUK Meeting August 30

The meeting on August 30 was jointly chaired by Nehaal, who is currently Vice President of the National Union of Students and myself. Speakers included the President and Secretary of the Trades Council, Matt Webb and Andy Richards and Sheila Hall, who was a councillor in 1990 who was suspended along with 5 other Labour councillors for refusing to implement the Poll Tax. Also speaking was the man who served the longest sentence (30 months) for his part in the poll tax riot.

Over 150 people attended and it was judged by all that it was a great success. But then things began to go downhill. Activity fell off and it proved difficult to get people to run a weekly stall in the town centre. The only activity since then was on October 1^st when a rally of about a 100 was held at Brighton Clocktower. Given that there was a strike meeting at The Level of nearly 1,000 people it is clear that the campaign had stalled.

Following the public meeting at a weekly coordination meeting an objection by Farrah was made to my attending a regional meeting (in fact a national meeting of regional groups).  No doubt after words in his ear.  However I did get out of him that these meetings were attended by between 20 and 30 people, which for a national meeting is pathetic.

I made several attempts to discuss DPUK’s strategy in the different chat groups and each time they were met with personal abuse by a few anarchists who were more concerned with how oppressed they were and how many identities they could claim than progressing the campaign. Comments such as

I’m a woman. The mother of a disabled person. A teacher in the most deprived area of Brighton. You don’t get to filibuster me into silence. I’m big enough and ugly enough not to stand for this

was one such contribution from an unnamed anarchist who harboured a deep grudge over the role of Militant in the Poll Tax 30 years ago. I pointed out that I too had a disabled child to care for but didn’t see what relevance this crass resort to identity politics had for the campaign against energy price rises.

This particular person was obsessed by the fact that Sheila Hall had spoken at the public meeting because Sheila had been a supporter of Militant 30 years ago. Clearly she spoke for other anarchists.

DPUK's key mistake was in making withholding payments conditional on the number of pledges

It is a fact that the All Britain Anti Poll Tax Federation which was set up in November 1989 was led by the Militant Tendency who had recently been expelled from the Labour Party. Although Tommy Sheridan had made some injudicious remarks about those arrested in the Poll Tax Riot no-one can take away from him the fact that he had been gaoled for 6 months for defying the Scottish courts over his presence at a Warrant Sale or for his leadership of the campaign against the Poll Tax in Scotland, which suffered from the Poll Tax one year earlier than the rest of the country.

The fact that Tommy and 5 others had been elected to Glasgow City Council spoke volumes about how the Glaswegian and Scottish working class felt whereas the anarchist contribution to the campaign was nugatory.  Yet these sectarian comments kept coming up from certain individuals and local Admins acted to protect these sectarians.

When I responded to a few of these characters I received a ‘final warning’ from an unelected moderator of one of the chat groups. Clearly democratic debate is anathema to identity politics anarchists.  As a result I decided to have no personal interaction with any individual and to simply post political observations as to the current state of play. Nonetheless this didn’t satisfy the flaky anarchists who had appointed themselves as Admins and I was removed without warning or explanation last Tuesday.

I should add that at no time was any Admin elected.  All of them were friends who appointed each other, as Nehaal admitted. Anarchists are opposed in theory to leadership but in practice they are opposed to an elected leadership because of course nothing will happen unless some people take the initiative.

Don’t Pay UK Nationally

So what is going on in DPUK? I attended a national meeting of activists about 3 weeks ago. It was chaired by Simon, a well-known Brighton anarchist. There were a total of 112 in attendance. It was made clear that DPUK’s leadership consisted in essence of a group of friends of a similar political persuasion.

All the speakers were pre-selected and no audience participation was allowed. I guess this is anarchism in action. There was though a vigorous discussion in the chat and the main theme in that was the need to discuss a political strategy. However the meeting finished after just one hour and those with their hands up were simply ignored.

What DPUK has are hidden, unelected and unaccountable leaders.  We used to call it the ‘tyranny of structurelessness’ in which feminist and other organizations, which were leaderless in theory, ended up with unelected leaders by default and thus were far more undemocratic than those bureaucracy ridden institutions of the labour movement.

From my own impressions a large number of people have been signed up as potential activists or organizers but, as is common with anarchist campaigns, there is no direction or strategy. It has been suggested that DPUK is deliberately engaging in the mass collection of data such and email addresses for other purposes.  Whether this is true I do not know, however there is little sign of any adherence to data protection legislation.

In 2-3 years time DPUK will be calling an energy payment strike

DPUK’s Lack of a Political Strategy

On its website DPUK state that ‘We will take this action [withholding payments] when we reach 1 million pledges to strike.’ The only problem is that at the time of writing only 198,551 people have signed up pledging to stop their direct debits.  Three days ago it was 195,510.  In other words the number of people signing up and pledging to stop paying via direct debit is increasing by 1,000 a day. At this rate it will take over 2 years to reach the figure! 

This is simply no way to run a campaign. Before Liz Truss’s pledge that bills would be capped at an average of £2,500 DPUK were receiving 10,000 pledges per day.  In other words there has been a precipitate drop in people pledging to stop their direct debits.  Yet there has been no mention of this. Complete radio silence.

In practice a pledge is unenforceable anyway and it is anyone’s guess how many people who have signed a pledge have thought twice about it.  In any event stopping a direct debit doesn’t mean not paying. There are a number of ways of paying energy bills of which direct debits are just one. In short DPUK have been blind sided by the government’s decision to stuff the mouths of the energy companies with gold to the tune of £170 billion.

As Catherine Furae of Live Chronicle wrote, Don’t Pay UK halts energy strike as it fails to sign enough people. Except that DPUK hasn’t told its own supporters that it has called off the action. Instead they simply urge them to greater efforts.

Where has DPUK gone wrong?

Because DPUK was set up undemocratically without any attempt to involve people in the wider anti-cuts and trade union movement they embarked on what was clearly a very risky strategy without any discussion or prior thought about involving wider forces.

It is obvious that at a time when working class people and trade unions are engaged in mass strike action that there is a need to engage the unions and workers in any campaign against the energy prices rises. But unfortunately these anarchists tend to have little involvement with unions nor do they care much for what they see as just another manifestation of the labour bureaucracy.

In my view there was absolutely no need to make an unrealistic target of 1 million the pivot of a campaign against the energy prices. Instead there should have been an attempt to involve the wider labour movement for example by calling a conference.  The fact is that Britain’s anarchists are not exactly well placed in the trade union and labour movement.

If there had been an attempt to hold e.g. a large zoom conference then the follies and dangers of setting an unrealistic target figure as the be all and end all of the campaign could have been pointed out.  Instead of media gimmicks and there is no doubt that DPUK attracted a lot of media attention, a strategy of building in local communities could have been put in place and leaflets highlighting the estimated energy costs could have been used instead of simply saying Don’t Pay.

Whether even this would have worked is open to doubt but as things stand DPUK have failed at the first hurdle.

I should add that although I disagree with anarchism politically I have respect for many anarchists who are involved in anti-fascist or Palestine solidarity work. But I find it difficult to muster much enthusiasm for those whose contempt for democracy matches that of Sir Keir Starmer.

Has DPUK Anywhere to Go?

Any Can’t Pay Won’t Pay campaign is going to face very serious obstacles not least the fact that 4 million households have pre-payment meters.  To date DPUK has simply ignored this problem. It is also a fact that millions of people are simply going to be unable to pay their heating bills this winter. The question is how to marry these together.

It seems to me that any campaign has to focus on working class areas of high deprivation where the issue is of most concern. The problem of pre-payment meters has to be addressed. I’m no technical expert but if it is possible to physically neutralize or bypass these meters then this should be done – en masse.

I certainly do believe that a CPWP campaign can succeed but it will be difficult if divorced from the wider labour and anti-cuts movement. The current DPUK policy of clamping down on any discussion of strategy and focusing instead on how many leaflets one can distribute, to the point of cancelling and removing troublesome activists, show that this organization, given its secrecy and lack of democracy, isn’t up to the task it has set itself, which is reversing the present price rises.

No mass movement that isn’t democratic can hope to succeed in a battle with this government. Democracy isn’t a luxury it is a necessity.

As DPUK has stagnated it's been overtaken by Enough is Enough

DPUK’s Refusal to Speak About Public Ownership

When I opened the public meeting in Brighton I was interrupted by applause when I mentioned that the crisis could not be resolved until the utility companies were under public ownership again. It is obvious to all and sundry that as long as energy in Britain is owned by private monopolies there can be no solution to the continuing price rises.

The Tories and Starmer Labour are opposed to public ownership. But here is the curious thing. Try as you might, it is impossible to find a single reference to public ownership of the energy companies on the DPUK site. As far as those who control DPUK are concerned such questions are irrelevant because both involve capitalist production. Of course DPUK don’t say what their real position is.  They simply don’t mention it as they hide behind their curious identity politics.

They may be mild but at least Enough is Enough is Making Political Demands - DPUK is saying Nothing

According to We Own It 66% of the public support nationalisation. The fact that both Truss and Starmer are opposed to public ownership might tell our youthful anarchists something about neo-liberalism, which is founded on a hatred of public ownership. However anarchists combine both liberalism and ultra-leftism.  Ultra leftist because they make no distinction between private ownership of energy companies and public or state ownership. Unfortunately bodies like the IMF do make such a distinction.

I have deliberately avoided the speculation of people like Ben Timberley and others as to whether or not DPUK is a genuine group or not. I always tend to assume the best but there is no doubt that DPUK is now seriously floundering as its lack of any meaningful strategy has caught up with it. It seems like a good idea that got lost along the way.

I have also sent an Open Letter 'The Silencing of Dissenting Voices' to members of Brighton & Hove DPUK!

Tony Greenstein

An Interesting ‘Conversation’ with Morrigan, one of the Founders of DPUK

 My falling out and expulsion from Brighton DPUK began with a ‘conversation’ with Morrigan, a teacher and one of the founders of DPUK.   She objected to my report on the above national meeting of DPUK (and implicitly that of Dave Hill) on how it was a controlled affair before going off on one.

First she felt the need to establish her identity – not only a woman, but a teacher in a difficult school, a carer for a disabled son etc. I pointed out that I too care for a disabled son but I’m not sure what relevance that had to the discussion!

However to Morrigan, displaying the fine arts of anarchist identity politics this was all ‘mansplaining’, which is shorthand for having the temerity to disagree with a woman!

Anarchists?

Anarchists come in all shapes and sizes, from syndicalists to lifestyle and personal politics anarchists. For many anarchism is a rebellion against capitalist conformity but that often leads to a rejection of collective action in favour of individualism and a rejection of the labour movement and trade unions.

Morrigan above demonstrates a deep hostility to the left and the idea of class as the motivating force in society in favour of identity politics where anyone can claim to be oppressed.  Indeed on the basis of ID Pol. you can claim multiple oppressions. Her vitriol is directed at what was Militant but it is more applicable to all socialist groupings. Along with this is a rejection of theory in favour of spontaneity. It is but a short step to adopting the anarchy of the free market.

Anarchism rejects the idea of leadership but only in so far as that leadership is elected and accountable. As demonstrated in my expulsion by unnamed moderators (one of whom, Steve J has just written to me suggesting that my writing to individual members of Brighton DPUK was motivated by ‘sadness’ (!) there is no concept of due process or evidence. Hence Morrigan can lie quite blatantly about Militant and a speaker that I invited to the public meeting without any comeback.

There are of course anarchists such as the Bristol anarchists who have been sentenced to savage terms of imprisonment or those involved in Palestine Action who reject identity politics and the ideas of ‘safe spaces’  but many anarchists like Morrigan reject the very idea that they are on the left.

DPUK shows every sign of being a hidden political project masquerading as a campaign against the fuel price rises. It has been suggested that it is also a data harvesting project.

However once in her stride Morrigan had no compunction about attacking Sheila Hall, a former Labour Councillor in Brighton who was suspended for refusing to implement the Poll Tax.  Apparently she was a supporter of the Poll Tax according to the said Morrigan and guilty of numerous other sins.

At the end of the ‘conversation’ Morrigan complained of being bullied. Presumably disagreeing with someone in authority, as Morrigan clearly is in the group, is bullying. Well the Moderators certainly thought so.

The whole conversation is here and an extract is below.

Why is Joe Biden stealing $14 billion from Afghanistan and deliberately creating a famine?

 Those Who Profess Concern over Ukraine Have A Duty to Speak Out NOW about what is happening in Afghanistan

You can see here Clare Daly’s brilliant speech to the European Parliament. The Biden Administration in the United States is deliberately creating famine in Afghanistan. Instead of paying reparations to Afghanistan for the damage caused by the US invasion and occupation since 2001, Joe Biden has just gone and stolen what little money they had, some $14 Billion.

The money was deposited in the US Federal Reserve by the corrupt regime that the US imposed on Afghanistan. ‘President’ Ashraf Ghani fled the country with hundreds of million dollars stuffed into cars. It was literally spilling on the runway as the helicopter took off.

The US Drone Strike in Kabul which killed a family of 10, including 7 children. It was a ‘tragic’ mistake, just like all the other US mistakes in the region

The US’s parting gift to Afghanistan was a missile which destroyed a car in Kabul murdering 10 people including 7 children. According to the US army it was a ‘mistake’. No one has been charged and the International Criminal Court which was so hot off the mark in Ukraine has said nothing.

What happened with the drone missile in Kabul has happened all over Afghanistan and Pakistan.  The United States acts with impunity and yet racists like Paul Mason look to the ‘civilised’ West for salvation.

As Clare Daly said, the only crime of Afghanis and the other victims of US aggression in the Middle East and elsewhere is not to be White or European.

All those who condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine and their war crimes have a duty to speak out about the United States deliberately creating a famine in order to get their revenge on the Taliban. If they do not then they are simply hypocrites.

Clare Daly is a good illustration of what happens when genuine socialists get elected to Parliament. Clare was a member of Militant and the Socialist party but she is now a member of Independents 4 Change, part of The Left in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL. At the 2016 general election, Clare stood as an Independents 4 Change candidate in the Dublin Fingal constituency, and was elected  to the Dáil Éireann. At the 2019 European Parliament elections, she was elected for the Dublin constituency.

Contrast Clare and her fellow MP Mick Wallace with the Irish Green Party who are propping up the present Fine Gael and Fianna Fail Coalition. Two corrupt Conservative parties propped up by Greens, who pose as an alternative to the mainstream parties.

Tony Greenstein 

Labour Against the Witchhunt and Labour-in-Exile-Network Vote to Merge into a Single Organisation

 A Single Anti-Witchhunt Organisation Committed to Build Shadow CLPs Can Only Strengthen the Fight Against Starmer

Fringe Meeting at 2018 Liverpool Conference (left to right) - Jo Bird, Tony Greenstein, the late Tony Mulhearn, Anya Ndwuke (chair), Chris Williamson, Alexei Sayle

Last Friday night members of Labour-in-Exile-Network voted by 31-8 to merge with Labour Against the Witchhunt. The following night LAW, at its first All Members Meeting for 3 months also voted to support a merger, albeit by a narrower but decisive majority of 47-27 with 12 abstentions.

The successful Resist at the Rialto events in Brighton during the Labour conference were organised jointly with LIEN, LAW and Resist

Members of both organisations voted to form a single organisation dedicated not only to fighting the witchhunt but to campaign on a broader basis. We have an NHS that is being privatised, a Police Bill which is a massive encroachment on civil liberties, a Nationality and Immigration Bill which will result in more deaths in the Channel. The idea that the only game in the town is the Witchhunt is an obsession. Starmer has just given a speech to Labour Friends of Israel saying that the Israel of pogroms against Palestinians is a ‘rumbustious democracy’.

It is unfortunate that the majority of the LAW Steering Committee, having lost the argument and the vote have resigned rather than accepting the view of LAW members. Their argument is summed up in this week’s Weekly Worker that we are ‘Deserting the Fight’. No comrades we are refusing to allow the fight against Starmer and his neo-liberal politics to be confined to simply machinations in the Labour Party.

Motion 1 in favour of the merger was passed with one amendment. The second motion, opposing the merger, moved by supporters of Labour Party Marxism therefore fell automatically.

At a time when thousands of Labour Party members are either under ‘investigation’, suspended or expelled, it makes obvious sense that two organisations that agree on all the fundamental questions facing socialists, inside and outside the Labour Party, should merge. The Left has been historically weakened because of unnecessary splits over minor points of theological doctrine.

2019 Fringe Meeting with Ken Livingstone, Jackie Walker, Alexei Sayle and Chris Williamson

Opponents of the merger, primarily Labour Party Marxism argued that there is still much work to be done fighting the witchhunt. That is true but conditions have changed massively since the Corbyn witchhunt began in 2016. This point was made eloquently in an introductory speech by Graham Bash, the recently expelled Political Officer of Jewish Voices for Labour and someone who was a member of Labour for 53 years.

Graham emphasised that the scale and reach of Starmer’s witchhunt is bigger than anything that the Labour Party has ever experienced in its history. Previously particular groups like Militant were targeted.  Now it is anyone on the socialist left who speaks out against the leadership. People like Pamela Fitzpatrick of CLPD, a well respected local councillor in Harrow, the recipient of abuse by right-wing trolls, has been expelled whilst her abusers have got off scot-free. The suspension of a previous Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is itself unprecedented.

LAW picket of Jackie Walker's Disciplinary Hearing

When nearly all the Left capitulated to the false ‘anti-Semitism’ attacks LAW was virtually alone in standing up to the Zionists and and people like Margaret Hodge. We organised pickets of the disciplinary hearings of Marc Wadsworth and Jackie Walker, organised well-attended fringe meetings at Labour Party Conference and gave support to Ken Livingstone, Chris Williamson and others.

We also led, with JVL, the campaign against the adoption by the Labour Party of the IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitism with a large picket of the NEC meeting in September 2019 which adopted the IHRA.  We warned then that far from putting the ‘anti-Semitism’ attacks to bed they would increase in volume.

Jo Bird's reaction to her expulsion, that she is glad to get out of the Labour Party, is a typical reaction. Labour Party Marxists simply don't understand that people don't want to stay in Labour's poisonous cavern

Unfortunately Corbyn and Jennie Formby chose not to listen to us and they embarked on a policy of appeasement of the Right. At meeting after meeting I repeated the same message that the expulsion of Jackie, Marc and myself was not about us – we were collateral damage – the real target was Corbyn himself. That should be clear even to the most venal and stupid member of Momentum, even to Jon Lansman, now that Corbyn himself has lost the Whip.

When you don't like the way members voted you describe it as a 'hostile takeover' - this is the attitude of the trade union bureaucracy to democracy in the unions 

The throwing under the bus of Chris Williamson, Ken Livingstone and many others like Pete Willsman and Christine Shawcroft, simply whetted the appetite of Margaret Hodge and the JLM. When Corbyn opposed Open Selection he signed his own death warrant. When he and Formby proposed ‘fast track’ expulsions they laid the basis for Starmer’s purge and Corbyn’s own suspension.

But the opponents of merging the two organisations wanted people to believe that LAW today is the same as it was 2-3 years ago. That simply is not true.  In the past 6 months LAW has done relatively little other than with LIEN. On LAW’s own website there is no activity registered since the Resist at the Rialto in late September. The fact is that there is next to nothing we can do to fight the witchhunt inside the Labour Party because there is no democracy left.

LAW has no branches today - it has a passive membership

On July 20^th LAW and LIEN organised the well attended picket of Labour’s NEC at Southside and during the Labour Party conference we organised a whole series of alternative events at the Resist at the Rialto in Brighton. It makes sense to merge into one group.

You only need to look at the Wikipedia entry for LAW. It lists a whole series of our activities but stops in May 2019. The reality is that LAW has been on a life support system for the past two years. Before the last AGM membership had plummeted by one-third. Ironically the only thing that restored LAW’s previous membership was Starmer/Evans decision to proscribe LAW!

The Steering Committee which has met fitfully in recent months has failed to involve members in its work or bring them aboard. There are no separate working groups or strands. Members are just passive observers. LAW is not the campaign it was when we had regular monthly All Members Meeting. Members of the Labour Party are reluctant even to be seen on pickets or demonstrations when that will be taken as support for LAW and instant expulsion.

The preamble to the first motion began with Ken Loach’s statement:

‘democracy is dead in the labour party...this is a political vacuum, this is the biggest challenge to the left in my lifetime,  we do need a new political movement, across the whole left, inside the Labour Party and outside, it’s got to be ready to become a party when the time is right.... Otherwise we fragment. People are leaving and we will fragment. At this critical moment when you have this mass of people just driven out of the party where are they going to go? If we miss this opportunity it is a very black outlook.’

What then were the arguments of opponents of the merger? LPM has always taken the position that there is nothing in between the Labour Party, a bourgeois workers party in their eyes, and a revolutionary Marxist Party. All or nothing and they get nothing.

The late Tony Mulhearn - one of the heroes of the Liverpool Council refusal to set a rate in the 1980s, who came under attack from Kinnock

The CPGB didn’t always take this position having participated first in the Socialist Alliance, Respect and Left Unity. The CPGB/LPM have never explained the change in their tactics from opposition to ‘autolabourism’ to a devotion to labourism! In 1997 they refused to support a vote for Labour at the General Election. Now they damn anyone who even thinks of standing against Labour!

Ironically the first person to propose a merger wasn’t me but Tina Werkmann. I urged caution! At the LAW AMM on July 24 a motion ‘to explore the merging of LAW and LIEN’ was passed. Moved by Tina it read:

 This meeting believes that:

4.     Unity is strength. While there are obvious political differences in the history of both groups, the composition of both memberships and some campaigning priorities, we believe that both groups have enough in common politically to justify a possible merger.  

5.     Such a merger would send out a strong signal to many of those who are feeling disheartened and politically disoriented by the current trajectory of the Labour Party. 

6.     It might encourage more people and groups to join our merged organisation. 

This meeting therefore resolves to start exploring a merger process between both organisations...

A Zionist Without Qualification

At a joint LLA, LAW and LIEN members and supporters meeting on October 14 Paragraph 6 of a motion Bringing the Left together moved by Tina was identically worded to Para. 4 above! Para. 7 of the same motion was almost identically worded to Para. 5 above.

A number of other amendments moved by Roger Silverman, Diana Isserlis and myself made Tina’s motion even more explicit.

For reasons that are not clear, Tina reversed her position and put out a paper Why a merger between Labour Against the Witchhunt and Labour In Exile Network is a bad idea Tina wrote:

There are a number of reasons why I personally oppose a merger at this moment in time, despite the fact that I initially proposed ‘exploring a merger’ between the groups. Yes, unity is strength, but this unity has to have a serious political purpose if it is to be effective. I would be very much in favour of building a democratic and socialist movement based on the revolutionary politics of Marxism. But that is not what is being discussed here, far from it.

But Tina knew back in July and October that neither LIEN nor LAW were revolutionary Marxists. What changed? A clue can be found in the accusation that the LIEN Steering Committee lacked ‘political incoherence.’ This incoherence ‘reflects the fact that the organisation has no clear political programme.’ Well neither LIEN nor LAW has such a programme. The point is to develop a program of ideas. 4 months ago that wasn’t a problem. Why now?

I understand why LPM opposea a merger. They consider that they, all 30 or so of them, are that organisation. In a motion to the LAW Steering Committee of 9^th November Stan Keable proposed:

to withdraw from the recent joint meetings with the steering committees of Labour in Exile Network and Labour Left Alliance, and to end LAW’s participation in joint all members and supporters meetings. 

The joint steering committee meetings, while nominally favouring continuing the struggle in the Labour Party, have in fact been dominated by proposals to orientate away from Labour, to give up on the struggle within Labour, and to attempt to create an alternative movement or party based on the failed politics of Corbynism, aiming to keep together the thousands of disillusioned comrades at all costs. ... we believe such a project will only add to the widespread demoralization and disorientation of the Labour left that already exists.

The LPM motion to the LAW All Members Meeting meeting of 27^th November LPM stated that:

We reject the proposed merger of LAW with the Labour in Exile Network, which we believe would effectively liquidate LAW and add to the widespread demoralization and disorientation of the Labour left that already exists.

LPM have always had a consistent policy, at least since the election of Jeremy Corbyn, that they reject the formation of any broad socialist group outside the Labour Party. Especially with those who espouse ‘the failed politics of Corbynism.’

Instead I was belaboured with the fact that I was in a minority of 1 on the LAW Steering Committee in favouring a merger. However the meeting on Saturday wasn’t particularly impressed either by Tina’s change of heart or LPM’s implacable opposition to anything smacking of what they call a Labour Party Mark 2.

What I didn’t expect was the bad faith reaction of both LPM and Tina to reject a democratic decision of LAW members and simply resign and refuse to implement the decision. On the LAW Steering Committee Whatsapp group Tina posted:

This feels very much like a hostile takeover and the only outcome is that it will close down LAW. Pretty shitty outcome.

On the LAW Facebook page Tina declared that the proposal to merge was a ‘Hostile takeover, really. Not sure it serves any purpose apart from closing down LAW.’ To which I responded that:

‘The Steering Committee opposed the merger. The members voted for it. Yes the members have taken LAW over as they realise it was going nowhere fast. Labour Party Marxists wanted to preserve LAW in aspic as a trophy that does very little.

You remind me of Bertold Brecht's satirical poem "Die Lösung" (The Solution) in which he portrays the East German communists, after crushing the 1953 German Workers Uprising of wanting to abolish the people and start again

Leaving aside the fact that Tina herself was proposing what she now calls a ‘hostile takeover’ this is unbelievably arrogant. LAW’s Steering Committee was clearly unrepresentative of the membership. It is the members who have taken it over. This reaction is similar to the reaction of the Labour Right in 2015 to the ‘hostile takeover’ of the Labour Party by the Corbynistas!

This is the language of a Board of Directors of a company to a takeover bid by some venture capitalist. It demonstrates a contempt for democracy. Instead of asking why, repeatedly, I have been in a minority on the Steering Committee yet not at All Members Meetings, Tina blames the members! Bertold Brecht captured this brilliantly in his poem The Solution.

It is often said that whatever their political differences, Trotskyist and Stalinist groups often have a very similar attitude to democracy. One only has to look at the SWP with its self-perpetuating leadership.

The reality is that socialists and socialism are being driven out of the Labour Party by Starmer – all in the name of fighting anti-Semitism! The opponents of the merger, instead of accepting that they were defeated, are now trying to make the creation of a unified organisation that much more difficult. The only people to gain from their actions will be Starmer and co. I would therefore appeal to them to pull back.

The creation of a unified organisation is not the ‘liquidation’ nor the closing down of LAW. There is nothing LAW could have done that it can’t do in a merged organisation. LIEN is obviously committed to fighting the witchhunt and always has been.

LIEN already has a Witchhunt Analysis Group amongst 7 other groups. LIEN is already far more active over the witchhunt than LAW. There is obvious room for an 8^th Anti-Witchhunt group.

At a time when Starmer has declared to the Labour Friends of Israel that the Israeli Military State is a rumbustious democracy, what is needed is a little more respect for democracy in our own ranks!

Tony Greenstein