Towards a New Way Forward - Paddy Healy of WUAG on What Should be Done following the Break Up of the ULA

[C. Flower]

An open letter from Paddy Healy of WUAG gives his assessment of the reasons for the disintegration of the ULA, and of the way forward.

I have disagreements with some of what Healy says, and agree with some things. I'll give a response in full as soon as I can.

I would urge anyone concerned with the "political reorganisation of workers" to read Healy's statement and to discuss it.

__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________

From Paddy Healy, Former Member of Steering Committee ULA

Socialist Party Withdraws from ULA

Rivalry between Socialist Party (SP) and Socialist Workers Party (SWP) Ends ULA Project.

Towards a New Way Forward

The Socialist Party has effectively withdrawn from the ULA. It has also vetoed the registration of the ULA as a political party.

Prior to the withdrawal of WUAG from the ULA, I predicted that the rivalry between the SP and the SWP , which had already seriously damaged the ULA, would intensify and would kill off the organisation as a credible left alternative. WUAG had already concluded that the activities of the SP and the SWP had made impossible the task of politically reorganising workers in a mass way through the ULA. As such reorganisation is the core objective of WUAG, that organisation withdrew. It will now seek to carry out this mission on a national basis in alliance with like-minded individuals.

The effective break-up of the ULA is a set-back for the left which must be overcome as quickly as possible. This document is a contribution to the necessary discussion. As similar problems are occurring in other countries, it is to be hoped that this document will make a positive contribution to a more general international discussion.

After a brief ceasefire between the two groups after the withdrawal of WUAG, the contention between the SP and the SWP has now reached maximum intensity. Unfortunately the contention has now reached new heights also in the Campaign against Household and Water Charges. This can be seen from the SP statement on its website in which its effective withdrawal from the ULA was announced and from the proceedings of the recent rally (Jan 12, 2013) of The Campaign against Household and Water Charges1.

In the course of the statement dated Dec 14, 2012 the Socialist Party said:

“The Socialist Party has major problems with the political positions and approaches being adopted in the ULA at present. We have communicated to the Steering Committee that we don't see any real or productive basis to pursue our serious concerns in the ULA at this point, particularly given the positions argued and adopted by the different elements at the last Council meeting. ------

For the Socialist Party, the battle against the household and property taxes is a priority, and it will take more of our focus and work and as mentioned, in that context we will be diminishing our participation in the ULA.

However, in doing this we are not in any way stepping away from the struggle to help to build a new working class party on a principled basis. That is precisely what can happen in an organic way, by fighting on these issues which can potentially bring thousands of ordinary working class people into activity, which is essential if a new mass working class party is to be built.”

The Socialist Party has also informed the ULA that it will not be attending meetings of the ULA leadership body known as the Steering Committee. The Socialist Party has veto powers on that Committee. Presumably, it has decided that decisions taken by that body are of no further concern to the SP or alternatively that the residual Steering committee will be unable to take any decision in its absence!!

Given the level of betrayal carried out by the Labour Party in the Budget, the building of a mass left alternative is more urgent than ever. In its statement the Socialist Party says that it is not “stepping away” from this objective. But, clearly, it does not see the ULA playing a role in this. Clearly the formulation “diminishing its participation” is merely a cover for abandoning the ULA which effectively now no longer exists in its original form.

The SP believes that the building of a mass left alternative will occur “in an organic way” through the Campaign Against Household and Water Charges. That is the meaning of the sentence in their statement: “That is precisely what can happen in an organic way, by fighting on these issues which can potentially bring thousands of ordinary working class people into activity, which is essential if a new mass working class party is to be built.”

The CAHWT is their replacement for the ULA as a field for recruitment and agitation.

As the government has made a non-payment campaign against home tax impossible through deductions from pay, benefits and grants and trade union leaders are blocking industrial action, the SP (and the SWP) is driven to proposing unofficial industrial action in a situation where all the evidence is that this is impossible at this time1. There is a danger that the disfunctionality associated with the SP/SWP rivalry could drive the CAHWT and with it the entire left along a suicidal path.

This turn by the SP is a huge error. Political reorganisation of workers is now not only necessary but the ground for it is uniquely favourable. This is clearly shown in recent opinion polls. “The essential rejection by 44 per cent of the electorate of all current possible political permutations is also indicative of a strong level of latent support for a new political party.” (Sunday Independent January 13).

As trade union leaders make it impossible for workers to organise to defeat their enemies by industrial action/demonstrations etc, entire sections of workers are driven towards political reorganisation. That is the fertile ground which now exists and it is being abandoned in practice by the SP and the SWP in favour of individual recruitment to their own organisations.

The three founding groups of the ULA were WUAG, SP and People Before Profit Alliance which includes the SWP. The decision of the SWP, in Feb 2012, to prioritise recruitment to the SWP rather than to the ULA or even to People before Profit has effectively split People before Profit. Joan Collins TD did not attend its most recent national conference and Eddie Conlon, a member of its leadership, resigned from the organisation in advance of the conference. The SWP position was set out in a leaked internal bulletin3 dated Feb 2, 2012.

The same internal bulletin ( issued before the Mick Wallace matter arose and before the resignation of Clare Daly TD from the SP) announced that the ULA had already collapsed.

Clearly the SWP had abandoned the strategy of building a mass left alternative through the ULA (if it were ever genuinely committed to the project) several months before the SP came to the same conclusion.

Why? Why? Why?

At a time when working people are facing the most intense attacks on their living standards for over 60 years, most genuine left political activists, trade union and community activists and people of good intent will be scandalised by the divisions and the attendant acrimony on the left. It is scarcely believable that at a time of greatest opportunity and greatest obligation to working people that the SP and the SWP would prioritise domination over each other rather than the building of a mass left alternative.

I believe that I have a duty to explain the roots of this debacle in an attempt to ensure that it does not recur. The work of building a mass left alternative on a principled basis must continue urgently without the SP and the SWP unless and until these organisations demonstrate in practice that they give priority to politically reorganising whole sections of workers over recruitment to their own organisations.

The SP and the SWP are part of separate international political currents each headquartered in London. Because the two organisations are biggest in the UK, the rivalry is particularly intense there though it exists in several countries. The two international currents are two of the many fragments of the Fourth International founded by Leon Trotsky which broke up during and following the second world war. The founders of these currents had made disastrous political errors2 in the war years which isolated them from the workers movement particularly in France and the UK. (I can discuss this further with those interested)

For many years, I have held the view that the main objective of these organisations is to become bigger and more influential than each other. Despite their protestations, all other objectives take second place. Prioritisation of individual recruitment to competing political sects makes objective analysis of the political conjuncture or realistic assessment of the mood and orientation of workers impossible. Above all, each must be more “revolutionary” than the other. This leads to totally wrong decisions at best and, at worst suicidal policies for the genuine left. It makes entirely impossible the incorporation into the genuine left of layers of the workers springing into new political life. This is not just an Irish phenomenon but an international phenomenon.

Let us look at developments in the ULA in 2012 and attempt to understand them from the above point of view.

Before the Wallace admission on tax evasion, the SWP had decided that the ULA had collapsed and priority should be given by their members to recruiting to SWP rather than to ULA. (See extract from leaked SWP Internal bulletin pasted below)3. SWP members were to publicly criticise their allies. Up to that period the ULA had been relatively successful having elected five TDs and having held a successful conference. It was clear that the ULA hadn’t collapsed. Why then did SWP make this “turn”? Because the SP with two TDs had come to publicly dominate the ULA with Joe Higgins taking leaders questions, this was perceived by SWP as giving SP a major advantage for growth and recruitment with SWP playing second fiddle. Given the long history of in-fighting in the UK, this did not look good from SWP HQ in London! Irish leaders of the SP could be much more effective in assisting their parties in other countries including the UK, to recruit members based on their “success” in the ULA. In order to set up the ULA, it had been agreed by the SWP that decisions would be taken by consensus as befitted an Alliance. But now the SWP launched an aggressive campaign to outgrow the SP. Consensus decision making, they said, must be replaced immediately with one person one vote! This opportunist policy took no account of the fact that the ULA was an alliance of three separate political parties. According to SWP, there could be no waiting until serious political differences4 had been resolved in fraternal internal discussion before a single united party could be formed based on “one person-one vote”. SWP was fully aware that any such decision would break up the Alliance. This cynical policy was designed to appeal to the many new inexperienced people who had joined the ULA and hopefully strengthen the SWP in its rivalry with the SP. Given the history of the SWP in this and other countries, it was widely understood that there was no possibility of the SWP carrying out majority decisions with which it did not agree as was also the case with the other two components because of unresolved political4 differences. The SWP position was a cynical ploy to further recruitment to the SWP at the cost of disrupting the ULA. The aggressive promotion of the SWP had already, at that stage, caused serious tensions within the People Before Profit Alliance. These were further exacerbated when the SWP unilaterally announced, without consultation even with People before Profit, that Clr Brid Smith (SWP and PBP) would stand in the same constituency as Joan Collins TD (PBP) in the next general election!

In the early days of June 2012, Mick Wallace TD publicly admitted that he had intentionally withheld VAT collected from house buyers from the Revenue.

It was clear to WUAG that the greatest possible distance should be put between the ULA and Mick Wallace.

[C. Flower]

On the following Saturday at a meeting of the Steering Committee WUAG proposed that ULA call on Mick Wallace to resign from the Dail. The WUAG view was that Wallace was not a fit person to be a public representative. I explained that ULA campaigns in defence of public services and in favour of tax equity would be irreparably damaged by any association with Wallace and that the entire ULA project would be damaged as a result. The SP announced that while we should condemn the actions of Wallace, it would veto any attempt to call on him to resign from the Dail. I spent some minutes attempting to persuade the SP representatives in a fraternal manner that this would prove to be a disastrous decision which they should change. The SP cited the democratic rights of constituents as justification for the intended veto. The meeting was informed that WUAG would be calling for the resignation of Wallace in its own name in any event on the following day. Other Dail deputies had already called for the resignation of Wallace. Anything less than a call for his resignation would be interpreted by workers as “being soft” on Mick Wallace and tax evasion.

Why would any sane socialist organisation take a soft line on the continued membership of the legislature by a capitalist builder who had publicly admitted not passing on VAT on the sale of houses to the Revenue? Incredibly, the real agenda of the SP was to retain a dominant position over the SWP within and outside the ULA. The SP had two TDs and the SWP had but one. I believe that the Socialist Party took the view that if the SP called for the resignation of Wallace that Clare Daly TD would leave the Socialist Party and that this would reduce the SP to one TD, the same as the rival SWP. The SP decided to take a softer line in order to maintain dominance over the SWP within the ULA. ULA TDs had called for the resignation of Michael Lowry TD. Why not Mick Wallace?

Of course Clare Daly left the SP shortly afterwards in any event. Because of the position taken by the SP at the Steering Committee Clare was able to explain on television that she did not call for the resignation of Mick Wallace because the Socialist Party had not called for his resignation!

The SWP had turned the second annual conference of ULA into a “bear garden” in pursuit of their campaign to set aside the Alliance and replace it with a unitary organisation based on one person-one vote though serious political differences between the components had not even been discussed let alone resolved.

WUAG decided that the opportunist policy of the SP on the Wallace issue and the virulent factionalism of the SWP if allowed to go unchecked would fatally damage the ULA as a vehicle for the creation of a mass left party on a principled political basis.

Consequently, in an attempt to retrieve the situation, WUAG tabled two motions for the ULA Steering Committee. The first proposed that the ULA call on Mick Wallace to resign from the DAIL as it had proposed when the Wallace issue first arose. The second proposed that the SWP withdraw its internal bulletin of Feb the second which announced that the ULA had collapsed and that the other components should be criticised publicly. In a rare show of unity, the two motions were vetoed by the SP and the People before Profit Alliance including the SWP!!! In a cynical manoeuvre, the SWP representative proposed that there be a three month moratorium on publicly criticising each other. An unaligned delegate quite tellingly asked: “Why only for 3 months” He had summed it all up.

The ULA is now in complete disarray. The lesson is that it is impossible to attempt the political reorganisation of Irish workers in alliance with the SP and/or the SWP unless these organisations fundamentally change their approach. Each will prefer that any regroupment be damaged rather than allow its rival to out-grow it. Out-growing their rival is their over-riding priority.

There are of course periods in political life when left wing organisations should give priority to recruiting individuals. In quiet periods, that is all that can be done and it should be done in order to prepare for times of political crisis. The problem arises when organisations prioritise recruitment to their own political organisations at all times including periods such as the present when a major breakthrough is possible and necessary at a mass level.

Seamus Healy and his colleagues has been working in South Tipperary for 25 years. It is the only constituency where a working class based political organisation has replaced the Labour Party as the main political organisation of workers. The SWP has been active in a number of provincial centres for at least as long without success. Though they have had many dedicated and capable members in these centres they were unable to make a significant impact. The problem was at Dublin/London leadership level not at local level.

There must be a new and early attempt to reorganise Irish workers. The rivalry between the SP and the SWP and the related prioritisation of recruitment to their own sects makes it impossible for them to make a positive contribution to the political reorganization of entire layers of workers at present.

I am not suggesting that the door should be closed to political alliances of left-wing organisations in future. But any future alliance must be subject to two preconditions.

Firstly, it must be on a principled political basis. Above all, participants must rule out coalition government with capitalist parties. Secondly, and crucially, all participating groups must place the political reorganization of entire sections of workers above recruitment to their own organisations.

I understand that a new initiative will be launched by WUAG in the near future.

I will not be entering into further public political discussion on these matters. I am of course available for further discussion with individuals including the many well intentioned members of the SWP and the SP.

I will be devoting my time to politically reorganising actual groups and layers of workers. That is the task of the hour. The failure of the ULA initiative must be quickly overcome. There is no time to lose. Otherwise the Irish workers will pay a heavy political price for the failure of the ULA.

Paddy Healy, former Member of Steering Committee, ULA 01/01/2013

1 The rally was well attended by approximately 450 people of whom at least 200 were political activists. Speaking queues were hogged by SP and SWP activists. The SP advocated mass rallies “of at least 30,000” and unofficial workplace walk-outs. Not to be outdone, the SWP advocated “shutting down the country” through unofficial strikes. While these events are very much to be desired they bear no relation to the current mood among workers. Because of the demoralising effect of the treacherous activity of the trade union leadership in recent years, workers have not staged spontaneous walk-outs even when their pay has been cut! This will, of course, change in the future. But it is a suicidal error to base immediate tactics on a change that has yet to take place.

2 Before his assassination in 1940, Trotsky has written a document entitled “The Fourth International and War”. In this document he warned that peacetime agitational methods (strikes, demonstrations etc) were insufficient in a situation of war and occupation. If the workers were in the trenches, it was necessary for the revolutionaries to be in the trenches with them irrespective of the revolutionary attitude to the war. The British and European Trotskyist leaders ignored this advice. Safe from conscription, some spent the war years in neutral countries, including Ireland. After the war, the British social democrats had no difficulty in marginalising those who were not in the trenches. Many workers had been wounded themselves or had lost relatives. The French Communist Party had no difficulty in marginalising those who had not participated in underground armed struggle against the Nazi occupation. The Trotskyist movement broke up into several sects. The sects were revived after the war under the leadership of those responsible for the war-time debacle. There was no admission of mistakes. This meant that the membership was largely confined to the intelligentsia and isolated from the working class. Factionalism and rivalry became the main reason for existence of each sect. Unfortunately this position continues to this day ( Pierre Broué,Trotskyist and Lecturer, University of Grenoble has written on the history of the Trotskyist movement during the war.)

3 Extract from SWP internal Bulletin Feb 2, 2012

*United Left Alliance*
The space that the ULA should occupy is now the realm of Sinn Fein spokespeople. The weakness of the ULA is a product of the sectarianism of the SP and the conservatism of Joan Collins and the Healy group. On a steering committee of 6 we have one representative and all proposals we put forward over the last year are vetoed. We suggested a common ULA strategy for the household campaign but this was shot down as the other components would rather not be tied to the SWP but would rather side with
the anarchist/eirigi elements of the left who are more than happy to cooperate when it comes to marginalising the SWP.
The SP’s formalism will be the subject of an article produced by the PC to explain their politics.
We are going into the open with our critique of the state of the ULA. This involved pointing out the others political positions. Putting down motions at ULA branches for action e.g. to support the Right To Work demo on April the 14th. By building an open and democratic ULA on the ground in key areas we can prove in practice the poverty of the SP’s political positions.

The steering committee want to suggest adding ‘independents’ to the committee but this is just a sop to democracy. Instead of one member one vote and a delegate based leadership structure we end up with the insane: the semi-anarchist ‘independent’ in the ULA and the reformist on the right of the ULA can represent one another? So heterogenous elements with no shared platform can be represented by one individual? The long delayed conference will now take place on April 21st with a separate meeting for independents - we should demand that this separate meeting report back to the main conference and that there has to be a vote on any proposals that are put forward.
The NPA in France has declined from 10,000 to 3,000 members because of the logjam at the top. Instead of open votes they have ‘platforms’ who each put forward a proposal and opposing proposals are amalgamated. So one faction says ‘we are for the veil ban’ the other says ‘we are against’ and you try to formulate a position that encompasses both!! This destroys the ability to take any action.
In summary: Kieran Allen’s document on the ULA will be published soon and we should already be open in our critique of the reasons for the collapse of the ULA. We should put down proposals for action in ULA branches- especially the protest at the Labour Conference (this had been planned by SWP as a non-ULA event led by SWP only without consultation with SP or WUAG( PH))

4 Political Differences.

There are serious political differences on a number of issues between the 3 founding components of the ULA. For example the SP is opposed to the ULA organising in the 6 counties, capitulating to Unionist pressure. Indeed a leading member of SP attempted to prevent trade unionists living in Co Tyrone being admitted to a rank and file trade union network. Following this incident, WUAG found it necessary to declare that any attempt to prevent those living or working in the six counties from joining the ULA would be a red line issue for WUAG. While the SWP is technically in favour of the ULA organising on an All Ireland basis, in practice it agitates there in a largely partitionist framework . It has never raised a northern issue on the Steering Committee of ULA. In my opinion, it merely declares that it is in favour of the ULA being organised on an All Ireland basis in order to out-recruit the SP among nationalists workers.

[fluffybiscuits]

CAHWT as a vehicle for bringing about working class unity will not wash with a lot of the campaigns on the fringes. So many groups are out there that fit no where into the whole situation what about feminists, single parents, pro choice, gay rights, workers rights, migrants? The property tax affects all of them but this a poorly timed move from the SP . As Sam said goodbye ULA

[Sam Lord]

I edited the OP by mistake while trying to reply to it.

I will try and get it back asap.

{EDIT CF Here is your post. I'll reinstate the OP to the best of my recall. }

The SP believes that the building of a mass left alternative will occur “in an organic way” through the Campaign Against Household and Water Charges. That is the meaning of the sentence in their statement: “That is precisely what can happen in an organic way, by fighting on these issues which can potentially bring thousands of ordinary working class people into activity, which is essential if a new mass working class party is to be built.”

The CAHWT is their replacement for the ULA as a field for recruitment and agitation.

As the government has made a non-payment campaign against home tax impossible through deductions from pay, benefits and grants and trade union leaders are blocking industrial action, the SP (and the SWP) is driven to proposing unofficial industrial action in a situation where all the evidence is that this is impossible at this time. There is a danger that the disfunctionality associated with the SP/SWP rivalry could drive the CAHWT and with it the entire left along a suicidal path.

He is quite correct in pointing out the insanity of the approach of the trots.

But his approach appears to be focused on turning workers into voting fodder which I take is what is meant by their "political reorganisation."

This turn by the SP is a huge error. Political reorganisation of workers is now not only necessary but the ground for it is uniquely favourable. This is clearly shown in recent opinion polls. “The essential rejection by 44 per cent of the electorate of all current possible political permutations is also indicative of a strong level of latent support for a new political party.” (Sunday Independent January 13).

As trade union leaders make it impossible for workers to organise to defeat their enemies by industrial action/demonstrations etc, entire sections of workers are driven towards political reorganisation. That is the fertile ground which now exists and it is being abandoned in practice by the SP and the SWP in favour of individual recruitment to their own organisations.

[fluffybiscuits]

I edited the OP by mistake while trying to reply to it.

I will try and get it back asap.

Salivating at the downfall of the Trots are we ?

[Jolly Red Giant]

He is quite correct in pointing out the insanity of the approach of the trots.

Paddy Healy is a trot - one who succeded in turning his own organisation from being the most dominant in 1970 with an active membership well into three figures down to 10 by the mid-1980s when it disbanded (during a time when every other left organisation was growing) - and he spent most of the last ten years of its existance engaged in sectarian polemics against the Militant Tendency when they surpassed his organisation in size and influence.

But his approach appears to be focused on turning workers into voting fodder which I take is what is meant by their "political reorganisation."

Healy, in this document, demonstrates his complete lack of confidence in the ability of the working class to struggle. Its soft, slightly left of LP claptrap.

[riposte]

Salivating at the downfall of the Trots are we ?

Yes.

[C. Flower]

Some background information about Paddy Healy and his political history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_...rkers_Republic

[Simonsays]

It reads like a cross between Dallas, EastEnders and Machiavelli - with everyone busy politically screw-ing each other, shafting each other, and popping in and out of each other's political beds.

[fluffybiscuits]

Yes.

It was a rhetorical question

[C. Flower]

The problem faced by the SWP and SP seems to me to be that they have become so politically so close together, whilst each being centred on a small number of personalities, and entrenched for years in small circle politics, that they have to make all kinds of artificial shapes to differentiate themselves from each other and justify their continued existence as two parties with two party hierarchies.

They are both pragmatic in approach and neither makes any serious study of marxism, they are both fixated in building influence on the margins of the Parliamentary system, rather than being oriented to social revolution, and both like to operate via fronts and by stepping into the lead of favoured campaigns rather than, as P Healy suggests, getting into the trenches alongside those in struggle.

So, the main thing that brought them together was an electoral pact, and sharing of Technical Group resources, not for the benefit of the working class but so as to maximise electoral spoils.

The boat was rocked in the ULA not because people didn't join it, but because they did. The small but determined numbers of unaligned members that stuck around in spite of the resistance to building the ULA insisted that it became more than an electoral pact, leaving the SWP and SP no option but to pull the plug.

[fluffybiscuits]

The problem faced by the SWP and SP seems to me to be that they have become so politically so close together, whilst each being centred on a small number of personalities, and entrenched for years in small circle politics, that they have to make all kinds of artificial shapes to differentiate themselves from each other and justify their continued existence as two parties with two party hierarchies.

They are both pragmatic in approach and neither makes any serious study of marxism, they are both fixated in building influence on the margins of the Parliamentary system, rather than being oriented to social revolution, and both like to operate via fronts and by stepping into the lead of favoured campaigns rather than, as P Healy suggests, getting into the trenches alongside those in struggle.

So, the main thing that brought them together was an electoral pact, and sharing of Technical Group resources, not for the benefit of the working class but so as to maximise electoral spoils.

The boat was rocked in the ULA not because people didn't join it, but because they did. The small but determined numbers of unaligned members that stuck around in spite of the resistance to building the ULA insisted that it became more than an electoral pact, leaving the SWP and SP no option but to pull the plug.

Others can speak for the SP but in defence of the SWP they have been building a strong network at grass roots level. Tipperary Spring water went on strike in Ballyfermot and they supported them, the anti fascist march, pro choice marches and they have worked at a local level to aid communities to defend themselves against the cuts like the cuts to the creche in Ballyfermot and picketing the local offices of the various TD's of the ruling coalition. Agitating a revolution requires everyone to be onside but tackling the indifference that people have is another thing.

[C. Flower]

Others can speak for the SP but in defence of the SWP they have been building a strong network at grass roots level. Tipperary Spring water went on strike in Ballyfermot and they supported them, the anti fascist march, pro choice marches and they have worked at a local level to aid communities to defend themselves against the cuts like the cuts to the creche in Ballyfermot and picketing the local offices of the various TD's of the ruling coalition. Agitating a revolution requires everyone to be onside but tackling the indifference that people have is another thing.

What is the political programme of the SWP ?

[bolshevik]

Others can speak for the SP but in defence of the SWP they have been building a strong network at grass roots level. Tipperary Spring water went on strike in Ballyfermot and they supported them, the anti fascist march, pro choice marches and they have worked at a local level to aid communities to defend themselves against the cuts like the cuts to the creche in Ballyfermot and picketing the local offices of the various TD's of the ruling coalition. Agitating a revolution requires everyone to be onside but tackling the indifference that people have is another thing.

You are joking aren't you.

The programme the SWP present to the working class through their PBPA electoral front is for a softer left-reformist vision of the future than even the SP - it is hard to imagine a "socialist" programme that was further from a road to revolution.

[C. Flower]

You are joking aren't you.

The programme the SWP present to the working class through their PBPA electoral front is for a softer left-reformist vision of the future than even the SP - it is hard to imagine a "socialist" programme that was further from a road to revolution.

Does the SWP have a programme ?