The Convention of the Left was launched with much fanfare on September 20 2008. The hope was that local left forums would spring into action up and down the country to help coordinate united front campaigns and bring together the disparate factions of the left in a “non-sectarian way”.

It was clear from the recall conference, held on January 24 in Manchester, that the call for local forums has hardly been taken up at all. The 150 people who attended were mainly from Greater Manchester, with the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain and Respect making up the largest contingents. Most of the revolutionary left sent one or two comrades, while there was also a smattering of Greens and Labour Representation Committee comrades. This time there were no big names on the platform. Instead there were general discussions on the economic crisis, climate change, Palestinian liberation, peace and public services.

The opening session was titled ‘Capitalism isn’t working – a socialist economic alternative’ and was addressed by a speaker from the Labourite Left Economics Advisory Panel, Gerry Gold from the left liberal A World to Win (AWTW) group and Peter Cranie from the Green Left. Cranie was mildly critical of the Green Party’s Keynesian Green new deal. A truly inspiring panel. When it was opened up to the floor, the session was mainly characterised by the organised left speaking to the organised left about this or that issue with no sense of direction or purpose (one Stalinist contributor called for a return to Dimitrov’s popular front strategy). But the reformism from the platform went virtually unchallenged. Everyone could agree that a fightback was needed, but on what politics should it be based?

The convention then broke up into four groups: ‘Peace’, ‘Palestine’, ‘Planet’ and ‘People’. I attended the ‘Peace’ group discussion, which was small but lively. It featured two speakers from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, including Jenny Clegg, author of China’s global strategy: toward a multipolar world. Both discussed the growth of nuclear weapons and how bad and dangerous they were, as well as how bad and dangerous Nato is. Something the left clearly needs to understand. But for Clegg China is the saving grace – it is leading the world to peace and stability through developing backward economies.

At least this led to something approaching a debate. The question of China and Chinese imperialism then dominated discussion, with myself and a comrade from AWTW arguing that Beijing is hardly progressive or a force for peace. But the Communist Party of Britain comrades had enjoyed Clegg’s appreciation of China and one heckled: “You’re not reading the right papers” (ie, not the ones politically prostituted to the Chinese bureaucracy, like the Yawning Star).

Downstairs at the ‘Planet’ session, it was almost as if you had left the Convention of the Left for a Green Party rally – with lots sympathetic noises in the direction of the Green new deal. The Greens’ unprecedented success in transforming local councils across the country was a recurring theme. Whilst numerous points were made by a whole range of speakers (including one CPBer bemoaning the fact that railway technology is all German nowadays), unsurprisingly nothing emerged in the shape of proposals for action at all.

The session on Gaza centred around ways to build a boycott campaign. Participants from the Socialist Party and Socialist Fight went against the grain, saying that we should not be calling for sanctions on Israel. There has been a successful Gaza Solidarity Committee built in Manchester over the last few weeks, which was no doubt strengthened by this meeting.

The final session was opened by the acceptance of the CL statement and the election of the steering committee. There was no discussion on either and they were actually voted through together! The statement is rather more sober than at the launch – no grand proclamation that the left has united. The statement simply calls for left-inclined people to meet up for a chat in their local area, produce reports and discuss some possible united activity around the NHS, privatisation, war, etc. The last time this call went out, it fell on deaf ears. It will this time as well.

The steering committee is now made up of members from the CPB, Respect, LRC, SWP, Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, Permanent Revolution and others.

The final plenary session was called ‘The way forward for the left’ – not that you would have known by the debate, which – apart from a brief, energetic exchange on whether we should discuss a motion from the Socialist Alliance – was generally dull and unfocused.

Pete McLaren of the SA argued that this motion – which called for discussions on how a new party could be formed – should be heard. He said the left needs to be organised into a political party capable of fighting for working class interests and begin slowly building up the strength of the movement. Not wanting to waste too much time on this question, John Nicholson from the chair said he would allow two speakers who wanted the motion put and two against. Speaking against was Susan Press (LRC), who claimed that the LRC might be thrown out of the Labour Party if it remained part of a body that was aiming for a new party that might stand candidates against Labour. Even to discuss the call for a discussion might be too risky.

Dave Church (SA) responded by arguing that the Labour left can no longer be the “millstone around the neck of our movement” and that we need a “focal point to show an alternative” to capitalism. Andy Goodall from the CPB proclaimed that there was no need for a new broad party (of the type the SA is clearly proposing) as we already have one – Labour. Instead we should be concentrating on “how to organise the working class”. Obviously a party is unnecessary for that purpose. The proposition merely to discuss the motion was defeated by a two-thirds majority. The CPB, Respect, SWP and the Greens all voted against, with PR members voting different ways.

Even going by the criteria set by the steering committee, it was difficult to understand why a gathering that is supposed to unite the left should not even debate such a basic question. The SA kept to the criteria suggested by the committee, and most certainly did not call for a party now. The second part of its motion was a simple call for financial aid for those left candidates who will be contesting seats against the BNP. Finally it asked for the CL to send a representative to the next Left Unity liaison committee meeting. Comrade McLaren said: “I do take the view that any discussion on these lines needs to be sensitive to the Labour left and the Green left – but not to the extent that it prevents the debate from even starting.”

Next, Nick Wrack (Respect) gave a short overview of the People’s Charter, which was put together by the RMT and LRC and is also receiving support from the CPB. Speaking from the floor, Bill Jefferies (PR) argued that what is needed now is “focused action” – although what that action should be is slightly unclear, particularly in the absence of a party capable of organising it.

Even though the call to discuss the need for a party had been voted down, Ben Lewis (CPGB) argued that a Marxist party is what is needed for the “class to fight back” – this is the “elephant in the room” and the “overriding question”. He said it was not only the capitalist system, but the left that is failing. He weighed into the CL’s vague talk about left unity, while bureaucratically sidelining any debate on making such unity real.

Whilst contributors who went on about greedy bankers and the evils of war were given plenty of time, those who discussed programme or party were sometimes cut off in mid-flow. This was the fate of Jeremy Dewar from Workers Power, who was raising the need for a party in relation to any action programme.

Whilst the CL has brought together militants from different tendencies, it is incapable of becoming anything other than a talking shop – the forces behind it think that the “non-sectarian” unity they seek can be achieved by keeping quiet about their obvious political differences. A dead end if ever there was one.