The coming election has yet to register in most people's mind. In the news, this vote is most often described as a dead contest between two identical parties, certain to end in a New Labour victory. So far the only original angle has concerned the possible suspension of the election, depending on foot and mouth. Beneath the surface though, a more interesting process has begun. It seems likely that there will be around 80 Socialist Alliance candidates in England, as well as a similar number of Welsh Socialist Alliance and Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) candidates. This group should become the largest bloc challenging the main workers' party on its left since Labour took on the Liberals one hundred years ago.

For years, left commentators including Hilary Wainwright have called for a grass-roots electoral challenge to Labour. Here is the best chance to see if that strategy could work. So what is the history of the movement? One influence is the Scottish Socialist Party, established by Militant Labour, which amalgamated with members of the Communist Party of Great Britain, and also former Labour and Scottish Nationalist voters, to establish a Scottish Socialist Alliance, which became the SSP. Following devolution, assembly elections were held on a PR basis, and one SSP candidate Tommy Sheridan was elected in Glasgow. Since Sheridan's victory, the strategy appears to have been vindicated in terms of greater membership, increased influence, and higher votes.

            A Socialist Alliance was established in England following Labour's victory in the 1997 elections. A joint slate was planned for the 1999 European elections in London, but this slate folded. The presence of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in the alliance from the time of the 2000 London mayoral elections of has guaranteed a level of resources and active support. It has also caused concern to members of the Socialist Party (SP), who have seen themselves displaced as the largest bloc in the movement. At the time of writing (March 16), the English alliance is a more diverse coalition than its Scottish counterpart, including high-profile former Labour supporters (Mike Marqusee, Liz Davies), advocates of red-green unity (Hilary Wainwright), trade union officials (Dave Toomer of the NUJ, Mark Serwotka of the PCS), as well almost every major party of the British left. It has also demonstrated a tendency to borrow its slogans eclectically from the protest movement. 'Putting the Demo back in Democracy' was cheerfully lifted from George Monbiot's Captive State.

            What have I seen of the movement? There was already a Socialist Alliance on Merseyside when I moved here in late 1999. I was involved in the Prague collective which has formed the basis for one of Liverpool's anti-capitalist networks, People not Profit. But this group works in contested space alongside Liberty Hall, Club Resistance and other red-green factions. So far none of the above have affiliated to the Socialist Alliance, but there is a considerable overlap in terms of the people who attend meetings. Beyond advertising the alliance within existing networks, I have also helped with membership stalls, petitions against rail privatisation, and have attended a number of planning meetings.

If my own experience is anything to go by, I would say that there are differences between the alliance and traditional electoral parties. There is more interest in policy. Most of the alliance voters we meet do not identify with existing parties, but are self-identified 'don't votes'. There is a greater tendency for discussions to end unresolved. I also observe that we seem to spend an inordinate amount of time flyposting the main shopping areas! But despite taking part in various activities, I haven't had the time to play a formal role in the movement. And until the election is called, real differences between the old electoral strategies and the new approach desired by members of the alliance remain vague.

As well as working as a local activist in Merseyside Socialist Alliance, I have attended the two large conferences which were held under the aegis of the National Network of Socialist Alliances, at Coventry in September 2000, and at Birmingham in March 2001. About 350 people attended the Coventry conference. I recall Dave Nellist opening his chair's report with the words, 'It's not Zimmerwald in 1915. It's not Leeds in 1918.' Despite the denials, Nellist's words suggested a revolutionary heritage. The sharpest discussion revolved around the possibility that a faction (i. e. the Socialist Party) should have the right to join the alliance but stand candidates under different names. The SP lost that argument, but no large group went away without winning at least one set-piece vote.

            A similar number attended the recent Birmingham conference. Here a manifesto was agreed. Any majority or minority faction within a Socialist Alliance could suggest amendments, and the largest number came from parties - the CPGB, AWL, Workers' Power, and the RDG, in roughly that order. The main debate took place between supporters of the SWP and SP on one hand, and the smaller groups on the other. The alliance of SP and SWP was cemented by a tactical desire to write a manifesto that some non-revolutionaries might endorse. In contrast, the alliance 'left' wanted to commit us to stand for the immediate creation of workers' councils, etc. In fairness, the debate was conducted in an atmosphere of toleration - even references to Monty Python were taken in good humour.

In different areas there have been successes, half-a-dozen alliance councillors have been elected, while new faces have won up to 17 percent in local wards. Whatever happens in the election, the fact of co-operation is important. My hope is that the Socialist Alliance will become something more than the sum of its parts. Maybe then the values of the new social movements can move from the periphery to the centre of national politics.