The SWP is attempting to lower its profile within the Stop the War coalition. But the leadership's attempts to control the organisation have become evident, helping to deter many liberals and other Marxist groups. One prominent criticism of the Coalition is that the executive is not democratically elected and democratic procedures are not adhered to at meetings.

Meanwhile, a conflict has emerged between the liberal pacifists of the Bruce Kent variety and more orthodox Marxists groups calling for a revolutionary approach to the war on Afghanistan.

The CPGB is accusing the SWP of ditching revolutionary politics in favour of populist reaction which is unwilling to go beyond simply stopping the war. It also castigates the involvement of ARROW, which it claims is right-wing. Meanwhile, liberals are condemning the 'No War but Class War' slogans, claiming they are inappropriate at this time. They wish more UN mediation, appealing to the 'progressive' values that were supposed to define the UN.

Just a few questions: Is the Coalition becoming victim to Trotskyist infighting or SWP domination? Does the coalition need to develop more formal, accountable structures, or will it remain a loose coalition? Is there a case for liberals and revolutionaries to organise on separate agendas, or is unity preferable even if it means the coalition's aims are more vague?

Answers on the back of a ciggy packet, please.