RESPECT & STUDENT DELEGATES
The following article was written by Ian Drummond, President, School of Oriental and African Studies RESPECT society, who was until the events described below a member of the SWP.
“Let conference decide” is the current slogan of choice from the SWP leadership. This is a farcical demand as whatever the underlying political disagreements, these have been manifested in the real world first by debate about who goes to conference, and now about whether the conference can be properly constituted at all. How can conference decide on its own composition, on who is and isn’t entitled to attend? Such decisions have by definition been taken at an earlier stage, not by “the members at conference” but by sections of the leadership. Unfortunately the decisions currently being enforced are not enabling democracy but have instead resulted in a conference that is neither fair nor seen to be fair, indeed a conference so flawed as to be improperly constituted.
This is for a number of reasons: one is the controversy over Student RESPECT delegations. The SWP leaders have tried to factionalise the student section by implying that their opponents attempted to “ban” student delegations. An email went out from the communications officer of student RESPECT, SWP Central Committee member Colin Smith, originally urging student groups to endorse a statement against an “attempt to exclude students from attending national conference.” In fact no-one has ever proposed such a ridiculous ban, in fact what happened was that the basis on which the SWP wanted Student RESPECT to be delegated was challenged.
While under the standing orders all RESPECT branches were to elect delegates on the basis of one in every 10 members fully paid up by the 19th of October, Student RESPECT have claimed that for the purposes of conference student membership should be counted not in paid up members but in the numbers of students signed up at fresher’s fairs. There is nothing in the constitution or standing orders to support this, not even in the revised standing orders of the 6th of November for the now one-day conference. The constitution is clear that “Membership of Respect involves a financial as well as a political commitment.” While “local or student members” are referred to in the standing orders, no specific difference in composition is outlined, and all that is said on this issue under the heading “Students” is that “All student groups will be entitled to send delegates to conference on the basis set out above”. That basis being “It will be delegate based at ratio of 1-10 of the full membership as at 19th October 2007 - or greater part thereof”.
The above is therefore what I call the “rules is rules” argument against the proposal to elect students based on fresher’s sign up sheets. There is also a matter of natural justice. While up and down the country RESPECT branches had to make hard decisions on which of their leading activists to send to conference, student groups are basically able to send anyone who wants to go, even including delegates who are not paid up RESPECT members, and perhaps didn’t sign the fresher’s sheets either. While this may be a good teambuilding exercise in less tense times (and there is always the observer option for that as well), it is fundamentally unfair to everyone who isn’t a student and allows for the possibility of non-members having the casting vote in key arguments about the organisation’s future at a time of sharp political debate.
The huge discrepancy arises because of the massive difference in membership standards applied. While all branches will include both active members and those whose main contribution is to pay their membership fee, everyone is making some kind of commitment. On the other hand when I was collecting signatures for the RESPECT society at my university’s fresher’s fair I explicitly promoted it as not being a commitment, but an opportunity to be kept in touch through a mailing list. I signed up 116 people this way, and while everyone of them is a potential member which RESPECT should engage with, I seriously doubt if anyone would actually consider themselves part of “the full membership as at 19th October 2007” simply by signing the form. Indeed there is a wide and in my opinion commendable practice of signing up to as many societies as possible at fresher’s fairs; I myself joined every non-sports society I didn’t actively object to in order to know about their events.
However on the basis of these 116 names we were told we could send up to 12 people to conference, although in practice it would be unlikely if there were as many as that who were interested in going. In the end there were 2 delegate election meetings (as the first one broke up before a conclusive vote was taken because it had overrun its time and a Stop the War meeting was beginning, so a special meeting was held the next day). The argument for electing up to 12 delegates was put at the first meeting by the local SWP organiser, and at the second meeting by Colin Smith from the SWP Central Committee. I argued that constitutionally we could only elect one (as we had less than 10 paid up members), and that this was fair for the reasons mentioned above. As I knew this would come as a disappointment to some who had been looking forward to going I eventually decided not to stand myself but said I’d go as an observer as I did 2 years ago when I lived in Scotland. The impression that the national student organisation disagreed with me and that everywhere else was acting on their advice meant that I did not win the vote on how many delegates to elect. The eventual election was basically a ratification of everyone who wanted to go to conference which meant a delegation of 7 or 8, I don’t know exactly. I did not participate in it or put my own name forward as I saw it as unconstitutional. I was later told by my local SWP full-timer that I had effectively left the SWP by arguing against its line in Student RESPECT.
Nonsense - why was it not possible to elect student delegates to conference on the same basis as last year? Why the sudden change in the apparent rules? Why is it not possible to send student delegates to conference on the same basis that other parties allow student delegates?
Oh, and for anyone on this site actually concerned about the future of the Left in Britain: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13552. Note carefully the composition of the audience shown in the photograph: so much for Kevin Ovendenesque insidious rubbish about SWP vs. Muslims.
Comment by The East is Red — 13 November, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
Why is what Ian saying nonsence? Do you think he is lying or do you think what he is saying is true but does not suit you and your SWP chums? I know Ian Drummond very well - he is a total pedant, to an absolute fault. He was a very loyal and active member of the SWP Platform in the SSP. Didn’t agree with him on loads of things and he can be quite sychophantic and annoying but not a liar. Sometimes you can be lax about things - when building a party you may want to encourage your members toa ttend and being filipant about your membership is not really an issue but in a faction fight - membership is imperative!! The issue is democracy, you either have democracy or you don’t packing a meeting with your sympathisers and pals is not democracy - you might think its for the greater good but its not democracy. Poor Ian, he’s been through two splits - none of his doing in the past year.
Comment by Cat — 14 November, 2007 @ 12:14 am
I think it should be known that Ian Drummond is often described as ‘George Galloway’s number 1 fan’.
Keep that in mind when reading this.
Comment by JB — 14 November, 2007 @ 12:15 am
Why is what Ian saying nonsence?
Because it doesn’t make sense. There were perfectly good rules about which student members could attend conference last year - why can’t we use the same rules this year? (In fact I vaguely remember Galloway claiming, at conference, that the students were the “flower” of the organisation - or some similar hyperbole.) Why this sudden haste to alter the conditions of attendance, in the midst of everything else?
Comment by The East is Red — 14 November, 2007 @ 12:20 am
looks like Mr Drummond thinks he wants to have no conference. Perhaps he could tell us what elections have taken place for the GG fan club conference? I fail to see democracy when there is no elections to conference. Also no one seems to have a problem with hundreds of members joinign TH respect within a few months. Now that GG has gone his seperate ways and claims to be the voice of TH i am sure his rally will have at least 300 TH residents and respect memebers there!!! or will it??
It is interesting that last year delegates are elected in a way which no one objects and then becomes an issue when they know they will lose…. GG’s £300,000 could surely help towards the cost of some new members.
The East is Red.. fantastic pic.. really mixed audience from a Variety of different traditions.. I think the socialist repsect has a future in east london.
I wonder why GG doesn’t appear to be speaking at the peace conference…. perhaps he thinks “I have a buisness to run” called GG PLC.
To be honest GG’s lot are in a bit of a bind.. very little forces on the ground, an MP who is unaccountable and whose recent muses have been sexist drivel….. this is his latest offering.. seriously this was his most recent column…ask yourself.. ditching Marxism for this!!! have a read and tell us what you think.. rememebr the e in respect was for equality.. GG clearly doesn’t understand this.. sexist drivel and stating he would stand against another MP because “He voted strongly for gay rights”.. to an audience of millions…is this the leader who should be obeyed! The one thing thta united GG’s bunch is hatred of the SWP but honestly how longs that going to keep you together. Salma can’t stand GG, Loach thinks hes a liability!!! But enough of that.. read on the pearls of wisdom from GG
“DON’T get me wrong, I’ve never been down on all Australians. Take Kylie Minogue. For a singer she’s always been not a bad looker.
I voted with the majority for a change when her rear was the year’s champion sight. I even bought my woman Kylie’s range of underwear.
But her ITV spectacular on Saturday was a flat as the coupon of a duck-billed platypus.
With the sound down it was a good night in - though how those backing singers and dancers escaped without chilblains I’ll never know.
But in stereo, it was a cats chorus. I don’t mind if “the greatest small country in the world” will use her iconic image to promote the games, but let us have the opening song sung by anyone rather than her. We should be so lucky.”
Comment by jj — 14 November, 2007 @ 12:21 am
“(In fact I vaguely remember Galloway claiming, at conference, that the students were the “flower” of the organisation - or some similar hyperbole.)”
Yes I remember now - last year he was positively gushing about the ‘10,000 students’ who had joined up to Student Respect. This year of course, the goal posts have changed, quite significantly!
Comment by JB — 14 November, 2007 @ 12:25 am
no doubt about it… its like Orwell.. students good.. students bad….GG knew he probably wouldn’t win and does not like to be accountable and so his PR man Ovenden waltzed around cancelling a conference and also democratically elected candidates.. and they have the cheek to talk about democracy.. GG bunch are incrediable.. I mean Ovenden hasn’t been elected to anything (Probably in his life) but feels so important at GG side that he can make statements on the hoof… wonder what Ovenden makes of the sexist drivel and his boss pandering to homophobia….tell you what. no decent socialist organisation could stand for it and the Ovenden of a long time ago would not have put up with it. But everyone knows Ovenden was with GG a long long time ago.. even his closest friends spotted it and now he has turned on them. what a disgrace.
Comment by jj — 14 November, 2007 @ 12:31 am
Another solid piece of evidence just bumps up against that which every other bit of solid evidence has bumped up against - mass delusion. It really is rather frightening to witness.
The RULES for student delegations are as Ian Drummond has described them - there are no other RULES. George Galloway’s claims about student member numbers last year were ridiculous then and are so now. Only last year the SWP was still friends with him and quite happy to endorse what he was saying. At least now, Galloway seems to have had an attack of commonsense but the SWP is happy to maintain the deception.
Anyone want to comment on the notion that SOAS Respect can have 12 delegates on the basis of…er…10 members? Or is this not troubling at all to the loyal cadre of the SWP?
Comment by Andy BH — 14 November, 2007 @ 12:40 am
Honestly - you SWP can go about preaching and bumping yer gums about democracy, George Galloway, splits,sychophants, sexist drivel etc etc etc when you have stopped supporting yer pals above the border who did EVERYTHING GG did but with Tommy Sheridan against the SSP - with the exception Tommy was involved in conspiring to win £200,000 from the News of the World in the Court of Session based on a fantasy and the SWP were willing to lie, bully, perjure themselves, split the socialist party in Scotland, effectively get Tommy a get away car with them all sychophantically cheering Tommy on - which Ian Drummond was one of them.
Now youse are all “help, help we are being oppressed”. Despite my anger towards both the SWP and GG I don’t take the position - “a plague on both your houses”. Tempting as it is - I lament that it has happened in England but until very recently GG was the best thing since sliced bread for the SWP - take some responsibility.
What will happen will be very intereting. The best of luck to both sides looks like they will both need it.
Comment by Cat — 14 November, 2007 @ 12:44 am
“so much for Kevin Ovendenesque insidious rubbish about SWP vs. Muslims.”
His stirring knowns no bounds apparently. So much for being a ‘clever comrade’.
Comment by JB — 14 November, 2007 @ 12:50 am
This utter nonsense and is a pretty limp branch to try and beat the SWP with. If Ian’s who I think he is (young Scottish chap, colourful shirts, unthinking Galloway acolyte who will not suffer even the slightest, minor criticism of his idol) then he absolutely didn’t write that letter. Any claims for ghost-writer on this - we’ve all got a fair idea, right?
When you’re doing Freshers Fayre (and I’ve done plenty over the past couple of years in a number of universities) you should only record “membership” from people who have specifically asked to join the society. If they don’t and just want more information then you add them to a mailing list. This is essential to working out from an early stage who might become more closely involved in the short term to start pushing Student Respect, meeting with the most interested and using them to start drawing in wider forces.
Instead of this whelping about it being unconstitutional (it seemed ok when it was unanimously passed through an officers group meeting in early September) Ian should have directly argued that he had ballsed up the registry of members and the delegation needed altering on that basis.
In my area we absolutely didn’t register any students who hadn’t expressed a desire to join the society. Considering our first Student Respect meeting this year had four times as many attendees as we had members, that’s a pretty good indicator that they were serious about getting involved.
Comment by Syme — 14 November, 2007 @ 1:03 am
Syme: “Any claims for ghost-writer on this - we’ve all got a fair idea, right?”
Another witch-hunting insinuation. What are you saying Syme?
This was written by Ian Drummond, you can ask him yourself.
Comment by Andy — 14 November, 2007 @ 1:11 am
Syme,
I have conducted SWSS and Respect stalls at fresher’s fayres and your characterisation has never, never been the model used. The push (as Ian Drummond says) has always been for the collection of the widest and largest number of student contact details possible (and quite rightly too).
FF contact lists ARE NOT an accurate reflections of membership of a student society, otherwise to give a non-political example, 1000’s of students would be playing for the university football team every week…
And no I don’t have an “fair idea, right” of who you insinuate as the ghost writer, please enlighten me?
If this turns out not to be Ian Drummond then I think SUN should apologise publicly for this posting…
…Otherwise, I think rather than jump to smear active, young, bright, promising (and now former) comrades like Ian Drummond (as the first few posts have done here), SWP comrades should question why principled members like Ian are being summarily expelled from the party by cack-handed organisers and presumably lost from the party for ever…for what exactly? The cramming of an obsolete conference?
Comment by AA — 14 November, 2007 @ 1:43 am
“If this turns out not to be Ian Drummond then I think SUN should apologise publicly for this posting…”
aaaarrrggghhhh!
IT IS FROM IAN DRUMMOND !!!!
Comment by Andy — 14 November, 2007 @ 1:47 am
Ok Andy, no deeper insinuation on SUN intended.
I was simply responding to Syme’s claim that “he absolutely didn’t write that letter”. Which if true, IMO would require an apology from this blog but I do take your word that it actually is Ian.
Comment by AA — 14 November, 2007 @ 1:56 am
more personal attacks from john rees’s terrifying hit squads! Be thankful ian that you do not have to work with habitual liars like your former ‘comrades’ anymore! People who have such contempt for the working class that they will tell them anything to get the to ’sign up, so they can send inflated numbers into the chris bambery’s desk! You now have the freedom to ‘think’ - a absolute taboo inside the swp!
Comment by leigh — 14 November, 2007 @ 8:09 am
I can’t see why SWP comrades and their allies are geting so worked up and upset. They tell us thye’ve got the membership, they’ve won the argument, they’re going to have the moat brilliant conference on Saturday as opposed to the sad and tragic farce of their Galoway-besotted rivals who will be huddling miserably, all leaders, no footsoldiers). They’ve got the moral highground after the lock-changing and the disgusting attacks on Oli Rahman. They’ve got the future and the other side are stepping quickly towards the famous dustbin of history. In the light of all this, why not be kind to your defeated enemies, even if they do have the temerity to provide pretty solid evidence of the attempts at rigging the conference, bad faith during negotiations, etc.
Maybe thinks aren’t as rosy in SWPland as it seems on the surface, but no matter. What about a longer-term perspective, after this has settled down a bit, there might be occasions when both sides of this faction fight will have to work together, ought to work together, and the level of spittle, bile, smear and just plain mad accusation (with some classic examples of the chewbacca defence) just isn’t conducive to thinking you can trust the judgement or good intentions of the other side.
Comment by Matthew — 14 November, 2007 @ 8:39 am
What a nasty bunch of shit-stirrers we’re seeing piling in to attack Ian. You’re a disagrace and should be fucking ashamed of yourselves.
I’m amazed at the “why can’t student delegations be like last year”, sweetness and light questioning.
Because this year there is a massive political disagreement!
It’s the same reason that the SWP started closely checking the membership records of anyone who disagreed with them, including me - leading me, as a leading trade union militant, to be removed from the SWP’s industrial and national mailings because I had “never paid subs”, and being removed from the east London mailing list on the magical new grounds that only people who are in east London district *and* pay additional subs on top of their national subs can now be sent east London mailings.
Of course, that was the National Organiser of the SWP being a coward. The student delegation argument is actually understandable - we are at a crucial time in Respect, when the democracy of the organisation needs to be at its strongest.
Why? Cos the decisions reached at conference will have a fundamental effect on the left and on Respect. So, the lax policies of the past *cannot* apply here.
Duh.
Notice how Ian was told he had effectively resigned from the SWP for his stance. That’s how the leadership has dragged the most effective revolutionary party in the UK through the mud. Look at how other people have been treated when they’ve left - Jerry Hicks is “dishonest” (said to me by a CC member in front of a few dozen others), Jo Benefield is “hysterical” (ditto). I was an “enemy” of the party (I wasn’t, and I’m not, and I won’t be. Duh.)
My original position was for us to go to the conference and argue. But actually, people *are* right here. There is no way to ever win when the vast, vast majority of people are acting under party discipline and will vote against you.
Why can’t people see that? Democratic centralism can be a crucial component in the way a revolutionary party operates.
But let’s not have any pretence that the opposing side could ever win at Respect conference when the SWP has done its best to make sure it gets the majority of the delegates. We’ve all seen enough evidence of this happening now. As a former SWP member, I know that party members would not have had a free vote. In loads of circumstances, that would be the right thing, and we would’ve been proud of our unity.
But don’t pretend that the conference votes could be won by the renewal side on power of argument. That’s been the whole complaint in so many other places, and is a reason I dropped out of Respect activity - being told in advance how I am voting at meetings (and being expected to do so under discipline), meaning I had to sit through meetings knowing that all the arguments put by the other side were a waste of their time, cos we had the numerical strength to win.
We didn’t win politically, we lost politically.
Respect’s conference will see lots of votes won numerically. But the SWP leadership has lost politically.
And that is why we are now seeing such cowardly behaviour from its members in comments boxes. That is why the SWP leadership is sending out the story of Oli’s assault everywhere it can (why? do I now have to plead before your tribunal, John Rees?). That is why John Rees said Linda Smith is a vote-rigger.
And that is why the SWP leadership is trying to wreck Respect.
Comment by tonyc — 14 November, 2007 @ 8:40 am
I forgot to add that the SWP and allies should always remember that they have the (critical) support of the AWL in this debate, which must be a comfort.
Comment by Matthew — 14 November, 2007 @ 8:45 am
“Oh, and for anyone on this site actually concerned about the future of the Left in Britain: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13552. Note carefully the composition of the audience shown in the photograph: so much for Kevin Ovendenesque insidious rubbish about SWP vs. Muslims.”
I’m concerned about the nasty insinuations contained in the reports on other blogs, and from the Respect National Office, where people seem really keen to show how they know who was Bengali and who wasn’t. “50% Bengali - 50% everyone else” shows a deep and sinister way of thinking, as well as a horrendously patronising attitude towards ethnic minorities.
I’ve now been to enough party meetings recently to know there’s a vile undercurrent of anti-Muslim racism here. And I’m not alone in hearing, and being disgusted by, it.
Comment by tonyc — 14 November, 2007 @ 8:46 am
Only one dispute with Ian Drummond’s statement: clearly he was expelled and should have said so explicitly in his statement. No disciplinary proceedure, no right to a fair hearing, no appeal. Such methods - along with packing meetings have been how the SWP leadership lets “the members decide”.
Don’t worry about it Ian, your in excellent company.
One other point - and I make this as no criticism of Ian because I can understand how difficult it is within the organisation to make the break - but it is a shame this very imformation was not published two weeks ago.
Up and down the country rank and file Respect members have been presented with seemingly impossible to reconcile arguments about whether the Respect conference was in any meaningful sense a viable prospect.
His posting clearly proves why it wasn’t.
Just stop and consider what the impact of his report multiplied around 20 or 30 colleges would be on the democracy of the conference and how on earth this could be resolved at the conference itself.
Worse than that it strips away the SWP leadership’s claim to have a bona fide commitment to democracy. The very least it could have done is demonstrate to its opponents that it had a desire for confidence building measures - regarding delegates credentials or the Conference Arrangements Committee - but it didn’t.
This is a wake up call to SWP members - not just “oppositionists” who agreed with Nick Wrack’s IB contribution, but all those who are beginning to question their leadership’s management of this whole sorry saga.
Don’t say silent!
Comment by Piers — 14 November, 2007 @ 9:16 am
Firstly, the arrangements for students were exactly the same as they were the previous year. No complaints were raised about this then, or at any time until about 6 weeks ago. People clearly haven’t been thinking ahead, until they found themselves in a firefight that they were losing.
Second, why should the swp win all the arguments in the colleges? salma and george both spoke to about 400 students at Birmingham Uni last autumn. If they haven’t got any supporters on the ground in spite of their massivr profile, whose fault is that?
Third, Ian could indeed appeal his expulsion to the control commission, which reports to swp conference. doesn’t sound like he wants to.
And lastly, Ian’s response (he was after all an swp student) shows that the Renewal crowd could well have given the swp a real run for their money at the national conference, if they hadn’t declared that it was their ball and they were taking it home.
Comment by Muon — 14 November, 2007 @ 9:26 am
I’m amazed at the “why can’t student delegations be like last year”, sweetness and light questioning
Because this year there is a massive political disagreement!
It’s nice when people do your job for you, isn’t it? Got it in one, tonyc: this year, GG’s mob wanted to clamp down on student delegations not because of a sudden concern for the democratic integrity of Respect, but because of a brutal, self-serving political calculation.
Attacking the student and youth sections is textbook witch-hunting. Just look at the Labour Party’s history. First time as tragedy, second time as farce, anyone?
(I’m amused to see, after weeks of the lie being spread that this split was “SWP vs. Muslims”, one of GG’s little helpers deciding that the ethnic composition of the organisation doesn’t now matter. I think this is progress, of a sort.)
Comment by The East is Red — 14 November, 2007 @ 9:26 am
Muon
I am a bit disappointed to see you take the line “Firstly, the arrangements for students were exactly the same as they were the previous year. No complaints were raised about this then, or at any time until about 6 weeks ago. People clearly haven’t been thinking ahead, until they found themselves in a firefight that they were losing.”
You seemed to be different from the “my party right or wrong” crowd.
The substantive issue is whether it is right for less than ten paid up members to send 12 delegates.
And whether it is right for the SWP to expel someone for a procedural disagreement about delagate entitlement - whether or not he can appeal is secondary to the question that the party is clearly intimidaing comrades.
Tony C’s testimony above is really shocking to me - that an expereinced militant is excluded from the party on technicalities about whether he had paid his subs. And the slanders reported against jo Benefield and Jer HIcks - Jo is the most impressive socialist militant any of us will meet in our lifetimes.
Comment by Andy — 14 November, 2007 @ 9:41 am
What seems to be being argued here is the student representation should be calculated on the basis of what appears to be an expression of interest (or even support) at a freshers fair - not on the basis of paid-up members (or even those that have signed up for membership but have yet to pay).
Can none of the SWP supporters see a problem with that?
Comment by Lobby Ludd — 14 November, 2007 @ 9:43 am
Tony has identifed why life became unbearable for every non SWP member in Respect when he wrote: “being told in advance how I am voting at meetings (and being expected to do so under discipline”. There is no surer way of suffocating a broad organisation than by trying to force a bureaucratic centralism on its decision making processes.
The SWP would have had a lot more credibility in all this if its members were seen to disagree with each other on major questions. Instead even the slightest tactical detail seemed to be decided by a three line whip. On a number of occasions SWP members told me that they had voted against me but agreed with what I had said.
Democratic centralism has a place but Respect in the last three years has not been the right one for it. No one was in hiding from the police. No one was proposing going into government with Tony Blair. The circumstances did not call for marching in a platoon of people whose opinions could not be shifted.
The SWP’s centralism is bureaucratic rather than democratic. Look at how the LCR’s members often disagree with each other in public and in their press. Which organisation has the greater political weight?
Comment by Liam — 14 November, 2007 @ 10:29 am
“It’s nice when people do your job for you, isn’t it? Got it in one, tonyc: this year, GG’s mob wanted to clamp down on student delegations not because of a sudden concern for the democratic integrity of Respect, but because of a brutal, self-serving political calculation.”
No, it’s just simple democracy stuff.
Where we’re all broadly in agreement, no one really worries over things like student delegations.
In my union, I’ve been to meetings where there aren’t even votes taken because it’s clear that a proposal is unanimously supported.
But where there are contentious issues, these things need to be teased out. The SWP leadership’s line is “let the members decide” - fair enough, but when they are deliberately obfuscating the issue of who is actually a member, it becomes important.
Sadly, “the east is red” (god, use your real name, we all know who you are), you are so far gone politically that you can’t see this.
It’s obvious to anyone interested in democracy. You like to paint the “renewal” side as being the opponents of democracy, but the reason the renewal issue has arisen is precisely because the SWP leadership has no regard for democracy.
I’ll say it one more time: When we’re all in broad agreement, no one - not Martin Smith, not George Galloway, not John Rees, not the people I represent in my workplace - no one worries *too much* about the numbers, because it’s irrelevant. If we all roughly agree, the size of the student delegations won’t matter one way or the other.
When there’s a sharp political disagreement, it is important that every vote is fair, and isn’t gerrymandered by one side.
I’ll say something else one more time: It’s a shame that you, and so many others like you, have degenerated so much that this is even a controversial point to you.
It’s not. It’s obvious to everyone except people like you.
Comment by tonyc — 14 November, 2007 @ 10:29 am
Oh, and as for “self-serving political calculation”, ask the SWP leadership why they confirmed (yes, confirmed, to my face) receiving my subs at the members’ meeting in September, before they saw that I was opposed to their line on Respect, but started to deny ever receiving any money from me as soon as it was clear that I was in opposition.
Comment by tonyc — 14 November, 2007 @ 10:30 am
typical of the swp. if they don’t have a solid argument, a good old ad hominem. So id is lying is he? show us where. the opportunism and wrecking tactics both in the case of respect and the ssp only shows the putrid and anti working nature of the leadership of that orgnisation and the stupid sheeplike imbecility of its rank and file.
it isn’t surprising that it has little or no influence among the class and the sooner it is consigned to history the better. If it was the last “socialist” orgaqnistion in the world i would piss on it and encourqge all real socialists to do thesame.
Comment by jimk47 — 14 November, 2007 @ 10:32 am
Actually, look, I don’t even want to get into personal issues. I am massively fucked off at all of this - fucked off that I get removed as a moderator on Lenin’s Tomb cos I’m on the “wrong” side (despite it not affecting my role there), fucked off at the abusive emails, fucked off at the attempts to undermine my credibility in the RMT, fucked off at the SWP leadership lying to activists about me and others.
I’m mostly fucked off cos in a few months, we’ll be deciding to leaflet outside the tube, and I want to be able to phone those very people who have been doing this - and I want them to say “sure, what time?”
The way things have turned really nasty over the last few days seems like a calculated attempt to stop that ever happening.
I’ll draw my line in the sand here: I will work with any serious activist to build Respect, like I always did. At the end of this, I will go for a drink with any serious activist, like I always did.
The thing we all need to ask ourselves is, are the actions we’re taking now gonna shut down any chance of that happening in the future? Even if we all split and hate each other’s politics, Karen Reissman needs defending and there’s a war planned on Iran.
Everyone reading my glib sentiments will be saying to themselves “yes, if only the other side would stop acting like this”. Fine. Not gonna happen. Put your own house in order, remember you’re supposed to be socialists, grow the fuck up and stop posting anonymous personal attacks on people.
Comment by tonyc — 14 November, 2007 @ 10:35 am
SWP packed meetings, conferences, destroy trust, bend the rules, distort information, try to divide and rule, wreck organisations……What’s new!
Will they ever learn? NO.
The sooner they go their own way the better.
They have absolutely nothing to do with Socialism and certainly havent got a clue what democracy means.But then they make no pretence to play by any rules other than their own grubby botched efforts.
It’s a huge relief that they are breaking away and disintegrating in the process.They’ve caused enough damage and destruction to last a life time.Wreckless, irresponsible,unethical,immoral……the list is endless.
Is it a wonder they are so hated and detested? As for ‘respect’,they are clueless.
So piss off you nasty little shits,go have your self celebratory rigged and packed conference.Go fester in denial and continue to make lies your one and truly outstanding quality.
It’s a good sign that the SWP is in terminal decline and disintegration and has lost so many activists over the last few weeks.It’s also good to know that there are at least some members with conscience and intelligence prepared to jump and or be expelled from the sinking rotting ship, instead of the usual boring SWP dickhead with half a brain cell who just follows orders and sells a few papers.
The SWP is a disgrace and doesnt deserve to be assosciated with anything to do with the Left or Socialism. As has been said many times in the past with friends like these who needs enemies.It doesnt take too much imagination to imagine what an SWP run society would be like.
Dont even go there!
Thankfully it will never happen.
WATCH OUT IT’S GOING TO BE A LONG DROP.
Comment by Edgeof Cliff — 14 November, 2007 @ 10:38 am
And Tony C’s issue with subs is on top of Mark Steel being told he was not a member becasue they had no record of his subs being paid (since admitted they had been), despite the fact that he had meet with the CC only a few weeks before to discuss how he could effectively help the party!
The CC are prepared to destroy the SWP to save their own authority within it.
Comment by Andy — 14 November, 2007 @ 10:40 am
I know Ian Drummond and know very well how loyal he was to the SWP. The discussions with him over the last year and the content of this letter however demonstrates that he thinks things through, is able to come back and admit when he is wrong and has developed an independent political mind not afraid to speak out, and to learn from new situations and past mistakes - something pretty rare nowadays.
Comment by smacleod — 14 November, 2007 @ 10:52 am
I know looking down the list of signatories of the SWP “witch-hunt” petition, that there are a few names missing of some comrades who have been fiercely loyal to the SWP, and are committed to Respect
Comment by Andy — 14 November, 2007 @ 10:58 am
“I’ve now been to enough party meetings recently to know there’s a vile undercurrent of anti-Muslim racism here. And I’m not alone in hearing, and being disgusted by, it.”
Tony I’ve known you and respected you for many years, but this is rubbish and you know it, there’s no fucking racism from anywhere inside the SWP, least of all from a party which did so much to defend Muslims when they were under attack from most of the right and some of the left.
Comment by Eh? — 14 November, 2007 @ 11:01 am
The SWP is pure evil. How they ever managed to cooperate with others to launch the most (electorally) successful left of Labour party post war is beyond belief.
As for Liam, his democratic centralist friends in the ISG have withdrawn from Respect, ony two weeks after distributing a letter to all SWP members saying they wanted them to remain in Respect, saw the SWP as essential to any realignment of the left, and praised our local work together (as well as including some unkind references to Ger Francis and Salma Yaqoob)… No demcratic centralism there!
Comment by the digger — 14 November, 2007 @ 11:09 am
Sorry I should have made it clear this post relates to ISG members in Birmingham, as we we see from (probaly a distorted version) of the national meeting it was Alan Thornett who proposed the SWP should leave Respect.
Comment by the digger — 14 November, 2007 @ 11:12 am
“there’s no fucking racism from anywhere inside the SWP, least of all from a party which did so much to defend Muslims when they were under attack from most of the right and some of the left.”
Do a search on this blog for postings by ‘jj’, who certainly both claims to be an SWP member and loyalist and appears to have inside knowledge of its workings. For quite a while I was sceptical of his claims to be an SWP member, since he often sounds like Jim Denham (or Venom, as he is sometimes known) or some racist wacko from Harry’s Place. More recently, however, he has become more convincing in terms of his knowledge of what is going on. Originally, outspoken opponents of Islamophobia like John G pooh-poohed his claims to be an SWPer and joined in giving him the bum’s rush as an Islamophobe. Now they retreat into a telling silence when he rants like Denham. Obviously because they are aware that his kind of views now have some respectability in the SWP.
This retreat towards Islamophobia by part (and only part) of the SWP is a new development, a symptom of a certain backsliding to the right and political degeneration. But it is unmistakeable. All sorts of transformations are possible in politics - in the 1970s Matgamna’s organisation, then called the International-Communist League, was as fervent in its anti-Zionism and militant support for national liberation struggles as the SWP, if not more so.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 14 November, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Digger If you think the report of the negotiations is distorted then please provide the SWP’s version.
Or are they too embarrased? knowng that a neutral third party witnessed exactly what was said.
Comment by Andy — 14 November, 2007 @ 11:31 am
“I know Ian Drummond and know very well how loyal he was to the SWP.”
He’s much more loyal to George Galloway however. Anyone who really knows him will have guessed where he would line up in this argument.
I’m sure he is feeling this split more than most however, so I do feel sorry for him.
Comment by JB — 14 November, 2007 @ 11:35 am
I’m not ‘my party right or wrong’ but I have come to a decision that on the subsantive issues my party’s right.
Comment by Muon — 14 November, 2007 @ 11:57 am
‘Solidarity National Conference
Over 200 hundred members of Solidarity, Scotland’s Socialist Movement, gathered in Shettleston on Saturday for the party’s annual two-day conference. It was just a year from the first Solidarity Conference and Co-Convenor Tommy Sheridan opened the conference with a clear message on the nature of the party:
“Solidarity is about standing up for those who are struggling and standing together in that fight.”
Ammer Anwar addressed the conference on the ongoing erosion of civil liberties in the UK and attacks on the Muslim community. Rose Gentle spoke of her struggle against the MOD and New Labour Government in seeking justice.
Over the two days the debates were wide ranging, from internal organisation to international policy. A noticeably growing number of young people took part in the conference making some of the best and most pertinent points over the weekend.
Solidarity members then re-elected the party’s Co-Convenors Rosemary Byrne and Tommy Sheridan unopposed as well as national Secretary Graeme McIver and National Treasurer Gordon Morgan. Rosemary Byrne said:
“I am honoured to be re-elected and that the party have shown their full support for Tommy and I. Solidarity continues to build and I am looking forward to the next year, taking our message of solidarity and socialism to the people of Scotland and beyond.”’
Comment by solidarity member — 14 November, 2007 @ 11:58 am
Muon #41
So on the substantive issue of ten paid up members sending twelve delegates to conference, the SWP is right?
And on the substantive issue of a comrade being expelled for an objection over a procedural question, the SWP is right?
Comment by Andy — 14 November, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
“Tony I’ve known you and respected you for many years, but this is rubbish and you know it, there’s no fucking racism from anywhere inside the SWP, least of all from a party which did so much to defend Muslims when they were under attack from most of the right and some of the left.”
OK, you know me but I don’t know who you are; it’s hard to have a discussion on equal terms!
I am SO proud of the SWP for its defence of Muslims. Party members provided something that very few others on the left were willing to provide.
This isn’t a binary argument. I was absolutely proud of that, and of my part in it, and of the wealth of resources that helped us to shape the argument.
And I was proud of Rob Hoveman, who sat with me and other tube workers when we were new and explained how vital it was to defend Muslims under attack, taking into account all the liberal confusion over the hijab etc.
But that doesn’t mean I should ignore what’s going on now. When I went to the members’ meeting in September, I kept writing down in my notes “counterposing ‘workers’ and ‘muslims’” - lots of speakers had already fallen into the trap of separating “the working class” from “muslims”. It happened again and again.
That’s not racism, of course. That’s political confusion. But it was being encouraged by John Rees and other CC members who spoke, who kept on referring to “community interests” and other dark phrases without ever spelling out what they meant.
After that, at several meetings, I and others - comrades I know well, in addition to comrades I don’t and who aren’t on the same side as me - became really disturbed by the type of langauage that was being used about Muslims. Indeed, at a meeting as recent as last week, 3 comrades explicitly stated their distaste for the way Muslims were being treated as one bloc. At a recent local meeting, people had completely gone over to outright islamophobic language.
In addition to that, we have in this comments box, on other blogs and in Socialist Worker, an obsession with showing that more brown people love us than love Galloway. Not good.
Anyway, as I said, I don’t know you cos you’re posting anonymously. That’s fair enough, but it’s hard to talk about knowing and respecting me when I might actually be sleeping with you.
Am I?
Comment by tonyc — 14 November, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
Tony “it’s hard to talk about knowing and respecting me when I might actually be sleeping with you.”
If the SWP today is anything like it was in the 197os and 1980s that wouldn’t narrow the field much !!!!
Comment by Andy — 14 November, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
Re 39 I don’t make posts claiming to know the detail of what happened in meetings I wasn’t present at.
My view that that this may be a distorted version of events is based on the veracity of the comments made previously by the same signed authors about a Respect meeting I was present at in South Birmingham.
Not to mention other fabrications about the press conference with the Tower Hamlets Councillors.
Comment by the digger — 14 November, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
“OK, you know me but I don’t know who you are; it’s hard to have a discussion on equal terms!”
“That’s not racism, of course. That’s political confusion. But it was being encouraged by John Rees and other CC members who spoke, who kept on referring to “community interests” and other dark phrases without ever spelling out what they meant.”
Tony we can have a perfectly balanced debate
The party’s line on “community interests” is not, i repeat not, that we have given into the islamophic rightist arguments that Muslims are seperate from the working class, and form one bloc, this is something we have fought tooth and nail against.
Remember this whole disagreement stems from the argument that the SWP should not be contesting elections in Tower Hamlets Respect branch, Galloway knows this and knows the SWP will always favour putting up a more, balanced candidate in the interests of the working class and in the interests of the diversity on which the coalition was founded.
The argument stems from the disagreement about who can win, and who usually represents some community figure, unattached to any kind of leftist or working class politics (on one side) and who’s the best candidate to support working class, leftist ideas, (on the other)
One side is tipping all it’s weight into finding an electoral solution, which will win elections, while the other is about the building of a new, activist-based, left that does stand in elections, but does not bend the stick too far in electoralist interests.
You should read Kumar Murshid’s article in the Socialist Worker about the reasons he left the Labour party, one being “pocket members” which unfortunatley has become the standard for some in Respect in Tower Hamlets.
“In addition to that, we have in this comments box, on other blogs and in Socialist Worker, an obsession with showing that more brown people love us than love Galloway. Not good.”
I’m sorry I don’t understand this at all, neither have I seen any evidence. The majority of Respect branches have voted to support the original conference going ahead and have voted to condemn the actions of locks being changed/an alternative conference being set up/intimidation to women comrades/a blaming of all the problems on the swp etc etc
I’m sorry to see you have left the party, but goodbye and good luck anyway comrade.
Comment by Eh? — 14 November, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
Digger #46 “Re 39 I don’t make posts claiming to know the detail of what happened in meetings I wasn’t present at.”
cf: “Not to mention other fabrications about the press conference with the Tower Hamlets Councillors.”
Were you at it, too? What did you hear John Rees say?
Comment by Thomas Wooler — 14 November, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
Moun thinks that on the ‘substantive issues’ the SWP are right. Let’s remind us what those are. The charge is that George Galloway, Salma Yaqoob et al politically represent a right wing, communalist pandering bloc who have instigated a ‘witch-hunt’ against the SWP. I’ve a challenge for Moun. Show me a single example to justify the SWP case from his experience in Birmingham, other than rehashing a story about a selection meeting which omits the fact that the SWP were actually called on to provide female candidates for uncontested wards but refused to.
Comment by Ger Francis — 14 November, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Does anyone know the number of SWP members in the current NC?
and the big question is, “How many of the new NC will be SWP members?”
If it significantly increases I’m out.
Comment by Shaunyboy, PCS member Manchester — 14 November, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Moun infers that Ian’s Bolshevik cred is in doubt if he does not ‘appeal his expulsion to the control commission’. That’s Ian’s call. But in my experience the process of appeal is a complete farce. I was expelled on specific grounds related to actions I took at a selection meeting. However, when I attended the Control Commission to defend those actions I was told by Martin Smith that they were not going to focus on my behavior at the meeting because ‘that’s what I wanted’. (He was right on that one. SWP actions at the meeting were so dumb they were easy to dismantle). Instead they decided to focus on unsubstantiated gossip and innuendoes. I did not go into the meeting with any great hopes about its outcome but the very least I did expect from a Marxist organization in such circumstances is that it at should adhere to basic labour movement norms. Not in the least.
Comment by Ger Francis — 14 November, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
Shanunyboy I was going to suggest you looked at the list of the NC posted on the Respect national website … but strangely it seems to have been removed. HOW STRANGE!
Comment by TLC — 14 November, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
Has there ever been a section on the website listing the NC? I remember looking it up about a year ago and not being able to find it.
Comment by JB — 14 November, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
Indeed their was. And I looked at it not so long ago. You will notice a list posted from just after the 2005 conference. A simliar one was posted after 2006 conference.
Comment by TLC — 14 November, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
#53
Yes I found it there only a few weeks ago.
Comment by Andy — 14 November, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
Why was Colin Smith at the Respect student society meeting? Does he study at SOAS?
Comment by Jane — 14 November, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
Why are the Galloway/Yaqoob faction so poor at persuading students to attend conference and support their political position? Is it because their support is so narrowly concentrated in a very small number of locations?
Comment by stuart — 14 November, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
The only students the SWP are mobilising are their members and contacts.
Comment by Jane — 14 November, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
Jane, at a student level the relationship between SWP organisers (local and student) and Respect groups is pretty much the same as the relationship between organisers and student SWP groups, i.e organiser-organised. The organiser being the same person but changing their imaginary ‘hat’.
In fairness, Colin Smith is the communication officer for ‘Student Respect’ - the real question really is why was the local adult *SWP* organiser present at the first and second ‘Student Respect’ meeting at SOAS?
Comment by AA — 14 November, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
andy will not condem violence against socialists.. what a reactionary fool…
by the way Hoveman used to refer to I donovan and Denham in the old days of the socialsit alliance message board as the most pathetic people he had the misfortune to read.. those were the days..
Andy of course does not condem GG’s sexist drivel……….. the leader of GG must not be opposed.. Ironically in Feb 07 he was blogging elsewhere and attacking the SWP for not tackling communalism insode RESPECT.. this man is a joker.. his guiding light is to attack the SWP by any means!!! Frankly this socialist has organised sweet fa but a blog.. he clearly lives in a world of fantasy socialism.. My understanding is that Andy has a reputation for changing his mind just to have a go at the SWP.
So come Andy have some backbone- condem the assault and GG sexist drivel….Any chance???
Comment by jj — 14 November, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
“Let a few members and a load of students who aren’t members but who who signed a bit of paper at Freshers 5 weeks ago decide!”
Are significant layers of the labour and trade union movement meant to take this at all seriously?
Comment by Andy BH — 14 November, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
JJ Ironically in Feb 07 he was blogging elsewhere and attacking the SWP for not tackling communalism inside RESPECT.. this man is a joker
I have never once criticised Respect for “communalism”. Since day one I have defended the achievements of Respect in winning the support of Muslim voters, and have been absolutley consistent in criticising the “left” islamophobes. If you can find a single criticism from me about Respect along on those lines I will give £50 to the Socialist Worker Appeal. If you cannot, then I want you to apologise using your real name.
JJ Frankly this socialist has organised sweet fa but a blog..
Well no. I am on the Southern regional Council of the GMB. I am on the national steering committee of the Stop the War Coalition. I have led two sucessful anti-deportation campaigns, I organised an national march at RAF Brize Norton last year, etc etc.
JJ : My understanding is that Andy has a reputation for changing his mind just to have a go at the SWP.
This is simple ad hominem abuse. But given that you are the same fool who was spreading libelous rumours about Linda Smith it is not surprising.
Comment by Andy — 14 November, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
On democracy and expulsion - Ger francis says, ‘Instead they decided to focus on unsubstantiated gossip and innuendoes. I did not go into the meeting with any great hopes about its outcome but the very least I did expect from a Marxist organization in such circumstances is that it at should adhere to basic labour movement norms. Not in the least.’ firstly, I believe SPW members are asked to sell the paper, pay subs and respect the decisions of local and nationally elected democratic bodies - 3 perfectly normal things. Before you were expelled, you didn’t sell the paper to anyone, pay subs or follw the democratic leadership of the party - on what basis then could you say you were still a member? Even trade unionists have to follow democratic votes and pay subs!!
Comment by dan Wright — 14 November, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
Incidently, given the high level of personal abuse from the SWP numpties here, don’t they think they are damaging the prospect of united work in the future over the very real issues of opposing war on Iran, etc etc.
Comment by Andy — 14 November, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
“Before you were expelled, you didn’t sell the paper to anyone, pay subs or follw the democratic leadership of the party - on what basis then could you say you were still a member? Even trade unionists have to follow democratic votes and pay subs!!” (My emphasis)
Erm, shouldn’t he have been lapsed then?
Could you cite other examples of SWP members being expelled for not selling the paper or for not paying subs?
I’m curious.
Comment by Darren — 14 November, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
Earlier today Tony C wrote: “It’s the same reason that the SWP started closely checking the membership records of anyone who disagreed with them, including me - leading me, as a leading trade union militant, to be removed from the SWP’s industrial and national mailings because I had “never paid subs”, and being removed from the east London mailing list on the magical new grounds that only people who are in east London district *and* pay additional subs on top of their national subs can now be sent east London mailings.”
And in the latest Internal Bulletin there is an astounding bit about the fact that the SWP did not know that Mark Steel was a member, despite the fact he had had a meeting with the CC a few weeks earlier! So they refused his contribution for the first IB - fortunatly the “mistake” was rectified!
Comment by Andy — 14 November, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
none that i know have written on here, so in line with Andy’s policy, not without their permission! More importantly, normally people in that position don’t play leading roles in United Fronts whilst still pretending to be an SWP member. Its fine to argue internally, in branches, after sales etc but if a vote is taken and you play a key role in a united front you should carry it out - thats basic democracy - if union members vote to strike we expect the union leadership it implement it whatever their own position, any good shop steward worth their salt knows that and I expect the same accountability and carrying out of democratic decision making from members of any party, SPW, Labour etc.
Comment by dan Wright — 14 November, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
Dan Wright: “if union members vote to strike we expect the union leadership it implement it whatever their own position, “
Ahhh. Back to the question of why the SWOP are not distancing themsellves from jane Loftus, SWP member and CWU president, who is not campaigning for a no vote, and who sided with the bureaucracy over the question of whether there should be seperate ballots for pay and pensions.
Far from distancing themselves, they have her on the platform for SWP-Respect conference
Comment by Andy — 14 November, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
great so you reckon both Ger and Jane should be expelled for not following democracy? Incidentally I remember reading an article by Jane Loftus in Socialist Worker calling for other unions to back the CWU and i think she voted to reject the deal.
Comment by dan Wright — 14 November, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
No I don’t think jane should be expelled. .I think the SWp should distance herself from her actions, aling the lines of “Jane is a comrade, but she is wrong on this one”. and not ut her on the platform of a conference while the dispute is going on.
Yes she of course she voted against the deal on the exec, but she did not register her “dissent” as required by the CWU’s constitution in order to cmapaign against the majority of the exec. This leaves Dave Warren exposed as the only postal exec member activley cmapaigning for a no vote (though one other member did register dissent they are not actively campaiigning)
Also a key issue for the left and militants is that they want seprate votes for pay and paensions aprt of the package, but Royal mail, Billy Hayes, Dave Ward and Jane Loftus oppose seperate votes.
I also totally done’ understand why Post Worker had cintent from Billy Hayes in their last issue, when it was already clear he was getting ready to sell a poor deal.
Please do try to address the specific criticisms.
Comment by Andy — 14 November, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
NO 1
“Nonsense - why was it not possible to elect student delegates to conference on the same basis as last year? Why the sudden change in the apparent rules? Why is it not possible to send student delegates to conference on the same basis that other parties allow student delegates?”
I may be old fashioned but isn’t it usual for only members of an organisation to be able to vote and be a delegate to any conferences?
Comment by Martin Wicks — 14 November, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
Thomas Wooler 48 *
No I was not at the press conference but it was covered by several press sources including the Morning Star. It is clear that the claim made in writing on 29 October by Salma Yaqoob, Linda Smith and others that there was an announcement that those resigning the whip would stand against Respect candidates was not true.
Yaqoob and Smith as good as acknowledged when they wrote two days later “There has been a dispute about what was said at the press conference….”
Due to a pattern of past distortions I am unwilling to take this latest partisan version of events at face value.
Comment by the digger — 14 November, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
Martin, re your comment, #71, of course you are right. I tried to make a similar point,comment #25.
Apparently simple democratic procedures are different when it comes to students, I’m not sure why, but I expect someone will tell us.
Be patient.
Comment by Lobby Ludd — 14 November, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
Digger and Dan Wright epitomize the kind of defense most of the SWP bloggers on this site are reduced to. Long on playing the attorney but very short on politics. But when this weekend passes, Digger and Dan are going to be waking up to some hash facts of life. A key strategic objective of the SWP - the creation of a left electoral formation united in opposition to imperialism, racism and neo-liberalism – will be smashed to pieces. Their ability to resurrect one will be gone for the very foreseeable future. Their reputation with the rest of the left, (with the exception of Workers Power and the AWL), will be severely damaged. An SWP Respect will hang around for a short while but will go nowhere. It will be seen as nothing more than an SWP front for the very good reason that it will be an SWP front.
And the SWP have risked all of this for what exactly? Because George has gone soft on anti-imperialism? Because Salma is a ‘communalist’? Because Ken and Alan are backtracking on neo-liberalism? The political positions SWP members have had to defend have been ludicrous. They know so but then so does Rees and German. Getting the SWP membership to kick behind this was never going to be enough becuase of the weakness of their arguments. A strategy of tension was required. Fear had to be whipped up. The party itself had to be under threat. And in true Orwellian fashion the ‘witch-hunt’ took pride of place. The most shocking thing in all of this is not just the stupid ultra-leftism. It is the utter cynical manipulation of the SWP membership by its leadership. And as that leadership faces the biggest crisis in its history, with its conference approaching and with real worries about how leading SWP members protect their positions, expect a few more months of the same driven by new escalations.
Comment by Ger Francis — 14 November, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
A key strategic objective of the SWP - the creation of a left electoral formation united in opposition to imperialism, racism and neo-liberalism – will be smashed to pieces.
The level of absolute delusion Ger displays here is troubling. Lest anyone be in doubt of what’s been taking place in Respect’s stronghold in Tower Hamlets, here is an interview with Kumar Murshid, former senior Labour councillor who chaired the 80-strong Respect meeting on Monday night. He is, believe me when I say this, no SWP member. http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13553
“The Tower Hamlets Respect meeting was chaired by Kumar Murshid, a former Labour councillor in Tower Hamlets and former adviser to London mayor Ken Livingsone. Kumar quit Labour to join Respect earlier this year.
He spoke to Socialist Worker about why he left the Labour Party and why he is committed to the original vision of Respect.
“One thing that caused me to move away from Labour was the culture of political division and ‘pocket members’ that took hold in the party,” he said. “That is not how I want to operate.
“I’ve seen these same tactics used in the Labour Party for many years. It’s always been something I’ve fought tooth and nail against – but it always had some kind of support from the party machine.
“It was a tactic used to back the right wing candidates.
“If you don’t challenge it, you allow that culture to take hold in the party, which becomes thoroughly depoliticising and disempowering – it drives the genuine activists out.
“You get one or two people with 50 or 100 pocket members who come into political meetings to decide positions or nominations. They grab power without any support in real terms – and the politics just gets thrown out the window.
“And it’s corrupting – these pocket members are never engaged with politically, they’re just used as fodder to get someone nominated. I don’t want to see that kind of thing happening in Respect.
“I think the relevance of Respect as a political entity is as valid as it ever was. There’s a huge amount of space created by Labour abandoning the left of the political spectrum almost entirely.
“There’s a huge vacuum, more so than ever now that the Tories, Labour and Liberal Democrats are all centre or centre right parties. There’s nothing else on the left which can claim to be a political entity committed to socialism and genuine equality.””
A curious thing: GG’s claque on Sock Disunity appear to be entirely ignoring any even which does not fit into their fairy-story about the eeeeevil SWP smashing up poor little Respect. They have, for instance, almost completely ignored the very successful, representative Tower Hamlets Respect meeting on Monday evening. They have ignored Kumar’s intervention. They have ignored the steady turn of the active membership there behind the Left and democracy, and the political defeat (at the last members’ meeting) of the “pocket member” tendency.
Comment by The East is Red — 15 November, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
Ger, knows full well that I think the split in Respect is a set back for the SWPs strategic orientation but I don’t see any acknowledgment from him that the divorce wiill set back Respect Renewal as well, but time will tell.
The electoral tensions in Tower Hamlets will continue within Respect Renewal, however in Birmingham Salma’s deserved reputation will stand her in good stead.
Stupid ultra left leadership, poor members manipulated by a cynical SWP leadership, is this what Ger classes as political analysis?
Comment by the digger — 15 November, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
So, the SWP have driven this to a split over recruitment methods of members in Tower Hamlets? You want me to believe that’s what this is all about?! You think Oli el al recruit any differently? The hypocrisy is stunning. I remember John Rees happy to be paraded around Washwood Heath by the People’s Justice Party, the absolute embodiment of communal politics in Birmingham, because he saw the exact same methods of accessing community and family links as working to his benefit. When the SWP win a vote at a meeting we are told it is because they have ‘good networks’ or because of a ‘good mobilisation’. But when their Muslim opponents win it is because they are ‘communalist’. The only problem for the SWP with the so-called pocket members is that they are not in the SWP pocket. They are being out mobilised and they hate it. I don’t see any principles on display from the SWP leadership. I just see ultra-leftism, control freakery and double standards that has destroyed a key strategic objective of the SWP - the creation of a left electoral formation united in opposition to imperialism, racism and neo-liberalism with the SWP at its centre.
Comment by Ger Francis — 15 November, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
Yep, Digger, I think ultra-leftism is a very good place to start with understanding SWP behaviour. And yes, I think the so-called ‘witch-hunt’ was pure manipulation of the most cynical kind.
Comment by Ger Francis — 15 November, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
On Birmingham and Salma. I think their will be big problems in getting Salma elected as an MP. I will still vote for her, and urge others to do so even though I remain loyal to Respect. However to get her elected we need far more engagement with trade union issues and the anti war movement. It was a shame that at a rally of 1500 council workers Albert Bore, leader of the Birmingham Labour party spoke (Labour are in opposition) but Salma didn’t. This is a shame as her politics are far better than Labour’s. Equally, I would like to see her speak at a Stop the War meeting on Iran or Afghanistan. I hope 2 Respects doesn’t mean everyone can’t work together where it matters.
Comment by dan Wright — 15 November, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
So, the SWP have driven this to a split over recruitment methods of members in Tower Hamlets?
No, a combination of pocket members, diabolically poor local leaddership, and a deliberate attempt to marginalise the members’ input (locally and nationally) help explain why Galloway chose to split the organisation. Galloway wants a cheerleading squad, not an activist membership: that’s why his merry band have called a rally on Saturday in opposition to a delegates’ conference. This is a classic labour movement divide, conservative leadership versus activist membership.
The only problem for the SWP with the so-called pocket members is that they are not in the SWP pocket. They are being out mobilised and they hate it.
…except, as I pointed out, at the last members’ meeting, where the SWP was in a minority - but the clear majority of the room supported us. This is, of course, why the chair at the time stopped a vote halfway through, and walked out, with his supporters: he realised he would lose the vote. Afterwards, 50-60 people from that members’ meeting held a street-meeting to discuss where forward for Respect. The momentum in Tower Hamlets is shifting towards the Left, and those that stand in the best tradiitons of the democratic labour movement.
Tell me: why is Kumar Murshid, a man some distance from the SWP’s politics (former advisor to Livingstone, for goodness sake), taking the same position as the SWP in Tower Hamlets? Why is that Respect, as led by the Left, can build an 80-strong public meeting (with an audience that was black, white, and Asian) at a few days’ notice? Why is that the best of the councillors are on our side? But the only answer we here from Ger is spluttering, once more, about the eeeeeeevil SWP. Pathetic.
Comment by The East is Red — 15 November, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
The marked reluctance of many here to talk about ‘facts on the ground’ in TH has always been a feature of this blog and others like it.
Comment by johng — 15 November, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Post 80: ‘Tell me: why is Kumar Murshid, a man some distance from the SWP’s politics (former advisor to Livingstone, for goodness sake), taking the same position as the SWP in Tower Hamlets?’
No idea. Don’t know the guy. But I do know he has political ambitions, wanted to get George’s support for his bid to be selected as MP and didn’t. Maybe throwing his lot in with the SWP has something to do with that, maybe not. I will leave it for others more qualified to comment.
As regards, the ‘evil SWP’ line. You stick with the victimhood if it makes you feel better.
Comment by Ger Francis — 15 November, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
“Why is that the best of the councillors are on our side?”
This is hard to deny. That Michael Lavalette, Oli Rahman, Karen Reissmann and other unwavering socialists have not lined up with the ‘renewal’ faction says one hell of a lot. These are people that are known to their communities for their hard work, activism and staunch left-wing principles.
They have refused to put up with reactionary and misogynistic behaviour within their ranks. They have not chased fame and are not known for their runaway egos. They do not talk about their ‘friends on the left’ because they are, unapologetically, the left. They would not dream of writing articles entitled ‘Capitalism can save the world’ because that is against everything they believe in. They do not stand shoulder to shoulder with a mayor who has encouraged workers to cross picket lines and who has lambasted people for daring to speak out against the murderous Ian Blair.
Comment by DCM — 15 November, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
Post 79. More ugly little smears from ‘Dan Wright’ (who, I will bet, is the SWP Birmingham organizer Pete Jackson) regarding Salma’s commitment or otherwise to either the trade union or anti-war movements. Salma was not informed nor invited by SWP members in Birmingham Unison to the rally despite the fact that these same SWP members occupy leading positions in the union. Despite that she was in attendance. Unison SWP members could have ensured she spoke. They didn’t. Why? My guess, either incompetence or sectarianism. Either way, pretty dumb. It is certainly in the interests of Birmingham Unison members to have the support of one of the most high profile figures in the city instead of allowing arch privatiser Sir Albert Bore hog the limelight. I would take desperate dan’s lectures about the engagement with tu’s more seriously if he shows he can practice what he preaches. Whatever did happen to the Birmingham Fighting Unions initiative by the way?
As regards STW, she has not been invited to speak at either the events you mention. But then you know that already. In light of your dumb ass sectarianism your comment ‘I hope 2 Respects doesn’t mean everyone can’t work together where it matters’ only plummets new depths of disingenuousness. Perhaps you would like to crawl out from behind the pseudonym you are hiding behind and raise your ‘concerns’ with Salma in a more direct manner.
Comment by Ger Francis — 15 November, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
DCM: The SWP ‘…have refused to put up with reactionary and misogynistic behaviour within their ranks. They have not chased fame and are not known for their runaway egos. They do not talk about their ‘friends on the left’ because they are, unapologetically, the left..’
Now, y’know the dangers of Dave Spart behaviour I was warning you about…
Comment by Ger Francis — 15 November, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
Ger, I’m not Pete so please don’t slander people., just a very bored admin worker called Dan. For the record, if Salma wanted to speak at the rally she could have done - her decision no one elses. maybe you could the press release she’s sent out backing the council workers over single status?Secondly, Salma is chair of Stop the War in Birmingham. Now, I’m not on the Stop the war committee, but am active in it. As chair, she can speak any meetings she wants to.
What I am saying is, she should help set up a public meeting on Iran or Pakistan at the moment and reingage with it. I can’t remember the last time Salma attended a stop the war committee meeting, which is a shame as she has worked hard in the past and we need her back engaged for the sake of people in Iran and Afghanistan. We need all good activists, and I include Salma in this, to reingage stop the war and the Trade union movement at the moment, especially with new sanctions on Iran probably on the way
Comment by dan Wright — 15 November, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
No idea. Don’t know the guy.
And yet, more than once, you’ve presumed to comment on events in TH. You haven’t really got a clue, have you?
But I do know he has political ambitions…
…and this is a bad thing, now, is it? Perhaps you should tell Salma and George?
…wanted to get George’s support for his bid to be selected as MP and didn’t.
He got GG’s support at a press conference in July (as I recall), then GG backed out. You’d know this if you knew what was going on in London, but as you say…
…I will leave it for others more qualified to comment.
Please do - you’re clearly floundering.
Comment by The East is Red — 15 November, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
Post 86. My arse! Your posts about Nechells, TU’s and STW are just a series of lies and attempted smears. When exposed you avoid replying and just move on to the next one. Your game is pretty pathetic one.
Comment by Ger Francis — 15 November, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
#85: I did not say ‘the SWP’ - clearly there are some mixed-up SWP members who have put up with this behaviour and have found themselves in the ‘renewal’ camp. Just like there are plenty of non-SWP members who have found themselves in the other camp. I’m not sure what ‘dave spart behaviour’ is, you’ve certainly never warned me of this as I’ve never conversed with you before. There is more than one person on this site talking to you, you do realise that..?
Comment by DCM — 15 November, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
Johng: ‘The marked reluctance of many here to talk about ‘facts on the ground’ in TH has always been a feature of this blog and others like it.’
I stay of the exchanges about TH for the very reason that I am not on the ground there. But then, neither are you, but unfortunately that does not stop you, or others hiding behind pseudonyms (like ‘East is Red’) from pontificating about them.
DCM: ‘I’m not sure what ‘dave spart behaviour’ is…’
I know you’re not. That’s exactly the problem.
Comment by Ger Francis — 15 November, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
Given the enourmous meetings regularly called by Respect and Respect activists in SOAS, and the full use George has made of them, all this is a bit bloody cheeky really.
Comment by johng — 15 November, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
are you saying that a little misogyny is ok then Ger or being flippant?
I suppose the fame-chasing, the egos and the sometimes unsettling behaviour and rhetoric was easier to gloss over when there really was a big coalition of socialist activists on the ground - but now that those whose behaviour needed constant defending have put themselves firmly in one camp, it doesn’t exactly fill one with optimism for the future of their ‘renewal’ movement, does it?
Comment by DCM — 15 November, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Since when is SOAS in Tower Hamlets? Big deal, you attended some meetings at your college. My point is that you are not active on the ground in that area, dealing with the issues day in, day out.
Comment by Ger Francis — 15 November, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
No. just trying to set the record straight in Birmingham and to help people realise what has been going on. Whilst not the events, I have had a number of people tell me about them. So, let me recap.
Firstly, as has been admitted the former Tory member would have stood against us in Bordesley Green and therefore he was offered the Nechells candidacy rather than asking him to campaign for the Bordesley green candidate and stand in a years time. At the meeting where this was decided the 2nd Respect councillor in Sparkbrook tore up the constitution, showing contempt for democracy in Respect. So, opportunism and contempt for democracy combined.
Secondly, Salma could have spoken at the council workers rally against single status. Can you please publish the press release on here that she sent out supporting them? I’m assuming there was one.
Thirdly, in the Stop the War minutes from Birmingham she hasn’t been listed as being present for months. I hope this is simple mistake and she has been there.(please post them if appropriate I’m sure no one will object as there all about what StW are trying to do)
My political argument is therefore that we need a Respect that:
Is representative and accountable. Has regular branch meetings, where policy is decided and representatives are held to account.
Campaigns. That, in order to effectively campaign for the working class we need candidates who have a track record of campaigning and fighting for our rights, such as Salma Yaqoob and Michael Lavelette. As part of this we need Respect to build Stop the War events with our leading activists on the platforms and taking a role in all Stop the War events.
Principled. That candidates are selected democratically and will fight for Respects beliefs, not careerists or opportunists no matter how tempting they are
Whilst the above won’t magic respect into power over night, I believe that there is so much bitterness against New Labour that with these tactics we can begin to achieve widespread support.
Comment by dan Wright — 15 November, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Post 94. ‘the former Tory member would have stood against us in Bordesley Green and therefore he was offered the Nechells candidacy rather than asking him to campaign for the Bordesley green candidate and stand in a years time.’
Are you dumb or what? HE WAS ALREADY PLANNING TO STAND IN THE WARD AS AN INDEPENDANT!! He was not a Respect member. We made him an offer. He accepted, withdrew from competing against us and stood for us, coming SECOND in an area we had no plans to stand in. Smart move on our part, I’d say. By your argument we should not have stood him at all, and forgone coming second and putting us in a better position to take another seat. This is toy-town bolshevism.
As for Ishtiaq tearing up the constitution. You forgot to contextualise. Let me remind you: he was in a meeting in which he felt SWP members were displaying a hostility to him and others because they were Pakistani and Muslim.
And no, Salma doesn’t attend the STW ctte meetings because it is not necessary for her to be there whereas she has a host of other evening meetings she must attend in her ward as an elected councilor. Plus she’s got three kids who would like to see their Mum in the evening occasionally.
It requires a particular type of arrogance to adopt this kind of houlier than thou approach, especially when it comes from those who’s track record of building anything in the city is pretty woeful.
Comment by Ger Francis — 15 November, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
ger, good to see you’ve now no longer saying I’m smearing anyone. I wanted you to admit to these things as I’ve had them 2nd hand so its good to have it confirmed that Salma doesn’t attend STW meetings, that you did support a former TORY! Yes, a TORY, not what I joined Respect for.
Now, will you publish Salma’s press release supporting the council workers in Birmingham?
Comment by dan Wright — 15 November, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Calm down Ger, you’ll give yourself an embolism there .
Comment by Josh — 15 November, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
Just reading the stuff about Birmingham and I have to say its seems quite amusing to see RESPECT being willing to stand a former Tory. No wonder its falling apart!
Comment by David Owens — 15 November, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
For the benefit of us happy few who haven’t been privy to these discussions before could someone tell us if this particular ex-Tory was a recent convert who had jumped ship opportunistically or someone who had a genuine change of heart?
Comment by Josh — 15 November, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
‘As for Ishtiaq tearing up the constitution. You forgot to contextualise. Let me remind you: he was in a meeting in which he felt SWP members were displaying a hostility to him and others because they were Pakistani and Muslim.’
I heard it was because people didn’t like offering seats to former TORIES just to get there support rather than winning them politically to RESPECTS politics. How many more deals like this are you willing to make? We could end up with a whole load of former Tories standing across the City just so they don’t stand against us. Backing TORIES truelly is the worst kind of opportunism and electoralism. There ain’t no short cuts to socialism
Comment by Dan Wright — 15 November, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
#96 and #98 have already had their answer from Ger. Their game at the moment seems to be to claim victory at the bottom of the page whatever answer they’ve received earlier. So I’m reposting what Ger said:
Are you dumb or what? HE WAS ALREADY PLANNING TO STAND IN THE WARD AS AN INDEPENDANT!! He was not a Respect member. We made him an offer. He accepted, withdrew from competing against us and stood for us, coming SECOND in an area we had no plans to stand in. Smart move on our part, I’d say. By your argument we should not have stood him at all, and forgone coming second and putting us in a better position to take another seat. This is toy-town bolshevism.
Comment by babeuf — 15 November, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
It is clear to me the SWP can only go in one direction to defend their present actions and that is towards the ultra-left and worse. On the Nechells candidate’s background this is what I wrote at the time:
“‘Mr Hussain was open about the fact that he had been a member of the Tory party. But he emphasised this was due to personal connections rather than any ideological conviction. As I pointed out in my letter to the CC at the time this situation is not at all unusual in inner city Birmingham and did not cause surprise to those who understand the political terrain here:
“The Nechells candidate will not be the only person joining Respect with a record of membership of other political parties. Again, this is not a problem but an opportunity. Over the past decade or more Birmingham Labour Party has effectively purged a large number of Asian members from its ranks. Political loyalties were fractured again by the Iraq war, and lacking any obvious progressive alternative, many former Labour Party members have flitted between the Liberal Democrats, Peoples Justice Party, and even the Tories. We should take the opportunity presented to us to bring together some of these forces in a progressive framework around Respect.””
Incidentally, the individual in question has been a committed Respect member since and has done more to build it than most of the ultra-left combined.
Comment by Ger Francis — 15 November, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
To get back to the topic.
Can any one in the SWP explain how it is democratic for less than 10 paid up members to send 12 delegates to a conference?
I think it is asking this question that John G says is a bit cheeky.
Comment by Andy — 15 November, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
Hi Josh, He was a Tory member 3 months previously, with a limited political history. My point is back room deals were done in Birmingham on the basis of getting votes, not politics or track record. He would have stood against us in Bordesley Green if the Nechells offer wasn’t made. To my mind thats not a change of hearting just changing ships.
Comment by dan — 15 November, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
Actually, at least one rather famous left-wing Labour Party MP (now retired) is a former Tory. The one who hounded Margaret Thatcher over the sinking of the General Belgrano during the Falklands war. Tam Dalyell.
Screaming that someone is a former Tory is not a very political argument. If you are arguing that this person was in some way still a Tory when he stood for Respect, that is a different matter, but just asserting that someone is a former Tory doesn’t prove anything.
Since I understand that this guy is still active in Respect, have you any evidence of his current Tory politics?
Comment by Ian Donovan — 15 November, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
the point Ian, is his poliics didn’t change. If they had, he wouldn’t of needed to be bought off with another seat in Nechells. If he genuinely believed in RESPECT he would have helped us to win in Bordesley Green. What I’m opposed to is buying people off by making them candidates, thats opportunism and electoralism of the worst kind
Comment by Dan — 15 November, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
Oh, and I’m still waiting for ger or Andy to post Cllr Salma Yaqoobs press supporting the council workers over single status
Comment by Dan — 15 November, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
Hm, what is the evidence that ‘his politics didn’t change’? What has he done since to substantiate that charge?
Comment by Ian Donovan — 15 November, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
#107 what???
are you trying to insinuate something? oh whatever.
Can’t you stick to politics?
Comment by Andy — 15 November, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
Hi Ian,
As far as I’m aware he hasn’t said or done anything for anyone as far as I’m aware but if someone can post a Nechells respect leaflet on here I’m happy to be proved wrong. You make a good point about Tam Dalyell but the point I’m making about RESPECT is buying off someone from standing against you by offering them another seat - where does that lead us?
Comment by Dan — 15 November, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
109 - Ger argued Salma wanted to speak at the rally - if so, then surely she’s put out a press release supporting the council workers over single status?
Comment by Dan — 15 November, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
Regardless of what his politics are now surely the strategy of buying off (rather than winning a political argument) someone and the votes they can bring is just plain wrong. As Dan says.
Comment by Josh — 15 November, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
But then, neither are you, but unfortunately that does not stop you, or others hiding behind pseudonyms (like ‘East is Red’) from pontificating about them.
Ok, so Ger’s now accused Dan Wright of being Pete Jackson, when he’s not; accused DCM of continuing his “Dave Spart” behaviour, when he’s never spoken to Ger before; and accused me for not living in Tower Hamlets, when I do. Later on, Ger will accuse the sun of coming out at night, and become most irate when when moon fails to rise at dawn.
But to return to the politics (fun though Gerbaiting is): can anyone amongst the GG groupies explain how the Left-led Respect in Tower Hamlets was able to organise an 80-strong public meeting on Monday evening, with an impressively diverse audience, with an impressive line-up of speakers, if their fairy stories about the SWP were correct? Only the silence is a little peculiar.
Comment by The East is Red — 15 November, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
“It is clear to me the SWP can only go in one direction to defend their present actions and that is towards the ultra-left and worse.”
So complaining about minor things such as misogyny and former Tories jumping on the Respect bandwagon is ‘ultra left and worse’ is it?
Oh dear..
Comment by DCM — 15 November, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
Tony,
This is just bollocks:
“In addition to that, we have in this comments box, on other blogs and in Socialist Worker, an obsession with showing that more brown people love us than love Galloway. Not good.”
There is a concerted attempt to argue that we’re adopting communal attitudes towards Muslims (which sadly you seem to have joined in with) and, paradoxically, at the same time to argue that this is community versus outsiders split. It IS actually important to demonstrate that this is rubbish.
I do agree with you that the term communalism should be avoided, both because its not what this is about, and also because the term should only be used in this country if integrated into an understanding of majority communalism).
I can remember a constant thread of argument against the Islamphobic right (and some on the left) who stupidly accused us of conceding to minority communalisms. It was pointed out from the beginning that it was Respect that was challenging the communal organisational methods of the Labour Party establishment which had for years and years operated through adopting corrupt clientelist methods (and indeed set them up in the first place).
I think the arguments put foward in the first IB, and the bits of argument I’ve seen from Ger to the CC a few years back (he’s put them up here) indicate a retreat from this. I think that some of this reflects the more general trend towards a politics of ‘adaptation’ that I referred to in an earlier exchange on the Tomb. But it is not ‘communal’ or ‘Islamaphobic’ to raise this issue (and to suggest this is to fall into quite dangerous political confusion which inevitably lead to polarising everything between ‘the community’ and the ‘outsiders’ etc: a gift to the right, and undermining all the work to get clear about these issues previously).
But I do think its silly for you (and a bit shocking to be honest) to complain about us ‘circulating’ stories about Ollie being attacked. In the welcome condemnations from Respect Renewal its fairly clear that those who did this, in some twisted sense saw themselves as intervening in this argument. Its not at all wrong to publicly declare these things to ensure that a firm message is sent to all sides to say this will not be tolerated.
As to all the stuff on the Tomb, or not being sent mailings, well, this whole dispute is a bit blogarama isn’t it. Stuff is being leaked at a furious pace and the much celebrated co-incidence of faction fights and new technology has in my view not been at all conducive to much more then the creation of a situation where its almost impossible to tell fact from fiction.
But certainly I would not have any problems meeting or arguing with you when this is over (or even before). And I don’t actually think I’ve said or done anything outrageous. As to all this stuff about cowardly attacks in relationship to this header. It is a bit of a bloody cheek to be honest in the context of SOAS, but honestly wouldn’t want to get into that. But I would still always be happy to see Galloway there (as he has been on many, many occassions).
Bottom line though Tony. You should be aware that these absurd accusations are hardly one way. And I think (just a little bit, I understand you are pissed off) you’re falling into them yourself a bit here.
Comment by johng — 15 November, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
I should also make clear that I am actually beginning to find Ger quite entertaining.
Comment by johng — 15 November, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Actually, in current circumstances, someone being a former Lib Dem or even a former Tory doesn’t necessarily mean much. Considering we now have a situation when the Lib Dems often oppose Labour from the left, and even the Tories sometimes manage this feat. We have had one Labour Prime Minister who tried to introduce 90-day internment without trial, (and failed, partly thanks to Tory opposition) and his successor Prime Minister who echoes the slogans of the old National Front (”British Jobs for British Workers”), politics is confused and there is no real visible class line between the mainstream parties like there was in the 1970s and 1980s.
“Regardless of what his politics are now surely the strategy of buying off (rather than winning a political argument) someone and the votes they can bring is just plain wrong. As Dan says.”
Well, I have no idea of whether your description of this process as ‘buying off’ this person is accurate or not. But if he is still a Respect activist then that suggests political committment, not ‘buying off’. Just an observation from what you write. I dont know either you or this guy from Adam, so I can’t really say more than that.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 15 November, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
In regard to the issue “Tories jumping on the Respect bandwagon”, there is of course the case of Sajid Mahmood in Calderdale. He was a former Tory Party Council candidate who left the Tories, joined the Labour Party, then joined Respect in November of last year. By May he was standing as a Respect candidate in the local elections doing very well but has also been arrested over a ballot rigging accusation.
There has been no raising of this issue in the debate in Respect … but is that much of a surprise? … apparently his election agent in May was an enthusiastic SWP member and Socialist Worker itself carried an interview with him, not mentioning that he had stood for the Tories in Council elections, just emphasising that he was resigning from Labour.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=10173
Now I am in favour of welcoming anyone who joins Respect if they support its policies. But it’s a bit cheeky and somewhat hypocritically late in the day for the SWP to now say they are concerned about providing a refuge for ex-Tories. Why didn’t they raise this when they were in the driving seat and why did they interview and let one of their members act as election agent for a former Tory council candidate?
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 15 November, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
Ian states “The argument for electing up to 12 delegates was put at the first meeting by the local SWP organiser”
Have you noticed how these SWP full timers keep croping up all over the place at or outside (Jerry Hicks also refers to this at a Bristol meeting) RESPECT meetings especialy of late when conference delegates are being selected.
Now do we really want one Party (the SWP) with its own leadership, its own fulltimers (how many do they have?), its own branches, its own paper and leaflets and its own conference trying to control Respect and its developmeent (or preventing its development from what we have all read)?Had they worked in a more democratic way this would not be an issue.
While doing this the SWP have denied the rest of Respect from having a national newspaper(like THEY have), a regional and party/coalition structure (full time regional officers like THEY have?)and an independent voice via leaflets and a paper on demos/meetings and campaigns (like THEY have). And all this while trying to pack the Respect conference with students who have paid £1 at a fresher fair (and for that matter the SWP seem to be under the impression they own and control the student section of Respect).
Did they ever leave us any choice but to call for a Respect Renewal? I hope and know that many fine members of the SWP will join us in this task.
Neil Williams
Comment by Neil Williams — 15 November, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
Ian Donovan if I read his contribution seems to say there is no real difference between tories and labour party members? In thta case why the big arguement to not stand against Livingstone in London because losing to the tories would be a disaster?
I don’t know about calderdale.. but if someone leaves the labour party to join respect then all things being equal this is progressive. Even then RESPECT needs to be mindful. What appears to have happend in B’hAM is that Grer Francis seems to argue it doesn’t matter this person was a tory 3 months earlier and that if he was not selected would not have joined RESPECT and would have stood as an independent. This is defended by saying he had connections and we did well…….there is I am afraid a dreadful logic to this and it goes to the heart of the political differences between GG and RESPECT. RESPECT wants a broas based left organisation seeking to build in a number of ways and GG who has a very narrow and I fell pessimistic view of this being a runner. OK .. difference.. so less of the bull about the evil SWP. There is of course a way this will be concluded and that is to see how GG will develop politically. I was wondering if Ger could let us know how he views GG’s latest article which in my opinion is sexist drivel. Andy has’nt had time to make his opinion but I am sure will get round to it. It will tell us a lot about if Ger is going to keep some socilaist politics and if he will criticise GG at all. Will GG’s fans go along with such sexist rubbish or keep quiet?
Comment by jj — 15 November, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
#119 well lets see if your renewal will produce a weekly paper now that you are “free to do so” you can also of course employ full timers.. by the way being a full timer of the SWP doesn’t prohibit you from being a member of RESPECT.. because if thats the case then what the hell has ovenden and hoveman.. full timers for GG been doing for the last couple of months??? oh of course thats different cos they are not in the SWP… Boring..yawn.
Comment by jj — 15 November, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
“I hope and know that many fine members of the SWP will join us in this task”
Well seeing as you’re a bit thin on the ground these days, I’m sure you do!
Comment by DCM — 15 November, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
this is the article neil williams refers to in nov 2006 in SW
“Sajid Mehmood, a local community worker, and seven other former members of the Labour Party have torn up their party cards to join Respect in West Yorkshire.
Their central reason for doing so was the war in Iraq.
“I joined Labour in the belief that it was a democratic party that would reflect the needs of local people,” said Sajid. “But this has not happened.
“It is Labour’s foreign policy and its attacks on Muslims over issues like the niqab (veil) that have made me leave.
“I shall be building Respect as a party that will campaign to end this unjust war and which reaches out to all communities.”
So he left the labour party with 6 other labour party members. hardly a recent tory I don’t think I mean did the other 6 labour party members think he was a closet tory and stay quiet?? I think Neil time for a re think on this one?? but I forgot according to Donovan it doesn’t matter because there is no fundamental difference between Labour party members and tory party members!! he really has taken GG’s popular front politics to heart.. by the way Neil any views on GG’s article??
Comment by jj — 15 November, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
Neil Williams on indy media a few months ago
“The Mayor strongly supports the right to peaceful protest”.
Well if this is true why did you not make facilities available for the small number of peaceful peace protesters who were camping in Parliament Square?
The GLA could have laid on mobile toilets and a rubbish collection system + other help - not too much to ask for so that the feelings of 100,000 of UK citizens (and Londoners) could be heard and seen in London outside the UK Parliament.
Ant-War Camps and protests of all kinds have taken place in Washington, USA on many occasions over the last few years so why not in London outside our Parliament?
The GLA should see it as part of its role to allow the voice of its citizens to be heard, and not just the rich and powerful, but the voice of the ordinary people who are all too often are not heard.
It reminds me of Mrs Thatcher who tried to get rid of the GLC when she closed and sold their office on the embankment (then it was No GLC, so knock down their HQ, now it NO Peace Camps in Parliament Square so evict the protesters!).
Ken Livingstone and the GLA should know better - shame on you!!
Neil Wiliams
Neil i agree .. so I am sure you will support a respect candidate against Livingstone?
Comment by jj — 15 November, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
“This may seem like a rather obvious point, but is it simply up to Galloway and Ron Mackay where he stands?
Doesn’t Respect have a national steering committee and a selections procedure of some sort?
I only ask.”
august 2007… blog comment from Andy
Time to celebrate Andy…….I agree with you!!! break open a beer..
Comment by jj — 15 November, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
“Ian Donovan if I read his contribution seems to say there is no real difference between tories and labour party members? In thta case why the big arguement to not stand against Livingstone in London because losing to the tories would be a disaster?”
I never made any argument not to stand against Livingstone, I am all in favour of it. If Lindsey German’s campaign survives the self-inflicted wounds the SWP have inflicted on it, and she actually goes through with it, I’ll think she should be supported - on a similar basis to last time. We’ll see if it happens. Mind you, Livingstone is hardly mainstream Labour, he is an anomaly.
But actually, when it comes to the mainstream Labour Party types, as opposed to the leftist fringe that is getting more and more marginal, they are no better than Tories. On many questions worse. Incidentally, I note that before she was won to Respect, the former councillor Elaine Abbot was a mainstream Labour person who had been involved in privatising services in Preston. She is interviewed in this week’s Socialist Worker. How is she better than the guy in Birmingham Respect who used to be a Tory?
It was the SWP, who opposed making the abolition of the monarchy Respect policy at the founding congress of Respect, part of making Respect ‘broad’. Why? I dont believe anyone Respect was ever likely to win would be in favour of the monarchy, so why ‘compromise’ on this elementary democratic question. George Galloway, by the way, has made his republicanism crystal clear on his radio show, and I recall also on BBC question time.
This coalition-building was not ‘popular frontism’ … but this was an early example of Respect’s political development being held back in a rightist direction by people like JJ.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 15 November, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
Prinkipo Exile’s post 118 nails all the hypocrisy about the Nechell’s candidate’s background. But what is missing from the SWP bloggers on this tread is any understanding that in throwing about allegations about ‘pocket members’ they repeat exactly the same arguments the Labour party did in Birmingham to purge and shut down its CLP’s because they could no longer control them. What is disgusting is to see another group of white lefties now pontificating about the intentions of an Asian candidate in Birmingham with accusations of him being ‘bought off’ despite knowing absolutely nothing about him, his history or his track record, in their drive for control.
All of this student politics will dissipate pretty soon. And when it does one thing will be abundantly clear: the SWP will have destroyed whole chunks of the political capital they accrued in the anti-war movement. The best opportunity they have ever had to be at the heart of a left realignment to Labour will be in tatters. SWP Respect will be nothing more than a front, and a weak one at that unless you think a meeting of ‘80’ in TH represents the great leap forward. To put it into perspective, SW reports on a similar meeting with Lindsey German of the same size in Islington where SWP Respect has no councilors.
For the SWP this whole affair represents a massive self-inflicted political wound, a huge retreat from the expectations when Respect was first launched, and the end of any serious work in this arena. Only those happy in a sectarian ghetto or blinded by party loyalty will see it any other way.
Comment by Ger Francis — 15 November, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
Post 124 by JJ: Nice you agree with me.
I stand by every word - I am no fan of Ken Livingstone. But please - get real: The SWP and Socialist Worker before the formation of Respect have called in election after election for a vote for Labour as in the best interests of working people (’vote Labour with no illusions was the old slogan’) so did that mean the SWP supported Wilson, Callahan, Kinnock or Blair and all their actions - ofcourse not - it was a tactical decision based on looking at what was in the best interests of working people and the socialist movement at that point in time and you are well aware of this.
No decision by Respect Renewal has been made yet about the GLC elections or Ken Livingstone nor has one been confirmed by the SWP-Respect (unles the SWP CC has already made the decision for everyone) as both have not elected a new National Council until Saturday or even later.
There will be many factors to consider (and whatever decision is made by either Respect Renewal or SWP-Respect there will be honourable people who are at liberty to disagree)and it is quite possible to stand for the GLA assembly but not for the mayor or stand for both or in fact not stand for either. I look forward to this interesting debate but clearly it will not be with you but, with those of us inside a Respect not controlled by the SWP.
Neil Williams
Comment by Neil Williams — 15 November, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
An ex-Tory who joins Respect via New Labour is good. An ex-Tory who joins Respect without spending time in New Labour is bad. What’s the difference? Answer, one anecdote serves JJ’s purposes, the other doesn’t. Indeed, all this underlines is my point … these days, there ain’t that much difference between Labour and Tory at local level. That’s why the Labour left does so poorly in the constituencies these days, and depends on he dwindling influence of the union bureaucracy to save a little bit of face. In days gone by, it was the union bureaucracy that disciplined the constituency left.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 15 November, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
Oh look, Ger’s back. And look what he’s come up with:
But what is missing from the SWP bloggers on this tread is any understanding that in throwing about allegations about ‘pocket members’ they repeat exactly the same arguments the Labour party did in Birmingham to purge and shut down its CLP’s because they could no longer control them.
Of course, Ger’s just admitted he has simply no idea who longstanding TH councillor Kumar Murshid is. It takes a rare brazenness for someone who freely admits his ignorance of Tower Hamlets politics to draw the instant comparisons he has. But accusations on the basis of ignorance is something - at least in this thread - Ger has made a speciality of.
I also note Ger’s other MO: quivering prophecies as to the appalling doom that awaits all those who follow the eeeeeeevil SWP on its course (of opposing sexism, of opposing rigged elections, of opposing pocket members, of fighting for the best democratic traditions of the labour movement - but never mind). Quite the soothsayer. He once again displays his ignorance of TH politics if he thinks that a meeting of 80, in one Tower Hamlets ward, with serious political discussion, is not something to cheer about given recent debacles.
Perhaps Ger - or indeed anyone else in GG’s merry little band of followers - would care to address the issues Kumar actually raises? Or indeed any other, you know, actual political question?
Comment by The East is Red — 15 November, 2007 @ 8:58 pm
Oh. I get it. Because Kumar regurgitates the kind of arguments the Labour party machine used to purge inner city Birmingham wards of those uppity Pakistanis that’s OK now. Nah, don’t think so. And the spin on the Tower Hamlets meeting stuff ‘with the serious discussion’ (from all the white folk by all accounts) has a somewhat desperate feel about it.
Comment by Ger Francis — 15 November, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
Because Kumar regurgitates the kind of arguments the Labour party machine used to purge inner city Birmingham wards of those uppity Pakistanis that’s OK now.
You don’t even know who he is, do you? (You said as much.) You haven’t the faintest clue about what’s been happening in Tower Hamlets, have you?
You have precisely zero authority on this.
Comment by The East is Red — 15 November, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
Neil - “a Respect not controlled by the SWP.”
Ah, finally, you are free from the oppressor! Down with the oppressive party that loses in candidate selection meetings in TH and Birmingham. Down with the SWP that votes against revolutionary slogans in order to work with those to their right in the formation of Respect and since. Down with the party that doesn’t always do what we tell them…oops…I mean that stirs up trouble by not supporting everything the Galloway people want.
Ian - The point is not the specific arc of their political journey - it is that a man who was a Tory was recruited as a Respect candidate not on the basis of a political shift but on the basis of getting him to not run against Respect. Ger has said this himself. And it wasn’t done democratically but via backroom meetings. No matter how you might justify this, it publicly undermines the perception of Respect in the eyes of voters as anything other than another party which maneouvres for electoral advantage.
Comment by Canadien — 15 November, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
“Because Kumar regurgitates the kind of arguments the Labour party machine used to purge inner city Birmingham wards of those uppity Pakistanis that’s OK now. Nah, don’t think so. And the spin on the Tower Hamlets meeting stuff ‘with the serious discussion’ (from all the white folk by all accounts) has a somewhat desperate feel about it.”
So when brown people disagree with Ger they “regurgitate” racist arguments. And when there’s a meeting with 50% brown people that explodes arguments about the character of the split (with two of three speakers being brown) - it is a desperate ploy by white folk. Interesting logic… who’s desperate?
Comment by Canadien — 15 November, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
Ger- whats all this reference to the “White folk” nonsense. I suppose Kumar, Oli and others present and quoted don’t count now do they?? what a foul bit of populist rubbish. WHo mentioned “Uppity pakistanis” you did! The issue in B’Ham south was you!!! and your 34 new members yep and you are white so don’t try and give some pathetic cover for your behaviour. You have never explained how those new members were recruited in the few days prior to the selection meeting for conference… not one word from you about concerns of YOUR rigging of elections. But when socialists ask for there to be accountability you have the nerve to try and accuse the SWP of racism. Why don’t you just admit it you faked the new members to carve out socialists.
Oh by the way what do you think of GG’s article- is there the slightest possibility of any opposition to the great leader for his offensive article about “Uppity women” or perhaps 50% of the population aren’t worth defending. Wonder what Salma makes of GG’s sexual politics- first oppose going to gay pride, stand against the labour MP because ” He strongly supports gay rights” and oppose building in the unions. Then your bunch advertise your GG love in by links to speeches of Karen Reismann and Michale Lavalette… really pathetic.. but if all else fails really stick the boot in the socialist cllr’s ..Ger you are becoming are rather an eccentric fool. Reduced to defending rigging elections.. jeez your new organisation is going to be so open.. don’t think so…
Comment by jj — 15 November, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
Canadien ..same old negative sniping…..why dont you try engage in some kind of meaningful discussion for a change instead of your ever defensive durge in defense of the SWP……..yawn!
Comment by Paris 2007 — 15 November, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
I’m not convinced there was much difference, except that the one JJ is citing got caught doing something slightly dodgy - not ballot rigging (as someone said), incidentally, but standing for election when disqualified because of an unexpired conviction for some petty offence. Which is a reactionary law we should oppose, by the way. That was the case JJ cited.
In the case Ger cited, the guy is apparently still a Respect activist, so how can you say there was no political shift? Can’t comment on ‘backroom deals’, except I dont believe that Ger is the only SWP full-timer who ever did anything like that.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 15 November, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
Paris - um, dude, get a grip. I was responding to a race-baiting argument by Ger and unsubstantiated nonsense from Neil. Follow the thread. And when you throw rhetoric around like “defensive durge in defense of…” you are guilty of your own charges. But thanks for the pointer.
Comment by Canadien — 15 November, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
Post 131. I am well aware who Kumar is. Bloke with very damaged rep due to corruption charges who, after being barred from standing for the Labour party, joins Respect. Within 5 minutes of arriving starts lobbying for selection for the Benthal Green seat. The good news though is that he is the owner of a posh restaurant in Covent Garden which I would love to check out. We need more restaurateurs in Respect, is my view.
Comment by Ger Francis — 15 November, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
Ian - “In the case Ger cited, the guy is apparently still a Respect activist, so how can you say there was no political shift? Can’t comment on ‘backroom deals’, except I dont believe that Ger is the only SWP full-timer who ever did anything like that.”
The point isn’t whether he is still an activist or not. The end does not justify the means. The point is that he was recruited on an opportunist basis, which is bound to leave a taste of shabby electoralism for your own base of supporters. Especially because he was chosen without even a members vote on it. And Ger’s actions viz the Nechells candidate were long after he left the SWP - but nice try, trying to pin that one back on the SWP. I’m afraid he’s one of your guys.
Comment by Canadien — 15 November, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
why dont you try engage in some kind of meaningful discussion for a change instead of your ever defensive durge in defense of the SWP
Yes, Canadien, for heaven’s sake don’t defend the organisation, don’t actually respond to people attacking you and your politics. That’s just the last thing anyone would want in a debate.
Comment by The East is Red — 15 November, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
He was, however, acquitted of those charges by a jury (in my understanding) and there is reason to believe they were malicious - probably with some resemblance to similar nasty stuff against ‘uppity’ leftwing Asian politicians in Birmingham. Which only goes to show that some elements on both sides of this divide have similar experiences at the hands of New Labour and similar forces. It’s something of a tragedy that the SWP side is now starting to use these stereotypes for their own purposes.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 15 November, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
I am well aware who Kumar is.
Done a quick check, then. Well done - rang Kevin up? And it’s a jolly nice restaurant (I have been). And I’m aware that the charges were dropped, and that he fell out with the Labour Party; GG has, of course, some experience of this situation. GG, as you should now know, originally vocally supported his candidature for BG&B, appearing at a press conference to do so back in July.
Now, to move away from the sub-ad hominems, and to address the political issues Kumar raises: do you think what he calls “pocket members” are the way to run a democratic political party? Do you think the practices we saw in Tower Hamlets were acceptable?
Or are you going to try and change the subject again? Only I’m starting to think you’re a little, well, embarrassed by all this.
Comment by The East is Red — 15 November, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
Ian - “It’s something of a tragedy that the SWP side is now starting to use these stereotypes for their own purposes.”
Brother, are you delusional? It was Ger who accused Kumar on the question of the “corruption” allegations, not the SWP. And it was in response to Kumar’s complaint that the use of patronage politics (”pocket members”), which drove him out of New Labour, were in evidence amongst a section of Respect in TH.
Comment by Canadien — 15 November, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
“Brother, are you delusional? It was Ger who accused Kumar on the question of the “corruption” allegations, not the SWP.”
My reading is that he was just flinging your own nonsense back at you.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 15 November, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
My reading is that he was just flinging your own nonsense back at you.
Ian, it’s a straight question: do you support the practices Kumar describes as occurring in TH Respect? I don’t for one moment think that you do. So why do you find yourselves on the side of the people that don’t just support those practices - they actually carry them out?
Comment by The East is Red — 15 November, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
Canaadian. ‘White folk’ was euphuism for a certain type of individual and leftist behaviour at meetings in areas with large minority ethnic populations. I’m sure you’ve seen it many times; the ‘White folk’ just not being able to restrain themselves from soaking up all the oxygen. From what I heard that’s what happened at the SWP Respect meeting in TH. If I’m wrong. Great. In the meantime, calm down.
You are wrong about me not being in the SWP at the time of the great Nechells crave up. (It is becoming more difficult to take you seriously but I do admire your confidence to intervene in detailed issues 5,000 miles from where you live. And there’s me wanting to stay out of Tower Hamlets and it’s just down the road. Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability.
Indeed I could easily have stayed inside the SWP if I had not thought that arguing the party line that it was a problem standing 7 Asian candidates in a 40 seat strong constituency. Something about it just did not feel right. Y’know, that whole ‘White folk’ thing. And before you say it, I ‘m sure you’re right; this is just further proof that I went ‘native’ as the SWP allege. What can I say, you and they, are right. Some residue of anti-colonialism in my Irish blood is all I can attribute it too.
East is Red. I do condemn the actions in TH. Chuck that Rees bloke out, I say. Organising break-away factions, taping of meetings and the like. What kind of carry-on is that for a national secretary? And bring back Labour party methods! Now there’s a group of people who know how to organize a witch-hunt. Oh. And calm down about your meeting. It was fantastic success. I take it all back.
Comment by Ger Francis — 15 November, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
Oh. And the answer to your big question: either members are signed up according to how the rules stand or they are not. Not that complicated really.
Comment by Ger Francis — 15 November, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
“The end does not justify the means. The point is that he was recruited on an opportunist basis, which is bound to leave a taste of shabby electoralism for your own base of supporters.”
So he shouldnt have been recruited, then? Unlike *your* ex-Tory, he’s fine, you see. And your ex-New Labour councillor who was involved in privatisation before she joined Respect.
“Especially because he was chosen without even a members vote on it. And Ger’s actions viz the Nechells candidate were long after he left the SWP - but nice try, trying to pin that one back on the SWP. I’m afraid he’s one of your guys.”
Ger was trained in the SWP, and his ‘hard’ profile and commandism was the result of that training, not anything learned anywhere else. The SWP leadership only broke with him because he showed independent political judgement - i.e. he questioned orders from above. He might not be right in his judgements, but that’s a matter for debate. Or in a democratic organisation it would be.
The biggest problem with Respect was not that it was in any formal sense undemocratic, but rather that its formal democracy was stunted by the parallel, flawed and bureaucratic regime in its biggest component.
I am all in favour of ending all ‘back-room deals’ and creating a democratic party culture in a revived Respect where that stuff can no longer happen. But considering you apologists for the SWP leadership are supporting the gerrymandering of an entire national conference, complaining about ‘backroom deals’ for the nomination in one council ward is rather small beer by comparison. Rather grotseque in its hypocrisy.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 15 November, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
Do I support the recruiting of fictional members? No. But the only place I have heard any real evidence of that happening is the student delegations to the husk of a ‘conference’ that will happen in Westminster on Saturday.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 15 November, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
Ah, the rule-book. Not something Galloway’s little helpers have bothered themselves with, recently, but I’m glad to see they’ve been paying some attention. Are we then to infer from your sudden adherence to the letter of the democractic constituion of Tower Hamlets Respect that you would support the duly, constitutionally-elected conference delegate list?
Or are we into the fun business of chopping and changing and observing the rules as we see fit? (It is, of course, this sort of behaviour that causes splits in new, small organisations. It is such behaviour from GG’s claque that have led us to this mess.) Because you know as well as I do that the issue is not a breach of the formal rules - it is of the political practices that surround them. And no socialist - not even some of those lurking on this site - can possibly support a situation in which tens of memberships, costing hundreds of pounds, are bought at once, by one person, in order to influence an internal selection vote.
Still perhaps this is as close as we’ll come to an honest answer from you: I am forced to assume that you do support buying votes at selection meetings.
Comment by The East is Red — 15 November, 2007 @ 10:46 pm
Do I support the recruiting of fictional members? No. But the only place I have heard any real evidence of that happening is the student delegations to the husk of a ‘conference’ that will happen in Westminster on Saturday.
Oh, the members are reall enough. Some of them turn up; not all (not always too reliable). They’ve just had their membership paid for by someone else, shortly before a selection meeting, to vote for a preferred candidate. Is this desirable, do you think?
You came to conference last year, didn’t you, Ian? (I assume you did.) The student delegations there were attending on exactly the same basis as now. And yet you raised not a peep in objection, as far as I can tell. Still, we’re into the land of the witch-burners now: hunting down and driving out the liveliest, the most active, and - yes - the most radical sections of a political organisation is of a piece with the behaviour of right-wing Labour Party bureaucrats and leaders since the party was founded.
Of course, the Labour Party had hundreds of thousands of members at the time. Respect has a tiny fraction of that number. Which makes the whole thing even more pathetic.
Comment by The East is Red — 15 November, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
Ah, so breach of the the rules then . You assume whatever you want. Now, interesting as I find myself, I think this tread is going somewhat off beam from Ian Drummond’s rather damning insights into Student Respect going-on’s to construct ‘constitutionally-elected conference delegate lists’ to use East is Red’s turn of phrase.
Comment by Ger Francis — 15 November, 2007 @ 10:59 pm
come on ger- what about the sexist clap trap of the one who must be obeyed.any thoughts.. and while you contemplate that tricky conundrum.. where did those 30 odd members you produced on the day of the meeting actally come from??
Comment by jj — 15 November, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
“Oh, the members are reall enough. Some of them turn up; not all (not always too reliable).”
Sounds like quite a few members I know.
“They’ve just had their membership paid for by someone else, shortly before a selection meeting, to vote for a preferred candidate. Is this desirable, do you think?”
I know the story, I just find it too convenient an explanation for trying to exclude people you disagree with from voting against you. To me it stinks that a majority white SWP delegation can come from overwhelimingly Begali and non-SWP TH branch on this basis. Particularly since I know from experience how the delegation in my branch was supposed to be 100% SWP - and that was proposed ‘behind closed doors’. I’m not so gullible as to fall for this patter.
“The student delegations there were attending on exactly the same basis as now. And yet you raised not a peep in objection, as far as I can tell.”
Didn’t even know about it, to be honest. That doesn’t make it right.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 15 November, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
I keep asking the same question from the SWP - (and forget about whether or not anyone objected last year when the conferecne was not controverisal) - can it be right for less that ten paid up members to send twelve delegates to conference. It really is a simple question.
And on the issue of whether the first members meeting elected a constitutional slate of delegates, there are two questions. i) a political one, how come the slate had 50% SWP members? ii) a procedural one, that the secretary’s e-mail inviting nominations did not outline any pre-agreed procediure for putting forward a slate, and also did not say it had to be done before the meeting.
This point was conceded by Cllr Hussain Ahmed whi is an SWP member, in an e-mail to the TH Respect discussion list
http://www.socialistunity.com/?page_id=860
Comment by Andy — 15 November, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
ah donovan.. are you going to oppose GG sexist drivel?? babeuf so far is the only GG fan to have done so.. come on join him/her.
of course what Donovan doesn’t mention was that the parety discussion was wether to nominate him for conferecne .. concernswere that he would then refuse to go.. guess what he stated at the meeting he didn’t want to go, conference should be banned etc etc then complains he or his GG fans didn’t get elected to go.. the twisted logic,
Donovan of course now follows Ger into the land of ethnic selection for conferences.. funny both are white and both will certainly want to be amongst the movers and shakers there is jo way they are going to step down for someone else.
Ger never expalins where he stumbled on 30 odd new members on the day of the selection meeting.. it does need some explanation Ger because it looks bad.
Comment by jj — 15 November, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
a text from 18th october.. how enlightening. clearly GG towers is not only trying out muscle opposition, tell people meetings are cancelled when they are not. The situation in TH is as follows it seems to me
chair saw he was going to lose the vote and then decided to cancel meeting stating he had a buisness to run.
Andy .. any views yet on the GG sexist drivel I know you have been thinking about it. but yor views which lets be honest you do not keep under a bushel would be appreciated. If also a response to GG statement abvout Gay Rights when announcing to stand for MP would eb great as well.
Comment by jj — 15 November, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
I see GG towers have put links to Karen Reismann and Lavalette’s speeches as reason to attend their love in for Georgie.. shame they don’t go along with his charade… some mistake surely, perhaps another mistake on the website like when Georgie put homophobic statement he read out on his radio show.. you think with his 300,000 grand a year he would be able to have a better web person.. perhaps Andy !!!!
Comment by jj — 15 November, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
Just ignore JJ on this thread. He failed to answer a simple question on another thread on SUN.
He’s turned down an offer to meet me in person at the end of the demo for Karen in Manchester on the 24th Nov.
I think he believes he’s the scarlet pimpernel
Comment by Richard Searle — 15 November, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
TH respect went from 180 odd memebrs in June 2007 to 850 odd memebers in Sept– unless there has been a mass upsurge of class conciousness then there seems to be a problem don’t you think.. oh no its GG supporters doing this so its ok according to Ger.. its acceptable and those terrrible SWP should shut up about it..where will it end Ger.. backing recent tories for seats.. oh yes you’ve already done this. WHilst Donovan argues there is no difference between a tory party member and a labour party member!!! and he then says the SWP are ultra left. I mean it is the logic of popular frontism- deny class differecnes and hope everythings ok and shut up the left because it puts people off…Ger you must have been asleep in all those meetings on spain, france 36 etc etc
Comment by jj — 15 November, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
‘Ger never expalins where he stumbled on 30 odd new members on the day of the selection meeting.. it does need some explanation Ger because it looks bad.’
Really? Only to those who conduct their arguments by smears while hiding behind pseudonyms, I think. But since you asked. The members came from Cllr Ishtiaq in the main. He did a phone round of people who had supported his campaign, encouraging them to join, and a stream of people dropped into his front room over the course of a few hours. It was easy. We have been slack on turning members into supporters in view of the scale of the support we have. That’s all changing now though. Rest were registrations including some very prominent members and long standing supporters. So, that looks dodgy, does it? All a plot to increase out delegate entitlement by three for what purpose exactly?
Comment by Ger Francis — 15 November, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
richard.. you can’t oppose sexist drivel from GG. I mean if someone asks you a question from USA do you refuse because they can’t meet you in person!!!!it is some simple .. oppose GG sexist nonsense written in a national newspaper. I know that personally you wouldn’t agree with this stuff but what is the problem with raising a little criticism of GG.. will it be that bad?
Comment by jj — 15 November, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
Ger.. why did this happen on the preceeding days to the meeting. Please let us know how recruitment has been going following the meeting.?I mean 30 in one day… must be hundreds by now?
Comment by jj — 15 November, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
“It was easy” never thought of it before, gosh all these people just needed to be phoned up.. really easy.. I mean so easy that we had never thought of it before that day just stumbled on the idea?? come on Ger pull the other one.
but fair play you did eventually answer. what about the sexist drivel?
Comment by jj — 15 November, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
Whatever. I don’t feel I owe any more answers to somebody afraid to identify themselves.
Comment by Ger Francis — 15 November, 2007 @ 11:35 pm
sexist drivel ok then?
Comment by jj — 15 November, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
Come on JJ, it’s past your bedtime, and you’ve got school tomorrow.
Comment by Richard Searle — 15 November, 2007 @ 11:40 pm
JJ - you see I first joined the SWP in 1978, and although I left after a couple of years to join the Labour Party, while I was in the Labour Party I still basically had the SWP’s politics, and then rejoined the party in 1986. And in total I did 20 years in the SWP.
In retrospect, there were times when the SWP were brilliant. And I learned my politics in the SWP, acheived some political victories, made lasting friends, and met comrades for whom I will have a lifelong respect and affection for. The IS/SWP produced some of the most inspiring worker intellectuals of the post war period, think of comrades of the stature of Duncan Hallas, but also thoughtful and insightful militants like Dave Hayes and Roger Cox.
Even today, the SWP can be brilliant, and the often criticised Chris Nineham has done absolutley amazing work with the military families along with Andrew Burgin.
When I went to the National Shop Stewards Network confernce in July, I was really upset that the SWP did not have a bigger presence there, although HOward Wong did speak very well in the session on migramt workers that i chaired. Upset partly because as someone schooled in old style SWP politics it seemed wrong for the SWP not to be making this the top priority, but also disappointed because the SWP do bring a vibrancy and determintation to campaigns. I missed them. I still miss the SWP now, but it is no longer the organisation i joined, and I have also moved on politically.
BUt when I read your Healyite sectarian attacks on other comrades, i am actually ashamed for the SWP that you are associated with them. Away from the dust of this faction fight, I will be happily working with SWP members, to oppose the war on Iran, to oppose racism, to promote fighting trade unionism. I have been an active socialist for 33 years now since I first joined the labour Party when I was thirteen, and I will be an active socialist until I die. And I will always work with any other socialist, whatever organisation they are in, for the mutual benefit of our class and for the socialist future.
So don’t poison that goodwill among socialists, with your petty jibes, and spite born of excessive loyalty to one organisation.
Comment by Andy — 15 November, 2007 @ 11:40 pm
Now, interesting as I find myself, I think this tread is going somewhat off beam from Ian Drummond’s rather damning insights into Student Respect going-on’s to construct ‘constitutionally-elected conference delegate lists’ to use East is Red’s turn of phrase.
“Rather damning insights”. Interesting use of the word “damning”. And “insights”. (”Rather” I let stand as an example of Ger’s scintillating rhetorical style.) Of course, just because Ger asserts something to be true, doesn’t actually make it true. As we have seen on this thread before.
As myself and others have pointed out, the proposed student delegations were to be elected on exactly the same basis as last year; the same basis as used by, for example, the Labour Party and its own student organisations. This was fine last year - so why the ballyhoo now?
The answer’s obvious: because someone has dug out their I-Spy book of Redbaiting, and realised that going after the youth and student sections is your classic witch-hunt style. So classic, in fact, that I can’t actually believe they’re doing it - irony is mostly lost on GG’s claque, although I note Ger has certain way with sxith-form sarcasm, in lieu of political arguments.
I must add, in passing, that the argument “but it wasn’t controversial last year” offered as an excuse for this years’ desperate maneuverings tickles me. That, comrades, is precisely the point: it is controversial, there is an argument, and the fact that you are worried you might lose it means you are prepared to tear up existing practices to get your own way.
In fact there’s a bit of toys-pram issue with GG’s fanclub. The chair of Tower Hamlets Respect failed to take the other side of a vote at our last members’ meeting (having counted only 35 in his favour) when it looked like he might lose it. When conference looked like it wouldn’t necessarily - I mean it’s not even a guarranteed loss, is it? - vote to cheerlead GG forever more, his little helpers called a rally in opposition. For crying out loud, comrades, if you’re so convinced by your arguments - stay and have them out. Convince people.
Ger: so you now voice your support for the TH Respect rule-book. This is good. It means a democratic and accountable organisation can be run there; if only you’d said earlier, you wouldn’t have needed to split the coalition.
Comment by The East is Red — 16 November, 2007 @ 12:00 am
So East is east, perhaps you didn’t read the question I have now asked at least twice.
can it be right for less that ten paid up members to send twelve delegates to conference. It really is a simple question?
Comment by Andy — 16 November, 2007 @ 12:04 am
I know the story, I just find it too convenient an explanation for trying to exclude people you disagree with from voting against you. To me it stinks that a majority white SWP delegation can come from overwhelimingly Begali and non-SWP TH branch on this basis. Particularly since I know from experience how the delegation in my branch was supposed to be 100% SWP - and that was proposed ‘behind closed doors’. I’m not so gullible as to fall for this patter.
I’m not quite sure how I can make this more clear to you. When non-SWP, Bengali Respect members are telling you that this is occurring; when we have seen people turn up at the National Office with stacks of membership forms in one hand, stacks of cash in the other (all on £10 membership, naturally); when the membership leaps mysteriously every time there is a selection meeting; and when at least one person taking part in such activities, before the 2006 AGM, cheerily admitted that he’d paid for his new members… when the situation is as clear as this, it is simply denying reality to claim you find it “too convenient”.
For your information, at no point and at no time has anyone attempted to exclude “pocket members”, no matter how obvious they may think the case to be. As Ger’s sudden discovery of the rule-book might show, this isn’t about the formal rules as such, it’s about the practices surrounding those rules. The only attempted exclusions I’ve seen were of a group of new members - mostly young Bengali women - from the last members’ meeting, by a group of men who yelled and shouted and at one point said, “Why are these women here? I didn’t bring my wife.”
An offer, Ian: come to Tower Hamlets, and talk to some of the people there. None of this is news to the membership. No-one is denying that these practices are taking place. The Left in Tower Hamlets do not want to see it continue. The question really is - do you support it, or oppose it? And if you oppose it, why are you on the side of those supporting it?
Comment by The East is Red — 16 November, 2007 @ 12:12 am
“the same basis as used by, for example, the Labour Party and its own student organisations. ”
A technical point, but that’s not true - Labour clubs don’t send delegates to the Labour Party Conference, though Labour Students does as an affiliated organisation, on the same basis that the unions and other affiliated organisations do.
Comment by Graham Day — 16 November, 2007 @ 12:19 am
So East is east, perhaps you didn’t read the question I have now asked at least twice.
can it be right for less that ten paid up members to send twelve delegates to conference. It really is a simple question?
Comment by Andy — 16 November, 2007 @ 12:21 am
going after the youth and student sections is your classic witch-hunt style
Tell you what, let’s use this thread to name all the people who have been expelled from RESPECT in the course of this witch-hunt. After that, we can name all the RESPECT members who have been pressurised to leave by the RESPECT-Renewal witch-hunters. Let’s get it out in the open - let’s name every one of them, never mind how long it takes. I’m sure Andy won’t mind.
Comment by Phil — 16 November, 2007 @ 12:24 am
can it be right for less that ten paid up members to send twelve delegates to conference. It really is a simple question?
It is simple, isn’t it? The student delegates should be elected on the basis that they were last year. SOAS has a student society membership of 116 (from Drummond’s account). They are entitled to select a proportional number of delegates. As I believe is the case in, for example, the Labour Party, and the benighted Liberal Democrats.
Why didn’t you complain about this last year? Why didn’t the officers’ group complain about it as late as September this year?
The answer, again, is simple: this is a witch-hunt of the student delegations. That’s why there’s a sudden fuss about it. GG’s followers are too frightened to have an argument out in front of a properly-constituted, democratic conference, and so made a feeble effort to carve out the students - aping every attack on the left ever made by the Labour Party’s leadership. When that didn’t work, they called a rally to clash with confernce, deliberately splitting the organisation. Toys and prams.
It’s particularly irritating because we did lose loads of votes in Tower Hamlets, but we still stayed and campaigned in Respect - we certainly didn’t have to. GG’s mob won’t even risk losing one vote before they storm off in a huff.
Comment by The East is Red — 16 November, 2007 @ 12:25 am
Interestingly, you keep saying whay wasn’t this challenged last year. There is no sudden fuss - it was challenged last year as well.
Alan Thornett did in fact challenge it from the rostrum at the 2006 conference, pointing out that it created a problem for the democratic legitimacy of the conferecne - and that was last year.
Comment by Andy — 16 November, 2007 @ 12:28 am
And East is East, perhaps you find this a bit too compliacted, but a simple yes/no would do.
can it be right for less that ten paid up members to send twelve delegates to conference.
Comment by Andy — 16 November, 2007 @ 12:29 am
Tell you what, let’s use this thread to name all the people who have been expelled from RESPECT in the course of this witch-hunt.
We must be in a near-unprecedented situation. I am starting to wonder what happens to the witch-hunters when the witches win. Perhaps they all turn into frogs?
(Of course, I wouldn’t want to claim that the eeeeeevil witches have “won”, not yet, not by a long, long way. I tihnk there’s a very serious job of work to persuade people to fight people for the original vision of Respect. I hope even people lurking on this site can be won to it. But it’s a little odd that the witch-hunters chose to pull the plug on Respect first, isn’t it? Changing the locks, calling the Renewal rally… it does rather smack of throwing in the towel.)
Comment by The East is Red — 16 November, 2007 @ 12:30 am
Sorry East is East, this shouldn’t be that hard, a simple yes/no would do.
can it be right for less that ten paid up members to send twelve delegates to conference.
Comment by Andy — 16 November, 2007 @ 12:32 am
(Weird - I thought I’d answered your question.)
Alan Thornett did in fact challenge it from the rostrum at the 2006 conference, pointing out that it created a problem for the democratic legitimacy of the conferecne - and that was last year.
Ah, Alan Thornett. He makes a good fig-leaf. So if it was such a crashing problem then, why is it now that it comes up as a serious issue? Why wasn’t it properly addressed by Linda Smith (or anyone else) last year, if it was so serious, even then? This isn’t some coincidence, as you admit: this is of a piece with attempting to neutralise conference and a failure to honestly confront arguments there. The Left has fought for conference to take place, on the democratic, constitutional basis it has taken place on for the last few years. GG’s claque chose to set up a rally in opposition.
Comment by The East is Red — 16 November, 2007 @ 12:37 am
I am starting to wonder what happens to the witch-hunters when the witches win.
Ah, I see. There was a witch-hunt, but now it’s ended because the witch-hunters have been defeated. And the fact that there have been no expulsions, no memberships revoked and no members pressurised to leave just shows how effective the resistance to the witch-hunt was.
On the other hand, in the same period there have been expulsions from the SWP - not to mention memberships being revoked and members being pressurised to leave. But I’m sure that’s normal democratic procedure and not a witch-hunt in any way.
Comment by Phil — 16 November, 2007 @ 12:43 am
East is east
SOAS Respect student society has 116 people who signed up for more information at freshers fare. many of the same people probably signed up with half a dozen other student societies.
How many of them are members of Respect? how many have been to a respect meeting? How many have made a financial contribution to Respect? We all know that the sign up lists for student societies are not a meaningful measure of actual membership, or even political support.
Do you dispute that there are less than ten paid up resepct members at SOAS?
If there are less than ten paid up members, can it be right to send twelve delegates?
I am after a political argument from you here about why you feel this is a satisfactory arrangement, not just an appeal to the precedent of last year.
Comment by Andy — 16 November, 2007 @ 12:45 am
Andy - on the basis of a partisan report you want people to answer a question which is skewed in the way that polls are skewed and based upon biased and unproven assumptions. Post a report from SOAS from someone who disagrees with your perspective and then let’s have a proper discussion. Otherwise this is phoney - just as the initial reports from TH created a false discussion because there weren’t both sides. Now that we’re hearing more fully the other side - mass recruitment of hundreds of pocket members at the lowest subs rate - it becomes clear that it wasn’t the SWP vs everyone else at all and a more complex picture is emerging. The same with the IB’s you’re posting - all you’re putting up are quotes from people who disagree with the majority perspective in order to make it appear that it is the CC against the membership.
For those reasons alone you will excuse those of us not convinced by the overall political argument you are making for not jumping to answer your question in the way that you want.
Ian - “Particularly since I know from experience how the delegation in my branch was supposed to be 100% SWP - and that was proposed ‘behind closed doors’. I’m not so gullible as to fall for this patter.”
See, Ian, this is what is called dishonesty. I read the branch report you wrote. There was a debate inside the SWP group prior to your branch meeting and ONE PERSON put forward that perspective (a 100% SWP slate) and was, rightly, argued against and defeated by the rest of the fraction. Instead they put forward a mixed slate proposal that INCLUDED YOU. Surely you’re not arguing that the SWP shouldn’t have democratic debates are you?
Comment by Canadien — 16 November, 2007 @ 12:49 am
The same with the IB’s you’re posting - all you’re putting up are quotes from people who disagree with the majority perspective
How do you know this? I’m intrigued.
Comment by Phil — 16 November, 2007 @ 12:54 am
Andy - “How many have made a financial contribution to Respect?”
We could easily ask that question of the people who were signed up as pocket members in their hundreds for TH. How many paid for themselves vs were paid for by the candidates who brought the memberships in with them. The question of which method of recruitment is more democratic - the delivery of dozens of names by one person vs the actual sign-up of students - is an interesting one but the fact that you are all sweated about one speaks to your own political bias rather than any in-built democratic superiority. In fact, since the TH model is built on the idea that the pocket members will show up to vote for a specific candidate, whereas the students are indicating a desire to join a left wing political group, it would seem to me that the students win hands down.
However, Andy, do you support candidates showing up with stacks of membership forms in the days prior to a vote? Do you feel because there is money paid (votes bought) that this is then acceptable?
Comment by Canadien — 16 November, 2007 @ 12:59 am
Phil - because there was a Party Council where a vote was taken.
Comment by Canadien — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:00 am
Phil - However, if you prefer, imagine that I said “people who agree with the perspective of this website”. It doesn’t change the validity of the point.
Comment by Canadien — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:01 am
Canadien
I know for a fact that students who sign a “keep me informed” sheet at freshers fare are not members.
As far as I can see the so called “pocket-members” have joined Respect in a constitutional way. You can insinuate away that they are not real members, but i think you should be cautious about the path you are taking there, and where it leads.
As regards Party Council, this is only as democratic as the delegate selection procedures for that body.
Comment by Andy — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:04 am
East is Red - basically your arguement boils down to ‘well we weren’t democratic last year, so why start now’. Ian Drummonds report is further information that shows the role of the SWP CC in manipulating the conference. How it can go ahead and claim to be democratic is nonsense.
Do you honestly think that a branch with 10 members should send 12 delegates?
Comment by CHAB — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:08 am
Canadien #184
“on the basis of a partisan report you want people to answer a question which is skewed in the way that polls are skewed and based upon biased and unproven assumptions.”
a “partisan report” written by someone who was up till that moment a loyal SWP member.
“Post a report from SOAS from someone who disagrees with your perspective and then let’s have a proper discussion.”
I note that East is Red does not dispute either that the number of deleates was based upon freshers sign up sheets, nor that they are not full memebrs of Respect. If you get me a report from a SWP loyalist from SOAS I will publish it. But it doesn’t really look like the facts are in dispute - only whether the delegate entitlement based on freshers signs ups is constitutional.
Comment by Andy — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:09 am
187. Yes, but to go to Party Council you have to be delegated from your branch. You try that if you are in disagreement with the CC! My branch were told to be careful who they send to Party Council and certain members were even excluded from voting by being told a totally different time for the meeting.
Comment by CHAB — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:12 am
Canadien: The same with the IB’s you’re posting - all you’re putting up are quotes from people who disagree with the majority perspective in order to make it appear that it is the CC against the membership.
No - I agree that the majority of SWP members probably agree with the CC, although perhaps with varying degrees of certainty.
The SWP can hardly complain that they are disadvantages in getting their side of the argument across, they have a web-site, a weekly paper, lenin’s Tomb, and a full time staff. Iif you want the full document published, ask them.
Comment by Andy — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:12 am
Well I have kept it in mind. Possibly the most stupid of many stupid comments in this thread. It was only last year that an SWP member gave me Galloway’s autobiography (still haven’t read it!) for my birthday. Clearly times have changed.
I have never supported Respect because I believed that it was always built on sand. The focus, on a cross class basis, on the Muslim community was electoral opportunism. But the SWP were happy with that, to play down socialism and any differences with Galloway, to the point of absurdity come Big Brother, and now they start remembering all the criticisms that others had been making from the start. Communalism - well yes, if you orientate to a community as a block that is very much what it is. That’s what they do in the USA appealing to ethnic groups and it has led to the disappearance of any serious socialist current.
But the SWP were happy with all of this. So what went wrong? It is difficult not to believe that the CC didn’t at some stage take stock and decide that Respect was no longer paying dividends. That SWP members weren’t being selectetd as candidates, it was Muslims instead. And having reached this consensus then they seized on Galloway’s document with both hands in order to provide a pretext to implode Respect. There really is no other explanation for why they agreed unanimously to the post of National Organiser and other measures, with an election in the offing of course, and then expelled Nick Wrack for accepting the post.
And then we have the ‘witchhunt’. It must be the first time that the witches have organised their own self-immolation and then emerged unscathed from the fires!
And then we have the absurdity of the expulsions. So Ian Drummond is expelled, or rather he tells us that he was told he had expelled himself! And he is advised to appeal to the Control Commission. Why? Does anyone have any statistics on how many appeals against expulsions the Control Commission have upheld? My guess is that it is close to, if not actually, zero.
I practice in Employment Tribunals and if an employee was told that they had just sacked themself then it would be a case of automatic unfair dismissal. If someone were to appeal to a committee that had never upheld an appeal then it would be clear evidence that it was a charade and hence unfair (the BBC fell into similar hot water when it was found that over 90% of appeals failed). Yet this, the most basic and elementary of democratic principles, is discarded as a luxury.
How can one expel members with 20 years in the Party on a whim and a nod? How indeed can one expel someone over the telephone?
The crisis in the SWP is matched by the inability of their more loyal clones here to be able to defend their positions other than by the kind of joke that would make even Mark Steel wince. And yet the demise of the SWP, because that is what we’re facing, is no joke.
>>I think it should be known that Ian Drummond is often described as ‘George Galloway’s number 1 fan’.
Keep that in mind when reading this.
Comment by JB
Comment by Tony Greenstein — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:15 am
Andy - “As regards Party Council, this is only as democratic as the delegate selection procedures for that body.”
This is what you call a sinister insinuation with nothing behind it.
Comment by Canadien — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:15 am
Andy - “a “partisan report” written by someone who was up till that moment a loyal SWP member.”
People change sides. That’s politics. Doesn’t make them any less partisan for it.
Comment by Canadien — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:17 am
Andy - “The SWP can hardly complain that they are disadvantages in getting their side of the argument across, they have a web-site, a weekly paper, lenin’s Tomb, and a full time staff.”
And the IB is an Internal Bulletin. It is meant for the members to have discussion amongst themselves so that they can reach agreement and act in a united way in the outside world. If you don’t want to respect that, fine, that’s your choice but if you don’t want to be accused of misrepresenting the balance of views, you should at least indicate what you know and the rest of the world can’t - that there is a debate inside the SWP in which members are arguing both sides. Giving full disclosure can only help your credibility when it comes to other arguments and you demand people answer them.
Comment by Canadien — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:21 am
CHAB - “Yes, but to go to Party Council you have to be delegated from your branch. You try that if you are in disagreement with the CC!”
Consider the possibility that rather than being faced by the Borg you just weren’t convincing enough to get selected. That’s how democracy works - sometimes you lose - as the SWP found out on a number of occasions inside TH (and then continued to campaign for the winner) and that is what the Renewal people are running from.
Comment by Canadien — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:25 am
#195
No Canadien
I have twenty year’s experience in the actually existing SWP to base that on, backed up by the testimony of a few of the people who have either recently left or are stil in the SWP who oppose the CC’s line.
Do you think the hundreds and thousands of ex-members are all lying?
What experience do you have of being in the SWP?
Comment by Andy — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:27 am
“As far as I can see the so called “pocket-members” have joined Respect in a constitutional way. You can insinuate away that they are not real members, but i think you should be cautious about the path you are taking there, and where it leads.”
Where does it lead? Somewhere exciting I hope. In any case the way that organizations function is a question not just of the constitution but also of “past practices” - this is also something which is used (in my country) in union negotiations to win new ground or prevent changes in workplace conditions. The SWP accepted the sign-up of dozens of members by candidates who showed up with the forms, the money, etc. Even though they saw it as a problem (and now I notice there are resolutions for the Respect conference that attempt to deal with that by expecting a period of membership before voting on candidates) they accepted it and the results it generated. However, you want your cake and eat it too. There is a past practice with student delegations that you want to change because you perceive it goes against your side. If your issue was really about democracy then you would challenge the totality of practices that you feel inflate delegations (I’m assuming that you disagree with patronage vote buying or ‘pocket members’).
Comment by Canadien — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:33 am
a period of membership before voting on candidates
That sounds like a sensible proposal.
Comment by Andy — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:39 am
Andy - “the testimony of a few of the people”
“Do you think the hundreds and thousands of ex-members are all lying?”
Wow, that was a rapid growth from a few to hundreds and thousands. Things are worse than I thought.
I have been around long enough to know that a) anecdotal evidence is less than scientific and b) that most people who leave an organization find a reason which makes themselves look correct. Obviously. Nobody thinks to themself - “god I’m wrong politically, I shouldn’t be in this organization any longer.” They construct reasons/narratives in which they are in the right. Sometimes correct, sometimes not, sometimes based upon a disagreement or a misunderstanding that they’ve expanded into a theory. I don’t think it’s a case of lying. You disagree with Leninism, if I’m not mistaken - therefore you find ways to prove your argument that leninism is a bad/wrong way to organize. I disagree with you - I find ways to poke holes in your argument. I’m in a leninist group and have been through fights in it - and in coalitions, etc - and heard people say stuff that I didn’t recognize as what happened, so I know from experience that anecdote is a very unreliable thing, especially for something like democracy, which everyone wants to claim the mantle of. After all, who can be against democracy, right? Only a dictator and we know that they’re bad. So, I’m always skeptical about such arguments and I’m more moved when people make political arguments about perspectives, what should be done, why we need to organize in this or that way, etc.
Sorry, that took me a bit of a ways off…
Comment by Canadien — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:44 am
#201 - holy shit we just agreed.
Comment by Canadien — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:45 am
Just one other thing on the composition of student delegations. How is double counting being avoided?
I know one student member who I believe was counted as a member in the delegate entitlement of their branch, and has now popped up as a student delegate from the Uni they have newly enrolled at. The Labour Party allows double (and triple etc) representation but in each case you still have to pay a fee, over and above the party membership, to the other affiliated organisation eg trade union, labour club etc.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 16 November, 2007 @ 5:38 am
“An offer, Ian: come to Tower Hamlets, and talk to some of the people there. None of this is news to the membership. No-one is denying that these practices are taking place. The Left in Tower Hamlets do not want to see it continue. The question really is - do you support it, or oppose it? And if you oppose it, why are you on the side of those supporting it?”
Actually, I have spent rather a lot of time in Tower Hamlets, both during the Shadwell by-election and in previous campaigns including the General Election. Never head these complaints from any of the Bengali members I talked to, or for that matter the SWP people. Funny how all this suddenly comes up as an issue when the SWP leadership want to gerrymander a conference. Funny how the Tower Hamlets delegation gets to be majority white SWPers when the members are mainly non-white Bengali Muslims. And this is the practice of ‘the left’? Sounds more like the South African rugby team to me.
Not what I joined Respect for. I joined Respect to fight anti-Muslim racism, not to get involved in promoting it. In this regard it is fitting that the racist pig JJ, whose rantings are virtually copied word for word from the AWL’s Jim Denham and other such scum, is your champion in this discussion.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 16 November, 2007 @ 9:40 am
‘I joined Respect to fight anti-Muslim racism, not to get involved in promoting it…’
This is shameful stuff. I can’t believe how low this site is getting.
Comment by mm — 16 November, 2007 @ 11:02 am
No ashamed of jj’s Denham-like rantings, then, his HP-Sauce flavoured Muslim-baiting stereotyping crap? Learn to like it … it appears to be the flavour of the month for some who used to denounce such stuff just as forthrightly as I am doing now. Or so it seems.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 16 November, 2007 @ 11:15 am
CHAB - “Yes, but to go to Party Council you have to be delegated from your branch. You try that if you are in disagreement with the CC!”
Consider the possibility that rather than being faced by the Borg you just weren’t convincing enough to get selected.
But somehow I did manage to get selected. The branch had in fact told myself and other dissenting members that the delegate meeting started at 7.30pm. When we arrived, we were told that they changed the time to 7pm and had already held the vote, thus excluding 2 dissenting members. We were told that a text message had gone out telling people of the time change. It seems everyone but us got the message, or those that we would have spoken to.
Our branch had also been told to ‘be careful who you send to Party Council’. I very much doubt that we are unique in terms of this.
Our Respect/SWP branch has all but collapsed now. There are more people going to the Renewal conference than went to the Respect/SWP branch meeting on Tuesday which signed a Unity statement and also a statement prepared by the SWP CC to send out to members. The fact that the meeting was inquorate and that they failed to invite the chair and convenor (and anyone who disagreed with them) doesn’t bother them. The majority of members and supporters are in favour of Respect Renewal.
Comment by CHAB — 16 November, 2007 @ 11:21 am
No Ian, you are suggesting the SWP is now ‘anti-muslim’. I will not get to like it, and am amazed how easily you can throw this around.
Comment by mm — 16 November, 2007 @ 11:31 am
mm
How come none of the more sensible people from the SWP have sought to distance themselves from JJ’s healyite baiting then?
What about JJ’s claim that somone with a position in the FBU is a ballot rigger?
JJ’s lie that I used to criticise the SWP for not standing up to “communalism” - wheereas I have from day one supported and applauded the SWP and Respect for their success with Muslims.
What about JJ’s continued demands for a condemnation of the attack on Oli, depite the fact that such condemnations have already been made?
and all the other rancid bile from JJ.
None of this have you distanced yourself from, so don’t get all moralistic about some criticisms of the SW that you don’t like.
Comment by Andy — 16 November, 2007 @ 11:40 am
I haven’t said the SWP as a whole is ‘anti-Muslim’ at all. I am merely pointing out the political logic of the kind of stuff that is now being thrown around. I actually think a great many SWPers, when they look at this stuff objectively, will recognise that they are being pushed in a direction utterly opposed to the thrust of all they have fought for for the last several years. The emergence of JJ as a proto-Denham type figure in the SWP milieu, the conspicuous silence of SWPers who used to eat such people for breakfast, the fact that the Alliance for White Liberty is now loudly proclaiming its support for the SWP side in this dispute, all mean something. As Bob Dylan once sang: “You don’t need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows”.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 16 November, 2007 @ 11:41 am
Good to see the debate moved onto such inane drivel…Was just curious how many different names you can log on with here…I might try taking 3 different lines of argument at the same time!!
Comment by damn right — 16 November, 2007 @ 11:53 am
“Well I have kept it in mind. Possibly the most stupid of many stupid comments in this thread. It was only last year that an SWP member gave me Galloway’s autobiography (still haven’t read it!) for my birthday. Clearly times have changed.”
I take it you don’t know Ian Drummond? Ask anyone that knows him who he idolises more than anyone else on planet Earth. JB wasn’t being nasty he was being honest.
And times have only changed since the SWP got a butcher’s knife lodged in their back by the one person they had defended relentlessly over the past 5 years.
Opinions tend to change when that happens to you.
Comment by Respect (unrenewed) — 16 November, 2007 @ 11:56 am
* 211
Always assuming that this site is where the SWP chose to have their battles of course!
As for eating jj for breakfast - I don’t even know who it is. Maybe she/he has been driven over the edge by the all the nonsense, i really don’t care.
I do know who you are and you seem to be suggesting SWP members are willinglyly or unwittingly being drawn towards a racist perspective. This to me is far more perniscious than someone who is fixated on GG’s sexism in mainstream newspapers. He is only doing to you what many people did to Respect members in the past, especially after Big Brother. It becomes a burden explaining away this stuff doesn’t it? Maybe it tipped she/he over the edge?
Comment by mm — 16 November, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
No mm
jj made much more serious allegations that a FBU member associated with Resepct was a ballot rigger.
Do you dissociate yourself with that smear and condemn its source?
Comment by Andy — 16 November, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
I dont think that allegations should be made without good reason, and this is why I am asking Ian D if he really believes that as an SWP member I am taking racist trajectory. As usual on here, you come in and move the subject under discussion.
As for the question of the FBU I am sure that there is a formal record of the case at FBU HQ if there was an issue.
I know you take the position that on no account should these matters be discussed whatever the context. Others do not agree with you.
Comment by mm — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
“this is why I am asking Ian D if he really believes that as an SWP member I am taking racist trajectory”
As an individual, I have no idea. I would not accuse SWPers in aggregate of this either. But JJ is, and no-one seems willing to denounce him for this. Which suggests to me that such ideas have become a respectable trend of thought in the SWP. If someone expressed such views in the past, SWPers would bite his/her head off, but not anymore. Things are in flux, and not what they were. That is the point.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
mm
“I know you take the position that on no account should these matters be discussed whatever the context. ”
Strange that you “know” I hold a position exactly the opposite of what i do hold.
Again, £50 to the Socialist Worker appeal if you can find a quote from me saying that, or withdraw it and apologise using your real name.
Comment by Andy — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Ok Andy if you must carry on with your playground approach. Tell me the thread when JJ first appeared with this stuff and I’ll have a look when I’ve got the time.
Seriously though, I understood your opinion to be that no member of the movement should discuss another’s activities openly, as a matter of principle. I dont know why you feel that is an attack on you though. It seems to me to be a good starting point. I could think of worse things to say about people.
If that is not your position I dont mind saying so, as I wasnt attacking you anyway. Does this mean that you are closer to the ‘in what context’ approach?
mm
m= mountains
m=molehills
Comment by mm — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
Anyone else received this bizarre email from “Respect” in the names of Michael Lavalette and Karen Reissmann? It complains that they are banned from joining Respect Renewal because they are in the SWP. I hadn’t realised they wanted to join, but I would certainly welcome them. I am not personally aware that there is any ban on SWP members joining.
While I’m in the mood for questions, what is the status of the “Independent Respect” group on TH council now?
Comment by Andy BH — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
Fair enough mm, i can get touchy, I ahve had a lot of insults thrown my way, and therefore sometimes I migyht be reading hostility when none is internded. Sorry if that is the case.
With regard to JJ, Ii can’t remeber exactly which thread it was in, but it was withing a day or so after the SWP’ party council. Very specific allegations were made by JJ.
Comment by Andy — 16 November, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
SWP members are welcome in Repect Renewal just so long as they break from the SWP on the central question of the way foward for Respect and holding a Conference. If they don’t, we’ve been informed, they can expect legal action taken against them. I must say I do enjoy the way comrades go up and down in peoples estimation.
Lavellete couldn’t be praised too highly when certain rather naive comrades thought he was opposed to the SWP. Now he’s back to being a liar and someone who writes ‘bizarre’ notes. On the other hand warmth and cuddles for any sinner that repents.
There is something a little surreal about this ‘all welcome approach’. The AWLs ‘unity offensive’ towards the SWP (which just made giggle helplessly as I read it) looks like a vertible excercise in charm and diplomacy by comparison.
Comment by johng — 16 November, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Well sorry but any sense of outrage at being “banned” from an organisation has to be somewhat tempered if you have no desire to join it anyway. That’s why I found it bizarre. I personally have nothing against (in fact alot admiration for) the two individuals in question. To repeat I am personally not aware of any “bans” in RR nor any potential “legal action”, so if you have something specific on that it might be helpful.
But yes you’re right, joining RR would presumably involve a break with the SWP perspective on all this. One might say that they are banned from joining by the SWP as much as anyone else :-).
I think a few people viewed the apparent warmth between ML, GG and SY at that Manchester meeting as a sign of just the possibility of a rapproachment or at least a less acrimonious split.
Comment by Andy BH — 16 November, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
If all the SWP members turned up at the Respect Renewal rally (or conference) would they not be accused of packing it?
And what would be the point of having a seperate rally/conference?
I must really stop visiting this site!
Comment by the digger — 16 November, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
Ger is suggesting that if those who attend the delegate conference persist in calling themselves Respect things may end in legal action. Its not an actual threat of course, merely a prediction about a likely course of events. But it would obviously be rather relevent to comrades like this who are, as you rightly say, widely respected, way beyond the kind of arguments taking place here. And because they don’t accept the argument of the renewal people its somehow being suggested that they are not proper Respect people. Thats the implication of the argument, obviously being made with an eye to the forthcoming conferences.
My hope is that people might start talking more sanely once this initial rather desperate attempt to ‘prove themselves’ is over. This at least is the only explanation I have for the rather more desperate comments I’ve read here from some comrades I otherwise always respected.
Comment by johng — 16 November, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
Lavellete couldn’t be praised too highly when certain rather naive comrades thought he was opposed to the SWP. Now he’s back to being a liar and someone who writes ‘bizarre’ notes.
This is such a perverse misreading of an earlier comment that it can only really be answered by quoting the other comment. Fortunately, it’s such a perverse misreading that quoting the other comment is all that’s needed to answer it:
Anyone else received this bizarre email from “Respect” in the names of Michael Lavalette and Karen Reissmann? It complains that they are banned from joining Respect Renewal because they are in the SWP. I hadn’t realised they wanted to join, but I would certainly welcome them. I am not personally aware that there is any ban on SWP members joining.
Andy didn’t say a word against Lavalette - in fact he said he’d be welcomed as a member of RR, if and when it becomes necessary for two RESPECTs to organise separately. Which many of us still hope won’t happen, although I’m aware it’s now approximately the 59th minute of the 11th hour.
Comment by Phil — 16 November, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
John
Currently, the use of the Respect name for elections can only be sanctioned by Linda Smith as national nominations officer.
There is a very practical issue that if the SWP-Respect confernce elects new officers, then if there is a subsequent attempt to inform the electoral commission that these newly elected officers replace the ones already in place, then the current officers may object to the electoral commission that the replaceement officers were elected by a conference the authority of which is challenged.
I would imagine the elelctoral commission would then default to status quo ante, and the onus would be on the replacement officers to go to court if they wanted to change the electoral commission registrations. If this is the case you would be able to argue that the precedent of last’s years conference that ten members can send twelve delagates overrules the written constitution. I think you will need a very good barrister for that!!!
I think you will get a better reuslt by negotiations than by going to court
Comment by Andy — 16 November, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Do you honestly think that a branch with 10 members should send 12 delegates?
Good lord – is this one still rumbling on?
SOAS has 116 signed up members at Freshers’ Fayre – so that’s leaving aside the second and third years, and the PhD students. It has 9 of 12 members of the SU exec, including the President and (as I recall) one other full-timer. It has organised two meetings this term larger than 116 people, and around 300 students were mobilised for the Stop the War demonstration. (If Ian has a problem with the group, I suspect it is because it is insufficiently keen on Mr Galloway; I really can’t see too much else to complain about.)
Do you honestly think that a large, successful Respect student group like this should not be allowed to send delegates to conference? As before, what the GG claque are doing is witch-hunting, in clichéd style: going after the students.
One other thing, from Ian:
Never head these complaints from any of the Bengali members I talked to, or for that matter the SWP people.
Did you ask? Do you think, in the middle of a closely-fought by-election campaign like Shadwell, we’d be busily griping to all and sundry about all this? Give us some credit. Come on - these complaints have been public knowledge since (at least) summer 2006, before the AGM.
I note with significant distaste your deliberate segregation of “Bengali members” and “SWP people”. This nasty habit of thought appears to have become second-nature on this site: is it really beyond the GG claque’s ken to imagine that there are Bengali SWP members in Tower Hamlets? Very unpleasant.
Comment by The East is Red — 16 November, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
Just because there is a challenge to the authority does not mean that the challenge is legitimate does it?
In any case, in other words, what I initially said is correct about the threat of a legal challenge is correct.
Isn’t it?
Comment by johng — 16 November, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
…then the current officers may object to the electoral commission that the replaceement officers were elected by a conference the authority of which is challenged.
The teensy-weensy problemette here being that you’ll have a devil of a job persuading the Electoral Commission that calling a rally to clash with conference is not, in fact, choosing to leave the organisation concerned; and that, furthermore, those now claiming the conference is “unconstitutional” raised no such objections last year, and made no attempts to alter procedure.
Phil -
Andy didn’t say a word against Lavalette…
Except that he has written, or put his name to, a “bizarre” email. But it is possible that in the land of the Renewalists, this is a compliment of some sort.
Comment by The East is Red — 16 November, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
But they are not members are they? Unless they have made the “financial commitment” required by the constitution. If they have then I am wrong and I take it all back.
Comment by Andy BH — 16 November, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Ok….ONE word against Lavalette then!
I’ve accused some of my best friends of being bizarre…..
Comment by Andy BH — 16 November, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
East is Red
is therefore something in the Respect constitution that says not going to a conference is the same as resigning from an organisation?
Some might argue that four councillors resigning the whip and the national secretary organising a press conference for them is even more evidence of leaving an organisation.
i have had some dealings with the electoral commission over the socialist unity regsitration, and discussing the mechanism for closing down the Socialist Alliance. They are pragmatic people, and i cannot see them flying in the face of common sense.
Your argument about student delegates is very weak legally, however forceful you may feel about it within your own head.
I would strongly recommend that the best way to settle this is by negotiation, rather than a winner takes all contest based upon your stacked conference, and litigation.
Comment by Andy — 16 November, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Well lets see what the situation looks like after these conferences Andy.
Comment by johng — 16 November, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Well whatever happens this weekend there needs to be a negotiated solution
Comment by Andy — 16 November, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
“Did you ask? Do you think, in the middle of a closely-fought by-election campaign like Shadwell, we’d be busily griping to all and sundry about all this? Give us some credit. Come on - these complaints have been public knowledge since (at least) summer 2006, before the AGM.”
Public knowledge, eh? Presumably there was an article complaining about this in Socialist Worker, then? Why should I ask about this… if people were at each other’s throats about something like this you would think it would be staring obvious.
“I note with significant distaste your deliberate segregation of “Bengali members” and “SWP people”. This nasty habit of thought appears to have become second-nature on this site: is it really beyond the GG claque’s ken to imagine that there are Bengali SWP members in Tower Hamlets? Very unpleasant.”
Segregation, eh? So saying that the ethnic composition of the delegation to conference ought to reflect the composition of the branch it comes from is advocating ’segregation’. (!!!) What nonsense. However many Bengali SWP members there may or may not be, the fact is that Bengalis are massively underpresented in the gerrymandered TH delegation. No prizes for guessing why - because the SWP leadership couldn’t find enough Bengalis prepared to do its bidding.
Further down the slippery slope you go.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 16 November, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
Andy didn’t say a word against Lavalette…
Except that he has written, or put his name to, a “bizarre” email.
So Andy should have written… what? “An email which - had it come from anyone other than Lavalette and Reissmann, for whom I have the highest regard - I would have described as ‘bizarre’”?
This is just silly.
Comment by Phil — 16 November, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
“gerrymanded delegation”
Given the throwing around of threats of legal action by people here, some might like to introduce evidence at some point rather then continuing to make these ridiculous slurs in the hope that endless repetition will make them seem more real.
Comment by johng — 16 November, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
well there also needs to be a decision by conference delegates.
Comment by johng — 16 November, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
Johng, How do you address the the issue of contested delegates at a conference?
Comment by red eck — 16 November, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
Well those who were contesting walked out of the organisation by calling a rival event to the main national conference. I would be rather more worried about this if there was the slightest truth to the claim that the Tower Hamlets delegation was gerrymanded or that the student delegations were gerrymanded. I don’t. But given that those complaining have declared themselves a different organisation I don’t really see this as being much of an issue. But I’m waiting for the conference to see how this is dealt with.
Comment by johng — 16 November, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
I’ll ask again Johng,
How do you address the issue of contested delegates at a conference?
You keep posing the ‘conference’ as a solution to the problems in RESPECT.
Also:
“But given that those complaining have declared themselves a different organisation I don’t really see this as being much of an issue. But I’m waiting for the conference to see how this is dealt with.”
So what is the relevance of the SWP RESPECT conference then? Won’t the SWP be holding yet another conference in January?
Comment by red eck — 16 November, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
those who were contesting walked out of the organisation by calling a rival event to the main national conference
Explain with reference to RESPECT’s rules and/or constitution.
those complaining have declared themselves a different organisation
Explain with reference to this declaration (which I know I’ve missed).
Comment by Phil — 16 November, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
Ah,
Johng is taking a while to respond.
I bet he’s compling a huge dossier of pure waffle that avoids the point completely.
Comment by red eck — 16 November, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
You are simply repeating allegations which have zero empirical content. Thats not a reason to cancel Respect’s national conference. Particularly when those making these allegations have just split the organisation to form their own organisation called ‘Respect Renewal’.
Comment by johng — 16 November, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
At the Respect Renewal confernce will be the official Respect goup of councillors from Tower hamlets
whereas the “respect independent” councillors will be at a conference which 19 national council members, the chair and vice chair of the organisation, the MP, and most of the partys’ councillors do not recognise as being within rule due to contests over the CAC, Towr hamlets delegation, and student delegates.
So it is not clear who is the split, and who is a new organisation
You keep making political judgements about who has split from who, and them saying that your “conference” will decide everything.
BUt legally it seems both sides are still part f the same organsation, and neither conference has the power to decide anything.
Time to negotiate I would say - certainly better to negoiate than for you to go into court with the weak arguments you are using here.
Comment by Andy — 16 November, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
“You are simply repeating allegations which have zero empirical content.”
Are you denying that the issues even exists regarding the student delegates and the Tower Hamlets delegate slates?
Comment by red eck — 16 November, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
#245
“You are simply repeating allegations which have zero empirical content.”
Are you denying that the issues even exist regarding the student delegates and the slate of delegates for Tower Hamlets?
*apologies for dodgy grammer*
Comment by red eck — 16 November, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
Well if any decision is made it will be made at the Respect delegate conference. As far as I’m aware there is no longer in existence any framework for making such decisions. I deny that there was any constitutional or legal issue in Tower Hamlets yes. I am very sceptical that there was any such in the case of students as well.
Comment by johng — 16 November, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
#249
“Well if any decision is made it will be made at the Respect delegate conference. As far as I’m aware there is no longer in existence any framework for making such decisions.”
Issues are put to the delegates to vote on. How do the delegates decide which of the delegates themselves are to be legitmate?
“I deny that there was any constitutional or legal issue in Tower Hamlets yes. I am very sceptical that there was any such in the case of students as well.
You are side-stepping my question, I asked if you denied that there were any issues at all with the student delegates and the slate of delegates for Tower Hamlets.
Comment by red eck — 16 November, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
More to the point, John G is rather side stepping the fact that the negotiations with the SWP ad led to an in primciapl agreement to dicorce with just some details to finalise about the name, before the SW pulled out of negotiations.
Since then they have gone hell for leather for a winner takes all approach for a conference, or dubious probity.
Either they negotiate about the name and other assets, or they are the ones who have decided on a confrontation.
Comment by Andy — 16 November, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
Do you think that it is right to ignore the resolutions from the majority of Respect branches that opposed splitting the organisation and called for unity?
The leaders have decided to split but most of the activists on the ground don’t want this!
Comment by Adam J — 16 November, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
#252 Adam J,
Stick to the point:
How can a conference be held when the delegates to the conference are under dispute?
Comment by red eck — 16 November, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
So, about these witch-hunting secessionists. Can somebody please clarify:
- how many people have been expelled from RESPECT on the grounds of SWP membership
- who has said that SWP members are not welcome in RESPECT, and when they said it
- in what specific sense calling the ‘Renewal’ conference is incompatible with RESPECT membership
- who has said that RESPECT Renewal is a separate organisation from RESPECT, and when they said it
and, not least
- who has said that SWP members won’t be welcome in a ‘RESPECT Renewal’ organisation (if and when such an organisation is formed), and when they said it
I’m not accusing anyone of lying, but I am starting to wonder where the evidence for some of these charges is.
Comment by Phil — 16 November, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
The Renewal conference is for those who either share a vision of what Respect should look like or would like to hear about a vision of what Respect should look like. It is open to anybody to attend, including non-Respect members. Of course that includes SWP members as well. Suggestions from John Rees that there is a ‘ban’ on SWP members from attending, (or any other section of Respect, or anybody else for that matter), is just more lies and propaganda. The irony is however, that any SWP members who do attend could well find their attendance being used against them in any SWP internal disciplinary action as evidence of consorting with ‘witch-hunters’.
Comment by Ger Francis — 16 November, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
Ger, I’m sure that the “butter-up the SWP membership so that they’ll come over to Renewal” plan might work if the membership was made up of spineless Eberts, Kautskys and Bernsteins like you Kev and Rob but face facts - for every “high-profile” opponent of the CC’s position on this are hundreds of SWP members - who you might have classed comrades before your opportunist turn to reformism - who back the line of the CC.
Most of you would have hoped for people who have opposed the CC on other matters, such as John Molyneux, to come to your rescue. Fortunately they are revolutionaries who truly understand the importance of the revolutionary party and the Leninist tradition and will fight for their positions within it. You can attack the CC all you like but the fact is that the membership debated the issues, selected delegates to two party councils which overwhelmingly backed the position of the CC. When you try to draw some broad distinction between the CC and the membership you insult the intelligence of the membership.
Bottom line is that anyone in the SWP who thinks that they can better contribute to the task of building a revolutionary party by being members of Renewal than of the SWP are revolutionaries in name only and would be better off out of the party. That goes from strong comrades of long standing who I would like to hope we can win to stay within the SWP(like Paul Holborow) all the way through to slack-jawed idiots like Ian Drummond who I’m glad to see the back of.
Comment by Syme — 16 November, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
#256 Syme
How many members are in the SWP?
Does the CC and its National Council represent the interest of the UK working class?
You should read up Cliff’s essay: ‘Trotsky on Substitutionism’
http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1960/xx/trotsub.htm
You petty-bourgeois revolutionaries can really get carried away.
Comment by red eck — 16 November, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
Post 256. Is this really what the SWP has degenerated into?
Comment by Ger Francis — 16 November, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
Bottom line is that anyone in the SWP who thinks that they can better contribute to the task of building a revolutionary party by being members of Renewal than of the SWP are revolutionaries in name only and would be better off out of the party.
So people are being expelled from the SWP for RESPECT membership, not the other way round. Thanks for clarifying.
Comment by Phil — 16 November, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
Fortunately Phil, the SWP holds its members in high regard and engenders a culture of mutual respect, which is why as Syme explains they only expel the “slack jawed idiots”
Clearly Ian Drummond had a lucky mistake, rather than continuing to work with people who held him in sch contempt. Ine wonders why they elected him president of SOAS respect, but perhaps he only became a slack jawed idiot when he started disagreeing.
Comment by Andy — 16 November, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
Phil asks: “who has said that SWP members won’t be welcome in a ‘RESPECT Renewal’ organisation (if and when such an organisation is formed),”
Even if the “Respect Renewal” organisation hasn’t been formed yet, Galloway’s supporters (according to the Weekly Worker, issue 697/ 15 November 2007, page 9) are using the email address info@therespectparty.org.
This address was registered on 2nd November 2007 at 11.49am by and to Habibur Rahman from “Managing IT Systems Ltd” in my old neck of the woods, Chadwell Heath (near to Dagenham and Romford, on the outskirts east London). - see http://whois.net/whois_new.cgi?d=therespectparty&tld=org
Managing IT Systems Ltd, according to Companies House*, Company No. 05931727, was founded just over a year ago in September 2006 and hasn’t submitted any accounts yet.
I find it strange that the company is not just the registrant of the domain, but also the owner, and it can’t be many IT companies that don’t have neither a website, provide a landline telephone number, and use a hotmail.com email address. But anything’s possible I suppose…
Make of it what you will (I find it a bit fishy to say the least) - but I suspect that “therespectparty.org” will go live pretty soon. Tomorrow maybe?
* “The WebCHeck service is available from Monday to Saturday 7.00am to 12 Midnight UK Time” - via companieshouse.gov.uk
Comment by Karl-Marx-Straße — 16 November, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
Obviously that should read
and it can’t be many IT companies that have neither a website, nor provide a landline telephone number, and use a hotmail.com email address.
They never taught us to speek praper like wot they shouldv in my neck of the woods.
Otherwise I see the site not only states “This Page us underconstruction” (sic) - it wasn’t the case earlier today - but then forwards to respectrenewal.org…..
Comment by Karl-Marx-Straße — 16 November, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
therespectparty.org was registered 12 hours before respectrenewal.org (to the same person/company). Perhaps the plans aren’t quite clear yet?
http://www.pir.org/Search/WhoIsSearchResults.aspx?txtWhoIsSearch=respectrenewal
therespectparty.com was registered on the 5th November by Ahmed Syed Nadir of London E3.
It’s the battle of the domain names, comrades. Which URL are you going to use? Who can get their Respect website to the top spot on Google?
Comment by Karl-Marx-Straße — 16 November, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
220:
“Bizarre” is the operative word.
One possibility is that Lavalette is saying that he wants to join Respect Renewal, when obviously they wont accept him, to appease the Muslim activists in Preston. They will in all probability tend towards Salma and GG’s grouping.
Comment by Toby — 16 November, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
when obviously they wont accept him
Why on earth not? I’d have thought they’d jump at the chance of working with him.
Comment by Phil — 16 November, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
One possibility is that Lavalette is saying that he wants to join Respect Renewal, when obviously they wont accept him, to appease the Muslim activists in Preston. They will in all probability tend towards Salma and GG’s grouping.
Ha ha ha ha! Yep, clutch at that straw: Michael Lavellette is quite literally inches away from joining in with your merry jamboree.
A question: why are the best of the councillors, throughout the country, opposed to the GG claque?
Comment by The East is Red — 17 November, 2007 @ 3:37 am
The Renewal conference is for those who either share a vision of what Respect should look like or would like to hear about a vision of what Respect should look like.
“Conference”? “Conference”?
I dont’ want to be too tedious about this, but wouldn’t a “conference” imply the electtion of delegates?
How many delegates have been elected to your squalid rally, Ger?
Why have GG’s claque attempted to stage a jamboree in opposition to the Respect conference?
Comment by The East is Red — 17 November, 2007 @ 3:39 am
Andy:
is therefore something in the Respect constitution that says not going to a conference is the same as resigning from an organisation?
I don’t want to be too rude, but you’d have to be pretty clueless about the conventions of party politics -and Labour Party politics - to think that resigning the whip was the same as resigning from the organisaiton. Anuerin Bevan? Michael Foot? Both resigned the whip; neither left the Labour Party.
Or is rewirting history part of the Socialist Disunity method, now?
Comment by The East is Red — 17 November, 2007 @ 3:44 am
“I don’t want to be too rude, but you’d have to be pretty clueless about the conventions of party politics -and Labour Party politics - to think that resigning the whip was the same as resigning from the organisaiton. Anuerin Bevan? Michael Foot? Both resigned the whip; neither left the Labour Party.”
I don’t want to be too rude either, but anyone with a more-than-passing acquaintance of the history of the Labour Party knows that Michael Foot and Aneurin Bevan NEVER NEVER NEVER resigned the Whip.
Bevan resigned from the CABINET (along with Wilson and Freeman) in protest against the introduction of NHS prescription charges. He had the Whip removed from him by vote of the Parliamentary Labour Party because he voted against the H-Bomb, but such was his popularity within the party at the time that it had to be withdrawn.
Foot had the whip withdrawn by the Labour Party from 1961 to 1963, along with 4 other left wing MPs, for voting over defence spending.
Both had the whip withdrawn because they were left wing rebels; both fought to be reinstated. Ironically, Foot later became a witch-hunter when, as leader of the Labour Party, he condemned Peter Tatchell in parliament and led to the train of disaster that was the Bermondsey by-election in 1982 (apparently Foot got confused and thought he was being asked about Tariq Ali’s application to join the Labour Party). Other prominent left wingers who had the whip forcibly removed were Ron Brown, Dave Nellist and Terry Fields, and Ken Livingstone had whip removed and was expelled for his decision to stand for London Mayor.
There are Labour MPs who have resigned the whip but stayed in the Labour Party. The most recent example is Clare Short. Although Short had some early claim to left wing credentials, she became a witch-hunter in 1995 when leading the exclusion of left winger Liz Davies as parliamentary candidate. She, of course, also stayed in the Cabinet for rather longer than was acceptable over the Iraq war. Other examples include John Stonehouse and Bob Mellish.
If the SWP want to invoke comparisons of the Tower Hamlets Councillors with Clare Short, John Stonehouse and Bob Mellish, then that is historically accurate. To compare them with Foot and Bevan is specious in the extreme. The SWP of the past, including Paul Foot, Michael Foot’s nephew and himself a serious scholar of the Labour movement, would NEVER have made this elementary mistake.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 17 November, 2007 @ 9:05 am
Actually, just rethinking that I’m not actually sure whether Mellish and Stonehouse didn’t resign from the party too - they certainly sat as ‘Independent Labour’ but in those days both party membership and labels were less clearly definded. Short announced her intention of staying in membership and I think that is true, though anyone else would have been expelled for calling for a hung parliament, ie supporting other candidates than Labour.
The other example I thought of is Dick Taverne. He tried to take his section of the Labour Party with him into a “Democratic Labour Party”, so perhaps that is a more appropriate comparison with Rahman?
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 17 November, 2007 @ 9:32 am
How many delegates have been elected to your squalid rally, Ger?
Why have GG’s claque attempted to stage a jamboree in opposition to the Respect conference?
This speaks volumes about the SWP leadership’s attitude to
RESPECT’s only MP
RESPECT’s Chair and Vice-Chair
most of RESPECT’s elected councillors
the ISG, Socialist Resistance, and the RESPECT Party Platform
non-aligned socialists like Ken Loach
former SWP activists like Nick Wrack, Jerry Hicks and Ian Donovan
and, of course, sympathisers with any or all of the above
Maybe all of those people are expendable; maybe Rees and co can build a shiny new RESPECT, purged of all the rotten elements. I just wonder how that organisation will be able to orient towards the rest of the Left. It’s all starting to look a bit Third Period.
Comment by Phil — 17 November, 2007 @ 9:55 am
Clare Short supported the expulsions of SO in 1990.
Comment by paulm — 17 November, 2007 @ 10:34 am
Something which neither the SWP or Militant could be bothered to mention in their press at the time.
Comment by paulm — 17 November, 2007 @ 10:35 am
Toby,
‘appeasing muslims’, ‘will lean towards yakoob and galloway’ (because they’re muslims?), combined with an implicit and clueless attack on one of Respects best councilers. Ugly stuff.
I would imagine that many people are disconcerted by the split in Respect and not especially because they’re muslims. I also suspect though that many respect councilers for the work they do locally and that this whilst not over-riding this worry (nor should it, its a disaster), means that someone like Lavellete is not reduced to the kind of petty manuevering that in the squalid mental universe of some commenting here, comprises politics.
Comment by johng — 17 November, 2007 @ 11:07 am
Dick Taverne and Bob Mellish both left the Labour Party when they resigned the whip. As for Stonehouse, according to Wikipedia:
He returned [from Australia] in June 1975, and was remanded in Brixton Prison until August. He continued to act as an MP. Although unhappy with the situation, the Labour Party did not expel him. In April 1976, he resigned the Labour whip, making them a minority government. A few days later he joined the English National Party.
So Oli Rahman’s precedents - at least within the Parliamentary Labour Party - are Clare Short and, er, that’s it.
The analogy’s a bit forced anyway. The split in Brighton Labour - and the suspension / expulsion of the majority - looks like a much closer parallel.
Comment by Phil — 17 November, 2007 @ 11:11 am
But whats ludicrous about this whole discussion is that its simply a pretext anyway.
Comment by johng — 17 November, 2007 @ 11:24 am
Johng - what’s “ludicrous” is the comparison of the ‘gang of four’ with Foot and Bevan by the SWP. It’s not true and the SWP should admit it and withdraw it.
Thanks for the clarification Phil. Mellish did sit as ‘Independent Labour’ and still regarded himself as ‘traditional Labour’ even if he resigned the party membership eventually. Taverne was a different kettle of fish and saw himself as building a right wing alternative to the Labour Party, his “Democratic Labour Party” floundered but he won his seat as ‘Social Democrat’. There were also the first two MPs who resigned the whip in February 1981, Crawshaw and Ellis, they subsequently joined the SDP - but it hadn’t actually been formed at the time they resigned, so it’s not clear whether they held onto Labour Party membership for a few days or weeks while the SDP was being formed by mid-March. It’s all a bit unncecessary anyway, as, yes, it’s fair enough to say the closest parallel is with Clare Short - and the SWP are welcome to be compared to her.
Certainly there is no question of comparing them to Foot and Bevan.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 17 November, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
No whats ludicrous is the attempt to break up the most successful challenge to the left of Labour in forty years on the basis that four councilers resigned the whip in Tower Hamlets. Thats whats ludicrous.
Comment by johng — 17 November, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
whats ludicrous is the attempt to break up the most successful challenge to the left of Labour in forty years on the basis that four councilers resigned the whip in Tower Hamlets.
As far as I’m aware the ‘Renewal’ group has expelled nobody, disciplined nobody, barred nobody, announced no split and made no pronouncements about who can and can’t be a member of the organisation (individuals or groups). If they’re trying to break up RESPECT, they’ve got a funny way of going about it.
Comment by Phil — 17 November, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
Oh come off it Phil. Really. This is Alice in Wonderland stuff.
Comment by johng — 17 November, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
Seriously. Who’s been expelled? Who’s announced a split? Who’s said the SWP aren’t welcome? If the answers are so obvious, they should be easy to spell out.
Comment by Phil — 17 November, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
Johng - it is Alice in Wonderland to compare the four councillors to Foot and Bevan.
Do you defend the comparison? If so, perhaps you could provide the dates and reasons that Foot and Bevan resigned the whip?
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 17 November, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
East is Red - you made the original claim in post 268. Do you retract it?
Give us the dates Foot and Bevan resigned the whip.
Put up or shut up!
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 17 November, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
For Gods sake.
Comment by johng — 17 November, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
I hear the Respect Renewal conference was rather a sad and nasty affair.
Composed of old white lefties.
Hey ho maybe Salma and George will now see sense.
Comment by oh deary me — 17 November, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
Thanks for that, ‘oh deary me’ - I trust your account implicitly.
PS - got a spare tab of acid?
Comment by Tony T — 17 November, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
Channel 4 news said Respect Renewal’s conference had a sizeable muslim presence … (It’ll be on again on Freeview Channel 4+1 about 7.40 if you read this before then).
Were you there Oh Deary Me?
Johng - given up on the Foot/Bevan comparison have you? I could get to admire someone who knows when he’s beaten.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 17 November, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
Prinkipo - Are you deliberately missing the point? Foot and Bevan - whether they resigned it or had them removed - continued to exist in the Labour Party without being part of the whip. The point is there is a difference between the whip and the party.
And, Phil, yes the Renewal people said that the SWP and the four councillors were now outside of Respect because they had resigned the whip.
Comment by Canadien — 17 November, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
the Renewal people said that the SWP and the four councillors were now outside of Respect because they had resigned the whip.
I’ll need better evidence for that - especially the part in bold - than an anonymous comment on a blog.
Comment by Phil — 17 November, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
While I would not be surprised that the SWP would try and manipulate Student Respect one has to take anything Ian Drummond says with a pinch of salt. He reacts agressively to the mildest critism. His diatribe is more likely to be motivated by the SWP telling him he’s sacked. His record on supporting Sheridan and the SWP in the SSP was quite disgracefull. It’s shame so many people have wasted time commenting on his spurious post.
Comment by RedRaph — 17 November, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
Canadien - there is every difference between resigning the whip and having it removed. One you do for yourself and the other is done to you by others. Bevan of course had previously been expelled from the Labour Party and only had his expulsion defeated by one vote at the NEC in the 1950s. (That was a real witch hunt.)
Voluntarily resigning the whip while claiming to remain loyal to the party, particularly without trying to take the issues up within the structures of the Party such as the local constituency and the national committee, has absolutely no precedent in the history of the Labour Party left. Only right in the Labour Party have ever done this, and in most cases it was an attempt to split.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 18 November, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
I’m sure the movement will be deeply impressed prinkepo.
Comment by johng — 18 November, 2007 @ 5:01 pm