RESPECT RENEWED
There are moments in politics when the walls melt, and the mental compartments we have put ourselves in disappear, and there are simply people, talking to each other and exchanging ideas with mutual respect.
I remember some many years ago when I led an occupation of the University of the West of England in Bristol, and in the ten days we were living in the administration block, it seemed anything was possible. There was simply a flood of debate, and curiosity and newly formed friendships. The mood that gripped us at the height of the anti-war movement, or during the anti-poll tax campaign, or during the miners strike, was that the old patterns of politics had changed, that we had turned a corner, and were in a better place.
Of course the events within one political party cannot compare to great events in the class struggle, but nevertheless there was a slightly festival atmosphere at yesterday’s Respect Renewal conference.
We should recognise that the split in Respect was a defeat, in the same way that all divorces are a defeat of the hope of the original marriage. Many SWP members contributed fantastic work and political inspiration in both the Socialist Alliance and in its successor organisation, Respect. We look forward that in the coming months we will be working again with our friends and comrades in the SWP, in the Stop the War Coalition, in the campaigns against the BNP, in solidarity with trade union struggle, and in defence of council housing.
But the participation of the SWP in Respect came at too high a price. The United Front of a Special type meant that the SWP had a privileged leadership position within Respect. The current crisis started because after three years an organisation that had won a member of parliament and twenty councillors, had fewer members than when it started,(just 2000), had no money in the bank, and had no candidates selected for what looked like an imminent general election. This was the potential disaster that the SWP’s “leadership” had led Respect to.
The escalating crisis of the last few months has been documented elsewhere on this blog, on Liam Mac Uaid’s blog and on Neil William’s blog. This is not the time to wade through it all again. But the result is that there has been a split.
And the politics of the split is between those on the one hand who wish to commit to building Respect as their primary political project, and on the other hand those who wish to build both Respect and the SWP. But the Respect Renewal project has also attracted to it, not necessarily yet whole-heartedly, a number of other comrades who wish to see a pluralistic and inclusive socialist organisation, but had become disillusioned with Respect because they perceived it as an SWP front. This is a significant factor for hope, because Respect Renewal without the institutional conservatism of the SWP leadership can build bridges both with other strands of organised progressive opinion, but also to the diverse socialist activists.
The Respect Renewal conference was the product of the last few difficult weeks. During this time a number of comrades have found, sometimes to our own surprise, that we have a similar approach, and understanding. But that has happened in a very short time, and without any pre-planning, largely in response to the SWP’s unfolding reaction to the constructive criticisms from George Galloway.
During this time a number of SWP comrades have gone through the trauma of expulsion, or resigning after decades of membership. Other comrades has been slandered as “ballot riggers”, or “Stalinists”, described as “right wing”, or “communalist”. So there was an element of catharsis in yesterday’s conference, particularly from long term former SWP comrades like Jo Benefield and Jer Hicks, expressing in a very political way their outrage at the attempts of the SWP leadership to lie, and slander and pack meetings to get their own way. There was also relief from those who had been slandered to see the breadth of their support and the depth of the affection that they are held. It was nice to see Linda Smith breaking into a grin every now and again.
And it was a very happy conference. There was a tremendous amount of friendly networking, and people coming up and introducing each other, and discussing informally what needed to be done next. In that respect it was more like a trade association or academic conference, where the real business is done in the corridors and in the gaps between the speeches. I haven’t enjoyed a conference so much for years.
Tremendous credit goes to the conference arrangements committee, and particularly to Nick Wrack for the work he had done to make it a success. In the best traditions of left conferences there were too many platform speakers planned, but flexibility was shown, and there were enough speakers from the floor. And at some stages it was anarchic, at the point when someone brought out a cake with respect written on it in icing, and a man in traditional West African dress went uninvited onto the stage to hug George, I wouldn’t have been surprised whatever happened next.
Jo Benefield made a very good point that the final session did need to spell out where we go from here. And I think a good effort was made to do so. Socialist Resistance are giving over their paper, and an issue should be out for the climate change demo. The current 19 national council members will stay in post while a proper delegate conference is organised. In London, Birmingham, Manchester and Bristol there are already viable branches. In other areas, we need a flexible approach for how comrades can work and the national office will help and advise. We have a target to raise £100000 to fight an election and recruit 10000 members, and we are going to start talking very seriously to the rest of the left about what grounds for cooperation we can find, with an aim to long term trust building during practical work.
It is going to be a busy next few months, and we have to put the faction fight and the difficulties with the SWP behind us. they can build their organistaion, we will build ours, and we must all remember the real enemy are the boss class and the imperialists.
By the way, the banner across the front of the stage was the one used for the Pride march in London this year, so much for homophobia.
And where am I ever going to be able to wear that T-shirt :o)
I also refer you to the interesting report at Splintered Sunrise, who has certainly been no partisan of the Respect project.
Top photo is mine, second photo by Simon Green
Will you or someone else be putting the speeches from the Renewal conference up as podcasts or Youtube wotsits? There have been several comments about the nature of GG’s speech, so it would be good for us to see this in its entirety for ourselves. Second question: someone has mentioned that RR will get a delegate conference in Spring 08, how will the organisation run till then? Who is running it and how were they were selected? I mean, people are entitled to know what they’re signing up for, aren’t they? Do you have a leader? Or is there some other system?
Comment by Michael Rosen — 19 November, 2007 @ 1:45 am
Liam has posted Gallwoay and Abjol’s speeches.
The conference was filmed, I don’t nkwo how it is being made available.
I did in fact say that the current 19 NC memebrs will remain in place, that is how they were selected, by election elected at the last Respect conference. We are still Respect, and Respect has not had a conference since then organissed within the terms of the constitition.
Everything is above board and we will keep people fully informed.
Comment by Andy — 19 November, 2007 @ 1:49 am
Hang on a minute. The 2006 Respect conference elected an NC of 50, not 19, so what about the other 31 members? Obviously they’re not part of Respect Renewal, but if you’re saying you’re the ‘real’ Respect, don’t you have to, like, vote them off at a delegate conference or something? You know, that democracy stuff all the cool kids are talking about?
On the other hand, perhaps you’re planning to invite John Rees, Lindsey German etc to your first NC meeting?
Comment by socialist monster — 19 November, 2007 @ 2:21 am
>>> We have a target to raise £100000 to fight an election and recruit 10000 members
Well, it’s good to have goals eh? I’m curious as to who’s going to be fund raising to get that hundred grand since you have no national network, no democratically elected leadership, seemingly no members under the age of 40. Who decided on the target for members/funds? Seems quite abstract - or is it just the amount of money Abjol Miah and Azmal Hussain reckon they can club together from their mates?
Is anyone still claiming that there are 350 people in that room. Just look at the photograph, come on. If you look at that photo and see more than 200 people then just don’t believe your lying eyes! Or go to the opticians - assuming you’re a Renewal supporter the chances are you qualify for free treatment as a pensioner so it’s really worth making the effort. The SW report says 250 but I think that’s being generous. And given the platform and location, 250 people is a really dreadful turn out. When we had Galloway at my old backwater university a few years back we had nearly 400 people on a weekday afternoon, around 150 of them non-students, and we only had a week to build for it - half as long as Renewal. I guess it really made the difference having those Russian Dolls to do all the legwork. A bunch of students in the middle of no-where built a meeting around twice as big in half as long in the middle of nowhere! Respect Conference had to turn people away! I spent most of my journey back home texting/talking to friends and comrades who hadn’t been able to register. Not to say that this means the Respect Conference was a total success - under the circumstances, that would be impossible. The split has hurt the left and the strength of each faction is lower than if it were still united. But in the balance, Respect Renewal is looking extremely thin on the ground and top-heavy.
Just a side note - I know some people won’t be keen on my age-jokes but really, some of my best friends are old. I even have family members who are really, really old. I love old people. Like Chanie Rosenberg - man, she is old! And still kicking-on strong. I just think that any political organisation outside of the Pensioners Alliance might see having a healthy age range as a good basis to build. Renewal’s chances of building in the colleges is just about nil since your star-turn is almost universally derided amongst the student population as “that prick who was on Big Brother”. Sure it’s true that he also achieved a lot of fantastic results for himself and the movement and I have (and will continue) to defend him on that basis, but, as a clever old sod once said, “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”
Also, good luck to the new Respect Renewal paper. Hopefully it can achieve as illustrious a circulation and influence amongst the working class as Socialist Resistance before it.
Comment by Syme — 19 November, 2007 @ 2:38 am
Thanks for this piece - couldn’t make either conference, but was keen to follow it on the web, so thanks to those (eg Liam Mac Uaid, Lenin) who make the effort to video stuff and put it up on the web so quickly and efficiently.
I am a card-carrying member of Respect, but basically a non-active member of my branch. I’ve kept out of the debates on this site partly ‘cos I wasn’t sure what to say in front of such a large audience, partly because I hadn’t fully decided what to think about the split. And partly cause I didn’t want to put a lot of effort in to thinking carefully about what to say, only for that effort to be lost in the deluge of silly sniping going on here. Anyone I’ll have a crack now, hoping everyone else is in bed.
My initial reaction was to think that the split had to have been the fault of both sides, borne out of a mutual determination between John Rees & George Galloway never to be bested by the other - and a ludicrous, scandalously self-indulgent thing to happen when out there in the real world the main news is that ordinary people are starting to get it that the Brown Govt is as in hock to big business and the Bush regime as Blair ever was and so is absolutely no different from the Blair Govt, and the drums are beating for an attack on Iran by US with British govt support.
So my contribution was going to be to say, which faction am I going to sign up for? My answer: neither. When you engineer such a stupid split you must get your just desserts - members walking away in disgust.
But after watching the Galloway speech I’ve got to say, when he says look who’s with me here: Ken Loach, Jerry Hicks, Salma Yaqoob, and so on - it is persuasive. So I guess what I’m saying is that now I’m listening again. I would like to be able to see the speeches that all these names & others made, and I do hope that if they were filmed someone will be able to post them.
Respect Renewal can only have a life as part of a broader project that brings in all sorts of social movement/single issue campaign broad lefties who have given up on party political membership, but who were staying away from working with Respect because of the SWP’s reputation. So it’s got a major mountain to climb, but maybe this new formulation has got a better chance than the old one. It seems unbelievably improbable that what became of the Scottish Socialist Party won’t be repeated for Respect in the London elections, but I guess there is now 6 months or so for Respect Renewal to prove this wrong. An electoral pact deal with the Greens would be the best start?
Comment by Strategist — 19 November, 2007 @ 2:46 am
Well, it sounds like you had a good Renewal gathering. Good luck. Whatever inspires people to organise against capitalism gets my (qualified) support. And good luck to those in the SWP side of the split as well.
But I am now very suspicious of both sides of the Respect split. I was always torn between the new grassroots anti-capitalist movements exemplified by the climate camp on the one hand, and the new left of labour regroupments like Respect on the other.
I could see virtue in both - I was drawn to Respect because maybe it could use our limited elctoral system as a platform that could potentially reach millions, while at the same time risking the pull of electoralism and domination by the problematic figures like Galloway or problematic organisations like the SWP.
But I’m afraid the acrimony and immaturity of the Respect split has now put me off traditional left politics for a long while. Both sides will have to work hard to earn my ‘respect’ again. Maybe that’s true for many more of us on the left? Who knows.
So, in the meantime, I have decided to put my political energy back into basic grassroots anticapitalism. I was very impressed by this years climate camp - that it involved thousands in a participatory way that challenged capitalism on the most fundamental issue of the day - and dominated the media for weeks in a way that the old traditional left could not. And all this without any celebrity leaders or control-freak Leninists.
I’ve just spent a few days discussing all this with old comrades, dear friends, and newer activists on the left locally. Some are Greens, some ex labour, some are anarchists, some old SWP members going back to the days of the IS. All had a suspicion of ‘Leninist’ Central Committees and opportunist MP’s - based upon years of experience. So we are going to organise ourselves to resist capitalist climate change, any potential attack on Iran, any more attacks on the welfare state, and other forms of injustice including racism, sexism, Islamopphobia and homophobia. This will not be a homogeneous group, and it will not be perfect, but maybe we will try to generalise this resistance into a new left locally.
I myself will watch all other developments on the left with both interest, hope and scepticism. I hope to continue learning from all of you. And I will always try to act in solidarity and cooperation with any groups who fights the system. But please, all of you, stop your whistling in the dark and your bland boosterism.
Comment by Larry R — 19 November, 2007 @ 2:50 am
Just wondering - did either conference get to have a look at our latest official statement?
http://unityaotearoa.blogspot.com/2007/11/sw-nz-statement-on-broad-left-strategy.html
Comment by Daphne — 19 November, 2007 @ 6:22 am
Hi Daphne.
We got your document pretty late on Friday, but a few people did print copies out and distribute them, and the leadership got them too.
We also got messages of support from other international comrades.
Comment by tonyc — 19 November, 2007 @ 8:29 am
We re-counted all the registration yesterday - actually, turnout was higher than we reported.
What was also great was the breadth of attendance - particularly good turnout from south London and north east London, but people came from all over the country. And a big range of trade union members too.
The new website is almost up and running; for now, you’ll all just have to cope with Liam and Neil’s blogs, but in the next day or two we’ll have everything there, all the speeches etc.
And the new membership forms too. In the meantime, write to respectrenewal@gmail.com and we’ll set your membership up.
Comment by tonyc — 19 November, 2007 @ 8:35 am
Muslims desecrate SWP banners. How did they ever make a deal with them in the first place?
Comment by dave bones — 19 November, 2007 @ 8:46 am
I keep planning to post something up but I wasted all my time reading the nasty snipes and bizzare focus on an argument about Kyle.
I hope to post something substantial this evening but I fear this thread will also have descended in to farce by then.
Please, please, please don’t feed the trolls.
If someone (from whatever side) engages in plain name calling NO NOT RESPOND with the same - remember it it better to fight fire with water then to fight fire with fire.
Peace
(fingers crossed)
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 19 November, 2007 @ 8:48 am
JO
I think I am going to be firmer at deleting abusive and disrupive comments, especially after Tom Delargy has admitted on Liam’s blog that he and other SWP supporters are engaged in a systematic and deliberate effort to disrupt debate.
Comment by Andy — 19 November, 2007 @ 9:02 am
We must go foward with the masses and explain the evils of the SWP: and why it makes us feel warm and cuddly to finally tell the TRUTH about these vipers. In addition we have an explanation for all our failings. The SWP. Oh yes.
Its a really very attractive political vision.
What an appalling sectarian lashup this is beginning to look like.
Comment by johng — 19 November, 2007 @ 9:05 am
JOhn
I am going to start deleting comments like the yours above, which clearly are not contributing to a debate.
If you wish to engage in political debate then you are welcome, but given the depths which SWP supporters have sunk in the last couple of days - personal abuse, saying that all Resepct Renewal supporters are so old they need collostomy bags, etc, etc. My patience is wearing very thin.
Especially after a troll said that when I wrote “The whole point about Kylie is that she has made a career out of presenting her sexuality as a commodity” that I was colluding in sexual violence against women.
To which your SWP supporter “canadien” replied: “you say the comparison made by “Ship in the night” to the justification for rape was offensive - frankly I thought it an apt comparison because it reminded me of campaign a number of years ago on university campuses in Canada called “No means No” - in other words if a woman says no to sex, they aren’t being coy. There was a backlash starting with male engineering students (someone should do an analysis someday on why engineers - in N.America anyway - are always the most reactionary on campus) putting up signs like “No means harder” or “No means kick her in the teeth”.
I have had a women who was a victim of rape complaining to me about these remarks and asking me to delete them, and I am considering whether I should.
To suggest that saying “The whole point about Kylie is that she has made a career out of presenting her sexuality as a commodity” is the same as saying “No means harder” or “No means kick her in the teeth”. is so scandallous that I am lost for words (as a former engineering student, of course)
Comment by Andy — 19 November, 2007 @ 9:17 am
johng can I ask you what you want to get out of posting on this website?
Is it to convince Respect renewal people to re-think their position? Is it to show any waviers who might be reading this site that the RR position is wrong? Is it just that you enjoy a good brawl? Or are you just being disrubtive?
Since I have seen in the past that you have posted things that do engage with the argument I will assume good faith on your behalf and suppose that you are trying to engage with the argument, if so insteed of your agreesive rant why not pitch you argument in a more calrm fasion - it will then be more likly to convince people.
Why not say something like this;
“The arguments of many people on the respect renewal side seem just to be claims that all shortcomings in the Respect project were down to the SWP. This doesn’t acknowldge the role SWP played in setting Respect up etc. and seems like to easy an answer. Is this the extent of your political vison or is there more? In attacking the SWP’s role you seem to be falling into sectarianism etc.”
If you pitch it like this people will engage with you and we might all lurn some thing.
(I realise I might be breaking my own “don’t feed the trolls” rule but I thought I’d give “Assume good faith a try” a try - both these good rules for internet discusion are used over at the very successful Wikipedia)
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 19 November, 2007 @ 9:23 am
JOhn, can you answer me this, you imply that I had written something in the spirit of
What I actually wrote was:
Can you explain explain the discrepency?
Comment by Andy — 19 November, 2007 @ 9:28 am
Andy,
Given the outpouring of filthy abuse against SWP members and the SWP which you do not delete (up to and including calling us cockroaches) I find your sensitivity about the existence of different ways of seeing this dispute rather strange. The sight of George Galloway, one of the most important opponents of the war in Britain, shrunk to the level of ranting obsessively about the SWP in a meeting billed ‘Respect Renewed’ was sad enough. Even sadder is to read from yourself, instead of a report on the detail of what was actually said, an attempt to present all this as ‘catharsis’ (over at Liam’s there were reminders that we are all, essentially, ‘human’).
That anyone honestly commenting on a conference which everyone involved is rather too embarressed to discuss in any detail is threatened with deletion is quite simply farcical. I happen to believe that the reason why you are threatening this, and others are complaining bitterly all over blogland about the continuing critique of your position, is that many are rather worried themselves.
If you take the kind of position you do, in such a way that one of the largest and most successful electoral coalitions on the left is split, you can expect some critique for it. Your outrage that not everyone shares your position, or your sense of catharsis notwithstanding. If you do choose to delete people who disagree with you, that is of course your right and privilage. But you should change the name of this blog if you do. Its becoming an increasingly inappropriate tag.
Comment by johng — 19 November, 2007 @ 9:37 am
That anyone honestly commenting on a conference which everyone involved is rather too embarressed to discuss in any detail is threatened with deletion is quite simply farcical. … If you do choose to delete people who disagree with you, that is of course your right and privilage.
Nobody, but nobody, is talking about deleting comments from people who disagree, let alone people honestly commenting.
RR members and supporters have specifically and repeatedly asked for evidence that they’re opposed to all SWP members, and got no response. Come to that, RR members and supporters have specifically and repeatedly stated that they’re not opposed to all SWP members. Against that background, it’s really quite hard to see
We must go foward with the masses and explain the evils of the SWP: and why it makes us feel warm and cuddly to finally tell the TRUTH about these vipers. In addition we have an explanation for all our failings. The SWP. Oh yes.
as ‘disagreement’, let alone as honest reporting.
Comment by Phil — 19 November, 2007 @ 10:00 am
Thanks Johng for that more sobber post, I’m sure it won’t be deleted. If Andy has the intension (I doubt it) of deleting posts based on the political content he would be wroung to do so, but do you not acknowllage that comments that are largly just excersices in slanging off, what everside posts them, are a waste of time and obsuce the real debate?
I bother to post this because this blog would be a much more construcive place for all if we manage to be a little more disaplined.
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 19 November, 2007 @ 10:04 am
RR members and supporters have specifically and repeatedly asked for evidence that they’re opposed to all SWP members, and got no response.
The response is in George Galloway’s speech, my pretty. Don’t hold your breathe for analysis: instead, prepare for a brilliant dialectical exposition, in which George relentlessly anathematises against his latest enemies, and then demurs from anathematism; pleads for democracy at a rally with no elected delegates and no votes on the day of an elected conference with votes; denies he’s a witch-hunter while hinting that his enemies might be satanic; etc etc. It’s a marvellous two-bit act, entirely worthy of Blackpool’s best venues alongside Roy Chubby Brown and .
Incidentally, is the author of this blog considering writing a report on the Renewal rally?
Comment by the pilge — 19 November, 2007 @ 10:22 am
What a waste of time and energy this all has been, two factions fighting for control of Respect while there are so many serious problems to tackle, both convinced they’re the victim and need to defend themselves against the other.
For fecks sake, if Brown and Blair could work together in mutual loathing for over a decade to wreck Britain, surely the two Respects can now work together to help repair the damage?
Comment by Martin Wisse — 19 November, 2007 @ 10:32 am
#10 Desecrate??! Surely the SWP isn’t claiming its banners are holy relics now?
Comment by RobM — 19 November, 2007 @ 10:32 am
Well in the main I do try and be sober (hic). But the reason I responded in this way to Andy’s post, was because it struck me as a bit dissembling. Essentially Andy seems to be attempting to put a nice spin on elements of the discussion which appear a bit distasteful to anyone not obsessed with attacking the SWP. One reason why this is embarressing relates not so much to the rights and wrongs of the dispute but the simple fact that the level of bile of even prominant figures within Respect Renewal is simply off-putting for prospective allies who have other priorities then endlessly discussing the defects of the far left.
If you are a leading figure in the trade union movement for example, you might not like the SWP very much. But then on a day to day basis you work with people you dislike even more. The prospect of people reacting like this, even to deep disagreement, is hardly a very attractive proposition for those seriously thinking about re-alignment on the left. I’m aware for example that one prominant trade unionist had a disagreement with us about an important issue. An SWP member on his executive was expelled for backing him. Did he throw hissy fits and denounce us? No, he did not, despite the fact that he would have had considerably less to lose by doing so. Why? Because people in the broader movement simply don’t behave like that, and they don’t take things personally. They think politically. The failure of some erstwhile comrades to do the same has been the most serious disapointment for me: not the disagreement or even the parting of the ways.
But there are also wider issues. Mike Rosen keeps asking about what constitutional arrangements are being made within Respect Renewal. There do not seem to be any, and the net result will simply be a structure in which political leaders are utterly without accountability to anyone but themselves, whatever the talk of pluralism. Now I happen to think the whole question of accountability within a broad coalition is a difficult and not a simple one. If one looks at the origins of the Labour Party one finds that the Labour Representation Commitee had no membership structure for twenty years, that those standing were encouraged to stand as members of their own organisation (whether a trade union or, for example, the SDF), and that there was a great deal of caution about imposing more uniform structures, precisely because of the dangers of premature splitting.
The kind of wild west situation that has unfolded in the last couple of months, with absolutely no-one sure what is a political and what is a constitutional issue, looks set to continue in Respect Renewal as far as I can see. Emphasising the more bureacratic elements of political organisation might not be immediately popular, but I think its neccessary. One feature of the obsession with the SWP is that it conceals very real issues about democracy and accountabilty which will simply continue inside Respect Renewal it seems to me. I think the argument about “Russian Dolls” and “secret agendas” and the related wish to shift away from coalition politics to that of a completely standard membership organisation is premature, given other forces any left of the left party would have to attract to be serious.
We are at the stage where there is a neccessity for as many hats as possible, and one hat will not do. For all the talk of pluralism, I think the result is likely to be very different. Real pluralism, unfortunately, is dependent on the existence of different currents with real clout. The belief that it is time to just have one clout and not many is mistaken, as well as lying behind most of this argument. Bought on by a panic about elections it has telescoped a process which, of neccessity, would take years and years. The downside of this I believe most activists are aware of (even if secretely). The upside is that they are aware of it, and it is to be hoped that at some point in the future more workable frameworks which recognise these realities will come into being.
Comment by johng — 19 November, 2007 @ 10:35 am
why are the few remaining swp hacks still bothering to post on here? Havent they got their own ‘john rees’s respect’ forum to post on? But i guess it would be pretty quiet on there right now, as the full enormity of their complete political isolation dawns on them! Its ‘back to the future’ for the dwindling swp membership, with only flyposting ‘vote labour with no illusions’ posters to look forward to! Glad to read the meet on saturday went well - good to see a fellow green socialist derek wall speaking. Hope it is a sign that the uk’s two leading left wing organisations - the green party and respect renewal - can work together in the future!
Comment by leigh — 19 November, 2007 @ 10:40 am
Hope it is a sign that the uk’s two leading left wing organisations - the green party and respect renewal - can work together in the future!
They’ll have a lot to say to one another about Islam.
Comment by the pilge — 19 November, 2007 @ 10:46 am
Post 12. Andy, I have just scanned through the responses to your initial post on the Renewal conference and although there are over 400 of them, quite a few are just abuse masquerading as political critique. Some come from those who proclaim to be ‘on our side’ but are just blinded by a hatred of the SWP. I don’t consider them allies. As for the sectarian posts from the pro-SWP side, I think there are two reasons by way of explanation.
Firstly, a lack of confidence in the political premise upon which the actions of their organisation rest i.e. that this split is based on the fact that George/ Salma/ Ken et al constitute a right wing, communalist, anti-TU, homophobic pandering current inside Respect. It was a ludicrous argument and I’m not surprised SWP members would feel awkward defending it. Hence, most of the SWP posts being of the ‘he said, she said’ type, incessantly going over the entrails of meetings, disputing detail and retreating into abuse, venom and sometimes lies as a substitute for real political debate. Secondly, for some SWP members it is clear this latter response is part of a deliberate ploy to disrupt and undermine the creditability of your site by dragging it into the gutter (The comments by Syme about ‘slack jawed idiots’ in relation to a student and the boast from an SWP’er that he stole from my flat are only two that come to mind, but there have been many, many others.) The trouble with this kind of debate is that it can create a dynamic difficult for the rest of us to avoid being sucked into.
Your site is too good and too important for you to let sectarian bile compromise it. Editorial intervention is required to protect its integrity. I would suggest that those who want to engage in real political dialogue and argument, from whatever background, are all welcome. Those who want to trade gossip and abuse are not and their posts should be deleted.
Better fewer, but better.
Comment by Ger Francis — 19 November, 2007 @ 10:48 am
Its worth adding one thing about the dirty laundry syndrome. Why did we in the SWP spend a lot of time defending George (sometimes against critics now on the other side of this divide?). It was because there was a recognition that in the wider world, these attacks were not motivated by a critique of his failings (which he has just like anyone else) but by the things that were good about him: his principled opposition to the war.
Such a (sensible) understanding of how to proceed in politics (ie looking not only at internal disputes but how they go in the wider world) should also be understood in relationship to the whole SWP controversy. When prominant figures start imagining that the main reason why Respect hasn’t attracted more prominant figures because they are concerned about the ‘dead hand of the SWP’ this strikes me as a confusion between some of the internal disputes and tensions inside Respect, and the wider world outside.
This logic is also operating at the level of all the talk of ‘catharsis’ etc. Its absurd to imagine that trade union leaders object to Respect because its ‘too bureacratic’ (diplomacy prevents me from expanding on this point). As an occassional vistor to this blog before the current fracas it has always struck me that a political project which involves collecting togeather those either organisationally or ideologically disillusioned with their experiance in revolutionary socialist organisations, was politically rather unattractive to (most of the left) who do not share this orientation (its also one of the reasons why a current of the left associated with individuals whose disillusionment dates from the late 1970’s are unlikely really, ever to have much traction in the actual movement).
There is a curious mixture in these arguments of on the one hand curiously over-stating the importance of organisations like the SWP within the movement (the product of biographical experiances obviously) and being far more dismissive then many without such a history would be. This is nowhere more clear then in arguments about what kind of formation a left of labour organisation would be, with a hugely disproportionate emphasis on the SWP as the main barrier (at the expense of any objective assessment of the difficulties of confronting Labourism within the movement) and on the other hand the idea that breaking entirely from the largest left of labour organisation of socialists is some kind of triumph of the human spirit.
Its a very distorted understanding of whats at stake here.
Comment by johng — 19 November, 2007 @ 11:02 am
Hi Ger
‘Firstly, a lack of confidence in the political premise upon which the actions of their organisation rest i.e. that this split is based on the fact that George/ Salma/ Ken et al constitute a right wing, communalist, anti-TU, homophobic pandering current inside Respect.’
Not at all. I refer back to my earlier points about Birmingham Respect. We need respect branches to be principled, campaigning and accountable to their members ie monthly branch meetings with elected representatives in attendance and where campaign priorities are set. Unity can’t come about through smoky bak room deals, it has to be the membership
Comment by damn right — 19 November, 2007 @ 11:03 am
Better fewer, but better.
Whatever happened to pluralism?
Comment by the pilge — 19 November, 2007 @ 11:04 am
JohnG
If you are banned from Socialist Unity, please feel free to comment at Harry’s Place.
Comment by David T — 19 November, 2007 @ 11:25 am
Am I allowed to be abusive towards David T?
Comment by johng — 19 November, 2007 @ 11:32 am
Even though we’ve had our arguments JohnG you’re always welcome to post at Shiraz.
Comment by TWP — 19 November, 2007 @ 11:32 am
You can be abusive to Jim - he likes it.
Comment by TWP — 19 November, 2007 @ 11:34 am
Respect Renewal is a positive development on the British left. In order to build a serious working class movement in this country the left must create a broad coalition bring together trade unionists, environmentalists, peace activists, the Labour left and so on. This is the only way that the left can pull together the strength to influence British politics. It is futile to try and exert a control over one’s partners that is disproportionate to one’s actual weight. It is by entering constructive relationships with these forces that we can influence them from the left.
Respect was an unprecedented success in that it was able to get an MP and councillors elected. This is because it was able to link up with genuine mass forces (above all the Muslim community). The only version of Respect that will survive is the one that is able to keep those mass forces’ support.
There is clearly space for a party to the left of Labour, but it can only be constructed on a non-sectarian basis.
Comment by Mellie_Agon — 19 November, 2007 @ 11:37 am
Obviously I am biased, being in another political party altogether - but looking at either RESPECT leaves me feeling both unenthused and very sad at opportunities lost.
RESPECT (original brand) is now almost entirely dominated by the SWP, has no internal democratic life whatsoever, and surely holds out no appeal at all for any independent socialist. RESPECT Renewal, however, has Galloway as its prime figure (and he seems to be getting more and more objectionable, quite frankly) as well as a number of councillors whose behaviour has been heavily criticised by people who I think know what they are talking about (i.e. not just John Rees, but people like Cllr Rahman who has always struck me as honest and fairly straightforward).
Of course Respect Renewal does also have people like Jerry Hicks etc, so if someone put a gun to my head I’d choose them over the other lot - but I think both sides have to accept that they look pretty unpalatable to anyone ‘looking in’ from outside the original RESPECT project. From being a viable party to join (albeit one I chose not to), both RESPECTs are now reduced pretty far down the line of viability. Hell, I’d even possibly consider joining the Labour Party rather than getting bogged down in this splittist nightmare! (only for a few seconds, mind, but still…..)
Matt
Comment by Matt S — 19 November, 2007 @ 11:57 am
And now an impressive unity offensive from the AWL.
More seriously on #37, neither side would formally disagree with any of the sentiments expressed, so the real argument has to be about how we get there (one which I don’t think neccessitated a split).
#38, yes its been very damaging. I think you overstate your criticisms (it just is not true that those on the other side to Respect Renewal are all SWP members, or the new buzzword ‘fellow travellers’, unless by that term is simply meant that they agree with us more then with them). However I also believe that in the end its not going to be possible to have the kind of recomposition on the left we all want without accepting that the component parts have, to a certain extent, to be accepted as they are.
An earlier argument I made was that just as Respect had to take individuals as they actually were (rather then how we would like them to be), so to, when appraising the British left, serious politics is working with what you’ve got, rather then simply wishing it was something different (in my view the most serious critique of Andy’s more theoretical position).
I think in the end such an understanding will tend to weigh quite heavily once people have a chance to stand back from these shennenigans.
Comment by johng — 19 November, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
johng, your replies have got mis-numbered -where is the AWL unity offensive? I think Andy has banned AWL members from posting on here and just deletes our comments -stalin style- as though we don’t exist
Comment by martin ohr — 19 November, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
No I haven’t banned the AWL, I have banned Tim.
Comment by Andy — 19 November, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
Banning John G would be a very bad idea. If he posts abusive, apolitical rubbish, it is under his own name, and he thereby does so at the risk to his own reputation. In any case, if John has been doing such stuff, it is out of character and a product of this factional dispute. His contributions have often been valuable and insightful. If he goes beyond a certain point, there is nothing wrong with deleting individual postings. I’m sure he will soon return to a more political mode given enforcement of the correct guidelines.
But where we have anonymous trolls like “The East is Red”, there should be no hesitation. If they want to completely hide their identity from those they are arguing with, then delete ‘em, or even ban ‘em. Unless they are prepared to informally share their identity with Andy of course. Its rather obvious why these trolls use unrecognisable names. It’s because they are well-known SWP loyalists whose previous utterances, if their names were known, could be quoted against them and the contradictions pointed out with what they are saying now. John G should be treated with respect because he puts his own name to his present and past utterances. You can’t do this with ‘The East Is Red’ because no one really known who he/she is. There is nothing undemocratic about terminating anonymous trolls.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 19 November, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
Sorry should be 30, 32. Martin I was referring rather unkindly, to TWP’s generous offer. Which was proceeded by David T’s generous offer. No doubt I will be berated in three years time whilst under AWL blockade and bombardment about my refusal of the ‘generous offer’.
The above is of course an unsavoury joke and not to be taken at all seriously.
Comment by johng — 19 November, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
Oh dear. I’m being love bombed. Please stop it. East is Red will have me shot…
Comment by johng — 19 November, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
Well I’m not a member nor a supporter of the AWL John - so am not sure what you mean….
Comment by TWP — 19 November, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
Andy, apologies for jumping to conclusions.
When you write “we are going to start talking very seriously to the rest of the left about what grounds for cooperation we can find” is this just code for a non-agression pact with socialist action over the london mayor, or are you really going to start talking seriously to the rest of the left, if so who and when?
Comment by martin ohr — 19 November, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
Martin
My own view is that serious discussions about how to move all the left forward should include everyone from Jon Cruddas leftwards.
Obvioulsy there are greater political disagreements with some than with others, but all of the left can find some common ground to cooperate over.
Comment by Andy — 19 November, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
OK TWP apologies. Its all that shirazy stuff.
Also Ian, in terms of taking responsibility for past as well as present utterences I really don’t think you should refer to a comrade like East is Red as a ‘troll’. He’s a serious comrade and even if you disagree with him on this, he doesn’t suddenly stop being one. There are also many reasons why people don’t want to be identified. For some people its easier then for others, and the content of what people say, rather then their moniker (in this case rather accurate incidently) should be the focus of identifying trolls. Being on the other side of a very polarised argument does not make you a troll.
And given that this site preports to be more then simply the renewal fan base, I think its quite legitimate to engage in the polemics going on here, without being accused of being a troll.
Comment by johng — 19 November, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Andy #44
i think this post is a good illustration of what is meant by the trajectory of RR being rightwards. John Cruddas has been a pretty loyal supporter of New Labour for 10 years. it is easy to look at his voting record and see how few times he broke with Blair. ertainly nobody considered him as a Labour left before his candidacy for the Deputy Leadership. That candidacy was brokered and financed by Trade Union leaders who wanted to exert a bit of muscle but not damage the overall relationship with Brown. The bureaucrats did everything they could to avoid giving any support to John McDonnell.
If Andy includes Cruddas as part of the left regroupment project we have to question what he means by left. It certainly doesn’t then include consistant opposition to the war in Iraq and privatisation of health and education.
I work in my trade union with Labour lefts - and some who are not so left. It is always possible to work with people you disagree with on particular projects (which we might term “united fronts”) but an overall political alternative, like Respect, has to have some boundaries. Where would you draw them Andy?
Comment by PW — 19 November, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
I am a member of the SWP and of RESPECT.
I disagree with Andy’s opening article for a number of reasons and on a number of levels. However, the tone was not hysterical. I would appeal for socialists on all sides to refrain from name calling. The split in Respect is a tragedy, but we do still need to work together in the Stop the War Coalition and elsewhere.
The idea that the problems Respect was experiencing has been down to ‘misleadeship of the SWP’ is nonsense. I suspect that Respect Renewal will find it very much harder to sustain an organisation without the activist layer provided by the SWP.
The current period has seen ecomonic stability up until now since 1993, combined with a very low level of industrial action. At the same time there has been massive political dissillusion with the establishment parties and mass radicalisation against the war. But two million marched peacefully and did not stop the war. The movement, whilst still serious and capable of mobilising serious conferences and large demonstrations, is much smaller than it was before the war started. So this period has provided real opportunities, but within limits. Under such circumstances it is important to aim high, but not to give up or panic at the first set back.
The radicalisation has not been given any real focus except where Respect has sought to provide an electoral alternative (locally based campaigns such as Defend Council Housing have to some extent). The hold of Labourism over the trade union movement, and divisions within the left provide very real obstacles (not necessarily insurmoutable, but not easily or quickly overcome) to real progress.
The Labour Left failed to break from Labour and instead turned to a thwarted leadership campaign which itself highlighted the weakness and, in many places, non-existance of a left LP layer.
When Blair finally went (largely because the mass opposition to the war fatally wounded him) there was a short lived but real resurgance of misplaced hope that Brown might be different. Those hopes have been quickly dashed. But for a time Respect activists found the going difficult, and the prospect of an early election threw some into panic.
Sustaining respect and the anti-war movement in this period has been quite a challenge.
The fact is that much more could have been achieved if in Tower Hamlets the MP and councillors had acted as ‘tribunes of the people’. Grass roots campaigning should have been more high profile. Part of the problem was inexperience. But another part of the problem has been a political conservativism and the pull of ‘electoralism’. By electoralism I mean the seeking of electoral advantage without enough of a regard to the key principles upon which Respect was founded, and short term local aspirations winning out over a more strategic political strategy. The danger here is that careerists and ‘community leaders’ with local influence - but not influence founded on grass roots activism - can come to dominate. The SWP waged a necessary political battle against these tendencies.
Internal battles, arguments over strategy and direction are healthy in any organisation. Sometimes arguments descend into acrimony, but any democratic organisation has to have a framework that can handle inevitable disagreements. Here Respect failed.
Galloway for one does not appear to be able to handle disagreement. He has at times been Respect’s greatest asset - his appearance at the Senate boosted his credibility and that of Respect massively. His entry into the Big Brother house and his absence for much of the time from his constituency unravelled that. His lack of accountability and inability to take criticism have been major drawbacks to say the least.
The civil war and split has been massively damaging to the left. For many people it has reinforced the idea that the left can never unite. But the idea that it is the SWP (who were a minority of the Respect leadership) were somehow responsible for all of the shortcomings is straw grasping.
I know friends who attended the Respect Renewal conference only because the official and democratic conference was already full. They were not convinced by Galloway’s arguments. Nor was Andrew Murray.
However, they did not feel that there was a groundswell of hostility to the WP from the majority attending. I do think some decent people are wondering why the initial success of Respect was not immediately followed by a flowering of a million blossoms. The SWP have become a scapegoat. The idea that ejecting the activist base and a number of the more competent leaders from Respect will be some kind of magic formula for renewal is just barking. Galloway is led by his ego, that is a matter for him. I would urge socialists and progressives within Respect not to follow.
Economic stabilty seems now to be giving way to growing uncertainty. Industrial militancy continues to show provisional signs of breakthrough, only to be held back by Trade Union leaders and lack of confidence. This is unlikely to continue indefinately. The prospects for a broad based progressive coalition both electorally and industrially are likely to improve further. Whether either side of the Respect split are in a good enough shape at present to respond to the challenge now is a mute point. Of the two, my money would be on the official Respect group who were able to hold a delegate conference and not just a rally, and who have the bulk of the activist layer; as against Respect Renewal that will most likely blow with the wind in Galloway’s slip stream, until he bows out of the political arena.
Comment by Keith Crane — 19 November, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
I can’t comment on why specific individuals have remained anonymous online here. But for many people, using real names online is not sensible for employment related or other valid security reasons.
If anyone bothers to think about this for a moment they will realise that this is a sensible precaution. I’ve had to deal with actual threats from an extremely rightwing organisation that made use of the fact that a real name was used online in a political context. The organisation was able to put the name used in a political context with other information…. including address and phone number that were also on the internet, although for quite different reasons. Not funny.
Having to take precautions on the internet is a more likely reason for remaining anonymous than “because they are well-known SWP loyalists…” And no, confiding details informally to Andy is unlikely to be a solution for anyone who does not actually know him. No offence, but I don’t think I would fancy providing personal details to a blogger I don’t know.
It would be a good idea if people recognised the real and genuine reasons why some people do not use real names online rather than attacking people for it. Grow up.
Comment by anon — 19 November, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
Hey, I’ve been following the debate on this and a few other blogs, liam’s and lenins tomb. I would like to share a few thoughts. I have lived outside the Uk for a couple of years now, but was involved in struggles in the Uk from the late seventies up to prob the early nineties in a direct way, and the last years active in organising against the attack on Iraq. One of my best mates is in the SWP and has been for years and on his facebook has a link to ‘lyndsey for mayor’ so i assume he’s remaining loyal to his organisation during this. Anyway- a lot of people are talking about a ‘broad co-alition of ’socialists’ or ‘the left’ and the debate is around how when where this can be built.
In my view, the only thing that matters is that anyone who is in the least bit conscious organises around those fights that are actually taking place, whether it is in the NHs (Karen Reissman among others) or the Communication or railworkers, or in real day to day activity against racism and fascism. It is through those struggles (and agaisnt the prepared attack on Iran) that new forces will develop who will be seeking a means and an understanding of how society can be changed. If you are not in an organisation, think through the lessons and the arguements they present and join one, applying your experience and understanding to actual struggles as you go through them.
The desire for unity is commendable, but comes through action, not interminal debates of what does or doesn’t represent a class struggle ‘programme’.
That Galloway is an opportunist and demogogue should suprise no-one and of course he should be worked with wherever and when ever he is on the side of those fighting injustice (same with anybody from whatever previous background), but to attempt to create an organisation around him and other ‘unaligned activists’ will be doomed to long term failure as it will shatter on the rocks of the crises thrown up by the very struggles capitalism engenders, political debates erupt because of the class struggle and the need to determine the best way to respond over which there will be differences. Without a shared anyalsis history or understanding this is bound to happen.
I never supported the REspect project, so maybe all sides here can dismiss me. But to those who did, is it only in the past few weeks these problems have arisen? was Galloway an honest anti-imperialist class struggle fighter untill two weeks ago? were the SWP leadership honest and open about thier intentions within respect untill two weeks ago?
I know debates have been taking place, over organisation, paper, profile etc, but the real test are still to come, for both the SWP and renewel, it will be interesting to see whta happens. But my confidence in the class that produced me is it will be its struggles that will determine the future opportunity to change society, not this debate (important thought it is)
last point- there is some really childish stuff going on, and those (I assume SWPers) east is red, DMc etc (if they are SWP, because what they are saying is so infantile they do real SWP members a disservice) are doing themselves or the debate no good.
cya
Comment by non partisan — 19 November, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
#36 “neither side would formally disagree with any of the sentiments expressed, so the real argument has to be about how we get there (one which I don’t think neccessitated a split).”
My point was that Respect - in practice, whatever the formal positions may have been - was not building that coalition successfully. This is why the split was necessary.
Comment by Mellie_Agon — 19 November, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
hey ho #53: I think your post is a perfect of example of the kind of stuff that Andy would be better off deleting. I would understand, though, if Andy didn’t have enough hours in the day to deal with this.
In addition to the quotes you highlighted from Ger, he said: “Some come from those who proclaim to be ‘on our side’ but are just blinded by a hatred of the SWP. I don’t consider them allies.” Me neither. The SWP are, and will be, allies on a whole number of issues. Just not in building Respect.
The meaning of Ger’s “better fewer, but better” is pretty obvious isn’t it? A better discussion would be had if we didn’t have to trawl through apolitical rubbish from either side.
Comment by Birmingham Respect Member — 19 November, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Andy:
Did Tariq Ramadan (as billed) speak? I’d certainly want to see/listen to/read the transcript of that, and not just as I’m currently being forced to read a lot of his stuff for academic reasons… So if so, can anyone provide a link to the video?
Comment by Karl-Marx-Straße — 19 November, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
” can’t comment on why specific individuals have remained anonymous online here. But for many people, using real names online is not sensible for employment related or other valid security reasons.”
I accept that people often don’t want to use their real names to protect themselves from the state. Nothing wrong with that. Its the use of completely unrecognisable monikers that I object to, hiding one’s identity not only from the state, but from others on the left. It is particularly objectionable when someone using a completely cryptic moniker makes personal attacks on named individuals, who are then hobbled in responding because they dont have any real idea of who is attacking them. That is a form of troll-like behaviour, I think, and if people dont want to be called ‘trolls’ the remedy is in their hands: desist from this kind of behaviour.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 19 November, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
PW - “nobody considered [Cruddas] as a Labour left before his candidacy for the Deputy Leadership. “
I did.
Cruddas’s candidacy did not come from no-where. And he has been developing an intelliegent critique of New Labour for a couple or few years, the best exposition of which was the epilogue to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on the Far Right in London (PDF). Compass do also produce some good progressive material, markedly to the left of the government’s course.
Comment by Andy — 19 November, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
#46 (which now seems to have been deleted) “Is Jaamat e Islami a party of the Left or Right?” asks David T.
Well, in Bangladesh and Pakistan, Jamaat-e-Islami is of course a right-wing party. In Pakistan it has traditionally been allied with the military (although in recent years it has opposed Musharraf over his support for the US in the “war on terror”) and the ISI intelligence service, while in Bangladesh (or East Pakistan as it then was) Jamaat-e-Islami collaborated with the Pakistan army in 1971 in its efforts to suppress the liberation struggle.
However, in case this has escaped David T’s notice, we’re not living in Bangladesh or Pakistan but in the UK. The question is - what do Muslim activists with Jamaat connections in Bangladesh do here, in this country?
Take the East London Mosque/ London Muslim Centre. It’s no secret that some leading figures there are reported to have links with Jamaat-e-Islami.
But the East London Mosque has provided a platform to Brendan Barber to launch a TUC report calling on the government to take action against unemployment, poverty and poor health among people of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin. It has hosted a TUC reception for visiting Bangladeshi trade unionists. And the support of people around the East London Mosque was decisive in getting George Galloway elected as MP for Bethnal Green & Bow.
These are hardly the actions you’d expect from supporters of a “party of the Right” are they?
The explanation, of course, is that when Jamaat sympathisers come to the UK they find themselves in a very different situation - as part of an oppressed minority community, which faces discrimination in jobs and housing, hatred and sometimes violence from the far Right and, in addition, a government pursuing a pro-US foreign policy which is opposed by the overwhelming majority of Muslims.
So where do they form alliances in order to oppose racism and imperialist war? With the labour movement and the Left, of course.
As any fule kno (well, any fule with a basic training in Marxism) it’s social relations that are decisive, not ideology.
Of course, David T’s political position doesn’t arise from his lack of Marxist training. It stems from his Zionist politics. His objection to “political Islamism” in the UK is not that it is right-wing but that it supports the Palestinian cause and opposes the policies of the state of Israel.
So politicised Muslims have to be slandered and discredited by David T and his neocon friends at Harry’s Place in order to prevent them influencing public opinion and government policy towards the Middle East.
Comment by Geoffrey — 19 November, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
Keith at #47 - thanks for that. I agree entirely with your comments on Galloway, by the way. I think he’s mostly pointing in the right direction at the moment, but at some point RR will have to tackle the accountability issue, and to succeed where RESPECT failed.
The idea that the problems Respect was experiencing has been down to ‘misleadeship of the SWP’ is nonsense. I suspect that Respect Renewal will find it very much harder to sustain an organisation without the activist layer provided by the SWP.
Aren’t ‘leadership’ and ‘activist layer’ two different things? I can (and do) agree with your second sentence here without agreeing with the first one. And I’m genuinely puzzled by a line further down:
The idea that ejecting the activist base and a number of the more competent leaders from Respect will be some kind of magic formula for renewal is just barking.
“Ejecting the activist base”? I know of several people who have been ejected from the SWP for Renewalist sympathies - but I don’t know of any cases of Smith & Yaqoob trying to eject anyone from RESPECT for SWP membership, or of the Renewalists refusing approaches from SWP members.
Obviously most members of the SWP have found themselves on one side of this dispute rather than the other, and “the SWP” in the abstract has taken some stick. Nevertheless, membership of the SWP is not incompatible with membership of RR, and I don’t know of anyone who wants to make it incompatible. Splintered Sunrise put it well:
More than one speaker mentioned a feeling of liberation, a relief at having got rid of the millstone around their neck. This is not of course the SWP as a whole, which everyone agreed contains many great activists, but the rotten methods of its permanent leadership clique.
The Renewalists’ quarrel is with the SWP leadership - I should say, the current SWP leadership, or even the current strategy of the current SWP leadership - not with the party as a whole, and certainly not with individual activists.
Comment by Phil — 19 November, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
A question for the SWP members here who cry “censorship”: surely this is a bit rich considering your house blog, Lenny’s Tomb, has a zero-tolerance policy for comments deviating from the official Party line?
Comment by Anon — 19 November, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
You’re desperate, mate. And anyone reading this, and not reading the sub-text screaming at them between the lines, is desperate too.
Unity. My arse. It’s Life of Brian.
Comment by michael read — 19 November, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
Fine words about unity in action won’t alter the fact that there are things that can’t be glossed over. For instance, it seems that RR will back Livingstone as the first preference in the London mayoral elections next year. This is a real hot potato which is unlikely to be resolved. To me, the voting system makes it perfectly reasonable to back KL as a second preference vote to a genuine, proven, class struggle socialist. I’m not a member of any organisation but I certainly wouldn’t join one that would advocate to the working class of London a vote for Livingstone rather than an RMT candidate. Believe me I’m no friend of the SWP but I was disgusted at the attitude of socialists on this site a few weeks ago who, completely disregarding Livingstone’s crappy domestic record, expressed outrage at the idea of Lindsey German standing as a Respect candidate. I have had serious problems with Respect in the past but they would have had a perfect right as a legitimate political organisation to stand someone on a platform to appeal to the voters of London.
Comment by Doug — 19 November, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
Doug
Who expressed “outrage” at the idea of Lindsay German standing for mayor? And are you sure the RMT are standig a candidate for mayor, I know there was talk of GLA candidates from the RMT but it is the first I heard about a mayoral campaign.
This is a strategic and tactical choice, and we need to have a debate about it, and we should not confuse it with a question of principle.
Comment by Andy — 19 November, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
As someone who did not join Respect in the first place because my deep distrust of the SWP CC largely based on their wholly destructive behaviour and contemptuous attitiude towards the Socialist Alliance and the Scottish socialist party.The split within Respect has only further confirmed my reservations.
While on the surface it might appear to be a ’set back’ in the longer term, I actually feel that it is a much healthier option and while I do have grave concerns about Galloway’s cavalier style and apparent unaccountablity I nevertheless would be far more inclined to support and join Respect renewal as long as it is able to be genuinely democratic and inclusive.
I remain willing to work with members of the SWP where necessary outside of this but I think it is very clear that the SWP needs to just stick to building it’s own organisations as any other project they seem to involve themselves in, due to their numerical strength becomes dominated, controlled and manipulated by the party and ends up in division.Put more simply it is simply unworkable to try to have a party within a party.
However,the fact remains that at the moment both Respects are in danger of facing electoral irrelevance unless they can speedily and peacefully resolve the issue of the Respect name.It is wholly unsustainable and plainly ridiculous for both to retain the name.
I genuinely hope that Respect renewal is able to open up a creative dialogue with the myriad of left formations and forces outside of itself inorder to help bring about a much broader ‘unity’ coalition of the left and all those opposed to Brown’s ongoing neo-liberal imperalist policies.
Nevertheless,working together throughout the whole of the Left is nevertheles vital in opposing racism,fascism and nihilism and the Brown’s privatisation agenda and especially within the anti war movement as an imperialist attack looms against Iran which will engulf the whiole of the Mddle East and Central Asia and beyond for years to come.
Moreover the whole of the Left has got to wake up to the reality of GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE and the global ecological crisis we face , it has seriously got to incorportate and integrate this into it’s analysis AND work together with the Green movement in developing and supporting viable sustainable alternatives now.
Whatever Socialism we may aspire to in the future has to be sustainable and built from where we are now.Just adding on the ‘environment’ as part of a manifesto is totally inadequate to the task which is all the more pressing and urgent.
This tasks is needed now more than ever.
On the subject of deleting people’s comments. I actually do feel that an enormous amount of time, energy and effort is wasted by so many negative, petty and vindictive comments and I do think there should be far greater intervention and deletion of such comments and so remove this poisonous invective which helps in no way to create any form of constructive debate and discussion.
Comment by Paris — 19 November, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Phil: “The Renewalists’ quarrel is with the SWP leadership - I should say, the current SWP leadership, or even the current strategy of the current SWP leadership - not with the party as a whole, and certainly not with individual activists”.
I don’t think George Galloway for one would agree, at the Respect Renewal event he said:
“I don’t intend to wrestle with any of the leaders of the Socialist Workers Party, indeed if I can help it, after today I never intend to mention them again. And if it follows that I have no intention of wrestling with the leaders of the Socialist Workers Party, then I shall treat the utterances of the juvenile dwarves with whom they march with the contempt they deserve”
Even if you ignore the colourful language, the message there is pretty straightforward.
Comment by Ginger Mills — 19 November, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
Even if you ignore the colourful language, the message there is pretty straightforward.
Yes Galloway is saying that he has no time for gettig involved in the juvenile criticism of him and Respect Renewal that we see for example on this blog from SWP supporters, and criticisms which are repeated in other forums,
There is no objection to working with the SWP or its members over practical joint campiagning
Comment by Andy — 19 November, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Andy #54
The Cruddas article you link to is certainly critical of the electoral approach of New Labour. But in terms of an alternative it seems to go no further than mainstream Old Labour. I cannot see how the political strategy it embodies can be seen to be particularly left (except in the sense that Roy Hattersley is now to the left of the Government).
Look at the Cruddas record on “the Public Whip”. He voted for the Iraq War on every occasion. He voted for Foundation Hospitals. He voted almost every time for the Anti-Terrorism Laws. He has not [yet] signed the EDM supporting Karen Reissmann.
If he is “left”, and is to be included in your left regroupment Andy, I ask again, what do you believe should be the political boundaries of Respect Renewal?
Comment by PW — 19 November, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
I would like to see a broad left social democratic party along the lines of Germany’s Die Linke, but perhaps a bit more focussed on building a pluralistic movement, and cooperating with other progressive strands of opinion.
Other people may have different ideas.
Comment by Andy — 19 November, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
“By the way, the banner across the front of the stage was the one used for the Pride march in London this year, so much for homophobia.”
Too little, too bloody late.
Comment by Vicky Thompson — 19 November, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
A couple of questions.
When Galloway says..
“And if it follows that I have no intention of wrestling with the leaders of the Socialist Workers Party, then I shall treat the utterances of the juvenile dwarves with whom they march with the contempt they deserve”…
Does ‘wrestle’ mean debate differences? Would that explain his decision to hold a rally instead of arguing his case at a conference convened in the same way as he subscribed to in previous years?
And who exactly are these “juvenile dwarves with whom they march”? What does he mean by that?
The second question relates to the emerging pattern of RR supporters talking quite patronisingly of being happy to work with ‘good’ SWP activists but not ‘bad’ leaders of SWP. What about SWP activists who are loyal to their leaders? Does this make them ‘bad’ and not to be worked with? Or are they still ‘good’ simply because they are not in a position of ‘leader’. Are they ‘good’ but only need to be persuaded to see how loyalty to SWP leaders is so short sighted? If only they could switch their loyalty to more enlightened people like… George Galloway or Andy.
Comment by stuart — 19 November, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
We must go foward with the masses and explain the evils of the SWP
in a polite and civilized manner.
But as for name calling, accusations etc I can’t see how anyone takes it seriously. I mean where is the left? What happened? What “Movement” are you talking about? Where is it? Both respect parties are a million miles from anything which would seriously ignite a real drive from our culture in the UK. Its bleedin obvious. Both Galloway and Rees would shit themselves if any real revolution started to happen. Look at them.
Surely its the fault of “vote for me” politics? Surely by now it is time to try something else.
Comment by dave bones — 19 November, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
#59 “Believe me I’m no friend of the SWP but I was disgusted at the attitude of socialists on this site a few weeks ago who, completely disregarding Livingstone’s crappy domestic record, expressed outrage at the idea of Lindsey German standing as a Respect candidate.”
As Andy has pointed out, nobody (so far as I’m aware) has expressed outrage at Lindsey German standing as a Respect candidate for London mayor.
As a summary of the discussion we’ve had on this subject, Doug’s comment is about as accurate as Alex Nichols’ assertion on another thread that “Respect(R) is actually arguing for an uncritical support for Livingstone”.
The person arguing the most “rightist” line on this issue has been myself, and what I condemned was not Lindsey German standing as a mayoral candidate as such but rather the blanket hostility to Livingstone that the SWP has demonstrated over the past 18 months or so.
The most ridiculous example of that was the 8-page A3 full-colour “Respect for London” newsletter published in Spring 2007 which was primarily devoted to attacking, not New Labour or the Tories, but Livingstone.
It featured the front-page headline “Why Do Londoners PAY MORE?” with the strap “Capital has highest fares in the world”, which just repeated lying propaganda from the Evening Standard.
This nonsense was based on the figures for cash fares, which almost nobody in London pays any more. With an Oyster card there’s a flat fare of 90p now for all bus journeys (recently reduced from £1), which is significantly cheaper than any place outside of London that I’ve been to.
Whatever other differences they might have with Livingstone, surely socialists should be applauding Livingstone’s revitalisation of the bus services in London, not joining a Tory rag like the Standard in trying to discredit it?
The point I made in an earlier thread is that this sectarian line towards Livingstone walls off the SWP (and their wing of Respect) from the very sections of society who Respect needs to win over - the major trade unions, Muslim and other minority communities, anti-racists, anti-war campaigners and other progressive forces in London - who in their overwhelming majority will be backing Livingstone against Boris Johnson.
It really makes no sense at all for Respect to antagonise these people with an anti-Ken campaign. It would be more effective to wage a campaign which criticises Livingstone from the left on some issues, but recognises the political common ground that does exist and emphasises the need for a second preference vote for Livingstone to keep out Boris Johnson.
The problem is that it seems highly unlikely, on present form, that Lindsey German will wage such a campaign.
So what should Respect Renewal do? Under those circumstances it would make little sense to back German’s candidacy, as this would discredit RR along with the SWP. And having two Respect candidates would just reduce the non-Labour left to an object of ridicule, with both candidates getting a derisory 1% or 2% of the vote.
It would be better for RR to give critical backing to Livingstone’s mayoral candidacy and concentrate on trying to get the 5% of the vote necessary win a seat on the London Assembly on the top-up list.
As I’ve noted before, I think quite a few of the voters who will be backing Livingstone for mayor would be receptive to the argument that there is a need for an independent socialist voice on the Assembly. But they’re not going to pay much attention to this argument if the people making it are also waging a stupid sectarian campaign against Livingstone.
Comment by Eugene — 19 November, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
Eugene
Would you answer my point - what if a non-Respect Leftist candidate such as Bob Crow stood for mayor, would you still call for a first preference vote for KL?
Comment by Doug — 19 November, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
Doug - there is no point in dealing with hypotheticals.
Bob Crow is not standing for mayor.
But it also depends on the nature of the campaign. If a left challenge for mayor concentrated most of its fire on Boris, and made it clear that at all costs ken must win, and that the second preference fo Ken is just as importnat as the first preference for comrade X, then tactically that would be defensible in my opinion.
Comment by Andy — 19 November, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
Ginger - he refers to the leadership of the SWP and then to “the juvenile dwarfs with whom they are travelling now”. Which would be a very odd way to refer to the membership of the SWP - it sounds more like a swipe at the AWL, CPGB et al. What he actually says about SWP members is “the members of the SWP, who have not been a party to this dispute, have been misled by their own leadership”. Nothing about excluding them from the organisation
But your interpretation is backed by Socialist Worker, no less:
He said ordinary members of the SWP “have been deceived by the leadership” over disagreements in Respect and described those who remained part of the official Respect coalition as “juvenile dwarfs”.
With the best will in the world, I find it hard not to see that sentence as deliberately misleading. Kudos to Liam for putting up the video.
Comment by Phil — 19 November, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
As I understand it, the RMT has decided not to stand any candidates. I think the EC said no, although I’ve not heard that officially yet.
The mistake that John Rees made as Nat Sec of Respect when Crow started saying he wanted to stand candidates was to essentially say “that’s our job thanks, don’t step on our turf”. The SWP, in the shape of Martin Smith, told SWP members to wreck the motions that supported the idea (claiming that Crow was unscrupulous and refused to work with other left wing currents - not just to us, but to others in the SWP too).
I argued - sadly only with tube workers, given that no one from Respect asked any of us for our views - that the first thing you do when a major left wing militant union leader talks of entering politics like that is to say “Brilliant, let’s sit and talk through the possibilities! How can we help you, and how can you help us, and is there any benefit to us working closely together?”
Even if that’s all hot air, we could’ve won some friends through that approach. Instead, Respect came out of it looking bitter and losing a lot of credibility within the RMT (the contradictions are interesting though, because support for Respect has been strong in RMT branches) because we acted like sectarians at the national and regional level.
I don’t think the RMT should stand, cos they’d effectively be propaganda candidates, and I think we can achieve more than that.
But I do think that Bob Crow should be engaged with, listened to and debated with, like Nick Wrack did, instead of being told not to tread on our territory, as Rees did.
I know that doesn’t answer the hypothetical question, but I can’t answer that one until I’ve answered the one about what if those blokes we’re holding without charge really are terrorists.
Comment by tonyc — 19 November, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
the emerging pattern of RR supporters talking quite patronisingly of being happy to work with ‘good’ SWP activists but not ‘bad’ leaders of SWP. What about SWP activists who are loyal to their leaders?
Obviously it’s not a matter of ‘leaders’ vs ‘members’; it’s about the current strategic line of the current leadership of the SWP, which is diametrically opposed to RR. I should imagine that anyone who supports RR would, in principle, be welcome - up to and including members of the SWP CC.
I don’t see how it’s patronising to differentiate between the SWP’s leaders and its membership; if anything it’s a mark of respect to the latter, suggesting precisely that they aren’t Russian-Doll automatons.
Comment by Phil — 19 November, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Apologies if this has been addressed already but can anyone confirm whether the issue of Respect Renewal supporting Ken Livingstone for mayor was discussed at the conference or even if there is any truth to this idea. If it is true then I predict any discussions with the RMT and Bob Crow will be short, probably consisting of just two words…
Comment by Neil — 19 November, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
Well I am not sure that is true Neil.
Bob Crow still seems to have a good working relationship with the Morning Star for example, who back Ken.
No - there was no discussion, and that debate needs to be had. There is a body of opinion on either side I think.
Comment by Andy — 19 November, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
# Andy. I was at RR conf/rally and am ex-SWP and TU member of almost 15 years till about 4 years ago. Quite frankly I think at this stage it would be the greatest tactical error not to give Lindsay and the slate elected at Conway Hall our(RR’s)full and unqualified support. Lindsay 1, KL 2 (in spite of his crap right wing opportunism) is okay by me.
I) The campaign has already started, to change now would look crass and lose support for the only socialist candidate (LG) who stands a good chance of getting elected on the members list.
2) Beating Boris won’t be a push-over and should be taken seriously, so no point in wasting votes on the Greens for Mayor. Ken is the least worst choice and most likely winner for beating Boris.
3) Not supporting the already agreed slate makes us (the left)look divided and therefore bound to lose, and lose badly; apart from the unavoidable splitting of the vote.
4) As an left alternative we can help to get the vote out and make it much harder for the BNP to get in.
I’m also concerned about the loose cannon GG can be.
eg: his sexist comments on Kylie.
Daft and uncalled for, and also insulting to many on the left (and certainly not just KM); especially just a week before the RR conf / Rally; what total crap! He should be held accountable, he is a ‘family’now, to paraphrase Thomas Moore in A Man for All Seasons, restraining his son-in-law who threatens to kill Henry viii.
Are you listening George? Wise up!
But there it is, he does need to be taken in hand and I mentioned it to two leading members of the former NC 19. One (a female comrade)was angry and said that he wouldn’t be allowed to get away with it,whilst the other ( a male comrade) groaned and said ‘oh dear’.
I await to see positive and public developments!
Comment by Halshall — 19 November, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
Andy,
It’s true Crow has good relations with the MS going back to his own involvement with the CP. Nonetheless it is clear that Bob Crow has drawn political conclusions from his many battles with the Labour government. In essence he now accepts there needs to be political representation for the working class in a seperate party from Labour and that the trade unions must play the leading role in this. If the RMT does stand candidates in the GLA it would be logical to run a mayoral candidate in order to boost the idea of independent representation. The idea we should support Livingston who, for all his verbal opposition to the worst aspects of the New Labour project, is still embedded in the New Labour establishment is a dead end.
Yes if it was up to Livingston the Tube, and other transport services would be under full state control with no private contractors etc or again if it was up to him more council houses would be built. The point is it isn’t up to him though but to a Labour Party completely wedded to neo-liberalism. The point that Bumbling Boris would be worse is possibly correct but as New Labour will simply continue to attack the working class then the eventual victory of the Tories is inevitable at some stage. The question is will we as working class people have independent fighting, political and industrial organisations to oppose them? The RMT putting up a list in conjunction with other socialists, anti privatisation activists, NHS campaigners etc would be a huge step forward in this regard.
Supporting Livingston against the Tories is simply the politics of lesser evilism that has condemned much of the left and trade unions to utter irrelevance in the US due to their slavish support for the Democrats.
BTW the argument we need to support Livingston because he supports Chavez is hog wash. The only way the revolution will triumph in Venezuela is if the socialist transformation of society is completed, with democratic control of the economy by the working class and the spread of the revolution to other Latin American countries and from there around the world. Not by doing deals with Ken Livingston.
Comment by Neil — 19 November, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
Well said, Halshall (#77) - on both counts. Let’s make sure sectarianism and sexism are kept out of RR.
There’ll be plenty of debate on LG vs KL for the first preference recommendation, but even if the decision is to back KL alone (albeit critically), there’d be freedom for dissenters like yourself (and me, if I lived in London) to go ahead and leaflet for LG. Look at the LCR: the minority campaigning for Bové was much graver than this, but that didn’t lead to any split.
The way the RR decision goes depends partly on the nature of LG’s campaign, as Eugene argued so ably in #69 - whether she directs her offensive primarily against Livingstone or Johnson.
Comment by babeuf — 19 November, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
Now normally I would be a firm follower of the principle Andy used to keep to that we shouldn’t publish documents meant for internal consumption, but I am going to post up the contents of SWP “Party notes” on RR event as;
1: They are so completely nonsensical that I think it is unfair that they can spread such stuff to their membership without having to account for it and,
2: I sent a resignation (from the SWP) letter to my district organiser and to the membership office. Neither has contacted me since, so if they can’t be arsed to remove me from the list to receive party notes then why should I be arsed to keep them secrete?
I’ll add some notes;
Respect Renewal - 6 hours of SWP bashing
Michael Bradley was one of 9 SWP members, which
included Weyman Bennett who intervened at the Respect
Renewal Rally. Here is his Report.
“The event could well have been subtitled “bash the SWP”.
Despite George Galloway and others pledging that the day
would not be dominated by the SWP the next six hours were
pretty much packed with our various crimes.
“The basic line was this. The SWP from pretty early on had
decided that to keep control of Respect the organisation had
to stay small. The SWP leaders had therefore failed to build
the organisation, not through incompetence but through
deliberate action.”
Me replying:
Respect has failed to grow, and its official membership has shrunk - that’s a plain fact that I have never herd an SWP CC’er acknowledge. There was a feeling at the conference that a key reason for this was that the SWP did not prioritise it has the key viacal for political organisation. Some might have held the crude analysis that SWP wanted it small, but not many - most held the correct view that the SWP wanted Respect not be be organised beyond having a small number of demands and to remain a loose coalition with a strong organised and disciplined revolutionary party at its hart. This isn’t “SWP bashing”, they confirm that this is their tactic in many documents about “united front of a special kind”.
“The party was accused at various times of Islamophobia of
meeting in secret and having its own “line” and of using
bureaucratic methods and intimidation to control the
organisation.”
Me replying:
It wasn’t argued that the SWP is in general Islamophobic but that it is currently using arguments that pander to islamaphobia to attack Salma and the tower Hamlets (non-rebel) crew. If you don’t think that they are then check out any document from the SWP that criticises the Weekly Workers lines about Respect pandering to communinalism. They are the same arguments the SWP cc is now using to attack Renewal faction but when Weekly worker made them the SWP called them ‘islamophobic’.
“A little example of the mood amongst some was that one
speaker attacked Lindsey German as the candidate for mayor
(nobody mentioned that 300 Respect members had elected
her as candidate until we did) and got a for arguing Boris Johnson would be preferable.”
My reply:
This is just plainly untrue, the comment was not indicative of the mood of the conference and she did not get a “great round of applause” - I cringed, others looked embarrassed and a few clapped. I know that many people spoke to her afterwards to tell her that they didn’t agree with her comment. She was a pissed off ex-SWPer and trying to make a point with daft rhetoric but she was free to do so because people were free to give their thoughts from the flaw whatever they were.
“At no time (other than in the two three minute contributions
we were allowed) did anybody acknowledge that there might
be any real argument about the course Respect had been
taking or that heaven forbid George or anyone other than the
SWP may have made some mistakes that have affected
Respect’s development.”
“The SWP had apparently played no positive role in
Respect except perhaps at it’s earliest point.
“Some in the audience were unhappy with all this. Many
people argued in one to one conversations that a split should
be avoided and a united conference held.”
My reply:
This is a bit confused, but I guess the inference is that the speakers from the platform were unthinkingly dissing SWP and blaming everything on them while the poor confused people from the floor were still for unity with the SWP. This is incorrect on loads of levels. One of them is that George did talk about many SWP lay members playing good roles across the country as did others from the platform, also speakers from the table and speakers from the floor (in fact their wasn’t such a rigid hiracy as this) all had diverse views but were united in their feeling that SWP’s controlling actions had split Respect.
“But this was effectively the birth of a new political party as
far as the top table was concerned.”
My reply:
Again this gives a false dichotomy between the top table and the floor - such a gap just didn’t exist.
“Activists were given a
strategy to “deal” with the SWP and those who might
sympathise with us.
They were told “Where possible new branches of “Respect
Renewal” should be set up. Where the SWP and
“sympathisers” dominated a branch there should be an
attempt to win the “middle ground” in order to split later.
“And where the SWP was in a minority the idea was to push
to marginalise them, pull the “best” people and over time
push those loyal to their own party out. The speed of this
process would depend on the relative strengths involved.”
My reply:
Some truth to this but not quite as sinister as it seems, is trying to win people to renewal argument any more devious that all the full timers at the renewal conference who were haranging ex-SWP’ers and trying (rather ineffectually) to win them back??? Also again false leadership/follower’s dichotomy. This strategy was largely put from the floor rather then from the stage and Galloway acknowledged that we all need to be leaders.
“Sadly some of the most vicious attacks on us came
from five or six ex SWP members.”
My reply:
And why do you think that might be? Don’t you think it says something quite interesting that the people who were recently closest to the SWP can mostly sharply now see its faults?
“One thing that’s worth noting is the absence of any serious
trade unionists and the complete absence of students.”
My reply:
The first is just not true the second unfortunately is almost true. There were a few students but not many. Why might this be? Is it because students are just brighter then the rest of us and didn’t fall for Salma’s lies? Even if SWP cc’s argument is correct one would still expect a proportion of students to go to the other side. Could it be that SWP through SWSS effetely controls most of the Student Respect? Could it be that Students were lied to over the clam that we wanted them excluded from conference?
“The thing I’d say is that anybody who was unsure about
whether the SWP faced a witch hunt should have sat in that
hall for six hours.”
My reply:
A very polite “witch hunt” of course were SWP cc’ers are allowed to put their point of view without any heckling etc.
“The SWP that we all know whatever its faults was
unrecognisable amidst the bile.”
My reply:
I recognised it ;-P
“But it’s worth remembering that even in such an atmosphere
there were many people who were against a break, unsure of
what was happening or who didn’t want to face what was
being outlined…a Respect without the SWP. The top table
had to work very hard to whip up the mood against us.
Many people were open to a political argument about the
future even if the top table had set their face against us.”
My reply:
Again false dichotomy between “top table” and floor. Just not true.
Just to repeat: Galloway is arguing for his supporters to
set up a completely new organisation “Respect Renewal”
in some areas. One important thing came out of the
Respect Renewal meeting - In others they are being
urged to carry out a more “flexible” strategy. Where
they think they are strong - Birmingham South - they
intend to drive us out. In other areas where they are
weaker - Bristol, Manchester North and Southwark they
intend to break up Respect groups. Comrades need to
discuss how they are going to deal with this situation with
the CC. But be warned Respect Renewal is going to move
fast.
My reply:
Sorry to say it seems like the fight it on.
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 19 November, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
Thanks babeuf # 79,
another point I think that’s very relevant is that the SWP cc have been putting calls out for ‘unity’ ad nauseum, whilst slaggig off GG and co as ‘witchunters’, ‘communalists’, right-wingers’ etc and spreading lies about us blocking SWP members from being allowed to attend the RR conf / Rally, whilst giving out their absurd leaflet which called for ‘unity’.
Well if you can tell a big enough lie often enough then most people ( in the absence of sound and clear evidence to the contrary) will believe it [ at least for a while, whilst the credibility of their so-called opinion leaders holds ].
That’s the main reason why I suspect this blog has come under such heavy attack. Destroy it’s credibility with any daft crap about chairs, and a stupid remark about Boris (from the floor), which had no sway at all in the hall, and most of all the biggest and most patently stupid lie by a SWP cc member, that he wasn’t allowed in without surrendering his card. The audience positively gasped for breath at this deeply patronising nonsense. Do they really believe that the audience are that stupid?
I understand (Andy do correct me if I’m wrong )that it is alledged they even sent an e-mail to SWP members claiming this, presumably to keep them away!
If true, how insulting (and dishonest) to their own membership! What an own goal. It breaks the 11th commandmentand most publically. But if wrong, I will retract my suspicion on this blog.
The GLA - Why LG it should be 1 and KL 2 - Part 2
If we (the RR) collectively agreed to go all out for LG and the Respect slate already elected as candidates, and for LG 1 for Mayor with Ken 2, and gave all to support it on the ground, then the SWP could hardly say no. [ if they did it would only rebound both politically and electorally ].
And this would show that we aren’t mindless sectarians, but can see the bigger picture.
Which of course is what has been lacking from the SWP cc’s campaign of villification.
Maybe we could teach them (and others on the ‘left’ a thing or two about a genuine united front, rather than the completely two-faced and phony ‘unity’ they have been preaching since September 30th.
The alternative is to allow LG and the old Respect ‘left’ to sink without trace at the GLA elections, with no chance of anyone on the left being elected as a member. In other words the worst possible outcome, and no choice at all!
Besides I’ve known LG for nearly thirty years, and whatever our present differences I think without doubt that she would make a strong left voice on the GLA, and for that she deserves all the help we can give.
Let’s show that we believe in genuine unity in action. Perhaps we can show by working together that we can heal what no amount of fine words can’t.
Comment by Halshall — 19 November, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
Joseph Kisolo
Thanks for that
Actually I have no problem in publishing documents from the CC, it is only stuff from rank and file activists I think we need to be careful about. The CC can look after themselves.
Comment by Andy — 19 November, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
Andy:
I don’t want to belabour the point about why exactly we should support Ken for mayor (or not) any chance of having a seperate post on it in the near future?
Comment by Neil — 19 November, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
On Ken- I wrote this months ago, and events may have moved on a bit, but it represents the thrust of my approach
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=352
And this more recently:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=775
Comment by Andy — 19 November, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
Andy: Hilary Wainwright spoke at the conference, what did she have to say?
Comment by Louise — 19 November, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
Halshall #81 - again, excellent. There’s a chance that the decision on the mayoral election might have to be taken before a full delegate conference can be held. In that case, there’s no reason why the debate couldn’t be had at branch level, and votes counted on some basis that’s generally acceptable. As you say, if a vote for an LG1-KL2 campaign was won, it would be a good demonstration of the spirit of united-front work, making the SWP leadership consider whether it would sooner weaken her campaign than accept help from some quarters.
You said (#81): the biggest and most patently stupid lie by a SWP cc member, that he wasn’t allowed in without surrendering his card. The audience positively gasped for breath at this deeply patronising nonsense. Do they really believe that the audience are that stupid?
I understand (Andy do correct me if I’m wrong )that it is alledged they even sent an e-mail to SWP members claiming this, presumably to keep them away!
The only document I can think of that corresponds to this is an an eve-of-conference e-mail sent out by “Respect - the Unity Coalition” under the slightly misleading title “Message from Karen Reissmann and Michael Lavalette”. Here’s the relevant portion:
You may have recently received an e-mail from “Respect Renewal” which claimed “this is what Respect can look like” - it then directed you to clips from a Respect meeting in Manchester. Unfortunately those who sent the e-mail didn’t make it clear that two of the people on the Manchester platform - Preston councillor Michael Lavalette and victimised trade unionist Karen Reissmann - are effectively banned from George Galloway’s new organisation for being members of the SWP.
Hi Jo! (#80) - a good commentary on PN.
Comment by babeuf — 19 November, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
I think we were pretty soft and nice to SWP considering not only did we give them a chance to voice their side of the story at our Respect Renewal conference, but we even allowed them to distribute their “unity” leaflet and sell/distribute their newspaper inside Bishopsgate Inst. during and after the conference. Now isn’t a warm welcoming open hand of friendship?
We are clear, we are willing to work with anybody, SWP or others that want to work for the common good. But we will not accept deception lying and foremost using Respect as a vehicle to use ONLY for their own personal gains.
I really hope SWP members wake up and realise that their leadership is taking them for a ride. While the SWP membership are trying to sincerely fight for the things the left stands for, their leadership’s power hunger has made them the desperate people they are!
Comment by Jahid — 19 November, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
RE: post 80
It really wasn’t much of a witch hunt more the brief stalking of a Tasseograper (sp?). Sorry had that silly joke rolling around my head for the last couple of hours and it had to come out.
Anyway Joe you mention several times in your post that Michael Bradley claims there is a division between the platform and the membership but you don’t believe this is so, I’m curious as to what you base your assessment on as you seem to be speaking for all the 300* people present and I’m not sure that is legitimate.
*Or however many where there, frankly the quibbling over numbers that has taking place is pathetic what matters is the order of magnitude. The fact is it was of a similar scale to the main RESEPCT conference and that is all that matters
Comment by no one special — 19 November, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
No one special
Well, as I said in my post, there was a tremendous amount of conversation going on all day, and the relationship between the “top table” and the rest of us was very interactive and open. And there was a great deal of meeting new people and talking, and I very much got the impression that while there are stratgeic/tactical differences of opinion they certainly aren’t the ones that Party Notes describes
Louise.
Hilary was generally supportive of the conference, and related the break up of Respect to the Beyond the Fragments argument, that we simply have to find a less heirarchical way of working. Hopefully at some stage her speech wil be on You Tube.
Comment by Andy — 19 November, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
Andy: and what about Tariq Ramadan?
Comment by Karl-Marx-Straße — 19 November, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
In conversation Hillary talked about the possibility of Red Pepper organising a conference to discuss way forwards for the left in which RR could be a key player. I think it would be great if this could happen, as many of the speakers noted we should never see our own group as the finished article but always be willing to push out further and Red Pepper represents a strain of lefties who have been for a very long time alienated and suspicious of party organisation.
I don’t quite know how to answer the question from ‘no one special’ - I’m not sure your reasoning makes sense.
I was not suggesting that everyone agreed with everyone else, indeed to do so would indeed be illegitimate since i didn’t talk to everybody. For example, I disagree with Andy about Ken. But it was clear that the divisions that did exist were not on a “top table”/”floor” basis.
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 19 November, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
There was a video message from Tariq Ramadan I think, but I was out the hall then - hopefully that will also be posted once the new web page is active
Comment by Andy — 19 November, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
It’s a top table/floor split!
Comment by tonyc — 19 November, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
Thanks Andy, so you would say that this was just an informal ‘vibe’ picked up from chatting to people? You would agree with Joe assessment then I take it?
I’m well aware of the SWP’s ability to distort the events at conferences having left in part over gross misrepresentation of events at the last SA conference.
The pinnacle of which was when a SWP member who was not at the conference informed me (who had attended) that not one of the platform speakers mentioned the war. I had to point out that the SA conf does not really have platform speakers in the same was as SWP conference just people moving motions but that there were a few ‘set peace’ speakers who where if memory serves) Michael Lavalette, The Imam from the mosque in Preston, Ken Loach and somebody bringing fraternal greeting from the SSP and which ones of these did she think should not have been allowed to speak.
I do find many parallels between the SA and RESPECT, the fact that many SWP members never joined either, both where turned on just for elections and allowed no real life of their own. One difference is that with the SA it went from one of the best things ever to a sectarian cesspit almost overnight whereas with RESPEC T just a section of the leadership has undergone this transformation. I remember Chris Bambery in a district meeting going on about how boring the SA and elections where and then a few months later was getting himself elected to the RESPECT NC.
One simple question I have for any SWP members reading this to test just how committed you are to building RESPECT. Do you do RESPECT recruitment at Marxist forums or just SWP recruitment Incidentally I was told I couldn’t do SA recruitment at Marxist forums.
Comment by no one special — 19 November, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
Yes no one special
I agree with Joe, and it is my personal impression - i haven’t got anything more scientific than that to say!
BUt the SWP Party Notes makes a big deal of it, and I just think it is wishful thinking on their part.
Comment by Andy — 19 November, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
Joe the question I’m trying to ask is how sure are you that the division mentioned in party notes that you say is not real is not just how you and a couple of others that you spoke to feel. How can you be certain than on this issue you are speaking for the majority?
I for one would be happier if people in RR where unhappy by the break and still would have wished for some form of compromise to preserve unity
Comment by no one special — 19 November, 2007 @ 9:50 pm
Oh and Joe my reasoning always makes sense thank you very much, it’s the rest of the world that’s broken.
Comment by no one special — 19 November, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
The basic translation of party notes is this:
Speakers from the top table will be very polemical, as top table speakers almost always are.
Get into *actual* conversations and you’ll get a more nuanced approach.
So, people will clap a broad-stroke attack on the lies and smears of the party, but will then honestly say that they want to work with SWP members. Similar stuff will have happened at the SWP conference on Saturday.
Such is the dishonesty of Party Notes that something that happens at every conference - polemic from the podium, nuance in conversation - can be presented as a big difference.
Comment by tonyc — 19 November, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
no one special (#88) said: Anyway Joe you mention several times in your post that Michael Bradley claims there is a division between the platform and the membership but you don’t believe this is so, I’m curious as to what you base your assessment on as you seem to be speaking for all the 300* people present and I’m not sure that is legitimate.
Jo was right to say this because apart from the first of the three sessions, there were NC speakers, councillors and conference organizers using the microphone on the floor and speakers from the floor using the mic on the platform, so there was no insistence on hierarchical privilege (I’m not promoting this as some supreme political virtue - just stating what happened). Again, apart from the first session, the scheduled speakers weren’t lined up on the platform, and the platform table was used simply for discrete chairing of the meeting and for taking speaker slips. In general, it meant that NC members, councillors and organizers got the same reception and had to make the same efforts as rank-and-file branch members.
Aside from this, I certainly found it easy to have discussions with NC members, councillors and organizers during the breaks. They made themselves easily available and no-one was behaving like a prima donna.
Comment by babeuf — 19 November, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
“They made themselves easily available and no-one was behaving like a prima donna.”
You clearly didn’t see my reaction when I realised there was no food left and I hadn’t had lunch.
Comment by tonyc — 19 November, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
Babeuf:
an eve-of-conference e-mail sent out by “Respect - the Unity Coalition” under the slightly misleading title “Message from Karen Reissmann and Michael Lavalette”. Here’s the relevant portion:
You may have recently received an e-mail from “Respect Renewal” which claimed “this is what Respect can look like” - it then directed you to clips from a Respect meeting in Manchester. Unfortunately those who sent the e-mail didn’t make it clear that two of the people on the Manchester platform - Preston councillor Michael Lavalette and victimised trade unionist Karen Reissmann - are effectively banned from George Galloway’s new organisation for being members of the SWP.
‘Effectively banned’, indeed. Whoever sent that email was sadly misinformed. Or a lying bastard.
One thing which I think has become clear - and perhaps should have been clear all along - is that what this is all about, for the SWP leadership, is the SWP. Galloway’s letter threatened not only the position of the SWP within RESPECT but, much more importantly, the unity of the SWP. Some of the CC’s more crazed and counter-productive actions start to make sense if you see avoiding a split in the SWP as the primary goal. Call me Mystic Meg, but I raised this possibility back in September:
“I think Galloway’s aim is to stir things up within the SWP, perhaps with the longer-term aim of splitting the party and expelling part of it from the New Model RESPECT. How it pans out will depend on how much discontent there is within the SWP, and how deep the divisions within the leadership run - is anyone sufficiently fed up to want to either break with RESPECT or split the party?”
What I didn’t count on was the SWP leadership’s skills in political street-fighting: what could have been a split has played out in scattered expulsions, non-renewals and resignations, and the SWP’s image with the rest of the Left dropping another couple of notches. A price worth paying, in some eyes.
Comment by Phil — 19 November, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
I’m not sure Phil I think the behaviour of the SWP CC is more likely to create a split than prevent one. Can’t see any serious organised split-talking place though.
Comment by no one special — 19 November, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
Thanks for the correction Andy ie:- that it wasn’t an e-mail before the RR conference in Bishopsgate that said SWP members wouldn’t be allowed in unless they left their cards at the door.
Rather an e-mail from the SWP to Mike Lavelette and Karen Reissmann before the Manchester meeting saying that they could not join GG’s new organisation RR without leaving the SWP.
I personally don’t see why on earth they or any other SWP member could not join RR ( on the contrary they would be welcome and could remain in the SWP except for one thing; the SWP would never allow it! Presumably They would be expelled!
So it’s certanly not RR that’s laying down any preconditions about coming into meetings, or joining.
I repeat they would be most welcome to join the RR!
Comment by Halshall — 19 November, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
Tony : You clearly didn’t see my reaction when I realised there was no food left and I hadn’t had lunch.
Well, I was in touching distance of the last sandwich that was cruelly taken from me from someone behind me that had just joined the queue. I had waited for ages too. Probably a provocateur trying to witch hunt us. Still, the samosa were exceptional.
Anyone seen the list of NC members that were elected at the unconstitutional conference? Any idea how SWP heavy it is?
Comment by CHAB — 19 November, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
Of course there is another way of doing things, that is ‘unity in action’ or the united front.
That way no-one has to join any one else’s organisation. Just agree to work together on agreed issues, in spite of their other differences.
Like Respect was supposed to be in effect, and should still be if it wants to succeed !
So how’s about it Mike Bradley, if you can agree to that I’d be very glad to work with you.
[ even if you are a West Hammer, personally I’m a Spartak ]
Comment by Halshall — 19 November, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
I think we were pretty soft and nice to SWP considering not only did we give them a chance to voice their side of the story at our Respect Renewal conference, but we even allowed them to distribute their “unity” leaflet and sell/distribute their newspaper inside Bishopsgate Inst. during and after the conference. Now isn’t a warm welcoming open hand of friendship?
Dear god, what was the alternative you were considering? Driving the SWP out with sticks? Arranging an impromptu lynch mob?
“…pretty soft and nice”: yes, only the Six Hours Hate to keep you all nice and warm, then. Were there any real organisational conclusions from this rally? Or was it enough to snarl about “juvenile dwarves” and have done? Why do you call it a “conference” when you had no votes and no delegates?
Comment by The East is Red — 19 November, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
Dear god, what was the alternative you were considering? Driving the SWP out with sticks? Arranging an impromptu lynch mob?
What, you mean that’s not what has been happening? And I thought there was suppoosed to be a witch hunt. That’s the problem with the Renewal lot, so unprofessional!
Comment by CHAB — 19 November, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
East is Red
I am deleting comments now whch have no political content and are just designed to inflame
If you have no political arguments to make then please post you comments somewhere else.
Comment by Andy — 19 November, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
Dear Comrades,
I would just like to say how excited I get every time I think about RESPECT Renewal. I can’t wait for the new paper to arrive courtesy of the ISG. We’ve got George Galloway, Linda Smith, Ken Loach, Salma Yaqoob, Nick Wrack, Kevin Ovendone, Rob Hoveman, Abjol Miah to name but a few - What a kick-ass team we’ve got!
And to Andy, Liam Mac Uaid and Splintered Sunrise: I salute your indefatigability for keeping up the debate and keeping us all in the know.
Onward and beyond!
Comment by red_eck — 19 November, 2007 @ 10:55 pm
The East is Sad (#106) said: Dear god, what was the alternative you were considering? Driving the SWP out with sticks? Arranging an impromptu lynch mob?
“It’s not as messy or as hard as some may think.
It’s all about the flow of the wrist.
Sharpen the knife to its maximum
And before you begin to cut the flesh,
Tilt the fool’s head to its left …”
Beautiful. I do so love poetry
And just wait till we re-enact the final scene of the Wicker Man with the CC.
Be afraid, East, be very afraid!
Comment by they lyrical witch-hunter — 19 November, 2007 @ 11:00 pm
#110 Babeuf don’t be naughty
I think that falls under the category of likely to inflame???
Comment by Andy — 19 November, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
It’s contentless and provocative, but I think comment 106 is quite revealing of the SWP’s sense of entitlement. Imagine for a moment that an SWP event was attended by members of a group whose leaders argue that the SWP shouldn’t even exist, complete with leaflets and papers supporting the leadership’s line. Would that group be allowed to leaflet and sell papers, inside the venue, during and after the event?
Comment by Phil — 19 November, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
Phil is spot on above.
1) The SWP does not allow rival organisations to sell papers or hand out leaflets inside the venues of its public meetings.
2) It also bars certain organisations and individuals from even entering its meeting venues and is more than willing to use force to enforce those decisions.
3) I have seen SWP full timers and other experience members form a line in front of stalls organised by other groups outside meeting venues, to stop the nasty sectarians from corrupting the innocent.
4) They have a practice of deliberately cutting people they know to disagree with them or to belong to rival organisations out of the discussion at meetings where they control the chair.
Now they are perfectly entitled to do (1) if they wish, but (2) displays a distinct lack of commitment to open debate. Points (3) and (4) are entirely unacceptable. But what really takes the biscuit is the assumption, displayed clearly by East is Red above, that it would be an outrage were anyone to subject them to any of the above treatment. I can smell the hypocrisy from here.
Comment by The Irish Mark P — 19 November, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
Thing is, “The East Is Red” is one of the SWP’s finer younger intellectuals, someone who wouldn’t normally need to stoop to this kind of shit.
That he does is a) an indication of the general political degeneration and b) an indication of how people can sink into pure ultra-left sect behaviour and think they’re doing the right thing.
He’s doing this sneery nonsense so consistently, and with so little politics, it is clear that he has taken a conscious decision to act like people like Tim Robinson and the HP trolls: He wants to divert discussion and cause tensions.
He’s actually quite proud of this behaviour.
So, he’s doing it as a conscious choice - he’s actually *not* a sectarian idiot, this is a conscious strategy.
Sort of like “JJ”, actually, and as I said, sort of like Tim - people treat those trolls as stupid, but they’re not. They consciously decide on a persona and stick to it rigidly.
TEIR’s MO is pure tension-raising and anti-politics. He’s proud of this, and has a proper Marxist rationalisation of it.
Which leads me back to my second paragraph - this just shows how sad the whole thing is.
Comment by tonyc — 20 November, 2007 @ 8:08 am
TEIR’s MO is pure tension-raising and anti-politics. He’s proud of this, and has a proper Marxist rationalisation of it.
By way of contrast, on Saturday last
I went to a marvellous party,
With Salma and Alan and George.
Poor old Bishopsgate had never seen so much hate
And the platform looked quite engorged.
Poor George started baying about the Swuppers
And he didn’t stop baying til four
We knew the excitement was bound to begin
When darling Miah hit the mic with a grin
And despatched the ‘leeches’ to the historical bin
I couldn’t have liked it more!
Andy, why don’t you do a number for us? Something along the lines of:
#I’m too sexy for my troll
Too sexy for my troll
So sexy it huuuuurts…#
Comment by the pilge — 20 November, 2007 @ 8:41 am
The one criticism made in PN that I think was (almost) true was the one about the absence of students. I say almost true as it is not correct to say that they were a “complete absence of students” but they were very thin on the ground.
If we are going to take RR forward I do think that we do need to address this. We should start by asking why this might be.
Now as I said above, I guess no one would argue that it is because students just think differently to the rest of us or are less prone to being fooled by “evil bloggers”, so I would suggest that it is because the SWP through the full-time SWSS organiser, through the SWP district organisers across the country who tend to spend a lot of time at the uni’s and through the fact that SWSS is much more organised then student Respect have effectively been able to control the argument so students have largely been exposed only to one side of it. On top of this is the lie that RR faction was trying to exclude them from conference.
I would suggest that we need to gather the few student comrades RR has got together to set a strategy and that when the dust has settled a bit more we need to take the big names to the collages to get our chance to spell out our vision.
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 20 November, 2007 @ 8:49 am
I wonder whether we should require all commnts to be in verse from now on?
Tony, you say with regard to East is Red that: “THEIR’s MO is pure tension-raising and anti-politics. He’s proud of this, and has a proper Marxist rationalisation of it.”
What is the Marxist rationalisation, has this been written down, or have you heard it described?
Comment by Andy — 20 November, 2007 @ 9:33 am
As a member of Respect I answered the Chairperson’s call to at attend the Renewal emergency conference. Like all who attended I only expected a report of the then current situation and the way forward.
From the contributions of the leadership and from floor speakers and previous circulated documents I realised that no decisions could be taken on the day other than accept direction from the true democratic leadership of Respect.
I could not contribute on the day but I will use this blog to put forward questions that need to be answered by the appropriate person who had the responsibility at the time. I believe that person was at the SWP Respect meeting.
1). Why was there not a financial report. As a constituted body, there is a duty to give one.
2).As a constituted body all members are entitled to a vote and to know who they are voting for. The SWP Respect meeting controlers deliberatey failed to give all members that opportunity.
3). Mr John Rees has never alluded to the events that brought about this split and what was his role in them. As members of this constituted body, we are being denied the historical facts from his point of view.
4). Why as an officer of this constituted body, did he take the unilateral decision to be with people seeking coalition talks with the lib dems and I am led to believe new labour.
5) What right did he have to block other officers of this constituted body access to computer and membership lists.
I note from his speech he avoids giving details of the above other than giving an idealogical talk on what he thought was wrong with the direction of Repect. That is note what the issue is. The big issue is the breach of constituted rules and the following idealogical debacle he and the SWP cc created to maintain control of a budding organisation
Comment by Teddy Boy — 20 November, 2007 @ 9:50 am
Andy, I congrat you on your strict control of blogs. In the past I have resorted to perceived legitimate abuse and I am big enough to apologise to you. I have not calmed down.
Comment by Teddy Boy — 20 November, 2007 @ 10:15 am
teddy boy, I’m sorry to tell you that you are clueless. The answer to your questions is as follows:
1) There was a financial report.
2) All delegates were elected, and all delegates were permitted to vote on the resolutions. Those resolutions were clearly provided in advance on the website, and in published literature given to every delegate on the day.
3) Rees spent most of his speech describing the events that led to the split.
4) There is no contradiction in him, as national secretary, defending those who resigned from the whip. They remained members and their grievance was a legitimate one.
5) You are relying on a rumour sent out by those who claimed lack of access to the computers only to then use the national office to send out misleading e-mails.
The only people who breached constitutional rules were those who attempted to subvert the constitution in Tower Hamlets and those who abandoned the highest decision-making body in the organisation to convoke a separate rally.
Comment by Observer — 20 November, 2007 @ 10:32 am
Okay Observer, enlighten me.
1) Where are the details of the financial report posted.
2) Was the nominations put out in advance. I note you say only the resolutions were put out in advance.
3) In the video of by Rees he never mentions the historical events. He gives out his idealogical view. Can you direct me to the website that you are refering too.
4) He has no right going on his own he has a responsibility to be accountable to council beforehand. Are you saying to all in this blog its ok to be associated with coalition talks with the the lib dems. Are you telling us that he can be a renegade when he likes. Get real. Anyone other than SWP, you would be up in arms.
5) Its well documented he denied access and until such times John Rees faces his critics only then will all members be satisfied or clued up. C’mon clue us up.
Comment by Teddy Boy — 20 November, 2007 @ 11:21 am
There is no contradiction in him, as national secretary, defending those who resigned from the whip.
Perhaps this is ancient history now, but I’m still struggling to imagine anything similar taking place in the Labour Party… unless the centre was delegitimising the local party itself, by siding with the ‘rebels’ against the local party leadership. In which case the historical parallel isn’t Clare Short - let alone Nye Bevan - but Steve Bassam.
Comment by Phil — 20 November, 2007 @ 11:37 am
It is worth mentioning that no member of the current SWP CC has ever been in the Labour Party (I will qualify that Chris harman would have been in the Labour party 45 years ago), so their understanding of the norms of social democratic parties is almost zero.
This ignorance is well expressed by the world’s greatest intellectual, who explains the Respect split in Socialist Worker in terms of what he sees as ” tendency on the part of what has crystallised as the right wing of the new parties to lapse into old reformist habits”. This is a very revealing turn of phrase. Alex seems to have thought that lifelong social democrats like Galloway or Abjol Miah would cease to act like “reformists” by working alongside the SWP in Respect.
So they only constitute the “right wing” because they did not subordinate themselves to the revolutionary “leadership.”
Comment by Andy — 20 November, 2007 @ 11:53 am
All good ( or not so good) stuff, but so far no indication of whether we can have ‘unity in action’(UIA) between Respect (SWP) and RR (GG & Co)members at branch level.
If not then both will suffer a logjam of inaction or worse, and only new labour and the far right will benefit.
Can we have joint agreement on UIA ASAP or do we all have to PO ?
Comment by Halshall — 20 November, 2007 @ 11:56 am
So its not ok for Kevin and Nick to oppose The SWP cc whip.
But its ok for the SWP cc to defend TH SWP renegades opposed to the Respect whip. There was little, if any engaged resignation talks with the Respect collective leadership.
The national secretary had no right to be non accountable on this issue. That is why SWP cc created a them and us split. What a narrow idealogical view “if you are not with us you are against us”.
Comment by Teddy Boy — 20 November, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
Well, “observer”, I can attest to the fact that passwords for the membership database were changed, and that access to the national mailing list was only given once John Rees had been using it to send sectarian emails to the entire Respect membership.
In addition, John Rees tried to physically stop Rob Hoveman from entering the constituency office.
They cut off Rob’s access to his constituency email account; this was only restored later.
And they cut off the constituency office internet access, leaving Rob with a paralysed constituency system. Strangely, while calling for unity, they forgot to inform Rob that they had done this and that his ability to sort constituents’ problems out would be severely hampered.
We’ve sorted most of it out now.
Of course, “Observer” knows the truth of this already; but like so many people, believes that the revolutionary thing to do right now is to lie as much as possible in the hope that some of it sticks.
Comment by tonyc — 20 November, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
Halsall #124
It is only two or three days after the conferences.
If you have specific issues you want to discusss about your own practical activity, why not ring Rob or Kev or Ghada and have a chat.
Comment by Andy — 20 November, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
And Tony knows that the principled thing to do is to call SWP members liars at every possible opportunity. There seems to be a marked failure to realise how absolutely revolting all this looks in the wider movement.
Comment by johng — 20 November, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
John
The simple thing to do then is for the SWP supporters to debate politics instead of muddying the waters with untruths, personal abuse and trolling.
You know as well as I do, that the majority of the disruptive apolitical trolling has come from your SWP numpties, and since I started deleting the worst of them, the debate has calmed down. Tom Delargy admitted (in know he isn’t a memebbr of yours) that there had been a collective and conscious decision after a debate among SWP supporters, to disrupt this blog with spam and hate-mail. So don’t get all self-righteous about how it looks to the wider movement.
SWP members - and of course you yourself - are very welcome to join in fraternal debate, on this and other issues. But keep it political.
Comment by Andy — 20 November, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
johng - the fact is that the SWP CC have been lying and pretty consistently too. I call it principled when these lies are exposed. Their behaviour has been damaging to the movement as a whole.
And speaking of principles, since when has it been acceptable to scab on trade unionists by calling them ballot riggers?
Comment by CHAB — 20 November, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
Actually Andy I know absolutely no such thing. The invective directed at SWP members on this blog has been sustained and vicious to a degree which I have never seen before. It has relied entirely on rumours and gossip and allegations about things said in internal meetings. I also find it incredible that you can seriously imagine there was a debate in the SWP involving Tom about spamming this blog. Its utterly ridiculous. I have not had a single response to any of the political points I’ve raised, either about the shape of left of Labour organisations or anything else.
Politically you just don’t seem to understand that most people in the movement look upon all this as grotesque, and no one is cheering any side in this. The one thing I am very pleased about is that nobody on my side has been tactically silly enough to refer to any of this as a ‘great day’ for the left etc. How completely absurd.
Comment by johng — 20 November, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
JOhn ” also find it incredible that you can seriously imagine there was a debate in the SWP involving Tom about spamming this blog.”
No it sounds like there was an on-line debate somewhere, and Tom contributed to it.
I am simply judging the cedibility of that claim by the behaviour in the comments, that the trolling has come from SWP members, and was clearly at some points coordinated.
You simply saying that there has been sustained and vicious invective does not make it so. Ther ehas been a political abuse on both sides, which has partly been the reult of the deliberate strategy of tension by trolling that SWP members have delibertaly tried to acheive,
You personally in particular seem to have a difficulty distinguishing between political disagreement with the SWP and hostility towards the SWP.
Comment by Andy — 20 November, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
BTW JOhn
I have given you a little slack here, but I am not going to tolerate an attempt to derail a sensible debate towards whether or not there has been hostility towards the SWP.
My finger hovers over the delete button.
Comment by Andy — 20 November, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
“The one criticism made in PN that I think was (almost) true was the one about the absence of students. I say almost true as it is not correct to say that they were a “complete absence of students” but they were very thin on the ground.
If we are going to take RR forward I do think that we do need to address this. We should start by asking why this might be.”
Hey joe, perhaps because your lot tried to stop them going? After all the guff and nonsense about the SWP packing the conference using students, how many students were at the conference after all this hyperbole?
35.
Comment by Dave M — 20 November, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
For the record - yet again - Tom is not a member or supporter of the SWP.
Comment by solidarity — 20 November, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
Post 114. Tonyc is right to see most SWP posts on this site as ‘an indication of the general political degeneration and…how people can sink into pure ultra-left sect behaviour and think they’re doing the right thing.’
I don’t see, however, a smug confidence behind the posts of the likes of East is East. I see the opposite. No confident self respecting marxist would consciously post such low grade infantile stuff. Behind the bluster, and the psyneudoms, is a lack of political confidence and a growing desperation. And for good reason. It was not accidential that Lindsey German did not want to talk about her GLA campaign at the SWP conference. German’s campaign, already in trouble before any of this kicked off, is now dead. The GLA list is in tatters. The fact she can’t even keep the Newham councilors on side is a massive indication of her political weakness. Humiliation beckons for her at the ballot box and it will be entirely of her own making. The most damning contribution at the Renewal conference was from hugely impressive Cllr Hanif when he described Rees trying to cajole him into backing the SWP in their bid to drive George out of Respect. That’s when the penny dropped with him, as with some many others, about the sectarian intent of the SWP.
When you start from the premise that George Galloway, Salma Yaqoob, Ken Loach etc represent a right wing bloc, there is only one direction you can go from there, and that is downwards into the cesspit of sectarianism. Tragically, the SWP will infect those around them with the same virus. The reported comments from Rania Khan, publicly disparaging about the fact the Greens were at our conference while being ignorant Derek Wall was also speaking at hers, gives some indication of how people with some talent can have it whittled away if they keep ultra-left company.
Comment by Ger Francis — 20 November, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
Andy, I don’t really understand how you come to the conclusion that SWP contributers were ‘co-ordinated’ or even ‘co-ordinating’ with each other. It is to my knowledge entirely untrue and of a piece with a generalised atmosphere of paranoia about the SWP that is quite perverse when looked at from the outside (I have it has to be admitted, desperately been trying to persuade people to read my, really remarkably interesting contributions here, but, tragically, no-one is interested. I strongly believe that the whole left is impoverished as a result of such appalling misjudgement!).
I also don’t really understand how it can be believed that the SWP had some kind of on-line discussion with Tom, when on-line discussions, by their nature can be read on blogs. So none of this makes a great deal of sense to me, but it does raise the level of intrigue somewhat.
As to the claim that in talking about the tone of comments here I am confusing disagreement with the SWP with abusive sectarianism, I really don’t think so. The notions, for example, that the SWP is a ‘leech’, that we are ‘cockroaches’ who ‘belong in the 17th century’ don’t strike me as reasoned disagreement. Indeed it strikes me that there is a tendency to treat SWP members who disagree with you as ‘trolls’, rather then understand they simply disagree with you. At a wider level the failure to confront at all the objective difficulties of building a left of Labour political formation, and attempting to attribute all difficulties to particular members of the SWP CC, strikes me as politically myopic.
Its also true that the general line of attack on ‘dual loyalties’ etc, as I’ve attempted to argue, conceals rather large questions about the nature of coalitional politics (my earlier point on the Labour Representation Commitee and its history).
Perhaps, to raise the tone, you might like to come back on that. Alternatively of course you are perfectly entitled to delete posts on your own site. There is however a small difference between this site and some others, which means a number of genuinely non-aligned people have raised questions about whether its basic function has changed. Again, nothing wrong with the basic function changing, but it is something which a number of people have noticed. But the main political point I am trying to make is that you guys tend to confuse your own personal feelings of liberation and ’speaking out’ etc, with the likely reactions in the broader movement to this (these dangers are not simply one way of course).
It would be good to know a little more about the vision of Respect Renewal, beyond discussions about how the SWP is held to have held back the development of Respect. Beyond internal arrangements (themselves not uninteresting), what kind of political terraine would your organisation like to occupy? Obviously no-one is foolish enough to imagine that a declaration of one’s non-Leninist intentions is much of a vote winner, beyond the fringes of those of us concerned with such arcane questions.
Genuinely interested.
Comment by johng — 20 November, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
Phil #74,
You write..
“!I don’t see how it’s patronising to differentiate between the SWP’s leaders and its membership; if anything it’s a mark of respect to the latter, suggesting precisely that they aren’t Russian-Doll automatons.”
My response is…
What you seem to ignore is that the SWP CC have set out the clear political differences at the heart of the disagreement in RESPECT (pre the Galloway split).
Quite rightly the SWP argue that RESPECT should differentiate itself from the three main parties. It is no use fighting for electoral space to the left of Labour if RESPECT is used as vehicle for electoral opportunism.You may argue that electoral opporunism is not happening but you must accept that SWP members take a different view.
The SWP held an emergency Party Council and this position was ovrewhelmingly endorsed. Furthermore, John Rees re-emphasised this to those at the RESPECT conference and gained approval. And the SWP will have a conference in January and the topic will come up yet again.
To call people automatons if they endorse the CC over the Galloway split is unfair and it is hardly conducive to an atmosphere of unity which will be needed for the various campaigns in which all sections of the left will presumably come together.
To put the split down to some pathological ‘control freakery’ by the SWP when there are very clear political issues (electoral opportunism) at stake is IMO a dishonest attempt by GG to scapegoat the SWP.
Comment by stuart — 20 November, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
John
I will respond to you seriously on the issue of transational politics, becasue I agree that is at the heart of the disagreement. But not righht now, becasuue I have some work to do.
With regard to your other point:
” Alternatively of course you are perfectly entitled to delete posts on your own site. There is however a small difference between this site and some others, which means a number of genuinely non-aligned people have raised questions about whether its basic function has changed. ”
I am only deleting comments that seem to be hihjacking discussioon away from debate and towards a slanging match.
Why do YOU delete comments on Lenin’s Tomb?
Comment by Andy — 20 November, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Tell me Johng what is reasoned disagreement?
Locking people out?
Expelling comrades?
Coalition Talks with lib dems behind the backs of the collective leadership?
A national Secretary not being accountable for his actions?
Vile accusation of ballot rigging?
C’mon tell us.
Comment by Teddy Boy — 20 November, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
Stuart: “ To put the split down to some pathological ‘control freakery’ by the SWP when there are very clear political issues (electoral opportunism) at stake is IMO a dishonest attempt by GG to scapegoat the SWP. ”
Well perhaps ‘control freakery’ is not the best way to describe the phenomenon, becasue although accurate in my eyes it doesn’t leave much room for further debate.
But to argue that the objections to the United Front of a Special Type, are not in themsellves a big political disagreement is disingenuous on your part.
Comment by Andy — 20 November, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
Andy #141,
You write…
“But to argue that the objections to the United Front of a Special Type, are not in themselves a big political disagreement is disingenuous on your part.”
I never argued this as such but will respond. The SWP has been open about the way it relates to united fronts, including how it relates to RESPECT. It should be no secret to activists. Certainly Galloway and his allies came into RESPECT without any misconceptions. In fact Galloway has been pretty gushing in public in his praise for the SWP. I believe his speech at Marxism 2007 went…
“Congratuations to the SWP.. of course, neither Respect nor the anti-war movement would be the force that it is. Without the SWP, there would be no anti-war movement in this country, and that’s a fact.”
This is not isolated praise. An impression is gained here that Galloway was happy to use the SWP to further his advancement regardless of any qualms about SWP and united fronts (the same can be said of his current supporters). Even though the SWP has continued to operate in its traditional way Galloway suddenly cries foul. I can only assume he has decided to rely on a different kind of activist base (one based less on socialist principles) to further his advancement in future. To talk of control freakery is a convenient justification and an inconsistent one at that. It is IMO incumbent upon the SWP to highlight this as a political difference.
Comment by stuart — 20 November, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
According to Stuart, the SWP’s control-freakery was not the reason for the split and “there are very clear political issues (electoral opportunism) at stake”.
Well, so John Rees would have us believe. Almost his entire conference speech was devoted to the problem of electoral opportunism, which according to him was at the heart - if not the sole cause - of the split in Respect.
Rees explained that whereas in its early days Respect attracted candidates who felt they had little chance of winning a seat but agreed to stand because of their support for the party’s political programme, these days, having got an MP elected and won over 20 council seats, Respect attracted political careerists:
“It is no longer the case that everybody who comes to us is simply coming because they are convinced that this is the thing they ought to do out of political principle. Sometimes now there are people who didn’t or couldn’t get selected in another party, who think that the best way of being selected is to be part of Respect.”
Clearly Rees suffers from an irony bypass, because it would be difficult to come up with a more fitting description of Kumar Murshid, who is now one of the SWP’s leading allies in Tower Hamlets.
Kumar had ambitions to become the Labour parliamentary candidate in Bethnal Green & Bow but he didn’t make it onto the shortlist and Rushnara Ali was selected instead. Shortly afterwards he defected to Respect. Looks to me like “electoral opportunism” only becomes a problem when it affects individuals with whom the SWP has political disagreements.
And “electoral opportunism” isn’t just restricted to the candidates. Unfortunately it affects the membership too, according to Rees. He complains that these days: “Hundreds of people in some instances join the organisation specifically or mainly in order to get the candidate they would like to get elected, selected for the Respect candidate.”
The bastards! Selecting the candidate *they* would like to get elected rather than the one *the SWP leadership* would like to get elected. The nerve of it.
Yes, well that’s called democracy. Not something that John Rees is very fond of, evidently.
Comment by Eugene — 20 November, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
So Eugene, you don’t think there are any issues related to candidate selection in an organisation selling itself as left of labour, in a situation where we’ve moved to being an organisation where selection means a good chance of election?
You don’t think there are any issues connected to people joining simply to get their candidates selected, especially when in one case, their subscriptions were actually paid for en masse by the person who wanted to be selected?
Its perfectly possible to argue about these particular cases, that for various reasons, its not as bad as it looks, but you seriously don’t think its an issue at all? Or that raising this issue is in some sense ‘undemocratic’? (perhaps it won’t be allowed within Respect Renewal?).
Thats a bit disturbing.
Comment by johng — 20 November, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
Andy, I look foward to your more theoretical contributions and hope they won’t revolve around allegations about the SWP being in a united front with the AWL.
Comment by johng — 20 November, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
I believe that there is now a clear split in the SWP. Bigger than the one they illegally manufactured within Respect.
Expulsions and resignations of trusted comrades, indicate a groundswell of opposition to the SWP’s cc is now clearly evident.
No explaination or statement to the SWP membership is forthcoming on why comrades are voting by their feet and leaving the SWP in a precarious position.
If this trend continues then it will be only their cental committee attending the annual conference with a handful of loyalists.
It is clear that many in the SWP will analysis John Rees speech and deduce he is a demagoge taking his party to oblivium. The thrust of his speech is anti pluralism and only a shallow smokescreen to cover up the shallow central committee’s political errors.
John Rees resign now and save the future of your party.
Comment by Teddy Boy — 20 November, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
To call people automatons if they endorse the CC over the Galloway split is unfair and it is hardly conducive to an atmosphere of unity which will be needed for the various campaigns in which all sections of the left will presumably come together.
I can only assume you’re getting this from my argument that distinguishing between the SWP membership and the CC implies that the former aren’t automatons. I’m happy to clarify that I don’t think SWP members who follow the leadership line are automatons either.
Comment by Phil — 20 November, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
#144 johng: “You don’t think there are any issues connected to people joining simply to get their candidates selected, especially when in one case, their subscriptions were actually paid for en masse by the person who wanted to be selected?”
Well the stuff about people having their membership fees paid for them en bloc is another issue. In the section of his speech that I quoted, John Rees was objecting to individuals taking out genuine membership in an attempt to influence a selection contest.
I’m afraid that’s just one of the things that happens in a broad democratic party. Of course, party leaders tend to object because it means that local people get to choose candidates that may not be to the leadership’s taste.
Indeed, Rees’s complaint carries distinct echoes of the Labour right wing condemning “Asian entryism” - which served as an excuse for closing down the Labour Party’s democratic structures in Birmingham and elsewhere.
Comment by Eugene — 20 November, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
Eugene #143,
You say…
“Looks to me like “electoral opportunism” only becomes a problem when it affects individuals with whom the SWP has political disagreements.”
Electoral opportunism is always a danger hence it remains so whatever state RESPECT finds itself in. My understanding is that Murshid has an established Labour reformist background, not incompatible with RESPECT. I would be suprised if switching to RESPECT at this present time is motivated by careerism but I’ll always remain open mided.
Phil #147,
Fair enough. I’m happy that you don’t regard SWP members who agree with the CC as automatons, my intention is not to catch out any individuals, rather to speak up for any SWP members who agree with Rees over the RESPECT split in what is a pretty heated atmosphere at the moment.
Comment by stuart — 21 November, 2007 @ 11:30 am